HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning & Building
--'_.~'~~" .". ....
-
.",...,.?d-'"
CITY OF SAN BERNADINO - REQUEST F. COUNCIL ACTION
Larry E. Reed
. Subject:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-11, to
change the land use designation from RM
to RMH/18 on the east siGe of Richardson
Street between Coulston Street and 1-10
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 11. 1991. 2:00 p.m.
From:
Dtt
Planning and Building Services
Date:
February 20, 1991
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
1. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 5, 1991, recommended approval
of the RMH/18, Residential Medium Highdesignation with a maximum density of 18 units
per acre.
2. On October 1, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to evaluate the
RMH/18 designation for the site and a commercial designation for a site located
west of Richardson Street between Coulston Street and 1-10
3. The site was designated RM, Residential Medium with adoption of the General Plan
on June 2, 1989.
Recommended motion:
~ That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted.
c~
Larry E. R
Signature
Director
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Staff Report
Phone:
384-5357
1
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
C~il Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
J.j~
.-.-- "..-.~"',.,.
-
'-'~,:!~;,.,;
CITY OF SAN BERN.DINO - REQUEST ~ COUNCIL ACTION
.
.
.
75.0264
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
of March 11, 1991.
REOUEST
This City-initiated General Plan amendment is to evaluate a change
in the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium (14
dwelling units per acrel to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a
density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre on approximately 22.41
acres on the east side of Richardson Street between Coulston Street
and the 1-10 freeway (Site A as shown on Exhibit B of the Initial
Study). It also evaluated redesignating 10.36 acres on the west
side of Richardson Street, north of the 1-10 freeway, from RM to a
commercial designation (Site B). Site C is comprised of
approximately 3.22 acres on the north side of Laurelwood Drive
which is proposed to be designated CG-1 along with Site B so as to
have the commercial designation along both sides of Laurelwood
Drive.
Staff evaluated CG-1, Commercial General, CO-1, Commercial Office
and alP, Office Industrial Park designations for Site B.
BACKGROUND
The area including the amendment sites was annexed into the City on
September 28, 1990. The area had been in the Sphere of Influence
and as such Sites A and B had a land use designation of RM, and
Site C a designation of RMH.
ElIVIRONMENTAL
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the proposal and
the Initial Study on November 2, 1990 and December 20, 1990. ERC
recommended that Site C be added to the amendment and proposed a
designation of CG-1, Commercial General. After review, the ERC
recommended a Negative Declaration for Site A only due to concerns
about potential impacts on residential properties through which
traffic must flow to access Site B. It was recommended that a
traffic study or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to
determine impacts, if any, resulting from redesignation of Sites B
and C.
e
e
e
'i~ "",:\
'Ut::flE:raJ rlcHI 1-I111t::r,alile~u. ':1V-....l.
Mayor and Common Cou,,., Meeting fo
March 11, 1991
Page 2
_""","'17'f"':"~:'"'.',-~,.
.
QISCUSSION
The evaluation of the proposed RMA/ 18, Residential Medium High
designation with a density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre on
Site A found that there are no significant impacts and that the
proposed designation was consistent with the General Plan and
compatible with surrounding uses.
The CG-1 designation provides for uses along major transportation
corridors and intersections and although Site B adjoins the I-10
freeway, access to it is onl y from the west via an establ ished
residential neighborhood. The land use designation on the land
south of Laurelwood Drive and west of Site B is CG-1, however, only
that part south of Rosewood Drive is commercially developed with
the remainder of it being predominantly single-familY dwellings.
The same concerns are identified when considering the CO-1 and OIP
designations.
The streets between Site B and Tippecanoe Avenue are local streets
and are not designed to handle a high volume of commercial traffic.
With access being only from Ferree Street (i.e. the west) then all
additional traffic generated as a result of future development must
travel on Ferree Street and the ma jor i ty of it would proceed
through the residential area.
In addition to the land use and traffic circulation concerns
discussed above, commercial or industrial development could be
expected to inject commercial truck noise as well as noise
generated by the commercial or industrial uses on the site.
The ERC requested evaluation of the change on Site C so as to have
orderly development along Laurelwood Drive by having the same land
use designation on both sides of the street and to review possible
impacts in that area in the event Site B was commercially/
industrially designated.
As a result of the above concerns the Planning Commission
recommended that a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation
study be conducted prior to a designation change on Sites Band C.
Since this is a City-initiated amendment, funding has not been
identified to prepare such a study.
PLANNING COMMISSIQN RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 90-11, which changes the land use designation from RM
to RMH/18 on Site A only, at its noticed public hearing on February
5, 1991. The vote was 5 for. 1 against. and 1 abstention.
- -'"'-'
Mayor and Common
March 11, 1991
Page 3
..... ...
Council Meeting of
.
-
---
.
~ MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
~
~
1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve General Plan
Amendment No. 90-11 for Site A based on the findings in
the resolution.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan
Amendment No. 90-11.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to
reevaluate Sites Band C.
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve General
Plan Amendment No. 90-11. In addition, staff recommends that no
further act ion be taken on Sites Band C unti 1 such time as a
comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study can be
prepared and evaluated.
Prepared by:
John R. Burke. Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed. Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission
Attachment A: Initial Study dated December 4, 1990
Exhibit A: Land Uses
Exhibit B: Location, Land Use
Designations &
Alternatives
Attachment 2:
Resolution
Attachments
Attachment
Location Maps
Legal Descriptions
A-1 and A-2:
B-1
PI -''1';'<",,,
- - -- - - -
. .
r ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
e AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 10
SUMMARY HEARING DATE 2-5-91
WARD 1
... .....
e
r"..--.... /' City of San Bernardino ,"'I
APPLICANT:
W
(/) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11
C OWNER: Various
0
\.
/""""0. ,
~ To change the General Plan land use designation from RM, Residential ..
Medium to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18
W dwelling units per acre on 5 parcels of land comprising 22.41 acres, on
~
0 the east side of Richardson Street between the 1-10 Freeway and Coulston
W Street.
a:
-
c
W
a:
C
\. ./
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant RM, Residential Medium
North Residential RM, Residential Medium
South Freeway N/A
East Residential RM, Residential Medium
West Vacant RM, Residential tiedium
\.
,
r C )
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES ) FLOOD HAZARD IXI YES o ZONE A SEWERS: ~ YES
\ HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO ZONE: o NO ~ ZONE B ~ o NO
/ DYES r 0 , r DYES ,
HIGH FIRE II AIRPORT NOISE! YES REDEVELOPMENT
HAZARD ZONE: n NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
\. \. ~ NO \. ~NO
r- -......
..I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z !Xl APPROVAL of Site A only
C APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES -
~ !( 0
Z(/) NO EJR CONDITIONS
WCJ II.Q
~Z D EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z D DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW
OQ WITH MITIGATING ~~
a:l MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-II.
> fi NO SIGNIFICANT D SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
Z fd
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES a:
\. .) \.
....-
~-~ ATTACHMENT 1
--
e
e
..
-
-
-
-
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
10
2-5-91
2
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
REOUEST . LOCATIO"
This is a City-initiated qeneral plan amendment to evaluate land
use desiqnation chanqes on three adjacent sites as follows:
Site A.
22.41 acres located on the northeast corner of
Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway.
To chanqe the desiqnation from RM. Residential
Medium to RMH/ 18, Residential Medium Hiqh with a
density limit of 18 dwel1inq units per acre
(du/acl.
Site B.
10.36 acres located on the northwest corner of
Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway.
To chanqe the desiqnation from RM. Residential
Medium to CG-1. Commercial General. CO-1.
Commercial Office, DIP. Office Industrial Park or
RMH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh (18 du/ac).
Site C.
Nineteen adjoininq parcel s compr isinq 3.22 acres
located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive
between Ferree Street and the commercial properties
frontinq on Tippecanoe Avenue.
To chanqe the desiqnation from RMH, Residential
Medium Hiqh to CG-1, Commercial General.
The alternatives considered are briefly described below and are
shown on Exhibit B of the Initial Study:
Alternative 1
Site A.
Site B.
Site C.
From RM to RMH/18.
From RM to CG- 1 .
From RMH to CG-1.
Alternative 2
Site A.
Site B.
Site C.
From RM to RMH/18.
From RM to CO-1.
From RMH to CG-1.
~~
PL.AN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
10
2-5-91
3
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
Alternative 3
Site A.
Site B.
Site C.
From RM to RMH/18.
From RM to OIP.
From RMH to CG-l.
Alternative 4
Sites A and B only. From RM to RMH/18.
Alternative 5
Site A only. From RM to RMH/18.
The followinq summarizes the uses permitted in the land use
desiqnations addressed in the alternatives:
RM ----
Residential Medium. Multi-familY townhomes and
apartments up to a density of 14 du/ac and a heiqht
of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.13.10)
RMH---
Residential Medium Hiqh. Mul ti-famil y townhomes
and apartments up to a density of 24 du/ac and a
heiqht of three stories. (General Plan Pol icy
1.13.11l
CG-l --
Commercial General. A diversity of retail and
service uses, entertainment, professional and
financial offices to a heiqht of two stories.
(General Plan Policy 1.19.101
CO-l --
Commercial Office. Administrative and
professional offices, supportinq retail commercial
uses, and medical offices to a heiqht of four
stories. (General Plan Policy 1.28.101
OIP ---
liqht
retail
(General
Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices,
manufacturinq and limited supportinq
services to a heiqht of three stories.
Plan Policy 1. 31. 10 I
ern CJl' &11M .....-..0
---
PL.AN..a.DB PAGE 1 OF 1 1"<<>>
-
-
-
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
10
2-5-91
4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
OBSERVATIONS
AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Site A is comprised of five contiquous parcels tota1linq 22.41
acres. It is bounded by a condominium complex on the east and
Coulston Street on the north. Richardson Street and the 1-10
freeway are to the west and south respectively. The site is vacant
and the area to the north is comprised of vacant land and sinqle-
family homes. Mountain View Avenue is to the east of the
condominiums. Exhibit A of the Initial Study shows land uses.
Site B is a vacant 10.36 acre parcel. It is bordered by Richardson
Street on the east, the freeway on the south, Ferree Street on the
west and a small lot sinqle-family subdivision on the north. North
and northeast of this site are condominiums, Coulston Street and
sinqle-family residences.
Site C is comprised of 19 adjoininq parcels totallinq approximately
3.22 acres. It is located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive
between Ferree Street and the commercial properties frontinq on
Tippecanoe Avenue. All the property on the south side of
Laurelwood Drive to the freeway and those properties frontinq on
Tippecanoe Avenue are desiqnated CG-1, Commercial General. The
properties south of Rosewood Drive and frontinq on Tippecanoe
Avenue are beinq used for commercial purposes. The remainder of
the area which includes Site C is mostly comprised of sinqle-family
residences.
BACKGROUND
The area in which the amendment sites are located was annexed into
the City on September 28, 1990. Sites A and B were desiqnated RH,
Residential Medium and Site C was desiqnated RHH, Residential
Medium Hiqh upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, when
the area was within the City's sphere of influence.
MUlIICIPAL CODE
Not applicable
em' elf 1M .......,
----
PL..AN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-iO)
e
e
-
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
10
2-5-91
5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
'"
CALIFORNIA BlIVIRORMERTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS
The qeneral plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the proposed amendment and the
Initial Study (Attachment A) on December 20, 1990 and determined
that the proposed desiqnation chanqe for Site A (Alternative 5)
would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended
a Neqative Declaration for that alternative only. There was a
public review period from December 27, 1990 to January 16, 1991 to
review the Initial Study.
A commercial I industrial designation (CG-1. CO-1 or OIP), as in
Alternatives 1. 2 or 3, on Site B would permit 250.000 square feet
or more of office/buildinq space which would require review by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the
Office of Planninq and Research (OPR). This is required for
projects havinq the potential for statewide. reqional or areawide
siqnificance.
The ERC concluded that the proposed chanqes for Sites Band C
(Alternatives 1 thru 4) will require a traffic study and/or an
environmental impact report.
COMMElft'S RECEIVED
No comments were received.
AKALYSIS
Althouqh the ERC determined that there would be impacts associated
with a chanqe in desiqnation for Alternatives 1 thru 4 and a
Neqative Declaration was not recommended, staff analyzed them here.
The potential impacts overlap General Plan policies and
enviro nmental concerns.
Land Use
Chanqinq the desiqnation on Site A to RMH/18 would yield up to 403
dwellinq units, an increase of 89 units over the 314 permitted
under the RM desiqnation. General Plan Objective 1.13 is to
promote development of hiqh quality multi-family units which
" convey a distinctive residential neiqhborhood and are
inteqrated with their settinq." The 18 dwellinq unit density on
the site is sufficient to ensure that the objective is met by
implementinq the desiqn and development qUidelines covered in
policies 1.13.32 thru 1.13.41.
...
~
ClT'l'OI'....~
---
PLAN-I..ae PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-80)
-
-
-
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA rlo. 90-11
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
10
2-5-91
6
One of the qoals (General Plan Goal 1G a.) of the City is to
"Achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which retain and
enhance established residential neiqhborhoods .... As there is
some apparent deterioration in the residential area west of Site B
then Goal 1G c could be a means by which revitalization and upqrade
miqht occur. Goal 1G d would allow for the intensification of
commercial and industrial uses if the neiqhborhood does not merit
preservation. However, the sinqle-family subdivision north of the
site was constructed just recently and improves the area.
General Plan Objective 1.19 pertains to community-servinq
commercial (CG-1) uses and provides for" uses alonq major
transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of
the residents..." Althouqh Site B abuts the I-10 freeway, access
to it is throuqh an established neiqhborhood and so it cannot be
considered to be alonq a major transportation corridor nor at a
major intersection.
The General Plan Objective for the Commercial Office (CO-1) use
provides for. new development of administrative and
professional offices in proximity to major transportation
corridors and ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential
and commercial uses.. Aqain, the accessibility to a major
transportation corridor is the issue and the impacts of a CO-1
permitted development would affect adjacent residential uses.
In addition, Objective 1.31 states that the objective of the City
(as it pertains to an OIP desiqnationl is to .Establish the
Waterman Avenue and other appropriate areas as distinctive office
industrial parks and corporate centers. . .. The appropriateness of
this site is questionable because of lack of direct access.
Noise
The potential noise qenerated on Site A will be that normally
associated with a multi-familY development with the majority of it
beinq traffic noise. The site is also impacted by noise from the
adjacent freeway. General Plan Policy 14.1.1 will ensure that
noise levels are maintained within acceptable levels. The hiqher
density permitted by the RMH/18 desiqnation allows for some
flexibility in desiqn in that the units can be sited to block the
freeway and create useab1e outdoor open spaces.
E,&~
PLAN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
e
e
-
-
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
10
2-5-91
7
....
,..
A CO-lor CG-l land use designation for Site B would generate noise
resulting from truck traffic servicing the area and the
employee/customer traffic. This noise would impact the adjoining
residential uses. Policies 14.6.1 thru 14.6.5 are in place to help
reduce the impacts of commercial activities on adjOining
residential uses. Policy 14.6.1 requires that access to commercial
properties be located at the maximum practical distance from
residential parcels. Site B only has access from the west which is
through the residential neighborhood.
An OIP designation on Site B (Alternative 3) permits uses that
would allow for operation beyond regular business hours and the
noise from employee and truck traffic would impact on the adjoining
residential areas because of access constraints.
Rousina
A non-residential designation for Sites Band C could result in a
potential net loss of dwelling units. This is not perceived as a
problem for the City as there are areas available for future
residential development to provide for future housing needs. The
change of designation on Site C from a residential to a commercial
designation could potentially reduce the availability of affordable
housing by the loss of 18 units existing there now if commercial
uses go in.
TransDortation/Circulation
All of the streets between Tippecanoe Avenue (a major arterial) and
Mountain View Avenue (a secondary arterial) are local streets as
defined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The RHR/18
designation on Site A with its potential development along with
present and future developments in the area will generate
apprOXimatelY 5,000 average daily trips (ADTs) along coulston
Street. This approaches the maximum ADT capability of Coulston
Street. The impact on Richardson Street will be minimal as only a
small portion of the traffic increase is anticipated to use this
street due to lack of ready access to the freeway.
Site B is almost "landlocked" and its access is only from the west
via Ferree Street and Laurelwood Drive or Rosewood Drive. The
present RH designation could yield 145 dwelling units and. if
assigned an RHR/18 designation. then the yield would be 186 units.
The higher designation would increase the traffic by approximately
1.100 ADTs and how such an increase would impact the area would be
shown by a traffic study.
...
"
cnvOl_~
---
PLAN-U8 .pAGE 1 OF 1 (4-80)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
10
2-5-91
8
A CG-1 desiqnation for Site B, qiven a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of
0.7, could yield up to 315,000 square feet of office/retail uses.
It is unlikely that such a larqe project will be proposed but the
potential for a development exists. A shoppinq center of 100,000
square feet would qenerate in excess of 10,000 ADTs and most of
that traffic could be expected to use Laurelwood Drive or Rosewood
Drive for access from Tippecanoe Avenue (neither street has a
traffic siqnal at Tippecanoe Avenue). Such a larqe increase in
traffic will cause a neqative impact on the residential area. Some
traffic could be expected to enter the area by way of Gould Street
(which is siqnalizedl and Ferree Street but this access is also
entirely throuqh residential neiqhborhoods. A CO-lor alP
desiqnation would create similar traffic impacts.
General Plan Policies 6.1.11 and 6.1.12 require that ".. . cumulative
and downstream impacts..." be evaluated to determine impacts to
traffic in the area. These impacts have not been evaluated. The
City Traffic Enqineer has indicated that we may wish to study the
streets in this area to determine what the impacts will be from
additional development in the area, what types of improvements are
necessary and whether the streets should be redesiqnated or
realiqned. This type of study should be completed before major
redesiqnations of land use occur which would intensify permitted
uses and increase traffic and traffic impacts.
A traffic study would tell us what the impacts are from various
land use desiqnations. With that information, the City can
determine if chanqes to land use desiqnations that permit more
intense uses can be accommodated. A traffic study won't address
the issue of compatibility between uses but will provide certain
data to help determine which of the different desiqnations can be
compatible.
With the future redesiqnation of Norton Air Force Base for non-
military use the traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue can be expected to
increase, thus compoundinq an existinq problem. The Norton Air
Force Base closure can also be expected to affect the land use
desiqnations alonq Tippecanoe Avenue resultinq from future
redevelopment and these potential impacts should be included in a
traffic study.
COIICLUSIOKS
e
The RMH/18, Residential Medium Hiqh (density limit of 18 du/ac)
land use desiqnation for Alternative 5 on Site A is compatible with
the surroundinq land uses and land use desiqnations. Approval of
Alternative 5 would allow for the desiqnation chanqe on Site A
without action on the other two sites.
~~~~
PLAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 14.gQ)
- -
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
10
2-5-91
9
The impacts resultinQ from commercial or industrial desiQnations on
Sites Band C appear to be neQative but may not be so based on the
results of a traffic study. Determinations based on the land use
chanQes proposed for alternatives 1 thru 4 cannot be effectively
evaluated until further detailed study is made.
Traffic volume will increase and circulation patterns will chanQe
upon project development. Reuse of Norton Air Force Base will
chanQe the traffic alonQ Tippecanoe Avenue. These cumulative
chanQes will impact on the Circulation Plan for the City and on the
land use desiQnations within the surrounding area. These impacts
will require improvements to the local streets, which will in turn
impact on the land uses in the area. It is likely that there will
be chanQes to the Circulation Plan which may cause chanQes to land
use desiQnations.
FllfDIBGS
The proposed amendment as per Alternative 5 is consistent with the
Qoals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the
RMH/18. Residential Medium HiQh (with a density limit of 18 du/ac)
desiQnation is not in conflict with the surroundinQ land use
desiQnations and General Plan policies.
The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest.
health. safety, convenience. or welfare of the City as addressed in
the Initial Study. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the
Initial Study and recommended that a NeQative Declaration be
adopted for Site A.
This amendment will have minimal impact on the balance of land uses
within the City. The residential to commercial acreage ratio will
not change and an RMH/18. Residential Medium High designation on
Site A will increase the potential for future housinQ.
The subject land is physically suitable for the RMH/18, Residential
Medium High land use designation and any anticipated future
development on it. There are no environmental constraints that
would affect the proposed density. The site meets the minimum size
requirements established by the General Plan.
cnv ClI' Mt ........,
---
Pl..AN-8.DB PAGE 1 OF 1 ('.QO)
- ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-11
10
2-5-91
10
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
RECOMMElfDAT I 0115
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council:
1. That a Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with
Section 21080.1 of the California Environmental Quality
Act for the General Plan Amendment No. 90-11, Alternative
5.
2. That the application for General Plan Amendment No. 90-11
be approved as per Alternative 5 to change the land use
designation from RH. Residential Medium to RHH/18,
Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18
dwelling units per acre on Site A only.
Staff also recommends that no changes to land use designations for
Sites Band C occur until such time as the City is able to prepare
a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study.
R~';U
Larry E. Reed. Director
Planning and BUilding Services Department
fd:i~'
Assistant Planner
Attachment A: Initial Study
~~=
p~ PAGE10Fl (4-tO)
e
e
e
_a
-.
CITY OF SAN BER.. . DINO PLANNING AND BUILDIII. _ SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
r-
.....
Gener",l Plan Amendment No. 90-11
Proig9t DescrJption: To change the land use desiqnation )n three
sites from RM, Residential M.:dium to RMH/18. R.:sijentia1 l1eJium
High with a density cap of 18 dwellinq units per acre ",nd from RM.
Residential MEdium t.) CG-l. C'.:)mmercial General. CO-i. Ccmme::.-lal
Office, OIP. office Industrial Park or RMH/18. Residential Medium
High (with a density cap ()f 18 units' and fr;)m RMH. Residential
Medium High to CG-l. Commercial General.
Project.Location:
west of Richardson
on the north side
Tippecanoe Avenue.
The amendment area is located to the e'~' and
Street on the north side of the 1-10 free~"y and
of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and
DatE: December 4. 1990
A~~llc~n~~ Name ~Dg ~g~ress: City of San Bernardino
Prepa~edby: John R. Burke
TiS.t€!: Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Ser,..i.~es
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
ATTACHMENT --A--
~.c.4 I.J.
pLAN-am PAGE 1 OF 1
I.....
e
e
e
-
1 . 0
-
-
-
.
.
INITIAL STUD~_for GPA90-tl
INTRODUCTION
This rencr: is crcvid6d by th~ City 8f San B8rn~rdin': ~s
an Initial .3tudy tor General Plan Amendment tic. 90-11.
This amendment Dr('.~;=,ses to change the 1a:-:.1 1130:::
designation en three si;:es from RM, Residential Mediun' tc
RMH/18, ResiJentlal Medium High with a density cap cf lS
dwelling units per acre and from RM, Residential Medium
to CG- 1, Cc,mmerc ia 1 Genera 1, co- 1, Commercia 1 (If flee
OIP, Office "ndustrial Park or RMH/18, Residential Medium
Hiqh Iwith a density cap of 18 units) and fl',:>m RI1H,
Residential Medium High to CG-1, Commercial General,
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
Negative Declaration:
2. Enable an appl icant or Lead Agen,:y to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impac-,; before an ErR is
prepared, thereby enabl1.1q the ,n.:.;ect to qualify f)l'
Negative Declaration,
3. Assist t10e prep,u'ation of an EIR,
required, by:
if.) i1 € 1 S
IAI Focusing the EIR on the effects jetermi~ed to
be significant.
IBI Identify the effects determined not to De
significant, and
Ie) Explaininq the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would nct ~e
signif i,:ant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early 1.1 the
design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis f:>r the
finding in a Negative Declaration that ~ proiect will not
have a significant effect on the envir0nment,
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7, Determine whether a previously prepared ErR .::.1.21J be
used with the proiect.
e
e
e
... - .....
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This is a City-initiated general plan amendment t~
evaluate alternatives on three ad1acent parcels of land
as follows:
Sl~e~
22.41 a~res loca~ed on the northeast ~orner of
Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway.
To chanqe the designation from RM, Residenti~l
Medium to FMH/IB, Residential Medium High with
a density limit of 18 dwellino units Der acre
I du/ac) .
~j.~ B~_
10. '.6 acres located on the northwest corner of
Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway.
Tc change the designation from RM. Residential
Medium to CG-l, Commercial General, CO-1,
Commercial Office, OIP, Office Industrial Park
or RMH/18. Residential Medium High 118 du/ac).
~Lt.~. C .
Nineteen adjoining parc~ls comprising 3.22
acres located on the nortn side of Laurelwood
Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial
properties fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue.
To change
Residential
Genera 1 .
the designation
Medium High t<:) CG-l,
from RMH.
Commercial
These are further defined as Alternatives 1 thro~gh 4 as
explained below.
Ai ternative .1
Site A. From RM to RMH/18.
Site B. From RM to CG-l.
Site C. From RMH to CG-l.
Ai te.rJla tj.Y~..l
Site A. From RM to RMH/18.
Site B. From RM to CO-I.
Site C. From RMH to CG-l.
e
e
e
-
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
/I,].!.E!];:Dllt),ye 3
Site A. From RM to RMHi 18.
Site B. From RM to 'eIP.
Site C. From RMH ta CG-l.
Al ternatj,y~4
Sites A and B only.
From RM to RMHi18.
The following summarizes the uses permitted in the land
use designations addressed in the alternatives:
RM ----
Residential Medium. Multi-family townhomes
and apartments up to a density of 14 aulae and
a height of three stories.
RMH ---
Residential Medium Hi~h. Multi-famil~
townhomes and apartments up to a density of 24
du/ae and a height af three stories.
CG- 1 --
Commercial General. A diversity of retail and
service uses, entertainment, professional and
financial offices to a height of two stories.
CO-l --
Commercial office. Administrative at,d
professional offices, supporting retail
commercial uses, and medical offices to a
height of four stories.
OIP ---
office
light
retail
Industrial Park. Corporate offices,
manufacturing and limited supporting
services to a height of three stories.
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial
Study which addressed sites A and B only. They requested
that the area and the alternatives be expanded to in~l~je
Site C and Alternatives 3 and 4 on Site B. This Initial
Study incorporates all of the content of the previous
study ldated November 2. 1990) and therefore ell
potential impacts to all of the alter~atives are
addressed within this dacument.
-
-
- -
.
.
~ INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
e
~
2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS
3.0
3. 1
Site A is comprised of five contigu')us parcEls t)talll~~
22.41 acres located northeast of Richardson Street and
the 1-10 freeway. It is bounded by 3:ond0mini'1m ocmplex
on the east and Coulston Street on the north. This si~e
and the area on the nOl.th side of Coulston 'streEt ls
designated RM. Residential Medium. It is vacant and the
area to the north is comprised of vacant land and sin~le-
family homes. Mountain View Avenue is to the east side
of the condominiums.
Site B is a vacant, single parcel comprising 10.36 acres.
It is bordered by Richardson Street on the east. the
freeway on the south, Ferree Street on the west and a new
small lot single-family subdivision on the north. North
and northeast of this site are cc)ndominiums, Coulston
Street and single-familY residences. This site and the
land to the north is designated RM, Residential Medium.
Site C is comprised of 19 adjoining parcels totalling
3.22 acres. It is located on ':he north side of
Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Stre"'!t and the commercial
properties fronting on T ippecanc," Avenue. All the
property on the south side of Laucelwood Drive to the
freeway and those propert ies fr.: nt i ng on T ippeca n,)e
Avenue are designated CG-l, Commercial General. Site C,
and the land to the north, is designated RMH. Residential
Medium High. The propert ies south of RoseW<Jod Dr i va and
fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue are being used f,~r
commercial purposes. The remainder r)f the area which
includes Site C is mostly comprised cf sinole-famil-'
residences.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The amendment area is situated wltnln ,:he ~OO-year flood
plain. It also lies within an area that has a medium-to-
medium-high susceptibility to liquefaction. The site lS
not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
There are no biological concerns.
-
,
.
.
.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
e
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
....
...
,
.....
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: 6~"'E,;I.HL fltJ9A/ IJmLA/l>/1?LNT ~. 9& -/I'
Project Description: ~j!:E. ,iJ/JMr:L "l/'#' ;;. 0 ~"" /JCU_At1~(r/nI'i: ~xr:
Location: &";,b"..,AUt/ L/lCAtn.",i) ,a..v /~ A/.I',;(',?7Y .)/~ cP/ ,l"'lY.E .2"-/0
,
HUB.//9.,/ ;:!el7<,1~.E-V ~M{/?Al/A/~4/ &-~-"~~l> ///p,c~ ,#"",,er_.
Environmental Constraints Areas:
.
e
General Plan Designation: ;'/TJ. 1&.sID~TI,q(, /!JJ>iU/?1 /1r1./J A'##; h..lZA..'N77.-9..:.
/7JelXU/If M6#'.
Zoning Designation: /1//.19
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers. where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resuh in: Ves No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or liII) 0110,000 cubic
yards or more? ><
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? X
c. Development whhin the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone? X
d. Modnication 01 any unique geologic or physical
leature? X
e. Soil erosion on or off the project she? )(
I. Modnication 01 a channel, creek or river? X
e g. Development within an area subject to landslides, X
mudslides, liquelaction or other similar hazards?
h. Other? f;J<,S/IJU f~t:r - Ii~ ~R"f#S )(
'" ...
CffYCI'''~ PLAN.II.,06 PAGE 1 OF 6 (5-90)
---
....
..
PLAN.II.D6 PAGE 2 OF 6
I....)
c::m'~IIlH~
---
~
. .
r'
. 7. Man-Made Hazarda: Will the project: Yes No Maybe
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazerdous or
toxic materials (including but not lim~ed to oil, X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X
d. Other?
8. Houalng: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand y
for add~ional housing?
b. Other?
9. Tranaportatlon / Circulation: Could the proposal resu~ in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land X'
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parlling
facil~ieslstructures? )(
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
. d. A~eration 01 present patterns 01 circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
l. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or ><
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X
h. SignKicant increase in traffic volumas on the roadways >(
or intersections?
i. Other?
10. Public ServIces: Will the proposal impact the lollowing
beyond the capabil~y to provide adaquate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? 'A
b. Police protection? >(
c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X
d. Parlls or other recreational lacil~ies? )(
e. Medical aid? X
I. Solid Waste? X
. g. Other?
ClT'I'CI'''~
.........--
....
....
PLAN.8.os PAGE 3 OF 6
(5-90)
e
e
e
u_
11. Utllltl.s: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilfties?
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricfty?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b. Resuh in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions?
c. Require the construction of new facilities?
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal resuh in the obstruction of any
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area?
c. Other?
Yes
No
Maybe
)(
><
><
x
x
X
x
x
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal resuh in:
a. The aheration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic erchaeological she?
)(
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a
prehistoric or historic she, structure or object?
x
c. Other?
14. Mandstory Findings of Slgnfflcance (Section 15065)
The CalHomia Environmental Quality Act states that H any of the following can be answered yes or maybe,
the project may have a signHicant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be
prepared.
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlne species, cause a fish or
wildlne population to drop below seh sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of CalHornia history
or prehistory?
)(
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
)(
Pl,AN..U6 PAGE' OF 6
tHO}
~~:X
e
e
e
Ves
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
lim~ed. but cumulatively ccnsiderable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small. but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is signnicanl.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
e~her directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MmGATlON MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
SEt. ~l>bt r/(J/VI91.. .s'#I:;;~
GIT'f Of aow ....-.0
---
No
~
Maybe
x
x
PL.NH1.D6 PAGE50F6
Is-eol
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT3
3.2.1 Earth Resources
1. a.
Development on the sites will require earth movement in
the form of grading ~ith cut and/or fill activities and
could involve earth movement exceeding lO.~OO cubic
yards. Su,~h possibilities will be addressed at the
review stage for any future project.
1. b.
The amendment 3rea is not within the Hillsid8 Management
Overlay District as shown on the General Plan Land Use
Plan, which assures development th3.t will pre.tect the
hillsides.
1. C, h.
The proposed amendment area is not within the AI~uist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone (General Plan. Figure 471 but
an unnamed fault may cross Site B ~5 shown in the same
figure and addressed in a study j:.repared by Fife and
Rogers in 1974.
1. d.
No unique geologic or physical feat11res 3.re k'1own t.)
exist in the amendment area.
1. e.
The proposed amendment
potential soil erosion
General Plan.
not in an ar~a cf
in Fiqur~ 53 of the
site is
as shown
1. f.
There are no channels. creeks or riv~rs ('il3iY'; -~ th-:.
sites comprising the amendment area.
1. g.
The 3.rea is within an 3.re3. of moderately-high-t0-~0jer3tB
liquefaction potential 3S shown on Figure 45 o)f tho;,
General Plan. It is also in an area c,f ):;.tBc,ti,31
subsidence as shown by Figure 51 in the Genel'al PI;,n.
These seismic concerns will be addressed dUl'ing tho;,
e
e
e
-
-
-
-
-
,... ---.....
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
3.2.2
3.2.3
projer:'t: reVi8\A.1 S't'3.l1';' .":'t f'.lt':r6 ds':'?:(rm~i-;"'" .=. -~'_;
as required. They dJ flot prec111~e develcpmenr
of the al~8rnativss.
'.
<~ - ..:. 1
. -, - _.-
'.:n :!.-=l" :ir:"
Air Resourses
2. a, b.
The proposed amenJmellt ~0ulj result i~ a ~r0~ec~ whi~h
could have statewide regional or areawide signifisanoe
as defined in the Air Quality Management Plan IAQMP! and
the California Environmental Quality Act ICEQAI. These
documents give twc' ~,f the definiti.)ns ::f prc-~ects as
having such significance as: a) a proposed residential
development of more than 500 dwelling units and bl office
buildings or parks employina 1,000 or more people or
containing 250,000 square feet of floor space.
As both of these conditions are met by one or more of the
proposed alt8rnatives, then this proposed ~mendment must
be sent the Southern Califor;~j_a Ass()ciati':,n of
Governments ISCAG~ and the Offi-e of Plal1ninJ 3nJ
Research I(lPRJ for their .comments e.s they pel-tain t:>
statewide. regional or 3reawide si_.~ifi~?nce.
Vehicle activity will be greater in an RMH/12. Co-I. '~')-I
or (lIP designated area than in an PM area. 7his will
increase exhaust particulate matter and <)'3sse3 an:J ': ther
pollutants which will be in~ected in~:~ the a~m'~Sr!~E~~.
The OIP, Office Industrial Park designation :lees permit
uses that could have emiss~ons and )Jors.
2.
The proposed amendment is net in a high wind h~=~ri 3rea
as shown on the Environmental Concerns Map on file in the
Department of Planning and Building Services
Water Resources
3. a. b, c, d, e.
Any development will Dotentially decrease a~5')1;:i0n a~'J
increase runoff with the construct ion c f imc.,rmeaL 1 e
surfaces for buildin'::! Dads, parking3r"'~s 3:1d s~ree':
improvements.
Vehicle actL'ity will be greater in an E1H. ~S
or OIP designated area than in an PM ar~a.
~:3- 1
Th':'s
,.-. -:_ 1
Wi: '
- - "
-
-
-
-
--
-
.
.
. INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
increase exhaus~ particulate matter, ~nqine fl'Jld5.
residue from vehicle tires and other pollutants ;.;hi,:h
will wash into qroundw~tBr along with rain a~d lands~aDe
irrigation runoff.
These concerns will protablv have minimal i~pact on th~
area and are addressed at the proiect review stage of
development -311d miti:.;]a,,::i;)n me3.suras anplieJ .if n€':€.:3sar~-.'.
3 . 2 . 4
Biologi~al R~s\urces
4. a, b,
Thel'e arel1C-
amendment area
ar83.S ,)!
(rJeneral
bicdo:Jical ,:oncern within
Plall, Figures 40 and 41).
the
3.2.5
Noise
5. a, b.
.
The proposed amendment is located within the 65dB(A) and
70dB(A) (General Plan, Figure 57> noise contours
generated by traffic on the 1-10 freeway. Future
projects designed for residential, commercial or office
use will be reviewed to ensure that internal noise levels
of 45dB(AI and external noise levels of 65dBIA) are not
exceeded. Projects are also reviewed to ensure that they
won't generate excessive noise which would impact
surrounding uses.
The higher density and the intsnsity of uses that ~oulJ
be permitted with a commercia1 or industrial desi~naticn
could increase traffic noise to some degree esr.eci~ll?
with the type and intensity of traffic associated with
industrial uses.
.
An alP design3tion (Alternative 3) could be expe':::ed . .
generate noise on site due to the nature of the permitted
uses, i.e. light manufacturing, warehousLlg, et:. -"11
uses must be within enclosed structures and the n:>ise
requirements are also applicable. "IP t:.ro'~C':s
frequently contain uses that operate beyond normal
working hours, thus noise impacts from employee an'';' tru,:i':
traffic can occur at any time. The truck traffic
associated with alP activities could be of an intensity
to cause noise impacts on the adjacent residential areas.
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
~ INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
3.2.6
Land Use
6. a.
Approval .':)f this amendment 'Ji 11 Chan;j6 t"1e Gensr;;ll =; '\:l
Land Use Plan. Compatibility issues will be addressed in
the staff report t~ the Planning C~mmissi~n.
6. b, c. d.
This amendment \.;i 11 r,ct res'll t in f'lture d6vel.:.pmenr
within an Airport District. a "Grsenbel'. zone or a high
fire ha=ard =one as indicated ~n the Environmental
Concerns Map on file in the Departmel't of Planning alld
Building Services.
3.2.7
Man-Made Hazards
7. a, b Ie.
~
The stor3ge, sale an,] ~se .)f ha=ar~'~us materials is an
inherent safety concern associat,j with commercial.
office and iildustr 1al deval.~pments -, .:1 to a lesse:- j,€'Jr~e
the storage and use of such matec',,;;ds in residen'=ial
developments. A concern (.f an ('1:0 desiqnatio" is 'he
potential for projects that use quentities of hazardcus
materials in close proximity tc residential
neighborhoods.
3.2.8
Housing
8. a.
~
Affordable housing could be removed ft'em Site C ;;>s a
resul t of a change to a commercia 1 des ignat iOIl and
redevelopment for commercial uses. If a commer~ial'
industr ial use was deve loped on S i ':e B. then the ; ,~t,s
created could bring abeut a situati0n that c':)uld dema~d
additional housing. The increase:>f maximum dW81l~n'J
unit density on SitE A would in::rS-3.SE ~~ie p::-t.;;-;': i:t~
housing stock by 89 units and the desi~natlon cf Site 9
as commercial would de.:rease it b":" Ii:. uni.:3. :~~t~
presently has 18 single-family homes 011 it and has :~e
potential to yiel,j 77 lJni.1':S if j€-',iel,")~'8d -::.s a ~in:,Tl-=-
prc.ject under the EMH designation. This would be '\
potential loss of S9 dwellino units. The rot~ntia: ~~~
loss of 115 units axists for the whole amendmer.r 3ce~
If Al~ernative 4 :..J8re 3.dopted t:hen the i16'": qain T",-,
potential future housing stock would bE 130 units. The
-
~
-
-
-
-
.
.
. INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
potential loss of these 'Jnits
problem due c':' thE rEsidentially
areas ,~f ~11e rity.
.is nc't: ::erC:Ei-,"~j
desi?na:ed land in
.:;. ,~
(',t~e~-
3,2,9
Transportatiorl;Cir~ulati4)n
9, a, c, d, f, g. n.
Tippecanoe Avenue is a ma~or ar~erial and Mount3i~1 View
Avenue is a secorldary arterial (General Plar: Figure 26;.
San BernarJiAo Avenue whi~h is 3bout 21000 feet north of
the sites is aIsc 3. sec'oojary arterial. The streets
within the rect311Jle f)rmeJ by the 3rterials and the
freeway are all 10,:al streets as defined in the
Circulatio~ Element of the General Plan.
.
Site A, with a densi:y cap of 18 units per acre could
generate ab.:ut 2,300 avera'J€ d,aily trips I.ADTs) with a
multi-family development of 403 units. The cumulative
ADTs along Coulston Street. between Mountain View Avenue
and Tippecanoe Avenue. resul ting from future development,
and adde,j to the exisr:ing ,Je.vel,~p,""''7:1t I .:ould amount t.)
5,000 ADTs. This is apprG~ching t~~ upper limit of the
I-Jcal stl"..;sts' cap~citl.es. Most _ f the traffi: wou!.]
enter and exit the area via Mountair view and Tippecanoe
Avenues as entry and ex':'": ramps f-Jr the rres\.-J-?"i 3~-';
locatad there, h,:;>wever. a small amount of the t~"affi.:
woulJ 1158 Richardson 3tre8~.
The traffic access to Site B "'Iould be '-ia F'0:36WQ.)d Dr"iv"
Laurelwood Drive and Ferr6~ StreEt. BaseJ In t~a fl~~~
area ratio (FAR) of 0.7 permitted in th~ CG-l area 8i~E
B could gener3te up to ?15,OOO sq~are f~~~ of .:~m~~r:~~~
uses. Al though traffic in'~reases ""(luld deperd en tr6
specific uses proposed on the site a s:,.:j:plc".J :e,-,.-=r
could generate between 10 _ ')'J') and 15.000 J..DTs f'~r "
100,000 to 300,000 square foot ce~ter. This w~~lj 6~:e6J
the capacity of the local streets. These local streets
are the only 3ccess t~ the site as there is ~~ a~C6SE
from Richards,:.n Street. The streets are thr"ouqh a
residential neighborhood altho~gh the area is desiQnated
CG-l. Commercial General.
.
An office use ;as '..Jith the CO-l desi'Jn:o.tion! would te
expected to generate atout 2.300 ADTs. This potenti21
incr~ase in traffi-: 80ulJ te dxpected ~o imoact on the
local streets and on th0 "resent residential uses 31':'11':1
these strests. ThE CG-l, C0-1 or alP desiqnati-~ns .:oulJ
have impac:s on Tippecanoe Avenue as traffic would be
expected to go in that direction.
-
-
-
-
.
.
~ INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
If Site B retains the RM, Residential ~sjium desi;~3~i:'
or is changed to RMH/ 18. then the addition31 ' 0'')0 t.:,
1, 5.')0 daily tl'ips gener3tej~'~'Jlj be 3bscrtsd t', ..,-,
local streets west cf the si:e.
A CG-l. Commer,::ial General desi:]t:?':ic-n:)D Site '~ will
potentiallY lnc!'ease th'? lc'~al :~?,ffi,:: Gn L=:ur81v.-'.:,:j
Drive to some degre,=, ~,~ws'!e!.'r if 8i":8 C ',,'3.5 .j~':~lC-~~e_~
with CG-l, Commercial Office uses alcrl~ with Site B ~'lth
CG-l, Commercial ()ffiC'8 ;'Jr :~IIP, :~lffi"::~ Ind1Jst!.-2.31 P~r~
uses, the level cf traffi': illtensity cc;ul:i h~",'.
si~nificant im~3ct.
A pctential in::l"eaSa in tr-~ffi.: in tr-;~ :ir~s ::r)m ~:':ISE;WCL:,j
Drive to Davidson Street ':,,:,-ul'~ I-!recip.!..t.::l.tE: ~iti';rati':Jn
me3sures that c~~ld have im~acts )n '.he 13n,j uses in tte
.~r~a. The westbound ~xit r3mp tr:-m I-II) ~Ilt('. Tippec-anoe
Avenue is signalized ~nd i~3 ~r.~xim~t1 tc ~he Rosew2cd
intersecti'2n preclud~s anc":her trafflc.~ signal despite its
probable use as an 3CC6SS r~~d tc Sits B.
~
The potential traffi,~ iIlcrease c.'C'-ul~ ::,equire an amer...J.rne,:t
to the General Plants Circula:ion ~~3n ~o change on8 ~r
more of the local streets to :~llectors b3sed ~n
incr6ased traffic and <t:he chs - .;e to the 3.r~a s
circulation.
Increased traffic, especially (>:mm.;r:ial, will €,x;:.c.s~
people to greater safety impacts as they pertain 1-,-.
vehicles, bicycles and pejestrians, A~ ~IP design3~i:'n
could generate traffic that cculd be 3~~ive 24 hours ~er
d~y, Future residential, :=rnrner~ial .)r ~nj'ls:ri~l
developmerlt could generat~ a flead for increased putli:
transp~rtation serviGes.
9. b, e,
The amendment will nc-t Cl'S3te 3
facilities nor impact r3il or air
:,8~ ~ :E.: r
~:t'a:f i.:,
:1 .:;- '-".~
.- ~ ,.-1..~ :
0_ _.L. 0......
3.2. 10
Fubli..: S6r~.:i::E:s
10, a. b,
~
Site B is alm,:st "la'ldlocr:.;j" 1t-1 ~:-I~1'" ~,:--,~SS 1'3 ~'.-I.
possible from the west side ~,f t~.; 5i~,::; i.6. :o:::l::.-=~
Street. This access is ~ia a r~sij8~:ia! ~~lght0~h:,:!,
The possibility exists that: the t:..ro:.visi-:r; of fi~-=. 3.nj
police services ::'Juld t~ 3.frs:1'"sd. due to) ::i"'s
configuration and location, This situation exists fer
.
.
.
-
-
-
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
3 . 2 . 11
3. :2 . 12
3. 2 . 13
3,2, 14
all of the alterna~i~,'~s p~oDc3ed
impacts ar~ are?test f,)r the f:lIP
jesiqna:iL~n ~lJ~ ~~ ~he inten:3i:y
t~r SitE B ~U~ sa!~~:-
0ffi.~e Inius~r~al F3r~
)f uses D6r~lr-~~.
10, c thru f.
ThesE ~ubli2 ~8~vi._8S wili no~ be imDa':~8j ~nd C0mmE~~~
were not rece~vej ~roffi the ~:rQvid€rs cf the se~\'ices.
Utilities
11. a, b.
'. '
Levels of service fer U~ll:ties will not be impacted by
the proposed amendment and comments were not received by
the affected agen~les
Aesthetics
12. a, b.
.;ny futurE pr~.)j6('ts t~3t ~-.:,:,u:j t..: ::~_'mi~t6':' ~n the CG-1,
C'omm"c'cial General. ('0-1 ':C'j'1mel' l?l C.f:ice ,-," ('IF,
Offi~e Industrial Park j€s~~nati~n~ w2~!ld be c0~t3in6d
~..:ithin fully enclosed b'_li.ldinas. All prcjects 3r~
reviewed for ~cmp~tibili!y and aesthetic c~n:e~ns during
the project development stage.
Cultur~l Resou~ces
13, a. b.
Cultural and historic resources are not im~~ct~j as ~he
proposed amendment area is undeveloped and it does no~
contain any areas of archaeologic interest in acccrda~ce
with General Plan Figure 8,
Mandatory Findings of SiQnificance
TJ-.e p.:>tential increase ill dwellina units Lermi~~ed):i
Site A (and on Si~e B ~s per ~lternativ6 41 has minim~l
significance as shol-1n in this study. The ,"c.mmercial l3nd
use designati0n .:hany8 fOl' .::ite B '.oJ:..1: C3.1.lS<:::~< 1':'8=, :'='
the number of dwellillg units tt::.t ')':l.lld p.)tentially be
buil~, hOWEver, thE net 1~s3 .)n t]18 cl~cosed am6n,jrn~~:
area is insignificant d~JS ":.) ,:hc,nq~;; to residential
e
e
e
-
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11
designations .)r lncr.;ases in :1ensi-t:y in .:,t:he!.- :;!-~::-~
the City.
The intended use of Sites B anJ ,~ 141~! '~rS3re ~ ~~~ffi-
situation that will require further s~udy. 3uilj-s~: cf
Site B for commercial or Gffi:8!iJ1:jus~ri3: 3nd ~i~~ ~ f~r
commercial nse 1,...,!,:,ulj .:reat8 Sl'.]1l.;..fic3nt Imj:.ar:t:
circularion anJ p0ssitly n0is~, Deve10rme~~ cf 5i~6S 9
and C, if! 3jditicn t':" i:h8 commerciflllY j';;Si'~Ii3taj =_re?
along Ti;;~can,~~ Av~nu~ 22uld hav€ imc~~~s ~h~~ J0 c~s~
the immediate proiect a~ea.
e
e
D. DETERMINATION
*
On the basis of this innial study.
~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a signnicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared. See below
D The p~pos.ed project could have a ~i~nn.icant effect on the e~vironmenl. a~hough there will not be a signnicant
effect In this case because the mrtlgatlon measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[!] The proposed project MAY have a signnicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required. See below
*
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMI1TEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
I1ICHPt€I- lA;. r;rlAJ~ 5GAlIOf! CIVIl.. {;i.6/~
Name and Title '
(Jk~ ~
Signature -
Date: I Z . U> - ., 0
*
A Negative Declaration is recc:mnended for Site A. A traffic study or
environmental inpact report is rec::amended for Sites B and C.
ClT'f'0#.....~
---
PLAN-8.oe PAGE_OF_ ('1-10)
--
-
-
-
-
CITY .JIF SAN BERN DINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11
TITLE
LAND USES
iI^" M3II^N"J.N"M:)&III
t -.. .,
i 11
~ .
,
I
~L~~
~
,
,
: .
\D'
..fII. ..
..
I
.'
I
,
'.
--
,
..
.
~
I ---
.'
i.!
~
'\.
.
j.l .
e'
I
J
~i -~
. ~.I\
. .l
..
....
@ if
-L
~ if
:
~
.
.1
~
~ I
~JUi"' C'f
EXHIBIT A
--
-
-
-
CITY~F SAN BER~RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11
LOCATION. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & ALTERNATIVES
I
~
11....
11'f'1...I..
r;
- ...
..
... .,
LIH
o 1f',J _ ..
9" TO.'.
~I..I"
..
u
r~
o
I. OIl.
...... loA
.i d
- ~
J.
RMH to CG-1 RM to CG-1 (All. 1)
_ _n
(Alts. 1,2 & 3) - RM to CO-1 (All. 2)
RM to OIP (All. 3)
RM to RMH/18 (All. 4)
.
RM to RMH/18
(Alts. 1, 2, 3 & 4)
;; I
-
..
.
F~ Ill]
EXHIBIT B
-
~
-
<(
Z
Ir
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~
21
~
~
24
~
26
27
e
e
.
.
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals
(a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-
159 on June 2, 1989.
(b) General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 to the General
Plan of the city of San Bernardino was considered by the
Planning Commission on February 5, 1991, after a noticed
public hearing, and the Planning commission's recommendation
of approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common
Council.
(c) An Initial Study was prepared on December 4, 1990
and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the
Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan
Amendment No. 90-11 would not have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative
Declaration be adopted.
(d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day
public review period from December 27, 1990 through January
16, 1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed
by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
28 IIII
and local regulations.
1
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
e
15
e
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
~
24
~
26
27
~
RESOLUTION..4IbOPTING THE NEGATIV~ DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
(el The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General
Plan Amendment No. 90-11 and the Planning Division Staff
Report on March 11, 1991.
(fl The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 is
deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City
and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the existing General Plan.
SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
Mayor and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the
General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no
significant effect on the environment, and the Negative
Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review
Committee as to the effect of this proposed amendment is
hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
SECTION 3. Findinas
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
of the City of San Bernardino that:
A. The change of designation from RM, Residential Medium to
RMH/18 , Residential Medium High with a density limit of
18 dwelling units per acre, for the proposed amendment
will change the land use map only and is not in conflict
with the goals, objectives and policies of the General
Plan.
IIII
IIII
2
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~
21
~
~
24
~
26
27
~
e
e
-
RESOLUTION..4IbOPTING THE NEGATIV'" DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
B.
C.
D.
E.
that:
A.
IIII
IIII
IIII
OF
NO.
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
of the city.
All public services are available to the study area. Any
development permissible under the RMH/1S, Residential
Medium High with a density limit of 1S dwelling units
per acre designation proposed by this amendment would
not impact on such services.
The proposed amendment is to redesignate 22.41 acres to
RMH/1S, Residential Medium High with a density limit of
1S dwelling units per acre. No housing stock will be
affected.
The amendment site is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation. Anticipated future land
use has been analyzed in the Initial study and it has
been
determined
specific mitigation
that project
measures
will
any
sufficient
eliminate
be
to
environmental impacts.
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 22.41
acres from RM, Residential Medium to RMH/1S, Residential
3
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
~
~
~
26
27
~
.
.
RESOLUTION..~OPTING THE NEGATIV~ DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-16 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwelling units
per acre.
This amendment is designated as General Plan
Amendment No. 90-11 and its location is outlined on the
maps entitled Attachments A-1 and
and is more
A-2,
specifically described in the
entitled Attachment B-1, copies of
descriptions
legal
which
are attached
and incorporated herein by reference.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 shall be effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 5. Map Notation
This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall
be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been
previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common
Council and which are on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
The planning Department is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County
of San Bernardino certifying the city's compliance with CEQA
in preparing the Negative Declaration.
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
4
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e
e
-
-
-
RESOLUTION..4IbOPTING THE NEGATIV'" DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a
meeting therefore, held on the
day of
, 1991, by the following vote, to
wit:
Council Members:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ESTRADA
REILLY
FLORES
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
city of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
C~
By. ,~ j
5
e
e
e
-
--"'-." '~
~ - ..
~'
-
GPA90-11
LOCATION
I I
~7~ RICHARDSON
4~-r
""
~
..
~
.
,
.
I!
. A
I
~
I
iii \
~ t
....
'"
:t
...
:e
:<
I:~ ,," ._-.~
.....!.... -GURTlS
J~ ...-
<>
~
~
~
~
~
11
i1
"
~@
~
~~ S~~
li~ti~ i~'~ i .
. ,.
~
~ 0
~
-
"'q-.
. ..
8 e ~
~ ..
,-
.,. '"
~,~ "
t ..,.. I...
--:-.~------,:",";;-' ,-
...- -- -
\-
i .
~ @
~
,.AN HItNNlDlNO n.ooo COHntO&.~
r-'~ Uma:H't ~,...-,
.,1 I'. ..I :
..
'C:
~ 1
~
i:
Q,
"
'"'
Q
..
;;;
l"
...
I:
...
;:!
lD
'l'
lD,
..
@
.
.:~
~.,
"
li\
~
I
I
"
"
b-
~
'\
@
"
(j)
....:...."",,:. .;~~_......_.., .....---.:, ..:.w~:..:..!:....."""
",':"":
-
.>> > ~.tlil"..~~rr..~IIt.~
~l
STREET!,-..,
\..
i
~
.
.
.
@
-
1
t
'"
<.N
AVfNUE-f
@)
~
-.:tlfl......'i.
(:-
<
q . ~
c@ l ~ ~1
t~ ~ : , ~,
~
i (I) JJ
s:
~ -
0
... J> JJ
~ ~ s:
~ I
i --
.....
'f,. (Xl
c III
~
.
I
l
l\f €>
0)
~
,
""0.1
VIEWI -~.
,
,
0 "., ,
\',
-~
..J iD~
o'
I'I~QJ
~ "'Ia
o ..
'"' ::J
Q
~, a.
-.
::J
o
d
[
Q
!:!
.;;
~2D'il'
co Ok Q.
"';:uO
!"al
00
-")01:
O~"
(MG _.
(MOil
[:"
II>
...
..
I\)
~
Attachment A-1
e
e
e
.hI! ~~ ...t/W'.ft;~~~
.
GPA90-11
LOCATION
......
I CURTIS
~
,
Ih,
./
II
CID~
I~r
~II~@
~Itill] · :::
~~li
.~@I
-
...,
.0
,='
--
,'"
!'1
.
~,
...
III
..
9,
o
"
N
....
I
,,~.,
I
.. w
..;;
JlID..
,0"
,0"
]):It":
. N..
~ ~~
~... ,.-
"..,
-."
. oQ it
'.."
" ...
~N
.'"
<
.. =
co -
c," .
,-..., ~,'
."'i"
J
-
.
5
- '. - MOUNTAIN
5
(
@
a
VIEW AVENUE
s~
~~a
."
oS
II
__0
~-.-~. ,."._--".'
'.
.1},~.~~,WSf.~~
)
..
-
o
JJ
s:
.I
......
......
. %/ ~
Bll j
,-
@
11
..
I~ l! i
:a E I'" (I
is II &
.. i
I:: ~I
- . :a
...,
...
A: I~
JJ
s:
aa ~
,"NQ
... .. !t
g' ~ ~
0. 0. .
p.i5
_. ~ 0'1
C -. ("JrI
" ~ I\)
..,..,'
99'-
p~j!:
iQ, PJ
OlOl-
- Q 01
.!,..o
NN'
OlQ-
(,IIICft..(J.I
IDOl 0> _
~-l>
6Q':a
...1
Q:aD
lA,,"
...~o.
...
..c
t}:!.
Q~
0.
I
"
Attachment A-2
-
-
.
-
-
CITY F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11
TIT L E LEGAL DESCRI PTIONS
PARCEL NO. DESCRIPTION
281-291-001, 002 The real property in the County of San Bernardino, State of
'California, described as:
Lots 4 and 5, inclusive, Tract No. 10532-1, as per plat
recorded in Book 150 of Maps, Pages 13 and 14, records of said
County.
281-244-01
281-244-02
281-244-03
The followin9 described real property in the County of San
Bernardi no.. State of Cali forni a:
The South 2/3 of Lot 2, Block 72, Rancho San Bernardino, as
per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page 2, records of said
County.
Excepting therefrom that portion lying south of the north line
of the property conveyed to the State of California by deeds
recorded May 24, 1962 in book 5704, page 840, Official Records
and recorded February 21, 1967 in book 6775, page 384,
Official Records.
Also excepting therefrom any portion lying within property
conveyed to the State of California by deeds recorded May 24,
1962 in book 5704, page 840, Official Records and recorded
February 21, 1967 in book 6775, page 384, Official Records.
A T T A C H MEN T B-1