07/27/2010 T FILLCOPY,
GRAND TERR CIM July 27,2010-
22795 Barton Road
'Grand Terrace
Caiifornia.92313-5295_
,CITY OF ,GRAND ,T RRACE
Civic Center _
1 (900)814,'6621
Fax(909)783'-7629
Fax(909)783=2600
CRA/CITY° COUNCIL
Maryetta Ferre
Mayor REGULAR MEETINGS ,
Lee Ann Garcia �7�
Mayor Pro Tem 2� AND 4TH Tuesday--.6;00 p.m. ''
Bea Cortes
Walt Stanckiewitz
Council Members
Betsy M.Adams '
City Manager - -
Council.Chambers-
Grand Terrace,Civic Center..
22795 Barton Road
Grant) Terrace, CA 9D IX-5295 '
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS July 27,2010
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 5:00 p.m. Workshop
22795 Barton Road 6:00 p.m. Meeting
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU
REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT
(909)824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING,PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO
SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED
UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
ANY DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA
WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT CITY HALL LOCATED AT
22795 BARTON ROAD DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. IN ADDITION,SUCH DOCUMENTS WILL BE POSTED ON
THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFGRANDTERRACE.ORG
* Call to Order-
* Invocation-
* Pledge of Allegiance-
* Roll Call-
STAFF COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION
F-
5:00 P.M.
JOINT WORKSHOP CRA/CITY COUNCIL-REVIEW
DEVELOPER REQUESTS FOR THE TOWN SQUARE PROJECT
6:00 P.M.
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 07-13-2010 Minutes Approve
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Chamber of Commerce Business of the Month
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and
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.
A. Approve Check Register No. 07-27-2010 Approve
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinance on Agenda
C. Approval of07-13-2010 Minutes I Approve
COUNCIL AGENDA
07-27-2010 PAGE 2 OF 3
AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION
D. Emergency Operations Committee Minutes of June 1,2010 Accept
E. Community Emergency Response Team(C.E.R.T.)Minutes of Accept
June 1,2010
F. Crime Prevention Committee Minutes of June 14,2010 Accept
G. Sixteenth Amendment to the Law Enforcement Services Approve
Contract with the County of San Bernardino(Schedule A)
H. Treasurer's Report for Quarter Ending June 30,2010 Approve r
I. Xerox Copier Lease Approve/Authorize
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any '
items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions
contained in California Law,the City Council may not discuss or act
on any item not on the agenda,but may briefly respond to statements i
made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also
request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public
comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Town Square Project r
Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (Tentative Approve
Parcel Map No. 17787) to Consolidate Seven Lots and
Resubdivide them into Seven New Parcels Located on the South
Side of Barton Road and the East Side of Michigan Street,
Zoned BRSP-General Commercial
Resolution Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the Approve
California Environmental Quality Act, Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report(SCH 2O08071017)and Adopting
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Grand
Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan
Resolution Approving Site and Architectural Review 07-12 Approve
(Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan
("TSMDP")Master Sign Program 09-01,Site and Architectural
Review 07-07 and Sign Program Plans for Development Unit 1
of the TSMDP("Project"),Located on the South Side of Barton
Road Between Michigan Street and the Cage Canal Zoned
BRSP-General Commercial; and Recommending that the City
Council Approve Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (Tentative Parcel
Map No. 17787)
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None
COUNCIL AGENDA
07-27-2010 PAGE 3 OF 3
AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Hearing for Special Assessment and Lien for Nuisance Approve/Adopt
Abatement at 12559 Michigan Street
9. CLOSED SESSION
A. City Attorney Contract GC54957(b) 1
B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation -
GC54956.9(b)(2)and GC54956.9(c)
ADJOURN
r `•
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON
TUESDAY,AUGUST 10,2010,AT 6:00 P.M.
.......... ................. ...........................................................................................
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING
TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NO LATER THAN 14
CALENDAR DAYS PRECEDING THE MEETING.
t �
:N LIf0R N IA AGENDA REPORT - WORKSHOP
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( X )
SUBJECT: Review of Developer Requests for the Town Square Project
PRESENTED BY: Community and Economic Development Department
RECOMMENDATIONS: That both the Council and Agency review requests received from the
developers of the Town Square project and provide direction to staff
regarding the preparation of the appropriate agreements.
BACKGROUND:
There have been numerous discussions with Jacobsen Family Holdings and Stater Bros. concerning
the development of Town Square. More recently, staff has received requests for development impact
fee offsets, extension of entitlements, and other project incentives.
Typically, a Development Agreement is prepared to document approval of any fee offsets and time
extensions, which would"be forwarded first to the Planning Commission to consider the extension of
the entitlements to five years. This request is from Jacobsen Holdings, the master plan developer.
Stater Bros., the developer of Phase 1, has requested economic development incentives that may be
incorporated into a separate Economic Development Agreement. Those discussions have involved a
jobs covenant to guarantee new job creation and job retention and the possibility of creating a public
park and ride facility on site.
DISCUSSION:
Development Impact Fees and Plan Check Fees
The Municipal Code allows the City'Council to consider modification of fees. The requested fee
offsets for storm drainage, general facilities, parkland/open space acquisition, and sewer connection
are based on the fact that the residential and commercial uses previously on the site created a higher
demand than would the proposed uses. For example, the new Master Plan will not contribute to any
new flows to the current storm drainage system, and will actually decrease the flows from the earlier
uses because all water will be collected, treated and retained on site. The impact on General Facilities,
which are new City administrative facilities, vehicles, and equipment, is also much lower than with the
prior uses.
A 100% credit for parkland Lind open space acquisition is also requested because the new commercial
development will not impact these services as did the earlier residential use. The credit for sewer
connection fees is based on the lower capacity required for the new project as compared to the original
capacity already purchased in the system for this site to serve the previous, more intense residential
and commercial uses.
1
I �
I
The fees that have been and would be collected in full include: sewer use! Building and Safety, Fire
Service, Engineering, Planning, Traffic Signal, and Traffic Circulation.
i
Stater Bros. paid $7,164.11 in plan check fees in April 2009 to expedite-the start of construction, and
the plan check expired after one year. At the one-year point, the plan check was approximately 75%
complete. To date, the City has paid Willdan $2,800.00 for plan check related to the store. Funds
remaining will.cover approval of the plans, so an extension of the one-year plan check is requested
without the-payment of additional fees. The plan check is expected to be completed within 30 days.
I
Due to global economic conditions, the developer has requested that any fee increases than may occur
over the succeeding five years not be applied to future phases of Town Square and that the,
entitlements remain valid for five years. Based on the uncertainty of the schedule to attract new
businesses to the site; staff supports consideration of this request.
Economic Development Incentives
Stater Bros. representatives have proposed an economic development package based on- project
benefits to the City, which include job creation (both construction and permanent jobs), property and
sales tax benefits, and new enhanced services the project will bring to the community. For afive-year
period, excess parking will be available on site that could provide a public parking easement for up to
45 spaces that could be used as a park and ride facility to reduce' regional traffic congestion,
particularly during upcoming construction of freeway projects. The Agency's cost of the parking
I easement is proposed at $49,000.00 per year, or$1,089.00 per space per year.
i
The new Stater Bros. will-retain and create 20 permanent full time jobs and 76 part-time jobs, or 77, "
full-time equivalent jobs (FTE), including the full-service pharmacy. Proposed criteria for a jobs
I covenant agreement would guarantee these jobs for a period of five years at a projected Agency cost of
F $192,500.00 per year, or $2,500.00 per new FTE job each year, which would be confirmed annually.
Phase 1 of the project will also create approximately 140 construction jobs. Staff has also requested
1 that Stater Bros. reserve a percentage of the_positions for Grand Terrace residents, but had not yet
resolved that proposed number when this Agenda Report was prepared.
At build-out, the project is expected to create approximately 208 permanent jobs. At this point in
time, it is difficult to specifically quantify the related'spin-off benefits of the new employment
1 opportunities or predict the timing of additional construction for other new businesses.
New property taxes-created by the Stater Bros. market alone are estimated to be $24,000.00 per year to
the General Fund and $48,000.00 to the Agency, based on a $12 mil ion valuation of the new
construction. Sales tax revenue is projected to increase by 22% over the current store's sales tax due
1 to the expanded services. As new structures in future phases are built, the revenue would continue to
1 increase, as would employment opportunities.
In addition, the Agency's Redevelopment Plan specifically outlines the following goals and action
1 plans, which are achieved through this project:
1, 1. Eliminate and prevent the,spread of blight and to redevelop the Project Area.
?. Provide for the enhancement and renovation of businesses to promote their economic vitality.
3. Stimulate investment of the private sector in full development of the Project Area.
4. Make underutilized land available for development and restore sites for feasible private
development.
1
5. Achieve an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and
urban design principles.
6. Provide for the development or redevelopment of land by private enterprise for uses consistent
with the objectives of the plan.
7. Provide financing for the assistance .of development that increases the City's economic base
and the number of temporary and permanent jobs.
Based on direction from the City Council and Agency, staff would complete the agreements discussed
above and present them for the appropriate approvals. Staff recommends consideration of the project
requests due to the new property taxes, increased sales tax, job creation and retention, reuse of idle
property that alleviates blight, the expanded services for the citizens, and the positive statement that
project construction will offer.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fee offsets would create no fiscal impact to the General Fund. The fee credits would affect the special-
funds described, but would not slow any planned projects. The impact to the Agency would be
approximately $239,500.00 annually for the first five years after completion of the Stater Bros. store.
The Agency has approximately $4.6 million available for new projects and programs.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Oowers
Community and Economic Development Director
Concurs with,
Ric and Shields
Building and Safety/Public Works Director
Manager Approval:
i
Betsy,-M. Adams
City Manager
3
PENDING CRA APPROVAL
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING-JULY 13,2010
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 July 13, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.
z-
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Chairman
Bea Cortes, Agency Member
Walt Stanckiewitz,Agency Member
Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Sgt. Palomina, Sheriff's Department
ABSENT: Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman
Richard.Shields, Building& Safety Director
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
CONVENE JOINT WORKSHOP CRA/CITY COUNCIL- OPERATION OF SENIOR CENTER
AT 4:30 P.M.
Betsy M.Adams,City Manger,indicated that the purpose of the-workshop is to give staff the
opportunity to advise Council of three issues that came up with regard to operations of the
Senior Center that were identified when the Cities Insurance Pool, California Joint Powers
Insurance Authority,did an onsite risk evaluation of all City operations on June 9,2010. The
first of the three issues that they identified at the Senior Center is that we do not have an
agreement between the City and the Grand Terrace Senior Club,who operates the center on
our behalf. The second is that we do not have insurance from:the Grand Terrace Seniors and
the third is that there is a need for some additional written policies to document some of the
practices at the Senior Center. She stated that there are representatives from Family Services
at the meeting to give a presentation and that JOAnii Johnson is also prepared to give a
presentation. She gave the background of how the Senior Center has been operated over the
years. In considering addressing the concerns that JPIA identified, Staff has come up with
three potential options:To continue having the Grand Terrace Senior Club operate the Senior
Center with them becoming a legal entity capable of entering into a written agreement and
obtain the appropriate limit of insurance. The second option would be to have City Staff
operate the Senior Center, which she feels would be the option of last resort. The third
potential option would be to out-source the operation of the Senior Center to an organization.
Family Services has provided a list of services that they can provide and their qualifications.
CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. I
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 2
She is looking for desirable outcomes that Council would like staff to evaluate further.
Veronica Dover, Chief Operating Officer, Family Services Association, stated that they are
a non-profit agency. They have been providing services since 1953i They provide a wide
variety of services including mental health services, child development centers, operate
senior community centers, provide senior nutrition services, senior specialty services,
prevention and early intervention services for seniors, and affordable housing. When they
provide services to community centers and operate community centers, their philosophy is
very much in line with family services mission which is, "Family Strength is Community
Strength". Seniors and their families have a lot of needs and have a`lot of desires for their
centers. They have advisory counsels in every single program that they offer. Those
counsels play a very important role in their programs by involving 4those members of the
community that they are serving that tell them what they want to see.
JoAnn Johnson, Senior Center, stated that she likes what she has heard. She feels that most
of the seniors are concerned about losing their independence. They, have had almost total
freedom to have the activities and programs that they wanted as lng as they could find
someone willing to take on the responsibility for the program. They have had some self-
imposed rules, that were intended to avoid problems in the future.; The Information and
Referral Office was formed in 1988/1989. They moved into the Senior Center in July of
1991. They are listed on several websites, including the nation-wide 211 information and
referral system. The Information and Referral Office underwent a drastic change when they
moved into the present building because of the lack of space. They have several different
funds that support different things and produce the necessary money to purchase supplies,
equipment and other things. They sell good stuff and own their own soda machine and
coffee service. Their treasurer keeps record of the income and expenses and they have a
checking account and a CD. There are some organizations that use the building on a
complementary basis only because they have volunteers that are willing to open and close
the facility. The Foundation of Grand Terrace,The Friends of Blue Mountain are long time
cases and point. They have also allowed TOPS to use their facility as a courtesy. Their
number one concern for them is how much independence will be lost and how much
independence can they maintain. Will they be able to keep their existing activities and
programs. How will they handle their finances,will their treasurer be able to receive money
and write checks without going through a month long process. The building was planned for
only two offices, the Information and Referral and the Presidents Office, how will this
change affect that space. Can they remain a senior center and noti become a community
center. Their building was never intended to be used by children. I here are many things
about the proposal that are very appealing. She feels that it could be beneficial to combine
programs with Highgrove as well as other near by centers. There also might be the
possibility of connecting the two centers with public bus service. Many of their members
live in Highgrove. The Senior Center and Information and Referral Office have operated
quite smoothly for 19 years plus the three years that they spent at the Lion's Community
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 3
Center. She wants the organization to continue for years into the future.
Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz,stated that the way he understands it,the Grand Terrace
Senior Club is primarily a social organization.
JoAnn Johnson, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz, questioned if the Senior Club wants to become a business
organization.
JoAnn Johnson, responded in the negative.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz,stated that the Senior Club indicated that they sell coffee and
he believes that they need a health permit to do that. There are liability's at the center that
we may not be aware of. We need to try and come up with a solution that we can all live
with. He questioned if there was anyone that actually live in the Villas at the Meeting. He
questioned how to get the residents that live in the Villas to participate in the center.
JoAnn Johnson, responded that there is a large number of residents of the Villas that are
members of the Club. There are a few that participate in the programs.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz, questioned if the Club has had an opportunity to discuss the
proposal from Family Services.
JoAnn Johnson, responded that they just recently received the proposal so they have not.
Councilmember Cortes, stated that this is a very difficult issue that has come before the
Council. She stated that she has been elected to protect and to provide for the community.
She would like to provide the Seniors with what they have always done,however,it appears
that this is a liability issue. She would like the City Manager to look into having Family
Services meet with the Senior Club.
JoAnn Johnson, stated that they have been very comfortable doing things the way that they
have, however, she understands what the Council is saying.
City Attorney John Harper, indicated that from the City's perspective and the Joint Powers
Insurance Authority, it's the City's liability that we are concerned with. He can't give legal
advice regarding this issue,however,he is much more concerned about the liability that each
individual has if they operate as a club and somebody comes in and slips and falls, they are
going to sue the club and each individual. They have no protection.
Mayor Mpaetta Ferre,indicated that this is all new territory. She stated that the Senior Chub
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 4
would like the center to remain a Senior Center and not become a Community Center. She
would like to be assured that this center would remain a Senior Center.
Veronica Dover,stated that she is very impressed that a volunteer group has been able to run
the center. They are more than happy to work with the club and the City should they ask
them.
City Manager Adams,stated that it would be the City's decision on whether or not the center
would remain a Senior Center or a Community Center. When she Ias had conversations
with Family Services it has been specifically with regard to running the program as a senior
center.
Mayor Ferre, she would like reassurance that if we go with Family services that the center
would remain a Senior Center. She questioned if the advisory group could consist of the
Senior Center Group.
Veronica Dover, responded that they have two facilities that run solely as a senior center.
They are happy to provide the services that the City/Seniors want them to provide. They
would be happy to utilize the Senior Center Group as an advisory counsel. They may add
to that group.
Mayor Ferre, stated that JoAnn Johnson is an important member of this organization and
i success of the organization over the last twenty years. She questioned where she fits into this
picture.
Veronica Dover, responded that she would be an integral part of developing this advisory
counsel and developing the plan for the services that they will provide. She can't say that
there won't be any changes. She sees JoAnn and this Club as an asset. They are a very
collaborative organization.
Mayor Ferre, questioned how the finances would work.
Veronia Dover,responded that they would have to negotiate. A meeting with City Manager
Adams and the Senior Group would have to be held so that they can negotiate how that
would work.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz,he realizes that we currently don't have a commercial grade
kitchen which limits what is offered to the seniors. When the commercial grade kitchen is
in, how will that change the lunch program.
Veronica Dover, responded that they will cook in the kitchen on site.
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 5
Mayor Ferre, stated that it sounds to her like there are many parts of the Family Services
proposal that could work out with the Grand Terrace Senior Group. Because we are just
starting this process she is wondering if a meeting between the groups would be beneficial
and feels that this may be the best way to go.
Cily Manager Adams, stated that the seniors in the past were using the City's Tax ID
Number,unless they become a legal entity of some type when they collect money it will be
personal income to them and she thinks we would have to look at how that would be handled
on City premises. There are a lot of complexities to this issue.
City Attorney HWer, stated that it would be easy for the group to become a non-profit
group.
Ci . Manager Adams,feels that it would be helpful to staff to have the Council give direction
of which level of service they would be interested.
It was the consensus of the Council to look into the lower level of service to begin with
Flo Elliott, 822 Cimarron Drive,has been a member of the Senior Board for quite some time.
She questioned what type of insurance they would have if Family Services took over the
center or if they would still need to have insurance on their own. If they remain as the
volunteer group she understands that they would need some type of insurance coverage,but
she would also like to know what other things the City would like them, as a totally
independent group, to have.
Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico Street, stated that as it has been brought out, FSA Manages the
Norton Younglove Community Center in Highgrove and as far as he can see the people in
Highgrove are satisfied with their management of the center.
Jane Haines Lee, 22167 Lark Street, this is a new topic and they haven't had a chance to
meet with them. They have a lot of questions and they would like to meet with Family
Services to see if they can have a better understanding.
City Attorney arper,responded that Family Services has insurance and it would be required
if we were to enter into a contract with them. The JPIA principal of liability concern from
the City's perspective was when an entity un-associated with the City was operating in a city-
owned facility. If Family Services or some other organization contracted with us and
provided insurance,the JPIA's concern goes away. He would expect that there would be a
way to structure the advisory committee so that they were City Volunteers and the JPIA
would cover City Volunteers.
City Manager Adams, stated that she feels that it is important that it is clear that if we enter
i
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 6
into a contract for Family Services to operate the Senior Center,they will operate the entire
center and they will report to the City. Family Services will create an advisory counsel that
would consist of the Senior Center Group and others.
Dom Betro, CEO Family Services Association,reported that they are a non-profit and they
are incorporated and carry 1 million, 3 million coverage as well as a 7 million umbrella.
When they go into these sites they indemnify and co-insure the entity that they are working
for. There are always items, since the City owns the building, that they are responsible for
but they would be more than adequate in terms of the insurance that would be required by
the City. They like to set-up advisory counsels. They have a very similar relationship in the
City of Calimesa with a counsel that existed before they came on board. They advise them
on programs,fundraising, and what they want to do. He often advises such groups that it is
not in their best interest to apply for a non-profit status because then they have to comply
with all the legal and insurance issues that take away from the passion that they really have,
which is to see that the programs at the center run. They can certainl i accomplish all of their
goals by being an advisory counsel to Family Services and their non-profit status covers
donations, insurance, and all the things that you would get by formally incorporating and
having to deal with all of the legal ramifications of it all. They run centers from$100,000.00
per year to $1.5 million per year. They are very good at catering and addressing what the
needs are,what the capacities are and what the financial realities are and building from there.
Overtime, although he can't guarantee,they also have a history of for every dollar they get
from government they usually go out and raise a dollar from somewhere else. They would
see this as a developing relationship that would grow. They understand the financial
realities. They are currently having conversations with 3 or 4 cities that are in the same
situation. He feels that they have good working relationships with many cities and they
would be interested and willing and enthusiastic about the possibility of working with the
City of Grand Terrace.
City Manager Adams, stated that it is her understanding that Council would like her to have
a meeting with Family Services and the representatives from the Seniors to talk about how
i things could possibly work. She-needs to work on a draft agreement that we could be
considering entering into with Family Services and at the same time identifying some
financial options for Council to consider in terms of how to pay forlthe service.
Chairman Ferr6 Adjourned the Joint Workshop of the CRA/City Council a�5:30 p.m.
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 6:00 P.M.
i
APPROVAL OF 06-22-2010 MINUTES
CRA-2010-34 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER STANCKIEWITZ, SECOND BY AGENCY
MEMBER CORTES, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA WAS
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 7
ABSENT), to approve the June 22, 2010 Community Redevelopment Agency
Minutes.
PROFESSIONAL . SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GRAND
TERRACE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
CRA-2010-35 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA WAS
ABSENT),to approve a Professional Consultant Services Agreement in the amount
of$10,320.00 per year between the Agency and the Chamber of Commerce to assist
area businesses and approve a budget appropriation of an additional $1,440.00 for
Fiscal Year 2010-11 to provide assistance to further develop Market Night.
BLUE MOUNTAIN PARK PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PUBLIC
ACCESS
Denis Kidd,22874 Pico Street,Chair and President of Friends of Blue Mountain,they would
be in favor of the Blue Mountain Feasibility Study for Public Access. About 25 years ago
the City of Grand Terrace obtained about 2 acres on'Observation Drive at Van Buren from
l�, a Developer. The Purpose of that property was for a park. He feels that it is time now to
develop that park. The Fundraising Chair has told him that they are going to have a hard
time raising the money that they need to purchase the 10.5 acres on Blue Mountain unless
they get the City involved. He knows of one potential donor that will not donate until they
are sure that there is going to be a park. His proposal is to start out with a mini 70 acre park.
They need a sign and a trail head. They are asking that the city develop the two acres as an
entrance to the park and trail so that they can raise money to get the park going.
JoAnn Johnson, 12723 Mt.Vernon Avenue,supports the idea. She has been with the Friends
of the Blue Mountain since the beginning. She feels that this is a fantastic start and that
Grand Terrace would be very lucky to have a park on Blue Mountain and that this is a good
way to get started raising funds.
CRA-2010-36 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0=1-0 (VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA WAS
ABSENT), to direct Staff to issue a Request for Proposals for a feasibility study to
provide public parking and trail access to Blue Mountain Park.
AWARD CONTRACT-GRAND TERRACE ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS
- GTB-2010-02 (PALM CANYON)
Rita Schwark,21952 Grand Terrace Road,is very pleased to hear that they are finally going
i
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
July 13,2010
Page 8
to do some work on her road. She is requesting emergency phone numbers during closed
hours for the company that is doing work so that she doesn't have to call the Sheriff's
Department. She also requested an emergency phone number for Code Enforcement for after
hours. Once the street is improved she questioned if the truck traffic will be addressed. She
questioned if anything will be done about the broken sign on Mt.Vernon and Grand Terrace
Road. She would like a meeting to be held with the residents so that they can express their
concerns.
CRA-2010-37 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA WAS
ABSENT), to approve a Resolution Adopting Certain Findings Regarding the
Construction and Installation of Public Improvements, Which are of Benefit to the
Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area and Appropriate
$266,040.50 for Project Costs, Construction Contingency of 10%, and Project
Management(before reimbursements).
Mayor Ferrd adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:38 p.m.,until the next
CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
C )
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65511 7/7/2010 010996 CA PUB EMPLOYEES' RET. SYSTEM H2O100714930C JULY EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT HEALTH INSURAf
10-022-61-00 7,114.78
10-120-142-000-000 294.44
10-125-142-000-000 552.10
10-140-142-000-000 82815
10-172-1427000-000 349.65
10-175-142-000-000 570.50
10-180-142-000-000 128.82
10-190-265-000-000 72.19
10-370-142-000-000 62570
10-380-142-000-000 276.04
10-440-142-000-000 2,313.36
10-450-142-000-000 294.44
10-625-142-000-000 239.23
16-175-142-000-000 809.72
21-572-142-000-000 368.08
32-200-142-000-000 588.91
32-370-142-000-000 404.87
34-400-142-000-000 331.23
Total : 16,162.21
65512 7/8/2010 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY July Life Ins & S' EMPLOYEE LIFE INSURANCE & STD
Page: 1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM!! NO.3[�
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65512 7/8/2010 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY (Continued)
10-022-66-00 1,190.93
10-120-142-000-000 1042
10-125-142-000-000 1042
10-140-142-000-000 15.63
10-172-142-000-000 6.59
10-175-142-000-000 10.44
10-180-142-000-000 6.26
10-185-142-000-000 6.95
10-370-142-000-000 10.31
10-380-142-000-000 5.21
10440-142-000-000 5435
10-450-142-000-000 556
10-625-110-000-000 3.95
16-175-142-000-000 15.26
21-572-142-000-000 663
32-370-142-000-000 677
32-200-142-000-000 12.15
34-400-142-000-000 687
34-800-142-000-000 2.78
Total : 1,387.48
65513 7/8/2010 004587 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 3200018210 JULY EMPLOYEE MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK
Page: 2
I
vchlist voucher List Page: 3
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65513 7/8/2010 004587 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK (Continued)
10-172-142-000-000 6.33
10-175-142-000-000 1033
10-380-142-000-000 5.00
10-440-142-000-000 139.86
10-450-142-000-000 11 98
10-625-110-000-000 433
16-175-142-000-000 14.64
21-572-142-000-000 6.66
32-370-142-000-000 732
32-200-142-000-000 1166
34-400-142=000-000 6.63
34-800-142-000-000 2.66
10-120-142-000-000 1000
10-125-142-000-000 1000
10-140-142-000-000 1500
10-180-142-000-000 12.66
10-185-142-000-000 6.66
10-370-142-000-000 11.32
Total : 293.04
65514 7/8/2010 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 160-513170000( JULY EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT DENTAL INSURAN
10-022-61-00 1,273.00
10-180-142-000-000 4408
Total : 1,317.08
65515 7/8/2010 011092 METLIFE SBC KM05654034 00 JULY EMPLOYEE DEPENDENT DENTAL INSURAN
10-022-61-00 203.58
10-180-142-000-000 5000
Total: 253.58
65516 7/8/2010 010737 WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC. 002484 7730 JULY EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT DENTAL INSURAN
10-022-61-00 73.62
Total : 73.62
65519 7/13/2010 001907 COSTCO#478 0478 05 0239 8 C. CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 11539
Page. 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65519 7/13/2010 001907 COSTCO#478 (Continued) Total : 115.39
65520 7/13/2010 010764 SAFEGUARD DENTAL&VISION 33206110 JULY EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT VISION INSURANC
10-022-61-00 11967
10-180-142-000-000 1427
Total : 133.94
65522 7/15/2010 010447 STUDIO 33 PRODUCTIONS 10-389 Moive in the Park Sound Set-up
23-200-12-00 20000
Total : 200.00
65523 7/15/2010 011110 TIME WARNER CABLE July 84484005 .. July/Aug Internet& Cable Srvs .
10-805-238-000-000 121.43
Total : 121.43
65526 7/20/2010 010546 MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS July 2010 July Phone Service/Lines
10-190-235-000-000 1,01480
10-808-235-000-000 6353
10-380-235-000-000 200.00
10-440-235-000-000 2922
10-450-235-000-000 1460
Total : 1,322.15
65527 7/20/2010 011137 REPLACEMENT BENEFIT FUND RBF2010-135 2010 Replacement Charges-T Schwab
10-017-00-00 25,525 57
Total : 25,525.57
65565 7/27/2010 011136 ANDEREGG, SHELLY 07062010 C Care Credit Reimbursement
-- --- - ---— -- - - -- -- - --10=440=28 - - -- -- -----97-20 ------
Total : 97.20
65566 7/27/2010 011007 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA Aug J04365575- Aug COBRA Health-Berry Family
10-180-142-000-000 83655
Total : 836.55
65567 7/27/2010 001860 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL FY 10-11 FY 10-11 Lease pmt-Comm Ctr.
10-190-242-000-000 101 00
--� Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65567 7/27/2010 001860 COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL (Continued) Total : 101.00
65568 7/27/2010 010147 CORTES, BEA July 2010 July City/Agency Stipend/Mileage
32-200-120-000-000 15000
10-110-120-000-000 77.06
10-110-273-000-000 20000
Total : 427.06
65569 7/27/2010 001907 COSTCO#478 0478 13 0201 91 C CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 4810
Total : 48.10
65570 7/27/2010 001930 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION B1888909 Notice of Inviting Bids
10-125-230-000-000 193.60
B1895084 Notice of Public Hearing
10-125-230-000-000 191.40
B1895092 Notice of Public Hearing
10-125-230-000-000 616.00
B1895095 Notice of Election
10-125-230-000-000 121 00
Total ; 1,122.00.
65571 7/27/2010 002450 FERRE', MARYETTA July 2010 July City/Agency Stipend
32-200-120-000-000 150.00
10-110-120-000-000 25000
Total : 400.00
65572 7/27/2010 002727 FREEMAN COMPANY, J R 441757-0 Office Supplies
10-125-210-000-000 22962
441777-0 Office Supplies
10-125-210-000-000 101.66
Total : 331.28
65573 7/27/2010 002795 GARCIA, LEE ANN July 2010 July City/Agency Stipend/Mileage
32-200-120-000-000 15000
10-110-273-000-000 146.06
Total : 296.06
Page. 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65574 7/27/2010 010164 GREAT-WEST PR END 7/6/201 Contributions for PR END 7/9/2010
10-022-63-00 5,13572
Total : 5,135.72
65575 7/27/2010 010552 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 07072010 FY 10-11 Class A Membership-Shields
10-172-265-000-000 2500
Total : 25.00
65576 7/27/2010 010449 KONICA MINOLTA BUS. SOLUTIONS 215042712 1st Qtr Copier Maint-Toshiba E-studio
10-172-246-000-000 25.00
10-175-246-000-000 2500
34-400-246-000-000 2500
Total : 75.00
65577 7/27/2010 005024 NEOPOST INC 46326495 FY 10-11 Postage Meter Rental
10-190-211-000-000 64761
46327007 FY 10-11 Rate Change Protection
10-190-211-000-000 16896
Total : 816.57
65578 7/27/2010 005450 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY SAU06425V710 FY 10-11 Elevator Maint. Svcs.
10-195-246-000-000 4,37683
Total : 4,376.83
65579 7/27/2010 005586 PETTY CASH 07142010 Replenish C. Care Petty Cash
10-440-228-000-000 3640
10-440-223-000-000 2750
Total : 63.90
65580 7/27/2010 010657 PROGRESSIVE SOLUTIONS 36086 FY 2010-11 SOFTWARE MAINT
10-140-246-000-000 4,30944
10-185-246-000-000 3,557.02
10-180-701-000-000 2,226.78
Total : 10,093.24
65581 7/27/2010 006310 ROADRUNNER SELF STORAGE INC 11597 August Storage Rental
10-140-241-000-000 238.00
1 _ Page. 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65581 7/27/2010 006310 ROADRUNNER SELF STORAGE INC. (Continued) Total : 238.00
65582 7/27/2010 006531 S.B COUNTY SHERIFF 10040 FY 10-11 CAL-ID Assessment Fee
10-410-258-000-000 13,108.20
Total : 13,108.20
65583 7/27/2010 006556 S B COUNTY TREASURER 3437 FY 10-11 Budget Allocation-LAFCO
10-190-265-000-000 1,37568
Total : 1,375.68
65584 7/27/2010 010974 STANCKIEWITZ, WALT July 2010 July City/Agency Stipend/Mileage
32-200-120-000-000 150.00
10-110-120-000-000 250.00
10-110-273-000-000 200.00
Total : 600.00
65585 7/27/2010 006778 STAPLES 8015962187 3139230677 Kitchen Supplies
10-190-210-000-000 3937
Total : 39.37
65586 7/27/2010 010870 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC. RG 1458448 Movie in the Park-"Cloudy with a Chance
23-200-12-00 321.00
Total : 321.00
65587 7/27/2010 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 0070706924 C. CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES--
10-440-220-000-000 40268
0071409163 C CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES-
10-440-220-000-000 382.02
Total : 784.70
35 Vouchers for bank code : bofa Bank total : 87,617.95
35 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 87,617.95
Page 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
07/21/2010 11:06:29AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
Page- 8
�cl
City of Grand Terrace
Warrant Register Index
FD No. Fund Name Dept No. Department Name General Account Numbers
10 GENERAL FUND 110 CITY COUNCIL 110 SALARIES/WAGES
11 Street Fund 120 CITY MANAGER 139 EMPLOYEES'BENEFIT PLAN
12 Storm Drain Fund 125 CITY CLERK 140 RETIREMENT
13 Park Fund 140 FINANCE 142 HEALTH/LIFE INSURANCE
14 AB 3229 COPS Fund 160 CITY ATTORNEY 143 WORKERS'COMPENSATION
15 Air Quality Improvement Fund 172 BUILDING&SAFETY 138/141 MEDICARE/SUI
16 Gas Tax Fund 175 PUBLIC WORKS 210 OFFICE EXPENSE
17 Traffic Safety Fund/TDA Fund 180 COMMUNITY SERVICES 218-219 NON-CAPITAL FURN/SMALL TOOLS
19 Facilities Development Fund 185 RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM 220 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL EXP
20 Measure I Fund 190 GENERAL GOVERNMENT(NON-DEPT) 230 ADVERTISING
21 Waste Water Disposal Fund 370 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEV 235 COMMUNICATIONS
26 LSCPG/LGHTG Assessment Dist 380 MGT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 238-239 UTILITIES
44 Bike Lane Capital Fund 410 LAW ENFORCEMENT , 240-242 RENTS&LEASES
46 Street Improvement Projects 430 RECREATION SERVICES 245-246 MAINT BLDG GRNDS EQUIPMNT
47 Barton Rd. Bridge Project 440 CHILD CARE 250-251 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
32 CRA-CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 450 PARKS MAINTENANCE 255-256 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
33 CRA-DEBT SERVICE FUND 631 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE 260 INSURANCE&SURETY BONDS
34 CRA-LOW&MOD HOUSING 801 PLANNING COMMISSION 265 MEMBERSHIPS&DUES
802 CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 268 TRAINING
804 HISTORICAL&CULTURAL COMM. 270 TRAVEUCONFERENCES/MTGS
805 SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM 272 FUEL&VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
807 PARKS&REC COMMITTEE 570 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
808 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PROG. 33-300 DEBT SERVICE
7XX FACILITIES IMPRV(NO CIP)
700 COMPUTER-RELATED
701 VEHICLES&EQUIPMENT
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the afore-listed checks for payment of City and
Community Redevelopment Agency liabilities have been audited by me and are necessary and
appropriate for the operation of City and Agency.
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
07/21/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65517 7/12/2010 010164 GREAT-WEST PR END 6/25/10 Contributions for PR End 6/25/2010
10-022-63-00 5,13701
10-022-64-00 1,512.18
Total: 6,649.19
65518 7/13/2010 010218 CHEVRON&TEXACO CARD SERVICES 25633674 June Maint Vehicle Fuel
34-800-272-000-000 9921
10-180-272-000-000 54743
Total: 646.64
65521 7/15/2010 010664 SHELL FLEET MANAGEMENT 8000209687007 June Maint Vehicle Fuel
10-180-272-000-000 538.48
Total: 538.48
65524 7/15/2010 010812 LOWE'S COMMERCIAL SERVICES 909373 Maintenance Supplies
10-180-245-000-000 1664
23-200-12-00 303.18
915804 CERT Generator
10-808-708-000-000 1,522.49
927545 Maintenance Supplies
10-440-245-000-000 5 31
10-180-245-000-000 869
10-808-708-000-000 8440
Total: 1,940.71
65525 7/16/2010 005702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PRend 6-25-10 CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PREND 6-25-10
10-022-62-00 17,346 03
Total: 17,346.03
65528 7/27/2010 001001 AA EQUIPMENT CO INC 8310737 Tractor&Mower Service
10-450-246-000-000 1,25055
Total. 1,250.55
65529 7/27/2010 010444 AN-WIL BAG COMPANY 29378 Cold Patch Asphalt
16-900-257-000-000 54353
Total: 543.53
Page. 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
07/21/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65530 7/27/2010 001206 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION June/July 2010 June/July Visa Charges
10-440-228-000-000 Special Event Supplies 60.00
10-380-249-000-000 Laptop Repair 368.49
10-808-247-000-000 EZ Up Replacement 10998
23-200-12-00 GT Community Day Supplies 612.84
23-200-14-00 Classroom Supplies 119.09
Total: 1,270.40
65531 7/27/2010 001324 BALLOON TEAM PROMOTIONS, JOHN E. BILE 63010 Balloons for GT Community Days
23-200-12-00 21750
Total: 217.50
65532 7/27/2010 001683 CA. STATE DEPT OF CONSERVATION 3rd Qtr 2010 3rd Qtr Strong Motion
23-200-21-00 1361
3RD QTR 2010 3rd Qtr Strong Motion
10-700-01 -0 68
4th Qtr 2010 4TH QTR STRONG MOTION
10-700-01 -12 02
23-200-21-00 240.37
Tota 1: 241.28
65533 7/27/2010 001705 CA. STATE DEPT OF JUSTICE 799128 LIVE SCAN& BACKGROUND CHECKS
10-190-226-000-000 32.00
Total: 32.00
65534 7/27/2010 001740 CDW GOVERNMENT INC SZR3634 NETWORK CABLES RJ45 PER QUOTE TTP6291
10-380-249-000-000 9483
TCZ4282 NETWORK CABLES RJ45 PER QUOTE TTP6291
10-380-249-000-000 1397
TDG7320 NETWORK CABLES RJ45 PER QUOTE TTP6291
10-380-249-000-000 879
Total: 117.59
65535 7/27/2010 011031 CINTAS CORPORATION#150 150160111 C CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-228-000-000 7993
150169082 C CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-228-000-000 116.76
Page 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
07/21/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65535 7/27/2010 011031 CINTAS CORPORATION#150 (Continued) Total• 196.69
65536 7/27/2010 011029 COBRA SIMPLE 74 COBRA ADMIN SERVICES
10-190-220-000-000 50 00
Total: 60.00
65537 7/27/2010 001950 DATA QUICK B1-1821231 June Subscription Srvs
10-380-250-000-000 43.50
21-572-246-000-000 43.50
34-800-220-000-000 43.50
Total: 130.50
65538 7/27/2010 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 2123139 Neighborhood Imp. Grant-Kaplanek
32-600-305-000-000 993.12
Total 993.12
65539 7/27/2010 002301 FEDEX 7-151-46208 June Document Delivery
10-180-268-000-000 15.18
10-180-210-000-000 42.24
Total: 57.42
65540 7/27/2010 002710 FOX OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CT 68679-27714 ILLNESS/INJURY AND NEW HIRE EXAMS
10-190-224-000-000 118.00
Total 118.00
65541 7/27/2010 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 90565867 Pest Roundup Supplies
10-180-246-000-000 15059
Total. 150.59
65542 7/27/2010 002901 G T AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 6076-DINNER 6/23 INSTALLATION DINNER
10-120-270-000-000 2000
10-110-270-000-000 4000
Total. 60.00
65543 7/27/2010 003152 HARPER&BURNS LLPN 07012010 June Legal Services
10-160-250-000-000 7,00937
32-200-251-000-000 7,00938
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
07121/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code• ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice DescriptionlAccount Amount
65543 7/27/2010 003152 HARPER&BURNS LLPN (Continued) Total: 14,018.75
65544 7/27/2010 010632 HIGH TECH SECURITY SYSTEMS 92072 Rollins Park Service Call
10-450-246-000-000 7500
92073 Pico Park Service Call
10-450-246-000-000 7500
Total: 150.00
65545 7/27/2010 003224 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS INC 06380690-00 Parks Supplies
10-450-245-000-000 10981
Total 109.81
65546 7/27/2010 010773 KELLAR SWEEPING INC 5299 STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
16-900-254-000-000 4,200 00
Total: 4,200.00
65547 7/27/2010 004670 MIRACLE MILE CAR WASH 412346 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
10-180-272-000-000 6 50
10-440-272-000-000 73.25
Total: 79.75
65548 7/27/2010 010097 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 410575025-094 May/June Wireless Svc-Maint/C Care
10-180-240-000-000 352.53
10-440-235-000-000 5006
Total: 402.59
65549 7/27/2010 005435 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY 638804344-01 Var Toys for GT Community Days
23-200-12-00 43734
— -Total: - - - -437.-34-- -- --
65550 7/27/2010 010171 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 18764 Barton/Honey Hill-Furnish/Install
16-510-255-000-000 906.28
610112 June Signal Maintenance
16-510-255-000-000 451 68
Tota 1: 1,357.96
65551 7/27/2010 006506 S B. FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT 2010-000007C Feb 2009-Jan 2010 Abatement Srvs
10-190-257-000-000 4,00000
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
07/21/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65551 7/27/2010 006506 S B. FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT (Continued) Total: 4,000.00
65552 7/27/2010 007005 SO CAL LOCKSMITH 12055 Keys
10-180-245-000-000 3689
Total: 36.89
65553 7/27/2010 006720 SO CA.EDISON COMPANY June 2010 June Energy Usage
16-510-238-000-000 5,62032
26-600-238-000-000 4980
26-601-238-000-000 41 50
26-602-238-000-000 58.10
Total: 5,769.72
65554 7/27/2010 006730 SO CA.GAS COMPANY June 2010 June Natural Gas Usage
10-190=238-000-000 140.45
10-440-238-000-000 44 02
10-180-272-000-000 780
10-440-272-000-000 260
34-800-272-000-000 260
Total: 197.47
65555 7/27/2010 006778 STAPLES 34185 GT Community Days Supplies
23-200-12-00 14677
41659 GT Community Days Supplies
23-200-12-00 5749
Tota l 204.26
65556 7/27/2010 010447 STUDIO 33 PRODUCTIONS 6181 Replace Var Equipment-Sr Cntr
32-370-255-001-000 3,41842
32-370-270-000-000 1,709.21
Total: 5,127.63
65557 7/27/2010 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 0050626522 FOOD&SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 8445
Tota 1: 84.45
65558 7/27/2010 010712 TASO TECH, INC 638 HP LASERJET M3035XS MULTIFUNCTION
Page. 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
07/21/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
65558 7/27/2010 010712 TASO TECH, INC (Continued)
10-140-250-000-000 21000
10-140-701-000-000 2,17996
Total: 2,389.96
65559 7/27/2010 007220 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 420100276 April Dig Alert Tickets
16-900-220-000-000 3000
520100271 May Dig Alert Tickets
16-900-220-000-000 2550
620100282 June Dig Alert Tickets
16-900-220-000-000 3450
Total 90.00
65560 7/27/2010 010693 UNITED WAY PR END 6/25/10 PR END 6/25/10 Donations
10-022-65-00 6950
Total. 69.50
65561 7/27/2010 007843 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 66419 CITY WIDE TREE SERVICE
16-900-260-000-000 27000
Total 270.00
65562 7/27/2010 007854 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS CO 500434 PEST CONTROL
10-180-245-000-000 86.50
34-400-246-000-000 38.50
10-805-245-000-000 33.00
Total: 158.00
65563 7/27/2010 007920 WILLDAN 002-10401 June Inspect/Plan Review
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- ----- -- --- - - -10-175-255=000--000- — - - 2,170-00
002-10402 June Engineer/Design Srvs
46-900-304-000-000 275.00
002-10403 PLAN CHECK SERVICES
10-175-255-000-000 3,30000
Total: 5,745.00
65564 7/27/2010 007987 XEROX CORPORATION 048993399 CC265 COPIER LEASE
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
07/21/2010 10:28:26AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: ofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice DescriptionlAccount Amount
65564 7/27/2010 007987 XEROX CORPORATION (Continued)
10-190-700-000-000 103.92
10-190-700-000-000 19042
10-190-212-000-000 14708
Total: 441.42
42 Vouchers for bank code: ofa Bank total. 77,890.72
42 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 77,890.72
Page: 7
a
City of Grand Terrace
Warrant Register Index
FD No. Fund Name Dept No. Department Name General Account Numbers
10 GENERAL FUND 110 CITY COUNCIL 110 SALARIES/WAGES
11 Street Fund 120 CITY MANAGER 139 EMPLOYEES'BENEFIT PLAN
12 Storm Drain Fund 125 CITY CLERK 140 RETIREMENT
13 Park Fund 140 FINANCE- 142 HEALTHILIFE INSURANCE
14 AB 3229 COPS Fund 160 CITY ATTORNEY 143 WORKERS'COMPENSATION
15 Air Quality Improvement Fund 172 BUILDING&SAFETY 138/141 MEDICARE/SUI
16 Gas Tax Fund 175 PUBLIC WORKS 210 OFFICE EXPENSE
17 Traffic Safety Fund/TDA Fund 180 COMMUNITY SERVICES 218-219 NON-CAPITAL FURN/SMALL TOOLS
19 Facilities Development Fund 185 RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM 220 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL_ EXP
.20 Measure I Fund 190 GENERAL GOVERNMENT(NOWDEPT) 230 ADVERTISING
21 Waste Water Disposal Fund 370 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEV 235 COMMUNICATIONS
26 LSCPG/LGHTG Assessment Dist 380 MGT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 238-239 UTILITIES
44 Bike Lane Capital Fund 410 LAW ENFORCEMENT 246-242 RENTS&LEASES
46 Street Improvement Projects 430 RECREATION SERVICES 245-246 MAINT BLDG GRNDS EQUIPMNT
47 Barton Rd. Bridge Project 440 CHILD CARE _ 250-251 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
32 CRA-CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 450 PARKS,MAINTENANCE 255-256 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
33 CRA-DEBT SERVICE FUND 631 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE 260 INSURANCE&SURETY BONDS
34 CRA-LOW&MOD HOUSING 801 PLANNING COMMISSION 265 MEMBERSHIPS&DUES
802 CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 268 TRAINING
804 HISTORICAL&CULTURAL COMM. 270 TRAVEUCONFERENCES/MTGS
_ 805 SENIOR_CITIZENS PROGRAM 272 -FUEL-&VEHICLE MAINTENANCE--------— --
807 PARKS&REC COMMITTEE 570 -WASTEWATER TREATMENT
808 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PROG. 33-300 DEBT SERVICE
7XX FACILITIES IMPRV(NO CIP)
700 COMPUTER-RELATED
701 VEHICLES"&EQUIPMENT
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the afore-listed checks for payment of City and
Community Redevelopment Agency liabilities have been audited by me and are necessary and
appropriate for the operation of City and Agency.
Bernie Simon, Finance Director
PENMNG CITE COUNCIL APPROVAL
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -JULY 13,2010
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 July 13,
2010 at 4:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Mayor
Bea Cortes, Councilmember
Walt Stanckiewitz, Councilmember
Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Bernard Simon, Finance Director
Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Sgt. Palomino, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
ABSENT: Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern
Richard Shields, Building& Safety Director
Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Ken Wolf, Calvary the Brook Church,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilwoman Bea Cortes.
4:30 P.M. JOINT WORKSHOP CRA/CITY COUNCIL - OPERATION OF SENIOR
CENTER
Betsy M.Adams,Ci . Manger,indicated that the purpose of the workshop is to give staff the
opportunity to advise Council of three issues that came up with regard to operations of the
Senior Center that were identified when the Cities Insurance Pool, California Joint Powers
Insurance Authority,did an onsite risk evaluation of all City operations on June 9,2010. The
first of the three issues that they identified at the Senior Center is-that we do not have an
agreement between the City and the Grand Terrace Senior Club,who operates the center on
our behalf. The second is that we do not have insurance from the Grand Terrace Seniors and
the third is that there is a need for some additional written policies to document some of the
practices at the Senior Center. She stated that there are representatives from Family Services
at the meeting to give a presentation and that JoAnn Johnson is also prepared to give a
presentation. She gave the background of how the Senior Center has been operated over the
years. In considering addressing the concerns that JPIA identified, Staff has come up with
three potential options:To continue having the Grand Terrace Senior Club operate the Senior
Center with them becoming a legal entity capable of entering into a written agreement and
obtain the appropriate limit of insurance. 'The second option would be to have City Staff
operate the Senior Center, which she feels would be the option of last resort. The third
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.''j`:
I
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 2
potential option would be to out-source the operation of the Senior Center to an organization.
Family Services has provided a list of services that they can provide and their qualifications.
She is looking for desirable outcomes that Council would like staff to evaluate further.
I
Veronica Dover, Chief Operating Officer,Family Services Association, stated that they are
a non-profit agency. They have been providing services since 1951 They provide a wide
variety of services including mental health services, child development centers, operate
senior community centers, provide senior nutrition services, senior specialty services,
prevention and early intervention services for seniors, and affordable housing. When they
provide services to community centers and operate community centers, their philosophy is
very much in line with family services mission which is, "Family Strength is Community
Strength". Seniors and their families have a lot of needs and have a'lot of desires for their
centers. They have advisory counsels in every single program that they offer. Those
counsels play a very important role in their programs by involving those members of the
community that they are serving that tell them what they want to see.
JoAnn Johnson, Senior Center, stated that she likes what she has heard. She feels that most
of the seniors are concerned about losing their independence. They,have had almost total
freedom to have the activities and programs that they wanted as long as they could find
someone willing to take on the responsibility for the program. They have had some self-
imposed rules, that were intended to avoid problems in the future.i The Information and
Referral Office was formed in 1988/1989. They moved into the Senior Center in July of
1991. They are listed on several websites, including the nation-wide 211 information and
referral system. The Information and Referral Office underwent a drastic change when they
moved into the present building because of the lack of space. They have several different
funds that support different things and produce the necessary money to purchase supplies,
equipment and other things. They sell good stuff and own their own soda machine and
coffee service. Their treasurer keeps record of the income and expenses and they have a
checking account and a CD. There are some organizations that use the building on a
complementary basis only because they have volunteers that are willing to open and close
the facility. The Foundation of Grand Terrace,The Friends of Blue Mountain are long time
cases and point. They have also allowed TOPS to use their facility as a courtesy. Their
number one concern for them is how much independence will be lost and how much
independence can they maintain. Will they be able to keep their'existing activities and
programs. How will they handle their finances,will their treasurer be able to receive money
and write checks without going through a month long process. The building was planned for
only two offices, the Information and Referral and the Presidents," Office, how will this
change affect that space. Can they remain a senior center and noti become a community
center. Their building was never intended to be used by children. There are many things
about the proposal that are very appealing. She feels that it could be beneficial to combine
programs with Highgrove as well as other near by centers. There also might be the
possibility of connecting the two centers with public bus service. Many of their members
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 3
live in Highgrove. The Senior Center and Information and Referral Office have operated
quite smoothly for 19 years plus the three years that they spent at the Lion's Community
Center. She wants the organization to continue for years into the future.
Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz,stated that the way he understands it,the Grand Terrace
Senior Club is primarily a social organization.
JoAnn Johnson, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz, questioned if the Senior Club wants to become a business
organization.
JoAnn Johnson, responded in the negative.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz,stated that the Senior Club indicated that they sell coffee and
he believes that they need a health permit to do that. There are liability's at the center that
we may not be aware of. We need to try and come up with a solution that we can all live
with. He questioned if there was anyone that actually live in the Villas at the Meeting. He
questioned how to get the residents that live in the Villas to participate in the center.
JoAnn Johnson, responded that there is a large number of residents of the Villas that are
members of the Club. There are a few that participate in the programs.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz,questioned if the Club has had an opportunity to discuss the
proposal from Family Services.
JoAnn Johnson, responded that they just recently received the proposal so they have not.
Councilmember Cortes, stated that this is a very difficult issue that has come before the
Council. She stated that she has been elected to protect and to provide for the community.
She would like to provide the Seniors with what they have always done,however,it appears
that this is a liability issue. She would like the City Manager to look into having Family
Services meet with the Senior Club.
JoAnn Johnson, stated that they have been very comfortable doing things the way that they
have, however, she understands what the Council is saying.
City Attorney John Harper, indicated that from the City's perspective and the Joint Powers
Insurance Authority, it's the City's liability that we are concerned with. He can't give legal
advice regarding this issue,however,he is much more concerned about the liability that each
individual has if they operate as a club and somebody comes in and slips and falls,they are
going to sue the club and each individual. They have no protection.
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 4
i
Mayor Maryetta Ferre,indicated that this is all new territory. She stated that the Senior Club
would like the center to remain a Senior Center and not become a Community Center. She
would like to be assured that this center would remain a Senior Center.
Veronica Dover,stated that she is very impressed that a volunteer group has been able to run
the center. They are more than happy to work with the club and the City should they ask
them.
I
City Manager Adams,stated that it would be the City's decision on whether or not the center
would remain a Senior Center or a Community Center. When she has had conversations
with Family Services it has been specifically with regard to running the program as a senior
center.
i
Mayor Ferre, she would like reassurance that if we go with Family services that the center
would remain a Senior Center. She questioned if the advisory grow could consist of the
Senior Center Group.
Veronica Dover, responded that they have two facilities that run solely as a senior center.
They are happy to provide the services that the City/Seniors want them to provide. They
would be happy to utilize the Senior Center Group as an advisory counsel. They may add
to that group.
Mayor Ferre, stated that JoAnn Johnson is an important member of this organization and
success of the organization over the last twenty years. She questioned where she fits into this
picture.
Veronica Dover, responded that she would be an integral part of developing this advisory
counsel and developing the plan for the services that they will provide. She can't say that
there won't be any changes. She sees JoAnn and this Club as an asset. They are a very
collaborative organization.
Mayor Ferre, questioned how the finances would work.
Veronia Dover,responded that they would have to negotiate. A meeting with City Manager
Adams and the Senior Group would have to be held so that they can negotiate how that
would work.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz, he realizes that we currently don't have a commercial grade
kitchen which limits what is offered to the seniors. When the commercial grade kitchen is
in, how will that change the lunch program.
i
Veronica Dover, responded that they will cook in the kitchen on site.
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 5
Mayor Ferre, stated that it sounds to her like there are many parts of the Family Services
proposal that could work out with the Grand Terrace Senior Group. Because we are just
starting this process she is wondering if a meeting between the groups would be beneficial
and feels that this may be the best way to go.
City Manager Adams, stated that the seniors in the past were using the City's Tax ID
Number,unless they become a legal entity of some type when they collect money it will be
personal income to them and she thinks we would have to look at how that would be handled
on City premises. There are a lot of complexities to this issue.
City Attorney Harper, stated that it would be easy for the group to become a non-profit
group.
City Manager Adams,feels that it would be helpful to staff to have the Council give direction
of which level of service they would be interested.
It was the consensus of the Council to look into the lower level of service to begin with
Flo Elliott,822 Cimarron Drive,has been a member of the Senior Board for quite some time.
She questioned what type of insurance they would have if Family Services took over the
center or if they would still need to have insurance on their own. If they remain as the
volunteer group she understands that they would need some type of insurance coverage,but
she would also like to know what other things the City would like them, as a totally
independent group, to have.
Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico Street, stated that as it has been brought out, FSA Manages the
Norton Younglove Community Center in Highgrove and as far as he can see the people in
Highgrove are satisfied with their management of the center.
Jane Haines Lee, 22167 Lark Street, this is a new topic and they haven't had a chance to
meet with them. They have a lot of questions and they would like to meet with Family
Services to see if they can have a better understanding.
City Attorney Harper,responded that Family Services has insurance and it would be required
if we were to enter into a contract with them. The JPIA principal of liability concern from
the City's perspective was when an entity un-associated with the City was operating in a city-
owned facility. If Family Services or some other organization contracted with us and
provided insurance,the JPIA's concern goes away. He would expect that there would be a
way to structure the advisory committee so that they were City Volunteers and the JPIA
would cover City Volunteers.
City Manager Adams, stated that she feels that it is important that it is clear that if we enter
i
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 6
into a contract for Family Services to operate the Senior Center,they;will operate the entire
center and they will report to the City. Family Services will create an advisory counsel that
would consist of the Senior Center Group and others.
Dom Betro, CEO Family Services Association,reported that they are a non-profit and they
are incorporated and carry 1 million, 3 million coverage as well as;a 7 million umbrella.
When they go into these sites they indemnify and co-insure the entity that they are working
for. There are always items,,since the City owns the building, that they are responsible for
but they would be more than adequate in terms of the insurance that would be required by
the City. They like to set-up advisory counsels. They have a very similar relationship in the
City of Calimesa with a counsel that existed before they came on board. They advise them
on programs, fundraising, and what they want to do. He often advises such groups that it is
not in their best interest to apply for a non-profit status because then they have to comply
with all the legal and insurance issues that take away from the passion that they really have,
which is to see that the programs at the center run. They can certainly;accomplish all of their
goals by being an advisory counsel to Family Services and their non-profit status covers
donations, insurance, and all the things that you would get by formally incorporating and
having to deal with all of the legal ramifications of it all. They run centers from$100,000.00
per year to $1.5 million per year. They are very good at catering and addressing what the
needs are,what the capacities are and what the financial realities are and building from there.
Overtime, although he can't guarantee,they also have a history of for every dollar they get
from government they usually go out and raise a dollar from somewhere else. They would
see this as a developing relationship that would grow. They understand the financial
realities. They are currently having conversations with 3 or 4 cities that are in the same
situation. He feels that they have good working relationships with many cities and they
would be interested and willing and enthusiastic about the possibility of working with the
City of Grand Terrace.
City Manager Adams, stated that it is her understanding that Council would like her to have
a meeting with Family Services and the representatives from the Seniors to talk about how
things could possibly work. She needs to work on a draft agreement that we could be
considering entering into with Family Services and at the same time identifying some
financial options for Council to consider in terms of how to pay for the service.
Mayor Ferre adjourned the Joint Workshop between the CRA/City Council at 5:30 p.m.
ITEMS TO DELETE -None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
2A. Community Day Sponsor Recognition
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 7
Mayor Ferre,thanked all of the sponsors that donated money for Grand Terrace Community
Day, without their sponsorship this event would never have happened. She presented the
following individuals with a Certificate of Appreciation:
Supervisor Neil Derry, San Bernardino County Supervisor
Southern California Edison
Grand Terrace Senior's Club
JoAnn Johnson
Tapout
San Bernardino County Firefighters Local 935
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2010-54 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA WAS
ABSENT), to approve the following Consent Calendar Items:
3A. Approve Check Register No. 07-13-2010
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 06-22-2010 Minutes
3D. Bus Shelter Services Agreement with Omnitrans
3E. Award of Bid for Street Rehabilitation Projects Throughout the City(Roquet
Paving, Inc.)
3F. Award Contract-Grand Terrace Road Street Improvements- GTB-2010-02
(Palm Canyon)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bernardo Sandoval,22950 De Berry Street,announced that he will be running for the Grand
Terrace City Council seat. He will be running for the four year-seat against Bea Cortes and
former City Manager Tom Schwab. He wants to answer three very specific questions- He
moved to Grand Terrace in 1978. He was 5 years old and was able to move into a beautiful
tract home that had lots of orange groves all the way around. He played soccer,when it was
called the Grand Terrace Christian Soccer Club. He is the Director of Technical Operations
for a major medical group locally. He has been the director of technology for a CPA firm
that does financial audits for 80%of the school districts and municipalities. It is important
that people understand that it is not his intent to win a seat on this Council. His intent is to
cause a seismic shift in the way that things have occurred and been done in this City. Not
just within this City but also when it comes to issues and events that affect us in terms of the
Colton School Board and what is going on in that situation. Across the board, across very
different factions from the old guard to the new guard to volunteers,community volunteers,
to civic groups, gad flies, there is an error. He is convinced that we must transition and
i
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 8
change from what has gone on in the past ten years. We will not spend more time discussing
cutting City Council salaries/stipends by$40 a month and not engage in the issues that really
matter and the deficit that occurred over the past ten years and these types of situations. He
will make and offer and be accountable to a contract with Grand Terrace and he is asking that
the members of this community who are also frustrated who feel that there has been a lack
of transparency on this City Council to join him. They will not be silent, there will not be
a deafening silence when it comes to challenging issues. He will align himself with strong
capable independent thinkers who will think,who will analyze,who will be strong and will
have the moral fortitude to deal with the issues that are at hand. Not just the financial issues.
We are directly tied with that Colton School Board. We must support Roger Kowalski, we
must support Pilar Tabera as a community to change and transition the relationship that has
E existed with that Colton School Board. There are members on there,that do not respect us.
Thelma Winkler Beach, 12570 Mt.Vernon Avenue,stated that she reads the newspapers and
she is concerned about the leadership but she is mostly concerned about the competency of
their advisor, the City Attorney. Three of the leadership on that dias have been accused of
violation of legal code section 1090 Conflict of Interest,one by the District Attorney's Office
causing him to resign,two by newspaper reporters. There is one common denominator there.
All three have stated that they sought advice from the City Attorney before they voted on the
consent calendars in questions. He assured them that their yes vote would not be a conflict
of interest. I think he owes it to them and to the community to publicly state the law chapter
and verse that he used to determine his advice to each of them to say nothing of the apology
he owes them,the injustice itself is a violation. Maybe he should resign and state the reason
as loss of confidence and his credibility. That is her opinion.
Betty Trimble,22816 De Berry Street,was watching the last Council`Meeting and heard the
Mayor say that she was not going to run for Mayor again. That was a sad thing to hear but
understandable that you want time with your family but we have you until November,so that
is good news. The Mayor and Councilmembers give a lot. Serving in this capacity doesn't
mean it is fun and games, they don't just show up to the dias on Tuesday ride in parades,
going to ribbon cuttings and ground breakings, there is a lot of study, research and soul
searching before voting on projects. Your tenure is in one of the most unsettling times in the
history of Grand Terrace. It was comforting to have you at helm during this time. She
watched the meetings on television. She does not usually seethe gavel come out. It came
out at that time with a firm hand and a firm voice behind it in order to keep the meetings in
order. You have been an amazing and honest mayor. You are admired most for the control
that you exhibit. She is not alone in this opinion, many people have said this. For giving
yourself to the City,speaking well of our City and our citizens and speaking well of what has
been accomplished in the City, thank you.
COUNCIL'REPORTS
Councilmember Bea Cortes,reminded everyone of the Movie in the Park on Friday,July 16
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 9
at Rollins Park at 7:00 p.m. She reported that last week she was invited to attend a workshop
in Big Bear. It was on business sustainability and how they can help keep businesses
together. This was put out by San Bernardino County. They are going to different cities and
finding out what their needs are and putting together a workshop and invite all the businesses
and anyone else who would like to attend. They give you the tools to help. Most of it is
complimentary. She is working with the Department Head and is trying to find a business
t" here in town that will room as many people that would like to participate. They have also
done this in Barstow.
Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz, thanked Bernardo for stepping up and wanting to do
what he wants to do for the City. He sees his contract with Grand Terrace and it is no secret
that he will sign the same contract with Grand Terrace because he agrees with it 100%. He
is hoping that this information get distributed throughout the City because what we are
talking about is serious. This election season is going to be an experience that this City has
never experienced before. This is going to be an issues election season not a popularity
contest. He would challenge everyone to stay involved and participate and listen to what is
going on. There is going to be a lot of information coming out and a lot of issues that need
to be dealt with within the City. He read a quote for those individuals that are considering
pulling papers or who already have by an obscure individual named Thomas Jefferson
"When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself as public property", if you
can't practice that please do us a favor and don't run, we don't need people who are not
going to be committed to the best interest of the City.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6A. Resolution Confirming a Diagram and Assessment for Landscaping & Lighting
Assessment District 89-1, for Fiscal Year 2010-2011
City Attorney John Harper, gave an overview of the Landscaping&Lighting District 89-1
and indicated that this is to adopt the annual Assessment Levy for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Mayor Ferre opened the Public Hearing, there being none, she returned discussion to
Council.'
CC-2010-55 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA WAS
ABSENT), to approve a Resolution Confirming a Diagram and Assessment and
Providing for Annual Assessment Levy for a Landscaping and Street lighting
District.
6B. Zone Change 10-02 - Ordinance Amending Zoning Code Section 18.80.130
Regarding Political Signs
i
i
i
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 10
Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director,'indicated that after a
review of the Municipal Code Section 18.80.130, Political Signs,ithe City Attorney has
prepared a new ordinance regulating political signs that is compliant!with State and Federal
Law.
City Attorney John Harper,stated that in Grand Terrace political signs have not been an issue
except as to non-city elections. He feels that now is a good time to clean up the ordinance
because we don't want candidates to complain that they were being treated
unconstitutionally.
Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz, stated that there is nothing in the Ordinance regarding
banners.
Community and Economic Development Director Powers, responded that banners are
considered signs.
Mayor Ferre opened the Public Hearing.
Doug Wilson, 12168 Observation, did not ask for nor did he vote for the political sign
ordinance to be changed. Over the years he has lived by the rules in his community as others
have. He was informed that a candidate initiated a complaint that started this action to make
the political sign time frame open ended among other changes. If that candidate is in the
room he invites him or her to man up to it. He believes that having political signs throughout
the City for six months or more before an election does not enhance the quality of life for the
citizens of Grand Terrace. Seeing no takers, he respectfully requests that the Council sets
some reasonable limits on the limitations or continue with the limitations that we currently
have. Let us not be the generation that proliferates political graffiti in the City of Grand
Terrace, instead let us be those who beautify the City by choosing to',maintain a 31 year old
policy of common sense. He referenced other cities and limits.
i
Tom Schwab,22687 Lark Street,he understands that it would be a good goal to try and-have
a sign ordinance that is legal, however, he doesn't believe that trying to cheapen and lower
our standards is the right way to go. He believes that always takingithe most conservative
view isn't always the best practice,just because someone says they may sue us because our
political sign ordinance is improper, let them sue us because there are many cases where he
feels we need to take less than the conservative view. This City has a prayer before every
meeting, however, we have been advised that due to the constitutional division of Church
and State that we should not have a prayer given to us at the beginniing of the meeting. He
feels that a prayer is appropriate and it has been this Council's decision to ignore that and to
continue to have a prayer. Until someone sues us and says you may not have a prayer prior
to your meeting, he feels that we should keep on having a prayer. He feels that we should
have some type of regulations when it comes to political signs and he;feels 30 days is plenty.
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 11
He feels that the pollution of these signs are something that we don't want in our City. The
regulations are there for a reason. He doesn't care what a person does in their own personal
lawn,however,he does not want to see 16 square foot signs up and down Barton Road. He
feels that we don't need to lower our standards. There are many Cities in Southern
California that have in their Council Chamber"In God We Trust"and they are being told to
remove that. Some cities are and others are refusing and are saying sue us then we will take
it down.
Mayor Ferrd, returned discussion to the Council.
Councilmember Cortes, feels that the City needs to have some limitations.
Mayor Ferrel, expressed her disappointment that this has had to come up and that we can't
have control on how long signs are up. Don't we have some type of sign ordinance for
businesses. She has been through three elections and abided by the rules as well as everyone
else. Why did this come up after all these years with no complaints can we no longer have
limitations.
City AttorneyHarper, it was raised by a non-city candidate. It was brought to his attention
and so he now gave the Council his opinion. The Council can do what they desire he is just
advising them of the law. There are significantly different standards for the regulations of
�- commercial speech as opposed to political speech. Other cities just continue to go with what
they have. The City Council can go forward with the current code if that is what they desire.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz, stated that he feels the same as everyone else. He does not
want to see a proliferation of signs all over the City. He is not willing to roll the dice and say
that he will take his chances. He feels that we are learning our lesson with too many things
we have done in this City where we have rolled the dice. Someone has brought this to our
attention. This someone has the resources to sue us and the knowledge. He is not willing
to take that chance. His job is to look out for the City and to .protect it monetarily,
financially,and morally. He is not in the practice of challenging State and Federal Law. He
is a supporter of the constitution and if this is what we need to do to be in compliance as
much as he doesn't agree with it he doesn't feel that we have a choice.
Mayor Ferrel, doesn't believe that she has ever ignored anything that would be detrimental
to the City and she wants to make that extremely clear.
Councilmember Stanckiewitz, stated that he feels that she wasn't aware, now you have the
opportunity to ignore something that will be detrimental to the City. He is not willing to
spend money on a court case.
CC-2010-56 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER STANCKIEWITZ to Approve an
I j
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 12
i
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Amending Grand
Terrace Municipal Code Section 18.80.130.
MOTION DIES DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Grand Terrace, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, Approving Zone Change 10-01 to Add the
Floodplain Overlay District and Agricultural Overlay District to 14 Acres of Land
Located in the Industrial Zone District and to Add Chapter 18.77 Entitled
Transitional Residential Uses and Structures to Title 18 of the Grand Terrace
Municipal Code
CC-2010-57 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BYCOUNCILMEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA WAS
ABSENT), to approve the Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Grand
Terrace,County of San Bernardino,State of California,Approving Zone Change 10-
01 to Add the Floodplain Overlay District and Agricultural 'Overlay District to 14
Acres of Land Located in the Industrial Zone District and to Add Chapter 18.77
Entitled Transitional Residential Uses and Structures to Title 18 of the Grand Terrace
Municipal Code.
NEW BUSINESS
8A. Interview Applicants for Planning commission and Consider Appointment to Fill
Terms Continuing to June 30, 2014
The following individuals were interviewed for the three seats whose terms expired on the
Planning Commission on June 30, 2010:
Matthew Addington
Darcy McNaboe
Robert Bailes
Jacynthia(Cindy) Grande
Mayor Ferre announced that based on the Council Scores for the above individuals that were
interviewed the following individuals will be filling the three seats on the Planning
Commission with a term continuing to June 30, 2014:
Matthew Addington
Darcy McNaboe
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 13
Robert Bailes
8B. Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Voters a Ballot Measure
Relating to Fireworks for the November 2, 2010 Election
CC-2010-58 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 3-0-1-0 (MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA WAS
ABSENT), to adopt a Resolution Ordering the Submission to the Qualified Voters
a Ballot Measure Relating to Fireworks for the November 2, 2010 Election and to
adopt a Resolution Setting Priorities for Filing a Written Argument Regarding a city
Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis, and to
adopt a Resolution Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for City Measures
Submitted at Municipal Elections.
8C. Protest Hearing for Placement of Special Assessment Liens for Delinquent Refuse
Accounts
CC-2010-59 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER STANCKIEWITZ, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,CARRIED 3-0-1-0(MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA
WAS ABSENT),to adopt a Resolution adopting a Report of Delinquent Refuse User
M1 Fee and Directing that Such Delinquent Fees be Collected on the Tax Roll and be
` Imposed as a Lien Upon Property Within the City of Grand Terrace and authorize
Special Assessments against the parcels listed in Exhibit"A".
8D. Hearing for Special Assessments and Liens for Delinquent Non-Owner
Occupied/Rental Property Program Fee and Fines
CC-2010-60 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER STANCKIEWITZ, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,CARRIED 3-0-1-0(MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA
WAS ABSENT,to adopt a Resolution adopting a Report of Delinquent Non-Owner
Occupied Rental Program Fees and Fines and Directing that Such Delinquent Fees
and Fines be Collected on the Tax Roll and be Imposed as a Lien Upon Property
Within the City of Grand Terrace and authorize Special Assessments against the
parcels listed in Exhibit"A".
CLOSED SESSION
9A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation - CG .54956.9 (b)(2) and
GC54956.9 (c)
Mayor Ferre announced that the Council met in Closed Session to have a conference with
Legal Counsel regarding Potential Litigation, CG 54956.9 (b)(2) and GC54956.9 (c) and
Council Minutes
07/13/2010
Page 14
there was no reportable action taken.
Mayor Ferre adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m., until the next City Council Meeting which is
scheduled to be held on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
i
f
r
I
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting 1 T Y OF .;RAND TERRACE
MINUTES :1TY c'I_ERK'S CEPARTUENT
June 1,2010
The Grand Terrace Emergency.Operations Committee met at the regular time at the Emergency
Operations Center at 22795 Barton Road, Building 3. The meeting was called to order by Interim
chairperson, Randy Halseth at 6:00 p.m. Agendas and minutes were distributed.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Halseth, Debra Hurst,JoAnn Johnson, Vic Pfenninghausen, Susan
Taylor, Hanni Bennett, and Jim Vert.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glen Nichols and Lew Neeb
CITY STAFF: Matt Wirz
GUESTS PRESENT/INTRODUCTIONS: None
CORRESPONDANCE/COMMUNICATIONS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA,with a motion by Debra Hurst and second by Jim Vert..
APPROVAL OF CORRECTED 1M 04"UTES-OF MAY 4,2010 with a motion by Debra Hurst and
second by JoAnn Johnson.
LIAISON REPORT: Matt W irz.
A. Events-Saturday June 26`h will be Grand Terrace Community Day from 10:00 to 2:00 at Rollins
Park. The Lions Club will be hosting the Car Shoe with cars'being let in at 8:00 a.m.. Contests
and games are being planned again this year. There will also be the community stage and a Kids
Zone focusing on health and fitness activities. The event's main sponsor is Tap Out, with many
others all listed on the event flyer.B. The CERT and EGC Appreciation picnic is scheduled for Saturday, June 5`h at Rollins Park from
10:00 to 2:00.
C. Radio update-The AM radio is working. Once the sequencing is complete, the messages will be
moved to different times using the 4 digital players. Pete Parsons called about a post dated
message left on the radio and asked that it be taken off, which has been done.
D. The new computers are installed in the EOC radio room, however, Matt has not had time to work
on them due to other tasks assigned to him.
E. Grant reports are due on June 15, 2010. The last of the EOC equipment has been approved by the
City Manager, and Matt is hoping he will be able to purchase the digital players by June I5`h.
F. 'rhe CERT Trailer Grant of$8,000 has been spent except for a few final purchases that need to be
made by June30th. The fire extinguishers and mounting brackets still need to be approved. the
Generator purchase has been approved and will he purchased at [.owes.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO." U
1
i
G. City Budget-no change from last month.
[I. Storage- we can put a shed on the south side of the EOC,building and per Rich,our medical
supplies can be stored in the Building and Safety Office.
I. Vic stated that he works closely with Matt.and recognizes that he is-under a lot of pressure to get
everything completed. He asked that we be patient with Matt.
i
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT-Randy Halseth
A. Radio-The Broadcast radio is working well. We need more digital messages, which will be
worked on by Pete, Randy and Matt. It was mentioned that per the FCC, we cannot advertise for
any businesses on this radio.
B. Working Mondays- We need more volunteers to assist with the EOC and.CERT projects. Dates
will be announced.
C. Randy was able to purchase a couple of hand held radios with grant fundsl He will also purchase a
5kw Honda generator.
D. The circuit board failed and we got a bid from Johnson Tractor for$200 per hour to look at it.
Their estimate was$1,7450.00 to make the repairs. Per the City Manager a 2nd bid was acquired,
they soldered the broken part for$350.00 and it works for now.
I
CERT Report Randy Halseth
Randy reported that Jeff Allen will be in charge of the CERT meetings while Randy is chairing
the EOC.
I
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Matt reported that the disaster preparedness drill will be held in July and will be scaled down to 2
to 3 hours. He has no updates at this time.
B. The drill is required to obtain grant funding and to participate with the County. Our city plan will
I
be updated as well.
1
NEW BUSINESS: Randy Halseth
A. Randy would like to invite City Manager Bettsy Adams to attend the EOC meeting.
B. Randy also announced that a new Fire Battallion Chief has been assigned to Grand Terrace.
TRAINING/SPEAKERS: None
ADJOURNMENT at 6:55 p.m.
{
Sue Taylor, Secretary
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, .July 6, 2010 ra, 6:00 P.M.
i
i 1 t��+y
5..}A ' i ty a ����.� � ._.�i.J F'1!'4d t.f 1
i
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM
MINUTES
JUNE 1, 2010
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
f%ITY Ol_ERK.'S DEPARTMENT
Members Present: Randy Halseth, Jeff Allen, James Vert, Joe Ramos, Helen Ramos, Hanni
Bennett, Joe Borrielli, Adel Urrea, Bernie Urrea, Matt Wirz, Andrew Anaya, Barbara Smeltzer,
Jim Stamm, Sue Taylor, Vic Pfennighausen, Debra Hurst.
r- Members Absent: Lew Neeb, Tom Schwab, Peggy Witt, Sandra Luckman, Linda Carter, Ken
Smith, Walt Stanchiewitz, Monique Stanchiewitz, Doug Von Kriegelstein, Mil Herman, Glenn
Nichols, Dragos Barbu, Shannon Bryant, Ingrid Clark, Michael Cerda, William Fenn, Le Ann
Garcia, Jolene Gustatson, Cliff Homan, James Monroe, Margie Miller, Barrie Owens, David
Ortiz, Bernard Ojeda, Carlos Ramirez, Terrilee Robb, Tom Roberts, Lynette Sandiford, Oscar
Santana, Phil Spisak, Joanne Thoring, Joyce Wildenauer.
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by Jeff Allen.
Flag salute was given.
Agenda for June 1, 2010 meeting was approved by members present.
Minutes for May 4, 2010 meeting were approved by members present.
Treasurers Report: Matt will email to me and I will forward to CERT members.
Old Business:
a. CERT Hats and T-Shirts for sale
b. Supplies for CERT trailer still coming in.
c. CERT potluck scheduled for 6/5/10 at Rollins Park.
d. CERT workdays—6/7 and 6/21 —9:00 am at EOC
e. New supplies for CERT trailer—Inventory Control— Equipment marking
New Business:
a. Earthquake Scenario—On hold until further notice.
b. Community Days—6/26/1.0— Booth will'be there to interest people in joining and
handing out information to emergency preparedness.
c. New Board Members nominations—Current board members will continue with their-
respective duties. Randy Halseth, Jeff Allen, Joe Ramos and Debra Hurst.
Nominations will be taken at July 6, 2010 meeting.
Member Reports:
a. All CERT members need to take the NIMS training classes, ICS 100 and ICS 700.
Joe Ramos—Training—will be overseeing the training. Classes need to be
completed by 9/1/2010. When completed send and/or bring your training certificate
to Joe Ramos.
b. Need more advertising in City News and Blue Mountain Outlook. Need to get
information about what CERT is all about, profile CERT members, supply emergency
preparedness information and have the papers run tips.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NOe,L
1
1 �
i
i
I
i There being no further business to discuss, meeting was adjourned at 7:540 pm.
Next Meeting
July 6, 2010
7:00 pm
City Hall
I
Debra Hurst
Secretary
I
•
I
r
f
1 .
i
I
1
i
i
I '
k
� 4
i
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECEIVED
CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting 2 2010
MINUTES
June 14, 2010 0ITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
The Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee met for the regular meeting at the upstairs
Conference Room at City Hall. Meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Vice-Chairperson
}
JoAnn Johnson.
MEMBERS PRESENT were Vice Chairperson JoAnn Johnson, Philomene Spisak, Debra Hurst,
Lew Neeb and Pat Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT-- Marge Owens, Don Bennett.
CITY STAFF/SHERIFF'S DEPT. — Nina Mendoza, Sheriff's Special Services.
GUESTS PRESENT— None
AGENDA was approved with motion by Pat Smith and second by Lew Neeb. .
MINUTES FOR THE MEETINGS of May 20, 2010 were approved with a motion by Philomene
Spisak and second by Debra Hurst.
r ' PUBLIC COMMENT— None
CORRESPONDENCE—None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Criminal Activities— Most of the criminal activities revolve around vehicle-burglaries,
where the windows and smashed and items grabbed from auto.
b. Neighborhood Watch—Nina working on setting up meetings. .
NEW BUSINESS
a. Crime Prevention Planning.— Requested that Nina prepare ongoing news articles to
be placed in local papers.to advise residents to lock their cars, be watchful of their
neighborhoods, keep garage doors closed and any other suggestions to the
residents of Grand Terrace to keep their person and property safe.
b. Neighborhood Watch Public Relations—Suggestion made to present a quarterly city
wide meeting in the Community Center to get Neighborhood Watch going in all areas
of the city.
REPORTS:
a. Summary of Law Enforcement Activity— See above under Criminal Activities. .
b. Senior Center-Colton High School Jazz Band was unable to perform at Senior
Center in June. Lil Joe—an Elvis impersonator filled in the program. The Wellness
Fair held at the Senior Center on June 12, 2010 was very well attended.
c. Community,Activities—Community Days scheduled for June 26, 2010 at Rollins
Park. Movies in-the Park are upcoming.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.,--,,.!-
• 1
i
MEMBER REPORTS: None
ADJOURNMENT—There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at
4:45 p.m.
Debra Hurst
Secretary
4
:;z. t, ,
;a
y
aLIt�ORVIA AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2010 Council Item (X) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: Sixteenth Amendment to the Law Enforcement Services Contract
with the County of San Bernardino (Schedule A)
PRESENTED BY: Betsy M. Adams, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends the City Council Approve the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Law Enforcement Services Contract with the
County of San Bernardino and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the
Contract on Behalf of the City.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Grand Terrace contracts with the County of San Bernardino (County) for law
enforcement services provided by the Sheriff's Department. For Fiscal Year 2010-11, these law
enforcement services will be provided through the Sixteenth Amendment to Contract No. 94-
797.
DISCUSSION:
The Sixteenth Amendment to Contract No. 94-797 represents an increase of $126,231 for
contract law enforcement services in FY 2010-11 ($2,003,917 versus $1,877,686). The contract
costs for FY 2010-11 are summarized in Schedule A which is included as part of Attachment A
to this staff report. The contract costs for FY 2009-10, $1,877,686, are summarized in
Attachment B. The primary component of the cost increase in the Sixteenth Amendment is
personnel costs which increased July 1, 2010 when labor concessions from the Sheriff's
Department were realized by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At the time the staff prepared the FY 2010-11 operating budget, only a preliminary Schedule A,
with a contract amount of $2,022,096, was available from the Sheriff's Department and is
included as Attachment C. This amount was approved in the adopted budget ($1,867,278 in
Account No. 10-410-256, $54,818 in 10-410-255, and $100,000 in Account No. 14-411-256).
Fhe final Schedule A, included in the Sixteenth Amendment, is $2,003,917 which is $18,179 less
than the adopted budget for law enforcement services for FY 2010-11. This decrease is
summarized on the following page.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
1
Law Enforcement Services Contract
July 27, 2010
Page Number 2
Description Amount
Sheriff's Service Specialist 3,951
Office Specialist 6,640
Motor Pool Assistant ; 747
Dispatch Services 6,311
County Administrative Cost ! 530
TOTAL $18,179
This $18,179 budget savings for the General Fund consists of$530 in Account No. 10-410-255
and $17,696 in Account No. 10-410-256. The potential reallocation of these funds will be
brought forward for Council consideration in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Betsy . Adams
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Sixteenth Amendment to Contract No. 94-797 for Law Enforcement
Services (includes Schedule A)
Attachment B: Fifteenth Amendment to Contract No. 94-797 for Law Enforcement
Services (includes Schedule A)
Attachment C: Preliminary Schedule A for Fiscal Year 2010-11
G
d
i
,h
i I
4
FOR COUNTY USE ONLY
New Vendor Code Dept. Contract Number
Chang �
15`%N BEB�YMD, e S C SHR A 94-797 A-16
! El Cancel
County Department Dept. Orgn. i Contractor's License No.
Sheriff SHR SHR
i
County Department Contract Representative Telephone I Total Contract Amount
County of San Bernardino Mario Quesada,Captain (909)387-0640 f $2,003,917 .
FAS Contract Type
Revenue F1 Encumbered El Unencumbered 11 Other:
If not encumbered or revenue contract type,provide reason:
STANDARD CONTRACT
Commodity Code Contract Start-Date Contract End Date 1 Original Amount Amendment Amc-
i
07/01/10 06/30/11 1 $ $2,003,917
Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No Amount
AAA SHR SHR 9565 GRANDT $2,003,917
Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No. Amount
$
Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No. Amount
$
Project Name Estimated Payment Total by Fiscal Year
Contract Law Enforcement FY Amount 1%13 FY Amount I/D
2010-11
I ( _
i
I �
I
THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California.by and between the County of San Bernardino, hereinafter called
the County, and !
I Name
j City of Grand Terrace hereinafter called CITY
Address f
I 22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5207
Telephone Federal ID No.or Social Security No.
i I
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(Use space below and additional bond sheets. Set forth service to be rendered, amount to be paid,manner of payment time for performance or completion,
determination of satisfactory performance and cause for termination, other terms and conditions, and attach plans,specifications, and addenda, if any)
I SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
, I
Contract No. 94-797 providing law enforcement service to the City of Grand Terrace is hereby amended, effective
July 1, 2010, by replacing Schedule A, referred to in Paragraph IV, with the Schedule A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Except as amended, all other terms and conditions remain as stated therein.
I
i
I I
i
I
f i
AuditorlController-Recorder Use Only
❑Contract Database ❑FAS
Input Date Keyed By
Page 1 of 2
i
� 1 �
[This page intentionally left blank]
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO City of Grand Terrace
(Print or type name of corporation,company, contractor, etc.)
► By ►
Gary C. Ovitt, Chairman, Board of Supervisors (Authorized signature-sign in blue ink)
Dated. Name
(Print or type name of person signing contract)
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE Title
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (Print or Type)
Laura H. Welch Dated:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of San Bernardino
By Address 22795 Barton Road
Deputy
Grand'Terrace, CA 92313-5207
Approved as to Legal Form Reviewed by Contract Compliance Presented to BOS.for Signature
e
County Counsel, by Phebe Chu, Deputy Department Head
Date it Date Date
5
i I
I
I
SCHEDULE A
Law Enforcement Services Contract
City of Grand Terrace
2010-11
FY 2010-11
LEVEL OF SERVICE COST
0.30 - Lieutenant $ 59,906
1.28 - Sergeant 223,963 1
1.11 - Detective/Corporal (40 hrs/week) 164,398
6.87 - Deputy Sheriff(248 hrs/week) 927,771 1
1.00 - Deputy Sheriff-Traffic Car(no relief factor) i 135,047 1
1.00 - Sheriffs Service Specialist 64,319 1
1 80 - Office Specialist 108,687
0.20 - Motor Pool Services Assistant 12,201 1
3.50 - Marked Unit 43,593 2
2.00 - Unmarked Unit 12,970 2
1.00 - Ford Explorer 5,738 2
1.00 - Citizen Patrol 1,271 3
Dispatch Services 104,545
8.5 - HTs (Amortized over 7-years) 4,097
10.5 - HTs (Access & Maint Only) 6,552
1 - Additional MDCs 2,710
11.0 - Taser Replacement(Amortized over 4-years) 3,124
Administrative Support 8,773
Facility Costs 2,637
Office Automation 4,529
Services&Supplies ! 16,164
Vehicle Insurance ! 7,137
Personnel Liability & Bonding i 29,497
j County Administrative Cost 54,288
TOTAL COST: i $ 2,003,917
j
Monthly Payment Schedule
1St $148,245
payment due July 15, 2010:
2"d through 12`h payments due the 5th of each month: $148,255
Grant Funded Deputy4 ,
1St payment due July 15, 2010: $18,749
2"d through 121h payments due the 51h of each month: $18,738
I
Personnel costs include salary and benefits and are subject to change by Board of;Supervisors' action
'-Vehicle costs do not include fuel and maintenance. The city is responsible for fuel and maintenance of all
contract vehicles. Any fuel and maintenance costs charged to the county will be billed to the city on a
quarterly invoice.
3 No replacement cost is included for donated and grant-funded vehicles.
Cost of grant-funded dpeuty for 2010-11 is$224,867,which includes relief factor, support. supervision
and all related costs. The grant funded deputy is refelced in the total contract amount(TOTAL COST).
!
f '
SCHEDULE A
Law Enforcement Services Contract
City of Grand Terrace
2010-11
Additional Costs Billed Quarterly:
ie City will be billed on a quarterly basis for the following items:
• Actual overtime cost.
• Actual on-call cost (on-call pay for safety employees for FY2010-11 is $175 per week).
• Actual cost of vehicle fuel and maintenance.
• Professional services from private vendors and other services, supplies and personnel costs
above the contract formula.
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
SAFETY: GENERAL:
Lieutenant - 0.30 Sheriffs Service Specialist - 1 00
Sergeant - 1.28 Office Specialist - 1 80
Detective/Corporal - 1.11 Motor Pool Services Asst - 020
Deputy Sheriff - 687 Dispatchers - 1.33
Deputy Sheriff-Traffic Car - 1.00 4.33
10.56
VEHICLES: MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT:
Marked Patrol Units - 3.5 Radar Trailer - 1 *
Unmarked Units Code 3 - 2.0
Pickup Trucks - 1 0
Citizen Patrol - 1.0
Donated Vehicles-Ins Only - 1 0 * * (Included for insurance costs only)
8.5
7
Attachment B
FOR COUNTY USE ONLY
New Vendor Code Dept. Contract Number
10 ChangeSIC
ElCancel SHR A 94-797 A-15
County Department Dept. Orgn. Contractor's License No.
Sheriff SHR SHR
County Department Contract Representative Telephone Total Contract Amount
County-of San Bernardino Dennis J. Casey, Captain (909)387-0640 $1,877,686
F A S Contract Type
Revenue 0 Encumbered 17 Unencumbered F1 Other:
STANDARD CONTRACT If not encumbered or revenue contract type, provide reason:
Commodity Code Contract Start Date 'Contract End Date Original Amount Amendment Amount
07/01/09 06/30/10 $ $1,877,686
Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No Amount
AAA SHR SHR 9565 GRANDT $1,877,686'
Fund Dept. Organization, Appr Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No. Amount
$
Fund Dept. Organization Appr. Obj/Rev Source GRC/PROJ/JOB No. Amount
Project Name Estimated Payment Total by Fiscal Year
Contract Law Enforcement FY Amount I/D FY Amount I/D
2009-10
THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California by and between the County of San Bernardino, hereinafter called
the County, and
Name
City of Grand Terrace hereinafter called CITY
Address
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5207
Telephone Federal ID No.or Social Security No.
(909)430-2245
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(Use space below and additional bond sheets. Set forth service to be rendered,amount to be paid,manner of payment, time for performance or completion,
determination of satisfactory performance and cause for termination,other terms and conditions,and attach plans, specifications, and addenda,if any)
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
Contract No. 94-797 providing,law enforcement service to the City of Grand Terrace is hereby amended, effective
July 1, 2009, by replacing Schedule A, referred to in Paragraph IV, with the Schedule A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Except as amended, all other terms and conditions remain as stated therein.
Auditor/Controller-Recorder Use Only
1 ❑Contract Database ❑FAS
Input Date Keyed By
Pace 1 of 2
[This page intentionally left blank]
COUNTY O�S)+N BERNARDI City of Grand Terrace
y ) — Do. —- I . I'll I
(Print or type name of corporation,company,contractor, etc.)
® // ' / / r BY - --
Gary C. Ovit Chairr*an, Board of Sup rvisors (Authorized signature-sign in bfue ink)
� I
Dated: tiG r Name I I
(Print or type name of person signing contract)
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN-DELIVERED TO THE Title
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (Print or Type)
Dena M.-Smith Dated:
Clerk of the Soard of Supervisors
e County of San Bernardino
"U !
By Ch_ Address 22795 Barton Road
Jp�Y Grand Terraces-CA 92313-5207
Approved as to�XeQ81.Form f Reviewed by Contract Compliance Presented to 40S for Signature
County Counsel,by Steven J. Singley,Deputy Department Head
Date Date Date y
�I
SCHEDULE A
Law Enforcement Services Contract
City of Grand Terrace
2009-10
Rollover-does not include MOU increases for safety or general employees.
LEVEL OF SERVICE FY 2009-10T
0.30 - Lieutenant COST
1.28 - Sergeant 255,333
1.11 - Detective/Corporal (40 hours/week) 06,527 1
1
687 - Deputy Sheriff(248 hours/week) 860,734
�—f 1.00 - Deputy Sheriff-Traffic Car(no relief) 125,289 1
1.00 - Sheriffs Service Specialist 62,762 1
1.80 - Office Specialist 105,599 1
0.20 - Motor Pool Services Assistant 11,880 1
3.50 - Marked Unit 43,593 2
2.00 - Unmarked Unit 12,946 2
1 00 - Ford Explorer 5,738 2
1 00 - Citizen Patrol 1,271 3
Dispatch Services 97,782 1
9 - HTs(Amortized over 7-years) 4,097
11 - HTs(Access& Maint Only) 6,552
1 - Additional MDC§ 2,710
11 - Taser Replacement(Amortized over 4-years) 3,124
Administrative Support 8,468,
Facility.Costs 2,637
Office Automation 4,529
Services&Supplies 16,164
Vehicle Insurance . 5,598
Personnel Liability& Bonding 31,831
County Administrative Cost 50,589
TOTAL COST: $ 1,877,686 1
Monthly Payment Schedule
1S1 payment due July 15, 2009: $139,014
2"d payment due August 5, 2009- $138,774
3`d through 12`h payments due the 5th of each month: $138,894
Grant Funded Deputy°
1S`payment due July 15, 2009- $17,589
2"d through 12`h payments due the 51h of each month, $17,579
1 Personnel costs include salary and benefits and are subject to change by Board of Supervisors'action.
2 Vehicle costs do not include fuel and maintenance. The city is responsible for fuel and.maintenance of all
contract vehicles. Any fuel and maintenance costs charged to the county will be billed to the city on a
quarterly invoice.
3 No replacement cost is included for donated and grant-funded vehicles.
4 Cost of grant-funded deputy for 2009-10 is$210,958,which includes relief factor support. supervision
and all related costs. The grant funded deputy is reflected in the total contract amount(TOTAL COST)
i
1 .
SCHEDULE A
Law Enforcement Services Contract
f City of Grand Terrace
2009-10
a '
i
I
Additional Costs Billed Quarterly:
The City will be billed on a quarterly basis for the following items:
e Actual overtime cost.
e Actual on-call cost (on-call pay for safety employees for FY2009710 is $165 per week).
e Actual cost of vehicle fuel and maintenance.
e Professional services from private vendors and other services, supplies and personnel.costs
above the contract formula.
i .
j LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
SAFETY: GENERAL:
Lieutenant - 030 Sheriffs Service,Specialist - 100
Sergeant - 1.28 Office Specialist - 1.80
Detective/Corporal - 1 11 Motor Pool Services Asst - 0.20
Deputy Sheriff - 687 Dispatchers - 1 33
Deputy Sheriff-Traffic Car - 1 00 4.33
10.56
I
1 ,
I
VEHICLES: MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT:
Marked Patrol Units - 3.5 Radar Trailer' - 1
Unmarked Units Code 3 - 2.0
Pickup Trucks - 1.0
i
Citizen Patrol - 1.0
Donated Trailer-Ins Only - 1 0
8.5
I
I
k -
I
I
i
I 1:
Attachment C
13
SCHEDULE A
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
FY 2010-11
Rollover
FY 2010-11
LEVEL OF SERVICE COST
0.30 - Lieutenant $ 59,906 '
1.28 - Sergeant 223,963 '
1.11 - Detective/Corporal (40 hrs/week) 164,398 '
6,87 - Deputy Sheriff(248 hrs/week) 927,771 '
1.00 - Deputy Sheriff-Traffic Car(no relief factor) 135,047 '
1.00 - Sheriffs Service Specialist 68,270 '
180 - Office Specialist 115,327 '
0.20 - Motor Pool Services Assistant 12,948 '
3.50 - Marked Unit 43,593 2
2.00 - Unmarked Unit 12,970 2
1 00 - Ford Explorer 5,738 2
100 - Citizen Patrol 1,271 3
Dispatch Services 110,856 '
8.5 - HTs(Amortized over 7-years) 4,097
10.5 - HTs(Access&Maint Only) 6,552
1 - Additional MDCs 2,710
11.0 - Taser Replacement(Amortized over 4-years) 3,124
Administrative Support 8,773
Facility Costs 2,637
Office Automation 4,529
Services&Supplies 16,164
Vehicle Insurance 7,137
Personnel Liability&Bonding 29,497
County Administrative Cost 54,818
TOTAL COST: $ 2,022,096 '
Monthly Payment Schedule
1st payment due July 15,2010- $149,414
2nd through 12th payments due the 5th of each month. $149,415
Grant Funded Deputy4
1 st payment due July 15, 2010- $19,094
2nd through 12th payments due the 5th of each month $19,093
Personnel costs include salary and benefits and are subject to change by Board of Supervisors'action.
2 Vehicle costs do not include fuel and maintenance. The city is responsible for fuel and maintenance of all
contract vehicles. Any fuel and maintenance costs charged to the county will be billed to the city on a
quarterly invoice.
3 No replacement cost is included for donated and grant-funded vehicles.
° Cost of grant-funded dpeuty for 2010-11 is$229,117,which includes relief factor, support, supervision
and all related costs.The grant funded deputy is refelced in the total contract amount(TOTAL COST).
1
ALlfi1R51A
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 27, 20.10 Council Item(X ) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: Treasurer's Report for Quarter Ending June 30, 2010
PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
BACKGROUND:
Treasurer's Report of Cash and Investments should be presented to the governing body quarterly.
This reports all cash held and invested by the city. All fiscal agent funds are related to bond
issues for which the .City has limited authority to access and invest funds as controlled by the
bond indenture.
DISCUSSION:
HIGHLIGHTS
Quarter-to-Date
Total cash and investments increased $69,644 or 0.37% over the previous quarter end with a
total of $18,878,763. The cash level remained steady with influx of revenue receipts in the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year. The cash level was up ,in spite of the SERAF payment of
$2,179,087 on May 5`h. A lawsuit against the State required SERAF contribution from the CRA
to the state education fund was unsuccessful and resulted in the eventual payment.
Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Quarter
Change in Treasury Position
Jun. 30 Mar. 31
2010 2010 Change %
Investment Pools 17,341,092 16,750,980 596,112 3.52
Investment Instruments 1,081,042 1,081,040 2 0.00
Funds with Institutions 456,629 977,099 (520,470) (53.26)
Total Cash and Investments 18,878,763 $18,809,119 $69,644 0.37
Funds with Fiscal Agent 1,300,000 1,300,000 0 0.00
Total $20,178,763 $20,109,119 $69,644 0.35
COUNCIL AGENDA ITT!! NO..
1
I
The average yield is at least not declining any longer. It is stable at a relatively low average yield
of 0.469% as investment income yields remain low for safe, liquid.investments. LAW net yield
is now approximately .56% in June 2010 compared to 1.51% in June 2009:
Overall cash and investments; including cash with fiscal agent, increased,0.35% for the quarter
for a total of $20,178,763. The 1997 COP was refinanced through a private placement with
Zion's Bank on September 1, 2009, in which a reserve deposit requirement was no longer
required. The remaining Funds with Fiscal Agent are a required reserve for the 2004 CRA Tax
.Allocation Bonds.
Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Fiscal Year
Change in Treasury Position
Jun. 30 Jun. 30
2010 2009 Change %
Investment Pools 17,341,092 18,812,213 (1,471,121) (7.82)
Investment Instruments 1,081,042 1,081,037 5 0.00
Funds with Institutions 456,629 736,314 (279,685) (37.98)
Total Cash and Investments 18,878,763 $20,629,564 ($1,750,801) (8.48)
Funds with Fiscal Agent 1,300,000 1,743,981 (443,981) (25.45)
Total $20,178,763 $22,373,545 ($2,194,782) (9.80)
i -
Total cash and investments decreased ($1,750,801) or (8.48%) over the previous fiscal year end
with a total of$18,878,763. The cash decrease may be attributed to a decrease in City revenue
receipts, falling investment yields and a state mandated SERAF payment of$2,179,087 in May
2010. Overall cash and investments, including cash with fiscal agent, decreased (9.80%) for the
fiscal year for a total of$20,178,763.
INFORMATION
I have attached the Quarterly Cash and Investments Report as of June 30, 2.010.
1. I hereby certify that the investments are in compliance'with the investment
policy adopted by the City Council.
{ 2. The City has the ability to meet its budgeted expenditures for the next six months.
3. The market values for funds held in money market funds and banking institutions do not
change. The amounts listed as market value for these items are the same as the book.
value.
4. The book value for the LAW Pool is the withdrawal value provided'by the State
Treasurer.
5. The market value of the funds held by the State LAW Pool equates to the City's pro-rata
share of the market value of the entire LAW investment pool.
6 The fiscal agent provided the market values for investments held in;their accounts.
2
FISCAL IMPACT:
None by this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernie Simon
Finance Director
Manager Approval:
Betsy . Ada s
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Treasurer's Report June 30, 2010
3
I
' sy, ``g7MYi
1 &
•.AI.1FORNIA
City of Grand Terrace
CRA of Grand Terrace
Cash&Investment Report
June 30,2010
FUNDS IN INVESTMENT POOLS Book PAR Market Yield Maturity
California Asset Management Program 3,861,481 3,861,481 3,861,481 0.240% n/a
State Treasurer-LAIF:
City Account 52,896 52,896 52,983 0.560% n/a
CRA Account 13,426,715 13,426,715 13,448,786 0.560% n/a
TOTAL 17,341,092 17,341,092 17,363,249
INDMDUAL INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
US Bank Safekeeping :
First American Treas Oblig Fnd 1,071,771 1,071,771 1,071,771 0.001% n/a
First Financial Equity-Money Market - 9,271 9,271 9,271 0.050% n/a
TOTAL 1,081,042 1,081,042 1,081,042
Account Insured Other Total -
FUNDS WITH BANK INSTITUTIONS Name Deposits Deposits Deposits Yield Maturity
Bank of America General 0 91,648 91,648 0.000% n/a
Bank of America Savings 250,000 68 250,068 0.300% n/a
Bank of America Payroll 0 20,913 20,913 0.000% n/a
Bancomer CD 94,000 0 94,000 3.200% 6/8/11
I
TOTAL 344,000 112,629 456,629 •
Duration
GRAND TOTAL Book Market Ave Days Ave Rate
INVESTMENTS 18,766,202 18,788,360 1.10 0.469%
CASH 112,561 112,561
GRAND TOTAL 18,878,763 18,900,921
i
Financing
FUNDS WITH FISCAL AGENT Issue Book Par Market Yield Maturity
First American Treasury Obligations 1997 COPS 0 0 0 0.000% n/a
First American Treasury Obligations 2004 TAB 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 0.001% n/a
TOTAL FISCAL AGENT 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
i
1 e
L?LI F•JR91A
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 Council Item( X ) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: Xerox Copier Lease
I
PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve, 2)Authorize City Manager to Execute Contract
BACKGROUND:
City currently leases a model CC55HC Copy Centre copier. from Xerox Corporation for the first
floor of City Hall. The lease term for this copier is 60 months, ending in August 2010. Xerox has
offered the City a new lease for another 60 months for a newer comparable model copier at a
lower cost by piggybacking on the State contract.
DISCUSSION:
The current lease is for the Xerox CC55HC copier at$341.45 per month(excluding tax)plus $.0094 cost
per copy over a 10,000 copy per month allowance. The new proposed lease is for a new Xerox Work
Centre 5755A model at$283.31per month(excluding tax)plus $ .0057 cost per copy over a 10,000 copy
per month allowance.
An estimated annual contract cost over five years assuming 200,000 billable copy prints would be
Old Machine $341.45 x 12 months=$4,097.40 plus 200,000 x .0094=$1,880.00 or$5,977.40 Total
New Machine $283.31 x 12 months=$3,399.72 plus 200,000 x .0057=$1,140.00 or$4,539.72 Total
Estimated Annual Savings= $1,437.68
The Xerox contract is subject to a continuing appropriations clause.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Annual estimated cost is $4,539.72. Over 60 months the estimated cost is $22,698.60 based on
an estimated 200,000 billable copies. Contract maybe terminated for non-appropriation. The
budget for the copier on the first floor is allocated between Coping Expense account 10-190-212
in the amount of$940 for the per copy costs and Capital/Equipment account 10-190-700 in the
amount of$4,464 for the lease payment portion of the contract.
The estimated budget savings for the new copier over 10 months would be $ $1,198 00.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.-,� .E-
1
Respectfully submitted,
i
Bernie Simon
Finance Director
Manager Approval:
Betsy Nf Adanis
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Financial Analysis
2) Lease Agreement
Figianciai Analysis -for CiTy OF GkAi,4b
Pi epared on&28/201 G
1 CC56 Laas&a 57 of 60 $341.45 i Included TOTAL 1 -10,000 Included
1`4*011.1)88bi. i Oa/2410,-z
1 r,,Uoc.+ $6.u084
$341.45 $0.00
I-jtal
-- -------- ---
Pro
'41
UNE a m
5755APT(VVC6755A Laasa $263.31 I.I)CIUU83 1 (Meter I All Prints
S0.0()57
Torim.60 monihs
Included
Lai
I
' q ..�
Customer. GRAND TERRACE,CITY OF
BilTo: CITY OF GRAND Install: CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE TERRACE
22795 Barton Rd Finance
i Grand Terrace,CA 92313-5271 22795 Barton Rd
Grand Terrace,CA 92313-5271
I '
State or Local Government Negotiated Contract:071396905
t
ti L
' 1
i
1�1.5755APT(WC5755A PRINTR14TRAY)
I '
3-hole-Ofcfin Only Lease Term: 60 months Xerox CC55,SIN NWL108854 711312010
Office Finisher Purchase Option: FMV Trade-In as of Payment 58
Customer Ed i
Analyst Services
I
r r
I �
1.5755APT $283.31 1:Meter 1 All Prints $0.0057 -Consumable Supplies Included for an prints
I
-Pricing Faced for;Term t ,
Total $283.31 Minimum Payments(Excluding Applicable Taxes)
2' Via'
Customer acknowledges receipt d the terms d this agreement Thank You for your business!
whide cotaats of 2 pages nckrdkg this race page. This Agreement is proudly presented by Xerox and
��j
4 Signer. Phone: (909)430-2216 Phillipa Riley T
(909)4B4-7289 QUA E
For information on your Xerox Account,go to 1'
Signature: Date: .57!asq,+% it IllilU.oU.u''.8i�ru:'^+1:7L -J
i
i
S
WS C15299 0702010 15:48.23 Confidential-Copyright®2008 XEROX CORPORATION.AN ri hts reserved Page 1 of 2
I
i
`i r::tor
INTRODUCTION: assignee acceptable to Xerox in its sole discretion within your general'organization who
1.NEGOTIATED CONTRACT. The Products are subject solely to the terms in the can continue this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated. To effect this
Negotiated Contract identified on the face of this Agreement,arid,for any option you termination,you must at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which j
have selected that is not addressed in the Negotiated Contract the then-current your legislative body does not appropriate funds, notify Xerox in writing that your
standard Xerox terms for such option. legislative body failed to appropriate funds and that you have made the required effort
GOVERNMENT TERMS: to find an assignee.Your notice must be accompanied by payment of all sums then
2. REPRESENTATIONS & WARRANTIES. This provision is applicable to owed through the current year under this Agreement and must certify that the canceled
governmental entities only. You represent and warrant, as of the date of this Equipment is not being replaced by equipment performing similar functions during the
Agreement that(1)you are a State or a fully constituted political subdivision or agency ensuing fiscal year. You will return the Equipment,at your expense,to a location
of the State in which you are located and are authorized to enter into,and carry out, designated by Xerox and,when returned,the Equipment will be in good condition and
your
yo obligations under this Agreement and any other documents required to be free of all hens and encumbrances.You will then be released from any further payment
j delivered in connection with this Agreement(collectively,the"Documentsl;(2)the obligations beyond those payments due for the current fiscal year(with Xerox retairirg l
Documents have been duly authorized,executed and delivered by you in accordance all sums paid to date). j
with all applicable laws,rules,ordinances and regulations latiors(including all applicable laws PRICING PLANIOFFERNG SELECTED:
governing open meetings,public bidding and appropriations required in connection with 4. FIXED PRICING. If"Pricing Fixed for Term"is identified in Maintenance Plan
i this Agreement and the acquisition of the Products) and are valid, legal, binding Features,the maintenance component of the Minimum Payment and Print Charges will
agreements,enforceable in accordance with their terms;(3)the person(s)signing the not increase during the initial Tenn of this Agreement.
i Documents have the authority to do so,are acting with the full authorization of your 5.REFINANCE.The"Amount Refinanced"is included in the amount financed under
i governing body and hold the offices indicated below their signatures,each of which are this Agreement. IFthe Amount Refinanced is under an agreement with a third party,
genuine; (4) the Products are essential to the immediate performance of a you acknowledge you have the right to terminate the agreement and you will provide
governmental or proprietary function by you within the scope of your authority and will Xerox with a statement from the thid.party identifying the equipment at issue,the
i be used during the Tam only by you and oily to perform such function;and(5)your amount to be paid off and the payee's name and mailing address. If the Amount
payment obligation s under this Agreement constitute a current expense and riot a debt Refinanced is under an agreement with Xerox,the refinancing will render you prior
under applicable state law and no provision of this Agreement constitutes a pledge of agreement null and void.If you breach arry.of your obligations under this Agreement, j
your tax or general revenues,and any provision that is so construed by a court of the fill Amount Refinanced will be imrneciately due and payable. I
competent jurisdiction is void from the inception of this Agreement. GENERAL TERMS&CONDITIONS:
3.FUNDING.This provision is applicable to governmental entities only.You represent B.REMOTE SERVICES.Certain models of Equipment are supported and serviced
and warrant that all payments due and to become due during your current fiscal year using data that is automatically collected by Xerox from the Equipment via electronic
i are within the fiscal budget of such year and are included within an unrestricted and transmission from- the Equipment to a secure off-site location. Examples of
unencumbered appropriation currently available for the purchaselmaimennance of the - automatically transmitted data include product registration,meter read.supply level,
Products,and d is your intent to use the Products for the entire tam and to make all Equipment configuration and settings,software version,and problemlfauit code data.
payments required under this Agreement If(1)through no action initiated by you,your All such data shall be trarsmitted in a secure manner specified by Xerox. The-
legislative body does riot appropriate funds for the continuation of this Agreement for automatic data transmission capability will riot allow Xerox to read,view or download
any fiscal year after the first fiscal year and has no funds to do so from other sources, the contend of any Customer documents residing on or passing through the Equipment
and(2)you have made a reasonable but unsuccessful effort to find a creditworthy or Customer's information management systems.
- i
1
i
I •
I
INS C15299 07121201015:48:23 Confidential-Copyrights 2008 XEROX CORPORATION.Al rights reserved. Page 2 of 2
' S
.. ,< .x s,. .,.;;z:- „'.j'� :s�; -r„••��,.,:a"�:,,, �3& ;.yam°.a• ..+
IN
Y''J.SbY
t`� r'",er;i .� er 'g jr�,p? t"' tak p41•"ui p
AT
a.
t`` ��$.+�. ',_ `',�.'!'e.t for'` �'tq;'��t<°;'"��s"•s � `"�";,, ' _
�' � 'ft'T ` .i '4 ��7?:j''�Y:.i•'.ic6:�':.,.r,,f.a��;::r ` ,
3'��'•,'' a'°a �
:J,e�: f t.+ l 5;'�.��tkl rah F'•14».��f.l`:'x''i,�..1 x=,,..'^,'��.::�3("!• h",nN4p T YL
°(�,ryt;`o •df�as' ;;-ak .` y, a
F / ,b�y��.{x+�+��:}J;`il3RtI'•f• %. _ ;Hi..�,�,'_ si...4+�� �f
�' „ �``,r� 4J§lar st*�� J` t ,�., ,y .'e �a .s+,v� J..�.,,�• y ....w�( � #
1,.•!�C ep •ea^"i,3 fr` ,l g w. +. 'tl a
�..- r.�_. ^�, J° & ' g..$�5d`v;:3.5.. .r � �.,g' •.„yew. P. ^n.r P..a.., p .,. `
.. , z ,.�}�;�i r',4 °.err+'"` � - ♦-,� 9 ,
-. .. ,�"; ' -S `t)F,i ovF'� ,,.,6„ tom.,e- •.. .�
:1,7 �'�� � � \ '(� \ / �/l C� ���
'�
� �/ /
' {l e oWrVVD[' 0[0�B n 0 r e productive. Wo[kCp[-itr(, '00seOeS
, �|(}[l O| ![��8 �[0Vi�� [�� [i0�� �()U|S F«[ ��� VVO[' ' 1 |. . " ' ' �' ' ` '" . ' � V( U OO �V��[y .'OK n.US
}��� /'0�OO|||�|�� ��0� ��|O VOU VV[}[' ��OO[t�[ [OS�-�'' rfiV�|V OO{� 0�O[� ��[U[e|V.
' '
� .c.n cd ~Scan u,Mailbox feature allows you,o Quick access uz frequently printed
�an»oo8,|daon the pnnrs'`hmddnve documen�.The[oum,�pnn�Save&
��,:omonryov,omco|uu�|neoPmceo,sond m�pnnton demand or�mee via oweb nepnnt�otu�|r�you uo�uonneddom'
mo�cyou,dou/oz^���'e,ondmo,ee[hc|en�� browser men�nnmede,/ccfb,exuct�onnt/otr,
F,omr�orwo|k'upcnpyiog�ovo�:,hv|�con '
and fox capabilities--even full m cn ,scan tn , Easy archiving,ongonizi � while�m��|nmgthe flexibility m change
ngondseo,�`i�
email--these multifunction printer works o, With scan to searchable pDpo,xp5 files,you document parameters before reprinting,
hard os you un� can create u� *||y��x� eo,chob|e0rond °Extensive fox ozpobiUUes.Network Server
, integrate it �mcnob|emrnt.Internet Fax enob|rment
— , m,omouco|�inc,eosevo�,wn,k�uw m m o
easy step. (mavoid|ongd/,uuncrcoo,0c�)ondwh|kup
efficiency.[vmng-edgrscanning funcuono|'
/ty opens the door m better ways nfgetting ,Automatic file distribution.The exc|u' Fox with LAN Fax.With fox forward toemail
work done.Scan m Email quickly distributes s/"e Xerox SwARTsrnd°scan,capture and feature,incoming faxes can beautomatically
documents to multiple email addresses.Store distribution software option lets you route routed to any valid email address,device
files on the device.o,mo personal directory documents to multiple destinations--emnx. folder o,network folder m save paper and
You can also scan dvm u m�ntonrt*o,k folders,document management systems o, speed retrieval.
folders,FTp sites and fox servers right from remote devices--from u single scan,using
the device. o pre-set workflow LDAP capability can,even
integrate your network address book.
`
�
� W ^p
7
• ,a.1'G '•rY.`ry R',.JPCYFr74j.� i
' �t4 yif.fi�-•'4b � � � �'.••
kif
.:"i.' � �•3. �"fit'. •��".t-.,ss i
z`;S yg. Ica
.Ri,'�•Lam.'„yiR{����'r. ..
l
1V
`•M»� ''lu.! .A'Yv, 'R �4. •r•xv�'j�9,'k.;A�.. A1J� �^, u�,I�
Y"u`$.0 5�''`�C�s,} ,Rt1 ..y 9'. e� ''.~'n G'1'.Y,�,. i�`t'Ri i6^',�y+,. P •,4 ;_
.;.: ri`, Lcike your Work[_ntre '700 series rT LJltlfLll-)ctlOn printer
�Ighel level ofi office c'ptlrTli7.-Cttlon.
Xerox Workflow Solutions connect users tothe 111-oX i';`:ri t'i }=[ :.4 Sk,L >{:iI`1f'1 Ca-W )l;•r
tools they need to make their information work Developed by Nuance and Xerox,Scan ScanFlowStore software by Nuance
flows faster,more efficient and more effective.w to PC Desktop software bridges the gap greatly reduces document processing
Control access information.Reduce the costs between Microsoft Office documents, time with its powerful Optical Character
of information workflow and your organiza PDFs and paper It allows you to customize Recognition technology Using template-
Lion's environmental impact.Enable new ways the scanning menus on your WorkCentre based scanning,a user simply selects
of working that streamline and accelerate 5700 series multifunction printer directly specific'zones"on a document from
ousiness cycles and give you a competitive
from your desktop This makes it easy to which data specific to industries such as
advantage. securely scan to specific folders on your healthcare,legal or financial,is captured
Xerox Workflow Solutions give you measurably desktop,turning a shared multifunction and used for file naming,creating network
better ways of working with information no printer into your own personal multifunc- folders,populating PDF properties,search-
matter what industry,no matter how big or Lion printer ing and retrieving,and routing scanned
small your organization,and no matter where documents to their correct repositories.
you operate. V ox __Ccu v Acc��-SS
Following are just a few examples of the many =rt I"{'-a r '. mot`= '
possible Xerox Workflow Solutions. Secure Access integrates with your existing
employee ID badge solution,allowing
users to simply swipe their badge at the
WorkCentre 5700 series multifunction ;t2"
printer to unlock access to features.
Usage data can then be made available
r
to other solutions for tracking,accounting
and regulatory purposes.Follow-You"'
print,a feature of Secure Access.allows
you to send a document to a secure print
t ,
queue,walk up to any printer on the ;
network equipped with Secure Access,
swipe your ID card and access the docu- oersonalizIed solutions you access
ment for printing. ight from the toucn sueen interfere.
f
'
[�'��[`"'. ��[ �� —����� , -�lO ��! |��/l�U I A 1 1..[� ��V2
' 2� D � qOD�. |�[�( lU �
`
' -��v, ^,u
Office mfe'solot less complicated thanks m
`— work[entrp57OO series multifunction printers innovative Xerox features.
Stay oo task and deliver optimum results nu .New color touch screen interface.Provides
matter how demanding the workload. the comfortable look and feel Xerox oknown
,The speed you need.With ultra-fast copying for and fecituvs bright,intuitive icons and
and printing--choose from 35ppmvpto easy access to all major functions directly
55pprn--there's more than enough speed from the home screen.
to meet the needs of any busy department Less user intervention means less Get instant access to all functions with the
n,wu,xg,oup. downtime.More efficient toner lasts longer Los'-to follow touch screen interface.
^Lab-tested performance.According to and can ue replaced quickly by any user
muomtn,y testing.the advanced Xerox °A help desk ct your fingertips.Get owealth '
. wmrk[:nt,e controller outperforms the of helpful information--like tips for send-
competition whenp,|nungt»eUncumen', ingo scan via email--right from the touch �onserv��.un ��dt'/n
business professionals work on every day screen interface.
Get o powerful multifunction printer
^ Multitasking moste �� cono job while .A truly universal print d,w �driver.Xerox
another job Pn �n .Send o�:wm|rmokmg pvntDn � mu �mo v:,,(X�GpD)|elTodm � �h«�|�cn"|mnme»toUyp,��mba�
' cop/es.Thepow:rfv|l2GHzFrersco|e install,Upgrade and manage Xerox and non- -Power save with quick start-up con-
processor concu,/endyP'meoe,o||]»bs Xerox devices from o single driver It provides serves electricity during downtime
received,and performs multiple tasks o consistent.eo,y.to.use interface for end- while keeping the device ready for
simultaneously users.reducing the number o[support calls. action.
,Your pn,t]ob.your priority.The Print and simplifying print services management. ,Full compliance with the EU
Around feature eliminates extended printing ,Advanced copy and print features.Plenty Restriction of Hazardous Substances
delays uy holding o job/n need of resources ,f support for specialized print applications, (Ro*5)Directive'and the stringent
(such oso different paper size)and printing such o,Annotation,Bates Stomping,{DCard 2O09 ENERGY STAR"standards.
the next job in the queue.lf you need your Copy.tab print capability and page-level ,Automatic paper-saving print
work first,you con manage the job queue programming. settings allow for reduced impact
ot the device by promoting o,deleting jobs nn the environment.Options
000^jmg|y include default two-sided printing,
^ Significantly smaller scan files.The latest proof print,recycled paper and
scan-export compression technologies reduce draft mode.
tmfMconthen°mvomondooelemtedocu-
,Stayeorth'fr/cncity Our innovative
mentudme,y
new Ev,thSmo,t feature automati-
cally choosestxrmostcn,/mnmcn'
touysrngu,eopunv,fo,you,)ob
HN
�
.•Sy
s�
rr°
Optional Envelope Kit(replaces Tray 2)provides "
Duplex Automatic Document Feeder automatically trouble free feeding of 50 envelopes. Multiple finishing options let you add the capabilities
scans documents as fast as 80 sprn. '$ that are right for individual workgroups.Choose basic
High-Capacity Tandem Tray holds a total of features like staple and hole punch,or advanced
cupabilities to produce paginuted,saddle-stitched and
100 sheet Bypass Tray handles heavy paper 3.600 sheets of letter size paper
folded booklets and L and C-folded orochwes.
up to 80 lb.cover
4,OOO sheet letter size High Capacity Feeder(optional)
Iwo 500 sheet universal trays are udjustable can increase total capacity to 8,700 sheets.Or add the ;
up to 11 x 17 in. 2,OOO sheet Short Edge Kit in either letter/legal size or
11 x 17 in.size.
I
•_
. Pnnt and copy up to 35/40/45/55 pprn
. F werrui soon feature,.including scan to email 1
• ,x solut,ons uvadable.including walkup
WxDxH:
vu. !nteinet fox (ronnguration with OCT and DADF)
• Moximuni Raper capacity'8,700:heels 38 x 26 x 45 in,
• Xpinx Extensible Inrerrnce Plritforn''(FIP)
955 x 650 x 1 140 rain
1C
V �♦f'!�"`,.%��-"i'.• Y ::fir-:i•T�.`,,y Y-. Ii't';ga"` �L: ((yy.i p`q..
�hY� :,t{rryaYa:%5E °�i'.*� t,�Y�^A .ir,' ��i(�d�r�T° wa• \ s'44'
:r
�j�3�y;;3 ,.�,.,a'�,..,%�`j,�%5,. .Iz�-,�;,,a4; �=-�a:�siY.:" �- ��i:• �
i`,:lz s :usiI'l3 ` .a k a 'a'C 4 SI��ii' i"'_r 'Yz:i " .. 5 a» {_Jf't 'D II`' t COC (�tilfll.� ~l'.'.'.t'tiit"i
J V
aIOr�g W t ' X-r(:�x �:x oertise %O ��f?lIJ Sifll�J;ify i��vr; ';s'riip aril irnprc-avrw voui
rlr. IriI:J is -V.
,,,, i ,>FI` ,;; r r.;i •Finish documents in-house.A host of •Streamline costs and simplify ownership.
advanced finishing options help you save on The Smart eSolution suite of offerings man-
Let our industry-leading technologies help outsourcing costs by creating your finished ages time-consuming maintenance chores
you minimize time and money spent on documents right in the office. for you:
device administration and upkeep.
• Reduce service calls with Smart Kit° MeterAssistane collects and submits usage
• Control costs.Xerox Standard Accounting components.Xerox Smart Kit technology meter reads automatically
monitors not only the pages your office predicts and prevents downtime by letting o
produces,but also who produced them. SuppliesAssistant' monitors consumables
you know ahead of time when easy-to-change
Administrators can allocate user access and components need replacement. such as toner and ensures that you have the
generate usage reports,providing the infor right amount on hand.
mation you need to optimize device deploy- •Use less paper.Two-sided printing,Junk fax Maintenance Assistant'offers a fast,free
ment and reduce costs. rejection,and efficient scanning worknows help way to troubleshoot,report and resolve
•Color scanning one of many value-packed you print less paper,and save more money potential repair issues.
features.Scan your color documents as •Automated billing.Job Based Accounting
originally created and retain visually critical ensures accurate billing of device output to
information.Then,use color scan to PDF to the correct department using one of several
immediately distribute your color documents third-party billing solutions.
via email.
11
it v 7
_Ve
You (.an put your rnincl a z:Cse_ "Ne i . i . k-4
dw-triced
I"Wit
Document Device Hard drive Network
-Secui e pant -Secure access -linage overwrite .Network user outhenticutibn
-Secure fax -Audit log -Encrypted disk drive -IEEE 802.1 x protocol
-Fax forwarding -Device access password protection i.IPv6 network routing protocol
-Hidejob and user name display -IPSec
-Analog fox and network isolation -SNMPv3.0
-Smart Card authentication HTTPS
•Encrypted scan to email
•IP Filtering,
Remote software upgrades.Easily update
your devices with the latest software and
WorkCentre 5700 series multifunction Access device information and control enter- security patches and customize functionality
printers boost numerous security features and prise-wide systems with an exceptional range of to meet your business needs.
options that employ the latest advancements reporting and management tools.
in data protection technologies,ensuring that •Third-party certification.The WorkCentre
•sensitive information stays confidential. Fast deployment and consistent uptime. 5700 series multifunction Printers have
CentreWare'O IS Embedded Web Server auto-
received certified approval for use with soft-
•Submitted for full system Common Criteria mates installation,troubleshooting,cloning ware solutions from such industry leaders as
(ISO 15480)Certification ensures that the and upgrading,providing virtually effortless Citrix Systems,MEDITECH and Cerner
entire device,not just individual components, device management.Plus.CentreWarel Web i
conforms to the most stringent security stan- software manages an entire enterprise-wide • Network authentication restricts access
dards and regulations. print environment—regardless of manufac- to scarf,email and network fax features by
Secure Print prevents unauthorized viewers turer mix—and heios ensure oil devices run validating user names and passwords before
• smoothly and reliably use.Audit Log capabilities let you know who
from seeing documents by holding jobs in the sent wk
se at,when.
print queue until the user is authenticated. I
•Xerox Secure Access Unified ID SystemO
Uses card-based identification to authenticate
authorized users when they insert an ID card.
• Follow-You Print lets you submit print jobs
to a secure print queue and print them at the
device of your choice,after ID authentication.
• Smart Card technology WorkCentre 5 700
es mo.tif,_inction PI'MTe(S SUP00ft.the
nit( iird Tecn:in:,)qy ised by tne U.S.
epaiti-nent of Defense for its Common
Access Card(CAC)'system,which protects
against unauthorized access-
Rosic office Office High Volume High Volumr Ftrtnher
<- hnisher Finnhei harsher w/Booklet MaFet
•. ! Yn+tWnress
f hyh _._._.._ ! � Inserter
:'Patlry D(/sot
h'oder Catchtray 2 FoldIC
— ti r ._ a . • Fold Unit
WorkCentre 5735/5740/5745/5755 WorkCentre 5735/57110/5745/5755 WorkCentre 5735A/5740A/5745A/5755A
Copier Printer/Copier Printer/Copier/Color Scanner
Up to 35/40/45 1 55 ppm
1 68(includes 384 MB EPC and 640 M8 ESS) 1 GB(includes 384 MB EPC and 640 MB ESS),
expandable to 2 GB(Includes 1 GB EPC and i GB ESS)
Paper Input Standard Duplex Automatic Document Handler(DADH):5735.75 sheets(a Platen version is also avadabie for the S735);5740/5745/575S.100 sheets
Bypass Tray:100 sheets:Custom sizes:4.25 x 5.5 to 11 x 17 in./A6,Lo A3:16-S8 lb.bond/60-216 gsm
Trays 1-2:500 sheets each:Custom sizes.5.5 x 8.5 to 11 x 17 in,/A5 to A3;16-53 lb.bond/60.200 gsm
High Capacity Tandem Tray 3,600-sheet total(1.600 and 2,000 sheets):Size 8.5 x 11 in./A4
Optional High Capacity Feeder(HCF):4.000-sheets:Size 8.5 x 11 in./A4 long edge feed
HCF Kits(HCF required):2.000-sheet 11 x 17 in.Snort Edge Kit or 2,000-sheet Letter/Legal Snort Edge Kit
Envelope Tray:Up to 50 envelopes:#10 commercial,monarch,DL:CS,custom.Large U.S.Postcatd,A6
inrsning options Offset Catch Tray(available with 5735/5740/5 74 5/5755):300 sheets
Basic Office Finisher(available with 5735/5740/5745):1,000*2SO-sheet trays.30-sheet single-position stapling
Office Finisher(available with 5735/5740/5745 1 5755):2,000.250-sheet trays,SO-sheet muitiposition stapling,optional hole punch
High Volume Finisher(HVF)(available with 5740/S 745/5755):3,000.250-sheet hays,100-sheet multiposition stapling,optional hole punch
High Volume Finisher with Booklet Maker(available with 5740/5745!S75SY adds saddle-stitch booklet-making
Z Fold/C Fold Unit(with HVF with Booklet Maker):adds letter-size Z and C-folding
Post Process Inserter(with HVF and with HVF with Booklet Maker):adds preprinted inserts
Convenience Stapler:50-sheet stapling
i,i,t page out time S735-As fast as 4 7 seconds: 5740/5745/575S.As fast as 3.4 seconds
Resowtion(max) 600 x 600 x 8 dpi input/4800 x 600 dpi interpolated output
Copy leatules Automatic two sided.Collation.Auto reduction/enlargement,Auto paper select.Auto tray switching.Image quality enhancement,Transparencies.Booklet creation,
Multi up,Invert image.Covers,ID Card Copy.Annotation and Bates Stamping.Build Job.Inserts and too copying.Sample set.Job stoiage and eprint
Rewitinon(max) _ Optional Up to 1200 x 1200 dDI
Plocessol 1.2 GHz Fieescale dedicated/80 GB Hard Drive shared
Connectivity Ethernet 10/100/1000 Base T IEEE802.5(Token Ring)[via thlra Dafty adapter),
Wireless Ethernet(IEEE802.1 la/b/g)[via thud warty adapter].USB print
Page description PCL'6.PCL-•5e emulation,PostSvrpt"3"emulation.LCOS,SCS.XES and IPDS via thud party tionstoims.
languages Direct print TIFF,PDF,A/400 support via Woi<Staaon Customization Objects
Print tearuies Dday-,Suniple-,Secure,and Store Print:Simultaneous rip,receive.program ahead•queue-process and
transmit;Bidirectional print drivers:Exception page programming;Tab printing:Embedded Web Server
for remote control/monitor/setup;Job monitoring at device and at desktop
Optional:Walkup Fox(33.6 Kbps,one-fine and Internet Fax enablement,Network Server Fax enablement.
two-iine,256 MB)options)with)BIG compression Optional:Walkup Fox(33.6 Kbps,one-line and two-line[256 MB]options)
with LAN Fax and Fax Forward to Email or File
Optional Optional:Block-and-white Network Scanning Standard Color Network Scanning
with Scan to Email(Autneritication and LDAP), with Scan to Email(Authentication and LDAP).
Scan to Manbox.Scan to Home. Scan to Mailoox,Scan to Home.
Scan to searchaare POF,PDF/A,XPS, Scan to searchaole PDF,PDF/A,XPS,
Additional options:Scan to PC Desktop,SMARTsend" Additional options.Scan to PC Desktop SMARTsend"
Fax Security(with Fax option) Fax Security.Secure Print.802.1 x.H f TPS(SSU.SNMP V 3.IPv6,IPsec.Network Autnentication.
Device Access Password Protection,lP Filtering,Audit Log.Disk Encryption,Disk Image Overwrite
NA Xerox Standard Accounting-Copy.Print,Fax:Optional:Network Accaunhng.enablenient(via 3rd Purtv)
JDgrace Kit to Copier/Printer. Foreign Device Intertace'Xerox Copier Assistant.Fax/Scan/Accounting Parner Solutions,
Foreigi Device liteitace',Xeirix Coder Assistant Xt_IOx lJniwde intemnunnnl Pnnr n�.Xc[ox Seune Accass tJnfied ID Sy tam witn Falo•.v Yo,i Pu t",
Common Access Card ertaDiement IUS on'y)
.s)ri:.nw 1yu�r,irvn.t:rtrrtu:a+r ClU•e', Lt;'Ilii IILLr11'I:LLt JIIUUI dlrlq 111.r 111d ljUlty ruugncfu_ nui:euuels antl rain Jeatea
`I/_; I• •'u•)x•,i.1111,IA rn•ar.:r Ji'i u,rr:r�:u1..1•r. r.r 1i ry,w4..ru
, 1 w in'rvi nrrrflnlV r.-M1rr,.,nn-nI�.i.n.lnllr,l� —.
:.a
rr rrlote information cal( 1-800-ASK•XEROX or visit us at www.xerox.com/office
�.r :]•L•-V.• 1.1"P9, 1 1)•A,,
1. .•_ -, _-r.V'a1,iH "<(..n.r.iva�r+l;. I,II.11 ..1: ''• • I -,1 I-!
I .. r •.l-.. r 11i,_I•IE•fGr'I.V.iI•rJl:r,,.'1 inl fly:".. _
, r r•V:,.;,- , r , -:l'. r rM rlJfl`.11:.1,rAp ,rf i f f llfl,i,f rvul•r• r:11•try 'hv, i
• nnwt.r._ ,-:in itv-. " „ ,
JI-,I.{Ar•1,�-tn.ur ..,;al•.I..::rEr.,l••1'�r-.1�.-rn-r nlr:,:nnne(e.l ilrl,ca(n-h�-�.rtnnrvr•,t nllnlliF1•r
r. ._,.. - ,.u1,r—io :-rr.r nn�ouF•r Pr•�r nl':,e,r,•arm,.,, r—nrar,r rr nw•hl-ctroo.nrr-oar:•1 I_ Irnll._e•,Ir: -rill•' ,n 15r• !J'•_+r')ir)t
13
A L I f O H V I A AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( )
TITLE: Town Square Project
PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director
Sandra Molina, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations;
2. Adopt a Resolution approving Site and Architectural Review
07-12/Town Square Master Development Plan,- Master
Development Sign Program 09-01, Site and Architectural
Review 07-07 and Sign Program for Development Unit 1; 'and
3. Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 08-01.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes the development of a neighborhood commercial center with up to
209,611 square feet of building area. The project is located on the south side of Barton Road
between Michigan Street and the Gage Canal within the General Commercial designation of the
BRSP, and is comprised of approximately 21 gross acres.
The project site is located within Planning Area 1 of the Barton Road Specific Plan ("BRSP"),
which requires the preparation of a master development plan. The purpose of the master
'development plan is to establish consistent development standards and integrated design among
the different property owners within Planning Area 1. In response to this requirement the
applicant, represented by Mr. Douglas Jacobsen, has submitted the proposed Grand Terrace
Town Square Master Development Plan ("TSMDP").
The Project is proposed to be developed in five Development- Units that correspond to five
development phases. In addition to approval of the TSMDP and associated master planning
documents, the applicant- is requesting approval of Development Unit I/Phase 1. Subsequent
development applications will need to be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission
for construction of Development CJnits 2 through 5, and those applications inust be consistent
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
1
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 2 of 17
with the provision of the BRSP and TSMDP. The table below provides further information on
each Development Unit.
Development Phase Land Area Maximum Buildable Existing Conditions
Unit (approximate) Square Footage
1 1 7.5 75,899 Miguel's Jr.
(*65,737)
2 2 4.5 58,858 Vacant
3 3 5.0 33,977 Senior assisted care
facility
4 4 2.0 20,700 Autozone
5 5 2_0 20,177 Occupied residence
Total 21.0 209,611
*65,737 square feet is proposed in Development Unit 1
The TSMDP has been submitted in response to the BRSP's requirement to develop a master
development plan within Planning Area 1 of the BRSP. This is a broad-based planning
document intended to establish consistent development standards and integrated design among
the different property owners. At any time in the future, should properties develop or re-develop,
the development standards will be in place through the TSMDP. Further, with regard to
Development Unit 5, the limits of the TSMDP encompass this property in accordance with the
requirements of the BRSP; but no development is proposed on this property.
The applications submitted for the development of the project are as follows:
• Site and Architectural Review 07-12/Grand Terrace Town Square Master
Development Plan
• Site and Architectural Review 07-07
• Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 17787)
• Master Sign Program 09-01
• Sign Program - Development Unit 1
• Development Agreement (to be considered at a later date)
• Environmental Review 07-06
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 3 of 17
On July 15, 2010 the Planning Commission voted to approve Site and Architectural Review 07-
12/TSMDP, Site and Architectural Review 07-07, Master Sign Program 09-01, and Sign
Program - Development Unit 1:, Their approval is subject.to the City Council's certification of
the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), at which time the City Council also approves the Site
and Architectural Review and Sign Program applications. At the same hearing date, the
Commission,recommended certification of the EIR and approval Tentative Parcel Map 08-01.
The TSMDP and Master Development Sign Program will apply to all development within the .
` TSMDP. ,Site and Architectural Review 07-07, Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 and the Sign
Program for Development Unit 1 will allow for the development of Development Unit 1/Phase 1.
The uses proposed within Development Unit 1 are a Stater Bros. Market, two retail/commercial
buildings, a fast food restaurant, and the existing Miguel's Jr. fast food restaurant.
Plans and materials that were submitted for the Project and which are either attached to the staff
report or provided via separate transmittal to the Council on July 14, 2010 include:
• Town Square Master Development Plan document (Attachment 1 - provided on July
14`h)
• Reduced size (I I"X17") set of plans that include site, floor and-landscape plans,
building elevations, color building elevations and site plan, photometric plans,
tentative parcel map, preliminary grading plans, and cross sections. (Attachment 3 -
provided July 141h)
• Master Development Sign Program(Attachment 4 - provided July 14rh)
• Sign Program for Development Unit 1 (Attachment 5 - provided July 14`h)
DISCUSSION:
GRAND TERRACE TOWN SQUARE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (6(TSMDP")
The TSMDP (Attachment 1) is a comprehensive plan intended to be the guiding document for
development of the properties located within the boundaries of Planning Area 1. The TSMDP
provides a land use plan which describes the proposed project and the five Development Units. It
provides broad-based and Development Unit-specific development standards, including parking,
landscaping and building setback and building height requirements, which are consistent with the
standards of the BRSP. It provides a description of the infrastructure (circulation, water and
sewer, drainage, utilities, solid waste, and public services/facilities) that will be provided to serve
the TSMDP. The TSMDP also includes architectural and sign standards that would apply to the
planning area. These are discussed later in this report.
In accordance with the BRSP, the TSMDP also includes a discussion of development incentives.
The BRSP gives the Planning Commission the authority to grant incentive bonuses through
3
i City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project "
Page 4 of 17
relaxed development regulations based on the merits of the project. Merits that warrant
incentives include lot consolidation, reduced access points, reciprocal access agreements,.
reciprocal parking agreements, and provision of public or semi-public open space. The TSMDP
l includes provisions for all of these items. G
I
'i
Incentives may include, but are not limited to, reduction of no more than 20% of the total
number of required parking spaces, increase in building heights, and other standards as approved
by the Commission. Development Unit 1 contains consideration for increased building and light
standard height for the Staters Bros. store. The maximum light standard height'is 18 feet. The
applicant is proposing 20-foot high light standards along the south boundary of the project, and
30 feet within the parking fields north of the Staters Bros. market. (Refer to Sheet SL-1 of
Attachment 3.) Staff recommends that the height of the light standard Is on the south side of
{ Stater's market and along the south boundary in proximity to existing residences to be reduced to,
18 feet. The BRSP allows architectural building elements such as towers and roof ridge lines
may extend to 35 feet if no habitable space is provided above 28 feet. All proposed buildings
meet this height, except for the Staters Bros. building where tower treatments extend to 40 feet in
height. These elements are on the north side of the building and would not adversely affect
existing or surrounding uses. The applicant is also requesting relaxation'of the driveway depth
requirement for Driveway No. 1 from 40 feet to 20 feet. Driveway No. 1 is the driveway on the
west side of Miguel's Jr. However, there will be sufficient queuing available as vehicles exit the
property because Driveway No. 1 is served by a main drive aisle.
jAs subsequent Development Units are reviewed, other incentives may be requested. To better
track the incentives that are granted and the merits of the project that would allow the incentives,
an incentive program is,proposed as shown in Attachment 2. This program establishes a value to
each development merit identified above that has been incorporated.f into the project, ,and
establishes a value for the development incentive being requested. Based upon the merits of the
TSMDP:and Development Unit 1, 80 bonus points are proposed to be allocated to the Project. A
point allocation is also proposed for the three development incentives tlat are being requested
above. These incentives would deduct 11 bonus points from the Project leaving a balance of 69'
bonus points that can be used towards subsequent Development Units. ;However, as shown in
Attachment,2, staff is recommending the allocation of 70 bonus points, the deduction of 15
points, leaving a remainder of 55 bonus points. Attachment 2 is included in the Resolution for
Site and Architectural Review 07-12 and 07-07.
i
The Planning Commission approved the Bonus Incentive Points program shown in Attachment
i I
I 'I
{
4
I �
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 5 of 17
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The Project site is designated as General Commercial ("GC") on the General Plan Land Use
Map. The General Plan states that the GC designation provides for general commercial uses to
serve the retail and service needs of the community. The proposed TSMDP is a neighborhood
commercial center and the permitted land uses identified in the TSMDP and those proposed
within Development Unit 1 (grocery market, commercial, retail, fast food) are consistent with the
General Commercial Land Use designation. The project is also consistent with several policies
and actions of the General Plan, as contained in the attached resolution.
The site is zoned BRSP-General Commercial. The BRSP has been adopted in conformance with
the General Plan, and Section V specifies the uses that are permitted in the BRSP-GC district.
The BRSP-GC is intended to allow for varied types of commercial development such as beauty
shops, bakeries, gift shops, florist shops, bookstores, markets, ice cream shops, fast food
restaurant and other similar commercial retail uses. The permitted uses identified in the TSMDP
document and Development Unit 1 are consistent with the land uses of the BRSP-GC zoning
district. The project also complies with the development standards contained in the BRSP,
including any development incentives that may be granted as permitted in the BRSP.
DEVELOPMENT UNIT 1
Development Unit 1 is comprised of 7.67 acres, and proposed uses include:
Use Square Footage
Stater Bros. Market 43,178
Shops 1 8,350
Retail 1 6,816
Fast Food 3,853
Existing Miguel's Jr. Food Service 3,000
Total 65,737
Site Plan
The site plan (Sheet A-0.0 of Attachment 3) depicts the development of Development Unit 1.
The Stater Bros. market is expected to be constructed first. The Stater Bros. market will contain
a pharmacy, banking services, deli, bakery and meat/seafood departments. The remaining
buildings would be constricted as determined by the commercial market and future tenants.
5
I i
I
City Council Agenda Report i
Town Square Project !
Page 6 of 17
Reciprocal access, parking and maintenance agreements will be established for the commercial
center. j
Development Units 2 and 4 are adjacent to Development Unit 1. Major !Anchor A is the Stater
! Bros. market and it is located on the south side of the project site with the entrance and parking
fields to.the north. The Shops I building abuts the market to the west. r
!
!
The new Fast Food building is at the northwest corner and the Retail 1 building is,located at the
northeast corner, respectively, of Development Unit 1. Both are located along Barton Road.
All proposed buildings within the DU 1 meet the requirement standards of the BRSP and
proposed TSMDP, including but not limited to parking, building setbacks, landscaping, and
building design and materials. j
i
There are two access points on Barton Road and two access points on'Michigan Street. The
access points along Barton Road currently exist east and west of the! existing Miguel's Jr.
restaurant. The access point east of Miguel's Jr. will be signalized and improved with the
construction of the Stater Bros. market. The south access point on Michigan Street is primarily
intended for service vehicles, while the access point to the north is for general use. All project
entrances will be treated with decorative paving/concrete. No access will be taken via La Paix
{ Street.
Internally, drive aisles are oriented north-south, with main drive aisles at project entrances and
throughout Development Unit 1. A total of 329 parking spaces are required to serve
Development Unit 1 and 393 spaces are proposed. Excess parking spaces can be applied towards
subsequent Development Units.
i
Parking for the Fast Food building is to the east and south of it, with the drive through order box
on the north side of the building and the pick up window on the west side of the building. A
condition of approval has been added requiring landscape screening for the order box. The.
parking area for Retail 1 is on the south side of the building where the entrances are located. The
signalized entrance is located just west of Retail 1.
i A trellised pedestrian walkway will lead pedestrians through the parking lot to Stater Bros.
i
market. Omnitrans has reviewed the project and recommended the installation of a bus turnout
on Barton Road in proximity to this trellised walkway to serve both employees and patrons.
i
Also on the north side of Shops I is an area reserved as a landscaped point of interest that will be
improved with DU2. At such time that development of Development Unit 2 is proposed before
the Planning Commission, staff will recommended the incorporation of a .eating area.
a
i
I i
i
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 7 of 17
Delivery Activities:
The loading area for Stater Bros. is about 40 feet from the south property line. The required
setback is 10 feet. La Paix Street is located along this project boundary with residential homes
across. from La Paix Street. The loading area has a 60 foot long screen wall measuring
approximately 19'feet high to screen loading activities and attenuate noise. The south boundary
wall, which measures six feet high on the La Paix Street side, will also attenuate noise levels.
Additionally, from-the loading area, the distance to the nearest home is approximately 60 feet. A
condition of approval would recommend prohibiting loading activities between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Also, Condition No. 21,-which prohibits routine maintenance activities
from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., is proposed to be revised to prohibit these routine activities from
occurring on the south side (rear) of the site, behind the Stater Bros. Market, Shops 1, and any
buildings in any,of the other Development Units that align with these buildings between 8:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Preliminary Landscape Plan
As shown on the preliminary landscape plan (Sheets CLP-1 through CLP-5 of Attachment 3), the
developer is proposing a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover, landscaped trellises, and
decorative handscape'for an overall total of 76,227 square feet (22%) of landscaping. Within the
parking area, almost 16% of the parking area is landscaped, well over the minimum standard of
5%. The proposed landscaping meets the landscaping coverage requirements contained in the
l BRSP and Zoning Code.
The BRSP requires that parking along the street periphery be screened through the use of
landscaping, low walls, berming, or any combination thereof. Additionally, the landscape buffer
along the south property line is required to include growing evergreen trees, and the conceptual
landscape plan depicts the installation of evergreen trees. The conceptual landscape plan also
depicts installation landscaping on the inside and outside of the screening wall. On the La Paix
Street side, vines will be planted along the wall as well. Review and approval of final landscape
planswill assure that these requirements are met.
Building Elevations/Colors and Materials
Building elevations (Sheets 2.0 through 2.3 of Attachment 3) and a color and materials board
were submitted by the applicant for the project. The color and materials board depicts the use of
muted earth-tone colors, which are shown on the colored architectural renderings. Building
materials consist of stucco, stone veneer, grey-tiled roofs, cornices, trellises, column projections,
exposed rafters, and contrasting color insets.
The colors, materials and building elevations make up the architectural theme that is proposed to
be established for the TSMDP planning area.
7
i
I �
a
City Council Agenda Report f
Town Square Project
I Page 8 of 17
if
The BRSP encourages building architecture that has rich surfaces and/oritextures that articulate
with the use of insets, trellises, and articulation of wall planes. The buildings are proposed to
I
have a stucco finish with the incorporation of a ledgestone veneer, the use of trellises and insets,
and column projections. The*use of stucco walls is permitted in the BR'SP as long as building
walls are articulated and provide architectural interest.
A brief discussion of the architectural plans for each building in Development Unit 1 follows:
j Stater Bros. Market (Sheet 2.0 of Attachment 3)
I �
I North: 'The front (north) building elevation depicts variation in roof and wall planes with
cornices, column projections, trellises, tower treatments, rafter tails, Viand ledgestone veneer
along the base of the building elevation and tower projections.
k
South: The south building elevation facing La Paix Street runs approximately 232 feet and is
painted with three different shades of brown. A portion of the building projects outward
providing additional articulation and all walls are trimmed with cornices.
West: The west elevation (facing Michigan Street) has ledgestone for about 27 feet, and the
remainder of the building plane is painted with varying colors. Shops 1 will be-built along
this building elevation at some future date.
i
! East: The east elevation is painted with varying colors, and also includes painted arches and
trellises. When Development Unit 2 is constructed, a building will abut!against this side of the
building. C
i
Shops 1 (adjacent to Stater Bros. Market, up to six tenant spaces) (Sheet 21.1 of Attachment 3)
North and South: These elevations are reverse images of each other. The elevations depict the
use of ledgestone along the base of the building elevations and projecting columns, varying
colors, projecting columns, tower entry treatments, and trellises. The tower treatments and
Iprojecting columns add variation to the roof line and wall planes.
West: This is the main elevation for the building that allows entrance into the different tenant
spaces with the tower treatment at both ends providing variation to the roof line. Column
projections and trellises add variation to the wall plane. Ledgestone is applied at the base of
each column.
East: The side of the building abuts Stater Bros._ Market and will not be visible.
Fast Food (located at the northwest corner of DU 1, along Barton, Road) (Sheet 2.2 of
Attachment 3)
I r
I North: The north elevation faces Barton Road. The architectural elevations depict variation in
the roof and wall planes through.the use of a tower treatment, column projections at each side
4
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 9 of 17
of the tower, stone veneer base, and a trellis. The proposed column on the right (west) end of
the building is painted.
South: This building elevation is the rear of the fast food building-and faces the interior of the
center. A ledgestone base and varying colors are used for articulation. The proposed columns
on either end of this building wall are painted.
East: This building wall faces east towards Barton Road and Miguel's Jr. The entry tower is
on the'right side, and different colors, column projections, trellises ledgestone at the base of
- ' the building wall.
West: This is the side of the building with the pick up window and faces the Auto Zone
building. The pick up window portion of the building wall projects, and a trellis spans the
drive through aisle. Ledgestone is incorporated along the entire bottom portion of the
building wall. Varying colors,and painted columns are also proposed on this side of the
building.
Retail 1 (located at the northeast corner of DU 1, along Barton Road, up to 5 tenant spaces)
(Sheet 2.3 of Attachment 3)
North: This elevation faces Barton Road, and because the entrances are oriented towards the
parking area, this building elevation is the rear of the building. The building wall is
articulated through the use of column projections, trellises, ledgestone base, and variation in
—� colors.
South: The south side of the building faces the interior of the center and is the main entrance.
The building elevation depicts variation in roof and wall plane with column projections,
trellises, tower treatments, stucco insets, and ledgestone veneer along the base of the building
elevation and tower projections.
East and West: These elevations are reverse images of each other. The elevations depict the
use of ledgestone along the base of the building elevations and-projecting columns, varying
colors, tower entry treatments, and trellises. The tower treatments and projecting columns add
variation to the roof.line and wall planes.
The Planning Commission approved the building elevations with a condition of approval which
requires the 'applicant to revise the building elevations to include additional articulation and
interest for Fast Food 1 and along the south wall of the Stater Bros. building. Revisions could
include columns that project from the wall plane, building walls can be further articulated
through wall mounted trellises, additional stucco insets, and variation to the parapet roofline.
Stater Bros. representatives are aware of this condition and are already working on changes to
the south building wall of the market.
9
i
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 10 of 17
Sign Programs
The applicant is proposing to establish a Master Development Sign Program (Attachment 4),
which identifies sign design guidelines for all. signs (free standing signs, menu board signs,
awning signs, and wall signs) associated , with the TSMDP, prohibited signs, and their
construction and design requirements. The Master Sign Program is �a comprehensive sign
program that would govern the 14 properties that make up the entire 21-acre site, and is the first
commercial center of this, magnitude for which a sign program will be established. Since it is
intended to be a long-term master planning document the Master Sign Program includes
proposed monument signs along the extension of Commerce Way in the event that it is
constructed. It also depicts proposed monument signs along the Gage,Canal in the event that a
cul-de-sac street is constructed. A Sign Program for Development Unit 1,(Attachment 5), which
complies with the proposed Master Development Sign Program, is also. included. The Sign
Program shows that the signs have been designed to match the architectural theme of the
commercial center.
The BRSP provides that the Community Development Director may approve it sign that does not
strictly adhere to the sign provisions of Chapter 18.80 provided that the sign is compatible with
the surrounding development and is in harmony with the general aesthetics and welfare of the
local area. Furthermore, it also gives the Planning Commission the authority to allow deviations
from the sign ordinance to approve creative and innovative sign programs'for sign solutions under
exceptional or unusual circumstances. As discussed below, the PlanninglCommission approved
the Sign Programs utilizing these provisions at their July 15, 2010 meeting.
These provisions have been previously utilized in other centers, such as the constructed CVS
project. Both wall signs and monument signs are larger in dimensions and/or sign area. CVS
monument signs measure both seven and 10 feet in height, the Potomac West center sign is 10
feet high and has 36 square feet of sign area, and the Town and Country Center has a 12-foot
high sign with 36 square feet of sign area, the Mr. TV Video sign is 18 feet high with 58 square
feet of sign area, and the La Tijera sign is 18 feet high with 32 square feet of sign area. In the
CVS center additional wall signs were permitted to reflect the various departments (i.e. photo,
pharmacy) within the store. Other options could include using a combination of single and
multi-tenant provisions to allow greater flexibility on wall signs, such as treating anchor stores as
single tenant facilities, and smaller restaurant and shop pads as multi-tenant facilities.
Master Development Sign Program {
The Master Development Sign Program proposes up to 15 freestanding signs, including the
existing Miguel's Jr. sign and a.proposed freeway sign. The 15 signs take into consideration the
probable extension of Commerce Way, and the possible construction of a cul-de-sac street at the
Gage Canal. Page 2 of the Master Development Sign Program provides the proposed sign
dimensions and sign area for the freestanding signs and Page 3 depicts their approximate
` 1(
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page I 1 of 17
locations sign locations.
Freestanding signs:
Freeway .Sign: The'Freeway sign is proposed to be 75 feet in height as allowed by the Sign
Code. The applicant proposes 635.66 square feet in sign area. The Sign Code limits the sign
area to 100 square feet for multiple tenant facilities. Additionally, only the design and
concept of the freeway sign is being considered at this time. The sign is proposed along the I-
215. However, until such time as land owner permission is secured and the entitlements (Site
and Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit) obtained, the Freeway sign cannot be
installed.
Primary and Major Tenant Identification Sign: There are two types of these signs proposed.
They measure 25 feet in height, 10 feet wide, and 70 square feet in sign area. One is
proposed along Michigan Street, the other along Barton Road, as shown on Page 3.
Secondary and Minor Tenant Identification Sign: Up to 11 of these signs are proposed. The
proposed signs would measure up to 8 feet in height, with up to 45 square feet in sign area.
There are three different styles shown on Pages, 13, 14, and 15, and their proposed locations
shown on Page 3 of the Master Sign Program.
BRSP and Sign Code: The BRSP' states that all signs must adhere to the sign regulations
contained in Chapter 18.80 of the Zoning Code, except that monument signs shall not exceed 24
square feet in sign area and shall not exceed a height above 6 feet. Chapter 18.80 outlining the
sign regulations for C-2 commercial districts, for both single and multi-tenant facilities is
included in Attachment 6. The Sign Code allows a combination of freeway and monument
signs to be used; however, it limits the total number to a maximum of three signs per parcel. The
Sign Code also allows more sign area than that of the BRSP. It allows between 24 to 36 square
feet of sign_area for properties with 100 to 150 feet of street frontage (not corner lots), up to 8
feet high with up to 4 sign panels for tenants. For properties with frontage of 300 feet or more,
the sign area can be between 36 to 60 square feet of sign area, with a height of 8 feet and with up
to 8'tenants advertised on the sign. There are no specific provisions in the BRSP or Zoning Code
for properties with street frontage between 150 and 300 feet. This may be an oversight. The
Sign Code also allows one monument sign per street frontage.
Based on the existing number of parcels (14) and the existing lot configuration, the 21-acre site
would qualify for 16 freestanding signs at 24 square feet each for a total square footage of 384
square feet. With the proposed tentative map there would still be 14 parcels; however, based on
the configuration of the parcels the 21-acre site would qualify for up to 18 freestanding signs at
24 square feet each for a total of 432 square feet of sign area.
SANBAG and Caltrans estimate that the Barton Road/I-215 Interchange Project will he
constructed in the future; therefore, it is likely that the Commerce Way extension will be
11
i
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 12 of 17
G
constructed. It is less likely that a public cul-de-sac street will be constructed at the Gage Canal.
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, staff is not considering the two ;freestanding signs that
are shown along the Gage Canal on Page 3 of'the Master Sign Program. With the extension of
Commerce Way and the closure of the north portion of'Michigan Street the Project would still
qualify for up to 18 freestanding signs at 24 square feet each for a total of 1432 square feet of sign
area.
4
As shown on Page 3 of the Master Sign Program, the applicant is proposing the development of
up to 12 onsite freestanding signs (excluding those.along the Gage Canal and including Miguel's
Jr.). The number of onsite freestanding signs would be permitted; the proposed cumulative sign,
area for the 12 signs is 519 square feet, 87 square feet over the allowable sign area.
Additionally, the onsite freestanding signs exceed the height limit of the BRSP. Attachment 7
provides a rendering of the signage that would be visible along Barton Road if each parcel
constructed a sign, and that of the signage that would be visible under the proposed sign
program. The applicant also submitted photographs of other primary identification signs
constructed for other commercial: project sites, which are also included in Attachment 7. It
would be more desirable to allow more sign area with less monument signs, in order to reduce
sign clutter. Further, the Sign Code allows sign heights of up to 8 feet where 300 lineal feet of
street frontage is provided. Although each Development.Unit is and/or will likely be made up of
separate parcel, each Development Unit functions as one part of the TSMDP. In that regard,
many of_the Development Units, such as Development Unit 1 will have,more than 300 feet of f
lineal street frontage, which would render an eight foot high sign permissible. The two primary
identification signs are twenty feet high, reduced from 25 feet.
With regard to the Freeway Sign, this sign meets the height limitation of 75 feet; however, the
maximum permitted sign area,is J00 square feet and 635.66 square feet is proposed. Attachment
8 contains a rendering of the proposed freeway sign in relation to a free i ay sign that meets the
sign area limitations, and a rendering a photo simulation of the freeway sign. The photo
simulation is not to scale; but it provides some perspective. Also included are photographs of
existing freeway signs, one in the City the other just outside the city li iits. The applicant is
seeking conceptual approval of the freeway sign. The requisite sign applications will be
submitted once a site is secured, which is expected to occur once the final design alternative is
selected for the Barton Road/I-215 Interchange.
Walls Signs:
Anchor Tenant Wall Signs: Page 5 of the Sign Program indicates that both main and ancillary
signs are proposed for Anchor tenants. Up to 400 square feet in sign area is proposed and
,�ign/letter heights may not exceed 4 feet in height, and logos cannot exceed I 5 feet in height.
Major Tenant Wall Signs: Page 5 indicates that both main and ancillary signs are proposed
i
I
1�
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 13 of 17
for Major Tenants. Up to 300 square feet in sign area is proposed and sign/letter heights may
not exceed 2.5 feet in height, and logos cannot exceed 3 feet in height.
Shop Tenant Wall Signs: The Master Sign Program proposes to allow shop tenants up to 200
square feet of sign area for both main and ancillary signs. Sign/letter heights may not exceed
2 feet and logos cannot exceed 2.5 feet in height. (Page 5)
Pad Tenant Wall Signs: The Master Sign Program (Page 5) proposes,to allow shop tenants
u to 200 s feet of sin area for both main and ancillary P square q g y signs. Sign/letter heights may
not exceed 2 feet and logos cannot exceed 4 feet in height.
Sign Code: The Sign Code allows one wall sign per building and per street frontage, up to three
signs for single tenant facilities, with one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot not to
exceed 100 square feet, and the sign cannot be higher than 20 feet from the grade. For multiple
tenant facilities one sign per building per street or parking lot frontage is permitted with a.
maximum of two signs, with one square foot of sign area per lineal foot not to exceed 75 square
feet, and the sign cannot exceed a height of 20 feet from the grade. In both instances, a
combination of wall, identification (monument) and freeway signs not to exceed three signs are
permitted. Additionally, the allowable aggregate area for wall signs includes the area of window
signs.
In consideration of the size and scale of the commercial center the Planning Commission found
the request for more than three signs (wall, identification and freeway signs), additional tenant
sign panels, and increased sign area and height to support the Project reasonable, and approve the
proposed Master Development Sign Program and Sign Program 1. Their approval included a
condition to reduce the sign area for the proposed Freeway Sign from 635.66 to 497 square feet;
and a prohibition on lighted signs on the south side of buildings,located 100 feet from the south
property line.
Sign Program—Development Unit-1 (Attachment 5)
The proposed Sign Program for Development Unit 1 is consistent with that proposed in the.
Master Development Sign Program.- As shown on the site plan on Page 7a, seven freestanding
signs are proposed-within Development Unit 1, with the extension of Commerce Way. Page 7
also shows the proposed wall sign locations for each building. For each multi-tenant building the
plans shows the maximum number of signs that are proposed to be installed. Typically when a
tenant takes up two spaces, then the two spaces are treated as one space and the signage would
follow as,well.
As discussed above, the Planning Commission approved Sign Program — Development Unit I.
The Final Sign Program for Development Unit 1, and all subsequent Development Units., must
be consistent with the Master Development Sign Program.
13
ii
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 14 of 17
Preliminary Grading Plan
A preliminary grading plan is provided as Sheets C-1 through C-4 of Attachment 3, and depicts
the grading that will occur to support Development Unit 1. Due to grade changes a retaining
wall of varying height is proposed along the south property line. A 6-foot screen wall is then
proposed on top of the retaining wall. This screen wall, in addition to the loading screen wall,
will assist in sound attenuation. The grade of the commercial center will be lower than La Paix
Street and existing residential area. At its lowest point, the shopping center will be 14 feet lower
than the street side, meaning the retaining wall will be 14 feet high at its highest point (on the
commercial side). However, on the La Paix side, the wall height will be consistently maintained
at six feet.
A retaining wall is also proposed adjacent to the existing single family residence fronting on
Barton Road to support the retail pad shown as Retail 1. The retaining wall height is proposed to
vary between 3 feet and 8 feet with the 6 foot screen wall on top. Cross-sections of the site are
shown on Sheets A0.1 and C-4 of Attachment 3.
Tentative Parcel Map 08-01
With the submittal of the tentative parcel map (Sheets 1 through 3, last sheets of Attachment 3)
the applicant is proposing to re-organize seven existing lots into seven new parcels. The
boundaries of the Tentative Parcel Map encompass Development. Units; 1, 2, and a portion of
Development Unit 4. The parcels that contain Miguel's Jr., Autozone center, and the automotive
use are not included in the Tentative Parcel Map. Although some of the proposed lots seem
oddly configured, this configuration is typical of large commercial projects where larger tenants
want their own parcel and/or require that the parcel have its own access points.
The BRSP does not contain lot standards. Rather, to encourage lot assembly conducive to
development of commercial centers, it requires that lot assembly should provide for a minimum
of 300 feet of street frontage under single ownership. Where this is not met, provisions should be
made for shared access points. Although the tentative parcel maps shows that there is over 700
feet of street frontage along Barton Road and nearly 450 feet of street frontage along Michigan
Street, each proposed lot does not have the minimum street frontage. However, shared access
points are provided and shared access and parking agreements will be required. In addition,
dedication and improvement of public right of way along Michigan Street will be required, as
part of the conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 and a City
Council Resolution f Approval is attached (Attachment 9).
1�
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 15 of 17
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff contracted with LSA Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, for the preparation
of Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). An environmental Initial Study was prepared and circulated with the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) and an EIR prepared for the project. These documents were circulated for 30
days from July 2, 2008 to August 4, 2008, and redistributed on January 30, 2009, for a 30-day
review period ending on March 2, 2009, due to changes in the proposed project. The NOP
identified that the proposed project may produce environmental effects associated with air
quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation, and that the EIR would include an analysis
of these topics. A public scoping meeting was held during each NOP comment period to solicit
public comment as to the scope of the EIR. A summary of the scoping meeting and copies of the
NOP comment letters are included in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45-days from
April 30, 2009 to June 15, 2009. As identified in the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR, the
Draft EIR discussed the proposed Project's, impacts associated with air quality, cultural
resources, noise, and transportation/traffic. Responses to Comments were made available prior to
the public hearing.
_ A Final EIR was prepared for the Project and is included as Attachment 10:, The FEIR includes
the Comment Letters, Responses to Comments, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan. CEQA requires Responses to Comments to be provided to the
agencies/persons that commented on the Draft EIR a minimum of 10 days prior to certifying the
EIR. This requirement will be met prior City Council certification of the EIR.
The Final Environmental Impact report concluded that all significant effects of the proposed
project have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation
measures with the exception of long-term operational air emissions and long-term stationary (on-
site energy consumption) and mobile (vehicular traffic) sources (including greenhouse gas
emissions) that would contribute to cumulative regional criteria pollutant emissions,-(air quality):
Additionally, Year 2030 intersection levels of service for the intersection of Mount Vernon
Avenue/Barton Road (due to existing right-of-way and existing buildings) and freeway segment
levels-of service cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. When impacts are identified
that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, the lead agency may consider the
economic, legal, social or other benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental
impacts. The lead agency may determine that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impact and
that the unavoidable impact is acceptable. In doing so, the lead agency adopts a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
City Council Resolution certifying the EIR and adopting a Statement of Overriding
15
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 16 of 17
Considerations is attached, as Attachment 11.
FINDINGS/RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Applications PC Action CC Action
Site and Architectural Review 07- Planning Commission adopts Council considers the
12/TSMDP, Site and resolution approving Commission's approval
Architectural Review 07-07, applications, contingent on with the Final EIR
Master Development Sign certification of Final EIR
Program 09-01and Sign Program
—Development Unit 1
(Attachment 12)
Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 Planning Commission Adopts resolution
(Attachment 9) recommends Council adoption approving tentative
of Resolution parcel map
Environmental Review 07-06 Planning Commission Adopts resolution
(Attachment 11) recommends Council adoption certifying the Final EIR
of Resolution and adopting a Statement
of Overriding
Considerations
Resolutions effecting the approval of the applications noted above, along with the requisite
findings, are attached for the Council's adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the attached Resolutions will not create a fiscal impact. Request for any financial -
assistance would be subject to separate action.
Prepared by,
Sandra Molina
Senior Planner
1E
City Council Agenda Report
Town Square Project
Page 17 of 17
Respectfully submitted,
5)�
J yce Powers
Director of Community and Economic Development
Manager Approval:
Betsy- . Ada ns
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Town Square Master Development Plan (provided on July 14, 2010)
2. Bonus Incentive Worksheet
3. Full size and reduced size Project Plans (provided on July 14, 2010)
4. Master Development Sign Program (provided on July 14, 2010)
5. Development Unit 1 Sign Program(provided on July 14, 2010)
6. C-2 Sign Requirements
7. Photo simulation of proposed Monument Signs
8. Rendering and photo simulation of proposed Freeway Sign
9. City Council Resolution for Tentative Parcel Map 08-01
10. Final EIR (provided on July 14, 2010)
11. Resolution certifying the Final EIR/adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
12. Resolution approving SA 07-12/TSMDP, SA 07-07, Master Development Sign Program
09-01, and Development Unit I Sign Program
17
Attachment 1
Town Square Master Development Plan
Previously provided on July 14, 2010
1�
Attachment 2
Bonus Incentive Worksheet
t ;
19
i
i
Bonus Incentive Points
Town Square Master Development Plan and Development Unit 1
Page 1 of 2
f
The following methodology allocates Bonus Incentive Points to each element of the Project
which either falls into a specific category established by the Barton Road,ISpecific Plan for such
allocation (e.g., lot consolidation, reciprocal access and reduced access points, integrated design
and architecture), or as proposed by the Development where the Project exceed the Barton Road
Specific Plan standards within a particular phase (e.g., enhanced landscaping, pedestrian
amenities, enhanced design detail).
i
Bonus Incentive Points for Master Development Plan(all phases) i Points Allocation
Proposed Recommended
Consolidated lots into single master plan(Master Plan Area 1 of
Planning Area 1 of the BRSP) in a single integrated Plan 20 20
Reciprocal Access and reduced access points 10 10
Reciprocal parking for access within phased development 10 10
Master design and integrated style 110 5
Master sign program/integrated style/consolidated face/reduced
number 110 5
Total Bonus Points/All Phases �60 50
I
Bonus Incentives Points for Phase 1 (Development Units 1 & 2 Points Allocation
E
Provision of public or semi public pedestrian open space 5 5
Covered trellis with landscaping and pedestrian walkway(enhanced
focal point) 5 5
Scored pattern/decorative sidewalks at store fronts j 5 5
Enhanced landscaping in parking lot areas 4 5 5•
Total Bonus Points/Phase 1 20 20
Total Bonus Points TSMDP + Phase 1 C 80 70
Based on the points allocation set forth above, the entire project is entitled to 70 Bonus Incentive
Points,50 of which attach to the Master Development Plan as a whole, and 20 of which are
accrued within Phase 1.
I
I
i
2C
Bonus Incentive Points
Town Square Master Development Plan and Development Unit 1
Page 2 of 2
Project features which exceed City standards and for which Incentive Bonuses are requested in
the form of reduced standards:
Proposed Recommended
Increased building (tower)height for Stater Bros. Market
Off-setting consideration: Tower is not occupied space, and adds -3 -3
articulation of building surfaces, distinguishes anchor
Stater Bros. and adjacent parking lot lighting height
Off-setting consideration: Tenant height requirement, redesign to
mitigate with City-standard lights along perimeter; design avoids -5 -7
"hot-spots" in parking fields and reduces number of lighting
elements in parking fields
Queuing at Driveway No. 1: Allow one vehicle (20 feet) queuing, -3 -5
add signage"No stopping or standing; direct to alternate access"
Total Bonus Points Deducted -11 -15
Balance of Bonus Points Remaining 69 55
Future Phases: Under the Barton Road Specific Plan and this methodology, the Developer may
seek,and receive additional Bonus Points in connection with development of future phases. The
allocation and use of Bonus Points will be approved pursuant to Site and Architectural Review.
21
Attachment 3
Reduced-size Project Plans
Previously provided on July 14, 2010
22
Attachment 4
Master Development Sign Program
Previously provided on July 14, 2010
23
Attachment 6
C-2 Sign Requirements
25
N
Table 18.004000
n
w SIGN piMM IITION BY ZONING DISTRICT
a
C2 and CN Districts - Single-Tenant facilities
N
Nazimtma Yazimnm Nazimam
n Class Type Number Sign Area sign Height Location
m Business Wall or one single one s.f. of May not project May be located
- --- rn------ -----identification-------canopy--- -faced-sign—--aign-area above-the - —____—on_parapet`or—_-____-__--- _
1� per bldg. per per each roofline or save canopy.
10 street front- lineal foot line and in no
-- age. Max. 3 of bldg. on case be higher
signs per a street. than 20 ft. from
business. 100 s.f. finish grade.
max, sign
area.
Monument one double 24 s.f. 6 ft. above grade Must not create
Ln faced sign or 4 ft. above a traffic
°D per street top of planter or hazard at
0
frontage. landscape berm. corners or
driveways as
determined by
the City
Engineer.
Freeway one double 75 s.f. 50 ft. Shall be
faced sign located at
per lot. least 5 ft.
from property
line.
i
az and Cm Districts - Single Tenant taoilities (Cont.)
maximum maximum maximum
Class Tvoe ltumber sign Area Sian Beight Location
Window - one sign per 25* of the - window
permanent. window. glass area lettering
upon which permitted on
the sign is interior or
located. exterior of
glass window
or door.
Remarks: a. Additional regulations for wall signs:
1) The allowable aggregate area for a wall sign shall
include areas of allowed window signs.
Ln
OD Z) Illumination shall be reverse backlit, channel lit
or indirectly illuminated.
3) A combination of wall, monument and freeway signs
may be used, however the total number of such
signs shall not exceed three (3) .
b. Additional regulations for window signs:
n
1) The allowable aggregate area for a window sign
Q. shall include areas of allowed wall signs.
H
1) window signs shall be constructed of permanent
material, such as paint or decals (does not
w include water-based paints) and shall be
permanently affixed to the window.
J
F�
J
w
N
A. C2 and CM Districts - Single Tenant Facilities (cont.)
y Maximum maximum Maximus
Class litan 71rea sign BeiQht Eacation
h
a
m 3) Window signs shall not be illuminated except for
signs constructed of neon tube letters and/or
symbols.
ko
-- C. Additional requirements for monument signs:
1) Site must have a minimum street frontage of 100
feet.
2) A planter base or landscape area shall be
provided.
Ln 3) Sign may be located in setback area, but may not
CO project into public right-of-way.
4) A combination of wall, monument and freeway signs
may be used, however the total number of such
signs shall not exceed three (3) .
d. Additional regulations for freeway signs:
L) Site and architectural review and a conditional
use permit shall be required for any freeway sign.
2) A freeway sign shall only be permitted within 250
feet of the right-of-way for Interstate 215.
3) A landscape area shall be provided.
4) Sign may be located in setback area, but may not
project into public right-of-way.
1 J
CZ and cm District■ - single-Tenant facilities (Coat.)
Class Type MaZIMIM Number Yazi=zm lLazimum
Sign Area Sign Height Location
5) A combination of wall, monument and freeway signs may
be used; however, the total number of such signs shall
not exceed three.
6) Sign copy may only identify the on-site tenant.
Temporary Window No limit. 20% of the Shall not exceed Ground floor
window area. 8 ft. above windows only.
finish grade.
Banner One per 25 s.f. Shall not extend Shall be
business. above roofline or attached only
eaveline. to the building
Ln to which it
co relates and not
w to any sign,
freestanding or
otherwise.
Remarks: Additional regulations for temporary signs:
a. Temporary signs are limited to temporary messages such
as sales or special events. No business identifica-
tion is permitted, except when new businesses -are
W awaiting construction of permanent new or replacement
0 signs, by temporarily announcing arrival of new busi-
nesses.
H
(D b. A sign permit is required for a temporary sign which
hmay be displayed for no more than 45 days within any
W 90-day period, not to exceed. a total of 120 days out
0 of the calendar year.
rn
d
M,
CZ and CK Districts - Bingle-Tenant facilities (cont.)
p, Y Class Type Number sign a sign Haight Location
y
M
c. Any minor deviation from the temporary sign guidelines
W for banners regarding location, height, size or number
n to be determined by the community development direc-
N tor.
Ch_--�—� - — - - ----- - -� d.-Al-lowJadvertieirig balloons (helium and�►ot r)during {
1° two weeks during the year to coincide with the Grand
Terrace Day Parade and Tour De Terrace. Advertising
balloons must be securely anchored to building struc-
tures and in conformance with the Public Utilities
Code in terms of height. Hot air balloons shall not
be used for passenger riding. Code enforcement shall
start after the events are over for any remaining spe-
cial event items.
to
OD
( � - 1 m
Table 19.80.000
BIGN RZOUTATION BY ZONING DIBTRICT
C2 and C8 Districts - multiple Tenant Facilities
Nazimum Nazimum Nazimum
Class Type- Number Sign Area sign Height Location
Center Monument One double a.l) 8 ft. above grade Shall be locat-
identification face per each or 4 ft. above ed at least 5
street top of planter or ft. from the
frontage. landscape berm. property line.
Freeway One. double- 100 s.f. 75 ft. Shall be locat-
faced sign ed at least 5
per center/ ft. from the
development. property line.
Remarks: a. Additional regulations for monument. signs:
L 1) 24 sq. ft. to 60 sq. ft. if 300' or greater of front-
Ln age to maximum of 8 tenants, maximum 8' height, mini-
mum 8" letters on 8 panels and 4 lines.
24 ,sq. -ft. to 36 sq. ft. -- 100' to 150', not corner
lot, to maximum of 4 tenants, maximum 8' height, mini-
mum 6" letters, ideal: 8" on 4 lines.
2) A planter base or landscape area shall be provided.
W3) Sign may be located in setback area, but may not
a
project into public right-of-way.
q 4) A combination of monument and freeway signs may be
M used; however, the total number of such signs shall
M not exceed three.
a
M5) Sign copy may identify center ,and up to 8 tenants
rn
under certain circumstances. .
►P
I V
M
l
.. C2 and CM Districts - Multiple Tenant Facilities (font.)
n Mazim ul, Nazimum Nazi==
aClass
Type limber sign Area sign Height Location
Mb. Additional regulations for freeway signs:
1) Site and architectural review and a conditional use
permit shall be required for any freeway sign.
2) A freeway sign shall only -be permitted
-LL-- —� J-- — of-the right-of-way for Interstate 215.
�o
3) A landscape area shall be provided.
4) Sign may be located in setback area, but may not
project into public right-of-way.
5) A combination of monument and freeway signs may be
used; however, the total number of such signs shall
u,OD not exceed three.
rn
6) Sign copy may only identify center and maximum 8
tenants, under certain criteria.
Business Wall or- One single One s.f. of May not project May be located
identification canopy face per sign area above the on parapet or
bldg. per per each roofline or canopy.
street or lineal ft. eaveline and in
parking lot or bldg. no case be higher
frontage. fronting on than 20 ft. above
Max. 2 signs a street. finished grade.
per business. Not to ex-
ceed 75 s.f.
Monument One double- 24 s.f. per. 6 ft. above grade Shall be
faced sign. face. or 4 ft. above located at
top of planter or least 5 ft.
landscape mound. from property
lines.
M
C2 and CM Districts - Multiple Tenant Facilities (Cont.)
Class Mazimum ape Mum Mazimum Masimoum,
Sign Area sign Height Location
Marquee One double- 6 s.f. per, --- Shall be locat-
faced sign face. ed below
per entrance, rbofline .and
beneath canopy
or marquee with
at least 7 ft.
clearance from
sidewalk level
to lowest point
of sign.
Window-- One sign per 25% of the ---
permanent. window. Window letter-
ing permitted
upon which on interior or
O the sign is exterior of
OD located. glass window or
door.
Remarks: a. Additional regulations for wall or canopy signs:
1) A1'1 centers shall develop -a coordinated sign program
for all tenants and uses which shall be approved by
site and 'architectural review board.
n2) The allowable aggregate area for a wall or canopy sign
shall include areas of allowed window signs.
p' 3) Illumination shall be reverse-backlit, channel lit or
indirectly illuminated. -
W4) A combination, of wall or canopy and monument signs may
n be used; however, the total number of such signs shall
M not exceed three.
rn
v
M
C2 and CK Districts - IIultiple Tinant Facilities (Cont.)
L]
Class Mazimnm mazimnm mazimum
a 1'YPe Humber Sign Area sign Height Location
Mb. Additional regulations for window signs:
1) The allowable aggregate area for a window sign shall
include areas of allowed wall signs.
M
rn _ 2) Window signs_ shall be constructed of permanent_water-i------- ---- ----- -
--- —�-- - - ----,--— -- - ----- --— --�l such as pai
nt or decals (does not include water-
to
,p based paints) and shall be permanently affixed to the
window.
3) Window signs shall not be illuminated, except for
signs constructed of neon tube letters and/or symbols.
C. Additional regulations for marquee signs:
� 1) Marquee signs shall not be illuminated and shall be
0o uniform in color and design for all tenant identifica-
tion within the center.
d. Additional requirements for monument signs:
1) Business must be in a detached structure of not less
,than 5,000 s.f.
2) A planter base or landscape area shall be provided.
3) Sign may be located in setback area, but may not pro-
ject, into public right-of-way.
4) A combination of wall or canopy and monument signs may
be used; however, the total number of such signs shall
not exceed three.
Temporary Window No limit. 20% of the Shall not exceed Ground floor
window area. 8 ft. above windows only.
finish grade.
r
Ln
CZ and CM Districts - Multiple Tenant Facilities (Cont.)
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Class Type Humber Sign Area Sign Height Location
Banner One per 25 s.f. Shall not extend Shall be
business. above roofline or attached only
eaveline. to the building
to which it
relates and not
to any sign,
freestanding or
otherwise.
Remarks: Additional regulations for temporary signs:
a. Temporary signs are limited to temporary messages such as
sales or special events. No business identification is
permitted, except when. new businesses are awaiting con-
struction of permanent new or replacement signs, by tem-
cn porarily of
arrival of new businesses.
00
`D b. A sign permit is required for a temporary
p ry sign which may
be displayed for no more than 45 days within any 90-day
period, not to exceed a total of 120 days out of the cal-
endar year.
C. Any minor deviation from the temporary sign guidelines
regarding banner location, message, height, size or num-
ber to be determined by the community development direc-
tor.
0
p' d. Allow advertising balloons (helium and hot air) during
Ntwo weeks during the year to coincide with the Grand Ter-
race Day Parade and Tour De Terrace. Advertising bal-
loons must be securely anchored,to building structures
(a] and in conformance with the Public Utilities Code in
cD terms of height. Hot air balloons shall not be used for
passenger riding. Code enforcement shall start after the
oN events are over for any remaining special event items.
m
0 Table 10.90.060
n
W SIGN REM UTION BY ZONING DISTRICT
p
a
y
CZ and CN Districts - service station Facilities
M
n
n
nClass Nazimum Nazi== Nazimom
Type Number sign Area Sign Height Location
Station Wall One per 10% of Shall not extend _Shall be
_-______-identification ---_-- - ---- -- -
street front=-building above roof line or located at
�o and pricing. age, max. of face not to above 20 ft: least 5 ft.
2 signs. exceed 30 above finish from
property
s.f. grade.
line.
Monument One per 24 s.f. for Shall not exceed Shall be locat-
street front- I.D. sign, 8 ft. above ed at least S -
age, not to 12 s.f. for planter area or ft. from prop-
exceed a- price sign. landscape berm. erty.
u, total of two
ko per station.
0
Remarks: a. Additional regulations for wall signs:
1) Illumination shall be reverse backlit, channel lit or
indirectly illuminated.
2) A combination of wall and monument signs may be used;
however, the total number of such signs shall not ex-
ceed three.
3) Corporate colors are not considered signs on service
station wall areas.
b. Additional requirements for monument signs:
1) A planter base or landscape area shall be
c2 and CM Districts - service station Facilities
maximum maximum Maximum
glass TieAign Area Sian eeiaht
Locaticn
provided.
Z) Sign may be located in setback area, but may not
project into public right-of-way.
4) A combination of wall and- monument signs may be
used, however the total number of such signs shall
not exceed three (3) .
5) The monument sign shall be designed to include the
identification of the station and gasoline prices.
No other price signs are allowed.
L" 6) Illumination shall be reverse backlit, channel lit
or indirectly illuminated.
Special Service Wall or one for each Z s.f. If mounted Shall be
ground. island, not on a 'wall or located at
to exceed a pole of least 5 ft.
total of 4 canopy, it from
h per station. shall be no property
higher than line.
o, 8 ft. ,
ground signs
y shall not
m
exceed 34
a ft. in
n height.
m
Remarkss Special services signs shall be limited to such items as
self serve, full serve, air, water, �cashier and shall not be
illuminated.
v
� I
w
M
a. C2
and CM Districts - Service station laoiiities
q Maximum
M Class ZXRa tuber Maximum Maximum
giyn l►rea loan Meiaht
- Location
a Special Window or Z per 6 s.l.
n ]advertisement ground. station. A window or Shall be
m ground sign located at
\ shall not
least
5 !t.
10 exceed 6 ft. from
in height.— property- --- -- -- ---- ---- -------- -- ---------- --r -- --- ---- ---- line. ,
Remarks: Special advertisement signs shall be limited to advertising
special sales or services and shall not be illuminated.
Ln
ko
N
Attachment 7
Photo Simulation of Proposed Monument Signs
Attachment 7
Barton Road showing 12 Monuments
R3(
tea..
inner
Barfon Road showing 3 Monuments, 1 x 2.&monument,1 comer monument
2950 Fdk d..D._ CG�m,100DpSOn Famiy nObYlet'' Naj it,Grand Termoe iown S oars. a..�m.,: - .. -
caoro,uwieeq' Q neem + r+m.�a.rtiva rarer 14199:RU0 VMS
r 95,.77e.06e0 Grand.Termre,California IicY6di+�mdk�pvjmm�ogmwjn7 o..d1
er MSS*-dkrmhADx d oisolobe
IF rS�.re.oaei av 2-20-64
arn4ape.oaaNyM«r�wxouh - •
o®SIGN a SIGNS _. wk"►-W,iww a niSad 6 M win
(� .nh4.htlfe p.im�Gaf wsrt 9ahn Barton Road GDamptual
'' �. • P UE.ATE�h.
r _ _
t C I� 'j •` y ��D�.r.r4I IIB.
Ai
sv
CORNERCIFSIATESHIMANDRANNA CORNER, 4'O' CORNERI OF ARUNGTON AND 9WHOR CORNER OF SUM AVL AND SEDUSON AVE.
,,,,,,%:.*'_� � •�.,� %�s�-�•-ti . . _, . `". _ �'1�'�""`,,.:�' r'+� r -� .tom''* �_'"" "-'+��a-��,'
Attachment 8
Rendering and Photo Simulation of Proposed Freeway Sign
Attachment 8
Freeway Oriented Pylon Sign
(FRI)
QTY: ONE 1 QTY: ONE. l
TOTAL SIGN AREA= 05.66 SO.FT. TOTAL SIGN AREA 98 SQ:f.
X-C' r
m�
M ANCHOR TENANT I.D.
TOWN I
. _
i ANCHOR TENANT I.D. STA1`Elt
= 194 SQ.FT. o
!� ll ,f MAJOR TENANT I.D.
fi BRAS —25 SQ.FT.
MAJOR TENANT I.D. J�I ��1�1 1yJ�I,, TENANT I.D.
=12b SQ.FL =32 SQ.Ff.EACH
MAJOR TENANT I:D. ,. y r y DRY
}
MAJOR TENANT I.D. +
=98 SO.FT
TENANT I.D.
=47.83 SO.FT.EACH
i
0 0
m
SCALE:1/16°=14' ' ' '
6ABB1 iE�68fE
i.. OItTNAlIt�
Fieeway Orient6d Pylon Sign
,. 't�NlNFtQpY - ti
KID]1
H®.�1
S� t
-
c
`kq•i
6. '
S t
1
r '
r�
i
r i
1
(�p'ERlI l
i � ;��l1tr • 4 � r 1
r'
Erg���,=y - -- • ' +
� r
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 08-01
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17787) TO CONSOLIDATE SEVEN
LOTS AND RESUBDIVIDE THEM INTO SEVEN NEW ;PARCELS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BARTON ROAD AND THE
EAST SIDE OF MICHIGAN STREET, ZONED BRSP-GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
WHEREAS, Grand Terrace Jacobsen Family Holdings I, LLC ("Subdivider"),
represented by Douglas Jacobsen, has submitted applications to the City of Grand Terrace
("City") to establish the Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development ("TSMDP") on
approximately 21 acres of land located within Planning Area 1 of the Barton Road Specific Plan
(`BRSP") (the "Project"). The Project site is zoned BRSP-General Commercial, and is located
on the south side of Barton Road between Michigan Street and the Gage Canal.
WHEREAS, the TSMDP proposes to be developed in five Development Units that
correspond to five development phases: Development Unit 1 is proposed on 7.5 acres consisting
of 65,737 square feet; Development Unit 2 is proposed on 4.5 acres with a maximum buildable
area of 58,858 square feet; Development Unit 3 is proposed on 5.0 acres with a maximum
buildable area of 33,977 square feet; Development Unit 4 is proposed on 2.0 acres with a
maximum buildable area of 20,700 square feet; and Development Unit 5 is proposed on 2.0 acres
with a maximum building area of 20,177 square feet.
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted Site and Architectural Review 07-12
consisting of the TSMDP, Master Sign Program 09-01 for the TSMDP, Site and Architectural
Review 07-07 for the development of Development Unit 1, together with Tentative Parcel Map
08-01 (TPM No. 17787), and a draft Development Agreement to govern the development of the
TSMDP.
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has applied for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 08-01
(TPM No. 17787), which applies to approximately 12.5 acres of the approximately 21-acre
TSMDP area,and contemplates the resubdivision-of seven existing parcels into seven new lots.
The boundaries of the tentative parcel map encompass Development Units 1, 2, and a portion of
Development Unit 4 of the TSMDP.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act '("CEQA") Guidelines,
14 Cal. Code of Regulations Sections 15080 et seq., the environmental assessment of the
proposed Project made under Environmental Review Case No 07-06 required the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), focusing in the areas of Noise, Air Quality, Cultural
Resources and Traffic/Transportation.
i
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (`NOP") and Initial Study identifying the scope of
environmental issues were distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and
Page 1 of 8
48
organizations on July 3, 2008, for a period of 30 days, concluding on August 4, 2008, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375, and which were subsequently revised
and re-distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and organizations on January 30,
2009, for a period of 30 days, concluding on March 2, 2009, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375.
WHEREAS, public scoping meetings were held on July 15, 2008, and on February 17,
2009, at the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers and input from the public providing
direction and scope of the EIR was received and has been included in the Final EIR.
_ WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared, under contract with the City of Grand Terrace,
by LSA Associates, LLC, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of CEQA. All
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated to interested agencies and the public between April 30, 2009
and June 15, 2009, for a 45-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15078. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092, the City provided notice to all
organizations and individuals, and published the Notice of Availability in The San Bernardino
County Sun newspaper on April 30, 2009.
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was distributed to all persons and agencies that commented
on the Draft EIR, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. The Final EIR
included responses to the thirty-one comment letters were prepared and are included in the Final
EIR, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Notice of the availability of the
Final EIR was published in the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper on July 5, 2010. Copies
of the Draft EIR and Final EIR are on file in the office of the City of Grand Terrace Community
and Economic Development Department.
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on Site and Architectural Review 07-12 consisting of the TSMDP,.Master Sign
Program 09-01 for the TSMDP, Site and Architectural Review 07-07 and Sign Program —
Development Unit 1, Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (TPM No. 17787), and Environmental Review
07-06 at the Grand Terrace Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace,
California 92313 and concluded the hearing by recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map,,
08_-01 (Tentative Parcel Map No. '17787); `
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2010 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on Site and Architectural Review 07-12 consisting of the TSMDP, Master Sign Program 09-01
for the TSMDP Site and Architectural Review 07-07 and Sign Program _ Development Unit 1,
Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (TPM No. 17787), and Environmental Review 07-06 at the Grand
Terrace Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California 92313 and
concluded the hearing on said date.
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Page 2 of 8
49
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council,of the City of Grand
Terrace:
1. The City Council finds that the requirements of CEQA have been met by the preparation
and certification of the FEIR prepared for the Project as set forth in the Environmental
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City Council
on July 27, 2010.
2. The City Council finds as follows with respect Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (TPM No.
17787):
a. That the proposed map, its design and improvements are consistent with the
Grand Terrace General Plan, Barton Road Specific Plan (`BRSP"), Development
Code and the California Subdivision Map Act. The proposed map, its design and
improvements are consistent with the requirements of the BRSP regarding lot
assembly, street frontage, shared access points and reciprocal access and parking.
The proposed map implements Land Use Element goals and polices to provide a
wide range of retail, service commercial, and employment'opportunities because
it facilitates the development of a commercial retail center. It is consistent with
the Circulation Element requiring preparation of a traffic analysis and that that
peak hour level of service "D" is maintained. It complies with the Open Space
and Conservation Element because the tentative map meets or will be required to
meet federal, state and local regulations governing grading; erosion control, water
quality, and cultural resources.
b. That the site is physically suitable for the type or density,of development. The
tentative map has been filed with the TSMDP and related applications. The site
plan for Development Unit 1 demonstrates that the tentative map can support
Phase 1 development, including compliance with building'setbacks, building and
landscaping coverage requirements, in accordance with the TSMDP, BRSP and
Development Code, and proposed lots within other Development Units are of
sufficient size to support subsequent development.
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat. A Final EIR has been prepared for the project. No
significant fish or wildlife resources were observed on the site. The Final EIR
determined that significant impacts related to air quality, traffic, and cultural
resources could be mitigated to less than significant levels except for long-term
operational air emissions and long-term stationary (on-site energy consumption)
and mobile (vehicular traffic) sources, including greenhouse gas emissions that
would contribute to cumulative regional criteria pollutant -emissions (air quality)
and Year 2030 intersection levels of service for the intersection of Mount Vernon
Avenue/Barton Road and freeway segment levels of service cannot be mitigated
to a less than significant level. These cumulative impacts remain significant and
unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted.
Page 3 of 8
5C
d. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious
public health problems. The tentative map can accommodate anticipated
development of the site and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project to reduce potential environmental impacts to levels of insignificance.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. This finding can be made because no
conflicting easements exist on the property that cannot be accommodated in the
Project design.
f. The discharge of waste resulting from the Project into the existing sewer system
will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region because the Project is
connected to the public sanitary sewer system, which is treated by a regional
waste water facility.
g. The design of the map provides, to the extent feasible, for passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities. The proposed parcels are of sufficient size to
orient structures to take advantage of westerly exposures for maximum solar
exposure during the winter months, and are of sufficient size to accommodate
landscape materials include trees that will provide shading during the summer
months.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Tentative Parcel Map No. 08-01 (TPM No. 17787) is
hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions of Approval:
1. Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (TPM No. 17787) is approved based on the application and
application materials submitted by Grand Terrace Jacobsen Family Holdings I, LLC
("Subdivider"), including the tentative parcel map dated March 19, 2009. All plans
shall be consistent in terms of property lines, easement, location and dimensions and
other measurements.
2. This approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of adoption of this
resolution. This approval shall become null and void if a final map has not been timely
filed prior to the expiration date in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act. An extension of time may be granted by the Community and Economic
Development Director pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6, upon submittal
of a time extension request and appropriate filing fees.
3. The Subdivider shall defend, with legal counsel acceptable to the City, which
acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld, and indemnify, and hold harmless the
City and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
Page 4of8
51
proceeding against the City, its officers, employees, or agents to4attack, set aside, void,
or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City concerning this subdivision
approval, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the
Planning Commission, City Council, Community and Economic;Development Director
or City Engineer, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly notify the Subdivider of
any claim, action, or proceeding concerning this subdivision approval and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the claim, action or proceeding., The City reserves the
right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of any such claim, action orproceeding.
4. Details shown on the tentative parcel map are not necessarily approved and any and all
details in the final map must be consistent with requirements of state and local
ordinances, conditions of approval, and City policies, in effect at the time the
subdivision application was accepted as complete.
5. In the event that TPM No. 17787 exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the
written conditions shall prevail.
6. Upon approval of these conditions and prior to becoming final and binding, the
Subdivider must sign and return an "Acceptance of Conditions'' form. The form and
content shall be prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department.
7. The Subdivider shall comply with the Conditions of Approval of the Director of
Building and Safety/Public Works, contained in the Director's memorandum dated July
6, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
8. The Subdivider shall comply with the Conditions of Approval 'of the San Bernardino
County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal Community Safety Division, set
forth in the letter dated August 14, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
9. The Subdivider shall comply with the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan contained in
the FEIR certified for the Project.
i
Conditions of Final Map Approval:
10. The Subdivider shall comply with all applicable local and state' regulations governing
preparation and acceptance of the final map, including the requirements for all bonds,
deposits and/or securities required by the Subdivision Map Act.
11. A final parcel map prepared by, or under the direction of a registered civil engineer
authorized to practice land surveying, or a licensed land surveyor, must be approved by
the City prior to being filed with the San Bernardino County Recorder.
12. The Subdivider shall submit a preliminary title report and Fsubdivision guarantee
showing all fee interest holders, all interest holders whose interest could ripen into a fee,
Page 5 of 8
5�
all trust deeds, together with the names of the trustee and all easement holders. The
account for this title report shall remain open until the final parcel map is filed with the
County Recorder. No easements shall be granted and recorded until after the final map
is recorded, unless approved by the City Engineer and subordinated to any City
easements by a certification upon the title sheet of the final map, prior to the grant.
13. The Subdivider shall incorporate into the Project design all existing easements within
the project boundaries. In the case where easements are proposed to be abandoned, the
Subdivider shall obtain abandonment of said easements from the affected easement
holder(s). If this requirement cannot be accomplished, the Project shall be redesigned
accordingly and as approved by the City.
14. Easements for all on-site facilities, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer prior to recordation. Such easements may include, but are not
limited to, sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, storm drains, and detention basins, and
landscaping.
15. The Subdivider shall pay all required fees for the processing and approval of the final
parcel map.
16. Prior to final map approval, all on-site and off-site curbs, gutters, paving, street lights,
sewer laterals, water services, utilities, grading, storm drain improvements shall be
installed or sufficient surety shall be posted to the satisfaction of the City to guarantee
their installation.
17. Prior to final map approval, plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall
be submitted for approval to the Riverside Highland Water Company. The Subdivider
shall submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City, indicating that
the Subdivider has entered into a contract with the water purveyor guaranteeing
payment and installation of the water improvements.
18. Prior to the final map approval, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a
statement from the water purveyor indicating Subdivider compliance with the Fire
Department's fire flow requirements.
19. Improvement plans for utility connections and services, including water, fire hydrant
and/or fire sprinklers,,sewer, storm drain, gas, electric, phone, and television, shall be
submitted to and approved by the City
20. Access rights to the City for the purpose of allowing access over private drives within
the development for all City vehicles, including police, fire, and other emergency
vehicles shall be provided on the final map.
21. An easement over the parcels within TPM No. 17787 for reciprocal drainage, access,
sewer, and parking crossing lot lines. Prior to recordation, easement documents shall be
Page 6of8
53
I
I
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval shall be provided on the final
map
I
22. The Subdivider shall prepare Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the
commercial center and submit the CC&R's to the City for review and approval. - The
CC&R's shall include provisions shared access and parking within and between
Development Units 1, 2 and 4 and shall include provisions for the maintenance of
common area improvements including landscaping, perimeter �fencing, infrastructure
improvements, and parking areas; and structural BMP's identified in the WQMP. The
CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Parcel Map.
Conditions After Final Map Approval:
i
23. The final map shall be filed with the San Bernardino County recorder and one (1) Mylar
copy of the filed map shall be submitted to the City offices.
24. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with all the i approved plans and
conditions of approval, including but not limited to site plans, gr'ding plans, wall plans,
and building elevations.
25. Construction and operational activities associated with the Project shall comply with the
regulations of the City's -Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.108 of the Grand Terrace
Municipal Code. j
26. All perimeter walls and retaining walls shall be decorative, which may include the
incorporation of stucco, split-face block, stone veneer and/or other materials that match
the colors and materials of the project.
i
27. The Subdivider shall pay all applicable development impact fees in effect at the time
that building permits are issued by the City.
28. Corner monuments indicating the new property corners shall be Iset in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Appropriate
documentation that the monuments have been set must be 'submitted to the City
Engineer. --
F
• f
i
I
f
f
I
i
Page 7of8
5A
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,
California at a regular meeting held on the 27`h day of July, 2010.
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
and of the City Council thereof and of the City Council thereof
Page 8 of 8
55
I
i
Building and Safety/Public Works Department
Conditions of Approval
f
Date: July 6,2010
i
Applicant: Grand Terrace Jacobsen Family Holdings, I, LLC
Project: Town Square Master Development Plan and
TPM 17787, Site and Architectural Review No. 07-07. '
W.O.# 12-8.5459 j
Public Works/Enzineerinz First Plan Review for Tentative Parcel Man Abarova!
The following documents are required to be submitted to Public Works Department and are in
addition to the plans submitted to the Planning Department.
f
(1) Grant Deed showing all recorded easements.
f
(4) Water/Utility Plans.
(4) Sewer Plans or connections to existing sewer.
(4) Storm drain/drainage improvement plans.
(4) Dedication of right-of-way for Michigan Street indicated on TPM 1 787.
(4) Street improvement plans, Michigan Street and Barton Road.
(4) TPM 17787.
Building and Safety Submittals for Plan Review and Issuance of Building Permits
I
The following documents were received and determined to be complete Ifor the purpose of plan
review submittals: Items (1-11) have been submitted for plan review of the proposed Stater
Brothers Market. The remaining items (12-16) have been submitted by NAIAssociates.
l
1. (4) Architectural Plans,
2. (4) Structural Plans,
3. (2) Structural_Calculations,
4. (4) Plot/Site Plans,
5. (4) Electrical Plans,
6. (4) Electrical Load Calculations
7. (4) Plumbing Plans/Isometrics, Water, Sewer and Gas
8. (4) Mechanical Plans
9. (4) Mechanical Duct Layout Plans
10. (2) Roof and or Floor Truss Plans
11. (2) Title 24 Energy Calculations
12. (4) Rough Grading and Precise Grading Plans k
13. (2) Water Quality Management Plan, (WQMP) and Erosion Control Plan
14_ (2) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, (SWPPP) a
15. (2) Hydrology Reports
16. (2) Soils Reports
5(
Building& Safety/Public Works General Information
All structures shall be designed in accordance with- the 2007 California Building Code, 2007
California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Plumbing Code, and the 2007 California Electrical
Code adopted by the State of California and the City of Grand Terrace.
All work performed in the public right-of-way shall comply with San Bernardino County Public
Works Standards and Specification for Construction within Public Right of Way. Street cut deposits
($1,000.00) are required for each street cut in City streets.
The Developer/Owner is responsible,for coordination of the final occupancy. The Developer/Owner
Y shall obtain clearances from each City department and division-as required, prior t6 requesting a
final,building inspection from Building & Safety. Each City agency shall sign the bottom of the
Building and Safety Job Card as indicated.
Building and Safety inspection requests and Public Works inspection requests can be made twenty
four (24) hours in advance for 'next day inspection. Please contact (909) 825-3825. The
Developer/Owner may also request inspections at the Building& Safety public counter.
The entire construction site shall be protected by a chain fink fence behind the sidewalk at the
public right-of-way. The fencing shall be maintained at all times during construction. Fencing can
be removed to perform the on-site common area improvements. (2007 California Building Code,
Chapter 33, Section 3306.1 and 2).
Toilet facilities shall be provided for construction workers on the site. The toilet facilities shall be
Y maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. Construction toilet facilities of the non-sewer type
shall conform at ANSI ZA.3.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, all construction materials which are not used shall be
recycled pursuant to Ordinance No. 243, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition
Waste. Prior to commencement of building construction, every applicant shall submit a properly
completed "Waste Management Plan" (WMP) to-the WMP Compliance Official in a form as
prescribed by that Official. The completed WMP shall contain the following:
A. The square footage of the proposed project; .
B. -The estimated weight of project waste to-be generated by materials type;
C. The maximum weight of such materials that can feasibly be-diverted via Reuse or Recycling by
materials type;
D. The facility(s) that the materials will be hauled to and their expected diversion rates by material
hype;
E. The vendors(s) that the applicant proposes to use to haul the materials. -
F. Estimated weight of construction and demolition waste that will be disposed.
Construction projects which require temporary electrical power'shall obtain an Electrical Permit
from Building & Safety. No temporary electrical power will be granted to a project unless one of
the following items is in place and approved by the Building & Safety and the.Community
Development Departments.
A. Installation of a construction trailer, or
57
i
E
B. Security fenced area where the electrical power will be located.
Installation of construction/sales trailers must be located on private property. No trailers of any
type shall be located in the public street right-of-way.
Buildine Permit Conditions
I
i
1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, receipts from the Regional Water Board shall be
submitted showing that all Regional Water Board fees have been paid.
2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, copies of encroachment agreements shall be submitted
from all affected adjacent properties consistent with the contours on the grading plans.
3. No flammable materials will be allowed on the site until the on-site water service is installed
and approved by the Riverside Highland Water Company. On site fire hydrants shall be
installed and active prior to occupancy of any structures, and approved by the Fire
Department and Riverside Highland Water Company.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, pad certifications shall be submitted to Building &
Safety. The pad certifications shall be wet stamped by the engineer of record. Prior to
concrete placement, an engineer's certification shall be submitted for the finish floor
elevation and set backs of the buildings. The certification shall'reflect that the structure is in
conformance with the Precise Grading Plans. Compaction reports shall accompany pad
certifications.
j
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, a school fee certificate from ithe Colton Joint Unified
School District shall be submitted showing that all applicable school fees have been paid.
i
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Will Service Letter from Riverside Highland Water
Company shall be submitted on file with Building& Safety, Contact(909) 825-4128.
Public Works Conditions
r •
f
1. As a condition of issuance of building permits, .the applicant shall pay the following
applicable development impact and or connection capacity fees as required by the City
ordinance as set forth in any applicable Development Agreement.
I
a. Storm Drainage Facility Fees
b. General Facilities Fees
c. Parkland and Open Space Acquisition Fees
d. Circulation Impact Fee
e. Arterial Improvement Fees
f. Sewer Hook-Up Fees
2. All on site utilities shall be underground in accordance with applicable City Standards.
Street cut permits are required prior to commencing work in the City'!s right of way.
r
5;
3. A Street cut deposit will be collected at the time a public works permit is issued for any
work in the City's right-of-way, and held by the City for two years in accordance with
Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08, Section, 12.08.080.
4. All required public street improvements shall be designed by persons registered and licensed
pursuant to the Business and Professions Code.
Street light locations shall be shown on site plans. Coordinate with Southern California
Edison to install (1) one 5800 Watt, LS-1, street light in accordance with approved site plans
on Michigan Street south of Driveway Number 5, and deposit one year energy cost for the
street light in the amount of $105.00 to the City of Grand Terrace. Street lights shall be
installed in accordance with approved site plans which have been submitted to Southern
California Edison for review.
5. Underground retention and filtration areas shall be provided for the site, in accordance with
approved drainage improvement plans, in connection with the construction of Development
Unit 1. Storm flows may be retained in a retention area designed for such flows as
indicated on the approved drainage improvement plans. Drainage improvement plans which
indicate retention and filtration areas shall be submitted to Building and Safety with grading
plans for approval.
6. Preliminary plans have been submitted for review of the retention areas for storm water
flows with the intent to retain all storm flows on-site.
7. The project applicant or his designee shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for
construction of all frontage improvements along Barton Road, including the design and
construction of the proposed traffic signal at Project Driveway No. 2, in conformance with
applicable City standards and specifications. The project applicant or his designee shall be
eligible for reimbursement of fair share contributions from future development based on fair
share studies which the City shall make a condition of development of other projects which
benefit from the Barton Road improvements and the traffic signal. Design and construction
plans for the subject signal and associated street improvements shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City. No deceleration lanes will be required for the project driveways
as part of Phase 1 improvements, but may be considered for future phases of development.
Improvements to Barton Road shall include an 8-foot wide bus turnout located between
Vivienda Avenue and Project Driveway No. 1, or as approved by the Public Works Director.
8. The applicant or his designee shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for constructing
partial width frontage improvements on Michigan Street as a Secondary Highway, in
conformance with applicable City standards and specifications. Improvements shall include
curb and gutter and a temporary transition/taper area on the northbound approach of
Michigan Street, as well as any necessary utility relocation. The applicant or his designee
shall be eligible for reimbursement of the fair share conditions from future development,
based on fair share studies which the City shall make a condition of development of other
projects which benefit from the Michigan Street improvement and utility relocation unless
other arrangements for street improvements are made.
59
i
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC AND SUPPI
.rA? SERVICES GROUP
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL Fake.,,
i PAT A.DENNEN
Community Safety Division ' Fire Chief
620 South"E"Street—San Bernardino,CA 92415-0179 County Fire Warden
(909)386-8465-(909)386-8463-(909)386-8466
Fax(909)386-8460
AUGUST 14,2008 EXPIRATION: AUGUST 2010
GRAND TERRACE TOWN SQUARE
FILE: SPR GT08/28925
LOCATION: BARTON &MICHIGAN—GRAND TERRACE r
PROJECT TYPE: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TOWN SQUARE PROJECT
NUMBER OF LOTS(if applicable): N/A
APN: 1167-231-12,-13, -15, -03,-21 &-09
PLANNER INDEX: SA 07-07,TPM 08-01
PLANNER: SANDRA MOLINA
Dear Applicant:
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the San Bernardino County Fire
Department requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordance with applicable local
ordinances, codes, and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The following information of this document sets forth the FIRE CONDITIONS and STANDARDS of which are applied
to this project.
FIRE CONDITIONS: r
I ,
Jurisdiction. The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department
herein ("Fire Department"). Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire
Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current
Uniform Fire Code requirements ,and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances and standards of the Fire
Department. [F-1]
I
Additional Requirements. In addition to the Fire requirements stated herein, other on site and off site improvements
may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to be reviewed after
more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to this office. [F-1a]j
Fire Equipment — Agreement/Surety. The applicant shall execute an agreement With__the.-County. of- Sara
Bernardino, (if applicable- San Bernardino County Redevelopment Agency) and the Fire Department, .to ensure that
all fire equipment necessary to serve the project is available when necessary or the applicant may submit surety in a
form and amount acceptable to County Counsel and the Fire Chief. [F-7] I
i
Access Requirements. The applicant shall submit emergency/evacuation road access Mans to the Fire Department
for review and approval. These plans shall include: (check all that apply). [F-9]
I
Q Primary Access Route. The plan shall show all planned road widening with minimum widths of twenty-six
feet (26') unobstructed [FS1/FS2/FS3 NO shoulder parking allowed, with an unobstructed vertical
clearance of no less than,14 feet 6 inches(14' 6"), and with grades not exceeding twelve percent(12
❑ Secondary Access Route. The,plan shall show all planned road widening with minimum widths of twenty
feet (20') unobstructed, with NO shoulder parking allowed, with an unobstructed vertical clearance of no
less than 14 feetr6'inches(14' 6"), and with grades not exceeding twelve percent(12 %).
6C
v • v I vv/iY.I&4
AUGUST 14, 2008
PAGE 2
❑, Road Width Variance/Turnouts. The plan shall show required turnouts as mitigation for the requested
variance.to allow road widths to be no less than feet in width-and for lengths not exceeding
feet.in lieu of the required minimum width of (26) feet for primary access and twenty feet (20) for
secondary access]. The turnouts shall be a minimum 6 feet wide and 40 feet long and shall be installed
approximately every six hundred (600) feet along the reduced segment of the roadway. These turnouts are
to be designed, spaced and constructed as determined by the Fire Department. The turnouts are to be
located at all fire hydrants and at any other point determined necessary for fire protection or other
emergency response-purpose.'
❑ Planned width and location of all internal access drives and parking areas.
❑ Written verification of legal access to the project site (and each phase) from the County
maintained road for both the primary and secondary access routes.
❑ Other (list)
Fire Fee. The required fire fees (currently $802.00) shall be paid no. County Fire
Department/Comrnunity Safety Division (909) 386-8465. This fee is in addition tohfire fees-that aree San paid tote San
Bernardino County Land Use Services Department. [F-40]
Access. The development shall have a minimum of 2 points of vehicular access. These are for fire/emergency
equipment access and for evacuation routes. Standard 902.2,1 [F-41]
Sinc
ile Story Road Access Width:
All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys and private drives with a minimum twenty six(26)
' foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14)feet six(6) inches in height. Other recognized standards may
be more restrictive by requiring wider access provisions.
Multi-Story Road Access Width:
Buildings three (3)stories in height or more�shall have a minimum access of thirty(30)feet unobstructed width and
vertically to fourteen (14) feet six(6) inches in height.
Water System Large Commercial. A water system approved and inspected by the Fire Department is required. The
system shall be operational, prior to any combustibles being stored.on the.site. The applicant is required.to-.provide a
minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with one (1) two and one half(2 1/2) inch-and two,(2) four(4)
inch outlet. All fire hydrants-shall"be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart (as measured along
vehicular travel-ways)and no more than one hundred fifty(150) feet from any portion of a structure. [F-54a]
Water System Certification. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the serving water
company, certifying that the required water improvements have been made or that the existing fire hydrants and water
system will meet ,distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply shall be in place prior to placing
combustible materials on the job-site. [F-57]
Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13 An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA Pamphlet #13 and the Fire
Department standards is required. The applicant shall hire a Fire Department approved fire sprinkler contractor. The
fire sprinkler contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval.
The plans (minimum 1/8" scale) shall include hydraulic calculations and manufactures specification sheets. The
contractor shall submit plans showing type of storage and use with the applicable protection system. The required
fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. Standard 101.1 [F-59]
61
Orm U 1 UOUGUZ 1
AUGUST 14, 2008
PAGE 3
Fire Alarm. An automatic monitoring fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all,
applicable codes is required for 100 heads or more. The applicant shall-hire a Fire Department approved fire alarm
contractor. The fire alarm contractor shall submit three(3) sets of detailed plans to the,Fire Department for review
and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. Standard 1007.1.1 FA. [F-62]
Hood And Duct Suppression. An automatic hood and duct fire extinguishing system,is required. A Fire Department
approved designer/installer shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans (minimum 1/8" scale) with manufactures'
specification sheets to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of
plan submittal. [F-65]
Hydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by
the Fire Department. In areas where snow removal occurs or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant
marker shall be posted on an approved post along the side of the road, no more than three (3) feet from the hydrant
and at least six(6)feet high above the adjacent road. Standard 901.4.3. [F80]
Commercial Addressing. Commercial and industrial developments of 100,000 sq. ft or less shall have the street
address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum six (6) inches in height and with a three quarter
(3/4) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall
be electrically illuminated (internal or externall. Where the building is two hundred, (200) feet or more from the
roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access
entrances. Standard 901.4.4 [F82]
Key Box. An approved Fire Department key box is required. The key box shall be provided with a tamper switch and
shall be monitored by a Fire Department approved central monitoring service. In commercial, industrial and multi-
family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Standard 902.4[F85]
Fire Extinguishers. Hand portable fire extinguishers are. required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be
approved by the Fire Department. [F88]
r
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Commercial projects with an aggregate building square footage of 100,000 or more
square feet requires a minimum ten (10) inch underground fire main with two(2) points of connection to the municipal
source and contain fire hydrant laterals eight(8) inches in diameter. (County Fire Standard 508.1)
Sincerely,
MARK ANDERSON, Fire Prevention Specialist
San Bernardino County Fire Department
Community Safety Division
MA:wc
I
I
i
i
r
i
mw-commsafety-com'nunitysafetyforms and communitysafetyplanning&engineeringfireletters:fireletterDAB-DRC doc
Attachment 10
Final EIR
Previously provided on July 14, 2010
- (Draft EIR previously provided May 2009)
63
Attachment 11
Resolution Certifying the EIR and Adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations
6�
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
2008071017) AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR
THE GRAND TERRACE TOWN SQUARE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan ("TSMDP") would
result in the development of a commercial center consisting of the development of up to 209,611 square
feet on approximately 21 gross acres. The Project is located on the south side of Barton Road between
Michigan Street and the Gage Canal, within the General Commercial designation of the BRSP; and
WHEREAS, the TSMDP would be developed in five Development Units that correspond to five
development phases: Development Unit 1 is proposed on 7.5 acres consisting of 65,737 square feet of
commercial space; Development Unit 2 is proposed on 4.5 acres with a maximum buildable area of
58,858 square feet; Development Unit 3 is proposed on 5.0 acres with a maximum buildable area of
33,977 square feet; Development Unit 4 is proposed on 2.0 acres with a maximum buildable area of
20,700 square feet; and Development Unit 5 is proposed on 2.0 acres with a maximum building area of
20,177 square feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") (Public Res. Code,
§ 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) the City Council of the City
of Grand Terrace ("City Council") is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general
governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental
impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and Initial Study identifying the scope of
environmental issues were distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and organizations on
July 3, 2008, for a period of 30 days, concluding on August 4, 2008, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of 12 comment letters were received and are included in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR ("DEIR"). Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were
incorporated into the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, a revised Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and revised Initial Study identifying the
scope of environmental issues were distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and
organizations on January 30, 2009, for a period of 30 days, concluding on March 2, 2009, pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of seven comment letters were
received and are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR ("DEIR"). Relevant comments received in
response to the NOP were incorporated into the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, public scopung meetings were held on July 15, 2008, and on February 17, 2009. at
the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers and input from the public providing direction and scope of
the EIR was received and has been included in Section 1 3.2 and Appendix A of the Draft EIR: and
Page t of 6
65
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review and comment period
commencing on April 30, 2009, and expiring on June 15, 2009. Eight comment letters were received
during the public comment period. The specific and general responses to comments are included in the
Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion ("NOC") was sent with the DEIR to the State
Clearinghouse on April 29, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace held a public hearing to
consider the Project, the Final EIR, and staff recommendations, on July 15 2010 at the City of Grand
Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road Barton Road Grand Terrace, California
92313. Notice of this Planning Commission hearing was provided through publication in the San
Bernardino County Sun on July 5, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a public hearing to consider the
Project, the Final EIR, and staff recommendations, on July 27, 2010, at the City of Grand Terrace City
Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California 92313. Notice of this City
Council hearing was provided through publication on July 16, 2010; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for
its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the
feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential
environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects
in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are
based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the
information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less than
significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 5 hereof; and---
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but
which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant but which the City
finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 7 hereof; and
WHEREAS, cumulative environmental impacts identified or discussed in the Final EIR are
described in Section 8 hereof; and
Page 2 of 6
66
WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes are identified in the Final EIR and are found to
be less than significant, as described in Section 9 hereof, and
WHEREAS, the potential for growth inducing impacts described in the Final EIR and found to
be less than significant are described in Section 10 hereof, and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental
impacts are described in Section 12 hereof; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is contained in Section 13 hereof; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the Project and voted to recommend City Council certification of the Final EIR, and adoption
of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2010, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
Project and prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and
considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, and all
oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional
information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or
additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
_ WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council
of the City of Grand Terrace as follows:
1. This Council-hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public
hearing on July 27, 2010, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,
and the consideration of the contents of the Final EIR, this Council hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. The Final EIR prepared for the Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan
has been completed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, California Public Resource Code Sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA) with the
State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and
regulations.
b. Che Final E1R was presented to the Council and the Council reviewed and considered the
Page 3 of 6
67
information contained in the Final EIR prior to the consideration of the Project.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council
hereby takes the following actions:
a. Certifies the Final EIR to be in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.
(CEQA) with the State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other
applicable laws and regulations.
b. Adopts a Statement of Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for
the EIR attached hereto as Exhibit"A"respectively, based on the following findings:
i. The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Facts and Findings and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in
the administrative record and the Final EIR.
ii. The Final EIR identified all significant environmental impacts of the Project and
there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts not addressed
in the Final EIR.
iii. All significant impacts identified in the Final EIR as a result of the Project have
been identified, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of
mitigation measures on the Project. These mitigation measures are attached
hereto as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and are
incorporated herein by the reference.
iv. The Final EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
Potential mitigation or Project alternatives have been incorporated into the
Project to reduce the impacts.
v. The cumulative impacts of the Project in relation to other projects in the area
have been considered. Except for the identified unavoidable impacts described in
the Statement of Facts and Findings and the Final EIR, mitigation measures are
incorporated into the Project to reduce such impacts to less than significant
levels.
vi. The unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as identified in the Statement
of Facts and Findings and the Final EIR outweighed by the economic, social, and
other benefits of the Project identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
5. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the County of
San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
Page 4 of 6
6E
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED the 27`h day of July, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Maryetta Ferre, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
ATTEST AS TO FORM:
John Harper, City Attorney
Page 5 of 6
69
I, BRENDA MESA, CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Grand Terrace, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council on the 271h of July 2010.
Executed this_day.of 2010, at Grand Terrace, California.
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Page b of 6
71
Exhibit A
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace ("this Council") hereby adopts this entire document,
including the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 13 below, as its findings ("Findings")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the Grand Terrace Town Square
Master Development Plan Project ("Project") described in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final
EIR") for the Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2008071017. The Project as described in the Final
EIR includes all discretionary actions that will be considered by the City of Grand Terrace ("City"), and
other public agencies that may have approval authority over aspects of the Project. City's discretionary
actions in approving the Project will include: 1) Site and Architectural Review 07-12/Town Square
Master Development Plan, 2) Site and Architectural Review 07-07, 3)Master Development Sign Program
09-01, Sign Program Development Unit 1, Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (TPM No. 17787) and
Environmental Review 07-06.
In considering the potential benefits of the Project, the City identified the following objectives that will be
achieved upon development of the Project site:
• Accommodate large and small retail tenants that offer a wide range of retail commercial goods and
services, and that respond to contemporary market conditions;
• Establish a master plan that provides the framework to evaluate parking, landscaping, signage, and
building architecture design elements, as well as coordinating access and utilities to ensure high
quality development;
• Maintain the `Town Square' village image by providing pedestrian-oriented linkages and amenities
throughout the project area, and the avoidance of large sprawling parking fields by separating parking
areas among commercial buildings within the development; and
• Implement the goals and policies of the Barton Road Specific Plan with respect to the design
elements.
These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Final EIR prepared for
the Project. The Final EIR was prepared by the City of Grand Terrace, acting as the lead agency under the
CEQA.
SECTION 2
THE PROJECT
A. Project Description
The Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan Project ("TSMDP") is located at the south
side of Barton Road between Michigan Street and the Gage Canal, generally one-half mile east of
Interstate 215 (I-215) in the City of Grand Terrace, in San Bernardino County. The Project covers
fourteen parcels of undeveloped and developed land. The Project is bounded by Barton Road to the north,
Michigan Street to the west, the Gage Canal to the east, and La Paix Street to the south. The entire Master
Plan Area encompasses approximately 21 acres.
Page 1 of 41
71
The Project site is located within the Barton Road Specific Plan("BRSP"), and makes up Planning Area I
of the BRSP, which is dedicated to General Commercial land uses. In accordance with the provisions of
the BRSP, the preparation of a Master Development Plan is required for Planning Area 1, and the
TSMDP has been submitted. The TSMDP establishes consistent development standards and integrated
design among the different property owners within Planning Area 1.
The TSMDP is a broad-based planning document intended to establish consistent development standards
and integrated design among the different property owners. Provisions are in place to allow development
to occur within the Development Units at any time, subject to the provision of access and conformity with
the BRSP and the TSMDP.
The TSMDP proposes development of approximately 209,611 square feet of commercial, retail, and
restaurant/fast food uses within five Development Units on approximately 21 gross acres. The five
Development Units correspond to five development phases. The timing and order of development within
the TSMDP may change based on tenant availability and other economic considerations. Further, it is
anticipated that the boundaries of the Development Units may change over time to accommodate
reciprocal easements such as, but not limited to, drive aisles and access ways. However, any changes to
Development Unit boundaries would not result in any changes to the overall boundaries of the TSMDP or
to the anticipated project build out of 209,611 square feet of commercial uses. In addition to approval of
the TSMDP and associated master planning documents, the applicant is requesting approval of
Development Unit 1/Phase 1. With regard to Development Unit 4/Phase 4, a portion of it is presently
developed; however, should Commerce Street be extended in the future, these existing commercial
buildings would need to be removed. No plans or development schedule has been proposed in relation to
Development Unit 5/Phase 5.
The five Development Unit and Phases, along with anticipated maximum square footage for each
Development Unit is shown below:
Development Phase Land Area Maximum Buildable Existing Conditions
Unit Square Footage
1 1 7.5 75,899 Miguel's Jr.,
(*65,737) abandoned residence
2 2 4.5 58,858 Vacant
3 3 5.0 33,977 Senior assisted care
facility
4 4 2.0 20,700 Autozone, other
commercial uses
5 5 2.0 20.177 Occupied residence
21.0 209,611
*65,737 square feet is proposed in Development Unit 1
The TSMDP depicts and reserves for future development a potential realignment/extension of Commerce
Way, as contemplated in the General Plan Update being prepared by the City. The City's General Plan
Update identifies the potential future realignment/extension of Commerce Way, which may be necessary
to accommodate improvements to the I-215/Barton Road Interchange and/or to support future
development within the BRSP. Improvements to the I-215/13arton Road Interchange are programmed to
be constructed and are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) 2008,
Technical Appendix Volume II of III: therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the realignment of
Commerce Way will occur at some point prior to build out of the TSMDP area. The environmental
effects resulting from the potential future realignment of Commerce Way will be appropriately addressed
in the environmental document associated with and prepared for the I-215/Barton Road Interchange
Page 2 of 41
7e
Improvement project. For purposes of the proposed project, the tentative depiction of the potential
realignment/extension of Commerce Way is adequate for project review.
If and/or when Commerce Way is realigned, the building currently housing Auto Zone would be vacated
and removed; the existing alignment of Michigan Street, between Barton Road and Commerce Way,
would be vacated; street improvements and utilities would be removed and relocated; and excess right-of-
way and utility easements would be disposed of and/or vacated by the City, as appropriate.
The Project includes a Master Development Sign Program for the TSMDP. The Master Development
Sign Program includes the Development Unit 1 Sign Program that is compatible with the TSMDP's
architectural theme and site layout, and compliant with the intent of the BRSP and otherwise in
accordance with Chapter 18.80 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. The Sign Program for the proposed
project identifies a unified sign design and guidelines for all on-site signs (monument signs, free-standing
signs, menu board signs, awning signs, and wall signs), and a freeway-onented sign associated with the
project. It also identifies prohibited signs and construction requirements for all signs. The Community
Development Director may approve a sign that does not strictly adhere to the sign provisions of Chapter
18.80 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code provided that the sign is compatible with the surrounding
development and is in harmony with the general aesthetics and welfare of the local area. Furthermore, the
Planning Commission has the authority to allow deviations from the sign ordinance to approve creative
and innovative sign programs or sign solutions under exceptional or unusual circumstances.
For Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Development Units 1 and 2), primary access will be provided from two points
along Barton Road, and a secondary access will be provided on Michigan Street. A service access
driveway will be constructed at the southerly boundary of the project site along Michigan Street for
delivery of goods and for employee access to parking. The service access driveway loops back to the front
access drives along Barton Road. Primary access for Phase 3 (consisting of Development Unit 3) will be
provided from Barton Road. For Phase 4 (consisting of Development Unit 4), access will be via Barton
Road and Michigan Street. Access for Phase 5 (consisting of Development Unit 5) will be provided from
Barton Road as a right-in and right-out unless a traffic signal is constructed at the property frontage.
Reciprocal access easements will be required with the adjoining Development Units to facilitate internal
circulation, as required by the BRSP. The TSMDP depicts the potential extension of Commerce Way
through the project area; however, neither this construction nor the realignment of Michigan Street is
associated with development occurring within any Development Unit.
Stonewood Drive, Pascal Drive, Reed Avenue, and La Paix Street provide access to a residential
neighborhood south of the project site. The project site is enclosed and separate from the residential
neighborhood and as noted previously, vehicular access is provided from Barton Road and Michigan
Street. No vehicular access is provided to streets south of the project. A six-foot masonry wall will be
constructed along the entire southern boundary of the proposed project.
On-site parking will be provided in compliance with City requirements. Section 18.60.030 B of the Grand
Terrace Municipal Code requires one parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area within
commercial centers comprising approximately 75,000 square feet. Fast-food restaurants require one space
for every 75 square feet of floor space. To meet these criteria, 838 parking spaces will be required to
support proposed commercial uses at build-out of the project. Of this total project area, Development Unit
1 will provide 393 spaces.
The primary Project objectives are as follows:
• Accommodate large and small retail tenants that offer a wide range of retail commercial goods
and services, and that respond to contemporary market conditions;
Page ', of 41
73
• Establish a master plan that provides the framework to evaluate parking, landscaping, signage,
and building architecture design elements, as well as coordinating access and utilities to ensure
high quality development;
• Maintain the `Town Square' village image by providing pedestrian-oriented linkages and
amenities throughout the project area, and the avoidance of large sprawling parking fields by
separating parking areas among commercial buildings within the development; and
• Implement the goals and policies of the Barton Road Specific Plan with respect to the design
elements.
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City initiated the environmental process with the completion of an Initial Study. The City used an
Initial Study to determine which impacts would be less than significant and did not warrant further
environmental review, while identifying those issues that required further analysis in an EIR. The City
circulated the Initial Study with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Grand Terrace Town Square
Master Development Plan Draft EIR to State, regional, and local agencies on July 2, 2008, for a 30-day
review period that concluded on August 4, 2008, and redistributed a revised Initial Study and NOP on
January 30, 2009 for a 30-day review period, which concluded on March 2, 2009. The Initial Studies
were made available to the public during and after the comment periods. The NOPs were distributed to
the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies, organizations, and persons who may provide appropriate
comment on Project as well as the potential environmental impacts that may result from the construction
and operation of the proposed on-site uses.
Comments received regarding the NOPs were used to help identify impacts that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. At of the close of the first 30-day NOP public review period,
fourteen responses to the NOP were received by the City. At of the close of the second 30-day NOP
public review period, seven responses to the NOP were received by the City. The NOPs and Initial
Studies, as well as the comment letters received regarding the NOPs, are included in Appendix A of the
Draft EIR.
Two public scoping meetings were held to solicit public comment on the direction and scope of the
analysis necessary for the Draft EIR. The first public scoping meeting was advertised in the Grand
Terrace City News on July 3, 2008, and was held on July 15, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the City of Grand
Terrace Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California. The second public scoping
meeting was advertised in the San Bernardino County Sun on January 27, 2009, and was held on
February 17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road,
Grand Terrace, California. Copies of the Initial Study and the conceptual site plan were available to the
public for review during both Scoping Meetings. Approximately 9 persons were in attendance during the
first scoping meeting and approximately 13 persons were in attendance during the second scoping
meeting. Opportunity for public comment(both oral and written)was provided.
The Draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested
parties. Additionally, to accordance with Public Resources Code §21092(b)(3), the Draft EIR has been
provided to all parties who have previously requested copies. During the 45-day public review period, the
Draft EIR and technical appendices had been made available for review at the City The Draft EIR was
distributed for a 45-day public review period on April 30, 2009, with the comment period expiring on
June 15, 2009. Eight comment letters were received during the public comment period.
Page 4 of41
7A
After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised
were prepared. These responses were made available for review for a minimum of 10 days prior to the
public hearing before the Grand Terrace City Council, at which time the certification of the Final EIR was
considered. The Final EIR(which includes the Draft EIR, the public comments and responses to the Draft
EIR, and findings) were included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the City
decision-makers.
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or hearings,
and these Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other information in the
administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination.
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the
Project are presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments and any
revisions/omissions to the Draft EIR are provided in Appendix G, or indicated by strikethrough
(deletions) or double-underline (additions)in the Final EIR, respectively.
The Draft EIR evaluated four major environmental categories (air quality, cultural resources, noise, and
transportation) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both project-
specific, short- and long-term, and cumulative impacts were evaluated. In addition to the four major
environmental categories addressed in the Draft EIR, twelve other major categories were found to be
insignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the Project. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided
herein, these Findings incorporated the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study
(Appendix A of the Draft EIR) and the City finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to
those categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required.
At a public hearing assembled on July 27, 2010, at the City of Grand Terrace City Council Chambers
located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
determined that, based upon all of the evidence presented, included by but not limited to the Final EIR,
written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the
public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following impacts associated with the Project are: (1)
less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts
will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures and/or
implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to the Project; (3) significant and cannot be
fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by
the identified mitigation measures.
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following issues were found in the Final EIR as having no potential to cause significant impact and
therefore require no project-specific mitigation. The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby
finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and
therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
Page 5 of 41
75
A. Air Quality
1. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions: Implementation of the Project would result in
the grading and build-out of the approximately 21-acre site. Grading and other construction activities
produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-
duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor
vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during these construction activities will
vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction equipment exhaust emissions during the
anticipated peak grading day would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) daily construction thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO,), nitrogen
oxides (NOJ, sulfur oxides(SO,),reactive organic compounds (ROCS), PMio (particulate matter less than
10 microns in size), and PM-1.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size) (DEIR pp. 4.1-35).
Therefore,no significant construction-related emission impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
2. Fugitive Dust Emissions: Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing
and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during
construction varies substantially on a project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the
specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. Project-generated fugitive dust
emissions are well below the SCAQMD thresholds of 150 pounds per day of PMio; and 55 pounds per
day of PM2.5 (DEIR pp. 4.1-36). Nonetheless, the City of Grand Terrace requires the implementation of
best available control measures (BALM), such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 standards, for all
construction projects to control fugitive dust emissions. With adherence to Rules 402 and 403, fugitive
dust emissions would remain less than significant and no mitigation is required.
3. Localized Construction Emissions: The emissions of concern from construction activities are
NOx and CO combustion emissions and fugitive PMio and PM2.5 dust from site preparation activities.
Although the project's maximum daily disturbance area for Development Unit 1 exceeds 5 acres, the
SCAQMD thresholds for a 5-acre project site was utilized for a worst-case analysis. Use of a 5 acre site
model for the project site would result in more stringent LSTs because emissions would occur in a more
concentrated area closer to the nearest sensitive receptors than would occur in reality, due to the project
site being 21 acres. Table 4.11 (DEIR pp. 4.1-38) presents the results of the localized emissions during
construction activity, and shows that emissions of CO, NO,, PM,o, and PM,.5 do not exceed the localized
threshold established for construction activity. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
4. Architectural Coating Emissions: Architectural coatings will be applied during building
construction. Architectural coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which is an ozone (03)
precursor. The Project will be subject to the implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 regarding the use of
architectural coatings. The purpose of SCAQMD Rule 1113 is to limit the VOC content of architectural
coatings used in the Basin or to allow the averaging of such coatings, as specified, so their actual
emissions do not exceed the allowable emissions if all the averaged coatings had complied with the
specified limits. An estimate was made using the project description information and the CARB's
URBEMIS 2007 model. The model predicts a maximum VOC emissions rate of 60 lbs/day (DEIR pp.
4.1-38). This level is below the SCAQMD daily threshold of 75 pounds per day, and less than significant
impact will occur.
5. Odors: The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential units to the south, an
occupied residence within Development Unit 5, and an assisted living facility within Development Unit 3.
Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during constriction would emit odors; however, this activity
would be short term and cease after construction is completed. With the exception of short term
construction related odors, the proposed uses do not include uses that are generally considered to generate
Page 6 of 41
7E
offensive odors. While the application of architectural coatings and installation of asphalt may generate
odors, these odors are temporary, subject to SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1113, and not likely to be
noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. Solid waste generated by on-site uses will be collected and
disposed of by a contracted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site uses would be
adequately managed. Therefore, no significant odor impacts will occur and no mitigation is required
(DEIR pp. 4.1-39).
6. Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Emissions: Vehicle traps generated by the Project
would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the project vicinity
resulting in localized air quality impacts due to emissions. The primary mobile source pollutant of local
concern is carbon monoxide (CO), which is a direct function of vehicle idling time. The highest CO
concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak
traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis. CO hotspot analyses were conducted for existing and
future cumulative conditions at the following intersections: Michigan Street/Barton Road, Vivienda
Avenue/Barton Road, Canal Street/Barton Road, Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road, Preston
Street/Barton Road, Michigan Street/Commerce Way and Michigan Street/DeBerry Street (DEIR
pp.4.1-44). Under the existing conditions both without and with the project, the intersections analyzed for
the daily peak hour would experience CO concentrations below the Federal and State standards.
Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on local air quality for CO, and no
mitigation measures are required.
7. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency: The current regional air quality management
plan is the Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP proposes policies and
measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve Federal standards for healthful air
quality in the Basin. To assess the environmental impacts as a result of new development accurately,
environmental pollution and population growth are projected by the SCAQMD in the AQMP for future
scenarios. The AQMP projections are based, in part, on the growth forecasts and General Plans from
cities and counties located in the Basin. The proposed land uses are consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning Designation for the Project site, and thereby also consistent with the AQMP. The Project would
be within walking distance of existing and planned homes and would add jobs consistent with the goals of
the AQMP for reducing the emissions associated with new development. The new employment
opportunities will improve the City's current jobs-to-housing ratio by providing job opportunities to local
residents. This Project would accommodate the growth projection in the project vicinity and itself is not a
growth inducing project. Emissions projections used to establish SCAQMD attainment objectives reflect
adopted regional and local land use plans; and emissions associated with the proposed project are
expected to be within the amounts already accounted for in the AQMP (DEIR pp. 4.1-45 — 4.1-46).
- Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur and no mitigation is required.
8. Non-Carcinogenic Acute Project-Related Emissions Impacts.' The nearest sensitive
receptors include an occupied residence within Development Unit 5, an assisted care facility adjacent to
Development Unit 3, residences approximately 50 feet south of the project boundary, and Grand Terrace
Elementary School approximately 100 feet north of the northwestern portion of the Project site. There are
no significant emissions of toxic air pollutants that have short-term acute health effects in the Project
vicinity. The operations expected to occur at these facilities will not emit any toxic chemicals in any
significant quantity other than diesel exhaust. While there will be other toxic substances, such as cleaning
agents, personal care products, and landscape pesticides in use on site, compliance with State and Federal
handling regulations will ensure that emissions remain below a level of significance. Because the use of
these substances is heavily regulated, no activity related to the project will emit any toxic air pollutants
that have short-term acute health effects; and there will be no machinery to emit any toxic air pollutants
that have short-term acute health effects (DEIR pp. 4.1-47). Thus, the potential for short-term acute
exposure from project-related toxic emissions will be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Page 7 of 41
77
9. Carcinogenic and Chronic Project-Related Emissions Impacts: The nearest sensitive
receptors include an occupied residence within Development Unit 5, an assisted care facility adjacent to
Development Unit 3, residences approximately 50 feet south of the project boundary, and Grand Terrace
Elementary School approximately 100 feet north of the northwestern portion of the Project site.
a. Construction Health Risks. The only toxic air pollution emissions in any significant
quantity associated with construction of the proposed project occur from large, heavy-duty,
diesel-powered equipment exhaust. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) currently describes the health risk from diesel exhaust entirely in terms of the amount
of particulates, or PM10, that is emitted. Currently, the health risk associated with diesel exhaust
PM,o has only a carcinogenic and chronic effect; no short-term acute effect is recognized. The
nature of the mobile equipment used to construction operations is that mobile equipment only
operates in one location for a short time relative to the length of time required for carcinogenic
and chronic health impacts (usually 6 months or less). The cancer risk stemming from diesel
exhaust is below the cancer threshold of 10 in 1 million and chronic threshold of 1.0. Therefore a
less than significant impact will occur and no mitigation is required(DEIR pp. 4.1-48).
b. Operation Health Risks. Long-term diesel exhaust health risk assessment impacts are
those associated with project-related truck deliveries to the proposed project site. The Operational
Health Risk Assessment(DEIR pp. 4.1-49) determined that the nearest sensitive receptor(located
50 feet to the south) would be exposed to an unmitigated inhalation cancer risk of no more
than3.3 in 1 million, less than the threshold of 10 in 1 million.The hazard index would be 0.0020,
which is below the threshold of 1.0. All other sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would
experience a lower cancer risk and chronic hazard index as they are located farther than 15
meters. This assessment determines the risks to the health of nearby sensitive receptors from the
proposed project's air emissions. The California Air Resources Board(GARB) website "Maps of
Estimated Cancer Risk from Air Toxics" identifies a carcinogenic risk of over 250 in 1 million
for the project area. The health risk assessment identified that the project's incremental increase is
only a very small fraction of the existing ambient condition. Therefore, a less than significant
health risk would occur and no mitigation is required.
10. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative air quality impacts determined to have no potential to
cause significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation consist of the following:
a. Short-Term Air Quality Impacts.The cumulative area for air quality impacts is the
Basin. The Project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during construction. A number
of individual projects in the area may be under construction simultaneously with the Project
resulting to fugitive dust and pollutant emissions. However, because all project are required to
comply with standard SCAQMD's measures, and because the Project's emissions would not
exceed the significance thresholds, the Project would have a less than significant short-term
cumulative impact(DEIR pp. 4.1-59).
b. CO Hot Spot Impacts.The Project will not create significant CO hot spots.
Background concentrations are expected to decrease in future years due to concerted efforts to
improve regional air quality; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a less than significant
cumulative CO impact would occur(DEIR pp. 4.1-59).
B. Cultural Resources
1. Religious or Sacred Uses: The Project site has not been identified as one that has been or is
currently utilized for religious or sacred purposes; nor is their evidence to suggest that the site has been
Page 3 of 41
71
used for human burials. In the event that human remains are found during grading or construction
activities, the Project will be subject to State law (Health and Safety Code §7050.5) governing the
discovery of human remains. Therefore,no impact to religious or sacred uses will occur and no mitigation
is required.
2. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the Project includes mitigation requiring the
identification, recovery, and/or recordation of suspected cultural resources or paleontological resources
that may occur within the Project limits. Although unlikely to occur, potential impacts associated with
human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level through adherence to existing State law.
There are no other projects that would, in combination with the Project, result in any significant
cumulative impacts on historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, or to human remains.
Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources (DEIR pp. 4.2-
8).
C. Noise
1. Short-term Construction Noise Impacts: Potentially sensitive noise receptors include
residential uses to the south, an occupied residence within Development Unit 5 and an assisted living care
facility adjacent to Development Unit 3. Short-term noise impacts are associated with on-site excavation,
grading, and building construction; and with construction crews' commutes and staging of construction
equipment during each of the five phases of the proposed project. Although the transport of crew and
staging of construction equipment would cause intermittent noise nuisance when averaged over a period
of one hour or 24 hours, the average noise level would remain below the City's established noise
standard. While the level of construction-related noise would exceed 65 dBA, as stated in Section
8.108.040(D) of the City's Municipal Code, no significant construction noise impacts would occur if
construction of the proposed project occurs within the permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday. Because construction activities would occur within the hours specified in the City's
Municipal Code, no significant short-term construction-related noise impacts would occur (DEIR
pp.4.3-11). No mitigation is required.
2. Groundborne Vibration Impacts: Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible
motion. Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving,
and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough
roads. The Project site is not located near steel-wheeled trains or rough roads, and construction activities
do not include blasting or pile driving. The primary vibratory source during the construction of the
proposed project would be large bulldozers. Section 8.108.040(D) of the City's Municipal Code indicates
that noise sources associated with vibration during construction that take place between the City's
established construction hours (7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) are exempt from the
provisions of the Noise Chapter of the City's Municipal Code (DEIR pp. 4.3-13). Therefore, with
adherence to the established hours of construction, impacts from construction-related groundborne
vibration construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
3. Long-term Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts: Potentially sensitive noise receptors
include residential uses to the south, an occupied residence within Development Unit 5 and an assisted
living care facility adjacent Development Unit 3. The City's exterior noise standard for residential land
uses are conditionally acceptable at 65 dBA CNEL. Project-related traffic noise level increases along the
Gage Canal south of Barton Road would be 4.6 dBA during the 2012 "With Project" scenario and 9.0
dBA during the 2030 "With Project" scenario, according to the DEIR (DEIR pp. 4.3-14). While traffic
noise level increases would be perceptible to the human ear (i.e., a noise increase of 3 dB or more), the
portion of the Gage Canal with traffic noise increases greater than 3 dBA would not result in noise-
sensitive uses, exposed to traffic noise exceeding the City's 65 dBA CNEL standard for residential uses
Page 9 of 41
79
for the future year scenarios. This increase in noise levels as a result of the proposed project's traffic
would remain below the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Except as noted above, the greatest project-related
traffic noise level increases in the project vicinity would be a 1.4 dBA increase along Preston Street north
of Barton Road (during the 2011 "With Project" scenario.) All other roadway segments would experience
traffic noise increase of less than 1.4 dBA under the various future year conditions. However, this level of
noise increase would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.
Potential project-related traffic increases that may potentially affect the future on-site uses were
also evaluated. The City's exterior noise standard for commercial land uses are conditionally acceptable
at 75 dBA CNEL. The DEIR identifies that the proposed retail and commercial uses would not be
impacted by the 75 dBA CNEL noise contour from Barton Road (within 25 feet of roadway centerline),
Michigan Avenue (within 25 feet of roadway centerline), or Canal Street (within the roadway right-of-
way) and therefore is below the City's 75 dBA CNEL noise standard for retail/commercial uses. In
addition, standard exterior-to-interior noise attenuation from commercial buildings (more than 20 dBA
with windows closed) would provide sufficient noise reduction to meet the interior noise environment for
retail/commercial uses (DEIR pp. 4.3-23). Therefore, no significant noise impacts to on-site uses would
occur, and no mitigation is required.
4. On-site Stationary Noise Impacts (Loading, and Unloading, and Parking): On-site
retail/commercial uses would generate noise from truck delivery, loading/unloading activities and parking
lot activities. These activities are potential noise point sources that could affect noise sensitive receptors
such as existing residential uses to the south, east, and north of the project site. The proposed "Major A"
building and future buildings constructed within adjacent phases will have loading/unloading areas on the
south side of the buildings that face residential uses along La Paix Street. The loading area is
approximately 100 feet from these residences. Noise associated with loading/unloading activities could
potentially affect these existing residential uses. A 6-foot masonry wall will be constructed along the
entire southern boundary of the proposed project that would provide a minimum of 6 dBA in noise
attenuation for receptors south of the wall.
a. Loading/Unloading. Loading/unloading noise at "Major A" and future buildings
within adjacent phases would be below 63 dBA L,,,a,, at ground level of the nearest residences
south of the project site. This range of maximum noise levels is lower than the typical exterior
noise standards of 75 dBA L,naX during the day and the 70 dBA L,,,ar standard during the night at
50 feet from sensitive noise receptors. Although a typical truck unloading process takes an
average of 15 to 20 minutes, this maximum intermittent noise level occurs in a much shorter
period of time and would amount to less than a few minutes. The maximum noise level from
truck loading/unloading activities at the proposed retail/commercial uses would not occur more
than 15 minutes in any hour cumulatively during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. (with the 60 dBA L,5 noise standard for events lasting no more than 15 minutes in any hour).
Therefore, noise associated with loading and unloading activities at the loading areas associated
with the proposed retail/commercial uses would not result in noise levels exceeding the typical
daytime noise standards at the nearest residences to the south. In addition, if loading/unloading
activities occur during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:'00 a.m., the cumulative
noise level would be restricted to below the nighttime standard of 60-dBA L8 that cannot be
exceeded for more than 5 minutes in any hour. Therefore, loading/unloading activities would not
result in any significant noise impacts at the nearest off-site residential uses (DEIR pp. 4.3-24).
Similarly, loading/unloading noise from other on-site restaurants and shops would be
reduced to below 60 dBA L,,,a,, at ground level of the nearest residences to the south, east, and
north from distance divergence. Therefore, noise associated with loading and unloading activities
at the loading areas associated with the proposed retail/commercial buildings would not result in
Page 10 of 41
$Q
noise levels exceeding the typical daytime or nighttime noise standards at the nearest residences
in the project vicinity. No mitigation measure is required(DEIR pp. 4.3-24).
Loading/unloading activities associated with the proposed "Shops 2" building may be
within 100 feet of the existing on-site residence within the Phase 5 development area.
Loading/unloading noise would be reduced to 69 dBA Lma, or lower at this on-site residence due
to distance divergence. This range of maximum noise levels is lower than the typical exterior
noise standards of 75 dBA L,.., during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and the 70 dBA Lma,
standard during the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Therefore, noise associated with loading and
unloading activities at the loading areas associated with the proposed retail/commercial buildings
would not result in noise levels exceeding the typical daytime or nighttime noise standards at the
nearest residence on site.No mitigation is required(DEIR pp. 4.3-25).
b. Parking Lot Activity. Typical parking lot activities, such as customers conversing,
doors slamming, engine startup, and slow-moving vehicles would generate approximately 60 to
70 dBA Lr„a, at 50 feet. This level of noise is lower than that of the truck delivery and
loading/unloading activities. Noise in the parking lots of the retail/commercial uses would not be
significant with respect to existing residences to the south of the project site because the 6-foot
masonry boundary wall and the distance divergence would attenuate noise. Existing residences to
the north are farther away from the Project site and would be exposed to lower on-site noise with
the existing traffic noise along Barton Road being the dominant noise source for those residential
uses. Similarly, noise in the parking lots of the retail/commercial uses would not be a significant
noise issue with respect to the existing residence on site. Therefore, a less than significant impact
will occur and no mitigation is required(DEIR pp. 4.3-25).
c. Other Potential On-Site Operational Noise. The Project includes rooftop heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment, and ground-floor garbage
compactors. The rooftop HVAC units would generate noise levels of approximately 62 dBA at 50
feet. A combination of the 150-foot distance between the HVAC equipment and parapet would
reduce noise levels to below 49 dBA(DEIR pp. 4.3-25).
Noise associated with garbage compactors is approximately 70 dBA at 6 feet. Anticipated
garbage compactors on the south side of the proposed "Major A" building would be
approximately 100 feet from the nearest residences to the southeast. Because of the distance
divergence and 6-foot boundary wall this ground noise would be reduced to 40 dBA or lower for
residences south of the project site. Therefore, noise impacts are less than significant. No
mitigation is required(DEIR pp. 4.3-25).
5. Airport Noise: The Project site is located approximately four miles'southwest of the San
Bernardino International Airport. The City is located under the landing pattern of Ontario International
Airport (01A), which is located approximately 18 miles west of the Project site. Noise from jet aircraft is
a component of ambient noise conditions in the Project area. Due to the Project's distance from these
airports and the lack of noise in excess of the City's exterior noise standard, no significant airport-related
noise impact would occur. No mitigation is required(DEIR pp. 4.3-26).
6. Cumulative Impacts:Although it is not possible to predict if contiguous properties may be
constructed at the same time and create cumulative noise impacts that would be greater than if developed
at separate times, it is unlikely that adjacent properties will be developed at the same time as the Project.
However, in the unlikely event that adjacent properties are developed at the same time as the Project,
adherence to Section 8 108.040(D) of the City's Municipal Code would result in constriction noise
impacts that are less than significant.The cumulative roadway noise (With Project) assessment concludes
Page l l of 41
81
that noise levels along one roadway segment would exceed baseline noise levels by 3 dBA or more, with
or without the Project. However, comparing cumulative noise levels that would occur both with and
without the Project, the Project would not expose sensitive uses located adjacent to area roadways to
excessive noise levels. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts at sensitive uses
would not be significant(DEIR pp. 4.3-26).
D. Transportation/Circulation
1. Air Traffic Patterns: The Project site is located approximately four miles southwest of the
San Bernardino International Airport and is not within the designated safety zones or the flight paths
established for this facility. No aspect of the Project would change air traffic volumes, affect air traffic
patterns, create visual, electronic, or physical hazards to aircraft in flight, nor would the Project disrupt or
alter air traffic patterns. No impacts will occur and no mitigation is required(DEIR pp. 4.4-33).
2. Inadequate Emergency Access: The Project would be designed, constructed, and maintained
to provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation at all times. The Project would be designed to
provide an acceptable level of vehicular access along public roads, and project driveways and parking
lots, and construct these facilities to applicable City standards. Traffic control measures would be
implemented during construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic. Adherence to
applicable standards, regulations, and guidelines of the City, and emergency service providers would
ensure no impact related to this issue would occur. Therefore, no mitigation is required (DEIR pp. 4.4-
33).
3.Inadequate Parking Capacity: Chapter 18.60 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code regulates
the provision of parking spaces. Section 18.60.030 B of the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code
requires one (1) space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area within commercial centers comprising
approximately 75,000 square feet or more and one(1) space for every 75 square feet of floor area for fast-
food restaurants. Build out of the Project is required to provide 838 parking spaces for general
commercial uses. The Project design would be required to comply with parking standards prior to final
site plan approval, to ensure the adequate number of parking spaces is provided to serve each
Development Unit. Additionally, reciprocal parking agreements and provisions within the BRSP, which
provides for parking incentives, would ensure that the proposed Project would not result in inadequate
parking capacity. Impacts associated with parking capacity are less than significant and no mitigation is
required(DEIR pp. 4.4-33).
4. Alternative Transportation. The Project would comply with all City development policies,
standards, and programs pertaining to supporting alternative modes of transportation included in city
codes, ordinances, and policies. Further based on site plan, the Project will not conflict with existing or
proposed bikeways or bus routes. Additionally, bicycle racks would be installed at various locations
within the project site. Therefore, no impact related to this issue would occur and no mitigation is
required(DEIR pp. 4.4-34).
i
5. Cumulative Impacts. Traffic volumes for cumulative with project traffic conditions are based
on a sum of project traffic and traffic volumes from approved and pending projects in the vicinity of the
proposed project. This yields a cumulative analysis. Five intersections will require improvements in order
to maintain the City's level of service standard.
The timing and construction of necessary roadway improvements are determined by the City to
ensure satisfactory LOS levels are achieved before performance levels fail to ensure that significant
impacts are avoided. Additionally, although the suggested improvements are consistent with the City's
General Plan, the project would be responsible for contributing its fair share toward the funding of the
Page 12 of 41
82
future improvements via payment of the City's traffic signal and road improvement fees and other fees
used to fund roadway and roadway-related improvements, resulting in a less than significant cumulative
impact.
As previously noted, the preferred design alternatives for the I-215/13arton Road interchange
(which are assumed to be built by year 2014) have not been determined at this time. However, it is
assumed that intersection and roadway network improvements associated with the interchange
improvement would be constructed to meet SANBAG requirements to meet LOS standards by year 2014.
As such the TIA has included modification in the base roadway network for year 2014 and year 2030
cumulative conditions analysis based on the preferred design alternative for the interchange.
SECTION 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts identified
in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the
implementation of mitigation measures and or conditions identified in the Final EIR and summarized
below.
A. Air Quality
1. Global Climate Change Impacts: Short-term construction activities, and long-term vehicular
sources and stationary sources emissions will contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with the Project. The Project will produce approximately 13,000 metric tons per year of CO,, which is
approximately 0.013 Tg/year of CO2. As a comparison, the existing emissions from the entire SCAG
region are estimated to be approximately 176.79 million metric tonnes of CO, per year and approximately
496.95 million metric tonnes of CO, per year for the entire State. Project-related GHG emissions are not
project-specific impacts to global warming but are instead the project's contribution to this cumulative
impact. Project-related CO, emissions and their contribution to global climate change impacts in the State
of California are less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable because: (1) the project's
impacts alone would not cause or significantly contribute to global climate change, and (2) the net
increase in air pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants.
However, in order to ensure that the proposed project complies with and would not conflict with or
impede the implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the Governor's Executive Order S-3-
05, and other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor, Mitigation Measure
4.1.5.1 OA is proposed(DEIR pp.4.1-51).
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1.5.10A will reduce the potential impacts
related to global climate change to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.5.10A: To the extent feasible and to the satisfaction of the City, the
following measures shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the project
(including specific building projects):
Construction and Building Materials
• Use San Bernardino/Riverside County produced and/or manufactured building materials for
construction of the project;
Page 13 of 41
83
• Recycle/reuse demolished constriction material; and
• Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are resource efficient, and
recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, including low Volatile
Organic Compound(VOC) materials.
Energy-Efficiency Measures
• Design all project buildings to exceed California Building Code's Title 24 energy standard
by 10%, including, but not limited to any combination of the following:
o Increase insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized;
o Limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling distribution
system to minimize energy consumption; and
o Incorporate ENERGY STAR or better rated windows, space heating and cooling
equipment, light fixtures,appliances or other applicable electrical equipment.
• Provide a landscape and development plan for the project that takes advantage of shade,
prevailing winds, and landscaping.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of
lighting systems in buildings.
• Install light colored"cool"roofs and cool pavements.
• Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control
systems.
• Install solar or light emitting diodes(LEDs) for outdoor lighting.
Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include the following, plus other innovative measures that might
be appropriate:
o Create water-efficient landscapes within the development;
o Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture based
irrigation controls;
o Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation within the project and install the
infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water;
o Design buildings to be water-efficient by installing water-efficient fixtures and
appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals; and
o Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber,metal, and cardboard);
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in public areas; and
• Provide employee education about reducing waste and available recycling services.
Page 14 of 41
81
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible and the City Council adopts and incorporates this
mitigation measures into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: After implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.5.10A and
application of regulatory requirements, the Project would implement appropriate GHG reduction
strategies and would ensure that it does not conflict with or impede implementation of reduction
goals identified in AB 32, the Governor's Executive Order 5-3-05, and other strategies to help
reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor. Therefore, the Project's contribution to
GHG emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level (DEIR pp 4.1-56).
B. Cultural Resources
1. Paleontological Resources: Although the possibility of finding archaeological and
paleontological resources is remote for the project site (DEIR pp. 4.2-7), grading on the site would be
required. On-site excavation may uncover previously undetected subsurface archaeological resources,
resulting in a significant impact.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A will reduce the potential impact
related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A: In the event that a paleontological or archaeological resource is
uncovered dunng the course of the project, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find
shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist and/or paleontologist (as determined by the City). Any such resource uncovered
during the course of project-related grading of construction shall be recorded and/or removed per
applicable City and/or State regulations
Implementation of this mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure would reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A will require that in
the event that a paleontological or archaeological resource is uncovered during project grading or
construction that the activity around the find be redirected so that the possible resource can be
protected in place until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist and/or paleontologist. Therefore, adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A would
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
2. Unique Ethnic Cultural Values: While no evidence has been identified suggesting that the
Project site possesses unique ethnic cultural values, nor is it likely to possess such resources, the
movement of onsite soils may uncover previous unidentified cultural resources (DEIR pp. 4.2-7). The
discovery of unidentified cultural resources would be a significant impact.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A will reduce the potential impacts
related to unique ethnic cultural values to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A: In the event that a paleontological or archaeological resource is
uncovered during the course of the project, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find
shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist and/or paleontologist (as determined by the City). Any such resource uncovered
Page 15 of 41
85
during the course of project-related grading or construction shall be recorded and/or removed per
applicable City and/or State regulations.
Implementation of this mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. The mitigation measure would reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Should cultural resources be uncovered during grading activities,
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A would require that grading activities be
redirected so that the suspected resources are protected until it can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist and/or paleontologist.Therefore, adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A would
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
3. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources: The existing residence located at 22273 Barton
Road is a historic period(i.e., pre-1957) structure, which was identified and recorded. The DEIR(pp. 4.2-
6) determined that the residence does not meet any of the four criteria used to determine if a resource is of
significance and therefore, the building is not eligible for the California Register and is not considered to
be a "historic resource" as defined by CEQA. However the unrecorded resource will be required to be
documented on the Department of Parks and Recreation(DPR)Form 523.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure XIV.B will reduce the potential impacts
related to Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure XIV.B The project applicant for Phase V shall ,perform a recordation of
the existing residence located within the project limits through completion and submission of
DPR Form 523, if not previously completed.
Implementation of this mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
adopts and incorporates this mitigation measures into the Project. The mitigation measures would reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure XIV.B would require that the
residence be documented on the Department of Recreation DPR Form 523. Therefore, adherence
to Mitigation Measure XIV.B would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
C. Transportation/Circulation
1. Year 2011 (Phase I/Development Unit 1 and 2) With Project Conditions (Intersection)
Traffic and Level of Service Impacts: The two, listed below, are forecast to exceed satisfactory levels in
the year 2011 (Phase 1)with Project conditions resulting in a significant impact.
• Michigan Street/Main Street. The intersection would experience LOS F conditions in the
a.m. peak hour.
• Mount Vernon Avenue/Main Street. The intersection would experience LOS F conditions in
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
In addition, the intersection of I-215 Northbound Ramp/Barton Road is projected to have queues
longer than the available storage space; therefore. mitigation is required to lengthen the eastbound
left turn pocket on Barton Road between the 1-215 Southbound and Northbound ramps.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.1A through 4.4.6.11) will reduce Year
Pa,e 16 of 41
8E
2011 (Phase I) With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of Service Impacts to a
less than significant level.
Phase I,Development Unit 1
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1A Prior to issuance of a building permit for any portion of Phase I,
Development Unit 1, the applicant or their designee shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal
Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees in accordance with Sections 4.104.030 and
4.104.040 of the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1B: As a condition of issuance of certificate of occupancy for any
portion of Phase I, Barton Road shall be re-striped between I-215 Northbound Ramps and I-215
Southbound Ramps to provide 230 feet of storage space for the westbound left-turn lane and 60
feet of storage space for the eastbound left-turn lane. The traffic signal timings at the intersection
of I-215 Southbound Ramps/Barton Road and the intersection. of I-215 Northbound
Ramps/Barton Road shall be optimized.
Phase I,Development Unit 2
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1C: As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Phase I, Development Unit 2, the applicant or their desingee shall pay the appropriate Traffic
Signal Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees in accordance with Sections 4.104.030
and 4.104.040 of the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1D: The following improvements have been identified as necessary to
mitigate Phase I, Development Unit 2 traffic impacts:
(i) Michigan Street/Main Street: Widen and/or restripe Michigan Street to provide a
northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Main
Street to provide an eastbound left-turn lane and a westbound left-turn lane. Install a traffic
signal designed for five-phase operation with protected left-turn phasing in the eastbound
and westbound directions. The traffic signal and northbound and southbound left-turn lanes
shall be constructed by the County, the Colton Unified School District, and the City. The
applicant or their designee shall be responsible for its fair share of the costs to provide the
additional eastbound and westbound turn lanes at this intersection, as these improvements
are not included in the City's Circulation Improvement Fee program. Such fair share shall
be calculated and paid to the City as a condition of issuance of the first building permit for
any Phase I construction.
(ii) Mount Vernon Avenue/Main Street: Widen and/or restripe Mount Vernon Avenue to
provide a northbound left-turn lane, a second northbound through lane, and a southbound
left-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Main Street to provide an eastbound left-turn lane and
a westbound left-turn lane. Install a traffic signal designed for eight phase operation. The
City shall be responsible for design and construction of the traffic signal and street
improvements. The City shall complete the traffic signal and street improvements prior to
occupancy of the first building for any Phase I, Development Unit 2 construction. The
applicant or their designee shall be responsible for the fair share costs of street
improvements not covered by the City's Circulation Improvement Fee program.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. These mitigation measures
would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Page 17 of 41
87
Supporting Explanation: The re-stnpmg of Barton Road at Interstate I-215 will provide
additional storage space for vehicle queuing. The payment of Traffic Signal Improvement
Fees shall satisfy the applicant's responsibility for its fair share of traffic signal
improvements at the intersection of Michigan Street/Main Street and Mount Vernon
Avenue/Main Street. With the implementation of the recommended improvements, the
minimum level of service standards would be maintained for the 2011 (Phase I) with
Project study area intersections, and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
level for all identified intersections (DEIR pp. 4.4-37).
2. Year 2012 (Phase II/Development Unit 3) With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic
and Level of Service Impacts: All study intersections would operate within the City's LOS D standard
at build-out of Phase II of the Project and with implementation of all improvements defined for year 2011,
plus Phase I Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1B and Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.11). However, without
implementation of the Phase I mitigation measures, should Phase II precede Phase I, Phase II would
contribute toward a level of service deficiency at the same two intersections identified as a significant
impact under Phase I, Development Units 1 and 2. This would result in a significant impact and
mitigation would be required.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.2A through 4.4.6.213 will reduce the
Year 2012 (Phase IUDevelopment Unit 3) With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and
Level of Service Impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.2A: As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Phase II, Development Unit 3, the applicant or their designee shall pay the appropriate Traffic
Signal Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees in accordance with Sections 4.104.030
and 4.104.040 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.213: As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Phase H, Development Unit 3, the Project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure
4.4.6.113 and Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.11), if not already completed.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. These mitigation measures
would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the mitigation measures above will ensure the
maintenance of the City's LOS Dstandard at all study intersections with the addition of Phase
IUDevelopment Unit 3 traffic. All impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
3. Year 2014 (Phase HI/Development Unit 4) With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic
and Level of Service Impacts: With the 'addition of Phase III/Development Unit 4 traffic, all
intersections analyzed are projected to operate at satisfactory levels of under Year 2014 (Phase
III/Development Unit 4) with Project conditions; and with implementation of mitigation measures
established for Year 2011 (Phase I/Development Unit 1 and 2) and 2012 (Phase IUDevelopment Unit 3)
plus Project traffic conditions, with the exception of the following two intersections:
• La Cadena Drive/Barton Road, and
• I-215 Southbound Ramps/Barton Road
Page 18 of 41
81
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.3A through 4.4.6.3D will reduce Year
2014 (Phase III/Development Unit 4) With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of
Service Impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.3A: As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Phase I11, Development Unit 4, the applicant or their designee shall pay the appropriate Traffic
Signal Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees in accordance with Sections 4.104.030
and 4.104.040 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.3B: As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Phase III, Development Unit 4, the project applicant or their designee shall implement Mitigation
Measure 4.4.6.1B and Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1E if not already completed.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.3C: The following improvements have been identified as necessary to
mitigate Phase I11, Development Unit 4, traffic impacts:
(i) La Cadena Drive/Barton Road: Unless the General Plan Update is establishing LOS D as
the acceptable level of service, that applicant or their designee shall widen and/or restripe
Barton Road to provide an exclusive westbound right-turn lane as part of modifying the
existing traffic signal to install a westbound right-turn overlap phase. As a condition of
issuance of a building permit for any portion of Phase III, the applicant or their designee
shall contribute to the City of Colton its fair share of the cost for these improvements.
Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.3D: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 170,001
square feet of building gross floor area or Phase III, Development Unit 4, whichever comes first
and if construction on the Barton Road/1-215 interchange has not begun, the intersection of I-215
Southbound Ramps (N-S) / Barton Road (E-W) shall be improved to provide the following
geometries:
• Southbound: one left-turn lane and one shared left-turn/through lane;
• Eastbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane; and
• Westbound: one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane.
The intersection of I-215 Northbound Ramps (N-S) / Barton Road (E-W) shall be improved to
provide the following geometries:
- - Northbound: one left-tum lane and two right-turn lanes.
• Eastbound: one left-turn lane and two through lanes.
• Westbound: one through lane and one right-turn lane.
The City shall be responsible for the cost to prepare any studies required by Caltrans in order to
consider approval of the encroachment. When Caltrans approves the encroachment permit, the
City shall be responsible for the construction of the improvements, with fair-share participation
by the applicant or their designee in the amount of 30 percent of the construction cost. The
improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 170,001
square feet of building gross floor area or Phase 1II, Development Unit 4, whichever comes first.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. These mitigation measures
Page 19 of 41
89
would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Figure 4.4.3 and Table 4.4.H of the DEIR illustrate the intersection
geometrics resulting from the recommended intersection improvements for Year 2014 (Phase
III/Development Unit 4) with project conditions and intersection levels of service with these
improvements, respectively (DEIR pp. 4.4-25 — 4.4-43). With the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.4.6.3A through 4.4.6.3D all Phase III/Development Unit 4 impacts will be reduced to
a less than significant level.
4. Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of Service Impacts:
The DEIR determined that all intersections examined are projected to operate at satisfactory levels of
service under year 2030 with project conditions with the exception of the following intersections,
resulting in a significant impact requiring mitigation (DEIR pp. 4.4-42):
• La Cadena Drive/Barton Road;
• I-215 Southbound Ramps/Barton Road;
• Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road; and
• Mount Vernon Avenue/Main Street.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.4A through 4.4.6.3D will reduce the
Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of Service Impacts to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4A As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Development Unit 5, the applicant or their designee shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal
Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees in accordance with Sections 4.104.030 and
4.104.040 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.411 As a condition of issuance of a building permit for any portion of
Development Unit 5, the project applicant or their designee shall implement Mitigation
Measures 4.4.6.1A,4.4.6.1E, and 4.4.6.3C, if not already completed.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4C The following improvements have been identified in the TIA as
necessary to mitigate traffic impacts of Development Units 1 through 5:
(i) Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road: Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road: Widen and/or
restripe Mount Vernon Avenue to provide a second southbound left-turn lane and an
exclusive southbound right-turn lane and to provide a second northbound left-turn lane
and an exclusive right-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Barton Road to provide an
exclusive eastbound right-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install a
northbound right-turn overlap phase. The exclusive northbound right-turn lane and the
exclusive eastbound right-turn lane are covered under the City's current Circulation
Improvement Fee, while a portion of the traffic signal modification costs are covered
under the City's current Traffic Signal Improvement Fee. The payment of Traffic Signal
Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees will partially satisfy the applicant's
responsibility for these improvements.
The applicant or their designee of Development Unit 5 shall be responsible for the cost of
an assessment study to determine the applicant's or their designee's fair share of' the
improvement costs. If the assessment study finds that the northbound left-turn lane is not
Page 20 of 41
9(
feasible, the City shall identify alternative improvement(s) that may be substituted. The
assessment study for these improvement(s) may be included in the assessment study
required in Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.1E(i). Such fair share will be calculated and paid
to the City as a condition of issuance of the first building permit for Development Unit 5
construction
(ii) La Cadena Drive/Barton Road: Widen and/or restripe Barton Road to provide a second
westbound left-turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install a northbound right-
turn overlap phasing. Upon application for a building permit for any portion of
Development Unit 5, the applicant or their designee shall contribute its fair share of the cost
for these improvements, based on a study to be prepared at the applicant's or their
designee's expense, and which is subject to review and approval by the City.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4D Unless already completed prior to Development Unit 5 and
provided that Commerce Way extension has been constructed, the applicant or their designee
shall be responsible at its sole expense for the following driveway improvement at Commerce
Way at Driveway No. 5: The final signing and striping plan of the Commerce Way Extension at
Driveway No. 5 shall be designed to include single 60-foot northbound and southbound left-turn
lanes to accommodate projected traffic volumes and storage requirements. These left-turn lanes
shall be within the proposed two-way left-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches of
Driveway No. 5 shall provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes with an exclusive left-
turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The outbound lanes shall be designed to
accommodate a queue of at least five vehicles or approximately 110 feet from the back of the
sidewalk. If these improvements have been completed prior to Development Unit 5, the applicant
or their designee shall pay its fair share of the improvements based on the costs of the
improvements.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. These mitigation measures
would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: As shown in Table 4.4.I of the DEIR (DEIR pp.4.4-49) with the
exception of the intersection of Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road, implementation of the
mitigation measures would maintain the minimum level of service standards for the 2030 with
project study area,intersections and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level for
all remaining intersections. Due to physical roadway constraints, there is no feasible mitigation
over and above the mitigation measure identified for the intersection of Mount Vernon
Avenue/Barton Road to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, which will be discussed
further in Section 7 of this Resolution. '
5. Design Features or Incompatible Uses: Proper signalization and signal sequencing to
facilitate roadway traffic flows, and adequate outbound queuing distances are required to minimize
ingress and egress hazards. Traffic movements at project driveways and internal circulation within the
project site may increase hazards in the form of unclear right-of-way and the addition of conflict points to
traveling motorists and pedestrians. This is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.6A through 4.4.6.6D will reduce
potential impacts related to design features or incompatible rises to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.6A: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in
Development Unit 1, the project applicant shall construct the following traffic improvements:
Page 21 of 41
91
• Barton Road at Driveway No. I• Access shall be right-turn in/out only. A stop sign and
stop bar shall be installed at the project driveway. The driveway shall be designed to
accommodate an outbound queue of at least one vehicle or approximately 20 feet from the
back of the sidewalk.
• Barton Road at Driveway No. 2: The final signing and striping plan of Barton Road at
Driveway No. 2 shall be designed to include a single 200-foot westbound left-turn lane
with a 90-foot transition and a single 60-foot eastbound left-turn lane with a 90-foot
transition to accommodate projected traffic volumes and storage requirements. Driveway
No. 2 shall provide two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes with an exclusive left-turn
lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The two outbound lanes shall be designed to
accommodate a queue of 11 vehicles or approximately 242 feet from the back of the
sidewalk. A five-phase traffic signal shall be installed at this project driveway.
• Michigan Street at Driveway No. 4: Full access shall be permitted at this driveway. A stop
sign and stop bar shall be installed at the project driveway. The final signing and striping
plan of Michigan Street at Driveway No. 4 shall be designed to include a single 60-foot
southbound left-turn lane with a 90-foot transition to accommodate projected traffic
volumes and storage requirements. Driveway No. 4 at Michigan Street shall provide one
inbound lane and one outbound lane with a shared left turn/nght-turn lane. The outbound
lane shall be designed to accommodate a queue of at least two vehicles or approximately 40
feet from the back of the sidewalk.
• Commerce Way/Michigan Street at Driveway No. 5: Full access shall be permitted at this
driveway opposite existing Commerce Way. Interim access, prior to the extension of
Commerce Way, shall be controlled by a stop sign and stop bar installed at the project
driveway. The driveway shall be designed to accommodate an outbound queue of at least
two vehicles or approximately 40 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.6B: Prior to finalization of the site plan for Development Units 1, 2,
and 3, a detailed truck access and circulation evaluation shall be prepared. Further, once a "truck
route" has been defined, it is recommended that the drive aisles be designed to a minimum width
of 30 feet to accommodate the turning requirements of large trucks. It is recommended that a
detailed on-site signing and striping plan, as well as a directional sign program be developed and
reviewed by the City of Grand Terrace to ensure vehicular conflicts are minimized at key internal
intersections of the site plan.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.6C: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in
Development Unit 3, the applicant shall be responsible at its sole expense for the following
driveway improvement at Barton Road and Driveway No. 3: Access shall be right-turn in/out
only. A stop sign and stop bar shall be installed at the project driveway. The driveway shall be
designed to accommodate an outbound queue of at least two vehicles or approximately 40 feet
from the back of the sidewalk. Deceleration lanes may be required for Project Driveway No. 3, as
determined by required engineering studies.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.6D: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in Development
Unit 4, should it precede construction of the Commerce Way extension from Michigan Street to Barton
Road, the applicant or their designee shall be responsible at its sole expense for the following driveway
improvement at Commerce Way at Driveway No. 5: The final signing and striping plan of the Commerce
Way Extension at Driveway No. 5 shall be designed to include single 60-foot northbound and southbound
left-turn lanes to accommodate projected traffic volumes and storage requirements. These left-turn lanes
Page 22 of 41
92
shall be within the proposed two-way left-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches of
Driveway No. 5 shall provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes with an exclusive left-turn lane
and a shared through/right-turn lane. The outbound lanes shall be designed to accommodate a queue of at
least five vehicles or approximately 110 feet from the back of the sidewalk. If Commerce Way is
constructed, or designed and funded„ prior to approval of Development Unit 4, the outbound lanes shall
be designed to accommodate traffic queuing appropriate to the project and traffic control at Driveway No.
5, as determined by the City Engineer.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. These mitigation measures
would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Project parking areas and circulation features would be designed and
constructed to satisfy City requirements, including proper signalization and signal sequencing to
facilitate roadway traffic flows. The design of all roadways and intersections within the Project
site would incorporate design standards identified by the City and tailored specifically to site
access requirements. Paved walkways would be provided throughout the project and would
incorporate appropriate handicapped access features. The project would not create a hazard or
barrier for pedestrians or bicyclists. Compliance with City design standards identified in the
BRSP for these features would ensure no impact related to this issue would occur. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.6A through 4.4.6.6D would reduce impacts associated with this
issue to a less than significant level.
SECTION 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AFTER
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts identified
in the Final EIR will have a significant impact on the environment and that even with the adoption and
implementation of mitigation measures, this impact will remain significant, as summarized below.
A.Air Quality
1. Long-term Project-Related Emissions Impacts: Long-term air pollutant emission impacts
resulting from the Project are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources (e g. emissions
from landscape maintenance activities and other facility maintenance operations and the use of motor
vehicles by project-generated traffic). While the project will be implemented in five phases, for the
purposes of analysis, the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project assumed that the Project would
be implemented in three phases. When completed, the project would generate a total of 8,346 daily trips.
The air quality analysis assesses the mobile source emissions generated by vehicles driving to and from
the Project site and area source emissions generated by Project maintenance operations. As identified in
Table 4.LP of the DEIR, emissions from the project-related mobile sources would exceed the thresholds
for CO and NOx based on emission factors for the year of operation. Therefore, Project related long-term
air quality impacts would be significant and mitigation measures are required(DEIR 4.1-57).
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce long-term
operational emissions of CO and NOx.
Supporting Explanation: Because it is not known what type of on-site equipment will be used,
it is not possible to quantity the reduction in the amount of emissions that may occur. As such, no
Page 23 of=41
93
additional reduction in operational emissions was taken. Considering the volume of emissions
generated and current commuter habits, it is unlikely the implementation of Transportation
Demand Management/Transportation Control Measures would result in a reduction of operational
project emissions to below existing SCAQMD thresholds. No other feasible mitigation measures
have been identified to reduce the operational emissions of CO and NOx to a less than significant
level, and thresholds will continue to be exceeded. The project site is located in a non attainment
air basin for criteria pollutants and Project generated emissions would contribute to the
continuation of non attainment status in the Basin. In the absence of mitigation to reduce the
Project's contribution of CO and NOx emissions to below SCAQMD thresholds, potential long-
term air quality impacts resulting from the operation of the Project will remain significant and
unavoidable.
2. Localized Operational Emissions. The primary emissions from operational activities include
NOx ,CO, PMIo, and PM1.5 from stationary sources and/or on-site mobile equipment. As indicated in
Table 4.LQ of the DEIR, operational emission rates for PM10 exceed the LST thresholds at 25 meters,
resulting in a significant impact requiring mitigation(DEIR 4.1-58).
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce long-term
operational emissions of PMio•
Supporting Explanation: It is not known what type of on-site equipment will be used during
Project operation; therefore it is not possible to quantify the reduction in the amount of emissions
that may occur. Thus, no additional reduction in operational emissions were taken. No other
feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the localized operational emissions of
PM10 to a less than significant level, and operational emissions will continue to exceed thresholds.
The project site is located in a non attainment air basin for criteria pollutants and localized Project
generated emissions would contribute to the continuation of non attainment status in the Basin. In
the absence of mitigation to reduce the Project's contribution of PM10 emissions to below
SCAQMD thresholds, potential long-term air quality impacts resulting from the operation of the
Project will remain significant and unavoidable.
3. Cu mulativeImp acts
a. Long-term Regional Air Quality Impacts.The Project would exceed emission
standards for CO and NOx and would contribute to long-term regional air pollutants despite
implementation of mitigation measures. Because the Basin is in a non attainment for PM10, PM1.5,
and ozone at the present time, the operation of the Project would exacerbate and contribute to
adverse cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of the Proposed project would
unavoidably contribute to significant long-term cumulative air quality impacts.
b. Climate Change Impacts.It is not possible to determine whether the Project
individually will have a significant impact on global warming or climate change; however, it will
contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. The proposed project
would contribute approximately 0.002 percent of California's 2004 total emissions for carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (492 Tg CO2 Eq). Mitigation :Measure 4.1.5.1OA will likely
reduce the Project's emissions of GHG's; however, without the necessary science and analytical
tools, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether the Project's emissions of GHG"s will
be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CF0A Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and
15130.Given the findings of AB 32, t.f SB 97 and the reCluirements of CEQA, the L-ad Agency
must determine whether a project will or will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution.
With implementation of the strategies and programs described in Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR, the
Page 24 of 41
94
Project is consistent with the strategies to reduce California's emissions to the levels proposed in
Executive Order S-3-05. However, given the uncertainty of data and appropriate methodology to
accurately analyze, and the inability to quantify the reduction achieved through implementation
of strategies and programs previously identified, the Project's GHG emission contribution would
result in a cumulative impact regarding global climate change and the cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on global climate change are considered to be significant and unavoidable.
B. Traffic/Circulation
1. Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Freeway) Traffic and Level of Service Impacts:
Design Features or Incompatible Uses: Both northbound and southbound directions of I-215 between
SR-60 and Orange Show Road/Auto Plaza Drive, encompassing seven study freeway segments, will
operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) without improvements for year 2030 traffic
conditions with Project traffic during the p.m. peak hour (DEIR pp. 4.4-49). This results in a significant
impact.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.5A will reduce potential impacts under
Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Freeway); however, this impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.5A: Upon the establishment of a regional fee program, the City shall
work with SANBAG and Caltrans to determine the appropriate fair share contribution for
Development Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for the construction of the recommended freeway
improvements on I-215 and the fair-share contribution shall be held in trust by the entity
identified in the fee program. The Project's fair share costs shall be based on the Project's
contribution to total trips for the affected locations. If, within five years of the date of collection
of Developer's fair-share contribution, the contribution has not been used then the Developer's
fair-share contribution shall be returned to the Developer.
Implementation of this mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. However, even with incorporation of
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.5A, this impact remains significant.
Supporting Explanation: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.5A and
associated freeway segment improvements discussed in the DEIR (DEIR pp. 4.4-50), the
minimum level of service standards would be maintained for the 2030 with project study area
freeway segments. Although the addition of an HOV lane plus three or four mixed-flow lanes
would result in acceptable levels of service;-the SCAG RTIP currently calls for the addition of
one HOV lane and one mixed-flow lane in each direction on I-215 from the SR-60/SR-91/1-215
interchange in Riverside to the Orange Show Road interchange in San Bernardino. Further,
preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of this RTIP freeway mainline project is
currently underway in a coordinated effort involving the FHWA, Caltrans, SANBAG, RCTC, and
the affected local counties and cities. Although the SCAG RFTP currently shows one HOV lane
and one mixed-flow lane in each direction, the freeway mainline project has been modified to
include the addition of one HOV lane in each direction (and no mixed-flow lane) by year 2015,
with plans for an additional mixed-flow lane removed from consideration. Given the current
efforts by these agencies to add an HOV lane in each direction by year 2015 together with the
elimination of plans to add a mixed-flow lane each way, it is unlikely that three to four mixed-
flow lanes will be planned and programmed by year 2030. For these reasons, impacts to freeway
mainline lanes would remain significant and unavoidable for all identified segments.
Page 25 of 41
95
2. Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road Intersection: The DEIR determined that the
intersection of Barton Road/Mount Vernon Avenue is projected to operate at unsatisfactory levels of
service under year 2030 with project, resulting in a significant impact requiring mitigation(DEIR pp. 4.4-
42):
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.6.4C(i) will reduce potential impacts
under Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Intersection); however, the impact remains significant
and unavoidable:
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4C(i): : Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road: Widen and/or restripe
Mount Vernon Avenue to provide a second southbound left-turn lane and an exclusive
southbound right-turn lane and to provide a second northbound left-turn lane and an exclusive
right-turn lane. Widen and/or restripe Barton Road to provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn
lane. Modify the existing traffic signal and install a northbound right-turn overlap phase. The
exclusive northbound right-turn lane and the exclusive eastbound right-turn lane are covered
under the City's current Circulation Improvement Fee, while a portion of the traffic signal
modification costs are covered under the City's current Traffic Signal Improvement Fee. The
payment of Traffic Signal Improvement and Circulation Improvement Fees will partially satisfy
the applicant's responsibility for these improvements
Implementation of this mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. However, even with incorporation of
Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4C(i), this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Supporting Explanation: Due to physical roadway constraints, there is no feasible mitigation
over and above Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4C(i)to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Therefore, the addition of project traffic to the year 2030 baseline scenario, would cumulatively
contribute to LOS deficiencies at the intersection of Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road
resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Although, it should be noted that the LOS
deficiencies experienced at the Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road intersection would also occur
during the 2030 baseline scenario and that Mitigation Measure 4.4.6.4 (i)would improve the LOS
at this location when compared to the baseline scenario, the improvement would not result in
maintaining the City's adopted LOS standard,and this remains a significant impact.
SECTION 8
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts refer to one or more individual effects which considered together compelled or
increase the environmental impact of the Project. State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of the
Cumulative impacts of a Project "when the Projects incremental effects are cumulatively considerable."
For example, when the incremental effects of an individual Project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of
probable future Projects. The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds and determines that the
discussion of cumulative impacts in the Final EIR provides adequate and sufficient discussion of the
cumulative impacts of the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Cumulative impacts are
discussed in Chapters 2.0, 4.0 and in 5.0 of the EIR. The City Council further 'finds that the cumulative
impacts addressed would be less than significant, as set forth in Section 5 herein, or mitigated to a less
than significant level by incorporation of mitigation measures into the Project,'as set forth in Section 6
herein, with the exception of the following environmental impacts that remain ;significant even with the
implementation of mitigation measures as set forth in Section 7 herein: Air Quality; (long-term Project
Page 26 of41
9(
related emissions and cumulative air emissions-failure to meet State and Federal ambient air quality
standards).
While on a project-level, no global climate change impact would occur, the Project will contribute to
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in California. However, without the necessary science and
analytical tools, it is not possible to determine with certainty, whether the Project's emissions of
greenhouse gases will be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections
15065(a)(3) and 15130. The CARB is currently in the process of designing regulations to monitor, limit,
and ultimately reduce California greenhouse gas emissions but there are as yet no clear standards for
assessing the significance of cumulative impacts from projects. Given the findings of AB 32 and the
requirements of CEQA, the lead agency must determine whether a project will or will not have a
cumulatively considerable contribution. Due to the lack of guidance for determining the significance of
cumulative impacts to climate change from projects, and out of an overabundance of caution, the effect of
0.013 Tg CO, Eq is considered cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR p 4.1-60). This determination is
based upon a lack of clear scientific and regulatory criteria for determining the level of significance of the
Project's contribution to global climate change.
At this time, it is unknown if global warming can be reversed through the use of greener technology,
economic regulations and social practices. Project-related CO, emissions and their contribution to global
climate change impacts in the State of California are less than significant and less than cumulatively
considerable because the project's impacts alone would not cause or significantly contribute to global
climate change.
SECTION 9
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of
whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility
of restoring them. The Project would permanently alter the 21-acre site by converting an area that is
primarily vacant to urban uses. No significant cultural, mineral, or scenic resources were identified within
the Project limits; therefore, no significant impacts related to these issues would result from development
of the Project. While the project site does contain a historic-period (i.e., pre- 1957) residence, this
residence is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historic Places(California Register).Therefore, this residence does not constitute a
historic resource pursuant to CEQA. (However, unrecorded resource will be documented and evaluated
on the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523.) Because this residence does not constitute
a historic resource, no significant irreversible environmental change would occur(DEIR pp. 5-2);
Natural resources in the form of common building materials (e.g., lumber, concrete, aggregate,
iron/steel/other metals, and vehicle fuel/petroleum-based products) would be utilized in the construction
of the proposed project, while energy resources in the form of electricity and natural gas would be used
during the long-term operation of the project. These resources are generally available within the region;
thus, the use of these resources is not expected to negatively impact their availability. The Project is
consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation indicating that growth has been anticipated
by the City. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the updated Title 24
standards for building construction. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the
requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.1.5.10A, including measures to incorporate energy-efficient
building design features(DEIR pp. 5-2).
Paue 27 of 41
97
SECTION 10
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing specifically Section
15126.2(d) of State CEQA Guidelines states that EIRs must describe the ways in which the Project could
foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing either directly or
indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development
and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth.
The Project would develop approximately 210,000 square feet of commercial and retail uses on 21-acres
of land that is primarily vacant. There is no residential component to the Project. The proposed project
site is located within the City's primary commercial corridor and is planned for commercial uses in
accordance with the General Plan and Barton Road Specific Plan. Streets, water and sewer utilities, and
municipal services already exist in the adjacent roadways and would be extended to the site to serve the
proposed Project. The proposed project does not provide infrastructure or service capacity to
accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by the General Plan(DEIR pp. 5-3).
Construction of the proposed project will create short-term construction jobs. These short-term positions
are anticipated to be filled by workers who, for the most part, reside in the project area; therefore,
construction of the proposed project will not generate a permanent increase in population within the
project area. Implementation of the proposed project would provide approximately 208 permanent
employment opportunities to the existing population and would serve future population growth. Given the
fact that the City and the County are considered to be jobs-poor regions, it is expected that the short-term
construction jobs and long-term jobs created by the proposed project will be filled by current local
residents; therefore, there would be little migration to the area and, consequently, little effect on local
population size (DEIR pp. 5-3 —5-4).
SECTION 11
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
A. Grand Terrace General Plan. Implementation of the Project will result in the construction of up
to a 209,611 square foot neighborhood commercial center within a 21 acre site. The General Plan states
that the General Commercial designation provides for general commercial uses to serve the retail and
service needs of the community. The proposed TSMDP is a neighborhood commercial center and its
anticipated land uses (i.e., commercial,retail, grocery market, retail, food services) are consistent with the
General Commercial Land Use designation. As such, the Project is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use designated of General Commercial
The Project complies with Land Use Element goals and polices to provide a wide range of retail, service
commercial, and employment opportunities; continued development of established commercial areas, and
the incorporation of increased setbacks, walls and landscaping between commercial projects and other
areas to reduce potential land use incompatibility. It is consistent with the Circulation Element requiring
preparation of a traffic analysis prepared in accordance with SANBAG Congestion Management Program
(CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines and requiring that peak hour level of service "D" be
maintained, and with policies because sufficient off street parking, bicycle racks and trellised pedestrian
walkways will be provided. The Project complies with the Open Space and Conservation Element
because mitigation measures have been incorporated requiring conservation of energy resources in
building design of Development Unit 1, and the Project will be required to meet federal, state and local
regulations governing grading, erosion control, water quality, and cultural resources. It complies with
Page 28 of 41
9f
Noise Element goals, policies and actions calling for adherence to the Noise Ordinance during
construction activities, and preparation of a noise study during the CEQA process to determine potential
impacts that could be generated by the Project. Public services are being provided as required by the
Public Services Element, and the Project meets several goals polices and actions contained in the
Sustainable Development Element calling for energy conservation, recycling, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
B. Barton Road Specific Plan ("BRSP"). The Project site is zoned BRSP-General Commercial,
and located within Planning Area 1 of the BRSP requiring the preparation of a master development Plan.
The Project is consistent with the BRSP because it establishes the TSMDP which is made of up five
Development Units with five corresponding phases. The TSMDP establishes the development standards
and uses for the site, and it is consistent with the standards of the BRSP, and Title 18 of the Municipal
Code. Therefore, the project is consistent with the provisions of the BRSP.
C. Regional Plans.
1. Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG")Plans and Policies
a. Regional Comprehensive Plan ("RCP"). The 2008 RCP serves as a framework to guide
decision-making with respect to the growth and changes that can be anticipated in the region. The RCP is
an advisory plan that addresses regional issues such as housing, traffic/transportation, water, and air
quality, and provides voluntary practices to approach growth and infrastructure challenges in a an
integrated manner within the region.
The Project is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Chapter of the RCP to focus growth in
emerging centers along major transportation corridors, creating walkable communities within walking
distance of existing and planned transit stations, and building new business on vacant or redeveloping
lots. At build-out of the Project, the Project will result in the development of a neighborhood commercial
center over 21 acres located along the Barton Road corridor, one of the City's main transportation
corridors in proximity to I-215 and in proximity to existing housing which allows for pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity. Further, the Project will create up 208 new jobs improving the City's current jobs to
housing balance.
The Project is consistent with the Open Space and Housing Chapter of the RCP OS/Habitat to encourage
development that reduces costs on infrastructure and makes better use of existing facilities that promotes
infill and re-development, and water efficient development. The Project is proposed within the City's
identified commercial corridor, and all infrastructure is readily available resulting in a minimal need for
new infrastructure. The Project will promote infill development and re-development of land because the
site is,located in the City's planned commercial corridor, and the TSMDP will"guide build-out of the
approximately 21-acre site over time. Proposed uses will be subject to Title 24 and California Plumbing
Code regulations requiring the use of water saving devices. Additionally, the Project is subject to the
State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance which requires the use of water efficient landscaping
materials.
The project is consistent with the Water Chapter of the RCP to encourage development that make
use of existing facilities prior to incurring new infrastructure costs, and that reduces the use of water.
Proposed uses will be subject to Title 24 and California Plumbing Code regulations requiring the use of
water saving devices. Additionally, the Project is subject to the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance which requires the use of water efficient landscaping materials.
Page 29 of 41
99
The Project is consistent with the Energy Chapter of the RCP that Projects use resources
efficiently, eliminate pollution and waste, promote public and alternative transportation, conserve energy,
incorporate green building measures, exceed Title 24 energy efficiency, utilize light colored roofs, and
other mechanisms to efficiently use and conserve energy because it would result in development of
employment and shopping opportunities in proximity to existing housing. The Project design will include
sidewalks, pedestrian access and bikeways along Barton Road and Michigan Street increasing alternative
transportation opportunities, and will connect to existing infrastructure.The energy use analysis contained
in Section 4.1.5.10 (DEIR pp. 4.1-50) includes strategies for conserving energy and efficient energy use;
and the Project includes the implementation of mitigation measures to promote green building measures.
The Project is consistent with the Solid Waste Chapter of the RCP which calls for the
incorporation of green measures to reduce construction and building lifetime wastes. Table 4.1.0 of the
DEIR (pp.4.1-54) list strategies that are considered to be greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies,
and which also include green building measures. These strategies are either part of the Project,required as
mitigation measures, or requirements under local or State ordinances.
The Project promotes the Transportation Chapter of the RCP to provide a more efficient
transportation system to better manage vehicle activity because the Project would result in the
development of employment and shopping opportunities in close proximity to housing. Additionally,
mitigation measures have been incorporated related to transportation improvements.
The Project promotes the Security and Emergency Preparedness Chapter to ensure transportation
safety, security and reliability. The Project has been designed in conformance with General Plan
Circulation policies to provide adequate and reliable transportation facilities. The goals and policies
identified in the City's General Plan are similar to those of the RCP that address mobility, traffic safety,
environmental concerns, and land use consistency as factors to identify existing traffic conditions and to
assess the future effects on area traffic patterns/flow. Further, the traffic impact analysis prepare for the
Project identified the necessary public and private improvements necessary for each phase of the Project
to ensure transportation safety and reliability.
The Project is consistent with the Economy Chapter of the RCP because.the Project provides for
economic development within the City while being consistent with the City's and region's sustainability
goals. The ultimate development of a 210,000 square foot commercial center will allow the City to be
more self reliant through the provision of goods and services to residents and additional employment
opportunities. The addition of jobs supports the regional policy of attracting jobs to housing-rich
subregions and improving the City's jobs-to-housing ratio.
b. Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP"). The 2008 RTP contains a set of existing
socioeconomic projections used as the basis for the SCAG's transportation planning efforts. They include
projections of population, housing, and employment at the regional, county, subregional, jurisdictional,
Census tract, and transportation analysis zone levels, and takes into consideration the General Plans of the
local jurisdictions. The RTP includes policies and regulations set forth to ensure development within the
SCAG regional area is within planned and forecast socioeconomic projections.
The Project is being developed in conformance with the City's General Plan, which anticipates
the development of site as a neighborhood commercial center. Further, the General Plan contains goals
and policies that aim to minimize traffic congestion, provide adequate transportation facilities, and require
development to pay its share of costs As such, the Project is consistent with the RTP, which considered
the City's General Plan, and which resemble those of the RTP that address mobility, traffic safety,
environmental concerns, and land use consistency as the major traffic study factors to identify existing
traffic conditions and to assess the future effects on area traffic patterns/flow (DEIR pp. 5-13).
Page 30 of 41
10(
c. Compass Growth Vision. The Compass Growth Vision plan provides a framework for local
and regional decision-making regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development. The
framework includes principles and a specific set of strategies intended to achieve and improve a quality of
life that promotes and sustains for future generations the region's mobility, livability, and prosperity. The
main objective of the Compass Growth Vision is to manage the forecast growth while improving future
living conditions for all people within the SCAG area, including live,work, and play activities.
Consistent with Compass Growth Vision principles, the Project allows consumers to obtain
household commodities in a single trip, thereby minimizing vehicle trip generation and will support the
prosperity of household wages by providing competitive prices of other retail and commercial sales
located primarily in the neighboring cities. Adjacent residential and commercial uses foster livability to
the community. Additionally, the Project will take advantage of existing infrastructure which is readily
available to serve the Project(DEIR pp. 5-14).
2. Other Regional and Local Plans
a. South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") Air Quality Management
Plan ("AQMP"). The current regional air quality management plan is the Final 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP)adopted by the SCAQMD on June 1,2007. The AQMP proposes policies and
measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve Federal standards for healthful air
quality in those areas under the jurisdiction of the AQMD, including the Basin. To assess the
environmental impacts as a result of new development accurately, environmental pollution and population
growth are projected by the SCAQMD in the AQMP for future scenarios. The AQMP projections are
based, in part, on the growth forecasts and General Plans from cities and counties located in the Basin.
The Project is being developed in conformance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code
which anticipates the development of site as a neighborhood commercial center. As such, the Project is
consistent with the AQMP,which considered the City's General Plan and Zoning Code in its preparation.
The Project is located in the City's commercial corridor and abuts Barton Road, which accommodates
public transit service. In addition, the proposed retail commercial uses would be within walking distance
of existing and planned homes in the local vicinity, and generate approximately 208 jobs. It t is
reasonable that a large percentage of these jobs would be filled by persons already living within the City,
thereby improving the City's current jobs-to housing ratio. Projects that provide for walkability and
generate employment are consistent with the goals of the AQMP for reducing the emissions associated
with new development(DEIR pp.4.1-46)
-b. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"), Basin Plan. The
RWQCB regulates the construction of subdivisions, commercial developments, industrial developments,
and roadways based upon the level of threat to water quality.
Any construction activity whose land disturbance activities exceed one acre must comply with the
statewide general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit for stormwater
discharges. Development of the site is in excess of one acre; therefore, the proposed project is required to
obtain an NPDES permit issued by the RWQCB. The Project's construction contractor will be required to
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") that identifies Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to limit the soil erosion during project construction along with a Notice of Intent to certify that
the applicant will comply with conditions in the statewide general NPDES permit. In addition to the
preparation of an SWPPP, the developer will be required to submit a project-specific Water Quality
Management Plan ("WQMP"). The WQMP will identify measures to treat and/or limit the post-
construction entry of contaminants into storm flows. Since the proposed project would adhere to these
Page 31 of 41
101
provisions of the NPDES permit, the project would be consistent with the Basin Plan of the Santa Ana
RWQCB (DEIR pp. 5-14).
SECTION 12
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or the
location of the Project,which:
1. Offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project Proposal, and
2. May be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable amount of time
considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors involved.
An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly obtain most the
Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration
of the alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not required to choose an
environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial
advantages over the Project, and
A. Through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of the Project
can be reduced to an acceptable level; or
B. There are social, economic technical or other considerations that make the alternative
infeasible.
The State CEQA guidelines direct agencies to consider the feasibility of alternative locations. The DEIR
analyzed an alternative location for the Project located north of Van Buren Street,west of Michigan Street
and east of I-215, approximately 0.33 miles southwest of the project site. The objectives for the Project
are on page 3-12 of the DEIR (which are stated herein in Section 1). The following alternatives were
analyzed in the EIR.
A. Alternative 1—No Project Alternative
Description: Pursuant to CEQA (§15126.6[e][2]), the No Project Alternative should discuss the
existing conditions at the time of Notice of Preparation is published and what would reasonably be
expected to occur, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services, in the foreseeable future. The Project site is currently zoned "General Commercial' within the
BRSP and designated by the General Plan for General Commercial uses. Given the goals and objectives
of the City of Grand Terrace and those identified in the BRSP, it is highly reasonable in the event the
Project were not approved, the site would be developed with some type of similar commercial use, subject
to the master development provisions of the BRSP. The type of uses permitted within the commercially
zoned property vanes substantially, but with the No Project Alternative, development of a similar
commercial use and similar in size to the square footage of the TSMDP (up to approximately 209,611
square feet) is assumed.
Finding: The City Council finds that under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would be
developed with another master planned commercial development in accordance with the requirements of
the BRSP. All impacts of all environmental issues, including cumulative impacts, would be similar to
those associated with the Project.
Page 32 of4l
10;
Supporting Explanation: The approximate 21-acre site is zoned BRSP-General Commercial and
has a General Commercial General Plan land use designation. The BRSP requires the establishment of
master development plan for the site. Therefore, were the project not approved it is reasonable to assume
that another project developer would develop the site with similar uses under the auspices of a master
development plan. Further, even if such developer proposed to only develop a portion of the 21-acre site,
a master development plan would still be required, and it would be subject to the same level of review.
Additionally, impacts of all environmental issues, including cumulative impacts, and the generation of
traffic, emissions,wastewater and solid waste, and water demand use.
The No Project Alternative would not preclude the subsequent development of the property nor
would it reduce or preclude environmental impacts associated with future development. Additionally, this
Alternative does not meet the project's objective of developing a commercial project that accommodates
large and small retailers offering a wide range of commercial goods or services. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative is rejected.
B. Alternative 2—Reduced Intensity Commercial Use
Description: Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with only the level of
development identified for Development Unit 1 of the Project, which includes approximately 75,899
square feet of retail and restaurant uses on approximately 7.5 acres. The remaining areas within the
project site would remain undeveloped. The commercial uses under the Reduced Intensity Commercial
Use Alternative would consist of a multi-tenant shopping center hosting one large anchor(40,000-50,000
square feet), one small shop (5,000-10,000 square feet), and two small pads(3,000-7,000 square feet).
Finding: The City Council finds that under the Reduced Intensity Commercial Use Alternative,
potential impacts associated with short-term construction-related air quality and noise impacts, would
remain similar to those identified with the Project. Impacts related to traffic operations would be
proportionally reduced in relation to the reduction in trip generation and long tern air quality impacts and
impacts would remain less than significant. This Alternative would have reduced demands on public
services. Cultural resource impacts are reduced under this Alternative as it would reduce the area of
disturbance. This Alternative would decrease the amount of water needed to serve the project site, and
would reduce the amount of wastewater and solid waste that would be generated on site. Impacts to the
operation of local roadways and intersections would be proportionally reduced from that of the Project,
and would be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the exception of the Mount Vernon
Avenue/Barton Road intersection. Impacts to the Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road intersection and to
freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable.
Supporting Explanation: Because of the reduced project area under this alternative, short-term
construction impacts associated with emissions-of the proposed project are less than significant. This
Alternative would generate approximately 35 percent of the daily vehicle trips than would be generated
by the Project. The volume of each operational pollutant emitted during operation of this Alternative
would be correspondingly reduced. The traffic increase under the Project did not contribute to CO
concentrations in excess of the state or federal standards, and neither will this Alternative. Although the
volume of pollutants emitted would be reduced, the long-term air quality impacts resulting from this
Alternative would still contribute cntena pollutants to an air basin that is in non-attainment for these
criteria pollutants, similar to the Project. Long-tern operational air emissions associated with this
alternative would not exceed CO, ROG, NOx, PM,(), and PM-1,5 thresholds based on emission factors for
2009 and 2010. Long-tern air quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level (DEIR pp.6-12).
This Alternative would result in a 65 percent reduction of daily traffic volumes. Daily traffic
volumes on nearby roads and intersections would be reduced in magnitude when compared to that of the
Page 33 of 41
103
Project. Although the volume of traffic is reduced under this alternative, impacts at nearby intersections
and roadway segments would still occur and would require mitigation. These impacts would be mitigated
to a less than significant level in a manner similar to those of the Project, with the exception of the Mount
Vernon Avenue/Barton Road intersection, which would be similarly significant and unavoidable. Despite
the identification of mitigation measures, freeway segments are not under the jurisdiction of the City and
cannot be guaranteed to be in place when development under this alternative would become operational.
Therefore, freeway segment traffic-related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this,
as well (DEIR pp. 6-16).
Due to the reduction in project area and project size under this Alternative the extent and duration
of construction activities are expected to be reduced resulting in lower construction noise. Additionally,
short term noise impacts related to construction and stationary noise would be reduced and be less than
significant. The reduction in project related traffic under this Alternative would result in an incremental
decrease in traffic noise.
This Alternative would generate approximately 35 percent of the daily trips of that associated
with the Project. Because project-related traffic under this Alternative is reduced by approximately 65
percent of that associated with the Project, it is reasonable to assume that future traffic volumes on local
roadways in the project vicinity would be correspondingly reduced. With this,Alternative increases in
traffic-related noise would be lower due to a decreased contribution of future traffic volumes resulting in
a reduction of overall mobile source noise impacts within the area. Loading/Unloading activity noise,
parking lot noise, and mechanical ventilation noise would still occur under this'Alternative in the same
approximate locations at similar levels to that of the Project. Therefore, noise impacts would remain less
than significant under this Alternative as well(DEIR pp. 6-15).
Similar to the Project, the Reduced Intensity Commercial Use Alternative would also require
water service from the local water district. This Alternative would use less water (9,780 gpd) than the
Project (27,123 gpd) due to the reduction in square footage (133,712 square feet), approximately 0.05
percent of the water purveyor's daily production. When compared to the Project, impacts associated with
water under the Reduced Intensity Commercial Use Alternative are reduced in magnitude and remain less
than significant(DEIR pp. 6-16).
The Reduced Intensity Commercial Alternative would generate approximately 6,072 gallons of
wastewater a day as opposed to the 16,800 gallons per day that the Project would generate. This decrease
in wastewater generation would result in a reduced impact on wastewater treatment facilities. The Project
would generate approximately 1,851 pounds of solid waster per day. Under this Alternative the amount r
solid waste generated would be approximately 668 pounds of solid waster per day; a daily rer.�,ction of
over 1,100 pounds. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would not impact solid waste facilities and
impacts remain the same.
Similar to the Project, the Reduced Intensity Commercial Alternative would contribute toward
long-term air quality operational emissions and increased traffic operations on local roadways and at local
intersections. Peak day construction-related air emissions would be emitted fewer days than that of the
proposed project due to the decreased area required for construction and reductions in cumulative traffic
in the project area would reduce this Alternative's cumulative contribution of several of the criteria
pollutants compared with the proposed project. Despite a reduction in the volume of air pollutants emitted
under this Alternative, several of the criteria pollutants would still contribute toward the creation of non-
attainment status air pollutant levels within the SCAQMD. This Alternative would result in a decrease in
the cumulative vehicle trips in the project area (compared with the proposed project), which would have a
corresponding effect on traffic operations on local roadways and at local intersections. Nonetheless, air
quality and traffic impacts resulting from this Alternative are cumulatively significant.
Page 34 of 41
10/
C. Alternative 3—Office Park Use Alternative
Description: The Office Park Use Alternative considers the development of up to 209,611 square
feet of office uses within the Project limits. The construction of this Alternative on the Project site require
would also require the preparation of a master development plan in accordance with the BRSP prior to
development. All offices uses considered under this Alternative are permitted in the BRSP.
Finding: Under the Office Park Alternative, potential impacts associated with short-term
construction-related air quality and noise impacts would remain similar to those identified with the
Project. Impacts related to traffic operations would be proportionally reduced compared to the Project.
While the volume of pollutants emitted during operation of this Alternative would be reduced, long-term
air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Vehicle noise that may result under this
Alternative would be reduced from that identified for the proposed project. The development of this
Alternative would result in the creation of approximately 435 jobs, which may result in increase to the
City's population; however, this increase is consistent with local and regional growth projections. The
increase in population would increase the need of public services and recreation, beyond the Project. This
Alternative would increase the amount of water needed to serve the project site; it would also increase the
amount of wastewater and solid waste that would be generated. However, there is sufficient capacity at
these facilities and impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the Project. The reduction in
vehicle trips associated with this Alternative result in a proportional reduction in impacts to the operation
of local roadways and intersections and would be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the
exception of the Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road intersection. Impacts to the Mount Vernon
Avenue/Barton Road intersection and to freeway ramps would remain significant and unavoidable. Under
this Alternative, the magnitude of impacts is reduced, but the level of significance does not change from
that identified for the Project.
Supporting Explanation: Given that the amount of land to be developed under this Alternative
would equal that of the Project, it is reasonable that a similar mix of equipment would operate during
earthmoving and construction activities. Peak daily construction emissions would be below SCAQMD
thresholds of significance for NOX, PM,o, PM2.5, CO, ROG, and SOX. Additionally, compliance with
SCAQMD rules would ensure fugitive dust emissions do not exceed established SCAQMD daily
thresholds. Construction emissions from the development of this Alternative would be similar to the
proposed project resulting in a less than significant impact. Due to the nature of office uses, the Office
Park Alternative would generate 73 percent fewer trips than that of the Project, thereby reducing the
volume of each operational pollutant emitted during the operation of this Alternative. However, despite
this reduction, emissions of CO and NOX would continue to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds.
When compared to the Project, impacts to air quality would be marginally increased in magnitude. The
long-term air quality impacts resulting from this Alternative would continue to be significant and
.unavoidable(DEIR pp. 6-18).
Construction noise resulting from this Alternative would be generally similar to the Project.
Short-term noise impacts resulting from construction would be similar and remain less than significant.
Parking lot noise and mechanical ventilation noise would still occur under this Alternative; however,
operational noise associated with this Alternative is reduced in magnitude, and remains less than
significant. Due to the nature of an office park use project generated traffic would be reduced by 73
percent than that generated by the Project, and traffic-related noise would be lower than those of the
Project due to a decreased contribution of future traffic volumes. When compared with the Project, this
Alternative's contribution to future traffic noise would be reduced, thereby reducing overall mobile
source noise impacts within the area. Similar to the Project, noise impacts remain less than significant
similar with this Alternative (DEIR pp. 6-20).
Page 35 of 41
105
As stated, this Alternative would result in a 73 percent reduction of daily traffic. Although the
magnitude of daily traffic, and traffic volumes on nearby roads and intersections would be reduced,
mitigation would still be required similar to that required by the Project. However, similar to the Project,
impacts to level of service at the intersection of Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road and freeway
segments (due to uncertainty of whether improvements would be in place when uses become operational)
would remain significant and unavoidable under this Alternative (DEIR pp. 6-21).
This Alternative would directly create up to 435 jobs, which may require the employment of
persons in specialized fields. Persons from outside of the area may be required to relocate to Grand
Terrace to fill positions in the office space, resulting in a population increase in the City. Assuming that
25 percent of the jobs are filled by new residents approximately 109 persons are assumed to relocate to
the City resulting in a potential population increase of 310 persons (109 households x 2.844 persons per
household). In comparison, the number of new residents would be greater than that identified for the
Project; however, this growth would be consistent with the population projections for the City. Although
this Alternative would generate a greater increase in population, impacts related to population and
housing would remain less than significant(DEIR pp. 6-20).
The Office Park Alternative would generate substantially greater amounts wastewater (31,441
gpd) and solid waste (3,872 lb/day) than that of the Project (16,800 gpd and 1,851 lb/day, respectively).
When compared to the Project the magnitude of wastewater and solid waste is greater; however, there is
sufficient capacity at the wastewater treatment facility and receiving landfills so that a less than
significant impact would be created, and impacts remain the same.
The magnitude of water demand to serve this Alternative is greater than the Project. This
Alternative is estimated to use 56,742 gpd, as opposed to that of the project (27,123 gpd). However, like
the Project, development under this Alternative would be required to obtain verification from the water
purveyor that water is available to serve the development, meet water purveyor water service
requirements, and comply with state requirements regarding the use of water efficient landscaping. While
the magnitude of the water usage and water treatment/conveyance facilities would be greater when
compared to the Project, impacts would remain less than significant(DEIR pp.6-22).
Because of the increase in population, this Alternative would also result in increased demands for
park services and recreation. It would also put greater demands on schools, parks, law enforcement and
fire service protection in magnitudes greater than the Project. Even though these demands are increased,
impacts remain less than significant.
This Alternative would not preclude environmental impacts associated with development of the
site. Rather it results in a greater magnitude of impacts associated with population and housing, water
consumption, wastewater and solid waste generation,public services and recreation than the Project being
considered. However, these impacts can be mitigated to levels of insignificance. This Alternative does not
meet the project's objective of developing a commercial project that accommodates large and small
retailers offering a wide range of commercial goods or services. Therefore, the Office Park Alternative is
rejected.
D. Alternative 4—Alternate Location/Off-Site Alternative
Description: The Alternative project site identified is located on approximately 21 acres north of
Van Buren Street, west of Michigan Street, and east of I-215, approximately 0.33 mile southwest of the
proposed project site. The off-site location is currently designated as "General Commercial" and is zoned
*'Commercial Manufacturing" (CM). Permitted uses in the CM district include business support services,
communication services, public storage facilities, and other uses which are permitted in the C2 District;
Page 36 or41
10E
therefore, the commercial Project would be consistent and permitted at this off site location. The Off-Site
Location Alternative would result in the same level of development as the proposed project and would
consist of 209,611 square feet of commercial uses encompassing a major retailer, smaller retail pads, and
small shops.
Finding: With this Alternative, long-term air quality operational impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable and would result in similar conditions as identified for the Project. Because of
the similarity of vehicle trips achieved under this Alternative, impacts to the operation of local roadways
and the number of intersections would be the same as identified for the proposed project and mitigated to
a less than significant level, with the exception of the Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road intersection.
Similar to the project as well, impacts to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable as
well.
Because the Alternative does not fulfill the stated Project objectives, this Alternative is rejected as
infeasible.
Supporting Explanation: Under this Alternative the total amount of land to be graded would be
similar to that of the Project; and it is anticipated that a similar mix of equipment would operate during
earthmoving and construction activities on the project site. Peak daily construction emissions would be
below SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, ROCS, NOX, SO,, PM10, and PM".5. Like the Project,
this Alternative would generate the same amount of daily vehicle trips (8,996). Since the same amount of
development would occur under the Off-Site Location Alternative as with the Project, the volume of each
operational pollutant emitted during operation of this Alternative would be the same as that identified for
the Project. CO hot spot conditions are anticipated to be similar to the Project because the alternate site is
in the same general area as the Project site and shares common roadways. The long-term air quality
impacts resulting from this Alternative would still contribute criteria pollutants to a non-attainment air
basin. Therefore, like the Project, long-term air quality impacts associated with this Alternative would
continue to be significant and unavoidable(DEIR pp. 6-24).
Because this Alternative would generate the same amount of vehicle daily trips as the Project
volumes on nearby roads and intersections would be similarly affected. Impacts to LOS at nearby
intersections and roadway segments would still occur and would require mitigation. While significant
traffic impacts may occur under the Off-Site Location Alternative, these impacts would be mitigated to a
less than significant level in a mariner similar to those of the Project, with the exception of the Mount
Vernon Avenue/Barton Road intersection. Additionally, freeway segments are not under the jurisdiction
of the City and cannot be guaranteed to be in place when development under this Alternative would
become operational. Therefore,under this Alternative, impacts to the Mount Vernon Avenue/Barton Road•
intersection and freeway segments remain significant and unavoidable(DEIR pp. 6-28).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Alternate Location/Off Site Location Alternative would be
rejected in favor of the project as this Alternative would not reduce the significance of the impacts that
were identified for the Project.
SECTION 13
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the
Page 37 of 41
107
Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts are considered
"acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that
may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the
Draft EIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the unavoidable and
significant impacts as discussed in Sections 7 and 8 herein(Air Quality-long-term area source and mobile
source air pollution emissions, localized operational emissions, and cumulative impacts as to failure to
meet State and federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone, PM,o, and PM2.5, and global climate
change; and Traffic-Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Freeway) Traffic and Level of Service impacts,
and Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of Service Impacts at the
Intersection of Barton Road/Mount Vernon Avenue).
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate
or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended to the
City are not incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions
on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this
City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the
Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the Project objectives and/or
specific economic, social or other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental
benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental
effects of the Project, to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having
considered the entire administrative record on the Project and having weighed the benefits of the Project
against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the
social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable significant
impacts, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h), and render those potential significant
impacts acceptable based upon the following considerations:
1. The Project fulfills adopted General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions: The Project complies
with Land Use Element goals and polices to provide a wide range of retail, service
commercial, and employment opportunities; continued development of established
commercial areas, and the incorporation of increased setbacks, walls and landscaping
between commercial projects and other areas to reduce potential land use incompatibility. It
is consistent with the Circulation Element requiring preparation of a'traffic analysis prepared
in accordance with SANBAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines and requiring that peak hour level of service "D" be maintained,
and with policies because sufficient off street parking, bicycle racks and trellised pedestrian
walkways will be provided. The Project complies with the Open Space and Conservation
Element because mitigation measures have been incorporated requiring conservation of
energy resources in building design of Development Unit 1, and the Project will be required
to meet federal, state and local regulations governing grading, erosion control, water quality,
and cultural resources. It complies with Noise Element goals, policies and actions calling for
adherence to the Noise Ordinance during construction activities, and preparation of a noise
study during the CEQA process to determine potential impacts that could be generated by the
Project. Public services are being provided as required by the Public Services Element, and
Page 38 of 41
10E
the Project meets several goals polices and actions contained in the Sustainable Development
Element calling for energy conservation, recycling, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
2. The ultimate development of a commercial center on the primarily vacant 21-acre site will
result in the construction of approximately 209,000 square feet of commercial space,which in
turn will result in increase property tax values and generate increased sales tax revenues. The
increase of property tax and sales tax revenues will provide a social and economic benefit to
the City as these revenues will support the City's General Fund, which in turn supports City
programs and services that benefit the community.
3. The Southern California Association of Government has established a jobs-to-housing ratio
of 1.44 for the region,which means that to have a balanced jobs to housing ratio a jurisdiction
should have 1.44 jobs for every household. The City of Grand Terrace has a jobs-to-housing
ratio of 0.80, and is considered to be jobs poor. The Project will create approximately 208
permanent employment opportunities, which will have a positive social and economic effect
on the City's current jobs to housing ratio.
4. The improvement of the 21-acre master plan will result in an approximate 209,000 square
foot commercial center. The Project establishes site and architectural standards to ensure
architectural compatibility throughout the commercial center, and an integrated sign program
that complements the architectural theme, and designed in proportion to the commercial
center; thereby, providing a positive aesthetic effect in a highly visible corridor of the City.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval and implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental
impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR and, therefore,
finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 14
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the FEIR in evaluating the Project,
that the FEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the City after the circulation of the DEIR that would
require recirculation. All of the information added to the FEIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes
insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan is adequate and complete in that it
addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA,
CEQA Guidelines and City of Grand Terrace Local CEQA Guidelines for implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act. The Final Environmental Impact Report is composed of-
a. The backup file material for the Project;
b. The Notice of Preparation;
Page 39 of 41
109
c. The Initial Study and the studies it relies upon;
d. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated April 29, 2009;
e. The comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto;
f. The staff report for the public hearing before the City Council held on July 27, 2010;
g. The minutes of the hearing and all documentary and other testimonial evidence submitted
thereat;
h. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof, and
i. The Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A. Findings
1. CEQA Compliance: As the decision-making body for the Project, the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting
documentation. The City Council determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate reporting
of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project.The City Council finds
that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council has complied with
CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements.
2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency: The City retained the independent
consulting firm of LSA Associates, Inc. to prepare the EIR for the Project. The EIR was prepared under
the supervision and directions of the City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development
Department staff. The City Council is the final decision making body for the entitlements listed below.
The City Council has received and reviewed the FEIR prior to certifying the FEIR and prior to making
any decision to approve or disapprove the Project.
Finding: The FEIR reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised
independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its
own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the FEIR as well as reviewing,
analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.
3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts/Statement of Overriding Considerations:
The Project would have significant adverse impacts even following adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures which are required by the City Council. The following significant environmental impacts have
been identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and would require mitigation but cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in Sections 7 and 8 of these Findings: Air Quality-long-
term area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, localized operational emissions, and
cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone, PM,o,
and PM21.5,and global climate change; and Traffic-Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Freeway) Traffic
and Level of Service impacts, and Year 2030 With Project Conditions (Intersection) Traffic and Level of
Service Impacts at the Intersection of Barton Road/Mount Vernon Avenue). The Project has eliminated or
substantially reduced environmental impacts where feasible as described in the Findings, and the City
Council determines that the remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts are acceptable due to the
reasons set forth to the preceding Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Conclusions:
Page 40 of 41
111
1. All potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation
of the Project have been identified in the FEIR and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures
defined herein and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (also referred to as the
Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program), will be mitigation to a less-than-significant level.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve
the basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project
or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
SECTION 15
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the event of inconsistencies between
the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 16
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which these
Findings have been based are located at the City of Grand Terrace. The custodian for these records is the
City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. This information is provided in compliance with Public
T Resources Code section 21081.6.
Page 41 of 41
111
Attachment 12
Resolution Approving SA 07-12/TSMDP, SA 07-07, Master Development Sign
Program 09-01, and Sign Program— Development Unit 1
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE APPROVING-SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL'REVIEW 07-12
(GRAND TERRACE TOWN SQUARE MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLAN ("TSMDP"), MASTER SIGN PROGRAM 09-01, SITE AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 07-07 AND SIGN PROGRAM PLANS
FOR DEVELOPMENT UNIT 1 OF THE TSMDP ("PROJECT"),
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BARTON ROAD BETWEEN
_ MICHIGAN STREET AND THE GAGE CANAL ZONED BRSP-
GENERAL COMMERCIAL; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY,. COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 08-01
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17787)
WHEREAS, Grand Terrace Jacobsen Family Holdings I; LLC ("Applicant"), represented
by Douglas Jacobsen, has submitted applications to establish the Grand Terrace Town Square
Master Development ("TSMDP") on approximately 21 acres of land located within Planning Area
1 of the Barton Road Specific Plan ("BRSP").' The project site is zoned General Commercial
within the BRSP, and is located on the south side of Barton Road between Michigan Street and the
Gage Canal (the "Property").
WHEREAS, the TSMDP proposes development in five Development Units that
correspond to five development phases: Development Unit 1 is proposed on 7.5 acres consisting
of approximately 65,737 square feet of buildable area; Development Unit 2 is proposed on 4.5
acres with a maximum buildable area of 58,858 square feet; Development Unit 3 is proposed on
5.0 acres with a maximum buildable area of 33,977 square feet; Development Unit 4 is proposed
on 2.0 acres with a maximum buildable area of 20,700 square feet; and Development Unit 5 is
proposed on 2.0 acres with a maximum building area of 20,177 square feet.
WHEREAS, the BRSP is implemented primarily through the Site and, Architectural
Review process,set forth in Chapter 18.63 of the Municipal Code. The TSMDP and related
approvals (the Master Sign Program and approvals for specific individual phases of development
,within the TSMDP) are approved through the Site and Architectural Review process, and any
other entitlement that may be required.
WHEREAS, Site and Architectural Review 07-12 consisting of the TSMDP, and Master
Sign Program 09-01 for the TSMDP, Site and Architectural Review 07-07 for Development
Unit 1, which includes site and architectural plans, consisting of 65,737 square feet of building
area on 7.67 acres, associated parking, landscaping, and lighting andestablishment of a sign
program (collectively, the "Project"); together with Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (Tentative Parcel
Map No.- 17787), and a draft Development Agreement to govern the TSMDP over the live phases
have been submitted. -
Page l of 11
113
i
i
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, 14
Cal. Code of Regulations Sections 15080 et seq., the environmental assessment of the proposed
Project made under Environmental Review Case No 07-06 required the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), focusing in the areas of Noise, 'Air Quality, Cultural
Resources and Traffic/Transportation.
WHEREAS,,a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and Initial Study identifying the scope of
environmental issues were distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and
organizations on July 3, 2008, for a period of 30 days, concluding on August 4, 2008, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375, and which were subsequently revised and
re-distributed'to numerous state,, federal, and local agencies and organizations on January 30,
2009, for a period of 30 days, concluding on March 2, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375.
WHEREAS, public scoping meetings were held on July 15, 2008, and on February 17,
2009, at the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers and input from the public providing
direction and scope of the EIR was received and has been included in the Draft EIR.
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared, under contract with the City, by LSA Associates,
LLC, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of CEQA. All i potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was
circulated to interested agencies and the public between April 30, 2009 and June 15, 2009, for a
45-day comment period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15078. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21092, the City provided notice to all organizations and individuals, and -
published the Notice of Availability in The San Bernardino County Sun newspaper on April 30,
2009.
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was distributed to all persons and agencies that commented on
the Draft EIR on July 12, 2010, in accordance with Public Resources CodeiSection 21092.5. The
Final EIR includes responses to the Draft EIR comment letters, in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088. Notice of the availability of the Final EIR was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun newspaper on July 5, 2010. Copies of the Draft and Final EIR are on file
in the office of the City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department.
WHEREAS, under the CEQA Guidelines, Section. 15080 et seq:, the -environmental
assessment of the Project required the preparation of a Final EIR, which concluded with the
appropriate Environmental Findings.
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the Project at the Grand Terrace Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road,
Grand Terrace, California 92313 and concluded the hearing on said date by voting for approval of
the Project.
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2010 the City Council conducted a dulyi noticed public hearing
on Site and Architectural Review 07-12 consisting of the TSMDP, Master Sign Program 09-01 for
the TSMDP Site and Architectural Review 07-07 and Sign Program Development Unit 1,
Page 2 of l 1
11�
Tentative Parcel Map 08-01 (TPM No. 17787), and Environmental Review 07-06 at the Grand
Terrace Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California 92313 and
concluded the hearing on said date.
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace:
_ 1. Pursuant to Chapter 18. 63 of the Municipal Code, the City Council has reviewed and
lapproves Site and Architectural Review 07-12 consisting of the TSMDP, Master Sign
Program 09-01 for the TSMDP, Site and Architectural Review 07-07, which includes site
and architectural plans for Development Unit I of the TSMDP consisting of 65,737 square
feet of building area on 7.67 .acres, associated parking, landscaping, and lighting and
establishment of a Sign Program for Development Unit 1, as follows:
a. The TSMDP and Development Unit i are consistent with the intent of the Grand
Terrace Municipal Code, Grand Terrace General Plan ("General Plan"), and the
Barton Road Specific Plan ("BRSP"). The site is designated in the General Plan as
General Commercial ("GC") and as BRSP-GC in the BRSP. The General Plan
states that the General Commercial designation provides for general commercial
uses to serve the retail and service needs of the community.,The proposed TSMDP
is a neighborhood commercial center and its anticipated land uses (grocery market,
retail, fast food) are consistent with the General Commercial Land Use designation.
SA 07-07, which implements Development Unit 1 is consistent with the GC
t-=` designation because it proposes approximately 65,737 square feet of retail and
commercial uses including a full service grocery store (Stater Bros.), food service,,
retail and commercial uses.
The Project complies with Land Use Element goals and polices to provide a wide
range of retail, service commercial, and employment opportunities; continued
development of established commercial areas, and the incorporation of-increased
setbacks, walls and landscaping between commercial projects and other areas to
reduce potential land use incompatibility. ' It is consistent with the Circulation
Element requiring preparation. of a traffic analysis prepared in accordance with
-SANBAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Guidelines and requiring that peak hour level of service "D" be maintained, and
with policies because sufficient off street parking, bicycle racks and trellised
pedestrian walkways will be provided. The Project complies with the Open Space
and.Conservation Element because mitigation measures have been incorporated
requiring conservation of energy resources in building design of Development Unit
1, and the Project will be required- to meet federal, state and local regulations
governing grading, erosion control, water quality, and cultural resources. It
complies with Noise Element goals, policies and actions calling for adherence to
the Noise Ordinance during construction activities, and preparation of a noise study
during the CEQA process to determine potential impacts that could he generated by
the Project. Public services are being provided as required by the Public Services
Page 3 of 11
115
Element, and the Project meets several goals polices and actions contained in the
Sustainable Development Element calling for energy conservation, recycling,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
b. The Project site is zoned BSRP-General Commercial The BSRP-General
Commercial zoning designation is intended to provide a wide variety of uses that
typically include supermarkets, drug stores, variety stores, apparel shops, appliance
and furniture stores, restaurants and commercial recreation uses. The TSMDP has
been prepared in conformance with the BRSP which requires the preparation of a
master plan. TSMDP master plans approximately 21 acres and at build out would
allow for development of up to 209,611 square feet of building area over five
Development Units that correspond to five development phases: The TSMDP is
consistent with the intended and permitted uses and development standards of the
BRSP-General Commercial zone district.
C. In accordance with the provisions of the BRSP, the TSMDP also includes
development incentives, which the Planning Commission granted on July 15, 2010,
based on the merits of the project. Project merits that-warrant development
incentives include lot. consolidation, reduced access points, reciprocal access
agreements, reciprocal parking agreements, and provision of public or semi-public
open space. The Project includes all of these features and therefore, is allowed
development incentives. Within Development Unit 1, !SA 07-07 is granted
development incentives to allow light standards for the Stater Bros. market parking
fields to be constructed at a height of thirty (35) feet,,and to allow Driveway No. 1
to have a driveway queuing depth of twenty feet.
d. The TSMDP is approved through Master SA 07-12 and will develop in phases as
set forth in the TSMDP and related phasing plan. Each of the five development
units will be subject to Site and Architectural Review for consistency with the
TSMDP and Chapter 18.63 of the Municipal Code.
e. The location and configuration of all structures associated with the Project are
visually harmonious with the Property, the BRSP, and surrounding properties and
structures, and do not interfere with the privacy of neighbors or unnecessarily block
scenic -views from other structures and/or_ public .areas and are in scale with the
townscape and natural landscape of the area. The TSMDP- contains site and
architectural standards, such as architectural compatibility internal to the shopping
center, landscaping requirements, and building setback if to ensure a visually
harmonious Project. Further, within Development Unit 1, Major A Tenant (Stater
Bros.) and Shops I are located between 37 to 86 feet from the south property line,
which is greater than the minimum required setback of 10', feet providing greater
separation between the Project and residential uses.. Additionally, a solid wall
measuring 6 feet on the outside with enhanced landscaping will be installed to
provide greater buffering between the commercial and residential uses. The
proposed buildings are consistent with the height limitations of the BRSP, with the
exception of the front tower treatments oil the Major Tenant building, whskh
exceeds the BRSP requirement by 5 feet. Because the tower treatment is at the
Page 4 of I I
11E
front of the building, it is not likely to impact residential uses to the rear. Retail 1 is
located 10 feet from the property line of an existing residence to the east of
Development Unit 1, which is in conformance with required setbacks.
f. The architectural design of the structures, their materials ,and colors are visually
harmonious with surrounding development, natural landforms, are functional for
the proposed Project and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code
and BRSP. The TSMDP establishes a uniformed architectural theme for the master
plan area. The The use of stucco 's permissible when surfaces are articulated to
provide visual interest. The BRSP encourages building architecture with rich .
surfaces and/or textures, that articulates with the use of insets, trellises, and
articulation of wall planes. The structures are proposed to have a stucco finish with
the incorporation•of a ledger stone, variation in building wall planes, the use of
trellises, and insets. , The building colors and materials are consistent with the
BRSP. The buildings proposed in Development Unit 1 •(SA 07-07) have been
designed in conformance with the architectural-theme established for the TSMDP.
g. The TSMDP plans for landscaping and open spaces provides a functional and
visually pleasing setting for the structures on this site and is harmonious with the
natural landscape of the area and'nearby developments. In accordance with the
Municipal Code, BRSP and TSMDP the site design for Development Unit 1
incorporates,perimeter and parking lot landscaping. Enhanced landscaping is
provided ,'along the south boundary adjacent to residential uses. Proposed
landscaping for Development Unit I exceeds.the minimum coverage required by
the BRSP. Landscaping provided will be visually pleasing, functional and in
keeping with adjacent developments.
h. There will be no indiscriminate clearing of property, destruction of trees or natural
vegetation, or excessive and unsightly-grading of hillsides in connection with the
development of the Project; thus the natural beauty of the City, the Project setting
and natural landforms are preserved. Grading is limited to that necessary to
establish building pads and meet accessibility requirements.
i. The design and location of all signs associated with this project are consistent with
the"scale and character of the buildings to which they are attached or otherwise-
asso'ciated with and are consistent with the provisions of the BRSP and the City's
Municipal Code. The Master Sign Program sign program has been prepared in
accordance with the BRSP, to ensure consistency and aesthetic cohesiveness of
signage throughout the TSMDP and each Development Unit (Phase) of Project
development. The signage for the Project is consistent with the Master Sign
Program.
j. Conditions of approval for this Project necessary to secure the purposes of the
BRSP and the,Municipal Code have been applied to the Project.
Page 5 of l l
117
k. In accordance with the BRSP, the Project qualifies for development incentives
because the tnerits of the Project include lot consolidation, reduced access points,
reciprocal access agreements, reciprocal parking agreements,,provision of public or
semi-public open space, enhanced parking lot landscaping and a cohesive
architectural theme. Therefore the Bonus Incentive Points Program contained in
Exhibit 3, attached hereto, is adopted.
2. The City Council approves Master Sign Program 09-01 and Sign Program - Development
Unit 1, subject to the requirement that the sign area of the proposed Freeway Sign is
reduced from six hundred and forty (640) square feet to a total not to exceed four hundred
and ninety seven (497) square feet in sign area and based on the following findings:
a. The Master Sign Program exceeds the maximum requirements of the BRSP in
terms of number of freestanding signs, number of wall signs, and sign area.
However, pursuant to the provisions of the BRSP, the Planning Commission has
the authority to allow deviations from the sign ordinance to approve creative and
innovative sign programs or sign solutions under exceptional or unusual
circumstances, which the Planning Commission granted on July 15, 2010. As such,
the Master Sign Program provides a uniform, integrated design within the TSMDP
that complements the architectural theme established by the TSMDP.
b. The Master Sign Program achieves the goals and objectives of the BRSP, and
provides a creative and innovative sign program that achieves a cohesive design
and tenant identification for a major commercial center.
C. When considered in light of the comprehensive scale and integrated architectural
design of the commercial center provided by buildout of the TSMDP, the Master
Sign Program and Sign Program — Development Unit I represent a creative and
innovative design which consolidates tenant recognition on a scale designed to
inform the motoring public and achieve immediate recognition of the businesses
within the commercial center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project (SA 07-12 for the TSMDP, Master Sign
Program 09-01, SA 07-07 and Development Unit 1 — Sign Program) are hereby approved subject
to certification of the Final EIR and subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The TSMDP, Master Sign Program 09-01, Site and Architectural Review 07-07, which
includes site and architectural plans, and the sign program for Development Unit 1 of the
TSMDP consisting of 65,737 square feet of building area on 7.67 acres are approved
based on the application and application materials submitted by Grand Terrace Jacobsen
Family Holdings I, LLC, including the TSMDP, Master Sign program, site plan,
preliminary grading plan, building elevations, color and materials board and sign program
submitted for Development Unit 1. All plans shall be consistent in terms of property
lines, easement location and dimensions and other measurements. This approval includes
the operation of a 43.178 square toot Stater Bros. market. 8,350 square toot Shops I,
Page 6 of I 1
11f
6,816 Retail I and 3,853 square foot Fast Food 1 buildings, and all associated
landscaping, lighting, parking, and landscaping.
2. This approval shall expire one year from the date of adoption, unless one of the following
actions occurs: (a) the applicant applies for a building permit and commits substantial
investment in ,accordance with the approved plans prior to the expiration date; (b) a
business license is issued in accordance with City ordinances, .as applicable; or (c) the
applicant has complied with all applicable conditions of approval. If the applicant has not
complied with subsections (a), (b) or (c) prior to expiration of the Site and Architectural
Review approval, the applicant shall apply for an extension of the one-year prior to the
` expiration date. The Community and Economic Director may upon application by the
applicant, extend the period of approval for a length of time up to one year, in accordance
with Section 18.63.100 of the City's Municipal Code. Time extensions shall be filed at
least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.
3. Approval of the Project shall not be effective unless and until, the City Council certifies
the Final EIR prepared for the Project and approves Tentative Parcel Map 08-01
(Tentative Parcel Map No.17787).
4. The Applicant shall defend, with legal counsel acceptable.to the City, which acceptance
shall not be unreasonably withheld, and indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against
the City, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any aspect of
this approval, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the
Planning Commission or City Council, which action,is brought within the time period
L provided,for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly notify the
Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning this approval and the'City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the claim, action or proceeding. The City'reserves the
right,, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.
5: The Project shall be constructed in accordance with all the approved plans and conditions
of approval, including but not limited to site plans, grading plans, drainage plans,
landscape plans, wall-plans, and building elevations.
6. The. Applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees, and demonstrate the
payment of applicable school impact 'fees,to the Building and Safety Department, prior to
issuance of building permits.
7. Construction and operational activities associated with the Project shall comply with the
regulations of the City's Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.108 of the Grand Terrace Municipal
Code.
8. Upon approval of these conditions and prior to becoming final and binding, the Applicant
must sign and return an "Acceptance of Conditions" form. The form and content shall be
prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department.
Page 7 of 11
119
9. The applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval of the Director of Building
and Safety/Public Works, contained in the Director's memorandum dated July 6, 2010,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
10. The applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval of the San Bernardino
County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal Community Safety Division, set
forth in the letter dated August 14, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
11. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan prepared for the
Project, and contained within the Final EIR certified for the Grand Terrace Town Square
Master Development Plan.
12. The location and method of screening for all roof-mounted and building-mounted
equipment shall be demonstrated on the elevations, including but not limited to kitchen
exhaust vents, air conditioning and heating units, and utility boxes. All equipment shall
be screened from public view and designed to be an integral component of the building
design. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from public view by parapet walls
or other architectural means. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Community and Economic Development Director that no roof-mounted equipment will
be visible from the public right-of-way. Screening shall be compatible with main
structures and include landscaping where appropriate.
13. All ground mounted equipment, including utility boxes and backflow devices shall
comply with all utility and Fire Department requirements and be screened in a manner
that does not impede traffic visibility.
14. The location of all building-mounted light fixtures shall be shown on the elevations. The
decorative lighting features shown on Major Tenant A elevations shall be carried forward
into future phases within TSMDP, for overall Project consistency.
15. As part of the permit process and prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant
shall submit three (3) copies of a final photometric plan to the Building and Safety
Division for review and approval by the Community and Economic Development
Department. Perimeter light poles within Development Unit 1 shall not exceed 18 feet in
height; and the height of light poles within the Stater Bros. parking fields shall not exceed
35 feet. The photometric plan shall include location, details of all lighting fixtures and
luminaries, and shall demonstrate compliance with the Zoning Code and this approval.
16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of
final landscape and irrigation plans to the Building and Safety Department for review and
approval. These plans shall demonstrate compliance with the design requirements
contained in the Barton Road Specific Plan, Zoning Code, and TSMDP.
17. Parking stalls adjacent to street frontages shall be screened through the use of a
combination of a low profile wall, and/or enhanced landscape material.
18. All perimeter walls. retaining walls, and trash enclosures walls shall be decorative, which
may include the incorporation or combination of stucco, split-face hlock, stone veneer
Page 8 of I I.
12(
and/or other materials that match the colors and materials of the project. Wall details shall
be shown on the construction plans.
19. Loading and unloading delivery activities by tractor trailers shall be prohibited from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
20. The applicant shall prepare Covenants, Conditions, and, Restrictions (CC&R's) for the
commercial center and submit the CC&R's to the City for review and approval. The
CC&R's shall include provisions shared access and parking within and -between
Development Units 1, 2 and 4 and shall include -provisions for the maintenance of
common area improvements including landscaping, perimeter fencing, infrastructure
improvements, and parking areas; and structural BMP's identified in the WQMP.
21. Routine maintenance activities, including parking lot cleaning, shall be prohibited
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and are prohibited from occurring on the
south side (rear) of the site, behind the Stater Bros. Market, Shops 1, and any buildings in
any of the other Development Units that align with these buildings between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
22. Prior to initiation of business activities and opening of the business to the general public,
the applicant shall obtain a Business License from-the Finance Division, which shall be
maintained as Tong as the business is in operation.
23. In accordance with the CC&R's, the responsiblee-party shall be responsible for regular and
ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the site, including parking lot paving condition and
striping, clearing of trash, weeds and debris, lighting, landscaping, including parkway
landscaping, and other site improvements. All parking facilities shall be maintained in
good condition. The maintenance thereof may include, but shall not be limited to the
repaving, sealing, and striping of a parking area and the repair, restoration and/or
replacement of any parking area design features when deemed necessary by the City to
insure the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
24. Decorative paving, or other decorative material such as stamped color concrete, shall be
installed at project entrances.
'25., Provide bicycle parking-facilities/racks that can serve a minimum.of-10-bicycles-spaces.
Bicycle racks shall be interspersed throughout the site so that all phases are served.
26. Signage within the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Master,
Sign Program, as it may be modified by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
27. Exterior security cameras shall be installed at the rear of the project and monitored by the
business owner.
28. Additional variation in building wall and roof planes shall be incorporated into the
architecture of the Fast Food elevations and south side of the Stater Bros. building to add
interest and help to break up building mass, subject to the review and approval of the
Community and Economic Development Director.
Page 9 of 11
121
29. The menu boards shall be screened from the public right of way through the use of
landscaping, garden walls, and/or similar features, subject to ';the approval of the
Community and Economic Development Director. The height of the landscaping shall not
obstruct windows.
30. During all project site excavation and grading on site, the project contractors shall equip
all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating mufflers consistent
with manufacturers' standards.
31. The construction contractor shall stage construction equipment and material storage a _
minimum of one hundred (100) feet from any existing off site structures and a minimum
of fifty (50) feet from property lines.
32. During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all
construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activities are
allowed on Sundays and federal holidays except for emergencies, and/or subject to
approval by the Building Official, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
33. Pursuant to the approved Master Development Sign Program a maximum of twelve (12)
freestanding signs shall be permitted. The base of all freestanding signs shall incorporate
a landscape planter area to screen the pedestals.
34. In the event that the Gage Canal is constructed as public cul-de-sac to provide access to
the commercial center, two (2) additional signs will be considered under a separate
permit, as depicted in the Master Development Sign Program.
35. The proposed Freeway Sign shall be revised to reduce the sign area from six hundred and
forty (640) square feet to a maximum sign area of four hundred and ninety-seven (497)
square feet.
36. Prior to the installation of any signs, a sign permit shall be obtained. The Community and
Economic Development Director shall limit review of the sign permit, to whether signs
are consistent with the provisions of the adopted Master Sign Program and Sign Program
for any Development Unit. If signs are consistent with the Master Sign Program and
applicable Development Unit Sign Program, the sign permit shall be approved.
37. The Town Square Master Development Plan, Development Unit, 1 and all subsequent
Development Units shall be subject to the Bonus Incentive Points Program attached
hereto as Exhibit 3.
i
38. Lighted signage shall not be permitted on the south side of any building within one
hundred (100) feet of the south property line.
i
,
Page 10 of I 1
12;
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a
regular meeting held on the 27th day of July, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa Maryetta Ferre
City Clerk Mayor
Page 1 l of 11
123
Building and Safety/Public Works Department
Conditions of Approval
Date: July 6, 2010
Applicant: Grand Terrace Jacobsen Family Holdings, I,LLC
Project: Town Square Master Development Plan and
TPM 17787, Site and Architectural Review No. 07-07.
W.O. # 12-8.5459
Public Works/EnFineerinz First Plan Review for Tentative Parcel Man A'pnroval
The following documents are required to be submitted to Public Works Department and are in
addition to the plans submitted to the Planning Department.
(1) Grant Deed showing all recorded easements.
(4) Water/Utility Plans.
(4) Sewer Plans or connections to existing sewer.
(4) Storm drain/drainage improvement plans.
(4) Dedication of right-of--way for Michigan Street indicated on TPM 17787.
(4) Street improvement plans, Michigan Street and Barton Road.
(4) TPM 17787.
Building and Safety Submittals for Plan Review and Issuance of Building Permits.
The following documents were received and determined to be complete for the purpose of plan
review submittals. Items (1-11) have been submitted for plan review; of the proposed Stater
Brothers Market. The remaining items (12-16)have been submitted by NA Associates.
1. (4) Architectural Plans,
2. (4) Structural Plans,
3. (2) Structural Calculations,
4. (4) Plot/Site Plans,
5. (4) Electrical Plans,
6. (4) Electrical Load Calculations
7. (4) Plumbing Plans/Isometrics, Water, Sewer and Gas
8. (4) Mechanical Plans
9. (4) Mechanical Duct Layout Plans
10. (2) Roof and or Floor Truss Plans
11. (2) Title 24 Energy Calculations
12. (4) Rough Grading and Precise Grading Plans
13. (2) Water Quality Management Plan, (WQMP) and Erosion Control Plan
14. (2) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, (SWPPP)
15. (2) Hydrology Reports
16. (2) Soils Reports
121
1 4bV lr Vl
Buildinr.& Safety/Public Works General Information
All structures shall be .designed in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007
California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Plumbing Code, and the 2007 California Electrical
Code adopted by the State of California and the City of Grand Terrace.
All work performed in the-public right-of-way shall comply with San Bernardino County Public
Works Standards and'Specification for Construction within Public Right of Way. Street cut deposits
($1,000.00)are required for each street cut in City streets.
The Developer/Owner.is'responsible for coordination of the final occupancy. The Developer/Owner
shall obtain clearances from each City department and division as required, prior to requesting a
final building inspection from Building & Safety. Each City agency shall sign the bottom of the
Building and Safety Job Card as indicated.
Building and Safety inspection requests and Public Works inspection requests can be made twenty
four (24) hours in advance for next day inspection. Please contact (909) 825-3825. The
Developer/Owner may also request inspections at the Building & Safety public counter.
The entire construction site shall be protected by a chain link fence behind the sidewalk at the
public right-of-way. The fencing shall be maintained at all times during construction. Fencing can
be removed to perform the on-site common area improvements. (2007 California Building Code,
Chapter 33, Section 3306.1 and 2).
Toilet facilities shall be provided for construction workers on the site. The toilet facilities shall be
maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. Construction toilet facilities of the non-sewer type
shall conform at ANSI ZA.3.
Prior to the issuance-of building permits, all construction materials which are not used shall be
recycled pursuant to Ordinance No. 243, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition
Waste. Prior to commencement of building construction, every applicant shall submit a properly
completed "Waste Management Plan" (WMP) to the WMP Compliance Official in a form as
prescribed by that Official. The completed WMP shall contain the following:
A. The square footage of the proposed project;
B. The estimated weight of project waste to be generated by materials type;-
C. The maximum weight of such materials that can feasibly be diverted via Reuse or Recycling by
materials type;
D. The facility(s)that the materials will be hauled to and their expected diversion rates by material
type;
E. The vendors(s) that the applicant proposes to use to haul the materials. _
F. Estimated weight of construction and demolition waste that will be disposed.
Construction projects which require temporary electrical power shall obtain an Electrical Permit
from Building & Safety. No temporary electrical power will be granted to a project unless one of
the following items is in place and approved by the Building & Safety and the Community
Development Departments.
A. Installation of a construction trailer, or
125
B. Security fenced area where the electrical power will be located.
Installation of construction/sales trailers must be located on private property. No trailers of any
type shall be located in the public street right-of-way.
i
Building Permit Conditions
1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, receipts from the Regional Water Board shall be
submitted showing that all Regional Water Board fees have been paid.
2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, copies of encroachment agreements shall be submitted
from all affected adjacent properties consistent with the contours on the grading plans. _
3. No flammable materials will be allowed on the site until the on-site'water service is installed
and approved by the Riverside Highland Water Company. On site fire hydrants shall be
installed and active prior to occupancy of any structures, and approved by the Fire
Department and Riverside Highland Water Company.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, pad certifications shall be submitted to Building &
Safety. The pad certifications shall be wet stamped by the engineer of record. Prior to
concrete placement, an engineer's certification shall be' submitted for the finish floor
elevation and set backs of the buildings. The certification shall reflect that the structure is in
conformance with the Precise Grading Plans. Compaction reports shall accompany pad
certifications.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, a school fee certificate from'the Colton Joint Unified
School District shall be submitted showing that all applicable school fees have been paid.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Will Service Letter from Riverside Highland Water
Company shall be submitted on file with Building& Safety, Contact(909) 825-4128.
Public Works Conditions
i
1. As a condition of issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the following
applicable development impact and or connection capacity fees as required by the City
ordinance as set forth in any applicable Development Agreement.
a. Storm Drainage Facility Fees
b. General Facilities Fees
c. Parkland and Open Space Acquisition Fees
d. Circulation Impact Fee
e. Arterial Improvement Fees
f. Sewer Hook-Up Fees
2. All on site utilities shall be underground in accordance with applicable City Standards.
Street cut permits are required prior to commencing work in the City,'s right of way.
121
I ar\+ 'f V1 Y
3. A Street cut deposit will be collected at the time a public works permit is issued for any
work in the City's right-of-way, and held by the City for two years in accordance with
Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08, Section, 12.08.080.
4. All required public street improvements shall be designed by persons registered and licensed
pursuant to the Business and Professions Code.
Street light locations shall be shown on site plans. Coordinate with Southern California
Edison to install (1) one 5800 Watt, LS-1, street light in accordance with approved site plans
on Michigan Street south of Driveway Number 5, and deposit one year energy cost for the
street light in the amount of $105.00 to the City of Grand Terrace. Street lights shall be
installed in accordance with approved site plans which have been submitted to Southern
- California Edison for review.
5. Underground retention and filtration areas shall be provided for the site, in accordance with
approved drainage improvement plans, in connection with the construction of Development
Unit 1. Storm flows may be retained in a retention area designed for such flows as
indicated on the approved drainage improvement plans. Drainage improvement plans which
indicate retention and filtration areas shall be submitted to Building and Safety with grading
plans for approval.
6. Preliminary plans have been submitted for review of the retention areas for storm water
flows with the intent to retain all storm flows on-site.
7. The project applicant or his designee shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for
construction of all frontage improvements along Barton Road, including the design and
constriction of the proposed traffic signal at Project Driveway No. 2, in conformance with
applicable City standards and specifications. The project applicant or his designee shall be
eligible for reimbursement of fair share contributions from future development based on fair
share studies which the City shall make a condition of development of other projects which
benefit from the Barton Road improvements and the traffic signal. Design and construction
plans for the subject signal and associated street improvements shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City. No deceleration lanes will be required for the project driveways
as part of Phase 1 improvements, but may be considered for future phases of development.
Improvements to Barton Road shall include an 8-foot wide bus turnout located between
Vivienda Avenue and Project Driveway No. 1, or as approved by the Public Works Director.
8. The applicant or his designee shall be responsible, at its sole expense, for constructing
partial width frontage improvements on Michigan Street as a Secondary Highway, in
conformance with applicable City standards and specifications. Improvements shall include
curb and gutter and a temporary transition/taper area on the northbound approach of
Michigan Street, as well as any necessary utility relocation. The applicant or his designee
shall be eligible for reimbursement of the fair share conditions from future development,
based on fair share studies which the City shall make a condition of development of other
projects which benefit from the Michigan Street improvement and utility relocation unless
other arrangements for street improvements are made.
127
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT �`y. PUBLIC AND SUPPI
SERVICES GROUP
`1
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL ; �,.� PAT A.DENNEN
Community Safety Division Fire Chief
620 South"E"Street—San Bernardino,CA 92415-0179 \ County Fire Warden
(909)386-8465-(909)386-8463-(909)386-8466
Fax(909) 386-8460
AUGUST 14,2008 EXPIRATION:AUGUST 2010
f
GRAND TERRACE TOWN SQUARE
I
FILE: SPR GTO8128925
LOCATION: BARTON & MICHIGAN-GRAND TERRACE
PROJECT TYPE: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TOWN SQUARE PROJECT
NUMBER OF LOTS(if applicable): NIA
APN: 1167-231-12, -13, -15, -03, -21 &-09
PLANNER INDEX: SA 07-07,'TPM 08-01 !
PLANNER: SANDRA MOLINA
Dear Applicant:
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the San Bernardino County Fire
Department requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordance with applicable local
ordinances, codes, and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The following information of this document sets forth the FIRE CONDITIONS and STANDARDS of which are applied
to this project.
i
I -
FIRE CONDITIONS:
I
Jurisdiction. The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department _
herein ("Fire Department"). Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire
Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current
Uniform Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances and standards of the Fire
Department. [F-1]
Additional Requirements. In addition to the Fire requirements stated herein, other on site and off site improvements
may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to be reviewed after
more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to this office. [F-1a]
Fire Equipment - Agreement/Surety. The applicant shall execute an agreement with the County of San
Bernardino, (if applicable-San Bemardino County Redevelopment Agency the Fire Department, to ensure that
ali fire equipment necessary to serve the project is available when necessary or the applicant may submit surety.in a
form and amount acceptable to County Counsel and the Fire Chief. [F-7] I
Access Requirements. The applicant shall submit emergency/evacuation road access Iplans to the Fire Department
for review and approval. These plans shall include: (check all that apply). [F-9]
Primary Access Route. The plan shall show all planned road widening with minimum widths of twenty-six
a feet (26') unobstructed [FS1/FS2/FS3 NO shoulder parking allowed, with an unobstructed vertical
clearance of no less than 14 feet 6 inches(14' 6"), and with grades not exceeding twelve percent(12
❑ Secondary Access Route. The plan shall show all planned toad widening with minimum widths of twenty
feet (20') unobstructed, with NO shoulder parking allowed, with an unobstructed vertical clearance of no
less than 14 feet 6 inches(14' 6"), and with grades not exceeding twelve percent(12
i
121
JrMAX 1 V0/160VIC0
AUGUST 14, 2008
PAGE 2
❑ Road Width Variance/Turnouts. The plan shall show required turnouts as mitigation for the requested
variance to allow road widths to.'be no less than I feet in width and for lengths not exceeding
feet, in lieu of the required minimum width of (26) feet,for primary access and twenty feet,(20) for
secondary access]. The turnouts shall be a minimum 6 feet wide and 40 feet long and shall be installed
approximately every six hundred (600) feet along the reduced segment of the roadway. These turnouts are
,to be designed, spaced and constructed as determined by the Fire Department. The turnouts are to be
located at all fire hydrants and at any other point determined necessary for fire protection or other
emergency response purpose.
�,. ❑ Planned width and location of all internal access drives and parking areas.
❑ Written verification of legal access to the project site (and each phase) from the County
maintained road for both the-primary and secondary access routes.
❑ Other (list)
Fire Fee. The required fire fees (currently $802.00) shall be paid to the San Bernardino County Fire
Department/Community Safety Division (909) 386-8465. This fee is in addition to fire fees that are paid to the San
Bernardino County Land Use Services Department. [F-40]
Access. The development shall have a minimum of 2 points of vehicular access. These are for fire/emergency
equipment access and for evacuation routes. Standard 902.2.1 [F-41]
Single Story Road Access Width:
{v; All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys and private drives with a minimum twenty six(26)
foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14)feet six(6) inches in height. Other recognized standards may
be more restrictive by requiring wider access provisions.
Multi-Story Road Access Width:
Buildings three(3)stories in height or more shall have a minimum access of thirty(30)feet unobstructed width and
vertically to fourteen (14)feet six(6) inches in height.
Water System Large Commercial. A water system approved and inspected by the Fire Department is required. The
system shall be operational, prior to any combustibles being stored on the site. The applicant is required to provide a'
minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with one (1) two and'one half(2 1/2) inch and two (2) four (4) .
inch outlet. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart (as measured along
vehicular travel-ways) and no more than one hundred fifty(150)feet from any portion of a structure. [F-54a]
Water System Certification. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the serving water
company, certifying that the required water improvements have been made or that the existing fire hydrants and water
system will meet distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply shall be in place prior to placing
combustible materials on the job-site. [F-57]
Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13. An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA Pamphlet #13 and the Fire
Department standards is required. The applicant shall hire a Fire Department approved fire sprinkler contractor. The
fire sprinkler contractor shall submit three (3) sets.of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval.
The plans (minimum 1/8" scale) shall include hydraulic calculations and manufactures specification sheets. The
contractor shall submit plans showing type of storage and use with the applicable protection system. The required
fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. Standard 101.1 [F-59]
129
SPR GT08/28925
AUGUST 14, 2008
PAGE 3
Fire Alarm. An automatic monitoring fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all
applicable codes is required for 100 heads or more. The applicant shall hire a Fire Department approved fire alarm
contractor. The fire alarm contractor shall submit three(3) sets of detailed plans to the'Fire Department for review
and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. Standard 1007.1.1 FA..[F-62]
Hood And Duct Suppression. An automatic hood and duct fire extinguishing system lis required. A Fire Department
approved designer/installer shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans (minimum 1/8" scale) with manufactures'
specification sheets to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fetes shall be paid at the time of
plan submittal. [F-65]
Hydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by—
the Fire Department. In areas where snow removal occurs or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant
marker shall be posted on an approved post along the side of the road, no more than"three (3) feet from the hydrant
and at least six (6) feet high'above the adjacent road. Standard 901.4.3. [F80]
Commercial Addressing. Commercial and industrial developments of 100,000 sq. ft or less shall have the street
address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum six (6) inches in height and with a three quarter
(3/4) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall
be electrically illuminated (internal or externall. Where the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the
roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access
entrances. Standard 901.4.4 [F82]
Key Box. An approved Fire Department key box is required. The key box shall be provided with a tamper switch and
shall be monitored by a Fire Department approved central monitoring service. In commercial, industrial and multi-
family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Standard 902.4[F85]
Fire Extinguishers. Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall bit
approved by the Fire Department. [F88]
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Commercial projects with an aggregate building square footage of 100,000 or more
square feet requires a minimum ten (10) inch underground fire main with two(2) points of connection to the municipal
source and contain fire hydrant laterals eight(8) inches in diameter. (County Fire Standard 508.1)
Sincerely,
MARK ANDERSON, Fire Prevention Specialist
San�Bernardino._County Fire Department
Community Safety Division
MA:wc
i
G
mw:commsafetycommunitysafetyforms and corn munitysafetyp Ian ning&engineeringfireletters:fireletterDAB-DRC.doc
13(
Bonus Incentive Points
Town Square Master Development Plan and Development Unit 1
Page 1 of 2
The following methodology allocates Bonus Incentive Points to each element of the Project
which either falls into a specific category established by the Barton Road Specific Plan for such
allocation(e.g., lot consolidation, reciprocal access and reduced access points, integrated design
and architecture), or as proposed by the Development where the Project exceed the Barton Road
Specific Plan standards within a particular phase (e.g., enhanced landscaping, pedestrian
amenities, enhanced design detail).
Bonus Incentive Points for Master Development Plan(all phases) Points Allocation
Proposed Recommended
Consolidated lots into single master plan(Master Plan Area 1 of 20 20
Planning Area 1 of the BRSP) in a single integrated Plan
Reciprocal Access and reduced access points 10 10
Reciprocal parking for access within phased development 10 10
Master design and integrated style 10 5
Master sign program/integrated style/consolidated face/reduced 10 5
number
Total Bonus Points/All Phases 60 50
Bonus Incentives Points for Phase 1 (Development Units 1 &2 Points Allocation
Provision of public or semi public pedestrian open space 5 5
Covered trellis with landscaping and pedestrian walkway(enhanced 5 5
focal point)
Scored pattern/decorative sidewalks at store fronts 5 5
Enhanced landscaping in parking lot areas 5 5
Total.Bonus Points/Phase 1 20 20
Total Bonus Points TSMDP+ Phase 1 80 70
Based on the points allocation set forth above, the entire project is entitled to 70 Bonus Incentive
Points, 50 of which attach to the Master Development Plan as a whole, and 20 of which are
accrued within Phase 1.
131
Bonus Incentive Points
Town Square Master Development Plan and Development Unit 1
Page 2 of 2
Proiect features which e�cceed City standards and for which Incentive Bonuses are requested in
the form of reduced standards:
Proposed Recommended
Increased building (tower) height for Stater Bros. Market
Off-setting consideration: Tower is not occupied space, and adds -3 -3
articulation of building surfaces, distinguishes anchor
Stater Bros. and adjacent parking lot lighting height
Off-setting consideration: Tenant height requirement,redesign to
mitigate with City-standard lights along perimeter; design avoids -5 -7
"hot-spots" in parking fields and reduces number of lighting
elements in parking fields
Queuing at Driveway No. 1: Allow one vehicle(20 feet) queuing, -3 -5
add signage"No stopping or standing; direct to alternate access"
Total Bonus Points Deducted -11 -15
Balance of Bonus Points Remaining 69 55
Future Phases: Under the Barton Road Specific Plan and this methodology, the Developer may
seek, and receive additional Bonus Points in connection with development of future phases. The
allocation and use of Bonus Points will be approved pursuant to Site and Architectural Review.
13
.1LItJR\I\
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( )
SUBJECT: Hearing for Special Assessment and Lien for Nuisance Abatement at
12559 Michigan Street
PRESENTED BY: Community and Economic Development Department
RECOMMENDATIONS: l. Approve the Record of Costs of Abatement at 12559 Michigan
Street in the amount of$10,113.60.
2. Adopt Resolution No. confirming abatement costs and
authorizing special assessment and property lien on 12559 Michigan
S treet.
BACKGROUND:
Nuisance abatement at 12559 Michigan Street has been completed as previously approved and under a
Superior Court Abatement Warrant issued on April 8, 2010. The abatement included removal of an
illegal structure at the rear of the property and other combustible materials. Current photographs of
the site are shown in Attachment 1.
A Notice of Action was recorded with the Office of the County Recorder prior to incurring the
abatement costs to notify any person searching the property title of the pending action.
DISCUSSION:
To recover abatement costs, Municipal Code Chapter 8.04 (Nuisance Abatement) requires that the
Council first consider and approve the costs incurred. The total cost, including staff time, is
$10,113.60 as shown in the attached cost accounting (Attachment 2). With Council approval,
reimbursement of the nuisance abatement costs and staff time would then be pursued through a special
assessment filed with the County Auditor Controller and by recording a lien against the property with
the Office of the County Recorder.
In accordance with the Municipal Code, the cost accounting was posted at City Hall at least five days
prior to consideration by the Council. The property owner of record was notified of the hearing set to
hear their response to the notice of the special assessment and lien.
It is recommended that the Council direct staff to pursue these remedies described above. The fees
would then be collected at the same time as regular property taxes.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
1
FISCAL IMPACT:
The $10,113.60 assessment will be turned over to the tax collector in September, 2010. Once
recovered by the City, costs paid by the Agency for the surveys and abatement ($6,240.00) and legal
costs ($290.00) will be returned to the Agency.
In the event of a change of ownership prior to November 1 (the date the first installment taxes become
available), the charge will be removed from the secured tax rolls and placed,on the unsecured roll to be
billed against the previous owner.
Prepared by,
r-l-ef-2t-n-e—
Jeanne Ruvolo,
Code Compliance Officer
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Powers
Community and Economic Development Director
Manager A proval:
-:
Betsy A Adams
City Manager/CRA Executive Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Photographs of completed nuisance abatement
2. Record of Costs of Abatement
3. Resolution No.
.wi(.v.7 3C_`;{
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PHOTOGRAPHS OF COMPLETED NUISANCE ABATEMENT
12559 MICHIGAN STREET
P
1 rM_ •'��,{�\i� ./:.-.,A - *��,! wrrL v,.iN- c y Y�r 7•-r� 4•. w..... _"
�r�`f.� ?�l'y''►. '.' :-'.�:4'.:ty��7T. .'„t -,..•,::- �i.s• -drr: ,-_ __...•:.dn, Y
?,`T, vY,r� .. ^~• +~ - •:b✓�^w:...of - r 4..� 1r R.r � ^+.N•��i�_ - _k
tip,41
yam' S 'v (,y•"Jt J'� �T of
.ff+}_,� it '�' Y"f .:,�'��'.'�f'7rY.I..Atri�,q ^] •r
=�:. '-^;".u-:1T^ �y ��gt�'�.� � - ,� 1"'�y�.','wp. w�i�'���a�FS�..�»• :J• �.a�.,pY�:�`i
- _ .,. e- _ _ ;:��i;�^,'s(�aYy�`"'T.:3� "�•,�'Siiir e,i'�'•• ._.y 1
E?�Y*..4
u - of--�.s�2�ti¢-" `-�.i%.r-_:.: .__ * —'4 '''�-�• ��y:�d��r'r�T'�,.' - a
...�,r,�� ;�,�ss
+- r +_ -' •�_ 1 :� -'S.. 4»� YS-cur-'r.�y i' ..y^p^..v_,;R5tir_
t��i+�r``�^ '"-a'. :��•`- �x,' ar."''y•� a
yL r�;'�:'l;�r,'6di,:2;:�+ry^�r.Ta•:l•:'e..,.:c,:�L+- �:�. ':f�,r r
.g;���'�''?,.a'; .......��`•ne ��yY:= "s:;r." tom:
..lX"/4'��Y'3.+uf4l:.v�'.•fT s'1.'t''- �`�`-..L _ .,�.N-'',i.'_t,`.. ..
.._",, .. tye`i'-•.Lr - i.Mii" ` '".j G•+ vests.., a ` ny -
.. ..--. QJV^•
. .a _.
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RECORD OF COSTS OF ABATEMENT
12559 MICHIGAN STREET
SUMMARY OF COSTS: 12559 Michigan Street
TOTAL
Staff time: Jeanne Ruvolo $2,415.00
Staff time: Joyce Powers $ 849.54
Staff time: Richard Shields $ 283.18
City Attorney John Harper $ 290.00
Certified and First Class Mail Postage $ 35.88
Lead and Asbestos Survey and Report by $1,250.00
Consultant General Environmental Management Services
Nuisance Abatement by Contractor Dakeno, Inc. $4,990.00
TOTAL EXPENSES $10,113.60
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING
COST ACCOUNTING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT,AND LIEN
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GRAND TERRACE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A RECORD OF ABATEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND DIRECTING THAT SUCH COSTS
BE COLLECTED ON THE TAX ROLL AND BE IMPOSED AS A
LIEN UPON PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.04 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, property owners
with premises within the City shall keep their property free of public nuisances.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.04 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, a properly noticed
public hearing was held on August 6, 2009 and a determination was made that conditions at 12559
Michigan Street constitute a public nuisance.
WHEREAS, certain property owners of 12559 Michigan Street, Grand Terrace, California, as
shown on the last available assessment roll, have failed to take action to abate the public nuisance.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.04 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, if property owners
fail to maintain their property free of public nuisances, the City shall cause the property to be abated.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.04 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code the owner of the
premises shall be liable to the City for all costs of such abatement, including administrative costs.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a properly noticed hearing on
July 27, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the Record of Costs of Abatement, together
with any objections and protests by property owners, desires to declare the costs as a special
assessment and cause such costs to be recorded as a lien against the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,
as follows:
Section 1: The total cost for abating the nuisance (Record of Costs of Abatement attached'
as Exhibit "A") filed with the City Clerk contains an account of the cost, including- incidental
expenses, of abating the nuisances on the parcel of land. The Record of Costs of Abatement is
therefore approved and adopted.
Section 2: The Finance Director shall file with the San Bernardino County Auditor
Controller a copy of the Record of Costs of Abatement, with a statement endorsed thereon over the
signature of the City Clerk, that it has been fully adopted by the City Council, together with a certified
copy of this Resolution.
Section 3: The County Auditor Controller will record and enter the assessment on the
property tax roll against the property and shall be collected on the tax roll for fiscal year 2010-201 1 to
the same manner, by the same person, at the same .time, together with and not separately from, the
general taxes.
7
Section 4: Upon recordation of the Special Assessment with the County Auditor Controller
a notice of lien on the property for the amount of the assessment shall be recorded with the office of
the County Recorder.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 271h day of July, 2010.
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Mayor of the City.of Grand Terrace
and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof
I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Grand Terrace held on the 27`h of July, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
7
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approved as to form:
John Harper, Brenda Mesa,
City Attorney City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO.
RECORD OF COSTS OF ABATEMENT
12559 MICHIGAN STREET, GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
TOTAL
1�
�= Staff time: Jeanne Ruvolo $2,415.00
Staff time: Joyce Powers $ 849.54
Staff time: Richard Shields $ 283.18
City Attorney John Harper $ 290.00
Certified and First Class Mail Postage $ 35.88
Lead and Asbestos Survey and Report by $1,250.00
Consultant General Environmental Management Services
�- Nuisance Abatement by Contractor Dakeno, Inc. $4,990.00
TOTAL EXPENSES $10,113.60
9