HomeMy WebLinkAboutR01-Redevelopment Agency
-
-
-
R~ENT AGIINCY.~I!ST FOR Q.ISSION/COUNCIL AalON
From:
Qt:
Glenda Saul, Executive Director
Subject:
OVERLAY ZONE IN CENTRAL
CITY SOUTH STUDY AREA AND
CHANGE OF ZONE #86-22
Redevelopment Agency
Date:
Seotember 30. 1986
Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council action:
12/16/85
Designation of a Committee to study that area between Rialto
Avenue and Mill Street and "E" Street and Interstate 215.
3/3/86
a) Approval, in concept, of traffic circulation pattern
proposed by team and URS and pursue recommendations for
Specific Plan.
b) Resolution 4858 authorizing negotiations to purchase for
realignment of "F" and "G" Streets (Mill & "G")
",.."..4,"tt." "" ft...... p-gA- __
Recommended motion:
(MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL)
o
a)
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
b) CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
FINAL READING
C) MOVE TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING AN OVERLAY ZONE IMPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK UPON AN AREA.
~~Jul
Signature
Contact person:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $
RIA
Phone: 383-5081
Ward: 1
Project: ee3
Date: uc~gbe~ 6, 1986
81-.:::..4. 3a..A
Supporting date attached:
-113
No edverse Impact on City:
OCil Notes:
Agenda Item No.9 /
w
o
o
A
-
-
-
o
o
o
PrOll: Glenda Saul. h:ecutive Director
OVBII.LAY ZONE IN CElflW.
CIn S01JTII STUDY AIlEA
AID ClWfGI OP ZONE #86-22
Sept_ber 30. 1986
Synopaia of Previous Co.a1aaion/COIIDCll Act1on:
(continued frOll pale 1)
c)
d)
e)
f)
0
4/21/86 a)
b)
Resolution 4859 authorizing initiation of acquisition of southwest
corner of Rialto and -E- Streets (Railroad property)
Motion to study feasibility of assessment district.
Motion to study feasibility of underlround utility district.
Ordinance MC-50l imposing 120 dsy moratorium -- exempting Sim!
Partnership.
Resolution 4876 authorizing execution of an alreement with Brown &
Mullins, Inc. to provide engineering services.
Referred Specific Plan proposal back to staff to request additional
proposals.
c) Request staff to report on financial feasibility of study area
improvements.
6/2/86 Resolution 4888 to execute an agreement with URS to develop sn Overlay
Zone for the study area.
6/21/86 Council Workshop and progress report.
9/22/86 Set public hearing for October 6, 1986 and continued conaideration of
first reading of the ordinance to adopt the Overlay Zone to September
29, 1986.
9/29/86 a) Laid over the Overlay Zone ordinance for final reading on October
6, 1986.
o
b) Approved the responses to comments and adopted a Negative
Declaration for environmental review.
c) Approved Change of Zone No. 86-22, directing the City Attorney to
draft the appropriate ordinance.
0538ll.! JH
~ -,
, CIR OF SAN BERNARDIr.;b - REQUEOr FOR COUNCIL AC,Q,N
o
STAFF REPORT
On September 29, 1986, Council laid this ordinance over for final adoption. To
provide additional public notice (it is not required by law) a hearing was
advertised for this final reading. The attached reports were those presented on
September 22, 1986 and again on September 29, 1986,
o
o
7,..0214
0538R/JH
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING AN OVERLAY ZONE IMPOSING DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK UPON AN AREA DESIGNATED AS
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH STUDY AREA.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A.
The Mayor and Common Council have reviewed,
considered, and received public comments upon the proposed design
guidelines and development framework for the Central City South
Study Area of the City of San Bernardino, California, as prepared
by U.R.S. Corporation, Anil Verma Associates, and Solstice Design
Associates.
These proposed design guidelines and development
13 framework cover the area bounded on the north by the center line
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
23
~
25
26
27
28
of Rialto Avenue; on the east by the center line of WE- Street;
-
on the south by the center line of Inland Center Drive; and on
the west by the east right of way line of the Interstate Highway
1-215.
B. The Mayor and Common Council have determined that
there is a need to upgrade the design standards and the
development framework throughout the area described in Recital A
above.
C. The area which is the subject of this overlay zone is
blighted and the proposed design guidelines and development
framework will be an asset to the community by upgrading the area
both aesthetically and economically.
SECTION 2. The Mayor and Common Council hereby adopt an
overlay zone imposing design guidelines and development framework
for the Central City South Study Area. The boundaries of the
1
,.~
o
o
o
o
- ~
o
o
o
Central City South Study Area covered by this Ordinance are
1
2 hereby established as follows:
3 Beginning at the point of intersection ,of the center line
4 of Rialto Avenue with the easterly right of way line of
Interstate Highway I-2l5, which is the -point of beginning-,
5
6 thence proceeding easterly along said center line of Rialto
Avenue to the center line of -E- Street; thence in a generally
7
8 southerly direction along the center line of WE- Street to the
9 point of intersection with the center line of Inland Center
10 Drive; thence in a generally southwesterly direction, along the
center line of Inland Center Drive to its intersection with the
11
12 easterly right of way line of Interstate Highway 1-215; thence
13 northerly along the easterly right of way line of Interstate
14 Highway 1-215 to the point of beginning.
15 All property within the boundaries hereinabove described
16 shall be subject to the design guidelines and development
17 framework hereby adopted by the Mayor and Common Council, which
18 are incorporated herein by reference. The design guidelines and
19 development framework as set forth in a booklet prepared by U.R.S
20 Corporation, Anil Verma Associates, and Solstice Design
21 Associates, entitled WDesign Guidelines and Development
22 Framework, Central City South Study Area/San Bernardino,
23 California-, as on file with the City Clerk of the City of San
24 Bernardino, is hereby approved and adopted, subject to the
25 following modifications:
26 On pages 122 and 123, .commencing with the paragraph
27 numbered I, Preliminary Conference, the text is amended to read
28 as follows:
2
0
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
o
~
_ J
-
II L..
o
o
o
WI. Preliminarv Conference. The Developer conf:rs
informally with the City to identify potential development issues
including: scope of the project, potential design issues and
. . .
concerns, requirements including these Guidelines, "compliance
~.:
with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the City's
processing of the project. Information required on the
developer's submission will be determined. A City Project
Coordinator will be assigned to be liaison between the developer
and the review committee. A determination will be made whether
the project may be submitted directly to the Development Review
Committee or whether it must first receive City Council and/or
Planning Commission approval.
II. Develooment Review Aoolication. A site plan and
other information determined to be needed will be submitted with
-
a Development Review Application. The City reviews and responds
within ten days.
III. Council/Commission Review Aoolication. A site plan
and other required information will be submitted with the
19 appropriate application to the Planning Department. The City
20 reviews and responds in thirty to sixty days depending on the
21 type of application.
22
IV.
Over the Counter Review. This review is used for
23 smaller projects such as minor additions and signs. Within a
24 maximum of five business days, the construction drawings are
25 returned. If approved as submitted, the developer may submit to
26 Plan Check. If there are conditions, the applicant will resubmit
27 within thirty days. Notice of satisfactory compliance will be
28 given within ten days of resubmission.
3
0
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
o
o
o
o
V. DeveloDment Review Committee. The Committee reviews
projects and may render a decision in as little as ten days. If
there are revisions necessary, the drawings would need to be
reviewed. Once evaluated and approved by tneCommittee, the
project is then submitted for Plan Check. Generally, Plan Check
takes no more than thirty days for smaller projects and sixty to
ninety days for larger projects.
VI. ComDliance with California Environmental OUalitv Act
(CECA). All submitted projects requiring City Council and/or
Planning Commission approval will be reviewed by the City
Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The ERC will determine
whether a particular project is exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
Negative Declaration or will require an Environmental Impact
Report. Projects which may be submitted directly to the
.Development Review Committee are typically exempt from CEQA,
although the more complex ones may have certain environmental
impacts which warrant review and action by the ERC..
SECTION 3. The design standards established by the design
19 guidelines and development framework hereby adopted shall not
20 replace or supersede current street design standards established
21 by the City Engineer. Any deviation from current standards will
22 require specific approval of the City Engineer.
23 SECTION 4. Any violation of the terms of this Ordinance
24 shall be an infraction, subject to punishment under the
25 provisions of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 1.12.0l0.
26 SECTION 5. The City Clerk, in conjunction with the
27 Planning Director, shall cause to be recorded in the Office of
28 the San Bernardino County Recorder, notice to all affected
4
o
o
~'
o
18
19
20
21
..l.
IJI
-
o
o
o
persons of the existence of this Ordinance, and of its effect on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 of
all property within the boundaries of the Central City South
Study Area as herein established.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a
day of
meeting thereof, held on the
, 1986, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
Council Members
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
, 1986.
day
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form:
22 ~~/_ -y-__
City Attor:e~~
24
25
26
o 27
28
5
, CI9t OF SAN BERNARDtaO - REQUAT FOR COUNCIL AC~ON
Frank A. Schuma Central City South Overlay
g:: Planning Director Subject: District and Change of Zone
No. 86-22
Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of
Date: September l8, 1986 September 22, 1986
Synopsis of Previous ~ncil ection:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the ,meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 1986,
the following recommendation was made:
The Development Framework and Guidelines, with modifications,
creating the Central City South Overlay District and Change of
Zone No. 86-22 were recommended for approval.
Vote: 5-2, l-abstention, l-absent.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Council adopt the Development Framework and
Guidelines, with modifications, creating the Central City South
Overlay District, and that
o
the Mayor and Council. approve the responses to comments and adopt
the Negative Declaration for environmental review, and that.
the Mayor and Council approve Change of Zone No. 86-22.
~'-~
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Contact penon:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
1
Supporting t11ta attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finence:
Ceil Notes:
r;]'r:- -In ~r}'~;~ e: ~~ /0/::;
tl., 'It? d, 1. " . [( , . 'c 'Ad.' k'A-? ~
'1- &&- iG..
75-0262
ADI!nda Item Nt! ~
_ 4
QTV OF SAN BER_RDINO (). MEMORANDUMO
To
Qject
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22, Ward 1
From The Planning Dept.
Date September 16, 1986
The Planning Commission
Approved I tem Nos. 6 and 7
Date
In Decembe., 1985, the Mayor and the Common Council requested
the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Department to study
the area bounded by Rialto Avenue on the north, Inland Center
Drive on the south, RE- Street on the east and the 1-215
Freeway on the west. An advisory committee was appointed to
work with Planning and Redevelopment Agency staff and con-
sultants to study the area. The purpose of the study was to
establish a development framework and design guidelines to
help redevelop the area through the use of an overlay
district.
The final
asked to
sections:
report, which the Planning Commission is being
review and approve, basically contains two major
a Development Framework and Design Guidelines.
This staff report contains:
'-'
1.
2.
3.
4.
A review of the Development Framework.
A review of the Design Guidelines.
An analysis of Change of Zone No. 86-22.
Recommendations on the three items above.
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:
The Development Framework defines the City's overall goals
and policies for the study area, the development review
process for development of the area, and the circulation
network. The framework contains five plan elements:
1. Land Use and Zoning
2. Circulation and Transportation
3. Development Opportunity Sub-areas
4. Design Theme
5. Landscape, Hardscape and Identity
Land Use and Zoning
o
The Development Framework is not intended to amend the
General Plan nor the Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
Rather, the framework's land uses are to be used as a guide
for future development by defining areas of Rallowable land
uses.- The allowable land uses are actually categories of
commercial development and include Commercial Retail, Service
Commercial, Wholesale Commercial and Warehouse Distribution.
Designated locales for these uses within the project area are
shown on Page 10 of the final report.
c,ry Oil rH.=MO,.,.
. ~.
o
e
o
4
-
L
[
1
Memorandum to the Plann~g Commission <:)
Cent tal City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 2
o
CirculatioQ
A key element to the Development Framework is the circulation
plan. It will place emphasis on four important aspects of
development to assure the success of the overall project.
Vehicular Circulation: The primary intent is to create a
vehicular corridor between Central City Mall and Inland
Center Mall. To do so, existing roadways will be realigned
to provide the desired flow pattern. New internal roads will
be provided, including a new entry point into the project
site from WE" Street opposite Valley Street. These roads
will be designed to: 1) accommodate all sizes of commercial
vehicles needed to service the area, 2) serve a variety of
different land uses and 3) divide the project site into
developable areas.
Pedestrian Circulation: A plan for smooth, progressive flow
of pedestrians within their own exclusive area as well as
within the public right-of-way is developed to stimulate the
commercial success of the project. It has been carefully
prepared to meander through the overall project so that
pedestrians can easily and safely promenade from one land use
to another. Between major land uses complimentary outdoor
activities such as patio cafes and flower carts will be used
to enhance the project producing an active sidewalk
environment.
Parking: Parking will be provided as defined in the San
Bernardino Municipal Code. In facilitating provisions for
parking areas, several factors were taken into account: 1)
The appearance of parking areas are not to dominate the
buildings that the parking serves, 2) excessive asphalt is
discouraged, 3) direct pathways from the parking areas to
their respective buildings is to be utilized, 4) within the
overall project area a minimum of curb cuts are to be used,
5) grouped parking to serve several businesses is encouraged,
6) parking is encouraged to be ~laced behind or to the side
of buildings rather than in front.
Public Transportation: Routes should be adjusted by Omni-
trans to accommodate the increased demand that will be
generated by the study area. A transit network could. ulti-
mately link the project area with development within the
Hospitality Lane area, Seccombe Lake area, the Civic Center,
Orange Show Fairgrounds and that of Central City Mall and the
Inland Center Mall. Bus shelters will be incorporated into
the landscaped public rights-of-way to serve the users of the
transit system.
o
~
o
0'
.
~
. I
, . 0
Memorandum to the Plann~ng
Central City South Overlay
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September l6, 1986
page 3
o
Commission
District and
o
D@v@lopm@nt Opportunity Sub-areas
Six opportunity sub-areas are contemplated within the study
area. Each, specifically, designates a select land use with
its own market needs and potentials. These select sub-areas
are shown on Page 14 of the final report and include:
1. wEw Street Corridor
2. Railroad Parcels
3. Interior Parcels
4. Freeway Parcels
5.. Triangle Parcels
6. South of Mill Parcels
The wEw Street corridor is along the west side of WEW Street
and will be encouraged to develop as a highly landscaped
pedestrian .oriented corridor. Support uses include cafes,
mini-parks, flower carts and attractive newsstands. The
intent within this corridor is to attract pedestrian and
vehicular traffic from the downtown and Hospitality Lane
areas to the study area.
The railroad parcels are landlocked and are presently being
under-utilized as railway spurs for warehousing uses. The
area is. being treated as a reserve land area which ultimately
will be used in a variety of ways ranging from use of the'
property as a future transit ,center to using the railroad
facilities as a focus for a railroad-theme retail/enter-
tainment center~
The area which lies in the interior of the project site is
the target for initial development. Land uses for this area
could include such things as a design center or a specialty
retail center.
The freeway parcels immediately east of the 1-215 Freeway
have good visibility and accessibility and, therefore, have
potential for such land uses as retail, office and institu-
tional facilities.
Across the flood control channel from the main portion of the .
study area and east of the 1-215 Freeway and north of Mill
Street lie what are designated as the WTriangle- parcels.
The framework circulation plan incorporates a bridge spanning
the flood control channel which could eventually be linked
with Mill Street. Appropriate development would include
retail or design center uses or freeway-related and region-
ally-oriented uses.
o
o
o
0,
~. .
L
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 4
Those parcels located south of Mill Street arel currently
occupied with a mixture of wholesale and retail ~arehousing
uses and related open parking. The plan proposes to retain
these same uses within this sub-area.
D9si;n Th~m~
This element is focused on the public space landscape and
hardscape. A specific design for sidewalks, street furni-
ture" signing and street lights has been incorporated using
design elements from the history of San Bernardino. No
specific architectural. design theme such as .Western. or
wSpanishw will be established. Instead, architectural
cohesiveness and identity will be accomplished through a
series of common design guidelines. These guidelines will
pay special attention to walls, doors, windows and color
palette throughout the study area.
~andSCBpp. HBrdscap9 and Iden~ity
The landscape concept for the study area is to create a lush
landscaped microcosm to provide a tranquil environment. It
will provide a park-like setting with well integrated commer-
cial and ancillary uses.
Large landscaped nodes are to be established at major inter-
sections. Entry nodes are to be used to attract visitors to
the study area while landscaped medians will separate the
paved surface with plant material.
Street fixtures and ornamental street lights will produce a
higher standard for the area than the standard bus benches or
standard street lights.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The design guidelines were developed to encourage, through
public and private investment, a cohesive, well designed
development. They contain minimum standards which address
major components (e.g. setbacks, landscaping, architectural
standards, etc.> for the physical development of the study
area.
New development or expansion of existing structures would be
required to comply with those standards established in order
to receive a building permit. The standards will be utilized
by the City departments as a basis of evaluation and review
of all projects within the study area. The gUidelines, with
.0
o
o
o
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
page 5
there accompanying framework plan, will constitute the
overlay district. These guidelines are in addition to the
existing zoning standards. Where conflicts arise, the
stricter of the two will prevail.
The guidelines address:
1. Allowable land uses
2. Access and parking
3. Height, bulk and setbacks of structures
4. Building appearance
5. Signage and identity
6. Ground floor frontage
7. Landscape and hardscape criteria
8. Right-of-way usage
9. Property rehabilitation
10. Administration of the guidelines
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-22:
In conjunction with the adoption of
and Guidelines, a change of zone is
implement the Overlay District.
Presently, within the 195 acre project area, the existing
zoning includes C-3, C-M, M-l, and M-2 zones. These zones
would permit a myriad of potentially non-compatible land
uses. For instance, the C-3 zone would permit general types
of commercial uses from retail to offices. The C-M zone
permits those uses within the C-3 zone as well as those uses
permitted within the M-l zone. The M-l zone would permit
light industrial types of uses, such as warehousing and
manufacturing plants. The M-2 zone would permit heavy indus-
trial land uses such as impound yardS, junk yards or any
industrial use not prohibited by law.
the proposed Framework
requested in order to
The proposed change of zone would rezone all parcels within
the study area to C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing. The plan,
however, would restrict certain uses otherwise permitted in
that zone. Specifically, the plan would prohibit the follow-
ing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plant nurseries
Outdoor storage
Open uses such as agriculture
Drive-in theaters
Trailer camps
Auto washes
o
(J
o
o
-
ti _
1
o
Memorandum to the Planning
Central City South Overlay
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 6
o
o
Commission
District and
7. 'Tire retreading and recapping
8. Used car and trailer sales lots
9.' Sales of new and used cars
10. Repair garages, including automobile and truck
repair
The change of zone to the C-M classification is considered to
be in conformance with the existing General Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has carefully reviewed the final report and recommends
the following modifications.
SECTION III. GUIDELINES, part 11, Administration, (Page 22)
should be modified as follows:
I.
Preliminary Conference
(Add)
A determination will be made whether the project may be
submitted directly to the Development Review Committee
or whether it must first receive City Council and/or
Planning Commission approval.
Development Review Application
(Change w30 daysW to wIO daysW)
III. Determination of Review Level
(Revise as follows)
II.
III. Council/Commission Review Application J
A site plan and other required in forma ion will be
submitted with the appropriate applica~ion to the
Planning Department. The City reviews .nd responds
in 30 to 60 days depending on the type !of applica-
tion. I
Over the Counter Review
(No change)
IV.
V.
Development Review Committee
(Revise as follows)
The Committee reviews projects and may
decision in as little as 10 days. ~f
revisions necessary, the drawings would I
,
render a
there are
need to be
o
e
o
0'
u
--
-
J ~
. Memorandum to the Plan~g Commission c:>
Central Clty South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 7
o
reviewed. Once evaluated and appro~d by the
Committee, the project is then submitted, for Plan
Check. Generally, Plan Check takes no more than 30
days for smaller projects and 60 to 90 days for
larger projects.
VI.
Compliance with California
Act (CEQA)
(Revise as follows)
Environmental Quality
,
,
All submitted projects requlrlng City Council
and/or Planning Commission approval will be
reviewed by the City Environmental Review Committee
(ERC). The ERC will determine whether a particular
project is exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
Negative Declaration or will require an Environ-
mental Impact Report.
Projects which may be submitted directly to the
Development Review Committee are typically exempt
from CEQA, although the more complex ones may have
certain environmental impacts which warrant review
and action by the ERC.
In addition to the modifications listed above, the Engineer-
ing Division has submitted a memorandum (attached) which
outlines five concerns regarding streets, traffic and circu-
lation.
. 0,
o
o
o
411
.1._
l
o
o
Memor~ndum to the Planning Commission
Centr~l City South Overl~y District ~nd
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 8
-
- ~
o
Staff recommends ~pprov~l, with modific~tions, of 'the Devel-
opment Framework ~nd Guidelines cre~ting the Centr~l City
South Overl~y District, and approval of Ch~nge of Zone No.
86-22. In ~ddition, st~ff would recommend adoption of the
Negative Declaration for both items.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Pl~nning Director
.~~
C'/ /,., ~~~
~
B~utist~, Princip~l Pl~nner
4-
- -
-
-
~ITY OF SAN BEIO.IARDINO 0- MEMORANDUQ
FRANK SCHUMA
Planning Director
. Central City South Study Area - COlll11ents on
Framework and Design Guidelines
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir. of
From Public Works/City Engineer
Date September 5, 1986
File No. 6.2101
To
Oubject
Approved
Date
We have the following comments regarding the subject study:
1. The document contains a number of design guidelines which conflict with
current street design standards. Therefore, a statement should be added
clearly indicating that the guidelines do not supersede current street
design standards and that any deviation from current standards will re-
quire specific approval of the City Engineer.
2. Additional studies will be needed to develop new street design standards
specifically for the study area if current standards are not acceptable.
this will include such items as street lights, driveway approaches, traffic
signals, sidewalks, median islands, etc.
o
3. The final traffic study as, approved by the City Engineer should be in-
cluded as an appendix to the design guidelines,
4. A sketch or table should be included to identify street classification
(major highway, secondary highway, etc.) and location of existing and
proposed traffic signals within the study area.
5. The latest traffic study recolll11ends Mill Street be 6 lanes within the
study area. To obtain 6 lanes, the street right-of-way half width should
be 55' instead of the currently planned 41.25'. Since the .traffic study
was based on a worst case pattern of development, 6. lanes on Mill Street
may never really be required. However, to provide for the possibility of
it being needed, consideration should be given to requiring additional
landscaped setback along Mill Street.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~'ckt(Q.~
MICHAEL W. GRUBBS
Senior Civil Engineer
o
CITV PlAfmll~G D~FARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
. A,L. '
0,\'1._
E,r,,_
.' G.G,_
K./.-I,_
1lI,6._
r.:.F,_
M.IJ,_
R.R_
s.\\',_
V.R
MWG:rs
00 rn 00 rn ~ \Y! rn [ID
SEP 09 1986
FILE_
C,,,., 011 "H.=MOV.
o.
o
o
o
o
~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT '" ~ AGENDA ""'II
ITEM #
LOCATION CASE C,Z. 86-22 and 6/7
CENT. CITY SOUJ'H D.L
HEARING DATE 9-16-86'
... . ... '" ...
:fB~ 1L:lJ DC~ ~ "'-.M I ~~:t___~J l
I"
1-'
~'Im~ Iiifa "IlL III
~ . I" I-I
'. I" It., ~
1-'
3B I.' 1'1
. . R" ,
I-I
ii-I R-,
1.1 1t.2
.
C'M
,I . .
18B "0" "0"
lEE
Q .0.
R-j
I.,
1'1 .Ill. "'...
-
.-, R-' .
R-' C.II
It.,
.1 R~I
( ~.~ T CoM
"...
,< ') It-I
T C'II
......
~.
It'l It-I CoM
Ii l~#
0 'a. I. en" LIM'T'
- D .,..
~,.,t "0" c-u
n R'I
0'
o
o
~~\\}~~
o
, '
. OSTATI 011 CALIJOINIA-IUSINISS AND ntANSPOITA11ON AGINC"f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dl$nlCT .. 0,0, _ nl .
..... ..NAIOINO. CA_ 92402
ClICaGr GlUlMlIll...., _
..:i~p~"bp, /~ /98'-
Dater
Development lleview .
<A'd- .US' _ .S".S~.~"
(Co ate PM)
.2c if" -,2:a.
(Your aeference)
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
o
..
~ L:u,,./ ("',0/1"',. ~ ....
.8..li.., JClI....
~r\'" ~#f!"'''Ai'I,./;~
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been
indicated by the items checked and/or by those items nOted under
additi~nal comments.
It should be noted that if any work is necessary within the state
highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment
permit from the District 8 offic. of the State Department of
Transportation prior ;'0 beginning the work. ~
If additional information ~s desired, pleas. call Mr. Will Srisl
at (714) 383-4671.
.;,... R. G . POTE:
d District Permit Engineer
0.01';. --
.
oomoomnwmIID
SEP 17 1986
E.G.__
G.G. _
K.!'..... _..-
r.t~. __
&1..7___
M. r1.__
.. ~
........-
5.1.::'__;
Y.7._"
o
Ate,"
Forlft::8-PD18 (Rev. 1-86)
;.,-.:;.-..,....
...,.".- :;-:-.
;-'~..:.'" ,;~ :~.
CITY PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. ,CA
-
-
-"'.0.
o
to
'0
JJ L
o DEVEloOPHEIII'1' \lEQ PORK
o
~
.5Lld- ':VS- s.sFi
7~.(j~
ICo ata PMI
.20 ' ar... i1:l..
lrour Rooferencel
WE Wcut.ll t.na: TO 1Ill'rB:
-
-
-1L
-
-
..x..
,This prOposal is COllsiderably re.o....s froll any exis~ilUJ or proposed s~a~e h1C;hway.
Al~houqh ~ u~fic and dra1llac;e c;ellllratad by chis proposal dOftoe appeal; co ha_
a si;111fic"'~ effec~ 011 ~he s~aee h1;mray sysce., cOllsidera~1on IWS~ be C;1_1l Co
CIle Cwsulad.ftl effec~ of cOllc1Aued developselle ill chis area. Ally ..&SUres
aeceaaary ~o a1ciqaU Che CWDUlad._ illpact of U~fic UIcl. cl.raiaac;e should be
provided prior ~o or v1Ch developaeac of Che area CIlac aecesaicaeea Che..
It appears CIla~ Che craffic ant ...l..~_ c;eaeratad by CIlis proposal could have a
a1c;a1ficaa~ effect 011 ~ scau h1qhvay aysu. of che area. Ally .essures
IlIIceaaary co a1ciqata ~ u~fic SIlt ..dR~" illpacU should lie inclWSecl. v1Ch Che
developaell~. ~
~ '
.
'fh1s porUOII of acata hiqhvay-is ~c14acl.ecl. ill CM Califorllia lIaner Plall of nace
H1C;hVays Zllq~le for Official Scenic H1qhVay Dea1;11ad.OIl, M4 in Ch. tuCUft YO'Jr
ac;eIlCY lIay wiah co ha_ chia rauta offid.ally deaipatad as a naee scenic hiC;hvay.
Th1a pord.OIl of a~ata hic;hVay has Ileea officially des:Lc;lla1:a4 as a s~ata acan1c
hic;hVay, and de_lopl8ft~ in 1:hia corridor ahould be cOllpal:1bl. wi CIl Che acenic
h1qhVay cOllee~.
Ic 18 recoqaJ.zed chac Chere is cOllaiderable public coaeem abcnIC aoi.. ievela
cjaeea~ co heavily cr_led hiqhVays. Land developaeac, in order co be cOlllPuil:ll.
v1Ch Chis cOlleen, .ay require spacial aoi.. acc.lNad.OII .euuna. Developseae of
propeny ahould' inclllda ally IlIIc.asery ao1.. aueftuad.OIl.
WE UC:OHIlIlIIl:
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
half-w1d~ oa CIl. acau h1qhvay.
1II0raal r1qhc of vay cl.ec!1cad.OIl co provide
1II0~al aueec lIIprove.sllU to provide
half-w1dch OIl Che auc. h1qhvay.
.
C:ur~ md lJU~~.r, Scau ScUlcl.~
, alOIUJ 1:he acata h1qtavay.
radius curb recuma I:le provided ac in1:arsecd.olla wi~ ~ acaee hic;hVay. ...
iiiNiud handicap raap aua~ be prov1cl.ed 1A CM returnS ac lec;al eroawallul.
-
Poa1ci_ vehicular I:llUTier auch as AC cS1lce, S1IIIa~...d.al faaC8, or physical
eopoqraplUcal fea~a be provicl.ed co 11ll1c acceas co eM acae. hic;hway.
Vehicular &ccau aoc be deftllope4 cS1recUy co eM auta hiqhvay.
Vehicular &Ccaas co ~e suce h1qhvay be provided by exiacillq public roe
c_cc1oaa.
VehiC"~ar acceaa co Che acata hiqbvaybe prov1cl.ed by _ sclllld~ _ driveways.
Vehicular _sa co Che acaa h1qhVaY be provided by a ro-.s-qpa COIlPCCiOIl.
0'
o
.0
o
-
-
.j
-
~
1
Vehicular acce.s coA~ions lie p....d Oeas~ wi~hin the .~;ta higt:way ,,0.. ot
way.
AC:C:.sS points to 1:lIe'..t.t. hiq"".Y ~ d._1"ll"" h... ......." t~...t will ""ov1c1e
_ sight c!J.s~uce lIli.qu.t. tor .ph alon., the st.u hiqhw.y.
.m~~<I'J,;tf~
-
-
3-
-
-
-
-2L
2-
~
11)/11
A lett-tun 1_. includ1nq my neces.ary wideninq. be provided on the stu.
hi;"".Y .t
considar.~ion be' .,iven to the provision, or tuture provisicm. ot si;nalization
~ liqh~ ot the incarsec:Uon ot m4 the .~at. hi.,hw.y.
A traffic: study indic:.tinq 011- aIId oU-sica flow patUr2W m4 vol_~, prob.bl.
illPacu, &:Ill proposed IIitiq.ucm ~Uures be pnpared. *
Adequ.t. otf-.cr..t parld.nq, wllic:h doe. not reqo.Ji:e b.,....~'l 0Il~0 the .~.t.
hi;"".Y, !:Ie provic!a4.
Parkinq lot be daveloped in . ._ar th.t will n" c_ ay whicular lIo.....nt
c:ontli~s. 1nc:lud1ftlJ parkin., stall anU.nc:. and axt~, w1thin
of the anuanc:e trOll tIla st.U hiqllway.
."
Ha."uc:ap parlcinq not !:Ie c!avel.opad..in tha lNay dri_w.y aiu:nac:e ......
Car. !:Ie taken "".n developiftlJ tIlis propeny to pns_ .nd perpetu.te1:he
.xiS1:inq drun~ p.1:1:llr1l ot the s~u. hi.,,,,,.y. '~1cular ccms1d.r.Ucm shcul.
!:Ie ;iven to C1DIUl.U_ increased S~Orll 1"1Ulo:l!:I! 1:0 inRre th.1: . hi;"".y draift..
probl.1I 1s n01: cre.~ed.
Any ".cessary n01_ .1:1:.,,".ticm be provic!a4 sa part of the c!avel~t of this
p~ny.
.
~A A- A""1' >>(~ 98 "'''A-I>>';''''
,
~.nJI //I~~"1fl.s.t:1J
,,~
.17":$''''" Qt./ iJ ~.Iv
,
.I~~~y w,,_
~M!t/.J~J <\IC9A,,_
.
..-?b~ 91~"
"A",1/"'/ he
rl.2n~,rfdN1.d
ds
<y'Jp5P
.A~YM<
~
~/o/'
Pl...... re:l!.r 1:0 .~tac:he4 IIdd1Uonal _u~
...
liE w.Jtlt.I) UllZ TO IlZCE:tVI::
i A c:opy o:l! allY c:cm4iti01Ul of approval or revi_d proposal.
A c:opy o:l! uy dOCWleaU prov1diaq ad41Uonal s1:.U hiqllway riqll1: ot w.y.
-"I WOULD LIJCI TIll OPPOIlTUJl1TY TO IlZVDlf DUaDa TIlS APPROVAL PROCESS:
...L
~
-
-K..
Any propoeals " fvther de_lop this property.
!:~ oJ '
A copy of tha tnff1c ".....n~d...ntal s1:Udy, 1f ~1nd.
A c:baelc pri.ftt of the 'arcel or Trace !lap, 1f nqu1nd.
A c:beclt. prin1: o:l! tha Streat Iapro.....n1: Pl... for tha s1:.ca hiqllw.y. U requirad.
-
-
J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 383- SOS7
o AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
C!.C. ~-H.
A.I? N.
~'~
H
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET' WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS, KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E.R.C. DATE: ~'J.t:If/[I;, PLANNING COMMISSION'DATE' ~t;
i I
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEM (S):
o APPROVAL 0 DENIAL
..
..!
,
(siQnature)
(q,gency )
(date)
.
ClC1:.II. ...
lac IIOfIII K
o
h4
MEMORANDUM
o
o
o
No. 118
Jan, 1884
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
DATE
September 19, 1986
TO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FROM
Glenda Saul, Executive Director
SUBJECT
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT
To assist in evaluating the feasibility of the project, 8rown & Mullins,
Inc. has developed the attached construction cost estimates for the
public improvements <underground electrical lines, street construction,
landscaping in medians, intersection nodes, etc.>. In addition, we need
to add the costs for acquisition and demolition of existing properties in
rights of ways. URS Corporation has provided the following estimates:
o
288 South "E" Street Property
Value
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
304 South "E" Street Property
Value
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
696 West Mill Street Property
Appraised Value
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
640 Velarde Street Property
Value
Relocation of Resident
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
o
$ 730,000.00
10.000.00
$ 740,000.00
$
$
180,000.00
3.000.00
183,000.00
$
$
775,000.00
15.000.00
790,000.00
$
90,000.00
7,000.00
2,000.00
99,000,00
$
~ '
( tri':zi;uu.-,. -10 _J.cfIU>17dbL. ~ 'l/ 1'1 it, (J 1'/': '6-0 If. /i{
Cj _ ,;) ;; - g Cc, ...i 0 6ut'lU!.lL {!A -,,?}'k-i.;l--
o
o
o
o
Mayor and Common counc~
Page 2
September 19, 1986
o
o
223 South lOG" Street PrODertv
Appraised Value
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
$ 1,200,000.00
20,000.00
'$ 1,220,000.00
Sub-Total $ 3,032,000.00
Phase I Construction Estimates $ 8,882,888.77
Phase I Total $11,914,888.77
Phase I is the area north of Mill Street. It contains 139 acres net of
the existing streets and storm drains. Dividing the total cost by the
area yields an average cost of $1.95 per square foot. Individual parcels
will be higher or lower depending uPon the benefits they receive. The
majority of this cost is for items that would be required of developers
even if the Overlay District did not exist. For example, the standard
utilities that are required would total $0.61 per square foot. Most of
the street Improvements and some of the landscaping would also normally
be required. About 20t of the costs result from the medians and the
enhanced treatment of intersections and landscaping.
Phase II, south of Mill Street, averages $0.49 per square foot (there are
no buildings to be acquired),
~q:b ,~J
. GLENDA SAUL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GS:JH:jmh:2351K