The URL can be used to link to this page

07/24/2007 _ '.rlLE COPY : GRf+n�TERR c i 249 20,07 22795 Barton Road R Grand Terrace California 92313-529§" J. + .. "-1, - . y `' . S.�I - J ji.. ' µ t ' , `fJ` ' r .•fit• ~ '-_ '" J. wM1 'Civic Center 3 :-.., ,• *i. (909}824-6621 Faz'(909)7834629 .'tFax;(909)783=2606.- r - t CITY-OF"G, TE A;CE Maryctta Ferre" z y Lk - Mayor , , - ,� r .••'i - �,,`` _ - ,• IJec`Ann Gaecia= ;CRA%CITY_,CO, NCI Mayor'Pro Tem - ... Bea corte5'. T IEGULAR,,MEE-TINGS Jim Miller, y ,, 'D:in Buchanan?- , , ;i.ND -, ' ,,TH _...'� �,'= ..;- Council Members ,( ;5.2._ . 4 ''Tues�d�ay'. ..�G-:=01 ,is . "'Thoinas J:`Schvva6 City Manages • - '! .5,i _ -. tl 1r 1, � S - .4;t - - f , - , _ -'Coii0il''C'hAm" bers : s , Grand Terr::ace,Gi,ic'Center'' 22795 Barton Road "Grand'Terr' CA=-923"13'5295 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 24, 2007 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PNI 22795 Barton Road ? 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. Call to Order- Invocation-Pastor Salim Elias;Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church * Pledge of Allegiance- Roll Call- STAFF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM 1. Approval of 07-10-2007 Minutes Approve 2. Public Hearing -Resolution authorizing the Transfer of Property Adopt (12569 Michigan Street and 11695 Canal Street) from Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency to the City of Grand Terrace ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Sheriffs Department Conuinanders Award-Gene Carlstrom 3 CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and j 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 i discussion. A. Approve Check Register Dated July 24,2007 Approve B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda � C Approval of 07-10-2007 Minutes '; Approve COUNCIL AGENDA 07-24-2007 PAGE 2 OF 3 AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION D. Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of 12569 Michigan and Adopt/Appropriate 11695 Canal Street to the City of Grand Terrace and Appropriate$309,000 from the General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balance to Fund the Transfer E. Continuing Appropriations for FY 2007-2008 Approve F. lrrevocable Offer and Acceptance of Dedication-Riverside Accept Highland Water Company 4. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the opportunity for members of the public to continent on anv 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 made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public continent or may I request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 5. REPORTS A. Conunittee Reports I. Historical &Cultural Activities Con-inuttee a. Minutes of June 4,2007 Accept 2 Crime Prevention Connnuttee a. Minutes of June 11,2007 Accept " 3 Emergency Operations Connnuttee a. Minutes of June 5, 2007 Accept B Council Reports 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2007-2008 Annual Review of Landscape and Lighting District Adopt -Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Confirimng a Diagram and Assessment and Providing for Aiunual Assessment Levy for a Landscaping and Street Lighting District B General Plan AmendmentNo 07-01.Zone Change No.07-01, Approve Specific Plan No 07-01, Site and Architectural Review Case No 07-02 and Environmental RevieNv No 07-02 to Construct a 120-Unit Senior Citizen Residential Facility Together with a Community Senior Center and 2 6 Acre Passive Park (Applicant: The Corporation for Better Housing) C An Ordinance of the City Council Amending Chapter 12.28 Approve of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requirements for Trees on Local Residential,Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace COUNCIL AGENDA 07-24-2007 PAGE 3 OF 3 AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None S. NEW BUSINESS A. Appoint Voting Delegate and Alternate for League of Appoint California Cities Annual Conference B. Agreement Between the City of Grand Terrace and La Approve Siena Holdings, LLC for Public Access to the Santa Ana River Trail 9. CLOSED SESSION-None ADJOURN d THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY.AUGUST 14, 2007 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 PENDING CRA APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 10, 2007 ' A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace. xvas held in the Council Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace. California, on July 10, 2007 at 6:00 p.m PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Chairman Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman Bea Cortes, Agency Member Jim Miller, Agency Member Dan Buchanan, Agency Member Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Lary Ronnow; Finance Director Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director John Haiper, City Attorney Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department Gary Bush, San Bernardino County Fire Department f ABSENT: Tom Schwab, City Manager Gary Koontz, Community Development Director CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF 06-12-2007 MINUTES CRA-2007-17 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER MILLER,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the June 12,200 7 Community_ Redevelopment Agency Minutes. Chairman Fen-6 adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:10 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Tuesday,July 24,2007 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 CRIB AGENDA ITEM NO: STAFF REPORT CITE' MANAGER'S OFFICE CRA ITEM (X) COUNCIL,ITEM () MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FUNDING REQUIRED: YES () NO (X) The Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency (GTRDA) has two surplus parcels of land. The first is a 21,700 square foot residential lot at 12569 Michigan Street; the second parcel is 28,960 square foot residential lot at 11695 Canal Street. The parcels were originally purchased by the Housing fund for housing purposes. Due to the changes in the market it is no longer feasible to develop housing for low mod buyers that does not require an unreasonable subsidy. Both,parcels could be utilized by the City for other uses or city related facilities. Sale of the parcel from the GTRDA to this City would allow time to evaluate the uses possible and t' make a recommendation to council. A recent appraisal has determined the value at S6.10 per square foot making the value of the Michigan parcel $132,000 and the Canal parcel $177,000, a total of S309,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the transfer of 12569 Michigan Street and 11695 Canal Street to the City of Grand Terrace at a market value of S309,000. CRA AGENDA ITEM NOi 2 MAP 148-36-56A PAR. 1 r 1 0 `{7RAN{}` T.R.A. T.R.A 148-36-56A /7. PAR.NO.2 44 d 6` 0 r W rn lye �y A.SP 19 26•°9� `� 4� .Ili' �:•� •'B Ee52 � 41.8 AC 6 I•/ �gj4 `�� 3,P/I abh/•lG� � O �N R, MAP 148-36-71 PAR NO. n 36 _ 15.61 AG. a 76 , V� lb 1V" \1;' 28 ) --1-.. MAP148-30178 29/ gyp\ k �t,u� l: ', 7 c PAR.N L �t x a Pl1f.�� T.R.A. 575.92 0 3.75 l W B7 a:Y.3S 02154 A5 16001 53 4 P F v 45 _ o e tp lF 16004 SbE.ze _ (b ,�. 82 OCTOR1Ao e `T "s ST. rRa———— 1077Ac /4�3 ¢ 16004 197 i s TRA ---------- ----- �, t6001----� � � �i. 27 6.77 AC. (7 TO b n{ 3.52AC.M/L 1.25ACM/ r I o D �• 1 4ACM,/L Por.13 �; i For.i C +• Po1�, _ W 2 ne,rr �cc 61.10� L ISO y m ° 41.07ACM/L 1.05 C. 2! }' zo� 31 a D z 1 I PA R.2 PAR 1 • I I 74 14 C. 73 nl 12 62 1 � I IJI 21 (9 �CLC. rn �y L-&ARTON :PALM-�IVE.�� m R6�kB`={— �� R ( 160 �, c m Tci Pln . East Riverside Land Company, M%., 6 / 44 City -.' . Grand Terrace 1167 - 27 ( Tax I: I Area 16001 26 I - -VpN-BUREN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i ---I- - - -- - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - S-T.RE-F-T- - -- -i - - n Inn 177 <n n0 (r,5 5) 157 n1 06 I 7 50 46 69 fin 69 6n 69 83 50 02 3n an n y� 3n�3n '', 30 49 J, 60 61 67 63 04 O — 01 _ 02 —a3 — � 05 ofi I„ 19 � 25 26 27 Y8 27 ,tea 69.60 69 78 \ 37 70 40 105 10 103 88 88 82 Nq 2 n', I Pfn. 36 I 24 23 22 145 50 I 111 32 I ti 5-- - F 2 na 158 02 5 5 Par. 1 78 6 4 ` s 0 /Isna/s ' 31375 1915 Pnr. 2 KENTFFI.D 11 2 2nQ 21 fir,— 4 17100 0 1.3 I .86 SO— — I 44 47 llfi 91 111 5fi O + 4 r^ 01) 125 n7. I 3A .5 si v'77 70 d Pfn. 36 � 3 0 I � 76 14 5 — .__..—_____...__._. 24 69 ^I I '� 53 54 r 55 � 110 is I _ �1\ 119 28 -- 1t1 6fl 18 20 5 31 O123 fin 0 1° 25 13 '� 10s.10 103 76 ,4 I6 �,'�^ O 6 41 70 40 96 112 fifi 110 19 123 60 N 119 18 23 �' 17 16 0 15 I znn 7 74 1t1 80 `4f 51 h 50 6 32 17 20 56 24 12 11 7 42 g 52 I I 5 17 ^`�R' N 13 / '� 30 30 m m 75 �" 5%\ -- 110 22 99 06 60 �5 46.51 31.02lz I .5� !y 2s \5 7 q 44 42 33 - - - -I- - -S T-R-EE T- - —-- - I- - - Ifl Itn 25 a•7 m 63 63 In F Iq 47 n0 y cS :rJJI Ot 4 �. 4I 76 3A 24 31 16 .��, J,S B7 va 109 9J" ft 34 7 0 120 s !n 106 AC `n` PO 71 22 43 44 45 q7 Ito 20 tE 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 >'`° 13 9 35 30—F 30 280 170.06 66.40 63 62 91 1 65 69 1 69 1 69 119 38 60 110 31 � 28 R JSC[I RESOLUTION NO. A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND THE GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WITH REGARD TO THE CITY'S PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY'OWNED BY THE AGENCY RECITALS WHEREAS, the Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter "Agency') is the owner of two parcels of residentially zoned property located at 12569 Michigan Street and 11695 Canal Street,more particularly described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, said parcels were originally purchased by the Agency using its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in order to construct or subsidize the construction of affordable housing pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2; and WHEREAS, the Agency has attempted to sell the properties to potential residential developers pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33343, but. the Agency has been unable to do so because it is not presently feasible to develop low and moderate income housing that does not require an unreasonable subsidy; and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace (hereinafter "City") desires to purchase the subject properties for potential use as a park or other City facility: and WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase said properties for the fair market value, the proceeds of such sale to be deposited by the Agency in its Love and Moderate Income Housing Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND THE GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DO HEREBY JOINTLY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated hereat as if set forth in full. Section 2. Agency agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the property located at 12569 Michigan Street for S132.000 and the property located at 11695 Canal Street for $77,000. representing the appraised fair market value for the subject properties, respectively. - 1 - 14 Section 3. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433, the Agency hereby determines that the consideration is not less than the fair re-use value of the properties and that the consideration paid for the properties is in excess of that paid by the Agency and is equal to the fair market value of the properties at their highest and best use in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City. ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 24 day of July, 2007. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace CERTIFICATION I, BRENDA MESA, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City at a regular meeting held on the day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Grand Terrace. California, this day of 2007. City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace M "1 W o Check Register n z July 24, 2007 vch4st Voucher List Page: 1 07118/2007 12:43:02PMI CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 5984A 7/3/2n07 nin513 GORAF_7_, I-ORRAINE 07022007 Birthday Bonus 10-440-110-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 59845 7/3/2007 010734 KIEFER, KIRSTEN 07242007 Birthday Bonus - 10-440-110-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 59846 7/3/2007 010368 REINARZ, LAURA 07122007 Birthday Bonus 10-185-110-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 59847 7/9/2007 004350 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, INLANC07122007 Inland Empire Div. hAta-Garcia, Buchanan 10-110-270-000-000 70.00 Total : 70.00 59848 7/10/2007 010060 BOUSTEDT, MICHELLE 07102007 Reimburse comp. loan 10-022-56-00 120.60 - Total : 120.60 59849 7/11/2007 005452 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 1001659615 JULY EMPLOYEE HEALTH INS. COUNCIL AGE-141110A ITEM MC).`A Page: 1 achlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/18/2007 12:43:021PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59849 7/11/2007 nn54.52 PACIFICARE OF CAI-IFORNIA (Continued) 10-370-142-000-000 606.13 10-440-142-000-000 2,106.94 10-450-142-000-000 390.81 21-572-142-000-000 350.27 32-370-142-000-000 173.18 34-400-142-000-000 483.62 34-800-142-000-000 26054 10-110-142-000-000 501.68 10-022-61-00 6,89001 10-180-142-000-000 1,101 06 10-380-142-000-000 310.26 10-120-142-000-000 929.71 10-125-142-000-000 570.80 10-140-142-000-000 1,263.90 10-172-142-000-000 149.68 10-175-142-000-000 104.11 Total : 16,192.70 59850 7/12/2007 010764 SAFEGUARD DENTAL &VISION 1432423 JULY EMPLOYEE DENTAL/VISION INSURANCE 10-022-61-00 390.62 Total : 390.62 59851 7/12/2007 010737 �NESTFRNI DF_NTAI- SERVICES INC .I11Iv, 2nn7 JULY EMPLOYEE DF_NITAL INSURANCE 10-022-61-00 90.15 Total : 90.15 59852 7/12/2007 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 006078690001 JULY LIFE AND DISABILITY INS Page: 2 } C, vclhlist Vh ucher List Page: 3 07118/2007 12:43:02PIMI CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Dank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59852 7/12/2n07 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY (Continued) 10-440-142-000-000 68.25 10-120-142-000-000 20.85 10-125-142-000-000 13.90 10-140-142-000-000 20.85 10-172-142-000-000 3.13 10-175-142-000-000 2.09 10-180-142-000-000 27.86 10-370-142-000-000 1455 10-380-142-000-000 6.95 10-450-142-000-000 10.43 21-572-142-000-000 6.33 32-370-142-000-000 2.53' 34-400-142-000-000 9.95 34-800-142-000-000 9.73 10-185-142-000-000 6.95 10-022-63-00 1,161.08 Total : 1,385.43 59853 7/12/2007 010731 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY July 00513170 0 JULY DENTAL INSURANCE 10-022-61-00 935.56 10-110-120-000-000 44.08- Tota1 : 979.64 598,A, 7/1212007 0OA587 MANAGED HEALTH NET\nIORK RI 48754 JULY INSURANCE Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/18/2007 112:43:021P1111 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Baank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59854 7/12/2007 004587 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK (Continued) 10-380-142-000-000 6.29 10-120-142-000-000 17.64 10-125-142-000-000 11.76 10-140-142-000-000 1764 10-172-142-000-000 2.68 10-175-142-000-000 1.80 10-180-142-000-000 30.24 10-370-142-000-000 14.38 10-450-142-000-000 9.02 21-572-142-000-000 5.97 32-370-142-000-000 2.39 34-400-142-000-000 8.43 34-800-142-000-000 8.01 -� 10-185-142-000-000 - 5.82 10-440-142-000-000 148.93 Total : 291.00 59906 7/2-4/2007 001074 A F_ P SEP60 FY 07-08 Membership Dices-Planning 10-370-265-000-000 120.00 Total : 120.00 59907 7/2412007 001488 BUCHANAN, DAN - JULY July City Council Stipend/Auto Allow. 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 10-110-273-000-000 200.00 Total : 600.00 59908 7/24/2.007 010778 CHAVEZ, CHARLES 07262007 Magician Performance-Day Care 23-200-14-00 200.00 Tota 1 : 200.00 59909 7/24/2007 010147 CORTF_S, BF_A JULY July City Council Stipend/Atito Allow 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 205.92 10-110-273-000-000 200.00 Total : 555.92 Page: 4 vchalist 'ibbcher List Page: 5 07/18/2007 12:43:02PAn CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59910 7/24/2007 001907 COSTCO#478 1756 C. CARE SUPPLIES 10-440-228-000-000 106.51 10-440-220-000-000 35.50 1766 C CARE SUPPLIES 10-440-228-000-000 186.59 10-440-220-000-000 62.20 Total : 390.80 59911 7/24/2007 n1n71 1 DANKA FINANCIAL SERVICES 65659652 August Lease Payment EStudio Copier 10-172-246-000-000 63.24 10-175-246-000-000 31 62 34-400-246-000-000 63.24 Total : 158.10 59912 7/24/2007 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 003388/205279" Misc. Maint. Supplies-Senior Center - �� 10-805-245-000-000 15.08 010815/501682� City Hall Misc Maint. Supplies 10-180-245-000-000 129.34 308437 Wrong Merchandise Purchased 23-200-12-00 -6.75 Total : 137.67 59913 7/24/2007 n02280 F_VF_R READY EMBROInERY 591 Employee shirt-A. Williams 10-370-220-000-000 29.09 Total : 29.09 59914 7/24/2007 002450 FF_RRE', MARYF_TTA JULY July City Council Stipend 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 Total : 400.00 59915 7/24/2-007 002795 GARCIA, LF_F_ AKIN DULY July City Council Stipend 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 131.26 Total : 281.26 599'16 7/24/2007 002835 G,IBSON DISCOUNT 103642 C CARE CLEANING SUPPLIES— Page: 5 vChIllst Voucher List Page: 6 07//812007 12:43:021PAn CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Barak code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59916 7/24/2007 002835 GIBSON DISCOUNT (Continued) 10-440-228-000-000 1.70.60 Total : 1170.60 59917 7/24/2nn7 010258 GRAAC PAYAAENIT PROCESSING CF-.NTF_Rn2A-9103-1, Q3r, TAHOE I-EASE_ 10-12n-273-000--nn0 554.07 Total : 554.07 59918 7/24/2007 010425 GOLDEN TIGER MARTIAL ARTS 070107 July Martial Arts Classes Dues 10-430-27 696.50 Tota 1 : 696.50 59919 7/24/2007 003213 HONEYWELL ACS SERVICE 3338534 HVAC MAINT PER CONTRACT - 10-180-257-000-000 5,237.00 Total : 5,237.00 59920 _ 7/24/20m 00385n JANI-KING I-AX07070051 C. CARE DAILY CLEANING (INCL CARPETS) 10-440-244-nn0-.nnn 815.00 Total : 8115.00 59921 7/2-4/2007 010290 KAISER PF_RMANF_NTE 5559630-AUG HEALTH INS.-LEEANN GARCIA 10-110-142-000-000 310.26 10-110-120-000-000 11874 Total : 429.00 59922 7/24/2007 010446 MILLER, JIM JULY July City Council Stipend/Auto All 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 10-110-273-000-000 200.00 Total : 600.00 59923 7/24/2007 010546 MPOV1/ER COMMUNICATIONS 387767-JUL July Phone Service 10-450 235-000-000 61.30 10-805-235-000-000 33.66 -10-440-235-000-000 287.42 Page* 6 vchlist kitAcher List page: 7 07118/2007 12:43:02IPR4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Dank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59923 7/24/2007 010546 MPO\/1/ER COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 387798-JUL July Phone Charges 10-808-235-000-000 66.79 10-380-235-000-000 200.00 10-190-235-0oo-oon 1,061.52 Total : 1,7110.69 5992A 7/24/2007 005586 PETTY CASH 07152007 Petty Cash Replenishment-Child Care 10-440-228-000-000 24.01 10-440-220-000-000 31.18 10-440-221-000-000 44.60 10-440-223-000-000 37.29 Total : 137.08 59925 _Z/24/2007 010744 RANCHO MOTOR COMPANY 1126741 Final Payment Maint. Dump Truck x.:. 10-450-705-000-000 21,341.09 Total : 21,3411.09 59926 7/24/2007 0063531 S B COUNTY SHERIFF 7570 July Lava Enforcement Services 10-410-255-000-000 3,77859 10-410-256-000-000 118,751.57 14-411-256-000-000 21,690.84- 7570A July Grant Funded Deputy 14-411-256-000-000 17,609.00 Total : 161,830.00 59927 7/24/2007 006556 S.B. COUNTY TREASURER 2721 FY 07/08 Budget Allocation-LAFCO 10-190-265-000-000 1,357.24 Total : 1,357.24 59928 7/24/2007 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 3131262018 Misc Office Supplies-Finance 10-190-212-000-000 77.77 10-140-210-000-000 74.02 10-190-210-000-000 14.86 Total : 166.65 59929 7/24/2007 006800 STERN & COMPANY INC., M L 97-01 HVAC Lease Payment#10 10-190-715-000-000 15,374.21 Page- 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07118/2007 12:43:02PI111 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59929 7/24/2007 006800 STERN & COMPANY INC., M L (Continued) Total : 15,374.21 59Q30 7/2,1/2007 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 707032397 C. CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 2701 707032398 C._CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 57851 707110364 C. CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 8534 707110365 C. CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 52529 707121772 C. CARE FOOD & SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 7973 Total : 1,295.88 59031 7/24/2007 010712 TASO TF_CI-I, InIC 114 Desktop Support-Bldg & Safety 10-172-220-000-000 262.50 Total : 262.50 59932 7/24/2007 010586 THE JAAAIESON GROUP 2007.82 Planning Consulting Svcs 6/29-7/13 - 10-370-255-000-000 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 7/13/2007 007400 U. S BANK TRUST N.A. JULY July GT PFA COP 1997 Payment 33-300-206-000-000 20,896.20 Total : 20,896.20 39 Vouchers for hank code : bofa Bank total : 259,416.69 39 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 259,416.69 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. Larry Ronnow, Finance Director Page. 8 vchHst Voucher List Page: 1 07/19/ 007 10:59:20AMI CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59855 7/13/2007 010164 GRF_AT-�AIF_ST JUNF_2007 June Employee Deferred Comp. Cont. 10-022-64-00 3,43458 10-022-63-00 7,300.11 Total : 10,734.75 59856 7/13/2007 004589 MARTINEZ, TRACEY 2nd Qtr 2007 2nd Quarter Medical Reimbursement 10-125-139-000-000 72.00 Total l : 72.nD 59857 7/24/2007 01n685 ARDI,JLI-AH, WRIARA 21\I0 OTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimh,irsement 10-440-139-000-000 117.87 Total : 117.87 59858 7/24/2007 010781 ALAMEDA, SHAWNIA G. 166566/152463 Rental Supply Reimburse-21974 DeBerry S1 34-400-04 75.40 Total : 75.40 59859 7/24/2007 001145 AMATEUR ELECTRONIC SUPPLY 1944716-01 BASE STATION ANTENNAS-2-1/VAY CERT RADIO 10-808-246-000-000 434.94 1944717-01 COAXIAL CABLE FOR CERT BASE ANTENNAS 10-808-247-000-000 563.93- " Total : 998.87 59860 7/24/20n7 010308 AhAF_RICAN ROTARY BROOM CO ING 250652 Misc. Sweeper Maint/Supplies 16-900-254-000-000 173.77 Total : 173.77 59861 7/24/2007 001391 BERRY, STEVE 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-180-139-000-000 285.00 Total : 285.00 59862 7/24/2007 010715 BUSTAMANTE, LAURA 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-440-139-000-000 500.00 Total : 500.00 59863 7/24/2nn7 010783 CALVIN, DENISE 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-440-139-000-000 63.41 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/18/2007 10:59:20APA CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank Code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59863 7/24/2007 010783 CALVIN, DENISE (Continued) Total : 63.41 59864 7/24/2007 001739 CENTRAL CITY SIGN SERVICE 31781 Misc. Street Signage/Supplies 16-900-220-000-000 745.63 Total : 745.63 59865 7/24/2007 001742 CHAGOLLA CONSTRUCTION, ROBERT 130 Dep. Refund-12539/12543 Vivienda 23-301-70-00 500.00 131 Water Leak Drywall Repair 34-700-771-000-000 37500 Total : 875.00 59866 7/24/2007 010218 CHEVRON & TEXACO CARD SERVICES 7898191957707 June Maint Vehicle Fuel-Charges 10-180-272-000-000 1,374.54 34-800-272-000-000 -50.00 Total : 1,424.54 59867 7/24/2007 010782 CISNEROS, DIEGO G. 070307 Swim Lesson Reimbursement 10-430-30 6000 - Tota 1 : 60.00 5"68 7/24/2007 001SIn CITY NEWSPAPER GROUP 1838 Notice of Public Hearing-City Clerk = 10-125-230-000-000 51.80 Total : 51.80 59869 7/24/2007 010718 CORDON/A,?JERINA 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-370-139-000-000 80.00 Total : 80.00 59870 7/24/2007 010147 CORTES, BF_A CORTES Mileage Reimbursement-B Cortes 10-110-270-000-000 106.70 Tota 1 : 106.70 59871 7/24/2007 002n82 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES D07570340102 PRESCHOOL & TINY TOT SUPPLIES- 10-440-228-000-000 580.09 1.0-440-221-000-000 10877 Page. 2 vchlist \,;u_uli�her List Page: 3 07/18/2007 10:59:20AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59871 7/24/2007 002082 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES (Continued) D07609690101 PRESCHOOL&TINY TOT SUPPLIES- 10-440-228-000-000 149.10 10-440-221-000-000 27.96 P17584600001 PRESCHOOL&TINY TOT SUPPLIES- 10-440-228-000-000 26.31 10-440-221-000-000 4.93 Total : 897.16 59872 7/24/2007 002165 DRL IG ALTF_RNATIN/F PROGRAM 6945 June Landscape Maint Fees 10-450-245-000-000 500.00 Total : 500.00 59873 7/24/2007 010115 DUENES, MARION 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-440-139-000-000 473.16 Total : 473.16 59874 7/24/2007 010537 EXECUTI\/E SERVICES 2009 June Janitorial Supplies 10-180-245-000-000 94.76 Total : 94.76 59875 7/2.4/2007 002673 FLANN, ALISA 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement ` 10-172-139-000-000 169.26 Total : 169.26 59876 7/24/2007 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 32089064 Misc Maint.. Supplies-Parks 10-450-246-000-000 0 95 32089099 Misc. Maint Supplies-Park 10-450-245-000-000 21.97 Total : 22.92 59877 7/24/2007 010536 GALLS 5893522400012 Misc. Emergency Supnlles-F_OC 10-808-706-000-000 6072 Total : 60.72 59878 7/24/2007 002.795 GAR(.-,IA, LEE ANN 7605 Swim Class Refund 10-430-30 155.00 Page. 3 vChlist Voucher List Rage: 4 07/118/2007 10:59:20AR4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Dank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59878 7/24/2007 002795 GARCIA, LEE ANN (Continued) Total : 155.00 59879 7/2A/2f107 010153 GCS WESTERN POWER & EQUIPMENT X74272 Sweeper Maint/Supplies 16-900-254-000-00f1 330.23 Tots 1 : 330.23 59880 7/24/2007 010513 GOn/EZ, LORRAINE 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-440-139-000-000 400.33 Total : 400.33 59881 7/24/2007 010181 GOPHER PATROL 135332 GOPHER CONTROL AT PARKS 10-450-245-000-000 465.00 Total : 465.00 59882 7/24/2007 002930 GRAINGER 931402445 Supply Cabinet-EOC 10-808-210-000-000 20632 9395698179 EOC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT-RADIOS 10-808-707-000-000 979.20 10-808-707-000-000 75.89 9395750020 EOC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT-RADIOS 10-808-707-000-000 1,395.00 10-808-707-000-000 108:11 9395750038 EOC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT-RADIOS 10-808-707-000-000 489.60 10-808-707-000-000 37.94 93957550046 EOC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT-RADIOS 10-808-707-000-000 37.94 10-808-707-000-000 48960 9396025968 EOC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT-RADIOS 10-808-707-000-000 244.80 10-808-707-000-000 18.97 9402090121 EOC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT-RADIOS 10-808-707-000-000 979.20 - 10-808-707-000-000 75.89 Total : 5,138.46 59883 7/24/2007 010039 GREER OWENS, BARRIE 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement Page: 4 vchlist V66cher List Page: 5 07/118/2007 10:59.20AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59883 7/24/2007 010039 GREER O\A/ENS, BARRIE (Continued) 10-1"80-139-000-000 268.50 Total : 268.50 5n8p4 7/24/2nn7 n10o(-;1 H17RNIANDEZ_, YOI_ANDA 21`ID OTR 20n7 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-440-139-000-000 346.50 Total : 346.50 59885 7/24/2007 003224 HYDRO-SCAPF_ PRODUCTS INC 05045351-00 Landscape Maint Supplies 10-450-246-000-000 723.01 05046674-00 Misc Landscape/Maint Supplies-Parks 10-450-245-000-000 1,414.22 05049273-00 Landscape Maint/Supplies 10-450-246-000-000 16.69 ' Total : 2,1153.92 59886 7/24/2007 003490 INMARK/VICTOR 100462 Misc. Supplies-Planning Dept. 10-370-220-000-Onn 49.01 Total : 419.011 59887 7/24/2007 010769 INTERNATIONAL, PAVEMENT SOLUTION049384 BARTON ROAD BIKE LANE CONSTRUCTION-✓ 44-200-622-000-000 61,873.65- Total : 61,873.65 59888 7/24/2007 010773 KELLAR SWEEPER 1583 Sweeper Maint/Repair 16-900-254-000-000 480.00 Total : 480.00 59889 7/24/2007 010780 A/IUFICH, MICHAEL W 7354 Rental Inspection Refund 10-400-08 9500 Tota I : 95.00 5989n 7/24/2007 005688 PROTECTION ONE 062907 June Alarm Service 10-180-247-000-000 56.80 Total : 56.80 59891 7/24/2007 010208 RATELLE, DAZE &ASSOCIATES 070107 June Consulting Services 21-573-255-000-000 970.00 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07118/2007 10:59:20AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 50891 7/24/2007 010208 RATELLE, DAZE &ASSOCIATES (Continued) 07012007A MO. CONSULTING SERVICES 21-573-255-000-000 890.00 Total : 1,860.00 59892 7/24/2007 010777 REAL, JIM GT2007 Equestrian Judginq-GT Days - 23-200-12-00 125.00 Total : 125.00 59893 7/24/2007 006331 RONNOW, LARRY 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr Medical Reimbursement 10-140-139-000-000 251.81 Total : 251.81 59894 7/24/2007 006510 S.S COUNTY INFORMATION OCU07061\4 MOTOROLA XTS-5000 RADIO 1/\//ACCESSORIE_S 10-185-700-000-000 3,353.12 10-180-700-000-000 3,408.12 10-185-700-000-000 55.00 - 10-185-700-000-000 264.13 10-180-700-000-000 264.13 Total : 7,344.50 59895 7/24/2007 010247 SANTA-ROSA, JULIA 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement ` 10-440-139-000-000 353.82 Total : 353.82 59896 7/24/2007 010604 SHIELDS, RICHARD 2ND OTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbi_irsement 10-172-139-000-000 262.36 Total : 262.36 59897 7/24/2007 006720 SO CA.F_DISONI COMPANY 2011959749JUN June Street Light Charges 16-510-238-000-000 4,635.14 26-602-238-000-000 58.10 26-600-238-000-000 49.80 26-601-238-000-000 41.50 Total : 4,784.54 59898 7/24/2007 006730 SO CA.GAS COMPANY 07122007 June Utility Charges Page- 6 vchUst V�qucher List Page: 7 07/18/2007 10:59:20AMI CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59898 7/24/2007 006730 SO CA.GAS COMPANY (Continued) 10-190-238-000-000 264.45 10-440-238-000-000 41.59 1769986082JUN June CNG Fuel Charges 10-440-272-000-000 1380 34-800-272-000-000 13.79 10-180-272-000-000 41.39 Total : 375.02 59899 7/24/2007 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 9173721909 Misc Office Supplies-Comm Svcs 10-180-210-000-000 286.55 Total : 286.55 59900 7/24/2007 010712 TASO TECH, INC 102 Computer Purchase-Finance Dept. 10-140-701-000-000 1,578.95 112 PC Setup Labor Charges 10-140-701-000-000 420.00 Total : 1,998.95 59901 7/24/2007 010590 TERRA LOMA REAL ESTATE JUNE21007 June Property Management Fees L 34-400-04 33.00 Total : 33.00 59902 7/24/2007 007579 VARELA, CATALINA 2ND QTR 2007 2nd Qtr 2007 Medical Reimbursement 10-440-139-000-Ono 140.48 Total : 140.4.8 591)03 7/24/2007 007854 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS CO 329797 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 10-805-245-000-000 32.00 329797A June Exterminator Service-City Hall 10-180-245-000=000 120.50 Total : 152.50 59904 7/24/2007 007938 1MIR7_ & COMPANY 49785 Posters-Blue Mtn. Senior Villas 32-370-230-000-000 118.53 501.79 Business Cards-A. Williams 10-370-220-000-000 52.26 Page 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: � 07/18/2007 10:59:20AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank rode: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 59904 7/24/2007 007938 WIRZ& COMPANY (Continued) Total : 170.79 59905 7/2,1./2007 007984 YOSE_AAITE_WATERS 062907 June H2O/Cooler Rental-City Hall 10-190-238-000-000 84.55 20917286 BOTTLED WATER 10-440-238-000-000 50.40 10-805-238-000-000 19.10 34-400-238-000-000 13.15 Total : 167.20 511 Vouchers for hank code : bofa Bank total : 108,701.64 511 Voaachers in this report Total vouchers : 1108,701.646 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 m.e and are necessary and appropriate for the operation of City and Agency. 1'A(141',,10V_\ 1-r_y Ron.nnu,;' rinmnCa_ n;_rert:OT. Page: 8 1 i CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PO4DW CITY CO HOL,APPROVAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 10, 2007 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 10, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Maiyetta Fen 6, Mayor Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem Bea Cortes, Councilmember Jim Miller, Councilmember Dan Buchanan, Councilmember Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Larry Romnow, Finance Director Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Hector- Guerra, Sheriffs Department Gary Bush, San Bernardino County Fire Department ABSENT: Tom Schwab, City Manager Gary Koontz, Community Development Director The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Councilwoman Lee Ann.Garcia, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Jim Miller. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 6:00 P.M. ITEMS TO DELETE - None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A Introduction of Sheriffs Deputies Captain Tanguay, San Bernardino County Sheriff s Department, stated that Central Station recently has gone through some personnel changes and starting tonight she wanted to introduce to the Council and those in the audience the Deputies that have been assigned to Grand Terrace. She introduced Deputy Cory Emon and Deputy Chris Bunnell CONSENT CALENDAR CC-2007-54 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER; CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items: COUNCIL AGENDA I NO. 3b Council Minutes July 10,2007 Page 2 3A. Approve Check Register Dated July 10, 2007 3B. Waive full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda 3C. Approval of06-12-2007 Minutes 3D. Notice of Completion - Barton Road Bike Lane Project (IPS) 3E. Unanticipated Revenue from' Transfer of Solid Waste Agreement and Additional Appropriation 3F. Homeland Security Grant Funding Award FY 2006 - PUBLIC COMMENT Elaine McDermott,22452 DeBei7y, expressed her concern with having a no parking sign u7 front of her home. She feels that it will be a burden to not be able to park in front of her own home. They have a two car garage which they can only fit one car in and four cars. They are not able to park in the alley or in the driveway. She asked the Council to reconsider the no parking or possibly modify it to exclude homeowners or issue a permit. Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, expressed her concern that there is not accurate or current information on the website. She feels that the public should have access to the agendas and staff reports at least a week prior to the meeting. She stated that the Colton Joint Unified School District Board is concerned about the AES Power Plant and she feelE that if the Council really wants the high school in Grand Terrace you will take a position against a plant like that in Grand Terrace k Assistant City Manager Steve Beirv. responded that he will speak to the McDermott's and with the traffic engineer to talk about the situation on DeBery Street. REPORTS 5A. Committee Reports 1 Crime Prevention Committee a. Minutes of May 14, 2007 CC-2007-55 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUI\TCILMEMBER CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the May 14, 2007 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee. Councilmember Buchanan,indicated that the Crime Prevention Committee in then-minutes from the meeting on May 14, 2007 had a motion to make Richard Rollins an honorary permanent member of the Crime Prevention Committee and requested that it be ag.endized for a future meeting. Council Minutes July 10,.2007 Page 3 b. Appoint Regular Member (Hurst) CC-2007-56 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN,to appoint Debra Hurst-asa Regular Member of the Crime Prevention Committee with a term continuing to June 30, 2008. C. Change Regular Meeting Time and Location CC-2007-57 MOTIONBY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 5-0, to change the regular meeting time and location of the Crime Prevention Committee to City Hall Second Floor Conference Room at 4:00 p.m. 2. Emergency Operations Committee a. Minutes of June 5, 2007 CC-2007-58 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the June 5, 2007 Minutes of the Emergency Operations Committee. 5B. Council Reports a MavorFerre,requested abriefreport from Battalion Chief,Gary Bush and Lt.Hector Guerra, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, regarding July 4'''. San Bernardino County Fire Chief Gary Bush, stated that they had three objectives for the fourth of July which was for engines companies to provide a physical presence within the City. One engine company was patrolling the blue mountain area to make sure there were no problems there and had another engine company patrolling City Streets. They also had an investigator,assigned to the City to make sure there was enforcement of the codes and ordinances of illegal fireworks and to make sure that the safe and sane fireworks were being. used safely. He is happy to report that there were no fireworks related fires during the sales period for the fireworks.. Their prevention efforts were very effective as well. They had a total of 14 contacts with members of the community by the investigator. They had 6 interventions, which were mostly related to minor illegal use of fireworks. They also made sure that the fireworks booth was in compliance of the operating hours. Overall they had a very quiet 4t' of July. Lt. Hector Guerra. San Bernardino Count\, Sheriff's Department, indicated that they also experienced a relatively quiet 4"'of July. They operated extra enforcement on the')"as well as the 4"i. During the two day period, their dispatch only received 9 calls for service from residents indicating that there were illegal fireworks being used. They made two arrests for Council Minutes July 10, 200 Paee q illegal fireworks and they had an additional 50 contacts with various residents around the City, most of which were advisals on fireworks safety. They were using safe and sane fireworks but went ahead and handed out fireworks safety pamphlets to insure that no one gets hurt and that fires don't get started. They encountered several large parties but nothing major. Mayor Ferre,reported that she had the opportunityto ride along with Assistant Citv>\�lanager Berry from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on the 4"' of July. She found that it NN as quiet and a lot of community members using safe and sane fireworks in the street. It was,,vortliwhile to ride along with Assistant City Manager Berry so that she could see for herself xvinat the City was doing. It appeared that the City was following the rules of the safe and sane fireworks. She requested that Assistant City Manager give a report on the grant for the trees. Assistant City Manager BeM,reported that staff has applied for a grant through AQMD and were awarded the ability to plant 155 trees and two _years of maintenance with the group which is about $20,000.00 in donations. It will be on make a difference day. Ociober 27, 2007. They are beginning to work on the irrigation lines. It is going to be down main street starting from Mt. Vernon almost to Michigan and from Mt. Vernon going north. They will try to make it a fun event and get the community involved. They will pre-drill the holes for the trees and provide all of the equipment. It should be a great day. Mavor Fer-e,indicated that there has been graffiti on the building that houses Starbucks. She questioned what has been done so far that the City can do. Assistant City Manager Berry, responded that they haven't been working,,vith the property manager. He will follow-up with them. He reported that he received a call fi-onn Union Pacific today and believes that we will see some removal of the graffiti that is there Mayor Ferre, reported that she attended the Crime Prevention Committee meeting last evening and it was announced that anew C.E.R.T.class is beginning and will be held on July 14,21,and 28. The C.E.R.T. is being trained by those residents in the City that Nvent through the first training Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, recognized Darcy McNaboe and the Foundation of Grand Terrace for then-creativity. At Grand Terrace Days they lead blue scarfs that had the Grand Terrace Foundation logo along with the company that printed the scarfs. She wanted to remind everyone that there is a foundation and the purpose of the foundation is to do projects of worthwhile nature for the community. It has a separate board that is not connected with the City and none of the council is on the board. She feels that they are doing a tremendous job. She recognized Neil Derry, Southern California Edison Representative, that was in the audience. She feels that he is a good representative. She indicated that she would love to have a town clock and that she has beep talking to the Foundation and the Lion's Club about <u, Council Minutes July 10, 2007 Page 5 tr possibly malting this happen. She complimented Roxanne Williams for her persistence in working with the different boards. It can be very difficult when you feel like no one is listening. She stated that she has stated on record that she does not want a power plant and she would have to wart until there is an item on the agenda to actually vote on it. She stated that she is sure that someone will be going to the July 11,2007 CJUSD Board meeting. She realizes that it is hard to be a member of the public fighting for something You believe in and working and feeling like there isn't any action being taken. An-quality is going to be a major concern. The air quality is real and is killing people and she feels that we need to be diligent about it in the future. She would like the Council to consider having some type of oral or written reports that would be given by the committee members. She stated now that our SSSO is back she would like to see the Crime Stats again. She conrplinrented Councilmember Miller on his writings in the local paper on the Union Pacific Railroad. She stated that she would like to see those types of articles on the website. The library reading program has begun and will go through August 19, 2007 for those birth to 18 years of age. She has asked staff to look into the CALTRANS adopt a highway program. The trash along the freeway is terrible. She stated that the CALTRANS adopt a highway program provides an avenue for individuals, organizations or businesses to help maintain sections of roadside within California State Highway System. Groups have the option to participate as volunteers or to higher a maintenance service provider to perform the work on their behalf. She would like to put on the website "Would you or your organization like to participate in the adopt a highway" she was thinking of the Chamber of Commerce, Boys Scouts, and the Lion's Club. This would insure that the trash remains picked up. On August 1,there is going to be a very important SANBAG Meeting. They are going to be looking at the Measure I Implementation. It will be the Strategic Implementation. She stated that she was noticing that SANBAG doesn't do minutes so you can't go back and look at them. She asked City Attorney Harper how can they have meetings and not have minutes. City Attorney John Harper,responded that it depends on the nature of the organization. The only thing that the statute ever requires is action minutes. SANBAG is subject to the Brown Act and should at least be taking action minutes. Councilmember Cortes, responded that she can find the minutes on the agenda on the website. Councilmember Garcia, feels that the I215 gap between San Bernardino and. Riverside Counties is very important and would like to see the representative fight as toughly as possible to make sure that it doesn't fall by the wayside. She feels that you can't complain if you aren't going to do something about it. She wants the residents to know that she is asking the representatives to fight as hard as possible because if we don't fight the money will be used and it won't get done. She reported that on July 18°i from 5:30 p.m.to 7:30 p.n; the Chamber of Commerce will be holding their summer mixer at Beauty Ahhh La Cart 1"r4r Council Minutes July 10,2007 Noe Councilmember Bea Cortes, reported that the Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce is having their luncheon on July 17"i. She thanked Chief Gary Bush for promptly returning her phone calls. She also thanked Lt. Guerra for the same. The City did seem a lot safer.VShe feels that the fireworks lasted a lot longer than the 4' of July. She feels that nothing happened to be alarmed of and she appreciates both agencies efforts working together. She thanked Mayor Fen-6 for going out in the evening with Assistant City Manager Berry for driving the City themselves. She stated that she focuses on making sure that the City of Grand Terrace is always heard. She is always speaking to the other representatives to make sure that they don't forget the City of Grand Terrace. She referred to an article in The Sun from 2001. Councilmember. Jim Miller, he questioned Richard Shields, Building and Safety/Public Works Director about the status of the Honey Hill signal. Building & Safety/Public Works Director Richard Shields, responded that it has been a struggle. Be reminded the Council that this was a SANBAG project that was a Tier 1, Tier , 2 project that included numerous cities other than Grand Terrace. While Grand Terrace was waiting for some of the work to be done here some of the crews had to start in other cities and now they are getting close to finishing up those and are gearing up to come back to Grand Terrace to finish the signal. One of the major things that has to be done is to get a special computer box situated in the Assistant City Manager's Office, which should occur this week. Once that is in things should move along a lot quicker. There is no striping that has been completed on Barton Road and Honey Hill. He didn't want the power to be turned on without that limit line striping on there. Councilmember Miller, questioned if he has a rough guess Building& Safety/Public Works Director Richard Shields,responded that he is hoping that there will be workers out there tomorrow morning. Councilmember Cortes. stated that the company that is working on the signal light has to cover all the other cities. They were ready to come to the City of Grand Terrace but because Edison hadn't done their portion they went to the other cities to work, and we can't pull that contractor to come back. As soon as their schedule permits they will be back to Grand Terrace. Buildmg& Safety/Public Works Director Shields. stated that there were things that needed to take place prior to the installation of the meter. The meter is installed and we should see a signal within a week or so. Councilmember Miller, reported that tomorrow night the Colton Joint Unified School District will be holding a special meeting regarding facilities. He stated that he will be at the Council Minutes July 10,2007 Page 7 would like some representation from the City. He meeting to hear what is going on and wants to talk to some of the members of the Board about a resolution that came out a couple weeks ago. He feels that the Council is going to have to look at making a decision and agendizing the position of the Council on the pecker plant. On July 16`h the California Energy Commission is suppose to be making a decision on the whether or not they are going to be giving the credits. He stated that the Council received information on Candidate `—' Contributions for general information. City Attorney Harper,indicated that Assistant City Manager Berry requested the information. Councilmember Miller, stated that the Candidate Contributions for candidates is governed by the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. He personally doesn't want to change it. City AttorieyHWer,stated that the questioned rose when Assistant City Manager Berry saw an article from the League of California Cities. Councilmember Miller, stated that he received some literature on graffiti coating and questioned if staff could look into trying it. Assistant City Manager Berry,responded that lie received the same information and that they have already ordered a sample Councilmember Miller, questioned when the agenda goes on the webpage. City Clerk Brenda Mesa; responded that the goal is to have the agenda on the website late on Thursday or Friday if we are open. Councilmember Buchanan, questioned if staff has a develop status on the website Assistant City Manager Berry,responded that staff is still working on it and that he doesn't expect it to be up before November or December of this year. Mayor Ferr6, stated that.it is her understanding that the Energy Commission has not _yet issued a preliminary ruling and it is also her understanding that the public comment period for the envirommental review has not begun. She feels that once the public comment begins and the commission issues a preliminary ruling, that is when the City should look into this matter and if warranted consider taking action to oppose the power or the project if the City- has concerns about its negative impact on our community. She would certainly be against a project that would be harmful to the community. At this point, until we know what the ruling is and until the public comment period for the envrrommental review begins she feels we need to wart. Council Minutes July 10,2007 Page 8 Councilmember Cortes, concurred. Mayor Fer-e indicated that she received a public comment request from Roxanne Williams and that the Public Comment period was over and asked the Council what their pleasure is. CC-2007-59 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to re-open Public Comment for Roxanne Williams comments on the Colton Joint Unified School District Resolution.AES Roxanne Williams, 22005 Tanager Street, thanked the firefighters during the 4°i of July. There were a lot of illegal fireworks on her street and as soon as the fire trucks came down their street they stopped. She feels it was very effective. She also thanked the Council for planting trees She would like the Council to continue making positive steps forward and appreciates Councilmember Garcia's comments and maybe support. She would like the Council to agendize the item regarding the AES Hrghgrove Power Plant. She would like to bring to the Council's attention and the public that the Colton Joint Unified School District recent resolution 7-12. This Resolution was unanimously adopted by the members present. It authorizes the District to actively, participate in providing for safe schools and environmentally safe areas near existing and proposed high school sites throughout the district. Whereas, the Board of Education of the Colton Joint Unified School District will actively participate in the public review conmment period of any proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as appropriate. Whereas, all future projects proposed near any existing and proposed school sites by other entities and their potentially significant impacts will be closely monitored. Whereas, the operating power plants are known to decrease the air quality in their immediate vicinity. Whereas, operating power plants are known to increase passenger and trucking traffic because of employment commutes and wastewater transport. Whereas, operating power plants are known to cause pollution of onsite water swells. Whereas, operating power plants need pressurized natural gas lines to operate the electricity operating machinery and by their nature, operating pressurized natural gas lines are known to pose hazardous condition to their sun-ounding areas. Whereas,operating power plants are known to increase the noise level in their vicinity. Now, Therefore, it be resolved by the Board of Education the District will make known,but not limited to the above five listed impacts, its concerns in oral and written comments regarding any proposed power plant project during the public review process and furthermore,the District hereby opposes the activation and or reactivation of any power plant near any existing or proposed school site. Passed and adopted. She would like the Councilmembers to be aware that this Friday,July 13,2007, at the Air Qaulrty Management District there will be a decision made. Let's not wart until there is a preliminary document, be there PUBLIC HEARING Council Minutes July TO,2007 Page 9 6A. An Ordinance of the City Council Amending Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requirements for Trees on Local Residential, Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace Assistant City Manager Berry, reported that the City's current ordinance regarding trees - along the public-right-of-way including parkways and those trees along the city curbs is the �i following: 1228.140 Maintenance and pruning. A All maintenance and pruning shall be the responsibility of the adjacent homeowner. B. The trees and ground cover shall be maintained so as not to constitute a hazard. C Trees on the local residential streets shall be pruned ten feet from the top of the curb. Trees on arterial and major streets shall be pruned fourteen feet from the top of the curb. Owners are encouraged to seek guidance toward proper pruning. Due to the height of the trash trucks, fire engines and street sweepers, staff would like to change the tree pruning height from ten feet to fifteen feet. After the Council received the staff report Councilmember Buchanan came up with the following language that Staff agrees with and would like to include in the proposed amended Ordinance: Trees and shrubbery on all local residential arterial and major streets shall be pruned in such a manner as not to encroach into or over any sidewalk or street maintaining at least eight feet of clearance from above the sidewalk and not less than fifteen feet above the top of the curb to the extent the foliage extends over any sidewalk or street. Owners are encouraged to seek guidance to proper pruning. The proposed amended Ordinance would be: C. Trees and shrubbery on all local residential arterial and major streets shall be pruned in such a manner as not to encroach into or over any sidewalk or street maintaining at lease eight feet of clearance from above the sidewalk and not less than fifteen feet above the top of the curb to the extent the foliage extends over any sidewalk or street. Owners are encouraged to seek guidance to proper pruning. Staff recommends that Council adopt the Ordinance Amending Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requrrernents for Trees on Local Residential, Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace Councilmember Garcia,questioned when someone buys a house do they know that they are responsible for maintaining the trees. Council Minutes July 10, 2007 Page 10 Assistant City Manager Berry, responded probably not. Councilmember Garcia, feels that this is something that needs to be improved. Tree trimming can be expensive and where she feels that this is something that needs to be done she has gotten a lot of questions from residents asking if the City will come out and trim the trees. She would like sometime in the future for the City to highlight the time that the Cit\1 has gone out and trimmed trees. There are some reasons why we trim trees Assistant City Manager Berry, stated that we will trim a tree if the branch is coming down and there is a safety issue. One thing that Grand Terrace does do that he doesn't know if any other City does is we have a contract with WCA and what we have offered to the residents, when we found a tree that is dangerous we will send them a.notice of violation but also let them pay the cost of the contract service which is only$95.00 to have that tree professionally trimmed. They have the option of trimming it themselves or paying the City 595.00 and we direct the contractor to go out there. Councilmember Garcia, questioned if Edison will trim the tops of the trees if they interfere with the lines. Assistant City Manager Ben3y, responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ferre opened the Public Hearing for discussion. Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, is alarmed at a fifteen foot clearance. She feels that it would really bad for a lot of trees. It won't look right if you trim trees that high up oil one side and not on the other and it can be damaging to the trees. She feels that there are some beautiful old trees in the City and we should not trim our trees so that dump trucks can park everywhere in the City. She dopes that Edison never trims a tree without contacting the homeowner first. She knows that they have trimmed a little bit off of her mother's trees right by the line. People often trim palm trees badly and her mother has spent thousands for years and years to have hers done right. It is very important not to have an arbitrary thing and not to contact the homeowners. She feels that there are other alternatives besides trimming the trees to that height Mayor Fen-e returned discussion to the Council. Councilmember Buchanan, has a concern with the fifteen foot high requirement and feels that it is important that there be some reasonableness with this ordinance. There are certain types of foliage that grows over the edge of the curb that doesn't interfere with anything Staff has indicated that there is flexibility with the ordinance and he doesn't have a problem addmg some language that clarifies that it deals with hazardous situations. Council Minutes July 10, 2007 Page 11 City Attorney Harper, stated that at the beginning of the paragraph we could say in order to prevent interference with trash trucks,fire engines,street sweepers,trees on local.etc. Then the basis for the ordinance is the interference with those types of vehicles. Assistant City Manager Belly, stated that staff is not looking to go out and chop every tree fifteen feet from the street to the branches. There is concern with some of the trees and the branches and the damage they can cause. Staff would like to have consistency. City Attorney Harper, stated that staff can make it a lot more general and sa\ trees on local residential streets shall be pruned and maintained in a manner so as not to mterfere with pedestrian access and with trash tricks, fire engines, and street sweepers. Councilmember Miller, would like the heights taken out of the language Assistant Citv Manager Ben'y,questioned how high to tell a resident to trim their tree if there are no height requirements. City Attorney Harper, responded to tell them approximately the number so that it doesn't interfere. Councilmember Garcia,stated that it is going to be difficult for the code enforcement officer to go out and write a violation and tell them how to solve the problem. Assistant City Manager Berry,stated that at certain times of the year staff goes out and issues citations to probably 400 residents. It would be nice to set a certain amount. City Attorney Harper. said you can do that but you don't have to do it by ordinance. Assistant City Manager Berrv, is concerned with it being ambiguous. Councilmember Garcia, questioned if there can be a variance Councilmember Buchanan, feels that the simplest thing to do would be to identify what her ght you need to accommodate all of the types of vehicles and write the ordinance in a way that you can't have anything below that height that interferes with the passage of vehicles If there is foliage hanging down that doesn't interfere with the passage of vehicles you don't have to wont'with the violation. If it something that does interfere with the passage of large vehicles.they need to fix it. He is sympathetic with Assistant City Manager Berry's concerj. Councilmember Cortes. stated that if there is no height requirement staff will be receiving a large volume of phone calls and we lfpn't have the staff to handle them. Council Minutes July 10,2007 Page 12 City Attorney HaLTer, stated that there is nothing that precludes staff from putting in the notice saying trimming it to fifteen feet. The ordinance establishes that it can't interfere regardless of its height The standard is that it can't interfere with pedestrian access or large vehicles. Councilmember Miller. stated that it is hard for him to believe that in California or across the country that this hasn't come up some other place. He questioned if staff has looked at other cities to see if they had any ordinance that helped them solve this type of issues. Assistant City Manager Ben•y, responded that they haven't done that but would be happy to and staff can bring that information back to Council. Councilmember Miller, feels that this item needs to be researched and brought back to Council at the next meeting. Councilmember Garcia,concurred with Councilmember Miller and questioned if staff feels that it will be the same 400 notices written each year. Assistant City Manager Berry, responded in the affirmative. CC-2007-60 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 5-0, to continue an Ordinance of the City Council Amending Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requirements for Trees on Local Residential,Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace to the next Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on July 24, 2007. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 8A. 2007-2008 Annual Review ofLandscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 89- 1 CC-2001-61 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution ordering the City Engineer to prepare plans; specifications, cost estimates. diagrams and assessment reports, (Engineer's Report), adopt a resolution approving Engineer's Report and adopt a Resolution of Intentions. B Funding Projects from the Remaining Balance of the 1981 Settlement Agreement between the City of Grand Terrace and the County of San Bernardino Council Minutes July 10,2007 Page 13 CC-2007-62 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0,to direct staff to prepare a proposal for the use of the remaining balance of the 1981 Settlement Agreement between the City of Grand Terrace and the County of San Bernardino in the amount of$620,000.00 on the following items: - $375.000 for retro-fitting and refurbishing the station $40,000.00 for road grinding and petromat overlay on City Center Drive $70,000.00 for an Opticom system for all City traffic lights. This system can be used by both the Fire'Department and Sheriff's Department to change the lights from red to green in emergency situations. — $80,000.00 for photo voltaic (solar power) system $25,000.00 in new furniture and appliances $18,000.00 in off-site trailer rentals for fire persomiel during construction. CLOSED SESSION -None Mayor Fer-e adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. M CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace STAFF REPORT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE CRA ITEM Q COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FUNDING REQUIRED: YES (X) NO () The Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency (GTRDA) has two surplus parcels of land. The first is a 21,700 square foot residential lot at 12569 Michigan Street; the second parcel is 28,960 square foot residential lot at 11695 Canal Street.. The parcels were originally purchased by the Housing fund for housing purposes. Due to the changes in the market it is no longer feasible to develop housing for low mod buyers that does not require an unreasonable subsidy. Both parcels could be utilized by the Cite for other uses or city related facilities. Sale of the parcel from the GTRDA to this City would allow time to evaluate the uses possible and make a recommendation to council. A recent appraisal has determined the value at S6.10 per square foot making the value of the Michigan parcel $132,000 and the Canal parcel S177,000, a total of S309,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the transfer of 12569 Michigan Street and 11695 Canal Street to the City of Grand Terrace at a market value of S309,000. Council authorizes appropriation of S309,000 from the general fund un- appropriated fund balance to fund the transfer. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. RESOLUTION NO. A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND THE GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WITH REGARD TO THE CITY'S PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE AGENCY RECITALS WHEREAS. the Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency (hereinafter "Agency") is the owner of two parcels of residentially zoned property located at 12569 Michigan Street and 11695 Canal Street, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, said parcels were originally purchased by the Agency using its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in order to construct or subsidize the construction of affordable housing pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2; and WHEREAS, the Agency has attempted to sell the properties to potential ' residential developers pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33343, but, the Agency has been unable to do so because it is not presently feasible to develop low and moderate income housing that does not require an unreasonable subsidy; and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace (hereinafter "City') desires to purchase the subject properties for potential use as a park or other City facility; and WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase said properties for the fair market value, the proceeds of such sale to be deposited by the Agency in its Low and Moderate income Housing Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND THE GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DO HEREBY JOINTLY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated hereat as if set forth in full. Section 2. Agency agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the property located at 12569 Michigan Street for $132.000 and the property located at 11695 Canal Street for $77,000, representing the appraised fair market value for the subject properties, respectively. - 1 - 1Z Section 3. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433, the Agency hereby determines that the consideration is not less than the fair re-use value of the properties and that the consideration paid for the properties is in excess of that paid by the Agency and is equal to the fair market value of the properties at their highest and best use in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City. ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 24 day of July, 200i. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace t' - 2 - CERTIFICATION I. BRENDA MESA, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. California. certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City at a regular meeting held on the day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Grand Terrace. California, this day of . 2007. City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Finance Department CITY 0 GRRND TERR CE Staff Report j } CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM(X) MEETING DATE: July_24, 2007 AGENDA ITEM. SUBJECT: CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 07 - 08 FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED BACKGROUND: It has been the City policy in the past to allow departments to request continuation of appropriations from one fiscal year to the next for specific items or projects that were not spent .� or encumbered by purchase order as of June 30 of the closing fiscal year. These funds remain over and above anticipated beginning fund balances as shown in the adopted budget for FY07- 08, since that figure assumes, for purposes of conservatism, that all of the prior year budget would be spent or encumbered. Additionally, appropriations normally are not carried over from one fiscal year to the next for unspent and undesignated balances in generic line items such as supplies or travel/training. DISCUSSION: The City Clerk has requested continuation of$34,380 for website redesign and municipal code online internet access, $2,200 for the city volunteer banquet, and $1,200 for an online document scanner (attached memo). The Assistant City Manager has requested continuation of$8,500 from the 06-07 street sweeping budget for the purpose of providing additional funds to rehab and repair the street sweeper, (attached memo). All amounts are subject to final year-end expenditure accruals, and will be reduced if applicable. RECOMMENDATION: Request Council approval to continue appropriations of$34,380 to account 10-125-250, $2,200 to account 10-125-222, $1,200 to account 10-125-701, and $8,500 to account 16-900-254, in the FY07-08 budget, for the purposes mentioned above. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3E- i MEMORANDUM To: Tom Schwab, City Manager From: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Date: July 17, 2007 Subject: Request for Continuing Appropriations I am requesting the carryover of unspent appropriations from the FY 2006-07 Budget in the following accounts: • 10-125-222 (Volunteer Banquet/Awards) Amount: $2,200.00 Purpose: Host a banquet to honor city volunteers • 10-125-701 (HP Document Scanner) ' Amount: $1,200.00 Purpose: Scan documents to be provided online d • 10-125-250 (Professional/Special Services) Amount: $34,380.00 Purpose: Website redesign and electronically format Municipal Code for online service cc: Larry Ronnow, Finance Director L Melborandum To: Thomas Schwab, City Manager CC: Larry Ronnow, CFO From: Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Date: 7/18/2007 Re: Continuing Appropriations for 2007-08 Community Services is requesting to continue the remaining balance of$8,500 from the Street Sweeper account 16-900-254. The funds will be used to make any necessary repairs to the sweeper in preparation of selling the equipment. l M STAFF REPORT CRA () COUNCIL ITEM (K) MEETING DATE: JULY 24, 2007 SUBJECT: Irrevocable offer and Acceptance of Dedication APPLICANT: Riverside Highland Water Company LOCATION: 12374 Michigan Street, Grand Terrace, CA NO FUNDING REQUIRED X BACKGROUND: An offer of street dedication for public street improvements and public utilities has been submitted to the City as part of the conditions of approval for the Riverside Highland Water Company located at 12374 Michigan Street, Grand Terrace, CA. The dedication documents have been prepared by W.J. McKeever Inc., and review and approved by the City Engineer. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the City Council: I. Accept the Irrevocable offer and Acceptance of Dedication for public road improvements and utility purposes. 2. Direct the City Clerk to record the Irrevocable offer and Acceptance Dedication after the Mayor has signed the document. COUNCIL AGENDA OTEKI NO. : f i RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL,TO: City of Grand Terrace Public Works Department 22795 Barton Rd., Ste. B Grand Terrace, CA 92313 This document is filed at the request of the City of Grand Terrace And is exempt from fling fees pmsrant to .46103 of the Govemment Code IRREVOCABLE OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION APN 1167-171-09-0000 FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledge Riverside Highland Water Company ("GRANTOR") Does hereby Irrevocable Offer for dedication and acceptance to the City of Grand Terrace; a Municipal Corporation, the following real property located in the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, State of California, for street, wastewater, water, communication conduits; gas, electric and other public utility and related appertain,purposes. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT"A"AND "B" Date . 20 Grantor's Signature Grantor's Signature Name. Name: Title Title: This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed within this instrument from the Grantor to the City of Grand Terrace, California, a municipal corporation, is hereby acknowledge and ACCEPTED at this time by order of the City Council. The GRANTOR hereby consents to its recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Accepted by- 20 City Mayor Date Maryetta FerrF r) CALIFORNIA ALL=PIURPCSL ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............... e� erccce <cc � �c eCc �C we �c C �J c` l Ih State of California K' ss. ' County of 4 1 On before me, Date Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,'Jane Doe,Notary Public') personally appeared ; Name(s)of Sicner(s; ❑personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory fi evidence r to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are ' subscribed to the within instrument and, acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed fi the same in his/her/their authorizer capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their Ih sionature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or Z'h 'h the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) � acted, executed the instrument. . rrS rth WITNESS my hand and official seal. rf� Sionature of Notary Public F OPTIONAL Though the information below is not reouired by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent ' fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. ; fi Description of Attached Document IIrrk� �' Y Title or Type of Document: fi Document Date: Number of Pages. ` fi Signers)Other Than Named Above fi it Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer r (f Signer's Name- 4 a r ❑ Individual lop of thumb here s < ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s) ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General (`. ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ' ❑ Trustee ° �f ❑ Guardian or Conservator c, r. it ❑ Other: z Signer Is Representing �'C^EC-'�_C?C(ji—^•U'G(.`CZti`C(:`�=C^t=2.�`�C.-::,�=<,t-c,'L—`C'JCC._c,:_-�C,�CSC.,.C"Ccr�n�=%CJ�7 CCi�>`�:�^�'-`C:'C/v'"f=:i''C'k'�:"LCSCC^C�C"K='C;'Ct;_:i; Cf tccc National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave. F.C.Box 2L02•Chatsworth.CA 91313-2402•www.NationalNotary.or; Prod.No.5807 Reorder.Call loll-Free i-600-575-5c2: rJ EXHIBIT "A" ADDITIONAL STREET RIGHT OF WAS' FOR MICHIGAN AVENUE REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ' GRAND TERRACE; COUNTY OF SALT BERNARDlNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 21, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH; RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, r ACCORDING TO MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE EAST RIVERSIDE LAND COMPANY, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 6 OF MAPS, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21, THENCE A LONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21 AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF'MICHIGAN STREET (33' HALF WIDTH), NORTH 00-01'33" WEST, 132 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LINES, NORTH 00001'33" WEST, 112.00 FEET TO A CEMENT MARKER ON THE WATER LINE OF THE JUMAL WATER COMPANY, THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LINES ALONG SAID WATERLINE, SOUTH 89"59'17" WEST, 11.00 FEET, THENCE PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LILIES SOUTH 00001'33" EAST; 112 00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 132 00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 89.59'16" EAST, 11.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL IS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE PART HEREOF. �E0LAN6 W. J. MCKEEVER INC . i CIVIL ENGINE RfNG o ( t 1 No .4463 � N� Exp• 9-30-07 �� j 'T �L Y Ir. %7ALKER L.S. 4463 �F CALIF ,ICEN E)EX'PIRES 09/30/07 ' f - 1 - FVvls0lvc:\R'PQR'OkD'v,EGALSUZ-190 E37-IIHIT A AD4DITiONF1 STREETN ROW FOR MICHIGA A\'E..dec i N 89'59'17"E 11.00 H W W 7- 0 0 z z � ll� 11.00 N 89'59'16"E T.P.O.B 0 (V M c SCALE 1"=40' 0 20 40 80 c c = I P.O.C. No. 4483 S.E. COR MAVIS STREET Exp. 09-30-2007 i LOT 2 1 — — LEGEND: IF OF CAL\ INDICATES DEDICATION EXHIBIT "B" Uj W.J. McKEEVER, INC. ADDITIONAL STREET DEDICATION Avok CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR MICHIGAN AVENUE 847 NRrv�k A,� �m, 92501 2A CITY OF GRAND TERRACE j --�� F :'cs5 541-37°° ' � � 941-37 t LARRY L. WAJ-9ER L.S. 448E DA`PE 1 u MAP- CHECI- APCHK F 1LE LEGALS r)2 ..--,S P WK #- Name Crs Created Revised by user 6 Converted from plan 1521-i 4 25-Jun-07 15-Jun-07 02 :27 ws Bear ng Distance Northing Easting Elevation Tarting coordinates- i0000.0000 10000=00 ""3,-""w 112�OQ 10112MOO P999MPS sag-S9 "17"W iI.00 10I1.1„ 9977 112 00 QqP9.9977 P98q-0001*,'.'i 1 "33"E N89-SY16"E 11„01-11 10000.000i 10000.0000 losing coordinates:: 10000.0000 10000 .0000 RROR OF CLOSURE.., Delta N Delta E N 0- 0" WE 0 MO -0=02. 0-000() ,erimeter= 246.00ft; Area= 1231.99q7 sq ft, 0.0283 acrys Historical & Cultural Activities Committee Minutes for June 4, 2007 The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Pauline Grant. Those present were Pauline Grant, Ann Petta, Frances Carter, Gloria Ybarra, Masako Gifford and Tracey Martinez. Secretary's Report: The minutes for May 7, 2007 were read and approved on a motion by Anm, seconded by Frances. Motion carried. Treasurer's Report:The budget shows a balance of$819.54. Petty cash balance is$103.70. Frances was reimbursed $21.78 by Ann for Art Show purchases. Gloria will send Shelly a note indicating that Tracey has a reimbursement for her for Art Show purchases. Historical Report: No report for June 2007. Old Business: Supply cabinet and purchase of new tablecloths: Tracey informed the committee that the purchases of the cabinet and tablecloths need to be done as quickly as possible due to the end of the fiscal year when the budget balance is returned to the city. Tracey indicated that she will contact Colleen and inform her of this. New Business: Country Fair, Saturday,November.) : After discussion, the committee agreed that Gloria will send Shelly a note indicating that we need to get the Fair information in the newspaper as quickly as possible, including a reminder to submit the,applications early. r The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. The next meeting will be July 2, 2007. R�ppe bmitted, w Gloria Yba a Secretary -` C V 0 11-Y OF GRAND TERRACE CITY CLERK'S DEEFARTRAEN C[ I CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE vi l�i�tr�'FEHfiACE Regular Meeting -.F- •r•ARTMEN'T MINUTES June 11, 2007 The Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee met for the regular meeting at the Senior Center. Meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Chairperson, Philomene Spisak. MEMBERS PRESENT were Chairperson, Philomene Spisak, Don Bennett, Pat Smith and Debra Hurst. MEMBERS ABSENT—Dottie Raborn, JoAnn Johnson, Lew Neeb and Marjorie Owens. CITY STAFF/SHERIFF'S DEPT.—None. GUESTS PRESENT—Robert and Mary Ann Stewart. INTRODUCTIONS - Were not necessary. AGENDA with motion by Debra Hurst and second by Don Bennett MINUTES for the meeting of May 14, 2007 were approved with motion by Debra Hurst and second by Don Bennett. PUBLIC COMMENT—None. CORRESPONDENCE—None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Criminal Activities a. Warrant issued and raid for narcotics possession. B. Neighborhood Watch Program a. Nothing new until Amber returns. C. Grand Terrace Days. a. One arrest for under the influence. b. Lost 7 year old boy was found. NEW BUSINESS A. Change of Meeting Location a. it was suggested that the Crime Prevention meeting location and time be changed. b. Debra Hurst made the motion to move to City Hall at 4 pm. Motion was seconded by Pat Smith. 1� c. Next Crime Prevention meeting will be July 9'h at 4 pm. at the upstairs conference room. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.5 B. Crime Prevention Planning—Nothing new. REPORTS A. Summary of Law Enforcement Activity—Nothing new. B. Citizen Patrol Report—Bob Stewart a. Citizen Patrol unit turned in for May 347 hours for a total of 1513 for the year. C. Other Community Programs—Nothing new. D. Member Reports —None. ADJOURNMENT- There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Se6ttary, JoAnn Johnson Thanks to Pat Smith for notes in my absence. �tdi L5 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CDP _RPOND TEZRR C:``' EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Regular Meeting MINUTES June 5, 2007 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 " Chairperson, Vic Pfennighausen at 6:00 p.m. Agendas were distributed. �1 MEMBERS PRESENT— Vic Pfennighausen, JoAnn Johnson, Oscar Santana; Lew Neeb, Susan Taylor, Randy Halseth, Debra Hurst, Robert Stewart and Glenn Nichols. MEMBERS ABSENT—Jim Vert. CITY STAFF—Assistant City Manager, Steve Berry. GUESTS PRESENT/INTRODUCTIONS — Mary Ann Stewart and Philomene Spisak. CORRESPONDANCE/COMMUNI CAT]ONS—None. APPROVAL OF AGENDA with motion by Glenn Nichols and second by Randy Halseth. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 1, 2007 Motion by Susan Taylor and second by Debra Hurst. M LIAISON REPORT by Steve Berry. a. No report on grant money for communications units. b. $4500 approved for MURS communication equipment. c. EOC and CERT placement at Grand Terrace Days in the same area as Fire and Sheriff. d. Vic read the rational presented for requested funds for converting garage into office for CERT. He estimates that it would take about $2400 of materials to make the conversion. e. Budget has been approved, but nothing was said about this item. f. Steve indicated that building 3 is to be demolished and new buildings to be erected on the back lot for storage of equipment. Garage conversion may be accomplished after that. g. Lay out for Grand Terrace Days was shown with EOC and CERT near the front. h. Mayor's Luncheon with Clergy of Grand Terrace highlighted EOC and CERT. Some of the congregations may become involved. i. Request activation exercise be done August.29th from 9 to noon. Virtually all EOC members will be involved. j. Satellite phones report "we're placing the order" for what it is-worth. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT by Vic Pfennighausen a. All equipment is working well. b. Have not ordered batteries for radios yet. c. Susan finished the Scrap Book for Grand Terrace Days. d. Debra and Vic purchased food as per budget item. e. EOC trailer is ready for Grand Terrace Days. All literature is sorted and ready. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NOa��?1�Ii UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Full activation exercise is scheduled for August 291h from 9 to noon. b. Discussion on CERT storage container offered by Fire Department. Outcome to be determined at later date. Randy will pursue. c. Vic brought up the Volunteer Picnic which has not taken plaoe for some time. d. Steve suggested that Vic follow up with other city staff or council. NEW BUSINESS a. Work day scheduled for June 1 l th at 1 pm. Everyone is welcome to come and help. b. All going well with CERT. Have sign up sheets for Grand Terrace Days. c. Steve reminded Randy that the Blue Mountain Outlook's deadline is the 151h for items. TRAINING/SPEAKERS — On hold for the time being. ADJOURNMENT at 6:46 p.m. Zj J'oAnn Johm6on, Secretary NEXT MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY,JULY 3 AT 6 P.M. �'4, STAFF REPORT CRA () COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 SUBJECT: 2007-2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1 NO FUNDING REQUIRED X BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting of July 10,2007,City Council adopted a resolution ordering the preparation of plans, specification, cost estimates, diagrams, engineer's report and acceptance thereof for Landscape and Lighting District No. 89-1. This agenda item is for the purpose of conducting the public hearing and adoption of the resolution for the assessment levy. Staff has reviewed the expenditures for last fiscal year(2006-2007),based on our best estimate,the cost of operation and maintenance should approximately equal the assessments levied and collected. It is our estimate, that these costs and assessments should remain for the coming fiscal year (2007-2008). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution for the Annual Assessment Levy. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. Oq I LAW OFFICES OF HARPER'& BURNS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 453 S.GLASSELL STREET JOHN R.HARPER' ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92866 RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO.CO. ALAN R.BURNS 1951) 674-0698 COLIN R.BURNS (714) 771-7728 OF COUNSEL FAX(714) 744.3350 JUDI A.CURTIN• MICHAEL MONTGOMERY• •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION June 4, 2007 Mr. Jerry Glander, Director of Public Works CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California 92324 RE: CITY OF GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-I Dear Jerry: Enclosed please find the following material relating to the annual levy for the above referenced District: 1. Order of Procedure; 2. Instruction Sheet (Annual Assessment Levy); 3. Resolution Confirming Assessment. The resolution should be adopted at the conclusion of the public hearing on July 24, 2007. After that meeting,. I'd appreciate your sending me a conformed copy. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours. HARPER & BURNS LLP John R. a Ci Attorney Cc: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Enclosure(s) ORDER OF PROCEDURE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 24, 2007 STAFF: Present ENGINEER'S REPORT, general discussion of LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89=1 CITY COUNCIL: See attached INSTRUCTION SHEET- PUBLIC HEARING. Adopt RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT 3 INSTRUCTION SHEET - PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1 PUBLIC HEARING MAJORITY PROTEST: Any interested person may file a written protest with the City Clerk,stating the grounds for their objection. Said protest shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify said property. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing. If a written protests submitted, and not withdrawn, constitute in excess of fifty (50%) percent of the total value of the assessment, the proceedings must be abandoned. ASSESSMENT ROLL If there are to be no changes or modifications in the individual assessment amounts, then the assessment roll as previously prepared should be confirmed. A copy of the confirmed assessment should be filed in the Office of the City Engineer, with a duplicate copy on file in the Office of the City Clerk and open for public inspection. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of the special assessment for the fiscal year so referred to in the assessment. COUNTY AUDITOR Immediately after the adoption of the Resolution Confirming the Diagram and the Assessment, and no later .than the August 10, 2007, the Clerk shall file a copy of the assessment diagram and the assessment, or a certified copy thereof, with the County Auditor. I would recommend that together with a copy of the diagram and assessment, a certified copy of the Resolution Confirming the Assessment be forwarded also. FISCAL YEAR The assessment, as levied for these proceedings, will relate to the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. Note that an annual updating of the proceedings will be required for each subsequent fiscal year to accomplish the levy for the ensuing fiscal year. k Z+ FUTURE PROCEEDINGS Be advised that it is necessary, each year, to update the Engineer's "Report" and approve said "Report" for the ensuing fiscal year. We should all probably mark our calendars for some time after the first of the year to begin the process. CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS AT HEARING During the course of the Public Hearing, or upon the conclusion of said hearing, the legislative body may order changes in the improvements, the boundaries of the District, or any zones thereof. The legislative body may, without further notice, order the exclusion of territory from the District, but no property shall be added to said District except upon the following terms and conditions: a. Upon written request by a property owner for the inclusion of his property; b. Upon the legislative body declaring its intention to add additional property and directing that mailed notice be given to-the property owners within the area proposed to be annexed. I would recommend that if any changes are to be considered, the matter be continued so that the proper documentation can be drafted. 1�. Ilk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LEVY FOR A LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated proceedings for the annual levy of the assessments for a landscaping and street lighting district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Landscaping and Street Lighting Act of 1972", being Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, in a district known and designated as CITY OF GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1 WHEREAS, the City Council has ordered the preparation of a report and the City Engineer has prepared and filed with this City Council a report pursuant to law for its consideration and subsequently thereto this City Council did adopt its Resolution of Intention ' to levy and collect assessments for the next ensuing fiscal year relating to the above-referenced District, and further did proceed to give notice of the time and place for a Public Hearing on all matters relating thereto; and, -- WHEREAS, at this time, this City Council has heard all testimony and evidence and is desirous of proceeding with the annual levy of assessments. , NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the above-recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing, protests filed and not withdrawn, did not represent property owners being obligated for more than fifty percent (50%) of the total assessments within the District. SECTION 3. That this City Council hereby confirms the diagram and assessment as submitted and orders the annual levy of the assessment for the fiscal year and in the amounts as set forth in the Engineer's Report and as referred to in the Resolution of Intention as previously adopted relating to said annual assessment levy. SECTION 4. That the diagram and assessment as set forth and contained in said Report are hereby confirmed and adopted by this City Council. SECTION 5. That the adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of the assessment for the fiscal year. SECTION.6. That the estimates of costs, the assessment diagram, the assessments and all other matters, as set forth in Engineer's "Report", pursuant to said "Landscaping and Street Lighting Act of 1972", as submitted, are hereby approved, adopted by this City Council and hereby confirmed. SECTION 7. That the maintenance. works of improvements contemplated by the Resolution of Intention shall be performed pursuant to law and the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Roll the amount of the Assessment and said assessment shall then be collected.at the same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by said County, the net amount of the assessment shall be paid to the City Treasurer of said City. SECTION S. That the City Treasurer has previously established a special fund known as the SPECIAL FUND CITY OF GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 59-1 into which the City Treasurer shall place all monies collected by the Tax Collector pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution and law and including any surplus amounts in those funds " established for the existing Districts and said transfer shall be made and accomplished as soon as said monies have been made available to said City Treasurer. SECTION 9. That the City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment roll with the County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption. SECTION 10. That a certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office of the City Engineer, with a duplicate copy on file in the Office of the City Clerk and open for public inspection. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 241h day of July, 2007. Mayor for the City of Grand Terrace ATTEST: City Clerk for the City of Grand Terrace I, Brenda Mesa, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk, all at the regular meeting of said City Council held on July 24, 2007, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB STAIN: EXECUTED this 24" day of July, 2007, at Grand Terrace, California. City Clerk for the City of Grand Terrace [SEAL] CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR LEVY OF 2007 - 2008 F.Y. ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS IN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89-1 Prepared by: James Mitsch June 2007 W.O. # 12.515 - C TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 2 ENGINEER'S REPORT PART A -Plans and Specifications 6 PART B - Estimates of Costs 8 PART C - Assessment Roll 12 PART D -Method of Apportionment of Assessment 13 PART E -Property Owners List 14 PART F -ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 19 4 I�� ENGINEER'S REPORT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1 GRAND TERRACE 2007 -2008 F.Y. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the City Council. oQ,gESS/G�, H. -- DATED: ® ( ENGINEER OF WO �Q Ts0 �1. {� 15r.9; By: L EXP. 6-30%g� Jam Mitsch �* �9l CIVI oL F I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assess F 0 Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the �� day of -� . 52007. Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace, California Brenda Mesa J` I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, on the day of 2007. Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace, California By: Brenda Mesa Ieae 1 INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace adopted it's General Plan with various elements to provide guidelines for orderly development within the community. The City Council further adopted ordinances and regulations governing the development of land providing for the installation and construction of certain landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities to enhance the quality of life and to benefit the value of property. The requirement for the construction and installation of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities is a condition of approval for development and is a requirement of issuance of a permit for the construction of any residential, commercial, industrial and planned unit development. Landscaping and'appurtenant facilities generally include trees, shrubs,plants, turf, irrigation systems, and necessary appurtenances including curbs, hardscape, monumentations, fencing located in public right-of-ways, medians, parkways, and/or easements adjacent to public right-of- ways, in and along public thoroughfares and certain designated primary and secondary arterials. Lighting and appurtenant facilities includes poles, lighting fixtures, conduits and the necessary equipment to maintain, operate and replace a lighting system at designated intersections, in medians, parkways and adjacent to certain public facilities in and along certain streets,right-of- ways and designated lots. The installation of landscaping and lighting systems and'the construction of the necessary appurtenant facilities is the responsibility of the property owner/applicant, as conditions of approval of a development application. The City may cause the installation by property owners directly, or accept financial arrangements for installation of these facilities. The cost of servicing, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities in turn becomes the responsibility of the benefitting properties. The owners/applicants petitioned for formation of the Landscaping Lighting Assessment District and/or annexation. These have been completed, and will increase the City's obligation for maintenance and servicing. The City of Grand Terrace is administering a lighting system for the benefit of all parcels of land within the City. The lighting benefit is directly related to public safety and property protection. These benefits have been studied widely, locally, regionally and nationally. Page 2 The City has formed Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 89-1 and subsequently annexed other parcels as Annexation No. 1 to said District to insure a fair and equitable levying of the necessary costs of servicing and maintenance of the respective facilities, which in turn will enhance the value of each and every parcel in the District directly and collectively. The 89-1 District Boundaries of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District are the boundaries of Tract 13364 filed in Map Book 203,Pages 89 through 92, Records of San Bernardino County. The boundaries of Annexation No. 1 are the boundaries of Tracts 14264 and 14471, filed in Map Book 242, Pages 17 and 18, and Map Book 237, Pages 41 and 42, respectively, of said County. Servicing and administration of the City's landscape maintenance program shall be according to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. This report is being prepared to provide for the annual assessment within these boundaries. Payment for the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes for each Property. The proceedings will be conducted under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15, Sections 2250.0 through 22679, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. 1 This annual Report is presented for the purpose of levy of annual assessment to the above described properties for the purpose of maintaining the lighting and landscaping during the fiscal year 2007 - 2008. This report contains the necessary data required to conduct the proceedings and is submitted to the Clerk of the City for filing. Page 3 1 ,:-3 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679 , OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE FOR ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS F.Y. 2007 - 2008 Pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resolution No. , adopted by the City of Grand Terrace, State of California, in connection with the proceedings for: GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 AND ANNEXATION NO. 1 TO SAID DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District", I, James Mitsch, the duly appointed ENGINEER OF WORK, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of six (6)parts as follows: PART A Plans and Specifications for the proposed improvements are filed herewith and made a pan hereof. Said plans and specifications are on file in the Office of the Clerk of the City. PART B An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the Clerk of the City. PART C An assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements on each benefitted lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District. PART D A proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements upon the several lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the.estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels, is set forth upon the assessment roll filed herewith and made part hereof. Description of the work for the proposed improvements and description of all right-of-way, easements and lands to be acquired, if necessary. Fge 4 �4 PART E A list of the names and addresses of the owners of real property within this Assessment District, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino which are incorporated herein by reference. PART F The Diagram of the Assessment District Boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, and the lot dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District has been submitted to the Clerk of the Agency, a facsimile is included herein. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino, for the.year when this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report. Page In PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The installation of planting, landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and the construction of appurtenant facilities to be operated, serviced and maintained, is more specifically described herein whereas, the landscaping and lighting facilities have been or will be provided by developers as a condition of subdivision of land, on part of the Conditional Use review and approval process. The facilities to be maintained and serviced are generally described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 89-1 The improvements are the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities described as follows: 1. Tract 13364 (a) Landscaping Landscaping,planting, shrubbery, trees, turf, irrigation systems, monuments, hardscapes, walls, fencing and appurtenant facilities in public right-of-ways and easements within the proposed boundary of said Assessment District. The locations of landscaping and appurtenant facilities are depicted on the Assessment Diagram as shown in Part F3 herein. (b) Li htin Poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment posts and pedestals, metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide lighting in public right-of-ways and easements within the proposed boundaries of said Assessment District. 2. bract 14264 (a) Landscaping Landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, turf, irrigation system and appurtenant facilities within the Gage Canal right-of-ways. During the fiscal year 2007-2008, responsibility for the maintenance of these facilities shall remain with the developer. Water shall be supplied by and paid for through developer's meter and no costs shall be shown on the tax rolls as assessments for the landscape maintenance during fiscal year 2007-2008. Page 6 Il) (b) Li htin� Poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment,posts,pedestals, metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide lighting in public right-of-ways and easements within the proposed,boundaries of the District. A total of 7 street lights are included in the boundaries of this development. Tract 14471 (a) Landscaping Landscaping,planting shrubbery, trees, and vines with Lot "A" of said Tract 14471, along with irrigation system for the improvements within Lot "A„ (b) Li htin Poles, fixtures, conduits, equipment,posts,pedestals;metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide lighting in public right-of-ways and easements within the boundaries of the District. A total of 6 street lights are maintained within the boundaries of this development. T age 7 C� PART E ESTIMATE OF COST The cost of maintaining improvements for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 as described in Part A are summarized as follows: Tract 13364 1. Energy Costs - Street Lighting $ 800.00 2. Landscaping (a) Water Supply 800.00 (b) Mowing and Trimming, etc. 2,400.00 (c) Replacement Parts 0.00 3. Contingencies (a) Legal 1,200.00 (b) Engineering 426.58 (c) Auditor Controller Charge 20.00 (d) Shortage (Last Fiscal Year) 0.00 ANNUAL COSTS (TOTAL) $5,646.58 - Tract 14471 1. Energy Costs - Street Lighting 600.00 2. Landscaping (a) Water Supply 300.00 (b) Mowing and Trimming, etc. 2,669.50 (c) Replacement PartE 200.00 3. Contingencies (a) Legal 1,049.25 (b) Engineering 423.47 (c) Auditor Controller Charge 17.00 (d) Shortage (Last F.Y.) 0.00 ANNUAL COST (TOTAL) $5,259.22 Page 8 Tract 14264 1. Energy Costs - Street Lighting $ 866.00 2. Landscaping (a) Water Supply 0.00 (b) Mowing and Trimming, etc. 0.00 (c) Replacement Parts 0.00 -' 3. Contingencies (a) Legal 250.75 (b) Engineering 97.89 (c) Auditor Controller Charge 1.00 (d) ' Shortage (Last F.Y.) 0.00 ANNUAL COST(TOTAL) $1,215.64 Page 9 Iq ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR GRAND TERRACE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1 F.Y. 2007-2008 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL, ASSESSMENT AMOUNT 0275-301-08 $282.33 0275-301-09 $282.33 0275-301-10 $282.33 0275-301-11 $282.33 0275-301-12 $282.33 0275-301-13 $282.33 0275-301-14 $282.33 0275-301-15 $282.33 0275-301-16 $282.33 0275-301-17 $282.33 0275-301-18 $282.33 0275-301-19 $282.33 0275-301-20 $282.33 0275-301-21 $282.33 0275-301-22 $282.33 0275-301-23 $282.33 0275-301-24 $282.33 0275-301-25 $282.33 0275-301-26 $282.33 0275-301-27 $282.33 Page 10 �C ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT 0275-251-81 $1,215.64 1178-181-16 $309.36 1178-181-17 $309.36 1178-181-18 $309.36 �- 1178-181-19 $309.36 1178-181-20 $309.36 1178-181-21 $309.36 1178-181-22 $309.36 1178-181-23 $309.36 1178-181-24 $309.36 1178-181-25 $309.36 1178-181-26 $309.36 1178-181-27 $309.36 1178-181-28 $309.36 1178-181-29 $309.36 1178-181-30 $309.36 1178-181-31 $309.36 1178-181-32 $309.36 k Page 11 21 PART C ASSESSMENT ROLL The proposed assessment and the amount of assessment for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 apportioned to each.lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor's Office is shown on "Assessment Roll for Grand Terrace Landscaping and Lighting District No. 89-1 and Annexation No. 1" to said District for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino and these records are, by reference, made part of this Report. The total proposed assessment for the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year is $12,121.44. Page 12 2-2- PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT The method of apportionment will be in accordance with benefit received. The benefit is increased in property values received. The benefit is based on increase in property values derived from the facilities provided by the District. In each of the three areas, the benefit is based on the total cost of maintenance within that area, with the total cost for area being assessed equally among the lots within these areas. d d Page 13 Z-3 PART E PROPERTY OWNERS LIST The property owner list with the names and addresses of each property.owner of each lot or parcel, as shown on the Assessment Diagram in Part F herein, is the list of property owners shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino and is,by reference,made part of this report (see Part C, Assessment Roll). ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROPERTY OWNER 275-301-08 Vagas Family 4-28-88 37821 Grand Oaks Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 275-301-09 Vagas Family 4-28-88 37821 Grand Oaks Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 275-301-10 C/'E Mauerhan Family L.P. 12005 Aspen Circle, Apt. C Grand Terrace, CA 92313 275-301-11 C/E Mauerhan Family L.P. 12005 Aspen Circle, Apt. C Grand Terrace, CA 92313 275-301-12 Pannier, Barbra J. 12005 Aspen Circle, Apt. C Grand Terrace, CA 92313 275-301-13 Velarde 07/25/80/t 17392 Wild Rose Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 275-301-14 Poon, Frank K.C. Poon, Lucy H.F. 1688 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia, CA 91006 Page 14 N i ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROPERTY OWNER 275-301-15 Vagas, Raymond J. Vagas, Grace C. 37821 Grand Oaks Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 275-301-16 Vagas, Raymond J. Vagas, Grace C. - 37821 Grand Oaks Ave. Palm.Desert, CA 92211 275-301-17 Navarro Trust 19450 Nuthatch St. Perris, CA 92570 275-301-18 Navarro Trust 19349 Avenue C Perris, CA 92570 275-301-19 Kader, Abba 28582 Murrelet Drive Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 275-301-20 Davanzo, Frank V. Davanzo,,Carol A. 27192 Westridge Ln. Laguna Hills, CA 92653 275-301-21 C/E Mauerhan Family L.P. 12005 Aspen Circle, Apt. C Grand Terrace, CA 92313 275-301-22 Navarro Trust 19450 Nuthatch St. Penis, CA 92570 275-301-23 C/E Mauerhan Family L.P. 12005 Aspen Circle, Apt. C Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Page 15 25 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROPERTY OWNER 275-301-24 Terrace Pines Development Co. 537 Newport Center Dr., Suite 368 Newport Beach, CA 92660 275-301-25 C/E Mauerhan Family L.P. 12005 Aspen Circle, Apt. C Grand Terrace, CA 92313 275-301-26 Kader, Abba _ 28582 Murrelet Drive Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 275-301-27 Strickler, Corbin T. P.O. Box 43 Rimforest, CA 92378 275-251-81 North Waterford Apartments 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1178-181-J6 Feldman, Frank 22720 Pico St. - Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-17 Abdeljawas, Jawad S. Abdeljawad, Rema J. 22710 Pico St. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-18 Bigelow, Donovan M. Bigelow, Juanita J. 22 700 Pico St. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-19 Gonzales, David Gonzales, Betty P. 12685 Oriole Avenue Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Phe 16 2c� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROPERTY OWNER 1178-181-20 Harkey, Kirk R. Harkey, Kristine M. 12675 Oriole Ave: Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-21 Hubbs, Lucile M. Henson, Paula A. 22755 Franklin St. } Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-22 Keeling, Teresa S- 22745 Franklin St. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 11.78-181-23 Gurrola, Victoria 22735 Franklin St. Grand Terrace, CA 923-13 1178-181-24 Mattheson, Wayne A. Mattheson, Esther D. 12655 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-25 Yong, Alberta L.H. 12645 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-26 Shimel, Marvin M. Shimel, Virginia L. 22240 Van Buren St. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-2 7 Richardson, Blair Richardson, Kim 12625 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-28 Garay, Mark Ortiz-Garay, Elizabeth 12615 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace. CA 92313 Age 17 21 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. PROPERTY OWNER 1178-181-29 Martinez,Hema 12610 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-30 Delgado, Emiliano Carrillo, Julianne '12620 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 -1 1178-181-31 Acosta, Larry Acosta, Koi i 12630 Pruitt Ct. Grand Terrace, CA 92313 1178-181-32 Bavadian, Shapour Barvadian, Gita 12640 Pruitt Court Grand Terrace, CA 92313 I Page 18 �G PART F ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM An Assessment Diagram for the Assessment District has been submitted to the Clerk of the City in the format required under the provision of the Act. The enclosed is a facsimile of subject submittal and is included herein. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of San Bernardino, for the year when this Report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report. Dated this day of `� EXF 6-30-� es itsch t, z' eer%THITY k PRELIMINARY APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ON THE •1 WIDAY OF ^,-- , 2007: Brenda Mesa Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace — State of California FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITE' OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, ON THE DAY OF , 2007. Brenda Mesa Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace State of California Page 19 2G1 �t. SAN BER N uU L=J � ARQ I �0 COUN i Y 1 CAL I FORD 1 A ''_11^I PURSUANT to o� vis � ol� I ; r�nRT ASS s'S ENT DISTRICT gg - �.;.:.. 2 OF S L HIGHWAYS COOL LAND N'G n,vp TRACE 1�Or ISS6q , TERRACE PIN I LIG11T I , AC 1 0 Fo alnc07 t) 0 `o �o ,'� rN o o c o ,,•�.1.11' n 1 I,I.o n ••�GJ}'• (•r `�! II.,I' �,,.(,• �11' .�• ,V,. L 1 ✓ I F W 41 w I, 'v- rJ o' rl'� „• o., .I 1 ,DRIVE t , PINS ,,•N' 11 T J 1 v "' .1r •�__ III ot:l•)ol.,l I �:.. i� rrw/cc I �" � < 0.11 . \f t1 y rU., a 12 .. \ rt .11' 1'• JJ lY o [ � ni � 02 tJ•)OI•19 t _:�.- (C x O - Ij °I N 1�0,.t>, (� •' n � n � of � / tQl9 At. Y .4 {, �`� xc • ? � } o.tt r` - ,. .. o � .. i ^ � nl •, 9 vlcuilry IAAv °W i 0 0 r 003-301.t0 Z u •V)C •C JS �BR17-ToN A - --I -------------------------- _ 2 WAY W Ell I T l 20 el orilac". ,w=•. -_ � , J. 1 1 1 :I• '• ' u„ (u 't"I''- „ ^ -�•_•• r111V J Iltl It 0l 11 ll•.(`ll "V r•.•G l:l Vl lt.�CUVI`.G.n `-"-----•-.—.,. 1.,1! lu r:rll VII ICI VI In IA( lA.l(4 0�. Ilr(1 VI,.cAnn• In14 nl llGl,�(� _ X Q L c lu 1.,7. AI I ��f("clr0 0 0/ —utu 111 GGIJte rU, A([lA1r.Ln V Gnof pOjJ >:^ II11 •Sla � o(o IA Imo( o/ C IT(Tir,(nl .o( AI 1 0/ A V GII /IGI OI InC IV/[n l.i .t., . ..r. I r I 1 r 1� _ A •'.�).---`4-^—�-*• V A l(I (/l A(b C(((( 11 1 V A I n(._.i1g J j i A.1 0 - A • G .,�•• u�u ,�. (/ CIII CI LAn SIA0�lOA I•.( Yj OI AC I,A-�1 f"Sln(nl Aor\`^• n '' I' I J •r'r• •-•••• ,t».r�o:� ,• GnAO InOve UAnInIIAAJ IC13,\4n1001 A CAI.AACA Crl lOrr 1 '••ram==Q v1 V/-...fr�tuni 01 turtAln1i10(nI �•ox ,�• v tnlnl[1'OLnI /Il lit Inli C.1� or (IAC_Ii A Illt uoV�7 0,,......-_�� IOOt 0/ MT�' .00�" -�-•n 111, y^ow VI C fiClin�tZ lAl Cll� •� (` c liu:if��3137�b)1A in( or/ 1n( to '- IIAII 0/ CAC I,/OnAIAI n( GOVAII 0/ 1Nt ICAIrAAUInV, J �o� '-^-•�.w-"""•. '•, '�' .�..�_'_'._ •11,11 A(cunutA u/ 1., lu,,,,.nv u�v Guvgll u ou UC!VI' Y PAGE 20 ( 'TERRACE.-CITY .... OF - GRAND. 'SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, . CALIFORf4lA ANNEXATION NO I TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89- 1 PURSUANT TO DIV I SIO'N"15 PART 2 OF STREETS a HIGHWAYS CODE LANDSCAPING AND U51-ITING ACT OF 1972 1-15 AMJ=THE ASSUSWMf DIACltAH FOR ASSXSSmExT CISISIC, 0 rROVIDI"FOR AN&CLAY100 NO. I.-101 INE CITY OF 3 C-200, j7t�E OF CALIMY�A SCALE IN sooc JAtE A, OF SCSSHC.T DIST.ICTS ""A� D��17 A AN 1.0 C�Nlr. /' - �,•t 1 S 0ERNARD 1 TLGL A .1L STREET LOT I :> CITY C&ERm( 15.17 ACRES APR 275-25!-7E llf�NLc IN THE olftcE CF I"( 01 SIPUTILL01.7,�DAY Of=. _c =rt LIOEXT M STREETS ASSESWIK"T VAS LAEVICO Ill INC cirT �NcIE 0. rj(CfS AMC r LLRCSCAPE AREA IK LOTS. AMOUS W LAND SHOWrON THIS Arta DEL a'-1=0 -.S LE,tfo a. C.,- ' SAID-,ENDED ASSz5s?c.r Dl--�INK AttJOED ASSESSr"I ROLL WERE RECORDED 11 IK ufla w Tpo SurEplOrEADENI Of STREETS OF SAID Cl IT m THI �M6:jj��v F-tC-E ;r IK I POL a OCD I_LQj.TfmoLPI�STREETS fo. ;JTM OFF CF Of IK THE ACT �l Of EAf ?�CEL I al."AH. 5; L cif L,L aaS E-ET S, 117-5-41- V� Ld 11 - w 0 Z) - a- ..3 C� 0.I;X. z 0.1—c > LEGEND is if s O.MAC. X, SEAL 1 .-.60 I17 10 Q: 0.".c. I/75 IS,ZVI S REE zoAc FRANKLIN' ATIO�NA 0 6 pICINAL ASSESSNNT O DISTRICT al, 80��C,� 0 17AC. 0. O.JaAc. —TO. RD. 111.76 w- //;�F z z:J 7 uiIDN .0 P!cC ir-III T ca c. a.* 0.2�. 0 2�C. 0 c FILED AEOLIEST OF go/ PICO STREE-1 L—L [qq I AT 30011 PAGE 1 OF SAII BERN! CGUKI I Frl' -7 FEE KI CAK L ASSOCIATES I OF GRAND TERRACE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM C, ANNEXATION No. I To ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89 27365 fllqlC.ROAD. SLIT GRAND CALIFORNIA S2324 3 LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CIVIL ENGINEERS I� ;IG E25-3625 COU-417 OF SAM BERNARDINO. STME OF CALIFORNIA Page 21 I , Community and Economic Development Department ' I " (ALIf0RNIA STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM COUNCIL ITEM X MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 07-01, Zone Change No. 07-01, i Specific Plan No. 07-01,Site and Architectural Review Case No. 07-02 and Environmental Review No. 07-02 to construct a 120- unit senior citizen residential facility together with a community senior center and 2.6 acre passive park APPLICANT: The Corporation for Better Housing LOCATION: 22627 Grand Terrace Road (Approximately 6 acre site located southerly side of Grand Terrace Road beginning about 100 feet easterly of Mt. Vernon Avenue RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing,receive the staff report and testimony, i close the hearing and Approve the Resolution of Approval for the General Plan Amendment No. 07-01; Approve the Ordinances for the Specific Plan No. 07-01 and Zone Change No. 07-01; and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) processed under Environmental Review No. 07-02. Background: The applicant has submitted applications for all necessary entitlements to construct a 120-unit,two story senior housing complex together with a 7,000 square foot community senior center and a 2.6 acre passive park on an approximately 6 acre site. The applications include: • General Plan Amendment(GPA-07-01)to redesignate the subject site from a"LDR" (Low Density Residential) category to "MHDR" (Medium High Density Residential) category which will be a new designation for the City's General Plan. • A Specific Plan (SP-07-01)which will serve to establish density/design criteria and site development standards specifically for the proposed project. • A Zone Change(Z-07-01)to change the existing R1 -7.2(Single Family Residential) to R3-S (Multiple Family- Senior Citizen)for a new zoning designation for the site. • A Site and Architectural Review (SA-07-02) to evaluate the facility's architectural and landscaping features. (The Planning Commission has approved the Site and Architectural Review application contingent on the other applications being approved by the City Council.) 22795 Barton Road o Grand Terrace, California 923113--525 4l%JAI NO• U n j �{ An Environmental Assessment (E-07-02) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project per CEQA guidelines. This evaluation has been made by the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). In September of 2005, the City Council approved a similar project on this site with the same number of residential units. However, that earlier project involved a three-story structure for part of the residential building ( its easterly wing)and a 4 acre park. This earlier approval also included the community senior center. Shortly after the City Council's approval of the project,a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of the original environmental assessment prepared for the earlier project. The Court ruled that there was substantial evidence that a "fair argument"exists that the original project did not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The new proposal has been filed in response to the actions of the Court including a new design with a two-story residential structure this time and a Final Environmental Impact Report "FEIR" to discuss and analyze the potential impacts of the project. Site The subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel located immediately south of Grand Terrace Road beginning about 100 feet east of Mt. Vernon Avenue and ending at the Terrace View Elementary School. The site is mainly vacant except for the existing community senior center which occupies the westerly portion of the site. The site is bounded on the west and south by single family homes Farther to the west lies the Highland Apartment'project. To the north are vacant parcels occupied by an Edison Easement and transmission lines. General Plan Amendment: The requested General Plan Amendment will create a new General Plan designation of"MHDS" (Medium High Density Residential)with a maximum density of 20 units per acre. As proposed,this designation will only be permitted for senior housing projects sponsored by the City and will require the preparation and approval of a Specific Plan document. A detailed description of this new designation has been attached to this report as Exhibit "C." Zone Change: The applications also include a request to change the existing R1-7.2 Zoning of the site to R3-S (Multiple Family - Senior Citizen) which allows for senior citizen residential development with a maximum density of 20 units per acre. Besides applying this new zone to the site,the Zoning Code will be amended to include this new designation within its provisions. Please see Exhibit "D" for details on the proposed new zone. Specific Plan: A Specific Plan document, entitled the "Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan,"was submitted for this project. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish development criteria and standardE for the proposed development;to meet the requirements of the proposed new"MHDR"designation of the General Plan, and to comply with the requirements of the Department of Housing and Community Development in its review of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. A copy of the Specific Plan has been included as Exhibit "A." N Development Plans: The site plan for the proposed project is shown on Exhibit 1. The residential structure will be located on the easterly portion of the site with a footprint of approximately 50,000 sq. ft. The total floor area of the two-story building will be 100,000 sq. ft. The new community senior center will be located on the west side of the residential structure. It will consist of a single story structure of about 7,000 sq. ft. Off-street parking will be shared among the three uses on the site, i.e. the senior residential, the senior center and the park. Parking for the senior villas will be assigned at .75 space/unit or 90 spaces for the senior residential units. A total of 146 parking spaces are shown on the site plan, Exhibit 1, to accommodate not only the residents but also the parking needs of visitors,those using the senior center and parking for the proposed park. Exhibit 2 shows the proposed fencing for the site. A 6-foot high block wall is proposed for the east; south and west property lines. This wall will be decorative in nature and will have "wrought iron inserts" where adjacent owners request it. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the first and second floors. Shown on the first floor are two elevators, lobby area, administrative offices, storage rooms and common rooms. The second floor layout is similar to,the first floor but without the offices and common rooms. There will be two basic floor plans for the individual units--Plan A, one-bedroom and Plan B, two-bedrooms. Some units will have balconies. There will be 103 one-bedroom units and 17, two bedrooms. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed floor plan of the 7,000 sq. ft. senior center. The center will contain a main community room, library/computer room, crafts room, kitchen and administrative offices. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed elevations of all four sides of the development. The proposed architecture reflects the Monterey style with influences from the Mediterranean and Craftsman styles. The proposed architecture is basically the same as that approved in 2005 except now the building is two stories in height. The preliminary landscaping plan is shown on Exhibit 8. Highlights of the plan include shade trees along the east and south property lines to provide shale for the residential parking while service as a landscape buffer/screen for the adjacent residents. The design concept for the proposed Petta Park includes a meditative inspirational setting featuring walking paths through gardens and commemorative display areas that relate to the history of the City and its culture. The south property line of the park will be planted with shrubs that will allow adjacent residences to maintain views. The conceptual grading plan is shown on Exhibits 9 and 10. The proposed grading will lower the site so that the finished floor pad elevation of the southeast corner of the proposed structure will be 15 to 20 feet below existing ground level. This will reduce the visual effects of the proposed residential structure by limiting the amount of structure that will be visible from the adjacent residents. (For a detailed discussion on views from adjacent properties including line-of-site studies, please see Section 4.1.43 of the FEIR, Exhibit B.) Final Environmental Impact Report: A Final Environmental Impact Report, "FEIR," was prepared for this project and is included as Exhibit B. The FEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of this project, proposed mitigation measures and listed residual impacts after mitigation, if any. The FEIR covered the potential environmental impacts noted by thy, Court and concluded that this project will have no adverse impact on population densities, on neighborhood incompatibility resulting from taller structures; and from noise resulting from air conditioning units Environmental issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing on June 21, 2007 were responded to at that public hearing by Staff and by representatives from "LSA," the firm which prepared the FEIR. Minutes of the Planning Commission's hearing are included here as documentation of those responses. Please see Exhibit G. Planning Commission Action: In making its recommendation of approval for this project to the City Council, the Planning Commission also added the following conditions to this project: 37. That the open parking for the residents shall be covered where feasible. 38. That the landscaping shall be enhanced were it is feasible and practical. 39. That the proposed park shall be enhanced for park enjoyment and recreational opportunities 40. That the landscaping plan for the entire project including the proposed park shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits; and, 41. That the applicant/developer shall obtain a signed agreement/declaration from the adjacent property owners that they are satisfied with the perimeter wall/fencing and landscaping adjacent to their property. ANALYSIS: This proposal is very similar to the prior approval in 2005. It has the same number of senior citizen residential units, 120. It has the same architectural style and general layout. The number of stories of the residential portion has been reduced to two stories from the original three. The foot print for the residential is slightly larger because of the reduced height. The proposed park is slightly smaller but has the same overall design theme as in the earlier approval. Also, the rather detailed environmental impact report has satisfactorily addressed the environmental issues raised by the Court. The report concluded that this project will have no adverse impact on population densities; no neighborhood incompatibility resulting from taller structures; and no noise impact resulting from air conditioning. units. In addition, the project will allow the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") goals. The City's assigned allocation for new housing during the planning period was 244 units. Of these, 72 were identified for very-low and low income levels. For the 2007-2014 "RHNA," 133 units have been identified for very-low and low. The project will also allow the City to comply with requirements of the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") in its review of the mandatory Housing Element of the General Plan as outlined in HCD's letter dated June 10, 2005. (Please see Appendix A of the Specific Plan, Exhibit A.) This will be done by rezoning the subject site to the R3 -S (Multiple Family, Senior Citizen). y Recommendation: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council approve the Resolution of Approval for the General Plan Amendment No. 07-01; Approve the Ordinances for the Specific Plan-No. 07-01 and Zone Change No. 07-01 and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) processed under Environmental Review No. 07-02. Respectfully submitted, Approved by: i J# Lampe G L. K A ciate Planner Community Development Director GLK:JL:jl Exhibits: Exhibit A - Specific Plan No. 07-01 (Document) Exhibit B - Final Environmental Impact Report (Two Documents) Exhibit C - General Plan Amendment Exhibit D - Zoning Code Amendment Exhibit E - Legal Description of Site Exhibit F - Planning Commission Staff Report of June 21, 2007 Exhibit G - Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2007 Exhibit H - Resolution of Approval amending the City's General Plan (GPA- 07-01) Exhibit I - Ordinance adopting the Specific Plan (SP-07-01) Exhibit J - Ordinance changing the existing zoning to R3-S (Z-07-01) Exhibit K - Resolution of Environmental Findings for the Blue Mtn. Senior Villas EXHIBIT 1 Site Plan of project EXHIBIT 2 Fencing Plan for north, south, east and west property lines EXHIBIT Fencing Plan showing wrought iron gate detail and another detail of blockwall along southerly property line EXHIBIT 4 First Floor and portion of Site Plan EXHIBIT 5 Second Floor of residential building EXHIBIT 6 Senior Center detailed floor plan EXHIBIT 7 Elevations of all four sides of the proposed buildingE EXHIBIT 3 Preliminary landscaping plan EXHIBIT Conceptual grading plan for residential portion and senior center EXHIBIT 10 Conceptual grading plan for proposed park c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Bluemtnseniorvillas\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\SP-07-01 councilrpt .1 EXMBIT AMENDMENT TO-GENERAL PLAN TEXT Amend Section VI— Community Development Element to include under the Residential Land Use Section: -- Medium High Density Residential (13 —20 Units Per Net Acre) This land use category applies to areas intended only for the development of multi-family senior-oriented residential projects at a density of up to 20 units per acre. The project may be condominiums, townhomes, or apartments designated for seniors-only housing in support of the City's Housing Element. The project must provide benefits to the community at large through the development of public facilities such as parks and community centers: The project must implement zoning through the approval of a Specific Plan of Land Use for the project. EXHIBIT D CHAPTER 18.10 RH,R1,R2, R3 and I BS RESIDENTL4L DISTRICTS The following Section and Tables,shall be modified as follows: Section 18.10.020 Residential Districts: The following districts are designed to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Each district contains specific laud use regulations and density ranges for development. A. RH, Hillside Residential District: This district is intended for very low density single family residential development with a maximum retention of open space. It is located in the portions of the City identified in the General Plan's Master Environmental Analysis as having severe development limitations related to topography and soil conditions. The maximum density allowed,in this district is one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre. R. R1-20, Very Low Single Family Residential District: This district is intended f6r very low density single family residential use. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet- with a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per gross acre. C. R1-10, Low Density Single Family Residential District: This district is intended for low density single family residential use. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with a maximum density of four(4) dwelling units per gross acre. D. R1-7.2, Single Family Residential District: This district is intended for single family residential use. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet with a maximum density of five (5)dwelling units per gross acre. E. R2, Low Medium Density Residential District: This district is intended for single family residential use and low density multiple family development. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with a maximum density of nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre. E. R3, Medium Density Residential District: This district is intended for medium density multiple family development. The minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet with a maximum density of twelve-plus (12+) dwelling units per gross acre. (Ord. 126 §2, Exh. A(part), 1990) G. R3-S, 11'Iediium Family, Senior Citizen: This district is intended for the development of senior citizen housing. The maximum density shall not exceed 20 units per acre. The development standards shall be established though s ific plan process. �y, I f. Not more than the permitted percent of the total parcel may be devoted to main and accessory structures, parking areas, driveways and covered patios. The remaining percent of the total parcel shall be devoted to open areas such as landscaping, lawn, outdoor recreational facilities incidental to residential development, including swimming pools, tennis courts, putting .greens, uncovered patios and walkways. Said open areas shall consist of not less than two hundred (200) square feet of open space per dwelling unit. g. Senior eetizen housing's developmept standards will be established through the specific plan process. All senior citizens housing-gr jo ects in the RM zone will require specific plan process: however,in no circumstance shall the density exceed 20 unit/acre. l Table l g.10.040 Footnotes R. A specific plan shall be required for all proposed projects (including tentative parcel or tract maps) which include any property located within this district. Such a specific plan shall establish site development standards on a project by project basis in consideration of the existing topography and other physical constraints. b. The specific plan shall not create a density greater than one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre and shall be consistent with the City's General Plan. The specific plan may consider a clustered development concept in order to preserve large areas open space and minimize the project's impact on the physical environment. C. The following exceptions apply to front, rear and side yard requirements as noted: 1. The minimum side and rear yard setback for a patio cover shall be five (5) feet. 2. The minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure shall be ten (10) feet. 3. Slopes exceeding five percent (5%) shall be permitted no closer to a residential structure than a distance equal to the required side and rear yard setbacks. In -the R1-10 District and the R1-20 District, the 35 foot rear yard setback may include 10 feet of slope that is greater than 5%. 4. In the case of a parcel or tract map, the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback requirement may range from twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-eight (28) feet, with an average of twenty-five (25)feet for all proposed lots. 5. In the case where an existing legal non-conforming structure is located within a required setback area, the legal non-conforming structure may be enlarged within the required setback area subject to the following conditions: ` a) The proposed addition does not further reduce the depth of the existing setback area; and b) The proposed addition is located no closer than 5' from any property line. c) Density bonus 1) A density bonus of up to twenty percent (20%) may be approved with a conditional use permit or specific plan if various off-site improvements which benefit the general public are included in the project. 2) A density bonus of at least twenty-five percent (25%) shall be approved if the proposed project meets the requirements of Chapter 4.2 of the California Government Code regarding "Lower" and "Low or Moderate Income Households"dwelling units. d. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall be defined as follows: 1. "Living area" shall be defined as the enclosed area of a residential dwelling unit, excluding porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. 2. "Multiple Family" shall be defined as one (1) or two (2) bedroom units only. e. Accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, with exceptions as listed in Section 18.73.090 of this Chapter. `k,. Gl TABLE 18.10.040 Site Development Standards DEVELOPMENT RTI R20 R 10 R7.2 R2 R3 R3-S ISSUE Area (Minimum _8 20,000 10,000 7,200 10,000 12,000 square feet) Width (Minimum linear feet) * Interior Lot _8 100 60 60 60 60 € * Corner Lot _ 8 100 70 70 170 70 € Lot Dept (Minimum linear feet) _ 8 150 100 100 100 100 € Street Frontage _ 8 50 40 40 40 40 € (Minimum linear feet) Setbacks (Minimum linear feet) * Front Yard _ 8 25' 25b 25b 25' 25' € * Rear Yard _8 35' 35b 20' 20' 20b € * Side Yard - Interior Lot With Garage _ 8 lob 10b 10b 10b lob € Without Gar. a 5b 5b 5b 5b 5b € - Corner Lot Street side _8 15' 15e 15e 15E 15e € No Street side _ 8 5 5 5 5 10 € Density (Allowable dwelling units per _ 8 1-2 1-4 1-5 1-9 1-12` Max.20 acre) Living Area (Minimum square feet) _8 1,350d 1,350d 1,350d 1,350' 1,350d € * Single Family * Duplex, Triplex, Four-plex and Multiple Family - One (1)Bedroom _ _ - 800d 800d € -Two (2) Bedroom _ - - - 1,000d 1,OOOd € Height (Maximum —a 35e 35e 35' 35E 35e € linear feet) Lot Coverage _ 8 40 50 50 60f 60 € (Maximumpercent) Distance Between Buildings _ a 5 5 20 20 € (Minimum linear feet) L Day Care Center P P P P P P - (Six(8) or Less Children) Day Care Center C C C C C C - (Seven(9) or More Children) Residential Care Facility P P P P P P - (Six (6)or Less Patients) Residential Care Facility C C C C C C - (Seven (7) or More Patients) Utility or Service Facility C C C C C C - �- Outdoor Recreation Facility IC C IC C C C D. Temporary Uses Temporary Uses P P P P P P P d (As approved by Planning Director) Temporary Trailers P P P P P P P d (As Approved by Planning Director) Table 18.10.030 Footnotes a. A second single family detached unit (full sized single family detached dwelling) shall be permitted in the R2 zone provided that the lot or parcel in question meets the minimum area requirement for the R2 zone and that said lot or parcel is developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. A site and architectural review application for the second family detached unit in accordance with Chapter 18.63 of the Zoning Code shall be required to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, all development standards of the underlying zone must be adhered to; and any division in ownership among the structures on the lot or parcel in question shall conform to the subdivision laws of the State and City. b. A second family detached unit (full sized single family detached dwelling) shall be permitted in the R3 zone provided that the lot or parcel in question meets the minimum area requirements for the R3 zone and that said lot or parcel is developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. A site and architectural review application for the second family detached unit in accordance with Chapter 18.63 of the Zoning Code shall be required to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, all development standards of the underlying Cone must be adhered to; and any division in ownership among the structures on the lot or parcel in question shall conform to the subdivision laws of the State and City. C. "P" stands for "Permitted Use" where the use is permitted by right; and "CC" stands for"Conditional Use"where the use requires a conditional use permit. d. Senior citizen housing is allowed in the R3-S up to maximum density of 20 unit/acre. A specific plan will be required for all senior citizen housing projects in this zone. Some accessory and temporary! uses as indicated will be allowed in the R3-S zone with the approval of the Community Development Director. � I FABLE 18.10.030 Land Use Reodadons.. Permitted Uses I RH 1.R20 R10 R7.2 R2 R3 R3-S A. Residential Uses Single Family(Detached), Full Sized P P P P P' P, - Single Family(Attached) - - - - P P - (Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes consisting of One (1)Bedroom and/or Two (2) Bedroom Units Only) Multiple Family Units - - - - P P - (Planned Unit Developments consisting of one (1) and/or Two (2) Bedroom Units Only) Manufactured Housing - - - P - - - (As Permitted Per Chapter 18.66) Mobile Home Park - - - - C C - Senior Citizen Housing - - - - - - P d B. Residential Accessory Uses Accessory Structure P P P P P P P d Second Family Unit C C C C C C - (As Permitted Per Chapter 18.69) Guest House C C C C C C - Private Garage P P P P P P - Private Swimming Pool P P P P P P P, Home occupation P P P P P P P d (As Permitted Per Chapter 5.06) Keeping of Cats and Dogs P P P P P P P, (Maximum of Two (2) Each) Other Accessory Uses P P I P I P P P I P, (As Approved by the Planning Director) C. Other U Churches C C C C C C - (Minimum Three-Acre Parcel) Schools . C C C C C C - (Private and Parochial) Public Park and Playground P P P P P P - Public Facilities C IC IC C C C (And Quasi-Public) 1 2- . IT E: LEGAL DESCROTI®N D ®1V COk0AENC[NG AT THE S ST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1,THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1,N89°46'26"E,791.56 FEET TO SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;TgIENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2,N8904626"E, 125.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2,N00020'29"W, 465.53 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD;THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH,HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,190.00 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13011'17",AN ARC LENGTH OF 273.91';THENCE S64002'09"W,426.20 FEET;THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH,HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43045'05",AN ARC LENGTH OF 190.90e TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1;THENCE S25°5714"W, 198.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. i-3 Community and Economic Development Department (IlIF01N11 TO: Planning Commission Members , FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Thursday, June 21, 2007 SUBJECT: GPA-07-01,Z-07-01, SP-07-01,SA-07-02 and E-07-02 to construct a two-story, 120 unit residential facility for senior citizens together with a community senior center and a 2.6 acre passive park. APPLICANT: Corporation for Better Housing LOCATION: 22627 Grand Terrace Road(Approximately 6 acre site located on the southerly side of Grand terrace Road beginning about 100 feet r easterly of Mt. Vernon on the west to the Terrace View Elementary School on the east.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing,receive the staff report and testimony,close the hearing and Recommend the Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 07-01, Specific Plan No. 07-01, Zone Change No. 07-01 to the City Council; Approve Site and Architectural Review No. 07-02; and Recommend the Approval and Certification of the Final Environmental_Impact Report filed under E-07-02. REOUEST: The applicant has submitted applications for all necessary entitlements to construct a 120-unit,two- story senior housing complex together with a 7,000 square foot community senior center and a 2.6 acre passive park on an approximately 6 acre site. The proposed project required the submittal of the following applications: General Plan Amendment(GPA-07-01)to redesignate the subject site from a"LDR" (Low Density Residential) category to a "MHDR" (Medium High Density Residential) category which will be a new designation for the City's General Plan. 22795 Barton Road s Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 I V�i • A Specific Plan(SP-07-01)which will serve to establish density,design criteria and site development standards specifically for the proposed project • A Zone Change(Z-07-01)to change the existing R1 -7.2(Single Family Residential) to R3-S(Multiple Family-Senior Citizen)for a new zoning designation for the site. • A Site and Architectural Review (SA-07-02)to evaluate the facility's architectural and landscaping features. • An Environmental Assessment (E-07-02) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project per CEQA guidelines. This evaluation has been made by the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). The proposed project calls for the development of 120 units of senior-oriented housing. The project will be developed by a non-profit entity that specializes in affordable senior housing projects. The development will be assisted financially through the City Community Redevelopment Agency's "Low/Moderate Housing Fund." In addition to the residential portion of the project, the applicant will construct a new community senior center to replace to the existing senior center. The Community Senior Center will be operated by senior volunteers who currently operate the existing facility. -�. The last component of this project will be the development of a 2.6 acre passive park. The park will be maintained by the facility operator, but will be open to the general public. The park has been designed in general compliance with the Petta Park Master Plan prepared in 2003. An environmental assessment of the park's Master Plan was heard before the Planning Commission in April of 2003. In August of 2005,the Planning Commission recommended a similar project on this site to the City Council. That proposal involved a three-story structure with a 120 units, a community senior center and a 4 acre park. The City Council in September of 2005 approved the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. Shortly after the City Council's approval of the project,a lawsuit was filed challenging the adequacy of the original environmental assessment prepared for the earlier project. The Court ruled that there was substantial evidence that a"fair argument"exists that the original project did not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically,the Court found that the City did not adequately evaluate the environmental affects of: 1) increased population density;2)a three story structure in a two story neighborhood;and 3) noise from the air conditioners. This proposal has been filed in response to the actions of the Court including a new proposal with two-story residential structures this time and an Environmental Impact Report"EIR"to discuss and analyze potential impacts of the project. ► J r �I'F�a ArdII SIJRI�O>tJND AREA. The subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel located immediately south of Grand Terrace Road about 100 feet easterly of Mt.Vernon Avenue. The site is generally triangle shaped with a southern property line with a length of about 920 feet,an easterly property line with a length of 460 feet and a westerly property line of about 200 feet. In addition, the site has a frontage along Grand Terrace Road of about 900 feet. The site is presently vacant excepting for the existing community senior center and parking area which occupies the westerly portion of the site. (It was recently moved to this temporary location.) The existing site topography consists of a general slope from east to west with a total elevation difference of about 28 feet or an average slope of 3 percent. Surrounding land uses include the following: 0 North—Vacant property with an Edison easement and transmission towers. South— Single family residential C East—Terrace View Elementary School C West—Single family residential and multiple residential (Highlands Apartments) Properties to the south and west have been graded as residential pads and drain toward the street frontages on Mt.Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street. The adjacent elementary school is graded to drain to Grand Terrace Road. A 8 Y?x I I" aerial photograph showing the site and surrounding area has been included as Attachment 1. (Please note the old location of the senior center.) The project site fronts onto Grand 1 errace Road. Grand Terrace Road is designated as a local street with a right-of-way of 60 feet and an improved section of 36 feet. Complete half-width improvements have been made along all project frontage including 18 feet of asphalt paving, concrete curb and gutter, and a five-foot sidewalk. The north half of Grand Terrace Road is improved with 13 feet of asphalt paving with a transition westerly to a full half-width improvements at the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Mount Vernon Avenue. The applicant will be required to widen the north side of this roadway to .its ultimate improved section from Mt. Vernon Avenue to the property's northeast corner. Mt Vernon Avenue serves as the primary access to Grand Terrace Road and the project site. It is designated as a Secondary Highway with a right-of-way of 88 feet and a 64-foot improved section which provides four travel lanes. Mt Vernon is fully improved south of Grand Terrace Road. As it travels north, it transitions into a reduced two-lane section. GENE1�� PLAN A D ZZONING The project site is currently designated as "LDR" (Low Density Residential) on the City's General Plan. This designation allows for up to five residential units per acre. The project application `4, I includes a request for a General Plan.Amendment to create a new General Plan designation of ,,NE-IDS" (Medium High-Density Residential) with a maximum density of 20 units per acre. A detailed description of this new designation has been attached to this report as Exhibit C. As proposed,this designation will only be permitted for senior housing projects sponsored by the City and will require the preparation and approval of a Specific Plan document. The proposed Specific Plan includes development standards such as land uses, setbacks,parking requirements and design guidelines. It should be noted that the Planning Commission at its March 15, 2007 General Plan Workshop on- the Land Use Element rearmed the"MHDS"designation for the subject site. reaffirmed The existing zoning of the site is RI-7.2(Single Family Residential). This zone allows single family residential development on parcels with a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq.ft. The applications include a request to change this zoning to R3-S (Multiple Family- Senior Citizen)which allows senior citizen residential development with a maximum density of 20 units per acre. Besides applying this new zone to the site, the Zoning Code will be amended to include this new designation within its provisions. Please see Exhibit D. The General Plan and Zoning designations for the surrounding properties include the following: Direction General Plan Designation Zoning -� North "PUB"(Public) PUB (Public) South "LDR" (Low Density Residential) R1 - 7.2 (Single Family Residential) East "PUB" (Public) PUB (Public) West "LDR"(Low Density Residential) R1 - 7.2 (Single Family Residential) parcels further to the north,south,and east are designated as"LDR"(Low Density Residential)with R1 -20 and R1 -7.2 Zoning. Parcels located westerly side of Mt.Vernon are designated as"MDR" (Medium Density Residential)with R3 Zoning. PRO SECT DESCRIPTION', specific Plan Document: A Specific Plan document,the`Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan"was submitted for this project and has been labeled Exhibit A. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish development criteria and standards to reflect the proposed senior citizen housing project;to meet the requirements of the proposed"MHDR"(Medium High Density Residential)designation of the General Plan;and to comply with the requirements of the Department of Housing and Community Development in its review of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. A Specific Plan under Sections 65450 and 65457 of the Government Code must contain a text and a diagram or diagrams that specify all of the following in detail: Distribution,location,and extent of the uses of land,including open space,within the area covered by the plan. Proposed distribution,location, extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation,sewage,water,drainage,solid waste disposal,energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. • Standards and criteria by which development will proceed and, where applicable, standards for conversation, development, and utilization of natural resources. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the matters listed above. Exhibit A contains a description of the project setting, subject site characteristics, surrounding uses and a statement,as to the project's relationship to the City's General Plan. It also includes a detailed discussion of the proposed project including types of uses, architectural styles, development standards to be employed including coverage and setbacks, access, grading/drainage, landscaping, and walls and fencing. The Specific Plan concludes with a discussion on the infrastructure or off-site improvements which will service the new development including street improvements, utilities, drainage and traffic control. It should be pointed out that the Specific Plan document also includes reduced copies of all of the plans and exhibits for,this project. An Ordinance to adopt the Specific Plan will have to be approved by the Planning Commission as - part of its recommendation to the City Council. (The approval of a Specific Plan is a legislative act requiring the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council.) Site Plan: The site plan,marked Exhibit 1,shows the proposed development consisting of a two-story,120 unit senior citizen building located in the easterly portion of the site. It will consist of a single structure with a footprint of approximately 50,000 square feet. The total floor area of the two-story residential structure will be 100,000 square feet. The structure will be laid out running in a north/south direction with a southerly east-west wing. This southerly wing will be placed about 77 feet from the southerly property line. In addition, there will be two courtyards within the interior of the building as additional open space. Most of the building will be taken up with individual units; however, the central portion will include administrative offices and a common rooms. The new community senior center will be located at the west end of the southerly wing of the residential building. It will consist of a single story structure of about 7,000 square feet in size. The project includes two individual parking areas, one on the east and south sides of the residential building and the other on the west side. The east and south parking lot contains 98 open parking spaces. Vehicie access will be provided by means of a gated, 26-foot wide driveway off of Grand 7 errace Road near the northeast comer of the site. A standard fire department "harninerhead" turnaround is located at the west end of the southerly lot for emergency access by the fire #,. department. There are four handicapped stalls in this parking area. The parking area west of the residential building will serve for the parking needs mainly of visitors to the residential complex,the community senior center and the park. This parking area will contain a total of 48 parking spaces. Vehicular access will be provided by a second,26-foot wide driveway towards the middle of the site. The main entrance to the residential complex, community senior center and park will face this westerly parking area. Additional handicapped parking will be provided in this westerly lot. Off-street parking will be shared among the uses based on variable peak hour of use. The peak hour use for the senior center will be from 11 a.m.to 3 p.m.weekdays. The Petta Park peak hours ofuse will be in the early mornings, late aftemoons/early evenings, and on weekends. Parking for the senior villas will be assigned.75 space for each unit. Additional on-street parking is available(SP- 07-01 text p.22). In addition,the proposed parking meets the City's standards in terms of stall size, backup distance and numbers of handicapped spaces required. The westerly 2.6 acres of the site will be developed as a passive park. The park has been designed to incorporate many of the features of the original park master plan submitted to the Planning Commission review in April of 2003 including walkways, plant exhibits, sculpture garden and community holiday tree. The Development Standards for the Specific Plan including lot dimensions, building setbacks, lot coverage,maximum building height and parking requirements are shown on Table 2 of the Specific Plan,p. 22 of Exhibit A. Exhibit 2 shows the proposed fencing for the site. A 6-foot high block wall is proposed for the east, south and west property lines. This wall will be somewhat decorative with a mixture of colored precision block and split face block. The fencing plan also shows that along the southerly property and easterly property lines"wrought iron inserts"will be included at the adjacent owners request. The plan also shows that the proposed fencing along Grand Terrace Road will consist 6-foot high wrought iron with intervening masonry pilasters. Exhibit 3 shows the wrought-iron gate detail for the two driveways on Grand Terrace Road and also another detail of the 6-foot blockwall along the southerly property line of the site. A 8 %" x 11" reduction.oaf the site plan has been included in this staff report as Attachment 2. Reductions of the fencing plan are also included as Attachments 3 and 4. Floor Plans:, The proposed residential units will include four different floor plans. Plan A1, consisting of one- bedroom will contain 551 sq. ft. of floor area. Plan A2 will have the same floor plan as Plan Al but with a balcony, the total square footage will be 539 sq. ft. plus a 58 sq. ft. balcony. Plan B, consisting of two-bedrooms will contain 821 sq. ft. Plan B1 will have the same layout at Plan B but with a balcony: its total square footage will bq,;808 sq. ft. and with a 60 square foot balcony. The units with balconies are all on the west or north sides of the building because of privacy issues. Both t Gi Plans A and B will have kitchens,full baths and living rooms. There will be 103 one-bedroom units (Plan A's) and 17 two bedroom units (Plan B's). Exhibit 4 shows the floor plan for the first floor and the site plan including the open parking and community senior center. The plan shows elevator locations (two elevators), lobby area administrative offices, storage rooms and common rooms besides the individual residential units. Exhibit 5 shows the second floor layout with similar features as those for the first floor. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed floor plan of the senior community center. The new center will contain a main community room, library/cowmpaside of the er room, center will provid. kitchenand views of the new tive offices. An outdoor covered arcade on the park. 8 /2" x 11" plans of the individual floor plans have been included as Attachments 5 and 6. Also included are 8 %2" x 11" reductions of the first and second floor plans, Attachments 7 and S. Attachment 9 shows the 8 %2" x 11"reduction of the senior floor plan. Elevations. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed elevations of all four sides of the project. The proposed residential structure will be two-stories in height with a maximum height of 24 feet. The development standards of the Specific Plan call for a maximum height of 24 feet. It should be pointed out that the height limit in the existing Rl -7.2 zoning is 35 feet. The proposed architecture reflects the Monterey style with influences from Mediterranean and Craftsman styles. Elements of the Monterey style include gable'roof lines with exposed rafters with multiple roof lines to break up the appearance of the building. All roofs will use reddish clay tiles. Multiple pane windows with accent braces are used throughout the structure as well as balconies to further break up the wall planes. The exterior will be finished with stucco in shades of white and tan with accent colors below the first floor windows. Wood accents around the windows further break up the stucco. The project provides variation in wall planes that serve to avoid an institutional appearance of the buildings. This variation creates shadow lines and shade for rooms at various parts of the day. The exterior finish will be stucco in either white or tan shades. All fences and gates surrounding the project will be constructed of wrought iron which will provide security while maintain a feeling of openness. The architectural design as proposed is very similar to the design approved by the PIanning Commission in 2005 excepting that the residential building is now two-stories in height. For a more detailed discussion of the proposed architecture, please see p. 27 of the Specific Plan, Exhibit A. 8 %2" x 11" reductions of the four elevations are included as Attachment 10. z Preliminary LandscaninQ: The preliminary landscaping plan is shown on Exhibit 8. The conceptual landscape plan was prepared by the firm of"RHA"Landscape Architects. Highlights of the plan include shade trees along the east and south property lines to provide shade to the residential parking lot while serving as a landscape buffer/screen for the adjacent land uses. Street frontages of the residential area focuses upon turf and street trees consistent with the,City's street tree ordinance. The design concept for Petta Park will evoke a meditative inspirational setting featuring walking paths through gardens and commemorative display areas that relate to the history of the City and the area's culture. The park will be secured with access portals from the senior center. A senior friendly circular walking path extends throughout the park with benches provided as resting places.An area for holiday trees and/or displays serves as the focal point at the center of the park. Trees and shrubs are strategically places to enhance each ofthe displays. Open lawn areas will be.provided throughout the park. The south property line of the park will be planted with shrubs that will allow adjacent residences to maintain a view. For a preliminary plant palette for the landscaping, please see pp. 32 and33 of the Specific Plan, Exhibit A. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan will be required to be submitted and to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits if this project were'to be approved. In addition, all of the landscaping will have to be installed prior to the final occupancy of the development. A 8 %s" x I" reduction of the preliminary landscaping plan is shown as Attachment 11. 0 Conceptual Grading: The site naturally slopes in a general southeast to northwest direction. The project's high point is located near the southeast corner of the site with an elevation of 1,100 feet. The site slopes at an average of 3% to the northwest corner with an elevation of 1,072 feet. Portions of the site were: graded in the past for the existing community senior center and parking lot. The existing center will be removed. The conceptual grading plan is shown on Exhibits 9 and 10. Proposed finished floor elevations are designed to descend from east to west as shown on Exhibit 8. A twenty-foot cut will be created along the easterly boundary(adjoining the elementary school),and will be replaces with a 2:1 Slope between the property line and the parking area. In addition, a 330 foot long retaining wall is proposed at the top of slope dividing the adjacent school site from the project. Maximum 2:1 cut slopes are also designed at varying heights between the southerly property line and the parking area. A 331 foot long retaining wall is also proposed along the top of slope along the southerly property line. The variation in elevation between the property line and the structure will aid in screening the parking area from off-site vantages. As the proposed grading will lower the site so that the finished floor pad elevation of the southeast corner of the proposed structure will be 15 to 20 feet below existing ground level. This will reduce 21 the visual effect of the proposed residential structure by limiting the amount of structure that will be visible from adjacent properties. (For a detailed discussion on views from adjacent properties including line-of-sight studies,please see Section 4.1.4:3 of the FEIR, Exhibit B.) As part of the review required to obtain grading permits, the applicant has prepared and submitted for preliminary review a Hydrology Study,"SUSMP"Flow Rate Calculations Study,a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan("SWPPP") and a Water Quality Management Plan("WQMP'�. Copies of these document are available for review in the offices of the Community Development Department. 'z S %Z" x I V reductions of the preliminary grading_plan is shown on Attachment 12 and 13 in the staff report. Color and Material Board: The applicant has submitted a materials board indicating material types and colors for the proposed structures. The walls will be primarily an"omega white"stucco with accents of Mediterranean tile. Entryways and columns will be accented with reddish brown tiles. Wood trim around the windows will be accented with tones of"cardamon"brown. Roofing tiles will be reddish-brown concrete with a Mediterranean design to blend with the entire architectural theme of the building. The color and materials board will be made available at the public hearing for the Planning Commission's review. Phasing: Construction will occur in two phases. Phase One will entail the development of the residential portion, the senior center and the parking areas. All grading, utility extensions, buildings and landscape areas relating to Phase one will be constructed under Phase One. Phase Two involves the relocation of the existing senior center into the new facility and the development of the passive park. All grading, utility extensions, building and landscape areas relating to the passive park will be constructed under Phase Two, REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: The following comments were made by various local agencies in reviewing this project. Building and Safety: Please refer to the comments made by the Director of Building and Safety/Public Works in his memorandum of March 4, 2007. (Attachment 14) County of San Bernardino Fire Department, Communily Safety Division: Please refer to the comments made by the County,Fire Department in its letter dated March 31,2007. (Attachment 15) �� IMPACT FEES: The project proponent will be required to pay all standard City impact mitigation fees and those impact fees charged by the Colton Unified School District. ENVIRONMENTAL REWEW: A Final Environmental Impact Report, "FEIR," was prepared for this project and is included as Exhibit B. The FEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of this project, proposed mitigation measures and listed residual impacts after mitigation, if any. The potential impacts included aesthetics, air quality, land use and planning, noise and population and housing. The FEIR includes the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Letters, Response to Comments, Revisions to the Draft EM, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The FEIR has been included as Exhibit B. The Final Environmental Impact report concluded that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. The appropriate findings calling for the approval and certification of the FEIR by the City Council have been included in the Resolution of Environmental Findings, Attachment 20. ANALYSIS: This proposal is very similar to the prior approval in 2005. It has the same number of senior citizen residential units, 120. It has the same architectural style and general layout. The number of stories of the residential portion has been reduced to two stories from the original three. The foot print for both the residential is slightly larger because of the reduced height. The proposed park is slightly smaller but has the same overall design theme as in the earlier approval. Also,the rather detailed environmental impact report has satisfactorily addressed the environmental issues raised by the Court. The report concluded that this project will have no adverse impact on population densities;no neighborhood incompatibility resulting from taller structures; and no noise impact resulting from air conditioning units. In addition, the project will allow the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") goals. The City's assigned allocation for new housing during the planning period was 244 units. Of these, 72 were identified for very-low and low income levels. For the 2007-2014 "RHNA," 133 units have been identified for very-low and low. The project will also allow the City to complywith requirements of the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") in its review of the mandatory Housing Element of the General Plan as outlined in HCD's letter dated June 10, 2005. (Please see Appendix A of the Specific Plan, Exhibit A.) This will be done by rezoning the subject site to the R3 -S (Multiple. Family, Senior Citizen). FINDINGS: Relevant sections of the Municipal Code require specific findings be made by the PIanning 2) Commission in recommending this project to the City Council. These findings have been incorporated into the various Resolutions and Ordinances approving this project including the findings in the resolution approving the Site and Architectural Review for this project(Attachments 16 through 19). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Upon the approval by the Planning Commission, the proposed project including the 120 senior citizen units will be subject to the attached conditions as set forth in the Resolution of Approval for the Site and Architectural Review (Attachment 19). RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the proposed project to the City Council under GPA-07-01, SP-07-01, Z-07-01, SA-07-02 and E-07-02 subject to the recommended findings and conditions as set forth in the attached Ordinances and Resolutions including the Resolution of Environmental Findings. (Attachments 16-20) Respectfully submitted, 7i J Lampe, Associate Planner Gary L. 16ontz, C&fmunity Development Director o GLK:JL:jl EXHIBIT A Specific Plan No. 07-01 document EXHIBIT B Final Environmental Impact Report EXHIBIT C General Plan Amendment EXHIBIT D Zoning Code Amendment EXHIBIT E Zone Change Legal Description EXHIBIT 1 Site Plan of project EXHIBIT 2 Fencing Plan for north, south, east and west property lines EXHIBIT 3 Fencing Plan showing wrought iron gate detail and another detail of block-wall along southerly property line EXHIBIT 4 First Floor and portion of Site Plan EXHIBIT 5 Second Floor of residential building EXHIBIT 6 Senior Center detailed floor plan EXHIBIT 7 Elevations of all four sides of the proposed buildings EXHIBIT 8 Preliminary landscaping plan EXHIBIT 9 Conceptual grading plan for residential portion and senior center EXHIBIT 10 Conceptual grading plan for proposed park V� ATTACHMENT 1 Aerial photograph of subject site and surrounding area ATTACHMENT 2 8 %" x 11"reduction of the site plan ATTACHMENT 3 8 %z" x 11"reduction of the fencing plan ATTACHMENT 4 8'%" x 11"reduction of the fencing plan with wrought iron gate ATTACHMENT 5 Plan Al and Plan A2 floor plans ATTACHMENT 6 Plan B 1 and Plan B2 floor plans ATTACHMENT 7 8 %z" x 11"reduction of first floor of building and site plan ATTACHMENT 8 8 %a." x 11"reduction of second floor of building ATTACHMENT 9 8 Y? x 11"reduction of the senior center ATTACHMENT 10 8 %"x 11"reductions of elevations ATTACHMENT II 8 %" x I 1"reduction of preliminary landscaping plan ATTACHMENT 12 8 %" x 11" reduction of conceptual grading plan for easterly half ATTACHMENT 13 8 %Z" x 11"reduction of conceptual grading plan for westerly half ATTACHMENT 14 Memorandum from Building and Safety/Public Works dated 3/09/07 ATTACHMENT 15 Letter from County Fire.Department dated 3/31/07 Ppr-evEd amending the Gity's General Plan 07-01) JrIr �j"i'n('LTA fLl�TT 1 4 llP.air,�r n� changing exi iug 2e ftw ig to PC3 S iv n? -&l) ATTACHMENT 19 Resolution of Approval for SA-07-02 In or Villas :1MyFilesVOHNIBIuemtnseniorvi11as2\SF-07-01 commrepon k .�4 a® J t x st yhe`ra rt j a s ih r .x^ >. 2,•. �i. ' s r''t E^�'_� ;{�d3/• ' r .:a ' zh S �'dstr L x; �lj�Z. f y3 fair S q_ �yi •� i �`•1;r�r _,,,tir'J"^ i'..`( .� t _e. r'.`>°.t'•�_ �t X i; �y,r 5 J ,'i h S `.•: _ P "a y' �:'7 di`-r ''�' 'sy..!'" ,-•Y'r 1•},i jory ��,Y' �'�'�s�`.- ly..� �s,�;�t�:1��'�"``.ul.' 3:. ��.�.:'�T3`.'��-�.,�lr+r,�•i�`r��:it C''c�t :..,�5"F`5 ��rt1Z,��H. t l .,,Y J �i 6v• "k }}.•icy 1�+"A,f fr -'} �a'��ia er'�`+t`•f�,f h" k'IJ �• '••nS1' 1 C a, „,.t 4 +;;:'siLF>a�+,K- � y3?,� ��'s'Y s � ti v• •M..-- f, a�,�sc� t��Y � y ," �l r><'.y- .T, •qc.T< �'. .tJL.:Ei{ az,. } r L h, .��''+ � •F � r - . .,S s><.�• Lt'1 e•E - 3 xri' t,J,FI ��'j•n t. !},,��••1'C•C�i-9 r't�v i t';tTy-. J}? ,4 r` _ � �f v - i[� �- ."l ;� T,�� "i-y.�•S �X )i:tom^'} T+ �J k�� -v. �`. "yrr � �;`' #'`.•�tJt�•,Ffi}+rf •.� �`nt��-',� ��`�� c'rr�, e- r � �7r r 7,i- �r�'' -•aaa4 a- '�:T, x, - s F1syk...'x'3srio.yz'fz „ t�A.r ii5',� '`t�.{ ..r i. . y a t+(:�4 ii;' 'r[1; t rt! "r,r r i �•rf t y r c� Jr r L ,�LF' K•C 4 ♦ „r �;-5 ;' Er�,"f•{1 •.�` r• ? ..a a x_ty �. ; $r t: L.'✓u� .jt')s 1'frF �w:W Fx L. r9.Fj'� ✓ __r t. _ ^r otz'z t'y f+r L r ) r'�•� x ll t, 4, L 4�3' �G'iw�x7 bt rt.;" ri { '.'1 r"•+.,7�,��,•,.�.,•r'�Y"`1 �'�..0 s Wr Sc7( h� r�1TH St��rl '7�[t ,hut s F.._ Y. �1� 33t'r.r.K) r yiA u R('!KJ '_t?Y„^z' ,f-vt .•Yr1a3y d •iw 1. 5, h# t �ct.Y;} �},a'� l41) :4,�rf r " �• r ,�K.tJ i.,,,. f,.. '�''•"}, y a t•vJ�',i,�R` 'Jy"'t f "�. �1) b ppJ Y•s.4\ f .t ., cS'ri�'}`�r I�F C.a•-', .� :i J 54 s ry< .} }-1 M�rs 4 r 9 .° r t[ R L ,..yab .O�"/".r�J+=-`=�'• y -..' - �.�" 7t; r y s19 „ri--'>;i J.,,x•�� c ,� +1'<.� c t�� `;w {'�a.• ' (.,"�5• .:'', a t'f f x V a'��'."'�'cf-.Jt ,}p1r ra--�t•N^ t t` �! �.t�.f�ryrl .,*�'.at+� t f `t t� °J .±$.:s.•.j ri _ ,�k t��.�-�• x� 'Gi.• a{ r• ^d'�y.�Jx,•� x yh:.f 5,7.:i rtac '� '4Y�.a.'r"��tt,L�`tt :, (- I r.,_� i� ,�i •t� ut� � { �'.,F�e 3s; jt' ,, F 7 ��'`� i r T i;•,�r'i�t 1}.`,�" �—•� "'�,'•yk c� i..,' vk d}, Y1;• t,K.' yT,.(.,. 7r ".-` �' rJ-'t 1 F4�� F- tt k� • ' -s�`4i rt•"`'..� k -:,S fa�j:.- d 3f i yt P 1tT i s -"t`�t � rv� - � - 4a?i. t Y rl 4xy r• r2 „^ cs �•E ��e s' 'u x.m r',.t rj L mix... y }t r,: ;ti r r nr yl`r+'`- �.l�rA TS ��1 t t!'�! >:`` 'd �t ; f� r.� '�` - Y' .t+ k :a }s`� r S° ,Y'• ,. 4 a. �Ti�r ��a: �+� � r t• s{ rd�>+'h t f,S y r ' r J t• it � } k '*•..1*' � s r``c t r .(T P .+,}�<'s �� !r`"t A rs 1 s i �, i � �t�.t�i�"1��c �,'� 1`� .�;a i M ?�y�{a L t 4 •,t r ^41y Ys- as� ,+.�.:� iL x rS'� :'y��5 � 3'Nf t1.r i,t :.�' �.t+ r '�Y! JtL�:s t. s\�1 •; - , •Yr �'� 1 J� l�` o-:,}�s;. £'L7.i i 'ki. t ,5?k�j,Ar,f J�. t �`t�'t tstt_ �a (�: t j s F •,� .,$t .� r.a�" rr�y r > ,k `Y st t P y, i E�'� i ..,,,az• J W t t{..+.a .{ � }�# a i; ,a. .isy t �fi s L .t J Js 'st ,rl^ru i §.r i' Jl •t ,; t. bFr Xj R�` ttt°� ;�~'� ;ry k; tv"y�}p y�Y '4"f .y t s s`" �r t' r} 'r • . ON 3S C�� ? J�• \ r :'{y 1. � {r f,;t54f - )� -. r V t .i r " `N,,,, '•t.-x .. ;qY•d T`r., � i i r5,7'sq L' ¢} _ J x y ;'r lJ i t' ; � .- , t �' "'.• ry �` r+ ,F3J r tS_�?.A;r �: }+ t,j - � r � '! 7 1, 1 # ♦ Y e v} s i ' ti: ''• `Mt.;i 1 J ,'? j L ' t � }•� kx 7 a k 1 t�' � r S`�� 1 t J. •) • •.. 1 s�� J i - �J - s "F t � ".b •y t J ��f'4-" t � r€' \ts3+. r • 4 s 4 s s� �' 7 t ?. :� ;d--' .•.r - s�.� L N✓?1'.L rk• v t{ ! � �r _ H t t� '� � ial•.i� :d� i r'k{` ,�, �f>, 3 � S`b1y. LY'YJ r �•r `S J4 k\} �i t)� jt-7 J v i1 i �"'�"'� ry t t _ + ., �' • ! � a .+2cF7 t.Y•3^•T}y r . � r Ttr YS �' ' , tie F f��i4 '� -.�i+ x � �♦ r r J s � Jt t� � t f i tit• k w t t, 1 � 1 � 't tT L tldfi It .. J'C t °Jt t� fi y+ �'� ! � f tt j �E "• ,k.:- •:r'r{-Y rS,^ s ` t tr�5 -. r .�s,', kI t i �,t t f,� + `MITMF r A xir F , f{A} r ,.., . ..t x f r. s L`• ''•i'Y� I a v ,L •'�-.y„ '` ,;T„ '; ^ " 7 - },J ,j`c" „ rttw"�"rr r i- 1 L7 :h'!s .. • .. � s;� .(-i�Il •..Irs ':� +}. 'tY� }iAT �: ii j _t, yr R`ri''' r �t .� Y ` `�5�1�`"�•V? � j .Z s�.A, `•r-� �k r +�,, n?:fit � ac�J�,• �;`i Y x_ � n.s tt P� #•a ,''mil �t... 4 jr ,� r' a rt w.- s d dj J •.• ,� ,`� s}} ti s.�J t�,<'xY m J { t. .•, T aa�� s J J J , ,•.:G � J. n��:: v � � > :�'J� ,\� ?„+�, IiittJR�s �i � �Z+,,R i t`t r .d, fa«' t ' r r - '• � �#:', v '�r� k a,t 3 r.t•�;,• �,:< r :J• � ;.�f � r e� •-i ,!,- ''t �J _ �r ', y h r • r� T+ � � � r �:.�r,,,ayr� '�i�+�t t'=� r�� +.��{ � c 1J j ,.' "art' ,T 4 j7 i? ilk " r rJ F! �• ! r .� � ,'`•x-r ,r'� t + , Hf7 � { y'r:Or`+' �•�,''� } .,„]3 ,� bJ� '"� - i�;s - � T rc _•' � .r.. ..B�F�. •»rd•2", r '7'""� _.�,� i�'.r� "9 .1'� 1 r�r�Y i 1 't� J "1RI1 f f S :.'� bt ` S ♦ � R t � J Y�tk. ,r J' .' _• .'dt'. L Wr,_. 2 - � ( i� iY a .S.-E t� x. ,t•e r, a .t "ia .;JT.. ) +� t{-r-'.i $- J � - JYy.+: ^KtxT 41A 3 p� t. -:i j • V 1 Jtr' > 1l� �t��.. , ^,te!<y� r ! 5�4�-�W.Y� (._'c�•ri S x a r C r i Y ra 4t t r .� �d �K�* d-vYt �,;� +a(}}r`% "`� 3 �N�-,- �v".�=�r � � ;'f'�:�•.,k` `k � �� ` ,�y - :,s� �- L+ 4y Z�+,:�.� .�r�'yY'x '-� t'r •g 3 L � '�� `'r�xs iG r�+ � �`�M � d,. h'•i.rot 'ems" - ,��ra �� 'u �c�.. ,�f•7.� '� N< ��4 _,:%+<-' sR P v r - .. a• : ATTACHMENT i �+;• 1 ,. i)4 '.JG d '"si'hF ;.�tfi?e , � " i s _ r; �" .t•., s'r'. n .�� -i r Z'x. ♦^ F i is I .. b I, < rya},� 15 / �. .Y ti �(.-• � .J-�i��.,,�iiN�Wl�rYifii� IGiti�YW n i� �If ig` ��a r "r��lO•�� t�� .Il�` 1��1�1� ' �� 1tlil' 1 , !�� ., � f�y� •i •: o / -,.�o,D'. l!. II � �'�� I/r� Y,�.1 r �"1'��ri��1"�T �S`tiL�.4 IA��G�Q`n i f'l�j GPI r�}�r,.. ., n � � ,'•�. 4•,..• �i3 .�uor,�o�`nOy+n:.04`�.��r�,�1 ��+�+ ..ti �• � /•OHIO il��.� Ilr ��',1� ,r� •� �1'1�dP o ,.,._. �::c- .— ♦ - \�:�I�r'.y.,i.►,!r.C:rj.rriognnn n �. � k5 • b '1!+. iw �IfIW wi�� t� - o ir. �r_�nnp.p,Syr.:i ,�. 'E/r��' '�\ ,I`.,,� , 'i;' ■ • I 1 •_ , . , A- h A M M -1 rl"77/1 e40 Is I, WROUGHT IRON INSERTS OWNERS REQUEST . ......... .......... .... Inn ........... ------ E full ME ------ -- ------- ----- . PORTION OF SOIffH PORTION OF NORTH nn"I3 PR. WROUGHT IRON INSERTS OWNER'S REQUEST Tr PF EAST e Lm 11GE_, � BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS -- . . . „ and GRAND TERRACE SENIOR CENTER -~= -� DEVELOPED NY: noN FOR RTfER Hwom -J .aTew.. i ,"'� i raeeen l-•----'�'---•1 Aeaon -- - �- �u n,� I M e I ,� I Vw• I MIID♦II •----A®11-i r�On i rnrr I nus� I .srn --------------------- "Z—U z n ^ a@ — ffi R er ..... ' e �oearAiu�eEcuama�re — r •• II � .ura �m��n 1 -�.�.�� —}II onwNsacxrrrosror+un,uiu \--��~ �G41af .F11,9lltdLi eA.WAlLBll� .a. M � �`" ,� .wentwraremve�r � " BLUE M1®dlA1A7l'.rAINSENIOR MLLASAIM ErTIE,.G"ZATEAwAunFuaa �a .A�9D TEAaSd�A CEsEN►oR w__ . e_.CENTER .�� "'e•, a xmtn -- — �,,o,A A-003 i- -1 IIlIIIIII'' l - __Llw[uf ____--�IN • <MYMwG awl (M1M1luwwt u41 �lO,uvu M��L1 ufOu�4 fw��L\ pMu� w\wG x�D Q=CIS + EF - ' -- UWT AY FLOOR PLAN F—� U�WTY1 FLOOR PLAN �R�� 2 BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS -.._. JOHN COTTON F YIA ARCHrtECTs w and GRAND TERRACE SENIOR CENTER DEVELOPED Br: CORPORATION FOR UTTER-musm - J C u• � 1_ ------------------- Lj E-M - LIMIT 5 •-(- -r UNIl FLOOR PIaH FLOOP PLAN D1 e�At.c�_nnxF� �l JO BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS HN COTTON FAIA ARCHITECT! - 4nd GRAND TERRACE SENIOR CENTER DEVELOPED RV: CORIOMTN)N FOR SETTER HOU61N0 i. % % Ni fill - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - --- - - - - - - - ........... ................. 114; IVA ........................ ----------------- C3 31,1 1- 1. 0 1 17111f. IT ATTACH ®BENT 7 i � p ;l�lll�Il�I �a 0 0 cJ i O OW j D r lJ lJ co 7 go u C W 1' Z y co W tV 2� 02 j� m � I E a I E u! t it u� ATTACHMENT 8 I i P T11 11 k \\ \\ \\ \\ r.f 1 1 i 4. 14 B rk rn 'k' III k j 1 1 f f-r f•f fI T- f� f fT f-f f-I r-f SENIOR CENTER)FLOOR PLAN rn BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS JONN COTTON t'MA/wCNRlCTf .Ila GRAND TERRACE SENIOR CENTER DlVELOKo pY. CORPORATION FOR BETrEI y ' �'.° I II,lillil:uu 11I,'Ilij'.IIII11111111.- �.,._., fin II I ! IIII 1:111' „■1 1 � - - — -_ .. . ' 1 II. IIII ��, „ ',�, ,_„ �:11, ,11.:: ",� ' III - - •- - —d I—►.Illy ►,��. ■ ii i��n��iu�l"�. • II 11 1-IIIPIIf _ III II_ _. :.—.�' IIII .... .... t IIII''-- .:.—: IIII• I�I . --- .:�� IIII IIII•L:■■: ::.. III'. _ I1�..... IIIII��■■ —. _ .... 111 IIII. ::::• .. � •--- _— .... IIII IIII .:: .... IIII IIII . . .... IIII I I 110flil IIII IIII IIII III _III IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII ■■ _-_ IIII IIII IIII ■■.■ _"'11 ..■. •r■■ IIII iiii �::: �i�: IIII IIII :i:\■ ::�: IIII �1111 :�■ :�� 1111— lul emu■ ■u■ nn un r■u ■u■ Ilu � IIII ■■ ' �_ -...,`` — — — - (IIII II..I.I 1 1 _A..., iiii '1,1 -.. �, - - ..•-_ � • " ► —_ � 111 I:I1 11 I I „1■1 IIII IIII I-I IIII dill I 1 I ":: IIII ' I IIII III I■ I■1 IIII IIII IIII IIII II 1■ � II I „I, I11, IIII 1■ Illi 1■' — � ` •' ^_ I ' - �I•,I 11• 1 - _� �_/��I■„ 'I■',� ,11':1 „_I illy...'\ ■1,�1■ 11�1 '1=1 1:1„ ,11:1 IIII ,1 ' - 1■��iv�l,\�6W�'ar�aH 1��.�:� "I ri■' , . iiii jii iiii °, ►I:. � IIII me... IIII IIII .:.■ .... - --. - ... ..■. IIII ,III .... .... im ..:: ..—.. ' ..:. �.:,� , IIII .III . o, ...i,i i°, -. � ---- - -- - - -- - i■ ' so : :... .... ...• III ��... .... .... ... �='.♦fir � - _ -_ '_ '_ -- .... °ii iiii .... .... IIII '; III, .:.. �... :::: :' ice„ IIII ::■. :..: �.... I�� _ �1Y�1_FYI� � 1'�i� y — —1Y�N ■..■_ ...■ I .■■� II 'A r • \r-�°-, :s lei':- •.rdtl7�z t -1 vs, �r 1 �; �, •'�� i`� l�r.41�t .mow $y R, . fill c a r �ly�t s ' � �?�"�y""^ 1 l•yy}��.,".,T)4y�'�14'!�}�J'�p-G' '��i4' t .��; .y�kzli}-ei�t j y Ys�,D �� Jt`d Y`.9o�11� ,`■ �• � l i�,.,�s�!� �� ,y}�f'll,��:�{Q)] a c .. � ,. ` � � '� 'r- h� A � 4 ,S:r•�{, 1 P1r�ly •R LI tl ' t1pL:, r,.• �.x*.91��, II7G.oya�] •� '''.-. .. a��W• V?'.1• �� rwt�,' ..$� -v-:,:•��R :� Sly•. ir- vi GI 4 - � � ,rU �• ,y r. ',� �'.� �'•`'� �J""'' •� �- � •'� _.'m ,`"°may f •',,% A I \ ..{}..(1� i,v:., �qy� .{A�.(.. .•�.y a r •t yy'v*... ye�ji t'� }:�' ,} 6 ��RV�C�YI�� ®�P7�t/��Fd1 ti��B1i '�`w ! �;r��-S4 r�ay.1 �� +,'.�n:'{Y'T �'r� �J'0��6:i-�..'.P,� 4 N' rr•?, 'y, •�'� .iti � + � 9(`y� '\t:' 1 ti✓�^, '1 .1 .�y� � risr+� dy `�Hti e'? .r;,. \ t. � 'e� .• •I:.it'�^r•,+i•'f:.�t•S.t'l,A �•Z l ;.•t�s ''ti.��,s.r�•'• OWN P �•��jjj � n,, y.', � t •,`� �+.(p. -• . �{yL:f�,,1. � M,.b.�+'aw f�.�.�c•�"fir: ..�lu.f:,. _y• �.�� q �r . J $..^ rrrr rrra rrrrw•w,n�iil of rl ox o Ca( � 1 1•w ydr,urns • j< f T I I All HFA lrr l .r lzt.---"-----"-•----" yBB Y Ml w,r ' Ylr -- I u - Yr��^��y� Y•r lw,lrlMr A)P•�i �qi Y��l•/LAY lwior ,,,1 rJ Ar�w,lM n _ ' �„A . G Y• R I� ..��:.' A. .o`.n, .Y�u.,.w•i.�.a`o j - r Il-1, � � •e�gi Y•trnras >mvue � � ,s'r,y o.r � yj� !yd s.n',iu v:r:w no".w• o-""ori , M o 411 ip{ n.o.n.m,.e rYo,••ll �.vl urr.:ra•nn Yn n••rrr owL irm.. .im`o:.ti„my is Y imn:wYvi,p��pRp ••av..r-ml W wum r a r•uw.w•-. so.w.,..n,nwr rpr u.au•W —— 77 . \ � A 3rfreu _ _•L� � w •. P pA7 +..mw yrno nu,.c.�p wac rwaa 11 , � — 11 l•,-•w re r IDw•ZZ 1 A.'Y4 nAl r r,1,Mn,,,0rlr,ma Y PP••Yw••l O Yrm W d OM m�N.M L • \ '`\ W YY.D•1'u,•n]M O MlD7i 11 A,t••w r n Rr r rlYOw.•Y d ' ' -• a u Ani wY O'arl M n wn.l1 W a 41ww.pr..Y,n.Ol n,W•Y rw W —— , O l•rr•OlA 1•rina y Ynl 9+1,•lr wl o urDJ'Ap P,b a uo W r - � .. •. T loTr•n aAo.n�,wp.q rW M q.o0ly Yt A•Mw 9w••r.rA r I ��— �—'� ,l�rmlOurmWrxP..rW�rmw. , .� i F � `r41 � '��o•�• Q© K r•r Yslraiw�,.�© , rt , iH'Y wa•r rll•llrrM rr • � K M n•w.r r•rr•r•tnrrrrrrr� _ �.� 11 rrr Mrrwr r,r4rt•r,�® l (� � , �. rrurrrr ar.r I +M err r�rr,�rrrp•�,rrr� � , Merll�rwrrr� , i� 1 rrrrrtrlirrn,rrr!'�ir wwr rurrrwrrrrr�� j— xm` t+rrr.rr,rswrrarw.o_�i ,�j• i�rrrstrrr>trsrrarrr� \ �' � .• - r��r, vswrr,>•r.r srrr Qi ryd�• �.rt r.fY lwr��jr11.�Y1r��Oj �Dy� - 'w+trwrwwrrrrrr lrrr•�rrwwrrlrwrrYr Qi _ � 1•r•tt r9,r ww r w ar rrr O, ` t•t -.o-.ot CC Ot" Q., of o ... _......_;,........,W...-...L. ... T,.o __. gyp., tqr— In wt•.�u� w•�r yw tt \\ �� t \�` ``tr t. Oil is / 1 fig f / � � 'r ar ,� t -'■`. -- __�-- ten`` y/�/�, ■[R9 r t/� gill I I I I j �� - - - ,, ••; �Y .:�"'"' _. ._, `_ - 'tom — >aAwTlwrO I ��yM�■i.oN�■ri��t�r�O nmrt at•rvvrer s.w..w.Qi ' � R Building and Safety/Public Works Department Conditions of Approval Date: March 9,2007 Applicant: Corporation for Better Mousing c/o David Sclafani Site Location: 22627 Grand Terrace Road,Grand Terrace, Ca. W.O.#: 12-8.5444 Provide four(4) construction plans and information for review of the proposed project. Below is a list of the plans and documents needed for plan review. The initial plan review usually will take three weeks on most projects. You have received a work order number 12-8.5444, for the proposed project. This number will be needed to obtain information regarding your plan review. A plan review fee and permit fee will be charged at the time plans are approved and are ready to issue. Provide the following sets of plans and documents. Public Works/En * eering submiftal's I review. (2) Street Improvement Plans,to include curb, gutter, sidewalk,and paving, street lights, etc. J (2) Street Sewer Plans (2) Street Water Plans (2) Site Plan including the street. Building and Safety sub al's required at first plait reek . (4) Architectural Plans (4) Structural Plans (2) Structural Calculations (4) Plot/Site Plans (4) Electrical Plans (2) Electrical Load Calculations (4) Plumbing Plans/Isometrics, Water, Sewer and Gas. (4) Mechanical Plans (4) Mechanical Duct Layout Plans (2) Roof and Floor Truss Plans (2) Title 24 Energy Calculation (2) Geology Report (2) Soils Report (2) Grading Plan (2) Precise Grading Plan (2) Water Quality Management Plan, (WQr), (S WPPP)and Erosion Control Plan (4) Disabled Access Plan ` ' '(2) Temporary Construction Fence Plan ATTACHMENT 14 Page I of 3 Building and Safetv/Prablic Works (senerallnfornaation All structures shall be designed in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, 2001 Mechanical Code, 2001 Plumbing Code, and the 2004 Electrical Code adopted by the State of California. Design all structures to comply with Seismic Zone(4)wind-speed 70 MPH, exposure "c" All work performed in the public right of way shall comply with the San Bernardino County Public Works Standards. The Developer/Owner is responsible for the coordination of the final occupancy. The Developer/owner shall obtain clearances from each department and division prior to requesting a final building inspection from Building&Safety.Each agency shall sign the bottom of the Building and Safety Job Card. Building and Safety inspection requests and Public Works inspection request can be made twenty (24) hours in advance for the next day inspection. Please contact (909) 825-3825. You may also request an inspection at the Building& Safety public counter. All construction sites must be protected by a security fence. The fencing and screening shall be maintained at all times to protect pedestrians. Toilet facilities shall be provided for construction workers,and such facilities shall be maintained in a sanitary condition. Construction toilet facilities of the non-sewer type shall conform at ANSI ZA.3. L All construction materials which are not used shall be recycled. Receipts from the recycled company responsible for accepting the materials shall be kept in the construction office for viewing by the City Inspector. 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 Building and Safety and the Planning Department. (A) Installation of a construction trailer,or, (B) Security fenced area where the electrical power will be located. installation of construction/sales trailers must be located on private property. No trailers can be located in the public street right of way. Public Works Conditions 1, Install concrete sidewalk extensions beyond the rear portion of the driveway approach providing less than 2%cross fall for disabled access. 2. All on site utilities shall be underground to the structure. Page 2 of 3 3. Street cut permits are required before work begins in the right of way. 4. The applicant shall construct all missing public improvements on the north side of Grand Terrace Avenue to Vista Grande Way. The missing public improvements shall include,but not limited to,pavement,curb,gutter,sidewalk,street lights,pavement stripping and street trees. The applicant shall overlay street paving per the City of Grand Terrace street repair policy. 5. All proposed Public street improvements shall be designed by persons registered and licensed pursuant to the Business and Professions Code 6. Install(6) six concrete ornamental street lights in right of way and pay one year energy cost for street lights. Coordinate with Southern California Edison and the City of Grand Terrace for cost and location. 7. The applicant shall obtain all required clearances and/or permits from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality. Control Board prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. A drainage study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer. The drainage study shall'include, but not be limited to,the evaluation of the capacity of the down stream storm drain. The study shall include the design of all facilities required to mitigate downstream deficiencies and impacts to the satisfaction of the City. 9. The applicant shall install a short retaining wall next to the existing block wall on themest property line of the project. Provide moisture barrier on retention side of short wall. 0 Building Perm&Conditions 1. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, on site water service shall be installed and approved by the responsible agency. On site Fire Hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department.No flammable materials will be allowed on the site until the Fire Hydrants are established and approved. 2. Prior to issuance of permits,site grading and pad certifications shall be submitted to Building and Safety. Prior to concrete placement,submit a certification for-the finish floor elevation and set backs of the structure. The certification needs to reflect that the structure location is in conformance with the Precise Grading Plans. Compaction reports shall accompany pad certifications. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits,provide a certificate from the Colton Unified School District stating that all school fees have been paid. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, provide Building and Safety with a will serve letter from Riverside Highland Water Company. (909) 8254128. 5. All construction projects shall comply witfi the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems, (NPDES). NPDES reports shall be submitted with projects plans at time of plan review. Page 3 of 3 4 j COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MH OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION 620 South "E"Street—San Bernardino, CA 92415-0179 (909) 6 386 385_'(0 9) 38�63-(909)386-8466 Fax MARCH 31,2007 EXPIRATION: MARCH 2O08 BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS/ DAVID SCLAFANI FILE: DR GTO7123865 LOCATION: 22627 GRAND TERRACE RD.—GRAND TERRACE PROJECT TYPE: DR -120 UNIT TWO-STORY FOR SENIORS APN: 276-461-09& 14 PLANNER:JOHN LAMPE 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 GUIDELINES which-are applied to this project. ❑Approved ®Approved w/conditions El Not Approved FIRE CONDITIONS: 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] Water System. Prior to any land disturbance, the water systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix IIIA of the Uniform Fire Code. Standard 903.1 [F-5] The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4,000 GPM for a 4 Hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow based on 100,000 sa.ft. Structure. Access. The development and each phase thereof 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] Art. ATTACHMENT 15 DR GT0.7/23865 MARCH 31.,2007 PAGE 2 Buildinst Plana. Not less than two(2)complete sets of Building Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. [F-42]. Tumaround: .An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred and fifty (150) feet or more in length. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet; all roadways shall not exceed a 12 % grade and have a minimum of forty five (45) foot radius for all turns. In the FS1, FS2 or FS-3 Fire Safety overlay areas,.there are additional requirements. Standard 902.2.1 [F-43] Combustible Protection. Prior to combustibles being be installed.on the pThe topcoat asphalt does not have to t site an approved paved road with curb —nd gutter and fire hydrants with an acceptable fire flow shall -a installed until final inspection and occupancy. [F744] Water System Large Commercial. A water system approved and inspected by the Fire Department is required. The system shall be installed and .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 with a minimum of 8" supply. 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 th s the stp ace prior fire drants placing and water system will meet distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply be i combustible materials on,the job-site. [F-571 Fire Sarinkler-NFPA #13. An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA Pamphlet #13 and the Fire 'oepartment standards is required. The applicant shall hire an approved fire sprinkler contractor. The fire sprinkler 11 t �Antractor 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 manufacturers 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] Roof Certification. A letter from a licensed structural (or truss) engineer shall be submitted with an original wet stamp at time of fire sprinkler plan.review, verifying the roof is capable of accepting the point loads imposed on the building by the fire sprinkler system design. [F-59a] Fire Alarm. An automatic fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all applicable codes F. is required.The applicant shall hire a Fire Department approved fire alarm contractor. The fire alarm contractor shall submit four(4)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] MME-on e reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified In areas wheresnow removal occurs or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant n 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] �a_ll mmercial- Large Facility Addressing. Commercial and industrial developments in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. have the street address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum twelve (12) inches in height and with a one and one half t1 %s) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers•shall be electrically illuminated (internal or external). 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[F83] DR GT07/23865 2 -I MARCH 31,2007 'PAGE 3 Key Box. An approved Fire Department key box (Knox®) 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(Knox 0). Standard 902.4 [F85] Override Switch. Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch (Knox®) is required. Standard 902.4 [F86] Sincerely, DOUG CRAWFORD, Planning & Engineering Supervisor San Bernardino County Fire Department Community Safety Division DC:ww A I ' 4 RESOLUTION NO. 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO.07-02 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CASE NO.07-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TOGETHER WITH A COMMUNITY SENIOR CENTER AND A 2.6 ACRE PARK AS FILED UNDER A SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE ON A 6 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 22627 GRAND TERRACE ROAD (SOUTHERLY SIDE OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD ABOUT 200 FEET EASTERLY OF MT. VERNON AVE.) WHEREAS,besides SA-07-02, the applicant has applied for the approval of GPA-07-01,SP-07-01, Z-07-01 and E-07-02 to construct a 120 unit senior-oriented multi-family residential project; and WHEREAS,the applicant has filed the Site and Architectural Review application to accompany the other requests for this project; and WHEREAS, the Site and Architectural Review will establish the conditions of approval for the proposed 120 unit senior citizen residential development; and WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,Article 7,Section 15080 et al, the environmental assessment of the proposed project made under Environmental Review Case No 07-02 required the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report which concluded with the appropriate Environmental Findings as set forth in Attachment 20. The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on July 24, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS FOLLOWS: 1. The proposed project and uses, consisting of a 120 unit senior-oriented multi-family residential project with a community senior center,and a 2.6 acre park is consistent with the intent of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and the General Plan, as amended, in that it meets the standards of the Zoning Code, as amended. 2. The locations and configuration of all structures associated with this project are visually harmonious with this site and surrounding sites and structures, that they do not interfere with the neighbor's privacy,that they do not 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 design and appearance of the 120 unit senior-oriented multi-family residential project will be consistent with the existing residential development in the area and the City. In addition,the project will maintain setbacks and will be appropriately landscaped to provide a buffer and transition to the single family homes south of the site. 3. The architectural design of the development,its materials,and colors utilizing earthtones are visually harmonious with surrounding residential development and natural landforms. The design is both functional for the proposed project and iftonsistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Said ATTACHMENT 19 materials will match existing materials and colors within the adjacent residential areas. 4. The plan for future landscaping and open space provides a functional and visually pleasing setting for the residential structures on the subject site and is harmonious with the nearby and adjacent residential developments. The proposed landscaping of the site will minimize any visual impacts to the surrounding area. 5. Because the site is mainly vacant and undeveloped with no natural vegetation and is not part of a hillside, there will be no indiscriminate clearing of the property, destruction of trees or natural vegetation or the excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides. The project will also provide a 2.6 acre passive park for use by the community. Thus the natural beauty of the City, its setting and natural landforms will be preserved. 6. The design and location of any signs associated with the project will be subject to the approval of a sign program to insure that the signs will be consistent with the scale and character of the buildings to which they are attached or otherwise associated with and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 7. Conditions of approval for this project necessary to secure the purposes of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and General Plan are made a part of this approval as set forth in the accompanying Resolution of Approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SA-07-02 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed 120 unit senior residential project shall be maintained in conformance with the Specific Plan and Site and Architectural Review Applications as approved by the Planning Commission on June 21,2007 and the City Council on July 24,2007. All plans shall be consistent in terms of property lines and other measurements. Minor bhanges or clarifications may be made by the Community Development Director or his designee. 2. The project shall adequately screen the south property line with landscaping. 3. All structures shall comply with the seismic standards of the Uniform Building code as adopted by the City of Grand Terrace. 4. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit,a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)shall be prepared using Best Management Practices designed to control onsite products from entering the Santa Ana River. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 5. All landscaping shall be properly maintained. 6. Landscape irrigation systems shall be properly installed and maintained. 7. All construction equipment shall be equipped with suitable muffler systems. 8. All occupied structures (residences and community rooms) shall be provided with adequate insulation to reduce the interior noise level to 45 dB or lower. 4o 9. All exterior equipment such as air conditioner units shall be shielded in a manner that reduces noise to project residents and adjacent residential structures. .10. The project shall comply with all applicable regulations of the Uniform Fire Code and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. 11. Onsite fire protection systems shall be installed per the requirements of the County Fire Department. 12. Emergency access shall be provided as required by the County Fire Department. 13. The project shall provide alternative means of transit such as private shuttle bus service and access to mass transit routes. 14. The proposed colors and materials to be employed shall be in substantial conformance wit the color and materials board and other exhibits shown at the public hearing on June 21, 2007. 15. The applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not limited t traffic and circulation fees,park fees, and school impact fees. 16. All construction activity related to this project shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance as stipulated in Chapter 8.108 of the Municipal Code. 17. All construction hours shall comply with the City of Grand Terrace Noise Ordinance. } 18. All construction debris shall be collected and placed in appropriate containers on a daily basis,and the construction site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 19. All mechanical equipment for this development shall be screened from public view,and all rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened from view by either the architectural features of the buildings or by screening to be approved by the Community Development Director. 20. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations listed in the memorandum from the Director of Building and Safety/Public Works dated March 29, 2007. All off-site improvements shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any residential structure. 21. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the letter from the County Fire Department, Community Safety Division, it its letter dated March 29,2007. 22. Security gating shall be provide for the main entrance to the development and around the park. A detailed fencing plan showing the design,appearance and location of said required fencing shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 23. A precise grading plan with soils report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading permit for this project. 24. This project shall provide at least 146 parking spaces on site for resident parking and visitors to the site. 4-1 25. Three copies of landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Director fro review and approval. Said plans to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Said plans to be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits for the new construction. All landscaping and irrigation facilities shall be installed prior to the final occupancy of the residential building. 26. Detailed landscape plans for all park improvements and appurtenant facilities shall be submitted to and be approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 27. No building or portion of a building shall be constructed within the 25 foot setback as measured from the Grand Terrace Road right-of-way. 28. Any signs proposed for this project shall be subject to the sign regulations of the R3 Zone and to a separate sign permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 29. All parking areas shall be surfaced and maintained with asphalt, concrete or other permanent, impervious surfacing material as required by Section 18.60.040 (B) of the Zoning Code. 30. For any outside lighting proposed, a lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. Night lighting for the buildings and parking areas shall be designed to reflect away from nearby residential areas and public roadways. Light standards on the site shall not exceed eighteen feet in height as measured from the finished grade of the parking surface. i 31. The developer shall pay the appropriate traffic impact fees as required by City Ordinance prior to the issuance of building permits. 32. The applicant and/or developer shall comply with the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" set out in Chapter 5 of the FEIR,Exhibit B. 33. All contractors working on this project shall acquire a valid City business license. 34. Prior to issuance of any permits, the two e7cisting parcels that make up the subject site shall be merged. 35. This approval shall not be effective unless or until GPA-07-01, SP-07-01, Z-07-01 have been approved by the City Council. 36. This approval shall expire one(1)year from the effective date of approval unless the applicant has filed for a building permit. In case the applicant can not comply with this deadline, then the applicant shall apply for an extension of the one-year prior to the original expiration date. Said time extension to be granted by the Community Development Director. In conformance with Section 18.63.100 of the Zoning Code,no additional time beyond two (2)years from the date of the initial approval shall be granted. 37. That the open parking for the residents shall be covered where feasible. �1 v 38. That the landscaping shall be enhanced where it is feasible and practical. 39. That the proposed park shall be enhanced for park enjoyment and recreational opportunities. 40. That the landscaping plan for the entire prof ect including the proposed park shall be reviewed and approved by the.Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 41. That the applicant/developer shall obtain a signed agreement/declaration from the adjacent property owners that they are satisfied with the perimeter wall/fencing and landscaping adjacent to their property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace,California, at a regular meeting held on the 21 ST day of June,2007 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ' Brenda Mesa Doug Wilson City Clerk Chairman,Planning Commission c:...\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\.SA-07-02resolution � 1 Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION ' I MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING fAIIFORNIA JUNE2192007 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission_was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on June 21, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington,Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe,Commissioner Brian Phelps,Commissioner Gary Koontz,Community Development Director John Lampe,Associate Planner Rich Shields,Public Works Jerina Cordova,Planning Secretary 6:55 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chairman Matthew Addington • Roll Call • Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please-make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item which is not on the agenda for this meeting. JANESE McSCHINOFF 21816 Vivienda Avenue I have a comment on access to the horse trail. They have shut, chained and locked the gate. They put weep holes in but I can't get my horse through there. I have talked to you about the trail many - 1 - 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-529E EXHIBIT G 5D times about having access from the Grand Terrace side. Everything seems to be going on, on the Colton side and not the Grand Terrace side. I also have another comment about the posting on the Grand Terrace blog; Grandpa Terrace keeps suggesting to put a park in the west, north part of town and that is where I live. Chair Wilson: Staff, do we have any questions in regards to the locked gate? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director. I have brought that up to Mr. Berry and I will bring it up again. Chair Wilson: Do we have any kind of easements involved? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We put together a temporary easement with Mr. Hodgedon until a formal development goes in. We have an agreement for access. I will get with Mr. Berry and we will work it out. CHART.ES HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street Brentwood Street is rapidly turning into a race track. End of Public Participation - Chair Wilson: There are several corrections in relation to the minutes of April 5'' and April 19d' we are going to continue those items. 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5,2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-12-2007 Chair Wilson made a motion to continue Commissioner Phelps seconded a motion to continue MOTION VOTE 5-0-0-0 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19,2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-13-2007 Chair Wilson made a motion to continue Commissioner Phelps seconded a motion to continue MOTION VOTE 5-0-0-0 ;2- 3. GPA-07-01, SP-07-01 Z-07-01, SA-07-02& E-07-02 This proposal includes an amendment to the City's General Plan to re-designate the subject site from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MHDR (Medium High Density Residential -- which also involves adding this category to the Land Use Element of the General Plan) under General Plan Amendment No.07-01 (GPA-07-01). This will allow for the development of a new residential facility for senior citizens on the subject site. In addition, Specific Plan No. 07-01 (SP- 07-01) has been filed for the site-specific development standards for this project; and, Zone Change No. 07-01 (Z-07-01) has been filed for a new' zoning designation of R3-S (Multiple Family - Senior Citizen) for the site and will be added to the Zoning Code. Lastly, Site and Architectural Review Case No. 07-02 (SA-07-02) has also been filed for the design and architectural review of this project. The proposed development will feature a two-story, 120 unit residential facility for active senior citizens totaling approximately 100,000 square feet of floor area; a one-story, 7,000 square.foot, new senior center; and an approximately 2.6 acre park with controlled public access. The project will also include the development of on-site parking and landscaping for the senior residences, the new senior ' center and the proposed park. The existing senior center will be replaced by the new senior facility proposed under this project. APPLICANT: CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING LOCATION: 22627 Grand Terrace Road (Approximately 6 acre site located on the southerly side of Grand Terract Road easterly of Mt. Vernon Avenue; the site is mainly vacant excepting for the existing City of Grand Terrace senior center and parking lot next to the senior center. The Terrace View Elementary School lies to the immediate east.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing,receive the staff report and testimony, close the hearing and Recommend the Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 07-01, Specific Plan No. 07-01, Zone Change No. 07-01 to the City Council; Approve Site and Architectural Review No. 07-02; and Recommend the Approval and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report filed under E-07-02. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We have a few reports tonight. Mr. Lampe will first give an overview of the project, next Carl Winter, LSA will give a presentation on the Environmental Impact Report and lastly we would like the applicant to present a power point presentation. - 3 - John Lampe,Associate Planner. In August of 2005,.the Planning Commission recommended.a similar project on this site to the City Council. However that proposal involved a three story residential structure and a slightly larger park. Following the City Council's approval of the project a law suit was filed challenging the adequacy of the environmental assessment. The court found that the City did not.adequately evaluate certain environmental affects. The proposal, this evening, has been filed as a response to the actions of the court;including a new proposal with a two story structure and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to discuss and analyze the potential impacts of this project. { OVERHEAD PHOTOS The subject site is located at 22627 Grand'Terrace Road. It is an approximately 6 acre parcel located on the southerly side of Grand Terrace Road beginning about 100 feet easterly of Mt. Vernon running easterly about 900 feet to the Terrace View elementary school. The site is bounded by single family residential on the west and south; by vacant property and Edison easement to the,north;,and by an elementary school to the east. Further to the west on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon are multi-family residential...the Highland Apartments. The site and properties to the south and immediate west are located in the "LDR" category of the general plan ' and are zoned R1-7.2. To accommodate this project the requests include a GPA to change the designation of the site to "Medium High Density Residential" and a ZC to change the zoning to R3 -S "multiple family- senior citizen with a maximum density of 20 d.u./acre. SITE PLAN NO. 2 The site plan, marked Exhibit 1, shows the proposed development consisting of the'two-story, 120 unit senior citizen residential structure with a footprint of about 50,000 square feet. Total floor area of the two-story, residential building will be 100,000 square feet. The southerly wing of the structure will be placed about 77 feet north of the southerly property line. Slightly increasing that distance from the prior approval. The new community senior center will be located at the west end of this southerly wing. It will consist of a single story structure with about 7,000 square feet of floor area. The.project will include two main parking areas. The east/south parking area will contain a total of 98 open parking spaces which will mainly be used for the parking for the residents of the residential complex. The parking area on the west with 48 parking spaces will serve the needs of the visitors to the residential complex, the community senior center and the future Petta Park. The main entrance to the residential complex, community senior center and the park will face this westerly parking area. The westerly 2.6 acres will be developed to the future Petta Park. The park will be developed in conformance with many of the design features that were part of the original Master Plan submitted several years. The park will be maintained by the applicant/developer. -4 - FENCING PLAN N0.3 Exhibit 2 shows the proposed fencing for the site. A six-foot high block wall is proposed for the east, south and west property lines. The fencing plan shows that along the southerly property line, there will be "wrought iron inserts" which will be included at the request of the adjacent property owner. The fencing along Grand Terrace Road will consists of a 6-foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters and wrought-iron gates. FLOOR PLAN N0.4(Al &A2), FLOOR PLAN NO. 5(B &BI) r The proposed residential units will include four different floor plans. Plan Al and A2 will be one-bedrooms with a little over 500 sq. ft. of floor area each, however, Plan A2 will have a balcony. Plan B and B 1 will be two-bedrooms with a little over 800 sq. ft. of floor area each, plan B 1 will have a balcony. All units will have a living room, a kitchen, a full bath and closet space. There will be 103 one-bedroom units and 17 two-bedroom units. FIRST FLOOR PLAN NO. 6 Exhibit 4 shows the floor plan of the first floor of the complete residential building. The plan shows elevator locations (two in number), Lobby Area, Administrative Offices, Storage Rooms, Common Rooms, Laundry-and Trash Rooms., The second floor layout is similar but with no administrative areas or common rooms. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER NO. 7. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed floor plan of the senior community center. The new center will contain a Community Room, library/Computer Room, T.V. & Pool Room, Crafts Room, Kitchen, Administrative Offices and Restrooms. ELEVATIONS NO. 8 Exhibit 7 shows the proposed.elevations of all four sides of the project. The proposed residential structure will be two stories in height with a maximum height of 24 feet. It should be pointed out that the height limit of the existing R1 zoning allows for a 35 foot height structure. The units with balconies will be restricted to the west and north sides of the building reflecting sensitivity to the nearby residential areas. The proposed architecture reflects the Monterey style with some Mediterranean and Craftsman influences. The architectural design as proposed is the same design approved by the Planning Commission in 2005 excepting that the residential building is now two-stories in height. 5 LANDSCAPING PLAN NO. 9. The preliminary landscaping plan is shown on Exhibit 8. Highlights of the plan include shade trees along the east and south property lines to provide shade to the residential parking lot while serving as a landscape buffer/screen for the adjacent land uses. The future Petta Park will be landscaped reflecting a meditative inspirational setting with walking paths and commemorative display areas relating to the city's history and local culture. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN NO. 10. The conceptual grading plan is shown on Exhibits 9 and 10. Proposed finished floor elevations are designed to descend from east to west as shown on Exhibit 8. A twenty-foot cut will be created along the easterly boundary next to the school with a 2:1 slope between the property line and parking area. In addition, there will be an approximately 300 foot long retaining wall at the top of the slope along the easterly property line. Maximum 2:1 slopes are also designed at varying.heights between. the southerly property line and the parking area. Another retaining wall is proposed along a portion of the southerly property line. The proposed grading will lower the site so that the finished floor pad elevations of the southeast corner of the proposed structure will be 15 to 20 feet below existing ground level. This will E reduce the visual effects of the proposed residential structure as seen from adjacent residences. COLOR BOARD: The applicant has submitted a color board showing the material types and colors for the proposed project. This color board is the same as that approved in 2005 except it now shows a two story building. Walls will be primarily an "Omega White" with earthtone accents. Roofing tiles will be a reddish-brown blend of a Mediterranean design. SPECIFIC PLAN: A specific plan entitled the "Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan" was labeled "Exhibit A" in your package. It includes a detailed discussion of the proposed project including types of uses, architectural styles and development standards to be employed including building coverage, setbacks, access, grading/drainage, landscaping and proposed fencing. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.- A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and was included as "Exhibit B". The potential impacts included aesthetics, air quality, land use planning, noise and population and housing. Carl winter of the environmental firm "LSA" will address the environmental_ issues following the completion of my presentation, Mr..Chairman. CONCLUSION.- This approval is very similar to your prior approval in 2005. It has the same number of senior citizen residential units, 120. It has the same architectural style and general layout. The number of stories of the residential building has been reduced to two stories from the original three. The foot print for the residential portion is slightly larger because of the reduced height. The proposed park is smaller but with the same overall design theme as in the earlier approval. Lastly, the parking in the last approval was 141 spaces. This project is going to have 146 parking spaces. It should be pointed out that at the March 15, 2007 general plan workshop the Planning Commission reaffirmed the "Medium High Density Residential" designation for this site. This recommendation is consistent with that action. As you will hear from the environmental consultant, the rather detailed final environmental impact report has satisfactorily addressed the environmental issues noted by the court. In addition, this project will allow the city to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals as part of the required update of the housing element of the general plan. This project will also allow the City to comply with the requirements of the State Department of Housing And Community Development in its review of the housing element by rezoning a site for higher density development for senior citizen housing, that .is the R3-S (multiple family- senior citizen). RECOMMENDATION. The Staff therefore is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed development subject to the recommended findings and conditions as set forth in the ordinances and resolutions in the staff report. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Before we get into Mr. Winter's presentation, if you are interested I have the proposed final RHNA number for 2006-2014. - 7 - 5Lp Chair Wilson: Does the Commission have any questions? Commissioner McNaboe: In regards to the rezoning for high density senior housing. In our package there was a statement that talked about "if we rezone this are for high density senior housing, then we need to choose another area to rezone for a density non-senior housing", can you clarify that? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: That is'related to the last housing element. The housing element was approved back in 2002. It got approved by the Council but when it went up to the State and they came back with "you need to find two sites and zone them". We refused to do that. We didn't want to just identify two sites and then zone them. Approving this project will help the high density requirement out. We have no intention of coming in and proposing any sort of high density. However,if a developer wants to come in and propose it he would have to propose that kind of density, select a site and it would come before the Planning Commission and the City Council. As we have discussed in the General Plan Workshops, designating this site would be moving toward that direction in having the designation available. Someone could come in and propose something but it would have to go through the Public Hearing process. If it is a good project you may approve it or not. Commissioner McNaboe: If this project would be approved for rezoning, it doesn't obligate us to rezone another area in the City'for high density? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: No. As a part of the new RHNA numbers and as a part of the General Plan update we are going back and redoing the Housing Element because it has to be every five years. We will revisit all of that again with HCD. Hopefully this project will show them good faith and hopefully it will mean something. Commissioner McNaboe: And if it doesn't? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Then we will argue with them. Chair Wilson: According to the numbers it looks like we are going to have a lot of company. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The RHNA numbers are very controversial and a lot of cities are filing law suits over their numbers.' Our numbers are reasonably manageable. If you look at those numbers, this project will go a long way to satisfy those.numbers. Commissioner Comstock: I would like to have a couple of points clarified. In regards to the wrought iron fences;will some of the-residences have wrought iron feature and others will not depending on who wants it? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: In the last round going through the hearing the applicant was trying to work with the local residents on Brentwood. Some of them wanted a view and some didn't. The applicant can get into that. - 8 - 0-� CARL WINTER LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. 1500 Iowa Avenue Riverside, California As previously stated the proposed project was originally approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2005. As envisioned the project consisted of a three story structure. Subsequent to City Council approval the project was challenged. The reason sited were the project would increase population density which would result in an environmental affect, the project would be inconsistent with the surrounding land uses which would result in an environmental affect and noise from air conditioners on the units would be excessive and would adversely affect the environment. In light of this challenge,LSA responded to the City's Request for Proposal and was retained by the City to prepare and Environmental Impact Report for the project. The EIR process began with an issuance of an Initial Study. The Initial Study was the first thing to identify which issues needed to be carved forward in the EIR. The issues that were determined necessary for the EIR were aesthetics, land use, population housing, noise and air quality. The Initial Study was prepared and distributed for a thirty day public review period. This extended from December 15, 2006 through January 16, 2007. In response to the Initial Study; five public agencies provided comments. These agencies were Office of Planning and Research, Native American Heritage Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Colton Joint Unified School District and the Southern California Associated Governments. As appropriate the concerns of these commenting agencies were incorporated into the EIR. During the thirty day public review period, a public scoping meeting was held to solicit input from the citizens of the city to determine what issues they thought needed to be included in the EIR. This meeting was held on January 4, 2007. Eleven persons spoke at this public .meeting and as appropriate their comments were incorporated into the EIR. Upon the closure of the public review period for the Initial Study; work commenced on the Draft EIR. The analysis and the EIR were based on technical Air Quality runs; noise modeling; biological resource assessment; cultural resource record search; consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission; the phase I hazardous materials site assessment; geotechnical report; a consultation with local and state data bases with the Federal Census Bureau and consultation with various service providers. As stated the issues address in the EIR include aesthetics, air quality, land use, noise and population housing. The EIR included a summary of those issues determining not to be significant in the Initial Study. None of the issues addressed in this study were determined to be significant. There was either no impact or the impact was less significant or it could be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The two issues that were determined to be significant, but mitigatable, were construction noise impacts and construction air quality impacts. The EIR included a total of six alternatives to the project. These alternativekincluded variations to the project which would - 9 - alter the type of use on site, allow the site to remain undeveloped and to consider an alternative project location. The Draft EIR was distributed to the public for a forty five day review period which extended from April 3, 2007 through May 17, 2007. A total of seven comment letters were received. Five were from public agencies and two came from citizens. The response to these comment letters were included in the Final EIR and were submitted to the staff for review. All of the issues brought up in these comment letters were appropriately responded to and did not contain 'any new information or concern that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR. That is my conclusion and I am available for questions. Chair Wilson: Do we have any questions for Carl Winter from the Planning Commission? Commissioner McNaboe: Are we going to have a report on the noise levels? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: If you would like one. Carl Winter,LSA: We can summarize the noise levels. Chair Wilson: I believe in the document it addresses it several places in regards to parking•levels,noise levels,grading equipment and so on. - Gary L Koontz asked the City Attorney a question regarding opening the public hearing formally. The City A ttorney agrees that the Planning Commission continue to hear Me remainder of presentation and then formally open-the public hearing. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Do you want a presentation from the noise engineer? Chair Wilson: Yes. KEITH LEIGH LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California As Carl mentioned we conducted ambient noise measurements within the project site and the surrounding vicinity to establish the existing noise environment that is generated by air craft, other stationary noises in the area and trucks as the primary existing sources of noise. Based on those levels we established a baseline which was to compare the noise levels that would be generated from the facility itself. The items that were address included the short term construction, parking lot activities and from the onsite air conditioning units that were included in the proposed units. - 10 - None of these activities would result in noise levels of excess of the existing ambient noise levels and are quite low. - , Chair Wilson: It is my understanding that we have a ninety foot buffer between the condenser units and the area that would be impacted by the noise. The "db" rating is somewhere in the average of forty two,is that correct? Keith: You are correct on the distance but it varies depending on the unit and the nearest resident to the south. The noise level combined, assuming every unit would operate at the same time,would be forty four decibels. That is well below the ambient level in the area. Commissioner Comstock: I am curious as to what the ambient level is for that area? Keith: It varied and the average hourly level raged from forty five to fifty two decibels. The maximum level which should be generated by trucks passing or law mowers, ranged from sixty through sixty six decibels. Chair Wilson: Does that also consider freeway noise? Keith: The freeway is audible from the area but not predominant noise. The local-road ways are much closer and would generate more. Chair Wilson: Does the railroad impact that area? Keith: I believe in a measurement 1, a train was heard, but it is too far to the west to impact the residents. Chair Wilson: Do you have something that you can give Commissioner McNaboe so that she could take a look at? Commissioner McNaboe: His verbal summary is fine. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: I would now like to ask the applicant to come up. CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING CHART•FS BRUMBAUGH 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1100 Sherman Oaks, California As previous testimony indicated, this project was approved about two years ago. There was a court challenge and the court found that there may or may not be some impact and that was the nature of the EIR. I wanted to let everyone know that the matter is on appeal and hopefully nothing that we do this evening jeopardize that appeal. Blue Mountain Senior Villas is the name of the project & Corporation for Better Housing is the developer. We have completed twenty three projects with 1,500 units all over the State of California. 1 � - 11 - A couple of the projects in this power point are senior facilities and are very similar to the Blue Mountain Senior Villas as far as quality. Bellflower's project was in their downtown core area and that was developed in the 20's, 30's &40's with and art deco motif and that is why we stuck with that. ' ' The Cudahay project is very similar in size and density to the Blue Mountain Senior Villas. It is a two story facility with a central court yard. San Jose's project is very different because it is in an urban area. We built on top of a church parking lot and we put the parking below the church's parking lot, replaced the church's parking lot and built three stories of housing over the top. It is a different community but the values of real estate are real prohibited in the San Jose area. Temecula's project was built about four years ago. This too is a very similar type of arrangement. The City owned the property and provided some financial assistance and guided us through the design process just as your planning and building officials have done here as well. This next project is a little different. This is a senior condominium for sale project. Twenty five percent of the units were affordable and the balance,were sold at market rate. The Grand Terrace Senior housing team is Corporation for Better Housing, the architect is John Cotton. He has done approximately five hundred thousand apartments since the late 1960's when he started;Landscape Architect is the landscaping architecture firm; Paul Green and Associates are the engineers and David Leonard is the outside planner for the project who did the Specific Plan. You have seen these next elevations; the only difference is that the easterly portion of the project site is that the three story portion was lowered to an all two story facility. The landscape plan is also very similar to that which was presented several years ago to this Commission. It is slightly smaller however due to the lowering of the three story portion of the building we had to scoot the building over to provide more land. The site development is approximately 6.1 acres, 120 units. The facility will have a stand alone resident only facility of approximately 2,100 square feet. We hope the seniors in the building who live there, will interact and use the large senior center however there will be some who prefer some quiet space and individual type areas with computers and other things that they would like to do and use that 2,100 square feet for residents only. Joanne and I worked together the best we could to satisfy there present and future needs. If there are changes that need to be made we will be working with them throughout the entire build out process. You are all familiar with the project site. The project amenities are it's a senior friendly design. The counter tops will be adaptable and all of the units will be adaptable and some - 12- will be built with handicap items built in. We use low cut carpet to accommodate those in wheelchairs. To my left there is a material board with interior built out and I believe the staff has passed around the exterior board.. As you can see we use granite counter tops in all of our units and the cabinets are a nice cabinet face with nice carpet and a high quality build out. A number of council members and your city manager have been to some of our facilities and have seen first hand out quality and we are very proud of what we do. Here you will see the floor plan. There will be two courtyards that will be self contained within the facility, the community room will open up into the northern courtyard area and the senior.center will be open towards the park. As the staff indicated some of the units have balconies and some don't. Some time ago we specifically decided not to have balconies that would have an overlook issue or potential overlook issue into the single family homes. Where we could build the balconies we did and certain areas we didn't. We hope that these slides give you perception of what the park is going to look like. There are a lot of different species and lots of different colors. We are hoping that it illuminate with.colors and varieties through out the year. The exterior of the building is going to be stucco and a Mission style with Mediterranean playing off of it. If you have any questions I am ready to answer. Chair Wilson: I know that the last approval had covered parking. Why is there no covered parking on this design? We are in an area that has a fairly heated climate in the summer and I don't think that fifteen gallon trees are going to shade the area. What was the emphasis of no covered parking? Charles Brombaugh: In affordable senior housing that we have built all over the state we have built them without covered parking. It has been a standard detail profile that we propose to the city. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The approval from the City Council in the last approval; they had removed the covered parking. Chair Wilson: Was there a purpose? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The covered parking was tuck under, and in efforts to drop things down we removed some of that parking and the City Council approved it. Chair Wilson: I am against that. Next, I have a question on the landscaping;.I see a lot of fifteen gallon trees stuffed all over the place and maybe a couple of forty eight gallons. - 13 - 0- That is okay except a fifteen gallon tree has a small twig and it takes about three or four years to where it becomes shady. I don't see that as acceptable. Charles Brombaugh: We would be more than happy to amend the landscaping plan. The only thing that I would ask is to allow height and density varieties to allow some movement. If you put all the trees at the same height it may not have the look that we all hope for. I will address that with staff and make some amendments. Chair Wilson: The Park is a lot different than before and we all know why part of it is and everyone can have there opinion in relation to why that had to take place but we were warned. We knew that if we were not able to maintain the original design that we would have to push some of the building into the open space. There is a general lack of trees in the park but I think that it may be a result of the design. I have looked at the landscape plan and I have reviewed the landscape plan, the concepts that were behind the passive park in the past are a lot different than they are now, can you give me some background on that. Charles Brombaugh: The Park area was redesigned and there were a couple of features that didn't fit because of the massing issues. When the building moved over it made the park less narrow. We couldn't find a place that would work very well.so it became a little crowded. The one major feature that I think you are talking about has been removed. We can take a second look at scaling it down and bringing it back. It didn't work in the space that we had left. Chair Wilson: No. Let me elaborate; because I think there are a few things in relation to topography that have changed. There is a difference in the amount of trees. I noticed that there is a different kind of feel. There used to be some meditation involved. If we are going to sacrifice some of those areas I think it would be appropriate to get practical with shade structures that could benefit the general public and the folks that are going to be in this building. We have about four months a year in this area that exceeds ninety degrees in the afternoons. If it is going to be used, it is going to have to have some shade capacity to it. I am sick of seeing landscape architecture that puts too much asphalt on the ground and grass and bushes and.neglect the fact that humans have to live there. I would like to see more of that consideration. Charles Brombaugh: We understand and we will be more than happy to look at a pergola or a gazebo with open sides but maybe a closed roof structure. I think something like that could work very well in the middle making it a central focal point. Chair Wilson: I suspect the use that is being prescribed will lend itself well to visits by families. If that is the case then they will need a place to sit under shade. - 14- I look at Rollins Park and that is a major use for Rollins Park. It is definitely a place where people use the shade structures and parking areas. Charles Brombaugh: • We will take a look at that. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director. This is a preliminary landscape plan; if you elect to approve the project we can come back and present you with a formal plan that is part of the final engineering for your review and approval. Chair Wilson: I will think about that. Commissioner Phelps: On Exhibit 10, it looks like a side walk with a couple of pipes underneath it. Can you elaborate more with that and make it a little more garden type. I can see someone with a wheel chair going off the edge. It looks like it doesn't have any curbing on the edge. Charles Brombaugh: We will give you a more detailed design concept on it. Commissioner Phelps: I was looking at the color board and I noticed that the sliding windows have a white frame around them. Will that be a frame that you are using? Will it match the color.of the entire building? Charles Brombaugh: It does not matter to us to buy the ones with a brownish tan. It is a relatively diminimus cost. We can do it either way. , Commissioner Phelps: I think the same color would match the stucco a little better. Charles Brombaugh: It is going to bring a lot of attention to the windows if that is what you are going for. Commissioner Phelps: I see black as the outline structure. Vice Chair Addington: So you are comparing the new color board that was up here tonight? Commissioner Phelps: Yes Commissioner McNaboe: Are the walls white? Charles Brombaugh: Yes. The color of the walls will be a slight off white. Vice Chair Addington: What is the color of the molding around the windows? Charles Brombaugh: I can't recall what the color of the stucco trim is. It is a pink color on the color board. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. I don't personally have a problem with the windows because they have a dark trim around them. - 15 - - lY"I i Commissioner McNaboe: I can live with the white trim. Commissioner Comstock: I don't know if we should ask staff this question. In regards to the parking for the residents on site; I notice that we have 120 units and we have 96-98 parking spaces for the units. I was wondering about the figure and if we could elaborate to the public on why we used .75 spaces/unit instead of including one parking space per unit. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We looked at other senior housing projects and what they used. We also talked to the applicant about some of their other projects and the use of cars, how many cars are on the site,parking spaces and how other jurisdictions use it. Charles Brumbaugh: We build all over the state. Typically senior housing parking requirements for affordable housing, range from V2 and 3/4. We went toward the higher side. Tom and a couple of other Council members have been out to our Bellflower project. The council there wanted us to build a 1 to 1. We built 180 underground parking spaces at an immense cbst and there are probably less than one hundred people that have cars. We are probably over parked right now about fifty percent. We felt that .75 is a really safe number. In addition, if there are a couple odd ball cars we still have a lot of extra spaces for guest. I don't think you will ever see a problem with parking. The other constraint is that we-have already encroached into the park area and all what we would be doing is encroaching further into the park area. Commissioner Comstock: I wanted to make sure that we looked into that issue thoroughly so that we don't under park the residents. I don't want them to have to use the public space for the park. There should be onsite parking. _i Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: After looking at other projects we are quite comfortable with this type of resident parking. Vice Chair Addington: Adding to that, does the ratio for the handicap parking falling in line with all of the other projects that are being done. Charles Brombaugh: Yes it is per code. Chair Wilson: As a question in relation to the parking, Bellflower is an incorporated city right? Charles Brombaugh: Yes. Chair Wilson: Okay then that leaves them out of the sphere of the City of Los Angeles. What is the parking for seniors for the City of Los Angeles. Charles Brombaugh: The City of Los Angels is .75 and they have a Conditional Use Permit which would allow for lowering that number if you could show hardship or something else.They have a whole set of ordinances and rules. The Don Hotel has about 30 parking spaces for 58 units. - 16 - Chair Wilson: The City of Los Angles has a very restrictive parking requirement. They address every condition that you can think of. Charles Brombaugh: If it wasn't senior housing it would be about 1 3/4 after you add on the guest for a 1 bedroom apartment. Commissioner Comstock: I would like to see some consistency in the way we put the fence up. I realize that we are trying to help the neighbors and appease their concerns. I think it makes more sense instead of having a hit and miss we need to have consistency. I don't know what you go through in making a determination of where these would be put up. What did you go through? Charles. Brombaugh: We met with everyone that was up there. There was not a consensus. It was the general desire to have an opened airiness and not a solid block wall. Commissioner Comstock: As you met with the neighbors, can you give me an approximate percentage of how many wanted to have it as opposed to those who did not want it. Charles Brombaugh: I would really hate to speculate. If I say something it may turn out to be a bone of contention later. Commissioner McNaboe: I would like to restate the concern over the lack of covered parking. Is there any way to look into some sort of shelter? I would also like for you to comment on the lighting for the parking lot and how will it be so that it doesn't affect the neighbors behind the property. Charles Brombaugh: A lot of cities have issues with lighting and glare that go elsewhere. The EIR has a lot of conditions. Gary and I .have spent some time talking about pole locations and other things. We will be working very closely in working with the City of Grand Terrace to make sure that the lights will be designed to only shine forward. We will use low ambient light around the building. It will not be a commercial parking lot that maybe you would see at Von's or something. Vice Chair Addington: On page 3 of 3 of the conditions under the public works. You are requesting a valuation of the downstream storm drain. Is there something here that we should be aware oP Is this a standard conditions' Rich Shields, Public Works: Yes it is a standard. Commissioner Phelps: If we are going to do covered parking, perhaps we can do an open type of trellis as oppose to your standard covered parking. I would like to see something decorative. Chair Wilson: Do we have any comments from the Commission on the design or the covered parking issue? - 17 - W Vice Chair Addington: In going back to what the resident's desire for their views; the area seems to be depressed 20 ft. along the east side of the property and along the south east corner. Charles Brombaugh: As you move west the depression decreases. Vice Chair Addington: I would suggest that the covered parking be near that area so when the people look out of their homes they won't see it. They will be looking over it. I don't think it should .be in an area where you are approaching the same ground level as shown in the grading plans. Charles Brombaugh: That would be very helpful to us because this is a real serious issue. What I propose is to allow partial covered parking along the school side and keep it in that area. There won't be that many issues of view shed or that sort of thing. The area to the east sits down low enough where we are not going to have any one story view issues but as you move out towards the west the property goes down dramatically. Chair Wilson: Okay, then we need to use common sense. Commissioner Comstock: I don't have a preference one way or another but it does make sense to put it along the school side and'not along the residential side. Chair Wilson: We shall open the public hearing. REQUEST TO SPEAK CHUCK HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street I would like to comment on something that I heard earlier. One thing that was left out is the square footage of the project. It was 115,Q00 sq. ft. it is now 100,000 sq. ft. It is like going from an apartment that is 1,000 sq. ft. to 860 sq. ft. My point is what was very dense before is even more dense now. I don't know if you have forgotten or whether there are other motives involved but documents have a way of getting out. I am in possession of copies of a letter that Mr. Koontz received from the California Housing Authority tell him he has to do everything that you are questioned on. If you do this, you have to do this elsewhere for people of other age brackets. If he has a letter that supersedes that he should present it. Everyone needs to take EIR's with a grain of salt. They have been going on forever in Southern California. For the last 30-40 years every project that comes along has an EIR. Southern California is becoming more crowded and more unlivable. EIR's are just paper. That is all they are worth. - 18 - i The parking regulations are very specific in this city. They allow 2 parking spaces per apartment and 1 for every four for a guest. One of those has to be in a garage. When you ' do the math it adds up to 270 parking spaces. The municipal code also points out that the planning director is.only allowed to make minor changes to those. From 270 we are down to 146. You also have to look.at the math of this complex. Any apartment manager who has 103 single units and 17 double units comes up with 103 parking spots for the single and 2 for 17, 2 bedroom apartments. That comes up to 137. You have 9 left over. On any given day if 1 out of 13 units have a visitor you are at your maximum parking that quickly. If one out of 13 has a visitor every parking spot will be taken. That doesn't allow anybody who is coming from an offsite location to visit the senior center, delivery trucks, and service trucks and certainly doesn't allow any body to park for the Park. I would like some clarification on what Mr. Koontz talked about in his responses to our EIR report. He talked about the density transfer. There needs to be a density transfer and I would like to know where it going to be transferred to. Is the density coming back? Maybe they are going to roll half of the buildings over to the western side of the property so that he could come up with the 20 units per acre. The way I understand transferring is that when you transfer density it doesn't come back. I grew up in the family of a naval officer. My father was transferred to San Diego, we went there; my father was transferred Long Beach, we went there; to Burmington, WA we went there then to Norfolk, VA, we went there. I want to know where the density is transferred to and if it is coming back. Vice Chair Addington: Gary, doesn't a specific plan allow modification of the existing codes and ordinances specifically in this case on parking? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The specific plan acts as the zoning code. We are creating this R3 Senior zone and it is implemented through the implementation of the specific plan which gives site specific design guidelines including parking. JOANNE JOHNSON 12723 S. Mt. Vernon Avenue I thought my comments were appropriate but now I am not sure. I would like to make a few points. This project is badly needed. The City of Grand Terrace has no senior housing at all and there is very little low income housing available in this city. My personal belief is that this is an ideal location for the senior housing. There is no other location in this city more suited to this project. With the need for commercial tax based projects; the same project will take away from a:more profitable use if build elsewhere in the city. The possibility with relationships with the school, are virtually endless. A substantial amount of our seniors are retired teachers and would be ideal tutors and class room aids and other - 19 - WV members. Others have expressed a desire to become involved in some way with the school therefore I think the location is ideal. The concern about noise produced by air conditioners is a bit hard for me to see. I can go out on our porch at the senior center and hear a minimum of four or five air conditioners at about any time. The central air conditioners of the neighbors are far noisier than the small units of the apartments. I have walked within 20 ft. of those same small air conditioners at the Terrace retirement facility before I could hear them. As far as the coming and going.of cars from this complex; I don't think this will be an issue at all: Not all will have cars. Those who do, avoid the high traffic times of the day including opening and ending of school times. Many do not drive at all at night. I feel there will be car pool(s) to go the grocery store. The number of trips out is not going to be great. I feel that we have been very good neighbors and we will continue to be good neighbors when this project has been completed. We will not trash things or throw loud parties. This will enable many families in Grand Terrace to have their aging parents close to home yet living independently. This is very important. VIRGINIA HARTFORD 11825 Arliss Way I love this town. and I think to approve this project is the best thing to do. Let's hurry up and get it built. You are going to hear from a lot of and the only thing that that have done is delay the project to the tune of about$300,000.00. /ROBERT STEWART 11677 Mt.Vernon Avenue I reside on the west end of this project and I have a couple of questions for the landscape architect concerning the walls. Are you going to remove fences or are you going to build a double set? Mr. Koontz what has been resolved on the easement? It was in limbo the last I heard. In response to letters to the letters included in the EIR, what would we do if we moved this? What is going to happen is this land will be sold you will have two story houses you will have pools in the back yards, air conditioners, it will be pad grading. There will be parties and goings on into the curfew hour and I'm sure you won't like that at all. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: In terms of the Edison easement. Yes. We do have to maintain access to those lines. We will have to work with Edison to make sure that they are comfortable with the access that we have. Charles Brombaugh: We are back at the wall issue. If we have to double butt the wall if the residents want to keep the wall or if they want it on the property line we will do whatever to work with them. -20- ll/"I Chair Wilson: To make it clear, we are leaving it up to the residents or the adjacency whether or not you split the lot line and install a new wall in place of the old or demo the fence or you end up building something on your.side of the line to be able to accommodate the grade. Charles Brombaugh: That is what we will typically do. Once we get started we will go to each resident and get them to sign a sheet of paper allowing us to build a wall in the middle of the property line. If they are not willing to sign it then we keep everything on our side of the property and put it right against whatever they have. Chair Wilson: Does that answer your questions Mr. Stewart? Robert Stewart: Yes. PATRICIA FARLEY 12513 Michigan Street I would like to point out that the public were to be able to make oral comments on this EIR at a meeting and have them included in the final EIR and that meeting got cancelled. The EIR was printed up fast and passed around. Any comments made tonight should legally be a part of that. A lot of people are making this an issue of seniors versus the rest of the community. This is very naive. There are some incredibly important issues that have caused problems for this project. They are taking specific areas and deciding to create a zone with a much higher density with a specific plan where they make their own rules. This City keeps catering to developers and friends or people that support them. That is the big problem that a lot of us are complaining about. Mr. Schwab already designated three places in the city and they are little pockets. To have an EIR where Mr. Koontz says that the affects are insignificant is very disgusting because the significant affects are extremely important. I would be enraged if you put a high density business like this right behind my back yard with an alley, parking, and all of that. That will change the whole environment by your house�and for the City to make deals with developers takes our rights away. No matter how much you have put into your house and how long you have lived here. That is unconscionable. The fact for people who act like the seniors are being hurt, I would like for you to know that the Court could have made the City move the senior center back to where it was suppose to be. This city keeps grading and moving things before things have been approved. When the City wastes money like that it is the City's fault and it is your fault for electing them. There are significant cumulative things that never get into these EIR's. There are four considerable projects that should have been included that were not. In table 2.0 of chapter 2.0 on pages 2-23 of the Draft EIR, there are three that are located in Grand Terrace and one that is located in Highgrove and when all of these projects are finished they will be contributing to traffic impacts on our streets in Grand Terrace as well as other things. -21 - -70 The following projects need to be added to the list Karger Homes, Hidden Gate, Scwartfegger, and Calvary the Brook. We get three minutes to talk about all the things that keep getting undermined by people and I am sorry these reports keep saying that the stuff the public keeps bringing up is not significant but they have not answered it. I think you should measure the parking spaces as well as there not being enough because they need to be extra wide for people to get in and out of their cars with crutches, wheel chairs and etc. Your involvement with the school is that you will be sharing a parking lot with the school. You have not considered the parking for the park, the guest, service vehicles. There was not a reasonable effort to put this project somewhere else. This City wheels and deals with developers. The citizens of this community are being trampled on by a minority. We all Have rights and our rights need to be protected. We should not have this zoning category where Mr. Schwab can put anything he wants anywhere in the City. Commissioner Comstock: I would like to ask, did we address the traffic issues in the EIR? Did we do a full blown traffic study? Carl Winter, LSA: The traffic discussion in the EIR was based on traffic numbers that were generated by the City's traffic engineer and in addition to that we observed traffic conditions at the school during morning and afternoon, pick up and drop offs. We did not find any significant impact in regards to the traffic flow at the school. The intersections adjacent to the project site specifically Mt. Vernon Avenue and Grand Terrace Road currently operate at an acceptable level of service. Chair Wilson: What is the level? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Level is Commissioner Comstock: I just wanted to,make sure that we addressed traffic issues. Carl Winter, LSA: It is my understanding that to do a full blown traffic study you would need to have more than 250 am/pm peak trips. With our project the pm trips were 42 and 34 am peak our trips. We don't really reach that level of trigger and it is below the standard. Commissioner Comstock: I would also like to address Patricia Farley's question regarding the City's requirement to have questions in writing. That is to protect the resident of the City as well as the staff. It is very difficult to answer questions and then have to come back at a later date and if the questions are not entered into writing then we don't know what and how it's been asked and answered. -22 - i BARBARA BERLINER 22624 Brentwood Street At the scoping meeting we were not shown any design of the changes. The original one was three stories and we know they changed it to two stories. They did not show us how many parking.spaces directly behind my house. Right now I count nineteen cars could possibly park behind my house within 10 ft. of my fence. If you put a block wall there I am going have some type of noises. Right now I don't have anything. No one else in the city has nineteen cars parked behind their back yard. Put the parking out front and move the building a little closer to my yard I am already losing my view. I am a turtle and tortoise rescue and I am in my yard every single day for at least four to five hours. I don't have noise, I don't work and I am home all day. I can't fathom having that many cars parked behind my house all day and all night. Don't tell me that alarms are not going to go and they don' slam their doors and don't tell me that these are active seniors. If they are active seniors then they drive. That is the only way to get around here. When we discussed the trees; there weren't going to be any right behind my house. That is going to take the little view that I have of the mountains. The trees are not going to happen. DANIEL BERLINER 22624 Brentwood Street I have quality of life comments. It is interesting that all of the people here that are saying it's not a big deal. They don't have the building behind them. Seme of our neighbors are saying it's not a big deal well they are not being bothered by it being right behind them. They don't really care. Charles Brumbaugh wasn't at the meeting otherwise he would have been able.to answer your question. As far as the air conditioners I am curious as to how you can have forty air conditioners running and it is going to be as quiet as it is with nothing in that open field. I want that explained. You also said that there were central air conditioners. If they were central you could put them on the roof and then they would be less of a problem. With them where they are the sound will be shot out towards our house. The bottom line is that all of the people that are for the project is because it doesn't not affect them directly. The people who are speaking up against it are the ones that are affected most. I know the decisions have already been made. This was decided months ago and these are just the formalities. We are going to live with it and we are going to try and be good neighbors and I know that they will. If we do have problems I hope that we will be able to call the police or 911 when we have problems with alarms and things like that. -23 - �2 TONY PETTA 11875 Eton Drive I am:impressed.in what I see and what I hear. Chair Wilson has wisely suggested putting in large shade trees. I hear making this project like a park like atmosphere with benches next to a senior center that services the seniors. The seniors can walk where their services are without having to travel miles and go somewhere else. We have a large area near by that is approximately 20 acres of open space and will always remain open because it is directly under power lines and it is unbuildable. There has been a lot of thought gone,into this project to make sure that it blends in with the neighborhood. The key appears to be park like atmosphere with large trees blending in buffer with the school and buffer with the open land I think it is ideal. I admit that I am a senior and I hope that I can qualify to live in that project. Chair Wilson; Are there any other members of the public that want to address this issue. CHUCK HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street The reason we are here today is because of density. Density first arose when Corporation for Better Housing approached Grand Terrace with no competitive bids given. One of the things they told the City Management was that then needed 120 units to make this a financial go. The City management took them at their word. In yesterday's paper covering Redlands Tuesday City Council Meeting senior housing wants approval. The Redlands Council voted 4-0 to approve a 71 unit senior housing project in northern Redlands. Rents were qualifying low income at the 3.5 acre Webster Street project could range from $250-$325 a month. The Housing Authority of San Bernardino County will administer the project as affordable housing. My first question goes to the gentleman from Corporation for Better Housing. If they can put 20 units/acre why do you need 60 units/ acre to make a profit? My second question is,why did the square footage of building drop so dramatically. It went from 115,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft. which is a 14% drop. If you went out looking at homes and you instructed your real estate broker that you wanted 2,000 sq. ft. and he brought you to a home that had 1,740 sq. ft. that would probably be the last time you employed him. My last question is about the mitigation that this gentleman spoke of. He said that two things were going to be a problem as far as mitigation. He said the construction noise and the air pollution would be a problem. Those will be for a while because they are transitory it will all be over within 8-12 months. How can that be a problem? How can he ignore the fact that he is coming into a neighborhood where 3 and 4 people live on a quarter acre up and down that street. The average population on Brentwood Street is less than 4 people per home. Yet he doesn't think the fact that he is putting 120 people on 3 acres is deserving of any mitigation. He doesn't state that it needs mitigation because you can't mitigate it. You are just going to do it. - 24 - -�-3 Charles Brombaugh: As Mr. Koontz pointed out, in the origin design we were parking underneath the building. We eliminated that portion of the building to lower it and mitigate the height issues associated with the building. As far as the elimination of the square footage,was that it merely was from the tuck under parking. The unit size and configuration of the units and the community building remain exactly the same. In fact we have built a prototypical unit seven hundred times. Chair Wilson: You will also need to answer the question in relation to density. Am I correct in assuming that we have six acres overall; and 120 divided by 6 is approximately 20 units/acre. Charles Brombaugh: The only other issue that I would like to talk about is Mr. Hornsby's question regarding the project he talked about, I don't know the details but when the Housing Authority does an affordable housing project they invariably enroll in Section 8 certificates with people of very modest means living there. Mr. Schwab and I, when we first discussed this project, was really not interested so much as having a lot of people with no income living in the facility. We were trying to strive to serve the needs of a very large group of people from modest means up to market rate. One of the things that we didn't spend a lot of time on tonight is that 10% of the units are senior market rate units. So Mr. Petty and those that have means but may want to downsize or come and live will have an opportunity. That was one of the key concepts that was immediately put on the table from the City's perspective is that we need to serve a whole variety from the seniors and not just one group. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director. . In terms of the square footage you may want to consider that when you take out the entire third floor, you have stair wells, equipment rooms, and laundry rooms that you don't need because you have those on the second and first floors already. PATRICIA FARLEY 12513 Michigan Street I am wondering if people have forgot that you were told a long time ago that the County of San Bernardino can make you let low income at risk people be living here and not just seniors. I'd love to have lots of trees but the reality is there will be little trees because they wont' want the parking lot to be cracking. What happens when there is a fire and the elderly residents can't use the elevators? Chair Wilson: So you are saying the county can make us use the Section 8? Patricia Farley: Yes. It came up a long time ago that they can make the City of Grand Terrace accept people in those residences if they feel that it is a need or an emergency and you will have no control. That was publicly stated. Chair Wilson: We will address that through the City Attorney. - 25 - 74 Patricia Farley: How are they going to enforce the parking? There are going to be people from the.school that are going to be parking there and who is going to enforce it? I am glad that they are not.going to have underground parking because I don't think that is safe. If there is a fire how are they are going to get out? City Attorney: I am not sure what Ms. Farley is getting at by saying the county can force people in. Typically low income senior projects have CC&R's limited to a certain age group. There are state restrictions as to who can live with seniors. They are allowed to have family members move in but I am not aware of the state forcing senior projects to open up to persons with low income that don't meet the senior requirement. Chair Wilson: This is the City of Grand Terrace and I would be opposed to the County enforcing anything. Commissioner Comstock: I have comment on the fire safety issue. This facility will be completely fire sprinklered and it offers an extreme protection of the residents. They will have a fire unit and the sprinkler heads pop;it puts the fire out. I used to be in the fire alarm industry and there is going to be all kinds of bells and whistles and noises that will go off. There will be a direct line going to the fire department regarding " this. This is an elaborate fire alarm system that will be required by the fire department. Those residents will be highly protected against fire. CHUCK HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street MI Let us have an open discussion. The City Fathers (Mr. Schwab & Mr. Koontz) have used the park to get bonus density. Chair Wilson: That is part of the,over all project which is a six acre parcel. Chuck Hornsby. Here is what the City is doing. The City wants to take credit for providing a park which they are doing so that they can use the density bonus to jack up the occupancy rate. That is how they are able to put 120 units on 3 acres. The City has been obligated to provide a park there for many years. It was set aside as open space within the General Plan. The second place and the most important thing, is that if it's a park, it's a park. They are saying it is a public use park. How can they say that they are setting this land aside as a park but they want to keep it joined so that they can act like its part of the apartment complex? They are.next door to each other but they are separate. They are saying this is a park because they need a park so they can get a density bonus. Have Mr. Koontz come up and talk about this. Chair Wilson: This is a normal practice;it is called "clustering". Chuck Hornsby: It is called ripping off the public. -26 - -I r I still want my question answered. This gentleman pointed to two things that are going to be a problem. They are going to be a problem for about six months and they will disappear. The 120 units will never go away. Chair Wilson: Let's answer the question as best as we can. Carl Winter, LSA: The answer to the LOS question is on page 2-12 section 2.4.9 of the EIR states that the LOS on Grand Terrace Road is LOS `B" and Mt. Vernon is "A". That is regarding the traffic conditions. As far as the land use capability the 6 acres of the site is totally integrated. It is all one comprehensive unit. The significance of the of the land use impact: the EIR considered several factors and one of them was the pattern in practice of the zoning and the current practice of zoning in the City. The City currently places multi-family residential zoning adjacent to single family zoning in general. The type of project that we are proposing is basically the same thing as the current practice of zoning in the City. The set backs with the proposed 'specific plan are greater than the current standards. The height in this is less than maximum height in the existing zoning. The EIR took into account the adjacency different uses. There are the Highlands Apartments with 560 units and we took that into account with the pattern of zoning in the project area. The totality of what was taken into account supports the conclusion that the change of the project site from its existing to the proposed would not result in a significant impact to the environment. It is a reasonable conclusion. Vice Chair Addington: Is the City maintaining ownership of the underlying land? Gary L. Koontz, Planning.Director: The City maintains ownership and there is a lease agreement. We will be leasing the entire site to the applicant and in return the park will be available with the senior center for public use. Theoretically they are leasing the entire thing. Commissioner Phelps: I was approached by the City Assistant Manager to ask of this could be a non-smoking facility. Is that something we would handle or is that something City Council handles? Charles Brombaugh: It is a very complicated question. There is a movement afoot to have all affordable housing projects both senior and family to be converted to non-smoking facilities. There appears to be a problem with that because you have certain ADA issues. If you create a smoking area there will be a lot of other issues with that. It doesn't seem to be the reality but if there is a legal way we would be more than happy to do that. I just hesitate to agree to something like that because all of the advocates can't answer certain key issues that the Attorney General's office continue to rise for this group. We are not sure it is legal to prohibit people from smoking in their unit. We can regulate corridors and laundry rooms or implement a non-smoking with,in 20 ft. from the door but when someone is renting it becomes a much more complicated issue. -27 - 1p Chair Wilson: I would like to make sure that you address Barbara Berliner's concern about trees in her back yard. I can understand how she had a limited view and how we can help preserve that view. Charles Brombaugh: If you can give us some direction on that I would be more than happy. If we can make an exception for that particular lot or other lots or some sort of procedure to talk to the residents to have them fill out their desires. I'm not trying to push the issue back on the City. I'm in a tough spot and I need direction. Chair Wilson: I would like the Corporation for Better Housing to meet with each individual adjacency and receive their information and try to accommodate them the very best that you can. At the end of that I would like.to see a signed declaration that they have accepted that. Charles Brumbaugh: I can do that with the one caveat;if you can give further direction if someone is unwilling to meet with me or my staff. Chair Wilson: Maybe we can get the City Council involved for arbitration. We need to satisfy these folks. MIKE HOUGE 22594 Brentwood Street I would like to follow up on Tony Petta's idea in utilizing the Edison easement that is empty land. We can use that land and put it in that easement you will also facilitate the school. When we pick up our son there are cars everywhere. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director. The piece right across the street is owned by the City. Our issue is that Edison has a major transmission easement over the entire thing and dealing with Edison to allow anything under the lines can be a true challenge. We have talked about converting it into a park and a variety of other things. If you are looking at putting some of the parking across the street, you may have some real issues concerning the distance of the parking. If this was a more family oriented thing then you wouldn't have a problem but because of so many handicap's and seniors you will have problems. Rich Shields, Public Works: I think it would be very difficult to get any type of parking in that easement area. Chair Wilson: From the stand point of.a handicap situation it is not possible at all. I have run into a situation like that and it's a real hard time getting off site parking. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Another thing to consider is that this project is required to pave out the north side of Grand Terrace Road from Mt. Vernon Avenue to Vista Grande. There will be additional street parking for the school on the north side. We fully understand that during school events and when they let out; there are a lot of people there but they are only there for a short period of time. We are improving that street so that it will provide for some on street parking for eople who are using the school. - 28 - i TOM TILLINGHAST 22667 Brentwood Street One of the concerns that I have is in the reports references the closeness of facilities and typical distances that a person has to travel to get groceries, etc. It states that you are roughly 6/10 of a mile away from the current Stater Bros. Market. It is my understanding that the Stater Bros. Market will be moving farther away. So you will be ending up with the food facilities more than a mile away. You will have a terrain issue. Those were some of the issues that came to mind when I looked at the reports. DONALD BARTEE 22878 Miriam Way I have lived in Grand Terrace for about fifty years. If it wasn't for the Grand Terrace Senior Center my quality of life would be almost zero. VIRGINIA HARTFORD 11825 Arliss Way One thing that has been overlooked is the fact that we have at least 50 seniors that will volunteer to take anybody anywhere they want to go for no money. Close of Public Participation Vice Chair Addington: We heard a lot of questions that came up and I think it would be appropriate that these are addressed and amended to the EIR. Do you think we should have these addressed or put into writing, Gary? Carl Winter, LSA: If you have any specific questions I can answer them tonight to provide clarification. Is there any answer that didn't meet your satisfaction? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The minutes to the meeting accompany the project to the City Council and they become part of the record. It will be in writing when it gets to the City Council. Vice Chair Addington: So we have addressed all of the questions that were brought up here on record. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The entire discussion will be verbatim for this entire meeting it will be a written record and approved by the Planning Commission. It will be a formal record that is sent to City Council. Commissioner Comstock: I am looking at this project and feel this is a good looking project. I realize that we had some questions regarding the EIR. I see that there is a tension on the mandated housing standards for the State of California for the City of Grand Terrace and the desire of the residents for a vacant piece of property. No one wants to see development. We don't want the quietness of our back yards to be interrupted but on the -29 - -T6 other hand I look at the favorable impact that this project will have of taking care of the needs ands concerns of many of the residents who have been here 40 or 50.years. It think that staff and the developer have done and exceptional job at researching this and I want to compliment you on that. This is a large body of work and a lot of reading for a. planning commissioner. I was very impressed as I looked through it. I am happy to make a recommendation for approving GPA-07-01, SP-07-01; Z-07-01, SA-07-02 &E-07-02. MOTION PC-14-2007 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to discuss ChairWilson seconded a motion to discuss Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We would like clarification on that. First how do you want to handle the parking? Chair Wilson: I would like to propose that we add a section about the covered parking issue "where it is feasible" and I would like to add a section addressing the "enhanced landscaping" as it is.feasible and practical as well the enhancements as far as park enjoyment or recreational opportunities. Commissioner Comstock: I concur with that recommendation. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Would .you like to also see the final landscape plan for the entire project? a Chair Wilson: Yes. a0 Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Can we bring it back as a workshop for your review and approval? Chair Wilson: Yes. Does this motion concur? Commissioner Comstock: Yes Concur? City Attorney: Chair, was that an amended motion and a second on the amended motion? Chair Wilson: Correct. Amended MOTION PC-14-2007 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve Chair Wilson seconded MOTION VOTE 5-0-04 City Attorney: I would like to add to the record that Ms. Farley handed a document to the City Clerk after the public hearing had been closed. - 30- ADJOURN SITE. AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON TULY 19, 2007 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Gary L. Koontz,Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission -31 - RESOLUTION NO. 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO 07- 01 (GPA-07-01)FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT TO ADD A NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE SITE OF A 120 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TOGETHER WITH A COMMUNITY SENIOR CENTER AND A 2.6 ACRE PARK TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 22627 GRAND TERRACE ROAD IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS,the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment to allow for a Medium High Density Residential designation with a densityrange of 13 to 20 units per acre for senior citizen housing to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS,the applicant has additionally applied for the approval of SP-07-01,Z-07-01, SA-07-02 and E-07-02 to construct a 120 unit senior oriented multi-family residential project with an overall density of 20 units per acre on approximately 6 acres located at 22627 Grand Terrace Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0276-461-09 and 14); and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 21, 2007; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on Tuesday, July 24, 2007; and WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,Article 7,Section 15080 et al, the environmental assessment of,the proposed project made under Environmental Review Case No 07-02 required the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report which concluded with the appropriate Environmental Findings as set forth in Attachment 20. The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on July 24, 2007. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City General Plan Community Development Element shall be amended to incorporate the new land use designation proposed "Medium High Density Residential" as described in Exhibit C. 2. The City General Plan Land Use Map shall be amended to identify property proposed under SP-07-01,Z-07-01, SA-V-02 and E-07-02 and legally described in Exhibit E EXHIBIT H as "Medium High Density Residential." 3. General -Plan Amendment is consistent with current policies of the California Department of Housing regarding the provisions of low/moderate senior housing. 4. The new "Medium High Density Residential" designation will provide a means to comply with the State's housing policies. 5. The new"Medium High Density Residential"designation will assist in meeting the housing needs of the residents of the City of Grand Terrace. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held on the 241" day of July, 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Brenda Mesa, Maryetta Ferre, City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Harper, City Attorney cAMyFilesV0HN\Bluemtnseniorv6llas\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\GPA070I resolution 1�2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO.07-01 (SP-07-01-BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS SPECIFIC PLAN) AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 07-02 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) WHEREAS,the property covered by SP-07-01 is owned by the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS, the project site is the location of the existing community senior center and master planned Petta Park; and WHEREAS,the City's General Plan requires the preparation of a Specific Plan for all multi- family projects of 20 units or more; and WHEREAS,the proposed land uses under SP-07-01 are consistent with those identified in the City General Plan for Medium High Density Residential uses: and WHEREAS, the development of SP-07-01 will result in the provision of needed senior citizen housing,of a new community senior center and of new recreational opportunities through the construction of a new park for City residents; and WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,Article 7,Section 15080 et al, the environmental assessment of the proposed project made under Environmental Review Case No 07-02 required the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report which concluded with the appropriate Environmental Findings as set forth in Attachment 20. The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on July 24, 2007. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 21, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following its public hearing on June 21, 2007 recommended that the City Council approve the Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan under SP-07-01 and associated Final Environmental Impact Report under E-07-02 set out in full in the attached Exhibits A and B; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on July 24, 2007 for SP-07-01 and E-07-02. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: E HI IT Section 1: The proposed Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan(SP-07-01) set out in full in Exhibit A is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council. Section 2: The Final Environmental Impact Report(E-07-02)on file in the Community Development Department of the City of Grand Terrace is hereby certified and approved as Exhibit B. Section 3: Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31 ST day of its adoption. - Section 4: Posting: The City,Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen(15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 5: First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 24th day of July, 2007 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the said City Council on the 14" of August, 2007. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof I,Brenda Mesa, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 14th day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Mesa City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper City Attorney cAMyFileA10HN\...\BluemtnseniorvillaOSP-07-01 ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 07-01 (Z-07-01) TO ADD THE R3 -S ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO THE CITY'S ZONING CODE AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR VILLAS SITE LOCATED AT 22627 GRAND TERRACE ROAD FROM R1 - 7.2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R3 -S (MULTIPLE FAMILY-SENIOR CITIZEN)AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 07-02 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) WHEREAS, the property covered by Z-07-01 is owned by the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS,the applicant has filed the necessary application to change the existing zoning of R1 -7.2 (Single Family Residential)to R3 -S (Multiple Family, Senior Citizen); and WHEREAS,the project site is the location.of the existing community senior center and the proposed Petta Park; and WHEREAS,the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed zoning amendment or within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment will allow for the development of needed affordable housing for senior citizens; and WHEREAS,the State's Department ofHousing and Community Development has indicated that sites in the City should be rezoned to higher densities such as provided by R3 -S to satisfy the demand for affordable housing including that for senior housing; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment will enable the City to comply with the current policies of the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment will establish zoning criteria and standards for Medium High Density development that will provide housing and amenities for senior citizens; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendment will add a needed zoning classification to the City's Zoning Code to allow for the future development of needed housing for senior citizens; and WHEREAS,the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the proposed Medium High Density Residential category of the General Plan; and EXHIBIT J WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,Article 7,Section 15080 et al, the environmental assessment of the proposed project made under Environmental Review Case No 07-02 required the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report which concluded with the appropriate Environmental Findings as set forth in Attachment 20. The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on July 24, 2007. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held properlynoticed public hearing on the proposal on June 21, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following the conclusion of the public hearing on June 21,2007 recommended that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 07-01 to add R3 -S to the Zoning Code as set forth in Exhibit D and to rezone the site of the proposed senior housing, senior center and passive park to R3 -S as legally described by Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and other relevant testimony on July 24, 2007 Z-07-01 and E-07-02; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Zone Change No. 07-01-to add the R3 -S Zoning to the Zoning Code, as described in Exhibit D, and to change the existing the existing R1 -7.2 Zoning to R3 -S, as described in Exhibit E, is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace. Section 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report on file in the offices of the Community Development Department under E-07-02 is hereby approved as Exhibit B. Section 3 Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31 ST day of its adoption. Section 4 Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen(15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 5 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 20 day of July, 2007 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said city council on the 141h day of August, 2007. r, �I ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof I, , City Clerk offthe City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the following Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 14`h day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT" ABSTAIN: City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper City Attorney c:\MyFilesUOHNIBluemmseniorvillas\Bluemmseniorvillas2\Z-07-011a ordinance l RESOLUTION NO. 07 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 2O06121063), AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN WHEREAS, The Blue Mountain Senior Villas would result in the construction and occupation of a residential development on approximately 6.1 acres in the City of Grand Terrace (City). The Project and include a 100,000 square-foot, 120 units senior residential facility, a 7,000 square foot senior center, and an approximately 2.6-acre passive park; and WHEREAS, the Project would expand housing opportunities in the City for senior residents, utilize the availability of existing public improvements, expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City, and provides development that partially satisfies the City's requirements to provide low-and/or moderately priced housing options; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') (Public Res. ' Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR§ 15000 et seq.) and 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 December 15, 2006 — January 16, 2007 for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of five 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, one public scoping meeting was held at,the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers on January 4, 2007 and input from the public providing direction and scope of the EIR was received and has been included in Section 1.3.4 of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on April 3, 2007, with the comment period expiring on May 17, 2007:Seven 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 3, 2007; 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 June 21, 2007. Notice of this Planning Commission hearing was provided through publication on May 31, 2007; and. EXHIBIT �� 1 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 24, 2007. Notice of this City Council hearing was provided through publication on June 29, 2007; 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 3 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 4 hereof; and WHEREAS, as identified in the EIR, the City has determined that the Project would not result in any significant unmitigatable environmental impact; and WHEREAS, cumulative environmental impacts identified or discussed in the Final EIR are described in Section 5 hereof; and WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes are identified in the Final EIR and are found to be less than significant, as described in Section 6 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 7 hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 8 hereof; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City 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 2 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: SECTION I. THE PROJECT A. Project Description The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Senior Villas (.the 'Project") is a proposed residential development featuring a two-story senior-oriented residential facility totaling approximately 100,000 square feet, an approximately 7,000-square foot one story senior center, and an approximately 2.6-acre passive park. The residential facility will be developed oh the eastern 3.0 acres of the site and will provide 103 one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom units. The one-and two-bedroom units will be approximately 540 and 810 square feet, respectively. Common areas within the residential portion of the Project include a community room, kitchen, laundry facilities, storage rooms., two courtyards and a small amount of office space. There will be 92 parking spaces provided for residents. The 7,000-square .foot senior center will be attached to the adjoining apartment building. Facilities at the proposed senior center include a library/computer room, billiards/TV room, arts/crafts, community room, kitchen facilities, and a small office area. The proposed senior center will have 54 parking spaces. The adjacent park will include decorative paving, concrete and decomposed granite walkways, seating areas, and small areas of open turf. Development of the Project would occur during two phases. Phase One will entail the development of the senior villas and senior center and associated parking areas. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to the,senior villas and senior center, as well as all parking areas for the entire Project, will be constructed and/or installed during Phase One. Phase Two will entail the relocation of the existing senior center into the new facility and the development of the passive park. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to passive park will be constructed during Phase Two. The primary Project objectives are as follows: • Expand housing opportunities in the City for Seniors; • Fully utilize the availability of existing public improvements, thereby limiting disturbance to existing uses and maximizing the benefit to the general public; • Provide necessary housing in locations that maintain the economic vitality of existing commercial properties; • Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City (both senior and .non-senior); • Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low- and/or moderately priced housing options; • Provide development that recognizes and minimizes environmental effects to adjacent residential and school uses; and • Improve 'the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and development standards. SECTION 2 FINDINGS At a meeting assembled on July 24, 2007, 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; or (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificancd through the identified mitigation measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to the Project. SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING 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. A. Aesthetics 1. Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Surroundings: The Project would alter the existing visual character of the Project site: Multiple-family residential uses are located within 0.2 mile west of the Project site while Terrace View Elementary School is located directly to the east. Changes in the visual character of the Project site would be compatible with these multiple family and institutional uses. The Project would replace the existing partially vacant parcel with an attractive, well designed mix of senior- and community-serving uses. Because, no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect to the existing visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings would result from the Project, no significant impact related to this issue would occur. 2. Light and Glare: Development of the Project would introduce a new source of light and glare in the immediate vicinity (DEIR p. 4.1-19). Wall and pole-mounted lighting will be provided throughout the site, for the safety and security of Project residents, senior center patrons, and site employees. All Project lighting will be designed, installed, ad maintained in conformance with the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project will not cause impacts in regards to light and glare. No �^ 4 vl� mitigation is required. 3. Impacts to Scenic Vistas, Scenic Resources and Scenic Highways: Although the Project would eliminate existing views, because these views are already obstructed by fencing and/or vegetation (DEIR p. 4.1-11) and because the Project has reduced the height of the building's profile by the lowering of finished floor elevation, impacts associated with changes to existing views are not considered significant. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required. 4. Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative area for aesthetic impacts is the City of Grand Terrace. The Project site is located within an area that has been long planned for residential development. The Project would not have a demonstrable adverse effect on the existing aesthetic condition in the Project area. The Project will result in the conversion of the Project site from its existing vacant and unkempt condition to a well designed, landscaped, and maintained development that would enhance the visual character of the Project area. The introduction of new lighting sources would be limited and would not significantly alter the type or amount of light sources currently located in the Project vicinity. No significantly cumulative adverse aesthetic or lighting impact would occur While the elimination of views from several residences located south of the Project is a direct impact, views from Grand Terrace Road, Mount Vernon Avenue, and other adjacent properties would be maintained. Due to the limited number of residences affected, the availability of views from nearby properties and local roadways, no cumulatively significant impact on scenic views would occur. B. Air Quality 1. Mobile Source Health Risk: The health risk associated with diesel exhaust PM,o has only a carcinogenic and chronic effect; no short-term acute effect is recognized. During construction, the health risks at each distance measured is below the cancer threshold of 10 in 1 million and the chronic threshold of 1.0. Therefore, even if all the construction equipment operated simultaneously adjacent to these sensitive receptors, the health risks for all residents would be less than significant. This Project is a senior residential facility that is not expected to have any significant amount of diesel truck traffic. The City's Traffic engineer has reviewed the Project and determined that, at full build out, the Project will generate 594 vehicle trips per day (DEIR pp. 4.2-12). Other than an occasional delivery truck, these will all be residents and visitors, and most delivery trucks operating at a senior residential facility will be medium-duty gasoline-powered trucks. Thus, it is not expected that there will be any long-term operational health risk from the operations of this Project. 2. Odor Impacts: The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residential units and school uses located to the south, west, and east. With the exception of short-term construction- related odors (e.g., equipment exhaust and asphalt odors), the proposed uses do not include uses that are generally considered to generate offensive odors. While the application of architectural coatings and installation of asphalt may generate odors, these odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. Conditions for the design of waste storage areas will be established through the permit process. Solid waste generated by the proposed on-site uses will be collected by a contracted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site uses would be adequately managed. Because solid waste from the Project will be managed and collected in manner to prevent the proliferation of odors, no significant odor impact will occur. 3. Long-Term Project Related Emissions Impacts: Long-term air impacts may result from the use of motor vehicles by Project residen and the burning of fossil fuels for energy to the units. 5 - IZ The City's Traffic engineer has reviewed the Project and determined that, at full build out, the Project will generate 594 vehicle trips per day. Operational air quality emissions resulting from the Project are well below SCAQMD levels of significance. No significant operational air quality would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4. Local Significance Thresholds: Emissions from the on-site construction activities and the operation/occupation of the proposed on-site uses do not exceed the localized significance thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 for all sensitive receptors (DEIR pp.4.21-14). Therefore, the proposed construction activities would not cause any short-term, localized, significant air quality impacts. 5. Fugitive Dust: Fugitive dust emissions resulting from grading and construction activities would total 19.65 and 0.75 pounds/day, respectively (DEIR pp. 4.2-15). This volume of fugitive dust does not exceed established SCAQMD daily thresholds. Nonetheless, the City of Grand Terrace requires the implementation of best available control measures (BALM), such as SCAQMD Rule 403 standards, for all construction Projects. The applicable Rule 403 measures may include (but are not limited to) the following: • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. Locations where grading is to occur .will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). • Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. Implementation of BACMs identified by the City would reduce the volume of fugitive dust generated during Project development. With the implementation of this standard requirement, and in the absence of fugitive dust emissions in excess of SCAQMD daily standards, no significant fugitive dust impact would occur. . 6. Air Movement, Climate, or Temperature Impacts: At six acres, the Project is too small to affect the climate of the surrounding area. Changes in the topography and/or the type or location of the proposed on-site uses would not affect existing local air movement patterns or climatic conditions as they currently exist within the Project area; therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur. 7. Cumulative Impacts: While the construction and operation of the Project would exacerbate the current non-attainment of air quality standards within the Basin, both the 2003 and 2007 AQMPs anticipate that, with implementation of the appropriate control measures detailed in the respective plans, the Basin would be in attainment for both State and Federal air quality standards. As no significant unmitigatable,Project-related air quality impact would occur, and because the current and future AQMPs anticipate attainment of all State and Federal air quality standards, no cumulatively significant air quality impact would result from the development of the proposed on-site uses. , I 6 C. Land Use and Planning 1. Agricultural Resources: The Project site is Urban and Built-up Land and is not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ("Farmland"). The Project site is currently vacant and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract, nor is it utilized for agricultural operations (DEIR p. 4.3-10).The Project site is located within an area zoned for residential uses; therefore, the Project will not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or an existing Williamson Act contract. No agricultural resource impact would result from the development of Project. 2. Conflict with Environmental Plans or Policies: As set forth in the Draft EIR, consistent with CEQA, the Project has been evaluated using the environmental procedures and policies established by the City of Grand Terrace. Because the Project has adhered to the City's policies regarding the identification and mitigation of environmental impacts, no significant impact related to this issue would occur. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required. 3. Disruption or Division of an Established Community: Policies cited in the City's General Plan encourage infill housing development, the more intensive use of underutilized land for residential construction, and the maximization of vacant land suitable for residential development. Because the Project site is already surrounded by developed uses, the Project is considered infill ' development. While the nature of the uses planned for the Project site varies from that anticipated in the General Plan, both the City's General Plan and Zoning Code have already anticipated that the site could be developed with residential uses; therefore, the construction of senior-oriented uses would not disrupt or divide an established community. No significant impact related to this issue would occur. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required. 4. Incompatibility with an Existing Land Use: The Project is an infill development Project, would continue a pattern of land use previously established in the City, and would be directly adjacent to a school and in close proximity to existing high-density residential areas. Total development under the Project would exceed that anticipated if comparable (to existing adjacent) residences were developed, but would be less than the maximum lot coverage currently permitted in the R1-7.2 zone. The Project has been designed to provide sufficient buffering between on-site and adjacent uses and incorporates architectural treatments to better blend into the Project area. No significant land-use compatibility impact would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. 5. Conflict with the General Plan or Zoning: The Project includes a General Plan Amendment to designate the Project site as Medium High Density Residential, as well as a Zone Change to R3-S (Multiple Family, Senior Citizen); Upon adoption, the standards outlined in the Specific Plan will become the controlling zoning regulations within the Project limits. As the Project is consistent with the Specific Plan, and because the Project would satisfy several long-identified objectives detailed in the General Plan, no significant General Plan or zoning consistency impact would result from the development or occupation of the proposed on-site uses. 6. Cumulative Impacts: There are no other developments in the Project vicinity that, in combination-with the Project, would divide, significantly convert existing agricultural lands, or lead to incompatible land uses. The cumulative Projects cited in Table 2.0 are consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations, and would be compatible with existing land uses. The cumulative Projects are either permitted by right or are conditionally permitted within their respective q4 7 zones. Because the cumulative Projects identified in the City are consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations, no cumulatively significant land use impact would occur D. Noise 1. Airport Noise: The Project site is located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of San Bernardino International Airport (DEIR p. 4.4-7). The City is located under the landing pattern of Ontario International Airport (OIA), which is located approximately 18 miles west of the Project site. 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. 2. Groundborne Vibrations: Groundborne vibrations are typically from construction activities or occasional traffic on rough roads. These problems are primarily a concern of inside the buildings and not exterior buildings. Because rubber tires and suspension systems on trucks and other road vehicles provide vibration isolation, on-road vehicles will not typically cause groundborne noise or vibrations. While the Project would increase the traffic volumes on the local roadways, it would not increase the vibrations from the roads. Therefore, no impact related to groundborne vibrations during construction and operation would occur. 3. Long-term Noise Effects: Long term noise impacts associated with the Project site would include vehicle engine start-ups, air conditioning noise, and parking lot activity. These are all long- term operational impacts that would be associated with onsite stationary sources and onsite activity. a. Traffic Noise, On-Site. Based on the "Future (2015) CNEL Noise Contours" figure from -the City's Noise Element, the Project site would be exposed to noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL from traffic on Mt. Vernon Avenue. This noise level does not exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for residential developments; therefore, no significant noise impact would occur. All of the residential units would be equipped with mechanical ventilation (air conditioning), which allows windows and doors to be shut during warm weather. b. Traffic Noise, Adjacent Uses. Generally, a doubling of traffic volumes is required to generate a noise increase of 3 dBA, the level at which a noise increase is perceptible by the human ear(and therefore considered potentially significant). Based on a review of the Project by the City's Traffic Engineer, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 594 vehicle trips per day. The City's Circulation Element anticipates daily traffic (2010) will total 2,660 trips per day on Grand Terrace Road (east of Mt. Vernon Avenue), 11,935 daily trips north of Barton Road, and 12,835 daily trips north of Grand Terrace Road. The traffic anticipated by the Project does not exceed the doubling required to generate a perceptible noise increase along the any of the stated roadway segments (DEIR p.4.4-9). In the absence of a perceptible increase in noise on local roadways, no significant traffic-related noise impact would result from the occupation of the proposed on-site uses. c. Parking Lot Noise. Representative parking activities, such as persons conversing and slamming doors, would generate approximately 60 dBA Lm,, at 50 feet. The on-site parking area would be constructed at the bottom of a slope that would be topped by a 5-6-foot high wall. This change in elevation and the existence of the wall would reduce the parking lot noise levels by 5 dBA or more to approximately 55 dBA at 50 feet. This noise level is lower than the existing ambient noise levels generated by traffic and other noise sources within the 8 Project area (DEIR, p. 4.4-9). The attenuation provided by the slope, wall, and typical residential construction would ensure parking lot noise would not exceed City's exterior (65 dBA) or interior(45 dBA) noise standard; therefore, no significant impact would occur. d. Air Conditioning Noise. When operating under "High Cool" mode, each air conditioning unit (Carrier Model 52C) would generate 61 dBA at a distance of one meter (3.3 feet) (DERI p. 4.4-9). The combined exterior noise level of the 24 air conditioning units operating along the south side of the proposed structure, at the nearest residential structure (a distance of ' approximately 90 feet south of the senior residences, would be 44 dBA, which is below the City's exterior (65 dBA) and interior (45 dBA) noise standard. The noise levels at the property line (78 feet from the proposed senior residences)would be 45 dBA, which is below the City's standard for exterior noise. The combined exterior noise level resulting from the operation of the 32 air conditioning units along the east side of the proposed senior residences, at the nearest school structure (a distance of approximately 135 feet east of the units) would be 42 dBA. The attenuation provided by typical construction practices in southern California'(12 dBA with windows opened) would reduce interior noise at nearest off-site residential structure to 32 dBA (44 dBA— 12 dBA) and 30 dBA (42 dBA— 12 dBA) to the south and east, respectively. Typical noise attenuation with windows closed is approximately 24 dBA; therefore, with windows closed, the interior noise levels at the nearest off-site residence and school use would be 20 dBA (44 dBA — 24 dBA) and 18 dBA (42 dBA — 24 dBA), respectively. No exceedance of established interior or exterior noise levels would occur; therefore, no significant impact would occur. Based on the analysis of each of these noise generators above, the Project would not .create a significant noise impact to any sensitive receptors in the area. 5. Cumulative Noise Impacts: The cumulative area for noise impacts is the City of Grand Terrace. Construction noise impacts only exist for the duration of construction and are, therefore, not cumulative in nature. Implementation of the Project would not contribute to the cumulatively significant operational (mobile or stationary) noise levels within the Project area. Therefore, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required (DEIR p. 4.4-11). E. Population and Housing 1. Local or Regional Population Projections: SCAG Projections indicate that by 2010, the number of housing units in the City would grow to 4,550 units. This growth represents an increase of 5.15 percent over 2005 Projections. The 120 units represent 2.67 percent of the-total units Projected for the City in 2010, and 53.8 percent of the residential growth projected during the 2005-2010 period. The addition of 120 housing units is consistent with the residential growth in the City that has previously been anticipated by SCAG; therefore, no significant housing-related impact would occur. 2. Growth Inducement: Development of the Project would have a negligible effect on local and regional population and housing forecasts. The Project site is located within an urban area to which all required public services and utilities have already been provided. The Project does not require the extension of services to areas that have not already been included in local service planning. Development of the Project site as proposed would not result in haphazard, discontinuous, or "leap-frog" growth The growth resulting from the proposed development is consistent with that previously projected by regional planning agencies; therefore, no significant environmental effect resulting from this growth would occur. 9 3. Housing Displacement: No residential use is currently located within the limits of the Project site. While the Project would change the zoning of the site from low-density to a higher density residential use, it would not directly (through the removal of existing. housing) or indirectly (through the elimination of residential zoning) displace existing homes or residents. No impact related to this issue would occur. 4. Regional Housing Needs Assessment: The total increase in the amount of housing in the City from 1998 to 2005 (64 residences)was not sufficient to satisfy the RHNA allocation assigned to the City. There is an unfulfilled need to provide an additional 181 housing units. State law-provides a density bonus incentive to developers who provide low- and very-low income housing. The Project would allow for construction of a maximum of 120 senior residential units; therefore, the Project would allow for ample opportunity for developers to take advantage of the density bonus and meet the existing RHNA housing construction need of 244 units. No significant impact related to this issue would occur. 5. Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts: The cumulative residential development in the City is located in developed areas accessible to roadway and utility infrastructure and can be categorized as infill development. The Project would not result in a cumulatively significant amount of growth in the City, nor would it displace existing residential units. Because no significant growth inducing, population, or residential displacemen't would occur; and because the cumulative residential development would fully satisfy the current housing needs deficiency and would partially satisfy the planned, future housing needs allocation, no cumulatively significant housing or population impact would occur(DEIR, pp. 4.5-9, -10). SECTION 4 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 implement imposition of mitigation measures and or conditions identified in the Final EIR and summarized below. A. Air Quality 1. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions: Grading and other construction activities would result in combustion emissions from heavy-duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, utility engines, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during these construction activities will vary daily as construction activity levels change. Peak grading days typically generate a larger amount of air pollutants than during other Project construction days. Emissions of NOx would exceed established SCAQMD daily thresholds during site grading activities (DEIR p 4.2-15, Table 4.21). This is a significant impact. 10 Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1A-E will reduce the potential impacts related to generation of fugitive dust to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications that after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts, cool exhaust gas recirculation) are installed on all diesel-powered equipment. used on-site. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1B: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications that all heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment operating on-site would use aqueous diesel fuel. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1C: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines would be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications for the duration of construction. Equipment maintenance and equipment design specifications shall be retained on-site for the duration of construction'activity. Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1 D: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment (both on-site and off-site) including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than ten minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1E: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible and the City Council adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. Supporting Explanation: The use of aqueous diesel fuel and after treatment products in/on diesel construction equipment (as stated in Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1A-B) reduces NOx emissions by 14 to 40 percent, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1 C-E would further reduce emission of NOx. Implementation of the identified measures would reduce emissions of NOx to approximately 62 pounds/day, which is below the established SCAQMD daily thresholds for this pollutant. With mitigation, impacts related to this issue are less than significant (DEIR p. 4.2-17). 2. Architectural Coating Impacts: Architectural Coatings contain Volatile Organic Compounds ("VOC") that are similar to Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and are ozone precursors. At this stage of Project planning, no detailed architectural coatings information is available. As identified in previously referenced Table 4.2.1, emissions would total approximately 338 pounds per day, which exceeds the established SCAQMD daily threshold of 75.pounds/day. This is a significant impact. Emissions associated with architectural coatings could be reduced by using precoated/natural colored building materials, using water-based or low-VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. This increase in efficiency would 11 v I� reduce the VOC emissions to approximately 67.52 pounds/day. This volume of VOC would not exceed the.SCAQMD daily thresholds. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.2A would reduce the potential impacts related to application of architectural coatings to a less than significant level Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.2A: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications that the application of architectural coatings, shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Contract specifications may include, but shall not be limited to: - A requirement that coatings and solvents have a VOC content lower than that required under Rule 1113; - The utilization of construction materials that do not require painting; and/or - The utilization of pre-coated construction materials. Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. Supporting Explanation: The Project would require architectural coating to comply with City design standards. SCAQMD Rule 1113 provides specific guidelines to reduce ROC from architectural coatings. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the ,ROC generated to a less than significant level. H. Noise 1. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts: Short-term construction noise levels generated during on-site excavation, grading and building construction would reach between 76 and 89 dBA 1max at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area Existing residential and school uses are located within 50 feet from the active construction area. At this distance, these receptor locations would be exposed to short-term construction noise levels of up to 91 dBA Lmsx (DEIR p. 4.4-11). This is a significant impact requiring mitigation. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.5.1A through 4.2.4.11) would reduce the impact to noise to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1k During all Project site excavation and grading on-site, the Project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.113: The Project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1C: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction. Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1D: On-site construction activities shall be restricted to the hours permitted under the City's Municipal Vde. �GI 12 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. The mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Supporting Explanation: The Grand Terrace Noise Ordinance prohibits construction noise on property adjacent to residences except between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p m., and at no time is the movement of construction equipment directly on or off the property occur within 50 feet of an occupied residence permitted. Construction-related noise impacts from the proposed Project would be significant; however, compliance with the aforementioned mitigation and the applicable provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. SECTION 5 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 Draft 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, 4 and in 5 of the EIR. The City Council further finds that the cumulative impacts addressed would be less than significant, as set forth in Section 3 herein, or mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of mitigation measures into the Project, as set forth in Section 4 herein. SECTION 6 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 western portion of the Project site is vacant while the eastern portion is occupied by the existing senior center. The Project would permanently alter the site by converting an area that is currently vacant to urban uses and because no significant cultural, mineral, or scenic resources were identified within the Project limits, no significant impacts related to these issues would result from development of the Project site. Natural resources in the form of construction materials and energy resources would be utilized in the construction and operation of the Project. Construction materials such as concrete, aggregate, asphalt and other materials are commercially available in the southern California region with few or no constraints. Because of the general availability of 13 Qo construction materials (including aggregate), no adverse impact related to the availability of these resources or the resource base from which they are derived would occur. As stated in Section 2.4.10 of the DEIR, the proposed on-site uses would increase the demand for natural.gas and electricity by approximately 16,288 cubic feet/day and 2,051 kwH/day. Title 24 (Part 6) of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24) mandates the installation of energy conservation features in new development throughout the State. These measures may include, but shall not be limited to, the planting of trees to provide shade and to shadow buildings; the installation of energy- efficient, low-pressure sodium parking lot lighting; solar or low-emission water heaters; and installation of double-pane glass or other energy-conserving window treatments. Adherence to applicable provisions of Title 24 is a standard requirement for development. As part of the Project's Conditions of Approval (COA), the design, construction, and operation of the proposed on-site uses will adhere to applicable energy conservation standards established in Title 24. Although development of the Project would commit the site to urban uses, it consists of infill development in an area that is already served by energy providers. For this reason, the energy needs of the Project are within the "parameters" Projected for local growth in the local area.' No significant, irreversible long- term impact would occur. SECTION 7 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing specifically Section 15126.2(d) as 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. The Project would develop a senior residential complex consisting of 120 residential units. Because the Project is located within an urban area, is surrounded by developed urban uses, and has access to existing and adjacent roadway and utility facilities, it is considered Infill" development. As stated in Section 4.5.4.2 in the DEIR, the development of residential uses in the City represents a direct form of growth; however, an existing demand for senior housing in the City is demonstrated by a 'wait list" maintained by the Project applicants. Of the approximately 170 persons on this wait list, 55 percent are residents of the City.z Per senior center staff, City residents have expressed an interest and desire to reside at the Project site. As evidenced by the "wait list", it is reasonable to conclude that many future residents of the Project already reside in the City and are participating in the local economy; therefore, no significantly adverse growth inducement impact would result from development of the proposed on-site uses. Correspondence from Kevin Purdy,Southern California Edison,August 18,2005. 2 E-mail communication from Justin Hardt,Corporation for Better Housing, March 6,2007 14 �I SECTION 8 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. Ad 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 post 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 south of Barton Road between Michigan Avenue and Canal Street in the Town Center Project area. The objectives for the Project are on page 3-3 & 3-4 of the DEIR (which are stated here in Section 2B). The following alternatives were analyzed in the EIR. A. Alternative 1 —No Project Alternative Description: Under CEQA (§15126.6[e] [2]), the No Project Alternative should discuss 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 R1-7.2 and is designated for "Low Density Residential" by the City's General Plan. The R1-7.2 zone is intended for single-family residential use with a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre. While the City retains ownership of the Project, in the absence of the Project, this alternative will consider the environmental effects associated with the development of low-density residential development. Based on the site's existing zoning, up to 31 single-family residential units could be developed on the 6.1-acre site. This alternative anticipates the residential units would be constructed at the same time as a single development. Finding: The City Council finds that under the "No Project" alternative, the Project site would be developed with another "Low Density' residential use. While housing-related impacts would be greater under this alternative, the implementation of this alternative would reduce the volume of air pollutants emitted, and would result in a land use pattern consistent with existing land use designation and neighborhood context; therefore, compared with the Project, the environmental effect of this alternative is reduced. Because the Alterative does not fulfill the primary Project objective of 15 providing additional senior residential uses in the City, the "No Project" alternative rejected as infeasible. Supporting Explanation: Views from adjacent properties are already obstructed by walls, fences, and/or vegetation. It is reasonable to expect that like the Project, two story-homes and residential landscaping would obstruct existing views from some properties located south of the project site. Compared with the Project, the aesthetic impact associated with this alternative would be similar The level of grading and construction activity would not exceed that required for the Project; therefore, no greater emission of air pollutants would occur. Similar mitigation would be required for development under this alternative; therefore, short-term construction-related impacts would be similar. Because the number of daily trips and total amount of residential use is reduced from that associated with the Project; the volume of operational air pollutants generated under this alternative would be correspondingly reduced. As with the Project, no significant operational air-quality impact would result from.development under this alternative. The development of single-family residential structures would be consistent with existing land use designations for the project site and would not result in a significant land use or planning impact. No change in the significance of the land use or planning impacts would occur. The level of grading and construction activity would not exceed that required for the Project; therefore. Short-term construction noise impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level. Similar mitigation would be required for development under this alternative; therefore, short-term - construction-related impacts would be similar. The development of the project site with single-family residences could result in noise from the following sources, including (but not limited to), backyard recreation, air conditioning, pets, children, vehicle operation, and landscape maintenance. Existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity range from 45 to 52 dBA. While noise generated.under this alternative may include periodic intense noise and operational noise from individual air conditioning units, it is not expected to significantly exceed existing ambient conditions No significant project-related operational noise impact was identified. No increase in the number of very-low and low income residences would occur under this alternative; therefore, the Project's contribution to meeting the City's RHNA allocation for the 1998- 2005 and/or future planning period would be eliminated. Because this alternative would reduce the availability of adequate housing for persons of varied income levels, compared with the Project, a more significant housing impact would result from the implementation of this alternative Because the number of daily trips and total amount of residential use is reduced from that associated .with the Project, impacts associated with traffic generated under this alternative would be correspondingly reduced. As with the Project, no significant traffic impact would result from development under this alternative. Because under this Alternative, development of the site would occur at a reduced density, the Alternative would have a reduced environmental effect compared to the impacts identified in the Draft EIR (DEIR p 6-6). Development of the No Build Alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project. objectives: 16 ■ Expand housing opportunities in the City for seniors; • Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City (both senior and non-senior); ■ Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low- and/or moderately priced housing options; ■ Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and development standards. Because the Alternative does not fulfill the primary Project objectives, the No Build alternative rejected as infeasible. B. Alternative 2— New Senior Center/Park Alternative Description: Under this alternative, the existing modular senior center would be replaced with an approximately 7,000-square foot senior center. The new senior center would occupy approximately 0.5 acre of the 6.1-acre Project site. The balance of the site would be devoted to an approximately 5.6-acre passive park. No General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be required. Finding: The City Council finds that under the New Senior Center/Park Alternative, visual resource impacts would be reduced. Impacts related to air quality and noise impacts, although not considered significant impacts under the Project, would,be reduced compared with those identified with the Project. Because of the reduction in vehicle trips achieved. under this alternative, impacts to the operation of local roadways and intersections would be proportionally reduced from the Project. Although this alternative would have reduced impacts, it would underutilize housing opportunities by eliminating residential development on-site. Under this alternative, some of the objectives would be met by providing public facilities for .the senior community; -however, the residential component objectives would not be met (DEIR p. 6-8). Because the Alternative does not fulfill the primary Project objective (expansion of senior-housing opportunities), the Senior Center/Park alternative rejected as infeasible Supporting Explanation: Limited obstruction of views north would also occur as project landscaping matured; however, because the landscaping would not present a solid barrier, views past any on-site landscape feature would still be possible. Because of the building's lower height and decreased bulk, and the increase amount of park area provided, compared with the Project, the aesthetic impacts associated with this alternative would be reduced Compared with the Project, a reduced amount of site grading and construction would be required to accommodate the stand-alone senior center and passive park. A proportional reduction in the amount of construction-related pollutants, including NOx, PM,o, and VOC, would be emitted under this alternative. While this alternative would attract additional guests to the senior center, the additional vehicle trips would not approach that associated with the residential uses; therefore, compared with the Project, the operational air emissions generated under this alternative would be reduced. Like the Project, the reduced amount of emissions generated during the operation of only the senior center and park would not be significant. Development of a public park is a permitted use in the R1-7.2 zone; while development of a senior center (a public or quasi-public facility) would be conditionally permitted. Because the site currently hosts a senior center and because parks are generally consistent with school and residential 17 10 uses, no land use conflict would occur under this alternative. As with the Project, no significant impact would occur. Construction activities under this alternative would generate perceptible noise at adjacent uses. As with the Project, mitigation would be required to reduce construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level. In the absence of residential traffic, residential parking areas, and individual air conditioners, the amount of operational noise generated on-site would be reduced. Expanding the size of the park would increase the frequency and duration of landscaping maintenance activities (e.g., mowing)., As with the Project, no significant operational noise impact would result from implementation of this alternative. No increase in the number of very-low and low income residences would occur under this alternative; therefore, the Project's contribution to meeting the City's RHNA allocation for the 1998- 2005 and/or future planning period would be eliminated. This alternative would reduce the availability of adequate housing for persons of varied income levels, compared to the Project, a more significant housing impact would result from the implementation of this alternative. Development of the Senior Center/Passive Park Alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project objectives: ■ , Expand housing opportunities in the City for seniors; ■ Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low- and/or moderately priced housing options. C. Alternative 3—Passive Park Alternative Description: Under this alternative, development of the proposed residential uses and the new senior center would not occur. This alternative would result in the relocation of the existing modular senior center and the development of the entire Project site with a 6.1-acre passive park. While no General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be required, an alternative location in the City for the modular senior center would need to be identified. Finding: This alternative would reduce the extent, frequency, or duration of the aesthetic, land use, and noise impacts. Like the Project, none of these impacts would be significant. The elimination of the senior residential component would result in a more severe housing/population impact. Because no residential uses would be developed, no change in population or the number of housing units in the City would occur. A more significant housing impact would result from the implementation of this alternative. With the elimination of the residential and senior center components, this alternative would fail to meet, the primary Project objectives; therefore, this alternative is rejected as infeasible. Supporting Explanation: No existing view north from adjacent properties would be obstructed. As park landscaping matures, partial views would be maintained. Under this alternative, the existing aesthetic character of the project site would be altered as the existing vacant and ill-kept portions of the site were replaced with a landscaped passive park. This is a beneficial impact. With the exception of park landscaping, the existing obstructed views from adjacent properties would be maintained. As with the Project, no significant adverse aesthetic impact would occur under this alternative Under this alternative, a limited amount of on-site grading would be required to develop the passive park. Compared with the Project, the amount of grading necessary would be substantially 18 105 reduced; therefore, the amount, extent, and duration of grading operations required under this alternative would be reduced, a proportional.reduction in construction-related emissions would occur. Park uses would not generate the same number of daily vehicle trips as the Project. Compared with the Project, the volume of stationary emissions and mobile pollutants generated under this alternative would be reduced. As with the Project, no construction or operational air emission impacts would occur under this alternative. The development of public parks is a permitted use in the R1-7.2 zone; therefore, this alternative would be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning for the site. Compliance with the City's policies related to development of park uses would ensure that the alternative use is compatible with existing development in the project area. As with the Project, no significant land use impact would result from the development of this alternative. No increase in the number of very-low and low income residences would occur under this alternative; therefore, the Project's contribution to meeting the City's RHNA allocation for the 1998- 2005 and/or future planning period would be eliminated. Because this alternative would reduce the availability of adequate housing for persons of varied income levels, compared with the Project, Construction activities under this alternative would generate perceptible noise at adjacent uses. As with the Project, mitigation would be required to reduce construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level. Expanding the size of the park would increase the frequency and duration of landscaping maintenance activities (e.g., mowing). Compared with the Project, the overall number and variety of noise sources is reduced under this alternative, the level of noise generated on-site would be proportionally reduced. As with the Project, no significant operational noise impact would result from implementation of this alternative While the condition and an increase in the variety of amenities at the new senior.center may attract additional guests, the volume of additional vehicle trips would not approach that associated with the residential uses; therefore, compared with the Project, the number of trips generated under this alternative would be reduced. Similar to the Project, no significant traffic impact was identified with this alternative. Under this Alternative, no residential development would occur on-site. Development of the Passive Park Alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project objectives: ■ Expand housing opportunities in the City for seniors; ■ Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City(both senior and non-senior); ■ Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low- and/or moderately priced housing options; ■ Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and development standards. Because the Alternative does not fulfill the stated Project objectives, the Passive Park Alternative is rejected as infeasible D. Alternative 4—Single-Story Senior Residential Description: Under this alternative, 120 senior residential units would be constructed on- site. The residential units would be incorporated into a single-story attached fourplexes i; 19 encompassing approximately 6.0 acres. This alternative would necessitate the relocation of the existing modular senior center and the elimination of the park component. A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be required to implement this alternative. Additionally, an alternative location in the City for the modular senior center would need to be identified. Finding: The City Council finds that while the extent, duration, or frequency of the aesthetic air quality, traffic and circulation .impacts, associated with this alternative, would be similar to those identified with the Project. Because of the dispersed .nature of the uses envisioned under this alternative, a greater number of adjacent residents would be exposed to on-site noise, though the level of impact associated with this noise would be less than significant. Development of this alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project objectives: ■ Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City(both senior and non-senior); ■ Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and development standards. Because the Alternative does not fulfill the stated Project objectives, this alternative is rejected as infeasible. Supporting Explanation: The development of single-story structures would still partially obstruct views from some properties located south of the Project site. Though these views would be partially obstructed, because the fourplexes envisioned under this alternative would not result in a single expanse of building, partial views may be maintained through the areas between individual buildings. Compared with the Project, the level of significance of aesthetic impacts would be similar. Development under this alternative would generate approximately 418 average daily trips. Of these, 10 and 13 trips would occur in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Because the number of daily trips is reduced from that associated with the Project; the volume of operational air pollutants generated under this alternative would be correspondingly reduced. As with the Project, no significant operational air-quality impact would result from development under this alternative. Implementation of this alternative would scatter the residential units throughout the Project site, thereby exposing a greater number of existing residents to'potential noise sources (e.g., parking lots, air conditioning, and vehicle movement). While the level of operational noise under this alternative is not anticipated to be significant, compared with the Project, a greater number of persons would be exposed to a greater number and variety of noise sources. E. Alternative 5—Off-Site Location Description: Under this alternative, the Project would be located south of Barton Road between Michigan Avenue and Canal Street in the Town Center Project area. The residential, senior center, and smaller passive park (1.0 acre) uses would be developed at the off-site location; therefore, approximately 4.5 acres of the Town Center Project area would be dedicated to senior Project. Locating the Project in this area would require a General Plan Amendment, a zone change, and preparation of a Specific Plan. Finding: The City Council finds that under the Off-Site Location Alternative, no change in the level of significance related to aesthetics would occur. Impacts related to air quality, although not 20 101 considered significant impacts under the Project, would be reduced compared with those identified for the Project. Noise and Traffic/Circulation impacts, although not considered significant impacts under the Project, would be greater than those identified with the Project because of the location of the off- site area. For impacts related to biological and cultural resources, because of the unknown potential of the off-site location to yield significant resources, impacts would be greater than those identified with the Project. For geological, hazards, *and hydrology, impacts under this alternative are anticipated to be similar to those identified for the Project. The Barton Road corridor has been identified as the City's primary commercial area. Development of the residential and senior center Project within the Barton Road corridor conflict with the commercial intent of the Barton Road corridor and would necessitate a reduction in the amount of "valuable" commercial property in the City, which would result in a corresponding erosion of the tax base needed to support existing and future services provided to City residents. Under this alternative, the objectives would be met by providing residential and public facilities for the senior community; however, the City's objectives for creating a stronger tax base would not be met; therefore, this alternative was identified as infeasible. Supporting Explanation: The Off-Site Location Alternative would result in development of residential uses inconsistent with the existing commercial zoning for the site. No significant impact to the existing aesthetic character of the Town Center Project area would occur. Compared with the Project, no Change in the level of significance of aesthetic-related impacts would occur(DEIR p. 6-13). The alternative site is surrounded by existing and/or planned commercial and retail land uses. Development of this alternative would result in occupation of dwelling units within a commercial district, which conflicts with the existing land use vision for the area. The senior residential uses are not compatible with the existing commercial activities on the heavily traveled Barton Road corridor. New commercial development in the City is needed to provide additional revenue to support existing and future services to residents of the City. Because the senior residential Project.is (1) riot consistent with the alternative site's existing General Plan or zoning designation and (2) not"compatible with existing commercial uses, compared with the Project, the land use impacts associated with this alternative are more significant(DEIR p. 6-15). u J Currently, portions of the alternative site are located within the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours (1999) and within the future 65 and 70 dBA noise contours (2015). The Noise Element establishes an exterior noise standard of 65 dB residential uses. The development of residential uses in areas exposed to greater than 65 dB CNEL is normally unacceptable. Unlike the Project, development of this alternative would occur in an area where the existing and future noise levels exceed exterior residential noise standards. Mitigation would be required to reduce the significance of this noise impact. Compared with the Project, there is an increased operational noise impact associated with this alternative (DEIR p. 6-16). A reduction in the size of the park component from the senior Project would not significantly reduce the amount of traffic attributable to the senior Project. The amount of development envisioned under this alternative is similar to the Project; therefore, a comparable volume of traffic is anticipated. However, because this alternative is the off-site location, impacts to the surrounding intersections of the off-site area may be greater than what was identified for the Project. Although this alternative is similar to the Project and would generate similar traffic trips, the impact of the traffic on the existing road network within the vicinity of the off-site location could be greater than that identified for the 21 Project. Therefore, traffic impacts are greater under this alternative than for the Project (DEIR p. 6- 16). F. Alternative 6—Modification to Site Grading Description: This alternative would result in the development of structures and facilities similar to the Project. Under this alternative, the following changes to site layout would occur: (1) move the west parking lot entrance 30 feet to the east; (2) move the east and west retaining walls a few feet from the back of the parking lot curb instead of placing them at the property line; and (3) redirect water drainage to the center of the parking lots. These three changes will (1) reduce the amount of cut along the east and west property line, and (2) reduce the height and length of the east and .west retaining wall. The proposed alternative will increase the finished floor elevation of the building footprint by 2.5 feet. The amount of material exported from the site would be reduced by more than half(approximately 10,000 cubic yards). Finding: The City Council finds that under the modification to Site Grading Alternative, visual resource, noise, traffic and circulation impacts would be similar. The volume of cohstruction construction-related air pollutants would be reduced, and like the Project, impacts would be less than significant. As with the Project, the objective of providing necessary housing to senior residents and persons of a variety of income levels would be satisfied with the development of the Project site under this alternative. Supporting Explanation: Under this alternative, the site grading would be modified resulting in a reduction, by more than half, of the amount of material needed to be exported from the site. With the reduction in amount of earthmoving and the number of haul trips, it is anticipated that NOx emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold; therefore, under this alternative, no mitigation would be required. Compared with the Project, the volume of construction-related air emissions would be reduced. The amount of development envisioned under this alternative is similar to the Project; therefore, a comparable volume of traffic is anticipated. In light of the similarity in developed uses and traffic, it is anticipated, when compared with ,the Project, the traffic impacts associated with this alternative would be substantially similar. It is anticipated that a similar volume of stationary and mobile source pollutants would be emitted during the occupation/operation of the senior Project. Compared to the Project, the operational air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be substantially similar. SECTION 9 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify and mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project. The City Council further finds that in the absence of any identified significant environmental impact, the City Council hereby declares that preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required. r, � � 22 SECTION 10 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 hereby certifies the FEIR based on the following findings and conclusions: 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 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. B. Conclusions: 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. 1 10 23 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 11 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the event of inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program shall control SECTION 12 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 Resources Code section 21081.6. SECTION 13 RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 241h day of July, 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: � � i 24 ATTEST: Brenda Mesa, Maryetta Ferre, City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Harper City Attorney 25 i RAND TERR C Comnnmity Services Department Staff Deport MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 r CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) SUBJECT: Ordinance of the City Council Amending Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requirements for Trees on Local Residential, Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace NO FUNDING REQUIRED BACKGROUND At the July 10, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council requested staff to provide more research on this issue and consult with the City Attorney on agreed upon verbiage for the amendment. History of the Request Staff was contacted by the San Bernardino County Fire Department Station #23 with a concern that some city trees were hitting the new fire equipment. There was potential to cause damage to the trick from the low hanging branches. It was the determination of the Fire Captain, at the time-- Captain Lansing, that the homeowner could be liable if the fire truck was damaged by the homeowner's tree. In some cases, according to the Captain, the Fire Department could not park in front of the house they were responding to due to the branches obstructing the right-of-way and hindering the response. As our city mattires, the foliage and trees also mature. Many trees and shrubs have grown dramatically in the last 20-30 years since they were planted. As this has benefited the city with lush growth and tree-lined streets, it has also increased the potential for more branches in the public-right-of-ways. Add into the mix higher profile vehicles and the request from SB Fire, City staff was prompted to take action in reviewing the Grand Terrace Municipal Code (GTMC). Current Code Tree Trimming Heights Proposed Major and Arterial Streets 14" 15" Residential Streets 10" 15" COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. CPG Staff researched the height of the trucks that navigate on our streets. Below is a summary of the findings: • Fire Engines 12' 9 " • Trash Truck 13' 6" and 14' 9" (when dumping the residential trash bins) • UPS/FEDEX Truck 10" • City Street Sweeper 8' The city's current ordinance regarding trees along the public-right-of-way including parkways and those trees along the city curbs is the following: Current Ordinance 12.28.140 Maintenance and pruning. A. All maintenance and pruning shall be the responsibility of the adjacent homeowner. B. The trees and ground cover shall be maintained so as not to constitute a hazard. C. Trees'on the local residential streets shall be pruned ten feet from the top of the curb. Trees on arterial and major streets shall be pruned fourteen feet from the top of the curb. Owners are encouraged to seek guidance toward proper pruning. (See Appendix C to this chapter for illustration.) (Ord. 29 §7, 1979) Proposed language: B. The trees and ground cover shall be maintained so as not to constitute a hazard. C. In order to avoid interference with vehicular or pedestrian use of streets and sidewalks, the property owner shall be required to maintain trees and shrubbery in such a manner-so as not to encroach into or over any adjacent sidewalk or street. Absent special circumstances and approved by the City, encroaclulient is defined as a minimum of eight feet of clearance above any sidewalk and fifteen feet above any street. (See Appendix C to this chapter for illustration.) (Ord. 29 57, 1979) RECOMMENDATION Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council Amending Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requirements for Trees on Local Residential, Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12.28 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING MAINTENANCE AND PRUNING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES ON LOCAL RESIDENTIAL, ARTERIAL AND MAJOR STREETS IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 12.28.140 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 12.28.140 Maintenance and Pruning. A. All maintenance and pruning shall be the responsibility of the adjacent homeowner. B. The trees and ground cover shall be maintained so as not to constitute a hazard. C. In order to avoid interference with vehicular or pedestrian use of streets and sidewalks, the property owner shall be required to maintain trees and shrubbery in such a manner so as not to encroach into or over any adjacent sidewalk or street! Absent special circumstances and approved by the City,encroacluiient is defined as a minimum of eight feet of clearance above any sidewalk and fifteen feet above any street. Section 2. Effective Date-This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 3151 day of its adoption. Section 3. Posting-The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three(3)public places within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purposes by the City Council. Section 4. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 241h day of July and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 14`' day of August, 2007. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. -1- Attest: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk I, Brenda Mesa, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 14"' day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper, City Attorney -2- STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 SUBJECT: APPOINT VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5-8 in Sacramento. The Business Meeting will'be held on Saturday, September 8`". The League is asking that each City Council designate a voting representative and up to two alternates who will be present at the Business Meeting to vote on conference resolutions. Each City is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League Policy. Staff Recommends Council: APPOINT A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES WHO WILL REPRESENT THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AT THIS YEAR'S LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE BUSINESS SESSION COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. r T '1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 ' LEAGUE Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 -- OI= GILI -ORNIA www.cacities.org CITIES Please review this memo carefully. New procedures were adopted in 2006 regarding designation of voting delegates and alternates and voting at the Annual Conference. June 8, 2007 TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference—September 5-8, Sacramento The League's 2007 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5-8 in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for Saturday morning, September 8, at the Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. In the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, your- city may appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. The ability to appoint up to two alternates is the result of approval last year of a League bylaws amendment that increased the number of voting delegate alternates from one to two. M Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office no later than August 13, so that voting delegate/alternates records may be established prior to the conference. At the conference, voting delegate forms may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the conference registration area. Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affinnmg that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. At least one must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of voting card in order to cast a vote. Voting delegates and alternates -over- t are requested to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegates Desk. This will enable them to receive the special stamps on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. • Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may riot transfer the voting card to another city official. • New Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together,they should be sure to sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. The Voting Delegate desk in the conference registration area will be open September 5, 6 and 7, and prior-to the Business Meeting on September 8. The conference registration area will open at 12:00 p.m., on September 5, at the Sacramento Convention Center. The Voting Delegate desk will also be open at the Business Meeting; but not during a roll call vote, should one be undertaken. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share it and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and.aitemate form and returning it to the League office by August 13, 2007. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough at (916) 658-8247. Attachments: • 2007 Annual Conference Votmg Procedures • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form 3 LEAGUE L� ; T 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 tJ Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 Oi CALIFORNIA www.cacities.org CITIES Annual Conference Voting Procedures 2007 Annual Conference 1. One City, One Vote. Each member city has aright to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference. each city_ council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates. these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee a. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates. may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. We encourage voting delegates and alternates to sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk so that they may receive a special stamp on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates) and who have picked up their-city's voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is not either a voting delegate or alternate. 6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, all should sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. 7 Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Comunittee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. 4 LEAGUE OF CAL1F01'\NIA CITY: 2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to the League office by August 13, 2007. Forms not sent by this deadline may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting,voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternam e. the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council. Please note:'Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this special area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special stamp on their conference badge. If your city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together at the Business Meeting, they are all encouraged to sign in at the Voting Desk in order to obtain the identifying stamp that will admit them to the special voting area. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE -ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name: Title: Title: ATTEST (I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate.) Name: Phone: Title. Date: Please complete and return by August 13 to: League of California Cities ATTN: Mary McCullough FAX: (916) 658-8240 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 AC2007VotingDelegateLetter.doc i . 5 CITY ) RAND TERR C Community Services Deparnnent Staff Report MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND LA SIERRA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL NO FUNDING REQUIRED BACKGROUND . San Bernardino County officials recently celebrated the completion of the latest 3.2-mile asphalt path of the Santa Ana River Trail from La Cadena Drive in Colton to the Riverside County Line. This new trail segment connects to the first portion finished in April 2005. The two completed phases in San Bernardino County link to an 11-mile stretch in Riverside County, providing nearly 18 miles of uninterrupted trail from Waterman Avenue in San Bernardino to Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside. By October 2007, Riverside County officials expect to finish an other segment of trail allowing cyclists to go from San Bernardino to Norco. The City of Grand Terrace has access to the Santa-Ana River Trail off Terrace Avenue thanks to improvements made by La Siena Holdings, LLC. In return, La Sierra Holdings, LLC is requesting in writing an agreement that: • Defines the access property • Indemnifies the La Sierra from claims arising out of the use of the access property pursuant to this Agreement, excluding any intentional or negligent acts of its officers, employees or agents. • Adds La Siena as an additional insured on the City's property damage and ,general liability insurance policy. • Provides La Siena tennination of this Access Agreement upon thirty(30) days notice to the City. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council enter into the attached Access Agreement (reviewed and approved by the City Attorney) with La Siena Holdings, LLC for public access to the Santa Ana River Trail System. l�r.. ACCESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is hereby entered into by and between the City of Grand Terrace (hereinafter"CITY") and La Sierra Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability corporation (hereinafter"LA SIERRA"),jointly, the Parties, as follows: RECITALS - WHEREAS, LA SIERRA is the owner of property located within the City of Grand Terrace, more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel Number 0275-191-30 ("the Property"), the northeast corner of said parcel being adjacent to the Santa Ana River Trail (the "Trail"): and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to provide for access by the general public to the Trail utilizing an approximately three hundred and eighty-two (382) foot existing pathway crossing the northwest cor Der of the Property, said property more particularly described in Exhibit "1'' attached hereto (the "Access Property"); and WHEREAS, LA SIERRA has expended its funds and created the existing pathway and fencing to provide access to the Trail; NOW, THEREFORE, FOR THAT CONSIDERATION RECITED HEREIN, THE PARTIES DO HEREBY ENTER INTO THIS ACCESS AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated hereat as if set forth in full. Section 2. LA SIERRA hereby grants an access easement to the CITY for use of the Access Property as public access as to the Santa Ana River Trail. Section 3. CITY hereby agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend. LA SIERRA, its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims for damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of the use of the Access Property pursuant to this Agreement, excluding any intentional or negligent acts of LA SIERRA, its officers, employees or agents. Section 4. CITY hereby agrees to name LA SIERRA as an additional insured on the CITY'S property damage and general liability insurance policy, effective on the date of the execution of this Agreement. Section 5. LA SIERRA may terminate this Access Agreement, in its absolute discretion; upon thirty (30) days notice to the CITY. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have entered into this Access Agreement on July_, 2007. THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, a LA SIERRA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED public body, corporate and politic LIABILITY CORPORATION By: By: Its: Mayor Its: President Attest: S ecretary �I