Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS09-Planning and Building i CITY OF SAN BER-"RDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 2, 1991 General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 to change Subject: the land use desi9nation from RM to RMH/18 on the east side of Richardson Street between Coulston Street and 1-10. Mayor and Common Council Meetin9 of May 6, 1991, 2:00 p.m. ~rom: Larry E. Reed, Director Dept: Planning and Building Services Synopsis of Previous Council action: At their meeting of March 11, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved, in concept, the change in designations for the three areas as indicated in the staff report. The Council directed staff to prepare a resolution to reflect this. After review by the City Attorney's office, and at the request of the property owner, staff is submitting the General Plan Amendment for approval of Site A only with the remaining areas to be forwarded to the Mayor and Common Council at their meeting of May 20, 1991 for action. Recommended motion: That the resolution be adopted that changes the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre for Site A. l't't'zlL f. (1 /!'. ') Ned. ILl<... Signature Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 384-5357 1 Contact person: I arrv F. Rppd Phone: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No.'" q '1 . CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of May 6, 1991 REOUEST This city-initiated General Plan amendment is to evaluate a change in the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium (14 dwelling units per acre) to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 dwelling units per acre on approximately 22.41 acres on the east side of Richardson Street between Coulston Street and the 1-10 Freeway (Site A as shown on Exhibit B of the Initial Study). It also evaluated redesignating 10.36 acres on the west side of Richardson street, north of the 1-10 Freeway, from RM to a commercial designation (site B). site C is comprised of approximatelY 3.22 acres on the north side of Laurelwood Drive which is proposed to be designated CG-1 along with site B so as to have the commercial designation along both sides of Laurelwood Drive. Staff Office B. evaluated CG-1, Commercial General, CO-1, commercial and OIP, Office Industrial Park designations for site 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 desig- nation of RM, and Site C a designation of RMH. 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, commercial General designation for sites B and C. The Council determined that the interests of the City would best be served by these designations. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution reflecting this determination. Upon review of the case, the city Attorney's office determined that insufficient noticing was made to reflect the action on sites Band C. At the same time, the property owner requested that the Mayor and Common Council take action on Site A on May 6, 1991, and that action on sites Band C be determined at the Mayor and Common Council meeting of May 20, 1991. 75.0264 o General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of May 6, 1991 Page 2 o MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ACTION That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (site A), based on the findings in the resolution. John R. Burke, Assistant Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Attachment I: Request for Council Action, February 20, 1991 Prepared by: Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission Attachment A: Initial Study, December 4, 1990 Exhibit A: Land Uses Exhibit B: Location, Land Use Desig- nations and Alternatives Attachment 2: Resolution for Meeting. Not cluded in case February 20, 1991 included here, file MCC copy in- Attachment II: Resolution Attachment A-l and A-2: Location Maps Attachment B: Legal Descriptions SRGPA90-H .... CIT. r OF SAN sIC) \RDINO- REQUEO .OR COUNCIL ACTIO From: Larry E. Reed o.pt: Planning and Building Services ~: February 20. 1991 Su~: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. to change the land use designation from R~ to RMH/I8 on the east side of Richardso Street between Coulston Street and 1-10 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11. 1991. 2:00 D.m. Synopsis of Previous CouncillCtion: 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 unit 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 fo~ 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~ Signlture Di rector ContICt penon: Larry E. Reed. Director Supporting dItI.tr.Jlld: Staff Report Phone: Ward: 384-5357 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. DescriDtion) Finance: Council No1ll: 'ATTACHMENT --1-J 75.0262 Agendl Item No ~ITY OF SAN BEp--\ .RDINO - REQUES"'~ .JR COUNCIL ACTIO. STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of March 11. 1991. REOUEST This City-initiated General Plan amendment is to evaluate a chanqe in the land use desiqnation from RH, Residential Medium (14 dwellinq units per acrel to RHH/18, Residential Medium Riqh 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). It also evaluated redesiqnatinq 10.36 acres on the west side of ,Richardson Street, north of the I-tO freeway, from RH to a commercial desiqnation (Site B). 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-1. Commercial General. co-t. 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 RH. and Site C a desiqnation 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 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. " 75-0214 Mayor and Lommon ~,r-' I ~\eetlng TO March 11. 1991 1;'.,..1 Page 2 J DISCUSSIOlI The evaluation of the proposed RMH/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-l desiqnation provides for uses alonq major transportation corridors and intersections and althouqh Site 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-l, however, only that part south of Rosewood Drive is commercially developed with the remainder of it beinq predominantlY sinqle-familY dwellinqs. The same concerns ~re identified when considerinq the CO-1 and OIP desiqnations. I 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 traffi.:: 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 along Laurelwood Drive by having the same land use designation on both sides of the street and to review possible impacts in that area in the event Site B was commercially/ industrially designated. As a result of the above concerns the Planning Commission recommended that a comprehensive land use and traffic circulation study be conducted prior to a designation change on Sites Band C. Since this is a City-initiated amendment, fundinq has not been identified to prepare such a study. PLAJlNING COMMISSION RECOMMEMDATIOIf The Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. which changes the land use designation from RM to RMH/18 on Site ~onlY, at its noticed public hearing on February 5. 1991. The vote was 5 for. 1 against, and 1 abstention. '" ....;:;,....;, ....., Mayor and Common 0 1 Meeting of March 11. 1991 Page 3 o MAYOR AIm COUlICIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 for Site A based on the findinqs in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. 3. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to reevaluate Sites Band C. ...... Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. In addition. staff recommends that no further 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 Planninq and Buildinq Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planninq Commission Attachment A: Initial Study dated December 4. 1990 Exhibit A: Land Uses Exhibit B: Location. Land Use Desiqnations & Alternatives Attachment 2: Resolution Attachments A-1 and A-2: Attachment B-1 Location Haps Leqal Descriptions ... r- r, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 10 2-5-91 1 .. "r-.... City of San Bernardino APPUCANT: 11.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 ~ OWNER: Various () "-'" \. r-.... " m To change the General Plan land use designation from RM, Residential .. Medium to RMH/18, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 18 = dwelling units per acre on 5 parcels of land comprising 22.41 acres, on g the east side of Richardson Street between the 1-10 Freeway and Coulston II: Street,. - :i II: C '-......I ) EXISTING GENERAl PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Vacant RM, Residential Medium North Residential RM, Residential Medium South Freeway N/A East Residential RM, Residential Medium West Vacant RM, Residential tiedium GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES I FLOOD HAZARD IXl YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: il!J YES ) HAZARD ZONE: r1NO ZONE: o NO il!J ZONE B o NO ( HIGH FIRE o YES ) AIRPORT NOISE! o YES I REDEVELOPMENT DYES HAZARD ZONE: Xl NO CRASH ZONE: ~NO PROJECT AREA: ~NO - r--.. r r ... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z IXl APPROVALof Site A only C APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 ~(I) MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0 NOE.l.R. CONDITIONS II.ICJ 1I.C1 ::EZ o EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ~i 0 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OCl WITH MITIGATING ;:1 e~ MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO > iX NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Z fd 11.1 EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. . MINUTES II: ... '--./ '" ~~ ATTACHMENT 1 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 ... g.wJEST a LOCATIOR This is a City-initiated qeneral plan amendment to evaluate land use desiqnation chanqes on three adjacent sites as follows: Site A. 22.41 acres located on the northeast corner of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. > To chanqe the desiqnation from RM. Residential Medium to RMH/18, Residential Medium Hiqh with a density limit of 18 dwellinq units per acre (du/ac) . Site B. 10.36 acres located on the northwest corner of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. To chanqe the desiqnation from RM. Residential Medium to CG-l, Commercial General, CO-I, Commercial Office, OIP, Office Industrial Park or RMH/18, Residential Medium Hiqh (18 du/ac). Site C. Nineteen adjoininq parcels compr isinq 3.22 acres located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties frontinq on Tippecanoe Avenue. To chanqe the desiqnation from RMH. Residential Medium Hiqh to CG-I, Commercial General. The alternatives considered are briefly described below and are shown on Exhibit B of the Initial Study: Alternative 1 Site A. Site B. Site C. From RM to RMH/18. From RM to CG-l. From RMH to CG-l. Alternative 2 Site A. Site B. Site C. From RM to RMH/18. From RM to CO-I. From RMH to CG-I. !lll.:.= 11 lo. , PuN-&lII PMlE' OF 1 14olll) r - ..... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA NO. 90-11 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 10 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 2-5-91 PAGE 3 .. ...,j r ..... Alternative 3 Site A. Site B. Site C. From RM to RMH/18. From RM to OIP. From RMH to CG-l. -",.. Alternative 4 Sites A and B only. From RM to RMH/18. Alternative 5 Site A only. From RM to RMH/18. The followinq summarizes the uses permitted in the land use deaiqnations addressed in the alternatives: RM ---- RMH --- CG-l -- CO-l -- OIP --- ~ ~JlllID -. Residential Medium. Multi-family townhomes and apartments up to a density of 14 du/ac and a heiqht of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.13.101 Residential Medium Hiqh. MUlti-familY townhome. and apartments up to a denSity of 24 du/ac and a heiqht of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.13.111 Commercial General. A diversity of retail and service uses, entertainment, professional and financial offices to a heiqht of two stor iea. (General Plan Policy 1.19.101 Commercial Office. Administrative and professional offices, supportinq retail commercial uses, and medical off ices to a heiqht of four stor ies. (General Plan Policy 1. 28. 10) Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices, liqht manufacturinq and limited supportinq retail services to a heiqht of three stories. (General Plan Policy 1.31. 101 '- ... .......... ._ 1 OF , (<<<II ,0 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 ,. a.IEA l!1IlUIAC'J'DIftICS Site A is comprised of five contiOUous parcels totallino 22.41 acres. It is bounded by a condoainium complex on the e..t and Coul ston Stre.t on the north. Richard.on Street and the 1-10 fre.way are to the west and south re.pectiv.ly. The site is vacant and the area to the north i. compris.d of vacant land and .inGle- famll Y homes. Mountain View Av.nu. is to the ea.t of the condominiumS. Exhibit A of the Initial study show. land u.... Site B is a vacant 10.36 acre parcel. It is bordered by Richard.on Street on the east. the freeway on the. south, Ferree Street on the we.t and a small lot sinole-family subdivision on the north. North and northeast of this site are condominiums. coulston Street and sinole-family residences. Site C is comprised of 19 adjoinino parcelS totallino approximately 3.22 acres. It is located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree street and the commercial properties frontino on Tippecanoe Avenue. All the.' property on the south side of Laurelwood Drive to the freeway and those properties frontino on Tippecanoe Avenue are desionated CO-1, commercial General. Th. properties south of Rosewood Drive and frontino on Tippecano. Avenue are beino used for commercial purposes. The remainder of the area which includes Site C is mostlY comprised of sinOle-familY residences. BAC'I[GROUlIJ) The area in which the amendment sites are located was annexed into the City on september 2B, 1990. Sites A and B were desionated aM, R.sidential Medium and Site C was desionated RMH. Residential Medium HiOh upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2. 19B9. when the area was within the City's sphere of influence. MUIIICIPAL CODS Not applicable .. ~ ....-- PMlE' OF , (4-001 .. CALIJ'OIUIIA DVIliOIIME1ftAL OUALI'l'Y AC'l' ( CRnA) S'rATUS 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 chanqe for Site A (Alternative 51 would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended a lIeqative Declaration for that alternative only. TlJere was a public review period from December 27, 1990 to January 16. 1991 to review the Initial Study. A commercial/industrial desiqnation (CG-1, CO-1 or alP I, as in Alternat~ves 1. 2 or 3, on Site B would permit 250,000 square feet or .ore of office/buildinq space which would require review by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Office of Planninq and Research (OPR). This is required for projects havinq the potential for statewide, reqional or areawide siqnificance. The ERC concluded that the proposed chanqes for Sites Band C (AI ternatives 1 thru 4 I will require a traffic study and/or an environmental impact report. co.a .<lotS RECEIVED 110 comments were received. AllALYSIS Althouqh the ERC determined that the~e'would be impacts associated with a chanqe in desiqnation for Alternatives 1 thru 4 and a Neqative Declaration was not recommended, staff analyzed them here. The potential impacts overlap General Plan policies and environmental concerns. Land Use Chanqinq the desiqnation on Site A to RMH/18 would yield up to 403 dwellinq units, an increase of 89 units over the 314 permitted under the RM desiqnation. General Plan Objective 1.13 is to promote development of hiqh quality multi-family units which " convey a distinctive residential neiqhborhood and are inteqrated with their settinq." The 18 dwellinq unit density on the site is sufficient to ensure that the objective is _t by imple.entinq the desiqn and develop.ent quidelines covered in policies 1.13.32 thru 1.13.41. " ... 1Ill.l:.= t4 PlANoUI p_, OF' (""""I .. JJ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT GPA NO. 90-11 OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARINGOATE PAGE 10 2-5-91 6 .... ". one of the qoals (General Plan Goal 1G a. I of the City is to .Achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which retain and enhance establlshed residential neiqhborhoods .... As there is some apparent deterioration in the residential area west of Site B then Goal 1G c could be a means by which revitalization and upqrade miqht occur. Goal 1G d would allow for the intensification of commercial and industrial uses if the neiqhborhood does~~ot merit preservation. However, the sinqle-family subdivision north of the site was constructed just recently and improves the area. General Plan Objective 1. 19 pertains to community-servinq commercial (CG-1 I uses and provides for .... uses alonq _jor transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents .... Althouqh Site B abuts the 1-10 freeway, access to it is throuqh an established neiqhborhood and so it cannot be considered to be alonq a major transportation corridor nor at a major intersection. The General Plan Objective for the Commercial Offic. (eo-11 us. provid.s for. new development of administrative and professional offices in proximity to major transportation corridors and ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses." Aqain, the accessibility to a major transportation corridor is the issue and the impacts of a CO-1 permitted development would affect adjacent residential uses. In addition, Objective 1.31 states that the objective of the City (as it pertains to an OIP desiqnationl is to .Establlsh the Waterman Avenue and other appropriate areas as distinctive office industrial parks and corporate centers.... The appropriateness of this site is questionable because of lack of direct access. Noise The potential noise qenerated on Site A will be that normally associated with a multi-family development with the majority of it beinq traffic noise. The site is also impacted by noise from the adjacent freeway. General Plan POllCY 14. 1. 1 will ensure that noise levels are maintained within accep~able levels. The hiqher density permitted by the RMH/18 desiqnation allows for some flexibility in desiqn in that the units can be sited to block the freeway and create useable outdoor open spaces. .. lI1:nll:.- " ...I PI..Mo&.OI PAGe 1 OF 1 I..... - - ,.. CASE GPA NO. 90-11 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 10 OBSERV A liONS HEARING. DATE 2-5-91 PAGE 7 ... ,.. A CO-1 or CO-1 land use desiqnation for Site B would qenerate noise resul tinq fro. truck traffic. servicinq the area and the employee/custo..r traffic. This noise would impact the adjoininq residential uses. Policies 14.6.1 thru 14.6.5 are in place to help reduce the impacts of commercial activities on adjoininq 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 wes~ which is throuqh the residential neiqhborhood. 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 desionation for Sites Band C could result in a potential net loss of dwellinq 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 desionation on Site C from a residential to a commercial desiqnation could potentially reduce the avallabil1ty of affordable housinq by the loss of 18 units existinq there now if commercial uses qo in. TransDortation/Circulation All of the streets between Tippecanoe Avenue la major arterial) ana Mountain View Avenue (a secondary arterial) are local streets as defined In the Circulatlon Element of the General Plan. The RMH/18 desiqnation on Site A with its potentlal development alonq with present and future developments in the area will qenerate approximately 5,000 averaqe dally trips (ACTs) alonq Coulston Street. This approaches the maximum ADT capabllity of Coulston Street. The impact on Richardson Street will be mlnimal 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 dwell1nq units and. if assiqned an RMH/18 desiqnation, then the yield would be 186 units. The hiqher desiqnation would increase the traffic by approximately 1,100 ACTs and how such an increase would impact the area would be shown by a traffic study. , illl'nlltAi:l lllM Pl.NI-I.IlI '_'OF' 1.o.lOI . J 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 .... A CG-l designation for Site B. qiven a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.7. could yield up to 315,000 square feet of office/retail use.. It is unlikely that such a larqe project will be propo.ed but the potential for a development exists. A shoppinq center of 100,000 .quare feet would qenerate in excess of 10,000 ADTs and most of that traffic could be expected to use Laurelwood Drive or Rosewood Drive for access from Tippecanoe Avenue (neither street has a traffic siqnal at Tippecanoe Avenue). Such a larqe increase in traffic will cause a neqative impact on the residential .rea. Some traffic could be expected to enter the area by way of Gould Street (which is siqnalized) and Ferree Street but this access is also entirel y throuqh residential neiqhborhoods. A CO-lor OIP desiqnation would create similar traffic impacts. I General Plan Pollcies 6. 1. 11 and 6. 1. 12 require that .... cumulative and downstream impacts.... be evaluated to determine impacts to traffic in the area. These impacts have not been evaluated. The City Traffic Enqineer has indicated that we may wish to study the streets in this area to determine what the impacts will be froa additional development in the area, what types of improvements are necessary and whether the streets should be rede.ignated or realiqned. This type of study should be completed before major redesiqnations of land use occur which would intensify permitted uses and increase traffic and traffic impacts. A traffic study would tell us what the impacts are from various land use desiqnations. With that information, the City can determine if chanqes to land use desiqnations that permit more intense uses can be accommodated. A traffic study won't address the issue of compatibility between uses but will provide certain data to help determine which of the different desiqnations can be compatible. With the future redesiqnation of Norton Air Force Base for non- military use the traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue can be expected to increase, thus compoundinq an existinq problem. The Norton Air Force Base closure can also be expected to affect the land use desiqnations alonq Tippecanoe Avenue resultinq from future redevelopment and these potential impacts should be included in a traffic study. COIICLUSIOIlS The RMH/18. Residential Medium Hiqh (density limit of 18 du/ac) land use desiqnation for Alternative 5 on Site A is compatible with the surroundinq land use. and land use designations. Approval of Alternative 5 would allow for the designation chanqe on Site A without action on the other two sites. ' ... ..j ... m&~L PUH-I.GI PME 1 OF , (~ n .... - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CASE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 9 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE .. .... ~ The impacts resulting from co_ercial or industrial desiGnations on Sites Band C appear to be negative but may not be so b.s.d on the r.sults of a traffic study. Determinations based on the land use chanqes proposed for alternatives 1 thru 4 cannot be effectively evaluated until further detailed study is made. " Traffic volume will increase and circulation patterns will change upon project development. Reuse of Norton Air Force Base will change the traffic.' alonq Tippecanoe Avenue. These cumulative chanqes will impact on the Circulation Plan for the City and on the land use aesiGnations within the surrounding area. These impacts will require improvements to the local streets, which will in turn impact on the land uses in the area. It is likely that there will be chanqes to the Circulation Plan which may cause chanqes to land use desiGnations. FIIIDIlIGS 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 Hiqh (with a density limit of 18 du/ac) desiqnation is not in conflict with the surroundinq land use desiqnations and General Plan policies. The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed in the Initial Study. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and recommended that a' Neqative Declaration be adopted for Site A. .. This amendment will have minimal impact on the balance of land uses within the City. Th. residential to co..ercial acreage ratio will not change and an RMH/18, Residential Medium High designation on Site A will increase the potential for future housinq. The subject land is physically suitable for the RMH/18, Residential Medium High land use designation and any anticipated future development on it. There are no environmental constraints that would affect the proposed density. The site meets the minimum size requirements established by the General Plan. .. ...,j ~= -, ~ PME10Fl (&-10) .- """I r' - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING .DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-11 10 2-5-91 10 10. ""l r' RIECOIQIElIDATIOIIS 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 Amendlllent No. 90-11 I be approved as per Alternative 5 to chanqe the land use desiqnation from RH. Residential Mediu. to RMH/18, ResidenUal 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:;';';;:'; Larry E. Reed, Director Planninq and Buildinq Services Department fd'~~' Assistant Planner Attachment A. Initial Study ... " .,j =:"='~r rr PLJW.&lII PMIE' Of' , (..... li~V ,. ._. . ~ CITY OF SAN eo ,RDINO PLANNING AND BUILJ- SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY .. ,. ""III Gen~r~l Plan Am~ndment NQ. 90-11 PJ::.9jeQ.1;. J)esqr.!:Qt~.QJ1: To chanqe the land use desiqnation ,on three sites from RM. Residential Medium to RMH/18. Residen~ial Medium Hiqh with a density cap of 18 dwellinq units per acre afid from RM. Residential Medium to CG-l, Commercial General. CO-l. Commercial Office, OIP. Office Industrial Park or RHH/18. Residential Medium High (with a den~ity cap of 18 unitsl and from RHH, Residential Medium ~iqh to CG-l. Commercial General. Pr9i~9t_Loca!!9n: west of Richardson on the north side Tippecanoe Avenue. The amendment area is located to the e~st and Street on the north side of the 1-10 freeway and of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and D.t~: December 4. 1990 ~~lJ.o:ar,L.!L Name.an4..AddreS!l: City of San Bernardino PrJHlar.e<Lby: John R. BUl.ke Ti.!:..l!!' Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planninq and Building Services 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 ATTACHMENT-A- m.c"llll 1 " P\.NH.lI7 'OGE' 01' , t- '''''.(;''',-' ""," o o IN~TIN-__SrQQ'Lf9~ .j:;PA~~t-lJ 1.0 INTRODUCTION This reoort is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-11. This amendment oroooses to change the land use designation on three sites from RH, Residential Medium to RMH/18. Residential Medium High with a density cap of 18 dwelling units per acre and from RH. Residential Medium to CG-1, Commercial General, CO-1. Commercial Office. OIP, Office Industrial Park or RMH/18, Residenti~l Medium High (with a density cap of 18 units) and from RMH, Residential Medium High to CG-1. Commercial General. As stated in Section 15063 of Environmental Quality Act guidelines, Initial Study are to: the California 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 impac-, before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the Ol":,~ect to qualify for Negative Declaration, 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if ,)ne is required. by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (e) Explaining the reasons for decermining that potentiallY significant effects would not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project: 5. Provide documentation of the faccual 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 previouslY prepared EIR could be used with the project. " ~<--,..... o o. INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a City-ini~iated general plan amendment t~ evaluate alternatives on three adjacent parcels of land as follows: Site A. 22.41 acres loca~ed on the northeast corner of Richardson Street and the I-10 freeway. To change the designation from RM. Res'identi3l Medium to RMH/IB. Residential Medium High with a density limit of 1B dwelling units per acre idu/ac) . Site.B. 10.36 acres located on the northwest corner of Richardson Street and the I-IO freeway. To change the designation from RM. Residential Medium to GG-I, Commercial General, CO-l. Commercial Office. OIP. Office Industrial Park or RMH/IB, Residential Medium High (lB du/acl. S,ite ~ Nineteen adjoining parco1s comprising 3.22 acres located on the nortn side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Street and the commercial properties fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue. To change Residential General. the designation Medium Hiqh to CG-l, from RMH. Gommercial These are further defined as Alternatives I through 4 BS explained below. Alternative j, Site A. From RM to RMH/IB. Site B. Frl-'m RM to CG-I. Site C. From RMH to CG-I. I\lternativ~ Site A. From RM to RMH/IB. Site B. From RM to CO-I. Site C. From RMH to CG-I. " ot'<"'.c'CC.......- o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 Al ternativEL 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 to RMH/18. The following summarizes the uses permitted in the land use designations addressed in the alternatives: RM ---- RMH _u CG- 1 u CO-1 -- OIP _u Residential Medium. Mul ti-famil y townhomes and apartments up to a density of 14 du/ac and- a height of three stories. Residential Medium Hi h. Multi-family townhomes and apartments ".p to a density of 24 du/ac and a height of thr~e stories. Commercial General. A di_ersity of retail and service uses, entertainment, professional and financial offices to a height of two stories. Commercial office. Administrative and professional offices, supporting retail commercial uses, and medical offices to a height of four stories. Office Industrial Park. Corporate offices. light manufacturing and limited supporting retail services to a height of three stories. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study which addressed sites A and B only. They requested that the area and the alternatives be expanded to 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 are addressed within this document. ,. ~,..,:'.:...'> o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 2. 1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS Site A is comprised of five contiguous parcels t~tallinq 22.41 acres located northeast of Richardson Street and the 1-10 freeway. It is bounded by a ~ondominigm complex on the east and Coulston Street on the north. This site and the area on the north side of Coulston Street is designated RM, Residential Medium. It is vacant and the area to the north is comprised of vacant land and sinqle- family homes. Mountain View Avenue is to the east side of the condominiums. ~ Site B is a vacant, single par~el comprising 10.36 acres. It is bordered by Richardson Street on the east, the ~reeway on the south, Ferree Street on the west and a new small lot single-family subdivision on the north. North and northeast of this site are condominiums, Coulston Street and single-family residences. This site and the- land to the north is designated RH, Residential Medium. Site C is comprised of 19 adjoining parcels totalling 3.22 acres. It is located on the north side of Laurelwood Drive between Ferree Str~~t and the commercial properties fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue. All the property on the south side of Laur~lwood Drive to the freeway and those properties fr,: 'Iting on Tippecanoe Avenue are designated CG-1. Commercial General. Site C, and the land to the north. is designated RMH, Residential Medium High. The properties south of Rosewood Drive and fronting on Tippecanoe Avenue are being used for commercial purposes. The remainder 'Jf the area which includes Site C is mostly comprised of sinale-famil'! residences. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTI~G The amendment area is situated w~tn~n the 300-year flood plain. It also lies within an area that has a medium-to- medium-high susceptibility to liquefaction. The site is not located in an AlqUist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. There are no biological concerns- '- r\ - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ... ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND ApplIcllllonNumber: b611LAAl. 'pLAN /JmLN'l>/hLA/7 AI. 9~-// project OeIcriplion: ~~.€ "'''',(Af'~ "'''N :;. t) """ .HC4!7Af/1'~~/nI'cr ~xr: .....,;.. Location: &..t~4A"y ~~~ 4c/ ~ #'A'7W .s'1'~ d'); ;1"'#4 Z-d;) pu4l"y ~TkJ,,~,y #h/AI?AlW ~4/ ~~""l> hAfl'/~A"-~ AlP.........,. Environmental Constraints Areas: General Plan Designation: ~ A's.s/~/A'- #J.bKI'.#I "';I~ M/I; ~5/*~ ~l>QN //168. Zoning Designation: 111/.19 B. ENVIRONMENTAL "ACTS Explain _rs, where appropriate, on a separate atlached sheet 1. IEIIrth RHourcn Will the proposal resu. in: Ves No Maybe' a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yanls or more? )< b. Development andIor grading on a slope greater tMn 15% natural grade? c. Development within the A1quisl-Priolo Special StudiH Zone? d. ModWicatlon of any unique geologic or physical future? e. Soil erosion on or off the projac:l sita? f. ModWicatlon of a channel, crHk or river? g. Development within an area subjllc:l to landslides, mudslides, liquelecllon or other similar hazanls? h. Other? &<.WlU FJlVu - m $ RIIf IA.$ . x )( x. )( X x )( .. &ll.lltA:l P\.NIoI.lII P_'OFI I'" Z. Air FleMuI'CM: Will the proposal resu. in: Yes No Maybe L Sublt8ntial air emissions or an eIlllCl upon ambient )( air qudy? b. The creation of objectionable odors? ')( c. Development within a high wind hezud area? )( 3. W~r RellOurces: Will the proposal resu. In: L Chengea in ebsorptIon rates. drainage patterns. or ths rate and amount of surf_ runoff dua to impermsable surf_s? )(' b. Changes in the CllUrse or flow of flood watsrs? >< ...'.... c. Discharge into surf_ walers or any a.eration X of surf_ water quality? d. Change in the qllantity of quality of ground water? )t' e! Exposure of people or property to flood hezuds? X I. Other? 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal r.u. in: L Change in the number of any uniqua. rare or endangered species of plants or thsir habttal including stands of trees? )(' b. Change in ths number of any unique. rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? )t c. Removal of viable. mature tr_? (6" or grealer) X d. Other? 5. No"': Could the proposal r.u. in: L Incre..es in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over X 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c. Other? .. UncI Use: Win the proposal resu. in: L A change in the land use .. designated on the X General Plan? b. Development within an AIrport District? X c. Development within "Or_be." Zone A, B. or C? X d. Development within a high fire hezard zone? )( e. Other? '- g::,&.= III PlANoUI PAGE 2OF. IE , ... mg.- . PLNIoI.llI P_3OFt IS<< ~ ... ""I , 11. Utllltlu: Willtha proposal: L Impecltha foltowing bayoncltha capability to pnMda IldaqUala levals of service or raquiratha 0IIIWlrUC:tl0n 01 new facilkias? 1. NalUral gas? 2. Elaclricity? 3. Watar? 4. SeMr? 5. Other? b. Rasuk in a disjointed pattam 01 utility axtenslons? c. Require tha construction of naw facilkias? 12. Anthatlca: L, Could tha proposal rasuk in tha obstruction of any scenic view? b. Win tha visual impact of the projacl be dlllrimantal to tha surrounding area? c. Other? 13. CUftUral Raaourcu: Could tha proposal rasuk in: L The Ikaration or dastructlon of a prehistoric or hlslDric archaeological ska? b. AdvarM physical or aesthetic impecls to a prahlslDric or historic ska. structura or object? c. Other? - Vas No )( >< X X x ~- x x )( )( Maybe 14. Mandatory Flndlnga of Slgnlflcance (Sacllon 15065) Tha Califomia Environmantal Quality Ad stalas thai if any of the foUowing can be answered yas or maybe, tha projacl may hava I significant affact on lha anvilonmant and an Environmantlllmpact Report shall be prepared. L Doaa lha projacl hava the polantialto degrade tha qually 01 the environment, substantially reduce tha hablIId oil fish or wildlifa epacln. cau.. I fllh or wildllfa populalion to drop below ..if sustaining Iavals, threatan to aUminala a plant or animal community, reduce lha number or restricltha range of a rara or andangarad plant or animal or aliminala Important _pies of tha major periods of Califomia hillDry or prahlslDry? b. Doee tha projacl have the polantialto achieva short. term, to tha dlladvantaga oIiong-tarm, anvironmental goalI? (A eholt-term impecl on the environment II one which oc:cura in a relalivaly brief, daflnlliw period of lime while long-term impacts win andura well into the futura.) ~=l Vas No )( )( , Maybe Pl.ANUI PIIlIUOF. IHI - 1 II - . Vas No Maybe c. 00eI the plOjecl have impacts which lIflI individually 1mlIed. but cumulalively considarllbla? (A plOjecl may Imp.:t on IwlI or IIlClIS separate resources where tha Im_ on HCh _UfCS is relatively small. but where the afIecl of the llIlal of those impacts onlha anvlronment is signllcant.) d. OoeIlha projacl have anvilonmantal afflICts which will causa substantial advarsa afflICts on human beings. aIllMlr dlrllCtly or indlrac:tly? x >< c. DlSCUSSlON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND lITIGATION MEASURES (Attach shMls as nac8SSaJY.) .$".,;E IJbbl rttJ/IIl9L ~#~G~ "". ~.:.= I~ PLAN-IJlI P_IOI'I II-< - ~ o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.2.1 Earth Resources 1. a. Development on the sites will require earth movement in the form of grading with cut and/or fill activities and could involve earth movement exceeding 10,OG~ cubic yards. Such possibilities will be addressed at the review stage for any future project. 1. b. The amendment area is not within the Hillside Management Overlay District as shown on the General Plan Land Use Plan, which assures development that will protect the hillsides. 1. c, h. The proposed amendment area is not within the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone (General Plan. Figure 47) but an unnamed fault may cross Site B ~s shown in the same figure and addressed in a study prepared by Fife and Rogers in 1974. 1. d. No unique geologic or physical features are known to exist in the amendment area. 1. e. The proposed amendment potential soil erosion General Plan. site is as shown not in an ar~a in Figure 53 of .: f the 1. f. There are no channels. creeks or rivers on any of th~ sites comprising the amendment area. 1. g. The area is within an area of moderately-high-to-mojer~t~ liquefaction potential as shown on Figure 48 o::>f th,;, General Plan. It is also in an area of potential subsidence as shown by Figure 51 in th~ General Plan. These seismic concerns will be aJdressed,during th.. - -1 o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 project review stage of future development. :\nd mH.i.crat~d as required. They do not preclude development under any of the alternatives. 3.2.2 Air Resources 2. a, b. The proposed amendme.)t ,~oulJ result in a proje-ct which could have statewide, regional or areawide significance as defined in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the Califor~ia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These documents give two of the definitions of projects as ~aving such significance as: a) a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units and bl 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 amendment must be sent the Southern California Association of Governments ISCAGI and the Offi-a of Planning and Research (OPR) for their comment s as they pertain to statewide, regional or areawide si=~ificance. Vehicle activity will be greater in 'In RMH/l8. CG-l. CO-l or alP designated area than in an RM area. Thi~ will increase exhaust particulate matter and gasses. and ether pOllutants which will be iniected into the atmosphera. The alP. Office Industrial Park designation does permit. uses that could have emissions and odors. 2. -:. The proposed amendment is not in a high wind hazard ~raa as shown on the Environmental Concerns Map on file in the Department of Planning and Building Sarvic6s. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3. a, b, c, d, e. Any development will potentially decrease absorption and increase runoff with the construction c.f impermeable surfaces for building pads, parking areas and streee improvements. Vehicle activity will be gn;ater in an RMH/l8. '~G-l. C'-l or OIP designated area than in an RM area., This will - itI o o. INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 increase exhaust particulate matter, engine fluids. residue from vehicle tires and other pollutants which will wash into groundwater along with rain and landscape irrigation runoff. These concerns will probably have minimal impact on the area and are addressed at the project review stage of development and mitigation measures aoplied if necessarv. ....~ 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4. a, b, c: , There are no areas of biological concern within the amendment area (General PIau, Figures 40 and 41). 3.2.5 Noise 5. a, b. The proposed amendment is located w:~hin the 65dB(A) and 70dB(A) (General Plan, Figure 57) noise contours generated by traffic on the 1-18 freeway. Future projects designed for residential, c:ommercial or office use will be reviewed to ensure that internal noise levels of 45dB(A) and external noise levels of 65dB(A) are not exceeded. Projects are also reviewed to ensure that they won't generate excessive noise which would impact surrounding uses. The higher density and the intensity of uses that would be permitted with a commercial or industrial designati0n could increase traffic noise to some degree, especiall, with the type and intensity of traffic associated with industrial uses. An OIP designation (Alternative 3) could be exoected t~ generate noise on site due to the nature of the permitted uses, 1. e. light manufacturing, warehousi nq, et:. .'\.11 uses must be within enclosed structures and the n:lise requirements are also applicable. (lIP proiac~s frequently contain uses that operate beyond normal working hoUrs, thus noise impacts from employee and truck 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 o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 Land Use 6. a. Approval of this amendment will change the General Pl~n Land Use Plan. Compatibility issues will be addressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission. 6. b, c. d. "".;,. This amendment will not result in future developmen~ within an Airport District, a "Greenbelt" zone 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, c. The storage. sale and use of h~zar '0US materials is an inherent safety concern associat,:1 with commercial. office and i,1dustrial developments '. .d to a lesser degree the storage and use of such materials in residential deve lopments. A concern of an OI? des i..nat ion is the potential for projects that use qucntities of hazardous materials in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. Housing 8. a. Affordable housing could be removed from Site C as a result of a change to a commercial designation and redevelopment for commercial uses. If a cornmerci~l' industrial use was developed on Site B. then the jobs created could bring about a situation ~hat could demand additional housing. The increase Qf maximum dwelling unit density on Site A would in,:rsase the peten':i3.l housing stock by 89 units and the desi~nation of Site S as commercial would decrease i~' by l~5 units. Site' presently has 18 single-family homes Qn it ~nd has t~e potential to yield 77 units if de'ieloped ~s a sinyle project under the RMH desiQnation. This would be~ potential loss of 59 dwelling units, The ~otential ~e': loss of 115 units exists for the whole amendment aren, If Alternative 4 ;.Jere adopted then the net q~in to) potential future housing stock would be 13~ units, The " o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 potential loss of these units is not t:ercei-"ej 3.S 3. problem due to the residentially designated land in other areas of the City. 3.2.9 Transportation/Circulation 9. a. c. d. f. g. h. Tippecanoe Avenue is a major areerial a~d Moun~.in View Avenue is a secondary arterial (General Plan, Figure 26). San Bernardino Avenue whi~h is about 2.000 feet north of the sites _is also a secondary arterial. The streets within the rectangle f'Jrmeu by the arterials and the freeway are all local streets 3.S defined in the Circulation Element of the General Pl3.n. Site A. with a density cap of 18 units per acre could: generate about 2.300 average daily trips (ADTs) with a. multi-family development of 403 units. The cumulative ADTs along Coulston Street, between Mountain View Avenue and Tippecanoe Avenue, resulting from future development. and added to the existing develop.~";1t, .=ould amount to 5.000 ADTs. This is approaching tr~ upper limit of the local streets' capacities. Most f the traffic woul,j enter and exit the area via Mountai~ View and Tippecanoe Avenues as entry and exi': ramps :: Jr the freew3.Y ':Ire located there. however, a small amount of the traffic woulj use Richardson Street. The traffic access to Site B would be via Fos.wood Drive. Laurelwood Drive and Ferree Street, Based 0n the flJ~r area ratio (FAR) of 0.7 permitted in the CG-l area, 5i:e B could generate up to 315,800 square fee" of ~~mmerci3.1 uses. Al though traffIc increases ;.1')\11 d depend ':.n the specifiC uses proposed on the site a shoppi~g ~ent~r could generate between 10, ')00 and 15,000 ADTs f;Jr e. 100,000 to 300,000 square foot ce~ter. This would exceed the capacity of the local streets. These l0cal streets are the only 3.ccess t~ the site as there is no access from Richardson Street. The streets are throu';Ih a residential neighborhood although the ':Irea is designated CG-l, Commercial General. An office .use (as with the CO-l desi'Jnationl would be expected to generate about 2,300 ADTs. This potential increase in traffic could he expected ~o impact on the local streets and on the present residential uses along those stre~ts. The CG-1, CO-l"or alP designations could have impacts on Tippecan-:>e Avenue as traffic would be expected to go in that direction. , - o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 If Site B retains the RM, Residential Medium desiqnaci~n or is changed to RMH/18, then the additional 1.000 to 1,500 daily trips Ijenerated cOllld be absorbed by chB local streets west of the site. A CG-1, Commercial General designat ion on Site C wi 11 potentiallY increase the local traffic on Laurelwood Drive to some degree. However, if Sice C was develo~ed with CG-l, Commercial Off ice uses a lonq with Site B with CG-l, Commercial Office or OIP, Office Industrhl P=.rk uses. the level of traffic intensity could have significant impact. A potential increase in traffic in the area from Rosewood Drive to Davidson Street could precipitate mitigation measures that could have impacts on the land uses in the area. The westbound exit ramp fr.om 1-10 onto Tippecanoe Avenue is signalized and 1':s pr.~ximit'l to che Rosewood intersect ion precl udes another traff ic s iqnal despite its probable use as an access road to Site B. The potential traffic increase cDul~ ~equire an amendment to the General Plan's Circulation :,~n to change one or more of the local streets to ~~llectors based en increased traffic and the cha: .;e to the area's circulation. Increased traffic, especially cCiTlmercial, will expose people to greater safety impacts as they pertain to vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. An alP designation could generate traffic that could be active 24 hours per day. Future residential, .:cmmer,:i=.l "r .:.n.jl1stri~1 development could generate a need for increased putli~ transportation services. 9. b, e. The amendment will not create a nee:\ f,: r ne'-J l: ;;rkin.J facilities nor impact rail or air traffi~. 3.2.10 publ io: 36rv i.:es 10. a, b. Site B is alm:st "landlocked" ill ':hat :..:,:e5S is :-,-,11 possible from the west side .,f the site i.e. Ferree Street. This access is via a resiJencial p.eighborhcol. The possibility exists that the previs~~n of fire and police ser'lices ,:ould be affe:1:-=d .j11e 1:.) ;ice confi9uration and location. This situatic~exists fer o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 3.2.11 3.2.12 3.2. 13 3.2.14 all of the alternatives proposed for Site B, hut safe:~ impacts are greatest for the 0IP, 0ffi~e Industrial Park designation ~ue to the intensity :of uses permit:ed. 10. c thru f. These public "ervices will not be impacted and comments were not received from the providers of the services. ,. Utilities 11. a. b. q. Uevels of service for utilities will not be impacted by the proposed amendment and comments were not received by the affected agencies. Aesthetics 12. a. b. Any future projects that ','ould be :: c :mitt.;d in the CG-l, Commer1;ial General, CO-1, Commer 1,,1 Office or (lIP, Office Industrial Park designationc would be contained within fully enclosed buildings. All projects are reviewed for comp~tibility and aesthetic concerns during the project development staqe. Cultural Resources 13. a, b. Cultural and historic resources are not impacted as the proposed amendment area is undeveloped anj it does not contain any areas of archaeoloqic interest in accordance with General Plan Figure 8. Mandatory Findings of Significance The potential increase in dwelling units J:,ermitted ':on Site A (and on Site B as per Alternative 4' has minim~1 siqnificance as shown in this study. The commercial land use designation change for Site B will cause a loss ~o the number of dwellillg units that cNlld putentially be bui 1 t, however, the net 1 ,)8S C'n the 01 c,r:08ed 3''!l<;rdmer,t area is insignificant due t.J changes to 'residential " . o o. INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-11 desiqnations or incr6ases in density in other 5re3S cf the City. The intended use of Sites Band C will create 3 ~=~ffic situation that will require further study. 8ui1d-ou~ of Site B for commercial or office/industrial and Site ~ fer commercial use would create si'Jnificant impact ~c' circulation and possibly noise. De~e1o~men~ of Sites 9 and C, in addition t-:, the commercially desiql1~ted area along Tippecanoe Avanue could have impacts tha~'go ~asc the immediate proiect area. .... JII * r'\ """ D. DETERMlNAnON On the buia of this initilll study. ~ The proposed project COULD NOT h_ a slgnfficant affect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. See below O. The proposed project could have a slgnffic8nt e"act on the environment, a.hough thare will not be a slgnfficanl affact in this _ because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARAOON will be prepared. . * l!l The propoeed project MAY have a slgnfficant affact on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. See below .... ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA "".;,. HICHPttL. W. (;"fJl,flS S;"'Jt;/t C/y,,- Wb/l'f--' Name and Tttle ' c7k~ h..~ Signature - Date: IZ .z,o- '0 * A Negative Declaration is reoc:mneOOed for Site A. A traffic study or enviromenta1 iItpact report is reoc:mneOOed for Sites B am C. ,. ... "'" ~..... PL.NM.aI PNE_OF_ (11~ CIT F SAN BERt:kRDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 TITLE LAN:> USES ilN' MIlA NIY.IJrft:IIII I- I ~ ;l , * . !. ~. , .1 ~ J , . . LJ -.y ~. , . . ....... ----- --- - - 101 I- \ ~ . l- I) ~ ie' > .;: -i-I I .' I -I. i*11 . .' I .l If @ ~: !l[. ..'. I ; . . (!) . EXHIBIT A '" ".,......... ..------ ._-~ . > \ CITY(j)F SAN BER~RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 TIT L e LOCATION, LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & A~TERNATIVES l: , I ......,... '~ .,9 - It U199 I SITES ~ t - RM-! to CG-1 RM to CG-1 (Alt. 1) - --- (Alts. 1, 2 & 3) - RM to CQ-1 (Alt. 2) RM to OP (Alt. 3) RM to RM-!/18 (Alt. 4). . - . -I Ir EXHIBIT ~ ... 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 Resolution No. RESOWTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (SITE A) TO THE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. ADOPTING THE AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN 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 (Site A) 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 (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 from December 27, 1990 through January 16, 1991 and 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 Environ- mental Quality Act and local regulations. IIII 1 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 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 2. Neaative Declaration NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this proposed 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 to RMH/1S, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 1S dwelling units per acre, for the proposed amendment will change the land use map only and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and pOlicies of the General Plan. IIII IIII IIII 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 RMH/1S, Residential Medium High designation with a density limit of 1S dwelling units per acre proposed by this amendment would not impact on such services. D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 22.41 acres to RMH/IS, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 1S dwelling units per acre. 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. 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 22.41 acres from RM, Residential Medium to RMH/1S, Residential Medium High with a density limit of 1S dwelling units IIII IIII IIII IIII 3 , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 21 ~ ~ 24 ~ 26 ~ ~ 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. General Plan Amendment No. 90-11 (Site A) shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION 5. MaD Notation This resolution and the amendment affected by it be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 6. Notice of Determination The Planning 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 IIII B. shall been 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 RESOWTIONQADOPTING THE NEGATQ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL 90-11 (SITE A) TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF BERNARDINO. DECLARATION PLAN AMENDMENT THE CITY OF 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 meeting therefore, held on the , 1991, by the following vote, to day of wit: Council Members: ~ ABSTAIN ~ ESTRADA REILLY FLORES MAUDSLEY MINOR POPE-LUDLAM MILLER City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1991. w. R. Holcomb, Mayor city of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, ~- By ~ 5 ~ < ~ ~l '\l (I) :D '{ s:: ~ i. . III . "l ,. -~..... "'" - O~- GPA90-11 LOCATION MAP . ~ I' .r!\- IIICHAlIOION ;' -, ~ ~ '" . ; II 0 ~ , . ,,=@~ , .I! I i I ~ 1- :. ~ .' it .. '" z .. :II :< -1\ ~. \ .. --.. GUilT" .I- ,-- ~ ~ ::! ~ .. . @!l /I, N, I .. ---.~- , . ---~------- . , ,~:' ,. \q ~ ~ b. '\ - ~ . k ~ ~ I I' I - fl. c....-....-""'7 'ilJ r-~ ._ lr'-' .1 ~. ~ I , ' I ;' @ . 0; l" ; w ~ III .o, w ........ o @ " ~ ~ .~ 5 .. ~ J =~ J ,- ~. fl!ijsn . . , ~;a i~~ . '.. ." .~: ~. .....--- * -.. . .~-'.... ....... " ..- ~ iii .f'~"'~.' IT "--"t'.~ '; " '-.....", lIo !D~ I~Ql 10. ~ ~ Q ~. it 5' o @ ; !:! .;; . ~2i'1 "S I !'"I ~~~ ~~ [:1 AvrNur -a.. , €> ....... , .. ~ , :', t @) .. lit - , I\) ~ ~ - . ..",.-..t"tlq- '- ,. , ( ( AttactwnentA-l o GPA90-11 LOCATION 0 ___ MAP I cUlm. J " .. ~". n - o ::c 3: ,J: n -. ~ m ~j (;)1 ~r-' ~Ia ~Ia .~@II ;. - . I~ [I ~!I] I I I] ~I "'. '" ..-4 L. @ ,... ;ll ,!'> !" . i~ I '" !' nor j;~ii !!~ I!i- ~ .. " '=" . . ,-.., .... ."fI' I , VIIW AVENUE . , __J C , ~~I\ l _. - MOUNTAIN & ( @ ~I. -- . ~..__.-..'._.'.' . ,"",,-- ' ::c 3: '. ~~i "1"1 ~ ~ I\) li-.!.. ~~~ . !II !I! a OJ ',0 NIIJ' .0- w..$>I ... - .= .eo I '" !! I I\) (0 '. ~it:a g:a ...a... .- II ... Attact.,leI'1t A-2 .... - o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-11 (Site A) , , . TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS From RM to RMH/18 PARCEL NUMBER 281-244-01 281-244-02 281-244-03 DESCRIPTION The following described real property in the City of San 8ernardino, 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 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 384, Official Records. 281-291-01, 02 Also excepting therefrom any portion lying within property conveyed to the State of California by deed recorded May 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 Haps, Pages 13 and 14, records of sa i d County. ATTACHMENT B ..