HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning
c'.N OF SAN 8ERNARDI~ - REQUEO FOR COUNCIL AC
David Anderson
From: Acting Planning Director
Su~~t: General Plan Amendment No. B6-5
Dept: Planning
Date: April lO, 1987
Mayor and Council Meeting of
April 20, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the planning Commission on April 7, 19B7, the
following recommendation was made:
The application for General Plan Amendment No. B6-5 was unanimously
recommended for approval of Alternative III, Figure 5, as contained
in staff's report dated April 7, 19B7.
The Negative Declaration for environmental impact was also
recommended for approval.
Recommended motion:
To approve, modify or reject the findings and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission.
To approve the responses to comments and to adopt the Negative
Declaration for environmental impact which has been reviewed and
considered.
~~~/
Signature David Anderson
Contact penon:
David Anderson
Phone:
3B3-5057
Supporting data attached:
Staff. Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: --
Source:
Finance:
Council No:es:
40.
'0
o
o
o
DEPARTMENT ""
~ ClTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
8
417187
1
~
...
l&.I
:l
u
Plan Amendment
86-5
APPLICANT: Arthur Marconi
P.O. Drawer "p"
Adelanto, CA 92301
OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT
~ pplicant requests approval to amend the General Plan designation
~ from High Density Residential to Administrative-Professional.
l&.I
:)
~
II:
, ubje~t property is a 1.6 acre site located south of Seventh St.,
<E etween Mountian View and Arrowhead Avenues. The Study Area has
~ een exp,anded to include an area bounded by Fifth. and Eighth St. 's
<E nJ by 'i)" Street and Sierra Way.
East
West
Office,S.F.Res.
Office
ZONING
R-3
C-4, R-3
C-4, R-3
C-3A, R-3
C-4
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Res.
Res.
Institional, Schoo
etc.
Res.
Admin. Professional
PROPERTY
Subject
Horth
South
EXISTING
LAND USE
Vacant
Office, S. F .Res.
YMCA
FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A SEWERS rn YES
ZONE DNO OZONE B DNO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE !Xl NO CRASH ZONE fiNO PROJECT AREA !Xl NO
~ o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
ZU) MEASURES NO E.I.R. ti CONDITIONS
l&.I(D o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO &l.Q 0
2Z &l.Ci DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
OQ WITH MITIGATING t!:I 0 CONTINUANCE TO
o::Z MEASURES 0:1
:;ii: MNO 0
Z o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS U
l&.I SIGNIFICANT .SEE ATTACHED E.RC. l&.I
EFFE CTS MINUTES 0::
NOV. 1.1. REVISED JULY Ilia
In
.~
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA 4;86-5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 8
HEARING DATE417 87
PAGE
1.
The property in question
facing on the south side
and Arrowhead Avenues
district.
is a flat, vacant lot of 1.6 acres
of Seventh Street between Mountain View
and located in an R-3-l200 zoning
2. The Study Are~ has been expanded to include the nine blocks
bounded by Fifth and Eighth Streets and by "0" Street and Sierra
Way. Any amendment of the General Plan will affect this entire
area, not just the property in question.
3. The Planning Department is currently working on an Overlay
District which will include Seccombe Lake Park and its
surroundings. The Overlay District will include proposed land
uses and development standards and will involve amending the
General Plan. A decision has yet to be made on proposed land
uses within the Overlay District. The Study Area for General
Plan Amendment No. 86-5 overlaps the western boundary of the
Overlay District which includes some parcels abutting on the
west side of Sierra Way.
4. The City of San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency anticipates
increased office construction in the downtown area subsequent to
the development of the Tri-City area. A number of office
buildings have been approved in the downtown area by the
Development Review Committee in the past year. Although there
is a high vacancy rate for office space in the downtown area,
many of the vacancies are in older, somewhat deteriorated
structures. A new multi-story office building at 600 North
Arrowhead Avenue has been quite successful at renting spaces.
The Southern California Association of Governments has projected
that employment in the service sector will increase from 17.1%
of region's total employment in 1972 to 29.3% of the total in
2010. With the growth of employment in the service sector, we
can expect an increase in the demand for additional office
space.
5. The attached summary of impacts presents land use acreage
figures for the existing General Plan designations (Figure 1)
and for three alternatives. The summary also includes calcula-
tions for the potential number of dwelling units for each alter-
native and estimates of the potential residential population,
number of students generated, and average number of vehicle
trips generated per day. Alternative I (Figure 2) is to grant
the applicant's request by extending the Administrative
Professional designation to include the entire northern half of
the block to the south of Seventh Street between Mountain View
and Arrowhead Avenues. Alterntive II (Figure 3) is to e~pand
.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA NO. 86-5
OBSERVATIONS
.
AGENDA ITEM 8
HEARING DATE 417~87
. PAGE
r
the residential designation to include property in question and
also to expand it one block to the south between Mountain View
Avenue and Sierra Way and to redesignate it as Medium High
Density Residential with a cap at 24 dwelling units per acre.
Alternative III (Figure 4) is to grant the applicant's request
for an Administrative-Professional designation for the property
in question and also to extend the residential designation to
the south as in Alternative II and to redesignate it as Medium
High Residential with a cap at 24 dwelling units per acre.
6. As the summary of impacts shows, the existing General Plan
designations generate the highest potential for number of
dwelling units, population, students generated, and average
daily trips generated. Alternative I has a 12% lower potential
for population and students generated, a 2% lower potential for
average daily trips generated, and an increase of lO% in the
acreage available for office construction. Alternative II
yields reductions in potential population and students generated
roughly equivalent to Alternative I, but reduces average daily
trip generation by 15% and acreage available for office
construction by 26%. Alternative III involves reductions in
potential population and student generation by 20% and 21%
respectively, a 15% reduction in average daily trips generated
(the same reduction as Alternative II), and a 16% reduction in
acreage available for office construction.
7. Residential land use adjacent to Seccombe Lake Park would
increase the utility of the park by making it readily accessible
to nearby residents. Alternative III yields the second highest
acreage figure for the residential designation while not
reducing acreage available for office construction as much as
Alternative II. Alternative III also reduces the potential for
traffic generation as much as Alternative II and also reduces
the number of students generated by an additional 8%. The
San Bernardino City Unified School District has commented that
it supports the reduction of high density residential zoning
throughout the City. Except for some parcels abutting the west
side of Sierra Way between Vine and Victoria Streets,
Alternative III does not change any General Plan designations
within the Seccombe Lake Park Overlay District.
8. Alternative III represents the best balance of proposed land
uses for the Study Area. It accommodates the projected need for
office space while also allowing residential uses adjacent to a
major park. It also has a comparatively low potential for
traffic generation and for impact on the School District.
.
c; 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA NO. 86-5
o
OBSERVATIONS
8
417~87
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
9. The Planning Department would not recommend any changes to
General Plan designations in that part of the Study Area which
overlaps the Seccombe Lake Parks Overlay District. Since
proposed land uses for the Overlay District have not yet been
developed, any proposed changes in General Plan designations for
the parcels common to both the Study Area and the Overlay
District should be deferred until they can be coordinated with
the proposed land uses which will be a part of the Overlay
District. No additional environmental issues would be raised by
amending Alternative III so that it would not affect any parcels
within the Seccombe Lake Park Overlay District.
10. None of the alternatives are inconsistent with the proposed land
uses within the Central City North or Central City East
Redevelopment Plans or the proposed Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
The Central City North Plan provides "for the development of a
wide variety of commercial uses, including but not limited to,
financial institutions, business offices, professional offices,
retail facilities... and other related and compatible commercial
uses." The Central City East Plan proposes land uses including
open space, residential, governmental, industrial, and
commercial uses. The proposed commercial uses "shall include,
without limitation, business offices, professional offices,
retail stores and other office functions ..." The proposed
uptown Redevelopment Plan "allows for urban land uses including
commercial, industrial, residential, public facility, and public
parking uses."
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative III amended to leave the
General Plan designations for the parcels abutting the west side of
Sierra Way between Vine and Victoria as shown in Figure S.
Respectfully Submitted,
DAVID ANDERSON,
Acting Planning Director
s~ W~__
SCOTT WRIGHT, anning Aide
'0
o
o
o
Existing Alt. 1
Land Use
Res 73 25.5 22.4
Res 24
Gen. Com. 11.5 11.5
Admin-Prof. 30.7 33.8
Inst. 4.1 4.1
71.8 ac. 71.8 ac.
Dwelling 944a 829a
Units
Populationc 2077 1824
d
Students
generated 614 539
Traffic
generated 14,962 14,698
(AOT)
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
34.4
10.5
22.8
4.1
31.3
10.5
25.9
4.1
71.8 ac.
71.8 ac.
826b
1817
751b
1652
537
488
12,730
12,707
a
c
Based on 37 d.u. 's / ac.
Based on 24 d.u. 's / ac.
Based on an average population of 2.2 per multi-family
household
Based on a factor of 0.65 students generated by each household.
b
d
Co
GPA :10. 86-5
c
.... CITY OF
000
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'l
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
... ENVIRO.NMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
,
,..
A. BACKGROUND
l. Case Number (s) : GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-5 Date: 3/3/87
2. Project Description: Aoolicant requests approval to amend the General
Plan desi2nation from hi.!':h DenBitv Reside:i~ i9.1 to A.lministrative-
1?rofession::il
3. General Location: Suutn of Sevent~l '~":reet between Arrowhead and Mountain
View. Studv area bounded by Fif th. Ei2hth. and "D" Streets and Sierra
Y"v.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE NO
-
l. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area? X
- -
2. Would significant increases in either noise levels,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result-
ing from normal construction activity? X
- -
3. Will project involve application, use or disposal
of hazardous or toxic materials? J{
- -
4. Will any deviation from any established environ-
mental standards (air, water, noise, light, etc.)
andlor adopted plans be requested in connection
with project? X
- -
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of energy which could be reduced by the
use of appropriate mitigation measures? X
- -
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or
congestion? X
- -
7. Could project result in any substantial change in
quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion
of region's air or surface and ground water re-
sources? X
.... ~
,
MAY II
EJlC. ,0IItI A
-..
..
~A NO. 86-5, pg. 2
o
r
o
8. Will project involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
la. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
I
11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
14. Axe there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
16. Will project be located. in immediate area of any
adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
YES
-
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource? X
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, drainage courses, etc?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
...
MAYBE
o
.....
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.~
uc. '01111 A
~AlE a OF I
..
c
GPA NO. 86-5, pg. 3
o
o
o
....
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of any cumulative effects ~attach additional sheets if needed).
Alternatives include amend ng the designation to Admin-Prof., General Commerci~ I
or Med.-High Density Residential. A commercial land use could significantly
increase the traffic generated in the study area. The site is located in
liauefaction zone "e".
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmentsl impacts:
Adverse traffic gene~ation impact could be mitigated by a designation of
Admin.-Professional or Medium High Density Residential. Liquefaction problems
can be mitigated by standard Building & Safety requirements.
,
E. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
[i\ We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] We find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPA.1U:D.
[] We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMEliTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
YdtUL-t.i?~
(Secretary) VALERIE C. ROSS, Assistant Planner
DATE: March 5. 1987
'" ....
.
MAY ..
EIIC. I'OIIlIl A
~Q
Fi~ 1
:GPA 86-5 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS
tijo l:J t:J '. " R-: Dtjj i R-3
I ", I.
o
o
...........,.......
..-. ..................--......
. . : ~. .:........... ". .'. ........
ie
c.. R.3 R.
C.4 C.4 C-3 R.3
.~ R.
t
C.4 l-
en
C.4 C'3 R-3 R-3
C.4 .
&w
: I
'd
o
o
o
F~g 2
C-4
.. . ".". ...........;............ . ." . . . .~. ................' .". ........ . . . . . .". ."
ALTERNATIVE I
R-, Otjj i R-'
AP
i~
......... .........
GPA 86-5
tBtJtJtJ II
I.
c..
. R-3
R.
C-4
C.4 C-3
R~
R-3
.IE]
R.
C.4
t-
en
R-3
C.4 C-3
R-3
R-3
C-4
-
w
C-4
C~4
0.4
"0"
C-4
C-4
c-
C.4
C-4
l
C-
AP
C-4
R-4
C-3A
A-P
R-3
C
C-4
C-3A
ttl ST.. _ _ _ _ _ _ .J
C4 ""
~
-----..--
STUDY AREA
~o
GPA 86-5 ALTERNATIVE II
t!jtJ tJtJ I I R-3 I Otjj i
10 tft I.
o
Fig 3
RES 24
id
o
o
................... . ..... --..................................:................ . .....-....
R-3
R-!
F
C-4
R-3
R-3
F
t
RES 7 R-3 .
R-3
R-3 R-3
'.0"
R-3
R'3 "0"
C-4
c-
C.4
.0 C.4
l
c-
C'3A
Ff.3
C 4 114
C-3A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 ttt ST... _ _ _ _ _ - ..J
C.4
c.
A-P
lit
------- STUDY AREA
~ Q
o
o
. .-,. . . ...... ......,.. ....... ......". '~'."""-'.. " ...-....
, m' . _
IG
1:.. R-!
C.4 C.4 C-3 R.3
,.~ C'3A
.0
C.4 ... ES 7
en
C.4 C'3 R-3 R-3
c- 4 =
w
: I
C.4
C.4
C.4 "0"
1:..
C-4
C.4
...0 C- 4
AP
C.4
. R-4
1:4 ..
C"3A
- - - - ~ _ - 5 ttt ST_ _ .. .. _ _ _ ..J
C-4
A-P
C-4
------ STUDY AREA
R
R
C-
C-
C.3A
R-!
It
o
Fig 5
GPA 86-5 ALTERNATIVE III AMENDED
rutJ ocr..', 0-3 I otjj i 0-3 i d
I tft I.
.A G
o
o
..................
. .".. ',-' ...... ................. . .... . . .~. ...........-.. .". ....,.
c..
C-4
e-4 C-3 R-3
.te.. I
t
C.4
~
en
ES 7
R-3
C- 4 C'3
C.4
.
.
w
.
C-4
C.4
C-4
C.4
C-4
C-4
. .
"0 C.4
l
R-3
R
R
R-3
'.0'.
"0'.
c-
c-
~ 0
o
o
o
,
"'l ,. """"'l
AGENDA
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE CPA NO. 86-5
HEARING DATE 4/7/87
8
....
J
]t;
C.4 C.!
]~
C.4
C-3
C-4
...
tnl
I
C-4
~
R~
R-3 .
c-y.
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
"0'.
-
--
- - ~ - -::-1
R-3 ,
,
R-3 I
R'3 :c "0'.
I
5T. &
8~ C-
C-
C-4
A-P
,
r
, C-3A
1
04 C 4 C-!l\ ,
" I
--------Jbf:
C.4 C,.
R - C-4 <
,., ..
w)1
_ R-4
R-3