Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning From: Larry E. Reed, Director oC Planning and Building Services CITY OF SAN BI!RN~DINO - RI!QUI!ST FOI COUNCIL ACTION General Plan 1\nendnent No. 90-8 Subject: To change the land use designation iran RlJ-1 to Ff.1on 5.0 a=es, 230 feet north of Coulston Street, between CUrtis Street and the southerly extension of Rosena Ave. Da~: September 26, 1990 Synopsis of Previous Council action: l-Iavor and Camcn Council Meetinq of October 15, 1990, 2:00 p.m. At their meeting of Septanber 11, 1990, the Planninq Ccmni.ssion rec:c:mtemed adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of the General Plan 1\nendnent. I Chi Recommended motion: o 'lbat the public hearing be closed; that the Mayor and 0...'1,0011 Council adopt the, Negative Declaration and approve the resolution based on the findings. 4~~if Larry E. Reed Con~ person: T",r>:;y E. ~ Phone: 3R4-5357 Supporting datB atteched: !':hff RP.pnrt- Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: n/a Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. Descriotion) Finance: coo Notes: n,.0262 Agenda Item No ~~ JJ - CITY OF SAN BERNACPINO - REQUEST FCO COUNCIL ACTION o o o 75-0264 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 15, 1990 REOUEST This application is to change the General Plan land use designation from RU-l, Residential Urban to RM, Residential Medium on a rectangular parcel of land comprising 5.0 acres (see Exhibit A of the Initial Study). The site is located approximately 230 feet north of Coulston street,' between Curtis street and the southerly extension of Rosena Avenue (see Exhibit C of the Initial Study). BACKGROUND The site is located in the County of within the City's sphere of influence, of being annexed into the city. During the hearing process for the adoption of the General Plan the applicant requested an RM, Residential Medium designation before the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission did not make a motion on the request and it was denied. Subsequently, the Mayor and Common Council retained the RU-1, Residential Urban designation without discussion. San Bernardino, but and is in the process ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial Study on June 28, 1990 and proposed a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amend- ment No. 90-8, based on the findings in the Staff Report (Attachment 1), at a noticed public hearing on September 11, 1990. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 based on the findings in the resolution. o o o - ~ ..L General Plan Amen~t No. 90-8 Mayor and Common Council Meeting October 15, 1990 Page 2 o 2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-8. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-8. John R. Burke, Assistant Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission Prepared by: Attachment A: Initial Study Exhibit A: Proposed Amendment Exhibit B: Land Uses Exhibit C: Location Map Attachment 2: Resolution Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Location Map Legal Description JB:cp 9/26/90 M&CCAGENDA: GPA90-8 - - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 9/11/qO WARD 5 r~ r APPLICANT: Dwight Yeanan ,," W General Plan 1\rnendnent No. 90-8 19 E. Citrus, #205 ~ Redlands, CA 92373 (.) OWNER: Paul Carlisle, Trustee 23045 De Berry Street '--'" ~ '" Grand Terrace, CA 92324 r-... "I m To change the land Use Designation fran RU-l, Residential Urban ~ to RM, Residential ~um on 5.0 acres of land 230 feet north of 0 Coulston Street between CUrtis Street and the southerly extension W of Rosena Avenue. a: - c w a: c '--'" "I r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Citrus Grove RU-l Residential Urban North Single Family RU-l Residential Urban . South Vacant R1 Residential ~um East Child Care Facility/Citrus Grove RU-l Residential Urban ~1est Single Family RU-l Residential Urban ~ GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES ) FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: gQ YES ) HAZARD ZONE: !X NO ZONE: XlI NO OZONE B o NO ( HIGH FIRE o YES )~ AIRPORT NOISE! o YES '" I REDEVELOPMENT DYES ) HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO CRASH ZONE: J "- PROJECT AREA: Qj: NO ~ NO r r ... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z GQ APPROVAL C APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 !ZUJ MITIGATING MEASURES ~ NOE.l.R. 0 CONDITIONS WCJ II.Q 2z o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z 0 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW OQ WITH MITIGATING til a:iiiE MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO -II. > 119 NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIACANT EFFECTS 0 Z fd W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. l. "-- "- MINUTES a: ~ \. "- CIT'f 01 _ ........, IATTACHMENT t --- ~ r:.& ~ ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE r~1'W=ir;:::t' P1"n am:.n.\I_nt- NO. 90-8 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE OBSERVATIONS fi 9/11/90 2 r "'l IlBOUBS'r This application is to chanqe the General Plan land use desiqnation from RU-l, Residential Urban to RH, Residential Medium on a rectangular parcel of land comprisinq 5.0 acres (see Exhibit A of the Initial Study). LOCATION The amendment site is located approximately 230 feet north of Coulston Street between Curtis Street and the southerlY extension of Rosena Avenue (see Exhibit C of the Initial Study). BACltGROUMD The site is located in the County of San Bernardino but within the City's Sphere of Influence. The area is in the process of beinq annexed into the City. Durinq the hearinq process for the adoption of the General Plan the amendment site and the parcel immediately south of it received a request for an RH. Residential Medium desiqnation. The Planninq Commission did not make a motion on the request and. by default, it was denied. The Mayor and Common Council retained the Planninq Commission's RU-l. Residential Urban desiqnation without discussion. MUlIICIPAL CODB AJO) O--U PLAII COIIFORMA1lCE Municipal Code: Not applicable. General Plan: This request is to chanqe the General Plan Land Use Plan desiqnation. ---ol .......... PAGE 1 OF 1 1""lClt CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE General Plan l\llIeudment No. 90-8 AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE q/l rqO PAGE CALIFORRIA E1IVIROIIIlDTAL OUALITY ACT (CBOAI STATUS The project is subject to CEQA. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial Study (Attachment Al on June 28, 1990 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended a Neqative Declaration. There was a public review period from July 5, 1990 to July 25, 1990 to review the Initial Study. COMMEIITS RECEIVED No comments have been received. AltALYSIS Site and Surroundinq Area Characteristics The site is rectanqular in shape, flat and contains a citrus qrove. There is a sinqle-family residential neiqhborhood to the north, west, and southwest of the site. These homes are built at a density of 6 units per acre. The area is desiqnated RU-l. Residential Urban and the homes are in compliance with the density standards of the General Plan. Directly south of the site and also south of Coulston Street is vacant land. There is a condominium complex to the east of the vacant land south of Coulston Street. To the southeast of the site is a citrus qrove and to the north of it is a child care faCility havinq access from Mountain View Avenue. These land uses are shown on Exhibit B of the Initial Study. The land to the north of an easterly extension of Davidson Street over to Mountain View Avenue, which includes the site. is desiqnated RU-l, ReSidential Urban. The land south of that line is desiqnated RH, Residential Medium (see Exhibit A of the Initial Study). The boundary line splits the parcel comprisinq the project site between the two desiqnations leavinq the south 50 feet of the site with the RH desiqnation. General Plan policy 1.7.3 allows for the adjustment of the land use desiqnation boundary alonq parcel lines. However, we would have interpreted the RU-l boundary southward since the majority of the site is RU-l. That is why the applicant has requested a qeneral plan amendment. ... rllJl~~ ~ :A ....... ._, OF 1 1_ o "'" &:.:. = t"'i (} I' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE C"..AnATi=I 1 P1 ~n 1unP~nt- No.9D-S AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE OBSERVATIONS I> 9/11/90 4 ~ ~ ~ General Plan Policies The Residential Urban land use designation permits the development of single-family detached units, small lot subdivisions and multi- family units at a density of 9 dwelling units per gross acre. General Plan Policy 1.12.32 requires that a "Residential Urban" project convey an image of a low-density residential neighborhood. Development at the RU-l deSignation would Yield up to 45 units. The Residential Urban designation is between the single-family and mUlti-family densities but was intended as a lower density multi- family designation. The Residential Multi-Family designations are to promote the development of high-quality multi-family townhomes, condominiu.s, and apartments. Density permitted in the RM, Residential Medium designation is up to 14 units per gross acre and would Yield up to 70 units on the site. This density would result in open space areas, compatible with typical single family neighborhoods. Projects proposed in the RM deSignation are required to project an image of a distinctive neighborhood (General Plan POlicy 1.13.32). This policy ensures that architectural design will prOVide for high-quality character of future development through the use of colors and materials and differentiation of facades. General Plan policies 1.13.33 through 1.13.39 require the provision of vertical setbacks, landscaping, and open space amenities. General Plan policy 1.13.40 provides for the necessary setbacks for projects adjacent to residential areas so as to ensure adequate buffering between a mul ti-famil y development and the single-family homes. These policies were established to ensure consistency of development as well as compatibility with adjacent uses. Development standards are contained in Title 19 of the MuniCipal Code (and the draft Development Code) relate to the setback, landscaping and open space policies and are applied at the project development stage further ensure compatibility. Under General Plan policy 1.13.41, projects of 12 units or more require a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose behind this was to prOVide for public input and to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to ensure that all issues, including compatibility, were adequately addressed. I'UHoUI ._.OF. I...... ~ .. ll:l.l:- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE General Plan J\nEndment No. 90-8 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 9/11/90 5 r ., The applicant also owns the parcel (approximately 3.5 acres) directly to the south of the site. During the General Plan adoption process it was assumed that Davidson Street would extend west of Curtis Street to Hountain View Avenue. Davidson is a local street and its extension is not contemplated at this time. A Single land use deSignation on both parcels would provide the opportunity for the land to be better developed as a Single project. A development on both parcels would be compatible with the condominiums on the south side of Coulston Street. It should be noted that there are no requirements for the parcels to be developed as one project. Each parcel meets the minimum size requirement for any mUltiple family denSity. One of the goals of the Housing Element is the development of a variety of hOUSing types to meet the needs of the various inco.. levels. The RH deSignation provides a product that is between Single family and higher denSity mUltiple family. Circulation Traffic volume will increase with site development at the eXisting or proposed density. Hountain View Avenue. with freeway on/off ramps. is a major arterial. The remaining streets are local streets. Nei ther Elm Avenue or Rosena Avenue are required to provide access to the site. The estimated increase in the traffic volume and circulation patterns at the RH density will be within the limitations set down in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Extensions of or improvements to Elm Avenue and Rosena Avenue will be addressed at the project development stage. ~ Pl.Nf.I.GI P'IGE 1 OF , 160Cll OBSERVATIONS CASE General Plan 1\rt1erxment NO. 90-8 AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE9/11/90 PAGE 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONCLUSIORS The RH. Residential Medium land use desiqnation is compatible with the surroundinq land uses and land use desiqnations because of the General Plan policies cited. Traffic volume will increase and circulation patterns will chanqe upon project development. These chanqes will be within the limits of the Circulation Plan for the City and impacts will be minimal on the area when improvements to the local streets are incorporated into future project desiqn. FINDINGS The proposed amendment is consistent with the qoals. objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the RH. Residential Medium desiqnation is not in conflict with the surroundinq desiqnation and the General Plan policies ensure compatibility with the surroundinq land uses. The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest. health, safety, convenience. or welfare of the City as addressed in the Initial Study. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and recommended that a Neqative Declaration be adopted. This chanqe will have minimal impact on the balance of land uses within the City. The residential to commercial acreaqe ratio will not chanqe and an RH. Residential Medium desiqnation on the site will increase the potential of future dwellinq units by 25. The increase in density is offset by chanqes in desiqnations in other areas of the City. The subject land is physical! y sui table for the RH. Residential Medium land use desiqnation and any anticipated future development on it. There are no environmental constraints that would affect the proposed density. The site meets the minimum size requirements established by the General Plan. &1:.l:.-"'ll 1 Pl...IHoUI ~.., 0' 1 ,.&<<It CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE General Plan ~ No. 90-8 AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 9/11/90 PAGE I "'I RECOMMENDATIORS Staff recommends that the Planninq Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Neqative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080.1 of California Environmental Quality Act for the General Plan Amendment. 2. The General Plan Land Use Plan be chanqed from RU-1, Residential Urban to RH. Residential Medium on one parcel of land (APN 281-261-01) as shown on Exhibit A of the Initial Study. Respectively submitted ~J~ Larry E. Reed Director. Planninq and BUildinq Services Department e~~ Assistant Planner Attachment: A - Initial Study ~ ~~- ~~_'IlO' c_ o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY r Ge.neral Plan Amendment No. 9P-8 Proiect Description: To change the land use designation from RU-I, Residential Urban to RM. Residential Medium on 1 parcel comprising 5.0 acres. Proiect Location: The site is located approximately 230 feet north of Coulston Street between Curtis Street and Rosena Avenue. Datt;!: June 12. 1990 Applicant(s) Name and Address: Dwight Yeoman 19 E. Citrus, #205 Redlands, CA 92373 Owner (s) : Paul Carlisle, Trustee 23045 De Berry Street Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Prepared bv Name: John R. Burke Title: Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and BUilding Services 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 c I... ATTACHMENT A o o o o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-9 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided bv the City of San Bernardin~ as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 to change the land use designation from RU-l, Residential Urban to RM, Residential Medium on approximately 5,0 acres of land between Curtis Street and Rosena A'lenll€ approximately 230 feet north of Coulston Avenue, (See Location Map, Exhibit C), As stated in Section Environmental Quality Act Initial Study are to: 15063 of the Cal Hornia guidelines, the purposes of an 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration: 2. Enable an appl icant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabl ing the project to qualify for Negative Declaration: 3, Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (AI Focusing the ErR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining ~hac potentially significant effects would not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project: 5, Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment: 6, Eliminate unnecessary EIRs: 7, Determine whether a previous I y prepared EIR coul d be used with the project. o o o o o INIrIAL STUDY for GPA 90-8 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed amendment request, shown on Exhibit A. is t~ change the General Plan land use designation from RU-l. Residential Urban to RM. Residential Medium on approximately 5.0 acres of land approximately 230 feet north of Coulston Street between Curtis Street and Rosen~ Avenue. The amendment site is outside the City limi~s but within the sphere of influence. The site and surrounding area is in the process of annexation to the City. The RU- 1 des igna t ion permi t s a dens it y of 9 dwe III nO' units per gross acre and the RM designation permits a density of 14 dwelling units per gross acre. 2.1 AMENDMENT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Amendment Site The site is flat and rectangular in shape and is comprised of what appears to be a neglected orange grove. The trees are standing but not bearing fruit. b. Surrounding Area There are single-family residences to the southwest and west of the site. There is vacant land to the northwest from the residences to Gould Street. Also Single-family residences are to the north and northeast of the site. A child care facility is located to the east. South of the site is land comprised of cut citrus trees. otherwise vacant. There is an apartment complex located south of Coulston Street and west of Mountain View Avenue. (See Exhibit B). The land to the north of the extension of the Davidson Street centerline, between Curtis Street and Mountain View Avenue is designated RU-l, Residential Urban and the land to the south of the above line is designated RM, Residential Medium. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 . 1 Environmental Setting The amendment site is rectangular in shape. flat. and compr ised of a neglected oranqe grove. The area is within the 500 year flood plain and there are no other o o c:; INITIAL STUDY for GPA_~~=~ natural hazard concerns. The site is not in a biological resource area nor is it in an area of seismic concern. o c:; CIT F SAN BERNAR PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST o . A. BACKGRO!1~ Application Number: ~B<~~ /U'/# -4n,#N,(Jd?~r ""'~. ?p-? Project Description: 70 CNHnlfL 7TH!' MAIl> VfL ~.s-/?"'/~/7p../ -"Xt)/n I?II-/ ro //11 .0# ~//(/,.)q_/a~''7' S. t? /1CA;t<.f Location: /1//~)(/PM/lU..y ol3t/ RSLr ,v,p"~ ~ c;,u~sr~.s;.. -,(J,erA/Nf.IV Cu"r/~ PI'& /1.,,-'1) k'tJ.Sb/4 ,4re Environmental Constraints Areas: General Plan Designation: R{/-/ ,'0 IlM Zoning Designation: N//'J , B. E~B~~~~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. !lIth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement fill) of 10,000 more? (cut and/or cubic yards or X' b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15' natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? x )( d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? )(" REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? q. J Development subject mudslides, other similar within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? h. Other? 2. ~lLmQY~: Will the proposal result in: 3. REVISED 12/87 Substantial an effect quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? a. air upon emissions or ambient air c. Development within a hiqh wind hazard area? ~~B___RESOURCES: proposal result in: a. Chanqes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? Will the b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f. Other? y No . >t x )( X -x x' X' )( x x )( X Maybe x PAGE 2 OF 8 0 yo No Maybe . 4. BIOLOGIC6UJ~~!l: Could the proposal result in: a. Change in the number of any Cunique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of X trees? b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their )( habitat? c. Other? K 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise < levels? b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? II' c. Other? X' 6. ~-~: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General ,( Plan? b. Development within an Airport District? X c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? 'J( d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? J(' e. Other? .J( REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 o o 7. Will the MAN-MADE BAJ~llP~: proj~t: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. HQY~: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. rB6~~PQBTATIO~~ATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? REVISED 10/87 Yea No . 'x:' )(' x ,( 'l( )( it' x x: X" Maybe x x PAGE 4 OF 8 o g. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? Other? of h. 10. rYlLl~ SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. rire protection? Police protection? Schools (Le. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? b. c. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Medical aid? f. Solid waste? g. Other? 11. ~lLITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? b. c. REVISED 10/87 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? s. Other? Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility Require the construction of new facilities? o No . x- X )( X )(' )(' )( )( y )(' >< )( x' Y' x. )( Maybe PAGE 5 OF 8 1 12. 13. o AES'l'BETIg: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? c. Other? c~~r~~--P~QURCES: proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Could the 6J Adverse impacts historic object? physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or c. Other? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) REVISED 10/87 The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate . >( No < >( X I( " Maybe PAGE 6 OF 8 No Maybe . b. important example. of the major period. of California hi.t~ry or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defi~itive period of time while .ong-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) "- >< c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ~ )(, d. c. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) SEE J97"N9CN~ h .9I~~l"'.f REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 o o c:> INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-8 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.2.1 Earth, Air. Biological Resources, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources will not be impacted by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will not create Man-Made Hazards. 3.2.2 Water Resources 3. a. o Any development on the site will reduce the area available for rain or flood water absorption and thus increase the runoff into the current system. Development would create impermeable surface areas due to building footpr ints. streets and parking areas. These surfaces would also act as catchments for contaminants such as hydrocarbons. petroleum products (engine fluids) and particulate matter from exhaust emissions and increase the level of pollutants into the drainage system. The effects from development at this site will be minimal. Specific development projects will be required to address drainage and impermeable surfaces and include design specific mitigation measures as needed. 3.2.3 Noise 5.a. Development of uses permitted by the RM, Residential Medium designation, such as mUlti-family townhomes, apartments or a planned residential development, wculd increase the noise level in the area. primarily from the increase in traffic. Mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design at the project development phase to ensure that the existing single family residences are not adversly impacted. 3.2.4 Land Use 6.a. o The amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan. The RU-l, Residential Urban designation would permi t up to 45 units on the 5 acres and the RM. Residential Medium deSignation would permit up to 70 units on the site for a potential increase of 25 units. o o o o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-8 3.2.5 3.2.6 Housinq The request is to permit more units Residential Urban designation allows. would not lead to the development of create a demand for additional housinq than the RU- 1. The amendment uses that would units. Transportation/Circulation 9.a. Transportation and circul at ion will not be adverse 1 y impacted by future development. The site could be developed to 45 dwelling units under the eXisting RU-l, Resident ial Urban designation. The higher density RM, Residential Medium designation would permit up to 70 dwelling units on the same site. The difference of 25 units would only minimally increase the potential traffic in the area. The circulation pattern would be the same as under the current designation at full buildout. Mountain View Avenue is a secondary arterial route with access to the I-lO freeway. The remainder of the streets in the site area are local street~. As Davidson Street is not proposed for extension to Mountain View Avenue at this time, traffic to and from the site would be via Curtis Street or Elm Avenue and/or Rosena Avenue which are off of Gould Street. If the development was combined with development on the parcel of la~d directly to the south of the site (owned by the same person) then Coulston Street would be an additional point of access. Development on the site, especially if it is combined with the land to the south of it would probably require a traffic study to address project specific concerns such as ingress/egress and street improvements regardless of density. The City Traffic Engineer's office advises that the need for a traffic study will be determined during the project development process. 9. f. There will be a slight potential for an in.:re"se i~ safety hazards to vehicles. bicyclists and pedestrians due to increased traffic, resulting frc.m the hi.,Jher density. The project development process will address potential safety hazards and identify mitigati.on mea~'1res if necessary. DETERMI~11QF o o . o On the b.. is of this initial study, ~ The propo.ed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ~ environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The. proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ~A/ l1,#r~()hE'q; ~p~"",- ;:Jh4UAIU Name and Title Q,Lt:~ s~ature 6-:;f-7'o ate: REVISEO 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 LJI CITY QF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLk'N AMENDMENT )to. '10- e TITLE 11U)P~S,O) I1"'G~D"'~Nr D-9 l// <> ~.-v .s~ ., '. Z 1&1 Q Q 1&1 3i ..' ---. ST.-a iii RU-l '" > <Z 2 ..J ..... RU-l RM r' '-; i~ q, RM ("fJ(./ 4S rlltl IlH en i= a:: = u tfH . INTERSTATE 10 1W. la" IA.~ . Mi14~' EXHIBIT II -----. .----- CITY ~F SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PL'XN AMENDMENT ,,",0. 9()-8 TITLEJAN~G~ Z Ia.I B Ia.I ~ ..' VACAIfT -- J SINGLE FAMILY I SINGLE FAMILY _ ~ ",.L.TJ !: ... I SINGLE or ~ " FAMILY C.l : SXlfGl.E . F.\IrXl.f I CHILD CARE SINGLE FAMILY VACAIfT ~I)"~ ~ . ~ ~ ("0(/ /S,,,'" VACAIfT en i= a: :I U VACAIfT APARTMENTS . ~.. Jtt- IA-. . IN~~,. I INTERSTATE 110 EX HIBIT ....s CITY OF SAN BERNORDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. '''-I C. TI T L E '-<<.J:J T"l1JIV ,II "' ...-- . g . ., , ...... . . ; R ". EXHIBIT C o o o o o 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 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. 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. 90-8 to the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning Commission on september 11, 1990 after a noticed public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common Council. (c) An Initial Study was prepared on June 12, 1990 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 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 July 5, 1990 through July 25, 1990 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council in compliance Common with the California IIII IIII 1 o o o - - o o 1 Environmental Quality Act and local regulations. 2 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed 3 public hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed 4 General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and the Planning 5 Department Staff Report on October 15, 1990. 6 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 7 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of 8 the City and is consistent with the goals, objectives and 9 policies of the existing General Plan. 10 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration. 11 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED 12 by the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed 13 amendment to the General Plan of the City of San 14 Bernardino will have no significant effect on the 15 environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore 16 prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the 17 effect of this proposed amendment is hereby ratified, 18 affirmed and adopted. 19 SECTION 3. Findinas 20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common 21 Council of the City of San Bernardino that: 22 A. The change of designation from RU-l, Residential Urban 23 to RM, Residential Medium for the proposed amendment 24 will change the land use map only and is not in conflict 25 with the Objectives and Policies of the General Plan. 26 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the 27 IIII 28 IIII 2 o o o - o o 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 public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. C. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissible under the RM designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on such services. D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 5.0 acres of land and the balance of land uses within the city will be minimally affected. No housing stock will be affected. E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. Anticipated future land use has been analyzed in the Initial study and it has been determined that project specific mitigation measures will be sufficient to eliminate any environmental impacts. F. The area being changed from RU-l, Residential Urban to RM, Residential Medium lies in the County of San Bernardino but within the Sphere of Influence of the City. The area is in the process of being annexed into the city. IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 3 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 21 ~ ~ ~ ~ 26 27 ~ o o o o 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 5.0 acres from RU-I, Residential Urban to RM, Residential Medium (APN 281-261-01). General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Exhibit A, and is more specifically described in the legal description entitled Exhibit B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. (B) General Plan Amendment No. 90-8 shall become 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. IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 4 o o o o o 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 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Planning Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA in preparing the Negative Declaration. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1990 by the following vote, to wit: Council Members ESTRADA REILLY FLORES MAUDSLEY MINOR POPE-LUDLAM MILLER ~ NAYES ABSTAIN city Clerk IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 5 o 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 o o RESOLUTION...ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1990. W.R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES City 6 o Uf~ iid ..- - 8UI p~ !!:p .-... ,..~".:.... ,m. CD ..!II". at-EO .....~.. lli:::.f~ .. Po...... U~ ; .. .. o~ :1 .. ' , ;2 "'- , .... .'" JlEll' " III r8'~ ..,1: . ",Il i !!!S. ....IE f.~ n'" l!'" .:c .~ O~h i R; ~ i !:II - ~ g- I\) f ~ Ul 9 @ i ,"" IS @ M' ~. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO t:> LOCATION MAP GPA 90-B o @ I 'p' I t II. -- + -- STIlEET --- I &. I .. ... (I)' i@) . 1 ,. "" . , .. "" '" . _..... , .' . (J) .. .' ....... D," . . .., , ~ .",- ~ . ..@(lo'{, ~ ..(!) '1 . I I ~l .. I __...J "".". , \J \ --"I z . CJ 1 \ '7' .. II<B> ~ , -, II , ~ '\. '. -, lP.. . l 1(1), , , .. -....l N . ~ aa U , .... -.... ~ '. .-- -STEIIUNG =. '. ~ /IoIOIM"AW \IIEW INEMJ[J t, ~ @ @--i-- 16D'iI' Jil . at 11I1 2 o Zl '" .. I\) 0) Exhibit A ~ ;"< "l) o -, (') CIl - ~ -€I 01 ~ O'l ~ ~ ~ ~ O'l o "'- VI - VI ~ ""'-i<n oOc .,. " ':I U1::OtD o. -.. .:0 :toe .. Q. ... ~. - . CITY OF SAN BERNA DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-8 TITLE legal Description Fran RIJ-1 to RM (APN 281-261-01) c THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 72, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN 'l'IIE COURTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, 429 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 325.43 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 669.25 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; 325.43 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 669.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING ALL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. () EXHIBIT B ~ o RE o GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENl' No. 90-8 Ed IJItdIJ(/jse-rl we, the undersigned, are proposing that the property betrween Curtis Street and the southerly extension of Rosena Avenue not be designated to a RH plan instead of a Rl1-1 plan. WE PREFER IT TO BE DESIGNATED TO A, RESIDENTIAL. PLAN. Rl1-11 Reasons: 1) First of all, we object to laws which permits speculators to buy up land and then make the neighborhood look ugly, creating an eye-sore, by letting a beautiful orchard die. In the mean time the speculator(s) live(s) in his/their nice neeghborhood making money on the property degrading our neighborhood I 2) The greed of people tries to squeeze as many dollars out of an acre of land as possible. If these valleys would have been protected by proper laws we would not have the snog and many other problems today. The RM Plan is squeezing more people on an acre, thus adding to the already existing problems while the speculators and others who can afford it, move to their hideawa.y. NAME ADDRESS OWNER >< X RENT(WE LIVE HERE I I) 'lJ ak e.. PI1~s ~ ~.. / . k '-t_ 25662 Hardt Street ~-'~-, ' .. j) .,&rU..J if /,.,--1... <,;". :'=-- \,C, o -~ CTl ., -n -. ......, . . ',..."" ::,'!;"- ...... ~. - ,,~, ... " ------",- " /j. ":- I~ :. 9 ,;-If ' ~Uv'c:\f icc> 1'/_ .~ ~ A -'i ,.' .~,,\ I " I L _ I-'-_LJ.- J. . _I .'........._' <- / J'ES> ~ tv U (VA~ ~S"6~O HA~t:.7 C.0 0" .~d.."..~ I "_., r" " 'A,I' 11;."t' ~~ -~, r ..:... '" l : ./ -.- 1 '" j 'J /) i- .' ... x OOlli@ffillWrnrn OCT 1 2 1990 )..3 ,: 76 U,.. ":l" =- " ') "> '-( 0 i . -"- \AL. ..l- ('I~l Hu:Je, J ocr::; (A.uct:::CI ,>T \1 j,) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING & BUI~DING SERVICES / / "'2 - o NAU OWNER 1\ ADDRESS o RENT (IvE LIVE HERE II) K~\\1 ~'I:.\"CI"'\ 1<::000 ~\.u\'<:> >( ,Jym0.h, m (Jvlfr 99tjj- Clirb-.;2: X X .., '--~D 'i !.q:f,{~, ~') / - - CC ~ ~'5 '(70 - IJrh.;_.p ~J 7 .:; '1 g't i y --~ /...-S'I? f I{ \~\,,~"\)',~ .~~~\~~~~ x G~{! ~ ~~ ~L~ X 1\'1 bo >~ \)J1.A\JL ~U 0. ~~ {bOOb 19uR-ddef'\br /pnr'it [; (I cf (l 67 o/Z;Y::; C{ X X .~ ~ ~54~ tJ .J.jaA-J...i ~~ ~Ua- 2.54{,QI\wdtS'T 'f- () / /l 0 . /~ ';"S- Y7? !~. .t.' sr. . I c? 0 1./) C ~ 1..-1 ;'s- x &....'( .X L;. X. '~\d<~6 '<t '\>aiY.'c'i" M.&-tA..... .5/:;,-'5 ifS- 1L...d."t e-w-NV'- ~/rT'L-f f KfI..~~ .. :;D'(;() HIi'rd.1' {+'d/ 4,('4 q ~ 3Sll' /J1Clft-~ A2c1eel' ;z.SS7s-/l/iRD7 ST. t.. Luc/P/, X. JJ+ "1lJ1aJ~ d.:50/Y G6t.-1~ I- L~<(a.- X '~f!~' ~5?C~ r1~~ A ~ "F" ~~oz..~Jib"'7 ~ G-wllld ~~,- . o o liAl'iE ADDRESS OWNER X RENT (WE LIVE !!EREll) iG-Q. (Y\ee~h~.s:.- 0 \r'l.luJ2.L.o{)_ . r Z.~b 6c.:.l&;/ CO.........U-<-dl~ Cf\ (::i;(IVV\ dt-A 1.. ~ V\ V\ ~ (e ~ Q'Z3 sy lQ/<('r4- CA..on _ ~f'J)ESBif,l\l() 6M~ It. ~ (j,~'5S~t:~id. yt ^t7MA c",tjl'j ~ ;1. t 9't.-~st.r r ~ lJ~f(;JJi)X-vA&I '-ovid >1. If'ft 2 . DO 60 CUK 7'( ssl. ~\)VI" J.i lOll A C,i o Vt\l6'"<1\ ow,v E' IZ- qZ.3S~( OU;' La. 11. Df:l/v~ /1 ~ 45 d- )j6-o.lcf " jJ4/1IA...- Vr>>~ :J-9flf l( Gz,cW q-, ~~~ ~j, ~ 2--5'13 b (:-c)U(U 57. ti!tu~~~f;1~kUfJ< ,~- cfv..~-f0t (!/u~1O~ 2- 5~:)1 Coute( ~~~~~. ..- I I I" OLJNe.fZ. ~ l.Yvv'"''"'''r'- MC.v1,.....(C ~.sq'l.)~ov,J s.t- t....;:,,-,c..L...,,Jc.. (tIC) .' .. i'?r 'J5l\b5 C,Oc.\d s-\ l.-C!1l L \ . d:YSyX u l ~ .. ~ "'0.'0 "GJ Q.'\:)l3 / ~""'"' .;:LS-~ 3 f ~'d~ y./. It>..... l' 6WN",-.~. '~ . 5;f- ---. .'~ 92ft X Q,~ .l.l..-"""",,,,.;;> 5 : N <\..j>.J, dJ un [,,"'^ l.,hct., q UP! X C?,. /2/ \~1' - /~7 ~~ 9! () [f'(h<-'.J"/t~~.<- ()O~t.,.f}~~/.U'--<-'- >< , /~ Z;ldd70 ~~, ~~elZ- ~, (<IvY( &L- --- Ld-,l: -~ .i 0 b 1 r G.P,.."... C{cIe Lo/l-tt c.~~cv~~ .... /~_ ~/ft/' IrJo'i? aM 4"( lvlV;1J L1Ni)/J X (,~:t~rr6 10066 -e,5C016--1J1/c ~~~x G~ Lk::f I 00 9b Ko-$>.vt4 l\-Uk k;LCl~4 P4 LX q'l. ~ s-<f ~ o o NAME ADDRESS OWNER ~l,l~-+~';~LI! Cu 1 , '(I J " ,1I(!nek ,- no..R-/te , ~tL~ boo~ \00 ~S' ~NA. 6-J2. Hooyel7Jct /00 13 Lmd-. l.t. do- cA 7 ~~3"':)t..j .\. !2osencl 11 vel Loma-Lndo.- QJ3SL()< ;2 o:;,eno.- Ave. Lomo. I.--Inc/a.... q.J3Sc(l' C;{)LJjJ <si. ; I t.-omR I-lndO- 9~sy;< Hf/f:JT ~T ~omf+ L.lndo. 9-:J3Jl(v J \ ~ ;.Joofenj~ t+ooyeljCC f40 oy e/7J0- II /0091 ~51PoLo 1-0- b ;:)-6 \' ,~ II II The above are some (except two) of the property owners I contacted. I did not meet any persons who were in agreement with the proposal. In other words,a person could say that all of us around here are against it. Single homes is what people want. While I went through the neighborhood some people brought UP the subject that this neighborhood might become a part of San Bernardino. Fvery person around here will be against that. As it is, our water pre sure is very low around here. So bad that at the Child (mentally and physlcally disabled) Care Center where T work, they do not have any water some evenings.One more reason to keep a RM plan from develping in our neighborhood. "\ I , ~. . spectfully, IU~ I Jake ~~.