Loading...
1989-10 i RESOLUTION NO. 89-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TTM- 89-3 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14471) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Applicant, Emblem Development Corporation (Jerry and Susan Irby) has applied for approval of a tentative tract map, (Exhibit A) subdividing 4.85 acres into 17 single family lots located at 22738 Pico Street (APN 277-181-03); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project per Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit B) and said Negative Declaration has been considered by the Planning Commission per Section 15074(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1989, regarding this application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings have been made: 1. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development; 2. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 3. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; 4. That the design of the subdivision or type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems or cause threat to life and property from a wildland conflagration; 5. That the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that TTM-89-3 (Exhibit A) and the aforementioned Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) are hereby recommended to the City �-, Council for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit each model of home for Site and Architectural Review Board approval and each individual home shall be constructed accordingly. Subsequent minor changes in design features may be approved by the Planning Director. 2. The subject property shall be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District. 3. The area containing the proposed rearyard slope in Lots 14 through 17 shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and Landscaping District. 4. If the area identified in Condition #3 is not included in the Lighting and Landscaping District then a Home Owner's Association shall be established and shall at a minimum be responsible for the maintenance of the rearyard slopes of lots 14 through 17 inaccordance with the property maintenance standards of the City of Grand Terrace. i 5. All conditions as recommended by the Department of Engineering/Building & Safety in their Memorandums dated September 11, and September 25, 1989, attached as Exhibit C; and 6. All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their Memorandum dated September 5, 1989, attached as Exhibit D; and 7. The Final Tract Map shall be consistant eith the existing Southern California Edison easement. 8. All conditions as recommended by the Colton Unified School District in their letter dated September 1, 1989, attached as Exhibit F; and 9. A Will Serve Letter will be needed from the Riverside Highland Water Department. { PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 16th day of October, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: 4, Commissioners Buchanan, Sims, Van Gelder, Hargrave NOES: 2, Commissioners Hilkey and Hawkinson. ABSENT: 1, Commissioner Munson. ABSTAIN: 0 GAer awkinson, Chairperson Pl ng Commission ATTEST Juanita Brown',/' City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM e oh Harp r, City Attorney i Ih. Zn • '3�1 'ECTRIC PO �~ EASEMENT; TENTATIVE' TRACT No 14471 . I ?. `�sL. ? +. ���{;,. � I'I•I: E'•' - IN•THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE '• }' I+. 'sa r V _ - COUNTY OF a SAN BERNARDINO f STATE OF•CALIFORNIA ..••rf o. . / I i ' Q ?yr.; •,`.zr`.• �t ki VIp I-1T 1 MAP I t�_.� •OWNER �' • Tj j vi 42 :.� _ DEVELOPER 0 CIA Z` ` — ,�, 4�•-•mac i' • ' Q 8 'y{e I. i IIf dts' C 2-. •I F. UTILITY COMPANIES NOTES ' • FR4FMl�4RFEZ — -_'-'y.`�JF.'.�`'�-.��`Jl -�. � a'.ri..o. n . __ I` --� -`• -'� - I '� v. ..�sn BENCH MARK O I JJ v •M}v Y-: W ', ''® m.I...- °•`'°off n Fi, ,n .... v �.�� Ftl LEGEND STATISTICAL SUMMARY - , , H� � I '♦1 .f1.., y•� •r .Ci� v ,�•v po .uo..•o _ cu�v r,� ry' .yalananrt . 17 ".. ..M l �v 7 • �� � �.,. . •.: .. ^:mac `" TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTION ORIOLE.FRANKLIN PICO STREET —_--- ---- __ '..A.. STREET Planning RtinD TEIRRAISE Department NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: TTM-89-03, a tentative tract map subdividing 4.85 acres into 17 single family lots. This property is located in the City's R1-7.2 zone and within the General Plan's Low Density Residential landuse designation. APPLICANT: Emblem Development Corp o ration\Jerry and Susan Irby LOCATION: 22738 Pico Street (APN #277-181-03) Copies of the Negative Declaration and Initial .Study for this project are available for review at the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace (714-824-6621). -Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior to October 25, 1989. All comments should be directed to David Sawyer, Community Development Director, City of Grand Terrace. David Sawyer, / Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace r 22795 Barton Road 9 Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 (714) 824-6621 airy ., � 01( Planning Rtinb T Department x. �. - ' NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: TTM-89-03, a tentative tract map subdividing 4.85 acres into 17 single family lots. This property is located in the City's R1-7.2 zone and within the General Plan's Low Density Residential landuse designation (see attached map). APPLICANT: Emblem Development Corporation/Jerry and Susan Irby LOCATION: 22738 Pico Street (APN# 277-181-03) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. David Sawyer, % Date _- Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace .22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 (714) 824-6621 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY I Background 1 . Name of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road , Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Attention: - David Sawyer, Planning Director 3 . Date of Environmental Assessment: 4. Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace 5 . Name of Proposal , if applicable � —�cl - 03 6. Location of Proposal : -23 �1 AGO S.TR.CEf i II Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in : a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? c. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction , covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or / or off site? �/ Yes Maybe No f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or / the bed of the ocean or any bay, / inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes , landslides , mudslides , ground — failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterior- ation of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in / climate, whether locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial changes in currents , or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and / amount of surface runoff? J c. Alterations to the course or flow = of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water qual- ity, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or / turbidity? V f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? y Yes Maybe No g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals , or through inter- ception .of an aquifer by cuts or / excavations? \/ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? V 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs , grass, crops , and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species / of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation , or in a barrier to the normal replenish- / ment of existing species? d. Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic / organisms or insects) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, / rare or endangered species of animals? c. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No 6.- Noise. Will the proposal result in: / a. Increases in existing noise levels? J b. Exposure of people to severe noise / levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce — substantial new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or — planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in : a. Substantial increase in the rate of use / of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- — renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including , but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency / evacuation plan? 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location , distribution, density, or growth — rate of the human population of -an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation . Will the pro- proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 1 Yes Maybe No b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties , or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing / transportation systems? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people — and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? V f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor / vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? V 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: / a. Fire protection? _ V b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational faci- lities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? — f. Other governmental services? 15 , Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities : a. Power or natural as? f g — Yes Maybe No b. Communications systems? c. Water? _ V/ d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ 7 e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17 . Human Health. Will the proposal result in. a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ? b. Exposure of people to potential / health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to / public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity / of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeo- logical site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building , / structure, or object? V/ c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural J values? �/ Yes Maybe No d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, 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 or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history / or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oc- curs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment / is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION _ On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on' the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. David Sawyer Planning Director DC-V---7 Date Signature Y For City of Grand Terrace III. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. b, 3 b The development of this predominantly vacant site will result in the over covering of a certain percentage of the soil. This impact will be mitigated by utilizing proper drainage methods which reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Department. 6. a The existing noise levels will increase as a result of the development of residential uses in an area that is predominantly vacant. This impact will be within the allowable levels as set in the Master Environmental Analysis for the General Plan and enforced through the City's Noise Ordinance. 8. The existing landuse will change from predominantly vacant land to single family residential uses in accordance with the adopted General Plan.