223 ORDINANCE NO. 223
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 05-02 (SP-05-02) FOR A CONDOMINIUM
SUBDIVISION WITH 35 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ON
A 3.7 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF MT. VERNON AVE.
AT 11830 MT. VERNON AVE. AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CASE NO. 05-21 (E-05-21)- MITIGATED NEGATIVE-DECLARATION
AS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed the necessary applications including.four Site and
Architectural Review.cases and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create 35 single family detached
condominium units; and
WHEREAS, there is no existing zone in the City's Zoning Code to accommodate the
proposed development; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan also requires the filing of a Specific Plan for any
residential project with more than 20 units; and
WHEREAS,Section 18.90.040 of the Zoning Code allows for the adoption of a Specific Plan
for those unique properties where the existing zoning provisions are unique or unusual; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is an infill site left after the Highlands Apartments developed
to the north,west and south; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will represent a transition between the Highlands
Apartments on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue and the single family residential on the
easterly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue; and
WHEREAS,the resulting density of this project at 9.5 units per acre is not inconsistent with
existing development in the area including the large apartment complex,the Highlands Apartments,
immediately to the north,west and south; and
WHEREAS, Specific Plan No. 05-02,Exhibit A,is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Grand Terrace; and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
an environmental review for Specific Plan No. 05-02 has been conducted and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared under E-05-21 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 December 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following the conclusion of the public hearing on
December 15, 2005 recommended that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. 05-02 and the
associated Mitigated Negative Declaration under Environmental Review No. 05-21, set out in the
attached Exhibits A and B,by adopting this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission in taking the above action found that the proposed
Specific Plan No. 05-02 will not be:
1. Detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons
residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within
the city; or
2. Injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City.
WHEREAS,the City Council held a properly notice public hearing to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation and other relevant testimony on January 26, 2006,March 9,2006,
April 13, 2006 and April 27, 2006 for SP-05-02 and E-05-21.
NOW, THEREFOR, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,
CALIFORNIA,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Specific Plan No. 05-02 to allow for the development of 35 single family
detached condominiums, set out in full 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-05-21 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 3l't 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 27 day of April, 2006 and finally adopted and ordered
posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 11 '
day of May, 2006.
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor oV1 e City of Grand Terrace
Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof
I, BRENDA MESA, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Grand Terrace held on the May 11, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hilkey, Garcia and Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Cortes alid
Mayor Ferre
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Brenda esa
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
')�M 4,0'-
John Harper
City Attorney
c:\MyFilesVOHN\Greystone\sp05-02ordinance
,J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'g
III. INFRASTRUCTURE
i A. WATER SERVICE
B. SEWER SERVICE
C. DRY UTILITIES
Electricity
Gas
- Telephone
Cable
D. DRAINAGE
E. TRAFFIC CONTROL
F. COSTS
IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
B. PROJECT TEAM
C. LOCAL AGENCY
Greenbriar Specific Plan 2
�J
CEAPTER I
L,
INTRODUCTION
.1
GREENBRIAR
SPECIFIC PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Greeribriar Specific Plan will serve as its own zoning ordinance and will be
delineated on the Grand Terrace Zoning map. Its purpose is to create a more
desirable development that would complete and enhance the existing neighborhood.
The Specific Plan is tailored to the existing site configuration and environmental
setting. This Specific Plan provides specific implementation plans and development
standards that will govern development and will allow expeditious review,
processing, and approval of development phases that are in compliance with this
Specific Plan and its goals and policies.
A. LOCATION& SETTING
Regional Location
The Greenbriar Specific Plan is located in the Inland Empire region of Southern
California in the city of Grand Terrace. Grand Terrace is approximately 7 miles
northeast of Riverside and 6 miles southwest of San Bernardino and directly east of
the 215 Freeway. Immediately adjacent to Grand Terrace on the north,.east, and
west is the community of Colton. To the south is the Riverside County
unincorporated community of Highgrove. Please see Exhibit A below for the
regional location of the city of Grand Terrace.
fi� a Sys Garner �r1W,ba
a�srPta Vsp
a
§$5C¢ € a ' 2ec
a
San BernAtdino
lr�sand ondana . ,.
s -81006)inq on
_ �'
Redd,}P#rfs
3 YucaiP
tl4a� n
y Ct
erg �r+o rand"terrace
�X Caiarteae
Fi+Canso
? orenti�dlley $
�iarCo ':G:3SCl B�+lt�i.-# g CF attt.S:< f1 ,
INQ
em nt ..
creit
COTO
Men Valky.
Exhibit A
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan I-1
_i
INTRODUCTION
Local Setting
The city of Grand Terrace is approximately 3.6 sq. miles and has an average
elevation of 1,065 ft. It is characterized by being nestled between two mountain
ridges, Blue Mountain to the east, and La Loma Hills to the west. The Santa Ana
River flows from the northeast to the west just northwest of the city. The elevation
of the city allows for extended views of the region including the San Bernardino
and San Gabriel mountain ranges. Please see Exhibit B below for the location of
the project site within the city of Grand Terrace.
ST
ovr
r �
aY
r
E WFlSHINGTOI
� X
',r +• ti s+yr F
7 3ARTON RD R
z G,
s.
,.: .....
G�03Ttt.mas Br Z a5-aaEs..... �
Exhibit B
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan 1-2
INTRODUCTION
Project Site
The 3.66 acre site is occupied by an aging single family residential dwelling, a
vacated swimming pool and several (approximately 4)wood and/or corrugated
metal structures. All of the structures are clustered north/central to the subject
property. The existing structures and facilities will be demolished under a separate
permit and the site will be cleared for the proposed residential development.
The topography of the site slopes from east to west and there are no significant
landforms on the site. Additional information related to site topography can be
found in Section I-H of this Specific Plan.
The site is bounded on the north, west and south by the Highlands Apartment
-' Complex. The east side of the property is bounded by Mount Vernon Ave. East of
Mount Vernon Ave. is an existing single family residential neighborhood. Please
see Exhibit C for photographs of site as it currently exists.
•43t 3�
K 3 .,,,���,���� •_''C �'.h•. rr°r- ��r N rxi9� 7 '���,,,U,."��,,,E%n T�,. ..�,¢wj, � mod+
,.r"+ � ttn y '► .�"+w�t'• . v6 'r r .,!L'k t
d.
t��
�' =`^'- �� l �.�r i o++ }t ts�3 ip t�yF•tt �� ei � r
aY �. tf rat { r rNt1'Jd 7
lrr•.�_ w'� tA' rt 9hr t traa• -ec y
(q
ti"'4at`ii
3 ) P
Exhibit C
.J
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan I 3
INTRODUCTION
J B. PARCEL SIZE
Parcel Size 3.66 Acres
J
C. ASSESSOR'S PARCELNUMBER(S)
APN 275-251-8. Please see Exhibit D below.
CpNbn C ty
Par.Grand Ter►ace:Tract,M8.11/4. TdaldnT at. 2Ts 25
N Por. Resub-of Grand Terrace Tract,R.5.1/33 20a9,1bapt,l60a4
_. I _ TL
a G .
OT
a v
td1, Op
`� W x • i eW o.
"n ;s
` o
!9d n
N
T-1 Ma 14264.M.8.242/r/-18
Tray No:1375%N.a221/62-65 Assessor6 Map
Hon-Aaaaaaor's 8!g 9 for Book 27 Pape 25 •''/'-�Q
FbW Aft NMI' i .n
PLE 90/634 Numbers Sbb in sirens San Bernardino county
Porcel Va➢N.5789,PM.6019T -
pY6 C 5:103. _.
Exhibit D
D. TOWNSHIP RANGE& SECTION
Township IS, Range 4W, Section 33.
E. EXISTING LAND USES (Onsite/ Surrounding)
The site is currently occupied by an aging residential structure and roughly four
shed type structures. The property is bound to the north, west and south by the
Highland apartment complex which consists of on grade, walk up apartment
structures, open and covered parking and driveways. Immediately to the east is
Mount Vernon Ave., and Canal St. is northwest of the site. Directly north of Canal
St. is the 215 Freeway with exit ramps at Barton Road south of the site and at
Washington St. north of the site.
,y-
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan I-4
INTRODUCTION
F. EXISTING/PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN(Onsite/ Surrounding)
In the Grand Terrace General Plan, two residential classifications are defined to
meet Plan Policies calling for a range of housing types: low density and medium
density. Low Density Residential (1 to 5 Units per Net Acre) are areas that have
either previously been developed or are proposed to be developed with traditional
single-family homes and/or duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on sufficiently sized
lots consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. This category could also
be used within sensitive hillside areas, where the clustering of units would create a
beneficial impact to the community while still remaining within the density
perimeters of 1 to 5 units per acre. All developments of 20 or more units are subject
to the Planned Unit Development/Specific Plan requirements specified within this
section.
Medium Density Residential (6-12 Units per Net Acre) applies to areas intended for
the development of multiple residential unit projects including townhomes,
condominiums and apartments at a density up to 12 units per acre. The maximum
density of 12 can be exceeded up to 25 percent(maximum 15 units per acre)if the
following findings can be made: 1)the approval of the project will achieve other
policies as detailed within the General Plan, which will benefit the community as a
whole (such as dedication and/or substantial participation in the development of
public facilities); and 2)the existing infrastructure, including the surrounding
roadway network, can adequately support the increased level of development.
Surrounding General Plan designations are"Medium Density Residential" for the
property to the north, west and south. East of Mount Vernon Ave. the General plan
designation is Low Density Residential.
G. EXISTING/PROPOSED ZONING(Onsite/ Surrounding)
Onsite Existing Zoning is R 3 Medium Density Residential, 12 DU/AC Maximum.
This district is intended for medium density multiple family development. The
minimum lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. with a maximum density of twelve-plus (12+)
dwelling units per gross acre. The minimum linear feet of an interior lot is 60 ft.,
and that of a comer lot is 70 ft. The minimum linear feet of the depth of the lot is
100 ft. with a minimum of 40 linear feet of street frontage. Living area for a single
family unit is 1,350 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 35 ft. The maximum percent
of lot coverage is 60%. The proposed Zoning is the same.
Surrounding Zoning designations are R-3 Medium Density Residential, 12 DU/AC
Maximum for the property to the north, west and south. East of Mount Vernon
Ave. the Zoning designation is R1-7.2 Low Density Residential, with a minimum
parcel size of 7,200 sq. ft. Please see Exhibit E on the following page for the
Zoning onsite and in the surrounding area.
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan I-5
INTRODUCTION
.1
' Site Boundary with Onsite and Surrounding Zoning
., �-ram ,ryh°•af�x =�-�y,t.��'
ITW
a
a a
m^b+i 1w64 J� +L�' ,yw yy'
� e ov
Zoning Legend
x ;
"P t t a • R1-7.2-Single Family
R2-1.ow Med.Density Residential
jtlg� ®R3-Medium Density Residential M
BRSP-General Commercial
ell° � � 94�E BRSP-V7 Wa a Commercial
AP-Administrative Professional ry �
M2 ustnal� Ind
Exhibit E
H. EXISTING TERRAIN
Geology
The soils on the subject property consists mainly of an upper layer of silt and fine
sand with clay, underlain by an older alluvium layer consisting of dense silty sand
with traces of gravel. Undocumented fill materials were encountered in portions of
the site likely as a result of past grading activities. Groundwater was not
encountered in the exploratory excavations. Refer to the"Preliminary Geotechnical
Evaluation" dated February 16, 2005 prepared by GeoTek, Inc. for detailed
information regarding geology, boring details and geotechnical recommendations.
-6
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan I
INTRODUCTION
Hydrology
The existing site slopes approximately 4.5% in a westerly direction with Mount
Vernon Ave. being at the high point of the property. The site falls nearly 25 ft.
from east to west and steps down in two areas creating three somewhat level pads.
There are substantial slopes throughout the perimeter of the property with the
\l steepest being along the southerly edge. The site currently accepts off-site water
from Mount Vernon Ave. via a catch basin which outlets onto the subject property.
The project site currently drains to the neighboring property to the south and west.
It should be noted that"block outs" in the existing block wall were built to allow
for drainage onto the above mentioned neighboring site. These openings have since
been removed forcing the water to remain on-site.
Biological Resources
The site has been previously disturbed;to the best of the applicant's knowledge,
there are no known significant biological resources on site.
Land Use
See Section I-E. EXISTING LAND USES (Onsite/ Surroundings).
w
r-
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan I-7
J
CHAPTER II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GREENBRIAR
SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. SITE USES
The residential development will be subject to development standards specified in
this Specific Plan. Where specific development standards have not been identified
in this Specific Plan, development will comply with applicable sections of the City
of Grand Terrace General Plan. Where this Specific Plan does detail standards or
regulations, however, its provisions will supersede any conflicting provisions of the
City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
The proposed residential community will consist of 35 single family residential
units with attached garage parking for residents and open parking for guests. Lot
sizes range from 2676 sq. ft. to 4341 sq. ft. The average lot size is 2941 sq. ft.
While not officially counted in the parking tabulation, it should be noted that the
site design also features driveways which are a minimum of 18 ft. deep and are
capable of providing additional guest parking for each home. The site is accessed
by a single, non-gated vehicular access point located at the southeast corner of the
property that provides vehicular access to Mount Vernon Ave. The internal street
- system is a 26 ft.-wide loop street that will provide ease of access to all of the
homes within the site. The internal street system is augmented with a 26 ft.-wide
paved Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)that provides a secondary access to
Mount Vernon Ave. at the northeast corner of the site. The EVA will be for
emergency use only, and will be gated and locked with a Knox Box device.
The site will also include a passive landscape statement adjacent to the entry, as
well as an active open space located central to the community. With its moderate
density(10 DU/AC), this new residential neighborhood will act as a transitional
i
element between the existing single-family community on the east side of Mount
Vernon Ave. and the Highland Apartments to the west. In addition, the Greenbriar
community will replace an aging and poorly maintained element in the
neighborhood with an attractive, vibrant neighborhood that will complement the
otherwise positive fabric of the community at large (See Section I-A. LOCATION
& SETTING for a description of the site in its current form).Please see Exhibit F for
site-use designation.
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan H-1
I�
�J Existing Residential
Site Summary: I
' Total Homes 35
Net Acres ±3.7
T_Net Density ±9.4 homes/acre
Parking 88 —
I,
/ .f ° s Pm i ncyv nw>arsf
Covered Parking 70(2 per home)
Head-in Parking 18 isle" O
x'�� c� t I, a► Fading
CD
I ir'r.�.' z,*-p', � i,• A^, _ t r rr.,.: i�� '1 it -_� ��C „%� I I,:, ,r;
Existing Residential 4 �' •HI
Main Entry
t.
'�'.,... ... •. _ ,. ., .� ryJ� �$ NORTH
• Existing Residential
Br�SSFNIAN
THEE
GROUP Seale:V-2a.-0" --
City of Grand Terrace, California
I
Exhibit F—Site Use Designation
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
B. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
The project consists of(2)floor plans and (3) elevation styles per floor plan.
Both floor plans employ a 2-car garage and (2) stories. In addition, the program of
each plan includes living and dining rooms,kitchen, and bedrooms on the second floor.
The architecture of the project utilizes a concept called the"Pocket Lot." The floor
plan focuses on the private outdoor space. This space is created by eroding a comer
of a typical single-family home, creating a notch at the rear of the plan. Living and
eating spaces orient towards this"pocket" and create a living arrangement that
enhances the connection between indoor space and private outdoor space. The
pocket also provides an abundance of light into the living spaces. Privacy,both
indoors as well as outdoors, is maintained using the zero-lot line principle. This
principle eliminates the typical side-yard fence that creates two side yards. The
boundary shifts to the neighbor's wall, creating a wider side yard. This activates
the side yard. The windows on the neighbor's wall do not orient to a view out into
one's backyard—either a high clerestory window or an opaque glass, thereby
maintaining one's privacy.
Elevation styles incorporate architectural elements from early 2&Century
California Spanish bungalows. The architectural massing gives relief to the street
scene. Single story edges are oriented to the front of the house. Front-to-back roof
framing lowers the perceived height of the homes. Low-pitched roofs and barrel-
shaped roof tile accent the Spanish character. Stucco walls provide a modern
interpretation of the plaster walls typical of the older Spanish bungalow style.
Window shapes and sizes provide a street friendly presence to the home. Decorative
wrought iron and shutters accent the home. Colors are subdued but highlight the
essence of the style.
The interpretive nature of the elevation styles reflect the nature of American
architecture—an evolving process of fusing modern ways of living(prevalent in the
floor plan design)with remnants of the past and its nostalgia(found in the
borrowing of early California architectural elements.) The architecture of the
homes provides a pleasant scale and presence to the overall site and will fit within
the overall place. Please see Exhibits G1 and G2 for examples of the project's
architectural style.
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan H-2
l r .t.,
_
r.
i
y
1
Von—
Plan 2A Plan I B Plan 2C
i
c ! 9
Seale l/4•�1'-e• �l�N
THEE
W
IA�ll
' Greenbriar
CLCY a...rand:a_racc.Ce:iEexnle !]yQmle
'1 10.1e-0!
Exhibit GI—Elevations 1
s
�l
F
J�3,.v.ytl�;;� 7`_ s..: •!^ 4,c �?{sir:. n _ - ���a`yr -�;="..-w�" _'_'r,F,- :4 �T-h'�r "i�_�' .?�;/i �
r }
L
Plan 1 A Plan 2B Plan 1 C
C 4 9
Leccm
THEE
_LR6u� Green6riar
city o=G—:rot-ac,C.Uf i, wW o— 5nowte
to-tsos
Exhibit G2-Elevations 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
C. SQUARE FOOTAGE
The square footage of Plan IA, 1B, and 1C is 1,658 sq. ft. The square footage of
Plan 2A, 2B, and 2C is 1,771 sq. ft. Please see Exhibits H1 and H2 for floor plans.
D. PARKING
There are a total of 88 parking spaces provided on this site: 70 spaces are covered
and 18 spaces are allocated for visitor parking(9 ft. x18 ft.). Please see Exhibit I
for parking designation.
E. SETBACKS
Front: 10 ft. minimum(except for two of the corner lots—one corner lot has a 5 ft.
setback), Side: 8 ft. minimum, and Rear: 5 ft. minimum. Please see Exhibit I for
civil site plan showing setbacks.
F. ACCESS
The site is designed to meet all fire access requirements. The private drive
maintains a 26 ft. unobstructed width and a turning radius of 45 ft. All dead-end
streets and driveways are within 150 ft. in length which is required for emergency
vehicles. The site is designed to satisfy all ADA requirements. Please see Exhibit I
for site plan showing access.
==1
G. GRADING
The proposed site will be graded to drain from east to west at an average grade of
5.0%. East to west fall will be approximately 20 ft. with the easterly edge of the
site having a high point of 1,087.50 ft. (roughly level with Mount Vernon Ave.) and
the lowest pad on the west end of the site being 1,065.40 ft. Retaining walls will be
used on nearly all of the south, west and northern boundaries of the site. Retaining
walls will not be needed or used on the easterly(Mount Vernon Ave.) edge of the
property. The maximum retaining wall is 10.5 ft. in height and occurs along the
southeasterly edge of the site, however the majority of the site will incorporate
retaining walls ranging from approximately 3 ft. to 6.5 ft. in height. Grading for the
proposed site will generate approximately 25,000 CY of soil export. Storm water
will be collected via an underground storm drain system and outlet through the
retaining wall near the southwest corner of the site. Additional detail for the
proposed storm water plan can be found in section III-D. DRAINAGE of this
Specific Plan. Please see Exhibit J for the Conceptual Grading Plan.
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan U-3
4'd 4'd
BFDRM 2
LWING,
B. 2
PDB
DINING
Gi%RAGH
1,
bf.BBDRI! I of I
—2--
LAU BED
M BATHO oo oc)
F
li
Plan 1
1, 801 SF
0 4
S-1,1/4'-1-0' BASSEMM
UccH
�Bo
u-p briar
Green
City If G111d Torrace, ILf...i.
Exhibit M—Floor Plan 1
)
)
)
t,.
} A A
........ ... ...... .. .. ... .. �. c
... ................. ............
.........-.......
u r /u
r.
-
�.
;po: i-
> REAR FROI-rr
37
r-rr- r- ---,,-,-- -
LEFT RIGHT
—A.—Looc[e[e-b-Sile-Ibof--
_
Plan C. EtPoaed 4Ltaz 7a11a
n. xood Faacie
E. vood YotaAol[
"A" Elevations F.G. Mood Coluen
N. ft Co[Irol
S. 9[eeeo a/Foam Tr1m
T. Geco[ntiva S-TLI LS°AC
A. Caco[a[!vo S-Tilo I—k.1ora
L. Atti,elv!GaClo Wtlaoke[a
N. Attic Ylnt
o . Y
�..�
Seel!1/4-_1'-0-
-`J THE
6reen6riar = 16
__— City of G[and T..-...Califo[nia
)� Exhibit H1-1 Elevations
gy-
REAR FRONT
H
— - --•---.......... --.......
--•-•- - ------ \ 1
0'
-- LEFT -- - - ------- RIGHT Yeceriale Legend
A. Conn[etn s-T110 Hoof
H, stunro
P 1 an 1 - ----- --------- - -- ----- -p�.��aLe[-fe1la-
"B" Elevations F. YoodiheLLe[a
G. YooC ColYnn
) H. YooC Co[hel
i. G[nxo O/TOan Trtn
- ,l. Gern[aLlva Coech Ligtt
R. Ucco[etiro 5-Silo tlotleoke[n
1 L. ve Geble Outlooke[s
AUi,V,
M. Attic Vent
B 4 B
Sole 1/4•-1•-e•
TH E l/
> CCH
'¢�11kour Green6riar
City of G[en6 Se[reee,Ce111omla
Exhibit Hl-2 Elevations
-
L
.7
'Fagg In
i
REAR FRONT
1
I
1
_....
........ ......
1 _
lei A A 7 l
=owl
LEFT RIGHT NaceTiele LeVenC
e.. Coneroto S-Silo Reof
e. ECD[cm
Plan 1 C. E[poe Hnfcar Tells
F.
D. Yood Pee°10
� E. Y000d Po[vYelL
"C" Elevations F- od5!°"°°°
G- NooC Column
7 H- Nood Cmt0e1
I. S[uroD o/Foem T[Sm
• S- De[0[etivo S-Till
LG1tl
1 N. Dero[ettvo tW,11e Guelroto[e
/ L. Deno[e[Sve GODIa Outloole[e
M. 0[tio Vent
D e S
T. Scale 1/e--1•-0- aASSU-3/1N
GROUP Green6riar
City of GtIM Se[[ero,Cellfomle
Exhibit H1-3 Elevations
7
7 ,
�•a• �•a n•d s•a
i
^ I O HHDRM z
M HAM
O I DININGY
T
aARAGe §
e z
PAMaY yt
y/
.'!I
�LL
LAV OPT-BD.4 HEDRM 3 LIVING
rr a s' Vim✓
OPTIONAL BEDRM 4 I I §
HeDRM 4 HeDRM 3 .
Plan 2
1, 828 s. f.
1,963 s.f, w/ Opt. Bedrm. 9
)
yo �a e�
sr.ie Sir 8'\S'i7•DIVJ
GROUT' Green rear
...¢e._ City of Gm1d Ser"ce,Geiifornie - -
Exhibit H2—Floor Plan 2
)
I
)
) t
)
)
) L
F
— w ,
REAR FRONT G
)
At
i
)
)
1 M
)
i
)
LEFT RIGHT nateriala mgena
A. Concrete S-Till Aoof -
c.
Plan 2 5t°stte
-v u Aafcer xaa
e. W—d FotaheIt
"B" Elevations F.G. N°od5^°°°°°°
M°°a Cal—
N. Nood C°rbel
J I. SNcco o/Foao Trim
J, b costive Coach Light
K. °eecratiw 5-Tile OVtlookers
L. Oee—till Cable 01tlo°kera
.} n. Attie Vent
n a s
j seal°1 a•-l•-o• 81i47�A/1t•1
LACCN-
Green6riar
City of Grant Terrace•Ca1it°tnia '����� m•�16
_ 4LWf
Exhibit H2-1 Elevations
3
_
I
I '
I .
I
I -
I
I ....... ... ........... ..... ... .._.. �... � _ter• - -
a
-[Al
NJ
REAR FRONT
A.
3 _ oil
I
LEFT RIGHT narerl.la legeaa
low
'' �'\ A. Concrete 5-xlle Roof
Plan 2 ) D. 5tatta
a e[pa..a Rafce[xaua
D. Kooa yaaela
e. Kooa poc.nolr
"C" Elevations
K. Kooa eomei
I. Stue<o o/foam x[!m
J. Deco[e[iVe COaeb Ligb[
K. Decorative 9-xile Ouclooke[a
L. Decorative Gable Guclovkere
- el. AC[le Ven[
o / a
' Scala 1/�•-1•-D• I��n,
'� THEE UC'ad
10 rY:3 s
• GROUP Green6rlar
r cj Clty of G[.aa T-11,California
) p t2d1
3 Exhibit H2-2 Elevations
3
1
)
)0
-'
—W. 111. T
V11 'NOR 3,—
- - - - -
j w
e
eE
)
REAR FRONT 3
)
)
) N
j LEFT RIGHT xaee[lale Legead
A. Concroto 6-Tllo Aoof
1 B. Stucco
J\ Plan 2 C. YRaaed A.[tar T.iln
.! b. ood Feeele'
¢. Vood PoceAelf
> "A" Elevations F. R..dSbY11—W.G. Coluien
N. W. Coobel
I. Stucco /Foam Ttl.
Light
S. DC_tive Ceaen
R. v[to[._.-Tlle OV[]ooko[a
L. able 0uclookc[e
) N. A Atto[etive Gttie Veat
Stile 1' S•
�Ro�r Green6riar ="=
__— l32pf016
• city Of Grand Ter[aa.Calliornie aM� <13R
� Exhibit H2-3 Elevations
it I
li
t
\, \ _ � r. ^moo �:i �" ���:•{ I ' I
.--
I
VE
------------
;
EASEMENTS: ZONING INFORMATION: BUIU7INC SET BACKS: LEGEND:
SITE SUMMARY: °^'� sa
mid° .�iw dam° �•ry. moor•��,� Cm;;— — — xis
wo ss ®.^' ----
COVFHOPAWHOIP CAR GAME P1aUl1p 70
GOUT PAWNG 18 :mm °10e`
fOTAFOPFNSPAO: 7,160 fi :nq•°"'
"''�+�ryc�u xo"w mm swm rn u.m L n�'w{♦'o�e�'�^i¢ci'i'u.un�.ewa o�nw ucn�mo.
7
� ou,m���I¢u mnm mtt auoum,ry ism G4ffid/J`1
°tregm Ouwm °"°m-i u. .ism nmv r.mrta.n.mmn.,r.
IWA FUSCOE
THE j mom,.® Conceptual Site Plan
GROUP' GROUP ' --•—•—
Green6riar
Exhibit I—Parking,Setbacks and Access
3
l
S
-'�` ` 14.
-
\\� r�,
mac.. ;� 2�.. q• �'� ✓"% '''.>�q,,, � e =i$ 1''e^ri I - �3 is
� l \ ,,•i 4 a `..' .z J a }1 � ` =III
.�N89-i6'16"NI 151.57'
fur
InUl "-
% '��• u' � � � � / � / _
It
'\.
' t{4 � V A �� ��. � mnuu�•e. � '`� '� � lc73
—
!'
569.10'td.
i
Gt
:----------------
-------------
ac�m ,a
p,f�....o.,�.R�,.�..a,.ooa.,,ago.,.�u.a...�.. ����';•yy�9��� - n,�wnN
FUSCOE
THE CONCE.PTUALGKADING PLAN
GROUP
o ��•���� Cjreen6riar
Exhibit J—Conceptual Grading Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
H. LANDSCAPING
The landscaping concept is to create an aesthetically pleasing residential
environment that combines dramatic foliage and seasonal color with low maintenance
and drought tolerance. The plant palette consists of a complimentary variety of
trees, shrubs and groundcover that provide year-long color and textural contrasts.
These plants have proven to have a strong performance rate in the San Bernardino
County region and, in addition, have low maintenance and irrigation needs.
Purple Leaf Plum trees at the main entrance make a strong statement with their
dramatic foliage color, beautiful form, and profusion of pink blossoms. With its
tolerance of varying conditions and watering regimes, the Chinese Pi
well works
well as a lawn tree. Its height range will keep it in scale with the two-story homes.
This tree has luminous orange and red foliage in the fall. The picturesque Chilean
Mesquite tree makes a dramatic contrast with its open canopy and year-round deep
green foliage. The Crepe Myrtle is a human-scaled showy tree and designates the
head-in parking areas. An open space area located central to the site consists of a
walk,bench, trashcan, and turf. This passive open space has various trees, shrubs,
and groundcovers that provide visual interest, fragrance, and spatial structure while
complimenting the lines of the architecture. Below is the proposed plant palette for
Greenbriar. Please see Exhibit K for the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
PLANT PALETTE
Botanical Name Common Name Botanical Name Common Name
Trees Shrubs
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle Bougainvillea`Rosenka' Bougainvillea
= Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Cistus x`Purpurea' Orchid Rock Rose
Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite Dodonaea viscosa
Primus ceracifera `Purpurea'
`Atropurpurea' Purple Leaf Plum Hemerocallis hybrids Daylily
Groundeovers Leucophyllum frutescens Texas Ranger
Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-Summer Leymus condensatus
' Gazania hybrids Clumping Gazania `Canyon Prince' Lyme Grass
Hedera helix`Baltica' English Ivy Phormium hybrids
Lantana montevidensis Trailing Lantana New Zealand Flax `Maori Queen'
Lonicera japonica Phormium tenax
`Halliana' Japanese Honeysuckle `Bronze Baby' Dwarf New Zealand Flax
Myoporum parvifolium NCN Photinia x frazeri Red Tip Photinia
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium Pittosporum crassifolium
Stachys bizantina Lamb's Ears Compactum' Dwarf Karo
Trachelospermum Pittosporum
jasminoides Star Jasmine `Wheeler's Dwarf Dwarf Tobira
Annual Color To be selected by L.A. Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn
-- Marathon He Fescue Rosa`Iceberg' White Shrub Rose
Strelizia regime Bird-of-Paradise
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan II-4
0
do
�i %K= - D
,� u; 1111 � rryy
Apr .®l
'R ,-r�j�lr ��e���.���'�'����✓ws��,:r��,�,'� �at^_�,j'm�'�34' ���`�Vi}'.���� � '?.: �_ �r ' O�CIr
AR�Nn
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
-' I. WALLS &FENCING
Approximate retaining grades are shown on the Conceptual Grading Plan for
reference. The maximum retaining height is 10.5 ft. along the southeasterly portion
of the property line. Please see Exhibit J for preliminary wall locations. The
residential fencing located throughout the community will be a 5 ft.-10 in. painted
wood fence with gates. The main entry and Mount Vernon Ave. exposure will have
enhanced pilasters which will enhance the entry and communicate the theme and
character of the community.
J. SIGNAGE
Per signage will consist of small monument sign at the main entry.
Temporary marketing billboard signage will be erected at the corners of the
property along Mount Vernon Ave. Temporary pennant flags will be erected along
Mount Vernon Ave. during the marketing window. Temporary billboard signage
and flags will be removed upon sell-out of the community.
K. PHASING
\ The proposed construction phasing for this project will consist of 3 phases
comprised of 12 homes in Phases 1 and 2, and 11 homes in Phase 3. The first phase
Will consist of 12 homes located along the eastern edge wrapping north and west
from the Mount Vernon Ave. project entry. The second phase will consist of 12
homes continuing along the northern edge of the site. The third phase will consist of
the remaining 11 homes on the southern boundary of the proposed community. By
_ phasing the construction as described, the community will be accessible via the
EVA at the completion of Phase 1 providing an added level of safety during the
construction process. Furthermore, by phasing the construction as described and
shown in Exhibit L, the impact of construction traffic on the residents of the earlier
phases will be minimized.
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan II-5
IXI \2—
=r =r
m m m
CD CD (D
CA) M
X X x
0 0 0
.j
'71
0
IN
..'T' w ke-
1 '66 ..........
Mr.VERNON
rA
(IQ
S
CHAPTER III
INFRASTRUCTURE
GREENBRIAR
SPECIFIC PLAN
INFRASTRUCTURE
A. WATER SERVICE
The proposed site will be serviced by an 8 in. public water line that will tie in to
Mount Vernon Ave. in two locations. This water line will provide service to the
proposed fire hydrants, landscape irrigation meters and domestic water service to
the units. Refer to the Conceptual Utility Plan(Exhibit M)for proposed location of
on-site water.
B. SEWER SERVICE
The proposed site will be serviced by an 8 in. Main Sanitary Sewer line as reflected
in the Conceptual Utility Plan(Exhibit M). The existing sewer line in Mount
Vernon Ave. is located at the high point of this project, making tie-in difficult and
costly by requiring a pump or lift station. As mentioned in Section II-G.
GRADING, the site falls away from Mount Vernon Ave. For these reasons, the
proposed downstream sewer connection will be routed through the apartment site to
the west and tied into their existing private sewer system,ultimately draining into
the Canal St. public sewer system. The proposed design will require approximately
400 ft. of new 8 in. sewer main and upsizing approximately 115 ft. of existing 6 in.
sewer to 8 in. sewer as well as an easement and maintenance agreement from the
neighboring property owner.
C. DRY UTILITIES
Electricity
Southern California Edison (287 Tennessee St., Redlands, CA 92373)
The proposed site will be served from an existing overhead system on the south side
of Mount Vernon Ave. Points of connection cannot be determined at this time.
Gas
Southern California Gas Company (1981 Lugonia Ave., Redlands, Ca 92373)
Gas service to the project will be provided from an existing main on Mount
Vernon Ave.
Telephone
SBC (3073 Adams St., Riverside, CA 92504)
The proposed site will be served from an existing overhead system on the south side
of Mount Vernon Ave. Points of connection cannot be determined at this time.
' Cable
Adelphia (1500 S. Auto Center Dr., Ontario, CA 91761)
The proposed site will be served from an existing overhead system on the south side
of Mount Vernon Av. Points of connection cannot be determined at this time.
J
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan III-1
)
)
...........
- --____-_-
~l _—�—.� ,� m
ILU
ED
I
, I
I — ,
I i H
• ', ' IIIIII. I�
10 ; .IAH G
I �;
Y L
--------------
W ..,ro� w ® / Aacn
— --------- —J•L 2.=J L _ J•L —�v-•¢— —
a'fo
N��• ____ rs I°n _ _� i I i I �r-
W'
.Z—.a \\••;, �� I I' l I I I I I I I' I I \ i 1 � I.,_ I �t..,
LU
I ' I
('�• ( firolo'
_,�' -H�
_ I l I
I
I•
v - ------- _ -- ---- ---
------------------- _----_-_-_--_-_-- _-_ _--
'/�".dui •. � .., T' 1 .� � IIII� � II S I�. . I I IWII I I� �
EASEMENTS: LEGEND:
m mm�m'�rw nv..aran of �L
_____ Conceptual utility Plan ►!6'FUSCOE
u
GROUP Green6riar
jW.,.... — CtooFG—JT—CAu-� -.
Exhibit M—Conceptual Utility Plan
_ _- _
INFRASTRUCTURE
D. DRAINAGE
The proposed site will drain from east to west at an average grade of 5.0%. The
storm water will be collected via an underground storm drain system that will
collect the surface runoff, roof drains and the off-site water currently being
accepted onto the subject property form Mount Vernon Ave. The storm water will
exit the site via an outlet through the retaining wall onto the neighboring apartment
site to the west. The stormdrain system will transition to a parkway culvert at the
wall and outlet through the curb face of the adjacent property. A valley gutter will
need to be constructed and tied into the existing valley gutter system in order to
better integrate the drainage with the existing surface drainage system.
The project site will generate an additional flow due to the addition of non-pervious
materials. This additional flow will be detained on site in an underground detention
system underneath the pocket park so as to avoid any impact to the downstream
drainage system.
The proposed structural BMP to treat the site water will be a stormfilter or
equivalent that will be employed to comply with the City's Stomwater Ordinance as
part of the NPDES requirements. This BMP will be designed to treat the"first
flush" in a storm event as well as nuisance water from irrigation, etc. Refer to the
Conceptual Grading Plan(Exhibit J) for additional information.
E. TRAFFIC CONTROL
Based on the relatively small size of the community(35 homes) and its proximity
to other street and drive intersections with Mount Vernon Ave., no traffic
improvements, signals, or re-stripping are proposed as part of this plan.
F. COSTS
All infrastructure improvements will be constructed utilizing private development
funds. No portion of these costs will be funded using City funds.
The Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan 2
CHAPTER IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GREENBRIAR
SPECIFIC PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
Greystone Group, Inc.
341 Bayside Drive, Suite 7
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-566-9230
B. PROJECT TEAM
Greystone Multi-Family Builders
341 Bayside Drive, Suite 7
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-566-6261
David B. McMahan
Project Manager
Bassenian Lagoni Architects
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-553-9100
Albern Yolo
Designer
Edwin S. Balquiedra
Planner
Urban Arena LLC
4611 Teller Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
949-221-8200
Eric Viado, ASLA
�- Project Manager
Michael Schrock, ASLA
Principal
Fuscoe Engineering
16795 Von Kartnan, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92606
949-474-1960
Oriana Slasor, P.E.
Project Manager
C. LOCAL AGENCY
City of Grand Terrace
Grand Terrace City Hall
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace 92313-5295
VI-1 Greenbriar Draft Specific Plan
�trt7t�.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Document Type: Negative Declaration(Mitigated)
Data: November 22,2005 c
Project Title: SP4"2,V M44"3,SA-05-19,SA-05-24 and E-05-21
Project Location: 11830 ML Vernon Avenue (An appro)dmately 3.7 acre parcel looted on"
westerly side of ML Vernon Avenue about 750 feet southerly of the
intersection of MtL Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street)
■ Description of Project:The proposed project will be made up of 35 condominium units to be sold
to individual home buyers. The project will consist of two-story single-family residential units with
three and four bedrooms. It will be developed as a condominium type of subdivision. A vesting
tentative tract(VTTM-05-03,County No. 17768)has been flied for this development as It is a
_ condominium project. Sp-05-02 has been filed as a Specific Plan for this project detailing the
architectural style,parking,setbacks,access,landscaping,walls and fencing details/standards for
the development There will be two models,a Plan 1 of about 1,668 sq.ft.and a Plan 2 of about
1,771 sq.ft. SA-05-19 and S4-05-24 have been filed for each model.
Project Proponent: The Greystone Group,Inc.and Sequoia Equities
Lead Agency: Community Development Department,City of Grand Terrace
Contact Person: Gary L.Koontz, Community Development Director
(909)430-2247
Public Review Period: Began:November 22,2005 Ended:April 27, 2006
Public Hearings/Meetings: Planning Commission—Thursday,December 12,2005 and City
Council on Thursday,January 26,2006,Thursday,March 9,2006,
Thursday,April 13,2006 and Thursday,April 27,2006
Environmental Finding:
Based on an Initial Study,attached hereto,prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental Impacts of approving SP-05-02,VTTM-05-03,SA-05-19,SA-M24 and
E-W21,the said project quaiifles 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: eam, Z
Gary L.r4ontz,Comraiffnity Development Director
«\Myr,rw\roBMareyswne\neganvtonSP.oa.oz EXHIBIT B
City of Grand Terrace
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan No. 05-02, Site and Architectural Review Case
No.'s 05-19 and 05-24, Tentative Tract No. 05-03 and
Environmental Review Case No.05-21
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: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel
located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750
feet southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and
Brentwood Street.)
5. Project Sponsor's Name The Greystone Group,Inc.and Sequoia Equities
6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning: "R3"(Medium Density Residential)
C
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 be made up of 35 condominium units to be sold to individual home buyers. It will consist of
two-story single-family residential units with three and four bedrooms. The project will be developed as a
condominium typ ofsubdivision. A tentative tract(TTM-05-03,CountyNo.17766)has been filed as a Specific
Plan for this project detailing the architectural style,parking,setbacks,access,landscaping,walls and fencing
details/standards for the development. There will be two models,a Plan 1 of about 1,658 sq.ft.and a Plan 2
of about 1,771 sq.ft. SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 have been filed for each model.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: The Highlands Apartment Complex, Zoned R3
East: Single family homes, Zoned R1-7.2
South: The Highland Apartment Complex,private school,and convalescent home,Zoned R3 and AP
West: The Highland Apartment Complex,Zoned R3
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement)
City of Grand Terrace Department ofBuilding and Safety—building and grading permits;County ofSan
Bernardino Fire Department—plan check requirements;Riverside Highland Water Company for water
connection and service; and City of Grand Terrace Public Works for sewer connection.
Community Development Department 1 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would bepotentially affected by this project,involving at least one
is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. unpact that
❑Land Use and Planning arming ❑ T
❑ Population and �Po�tion/Circulation ❑ Public Services.
g ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Services Systems
❑Geological Problems
❑Water O Hem Mineral Resources ❑Aesthetics
❑Air Q�ri ❑Noise ❑Cultural Resources
C ❑Recreation
Determination: ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 enviro DECLARATION will be prepared, nment,and a NEGATIVE
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation meaurs described on an attached environment
ha bthere e n added
to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
not be
I find that the.proposed project MAY have a significantPrePd.
ENVIRONMENTAL effect on the environment; and an
"ACT REPORT is required,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environmen
1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document to applicable legal standards, d but at least one effect
2)has
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets ifth�ffec end
"Potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless Mitigated.
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze onlythe effects that re ENVIRONMENTAL
amain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
be significant effect in this case because all potential) si effect on the environment,there WILL NOT
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and y gnificant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately
(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
I
ure
Date
Gat' L. Koontz C ommuni Develo meet
Printed Name Title Director
Community Development Department 2
Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
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
-ra) Conflict
Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
se and Planning. Would the proposal:with general nlandesignation or zonins?rce: General Plan Categories Map; and Zoning ❑ ❑
District Map—This will mitigated by the filing of a
Specific Plan which will act as the Zoning for this site.)
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 existine land use in the vicinity?
(Zoning District Map,Zoning Regulations, City Zoning ❑
Code) ❑ ■ ❑
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 Grand Terrace)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community
minority community)?(The site isi
including a income relatively ❑ ❑ ❑
vely small
and ■
is,vacant. It will not divide any portion of the
community.)
A brief explanation to answer I:
The proposed is inconsistent with some development standards of the existing R3 zoning of the site;therefore,a Specific Plan
has been filed which will act as the new zoning for the site with new development standards. The Specific Plan will have
written to conform to the requirements of State Law. The project with its modified development standards could be
incompatible with nearby single family development but the potential impact will be less than significantto be
proposed landscaping and architectural desi In addition,there are no agricultural resources
because of the
the cow n' Grand Terrace and no part of
community will be disrupted by this project.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure. If approved,
the Specific Plan will eliminate the conflicts with the existing R3 Zoning of the site.
Community Development Department 4
Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
_sues(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 consistent ❑ ❑ ❑ _�
with the City's General Plan and the number of units
proposed is about 80%of the maximum density
allowed in the existing R3 Zone.)
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 is
an"infill"type project;the number of unit proposed
will not necessitate any expansion of services.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ Ji
housing? (The property is presently occupied by an old
single family residence which is substandard and need
of renovation.)
brief explanation to answer IT:
The proposed project is relatively small in size. The zoning of this site has been R3 for a number of years. The proposed
project is only about 80%of the maximum allowed by the existing R3 zoning. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan and will not exceed population projections for the City. It will also not induce growth because of its relative small size.
In addition,the property is occupied by a substandard residence which will be replaced by the new development.
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 NMA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑
II-1)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ _'
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
B)
__h) Expansive soil? (GP MEA/EIR H-1,Append B-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ __
Unique geologic or physical features? (GP 1VIEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑
II-1)
Community Development Department 5 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources):
i Potentially Potentially
Significant Si nifica Less than No
Impact g Significant imps,
P Unless Impact
Mitigation
A brief explanation to answer III; Incorporated
No active or potentially active fault traces cross the site. The only known potential geologic hazard to
ground shaking which is not unusual for any site in Southern California. This and an othergeologic
by the requirements that all residential structures shall t designed and constructed to meet the se' the site is iiom seismic
Uniform Building Code. Also a y hazard will be mitigated
ort will be required before the issuance of a grading Permit
o standards of the
this project for the construction f re dances.
g permit or building permits for
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure.
This requirements that all residential structures be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the��o et the
Building Code.
rm
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 It
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ -
9 ty(e.g., temperature, dissolved 'L 7i
oxygen or turbidity)?(GP MEA/EIR II-1) -
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (GP MEA/EIR I,_,) ❑ ❑ ❑
e Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
movements? O water
❑ ❑ ❑ i
fl Changes in the quality of ground waters, either through ❑direct additions or withdrawals,or through ❑ ❑
Of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through interception
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
(GP MEA/EIR 11-1)
9) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Gp ❑
MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? - -J
and 97 Regional WCA Report) I II"1, ❑ ❑
n Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
Otherwise available for public water supplies? (GP
❑ ❑ ❑
MEA/EIR II 1) -
t
Community Development Department 6
Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
1 Potentially Potentially Less than No
ues(and Support Information Sources): Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
A brief explanation to answer IV:
The proposed project is to construct 35 single family residential units. There will be some increase in impermeable surface
area;however,the existing storm drain system in the area will be handle the additional runoff. The submitted hydrology has
indicated the amount of run-off from this project. In addition,before grading permits are issued for this project all NPDES
requirements will have to be met which should ensure that many of the impact to water resources will be eliminated. These _
requirements have been set out in the required"Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan." Also,all water for the use of this(
project will be provide by the local water provider,the Riverside Highland Water Company.
V. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation? (GP
M EA/EIR H-14, and AQMP)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The Element ❑ ❑ ❑
contains an implementing action to reduce such
exposure)
�) 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. With only 35 units it 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.
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 7 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources):
Potentiall
Y Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant im
Impact Unless Impact par
Mitigation
VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result : Incorporated
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) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑
alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, ❑ ■
bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147)
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts?() ❑
Brief explanation to answer VI: ❑ ❑ ■
The proposed project is to has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. He concluded
relatively small size that a traffic study would not be required even thou that because of its
which will not be significant. In addition,he stated:'The project will hav no significant is some slight increase n trade
adjacent streets and intersections." The export of 25,000 cubic yards of earth i;�cant traffic impacts on the
proposed haul route be reviewed and approved by the Co will mitigated by requiring that the
effects on the neighborhood. Community Development Director to minimize the potential
Community Development Department g
Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Ask
ssues(and support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered,threatened, or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to ❑ ❑ ❑ -'
plants, fish,insects, animals, and birds)? (GP
m EA/EIR II-20,Append C)
b) Locally designated species (e.g.,heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ __,
trees)? (GP MEVEIR II-20)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ __
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (GP ❑
MEVEIR II-20)
d) Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian, and ❑ ❑ ❑
vernal pool)? ( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑
(GP NIEA/EIR H-20) ~'
Brief explanation to answer VII:
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 from the development
of this project.
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plans? (GP MEVEIR
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
MEVEIR H-19, and Append B)
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 p
Mitigation
Brief explanation to answer VM: Incorporated
No mineral resources have been identified in the City. Therefore the development of the proposed 35 residential units will
not adversely impact any mineral resources. In addition,the project will have to be constructed in compliance with the
energy standards of the building code.
1EX 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
1I 13)
c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑
(r potential health hazard? (GP
MEA/EIR 11 1)
d) Exposure ofpeople to existing ❑ ❑
sources ofpotential health hazards? ❑
(GP MEA/EIR II_1)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑
flammable brush,grass, or trees?
(GP MEA/EIR 11-6)
Brief explanation to answer IX:
There are no]mown hazards on the site or the immediate surrounding area including areas of flammable brush. In
addition,this is a residential project with no storage of hazardous materials other than what would normally be found in a
residential setting;however,such storage will not be significant.
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
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) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Brief explanation to answer X.
There will be some increase in ambient noise.level simply from having 35 new homes on the site
which is presently vacant except for one older residence;however,this increase will not be
significant. In addition,the site is located just west of Mt. Vernon Avenue which has been identified
in the City's Noise Element as an existing and future noise generator. However,this will be mitigate
by the conditioning that this project conform to the requirement of the Building Code for interior
noise insulation for any structures impacted by noise from Mt. Vernon.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measures. This development will be
-' conditioned to comply with all requirements of the Building Code for interior noise insulation if required. The noise -
associated with the export of 25,000 cubic yards of earth will be minimized by the City's Noise Ordinance which restric(
such activities between 7:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m.
M. 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 35 single family residential units is relatively small in size. As for any residential project 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 impact fee for this project before building permits
are issued.
I
Community Development Department 11 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources):
Potentially Potentiall
Significant y Less than No
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 as?
g (GP
MEA/EIR H-32,II 33) ❑
b) Communications systems? (GP ❑ ■ ❑
MEA/EIR II 33)
c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
distribution facilities?(GP ❑
MEA/E1R H-30) ❑ ■ ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP
MEA/EIR lI 30) ❑
e) Storm water drainage? (GP ❑ ■ ❑
MEA/EIR I33) ❑
fl Solid waste disposal? (GP ❑ ■ ❑
NMA/EIR II 32) ❑
-' g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ■ ❑
(GP MEA/EIR II-30) ❑ ❑ ■
Brief explanation of answer XH. ❑
This proposed project for 35 single family homes is relatively small in size. As for any residential project there will
some effect on utility services but because of the size of the project all of these effects will be less than si be
addition,no individual utility has identified any problems in being unable to service this project, gmficant.In
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (GP MEA/EIR II-22) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑
aesthetic effect? (Proposed site plan ❑ ■ ❑
and project elevations )
c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Brief explanation to answer 7UII.
The proposed project does not lie near scenic
impacts will be mitigated by the conditions of th highway o ect sucll block scenic vistas. In h as the regulation of the archit addition,
j Potential aesthetic
requirement for a landscaping plan. sign and the
Community Development Department 12
Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
-_tsues(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 11-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
(GP MEA/EIR 11-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Affect historical resources? (GP
MEA/EIR 11-22) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
unique ethnic cultural values? (GP
NEVER 11-22)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
area? ( )
/ - Brief explanation to answer X N.'
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
NEVER U-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 35 units are involved such effects will be less than significant. In addition,there will on-site recreational facilities
which will mitigate the demand for public recreation facilities.
Community Development Department 13 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources):
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant No 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
Cenvironment, 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-tern, 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 14
Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
,*sues(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 35 units. Any effects on the environment resulting from this
project will either be less than significant or will be fully mitigated by the regulations of the submitted Specific Plan or the
required permits such as the building and grading permits.
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 w
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 jl
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:1MyFilesUGHNIKargerlKarger2-5-051E-04-01
Community Development Department 15 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis