226 ORDINANCE NO. 226
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 06-01 (Z-06-01) TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING R1-20 ZONING TO R1-10 AND DELETE THE AG OVERLAY ZONE
FOR AN 8.26 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF
PICO STREET STARTING APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET EASTERLY OF THE
INTERSECTION OF PICO STREET AND KINGFISHER ROAD AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CASE NO. 06-03 (E-06-03) -MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS,the applicant has filed the necessary application to change the existing zoning
of R1-20(Very Low Density Single Family-minimum required area 20,000 sq.ft.)to R1-10(Low
Density Single Family- minimum required area 10, 000 sq. ft.); and
WHEREAS, the existing AG (Agricultural Overlay District) Zone is inappropriate for the
site given the increase in density and the proximity of smaller urban lots abutting the site. It is
therefore appropriate to include in this change of zone the deletion of the AG(Agricultural Overlay
District)Zone for the site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of
the proposed zoning amendment or within the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment will not be injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood or within the City; and
WHEREAS,the proposed zoning amendment will allow the reasonable development of the
subject site which is currently impacted by several constraints including the 100 foot wide easement
for the California Aqueduct, a 60 foot wide easement to Southern California Edison and the
proximity of a water reservoirs which impinges on the easterly side of the site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will represent a transition between the larger lots along
Blue Mountain Court and the smaller lots located to the north and west of the site along Lark Street
and Kingfisher Road; and
WHEREAS, the resulting project density of 2.18 units per acre is not inconsistent with
existing development in the area including the existing single family residential homes to the west
and south; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zone change, Zone Change No. 06-01, is consistent with the
"LDR" (Low Density Residential)land use category of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
- an environmental review for Z- 06-01, as legally describe on Exhibit A, has been conducted and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared under E-06-03 for this project with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration(Exhibit B)having been considered by both the Planning Commission and the
City Council; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearing on this project
on April 20, 2006 and May 18, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following the conclusion of the public hearing on
May 18, 2006 recommended that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 06-01 and the
associated Mitigated Negative Declaration under Environmental Review No. 06-03, set out in the
attached Exhibits A and B, by adopting this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,the City Council held a properly notice public hearing to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation and other relevant testimony on June 8, 2006, July 13, 2006 and
August 10, 2006 for Z-06-01 and E-06-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Zone Change No. 06-01 to change the existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10
Zoning and to delete the AG(Agricultural Overlay District)Zone as legally
described in Exhibit A,is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Grand Terrace.
Section 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration on file in the offices of the Community
Development Department under E-06-03 is hereby approved as Exhibit B.
Section 3. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m.
on the 3 1"day of its adoption.
Section 4 Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3)
public places within fifteen(15)days of its adoption, as designated for such
purpose by the City Council.
Section 5 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace held on the 10 day of August, 2006 and finally adopted and ordered
posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 24`'
day of August, 2006.
ATTEST:
City de'r f th City of Gran Mayoreel
he City of Grand Terrace
Terrace and of the City Council and of City Council thereof
I, Tracey Martinez, nepuCity Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 24' day of August, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hilkey, Garcia, and Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Cortes and
Mayor Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Cler
Approved as to form: -
John Harper
City Attorney
c:\MyFlesUOBN\Kargerpico\Z-06-01 ordinance
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE N.W. 1/4 OF THE S.E. 1/4 AND OF THE
S.E. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF THE S.W. 1/4, ALL SECTION 4,T.2S., RAW., S.B.M.
RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
�J
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Document Type: Negative Declaration (Mitigated)
Date: March 30, 2006
Project Title: Z-06-01, TTM-06-01 and E-06-03
Project Location: An approximately 8.26 acre parcel located on the north side of Pico Street
starting approximately 150 feet easterly of the intersection of Pico Street and
Kingfisher Road
■ Description of Project:The proposed project will consist of the changing of the existing R1-20
(Very Low Density Single Family)zoning to R1-10 (Low Density Single Family)Zoning and
subdividing the subject site into 18 single family lots with a minimum lot size of about 12,800
square feet.
Project Proponent: Karger Homes
Lead Agency: Community Development Department, City of Grand Terrace
Contact Person: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director
(909)430-2247
Public Review Period: Began:Thursday, March 30,2006 Ended:Thursday, August
10,2006
Public Hearings/Meetings: Planning Commission—Thursday,April 20, 2006 and May 18, 2006
City Council-Thursday,June 8 ,2006,Thursday,July 13, 2006 and
Thursday,August 10, 2006
Environmental Finding:
Based on an Initial Study, attached hereto, prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of approving Z-06-01,TTM-06-01 and E-06-03,the said
project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the grounds that it will not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the recommended
mitigation conditions.
Signature:
Gary L.Wontz,gok76unity Development Director
EXHIBIT B
c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Kargerpico\negativedeclarationZ-06-01
City of Grand Terrace
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Zone Change No.06-01,Tentative Tract Map No.06-01 (County
No. 18071)and Environmental Review Case No.06-03
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Grand Terrace
Community Development Department
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace,CA 92313
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director or John
Lampe,Associate Planner (909)430-2247
4. Project Location: An approximately 8.26 acre, vacant parcel located on the
northerly side of Pico Street starting approximately 150 feet
easterly of the intersection of Pico Street and Kingfisher Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name Karger Homes
6. General Plan Designation: "LDR"(Low Density Residential)
7. Zoning: Existing zoning R1-20(Very Low Density Single Family)to be
changed to R1-10(Low Density Single Family)
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the
project,and any secondary, support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets if necessary.)
The project will consist of the changing of the existing R1-20(Very Low Density Single Family)Zoning to Rl-
10(Low Density Single Family)Zoning under Z-06-01 and subdividing the subject site into 20 single family
residential lots under TTM-06-01 (County No. 18071)in conformance with the proposed R1-10 Zone with a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. A proposed grading plan is also shown on the submitted tentative tract
map.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Single Family Residential,water reservoir and avocado orchard,Zoned R1-7.2 and R1-20
East: Riverside Highland Water Company water tank reservoir,avocado orchard and open hillside,
Zoned R1-20 and RH(Hillside Residential)
South: Single Family Residential,Zoned R1-20
West: Single Family Residential,Zoned R1-7.2
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement)
City of Grand Terrace Department of Building and Safety—building and grading permits;County of San
Bernardino Fire Department—plan check requirements;and City of Grand Terrace Public Works for
sewer connection and street improvements. The State of California Department of Water Resources for
an encroachment permit over the California Aqueduct.
Community Development Department 1 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that
is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Services Systems
■Geological Problems ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Aesthetics
■Water ❑Hazards ❑Cultural Resources
■Air Quality ■Noise ❑Recreation
❑Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation(To be completed by the Lead Agency):
❑ 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 an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect
1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT
be significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Si ature Date
{ Gary L. Koontz Community Development Director
v - Printed Name Title
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
Community Development Department 2 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
�— adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) "Potential Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potential Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, and EIR is required.
4) "Potential Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potential Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures
from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier Analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached,and
other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Community Development Department 3 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
(Source: General Plan Categories Map; and Zoning
District Map—The proposed use and new zone are
consistent with the Land Use Category of the City's
General Plan.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (There are no known agencies where the
proposed project would cause a conflict. )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Zoning District Map, Zoning Regulations, City Zoning ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Code) This project will be a transition between the R1-
20 properties to the east and south and the higher
density single family development to the west zoned ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
R1-7.2.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (There are no significant ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
agricultural resources in this part of Grand Terrace)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community(including a low-income or
minority community)? (The site is relative small in
size at 8.26 acres. It lies at the edge of the urban
development in the City and will not disrupt or divide
any existing part of the City. )
A brief explanation to answer I:
The proposed project at 2.4 dwelling units/acre is consistent with the existing General Plan of the City which allows up to 5
units per acre for the"LDR"category. The project will meet all of the standards of the City including all subdivision and
grading standards. The developer will also have to obtain an encroachment permit from the State Department of Water
Resources for that part of the proposed subdivision within the 100 foot wide California Aqueduct easement which runs through
the middle of the subject site. In addition,there are no agricultural resources on the site as it has been vacant for a number of
years. Lastly,the proposal at the edge of existing development will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any
established part of the City.
Community Development Department 4 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
H. Population and Housing. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (This project is relatively ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
small is size with only 20 units. It is consistent with
the City's General Plan and population projections for
future development under the General Plan.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (This project
will not induce any substantial growth as it is at the
edge of the urbanized portion of the City and is
presently served or can be served with all necessary ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
infrastructure.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (The property is vacant and will not displace
any existing housing.)
A brief explanation to answer II:
The proposed project is a relatively small project which is consistent with the City's General Plan. It will not have any
significant effect on regional or local population projections. In addition,the site is presently or can be easily served by all
necessary infrastructure. No major expansion of infrastructure will be required;and no growth inducement will result. Lastly,
the site is a vacant parcel which was graded a number of years ago for an old subdivision which was never recorded. No
displacement of existing housing stock will result from this proposal.
Community Development Department 5 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
III Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan MEA/EIR-ES-4) ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Seismic ground shaking?(GP MEA/EIR-II-1) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (GP ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
MEA/EIR-II-1)
d) Seiches, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (GP MEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑
II-1)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ J
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑
MEA/EIR II-20)
g) Subsidence of the land? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, Append ❑ ❑ ❑ _J
B)
h) Expansive soil? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, Append B-4 ) ❑ ❑ ❑ �_
I) Unique geologic or physical features? (GP MEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑
II-1)
A brief explanation to answer III:
No active or potentially active fault traces cross the site. The only known potential geologic hazard to the site is from seismic
ground shaking which is not unusual for any site in Southern California. This and any other geologic hazard will be mitigated
by the requirements that all structures shall be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building
Code. Also,a soils report will be required before the issuance of a grading permit or building permits for this project for the
zone change to R1-10 and subdivision of 20 single family lots. This required soils report will identify any liquefaction
potential.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure:This project must meet the
requirements that all structures be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform
Building Code.
4
Community Development Department 6 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
- Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IV. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (GP MEA/EIR H-1 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Append B)
b) Expose to people or property to water related hazards ❑ ❑ ❑
such as flooding? (GP MEA/EIR 11-1)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑ '�'
surface water quality(e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (GP MEA/EIR H-1)
d) Changes in the amount_of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑
body? (GP MEA/EIR 11-1)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑
movements? ()
f) Changes in the quality of ground waters, either through ❑ ❑ ❑
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
(GP MEA/EIR II-1)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑
MEA/EIR H-1)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, ❑ ❑ ❑ {
and 97 Regional WCA Report)
I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑
otherwise available for public water supplies? (GP
MEA/EIR Il-1)
A brief explanation to answer IV:
The proposed project is to change the R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 and to subdivide the site into 20 single family lots.. There will
,be an increase in impermeable surface area with future residential development;however,a hydrology study will be required to
analyze how this increase in runoff will be adequately handled. The hydrology study will be required before any grading
permits for this project can be issued. In addition,before the grading permits are issued for this project,all NPDES
requirements will have to be met which will ensure that many of the impact to water resources will be eliminated. These
requirements will be set out in a required"Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan." Also,a"Water Quality Management
Plan"will be required before building permits are issued to ensure the quality of the water runoff from this site.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure:This project must meet the
requirements that prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall comply with the City of Grand Terrace
Stormwater System Ordinance(Ordinance NO. 142,Subsection 1.010, 1993)and the Santa Ana regional Water Quality Boards
NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County,as required by the Clean Water Act and submission of a hydrology study.
Community Development Department 7 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
V. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation? (GP
MEA/EIR II-14, and AQMP)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The Element ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
contains an implementing action to reduce such
exposure)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
any change in climate? (Any such implementing
actions are designed to have a positive effect on the
region's air quality)
d) Create objectionable odors? (No specific odor causing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
proposals are included in the Element)
A brief explanation to answer V:
The proposed project is relatively small size at only 8.26 acres. With only 20 units,it,the project,does not have the capacity to
significantly impact the air quality of the region. There will be a very small increase in air pollution primarily from the vehicles
of the new residents;however,this will not be significant. However,there may be the potential for generation of dust when the
site is graded for the 20 proposed single family lots.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure. For the grading of the site where
dust will be generated,appropriate dust control measures will be integrated into grading plans and activities as required
by the City as part of the conditions of the grading permit.
Community Development Department 8 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VI. Transportation/Circulation.Would the proposal result :
a) Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑
(Trans. Engineering and Planning Consultant)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ ❑
nearby uses? ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ __
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ ❑
bicyclists? (TCM Ordinance 147)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑
alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? O ❑ ❑ ❑
J Brief explanation to answer VI:
_- Based on the size and nature of the proposed project,it will not have a significant traffic impact on arterial or
intersection level of service.
VH. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to ❑ ❑ ❑ I _,
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (GP
MEA/EIR II-20, Append C)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)? (GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ -_I
MEA/EIR 1I-20)
d) Wetland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian; and
vernal pool)? (GP MEA/EIR 11-20) ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ i
Community Development Department 9 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Brief explanation to answer VH:
No rare or endangered species are known to live in the urban areas of Grand Terrace. In addition,there are no desirable
large trees on the site or wetland habitats. No adverse impacts to biological resources are expected to result from the
development of this project.
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
conservation plans? (GP MEA/EIR
II-19, and Append D)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (GP
MEA/EIR H-19, and Append B)
Brief explanation to answer VIII:
No mineral resources have been identified in the City.Therefore the development of this project will not adversely impact
any mineral resources. In addition,the project(the 20 individual homes)will have to be constructed in compliance with
the energy standards of the building code.
r�
j
Community Development Department 10 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
release of hazardous substance
(including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
(GP MEA/EIR II-7)
b) Possible interference with ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (GT
Emergency Plan, and GP MEA/EIR
II-13)
c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
potential health hazard? (GP
MEA/EIR II-1)
d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
sources of potential health hazards?
(GP MEA/EIR II-1)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
(GP MEA/EIR II-6)
1
Brief explanation to answer IX:
The site lies immediately east of an avocado orchard and not immediately to a hazardous brush area. No hazardous materials are expected except for
those household hazardous materials which are expected in all residential development. The Riverside Highland Water Company reservoir
to the immediate east lies partly below grade and there are existing drains for emergency conditions.
X.Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
(City Noise Element) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (City Noise Element) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
i
Community Development Department 11 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Brief explanation to answer X.
There will be some increase in ambient noise level simply from having 20 new homes in the area;however,such
residential noise will not be significant. In addition,all construction and grading activity on the site will have to comply
with the City's Noise Ordinance.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measures. The construction activity
for this development will have to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance which will mitigate any potential noise impacts
to less than significant levels.
XI. Public Services. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
including roads? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Other governmental services? ( )
Brief explanation of answer XI.
This proposed project for 20 single family homes is relatively small in size. As for any residential projects,there will be
some effect on public services but because of the relatively small size of the project,all of these effects will be less than
significant. In addition,there will be an increase in the City's property tax base because of the development of existing
vacant land and the developer will also have to pay the school district impact fees for this project before building permits
are issued.
Community Development Department 12 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XII. Utilities and Services Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alternations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (GP
MEA/EIR R-32, II-33) ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Communications systems? (GP
MEA/EIR II-33) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ �I
MEA/EIR R-30)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP
MEA/EIR II-30) ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Storm water drainage? (GP
MEA/EIR II-33) ❑ ❑ ❑
- f) Solid waste disposal? (GP
MEA/EIR II-32) ❑ ❑ El
g) Local or regional water supplies?
(GP MEA/EIR 1I-30) ❑ ❑ ❑
Brief explanation of answer XII.
This proposed project is relatively small in size. All of the needed services exist for this site including electricity,phone,
and natural gas. There will be no impacts resulting from this project on utilities and service systems.
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ T'
highway? (GP MEA/EIR U-22)
b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
aesthetic effect? (Proposed site plan
and project elevations ) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Create light or glare?
Brief explanation to answer XIII.
The proposed project does not lie near scenic highway or will block scenic vistas. In addition,any potential aesthetic
impacts will be mitigated by the requirement for a site and architectural review of all 20 houses by the City's Planning
Commission before building permits are issued. This review will be made at a public hearing in which are property owners
within 300 feet will receive notice.
Community Development Department 13 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
(GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ J
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
(GP MEA/EIR 11-20) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources? (GP
MEA/EIR 1I-22) ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑
unique ethnic cultural values? (GP
MEA/EIR 11-22)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact ❑ ❑ ❑
area? (No religious or sacred uses
are located on or adjacent to the site)
Brief explanation to answer XIV.
t 1 No known palentological,archaelogical or historical resources exist on the site. No cultural values or sacred uses will be
impacted by this project.
XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑
other recreational facilities? (GP
MEA/EIR II-21)
b) Affect existing recreational
opportunities? (GP MEA/EIR II-21) ❑ ❑ ❑
Brief explanation to answer XV.
As the project is residential,there will be some increase in the demand for and affect on recreational resources;however as
only 20 units are involved,such effects will be less than significant.
Community Development Department 14 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XVI. Mandatory findings of significance.
a) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or
endangered plant or animal,
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential
( to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
\� disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of other probable future
projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
adverse effect on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Community Development Department 15 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
(,Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Brief explanation to answers XVI.
No Impact.The proposed project is relatively small with only 20 single family units. Any effects on the environment
resulting from this project will either be less than significant or will be fully mitigated by the regulations and requirements
of the future planning and building department reviews.
XVII. Earlier Analysis.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
■ Used the Grand Terrace General Plan Master Environmental Assessment and
EIR for most of the base impact information. Both documents are available at
the Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measured based on the earlier analysis.
■ Not Applicable
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measured which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent they address site specific conditions for the
project.
■ Not Applicable
JL:jI
Grand Terrace Community Development Dept
Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
References:Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,21094,21151;Sunstrom v.
County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296(1988);Leonoff v.Monterey Board of Supervisors,22 Cal.App.3d 1337(1990)
c:\MyFilesIIOHN\Kargerpico\E-06-03checklist
Community Development Department 16 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis