Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
219
ORDINANCE NO. 219 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 04-02 (SP-04-02) FOR A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH 15 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT ON A TWO ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DE BERRY STREET BETWEEN THE GAGE CANAL ON THE WEST AND MT.VERNON ON THE EAST AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CASE NO. 04-01 (E-04-01) -MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WHEREAS, the applicant has filed the necessary applications including four Site and Architectural Review cases and a tentative tract map to subdivide the subject site into 16 individual lots and construct 15 single family detached units; and WHEREAS, there is no existing zone in the City's Zoning Code to accommodate the size and dimensions of the 16 proposed lots; and WHEREAS,Section 18.90.040 of the Zoning Code allows for the adoption of a Specific Plan for those unique properties where the existing zoning provisions are unique or unusual; and WHEREAS,the subject site is a long,narrow site which was left over after the surrounding area developed and which is difficult to develop under the Zoning standards of the existing Zoning Code; and WHEREAS,the proposed project is providing for compensating design characteristics such as variable front yard setbacks, garages on the back and varied front elevations to make this project compatible with the surrounding residential development; and WHEREAS,the resulting density of this project at 7.5 units per acre is not inconsistent with existing development in the area including a large apartment complex immediately to the south and a recently approved 55 unit townhouse condominium project to the immediate west; and WHEREAS, Specific Plan No. 04-01,Exhibit A,is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS,in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental review for Specific Plan No. 04-01 has been conducted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared under E-04-01 for this project with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) having been considered by both the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearing on this project on August 19, 2004, January 20, 2005, May 18, 2005, July 21, 2005 and September 15,2005; and i WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following the conclusion of the public hearing on September 15, 2005 recommended that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. 04-02 and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration under Environmental Review No. 04-01, set out in the attached Exhibits A and B,by adopting this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission in taking the above action found that the proposed Specific Plan No. 04-02 will not be: 1. Detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the city; or 2. Injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. WHEREAS,the City Council held a properly notice public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and other relevant testimony on October 13,2005 and onNovember 10, 2005 for SP-04-02 and E-04-01. NOW, THEREFOR, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Specific Plan No. 04-02 to allow for the development of 15 single family residence and one open space lot, set out in full in Exhibit A, is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace. Section 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration on file in the offices of the Community Development Department under E-04-01 is hereby approved as Exhibit B. Section 3. Effective Date:This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 3 Vt day of its adoption. Section 4 Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen(15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 5 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the loth day of November, 2005 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 8`h day of December, 2005. e ATTEST: J. City Clerk of the City and or ethe City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the November 10, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Hilkey, Garcia and Miller; Mayor Ferre NOES: None ABSENT: None �i ABSTAIN: Mayor Pro Tem Cortes Brenda Stanfill City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper City Attorney c:\A4yFilesVOHN\Karger\Karger2-5-04\sp04-02ordinance r -- SPECIFIC PLAN No: 04-01 Tract No. 16624 Mt. Vernon-De Berry - City of Grand Terrace \ EXHIBIT A peci&Plan - No. 04-02 City of Grand Terrace August 2005 Prepared for: ^I Mr. Barney Karger _ 11668 Bernardo Way Grand Terrace, CA 92313 -- Prepared by: Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers-Planners-band Surveyors 1572 N. Waterman Ave., Suite 5 San Bernardino,CA 92404 (909) 883-9355 j I Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace >' Specific Plan Outline Section 1 —Introduction A.. Purpose and Intent B. Project Location C. Project Setting D. Existing Conditions E. General Notes Section 2—Master Plan A. Conceptual Landscape B. Infrastructure Section 3 —Implementation A. Development Standards ENIIBITS NLocation Map.................................................................... 1-1 ExistingLand Use Map......................................:.......................................1-2 Assessors Parcel Map.................................................................................1-3 GeneralPlan Map ...................................................................................... 1-4 ZoningMap ...............................................................................................1-5 Reduction of Tentative Tract Map............................................................... 1-6 Conceptual Grading Plan......................:.........:........................................... 1-7 - Preliminary Landscape Plan.......................................... ............................ 1-8 Utility,Services ..........................................:...............................................1-9 Fencing&Walls........................................................................................ 1-10 Fencing&Walls.:...................................................................................... 1-10A - Page 3 of 26 9 . Specific Plan Mt. Vernon-De-Berry City of Grand Terrace --J Section 1 -Introduction A. Purpose and Intent. The implementation of this Specific Plan will provide for the development of the project site with the goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. The -- regulations contained herein are intended to allow for development standards created F, specifically for the project area while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of the various ordinances of the City of Grand Terrace. B. Project Location The project encompasses 2.0 acres and is located along the North side of De Berry Avenue between Mt. Vernon Avenue to the east and Gage Cnal to the west. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers are 1167-321-03, 04. Township 2 South, Range 4 West, Northeast 1/a of Section 5. C. Project Setting This project is an infill type of project. To the north of the site are single-family homes and apartments, minimum lot size is 7,200 S.F. built approximately 40 years ago. To the south of the site and across De Berry Street is an apartment complex called "The Crest", Nconsisting of 228 units,built around 1978. To the west of the site is the Gage Canal, and west of the Gage Canal is vacant land. To the southwest of the site are single-family homes, minimum lot size 7,200 S.F. built 40 years ago. _! To the northeast of the site on the east side of Mt. Vernon Avenue are,single-family homes, minimum lot size 7,200 S.F. built 40 years ago. -' To the southeast of the site on the east side of Mt. Vernon Avenue is a school site. . D.Existing Conditions The site consists of two parcels of vacant land 1.80 acres and 0.20 acres totaling 2.0 acres. The dimensions of the site are as follows: The 1.80 acre site is 781.25 feet by 100.00 feet, and the 0.20 acre site is 98.00 feet by 100.00 feet. The site falls in east to west direction from an elevation of 1055 to an elevation of 1028. The property slopes downward toward the west at rates between 2 and 7 percent. A dedicated 20 foot wide alley runs along the north of the site. This alley is shown on Tract Map No. 6551, M.B. 88/26-27. - Page 4 of 26 Q BARTON RO. Z Z < Q j v - < X v Q� OE 50TO sT DE BERRY ST. CT NO 16 24 VAN BUREN 5T. LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE LOCATION MAP E IIBIT PAGE 5 OF 26 1 IMS RAP IS FOR THE PD9PD5[ Ptn. East Riverside Land Company, M.B. 6/44 city of Grand Terrace 1167 - 32 of AD YA[ORE9 TSlATIOA ael/, To. Rate Area i6001 Sqe a II9 Ilss � 31 1•.ID9• 95 e8 89 90 91 92 93 9; Ii la N ul is fe 30 SB 81 Pin. 1 60 61 81 6J {/ fif 68 1 � Req 111-3hIJA I 'y � c.na,9.Arrr tie.tu.1—>• # �4' Annete°° 11 29 28 27 0. 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 IB 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 1a 9 8 7 1 6 1 5 4 3 1 f7 38 35 J' Pin.15 I toLs1 lal.n (9.11 AC.) 1 - ]a l A[1-1 Ir.n lee° fl.1p n.A ee.50 le.e9 Ie.N se ♦[ 15 N 719 20° 21 11 23 24'1114 nee u.6b us9 u.v use e1.JD m.J9 iP 1° Ss.Te + 03 {N 113 I7 I ✓a.11 es.sa u.ss osA u.N a.lr uaeJ ase asn n s9 n,u 1 - IJ (II _-- 03 Pin. 1; 9.1e AC.)1 i 12 Ib Is _� 11 10 - 9 8 ^ 7 6 5 ^ 4 3 t ry 1 I 11 a u.19 u.sP n.sl u.sa u.ss n.N neo u.se sa ti•' 1 LSt AC. 1 � aJ a I , PIn. [6 DI _ $ 1.87 At, a]I 'L-,--RE6E&Rfi----- --------�---------------------------i�TREfT-------L- 1 I 1 33 . REYISCD 61Ja/!b Al Asse ssor's Map 12/08/99 PE a^'0 5 2� ' PtO, tract Na. III75, U.B. I55/I6-42 Pin. N.E.1/4, Sec. 5 Book 1167 Page 32"" JUNE 1998 tract No, 5551, R.B. 88/26-27 T.2S., R.dW. Son Bernardino County NOT TO 56 ALE ASSESSORS PARCEL NIAP EX HMIT 1-3 PAGE 6 OF 26 Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace E. General Notes 1. General Plan and Zoning The General Plan for the site is in the category of Medium Density Residential (MDR). Under the General Plan(MDR)will allow up to 12 units per acre for development. The site is zoned medium density residential(R3). Under the Zoning R3 the minimum lot size is 12,000 S.F., interior lot widths are 60 feet, corner lot widths are 70 feet, lot depths are 100 feet, front yard setbacks are 25 feet, side yards are 5 and 10 feet, and rear yards are 20 feet. The project does not fit the requirements of the Medium Density Residential (R3)Zone or any city zone. Therefore, a Specific Plan is required which provides the zoning requirements and standards specific to this site and the proposed project. Lot 1 (a comer lot)has"a width of 60 feet and a depth of 100 feet, with a 15 foot street side yard setback, and 5 foot side yard setback. Lots 2 through 12 have a width of 54.5 feet and a depth of 100 feet, with a 9.5 and 5 foot side yard setback. Lots 1 through 12 and 15 have a front yard variable setback'between 15 feet and 20 feet and a rear yard variable setback between 6 feet and 11 feet. Lot 13 and 14 have a front yard setback of 20 feet and a rear setback of 19 and 18 feet, respectively, and a 5 foot side yard setback and a 15 foot side street yard setback for Lot 14. Lot 15 has an average width of 64.5 feet and a depth of 100 feet, with a 19.5 and 5.0 foot side yard setback. Lot"A" which is immediately to the east of Lot 15 has an.average width of 58 feet and a -- depth of 100 feet and will be offered to be dedicated to the City of Grand Terrace for a park. Undenthe existing R3 zoning site development standards, the project meets the minimum depth of 100 feet, and side yard setback of 5 feet, and corner lot setback of 15 feet. Any details or issues not specifically addressed by the Specific Plan regulations shall be subject to the regulations of the governing agency. Definitions of terms shall also be as defined in the codes of the City of Grand Terrace. 2. City Circulation Element Access to the project is provided by De Berry Street which is classified as a 66-foot wide, two-lane local collector on the General Plan's Circulation Element. There are curbs and gutters along De Berry Street but no sidewalks. Mirado Avenue is a 60 foot wide local street with curbs; gutters, and sidewalks. A dedicated 20 foot wide alley will provide access into the garages located on the rear of the lot. The 20 foot wide alley was shown Page 7 of 26 � �.• 'q1�� I 'P� l yp+,�}(�{�1�9( I/A7A�i kk I n 7 . +III �I In �ryp 1 F t Ar R�t� �' � �_�l�i"�9'i d I WI"•`Y.Y, �iR ��,poi II 4 fly I t�l�J Nl IN'��I :t..r .vM i I.`If il 11 11�11 -, W N 11,�ih�l I dll�l:�l�l 4 a' lu ° 1 , rl��a � � flapllllR�ulq t V— � (' �— r i b�� ���t����yl?�I kl1A „q, �r ..{4 k ° ��Ilil�•��1��I� �������;1 » Ax: r- .. f .. :?t:tt �{ .'p; s`• pl+'"°�+ a �"w�' e° 'IftFa'�f d� s^�'i + +,.1 � _�M`{+ygih�t t k.' r ll4^ �1a4{ "�[ �� i 1�,��,,y�i µi,a,^k;�� A ' Sy"i 1.���>i j �w} � R��MRRII,C I�f iln' 1� �.4'Ik�'r "I'9 j 1i �K r �✓r" �iA { ;1'�L r it�f LL -rt� +• "�t° '!i , I���UI I Ip ii�ii a �i k� � � � � '?y kt. �'� ' C CD �i%�1!`riS�T `• .2 �.:.•'-'r_ =wr '�:Ill ��; 1 t. �, �li�t„liii' �'u Q J v • �= j ETA � LY REED A Rr- I LJ S General Plan Land Use Man BARTON City of ,I Grand Terrace - CENT T D:vclopmrnt[kyrun,xnt - � I.A PAIX S U ` General Plan Land Use: 'r DE SOTO ST k W > -�Be solo sT Low Density - � Q Residential Medium Density DE BERRY ST Residential ® Hillside-Low Density LLLL 1_ _`- Residential Hillside-Open Space Office Commercial INIAVIS ST > General Commercial Industrial c Floodplain-Industrial CARD14 w CARDINAL ST F Public i EXHIBIT GENERAL PLAN MAP 1-4 PAGE 9 OF 26 t-,-' � 1 i h� Zonine Ma,9 � BARTON City Of Grand Terrace CU:1m Wllly 1 fhlrlupmrm n:p:uvncnt CE\'1'F ('I' 1' p � Zoning Plait Land U.je a�z RI-7.2-Single Family Residential DE So'1'O ST N5 ®.. w.7 UE Sulu S'1' RIA0-Low Density Single Family r F .• _ ® R 1-20-V.Low Density Single Family RI-I-Hillside Residential _ DE BERRY ST � R2-Low Medium Density Residential _- R3-Medium Density Residential BRSP-General Commercial 111.�tA1t .. BRSP-Village Commercial _ BRSP-Office Professional AP-Administrative Professional C2-General Commercial —' MAN IS ST - • z 0 C41-Commercial Manufacturing - z MR-Restricted Manufacturing CARI:I\W. - M2-Industrial F ® PUB-Public Facilities FP-Flood Plain Overlay District AG-Agricultural Overlay District a ' 1 ZONING MAP EXHBIT 1-S �� PAGE 10 OF 26 Specific Plan Mt. Vernon-De Berry City of Grand Terrace on Tract Map No. 6551,recorded as M.B. 88/26-27. Improvements to De Berry Street _• and Mirado Avenue and the alley per the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 15.28 Article I. 1. Sawcut wings on curbs to maintain 10% maximum side slope for handicap ramps at both comers on Mirado Avenue. - ` 2. Remove and replace all curb depressions on De Berry Street, all damaged curb and gutter on all streets, cut asphalt paving back 12" from removed gutters, and install match up paving. A 6 foot wide non-recorded Southern California Edison easement runs immediately south of the alley. The garages served by the alley will be setback a variable distance between 6 feet to 11 feet from the edge of the alley to provide a variable backup distance between 26 feet to 31 feet for the garage parking of each unit. The two lots facing Mirado Street will have the garages in front of the house. The - rear yards will back up to Gage Canal. 3. Site Plan The site.plan shows the location of a total of 15 single-family homes and Lot"A" dedicated to the City of Grand Terrace for a park. There are 13 proposed homes located on De Berry Street between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Mirado Avenue and 2 proposed 10 homes at the northwest comer of De Berry Street and Mirado Avenue. The 13 proposed homes facing De Berry Street have a variable front yard setback between 15 feet to 20 feet. There are three different floor plans with elevations showing which floor plan will be constructed on each lot. The proposed 20 foot wide easement for ingress and egress _ will be granted by separate instrument and recorded in the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office. 4. Floor Plans The site will have four(4) different plans for the proposed single family houses. Plan 1 will contain 1,606 square feet of living area consisting of a living room, family room, dining area,kitchen, 3 bedrooms, and 2 baths. Plan 1 is located on Lots 13 and 14 on the west side of Mirado Avenue. Plan 2 will contain 1,704 square feet of living area. There will be a great room, country kitchen,three bedrooms, a den or fourth bedroom, and two baths. The garage is attached to the rear of the house with access provided by the 20 foot wide alley along the northerly property line. Plan 2 is located on Lots 3, 5, 9, and 12. Plan 3 will contain 1,818 square feet of living area with a layout almost the same as"Plan 2",but with no den or fourth bedroom option. The garage is also attached to the back of -� the house. Plan 3 will be located on Lots 1, 4, 7, 8, and 15. Page 11 of 26 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16624 ® CITY OF GRAND TERRACE am I'';I __L _ _®I �'l ` � •� ' C.LE E `SfRE I—F. Ll `� ...... •` r I 1 _ n :� m 19-1 H.-M, % N ``• gg V °9SY'➢R9 1 i„ 0 I: ' ` I ,1 ,�� _ ` `lZa• � � 1 5S @7c✓m�l�df.'" -Z214 i 1 - T�vm.min m L DE SYREyf— / ��✓ rn. ia11 I _ d �.n� L44SSAR0 /x WELSH �L..ye� /I i Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace Plan 4 will contain 1,733 square feet of living area. It will have a great room, kitchen, three bedrooms, and two baths. The garage will also be located on the back of the house. Plan 4 will be located on Lots 2, 6, and 10. _ 5. Elevations Plan 1-The house will have a contemporary design with a strong Spanish influence including the use of arches over the windows and file roofs. Plan 1 has the garage on the front. Plan 2 and Plan 3 have a very similar appearance in terms of the window treatment, arches, columns, tile roofs, and roofline. These plans have the garage on the back facing the alley;therefore,there is no garage door on the front elevations. Plan 4 also has a strong Spanish influence, but the front has a different roof line and different window treatment from the first three plans. The use of cross-gabled roof and extensive use of window panes gives this plan a unique appearance. Since the proposed concrete sidewalks are next to the concrete curb and gutter,this will give a variable distance from the back of the sidewalk to face of the houses between 21 and 26 feet for a front yard. The back yards vary with an average 30 feet by 40 feet rectanglar yard. The design of the homes with the garage attached to the rear gives a spacious feel to the front and back yards. 6. Conceptual,Grading Plan The site has a gentle slope falling toward the Gage Canal on the west side of the site. Small concrete block retaining walls will be used between the property lines. A 5-foot wooden fence will be attached to the concrete block retaining wall. The reason for the small walls between the property lines is that we have to meet the proposed property line elevations along De Berry Street and the existing elevations for the 20 foot wide alley. Also, city policies state that we can not have cross lot drainage. Therefore, to meet these conditions a small wall will have to be placed between the lots. Grading Standards: At the time of development within the Specific Plan area a complete - soils engineering report indicating evidence of a safe and stable development for the improvements anticipated shall be submitted with the grading plans. The recommendations by the geologists and soils engineer shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to the issuance of a grading permit. An N.P.D.E.S. Compliance Study and a Hydrology Study has been submitted to the City planning staff. _ Page 13 of 26 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN �y ® CITY OF GRAND TERRACE w 1 1 I A. � I F j 1 I y`♦� , C. _� 1 1 1 f 1 f !_m•@oR•r�� ':' 1 1 ,�, 11 i� ' 1 � I,�� ._i••� '�I�_���� I,�.� � ' I% 1 ` � ___ q,` i I O�� r ... aC I m I f TEA B1Q i / I 1 `I 1 1 9gg�� m �8 I; +e !� �♦—_ _ _ —'_ —�� ___—— ,`__ \ � ii___ � � _—i � i\,�� '� \� ��� � % i �IsitE1'!Ir O 7; r' a l i A g 1 9 A A I A i d•' A Y A f 1 �`t-oi•r r> _mcz�l.ro �+ I 1 I Q'� L ♦♦Ym•� ' 1 'A Awr\ � wki' � ' tl`♦`` SI w .. ;F Q I w `,� wap `I\w is w:� nu• - Iw� �� wWw\' ` ip` 1 e 1 �r m® l DFyZEMf STRE�7�— rd r� owCrmrml, ��mr wrmK.m,• ♦� w\ \ \ `\ � 1 >^�� 1 1Erc�--3P'3F— Tcm+N ®roW®m>• rwm�mw ll�nYm_ _ � IAPSSARO �{ ••u.m I V Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace Section 2—Master Plan A. Conceptual Landscape Plan LANDSCAPE SPECMC FLAN FOR TRACT 916624, GRAND TERRACE, CA. STREET TREES: © One street tree per lot or one tree per 60 lineal feet for the entire block. Twenty- five street trees will be required. . • All street trees shall be clean, require little maintenance, be structurally strong, insect and disease resistant, and require little pruning. Tree selection shall be r from the approved tree list. They shall be a minimum 24"box size. • Trees shall not be planted less than 25 feet from the beginning of the curb return at intersections; 10 feet from streetlights; 10 feet from fire hydrants,and 10 feet from driveways. • Trees with a limited root structure are recommended near sidewalks in order to minimize sidewalk and curb breakage. s All trees to be guaranteed by contractor for sixty days after occupancy. LIST OF APPROVED STREET TREES FOR GRAND TERRACE: 0 Arecastrum romanzoffianum Cocos Palm e Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood -- • Eucalyptus sideroxylon rosea Red Iron Bark • Fraxinus uhdei "Tomlinson" Tomlinson's Ash e Ginkgo biloba(fastigiated male) Maidenhair Tree • Koelreuteria bipinnata Goldenrain Tree • Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle • Liquidamber styraciflua American Sweetgum • Magnolia grandiora cv. Southern Magnolia 0 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine • Pimis pines (with pot) Italian Stone Pine • Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistachio • Plantanus acerifolia London Plane Tree • Quercus ilex holly Oak • Quercus virginia Louisiana Live Oak • Trachycarpus fortunei (excelsa) Windmill Palm • Washington filifera California Fan Palm i • Washington robusta Mexican Fan Palm i Page 15 of 26 Specific Plan Mt. Vernon.—De Berry City of Grand Terrace MAINTENANCE: � i . • All landscape is to be maintained by the individual homeowner'per individual lot. • Landscape areas should be maintained in an attractive condition at all times. • Trees are to be pruned per attached details; under no circumstances are trees to be topped. LANDSCAPE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR TRACT#16624, GRAND TERRACE, CA. SAFETY: • Landscaping shall provide adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians entering and exiting a site and shall not interfere with circulation effectiveness. • Water overspray on handscape areas.should be avoided and kept to a minimum. • Sprinkler heads on fixed risers are permitted adjacent to a structure. PLANT MATERIALS: © Front yard landscape designs soften arch elements, provide privacy between lots, accent front entries and provide seasonal color and interest. ® . Underplanting shall be low-profile shrubs, groundcover and grasses. • Shrubs and groundcovers should be selected based on their eventual size to avoid — an `overgrown' or`butchered' appearance. o Trees should be planted a minimum of 5 feet from adjoining property fences and walls. ® Deciduous trees from the approved tree list shall be used in south facing outdoor areas around buildings to provide solar access during winter months, while providing shade in summer months. PLANTING REQ S: • All front and side yards to be landscaped by developer and maintained by homeowners. Backyards are to be left for homeowner's to landscape according to • their individual taste. -- Page 16 of 26 Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace • Minimum one tree per every 1,000 sq. ft. of total landscape area, exclusive of required street trees. These trees shall provide a background to street tree plantings. • Minimum one shrub (5 gal.)per every 25 sq. ft. of landscape area, exclusive of turf areas. WATER CONSERVATION: • Turf areas should be limited to 50%of the total landscape area, planting the remaining area with shrubs, groundcover and/or hardscape. • Select trees, shrubs and groundcovers that are drought tolerant. • Shrub and groundcover areas shall be covered with mulch to improve water . holding capacity of the soil. ® All irrigation systems to be automatic and programmed to the time of least evaporation. r Page 17 of 26 ' 9 1 2 4 THE TREE IS TRIMMED TO ACHIEVE A SYMMETRICAL BALANCE THAT MAINTAINS THE TREE'S MAXIMUM 8 HEALTH AND AESTHETIC VALUE, 9 THE TRIMMING .INCLUDES: 3 5 1, TRIMMING "DOUBLE LEADERS" WITH 7 A WEAK CROTCH, SELECT ONE 6 LEADER AND REMOVE THE OTHER, 2, PRUNING "SLOW GR❑WING HANGERS" OR "DROPPERS" BACK TO A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY BRANCH, 3, PRUNING THE "BRANCH STUBS" ON THE TRUNK BACK TO THE BRANCH M COLLAR. 4, PRUNING "WATER SPOUTS" FLUSH TO THE BRANCH. 5, PRUNING ALL "BASE SUCKERS" FLUSH TO THE BASE FOR THE TREE, 61 PRUNING ALL "GIRDLING ROOTS" TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE, 7, REM❑VING ALL "ROOT SUCKERS" BY PRUNING, 8, PRUNING TREE SKIRT TO LEGAL HEIGHT, 9, REM❑VING RUBBING, WEAK, DEAD OR CR❑SSING BRANCHES, ALSO .REMOVE ALL IVY, DEBRIS, MISTLET❑E, AND UNDESIRABLE SUCKER GROWTH, THIS COMPLETE TRIMMING IS PERFORMED FROM THE GROUND OR FROM AN AERIAL DEVICE, IT INV❑LVES MAKING POWER OR HAND SAW CUTS AND ALL NECESSARY POLE SAW OR PRUNING W❑RK, UNDER NO " CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE TREE BE POLLARDED OR 'TOPPED'. ALL PRUNING SHALL BE SUPERVISED BY A CERTIFIED ARB❑RIST, PRUNING SHALL CONFORM TO NATI❑NAL ARB❑RIST ASS❑CIATI❑N STANDARDS, TREE PRUNING PAGE 18 OF 26 Planting lmgokd Tentative Tract # i�624 CONCE-TIVAL LANDSCAPE PLAN N.W. CORNER MT.VERNON AVE.AND DE BERRY STREET GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA Glad Ts"on.CA 0"13 [gas)015-am 5q, Sri kTs ifr�! —j Ll F7 17. I 1 10 —TI L N by DEBERNSTNEEr s .ber.••ao.•ere...:,an„•arvrwur•b..reC.d•r ,auaa,t.:rm•.,ecw+aatomwe.,nTray•aa � L°�-- = C DON -� 61 lo ES-w- Sczl C♦92,11 19-9;hm 5m6 $D91 J(,•SpSY 00 Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace —� B. Infrastructure 1. Water System- The Riverside Highland Water Company will provide water service to the development. A proposed 6"water main will be located in the alley and will serve Lots.1 through Lot 15. An existing 6" water main in Mirado Avenue will serve Lots 13 and 14. Locations of proposed water meters are shown on the tentative tract map. 2. Sewer System- The wastewater is collected by the City of Grand Terrace collection system, but treated at the City of Colton plant. 3. Electrical power will be provided by the Southern California Edison Company based -recorded easement is located south of the 20 foot alley, four upon a user fee, a 6 foot non (4)power poles are located in this 6 foot easement. 4. Solid waste disposal will be provided by USA Waste Disposal. 5.Natural gas service will be provided by the Southern California Gas Company with monthly user fees applied. 6. Storm drain system- An existing 48" R.C.P. storm drain system is located in De Berry Street and collects the onsite runoff for the site. I Page 20 of 26 'L 20' ALLEY 6' 5.0.E. ON-REGORDE EA5EMENT 4' I I' 5' EX15T. A.G. PAVEr ENT ,3' EXIST.:GONG. 5WA E - I FROF05ED 6" WATER MAIN- FROF05E0 8" 5EWER MAIN----o LTI'IEI'I'Y SERVICES EX lT 1-9 PAGE 21 OF 26 Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace Section 3 —Implementation A. Development Standards a. Lot Area—Each of the following Lots 1 through 15 will have the said amount of square footage for each lot and the corresponding house plan type and the house plan square footage: Lot Square Footage of House Plan Type House Plan Square Footage Each Lot 1 5,914 Plan 3-R 1,818 2 5,450 Plan 4-R 1,733 3 53450 Plan 2-R 1,704 4 5,000 Plan 3-R 1,818 5 5,000 Plan 2-R 1,704 6 5,000 Plan 4-R 1,733 7 5,000 Plan 3 1,818 8 5,000 Plan 3 1,818 9' 5,000 Plan 2 1,704 10 5,000 Plan 4-R 1,733 11 53000 Plan 3 R 1,818 12 5,450 Plan 2-R 1,704 13 43460 Plan 1-R 1,606 14 5,293 Plan 1 1,606 15 6,407 Plan 3 1,818 Lot"A" 5,600 Dedicated to the City NIA for use as a park Average lot size= 5,468 S.P. • Page 22 of 26 Speck Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace -- b. Lot Dimensions—Each of the following Lots 1 through 15 and Lot"A" will have the said amount of width and depth: Lot Width Depth 1 60' 100' 2 54.5' 100' 3 54.5' 100' 4 54:5' 100' 5 54.5' 100' 6 54.5' 100' 7 54.5' 100' 8 54.5' 100' 9 54.5' 100' 10 54.5' 100' 11 54.5' 100' 12 54.5' 100' 13 45' 99' 14 55' 97' 15 64.5' 100' Lot"A" 5 8' 100' c. Building Height—No building or structure shall exceed two and one-half(2 '/2) stories or thirty-five (3 5)feet in height. Building Setbacks LOT FRONT B.S.L. REAR B.S.L. SIDE YARID B.S.L. 1 20 6 15/5 2 15 11 9.5 /5 3 17 9 9.5/5 4 19 7 9.5 /5 5 17 9 9.5 /5 6 15 11 9.5 /5 7 17 9 9.5 /5 8 19 7 9.5 /5 9 17 9 9.5 /5 10 15 11 9.5 /5 11 19 7 9.5 /5 12 17 9 9.5 /5 13 20 19 515 14 20 18 15 /5 15 1 16 1 10 1 19.5 /5 Page 23 of 26 I- i Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace. d. Driveways 1) Concrete driveway approaches for Lots 1 through 12 will be served from the twenty(20)foot wide alley. 2) Concrete driveway approach for Lot 15 will be served from the twenty(20) foot wide alley. . 3) Concrete driveways approaches for Lots 13 and 14 will be served from Mirado Avenue. e. Fences and Walls Fences and walls shall not exceed six(6) feet in height shall be permitted along the front,rear and side property lines. Six(6)feet in height wrought iron gates shall be placed along the frontyard setback along De Berry Street. The property line at the north along the alley and the sideyard setback will be served by a five (5)foot high wooden fence. Page 24 of 26 I 5' HIGH WOODEN FENCE (T1'FICAL) ' x 51 5, x __. 2-8"x&"x16" CONCRETE BLOCKS (TYFIGAL) 510E YARD 1NALL FENCE DETAIL BETWEEN LOTS I THROUGH LOT 0 51 5 &' HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE (TYFIGAL) lz b'-HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE FACING DE BERRY 5TREET AND MI RADO AVENUE FENCEVG & WALLS E II 1-10 PAGE 25 OF 26 i 5'-HIGH WOODEN FENCE (TYPICAL) FENCING & WALLS EDIT 1-1 OA - PAGE 26 OF 26 IL *t MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Document Type: Negative Declaration (Mitigated) Date: June 30,2005 Project Title: SP-04-02, TTM-04-01, SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04, SA-04-05,SA-04-06 and E-04-01 Project Location: 2 acres located on the north side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on the west and Mt. Vernon on the east. Property measures approximately 950 feet in length with a depth of 100 feet. ■ Description of Project: The proposed consists of.a total of 16 lots, 15 will be developed with single family detached type units on individual lots ranging in size from about 4,500 square feet to about 6,400 square feet. The 161i lot will be left undeveloped as open space or a mini-park. The Specific Plan has been submited along with the Tentative Tract Map detailing lot dimensions, setbacks, house plan types,floor area, square footages, proposed landscaping,fences, block walls,walls and infrastructure. The Site and Architectural Review application have been filed for each housing product, i.e.,each single family floor plan. Project Proponent: Massaro&Welsh, Civil Engineers Lead Agency: Community Development Department,City of Grand Terrace Contact Person: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director (909)430-2247 Public Review Period: Began:Thursday,June 30,2005 Ended: November 10,2005 Public Hearings/Meetings: Planning Commission-Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council-Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 6:00 P.M. and City Council-Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 6:00 P.M. Environmental Finding: Based on an Initial Study,attached hereto,prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of approving SP-04-02, TTM-04-01, SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA- 04-04, SA-04-05 and E-04-01,the said project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the grounds that it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the recommended mitigation conditions. Signature:- Gary L Kodrft,Community Mvelopment Director EXHIBIT B c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Karger\Karger2-5-05\negativedeclarationSP-04-=021 n City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan No. 04-02, Site and Architectural Review Case No.'s 04-02,04-03,04-04,04-05,04-06,Tentative TractNo.04- 01 and Environmental Review Case No.04-01 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace,CA 92313 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director or John Lampe,Associate Planar (909)430-2247 4. Project Location: Approximately 2 acre vacant area located generally on the north side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal right-of--way on the west and Mt.Vernon Avenue on the east. The property in question is a long linear area with an average depth of 100 feet and an overall length of about 950 feet. 5. Project Sponsor's Name Massaro&Welsh,Civil Engineers C6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: "R3"(Medium Density Residential) 8. Description of Project:(Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed consists of a total of 16 lots, 15 will be developed with single family detached type units on individual lots ranging in size from about 4,500 square feet to about 6,400 square feet. The 16ie lot will be left undeveloped as open space or mini-park. The Specific Plan(SP.-04-02)has been submitted along with the Tentative Tract Map(TTM-04-01) detailing lot dimensions, setbacks, house plan types, floor area, square footages,proposed landscaping, fences, block walls, walls and infrastructure. The Site and Architectural Review applications have been filed for each housing product,i.e.,each single family floor plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Mixture of single family homes, duplexes and four-plezes. Also a townhouse condominium project(Cape Terrace). Zoned R3 East: Single family homes and the Terrace Middle School. Zoned R1-7.2 and PUB South: The Crest Apartments.Zoned R3 West: The Gage Canal and farther to the west a recently approved 55 unit townhouse condominium project on 4.8 acres and single family residential. Zoned R3 and R1-7.2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) Community Development Department 1 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis e City of Grand Terrace Department of Building and Safety—building and grading permits;County of San Bernardino Fire Department—plan check requirements;Riverside Highland Water Company for water connection and service; and City of Grand Terrace Public Works for sewer connection. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0.Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services I_ ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Services Systems ■Geological Problems ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Aesthetics ❑Water ❑Hazards ❑Cultural Resources ■Air Quality ■Noise ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation(To be completed by the Lead Agency): ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑: I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by,mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Siinat6e Date Gary L. Koontz Community Development Director Printed Name Title Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Community Development Department 2 Initial Study and Environmental AnaIvsis 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,includingoff-site as well as on- site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts, 3) `Potential Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more `Potential Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) `Potential Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect.from `Potential Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII, `Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier Analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVH at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). 'References to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Community Development Department 3 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑; (Source: General Plan Categories Map; and Zoning .District Map-This will mitigated by the filing of a Specific Plan which will act as the Zoning for this site.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?(There are no lmown agencies where the proposed project would cause a conflict. ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (Zoning District Map,Zoning Regulations, City Zoning Code) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (There are no significant agricultural resources in Grand Terrace) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ` established community(including a low-income or minority community)? (The site is relatively small and is vacant. It will not divide any portion of the community.) A brief explanation to answer I: The proposed is inconsistent with the existing R3 zoning of the site;therefore,a Specific Plan has been filed which will act as the new zoning for the site with new development standards. The Specific Plan will have to be written to conform to the requirements of State Law. The project with its modified setbacks and lot sizes could be incompatible with nearby single family development but the potential impact will be less than significant because of the proposed landscaping and architectural design. In addition,there are no agricultural resources in Grand Terrace and no part of the community will be disrupted by this project. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure. If approved, the Specific Plan will eliminate the conflicts with the existing R3 Zoning of the site. Community Development Department 4 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis r -- Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated II. Population and Housing. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(This project is consistent ❑ ❑ ❑ with the City's General Plan and the number of units proposed is less than that allowed by the existing R3 Zone.) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ r- indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?(This project is an "infill"type project;the number of unit proposed will not necessitate any expansion of services.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ housing? (The property is presently vacant.) -- A brief explanation to answer Il: The proposed project is relatively small in size. The zoning of this site has been R3 for a number of years. The proposed project is only about 60•/o of the maximum allowed by the existing R3 zoning. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and will not exceed population projections for the City. It will also not induce growth because of its small size. In addition,the property is vacant and will not displace any existing housing,affordable or otherwise. III Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan MEA/EIR-ES-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking?(GP MEA/EIR-II-1) ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?(GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR-II-1) - d) Seiches, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (GP MEVEIR ❑ ❑ ❑ II-1) - e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ - fl Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ - MEVEIR II-20) g) Subsidence of the land? (GP MEA/EIR II-1,Append ❑ ❑ ❑ B) h) Expansive soil? (GP MEA/EIR II-1,Append B-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ Unique geologic or physical features? (GP MEVEIR ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Department 5 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis n ^ Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated A brief explanation to answer III: No active or potentially active fault traces cross the site. The only lmown potential geologic hazard to the site is from seismic ground shaking which is not unusual for any site in Southern California This and any other geologic hazard will be mitigated by the requirements that all residential structures shall be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code. Also,a soils report will be required before the issuance of a grading permit or building permits for( this project for the construction of 15 residences. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure:This project Est meet the requirements that all residential structures be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code. IV. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (GP MEA/EIR II-1 ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Append B) ►) Expose to people or property to water related hazards ❑ ❑ ❑such as flooding? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑ -- �, surface water quality(e.g.,temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?(GP MEA/EIR II-1) d) Changes in the amount'of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑ ^^' body? (GP MEA/EIR Il-1) e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑ movements? () f) Changes in the quality of ground waters, either through ❑ ❑ ❑ direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (GP 1VIEA/EIR II-1) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ - MEA/EIR II-1) -- h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (GP MEA/EIR H-1, ❑ ❑ ❑ and 97 Regional WCA Report) I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ^� otherwise available for public water supplies? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) Community Development Department 6 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis ' r Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated A brief explanation to answer IV: Tlse proposed project is to construct 15 single family homes. There will be some increase in impermeable surface area; however,there is a 42"r.c.p. along De Berry which will handle the slight increase from this project The submitted hydrology (Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tract No.16624 by Paul Welsh,May 20,2005)has indicated the amount of run-of from this project In addition,before grading permits are issued for this project all NPDES requirements will have to be met which should ensure that many of the impact to water resources will be eliminated These requirements have been set out in the submitted"Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan"prepared by Massaro&Welsh,January 6,2005). Also,all water for the use of this project will be provide by the local water provider,the Riverside Highland Water Company. V. Air Quality. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (GP MEA/EIR II-14, and AQMP) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The Element ❑ ❑ ❑ contains an implementing action to reduce such exposure) c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ any change in climate? (Any such implementing actions are designed to have a positive effect on the region's air quality) d) Create objectionable odors? (No specific odor causing ❑ ❑ ❑ proposals are included in the Element) A brief explanation to answer V: The proposed project is relatively small size. With only 15 units it does not have the capacity to significantly impact the air quality of the region. There will be a very small increase in air pollution primarily from the vehicles of the new residents; however,this will not be significant. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure. For the grading of the site where dust will be generated,appropriate dust control measures will be integrated into grading plans and activities as required by the City as part of the conditions of the grading permit. Community Development Department 7 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis r Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VI. Transportation/Circulation.Would the proposal result : a) Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (Trans. Engineering and Planning Consultant) r b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ bicyclists? (TCM Ordinance 147) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts?O ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Brief explanation to answer Vl: The proposed project is to has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. He concluded that because of its �. relatively small size that a traffic study would not be required even though there will be some slight increase n traffic which will not be significant. In addition,he stated:"The project will have no significant traffic impacts on the adjacent streets and intersections." Community Development Department 8 Initial Study and Environmental Analvcic Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VH. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to: f a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or l their habitats(including but not limited to ❑ ❑ ❑ ;`! plants,fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (GP MEA/EIR 11-20,Append C) b) Locally designated species(e.g.,heritage trees)? (GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Locally designated natural communities e. ( g•, oak forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II 20) d) Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ). ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑. Brief explanation to answer VII: No rare or endangered species are known to live in the urban.areas of Grand Terrace. In addition,there are no desirable large trees on the site or wetland habitats. No adverse impacts to biological resources are expected from the development of this project. VIM Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plans? (GP MEA/EIR 1&19, and Append D) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ [ known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (GP MEA/EIR II-19, and Append B) Community Development Department 9 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis n � Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answer VIU: No mineral resources have been identified in the City.Therefore the development of the proposed 15 residential units will not adversely impact any mineral resources. In addition,the project will have to be constructed in compliance with the energy standards of the building code. , - i IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ release of hazardous substance (including,but not limited to: oil, pesticides,chemicals, or radiation)? (GP MEA/EIR II-7) b) Possible interference with ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(GT Emergency Plan, and GP MMA/EIR 1I-13) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ potential health hazard? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ sources of potential health hazards? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ flammable brush, grass, or trees? (GP MEA/EIR 11-6) Brief explanation to answer IX: There are no known hazards on the site or the immediate surrounding area including areas of flammable brush. In addition,this is a residential project with no storage of hazardous materials other than what would normally be found in a residential setting;however,such storage will not be significant. • Community Development Department 10 Initial Study and Environmental Analvsis A � Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? (City Noise Element) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (City Noise Element) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Brief explanation to answer X. There will be some increase in ambient noise level simply from having 15 new homes on the site which is presently vacant; however,this increase will not be significant. In addition,the site is located just west of Mt.Vernon Avenue which has been identified in the City's Noise Element as an existing and future noise generator. However,this will be mitigate by the recommendations of the noise study required for this project which include conforming to the requirement of the Building Code,for interior noise insulation. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measures. The reconmwndations of the submitted noise study("Acoustical Evaluation for Tract No. 16624,Wieland Associates,Inc.,May 2005)will be conditioned for this project along with conforming to the requirements of the Building Code for interior noise insulation if required. XI. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ including roads?( ) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ e) Other governmental services? ( ) Brief explanation of answer M. This proposed project for 15 single family homes is small in size. As for any residential project there will be some effect on public services but because of the size of the project all of these effects will be less than significant. In addition,there will be an increase in the City's property tax base because of the development of existing vacant land and the developer will also have to pay the school impact fee for this project before building permits are issued. Community Development Department 11 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XII. Utilities and Services Systems. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: i a) Power or natural gas? (GP MEA/EIR H-32,H-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ b) Communications systems? (GP AOA/EIR II-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?(GP ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ MEA/EIR II-30) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP MEA/EIR II 30) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (GP NEVER H-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 0 Solid waste disposal? (GP MEA/EIR II 32) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (GP NEVER II-30) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Brief explanation of answer X1I. This proposed project for 15 single family homes is small in size. As for any residential project there will be some effect on utility services but because of the size of the project all of these effects will be less than significant.In addition,no utility has identified any problems in being unable to service this project XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ highway? (GP MEA/EIR 1I-22) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ aesthetic effect?(Proposed site plan and project elevations ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Create light or glare? Brief explanation to answer= The proposed project does not lie near scenic highway or will block scenic vistas. In addition,any potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated by the conditions of the project such as the requirement for a landscaping plan. I Community Development Department 12 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (GP WA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? (GP MEA/EIR H-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? (GP M EA/EIR II 22) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑ unique ethnic cultural values? (GP MEA/EIR II 22) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact ❑ ❑ ❑ area? ( ) Brief explanation to answer XIV. No known palentological,archaelogical or historical resources exist on the site. No cultural values or sacred uses will be impacted by this project. The site was probably rough graded a number of years ago when the surrounding area was developed. XV. Recreation. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities? (GP IVIEA/EIR II-21) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (GP MEA/EIR II-21) ❑ ❑ ❑ Brief explanation to answer XV. As the project is residential,there will be some increase in the demand for and affect on recreational resources;however, as only 15 units are involved such effects will be less than significant. In addition,the developer is offering the lot next to the Mt.Vernon right-of-way as a vest-pocket park to the City. Community Development Department 13 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis l f' Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact ' Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. Mandatory findings of significance. a) Does the project have the potential _ to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (� environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ �' environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of other probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 Community Development Department 14 Initial Study and Environmental Analvsis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answers XVI. No Impact.The proposed project is relatively small with only 15 units. Any effects on the environment resulting from this project will either be less than significant or will be fully mitigated by the regulations of the submitted Specific Plan or the required permits such as the building and grading permits. XNM. Earlier Analysis. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063(cx3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ■ Used the Grand Ten-ace General Plan Master Environmental Assessment and EIR for most of the base impact information. Both documents are available at the Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were C within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measured based on the earlier analysis. ■ Not Applicable c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measured which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent they address site specific conditions for the project. ■ Not Applicable JL jl Grand Terrace Community Development Dept Authority.Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. References:Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,21094,21151;Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296(1988);Leonoff v.Monterey Board of Supervisors,22 Cal.App.3d 1337(1990) c:\MyFilesUOHN\Karger\Karger2-5-05\E-04-01 Community Development Department 15 Initial Study and Environmental Analvsis