143ORDINANCE NO. 143
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
Z-92-039 GP-92-10, SA-92-16 AND E-92-14 AMENDMENT
TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CATEGORY/MAP AND ZONING DISTRICT
CATEGORY/MAP FOR PICO COMMUNITY PARK
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace adopted the City's
current General Plan on December 8, 1988 and associated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace has applied for a General Plan Amendment
GP-92-10) and Zoning Amendment (Z-92-03); and
WHEREAS, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared and approved for this project; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Zoning Amendments, included minor
modifications to the following sections of the General Plan Landuse/Map (Exhibit A) and
Zoning District Map (Exhibit B) and to the following sections of the General Plan and
Zoning Text:
1.General Plan -- Open Space, Aesthetic/Cultural Recreational/Resource, ,
Landuse Elements and statistical data tables, pages H-3, V-1, V-2, V-5, V-6,
V1-3 (Attachment 1).
2.General Plan -- Master Environmental Assessment, Parks/Open Space
Resources, page H-21. Availability of open space and park land.
Attachment 2).
3.General Plan -- Land Use Map, Exhibit A.
4.Zoning Ordinance -- District Map, Exhibit B.
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment will change the proposed Pico Park site
from Industrial to Public Facilities landuse for a public park; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Amendment will change the proposed Pico Park site from
existing MR District (Restricted Manufacturing District) to PUB (Public Facilities District);
and
WHEREAS, the proposed park site, structures and amenities have been reviewed
for design and layout by a Site and Architectural Review per the PUB District regulations;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Amendment and General Plan Amendment are consistent
with the latest adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, such amendments do not allow for a significant decrease in availability
of industrial land nor intensity of landuse as evaluated and provided for in the General Plan
and Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on December 17, 1992; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council of the
City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 14th day of January, 1993.
The project was reviewed and approved along with the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a regular meeting was held by the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace, California, on the 11th day of February, 1993 to incorporate the textual
amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code; and
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,.
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The proposed General Plan Amendment GP-92-01, Zoning
Amendment Z-92-03 and Site and Architectural Review SA-92-
16, set out in full in Attachments 1/2 and Exhibits A and B.
Section 2:The Negative Declaration on file in the Planning Department
of the City of Grand Terrace, E-92-10, is hereby approved.
Section 3:Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day of its adoption.
Section 4:Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted
in three (3) public places within fifteen (15) days of its
adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council.
Section 5:First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City
held on the Jktl-day of teary, 1993 and finally adopted and
ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the
day of February, 1993.
ATTEST:
U
ity Clerk of the City of Ma of the 4Council Terrace
Grand Terrace and of the a f the City of
City Council thereof
I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the2sth day of February,
1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Carlstrom, Hilkey, Singley; Mayor Pro Tem Christianson;
Mayor Matteson
i NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Brenda Stanfill,
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Harper,
City Attorney
AESTHETIC, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL
RESOURCES ELEMENT
GOAL: ENRICHMENT OF THE COMMUNITY BY OPTIMIZING THE
AVAILABILITY AND USEFULNESS OF THE CITY'S
AESTHETIC,CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES.
The aesthetic, cultural and recreational resources of a city include
those programs and facilities which refresh or enhance people's minds
and bodies. These consist of parks and recreation, scenic vistas, and
cultural resources in the City of Grand Terrace.
RECREATIONAL Issue Assessment (MEA Reference: H-C-1)
RESOURCES
Parks and recreation facilities are primarily provided by the City's
Community Services Department: Pico Community Park (10.0 acres)
located on Pico Avenue, southwest portion of the City, is the largest
existing_park in the community. The park provides sports fields, such
as baseball and soccer fields, as well as basketball courts, play areas
and additional public facilities. Terrace Hills Community Park (5.35
acres), located on De Berry Street in the central portion of the City,
is the second largest existing park within the community. The park
provides playfields for active recreation and is located adjacent to the
grounds of'Terrace Hills Junior High School which provides additional
facilities for active recreation, including a swimming pool. The school
facilities are owned and maintained by the Colton Unified School
District. Griffin Park (1.6 acres) is a small linear park located along
the Metropolitan Water District easement in the northeastern portion
of the.,City which provides a connection between Merle Court and
Observation Drive. It is intended primarily for passive recreational
use. in addiden,
have been identified by the emmmaity as defifAitive r-eer-eatieneA needs
and, therefore, this park will net fulfill desir-ed leng tem ieef:ea4i
gea6. The playgrounds and playfields of Grand Terrace and Terrace
View Elementary Schools also currently provide facilities for active
recreational purposes at the neighborhood level. Approximately 5.0
v--1 Attachment 1
acres of recreational area is available for public use at each of these
schools. An agreement exists between the City of Grand Terrace and
the Colton Unified School District for the use of these schools for
public recreational purposes.
TABLE V 1
EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
City of Grand Terrace
Terrace Hills Community Park 5.4 acres
Pico Community Park (ftAer-im) 10.0 acres
Griffin Park 1.6 acres
Colton Unified School District
Terrace Hills Junior High School 9.0 acres
Grand Terrace Elementary School 5.0 acres
Terrace View Elementary School 5.0 acres
Total 36.0 acres
Local park and recreation standards have been established to
determine the appropriate size, type and number of recreational
facilities needed to adequately serve a given population. These
standards describe the basic conditions needed to fully serve a diverse
population, and can be used as a gauge to assess the adequacy of
recreational facilities in the City of Grand Terrace. The Grand
Terrace General Plan adopted in 1983 established a minimum park
acreage standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 City residents. At
the time of the 1988 General Plan update, the City had attained and
exceeded this standard_for park acreage. Despite the attainment of
this goal, a perceived need still exists within the community for
additional park and recreational facilities. In particular, the City
wishes to develop additional community-level park space with facilities
for active recreation and organized play.
In order to establish a new and higher standard for parkland acreage
and reflect the objective of developing a community-level park, a total
of 4.0 acres of local parkland per 1,000 City residents is recommended
as a minimum standard to serve local recreational needs. This is a
conservative,yet adequate,parkland standard which provides a realistic
goal for the acquisition of park acreage over the life of this plan.
While some communities have adopted a higher parkland standard,the
recommended overall standard of 4.0 acres per 1,000
V-2
residents is considered reasonable for a low-density community such as
Grand Terrace at this time. It should be emphasized that this
represents a minimum standard and the acquisition of park acreage
which exceeds this standard should not be discouraged. Parkland
standards and recreational facilities should be regularly reassessed to
ensure that they continue to accurately accommodate the needs of the
community.
Parks are commonly organized in a hierarchy based upon size and
service area, and can include general or special purpose facilities, as
needs require. Mini-parks, neighborhood parks and community parks
are considered local parkland and are commonly found in communities
of almost any size. Metropolitan and regional parks are designed to
serve a large population and are not usually included in the park .
systems of smaller communities.
Mini-Park
A mini-park or vest pocket park is intended to serve the special
needs of a small portion of a neighborhood, usually a
population of 500 to 2,500 people in a service area of'no more
than a quarter mile radius. A mini-park may be a playlot for
local children, a socializing area for seniors, or any other type
of active or passive space depending upon the needs of the
neighborhood. The size and location of the park usually
depends upon the availability of vacant land more than any
other factor. In low-density, single-family communities such as
Grand Terrace, mini-parks are less frequently established than
in high-density areas, since private yards usually accommodate
the purposes otherwise served by mini-parks.
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood parks often adjoin elementary schools and
usually serve a population of 2,000 to 10,000 people in a half
mile radius service area. These parks usually contain active
recreation areas such as ball diamonds, playgrounds, game
courts and playfield as well as passive areas for relaxation,
sitting and sometimes picnicking. A neighborhood park should
be accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and should provide
some automobile parking area. The recommended minimum
size for a neighborhood park is five acres.
V-3
Communi , Park
Community parks are intended to serve several neighborhoods
and often contain recreation facilities which require more space
than the neighborhood park sites can easily accommodate.
These facilities may include a tennis complex, swimming pool,
special purpose courts or a community center along with the
usual playfields. These parks are preferably located near a
major thoroughfare for easy access. The recommended
minimum size for community parks is 20 acres and, because of
their large size,location is often dependent upon the availability
of land. Community parks are intended to serve a population
of 10,000 to 50,000 with a service radius of one to two miles.
As a matter of local public policy, the City should actively endeavor to
achieve and maintain the minimum standards for recreational facilities
as put forth in this element. Park acreage should ideally be distributed
among the various classifications of park types described above, as
needs indicate. Facility standards for specific activities must also be
considered in recreational programming and in facility use and
allocation decisions.
The standards presented in Table V-3 provide a guide for the provision
of various recreational facilities based upon national criteria. Using
these standards, the provision of adequate facilities needed to serve an
ultimate City population of 14,408 persons can be estimated. The
minimum number of each type of facility which should be provided
based upon these standards is shown in Table V-3. The City already
exceeds the minimum recommended number of facilities for certain
activities such as volleyball and soccer. In a community the size of
Grand Terrace, certain facilities can be combined to serve multiple
purposes. For instance, football and soccer can be accommodated in
a joint-use playfield and a single center could achieve the purposes of
a neighborhood center,a community center and a multiple recreational
court facility (gymnasium). Even if the City achieves the standards for
the amount or number of facilities, there should be a continuing effort
to assess the quality of these facilities and perform upgrades, as
necessary.
V-4
TABLE V-2
PARK STANDARDS
Acres/
Type 1 ,000 people Size Range Service Area
Mini 25 - .5 1 acre or less 25 mile
Neighborhood 1 .0 - 2.0 5 - 20 acres 25 - .5 mile
Community 2.0 - 8.0 20 - 100 acres 1 - 2 miles
TAB LE V-3
FACILITY STANDARDS
Future
Facility Unit/Population Service Area City Needs*
Basketball 1 per 5,'000 25 - .5 mile 1
Tennis 1 per 2,000 25 - .5 mile 7
Volleyball 1 per 5,000 25 - .5 mile 3
Baseball 1 ,per 5,000 25 - .5 mile 3
8aseba --L-igf-ted-----------1--per-30;-96A 0
Softball (and youth
baseball) 1 per 5,000 25 - .5 mile 3- 2
Football 1 per 20,000 15 - 30 min, travel 1
Soecej--------------------1--per-1-&,-O&a-------1----2-miles 1-- 0
Multiple Recreation
Court (basketball,
volleyball, tennis) 1 per 10,000 1 - 2 miles 1
Swimming Pools 1 per 20,000 15 - 30 min. travel 1
Neighborhood Center 1 per 10,000 1
Community Center 1 per 25,000 1
Based upon an ultimate population of 14,408.
Source: National Recreation and Parks Association
V-5
The amount of local parkland currently available to City residents
totals 36 acres. This amounts to 3.6 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents based upon an estimated City population of 9,877 in 1987.
This falls slightly short of the minimum amount of parkland
recommended to adequately serve the 1987 population of the City.
The existing system of parks also does not provide the range of
recreational facilities desired by the community. At this time, none of
the existing parks contain a
etivities sueh as gymnasium and community center. In additief#
With an ultimate population of 14,408 persons projected to reside in
the City by the year 2010, the amount of existing park acreage will be
even less adequate to serve the community. To serve future
population of this size, a minimum of 58 acres of local parkland should
be available to City residents. It is recommended that the City of
Grand Terrace endeavor to meet and exceed the minimum standard
for park acreage in order to provide a high level of recreational
opportunity to City residents and also provide the types of recreational
facilities desired by the community.
objeetive,the City should plan t ten to tweaty,aer-e sk
would be elassifted as a eaniffmPAty park. Sueh a park should be
large site "YvM large areas ef fair+y level gr-ettad vM1 pr-ebably
City. Mr-angements%411 need to be made te aeqttir-e this new pffk sitee
before this area beeemes substantially develeped. it is r-eeemmend
V-6
Implementation Policies:
THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AND OPERATE PARK
AND RECREATION FACILITIES WHICH ARE ADE-
QUATE FOR THE EXISTING AND PLANNED POPU-
LATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCE
NO. 44 AND RESOLUTION NO. 818.
CONTINUE JOINT USE AGREEMENTS WITH THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE RECREATIONAL USE
OF SCHOOL GROUNDS BY CITY RESIDENTS.
SURVEY, ACQUIRE, AND RESERVE LAND FOR
FUTURE RECREATIONAL USE WHICH WILL SATISFY
IDENTIFIED RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND DEFI-
CIENCIES.
REQUIRE THE PROVISION OF USEFUL RECREA-
TIONAL OPEN SPACES WITHIN NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS.
ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO SUPPLEMENT
PUBLIC FACILITIES.
PERIODICALLY REEVALUATE THE ALLOCATION
AND USE OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE LAND TO
ENSURE THAT EXISTING FACILITIES ARE MEET-
ING THE RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF THE COMMU-
NITY.
EVALUATE THE OPPORTUNITIES AND DEFICIEN-
CIES AT EACH FACILITY TO DETERMINE IF THE
CITY'S RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACES COULD BE
EFFECTIVELY UPGRADED TO IMPROVE THEIR
Y USEFULNESS AND QUALITY.
SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE SHOULD BE PROTECT
ED TO THE DErREE FEASIBLE. SPECIAL CONSID-
ERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ENVIRONMENTAL-
LY SENSITIVE ZONES SUCH AS STEEP SLOPES
AND FLOOD PLAINS.
AESTHETIC Issue Assessment - (MEA Reference: II-C-2)
RESOURCES
Scenic views of nearby hills and the valley to the north
are prominent from a number of locales within the com-
munity. Several recently constructed housing tracts
have been oriented to take advantage.of these views.
There are no designated scenic highways within Grand
Terrace.
V-7
TABLE VI-1
l
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
i ACREAGE BREAKDOWN
Vacant
Total
Acres $ Acres % Total City
Rural Land/Open Space
149. 149
Hillside Overlay 39- 6% 443 -28% 6%
Total Rural Land/149 149
Open Space 4--3--6% 1-39--28% 6%-
Low Density Residential 999 42% 101 22.3% 4%
Hillside Overlay 101 4% 101 20.3%4%
Total Low Density
Residential 1 ,100 47% 202 42.6% 9%
Medium Density Residential 172 7% 9.7 2.0% 4%
General Commercial 305.5 13% 41 6.2% 2.0%
Office Commercial 29 1% 5.3 1 .0% 2%
145.5 57
Light Industrial 7% fr7- 14.0% 3%
Flood Plain Overlay 32 1% 32 6.0% 1%
177.5 89
Total Industrial 8% 99- 20.0% 4%
Public 79 3%
Streets and Highways 353 15%
TOTAL 2,36-5 100% 4916 100% 22%
Source: Willdan Associates, 1987
VI-3
TABLE II-1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE POLICY MAP TABULATION
ACREAGE BREAKDOWN
TOTAL PERCENT
LAND. USE CATEGORY ACRES TOTAL
Rural Land/Open Space 149.0
Hillside Overlay) 1-39:-4- 6%
Total Rural Land/Open Space 6%
149.0
Low Density Residential 999.0 42%
Hillside Overlay 101 .0 4%
Total Low Density Residential' 1 ,100.0 46%
Medium Density Residential 172.0 7%
General Commercial 305.5 13%
Office Commercial 29.0 1%
145.5
Light Industrial 4:&- v- 7- 7%
Flood Plain Overlay 32.0 1%
Total Industrial 4$7 5- 8%
177.5
Public 79.0 3%
Streets and Highways 353.0 15%
TOTAL 2,365.0 100%
Source: Willdan Associates, August 1987.
11-3
C. AESTHETIC, CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
1. Parks/Open Space Resources
Parks and recreation facilities are primarily provided by the City's
Community Services Department. Pico Community Park (10.0 acres)
located on Pico Avenue, southwest portion of the Ci% is the largest
existing park in the community. The park provides sports fields, such
as baseball and soccer fields, as well as basketball courts. play areas
and additional public facilities. Terrace Hills Community Park (535
acres), located on De Berry Street in the central portion of the City,
is the second largest existing park within the community. The park
provides playfields for active recreation and is located adjacent to the
grounds of Terrace Hills Junior High School which provides additional
facilities for active recreation, including a swimming pool. The school
facilities are owned and maintained by the Colton Unified School
District. Griffin Park (1.6 acres) is a small linear park located along
the Metropolitan Water District easement in the northeastern portion
of the City which provides a connection between Merle Court and
Observation Drive. It is intended primarily for passive recreational
use. lia addrdeti; the City been negeda4ing-fer the use of a teft
site. This park is to be knewti as Piee Pafk and will pr-evide an
City. Hewever-,lease r-estr-iefieffi-,All pr-even4 the City firem develepi
have been identified by the eemmuftity as definitive r-eer-eftfieftal fleeds
and, ther-efer-e, this park YMI net fidfiR desired lefig tefm reer-ead
gear The playgrounds and playfields of Grand Terrace and Terrace
View Elementary Schools also currently provide facilities for active
recreational purposes at the neighborhood level. Approximately 5.0
acres of recreational area is available for public use at each of these
schools. An agreement exists between the City of Grand Terrace and
the Colton Unified School District for the use of these schools for
public recreational purposes.
The amount of local parkland currently available to.City residents
totals 36 acres. This amounts to 3.6 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents based upon an estimated City population of 9,877 in 1987.
This falls slightly short of the minimum amount of parkland
recommended to adequately serve the 1987 population of the City.
The existing system of parks also does not provide the range of
recreational facilities desired by the community. At this time, none of
the existing parks contain a
efivit es sueh as a gymnasium and community'center. In addifieti
II_21 Attachment 2.
IF
oyr
y
encnT
we
VIVIENOA
W
MDR
F
F-
I
YrLifMD
NU
AVE /
VKTORIA
ST
7--
F'
7
CARNIRT
AVE
OC
PIN
TERRACE
L
GRAND
OIL
tE
R
ES
1
MTNONA
ELEMENTARY
R
s
gSCNOOIBRITTON-
WF.
4P--
i-
P
B
r
W
W
o
S
isU
BARTON
U
J
W
G
I
f
4PSS6 \
OR.
N
V
c
I.
I..
J.
CP'
c
a
I
T
Tj
j7}
tj7J
F{
T
7
CENTER
CIT
GOV
T
III
y`!
yLLYJ
CITY
RVIE
1 .. ...
L
u
LIMITS
i
1..).
i —, , --
1 '<
SOTO
ST
D•
50T0
ST
W
D'
T
4
T
L
l
I
0•
BERRY
M
DFULMAR
PL
TEIJR
1'
G
I
Y
r
YAVIS
ST.
L
NAVIS
ST. _ _
s
I
CARDINAL
1
R01
l
EE
s
it
I
VAN
SUREM
Wr
E
JI
ry
KENTFIELD
ST.
LARK
a
ST.
Lr
L.
i
O
tY
Y:
IA.
Rk -
4•
1
rEN
I
ALD
ST
R. • .,
L -__ '
FRANKLIN
ST.
J
h-
PICO
u
L
fIANIN;
a
ST.
TANAGER
L-
O
TANAGER
S
1
TANAGER
T.
T
7-- --
RAVEN
Mt -
F4
o=
4ly
f"
f_ -•
O
RAVEN
e-
Qa
RAVEN
I •
r. '
z
Ir
rc
GC
I
I
R
F.:
j
ROI
LAOERA
SL` •'-
LADERA
ST
UOERA
ST
I
SA
BEfdVARD/
NO
t
i
I
10-400-07
VICTOkIA
P
N
CARHART
C.N.W.-R 3 C 2 MN""fN""FM"F
ELEMENTARY
C-ML t Mc CLARREN
MR
8A RTO t
t E3;R S P
M F
Ll
CITY I
LIMITS
De BENN,
Rl- 7!
FULMAR PL
IY
cm
MAVIS ST
MAVIS ST
ir CAROINAt
rr
L
VAN OURE!-- —.
M 2 S
RK
ST
f
MR love 37Ir
i L I
M2
7.7TANAGERST
TANAGER ST.
RAVEN
C2 P
LADE RA'ST
JBERNA I;! IVO I
LADERA ST.
AIN
RIVERSIDE
ZONING PROPOSED CHANGE
c1TY
Planning
G fiND TERZ C Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby
filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Z-92-03, GP-92-01, SA-92-16, and E-92-10, Zoning and General Plan Amendment with
environmental review to change from MR Restricted Manufacturing District and General
Plan Industrial land use to PUB.Public Facilities District. The proposal is to convert 10
acres into a park site consisting of ballfield, soccer field, basketball courts, play area, parking
lot, snack bar and restrooms.
APPLICANT:
City of Grand Terrace
LOCATION:
Pico Park
21948 Pico Street
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT:
Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
9' 1AQaf1-'a c:i
Patrizia Materassi Date
Planning Director
City of Grand Terrace
PM:ma
Attachment 2
22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 •..(909) 824-6621
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
lb. Will the proposal result iri disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of this soil? YES, development of the site will.involve excavation and compaction of
the earth. All excavated material will be placed and recompacted within.the project
boundary in conformance.with all grading regulations of the UBC Chapter 70
APPENDIX) and the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. There will be minor
grading to restructure the natural drainage flow pattern from east to west.as it
floods in the middle of the baseball diamond and runs westerly and northerly to a
natural low area and drains towards the west.
3b. Will the.proposal result in substantial,changes in absorption rates, drainage-patterns,'
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? NO, the amount of surface runoff is
insignificant.
3c. Will the proposal, alter the course or flow of flood waters? Yes, in a positive way.
A straight curb line will speed the flow of-water slightly improving the drainage
situation on Pico Avenue.
4.a,c Will the proposal result in changes to the diversity of species or number of native
species or introduce new species of plants into an area of native vegetation? Yes in
a positive manner. There will be a removal of the existing s_ecies of native
vegetation, thrush and thistle. The replacement landscaping applicable for the
public park will consist of hydroseed. lawn,.trees for shade, shrubs and ground
covering all indigenous to this area and drought tolerant. Landscaping -and
irrigation to be properly maintained by.the City Parks and Recreation Department
Maintenance.
6.a Will the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? Yes, there will be an,
increase in existing noise level as the site is partially vacant and does not attract
large public gatherings now. The park would draw the public, cars and outdoor
activities but would be properly mitigated by the Noise Ordinance and hours of
operation in conformance with the City Code.
7.Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Yes, the park will require
additional lighting however,in conformance with the Zoning Code the lighting shall
be designed.to shine away from residential districts and public roadways. The type
of lighting proposed is Musco Lighting which is specially designed for parks and
outside recreational areas. It will be of a Level 8 design which will stop the light
rays at the property lines. These measures..are to insure that the lighting will not
r impact the residential neighborhood to the east of the proposed park site and across
the street to the south.
8.Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use
of an area? Yes, the proposed park site is in the current MR Zone District and
industrial landuse. The proposed zoning and.general plan landuse amendment to
PUB, public facilities district, will allow the park site as proposed and be in
conformance with the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. The site presently has
a portion used as a ballfield which could have been used as a MR Zoned project.
13.ab Will the proposal affect the existing parking facilities or create a new demand for
parking? Yes, the park will generate additional vehicle movement and-will require
a new demand for parking as illustrated in Exhibit A. However, the vehicular
movement may be restricted as parents will carpool for various sports activities,
family and friends gather and being hear a neighborhood-bicycles and walking will
be increased. Sharing of activities amongst all City parks and control of the hours
of operation will also limit the activity to be within the City Municipal Code.
14b. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in the area of Police Protection? No. The project as
conditioned has a special safety condition to create a "pro-active" show of force, and
as it is proposed it will utilize current contractual services in a special program of
surveillance. Additionally, the mitigated measures regarding controlled lighting,
gated and .entry fencing to the park, hours of operation and block wall between
residential properties and the park will be positive features as proposed in the
conditions of approval.
14.de Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any areas; Parks or other recreational facilities and
maintenance of public facilities including roads? YES, this park will be an
additional City park bringing the total to five. Thus will contain additional
playground and recreational facilities. The maintenance of public facilities including
roads and park grounds will be maintained by the City Maintenance/Parks and
Recreation Department.
19. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? YES, in a positive manner. The proposal will increase
the number of existing recreational opportunities by providing one more park
making a total of 5 parks to the public in the City and surrounding areas.
Yes Maw No
more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on'human beings, either directly v
or indirectly?
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Patrizia Materassi
Planning Director
Date Signature
For.City of Grand Terrace
AMENDED TO REFLECT PUBLIC INPUT AND
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
1-8-93. 17,Q
9
N
I
ORENTW
W
V
O
a
n
ZvlENOA \
La
MDR
Mp _
NU
1
4
AVE
VICTORIA
5T.
7
W
A ,
CA
RNART
AVE.
I
O
c
GRAND
I
I
apCC
PINE]
Q
OR
1
y1NONA
TERRACE
tE
q
c.
ELEMENTARY
Z
qpp
SCHOOLARR
i
T.
2
IT
TON
WT.
r :
P
BW
w
BARTON
nlul
I
W
Gc
6PCT>
1
I
TTTTT
77TrT —
TI
CENTER
CI
r -
C
I
T
YLIMITS
I
Li
I.
i- - -—
T--I: —--
1
E
i
J_`
I
SOTO
ST.
D.
30T0
3T.
L ,
I.. __
i
I
o
W
0-
lI
3
Oa
BERRY
Li
Lt
MD
TI
L
D. .
ruLwAR
PL
s _.
1
1
Y
G
I
r
MAVIS
sr.
MAVIS
ST. __ _
W
GROINAL
RDI
L
TR
VAN
BUREN
kE
NTFIELO
ST.
i
s
LARK
111
ST.
Jl
p
Rrr
11+.•!
I:« .
i - --
t
I
E.
ALo
ST
x
0o
FRA..
LIH
no
E
PICO
u
1
i _> .
i.. .
t_. -
L
pMINGOS
FLAMINGO
ST.
y
I
y
TANAGER
ST
TANAGER
ST.
r
TANAGER
ST.
Z
RAVEN
WYr•\
O
RAVEN
Q
G
D
r
I
I
fL
T ¢
LADE
RA
T. /
I'
LADE
RA.
ST. _
UOE0.
A
ST.
1
O
l TT +.w AYE...
1•• ..' ::.i,
I}'_ fyf.R phi
i..•7."`r'.. - '..••`• 4VE y•:" VICTORIA ST.
1'I.•.4. '
t,(• \ CARHARTt, AV
Y
TERRACE
L'V F.LCn ARY
OOL cC ARREN
I -
I•'tip
B:R S P
C I T Y RIXE ln,
LIMITS
br SOTO ST.
I
FULMAR vL -- l
C
I u _
I f I' Ic
MIrEI, CAN DIN At
I L ....
vI
cG
JI •
I Iu'I 'I I •- l
VAN BURCX --_ _—_ —__ __ _ — __ _--•
s
RENT IE , ST.
M2 T
I
iLARK ST
11
Yti
I I
M
I
MR iAS:.CL DOVE ST
vlco
LJ
M2 I
i TANAGER
TA
ID E
T 1' Y, ('
I
3 T.
y 1
Z RAVER
C` =
I W.
SA SERNARD/NO IA
3T i
LADERIA ST. ,
MAIN
R/HERS/DE
Jc
ZONING PROPOSE® CHANGE . x
ui