The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About39-Planning and Building ciTy,'OF SAN BERN~INO - REQUEST FG COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed, Oi rector General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites Subject: Band C i to change the .land use des i 9- nation from RM and RMH to CG-l on two areas east and west of Ferree Street and north of the 1-10 Freeway Mayor and Common Council Meeting of Mav 20. 1991. 2:00 o.m. Dept: Plannin9 and Buildin9 Services Dau: May 6, 1991 Synopsis of Previous Council ection: At their meetin9 of May 6, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved General Plan 90-11 (Site A). At their meeting of of March II, 1991, the Mayor and.Common Council approved, in concept, General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) and directed staff to prepare a resolution for adoption. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted to approved General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C). ~ Id',/ Signature Supporting data .UM:hed: Staff Report Ward: 384-5357 1 Contect parson: I arry L R~~d Phone: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: IAcct, No.! IAcct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council NOB: Aaenda Item No. ~q o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO o _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (sites Band C) Mayor and Common Council Meeting of May 20, 1991 REOUEST The action on this City-initiated General Plan Amendment is to change the land use designations f:.::om RM, Residential Medium and RMH, Residential Medium High to CG-1, Commercial General on Sites Band C respectfully (see Exhibit B of the Initial Study). Action on Site A was concluded at the Mayor and Common council Meeting of May 6, 1991. site B consists of approximately 10.4 acres located on the northeast corner of Ferree Street and 1-10 Freeway. site C consists of approximately 3.2 acres comprised of 19 parcels fronting on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Tippecanoe Avenue and Ferree Street. BACKGROUND At their meeting.of March 11, 1991, the Mayor and Common council approved, in concept, the RMH/18 designation for Site A and the CG-1 designations for sites Band C. The City Attorney's Office determined that further legal noticing was required before final action could occur on sites Band C. consequently, final action on Site A was determined on May 6, 1991. sites Band C were noticed for public hearing for May 20, 1991. ENVIRONMENTAL The Mayor and COIII1IIon Council determined that having sites B and C redesignated CG-1 would not, of itself, cause any environmental impacts. It was the feeling of the Council that the long-term interests of the City would best be served by having the traffic study commissioned at the time of project development so as to determine impacts associated with a specific project. At that time, mitigation measures appropriate to that project could be determined and condi- tions be applied to the permit to ensure environmental impacts be reduced to a level of insignificance. The Council determined that a Negative Declaration for sites Band C be adopted. The proposed Negative Declaration for a 21 day public review from April 1991. sites Band C received 11, 1991 through May 1, o 0 General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) Hayor and Common Council Heeting of Hay 20, 1991 Page 2 MAYOR AND COKKON COUNCIL ACTION. That the Hayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendllent No. 90-11 (Sites B and C), based on the findings in the resolution. Prepared by: John Burke Assistant Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Planning and Building Services Attachment I: Request for Council Action dated February 20, 1991 Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission Exhibit A: Land uses Exhibit B: Location, Land use Designations and Alternatives Attachment 2: Resolution for February 20, 1991 Hayor and Common council Heeting. Not inclu- ded here,. copy included in case file Attachment II: Resolution for Hay 6, 1991, Hayor and Common Council Heeting approving Site A Attachment A-1 and A-2: Location Haps Attachment B: Legal Descriptions Attachment III: Resolution Attachment A-1 and A-2: Location Haps Attachment B: Legal Descriptions SRGPA90-llB&C - I::l --' o .GIT;~. OF SAN BERr \RDINO - o ... RIQUEST ( 'DR COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed ~: Planning and Building Services DIU!: February 20. 1991 Subjec:t: General Pl an Amendment No. 90-11. to change the land use designation from RM to RMH/18 on the east side of Richardson Street between Coulston Street and 1-10 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11. 1991. 2:00 D.m. Synopsis of Previous Council ec:tion: 1. The Planning Commission. at their meeting of February 5. 1991. recommended approval of the RMH/18. Residential Medium High designation 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 RH. 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~/ SiglllltUre Director Staff Report Phone: Win!: 384-5357 1 Contact person: Larry E. Reed. Director Supporting dIU! ..ttKhed: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. DescriDtion I FinlllCll: Council NotlIS: 'ATTACHMENT --L- J= ~ I o CITY' OF SAN BER'( .RDINO - o REQUEST I' JR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of March 11. 1991. REQUEST This City-initiated General Plan amendment is to evaluate a chanqe in the land use desiqnation from RH. Residential Medium (14 dwellinq units per acre) to RHH/18, Residential Medium Hiqh with a density limit of 18 dwellinq 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 I. It also evaluated redesiqnatinq 10.36 acres on the west side of Richardson Street. north of the 1-10 freeway, from P~ to a commercial desiqnation (Site Bl. Site C is comprised of approximately 3.22 acres on the north" side of Laurelwood Drive which is proposed to be desiqnated CG-l alonq with Site B so as to have the commercial desiqnation alonq both sides of Laurelwood Drive. " Staff evaluated CG-l, Commercial General, CO-I. Commercial Office and OIP. Office Industrial Park desiqnations for Site B. BACKGROUND The area includinq 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 desiqnation of RM, and Site C a desiqnation of RHH. EllVIRONHENT.AL 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 desiqnation of CG-l. Commercial General. After review, the ERC recommended a Neqative Declaration for Site A only due to concerns about potential impacts on residential properties throuqh 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, resultinq from redesiqnation of Sites B and C. ... General Plan Amendment 0 90-11 Mayor and Common Cour-il Meeting fa .' March 11. 1991 ( Page 2 o ( . . PJ_SCUSSIOI'I The evaluation. of the proposed. RHH/18, Residential Medium Hiqh desiqnation with a density limit of 18 dwellinq units per acre on Site A found that there are no siqnificant impacts and that the proposed desiqnation was consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surroundinq uses. The CG-1 desiqnation provides for uses alonq major transportation corridors and intersections and althouqhSite B adjoins the 1-10 freeway, access to it is only from the west via an established residential neiqhborhood. The land use desiqnation 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 beino predominantlY sinole-familY dwellinos. The same concerns are identified when considerino the CO-l and OIP desionations. The streets between Site B and Tippecanoe Avenue are local streets and are not desioned to handle a hiOh volume of commercial traffic. With access beinq only from Ferree Street (i.e. the west) then all additional traffic qenerated as a result of future development must travel on Ferree Street and the majority of it would proceed throuqh 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 qenerated by the commercial or industrial uses on the site. The ERC requested evaluation of the chanqe on Site C so as to have orderly development alonq Laurelwood Drive by havinq the same land use desiqnation on both sides of the street and to review possible impacts in that area in the event Site B was commerciallyl industrially desiqnated. As a result of the above concerns the Planninq Commission recommended that a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study be conducted prior to a desiqnation chanqe on Sites Band C. Since this is a City-initiated amendment, fundinq has not been identified to prepare such a study. . PLANNING COMMISSION R~ATIOIf The plannino Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-11, which chanqes the land use desiqnation from RH to RHH/18 on Site A only, at its noticed publiC hearinq on Februarv 5, 1991. The vote was 5 for, 1 aqainst, and 1 abstention. - . . o General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 .. Mayor and Conmon Cou( 1 Meeting of March 11, 1991 . Page 3 o ( ~YOR 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 Genera I 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 action be taken on Sites Band C until 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 I. Staff Report to Planning Commission Attachment A: Initial Study dated December 4. 1990 Exhibit A: Land Uses Exhibit B. Location. Land Use Desiqnations 8. Alternatives Attachment 2: Resolution Attachments Attachment A-I and A-2: B-1 Location Maps Leqal Descriptions ~ o o , '" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 10 SUMMARY HEARING DATE 2-5-91 WARD 1 .... ...I ,..,- /-.., / APPUCANT: City of San Bernardino ...... W GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 U) < OWNER: Various U \........I \.. f'. r ...... m To change the General Plan land use designation from RH, Residential ., Medium to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 ::l 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: - < W a: < r EXISTING . GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY L ANn USE 70NING nFSIGNATlON Subject Vacant RH, Residential Medium North Residential RH, Residential Medium South Freeway N/A East Residential RH, Residential Medium West Vacant RH. Residential l~dium \.. .J \.. ( GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES ) (=HAZARD~: ~=~ ) ( SEWERS: \l!J YES ) HAZARD ZONE: 01 NO DNO ( HIGH FIRE DYES ) ( ~RPORT NQ~ DYES )( REDEVELOPMENT DYES ) HAZARD ZONE: n NO CRASH ZONE: I1!iNO PROJECT AREA: ~NO - (0 NOT - r Z r ....... ..I o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT III APPROVALof Site A only j! APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 loITlGAnNG MEASURES ~ 0 ZU) NO E.I.R. CONDITIONS We ~Q 2Z o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ~ii 0 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OQ WITH IoITlGAnNG ~2 a:i!: MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO -~ > fj NO SIGNIFICANT o SlGN1F1CANT EFFECTS Z fd W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. MINUTES II: \.. \.. lo...-- 1 a _ I I.. ..-....,. ( REOUES'! II LOCM'IOII This is a City-initiated general plan amendment to evaluate land use designation changes 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 change the designation from RH. Residential Medium to RHH/18. Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) . Site B. 10.36 acres located on the northwest corner of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. To change the designation from RH. Residential Medium to CG-1, Commercial General, CO-l, Commercial Office, OIP. Office Industrial Park or RHH/18, Residential Medium High (18 du/acl. Site C. Nineteen adjoining parcels comprising 3.22 acres located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue. To change the designation from RHH. Residential Medium High 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 RH to RMH/18. From RH to CG-1. From RMH to CG-1. Alternative 2 Site A. Site B. Site C. From RH to RMH/18. From RH to Co-1. From RMH to CG-1. - . . o o ( CASE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE Alternative 3 Site A. Site B. Site C. From RM to 1MH/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 1MH/18. The followinG .ummarizes the us.. peraitted in the land use desiGnations addr....d in the alternatives: RM ---- RMH --- CG-l -- CO-l -- OIP --- Re.idential M.dium. Multi-family townhom.s and apartments up to a density of 14 dulac and a heiGht of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.13.101 Residential Medium High. Multi-family townhom.s and apartments up to a den.ity of 24 dulac and a heiqht of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.13.111 Commercial General. A div.rsity of retail and service us.s. .ntertai~nt. professional and financial offices to a height of two stories. (General Plan Policy 1.19.101 Commercial Offic.. Administrative and prof.ssional offic.s, .upportinG r.tail commercial uses, and ..dical offices to a heiGht of four stories. (General Plan Policy 1.28.10) Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices, liGht manufacturinG and liait.d supportinq retail service. to a height of three .tories. (Gen.ral Plan Policy 1.31. 101 . ~ a IoJ . " o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 4 ,. AREA CHARACTERISTICS Site A is comprised of five contlquousparcels totallinq 22.41 acres. It is bounded by a condOllinium 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 c~rcial 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 8 were desiqnated RM, Residential Medium and Site C was desiqnated RMH. 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 .. '" ......... PAGE 10F 1 C'" r::.:. - 1 . wo;;;.; . - - 0 0 ,... CllY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA NO. 90-11 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPAR1lJIENT AGENDA ITEM 10 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 2-5-91 PAGE 5 CALIFORKIA ERVIRORMElftAL OUALITY ACT (CEOAI STATUS The qeneral plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the proposed amendment and the Initial Study (Attachment AI on December 20. 1990 and determined that the proposed desiqnation chanoe for Site A (Alternative 5) would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended a Neoative 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/industrial desiqnation (CG-l. CO-lor OIP), as in Alternatives I, 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 Plannino and Research (OPR). This is required for projects havinq the potential for statewide. reoional or areawide sionificance. The ERC concluded that the proposed chanoes for Sites Band C (AI ternatives 1 thru 4) will require a traffic study and/or an environmental impact report. COMMERTS RECEIVED No comments were received. AKALYSIS AlthouOh the ERC determined that there would be impacts associated with a chanqe in desionation for Alternatives 1 thru 4 and a Neoative Declaration was not reco_ended. staff analyzed them here. The potential impacts overlap General Plan policies and env iro nmenta 1 concerns. Land Use Chanqino the desiqnation on Site A to RMH/18 would yield up to 403 dwell1nq units. an increase of 89 units over the 314 permitted under the 2M desionation. Oeneral Plan Objective 1.13 is to promote development of hiOh quality .ulti-family units which " convey a distinctive residential neiohborhood and are inteorated with their settino." The 18 dwellino unit density on the site is sufficient to ensure that the objective is _t by implementino the desiqn and develop_nt quidelines covered in pOlicies 1.13.32 thru 1.13.41. .... j ::.& ~ ~ -~~ ~ ,_.OF, _ ~ . 4. r- .-0 (0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT GPA ~10. 90-11 OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 10 2-5-91 6 ... ... One of the ooals (General Plan Goal IG a.) of the City is to "Achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which retain and enhance established residential neiohborhoods ..." As there is some apparent deterioration in the residential area west of Site B then Goal IG c could be a means by which revitalization and uporade might occur. Goal IG d would allow for the intensification of commercial and industrial uses if the neiOhborhood does not merit preservation. However, the single-familY subdivision north of the site was constructed just recently and improves the area. General Plan Objective 1. 19 pertains to community-serving commercial (CG-l) uses and provides for "... uses along major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents .... Although Site B abuts the 1-10 freeway, access to it is through an established neiqhborhood and so it cannot be considered to be along a major transportation corridor nor at a major intersection. The General Plan Objective for the Commercial Office (CO-II use provides for" new develop.ent of administrative and professional offices in proxi.ity to major transportation corridors and ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses." Again, the accessibility to a major transportation corridor is the issue and the impacts of a CO-l 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 desionationl 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 oenerated on Site A will be that normally associated with a multi-family development with the majority of it beino 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 higher density permitted by the RMH/18 desionation allows for some flexibility in desiqn in that the units can be sited to block the freeway and create useable outdoor open spaces. 1'.1'nll:.=- ... .. I'UNoIa ..- 1 OF 1 _ .. ( OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA 110. 90-11 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT lU 2-5-91 7 A CO-lor CG-l land use desionation 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. Housina A non-residential desionation 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 RMH/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 RM desionation could yield 145 dwelling units and, if assigned an RMH/18 designation, then the yield would be 186 units. The higher desionation 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. .. ...oil m.:..~ -- fILNit.&a 'ME t OF 1 ..... . _ a ~ a lJI. - l- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 8 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE r A CG-1 designation for Site B, given a floor-area-ratio (FARI of 0.7, could yield up to 315,000 square feet of office/retail uses. It is unlikely that such a large project will be proposed but the potential for a development exists. A shopping center of 100,000 square feet would generate 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 signal at Tippecanoe Avenuel. Such a large increase in traffic will cause a negative impact on the residential area. Some traffic could be expected to enter the area by way of Gould Street (which is signalizedl and Ferree Street but this access is also entirely through residential neighborhoods. A CO-lor OIP designation 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 Engineer 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 redesignated or realigned. This type of study should be completed before major redesignations 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 designations. With that information. the City can determine if changes to land use designations that permit more intense uses can be accommodated. A traffic study won't addrARA the issue of compatibility between uses but will provide certain data to help determine which of the different designations can be compatible. With the future redesignation of Norton Air Force Base for non- military use the traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue can be expected to increase, thus compounding an eXisting problem. The Norton Air Force Base closure can also be exPected to affect the land use designations along Tippecanoe Avenue resulting from future redevelopment and these potential impacts should be included in a traffic study. COIICLUSIOIlS The RMH/18 , Residential Medium High (density limit of 18 du/acl land use designation for Alternative 5 on Site A is compatible with the surrounding land uses and land use designations. Approval of Al ternative 5 would allow for the designation change on Site A without action on the other two sites. ... .. ........ ..-, OF I (4411I ~"'r""JI ~ - .IS ~ ~ I - - 0 0 ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA NO. 90-11 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 10 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 2-5-91 PAGE 9 ~ The impacts resulting from commercial or industrial desionations on Sites Band C appear to be negative but may not be so based on the results of a traffic study. Determinations based on the land use changes proposed for alternatives 1 thru 4 cannot be effectively evaluated until further detailed study is made. Traffic volume will increase and circulation patterns will change upon project development. Reuse of Norton Air Force Base will change the traffic along Tippecanoe Avenue. These cumulative changes will impact on the Circulation Plan for the City and on the land use designations 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 changes to the Circulation Plan which may cause changes to land use designations. FIImIlIGS The proposed amendment as per Alternative 5 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the RMH/18. Residential Medium High (with a density limit of 18 du/ac) designation is not in conflict with the surrounding land use designations 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 Negative 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 housing. 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 lIIinimum size requirements established by the General Plan. ... .... ~= __ __,QF' (40lOI ~ .0 o ~ ., OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 10 ... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .... ~ RECOMMEImATIOIfS Staff recommends that the Planninq Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council. 1. That a Neqative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act for the General Plan Amendment No. 90-11, Alternative S. 2. That the application for General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 be approved as per Alternative 5 to chanqe the land use desiqnation from RH. Residential Medium to RKH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh with a density limit of 18 dwellinq units per acre on Site A only. Staff also recommends that no chanqes to land use desiqnations for Sites Band C occur until such time as the City is able to prepare a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study. Rt:;'';;Z; Larry E. Reed, Director Planninq and BUildinq Services Department #9~~~ ~. ~~ R. Burke Assistant Planner Attachment A: Initial Study .... ~ ~ oc--' IIUNoUI ttMlE. OF , fMO) . . CITY OF SA~ ~EFl. :QINO PLANNING AND BUILOIri.~ -. VICES DEPARTMENT' INITIAL STUDY , ~ Gen~raJ PlalLMt~!Iqment No. 99- ~ 1 PI:O~~;'; .p~l>cr_iption: To change the land us.;! desiqn3ti"l1 )11 t';r.;!-i'! si tes from RM. Residential Medi'lm to RMH/18. Resident ia 1 11.;11 um High with a density cap of 18 dwelling units per acre and from RM. Residential Medium to CG-1. Commercial General. CO-l. C~mmer~ial Office. OIP. Office Industrial Park or RMH/IB. Residential Medium High (with a density cap of 18 units) and from RMH. Residential Medium High to CG-l. Commercial General. pr~ject_~9ca~~9n: west of Richardson on the north side Tippecanoe Avenue. The amendment area is lo~ated to th~ ~.S~ 3nd Street on the north side of the 1-10 freewey and of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and Q~te: December 4. 1990 P.ppl_~c~r,t...:..L~amE!.-'.Ild ~ddro;ll!J;: City of San Bernardino PrePareg_QY: John R. Burke T_~~: Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 ATTACHMENT -A-~ llll'o&- 0lM0U7 '_,Cll" _ - I : " o o 1]fI..TJ:AA.-JiJ'!JDLf.QL.gPA90 -_U 1.0 INTRODUCTION This reDor~ is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No, 90-11. This amendmen~ DrODoses to chanQe the land use desiqnat.ion on three sites from RM, Residential MediuOl to RMH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh wi~h a densit.y cap of 18 dwellinq units per acre and from &~. Residen~ia1 M€diuffi to CG- 1. Commercia 1 General. CO,-.1. C,)mmoSrcial ofL-co;. OIP, Office Industrial Park or RMH/18, Residential Msdium Hiqh (with a density cap of 18 units) and from RI1H. Residential Medium Hiqh to CG-1. Commercial General, As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Qual i ty Act quidelines. the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an ElR or Neqative Declaration: 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to:. modify a project, mi tiqatinq adverse impacts before an ElR is prepared. thereby enablinq the Droiect to qualify for Neqative Declaration: 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR. if one is required. by: (AI Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to be siqnificant, IB) Identify ~he effects determined not to be siqnificant, and IC) Explaininq the reasons for determininq that potentially siqnificant effects would not be siqnificant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the desiqn of a project: 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a project will not have a siqnificant effect on the environment: 6. Elimina~e unnecessary EIRs: 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR c,:>uld b.. used with the project. - - (0 o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a City-ini~iated qeneral plan amendment to evaluate alternatives on ~hree adjacent parcels of land as follows: sJ_~e_~ 22.41 acres located on the northe~st ~orner of Richardson Street and the 1-10 fre~wav. To chanqe the desiqnation from RH. Residenti~1 Medium to RHH/18. Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwellina units oer a~re (du/acl. pi te_J!__,. 10.36 acres located on the northwest corner of Richardson Street and the I-10 freeway. To change the desiqnation from RM. Residential Medium to CG-1. Commercial General. CO-1. Commercial Office. OIP. office Industrial Park or RMH/18, Residential Medium High 118 du/acl. Site C. Nineteen adjOining parcelS comprisinq 3.22 acres located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties frontinq on Tippecanoe Avenue. To chanqe Residential Genera 1 . the desiqnation Medium Hiqh to CG- 1. from RMH. Commercial These are further defined as Alternatives 1 thrjuQh 4 as explained below. Al_tern_ati~_.1 Site A. From RM tc RHH/l8. Site B. From RM to CG-l. Site C. From RMH to CG- 1. Alternative 2 Site A. From RM to RMH/18. Site B. From RM to CO-I. Site C. From RMH to CG-l. - - - .0 o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 Al ternativ_L3 Site A. From RM to RMH/18. Site B. From RM to OIP. Site C. From RMH to CG-l. Alternative 4 Sites A and B only. From RM to RMH/18. The followino summarizes the uses permitted in the land use desiqnations addressed in the alternatives: RM ---- RMH --- CG-1 -- CO-1 -- OIP --- Residential Medium, Mul ti-famil Y cownhom,,:s and apartments up to a density of 14 Ju/a~ and a heioht of three stories. Residential Medium HiQh. Multi-famil" townhomes and apartments up to a density of 24 dulac and a heiQht of three stories. Commercial General. A diversity of retail and service uses, entertainment. professional ani financial offices to a heioht of two stories. Commercial Office. Administrative and profesSional offices, supportinq retail commercial uses. and medical offices to a heioht of four stories. Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices. lioht manufacturino and limited supportino retail services to a heioht 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 include Site C and Alternatives 3 and 4 on Site B. This Initial Study incorporates all of the content of the previous study (dated November 2. 1990) and therefore all potential impacts to all of the alternatives ar~ addressed within this document. - - - j - " c o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS Site A is comprised of five contiquous parcels t~tallinq 22.41 acres located northeast of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. It is bounded by a ,:ondomini'lm ccmpl.;:: on the east and Coulston Street on the north. This sit~ and the area on the north side ..,f Coulston ;:tr-=-:,= ~s desiqnated RM. Residential Medium. It is vacant and the area to the north is ~omprised of va~ant land a~d si01l-=- family homes. Mountain View Avenue is t., :hi! "as: side of the condominiums. Site B is a vacant. sinqle par~el compr1s1nq 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 sinqle-family subdivision on the north. North and northeast of this site are condominiums. Couls,:c.n Street and sinqle-familY residences. This site and the land to the north is desiqnated RM. Residential Medium. Site C is comprised of 19 adjoining parcelS totalling 3.22 acres. It is located on the nor':h Sl.:1.., .:.f Laurelwood Drive between Ferree' Street and the commercial properties frontinq on Tippecanoe Aven'Je. All the property on the south side of Laurelwood Drive to the freeway and those properties fronting c,n Tipper:an..,e Avenue are desiqnated CG-1. Commercial General. Site C. and the land to the north. is designated RMH. Residentia! Medium Hiqh. The properties south of Rosew.ood Drivil and fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue are bein;J usej, f,:.r commercial purposes. The remainder of th.. area which includes Site C is mostly comprised of sincrle-famil:r residences. 3.0 ENVIRONMEIlTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The amendment area is situated 'oIithin the 500-year flood plain. It also lies within an area that has a medium-to- medium-hiqh susceptibility to liquefaction. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. There are no bioloqical concerns. ,. o o .., CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST "'l A. BACKGROUND AppIicaIionNumber: b6ll1Ml. 'p1..IfA/' IJm/.A/'l>/hLN7 AI. 9'6'7"/ Project Description: S~t:: ~/JM(jL A~N' :1. () ", -<<<<",,~,ltWl'y,y,:: r~xr: Location: b.whtAay ~..At~Ji ..:w' ~ #".II!71V .si'/:V- dJ/ nY~ Z""'O .Q!L.E4IAY ~n..~~# ~U#;..9MI ~4/ A-_,....~l> %/P./c~ #;-.....-. Environmenllll Constrainls Nees: General Plan Designation: fII? ~.s/~""C. t1JlJIUPI ,.,.,.11) "'HI/. ~..s/k...m'A& ~lXVN tA6H. Zoning Designation: ;II /~ (. - - ( ~ , 2. Air RHou~: Wdlthe proposal ",su~ in: Yes No Maybe a. Substantial air emissions or an effllCl upon ambient >< air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? )( c. Davelopment within a high wind hazard area? X 3. Watar Rasourcaa: Will the proposal _u~ in: L Changes in ebsorplion ratas. drainaga pallarns. or tha rata and amount of surfaca runoff due to Impermaabla surf_s? ')(' b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X c. Discha'lla into surfaca waters or any aleration )( of surface watar quality? d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground watar? )(' a. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? X l. Other? 4. Biological Raaourcas: Could tha proposal resu~ in: a. Change in the number of any unique. rare or andangared species of plants or their habital including )(' stands of trees? b. Change in the number of any unique. rare or )t andangered species of animals or their habital? c. Removal of viable. matura tr_? (6" or graatar) X d. Othar? 5. No"': Could the proposal rasu~ in: L Incr_ in axisling noisa lavals? X b. Exposure of paopIe to axtarior noise IavaIs over )( 6S dB or interior noise lavals ovar 4S dB? c. Other? 6. UncI u..: Wi. the proposal ",su~ in: L A changa in the land usa as dasignatad on the )( General Plan? b. Daveloprnanl within an Airport District? X C. Davaloprnanl within "Graanba~. Zona A, B. or C? X d. Davalopmanl within a high fire hazard zona? )( a. Other? "" ... P\JWoI.GI ,llllE 2 OF' 1Mll) r:.:.:t- :r n~"""" 1 ~ J - - 0 0 ~ ""'I 7. Man-Mllcle Huards: Will the project: Ves No Maybe a. Usa. store. tr...sport or d;.posa 01 hazardous or tDXic materials (including bulllOllm.ed to oi~ X pesticides. chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of huardous substancM? X c. Expose people to the potential hellthlAflly '-"Is? X d. Other? 8. Houslnll: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a dem8lld y lor add.ional housing? b. Other? 8. Transporl8tlon I Circulation: Could the proposal rasu. in: a. An increase in trallic that is IIreater than the Iud X" use designated on the General Plan? b. Use 01 existing. or damn lor new. paridng lacilitieslstrUctures? )( c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Meration 01 pre..nt paIlerns of circulation? X eo Impact to rail or air traffic? X l. Increased safety hazards to vehicles. blq.;bb. or X padastrians? II. A disjointed patt.m 01 roadway impruvamanII? )( h. SignWant incr.... in trallic volumes on the III8IIways or int.rsections? )( l Other? 10. Public Sarvlcn: Wllllha proposal impacl the loIowiuII beyond the cspabiI~ to provide aclaquata IavaIs 01 service? L Fw. protaclion? 'A b. Police prolaclion? >( c. Schools (i.... att.ndance. boundariH. ov.toad. etc.)? )( d. PaJks or oth.r recreational Iacllities? )( .. Medical aid? X f. Solid Wast.? )( II. Other? .... r:..:r~ 1 P\.MoI.IlI PJGUOFl (MOl , o o ""'l r 11. UtIIIt1n: WiII1he proposal: a. Impacllh. following beyond the capability III provide adequet. '-Is 01 ..IVice or require the construction 01 new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Wat.r? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Raub in a disjointed pattern 01 utility .xtensions? c. Require lhe construction 01 new facllltia.? 12. Aaath.tlca: a. Could the propo.a1 r..ub in the obstruction 01 any scenic view? b. Willlhe viluallmpacl 01 the projecl be detrimantal to lh. surrounding area? c. Other? 13. CultUral Ra8OUrca.: Could the proposaJ r"ulln: a. The ...ration or daslrUClion 01 . prahisloric or historic archMological ...? b. Adverse ~icaI or _sthatlc ImpllClllll . prehistoric or historic .... struclUre or objacI? c. Other? 14. ...ndatory Flndlnp of Slgn~ (SacIion 15085) V.s No )( >< X X x X x )( )( )( . " Maybe The California Envlronm_1 QuaJity N1. _..that H any 0I1he folo..1ng can be ...._red Y" or maybe, 1he project may have a slgnlicant affacl on 1ha .m.iRll_ and an EnvinInmentaJ Impact Report .haII be praparad. a. DoH 1he pnIjact have 1ha pot.ntiaJ III dagreda 1ha quality 0I1ha anvilanmant, subslantially reduca 1ha habIlat 01 . fIah or wildllfa apaciaa, _ . fIah or wild.. population to cIIap balaw ... auainlng Iavala. lhrulan to aliminale . plant or aninal communlly, reduca 1ha number or Nstricl1ha range 01 . rare or .ndang.red pIanl or anirnaJ or allminal. importaIC ulIlIpIaa of 1ha major period. of Calilornla hisIoly or pnahistory? b. DoH 1ha pnIjact have 1ha palantia1 to achieve short- term, to 1ha diAclvantaga oIlong-tarm, _iIoIllJI8IUI goals? (A short-term irnpacl on 1ha anvironrnant __ which occurs in . relatinly brief, daffniliw period of tim. while long-term impacII will andure waI ir*' lh. future.) v.. No )( )( Maybe .... .. PI.AIM.llI PAGE40FI ..... =:":M: - u - ~ - - o o """'l ,. Ves No Maybe c. Does the pnlject haft ImpElS which .. individually Imiled. but cumuldvely considenIble? (A pnljecl may inpecl on two or _ ~ _where the inpecl on uch ..- is reIdvely smaI. but where the effect of the llItIl III those IrnpIcls on the environment Is slgnlic8nl.) d. Does the pIlljecI haft envlronmenl8l effeclS which win ceuse substantial .... effeclS on hunIm1 beings. either direclly or indlreclly? x )( C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Att8ch shHls .. neceaury.) SEE .4l>~1 rtt'/II/1/.. .cHEE~ ::.& Mlr ... __ __IOFI lMOI - - - - o ( o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.2.1 Earth Resources 1. a. Development on the sites wiil require earth movernen' in the form of qradinq ~ith cut and/or fill activities and could involve earth movement exceeding 10,000 cucic yards. Such possibilities will be addressed at the review stage for any future project. 1. b. The amendment area is not within the Hillside Mansgemene Overlay District as shown on the General Plan Land Use Plan, which assures development that will prote.:t tho; hillsides. 1. c, h. The proposed amendment area is not within the Al..fuist- Priolo Special Studies Zone (General Plan. Figure 471 bUe an unnamed fault may cross Site B as shown in the same fiqure and addressed in a study prepared by Fife anj Roqers in 1974. 1. d. No unique q6oloqic or physical features are known tc- exist in the amendment area. 1. e. The proposed amendment . potential soil erosion General Plan. site is as shown not in an ar<!8 c.f in Fiqur" 53 of the 1. f. There are no channels. creeks or rivers ~n any of the sites comprisinq the amendment area. 1. q. The area is wi thin an area of moderatel y-high-to-moden.te liquefaction potential as shown on Fiqure 48 of the General Plan. It is also in an area of [;.otentii:ll subsidence as shown by Figure 51 in the General Pl!\n. These seismic concerns will be addro:ssed dur'ing tho; - - - - 4 - - o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 project review stage of future deve1cpme,'t. an.j mitLyat.;d as required. They do not preclude development under any of the alternatives. . 3.2.2 Air Resources 2. a, b. The proposed amendment ~oulJ result in a pr~iect whic~ could have statewide, regional or areawide significance as defined in the Air Quality Manaqement Plan 1."(~MPl and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQhl. These documents give two of the definitions :::.f proia:::ts as having such significance as: a) a proposed residential development of more than SOO dwelling units and bl office buildings or parks employin.;; 1.00C or more p.eof.,le or containing 250,000 square feet of floor space. As both of these conditions are met by one or more of the proposed alternatives, then this proposed amendment mu~t be sent the Southern California Associati.,n of Governments (SCAGl and the office of Plannin} anJ Research (OPRl for their comments as they pertain to statewide. regional or areawide si~nific?nce. Vehicle activity will be Q'reater in an RMH/18. CG-1. Co-l or OIP designated area than in an EM area. Thi:> will increase exhaust particulate matter and gasses. and c.ther pollutants which will be in1ected into the atmospher.;. The OIP, office Industrial Park designation does permit uses that could have emissions and odors. 2. c. The proposed amendment is not in a hiqh wind hazard area as shown on the Environmental Concerns Map on file in the Department of Planning and Building Services. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3. a, b. c. d, e. Any development will potentially decrease absorption and increase runoff with the construction cf impermeabl-3 surfaces for buildinq pads, parking areas and street improvements. Vehicle activity will be greater in an f..!1H' 18 or OIP designated area than in an RM ar~a. '~n- t. c:'- 1 Th':'s wi11 ...... ~. " o i o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 increase exhaust particulate matter. ~nqine fluids, residue from vehicle tires and other pollutants which will wash into qroundwater alonO' with rain and landscape irriqation runoff, These concerns will procably have mini~al i~~a~t on th~ area and are addressed at the proiec": r.:vicw staqE. of development and mitiqa'ti"n measur"s acpliEj if i,o;'~Ess"'r'"', 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4. a. b, c. There are no areas of bioloqi,:al con,~,,:'n wi chin :h,; amendment area (General Plan, Figures 40 and 41l. 3.2.5 Noise 5, a. 1:.. The proposed amendment is located within the 65dBlAl and 70dBlAI (General Plan. Fiqure 57) noise contours qenerated by traffic on the 1-10 freeway. Future projects desiqlled for residential, commercial or office use will be reviewed to ensure that internal noise levels of 45dB(A) and external noise levels of 65dBlAl are no: exceeded. Projects are also reviewed to ensure that they won't qenerate excessive noise which would impact surroundinq uses. The higher density and the intensity of uses that woulJ be permitted with a commercial or industrial dssi;,nation could increase traffic noise to some degree, esteciclli with the type and intensity of traffic associated with industrial 11ses. An OIP desiqnation (Alternative 3) could be expected t~ qenerate noise on site due to the nature cf the permitted uses, i.e. liqht manufacturing, warehousi:1q, et.:. .r.11 uses must be wi thin enclosed structures and the noise requirements are also applicable. OIP proiec'ts frequentlY contain uses that operate beyond normal workinq hours. thus noise impacts from employee and trucl-: traffic can occur at any time. The truck traffic associated with OIP activities could be of an intensity to cause noise impacts on the adjacent residential areas. ..~ I - .' - - o o ( INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 Land Use 6. a. Approval of this am~ndment will chanJs the G~n€ral Plan Land Use Plan. Compatibility issues will ce addressed in the staff report t,;, the Planning C.,mmissi,)n. 6. b. c. d. This amendment will not result in fut'lre development within an Airport District, a "Greenbelt" 20ne or a high fire hazard zone as indicated on the Environmental Concerns Map on file in the Department of Planning and Building Services. Man-Made Hazards 7. a, b J C. The stOl'::lge, sale an.l use of hazarJC"ls mat..rials is an inherent safety concern associated with commercial, office and industrial developments and tC' a .lesser dsqr~€ the storaO'e and use of such materials in residentia 1 developments. A concern of an DIP designation is the potential for projects that use quantities of ha2ardcu~ materials in close proximity tc r~sidential neiO'hborhoods. Housinq 8. a. Affordable housing could be removed from Site C as a resul t of a chanqe to a commercial desiqnation and redevelopment for commercial uses. If a commer.=ial' industrial use was developed on Site e, then the jots created could bring abcut a situation that could demand additional housinq. The increase of mazimum dwelling unit density on Site A would iner..'!se the pc.t..ntial housinq stock by 89 units and the designation of Site 9 as commercial would decrease it by 145 units. Sit...-:; presentlY has 18 sinqle-familY homes on it and has the potential to yield 77 units if developed as a sinyl.. project under the RMH desiqnation. This would be a potential loss of 59 dwellinq units. The potential net loss of 115 units exists for the whole amendment aren. If Alternative 4 were adopted then the nee gain ~, potential future housinq stock w~uld b~ 1,0 unit~. The J.. - - o i o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 potential loss of these 'lnits is net ;:ercei'J.d i'lS " problem due to the residentially desiQnated land in other areas of the City. 3.2.9 Transportation/Circulation 9. a, C, d, f, q. h. TippecanOE: Avenue is a maior ar~e-rial a:"':d !'~!)l;n~ai:, '!i~!..: Avenue is a secondary arterial lG.aneral Plar:, FiQure 261. San Bernardino Avenue whi.::h is abo'lt 2,000 feet n',rth C'f the sites is also a secondary arterial. The streets within l:he rectan\1l.. formeu by the arterii'lls and tl",o;, freeway are all local streets as defille.j in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Site A, with a density cap of 18 unil:s per acre could qenerate ab.:.ut 2.300 av..ralJ'e dail y trips (ADTs) with <' multi-family development of 403 units. The cumulal:ive ADTs alonl1 Coulst.:)n Street, bet'Ne.;;n l1c1lntaL, View A'/en'lo;, and Tippecanoe J.v..nue. resul tinO' from futul'e development. and added to the existinq development, oould amount t, 5.000 ADTs. This is approachinO' the upper limit of the local str..el:S ' capacities. Most o,f the traft i,: weill j enter and exit the area via Mountain View and Tippecan~e Avenues as enl:ry and exit ramps f.,r the fre-,;H~i' =:.. located there. however. a small amount of the traff!.: would use Rir.hards~n Street. The traffic access to Site B would be via Fosewood Driv~ Laurelweod Drive and Ferr..e St1'set. Based';1 t~.; 1'1 :.,~ area ratio (FAR) of 0.7 permitted in the CG-l area. Si:e B could l1enerate up to 315.000 square f..-,;: of o~m~erci~l uses. Al th.,uqh traffic increases would deperd c.n the specific uses proposed on the site, a sh.=I=Pi:1:J cen:.;,r could qenerate between 10.01)0) and 15.000 ADTs f':lr '" 100.000 to 300,000 square foet Ce(,teI". This 'Nc'lIJ ..:-:,:.;.;1 the capacity of th~ local streel:s. These local street5 are the only access t~ the site as ther~ is n~ a~C-,;SE from Richardson Street. The streets are throu1h a residential neiqhberhood althollqh the area is desiq~ateci CG-l, Commercial General. An office use (as with the CO-l desiqnationl would be expected to qenerate about 2.300 ADTs. This potent j,.,l increase in traffic could be expected to imoact on the local streets and on the present residential uses alona those streets. The CG-l, CO-l or alP desiqnatia~s cOlllJ have impacts on Tippeo::an.,e Avenue as traffIc w"uld b.; expected to 110 in that Jirectien. .... ..... ~ w. - o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 If Site B retains the RH, Residential M..dium desi'Jna':icn or is chanqed to RHH/18,. then the additional 1,000 to 1, 500 daily trips Q'enerated could be absorbed by ':ho; local streets west of the site. A CG-l, Commercial General desiqna,:icn .:>n SHe C will potentially increase the local craffi-; t,n L:;urel\~;:.,=:i Driv~ to some de;r~~. How~~~~, i~ $i~~ C "1aS d~v~lc~6~ with CO-I. C.::>mmer.::ial O:fi.::e usesal.::rq with !::ite B .'lth CG-l, Commercial Office or OIP, Office Inju~trial Far~ uses, the level of traffic intensity could hav.. siqnificant impact. A potential increase in traffic in the ar-:<t :r'=m ~:.:':;O;WC': 1 Drive to Davidson Street could ~'recipitat€ rei':i':j'ati:.n measures that c:)'lld have impacts .=n tho: l::rd us.:s i.1 tr.e area. The westbound exit ramp fr~m 1-10 onte Ti~pe~an0e Aven'Ja is sil,JnaliztaJ and its r;l':,,:.:irni~"! tc. -:h~ p..,sc1.1-.-'1 intersection preclud;,s another traffic signal desJ:ite 1':5 probable use as an access road tc Si,:e E. The potential traff ic increase ceul d require an amer.1me nO; to the General Plan's Circulation Plan to change one "r more of the local streets to collectors based ~n increased traffic and the chanqe to the area'~ circulation. Increased traffic, especiallY c,:.mmer.::ial, will 6:-:::C.3'3 people to greater safety impacts as they pertain ':-:' vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. An OIF designa':i"n could qenerate traffic that cculd be active 24 hours per day. Future residential, ccmmercial or ~nj~str131 development could gane:-ate a ne..d for increased putli'~ transportation services. 9. b, e. The amendment will not create ~ ne..j fer :Jo;W r."r~ln; facilities nor impact r!il or air t:-affi~. 3.2.10 Public Services 10. a, b. Site B is almost "landlocked" i'1 that a.::c.;.ss is 0:-01 '! possible from the west side of the site i, oS. F<::rr....., Street. This access is via a residential nelQhborh~oj. The possibility exists that the prc.visiC'n of fir;, anj police ser'/ic..s could be affec,:..d d'l.;. t" ;i~., configuration and location. This si':uaticn exists fer ..~ .... . - ~ - - o i . o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2. 11 3.2.12 3.2.13 3.2.14 all of the alternatives proposed for Sit€ B. bu~ saf9:~ impacts are qreatest for the OIP. Office Industrial Parr. desiqnation due to the iritensity ~f uses per~it:9j. 10. c ~hru f. These ~ublic se~vices will not be imDa=~~i !nd com~~n~i were net received f~Offi the provid~rs cf :h~ s~~vicss. Utilities 11. a, b. c. Levels of service for u~ilities will not be imp~ct9j by the proposed amendment and comments were n:lt received ty the aff€cted aqencies. Aesthetics 12. a, b. Any future projeCts that would b.; permitted in the CG-l. Commercial General. CO-l. Commercial Office .:)1' ('I? Offi~e Industrial Park desiqnati~ns wc~ld be co~tain~d within fully enclosed buildinqs. All projects are rev iewed for .:omp<,,:ibil i ty and aesthet lc c~n:erns dur in~ the project development stage. Cultur~l Resour~es 13. a, b. Cultural and historic resources are not impacted as the proposed amendment area is undeveloped anj it does no: contain any areas of archaeoloqic inter~s~ in acccrdanc~ with General Plan Figure 8. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance The potential increase in dwellinq units permitted on Site A (and on Site B as per Alternative 4) has minim~l siqnificance as shown in this study. The commercial l~nd use desiqnation chanqe for Site B will cause a loss t~ the number of dwellinq units that could potentially be buil t. however. the net l.~ss on the clocosed amen.3m",,": area is insiqnificant due t" chane.;,;; to rEosidelltial - I , o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 desiqnations or increases in density in other areas cf the City. The intended use of Sites Band C will cr~ate a ~raffi~ situation that will require further s~udy. Build-out of Site B for commercial or office/industria: and :ite ~ f~r commercial use would creat" si'~nific'll1t im::a.-:t circulati~n and possitlv n0154. D~v~lo~m~~~ ~f 31~~s 9 and C. ill addition t.:> th.. .:omm-arc:,Lallv d...si'Ii~~",j ~:'e= alonq Tippecanoe Av",nu. c~alJ have Impa~ts th!t g~ ;!S~ the immediate project area. - I . '. o o ~ * D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this inftlal study. ~ The propoHd pIOject COULD NOT have a signlflCalll elfact on the environmlll1l and a NEGATIVE DECLARA. TION will be prepared. See below O. Tha proposed project could have a significant elfact on tha anvironment. although there will not be a signWicant elfact in this cue because tha mitigation menures delCribad above have baan added to the pIOjact. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION win be prepared. * I!l The proposad project MAY have a signlicant elfact on tha environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. See below ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CAliFORNIA I1ICHPt~ W. ~t1n~ St;/oJlDtt CIVIc.. W6I!'I8fJL Name and Title ' ~~~ Signature - Date: IZ .z,.- "JO * A Negative J:ll?t""'ratia1 is n...............lded for Site A. A traffic study or enviromental iJlpact ...~L is reu...........ded for Sites B ande. to. ::;.,& 8M :r:== ,.,.... ~IIGE_OF_ 111'- - - J 1 CITY v9 SAN BERN~ INO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 LAND USES TITLE aM M.A NWJJrI'1OIIII , ~ I Ie , '. '". " . .1 I .. -'- . ------ i-I \ " i-; I .. I ., EXHIBIT A CITY' 9F SAN BERN~DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 - '. ~ TIT L E LOCATION. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & ALTERNATIVES ..,........ r. LIH Olt'~ _ .. ,It Teat. .... - . ~ ~I] . I <0 ~ - M. ......r. .. r~ IIlI .. II !i w J. Ir EXHIBIT 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 ~ lL - ~ ~ o Resolution No. o RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (SITES B and C) 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 (Sites B and C) 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 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, the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council. The Mayor and Common Council determined that General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) 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 April 11, 1991 through May 1, 1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the california Environmental Quality Act and local regulations. 1/11 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2S 24 25 26 27 28 - Il:l - - - o o (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public hearing and fully reviewed and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) and the Planning Division Staff Report on May 20, 1991. (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) 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 Mayor and Common Council as to the effect of this proposed plan 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 and RMH, Residential Medium High to CG-l, Commercial General 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. //// //// //// //// 2 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 o o B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. C. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissable under the CG-l, Commercial General designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on such services. D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate approximately 13.6 acres to CG-l, Commercial General. E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. Anticipated future land uses have been analyzed in the Initial study and staff report and it has been determined that project specific mitigation measures will be sufficient to eliminate any environmental impacts. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 10.4 acres from RM, Residential Medium to CG-l, Commercial General and changing approximately 3.2 acres from RMH, 1/1/ IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 3 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 ~ - ~ - o o Residential Medium Hiqh to CG-l, commercial General. This amendment is desiqnated as General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) and its location is outlined on the maps entitled Attachments A-I and A-2, and is more specifically described in the leqal descriptions entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION 5. MaD 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 Planninq Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the county Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifyinq the city's compliance with CEQA in preparinq the Neqative Declaration. //1/ fill fill fill fill fill fill 4 - 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 - 1 RESOLUTION.. .RoPTING THE NEGATIVEO DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-11 (SITES B AND C) TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF BERNARDINO. OF NO. SAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a day of wit: council Members: ~ ESTRADA REILLY FLORES MAUDSLEY MINOR POPE-LUDLAM MILLER , meeting therefore, held on the 1991, by the following vote, to ~ ABSTAIN City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1991. Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, city Attorney i I"; ~ IlL I' . BY(1' .. ''''-oJ . . /).l.~, W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 5 0 GPA90-11 0 0 " LJ ,('ILlN1t ... ... ~,,,, C .. LOCATION .' ~ ;;; =~. ~ . .. '" .... .. MAP O"',a..<4<io SITE B II Ii U "8: 11:... ... :.; 1:. t;~ ~ji5~ <. 3 ~ ! I~ II · i~ ~ i~ I: 0"" .. -1= . ~= = l~ ~. ()) Ji ' :rf ~ a:~ _ c. II' ..2> ~: . .. - CA- ..0 i;~ s-" ~ nllo :Or- "0 .~ " CIllD~ 00- "0- ~. III - .1\\: "Ill" ::1-.... o .. !!:.,.It "00 Del'" . a_ 0111 c: '" - ... 'i;-CoIl!'I... Ul.~~~~"'" il;~<:l'i~~ ~ I. . [I! , \ ~ '" . " ~@ ; I @ - I o I I - , I I- @ ,; .J_~ @ @ :D ~ ., IF. - o o G) I .... @ @ ."..- ~STltE'EJfl . or- <i) @ ~':a_...__ l; d' ~ =0 a ::s a ::r jka lDU) ~a 1I:l::S QI III ~ ::s a ... Q, ;' a o2:ar- ....l~ o:aOD ~at!: i!j. " -~i.g. fD;Sn '"-0. -. o Q,~ .. ... o '" '" II:l III i .- en Attachr ,lent A- 1 I I ' , ~ -_._~ TIPPECANOE I ~ ~., 41. C1~ :a !li 0 CIl Zf "' ~'a ~ ..~ 0 "0 0 W:- '=' .ll'&1 ~ .." :..~ 0" ....ill '" .. ~ .~ ~ " .. ~ .. - , , ~ CID --~- ~ 1 I I I, ~ .. .. ~ @t ~ '" .. .. ~ .. ~ I ~ _4A...c""'J2..<<"Y,r @: '"€) - ~ -_._------- .. ~G> .. 4V: ::@ ~~ =e @~ :@) <lil: ::6> l!!J: ::@ 45):; ~~ ~El c. iI)~ 'fJ '"<1>"""0 o _ " iI):: H) ~:: ::Ii> ill: ~@ 8);: :~ ~: ::@ @::: :@ 1>: ::e ., @: 1:<1> :a < ~(i '" illS "f ~ , , , - GPA90-11 LOCATION MAP I I '-- SITE C . o l o dl) -- G ,elLiNI." ".~ I, ok If.'"fiI''''t.'' J' . ~..i. ~ ... ""'* --.... '~.i" .: r .' "....'0110( AVENUE ';- , . . . . , , , ~ . t . @ ~ I' ~ , 01:'6 @ ". @ ;. ~ ~ ,.,... ," 4'10(.." Ii> l E ,.. .. c: :a '" ,.. ~ o ., ., IDID :Ill 00", <- =>0 ID- + -", i;!!! ' FERREE~ __~__~TREE~ Q ~ --- --- --- --- a."'J J> g ~~~, Ll'l I' ~"'~ ~ ~ ;y il ~ f " J l!! ~ .. !r ~ ~ ~ l:'i""'''ij ""-.....::t ..... ...~ :i~!! ~ o. @ Ii> :0. ~ fl 6' ~@~ ... @ - . . .. ill '\ Ul , , @ ~ @ ,.. .~ '" @ '" .. " ~ ~ . , " .., '~ '" .. ~ ~ ~, .. ",r \!! (~) . @ . @) . f.. -r.r <I- @ -.. ~ CIl ~ '" ... Ii> ......... ....0\;'... .. ~ @ " . ~(I) ~ ~ @ ---~..... ", .. " o . ~ r, ~ " ~ ~ ; . :0 o :;) n :r ito !D(I) ....0 .....:;) ", lJl CD ... :;) o ... Q. _. :;) o Qllll ..a ~!l -&- - J>e: ~i;! Zi' _Go o .. o '" '''' l\ I\) CD - . - 01 A....__....___+ ^ ., - 1 CITY F SAN BERN DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (Sites B & C) TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS From RM to CG-l PARCEL NUMBER 281-161-48 DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 4840, as per plat recorded in Book 53.of Parcel Maps, pages 97, 98, and 99, records of said County. From RMH to CG-l 281-151-01 thru 281-151-19 Real property in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as: Lots 3 thru 20 of Tract No. 2938 as per map recorded in Book 40, Page 35 of Maps of Record, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. ATTACHMENT B j o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed. Oi re.:tor Dept: Planning and Buildir.g Services Date: May 6. 1991 General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites Subject: B and C) to change the land use desig- nation from RM and RMH to CG-1 on two areas east and west of Ferree Street and north of the 1-10 Freeway Mayor and Common Council Meeting of Mav 20. 1991. 2:00 D.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: At their meeting of May 6. 1991. the Mayor and Common Council approved General Plan 90-11 (Site A). At their meeting of of March 11. 1991. the Mayor and Common Council approved, in concept. General Plan Amendment .No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) and directed staff to prepare a resolution for adoption. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted to approved General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C). 4 /~~ Signature Supponing det8 .u...hed: StaffReDort Phone: Ward: 384-5357 Contact penon: I arry FA Rpp-d 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. Descriotionl Finence: Council Notes: -.L o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (SitesB and C) Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of May 20, 1991 REOUEST The action on this City-initiated General Plan Amendment is to chanqe the land use desiqnations from RM, Residential Medium and RMH, Residential Medium Hiqhto CG-1, Commercial General on Sites Band C respectfully (see Exhibit B of the Initial Study). Action on Site A was concluded at the Mayor and Common council Meetinq of May 6, 1991. Site B consists of approximately 10.4 acres located on the northeast corner of Ferree Street and I-10 Freeway. Site C consists of approximately 3.2 acres comprised of 19 parcels frontinq on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Tippecanoe Avenue and Ferree Street. BACKGROUND At their meetinq of March 11, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved, in concept, the RMH/18 de.iqnation for Site A and the CG-1'de.iqnations for Sites Band C. The City Attorney's Office determined that further leqal noticinq was required before final action could occur on Sites Band C. consequently, final action on Site A was determined on May 6, 1991. sites Band C were noticed for public hearinq for May 20, 1991. ENVIRONMENTAL The Mayor and Common Council determined that havinq sites B and C redesiqnated CG-1 would not, of itself, cause any environmental impacts. It was the feelinq of the Council that the lonq-term interests of the City would best be served by havinq the traffic study commissioned at the time of project development .0 as to determine impacts associated with a specific project. At that time, mitiqation measures appropriate to that project could be determined and condi- tions be applied to the permit to ensure environmental impacts be reduced to a level of insiqnificance. The Council determined that a Neqative Declaration for Sites B and C be adopted. The proposed Neqative Declaration for a 21 day public review from April 1991. Sites B and C received 11, 1991 throuqh May 1, . o 0 General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Sites B and C) Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of May 20, 1991 paqe 2 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ACTION. That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Neqative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (sites B and C), based on the findinqs in the resolution. Prepared by: John Burke Assistant Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Planninq and Buildinq Services Attachment I: Request for council Action dated February 20, 1991 Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planninq Commission Exhibit A: Land uses Exhibit B: Location, Land use Desiqnations and Alternatives Attachment 2: Resolution for February 20, 1991 Mayor and Common Council Meetinq. Not inclu- ded here, copy included in case file Attachment II: Resolution for May 6, 1991, Mayor and Common council Meetinq approvinq Site A Attachment A-1 and A-2: Location Maps Attachment B: Leqal Descriptions Attachment III: Resolution Attachment A-1 and A-2: Location Maps Attachment B: Leqal Descriptions SRGPA90-11B&C /' ' o .GIT;~" OF SAN BERr \RDINO - o REQUEST (OR COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed c.pt: Planning and Building Services D~: February 20, 1991 Su~ect: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11, to change the land use designation from RM to RMH/18 on the east si~e of Richardson Street between Coulston Street and 1-10 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11. 1991. 2:00 c.m. Synopsis of Previous CouncillCtion: 1. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 5, 1991, recommended approval of the RMH/IB, Residential Medium High designation 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~/ Signature Di rector Staff Report Phone: W8'd: 384-5357 1 ContllCt penon: Larry E. Reed, Director Supporting d8UI 8tUChed: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.> (Acct. Descriotion' F'......: Council Notel: IATTACHMENT -L-J= u. ~ - - III ~ - - / 0 CITY' OF SAN BERlt" .RDINO - o REQUEST I' JR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11, 1991. UQIlUI This CitY-initiated General Plan amendment is to evaluate a change in the land use designation from RH. Residential Medium (14 dwelling units per acre) to RHH/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 P~ 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-l, Commercial General, CO-I, Commercial Office and OIP, 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 RH. and Site C a designation of RHH. ENVIRONMENTAL 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-l. Commercial General. After review, the ERe 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 reco_ended that a traffic study or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to determine impacts, if any, resulting from redesignation of Sites B and C. - - - - - - . Genera 1 Pl an Amendment 0 90-11 Mayor and Common Cour-i1 Meeting fo .' March 11. 1991 , Page 2 o . . ( DI_SCUSJiJOI! The evaluation of the proposed. RMH/18, Residential Medium High designation with a density limit of 18 dwellinq units per acre on Site A found that there are no siqnificant impacts and that the proposed desiqnation was consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surroundinq uses. The CG-1 desiqnation provides for uses alonq major transportation corridors and intersections and althouqhSite B adjoins the 1-10 freeway, access to it is only from the west via an established residential neiqhborhood. The land use desiqnation 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 beinq predominantlY sinqle-familY dwellinqs. The same concerns are identified when considerinq the CO-1 and eIP desiqnations. The streets between Site B and Tippecanoe Avenue are local streets and are not desiqned to handle a hiqh volume of commercial traffic. With access beinq only from Ferree Street (i.e. the west) then all additional traffic qenerated as a result of future development must travel on Ferree Street and the majority of it would proceed throuqh 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 qenerated by the commercial or industrial uses on the site. The ERC requested evaluation of the chanqe on Site C so as to have orderly development alonq Laurelwood Drive by havinq the same land use desiqnation on both sides of the street and to review possible impacts in that area in the event Site B was commercially! industrially desiqnated. As a result of the above concerns the Planninq Commission recommended that a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study be conducted prior to a desiqnation chanqe on Sites Band C. Since this is a City-initiated amendment, fundinq has not been identified to prepare such a study. PLANNING COMMISSION RECO~~ATIOII The Planninq Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. which chanqes the land use desiqnation from RM to RMH/18 on Site A only, at its noticed public hearinq on February 5. 1~91. The vote was 5 for. 1 aqainst, and 1 abstention. ~ . , General Plan Amendment~. 90-11 ,. Mayor and Conmon Cou( 1 Meeting of March II, 1991 ' Page 3 o ( MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Hayor and Common. Council may approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 for Site A based on the findings in the resolution. 2. The Hayor 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 action be taken on Sites Band C until 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 8< Alternatives Attachment 2: Resolution Attachments A-I and A-2: Attachment B-1 Location Haps Legal Descriptions .JIIIIIIl - ~ - o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 10 2-5-91 1 ....-~ City of San Bernardino APPUCAHT: W GENERAL PLAN AMENDMElfT NO. 90-11 (I) C OWNER: Various () "-" ~ ~ fa To change the General Plan land use designation from RH, Residential .. Medium to RMH/IB, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 ::) 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 '--'" '" r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROP~RiY LANO lfSF- ZONING OFSIGNATlON Subject Vacant RH, Residential Medium North Residential RH, Residential ~~dium South Freeway NIA East Residential RH, Residential Medium West Vacant RH, Residential r~dium ( GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES ) (=HAZARD~: ~=:: ) ( SEWERS: ~ YES ) HAZARD ZONE: 121 NO oNO ( HIGH FIRE DYES )( ~~~ D YES )( REDEVElOPMENT DYES ) HAZARD ZONE: IX NO ~NO PROJECT AREA: ~NO .... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z III APPROVALof Site A only C APPUCASLE EFFECTS WITH 0 II'TlGATlNG MEASURES - ~(I) NO EJA ~ 0 CONDITIONS WCJ lI.el :EZ o EXEMPT o E.LR. REQUIRED BUT NO !:cifi 0 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Oel WITH MllGATlNG til a:iiE MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO -II. > fi NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 Z () W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES a: "" .. .... - - - ..L o o ( . . ""I r OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT JlEOURST .. LOCATIOII This is a City-initiated general plan amendment to evaluate land use designation changes 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 change the designation from RM, Residential Medium to RMH118. Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre (du/acl. Site B. 10.36 acres located on the northwest corner of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. To change the designation from RM, Residential Medium to CG-1. Commercial General. CO-l, Commercial Office, OIP. Office Industrial Park or RMH/18, Residential Medium High (18 du/acl. Site C. Nineteen adjoining parcels comprising 3.22 acres located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue. To change the designation from RMH, Residential Medium High 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 aM to RMH/18. From aM to CG-I. From RMH to CG-1. Alternative 2 Site A. Site B. Site C. From aM to RMH/18. From aM to CO-1. From RMH to CG-1. . . - o o .,' ( r' "II CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91' 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .... OBSERVATIONS Alternative 3 Site A. Site B. Site C. From RH to RMH/1B. From RH to OIP. From RHH to CG-l. Alternative 4 Sites A and B only. From RM to RMH/1B. Alternative 5 Site A only. From RM to RMH/1B. The following summarizes the uses permitted in the land use designations addressed in the alternatives: RH ---- RHH--- CG-l -- CO- 1 -- OIP --- Residential Medium. Multi-family townhomes and apartments up to a density of 14 du/ac and a height of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.13.101 Residential Medium High. Mul ti-famil y townhomes and apartments up to a density of 24 du/ac and a height of three stories. (General Plan Pollcy 1.13.11) Commercial General. A diversity of retail and service uses, entertainment. professional and financial offices to a height of two stories. (General Plan Pollcy 1..19.101 Commercial Office. Administrative and professional offices, supporting retail commercial uses. and medical offices to a height of four stories. (General Plan Pollcy 1.28.10) Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices. light manufacturing and limited supporting retail services to a height of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.31. 10) - - - - " o ! CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA I~O. 90-11 10 2-5-91 4 , AREA CHARACTERISTICS Site A is comprised of five contiquousparcels totallinq 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- famil y 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 adjoininqparcels 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-l, 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. MUlUCIPAL CODE Hot applicable It. ........ ,... 1 OF 1 C440J =-=..... - j ~ j - - - o o .... OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-Ql 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .... ..... CALIFORNIA EllVI~AL OUALITY ACT (CEOAJ STATUS The general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental Review Committee (ERCI reviewed the proposed amendment and the Initial Study (Attachment AI on December 20. 1990 and determined that the proposed designation change for Site A (Alternative 51 would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended a Negative 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 I1ndustr ial designation (CG-l, CO-lor OIP I. as in Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, on Site B would permit 250,000 square feet or more of office/building space which would require review by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAGI and the Office of Planning and Research (OPRI. This is required for projects having the potential for statewide. regional or areawide significance. The ERC concluded that the proposed chanoes for Sites Band C (AI ternatives 1 thru 4 I will require a traffic study and/or an environmental impact report. COMMENTS RECEIVED No comments were received. ANALYSIS Althouoh the ERC determined that there would be impacts associated with a chanoe in d.esignation for Alternatives 1 thru 4 and a Neoative Declaration was not reco_ended. staff analyzed them here. The potential impacts overlap General Plan policies and env iro nmenta 1 concerns. Land Use Changino the desionation on Site A to RKH/18 would yield up to 403 dwelling units. an increase of 89 units over the 314 permitted under the RH designation. General Plan Objective 1. 13 is to promote development of high quality multi-faaily units which .... convey a distinctive residential neighborhood and are inteorated with their setting.. The 18 dwelling unit density on the site is sufficient to ensure that the objective is _t by implementing the design and develop_nt quideUnes covered in policies 1.13.32 thru 1.13.41. ... s::.e:. ... ........ .... t OF 1 .... .J -0 (0 GPA tlO. 90-11 ,.. CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 10 2-5-91 6 r One of the Goals (General Plan Goal 1G a.) of the City is to "Achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which retain and enhance established residential neiGhborhoods .... 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 uPGrade miGht occur. Goal 1G d would allow for the intensification of commercial and industrial uses if the neiGhborhood does not merit preservation. However, the single-family subdivision north of the site was constructed just recently and improves the area. General Plan Objective 1. 19 pertains to community-serving commercial (CG-ll uses and provides for. uses alonG major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents .... AlthouGh Site B abuts the 1-10 freeway, access to it is throuGh an established neiGhborhood and so it cannot be considered to be alonG a major transportation corridor nor at a major intersection. The General Plan Objective for the Commercial Office (CO-11 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.. AGain, 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 alP desionation) 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 Generated on Site A will be that normally associated with a multi-family development with the majority of it beinG 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 hiGher densi ty permitted by the RMH/18 desionation allows for some flexibility in des ion in that the units can be sited to block the freeway and create useable outdoor open spaces. .. __ '_'OF' I'-lOl ~...- ~ .,j. .& ( OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT lU ". 2-5-91 7 r- A CO-1 or CG-1 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 pt'actical distance from residential parcels. Site B only has access from the west which is through the residential neighborhood. An OIP desiqnation on Site B (Alternative 3) permits uses that would allow for operation beyond reqular business hours and the noise from employee and truck traffic would impact on the adjoininq residential areas because of access constraints. Housina A non-residential desiqnation 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 housinq needs. The chanqe of desiqnation on Site C from a residential to a commercial desiqnation could potentially reduce the availability of affordable housinq by the loss of 18 units existinq there now if commercial uses qo in. TransDortation/Clrculatlon 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 El...nt of the General Plan. The RMH/18 designation on Site A with its potential development alonq with present and future deve1 opaents in the area will generate approximatelY 5,000 average daily trips (ADTs) alonq Coulston Street. This approaches the ..ximum 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 RM desiqnation could yield 145 dwelling units and, if assigned an RMH/18 designation, then the yield would be 186 units. The hiqher desiqnation 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. .,j &Il.:. III 1 . ......... _, llF' _ . - ... ];II. - " o OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 8 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT r A CG-l designation for Site B. given 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 large project will be proposed but the potential for a development exists. A shopping center of 100.000 square feet would generate 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 signal at Tippecanoe Avenue). Such a large increase in traffic will cause a negative impact on the residential area. Some traffic could be expected to enter the area by way of Gould Street (which is signalized) and Ferree Street but this access is also entirely through residential neighborhoods. A CO-lor OIP designation 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 Engineer 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 redesignated or realigned. This type of study should be completed before major redesignations 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 designations. With th~t information. the City can determine if changes to land use designations that permit IIOre intense uses can be accommodated. A traffic study won't addrARR the issue of compatibility between uses but will provide certain data to help determine which of the different designations can be compatible. With the future redesignation of Norton Air Force Base for non- military use the traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue can be expected to increase. thus compounding an existing problem. The Norton Air Force Base closure can also be expected to affect the land use designations along Tippecanoe Avenue resulting from future redevelopment and these potential impacts should be included in a traffic study. CORCLUSIONS The RMH/18. Residential Medium High (density limit of 18 du/ac) land use designation for Alternative 5 on Site A is compatible with the surrounding land uses and land use designations. Approval of Al ternative 5 would allow for the d.signation change on Site A without action on the other two sites. .I ... 'UHoIa NIlE' OF 1 C640I ::..: r o o OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 9 r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .. ~ The impacts resultino from commercial or industrial desionations on Sites Band C appear to be neoative but may not be so based on the results of a traffic study. Determinations based on the land use chanoes proposed for alternatives 1 thru 4 cannot be effectively evaluated until further detailed study is made. Traffic volume will increase and circulation patterns will chanoe upon project development. Reuse of Norton Air Force Base will chanoe the traffic alono Tippecanoe Avenue. These cumulative chanoes will impact on the Circulation Plan for the City and on the land use desionations within the surroundino area. These i~acts 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 chanoes to the Circulation Plan which may cause chanoes to land use desionations. FIImIKGS The proposed amendment as per Alternative 5 is consistent with the ooals, objectives and pollcies of the General Plan in that the. RHH/18, Residential Medium HiOh (with a density limit of 18 du/ac) desionation is not in conflict with the surroundino land use desionations 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 Neoative Declaration be adopted for Site A. This amenamentwill have minimal impact on the balance of land uses within the City. The residential to commercial acreaoe ratio will not chanqe and an RMH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh desionation on Site A will increase the potential for future housino. The subject land is physically suitable for the RMH/18. Residential Medium HiOh land use desionation and any anticipated future development on it. There are no environmental constraints that would affect the proposed density. The site meets the minillUII size requirements established by the General Plan. .... .. r::..=.~ ...... PMIE IOF 1 ~ - - .IlIl d - '0 OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 10 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT , JlI!:COMMEIIDATIOIIS Staff recommends that the Planninq Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council: 1. That a Neqative 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 chanqe the land use desiqnation from RH, Residential Medium to RMH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh with a density limit of 18 dwe11inq units per acre on Site A only. Staff also recommends that no chanqes to land use desiqnations for Sites Band C occur until such time as the City is able to prepare a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study. Rt::;l;;J Larry E. Reed, Director P1anninq and Bui1dinq Services Department fd'~~. Assistant Planner Attachment A: Initial Study .... .. PUNoUI ,MJE 10F 1 C44O) -.. - - - - _. ~ .. R,INO PLANNING AND BUILDI~J!!RVICES DEPARTMENT. .' r: CITY OF SAN BEA. INITIAL STUDY r ""I Gen~r~! Pl~n~~ndment No. 90-~1 P.I:'='~~:'= p~l?crJpti9n: To chanQe the land us'" de~i'~n3tion=,n t:lr"'''' sites from RM. Residenti",l Medium t.:> RMH/18. Residential 1~.,Jillm HiQh with a density cap of 18 dwellinQ units per acre and from RH. Residential Medium to CG-l. Commercial General. CO-I. C~mmerr.ial office. OIP. office Industrial Park or RMH/18. Residential Medium Hi~h (with a density cap of 18 units) and from RMH. Residential Medium HiQh to CG-l. Commercial General. Pr0je~t_~oc~~~pn: west of Richardson on the north side Tippecanoe Avenue. The amendment area is located to th~ ~~~t and Street on the north side of the 1-1Q tr~ew?y and of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and D~~~: December 4. 1990 ~PP1A~~n~ Name_~~gA~d~es~: City of San Bernardino P_J;:.!!P.ar_e.9__P.Y: .John R. Burke Title: Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of PlanninQ and BuildinQ Services 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 ATTACHMENT --A-....... .. 1l1lol:l:' "-'"""U7 ~_, OF , ..... ~ o o l;Nl.TJ:Nd,l'.wrc ~or __gp-~_9Q: JJ 1.0 INTRODUCTION This regort is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. This amendment proposes to change the lanj U3e desiqnation on three sites from RM, Residential Mediunl to RMH/l8. Residential Medium High with a density cap of 18 dwellinq units pe~ acre and from ~~. Residential M~jium to CG-1. Commercial General. CO..1, Commercial ,)ffico;, OIP. office Industrial Park or RMH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh (with a density cap of 18 units) and from RI1H. Residential Medium Hiqh to CG-l. Commercial General. As stated in Section Environmental Quality Act Initial Study are to: 15063 of the California quidelines. the purposes of an 1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an EIR or Neqative Declaration: 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a project, mi tiqating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared. thereby enablinq the project to qualify for Neqative Declaration, . 3. Assist the prep~ration of an EIR. if one is required. by: (A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects jetermined to be siqnificant. (B) Identify the effects determined not to be siqnificant. and (C) Explaininq the reasons for determining that potentially siqnificant effects would not be siqnificant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the desiqn of a project: 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a project will not have a siqnificant effect on the environment: 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs: 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR c011ld be used with the project. . - AI. - L . .. o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a City-initiated general plan amendmen~ t~ evaluate alternatives on three adiacent parcels of land as follows: ~.Lte,_~ 22.41 acres loca~ed on the northe~sc corner cf Richardson Street and the 1-10 fre~wav. To change the designation from RM. Resid€nci~l Medium to RMH/18. Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwellina units oar acre (du/ac). ;;ite.,l'l,- 10.36 acres located on the northwest corner Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. _& ~.. To change the designation from EM. Residential Medium to CG-i. Commercial General. CO-1. Commercial office. OIP. office Injustrial Park or RMH/18. Residential Medium High (18 du'acl. ~ite C,- Nineteen adjoining parcels comprlslng 3.22 acres located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties fronting on Tippe~anoe Avenue. To change Residential General. the designation Medium High t.:> CG-l. from RMH. Commercial These are further defined as Alternatives 1 through 4 as explained below. A,l tern,j!.J;J,y'~,,_l Site A. From RM to RHHI18. Site B. From RM to CG-l. Site C. From RMH to CG- 1. l\.lternative 2 Site A. From RM to RMH/18. Site B. From RM to CO- 1. Site C. From RMH to CG-l. - ~ - ..J. - - - '0 o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 Al ternativlL.3 Site A. From RM to RMH/18. Site B. From RM to OIP. Site C. From RMH to CG-1. Alternative 4 Sites A and B only. From RM t~ RMH/18. The followinq summarizes the uses permitted in the land use desiqnations addresseu in the alternatives: RM ---- RMH --- CG-l -- CO-1 -- OIP --- Residential Medium. Mul ti-famil y townhorn;"s and apartments up to a density of 14 Ju/ac and a heiqht of three stories. Residential Medium Hiqh. Multi-famil? townhomes and apartments up to a density of 24 du/ac and a heiqht of three stories. Commercial General. A diversity of retail and service uses. entertainment. professional an~ finan~ial offices to a heiqht of two stories. Commercial Office. Auministrative and professional offices. supporting retail commercial uses. and medical offices to a heiqht of four stories. Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices. liqht manufacturinq and limited supportinq retail services to a heiqht 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 incluje Site C and Alternatives 3 and 4 on Site B. This Initial Study incorporates all of the content of the previous study (dated November 2. 1990) and therefore all potential impacts to all of the alternatives are addressed within this document. , I. '0 /0 INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 potential loss of these 'Jnits is not t:ercei'lej "IS ? problem due to the residentially designated land in other areas of the City. . 3.2.9 Transportation/Circulation 9. a, c, d, f, J. h. TippecanOE Avenue Is a rnaior ar~er,ial a:"id !-!o1..~n':ai:, tli~l'; Avenue is a secondary arterial (General Plar:, Fiqur.. 26). San Bernardino Avenue whi.:h is about 2.000 fe..t north of the sites is alse a secondary arterial. The streets within the rectangle formeu by the art.,;rials and the freeway are all local streets as defined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Site A. with a density cap of 18 units per acre could qenerate about 2,300 average daily trips (ADTs) with <, multi-family development of 403 units. The cumulative ADTs alonq Coulst.:>n Street. bet'Neen !4,:'Jntai., View A';en'Je and Tippecanoe Avenue, resul tinq from futu:'., development, and added to the existinQ development, ~oulJ amount to 5.000 ADTs. This is appreachinq the upper limit of the local streets' capacities. Most of the traffi,: we'Jl.J enter and exit the area via Mountain View and Tippecanoe Avenues as entry and exit ramps for the free~/~Y 3r.,; located ther.., h,;>wever, a small amount of ':he traffi.: would use Rir.hards:n Street. Th.. traffic access to Site B would be via ~-:lsew-:l.,d Dri".:. Laurelwood Drive and Fe:'r.:e Stl'eet, BaseJ ,'n the il:-.,:' area ratio (FAR) of 0,7 permitted in the CG-l area. Site B could qenerate up to 315,000 squ3re fe.,;t of ~:m~erci"ll uses, Al thouqh traffic increases w-:luld deperd en the specifiC uses proposed on the site. a sh.:ppi~"J center could qenerate b..tween 10,000 and 15,000 hOTs f':'r e. 100,000 to 300.000 square foet ce~ter, This wculJ exc~eJ the capacity of th~ local streets. These local str..ets are the only access t.:> the site as there is no access from Richardson Stro!et. Tho! stre-:ts ar.. throu'~h a residential neiQhborhood althouqh the area is desig~ated CG-l. Commercial General. An office use (as with the CO-l desiqn3tion) would be expected to qenerate about 2.300 ADTs. This potentia 1 increase in traffic could be expected to im~act on the local streets and on the present residential uses along those streets. The CG-l, ~O-1 or OIP desiqnations could have impacts on Tippecanoe Avenue as traffic would bo; expected to qo in ~hat direction. ... L- o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 If Site B retains the RH, Residential M~dium designati~n or is chanqed to RMH/lS, then the additional 1,000 to 1.500 daily trips qenerated could be absorbed by tho: local streets west of the site. A CG-l, Commercial General desiqna':ien on S1':e C will potentiallY inc!'€a;;e tho: lo.~al t.r?ffi.: .,n Laur.elw.:-.c-:1 Driv~ to some degr~~. HOW€'I$~, if ~i~~ C ~as d~velc~~~ wi th CG- 1. C.:>mmer.: ial Off i.:e uses al.:nq' with !Oi te B ~,j, th CG-l, Commercial office or OIP, offi:s InJ'lstl"ial F;.r!-: uses, the level of traffic intensity could have siqnificant impact. ,lI, potential in;:rease in traffic in the are" :r.~m !':<:>:;O;'''",: '! Drive to Davidson Street could r:recipitate rr.i':i~ati':>:1 measures that could have impacts ~n the land us~s in ~1:~ area. The westbound exit ramp fr~m 1-10 ~nt: Ti~pe:anoe Avenue is s iqn,d iz..-.i :2n."~ i,: S I:!' ::.:irn:. t.! t .:. th" R.?sew: ,~.,= intersection preclud~s another traffi-:: sig-nal des!:ite its probable use as an a~cess road tc Site B. The potential traff ic increase could require an amendm.;n': to the Gen..ral Plan's Circulation Plan to chanqe on.. or more of the local streets .to collectors based en increas..d traffic and the chanqe to the area's ciro::ulation. Increased traffic, espeCially cemmer:ial, will expe.se people to ;Jreater safety impacts as they pertain tc. vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. An OIP desiqnation could qenerate traffic that cculd be ~~tive 24 hours ~sr day. Futur~ residential. ~cmmer~ial or industrial development could generate a need for increased publi~ transportation services. 9. b, e. The amendment will no': crellte a need fer :1e'.-/ l:ar!':in~ facilities ner impact rail or air traffi~. 3.2.10 publ i.: Servi.:es 10. a. b. Site B is almost "landlocked" i" that .a':c~ss is .:-nl'l possible from the west side of the. site i. oS. F",rre." Street. This access is via a residen~ial neiqhborhood. The possibility e:;:ists that the pr(;.'.'isi-:>n of fir': ~nd pol ice ser'tiees .:0'.1103 b.. affe~"".j d'.l~ 1;.:> 3 i to.: confi~uration and l~cation. This situaticn exists fer ~ - ~ o I o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2.6 Land Use 6. a. Approval of this am.;,ndment will chanJ6 the G.;n..ral PI:", Land Use Plan. Compatibility issues will be addressed in the staff report t" the Planning C.,mmissi.:.n. 6. b. c, d. This amendment will not res1ll t in future developmen,: wi thin an Airport District, a "Greenbel'::" zone "r a hiQ'h fire hazard zone as indicated on the Environmental Concerns Map on file in the Department of Planning aId Building Services. 3.2.7 Man-Made Hazards 7. a, b, c. The storage, sale and use of ha=arJolls mat..rials is an inherent safety concern associated with commercial, office and industrial developments and to a lesser degr..e the storaqe and use of such materials in resid~n':ial developments. A concern of an DIP designati,," is the potential for projects that use quantities of hazard~u~ materials in close proximity to r.;sid..ntial neiqhborhoods. 3.2.8 HousinO' 8. a. Affordable housing could be removed fr.:>m Site C as a result of a chanqe to a commercial designation and redevelopment for commercial uses. If a commer::i;;l.' industrial use was developed on Site B. then the jots created could brinO' about a situation that could demand addi tional hous inO'. The increase of ma,:imum dwell ing unit density on Site A would incr..ase th.. potential housinO' stock by 89 units and the designation of Site 9 as comm..rcial would decrease it by 145 units. 5i te ." presentlY has 18 sinqle-family homes on it and has the potential to yi..ld 77 'JOlts if developed as a sin'1lo; project under the RMH desiO'nation. This would be a potential loss of 59 dwellinq units. The potential net loss of 115 units exists for the whole amendment aren. If Alternativ.. 4 were adopted then tho: ne:: qain t, potential futur~ housing stock would be 130 units. The o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS Site A is comprised of five contiquous parcels t~tallinq 22.41 acres located northeast of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. It is bounded by a .::ondomini'lm cem?l.,;.: on the east and Coulston Street on the north. This site and the area on the n':'rth side .,f t~ol.1lsT:on Str.;et ~s desiqnated RM. Residential Medium. It is 'J3..:ant ard the area to the north is .:omprised ,:of v"cant land !!.,-,d sin'.lo;- famil y homes. Mountain View Avenue is t., the east sid" of the condominiums. Site B is a vacant, sinqle par.::el comprlslnq 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 sinqle-family subdivision on the north. North and northeast of this site are c.:ondominiums, Couls"on Street and Single-family residences. This site and the land to the north is desiqnated RM, Residential Medium. Site C is comprised of 19 adjoining parcels totalling 3.22 acres. It is located on the north side 0f Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties frontinq on. Tippecanoe Aven'Je. All tho;, property on the south side of Laurelwood Drive to the freeway and those properties frontino on Tippecan0e Avenue are designated CG-1, Commercial General. Site C, and the land to the north, is desiqna ted Rl~H. R,;sido:nt ial Medium High. The properties south of Rosewood Drive arid frontinq on Tippecanoe Avenue are beinq used for commercial purposes. The remainder of the area which includes Site C is mostly comprised c,f single-f:ur.il'f residences. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The amendment area is situated within the ~OO-year flood plain. It also lies within an area that has a medium-to- medium-hiqh susceptibility to liquefaction. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. There are no bioloqical concerns. .a - ,. ,0 /0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ A. BACKGROUND AppllcalionNumber: {,6NIML PiJJN' /inUNl>/hLAff AI. 9,t'-/;I Projed Description: ~4'-=: j?~,,(Ar:LA"'N :;. () ,f'II' "'~aA'~Yn/<: ~)f':r. Location: &AI/AA"-y U7CArZ'~ ,-.w'..J:i11ft5 ,c'fP..II!7W ..r"iJ4 LD/ n'/L Z~[) ~w"'Y ~n..~~'V' ~t'''N',7AIM/ ~~ A--_",.,yl> fi/PR'~ .#r....__. Environmental Constraints ArMs: General Plan Designalion: fIIZ Rs.$/~AC. t1J1>IUm /#,1/J ~##. ~S;N...m'A"" ~lXV~ #16#. Zoning Design...,n: #/.19 - ~ . - c ^ ~ """"l 2- Air Rnou~: WiD the proposal resu. in: Vas Na Maybe L Subslanlial air amissions or an a"act upon ambient X air quality? b. The craation of objactionabla odors? )( c. Development within a high wind hazard area? X 3. Water~: Willtha proposal rau. in: L Changes in absoIplion rat... dralnaga pattams. or tha rata and amount of surface NnoIf dua to impermaabla surf_s? )( b. Changes in the ooursa or flow of flood _ars? )( c. Discharga into surf_ watars or any "aration )( of surface water qualily? d. Change in tha quantity of quality of ground watar? )I' a. Exposura of people or property to flood hazards? X l. Other? 4. Biological Resources: Could tha proposal rasu. in: L Change in the numbsr of any uniqua. rare or andangared spacias of plants or thair hab.at including y stands of traas? b. Change in the numbsr of any uniqua. rare or )t andangered spacias of animals or thair ~at? c. Removal of viable. mature treas? (6. or graatar) X d. Other? 5. No"': Could the proposal rwu. in: L ~ In existing noise lavals? X b. Exposura of psopla III axterior noise IavaIs over )( 85 dB or Intarior noise lavals over 45 dB? c. Other? I. UncI u..: WilIha proposaJ rasu. in: L A change In the land usa as dasignated on the )( General Plan? b. Davalopmanl within an Airport Olstrict? X c. Oavalopmanl within "Graanbslt" Zana A. B. or C? X d. Development within a high fira hazard zona? )( a. Other? .... r;:.::t= .... __ PlOIlUOFI lMOl . 0 , 0 . r' 7. M8......de Hazarda: Willlh. projecl: Ves No Maybe a. U.., stare, transport or diapoae of hazanIoua or toxic mat.rlaIs (Including but not Umked to ol~ X pesticld.s, c:h.mals or radiation)? b. Involv.the relea.. of hazardous s~? X c. Expos. people to the pot.ntial h.allhlaalety hazards? X d. Other? 8. Housing: Willlh. proposal: a. Remov. .xilling housing or create a demand y for addkional housing? b. Other? I. Transportation I Clrculetlon: Couldth. proposal resuk In: L An Incr.... In tranic thai Iagr.ater than the land X' usa d.signated on the G_ral Plan? b. U.. of .xisting, or demand tor new, perldng taciliti.l/SlrUClllres? )( c. Impact upon .xlsting public transponation ayatIma? X d. A1t.ration of pre..nt paIIama of circulation? X .. Impact to raft or air Irenic? X f. IncrIuad aafaty hazards to vahiclH. bicydiIlI or X pedlllrians? g. A disjointed paII.m of roadway Improvamlnll? X h. SignKicant Incra_ In tranic valumII on the roadwayI )( or intlIrucIionI? L Other? 10. Public Sarv..: WiUthe propoaaI impact the IoIJowIng beyond the capability to provide aclaquatl .. of..rviclI? L Fr. prolaclion? ~ b. Policll protaction? ~ c. Schools (i.... att.ndance. boundaries. avarIoad. lie.)? X d. PaJkI or other recreational faciOOaa? )( .. MaclaI aid? X f. Solid Wasil? )( g. Olhar? ... PU/loI.IlI P..oUOFl lHOl . em fJ# _,,__1(___1 o o ~ 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: L Impsclthe following beyond the cep8biliIy III ~I edeqU"1 levels of IIMce or require the Cllllltruclion ol new fdilies? 1. Natural gas? 2. E~? 3. W..er? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Relull in a disjointed pattlm ol utility extensions? c. Require the Cllnstruction of new f8ci1itiH? 12. Alathltlca: L Could the propolal rasull in the obstruction of any scenic vilw? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrillllntal III the lunounding area? c. Other? 13. CUltural Reaourcn: Could thl proposal rIIull in: a. The aIIeration or dlltruClion of a prehisloric or historic an:hMologlcaI dl? b. ~ physical or aealhetIc Impecll to a prehistoric or historic 1111. structure Of objIcl? c. Other? 14. Mandatory findings of S1gnKlcance (Section 15Ol15) Vas No )( >< X X x X x X )( >t Maybe Thl CaIIomia EnvIronmlntal QuaIty lid _.. thai. any of the ta.. ;;,g can be __rid yes Of maybe. the plUjIcI may have a lign.leant effIc:t on the _1nN_ IIlCI an Envinlnmllllallmpact Report shall be prepared. L Does the plojIct have the potlllllial to dlgredlthe qudly of the envlronmant, substanllaIy reduclthe habiIat ol a fish or wildllflljleCils. cause a fish or wiIdIIl populallan to dnIp below sdlllllaining IIlMIs. thremlll to elminall a plant or animalCllmmunity, rlducethe number Of rntrict thl range ola ... or HCfangerld pIanI Of animal or elImlnaII importanl examples of the major periodl of CaIIIlmIa hislllry Of prehistory? b. Does the plojIct have the potlllllial to achieve sholto term. tD lha disadYantaga ollong...rm.lllvinIr-a goals? (A short.tarm Impscl on the _1nN_nt is_ which occurs In a relativaly brief. dIfInitIve period of tinl whil1 Iong-t'"" impacts win endure ... into lha futUre.) Vas No X" )( Maybe z:r.& ~ oa -, PUN.allI ~llG"'OF' (MOl a . - - - o .Q Yes No Maybe c. Does the pIOject have impects which .,. Individually Im.ee1. but cumulllllvely COllllderlble? (A praject may inpcl on two or IlIlIN sepaIale _ whe.. the inpKl on HCh _ II reWIlveIy amaII. but whe.. the elfect of the lI*I of those impelS on the environment lllignllcant.) d. Does the pIOject have environmentel ellecll which will cause subltantial ~ ellecll on human beings. e.her directly or indirectly? x )( C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAllON AND MlTIGAllON MEASURES (Attach shHtl .. necessary.) SEE IJbbl rtO/llAL.. .€'N~G~ . .. I'\.MoIM PMlUClFI (MIll ~...:. Li - o .' o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.2.1 Earth Resources 1. a. Development on ~he sites wi~l require ear~h mov~rn6n~ i~ the form of gradinq ~ith cut and/or fill ac~iviti~s and could involve ear~h movement exceeding 10,000 cubic yards. Such possibilities will be addressed at the review stage for any future pr~ject. 1. b. The amendment area is not wi~hin the Hillsij6 Man~Q6m6n! Overlay District as shown on the General Plan Land Us~ Plan, which assures developmen~ tha~ will prc.te.:t th~ hillsides. 1. c. h. The proposed amendment area is not within the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone (General Plan. Figure 47) bu! an unnamed fault may cross Site B as shown in the sam~ fiqure and addressed in a study prepared by Fife anj Roqers in 1974. 1. d. No unique geoloqic or physical features are known t:> exist in the amendment area. 1. e. The proposed amendment site is potential soil ercsion as shown General Plan. not in an ar-=~ c.f in Figur", 53 of the 1. f. There are no channels. creeks or rivers on any of th~ sites comprisinq the amendment area. 1. q. The area is wi thin an area of moderatel y-hiqh-to-,uoder:.t.. liquefaction potential as shown on Figure 48 of the General Plan. It is also in an area of p.)~en~i'3l subsidence as shown by Fiqure 51 in the General Pl;!n. These seismic concerns will be addr6ssild dur ing ~h.; -4 _ - - - o i o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 project review stage or rut'lr.. develcpmo:nt 0 :Itd mlti(!at~d as r~quired. They do not preclude development under any of the alternatives. 3.2.2 Air Resources 2. a. b. The proposed amendment ~ould result in a prcjec~ which could have statewide, regional or areawide significance as defined in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMPI and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These documents give two of the definitions cof proj-=cts as having such significance as: a) a propo~ed residential development of more than 500 dwellinq units and b) office buildings or parks employing 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 alternatives. then this proposed amenjment must be sent the Southern Cal ifornia Associati.,n of Governments (SCAGI and the Office of Planning a~d Research (OPR) for their comments as they pertain to statewide. regional or areawide si~nific=nce. Vehicle activity will be greater in an RMH/18 0 CG-l. CO-l or OIP deSignated area than in an RM area. This will increase exhaust particulate matter and Qasses. and c.ther pollutants which will be injected into the atm.,sphere. The OIP. Office Industrial Park designation does permit uses that could have emissions and ouors. 2. c. The proposed amendment is not in a high wind hazard area as shown on the Environmental Concerns Hap on file in the Department of Planning and Building Services. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3. a. b. c, d, e. Any development will potentially decrease absorption and increase runoff with the construction of impermeahl e surfaces for bUilding Dads. parking areas aild street improvements. Vehicle aC1:ivi1::y will be greater in an R!1H/ 18 0 '~G-l, (:')-1 or OIP deSignated area than in an RM ar~a. This will 1l .j,. - - o iO INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 increase exhaust particulate matter, enyin~ fluids. residue from vehicle tires and other pOllutants which will wash into qroundwater alanO' with rain and l~ndscape irriqation runoff. These concerns will protably have minim~l i~pact on th~ area and are addressed at the projec~ revi6w staQ& of developm03nt ~I,d mltiqa~i;'n m'3~S1Jr,zs aopl 161 i.f i"p:':e$Si5.r.... 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4. a, b, c. There are nc. areas of biological con.:~=n within :he amendment area (General Plan, Fiqures 40 and 411. 3.2.5 Noise 5. a, t. The proposed amendment is located within the 6SdBCAl and 70dB(Al (General Plan. Fiqure 57) noise contours qenerated by traffic on the 1-10 freeway. Future projects desiqned for residentiai, commercial or office use will be reviewed to ensure that intern..l noisoa levels of 45dB(A) and external noise levels of 65dB(A) are not exceeded. Projects are also reviewed to ensure that they won't qenerate excessive noise which would impact surroundinq uses. The hioher density and the intensity of us~s that woulJ be permitted with a commercial or industrial desiQ'na~i~'n could increase traffic noise to some degree, es~eci=ll'l with the type and intensity of traffic associated with industrial uses. An OlP designation (Alternative 3) could be expected t~ qenerate noise on site due to the nature cf the permitted uses, 1. e. liqht manufacturing, warehousinq, et.:. .;11 uses must be within enclosed structures and the noise requirements are also applicable. OIP pro~ec,=s frequently contain uses that operate beyond normal workinq hours. thus noise impacts from employee an'': trucr. traffic can occur at any time. The truck traffic associated with OIP activities could be of an intensity to cause noise impacts on the adjacent residential areas. . .' o i o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2.11 3.2.12 3.2.13 3.2.14 all af the alternatives proposad for Site B, bu~ sare~~ impacts are qreatest for the OIP, Office Industrial Park desiqnation due to the iritensity Jf use~ per~it~ej. 10, c thru f. These ~ublic servic~s wili not be imoa,:~~j ?nd ccmm~n~.~ were not r~ceivej :roffi the provid~rs cf th~ sarvi~~s. Ut i I it ies 11. a, b. c. Levels of service for u:ilities will no~ be imp~ctej bv the proposed amendment and comments were not received LY the affected aqencies. Aesthatics 12. a, b. Any future projects that would be permitted in the CG-l, Commercial Genera 1, CO-I. Commercial Of:ice '::>l' (.!P. Offi~e !ndustria1 Park desiqna~ions w~uld be con~3in~d within fully enclosed buildinQ's. All projects ars reviewed for ~omp3:ibili~y and aesthetic con:arns durln~ the project development staQ'e. CuI tur~l Re,s.Jurces 13. a. b. Cultural and historic resources are not impact9d as :h~ proposed amendment area 1s undeveloped and it does no~ contain any areas of archaeoloqic interest in acccrda~c~ with General Plan Fiqure 8. Mandatory Findinqs af Significance The potential increase in dwell inq units permitted on Site A land on Site B as per Alternative 4) has minim3l significance as shown in this study, The commercial hnd use desiqnation chanqe for Site B will caus. a loss t~ the number of dwellinq units that could pot"ntially be built, however. the net loss on the oro~osed am&njrn~n~ area is insiqnif icant due t.::> chancrss to resid..llt ia 1 41 ~ - ", , ." o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 desiqnations or incr&ases in density in other areas ~[ the City. The intended use of Sites Band C will create a tr~f:i~ situation that will require further study. Build-out of Site B for commercial or offi~e/industrial and ~ite ~ f~r commercial use would create si'~lIificallt lm:;a<:t -,. circulation and possibly noi$~. D~v~lo~m~~~:f al~~s E and C, ill addition t.: th.. commoarcill11y jesi}Ii!':ed ~...., a10n9 Tippecan~e Avenu~ could haVE impacts tr.~t g~ ~?s- the immediate project area. ... - ijJ L - . 0 0 ~ .... D. DETERMINAllON On the basis of this inlial study. * ~ The proposed projecl COULD NOT have a signiftcantellect on the environment and a NeGATIVE OECLARA. TION will be prepared. See below tJ The proposed projecl could have a significant eIleel on the environment. although there wII no! be a signiftcant elleel in this case .bacausa the mitigation measures described above have baan added to the projact. A NEGATIVE DEClARATION wiD be prepared. I!I The propoaed projecI MAY have a sign.leant eIlect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT ia required. See below * ENVIRONMENTAl REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CAlIFORNIA 111CHFttt.. w. {,tfVft,flS ~JJIt'~ Cmc. &ii-611'.JEe/L Name and Title ' cJk'r/~.k h..~ Signature - Date: I z .z,.-1o * A Negative Declaration is ..........II,.ellded for Site A. A traffic study or enviJ:ormental iDp!ct re1""'L is ..........,.,""lded for Sites B and C. ... .... ::.=. ... ==:=J ........ NGE_OF_ (11-10) ~ " CITY ~ SAN BERN~ DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 TITLE LAND USES - ------.- ;e! ~ \ . i-I I .' I . . ., EXHIBIT A 41 UII - CITY' SF SAN BERh DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 . ". TIT L E LOCATION, LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & ALTERNATIVES l: - ~ ....."... r. . LIH OIP~ _ .. .~- SITES ~ t - RMH to CG-1 RM to 00.1 (Alt. 1) - --- (AltS. 1.2 & 3) - RM to CQ-1 (Alt. 2) RM to OP (Alt. 3) RM to RM1/18 (Alt. 4) . . .. . . ~ ~fll . I -. ~ - - coo",r" .. :E . I lr EXHIBIT B ~ 4 4 1 2 3 , 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2' 25 26 27 28 ~ Res~ution No. o USOLtJ'rION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOP.1'ING THt NEGATIVZ DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (UTE A) TO THE GENERAL PLAN OP THE CITY OP 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 co_on Council by Reeoluti~~"No. 89- 159 on June 2, 1989. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) to the (b) " General Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the planning Co_ission on February 5, 1991, after a noticed public hearing, and the planning co_ission's reco_endation has been considered by the Mayor and co_on council. (c) An Initial Study was prepared on December 4, 1990 and reviewed by the Environmental Review C01DIIlittee, the Planning Co_iesion and the Mayor and Co_on Council. The Mayor and C01DIIlon council determined that General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) would not have a significant. effect on the environment and, ..thiarefore, reco_ended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day public review period frOlll December 27, 1990 through January 16, 1991 and from April 11, 1991 through May 1, 1991 and all co_ente relative thereto have been reviewed by the Mayor and co_on Council' in cOlllpliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act and local regulations. /1/1 . . 1 ATTACHMENT II Ji:! 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 o o (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public hearing and fully reviewed and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) and the Planning Division Staff Report on March 11, 1991 and May 6, 1991.. (f) The adoption o-f General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) is de..ed 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.~. Neaative Declaration I I 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 erwironment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this proposed plan is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. SECTION 3. Pindinas BE IT FtJRTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that: A. The change of designation from 0, Residential Medium to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre, for the proposed ..endlllent will change the land u.e map only and i. not in conflict with the goals, Objective. and policies of the General Plan. 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ - 2 .L! 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 11. JIL o o B. The proposed amendment will not be detri.ental to the public interest, health, satety, convenience, or weltare of the city. C. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissable under the RMH/18, Residential HediUII High designation with a density lilllit of 18 dwelling units per acre proposed by this amendment would ')..~ . not impact on such services. D. The pro~~sed alllendment is to redesignate 22.41 acres to " RMH/18, Residential MediUII Hiqh with a density lilllit ot 18 dwellinq units per acre. E. The amendment site is physically suitable tor the requested land use designation. Anticipated tuture land use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has been determined that project specitic lIIitiqation lIIeasures will be sutticient to elilllinate any environmental impacts. SECTION 4. Amendlllent BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and COIIIIIIon Council that: A. The Land Ose Plan ot the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by chanqinq approximately 22.41 acres trOlll RM, Residential MediUII to RMB/18, Residential MediUII Hiqh with a density limit ot 18 dwellinq units //1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ 1/1/ ...... 3 - 1 2 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 28 o o per acre. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) and its location is outlined on the maps entitled Attachments A-l and A-2, and is more specifically described in the legal descriptions entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION S. Mac 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. Hot.ice of Det.rmination The Planning Division 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. 1/1/ 1/1/ /1// 1/1/ 1/// fill fill fill fill 4 ..... ..'" 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 RESOLDTION Q ADOPTING THE NEGAT:O DECLARATION .OF BNVZRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (UTE A) TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. I BIlU!:BY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and COlIIIIIon Council of the City of San Bernardino at a _eting therefore, held on the , 1991, by the following vote, to day of wit: Coune!l V..her.: BAn ')0,:,.... AR.ClTAIN AID ESTRADA REILLY FLORES MAUDSLEY MINOR f , . ~ 4 . POPE-LUDLAM MILLER City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1991. W. R. Holccmb, Mayor city of San Bernardino Approved as to fon and leg~l content: JAKES F. PENMAN , city Attomey By: '- 5 - r~ -. ~ ~ I · .r!" '"CHAIIDION i! .11 I 1 I -'. .. i! ... '" % .. III .. I, ..' _.. -GUilT" .l- -- ~ I I I s . I ! :. J .... ~fi!ij..; I " . . I I. .....-----.-- o " : 0 ~ " .. iI e ~ ,.. ". -~-.a.w- - GPA90-11 LOCATI()N -MAP . . ~ '.. . . I "e l ".." - ot. 1- ~ ---...------~. . I ; . k e ~ ~. * . ~. --- - . .{::. ..... Ii\ ~ ~ ~ ~ '\ - ~ ~ '-.. o - ... ~ ~ '. --: -0.'1 -_..~ '-r--~"IJ _~~ \.. 52D'~ ;0.- tat . 'I 2:~ O"i, l:I'" [:1 AW'1l'''' _L , @ .. ~ .-- , .... ,. . ~ f=."- .....--. , ~ ._ :7., .' : I f' ~ .. ;; l' II ... ~ :: . .. ... ~ < ~ "1 ~ (I) . :c i 3: - 1> 0 :c i. ~ " III .... CXl ! ~ ~ - .-.- ..t- ~Q \11:1 ... "QI ... a :; Q ~. a. -. :I Q 4d I t! ~ .. . - . I\) 4lo ( . ( Attact.,~t A-l - - ." ill It ,. '0:; '.. ... I N !- . "i. I : . r~i t!i ~ ~~I\ .lb o l.:iI-'A90- 1 1 LOCATION MAP J o -- . . . CUll"' STIIEIT - o ::D .~ n - . ~ 0; ~~j _..1 II I: ~19 ~!1iJ] .~~a - .. I' ;; I.- a : .. - - . I il :L @ ~ I -. I-) po . . . . ," "'. I . I -.-_TAIII I ( . VIIW AVENUE . , ._J I ~ @ " -I.~ .-__..._0" . .... .. ::D 3: , H:;! c....Q m 3.... !If .- PD~ ill .. !II .. Ui l.? ~ ln~ c......... .. - .::. 0.... .... a..t ..Sa. .- ~i ... D. D. I .. ! I I\l (l) ; . . Attach.. .,t A.2 - - _ l - -. o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. GENERAL PLAN AMEND.MENT NO. 90-11 ( (Sice A) TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS - From RM to RHH/18 PARCEL NUMBER 281-244-01 281-244-02 281-244-03 DESCRIPTION The following described real property in the City of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino; State of California: 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 Stite of California by deeds recorded May 24. 1962 in Book 5704. page 840. Official Records and recorded February 21. 1961 in Book 6775. page 384. Official Records. ,.. 281-291-01. 02 Also excepting therefrom any portion lying within property conveyed to the State of California by deed recorded Kay 24. 1962 in Book 5704. page 840. Official Records Ind recorded February 21. 1967 in Book 6775. page J84. Official Records. The real property in the City of San Bernardino. County of5an 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. ( I I I ( ATTACHMENT B -. - - 1 2 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d Re.2ution No. o RZSOUJ'nON OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOJ"1'ING THE NBGA'rIVB DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GDBRAL PLAN AMEJIDIIElIT NO. 90-11 (SITE A) TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF TIIB C1'1'Y OF SAN BERNARDINO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COONCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Rllcl tal. (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was adopted by the Mayor and COIIIIon Council by R..olutiq~.NO. 89- 159 on June 2, 1989. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) to the (b) " General Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning cOlllDlission on February 5, 1991, after a noticed public hearing, and the Planning COlllDli.sion's recOllllllndation has been considered by the Mayor and cOlllDlon Council. (c) An Initial Study was prepared on December 4, 1990 and reviewed by the Environmental Review committee, the planning collllllis.ion and the Mayor and COlllDlon Council. The Mayor and COlllDlon council determined that General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) 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 frOll December 27, 1990 through January 16, 1991 and frOll April 11, 1991 through May 1, 1991 and all cOllllllent. relative thereto have been reviewed by the Mayor and COIIIIIIon council' in compliance with the california Environ- .ental Quality Act and local regulations. 1111 . , 1 ATTACHMENT II .. - 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 -. o o (e) ~e Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public hearing and fully reviewed and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) and the Planning Division Staff Report on March 11, 1991 and May 6, 1991.. (f) ~e adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) 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.~. Neaative Declaration I I NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed llII8ndment 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 committ.. as.to the effect of this proposed plan is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. SECTION 3. pindinas BE IT FORTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that: A. ~e change of designation frolll RM, Residential Medium to RHH/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. /1/1 ///1 fill - 2 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 o o B. The proposed U1endment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. C. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissable under the RMR/1S, Residential Medium Hiqh desiqnation with a density limit of 1S dwellinq units per acre proposed by this U1endment would ... ... not impact on such services. .;. . D. The proposed amendment is to redesiqnate 22.41 acres to " RMH/1S, Residential Medium Hiqh with a density limit of 1S dwellinq units per acre. E. The U1endment site is physically suitable for the requested land use desiqnation. Anticipated future land use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has been determined that project specific mitiqation measures will be sufficient to eliminate any environmental impacts. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FUIttJU;K RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of ~e City of San Bernardino is U1ended by cbanqinq approximately 22.41 acres from RM, Residential Medium to RMB/1S, Residential Medium Hiqh with a density limit of lS dwellinq units II/I 111/ IIII IIII .... 3 u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 21 ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ 1 o o per acre. This amendment is desiqnated as General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) and its location is outlined on the maps entitled Attachments A-l and A-2, and is more specifically described in the legal descriptions entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION S. MaD 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. No~ic. of Determination The Planning Division 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 IIII II11 4 ... ... - 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 III RESOLV'l'IONQADOPTING THE NEGATD DECLARATION .OF ENVJ:ROHllENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVYNG GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (SITE A) TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. I BDEBY CERTIFY that the foreqoinq resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Comaon Council of the city of San . . Bernardino at a lIIeetinq therefore, held on the , 1991, by the followinq vote, to day of wit: couneil M8Blhara: DU ').;).... .. R..ClTAIN AID ESTRADA REILLY FLORES MAUDSLEY MINOR f , . ~ c . POPE-LUDLAM MILLER city Clerk The foreqoinq resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1991. w. R. BolcOlllb, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved .s to form and leq~l content: JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney By: ...... 5 . ... .' -- ~ ~ I · ~"f.~ IIICHAIlDSOII i' o A_ GPA90-11 LOCATION -MAP ::-- < ~ ~l ~ (Jl . :D '{ 3: l> i. : III ; ., .. ..... . ". ; II 0 's · " ~ ,t~e~ Ii .~ . i I ;;' i! ... ... z . . .. 1\ ..' _.. -GUlIrlS .I- -- I ! I.. , ... . e ~ II. ... ~ :. ~ ---....- ----- ---...------_.. . , ; . II (i) J r-...- .., ..... -. I" ~- I i s . I J I. s ... ~~,'-' ~ . . . f . t' , .. ;; :- . III o. ::: := .e. o. ~. ~ @ . .' --- :t .: . . ., '" :t ~ ~ h. '\ - lU' ~ ..... o - .... ~ .". -- -:- ~;;..t--~. ~.,.-.~.~~".~ \. @ . it pIg ... "QI III. .. :I Q :I. a. -. :I Q ; t! ~ @) -0 0",";11 is.- ..:lilt . -.. !;i ell' [:~ ""~,,._L , --.. , .... ,. I ~~ I\) ~ c -._.....i- . c Attact.""nt A-I - - .'11 ill J'" '" . l~ lit t ... !> in ,..: !!Il . ~!i- ~ ~!I Is I ... . o , GPA90-11 LOCATION MAP J o ...... I CUlITI. ITllIrT . . . . ~. . :D 3: 6' :D .~ n - . ~ 0; ~~j _.,1 , II I: ~191 ~11iI '&m~a II - " __ I' : ! f!I (;J. · II il ... .... I. @ (;). (;;)" . . ' - " ~. s . & -. - _rAJII & ( . , __J & ~ I VIIW AVINUI @ ...--.- -- ...---...-'.' . \ ii ;t "'.. 0 m n.~ p~~ 11, !II e-Oj .00 -'" =~- .. - JoI .-- :... - I .. - - I I\) U) ; 0'" ... ~:II!I .1.. .- ~i II .. .... Attaa'o,,,,,,,," A-2 - - , r o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. GENERAL PLAN AMEND.MENT NO. 90-11 ( (Site A) TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS From RH to RMH/18 PARCEL NUM8ER 281-244-01 281-244-02 281-244-03 DESCRIPTION The following described real property in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino" State of California: The South 213 of Lot 2, Block 72. Rancho San Bernardi no. 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, 1961 in Book 6775, page 3B4. Official Records. 281-291-01. 02 Also excepting therefrom any portion lying within property conveyed to the State of Calffornia by deed recorded Hay 24. 1962 in Book 5704, page 840. Official Records and recorded February 21. 1967 in Book 6775. page 384. Official Records. The real property in the City of San Bernardino. 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. :( \ ...... ATTACHMENT B - --