HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-411RESOLUTION NO. 91-4i1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals
(a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on
June 2, 1989.
(b) General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 to the General Plan of
the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning
Commission on September 8, 1992, after a noticed public hearing,
and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been
considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
(c) An Initial Study was prepared on May 14, 1992 and
reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 92-
05 would not have a significant effect on the environment and.
therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
(d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day
public review period from May 21, 1992 through June 10, 1992 and
all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations.
e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan
Amendment No. 92-05 and the Planning Division Staff Report on
October 19, 1992.
////
1
1
2
3
4
5
s
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
2s
27
28
(f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 is
deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and
is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
existing General Plan.
SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on
the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared
by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
SECTION 3. Findings
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the,
City of San Bernardino that:
A. The proposed CO-1, Commercial Office 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 the existing commercial
office buildings and uses are compatible with the adjacent
residential, commercial and office uses.
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City
in that the existing office uses will not result in any
adverse impacts.
C. The proposed amendment would redesignate 1.93 acres as CO-1,
Commercial Office. The City's housing stock will not be
significantly affected.
////
z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
26
2i
28
D
E.
The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested
land use designation in that it is developed with commercial
office buildings and uses.
All public services are available to the proposed amendment
site. Any future development permissible under the proposed
designation would have no impact on such services.
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 1.93 acres
from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office. This
amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 92-05
and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A,
and is more specifically described in the legal description
entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and
incorporated herein be reference.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 shall become effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 5. Man Notation
This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be
noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously
adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are
on file in the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental
Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION...ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 TO THE GENERAL
PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a regular meeting therefore, held on the
19th day of October , 1992, by the following vote, to
wit:
Council Members AYES NA S ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA ~
RE I LLY _~
HERNANDEZ ~
MAUDSLEY ~_
MINOR ~
POPE-LUDLAM ~_
MILLER ~
~_ ~ C' ~,
.~c.~~X~ ,e_ti.~Av,
City-Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this ~ ~ day
of ~~'_~' ~ ~1'~~= ~ , 1992. _ ~ .,
;.~i
~-~
. ~z~,Ho comb,~Mayor
City of an Bernardi
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City A^ytt~olr_ney ~ ~
4
~~ STREET m
63 ~/ ie l/ 4/ Jo 4p 4p JO 10 ~~p
29
4O 30 ~ 7 ~ O Og 10 II 12 13
24 23
4
O 19 18 V 17 r 14
~:o
16 15
L ap I so I sp I or ~ s as I sp ~ ,30 ~ ~n ~ ez
VICTORIA - - - - - - ~1~ - - - - -
i -STREET -;
.~~ ro Jp J.3 f7
14 O O O
0
O; O
JO
6 th
STREET
L
~ ":`ao'
r
ez. s
>-
Q
3
Q
W
RH
+o
l~ Co-1
pY r
Assessor's Map
Book 135, Page 03
San Bernardino County
Attachment "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-os
TITLE
THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL NO. 1
(APN 135-033-07) LOT 1, BLOCK 48, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT
RECORDED ZN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY.
PARCEL NO. 2
(APN 135-033-06) LOT 8, BLOCK 48, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT
RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 8
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR
LAWRENCE STREET (VICTORIA STREET), AS
CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM SAMUEL R. CONE AND
ESTELLE H. CONE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, RECORDED
JANUARY 31, 1927, IN BOOK 191, PAGE 246,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE 9-8-92
WARD 1
W
N
Q
U
N
W
O
W
Q
W
a
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 92-05
APPLICANT: Robert & Nancy Sedlak and
Sedlak Family Trust
3272 Parkside Drive
owNER: San Bernardino,. CA 92404
A request to change the General Plan land use designation
from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office on
approximately 1.93 acres of land located on the nnr+'~west
corner of 6th Street and Sierra w=••
PROPERTY
Subject
North S
East S.
South i
SVest Si
f
;~_ . ,` ,~
~ I~
^ >L PLAN
,r IATION
igh
odium Hi
Lgh
gh
GEOLOGIC /SEISMIC ^ YES FLOOD HAZARD ^ YES ^ ZONE A SEWERS: ~ YES
HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO ZONE: ~ NO ^ ZONE B ^ NO
HIGH FIRE ^ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ^ YES REDEVELOPMENT XX YES
HAZARD ZONE: NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
~ NO ^ NO
J
Q
ZN
~Z
O~
~ LL
Z
W
^ NOT
APPLICABLE
^ EXEMPT
^ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS WITH
MITIGATING MEASURES
NO E.I.R.
E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
^ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES
NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
Z
_0
H
Q
{WL 2
~g
N ~
U
W
XLI APPROVAL
^ CONDITIONS
^ DENIAL
^ CONTINUANCE TO
cuim"~vww^iasnwcF+ PLAN-9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
Attachment "1"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
PAGE 1
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant requests an amendment to change the land use
designation from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office
for a site located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra
Way. (See Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map, Exhibit B to
Attachment A)
DEVELOPMENT CODE
The existing commercial office buildings and uses are not permitted
in the RH designation. Chapter 19.62 of the City's Development
Code classifies the structures and the uses as legal nonconforming.
General Plan Policy 1.7.9 permits the continuation of nonconforming
uses and allows for minimal expansion, however, the office
structures and uses would remain nonconforming. If the buildings
become vacant for a period of 180 days or more, the nonconforming
uses cannot be reestablished and future land uses must conform with
the underlying land use designation.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OIIALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS
The general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The City's
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on
May 14, 1992 and determined that the proposed amendment would not
have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration was recommended. The public review period for the
Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on May
21, 1992 and ended on June 10, 1992. The ERC completed their
review and the project was cleared to the Planning Commission on
July 2, 1992.
Upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the amendment
site was designated RH, Residential High.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
PAGE 2
ANALYSIS
SITE AND SURROIINDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Amendment Site
The amendment site is comprised of two adjoining lots and contains
approximately 1.93 acres of land. The two lots are improved with
two existing office buildings and on-site paved parking areas.
Surrounding Area
The property located north of the site and across Victoria Street
is developed with single-family uses and a scattering of multi-
family uses in an area designated RMH, Residential Medium High.
East and across Sierra Way is Seccombe Park in the PP, Public Park
designation. South of the park and across 6th Street the PP
designation continues with public and quasi public uses. South and
across 6th Street (on the southwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra
Way) is an existing office use with multi-family uses located west
and adjacent in the RH. West and adjacent to the site are single-
family, multi-family and office uses in the RH designation.
Further west and across Mountain View are commercial and office
uses in the CR-2, Commercial Regional designation. (See Exhibit A
to Attachment A)
E%ISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION
The RH, Residential High land use designation permits the
development of multi-family condominiums and apartments with a
maximum density of 31 units per gross acre. The existing office
buildings and uses on the amendment site are not permitted in this
residential designation. As such, the site is classified as legal
nonconforming. (See previous discussion under Development Code)
PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION
The following citation from the General Plan describes the purpose
of the CO-1, Commercial Office designation:
It shall be the objective of the City to:
"Provide for the continued use, expansion, and new
development of administrative and professional offices
and supporting retail uses in proximity to major
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE:
8, 1992
PAGE 3
transportation corridors and ensure their compatibility
with adjacent residential and commercial uses." (General
Plan Objective 1.28)
The CO-1 designation permits administrative and professional
offices as well as limited supporting retail uses and medical
facilities. The buildings and uses existing on the site are
permitted in the CO-1 designation and the parcels meet all of the
minimum lot standards.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY
The passage cited in the preceding section (General Plan Objective
1.28) reflects the City's intent to retain existing professional
and medical offices. Similarly, General Plan Objective 4.11
addresses the City's need for maintaining the existing office user
base as well as other related issues.
Regarding compatibility, professional and medical offices generally
can coexist well with surrounding residential neighborhoods. The
amendment site is well established in the neighborhood and has
contained commercial offices and uses for several years.
Essentially, the amendment proposal will not change the status quo
of the site or the neighborhood and, it will not create impacts
related to land use compatibility, traffic or circulation.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments have been received.
CONCLIISIONS
The general plan amendment will eliminate the nonconformity of the
office uses. Both the buildings and the uses are permitted in the
CO-1 designation and meet the requirements for minimum lot
standards. In addition, redesignation of the site will implement
the City's objective (as it applies to the amendment site) to
retain the existing commercial offices and office users.
Because the site is developed, redesignation from the RH
designation to the CO-1 will not create land use impacts in the
neighborhood. Nor will the amendment proposal result in impacts to
the area's traffic and circulation.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
PAGE 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with
Section 21080.1 of CEQA.
2. The General Plan Land Use Plan map be changed from RH,
Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office for the site
as shown on Exhibit A of the Initial Study.
ctft3,lly s~itted,
Plann' Y~uilding Services
~, ~'n
~ ~~' ~ '~~
De'bof'ah Woldruff ~ ~~~
ociate Planner
/dw
Attachment: A - Initial Study
Exhibit A - Existing Land Use Map
Exhibit B - Site Vicinity and Land Use
Designation Map
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
PAGE 5
FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
1. The proposed CO-1, Commercial Office land use designation will
change the General Plan Land Use Plan map and is not in
conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the
General Plan. The existing commercial office buildings and
uses are compatible with the adjacent residential, commercial
and office uses and will not create any adverse impacts.
2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City
as addressed in this report.
3. The amendment proposes to redesignate 1.93 acres from RH,
Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office. The City's
housing stock will not be significantly affected.
4. The amendment site is physically suitable for the CO-1,
Commercial Office land use designation.
5. All public services are available to the proposed amendment
site. Any future development permissible under the proposed
designation would not impact on such services.
Attachment "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study for Environmental Impacts For
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 92-05
Project Number
Project Description/Location To chance the
Date Mav 4, 1992
Prepared for:
Applicants Robert J. & Nancy W. Sedlak
Sedlak Family Trust Co-Trustees
Address 3272 Parkside Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Prepared by:
Name Paul G. Scroaas
Title Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
GPA 92-05
i[«~wirwrmw~mncea PLAN-BA] PAGE 1 OF 1 (d-90)
Central Citv North Redevelopment Area.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING.AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A.
Application Number: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-OS
Project Description: To change the General Plan land use
designation from RA, Residential High
to CO-1, Commercial office on 2
adjoining parcles comprising a total
84,000 square feet (1.93 acres).
Location: The 1.93 acre site is located at the
northwest corner of 6th Street and
Sierra Way with frontages of 300 and
280 feet, respectively for the 2
parcels. The site is further identified
as 600, (620) and 646 North Sierra Way
and is within the Central City North
Redevelopment Area.
Environmental Constraints Area: The subject site is located in
a zone of potential high liquefaction susceptibility
and ground subsidence as well as within an urban
historical/archaeological cultural resource area.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in:
a. Earth movemem (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
b. Devebpmerrt and/or grading on a sbpe greater
than t 5~. natural grade?
c. Devebpment within the Alquist-Prbb Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geclogic
8 Seismic, Fgure 47, of the Ciry's General Plan?
d. Mod'rfication of any unpue geobgb or physical
feature?
e. Devebpment within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identrfied in Secticn t 2.0 -
Geologic 8 Seismic. Fgura 53, of the Cry's General
Plan?
f. Modification of a channel, aaek or over?
Yes No Maybe
x
x
X
x
e°t`.nuiwwnnq'+ ~ 'LAN.9.08 Psl•.c' t OF ~, ;t t.~
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0 -Geologic 8 Seismic,
52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? ~
ures 48
Fi
_
,
g
h. Other?
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient x
air quality as defined by AOMD?
b The aeation of objectionable odors? X
.
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identfied
in Section 15.0 -Wind 8 Fire, Figure 59, of the City's X
General Plan?
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to X
impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? x
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration
of surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? x
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 Gb2o - ~ ,and Section 16.0 -
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? ~C
i. Other? x
4. Biological Resources: Coultl the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identfied in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's
General Plan? ~ x
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered spaces of plants or their habitat including X
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or X
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6" or greater) X
e. Other? x
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health care fadlities, schools,
Iibreries, 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 d6(A) interior
as identified in Section 14.0 -Noise, Figures 7 and
' X
58 of the City
s General Plan?
c[~,"n~w un"~ PLAN-B.O6 PFGE20F lQ_ (11-90)
b. DevebpmeM of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) ezterbr
or an Ldn o/ 45 dB(A) interbr?
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
x
General Plan?
b. DevebpmeM within an Airport District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning District Map? x
c. DevebpmeM within Foothill Fire Zones A 8 B, or C as
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? 7C
d. Other? k
7. Man-Made Hazards: 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? X
c. Expose people to the potential heath/safety hazards? K
d. Other? k
6. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
for addtbnal housing? k
b. Other? 7C
9. Transportation /Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0 - Circulatbn of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
x
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking
f
ilti
i
?
X
ac
es
structures
c. Impact upon existing public transportatan systems? X
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? k
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
t. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or x
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements?
h. Sign'rficant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways
k
or intersections? ~
i. Other? X
r.
Maybe
X
urv cs a... Ew,nrewo
aw,au wwrwffmaa I s" PLAN~9.05 PAGE 30F ~~ (1 U90)
10. Publle Sarvlces: Will the proposal impact the tolbwing Yes No
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protectbn? X
b. Police protection? ~_
c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overbad, etc.)? ~' _
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Medical aid? ,~_
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other? x
11. Utllltlas: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capabliry to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? k
4. Sewer? x
5. Other? ~(
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X
c. Require the construction of new facilities? X
72. Aesthetles:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any X
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? x
13. CuRural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The aleration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identdied in Section
3
Hi
i
' x
.0 -
stor
pl, Figure 8, of the Chy
s General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
R
k
econnaissance Survey?
c. Olher? }~
Maybe
a ~irw°~"inw~c~cu PLAN-9.06 PpGE60F _. ~r nt-90)
14. Mandatory Flndinga of SIgnHleance (Section 15065)
The Cal'rfomia Environmental Quality Act states that 'rf any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a sign'rficant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
qualhy of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop bebw self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plats or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history x
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of bng-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while bng-term impacts will endure well into X
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 sign'rficant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? K
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
SEE ATTACHED SHEETS
Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics: The site is
comprised of 2 adjoining, same-sized 140 X 280 foot
rectangular parcels, which are both presently improved
with existing office buildings and on-site paved parking
areas. The parcels located on the southwest corner of
6th street and Sierra Way also have existing offices,
though this corner, like the subject property and other
parcels to the west have RH, Residential High land use
designations. Most of the adjoining parcels to the
west and north are developed with mixed single and
multi-family residential uses with also some additional
scattered offices and related commercial businesses. To
the east and southeast across Sierra Way are the YWCA,
City Parks and Recreation Department and surrounding
Seccombe Lake State Urban Recreation Area that is all
designated PP, Public Park land use District.
°~nau m,nw ~~O PLAN-0.O6 PAGE SOF ~O X11-A))
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASIIRES DISSCIISSION
1. EARTH RESOURCES-iq. Potential Hiqh Liquefaction, Subsidence Area
The subject site is located in a City designated area of high
liquefaction susceptibility and potential ground subsidence.
Since both GPA parcels are presently improved with existing
office buildings and adjoining yard improvements only future
structural expansions will be subject to any foundation and/or
other additional building reinforcement requirements for
construction within these designated zones. The proposed General
Plan Amendment change from•the current RH, Residential Hiqh land
use designation to CO-1, Commercial Office will not of, itself,
pose an impact either to the subject site or to surrounding
properties in that any future development planned for the site
can be structurally designed to meet and/or exceed code require-
ments for construction within these designated zones.
3. WATER RESOURCES - 3a fi 3b. Absorption Rates, Runoff S Discharge
Hoth of the subject parcels are already improved with existing
office buildings and adjoining, paved parking areas. As such,
most hardscapes areas are already in place with no proposed
plans for further office building expansions. Consequently,
absorption rates and runoff amounts will likely remain constant
with those that presently occur during periods of occasional
heavy precipitation. All such runoff shall be directed to and
into approved City storm drain facilities already developed
along Sierra Way and 6th Streets. The proposed GPA land use
designation change to Commercial office of the two subject
parcels will not impact or change discharge levels into these
public sewers and storm drain facilities nor be otherwise detri-
mental to the City~s existing underground water tables.
5. NOISE - Sb. Subject Property Abuts Residential Uses -
The site area of the proposed General Plan Amendment has its
western and northern property lines abutting RH, Residential
Hiqh designated land use districts whose properties are improved
with mixed single and multi-family residences. The present
office use of the two subject parcels has proven to be
compatible with these adjoining residential uses with most
potential noise generated only from occasional employee and
patron auto traffic accessing the two parcel site. Since most
access to the corner lots is by the way of Sierra Way, a long
established north-south traffic arterial, the proposed GPA
change to Commercial Office will not substantially increase or
change traffic nor noise levels to nearby residences.
a.mu.wnrcacanr~"-'.[c PLAN~B.07 PAGE ~JF~O ~4-90)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES DISCUSSION CONT.
6. LAND IISE - 6a. Proposed Land Use Designation Change -
General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 proposes to change the land
use designation of two existing, legal parcels comprising a
total 84,000 square feet or 1.93 acres from RH, Residential
High to CO-1, Commercial Office. The two parcel site is located
at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Fay.
9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - 9h. Site Access -
Primary access to the corner, two subject parcels is off Sierra
Way, a long established north-south traffic arterial. As such,
the close proximity of Sierra Way to access the corner subject
site minimizes traffic and potential noise levels to the
surrounding mixed single and multi-family residential uses to
the north and northwest. General Plan Amendment No. 92-05, if
approved, will not change access nor circulation patterns to
the subjects existing office buildings or present use of the
subject properties.
13. CIILTURAL RESOIIRCES: -13c. Urban Historical/Archaeological Area
Both subject parcels are presently developed with existing,
office buildings and adjoining paved parking and related yard
improvement areas. However, since both lots are within a City
designated area of potential Urban Historical/Archaeological
cultural resources, they are currently being reviewed and will
require clearance from Dr. Ross of the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center both for the proposed GPA
land use designation change and for any future office
building expansion proposal, though no such project has been or
is presently proposed by the applicant/owners.
Pgs
GPA 92-OS
ins
un s vn aewumo PLAN-B.07 PAGE~OF 10 (6-90~
CENm4 MITMG YIMCF9
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a signrfipnt effect an the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
-1 The proposed project could have a signficant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant
'J effect in this case because the mhigation measures described above have been added to the project A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a signficam effect on the environmem, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
~--~ REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Name and~itle
Sig re
Date: ~~~,, / 9~
vMw'.. n`w~in.ca'~w PUN•9.OB PAGE BOG /U ~t t~~
Ea__iBIT "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING Existing Land Use Map
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT for
CASE GPA 92-OS
LOCATION uFAGINr. nnrF
AGENDA
ITEM #
N/A
--- ~ ¢G'ay:.nQ.;!
o ~m
STREET
--~ -
m u
er
~ .ar w e ~~
e
~ ~ V O O 60 O O O 09 10 11 12 U
}
Z yO ri $ .+(..~. o Q
r ~ '
-- 5 ze
hG
,..
o
' - 27 -
~' ~, : N
~
O,
23 ~ 22 21
032 _
,
p 19 Ifi
0 0 O _ _
p h~
O,. r __ _
14 .` _ ^
„o ~
o Mr~~~
CAI ~.EY b 4
Gf(yE _
h.G
li
h'r ~
1 (G)
I s~
(61 ~g~ 16
i 6bG
~ 13
t~F(6 bb _-_
-_
~`,- ICT RIA - - ~ ~ 3 - - - - - -STREET -;
°' SITE
O F F( ~..~~........~€ :::::::::::::€~:: ~ P Flo
~ ~ O ...:.....:........................ ~~~A I
~~;~"~ - - - - EE2Ei:EiiEiiiiiiiEi2icicEcEcEic:icicEEiEE ,`i
~~yy ~:::i:iii:i. iii::::
~ 6% ....... ~
O 9 9 6 ~:::.'~.e.' :::::::::::::::::::::::::'.: pQ a I
Z O,, O :: '::~ 1s ::::::::::::::::::::::::: W
G~~-~~G<,a~ ........................ ~, I
$ ~ 10 ~€ ~:~~ :::::::::::::::::::::::: I
.~, ~~ I
~. ~ ~c ~::s :::::::::::::::s::::::::ss:a:a::::s:s:t:s:ss::::::s:::::
=oa ~
-___ STREET ~ ' a nth
ez5~ ~ 48 kfi ( M 1 ~ 24
w - ~5 ~/ ~ 49 43 ' m Faf Iss ~:.~ ~ /~I~ r: ~ -~-~ --~ -1~-=--
z ~ ~•~~o-='~ fiz€~z a 4° Ja ~~~ '~ ~ ~ Q 2 ~ - a
w 461 1 sl I a I ~ n i ~ ~~ ; ~ -~''-= --I! 1 ~--
> 12 11
M,, AOrb-) ~ ~ Lol I ~ I Ph~1.IG/Gt~Jas, ~.~. ~ 2
5 ~ comwon aeE~ ~ i
_ _~ ~ Poa. ~17.~""' ~ 2,sr\,,G. 29 i ~,;>._,. ~ I -~crr4 -- i --yl -
_ 1 1 3 3 5 5 7, 7 I C0\y L-a ~~ 24 t~ f .~~s ~,~ ~ 6° i .~
_- 2 2 4 4 6 6 6 B ~
___ a I (~(JC
- • _ - , e. `- ~ 21 ' ' V 110 ~ ( * ~~ O 6 wr
ti - ~' . 1 093 ~ ( ( _
I ,. ! 'rl
an 6 v. awu~aq PLM48.11 PRGE~OF 10 (6901
¢rnw~rwxnwaaM...
9 9 11 II 13 O IS IS 17 O PJ /9
10 ro iz 12 Is la ~ I6 I re le
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING Site Vicinity and Land
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Use Designation P4ap fo
CASE GPA 92-05
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
AGENDA
ITEM #
N/A
~~~~~ PWI-8.11 PAGE/OOF10 1~-ml