HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 Development ServicesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Michael Hays, Director Subject: Development Code Amendment
No. 99 -04 - Paseo Las Placitas Specific
Dept: Development Services Plan. Mt. Vernon Ave. between 4th and 9`h
Streets.
Date: July 13, 1999 " ' a
0 J�i L MCC mtg. of August 2, 1999
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
1992. The Mayor and Common Council adopted the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
1994. The Mayor and Common Council adopted revisions to the permitted land uses in the
Development Code, including the Specific Plan land uses.
1999. The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to initiate a General Plan and /or
Development Code Amendment for the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan area.
Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative
Declaration, approve Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04 based on the Findings of
Fact, and lay over the ordinance for final reading. AO
ichael HaVs
Contact person: Valerie C Roc. Phone: '194 5057
Supporting data attached: Staff rem; ordinance Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $35
Council Notes:
Source: (Acct. No.) 001- 190 -5502
Description) .
I
Agenda Item No. .4111
D el& /�>
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04 — Revisions to the Paseo Las
Placitas Specific Plan located along the Mt. Vernon Avenue Corridor
between 4th and 91h Streets.
BACKGROUND:
The Mayor and Common Council adopted Specific Plan No. 91 -01, Paseo Las Placitas, in
1992 to implement General Plan goals, objectives, and policies for the Mt. Vernon
Avenue corridor north of the Santa Fe Railyards. The Specific Plan established land use
districts and specified permitted uses, development standards (setbacks, lot coverage,
building height, parking requirements, etc.), and landscape and design guidelines by
district. It also specified public improvements for the plan area, including sidewalks,
public plazas, and district entry signage.
The development standards and public improvement requirements make it difficult for
development to occur due to the small size of the majority of lots within the Specific Plan
area. Compared to the Development Code, the Specific Plan requires additional street
dedication, wider sidewalks, and increased building setbacks, leaving little developable
parcel area. The Specific Plan also requires corner plazas and /or fountains, further
constraining the development of corner parcels.
The proposed changes are summarized below:
Permitted Uses
• Revise the Commercial Districts List of Permitted Uses, Table 06.01 of the City's
Development Code to include service stations as conditionally permitted uses.
Development Standards
• Delete the Land Use District Specific Standards, Section 19.10.030(3) of the
Development Code, and replace with the language in Attachment C of the Planning
Commission staff report.
• Delete the Paseo Las Placitas Development Standards, Table 10.02 of the
Development Code, and use the existing Table 06.02.
Design Guidelines
• Add language to Section 19.10.030(3) to incorporate by reference, the Paseo Las
Placitas Design Guidelines, and clarify that they are applicable to new development
and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
Public Improvements
• Add language to Section 19.10.030(3) of the Development Code to clarify the
required street and sidewalk rights -of -way.
An Initial Study was prepared and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on
April 29, 1999. The ERC recommended that a Negative Declaration be prepared. The
Negative Declaration was available for public review from May 6, 1999 to May 26, 1999.
No comments were received.
At its meeting of June 22, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor
and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Development Code
Amendment No. 99 -04. Commissioners Adams, Durr, Lockett, Suarez, Thrasher, and
Welch voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Enciso and Garcia abstained due to
conflicts of interest.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
A fee of $35 is required to file the Notice of Determination with the County which will
be paid out of the approved FYI 999-2000 budget for the Development Services
Department.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration,
approve Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04 based on the Findings of Fact in the
Planning Commission Staff Report, and lay over the ordinance for final reading.
Exhibits: 1 Location Map
2 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 22, 1999
3 Ordinance
*j:4
F
W]
-41.
0141."I 11*
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04
AGENDA ITEM: 5
HEARING DATE: June 22, 1999
WARD: 1
APPLICANT:
City of San Bernardino
REQUEST /LOCATION:
OWNERS:
Various
An amendment to the CG4 - /SP, Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan provisions in the Development
Code to allow service stations subject to a conditional use permit, delete the specific plan land use
standards and replace with existing Development Code standards, delete the specific plan public
improvement requirements and replace with existing City standards, and incorporate, by reference,
the specific plan design guidelines.
The Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan includes those properties along Mt. Vernon Avenue from 4`' to
9`' Streets.
CONSTRAINTS /OVERLAYS:
N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
❑ Not Applicable
Exempt
o No Significant Effects
❑ Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
o Approval
❑ Conditions
❑ Denial
❑ Continuance to:
Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04
Meeting Date: June 22, 1999
Page 2
REQUEST AND LOCATION
This is a City- initiated proposal to amend the Development Code pertaining to the Paseo
Las Placitas Specific Plan. The specific plan includes parcels along the Mt. Vernon
Avenue corridor between 4th Street and 9th Street. See Attachment A.
The underlying CG -411SP land use designation is not being changed.
SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Mt. Vernon Avenue is developed with a mix of commercial uses. La Plaza Park is located
at 7`h Street, and residential uses in the RS, Residential Suburban land use are adjacent to
the commercial corridor.
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 91 -01, Paseo Las Placitas, was adopted by the Mayor and Common
Council in 1992. The purpose of the Specific Plan was to implement General Plan
goals, objectives, and policies for the Mt. Vernon corridor north of the Santa Fe
Railyards. The Specific Plan established land use districts and specified permitted
uses, development standards (setbacks, lot coverage, building height, parking
requirements, etc.), and landscape and design guidelines by district. It also specified
public improvements for the plan area, including sidewalks, public plazas, and district
entry signage.
• In 1994, the Specific Plan was amended to expand the permitted uses and allow them
throughout the plan area. The development standards, design guidelines, and public
improvements were not modified.
In 1998, Councilwoman Estrada re- established the Mt. Vernon Corridor
Redevelopment Project Area Citizens Committee to provide input on Westside issues.
The Committee reviewed the status and implementation of the Paseo Las Placitas
Specific Plan and concluded that revisions were necessary to help encourage
development.
• In 1999, the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to
the General Plan and/or Development Code.
• The Mt. Vernon Corridor Committee includes Melvin Elliott, Alfredo Enciso, Teresa
Enciso, Richard Churchwell, Graciano Gomez, Jose Gomez, Esther Mata, Trinidad
Padilla, Ernest Vasquez, and Randy Wyatt. The Committee provided valuable input
and helped the Planning Division and Economic Development Agency staff prepare
the revisions.
Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04
Meeting Date: June 22, 1999
Page 3
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on
April 29, 1999. (Attachment E.) The ERC recommended that a Negative Declaration be
prepared. The Negative Declaration was available for public review from May 6, 1999 to
May 26, 1999. No comments were received.
PROPOSED CHANGES
The development standards and public improvement requirements make it difficult for
development to occur due to the small size of the majority of lots within the Specific
Plan. Compared to the Development Code, the Specific Plan requires additional street
dedication, wider sidewalks, and increased building setbacks, leaving little developable
parcel area. The Specific Plan also requires comer plazas and/or fountains, further
constraining the development of corner parcels.
In general, the amendment will allow service stations subject to a conditional use permit,
delete the specific plan land use standards and replace with existing Development Code
standards, delete the specific plan public improvement requirements and replace with
existing City standards. The Mt. Vernon Committee recommended that the design
guidelines remain intact. They believe that the design elements will help to create a
distinctive shopping, dining, and entertainment area. The design guidelines will be
retained and incorporated, by reference, in the Development Code.
The proposed changes are as follows:
Permitted Uses
• Revise the Commercial Districts List of Permitted Uses, Table 06.01 of the City's
Development Code to include service stations as a conditionally permitted use.
(Attachment B.)
Development Standards
• Delete the Land Use District Specific Standards, Section 19.10.030(3) of the
Development Code and replace with the language in Attachment C.
• Delete the Paseo Las Placitas Development Standards, Table 10.02 of the
Development Code, and use the existing Table 06.02 (Attachment D).
Design Guidelines
• Add language to Section 19.10.030(3) to incorporate by reference, the Paseo Las
Placitas Design Guidelines, and clarify that the guidelines are applicable to new
development and rehabilitation of existing buildings. (Attachment Q.
Public Improvements
• Add language to Section 19.10.030(3) of the Development Code to clarify the
required street and sidewalk rights -of -way.
Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04
Meeting Date: June 22, 1999
Page 4
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Is the proposed amendment consistent with the General Plan?
The purpose of the amendment is to remove requirements that hinder
development and/or redevelopment of the portion of the Mt. Vernon Avenue
corridor included in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan. The proposed
amendment does not conflict with General Plan policies 1.24. 10 through 1.24.15
which address permitted uses in the Specific Plan area such as ethnic -theme and
specialty uses, mercados, and cultural, social, educational and community - serving
facilities.
2. Will the proposed amendment be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City?
The proposed amendment will help to facilitate development and redevelopment
along the Mt. Vernon Avenue corridor thereby serving the public interest and
helping to improve the public safety, convenience and welfare.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No written comments were received. However, several property owners called to receive
clarification on the proposal.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment meets the Findings of Fact for approval of Development Code
Amendment No. 99 -04.
Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04
Meeting Date: Jame 22, 1999
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and
Common Council:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration.
2. Approve Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04 based upon the Findings of
Fact contained in this staff report.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael E. Hays
Director of Develop ent Services
1Y &W�/ G RkW
Valerie C. Ross
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A Location Map
B Development Code Section 19.06.020, Table 06.01 —
Proposed Revision
C Development Code Section 19.10.030(3) — Proposed
Revision
D Development Code Section 19.06.030(1)(A), Table 06.02
E Initial Study
'R It
IV-
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
PASEO LAS PLACITAS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Q
r--
-i _ -
N
JI
r
W
G
V1
!!1
V
r.l
a
_Q
V
0
v
q
tip
^'1
a
N
rr
L~.r
W
a
z
C
a
z
a
Q
a
U
z
..a
a
r;
IAA
^I
w
O
N
O
1/97
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - 19.06
Zi
ATTACHMENT E
JN�
v
�
�
I
v
u u
O
J
I
u
^
-'
a a u U u U u a
v
�
N
i
a a u pa i Ua
G
L-
uN
as i ua
y
G
a s u u
J
, 4
3
U`'
a
as 1 u Ua
aau u u
rCa
Jai
a
aau uU Ua
J
u
r+j
C
u
J
C
j
U
ii
C
y
�
J
�
it
•i
.G '�
�
•� n
? � c
v
3
�
2
_
•^i
�_
r.
� J
�
L � y ...
O O O= a 3 n
C:;
<
u 6v
1/97
Development Code Amendment No. 99 -04
Meeting Date: June 22, 1999
Page 8
ATTACHMENT "C"
PASEO LAS PLACIT AS
Proposed revision to Development Code:
19.10.030 LAND USE DISTRICT SPECIFIC STANDARDS
3. Specific Plan 91 -01, Paseo Las Placitas, Mount Vernon Corridor
A. Permitted uses within Paseo Las Placitas shall be as established in Chapter
19.06, Table 06.01.
B. New development and rehabilitation of existing structures shall be in
compliance with the design guidelines in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
C. Plazas, fountains, courtyards, outdoor eating areas, and similar uses may be
permitted in the required building setback, subject to the approval of the
Review Authority.
D. Commercial parking may be provided on -site or off -site elsewhere within the
Paseo Las Placitas in a public parking area.
E. Parking required by Chapter 19.24 may be reduced up to 20% by the Review
Authority, provided that off -site parking areas have been established and
developed.
F. Signage is permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.22, consistent with the design
guidelines in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
G. Landscaping is required pursuant to Chapter 19.26, consistent with the design
guidelines and species list in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
H. Public improvements (i.e., street dedication/widening, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, etc.) shall be required, consistent with adopted City standards and
requirements.
CON04ERCIAL DISTRICTS -19.05
y°
ATTACHMENT D
N
^'
N
U
O
N
O
=
O
N
O I
O
J
J
V
wr-
'tY'
U
�
o
c
�
;
o
N
if cQ
Ln
M
r
n
p ai
U
• ea
N
U
r
y of Vi
O O n
o
w
�r
�
o
0
0
o
v^
"�
�? •� U
!rl
V1
n M
VJ
7�• X
N
i �
�
n
N
c
L. G U
O
N
N
u
Zvi
tj
_ y
O
L
�
°
�
L�Jv
.�•v�
O
y1
N Ci
Z
^
O
Q
v�
y N
eq
v
Q
L
� •
!7
cn
��
Q
>¢
�..
L
r
�./
4 cC
rx K V
�"+ �i w ..i C7� G V
L
C^
Q t/i
♦.�
V
�:.
:�i
✓i
�:i
...1 v
i/i
N
er n n O
II -71
4/95
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a
proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from
CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from
CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
must be prepared.
1. Lead Agency Name: City of San Bernardino
Address: 300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
2. Contact Person: Valerie C. Ross
Phone Number: 909.384.5057
E -mail address: ross_va @ci.san- bernardino.ca.us
3. Project Location (Address /Nearest cross - streets): Mt. Vernon Avenue between 4`h Street
and 9`h Street.
4. Project Sponsor: City of San Bernardino
Address:
5. General Plan Designation: CG -4 /SP
Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later
phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off -site feature necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary): An amendment to the General Plan
and Development Code to allow service stations subject to a conditional use permit, delete the
specific plan land use standards and replace with existing Development Code development
standards, delete the specific plan public improvement requirements and replace with existing City
standards, and incorporate, by reference, the specific plan design guidelines.
BACKGROUND
The Pasco Las Placitas Specific Plan was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council in 1992. It
established land use districts and specified permitted uses, development standards (setbacks, lot
coverage, building height, parking requirements, etc.), landscaping requirements, and design
guidelines by district. It also specified public improvements for the plan area, including sidewalks,
public plazas, and district entry signage.
In 1994, the specific plan was amended to expand the permitted uses and to allow them throughout
the specific plan area. The development standards and public improvement requirements were not
changed.
IS 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
The development standards and public improvement requirements make it difficult for
development to occur. The specific plan requires additional street dedication, wide sidewalks, and
increased building setbacks, leaving little developable parcel area. The specific plan also requires
corner plazas and, or fountains, further constraining the ability to develop parcels.
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Mt. Vernon Avenue is developed with a mix of
commercial uses, with a public park and residential adjacent to the commercial corridor.
8. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, finance approval, or participation
agreement): None
IS 2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTEIVNTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Earth Resources
Water
Air Quality
r-�Transportation/Circulation
Determination.
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino, Environmental Review Committee finds:
That the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 prepared.
That the proposed project NL -kY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
1U9L4-5AA--!t Adsq�
Signaturelf
MAMAQET PA P-9
Printed Name
Date
IS 3
I CIA
FS
[ ■l
0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 4
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Will the
proposal result in:
a) A conflict with the land use as
❑
E
E
designated based on the review of the
General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning
Districts Map?
b) Development within an Airport District
Q
E
as identified in the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report
and the Land Use Zoning District
Map?
c) Development within Foothill Fire
0
Zones A & B. or C as identified on the
Land Use Districts Zoning Map?
d) Other?
El
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Will the
proposal:
a) Remove existing housing (including
j
affordable housing) as verified by a
site survey /evaluation?
b) Create a significant demand for
EJ
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of project
size?
c) Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
through projects in an undeveloped
area or an extension of major
infrastructure)?
i
d) Other?
E I
EJ
El
IS 4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 5
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
III. EARTH RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on
slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Project Description Form
No. D?
b) Development and/or grading on a slope
❑
greater than 15% natural grade based
on review of General Plan HMOD
map?
c) Erosion, dust or unstable soil
❑
conditions from excavation, grading or
fill?
d) Development within the Alquist -Priolo
0
Special Studies Zone as defined in
Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
e) Modification of any unique geologic or
El
physical feature based on field review?
f) Development within areas defined as
El
E
having high potential for water or wind
erosion as identified in Section 12.0,
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the
City's General Plan?
g) Modification of a channel, creek or
0
E
river based on a field review or review
of IUSGS Topographic Map ?
h) Development within an area subject to
F
landslides, mudslides, subsidence or
other similar hazards as identified in
Section 12.0, Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's
General Plan?
IS 5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 6
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
i) Development within an area subject to
liquefaction as shown in Section 12.0,
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan?
j) Other?
El
E
IV. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
El
E
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff due to impermeable
surfaces that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard Requirements
to contain and convey runoff to
approved storm drain based on review
of the proposed site plan?
b) Significant alteration in the course or
EJ
E-1
21
flow of flood waters based on
consultation with Public Works staff?
c) Discharge into surface waters or any
alteration of surface water quality
based on requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to approved
storm drains?
d) Changes in the quantity or quality of
ground water?
e) Exposure of people or property to
E
flood hazards as identified in the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Community Panel Number ,
and: Section 16.0, Flooding, Figure 62,
of the City's General Plan?
f) Other?
E
IS 6
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 7
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Will the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation based on the
thresholds in the SCAQMD's "CEQA
Air Quality Handbook "?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to
❑
❑
❑
pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
❑
❑
❑
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d) Create objectionable odors based on
❑
❑
❑
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form?
VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION.
❑
❑
❑
❑
Could the proposal result in:
a) A significant increase in traffic
❑
❑
❑
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that is
significantly greater than the land use
designated on the General Plan?
b) Alteration of present patterns of
❑
❑
❑
circulation?
c) A disjointed pattern of roadway
❑
improvements?
i
d) Impact to rail or air traffic?
❑
❑
❑
I
�
e) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or
❑
❑
❑
off'-site based on the requirements in
Chapter 19.24 of the Development
Code?
f) Increased safety hazards to vehicles,
❑
❑
❑
bicyclists or pedestrians?
IS 7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 8
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
g) Conflict with adopted policies
❑
❑
❑
supporting alternative transportation?
h) Inadequate emergency access or access
❑
❑
❑
to :nearby uses?
i) Other?
❑
❑
❑
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 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?
b) Impacts to endangered, threatened or
❑
❑
❑
rate species or their habitat (including,
I
but not limited to, plants, mammals,
fish, insects and birds)?
c) Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or
❑
❑
❑
migration corridors?
d) Impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh,
❑
❑
❑
riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Removal of viable, mature trees based
❑
❑
❑
on information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form and verified by site
survey /evaluation (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the ground)?
f) Other?
❑
i
❑
I ❑
❑
VIII. ENERGY AND MINTER AL
RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy
❑
❑
❑
conservation plans?
b) Use non - renewable resources in a
I ❑
❑
❑
wasteful and inefficient manner?
IS 8
CITY OF S.-VN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 9
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
i
IX. HAZARDS. Will the proposal:
a) Use, store, transport or dispose of
❑
hazardous or toxic materials based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form No. G(1) and G(2) (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Involve the release of hazardous
El
substances?
c) Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d) Other?
X. NOISE,. Could the proposal result in:
a) Development of housing, health care
facilities, schools, 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(A)
interior as identified in Section 14.0,
Noise, Figures 57 and 58, of the City's
General Plan?
IS 9
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 10
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
b) Development of new or expansion of
El
existing industrial, commercial or other
uses which generate noise levels above
an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn
of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
health care facilities or other sensitive
uses based on information in the
Preliminary Environmental Description
Form No. G(1) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C, and
verified by site survey!evaluation?
c) Other?
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Medical aid?
c) Police protection?
d) Schools?
e) Parks or other recreational facilities?
f) Solid waste disposal?
E
g) Maintenance of public facilities,
El
including roads?
h) Other governmental services?
El
E
XII. UTILITIES. Will the proposal, based on
the responses of the responsible Agencies,
Departments, or Utility Company, impact
the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or
require the construction of new facilities?
a) Natural gas?
IS 10
NO
'ES
IS l i
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
b) Electricity?
❑
1:1
z
c) Communications systems?
❑
d) Water distribution?
El
❑
e) Water treatment or sewer?
❑
E
El
f) Storm water drainage?
g) Result in a disjointed pattern of utility
extensions based on review of existing
patterns and proposed extensions?
h) Other?
El
1-1
D
XIII. AESTHETICS.
a) Could the proposal result in the
❑
obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed verified by
site survey /evaluation?
b) Will the visual impact of the project
create aesthetically offensive changes
in the existing visual setting based on a
site survey and evaluation of the
proposed elevations?
c) Create significant light or glare that
F
could impact sensitive receptors?
d) Other?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Could the
proposal result in:
a) Development in a sensitive
archaeological area as identified in
Section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan?
IS l i
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 12
Potentially
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
b) The alteration or destruction of a
❑
❑
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as
identified in Section 3.0, Historical,
Figure 8, of the City's General Plan?
c) Alteration or destruction of a historical
❑
❑
site, structure or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey?
d) Other?
❑
❑
❑
❑
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood
❑
❑
❑
or regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational
❑
❑
❑
opportunities?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
IS 12
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
IS 13
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
IS 13
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
REFERENCES. The following references cited in the Initial Study are on file in the Development
Services Department.
1. City of San Bernardino General Plan.
2. City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map.
3. City of San Bernardino Development Code (Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code).
4. City of San Bernardino Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey.
5. Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map.
6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
8. Public Works Standard Requirements— water.
9. Public, Works Standard Requirements — grading.
10. Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIED CHECKLIST RESPONSES.
The proposed amendments will allow service stations in addition to the other uses currently permitted
in the specific plan area. Service stations will be subject to a conditional use permit, and in compliance
with existing Development Code requirements. If an application for a service station is submitted, it
will be reviewed for CEQA compliance.
The amendments will delete the specific plan development standards, relying instead on existing
Development Code standards for commercial development, including setbacks, parking, landscaping,
etc. The public improvement requirements are in excess of requirements for commercial development
in other areas of the City. Deletion of the specific plan requirements, and incorporation of existing
requirements will not affect Transportation/Circulation, Public Services or Utilities.
The design guidelines of the specific plan will be incorporated into the Development Code by
reference. These guidelines were established to provide a unique urban environment within the specific
plan area, consistent with General Plan policies.
IS 14
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
+ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY
LOCATION SLAP
tit
PASEO LAS PLACITAS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
IS 15
.®.
- -r �r .
I 7
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXMi 1 21311
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAM BERYARDINO AMENDING SECTIONS
19.06.010 (2)(G) AND 19.10.030 (3) OF THE SAN, BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE
(DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO REVISE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
PERMITTED USES AND INCORPORATE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AS PER THE
PASEO LAS PLACITAS SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CERTAIN AREAS ALONG MOUNT
VERNON AVENUE.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Page II -61, Section 19.06.010(2)(G), CG -4 (Commercial General —Theme
Center[s] District is amended to read as follows:
"G. This district is intended to promote the upgrading and enhancement of Mount Vernon
Avenue, between 4th and 9`h Streets, by establishing an ethnic - themed specialty commercial
center, including retail, restaurant, entertainment, gift shops, and similar uses. Additionally, this
district shall facilitate the reuse of the railroad depot and adjacent properties for retail/specialty
commercial and similar uses. Design guidelines for the Mount Vernon Corridor ( Paseo Las
Placitas) are contained in Chapter 19. 10, Special Purpose Districts, Section 19.10.030(3)." (See
Attachment A, Page II -61 of the Development Code, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.)
SECTION 2. Pages II -64 and II -67, Section 19.10.020, Table 06.01, Commercial
Districts List of Permitted Uses, are amended as follows: (See Attachment B, Pages II -64 and
II -67 of the Development Code, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.)
a) Add a "C" to B (7), Automotive Related Uses, Service Stations in the CG4 /SP.
b) Add a "D" to I (12), Retail Commercial, Office Supplies/Equipment in the
CG4,'SP."
SECTION'). Pages II -148 through II -157, Section 19.10.030(3), Land Use District
Specific Standards, Specific Plan 91 -01, Paseo Las Placitas, Mount Vernon Corridor, MC 830
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21',
221
23
241
25
26
27
28
4/6/92, are amended as follows: (See attachment C, Pages II -148 and II -149 of the Development
Code, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
a) Delete pages II -148 through II -157 and replace with pages II -148 and II -149.
b) Renumber previous pages II -150 through II -188.
1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21'i
22 �
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE ... AMENDING SECTIONS 19.06.010 (2)(G) AND 19.10.030 (3) OF
THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO REVISE
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PERMITTED USES AND INCORPORATE
DESIGN GUIDELINES, AS PER THE PASEO LAS PLACITAS SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
CERTAIN AREAS ALONG MOUNT VERNON AVENUE.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
day of , 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA
LIEN
MCGINNIS
SCHNETZ
Vacant
ANDERSON
MILLER
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this day of
1999.
Approved as to form
and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
to
JUDITH VALLES, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
ATTACTBIENT "A"
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - 19.06
F. CG-3 (CO-vLtiIERCIAL, GENERAL.- UNIVERSITY VILLAGE) DISTRICT
This district provides for the development of properties adjacent to California
State University at San Bernardino along North Park Boulevard, Kendall Drive,
and University Parkway for commercial and personal service uses to meet the
needs of students, faculty, and visitors.
G. CG-4 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL -THEME CENTER[S)) DISTRICT
This district is intended to promote the upgrading and enhancement of Mount
Vernon Avenue, between 4th and 9th Streets, by establishing an ethnic - themed
specialty commercial center, including retail, restaurant, entertainment, gift shops
and similar uses. Additionally, this district shall facilitate the reuse of the railroad
depot and adjacent properties for retail /specialty commercial and similar uses.
Design guidelines for the Mount Vernon Corridor (Paseo Las Placitas) are
contained in Chapter 19. 10, Special Purpose Districts, Section 19.10.030(3).
H. CG -5 (CONIMERCIAL, GENER=AL- VERDEMONT AREA)
This district is intended to provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new
development of retail, commercial service uses and other related commercial uses
along I -215 and major transportation corridors and intersections within the
Verdemont Area to serve the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial
corridors and centers, and establishing new locations as new residential growth
occurs. NIC 863 3/24/93.
I. CR -1 (C01L1-IERCI. L REGIONAL- MALLS) DISTRICT
This district is intended to maintain and enhance Central City and Inland Center
Malls and adjacent properties as the principal region - serving retail centers of the
City.
J. CR -2 (CO`LNIERCIAL REGIONAL - DOW'NTOW'N) DISTRICT
This district is intended to permit a diversity of regional - serving uses in the
Downtown area including local, county, and state governmental /administrative,
professional offices, cultural /historical and entertainment, convention facilities,
hotels /motels, financial establishments, restaurants, supporting retail and services,
educational institutions, public open spaces, and residential and senior citizen
housing. Development of sites exclusively for residential uses shall have a
minimum contiguous area of 1 gross acre, with a maximum density of 47 units per
gross acre. Senior citizen and senior congregate care housing shall permit a
maximum density of 130 units per gross acre, subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
II -61 1/94
II -64 1/97
3
7
ATTACHMENT "B
,,,�
cry
n
=
,r �.. 7 �
COVIlINIERCIAL DISTRICTS - 19.06
c»
L
—
a)
i1 �n0
C
r.l
�.
%'
=� :! :j L •'-
= t>. RS's...
L :) � j .^.0 :-� ;�
r
cis.
Man
uU
f p
o
U
a�
>
tA
a)
G1
U
v i
k
0.0
42
:J
k
►'"�,
O
e) L
Z <
Ci �•- c E ¢U
w
� a
—c�iri vvi. roo
U
Q
Mau
UUUUp
a)
;
<
.r�
Coll
U �:
Mau
Q p
U p
a ar
_y
u d
p
U
U 1
a
a)
uN
o
pp ;
up
a.
■
I
x_
U
U
y S"
U
C co
Ucr
p
pp i
U
Up
i
•
�[
Jcv,
p
ppu
u
1 Up
o
U�'
p
pau
u
I Up
r
E»
^
-
y C)
V
y
y
7
Z
p
-
'J
y ..r
1.
G7
.I a)
cm
cn
tj
II -64 1/97
3
7
,,,�
cry
n
=
,r �.. 7 �
.r �+ •e y
L
—
i1 �n0
C
r.l
�.
%'
=� :! :j L •'-
= t>. RS's...
L :) � j .^.0 :-� ;�
tA
0.0
42
►'"�,
O
e) L
Z <
Ci �•- c E ¢U
w
� a
—c�iri vvi. roo
L r
Q
<
<
II -64 1/97
C/1
W
q
d
CONINIERCIAL DISTRICTS - 19.06
UN; a❑aaa ❑aa ; U ; ❑❑aa
i
�-
=� =
❑a❑
U , U , ❑a❑
i
,"" i
v I
❑
, Mann
U : i aa❑❑
I
M.
� I
i
a ❑ ❑' ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ a
i U , CJ ❑ a ❑ ❑
_NI
U i
❑❑'❑.a
aaa
U❑ ❑ ; as
U-�
a❑❑a ,
aaa
; U❑ a❑a
I
yi
J;
x
�-+ Q
aaa.a
Uaa❑n
UU Ua❑Aa
i
aaaca
U❑❑a❑
. v ;;a❑a❑
i
JN
—^' =-a
U❑aaa
UUaUa❑aa
aaaaa
Uaa❑a
UUaUaaa❑
oN'
aaa.
a❑
a❑
❑
:/1
z
U
as ❑ ^a
—
Ua❑a❑
v a a
J
U L
� W r✓
x
:2
❑
:/1
L
-to ', �
!1 n � ? '�
C J7
� to
rto
u
Z X
— a
y =
.',/�
O
Jam'
—
>�
Vf n -.
,.
."- —
w_
-
_
4
J Fi
v v_
U
to
> �_ o
o
to
3
_=
J
Zm
ZN
on
v
x
U cz _.
- cq ri c Vi �O
l- coo a —
II -67
2/94
ATTACIL LENT 11Cl,
SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS - 19.10
7. Compatible and in harmony with surrounding development and land use designations.
19.10.030 LAND USE DISTRICT SPECIFIC STANDARDS
1. Golf Courses and Related Facilities
Golf course developments are subject to a Conditional Use Permit and shall be
constructed in the following manner:
A. State -of -the -art water conservation techniques shall be incorporated into the design
and irrigation of the golf course;
B. Treated effluent shall be used for irrigation where available;
D. Perimeter walls or fences shall provide a viewshed window design along all public
rights -of -way, incorporating a mix of pilasters and wrought iron fencing or
equivalent treatment; and
D. All accessory facilities, including but not limited to, club houses, maintenance
buildings, and half -way club houses shall be designed and located to ensure
compatibility and harmony with the golf course setting.
2. Single - Family Housing, Existing
Additions, alterations, and expansions to single - family units which legally existed in
special purpose land use districts prior to June 3, 1991, shall comply with the RS,
Residential Suburban, District Standards. MC 823 3/5/92.
3. Specific Plan 91 -01. Paseo Las Placitas, Mount Vernon Corridor
A. Permitted uses within Paseo Las Placitas shall be as established in Chapter 19.06,
Table 06.01.
B. New development and rehabilitation of existing structures shall be in compliance
with the design guidelines in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
C. Plazas, fountains, courtyards, outdoor eating areas, and similar uses may be
permitted in the required building setback, subject to the approval of the Review
Authoritv.
D. Commercial parking may be provided on -site or off -site elsewhere within the
Paseo Las Placitas in a public parking area.
E. Parking required by Chapter 19.24 may be reduced up to 20 percent by the
Review Authority, provided that off -site parking areas have been established and
developed.
II -148 7/92
SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS - 19.10
F. Signage is permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.22, consistent with the design
guidelines in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
G. Landscaping is required pursuant to Chapter 19.26, consistent with the design
guidelines and species list in the Paseo Las Placitas Specific Plan.
H. Public improvements (i.e., street dedication/widening, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
etc.) shall be required, consistent with adopted City standards and requirements.
4. Specific Plan 92 -01, University Business Park MC 856 12/21/92
A. The following development standards for new construction apply to all three
designations within the University Business Park.
Gross Lot Area UBP -1 = 20,000 sq. ft.
(for new subdivision) UBP -2 = 10,000 sq. ft.
UBP -3 = 1 acre
Front Setback All zones = 10 feet
Rear Setback All zones = 10 feet
Side Setback (Each) All zones = 10 feet
Side Setback All zones = 10 feet
(Street Side)
Lot Coverage (Maximum) All zones = 50 percent
Structure Height UBP -1 = 2 stories or 42 feet
(Maximum) y UBP -2 = 2 stories or 35 feet
UBP -3 = 3 stories or 42 feet
B. No outside storage shall be permitted within the UBP -2 and UBP -3 designations.
In the UBP -1 designation, outside storage may be permitted only if adequately
screened with decorative walls.
C. All uses shall be conducted within a completely enclosed structure, except for
parcels fronting on Georgia Boulevard. Limited outside uses (e.g., patio dining
areas and nursery sales limited to plants and trees) shall be approved with a
Development Permit. Miscellaneous Outdoor Entertainment in the UBP -2 zone
shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
D. There shall be no visible storage of motor vehicles (except display areas for sale
or rent of motor vehicles, where permitted), trailers, airplanes, boats, recreational
vehicles or their composite parts; loose rubbish, garbage, junk or their
receptacles: tents; equipment; or building materials, in any portion of a lot except
for parcels fronting on Georgia Boulevard. No storage shall occur on any vacant
parcel. Building materials for use on the same premises may be stored on the
II -149 1/94