HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Planning and Building
. CITY OF SAN BEAOARDINO - REQUESTOoR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Genera 1. Pl an Amendment No. 91-05 a
Subject: request to real i gn the proposed exten-
sion of Piedmont Drive on the Circula-
tion Plan
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
November 4, 1991. 2:00 p.m.
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Date: October 17, 1991
Synopsis of Previous Council ection:
At their meeting of October B, 1991, the Planning Commission recommeded the adoption
of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-05.
The General Plan, with the inlcusion of the Circulation Plan, was adopted on June 2,
19B9.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted.
rk/
Larry (Reed
Signature Asst. Di rector
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
4
Supporting data attached: Staff Report and Resolution
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
A___-'_ 1...__ ,..._
~J../
. CITY OF SAN BEROARDINO - REQUEST 60R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 91-05
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
November 4, 1991
REOUEST
The applicant I s request is to realign the proposed extension of
Piedmont Drive on the Circulation Plan from a point approximately
320 feet east/southeast of Seine Avenue to Highland Avenue
approximately 1,000 feet west of the northerly termination of
Boulder Avenue. The proposed extension of Piedmont Drive (as shown
on the Circulation Plan) bisects an undeveloped site which is
located on the north side of Highland Avenue. (See Exhibit A of
Attachment 2)
BACltGROUIm
Piedmont Drive is classified as a secondary arterial on the
circulation Plan which was adopted as part of the General Plan on
June 2, 1989.
The amendment request is in conjunction with a specific development
proposal (Conditional Use Permit No. 91-26 and Tentative Parcel Map
13892)) for the site which underlies the proposed extension of
piedmont Drive.
EHVIRONMER'l'AL
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study
(Attachment A to the Planning Commission Staff Report) and
recommended a Negative Declaration.
PLAlOIl:NG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This project was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed
public hearing on October 8, 1991. Their recommendation to the
Mayor and Common Council was to adopt the Negative Declaration and
approve the amendment request to realign the proposed extension of
Piedmont Drive on the Circulation Plan from a point approximately
..
75-0264
o
o
General Plan aaen4aent RO. 91-05
Kayor and co.aon Council .eetinq of
Rovember ., 1991
paqe 2
320 feet east/southeast of Seine Avenue to Hiqhland Avenue
approximately 1,000 feet west of the northerly termination of
Boulder Avenue based upon the findinqs in the staff report
(Attachment 2).
DYOR AIm COMMOR COWCIL OP'l'IORS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Neqative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-05 based
on the findinqs in the resolution.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment
No. 91-05.
RBCOMIIBNDATIOR
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Neqative Declaration
and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-05 as presented.
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planninq And Buildinq services Department
Attachment 1: Memorandum to the Planninq Commission, October 8,
1991
Attachment 2: Planninq Commission Staff Report, October 8, 1991
Attachment A: Initial study
Exhibit A Proposed Realiqnment of
Piedmont Drive and Study Area
Location Map
Attachment 3: Resolution
Attachment A: Realiqnment of Piedmont Drive and
vicinity Map
,
"'.. . vr oi;1l"\n u~n".l"\nL.lII~V
o
To Planning Commission
Subject General Plan Amendment No. 91-05
- ....l:.lvIVnl-\l~LJulyl
o
From Larry E. Reed, Asst. Direct
Date October 8, 1991
Approved Item No.3
Date
OOBRS
William Buster
1399 West Colton Avenue
Redlands, CA 92373
APPLrCAll'rS
Dave Mlynarski ;1 q ,gJ1-D
Sierra Enqineerinq
25864 Business Center Drive, Suite F
Redlands, CA 92374
Kerry Benton
Gatlin Developments, Inc.
5650 El Camino Real #135
Carlsbad, CA 92008
BACltGROUKD
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 91-05 was continued without
hearinq from the Planninq Commission meetinq held on June 4, 1991
to July 16, 1991. At the July 16, 1991 meetinq, the applicant
aqain continued the item so that staff could evaluate a revision
to the amendment request. The amendment request was then sent back
to the Environmental Review Committee for review on Auqust 22,
1991. Subsequently, staff has revised the Planninq Commission
staff report for this project.
,
ATTACHMENT 1
o
o
plaDDing Comaiaaion .eeting
October I, 1"1
GPA 110. 91-05
Page 2
UCOJOlBlfDATZOII
Staff recolDlllends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-05
(revised) based on the findings in the staff report dated October
8, 1991.
;s ectfully,. ~ ./
r-~
Lar E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning And Building Services
~U~<,llIU~~:t~
Deborah Woldruff (1('
ssociate Planner
Attachment:
Staff Report to Planning COlDlllission
(October 8, 1991)
r'
CITY OF SAN BEQRDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
...
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
3
10-8-91
4
r-. -...
, APPLICANT' Dave Mlynarski-Sierra Eng.
'25864 Business Ctr Dr. Ste
III Redlands, CA 92374
en GEUERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OWNER: Hilliam Bustrr
oC NO. 91-05 (REVISED)
U l3a~ Wast Co t~n Avenue
Re an s, CA 9 373
\....,..I ~(underlv;nn -.
-.
I- A proposal to realign the proposed Piedmont Drive on the
en Circulation Plan from a point approximately 320 feet east/
III southeast of Seine Avenue to Highland Avenue approximately
:I
a 1,000 feet west of the northerly termination of Boulder
III Avenue. (The original proposal was to delete the proposed
II:
- extension of Piedmont Drive from the Circulation Plan).
oC
III
II:
oC
\......; \.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
UtA N/A UtA N/A
\.
'" '" '"
I GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC o YES FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A SEWERS: eYES
HAZARD ZONE: N / A 0 NO \. ZONE: N/A 0 NO OZONE B N/A ::: NO
\.
( 0 '" DYES
HIGH FIRE o YES AIRPORT NOISE! YES REDEVELOPMENT
~ ZONE: 0 NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
N A ",In 0 NO ~ \. " I. o NO
- '"
..I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT /" Z e: APPROVAL
I! APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0 CONDITIONS
zen NOE.l.R.
IIICI u.Q
:EZ o EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z 0 DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS oClII
oQ WITH MITIGATING t):E
11:1; MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-u.
>
Z }ClI NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS fd
III EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES II: \.
...'-- '----'
F
~====
P1.AN-I.02 p.oe 1 OF 1 ("-DO)
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF SAN BE ARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CAS~ GPA 91-05 revised
OBSERVATIONS
AGENpAITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
3
10-8-91
2
...
""'II
DOUBST MID LOCATZOII
The project is to realign the proposed Piedmont Drive on the
cir9Ulation Plan from a point approximately 320 feet east/southeast
of Seine Avenue to Highland Avenue approximately 1,000 feet west
of the northerly termination of Boulder Avenue. (Exhibit A of the
Initial Study shows the alignment as per the Circulation Plan and
the realignment as requested).
ADA CDRACTBRZSTZCS
The proposed extension of Piedmont Drive (as shown on the
Circulation Plan) bisects an undeveloped site on the north side of
Highland Avenue from the northerly termination of Boulder Avenue.
North of this site is land developed with a mobilehome park. State
Route (SR) No. 330 is located to the east, single-family
residential development to the west and Highland Avenue on the
south.
BACKGROtJIID
The proposed extension of Piedmont Drive (as shown on the
Circulation Plan) is classified on the circulation Plan as a
secondary arterial. The General Plan, with the inclusion of the
Circulation Plan, was adopted on June 2, 1989.
This amendment request originally was to delete the proposed
extension of Piedmont Drive from the Circulation Plan. Due to a
number of factors including the circulation in the area with regard
to the existing street system, the amendment proposal was changed
to request a realignment of the proposed extension of Piedmont
Drive.
DBVELOPMBllT CODE
Not applicable.
CALZPORIIZA EIIVZROlfMBlITAL OUALZTY ACT (CEOAI STATUS
The general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The city's
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on
August 22, 1991 and determined that the proposed amendment would
not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration was recommended. The public review period for the
Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on August
29, 1991 and ended on September 18, 1991.
ClT'l'CI'.............,
---
PL,AN.I..D8 PJOE 1 OF 1 ('-10)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA
91-05
revised
OBSERV A liONS
AGENDA ITEM 3
HEARING DATE 10-R-ql
PAGE 3
r COIlllllIl'l'S RBCBrvBD
City Of San Bernardino PUblic Works Departaent
Comments received from the Traffic Enqineerinq Section are
addressed in the Initial Study.
Area Residents ADd Interested Persons
Staff received many telephone calls and public counter inquiries
reqardinq this amendment request. Some individuals were concerned
with potential impacts to archaeoloqical resources on the
underlyinq project site. A detailed archaeoloqical study,
submitted for the development project, adequately addresses
archaeoloqical concerns. The archaeoloqical study also was used
as a reference document for the Initial Study that was prepared
for this amendment request (see Attachment A).
Other comments received were reqardinq the potential impacts on the
existinq and future circulation patterns in the neiqhborhood
located north of the underlyinq site. Issues relatinq to traffic
and circulation are addressed in the Analysis section of this
report and in the Initial Study (Attachment A).
ABLYSIS
site specific Bnvironaental Concerns and Constraints
This amendment request is in conjunction with a specific
development proposal for the site which underlies the proposed
realiqnment of Piedmont Drive. The proposed realiqnment will
chanqe the way the site can develop and will chanqe future
circulation patterns in the area. The environmental concerns and
constraints that affect the site remain whether or not the
extension of Piedmont Drive is constructed (in any confiquration)
and will be addressed within the context of the specific
development application.
Traffic and circulation
As indicated in the Initial StUdy, the actual construction of the
proposed realiqnment will improve circulation and will not result
in a siqnificant increase to traffic volumes in the area. The
realiqnment will result in less volumes of throuqh traffic than
the proposed extension shown on the circulation Plan because north
, bound traffic will oriqinate from Hiqhland Avenue rather than from
Boulder Avenue and Hiqhland Avenue. In addition, the realiqnment
will provide area residents with a more direct route into the area
l and south bound traffic access to Hiqhland Avenue. The level of
an ClI' ... -......a
---
P\.AN-UI PAGE t OF 1 (A-IO)
CITY OF SAN BE ARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CA GPA 91-05 r~vis~d
OBSERV A liONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
3
10-8-91
4
.....
service for police protection, fire protection and medical aid and
solid waste retrieval will be enhanced as a result of easier access
to the area.
Existing circulation patterns are not affected since the street
does not exist.
A supplement to the traffic impact study evaluates potential
impacts resulting from the realignment proposal. (Both the
supplement and the traffic impact study were prepared by Linscott,
Law & Greenspan, Engineers). The conclusion is that the proposed
realignment is adequate for traffic and circulation.
G.D.ral PlaD/C1rculat1oD PlaD CODs1st.Day
The proposed realignment of Piedmont Drive on the Circulation Plan
will not create an inconsistency with the General Plan. A key
issue identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan is
that the impact of traffic on adjacent. land uses should be
minimized. The realignment will provide easier access into (and
through) the area north of Highland Avenue. As indicated in the
previous section, the proposed realignment is adequate for traffic
and circulation and will improve the circulation in the area.
CONCLOSIONS
The realignment of the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive on the
Circulation Plan and the actual construction of the street will not
create any adverse environmental impacts.
FINDINGS
The proposed realignment of the extension of Piedmont Drive will
change the Circulation Plan and is internally consistent with the
General Plan.
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as
addressed in this report.
The amendment to realign the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive
on the Circulation Plan will not affect the balance of land uses
within the city. The City'S housing stock will not be affected.
Realignment of the proposed extension of Piedmont
enhance the level of public services available to the
area by providing a direct route into and through the
Drive' will
surrounding
area.
l
..
cn"r t:6' 8M ........,
---
Pl.AN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (,..go)
CITY OF SAN BE RDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASe:Q GPA 91-05 revised
OBSERV A liONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
3
10-8-91
5
r
""I
UCOIOl1!:IIDA'.rXOK
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 CEQA.
2. The Circulation Plan map be amended for the realignment
of the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive as shown on
Exhibit A of Attachment A.
R7ctc ;:;7'
~E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning and Building Services
~dJ ,1.'
, !-t>~' I';". .
l'v .."-~I" v ~'J(:.1/:{/1 j _'
Deborah Woldruff r-r---
Associate Planner
Attachment:
A - Initial Study
Exhibit A Proposed Realignment of Piedmont
Drive and Study Area Location Map
I
~..=..===
~
PLAN-.... PAGE 1 OF 1 (~
CITY OF SAN BEh. .ARDINO PLANNING AND BUILD/I.", SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o 0
INITIAL STUDY
,
GllnRAL PLUI A1mHDJO:HT 110. 91-05 lUVJ:SI:D)
Pro;ect DescriDtion and Location: To realign the proposed Piedmont
Drive on the Circulation Plan from a point approximately 320 feet
east/southeast of Seine Avenue to Hiqhland Avenue approximately
1,000 feet west of the northerly termination of Boulder Avenue.
(The oriqinal proposal was to delete the proposed extension of
Piedmont Drive from the CirCUlation Plan).
Date: Auqust 22, 1"1
ADDlicantlsl Name and Address:
Gatlin Developments, Inc.
5650 EI Camino Real '135
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Initial study Prenared Bv:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
City of SaD Bernardino
Department of PlaDninq aDd Buildinq Services
300 Borth "0" Street
SaD Bernardino, CA t2 418
~=.==
P\.AN.I.07 PAGE 1 OF 1 t4-lOt
Initial study ~ General Plan amendment ~ 91-05
Bnvironaental aevie. Comaittee .eetinq of
AUqust 22, 1991
(aeviaed)
1.0 IBTRODUCTIO.
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
a revision to the Initial Study for General Plan
Amendment No. 91-05. The amendment request has been
modified by the applicant and is to realign the proposed
Piedmont Drive on the Circulation Plan from a point
approximately 320 feet east/southeast of Seine Avenue to
Hiqhland Avenue approximately l, 000 feet west of the
northerly terminus of Boulder Avenue. The oriqinal
amendment request was to delete the proposed extension
of Piedmont Drive from the Circulation Plan.
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act quidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as
the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Neqative
Declaration; .
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a
project, mitiqatinq adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enablinq the project to qualify
for Neqative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
desiqn of a project;
5.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a
will not have a siqnificant effect
environment;
for the
project
on the
I
PJ .
Initial study fo .eneral Plan
Bnvironmental ~~ev Committee
Auqust 22, 19''-'
-
Amendment No.
meeting of 0
.-os (Revised)
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. DeterDIine whether a previously prepared EIR could
be used with the project.
2.0 PROJBCT DBSCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This &IIIendlllent request is to realign the proposed
extension of Piedlllont Drive on the Circulation Plan from
a point approximately 320 feet east/southeast of Seine
Avenue to Highland Avenue approximately 1,000 feet west
of the northerly terDIination of Boulder Avenue, east of
Denair Avenue. The proposed extension of Piedlllont Drive,
as shown on the Circulation Plan, bisects a site located
on the north side of Highland Avenue. (See Exhibit A)
It should be noted that this amendlllent request is in
conjunction with a specific development proposal for the
site (previously described). The specific development
applications being processed for the site are Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) No. 91-26 and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)
13892.
The proposed realignment of this section of Piedlllont
Drive will change the way the project site can develop
and will change future circulation patterns in the area.
The environmental constraints and concerns that affect
the project site remain whether Piedmont Drive is
constructed as shown on the circulation Plan or as
proposed by this amendlllent request. These environmental
issues will be addressed within the context of the
specific development applications prior to the granting
of approvals.
2.1 Characteristics Of The surrounding Area
The proposed extension of Piedlllont Drive as shown on the
Circulation Plan bisects vacant land that is adjacent to
land developed with a mobile home park on the north,
State Highway No. 330 is located to the east, single-
family residential development to the west and Highland
Avenue on the south.
IJI .-
ln1t1&1 Stuay to iener&~ ~~.n
Bnvironmental ~1ev Committee
Auqust 22, 199U
,
AIIlenQlDent No.
meeting of
o
L-Oli (Revised)
3 . 0 BIIVIROIlMENTAL ASSBSSMENT
3.1 Bnvironmental setting
The area of study surrounding the proposed extension of
Piedmont Drive and the proposed realignment is located
in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. In addition,
the study area is located in the High Wind Hazard Area
and in Zones Band C (areas of high and moderate fire
hazards, respectively). According to the Historical and
Archaeological Resources element of the General Plan, the
study area is located in an area of concern for
archaeological resources (Fiqure 8).
j
~
~
....
CITY OF SAN BEF()RDINO PLANNING AND BUILDO SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
......
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 91-05 (Revised)
Pr~edDe~~bn: A proposal to realign the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive
on the Circulation Plan. .
loQUbn: . . . from a point approx. 320 feet east/southeast of Seine Avenue to
HiQhland Avenue approx. 1,000 feet west of the northerly termination of
Boulder Avenue.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, High Wind Hazard
Area, Zone B and Zone C - Fire Hazard Area, Area of Concern for Archaeological
Resources
General Plan Designation: N/ A
Zoning Designation: N/ A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers. where appropriate. on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Ra80Urces Will the pIOposal resu. in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut andlOr fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? X
b. Development and/or grading on a slopa greater
than 15% natural grade?
X
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Spacial
Studies Zona as defined in Saclion 12.0 - Geologic
& Seismic. F'lllure 47. of the Cily's General Plan?
d. Modnicatbn of any unique geologic or physical
feature?
X
X
e. Development whhin areas defined for high polential for
water or wind erosion as identniad in Section 12.0-
Geologic & Seismic. Figure 53, of the Cily's General
Plan?
X
X
f. Modnicatbn of a channel, creek or river?
""
:;;,.::.~-.:,~
PLAN-I. PAGE 1 OF _ ('T.to)
~ "'I
0 0 No
g. Devalopmant within an area subjacllO landslides, Vas Maybe
mudslides, Iiquaf.aion or other similar huards u
identified in Saclion 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic, X
Fllluras 48, 52 and 53 of tha City's Genaral Plan?
h. Olhar? X
2- Air fIaIou~: Willtha proposal resun in:
L Substantial air amiss ions or an affac:t upon ambient X
air quality u dafined by AOMD?
b. Tha creation of objactionabla odors? X
c. Developmant within a high wind huard area as identified
in Saction 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of tha City's
Genaral Plan? X
3. Water Raou~: Will the proposal resun in:
a. Changes in absorption ratas, drainaga pallams, or tha
rata and amount of surf_ runoff dualO
impermaable surf_s? X
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood watars? X
c. Discharga into surf_ watars or any anaration X
of surf_ watar quaJily?
d. Change in tha quantity of quality of glllUnd watar? X
a. Exposure of people or property 10 flood huards u
idantifled in the Faclar. Emargancy Managamant
Agancy's F100d Insurance Rata Map, Community Panal
Number 060281 0015 '..8, and Saction 16.0. X
Flooding, Flllure 62, of tha City's Genaral Plan?
f. Other? X
4. Biological Fle811urcea: Could tha proposaJ resun in:
a. Devalopmant within tha BioIogicai Resources
Man.mant Overlay, u identifIed in Saction 10.0
. Natural Resources, Figure 41, of tha City's X
Ganaral Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unIque, rare or
andangared spacial of plants or thair habhat including X
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unIqua, rare or
endangered spacias of animals or. their habitat? X
d. Removal of viable, matura traas? (6. or gra.ar) X
a. Other? X
5. No...: Could tha llfOIlOSal rasun in:
a Devalopmant of housing, haakh cara facilities, schools,
libraries, raligiolls facilhies or othar .noisa. sensilive uses
in lUau where existing or futura noisa levals axcaad an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) axtarior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) intarior
as idantified in Saclion t4.0. Noisa, Figures"~d
ll_~f tha City's General Plan? 57 X
~ 58 ~
llllftl:.:.:=r:& PLAH-UI 'PAGE 20F _ (11-10)
"'-
~,---1l.
.~ 10. Public s.rv~ Will the proposal impact the following O.s
No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide edequ81. levels of service?
L F"r. protection? X
b. PolIoe protection? X
Sc'-ls (I.... atI.ndance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X
c.
d. Parks or oth.r recreation" lacilkies? X
Medical eid? X
..
I. Solid Wat.? X
g. OIher? X
11. t1111"lee: Will the proposal:
L Impect the following beyond the C8p8btlity to
provide adeqU81e !wels of ..rvica or require the
construction 0/ new IlICilllies?
1. N8lUral ga? X
2. EIectricily? X
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? X
5. OIher? X
b. Resuft In a disjointad pan.m 01 utDity extensions? X
c. Require the construction of new lacilities? X
12. Mathetlce:
a. Could the propos" resuft in the obstruction 01 any
scenic vi_? X
b. Will the visuel impect 01 the project be detrim.ntal X
to the surrounding area?
c. OIher? X
13. CulturalllMourcee: Could the proposal resuft in:
L The deration or d.struction 01 a prehistoric or
historic archaeologicels.. by d.velopm.nt wkhin an
archaeologicel ..nlitive araa a id.ntified in Section X
3.0 - Historical, F"lgur. 8, 01 the City's Gen.'" Plan?
b. Alt.ration or destruction 01 a historical M., structur.
or object a listad in the City's Historic Resources X
RecoMaiuance Survey?
c. OIher? X
~
PI.AN-t.OI P_. OF
(11-10)
r'
..,
14. MlndII~lnge of SlgnHance (Seelion 15065) 0
The Callomia Environmental auality Ad slates that W any of the following can be ans_r8d yes or
maybe, the pIlljllCl may have a sign.icant -'fllCl on tha environment and an Environmantallmpact
R.pon shall be prepared.
Yes
No
Maybe
L Do. the project have the potential tD degrade the
quality of the environment, subslantially r8duce the
habitat of a fISh or wildrlfe species. cau.. a fish or
wildlife population to drop below se. sustaining Iavels,
threaten tD eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or nss1rict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examplas of !he major periods of Callornia hiItDry
or prehiItDry?
b. Do. the project have the potential tD achieve shon-
term, tD the ~iledvantage at long-term, environmental
goals? (A shon-term impact on tha environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of lime while long-term impacts win endure _II intD
the future.)
x
x
c. Do. the project have impacts which .,. individually
Hmitad, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources wharethe
impecl on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effllCl of the total of 1hon impacts on the
environment issignWicanl.)
d. Do. the project have environmental eflllCls which will
caun subltential edv..e effllCls on human beings,
e.her dirllClly or indirectly?
x
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATlON AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attech shHts as n_ary.)
Please refer to attached sheets.
~~
PLANoue PAGE5~_ (1'''''
Initial StUdy fo ,..neral Plan AIIIenaent No. ..-OS (Revised)
Environmental ~iew Committee meeting of~
August 22, 199U I....,
3.2 Bnvironmental Impacts
The realignment of this section of Piedmont Drive on the
Circulation plan is not a development project, a. such.
The environmental constraints and concerns associated
with development on the related project site remain
whether Piedmont Drive (in either configuration) is
constructed or not. Those issues will be addressed
within the context of the specific development
applications (CUP 91-26 and TPM 13892) prior to approval.
3.2.1
Barth'a.sourc..
1.a.
Changing the proposed alignment of the extension of
Piedmont Drive on the Circulation Plan would not result
in any type of earth movement. However, actual
construction of the roadway would involve earth movement
of more than 10,000 cubic yard.. This issue will be
addressed prior to issuance of any permits for street
construction.
1.c.
The study area for the proposed realignment is located
in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The proposed
realignment of Piedmont Drive on the Circulation Plan
will not create any impacts. A geology study, prepared
for CUP 91-26 and TPM 13892, indicates that neither the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive as shown on the
Circulation Plan nor the proposed realignment are located
within the fault setback area recommended for the
development of the related project site. Therefore,
future construction of the proposed realignment would not
result in impacts associated with active faulting in the
area.
3.2.2
Air a..ourc..
2.0.
The study area for the proposed realignment is located
in the High Wind Hazard Area (General Plan, Figure 59)
and is bisected by Zone B, an area of high fire hazard
~n.~.&~ ~~UQY ~O, .ner&~ ~~&n
Bnvironmental ~1ev Committee
Auqust 22, 199V
,
A.lIlenQ.lllen~ !f0.
lIeeting of
o
..-0:' \Kev.seCl)
3.2.3
3.2.4
,
and by Zone C, an area of lIoderate fire hazard (General
Plan, Fiqure 61). A change on the Circulation Plan map
as proposed will not create any impacts related to wind
or fire.
Noi.e
Fiqure 57, Existing Noise and Fiqure 58, Future Noise of
the General Plan indicate that noise corridors around the
study area do not exceed and are not expected to exceed
60 dB (A) s. Realigning the proposed extension of Piedmont
Drive 'on the Circulation Plan will not create any noise
impacts. At the time of developllent, however,
construction noise on a temporary basis may increase
noise levels in the area. Following construction, the
new roadway will facilitate an increase of traffic into
and through the area thereby potentially increasing noise
levels. Any potential noise impacts identified will be
evaluated prior to issuance of permits for construction
of the roadway.
Land Us.
i.c.
A change on the Circulation Plan will not result in
development within Foothill Fire Zones A,B or C.
However, the study area is located in Zone B, an area of
high fire hazard and in Zone C, an area of moderate fire
hazard. As noted, this amendment request is related to
a specific development proposal and the construction of
the proposed realignment of Piedmont Drive will help to
facilitate that development. Any land use related
impacts resulting from the project development and the
future construction of the roadway will be addressed in
CUP 91-26 and TPM 13892.
'.d.
This amendment request will result in a change on the
Circulation Plan map and as such, no land use related
impacts are anticipated.
In4~4.~ ~~uay LO ..ner.~ ~~.n
Bnvironmental ~4ev committee
Auqust 22, 199U
,
AIIleIlQllleIl ~ 110.
meeting of
o
.-u:. \XeV4aeaj
3.2.5
Transportation/circulation
'.4. ,f. ,b. ,i.
The realignment of this section of Piedmont Drive will
not result in a significant increase to traffic volumes
and will probably result in improved circulation in the
area. Future circulation patterns will be altered since
through traffic will be using the realigned section of
Piedmont Drive for access to areas north of Highland
Avenue. The proposed realignment of the extension of
Piedmont Drive will result in less volumes of through
traffic than the proposed extension shown on the
Circulation Plan. This is because north bound traffic
would originate from Highland Avenue rather than from
Boulder Avenue and Highland Avenue as it would using the
extension of Piedmont Drive <as shown on the CirCUlation
Plan). The proposed realignment also will afford south
bound traffic on Piedmont Drive access to Highland
Avenue.
Existing circulation patterns are not affected since the
street does not exist. Similary, hazards to vehicles,
bicyclists and pedestrians will not be affected by the
realignment since the street does not exist. Any
potential hazards identified relating to increased
traffic volumes in the area will be addressed prior to
issuance of permits for construction of the roadway. It
should be noted that these types of hazards often are
reduced or eliminated by engineering techniques and
street design.
A supplement to the original traffic impact study (both
documents were prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
Engineers) includes an analysis of the potential impacts
to the area resulting from the realignment of the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive. The supplement
evaluates the a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service
at the Highland Avenue/Dedicated Street (Piedmont Drive)
and the Piedmont Drive/Diablo Drive intersections for
the years 1995 and 2010 with and without the proposed
realignment. The conclusion is that the proposed
,
.
Initial stUdy fo .eneral Plan Amendment No. ~-05 (aevi.ed)
Environmental ~1ew Committee .eeting oto
Auqust 22, 1",""
realiqnDlent is adequate for traffic and circulation. The
realignment will provide a direct route.to Highland
Avenue and will enhance the circulation in the area
(Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Revised
Supplemental Traffic Analysis, page 3).
Neither the residentially nor commercially designated
portions of the underlying project site require either
the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive or the proposed
realignment for access. Local streets and secondary (or
emergency) access routes are not included on the
Circulation Plan because they are addressed on a project
specific basis. However, the realignment of Piedmont
Drive as a secondary arterial will .ore readily
facilitate secondary access to the project site and to
properties in the surrounding area.
3.2.'
PuIllic Services
The proposed realignment of Piedmont Drive will not
create impacts to public services in the area because the
street does not exist. Future construction of the street
should enhance the level of service for fire protection
and medical aid, police protection and solid waste
retrieval by providing easier access into the area.
3.2.7
CUltural aesources
13 .b.
The study area is located in an area of concern for
archaeological resources (General Plan, Figure 8). A
cultural resources evaluation report was prepared for
CUP 91-26 and TPM 13892 by Macko Archaeological
Consul ting. According to the report, the proposed
realignment of Piedmont Drive occurs west of the remains
of those cultural resources identified on the development
project site. As such, actual construction of the
proposed roadway should not be considered a significant
impact. However, the consultant recommends that any
grading for the roadway or on the related project site
be monitored by a qualified archaeologist.
..
_ U.
..u.J.~..A..a. O\oo....~l "'"v 'a~c...Q,~ &...G.6.l ^""a""""""",c.l..low &t""'. _-w~ \A....~o:ta....J
Environmental Rev~ew committee meetinq of
Auqust 22, 1990 0
4.0 KaBDATORY PIHDING8 OP 8IGNIPICAHCB
(14.a. throuqh d.)
The realiqnment of this portion of the proposed Piedmont
Drive on the Circulation Plan will not create impacts
that will have an adverse effect on the underlyinq
project site, the surroundinq area or the overall
circulation in the area.
,.
- ~
. r-
D. DETERMlNAnorO
o
On tha basis of this initial study,
[;I- Tha propoMd project COULD NOT heve a significant affect on tha anvironmant and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be praperad.
o Tha propoMd project could hava a sign.ant affect on tha anvironmant, atthough thara will not be a sign.icant
afflCt in this CBM bacausa tha mtt~ion measuras dascribad above hava baan added to tha projlCt. A
NEGATIVE DEClARATION will be praparad.
o Tha proposed project MAY hava a sign.ant affect on tha anvironmant, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
111("~ IV. 6'i4tI.SlSS. -5t;,.,tJ;t ~/"'(.IiiY(;/~
Nama and TIIla r
~~~~-J':-
ognatura
Data: ~... ZZ.4lJ I
<
~
....
~~~~~cii
PLAN-UI PAGE_OF_ (11-10)
L
~.
,
ij.
-_...'
...--...,..
.
J
V" I
GENERAL lOAN AMENDMENO NO.
v-..
91-05
TITLE Proposed Realiqnmentof Piedmont Drive and Study AreaLocation flap
-
,
,
sa-. ..
.. ....... t
... ...... I
i
I.I!
..1'
.Im
GIJ
I III I
.........
i
I,
i
r.IJlJlII
'1111
.' . .:1.....
..I.IUII
JI,
i Hiiii ii
1
'i
o
:l:.
.."
. -
_c
4,,Q
EXHIBIT A
lJ.
'UJ.
1-
o
o
1
Resolution No.
2
3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL
4 PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-05 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO.
5
6
7
8
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Recitals
(af
The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
9 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159
10 on June 2, 1989.
(b)
General Plan Amendment No. 91-05 to the General Plan
11
12 of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning
13 Commission on October 8, 1991, after a noticed public hearing, and
14 the Planning Commission I s recommendation of approval has been
15 considered by the May.or and Common Council.
16
(c) An Initial Study was prepared on August 22, 1991 and
17 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 91-
05 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 August 29, 1991 through september 18,
1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the
Planning commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
regulations.
IIII
IIII
1
ti
o
o
1 (e), The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
2 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan
3 Amendment No. 91-05 and the Planning Division staff Report on
4 November 4, 1991.
5 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 91-05 is
6 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the city and
7 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
8 existing General Plan.
9 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 the
12 General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant
13 effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore
14 prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of
15 this proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
16 SECTION 3. Findinas
17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
18 of the City of San Bernardino that:
The realignment of the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive
will change the land use map only and is not in conflict with
the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
The amendment to realign the proposed extension of piedmont
Drive on the Circulation Plan will not affect the balance of
land uses within the city. No housing stock will be affected.
19 A.
20
21
22 B.
23
24 c.
25
26
,
27 IIII
28 IIII
2
41.
o
o
Realignment of the proposed extension of piedmont Drive will
enhance the level of public services available to the
surrounding area by providing a direct route into and through
the area.
1 D.
2
3
4
5
6
7 A.
8
9
10 B.
11
12
13 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall
14 be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been
15 previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and
16 which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
17 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
18 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice
19 of Determination with the County Clerk of the county of San
20 Bernardino certifying the City'S compliance with CEQA in preparing
21 the Negative Declaration.
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
The Circulation Plan is amended as outlined on the map
entitled Attachment A, a copy of which is attached and
incorporated herein by reference.
General Plan Amendment No. 91-05 shall be effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 5. Man Notation
3
.
1 RESOWTION... ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
2 GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
,
~
o
L
o
ENVIRONMENTAL
91-05 TO THE
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
day of
, 1991, by the following vote, to wit:
city Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
council Memb~rs:
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
11 MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
13
POPE-LUDLAM
14 MILLER
15
16
17
18
19 day of
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
c~
By: ~~V
~
If.Am
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
, 1991.
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
city of San Bernardino
.
'71
0
/-.-,
!'l -...
~~ Q
~~ c:::
~;[ <(
a;
!<J ~
~~';' IX
~~~
~~~ h1
~~ ell
u
o REALIGNMENT OF PIEDMONT OVE
AND VICINITY MAP
:2!Z
~1~"1I~~
III"
f-..
<:
0lr)
~Cl::
-Oil
l:l
.." ~
~-....;::
l>..
h.~
~~
.....
IJ
s:
GPA 91-05
,
"I:
~~
lr)"I:
~~
Ol,.J
~:l:)
....~~
C\,J
l:l~
~"I:
f-. :3~7rro
<,:1"
01.:l I': Q
~\J
~ .,~ Z
.. r <(
"'c
....
." ~ -1
~ 1 '" ::c
~!j ,!. ~
0
b' C I C"
6>>4 'of ~
'-~ ~l ~ 01 ::c
~'-s :.: u '"
=t1, &.!: -, -Cl
S!I :.- ~I -- ~-..J
fl,p '1;1
''lit cU 11....
-- 1
0
. )-.
~
}--.
~5i h. f-.
XI_IO ~.... ~ ........,
"1:. 0\J U
l!l IJ\.:)
~ ~\J ~<
~
-3AI' II/I'N:JO -.."", .".--- ATTACHMENT A
~I
t , ~
--
w'""
h.
~
\J
~
\J
I.:l
l1..,
0
~;ili
-3AI'
)-. ~81
}--.
........,
u