HomeMy WebLinkAbout29- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Development Agreement No. 91-01 - A
, request to expand the existing Inland Center
Dept: Planning & Building Services 10 Mall. Located on 62.5 acres between
as N Interstate 215, Inland Center Drive and the
Date: March 21, 1996 Flood Control Channel.
MCC Date: April 1, 1996
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
On June 2, 1993, the Mayor and Common Council heard the item with a proposed Negative Declaration as
environmental clearance and determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Development
Agreement was necessary and directed staff to have an EIR prepared.
Recommended Motion:
1. Adopt the Resolution which certifies the Environmental Impact Report; adopts the Statements of
Overriding Consideration based on the appropriate findings pursuant to CEQA; adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring Program; and approves Development Agreement No. 91-01.
2. Adopt the Resolution which certifies the Traffic Impact Analysis.
'Al Wughey
Contact person: Al Bough Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report and Resolutions Ward: 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.) N/A
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. gq
� 5 y 1196
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01, PROPOSED INLAND CENTER
MALL EXPANSION
Mayor and Common Council Meeting April 1, 1996
Owner/Applicant: General Growth Management Inc.
15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
REQUEST/LOCATION: Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.40, the
applicant is requesting the approval of a Development Agreement to govern the expansion of the
Inland Center Mall. The expansion as proposed in the agreement will result in the addition of
809,605 square feet of Gross Building Area (GBA), and consists of the construction of up to
three new major anchor stores, the addition of a second floor to the main mall area, and the
construction of a maximum of four multi-level parking structures.
The project site is located at the existing Inland Center Mall, adjacent to Inland Center Drive
and directly northeast of Interstate 215 (I-215) in the CR-1, Commercial Regional, land use
designation (Attachment A).
PROTECT ELEMENTS (APPLICATION)
Development Agreement
DA 91-01 will grant the developer the vested right to expand the Inland Center Mall and develop
the project site pursuant to the parameters established in the Development Agreement. The
Development Agreement will establish the terms under which development will occur and ensure
that development on the site will be consistent and compatible through the implementation of a
comprehensive development plan. In addition, the Development Agreement will ensure that
required improvements and infrastructure are constructed when needed.
Expansion of Inland Center Mall
The Inland Center Mall would be expanded in two phases and would result in the addition of
709,605 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA)/809,605 square feet of gross building area
(GBA). The Development Agreement would allow the development of three additional anchor
stores for a total of 540,000 square feet of GLA. The exact square footage of each store cannot
be determined at his time, but is estimated to be in the range of 140,000 square feet to 240,000
square feet of GLA. The agreement would allow the development of a second level addition to
the mall to provide an additional 158,505 square feet of GLA. Finally, the agreement would
allow the construction of a maximum of four parking structures to provide an additional 3,020
parking spaces. The final number of parking structures will be determined based upon the
square footage requirements of final project design.
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 2
Conceptual Site Plan
Associated with the Development Agreement is a conceptual site plan which identifies the
general layout of the proposed expansion, including parking and landscaping.
Phasing
Phase I of the expansion includes the demolition of 12,800 square feet of existing lower level
retail area, the demolition of 20,800 square feet of first level retail area, the demolition of a
5,010 square foot free standing structure, the addition of two new anchor stores totaling 300,000
square feet GLA, the addition of 3,700 square feet GLA of lower level retail area, 7,400 square
feet GLA of first level retail area, the addition of 142,505 square feet GLA of second level retail
area and the construction of up to three adjacent parking structures to accommodate
approximately 2,200 autos. Expected date of completion for Phase I would be the 8th
anniversary of the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Phase II includes the addition of a third anchor store totaling 240,000 square feet GLA, the
addition of 16,000 square feet GLA of second level retail area and a fourth parking structure
accommodating approximately 800 spaces. Expected date of completion for Phase II would be
the 12th anniversary of the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Term
The proposed term of the agreement is the earlier of (a) 30 years from the effective date or (b)
until the improvements which exist at the Inland Center Mall as of the effective date, or which
are subsequently developed as provided in the agreement, cease to exist.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERlMIINATION:
• An EIR was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the expansion
of the Inland Center Mall under Development Agreement No. 91-01.
• The project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concludes that the majority of the
environmental impacts resulting from the expansion of the Inland Center Mall under the
Development Agreement can be mitigated. However, there are three that remain
unavoidable adverse impacts.
Air Quality
During construction of the expansion, the project will result in unavoidable short-term,
significant adverse impacts on air quality that cannot be mitigated below a level of
significance.
Operation of the proposed project will result in unavoidable long-term significant adverse
impacts on air quality that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance.
The project will add emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment which results
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 3
in a cumulative significant adverse impact on air quality that cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
Traffic and Circulation
Phase H of the project will impact 10 of the 25 intersections analyzed under buildout
conditions. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures will reduce the impacts
to a level of insignificance at all but two of the impacted intersections. The analysis of
regional impacts from Phase II indicates that the full build out of the proposed expansion
will significantly impact all ten freeway segments during the afternoon peak hour. There
are no potential economically feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to
reduce the proposed project impacts to the freeway. Long-term impacts due to traffic
are unavoidable adverse.
Noi
Although the proposed project's incremental contribution to noise from increased traffic
is considered insignificant, the project in conjunction with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in an unavoidable significant adverse
cumulative long-term noise impact due to an incremental increase in traffic noise levels
that currently exceed 65 dBA CNEL.
• Findings for Statements of Overriding Consideration have been prepared for the
unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality and noise effects for the approval of the
Development Agreement for the Inland Center Mall Expansion.
• A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project pursuant to the regional
Congestion Management Plan (CMP).
The TIA indicates that the Inland Center Mall Expansion (Phase I and Phase II) fair
share contribution toward CMP Roadway and Freeway Improvements is $1,501,017.
Refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 4) for additional information.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)
CMP Background
The San Bernardino Associated Governments(SAN-BAG)is the Congestion Management Agency
(CMA)responsible for developing, coordinating and monitoring the implementation of the CMP.
The purpose of the CMP is to ensure coordination, on a regional basis, between land use
decisions and traffic and air quality issues.
Development projects are subject to the Land Use/Transportation Analysis Program of the CMP
when established thresholds are exceeded. In such an instance, a Traffic Impact Analysis MA)
Report must be prepared for the project. The TIA Report assesses traffic impacts to the CMP
roadways and freeways and identifies mitigation and goes a step further than an EIR by assigning
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 4
the fair share cost of traffic mitigation for projects. While the traffic analysis in an EIR is
subject to the provisions of CEQA, the TIA Report prepared for the same project is not.
However, there may be some overlapping of issues simply because a traffic impact in any
context is still an impact that must be mitigated.
The CMP and CEQA processes are both concerned with project impacts and generally run in
a concurrent fashion. However, the two are separate and distinct processes that serve different
purposes. As previously stated, the purpose of the CMP is to ensure coordination, on a
regional basis, between land use decisions and traffic and air quality impacts. The purpose of
CEQA is to provide disclosure on the full range of environmental impacts and implications of
projects to decision makers and the public, and to identify appropriate mitigating measures.
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report
The Inland Center Mall Expansion Development Agreement is subject to the CMP because the
number of vehicular trips during peak traffic hours met the threshold for requiring a TIA.
Pursuant to the CMP, a TIA Report was prepared for the project.
The consultant prepared a TIA Report in draft form which was included in and circulated with
the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices to SAN-BAG and several regional and subregional
agencies and adjacent jurisdictions for review and consideration. The review period coincided
with the review period for the Draft EIR which extended from October 16, 1995 to December
18, 1995.
The City of Highland and SANBAG (CMA) were the only agencies to comment on the TIA.
Responses to those comments were included in the responses to comments for the Draft EIR.
The Traffic Study/TIA Report was subsequently revised to address the CMA's comments and
ensure consistency with the CMP, and is included as Appendix A to Volume II of the Responses
to Comments on the Draft EIR.
CONIlVIENTS RECEIVED
CEQA Process
The comments received during the CEQA review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) and the
response to those comments are included in the Inland Center Mall Expansion Response to
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Volumes I and II. Those portions of the
EIR text that have been revised as a result of the comments have been included in Section 4.0
ERRATA TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT in Volume II of the
responses. Changes to the Volumes I and II that have occurred since review by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) are highlighted by strikeout for deletions and greytone
for additions.
CMP Process
Because the TIA report was included in, and circulated with, the Draft EIR and Technical
Appendices, comments received were included with the comments on the Draft EIR. As
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 5
expected, because of the overlap of the CEQA and CMP process regarding traffic, most letters
received regarding traffic were directed to the EIR. All of the comments received on traffic
including the CMA's comment letter and City of Highland Comment letter on the TIA were
responded to and included in the Inland Center Mall Expansion Response to Comments on the
Environmental Impact Report Volume II.
General Comments
No other comments were received.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 19, 1996 for consideration of
Development Agreement No. 91-01. Present were Commissioners Enciso, Hamilton, Schuiling,
Stone, Thrasher and Traver. Absent were Commissioners Cole and Strimpel. Commissioner
Quiel abstained due to a potential conflict of interest, and left the dais. Exhibit 10 is a transcript
of the March 19, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Request for Continuance
Marlene Fox, attorney for the Carousel Mall, requested that the Planning Commission grant a
two-week continuance to April 2, 1996. The grounds for the request was that the Planning
Department had recently made a large volume of technical materials relating to the project
available for review. Ms. Fox indicated that failure to provide the documents for review by she
and her clients denied meaningful opportunity to participate in the administrative processing and
review of the Development Agreement and associated EIR. (See Exhibit 7).
Continuance Motion
SCHUILING: Motioned to continue 2 weeks
THRASHER: Second
VOTE: 3-3 vote with Commissioners Enciso, Schuiling and Thrasher voting aye;
Commissioners Hamilton, Stone and Traver voting nay.
Request for Recirculation of the EIR
In a facsimile dated March 13, 1996, Ms. Fox requested that the Planning Commission
recirculate the Environmental Impact Report for the Inland Center Mall Expansion. The basis
of her request was a claim that Technical Appendices A, B, and C contained significant new
information that was not present in the Draft EIR circulated in October of 1995. Ms. Fox's
request for recirculation was also made in her presentation to the Planning Commission. (See
Exhibit 5).
Ms. Fox brought four technical experts to testify in support of her request for recirculation.
They were Steve Sisawki, WPA Traffic Consultants (traffic); Hans Giroux, Giroux &Associates
(air quality and noise); Alfred Gobar, Alfred Gobar Associates (Socioeconomic); and Yoshiharu
Miriwaki, Woodward-Clyde (geology).
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 6
Planning Commission Motions
After a presentation by staff, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing. The applicant
provided the Commission with a presentation of the project. After receiving lengthy testimony
from the Carousel Mall's attorney and environmental consultants, members of the general public
and a rebuttal by the applicant to issues raised during the public testimony, the public hearing
was closed. Staff responded to the concerns raised by the public, and the Planning Commission
discussed the proposal. After discussion, there were several motions as follows:
1.
TRAVER: Motioned to recommend that the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Certify the EIR;
2. Prepare a Statement of Overriding Consideration based on the
appropriate findings pursuant to CEQA;
3. Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
4. Approve Development Agreement No. 91-01.
HAMILTON: Second
2.
THRASHER: Made a substitute motion that there needs to be more study on the overall
picture and answers to questions and a guarantee that Carousel and
downtown will be protected.
ENCISO: Second
3.
TRAVER: Motioned to recommend that the matter be referred to Council without a
recommendation on the Development Agreement and EIR, requesting the
Council consider the issues: 1) EDA investment in dollars of taxpayer
money in downtown; 2) Protection of downtown; 3) 30 year time frame
on agreement; and 4) EIR
HAMILTON: Second
4.
THRASHER: Withdrew substitute motion
5.
TRAVER: Original motion (see Motion No. 1)
VOTE: Commissioners Hamilton, Stone and Traver voting aye; Commissioners
Enciso, Thrasher and Schuiling voting nay.
The motion failed for lack of majority vote.
6.
THRASHER: Motioned to refer the matter to the Council without a recommendation on
the DA and Certification of the EIR, and request Council look at the 30
year term, environmental impact and the downtown issues.
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 7
HAMILTON: Second
VOTE: Carried unanimously as follows: Commissioners Enciso, Hamilton,
Schuiling, Stone, Thrasher and Traver voting aye.
City Attorney requested Planning Commission reconsider based on language in Development
Code making motion invalid.
7.
TRAVER: Original motion (see Motion No. 1)
HAMILTON: Second
VOTE: Commissioners Stone and Traver voting aye; Commissioners Enciso,
Hamilton, Schuiling and Thrasher voting nay.
The motion failed on a 4-2 vote.
8.
SCHUILING: Motioned to deny staff's recommendation
HAMILTON: Second
VOTE: Commissioners Enciso, Hamilton, Schuiling and Thrasher voting aye;
Commissioners Stone and Traver voting nay.
STAFF RECONEWENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 2) which:
a. Certifies the Environmental Impact Report, including the Draft EIR, Technical
Appendices and Response to Comments Volumes I and II which constitute the
Final EIR;
b. Adopts the Statements of Overriding Consideration;
C. Approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
d. Approves Development Agreement No. 90-01 to govern the expansion of the
Inland Center Mall.
2. Adopt the Resolution that certifies the Transportation Impact Analysis ('I'IA) Report
(Exhibit 3).
Prepared by: Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 8
EXHIBITS
1 Location Map
2 Resolution (EIR and DA No. 91-01)
Attachments
A-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report including Technical Appendices (distributed
October, 1995)
A-2 Responses to Comments Volumes I and II*
B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program*
C Statements of Overriding Consideration
D Draft Development Agreement*
3 Resolution MA Report)
Attachments
A TIA (Included in the Technical Appendices to the Draft EIR)*
4 Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 19, 1996*
Attachments A - H, listed in the Staff Report; (Attachments B and E - H are listed as
Exhibits to the Council Staff Report and are not included here)
5 FAX Transmittal from Marlene Fox dated March 13, 1996 regarding recirculation*
6 FAX Transmittal from Marlene Fox dated March 19, 1996 regarding PC presentation*
7 FAX Transmittal from Marlene Fox dated March 17, 1996 regarding request for
continuance*
8 Correspondence from Dr. Williams*
8-A Letter to Mike Finn dated January 14, 1996
8-B Letter to Mike Finn dated January 15, 1996
9 Documents Submitted to Planning Commission by Marlene Fox on March 19, 1996*
Attachments
A Engineering Investigation of Bunker Hill Basin, San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District, 1995-96
B Letter To Al Boughey from Marlene Fox dated March 19, 1996 pertaining to the
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for DA No. 91-01
C Letter to Al Boughey from Marlene Fox dated March 19, 1996 pertaining to the
Planning Commission Staff Report for DA No. 91-01
Development Agreement No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1996
Page 9
D San Bernardino Downtown Framework Plan prepared by PPS, Project for Public
Spaces, Inc., Prepared in June 1992 and updated in March 1995
E Resolution No. 93-336, Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council,
Community Development Commission and the San Bernardino Downtown
Business Association pertaining to revitalization of the downtown
F Additional Analysis of City's Responses to Comments dated March 19, 1996,
submitted by Marlene Fox
G Letter to the Planning Commission from Marlene Fox dated March 13, 1996
H Statements of Qualifications for Consultants
H-1 Woodward Clyde
H-2 Giroux & Associates
H-3 Alfred Gobar Associates
H-4 WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc.
I Transcript of Development/Environmental Review Committee meeting of March
7, 1996, prepared by Barristers' Reporting Service
J Memo to Al Boughey from Tim Steinhaus dated January 21, 1994
K Letter from John Nolan to Marlene Fox dated March 15, 1996
L Letter from Marlene Fox to John Nolan dated March 19, 1996
M Article from the LA Times dated March 15, 1996
10 Transcript of Planning Commission Meeting (To be distributed on March 27', 1996)
*Distributed under separate cover dated March 21, 1996
PPS PROJECT
March 29, 1996 FOR PUBLIC
Honorable Mayor Tom Minor f V .' ! #:h SPACES, INC.
Members of the San Bernardino City Council 153 W A v E R L Y PLACE
NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10014
c/o Rachel Clark, City Clerk X96 APR —2 A 8 ;36 TELEPHONE: (212) 620-5660
300 North"D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: City Council Hearing on Monday,April 1, 1996 -- Inland Center Expansion
Dear Mayor and Council:
We are sending this letter to the Clerk for her to place on the public agenda for the above
meeting.
We understand that Inland Center has proposed a multi-cinema complex as part of their proposed
expansion plans. We feel it is vital that the city consider the potential negative impacts these
movie theaters would have in terms of attracting a downtown cinema complex. Throughout our
extensive downtown planning process, citizens asked us to develop ways to make downtown an
exciting and pleasant place to come-- a place where they could spend an evening going to the
theater,eating in restaurants, stopping at an event in Court Street Square, or just strolling and
window shopping.
The adopted downtown plan recommends a cinema complex as a critical element in the
revitalization of downtown by creating an arts and entertainment district. You need only look
at the success of downtowns like Pasadena and Santa Monica to see how important these
cinemas are. The positive reaction of residents in these cities show that downtowns,not
shopping malls, are the place where these theaters should be located to have the greatest impact
on a community.
We would not want to see this absolutely key anchor project pre-empted by Inland Center,which
would be contrary to the views expressed by business owners and residents alike during the
preparation of the downtown plan.
If you have any questions, we would be happy to answer them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Si�ly,
Fred I. Kent III
President
cc: Sam Catalano, San Bernardino Downtown Business Association
Ann Harris,Main Street,Inc.
Tim Steinhaus,EDA