Loading...
10/12/1995FILE COPY 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 Civic Center (909) 824-6621 Fax (909) 783-7629 Fax (909) 783-2600 i ' Byron R. Matteson j Mayor Gene Carlstrom Mayor Pro Tempore Herman Hilkey Jim Singley Dan Buchanan Council Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager October 12, 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 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order - OCTOBER 12, 1995 6:00 P.M. * Invocation - Pastor Tammy McGrew, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church * Pledge of Allegiance - * Roll Call - AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Approve 1. Approval of 09-14-95 Minutes 2. Approval of Check Register No. CRA092895 & CRA101295 Approve 3. Statement of Investment Policy for the Community Approve Redevelopment Agency for the City of Grand Terrace 4. Low and Moderate Income Housing Participation in Approve Construction of the Loma Linda Ronald McDonald House ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Recycling Family of the Month - August 1995 B. Commendation - Friends of the Library 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. 092895 & 101295 B. Ratify 10-12-95 CRA Action Approve COUNCIL AGENDA 10/12/95 - PAGE 3 OF 3 IM PENDING C R A APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 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 14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. 4 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 John Donlevy, Assistant City Manager Brenda Stanfill, Secretary Bernard Simon, Finance Director Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Lt. Kyritsis, Sheriff's Department Jim Winkler, Law Offices of Harper & Burns ABSENT: Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety APPROVAL OF AUGUST 24, 1995 CRA MINUTES CRA-95-56 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY VICE- CHAIRMAN CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the August 24, 1995 CRA Minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA091495 CRA-95-57 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CARLSTROM, CRA091495. MEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY AGENCY CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Agency Member Hilkey, stated that there have been changes in the way investments are handled for the Community Redevelopment Agency and the City and requested that the Statement of Investment Policy be amended to reflect those changes. Chairman Matteson, stated that he thought the only main concern was that a specific name of a bank was included in the policy and felt that they should amend it so that it reads "the Agency's Primary Bank" so Council would not have to change the policy every time there is a change in banks. C R A AGENDA ITEM NO. PENDING C R APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELGPMENT AGENCY 1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO.092895 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK NO, P10670 P10674 P10675 P10690 P10694 n 31949 Z 31957 31959 31965 31968 31970 zr 0 31976 VENDOR RALLY CAPPIELLO PURE DESIGN STATE COMPENSATION INS. AON, INC. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WEST COAST APPRAISAL DAN BUCHANAN DESCRIPTION CODE ENFORCEMENT INTERN, 8/26-9/8/95 FLOOR COVERING FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY BUILDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE, AUG.1995 10$ RETENTION FOR REHABILITATION WORK AT 22381 VAN BUREN GRANT FOR F/Y 1995/1996 APPRAISAL AT 21815 VAN BUREN STIPENDS FOR SEPT. 1995 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR SEPT. 1995 DANGERNMOND'S NURSERY NURSERY SUPPLIES FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY BUILDING DAGOSTINO ENGINEERING PROGRESS PAYMENT, SURVEY AT 22381 VIVIENDA EDEN SYSTEMS FIRST PAYMENT FOR UPGRADE OF ACCOUNTING/PAYROLL SYSTEMS HERMAN HILKEY STIPENDS FOR SEPT. 1995 AMOUNT $ 280.80 3,987.00 187.91 495.00 7,500.00 300.00 150.00 150.00 90.51 1,700.00 12,710.00 150.00 3 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELQPMENT AGENCY 1 DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO.101295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: OCTOBER 12, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK NO. VENDOR P10698 ALISA FLANN P10705 HALLY CAPPIELLO P10724 PURE DESIGN P10726 HALLY CAPPIELLO P10727 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 32037 VIRGIL BARHAM 32039 BURTRONICS 32049 GOFORTH & MARTI 32053 HALLMARK COMMUNICATIONS 32060 KEENEY & SON 32075 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 32081 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY DESCRIPTION BIRTHDAY BONUS CODE ENFORCEMENT INTERN,9/9-9/22/95 WINDOW COVERING FOR BUILDING/SAFETY BUILDING BIRTHDAY BONUS HEALTH INSURANCE FOR OCT.1995 AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR OCTOBER,1995 PURCHASE RISOGRAPH COPIER OFFICE SUPPLIES WIRING, BUILDING/SAFETY BUILDING CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVE APPROACH ON BARTON ROAD IN FRONT OF PURE DESIGN AUDIT CONFIRMATION,PROPERTY TAXES ELECTRIC FOR BUILDING/SAFETY AND TWO HOMES UNDER REHABILITATION PROGRAM AMOUNT $ 27.50 212.16 775.00 50.00 453.24 137.50 13,463.36 37.24 643.19 3,024.00 45.00 139.73 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM (X) COUNCIL ITEM ( ) MEETING DATE: October 12, 1995 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X In past years Government Code required the Agency Treasurer to render to the governing body an Annual Statement of Investment Policy. This code has sunset and it is no longer a requirement. However, Staff feels that it is still a good practice to bring the policy before the Agency each year in view of the ever changing economic and investment climate. The policy was revised in 1992 after a sub -committee was appointed to study the Agency's investment policy. At that time the policy was revised to increase the level of safety in the investment of Agency funds, with an emphasis on prohibition of outside investment advisers and the utilization of our own bank which eliminated the use of unknown third parties in transactions. The policy was reviewed at the September 14, 1995 meeting and board members expressed their concerns about the investment policy. Staff has reviewed and clarified all items of concern and revised the investment policy in a pattern after the model investment policy of the Municipal Treasurer's Association. Staff Recommends that: The Agency adopt the attached investment policy for the Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Grand Terrace. C R A AGENDA ITEM N0.3 Redevelopment Agency of the City OF GRAND TERRACE INVESTMENT POLICY 3. YIELD: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and the cash flow AW characteristics of the portfolio. 5.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Authority to manage the investment of surplus funds is derived from California Government Code 53601, et seq. Management of Bond Funds is controlled be Government Code 5922(d) and such investments must conform to the requirements of the bond indenture. In some cases, it may be appropriate for investment of bond proceeds to cover a longer duration than those limits established for surplus(operating) funds. Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the Treasurer, who shall establish procedures and operate the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures may include, but not limited to, references to: safekeeping, PSA repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements and banking services contracts, as appropriate. Treasurer may delegate authority to subordinates for day to day investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the treasurer. 6.0 ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. 7.0 AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEALERS The Agency will prohibit the utilization of outside investment advisors. The Treasurer may select any financial institution/ broker/dealer, selected by credit worthiness, who are authorized to provide investment services in the State of California. -2- Redevelopment Agency of the City OF GRAND TERRACE INVESTMENT POLICY H. MUTUAL FUNDS, issued by diversified management companies as defined by Section 23701m of the Revenue and Taxation Code, provided that the portfolio of such investment company or investment trust is limited to U.S. government obligations or agencies of the federal government and repurchase agreements fully collateralized by such securities. 9.0 COLLATERALIZATION: All certificates of deposit must be collateralized by U.S. Treasury obligations held by a third party. The Treasurer my waive this requirement up to the amount already insured by federal or state deposit insurance. 10. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY: All securities purchased from broker/dealers shall be conducted on a delivery VS. payment (DVP) basis and shall be held by a third party custodian designated by the Treasurer and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. This would not apply to any book -entry direct purchases. The current designated safekeeper is the Trust Department of Bank of America. 11. DIVERSIFICATION: The Redevelopment Agency will diversify its investments by security type and institution. 12. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION: The Investment Policy shall be approved by the Agency Board and adopted by resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace. Thomas Schwab, Agency Treasurer Date -4- DEFINITIONS - PAGE 2 securities generally trade with minimum amounts of $1 million per trade with the average trade in the secondary market of $5 million. BANKERS ACCEPTANCES are short-term credit arrangements to enable businesses to obtain funds to finance commercial transactions. They are time drafts drawn on a bank by an exporter or importer to obtain funds to pay for specific merchandise. By its acceptance, the bank becomes primarily liable for the payment of the draft at maturity. An acceptance is a high grade negotiable instrument. Acceptances are purchased in various denominations for 30 to 180 days but no longer 410 than 270 days. The interest is calculated on a 360 day discount basis similar to Treasury Bills. Local Agencies can not invest more than forty per cent of their surplus money in Bankers Acceptances. COMMERCIAL PAPER is a short term unsecured promissory note issued by a corporation to raise working capital. These negotiable instruments may be purchased at a discount to par value or interest bearing. Commercial paper is issued by corporations such as General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), Shearson - American Express, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, et cetera. Local agencies are permitted by state law to invest in commercial paper of "prime" quality of the highest ranking or of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided by Moody's Investor's Service, Inc. or Standard and Pooes Corporation. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 180 days maturity nor exceed fifteen per cent of the local agency's surplus funds. An additional fifteen per cent (for a total of 30%) can be invested in Commercial Paper provided the average maturity of invested funds in commercial paper does not exceed 30 days. MEDIUM TERM CORPORATE NOTES are unsecured promissory notes issued by a corporation organized and operating in the United States. These are negotiable instruments and are traded in the secondary market. Medium Term Corporate Notes (MTN) can be defined as extended maturity commercial paper. Corporations use these MTN's to raise capital. Examples of MTN issuers are General Electric, GMAC, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, etcetera. Local agencies are restricted by the Government Code to investments in corporations rated in the top three note categories by a single nationally -recognized rating service. Further restrictions are a maximum term of five years to maturity and total investments in Medium Term Corporate Notes may not exceed thirty per cent of the local agency's surplus money. REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS are short term investment transactions. Banks buy temporarily idle funds from a customer by selling him U.S. Government or other securities with a contractual agreement to repurchase the same securities on a future date. Repurchase agreements are typically for one to ten days in maturity. The customer receives interest from the bank. The interest rate reflects both the prevailing demand for Federal Funds and the maturity of the REPO. Some banks will execute repurchase agreements for a minimum of $100,000, but most banks have a minimum of $500,000. A reverse -repurchase agreement (reverse -repo) is exactly what the name implies. DATE: October 5, 1995 STAFF REPORT 460 CRA ITEM (XX) COUNCIL ITEM ( ) MEETING DATE: October 12, 1995 SUBJECT: LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOMA LINDA RONALD MC DONALD HOUSE FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED The Southern California Children's Cancer Services, a nonprofit corporation, is currently constructing the third Ronald McDonald House in Southern California. To date, there are Ronald McDonald Houses located in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. This temporary housing is for the families of children who are critically or terminally ill, as well as children who are undergoing cancer treatment. It has been determined that the majority of individuals to be served by this facility would be eligible under guidelines set for our Low and Moderate Income Housing Program. In addition, the City Attorney has indicated that contributions to the construction of this project would be an eligible cost of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Program. Through corporate and private donations, the Ronald Mc Donald House has raised approximately $3 million of the $3.5 million needed for construction of this facility. The project is already under construction with a proposed opening date set in the summer of 1996. The Mayor and I met with the Chief Surgeon of Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, and were given a tour of the hospital. We were made aware of the need for such a facility in our area. A folder with information on the Ronald McDonald House is in your Council packet. At this time, the Community Redevelopment Agency is proposing to be a major donor, and proposes to allocate $25,000 for sponsoring a permanent room in the Ronald McDonald House in the name of the City of Grand Terrace. The CRA has a current balance of over $2 million in the Housing Set -Aside Fund. An annual tax increment of $600,000 is added to that each year. C R A AGENDA ITEM NO, 4 PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:092895 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P10658 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/8/95 $ 1,464.65 P10659 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/8/95 190.98 P10660 COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/8/95 374.87 P10661 IRVINE MARRIOTT RESERVATIONS, CRIME PREVENTION SEMINAR 255.96 P10662 1995 CCPOA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION, CRIME PREVENTION SEMINAR 120.00 P10663 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/11/95 262.15 P10664 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/11/95 50.06 n P10665 C COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/11/95 111.57 - P10666 (_ LARRY MAINEZ PLANNING TECHNICIAN, 8/28-9/8/95 418.46 P' P10668 a VANIR PRINT CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATIONS 428.87 P10669, PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY CASH, CHILD CARE 335.72 P10670 RALLY CAPPIELLO HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM INTERN,8/26-9/8/95 136.00 P10671 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/12/95 912.98 P10672 r*k SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/12/95 129.22 P10673 COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/12/95 152.09 I CITY OF GRAND TERRACE r DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO: 092895 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P10692 CIRCUIT CITY PHONE RECORDER, CHILD CARE $ 100.77 P10693 DENNICE PRECIE REPLACE LOST CHECK 98.79 31950 A & A PRODUCE PRODUCE FOR CHILD CARE 109.55 31951 AT & T PHONES FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 20.17 31952 ACCENT PRINT & DESIGN PRINT SENIOR NEWSLETTERS, RECREATION FLYERS, AND BROCHURES 669.92 31953 MATTHEW ADDINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 9/7/95 50.00 31954 ALL STATE LIFE INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE, H.HILKEY (6 MONTHS) 900.00 -31955 AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR COURSE, RECREATION SUMMER PROGRAM 205.00 31956 ASCOM RENT MAIL METER, OCT,1995-JAN.1996 146.27 31957 DAN BUCHANAN STIPENDS FOR SEPT. 1995 300.00 31958 HALLY CAPPIELLO DESIGN LOGO, TOUR DE TERRACE 125.00 31959 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR SEPT. 1995 300.00 31960 CHEM-LITE INDUSTRIES JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, CIVIC CENTER 191.80 31961 CITY OF COLTON WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICE,SEPT.1995 50,872.79 7 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:092895 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK NO, VENDOR DESCRIPTION 31980 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORP. BAKERY GOODS FOR CHILD CARE 31981 KRAFT FOOD SERVICE FOOD FOR CHILD CARE 31982 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS PROGRAM SUPPLIES, CHILD CARE 31983 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES REGISTRATION FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE 31984 LITTLE RED SCHOOL HOUSE PROGRAM SUPPLIES,RECREATION 31985 LARRY MAINEZ DESIGN LOGO, TOUR DE TERRACE 31986 METLIFE LIFE INSURANCE FOR OCT.1995 31987 METROPOLITAN LIFE LIFE INSURANCE FOR OCT. 1995 31988 METROCALL PAGER/AIRTIME 31989 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR SEPT.1995 31990 RAY MUNSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 9/7/95 31991 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY PROGRAM SUPPLIES, CHILD CARE 31992 PACIFIC BELL PHONES FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 31993 PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY'CASH/GENERAL, FINANCE DEPT. 31994 KATHY PIERSON INSTRUCTOR, TINY TUMBLERS/GYMNASTICS AMOUNT $ 118.05 716.49 616.75 1,365.00 147.47 125.00 290.95 552.50 74.65 300.00 50.00 139.90 561.31 177.64 632.00 7 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:092895 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 CHECK NO. VENDOR 32009 VISA 32010 WAXIE 32011 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS 32012 WEST PUBLISHING 32013 WESTEC SECURITY.INC. 32014 DOUG WILSON 32015 YOSEMITE WATERS DESCRIPTION LODGING/AIR FARE FOR LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONFERENCE, MEETINGS/CRIME PREVENTION AND COLTON, AND SUPPLIES FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FOR CHILD CARE PEST CONTROL FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES CALIFORNIA CODE UPDATES SECURITY FOR CHILD CARE BUILDING,OCT-DEC.1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 9/7/95 BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES PAYROLL FOR AUGUST, 1995 TOTAL: AMOUNT $ 1,629.34 244.90 145.00 29.03 426.00 50.00 144.10 128,684.96 $320,508.91 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 7 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FI DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:101295 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P10695 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/20/95 $ 4.96 P10696 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/20/95 10.39 P10697 BETTY TRIMBLE BIRTHDAY BONUS 50.00 P10698 ALISA FLANN BIRTHDAY BONUS 22.50 P10699 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ADJUSTMENT TO 1992 YEAR END PAYROLL TAXES 117.67 P10700 BETTY TRIMBLE PAYROLL ADVANCE,9/22/95 1,329.75 P10701 ELIZABETH DUARTE PAYROLL ADVANCE,9/22/95 1,060.17 P10702 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/22/95 431.49 P10703 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/22/95 81.26 P10704 COMCAST CABLEVISION CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/22/95 218.89 P10706 LARRY MAINEZ PLANNING TECHNICIAN,9/9-9/22/95 478.24 P10707 ANDREA GORDESKY BIRTHDAY BONUS 50.00 P10708 ROSA HERNANDEZ BIRTHDAY BONUS 50.00 P10709 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINGERPRINTING PROCESS, CHILD CARE 67.00 P10710 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/26/95 367.74 0 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 3 DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO: 101295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 32018 STEPHEN D. CUMMINGS 18 PAGE EXTRACT OF THE INLAND EMPIRE ABSTRACT 1995-96, PLANNING DEPARTMENT $ 6.50 32019 AMERICAN NAILS REFUND FOR TEMPORARY BANNER 50.00 32020 JOSOM OZYP REALTY REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 65.00 32021 SYLVIA RENDLEMAN REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 2.00 32022 CAROL DAYTON REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 12.00 32023 DOUGLAS/EDITH DEMING REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 7.20 32024 DAN BAILEY REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 6.40 _32025 CYNTHIA WILLIAMS REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 1.60 32026 JOHN SMEDLEY REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 6.00 32027 DISCOUNT BROKER REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 2.00 32028 BLAKELY REAL ESTATE REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 12.00 32029 LOIS LAUER REALTY REFUND, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 12.00 32030 A & A PRODUCE PRODUCE, CHILD CARE 112.95 32031 AT & T GLOBAL PHONES FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 10.08 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 5 DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:101295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 32048 KAREN GERBER MONITOR, RECREATION PROGRAMS/REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOCAL MILEAGE $ 49.78 32049 GOFORTH & MARTI OFFICE SUPPLIES 372.85 32050 GOPHER SPORTS RECREATION PROGRAM SUPPLIES 29.54 32051 GOVERNMENT FINANCE ASSOC. LITERATURE, RETIREMENT PLANNING 27.93 32053 HELMAN'S SPORTS AWARDS, SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL 119.47 32054 F.W.HOFFMEISTER REPAIR BLOCK WALL, BARTON ROAD 2,160.00 32055 HONDA OF REDLANDS REPAIR HONDA LAWNMOWER 141.57 32056 HONEYWELL, INC. MAINTENANCE OF HVAC UNIT, OCT.1995 1,114.16 32057 MOIRE HUSS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,9/21/95 50.00 32058 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORP. BAKERY GOODS, CHILD CARE 72.73 32059 JANI KING-COLTON JANITORIAL SERVICES, CHILD CARE,OCT.1995 759.00 32061 LELAND NURSERY NURSERY SUPPLIES FOR CIVIC CENTER 89.11 32062 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION PLANNING GUIDE BOOKS 135.93 32063 MARTIN INDUSTRIES SAFETY MATERIALS, CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 549.53 IM 0 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 7 DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK REGISTER NO:101295 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHECK NO, VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 32078 THOMAS SCHWAB AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR OCT.1995 $ 200.00 32079 SECURITY DATA GROUP SECURITY SERVICES,CIVIC CENTER,OCT,.-DEC,1995 75.00 32080 JIM SIMS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,9/21/95 50.00 32081 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY ELECTRIC FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES,PARKS, SIGNALS, AND MERIDIANS 11,174.28 32082 SPEEDY LUBE SERVICE CITY TRUCK 24.69 32083 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES 331.96 32084 SYSCO FOOD, CHILD CARE 624.66 32085 TEXACO REFINING/MARKETING FUEL FOR CITY TRUCKS/EQUIPMENT 323.45 32086 THOMAS,BIGBIE & SMITH PROGRESS PAYMENT FOR 1994/95 AUDIT 5,000.00 32087 MICHAEL TODD OPEN/CLOSE PICO PARK,SEPT.1995 180.00 32088 TRAFFIC SPECIALTIES,INC. SPRAY CHALK FOR TOUR -DE -TERRACE 37.50 32089 FRAN VAN GELDER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,9/21/95 50.00 32090 WILBERS REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 200.31 32092 YOSEMITE WATERS BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 194.55 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PENDING CITY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVAL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING SE MBER 14 1995 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 September 14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Byron R. Matteson, Mayor Gene Carlstrom, Mayor Pro Tem Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Dan Buchanan, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager John Donlevy, Assistant City Manager Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Bernard Simon, Finance Director Lt. Kyritsis, Sheriff's Department Jim Winkler, Law Offices of Harper & Burns ABSENT: Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church of Grand Terrace, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Richard Chilton. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6:20 P.M. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. Presentation to Richard Chilton Mayor Matteson presented Richard Chilton with a plaque for six years of outstanding service as District Manager for Loma Linda Disposal September 1989 - August 1995. Richard Chilton, thanked the Council and staff and citizens of Grand Terrace. 2B. Commendation - Eagle Scout David Featherstone Mayor Matteson read and presented Eagle Scout David Featherstone with a commendation for earning the highest rank obtainable in the Boy Scouts of America. CONSENT CALENDAR COUNCIL AGENDA fTSM #` JD Council Minutes 09/14/95 Page 3 throughout the City. He reported that there will be an election probably in March to vote on a Grand Terrace Unified School District PUBLIC HEARING 8A. An Ordinance Adopting Amendment Z-95-03 and Associated Negative Declaration. E-95-07, for Amendment to the Municipal Code Chapter 5 06 Home Occupation Permit Procedures and Criteria CC-95-120 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to continue the first reading of an Ordinance Adopting Amendment, Z-95-03, and Associated Negative Declaration, E-95-07, for Amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 5.06, Home Occupation Permit Procedures and Criteria until the City Council meeting scheduled for October 12, 1995. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A. Second Reading of an Ordinance 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 4 Industrial Districts: Chapters 18.63 and 18.76. CC-95-121 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the Second Reading of an Ordinance 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 18.76. 7B. Second Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Amendment to the Contract Between the City Council and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System CC-95-122 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Second Reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Amendment to the Contract Between the City Council and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System NEW BUSINESS 8A. Consider Reducing Planning Commission Membership from 7 members to 5 CC-95-123 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM Council Minutes 09/14/95 Page 5 Collect, develop own data to prove that we are meeting City's housing needs and be able to certify our own element. Include a sociological statement into the Housing Element that reflects the current condition of the community and its characteristics which minimize demand to support low and very low cost housing (i.e. geographic location, nature of work force, no heavy industrial employers, etc.) Emphasize code enforcement to protect and enhance existing stock. Promote housing beautification through annual or semi-annual residential awards program. Reach a housing jobs balance within 20 years. The objective here is to strengthen our community by having more people working in Grand Terrace, shopping and surveilling our streets during the day, while not necessarily stop being a "dormitory city". Introduce concept of commercial/residential mixed use areas. Note: Current Housing Element data is obsolete. New data collection and determination of our share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is to be developed by Housing Consultant, using computer technology. Land Use Element Develop a "phase 2" Barton Road Specific Plan An implementation tool based on updated marketing analysis, contact with business community and specific master planning for long narrow lots, possibly incorporate option for smaller lots besides lot consolidation. Plan to incorporate a public plaza area and possible mixed use commercial/residential concept. Principles of Barton Road Specific Plan to be emphasized and implemented -that is to create a feasible village commercial and pedestrian -oriented downtown for Grand Terrace. Incorporate "Land Use Strategies for more livable cities" wherever possible. That is to locate as many activities as possible within walking distance and/or accessable to multi - modal access points to discourage emphasis of car on daily basis. Emphasize commercial uses which are neighborhood -oriented community -oriented services first; then services of sub -regional or regional nature. Develop zoning tools for development of industrial area, i.e. Industrial Business Park Specific Plan, Transitional Multi -Family or other zoning buffer area, better circulation and access. Identify land for family recreational purposes. No other proposals for site specific or area re -zoning at this time, with exception of Specific Plan to discourage development of Blue Mountain. General Plan Task Force Member Lee Ann Garcia,22997 Jenson Court, Grand Terrace reported on the Open Space Element and Urban Design Element. She placed emphasis on landscaping and streetscape improvements and indicated that she would like to see Council Minutes 09/ 14/95 Page 7 Increase of Regional and Sub -regional traffic through Grand Terrace is to be dispersed through our major arterials to the freeway without increase of speed on our road and not to disrupt residential neighborhoods. Proposal for a new freeway access at Iowa to be re-evaluated, and lobbying efforts be recognized. In case not feasible in the short run, along with the construction of Commerce Way, consider transforming Michigan into a major business park/industrW access road. Our Industrial Business Park needs infrastructure to be possible. Improvement of several intersections and links within the City, including but not restricted to widening Barton Road Bridge, Michigan and Barton intersection, Barton Road ingress and egress into Bank of America, Barton and La Cadena, and Barton Road and Palm area, etc. Several actions were proposed. In case of Barton/Michigan intersection, an offramp connecting directly onto Commerce Way is being considered. None of the circulation improvements proposed are to increase speeds but to alleviate congestion and increase safety, keeping service levels (LOS) at C. Many actions added to implement a multi -model transportation system, from pursuing funding for bike trails, transit stations, installation of Dial -A -Ride service for all citizens to continue support for community shuttle and means of connecting residents with other Sub -regional Transportation Systems. Develop studies and cooperative agreements with adjacent jurisdictions on vital thoroughfares such as Mt. Vernon, La Cadena, etc. Pursue transportation funding and develop Traffic Impact Fee to help pay for needed improvements. General Plan Task Force Member Phyliss Sternberg, 12161 Dos Rios, Grand Terrace, reported on Air Quality and the Safety Element. She placed emphasis on child safety and pedestrian and bike trails throughout the City. Safety Element Emphasis on maintain low crime city -a place for families and a friendly atmosphere. Consistency with crime prevention program is strongly recommended, with emphasis on Neighborhood Watch Program and educational outreach programs to residential and business community. Several "manmade" hazards were of concern to the Task Force going back into circulation, traffic, maintenance of roads including stabilization of Mt. Vernon hillside, and the creation of a safety plan for school children. The plan to include identification, together with the Grand Terrace schools, of street improvements to be done such as street widening, continuous sidewalks, crosswalks, etc... to ensure school children safety in Grand Terrace. Development of a drainage Master Plan consistent with National Standards of NPDES. Council Minutes 09/14/95 Page 9 be done to get the residents to shop in Grand Terrace. Mayor Pro Tem Carsltrom, stated that he feels that the biggest problem with the Barton Road Specific Plan is that it encompasses what is not pertinent to the development of Barton Road. He feels that Barton Road will never be developed commercially only and part of the lots on Barton Road should maybe be split in half and turned into residential areas which will be easier to market. General Plan Task Force Member Phyliss Sternberg, stated that one of the complaints that she has is that there is no money so big developers don't want to come to small areas. They want to go where the other big developers are going. Only the little businesses are going to come to Grand Terrace because commercial loans are hard to get. You are lucky if you can get 50% of your loan at a high interest. Cities need to look at ways to make the City appealing without the big developers. She referred to the idea of having a big park in the middle of Barton Road that everyone could benefit from. Also included would be smaller parcels that businesses could be built on and a public gathering place for children and seniors. All businesses would be related to children to serve all children's needs such as doctors, toys, restaurants, etc. Commercial facing Barton Road and the Park and Senior housing in the back. Senior housing that can be purchased by seniors themselves. She suggested that they think about what is in town how much money could be brought in and invested into those smaller parcels by people like her and others in the community. Councilmember Singley, requested that the Task Force et together and put all of g g p these ideas together and revise the Barton Road Specific Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Carlstrom, stated that the City has implemented many things, and that Senior Housing is a very important issue. He feels that Senior Housing would be a real benefit to our community. He expressed his concern with some of the run down houses in the area that don't qualify to be purchased by the Community Redevelopment Agency and feels that there should be a program that could help to bring these homes back up to par to keep the property values up. Councilmember Hilkey, stated that the split of the 600 foot lots would be something to look into. Councilmember Single, stated that the Safety Element only addresses geographic concerns and very little in fire protection and law enforcenment and suggested that the task force get with the Sheriffs Department and California Department of Forestry and development some plans to provide for adequate public safety for the future of the City. Councilmember Buchanan, reported on Infrastructure stating again that we should set a meaningful goal and avoid diverging issues. He stated that transportation issues are no longer local issues, they are regional issues. He expressed his concern in puting alot of emphasis on an element that can't and won't be achieved. He stated that he would like to see a very realistic look be taken at alternative transportation issues. Bicycle and Pedestrian circulation need to be looked at and realisticly it has to be focused on particular areas, for example, some areas of our City are too steep for bicycles. Public STAFF REPORT DATE: October 5, 1995 CRA ITEM () COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: October 12, 1995 016, SUBJECT: DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM IM On September 30, 1995 our Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program expired. In order to be a recipient of Department of Transportation funds and subsequent to title 49 CFR, Part 23, the City must annually adopt this program. See attached letter from the Department of Transportation and goals to be published. STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL: ADOPT A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NEXT YEAR'S GOALS IN BOTH MINORITY AND MAJORITY MEDIA WITH A 45-DAY COMMENT PERIOD. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #,3 E 22795 Barton Road AGrand Terrace wfornia 92324-5295 Civic Center (909)824-6621 Fax (909)783-76'_9 Citv Clerk's Department 11 NOTICE OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) GOALS AND RIGHT OF PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the public that: 1. The City of Grand Terrace has heretofore adopted major project DBE overall goals of 10% for the period of October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, consisting of utilizing minority business enterprises in all aspects of contracting to the maximum extent feasible and committing itself to substantially increase minority business utilization. These goals further include insuring that the City of Grand Terrace, its contractors and subcontractors, which are recipients of federal aid funds, agree to provide minority business enterprises with the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts and a commitments by the City of Grand Terrace on all its contracts and subcontractors to take all reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 23 to insure that minority business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. 2. The public may inspect the goals and description of how they were set at City Hall, City Clerk's Department 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA, for a period of 30 days from the date that this notice is first published. 3. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the City of Grand Terrace will accept comments on the said goals for 45 days from the date that this notice is first published and said comments shall be considered to be for informational purposes only. 4. In addition to the foregoing, interested minority and majority contractor organizations, upon request, shall receive a direct mailing of the complete program with a request that they provide written comments to the City of Grand Terrace on this program. Brenda Stanfill City Clerk Liaison Officer CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECEIVED CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting MINUTES CITY CLERK'S DEPT. V August 14, 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 03 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 and also Alternate Member Mike Fasenmyer MEMBERS ABSENT - None. CITY STAFF -Tonya Nelson, Community Services Officer was on vacation. GUESTS PRESENT- Robert Stewart, Citizen Patrol member and prospective Crime Prevention Committee member AGENDA was approved with the motion by Harold Lord and second by Bitsy Miller, with the addition of item under New Business A. Visitors time limit. MINUTES of July I Oth were approved as written with a motion by Dottie Rabom and second by Harold Lord. PUBLIC COMMENT - None CORRESPONDENCE - None BUDGET - No report since Tonya Nelson was on vacation. REPORTS, a. Law Enforcement Activity report by Bitsy Miller Maps have been modified and will be updated weekly with a total of eight weeks activity shown and the most recent week shown in red. One night of rampage including numerous slashed tires and other vandalism. b ✓like Fasenmyer related an incident that had happened in his neighborhood involving a stolen vehicle Inspection of the map showed that incident and another related one. c. Bitsy continued her report and said that she was making more detailed research on city boundaries to improve the map She also invited any suggestions to improve the maps. d. There was no specific report on Citizen Patrol. e CSO report was a written one and included two past events *July 18th a Neighborhood Watch Program at 12420 Mt Vernon *July 29th a wish to set up a booth at Stater Brothers for fingerprinting and recruiting for Citizen Patrol. This event did not happen. *and this quote "I am working on recruiting more volunteers to cover the shifts and duties. Along with Neighborhood Watch Programs I will be working hard at recruiting." and also, "I would like to begin setting up events for Red Ribbon Week in October " COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #t5� 1a N EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C1TY OF GRAND TERRACE RECEIVED JULY i s,1995 M] NUTES :ITY CLERK'S DEPT. CALL TO ORDER; The meeting was called to order by John Donlevy at 6:00 p.nL APPROVAL OF NIE UTES: None approved. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vic Pfenmghausen, Darla Wertz, Eileen Hodder, Jim Monroe, and Tim Hodder GUESTS PRESENT: Michelle Devoux COUNCII. LIAISON REPORT: 1. John presented Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) training, This included an introduction to SEMS, mutual aid, multi -hazard preparedness, and organizational issues within the city. A video on mutual aid was also viewed. Z. There was a discussion concerning the situation room during emergency responses. John related that building 3 was not going to be large enough for the mph-ed personnel- The community room in City Had is being considered. EQUIPMENT/FACU TY REPORT: None reported COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #5,A 20 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C1TY OF GRAND TERRACE AMW 15,1995 4 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting ass called to order by Guy Eldridga st 7.12 p. m. APPROVAL OF MIIVM& Mmutes of the June 20, 1995 meeting w= approved as read. Mmutes of the July 18,1995 meeting were approved with taro caosrecdons. RECEIV,x, 9 Sr, CITY CLERK'S DEPT. 4 Vua Pf , *&-sop, Dark Werra, Eileen Hodder, Frank W$sogq and Tim Hodder John Donlevy, Mchdk Devam COUNCIL LIAWN REPORT: 1. Johu l eported thrt job desaiptioen hid been ordered fir each of the SEMS positions. These will be costamed m the "offce m a box" kib. 'Framing wiU be gr*= as soon a ,dw 10 beaten are assembled. b taml training is pls m d for September wit a mock ciissrtar 12 1 of for October. This wdl include City Staff IL j 1. Afl equipment is fnctiawing propedy. 2. New telephone cables Bon the City Hail termer to the new burg we being insta8ed. The new system wig have an emergency battery backup. HISTORICAL & CULTDURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 1995 RECEIVED �ITY CLERK'S DEPfi, The meeting on September 5th, 1995, was called to order by Chairman Vi Gratson at 7:05 PM. Those present were Ann Petta, thw Colleen Edmundson, Pauline Grant, Irene Mason, Vi, Judy McBride John Donlevy, and Hannah Laister. John presented and old 1946 map owned by James Harton who has loaned us this map to make copies of the portions we would like to have. The Secretary's report was read and approved on motion by Ann, seconded by Colleen, all in favor. There was no Treasurer's report; however the balance is $1250.00 plus the $755.12 which was carried over from last year. John turned over 5 completed tapes at a cost of $7 per page or a total of $476.00. Since there are a total of 19 tapes, we will have to ask the City Couoncil for money to finish this project. 8 tapes have been done, 5 completed. Yolanda has submitted an invoice. Gladys Bader transcribed her own tape for us. Ann made a motion to pay Yolanda's invoice, sesconded by Judy, all in favor. Ann hopes to have tapes completed in a couple of months. Ann gave the Weaver, Bader, Dodson tapes to Vi for storage. Ann brouoght in some maps made in 1989 by the Chamber of Commerce showing the businesses in Grand Terrace. These are not an accurate presentation, but an advertising gimmick. Country Fair: Flyers are ready for mailing and have been mailed. The Lion's are having their Pot of Gold affair on the same day but the Woman's Club will hold their barbecue. Birthday Party: This will be December 14th. Ann received a call from the Drug Abuse program about their women attending. This was discussed. Judy suggested that there must be some other way to do this party as it is so early that a lot of people cannot attend. John suggested a time change in the Council meeting for this one day to 8 PM, with party beginning at 6:30. This will be discussed further. The Volunteer picnic will be October 14th. The next meeting will be October 2nd. There was no new business. The meeting was adjourned at 8 PM. Respectfully submitted, COUNCIL AGENDA'rTSM 85A3a Community Development Department --- - - - --••i k ) wutvLiL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED __ SUBJECT: Z-95-03 and E-95-07. An Application for Amendment to the Mu nicipal Code, Chapter 5.06, Home Occupation Permit procedures and Approval Criteria to Provide more Fleidbility to Small Home Businesses while Protecting the Character of the Neighborhoods. LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance and Respective Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION 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. • Home Occupations for car repairs and others that included employees, sub -contractors and clients going to the residence have created serious neighborhood code enforcement situations. • Many small family landscaping businesses are not able to receive a City business license due to strict Home Occupation Permit regulations. 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 employees, sub -contractors or sub - consultants provided there is no traffic to the residence; 2. Supported the elimination of certain types of Home Occupations such as car repairs and beauty salons. 3 • Denied staff s proposal of stricter rules for reviews of those Home Occupation Permits with sub-contractors/sub-consultants. As a safety measure, staff proposes re-evaluation of Home Occupations with consultants (defined as HOPS Type m after one year of staff operation to avoid possible negative impacts on the neighborhood. As approved by the Planning Commission will only be able to address negative neighborhood impacts of Home Occupation Permit upon a citizen complaint. Staff proposal consists of a preventive approach to avoid later needs for implementation of code enforcement procedures. The City Council, at its meeting of August 24, 1995, continued this proposal to allow City Council members to give input, and time to review City Attorney's revised ordinance. At this time staff brings back the Ordinance, incorporating all revisions requested, for your consideration and public hearing. Please refer to Ordinance, Attachment A. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 9231 CdWd1t9AdtWA rrr=m a I o 1� U9 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. RECITALS 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 Municipal Code Amendment for purposes of relaxing restrictions on sub -contractors and also to prohibit Home Occupations which have negative impact on the environment. 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 firms, 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; and 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, whether or not the employees (sub-contractors/sub-consultants) come to the home 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, car repair and other similar 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. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Attachment A the residence is used only for bookkeeping and all business activities with personal contact with clients and or patients are done at different location. e) Other similar nature businesses found compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood as determined by the Community Development Director. 5.06.O10b Home Occupations Prohibited The following home occupations are expressly prohibited in any residential zone; a) Beauty shops, massage parlors, private clubs, dance studios and dating services; Ao b) The repair or construction of motor vehicles and appliances, machine shops and cabinet shops; and c) On -premises sales and vending. 5.06.010c Definitions. Type I HOP - Home occupations with no employees, sub -contractors or sub - consultants. Type II HOP - Home Occupation with employees, sub -contractors and/or sub - consultants who do not work in the authorized premise. 5.06.020 Community Development Director or his/her designee Duties The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall review and act upon requests for home occupation permits. (Ord. 105 1(part), 1986). 5.06.030 Application. Items to be submitted for a Home Occupation Permit shall include all information appropriate to evaluate application and its potential impact on the neighborhood as prescribed by the Community Development Director. Application to contain certification that applicant follows requirements or conditions of approval of permit. *Refer to HOP application. 5.06.040 Criteria for Approval Prior to approving a request for a Home Occupation Permit, the Community Development Director or his/her designee shall fmd that the proposed use meets the following criteria: A. Only those members of the household who also reside on the premises may perform work at the subject Home Occupation premises. Non-residents associated with the subject HOP may not perform any duties or services on the premises subject to the Home Occupation Permit. B. There shall 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 formally adopted by the Planning Commission. k] A. "Contiguous property", for the purposes of this chapter, is defined as those properties which touch property lines of any parcel that is the subject of a request for a home occupation permit, including those properties which touch the property lines of the subject parcel when projected across public or private rights -of -way or easements. B. Notice shall be given by first class mail or delivery to all contiguous property owners for home occupation permits. to 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 Denv Fourteen days after giving notice to contiguous property owners, the Community Development Director or his/her designee shall review the initial findings and notify the Applicant and contiguous property owners of his/her decision. 5.06.070 Noncompliance with conditions The Community Development Director or his/her designee may 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/or Permittee or affected property owner to the Planning Commission. Such an appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Department within ten (10) days after notice of the decision to deny or grant the application for the Home Occupation Permit or revoke an existing Home Occupation Permit. Upon the receipt of such an appeal, the Community Development Director shall place the matter for consideration on the Planning Commission agenda of the next 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. 5 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 day of 1995, by the following vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper, City Attorney c:\wp51\p1anning\zc\9503.cc3 7 AME.JDED 10-5-95 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY L Backwund 1. Name of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace ?. Address and Phone. Number of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road. --Grand Terrace -C 92324-5295 Attention• Patrizia N4aterassi Planing Director, 714- 24-6621 3. Date of Environmental Assessment: 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: City of grand Terrace r�mE.,U�m�Ni �FffoinE �py7To,7 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 6. Location of Proposal: 14-r 7v j,) i D9- U. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will proposal result in: Yes Mavhe 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? 1 Maybe NO b. Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X 4 d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? C. Discharge. into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? �( f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, crops grass, and aquatic plants)? 3 M Maybe N4 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 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? F MaybeYes N4 a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? Ow e. Storm water drainage? E Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? �( b. Exposure of people to potential hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the Proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? x 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 7 Yes 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 can substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Maybe No 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 described on attached sheets have been added to the project. y 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. Date aLuz"d-Lo( E Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director Signature For City of Grand Terrace BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL VEHICLE POLICY FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS This policy has been established to assist staff in the event an HOP applicant is proposing the use of business and/or commercial vehicles as part of their business activity. It is intended to reduce impacts to residential neighborhoods beyond commercial activity normally associated with residential zones. Business/Commercial vehicles are defined as: I. Vehicles with commercial license plates or used for a commercial purpose, or passenger vehicles associated with HOP business; and II. Vehicles that carry more than 3/4 ton and are not used for the personal daily transportation of the applicant associated with HOP business; or III. Have signs attached to vehicle associated with HOP business; or 4W IV. ALL vehicles carrying above 1 ton, associated with HOP business. The City has developed the following conditions to mitigate any impact on the surrounding neighborhood. These conditions restrict the visual impact of business/commercial vehicles on adjacent properties. 1. Only one (1) business/commercial vehicle is allowed per HOP location provided it is also the applicant's personal transportation. 2. The permitted business/commercial vehicle shall not be parked on the street. It shall be parked on a paved drive approach to a required garage or other permitted driveway only. It is recommended that the business/commercial vehicle be parked inside the garage away from public view. 3. Required storage/parking of the business/commercial vehicle shall not preempt existing parking facilities being personal or guest parking (i.e. parking a personal vehicle on the street or in guest parking space because the business/commercial vehicle took the place of the personal vehicle or is parked in required parking space is not allowed). c.\wp5l\plaomng\poficies\poficy.7-5 Adopted by PC as a policy guidance on September 7, 1995 Attachment B U9 N Associate Planner, Maria Muett, presented the staff report to Commissioners. She e7lained 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 ifthey 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 in'industrial zone damaged by fire. The resident simply wanted to rebuild exactly as structure was prior to the fire or natural disaster. He questioned what "exactly" means. Directorcxplained 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�omment. No public comment. 9:05 p.m. Public hearing closed. MOTION PCM-95-17 Z-95-02/E-95-04 Motion by Commissi to approve. Second by Commissioner Huss. Commissi/sho n suggested that screening of mechanical equipment (i.e. air conditionie handled on an individual case by case basis. Director explained the policy mechanical equipment is currently only in the BRSP. Every other place it is conditions of approval. This current proposal would actually initiate conts. MOTION PCM-95�17 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. 2 _y 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 Ten -ace, Califorj�ra 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, Cormissioner 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 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Li COMMISSION MEETING/SITE AND Attachment C-2 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 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 r 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 )r services on the premises of the HOP. " Seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. Chairmdn 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 carved. 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. 6 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 COM VMSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 61, 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 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 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/�omments 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 :t 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. GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COAEWMION 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 L.eeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moira Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director 4W 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 n ++n r%hmant C`.-d 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 fast 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 Vol 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 4W 5.06.050. The work staff does is ministerial in nature unless complaints are received 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 PCIM-95-28 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Huss with Option #2a & 2c. (Striking #2b.) 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 CITIES COLTON GARDENA CAMARILLO GUSTINE COALINGA MODESTO LOMA LINDA REDLANDS Saar. GRAND TERRACE PROPOSAL SURVEY OF HOP REGULATIONS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PURPOSE: to provide 1) No employees 2) No direct 3) No pedestrian 4) No use of 5) up to 25X or 6) No 7) 8) The 9) No use of 10) No public for commercial uses other than sales of products or vehicular commercial 250sf of outdoor Occupation appearance utilities advertising of associated with a members of the or merchandise; traffic beyond vehicles beyond residence can be storage of to be of beyond that location; no residence with no resident family no customers to that normal in those used for used for HOP materials or confined to residential for use of a local signs alteration of the house residential zones residential uses activity equipment the main structure residential residential character building not to be property Pn'O� (including altered garage) Home occupation to be X X X No use of No more than one X N/A X X X an incidental and commercial roam accessory use vehicles for delivery Nome occupation to be N/A X X N/A No more than one X N/A HOP shall X N/A incidental use A roam not be secondary to the visible from residential use the street City recognizes there Employees must N/A X No use of N/A X X X X X is a need for people reside on commercial to conduct a business premises on a vehicles for from their home; must full time delivery of be incidental i basis; HOP to materials secondary to the terminate if residential use permitee moves Not a right, but a X Exceptions for N/A No trucks or N/A X X X N/A Advertising privilege; hone lessons construction equip services or occupation to provide parked on/near phone 8 by for ancillary uses premises; one media is vehicle permitted permitted, but for delivery address not to be included HOP to be incidental X Allows local M/A 1 truck no more N/A X X X M/A Allows a non - to use of the sales, but than 1 ton and no illuminated structure restricted to semitrailers on nameplate of products of home site not more than occupation 2 sf use must be clearly Must reside on Allows local X No trucks or N/A X X N/A Does not allow incidental and premises on a sales, but construction equip advertising of secondary full time basis restricted to to be parked or sales or products of home stored on premises services occupation (except one) completed on premises; no signs ? X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X Exceptiuns fur ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lessons X X X X X X X X X X X Attachment D �74 SURVEY OF HOP REGULATIONS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITIES HOP's prohibited by Grand Terrace proposal: HOP's allowed,/permitted by Grand Terrace Beauty shops, dance studios, repairs, repair\construction of proposal: vehicles, on premise sales Office uses, crafts, hobbies, services, such as gardening, etc. COLTON N/A N/A GARDENA Real estate, law, insurance, medical offices, beauty shops, Office uses, crafts, hobbies, services, such as dance studios, repairs, repairs/construction of vehicles, on gardening, etc. remise sales CAMARILLO Real estate, law, insurance, medical offices, beauty shops, large family day care dance studios, repairs, repairs\construction of vehicles, on premise sales, work on internal combustion engines, repair plumbing shops, food handling, breeding dogs/cats, landscaping, explosives, food processing, occupations with 3+ commercial vehicles or above 3 tons+ GUSTINE N/A N/A COALINGA Real estate, law, insurance, medical offices, beauty shops, N/A dance studios, repairs, repairs\construction of vehicles, on remise sales MODESTO N/A N/A LOMA LINDA ? ? REDLANDS ? ? GRAND TERRACE X 77 X PROPOSAL 1 LEGEND City regulations include this condition as worded or equivalent to N/A Not applicable/do not have this condition Unknown Community Development Department CRA ITEM () COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: October 12. 1995 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X SUBJECT: Z-95-04 and E-95-10, An Amendment To Revise Residential Parking Regulations in the Municipal Code; Chapters 10 (Sections 10.16.000,10.16.021and 10.16.030) Issue 1. Street Parking and No. of Vehicles Per Household Issue 2. Parking of Commercial Vehicles on Private Property RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Commercial Vehicles Amendment and Request for Guidance on Planning Commission Recommendations Regarding Street Parking Regulations. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW: Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND Issues in question were brought to light due to citizen complaints on Palm Avenue. Staff has worked with the residents for many months and has exhausted all possibilities of resolving the citizens complaints within the parameters of our Code Enforcement and Municipal Code regulations. In consequence, City management requested the Planning Commission to evaluate issues and prepare recommendations to the City Council. At its meetings of September 7 and September 21,1995, the Planning Commission heard the staff reports, input from citizen complaints on street and driveway parking and citizens expressing their opposition to prohibiting passenger and commercial vehicle parking in the residential areas. The following are the recommendations of the Planning Commission to the City Council: 1. Support staffs recommendation of not pursuing prohibition of street parking or overnight parking but to create procedure to punish repetitive violators of street parking regulations; 2. Staff to review Sheriff s contract to evaluate if there are resources for proactive enforcement of the "72hour Abandoned Vehicle Policy"; 3. Staff to review residential area street parking problems resulting from assembly uses; and 4. Amend Grand Terrace Municipal Code to restrict parking of certain commercial vehicles in the frontyards of residential areas. Staff is submitting the Planning Commission recommendations #1, #2 and #3 directly to the City Council for guidance and recommendation #4 in the form of an amendment for approval. 22795 Barton Road •Grand Terrace, Californta 92313-52todWCAM DA ffEM # W1� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,CA. ADOPTING AMENDMENT Z-95-04 REPEALING CHAPTER 10 OF THE GRAND TERRACEMUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A REVISED CHAPTER 10 AND ITS ASSOCIATED NEGAMTDECLARATION(E-95-10) WHEREAS, currently the City has limited regulations as noted in the Municipal Code regarding 4W commercial vehicle parking in the residential districts; WHEREAS, the City has received complaints regarding the parking of commercial vehicles on private property and public streets in the residential areas; and WHEREAS, the complaints are based on the aesthetic impact of commercial vehicles have to the residential areas/streets or front yards; and WHEREAS, the current regulations in the Municipal Code do address the parking of large commercial vehicles on the public streets and limited regulations on private property in residential areas, are noted as Chapter 4.40/4.44(Traffic Signs, Markings, and Parking Citations), Chapter 8 (Nuisance Ordinance and Vehicle Abatement), Chapter 10 (Street Specifics, Weight Limits, 72 hour/Storage, Commercial Vehicles, Permits, Street Cleaning). WHEREAS, the current regulations of the Municipal Code do not address the parking of commercial vehicles in the front yard of residences; and WHEREAS, as a result of complaints and survey results of some commercial vehicles parked on front yards/driveways of residential areas in order to provide some aesthetic relief to the neighborhoods of those areas an amendment with aesthetic and technical mitigation measures is proposed; and WHEREAS, certain types of commercial vehicles will not be allowed to be parked on the front yards of residences in visible view from the street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a discussion meeting reviewed the preliminary proposed Zoning Amendment Z-95-04 at the September 7, 1995 meeting, and at a properly noticed public hearing on September 21,1995. THEREFORE, the Zoning Amendment Z-95-04 proposed includes, clarification of types of commercial vehicles prohibited in residential areas, and clear regulations regarding the parking of commercial vehicles; and WHEREAS, the enforcement of this proposed amendment, Z-95-04, will not take place until 6 months after the adoption date of this ordinance to allow the owners of such vehicles time to find alternatives to comply with the Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been conducted and a Negative Declaration (E-95-10) has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit 1, and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing regarding Z-95-04 and E-95-10 on October 12, 1995; and Attachment A E. That the vehicle and area immediately around it is maintained in a clean and orderly manner without the accumulation of trash or debris thereabouts. The Community Development Director or appointed representative shall have the authority to issue to any person a written parking/L.anduse Permit approval to park or leave standing a commercial vehicle on private property referred to in this chapter upon written application setting forth the reasons therefore Such permit shall be issued for a specified period of time and may be revoked by notice.. in writing, to the applicant. Terms and conditions are to be as are reasonable and necessary to ensure safety of persons and property, and that it will be in the best interest of the neighborhood and will prevent any adverse effect upon persons or property affected thereby. The Community Development Director may issue such permit if the following rindines can be made: A. That good reason exists to park such vehicle upon a prohibited area in that an emergency or unusual circumstance requires the parking of such vehicle upon such area and no other suitable alternative exists; B. That no adjacent properties willbe adversely affected thereby; C. That the parking or storage of the vehicle in the location will not create a hazard to persons, or property ; or create a negative environmental impact. D. That parking or storage of the vehicle in such location will not obstruct nor interfere with visibilityof adjacent properties; E. That the vehicle and area immediately around it is maintained in a clean and orderly manner 4, without the accumulation of trash erg, debris or maintenance/repair work to be allowed thereabouts- F. If the parking of such vehicle is to be on a vacant lot then written permission from respective property owner must be submitted to the City along with a Site and Architectural Reviewm Zoning Code Chapter 18, Section 18.60 (Parking Design). FURTHERMORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: E-95-10, a Negative Declaration prepared for Z-95-045 included herewith as Exhibit A is hereby approved; and SECTION 2: The Grand Terrace Municipal Code is hereby revised for Chapter 10.16, Sections 10. 16.000,10.16.02 land 10. 16.030) which is set out in full, included herewith and is hereby adopted; and SECTION 3: Effective Date - This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 A.M. on the 31st day of its adoption. SECTION 4: Posting - The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. SECTION 5: First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 12th day of October, 1995, and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 26th day of October, 1995. CI' n These trailers (nonmotorized vehicles) are already prohibited from being stored on residential front yards per Zoning Code, Section 18.73.200. 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 92313 Attention: Patrizia Materassi. Community Development Director, 909-824-6621 3. Date of Environmental Assessment: q-1 i -1S 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: QY of Grand Terrace 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Zoning fi aAd en Fqvie - Rwi sa A � %d/ ¢r Jqq r�qlit In e-J!!i! 6. Location of Proposal: .430. G/7y of 6R.41JO TERRAcE H. 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? V b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering / of this soil? V C. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? V Yes Maybe No b. Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or f flow of flood waters? r d. Change in the amount of surface / water in any water body? V e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen / or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or / rate of flow of ground waters? �/ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water f supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 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)? 3 Yes Maw 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 t/ 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 ✓ a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? ✓ C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? ✓ e. Storm water drainage? ✓ f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the _ proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? VA Yes 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 indirectly? Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Maybe 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 described on attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IlOACT REPORT is required. Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director 4. T f j (�( a _tic_222 Date 0 1 Signature For City of Grand Terrace G� No No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not result in the change or reduction of this habitat as there are no physical improvements proposed. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a-b. Increases in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels? No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not result in the change or increase of existing noise levels as there are no physical improvements proposed and if anything it will decrease noise levels from existing commercial vehicles parked in frontyards/driveways of residential districts. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? a. No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not result in producing substantial new light or glare as there are no physical improvements proposed. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Maybe as there may be negative impacts on the community affecting landuse and procedural matters as a result of the amendment. Part of the proposal being to locate a vacant lot to park the commercial vehicle may create a negative impact. However, in order to do so the commercial vehicle owner would be required to go through the Site and Architectural Review process and/or meet the findings for a temporary parking permit as well. This would mitigate negative impacts; in addition, the City does not feel there will be significant numbers of owners parking on vacant lots. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a-b. Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources or depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource: No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not result in depleting any natural resources as there are no physical improvements proposed. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a-b. Risk of an explosion, release of hazardous substances or interference with an emergency response plan. No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not result in the release of hazardous materials or create risk of an explosion as there are no physical improvements proposed. 11. Population. Will the proposal altel the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not alter the location or change population of an area as there is no new creation of residential areas. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not create the need for residential developments. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: 11 archaelogical site? No. Adoption of the Residential Parking Amendment will not involve any physical improvements or alterations of prehistoric or historic archaelogical sites as there are none in the city. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered 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? C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? No. As there are no physical improvements or potential to significantly alter or effect long- term environmental goals. In the long-term, this amendment will improve the aesthetic and infrastructure levels in the community while at the same time provide balanced short-term goals, i.e., temporary parking permits for those extenuating or emergency needs to park the commercial vehicles in the frontyard/driveways. c:\wp5l\planning\zc\29504.is TO: DATE: Planning Commission Community Development Department September 7, 1995 Community Development Department SUBJECT: Citizen Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Restricting Parking on Residential Areas: Issue 1. Street Parking and No. of Vehicles Per Household Issue 2. Parking of Commercial Vehicles on Private Property RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS ISSUES & PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF. PLEASE REFER TO LISTED AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS. rrrrsrsss*rrsrsrrrsssrrrsrrrssssrssesssrssessssrsssrssrssss BACKGROUND Issues in question were brought to light due to citizen complaints on Palm Avenue. Complaints were originally related to excessive street parking, commercial vehicles parking on the street and on nearby private property, as well as the operation of a Home Occupation without a valid permit (violations were reported at two separate residences). Code enforcement was pursued, and as a result, one party obtained a Home Occupation Permit (HOP). However, this did not resolve the street parking situation to the complainant's satisfaction because several cars, unrelated to the HOP but all belonging to this same property owner, are still allowed to be parked on the street. In addition, the other party (which was in violation of municipal code due to parking their commercial vehicle greater than one ton, in the street) removed their vehicle from the public right-of-way and began parking it on their private property, however, not in a consistent manner. Complainants have continued to report 72 hour street parking violations to the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department, as well as reporting to the Community Development Department when the commercial vehicle is moved back into the public right-of-way. However, these type violations are quickly cleared and the properties remain in compliance with municipal code. The Community Development Department has exhausted its possibilities of resolving the citizen complaints within the parameters of code enforcement. The problem has also affected other neighbors and at this time, in an effort to resolve this and future citizen complaints, this department per Management directions is exploring issues related to street parking/number of vehicles per household in residential zones and parking of commercial vehicles on private Property. The Planning Commission is to evaluate the issue of proposed amendments and send a recommendation to the City Council. Staff requests the Planning Commission be objective when reviewing the amendments, as various departmental actions were already discussed at a meeting with neighbors and City Manager, and are no longer the issue of this meeting. The Planning Commission is to evaluate current codes, possible amendment alternatives and their impacts on the community. The issue at this time is of City-wide interest and land use concern. Attachment B 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621 Issue 2 - Parking of Commercial Vehicles on Private Property Due to Home Occupation related activities staff has been studying this issue for awhile now and is finding it extremely difficult. Had the City Attorney approved our first draft of the Home Occupation Commercial Vehicle Policy, discussed earlier in this meeting, we would have addressed a large part of the problem, the part related to the number of commercial vehicles on residential area The City Attorney restricted our regulations to families having a Home Occupation Permit. Furthermore: 1) While the Home Occupation Commercial Vehicle Procedure restricts families with home occupation permits to have only one commercial vehicle, it does restrict the size and weight of that vehicle on the private property; and 2) While our current code has means to restrict commercial vehicles with large weight such as 18 wheelers and semi trucks by placing weight limitation signs on the street, it does not restrict medium size commercial or other vehicles from 40 being on our streets or park on residential sites. Review of all agencies Code Enforcement Complaints Log reveals that only 15 complaints on large commercial trucks parked in the street were filed in the last 3 years. Complaints about medium size commercial vehicles on private properties were just 2 in 3 years. Please note that this information may not necessarily prove that the problem is not there, but rather, that as more people apply for home occupation permits, it may become a more important issue. Furthermore, we have no means to enforce it Current code does not address parking of commercial vehicles on private property as it does in the case of street parking in the public right-of-way. In conclusion, staff feels that evaluating the issue of commercial vehicles on private property, mainly front yards is a valid one and should be pursued further. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES: If we are going to do an amendment the options we have come up with so far (awaiting additional analysis upon receipt of information from other cities and DMV) are: Options for Issue 1 - Street Parking and No. of Vehicles in a Household: a) Prohibit parking on public streets in residential areas as a whole. (MC Amendment needed). b) Prohibit overnight parking on residential streets (MC Amendment needed). t * Investigate parking permits for those neighborhood residents or associated residential that need to park in the street. Investigate costs of implementation and enforcement of regulation. * Analyze what effect this may have on the community, it may lack their support. Applicable to both A & B c) Create a procedure to address repetitive violations of the 72 hours regulation, or vehicle code as a whole to be implemented by the Sheriff's Department. (New procedure needed). Options for Issue 2 - Parking of Commercial Vehicles on Private Property: a) Restrict parking of commercial vehicles on private property (amendment of Section 10.16.020 needed; may also trigger evaluation of recreational vehicles parking). PI Street Parking and No. of VehJHshhd. * Chpt. 4.40 (MC) Tmff Signs/Markings * Chpt. 4.44 (MC) Parking Citations Related Codes and Regulations Parking of Comm.Veh.on Priv.Proa * Chapter 8, Nuisance Ordinance (NO) Parking legally on private property, no specifications on commercial vehicles. * Chpt. 4.44 (MC) Overnight Parking - Civic Center * Chpt. 8, Nuisance Ordinance (NO) ^ DMV issues commercial classification to anyone stating Upkeep and legal parking of operational they are using their vehicle, be it personal or large truck for vehicles on public and private property. large commercial business purposes. Weight distinctions and usage are pertinent only when it comes to the type of driver's license one receives. * Chpt. 8, Vehicle Abatement (MC) -- Other cities information to follow. * Chpt. 10 (MC) * Chpt 10 (MC) Street Specifics, Weight Limits Code does not refer to commercial vehicles on 72 hour/Storage, Commercial Vehicles, private property. Permits, Street Cleaning * (MC) No regulations No. of VehJHshld. ^ (DMV) No regulations No. of VehJHshld. -- Other cities information to follow. LEGEND: * = Grand Terrace Municipal Code (MC) Grand Terrace Zoning Code (ZC) Grand Terrace Nuisance Ordinance (NO) -- = Other Cities Codes (City Staff conducting survey of other cities codes on street parking and parking of commercial vehicles on private property. The results to be distributed at this meeting and/or following meetings. ^ = State of California, DMV (City Staff awaiting information from State DMV regarding commercial vehicles applicable for types of driver's licenses). Director asked for a motion at the end of discussion in favor of or opposing staff recommendations as direction. If the Commission approves staff recommendations or forms another recommendation it will come back to the Planning Commission for public hearing before going to the City Council. If the Commission decides no changes should be made to the current code a letter will be written to the City Council so stating. City Council may then send it back to the Planning Commission with direction for further study and implementation. Public Participation opened by Chairman Sims. Steve Perldo 22401 Ladera Grand Terrace 4W Said he agrees with the 72-hour regulations. Said he feels the complaint resolution process is successful and does not feel the City needs to add more bureaucratic rules. Said he feels a fine of $50 for repeat offenders is reasonable. Said he thinks semi trucks should be allowed to park on private property. He agreed with staff s preliminary recommendations a) & b) of Alternative 1. Michael Cass 22525 Franklin St. Grand Terrace. Said a problem in his area is people who park on the grass in the front yard. Can this be addressed by Citizen Patrol? Suggested opening an RV storage lot in Grand Terrac.;. Director said there is a nuisance abatement ordinance which addresses parking on the grass of the front yard. Also, there is an RV storage lot on the west side of the I-215 freeway, and a potential one probably coming on Van Buren in upcoming months. Bob Dominguez Complained of lack of enforcement regarding abandoned vehicles. Stated he identified over 200 abandoned vehicles by driving through 3/4 if the City on 9/7/95, in 2 hours. Feels it is a big problem in the City. Asked why code enforcement people are not out on the streets looking for violations. Regarding commercial vehicles, he does not want to see trucks in the city. Suggested the City encourage storage of the vehicles within City limits; the City could buy property or offer voucher to pay for storage of vehicle. Encouraged people to park cars in garages -not use garages for storage. Eileen Hodder 22253 Van Buren Grand Terrace Asked if the proposed ordinance would restrict all cars on the city street, or only those over 72 hours? Chairman Sims stated it would affect all vehicles. 10 Building and Safety Director, and the City Manager. Although each of these people does code enforcement there is still a backlog. Commissioner Wilson said he thinks the abandoned vehicles should regularly be addressed by the Sheriffs Department. He also stated he feels the issue of overcrowding with other uses (large assemblies) needs to be addressed. The concerns here are safety and unsightliness. Director said the City Attorney has told her that to a large extent the street belongs to the public. Chairman Sims said he feels the Citizen Patrol should be encouraged to enforce the 72 hour parking regulations as they apparently did formerly, instead of staff. Commissioner Munson said he sees no reason to adopt any alternatives to our current vehicle parking policy until there are more complaints than the record currently reflects (3 in 15 months). Commissioner Garcia said she agrees that no new regulations should be added with two exceptions: repeat offenders and commercial vehicles. She supported approval of staff recommendations with the addition of doing further research into enforcement procedures. Commissioner Van Gelder endorsed the idea of collecting $50 from reoffenders. Chairman Sims said possibly a stiffer penalty would work as a deterrent to discourage repeat offenders. Commissioner Wilson clarified the enforcement issue. He suggested staff be directed to review the City's agreement with the Sheriffs Dept. to determine if they should be performing enforcement actions. MOTION PCM 95-34 Motion by Commissioner Garcia to amend alternative #2 by inserting the words "pursue research to restrict parking of commercial vehicles on private property", instead of amendment. Second by Chairman Sims for further discussion. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what type of research would be done. Director said evaluation of other cities' codes, information from the League of California Cities, analyze the types of complaint we have and conduct a survey of the City to determine impact of proposed changes. Chairman Sims clarified that the intention is to research available information from other cities to determine how they address the restriction of commercial vehicle parking. Upon presentation of the report on research amendment may be considered at that time. 12 MOTION VEHICLE POLICY by Commissioner Van Gelder to approve Commercial Vehicle Policy. by Commissioner Addington. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-32 Motion carried. abstained. 5-0:1-1. Commissioner Huss absent and Commissioner Wilson ITEM #4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1995 MOTION PCM-95-33 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 17, 1995 Motion by Commissioner Van Gelder to approve mini f August 17, 1995. Second by Commissioner Munson. Chairman Sims stated there is a correction to be made at the bottom o age 7. It should read NPDES instead of MPDES. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-33 Motion carried. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Huss absent and Commissioner Wilson abstained. ITEM #5 CITIZEN -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE, RESTRICTING X-1 PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ISSUE 1 - STREET PARKING & NUMBER OF VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD ISSUE 2 - PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY Chairman Sims explained to citizens in the audience this agenda item is before the Commission for discussion purposes, but comments from the public will be heard. Staff report by Director. Director asked the Planning Commission to be objective in their discussion and direction with respect to the proposed amendment which would have city-wide impact, instead of just serving a group of residents. SEPT. 7, 1995 9 P.C. MTG. Said she is against limiting the number of cars a household can have. Said it is unreasonable to restrict the entire City because of a few complaints. Paul Francis 23005 Palm Avenue Grand Terrace Said he believes the existing codes are adequate regarding parking. Does not have a problem with commercial vehicles parked on private property. Said there should be no changes. Stella Domingues 23016 Palm Avenue Grand Terrace Said real problem is lack of enforcement of current codes. Repeat offenders is a real problem. The size of commercial vehicles parked on the streets is a safety issue. She does not like the appearance of commercial vehicles parked in driveways. Karen Welsher 22245 Lark Street Grand Terrace Endorses 72 hour restriction. Said economy has forced many people to put commercial vehicles on their property -vandalism and safety are the real issues. Said she does not like the idea of permits. It would be expensive and take additional manpower to enforce. Regulations are good as they are. Angela Cass 22525 Franklin Street Grand Terrace Said the proposed changes seem like too much bureaucracy. Everyone for the most part is happy with current regulations and enforcement is sufficient. Public participation closed by Chairman Sims, and discussion among Planning Commissioners resumed. Commissioner Garcia asked for clarification from Director. Is a truck driver considered an HOP? Director stated truck drivers are subject to HOP requirements only if they work out of their own house. Director also clarified that recreational vehicles must be operable and parked in a paved drive approach. Boats on a trailer are also allowed to be parked on a driveway. Chairman Sims said he is concerned about imposing new regulations, given there is not enough staff to do more enforcement. Director said the policy from City Council is that enforcement will be done on a case by case, complaint -driven process. Code enforcement is currently done by the Community Development Director, a planning intern, Assistant City Manager, the 11 MOTION VOTE PCM-95-34 Motion carried. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Munson voted No and Commissioner Huss absent. MOTION PCM-95-35 Motion by Commissioner Wilson to direct staff to pursue investigation into contract with Sheriff's Department to see if possible for Sheriffs to do enforcement action of ow abandoned vehicles without adding additional deputies. Also, to direct staff to pursue the question of overcrowding with large assembly uses. Second by Commissioner Garcia. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-35 Motion carried. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Munson voted No, and Commissioner Huss absent. MOTION 4 PCM-95-36 Motion by Commissioner Garcia to direct staff to pursue alternative #1C, develop procedure to punish reoffenders of street parking regulations. Motion seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-36 Motion carried. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Munson voted No and Commissioner Huss absent. 13 TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Community Development Department September 21,1995 Cornrnunity Services Department SUBJECT: Z-95-04 and E-95-10, An Amendment To Revise Residential Parking Regulations in the Municipal Code; Chapters 10 (Sections 10.16.000,10.16.021 and 10.16.030). Refer to Attachment A. Item #1 - Street Parking and No. of Vehicles Per Household ITEM #2 - PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN FRONT YARDS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS RMIRONMUMALREVIEW It has been determined by the Community Development Department that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, refer to Exhibit 1 (Notice of Negative Declaration). BACKGROUNIk At the September 7, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting a &-cassion took place regarding the feasibility of amending the current Municipal Code addressing residential parking. The Planning Commission heard the preliminary report from staff, input from citizens with complaints on street and driveway parking, and citizens expressing their opposition to prohibiting parking in the residential arras. The Planning Commission made the following motions: 1. Support staffs recommendations of not pursuing prohibition of street parking or overnight parking and to create procedure to punish repetitive violators of street parking regulations. 2. Amend staffs recommendation to pursue research . rather than amendment on commercial vehicles on private property. 3. Staff to review Sheriffs contract to evaluate if there are resources for proactive enforcement of the "72hour abandoned vehicle policy". 4. Staff to review residential area strew parking problems resulting from assembly uses. Motions #1, #3 and #4 will be submitted as the recommendations of the Planning Commission to the City Council on the meeting of October 12, 1995. For the. information of the Planning Commission, these recommendations willbe forwarded to the City Council along with results of a Citywide survey conducted by staff on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week which resulted on approximately 129 abandoned vehicles, citywide. Motion #2 requires further research and possibility of amendment of residential parking regarding commercial vehicles on private property. This is the subject of this report. Attachment C 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 - (909) 824-6621 Negative Impacts - (Continued) 2. Parking Uses on Vacant Sites: A small number of residential and commercial vacant sites may be pursued for parking uses. 3. Code Enforcement: Code enforcement may increase based upon complaints resulting from new regulations. 4. Staff Processing/Increase Regulations: Increase the need for additional processing due to increase on applications for exceptional parking permits. Positive Impacts 1. Aesthetic/Visual Protection: City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance direct staff to 1) ensure harmony of uses and structures with their sites, other surrounding uses and structures; and that they do not unnecessarily block scenic views and are in scale with its surroundings (Source: General Plan and Chapter IS Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code). #61 The City Home Occupation Permit Ordinance directs the City to allow commercial uses and related commercial vehicles/trucks to the extent it does not alter the residential character of the neighborhood (Municipal Code Chapter S). Staff feels that the prohibition to park certain large commercial vehicles (as described in this report) in the front residential yards is in line with goals and policies of the City as described above and will Protect the aesthetics and residential character of our neighborhoods. 2. Elimination of Potential Public Nuisance: The City Nuisance Ordinance directs staff "to protect its citizens and their property from conditions which are offensive or annoying to the senses, detrimental to property values and community appearance, or injurious to the health, safety or welfare of the general public ... 0 (Municipal Code Chapter 8). While the parking of large commercial trucks on residential front yards/driveways is definitely not listed or considered a public nuisance, it has the potential to create such a situation. For example, in case of small lots where traffic visibilityis impaired by large trucks on driveways; on those cases where children play area are taken away or made unsafe by the parldng of large vehicles, or even the number of large trucks and related truck movement in a certain neighborhood in case excessive, it would affect the residential character of the neighborhood. 3. Provide for Regulation Flexibility: Proposed parking permit for exceptional circumstances allow code flexibility and reduction of conflicts, appeals etc. a J 19 OPTIONS: The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Request more research. Motion for a continuation of the Public Hearing is required. 2. Recommend to the City Council not to pursue amendment. 3. Support staff recommendation to prohibit the parking of certain commercial vehicles in the front yard of residential zoned areas. 4. Other, as desired by the Planning Commission. RECOAUdENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the adoption of Z-95-04 and E-95-10, Option #3 , amendment included here in the form of an ordinance. Respec dbUy Submitted, Exhibit 1 C:\WP51\PLANNING\ZC\Z9504.PC Approved by, 01-OD& I I Patricia Materassi, Community Development Director 8:15 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING BOB DOMINGUEZ 23016 PALM AVENUE GRAND TERRACE, CA Mr. Dominguez said he has counted 260 abandoned RVs and cars in the City. He expressed concern about enforcement procedures and asked why this code is not being enforced. He said commercial vehicles should be prohibited from parking in the City 40 and suggested storage facility parking for commercial vehicles. Regarding code enforcement he suggested a "hot line". He said he is concerned about the future of Grand Terrace because of the effect abandoned vehicles has on deterioration of the City. He also expressed concern about the deteriorating landscaping at the Quick Stop gas station at Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. STELLA DOMINGUEZ 23016 PALM AVENUE GRAND TERRACE, CA She said she hopes the Commission will vote to recommend the proposal to City Council. It would be an improvement. Said the appearance of her neighborhood between Observation and Paradise to Honey Hill Drive has declined. #1w 8:19 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Sims said code enforcement is one of the biggest and most passionate issues over the years. He explained the process is complaint -driven and said staff is doing a fine job with the limited resources available. Staff is limited to do code enforcement on these issues unless the amendment is approved. Currently the vehicles specified in the amendment are not prohibited from parking in the residential areas. He said it is important to look at this proposed amendment from a city-wide perspective, not a specific problem in one area. Commissioner Van Gelder commended staff for the work they did on the survey and research materials. She said she is in agreement with the proposed amendment. She asked Director how residents will be notified of the zoning changes if/when the amendment is adopted. Director said 'the City Newsletter, possible insert in the sewer billing, and possibly a direct mailing to the addresses noted in the survey, however, she did not recommend it. Chairman Sims asked about the process, as proposed, of issuing a special permit. Director proposed it would be done through the land use approval process and notice the adjacent neighbors. A discussion took place between Director and Commissioner Munson regarding the code enforcement process. Chairman Sims and other Commissioners requested staff to provide information at the October 19, 1995 meeting regarding code enforcement procedures. 4 •, 1 SUMMARY OF CITIES REGULATIONS u Loma Linda Restricts street parking. No restrictions on business related vehicles regularly used for transportation. Chino Hills Commercial vehicles not permitted to park in residential yards. They must park on street only.' Fontana Vehicles with greater than one ton capacity may not be parked in residential zones. Burbank Restricts parking of commercial vehicles longer than 22 feet in length, as well as pick up trucks used for commercial purposes. Although vacant lots in residential zone may be used for parking these vehicles, this activity is subject to CUP. Rancho Cucamonga Restricts parking of commercial vehicles in residential front yards to five (5) consecutive days. Vehicles which are greater than 1 1/2 tons, greater than 7 feu and greater than 25' in length are prohibited on any portion of a residential lot unless the vehicle is being used for an activity directly related to the home it is parked at or in connection with a home occupation. Cupertino Allows front and back yard parking of commercial vehicles of up to give (5) tons, shorter than 60'(according to special circumstances). Restricts the total number of commercial vehicles permitted to park in residential areas, the surface to be parked on, and the distance from the street. Haywood Commercial vehicles are not allowed in residential yards. Foster It does not appear that commercial vehicles are regulated in residential zones. Auburn "Pick-ups"are not regulated; however, trucks may not park for more than four (4) hours in residential districts within any twenty-four (24) hour period. Alhambra No commercial vehicles of more than 3/4 ton to be parked in residential districts. Camarillo No delivery of merchandise in any vehicle; commercial vehicles are therefore distinguished by their purpose. Colinga No more than one truck of not more than one ton to be used in conjunction with an HOP. South Lake Tahoe No more than one motor vehicle with advertising painted on it and/or attached per household in conjunction with and HOP. Modesto No more than one business vehicle for business use by person residing at the residence - this includes a car, pick-up or small van. Commerce Vehicles of more than 3 tons, length of more than 25 feet or a width of more than 96 inches (total outside width) are not permitted to park in residential zones. Turlock Parking of commercial vehicles (5 tons +) are not permitted in residential zones except for the delivery of goods or other business use not related to a home occupation permit (example, construction going on at the home). Imperial Beach No heavy duty vehicles (20' or more in length, 2 or more axles, 6', 8" or more in width) permitted to park in residential areas. This does not apply to those with campers. Attachment D 0 OTHER CITIES COMNIERCIAL PARKING PROCEDURES Hours 3. Permit 4. rpm 1. Technical Criteria refers to weight, size, height, length of commercial vehicles. For example, length criteria it appears is based on average length of driveway of 25 feet and some cities have placed even 22 feet restriction so as not to conflict with public right of way. Height restrictions seem to vary from 6-8 feet, and weight seems to vary from 1 to 7 tons on the street. 2. Aesthetic Criteria refers to proper parking conditions so as not to create a negative aesthetic impact. Such as parking on paved driveways, behind fences or high landscaping or within enclosure structures/garages and not visible from public street. 3. Limit Prk. Hours refers to allowance of parking in public streets for limited hours, i.e., between 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 4. Parkin Permit refers to allowance of parking in specific areas with permits; i.e. parking permit for specified period of time on private front yards/residential area or with CUPS. 5. Definition of Commercial Vehicles refers to definitions found, adopted definition from Department of Motor Vehicles or State Vehicle Code and/or incorporated City's own preference also. li QUAD2A►J't- I :IS CON4UC1r—CO 19y % ^!ARSA /N U 3g VIOX p AAIAIEfA 144J-c- CalO AJ lnrr=1e,1 Street Name Commercial Abandoned Visuall on Driveway Aha On Site (/h, On Street On Front �} U�fQCeOrAW vas Coy .oar Y Attachment E (pup b"AT I Street Name Commercial Abandoned Visuall On Driveway On Site On Street On Front . C-�1 2 CGS c ` p �'Y�IJz�.m 1 cam G -Mill InsAb r r � 1 � � ram. li 0 9-13-q5- 11; 50 Q, en • Street Name commercial Abandoned Visually On Driveway On Site On Street On Front 1 A D� 6h C QuP,o2AO-s 3f 4v a-Ia-45 P.m. Qua vrt.A-n�-r � Street Name Commercial Abandoned Visuall On Driveway On Site On Street On Fron �K/ � � COIL► YY1 �CG��I, u, -�,tt CIS ca YV+ i c j( v4,uc 2 cap ! o- D�-�'1 INV AtAWA CA- 1 a� h 5 Dh Ca -- Abandoned Vehicles parked on the street and frontyards/driveway street, and 70 parked on the frontyard including driveway. Commercial Vehicles parked on the street and frontyards/driveway driveway, 7 parked on the frontyard, and 7 parked on the street. total 109; 39 parked on the total 38; 24 parked on the Community Development Department STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( X ) MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1995 FUNDING REQUIRED: NO FUNDING REQUIRED: _X_ SUBJECT: General Plan Task Force Progress Report - Continuation RECOMMENDATION: Answer the question: "Are we going in the right direction?" The City Council at its meeting on September 14, 1995 received the General Plan Task Force Progress Report and provided comments on seven out of 12 elements, such as, land use, housing, open space, air quality, safety, urban design, and infrastructure (circulation aspects). Today the Task Force is presenting three more elements for the critique of the City Council, strategic, conservation, and noise. Staff and the Task Force requests all Council Members to review all elements and provide comments at meeting. So Staff from now on will include only three elements at a time. Text including proposed changes and additions to the General Plan Elements as drafted by the Task Force and approved by the Planning Commission is attached for your review (Attachment A). Task Force members Herman Hilkey, Jim Singley and Doug Wilson will present major issues discussed by the Task Force on each element. In the event a member is unable to attend the meeting, Community Development Director will make presentation. Following presentations Staff request each Council member to critique proposed alterations. It is most valuable for Staff and Task Force to learn the issues you really support and policies or actions you are not ready to commit to in the short (5 years) or long term (20 years). Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director Attachment A: Strategic, Conservation, and Noise Elements. c:\wp51 \planning\taslforc\ 101295.cc 22795 Barton Road - Grand Terrace, California 92313-VJUWL1Aft ff Em # 7/4 Director, Assistant City Manager, Economic Development Director, to Downtown Coordinator). 6. Lay out the specific implementation steps for the actions to be implemented within the first year. The responsible parties and possible financing methods. In summary, the Strategic Element is the element which will identify strategies to get things done and to help the City and staff to accomplish the goals of the City General Plan, which in its turn needs to be embraced by the community. While the General Plan as a whole is an analytical document plan, the Strategic Plan is the focused, practical, action -driven program part of the General Plan. c: \wp51 \planning\gpa\st mtegic. ele n Rev: 10-5-95 2P. Where feasible, the City shall address air quality as it relates to all uses. Actisnse a) Adopt an Air Quality Element according to Trip Reduction Ordinance. b) Promote programs that maintain good air quality and conduct monitoring on an annual basis. 3P. Conservation Element to be consistent with the County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan as much as possible. 4P. Conserve Blue Mountain as open space. 5P. When developing conservation guidelines, be sensitive to conflicts with developers. Appreciation of nature and existing development to be in positive relation with new. Action: a) In the event a specific negative environmental impact is found anywhere in the City, address how to instrument the use of the area with practical guidelines to developers. c: \wp51 \planning\taskforc\conserv. e1e 2 Rev: 10/5/95 Summary of Major Issues oDr General Plan Element City Council Meeting October 12, 1995 Noise Element The Noise Element calls for adoption of stricter standards by adopting the County noise code which we already use by policy only. (Our code is ambiguous about noise requirements from stationary sources. It mostly addresses noise from freeway, airplanes, etc.) Calls for a re- evaluation of noise impacts from various sources, from freeway, airports to development of guidelines for residents when conducting loud parties. Also wants to ensure consistency with noise ordinance in the Municipal Code and develop special buffer strategies between incompatible uses. Strategic Element This element will bring all actions together, prioritize them and give them a "father" or mentor. Mentors will be volunteer representatives from the community who will become responsible to implement a specific action. i.e. L,eeAnn Garcia could be the mentor responsible for implementation of a Main Street program for downtown Grand Terrace. Mentors all need to be given authority to represent the City in the making of public -private partnerships and applications for funding. Mentors all need to respond to our overall action plan coordinator, being a staff member or a public official. This element is the most dynamic one and will help the City to reach goals and policies outlined in the General Plan. A large portion of it is recommended to be adopted as a Resolution, so it can be easily altered as actions are completed and circumstances change. Conservation Element This element is to be combined with the Open Space Element as far as preservation of open space is concerned. Conservation of all natural resources is the main goal here and includes an evaluation of Regional and Sub -regional plans to learn if Grand Terrace is or should be part of those plans, for example, the Santa Ana River Regional Park. Protect our Blue Mountain open space, air quality, possible endangered species and water. Develop specific practical policies to help developers to deal with conservation goals. '& c: \wp51 \p1anning\taskforc\summary.105 Attachment A STAFF REPORT AW CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: October 12, 1995 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X In past years Government Code required the Treasurer to render to the governing body an Annual Statement of Investment Policy. This code has sunset and it is no longer a requirement. However, Staff feels that it is still a good practice to bring the policy before the Agency each year in view of the ever changing economic and investment climate. The policy was revised in 1992 after a sub -committee was appointed to study the City's investment policy. At that time the policy was revised to increase the level of safety in the investment of Agency funds, with an emphasis on prohibition of outside investment advisers and the utilization of our own bank which eliminated the use of unknown third parties in transactions. The policy was reviewed at the September 14, 1995 meeting and Council members expressed their concerns about the investment policy. Staff has reviewed and clarified all items of concern and revised the investment policy in a pattern after the model investment policy of the Municipal Treasurer's Association. Staff Recommends that: The Agency adopt the attached investment policy for the the City of Grand Terrace. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #F)IGI CITY OF GRAND TERRACE INVESTMENT POLICY 3. YIELD: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and the cash flow 4W characteristics of the portfolio. 5.0 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Authority to manage the investment of surplus funds is derived from California Government Code 53601, et seq. Management of Bond Funds is controlled be Government Code 5922(d) and such investments must conform to the requirements of the bond indenture. In some cases, it may be appropriate for investment of bond proceeds to cover a longer duration than those limits established for surplus(operating) funds. Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the Treasurer, who shall establish procedures and operate the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures may include, but not limited to, references to: safekeeping, PSA repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements and banking services contracts, as appropriate. Treasurer may delegate authority to subordinates for day to day investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the treasurer. 6.0 ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. 7.0 AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEALERS The Agency will prohibit the utilization of outside investment advisors. The Treasurer may select any financial institution/ broker/dealer, selected by credit worthiness, who are authorized to provide investment services in the State of California. -2- CITY OF GRAND TERRACE INVESTMENT POLICY 9.0 COLLATERALISATION: All certificates of deposit must be collateralized by U.S. Treasury obligations held by a third party. The Treasurer my waive this requirement up to the amount already insured by federal or state deposit insurance. 10. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY: All securities purchased from broker/dealers shall be conducted on a delivery VS. payment (DVP) basis and shall be held by a third party custodian designated by the Treasurer and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. This would not apply to any book -entry direct purchases. The current designated safekeeper is the Trust Department of Bank of America. 11. DIVERSIFICATION: The City will diversify its investments by security type and institution. 12. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION: The Investment Policy shall be approved by Council and adopted by resolution of the City. Thomas Schwab, Agency Treasurer Date -4- DEFINITIONS - PAGE 2 securities generally trade with minimum amounts of $1 million per trade with the average trade in the secondary market of $5 million. BANKERS ACCEPTANCES are short-term credit arrangements to enable businesses to obtain funds to finance commercial transactions. They are time drafts drawn on a bank by an exporter or importer to obtain funds to pay for specific merchandise. By its acceptance, the bank becomes primarily liable for the payment of the draft at maturity. An acceptance is a high grade negotiable instrument. Acceptances are purchased in various denominations for 30 to 180 days but no longer than 270 days. The interest is calculated on a 360 day discount basis similar to Treasury Bills. Local Agencies can not invest more than forty per cent of their surplus money in Bankers Acceptances. COMMERCIAL PAPER is a short term unsecured promissory note issued by a corporation to raise working capital. These negotiable instruments may be purchased at a discount to par value or interest bearing. Commercial paper is issued by corporations such as General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), Shearson - American Express, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, et cetera. Local agencies are permitted by state law to invest in commercial paper of "prime" quality of the highest ranking or of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or Standard and Pooes Corporation. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 180 days maturity nor exceed fifteen per cent of the local agency's surplus funds. An additional fifteen per cent (for a total of 30%) can be invested in Commercial Paper provided the average maturity of invested funds in commercial paper does not exceed 30 days. MEDIUM TERM CORPORATE NOTES are unsecured promissory notes issued by a corporation organized and operating in the United States. These are negotiable instruments and are traded in the secondary market. Medium Term Corporate Notes (MTN) can be defined as extended maturity commercial paper. Corporations use these MTN's to raise capital. Examples of MTN issuers are General Electric, GMAC, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, etcetera. Local agencies are restricted by the Government Code to investments in corporations rated in the top three note categories by a single nationally -recognized rating service. Further restrictions are a maximum term of five years to maturity and total investments in Medium Term Corporate Notes may not exceed thirty per cent of the local agency's surplus money. REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS are short term investment transactions. Banks buy temporarily idle funds from a customer by selling him U.S. Government or other securities with a contractual agreement to repurchase the same securities on a future date. Repurchase agreements are typically for one to ten days in maturity. The customer receives interest from the bank. The interest rate reflects both the prevailing demand for Federal Funds and the maturity of the REPO. Some banks will execute repurchase agreements for a minimum of $100,000, but most banks have a minimum of $500,000. A reverse -repurchase agreement (reverse -repo) is exactly what the name implies.