2007-18 RESOLUTION NO. 07 =18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH 2O06121063), AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PLAN
WHEREAS, The Blue Mountain Senior Villas would result in the construction and occupation
of a residential development on approximately 6.1 acres in the City of Grand Terrace (City). The
Project and include a 100,000 square-foot, 120 units senior residential facility, a 7,000 square foot
senior center, and an approximately 2.6-acre passive park; and
WHEREAS, the Project would expand housing opportunities in the City for senior residents,
utilize the availability of existing public improvements, expand recreational and community service
opportunities for citizens of the City, and provides development that partially satisfies the City's
requirements to provide low-and/or moderately priced housing options; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') (Public Res.
Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR§ 15000 et seq.)and the City Council of
the City of Grand Terrace ("City Council" is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with
general governmental powers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and Initial Study identifying the scope of
environmental issues were distributed to numerous state, federal, and local agencies and
organizations on December 15, 2006 — January 16, 2007 for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of five comment letters were received
and are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.("DEIR"). Relevant comments received in response
to the NOP were incorporated into the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, one public scoping-meeting was held at the City of Grand Terrace Council
Chambers on January 4, 2007 and input from the public providing direction and scope of the EIR was
received and has been included in Section 1.3.4 of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on April 3, 2007,
with the comment period expiring on May 17, 2007. Seven comment letters were received during the
public comment period. The specific and general responses to comments are included in the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion ("NOC") was sent with the DEIR to the State
Clearinghouse on April 3, 2007; and
_ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace held a public hearing to
i` consider the Project, the Final EIR, and staff recommendations, on June 21, 2007. Notice of this
�. Planning Commission hearing was provided through publication on May 31, 2007; and
1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held a public hearing to consider
the Project, the Final EIR, and staff recommendations, on August 28, 2007. Notice of this City
Council hearing was provided through publication on June 29, 2007; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis
for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the
feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential
environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these
effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution
are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the
information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but
which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of
feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section
4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, as identified in the EIR, the City has determined that the Project would not result
in any significant unmitigatable environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, cumulative environmental impacts identified or discussed in the Final EIR are
described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS, irreversible environmental changes are identified in the Final EIR and are found
to be less than significant, as described in Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the potential for growth inducing impacts described in the Final EIR and found to
be less than significant are described in Section 7 hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 8 hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and
considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, and all
oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is
deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
2
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring
recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
THE PROJECT
A. Project Description
The Blue Mountain Senior Villas Senior Villas (the "Project") is a proposed residential development
featuring a two-story senior-oriented residential facility totaling approximately 100,000 square feet, an
approximately 7,000-square foot one story senior center, and an approximately 2.6-acre passive
park. The residential facility will be developed on the eastern 3.0 acres of the site and will provide 103
one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom units. The one-and two-bedroom units will be approximately 540
and 810 square feet, respectively. Common areas within the residential portion of the Project include
a community room, kitchen, laundry facilities, storage rooms, two courtyards and a small amount of
office space. There will be 92 parking spaces provided for residents. The 7,000-square foot senior
center will be attached to the adjoining apartment building. Facilities at the proposed senior center
include a library/computer room, billiards/TV room, arts/crafts, community room, kitchen facilities, and
a small office area. The proposed senior center will have 54 parking spaces. The adjacent park will
include decorative paving, concrete and decomposed granite walkways, seating areas, and small
areas of open turf.
Development of the Project would occur during two phases. Phase One will entail the development of
the senior villas and senior center and associated parking areas. All grading, utility extensions,
buildings, and landscaped areas relating to the senior villas and senior center, as well as all parking
areas for the entire Project, will be constructed and/or installed during Phase One. Phase Two will
entail the relocation of the existing senior center into the new facility and the development of the
passive park. All grading, utility extensions, buildings, and landscaped areas relating to passive park
will be constructed during Phase Two.
The primary Project objectives are as follows:
• Expand housing opportunities in the City for Seniors;
• Fully utilize the availability of existing public improvements, thereby limiting disturbance to
existing uses and maximizing the benefit to the general public;
• Provide necessary housing in locations that maintain the economic vitality of existing commercial
properties;
3
• Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City (both senior and
non-senior);
• Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low- and/or
moderately priced housing options;
• Provide development that recognizes and minimizes environmental effects to adjacent residential
and school uses; and
• Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive integration of
residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and development standards.
SECTION 2
FINDINGS
At a meeting assembled on August 28, 2007, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace
determined that, based upon all of the evidence presented, included by but not limited to the Final
EIR, written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from
the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following impacts associated with the Project
are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and each of
these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation
measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to the Project.
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace hereby finds that the following potential environmental
impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of
mitigation measures.
A. Aesthetics
1. Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Surroundings: The Project would
alter the existing visual character of the Project site. Multiple-family residential uses are located within
0.2 mile west of the Project site while Terrace View Elementary School is located directly to the east.
Changes in the visual character of the Project site would be compatible with these multiple family and
institutional uses. The Project would replace the existing partially vacant parcel with an attractive, well
designed mix of senior- and community-serving uses. Because, no demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect to the existing visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings would result from
the Project, no significant impact related to this issue would occur.
2. Light and Glare: Development of the Project would introduce a new source of light and
glare in the immediate vicinity (DEIR p. 4.1-19). Wall and pole-mounted lighting will be provided
z throughout the site, for the safety and security of Project residents, senior center patrons, and site
employees. All Project lighting will be designed, installed, ad maintained in conformance with the
City's Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project will not cause impacts in regards to light and glare. No
4
mitigation is required.
3. Impacts to Scenic Vistas, Scenic Resources and Scenic Highways: Although the
Project would eliminate existing views, because.these views are already obstructed by fencing and/or
vegetation (DEIR p. 4.1-11) and because the Project has reduced the height of the building's profile
by the lowering of finished floor elevation, impacts associated with changes to existing views are not
considered significant. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required.
4. Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative area for aesthetic impacts is the City of Grand
Terrace. The Project site is located within an area that has been long planned for residential
development. The Project would not have a demonstrable adverse effect on the existing aesthetic
condition in the Project area. The Project will result in the conversion of the Project site from its
existing vacant and unkempt condition to a well designed, landscaped, and maintained development
that would enhance the visual character of the Project area. The introduction of new lighting sources
would be limited and would not significantly alter the type or amount of light sources currently located
in the Project vicinity. No significantly cumulative adverse aesthetic or lighting impact would occur.
While the elimination of views from several residences located south of the Project is a direct impact,
views from Grand Terrace Road, Mount Vernon Avenue, and other adjacent properties would be
maintained. Due to the limited number of residences affected, the availability of views from nearby
properties and local roadways, no cumulatively significant impact on scenic views would occur.
B. Air Quality
1. Mobile Source Health Risk: The health risk associated with diesel exhaust PM10 has only
a carcinogenic and chronic effect; no short-term acute effect is recognized. During construction, the
health risks at each distance measured is below the cancer threshold of 10 in 1 million and the
chronic threshold of 1.0. Therefore, even if all the construction equipment operated simultaneously
adjacent to these sensitive receptors, the health risks for all residents would be less than significant.
This Project is a senior residential facility that is not expected to have any significant amount of diesel
truck traffic. The City's Traffic engineer has reviewed the Project and determined that, at full build out,
the Project will generate 594 vehicle trips per day (DEIR pp. 4.2-12). Other than an occasional
delivery truck, these will all be residents and visitors, and most delivery trucks operating at a senior
residential facility will be medium-duty gasoline-powered trucks. Thus, it is not expected that there will
be any long-term operational health risk from the operations of this Project.
2. Odor Impacts: The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residential units
and school uses located to the south, west, and east. With the exception of short-term construction-
related odors (e.g., equipment exhaust and asphalt odors), the proposed uses do not include uses
that are generally considered to generate offensive odors. While the application of architectural
coatings and installation of asphalt may generate odors, these odors are temporary and not likely to
be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. Conditions for the design of waste storage areas will be
established through the permit process. Solid waste generated by the proposed on-site uses will be
collected by a contracted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site uses would be
adequately managed. Because solid waste from the Project will be managed and collected in manner
to prevent the proliferation of odors, no significant odor impact will occur.
3. Long-Term Project Related Emissions Impacts: Long-term air impacts may result from
the use of motor vehicles by Project residents and the burning of fossil fuels for energy to the units.
5
The City's Traffic engineer has reviewed the Project and determined that, at full build out, the Project
will generate 594 vehicle trips per day. Operational air quality emissions resulting from the Project are
well below SCAQMD levels of significance. No significant operational air quality would occur;
therefore, no mitigation is required.
4. Local Significance Thresholds: Emissions from the on-site construction activities and
the operation/occupation of the proposed on-site uses do not exceed the localized significance
thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 for all sensitive receptors (DEIR pp. 4.21-14). Therefore, the
proposed construction activities would not cause any short-term, localized, significant air quality
impacts.
5. Fugitive Dust: Fugitive dust emissions resulting from grading and construction activities
would total 19.65 and 0.75 pounds/day, respectively (DEIR pp. 4.2-15). This volume of fugitive dust
does not exceed established SCAQMD daily thresholds. Nonetheless, the City of Grand Terrace
requires the implementation of best available control measures (BACM), such as SCAQMD Rule 403
standards, for all construction Projects. The applicable Rule 403 measures may include (but are not
limited to)the following:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily. Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly
watered prior to earthmoving.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at
least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road.
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
Implementation of BACMs identified by the City would reduce the volume of fugitive dust
generated during Project development. With the implementation of this standard requirement, and in
the absence of fugitive dust emissions in excess of SCAQMD daily standards, no significant fugitive
dust impact would occur. .
6. Air Movement, Climate, or Temperature Impacts: At six acres, the Project is too small
to affect the climate of the surrounding area. Changes in the topography and/or the type or location of
the proposed on-site uses would not affect existing local air movement patterns or climatic conditions
as they currently exist within the Project area; therefore, no impact related to this issue will occur.
7. Cumulative Impacts: While the construction and operation of the Project would
exacerbate the current non-attainment of air quality standards within the Basin, both the 2003 and
2007 AQMPs anticipate that, with implementation of the appropriate control measures detailed in the
respective plans, the Basin would be in attainment for both State and Federal air quality standards.
As no significant unmitigatable Project-related air quality impact would occur, and because the
current and future AQMPs anticipate attainment of all State and Federal air quality standards, no
cumulatively significant air quality impact would result from the development of the proposed on-site
uses.
6
C. Land Use and Planning
1. Agricultural Resources: The Project site is Urban and Built-up Land and is not identified
as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ("Farmland"). The
Project site is currently vacant and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract, nor is it utilized for
agricultural operations (DEIR p. 4.3-10).The Project site is located within an area zoned for residential
uses; therefore, the Project will not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or an existing
Williamson Act contract. No agricultural resource impact would result from the development of
Project.
2. Conflict with Environmental Plans or Policies: As set forth in the Draft EIR, consistent
with CEQA, the Project has been evaluated using the environmental procedures and policies
established by the City of Grand Terrace. Because the Project has adhered to the City's policies
regarding the identification and mitigation of environmental impacts, no significant impact related to
this issue would occur. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required.
3. Disruption or Division of an Established Community: Policies cited in the City's
General Plan encourage infill housing development, the more intensive use of underutilized land for
residential construction, and the maximization of vacant land suitable for residential development.
Because the Project site is already surrounded by developed uses, the Project is considered infill
development. While the nature of the uses planned for the Project site varies from that anticipated in
the General Plan, both the City's General Plan and Zoning Code have already anticipated that the
site could be developed with residential uses; therefore, the construction of senior-oriented uses
would not disrupt or divide an established community. No significant impact related to this issue
would occur. In the absence of a significant impact, no mitigation is required.
4. Incompatibility with an Existing Land Use: The Project is an infill development Project,
would continue a pattern of land use previously established in the City, and would be directly adjacent
to a school and in close proximity to existing high-density residential areas. Total development under
the Project would exceed that anticipated if comparable (to existing adjacent) residences were
developed, but would be less than the maximum lot coverage currently permitted in the R1-7.2 zone.
The Project has been designed to provide sufficient buffering between on-site and adjacent uses and
incorporates architectural treatments to better blend into the Project area. No significant land-use
compatibility impact would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
5. Conflict with the General Plan or Zoning: The Project includes a General Plan
Amendment to designate the Project site as Medium High Density Residential, as well as a Zone
Change to R3-S (Multiple Family, Senior Citizen). Upon adoption, the standards outlined in the
Specific Plan will become the controlling zoning regulations within the Project limits. As the Project is
consistent with the Specific Plan, and because the Project would satisfy several long-identified
objectives detailed in the General Plan, no significant General Plan or zoning consistency impact
would result from the development or occupation of the proposed on-site uses.
6. Cumulative Impacts: There are no other developments in the Project vicinity that, in
combination with the Project, would divide, significantly convert existing agricultural lands, or lead to
- incompatible land uses. The cumulative Projects cited in Table 2.0 are consistent with the existing
General Plan and zoning designations, and would be compatible with existing land uses. The
cumulative Projects are either permitted by right or are conditionally permitted within their respective
7
zones. Because the cumulative Projects identified in the City are consistent with existing General
Plan and zoning designations, no cumulatively significant land use impact would occur.
D. Noise
1. Airport Noise: The Project site is located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of San
Bernardino International Airport (DEIR p. 4.4-7). The City is located under the landing pattern of
Ontario International Airport (OIA), which is located approximately 18 miles west of the Project site.
Due to the Project's distance from these airports and the lack of noise in excess of the City's exterior
noise standard, no significant airport-related noise impact would occur.
2. Groundborne Vibrations: Groundborne vibrations are typically from construction activities
or occasional traffic on rough roads. These problems are primarily a concern of inside the buildings
and not exterior buildings. Because rubber tires and suspension systems on trucks and other road
vehicles provide vibration isolation, on-road vehicles will not typically cause groundborne noise or
vibrations. While the Project would increase the traffic volumes on the local roadways, it would not
increase the vibrations from the roads. Therefore, no impact related to groundborne vibrations during
construction and operation would occur.
3. Long-term Noise Effects: Long term noise impacts associated with the Project site would
include vehicle engine start-ups, air conditioning noise, and parking lot activity. These are all long-
term operational impacts that would be associated with onsite stationary sources and onsite activity.
a. Traffic Noise, On-Site. Based on the "Future (2015) CNEL Noise Contours" figure from
the City's Noise Element, the Project site would be exposed to noise levels of up to 65 dBA
CNEL from traffic on Mt. Vernon Avenue. This noise level does not exceed the City's 65 dBA
CNEL exterior noise standard for residential developments; therefore, no significant noise
impact would occur. All of the residential units would be equipped with mechanical ventilation
(air conditioning), which allows windows and doors to be shut during warm weather.
b. Traffic Noise, Adjacent Uses. Generally, a doubling of traffic volumes is required to
generate a noise increase of 3 dBA, the level at which a noise increase is perceptible by the
human ear(and therefore considered potentially significant). Based on a review of the Project
by the City's Traffic Engineer, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 594 vehicle trips
per day. The City's Circulation Element anticipates daily traffic (2010)will total 2,660 trips per
day on Grand Terrace Road (east of Mt. Vernon Avenue), 11,935 daily trips north of Barton
Road, and 12,835 daily trips north of Grand Terrace Road. The traffic anticipated by the
Project does not exceed the doubling required to generate a perceptible noise increase along
the any of the stated roadway segments (DEIR p.4.4-9). In the absence of a perceptible
increase in noise on local roadways, no significant traffic-related noise impact would result
from the occupation of the proposed on-site uses.
c. Parking Lot Noise. Representative parking activities, such as persons conversing and
slamming doors, would generate approximately 60 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The on-site parking
area would be constructed at the bottom of a slope that would be topped by a 5-6-foot high
- wall. This change in elevation and the existence of the wall would reduce the parking lot
�r noise levels by 5 dBA or more to approximately 55 dBA at 50 feet. This noise level is lower
than the existing ambient noise levels generated by traffic and other noise sources within the
8
1
Project area (DEIR, p. 4.4-9). The attenuation provided by the slope, wall, and typical
residential construction would ensure parking lot noise would not exceed City's exterior (65
dBA)or interior(45 dBA) noise standard; therefore, no significant impact would occur.
d. Air Conditioning Noise. When operating under "High Cool" mode, each air conditioning
unit (Carrier Model 52C) would generate 61 dBA at a distance of one meter (3.3 feet) (DERI
p. 4.4-9). The combined exterior noise level of the 24 air conditioning units operating along
the south side of the proposed structure, at the nearest residential structure (a distance of
approximately 90 feet south of the senior residences, would be 44 dBA, which is below the
City's exterior (65 dBA) and interior (45 dBA) noise standard. The noise levels at the property
line (78 feet from the proposed senior residences)would be 45 dBA, which is below the City's
standard for exterior noise. The combined exterior noise level resulting from the operation of
the 32 air conditioning units along the east side of the proposed senior residences, at the
nearest school structure (a distance of approximately 135 feet east of the units)would be 42
dBA.
The attenuation provided by typical construction practices in southern California (12 dBA with
windows opened) would reduce interior noise at nearest off-site residential structure to 32
dBA (44 dBA— 12 dBA) and 30 dBA (42 dBA— 12 dBA) to the south and east, respectively.
Typical noise attenuation with windows closed is approximately 24 dBA; therefore, with
windows closed, the interior noise levels at the nearest off-site residence and school use
would be 20 dBA (44 dBA — 24 dBA) and 18 dBA (42 dBA — 24 dBA), respectively. No
exceedance of established interior or exterior noise levels would occur; therefore, no
r- significant impact would occur.
Based on the analysis of each of these noise generators above, the Project would not create a
significant noise impact to any sensitive receptors in the area.
5. Cumulative Noise Impacts: The cumulative area for noise impacts is the City of Grand
Terrace. Construction noise impacts only exist for the duration of construction and are, therefore, not
cumulative in nature. Implementation of the Project would not contribute to the cumulatively
significant operational (mobile or stationary) noise levels within the Project area. Therefore,
cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required (DEIR p. 4.4-11).
E. Population and Housing
1. Local or Regional Population Projections: SCAG Projections indicate that by 2010, the
number of housing units in the City would grow to 4,550 units. This growth represents an increase of
5.15 percent over 2005 Projections. The 120 units represent 2.67 percent of the total units Projected
for the City in 2010, and 53.8 percent of the residential growth projected during the 2005-2010
period. The addition of 120 housing units is consistent with the residential growth in the City that has
previously been anticipated by SCAG; therefore, no significant housing-related impact would occur.
2. Growth Inducement: Development of the Project would have a negligible effect on local
and regional population and housing forecasts. The Project site is located within an urban area to
which all required public services and utilities have already been provided. The Project does not
require the extension of services to areas that have not already been included in local service
planning. Development of the Project site as proposed would not result in haphazard, discontinuous,
or "leap-frog" growth. The growth resulting from the proposed development is consistent with that
previously projected by regional planning agencies; therefore, no significant environmental effect
— resulting from this growth would occur.
9
3. Housing Displacement: No residential use is currently located within the limits of the
Project site. While the Project would change the zoning of the site from low-density to a higher
density residential use, it would not directly (through the removal of existing housing) or indirectly
(through the elimination of residential zoning) displace existing homes or residents. No impact related
to this issue would occur.
4. Regional Housing Needs Assessment: The total increase in the amount of housing in
the City from 1998 to 2005 (64 residences)was not sufficient to satisfy the RHNA allocation assigned
to the City. There is an unfulfilled need to provide an additional 181 housing units. State law provides
a density bonus incentive to developers who provide low- and very-low income housing. The Project
would allow for construction of a maximum of 120 senior residential units; therefore, the Project would
allow for ample opportunity for developers to take advantage of the density bonus and meet the
existing RHNA housing construction need of 244 units. No significant impact related to this issue
would occur.
5. Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts: The cumulative residential development
in the City is located in developed areas accessible to roadway and utility infrastructure and can be
categorized as infill development. The Project would not result in a cumulatively significant amount of
growth in the City, nor would it displace existing residential units. Because no significant growth
inducing, population, or residential displacement would occur; and because the cumulative residential
development would fully satisfy the current housing needs deficiency and would partially satisfy the
planned future housing needs allocation, no cumulatively significant housing or population impact
would occur(DEIR, pp.4.5-9, -10).
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds that the following environmental impacts identified
in the Final EIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less than significant levels through
the implement imposition of mitigation measures and or conditions identified in the Final EIR and
summarized below.
A. Air Quality
1. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions: Grading and other construction activities
would result in combustion emissions from heavy-duty construction vehicles, haul trucks, utility
engines, and vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during these
construction activities will vary daily as construction activity levels change. Peak grading days
typically generate a larger amount of air pollutants than during other Project construction days.
Emissions of NOx would exceed established SCAQMD daily thresholds during site grading activities
(DEIR p 4.2-15, Table 4.21). This is a significant impact.
10
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1A-E will reduce the potential
impacts related to generation of fugitive dust to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1A: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications
that after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts, cool exhaust gas recirculation) are
installed on all diesel-powered equipment used on-site. Contract specifications shall be
included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.113: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications
that all heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment operating on-site would use
aqueous diesel fuel. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1C: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications
that construction equipment engines would be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune per manufacturer's specifications for the duration of construction. Equipment
maintenance and equipment design specifications shall be retained on-site for the duration of
construction activity.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1 D: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications
that construction-related equipment (both on-site and off-site) including heavy-duty
equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for
more than ten minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.1E: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications
that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction
site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent
feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction
documents,which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible and the City Council adopts and incorporates
these mitigation measures into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: The use of aqueous diesel fuel and after treatment products in/on
diesel construction equipment (as stated in Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1A-B) reduces NOx
emissions by 14 to 40 percent, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1
C-E would further reduce emission of NOx. Implementation of the identified measures would
reduce emissions of NOx to approximately 62 pounds/day, which is below the established
SCAQMD daily thresholds for this pollutant. With mitigation, impacts related to this issue are
less than significant(DEIR p.4.2-17).
2. Architectural Coating Impacts: Architectural Coatings contain Volatile Organic
Compounds ('VOC") that are similar to Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and are ozone
precursors. At this stage of Project planning, no detailed architectural coatings information is
available. As identified in previously referenced Table 4.2.1, emissions would total approximately 338
pounds per day, which exceeds the established SCAQMD daily threshold of 75 pounds/day. This is a
significant impact. Emissions associated with architectural coatings could be reduced by using
precoated/natural colored building materials, using water-based or low-VOC coating, and using
coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. This increase in efficiency would
11
reduce the VOC emissions to approximately 67.52 pounds/day. This volume of VOC would not
exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.2A would reduce the potential impacts
related to application of architectural coatings to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.2A: The Project developer shall require by contract specifications
that the application of architectural coatings, shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Contract
specifications may include, but shall not be limited to:
- A requirement that coatings and solvents have a VOC content lower than that
required under Rule 1113;
- The utilization of construction materials that do not require painting; and/or
- The utilization of pre-coated construction materials.
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: The Project would require architectural coating to comply with City
design standards. SCAQMD Rule 1113 provides specific guidelines to reduce ROC from
architectural coatings. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the
ROC generated to a less than significant level.
H. Noise
1. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts: Short-term construction noise levels generated
during on-site excavation, grading and building construction would reach between 76 and 89 dBA
Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area. Existing residential and school uses
are located within 50 feet from the active construction area. At this distance, these receptor locations
would be exposed to short-term construction noise levels of up to 91 dBA Lmax(DEIR p. 4.4-11). This
is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.5.1A through 4.2.4.111) would reduce
the impact to noise to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1A: During all Project site excavation and grading on-site, the
Project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly
operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.113: The Project contractor shall place all stationary construction
equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project
site.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1C: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1 D: On-site construction activities shall be restricted to the hours
permitted under the City's Municipal Code.
12
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible, and the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project. The mitigation measures
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The Grand Terrace Noise Ordinance prohibits construction noise
on property adjacent to residences except between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and at no time
is the movement of construction equipment directly on or off the property occur within 50 feet
of an occupied residence permitted. Construction-related noise impacts from the proposed
Project would be significant; however, compliance with the aforementioned mitigation and the
applicable provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance would reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
SECTION 5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts refer to one or more individual effects which considered together compelled or
increase the environmental impact of the Project. State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of the
Cumulative impacts of a Project "when the Projects incremental effects are cumulatively
— considerable." For example, when the incremental effects of an individual Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and
- the effects of probable future Projects.
The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace finds and determines that the discussion of cumulative
impacts in the Draft EIR provides adequate and sufficient discussion of the Cumulative Impacts of the
Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapters
2, 4 and in 5 of the EIR. The City Council further finds that the cumulative impacts addressed would
be less than significant, as set for in Section 3 herein, or mitigated to a less than significant level by
incorporation of mitigation measures into the Project, as set forth in Section 4 herein.
SECTION 6
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination
of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little
possibility of restoring them. The western portion of the Project site is vacant while the eastern portion
is occupied by the existing senior center. The Project would permanently alter the site by converting
an area that is currently vacant to urban uses and because no significant cultural, mineral; or scenic
resources were identified within the Project limits, no significant impacts related to these issues would
result from development of the Project site. Natural resources in the form of construction materials
and energy resources would be utilized in the construction and operation of the Project. Construction
materials such as concrete, aggregate, asphalt and other materials are commercially available in the
southern California region with few or no constraints. Because of the general availability of
13
construction materials (including aggregate), no adverse impact related to the availability of these
resources or the resource base from which they are derived would occur.
As stated in Section 2.4.10 of the DEIR, the proposed on-site uses would increase the demand for
natural gas and electricity by approximately 16,288 cubic feet/day and 2,051 kwH/day. Title 24 (Part
6) of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24) mandates the installation of energy conservation
features in new development throughout the State. These measures may include, but shall not be
limited to, the planting of trees to provide shade and to shadow buildings; the installation of energy-
efficient, low-pressure sodium parking lot lighting; solar or low-emission water heaters; and
installation of double-pane glass or other energy-conserving window treatments. Adherence to
applicable provisions of Title 24 is a standard requirement for development. As part of the Project's
Conditions of Approval (COA), the design, construction, and operation of the proposed on-site uses
will adhere to applicable energy conservation standards established in Title 24. Although
development of the Project would commit the site to urban uses, it consists of infill development in an
area that is already served by energy providers. For this reason, the energy needs of the Project are
within the "parameters" Projected for local growth in the local area.' No significant, irreversible long-
term impact would occur.
SECTION 7
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing specifically
Section 15126.2(d) as State CEQA Guidelines states that EIRs must describe the ways in which the
Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing either
directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. The Project would develop a senior residential
complex consisting of 120 residential units. Because the Project is located within an urban area, is
surrounded by developed urban uses, and has access to existing and adjacent roadway and utility
facilities, it is considered "infill" development. As stated in Section 4.5.4.2 in the DEIR, the
development of residential uses in the City represents a direct form of growth; however, an existing
demand for senior housing in the City is demonstrated by a "wait list" maintained by the Project
applicants. Of the approximately 170 persons on this wait list, 55 percent are residents of the City.Z
Per senior center staff, City residents have expressed an interest and desire to reside at the Project
site. As evidenced by the "wait list", it is reasonable to conclude that many future residents of the
Project already reside in the City and are participating in the local economy; therefore, no significantly
adverse growth inducement impact would result from development of the proposed on-site uses.
Correspondence from Kevin Purdy,Southern California Edison,August 18,2005.
2 E-mail communication from Justin Hardt,Corporation for Better Housing, March 6,2007.
14
SECTION 8
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or the
location of the Project,which:
1. offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project Proposal, and
2. may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable amount of
time considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors
involved.
An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly obtain
most the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the
consideration of the alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not
required to choose an environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does
not provide substantial advantages over the post Project, and
A. Through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of the
Project can be reduced to an acceptable level; or
B. There are social economic technical or other considerations that make the alternative
infeasible.
The State CEQA guidelines direct agencies to consider the feasibility of alternative locations. The
DEIR analyzed an alternative location for the Project located south of Barton Road between Michigan
Avenue and Canal Street in' the Town Center Project area. The objectives for the Project are on page
3-3 & 3-4 of the DEIR(which are stated here in Section 2B). The following alternatives were analyzed
in the EIR.
A. Alternative 1 —No Project Alternative
Description: Under CEQA (§15126.6[e] [2]), the No Project Alternative should discuss what
would reasonably be expected to occur, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services, in the foreseeable future. The Project site is currently zoned
R1-7.2 and is designated for "Low Density Residential" by the City's General Plan. The R1-7.2 zone
is intended for single-family residential use with a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre.
While the City retains ownership of the Project, in the absence of the Project, this alternative will
consider the environmental effects associated with the development of low-density residential
development. Based on the site's existing zoning, up to 31 single-family residential units could be
developed on the 6.1-acre site. This alternative anticipates the residential units would be constructed
at the same time as a single development.
Finding: The City Council finds that under the"No Project"alternative, the Project site would
be developed with another "Low Density' residential use. While housing-related impacts would be
greater under this alternative, the implementation of this alternative would reduce the volume of air
pollutants emitted, and would result in a land use pattern consistent with existing land use designation
and neighborhood context; therefore, compared with the Project, the environmental effect of this
alternative is reduced. Because the Alternative does not fulfill the primary Project objective of
15
providing additional senior residential uses in the City, the "No Project" alternative rejected as
infeasible.
Supporting Explanation: Views from adjacent properties are already obstructed by walls,
fences, and/or vegetation. It is reasonable to expect that like the Project, two story—homes and
residential landscaping would obstruct existing views from some properties located south of the
project site. Compared with the Project, the aesthetic impact associated with this alternative would be
similar
The level of grading and construction activity would not exceed that required for the Project;
therefore, no greater emission of air pollutants would occur. Similar mitigation would be required for
development under this alternative; therefore, short-term construction-related impacts would be
similar. Because the number of daily trips and total amount of residential use is reduced from that
associated with the Project; the volume of operational air pollutants generated under this alternative
would be correspondingly reduced. As with the Project, no significant operational air-quality impact
would result from development under this alternative.
The development of single-family residential structures would be consistent with existing land
use designations for the project site and would not result in a significant land use or planning impact.
No change in the significance of the land use or planning impacts would occur.
The level of grading and construction activity would not exceed that required for the Project;
therefore. Short-term construction noise impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level.
Similar mitigation would be required for development under this alternative; therefore, short-term
construction-related impacts would be similar.
The development of the project site with single-family residences could result in noise from
the following sources, including (but not limited to), backyard recreation, air conditioning, pets,
children, vehicle operation, and landscape maintenance. Existing ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity range from 45 to 52 dBA. While noise generated under this alternative may include periodic
intense noise and operational noise from individual air conditioning units, it is not expected to
significantly exceed existing ambient conditions. No significant project-related operational noise
impact was identified.
No increase in the number of very-low and low income residences would occur under this
alternative; therefore, the Project's contribution to meeting the City's RHNA allocation for the 1998-
2005 and/or future planning period would be eliminated. Because this alternative would reduce.the
availability of adequate housing for persons of varied income levels, compared with the Project, a
more significant housing impact would result from the implementation of this alternative
Because the number of daily trips and total amount of residential use is reduced from that
associated with the Project, impacts associated with traffic generated under this alternative would be
correspondingly reduced. As with the Project, no significant traffic impact would result from
development under this alternative.
Because under this Alternative, development of the site would occur at a reduced density, the
Alternative would have a reduced environmental effect compared to the impacts identified in the Draft
EIR (DEIR p. 6-6). Development of the No Build Alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project
objectives:
16
■ Expand housing opportunities in the City for seniors;
■ Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City(both
senior and non-senior);
■ Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low-
and/or moderately priced housing options;
■ Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive
integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and
development standards.
Because the Alternative does not fulfill the primary Project objectives, the No Build alternative
rejected as infeasible.
B. Alternative 2—New Senior Center/Park Alternative
Description: Under this alternative, the-existing modular senior center would be replaced
with an approximately 7,000-square foot senior center. The new senior center would occupy
approximately 0.5 acre of the 6.1-acre Project site. The balance of the site would be devoted to an
approximately 5.6-acre passive park. No General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be
required.
Finding: The City Council finds that under the New Senior Center/Park Alternative, visual
resource impacts would be reduced. Impacts related to air quality and noise impacts, although not
considered significant impacts under the Project, would be reduced compared with those identified
with the Project. Because of the reduction in vehicle trips achieved under this alternative, impacts to
the operation of local roadways and intersections would be proportionally reduced from the Project.
Although this alternative would have reduced impacts, it would underutilize housing opportunities by
eliminating residential development on-site. Under this alternative, some of the objectives would be
met by providing public facilities for the senior community; however, the residential component
objectives would not be met (DEIR p. 6-8). Because the Alternative does not fulfill the primary Project
objective (expansion of senior housing opportunities), the Senior Center/Park alternative rejected as
infeasible
Supporting Explanation: Limited obstruction of views north would also occur as project
landscaping matured; however, because the landscaping would not present a solid barrier, views past
any on-site landscape feature would still be possible. Because of the building's lower height and
decreased bulk, and the increase amount of park area provided, compared with the Project, the
aesthetic impacts associated with this alternative would be reduced
Compared with the Project, a reduced amount of site grading and construction would be
required to accommodate the stand-alone senior center and passive park. A proportional reduction in
the amount of construction-related pollutants, including NOx, PM,o, and VOC, would be emitted under
this alternative..While this alternative would attract additional guests to the senior center, the
additional vehicle trips would not approach that associated with the residential uses; therefore,
compared with the Project, the operational air emissions generated under this alternative would be
reduced. Like the Project, the reduced amount of emissions generated during the operation of only
the senior center and park would not be significant.
Development of a public park is a permitted use in the R1-7.2 zone; while development of a
senior center (a public or quasi-public facility) would be conditionally permitted. Because the site
1 currently hosts a senior center and because parks are generally consistent with school and residential
17
uses, no land use conflict would occur under this alternative. As with the Project, no significant impact
would occur.
Construction activities under this alternative would generate perceptible noise at adjacent
uses. As with the Project, mitigation would be required to reduce construction-related noise impacts
to a less than significant level. In the absence of residential traffic, residential parking areas, and
individual air conditioners, the amount of operational noise generated on-site would be reduced.
Expanding the size of the park would increase the frequency and duration of landscaping
maintenance activities (e.g., mowing). As with the Project, no significant operational noise impact
would result from implementation of this alternative.
No increase in the number of very-low and low income residences would occur under this
alternative; therefore, the Project's contribution to meeting the City's RHNA allocation for the 1998-
2005 and/or future planning period would be eliminated. This alternative would reduce the availability
of adequate housing for persons of varied income levels, compared to the Project, a more significant
housing impact would result from the implementation of this alternative.
Development of the Senior Center/Passive Park Alternative would fail to satisfy the following
Project objectives:
■ Expand housing opportunities in the City for seniors;
■ Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low-
and/or moderately priced housing options.
C. Alternative 3—Passive Park Alternative
Description: Under this alternative, development of the proposed residential uses and the
new senior center would not occur. This alternative would result in the relocation of the existing
modular senior center and the development of the entire Project site with a 6.1-acre passive park.
While no General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be required, an alternative location in the
City for the modular senior center would need to be identified.
Finding: This alternative would reduce the extent, frequency, or duration of the aesthetic,
land use, and noise impacts. Like the Project, none of these impacts would be significant. The
elimination of the senior residential component would result in a more severe housing/population
impact. Because no residential uses would be developed, no change in population or the number of
housing units in the City would occur. A more significant housing impact would result from the
implementation of this alternative. With the elimination of the residential and senior center
components, this alternative would fail to meet the primary Project objectives; therefore, this
alternative is rejected as infeasible.
Supporting Explanation: No existing view north from adjacent properties would be
obstructed. As park landscaping matures, partial views would be maintained. Under this alternative,
the existing aesthetic character of the project site would be altered as the existing vacant and ill-kept
portions of the site were replaced with a landscaped passive park. This is a beneficial impact. With
the exception of park landscaping, the existing obstructed views from adjacent properties would be
maintained. As with the Project, no significant adverse aesthetic impact would occur under this
alternative.
Under this alternative, a limited amount of on-site grading would be required to develop the
passive park. Compared with the Project, the amount of grading necessary would be substantially
18
i 4
reduced; therefore, the amount, extent, and duration of grading operations required under this
alternative would be reduced, a proportional reduction in construction-related emissions would occur.
Park uses would not generate the same number of daily vehicle trips as the Project. Compared with
the Project, the volume of stationary emissions and mobile pollutants generated under this alternative
would be reduced. As with the Project, no construction or operational air emission impacts would
occur under this alternative.
The development of public parks is a permitted use in the R1-7.2 zone; therefore, this
alternative would be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning for the site. Compliance
with the City's policies related to development of park uses would ensure that the alternative use is
compatible with existing development in the project area. As with the Project, no significant land use
impact would result from the development of this alternative.
No increase in the number of very-low and low income residences would occur under this
alternative; therefore, the Project's contribution to meeting the City's RHNA allocation for the 1998-
2005 and/or future planning period would be eliminated. Because this alternative would reduce the
availability of adequate housing for persons of varied income levels, compared with the Project,
Construction activities under this alternative would generate perceptible noise at adjacent
uses. As with the Project, mitigation would be required to reduce construction-related noise impacts
to a less than significant level. Expanding the size of the park would increase the frequency and
duration of landscaping maintenance activities (e.g., mowing). Compared with the Project, the overall
number and variety of noise sources is reduced under this alternative, the level of noise generated
on-site would be proportionally reduced. As with the Project, no significant operational noise impact
= would result from implementation of this alternative
While the condition and an increase in the variety of amenities at the new senior center may
attract additional guests, the volume of additional vehicle trips would not approach that associated
with the residential uses; therefore, compared with the Project, the number of trips generated under
this alternative would be reduced. Similar to the Project, no significant traffic impact was identified
with this alternative.
Under this Alternative, no residential development would occur on-site. Development of the
Passive Park Alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project objectives:
■ Expand housing opportunities in the City for seniors;
■ Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City(both
senior and non-senior);
■ Provide development that partially satisfies the City's requirement to provide low-
and/or moderately priced housing options;
■ Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive
integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and
development standards.
Because the Alternative does not fulfill the stated Project objectives, the Passive Park
Alternative is rejected as infeasible.
D. Alternative 4—Single-Story Senior Residential
(� Description: Under this alternative, 120 senior residential units would be constructed on-
site. The residential units would be incorporated into a single-story attached fourplexes
19
encompassing approximately 6.0 acres. This alternative would necessitate the relocation of the
existing modular senior center and the elimination of the park component. A General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change would be required to implement this alternative. Additionally, an
alternative location in the City for the modular senior center would need to be identified.
Finding: The City Council finds that while the extent, duration, or frequency of the aesthetic
air quality, traffic and circulation impacts, associated with this alternative, would be similar to those
identified with the Project. Because of the dispersed nature of the uses envisioned under this
alternative, a greater number of adjacent residents would be exposed to on-site noise, though the
level of impact associated with this noise would be less than significant. Development of this
alternative would fail to satisfy the following Project objectives:
■ Expand recreational and community service opportunities for citizens of the City(both
senior and non-senior);
■ Improve the Project site from its existing condition with an aesthetically attractive
integration of residential and recreational uses in compliance with City design and
development standards.
Because the Alternative does not fulfill the stated Project objectives, this alternative is
rejected as infeasible.
Supporting Explanation: The development of single-story structures would still partially
( - obstruct views from some properties located south of the Project site. Though these views would be
partially obstructed, because the fourplexes envisioned under this alternative would not result in a
single expanse of building, partial views may be maintained through the areas between individual
buildings. Compared with the Project, the level of significance of aesthetic impacts would be similar.
Development under this alternative would generate approximately 418 average daily trips. Of
these, 10 and 13 trips would occur in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Because the
number of daily trips is reduced from that associated with the Project; the volume of operational air
pollutants generated under this alternative would be correspondingly reduced. As with the Project, no
significant operational air-quality impact would result from development under this alternative.
Implementation of this alternative would scatter the residential units throughout the Project
site, thereby exposing a greater number of existing residents to potential noise sources (e.g., parking
lots, air conditioning, and vehicle movement). While the level of operational noise under this
alternative is not anticipated to be significant, compared with the Project, a greater number of persons
would be exposed to a greater number and variety of noise sources.
E. Alternative 5—Off-Site Location
Description: Under this alternative, the Project would be located south of Barton Road
between Michigan Avenue and Canal Street in the Town Center Project area. The residential, senior
center, and smaller passive park (1.0 acre) uses would be developed at.the off-site location;
therefore, approximately 4.5 acres of the Town Center Project area would be dedicated to senior
Project. Locating the Project in this area would require a General Plan Amendment, a zone change,
and preparation of a Specific Plan.
Finding: The City Council finds that under the Off-Site Location Alternative, no change in the
level of significance related to aesthetics would occur. Impacts related to air quality, although not
20
considered significant impacts under the Project, would be reduced compared with those identified for
the Project. Noise and Traffic/Circulation impacts, although not considered significant impacts under
the Project, would be greater than those identified with the Project because of the location of the off-
site area. For impacts related to biological and cultural resources, because of the unknown potential
of the off-site location to yield significant resources, impacts would be greater than those identified
with the Project. For geological, hazards, and hydrology, impacts under this alternative are
anticipated to be similar to those identified for the Project.
The Barton Road corridor has been identified as the City's primary commercial area.
Development of the residential and senior center Project within the Barton Road corridor conflict with
the commercial intent of the Barton Road corridor and would necessitate a reduction in the amount of
"valuable" commercial property in the City, which would result in a corresponding erosion of the tax
base needed to support existing and future services provided to City residents. Under this alternative,
the objectives would be met by providing residential and public facilities for the senior community;
however, the City's objectives for creating a stronger tax base would not be met; therefore, this
alternative was identified as infeasible.
Supporting Explanation: The Off-Site Location Alternative would result in development of
residential uses inconsistent with the existing commercial zoning for the site.
No significant impact to the existing aesthetic character of the Town Center Project area
would occur. Compared with the Project, no change in the level of significance of aesthetic-related
impacts would occur(DEIR p. 6-13).
The alternative site is surrounded by existing and/or planned commercial and retail land uses.
Development of this alternative would result in occupation of dwelling units within a commercial
district, which conflicts with the existing land use vision for the area. The senior residential uses are
not compatible with the existing commercial activities on the heavily traveled Barton Road corridor.
New commercial development in the City is needed to provide additional revenue to support existing
and future services to residents of the City. Because the senior residential Project is (1)not consistent
with the alternative site's existing General Plan or zoning designation and (2) not compatible with
existing commercial uses, compared with the Project, the land use impacts associated with this
alternative are more significant(DEIR p. 6-15).
Currently, portions of the alternative site are located within the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise
contours (1999) and within the future 65 and 70 dBA noise contours (2015). The Noise Element
establishes an exterior noise standard of 65 dB residential uses. The development of residential uses
in areas exposed to greater than 65 dB CNEL is normally unacceptable. Unlike the Project,
development of this alternative would occur in an area where the existing and future noise levels
exceed exterior residential noise standards. Mitigation would be required to reduce the significance of
this noise impact. Compared with the Project, there is an increased operational noise impact
associated with this alternative (DEIR p. 6-16).
A reduction in the size of the park component from the senior Project would not significantly
reduce the amount of traffic attributable to the senior Project. The amount of development envisioned
under this alternative is similar to the Project; therefore, a comparable volume of traffic is anticipated.
However, because this alternative is the off-site location, impacts to the surrounding intersections of
the off-site area may be greater than what was identified for the Project. Although this alternative is
similar to the Project and would generate similar traffic trips, the impact of the traffic on the existing
road network within the vicinity of the off-site location could be greater than that identified for the
21
l �\
Project. Therefore, traffic impacts are greater under this alternative than for the Project (DEIR p. 6-
16).
F. Alternative 6—Modification to Site Grading
Description: This alternative would result in the development of structures and facilities
similar to the Project. Under this alternative, the following changes to site layout would occur: (1)
move the west parking lot entrance 30 feet to the east; (2) move the east and west retaining walls a
few feet from the back of the parking lot curb instead of placing them at the property line; and (3)
redirect water drainage to the center of the parking lots.
These three changes will (1) reduce the amount of cut along the east and west property line, and (2)
reduce the height and length of the east and west retaining wall. The proposed alternative will
increase the finished floor elevation of the building footprint by 2.5 feet. The amount of material
exported from the site would be reduced by more than half(approximately 10,000 cubic yards).
Finding: The City Council finds that under the modification to Site Grading Alternative, visual
resource, noise, traffic and circulation impacts would be similar. The volume of construction
construction-related air pollutants would be reduced, and like the Project, impacts would be less than
significant. As with the Project, the objective of providing necessary housing to senior residents and
persons of a variety of income levels would be satisfied with the development of the Project site under
this alternative.
Supporting Explanation: Under this alternative, the site grading would be modified resulting
in a reduction, by more than half, of the amount of material needed to be exported from the site. With
the reduction in amount of earthmoving and the number of haul trips, it is anticipated that NOx
emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold; therefore, under this alternative, no
mitigation would be required. Compared with the Project, the volume of construction-related air
emissions would be reduced.
The amount of development envisioned under this alternative is similar to the Project;
therefore, a comparable volume of traffic is anticipated. In light of the similarity in developed uses and
traffic, it is anticipated, when compared with the Project, the traffic impacts associated with this
alternative would be substantially similar. It is anticipated that a similar volume of stationary and
mobile source pollutants would be emitted during the occupation/operation of the senior Project.
Compared to the Project, the operational air quality impacts associated with this alternative would be
substantially similar.
SECTION 9
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
identify and mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project.
The City Council further finds that in the absence of any identified significant environmental impact,
the City Council hereby declares that preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not
required.
22
SECTION 10
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City'Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the FEIR in evaluating the Project,
that the FEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the City after the circulation of the DEIR that
would require recirculation. All of the information added to the FEIR merely clarifies, amplifies or
makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5(b).
The City Council hereby certifies the FEIR based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findings
1. CEQA Compliance: As the decision-making body for the Project, the City
(/ Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting
documentation. The City Council determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate
reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project. The City
Council finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council has
complied with CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements.
2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency: The City retained the
independent consulting firm of LSA Associates, Inc. to prepare the EIR for the Project. The EIR was
prepared under the supervision and directions of the City of Grand Terrace Community Development
Department staff. The City Council is the final decision making body for the entitlements listed below.
The City Council has received and reviewed the FEIR prior to certifying the FEIR and prior to making
any decision to approve or disapprove the Project.
Finding: The FOR reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised.
independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining
its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the FEIR as well as
reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.
B. Conclusions:
1. All potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation
of the Project have been identified in the FEIR and, with the implementation of the mitigation
measures defined herein and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (also referred
to as the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program), will be mitigation to a less-than-significant
- level.
23
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly
achieve the basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to
the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
SECTION 11
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the event of inconsistencies
between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance
Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Program shall control
SECTION 12
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which these Findings
have been based are located at the City of Grand Terrace. The custodian for these records is the City
Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources
Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 13
RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5)
working days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED,this 281h day of August, 2007.
AYES: Councilmembers Cortes, Miller and Buchanan; Mayor Pro Tem Garcia and
Mayor Ferre.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
24
ATTEST:
Brenda Mesa, Mfelta Ferre,
City Clerk Mr
APPROV D AS TO FORM:
AL.
John Harper
City Attorney U
cAMyFiles\John\....\FEIR\Findings
25