Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST ',,-lOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: April 29, 1992 General Plan Amendment No. 91-19, Subject: to change the land use designatio! from RE to RL on 9.74 acres locatE on the north side of Irvington Avenue approx. 244 ft. west of thE centerline of Palm Avenue. From: Al Boughey, Director Dept: Planning & Building Services M.::Iynr .::Inn rnmmnn ('n11nr-j] Meetitll) May 18, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Cornmon Council adopted the General Plan thereby designating the amendment site RE, Residential Estate. On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission addressed this General Plan Amendment. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted. Al Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Contact person: Supporting data attached: Staff Report & Resolution Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $1,275.00 772-171-24515 Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Fish and Games Fees Finance: ~ J(] J Council Notes: Anonrl~ I+orn 1\1" #0 ~CITY OF SAN BERI'"ARDINO - REQUEST ~~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 Mayor and Common council Meeting of May 18, 1992 REOUEST Applicant's Amendment Request The applicant requests to change the General Plan land' use designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low on approximately 13.48 acres of land. The amendment site is located on the northwest corner of Palm and Irvington Avenues in the Verdemont Area. (See Exhibit A of the Initial Study) staff's Alternative Amendment proposal Staff proposes an alternative amendment for the site which would leave the property fronting on Palm Avenue (approximately 3. 74 acres of land) designated as RE, Residential Estate. The remainder of the property on the site (approximately 9.74 acres of land) would be designated RL, Residential Low. (See Attachment B to the Planning Commission Staff Report, April 7, 1992) BACKGROUND Upon adoption of the General Plan, the site was designated RE, Residential Estate. Previous zoning was R-I-IO, 800 which specified the minimum lot size as 10,800 square feet and other standards similar to the RL, Residential Low land use designation. currently the site is situated at the edge of the RE district and adjacent to the RL, Residential Low district. ENVIRONMENTAL On March 5, 1992, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study which was prepared to evaluate the RL designation and recommended a Negative Declaration. While the alternative amendment proposal was not evaluated in the Initial Study, it combines RL and RE uses and represents less intense residential uses than does the applicant's request. Therefore, staff feels that all potential environmental issues associated with either proposal have been addressed. 75-0264 General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of May 18, 1991-- Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant's amendment request and staff's alternative proposal were considered by the Planning commission at a noticed public hearing on April 7, 1992. Several residents from the Verdemont Area testified at the public hearing against General Plan Amendment No. 91-19. Many were concerned that increasing the density on the site would add to the existing stormwater runoff problem in the area by crea~ing additional impermeable surfaces. In addition, concerns were voi~ed regarding the potential for increased traffic volumes and congestion on Palm Avenue and at the off-ramps for I- 215. After closing the public hearing, the Planning commission discussed these issues in relation to the applicant's request and staff's alternative proposal. The Planning Commission made a motion to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of GPA 91-19 as per staff's recommended alternative to change the land use designation on 9.74 acres of land located on the north side of Irvington Avenue approximately 230 feet westerly of the centerline of Palm Avenue in the Verdemont Area. The motion did not carry because a majority of the total Planning commission membership did not recommend approval (3 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention). ANALYSIS The applicant's amendment request would isolate the established RE neighborhood located north and adjacent to the site because the Development Code requires new developments to have perimeter walls. However, an RL development without a perimeter wall along Palm Avenue would also affect the RE neighborhood as a result of the , establishment of RL lots adjacent to RE lots. The scale and rhythm of the RE neighborhood would be disrupted. This is not consistent with the intent of the General Plan to retain and enhance established neighborhoods. The alternative amendment proposal would provide for the continuation and expansion of the existing RE neighborhood along Palm Avenue. At the same time, it would provide for the establishment of RL uses on the western portion of the project site. The alternative proposal would result in a more compatible land use division of the site and the block. General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of May 18, 1991 Page 3 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve staff's alternative amendment proposal as General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 based upon findings in the resoluti:>n. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 91-19 1n concept as per the applicant's proposal and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Findings of Fact. 3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 91-19. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 as per staff's recommendation. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission April 7, 1992 Attachment A - Letter to the ERC Attachment B - Alternative Amendment Proposal Attachment C - Initial Study Exhibit A Land Use Designations and site Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Resolution Attachme~t A - Location Map Attachment B - Legal Description ,.., . I "-' f- 'i\ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 4-7-92 WARD 5 w en c( (..) t- en w ~ o LU a: '"""'- < w a: < GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 APPUCANT: OWNER: Pauv Lee/J.C. Dabney' AII.oe. 671 Soucb Irea Cya. 14. #S ValDuc. Cl 91789 Dr. Abbas Ekrami. Jodabek Aluadeb. Mahmoud hui c/o Scocc hard/e.v. Beard llealty 124 N. liverside Aveuue . llialco. Cl 92376 A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low on approximately 13.48 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Irvington Avenue in the Verdemont Area. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subj ect Vacant RE Residential Estate North Single Family and Vacant RL Residential Low South Si~fiaecK~~~Y and Vacant RE Residential Estate East Single Family and Vacant RE Residential Estate West Single Family and Vacant RL Residential Low ...I < t- zen We :=z z- OO a:~ -LL > Z W t:1TY C1# !WO ~ CENnIAL_5HMC&S FLOOD HAZARD 0 VES 0 ZONE A ZONE: H NO 0 ZONE B GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 VES HAZARD ZONE: Xi NO HIGH FIRE 0 YES HAZARD ZONE: xiX NO AIRPORT NOISE! CRASH ZONE: o NOT APPUCABLE o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES NO E.I.R. o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REOUIRED BUT NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES o SIGNIACANT EFFECTS SEE ATIACHED E.R.C. MINUTES e NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS z o t= < u.0 LLZ <W ~:= U):= o to) w a: ( SEWERS: DVES J D NO _ REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA: ~ APPROVAL** See below o CONDITIONS o DENIAL o CONTINUANCE TO **of Staff's alternative amendment proposal PLAN-IUJ2 PAGE' OF , Attachment 1 (4.90) /. ' /- / ,) " ~:J,' "-~'-i:~:"~-_' - ----- OBSERVATIONS CASE GPA 91-19 AGENDA'TEM 6 HEARING DATE 4-7-92 PAGE 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ ~ REOUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low on approximately 13. 53,cres of land. The amendment site is located on the northwest corner of Pal:.: and Irvington Avenues in the Verdemont Area. (See Exhibit A of the Initial study) ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL staff proposes an alternative amendment for the site which would leave the property fronting on Palm Avenue designated as RE, Residential Estate. The remainder of the property on the site would be designated RL, Residential Low. (See Attachment B) SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The amendment site is undeveloped and contains one parcel of land that is generally rectangular in shape. A smaller, rectangularly shaped piece of land protrudes from its northern corner. The topography of the site is fairly flat and devoid of any unique geographic features. The si te and the surrounding area slope qently to the southwest at a grade of approximately 4 percent. Three or four miles northeast of the site are the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Cable Creek Flood Control Channel is located south of the site, beyond Irvington Avenue. Vegetation on the site is classified as ruderal. It is highly disturbed and virtually free of native plant species as a result of farming or discing activity which occurred sometime in the past. The land located west through north and adjacent to the site is designated RL, Residential Low and currently being developed for single family residential uses. Northerly and adjacent to the site are existing residences in an area designated as RE, Residential Estate along Palm Avenue. Easterly and across Palm Avenue is vacant land that is designated as RE. Southerly of Irvington and west of Palm Avenue are existing single family uses with a church facility located east of Palm Avenue. MUNICIPAL CODE Title 19 (the Development Code) of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code does not apply to General Plan amendments. ~ ~ CITY t7- !1M ~ UIfYRA&. _1IIY1NG~ PLAN.a.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) I' /'-: ~:r~_~_.---=-~_~~ -..... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 91-19 6 4-j-l:;J,- j OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE r ~ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQAl STATUS This general plan amendment is subject to CECA. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on March 5, 1992 and determined that the applicant's request 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 March 5, 1992 and ended on March 25, 1992; The alternative amendment proposal was not evaluated in the Initial study. However, the applicant's request represents more intense uses than does the alternative proposal. Therefore, staff feels that all potential environmental issues associated with either proposal have been addressed. COMMENTS RECEIVED COUNCIL WARD 5 Councilman Minor states that he opposes changing the land use designation for this site and is in favor of keeping the RE, Residential Estate land use designation. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRAFFIC DIVISION The Traffic Division's comments indicate that the projected trips generated from an RL development on the site would not be sufficient to cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system, nor would the total traffic exceed the street design capacity. VERDEMONT AREA RESIDENT Barbara Sky, a Verdemont Area resident, submitted written comments because she could not attend the March 5, 1992 ERC meeting. Ms. Sky's comments express her concerns about traffic congestion, crime, flooding, hazardous waste, emergency evacuation of the area and increased demands on public services and facilities in the Verdemont Area. All of the issues (except for emergency evacuation of the area) are addressed in the Initial study (Attachment B). At the March 5th meeting, the ERC discussed the issues outlined in Ms. Sky's letter which is included in this report as Attachment A. During the discussion, the Fire Department stated that the City currently has no requirement for emergency evacuation plans. ~ ~ ::sn 0* SNO 1If_tlDeC) ~~_*'f$ PLAN.8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) .._.~,~"'''',--;:'~ " CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 91-19 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE h 4-7-92 4 ~ ~ OTHER COMMENTS Other comments received from ~he City's Water Department and the San Bernardino'city Unified School District, are pertinent to the development specific stage and do not address the general plan amend:nent. ANALYSIS EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The purpose of the RE, Residential Estate land use designation is stated, as'follows: It is an objective of the City to: "Promote the development of low-density residential units located on large lots and conveying an ' estate' and 'rural' character." (General Plan Objective 1.9) The RE designation permits estate-type single family detached residential development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. The 13.5 acre amendment site could yield up to 13 dwelling units. FOllowing dedication of land for public streets and improvements, the total yield could be minimally reduced. General Plan Policies included in the Design and Development Standards for RE require that developments be designed to reflect the rural setting of the site and establish high qua~ity, upscale estate subdivisions. PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION The purpose of the RL, Residential Low designation is to: "Promote the development of low-density, large lot, high quality single family detached residential units." (General Plan Objective 1.10) The RL designation permits the development of single family detached residential development at a density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The maximum yield for the amendment site would be 41 dwelling units. Following dedication of land for public streets and improvements, the total yield would be reduced by several units. ~ ~ arr a _ II!-...c) camIAl~.JMC;U PLAN-8.Q8 PAGEl OF 1 (4-90) { ~ _ ___"T7-- "" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 91-19 ..... OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 4-7-92 PAGE 5 ~ ~ ~ General Plan Policy 1.10.32, included in the Design and Developme~t Standards for the RL designation, encourages developers to incorpora~e specific design features into RL developments. The features outlined in the policy include interconnecting pedestrian paths and greenbelts, consistent and well designed signage, entry signage or monument, community amenities (such as clubhouse, meeting rooms, swimming pools, tennis courts, health club, etc.), and similar uses. This policy reflects the type and character of development the City would like to occur in areas designated RL. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Changing the land use designation for the site from RE to RL, as proposed by the applicant, would increase the permitted density from 1.0 dwelling unit per acre to 3.1 dwelli~g units per acre. The total yield for either designation would be relatively low (13 dwelling units and 41 dwelling units, respectively). Both the RL and RE designation are considered to be low density residential uses. The block is bounded by Belmont Avenue, Palm Avenue, Irvington Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. The western half of the block is designated RL and the eastern half is designated RE. The applicant's amendment proposal would result in the majority of the block being designated and, ultimately, developed for RL uses. An RL subdivision on the site would result in the creation of ~0,80? square foot lots. These lots most likely would front on an ~nter~or street system ~ather ~han on Palm or Irvington Avenues. Because new residential subdivisions are required to have perimeter walls (Development Code standards), the existing RE neighborhood would be separated from existing and future residential uses on the block. The adjacent RL uses located west and north of the site will not be affected by the applicant's proposal because of land use compatibility between RL uses. It should be noted that the RL uses loc~ted to the west are separated from the site by an existing P7r~meter block wall. The vacant RE land (located east of the s~te), the church facility and other existing' RE uses (located south and southwest of the site, respectively) are separated and buffered by Palm and Irvinqton Avenues. l ~ c:nv ~ _ _~ U~__.IMCES PLAN.S.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) ,. . - -._---- -- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 91-19 6 4-7-92 6 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ ~ The alternative amendment proposal would result in RE along Palm Avenue with RL on the western portion of the site (refer to Attachment B) . Future residential development in this configuration would be more compatible with the existing and future RE and RL development in the area. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The applicant's ~mendment request would result in the isolation of the existing RE neighborhood to the northeast. This is not consistent with the intent of the General Plan to retain and enhance established residential neighborhoods (General Plan Goal 1G). It is also an objective of the General Plan to retain the scale and character of existing neighborhoods (General Plan Objective 1.8). The establishment of RL lots or a perimeter block wall on Palm Avenue would not result in the attainment of the objective stated. The alternative amendment proposal would leave the land fronting on Palm Avenue as RE. This would help to maintain the RE neighborhood and allow for future growth and expansion. The interior portion of the site would be designated RL which would be compatible with the RL district located west through north and adjacent to the site. In short, the alternative amendment proposal would allow for General Plan consistency and result in a more compatible land use division of the block. OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS As indicated in the Initial Study, the site is located in the Biological Resources Manage~ent (BRM) Overlay Zone. A Biological Resource Surrey, submitted by the applicant, indicates that vegetation on the site is highly di~turbed and virtually devoid of native plant species and it is unlikely that any rare plant species indigenous to the region are present. Likewise, the site's disturbed state precludes its value as a wildlife resource area. It can be concluded tha~ neither RL nor RE development on the site will affect substantial amounts of native vegetation or threaten endangered, candidate, or otherwise sensitive plant species and that the site has little value as a wildlife resource area. The City's Traffic Division has determined that increases in traffic resulting from Changing the designation from RE to RL on the site would be minimal. Staff's alternative amendment proposal would generate less traffic than the applicant's request. As such, the area's circulation would not be significantly impacted by either amendment proposal. (See Comments Received, this report and Attachment A) ~ ~ crrr~_~ ~--~ PLAN-8.08 PAGE' OF , (4-90) L.aoI._~.__ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 91-19 6 4-7-92 7 OBSERVA TIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ ~ other environmental issues identified include noise, public services and cultural resources. These issues are discussed and evaluated in the Initial study (Attachment A). CONCLUSIONS The applicant's amendment proposal would isola~e the existing RE neighborhood located north and adjacent to the site. This is not consistent with' the intent of the General Plan to retain and enhance established neighborhoods. The alternative amendment proposal would help to maintain the existing RE neighborhood and allow for its future growth and expansion along Palm Avenue. The alternative proposal would also provide for RL development on the western portion of the site and a more compatible land use division of the block. FINDINGS ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL The alternative proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation as shown on Attachment B is consistent with the intent of the General Plan to retain and enhance established neighborhoods by maintaining their scale and character. All elements of the map amendment proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The Initial Study addressed these issues and did not identi=y ~ny significant impacts. The proposed map amendment wi:l minimally affect the ~~lance of land uses within the city. The amendment site is physically suitable for the RL, Residential Low and RE, Residential Estate land use designations in that site is large enough to accommodate RL and RE development. APPLICANT'S AMENDMENT PROPOSAL The proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low on the amendment site is not consistent with the General Plan in that an RL designation along Palm Avenue would not be compatible with. the existing RE development. ~ ~ CITY OF _ ~ ~_NTlNG.1MCES PLAN-a.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) '- i!lr~.:u...:O, -.~:".:'~~ . OBSERVATIONS CASE GPA 91-19 AGENDA ITEM b HEARING DATE 4-7-92 PAGE 8 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT All elements of the map amendment proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. The Initial -study addressed these issues and did not identify any significant impacts. The proposed map amendment will minimally affect the balance of land uses within the city. The amendment site is physically suitable for the RL, Residential Low land use designation in that site is large enough to accommodate RL development. RECOMMENDATIONS staff recommends that the Planning Commiss~~n make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080.1 of the CEQA for General Plan Amendment No. 91-19, as presented. 2 . The General Plan Land Use Map be changed as per the alternative amendment proposal and as shown on Attachment B. /dw Attachments: A - Letter to the Environmental Review Committee B - Alternative Amendment Proposal C - Initial Study Exhibit A Land Use Designations and si~e Vicinity Map c:rT'I' a< ..... .--.0 ~~._c:ES PLAN.a.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) t"EL No. , 714 985 6077 Mar C~.92 2:26 P.Oi ? ~JAnr:n 4. 1992 <:1]") Or: SA:\ R;::R~ARDl~O Pl..~'=~l~G A:\D Bt:ltDI!\G SERV!CES DEPART~1E~~ 300 KORi'H U STREET SAS BliU~ARnTSO, CAL1F. 92418-0001 ..~TTX : Di::BOl'L-\lI wOl.nRCFf- ~ ASSOCIATE P1.,\.l~X1=:K ~r:: GP"; =9)-19 n~llr n~h()rflh. 1 ~m un~ble to a~tcnd ~Krch 5, 1992 mectin~ or the Development and Fn,,-j rnnmp.ntal Review r.ommi ttee. I am ver:; concerncd w:i Lh item ,1. ticncr~1 Plnn Amend::lent :91-19... It wi J 1 .ulci t.o our traffjc congestion, which is unbenr&1bl~ in the ~ornin~~ nnd f!v~nings. Even when the street width is completed orl PHllli Avenue, the Lr~fric.~ill ~~jl1 b~ unbearable. J~ ~il1 in~r~~~~ cro-din~, eon~estion and er;me. lor 1.:'i 1) cnu2'~ Allother flond hazard to the homes alread~ bui 1 t. on Irv i n~ Lor.. (The nf!W Lracts west or this project hp.s.d excessive run off from th~ 11S~L rains, cau~inJ: the homes nn Ir""inltton to AlI.ndbac.) Th i.. Iu'uj'i-ct "'Clulti double the run ott. This tract WitH en.(ineered ~o drain thi~ way. ~()uJd put. ~dditional dt'!1DlS.nds and severely impact our a.lready ("'f'!rburd~:1in.c &crvit:es and faci lities such ft!l A~"er, water. police, s<:ho(,ls, t.ir~, librarics, ele. Thi~ proj,"~ct. i~ within ol'e mile of a solid ~astc d;~posal rl:lciliT..j" ~hi(:h has acc~pted haz&1rdoUM ...aste. (C,,-Jnn ~aste ci 'i s.al'~(J sa 1 s i 'tl!. ) \'~rdcmn" 1. does not have a EMERGENCY EVACUATION Pl..~~ and not cnou.lCh ~treets for the people already there t.u J:et out if there i~ a dis~~l~r. PI ~:1~~ consider t_h~t we were t.old all t.he pruperty adj3.~~nt to Pz:slm A'.C'nuC' h~lo~ Uelmont. Avenue wouJd be zoned 1 ll(~re. Just b(~C~H.u~e ~hc truc:Ls "est of lhis proj~C':t. w~re appro,-~d be<:ausc of n mi~lRke in ~imin~ of ~ettin~ them on th~ City Council ~~enda i l ciuf~~rl' t mean t.hK l this pQ.rc~ 1 of land shnu 1 d be rczon~d. SINCIU~F:t.Y . ,&k~~4 BARHAHA 1... $KY 6464 P.~T.~l ,\V1::NCE, 5~N BERN.\RDINO i 11-1 888-98~O ATTACHMENT A CIT.. OF SAN BER.~ARDINCY -~) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 TITLE Alternative Amendment Proposal ~ ~ l'L <> I AVENUE~ ~--:.- ..., I -_-=.:~ ---. ~ @ J.' I 40<!' J ~O(.\ c ' :;) \.'i~~ 1~ I ~ , I ~ ~ I I ~ . .,,~ t ',i,!.~ .l. ~o(. ~~ ,.~ r&- ~, , \.'i~ I ' Selmo,,+ J~.5t:J4 ~z?,/ ~ o I J . J J ~ ~ ...J ~ I ~, I AVENUE-~--:- - 11_ r \ '" "' c .... '19 \ " \ , L r vi nt"h 1\ ATTACHMENT B ,. r' ...... ,! CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~. INITIAL STUDY a... ~ r ~ .GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9 1- 19 Proiect Description and Location: To change the land use designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low on approximately 1~.48 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Irvington Avenue in the Verdemont Area. Date: February 20, 1992 Applicant(s) Name and Address: 3.e. Dabney & Associates 671 South Brea Canyon Road #5 Walnut, CA 91789 Owner(s) Name and Address: Dr. Abbas Ekrami 30dabek Alizadeh Mahmoud Rezai c/o Mr. Scot Beard G.W. Beard Realty, Inc. 124 North Riverside Avenue Rialto, CA 92376 Initial Studv Prepared By: Deborah Woldruff Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planninq and Buildinq Services 300 North wDw Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ~ ATTACHMEUT C ~ c;ny Of $NO .-..-.0 CEIIIl'IUl ~SfJINlCES PLAN-8.o7 PAGE' OF , (4-90) / INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMEMDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 which proposes to change the land use designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low for a site located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Irvington Avenue in the Verdemont Area. As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act quidelines, 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Neqative 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 1s required, by: (A) Focusing 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 siqnificant 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 siqnificant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; ,. / " INITIAL STUDY fm...... ", GENERAL PLAK AMENDMENT NO. 9 1- 19 February 20, 1992 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant's request is to amend the City's General -Plan Land Use Plan map to change the land use designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low on approximately 13.48 acres of land located at the northw~st corner of Palm Avenue and Irvington Avenue. The RE designation permits detached residential development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. The RL designation permits detached single-family residential development at a density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre. Exhibit A shows the site vicinity and the land use designations for the site and the surrounding area. 2.1 Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics The amendment site is rectangular in shape with a small rectangle protruding from the northern corner. The site contains one undeveloped parcel of land which consists of approximately 13.48 acres. The topography of the site generally is flat and slopes to the southwest at a grade of approximatelY 4 percent. The topography of the surrounding area is similar al though it is somewhat steeper to the north. Areas northeast of the site exhibit the foothill terrain of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Cable Creek Flood Control Channel is located south of the site, beyond Irvington Avenue. Vegetation on site appears to have been farmed or disced at one time and can be classified as ruderal. The entire site is highly disturbed and virtually free of native plant species. The land located west through north and adjacent to the site is designated RL, Residential Low and is currently being developed for single family residential uses (Tracts 13307 and 14997, respectively). Northeast and adjacent to the site are existing residences in an area designated RE, Residential Estate. East through ~. < . . INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 southeast and desiqnated as southwest and residences in Estate. across Palm Avenue is vacant land that is RE, Residential Estate. South through across Irvin~~on Avenue are existing an area designated as RE, Residential 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Setting The amendment site is located in an area subject to certain environmental constraints, as follows: 1. ) biological [Bioloqical Resources Management (BRM) Overlay Zone] ; 2.) high winds (High Wind Hazard Area) ; 3. ) archaeoloqical (Area. of Concern for Archaeological Resources); and, 4. ) noise [noise corridor of 60-65 dB(Al] . 3. .......... '~ ~..'.' ~'~-:::~~~''''.... CITY.OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST r- ~ A. BACKGROUND ApplicationNumber: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 91-19 Projed Description: A proposal to change the land use desi gnation from RE, Residential Esta~e to RL, Residential Low on approx. 23.88 acres 0= land. Location: The project site is located at the northwest corner of Palm and Irvington Avenues in the Verdemont Area. Environmental Constraints Areas: High Wind Hazard Area, Noise Corridor of 60-65 dB(A)s, Biological Resources Mgmt. Overlay and Area of Concern for Archaeological Resources. General Plan Designation: 'RP 'R~c:i~~nTi.::t' ~C:T.::tT~ . Zoning Designation: 5 ~l"O B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. No Maybe 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Ves a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? d. Modification of any unique ge~logic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? f. Modification of a channel, aeek or river? ~ x x x x x x ~ PLAN.9.06 PAGE' OF _ (t '-90) c.I.. C1TV ~ SA" ....-...0 CItfIMl.~.-cu r' "'"' g. Development within an area subjed to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides. liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic. X Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? X. 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effed upon ambient air quality as defined by ACMD? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's X General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impenneable surfaces? X b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration X of surtace water quality? d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Rood Insurance Rate Map, Convnunity Panel Number 060281 Cr. to 5 .1i , and Section 16.0- Rooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? X 1. Other? X 4. Biological Res:)urces: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0 . Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? X b. Chang9 in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including X stands otrrees? c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or X endangered specaes of animals or their habitat? d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6- or greater) X e. Other? X 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care faciities. sdlools, libraries, religious facilities or other -noise- sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB~) interior as identified in Section 14.0. Noise, Figures and 58 of the City's General Plan? X ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .,--.0 PLAN-g.06 PAGE 2 OF - e11.go) 5 . a__SE~S ,r-c--. ~ " '" b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Ves No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? c. Other? X 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the X General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and X the Land Use Zoning District Map? c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as identified on the Land Use Zoning Distrid Map? X d. Other? X 7. M:.n-Made Hazards: Will the projed: a Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, X pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? X 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X b. Other? X 9. Transportation I Circulation: Could the proposal. in comparison with !he Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0 - Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? X b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/structures? X c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways X or intersections? i. Other? X ~ ~ arra'_~ PLAN.9.06 PAGE 3 OF _ (11.90) , c:srnw.__1ElMCU -' ...., "' ~ 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impad the following Ves No Maybe beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X X e. Medical aid? f. Solid Waste? X g. Other? X 11. Utilities: Win the proposal: a Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construdion of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? X 5. Other? X X b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? c. Require the construction of new facilities? X 12. Aesthetics: a Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? X b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? X c. Other? X 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Sedion X 3.0 - Historical, Figure B. of the City.s General Plan? b. Alteration or destrudion of a historical site, strudure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources X Reconnaissance Survey? c. Other? X Ill... ~ CITY c# _ ~ c:&nM&."--~ PlAN.9.Q6 PAGE .OF _ (11.90)-;' "-- r ~ 14. . Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Ad states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe .... a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x x C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MlTlGAnON MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) See attached sheets. ~ .olIIIl ern' C'I -~. ~~1EfMCES PLAN.9.Q6 PAGE 50F _ :1'.90) ill ii- INITIAL STUDY f~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 3.2 3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth Resources 1. a. Development on the project site in accordance with the density permitted by the current land use designation, RE, Residential Estate could yield up to 13 dwellinq units. The proposed desiqnation, RL, Residential Low could yield up to 31 dwelling units. In either case, earth movement in the form of cut and/or fill activities would be necessary for residential construction. 1. b. The project site slopes to the southwest at an approximate 4.5 percent grade (Case Planner Site Inspection, 02-21-92 and Initial Study for TT 13307, 05-19-88) . As such, the project will not resul t in development or grading on a slope greater than fifteen percent natural grade. 1.c. The amendment site is not located within the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone (Fig. 47, General Plan). However, it located northeast and adjacent to a suspect fault (Fife and Rodgers, 1974). At the project development stage the need for a subsurface engineering geology investigation report will be determined by the City Engineer and the City Geologist. 1.d. ,e. ,f. ,0. The site is devoid of any unique geologic/physical features incl uding water features (i. e., channels, creeks or rivers). Similarly, the site is not located in an area subject to water or wind erosion, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction or other geologic/seismic hazards. It should be noted, however, that the site is in proximity to an area susceptible to high liquetaction which is located to the northwest. At the project development stage the need for a subsurface engineering geology investigation report will be determined by the City Engineer and the City Geologist. q it,. INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 3.2.2 Air Resources 2.a. Presently, the site is undeveloped and has no effect on the air quality in the area. However, future development on the site, either RE or RL, marginally could affect air quality because of increased air emissions resul tinq from additional automobiles travelinq to and from the site and increased levels of human activity occurring in the area. 2.e. The amendment site is located in the High Wind Ha2ard Area. Because the site is undeveloped, chanqinq the land use designation from RE to RL will not chanqe or increase the wind ha2ard. Any future development on the site must be designed to minimi2e the effects of hiqh winds and buildinq construction must comply with all applicable City ordinances and State law. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.a.,c.,d. If the property were developed for the RL designation, impermeable surfaces s~ch as interior streets, sidewalks, driveways, building pads and perhaps, patios would be constructed. As a resul t, absorption rates would be decreased thereby increasing surface runoff. Development under the RE designation would have a similar, but lesser effect. Impermeable surfaces such as asphal t or concrete tend to collect solid exhaust particulates and other air emission solids as sell as engine fluids, residue from automobile tires and other chemical pollutants. Durinq periods of rain, surface pollutants are washed into the water ways. Cumulatively, these pollutants can change the quality of surface and ground water in an area. The quantity of the ground water also can be affected because impermeable surfaces decrease water absorption rates. 3.b. ,e. No water courses or features exist on the site and the site is located in Zone C, an area of minimal floodinq IQ~ INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 (Environmental Concerns Map, Planning Division and FEHA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281- )005 A, July 16, 1979). 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4.a.,b.,c. The site is located within the Biological Resources Management (BRM) Overlay Zone (Fig. 41, General Plan and Environmental Concerns Map, Planning Division) and a Bioloqical Resource Survey was prepared and used as a reference for this report CChambers Group, Inc., January 1992). The Survey indicates that vegetation on site can be classified as ruderal. The vegetation is highl y disturbed and virtually devoid of native plant species and as such, the presence of any rare plant species indigenous to the region is unlikely. While some species of mammals, birds and reptiles were observed, the disturbed state of the site's vegetation precludes its value as a wildlife resource area. The Survey concludes that RL development on the site is not expected to affect substantial amounts of native vegetation, or have the potential to affect threatened, endangered, candidate, or otherwise sensitive plant species. Moreover, the project area is of little value as a wildlife resource and is unlikely to be utilized by sensitive species (Chambers Group, Inc., January 1992). 3.2.5 Noise S.a. The noise levels on site are at 60-65 dBCA) CFig. 57, General Plan). It is unlikel y that the amendment proposal to chanqe the land use designation could result in the exposure of people to. high exterior or interior noise levels. At the project development stage, existing and projected future noise levels on the site will be reassessed to determine the requirement for sound proofing and other methods of noise mitigation. 'I. INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 3.2.6 Land Use 6.a. The proposed amendment will change the General Plan land use desiqnation on the site from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low. This amendment would increase the permitted density from 1.0 dwellinq unit per acre to 3.1 dwelling units per acre. At this time, the city block in which the site is located is nearly evenly divided by the joint boundary between the RL'and RE designated areas. The block is bounded by Belmont Avenue on the northeast, Palm Avenue on the southeast, Irvington Avenue on the southwest and Chestnut Avenue on the northwest. The northwestern half of the block is desiqnated RL and the southeastern half is desiqnated RE. The amendment proposal will resul t in the majority of the block being desiqnated and, ultimately, developed for RL uses. Anticipated land use impacts on the surroundinq area will be minimal since both the RL and RE desiqnation are considered to be low density residential uses. The remaininq RE portion of the block will be minimall y affected by the proposal due to proximity to the site. The adjacent RL uses will not be affected and RE uses in the area are separated and buffered by Palm and Irvington Avenues. 6.b. The amendment site is not located in an Airport District (Environmental Concerns Map, Planning Division). 6.c. The project (Development Division) . site is Code not in OVerlay a High Fire Hazard area Districts Map, Planninq 3.2.7 Man-Made Hazards 7.a.,b.,c. Other than those household chemicals and agents used for residential or automobile maintenance, large quantities ,,.. / -. INITIAL STUDY f~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 of hazardous or toxic materials are not normally used in residential districts. As such, impacts resulting from man-made hazards are not anticipated to occur. 3.2.8 Housinq 8.a. Changing the land use desiqnation for the site will neither result in the removal of existing housing nor create a demand for additional housinq. It may, however, result in 31 single family dwelling units as permitted in the RL density (3.1 dwelling units per gross acre) rather than 13 dwellinq units as permitted in the RE (1.0 dwelling uni ts per gross acre). This would be a potential increase of 18 dwellinq units on the site. 3.2.9 Transport~tion/Circulation 9.a.,d.,f. Development under the RL desiqnation could result in more traffic in the area than under the RE designation. The RL designation permits a hiqher density than the RE designation. However, the increases in traffic and potential traffic hazards would be minimal as evidenced by the Traffic Division's determination that a traffic study is not necessary. The implication is that circulation in the area would not be significantly impacted (Traffic Division Comments, 12-03-91). 9.c. At this time, Omni Trans does not have routes into or throuqh the Verdemont Area. As such, no impacts will occur. 3.2.10 Public Services 10.a. ,b. ,e. Changing the land use desiqnation from RE to RL on the site will not directly impact Public Services in the area. However, future residential development on the site could impact services for police and fire protection and medical aid. The nearest fire station, which also provides medical aid, is located approximately 4 miles away at 1640 Kendall Drive (Fig.33, General Plan). 13 · ,-- . " "....- INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 Police service is provided by the main police station, located in the downtown area, approximately 7 miles away (Fig. 32. General Plan). Due to its relative distance from the City's center, the response time for Fire protection and medical aid in the Verdemont Area currently exceeds acceptable the standard of 3 minutes. The response time for Police protection cannot be calculated in the same way as Fire response times because Police units do not originate from a fixed location as do Fire units. The response time for ?olice units is dependent upon the location the nearest unit available. It should be noted, however, that Police patrols in the Verdemont Area occur as time permits because the area Is not considered a high crime district. Prior to project approvals for development of the site, the issue of Public Services will be reevaluated to determine appropriate mitiqation. At that time, the applicant will be required to incorporate fire safety features (sprinklers, smoke detectors, etc.) and security features into floor plan and elevation designs for the proposed dwelling units. 10.c. The project site is located within the San Bernardino Unified School District boundaries. The amendment proposal will not result in impacts on schools in Verdemont Area or impair the ability of the School District to provide educational services. Future residential development on the site most likel y will bring more children into the area. However, it is unlikely that this will cause a siqnificant impact given the size of the project site and the permitted density in the RL. At the time of development, the applicant will be required to pay all required school fees. 10.f. Development as permitted under the RL designation minimally would generate more solid waste than would development under the RE designation. The City and its neighboring municipalities are approaching landfill Jc.4. /' . " INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 February 20, 1992 capaci ty. Disposal and/ or recyc 1 ing of so 1 id waste should be addressed at the time of development. 10. d. Changing the land use designation from RE to RL will not result in impacts to parks or other recreational facilities. At the time of development, the Department of Parks, Recreation & Community Services will impose a fee, approved by the Mayor and Common Council, based on an estimate of the future needs of the area. The fee will be for the acquisition of parklands or improvements to existing parks and/or facilities in the area. 3.2.11 Utilities 11.a,b.,c. The proposed amendment will not impact the utilities (referenced) beyond the capacity to provide adequate levels of services or require the construction of new facilities. At the project development stage, the Public Works Department will impose a fee(s), approved by the Mayor and Common Council, based on an estimate of the future needs of the Verdemont Area. The fee(s) will be for improvements such as storm drains and a bridge across Palm Avenue. 3 . 2. 12 Aesthetics 12 . a. lb. While the site is somewhat higher than properties to the southwest and 1-215, future development should not obstruct scenic views of the San Bernardino Mountains and the Cajon Pass. Project design will be subject to the Development Code Standards and Design Guidelines and as such, should not create any negative visual impacts in the Verdemont Area. IS- ... INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91- 19 February 20, 1992 3.2.13 Cultural Resources 13.a. ,b. The amendment site is located in an area of concern for archaeoloqical resources (Fiq. 8, General Plan). A records search, completed by the San Bernardino County Museum Archaeoloqical Information Center, indicates that no resources are known to exist within or adjacent to the project site. Based upon the records search, further archaeological investigation is not' recommended (Archaeological Information Center comments, 12-10-91). 3.2. 14 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (SECTION 15065) 14. c. Redesiqnation of the site as RL, Residential Low would increase the permitted density from 1.0 dwellinq unit per acre to 3.1 dwellinq units per acre and yield an additional number of units. This proposal will create secondary impacts at the project specific staqe that can be mitigated to a level of non-siqnificance. At that time, the environmental constraints on the property as addressed in this report will be further evaluated to determine specific impacts and appropriate mitiqation. No cumulative impacts from the amendment proposal have been identified. 'I.- ~ ~ D. DETERMINA nON On the basis of this initial study. []] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. o The p~pos.ed project could have a ~i.gnif.icant effect on the e~vironment. although there will not be a significant effect In this case because the mitigatIOn measures descnbed above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE OECLARA TJON will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ~OMMITIEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Services Name and Title t~~1 ! L~/ Signature f/ D~e: March 5, 1992 ~ PLNf-IJ)6 PAGE _ OF _ ~ (11.go) ~ ~ ~ ..... ..--.., CItfTaM. __1MCoU /' , . CITY vF SAN BERNARDINO GEN.ERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 TITLE Land Use Oesiqnations and Site Vicinity Map * A proposal to change the land use designation from RE to RL on 23.88 acres. Density Permitted: RE: 1 du/acre RL: 3.1 du/acre , r , - EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE 1 DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN 2 BERNARDINO · 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 4 5 Recitals SECTION 1. (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 6 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on 7 8 June 2, 1989. (b) General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 to the General Plan of 9 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning 10 commission on April 7, 1992, after a noticed public hearing, and 11 the Planning commission's recommendation of approval has been 12 considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 13 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on March 5, 1992 and 14 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning 15 commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 91- 16 19 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 17 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 18 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day 19 public review period from March 12, 1992 through April 1, 1992 and 20 21 all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the 22 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. 23 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public 24 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan 25 Amendment No. 91-19 and the Planning Division Staff Report on 26 May 18, 1992. 27 IIII 28 1 1 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 is 2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and :3 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 4 existing General Plan. 5 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration 6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan 8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on 9 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared 10 by the Environmental Revie;l Committee as to the effect of this 11 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 12 SECTION 3. Findinas 13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the 14 City of San Bernardino that: The change of designation from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low for the proposed amendment will change the land use map only 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. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissable under the RL, Residential Low designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on such services. 15 A. 16 17 18 19 B. 20 21 c. 22 23 24 25 D. 26 27 28 IIII The proposed amendment is to redesignate 9.74 acres to RL, Residential Low. The City's housing stock will minimally be affected. 2 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: The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 9.74 acres from RE, Residential Estate to RL, Residential Low. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A, and is more specifially described in the legal description entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein be reference. General Plan Amendment No. 91-19 shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION 5. MaD Notation This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be 1 E. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B. 17 18 19 20 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously 21 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are 22 on file in the office of the City Clerk. 23 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 24 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 25 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 26 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental 27 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 28 IIII 3 1 RESOLUTION.. .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 TO THE GENERAL 2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 8 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the , 1992, by the following vote, to 6 day of 7 wit: 8 Council Members 9 ESTRADA 10 REILLY 11 HERNANDEZ 12 MAUDSLEY 18 MINOR 14 POPE-LUDLAM AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 19 of 20 21 , 1992. w. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to 22 form and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN, 24 City !~ttorneY/J ~: B~i4l'~ ? j~1'~ 27 28 4 Cit'- of San Bernardino, Locatir-~ Map GPA 91-19 ~" ~~ \~~~~~ <~. <J;' '\~~.';0\.~"(~ ~: .r........'.',..,., ~" '." '. ~a;: '.c;-' ~ ,,;<:~ ~- f,.~_ ,"'-0;:. of",!:' . ..~"~:. .~., ...~.,. : ..':' . '~";-1~' ...;,.s : -' ./' .,.... (;;rj/ .. ..... ..' ,. t -- I"" t "--/'J,J'Y I L -.. - . . ,'.' AVENUE--~' ~ ~-"'-~~ , . _ " I' ~ ':'t - - - - - - ~:1/~"") ~~ @ .... f 1.# I~ .. \ . I. J. I~ ~ 00(' C. ..... l't "( ~~ ~ A" Ii::> Ie \. 1\ I ~ ' ",Ptt I: ~ I I ~ I I I~ " I' ~. BE L rnON-T /'..& ,,~ 7.s /./ . \ ~ ~ ~ i (.' ~ ~ I'...~'.~. ~ ?O ~ ~ \~ ~, ~ \J ~ ~ \' ~(j. ~ , ~ \ Q vO<<' ~ . @ \ \~~ 'V ... ~ r"-t @} <(~. ~ ,,0(' \.~~ ~ .7! 7 .j, . I I~ I~ I I . J..3.506 :~ ~ ~: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ I ::::::::: ::::::: ~:.:~::::::::::: ::: :::: :::::: ,6 .. .....................~_.......................... @ .. mmmmmH~~mE~mmmmmmmmm~ I~ ~ ~ ~ E~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . =H::H=:E:;;::H=:;;::H:EH::?~=:;;: ......................... ................ i'!::: .... .... u ~(i)' mmmmmmgmmmmmmmmgmmm J:~ ~ :i;liiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllI! J" ~ mmmmm~mmmmmmmmmmmmm 1>i) E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E gEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ."' :::::::::::::!!i. .:..:.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '............. ......~.. ............................ ~ :::::::::::::. "::i =-:E::::::::::::::::::: . ~~ mmmmH~~~~::H::H:;~n!!!!HHm~UjmH Jr' ~ ~~mmmmm~mmmmmm~~E~~rrm~~m .. ::lHM::HfIt::lIHI. :tttt:tHK:lHtC: . <3 ,." 11'7' IS/.. 5.3. I l.if /. S ~ I .. 1IH.,r/ - . Z/s- - RE +" 1\l Attachment "A" CITY OF SAN SER RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-19 ,. TITLE Legal Description ~ PARCEL DESCRIPTION 261-142~07 THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ENTIRE PARCEL, DESCRIPTION "A" LOTS 2 AND 3 BLOCK 87, ACCORDING TO PLAT OF TOWN OF IRVINGTON AND THE IRVINGTON LAND AND WATER COMPANY, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, PAGE 3, RECORDS OF SURVEY, BEING A RE-SURVEY OF THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 9 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF BELMONT AVENUE AND PALM AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE 520.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 315.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID BELMONT AVENUE; THENCE NORTHERLY 130.00 FEET PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID PALM AVENUE; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID BELMONT AVENUE TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, 390.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE EASTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TO BE ZONED RL RESIDENTIAL, DESCRIPTION "B" ALL OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WITHIN DESCRIPTION "A". EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EASTERLY 200.00 FEET OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARCEL AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO PALM AVENUE AND PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE. APPROXIMATELY 9.74 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PARCEL TO BE ZONED RE RESIDENTIAL, DESCRIPTION "C" ALL OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WITHIN DESCRIPTION "A". EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WITHIN DESCRIPTION "A" THAT IS WESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL AND 2.00.00 FEET DISTANT TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE. APPROXIMATELY 3.74 ACRES MORE OR LESS. A T T A C H MEN T "B" ~ IIIl...