HomeMy WebLinkAbout45-Planning and Building
r Q
CITY OF SAN BER ARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
General Plan Amendment No. 91-O1 to
From: Larry E. Reed, Director Subject: change the land use designation from CG-1
to RMH on a parcel of land on the east
Dept: Planning and Building Services side of Osbun Road between Highland
Avenue and Pumalo Street.
Date: April 16, 1991 Ma or and Common Council Meetin of
ay :00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The amendment area was designated CG-1, Commercial General with the adoption of
the General Plan on June 2, 1989.
At their meeting of April 2, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended an RMH,
Residential Medium High designation for the site.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted.
d~rc.`-~
arry ee Signature irec or
Contact person: Larry E. Reed Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attacFbd: Staff Report Ward: 7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct No )
(Acct Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262 Agenda Item No.
. CITY OF SAN BER''1ARDINO - REQUEST"FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUB3ECT: General Plan Amendment No. 91-01
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
MaY 6, 1991.
REQUEST
The applicant requests a General Plan land use designation change
from CG-1, Commercial General to RH, Residential High l36 dwelling
unlts per acre) on approximately 2.59 acres of land (see Exhibit A
of the Initial StudY)• The site has a frontage of approximately
240 feet on the east side of Osbun Road between Highland Avenue and
Pumalo Street.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989,
the site and the land south of it formed a single parcel. The
Highland Avenue Lutheran Church, with ancillary buildings, is on
the southern portion of the parcel and fronts on Highland Avenue
and the amendment site is the northern vacant portion that fronts
on Osbun Road. Parcel Map 13158 separated the developed portion
from the vacant portion. The CG-1 designation was originally
assigned to the whole parcel to preclude multiple designations on
one parcel.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's
proposal and the Initial Study on February 21, 1991 and determined
that there would be no adverse impacts on the environment and
recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
COMMENTS
A letter from Mrs. Lot's Gill and Ms. Carolyn Gill was received in
which they opposed the alteration of the neighborhood and the
increase in apartment complexes in the area.
pt ax11ING COlMISSION RECOlII4ENDATION
The proposed amendment was considered by the Planning Commission at
a noticed public hearing on April 2, 1991. The Plannin4 Commission
did not concur with staff's recommendation for approval of the RH
designation due to concerns of excessive multi-family developments
in the immediate area and the neighborhood deterioration resulting
in criminal activity in the area. The Planning Commission
recommended the RMH, Residential Medium Hiqh designatioq (24
dwelling units per acre) for the site.-
75.026
General Plan Amendm No. 91-01
' Mayor and Common Coil Meeting of ~ '
May 6, 1991
Page 2
During discussion, staff advised the Planning Commission that lower
density residential designations had been evaluated but had not
been proposed due to the creation of a "spot zone". The Planning
Commission recognized that its recommendation would result in a
"spot zone" but believed it to be preferable over the greateY
concern for neighborhood safety.
The Planning Commission voted 5 to 2 (with 1 absent) in favor of
the RMH, Residential Medium High designation (permitting 24 units
per acre).
MAYOR AND COlII4011 COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-01
as recommended by the Planning Commission, based on the
findings in the resolution for the RMH, Residential
Medium High designation.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may continue General Plan
Amendment as a non-hearing item, and direct staff to
prepare a resolution reflecting the RH, Residential High
land use designation.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan
Amendment No. 91-Oi.
Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission, April 2, 1991
Attachment A: Initial Study
Exhibit A: Location Map with Land
Use Designations
Attachment B: Letter from Mrs. L. Gill and Ms. C.
Gill
Attachment 2: Resolution
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Legai Description
Q 4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
SUMMARY HEARING DATE 4-2_-91
WARD ~-
APPLICANT: SteNP.TI
DukeB - Dtilces Assoc. II1C.
1875 W. Hi and Ave.
GENERAL PLAN AME~SVT iVO. 91-01 San Bernax+dino, CA 92401
OWNER: ~g~hhland Ave. Lutheran Church
V 180 E. Hi Ave.
San , CA 92404
~ Zb change the land use designation from O:rl, Camlercial
f/f General to RH, Residential High (36 units per acre) on
approximately 2.59 acres on the east side of Osbun 13Dad
~ between Highland Avenue and Plmlalo Street.
W
fY
W
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY i
aNn L~SF_ j~~ DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant CCrl Cannercial General
PJorth Apartrlents RH Residential High
South Church CG-1 Camlescial General
East Camlercial CG-1 Cartnexcial General
Prest Condaniniums RH Residential High
GEOLOGIC /SEISMIC ? VES FLOOD HAZARD ? YES ? ZONE A SEWERS: ~1 YES
HAZARD ZONE: [ENO ZONE: ~CNO ? ZONE B ? NO
HIGH FIRE ? YE3 AIRPORT NOISE/ ? YES REDEVELOPMENT ? YES
HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO CRASH ZONE: ~ ~ PROJECT AREA: ~ ~
J ? NOT ? POTENTIAL SIGNIFCANT = ~ APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH O
MITIGATING MEASURES F
NO E.I.R. ~ ? CONDITIONS
~ Z ? EXEMPT ? E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO IL Z~Z ? DENIAL
O ~ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~ W
Z WITH MITIGATING ~'~
MEASURES ~ ? CONTINUANCE TO,
~{NO SIGNIFICANT ? SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES Q
ATTACHMENT~_
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA ~ 91-1
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA REM 8
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE - -91
PAGE 2
$~EST
This application ie to change the General Plan land use designation
from CG-1, Commercial General to RH, Residential High on
approximately 2.59 acres lSee Exhibit A of the initial Stvdyl.
LOCATION
240 feet on the
The amendment site has a frontage of approximately
east side of Osbun Road. it is approximately 410 feet north of
Highland Avenue and approximately 270 south of Pumalo Street.
BACR(iROUND
The site was designated CG-1 upon adoption of the General Plan on
June 2, 1989. At that time, the parcel containing the site
encompassed the Highland Area Lutheran Church with ancillary
buildings which covered the southern part of the parcel and fronted
on Highland Avenue. The remaining portion was vacant. Parcel Map
13158 separated the developed portion from the vacant portion.
~JNICIPAL CODB AND GENHRAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Municipal Code:
Not applicable.
General Plan:
This request is for a General Plan Amendment to change the General
Plan Land Use Plan designation only.
narTgpRNU ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (C8~) STATUS
The project is subject to CEQA. The Environmental Review Committee
reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial Study (Attachment
A) on February 21, 1991 and determined that the proposed amendment
would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended
a Negative Declaration. There was a public review period from
February 28, 1991 to March 21, 1991 to review the Initial Stud.,
CO!!lENTS RECEII~SD
No comments have been received.
~.,Nt3CINi ru~a v~+oF: µ~oai
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA No. 91-i
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 4-2-91
PAGE 3
11N11LYSIS
Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics
The site is generally rectangular in shape and is vacant. The
Highland Avenue Lutheran Church and ancillary buildings are
situated on the southern portion of APN 150-442-08. The land to
the south and east is designated CG-1, Commercial General and to
the north and west is designated RH, Residential High. There is a
motel on the northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Osbun Road and
a Target store along with other commercial activities to the east
of the church and the amendment site. There are condominiums on
the west aide of Osbun Road, across from the site, and apartment•
adjoining the site's northern boundary. The land on the north aide
of Pumalo Street is designated RS, Residential Suburban, which
contains some multi-family units interspersed with single family
homes.
General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies
The CG-1 designation provides for community-serving retail and
service uses along major transportation corridors so as to serve
the needs of the residents (Objective 1.19). The properties
fronting on Highland Avenue meet this definition but with the
church on the southern portion of its property then the northern
portion is isolated from the major transportation corridor (i.e.
Highland Avenue) and has access only onto Osbun Road which is
within a residential area.
Goal 1G b. addresses the infill and recycling of areas at their
prevailing scale and density. As addressed under Site and
Surrounding Area Characteristics, the site is surrounded by multi-
family uses, at the RH density, on the north and west.
The RH, land use designation permits the development of multi-
family condominiums and apartments to a density of 36 dwelling
units per acre. A maximum of 94 dwelling unite would be permitted
on the site (Policy 1.13.12). This designation also allows for the
development of senior citizen and senior congregate care housing
and density bonus provisions (Policy 1.13.13). Highland Avenue is
a major transportation corridor providing public transportation and
commercial retail services. Fire protection, library and park
services are provided within a mile of the, site. This ie
consistent with Policy 1.7.18 which addresses the location of
multi-family development in proximity to commercial services and
public transportation.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA No. 91-1
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM R
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 4 2-91
PAGE 4
Circulation
Traffic volume will increase with site development. The RH density
could generate an additional 600 average daily trips based on the
maximum density. Highland Avenue is a major arterial, Pumalo
Street is a collector and Osbun Road is a local street. The
potential increase in traffic volume is not anticipated to
significantly impact the traffic circulation in the area and a
traffic analysis was not required.
COIICLUSIOIIS
Consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the General
Plan is maintalned and compatibility with surrounding designations
and uses is ensured.
Traffic volume will increase and circulation patterns will change
upon project development. These changes will be within the limits
of the Circulation Plan for the City and impacts will be minimal on
the area.
FIIfDIlIGS
The RH, Residential High land use designation is compatible with
the surrounding multi-family land uses and designations. It is
consistent with General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies
pertaining to the location of multi-family uses.
The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City ae addressed in
the initial Study and the Staff Report.
This change will have minimal impact on the balance of land uses
within the City. The residential to commercial acreage ratio will
change slightly and it will compensate for changes previously made
from residential to commercial designations in other areas of the
City.
The subject land ie physically suitable for the RH, Residential
High land use designation and any anticipated future development on
it. The site meets the minimum size requirements established by
the General Plan.
vukaa v~ ~ oc i t~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE (~A No. 91-i
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 8
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 4-2-91
PAGE 5
88C0lD~IBlIDATIOIIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1. A Negative 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 changed from CG-1,
Commercial General to RH, Residential High on one parcel
of land as shown on Exhibit A of the Initial Study.
Respectively ~ubm~itte~d
Larr E. Reed
Director, Plann~nq and Building Services Department
:i
~hn R. Burke
Assistant Planner
Attachment: A - Initial Study
~„g,
:,.~'"'°` vuw.aar rte: av i t+aq
. ~ - Attactm:ent "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING ANO BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
General Plan Amendment No 91-01
Protect Description: To change the land use designation from CG-1,
Commercial General~to RH, Residential High on approximately 2.59
acres.
Protect Location: The amendment site is located on the east side
of Osbun Road between Highland Avenue and Pumalo Street
Date: January 30, 1991
Applicant: Steven Quincy
Dukes-Dukes Associates Inc.
1875 W. Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Owner: HALC (Attn. Jack Strickler)
1820 E. Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Prepared bv: John R. Burke
Title: Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Services
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
ATTACHMENT~_
s~asa ,
Q '~
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-O1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 91-01 to
change the land use designation from CG-1, Commercial
General to RH, Residential High on approximately 2.59
acres on the east aide of Osbun Road between Highland
Avenue and Pumalo Street (See Location Map, Exhibit A).
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an
initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
Negative Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for
Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
requiFed, by;
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(H) identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(C) Explaining the .reasons for determining that
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 previously prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
INITIAL 34ODY for GPA91-O1
2.0 PROJ~T DESCRIPTION
The applicant's request is to designate the northern
portion (2.59 acres) of assessor's parcel number 150-442-~
08 (parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13158, approved in December,
1990) as RH, Residential High. The present designation
is CG-1, Commercial General.
2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed amendment site is flat, generally
rectangular in shape and vacant. There is a church and
ancillary offices to the south of the amendment area.
The church fronts on Highland Avenue. A motel is on the
northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Oabun Road. A
condominium complex fronts on the remainder of the what
side of Osbun Road. Another multi-family complex is to
the north of the site and fronts on Pumalo Street. A
Target department store lies to the east of the site.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental Setting
The site is not in a biological resource area nor an area
of seismic concern. Highland Avenue is a major arterial
as identified on the Circulation Plan of the General Plan
and currently handles approximately 25,000 average daily
trips (ADTsI. Osbun Road is a local street averaging 500
ADTs. Pumalo Street is a collector and handles
approximately 4,000 ADTs.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
a eACfcoROUND _
AppNcatbn Number... ~eifNE.UL Q[eat,? /S~inE.?dAifrr 9/-O /
P/roje~t Descriptbn: To tswa.?cr ~vtie taaa r~is dre'i6wGtrreo .~.toiss Cl~
[D.rn~A6«'itc d~Lts~ ~,o Iii
~ ~r~yi~ylr.D lyf4ld ~.y /SIP/~O~l"i.~19.e4y
e1. S9 .~cca<t .
lo~nc/ation: O.? rv.E /~~~s'r.rid.E of ~,tz?u..~ .l a .cicnt?f.~d /y4:.Ycl•~a
11Y~If /f.v0 r!*s~/ACO STiCIEJ'
EnvironmenW Constraints Areaa: If//.d,C
General Plan Designation: C`i
- /
Zoning Designation: N~/9
& ENVIRONiI~MAI IAPAC7'S Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources wN the proposal rosuk in: Yes No Maybe
a EaAh movement (cut and/or fiN) of 10,000 cubic
yards or moro?
b. D~ebpmeM~arM~br~grading on a sbpe greater X
g
c. Dewbpmertt wkhin the Alquist-Prbb Special
StudNs Zone a defined b Sectibn 12.0 - Geobgb
b Seiamb, Flgure 47, of the Cky's General Plan? X
d. Modkicatbn of any unique geobgb or physical
teaturo?
e. Devebpment wkhin areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identified in Section t 2.0
Geobpb b Sebmb, Fguro 53, of the Cky's Cwnerof '
Plan?
f. Modkicatbn of a channel, peek or river? X
g. DevebpmeM within an area wbject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudWdp, Ifquefactlon or other simker hazsrde as
IderMNled b Secton 12.0 • Gwbgb r1 Seismb,
Flow« 48, sz end s3 a tn. Cily'a G.rwral Plan?
h. OIMr7
2. AN Aesourde: Will the proposal rosuk in:
a Subetankel sir embsbna or an eBect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AQMD?
b. The croatbn of objectbnade odors? ~
c. DevebpmeM wkhin a hgh wind hazard aroa as ideMkled
b serxbn 15.0 - Wind a Firo, Fpuro 59, or the Cky'a ~
General Plan?
9. Water iMaouras: Will the proposal resuk in:
a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff dw to
impemroabk surfaces? x'
b. Charges in the course or lbw of food waters?
c. Discharge imo surface waters or any akerakon ~-
of wrfaw waUr quality?
d. Change in the quantity of qualify of ground water?
e. Expoauro of people a property to food haza?ds as
idontiFad b tfa Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Food Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 r- ,and Sectbn 18.0 -
Flooding, Figure 82, of the Gty'a Generel Plan?
f. Other?
4. Bbbgkal Resourpe: Could the proposal resuk in:
a DewbpmeM within the Bbbgical Resources
Management Overlay, as ideMkied in Section 10.0
• Natural Resources, F"puro 41, of the Ciy's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of arty unique, ran or
endargerod apecas of plants or then habkat induding
stands of troes?
c. Charpe in the number of any unique, raro ar
endangered species of animals or their habkat?
d. Removal of viable, maturo trees? (B' or greater)
a. Other?
S. Nobs: Could the proposal resuk in:
a DevebpmeM of housing, heakh care fadlkies, schools, .
libraries, rNigbus facilkies or other "noise' aenskiw uses
in areas when existirp or futuro raise levels exceW an
W n of 85 d8(A) exterbr and an Ldn of 48 d8(A) interior
as identified in Section 14.0 - Noiw, Fguros 14~ and
14-13 of the City's General Plan?
b. Devebpment of new or expertsion ~ exiaffng industrial, Yes No Maybs
comrnercW or other uaw which generate rroge levels on
atlnr waabove an I.dn of 65
B(Aj
alxterior
or an Ldn o116 dB(A) InterbR x
o. Olltar4
tx Land the: WIN tlw proposal rosuft in:
a A charge in the land use as desgnated on the
General Plan?
b. Dewbpment within an Airport District as identNad in the
AN InstaNation Compatlde Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning District Map4
a Devebpment within Foothill Flre Zones A 8 B, or C as
idenNfpd on the Land Use Zoning Diatrid Map4
d. Other?
7. ANan-MaeN Flazarda: Will the project:
a Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxb maUriah (induding but not GmNed b oil,
peatlcides, chembab or radiation)?
b. InvoHe tM release of hazardous substanoes7
c. Expose people to the potential heaNh/safety hazards?
d. OIIwr7
a HousYtg: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existsy housing or create a demand
for addNbnal housing9 _ C
b. Other?
e. Thetaportatkm / CMculatlon: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Ciroulatbn Plan as Wentifbd in Section
6.0 - Clrculatbn of the Ciryr's Generel Plen, resuN in:
a An increase in traffb that is greabr than the land
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of exisNrtg, or demand for new, perking
fadlWes/structures7
a Impact upon existing publb trarroportatlon systems?
d. ANeraffon of present paltems of arculatbn7
a. Impact to rail or air traffic? ~
f. Increased safety hazards to whisks, birydists or
pedestriana4
g. A disjointed paffem of roadway improvements4 ~
h. SignNicant irxsease in treflb volumes on the roadways v
or intereectbns4 -A-
I. Otlwr7
Ar~~N6S ri.~oae r~aoa_ n+•an
10. PubNc 8ervloea: Nf~k the proposal impact thi foibwing Yes No Maybe
beyond the pp.bilky to provide adequaro awls d service?
a F1ro protection?
b. Po1oe Ixatectbn?
c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaras, overbad, etc.)?
d. Parks or other recreational faeilkasT
a. Medical aid?
f. Solid Waste?
g. OtMr?
11. Utkitiea: WIk the proposal:
a Impact the folbwirg beyond the capabilky to
provide adequate Iwea d service or requiro the
corratnaclbn d newfaalkas?
1. Natural gas? _f~
2. Eactricity?
3. WateR
4. Sewer? X
5. O[Mr7
b. R.suk in a dispinted pattern d utility extensans? ~
c. Requiro the construction d new facilkies?
12. MsthetMro:
a. Could the proposal roauk in the obatrrrdion d any
acerb view?
b. Will the visual impact d the project be detrimental
to the surrourMirrg aroaT
c. Other?
19. CuMwal i9esouroea: Could the proposal resuk in:
a The akeration or destructor d a prehistoric or
hieloric archaeological eke by dewbpmect wkhin an
archaeobgbal sensikw area as identilad in Beckon
3.0 - Hatorbal, Fpuro 8, d the City's General Pan? ~
b. Alteration or destruction d a historical site, strts:ture
or object as liaad in the City's Historic Resources ~ _
Reconnaiasanoe Survey? X
c. Ottwr?
I«~&~~ PLAN~sse PAGEtOF_ (tt-sq
14. MUndatory FNtdlrtga of SlgnHkana (Sectbn t 5065)
The CalMomia Environmental Quality Ad states that k any of the folbwing can be answered yes or
rttMtbe, Uta project may haw a sgnificant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Flapat shall be prepared.
Yea tJo lutaybe
a. Does the project haw the potential to degrade the
quaAty of the environment, substantialy educe the --
habitat of a flah or wildlNe apacies, cause a fbh or
wUdlNe population to drop below sent susWnhg levels,
threaten to eNminate a plant o? animal communNy,
educe the number or restrict the ergs of a ran or
endangered plant or animal or eliminab important
examples of the major periods of California hbbry
or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve sitort-
brm, to tla dhadvantage of brp-unn, environmental
goab? (A shoA-term impsct on tM enrironmeM fa one
which aoaxs in a nlatiwly brief, definitive period
of time whAe bng4erm impacts will endue web into
the futon.)
c. Does the project have impacts which an individua6y
limited, but cumulatively oonsidenbk? (A project may
impact on two or more separate naources when the
impact on each roaource is relatlwiy small, but where
the efled of the total of those impacts on the
eniironmeM b significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental eMeots which will
cause substaMiel adverse effects on human beings,
efttwr directy or indirecty?
Q DISCIJ8SION OF EI~MMROlpiAENTAL EVALUA?<10N AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
SEE ArTAGSlE11 SNE,6rl
eemi„ii~ii,~a PLAN•OAe PAGE 60F_ (tt•aq
0
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-O1
3.2 ENVIflONMENTAL EFFECTS
3.2.1 Earth Resources
1.a.
The Bite has previously been graded and development might
require earth movement in the form of grading with cut
and/or fill activities. Such activities could involve
earth movement exceeding 10,000 cubic yards.
3.2.2 Air Resources
2.a.
The proposed amendment does not meet the criteria that
could indicate statewide, regional or areawide
significance.
3.2.3 Water Resources
3.a.
Any development on the site will reduce the area
available for absorption and thus increase the runoff
into the current drainage system. Development would
create impermeable surface areas due to building
footprints, sheets 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.
3.2.4 Land Use
6.a.
The amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan
from CG-1, Commercial General .to RH, Residential High.
3.2.5 Man-Made Hazards
7.a,b,c. '
The storage and use of toxic materials as they pertain to
normal home use is an inherent safety concern associated
FX. ., _ ~ III -,
O
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-O1
with residential developments which could occur on the
site upon approval of this General Plan amendment. These
safety concerns will be addressed at the project review
stage of future development but are not anticipated to be
of significance.
3.2.6 Transportation/Circulation
9.c.
The amendment site has the potential for the development
of 94 multi-family units at the RH, Residential High land
use designation permitted density. This has the
potential of increasing the demand for public
transportation, however, it is not anticipated to be of
a level to be of concern.
9.d.
A build-out to the maximum of 94 dwelling units could be
expected to generate about 600 additional trips. These
additional trips would be split between Pumalo Street and
Highland Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer's office
indicates an egress difficulty from Osbun Road to
Highland Avenue due to traffic volume and high speed on
Highland Avenue, however, traffic has the option of
exiting Osbun Road to the east or west via Pumalo Street.
A traffic impact study is not proposed by the Traffic
Engineer.
9.f.
There will be a slight potential for an increase in
safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians
due to increased traffic, resulting from a future
residential development. The project development process
will address potential safety hazards and identify
~ mitigation measures if necessary.
3.2.7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
j The general plan amendment is not anticipated to have
impacts that would be significant.
r',
G'
' D. DETERMINATION ,
On tM besb d this initlal study.
The prapoeed project COULD NOT haw a sipnMkant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION wiN bt pnprW.
TM proposed project could haw a spnitieant affect on ttw environment, aMhouph there wiN not be a apnificant
effeQ in thb ease because the mitigation measures described show haw been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be propand.
TM proposed project MAY hsw a sgndicaM effeG on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA n
~o+m/ i~a~(TFts.4 A: ~Y ~.r/cifalG- fvf.•!.s/E~C
Narrw and TfIN
t~
S' ure
Dat.: ~-a-1 9r
,,
.
,C, r~wFSa r~_oc_ m+o~
CITI~OF SAN BER~ARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. s~-oi
TITLE LOl4ATION MAP WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Q ~/ ~' w
S p - ~ N _,
~ ;i r
f ~I Q 'S
i ~ „ \
11~ ~ _
1 i
S
W +~~y
h ~ ~ 4.
It w
am
'~
i ~ ~ ~ : ~
1 ~ I ~ ~ ' 4
l
~tu~ , ~ I
., d (~'(
~ ~ ' =
,. rH
- € ~ , SITE
o~ o
o ° mV~i
v _
..., i p "'1 ~~,
TH; ~ -'
." ~
~ Mn - sr
i { ~ s' ~ - ~
cep' Q '
6 J ~
.uRU ~ ~1 r L n /~
M
EXHIBITS-.
Q Q
6315 Elm Street ~ 17 '~ ~ ~'~'
San Bernardino ~~JJ((~j MAR 2 9 1591
California 92404
~~:.:[.:r ~ ~
Planning b Building Services Department
San Bernardino City Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino
California 92418
To Whom it May Concern:
We wish to register our objections to the proposed general plan
amendment numbered No. 91-01, as referenced in a recent bulletin
and involving a parcel roughly bordered by Highland Avenue,
Pumalo Street, and Osbun Road.
we have lived in this neighborhood for over thirty years, during
which it has deteriorated from a quiet residential neighborhood
of single-family homes to a crowded, unsafe area in which new
apartment complexes are jammed onto every open parcel of land.
While we realize that increased population creates pressures on
land use, we deplore the alteration of existing neighborhoods and
we object to the continuation of this trend.
To some extent, admittedly, our objections are based on the
changes in the socio-economic mix of the neighborhood, as lower-
income residents move in. However, these objections also relate
factually to what we perceive as the increased risks of crime,
petty vandalism, and poor upkeep. We have been the victims of
both minor thefts and physical assaults, and we can't but be
disturbed by the increasing numbers of strangers strolling up and
down our street.
In addition, the neighborhood is simply not designed for the
number of people in it. Traffic on Pumalo and Date Place is
extremely heavy and fast-moving. The insufficient parking
provided for the apartments and multiple-housing facing Pumalo
and Osbun Road means that many residents park on the streets;
these streets are not wide enough for the amount and speed of the
traffic, when both curbs are used for parking. In fact, it is
not uncommon for residents of the apartment complexes on Pumalo
to double-park while loading or unloading, bringing traffic to an
absolute halt.
ATTACHMENT~_
~ p ~
we repeat that xe are not opposed to groxth as such, and xe
understand that as times change, so do neighborhoods. 8oxever,
xe feel that over the past txo decades, the City has deliberately
and unconscionably cooperated in the complete, and completely
negative, alteration of an established neighborhood. ~e ask the
City not to permit this further overloading o! limited space.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. Loys Gill
Ms. Carolyn Gill
i
1 Resolution No.
2 -$~SOLUTION OF THS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
3 N~g~ DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING
G PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE
4 CZTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
b BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLIAWS:
I' s
~ SECTION 1. Recitals
8 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
i
9 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-
10 159 on June 2, 1989.
11 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 91-01 to the General
12 Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the
13 Planning Commission on April 2, 1991, after a noticed public
14 hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of
15 approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
16 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on January 30, 1991
1~ and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the
18 Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan
19 Amendment No. 91-01 would not have a significant effect on
~ the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative
21 Declaration be adopted.
~ (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day
23 public review period from February 28, 1991 through March 21,
~ 1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by
~ the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in
26 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
27 local regulations.
28 ////
1
0 0
1 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
2 hearl~ig and fully reviewed and considered the proposed
~ General Plan Amendment No. 91-01 and the Planning Division
4 Staff Report on May 6, 1991.
5 (f) The adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 91-
6 O1 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of
7 the City and is consistent with the goals, objectives and
8 policies of the existing General Plan.
8 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration
10 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by
11 the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed amendment to
12 the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no
13 significant effect on the environment, and the Negative
14 Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review
15 Committee as to the effect of this proposed plan is hereby
16 ratified, affirmed and adopted.
17 SECTION 3. Findings
18 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
19 of the City of San Bernardino that:
~ A. The change of designation from CG-1, Commercial General
21 to RMH, Residential Medium High for the proposed
~ amendment will change the land use map only and is not
~ in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of
24 the General Plan.
25 ////
26 //// '
27 ////
28 ////
2
a o
1 B. The
proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
2
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
3 of the City.
4 C. All public services are available to the study area. Any
5 development permissable under the RMH, Residential
6 Medium Hiqh designation proposed by this amendment would
7 not impact on such services.
8 D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 2.59 acres to
9 RMH, Residential Medium High. No housing stock will be
10 affected.
11 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the
12 requested land use designation. Anticipated future land
13 use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has
14 been determined that project specific mitigation
15 measures will be sufficient to eliminate any
16 environmental impacts.
17 SECTION 4. Amendment
18 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
19 that:
~ A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
21 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 2.59
~ acres from CG-1, Commercial General to RMH, Residential
~ Medium High. This amendment is designated as General
~ Plan Amendment No. 91-01 and its location is outlined on
25 ////
~i 27 ////
28 ////
3
Q Q
1
the map entitled Attachment A, and is more specifically
2 described in the legal description entitled Attachment
3 B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein
4 by reference.
5 B. General Plan Amendment No. 91-01 shall be effective
6 immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
7 SECTION 5. Mao Notation
8 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall
9 be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been
10 previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common
11 Council and which are on file in the office of the City
12 Clerk.
13 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
14 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a
15 Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County
16 of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA
17 in preparing the Negative Declaration.
18 ////
19 ////
~ ////
21 ////
22 ////
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
4
RESOLUTIO~i .ADOPTING THE NEGA~ DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
' 91-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
1
2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
3 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
4 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the
5 day of , 1991, by the following vote, to
6 wit:
7
8'! Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN
9 ESTRADA
l~ REILLY
11' FLORES
12' MAUDSLEY
13 MINOR
14~, POPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17 City Clerk
18
19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
~ day of , 1991.
21
22
~ W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
~ Approved as to
~ form and legal content:
26 JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorn
27 By , , ~
28
5
1
OF SJW ~ ~ "~
Mme' w' ' r
r - ~
I =f
~ MII1~`Y1•~ 1
~- ~
'~ , ~ f ~ e
,
Lti
~p CG-i to RMH
~// ~ ~ wa
-~ -' °`"~
~ is2 ~ _ ~ y_ Z~pZ+~/ L
Z C ~Zy ! S Q74~
z• ~
~ Yal t ~ i ~ R
r- t ~ ? ~
w ~, ~ o~~o o y .
~ a ^4~ ~ o c~iz ~ o
11
~- I ~ ~ ~ T
- ii jc~ ,,: ~ ,. ,nos
O ''
w 1 z n~ ~.~-N
~ } < ;~t9 T
- 1 ii.
~j~r ~ aADt~al
1, t t P ~ Ttctt=~i
{ I1 t ii. _ ~ ~ G ~ c
r { =I` _
s'
~~t :
ri` ~ ~ ^-`
~...w Nye t
< < . ~~t
I R t s.~{
a to f
_0. 14
,u»'
;'`; ~ i
~ ATTACHMENT A
Y
CIT OF SAN BER ARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-01
TIT L E LEGAL DESCRIPTION
From CG-1 to RMH
Parcel Number '.Description
Part of
150-442-08 Real property in the City of San Bernardino, County of San
Bernardino described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 13158 being
a division of a portion of Lot 1, Block 5 of west High
Highlands as per map recorded in Book 5 of Maps, Page 77,
records of said County.
ATTACHMENT B