HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-223
-
..
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RESOLUTION NO, 95-223
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; ADOPTING FINDINGS; AND
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-04 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE PLAN MAP.
SECTION I. Recitals
(a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General
Plan for the City of San Bernardino by Resolution No. 89-159 on
June 2, 1989; and
(b) WHEREAS, on February 16, 1995 the Environmental Review
commi ttee determined that General Plan Amendment No. 94-04, a
proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map could not have a
significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration
would be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA); and
(c) WHEREAS, the intent of the city to prepare a Negative
Declaration was made known to the public, responsible agencies and
other interested persons for their concerns and comments from
February 23, 1995 to March 15, 1995, as required by CEQA; and
(d) WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a noticed
public hearing on May 16, 1995 in order to receive public testimony
and written and oral comments on General Plan Amendment No. 94-04;
and
(e) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public
testimony, recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration,
adoption of the Findings and approval of General Plan Amendment No.
25 94-04; and
26 (f) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed
27 public hearing on July 10, 1995 and fully reviewed and considered
28
1
/?.-
/ ._,'
.
,
1 the Negative Declaration, Findings and the Planning Division staff
2 report and the recommendations of the Planning commission.
3 SECTION II. Neoative Declaration
4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
5 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
6 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on
7 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared
8 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
9 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
SECTION III. Findinos
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT:
Amendments to the Land Use Plan map and text:
1. The proposed IL, Industrial Light land use designation is
internally consistent with the General Plan in that such
a designation is not in conflict with the goals,
objectives and policies of the General Plan, and will not
encumber the continued and orderly expansion of the City.
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare
of the city in that the vicinity of the amendment area is
fully urbanized and able to facilitate industrial uses.
The proposed amendment will maintain the appropriate
balance of uses within the City due to the proximity of
the amendment area to other similarly designated
properties, to its north and south, and its frontage on
a major arterial.
10
11
12
13 A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 IIII
2.
3.
2
/i--t:::
/
1 4. The amendment area is physically suitable for the
2 requested land use designation and anticipated land use
3 development in that the site is located along a major
4 arterial and is owned in large blocks of land that would
5 facilitate the development of industrial style
6 buildings.
7 SECTION IV. Amendments
8 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
9 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT:
10 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the city of San
11 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 12 acres from
12 CG-l, Commercial General to IL, Industrial Light. The
13 location of this amendment is depicted on the map entitled
14 Attachment A, and is more specifically described in the legal
15 description entitled, Attachment B, copies of which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
16
B. The map amendments described in section V., Subsection A. are
17
designated as General Plan Amendment No. 94-04 and shall take
18
effect upon approval.
19
SECTION V. Map Notations
20
This resolution and the amendments affected by it shall be
21
noted on such appropriate General Plan maps which have been
22
previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and
23
which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
24
SECTION VI. Notice Of Determination
25
The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
26
Determination with the County Clerk of the County of
27
San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with the California
28
3
}r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESOLUTION. .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION; ADOPTING
FINDINGS; AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-04 TO AMEND
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN MAP,
adopting
the
Negative
preparing
in
and
Environmental
Act
Declaration.
I HEREBY CERTIFY
that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at an adjourned regular meeting thereof, held on the
10th
day of July
, 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members:
AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
x
x
x
x
-
x
x
- --
x
-
9
10 NEGRETE
CURLIN
11
12 HERNANDEZ
13
OBERHELMAN
14
15
DEVLIN
POPE-LUDLAM
16 MILLER
17
18
19
R~~r~lerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this /37"J..
July , 1995.
day
of
20
21
22
23
24 Approved as to form
and legal content:
25
JAMES F, PENMAN,
26 City ttorney
.~
- J 0;rY\
Tom Minor, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
27
28
4
,95-22;,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY
Prepared For:
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384-5057
Prepared By:
John R. Burke, Assistant Planner
January 26, 1995
proiect Number: General Plan Amendment No. 94-04
proiect Description:
from CG-1, Commercial
approximately 12 acre
Blvd. between Medical
To Change the Land Use Designation
General to IL, Industrial light, on
site on the southwest side of cajon
Center Dr. and California Ave.
an
Applicant: City of San Bernardino
General Plan Land Use Desiqnation: CG-1, Commercial General
Contact Person: John R. Burke, (909)384-5057
ATTACHMENT C
,!jr.;::: ;>
~ c,
INTRODUCTION
This Initial study is provided by the city of San Bernardino for
General Plan Amendment No. 94-04. It contains an evaluation of
potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed land use
designation is changed from CG-l, commercial General, to IL,
Industrial Light.
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.
The following components constitute the Initial study for General
Plan Amendment No, 94-04:
1. project Description
2. site and Area Characteristics
3. Environmental setting
4. Environmental Impact Checklist
5. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation
Measures
6. Environmental Determination
Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial study,
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment No. 94-04 is a city-initiated General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation for a 12.0 acre mostly
vacant site, from CG-l, commercial General, to IL, Industrial
Light.
2, SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The property is an irregular-shaped site comprising a total of
approximately 12.0 acres and having a frontage of about 1,310 feet
on the northeast side of Cajon Blouvard between Medical Center
Drive and California Avenue (See Exhibit A), The site is bordered
by Cajon Boulevard to the northeast and by residential properties
to the southwest. Northeast of cajon Blvd. is designated PCR,
Public Commercial Recreational and contains the AT&SF Railroad and
the Shandin Hills Golf Course. The ares to the southwest is
designated RS, Residential Suburban-
2
- -)
3, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is adjacent to developed residential properties
and across the street from a railroad and a commercial golf course.
The site is flat and mostly undeveloped and appears to have been
previouslY disturbed. There are 3 developed areas on the site, two
having industrial type buildings and one having an electrical
service business on the site. There are no hazards of significance
associated with the project site.
J
J~
)
4,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate
attached sheet. "No" answers are explained on this checklist. See
Attachment "A" preliminary Environmental Description Form, where
necessary,
1,
Earth Resources: will the proposal
result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a, Earth movement (cut and/or fill)
on slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form No. D.(3)?
_x_
b, Development and/or grading on a
slope greater than 15% natural
grade based on review of General
Plan HMOD map, which designates
areas of 15% or greater slope in
the city?
_x_
c, Development within the Earthquake
Fault Zones as defined in section
12.o-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47,
of the City'S General Plan?
d. Modification of any unique geologic
or physical feature based on field
review?
_x_
_x_
e. Development within areas defined
for high potential for water or
wind erosion as identified in
section 12.0-Geo1ogic & seismic,
Figure 53, of the city's General
Plan?
_x_
f, Modification of a channel, creek
or river based on review of
USGS Topographic Map (Name)
San Bernardino North ?
x
4
()~
v." _
, c
g. Development within an area
subject to landslides, mudslides,
subsidence or other similar
hazards as identified in Section
12,O-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the
city's General Plan?
h. Development within an area
subject to liquefaction as shown
in section 12.0-Geologic &
Seismic, Figure 48, of the
city's General Plan?
i. Other?
2, Air Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
Yes
No
May!:l'e
x
_x_
a. substantial air emissions or an
effect upon ambient air quality
as defined by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, based on
meeting the threshold for significance
in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality
Handbook"?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors based on information
contained in Preliminary
Description Form, No. G. (3)?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area as identified in
section 15.0-Wind & Fire, Figure
59, of the city's General Plan?
3, Water Resources: will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces
that cannot be mitigated by
5
_x_
_x_
_x_
D~
)l?
_,~ r
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 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. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground water?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards as identified
in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community
Panel Number 060281 0010 B,
and section 16.0-Flooding,
Figure 62, of the city's General
Plan?
f. other?
4, 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?
6
Yes
No
Maybe
_x__
x
x
x
x
_x__
1. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. B.(l) and verified
by on-site survey/evaluation?
Yes
No
Maybe
_x_
2. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat based on information
contained in the preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. E.(8) and verified
by site survey/evaluation?
x
3. Impacts to the wildlife
disbursal or migration corridors?
_x_
b. Removal of viable, mature trees
based on site survey/evaluation
and review of the proposed site
plan? (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the ground)
x
c. Other?
S. 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?
_x_
7
b, Development of new or expansion Yes
of 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.(l) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C., and
verified by site survey/evaluation?
A~
-~ .
c. Other?
6, Land Use: will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated based on the review
of the General Plan Land Use
Plan/Zoning Districts Map?
b. Development within an Airport
District as identified in the
Air Installation compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land
Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Foothill Fire
Zones A & B, or C as identified
on the Development Code overlay
Districts Map?
d. Other?
7, Man-Made Hazards: Based on
information contained in Preliminary
Environmental Description Form,
No. G.(l) and G.(2) will the project:
a, Use, store, transport or dispose
of hazardous or toxic materials
(including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b, Involve the release of
hazardous substances?
8
No
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
07""
-'.-' c~
Yes No Maybe
c, Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards? X
d, other?
8, Housing: will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing as verified
by a site survey/evaluation? _X_
b. Create a significant demand for
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of
project size? _X_
c, other?
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could
the proposal, in comparison with the
circulation Plan as identified in
Section 6.0-Circulation of the city's
General Plan and based on the
conclusions of the City Traffic
Engineer and review of the Traffic
Study if one was prepared, 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?
_X_
b, Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures?
_X_
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems?
_X_
d, Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
_X_
_X_
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
_X_
9
oc:::
~ 0
g, A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements?
h, other?
10. PUblic Services: Based on the
responses of the responsible
agencies or departments, will the
proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide
adequate levels of service?
a, Fire protection?
b. police protection?
c, Schools (i.e., attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Medical aid?
f. solid Waste?
g. Other?
o
11, utilities: will the proposal:
a. 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?
1. Natural gas?
2, Electricity?
3, Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
10
Yes
No
Maybe
x
_x_
_X_
_x_
_x_
_X_
_X_
_x_
_X_
_X_
_X_
(, c
:'" "::>
~--".. "
b, Result in a disjointed pattern
of utility extensions based on
review of existing patterns
and proposed extensions.
12, 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, other?
13, cultural Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site by
development within an
archaeological sensitive area
as identified in section 3.0-
Historical, Figure 8, of the
city's General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of
a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the
city's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance survey?
c. other?
11
Yes
No
Maybe
x
x
_x_
_x_
_x_
r-
~__) 7
14, Mandatory Findings of significance
(Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the
following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared. Based on this Initial study:
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
to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the
environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
12
Yes
No
Maybe
_x__
_x__
x
_x__
~.:.
~-~ -
5, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1, Earth Resources:
The site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone nor
an area of having the potential for liquifaction and
contains no unique geologic or physical features. The
site is not subject to wind or water erosion, Future
development shall address any grading or earth movement.
2. Air Resources:
a-g.
a-c, The majority of the site is vacant. Future use of the
site should not lead to an increase in emissions as
future use will be of an intensity consistent with the
land use designation of IL as contained in the General
Plan. However, these concerns and those associated with
the potential of creating objectionable odors will be
addressed when a project is proposed. The site is not
within the high wind/high fire hazard areas.
3. Water Resources:
a-e, Future development on the site would create impermiable
surfaces. There would be little difference between
projects designed for uses permitted in the IL or the CG-
1 land use districts, Absorption rates, drainage
patterns, and the amount of runoff will be a factor of
the site design and such review shall occur at the time
of project proposal. The site is not within a flood
plain hazard area as determined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
4, Biological Resources:
a.
The project site is not within the boundaries of the
Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in
section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the
city's General Plan.
This amendment, or any future project, will have no
affect on unique, rare, or endangered species of plants
or animals.
b,c,
d,
There are no tree stands on the vacant parcels on the
project site.
5, Noise:
a,b, The potential future uses are not generators of noise,
nor will any of the surrounding uses have an adverse
noise impact on any potential use. Noise associated with
future use will be evaluated and mitigated if necessary
at the time of future project review.
13
n~
.- /' .'
6, - Land Use:
a, The proposed project will change the land use designation
from CG-l, commercial General to IL, Industrial Light,
The uses permitted in the IL district (e,g, automotive
repair, educational services, entertainment, contracter's
yards, R&D, warehousing, Wholesaling) are minimally more
intense than those uses permitted in the CG-l (such as
retail, personal service, entertainment), The potential
impacts are insignificent.
7, Man-Made Hazards:
a-c, Future uses will be reviewed for storage, transportation
or disposal of hazardous, toxic and waste materials, In
addition, the potential for release of hazardous
substances or the exposure of people to health and safety
hazards will be a matter of review and action at the time
of project proposal.
8. Housing:
a. The project is a change in land use designation only,
The potential for use will not remove existing housing
nor create a demand for new housing due the size of the
amendment site.
9. Transportation/Circulation:
a-h. The general plan amendment will not affect existing
traffic or traffic patterns. Future use may affect
traffic circulation due to the potential for site design
to accommodate future use, however, these issues, in
addition to safety issues, will be addressed upon any
project submittal.
10. Public services:
a-f. The project will not have a significant impact on any
public service,
11, Utilities:
a. The project will not have a significant impact on any
public utility, or create the need for new facilities,
No impacts are anticipated.
14
'j'
-:-,...., -,
..' _.~
12, Aesthetics:
a-b, The project is to change the land use only,
projects shall be evaluated to preclude
obstruction and negative visual impacts.
13. Cultural Resources:
Future
scenic
a-b. The project site is not located in the Urban
Archaeological District as identified in the General
Plan, section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8, nor in an area
of concern for archaeological resources.
15
95-223
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
_x_
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, although there will not be significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
M\ ~\-.\.J,..el:-- y.~~ /-..-..::r-;;:rr. t:::n~,l===f:-t'-"'~
~lUJ
Signature ~
Z.11o'Q5
Date
16