The URL can be used to link to this page

04/27/2010 FILE , "GOPT GRAND TERR CE ApA127,2010 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 909,)824-6621 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Fax(909)783-7629 Fax(909)783-2600 CRA/CITY COUNCIL , Maryetta Ferr6 Mayor REGULAR MEETINGS- - - Lee Ann Garcia 2ND AND 4TH Tuesday 6:00 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem - Bea Cortes Jim Miller Walt'Stanckiewitz Council Members Betsy M.Adams City Manager Council Chambers Grand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton.Road Grand Terrace; CA 92313=5295 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS April 27,2010 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 p.m. 22795 Barton Road THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909)824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING,PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. ANY DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT CITY HALL LOCATED AT 22795 BARTON ROAD DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. IN ADDITION,SUCH DOCUMENTS WILL BE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFGRANDTERRACE.ORG * Call to Order- * Invocation- * Pledge of Allegiance- * Roll Call- STAFF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION - CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of 04-13-2010 Minutes Approve 2. Revised Cost Estimate for Construction of the New Baseball Field Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Chamber of Commerce Business of the Month 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member,Staff Member,or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. A. Approve Check Register Dated 04-27-2010 Approve B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda C. Approval of 04/13/2010 Minutes Approve D. Emergency Operations Committee Minutes of February 2,2010 Accept and March 2,2010 E. Crime Prevention Committee Minutes of January 11,2010 and Accept March 8,2010 COUNCIL AGENDA 04-27-2010 PAGE 2 OF 2 AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION 4. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law,the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda,but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 5. COUNCIL REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Update-Certification of the Final Program EIR Adopt Resolution Certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Grand Terrace General Plan Update. Resolution Adopting the Grand Terrace General Plan Update Applicable City-Wide 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.112 of Approve the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Establishing a No Fireworks Safety Zone 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Third Quarter Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Receive/File 9. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel-Potential Litigation- GC54956.9(b)(2)and GC54956.9(c) JOINT PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL 1. Joint Public Hearing on Amendment No.6 to the Redevelopment Adopt Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Resolution Certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report Prepared for Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Revised Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Applicable City-wide Ordinance Adopting Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area ADJOURN THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY,MAY 11,2010,AT 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NO LATER THAN 14 CALENDAR DAYS PRECEDING THE MEETING. PENDING CRA APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 13,2010 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace,California, on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Chairman Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairman Bea Cortes, Agency Member Walt Stanckiewitz, Agency Member Betsy M. Adams, City Manager Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Bernie Simon, Finance Director Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Sgt. Espinoza, Sheriff's Department John Salvate, San Bernardino County Fire Department ABSENT: None CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF 03-23-2010 MINUTES CRA-2010-19 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the March 23, 2010 Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes. LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF FIREWORKS ON AGENCY PROPERTY Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico Street, stated that he is in favor of the Little League and of the Soccer Club,however he is opposed to financing them with the sale of fireworks. He feels that Little League and the Soccer Club could raise money to operate their clubs by requesting support from all of the businesses in town. He is sure that they would be willing to sponsor the leagues. He feels that financing the league by the sale of fireworks is penny wise and pound foolish because three years ago when Blue Mountain caught on fire it was started by teenagers misusing fireworks that he is sure they bought in Grand Terrace. He learned from the fire department that it cost I million dollars to fight that fire on Blue Mountain. He is sure that if the County Fire Department had sent Grand Terrace a bill for 1 million dollars CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes April 13,2010 Page 2 there would be no more sale of fireworks in the City of Grand Terrace. CRA-2010-20 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA,CARRIED 4-0,to approve a License Agreement between the Agency and American Promotional Events,Inc.,to permit the use of Agency property for the sale of Safe and Sane Fireworks during June and July 2010. Chairman Ferre adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:10 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting that is scheduled to be held on Tuesday,April 27,2010 at 6:00 p.m. SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace ii, . `p iALI'F)RNIA AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 Council Item ( ) CRA Item ( X ) TITLE: Revised Cost Estimate for Construction of the New Baseball Field PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to proceed with the project BACKGROUND: On October 27, 2009, the Agency approved a recommended location for the new baseball field, northwest of the existing field, and authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the engineering and architectural design. Fraco Enterprises, Inc. was awarded the engineering and design contract on January 12, 2010. �- Staff has been working with Fraco Enterprises and representatives of the Little League Baseball and Softball Organization on the field design and associated amenities. DISCUSSION: The cost to construct the baseball field was originally reported to be approximately $165,000 - $195,000, with the electrical system installed for future lighting. Staff has been working with the civil engineer, landscape architect and electrical consultant to prepare the engineers .estimate of work prior to public bidding for construction. After extensive research, and addressing ADA deficiencies at the existing field, the cost estimate is now approximately $300,600.00, which includes construction and field equipment. To include a 10% contingency would bring potential costs to $330,660.00. Staff recommends adding ADA improvements at the existing park to this project and a drinking fountain for the new, field. Because there is no water or sewer service to the new site, the cost for the water fountain will be approximately $20,000. The new field would be accessible by pedestrians along a proposed lighted walkway that is ADA accessible. This walkway will also be the path of travel for various landscaping and baseball related equipment. For this reason staff recommends upgrading the foundations for the walkway light poles to concrete to increase the longevity of the light poles. The walkway also crosses a 60-foot Southern California Edison easement. Staff is aware of the easements and has been communicating with Edison for months; however the scope of reinforcement to sustain travel by a 40-ton transmission truck has increased costs as well. CRA AGENDA ITEM NO.2 The new estimate is listed below. April 2010 Grand Terrace—Little League Field Construction Cost Estimate Improvements Construction Costs Civil $ 77,093.63 Erosion $ 15,502.00 Landscape & Irrigation $ 139,531.00 Walkway Lighting $ 33,452.07 Field Lighting * $ 0 Field Equipment $ 35,015.00 Grand Total $ 3009593.70 *The cost to install field lighting is approximately $85,000 and the Little League will be pursuing grant funding for those costs. Because the original estimate was significantly lower, staff is now requesting that the Agency Board determine whether to continue with project construction at the increased estimated cost. Staff would then advertise the project for public bidding, then return to the Agency for bid award and budgeting based on actual bids received. Construction bids have become increasingly competitive, but it is not known at this time where the bids will fall in relation to the Cost Estimate. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds for the construction are available in the CRA 80% undesignated fund balance. The Agency now has approximately: • $2.2 million reserved for ERAF; • $2.7 million for future debt services; and • $1.8 million for new projects, pending approval of the redevelopment Plan Amendment and the Court's ERAF ruling. Respectfully submitted, yce Oowers Community and Economic Develo ment Director Manager Approval: / Betsy . Adams CRA Executive Director vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code, bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65117 4/6/2010 011003 PETTY CASH 04052010 REPLENISH PETTY CASH 10-010-01-00 47493 23-010-01-00 4.35 34-010-01-00 7.48 Total: 486.76 65118 4/12/2010 005702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT PRend 04/02/201(Contributions for PRend 4-2-10 10-022-62-00 18,475.11 Total: 18,475.11 65119 4/12/2010 010764 SAFEGUARD DENTAL&VISION 3044907 APRIL EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT DENTAL INS 10-022-61-00 148.21 10-180-142-000-000 14.27 Total: 162.48 65120 4/12/2010 011092 METLIFE SBC Apr KM05754034(April Vision Insurance 10-022-61-00 203.58 10-180-142-000-000 50.00 Total: 253.58 65121 4/12/2010 004587 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 3200015583 APRIL MHN INSURANCE Page: 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.,-�R vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65121 4/12/2010 004587 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK (Continued) 10-120-142-000-000 16.96 10-125-142-000-000 960 10-140-142-000-000 9.60 10-172-142-000-000 3.20 10-175-142-000-000 2.56 10-180-142-000-000 23.68 10-370-142-000-000 10.88 10-380-142-000-000 6.40 10-440-142-000-000 128.00 10-450-142-000-000 16.00 21-572-142-000-000 7.68 32-370-142-000-000 960 34-400-142-000-000 8.96 34-800-142-000-000 2.56 10-180-142-000-000 6.40 10-185-142-000-000 6.40 32-200-142-000-000 6.72 Total: 275.20 65122 4/12/2010 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY April 0060786900(APRIL EMPLOYEE LIFE AND DISABILITY INS Page. 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65122 4/12/2010 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY (Continued) 10-120-142-000-000 18.42 10-125-142-000-000 10.42 10-140-142-000-000 1042 10-172-142-000-000 348 10-175-142-000-000 2.78 10-180-142-000-000 25 09 10-370-142-000-000 1031 10-380-142-000-000 6 95 10-440-142-000-000 54.35 10-450-142-000-000 10.43 21-572-142-000-000 7.71 32-370-142-000-000 6.77 34-400-142-000-000 9.63 34-800-142-000-000 2.78 32-200-142-000-000 10.06 10-185-142-000-000 6.95 10-022-66-00 1,177.28 Total: 1,373.83 65123 4/12/2010 010737 WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC Apr 002484 7730 APRIL EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT DENTAL INS 10-022-61-00 73.62 Total• 73.62 65124 4/12/2010 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Apr 160513170-OC APRIL EMPLOYEE/DEPENDENT DENTAL INS 10-022-61-00 1,273.00 10-180-142-000-000 44.08 10-370-142-000-000 4408 Total: 1,361.16 65125 4/12/2010 010218 CHEVRON&TEXACO CARD SERVICES 24294039 MARCH VEHICLE FUEL 10-180-272-000-000 50467 34-800-272-000-000 11611 Total: 620.78 65126 4/12/2010 010664 SHELL FLEET MANAGEMENT 8000209687004 MARCH MAINT VEHICLE FUEL 10-180-272-000-000 577.23 Page. 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65126 4/12/2010 010664 SHELL FLEET MANAGEMENT (Continued) Total: 577.23 65127 4/14/2010 011071 STANCKIEWITZ,W. Apr 305119204 APRIL HEALTH INS 10-110-142-000-000 356.00 Total: 356.00 65128 4/15/2010 001907 COSTCO#478 0478050214 199 C.CARE SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 137.99 Total: 137.99 65129 4/15/2010 011074 REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS O4132010 Redlight Camers Srvs thru 5/31/09 17-021-30-00 25,409.73 Total: 25,409.73 65130 4/20/2010 006597 SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS W2679061BF BOOK FAIR FUND RAISER 23-200-14-00 1,565.30 Total: 1,565.30 65131 4/20/2010 011110 TIME WARNER CABLE Apr84484005.724 APR/MAY INTERNET/CABLE SRVS 10-805-238-000-000 121.58 Total: 121.58 65132 4/21/2010 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 612707 CERT Grant Purchases 10-808-221-000-000 1,21764 Total: 1,217.64 65133 4/21/2010 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 6121709 Wall Painting Supplies 32-600-305-000-000 16471 10-180-245-000-000 20.00 Total: 184.71 65134 4/27/2010 007402 (NEOPOST POSTAGE-ON CALL), U S. POSTA1040710 Postage on acct for meter 74456587 10-190-211-000-000 2,50000 Total: 2,500.00 65135 4/27/2010 011113 AAA PORTABLE RESTROOM COMP INC 70680 Rental for wall painting project 32-600-305-000-000 210.00 Page. 4 i vchlist Voucher List Page. 5 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65135 4/27/2010 011113 AAA PORTABLE RESTROOM COMP INC (Continued) Total. 210.00 65136 4/27/2010 001024 ACCENT PRINT&DESIGN 254431 Letterhead for all departments 10-190-220-000-000 11093 254440 SR.CTR NEWSLETTER PRINTING 10-805-222-000-000 9051 Total: 201.44 65137 4/27/2010 010678 ARCHIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICE 0088719 TAPE STORAGE 10-180-250-000-000 55.27 10-140-250-000-000 55.26 0089508 TAPE STORAGE 10-180-250-000-000 55.25 10-140-250-000-000 55.25 Total: 221.03 65138 4/27/2010 010293 AVAYA, INC 2729922188 MARCH PHONE&VOICEMAIL MAINTENANCE 10-190-246-000-000 18346 Total: 183.46 65139 4/27/2010 011007 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 041510 MAY COBRA FOR BERRY FAMILY 10-180-142-000-000 836.55 Total. 836.55 65140 4/27/2010 011017 CA. BLDG. STANDARDS COMMISSION 040810 1st qtr 2010 Green Bldg Stand. Fee 23-200-23-00 2600 1st qtr gm GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FEE 10-700-01 -2.60 Total: 23.40 65141 4/27/2010 001840 CITY OF COLTON 000980 FEB ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 10-190-256-000-000 3,629.00 Total: 3,629.00 65142 4/27/2010 010403 CITY OF REDLANDS AR126772 March CNG Fuel 34-800-272-000-000 26.93 10-180-272-000-000 2692 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bola Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65142 4/27/2010 010403 CITY OF REDLANDS (Continued) Total: 53.85 65143 4/27/2010 011029 COBRA SIMPLE 61 COBRA ADMIN SERVICES 10-190-220-000-000 5000 Total 50.00 65144 4/27/2010 001867 COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 166232 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 498.55 Total: 498.55 65145 4/27/2010 010972 CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS 121546 Prints for GT Street project 32-600-310-000-000 26.05 Total: 26.05 65146 4/27/2010 001907 COSTCO#478 0478 060160 70 C.CARE SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 17090 Total: 170.90 65147 4/27/2010 001930 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION B1818665 APRIL PUBLICATION-NOTICE OF HEARING 10-370-230-000-000 400.40 Total: 400.40 65148 4/27/2010 001950 DATA QUICK B1-1751435 March Subscription service 10-380-250-000-000 43.50 21-572-246-000-000 4350 34-800-220-000-000 43.50 Total: 130.50 65149 4/27/2010 001935 DFM ASSOCIATES O40810 2010 CA Elections Code 10-125-210-000-000 52.77 Total: 52.77 65150 4/27/2010 002165 DRUG ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM 7799 March Rollins park Maintenance 10-450-245-000-000 50000 Total: 500.00 65151 4/27/2010 010211 ED SERVICE 6951 VCR repaired 10-190-220-000-000 22500 Page: 6 l ) - vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65151 4/27/2010 010211 ED SERVICE (Continued) Total• 225.00 65152 4/27/2010 002301 FEDEX 7-051-26576 March services 10-120-210-000-000 41 90 10-125-210-000-000 4516 10-180-268-000-000 1478 10-172-210-000-000 27.20 Total: 129.04 65153 4/27/2010 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 90488016 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 8.47 90498156 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 8.04 90498845 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 217.26 90506624 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 57.21 90510165 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 35060 90510985 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 38.42 90511232 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 2.31 90511511 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 4.26 Total: 686.57 65154 4/27/2010 002760 G&R REFRIGERATION 44642 SERVICE C.CARE FREEZER 10-440-219-000-000 105.82 Total: 105.82 65155 4/27/2010 010164 GREAT-WEST 041210 CONTRIBUTION FOR PR ENDING 040210 10-022-63-00 5,970.33 Total. 5,970.33 65156 4/27/2010 010559 GST-JAGUAR JO1315502 BLACK TONER 10-370-210-000-000 145.73 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65156 4/27/2010 010559 GST-JAGUAR (Continued) Total: 145.73 65157 4/27/2010 003152 HARPER&BURNS LLPN 040110 Legal services for March 32-200-251-000-000 7,95888 10-160-250-000-000 7,95887 Total: 15,917.75 65158 4/27/2010 010632 HIGH TECH SECURITY SYSTEMS 91025 City Hall/Parks camera security 10-180-246-000-000 21.25 10-450-246-000-000 63.75 Total: 85.00 65159 4/27/2010 003490 INMARK/VICTOR 113926 Peggy Reagan Name Tag 10-804-210-000-000 1812 Total: 18.12 65160 4/27/2010 003850 JANI-KING OF CA., INC. LAX04101132 CHILD CARE CLEANING SERVICES 10-440-244-000-000 97500 Total: 975.00 65161 4/27/2010 010290 KAISER PERMANENTE May 264428204 MAY HEALTH INS-GARCIA 10-110-142-000-000 368.08 10-110-273-000-000 5392 10-110-120-000-000 25000 Total: 672.00 65162 4/27/2010 010773 KELLAR SWEEPING INC. 5146 STREET SWEEPING SERVICES 16-900-254-000-000 4,200.00 Total: 4,200.00 65163 4/27/2010 003890 KELLY PAPER 3313446 YELLOW VELLUM PAPER 10-172-210-000-000 9.15 Total: 9.15 65164 4/27/2010 004299 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 1429080410 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 10-440-228-000-000 146.90 Total: 146.90 Page. 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65165 4/27/2010 004320 LAWNMOWER CENTER 5343 MOWER/BLOWER REPAIRS 10-450-246-000-000 14 13 5407 MOWER/BLOWER REPAIRS 10-450-246-000-000 28.25 7222 MOWER/BLOWER REPAIRS 10-450-246-000-000 7068 7223 MOWER/BLOWER REPAIRS 10-450-246-000-000 28.25 Total: 141.31 65166 4/27/2010 010369 LOMA LINDA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 04152010 Clinic Vaccines and Chips 10-200-15 762.00 Total: 762.00 65167 4/27/2010 010812 LOWE'S COMMERCIAL SERVICES 911139 MAINT.SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 2766 Total: 27.66 65168 4/27/2010 010690 LSA ASSOCIATES INC. 96803f JAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32-600-212-000-000 14,096.25 97325F FES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23-302-39-00 1,927.50 Total: 16,023.75 65169 4/27/2010 004650 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES 695852 REPLACE TOT SWING-ROLLINS PARK 10-450-246-000-000 15981 697079 HARDWARE FOR TOT SWING REPLACEMENT 10-450-246-000-000 82.26 Total: 242.07 65170 4/27/2010 010097 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 410575025-091 FEB/MAR MOBILE PHONE SERVICES 10-180-240-000-000 35593 10-440-238-000-000 49.97 Total: 405.90 65171 4/27/2010 011117 NITC 022210 IAPMO RENEWAL EXAM 10-172-210-000-000 75.00 Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65171 4/27/2010 011117 NITC (Continued) Total: 75.00 65172 4/27/2010 001456 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC. 96818749 C CARE OFFICE SUPPLIES 10-440-210-000-000 51 74 Total: 51.74 65173 4/27/2010 005586 PETTY CASH 04192010 REPLENISH C. CARE PETTY CASH 10-440-221-000-000 2011 10-440-223-000-000 149.31 10-440-228-000-000 13038 23-200-14-00 4750 Total: 347.30 65174 4/27/2010 010565 QUICK LANE Q72278 F150 truck oil change 10-180-272-000-000 3551 Q72451 C.CARE BUS FUEL VENT REPAIR 10-440-272-000-000 251.79 Total: 287.30 65175 4/27/2010 010171 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 210111 Feb response call outs 16-510-255-000-000 56989 210112 SIGNAL MAINT/REPAIRS 16-510-255-000-000 451.68 310112 SIGNAL MAINT/REPAIRS 16-510-255-000-000 451 68 Total: 1,473.25 65176 4/27/2010 006310 ROADRUNNER SELF STORAGE INC. 11139 May Storage Rental 10-140-241-000-000 119.00 Total: 119.00 65177 4/27/2010 006335 ROQUET PAVING INC. 0310-10 Pico/Mt Vernon repairs 21-573-602-000-000 2,950.00 0312-10 Barton Rd/Dance Studio repairs 16-900-257-000-000 1,291 00 Total: 4,241.00 65178 4/27/2010 006451 S.B.COUNTY ASSESSOR 103827 Parcel Map Revision Map Pages Page. 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65178 4/27/2010 006451 S.B.COUNTY ASSESSOR (Continued) 10-370-220-000-000 7.50 Total: 7.50 65179 4/27/2010 006531 S.B. COUNTY SHERIFF 9820 APRIL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 10-410-255-000-000 4,22477 10-410-256-000-000 128,464 33 14-411-256-000-000 23,783.90 Total: 156,473.00 65180 4/27/2010 010040 SCOTT,MARY J. 04202010 4/9 Conference Mileage Reimb 10-440-270-000-000 62.00 Total: 62.00 65181 4/27/2010 010248 SMITH'S FLOWERS 002662 Roses 10-110-220-000-000 21.21 Total: 21.21 65182 4/27/2010 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY 2-01-195-9749 March Energy Usage 16-510-238-000-000 5,597.95 26-600-238-000-000 49.80 26-601-238-000-000 41.50 26-602-238-000-000 58.10 Total: 5,747:35 65183 4/27/2010 006730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY 126 521 6900 9 MARCH NATURAL GAS USAGE 10-440-238-000-000 7933 10-805-238-000-000 5442 10-190-238-000-000 420.02 March March CNG Fuel 10-180-272-000-000 780 10-440-272-000-000 2.60 34-800-272-000-000 2.60 Total: 566.77 65184 4/27/2010 011071 STANCKIEWITZ,W. May 305119204 MAY HEALTH INSURANCE 10-110-142-000-000 356.00 Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 04/21/2010 12:10:49PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65184 4/27/2010 011071 STANCKIEWITZ,W. (Continued) Total: 356.00 65185 4/27/2010 006778 STAPLES 3144417670 Kitchen Supplies 10-190-220-000-000 49.13 70616325 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10-172-210-000-000 69.13 Total: 118.26 65186 4/27/2010 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 003300743 C CARE STOVE 10-440-246-000-000 1,613.63 004071034 FOOD&SUPPLIES APRIL 10-440-220-000-000 547.36 004141196 FOOD&SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 51466 Total: 2,675.65 65187 4/27/2010 007034 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 1022 February Professional Services 10-175-255-000-000 2,05700 Total: 2,057.00 65188 4/27/2010 007220 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 320100282 29 tickets for dig alert 16-900-220-000-000 43.50 Total. 43.50 65189 4/27/2010 010693 UNITED WAY 040710 Emp contr FY 08-09 10-022-65-00 3,692.00 Total: 3,692.00 65190 4/27/2010 007795 WAXIE 71864346 MAINT SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 10-180-245-000-000 893.74 Total: 893.74 65191 4/27/2010 007843 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 64709 CITY WIDE TREE SERVICE 16-900-260-000-000 428.00 Total. 428.00 65192 4/27/2010 007854 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS CO 484038 MARCH EXTERMINATION SERVICES Page: 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 04/21/2010 2:44:04PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65192 4/27/2010 007854 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS CO (Continued) 10-180-245-000-000 86.50 10-805-245-000-000 33.00 34-400-246-000-000 38.50 Total: 158.00 65193 4/27/2010 007920 WILLDAN 002-10145 PLAN CHECK SERVICES 10-172-250-000-000 2,700.00 002-10146 PLAN CHECK SERVICES 10-175-255-000-000 2,585.00 002-10147A STIMULUS-STREET REHAB PROJECTS 46-900-301-000-000 110.00 46-900-303-000-000 110.00 46-900-304-000-000 880.00 10-175-255-000-000 110.00 Total: 6,495.00 65194 4/27/2010 010147 CORTES, BEA April,2010 April Stipend/Auto Allowance 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 77.06 10-110-273-000-000 200.00 Total: 427.06 65195 4/27/2010 002450 FERRE', MARYETTA April,2010 April Stipend/Auto Allowance 32-200-120-000-000 15000 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 10-110-273-000-000 200.00 Total: 600.00 65196 4/27/2010 002795 GARCIA, LEE ANN April, 2010 April Stipend/Auto Allowance 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-273-000-000 146.06 Total: 296.06 65197 4/27/2010 010974 STANCKIEWITZ,WALT April 2010 April Stipend/Auto Allowance Page. 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 04/21/2010 2:44:04PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 65197 4/27/2010 010974 STANCKIEWITZ,WALT (Continued) 32-200-120-000-000 15000 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 10-110-273-000-000 20000 Total: 600.00 81 Vouchers for bank code: bofa Bank total: 297,542.39 81 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers. 297,542.39 Page: 14 City of Grand Terrace Warrant Register Index FD No. Fund Name Dept No. Department Name General Account Numbers 10 GENERAL FUND 110 CITY COUNCIL 110 SALARIESNVAGES 11 Street Fund 120 CITY MANAGER 139 EMPLOYEES'BENEFIT PLAN 12 Storm Drain Fund 125 CITY CLERK 140 RETIREMENT 13 Park Fund 140 FINANCE 142 HEALTH/LIFE INSURANCE 14 AB 3229 COPS Fund 160 CITY ATTORNEY 143 WORKERS'COMPENSATION 15 Air Quality Improvement Fund 172 BUILDING&SAFETY 138/141 MEDICARE/SUI 16 Gas Tax Fund 175 PUBLIC WORKS 210 OFFICE EXPENSE 17 Traffic Safety Fund/TDA Fund 180 COMMUNITY SERVICES 218-219 NON-CAPITAL FURN/SMALL TOOLS 19 Facilities Development Fund 185 RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM 220 SPECIAL DEPARTMENTAL EXP 20 Measure I Fund 190 GENERAL GOVERNMENT(NON-DEPT) 230 ADVERTISING 21 Waste Water Disposal Fund 370 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEV 235 COMMUNICATIONS 26 LSCPG/LGHTG Assessment Dist 380 MGT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 238-239 UTILITIES 44 Bike Lane Capital Fund 410 LAW ENFORCEMENT 240-242 RENTS&LEASES 46 Street Improvement Projects 430 RECREATION SERVICES 245-246 MAINT BLDG GRNDS EQUIPMNT 47 Barton Rd. Bridge Project 44o CHILD CARE 250-251 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32 CRA-CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 450 PARKS MAINTENANCE 255-256 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33 CRA-DEBT SERVICE FUND 631 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE 260 INSURANCE&SURETY BONDS 34 CRA-LOW&MOD HOUSING 801 PLANNING COMMISSION 265 ' MEMBERSHIPS&DUES 802 CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 268 TRAINING 804 HISTORICAL&CULTURAL COMM. 270 TRAVEUCONFERENCES/MTGS 805 SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM 272 FUEL&VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 807 PARKS&REC COMMITTEE 570 WASTEWATER TREATMENT 808 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PROG. 33-300 DEBT SERVICE 7XX FACILITIES IMPRV(NO CIP) 700 COMPUTER-RELATED 701 VEHICLES&EQUIPMENT I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the afore-listed checks for payment of City and Community Redevelopment Agency liabilities have been audited by me and are necessary and appropriate for the operation of City and Agency. Bernie Simon, Finance Director CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 13,2010 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on April 13, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Mayor Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern Bea Cortes, Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz, Councilmember Betsy M. Adams, City Manager Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Bernard Simon, Finance Director Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director Richard Shields, Building& Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Sgt. Espinoza, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department John Salvate, San Bernardino County Fire Department ABSENT: None CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4:30 P.M. 1. Closed Session- Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation- GC54956.9(b)(2) and GC54956.9 ( c) Mayor Ferre announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss with Legal Counsel Potential Litigation- GC54956.9(b)(2) and GC54956.9 ( c) and that there was no reportable action taken. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6:00 P.M. The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Mayor Pro Tern Lee Ann Garcia, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilwoman Bea Cortes. ITEMS TO ADD/DELETE -None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Woman of Distinction Recognition COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.--<( Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 2 Mayor Ferr6 announced that every year Emmerson has an event that highlights women that have made a difference"Woman of Distinction". She indicated that the Council has invited two of the individuals that received this honor from Grand Terrace to the meeting to be recognized. She introduced Deborah Seuylemezian and Mary Ann Stewart and presented each of them with flowers. Mayor Pro Tern Lee Ann Garcia announced that Maryetta Ferre was also recognized as one of the Woman of Distinction recipients. B. Proclamation- Blue Ribbon Week- Week of May 9, 2010 Councilman Stanckiewitz read a Proclamation proclaiming the week of May 9,2010 as Blue Ribbon Week in the City of Grand Terrace in recognition and support of all peace officers and law enforcement agencies and presented it to Sgt. Espinoza. C. Recognition of Sheriff s Deputies for Exceptional Service Sgt. Espinoza introduced Gerry Tesselaar, the new Captain for Grand Terrace. Captain Tesselaar read a bio on what each Deputy did to earn the Sheriffs Exceptional Service Award. Mayor Ferre,presented Deputy Alex Naoum and Deputy Patrick Leon with commendations for their efforts and dedication to the Community. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-2010-29 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items: 3A. Approve Check Register Dated 04-13-2010 3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda 3C. Approval of 03-23-2010 Minutes 3D. Agreement for"Maintenance of Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting"Located at the Main Entrance of Grand Terrace High School on Main Street 3E. AT&T Telephone and Data Services Contract 3F. Acceptance of Dedication at 12569 Michigan Street, Grand Terrace, CA 3G. Historical&Cultural Activities Committee Meeting Minutes of 03-01-2010 PUBLIC COMMENT Sylvia Robles, 23008 Orangewood Court, stated that the citizens have three minutes to Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 3 interact with Council and she feels that it is really a deficit on their end and a way to keep things orderly. She was very disappointed in the March 9, 2010 meeting concerning the Amendment to the RDA. The Staff report, in her opinion,was very imbalanced. The State requires that alternate sources be analyzed and none were indicated. What was detailed were the wonderful programs we all enjoy and appreciate. Nothing was detailed on what was spent on commercial and retail projects and what will be spent in the future. The other issue is that the State requires that the RDA determine why private developers need their help to build shopping centers or other typically privately funded commercial ventures,she does not believe that this threshold was met. She felt that the Council should have asked more questions on behalf of the tax payers they represent. Since they have three minutes and you have much more time that should have been done. Tax increment is property taxes. The State is projecting a deficit upwards to 20 billion dollars. The same revenue stream of property taxes is what funds the schools and all local governments. Someone said that we should take this money because if we don't someone else will. We are in a deep financial crisis because we have had the attitude lets all take our piece of the pie. She cherishes the good projects and the good that can be done with RDA. She also cherishes capital investment that should be done by private individuals. Look around at all of the vacancies, we do not need to be funding these. A stream of funds of property taxes is finite and we need to take only what we need not any more and she feels that this Council needs to ask more questions. We have a heavy agenda in two weeks and she plans to be there and anyone who will yield their time to her, please contact her. R.A.Barney Barnet,474 Prospect Avenue,Highgrove,invited everyone to the Highrove Day on May 8, 2010. He reported that according to RCTC,their Environmental Impact Report is now finished. There are some challenges that can be submitted in writing if anyone would like to,the deadline is May24, 2010. He stated that the EIR was not given to the Library in Highgrove, however it was provided to many of the surrounding libraries. He read a sentence that was included on the back of the EIR"The public's primary concern throughout the process have been safety, noise and rail traffic" There is no mention of the station locations and that is where we have been fighting as a joint effort for Highgrove and Grand Terrace for the last 8 years. There is a meeting tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.at 4080 Lemon where they will be reviewing this Environmental Document. Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, reminded the Council of the incredible cost to her and other citizens, money, time, damages to their health and damages to the value of their property when things are not built in a timely manner. She has had to come to so many meetings to have different things followed through on. Firstly she has no confidence that they are going to get accurate facts or complete information and secondly it has been proved to her that many things are passed by City Officials that are in direct violation to the law. When for years citizens have been, at their expense, following through on things and their opinions and views aren't even considered. When there are public hearings, there are a lot of people that are angry they just can't keep coming to the meetings. She is one person and Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 4 she is tired of it. The City is required to follow the municipal code and the laws and it is not being followed. There are hundreds of documents to prove it and they have had years to look into it and you haven't done it. In continuing the Swertfeger CUP you are increasing the damages for which you are liable and you are personally liable because you have been told that there is a problem. She respectfully requests that the Council do their job and do it immediately so that you put a stop to the damage to individuals and the entire city. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Garcia, reported that everyone should have received new trash containers from Burrtec. She commended Burrtec for making sure that we have appropriate receptacles that are easy to identify and use. She reported that Little League is taking sponsorships for $150.00. She would love to see each team sponsored. She reported that the 261h Annual Art Show will be held on Sunday, May 2, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Councilmember Cortes, reported that at the SANBAG Board of Directors Meeting they learned of a new program that is going to be available for all residents in San Bernardino County. The Program is called IE 511. Anyone can call to find out about traffic congestion, etc. City Clerk Brenda Mesa, stated that SANBAG and RCTC has asked all of the cities to help test the program using different cell phone carriers and land lines. That testing will be done on April 15, 2010. It will be advertised on the Website when it is up and running. Councilmember Stanckiewitz, reported that Grand Terrace Market Night is coming back May 3,2010. As of today it has been 14 days since he wrote a letter to the Corporation for Better Housing questioning some of the things that went on at the Senior Center. He has not received a response to date. He will continue to report until he hears something from CBH. He had some members of the Measure B Measure G citizens oversight committee come to him with their concerns about the construction of Grand Terrace High School and that it appears that certain things that were promised may not materialize when the school opens. There was a special meeting held last week and those concerns were confirmed. There will not be a swimming pool,bleachers,rest rooms or a concession stand for the football stadium and the tennis courts will not be constructed. The Measure B and Measure G citizens oversight committees position is that this is what the bonds were sold for. They responded that they only received 48 million of the 60 million, which is about 20% less and they also acknowledged that construction costs are 20 to 25%less than when they planned on building.; He would like to request that we have the school board or someone from the facilities organization come and make a presentation to the Council to explain to the City of Grand Terrace exactly what their thoughts are and why they are eliminating some of these projects from the construction. Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 5 Mayor Ferre,stated that at a recent Chamber luncheon the Assistant Superintendent in charge of business did an update on the high school. She questioned if Councilmember Stanckiewitz wanted to request that he come and give a report or did he want the Oversight Committee Chair to come and give a report. Councilmember Stanckiewitz, responded that he would like Mr. Ayala to come and talk to the Council about what is going on. It was the consensus of the Council to direct Staff to contact the CJUSD and ask Mr. Ayala to come to make a presentation to the Council specifically on the items that were brought to the Oversight Committee. Councilmember Stanckiewitz, attended anonymously a meeting of residents of Highgrove and Riverside County Engineering Personnel. The people along Main Street are not happy with the City of Grand Terrace and the location of the high school and how that will impact their quality of life and their property. He was very impressed with the Engineering personnel from Riverside County and their willingness to work with each individual resident on how they could mitigate some of these issues. Main Street is going to become a very busy thoroughfare. The quality of life for those residents is going to suffer and it will also extend down Michigan when the street lights are installed. L. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6A. Resolution-Swertfeger Equipment-Modification or Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 99-01, 99-01A2 and 99-01A3, Located at 12438 Michigan Street Frank Tetley,22545 Barton Road,respectfully requested a continuance of this item for two weeks,possibly four,at their convenience. He did not know that it was on the calendar until recently. He requested that in the future he receive a courtesy notice, if not a more formal notice. He was not noticed at all that this item was on the agenda. CC-2010-30 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER STANCKIEWITZ, CARRIED 4-0, to continue the Public Hearing - Resolution - Swertfeger Equipment-Modification or Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 99- 01, 99-01A2 and 99-01A3, Located at 12438 Michigan Street to May 11, 2010. 6B. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.112 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Establishing a No Fireworks Safety Zone It was indicated that Mayor Ferre and Mayor Pro Tern Garcia own residents in the proposed Fireworks Safety Zones and believe that there may be a conflict of interest for the both of them to vote on this item. Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 6 City Attorney John Harper, stated that to the extent that you believe you have a conflict of interest you are precluded from participating in the discussion and making a decision. The Brown Act, however, recognizes that there might be some circumstances that a number of conflicts could result in a lack of a quorum and therefor when a vote is legally required,those individuals that are disqualified get to draw lots or some other reasonable way of choosing which one votes and which one is precluded. The City Clerk has two envelopes,one will be selected by Mayor Ferr6 and one will be given to Mayor Pro Tem.Garcia. One will say you get to vote and one will say you don't get to vote. He reminded the Council that there will be 3 councilmembers voting on this item and an Ordinance requires by statute 3 affirmative votes to be effective. Mayor Ferr6 received the envelope that said to vote. Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director, indicated that staff has drafted an Ordinance to establish the No Fireworks Safety Zone. If adopted, the discharge of fireworks would not be permitted: West of La Cadena Drive East of Oriole Avenue East of Whistler Street East of Dos Rios Avenue East of Preston Street Mayor Ferr6 opened the Public Hearing for discussion. JoAnn Johnson, 12723 Mt.Vernon Avenue,stated that this is better than nothing. It doesn't address the pet situation but it does address the fire situation and she feels that it is very good. She has a petition available signed by several people who were totally against fireworks. Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, stated that for years they have had a huge problem with illegal fireworks going off over her property. She feels that no one is able to solve this problem and that it is very risky to the lives and property of the people in Grand Terrace. She understands the concerns of Little League but the City has a huge liability problem. The police are very limited to what they can and the Fire Department as well. The people setting off the fireworks know very well that people know for sure that they are doing it and they continue to do it frequently. By allowing safe and sane fireworks the problem is being complicated by leaps and bounds. In her view, this safety zone should be around everyone until the Council can prove to the residents that they will be protected. Josie Wold, 12657 Reed Avenue,questioned if residents will still be allowed to vote on this issue in November. She indicated that the Gage Canal was not considered. She feels that Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 7 this area is a big threat to her home and people walk through that area all the time. She hopes that this can be resolved so that people can feel safe once again. She would like to see displays in the parks and feels that it would be a great idea. Mayor Ferre closed the public hearing and returned discussion to Council. Mayor Ferre, requested that the Sheriff's Department include Gage Canal, behind Reed as one of the locations to patrol. Councilmember Cortes,requested that the Fire Department give an explanation on how the boundaries were made up. John Salvate, Battalion Chief, San Bernardino County Fire, responded that it is a difficult process to evaluate what you would designate as a safe zone. They looked specifically at the threat for fire and where there have been fires in the past. Obviously the designated fire hazard severity zones are an easy gage that they can utilize because that is where they know there are fire hazards. Places like the Gage Canal are considered but there are many things that they have to look at. They look at fire hazard and enforcement capabilities and their abilities to communicate to the public areas that are easily identifiable. He stated that the Fire Department will be out patrolling along with the Sheriff's Department in all areas of the City. Councilmember Cortes, stated that she does agree that all areas should be considered in the hazardous zone boundaries. Community and Economic Development Director Powers, stated that with regards to the weeds in easements and the Gage Canal, the weed abatement season will be completed by the beginning of July and they can specifically look at Gage Canal to make sure that it is clear. Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz, stated that he chose to recommend that the fireworks issue go to the voters so if fireworks are outlawed by the voters another Council can't change what they would have done. By allowing this to go to the voters of the City they will decide whether or not fireworks will be sold and discharged in the City. He questioned that given our limited resources in both police and fire will we be concentrating those resources in this fire zone and ignoring the rest of the city or will it be spread out. Battalion Chief Salvate,responded that they have a roving patrol that is done throughout the entire City. It will be handled as it has been in the past. They will be using it as a educational tool. Sgt.Espinoza,San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department,responded that they too will be Council Minutes 04/13/2010 Page 8 doing roving patrol throughout the City. They also will have hot-lines set up should anyone want to report a fire, illegal fireworks, or fireworks in the safety zone. Councilmember Cortes, requested that the hotline number be placed on the website. Councilmember Stanckiewitz, requested that hotline number be place on the community signs and billboards. CC-2010-31 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, SECOND BY MAYOR FERRE, CARRIED 3-0-0-1 (MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA ABSTAINED), to approve the First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.112 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Establishing a No Fireworks Safety Zone. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None NEW BUSINESS -None CLOSED SESSION 9A. Labor Negotiations (GC 54957.6) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Betsy M. Adams Representing Unrepresented Employees 9B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation - CG 54956.9 (b)(2) and GC54956.9 (c) Mayor Ferr6 announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss Labor Negotiations (GC 54957.6) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Betsy M. Adams Representing Unrepresented Employees and a Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation CG 54956.9 (b)(2) and GC54956.9 (c) and that there was no reportable action taken. Mayor Ferre adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m., until the next City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REC'CIVIF13 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Regular Meeting tPR 0 2010 MINUTES C)ry OF rRA February 2,2010 Crry ct.E NRK.c NO TER ACS The Grand Terrace Emergency Operations Committee met at the regular time at the Emergency Operations Center at 22795 Barton Road, Building 3. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson,Vic Pfennighausen at 6:00 p.m. Agendas and minutes were distributed. MEMBERS PRESENT—Vic Pfennighausen, Susan Taylor,JoAnn Johnson,and Hanni Bennett, Randy Halseth, Glenn Nichols and Lew Neeb. MEMBERS ABSENT— Oscar Santana, Debra Hurst, and Jim Vert CITY STAFF Matt Wirz GUESTS PRESENT/MTRODUCTIONS—None CORRESPONDANCE/COMMUNICATIONS—None APPROVAL OF AGENDA with motion by Lew Neeb and second by Hanni Bennett. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 5,2010,motion to approve as presented by Joanne Johnson and second by Randy Halseth. LIAISON REPORT by Matt Wire. a. Pete Parsons has come up with a dozen new scripts for the Travelers Radio, not recorded yet. We will be purchasing 3 more digital players for Vic to put on a timer to offer messages on a sequence to run 1 hour each. The sequence will run at different times during the day. b. The Hike up Blue Mountain will be held on Saturday, March 13, 2010 starting at 8:00 a.m. He will have it advertised on the AM radio station and in the Blue Mountain newspaper. Matt asked the EOC to set up a base communication table and provide the MURS radios. c. The Community Wall Painting will be held on Saturday, February 27`h and they may need some of the MURS radios. Anyone interested in participating should register through the City. Vic offered to set up a Command Center that day. d. EHP Grant Program. There is money available that needs to be spent on the EOC. Matt has prepared an order for the following items: 2 H.T radios, 3 digital players, 2 computer stations,2 simple printers, a projector, a laptop, and a fax machine all to be placed in the EOC. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT by Vic Pfennighausen a. New equipment for the 'Travelers Radio includes a pre-amplifier and microphone so we can go live if needed in an emergency. 1. Vic purchased two 5 gallon,two 2 gallon, and two 1 gallon htel containers. :fitter the Biel Storage is painted the containers will be tilled and placed in the cabinet. c. A storage cabinet has also been ordered for the EOC and will be delivered Wednesday. .1. Flashlight batteries in various sizes have also been Purchased. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. r e. Vic replaced the starter solenoid in the generator and replaced the battery. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Vic will resign as chairperson of the EOC as of March 31, 2010. Rich Houbert is interested in taking on the role of Chairperson after he retires,probably in the spring. Randy agreed to take the position on an interim basis until then. NEW BUSINESS a. Work days in EOC-Anyone available from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. on Mondays can volunteer. b. Report from CERT- Randy conducted a training drill on Thursday,January 28'`with 18 in attendance, a number of them from the Loma Linda CERT. c. CERT has picked up five new members that were trained in Loma Linda. d. Another 3-hour training will be held in March or April. e. Randy asked Matt if we could provide storage for the city's tractor, could we use the storage shed for CERT equipment.The CERT budget would pay for it. Matt to check with Rich. f. Randy thanked Matt for getting the grant money spent. g. Budget cuts in the City- Matt and Vic will work on cutting the EOC budget to look for items we can do without. So far,the satellite radio telephone that costs $50.00 a month can be cancelled. Matt-has to have a report on suggested cuts in by Friday, 2/02/10 for the 2010/2011 budget. TRAINING/SPEAKERS—Nothing planned at this time. ADJOURNMENT at 7:05 p.m. Sue Taylor, Secretary NEXT MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY,March 2,2010 AT 6 P.M. i 'I I r 7 1 .:3 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ITY CLERK'S GRAND D TERRACE •�rY �„LF=NK'� DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Regular Meeting MINUTES March 2,2010 The Grand Terrace Emergency Operations Committee_met at the regular time at the Emergency Operations Center at 22795 Barton Road, Building 3. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson,Vic Pfennighausen at 6:00 p.m. Agendas and minutes were distributed. MEMBERS PRESENT—Vic Pfennighausen, Susan Taylor,JoAnn Johnson, Hanni Bennett,Randy Halseth, Glenn Nichols, Lew Neeb. Debra Hurst and Jim Vert MEMBERS ABSENT— Oscar Santana. CITY STAFF—Matt Wirz GUESTS PRESENTANTRODUCTIONS—None CORRESPONDANCE/COMMUNICATIONS—None APPROVAL OF AGENDA with motion by JoAnn Johnson and second by Jim Vert. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 2,2010,motion to approve as presented by Joanne Johnson and second by Lew Neeb. LIAISON REPORT by Matt Wirz. a. The Hike up Blue Mountain is scheduled for March 13'', weather permitting. Due to past rain,the road could be soggy or muddy. If access is ok,the city will have a cart available to take CERT members up. The City staff participating has been reduced to 2 this year due to budget cuts. The Friends of Blue Mountain will be there as well as CERT members. The City will not be providing tents,tables and chairs. All those working that day should plan to report at 7:00,with the hike starting at 8:00 a.m. The rainy day schedule is possibly 3/27. b. AM Radio- Matt has been working on recording messages that are more interactive that are clear and concise. Hanni Bennett stated that it is difficult to hear Matt's voice and that Pete gets cut off in mid sentence when talking about earthquakes. Matt will be meeting with Pete again to make some new recordings. c. Grant funds-The list of items for the EOC were to go to the City two weeks ago, but needed some changes made. There were no accounts set up for the Homeland Security grant Funds. It will be on the March 9`h Council agenda. d. Budget issues- Matt stated that they will find out at the next Council meeting what the plan is. The city does not want layoffs, but it is a possibility. 1-here is a high chance of :urloughs for city staff. Matt may_need to discontinue attending the EOC and CERT r monthly meetings, but could communicate via email or phone to discuss issues with the chairpersons. e. Matt inquired about us using the building attached to the EOC building and was told no. The issue was having an extra cargo container placed on the city property for the maintenance crew to store equipment. We could possibly place a storage shed at the Senior Center as,a different access point. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT by Vic Pfennighausen a. Broadcast Radio-having problems with the audio. The new computer will have a soundboard to enable us to select the type of audio we want. It holds 1072 messages. Vic is working on a 4 digital sequence to rotate throughout the day. b. This is Vic's last meeting as the Chairperson. Randy will take over at the April meeting. Rich Hobart retired recently and mentioned that he may be ready to take over the permanent Chairperson position in June. Vic has been unable to reach him. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None TRAINING/SPEAKERS—Nothing planned at this time. ADJOURNMENT at 7:00 p.m. ,, , Sue Taylor, Secretary NEXT MEETING WILL BE TUESDAV,Apri16,2010 AT 6 P.M. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE ArR 4010 Regular Meeting MINUTES , .,rTY f.)F"RANU TERRACE January 11, 2010 ,-ITY C1_ERK'S CEPARTMENT The Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee met for the regular meeting at the upstairs Conference Room at City Hall. Meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Philomene Spisak. MEMBERS PRESENT were Chairperson, Philomene Spisak, Debra Hurst, Pat Smith, JoAnn Johnson, and Don Bennett. MEMBERS ABSENT- Peggy Reagan, Marjorie Owens, Lew Neeb. CITY STAFF/SHERIFF'S DEPT. - Nina Mendoza, Sheriff's Special Services. GUESTS PRESENT-None INTRODUCTIONS- None AGENDA was approved with motion by Pat Smith and second by JoAnn Johnson. MINUTES for the meeting of November 9, 2009(the December meeting was cancelled because of the holidays)were approved with a motion by Pat Smith and second by Don Bennett. PUBLIC COMMENT- None CORRESPONDENCE- None UNFINISHED BUSINESS; A. Criminal Activities a. Nina reported that most of the criminal activities are involving vehicle break-ins and items taken. Residents should always lock car doors and don't leave anything visible in the car. b. -Identify theft is on the rise. Residents should always be careful with their personal information. c. Residents should also be aware that a lot of crimes happen during the day, they are encouraged to keep doors, windows and garage doors shut. S. Neighborhood Watch Program a. The Grand Terrace Seniors will have a program on April 10, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. b. Nina to put items in the local paper to try and gen.$r7$ t -=;t - - and have more meetings throughout the city. Perhaps nave anozner city :Vine meeting at City Hall. Date TBD. NEW BUSINESS: A. Crime Prevention Planning ' =.xi above under Neighborhood Watch. o /tore articles in the local papers invite City Manager Betsy Adams to meeting COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.3C� i � I q I B. Neighborhood Watch Public Relations a. Covered it items above. C. New Secretary for Crime Prevention a. JoAnn Johnson is stepping down as secretary. Debra Hurst nominated to assume the duties of secretary. Philomene Spisak to prepare the Action Item for City Council. i REPORTS: A. Summary of Law Enforcement Activity a. Several items are reported above. B. Other Community Programs 'I a. On February 12, 2010 Hawaiian Dancers are scheduled to perform at the Senior Center. b. Senior Center garden club is going vey well. c. CERT will be having a full training scenario later this month. C. Member Reports-None ADJOURNMENT-There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at .I 5:00 Debra Hurst Secretary i f f i 1 I ' q , CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting MINUTES March 8, 2010 CITY CLERK'S DEPAHTMENT 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 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Philomene Spisak. MEMBERS PRESENT were Chairperson, Philomene Spisak, Debra Hurst, Pat Smith, Lew Neeb, JoAnn Johnson and Don Bennett. MEMBERS ABSENT—Marjorie Owens CITY STAFF/SHERIFF'S DEPT. - None GUESTS PRESENT - None INTRODUCTIONS— None AGENDA was approved with motion by Lew Neeb and second by JoAnn Johnson. MINUTES for the meeting of November 9, 2009 (the December meeting was cancelled because of the holidays) were approved with a motion by Debra Hurst and second by Lew Neeb. PUBLIC COMMENT— None CORRESPONDENCE- None UNFINISHED BUSINESS; A. Criminal Activities— Nina Mendoza not present with report. B. Neighborhood Watch Program a. Need progress report from Nina Mendoza.. NEW BUSINESS: A. Crime Prevention Planning a. Prepare and submit articles for local paper. b. Obtain criteria from city for Crime Prevention Committee. Phil to get from city. B. Neighborhood Watch Public Relations a. Need progress report from Nina Mendoza. REPORTS: A. Summary of Law Enforcement Activity a. Need report from Nina Mendoza. B. Other Community Programs a. Colton High School Jazz Band to perform at Senior Center in June. i i b. Sheriffs Department to give program at Senior Center in March regarding identity theft. c. Meeting is scheduled at Senior Center on March 16, 2010 at noon regarding the possible discontinuation of bus service in Grand Terrace. C. Member Reports-None I ADJOURNMENT-There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05_p.m. Debra Hurst Secretary III , j I i i ;i I! I r I I n i c,,LiFoavie AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: General Plan Update Certification of the Final Program EIR PRESENTED BY: Sandra Molina, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1) Adopt the attached Resolution certifying the Final Program EIR prepared for the General Plan Update; and 2) Adopt the attached Resolution adopting the General Plan Update BACKGROUND: On April 1, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the General Plan Update and Final EIR, and voted 4-1 recommending that the City council certify the Final EIR and adopt the General Plan Update. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the General Plan Update. The Draft EIR was distributed for public review on January 21, 2010, for a 45-day public review period. The Final EIR was made available on March 18, 2010. The date on the cover page reflects "March 2010"; however, this date was not reflected in the subsequent pages of the Final EIR. Please note that the date will be corrected upon certification of the Final EIR. CD copies of the Draft General Plan, Draft EIR and Final EIR were provided to the City Council, as were a black and white hard copy of the Draft General Plan, and Final. Copies of these documents are available at the public counter of the Community and Economic Development Department and at the San Bernardino County Library, Grand Terrace Branch; and were also available for review on the City's website. A Memorandum dated February 3, 2010, was forwarded to the City Council for a joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop held on February 16, 2010 on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. The February 3rd Memorandum provided a synopsis of some of the more notable changes in the Draft General Plan, in comparison to the January 17, 2008 Screen Check. The February 3, 2010, Memorandum is included, without attachments, to this report as Attachment 1. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM N®. !-pA 1 Page 2 of 10 This staff report will reference portions of the February 3"d Memorandum, and will note where this occurs. The adopted Minutes of the February 16, 2010 workshop are included as Attachment 2. DISCUSSION: The Draft General Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 65300 et. seq of the California Government Code, which requires all cities and counties to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city or county. State law requires that the General Plan be comprised of seven mandated elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The Draft General Plan is comprised of the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation (combined as one element), Public Health and Safety, Noise, and Housing Elements, and two optional Elements: Public Services and Sustainable Development. The Draft General Plan also contains an Introduction chapter and Appendix A, which is a compilation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions. The Draft General Plan is noted as Attachment 3 of this staff report, and the CD copy of the General Plan will make up Attachment 3 which will be kept as part of the official record. However, it will not be attached to this report, as it is currently available for public review, as noted above. The following is a brief description of the chapters in the Draft General Plan: Introduction The Introduction describes the authority, objectives and scope of the General Plan, including the General Plan Elements. It also provides an overview and the demographics of the City. Land Use Element The Land Use Element is required to designate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of land. State law also requires that the land use map identify areas subject to floods, based on FEMA maps. In addition, the Land Use Element provides the anticipated buildout of the General Plan. The Land Use Element contains land use goals, policies and actions for implementation. Goals include providing for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community; preserving and enhancing the quality and character of the City's residential neighborhoods; providing a wide range of retail and service commercial opportunities to meet the needs of the City's residents, businesses, and visitors while also providing employment opportunities; providing for a mix of attractive industrial land uses designed to generate employment opportunities; and providing for the preservation of natural resources and open space. C�� ;yei3T) AC4i-!- ri A .,J}DV1tJ03 Page 3 of 10 The February 3, 2010, Memorandum (Attachment 1) included a discussion of the changes that were made to this Element, and related Land Use Map. Exhibit 2-2 Existing Uses of Land map is proposed to be deleted as discussed during the workshop. This map Exhibit is intended to be a "snap-shot" of uses that existed when the General Plan process started and it would not change within the General Plan as land uses change, and can be confusing. The Planning Commission recommended deletion of the Exhibit. For internal consistency, the discussion in the Land Use Element regarding Exhibit 2-2 also is proposed to be revised, as shown on Exhibit A of Attachment 10. The Proposed General Plan Land Use Map depicts the proposed land use designations for the City. This map reflect 13 areas in the City where land uses are proposed to change, including the new high school location, the new Mixed Use designation and the expanded Floodplain Industrial area. A copy of the proposed General Plan Land Use Map identifying the 13 areas along with textual description is attached (Attachment 4). During the workshop concern was expressed regarding the expanded limits of the Floodplain Industrial designation. This expanded area reflects updates to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps by FEMA, and state law requires that cities reflect these areas in their land use elements. During the public input portion of the February 161h joint workshop, two property owners within this area expressed concern with the designation and also wanted assurance that agricultural overlay uses could occur. Staff met with these two property owners on March 3, 2010, and explained that the Floodplain Industrial designation reflects the FEMA update. Also we reviewed language in the proposed Land Use Element that states that the Agricultural Overlay District would be applied to the Floodplain Industrial Area. During the April 1, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, these two property owners also expressed concern regarding the nonconforming status of their homes, and the Commission asked that staff address their concern. The Commission had suggested that their properties be re-designated residential; however, staff does not recommend designating land within a floodplain for residential purposes or spot zoning these two properties. Staff met with the two property owners on April 6, 2010, to discuss various alternatives to address their concerns. Because it is the intent of the General Plan to allow these existing residential uses to remain and to be regulated as residential uses as the area transitions to industrial uses, staff recommends that the Zoning Code be revised to clearly state that existing residential uses in this area be regulated pursuant to Chapter 18.10 RH, R1, R2 and R3 Residential Districts. This would allow the residences to be rebuilt should they be destroyed and allow alterations to the homes. Staff discussed this concept with the property owners and they are generally supportive of the concept. A workshop before the Planning Commission on this potential code amendment will be scheduled for May 6, 2010. Page 4 of 10 Circulation Element The Circulation Element is required to consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other local public utilities and facilities that are correlated with the land use element. The proposed Circulation Element conforms to this requirement. The Circulation Element contains implementing goals, policies and actions. Goals include providing for a comprehensive transportation system that provides for: the current and long- term efficient movement of people and goods within and through the City; a well-maintained roadway system; a safe circulation system; and an efficient and safe bikeway system within the City; and efficient alternative methods of travel. As indicated at the February 3, 2010, Memorandum (Attachment 1) the Circulation Plan was revised to show the proposed southerly re-alignment of Commerce Way over the UPRR railroad tracks. The proposed alignment of Commerce Way (to the north) with Vivieda Avenue at Barton Road is also shown on the Circulation Plan. Policies and actions were also updated. No changes to the January 20, 2010 draft are recommended. en Space and Conservation Element A conservation element is intended for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources; it must consider the effect of development on natural resources located on public lands. The open space element is intended for the preservation of natural resources; outdoor recreation; public health and safety; and protection of places, features, and objects, such as cultural resources. The proposed Open Space and Conservation Element conforms to these requirements. The Open Space and Conservation Element contains implementing goals, policies and actions. Goals include ensuring that the open space needed for outdoor recreation is provided and thereby, improving the quality of life for the residents of the City; ensuring that natural resources are protected and preserved by utilizing open space designations or related regulations; public health and safety is protected through open space areas; provide open space to enhance of community identity; protect and promote the beauty of Blue Mountain; support and promote the conservation of energy resources; support air quality planning through land use policies, outreach efforts, and participation in regional air quality planning; achieve regional water quality objectives and protect the beneficial uses of the region's surface and groundwater; and compliance with state and federal regulations to ensure the protection of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Page 5 of 10 As indicated during the February 16, 2010 joint public workshop (refer to Attachment 1), the discussion on biological and cultural resources was revised to reflect the respective Biological and Cultural Resources studies prepared for the Update, and additional background information was provided on water resources. Exhibit 4-3 Flood Hazards was revised to reflect updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps, as revised by FEMA. As previously indicated, the City is required to accurately reflect this information in our General Plan. Exhibit 4-4 Fire Hazard Zones was also revised to reflect updated CALFIRE maps, which were updated by the State Fire Marshal. All jurisdictions are required to adopt these maps. Goals, policies and actions were added and updated as noted in Attachment 1. One change since the February 16, 2010 workshop is proposed to Action 4.8.2.b, as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR (p. 68), and included in Exhibit A of Attachment 10. No other changes are recommended. Public Health and Safety A safety element is required for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismic occurrences, dam failure; slope instability, subsidence, liquefaction, flooding, and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. The Public Health and Safety Element has been prepared in accordance with these requirements. The Public Health and Safety Element contains implementing goals, policies and actions. Goals include minimizing the risk to public health and safety, social and economic welfare of the City resulting from geologic and seismic hazards; protecting humans and property from hazards associated with slope instability; reducing the risk to life and property in areas designated as flood hazard areas; reducing the risk to life and property resulting from the use, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes; maintaining a high degree of readiness to respond to natural and man-made disasters; and minimizing the exposure of residents,business owners, and visitors to the impacts of urban and wildland fires. Three revisions to the Public Health and Safety Element, dated January 20, 2010, are recommended based on recommendations of the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR (p. 32), and included in Exhibit A of Attachment 10. Noise Element The Noise Element has been prepared in accordance with the California Government Code which requires that a noise element identify and appraise noise problems in the community, provide noise contour maps and include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems. Page 6 of 10 The Noise Element contains goals, policies and actions that implement the Element. Noise Element goals include protecting citizens and sensitive land uses from annoying and excessive noise generated by non-transportation oriented uses and activities; preventing and mitigating adverse impacts of excessive exposure to residential and commercial land uses; and protecting the residents of Grand Terrace from excessive noise generated by transportation-oriented sources. The Existing CNEL Noise Contours Map (Exhibit 6-1) and Year 2030 CNEL Noise Contours Map (Exhibit 6-2) were revised based on the Noise Report for the January 20, 2010 draft. ,-- Policy 6.2.7 was added to address vibration from the railroad lines to reflect the recommendation of the Technical Noise Report. No changes to the January 20, 2010 draft are recommended. Public Services and Facilities Element The Public Services and Facilities Element contains goals, policies and actions that implement the Element. Goals include to coordinate and balance the provision of public services with, existing and planned development to eliminate service gaps, maximize the use of existing public facilities and services, provide a high level of quality public services at a reasonable cost, and maintain adequate services to meet the needs of current and future City residents and businesses; provide a water system that produces high quality water at sufficient pressure and with adequate quantity to meet current and future domestic demand; provide a safe and efficient sanitary sewer system to meet the current and future needs of the City's residents and businesses; provide for an efficient and environmentally sound solid waste collection and recycling, and disposal system; provide for adequate law enforcement and police protection services and facilities; provide for adequate fire protection services and facilities; cooperate with Colton Joint Unified School District to provide adequate public education facilities and programs; and cooperate with private utility companies to provide adequate and updated utility services to the City's residents and businesses. No notable changes have been made to this Element, nor are any recommended. Housing Element Section 65580 et. seq. of the Government Code governs the preparation of housing elements. In general, the housing element consists of identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element identifies adequate sites for housing (rental, factory-built, mobile homes, emergency shelters) and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. Page 7 of 10 The Housing Element includes goals, policies and actions to implement it. Goals include to provide and encourage a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in number to serve existing and projected residents of Grand Terrace; promote and encourage housing opportunities accessible to employment centers and quality community services for all economic segments of the community including designated very low, low, and moderate income households; and promote and encourage the rehabilitation of deteriorated dwelling units and the conservation of the currently sound housing stock. As noted during the February 16, 2010 meeting, the Draft Housing Element reflects the review s ) by and changes recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Further, HCD has reviewed the draft Housing Element and has provided written confirmation that upon adoption of the Housing Element, in its present form, it will be certified. I HCD has required the City to identify 1.35 acres that support 27 low income units, and to rezone that land at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Pages VIII-35-36 and Program 8.8.1.p reflect that mandate. Other changes were noted in the February 3, 2010, Memorandum. No changes are recommended to the Draft Housing Element dated January 20, 2010. Sustainable Development Element The Sustainable Development Element contains goals, policies and actions that implement it. Sustainable Development goals include to provide parks and open space throughout the City; provide alternative transportation modes designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled; promote the use of non-hazardous materials in residences, businesses, and institutional facilities; reduce the City's per capita demand for water consumption; that the City will lead the development community by example in green building, and energy and resource conservation practices, as feasible As indicated in the February 3, 2010, Memorandum (Attachment 1), a new Section 9.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions was added, and goals, policies and actions were updated. No changes to the January 20, 2010 Sustainable Development Element are recommended. Appendix A Appendix A is a comprehensive list of each Element's Goals, Policies and Actions. Action 4.8.2.b to the Open Space and Conservation Element is recommended to be revised as noted above. Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) A Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code 21000 et. ,seq. to evaluate the Page 8 of 10 potential environmental effects of the Project. The City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") in the local paper, mailed it to reviewing agencies and held a public scoping meeting on February 11, 2008, to solicit input on the Draft EIR Ten comment letters were received, and eight speakers provided comments during the public scoping meeting. Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR. A Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR, prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. was published in the local paper and received by the State Clearinghouse along with the Draft EIR. The NOA identified that all significant effects of the proposed project have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures with the exception of long- term permanent noise levels associated with roadway traffic at build-out of the General Plan and long-term air emissions associated with build-out of the General Plan. These cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable. As identified in the NOA, the 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIR was from January 22, 2010 to March 7, 2010. (The State Clearinghouse closed the public review period on March 8, 2010.) Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two were received after the close of the public comment period. Pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the CEQA, the City is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues raised and prepare written responses to those comments. The City may respond to comment letters received after the close of the comment period, and the City has chosen to do so. A Final EIR was prepared that included Response to Comments (Chapter 2) on the comment letters received. The FEIR also includes changes made to the Draft EIR (Chapter 3) based on the comments received, or staff review, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Chapter 4). In addition to the Chapter just noted, the Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR and its Appendices. The Final was made available to the public and to those that commented on the Draft EIR, on March 18, 2010. It was also uploaded onto the City's website. The Final EIR, without the Draft EIR, was forwarded to the City Council under separate cover. A CD copy of the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR will make up Attachment 6, which will be kept as part of the official record. However, it will not be attached herein, as it is currently available for public review, as noted above. With regard to the revisions to the Draft EIR, Chapter 3 identifies the revisions that have been made to the Draft EIR. Changes were made to the Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Population and Housing Chapters, and to Appendix B. As described in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR, these changes clarify and/or amplify the discussion contained in the Draft EIR and are not significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Also, a question was raised on Exhibit 3-A of Appendix B of the Draft EIR Appendices. Specifically, there was concern that this Exhibit which depicts existing land uses as of 2007 and Page 9 of 10 was used to establish the baseline for traffic modeling was not accurate. As with Exhibit 2-2 of the Land Use Element, Exhibit 3-A is a snap-shot of time to establish a baseline of uses. The Traffic Consultant from Urban Crossroads that prepared the Traffic Study stated that the Exhibit provides a reasonable basis for analysis and that minor discrepancies in land uses would not affect the validity of the traffic conclusion. There was also concern regarding the reference to "TAZ" which is an acronym for Traffic Analysis Zones. To address these concerns, it was recommended that Exhibit 3-A of Appendix B of the Draft EIR General Plan Update Traffic Study be modified by adding the following footnote to Exhibit 3-A: "This exhibit references current land uses inventoried in approximately 2007. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are consistent with the East U% Valley Traffic Model". Exhibit 3-A is included as Attachment 6 for reference purposes. This language has been added to the Resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the City Council public hearing was provided in a number of ways. An eighth-page legal advertisement was published in the local paper on April 15, 2010. The notice was also posted in three public places, and uploaded onto the City's website. Mailed notice, along with a cover letter of the proposed land use changes, were provided to property owners within the 13 proposed land use change areas, and to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the 13 areas. Two letters were received after the preparation of the Final EIR (Attachments 7 and 8) and were not included in the Final EIR. However, they were forwarded to the Planning Commission and no further action was recommended by the Planning Commission. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff also received three phone inquiries requesting specific information on proposed land use changes in proximity to their properties that are proposed to be changed to Public. The callers asked for more information on the uses that could occur in the Public land use designation. One caller in particular, Ms. Dostal, expressed concern with the re-designation from Low Density Residential to Public. This area is referred to as Land Use Area#6, and is a strip of land that runs between Canary and Paradise Streets. The concern is that the proposed re-designation to Public would"open the door" to public uses such as a tot lot or walking path that would increase activity within the area. This property is owned by the City, and although the current Low Density Residential would not preclude public parks or recreational uses, Ms. Dostal is concerned with the proposed re-designation to Public. The Planning Commission did not recommend keeping the Low Density Residential designation in place of the proposed Public designation. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City's General Fund beyond normal operating expenses is expected. Page 10 of 10 CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and move to take the following actions: 1) Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 9) certifying the Final EIR prepared for the Proj ect. 2) Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 10) adopting the Grand Terrace General Plan Update. Prepared by, Sandra Molina Senior Planner Respectfully submitted, J'yce Powers Director of Community and Economic Development Manager Approval: Betsy A. Ada City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum dated February 3, 2010 2. Adopted February 16, 2010 Joint Workshop Minutes 3. Draft General Plan dated January 20, 2010 (provided under separate cover) 4. Proposed Land Use Map identifying land use changes w/text descriptions 5. CD Copy of the Final EIR w/Draft EIR(provided under separate cover) 6. Exhibit 3-A of the Traffic Study with proposed footnote 7. Email dated March 18, 2010 from Grand PaTerrace 8. Email dated March 22, 2010 from Ms. Cynthia Bidney 9. Resolution certifying the Final EIR 10. Resolution adopting the General Plan Update Attachment 1 Memorandum dated February 3, 2010 11 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC . t DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CALIFORNIA DATE: February 3,2010 , TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Commission Betsy M. Adams,City Manager FROM: Joyce Powers,Community and Economic Development Director 9 . Sandra Molina, Senior Planner'4*%— SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN UDATE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR(DEIR)AND APPENDICES On January 21, 2010, staff forwarded to the Council and Commission CD copies of the DEO" Draft General Plan Update and Proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The public review and comment period on the DEIR will end on March 7, 2010, and public hearings to approve the Draft General Plan and Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and certify the Final EIR will begin soon thereafter. In the interim, a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop has been scheduled for February 16, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. It was important to staff that the Council and Commission get the CD copies of the documents at the same time the public notice period began on the availability of the DEIR. However, these documents are very large and contain a lot of information. Therefore, staff felt it would be beneficial to provide a summary of the key changes to the Draft General Plan and DEIR to assist the Council and Commission as they review these documents. Draft General Plan Update Since the January 17, 2008 Screen Check Draft General Plan was prepared, workshops have been held with both the Planning Commission and City Council. Changes in the Draft General Plan reflect the workshops, staff review and environmental analysis. To facilitate review of the current Draft General Plan it has been provided in redline (underline and strike-out) format so that the revisions can be easily tracked. Also, to facilitate the workshop, a hard copy of the Draft General Plan is attached. The attached copy is in black and white to save ink cost; however, the CD copy is in color.. Page 2 of 6 The following is a brief description of changes to the various General Plan Elements, which are contained in the CD and shown in redline format. Introduction—No notable changes. Land Use Element— (A joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop was held on March 10, 2009 on this Element.) Notable changes include: • Consolidation of maps by eliminating an Exhibit that depicted the Barton Road Specific Plan and the use of only one exhibit(Exhibit 2-1) to show all specific plan locations; and elimination of the Existing General Plan Land Use map to avoid confusion with the proposed General Plan Land Use map. The General Plan Land Use map shows the land use designations proposed on properties throughout the City, which will guide future development. (Exhibit 2-2 is the Existing Uses of Land map that depicts the current uses that occupy the land.This map does not dictate land use designations.) • Page 1I-13 - Exhibit 2-3 General Plan Land Map has been modified at the northwest portion of the City. The Floodplain Industrial designation has been extended south to Vivienda Street based on updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps. All tables affected by this change have also been revised. • Page II-15 - the description of the Medium High Density Residential Density designation has been revised to eliminate the word "senior" to*allow family housing in accordance with the proposed Housing Element. • Page U-21 —Implementing policy actions were numbered for easier reference. Circulation Element—Notable changes include: • Page 1II-9 — Policy 3.1.4 was revised to discuss regional coordination on transportation planning and former policy 3.1.4 was renumbered as an implementing policy action. • Page III-10 — Section 3.3 Goals and Policies - Policy 3.3.6 relating to the new alignment of Commerce Way at the southwest portion of the City was added. • Page III-13 - Exhibit 3-3 Circulation Plan was modified to reflect the recommendations of the Traffic Impact Analysis. • Page III-20 - New Policy 3.3.6 with associated implementing actions were added as discussed above. Oven SRace and Conservation Element—Notable changes include: • Page IV-5 —Table 4.2 was modified to conform to the biological report prepared for the Project. • Page lV-6—Section 4.2.3 was expanded to provide more background information. • Page IV-7 — The High Fire Risk discussion was modified based on Fire Department review and recommendations. 1� Page 3 of b • Page IV-7—Section 4.2.6 was added to discuss water resources. • Page IV-10 — Exhibit 4-3 Flood Hazards was revised to reflect updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps. • Pave IV-II — Exhibit 4-4 was modified to reflect fire hazard zones identified by CALFIltE. i • Page IV-13 —The discussion in Section 4.3.3 Water Resources was expanded • Page IV-17 — Section 4.4 Goals and Policies - New Goals and Policies were added that reflect expanded analysis, workshops, and environmental analysis. These include goals and/or policies relating to open space, biological resources, water quality and cultural resources. • Page IV-24 — The Implementation Table was revised to reflect the new goals and/or policies referenced above, and includes implementing policy actions associated with each new policy. Policy actions were numbered for easier reference. Public Health and Safe tv—Notable changes include: • Page V-7 — Exhibit 5-2 Flood Hazards was revised to reflect updated Flood Insurance Rate-Maps: • Page V-9—Section 5.2.4 Fire Hazards was revised based on Fire Department review and recommendations. • Page V-11 — Peak Water Demand and Supply discussion was revised based on Fin Department review and recommendations. Specifically, the Fin Department no longer establishes a set fire flow based on land use type; rather fire flow is based on the California Fire Code. • Page V-12 — Exhibit 5-3 was modified to reflect fin hazard zones identified by 4 CALFIRE. • Page V-13 — Section 5.2.5 Emergency Preparedness was expanded to provide more ' background information. • Page V-15 - Section 5.3 Goals and Policies — New Goals and Policies were added to reflect expanded analysis, workshops, and environmental analysis. These include goals and/or policies relating seismic hazards, disaster response,and urban and wildland fires. • Page IV-24 — The Implementation Table was revised to reflect the new goals and/or policies referenced above, and includes implementing policy actions associated with each; i new policy. Policy actions were numbered for easier reference. Noise Element—Notable changes include: • An updated Noise Technical Report was performed (the last technical noise report was' a performed 10 years ago) and the Noise Element underwent substantial changes j throughout to both text and tables, to reflect the new Noise Report. • Page V 1-19 and 20 — Exhibit 6-1 Existing CNEL Noise Contours and Exhibit 6-2 Year 2030 CNEL Noise Contours were updated to reflect the updated Noise Technical Report. A page 4oro • Page VI-22 — Section 6.4 Goals and Policies — New Policy 6.23 was added to address vibration from the railroad lines to reflect the recommendation of the Technical Noise Report • Page VI-25 —The Implementation Table was revised to reflect the new policy referenced above, and includes implementing policy actions associated with the new policy. Policy actions were numbered for easier reference. Public Services and Facilities Element • No notable changes were made. Housing Element—Notable changes include: A joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop was held on the Housing Element on January 15, 2009. Changes directed by the Council and Commission were made and the document was forwarded to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). HCD requested additional changes which are shown in underline and strikeout. HCD has reviewed the draft Housing Element and has provided written confirmation that upon adoption of the Housing Element, in the form presented, it will be certified. Any changes to the Housing Element will be re-evaluated by HCD. (Our previous Housing Element was not certified by HCD.) Notable changes include: tl • Page VIII 33 and VIII-35 -At the January 15, 2009 Workshop we discussed establishing an affordable housing overlay zone that would allow a base density of 20 units per acre on five different sites, which HCD was supporting at the time. HCD later informed us that the overlaymould not be supported and that a site or sites comprising 1.35 acres that would support 27 low income units must be identified for rezoning to a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. The discussion and tables on these pages reflect HCD's mandate. Three of the five sites are identified as,potential re-zone sites, and two sites are identified as sites that will be re-zoned to a minimum o 20 units per acre. The sites are the City- owned site on Canal Street, and Site D on Van Buren Street. Staff has concurrence from the property owner. • Page VIII-41 —Expands on the above discussion. • Page VIII-46- This discussion has been added based on HCD direction. • Page VIII-57- This discussion has been added based on HCD direction. • Page VIII-63 - This discussion has been added based on HCD direction. • Page VIII-78 — Program 8.1.1p was revised to clarify that transitional and supportive housing are residential uses per state law. • Page VIII-79 — Program 8.8.1.s has been added per HCD direction. This program addresses the re-zoning of property at a minimum density of 20 units per acre, as discussed above. 1� i Yage 3 of o Sustainable Develoament Element—Notable changes include: • Page IX-3—New Section 9.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions was added. • Page IX-8 — Section 9.3 Goals and Policies— New Goals and Policies were added that reflect expanded analysis, workshops, and environmental analysis. These include goals and/or policies relating to site design, transportation, and city facilities that promote sustainable development. • Page IX-14 — The Implementation Table was revised to reflect the new goal and/or policies referenced above, and includes implementing policy actions associated with each new policy that promote sustainable development. Policy actions were numbered for easier reference. Appendix A Appendix A is new. It is a comprehensive list,of each Element's Goals,Policies and Actions. DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIRI The DEIR has been prepared for both the proposed General Plan Update and Redevelopment Plan Amendment- Because any future redevelopment programs or projects contemplated by the Agency must be consistent with the City's General Plan, the environmental analysis contained in the DEIR for the General Plan Update takes into consideration the potential impacts related to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The DEIR contains a detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts that could occur , with implementation of the General Plan Update. Attached are the first few chapters of the ' DEIR(the remainder is on the CD), which provide an overall introduction to the DEIR, and may be helpful to determine areas in which to provide greater focus. 1. Table of Contents to assist you in identifying the order of specific sections, chapters, tables and exhibits. 2. Executive Summary provides summary of the project description and contains a comprehensive summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures (Table ES-1). • Table ES-1 shows that through the analysis contained in the DEIR all significant effects of the Project have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures with the exception of long-term permanent noise levels associated with roadway traffic at build-out and long term operational air emissions. These cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Chapter 2- Project Description provides a detailed project description for the General Plan Update and Redevelopment Plan Amendment. • Page 29-depicts the Proposed General Plan Land Use Map I ' 4!- Page 6 of 6 • Page 31 - Lists the modifications to the land use designations as depicted on the Proposed Land Use Map. A new Mixed Use designation is proposed, and thirteen locations are proposed to be redesignated as discussed on Page 31 of the DEIR. Chapter 1 — Introduction, Chapter 3 — Basis for Cumulative Analysis and Chapter 4 — Environmental Analysis are included in the CD. Chapter 4 provides the analysis for the topics listed in the CEQA Environmental Checklist. As stated, all potential have been reduced to less than significant levels, except for long-term noise levels and long term air emissions. The remaining Chapters(included in the CD): Chapter 5 -Project Consistency with Regional Policies, Chapter 6—Alternatives Analysis,Chapter 7—Effects Found not to be Significant,and Chapter 8—Long Term Effects complete the analysis contained in the DEIR. It is hoped that this summary is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact staff with any questions. Attachments: 1. B&W Copy of the Draft General Plan 2. DEIR Table of Contents 3..Executive Summary 4. Chapter 2—Project Description r . 17 Attachment 2 Adopted February 16, 2010 Joint Workshop Minutes 14 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES '. JOINT WORKSHOP CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2010 A joint workshop of the City Council and Planning Commission 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 February 16, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Mayor Jim Miller, Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz, Councilmember Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington, Vice-Chairman Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Bob Bailes, Commissioner Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Betsy M. Adams, City Manager Joyce Powers, Community & Economic Development Director _ Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director Sandra Molina, Senior Planner ABSENT: Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern Bea Cortes, Councilmember Tom Comstock, Commissioner Bernard Simon, Finance Director John Harper, City Attorney Sgt. Carlos Espinosa, San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department John Salvate, San Bernardino County Fire Department CONVENE PUBLIC JOINT WORKSHOP Sandra Molina,Senior Planner,gave a presentation on the Update of the General Plan and the Draft Program EIR. Councilmember Stanckiewitz indicated that there has been some confusion with the map on page 2-8, Administrative Draft Dated 1/20/2010 and questioned if it should be pulled. Senior Planner Molina, responded that the purpose of the map is to depict current land uses. It's not really a planning document with regard to hiture land uses or land use designations or zoning. If it's problematic.removing it from the Draft General Plan will not be a problem. 1Q Council Minutes 02/16/2010 Page 2 Planning Chairman Douy, Wilson, questioned why the fire department decided to broaden out their high fire hazard zone. Senior Planner Molina, responded that it is base upon some mapping that has been done by Cal Fire. Building&Safety/Public Works Director Richard Shields,stated that the State Fire Marshall is the responsible person for adopting the maps. They have adopted all new maps throughout California and made it mandatory that each local jurisdiction adopt those maps which create high fire areas. Also they have incorporated a new chapter in the 2007 Building Code,which is wildfire areas and how to construct in those areas that we have to comply with. The City has done that. Planning Chairman Wilson, stated that his concern is there may be fire insurance changes that could be substantial for homeowners that are within that area. He understands new construction however, existing construction unless it is a re-vamp on an existing roof. Building&Safety/Public Works Director Shields,stated that he is unsure that insurance rates would go up. Senior Planner Molina, stated that the next step would be to address the ordinances with regard to fire safe construction. Commissionser Darcy McNaboe,questioned if any of the sites that they are proposing to be rezoned as 20 dwelling units per acre designation are owner occupied. Senior Planner Molina, responded that they are not. Commissioner McNaboe,questioned if the neighbors will get to discuss their desire to have that area rezoned. Senior Planner Molina, stated that when the public hearing process begins the property owners will be notified as well as the surrounding area. Councilman Jim Miller, questioned how large the site is on canal. Senior Planner Molina, responded that it is 0.8 acres. Councilman Miller, questioned how many units can be placed on that property. Senior Planner Molina, responded that 23 units are being proposed. The minimum density per State Law is 20 units per acre then a State density bonus law comes into effect. If a Council Minutes 02/16/2010 Page 3 +' property owner is providing a certain percentage of the units affordable to low income or very low income they qualify for 35 percent density bonus. With the 20 units per acre and the density bonus they would qualify for 22 units and they are asking for 23 which the City has the ability to allow them to have. Councilman Miller, confirmed that the project was going to be three stories and questioned how the parking would be handled. Senior Planner Molina,confirmed that it would be three stories and that two parking spaces per unit would be provided. They are asking for some flexibility in the guest parking. Councilman Miller, questioned if there have been any preliminary plans done. Senior Planner Molina, responded that preliminary plans have been done and a workshop was held last week for that project. Councilman Miller, questioned if the site plan had any recreational facilities on it. Senior Planner Molina, responded in the affirmative. It provided for some open space that had a tot lot and a bbq and a community/recreation room. i PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Hornsby, 22656 Brentwood Street, he doesn't feel that it makes a lot of sense to encourage public comment and then have the meetings at 5:00 p.m. On one hand you say that you want the public to participate but by having the meetings at 5:00 p.m. you pretty much negate 99%of your citizens. He referred to a letter where there are 13 proposed land changes. 9 of the changes are changes from low density residential to public. He feels that public could mean a lot of things and feels that public needs to be clarified. He feels that some of the land changes are really dramatic and should be looked at closely and encourage all of them to go out and look at the properties. He feels that this is selective standards and parking is going to be an issue. Senior Planner Molina, stated that the notice that went out to property owners was intended to alert them that changes are being proposed, however, it did not go into specifics about what is happening. A lot of the areas that are in the low-density residential are easements or state water aqueducts areas. As is the intent with all notices, they are general to let people know that there is something going on and briefly what it is and they can contact staff. If the Council or Commission would like more detail on the notices staff can do that. She provided a copy of the land use map which was attached to the notice. Community and Economic Development Director Joyce Powers, stated that with regards to 71 Council Minutes 02/16/2010 Page 4 the Canal Village Project, she concurs with what Mr. Hornsby said about the parking. Staff would not advocate or recommend that a project be approved with less than two spaces per unit. Senior Planner Molina, stated that staff is looking at the Canal site because of the Housing Element Mandate, HCD has looked at the Housing Element and they indicated that the " Element can be certified that it is in compliance with State Law provided that these changes are made. The Canal area is one of the areas that was identified that can be re-zoned a minimum of 20 units per acre, which is the State Mandate. The General Plan update is not approving the development itself. The development is what is being proposed by a private developer and there is a separate process for that which will look at that site lay out,specific density,parking and set-backs. The public hearing process is the correct mechanism to look at that. What is being looked at with the General Plan is just the State Mandate to identify sites that can be at 20 units per acre. Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Avenue, stated that there are some residents for years that come before the Council and the Planning Commission discussing this General Plan. They have received pages that vary from thing to another and their questions are not answered when they have proven beyond any doubt that the former plans that the City has had have been illegally processed and not followed and there has been violation of the law. She - demanded that in this new plan the violations of their rights and property owners that have . . been done by illegal actions and maps illegal be corrected. She is tired of coming to the meetings and tired of seeing citizens having to do the research to prove what they know for sure is true. She feels that there has been very bad planning, when you want to put in high density things it is not ok to slap them in here and there affecting every area of Grand Terrace. She feels that it is very important for everyone in the City to know what they are doing not just a few people 300 feet from that particular spot. With proper planning and accurate General Plan information, there are major areas where high density can be placed without slapping in,right in the middle of single family housing on larger lots. She feels that she should have to come to the meetings every few months and argue with them about what they want to place next to her home. She stated that Michigan Avenue is suppose to be mainly residential and a high school has been approved without any prediction of when Commerce Way is going to be changed. She has a lot of comments that she will be adding but she wants it to be very clear that she feels her rights and the rights of other people have been severely damaged because of illegal approval by the Planning Commission. Janese Makshanoff, 21813 Vivienda, questioned number 13 on the Land Use Change. It states that it is being proposed to be changed from Industrial to Flood Plain Industrial. Her home is located in that area and stated that she has never been in the flood plain. She stated that when she was attending the workshops of the Planning Commission they comment that the agricultural overlay had been taken off without due process. The Planning Commission agreed and they said that it would be placed back on. Council Minutes 02/16/2010 Page 5 1 Senior Planner Molina, stated that the Flood Plain Industrial was extended further south to reflect the flood insurance rate maps which show that the flood plain is further south. With regard to the agricultural uses, on page 2-16, the flood plain industrial designation has language that allows existing land uses to remain and to continue to have the agricultural overlay. It says that presently parcels within this area are largely undeveloped or developed as rural residential uses. It is anticipated that build out of this area will occur over a long period of time. During this build out period existing residential uses shall be permitted and regulated under the requirements of the low density residential land use designation, light agricultural uses shall be permitted, including the keeping of animals with the approval of an agricultural overlay zoning designation. When the zoning map is updated it will also extend that designation to that area. It addresses the speakers comments with regard to the agricultural overlay issue. Janese Makshanoff, 21813 Vivienda. feels that it is lip service and feels that if it is not actually written down that they have an agricultural overlay, not that they can continue on as a grand fathered in. It affects everything. When the agricultural overlay was taken off, she lost her agricultural everything. c � Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, stated that she has talked to people that have not received notices regarding the General Plan and feels that there is not enough notification. Councilman Walt Stanckiewitz,referred to the sustainability portion of the General Plan and the California Resources Board Requirements and questioned if this is an area that we want to take a hard stance. Community and Economic Development Director Powers,responded that the City of Grand Terrace is participating in the SANBAG project to undertake the targeting of the areas and writing an implementation plan to reduce emissions. It will actually be on the next agenda for approval of participation. Councilman Stanckiewitz, questioned the group if they want to take a hard line on these requirements or do we want to soften given the economy and what it is doing to the State. Senior Planner Molina,stated that the element is not intended to be over bearing. Staff wants to promote energy efficiency and green building. What they anticipate is that an Ordinance will be adopted that will give incentives to developers to use green energy techniques. Commissioner Matthew Addington, stated that a couple of times in the past during their meetings the issue of agricultural overlay has come up. He questioned if there is an exhibit of map that actually shows where that overlay is. Senior Planner 'Molina, responded in the affirmative. 21 Council Minutes 02/16/2010 Page 6 Commissioner Addington, questioned if there is anything in the proposed general plan that would change the agricultural overlay. Senior Planner Molina,responded that it will remain in the same location on the zoning map. Janet Rich, 11701 Terrace Avenue, stated that she lives in the area that is being changed to the flood plain. She stated that it will affect her homeowners policy and will affect her if her house burns down and the City won't let her rebuild because it will be designated as flood plain. She has had this property since 1968 and has lived on it since 1974. She stated that she has attended all of the meetings expressing her concerns and they get nothing out of it. Senior Planner Molina,responded that with regards to the flood plain industrial,the City is responding to the flood insurance rate maps that the State updated. Insurance Companies will refer to those flood insurance rate maps when they consider the need for flood insurance. The City is not changing it, we are conforming to the State designations. This designation does provide for the agricultural overlay and is on the zoning map. Mayor Ferre adjourned the Joint Workshop between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss the General Plan Update and the Draft Program EIR at 6:08 p.m. •r' CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYO of the City of Grand Terrace ,n t� Attachment 3 Draft General Plan dated January 20, 2010 Provided as a separate document as noted in the Staff Report Available on the City's website, City Hall public counter, and Grand Terrace Library CD Copy to be kept as public record. J 25 Attachment 4 Proposed Land Use Map identifying land use changes with textual description �r •e/ � nnnunu. n lun � - v ,41'' � - 111111 Ii I� .n■ $■ I a' �It■� �Iltlli 7.�■ n 1 � -'i7.--- •�-� _ -I`•11■u n.tt..I l_'-li:��a:_I. , ,.i!nll+tl_ wit= ' 710II' C��. u ;. ulnnaa n.un �► LGii.Lr 11■ fir■ 11: �IN! I Illlt .I.gopoppag so, �•� .i i�l 11�•� :nnuan-. u.�.l�y ■1_ ■�ql .. u/n,r':IIR II I:i.... n.in aWIN= � t nl. n1 ;LI ini lot1111111111 �- - III►��1111111111 IIIII.LLI L, :..I._j.. � •I .I.I.. - I.I■11 I- ---.Il.l.f 3_ nnnlin.l i - , 1 III = ■� 01.= 11 11 Illrlll I.I1• : I .1►��— ~� I, ` 1111 7 /�: , 111.14�7 . IIIaN.111.111 11111 11 • •I - Thirteen areas within the City are proposed to undergo a General Plan Land Use re-designation, as shown below. The Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, identifying these areas is attached: 1. Conversion of an approximate 4-acre parcel located in the northwest portion of the City located in-between La Cadena Drive and the rail line located immediately to the east, from Low Density Residential to Public. 2. Conversion of one 0.21-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Vivienda Avenue and Vivienda Court, from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. 3. Conversion of 2.56 acres of land located just north of Canal Street in the north end of town from Low Density Residential to Public. 4. Conversion of 1.16 acres of land located in the north end of town, near the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Mount Vernon Avenue from Medium Density Residential to Public. 5. Conversion of 3.29 acres of land located south of Barton Road, north of Pahn Avenue and west of Preston Street from Office Commercial to Public. 6. Conversion of 1.63 acres of land located north and south of Merle Court from Barton Road to Palm Avenue from Low Density Residential to Public. 7. Conversion of 2.52 acres of land located east of the intersection of Van Buren Street and Observation Drive from Low Density Residential to Public 8. Conversion of 1.39 acres of land located north and south of Raven Way and Robin Way, west of Mike Todd Lane and east of Oriole Avenue, in the southeast portion of the City from Low Density Residential to Public. 9. Conversion of 9.15 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Michigan Street, in the southwest portion of the City from General Commercial to Public. 10. Conversion of 53.74 acres of land located east of Taylor Street, north of Main Street, north and south of Pico Street and west of Michigan Street, in the southwest portion of the City from Industrial to Public. 11. Conversion of 32.86 acres of land located north of Pico Street, east of I-215, south of Van Buren Street and west of Michigan Street, in the southwest portion of the City from Industrial to Mixed Use. 12. Conversion of 61.08 acres of land located north of Van Buren Street, south of DeBerry Street, east of I-215 and west of Michigan Street from General Commercial to Mixed Use. 13. Conversion of approximately 14 acres of land north of Vivienda Avenue, between Terrace Street and West of the UPRR rail lines from Industrial to Floodplain Industrial. -Nei i Attachment 5 CD Final Environmental Impact Report dated March 2010 Provided as a separate document as noted in the Staff Report Available on the City's website, City Hall public counter, and Grand Terrace Library CD Copy to be kept as public record �A Attachment 6 Exhibit 3-A of the Draft EIR Traffic Study depicting proposed footnote �U EXHIBIT 3-A EXISTING LAND USES 5t � W .• - 8TA W 1• �• 9QE ST �` 1• 1 n:a{`a- F ETON DR . U Ue.�c '; �. :x, ...;.urn;� r 1••1 � LITTONAV 1' � 1 .'�� :n` •«:��;'i� �Qp 1• vim Lu V. 1 1 -J:.. It•V CO t _ • ._ � W Q 1' M� 1'.. DE BERRY ST WREN ST rt�'' oe y�{ t 1•. FINCH ST THRUSH ST - 1AN Bu • LEGEND { LARK ST Land U"Exiodng 1. - vIi ouw Vw~ ---- LonaDaac S. ._. .... _ __ s Camnwoal PICO ST InaustW 1 TANAGERS 1. C. -- t •t {1 W ;'�` - -- Situ°FmF*y 1• Ww _— ROBIN WY Null Fwn y vacnt �yy�yy�TAZ Boundary G YW W',•l TAZ ID' Grand Terrace EIR General Plan Update Traffic Impact Analysis This exhibit references current land uses inventoried in approximately,2007. OURBAN City of Grand Terrace,CA(JN-04625:EXlST-LU) Traffic Analysis Zones(TAZ)are consistent with the East Valley Traffic QCMSPWP� Model. AJ J Attachment 7 Email from Grand PaTerrace dated March 18, 2010 SANDRA MOLINA- IMPORTANT MEETING _ From: Grand PaTerrace <grandterracenews®yahoo.com> MAR 1 1010 To: <smolina®cityofgrandterrace.org> Date: 3/18/2010 9:36 PM Subject: IMPORTANT MEETING "Issues" to bring to the Record. This project is not an aid to self sustainability. It relies on imported products to sell retail. It neither makes a product or add to the real economic base or financial base of the community. Nor does it add to the basic needs of food or energy production and waist management/reuse and real sustainability of the community. Every planned use in the plan increases traffic. and noise. The plan does not specifically include design and cost of real needed infrastructure projects, repair of existing roads, curbs and sidewalks for existing roads, existing sidewalk repair. Increased traffic safety around our schools. This plan does not sufficiently address flooding and ground water protection in it plan of use and improvements needed. Area near Pico and Michigan where reeds grow and Area on Mt. Vernon where reeds grow are areas where vegetation indicates a high water table or natural spring. This unique habitat and environment is not accounted for in the plan. Pending Construction on 218 should be finalized prior to any change of land use is allowed near the 218. The State should not be burdened with extra costs and obstacles put in the way of the.218 and transportation improvements done and planned at the State Level of Government and Regional Agencies. The Change of Zoning or Use has been done without the full cooperation and collaboration of the property owners and neighboring land owners. Designating a Plan Area limits the rights of individual property owners to develop the property as they see fit, and or have an open market to offer their property for sale. The Plan includes the change of use of Grand Terrace Elementary School without a plan to relocate or build new facilities. The Plan increases the Debt Levels to the point of creating a draw on the City's Fund and possibly putting the city in a financial situation that it can not provide the basic services of Fire, Police, and other city obligations. The plan undercuts existing businesses and land owners and effectively makes the existing businesses compete at a disadvantaged position. Please attach these to the Offical Record of Public Hearing input. 7 7 April 1st, 2010 BE at the Meeting or SHUT THE HECK UP... NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO CERTIFY A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE REVISED GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATE: Thursday, April 1, 2010 PLACE: Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California 92313 TIME: 6:30 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING ITEM PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, APPLICABLE CITY-WIDE: Project: Certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Update and Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Revised Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project, and adoption of the General Plan Update and Redevelopment Plan Amendment. General Plan Update: A comprehensive update of the 1988 City of Grand Terrace General Plan has been prepared. The new General Plan will contain the following General Plan Elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety, Noise, Public Services and Facilities, Housing, and Sustainable: Development, including the re-designation of the Land Use designations for 13 locations within the City. Amendment No. 6 to the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Redevelopment Plan: The Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project was originally adopted by the City Council in 1979. The Redevelopment Plan has since undergone five amendments. The proposed sixth amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is primarily aimed at maximizing the Redevelopment Agency's financial ability to implement the Redevelopment Plan. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2008071017) discusses the proposed Project's environmental impacts associated with the Project. All significant effects of the proposed project have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures with the exception of long-term permanent noise levels associated with roadway traffic at build-out of the General Plan and long-term air emissions associated with build-out of the General Plan. These cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Written responses to comment letters received during circulation of the AlA• / /rIA nnn»mPnta -anti Q/1 a/on i n Draft EIR have been prepared and together with the DEIR and comment letters, comprise the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with, and pursuant to the CEQA, Public Resources Code, 21000 et seq. and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental 9uality Act (State CEgA Guidelines), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 15000 et seq. At the public hearing. the Planning Commission will consider all evidence and testimony for the Project and make a recommendation to the City Council. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of or in,opposition to the above listed item will be given the opportunity to do so before the Planning Commission. pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2): "If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the public entity conducting the hearing at or prior to the public hearing." If you have any questions regarding the Project, the public hearing or this notice. please contact Senior Planner Sandra Molina, in the Community and Economic Development Department offices, via telephone at (909) 430-2247, or via email at smolina®cityof9randterrace.or . Copies of all relevant material, including the Project specifications, the draft EIR, and supporting documents, are available for review at the City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department in City Hall, 22795 Barton Road, during normal business hours. If you plan to attend the public hearing and need a special accommodation because of a sensory or mobility impairment/disability, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 430-2212 to J arrange for those accommodations to be made. Published: One-eighth page legal advertisement on March 18, 2010 in the San Bernardino County Sun. Posted by GrandPaTerrace at Thursday. March 18, 2010❑0 1 -__I ce+*i...to\To.r,r\SfUcir I/1 U/7n1 n QS y LI.-%%OII%-.10 VE 1'7 From: Cindi didney <bidneys1 Qsbcglebal.net> MAR 2 2 2010 To: <smolina@cityofgrandterrace.org> Date: 3/22/2010 1:47 PM Subject: EIR Report I would like to know what is being done about the long temp traffic, air pollution and noise that is not within limitations? Cynthia Bidney 17 Attachment 9 Draft Resolution Recommending Certifying the Final EIR �s RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND CERTIFYING THE .FINAL PRORAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE GRAND TERRACE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace began a comprehensive General Plan Update that consisted of numerous workshops by the Grand Terrace Planning Commission and City Council. WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that the General Plan Update ("Project") was a project requiring review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq. and that Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") be prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project; WHEREAS, A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and an Initial Study for the Draft EIR were distributed to State, regional, and local agencies, as well as the State Clearinghouse on January 22, 2008, for a 30-day review period ending on February 22, 2008, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375..A total of ten comment letters were received. The NOP, Initial Study and the ten NOP response letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, the NOP was published in the Grand Terrace City News providing notice that a public scoping would be conducted to solicit oral comments on the NOP at the Grand Terrace Council Chambers on February 11, 2008. Eight speakers provided oral comments during the scoping meeting. Specific EIR-related comments included-circulation/traffic, aesthetics, land use, noise, recreational resources, agricultural resources, hazardous materials, and cumulative impacts. A summary of the oral comments is included in Appendix A of. the Draft EIR, and relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion ("NOC") for the Draft EIR (SCH #2008011109) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review on January 21, 2010; WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR was published in the San Bernardino County Sun on January 22, 2010, making the Draft EIR available for a 45-day public review period on January 22, 2010 with the comment period expiring on March 8, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two comment letters were received after the public comment period. The responses to comments are included in the Final EIR; WHEREAS,on April 1, 2010 the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace held a legally noticed public hearing, in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California and voted 4-1 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR; Page 1 of 5 :ZA t J WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a legally noticed public hearing in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California to consider the General Plan Update, Final EIR, and staff recommendations. Notice of this City Council hearing was provided through publication in thel San ! Bernardino County Sun on April 15, 2010; WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis j for its decision on the Project. WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been 'I satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the ;i 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 and State CEQA Guidelines; 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; WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are;less than significant and do nobrequire mitigation are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A,hereof; 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 ,i Section 6 of Exhibit A,hereof, ! WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant but which the i City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 7 of Exhibit A,hereof; � I WHEREAS, cumulative environmental impacts identified or discussed in the Final EIR are described in Section 8 of Exhibit A,hereof; WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes are 'identified in the Final EIR and are found to be less than significant, as described in Section 9 of Exhibit A, hereof; j WHEREAS, the potential for growth inducing impacts described in the Final EIR; and found to be less than significant are described in Section 10 of Exhibit A, hereof; WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 11 of Exhibit A, hereof, Page 2 of 5 An 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; 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; 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,it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, above, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 27, 2010, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and the consideration of the contents of the Final EIR, this Council hereby 1 finds and concludes as follows: a. The Final EIR prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resource Code Sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA) with the State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations. b. The Final EIR was presented to the Council and the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to the consideration of the Project. The Council also finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City Council takes the following actions: a. Certifies the Final EIR to be in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. (CEQA) with the State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations. b. Adopts a Statement of Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the EIR attached hereto as Exhibit "A" respectively, based on the following Findings: Page 3 of 5 Al I� I I fl i I i. The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Facts and Findings i and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and the Final EIR. II ii. The Final EIR identified all significant environmental impacts of the Project jj and there are no 'known potentially significant environmental impacts; not addressed in-the Final EIR. it iii. All significant impacts identified in the Final EIR as a result of the Project have been identified, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level by the r imposition of mitigation measures on the Project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and are incorporated herein by the reference. i iv. The Final EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Potential mitigation or Project alternatives have been incorporated into the Project to reduce the impacts. 'I V. The cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered. Except for the identified unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Facts and ;i Findings and the Final EIR, mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project to reduce such,impacts to less than significant levels. jvi. The unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as identified in, the Statement of Facts and Findings and the Final EIR are outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project identified in the Statement II of Overriding Considerations. i ;i. C. Adopts the,Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit d. Modifies Exhibit 3-A of Appendix B of the Draft EIR General Plan Update Traffic Study by adding the following footnote to Exhibit 3-A: "This exhibit references current land uses inventoried in approximately 2007. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are consistent with the East Valley Traffic Model." d 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ' j 5. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the County of San Bernardino within five(5)working days of final Project approval. I r d i I k I i � I II I Page 4 of 5 r n f PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27`h day of April 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Maryetta Ferre', Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk ATTEST AS TO FORM: 4 John Harper, City Attorney Page 5 of 5 41 I, BRENDA MESA, CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council on the 271h day of April 2010. Executed this day of , 2010, at Grand Terrace, California. Brenda Mesa, City Clerk ni EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AC j ; SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace ("this Council") hereby adopts this entire document, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 13 below, as its findings ("Findings") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the General Plan Update ("Project") described in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for ii the Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2008011109. In considering the potential benefits of the Project, the City identified the following objectives;that will be achieved: General Plan Update i • Update the General Plan to be more consistent with the format articulated in the Office of Planning and Research 2003 General Plan Guidelines. ;i • Update existing environmental conditions. • Update General Plan goals to better reflect the relationship between the General Plan and the citizens of Grand Terrace. j0 Provide a basis for informative policy decisions when considering development associated f with implementation of the General Plan. • Guide future physical;development in the City and provide for a high-quality visual image of the City. f i • Update City environmental baseline (i.e., existing) conditions to the year 2007/2008. • Update the General Plan Land Use Element and attendant Land Use Plan to facilitate greater diversity in future development options for vacant and/or underutilized parcels remaining in the City. j • Update City General Plan elements to establish consistency with the updated Land Use Element. • Accommodate growth on undeveloped and underdeveloped properties within the City. • Accommodate future demand to the City street system and infrastructure. • Promote new commercial development that will capitalize on City proximity to major transportation corridors. • Maintain and continue to develop Grand Terrace's established commercial areas. • Continue to promote development of quality housing for all segments of the population and E households with special needs. • Ensure residents are provided with a safe and healthful environment in which to live and work. ;j • Preserve those amenities that make Grand Terrace an attractive place to live and work. Page 1 of 36 AZ • Mitigate and eventually eliminate, where economically feasible, natural and manmade hazards to life and public safety within the City of Grand Terrace. • Conserve energy and other critical natural resources through a comprehensive program for sustainable development practices. • Provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide opportunities for a wide range of employment, housing, and maintenance of a healthy diversified economy. These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Final EIR prepared for the Project. The Final EIR was prepared by the City of Grand Terrace, acting as the lead agency under the CEQA. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT A. Project Description General Plan Update The Grand Terrace General Plan is proposed to be updated in several ways: 1) it has been reorganized to comport more closely with the format articulated in the 2003 General Plan Guidelines prepared by OPR; 2) the goals of the General Plan have been modified to better reflect the relationship between the General Plan and its relevance to the citizens of Grand Terrace; 3) its Land Use Element and attendant Land Use Plan has been modified to facilitate greater diversity in future development options for the relatively few vacant and/or underutilized parcels remaining in the City; and, 4) its other elements have been modified to reflect changes to the Land Use Element. The content of the proposed General Plan Update is described in Section 2.4 Project Components of the Draft EIR (Page 31), and it is in full compliance with California Government Code Section 65302 et seq. SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City initiated the environmental process with the completion of an Initial Study. The City used an Initial Study to determine which impacts would be less than significant and did not warrant further environmental review, while identifying those issues that required further analysis in an EIR. The City circulated the Initial Study with a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Project to State, regional, and local agencies on January 22, 2008, for a 30-day review period that concluded on February 22, 20008. The Initial Study was made available to the public during and after the comment periods. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse. Comments received regarding the NOP were used to help identify impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. At of the close of the 30-day NOP public review period, ten responses to the NOP were received by the City. Copies of the NOP, Initial Study and ten NOP comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Page 2 of 36 n'7 I � 1i I i I A public scoping meeting was held to solicit public comment on the direction and scope of the analysis necessary for the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting was advertised in the Grand Terrace City News on January 22, 2010, and was held on February 11, 1008, at 6:00 p.m., at the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California. Eight speakers provided oral comments at the public scoping meeting and their summarized comments are included in Attachment A of the Draft EIR. ;I The Draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code §21092(b)(3); the Draft EIR has been provided to all parties who have previously requested copies. During the 45-day r` :i public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices had been made available for review at the City, San Bernardino County Library, Grand Terrace Branch, and on the City's website.�The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on January 22, 2010, with the comment period expiring on March 7, 2010. The comment period was closed by the State Clearinghouse on March 8, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and!two comment letters were received subsequent to the close of the public comment period. ,I a After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental i issues raised were prepared. These responses were made available for review for a minimum of 10 days prior to the public'hearing before the Grand Terrace City Council, at which time,' the .certification of the Final ;EIR was considered. The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, Appendices, the public comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR,) were included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the City decision-makers. i SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS 1 City staff reports, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or hearings, and these Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. 'I The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments and' any revisions/omissions to the'Draft EIR are provided in Chapter 2 and 3 of the Final EIR, and indicated by strikethrough(deletions) or underline (additions)in the Final EIR,respectively. I I I The Draft EIR and Initial Study evaluated sixteen environmental categories (Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities; and Service Systems) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, ,I Components of the sixteen environmental categories relating to Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils,,Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water-Quality, Noise and Utilities were found to be insignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the Project. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein, these Findings incorporated the conclusions I j Page 3 of 36 j I �I I on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) and the City finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to the components of those categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required. At a public hearing assembled on April 27, 2010, at the City of Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace determined that, based upon all of the evidence presented, included by but not limited to the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to the Project; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION The following issues were found in the Final EIR as having no potential to cause significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. A. Aesthetics 1. Adverse effects on scenic vista, or degrade existing visual character or quality of the City. The majority of future development within the City pursuant to the Land Use Plan presented in the Updated General Plan Land Use Element will be infill in nature, occur incrementally, and aside from the proposed Mixed Use and 20-acre Town Square Master Development Plan areas, will be relatively minor in scale. Most future development projects would be in the flat area of the City and would not be visible beyond their immediate surroundings. Blue Mountain is the City's major scenic resource for views to the east. Other scenic views include those of the nearby hills and the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. Certain areas along the northern flank of Blue Mountain are designated for residential development; however, the General Plan Update requires that development in this area shall be undertaken pursuant to a Specific Plan that incorporates design features specifically directed to "protect the scenic views and environmental resources of the mountain". The proposed General Plan Update contains numerous goals, policies and policy actions specifically directed to preserve the integrity of Blue Mountain as a community asset, regulate hillside development, and protects scenic vistas. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista or the existing visual character or quality of the City. (DEIR pp. 41-42) Page 4 of 36 as 2. Substantially damage existing resources within a State scenic highway. There are neither state designated scenic routes in the City, nor any locally designated scenic routes and therefore, no impacts to visual resources from designated routes will occur. (DEIR pp. 41-42) 3. New source of substantial light or glare that adverse day or nighttime views in the area. New development would introduce new sources of light and increase ambient luminosity. However, the City is substantially built out and future development pursuant to the General Plan Update will occur incrementally on parcels that would be generally adjacent to existing sources of light. Compliance with current City Zoning Code lighting standards in combination with subjection to the City's design review process would reduce any effects on day or nighttime views to a less than significant level (DEIR pp. 42-43) B. Air Quality 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The 2007 AQMP used the existing City General Plan for their growth estimates. A comparison of the estimates of the General Plan Update to the existing General Plan (DEIR Table 4B-6, p. 74) shows that the overall growth is less than that which was expected in the currently adopted General Plan. Although growth under the proposed General Plan results in significant regional air quality impacts, the growth projected under the General Plan Update is consistent with the AQMP. The Project is consistent with the AQMP and other regional plan strategies related to reduction in traffic„ and improvement in the jobs/housing .balance, as evidenced in proposed goals, policies and actions contained in the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Circulation and Sustainable Development Elements. The Project is also consistent with the Goals and Policies of SANBAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. Therefore a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 73- 75) 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. An impact is potentially significant if emissions levels exceed the State or federal Ambient Air Quality Standards typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations, with higher concentrations typically at intersections, but can also be along congested major arterials and freeways. Based on the Air Quality Analysis prepared, no long- term significant impacts are anticipated to occur. The most proximate SCAQMD monitoring station has not experienced any CO violations of the standards in the last five years, and CO emissions are projected to decrease from current levels (pursuant to CARB requirements), no new violations of the CO standards would be projected. For individual projects, CEQA documentation would be required to address, and if necessary mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. Also, General Plan goals, policies and actions contained in the proposed Land Use, Circulation and Sustainable Development Elements will serve to address air quality impacts. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 75-76) 3. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Short-term constriction odors from materials such as paint and asphalt would quickly disburse into the atmosphere and not create a significant impact. Future residential and commercial development Page 5 of 36 r� would involve minor, odor-generating activities from typical residential uses and are not considered significant air quality impacts. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 77) C. Biological Resources 1. Substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Sensitive vegetation communities occur in the community. Additionally, a number of sensitive plant and animal species occur or have the potential to occur in the City. The Project will not have direct impacts to these resources; however, implementation of the proposed Project allows for the development of largely undisturbed areas. Development activities have the potential to impact these resources through construction, reduction in habitat and food resources, and increased human activity. However, development within the City will be required to comply with applicable United States Federal Endangered Species (USFES), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Natural Community Conservation Planning/Habitat Conservation Plan requirements, and compliance with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG requirements. Compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan Open Space and Conservation goals, policies and implementing actions will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. (DEIR pp. 104-105) 2. Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community; or substantial adverse effect federally protected wetlands. Riparian communities support species along watercourses or water bodies adaptable to seasonal flooding. Riparian communities, as well as wetlands, may exist within the City. Implementation of the proposed Project could impact existing riparian and wetlands areas through development and potential recreational uses. However, potential impacts will be mitigated through compliance with USACE regulations under Section 404 and CDFG regulations under Section 1601-1603, and any project specific mitigation measures. Additionally, goals, policies and implementing actions proposed in the Open Space and Conservation Element encourage data collection, protective land use regulations, coordination with other agencies and the establishment of additional policies to preserve open space. All of these policies serve to reduce potential impacts related to riparian and wetland habitats or other sensitive communities that may occur. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 105-106) 3. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Future projects initiated in accordance with the General Plan would comply with all relevant policies and ordinances relating to tree preservation, including Chapter 12.28 (Street and Parkway Trees) of the Municipal Code which regulates the installation, maintenance, removal and pruning of trees within the City's rights of way. D. Cultural Resources 1. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Gage Canal has been evaluated as National Register of Historical Place (NRHP) Significant. Development pursuant to the Project will result in development upon vacant lands. Implementation of proposed Open Space and Conservation Element goals, policies and implementing action would minimize impacts to historical resources by requiring appropriate studies and monitoring, where warranted. Additionally, each incremental development is required to comply with all applicable State and Page 6 of 36 S1 I federal regulations concerning preservation of historic resources. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 114) 2. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The records search shows that cultural resources within the City include prehistoric or i protohistoric sites including rock art sites and sites containing lithic artifacts, and historic-era sites including residential structures, railroads, bridges and canals associated with water irrigation. There are no known paleontological resources or sites within the City. Implementation of proposed Open Space and Conservation Element goals, policies and implementing action would minimize potential impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources that may occur with buildout of the proposed General Plan. Therefore, potential impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 114-115) 3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Implementation of the Project. No human remains or burial sites are known to exist on the potential future development properties. In the unlikely event human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, adherence to provisions of Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and State law sufficiently mitigates for potential impacts to human remains. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. I E. Geology and Soils 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Earthquakes are a j common occurrence in Southern California. Development pursuant to the General Plan Update would result in an increase in population and uses, thereby exposing more people (residents and employees) to the effects of ground shaking from regionally generated earthquakes. Seismic hazards include secondary effects of seismically induced ground failure including landslides, which may result in property damage, personal injury, and loss of life may result from such events. Policies and implementing actions found in the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public Health and Safety Elements encourage the avoidance of geotechnically hazardous areas, and compliance with existing seismic design standards will minimize potential seismic hazards in the City to less than significant levels. (DEIR p. 122) I 2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. The steep slope areas of Blue Mountain, should they be underlain by weak soils, may present a significant hazard in terms of potential landslides. However, goals, policies and implementing actions of the proposed Project would ensure that the hazards associated with landslides would be reduced to a less than significant level. (DEIR pp. 1122- 123) 3. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The City is relatively flat resulting in a low potential for soil erosion; however, the Blue Mountain area does provide the opportunity for soil erosion during rain. Development undertaken pursuant to the General Plan Update could expose areas of soil to erosion during constriction activities. Development would be subject to regional i i i Page 7 of 36 policies and standards regarding stormwater runoff, and General Plan goals, policies and implementing actions contained in the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public Health and Safety Elements relating to soil erosion, open space, grading and erosion control plans. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 123-124) 4. Located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable, or potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Landslide hazards are present on the slopes of Blue Mountain. Liquefaction may occur in areas along the Santa Ana River., however, these areas are not located with areas considered to be developable within the City, and are not considered a direct hazard to the City. General Plan policies and implementing actions contained in the proposed Public Health and Safety Element would ensure that the hazards associated with soil that is unstable or that would become unstable would be reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 124-125) F. Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1. Significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous materials into the environment. New non-residential development within the City may result in an increase in commercial and industrial land uses involving the use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste. However, the type and extent of hazardous materials is unknown and could range from common automobile oil and household pesticides.to substances used in commercial and industrial operations. However, with implementation of the proposed General Plan, the amount of land dedicated to industrial and commercial land uses would decrease, and the increase in mixed-use designations would result in a decrease in the amount of hazardous materials used, generated, or transported. Further, proposed General Plan policies and implementing actions contained in the Land Use, Circulation, and Public Health and Safety Elements related to compatible land uses, land use buffering, business and truck routes, and hazardous waste will minimize potential impacts associated with potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment. These policies and actions would ensure that the hazards associated with hazardous materials would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Build out would result in increased population levels within the City, thus increasing the number of school- age children in the City, due to an increase in residential 'development. Projects involving school site acquisition to be funded under the State School Facilities_Program must also satisfy several specific requirements established in the California Education Code and California Code of Regulations relating to potential hazards, including hazardous materials. Additionally, implementation of proposed General Plan policies and actions contained in the Land Use, Circulation and Public Health and Safety Elements would ensure that potential hazard impacts related to schools would be reduced,to a less than significant level. (DEIR pp. 139-140) 3. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Major evacuation routes within the City include Barton Road, La Cadena Avenue, and Mount Vernon Avenue, and San Bernardino County includes Page 8 of 36 5� i I-10, I-215, and I-15 as potential evacuation routes. The City maintains an emergency operations center staffed by the Emergency Operations Committee, maintains a Community Emergency Response Team and participates in a Statewide Master Mutual Aid Agreement as well as Mutual Aid Agreements with surrounding cities. Implementation of proposed General Plan goals, policies kand actions included in the Public Health and Safety Element ensure that the City continues to prepare for emergency responses throughout the City. Therefore, a less than significant impact,will occur. (DEIR pp. 140=141) 4. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires., The majority of the City is highly urbanized and relatively built;out; however; the Blue Mountain area "is more susceptible to wildland fires as a result of its larger proportion of vegetation and open space, as depicted on Exhibit 5-3 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Additionally, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District has established general fire flow requirements for new development in accordance with the California'Fire Code, which takes into consideration, amongst other things, occupancy type and building size. Implementation of proposed General Plan policies and actions contained the Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety and Public Services Element relating to open space designations, water supply fire fighting and emergency preparedness will reduce potential impacts' to levels of less 'than i! significant. (DEIR p. 142) F 5. Included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659623 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public environment. There are two sites in the City limits that are listed on a list of hazardous materials sites maintained, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 by the Department of,,—', Toxic Substances Control' (DTSC). Both sites are under clean-up activities as regulated by the DTSC. Additionally, General Plan Update policies and implementing actions included in the J. proposed Public Health and Safety Element relating to hazardous materials would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. (DEIR p. 143) ;I G. Hydrology/Water'Quality 1. Violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Future development associated with General Plan buildout may potentially contribute to water quality degradation in the City from runoff, construction activities, and chemical releases, such as oils, fuels and paints at construction sites, and the level of impacts would vary depending upon the activity, weather and soil conditions. However, goals, policies and implementing actions included in the proposed General Plan Update Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety and Public Services Elements relating to water quality and protection of water resources would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. (DEIR 4 pp. 154-155) 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or lower the local groundwater table level. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a 26.4 percent increase in the amount of residential units, and an increase of;42.8 percent of non-residential development; thereby increasing water demand. Water conservation in Southern California became increasingly important in the 1980s ! I! i ,j Page 9 of 36 and early 1990s, when the entire region suffered a severe drought. Drought conditions in southern California directly affect groundwater recharge and groundwater supplies. The proposed Public Services and Sustainable Development Elements of the General Plan Update contains goals, polices and implementing actions relating to water conservation and enhancement of the water supply which will minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR 155-156) 3. Results in impacts to drainage patterns or contributes to runoff water to the stormwater drainage systems in the City. Buildout of the General Plan would result in additional dwelling units and new non-residential development in the City. Subsequent development associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may contribute to runoff, which may exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. However, new development would be required to ensure project-specific and citywide drainage systems have adequate capacity to accommodate new development. Further, the City has recognized the need to monitor and improve the storm drain system in order to ensure it is adequately accommodating future development. Policies and implementation measures to ensure that, project-related storm water mitigation techniques are employed and monitored are proposed in the General Plan pursuant to goals, policies and implementing actions contained in the Open Space and Conservation and Public Health and Safety Element. (DEIR p. 156) 4. Result in potential flooding impacts; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. There are no major dams located within the-City. However, the Seven Oaks Dam is located northeast of the City of Highland. New development projects associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be required to address potential flooding from on and off-site watersheds, including the watershed of adjacent jurisdictions. The primary flood hazard in Grand Terrace is the Santa Ana River located along the northwest corner of the City. This floodplain has been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which assessed the flooding potential, and FEMA has designated this strip a 100-year_ floodplain. In the event that this dam failed, it would eventually enter the Santa Ana River floodplain thus placing the City within the dam inundation area The City has identified the minimization of risk and damage from flood hazards within the City. The proposed Land Use Map designates this area as Floodplain Industrial. Additionally, proposed goals, policies and implementing actions contained in the Opens Space and Conservation and Public Health and Safety Element will minimize potential impacts related to flooding. These policies would ensure less than significant impacts in regards to flooding, including dam failure and inundation. (DEIR pp. 29, 156- 157) H. Land Use and Planning 1. Physically divide an established community. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the DEIR the General Plan Update proposes a new Mixed Use designation on approximately 94 acres of land, and a portion of the General Commercial and Industrial land use designations. Twelve other locations are also proposed to be re-designated, specifically, other larger areas where the land use designation is proposed to change includes the redesignation of General Commercial and Industrial land to Public to accommodate a new high school, and the redesignation of approximately 14 acres of land from Industrial to Floodplain Industrial to reflect updated FEMA Maps. These Page 10 of 36 changes, as well as those identified in Chapter 2 would not physically divide an existing community. Less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 31-32 and 169-170) 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the DEIR the General Plan Update 13 specific areas are proposed to undergo changes in General Plan land use designations. Larger changes include a new Mixed Use designation is proposed on approximately 94 acres of land, and an expansion of the Floodplain Industrial designation to cover 14 additional acres of land that could experience potential for flooding resulting from their proximity to the Santa Ana River is proposed. These land use changes could result in approximately 1.6 million square feet of non-residential uses, 175 dwelling units, and the incorporation of recreation and open space uses. The City of Colton borders the City of Grand Terrace to the north, east and west and pockets of Grand Terrace property intermingle with pockets of Colton property west of I-215. Development of undeveloped land within the City may result in land uses that are incompatible with existing land uses in the City of Colton. The proposed General Plan contains goals, policies and actions that will potential land use, traffic and hazard impacts to a level of below significant. The unincorporated territory of Highgrove within Riverside County is located immediately south of the City. This area is projected to experience significant growth that potentially could result in impacts to Grand Terrace related to land use compatibility, traffic generation, and dispersal and generation of environmental hazards. The proposed General Plan outlines several goals, policies and implementing actions that encourage coordination between adjacent municipalities. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. Additionally, the proposed General Plan contains several goals, policies and actions related to environmentally sensitive areas, reduction of traffic congestion, air quality emissions, development in urban centers, waste reduction and green technologies, which will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulations, and will serve to assure avoidance or mitigation of significant environmental impacts. (DEIR 31-32, 170-175) 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed Project was found not to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. A less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 175, Appendix A). I. Noise 1. Creates a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in the addition of a mixed use land use designation. The mixed use land use may include both residential and commercial land uses that inherently have the potential to conflict. Operation of commercial or industrial land uses can cause the exposure of on- or off-site areas to increased noise associated with mechanical equipment, operation-related traffic, speakers, bells, chimes, and outdoor human activity in defined limited areas. However, there are several goals, Page 11 of 36 policies. and implementing actions in the proposed Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Noise Element that will reduce potential impacts related to stationary noise sources to a level below significance. 2. Creates a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction Noise. Implementation of the General Plan will result in construction activities associated development activities. The majority of new development will occur in the west and southwest portions of the City. Therefore, this area is more likely to be affected by temporary increases in ambient noise from construction as a result of the development of land uses proposed under the proposed Project. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 8.108.040 which prohibits construction activities 'between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday will reduce impacts to a level below significance. Non-Transportation Noise. Intermittent or temporary neighborhood noise from amplified music, public address systems, barking dogs, landscape maintenance, and stand-by power generators are disturbing to residents but are difficult to attenuate and control. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 8.108.020 which states that "It is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud,,unnecessary and excessive noise which disturbs, offends, injures or endangers the peace, quiet, comfort, repose, health or safety of any neighborhood or person within the limits of the City" would reduce potential nuisance noise ,- impacts to the extent feasible. 3. Result in a significant impact if it exposes people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction. Construction activities typically result in ground-borne vibration. Development of future land uses would generate vibration from temporary construction activities, but the vibration levels cannot be determined at this time. Adherence to Municipal Code Section 8.108.040 which prohibits vibration created by construction activities between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday will reduce impacts to a level below significance J. Population and Housing 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. As of January 1, 2008, the California State Department of Finance estimated the population of the City to be 12,543. At buildout of the General Plan the residential designations would accommodate up a population of up to 15,747 at the densities proposed. This growth is not considered significant. (DEIR pp. 208-209) 2. Displace substantial numbers of people and/or housing units necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. At residential buildout of the proposed General Plan approximately 3,400 persons will be added to the population under the proposed land uses. This projected growth in population represents an increase of 21.4 -21.6 percent over the estimated recent City population. This increase is comparable to the net increase,in population growth (3,128 Page 12 of 36 C7 persons; 36.7 percent) that occurred between 1990 and 2000. The displacement of housing is not anticipated with implementation of the General Plan Update. Therefore, no significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 209-210) K. Public Services 1. Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. Fire Protection. Build out of the proposed General Plan Update would result in additional demands on existing fire protection services. New developments associated with the build out of the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements relating to fire protection to ensure that new developments would not reduce the staffing, response times, or existing service levels within the City. In addition, proposed General Plan goals, policies and actions included in the Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety and Public Services Elements will support fire protection services, and ensure that new development is adequately reviewed. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR pp. 216-217) Police Protection. The gradual increase in population and development associated with the proposed General Plan Update would require continued assessment of law enforcement services. Given the 20-year buildout of the General Plan it is expected that the Sheriff's Department would effectively plan for services. No service shortfall requiring additional personnel or equipment is anticipated with implementation of goals, policies and implementing actions contained in the proposed Public Services Element. A less than significant impact will occur. (DEIR p. 217) Schools. The three schools in Grand Terrace are at or above capacity. New development associated with General Plan buildout will increase the student population, thereby impacting schools. However, the collections of impact fees by the Colton Joint Unified School District to mitigate impacts resulting from the increase in demand for school related services, and implementation of General Plan goals, policies and implementing actions included in the Public Services Element will reduce impacts to less than significant. (DEIR pp. 217-218) Parks. The State of California has established a standard of four acres of improved park and recreational facilities per 1,000 population, approximately 70 acres at General Plan buildout. Approximately 100 acres of developed and undeveloped parks and recreation areas are currently available throughout the City, through city parks or joint use agreements with the local school district. Further, the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public Services Elements include goals, policies and actions relating to parks and recreation resulting in a less than significant impact. (DEIR pp. 218-219). Library. Library services are provided by the County of San Bernardino. Based on the San Bernardino County Library's Master Facility Plan the City should have approximately 5,000 to 5,500 square feet of physical space. There is currently a deficit in library space which may be exacerbated with buildout of the General Plan. However, implementation of proposed General Plan Page 13 of 36 goals, policies and implementing actions included in the Public Services Element will maintain acceptable service levels and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. L. Recreation 1. Increase use of existing neighborhood and regional parks-or other recreational facilities, or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The State of California has established a standard of four acres of improved park .and recreational facilities per 1,000 population, approximately 70 acres at General Plan buildout. Approximately 100 acres of developed and undeveloped parks and recreation areas are currently available throughout the City, through City parks or joint use agreements with the local school district. Further, implementation of proposed General Plan goals, policies and actions contained in the proposed Open Space and Conservation and Public Services Elements would further minimize impacts to recreation to a levels of less than significant. M. Traffic/Circulation 1. Cause an increase in traffic .that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The Traffic Report (Appendix B of the Draft EIR) included daily traffic volumes as they exist under the current General Plan and the Proposed General Plan, and are included as Exhibits 4M-10 and 4M-II of the DEIR. In general, the daily traffic volumes are slightly lower than the volumes projected for the Currently Adopted General Plan scenario. The proposed General Plan will not result in a substantial increase in traffic volumes in relation to existing load and capacity because the General Plan incorporates the recommendations of the Traffic Report, including changing the maximum LOS to LOS D and including a modified street cross section that allows re-striping at intersections to accommodate additional turn lanes. Also, the analysis in the DEIR considered the Final Traffic and Operational Analysis performed by Iteris, which is a greater detailed operational analysis of the actual operation of roadway segments and intersections which determined that that segment of Barton Road between the I-215 and Vivienda Avenue will operate at a satisfactory LOS at its current Major Highway designation. Therefore, based on these reports and the goals, policies and actions contained in the Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 255-270) 2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The City of Grand Terrace is also required to conform to the requirements of the San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP), administered by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). The City has adopted its current transportation impact fee (TIF) program in accordance with the CMP Nexus Study, and participates in monitoring the performance of the CMP roadway system, which are CMP requirements: The proposed policy to adopt an "acceptable level of service" of "D" is also consistent with CMP requirements regarding LOS. In addition, policies and- implementing actions in the proposed Circulation Element require that new development projects be reviewed in accordance with the CMP. Therefore, the Project is consistent the CMP and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp274-275) Page 14 of 36 Sa ;I i u 3. The project would result in inadequate emergency access. The City is served by a roadway system that provides emergency access for emergency vehicles. Emergency response and evacuation procedures would be coordinated through the City in coordination with the police and fire departments. Additionally, new developments associated with the build out of the proposed F General Plan Update would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance i' requirements for'construction and access to the site, including review by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District tol determine project specific fire requirements applicable to the.specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. These procedures as well as implementation of goals; policies and actions contained in the Circulation and Public Health; and Safety Elements of the proposed General Plan, result in less than significant impacts. 4. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative t transportation (e.g.; bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Alternative modes of transportation are J promoted in the City and in the proposed General Plan Update. The- City participates in the OmniTrans public transit system, has an extensive sidewalk system along various arterial�and ,! collector roadways, and has an existing and proposed bikeway system. Goals, policies, and implementing actions contained in the proposed General Plan Circulation and Sustainable Development Element promote the provision of future bikeways and trails, pedestrian travel, transit ,i oriented development, encourage the use of transit and alternative modes of travel in the proposed { Mixed Use designation, and creation of local jobs. Therefore, implementation of the Project;will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (i.e.; bus routes), and a less than significant impact would occur. (DEIR pp. 276-277) I N. Utilities and.Service Systems 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board., Implementation of the General Plan would facilitate future gland development in the City, and therefore generate increased demands for wastewater treatment services. Wastewater is treated at the City of Colton Water Reclamation Facility(WRF). The WRF jis subject to RWQCB wastewater regulations and standards. Subsequent projects that would result ,i from General Plan buildout would be reviewed regarding water quality and wastewater, and would not receive a permit until it has confirmed that the treatment facility can treat the proposed effluent. ;i Further,.implementation of proposed General Plan goals, policies and implementing action included in the Public Services Element ensure that applicable wastewater treatment requirements are met, and that related impacts would be less than significant. F SECTION 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less than significant i levels through the implementation of mitigation measures and or conditions identified in,the Final EIR and summarized below. i Page 15 of 36 j A. Air Quality 1. Increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would significantly hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. GHGs are typically reported in CO2. The Project will generate emissions of CO2 primarily in the form of vehicle exhaust and in the consumption of natural gas for heating,as well as some CH4 and N20. In order to produce a reasonable estimate of GHG emissions from the City, calculations have been performed that estimate the CO2, N20, and CH4, emissions and it is estimated,that GHG emissions for the buildout year 2020 is 1,632,429 tonnes per year of CO2 or 1.632 MtCO2 per year. t� Because considerable uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global climate change on California and the City, it is unknown whether these impacts would be significant. This also includes the uncertainty surrounding to what degree global climate change may adversely impact future water supply and availability in the City. However, based on consideration of the recent regional and local climate change studies, and since the City's water sources are anticipated to largely remain intact (though the form of precipitation is expected to come from rain rather than snow), in combination with the City's existing and proposed policies regarding climate change adaptation and resiliency, it is expected that the impacts of global climate change on the City would be less than cumulatively considerable. Nonetheless, due to the size of the General Plan project area; there is a potential for significant impacts relating to GHG emissions. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM411-3 will reduce the potential impact li related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. MM4B-3: The City shall encourage new construction incorporate irrigation designs to assist in conserving potable water, such as computerized irrigation systems, drought-tolerant and smog-tolerant trees, shrubs,. and groundcover, and the use of recycled water. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action 9.7.2.b of,the Sustainable Development Element.) 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. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Supporting Explanation: The General Plan Update proposes several goals, policies and actions in Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety,Public Services, and Sustainable Development Elements to minimize impacts to GHG emissions. However, due to the size of the General Plan project area; there is still the potential for impacts to GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4MB-3 will reduce potential impacts to water by requiring installation of irrigation systems and plant material that conserve water; thereby, reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation. Page 16 of 36 A I �i I B. Noise 1. Expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, Noise Ordinance and applicable standards of other agencies; or create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The proposed Mixed Use designation will allow residential and commercial land 'uses j in close proximity of each other, which may create noise conflicts; however, compliance with General Plan policies, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Noise Standards would reduce conflicts. Future train activity along the BNSF railroad is anticipated to increase the year 2025, to _ 120 freight trains and 100,passenger trains per day, from approximately 55 and 10, respectively. J Future rail noise will increase significantly. Uses in proximity to the rail lines will experience increased noise from train activity, creating a significant impact. r Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce the potential :I impacts related to railroad noise to less than significant level. j ;i MM4I-1: The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise Element Interior Noise Standards presented in Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of evidence/documentation showing that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA. J j 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. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. '! Supporting Explanation: The General Plan Update proposes many goals, policies;and implementing actions in the Noise Element that address noise related impacts. However, due to the anticipated increased in future railroad activity there is a potential noise impact to interior noise levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce potential impacts from train related noise by requiring that developers demonstrate that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA; thereby,reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR pp. 183-192) .I 2. Expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General !r Plan, Noise Ordinance and applicable standards of other agencies; or creates a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The proposed Mixed Use designation will allow residential and commercial land :uses in close proximity of each other, which may create noise conflicts;, however, compliance with General Plan policies, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix and Noise Standards would reduce conflicts. Future train activity along the BNSF railroad is anticipated to increase the year 2025, to 120 freight trains and 100 passenger trains per day. Future rail noise will increase significantly. Uses in proximity to the rail lines will experience increased noise from train activity, creating a significant impact. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce the potential impacts related to railroad noise to less than significant level. l Page 17 of 36 '' I MM4I-1: The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise Element Interior Noise Standards presented in Table 41-2 by requiring submittal of evidence/documentation showing that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA. 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. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Supporting Explanation: The General Plan Update proposes many goals, policies and `{ implementing actions in the Noise Element that address noise related impacts. However, due to the anticipated increased in future railroad activity there is a potential noise impact to interior noise levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce potential impacts from train related noise by requiring that developers demonstrate that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA; thereby, reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR pp. 183-192) 3. Result in a significant impact if it exposes people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to railroads. Two railroads traverse the western portion of the City: Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads. Metrolink service is also provided on,the railroad tracks, with nearest stations in the City of Riverside to the south and the City of San Bernardino to the north. As shown in Table 41-7 of the DEIR(DEIR p. 195), typical vibration levels for commuter rail operations can range from 0.0003 to 0.003 in/sec VMS at a distance of 50 feet. At this distance, vibration levels would not exceed the significance threshold for Categories 2 and 3, but may exceed the significance threshold for Category 1 land uses (vibration- sensitive equipment). New development that may occur adjacent to either the BNSF or the UPRR ,a rail line may be exposed to vibration impacts. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-2 will reduce the potential impacts related to railroad noise to less than significant level. MM4I-2: For Land Use Categories defined in Table 41-6, a ground-borne vibration technical study shall be required for proposed land uses within the following distances from the either the UPRR or BNSF rail line rights-of-way and the property line: 600 feet of a Category 1 Land Use, 200 feet of a Category 2 Land Use, and 120 feet of a Category 3 Land Use. If necessary, mitigation shall be required for land.uses in compliance with the standards listed in Table 41-6. 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. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Supporting Explanation: The Federal Transit Authority (FTA) provides screening distances for land use categories to screen projects that may be subject to vibration impacts from a commuter- railroad. For Category 1 land uses (vibration-sensitive equipment), the screening distance from the railroad right-of-way to the property line is 600 feet. For Category 2 land uses, the screening distance is 200 feet. The screening distance for Category 3 land uses is 120 feet. New development that is proposed within the screening distance of the either rail line may require further Page 18 of 36 I f I I I analysis to determine potential vibration-related impacts. In addition to the City Municipal Code standards, the proposed Noise Element of the General Plan contains numerous goals, policies';and implementing actions to mitigate, potential noise impacts. Specifically, Policy 6.2.7 requires: the evaluation of ground-borne vibration impacts as part of the land use process. These policies, in addition to Mitigation Measure MM4I-2, which quantifies when groundborne vibration technical studies are required, and the standard that for compliance will mitigate potential impacts to a Mess than significant levels. C. Traffic/Circulation 1. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature,or incompatible uses. The Recommended General Plan' Road Way System (depicted in Exhibit 4M-14), shows' the southerly alignment of Commerce Way crossing the UPRR line then continuing south to Main Street. The Riverside Industrial Lead (RIL) of the UPRR runs along Taylor Street. Although there is not a high level of train activity on this rail line, the alignment of Commerce Way would potentially result in an incompatible design feature, requiring mitigation. • Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM4M-1 and MM4M-2 will reduce potential impacts from design features to a less than significant level. MM4M-1: The City shall ensure that the design of Commerce Way at the UPRR line is coordinated with the UPRR Company. MM4M-2: The City shall evaluate proposed railroad crossing design options with UPRR j Company and the California Public Utility Commission to ensure compliance with all state design criteria.. 'I :I 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. The mitigation measure j would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. ,I Supporting Explanation: The alignment of Commerce Way over the UPRR rail line; has the potential to create an adverse design feature. However, Mitigation Measures MM4M-1 ;and MM4M-2 will require that the design of the crossing is designed in consultation and coordination j with the UPRR Company so that railroad crossing design options can be considered in accordance with state design criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM4M-1 and MM4M-2 will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. SECTION 7 j ;i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS'THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AFTER i THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES I The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR will have a significant impact on the environment and that even with the i i t i .I Page 19 of 36 P A adoption and implementation of mitigation measures, this impact will remain significant, as summarized below. A. Air Quality 1 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. The Project is expected to generate operational air quality emission levels that will exceed the daily SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5 in the Basin, which is ' classified as a non-attainment area, resulting in a significant impact. (DEIR Table 4B-7,p. 77) ,V. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM4B-1 and MM4B-2 will reduce potential impacts related to air quality; however, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. MM4B-1: The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation systems management techniques, such as synchronized traffic signals and limiting on-street parking. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action 4.7.Lb of the Open Space and Conservation Element.). MM4B-2: The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to improve roadway efficiency. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action 4.7.1.c of the Open Space and Conservation Element). J 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. However, even with incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM4B-1 and MM4B-2,this impact remains significant. Supporting Explanation: Operational impacts associated with the long-term buildout of the General Plan are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in the Basin. The proposed General Plan Update contains several goals, policies and actions within the proposed Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Circulation and Sustainable Development Element that will facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and SANBAG to achieve regional air quality improvement goals, promotion of energy conservation design and development techniques, encouragement of alternative transportation modes, and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. However, even with Mitigation Measures MM4B-1 and MM4B-2, associated air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 77-80) B. Noise 1. Creates a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Table 41-4 of the Draft EIR (DEIR p. 191) shows modeled existing roadway noise, modeled General Plan buildout roadway noise and the projected noise level increase due to General Plan buildout. A noise level increase is considered substantial if 1) the existing noise levels exceed the Page 20 of 36 i i i • I objectives presented in Table 4I-2 of the Draft EIR (65 dBA for residential and noise sensitive areas) and the proposed project would increase this noise level by 3 dBA CNEL (barely noticeable in an exterior environment) or more; or 2) the noise level with the implementation of the proposed 'i project would remain within the objectives shown in Table 4I-2, but the project adds 5 dBA CNEL ' (noticeable to most people) or more to the pre-project noise levels. General Plan buildout will result in traffic volumes that result in noise level of increases of 5 dB or greater along most Circulation Element roadways. Where noise level increases are less than 5 dBA but more than 3 dBA, lit is likely that the projected increase will cause ambient noise levels to exceed objective noise levels in j Table 4I-2, creating a significant impact. i Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 will reduce potential impacts related to traffic noise; however, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. 'I MM4I-1: The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise Element Interior Noise Standards presented in Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of evidence/documentation showing!that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA. I I Implementation of'these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace adopts an&incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. However, even with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM4I-1,this impact remains significant. Supporting Explanation: Traffic levels associated with build'out of the proposed General Plan will result in a permanent increase in existing noise levels. In addition to Mitigation Measure MM4I-1, the Noise Element- of the proposed General Plan contains goals; policies, j and implementing actions to mitigate mobile noise impacts, including provisions for noise barriers, designation of truck routes, and coordinating efforts with the railroad companies. These policies and Mitigation Measure MM4I-1 would mitigate potential noise impacts to the extents feasible. Nevertheless, a permanent noise increase would remain along many existing roadways. Therefore, permanent noise impacts related to future traffic levels remains significant and unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 187-192) SECTION 8 i CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts . . . ." The following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts, as noted in Sections 15130(b) through 15130(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. i Cumulative impacts may be discussed in terms of the proposed General Plan Update impacts and impacts associated with growth within the region. The geographic area for each impact varies, depending on the nature of the impact and whether it is regional such as air quality, or local, such as noise. I �i Page 21 of 36 •r � This Program EIR assesses overall environmental effects of the proposed Project at a program level of detail. This Program EIR evaluates overall (cumulative) effects of development in accordance with land use designations, land use assumptions and goals, policies, and implementing measures contained in the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, the environmental analysis in Chapter 4 of the Draft Program EIR considers project impacts in combination with cumulative, where applicable. 'Cumulative Impacts were not considered where no significant impacts were identified or where mitigation measures were identified that could reduce impacts to levels that would not be cumulatively considerable. 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 3, 4 and 8 of the Draft EIR. The City Council further finds that the cumulative impacts addressed would be less than significant, as set forth in Section 8 herein, or mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of mitigation measures into the Project, as set forth in Section 6 herein, with the exception of the following environmental impacts that remain significant even with the implementation of mitigation measures as set forth in Section 7 herein: Air Quality and Noise. Air Quality Operational impacts associated with the long-term buildout of the General Plan are expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in the Basin. Even with proposed goals, policies .and actions to reduce air quality impacts, and Mitigation Measures MM4B-1 and MM4B-2, associated air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 77-80, 311) Noise: Traffic levels associated with buildout of the General Plan would result in permanent noise increases that would remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of proposed General Plan Policies and recommended mitigation measures. (DEIR pp. 187-192, 313) SECTION 9 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing specifically Section 15126.2(d) of State CEQA Guidelines states that EIRs must describe the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth The City of Grand Terrace has approximately 420 acres of vacant land available for development. Therefore, implementation of future projects under the proposed General Plan would require some long-term commitment of natural resources and land. Actions related to future development tinder the proposed General Plan would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as energy supplies and other constriction-related resources. These Page 22 of 36 97 { .I f � 1 j energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods to and from future project sites, heating and refrigeration of food, water supplies, lighting and other associated energy needs. j PP � g g gY The environmental changes produced by future development projects under implementation of the proposed General Plan would primarily occur as a result of the alteration of the physical environment from underdeveloped and vacant land uses, to urban uses. As future projects; are 'j developed, utilities would be expanded to serve the increase in demand for site infrastructure including parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements. ;f Fossil fuels currently provide the principle source of energy. Future development under build out of the proposed' General Plan would directly reduce existing supplies of these energy i sources such as fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline. This would result in a long-term commitment to the consumption of essentially nonrenewable resources. { Future projects that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan would require the commitment or destruction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources. These include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead and water. A marginal increase in the commitment of social services and public maintenance services (i.e., waste disposal 11 and treatment, etc.) would also be required. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in some irreversible environmental changes. (DEIR pp. 316-317) SECTION 10 , I GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS h As required by the;CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) must include a discussion of the ways in which a project could directly or indirectly foster economic development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing and how that growth would, in turn, affect the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to'the removal of infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. The purpose of a General Plan is to guide growth and development in a community. Accordingly, the General Plan Update is premised on a certain amount of growth.taking place! and the focus of the General Plan Update is to provide a framework in which the growth can be managed and to tailor it to suit the needs of the community and surrounding area. During the past several decades, the SCAG region has been one of the fastest growing ;i regions in the nation. Between 1980 and 1990, the region's population grew by over 25 .percent to 14.6 million. Between 1990 and 2000, the region's population grew by nearly 15 percent to '116.5 j million and the population of Grand Terrace increased by 6.2 percent. The proposed General Plan residential designations would be able to accommodate a population of up to 15,747 persons, this is a 5% decrease from the current general plan. 'i Page 23 of 36 The General Plan Update contains policies that provide a framework for accommodating the orderly growth of the-planning area; and provides the necessary tools to accommodate future growth and provides direction for new development projects and establishes the desired mix and relationship between land use types. The project ensures that the City will have a diversity of land uses and balanced development, encourages mixed use development, promotes commercial enterprise, ensures that City interests are achieved through inter jurisdictional and regional planning, and encourages public involvement in land use planning decisions. F The majority of development under the General Plan Update would occur within or adjacent L to areas already developed in the City. Many of these areas contain underutilized land, land used previously for industrial or commercial activity, and/or areas in need of revitalization. Additionally, many of these areas are adjacent to existing employment centers, transit, and services. Some development will occur on previously undeveloped land. Infrastructure is available in the vicinity of these sites. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in a growth inducing impact. SECTION 11 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL POLICIES The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is the.designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for six Southern California counties (Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and Los Angeles), is federally mandated to develop plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. SCAG requires that "Regionally Significant" projects show consistency with Regional Transportation Plan Transportation Goals and Compass Growth Visioning Principles. A. Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP") SCAG adopted its 2008 RTP on May 8, 2008. The 2008 RTP presents the transportation vision for the SCAG region through year 2035 and provides a long-term investment framework for addressing regional transportation and related challenges. The RTP focuses on maintaining and improving the transportation system through a balanced approach and addresses system preservation, operation and management, improved coordination between land use decisions and transportation investments and strategic expansion of the system to accommodate future growth. The proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the 2008 RTP in that proposed goals, policies and actions contained within the proposed General Plan address mobility,, traffic safety, environmental concerns, land use and security of the transportation system. Specifically, goals, policies and implementing actions contained in the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Public Health and Safety, and Sustainable Development Elements of the General Plan promote a variety of efficient alternative methods of travel for both people and goods, ensures ensure safety and reliability; and promote cooperation with SAN3AG and Caltrans for highway expansion projects, support air quality planning through land use policies and participation in regional air quality planning; promote energy efficiency in project design and city facilities, Page 24 of 36 A encourage development of a transportation system which supports planned land uses and improves j! the quality of life; encourage mixed land uses for the efficient utilization of transportation facilities, !j work with regional agencies in order to mitigate potential impacts from regional traffic; C and i designate truck routes in coordination with the County Sheriff; maintain effective emergency preparedness and response programs; and coordinate with appropriate public agencies to develop a regional system to respond to natural and man-made emergencies and catastrophes, including regular review of the City's Emergency Operations Plan and mutual aid agreements, I and !' maintenance of communication links with San Bernardino authorities and volunteer radio clubs.! I B. Compass Growth Vision. The primary goal of the Compass Growth Visioning effort is to make the SCAG region a j better place to live, work,and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity or income status. Decisions pertaining to growth, transportation, land use and economic development should be made to promote and sustain for future generations regional mobility, livability and prosperity. Specifically, the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Public Health` and Safety, and Sustainable Development Elements of the proposed General Plan contains goals, policies and actions that are consistent with "Regional Growth Principles" to promote mobility for all residents, foster livability in all communities, enable prosperity for all people, and promote sustainability for future generations. Examples include. goals, policies and actions that promote a 1 regional transportation system, designates Commerce Way for the movement of freeway 4 commercial and business traffic, encourages housing suitable to the needs of city residents, i encourages mixed use and transit oriented development, infill housing, facilitates pedestriani, and bicyclist movements; encourages the preservation and enhancement of the quality and character of residential neighborhoods, provides a variety of housing types for all income levels, requires the ;i preparation of environmental studies, when appropriate, encourages civil engagement, promotes open space and conservation, encourages infill housing, encourages the efficient use of resources and reduction of waste, and encourages the utilization of"green"development techniques. i; SECTION 12 ; ALTERNATIVES ! CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or the jlocation of the Project,which: ! 1. Offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project Proposal, and i ! 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 rile of reason. The lead agency is not required to choose an environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative ;! does not provide substantial advantages over the Project, and a Page 25 of 36 + -7r 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. As the Project involves a comprehensive update to the existing Grand Terrace General Plan, the Alternative Location alternative is not feasible and was not considered. The objectives for the Project are included in DEIR pp. 2-3, and also stated herein in Section 1. The following alternatives were analyzed in the EIR. A. Alternative 1 —No Project/No Development Alternative Description: Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that no additional development would occur and collection of tax increment revenue would cease; thus, the City of Grand Terrace would maintain the status quo of existing land use conditions and levels of development. Any development that would occur as part of build-out of the proposed General Plan Update would not occur under this Alternative. By definition, the No Project/No Development Alternative prohibits the issuance of any further building permits. This situation would void the implementation of any current or future General Plan for the City of Grand Terrace. This would be in direct conflict with California statutes requiring General Plans, the Subdivision Map Act, and the rights of land owners to develop their property. Finding: The City Council finds that the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no change to the existing conditions within the City. No new or additional environmental impacts would result directly from this Alternative, and.this Alternative is environmentally superior. However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would prevent the City from making needed improvements to existing properties, infrastructure, and public services, and overtime, without project related revenue and improvements, areas would become unimproved and infrastructure will gradually deteriorate. The No Project/No Development would conflict with the City's existing plans for build out. Also, regional through traffic in the City would continue to increase and would impact 'both roadway capacity and noise levels in the City without the benefit of mitigation. Overall, this Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan Update. However, the No Project/No Alternative does not fulfill the Project objectives and is rejected as infeasible. Supporting Explanation: By virtue of no new development occurring under the No Project/No Development Alternative, this Alternative is environmentally superior in many areas. The Project results in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air emissions, without buildout, this significant and unavoidable impact is eliminated under the No Project/No Development Alternative. No land disturbances, new development, increase in population or traffic will occur under this Alternative, this Alternative is considered ,superior in the areas of 'biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation/circulation, and utilities/service systems. Page 26 of 36 71 I � it 1� ' I The No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally inferior to, the Project in the area of aesthetics because the landform and visual character of the Project area would not change and development to improve areas would not occur; in the area of land use, because vacant areas would remain undeveloped and the use of underutilized parcels would not be maximized, and land uses would not be updated to reflect current conditions in the City; regarding noise because regional traffic would continue to continue to adversely impact City roadways, thereby increasing noise levels without' the benefit of mitigation; and population and housing because the City would be neglecting its obligation to maintain a current Housing Element, arid to meet its share of the region's future housing needs, as required by State law because no new units would be constructed. Opportunities to increase and diversify employment in the City would also be lost through this Alternative. ;1 t j I Although environmentally superior because less environmental impacts would occur from the lack of development, the No Project/No Development would fail to satisfy the Project objectives of the General Plan, and it is rejected. ,r 13. Alternative 2—No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative I Description: As required by Section 15126.6 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines, the; No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative describes build out of the City of Grand Terrace in accordance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations and policies of the current i General Plan, which was, adopted in 1988. This Alternative assumes that development would continue under the existing General Plan and continue to provide outdated information regarding r several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise levels, air quality data,' and population and housing. This Alternative assumes that ultimate build out of the existing General Plan would occur. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative encompasses the same :i geographic area as that in the proposed General Plan Update. j Finding: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in build out of the City under the existing General Plan. This Alternative would prevent the City from making updates to outdated information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise levels, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative would result in the City r neglecting its obligation to maintain,a current Housing Element. Regional through traffic in the City would continue to increase and would impact both roadway capacity and noise levels in, the City without the benefit of mitigation. Overall, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is considered environmentally inferior in that it has greater impacts to the proposed General Plan Update, fails to meet Project objectives, and is rejected. Supporting Explanation: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes;that the Project area will continue to develop and buildout under the provisions of the existing General Plan; thereby, relying on outdated information, and results in a ,slightly greater population at buildout than the proposed Project. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative results in environmentally similar impacts to biological and cultural resources because development�will f under both scenarios which could affect these resources. This Alternative would result iri the expansion or development.'of uses that could impact the health and safety of residents; however, this I. Alternative and the Project would implement policies to maintain public health and safety so l Page 27 of 36 ! environmentally similar impacts will occur relating to hazards/hazardous materials. Environmentally similar impacts will occur in the area of land use because No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative does not result in any changes to existing land uses or development levels, or conflict with existing plans for buildout. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project in the in the area of aesthetics because the visual character of areas would likely remain as they are. This Alternative would result in environmentally inferior air quality impacts because it would result in significant unavoidable air quality impacts, as it would exceed air quality thresholds. This Alternative results in new development and an increase in population (5% greater than the proposed Project) increasing the number of structures and/or people that could be potentially exposed to geologic and hydrology hazards, and impact water quality. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative is also slightly environmentally inferior in terms of public services, recreation and utilities and service systems due to the slight increase in population. This Alternative is, environmentally inferior in regard to Noise because new potential noise impacts associated with stationary and mobile noise would occur with buildout without the benefit of mitigation; in regard to population and housing because the City would be neglecting its obligation to maintain a current Housing Element to meet its fair share of the region's future housing needs, as required by State law because no new units would be constructed, opportunities to`increase and diversify employment in the City would also be lost; and in regard to,transportation/circulation because development could increase transportation and circulation impacts that would involve greater traffic congestion and associated emissions. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative does not preclude development impacts and analysis of those impacts, demonstrate that this Alternative is environmentally inferior to the Project, and fails to satisfy the Project objectives of the General Plan Update, and is rejected. C. Alternative 3—Reduced Development Intensity Alternative Description: The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative assumes growth would occur but at an overall reduced intensity. This Alternative assumes that the General Plan would be revised to provide updated information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise levels, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative assumes that ultimate build out of the General Plan Update would occur but at an overall reduction of 30%. Finding: The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in build out of the City but with an overall reduction of 30%. Because of the reduction in development intensity, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the'proposed General Plan Update. This Alternative would allow the City to make updates to outdated information regarding several issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise levels, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative would result in the City maintaining a current Housing Element. However, this Alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the Project and does not meet several Project objectives_. Therefore, the-Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is rejected. Supporting Explanation: The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in the same amount of land being developed; however, at an overall reduced intensity. This Page 28 of 36 7'1 I i i .I j Alternative results in environmentally similar impacts to Aesthetics as the Project in ! that development would be subject to the same standards as the Project. However, because of the reduced development intensity of the impacts would be reduced, to a degree. This Alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed Project because it results in greater Land Use'imp,acts. Although land use descriptions will be updated, and all goals, policies and actions of the Project would apply, this Alternative provides opportunities for development of vacant or underutilized properties to a lower degree than the Project. It is also environmentally inferior to the Project in terms of Population and Housing because opportunities to increase and diversify employment,' and improve the existing jobs to housing balance would be at a reduced rate. j The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project because the reduction if overall development intensity translates into a reduction in population and commercial, retail and industrial development. This Alternative would increase Air Quality impacts,but due to the reduced intensity, a similar reduction in air quality impacts is anticipated and the Alternative would result in lesser traffic congestion and air emissions. Although vacant and underutilized land would be developed, it would be developed to a lesser degree than the Project, and would be environmentally,superior in the areas of biological resources and cultural resources. Development would occur under this Alternative which could create impact in the areas of recreation, geology, hydrology/water quality, public services, utilities and service systems,' and hazards and hazardous materials; however, impacts can be mitigated as needed, or implementation of proposed goals,'policies and actions minimize potential impacts. Noise impacts under', this Alternative would be less than that under the proposed Project, and application of the same mitigation measures would apply. This Alternative would have reduced transportations and j circulation impacts, and would implement proposed Project transportation systems management techniques, resulting less environmental impacts. ! This Alternative would not preclude environmental impacts associated with development. Due to the assumed overall reduction in development intensity the environmental impacts are less than that of the proposed Project. However, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative;does j not provide substantial advantages over the Project. It does not meet several Project objectives such as accommodating growth on undeveloped and underdeveloped properties because this Alternative fails to maximize the use of those properties. Also, it does not meet the Project objective to continue to promote development of quality housing for all segments of the population and households with special ,needs because the overall reduction further limits the availability of residential land to construct affordable housing; and limits the ability to meet the Project objective to provide for a balanced growth which seeks to provide opportunities for a wide range of employment,housing, and maintenance for a healthy, diversified economy. Therefore, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative is rejected. D. Alternative 4—Expanded Mixed Use Alternative ; Description: The Expanded Mixed Use Alternative would be similar to the proposed Project but would result in a larger percentage of land in the City designated as Mixed Use. The Mixed-Use Designation would be further modified to include two Mixed Use Designations: MU-1 and MU-2. MU-1 would include the area designated as Mixed Use under the proposed Project. iMU-2 would involve approximately 44 acres of existing industrial, general commercial, and low Page 29 of 36 density residential uses located immediately east of the MU-1 area. Both Mixed Use areas may include residential, commercial, business park, open space, and recreational uses. Finding: The Expanded Mixed Use Alternative would result in build out of the City with slightly greater mixed uses and slightly lower low density residential, general commercial and Industrial uses than with the proposed General,Plan Update. This Alternative would allow the City to make updates ,to outdated information regarding several, issues, such as land uses, traffic conditions, community noise level's, air quality data, and population and housing. This Alternative would result in the City maintaining a current Housing Element. Overall, the Expanded Mixed Use Alternative is considered environmentally similar to the proposed Project ,and meets Project objectives; however, the Expanded Mixed Use Alternative does not provide substantial advantages, nor avoid or lessen environmental impacts over the proposed Project. Therefore, the Expanded Mixed Use Alternative is rejected. Supporting Explanation: The Expanded Mixed Use Alternative would result in buildout of the City at substantially the same level as the Project. This Alternative results in environmentally similar impacts relating to aesthetics as the Project in that development would be subject to the same standards as the Project; air quality because it would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the generation of air emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO,,, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 in the Basin; and biological and cultural resources because the development of vacant lands would occur. Development would occur under this Alternative which could create impacts in the areas of recreation, geology, hydrology/water quality, public services, utilities and service systems, and hazards and hazardous materials; however, similar to the Project, impacts can be mitigated as needed, or implementation of proposed goals, policies and actions minimize potential impacts. Under this Alternative slightly greater mixed uses and slightly lower low density residential, general commercial and industrial would occur and would be subject to the same land use interface policies as the Project and would result in environmentally similar impacts. As with the Project, the Expanded Mixed Use would result in significant and unavoidable permanent noise impacts associated with increased traffic levels at buildout of the Project. Environmental impacts are also similar in the area population/housing because population growth would be similar to that of the Project. Similar transportation and circulation impacts would be anticipated under this Alternative, and would be subject to the same mitigation measures and policies of that of the Project. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Expanded Mixed Use Alternate would be rejected in favor of the project as this Alternative would not reduce the significance of the impacts that were identified for the Project. SECTION 13 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Grand Terrace City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to.approve the Project. If the benefits of Page 30 of 36 -7q .i �4 i the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts are considered "acceptable.." The City Council hereby declares that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of .the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except ! for the'unavoidable and significant impacts as discussed in Sections 7 and 8 herein (Air Quality and d Noise). j The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to i eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project. The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended to the City are not incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose f restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in ;i the Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization,of the Project objectives; do not provide substantial advantages over the Project, and/or specific economic, social or other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project, to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation,-the City Council has determined E that the social,', economic and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable significant impacts, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h),�-and i render those potential significant impacts acceptable based upon the following considerations: A. Social i 1. The Project incorporates a variety of policies to address vehicle dependency. It provides for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle routes. It provides for mixed use and transit oriented development. 2. The Project provides for recreational opportunities such as the Blue Mountain Wilderness Park. Policies call for joint use facilities with the local school district so that recreational opportunities are enhanced. i B. Economic 1. The Project creates opportunity for new commercial development by designating sufficient land for commercial uses, including a new mixed use designation. Updated policies ensure land use compatibility by requiring the use of buffers and setbacks between residential and commercial and mixed use developments; reducing the potential for environmental and other impacts, and protecting natural resources. :� Page 31 of 36 ; C. Environmental 1. The project incorporates all feasible project features and mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. 2. The General Plan includes new policies and actions for climate protection and sustainability. The promotion of transit oriented and mixed use development, local jobs and bicycle routes will help lower transportation related emissions. The General Plan promotes.energy efficient building techniques, and site orientation. 3. The General Plan provides updated General Plan policies that protect water resources and water quality, and that recognize the importance of water conservation. The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable. SECTION 14 _ CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the FEIR in evaluating the Project, that the FEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by CEQA Guidelines.Section 15088.5'have been received by the City after the circulation of the DEIR that would require recirculation. All of the information added to the FEIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grand Terrace Town Square Master Development Plan is adequate and complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and City of Grand Terrace Local CEQA Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final Environmental Impact Report is composed of: a. The backup file material for the Project; b. The Notice of Preparation; C. The Initial Study; Page 32 of 36 77 'I I ' d. The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated January 2010; e. The comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and responses thereto; f. The staff reports associated with the Planning Commission and City Council hearings for the Project; g. The minutes of the hearing and all documentary and other testimonial evidence submitted thereat; h. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof, and i. The Statement of Overriding Considerations. A. Findings � a 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 ,I has complied with CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements. 2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency: The City retained the independent consulting firm of Chambers Group, Inc. to prepare the EIR for the Project. The EIR was prepared !�, under the supervision and directions of the City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department staff. The City Council is the final decision making body for; the entitlements listed below. The City Council has received and reviewed the FEIR prior to certifying the FEIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project. Finding: The FEIR reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in'accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the FEIR as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant. .I 3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts/Statement_ of Overriding Considerations: The Project would have significant adverse impacts even following adoption of all feasible mitigation measures which are required by the City Council. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and Would { require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in Sections 7 and !� 8 of these Findings: Operational air quality emissions associated with the long-term buildout of the General Plan are expected,to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in the Basin and are significant and unavoidable; traffic levels associated with buildout of the General Plan would result in permanent noise increases that would remain cumulatively significant; and unavoidable. The Project has eliminated or substantially reduced environmental impacts where feasible as described in the Findings, and the City Council determines that the remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts are acceptable due to the reasons set forth in the preceding Statement of Overriding Considerations. r Page 33 of 36 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 mitigated to a less- than-significant level. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project. SECTION 15 ANNUAL REPORTING According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (b), "Where the project at issue is the adoption of a general plan, specific plan, community plan, or other plan-level document (zoning, ordinance, regulation, or policy), the monitoring plain shall apply to policies and any other portion of the plan that is a mitigation measure or adopted alternative. The monitoring plan may consist of policies included in plan-level documents. The annual report on the general plan status_required pursuant to the Government Code is one example of reporting program for adoption of a city or county plan." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(b), the review and reporting on the adopted General Plan policies and action items will occur in conjunction with the preparation and submittal of the annual report on the status of the General Plan that is required by Government Code Section 65400. SECTION 16 RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Grand Terrace. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. Page 34 of 36 7A SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. SECTION 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The mitigation measures "and/or the performance standards of the' mitigation measures identified in the City of Grand Terrace General Plan Update been,structured to be incorporated as policies and/or implementing actions into the General Plan policy document and would be implemented as part of its consideration of subsequent projects within the City. Implementation would consist of determining whether subsequent projects are consistent with the General Plan, utilization of policies and implementing actions as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, and City-initiated planning_ activities as required by specific policies and implementing actions. The City of Grand Terrace will be the primary agency for monitoring the mitigation measure implementation associated with the implementation of the General Plan. The MMRP is attached on the following page. Page 1 of 3 R1 Mitigation Monitoring and Deporting Plan Mitigation Mitigation Measure Description Implementation Verification Measure Air Quality The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation MM4B-1 systems management techniques, such as As part of project (Policy action synchronized traffic signals and limiting on-street review and capital 4.7.Lb) parking. (This mitigation measure shall be improvement included as Action 4.7.Lb of the Open Space and Project Conservation Element.) The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting MM4B-2 commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to As part of the (Policy action alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to capital 4.7.1.c) improve roadway efficiency. (This mitigation improvement measure shall be included as Action 4.7.Lc of the project Open Space and Conservation Element). The City shall encourage new construction incorporate irrigation designs to assist in MM4B-3 conserving potable water, such as computerized (Policy action irrigation systems, drought-tolerant and smog- As part of project 9 7 2) tolerant trees, shrubs,and groundcover, and the review use of recycled water. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action 9.7.2.b of the Sustainable Development Element.) Noise The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise MM4I-1 Element Interior Noise Standards presented in As a part of (Policy action Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of project review 6.2.1.c) evidence/documentation showing that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA For Land Use Categories defined in Table 4I-6, a ground-borne vibration technical study shall be required for proposed land uses within the MM4I-2 following distances from the either the UPRR or (Policy action BNSF rail line rights-of-way and the property line: As part of project 6.2.7.a) 600 feet of a Category 1 Land Use, 200 feet of a review Category 2 Land Use, and 120 feet of a Category 3 Land Use. If necessary, mitigation shall be required for land uses in compliance with the standards listed in Table 4I-6. Page 2 of 3 n^ Mitigation Mitigation Measure Description Implementation Verification Measure Traffic/Circulation MM4M-1 The City shall ensure that the design of As part of project (Policy .3.3.6) Commerce Way at the UPRR line is coordinated design with the UPRR Company. MM4M-2 The City shall evaluate proposed railroad (Policy action crossing design options with UPRR Company As part of project 3.3.6.a) and the California Public Utility Commission to design ensure compliance with all state design criteria. Page 3 of 3 RI Attachment 10 Draft Resolution Adopting the General Plan Q, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ` CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ADOPTING THE GRAND TERRACE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE APPLICABLE CITY-WIDE WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires the preparation and adoption of a z comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of a city or county, referred to as a General Plan; WHEREAS, the California Government Code mandates that the General Plan must be made up of specific mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety; and allows a local agency to adopt optional elements appropriate to the local agency; WHEREAS, the California Government Code allows for periodic review, updates and amendments to the General Plan; WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace began a comprehensive General Plan Update that consisted of numerous workshops by the Grand Terrace Planning Commission and City Council, including a Joint Workshop held on February 16, 2010. WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that the General Plan Update ("Project") was a project requiring review of pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq. and that Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") be prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project; WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion ("NOC") for the Draft EIR (SCH #2008011109) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review on January 21, 2010; WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR was published in the San Bernardino County Sun on January 22, 2010, making the Draft EIR available for a 45-day public review period on January 22, 2010 with the comment period expiring on March 7, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two were received after the public comment period. The responses to comments are included in the Final EIR; WHEREAS, on April 1, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace held a legally noticed public hearing in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California and voted 4-1 recommending that the City Council adopt the General Plan Update. WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a legally noticed public hearing in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 RS II I Barton Road Grand Terrace, California to consider the General Plan Update, Final EIR, and staff recommendations. Notice of this City Council hearing was provided through publication in the San Bernardino County Sun on April 15, 2010; 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 other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. , NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the.City Council of the City of Grand Terrace as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, above, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council finds that the General Plan Update has been prepared in conformance with the provisions promulgated in Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code regulating the�preparation of General Plans. 3. The City Council adopts the General Plan consisting of a Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Housing Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Public Health and Safety Element, Noise Element, Public Services Element and Sustainable Development Element, with the revisions shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. 4. The City Council find that the adoption of the 2010 Grand Terrace General Plan is the official General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace, and that it supersedes the previously jadopted general plan and related elements. I 1 I 1 I it it III I ' II Page 2 of 3 �� Q6 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27`h day of April 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Maryetta Ferre', Maor ATTEST: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk ATTEST AS TO FORM: John Harper, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Q-7 1, BRENDA MESA, CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council on the 271h day of March 2010. Executed this_day of 2010, at Grand Terrace, California. Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Qs Exhibit A Modifications to the Draft General Plan dated January 20, 2010 1. Deletion of Draft General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit 2-2 "Existing Uses of Land" on Page II-8. 2. Revision of the first paragraph on Page II-6 of the Draft Land Use Element, as follows: ' As iIht.-ated in Table `' 1 and Exhibit `' '', Grand Terrace is predominantly a residential community. Approximately.,tel, 4.2 pe ent of o t' b da elop i ent to City a t' 1 in a a u natHFe: The City was formerly an unincorporated bedroom community surrounded by the City of Colton. Predominant commercial and industrial activities focused along regional transportation corridors in other areas of Colton leaving Grand Terrace to primarily develop as a single family residential community. Since the majority of the community is located on the west side of Blue Mountain, the terrain offered scenic views that attracted residents while making large scale development of commercial and industrial uses more difficult. 3. Deletion of Table 2.1 Existing Land Use Conditions on Page II-6 of the Draft Land Use Element. 4. Revision of Action 4.8.2.b on Page IV-35 of the Draft General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element as follows: Action 4.8.2.b Review water quality impacts during the project review and approval phases to ensure appropriate BMPs are incorporated into the project design and long- term operations. BMPs should utilize low impact development principles 5. Revise the first paragraph on Page V-9 of the Draft General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, as follows: The San Bernardino Fire Protection District Hazardous Materials Division was granted authority by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to become the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Bernardino County. The CUPA is directly involved in the inspection permitting and enforcement of hazardous materials manufacturers, hazardous waste generators star-age and disposal sites-. USDOT and the CHP regulate the transportation of hazardous materials while the DTSC is actively involved in the storage of hazardous materials and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. 6. Revise the second paragraph on Page V-9 of the Draft General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, as follows: Qa i The City of Grand Terrace is actively involved in the regulation of land uses using hazardous materials. The City may also regulate the transportation of hazardous materials within the City limits. The City has also adopted a City Hazardous Waste Management Plan in accordance with State law. The HWMP regulates all businesses that use or generate hazardous materials within the City and requires them to inventory amounts and types of hazardous materials used by their business. The CUPA requires businesses meeting requirements pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, Section 25503.5 to establish and implement a Hazardous Materials ! Business Plan in accordance with the section. I to identify ansite materials in the event ef an e �I I i i 1 ' li i Page 6 of 3 ' Qr ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.112 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A NO FIREWORKS SAFETY ZONE WHEREAS, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has established a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which includes property within the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace desires to establish a safety zone within which no fireworks would be discharged; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace has used the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's zone map as a basis to consider the boundaries for a No Fireworks Safety Zone within the City; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Existing Chapter 8.112 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code is hereby amended to establish a No Fireworks Safety Zone: i 8.112.150 Establishment of a No Fireworks Safety Zone. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge fireworks of any type within the No Fireworks Safety Zone established in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 2. Effective Date. This. Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m., on the 31s`day following its adoption. Section 3. Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purposes by the City Council.. Section 4. First read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the day of April, 2010 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the day of April, 2010. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Attest: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 I, BRENDA MESA, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City Council on the day of April, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper, City Attorney Atiba_.�si�i J�:Jbtlrt�� "No Fireworks Safety Zone Map" within Grand Terrace City Limits — — — — City Boundary ;/, ;'!. ,, QY / + ,�� ♦ ,.:=• /-./,i-�J��,JJJi.; 1.'i:/i x�'r/'/,e/'i}:L, .JJi'_''i.i� '. ST No Fireworks safety zone , ...'' % • West of La Cadena Dr. � m • North of Brentwood St. • East of Preston St. • East of Dos Rios Ave. • East of Whistler St. m � //. >,'��%'' if • East of Oriole Ave. / ,; > iri --------------- N ,7hpisivr :ALIFORVIA AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 Council Item( X ) CRA Item (X) TITLE: Third Quarter Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 r PRESENTED BY: Betsy M. Adams, City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Staff Report BACKGROUND: The City Council was presented the mid year budget review for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 on February 23, 2010, which addressed changes to revenues, expenditures and reserves since the adoption of the budget on June 23, 2009. The most significant items identified in the mid year budget review included the following: ■ Projected $423,340 General Fund budget shortfall for Fiscal Year 2009/2010. ■ Adjusted General Fund designated reserve for prior $4,606,950 "advance" from the �1 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). ■ Projected $800,000 General Fund budget shortfall for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. DISCUSSION: The primary focus of the third quarter budget review is to address the projected $423,340 General Fund budget shortfall for Fiscal Year 2009/2010. A brief update on the "advance" from the CRA to the General Fund and the projected budget shortfall for next fiscal year will also be provided. These latter two items will be addressed more comprehensively as part of the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 to be presented to the City Council on May 25, 2010. Projected General Fund Budget Shortfall for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 - Resolved Since the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 General Fund budget shortfall was identified, the following items have been implemented: General Fund FY 2009/2010 Budget Savings - $423,340 Gap Closure Description Amount Reallocate part of positions to Gas Tax Fund (on-going savings) 123,187 Reallocate part of positions to Prop 42 Fund (on-going savings) 40,000 Reduced work week& labor savings (on-going savings) 19,386 Return CLEEP to fund balance (grant fulfilled in prior fiscal year) 21,386 Prior fiscal year budget savings (verified after audit adjustments) 269,658 Reduce natural gas franchise fee revenue projection -28,000 Total $445,617 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM N®. P� 1 April 27, 2U10 5tal report 3`d Quarter Budget review Page Number 2 While it now app:_a.rs the General Fund operating budget could end the fiscal year with a modest surplus of $22,2 y 7 there will likely be some unanticipated expenses which will reduce this number. An ex: •nple is the purchase of replacement furniture for the Senior Center. Any General Fund bu.-Yet surplus at the end of Fiscal Year 2009/2010 will be applied toward the $800,000 projects_,.l General Fund budget shortfall next fiscal year. On-going saving, reallocation of portions of positions to the Gas Tax and Prop 42 Funds along with labor savin .: from a reduced work week, represent 41% of the additional General Fund budget savings i_:.:ratified for Fiscal Year 2009/2010. Allocating a portion of positions which support and main:'.:.in public streets and right-of-way is an allowable use of Gas Tax and Prop 42 funds and will ai .< be done in Fiscal Year 2010/2011. Labor savings will be achieved when the City switches to . 4/9 work schedule on May 17, 2010. The 4/9 work schedule for full-time employees work'..,- at the Civic Center will reduce the hours City Hall will be open from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, 1,.,-,>nday through Thursday, to 7:30 am to 5:30 pm on these same days. Reducing the work week -om 40 hours to 36 hours reduces full-time employee earnings by 10% and' correspondingly .:duces benefits based on earnings. This reduced work week will not be, implemented for ull-time Child Care employees as State required teacher/student ratios need to be maintained. ','ie 4/9 work schedule will provide a General Fund budget savings of$155,087 in Fiscal Year 2G'0/2011. A summary of v. !at the City and its employees, who are not represented, have agreed to with regard to the 4/9 . -ork schedule and other related items follows: ■ Continue n.) merit increases through Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (second year with no merit increase). ■ Continue m, cost of living adjustment through Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (second year with no, COLA). ■ Implement 4/9 work schedule for full-time employees effective May 17, 2010, excluding full-time C ..ild Care employees. ■ Implement .emporary 10% reduction in benefits determined by wages for Child Care and part-time ef-aployees to run in conjunction with the 4/9 work schedule. ■ Suspend si,-' leave sell-back program and awarding longevity pay to additional employees in Fiscal Yk�ar 2010/2011. ■ Increase comp time cap for non exempt employees to 60 hours. ■ Eliminate Cesar Chavez Day as a paid holiday. ■ Assign specific dates for all other holidays to be taken with offices at the Civic Center to be closed can these dates. In fiscal Year 2010/2011, the holiday schedule for Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day will result in the closure of the Civic Center offices from December 27 through December 30. The City's employees, recognizing the severity of the General Fund revenue shortfall this fiscal year and next fiscal year, have agreed to the 4/9 schedule with the understanding that when General Fund re%enues improve full-time employees will return to a 40 hour work week. It is important to note that 59% of the additional General Fund budget savings for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 is from "one time" sources. This percentage includes the projected decrease in natural gas franchise fees of$28,000 which is the result of less natural gas being used this fiscal April 27, 1U l U 5tatt Report 3`d Quarter Budget Review Page Number 3 year. During good economic times, it would not advisable for the City to balance its operating budget with one-time revenues or savings. Since these are not good economic times, with the nation facing the severest economic recession since the Great Depression, that the City is able to address the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 General Fund budget shortfall without the use of reserves is commendable. Advances from Community Redevelopment Agency to General Fund- Update The mid year budget review identified a $4,606,950 "advance" from the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to the City (General Fund) reported in the Annual Financial Reports for the City and the CRA which needed to be recognized in the City's budget. Staff proposed that $2,013,628 in misallocated property tax increment from 1991/1992 through 1996/1997 due to the CRA Capital Projects Fund be "forgiven" and written off as an uncollectible debt with the remaining $2,609,059 designated in the General Fund reserve while a repayment schedule and related documents were prepared for consideration with the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget. Since the mid year budget review, the City Attorney has reviewed staffs proposal and determined the $2,013,628 in misallocated property tax increment cannot be forgiven. Instead, the City should address the entire amount advanced from the CRA to the General Fund with a repayment plan which the City Council will reevaluate on an annual basis. While reviewing available financial records to verify the $4,606,950 advance to the General Fund, staff discovered receivables of approximately $257,000 due from the CRA to the General Fund. These will be included in the repayment plan being developed. Staff continues to review old financial records to determine whether any costs paid in the pertinent years with CRA funds advanced to the General Fund were actually eligible CRA expenses. Looking Forward to Fiscal Year 2010/2011 —Update As part of the mid year budget review for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, a preliminary General Fund revenue shortfall of$800,000 was projected for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. This number is being further refined as the proposed operating budget for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 is developed. Revenue growth is not anticipated to increase next fiscal, the Sheriffs Department is considering a rate increase of nearly 8%, and the potential taking of local government revenues by the State next fiscal year is not yet known. Each of these items could add to the General Fund budget shortfall next year, as could expenditures from the CRA which would have to be absorbed by the General Fund if the Redevelopment Plan is not amended. The proposed operating budget for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 will be presented to the City Council on May 25, 2010 and will address these budget challenges. As was mentioned at the mid year budget review, service level reductions and the use of reserves will need to be considered for next year's budget. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact from the third quarter budget review for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 as the $423,340 General Fund budget shortfall was addressed without the use of reserves. April 27, 2010 Staff Report 3`d Quarter Budget Review Page Number 4 Respectfully submitted, Betsy Adams City Manager ATTACHMENTS: None. ' AGENDA REPORT (ALIFORVIA MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 Council Item (X) CRA Item (X) TITLE: Joint Public Hearing on Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan 1" for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION: Council: 1. Conduct a joint public hearing to hear testimony on Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project. 2. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for Amendment No. 6. 3. Adopt an Ordinance adopting Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan. Agency: Conduct a joint public hearing to hear testimony on Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project. BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, the Agency has undertaken significant work toward achieving the goals of the Redevelopment Plan. Although there are many successes on record, the entire Redevelopment Project is not yet complete, which is the subject of this report and recommended actions. A summary of the Agency's accomplishments are presented below. • Designed and developed Rollins Park, the Child Care Center, the Fire Station, City Hall, the Library, and Pico Park. The Agency has also completed the design for a new baseball field to be built on Agency-owned land. • Developed and implemented programs for neighborhood improvement, including the Neighborhood Grant Program, the Commercial Improvement Program, wall-painting projects, and neighborhood cleanup projects. • Purchased and cleared property for the City's first dog park. • Completed the affordable senior villas, senior center, and Petta Park. • Sponsored and supported economic development programs, including business training, the Chamber of Commerce, and new signage. Projects not yet completed include: joint CRA & City Council Public Hearing Item No. 1 t I i I I • Barton Road infrastructure improvements;. r • Storm drain and road improvements near Main and Michigan; • Reconstruction of Grand Terrace Road, west of I-215; • Construction of a new baseball field, the dog park, and other public amenities; • Michigan Street improvements; • Affordable family housing; • Correction of drainage deficiencies throughout the City; and, i • Continuing efforts to correct and prevent future deferred maintenance, for commercial 'and residential-areas, and infrastructure that may not yet be evident. To address the City's future; needs and lack of funding, the Community Redevelopment Agency (Agency) has taken a number of steps toward amending the Redevelopment Plan (Plan). The basis of the Amendment recommendations is the Agency's $70 million revenue limit will be reached in approximately two years, and funds no longer will be received for capital projects (roads, facilities,land parks), economic and community enhancement programs or housing projects and programs. The i existing limitations in the Redevelopment Plan, if not amended, would force the Agency to now shift its financial focus to repaying debt service on outstanding bonds, rather than funding new and ongoing projects and programs. Exacerbating the funding shortfall issue is the fact that the Agency cannot now collect its maximum allowable revenue due to minimal outstanding debt, which is needed to justify revenue collection (this issue�is discussed in detail within this report's section titled "Increasing' the Bonded Debt Limit"). Recommended actions include extending the length of time during which the Agency can continue collecting revenue to meet the Agency's and City's goals. There will be no increase in taxes, just a ! longer period of revenue collection, which would increase the total amount collected over the entire life of the Plan. Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan would accomplish the following: - 1. Increase the cumulative tax increment revenue limit in the Redevelopment Plan from $70 million (net of payments made to certain taxing entities) to approximately $225 million (net of payments made to certain taxing entities); 2. Increase the limit on the amount of bonded debt that may be outstanding at any one time in the redevelopment plan from $15 million to approximately $75 million (this does not approve a bond issue); 3. Extend the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan and time limit to collect tax increment revenue by the following time frames: a. Original Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area ("Original Area. — extend plan effectiveness from July 15, 2017, to September 27, 2022, and time limit to collect tax increment from July 15, 2027, to September 27, 2032; b. Area,added by the first amendment to the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area("Added Area")—extend plan effectiveness from July 15, 2017, to July 15, 2024, and times limit to collect tax increment from July 15, 2027, to July 15, 2034; 4. Rescind the Agency's authority to commence eminent domain within the Project Area, effective immediately;following the effectiveness of the ordinance adopting Amendment No. 6. Under the current Plan, the authority would expire in July 2011; 5. Replace the description of land uses in the redevelopment plan with language that directly refers to the City's General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other applicable land use policies and standards, as they exist today or are hereafter amended; and 6. Amend and restate the redevelopment plan to incorporate the prior amendments into a single document. To date, the Redevelopment Agency has approved and circulated several documents for public review, including the Draft Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan prepared in connection with Amendment No. 6, the Preliminary Report, the Draft Amended Owner Participation Rules for Property Owners, Owners of Businesses, and Business Tenants, and the Report to City Council. The documents also have been provided to affected taxing agencies. In addition to posting and publishing ,public notices, the Agency is required by State Law to notify individual parties that may be affected by the Amendment. Because the entire City is within the Redevelopment Project Area, 5,320 notices were sent by mail-to individual addresses. As a result of the mailing, staff received ten requests for additional information. Each caller indicated that he or she was not familiar with the Redevelopment Project and were unsure as to why they would receive such a notice. No calls were received indicating an objection to the Plan Amendment or Project. DISCUSSION: As previously stated, further redevelopment is necessary to address the remaining blight within the Project Area, such as improvements to Michigan'Street and construction of new public facilities. Also, a lack of necessary office and commercial facilities in the Project Area requires residents to travel outside the City to purchase needed goods and services. The lack of needed businesses also has a negative effect on general fund sales tax revenues. Vacant property in the southwestern portion of the Project Area remains undeveloped due to inadequate public infrastructure and other physical conditions that hinder development. The Agency may correct drainage deficiencies, for example, to render sites more developable. Also, deterioration over time has caused some buildings in the Project Area to be unsafe or unfit for use, which must either be cleared or rehabilitated. The presence of a higher rate of crime in certain portions of the Project Area creates a burden on the rest of the community by demanding a disproportionate share of police and code enforcement resources. A detailed description of remaining blight is contained in Section B of the Report to City Council (Attachment 2). In order to extend the limits of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency must describe remaining blight to document that the Redevelopment Project is not yet complete. Increasine the Tax Increment Limit It is estimated that the Agency will reach the current tax increment limit of$70 million in fiscal year 2012-13, and will have no ability to collect additional tax increment without an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The estimated costs to complete the Project and meet the goals of the original Redevelopment Plan, are estimated (at today's construction costs) to be between $30 and $40 million. Because the Agency has already collected approximately $62.4 million since 1980, the Agency may only collect approximately $7.6 million in tax increment between fiscal years 2009-10 and 2012-13, leaving a significant deficit. Amendment No. 6 would raise the existing tax increment limit to $225 million, allowing the Agency to collect tax increment revenues until fiscal year 2033-34. Because it is difficult to forecast infrastructure needs and the taxable value of new development over the next 14 years, the revenue limit is proposed high, and may or may not be achieved entirely. ' I It is important to note that the City's current revenue sources are not adequate to maintain a constant level of City-wide basic services much less fund public infrastructure, developmental remediation, revitalization or affordable housing programs in the Project Area. Also, a portion of annual redevelop- ment revenues are currently used to assist with funding the City's community enhancement ',and neighborhood improvement programs, housing programs, economic development programs, and planning and public works projects and programs. According to the Agency's fiscal year-2009-10 Statement of Indebtedness, redevelopment revenues are contributing approximately $800,000 to costs that otherwise would funded by the General Fund. The costs are primarily for facility 'and infrastructure improvements and staff time to implement these projects and programs. To better illustrate the fiscal impact to the City overall, the table below presents projected City and Agency revenues with no amendment to collect additional revenue (on the left �/2 of the table),-and - revenues projected if the new amendment is approved (the right '/2 of the table). Although the City's General Fund revenue-increases when funds can no longer be collected by the Agency, beginning in year 2012-13, the combined total under the amendment is significantly higher. Clearly, the higher number would fund many capital improvements and facilities over the next 15 years. Please note at the end of the table that the projected cumulative totals of Agency plus City revenue are $57,427,852 without the amendment, and$154,141,596 after the amendment extending the allowable limits. Projected Property Tax Revenues with Existing Limits vs.Proposed Limits Table E-4 Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Year With Existin 'Limits No Amendment With Propose Limits After Amendment To Agency /1 To City /2 Total To Agency To City Total 19.2558% 19.2558% 2009-10 $ 2,525,878 $ 301 06& $ 2,826,947 $ 2,525 878- $ 301,068 $2,826,947. -� 2010-11 $ 2,330,965 $' 305,670 2,636,635 $ 2,330,965 $ 305,670 2,636,635 t 2011-12• $ 2,278 295 $ 310 432. 2 588 727 - V 2,278,296r $- 310,432 2,588,727 2012-13 $ 500,733 $ 1,492,963 1,993,696 $ 4,482,595 $ 315,361 4,797,957 2013-14 $ 264,848 $ 1,774,796 1,519,948, $ 4 656156' $ 320 463- 4,976,618 2014-15 $ 254,848 $. 1,835,215 1,580,368 $ 4,820,026 $ 328,816 5,148,842 2015-16 $ (254,848) $ 1 897,749 1 642 902 $ 4,989,829 $ 337,461 5,327,290 2016-17 $ 254,848 $ 1,962,472 1,707,625 $ 5,165,776 $ 346,408 5,512,184 2017-18 $ 254 848. $ 2,029 460 1 774 613 $ 5,348,085 $ 355,669 5,703,754 2018-19 $ 254,848 $ 2,098,793 1,843,946 $ 5,536,984 $ 365,254 5,902,238 2019-20 $. 254,848 $ 2170 553 1 v9151705 $ 5,732,707 $ 375074 6107,881 2020-21 $ 127,424 $ 2,244,824 2,117,400 $ 6,062,921 $ 385,442 6,448,363 2021-22 $ - $ 2,321,694 2 321 694- $ 6,400,454 $ 396,069 6,796,523 2022-23 1 $ - $ 2,401,255 2,401,255 $ 6,618,143 $ 407,068 7,025,211 2023-24 $ - $ 2,483,600 2 483 600 $ 6,843,682 $ 418,452 7,262,133 2024-25 $ - $ 2,568,828 2,568,828 $ 7,077,349 $ 430,234 7,507,583 2025-26 $ - $, 2,657,039 2,657,039 $ 7,319 435 $ 442,428 7,761 863 2026-27 $ - 2,877,235 2,877,235 $ 7,570,237 $ 455,050 8,025,287 2027-28 $ - 2,842 830 2,842 830 $ 7,830 068 $ 468,113 8,298,181 2028-29 $ - 2,940,631 2,940,631 $ 8,099,246 $ 481,633 8,580,880 2029-30 $ - 3,041,855 3,041,855 $ 8,378,105 $ 495,627 8,873,732 2030-31 $ - 3,146,621 3,146,621 $ 8,666,989 $ 510,111 9,177,100 2031-32 $ - 3,255,055 3,255,055 $ 8,966,254 $ 525,101 9,491,355 2032-33 $ - 2,477,286 2,477,286 $ 6,653,820 $ 445,079 7,098,900 2033-34 $ - 265,413 265,413 $ - $ 265,413 265,413 Cumulative 5,724,515 51,703,337 57,427,852 144,353,999 9,787,597 154,141,596 I i 1/ Consists of both housing set aside funds and nonhousing tax increment after taxing agency payments and bond debt service. Negative figures reflect scheduled bond debt service payments that must be accrued from remaining tax increment revenue unless plan 2/ Tax increment to City reflects:a)City's 19.2558%share of taxes from Project Area base year value, b)City's share of statutory payments from redevelopment tax increment revenue,and c)City's share of property taxes after existing limits expire. The lack of redevelopment revenue would also have a critical impact on current City staffing levels and the continuation of many City services. The most difficult period for the City would be from 2012-13 when Agency revenue has surpassed its $70 million cap and funds cease to be collected, through 2017 when the existing Plan would no longer be effective. From 2012 to 2017, the Agency will still be required to meet its legal obligations, such as, develop and monitor affordable housing projects and make debt payments, but without revenue to do so. The following summarizes the additional implications if Amendment No. 6 is.not,approved: • The Agency is still obligated to meet the low and moderate income housing fund targeting requirements as described in the Agency's current Implementation Plan. • The Agency would need to assign the responsibility for monitoring affordable housing projects to the City. • Bond obligations,must be met by the Agency. The Agency would need to shift most of its remaining funds to pay bond debt service and terminate nonhousing programs immediately. • Even if the Agency stops receiving tax increment revenue, it would still be required to complete administrative activities, which include an audit, annual reports, etc. • Assets owned by the Agency may need to be liquidated or sold in order to terminate any carry costs (now managed by staff). Increasine the Bonded Debt Limit California Redevelopment Law requires that for an agency to collect tax increment revenues, the agency must establish debt to prove the need to collect such revenues. Agencies are required to provide the County Tax Assessor with annual Statements of Indebtedness documenting their outstanding debt, before property tax revenues are distributed. If such Statement of Indebtedness is not provided, an agency would not collect the tax increment revenue. Bonds are an economical method for the Agency to create the required debt and fund needed projects due to the low interest rates. Through bonding, agencies can receive a greater lump-sum to fund large projects, such as community facilities and public infrastructure. The debt payments are paid from existing annual revenues and do not increase taxes. Without issuing bonds, redevelopment projects and programs would take decades to fund as the stream of tax increment revenue would have to be amassed prior to commencing these projects and programs. The Agency should consider increasing the Redevelopment Plan's bonded indebtedness limit to implement redevelopment projects in a timely, manner. This action does not approve the.issuance of bonds, but provides the additional capacity to do so, once actual revenue is evaluated for bond security. The current bonded indebtedness limit is $15 million, and the Agency currently has $8.8 million outstanding, which was issued in 1993. S Because the Agency collects its revenue based on outstanding debt, actual annual revenue now being received is significantly less per year than what would be received if additional debt were issued. For Fiscal Year 2010-11, Agency revenue is projected at about $2.2-2.3 million due to the Agency's minimal outstanding debt. The potential revenue is approximately $7 million for 2010-11 -and dependent upon actions taken by the Agency in the near term. This means that the Agency will forego approximately $5 million in FY 2010-11 alone if new debt is not incurred before September 30, 2010. Amendment No. 6 proposes 'to increase this overall limit to $75 million, commensurate with the increase in tax increment that may be received. An actual bond issue would require extensive financial analysis and additional Agency actions, and may or may not reach the proposed limit. Extendiniz the Plan Duration The Agency is proposing to extend the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan as described below. The effective date is that within which the Agency can take on new projects and fund programs. i • Original Area — Extend Plan effectiveness by five years from July 15, 2017 to September.27, 2022, and the duration to collect tax increment revenue within the Original Area to September 27, 2032; and • Added Area — Extend Plan effectiveness by seven years from July 15, 2017 to July 15, 2024, and the duration to collect tax increment revenue within the Added Area to July 15, 2034. The existing Redevelopment Plan duration for both the Original and Added Areas is July 15, 2017, as established by Ordinance No. 52 in 1981. This amendment added the rest of the City limits (approximately 1,615 acres) to the original Project Area boundaries, and adopted a new, amended Redevelopment Plan applicable to both the Original and Added Areas. In 1993, State Law was amended to allow existing redevelopment plans to have a duration of 40 years from the date the project area (or added area) was adopted, which allowed the Agency to amend the 1981 Redevelopment Plan, which was based on 35 years. Grand Terrace has not yet extended the i duration as many other agencies have throughout the State because the revenue limit of $70 million would curtail the Agency's effectiveness before the end of the 35-year period. Therefore, ;any extension of time would also require an increase in the revenue cap to actually be useful. Additionally, payments made to the County's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, allows a one- year extension to the Plan's effectiveness date for each of annual payment made. The Agency has made three annual payments, but has only taken advantage of the first one-year extension, in 2004. Consequently, the duration of the existing Redevelopment Plan's effectiveness may be amended for an additional two years. The effectiveness of the Amended Plan would then be a total of 43 years from the date the Original Area and Added Area were established, as shown above. Redevelopment agencies may collect;tax increment revenue for ten additional years beyond the effectiveness of a redevelopment plan, and these proposed termination dates are also listed above. i Joint Public Hearing California Redevelopment Law requires that the Agency and City Council conduct public hearings on the Amended Plan before the City Council considers an ordinance adopting the Amended Plan. On March 9, 2010, both the Agency and City Council adopted resolutions consenting to a joint public hearing. Notice of this hearing was provided by the following actions: (1) publication of the notice of joint public hearing in the San Bernardino Sun on March 29, April 5, April 12, and April 19, 2010; (2) mailing approximately 5,320 notices to all property owners, businesses and residents in the Project Area via first class mail in the Project Area that the Agency could identify; and (3) mailing notices to all affected taxing entities via certified mail. To provide Project Area property owners, businesses, residents, taxing entities, and the general public with the opportunity to learn more about the Amended Plan, a community meeting was conducted on March 9, 2010. The meeting took place in the Community Meeting Room at Grand Terrace City Hall, and was attended by approximately 15 individuals. Information regarding the community meeting was published in the Blue Mountain Outlook on March 1, 2010, and the Grand Terrace City News on March 4, 2010. The joint public hearing will be conducted as follows: 1. Staff presents the report. 2. The City Clerk enters into record the Amended Plan, Agency's Report to Council, and other documents. 3. The City Clerk enters into record summaries of any written correspondence received on the Amended Plan. 4. The Mayor summarizes public testimony procedures and invites public to speak. Staff recommends that the Council conduct the first reading of the ordinance adopting Amendment No. 6. On May 11, 2010, the Council would conduct the second reading of the ordinance adopting Amendment No. 6. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs for Amendment No. 6 have been budgeted in the Agency's 2009-10 budget, and include redevelopment consultant services (contract amount of $70,860), legal services, and other incidental costs, such as noticing and staff time. More importantly, Amendment No. 6 modifies financial and time limitations as necessary to expand the Agency's capacity to collect tax increment revenue and fund additional projects. Section E of the Agency's Report to City Council includes projections of such revenues, and indicates that the Agency could generate as much as $95 million in net funds for redevelopment/non-housing projects and another $49 million in affordable housing funds between 2009-10 and 2033-34. The consequences of not approving the Amendment have been presented within the agenda report. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Powers Community and Economic Development Director Manager Approval: Betsy M' Adams CRA Executive Director/City Manager 7 City and Agency Attorney: John R. Harper ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Council Resolution certifying the Final EIR 3. Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project 4. Report to City Council on Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Cl ATTACHMENT #1 ORDINANCE S A Ordinance No. i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE ! REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace ("City Council") adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area ("Original Area") on September 27, 1979 by Ordinance No. 25; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area was subsequently amended five times; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 was adopted on March 20, 1980, by Ordinance No. 31, to authorize the City of Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") to collect tax increment revenue within the Grand Terrace Community 4 Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"); and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 was adopted on July 15, 1981, by Ordinance No. 52 which added the rest of the City limits (approximately 1,615 acres) to the original Project Area boundaries ("Added Area"), and adopted a new, amended Redevelopment Plan applicable to both the Original and Added Areas; and ,ram WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 was adopted on July 22, 1999, by Ordinance No. 187 to authorize the use of eminent domain to acquire certain non-residential property for a 12 year period; and I WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 was adopted on September 12, 2002, by Ordinance No. 202, to clarify the language and original intent of the Agency to make the tax increment limit-for the Project Area (Original and Added Area) net of pass through payments; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 5 was adopted on July 22, 2004, by Ordinance No. 212, to rescind the previous time limit to incur debt, making it essentially the same as the duration of the Redevelopment Plan and dependent on the Agency's ability to collect tax increment to repay any incurred debt and to extend the time limit of the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan (to July 15, 2017), and extended the time limit for payment of indebtedness and receipt of taxes (to July 15, 2027) for both the Original and the Added'Area; and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") has initiated proceedings to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area ("Amendment No. 6); and ;, 1 � WHEREAS, the purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to: 1. Increase the cumulative tax increment revenue limit in the redevelopment plan from $70 million (net of taxing agency,payments) to approximately $225 million (net of taxing agency payments); 2. Increase the limit on the amount of bonded debt that may be outstanding at any one time in the redevelopment plan from $15 million to approximately $75 million; 3. Pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et. seq. ("CRL") Sections 33333.6(a), 33333.6(b), and 33333.6(e)(2)(C), extend the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan and time limit to collect tax increment revenue by the following time frames: a. Original Area— extend plan effectiveness from July 15, 2017, to September 27, 2022, and time limit to collect tax increment from July 15, 2027, to September 27, 2032; b. Added Area— extend plan effectiveness from July 15, 2017, to July 15, 2024, and time limit to collect tax increment from July 15, 2027, to July 15, 2034; =- 4. Rescind the Agency's authority to commence eminent domain within the Project Area, effective immediately following the effectiveness of the ordinance adopting the Amendment No. 6; 5. Replace the description of land uses in the redevelopment plan'(as previously contained in Section IV. Uses Permitted in the Project Area, pp. 33-42) with language that directly refers to the City's General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other applicable land use policies and standards, as they exist today or are hereafter amended; and 6. Amend and restate the redevelopment plan to incorporate the prior amendments into a single document. By providing the Agency with additional financial resources and extending the redevelopment plan duration to that allowed*under the CRL, Amendment No. 6 will assist in the elimination of blighting conditions that remain in the Project-Area, will assist in preventing the reoccurrence of such remaining blighting conditions, and will enable the Agency to fully achieve the goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area.; and WHEREAS, the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area, prepared in connection with Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community 2 Redevelopment Project Area ("Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan"), is hereby incorporated by reference and is designated as the official redevelopment plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project Area; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010, by Resolution No. 10-01, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace ("Planning Commission") has reported that Amendment No. 6 conforms to the General Plan for the City of Grand Terrace pursuant to CRL Sections 33346 and 33453; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2010, copies of the notice of joint public hearing, the Preliminary Report (acting as the blight report required by CRL Section 33451.5) and the Draft Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the California Department of Finance and the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and WHEREAS, to date, the Agency has not received comments regarding Amendment No. 6 from the California Department of Finance or the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to CRL Section 33451(e); and ' WHEREAS, City staff held a community information meeting on March 9, 2010, in the Community Meeting Room at Grand Terrace City Hall, for the purposes of providing information and receiving input on the proposed Amendment No. 6; and 'I WHEREAS, notice for the community information meeting was provided via published notice in the Blue Mountain Outlook on March 1, 2010; and in the Grand Terrace City News on March 4, 2010 WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on the City of Grand Terrace General Plan Update and Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Revised Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2008011109 ("Draft EIR") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) and the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments received and responses thereto, and, as so revised and supplemented, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") was prepared and certified by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and have determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Final EIR, mitigation measures,and a mitigation monitoring program therefor have been adopted and mitigation measures incorporated to avoid or substantially lessen such effects; and i 3 WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant effects identified by the Final EIR which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and ' WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 22975 Barton Rd, Grand Terrace, California, on April 27, 2010, to consider adoption of Amendment No. 6; and WHEREAS, a notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in the San Bernardino Sun a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Grand Terrace, once a week for 4 successive weeks on March 29, April 5, April 12, and April 19 2010, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2010, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land (as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of San Bernardino), residents and businesses in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2010, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing entity that receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Report to City Council on Amendment No. 6, the actions of the Planning Commission, Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, the EIR, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of Amendment No. 6; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted written findings in response to the written objections received, if any, from affected property owners and/or affected taxing entities at or prior to the joint public hearing; and WHEREAS, all actions required by law have been taken by all appropriate legal bodies. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in Section 33367 of the CRL. 2. Significant blight remains within the Project Area, which blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and an increase in the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency. The 4 1� I continued redevelopment of the Project Area is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. This finding is based on the following facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report to City Council on the Amendment No. 6: a. The Project Area continues to suffer from a combination of physical and economic blighting conditions, including, among others: a lack of necessary commercial facilities, inadequate public improvements, obsolete design or construction, and buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work due to deterioration and dilapidation, and neighborhoods of higher crime rates. b. The estimated costs of the redevelopment actions needed to aid in the elimination and correction of the remaining blighting conditions in the Project Area far exceed the tax increment limit of the existing i Redevelopment Plan. c. Other available governmental actions and resources are insufficient to address all of the remaining blighting conditions and the costs and risks to individual owners and developers are too great. 3. The plan effectiveness dates for both the Original and Added Areas are hereby amended to those allowed by CRL Sections 33333.6: a. Original,Area - September 27, 2022 b. Added Area - July 14, 2024 CRL Section 33333.6 also allows redevelopment agencies to collect tax increment revenue for ten additional years beyond the effectiveness of a redevelopment plan. With the extensions to the Plan effectiveness described above, Amendment No. 6 hereby amends and establishes the following dates as the time limits to collect tax increment revenue: c. Original Area— September 27, 2032 d. Added Areas - , July 14, 2034 4. Amendment No. 6 will provide for the continued redevelopment of the Project Area in conformity with the CRL and in the interests of the public peace, health,, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the purposes of the CRL will be attained by implementing the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan to eliminate and correct the remaining conditions of blight in the Project Area and prevent their reoccurrence through the implementation of the Agency's on-going projects and programs in conjunction with the programs and projects of other private and public entities. 5 'i , 5. The adoption and carrying out of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report to City Council: that under the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, as amended by Amendment No. 6, the Agency will continue to be authorized and seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including property tax increment revenues; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance within the Project Area will continue to depend upon the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increment generated by the Project Area; and that the proposed method of financing included within the Report to the City Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the implementation of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan. 6. Amendment No. 6 is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace, including, but not limited to, the housing element, which substantially complies with state housing law. This finding is based upon the finding of the Planning Commission that Amendment No. 6 is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace. 7. The carrying out of Amendment No. 6 would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Grand Terrace and will effectuate the purposes and the policy of the CRL. This finding is based upon the fact that Amendment No. 6 will provide the Agency with the financial and administrative resources to fund programs and projects that will correct conditions of blight, coordinate public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and increase employment and affordable housing opportunities within the City. S. The Agency has a feasible method-for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based on the fact that the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance according to law. Amendment No. 6 rescinds the Agency's eminent domain authority in the Project Area, previously set to expire on August 22, 2011. a. There are, or shall be provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. 6 7� i f b. No person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit until suitable replacement housing is available. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan, and dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan. 9. The elimination of remaining blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone, or by governmental action, or both, without the aid j and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report to the City Council on Amendment No. 6, that because of significant risks associated with development of blighted areas,;individual property owners and developers are unable and unwilling to invest or locate in the Project Area without public assistance and that funds of other potentially available public sources and programs are insufficient-to eliminate the blighting conditions. 10.The increase in the tax increment limit contained in Amendment No. 6 is reasonably related to the proposed projects and programs to be implemented in the Project Area and the ability of the Agency to eliminate significant remaining blighting conditions within the Project Area. This finding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report to the City Council on Amendment No. 6, that redevelopment actions needed to aid in the elimination and correction of the remaining blighting conditions in the Project Area are extensive and the increase in the tax increment limit was based on the estimated costs, including financing and related costs, of those necessary redevelopment actions. 11.The implementation of Amendment No. 6 will improve or alleviate the physical and economic conditions of blight in the Project Area, as described in the Report to the City Council on Amendment No. 6. This ! finding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report to the City Council on Amendment No. 6, that redevelopment projects and programs to be undertaken as a result of Amendment No. 6 are expected to result in attracting necessary commercial facilities to the Project Area, correct inadequate public improvements that have impeded development opportunities, assist in the removal of obsolete structures, rehabilitate ` deteriorated and dilapidated structures and address high crime rates. 12.The findings set forth in paragraphs (9), (10) and (12) of subdivision (d) of Section 33367 of the CRL are not applicable to the approval and adoption of Amendment No. 6 because Amendment No. 6 does not make any changes to the size and shape of the Project Area and, consequently, as 7 provided in Section 33457.1 of the CRL, no findings with respect to such matters are warranted or required. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace and of the and of the City Council thereof 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 , 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Approved as to form: John R. Harper, City Attorney 8 17 ATTACHMENT #2 COUNCIL RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FEIR 17 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND CERTIFYING THE FINAL PRORAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE' REVISED GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICABLE CITY- WIDE WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace has undertaken proceedings to adopt a proposed Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the .Revised Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project ("Amendment No. 6"), pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et.-seq.; WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that Amendment No. 6 ("Project") was a project requiring review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code 21000 et. seq. and that Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") be prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Project; WHEREAS, A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and an Initial Study for the Draft EIR were distributed to State, regional, and local agencies, as well as the State Clearinghouse on January 22, 2008, for a 30-day review period ending on February 22, 2008, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of ten comment letters were received. The NOP, Initial Study and the ten NOP response letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, the NOP was published in the Grand Terrace City News providing notice that a public scoping would be conducted to solicit oral comments on the NOP at the Grand Terrace Council Chambers on February 11, 2008. Eight speakers provided oral comments during the scoping meeting. Specific EIR-related comments included circulation/traffic, aesthetics, land use, noise, recreational resources, agricultural resources, hazardous materials, and cumulative impacts. A summary of the oral comments is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion ("NOC") for the Draft EIR (SCH #2008011109) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review on January 21, 2010; WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR was published in the San Bernardino County Sun on January 22, 2010, making the Draft EIR available for a 45-day public review period on January 22, 2010 with the comment period expiring on March 8, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two comment letters were received after the public comment period. The responses to comments are included in the Final EIR; Page I of 5 A A i 'I I ' WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a legally noticed public hearing in the Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California to consider Amendment No. 6, Final EIR, and staff recommendations. Notice of this City Council hearing was provided through publication in the San Bernardino County Sun on April 15, 2010; WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project. i WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State 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; 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 and State CEQA Guidelines; 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; 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; ` -- 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; 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,it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace as follows: r 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, above, of this Resolution are'true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 27, 2010, including written and oral staff reports, together ,with public testimony, and the consideration of the contents of the Final EIR, this Council hereby rinds and concludes as follows: I I Page 2 of 5 a. The Final EIR prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resource Code Sections 21000 et seq. (CEQA) with the State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations. b. The Final EIR was presented to the Council and the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to the consideration of the Project. The Council also finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City Council takes the following actions: a. Certifies the Final EIR to be in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. (CEQA) with the State and the City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations. b. Adopts a Statement of Facts, and Findings-for the EIR attached hereto as Exhibit "A" respectively, based on the following findings: i. The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Facts and Findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and the Final EIR. ii. The Final EIR identified all significant environmental impacts of the Project and there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. iii. All significant impacts identified in the Final EIR as a result of the Project have been identified, avoided, or reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation measures on the Project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and are incorporated herein by the reference. iv. The Final EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Potential mitigation or Project alternatives have been incorporated into the Project to reduce the impacts. V. The cumulative.impacts of the Project have been considered. Except for the identified unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Facts and Findings and the Final EIR, mitigation measures are incorporated into the Project to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. vi. Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project is fiscal and administrative in character, does not contemplate any physical implementation activities, and will, in and of itself, affect no physical impacts in the Project Area, and future programs Page 3 of 5 �1 i G or projects proposed to be undertaken by-the Agency must be consistent with the City's General Plan. The environmental analysis contained in Draft EIR for the General Plan Update adequately considers potential impacts related to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Therefore, the Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations made for the General Plan Update, adequately consider Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for!the „ Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project. C. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit 11 I d. Modifies Exhibit 3-A of Appendix B of the Draft EIR General Plan Update Traffic Study by adding the following.footnote to Exhibit 3-A; "This exhibit references current land uses inventoried in approximately 2007. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are consistent with the East Valley Traffic Model." 4. The City Clerk shall,certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 5. The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval. - `r 'I ! I i i i I ;i f � 1 4 h Page 4 of 5 �I it - ^ PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 271" day of April 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Maryetta Ferre, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Mesa, City Clerk ATTEST AS TO FORM: John Harper, City Attorney Pace 5 of 5 71 j i r I I I, BRENDA MESA, CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace, California; do j hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council on the 27`h day of April 2010. 1 I Executed this day of , 2010, at Grand Terrace, California. ! Brenda Mesa, City Clerk I I i I i I I � I - I I I ,I I ' I I ' ;I I I , I lV I �; I EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 25 I I� I SECTION 1 G ;i INTRODUCTION I jThe City Council of the City of Grand Terrace ("this Council") hereby adopts this entire document, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 13 below, as its findings ("Findings") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment ' Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project (collectively "Project") described in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2008011109. ,I i a ;j In considering the potential benefits of the Project, the City identified the following objectives that will be achieved: I Amendment No 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project + I • Enact modifications to�the City Redevelopment Plan to maximize the Redevelopment +� Agency's financial ability to implement the Redevelopment Plan. j • Update Redevelopment Plan land use descriptions to make the descriptions consistent with 'i language that directly refers to adopted General Plan, zoning, and other local land use policies. These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Final EIR j prepared for the Project. The Final EIR was prepared by the City of Grand Terrace, acting as;the lead agency under the CEQA. - SECTION 2 i 'I THE PROJECT A. Project Description The Redevelopment Plan for the Grand,Terrace Community Redevelopment Project was originally adopted by the City Council in 1979 via Ordinance No. 25. In accordance with California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL; California Health and Safety Code Section 33000,'et seq.), the Redevelopment Plan provides the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace with powers, duties, and obligations to implement a program for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of areas within the Plan boundaries. The Redevelopment Plan has since undergone amendments five amendments. Amendment No. 6 comprises certain modifications primarily aimed at maximizing the Redevelopment Agency's financial ability to implement; the Redevelopment Plan, as described in Section 2.4 Project Components of the Draft EIR. Without 'i Amendment No. 6, the tax increment revenue limitation will be reached and redevelopment project to alleviate remaining blight in the Project are. (DEIR pp 32-33). Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment F Project is fiscal and administrative in character, does not contemplate any physical implementation ,# activities, and will, in and,of itself, affect no physical impacts in the Project Area. Further, because I Page 1 of 4 h I �c any future programs or projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency must be consistent with the City's General Plan, the environmental analysis contained in DEIR for the General Plan Update adequately considers potential impacts related to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment component of this Project. SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City initiated the-environmental process with.the completion of an Initial Study. The City used an Initial Study to determine which impacts would be less than significant and did not warrant further environmental review, while identifying those issues that required further analysis in an EIR. The City circulated the Initial Study with a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Project to State, regional, and local agencies on January 22, 2008, for a 30-day review period that concluded on February 22, 20008. The Initial Study was made available to the public during and after the comment periods. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse. Comments received regarding the NOP were used to help identify-impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. At of the close of the 30-day NOP public review ,period, ten responses'to the NOP were received by the City. Copies of the NOP, Initial Study and ten NOP comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held to solicit public comment on the direction and scope of the analysis necessary.for the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting was advertised in the Grand Terrace-City News on January 22, 2010, and was held on February 11, 1008, at 6:00 p.m., at the City of Grand Terrace Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California. Eight speakers provided oral comments at the public scoping meeting and their summarized comments are included in Attachment A of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code §21092(b)(3), the Draft EIR has been provided to all parties who have previously requested copies. During the 45-day public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices had been made available for review at the City, San Bernardino County Library, Grand Terrace Branch, and on the City's website. The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on January 22, 2010, with the comment period expiring on March 7, 2010. The comment period was closed by the State Clearinghouse on March 8, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period, and two comment letters were received subsequent to the close of the public comment period. After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised were prepared. These responses were made available for review for a minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Grand Terrace City Council, at which time the certification of the Final EIR was considered. The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, Appendices, the public comments and Responses to.Comments on the Draft EIR,) were included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the City decision-makers. Page 2 of 4 27 I I � SECTION 4 I I! ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS City staff reports, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or hearings, and these Fact and Findings and other information in the administrative record serve as i the basis for the City's environmental determination. The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Responses to comments and any f revisions/omissions to the Draft EIR are provided in Chapter 2 and 3 of the Final EIR, and indicated by-strikethrough (deletions):or underline (additions)'in the Final EIR, respectively. The Draft EIR and Initial Study evaluated sixteen environmental categories (Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities and Service Systems) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Components of the sixteen environmental categories relating to Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise and Utilities were found to be insignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the Project. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein, these Findings incorporated the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) and the City finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to the components of those categories identified 1t1 in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required. I ' As previously stated, Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project is fiscal and administrative in character, does not contemplate any physical implementation activities, and will, in and of itself, affect no physical impacts in;the jProject Area, and future programs or projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency must! be consistent with the City's General Plan. The environmental analysis contained in DEIR for;the General Plan Update adequately considers potential impacts related to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Therefore, these Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations made Ifor the General Plan Update, adequately consider Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project. At a public hearing "assembled on April 27, 2010, at the City of Grand Terrace City Council Chambers located at 22795'Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace determined, that, based upon all of the evidence presented, included by but not limited to the Final EIR, ;written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, Project impacts are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified ! mitigation measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to ;the Project; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be ji substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. j Page 3 of 4 SECTION 5 RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Grand Terrace. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. Page 4 of 4 �A EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. SECTION 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The mitigation measures and/or the performance standards of the mitigation measures identified in Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan of the Grand Terrace Community Project Draft Program EIR have been structured to be incorporated as policies and/or implementing actions into the General Plan policy document and would be implemented as part of its consideration of subsequent projects within the City. Implementation would consist of determining whether subsequent projects are consistent with the General Plan, utilization of policies and r _ implementing actions as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, and City-initiated planning activities as required by specific policies and implementing actions. The City of Grand Terrace will be the primary agency for monitoring the mitigation measure implementation associated with the implementation of the General Plan. The MMRP is attached on the following page: Page I of 3 ' 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Mitigation Measure Description Implementation Verification Measure Air Quality The City shall reduce vehicle emissions caused by traffic congestion by implementing transportation As part of project MM4B-1 systems management techniques, such as review and capital (Policy action synchronized traffic signals and limiting on-street improvement 4.7.Lb) parking. (This mitigation measure shall be project included as Action 4.7.Lb of the Open Space and Conservation Element.) The City shall consider the feasibility of diverting MM413-2 commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to As part of the alleviate non-recurrent congestion as a means to capital (Policy action improve roadway efficiency. (This mitigation improvement 4.7.1.c) measure shall be included as Action 4.7.1.c of the project Open Space and Conservation Element). The City shall encourage new construction incorporate irrigation designs to assist in MM4B-3 conserving potable water, such as computerized Policy action irrigation systems, drought-tolerant and smog- As part of project ( 7 2) tolerant trees, shrubs,and groundcover, and the review 9. use of recycled water. (This mitigation measure shall be included as Action 9.7.2.b of the Sustainable Development Element.) Noise The City shall enforce the General Plan Noise MM4I-1 Element Interior Noise Standards presented in As a part of (Policy action Table 4I-2 by requiring submittal of 6.2.1.c) evidence/documentation showing that interior Project review noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA For Land Use Categories defined in Table 4I-6, a ground-borne vibration technical study shall be required for proposed land uses within the MM4I-2 following distances from the either the UPRR or (Policy action BNSF rail line rights-of-way and the property line: As part of project 6.2.7.a) 600 feet of a Category 1 Land Use, 200 feet of a review Category 2 Land Use, and 120 feet of a Category 3 Land Use. If necessary, mitigation shall be required for land uses in compliance with the standards listed in Table 4I-6. Page 2 of 3 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Description Implementation Verification Measure Traffic/Circulation The City shall ensure that the design of MM4M. Commerce Way at the UPRR line is coordinated. d s part of project (Policy 3.3.6) with the UPRR Company. design MM4M-2 The City shall evaluate proposed railroad crossing design options with UPRR Company As part of project (Policy action and the California Public Utility Commission to design 3.3.6.a) ensure compliance with all state design criteria. Page 3 of 3 33