The URL can be used to link to this page

08/24/1995FILE COPY 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 Civic Center (909) 824-6621 Fax (909) 783-7629 Fax (909) 783-2600 Byron R. Matteson Mayor {• Gene Carlstrom Mayor Pro Tempore Herman Hilkey r Jim Singley Dan Buchanan Council Members Thomas J. Schwab City Manager August 24, 1995 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Regular Meetings 2nd and 4th Thursday - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Grand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5295 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order - 4 * Invocation - * Pledge of Allegiance - * Roll Call - AUGUST 24, 1995 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL. RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Approve 1. Approval of 08-10-95 Minutes 2. Approval of Check Register No. CRA082495 Approve 3. Inter -Agency Lease/Purchase to City for Equipment Purchases Approve FY 1996-1996 ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Recycling Family of the Month - June and July 1995 B. Jim Burns (Edison) - Deregulation 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine & noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council - member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Approve A. Approval of Check Register No. 082495 B. Ratify 08-24-95 CRA Action Approve C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda Approve COUNCELAGENDA 08/24/95 - PAGE 3 OF 3 LM PENDING C R A APPROVAL �9l0 n COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MIlYU't'F=S A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on August 10, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Byron R. Matteson, Chairman Gene Carlstrom, Vice -Chairman Herman Hilkey, Agency Member Jim Singley, Agency Member Dan Buchanan, Agency Member Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Brenda Stanfill, Secretary Bernard Simon, Finance Director Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety Lt. Kyritsis, Sheriffs Department ABSENT: John Harper, City Attorney John Donlevy, Assistant City Manager APPROVAL OF JULY 13 1995 CRA MINUTES CRA-95-51 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the July 13, 1995 CRA Minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO CRA072795 & C A081095 CRA-95-52 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY VICE- CHAIRMAN CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. CRA071275 and CRA081095. Chairman Matteson adjourned CRA meeting at 6:05 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 Pp.MNG C R A APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 DATE: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO.082495 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: AUGUST 24, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION P10589 PRUDENTIAL SERVICE BUREAU HEALTH NETWORK INSURANCE, AUG.1995 P10590 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH INSURANCE, AUG.1995 P10591 INLAND COUNTIES INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE, AUG.1995 P10606 STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE WORKERS' COMP. INSURANCE, JULY,1995 P10614 RALLY CAPPIELLO CODE ENFORCEMENT INTERN,7/31-8/11/95 P10615 BANK OF AMERICA SEMI-ANNUAL PAYMENT, SERIES A & B BONDS P10616 VIV PHENNIGHAUSEN PURCHASE STORAGE CONTAINER 31881 DAN BUCHANAN STIPENDS FOR AUG.1995 31884 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR AUG.1995 31901 a HERMAN HILKEY STIPENDS FOR AUG.1995 31911 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR AUG.1995 31913 Z PACIFIC BELL PHONE, BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. 0 31915 PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY CASH, HOUSING REHABILITATION 31922 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER WATER FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION HOMES AMOUNT $ 86.01 453.24 34.09 188.59 312.00 679,352.29 1,100.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 23.78 44.35 167.38 09 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM (X) COUNCIL ITEM ( ) MEETING DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: INTER -AGENCY LEASE/PURCHASE TO CITY FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FY 1995-96 FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED Council has appropriated for the current year cost of the acquisition of a new phone system, reproduction equipment, and a financial accounting/sewer billing system as part of the 1995-96 Annual Budget. A combined total of $27,512 was appropriated ($20,512 was from the General Fund and $7,000 from the Wastwater Fund). The total cost of all equipment is estimated at $108,000. Staff has proposed, as part of the 1995-96 Budget, that major purchases be financed through the Community Redevelopment Agency as a tool to utilize non -current surplus funds to finance City equipment purchases and as a means to conserve general fund cash flow. The Community Redevelopment Agency would also benefit from the utilization of the proposed equipment. The cheapest alternative for the City would be to obtain tax-free equipment financing at approximately 7.5% plus any fees. The proposed Lease/Purchase terms from the CRA to the City is five years with interest on the unpaid balance at the prevailing LAIF interest rate (currently 5.997%). This is the rate that 59% of the investment portfoilio is earning. There would be no revenue loss to the CRA and the City would be saving approximately $6,000 to $10,000 over 5 years, depending on the interest rate fluctuations. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL• 1. Approve CRA Lease/Purchase financing of the City telephone equipment, reproduction equipment and Financial accounting and billing system. 2. Direct Redevelopment Agency Chairman to execute Lease/Purchase Agreement documents between the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace (CRA) and the City of Grand Terrace. C R A AGENDA ITEM N0.3 C PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL 1 DATE: AUGUST 24, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK REGISTER NO:082495 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMANDS AS OF: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK NO VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P10585 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECORD LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ 25.00 P10586 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/2/95 593.91 P10587 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/2/95 216.46 P10588 COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/2/95 288.93 P10589 PRUDENTIAL SERVICE BUREAU HEALTH NETWORK INSURANCE,AUG.1995 701.91 P10590 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH INSURANCE,AUG.1995 5,837.79 P10591 INLAND COUNTIES INSURANCE LIFE/DENTAL INSURANCE,AUG.1995 790.99 Ci P10593 C SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/4/95 1,056.88 P10594 ( SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/4/95 187.03 P10595 COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/4/95 288.90 P10596 Q SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/7/95 147.22 P10597 a SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/7/95 81.09 P10598 COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/7/95 122.82 P10599 PERS RETIREMENT FOR P/R ENDING 7/28/95 5,297.11 P10600 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/9/95 574.33 A c 3 DATE: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO: 082495 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK NO, VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUONT 31862 LOIS YOUNG REFUND, RECREATION PROGRAM $ 25.00 31863 MARY LENGEL REFUND, RECREATION PROGRAM 25.00 31864 TERI MARTINEZ REFUND, RECREATION PROGRAM 25.00 31865 MIKE BROWNELL REFUND, RECREATION PROGRAM 50.00 31866 WILLIE/WILSON BRUE REFUND, RECREATION EXCURSION 710.00 31867 P.J. BACON REFUND, RECREATION EXCURSION 413.00 31868 BARBARA HOUCHINS REFUND, RECREATION EXCURSION 413.00 31869 MARIE NYMEYER REFUND, RECREATION EXCURSION 826.00 31870 ELINOR WAGONER REFUND, RECREATION EXCURSION 58.00 31871 VERNA VAVRINA REFUND, RECREATION EXCURSION 58.00 31872 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY LEASE PAYMENT,PICO PARK, 1995/1996 500.00 31873 CITIBANK VISA LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONFERENCE 1,178.98 31874 A & A PRODUCE PRODUCE FOR CHILD CARE 183.70 31875 ACCENT PRINT & DESIGN BUSINESS CARDS 72.20 r E DATE: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:082495 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK NO VENDOR DESCRIP110N AMOUNT 31891 DICKSON COMPANY STREET SWEEPING, JULY,1995 $ 1,213.62 31892 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MAINTENANCE/USAGE ON COPIER,JUNE/JULY,95 514.42 31893 EDGEMONT SALES MAINTENANCE ON COPIER, JULY,1995 122.25 31894 EWING IRRIGATION SUPPLIES IRRIGATION SUPPLIES FOR PARKS 592.13 31895 LEEANN GARCIA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8/3/95 50.00 31896 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. BATTERY CHARGER, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 53.85 31897 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMPLOYEE CHILD CARE, SEPT.1995 372.60 31898 HARPER & BURNS LEGAL SERVICES FOR JULY, 1995 1,853.75 31899 WILLIAM HAYWARD INSTRUCTOR, KARATE/TODDLERATE 1,396.40 31900 HENAGON LTD. COLTON TOP SOIL,PICO PARK 431.00 31901 HERMAN HILKEY STIPENDS FOR AUG.1995 300.00 31902 HONDA OF REDLANDS REPAIR LAWN MOWER 306.85 31903 MOIRE HUSS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8/3/95 50.00 31904 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS IRRIGATION SUPPLIES FOR PARKS 188.16 31905 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORP. BAKERY GOODS FOR CHILD CARE 94.20 51 7 DATE: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:082495 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK NO, VENDOR DESCRIPTION AM_ OUNT 31921 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT OFFICE SUPPLIES, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS $ 46.15 31922 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER WATER FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES, PARKS, AND MERIDIANS 8,230.22 31923 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RELEASE LIENS, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL 143.00 31924 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ANIMAL CONTROL, 1994/1995 10,160.75 31925 SHERIFF GARY PENROD LAW ENFORCEMENT/CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER FOR SEPT.1995 84,029.00 31926 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR JULY,1995 363.52 31927 JAMES SINGLEY STIPENDS FOR AUG. 1995 300.00 31928 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY SUPPLIES FOR CHILD CARE 203.35 31929 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY STREET LIGHTS FOR JULY, 1995 3,176.29 31930 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY GAS FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 52.38 31931 SPEEDY LUBE SERVICE CHILD CARE VAN 24.69 31932 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 502.60 31933 SURF SAVING INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM SUPPLIES, RECREATION 163.75 31934 THOMAS BIGBIE & SMITH PROGRESS PAYMENT FOR 1994/1995 AUDIT 3,800.00 9 DATE: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:082495 - -- ---- ----- OUTSTANDING CHECKS AS OF: AUGUST 24, 1995 CHECK NO, VENDOR DESCRIPTION l I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF THE CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. �--- BERNARD SIMON FINANCE DIRECTOR PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on August 10, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. 4W FEMENT:. Byron R. Matteson, Mayor Gene Carlstrom, Mayor Pro Tem Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Dan Buchanan, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Bernard Simon, Finance Director Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety Lt. Kyritsis, Sheriffs Department John Harper, City Attorney John Donlevy, Assistant City Manager The meeting was opened with invocation by Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Grand Terrace, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Singley. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6:05 P.M. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. Commendation - Tonya Nelson Mayor Matteson read and presented Tonya Nelson, Community Services Officer, with a commendation for planning and coordinating Grand Terrace Days. CC-95-104 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar. cour�Ac�a►rt��r3D 11 in Council Minutes 08/10/95 Page 3 3. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee (a) Minutes of 07/03/95 CC-95-108 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to accept Historical and Cultural Activities Committee of July 3, 1995. • ' - --W SECOND BY the minutes of the Mayor Matteson, reported that he received a memo from Assistant City Manager Donlevy regarding the Community Shuttle and request that City Manager Schwab address that issue. City Manager Schwab, stated that the ridership level was below what it needed to be to make the shuttle cost effective. The shuttle will no longer exist as of August 15, 1995, however, there are two other options that are available through transit one being the RTA and the other is dial -a -cab through Omnitrans (for Seniors or persons with disabilities). Mayor Matteson, requested Councilmember Buchanan to give an update on the wastewater treatment plant at the time of his report. Mayor Pro Tem Carlstrom, reported that he attended the League Executive Board Meeting in Chino and that there was an overwhelming vote to approve the split of the Inland Empire division of the League. The presiding officers will continue through to September, at which time new officers will be elected. Mayor Matteson, stated that Councilmembers Buchanan and Singley brought back information from the League Conference they attended on judiciary responsibilities of a councilmember. Councilmember Buchanan, reported that he contacted the office of the Mayor of Chino Hills who is the person that has been collecting the ballots on this issue. In the current Inland Empire Division, of 39 cities 28 voted in favor of splitting the division, 5 voted in opposition and 6 did not respond. He stated that he has a document to share with the council on Revenue sources available to cities. Mayor Matteson, stated that there was an article in the Sun listing fees that other surrounding cities charge. The City Manager is looking into where we stand in comparison so that we may make adjustments. Councilmember Buchanan, gave an update on the wastewater issue and referred Council Minutes 08/10/95 Page 5 8B. Resolution/Ordinance - Amending PIERS Contract to Include Third Level of 1959 i Survivor Benefits " CC-95-110 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY a COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the Resolution and first reading of the Ordinance amending the PERS Contract to Include Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits. ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT L Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council Meeting at 6:50 p.m., until the next Regular CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, August 24, 1995. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace q MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace DATE: August 17, 1995 STAFF REPORT 4w atA r1EM (XX) COUN M rrB4 ( ) MEETING DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: R 02U CIF WAY DEDIC'ATM - U881 PRESET ST. (BANEY) Kathryn Haney,11881 Preston St., is granting the westerely six (6) of her property (Parcel No. 4r 95-060428) to the City of Grand Terrace for Public Street and Public Utility purposes. Accent Grant Deed of Easement from Kathryn Haney to the City of Grand Terrace. , w., nei 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM J13E Ul Ln B.TA?F` RZ=T v.. .. .. ... .i•. :: CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: INTER -AGENCY LEASE/PURCHASE FROM CRA FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FY 1995-96 FUNDING REQUIRED X NO FUNDING REQUIRED Council has appropriated for the current year cost of the acquisition of a new phone system, reproduction equipment, and a financial accounting/sewer billing system as part of the 1995-96 Annual Budget. A combined total of $27,512 was appropriated ($20,512 was from the General Fund and $7,000 from the Wastewater Fund). The total cost of all equipment is estimated at $108,000. Staff has proposed, as part of the 1995-96 Budget, that major purchases be financed through the Community Redevelopment Agency as a tool to utilize non -current surplus funds to finance City equipment purchases and as a means to conserve general fund cash flow. The Community Redevelopment Agency would also benefit from the utilization of the proposed equipment. The cheapest alternative for the City would be to obtain tax-free equipment financing at approximately 7.5% plus any fees. The proposed Lease/Purchase terms from the CRA to the City is five years with interest on the unpaid balance at the prevailing LAIF interest rate (currently 5.997%). This is the rate that 59% of the investment portfolio is earning. There would be no revenue loss saving approximately $6,000 to interest rate fluctuations. 1. Approve CRA equipment, and billing 2. Direct Mayor the City of of the City to the CRA and the City would be $10,000 over 5 years, depending on the Lease/Purchase financing of the City telephone reproduction equipment and Financial accounting system. to execute Lease/Purchase Agreement documents between Grand Terrace and the Community Redevelopment Agency of Grand Terrace (CRA). COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # 3F STAFF REPORT DATE: August 18, 1995 CRA ITEM () COUNCIL rTEM (X) MEETING DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: REJECT LIABHXrY CLAIM GTW-"-04 (SAWANA) r � The City of Grand Terrace has received a claim (GTLC-95-04) in the amount of $870.91 for property damage. Mr. Saldana is claiming that he hit a pothole on LaCadena causing damage w to his vehicle.. _ Our Claims Adjuster has reviewed the claim and is requesting that the City reject the Claim and send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. A copy of the claim is attached for your review. t a_ STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL: REJECT LIABE= CLAIM 95-04 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO NOTIFY THE CLAIMANT OF THE ACTION TAKEN R COUNCIL AGENDA REN S ' CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECEIVED CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting MINUTES CITY CLERK'S DEPT, July 10, 1995 The Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee met at it's regular monthly meeting at the Senior Center. Meeting was called to order at 6:06 PM by Chair Person, Philomene Spisak. MEMBERS PRESENT were Philomene Spisak, Chair Person, Bitsy Miller, Vice Chair Person, JoAnn Johnson, Dottie Raborn, Harold Lord and Dick Rollins. MEMBERS ABSENT - Alternate Member Mike Fasenmyer. CITY STAFF -Tonya Nelson, Community Services Officer was on vacation. GUESTS PRESENT- Lt. Kyritsis, Central Patrol Station, and Theresa and Tara Shafer, residents of Grand Terrace. AGENDA was approved with the motion by Harold Lord and second by Bitsy Miller. At this time, Chairperson Philomene Spisak indicated that she had carefully researched the Brown Act and that it was acceptable to add minor changes at the meetings. This question had come up in the past and she was clarifying the point. MINUTES of June 12th were approved with two changes by Chairperson Spisak, with a motion by 160 Dick Rollins and second by Harold Lord. The changes made were as follows: 1) The last sentence of the paragraph on MINUTES that read "He was informed that any item that came up after the agenda had been printed could be added and discussed at the meeting." was changed to read "Mrs. Spisak stated that agendas were mailed to Committee members approximately two weeks in advance to give them advance notice of items to be discussed. If an important change or addition to the agenda occurs the agenda will be reissued. Minor additions will be added prior to approval of the agenda." 2) On page 2, paragraph REPORTS, MEMBER last sentence "She will continue to be involved through Women's Club and perhaps with Tonya Nelson." changed to read "The Woman's Club will continue to be involved in the fingerprint program and perhaps with a Tonya Nelson program." Changes were made to the original minutes before submitting to City Council. At this point there was a lengthy discussion that began when Harold Lord questioned whether fingerprinting should be a function of the Crime Prevention Committee. It was generally concluded that it was more in the line of Safety. However, it was concluded that a program was planned and that probably there would be a booth at Stater Brothers and it would probably include fingerprinting and recruitment for Citizen Patrol. PUBLIC COMMENT - Guest. Theresa Shafer, made a lengthy presentation which included soliciting information and assistance in recruiting for a co-op type program primarily for young people. Some of the points, questions, requests, etc. were: a. Channel 3 will run public service items for no charge. b. Daughter, Tara, was abducted at age 3. She understands importance of fingerprinting. c. Explained the importance of fingerprinting of Alzheimer's patients, recounted specific case. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #SA�a f. Bitsy NGler questioned the practice of having presenters give their name and address at City Council meetings. She indicated that this was a perfect opportunity for would be burglars or for Other retaliation, etc. The Committee agreed that indeed it could present problems. g. Lt. Kyritsis discussed Proposition 172 money and how it is used. It is intended for "public safety" which covers a lot of territory. IL There was general discussion on the Noise Ordinance and on Street Parking and general agreement that both ordinances should be enforced. - - - - -. UNI+' ZMED BUSINESS -Lt. Kyritsis explained that the $100,000 "extra" in the contract was actually largely for the other half of a detective that the City had not previously bean paying for fw 46 some time. The actual increase in charges was the 6% increase. NEW BUSINESS - The committee heard and accepted the resignation of member Ed OYNeaL Motion was made by Dick Rollins and seconded by Dotty Raborn. There being no,i'urther business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM Respectfully Submitted, J^ 9stecr, JoAnn Johnson EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE JUKE 7A 1995 RECEIVED a;l 1 ' 1995 CITY CLERK'S DEPT. C" TO OMM •, The meeting was called to ordw by the -h -i - Gary at 7 IQm, . p APPROVAL OF MQTUM: The mint a of April 18 and May 16,1995 were reed and approved, Mr11�ER3 PRESENT: CANY M*idgk Vic Pfeaoighat�, Darla Wertz, Eileen Plodder, aid Tim Hodder n` +S, 4WGU ANT: John Dagay (Cound Liabon), and Ric* Haubert (Riverside Wwdand Water Ca *W) COUNCIL LUMON REPORT: 1. Muia-1 =wd PMwedoess Plaq Join reported that the CDF repaese - - -iva Who will mWw the chasm to our plan is on tntveL Work va begin upon his ramm Z. Training; John wdl presmR a briefing at the neat meeting oa the resF =s team nmww m_ Hewn also prevent the Standae�oed F.a�eocy Mma®erieet sy,� (SAS)9 which iocludm a two boar ffli aid haidout material. John is now a qtuWed.traioer. Practical try is will be the next pbow II'E[F1rT/FAC1[LYIY REPIORM 1. Construction an bunking #1 has begun and ig meoabeis were cautioned abet the PoteMW safety howds untd it is compke. The dectricd ,Irvine low vA -be rerouted and also the sound powered ph== COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #,5}9 TO: FROM: City Council Community Development Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: Z-95-03 and E-95-07, An application for amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 5.06,Home Occupation Permit Procedures and Approval Criteria to Relax Restrictions to Subcontractors and Prohibit Most Impacting Types of Home Occupations. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance Amendment and Associated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: This amendment was initiated in response to a series of issues as listed below: • City's strict Home Occupation Permit regulations are in conflict with the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, which promotes telebusinesses from the home to better air quality by the reduction of vehicle trips. • Home Occupations for real estate office and car repairs that included employees, subcontractors and clients going to the residence have created serious neighborhood code enforcement situations. • Many small family landscaping businesses that do not have employees going to the home but meet at the job sites were not able to receive a City business license due to strict Home Occupation Permit regulations. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held one workshop discussion and three meetings to evaluate and make a determination on the proposed amendment with the following outcome: 1. Approval of the overall concept proposed by staff to allow home occupations with subcontractors provided there is no traffic to the residence; 2. Supported the elimination of certain types of Home Occupations such as real estate, car repairs, etc. 3. Denied staffs proposal of stricter rules for reviews of those Home Occupation Permits with subcontractors/subconsultants. Staff proposed reevaluation of Home Occupations with consultants (defined as HOPS Type Il) after one 1 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 9231R # L� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ADOPTING AMENDMENT, Z-95-03, AND ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE E-95-07, FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 5.06, HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA. WHEREAS, at its meeting of June 1, 1995 the Planning Commission discussed the issue, and at the public hearings of June 15, 1995, July 6, 1995 and August 3, 1995 the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Zoning Amendment for clarification purposes to the Home Occupation Permit procedures within the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Home Occupations in the residential communities have increased in numbers and types; and more focus is being placed on telebusiness from the Home for employees of major funs, municipalities or office oriented businesses working from their homes. The State of California has also been pursuing changes to Home Occupation Permit allowances on giving more flexibility in the overall requirements to allow more employees to work out of their homes; thus supporting small entrepreneurs. WHEREAS, the City has a Trip Reduction Ordinance which encourages telecommuting; and WHEREAS, current City Home Occupation Permit regulations are strict in prohibiting businesses with employees to work out of their homes whether or not the employees (subcontractors/subconsultants) come to the house or not; and WHEREAS, some small family landscaping businesses and/or similar Home Occupations, that do not have their employees going to the house but meet at the job site are not allowed to legally operate in the City due to current Home Occupation Permit regulations; and WHEREAS, real estate, car repair and other certain types of Home Occupations have negatively impacted neighborhoods and therefore should be prohibited; and WHEREAS, as ultimately this amendment is providing more flexibility to small businesses while protecting the character of the neighborhoods. WHEREAS, this requires a Zoning Amendment to the following Chapters and Sections: (Refer to Attachment A and Exhibit 1). Amend Chapter 5.06 Section 5.06.040 Criteria for Approval (include reference to Commercial Vehicle Policy). Section 5.06.070 Non -Compliance with Conditions. ATTACHMENT A 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 September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: John Harper, City Attorney Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk a) Real estate, insurance, law and medical offices; b) Beauty shops, massage parlors, private clubs, dance studios and dating services; c) The repair or construction of motor vehicles and appliances, machine shops and cabinet shops; d) On premises sales and vending; and e) Any business which shall be deemed to be incompatible with the surrounding land uses and which may adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood in which such business is located. S.06.01Oc De nitions Tune I HOP - Home occupations with no employees sub contractors or sub consultants. Tune II HOP - Home Occupation with employees sub contractors and/or sub consultants who do not work in the authorized premise 5.06.020 Code enforcement officer -- Duties The code enforcement officer shall review and act upon requests for home occupation permits. (Ord. 105 1(part), 1986). 5.06.030 Procedure. The procedure is for staff review with notice. (Ord. 105 $1 (part), 1986). 5.06.040 Criteria for Approval Prior to approving a request for a Home Occupation Permit, the code enforcement officer shall find that the proposed use meets the following criteria: A. residentAll - employees iaa�.aaa F�. The only people that can work on the premises for a Home Occupation Permit are the members of the household who reside on the premise and in the case of sub -contractors or sub -consultants, which are not members of the household, they may not perform any duties or services on the premises of the Home Occupation Permit. B. There will be no direct sales of products or merchandise. C. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic will be limited to that normally associated with residential districts, within the Vehicle Policy criteria. D. The Home Occupation shall not involve the use of commercial vehicles for the delivery of materials to or from the premises beyond those commercial vehicles normally associated with residential uses or allowed within the Vehicle Policy for 2 C. Notice may be given in such other manner as is deemed necessary or desirable in order to achieve the best notice possible. D. Notice shall include all necessary information to give those receiving the notice a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the implications of the proposal and to participate in the decision -making process. 5.06.060 Decision to Approve or Deny. Fourteen days after giving notice to contiguous property owners, the code enforcement officer shall review his initial findings and notify those affected by his decision to conditionally approve or deny the home occupation permit. 5.06.070 Noncompliance with conditions. The code enforcement officer may veil revoke any home occupation permit for noncompliance with the conditions set forth in approving the permit, and shall give notice of such action to be permittee. 5.06.080 Appeals. The decision of the Community Development Director or his/her designee may be appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission. such an appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Department within ten (I0) days after the date of the decision to deny the application for the Home Occupation Permit or revoke an existing Home Occupation Permit by the Community Development Director. Upon the receipt of such an appeal, the Community Development Director shall place the matter for consideration on the Planning Commission agenda of the first regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The Commission shall either approve the application with conditions or deny the application based on its findings. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final. c:\wp5l\pianning\misc\hopamend.pc2 W CITY OF GRAND 'TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STTJDY L 8_ ackand 1. Name of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace 2. Address and Phone- Number of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace A 92324-5295 Attention: Patrizia Materassi. Planning Director 714-824-6621 3. Date of Environmental Assessment: 4. Agency Requiring .-assessment: City of Grand Terrace Am�lc�m�Tu%FftornE �k'LccpA77oi7 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: i��KrnrT�ROcEn�r�2e5 A�►n �,rz��. 6. Location of Proposal: #4W E2 A AjD -12 R A0 fcA IL Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all '`yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of this soil? C. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? t Yes Maybe NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter 4W the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will :he proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional 'lousing'? 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 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 4W or indirectly? 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 •vill 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 tigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project 4*niNEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT :s required. Date 9 Patrizia Materassi Planning Director Signature For City of Grand Terrace x PI VARI DU.S\ ClV lES Home 4'r%d mix17' § W-3MOI GARDENA MUNICIPAL (doe § 10-32802 1 Article 2 & Home Occupation Permits* Sec. 10-3.2AL Purpose. The purpose of a home occupation permit is to allow certain > occupations. except large family day care homes„ to be conducted within a residential dwelling and/or an accessory building, by the residentr' thereof. and to ensure that said occupations are incidental and secondary to the residential use and are compatible with the area in whicir the dwelling is located (§ 3. Ord. M4. cf£ November 3. 1984, as amended by § S. Ord. 1444, eft~ December 27, 1990) Sec. 10-3.:M2. Home occupations permitted. The following home occupations shall be permitted Provided they do not violate any of the provisions of Section 1^,-3.Z804•'oVfljis article: (a) Office uses. such as contracting and consulting, when the residence is used for the sole purpose of receiving mad. telephone calls. and Wig: (b) Crafts and hobby uses. such as Photography. attworic. and home wafts: (c) Services. such as gardening, janitorial. typing, and day care, (d) Off -premises sales and vending, such as import/export, product distributing, and swan meet vendors: and ,e) Large family day care. provided: �1} in addition :o :he parking required :or the dwelling where the Large family day cats home ts=nducted. one off-street parking space for each employee who drives :o the program and who requires a parking space shall be provided: (2) it is not located within '200 linear feet of an existing large family day care home. This reouirement shall be disregarded if the applicant can demonstrate that (i) The existing '.arge :amity day cane .aomeI.is operating at full capacity, (n) A need/exists for a particular service not provided"-', by the existing large family try care home: (3) It compfi s ith the noise element of the City's General 7 ITA ITI 95E14 'Article 28 entitled 'Public Utilities% consisting of Sections 10-3.: 801 and 10.3 2802. codified from Ordinance No. 587. repealed by Ordnance No. t324, effecnve November 8, 1,984. S -1 Repnnt No. 74 . r=eotuary 28. 1991 Attach ment C Associate Planner, Maria Muett, presented the staff report to Commissioners. She explained the City has received numerous inquiries from appraisers, homeowners, and mortgage companies asking what would happen in case of fire or natural disaster. They want to know if they would be able to rebuild and what percentage is the triggering factor. Residential, commercial and industrial district were all examined. We currently have no rebuild procedure. The code currently addresses minor alterations initiated by the applicant, not necessarily created by natural disasters. Chairman Sims asked for clarification of non -conforming structure iry industrial zone damaged by fire. The resident simply wanted to rebuild exactly as structure was prior to the fire or 4r natural disaster. He questioned what "exactly" means. Director explained square footage needs to be the same, materials may be slightly different but structure must be brought up to current codes. 9:05 p.m. Chairman Sims opened hearing for public comment. No public comment. 9:05 p.m. Public hearing closed. MOTION PCM-95-17 Z-95-02/E-95-04 Motion by Commissioner/Addington to approve. Second by Commissioner Huss. Commissioner Muns6n suggested that screening of mechanical equipment (i.e. air conditioning) should be handled on an individual case by case basis. Director explained the policy of screening mechanical equipment is currently only in the BRSP. Every other place it is part of the conditions of approval. This current proposal would actually initiate cod> /requirements. MOTION/YOTE PCM-95,47 /Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ITEM #3 Z-95-03 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT TO CHANGE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5.06 HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS -STANDARD CONDITIONS This item is on agenda for discussion and guidance by Commission 6 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1995 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on June 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jimmy Sims. PRESENT: Jimmy Sims, Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Pat Peterson, Community Development Secretary ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner PLEDGE: Matthew Addington, Commissioner 6:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Associate Planner addressed Commission regarding status of the budget for next fiscal year. Although preliminarily approved there is still another City Council meeting on June 22 for final review. General Plan Task Force will make progress report to Planning Commission on July 6, seeking their comments. Community Development Director will appear in court on June 16, for arraignment on the Larry Halstead code enforcement case. Counsel for Mr. Halstead has requested a continuance to June 30. General discussion regarding microphone volume and transcription difficulties. 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:00 p.m. CONVENED PLANNING ARCHTTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD E COMMISSION MEETING/SITE M17 Attachment C-2 11 MOTION PCM-95-19 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Addington that item A of 5.06.010a be amended to read as follows: "office uses, such as contracting and consulting, when the residence is used for purposes of receiving mail, telephone calls and bookkeeping", eliminating the words "the sole". Seconded by Chairman Sims. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-19 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Addington pointed out that a long discussion took place about page 5, the terms "sub -contractor" or "sub -consultant". On item A, 5.06.040 the second and third paragraphs were of concern. In his opinion the third paragraph should be stricken and the second paragraph should read "in the case of sub -consultants and sub -contractors who O&W are not members of the household, may not perform any duties or services on the premises. " He felt the letter of agreement is too complicated and harsh, and that it should be written in a simplified form. He suggested simply stating "they can't work there if they do not live at the residence. " Staff pointed out the 6-month self -monitoring has been deleted from the current proposal. Chairman Sims re -stated the intent of the second paragraph: It would require the HOP applicant to provide a letter to the City guaranteeing outside employees, sub -contractors or sub -consultants will not be accessing the home site. The third paragraph means if they do have sub -contractors or sub -contractors there would be an additional approval required in connection with the business license (pro -rated). He asked what the procedure would be if they violate the letter of commitment. Staff explained this would be a tool for code enforcement. Staff explained that sub -contractors and sub -consultants have never been allowed to provide services for an HOP permittee so this would allow the City to maintain some degree of control while still offering this new flexibility. The annual check on that new HOP would occur if HOP letters are sent out to neighbors and wait two weeks to see if we receive any negative impact responses. Chairman Sims said that this process seems redundant, or is there something missing in the current code enforcement in relationship to this HOP permit. Associate Planner explained that it could be similar to a CUP that is signed acknowledging an understanding of the conditions of the project, benefit to the City and applicant. 4 going to allow them to come in and disrupt the neighborhood. Possibly the term "agreement" is too formal. A commitment letter is not as formal as an agreement. Since we are trying to build relationships with people -we're not trying to push down the small guy as compared to the big developer. The intent is to help people in these tough economic times to run the business out of the home. He suggested changing the wording instead of eliminating paragraphs to preserve the intent. Commissioner Addington suggested striking the 3 paragraphs and replace with: "The only people that can work on the premises for a HOP are the members who reside on the premises and in the case of sub -contractors or sub -consultants who are not members of the household, they may not perform any duties or services on the premises. " MOTION PCM-95-20 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Addington to amend page 5, of the amendment proposal, Section 5.06.040a, by striking the proposed first three underlined bolded paragraphs and replace them with one paragraph which states, "The only people that can work on the premises for a HOP are the members of the household who reside on the premises, and in the case of sub -contractors and sub -consultants who are not members of that household, they may not perform any duties or services on the premises of the HOP. " Seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. Chairman Sims clarified that Commissioner Addington's proposal would eliminate the first three underlined proposed paragraphs under section A, and replace it with the above wording. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-20 Motion carried. 4-1-2-0. Chairman Sims voted no. Vice -Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Huss asked for clarification regarding the HOP renewal/review process. Chairman Sims said that proposed review language had been eliminated by the last motion which carried. He suggested she could make a motion to add that language. Commissioner Huss said she feels it is a good idea to do the one -time -only re -notice and review process with the neighbors at the end of the initial 12 months. Commissioner Addington asked if HOP's are required to have a business license. He suggested that if there is an enforcement problem we can elect not to renew the business license. Staff explained that all HOP's are required to have a business license and through previous research we have determined that we may not necessarily choose not to renew the business license because it is under a different law altogether. G1 Chairman Sims inquired of staff if it is the intent, in the case of sub -contractors and sub - consultants attached to the HOP, to place a conditional approval on a yearly basis so that an evaluation could be conducted sending out letters to the surrounding community to determine if they have experienced problems during the past year and attempt to create a situation where they would be denied their permit? Staff responded the intent is to evaluate the situation by reaching the contiguous property owners notifying them of the type of business and that the applicant is applying for a temporary HOP and in one year they would be reevaluated to see if there has been any negative impact. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this evaluation would take place only at the end of the first year. Staff responded yes. MOTION PCM-95-21 Motion by Commissioner Huss to amend the HOP procedure to perform the re -notice procedure at the first renewal of the business license to reevaluate the HOP in the case where sub -contractors and sub -consultants who are not members of the household. This would be attached as paragraph to 5.06.040a. Motion died for lack of second. Commissioner Garcia asked staff what is the anticipated problem with sub -contractors. Staff responded in the past we have seen problems with contractors and real estate persons. The in and out vehicle activity has been problematic in the past. Commissioner Garcia asked if HOP's will be required to list sub -contractors to ensure that those sub -contractors will be required to pay for business licenses. This can generate a significant amount of additional revenue. Staff responded that we currently require licenses for sub -contractors through our permit procedures. Chairman Sims asked about the insertion definition of "employee" in section 5.06.010a. Commissioner Addington asked where the word "employee" is found in the HOP text. A review of the amended text did not reveal the word "employee", since it was already removed by Commissioner Addington's motion. Commissioner Addington suggested in the definition of "employee" that after the word "location" add "and includes sub -consultants". This will accommodate those who work off site. Chairman Sims said since the word "people" has replaced "employees" in section 5.06.040, a motion must be made to delete the "employee" definition also. 8 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DULY 6, 1995 4W The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on July 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman, Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moira Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria Muett, Senior Planner Larry Mainez, Planning Technician 4W Pat Peterson, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Matthew Addington, Commissioner Jimmy Sims, Chairman 6:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION * Information/comments, from staff -Blue Mountain Coffee House -Applicants Catherine Leogrande and Sandy Grano addressed the Planning Commission. Consensus of Planning Commission to support project. * Information/comments from commissioners 1 Attachment C-3 going to be here. He is one of our neighbors on Palm Avenue. He has complained several times about all of the cars in front of the house across the street from him. He says this family has 8 cars. He said they have a surveyor business in there as well. So for the last six months we have evaluated that property to see if there was a surveyor business there and it was confirmed. Now, however, there is no more surveyor business operating out of the home. But the family still has 8 cars. There is a son who came from Texas that is living there now but there is nothing we can do. They do not have a home occupation. They just need to keep moving their cars every 72 hours so there is nothing really we can do to help him. However, if it was a result of a home occupation, we could. If those cars were commercial cars and they belonged to sub- contractors or they belonged to employees of his home occupation we could restrict it. The proposal staff brought to you was to allow some flexibility to home occupations of slightly larger scale, it was not to allow them altogether. Right now, my problem is that the amendment seems to allow them altogether. So I don't know if you remember the real estate person who came here, Mr. Kenneth Steele, on a code enforcement matter. We had huge amount of problems with the whole neighborhood on Westwood Street because of that real estate company and the reason was his sub -contractors were coming to the house and he was telling us that they were not coming to the house. There is a level of small scale home occupation versus a large scale home occupation which is very hard to pinpoint where that is. One is good for the neighborhood and the other is not. The way the amendment looks now we're opening it up to all home occupations and I am concerned with what it is going to cause. Our goal is to help business flexibility but it is also to protect the neighborhood so I have some concerns. I prefer to bring some specific examples to you and see if the direction is still the same or not. That's where I'm coming from. I'm just afraid we're opening it up too much. Vice -Chairman Wilson: Commissioner Garcia? Commissioner Garcia: I have to say this, I'm always one for more information. How long would it take, Patrizia? Director: Until the next meeting. We can bring it to you then. Commissioner Garcia: I know that Maria was presenting that the importance of the contractors. ..inaudible... feel very strongly about having ... (inaudible). I would like to move for alternative 2, to bring it back for further discussion. Commission Huss: I'd like to see more. Vice -Chairman Wilson: I think the consensus is that everyone would like to take advantage of the additional time to understand the difference between the large scale use and the small scale home occupation businesses. Since it is an agenda item do we need to bring a motion? Director: I think it would be good to have a motion. We have a motion. Do you have a second? Commissioner Huss: I'll second. 23 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMIISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 1995 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on July 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman, Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moira Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria Muett, Senior Planner Pat Peterson, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jimmy Sims, Chairman 6:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION * Information/comments from staff Change in Zoning Amendments scheduled for Public Hearing * Information/comments from commissioners -Report by Commissioner Addington on Planning Commissioner Orientation Seminar on July 22, 1995. -Discussion about A -Frame signs on Barton Road and code enforcement. -Discussion about City sign on the freeway and property maintenance by Caltrans at entrance of the City (Barton Rd./I-215). 7:05 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:05 P.M. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 Attachment C-4 Director explained that in the table prepared by staff of past HOP -related code enforcement activities 11 of 32 cases revealed these HOPS had employees or sub -contractors. 8 more likely had employees or sub -contractors, but there was no proof. That means that 60 % of the HOP - related complaints involved those with employees or sub -contractors. There is a very strong tendency to have citizen complaints on those HOPS with sub -contractors and employees. Although staff originally proposed approval of some HOPs with employees, that proposal included stricter monitoring due to the potential of severe neighborhood impact. Of the 32 HOPs in the table only 8 actually got permits because they accepted the strict conditions imposed by staff to avoid further citizen complaints. Director explained why she recommends Option 2. The review/approval procedure for Type 1 HOPs with no sub -contractors would remain as is currently. Type 2 HOPs would follow a different procedure involving renewal of the HOP after the first year of operation to give staff the opportunity to reevaluate whether they have created traffic or other neighborhood problems during that first year of operation without the benefit of a complaint. Usually complaints come after years of neighborhood impact. MOTION PCM-95-28 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Huss to approve Option 2 as proposed by staff, but eliminating the section a. Motion seconded by Commissioner Munson for discussion purposes. A discussion followed between Commissioners Addington, Munson and Huss, and the Director to clarify Commissioner Huss's motion. The Chairman asked Commissioner Huss to re- state the motion. Motion re -stated by Commissioner Huss to approve Option 2 with requirements a) and c) only. Section b) would be eliminated. Motion seconded again by Commissioner Munson. Commissioners Munson and Huss discussed eliminating section b) of Option 2. Commissioner Huss said she did not feel it is necessary to have HOPS disclose sub -contractors and their licenses because they change periodically. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the research of HOP policies of other cities done by staff. She pointed out there is no other city who asks for the listing of sub- contractors. She asked Director if these other cities do a review at the end of the first year of operation. Director stated most of the other cities do not allow any type of employees/sub-contractors at all. Commissioner Van Gelder asked Director to explain the process of the one year review. Director said the HOP would expire at the end of one year so they would need to come in for renewal. When application for renewal is made the notices would be sent out again to contiguous property owners/residents as done when application was initially made. The neighbors would then have the opportunity to 9 Commissioner Garcia asked for a description of the procedures involving the "first -year review. " Specifically, is the permittee required to pay again or so anything to initiate the "first -year review"? Her concern is not only the monetary factor but that of time as well. Director explained the process will be triggered by a tickler file. A call would be made to the permittee to advise the process will take place. Letters would be mailed to contiguous properties and if no negative response within two weeks the permittee will receive another call to advise the review is complete. Director explained the whole review process is detailed in the Municipal Code, Chapter 5.06.050. The work staff does is ministerial in nature unless complaints are received 4W from residents. Director said in case option #2 is approved, this subject will be brought to the Commission one more time with the proposed changes to the ordinance text with strike- out and underlining (of the new proposal) to be sure it complies with what the Commission members want. Vice -Chairman Wilson asked Commissioner Huss to repeat her motion. MOTION PCM-95-28 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Huss with Option #2a & 2c. (Striking #2b.) 4 Seconded by Commissioner Munson for discussion purposes. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-28 Motion did not pass. 3-3-0-1. Commissioners Munson, Van Gelder and Wilson voted "no " . Chairman Sims absent. MOTION PCM-95-29 Motion by Vice -Chairman Wilson to approve Option #1. Seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. Commissioner Garcia verified with Director that disclosure is to identify sub -contractors doing business in the City for the purpose of collecting business license fees. 11 1i r n 3 CD r--i- i� U HOME OCCUPATION ACTIVITY/CODE ENFORCEMENT RESEARCH RESULTS YEAR LOCATION COMPLAINT/TYPE DID CE REVEAL No.IIOPs EMPL/SUBCONT/S No. CE 1992 23 4 •G.T. Rd. Pico Barton De Berry Spray Painting Veh./Traffic Auto Repair/Traffic Auto Repair/Traffic Comm. Truck/Plastering/Traffic Yes Not Sure No Not Sure 1993 29 4 Barton Tree Trimming Trucks/Traffic Yes La Crosse Upholstery repair/garage/Traffic Not Sure De Soto Dance Classes/Traffic Yes Arliss Auto Detailing/Garage/dumping in storm drain/Traffic Yes 1994 19 18 Westwood Real Estate/Traffic/Noise/Trucks Yes Newport Landscape/Trucks/Traffic/Motorcycle Repair Likely Van Buren Auto Repair/Traffic/Tow Truck/Noise Likely Pahn Comm.Trucks & Equip/Traffic Yes Vista Gr. Advertisement/Vehicles-DetaiU Traffic Not Sure Lark Advertisement/Vehicles-Detail/ Traffic Not Sure Royal Noise/Jetski/MotorcycleRepair/ r Notes - The responses to the "Did Code Enforcement reveal employees or sub-contractors/sub-consultants" (yes) were based on actual confirmation by the complaintant as well as City staff, and (likely) dedUl- ions based on use Traffic means both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Employees-Rideshare means that the complaintant has witnessed people dropping off their vehicles at the site and riding to work in the one vehicle of the residence or commercial vehicle. Complaints - All complaints related to home business activities witnessed by surrouunding neighbors. c: \N p51 \planning\zc\hop.895 Community Services Department TO: City Council FROM: Community Development Director DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: Z-95-02 and E-95-94, Zoning Amendment and associated Environmental Review to expedite review procedures for structures damaged by fire, earthquake and other natural disasters: Chapter 18.76 Non Conforming Uses and Buildings, Chapter 18.63 Administrative Site and Architectural; Policy revision on Screening Mechanical Equipment. LOCATION: City of Grand Terrace RECOMMENDATION: Approval ****************************************** BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of the propoposed amendment to the Chapters regarding replacement of structures damaged by fire, earthquake and other natural disasters. The amendment would make our code similar to other cities. Most cities have a percentage triggering factor to require a non -conforming structure or use to be brought up to Zoning and Building Codes after a fire or natural disaster. This type of legislation is a legal tool for implementation of the City's Zoning and General Plan. The City of Grand Terrace regulations do not provide clear guidance or a triggering factor. Our code is ambiguous thus not helping the public, or staff implementation of regulations. The City Attorney has provided sample of other cities norm and guidance to staff's inquiries on interpretation and effects of the proposed amendment, Attachment C. Staff compiled a chart of non conforming projects affected by natural disasters and/or fire. The chart indicates the description of property, threshold of zoning conformity, proposed process and current process, refer to Attachment D. (Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes, Attachment B, for more details of the Planning Commission Meetings). ANALYSIS: Basically, this amendment facilitates rebuilding of residential structures on residential zones by reducing public hearing requirements. It discourages reconstruction of residential structures on commercial and industrial zones by restricting non -conforming structures to be rebuilt in case the cost of rebuilding is equal or greater than 75% of current value of property before accident. As amended the code also encourages replacement of old housing stock with new structures up to the current codes rather than extensive remodels of old dilapidated structures by establishment of a triggering factor for rebuilt instead of remodel. Finally, small remodels and simple reconstruction of fire damaged structures without expansions in appropriate zones are facilitated by reducing review requirements and providing expeditious process. Please review chart, Attachment D. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-bOu(Q&MADA rrEM # (n j� IM n ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ADOPTING ZONING AMENDMENT, Z-95-02, AND ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, E-95-04, TO EXPEDITE REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR STRUCTURES DAMAGED BY FIRE, EARTHQUAKE AND OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS, AND POLICY REVISION ON SCREENING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; CHAPTERS 18.63 AND CHAPTER 18.76 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted properly noticed public hearing on June 1, 1995 and approved the Zoning Amendment for clarification of conformance thresholds structures damaged by fire, earthquake or other natural disasters, screening of mechanical equipment from public view, and expeditious reviewing process for replacement of fire or disaster damaged structures in the City's Residential, Commercial and Industrial Areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing and approved the Zoning Amendment, Ordinance and Environmental Review on August 24, 1995; and WHEREAS, this requires a Zoning Amendment to the following Chapters and Sections: Chapter 18.63 Site and Architectural Review Section 18.63.010 Purpose 41 Section 18.63.020 Application Section 18.63.120 Mechanical Equipment Screening Chapter 18.76 Non -Conforming Uses and Buildings Section 18.76.040 Non Conforming Buildings WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will facilitate rebuilding of residential structures on residential zones by reducing public hearing requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will discourage reconstruction of residential structures on commercial and industrial zones by restricting non -conforming structures to be rebuilt in case the cost of rebuilding is equal or greater than 75 % of current value of property before accident; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment also encourages replacement of old housing stock with new structures up to the current codes rather than extensive remodels of old dilapidated structures by establishment of a triggering factor for rebuilt instead of remodel. ATTACHMENT 0 La 09 Section 5: First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 24th day of August, 1995 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 14th of September, 1995. 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, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on th September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: John Harper, City Attorney Brenda Stanfill City Clerk e California, do at a regular 14th day of 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; 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. G. To ensure that structures/buildings damaged by rue, earthquake and other 4 natural disasters are reconstructed in accordance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Zoning Code and other applicable health and safety, building, and fire codes. Section 18.63.020 Application: There are three (3) levels of applications for Site and Architectural Review: A. Land Use Application, B. Administrative Site and Architectural Review, and C. Site and Architectural Review (with public hearing). 4 I. 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. A. 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 (includes 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. II. 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. The following items may be approved by the 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 Community Development Director decisions shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days. Appeals shall be filed with the Planning Department and follow similar rules as the appeals to the City Council (Section 18.63.070). 1. All accessory structures except: a) Structures with 65 % or more of the square footage of the main residence living area. Living area does not include porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. b) Structures 1,200 square feet or more in size. c) Structures with lot coverage higher than 25 %. 2. All room additions except: ,, a) Room additions with 65 % or more of the square footage of the main residence living area. Living area does not include porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. 3. Large scale temporary uses of insignificant adverse impact on the environment, i.e. parking lot sales which require review by Fire, Health and other agencies. 4. In case of damaged structures due to fire earthquakes or other natural disasters where the structure will be reconstructed with alterations but not sufficient to trigger a public hearing III. Site and Architectural Review Application The purpose of this application is to allow major projects to receive full review from the Site and Architectural Review Board through a public hearing process. Site and Architectural Review by the Site and Architectural Review Board includes, but is not limited to: 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. 04, Review Procedures Required: 1. Playhouses exceeding 6' in overall height are subject to playhouse review criteria and require Community Development Director clearance (band 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 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 of the Uniform Building Code, energy conservation, electrical, plumbing, etc. This basically transforms the small structure into a "recreation room" of "accessory living quarters". f 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. Section 18.63.120 Mechanical Equipment Screening In the case of new residential, commercial or industrial units all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at a distance from the edge of the building or shielded by means of a lattice or similar materials or parapet, so as not to be visible from the pedestrian level, adjacent roads or adjacent properties. In case of fire damaged structures, staff will evaluate projects on a one -by -one case basis before applying requirement. c: \wp51 \planning\zc\ 1863d 1) One family dwellings, two family dwellings, three family dwellings, apartment houses and other buildings used for residential occupancy, twenty-five years. 2) Stores and factories, twenty-five years. 3) Any other building not herein enumerated, twenty-five years. b. Type III buildings (heavy timber construction and ordinary masonry) used as: 1) One family dwellings, two family dwellings, three family dwellings, apartment houses, offices and hotels, thirty years. 2) Structures with stores below and residences, offices or a hotel above, thirty years. 3) Warehouses, stores and garages, thirty years. 4) Factories and industrial buildings, thirty years. C. Type I and Type II buildings (fire resistive) uses as: 1) One family dwellings, two family dwellings, three family dwellings, apartment houses, offices and hotels, thirty years. 2) Theaters, warehouses, stores and garages, thirty years. 3) Factories and industrial buildings, thirty years. 4W Section 18.76.034 Termination - Abatement as a Public Nuisance A. Whenever a nonconforming use or structure becomes obsolete, dilapidated, substandard, unsafe, or exists in a state of general disrepair, the Planning Commission may hold a public hearing to evaluate and make declaration of nuisance. Section 18.76.040 Nonconforming Buildings: A. No use permit is required for the following: 1. Ordinary maintenance and repairs may be made to any nonconforming building; provided, that no structural alterations and/or additions are made; provided further, that such maintenance and repairs do not exceed twenty-five percent (25 %) of the assessed value of the building in any one-year period; 2. Any repairs necessary to bring a nonconforming building into compliance with city codes regardless of whether such repairs exceed twenty-five percent (25 %) of the assessed value of the building in any one-year period; provided, that the total floor area in the building shall not be increased. a. All such construction or repairs shall be started within one year from the date of damage or destruction and shall be pursued diligently to completion, said completion being completed and certificate of occupancy being issued within one year of the date of the issuance of the building permit. b. In the case of the buildings/structures being reconstructed in a different condition than what originally existed prior to the damages (fire, earthquake or natural disaster), then the project shall be evaluated in accordance to Site and Architectural Review criteria. Chapter 18.63. Section 18.76.050 Buildings Under Construction: Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to require any change in plans, construction or designated use of any building for which a building permit has properly been issued, in accordance with the provisions of ordinances then effective and upon which actual construction has been started prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title; provided, that in all such cases actual construction shall be diligently carried on until completion of the building. c:\wp51\planning\titlel8\1876d.txt Community Development Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4W 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-95-02 and E-95-04, an application for a Zoning Arnwdmmt and Environmental Review to expedite reviewing procedures of sauctures damaged by fire, earthquake and other natural disasters within the City's residential, commercial -and industrial districts. 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 impact on the environment. Patrizia Materassi, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace c: \wp51\planning\zcV9502. nd 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621 Yes —Maybe No d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, V either on or off site? i 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? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration rr of ambient air f quality? b. The creation;pf objectionable odors? ✓ C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine r or fresh waters? 2 Yes Mavbe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? 1% c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native V vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing spies? 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)? / V b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? V 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? Y 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal / produce substantial new light or glare? V 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or land planned use of an area? 4 Yes Maybe d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? L Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? fir 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 6 No V 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? V 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 4W 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 goals? (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.) V C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or 8 i 0 MOTION VOTE PCM-95-15 MOTION PCM-95-16 Motion carries. 6-"-1. Commissioner Wilson abstained. Commissioner Garcia said she felt is was awkward to state that applicant is in temporary conformance for a period of two years. Director explained this would give him two years to apply for his freeway sign and fix the monument sign to bring in into conformance. Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve Proposal #2 with the temporary approval for no more than two years. Second by Commissioner Munson. Commissioner Wilson suggested amending Proposal #2 so Applicant can post a cash CD or a surety bond. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-16 Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Chairman Sims voted no. Director asked Chairman Sims to recap what was approved for the benefit of applicant. , "Proposal n was approved. It was amended to temporary approval for no more than two years and it also was changed to allow for either a bond surety or the CD deposit, whichever is easier for you." 8:40 P.M. COMMISSION RECESSED FOR 5 MINUTE BREAK. 8:45 P.M. COMIVIISSION RECONVENED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM #2 Z-95-02/E-95-04 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO EXPEDITE REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR STRUCTURES DAMAGED BY FIRE, EARTHQUAKE AND OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS; CLARIFYING TRIGGERING CONFORMANCE THRESHOLDS; FORMALIZED POLICY ON SCREENING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FROM PUBLIC VIEW OF NEW RESIDENCES 5 ATTACHMENT B LAW OFFICES OF 5 1995 11 0 ALAN R. BURNS JOHN ROBERT HARPER' OF COUNSEL F. MACKENZIE BROWN' JUDI A. CURTIN* WARREN R DIVEN DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE ROBERT E. HESSELL MICHAEL B. MONTGOMERY• *A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION June 15, 1995 HARPER 8 BURNS A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 453 S. GLASSELL STREET LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 92666 13200 CROSSROADS PARKWAY NORTH SUITE 350 (714) 771-7726 CITY OF INDUSTRY. CALIFORNIA 91746 FAX (714) 744-3350 RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES (909) 674-0696 Maria Muett, Associate Planner CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California 92324 RE: Zoning Amendment / Non-Comforming Uses Dear Maria: By memorandum dated June 14, 1995, you have asked a number of questions with regard to the application of the proposed non -conforming use zone code amendment relating to the ability to rebuild. The simple and bottom line answer is that the code would prohibit the rebuilding of any non- conforming structure which is damaged in excess of the statutory percentage. The City has no legal obligation with regard to the former residents of the non -conforming property. As to the insurance questions, there is no simple answer applicable to all situations and depends upon the specific provisions of each insurance policy. You're correct that disaster damage policies do not cover the cost of the purchase of replacement property, although normally the insurance carrier would be required to provide money sufficient to rebuild at another location. Regardless of the ownership, if the use is non -conforming, the zone code requirements would be applicable. ATTACHMENT C 2. *1 *2 REVIEW PROCESS FOR NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES AFFECTED BY NATURAL DISASTERS/FIRE Proposed Threshold Triggering Zoning Conformity a) Cost to rebuild equal or greater than Bring whole building up to all codes, since the structure is 75 % of current value of property. basically being redone. (assessed, appraised or construction value whichever is greater). b) Cost to rebuild less than 75%. Does not trigger zoning conformance. However, continues triggering building compliance. Site and Architectural Review Procedures for Damaged Structures Chart. (Under "Proposed Process/Current Process" words in normal type refer to current process and words in italics refer to proposed process. In case of approval the current code will be deleted from the chart). Description of Property 2 Counts NonConforming. (Use & Structure) i.e. old residential unit located on Barton Road (commercial area). 1 Count Nonconforming. (Structure only) i.e. old residential unit located in residential district. With Alterations: Threshold of Zoning Conformity (Cost to rebuild is equal or greater, than 75% of the current value of property). (Cost to rebuild is less than 75 % of current value of Property). (Cost to rebuild is equal or greaterthan 75 % of the current value of property). (Cost to rebuild is equal or less than 75 % of current value of property). Proposed Process/Current Process Can It Be Rebuilt?/ Codes to Comply Cannot be rebuilt because it is not in conformance with City codes/can be rebuilt and is allowed not to conform to Zoning Code. Can be rebuilt/allowed not to be in conformance with Zoning Code. / Same - No Change proposed. Can be rebuilt & requires conformance with all codes. /Can be rebuilt, does not require Zoning Conformance. Can be rebuilt allowed not to be in conformance with Zoning Coded Same - No change proposed. Applications Required In Case of No Alterations *1 N/A Only building permits reguired/Public Hearing with S&A Review required. Land Use and Building Permit Required./Public Hearing with S&A Review required. Building Permit only./Public Hearing with S&A Review required. Exception - Alterations to bring structure into comptiat Other expansion of structures per applicant's initiative. Applications Required In Case of Alterations *2 N/A Alterations to meet all codes, CUP required. Not suppose to expand./Same - No Change proposed. SA Review portionately./ Same -No changes proposed. Alterations to meet all codes, CUP required. Not suppose to expand. / Same -No changes proposed. ATTACHMENT D