08/28/2007 FILE, P,Y ,
r_A T y t ,
N�IZ�DTE_1111 CE `' J August 28,=2007
22795 Barton Road ,
Grand Terrace
California 92313-5295 ;
Civic Center
(909)824-6621
Fax(909)783-7629" ;
Fax(909)783-2600
CITY" OYGR_ AND.=TERRA'CE
,Maryetta Ferre
Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia CRA/CITY�.C:OUNCIL
.Mayor Pro Tem - - _
Bea Cortes_. = REGULAR MEETINGS,'.
Dan Buchanan - - � I�♦ � "
.CounefiMembers, • - - .'2ND AND'-4TH,Tuesd'ay --'6:00-,°p:m.
Thomas J.Schwab
ff - City manages
Couneil-C.hambers"
Grand Terrace Civic-center
'22795 Barion'Road-
• Grand Terrace, CA.-92313-5295''_
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS August 28, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
i 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-
* Pledge of Allegiance-
* Roll Call-
STAFF COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 08-14-2007 Minutes Approve
2. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the Community Adopt
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Containing
a Description of the Agency's Program to Acquire Real Property
by Eminent Domain
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Homes of Distinction
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and
noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. Any Council Member,Staff Member,or Citizen
may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated August 28,2007 Approve
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 08-14-2007 Minutes Approve
COUNCIL AGENDA
08-28-2007 PAGE 2 OF 2
AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
1 This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment
on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of
restrictions contained in California Law,the City Council may
' not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may
briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for
clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response
from staff to questions raised during public comment or may
request a matter be agendized for a future meeting.
5. REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
1. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of July 9,2007 Accept
b. Appoint Regular Member(Margorie Owens) Appoint
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. General Plan Amendment No.07-01,Zone Change No.07-01, Approve
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)
B. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Approve
Terrace, California, Amending Grand Terrace Municipal
Code,Chapter 10, Section 10.08, Establishing Speed Limits
for Various Streets in the City of Grand Terrace
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the Approve
City of Grand Terrace,Adding Chapter 9.32 to the Municipal
Code Relating to Regulation of Registered Sex Offenders
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Award Contract for Grand Terrace Pocket Park to IPS in the Award/Appropriate
Amount of $176,518 Plus a 10% Contingency and
Appropriate$136,118 from Fund 13 Parks Development Fund
9. CLOSED SESSION-None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 11,2007 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-AUGUST 14. 2007
A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in
the Council Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace,California,
on August 14, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
t �
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferr6, Chairman
Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman
Bea Cortes, Agency Member
Jim Miller, Agency Member
Dan Buchanan, Agency Member
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department
ABSENT: Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
? Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 6:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF 07-24-2007 MINUTES
CRA-2007-20 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER
CORTES,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the July 24,2007 Community Redevelopment
Agency Minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GAND TERRACE
CONTAINING A DESCRIPTION OF THE AGENCY'S PROGRAM TO
ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN
City Manager Schwab, stated that Senate Bill No. 53 took effect on January 1, 2007 and is
codified in Health & Safety Code Section 33342.7. Section 33342.7 requires a city that
adopted a redevelopment plan prior to January 1,2007 adopt an ordinance that describes the
redevelopment agency's program,should it ever need to acquire property by eminent domain.
This Ordinance describes the Agency's program to acquire real property by eminent domain,
it does not amend the Redevelopment Plan. To ensure compliance with the newly enacted
Section 33342.7, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance.
CRA AGENDA ITEM NO:
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 2
Chairman Ferre opened the Public Hearing for discussion.
Patricia Farley, -12513 Michigan Street, stated that the issue of eminent domain has been of
great concern to many people in Grand Terrace and many people throughout the United
States for quite a while. She would like to see this Ordinance refined in its language. The
reason being its been proven to the residents that city officials can't be trusted to implement
this law in the way that they feel is fair. Right now the way the Ordinance reads,it says that
they can take any property by eminent domain other than owner occupied residential. Some
people have a family home that they may not live in. It may be a second home or they may
rent it but it is their intention to keep it. She is concerned with how people over the years are
made to feel that they had to give up their property at cheap prices and the City was helping
to do it with the threat of eminent domain. She feels that those people really lost out on the
value of their property. She is concerned with the property where the current Stater Bros.is.
With the way the City has been managing things, she feels that it is basically undermining
other businesses saying that they are blighted and use eminent domain. She would really like
some refinement in the wording to be precise on what we in Grand Terrace feel is fair. She
feels that we need to manage our city properly now and refine the wording of the Ordinance.
City Attorney John Harper, stated that we do not have the legal ability to change what the
redevelopment plan says. This is simply a recitation of what the current redevelopment plan
says. The statute says that each redevelopment agency adopt an ordinance which says here
is what our ordinance says. The language in this ordinance is precisely what the
redevelopment plan says. The Agency does not have the ability to amend its redevelopment
plan or change it without going through all the statutory procedures. This is the legislators
idea to raise the awareness of what the redevelopment plan says in various redevelopment
agencies. It's simply a statement of what the current law in Grand Terrace is and we don't
have the ability or authority under that statute to change it.
Cynthia Bidnex, 12219 Pascal,presented,a measure for Council consideration and inclusion
on any upcoming agenda. She requested that the following be entered into public record and
available for public review:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to
circulate the petition within the City of Grand Terrace for the purpose of prohibiting the City
of Grand Terrace from exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire property from a
private owner,without that owner's consent,when the purpose of the acquisition is to convey
the property to another private party. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as
contemplated in the petition is as follows:
An Ordinance of the city of Grand Terrace, California the People of the City of Grand
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 3
Terrace Hereby Ordain and Enact as Follows:
Title 2,Division 3 of the Codified Ordinances(Ordinance 187)of the City of Grand Terrace
is replaced in full as follows:(the Ordinance Where ED is allowed,City Clerk should be able
to find the right designation)
Whereas: Section 1. This ordinance shall be known and maybe cited as An Ordinance
Prohibiting the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Purposes.
Whereas: Section 2. The City of Grand Terrace may not exercise the power of eminent
domain to acquire property from any private Owner thereof, without such
Owner's consent, when the purpose of the acquisition is to convey the
property so acquired to any private party.
Whereas: As used in this section, "Owner"means the owner of the fee title interest in
the property to be acquired.
Whereas: Section 3. Eminent domain is not to be used to further private economic
development. The City of Grand Terrace shall not initiate or participate in
r any proceedings, or take any action to condemn private property for the
purpose of making such property available for private development,nor shall
the City participate, directly or indirectly, in such takings.
Whereas: "Participation" means contributing, lending, providing, pledging, or
foregoing,any funds,property,credit,in-kind services,or incurring any debt
or lease obligation or providing any other thing of value to an agency,
organization, or project.
Whereas: Section 4:Property acquired by the City of Grand Terrace through the use of
eminent domain after the effective date of this charter amendment must be
held or used for a public use by the City for a minimum twenty year period
prior to sale, lease, transfer or other disposition by the City.
Whereas: Section .5. Amendment or Repeal: This initiative may be amended or
repealed only by the voters at a City Wide Election.
Whereas: Section 6. Effective Date:Pursuant to the State of California Municipal Code
Section 92179217. If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance
vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance
of the City. The Ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that
the vote is declared by the legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days
after that date. No Ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 4
adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to
the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by
a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original
ordinance.
An Ordinance of the City of Grand Terrace, California the People of the City of Grand
Terrace Hereby Ordain and Enact as Follows:
500 Word Argument in Favor of Measure
The government's power to take your land,your home or your business by eminent domain
must be used only for public uses. Eminent domain should never be used to take one
person's property and transfer it to another private party.
Measure prohibits the City of Grand Terrace from using eminent domain to take one
person's property to transfer to another person. Measure will guarantee that the City
of Grand Terrace will use eminent domain only for public uses,such as roads,parks or flood
control projects.
In the Supreme Court's 5-4 Kelo vs.New London decision,the Court ruled eminent domain
could be used to take Suzanne Kelo's home and transfer it to a private developer. This
decision has focused public concern about the increasing abuse of eminent domain for
private uses. The Court further ruled that state and local governments may place their own
restrictions on eminent domain powers. Homeowners and businesses owners need
guarantees that their property rights will be respected.
The House of Representatives voted 376-38 to deny federal funding for projects using
eminent domain for private use. State legislatures, including California's, are considering
constitutional limitations against eminent domain abuse. Here in Orange City of Grand
Terrace, a number of cities are considering their own November ballot measures. Measure
will be an example to others of San Bernardino County of Grand Terrace's
commitment that all share equally in the right to own and enjoy their property.
Measure A will assure that the protection of property rights will be an ordinance of the City
of Grand Terrace and the permanent policy of future Boards of Supervisors.
We ask you to vote Yes on Measure
Sample Ballot Statement:
Shall the ordinance prohibiting the City of Grand Terrace from exercising the power of
eminent domain to acquire property from a private owner, without that owner's consent,
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 5
when the purpose of the acquisition is to convey the property to another private party, be
adopted?
Chairman Ferr6 returned discussion to the Council.
Agency Member Garcia, stated that if she heard the City Manager correctly, if the Agency
does not adopt this Ordinance it is not going to harm anything other than what the State
directed us to do not doing.
City Attorney Harper, responded that there is a potential of creating difficulty should the
Agency ever choose to exercise the power of eminent domain. He strongly suggested that
the Agency comply with the Statute.
Agency Member Garcia, questioned what about the suggestions of refinement.
City Attorney Harper, responded that the Agency does not have the legal ability to refine it
All this is, is a restatement of what our redevelopment plan says. We would have to amend
the redevelopment plan and there are specific statutory procedures to go through to amend
it. The legislature told every Redevelopment Agency that they want them to adopt an
Ordinance setting forth what the Redevelopment Plan says.
Agency Member Garcia, felt that there was a consensus of the Council that they don't want
to go down the road of eminent domain and has serious concerns. She indicated that
philosophically she is against the use of eminent domain.
CRA-2007-21 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY AGENCY
MEMBER CORTES,carried 4-1-0-0(VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA VOTED NO),
to approve the first reading of an Ordinance of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Containing A Description of the Agency's
Program to Acquire Real Property by Eminent Domain
Chairman Ferr6 adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:30 p.m., until the
next CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, August 28, 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
CRA ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CONTAINING A DESCRIPTION
OF THE AGENCY'S PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY
EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. dated September 27, 1979, the
L Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Grand Terrace (the "Project") was adopted pursuant to procedures codified within the
California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL; Health and Safety Code Section
33000 of seq.); and
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
("Agency") has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to carry out the
functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of
California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33342.7 of the Health and Safety Code, which was added
by Senate Bill 53, which took effect on January 1,-2007, requires the legislative body
which adopted a redevelopment plan containing eminent domain authority before
January 1, 2007, adopt an ordinance containing a description of the Agency's program
to acquire real property by eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Agency is authorized to use .the power of eminent domain to
acquire real property within the Project, excluding all owner-occupied residentially
zoned properties.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section
33367(d)(6), the Agency hereby finds that the adopted Redevelopment Plan requires
the use of eminent domain.
SECTION 3. The Agency Secretary is hereby directed to send a certified copy of
this Ordinance to the California Redevelopment Association.
SECTION 4. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and
this Agency hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance
if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Grand Terrace at a regular meeting held on 2007.
CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. Z
1
Ordinance No.
Page 2
July 23, 2007
Chairperson, Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Grand Terrace.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Grand Terrace
I, Brenda Mesa, Secretary to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Grand Terrace do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a
regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on and
thereafter at a regular meeting of said Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Grand Terrace, California, duly held on 2007, when it was duly
passed and adopted by the following vote of the Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Grand Terrace.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, California,
on , 2007.
Secretary, Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Grand Terrace, California.
Check Register Dated ,'--rust 28, 2007
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60052 8/9/2007 010764 SAFEGUARD DENTAL&VISION August, 2007 AUGUST DENTAL/VISION INSURANCE
10-022-61-00 390.62
Total : 390.62
60053 8/10/2007 010200 INLAND PARTY RENTALS GTO8012007 Chairs/Tables-Concert in park 2007
23-200-63-00 18163
Total : 181.63
60054 8/10/2007 010533 RIVERSIDE CONCERT BAND 2007-3 2007 Concert in the park fee
23-200-63-00 600.00
Total : 600.00
60055 8/13/2007 005702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PRend 0810200 CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PR END 8-10-07
10-022-62-00 19,068.54
Total : 19,068.54
60056 8/21/2007 007400 U S. BANK TRUST N.A. 07/08-78669400 FY 07/08 Refunding TAB-2004 series
33-300-208-001-000 1,535,000.00
33-300-208-000-000 131,224.65
Total : 1,666,224.65
60057 8/28/2007 001024 ACCENT PRINT& DESIGN 252457 SR. NEWSLETTER PRINTING SERVICES
10-805-222-000-000 77.58
Total : 77.58
60058 8/28/2007 001040 ADDINGTON, MATTHEW AUGUST August Commission Stipend
10-801-120-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
60059 8/28/2007 010063 BALLOON TEAM PROMOTIONS 081007 Concert in the park decor
23-200-63-00 43100
Total : 431.00
60060 8/28/2007 001488 BUCHANAN, DAN AUGUST August Stipend/Auto Allowance
32-200-120-000-000 150.00
10-110-120-000-000 250.00
10-110-273-000-000 200.00
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. ::�jd Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
08122/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60060 8/28/2007 001488 BUCHANAN, DAN (Continued) Total : 600.00
60061 8/28/2007 001683 CA. STATE DEPT OF CONSERVATION 4th Qtr April-June 2007 SMIP Fees
23-200-21-00 711.36
APRIL-JUN April-June SMIP Fees Credit
10-700-01 -35.57
Total : 675.79
60062 8/28/2007 001739 CENTRAL CITY SIGN SERVICE 31888 Misc Street Signange
16-900-220-000-000 102.36
Total : 102.36
60063 8/28/2007 010726 CHAMBERS GROUP INC. 22394 EIR FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
10-370-250-000-000 5,410.80
Total : 5,410.80
60064 8/28/2007 010218 CHEVRON &TEXACO CARD SERVICES 7898191957708 City Maint. Vehicle Fuel Charges
10-180-272-000-000 1,087.47
34-800-272-000-000 56.96
16-900-254-000-000 74.78
Total : 1,219.21
60065 8/28/2007 001810 CITY NEWSPAPER GROUP 1784 JULY BURRTEC ADS
10-180-230-000-000 5,185.00
2016 LEGAL ADVERTISING
10-125-230-000-000 854.70
2054 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES-
10-370-230-000-000 174.83
2069 LEGAL ADVERTISING
10-125-230-000-000 58.28
2070 LEGAL ADVERTISING
10-125-230-000-000 58.28
Total : 6,331.09
60066 8/28/2007 001840 CITY OF COLTON 000734 AERIAL PHOTOS
10-370-707-000-000 7,500.00
Total : 7,500.00
` ,J Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60067 8/28/2007 010702 CITY OF YUCAIPA 1834 August Perchlorate Litigation Fees
10-160-250-000-000 2,051.33
1844 Perchlorate Fees-Svc/Materials
10-160-250-000-000 1,341.78
Total : 3,393.11
60068 8/28/2007 001867 COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 151176 PARK SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 533.13
151318 PARK SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 323.81
Total : 856.94
60069 8/28/2007 010086 COMSTOCK, TOM AUGUST August Commission Stipend
10-801-120-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
60070 8/28/2007 010147 CORTES, BEA 08162007 League of CA Cities Conference fees
10-110-270-000-000 100.00
AUGUST August Stipend/Auto Allowance
32-200-120-000-000 150.00
10-110-120-000-000 205.92
10-110-273-000-000 200.00
Total : 655.92
60071 8/28/2007 001907 COSTCO#478 1848 C. CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-228-000-000 145.88
10-440-220-000-000 48.62
1864 CONCERT IN THE PARK SUPPLIES
10-180-220-000-000 87.88
Total : 282.38
60072 8/28/2007 010745 D& E ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS 83 Civic Ctr Generator Maint/Repair
10-180-246-000-000 495.00
Total : 495.00
60073 8/28/2007 001950 DATA QUICK BI-1062918 July Subscription Service
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
08122/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60073 8/28/2007 001950 DATA QUICK (Continued)
21-572-246-000-000 43.17
34-800-220-000-000 43.17
10-380-250-000-000 43.16
Total : 129.50
60074 8/28/2007 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 008969/634492E MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 10.83
016261/804245z MAINT SUPPLIES
10-180-246-000-000 14.46
Total : 25.29
60075 8/28/2007 002165 DRUG ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM 6978 WEED CONTROL AT PARKS
10-450-245-000-000 50000
Total : 500.00
60076 8/28/2007 002187 DUNN-EDWARDS CORP. 00180280236 PAINT&SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 44.22
Total : 44.22
60077 8/28/2007 002301 FEDEX 2-197-36543 misc delivery charges/public wks
10-175-210-000-000 52.10
Total : 52.10
60078 8/28/2007 002450 FERRE', MARYETTA AUGUST August Council Stipend
32-200-120-000-000 150.00
10-110-120-000-000 250.00
Total : 400.00
60079 8/28/2007 010796 FLOWERS, ROSE D. 08072007 Rental Inspection Refund
10-400-08 95.00
Total.: 95.00
60080 8/28/2007 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 32089459 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-246-000-000 52.14
32089706 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-246-000-000 41.22
1 V 1 Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60080 8/28/2007 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY (Continued)
32089831 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-246-000-000 23.51
431729R3 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 176.82
432593R3 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 33.29
Total : 326.98
60081 8/28/2007 002901 G.T. AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4658-DUES 07/08 Membership dues
10-190-265-000-000 200.00
4687-AD CITY MO. CONTRIB. FOR JOINT NEWSLTR
10-125-213-000-000 62000
Total : 820.00
60082 8/28/2007 002795 GARCIA, LEE ANN AUGUST August Council Stipend
32-200-120-000-000 15000
10-110-120-000-000 131.26
Total : 281.26
60083 8/28/2007 010153 GCS WESTERN POWER& EQUIPMENT X74713 STREET SWEEPER MAINT
16-900-254-000-000 63.88
Total : 63.88
60084 8/28/2007 010181 GOPHER PATROL 137928 GOPHER CONTROL FOR PARKS
10-450-245-000-000 465.00
Total : 465.00
60085 8/28/2007 003152 HARPER & BURNS LLPN 08012007 August Legal Services
10-160-250-000-000 12,306.19
Total : 12,306.19
60086 8/28/2007 010793 HAYNES, JAMES T. 08092007 Building Permit Deposit Refund
10-400-03 33.00
Total : 33.00
60087 8/28/2007 010795 HERNANDEZ, RUBEN 08032007 Rental Inspection Refund
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60087 8/28/2007 010795 HERNANDEZ, RUBEN (Continued)
10-400-08 94.00
Total : 94.00
60088 8/28/2007 010632 HIGH TECH SECURITY SYSTEMS 75949 SEC. CAMERA MAINTENANCE
10-180-246-000-000 25.00
10-450-246-000-000 40.00
76453 SEC. CAMERA MAINTENANCE
10-180-246-000-000 2500
10-450-246-000-000 40.00
76810 FURNISH/INSTALL 3 CITY HALL SECURITY
10-180-247-000-000 3,858.48
77225 FURNISH/INSTALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CAMER
10-180-247-000-000 1,498.00
Total : 5,486.48
60089 8/28/2007 003200 HILKEY, HERMAN 081307 06/07 Life Insurance Premium
10-110-142-000-000 1,800.00
Total : 1,800.00
60090 8/28/2007 003216 HOUSTON & HARRIS PCS, INC. 07-13862 SEWER MAINT/HYDROWASHING-
21-573-602-000-000 1,125.00
Total : 1,125.00
60091 8/28/2007 003224 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS INC. 05076176-00 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 72.14
05097593-00 MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 7.06
05117641-00 MAINT SUPPLIES
10450-245-000-000 284.16
Total : 363.36
60092 8/28/2007 010779 IMAD'S DECORATING CENTER 07052007 6 PLAY RUGS
10-440-219-000-000 1,190.00
Total : 1,190.00
60093 8/28/2007 003490 INMARKNICTOR 100949 NAME BADGES/SIGNS
1 Page: 6
Cl
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
08122/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60093 8/28/2007 003490 INMARK/VICTOR (Continued)
10-120-210-000-000 30.94
Total : 30.94
60094 8/28/2007 003800 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC 44927 INTERNET WEBSITE HOSTING
10-180-255-000-000 75.00
Total : 75.00
60095 8/28/2007 003850 JANI-KING LAX08070051 C. CARE DAILY CLEANING (INCL CARPETS)-
10-440-244-000-000 815.00
LAX08071539 C. CARE DAILY CLEANING (INCL CARPETS)-
10-440-244-000-000 100.00
Total : 915.00
60096 8/28/2007 003867 K. D. SALES 169618 PLUMBING SUPPLIES
10-440-245-000-000 108.72
Total : 108.72
60097 8/28/2007 010290 KAISER PERMANENTE AUGUST HEALTH INS-LEEANN GARCIA
10-110-142-000-000 310.26
10-110-120-000-000 118.74
Total : 429.00
60098 8/28/2007 010773 KELLAR SWEEPING INC. 3013 LABOR/PARTS FOR SWEEPER REPAIR
16-900-254-000-000 1,427.00
Total : 1,427.00
60099 8/28/2007 004320 LAWNMOWER CENTER 6145 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
10-180-246-000-000 16.15
Total : 16.15
60100 8/28/2007 004350 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, INLAN107232007 FY 07/08 Membership Dues
10-190-265-000-000 600.00
Total : 600.00
60101 8/28/2007 010690 LSA ASSOCIATES INC. 79732 CONSULTING SRVS-BURROWING OWL ASSESS[
34-500-726-000-000 2,569.90
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60101 8/28/2007 010690 LSA ASSOCIATES INC. (Continued) Total : 2,569.90
60102 8/28/2007 010798 MCGUIRE, KIMBERLY 071007 Swim lessons refund
10-430-30 60.00
Total : 60.00
60103 8/28/2007 010792 MCKINNEY, MEGAN 08062007 Child Care Drop refund-M. Romaine
10-440-28 137.92
Total : 137.92
60104 8/28/2007 010611 MCNABOE, DARCY AUGUST August Commission Stipend
10-801-120-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
60105 8/28/2007 010446 MILLER, JIM AUGUST August Stipend/Auto Allowance
32-200-120-000-000 150.00
10-110-120-000-000 250.00
10-110-273-000-000 200.00
Total : 600.00
60106 8/28/2007 001456 OFFICE MAX-A BOISE COMPANY 035669 Misc Office Supplies-City Mngrs Dept
10-120-210-000-000 166.81
312779 Misc Office Supplies-City Mngrs Dept
10-120-210-000-000 33.91
322745 Misc Office Supplies-City Mgrs. Dept
10-120-210-000-000 28.32
Total : 229.04
60107 8/28/2007 005586 PETTY CASH 08202007 Petty Cash Replenishment-Child Care
10-440-220-000-000 9.13
10-440-223-000-000 85.15
10-440-228-000-000 56.24
Total : 150.52
60108 8/28/2007 010663 PHELPS, BRIAN AUGUST August Commission Stipend
10-801-120-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
�, Page: 8
_/
vchlist Voucher List Page: 9
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60109 8/28/2007 005673 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 33629709-001 EQUIPMENT RENTAL &SUPPLIES
10-180-240-000-000 217.66
Total : 217.66
60110 8/28/2007 010171 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 707111 July Non-contract Maintenance
16-510-255-000-000 532.57
707112 MO. SIGNAL MAINT& REPAIRS
16-510-255-000-000 376.40
Total : 908.97
60111 8/28/2007 006285 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO 08022007 Jun-Aug Utility Charges
10-190-238-000-000 63503
10440-238-000-000 87.98
10-450-238-000-000 6,872.29
10-805-238-000-000 91.29
26-600-239-000-000 230.72
26-601-239-000-000 71.54
34-500-724-000-000 49.20
34-700-709-000-000 9.08
34-700-710-000-000 9.08
34-700-767-000-000 9.08
Total : 8,065.29
60112 8/28/2007 006310 ROADRUNNER STORAGE 5963 September storage fees
10-140-241-000-000 94.00
34-500-726-000-000 134.00
Total : 228.00
60113 8/28/2007 010249 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY ET AL 21987 FY 07-08 FINANCIAUCOMPLIANCE AUDITS
10-140-250-000-000 961.64
32-200-250-000-000 123.29
34400-251-000-000 250.69
33-300-250-000-000 164.38
Total : 1,500.00
60114 8/28/2007 006335 ROQUET PAVING INC. 0801-07 REPAIRS ROSEDALE N/O PALM
16-900-260-000-000 15,978.00
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List Page: 10
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60114 8/28/2001 006335 ROQUET PAVING INC. (Continued) Total : 15,978.00
60115 8/28/2007 006341 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. 0019963 FY 07-08 TAX INCREMENT, PASS THROUGH,
34-400-251-000-000 550.00
0019964 FY 07-08 TAX INCREMENT, PASS THROUGH,
34-400-251-000-000 445.20
Total : 995.20
60116 8/28/2007 010794 RUIZ, DEBRA 072007 Employee Gym key deposit refund
23-301-76-00 10.00
Total : 10.00
60117 8/28/2007 006557 S B. COUNTY DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS FCO24/08 NPDES FLOOD AGREEMENT
12-903-701-000-000 2,959.00
Total : 2,959.00
60118 8/28/2007 006531 S.B. COUNTY SHERIFF 7630 LAW ENF. SERVICES
10-410-255-000-000 3,778.51
10-410-256-000-000 118,749.10
14-411-256-000-000 21,690.39
7630A LAW ENF. SERVICES
14-411-256-000-000 17,607.00
7647 4th Qtr 06/07 Overtime Chgs
10-410-250-000-000 3,623.43
10-410-256-000-000 557.61
Total : 166,006.04
60119 8/28/2007 006506 S.B. FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT 2007-000595 Weed Abatement-22627 GT Ave.
10-190-257-000-000 92.00
Total : 92.00
60120 8/28/2007 010797 SHAW, ROSE 1395 Spay/Neuter Dog License Refund
10-200-15 25.00
Total : 25.00
60121 8/28/2007 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY 2011959749-JUI July Utility Charges
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60121 8/28/2007 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY (Continued)
16-510-238-000-000 4,619.90
26-600-238-000-000 49.80
26-601-238-000-000 41.50
26-602-238-000-000 58.10
Total : 4,769.30
60122 8/28/2007 006730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY 08082007 July Utility Charges
10-440-238-000-000 36.40
10-190-238-000-000 272.45
17699860825-JL July CNG Fuel Charges
34-800-272-000-000 12.49
10-180-272-000-000 37.47
10-440-272-000-000 12.49
Total : 371.30
60123 8/28/2007 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 1557656011 Credit Memo-Misc Office Supplies
10-140-210-000-000 -34.44
1557656012 Misc. Office Supplies-Finance Dept
10-140-210-000-000 130.85
1557656021 Misc Office Supplies Return
10-140-210-000-000 -103.31
1651514002 OFFICE SUPPLIES
10-180-210-000-000 67.07
3130773018 Misc. Office Supplies-Public Works
34-400-210-000-000 189.62
313142-5555A Misc Office Supplies- Return/Refund
10-140-210-000-000 -32.31
7469080011 Misc Office Supplies Refund-Finance
10-140-210-000-000 -94.71
7680542001 OFFICE SUPPLIES
10-180-210-000-000 43762
7937274012 Misc Office Supplies Credit-Comm Svcs
10-180-210-000-000 -79.71
9174944429 OFFICE SUPPLIES
10-185-210-000-000 61.38
Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60123 8/28/2007 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN (Continued)
9174957594 Misc Office Supplies
10-140-210-000-000 2.84
10-190-212-000-000 2.84
Total : 547.74
60124 8/28/2007 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 1615029 Credit Memo-Return Items-Child Care
10-440-220-000-000 -101.90
708010318 C. CARE FOOD &SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 117.86
708010319 C. CARE FOOD&SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 660.70
708080323 C. CARE FOOD &SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 56.52
708080324 C. CARE FOOD&SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 595.61
Total : 1,328.79
60125 8/28/2007 010590 TERRA LOMA REAL ESTATE 080907 21974 DeBerry Maint/repairs
34-400-04 636.60
Total : 636.60
60126 8/28/2007 010586 THE JAMIESON GROUP 2007.96 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10-370-255-000-000 4,300.00
Total : 4,300.00
60127 8/28/2007 010592 THE SUN 4272600036 Employment Ad-GT Child Care
10-120-230-000-000 352.55
Total : 352.55
60128 8/28/2007 007034 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 671 TRAF. ENGINEERING &CONSULTING SRVS
10-180-255-000-000 1,581.50
692 July Consulting Services
10-370-255-000-000 300.00
Total : 1,881.50
60129 8/28/2007 010750 URBAN CROSSROADS INC. 17299 GEN. PLAN CIRC. ELEMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
Page: 12
vchlist Voucher List Page: 13
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
60129 8/28/2007 010750 URBAN CROSSROADS INC. (Continued)
10-370-255-000-000 3,553.75
Total : 3,553.75
60130 8/28/2007 007539 VALLEY TIRE COMPANY 84014 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
10-180-272-000-000 20.00
Total : 20.00
60131 8/28/2007 007843 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 48135 TREE REMOVAL/TRIMMING-
16-900-260-000-000 2,358.00
48264 TREE REMOVAL/TRIMMING-
16-900-260-000-000 1,332.00
Total : 3,690.00
60132 8/28/2007 007854 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS CO 333198 July Extermination Services
10-180-245-000-000 86.50
10-440-245-000-000 204.00
10-805-245-000-000 33.00
34-400-246-000-000 38.50
Total : 362.00
60133 8/28/2007 007925 WILSON, DOUG AUGUST August Commission Stipend
10-801-120-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
60134 8/28/2007 007984 YOSEMITE WATERS 18327-JULY July Water Service
10-805-238-000-000 31.00
10-190-238-000-000 241.50
34-400-238-000-000 7.20
10-440-238-000-000 98.00
Total : 377.70
595903 8/16/2007 007400 U. S. BANK TRUST N.A. AUGUST 1997 COP LEASE PAYMENT
33-300-206-000-000 20,896.20
Total : 20,896.20
84 Vouchers for bank code: bofa Bank total : 1,987,769.66
Page: 13
r
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
08/22/2007 2:19:59PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
84 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,987,769.66
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.
L ry Ronnow, Finance Director
Page: 14
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PEWW CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 14 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 August
- . 14, 2007, at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferr6, Mayor
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern
Bea Cortes, Councilmember
Jim Miller, Councilmember
Dan Buchanan, Councilmember
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Richard Shields, Building& Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department
ABSENT: Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
- Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Pastor Rick Doucette,Calvary,The Brook
Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Dan Buchanan.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduce Sheriff's Department Deputies
Captain Tanguay, San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department, introduced two more
Deputies that have been assigned to the City of Grand Terrace. Both of the Deputies have
been in the City of Grand Terrace for at least a year and a half. She introduced Deputy
Michael Delo and Deputy Mark Addy.
B. Commendation- Laurie Shearer
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia read a commendation to outgoing Library Manager Laurie Shearer
for her dedication to the City of Grand Terrace and presented it to her. She also presented
her with a Blue Mountain Pin.
Laurie Shearer, stated that she could never forget anyone. This has been an amazing 14
years.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. C/
Council Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 2
Mayor Ferr6, indicated that she can remember Laurie long before she was on the City
Council. Every spring time,Laurie would come to Terrace View Elementary School,where
she was the Principal, and make arrangements to visit the classrooms to talk about the
summer reading program. She knows that Laurie is a librarian that goes far beyond what her
job description states and the schools really appreciated that. Rialto is lucky and Grand _
Terrace will miss you. She wished her good luck.
Councilmember Cortes,indicated that she remembers Laurie from the first year that she was
elected to the Council. When she went into the library there was a jar of pennies that said
kiss the cow. She was trying to raise $5,000.00 in one year for a reading program. She
decided that she would try and help her so together they raise $3,000.00. It was fun and
exciting. She thanked Laurie.
Councilmember Miller, stated that the community is going to miss her. He hopes the best
for her and knows that she will do a great job in Rialto. He thanked her again for all of her
service.
Councilmember Buchanan,stated that she came to town the same year he got on the Council
initially. He very much value the experience that they have had over the years. She was a r,
great friend and librarian to him and his family. Our loss is Rialto's gain. He feels that she
deserves every accolade that she has heard and that she has been a tremendous asset to the
community. We will all miss you. He thanked,her for all that she has done for Grand
Terrace.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2007-73 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO
TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items:
3A. Approve Check Register Dated August 14, 2007
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 07-24-2007 Minutes
PUBLIC COMMENT
Richard Slater,22765 Raven Way,stated that he and his wife are concerned about the article
in the Grand Terrace City News concerning the High School. They would like to find out
any information that they can regarding the status of the high school and is it going to be
moved. He questioned if the City will be doing something to keep it in Grand Terrace.
Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, stated that she knows that City Attorney Harper is
here to advise the Council but she would also like to see him advise them on how they can
Council Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 3
implement rules and regulations in whatever documents we need to in order to manage our
City the way they want to. She knows that they can decide that the RDA is abusive not
serving the needs of our community and get rid of it. It's odd to her that they are treating the
RDA as a separate Agency and yet all the money is mingled and transferred back and forth
as well as property being transferred back and forth between the two. It blurs the line and
r it's hard for her to believe that the City can't do something to control how things are
managed. She would really like to see, something stating from Grand Terrace in the
regulations how eminent domain is used or what the expectations are. She feels that if we
can't control the RDA we need to get rid of it. She stated that when she goes to the Planning
Commission Meetings they talk about re-zoning areas,which are residential,they arbitrarily
change the zones to suit the needs of the City. She feels that we have to get in control and
treat people fairly. She stated that Assistant City Manager is encouraging a movie studio to
use a vacated power plant. She is concerned about the liability if there were explosions,
giving the hazardous materials that are there and feels that it really needs to be looked into.
Jeffrey McConnell, Walnut Avenue, stated that he was at a Chamber Mixer at Beauty Ahh
La Cart and was approached by a lady with a genius idea and he told her he would pass it
along. Her idea was to make Blue Mountain Blue again. Since the popular belief is that it
is blue because of the Blue Lupine flower,she heard of away to reseed an area as big as blue
mountain. It would include members volunteer groups. They made mud balls, roll them
around in Blue Lupine seeds and hike all over the mountain and throw them as far as they
can just before the rainy season. They hit the ground and explode the rainy season comes and
the seeds sprout.
City anager Tom Schwab, stated that he met immediately after the meeting at the CJUSD
where they had made comments about potentially moving the high school to Bloomington.
He met with the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent of Business and talked to
them about whether they thought the District was serious about doing that. They felt that if
there was a way that they could build the school and get it done sooner than at the current site
in Grand Terrace they thought the Board would seriously consider it. They talked about the
Bloomington site. The Bloomington site that they currently own is 27 acres. They are 20
acres short of enough land to build a high school. He inquired about when they initially
bought those 27 acres if they tried to acquire any other land around it. They indicated that
they did and that the owners of the additional land that they needed were not willing sellers.
They don't really have a site that they can start on immediately. The other issue that was
talked about was if they move the high school site,they currently have an approved EIR for
their project, they would need to start the EIR project from scratch. In addition, they
currently have state approval for the building of the school on its existing site and they would
have to start that process all over again. He feels that realistically, they have asked to have
a consultant look at their options and advise the Board on what to do. It is his opinion that
he doesn't see them coming up with any other conclusion than to maintain the current
location. They are frustrated that the land that they are acquiring from the Thomson Trust
Council Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 4
currently has a tenant on it,Inland Timber,who has a lease. They are negotiating with them
through their attorney with a relocation consultant to move them to a site in San Bernardino.
They are-in that process right now and they think it's possible that it could take up to 18
months before they can make that relocation possible. He encouraged them to work with the
relocation consultant to try and work out a deal to try and get them to move sooner. He also
indicated to them that the City of Grand Terrace would help in any way. He knows people
in the City of San Bernardino and is willing to talk to them. He has already talked to the City
Manager and a Councilmember. The big issue is striking a deal and negotiating. He feels
that the City of Grand Terrace has done well over and above what most cities would do. We
have worked very closely with the school district. We sold 23 acres of land to the school
district. A 38 inch water line needed to be relocated and the City did the project. He doesn't
know how much more the City can do. He has been told by their staff that they have
invested 25 million dollars in the project. He believes that walking away from that site they
stand to lose 12 to 15 million dollars. Staff will work as closely as they can with the school
district to make sure that it won't happen but ultimately the decision and authority to build
the school rests with the'school district and the board. He read that a meeting will be held
on Thursday at 5:30 p.m. and Kent Taylor is asking for Grand Terrace residents to get
involved. Staff will closely monitor that issue. In regards to the Redevelopment Agency,
if you want to look at any of the audits, there is no commingling of the cash. All of the
Redevelopment Agency and General Fund accounts are accounted for separately. Money is
spent on Redevelopment items from the Redevelopment Budget and the same with the
General Fund. Mr. Johnson, the attorney that sued on the Miguel's project made that
statement but apparently the judge didn't agree with him because he lost that law suit. It
would be up to AES to contract with anyone to possibly do some filming at their facility.
The liability issues would be worked out between AES and the filming studio and I am sure
before any contract will be entered into AES would get a substantial insurance policy holding
them harmless from any damage or injuries that might happen there.
REPORTS
5A. Committee Reports
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of June 4, 2007
CC-2007-74 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the June 4, 2007 Minutes of the Emergency
Operations Committee.
5B. Council Reports
Mayor Ferre, reported that she attended the Summer Concert in the Park. Many thanks to
Council Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 5
Assistant City Manager Steve Berry and his staff,it was a great evening and a great tradition.
She has some comments regarding the high school and these are her comments and has
thought long and hard about making them. In September of 2001 the voters in the Colton
School District passed Bond Measure B to fund the construction of new schools and the
renovation of existing schools. The voters of Grand Terrace were called upon by the School
District to pass this large bond measure in order to fund a long promised high school in
Grand Terrace. As a former member of the Board Oversight Committee she attended
meetings where the School District gave progress reports on the plans for the new facilities
identified in Measure B. When her three year tern on the oversight committee ended the
District was still moving forward. The Grand Terrace City Council was also called upon by
the school district to enter into an agreement for the sale of 23 acres of land at$2.90 a foot,
considerably lower than any other of the district's acquired property. The City also entered
into an agreement with the School District as was mentioned earlier, to move the City of
Riverside's 38-inch water transmission pipe, which ran directly underneath the proposed
classroom buildings. The GrandTerrace City Staff managed and completed the construction
schedules as promised and paid 60%of the cost and the District paid 40%. The total project
cost was 1.4 million dollars. A large sign announcing the future facility has been placed on
the site by the school district and remains there to this day. It was therefor very disturbing
to learn recently that the School District has been thinking about backing out entirely from
its commitment to build a high school. It has recently been reported that the School District
has not only fallen way behind schedule on the high school but it has failed to complete
construction on any new facility that was supposed to be funded with the Measure money.
The School District should face up to its problems and press forward on the commitments
it has made to the student and the voters. Instead,there has evidently been some talk of the
School District throwing up its hands and abandoning the high school project in Grand
Terrace. She calls upon her fellow residents of Grand Terrace to make their voices heard.
The School District should not be allowed to simply walk away from its commitment from
the families of Grand Terrace and as a matter of fact all of the families in the school district
who stepped up to the plate to pass Measure B. She is shocked that the School District
would even consider backing out of its commitment to the students of Grand Terrace. The
City has done everything the District has asked it to do to make the high school a reality.
This is not a matter of the School District deciding whether to start the project this project
is well underway to the tune of 25 million dollars. It makes no sense for the District to back
out of its commitment after spending so much money and time. This is the time for the
School District to turn its attention to the needs of Grand Terrace families whose patience
is running out. She is making these comments as a former educator in the Colton School
District and in her personal capacity as the Mayor of Grand Terrace. In her opinion if the
School District walks away from this project it will be walking away from the children of
Grand Terrace and those students attending Colton High. '
Mayor Pro Tem Garcia,thanked the Mayor for her comments and concur with her statements
having been one of those parents who worked on Kids First. To hear how we are down the
Council Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 6
line and the dollars that have been spent and the possibility of walking away, disturbs her
considerably. She feels that it is time as a community to step up once again and attend the
school board meeting on August 161h at 5:30 and let our voices be heard. This is a promise
that was made back in 2001. In light of that we have had, in the past, several joint meetings
between the school district and the Council. The last meeting that was held was in February
9, 2006. At that time it was talked about having meetings annually. We are 6 months
overdue and asked Staff to work on scheduling a meeting with the school district to discuss
this very important issue the end of September or at the latest the first part of October of this
year.
Mayor Ferr6 indicated that she would like to have a definite agenda because at the July 11`h
meeting Grand Terrace was accused on some things that were not accurate. She wants to
make sure that the agenda stays exactly what it is that will be discussed. She is very much
in favor of working with the School District to make this happen.
Mayor Pro Tern Garcia, indicated that she would like the agenda to be approved by the
Mayor and the City Manager as well as their Board. She reported that she went on the tour
when the film scouts came and toured AES. One of her questions was how does the liability
work. There are millions of dollars in liability but what it doesn't negate if there is an
explosion, the safety of the residents. She would like staff to look into that and see if there
is any way to place restrictions. There was a SCAG earthquake conference. Grand Terrace
had several CERT members representing. Dr.Lucy Jones stated,an earthquake is inevitable
a disaster is not. It is up to all of us to be prepared for a disaster. If we plan accordingly we
can be prepared. She thanked Julie Ferran for the wonderful article that she did on Laurie
Shearer. She stated that in the past she worked with Bee Watson and that she got a
wonderful life lesson from her.
Councilmember Cortes, reported that the SANBAG meeting began with a closed session.
The closed session took so long the workshop was canceled. The Leader of SANBAG,Tony
Grausso has left and a few other of the Department Heads as well but she is not at liberty to
discuss it because it was in closed session. At the League Conference she spoke to
Councilman Brinker,who use to sit on the CJUSD Board,regarding the school and what he
can do to help. He indicated that he was going to be meeting with City Manager Schwab to
see what they can do to help get the school moving. She feels that it is a good idea to meet
with Board. Grand Terrace is doing their best to make the high school happen. She likes the
idea of making Blue Mountain blue again. Sharon Lunstrum cuts off her hair and donates
it to children with cancer. She wished City Manager Schwab a Happy 50`h Birthday.
Councilmember Miller, agrees with the Mayor's comments regarding the School District.
He feels that we should move forward with the meeting with the Board and get to the bottom
of things. He spoke to Kent Taylor and he mentioned that he would like to see more Grand
Terrace residents attend the meeting of the CJUSD Board. They will be discussing facilities
Council Minutes
August 14,2007
Page 7
management at the next board meeting. Graffiti is growing in Grand Terrace and isn't going
away. We need to have graffiti removed quickly. There is graffiti on the Grand Terrace City
sign as you come into Grand Terrace from Riverside and would like to see that removed as
soon as possible.
Councilmember Buchanan, in the years that he has been on the Council and the Planning
Commission prior to that, he is having trouble recalling any instance where the
Redevelopment Agency has exercised the power of eminent domain and taken property from
someone.
City Attorney Harper, stated that the Redevelopment Agency has never exercised its power
of eminent domain. He believes that the City may have once in acquiring a parcel for a
signal light at Mt. Vernon and Barton.
Councilmember Buchanan,feels that the power of eminent domain has existed forever. The
laws of eminent domain are very well established and its pretty easy if you want to come up
with an example or two of times that it has been used in a manner that you might disagree
with. That has never been the case in the City of Grand Terrace and can't imagine it ever
being a case in the City. He doesn't understand why people think that it is something that
has been abused or that the Redevelopment Agency is somehow out of control. He feels that
ultimately the responsibility of only using the power of eminent domain whether it be by the
City or taking for public purposes or by the Redevelopment Agency for the purposes of
redevelopment has to be exercised in a very cautious and careful and appropriate fashion.
He is not a big supporter of eminent domain but also doesn't think that it is really appropriate
to consider dismantling the opportunity to use it should the rare situation occur should it be
an appropriate method of taking care of a problem.
City Manager Schwab,announced that as of midnight last night the red camera light system
went live. The red light cameras are on and in accordance with state law for a period of 30
days the Sheriff's Department will be issuing warning tickets only. Midnight on September
14"the tickets will count. He stated that if your bumper breaks the limit line after the light
has already turned red you will get a ticket. The camera takes a still picture and will do a
video as well.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the cameras take care of east and west or are we only
looking at north and south.
City Manager Schwab, responded that we are only looking at north and south right now.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if it will ever be east and west as well.
City Manager Schwab,responded that initially when the Council approved this they wanted
Council Minutes
August 14, 2007
Page 8
to give two intersections a try. If Council wants to add to that at a later date we can do so.
PUBLIC HEARING
6A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,Adding Chapter 9.32
to the Municipal Code Relating to Regulation of Registered Sex Offenders
City Manager Schwab, stated that in an effort to better protect children and others from
sexual predators,a statewide ballot initiative,Proposition 83,known as"Jessica's Law,"was
approved by 70% of the voters in the November 7, 2006 General Election. California's
Jessica's Law includes several new and strengthened provisions to state law,including GPS
tracking or paroled sex offenders for life and new "predator-free,zones" for schools and
parks. In addition, Jessica's Law allows local governments to add additional areas for
increased protection. Approval of this Ordinance would add several provisions to the
Municipal Code,including prohibiting registered sex offenders convicted of a crime against
a child from residing within 2,000 feet,of a day care center and within one-half mile of a
school. In addition, the ordinance would create 300-foot "predator-free- zones" around
schools and parks where children are present. The County of San Bernardino has adopted
a similar Ordinance and is urging all the cities to do the same. The residency restrictions in
the ordinance are not retroactive. This law will allow stricter regulation of registered sex
offenders.
Mayor Ferre opened the Public Hearing for discussion there being none, she returned
discussion to the Council.
CC-2007-75 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the first reading of an Ordinance of the City
Council of the-City of Grand Terrace, Adding Chapter 9.32 to the Municipal Code
Relating to Regulation of Registered Sex Offenders
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7A. Second Reading of 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
CC-2007-76 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the Second Reading of
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
Council Minutes
August 14, 2007
Page 9
NEW BUSINESS
8A. Declare Richard Rollins Crime Prevention Committee Member Memorial
CC-2007-77 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
: . MILLER, CARRIED 5-0, to declare Richard Rollins Crime Prevention Committee
Member Memorial
8B. Adoption of Amended Integrated Waste Management Franchise Agreement as a
Result of Transfer(Burrtec Waste Industries)
CC-2007-78 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCHANAN, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the Amended Integrated
Waste Management Franchise Agreement as a Result of Transfer (Burrtec Waste
Industries)
CLOSED SESSION - None
Mayor Ferre adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which
is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECEIVED
CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting AUG Z .� 2007
MINUTES
July 9,2007 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
The Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee met for the regular meeting at the upstairs
Conference Room at City Hall. Meeting was called to order at 4:06 p.m. by Chairperson, Philomene
Spisak.
MEMBERS PRESENT were Chairperson, Philomene Spisak, Don Bennett, Pat Smith, Lew Neeb,
Marjorie Owens, JoAnn Johnson and Debra Hurst.
MEMBERS ABSENT—Dottie Raborn.
CITY STAFF/SHERIFF'S DEPT.—SSS, Amber Emon and Lt. Hector Guerra.
GUESTS PRESENT—Maryetta Ferre and Robert and Mary Ann Stewart.
INTRODUCTIONS - Were not necessary but Welcome Back Amber.
AGENDA was approved with motion by Don Bennett and second by Marjorie Owens.
MINUTES for the meeting of June 10, 2007 were approved with motion by Pat Smith and second
by Lew Neeb.
PUBLIC COMMENT
a. Bob Stewart would like to see a vacancy declared in Dottie Raborn's position, since she
has been unable to attend meetings for several months.
b. He also would like to see a replacement for Richard Rollins.
c. Philomene explained that action has been taken to replace Richard Rollins. An action
item has gone to City Council for tomorrow(July 10th)
d. She also explained that Dottie Rabom was placed on approved sick leave and that she
wanted to talk to her personally before she was removed from the Committee.
CORRESPONDENCE—None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Criminal Activities
a. Lt. Guerra reported that there had been a large number of promotions and that our
deputies had been reassigned and many are relatively new. However, we
now have two deputies who are doing an excellent job. One is on traffic and the
other one has made many arrests.
b. Many of those who were arrested were from out of town.
c. He also said that in the past we were fortunate to have a lot of community
participation in various committees, but that has diminished.
d. Perhaps a different approach is in order. For example, we might be able to try an
electronic format. We might provide information via the internet.
e. The 41h of July festivities resulted in two arrests but in general, things were really
quite quiet. Other cities also got the word out and that was in turn helpful to us.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.0A1 G
f. The usefulness and distribution of the crime reports was discussed at length.
g. The Citizen Patrol has a need to focus on areas to be watched while the Crime
Prevention Committee has a need to focus on areas where programs can be worked
on to prevent particular crimes.
B. Neighborhood Watch Program
a. Will begin working on Neighborhood Watch very soon.
C. Grand Terrace Days.
a. Really good turn out and very nice weather produced a very successful event.
NEW BUSINESS \,
A. Change of Meeting Location
a. Action item to go to Council tomorrow requesting the time and location change.
b. Meetings will move to Upstairs Conference Room at City Hall at 4 pm.
B. Crime Prevention Planning—Nothing new.
REPORTS
A. Summary of Law Enforcement Activity
a. Steve Berry and Barrie Owens have been taking pictures of graffiti.
b. Property owners must give permission before it can be painted out.
c. Painting Out may not be the best solution. The best solution is catching those who
do the graffiti.
d. There were five burglaries in the last week.
e. Two arrested for fire works charges.
B. Citizen Patrol Report—Bob Stewart
a. Citizen Patrol unit turned in for June 261 hours for a total of 1774 for the year.
b. Two units of Citizen Patrol were out on fire works patrol.
c. It was reported that Volunteering in general is down. Probably for a number of
reasons.
C. Other Community Programs
a. Debra Hurst reports that CERT classes will be held on July 14,21 and 28.
This is a 21 hour course and all three days must be attended.
b. Classes will be held in the Community Room at City Hall and will begin each
day at 8 am.
D. Member Reports
a. Lt. Guerra reported that the Sheriffs Department is sending a 2 man team to
Highland to participate in their Phoenix Operation.
b. Philomene wondered if we might be able to do some programs on security, and
especially at Grand Terrace Days next year.
ADJOURNMENT -7e being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20
P.
ecretary, J nn Johnson
COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:1:21-07
COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: CRIME PREVENTION
f DATE:LULY 23. 2007
PROBLEM:
DOTTIE RAEBURN,A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE CRIME PREVENTION
COMMITTEE,HAS BEEN ON SICK LEAVE APPROVED BY THIS COMMITTEE.
SHE HAS DECIDED SHE CANNOT RETURN AT THIS TIME AND HAS
REQUESTED THAT WE ACCEPT HER RESIGNATION.
ALTERNATIVES:
CONTINUE WITH THE VACANCY.
SOLUTION:
APPOINT MARJORIE OWENS TO THE REGULAR MEMBER VACANCY.
PROPOSED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF,
THE CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL
ACCEPT MARJORIE OWENS AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE CRIME
PREVENTION COMMITTEE AND THAT MAYOR MARYETTA FBRRE PREPARE
A LETTER TO MRS OWENS REGARDING THIS ACTION.
THEY RECOMMEND THAT MAYOR FERRE PREPARE A SECOND LETTER TO
MRS RAEBURN FOR HER LONG, DEDICATED SERVICE TO THIS
COMMUNITY.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.5q1 1,;;,
1
1
Community and Economic Development Department
i , I it
(ALIf0RNIA
STAFF REPORT
Cd
A CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: August 28, 2007
FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT:General Plan Amendment No.07-01,
Zone Change No. 07-01, 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,
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 Blue Mountain Senior Villas project was originally scheduled for a public hearing on July 24,
2007 before the City Council. Prior to the meeting, the staff received a five page letter with
numerous attachments from Mr. Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. of Johnson &Sedlack representing
"Citizens for Responsible and Open Government." In the letter Mr. Johnson made a series of
comments on the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for this project. A copy
of Mr. Johnson's letter has been included as Exhibit L and is attached here. The July 241 public
hearing was continued to August 28, 2007 in order to allow for a response to Mr.Johnson's letter.
Mr. Carl Winter of the environmental firm "LSA" prepared a detailed, nine page response to the
comments in Mr.Johnson's letter. ("LSA"is the firm that prepared the EIR for this project.) A copy
of this response as been included as Exhibit M and is attached here. (Please note that brackets
have been added to Mr. Johnson's letter as a key to the original comments and each individual
response.)
22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 a 909/ 824-6621
1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. biq
At the end of his response, Mr.Winter concluded that: "The issues identified by Mr. Johnson have
been adequately and appropriately addressed in the EIR. The responses to these comments
provide clarification of the previously reviewed environmental analysis and do not include new
information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR."
Mr. Winter's response has been has been mailed to Mr. Johnson by certified mail and also to all
other parties who had originally commented on the EIR. In addition, staff has included the
approximately 90 pages of attachments submitted with Mr. Johnson's letter. These attachments
have been bound together and labeled Exhibit N.
Please find included also the original package prepared for the July 241' public hearing including
the staff report on the project, exhibits and development plans. The only changes are the changes
to the dates in the proposed Ordinances for the Specific Plan and Zone Change and the Resolution
for the General Plan Amendment.
Recommendation:
Open the Public Hearing, receive the staff report and testimony, 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.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by:
Z
John Lampe G&y L. Koon
Associate Planner Community Development Director
GLK:JL:jl
Exhibits: Exhibit L- Letter from Johnson & Sedlack dated July 24, 2007
Exhibit M - Response to Comments from Johnson & Sedlack
Exhibit N - Attachments to Letter from Johnson & Sedlack dated July 24, 2007
c:\MyFiles\JOHMBluemtnseniorvillas\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\SP-07-01 counciirpt.supplemental
Johnson sed�aek
Arrox a COLA
RAMnond W.Johnson,Esq.AICP 26785 Camino Sera,Tomecuta CA 92890 Eaw r Rw igohnsr 11-sediaeit:,c®
Carl T.9edbok,Eaq..Redtvd www4ohnson-sedlack.com Abby0johnor n-sedlack.aota
Abtgatl A.Smedling,Esq, rdepltWW i tt1-606-9928
FbalWle 161-808.9725
r July 24,2007
City of Grand Terrace Grand Twaee Redevelopment Agency
22795 Batton Road 22795 Batton Road
Grand Terrace,,CA 92313 Grand Tcxrace,CA 92313
Visa FAA
ate:,Ann of Brae $soar Vf s SnWft Plan.
Greetings:
This firm reprawnts Citiaens for Responsible and Open Govenmment and submits these
comments on their behalf. As an initial proeedurat matter,at the time of the scoping
hearing for the project the Specific Plan had not been completed and was not available 1
for public review. This prevented meaningful comment on the ewhronmentat impacts c f
Om proposed project,
Specific Plan:
The Specific Plan"Amendment"is in fact a new specific plan. The original sped 1c ph 1t �2
was never legally adopted and had no legal status.
The Specific Plan identifies the mwdmam density of the project as twenty units par sent
This it,at bast,a a misrepresentation of the fiats, The project is actually being develop d
at a density of 40 units per acre- (120 units on 3.0 acres) The specific plan purpom to 3
allow density transfer from the entire site. This includes transfer of density ho area of
the site that are in fact developed,by a.5 acre senior center and pad*and a'26 acre
.patio
The specific plan development standards do not provide standards for the minimum site
of dwelling units. The sizes proposed are significantly smaller than allowed under the 4
Development Code.
The specific plats does not comply with the Government Code regnireme,nt for specific
plan content.
65451. (a)A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or 5
diagrams which specify all of the following in dc&il:
EXHIBIT L
R:%CGT06011Final EIR1Response to Commenls\LetterH(07-31-07)
(1)no distribution,location,and extent of the uses of land,
including open space,within the area covered by the plan.
(2)The proposed distribution,location,and atent and intensity
of ma*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.
(3)Standards and tcridkria by which development will proceed,and 5
standards for the conservation,development,and utilibition of
natural resources,where applicable.
(4)A program of implementation measures Including reguWans,
programs,public forks projects,and financing measures neceasaryto
carry out paragraphs(1),(2),and(3).
(b)The specific plan shall include a statement of the
relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.[emphasis added]
Ella:
no DEIR is both procedurally and substantively flawed. At the time that the OP was
released and available for public review and comment the Specific Plan had not been
completed and was not available for public review. The public was asked to provide
comments on the enviromnentol impacts of a project which had not yet been identified,-r 6
made available to the public. It was rather like asking the pubic to describe the impact..a
animal walking through their garden without letting them we the animal to deWnnine
whether it was an ant or an elephant.
Pmject-Desctiptioa:
The project description for the Dist does not include the creation of a new laced toe
category for the General Plan or the Creation of a new zoning classification for the
Development Code. Nor does the DER have any discussion of the caviro mental 7
impacts of the changes to the Glsneral Plan or Development code as a result of the
creation of mw General Plan land use categories and Zoning Districts. These changes
me not even identified as discretionary actions to be taken. Additionally,grading plans
and design review were identified as being ministerial duties,rather than discretionary 8
actions which they are.
Visual Impacts:
The discussion in the DEER does not identify that the proposed center will result in the
construction of a single continuous two story building well over 300 feet in length. This
structure~would totally eliminate any view for any of the five houses adjacent to the 9
project The DER notes that existing views are obstructed by existing fencing six feet i e
height This ignores the fact that be viewing height,the existing walls only eliminate
near low views and do nothing to obstruct distant views of the mountains.
Traffic:
The data provided to substanWtc the adequacy of parking is not reliable industry
standard data. The source for the data was the project applicant rather than accepted 10
industry standards. The List of Senior housing Parking Requirements from the CACitic
RACGT0601\Final EIR\Response to Comments\LetlerH(07-31.07)
w
website(Exhibit A)provides more accurate and unbiased data.(See Also parking 10
RQquinmcnts Guide for Affordable Housing Developers,Exhibit B) Additioc lly,the
statement that in any event,on-street parking is avaibble is contrary to the standards o
the General Plan. Additionally,the parking standards to not take into account
management and maintenance stag or the fact that the proposed project I not served b 11
transit or within wanting distance of shopping. The shared use of parking effectively
ignores the need for guest parking for the residential componem
The traffic data is also unsubstantiated. Observation of area rosidents makes it clear th-t
the waiting time at stop signs on Grand Terrace and Brentwood exceed level of service F. 12
The addition of over 30 vehicles during a.m.peak hours will fiuther exacerbate this
unsatisfactory level of service.
The cumulative traffic analysis also trivializes the impact of the project on seriously
ova-crowded roadways in the project area. Wile the project's impact may only contrite to
1%of the new cumulative traffic,the overall cumulative traffic must be considered. p).e
location is currently operating at an unacceptable level of service and in the fatoro ever
location identified operated at an unacceptable level of service in 2030.Because of the 13
severity cumulative traffic impacts,the question is will any amount of incremental trafi c
impact increase the severity of the cumulative impacts. In this case the answer is yea.
This is a particularly important question since the DE1R did not evaluate the trafFtc
impact of the proposed project.
Air Quality:
The air quality analysis is particularly bad. First of all the air quality analysis does not
consider or am mention the aspen of 22,577 cubic yards of material from the sita,
Additionally,while the MEWS analysis assumed mitigation for the on-road diesel 14
emissions,the DEhR did not require this mitigation.When the L'"RBEMIS analysis does
sot require this mitigation the NOx emissions arc in excess of to threshold of
significcance.
The mitigation measures do not require that the mitigation measures are actually �15
followed,merely that they are required in the construction documents.
Additionally,the equipment used on the site during construction is significantly less thg a
the standards provided is URBENIIS. T6c default values were modifted to reduce the 16
number and types of equipment used
The discussion regarding architectural coatings is particularly bad. The ualysis assume,
that by requiring that coatings comply with AQMD Rub 1113 that will adequately
mitigate the VOC emissions. There is nothing to support this conclusion. All
architectural coatings in California are required to comply with Rule 1113. The 17
1JRBEAGS model default values reflect this mquirement. The LWME O done for the
EI1t inexplicably reduces the emissions factor from the default value by 68% There is
rev basis for this reduction and no mitigation that would corrmpkmd to dtis reduction.
RACGT0601%Final EIR1Response to Comments\LetterH(07-31-07)
5
The model also only considers that a maximum of 1.5 acres per day will be disturbed.
This is inconsistent with the removal of up to 20 feet of toil from the eastern portion(F 18
the site ad the fact that the entire site was to be completely graded within 14 days.
Additionally,the URBEWS model assumed a maximum of 1 acre of asphalt paving }19
when the plans indicate that the amount of paved area exceeded 1.5 aamo.
Lad Use:
Ow of the thresholds of significance for land use impacts is whether it"was incompat ble
with existing laud use in tbevieihity." The DER dismissed this threshold without 20
support, The proposed project replaces a previously master planted five acre Susan Pt Its
Park In addition the proposal places 120 dwelling units in a single connected building
massing on 3 acres,a density of 40 units per acre. The structure exceeds 300 fret in 21
length immedia rdy adjacent to site n single family residential units at a density ofles I
than 5 units per am. The DER makes the unsupported claim that this density"would
not result in a condition that is inconsistent with the City's existing pattern of ecidentia.
aoni%" This is in spite of the fad that the highest deveiopmant allowed anywhere GIs 22 -
in the city is 12 units per acre, The DER does not consider the impact of this massing m
the adjacent low density residential properties. The pmjcd is inconsistent with the ver,
General Plan policies relied upon by the OEM
Noise:
The DEIR admits that there will be signifFiciat noise impacts during project eonstractim,
The DER simply stateds that because the noise and vibration are not permanent they art 23
not significant. There is no support in the DEM or the law for this contention.
Cumulative Impacts:
The discussion of cumulative impact is cursory at best. The discussion of the hydrolol,v
impacts does not comport with the law. The discussion trivializes the impact based
solely upon the:sites percentage of the entire wat"ed. Given the fact that for the
cumulative analysis for hydrology is based upon the entire basin,the DER needed to
consider all cumulative projects within the cadre basin,not just the city. As previously
discussed,traffic cumulative impacts were similarly improperly ttivislimd. The
cumulathiv noise impacts considers only the construction impacts and does not consider
the cumulative traffic noise due to cumulative projects. The cumulative analysis of land 24
use impacts totally ignores the changes to the General Man and Development Code that
wig allow development of other multi-family projects at over six times the presently
perntitted density. The cumulative air quality impacts discussion is laughable. In spite o
having sig uifuaut air quality.impacts,the analysis merely assumeeh that the AQMP
policies will bring the district into conformance by the year 2024. This blind Faith is
misplaced as the DER admits that previous AQMP's,while proposing to bring the
district into conformance,have failed to do so.
Findings:
RACGT0601\Final ElMResponse to Comments\LetterH(07-31-07)
G
TAc findings of'the ER am not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thea
findings include the significance of impacts as discussed above as Well as the findings 25
relative to alternatives and relative significance of environmental impacts and findia�
related to the adequacy,mrtainty and effectiveness of mitigation.
WCP:
r - The project does not include a Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance pmgraan.tbst
ctealy identifies the mitigation measures and provides legally certain eafamemenk 26
General Plan:
The Government Code requires that specific plans must be consistent with the eneral
Plan. The lacy bus establialted that General Plan consistcncy is impossible when.the
General Phu itself is internally inconsistent. The General Plan itself'is hopelessly
internally inconsistent,thus it is imposa11le for this apeeifrc plan to be consistent with t c.e 27
General man. Additionally,the changes to be made in the Geneml Plan►and the
Development Code are inconsistent with the requirements of the General plan. Rather
than reducing internal inconsistencies,this project increases General Plan internal
inconsistencies.
Johnson&3edlack
By.
Raysnord W.Johnson,Esq.AICP
RACGT0601\Final EIR1Response to CommentslLetlerH(07-31.07)
7
Response to Comments from Johnson &Sedlack, received July 24, 2007
A Draft EIR for the proposed Blue Mountain Senior Villas project was submitted to the local and State
agencies, as well as those members of the public who attended and/or provided comment during the
public scoping meeting. The public review period for the Draft EIR extended from April 3 through May
17, 2007; a period of 45 days. A total of seven agencies and individuals provided timely comments on
the Draft EIR. Mr. Johnson was provided a copy of the Draft EIR and Specific Plan in their entirety on
CD in PDF format (Certified Mail receipt, dated April 9, 2007). Mr. Johnson elected not to provide
comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public comment period or during the subsequent
Planning Commission hearing (June 21, 2007).
More than two months after the close of the Draft EIR comment period, and only hours prior to
scheduled City Council action on the proposed project (July 24, 2007), the City received a comment
letter authored by Mr. Johnson. This letter consisted of five pages of comments on the Specific Plan
and EIR, and included approximately 90 pages of additional material. It appears this material has
been included to support specific claims made by Mr.Johnson in his comment letter.
In order to provide adequate response to Mr. Johnson's comments, the scheduled City Council
hearing was continued.A copy of Mr. Johnson's comment letter accompanies the City's responses to
his specific comments. Brackets have been added to delineate individual comments. Responses to,
each comment identified follow:
Response to Comment 1. The City has provided the public with numerous opportunities to comment
on the proposed project.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) that the City intended to prepare a Draft EIR was distributed to State,
regional, and local agencies on December 15, 2006, for a 30-day review period ending on January
16, 2007. An Initial Study (IS) was distributed in tandem with the NOP. The IS distributed with the
NOP provided appropriate information on the size, location, type, and characteristics of the proposed
project. In addition, the IS distributed with the NOP clearly stated (page 5), "...the proposed project
would require approval of an amendment to the General Plan, as well as a zone change." Adequate
information on the extent and nature of the project was provided in the NOP and IS to foster
meaningful public comment.
A public scoping meeting was held on January 4, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the City of Grand Terrace
Council Chamber. The purpose of the public scoping meeting was to identify the scope of analysis to
be considered in the Draft EIR. Copies of the IS and the conceptual site plan were available to the
public for review. Mr. Johnson attended and provided comment during the public scoping session.
Prior to public comment, the characteristics of the proposed project, as well as the land use actions
necessary to implement the project were identified. As evidenced by public participation during the
scoping session, residents were well informed on the location and characteristics of the proposed
project. Adequate information to foster meaningful public comment was provided by the City during
the public scoping session.
A Draft EIR for the proposed project was submitted to the local and State agencies, as well as those
members of the public who attended and/or provided comment during the public scoping meeting.
The public review period for the Draft EIR extended from April 3 through May 17, 2007; a period of 45
days. The Draft EIR was properly noticed and distributed and was also available at the City of Grand
Terrace Planning Counter. Included in the distribution of the Draft EIR was a CD containing (in their
entirety as PDF documents) the Draft EIR and the Specific Plan prepared for the project. Adequate
EXHIBIT M
1
0
information to solicit public comment on the proposed project was provided during the public review
period for the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 2. The Specific Plan document distributed with the Draft EIR appropriately
addresses those issues required by the City and the California Code. The analysis in the Draft EIR
was based on information contained in the Specific Plan document, not the title of the Specific Plan
document. Whether the document is a "nevi' Specific Plan or an amendment to a Specific Plan does
not alter the analysis or findings detailed in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 3. The project has been designed to fully integrate the residential, senior
center, and passive park components envisioned for the project site on a single parcel. There is no
physical separation between the senior center and the senior residences. Additionally, the senior
center can be directly accessed via an internal hallway from the senior residences. The passive park
does not include sports facilities, play equipment, or other features that would support active
recreational uses. The featured components of the passive park (e.g., walking trails and seating
areas) have been specifically selected to accommodate the needs of senior residents of the City. The
passive park is directly accessible from the senior center and is readily available to the senior
residences. Based on its design and intended usage, the passive park is a key component of the
proposed senior-oriented development. Because of the complementary nature of each use, the
uniform development and design scenario shared by each use, and their co-location within a single
parcel, it is reasonable to consider the project as the development of 120 residential units on the
approximately six-acre parcel.
1
Response to Comment 4. As repeatedly identified in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would
result in the development of an age-restricted senior-oriented development. Because of the nature of
the proposed uses and the intended residents, it is not reasonable to apply the City's standard
multiple-family parking standards to the proposed project. A Specific Plan has been developed for the
site that establishes zoning and development standards that would relate to the uniqueness of the
proposed senior-oriented development. The Specific Plan provides comprehensive siting, design, and
development guidelines that would govern the construction and occupation of the proposed senior-
oriented uses. Upon adoption, the standards outlined in the Specific Plan will become the controlling
zoning and development regulations within the project limits.
Response to Comment 5. Mr. Johnson states that the Specific Plan does not include the necessary
content required by the California Government Code, yet does not provide detail how any perceived
deficiency in the Specific Plan would alter the analysis or findings contained in the EIR.
Project characteristics, public service and utility features, and development standards are outlined in
Sections IN of the Specific Plan. Section VII of the Specific Plan (Implementation) details the
phasing, maintenance financing, development review, administrative, and amendment process for the
Specific Plan. Section VIII of the Specific Plan discusses the Specific Plan's consistency with the
General Plan.
Response to Comment 6. As stated previously, the location, extent, nature, density, and land use
actions associated with the proposed project was identified and presented to the public for review and
comment in the Initial Study (December 15, 2006 to January 16, 2007), the public scoping meeting
(January 4, 2007), the Draft EIR public comment period (April 3 to May 17, 2007), and the Planning
2
A
Commission meeting (June 21, 2007). As evidenced from the public participation and comment by
both agencies and residents, adequate and appropriate disclosure of the project and related land use
actions associated with the proposed project has been provided to the public.
Response to Comment 7. Contrary to Mr. Johnson's claim, the Draft EIR established that
implementation of the proposed project would require specific land use actions. As stated in the Draft
EIR (page 3-3), "...To accommodate the proposed on-site uses, the proposed project includes an
amendment to the City's General Plan, change in the existing zoning, and adoption of a Specific Plan.
The General Plan amendment will establish a Medium High Residential designation, while the zoning
change would create the R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential-Senior Citizens)zone. These actions are
addressed in greater detail in Section 4.3."
The only area considered for the Medium High Residential General Plan designation and the Multiple-
Family Residential-Senior Citizen zone is the project site. No other proposal to assign these
designations to any other area of the City has been identified. The environmental effects associated
with the proposed project and related land use actions have been addressed in the Draft EIR.
Specifically, Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the land use impacts associated with
the proposed project, including the actions' consistency with existing General Plan policies, and the
effect on the amount of land available for residential construction in the City. In the absence of any
evidence, it is speculative to assume other future changes to existing General Plan or zoning
designations. The review of environmental effects associated with possible future changes to existing
land use designations is more appropriately reserved until the location and extent of these proposed
actions are identified.
Response to Comment S.Whether the grading permits are a discretionary or ministerial action does
not alter the location, size, extent, or nature of the proposed project; nor will it reduce, lessen, or
otherwise alter the environmental effect associated with the construction or operation of the proposed
uses, or the analysis or findings contained in the Draft EIR. Per Section 15357 of the State CEQA
guidelines, a "discretionary project' is defined as, "...a project which requires the exercise of
judgment when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity."This
is distinguished from "ministerial projects", during which the City merely needs to determine whether
the action in question conforms to fixed standards or objective measurements. Because the grading
permits and design review will be measured against applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations,
these actions are correctly identified as ministerial.
Response to Comment 9. As clearly illustrated in Figures 1.2, 4.1.3C, and 4.1.4, the proposed
project would extend approximately 300 feet across the southern portion of the project site. As
identified in the Draft EIR, current views from the five homes referenced by Mr. Johnson are
obstructed by fencing and/or vegetation. The City has not identified any specific viewshed to or from
the project site as significant. The "distant views of the mountains" referenced by Mr. Johnson, are
themselves interrupted by high voltage power lines and off-site vegetation. As stated in the Draft EIR
(page 4.1-29), ...Although the proposed project would eliminate existing views, because these views
are already obstructed by fencing and/or vegetation 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 light of the existing aesthetic condition of views, the
limited number of altered views, and the absence of any City identified significant viewshed, the City
maintains the conclusion cited in the EIR is appropriate.
3
Response to Comment 10. As evidenced by Mr. Johnson's "Exhibit A," there is no clear consensus
(no "clear industry standard") on the appropriate amount of parking required for low/very low income
senior housing projects. There is a marked difference between the parking demand for affordable
housing and that for senior (especially low/very low income housing). As stated on Page 3 of Exhibit
B, "...The likely residents of affordable housing do not require a great deal of parking...Low income
families, seniors, and special needs populations are less likely to require the use of more than one
parking space, if that at all."The parking summaries provided in Exhibit A, provide a range of parking
options, some of which are similar to or less-than the parking standard established in the Specific
Plan.
In light of uncertainty related to this issue, the parking standard established in the Specific Plan and
reported in the Draft EIR was based on real-world parking usage at five similar senior residential
projects. A review of the cited senior developments indicates they are located in predominantly
residential neighborhoods, not directly adjacent to community shopping or service outlets. The
average distance from the five cited senior residential developments to the nearest full-service
supermarket is approximately 0.68 mile. Based on communications with representatives of the cited
senior developments, one (Bellflower Terrace) has direct access to regular bus service. The distance
to public transit from the other cited senior development ranges from two to six blocks. Like the
proposed project, the cited senior developments, through local transit agencies, have access to paid
curb-to-curb service for senior and/or disabled persons.
As stated on page 2.16 of the Draft EIR, the Riverside Transit Agency(RTA)provides bus service via
Route 25 from Downtown Riverside, along Barton Road, to Loma Linda University Medical Center. At
Washington Street in Colton, RTA Route 25 intersects with Omnitrans Route 19, which provides
service to Colton, Redlands, and Fontana. Bus stops for Route 25 are located along Barton Road, the
nearest being approximately to 0.6 to 0.7 mile from the proposed project site. In addition, Omnitrans
operates curb-to-curb bus service in Grand Terrace (Access Bus) to qualified senior and/or disabled
persons on a paid reservation basis. The nearest full-service supermarket to the proposed senior
development is Stater Bros., which is located approximately 0.75 mile south of the project site.
Compared to the proposed project, the cited senior developments are similar in size and nature; are
located a similar distance from local shopping opportunities; and have comparable access to public
transportation. Therefore, the City has determined that it is reasonable to utilize these projects to
anticipate a realistic parking demand for the proposed senior residential development.
Response to Comment 11. The Draft EIR does not state that proposed on-site uses would rely on
on-street parking. The proposed project provides 92 parking spaces for residents. An additional 54
parking spaces are provided for employees, guests, and visitors-to the proposed senior center and
park. A discussion of shared parking is provided on pages 2-14 and 2-15 of the Draft EIR.
Despite Mr. Johnson's claim, the shared parking analysis considered the parking demand from
guests, senior center patrons, and visitors to the park expected during the peak period of usage (the
11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. period coinciding with the senior lunch program). Combined, the three uses
(i.e., guest, senior center, and park) parking would require 49 parking spaces during the anticipated
peak midday period. Unused parking attributed to the decreased use of the senior center would be
available for park and" guest parking outside the peak lunch hour. Similarly, because access to the
passive park would be limited to daytime hours, unused parking spaces attributable to the park would
be available to the senior center and guest parking in the evening. There is sufficient surplus parking
to accommodate up to 5 staff members. The 54 parking spaces provided for the non-resident uses
are sufficient to accommodate the peak midday parking demand.
4
11
Response to Comment 12. In their review of environmental documents, "...reviewers should explain
the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable
assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of their comments."
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15204[c]). The discussion of traffic impacts in the Draft EIR is based on
data obtained from the City's Traffic Engineer, the City's General Plan, and on-site observations of a
trained traffic planner. Mr. Johnson provides no substantial evidence supporting his claim that the
LOS at the referenced intersections exceed LOS F or that the addition of 30 vehicles during the r
2-hour a.m. period would further exacerbate this perceived LOS deficiency. The City Traffic Engineer
has determined that the project will not create a significant impact to local circulation or significantly
increase congestion on local roadways. Furthermore, a review of existing traffic conditions during the
time of peak student drop-off/pick-up did not indicate any traffic congestion impact exists that would
be significantly worsened from project-related traffic.
Response to Comment 13. The cumulative traffic data referenced in Table 5.13 of the Draft EIR
identifies the unmitigated traffic conditions that will occur in the City based on the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan Traffic Model. These 2030 conditions cited by Mr. Johnson would exist whether
or not the proposed project were developed. It is reasonable to anticipate the project specific and
cumulative traffic impacts resulting from individual development projects would be appropriately
mitigated as these projects were developed. As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would
contribute one percent of the traffic associated with the cumulative projects cited, which are currently
planned or proposed (nearer term). Because the Traffic Model accounts for longer term regional
growth and cumulative development, it is reasonable to anticipate that the proposed project's
contribution to the longer-term cumulative traffic conditions would be significantly less than the 1.0 �w
percent cited in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 14. Page 4.2-15 of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the export of
22,577 cubic yards of soil. The URBEMIS analysis specified two mitigation measures to control diesel
exhaust emissions: the use of aqueous fuel and cooled exhaust gas recirculation. These measures
have been included in the Draft EIR(pages 4.2-16, -17)as mitigation, as follows:
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.
4.2.5.1 B 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.
Adherence to these and other measures would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a
less than significant level.
Response to Comment 15.The Final EIR (Section 5.0, Mitigation Monitoring Plan) includes a matrix
that identifies the responsible monitoring entity, monitoring frequency, verification method, and
sanctions that would be imposed in the event mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are not
followed. As stated in Section 5.0, the sanction for non-compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1A
(use of after-treatment products) and 4.2.5.1 B (use of aqueous diesel fuel) would be the withholding
, 5
of grading permits. Because it would be impossible to develop the project without a valid grading
permit, it is reasonable to conclude that the mitigation measures would be"actually followed."
Response to Comment 16. The City reminds Mr. Johnson that reviewers should explain the basis
for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions
based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of their comments. The default
i equipment listed in the URBEMIS model is generic and deliberately conservative and may not reflect
J actual construction conditions. The equipment mixed appropriately used in the modeling of the
construction-related emissions is based on experience analyzing these emissions for similar-sized
projects that have been developed in the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).
Response to Comment 17. The URBEMIS2002 v8.2 model does not reflect the latest SCAQMD
regulations. The changes made to the emission rates were based on direction from the SCAQMD.
The Draft EIR (page 4.2-17) states VOC emissions 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. Manual applications have 100 percent transfer efficiency,
while high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray method has an 80 percent transfer efficiency. The use
of a HPLV application system would reduce the emissions from 378 lb/day to 67.52 lbs/day. The use
of either of these common application method's, in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.2A,
would reduce VOC emissions to a less than significant level.
`r Response to Comment 18. The LST analysis is based on the LST example analysis, which is a
methodology developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) based on
extensive visits to construction sites and accompanying analysis from which a representative
characteristics of typical construction activity(e.g., equipment mix, area disturbed per day) is derived.
The planned removal of 22,577 cubic yards of material was incorporated into the LST analysis.
Because the analysis is based on SCAQMD derived LST methodology, and because the export of
material was included in the analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the analysis included in the
Draft EIR appropriately and adequately addresses this issue.
Response to Comment 19. As stated in Table 4.2.1 of the Draft EIR, the emissions from asphalt
paving are relatively small compared to the other construction-related emissions. Changing the model
to incorporate an additional 0.5 acre would increase emissions by approximately 0.2 lb/day, which
would not lead to an exceedance in VOCs generated during asphalt paving operations.
Response to Comment 20. The threshold cited by Mr. Johnson is addressed in Section 4.3.4.4,
"Incompatibility with an Existing Land Use."The project site is zoned and General Plan designated for
residential uses. The Draft EIR (pages 4.3-12, -14) provides a comparison of the setback, height
restriction, and development intensity that could occur with and without the proposed project.
The proposed project"replaces" a six-acre vacant, weed and garbage strewn lot and modular senior
center with an integrated, aesthetically pleasing, and well designed senior residential development.
The proposed project incorporates the Susan Petta Park into the project site, will provide expanded
senior recreation and service opportunities, and will partially satisfy the City's regional housing needs
assessment. Land use compatibility issues are adequately and appropriately addressed in Sections
4.3.4.4 and 4.3.4.5 of the Draft EIR.
6
Response to Comment 21. As previously stated in the Response to Comment 3, the project has
been designed to fully integrate the residential, senior center, and passive park components
envisioned for the project site. Because of the complementary nature of each use, the uniform
development and design scenario shared by each use, and their co-location within the project limits, it
is reasonable to consider the project as the development of 120 residential units on the approximately
six-acre parcel.
Response to Comment 22. Mr. Johnson generically states the Draft EIR is inconsistent with the
General Plan without providing any level of specificity as to the nature of the perceived
inconsistencies. Section 4.3.4.5 of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of how the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan.
The Draft EIR (page 4.3-12) identifies the existing pattern of multiple-family residential development
in the City. The Draft EIR does not identify residential densities, nor does it claim the residential
density of proposed project is similar to other multiple-family uses in the City. Section 4.3.4.4 only
states that high-density uses are commonly located adjacent to single-family residential uses. The
Draft EIR correctly concludes that the location of proposed project would be consistent with the City's
existing pattern and practice of locating higher density residential development adjacent to single-
family residential uses.
The Draft EIR in its entirety addresses the impacts associated with the development and operation of
a residential and community facility adjacent to a lower density residential area. The Draft EIR
identifies the impacts that would occur at adjacent residential uses, and where necessary, identifies
mitigation to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
Response to Comment 23. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 4.4-7), the City's noise ordinance limits
construction activities on properties adjacent to residential development between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.Additionally, the Draft EIR(page 4.4-11) identified the following mitigation measures:
4.4.5.1A 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.
4.4.5.1 B The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
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.
4.4.5.1 D On-site construction activities shall be restricted to the hours permitted under the
City's Municipal Code.
Though a significant construction-related noise impact would result from project development,
mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR would reduce the impact of construction-related noise
impacts to a less than significant level.
Response to Comment 24. When addressing cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines (Section
15130[b]) state, "...the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and
7
A A
4
the likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the
effects attributable to the project alone." Also, the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided
by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
The Draft EIR (pages 2-7 and 2-8) includes a discussion of the proposed project's hydrology and
drainage impacts. Total impermeable surface area resulting from the development of the proposed
project would total approximately 3.5 acres. On-site trapezoidal grass-lined channels within the
passive park would allow infiltration of storm runoff prior to entry into local storm drain features. As
` stated in the Draft EIR, the project site is.located within an area encompassed by San Bernardino
County Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 3, which encompasses an area reaching from Loma
Linda to Rialto and from Riverside Avenue south to the San Bernardino County line. All on-site
drainage features would be designed, installed, and maintained per applicable County and City
standards. Construction and operation water quality impacts would be sufficiently mitigated through
adherence to NPDES and SWPPP, which are administered by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and WQMP requirements based on guidance from the San Bernardino County Storm Water
Program. These programs are designed to reduce the water quality impact of development. It is
reasonable to anticipate that the adherence to the provisions of existing water quality programs by
individual projects would reduce the water quality impact associated with cumulative development.
Furthermore, the project drainage would occur within an area master planned for drainage by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District. Because the project drainage would conform to the
standards and requirements governing the drainage plan, it is reasonable to anticipate that no
cumulatively significant drainage impact would occur.
The proposed project would contribute one percent of the traffic associated with the cumulative
projects cited, which are currently planned or proposed (nearer term). Because the modeled traffic
data referenced in the Draft EIR considers long term regional growth and cumulative development, it
is reasonable to anticipate that the proposed project's contribution to the longer-term cumulative
volumes would be significantly less than the 1.0 percent cited in the Draft EIR. As stated in the
Response to Comment 13, it is reasonable to anticipate the project specific and cumulative traffic
impacts resulting from individual development projects would be appropriately mitigated as these
projects were developed.
Currently, the maximum permitted residential density in the City is 12 units per acre. Regardless of
how creatively Mr. Johnson computes the density of the proposed project, it in no way approaches six
times the maximum density permitted in the City. The Draft EIR (page 4.3-14) includes a discussion
of how the proposed land use actions will impact the amount of residential zoned property in the City.
None of the cumulative projects cited in Table 2.0 of the Draft EIR envision land uses actions utilizing
the proposed medium-high designation or senior residential zone. As previously stated in the
Response to Comment 7, there has been no other proposal to assign the medium-high residential
designation or the senior residential zone to other areas of the City. It would be speculative to
arbitrary assign the designation and zone to other areas of the City to artificially conduct a cumulative
analysis.
The City's Noise Element identifies roadway segments along which noise levels would exceed 65 dB
CNEL and would be considered excessive. None of these roadway segments are located north of
Barton Road. While the proposed project would contribute 594 vehicle trips per day to existing
roadway traffic, these trips would not be concentrated on a single roadway, nor during a single time
frame. As stated in the Draft EIR(page 4.4-9), the proposed project does not result in the doubling of
traffic volumes necessary to generate a perceptible noise increase along Mount Vernon Avenue or
Grand Terrace Road. While cumulative development in the City will increase traffic on local
roadways, the proposed project would generate approximately one percent of the near-term and
substantially less of the longer-term cumulative long-term traffic. As outlined in Table 5.A of the Draft
8
15
EIR, five cumulative projects consisting of large scale residential (Spring Mountain Ranch and
Springbok Estates), commercial (Outdoor Adventure Center and Town Center), and school (High
School No. 3) comprise 94 percent of the near term cumulative traffic. Each of these projects is
located on or south of Barton Road and is considerably removed from the vicinity of the project site. It
is both practical and reasonable to conclude that a senior residential project that contributes less than
one percent of the long-term traffic on local roadways would not have a significant cumulative noise
impact.
No significant long-term operational air quality impact would result from development of the proposed
project. The short-term construction air quality impacts that result from the development of the
proposed project were appropriately mitigated to a less than significant level. The appropriate venue
to challenge the adequacy of the Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) prepared by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is during the preparation and. public review of
those documents. The AQMPs cited in the Draft EIR present strategies developed by the agency
specifically created to regulate air quality in the South Coast Air Basin; therefore, in the absence of
any specific data to the contrary, it is both practical and reasonable for the City to base the discussion
of cumulative air quality impacts on these documents.
Response to Comment 25. Mr. Johnson does not provide specificity as to why the findings in the
Draft EIR are not substantially supported. Based on the data reasonably available, the City has
identified the impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. The
analysis included in the Draft EIR is supported by the General Plan and accompanying Master
Environmental Assessment, technical studies prepared specifically for the proposed project, City and
applicant provided data, field observations, and other relevant environmental and planning resources.
The EIR incorporates the relevant comments and concerns expressed by local and State agencies as
well as area residents. In the absence of a specific instance of an unsupported finding, the City
asserts the EIR sufficiently addresses the environmental effects associated with the construction and
operation of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 26. As required by CEQA, the Final EIR (Section 5.0, Mitigation Monitoring
Plan) includes a matrix that identifies the responsible monitoring entity, monitoring frequency,
verification method, and sanctions that would be imposed in the event mitigation measures identified
in the Draft EIR are not followed.
Response to Comment 27. The Draft EIR(Section 4.3.4.5)and Specific Plan (Section Vlll) include a
discussion of how the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Mr. Johnson's
comments do not provide any specific accounting of how the proposed project is inconsistent with the
General Plan, nor does he support his claim that the General Plan is inconsistent with itself. In the
absence of any substantive citation of the claimed inconsistencies, it is not possible to provide further
response to this comment.
Conclusion
Per CEQA (§ 15088.5), a Lead Agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR only when significant
new information is added after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR and prior to the EIR's
certification. Significant new information includes:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from new mitigation
measures proposed to be implemented;
9
1R
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation
measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously
analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt it; and/or
4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
New information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or
a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.
The issues identified by Mr. Johnson have been adequately and appropriately addressed in the EIR.
The responses to these comments provide clarification to the previously reviewed environmental
analysis and do not include significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR.
10
17
Original Staff Report from the
July 24, 2007
City Council Meeting
I
Community and Economic Development Department
GRAND) ii
(AtIf0RNIA
STAFF REPORT
CRA ITEM ( COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: JUIy 24, 2007
FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 07-01, Zone Change No. 07-01,
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 togetherwith 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,
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 • Grand Terrace, California 923COUN&
1 JGENDp►1%111A1 NO.
• 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 standards
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."
Development Plans:
The site plan for the proposed project is shown on Exhibit 1. The residential structure will be
2
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.
t
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 Im actaglaot
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 the 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:
i 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).
If
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:
4sciate
Lampe
Planner L. Koon
Community D lopment 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-
f 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 3 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 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
c:1MyFilesIJOHN1Bluemtnseniorvillas\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\SP-07-01 counciirpt
5
EXHIBIT C
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 MO
RH,Rl,R2,R3 and R3 RFSIDENTL&L DISTWCTS
The followin¢Section and Tables shall be modified as follows
Section 1&10.020 Residenthd Districts:
The following districts are designed to implement the goals and objectives of th
development. e General Plan. Each district contains specific laud use regulations and density ranges for
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.
B. R1-20, Very Low Single Family Residential District: This district is intended for
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.
F. 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 Medium FamilY, Senior Citizen: This district is intended for the
development of senior citizen hnualing,. The maximum den si shall not exceed 20 units
Mr acre. The development standards shall be established though spec_WN process
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 citizen housing's development standards will be established through
the specific plan process. All senior chin housing projects in the R3-S zone will
require specific plan process: however,in no circumstance shall the density exceed
20 unit/acm
Table 1&10.040 Footnotes
a. 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
1. The minimum side and rear yard setback for a patio requirements
be fivet(5:
feet. ( )
feet. 2. The minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure shall be ten (10)
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 ted
is loca 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
property line. b) The Proposed addition is located no closer than 5' from any
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:
I. "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.
TABLE 1&10.040
Site Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT RH R20 R10 R7.2 R2 R3 R3-S
ISSUE
Area (Minimum _' 20,000 10,000 7,200 10,000 12,000 Q
care feet
Width (Minimum
linear feet)
* Interior Lot _' 100 60 60 60 60 s
* Comer Lot _' 100 70 70 70 70 8
Lot Dept
(Minimum linear feet) _' 150 100 100 100 100 s
Street Frontage _' S0 40 40 40 40 6
(Minimum linear feet
Setbacks
(Minimum linear feet)
* Front Yard _' 25b 25b 25b 25b 25b s
* Rear Yard _' 35b 35b 20b 200 20b s
*Side Yard
-Interior Lot
With Garage _' lob lob lob lob lob 6
Without Gar. _' Sb 5b 5b 5b 5b 8
-Corner Lot
Street side _' 15° 15` 150 150 15e B
No Street side S 5 5 5 10 B
Density (Allowable
dwelling units per a1-2 1-4 1-5 1-9 1-12` Max.20
acre
Laving Area
(Minimum square feet) _° 1,350d 1,350d 1,350' 1,3500 1,350' B
* Single Family
* Duplex,Triplex,
Four-plex and
Multiple Family
-One(1)Bedroom _ _ _ _ 800d 800d B
-Two (2) Bedroom _ _ _ _ 1,000d 1,000d s
Height (Maximum 350 35` 35° 350 35e 8
linear feet
Lot Coverage a 40 50 50 60 8
(Maximumpercent)
Distance Between
Buildings. _' S 5 5 20 20 6
(Minimum linear feet)
Day Care Center p p n 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)--------------
-
K Utility or Service Facility H
C C C C C
Outdoor Recreation Facility C C C C C -
D. Temporary Uses
Temporary Uses P P P P P P P
(As approved by Planning Director)
Temporary Trailers P P P P P p pa
(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 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.
C. "P" stands for "Permitted Use" where the use is permitted by right; and "C"
stands for"Conditional Use"where the use requires a conditional use permit.
d. Senior citizen housingis allowed in the R3-S u to maximum density of 20
unit/acre. A s ific Dian will be aguired for all senior citizen housing ro'ects in this
zone. Some accesso and tem uses as indicated will be allowed in the R3-S zone
with the aonroval of the Community Development Director
TABLE 1&1&030
Land Use R dons:
Permitted Uses I RH I.R20 R10 R7.2 R2 R3 R3-S
A. Residendai Uses
Single Family(Detached),Full Sized P P P P P' P b
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 - - - E_ ]kF
CSenior Citizen Housin¢ pd
- - _
B. Residential Accessory Uses
Accessory Structure P P P P P P P°
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
(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 p p p p pa
(As Approved by the Planning Director)
C. Other Uses
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 C C C C C -
(And Quasi-Public)
fZ
EDIT : LEGAL DT4('' ION
L_1�GAL D1;8Cl�T101if
CO10 AT THM CORNER OF SAID LOT 1,TIB31.OMT OF BBC Tie
ALONG M 30UM LM Op"M&or 1,N89°46 MV,791.Sf MT TKO SOLTtTIw►BS'!'CORNER O!SAtD
LO? THENCE ALONG THE SOtTIH LINE OF SAID LOT 2,Nno46'26"E, 123.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2,N0poZ W-W,
463.53 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;SAID POW BEWG ON THE SOLTIT3ERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD;THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVB
TO THE SOUTH+HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,190.00 FEET,THROUGH A o
ARC LENGTH OF 273.91,TT�NCE 364o02�pg"W�4�.20 Fes.THBNCBCSVTRAL ANGLE OF 13 11 17",AN
CONCAVE TO THE NORTH.HAVING A RADIUS OF 2SO.00 FEET THROUGH ACE ALONG A LE OF
43.4"5",AN ARC LBAK#ITL or 190.9W TO TIM NOltTHWFST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1;CENTRAL ANGLEOF
S23o57 14"W, 198.65 FEET Tio TIM poMr Op BBGDMMG.
f
�3
Community and Economic Development Department
(11Ii11N11
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
easterly of Mt. Vernon on the west to the Ten-ace 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.
REQUEST:
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 • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 EXHIBIT F
�4
• 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 RI -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.
19
i
SITE AND SURROUND 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:
• North—Vacant property with an Edison easement and transmission towers.
• South—Single family residential
• East—Ten-ace View Elementary School
• 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 Terrace 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 comer.
Mt Vernon Avenue serves as the primary access to Grand Ten-ace 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.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING:
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
Iip
includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to create a new General Plan designation of
"NMS" (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 reaffirmed the"MHOS"designation for the subject site.
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.8. The applications include
a request to change this zoning 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.
The General Plan and Zoning designations for the surrounding properties include the following:
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning
North "PUB"(Public) PUB (Public)
South "LDW'(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 RI -7.2 Zoning. Parcels located westerly side of Mt. Vernon are designated as"MDR"
(Medium Density Residential)with R3 Zoning.
PROJECT 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
l�
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, r ,
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. Vehicle access will be provided by means of a gated, 26-foot wide driveway off of Grand
Terrace Road near the northeast corner of the site. A standard fire department "hammerhead"
turnaround is located at the west end of the southerly lot for emergency access by the fire
iV
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.
a`
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 of use
will be in the early mornings, late-afternoons/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 terns 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 Ten-ace Road will consist 61-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 %2" x 11" reduction of 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 A 1 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 B 1 will have the same layout at Plan B but
with a balcony; its total square footage will be 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 ofprivacy issues. Both
f �
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/computer room, crafts room, kitchen and administrative
offices. An outdoor covered arcade on the west side of the center will provide views of the new
park.
8 %' x 11 plans of the individual floor plans have been included as Attachments 5 and 6. Also
included are 8 %:" x 11" reductions of the first and second floor plans, Attachments 7 and 8.
Attachment 9 shows the 8 %"x 11"reduction of the senior floor plan.
Elev
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 Planning
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 %z" x I V reductions of the four elevations are included as Attachment 10.
2D
Preliminary Landscaping:
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. ea
An ar
for holiday trees and/or displays serves as the focal point at the center of the park. Trees and shrubs
are strategicallyplaces to enhance each of the 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 %2"x I I"reduction of the preliminary landscaping plan is shown as Attachment 11.
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 S. 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
comer of the proposed structure will be 15 to 20 feet below existing ground level. This will reduce
2.1
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'J and a Water Quality Management Plan("WQMP'). Copies
of these document are available for review in the offices of the Community Development
Department.
t
8 %:"x 11"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.
Phasine:
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 9, 2007. (Attachment 14)
County of San Bernardino Fire Department Community 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 th
impact fees charged by the Colton Unified School District. ose
ENVIRONMENTAL FVIEW•
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
r mitigation measures and listed residual impacts after mitigation, if any. The potential impacts
tom. 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 EIR, and the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan. The FEIR has been included as Exhibit B.
The Final Environmental Impact report conclud
impact on the environment. The appropriate ed that the proposed Project will not have an adverse
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
was
244 units. Of these, 72 were identified for very-low and low income levels. For the 200period
20 4
"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 ofHousin
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 Planning
2-r�
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).
RECONMRNDATION•
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,
J Lampe,Associate Planner Gary L. Zoontz, C unity Development Director
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
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 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
2� '
ATTACHMENT 1 Aerial photograph of subject site and surrounding area
ATTACHMENT 2 8 %"x 11"reduction of the site plan
ATTACHMENT 3 8 %s" 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 B1 and Plan B2 floor plans
ATTACHMENT 7 8 %a to x 11"reduction of first floor of building and site plan
ATTACH1VlENT 8 8 %:"x 11"reduction of second floor of building
- ATTACHMENT 9 8 %" x 11"reduction of the senior center
ATTACHMENT 10 8 %" x 11"reductions of elevations
ATTACBAffiNT 11 8 %2" x 11"reduction of preliminary landscaping plan
ATTACHMENT 12 8 %" x 11" reduction of conceptual grading plan for easterly half
ATTAC EM ENT 13 8 %" x 11" reduction of conceptual grading plan for westerly half
ATTACHMENT 14 Memorandum from Building and Safety/Public Works dated 3/09/07
ATTACHM ENT 15 Letter from County Fire Department dated 3/31/07
' -07-01)
1)
ATTACHMENT 19 Resolution of Approval for SA-07-02
A'TrS'A GO Li71TR+ 20 R-6-131
finn n�l-ir��s� r..� Ml Fi .. for-the Bitte 1 L w ft - Sei
=•==cam_� or Villas
•1MyFilesVOHN\Bluemmseniorvillis21SP-07-0 l cmrnmeport
zG�
-n •"'a ;9+ v+:��,'+� a ,%x• .r
1 t
• Y
I
a l
, t
s
awl z m{m
I
1'-Atli
a 1
Cal
-71
� 1
it i
,
.,
7
10
Lm
Pit
i-
Ap
14
to
sa
_ o
�:�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ ���� e
InieeenueeeeenIERS REQUEST
0
aMoul 0
WROUGHT IRON INSERTS
"■ ■�'�■�',,,�'�i��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL����'
POR
TION OF WEST
BLUE MOUNT
0
J
IO...er.�rre•��w.ra
OWN
}y �—
• N N to
=
i _ N
�v � srszt�;arvsaaa:�.�er
—
�-� AOO.Y Nra -Mra -Mral --�
n I
ii��
�w++°PourTO3TORuoniw a �� a■� - y
`.-, N
H Z�RI- _= ur_N Lw M
-
rr
rw
! mum-
-man),
! y ,----
-ao.Ys- A6I� lair
m t
•
BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR WU.As AND
GRAND TERRACE sENFOR CENTER = a�• �,•., .
a-ar+uiv�o�
J
V -1
6y� 4t
�ill�fllilll
l
' E
1 '
v
r�r�
N
b
t
1'
t� ■F
C
s
- �� ATTACHMENTS -
r--
I ,
1
I
I
I ;
------------
k ! --------- s --
Fn
�.�... 2 R gi�ruU
-- -,��yaw corroN FaunnEctt BLUE AIOUNTAN SENIOR VILLAS
w GRANp 7EJdPACE SENIOR CENTER oavEiorEp�r: oo�oaAnoa
UTM"DUwa
J
IN M-111i •NOW
w.
amtiN •im
milli •� . ==
71
Lill i
!'mi
'Rill I�ff
lillllllllli �
r
OW
Z
j0
r rJl
••,•,,,loot
�a
Ca
0
u
ATTACHMENT 8 '
33
!�1!I�lilll
a•'
: o '
11 11 11 \\ \\ \\ \\
11 11.E \
1 �
i
� i a
i
v tl
4 �
b
O
ri ri ri ri
p rr ri ri
#7 ii u I I tillp It t
II y 4
< 11 11 /l it �I II
iL
■ r
F•a
rl
i
s
z
3�-
ATTACHMENT 9
............... :MEL-
4
mg
"SRI
w*A
PEW a gmml
OWL WT#
i COYMN FNA ARCHffECTv
BLUE MOUNTAIN SENIOR WLLAS
,�.5�'tirW..� ,.�✓ ��1 '.`..�"'-��5./'�:'f1 i t' __l -rr•^llY-fr
-•. n 'p y-r` ,�-. �j �';:.3 � �x psi ,� n.:�•.+�� -�'� �
st�3 • niii''a`S =4...t' �c:sa.SEie.-- ..- _-�•
{ !ice' -fig �,�;, •� c. .. �.; A a T.•Ns
rasY
r
• t
I ♦ TT 1
.r �s
O��Y�•A.�rM.�
�,p ' O•r�r•rrrulrrrrra.r.
R O�YYY �•1[•����
' r � Q•�.rrl.rl.r•a
- r.•rR1•�'ITRrs
Q�.rfY.•ar�Yl•.r•a
�r ®ri�.ii1���Y.rrrrrYw
ro ®Yrrrrrrr•.rw
hill
• l w-as � e.�i 1�rr�1•:T.i::�•r.rr....
roil
�, w., —_ _ I rrm�"m���'•r mnY••rn.w.r..r r��r� :i
44-
QJ - 1 Ird•.Q.i•��..�.„�I I Y•MI�•�rr tM\I iRI�\M r0�.rYr W
. _� .t on f rr•Ary m.n.r__ .f a rRr;�I. r.ri•Y..�.Erar r r.yaa
. � stir® .r of�i.•..'r'ri r.r Y.ur.wur.f wurr.r..r
.wa oar rn f r ter.w��raw.�rr�.rY.min m•r..
r p.
7
�l I 1_ K.OYn•�.Aar\..r dtl Y-rr•rO.O rf Yr.M..-t..•1Y ��\I
� � to �. �.'r®°.ro.rri.'y�rrro•rsr.Y.....a rt rr.r..n r.1 '�
ii Yr....rR r rtif re ro.u rr• `
s r�
yI u.'r�w r e.rrlo+i.. wn.rr�s.. �i;�'• �iQg
07:r S�1
�N
f
r Iw�s I I
W 1
T rt.
I I • • . a
•
1 III // 6 I • 11 ��
fill
. � �. . •. ;. •r r rr mil.Irrn rli0 � �W��
Nr•+.fn .• . I sii77
I =
Kt /• "r�rRrrs rrR ��
RY[r I•.i•'y
• - v
_- I
- _...• __� Orsaaa�_aaa.ss�
ra.Mr_ar�..o.
� QQ_•errs
r.
Q•_�r_a_ate
�.ru - w � M .. - �_a��..r�.a�ra•r
ma
OPP
lot
An
-
/
uT Iml vs
S
C-5
o >o b 0
K.�, ..,••-0 .,
-J
Building and Safety/Public Works Department Conditions of Approval
Dates March 9,2007
Applicant: Corporation for Better Housing.clo David Sclafani
Site Location: 22627 Grand Terrace Road,Grand Terrace,Ca
? W.O.il: 124LS444
Provide four(4)conshvc•tion 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.
Priblic Works/En subal's required atfust plow .revinv
(2) Street Improvement Plans,to include curb,gutter, sidewalk,and paving, street lights etc.
(2) Street Sewer Plans '
�r (2) Street Water Plans
(2) Site Plan including the street
Bxildina and Safety srrbntal's required at first V1
a revkw.
(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, (WQMP), (S WPPP)and Erosion Control Plan
(4) Disabled Access Plan
(2) Temporary Construction Fence Plan
Page I of 3_ ATTACHMENT 14
,�
Building and Safe ETKA/ic Works General Information
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 constriction 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.
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 40
I
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 the west
` property line of the project. Provide moisture barrier on retention side of short wall.
Bail"Permit 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 ofpermit%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)825-4128.
5. All construction projects shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems,
(NPDES). NPDES reports shall be submitted with projects plans at time of plan review.
Page 3 of 3 41
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT �,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION
620 South "E"Street—San Bernardino, CA 92415-0179
(909) 386-8465-(909)3864WO-(909)386-8460
Fax(909) 3864WW
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 ❑ 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 sq.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]
ATTACHMENT 15
DR GT07/23865
MARCH 31,2007
PAGE 2
Buildina Plans. Not less than two(2)complete sets of Building Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
review and approval. [F-42]
Turnaround. 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 placed on the project site an approved paved road with curb
/ and gutter and fire hydrants with an acceptable fire flow shall be installed. The topcoat of asphalt does not have to
be installed until final inspection and occupancy. [F-44]
Water System Larne 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- 4a]
Water System CertMlcation. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the serving water
company, certifying that the required water improvements have been made or that the existing fire hydrants and
water system will meet distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply shall be in place prior to placing
combustible materials on the job-site.
[F-57]
Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13. An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA Pamphlet #13 and the Fire
-'' Department standards is required. The applicant shall hire an approved fire sprinkler contractor. The fire sprinkler
contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The plans
(minimum 1/8" scale) shall include hydraulic calculations and 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
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]
Hydrant Markina. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specked
by the Fire Department. In areas where snow removal occurs or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant
marker shall be posted on an approved post along the side of the road, no more than three(3)feet from the hydrant
and at least six(6)feet high above the adjacent road. Standard 901.4.3. [F80]
Commercial- Large Facility Addressing. Commercial and industrial developments in excess of 100,000 sq. ft.
shall 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(1 Y2) 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 GTOM3865
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 Bemardino County Fire Department
Community Safety Division
DC.ww
AA
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
concluded with the appropriate Environmental Findings as set forth in Attachment OepThe Final rt hi
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 semor-onented 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-onented'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 ofthe development,its materials,and colors utilizing earthtones are visually
harmonious with surrounding residential development and natural landfonms. The design is both
functional for the proposed project and is consistent 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 s
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 changes 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.
4b
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.
t 13. The project shall roved P J 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.
IT 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.
41
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.
i
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.
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 existing 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.
38. That the landscaping shall be enhanced where it is feasible and practical.
39. That the proposed park shall be enhanced for park enj oyment 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
�1 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 21ST day of June, 2007
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa Doug Wilson
City Clerk Chairman,Planning Commission
c: \3luemtnseniorvillas2\SA-07-02resolution
�l 1
Community and Economic
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION Development Department
I MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
fAlIF.OANIA
JUNE 219 2007
The regular meetilw of the Grand Terrace Plaw9ft Commission was called to order at the
Grand rrace Civic Center. 22795 Barton Road Gmnd
Terrace, Califorrna. on June 21.2007
at 7.00 p m.. by ChW erson Doug ilson
o
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 92313-529" EXHIBIT G
_�D
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.
CHARLES 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-
�1
3. GPA-07-019 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 r__
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 Terrace 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 -
�n ,
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 NO.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 NO.4(AI &A2), FLOOR PLAN NO. S(B,&BI) —�
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 fast 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 RI 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
Il"1
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.
1 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
comer 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 as seen from adjacent residences.
� J
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 -
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
�1 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?
f-
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-
�I
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 protect 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 thss 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 carried 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. Tlus 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 alternatives included 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.
i
Gary L Koontz asked the City 14 ttorney a question regarding opening the public bearing formally.. The
City Attorney agrees that the Planning Commusion continue to bear the remainder of presentation and then
formal 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-
,r✓'
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
CHA_RLES 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.
- 11 -
Loo
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.
l' San Jose's project is very different because it is in an urban area. We built on top of a
�J 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-
0
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 -
1n�
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-
W6
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 -
IrA
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 Brombaugh: We build all over the state. Typically senior housing parking
requirements for affordable housing,range from '/z and %. 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 cost 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.
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/+ 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 of? Is this a standard condition?
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 -
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
comer.
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.
r
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 115,000 sq. fta 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-
W
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 Bumungton, 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-
I D�
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.
-200--
l�J"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-
11
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. Some 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 Brombaugh 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 -
--71
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.
CHUC%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
1 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 $2504325 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-
-7
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 r-
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. Petta 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
Jpersons 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.
r/ CHUCK HORNSBY
22656 Brentwood Street
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-
-5
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. - t
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 t
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-
- 7i D
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 Brombaugh: 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.
MISS HOUGE
22594 Brentwood Street
I would like to follow up on Tony Pena's idea in utilizing the Edison easement that is empty
�l 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.
e
Gary I.. 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 people who are using the school.
-28-
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 further 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 -
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
Chair Wilson,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?
Chair Wilson: Yes.
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 5-0-0-0
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-
fP
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 JULY 19,2007
Respectfully Submitted, Approved By,
Gary L. Koontz,Planning Director Doug Wilson,Chairman
Planning Commission
- 31 -
RESOLUTION NO, 07
(Revised August 28, 2007)
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 density range 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,
August 28,2007; 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 Exhibit K.
The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on August 28, 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-07-02 and E-07-02 and legally described
in Exhibit E as "Medium High Density Residential."
EXHIBIT H
91
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 28`h day of August, 2007.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa, Maryetta Ferre,
City Clerk Mayor
r
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Harper,
City Attorney
c:\MyFilesUOHN\Bluemtnseniorvillas\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\GPA0701 resolution
8
ORDINANCE NO.
(Revised August 28, 2007)
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)
r
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 Exhibit K.
The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on August 28, 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 August 28, 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:
EXHIBIT I
S3
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 31sT day of its adoption.
Section 4: Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three
(3)public places within fifteen(15) days of its adoption, as designated for
such purpose by the City Council.
Section 5: First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace held on the 28th day of August, 2007 and finally adopted and
ordered posted at a regular meeting of the said City Council on the 1 lth of
September, 2007.
ATTEST:
r�
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 1 lch day of September, 2007 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Brenda Mesa
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Harper
City Attorney cAMyFilesUOHIV\...\Bluemmseniorvillas2W-07-0Iordinance
3 If
ORDINANCE NO.
(Revised August 28, 2007)
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
(-J
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 of Housing 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
EXHIBIT J
95
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 Exhibit K. The Final
Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on August 28, 2007.
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held properly noticed 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 August 28, 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 RI-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 31ST day of its adoption.
Section 4 Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3)
public places within fifteen(15)days of its adoption, as designated for such
purpose by the City Council.
Section 5 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace held on the 28th day of August,2007 and finally adopted and ordered
posted at a regular meeting of said city council on the 11 th day of September,
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
City Clerk of the 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 1 lth day of September, 2007 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT"
{ ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Harper
City Attorney
c:\MyFilesVOHNIBluemtnseniorvillas\Bluemtnseniorvillas2\Z-07-01 ordinance
37
RESOLUTION NO. 07
(Revised August 28, 2007)
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 K
1
�8
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 August 28, 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
89 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 1.
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 on 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;
90 3
• 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 August 28, 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 insignificance 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
q (
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.
ti1i�h i,a the elimination of views from several residences located south of the Project is a direct impact,
from Grand Terrace Road, Mount Vernon Avenue, and other adjacent properties would be
.aintained. Due to the limited number of residences affected, the availability of views from nearby
prope,-1r3s and local roadways, no cumulatively significant impact on scenic views would occur.
a. .sir 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 residents and the burning of fossil fuels for energy to the units.
5
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
1 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 (BACM), 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.
6
93
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
7
9L
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 L,,. 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
9S
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
C?
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 displacement 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
q7
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 r
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.113: 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 4.2.5.1 A-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
°18
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
Lmax 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 L,,. (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 4.4.5.1A: 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 4.4.5.18: 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 4.4.5.11): On-site construction activities shall be restricted to the hours
permitted under the City's Municipal Code.
12
99
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 w
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
100 13
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
�j 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.2
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
� 0 �
SECTION 8
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or the r-
location of the Project, which:
1. offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project Proposal, and
2. may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable amount of
time considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors
involved.
An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly obtain
most the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the
consideration of the alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not
required to choose an environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does
not provide substantial advantages over the 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 26). 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 Citys 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 Alternative does not fulfill the primary Project objective of
DZ 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:
( 03
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. Y
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, PM10, 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
0 Y 17
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.
J 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
O5 18
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 WO 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
10-7 20
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)not 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).
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
1 0 00 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 construction
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.
i
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.
109 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 FOR 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 DER 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 FOR prior to certifying the FEIR and prior to making
any decision to approve or disapprove the Project.
Finding: The FOR 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.
Ho 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.
t
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
J) 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 281h day of August, 2007.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
( � 24
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa, Maryetta Ferre,
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Harper
City Attorney
c AMyFiles\John\....\FEIR\Findings
2 25
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CRA ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (x) MEETING DATE: August 28, 2007
SUBJECT: Speed Zone Survey
FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX
California State Statues require each local agency to perform speed zone studies at
least every five years in order to be able to enforce speed limits through the use of
radar, or other electronic means. The Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Chapter 10,
Section 10.08 addresses the topic of speed zones and posted speed limits.
The City traffic engineering consultant recently conducted speed zone studies of five
locations within the City. Based on these studies, it is recommended that the City
Council certify the posted speed zones for these five locations as follows:
Street Speed Zone Section Currently Recommended
Posted Speed
Barton Road Michigan St to Mt Vernon Ave 40 35
Barton Road Mt Vernon Ave to Preston St 40 45
Michigan Street Barton Rd to Van Buren Ave 35 35
Mt Vernon Ave North City Limits to Barton Road 40 40
Mt Vernon Ave Barton Rd to Van Buren Ave 40 40
Note the following proposed changes of existing speed zones:
Barton Road from Michigan Street to Mt Vernon Avenue - the study supports
lowering the currently posted speed limit of 40 mph to 35 mph, due to increased
collisions in this area.
Barton Road from Mt. Vernon Avenue to Preston St. - the study supports raising
the currently posted speed limit of 40 mph to 45 mph, due to a slight increase in
the observed travel speeds of motorists in this area.
The speed limits for all other speed zones in the City are currently being evaluated.
These will be submitted for recertification later in the year. However, it is now necessary
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. lGt",
to re-certificate the speed zones at these 5 locations prior to implementation of the City
red light photo enforcement program at the intersections of Barton at Mt Vernon and
Barton at Michigan.
STAFF RECOMENDS THAT:
1. City Council conduct a public hearing.
2. Adopt the first reading of the ordinance for speed zoning as recommended.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No.
1 ORDINANCE NO. ???
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
3 TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL
4 CODE, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10.08, ESTABLISHING SPEED
5 LIMITS FOR VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace, through its Traffic Consultant, has
8 recently conducted speed zone surveys on Barton Road, Michigan Street and Mt.
9 Vernon Avenue; and
10 WHEREAS, the City staff has evaluated traffic conditions and street
11 hazards in each area;
12 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES
13 HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
14 Section 1. Section 10.08.010 is hereby amended to add the following:
15 "The City Council finds, pursuant to traffic and engineering studies
16 conducted during 2007, that speed limits on Barton Road, Michigan Street and
17 Mt. Vernon Avenue are hereby established and certified to provide for the
18 protection of the general public and to facilitate the orderly movement of
19 traffic in a reasonable and safe manner."
20 Section 2. Section 10.08.020 is hereby amended to read as follows:
21 "10.08.020 Barton Road, Mt. Vernon Avenue, DeBerry Street, Palm Avenue,
22 Main Street, Michigan Street, Dos Rios Avenue and Van Buren Avenue Limits
23 Designated. The Prima Facie speed limits shall be as set forth in this
24 section on those streets designated as follows when signs are erected given
25 notice thereof:
-1-
1 A. Barton Road from Michigan Street to Mt. Vernon Avenue, 35 Miles
2 Per Hour;
3 B. Barton Road from Mt. Vernon Avenue to Preston Street, 45 Miles
4 Per Hour;
5 C. Barton Road from Preston Street to East City Limits, 40 Miles Per
6 Hour;
7 D. DeBerry Street from Michigan Street to Mt. Vernon Avenue, 35
8 Miles Per Hour;
9 E. DeBerry Street from Mt. Vernon Avenue to Y. mile east of
10 Observation Drive, 35 Miles Per Hour;
11 F. Palm Avenue from Honey Hill Drive to Barton Road, 35 Miles Per
12 Hour;
13 G. Main Street from Michigan Street to Mt. Vernon Avenue, 40 Miles
14 Per Hour;
15 H. Main Street from Mt. Vernon Avenue to Y4 mile east of Oriole
16 Avenue, 25 Miles Per Hour;
17 I. Michigan Street from Barton Road to Van Buren Avenue, 35 Miles
18 Per Hour;
19 J. Michigan Street from Van Buren Avenue to Main Street, 35 Miles
20 Per Hour;
21 K. Mt. Vernon Avenue from North City Limits to Barton Road, 40 Miles
22 Per Hour;
23 L. Mt. Vernon Avenue from Barton Road to Van Buren Avenue, 40 Miles
24 Per Hour;
25 M. Mt. Vernon Avenue from Van Buren Avenue to Main Street, 35 Miles
Per Hour;
-2-
A
1 N. Dos Rios Avenue form Palm Avenue to DeBerry Street, 25 Miles Per
2 Hour
3 0. Van Buren Avenue from Michigan Street to Mt. Vernon Avenue, 25
4 Miles Per Hour."
5 Section 3 . Posting. The City Clerk shall this Ordinance to be posted in
6 three (3) public places within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, as
7 designated for such purposes by the City Council.
8 Section 4. First reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of
9 said City held on the 28 day of August, 2007 and finally adopted and ordered
10 posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 02 day of October,
11 2007.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-3-
S
1
2
Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
3 and of the City Council thereof
4 Attest:
5
6
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
7
8 I, Brenda Mesa, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do
9 hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a
10 regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the
11 ??? day of August, 2007 by the following vote:
12
13 AYES:
14 NOES:
15 ABSENT:
16 ABSTAIN:
17
18
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
19
20 Approved as to form:
21
22
John Harper, City Attorney
23
24
25
-4-
a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GRAND TERRACE ADDING CHAPTER 9.32 TO THE GRAND
TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATION
OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
�J
Section 1. Chapter 9.32 is added to Title 9 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 9.32
REGULATION OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
Sections:
9.32.010 Definitions
9.32.020 Prohibitions
9.32.030 Exception
9.32.040 Criminal Penalty
9.32.010 Definitions
a. "Sex offender" means an individual who is required by law to register with a
governmental entity as a sex offender as a result of a conviction of a sex crime
against a child.
b. "Child"or"children"means any person under the age of eighteen(18)years of age.
C. "Day care center"means any licensed child day care facility including infant centers,
preschools,extended day care facilities,and school age child care centers. It does not
include a family day care home as defined in California Health and Safety Code
section 1596.78.
d. "Park" means a park or other recreation facility operated and/or maintained by a
governmental entity.
e. "School"means the buildings and grounds of any public or private school used for
purposes of the education of children in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12,
inclusive.
9.32.020 Prohibitions
a. Any registered sex offender, who is no longer the subject of parole by any
governmental entity, is prohibited from residing within two thousand six hundred
forty feet(2640')of any school,or from residing within two thousand feet(2000')of
any park or day care center.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. /iq
1
b. Any registered sex offender, who is no longer the subject of parole by any
governmental entity is prohibited from being located within 300 feet (300') of a
school,unless the registered sex offender is a parent or guardian of a child for which
the individual is legally responsible and the child attends the school or is'a student
at the school.
C. Any registered sex offender, who is no longer the subject of parole by any
governmental entity,is prohibited from being located within 300 feet(300')of a park
where children are present, unless the registered sex offender is a parent or guardian
of a child for which the individual is legally responsible and the child is present at the
park.
9.32.030 Exception
A registered sex offender is not in violation of section 9.32.020, subsection(a), because he
or she is residing and registered with a governmental entity,at an address that is within two thousand
six hundred forty feet (2640') of any school or within two thousand feet(2000)of any park or day
care center, on the effective date of this ordinance.
9.32.040 Criminal Penalty
Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
and upon conviction thereof, the penalty shall be a fine of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000)or imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six(6)months or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
Section 2. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each
section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections,subsections,clauses,phrases or portions of it be declared invalid or unconstitutional. If for
any reason any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid or unconstitutional, then all other
provisions of it shall remain valid and enforceable.
Section3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty(30) days from the date of adoption.
Section 4. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 14`h day
of August,2007 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on
the 28`h day of August, 2007.
Mayor of the City of'Grand Terrace
and of the City Council thereof.
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 281h day of August, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
r ABSENT:
' ABSTAIN:
Approved as to form: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
John Harper, City Attorney
t�
CIT
RAND TER C
Community Services Department
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 28,2007
SUBJECT: AWARD OF THE COMPETITIVELY BID GRAND TERRACE POCKET PARK BID
' AND CONTRACT. APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM FUND 13,THE PARK
DEVELOPMENT FUND TO THE PROJECT
FUNDING AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED:
BACKGROUND:
In the first quarter of 2006,council approved the tract map for 15 lots and one open space lot for Karger
Homes. These lots,now with completed homes,are located on DeBerry near the comer of Mt. Vernon. Per
the Conditions of Approval,Lot"A"was designated as a buffer lot due to limited access from the alley and
the desire to create a landscaped area between the homes and Mt. Vernon.
Staff has been working since last September on a passive park that would enhance the quality of life for the
local residents and bring a quite respite from busy Mt Vernon traffic.
Highlights include:
A 5,585 sq. ft. of passive park area
0 Old fashioned street lamps for illumination
0 24-hour video surveillance system
0 Public art piece depicting a hawk on Blue Mountain
0 Decomposed granite trails
A Rose gardens
A Benches
0 One tile artwork framed of a Blue Mountain orange crate label
A Two tile framed artwork created by local residents wanting to memorialize their
handprints, family name,etc.
The council budgeted$95,000 for the pocket park in the FY 07-08 Budget. An additional$15,000 was
appropriated for the block wall.
After several revisions to the park plan,the engineering estimate came in at$120,000-$130,000.
Staff went out to bid for the project in July 2007 and bids were due August 20`s. The City Clerk's office
received 7 bids as follows:
-C.S. Legacy $275,638
-Grand Pacific $243,562
-Vido Samarzien $209,780
-Landmark Site Contractors $201,102
-S.Parker Engineering $199,120
-MSJS Management $188,976
-IPS $176,518
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.
1
Staff has reviewed the bids and checked the references of the low bidder IPS. IPS recently completed the
bike lane project on Barton Road in front of the Grand Terrace Barber Shop to Building and Safety's
satisfaction.
Staff is requesting council to award the contract for the Grand Terrace Pocket Park to IPS,the lowest
bidder.
In addition, staff has been working with a local artist,Patrick Jewett The artist has a 20-year career in
public art.His works are exhibited throughout the state. He completed the eight-foot high marble statue of
St. Bemardine at the St.Bernardine Medical Center and a bronze bust for the Martin Luther King Jr. Public
Library in San Jose.
The art piece, a soaring red-tailed hawk set against a silhouette of the Blue Mountain,was inspired by a
newspaper article in The Sun regarding an injured red-tailed hawk rescued by a U.S.Fish and Wildlife
ranger on Blue Mountain. It was taken to a wildlife refuge sanctuary in Devore and has since been released
back into the area.
Several injured hawks in aviaries were being cared for. Jewett visited the sanctuary and photographed the
"Blue Mountain"hawk.Jewett showed his images to city and Foundation officials and outlined his idea of a
silhouette of the hawk flying just over the Blue Mountain.
The soaring red tail hawk set against a silhouette of the Blue Mountains will be immortalized in a bronze
sculpture at the pocket park(attachment A). The five and half foot statue,set on an eight foot pedestal, will
be the city's first outdoor public sculpture since the bicycle was installed at city hall.
l ti
The wildlife sculpture will be one of four possible public artworks in the park.The other three are ceramic
tile murals. One will be that of an orange crate label with the Blue Mountain as the backdrop. The other
two will be tiles that Grand Terrace residents, children and interested public will create and be affixed to the
block wall.
Staff has been working with the Foundation of Grand Terrace to fund the entire cost of the bronze
sculpture--$10,000--through donations.
Funding Request:
IPS contract award including 10%contingency $194,118
(Less amount budgeted in FY 07-08 for the pocket park) (95,000)
Remaining balance $99,118
Block wall(carry over) $ 15,000
Pedestal $ 10,000
Bronze Art Piece* $ 0
(3)Tile Murals $ 12,000
Total request $136,118
*paid for by donations
Currently Fund 13,the Parks Development Fund has a balance$527,000 and is expected to increase at the
end of the FY to$755,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
• Awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, IPS for$176,518 plus a 10%contingency
• Approving the artwork for the park including the bronze piece that will be funded by donations
• Funding the following from the Park Development Fund 13
r~-
o $99,118 for the remaining balance of the pocket park bid
o $10,000 for the pedestal construction by Quiel Signs of San Bernardino
o $12,000 for the three tile murals by artist Patrick Jewett and the community
o A.continued appropriation to FY 07-08 of$15,000 for the block wall
3
r •�
i
i
A
AGREEMENT
WORK ORDER NO. 12.662
PROJECT(BID #) 07-03 Grand Terrace Pocket Park
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 28`h day of August 2007 by and between the CITY OF
GRAND TERRACE hereinafter called"CITY",and International Pavement Solutions,Inc.,hereinafter called
"CONTRACTOR".
WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
-1 For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by
said City, said Contractor agrees with said City to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner all work
required under the Bidding Schedule of said City's Specifications,in accordance with the Specifications and
Drawings therefore,to furnish at his own expense all labor,materials,equipment,tools,and services necessary
therefore, except such materials, equipment, and services as may be stipulated in said Specifications to be
furnished by said City, and to do everything required by this Agreement and the said Specifications and
Drawings.
ARTICLE II
For furnishing all said labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services, furnishing and removing all plant,
temporary structures, tools, and equipment, and doing everything required by this Agreement and the said
Specifications and Drawings; also for all loss and damage arising out of the nature.of the work aforesaid, or
from the action of the elements,or from any unforeseen difficulties which may arise during the prosecution of
the work until its acceptance by said City,and for all risks of every description connected with the work;also
for all expenses resulting from the suspension or discontinuance of work; except as in the said Specifications
are expressly stipulated to be borne by said City; and for completing the work in accordance with the
requirements of said Specifications and drawings,said City will pay and said Contractor shall receive,in full
compensation therefore, the amount of $176,518.00, in accordance with the above-mentioned Bidding
Schedule.
ARTICLE III
The City hereby employs said Contractor to perform the work according to the terms of this Agreement for the
above-mentioned amount,and agrees in the said Specifications;and the said parties for themselves,their heirs,
executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants
herein contained.
ARTICLE IV
The Notice Inviting Bids,Instructions to Bidders,Proposal,Information,Required of Bidder,Specifications, }'
Drawings, and all addenda issued by the City with respect to the foregoing prior to the opening of bids, are
hereby incorporated in an made part of this Agreement.
F-1
5
ARTICLE V
In entering into a Public Works Contract for a subcontract to supply goods,services or materials pursuant to a
Public Works Contract,the Contractor or subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the City all rights,title,
and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act(15 U.S.C.Sec. 15)or
under the Cartwright Act(Chapter 2 commencing with Section 16700)of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business
and Professions Code, arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials pursuant to the Public Works
Contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the City tenders
final payment to the Contractor without further acknowledgment by the parties.
ARTICLE VI
The Contractor agrees to commence work pursuant to this Contract within ten calendar days from the =
execution hereof,and to diligently prosecute the same to completion within the number of working days from
the date of commencement of work, in accordance with Section 3.17 page 3-8.
ARTICLE VII
The Contractor shall supply the City with a Certificate evidencing liability insurance policy or policies which
shall provide the coverage set forth under Division 6 of these Specifications.
ARTICLE VIII
Securities may be substituted by the Contractor for monies withheld as a retention by the City to insure the
performance of the work described herein. At the request and expense of the Contractor,securities equivalent
to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the City or with a State or Federally chartered bank as the
escrow agent,who shall pay such monies to the Contractor upon satisfactory completion of the Contract.
l ,
Securities eligible for investment under this section shall include those listed in Section 16430 of the
Government Code or bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit. The Contractor shall be the beneficial
owner of any securities substituted for money withheld and shall receive any interest thereon.
ARTICLE IX
Should the City bring any legal or equitable action for the purpose of protecting or enforcing its rights under
this Agreement, the City shall recover,in addition to all other relief, its reasonable attorney's fees and court
costs to be fixed by the Court.
ARTICLE X
The Contractor hereby agrees that he will not proceed with any Extra Work unless he has been authorized in
writing to do so by the Building and Safety Director prior to the commencement of said Extra Work.
ARTICLE XI
The parties do for themselves,their heirs,executors, administrators,successors,and assigns agree to the full
performance of all the provisions herein contained. The Contractor may not,either voluntarily or by action of
law, assign any obligation assumed by the Contractor hereunder without prior written consent of the City.
ARTICLE XII
F-2
F
The Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the City from all losses and all claims,demands,payments,
suits,actions,recoveries,and judgments of every nature and description brought or recovered against them by
reason of any act or omission of said Contractor and his agents or employees in the execution of the work or in
making or failing to make payments therefore, or in guarding the same.
rN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed the day and year first
above written.
ATTEST: "CITY"
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
A Municipal Corporation
�.. By
City Clerk Mayor
Approved as to form: Date:
"CONTRACTOR"
City Attorney
By
(Title)
Date:
Contractor's License No.
F-3
7