HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-Planning
-~
, , n
CITY OF SAN BBRNADINO - RBQUBST FaR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed. Di rector
General Plan Amendment No. 90-2
Subject: To change the Land Use Des i gnati on from
RL to CO-Ion a 1.65 acre parcel on the
northeast corner of Palm Avenue and
Cable Creek, northerly of Kendall Drive
Mayor and Common Council meeting of
November 5. 1990, 2:00 p.m.
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Date:
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The site and surrounding area was designated RL, Residential Low upon adoption of
the General Plan on June 2, 19B9.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed. that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve the resolution based on the findings.
~
r~
Signature
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
5
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
...'" n.."'''
An,::llnn;:a Iham Nn
4~
P. r.
CITY OF SAN BERNAQoINO - REQUEST FcI:J COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT : General Plan Amendment No. 90-2
Mayor and Common council Meeting
of November 5, 1990
REOUEST
S!he applicants request a land use designation change from RL,
Residential Low to CG-1, commercial General. The site is
ocated on the northeast corner of Palm Avenue and the Cable
Creek flood control channel northerly of the Palm Avenue and
( Kendall Drive intersection. The parcel is 1.65 acres in size
but due to dedication requirements it will be reduced to
'- approximately one acre available for development.
BACKGROUND
The applicants' site and the surrounding area was designated
RL, Residential Low upon adoption of the General Plan on June
2, 1989. (There are apartments northerly and easterly of the
--s-ite~ These apartments in the RL, Residential Low land use
designation, are the result of previous litigation.
Staff evaluated CG-1, Commercial General CN, Commercial
Neighborhood and RU-1, Residential Urban land use desig-
nations in the Initial study and recommended that the land
use designation be changed to RU-1 as per Alternative 3.
The planning commission reviewed General Plan Amendment No.
90-2 at a noticed pUblic hearing on August 7, 1990 and
disagreed with staff's recommendation. The Planning Commis-
sion considered any designation that permitted multiple
family dwelling units as unacceptable. planning staff was
directed to evaluate a CO-1, Commercial Office designation
for the site.
As a noticed public hearing on October 9, 1990, the Planning
commission concluded that a CO-1 designation, even though it
is a commercial intrusion into a residential area, would be
compatible with the General Plan due to the site's small
size. It was also noted that retaining the RL, Residential
Low designation would limit development due to the site being
surrounded by the apartments, the channel and Palm Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Environmental Review committee reviewed the Initial study
and the Addendum and recommended a Negative Declaration for
all alternatives considered.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and Common
Council approve General Plan Amendment 90-2, Alternative 4,
to designate the site as CO-1, Commercial Office.
75-0264
· General Plan Amen~t No. 90-2 0
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5, 1990
Page 3
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No.
90-2, Alternative 4, based on the Findings in the
resolution.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No.
90-2, as per Alternative 3.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan
Amendment No. 90-2.
Prepared by:
John Burke n
for Larry E. Reed, Director J/fo
Department of Planning and Building Services ~7
Attachment A: Memorandum to Planning
October 9, 1990
Attachment 1: Staff Report to
August 7, 1990,
1990
Attachment A: Initial Study dated March 29, 1990
Exhibit A: Alternative 1
Exhibit B: Location Map
Addendum to Initial Study dated August 14, 1990
Exhibit A: Alternative 4
Attachment B: Resolution
Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Legal Description
Commission,
dated
Planning
continued
commission on
from July 24,
-
. CITY OF SAN EQRNARDINO
-
I\tQMORANDUM
To
Planning Commission
From Larry E. Reed, Di rector
Planning and Building Svcs.
Date October 9, 1990
Ibject
General Plan Amendment No. 90-2
Approved Agenda I tem No. 2
Date
Owner/Applicants: Richard W. and Ruth E. Beamish
1229 Heathcot Place
El Dorado Hill, CA 95630
REOUEST & LOCATION
The applicant reques~s a change of land use designation from RL,
Residential Low to CG-l, Commercial General on a rectangular parcel
of land on the northeast corner of Palm Avenue and Cable Creek,
northerly of Kendall Drive. The parcel is 1.65 acres in area.
- BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 90-2 at
a noticed public hearing on August 7,1990. The Planning Commission
disagreed with staff's recommendation and directed Staff to
evaluate a CO-1, Commercial Office designation for the site.
Attachment 1 is the staff report submitted for the August 7, 1990,
hearing with the Initial Study and Addendum.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOAI STATUS
This general plan amendment and addendum are subject to CEQA. The
addendum to the Initial Study (Attachment A to the August 7. 1990.
staff report) was prepared to evaluate potential impacts resulting
from a CO-l, Commercial Office deSignation. The CO-l proposal is
entitled Alternative 4. The Environmental Review Committee
reviewed the addendum on August 23. 1990. and determined that a CO-
1 deSignation would not have an adverse impact on the environment
and a Negative Declaration was proposed. A public review of the
proposed Negative Declaration for the addendum to the Initial Study
was held from August 30, 1990. to September 19, 1990.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments have been received.
ATTACHMENT A
-'
....-.:...
.- -.
-
-
6
~
, Genra_l Pl an Amendment.-/llo. 90-2
October 9, 1990 \..J
Page 2
o
ANALYSIS
The objective of the CO-I, Commercial Off ice desio-nation is to
provide for .... administrative and professional offices... in
proximity to major transportation corridors . (General Plan
Objective 1.28). It permits offices, supporting retail commercial
uses and medical facilities (General Plan Policy 1.28.101. Senior
citizen and senior cono-regate care housino- is permitted up to a
density of 54 dwellino- units per acre.
General Plan Goal IG, 0', states that the City of San Bernardino
shall .Achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which ...
provide distinctive and compatible residential neighborhoods and
commercial and industrial districts and nodes." The Cable Creek
Flood Control Channel is a natural boundary between the approximate
50 acres of CG-l, Commercial General desio-nated land southwest of
the channel, on both sides of 1-215, and the residential
neighborhood to the northeast of the channel. Designatino- the land
for commercial use is an intrusion into the residential area. The
site is adjacent to a multiple family development project at its
northerly and easterly boundaries: It has an effective development
area of one acre due to dedication requirements and as such has
limited prospects for development as a residential site.
The CO-I. Commercial Office desio-nation would permit uses that are
less intense than those permitted in the CG-l, Commercial General
or CN, Commercial Neiqhborhood desio-nations. General Plan policies
1.15.34, 1.19.35, and 1.28.30 would ensure that a development
project would convey a "human scale" to the area and would not
impact on the surrounding residential land uses. These policies
provide for adequate buffers and landscaping and require
architecturally distinctive design so as to complement the
surrounding uses. The development standards applied to the small
site would preclude a development incompatible with the surrounding
uses. Traffic generated by a future development on the site would
not be sufficient to adversely affect the circulation pattern in
the area.
CONCLUSIONS
The site is surrounded by the apartments on the northeast and
southeast and by the Flood Control Channel and Palm Avenue on the
remaininq sides. A designation of CO-I, Commercial Office for the
site would be compatible with the residential area as the size of
the parcel that is available for development is not large enough to
create an impact. The site will be required to comply with
landscaping, buffering and setbacks ensurino- consistency with the
General Plan. >
4.
-
$.
-
~
General Plan Amendmen~No. 90-2
October 9. 1990 V
Page 3
o
l
FINDINGS
A CO-I, Commercial Office designation is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The one acre site
would 1 imi t the size of a development and therefore would be
compatible with the surrounding uses.
The CO-l designation is not detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City and a Negative
Declaration is proposed.
The balance of land uses in
a change of deSignation
Commercial Office.
the City would be minimally impacted by
from RL, Residential Low to CO-I,
The site is physically suitable for a CO-I, Commercial Office
designation and all infrastructure is at or in proximity to the
project area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION~
Based on the discussion at the meeting of August 7, 1990. the
Plannino Commission may make a recommendation to the Mayor and
Common Council that:
1. A Neoative Declaration be adopted in accordance with
Section 21080.1 of CEQA for General Plan Amendment No.
90-2. Alternative 4.
2. The General Plan Land Use Plan be chanoed from RL,
Residential Low to CO-I. Commercial Office as shown as
Alternative 4 on Exhibit A of the Addendum dated Auoust
14, 1990 to the Initial Study dated March 29, 1990.
Respectively submitted
~ r-./~
Larry E. Reed
Director, Plannino and Buildino Services Department
~~/e' 4 ./
%t; R~ Burke
Assistant Planner
Attachment 1: Staff Report. to Plannino Commission on Auoust 7,
1990.
Attachment A: Initial Study dated March 29, 1990.
Exhibit A: Alternative 1.
Exhibit B: Location Map.
Addendum. to Initial Study 'dated
Auoust 14, 1990.
r-....,..,~l-,;.. 2:.. ~'+-o't-n:::a..{"c ~
-
- ~
-
-
-
-
~
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
15
7/24/90
5
r/'"""', .. -...,
APPLICANT: Richard W. and Ruth Beamish
W GENERAL PIAN ~ 1229 Heathc:ot Flace
t/) El Dorado Hill, CA 95630
C NO. 90-2 OWNER: SAME
C,)
\......,)
/"""\
'lb change the land use designation fran RL, Pesidential I.I:M to CG-1,
... Ccmrercial General on approximately 1.65 acres of land 60 feet northeast
f3 of the northeast oorner of r<endall Drive and Palm Avenue and north of
:::) Cable Creek.
0
W See staff report for t\\lO alternatives proposed by staff.
a:
-
c
W
a:
C
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERlY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Apart:Ilents RL
South Cable Creek PFC
East Aparbrents RL
West Vacant RL
"-
, ) ,
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES I FLOOD HAZARD XI YES XI ZONE A SEWERS; ~ YES I
HAZARD ZONE: IiiI NO '" ZONE: D NO iii ZONE B \. D NO
r HIGH FIRE DYES I( AIRPORT NOISE! D YES r REDEVELOPMENT DYES \
HAZARD ZONE: CRASH ZONE: ) I PROJECT AREA:
at: NO ) '" al NO IllI NO
,- r-
..J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL Alt. 3
C APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MmGATING MEASURES -
!it/) NOE.I.R. !C 0 CONDITIONS
WCJ u.Q
~Z o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO u.Z ~ DENIAL applicant 's
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW
OQ WITH MmGATING til request
a:;; MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-u. 0
> [j NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
ffi EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. fd
MINUTES a:
'-
ATTACHMENT 1
am 01' ... -..-.0
----
- --
J1
~
-
-
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE GPA 90-2
15
7/24/90
2
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
REOUEST
This application is to change the land use designation from
RL, Residential Low, to CG-1, Commercial - General on
approximately 1;65 acres of land (see Exhibit A of the
Initial study). staff has proposed two alternatives changing
the designation to CN, commercial Neighborhood (Alternative
2) or to RU-1, Residential Urban (Alternative 3).
LOCATION
-
The site is comprised of one rectangular parcel of land on
the northeast corner of Palm Avenue and Cable Creek,
northerly of Kendall Drive. (See Location Map, Exhibit B of
the Initial study).
BACKGROUND
During the public hearing process for adoption of the General
Plan, the Planning Commission recommended that the area along
Palm Avenue, including the subject site, be designated RE,
Residential Estate. The Mayor and Common council concurred
with that recommendation. The property owner of the subject
site then requested that the designation be changed to RM,
Residential Medium. The Mayor and Common Council changed the
designation to CN, commercial Neighborhood and at a later
meeting changed it back to RE, Residential Estate. The Mayor
and Common council then changed the designation to RL,
Residential Low upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2,
1989.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
MUNICIPAL CODE
Not applicable.
GENERAL PLAN
This application is to change the General Plan land use plan.
m.:~l~~ ~ii
PlAN-UI PAGE 1 OF 1 C.eDI
-
-
-
~
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA 90-2
1:>
7/24/90
3
~
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...
r
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOAl STATUS
The General Plan Amendment is subject to CEQA. An Initial
Study (Attachment A) was prepared by staff and reviewed by
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 24, 1990. The
ERC determined that the applicant's request and the staff
proposals would not have adverse impacts on the environment
and a Negative Declaration was proposed. There was a public
review period from May 31, 1990, through June 20, 1990, to
review the Initial Study and the proposed Negative
Declaration.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments have been received.
ANALYSIS
site and surrounding Area Characteristics
The site is comprised of one parcel of land and lies on the
northeast side of the Cable Creek flood control channel. The
parcel extends from the centerline of the channel to
approximately 1,210 feet northeasterly along Palm Avenue. The
parcel has a depth of about 330 feet. Dedication will be
required to the San Bernardino County Flood Control channel
and to the Palm Avenue right-of-way leaving approximately one
acre of land for development.
The land surrounding the site, on the northeast side of the
flood control channel, is developed with apartments although
the land use designation is RL, Residential Low (3.1 dwelling
units per acre). This differs from the General Plan as a
result of past litigation. The land across Palm Avenue and
north of the flood control channel is vacant and is also
designated RL, Residential Low.
&\l.l:.::l -
PI.ANoI.GI PAGE 1 OF 1 .....
-
-
r-
"
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
f'\
CASE C:;PA '10-2
..
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 15
HEARING DATE 7/'4/'10
PAGE 4
r-
...
The channel forms a natural boundary between the residential
designated lands on the northeast and the commercial lands to
the southwest.
Designating land for any
side of the channel
residential area.
commercial activity on the northeast
would be an intrusion into the
The RL, Residential Low designation was established to:
"Promote the development low-density, large lot, high
quality single-family detached residential units."
(General Plan Objectives 1.10).
The RL, designation permits 3.1 units per gross acre to be
built. However, after dedications, access and setback
requirements, the yield could be less. One acre developed
with up to three single family homes surrounded by multiple
family units does not make up a cohesive neighborhood.
Alternative 3 proposes a designation of RU-1, Residential
Urban. The objective of the RU-1 area is to:
"Promote the development of single-family detached and
attached, duplex, mobile home parks, and small lot
subdivisions where the intent is to consolidate lots to
achieve more open space." (General Plan Objectives
1.12) .
The RU-1, Residential Urban permits a maximum of nine
dwelling units per gross acre. The designation is compatible
with the use to the northeast and to the southeast, i.e. the
apartment complex, and would not be incompatible with future
development across Palm Avenue due to the relatively low
yield of units.
CONCLUSION
A designation of CG-1, commercial General or CN, Commercial
Neighborhood would be in conflict with the intent of the
goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan because it
would allow for the encroachment of commercial activities
into the residential area. In addition the 50 acres of CG-1,
most of which is undeveloped, is sufficient to serve the
~~~-=
...
....,j
Pt.N<-I.lII '_'OF' 14-lllll
_. .4.
-
-
OBSERVATIONS
CASE GPA 90-2
AGENDA ITEM 15
HEARING DATE 7 /24/90
PAGE 5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
~
The land in the vicinity of the site between the flood
control channel and the 1-215 right-of-way is designated CG-
1, commercial General on both sides of Palm Avenue. The
southeast corner of Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue is develop
ed with a small commercial strip center. There is additional
land designated for commercial development south of 1-215 on
both sides of Palm Avenue.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
The designation of lands for CG-1, commercial General use is
intended to provide for community-serving retail, personal
service, office and restaurant use along major transportation
corridors or intersection nodes. Although Palm Avenue serves
a residential area it is designated a minor arterial in the
circulation Element of the General Plan.
There are almost 30 acres of CG-1 designated land between the
flood control channel and the 1-215 freeway in proximity to
the Palm Avenue/Kendall Drive/I-215 freeway intersection. In
addition, there are approximately 20 acres of land designated
CG-1 on both sides of Palm Avenue south of the freeway.
When designating land CN, commercial Neighborhood
Verdemont area the General Plan states that it
objective of the City to:
"provide for the development of a low-intensity, low-
rise commercial center in the Verdemont area which
offers retail and personal service uses for local
residents, is integrated and linked to adjacent
residences, and designed as a "village-like" complex of
small stores reflecting its rural and mountain-valley
environment."
(General Plan Objective 1.27).
in the
is the
The CN, commercial Neighborhood designation has less
intensive uses permitted than CG-1, commercial General and
would probably be less of an impact of the adjoining
residential area. The introduction of either CG-l or CN is
not necessary as there is sufficient CG-1 south of the flood
control channel to provide the necessary commercial support
for the' residential area.
...
....
G.&&r_~
PL.AN-1.D8 PAGEtOFt (4010)
-
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE GPA 90-2
15
7/24/90
I>
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
""""'l
Retaining the RL,
approximately one acre
surrounded by higher
channel.
Residential Low designation leaves
that will be available for development
density uses, the street and the
The RU-l, Residential Urban designation would be compatible
with the uses surrounding the site north of Cable Creek. The
RU-l, designation would allow up to nine dwelling units to be
built and possibly less due to setback requirements due to
flood control concerns. This small area of multi-family
housing would then be compatible with the apartments to the
north and east and would not be incompatible with future
single family across Palm Avenue.
FINDINGS
A land use designation of RU-l, Residential Urban is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
General Plan.
The RU-l designation would not be detrimental
interest, health, safety, convenience, or
City.
to the public
welfare of the
The RU-l designation will have minimal impact on the balance
of land uses within the City as the difference in housing
would be no more than six units.
The amendment site is physically suitable for the proposed
RU-l designation and for any future development that might be
proposed.
m.:r~ ~ iI
..
Pl...Afr6.IM PaGE1OF'
,.,..,
- -
0 0
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING ""'III
CASE GPA 90-2
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 15
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 7/24/90
... PAGE 7
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 for staff's proposed
Amendment, Alternative 3.
2. The General Plan Land Use map be changed from RL,
Residential Low to RU-1, Residential Urban as
proposed by Alternative 3.
Respectfully submitted,
~~4/
Larry E. Reed, Director
planning and Building Services
.4L~~'
7J:;hn R. Burke
Assistant Planner
/ke
Attachment A - Initial study
7/11/90
M&CCAGENDA:
GPA90-2
:.:.~~. -..-0
PL.AN-IM PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-IIJJ
~rR-~'''"-~
J. -
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
'I
General Plan Amendment No. 90-2
Proiect Descriotion: To change the land use desiqnation
from RL, Residential Low to CG-l, Commercial General on
approximately 1.65 acres of land in the Verdemont area,
or to change the designation to CN, Commercial
Neighborhood. or to change the designation to RU-l.
Residential Urban.
Proiect Location: One parcel on the northeast corner of
Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue, north of Cable Creek.
Date: March 29, 1990
AoolicantCs) Name and Address:
Richard Beamish
129 Cabrillo St, Ste 207
Costa Mesa, CA 92027
Owner:
Consolidated Investment Fund VI
CTed Yoshimura)
240 Fifth Ave
Industry, CA 91746
Preoared by:
Name: John R. Burke
Title: Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and BUilding Services
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
ATTACHMENT -A-
~;;,
1.0
-
---~
o
o
INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-2
INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-2
which proposes to change the land use designation from
RL, Residential Low to CG-1, Commercial General on a 1.65
acre parcel on the northeast corner of Kendall Drive and
Palm Avenue. Staff has proposed two alternative
amendment options of a land use designation of CN,
Commercial Neighborhood, and RU-1, Residential Urban.
As stated in Section 15063 of
Environmental Quality Act guidelines,
Initial Study are to:
the California
the purposes of an
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
Negative Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for
Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by;
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not
have a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
,ill8t__'_'<"'''"
o
o
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant's request, Alternative 1, is to change the
City's General Plan Land Use Plan from RL, Residential
Low to CG-1, Commercial General on 1.65 acres on the
northeast corner of Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue (see
Exhibit A). The CG-1 designation permits a diversity of
community-serving retail and service uses, entertainment
uses, and professional and financial offices. Staff has
proposed Alternatives 2 and 3 which would designate the
site CN, Commercial Neighborhood and RU-1, Residential
Urban respectively. The CN designation permits
development of commercial activity of a less intense
nature than that permitted under CG-1. This designation
is designed to provide commercial services in support of
the adjacent neighborhood. The RU-1 designation permits
multi-family housing to a density of 9 dwelling units per
4AcS5> I/CIJ.E .
2.1 AMENDMENT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is comprised of one parcel of land total 1 ing
1.65 acres (Assessor Parcel Number 261-191-06). It is
designated RL, Residential Low and is vacant. The land
fronts on Palm Avenue and is north of the Cable Creek
flood control channel. It lies approximately 60 feet
northeast of the Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive
intersection and about 300 feet northeast of the 1-215
underpass. The land use designations for the site and
the surrounding area are shown on Exhibit B.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is rectangular in shape and slopes gently from
the northwest to the southeast. The southerly 60 feet of
the parcel is within the Cable Creek Flood Control
channel and its right-of-way. The parcel extends about
20 feet into the Palm Avenue right-of-way. The land
available for development is less than 1 acre (0.996
acres). There is an apartment complex to the northeast
and southeast. The land across Palm Avenue and the land
between the flood control channel and Kendall Drive at.
Palm Avenue are vacant. There is a small commercial
strip on the southwest side of Kendall Drive. There are
5 to 6 trees on the site which might warrant
,c,_ ,
-
o
o
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-2
consideration prior to development. There is a shallow
drainage ditch diagonally traversing the site from the
north to the southeast.
The site lies within the Biological Resource Management
Overlay Zone, the High Wind Hazard Area and also within
Foothill Fire Zone C of the Greenbelt Program. Fire Zone
C is a moderate area of fire risk. A subsurface fault,
known as the Kendall Fault, runs along a line roughly
approximating the northeasterly boundary of the site.
This fault is not included in the Alquist-Priolo zones as
it is considered to have a relatively low probability for
rupture. The site is not in an area susceptible to
liquefaction.
. J""'I..
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""'"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
li... ~
r- ""'"
A. BACKGROll!ID
Application Number: t;;-"v/-.C/t'- b"" /'J/,?M/IIb'nE..v/ 4i-. J1t7 -.2.
Project Description: Ji; 1!"..Aw"V~~ ~~ LANl> u.r~ })E.~-/.~A/.I;Tn';A/ /-'?6'frl
tL MsiruNTI"L k;,/ 7C' k',s' h.siJ).bV,-/.-9L s.~,(}v'(>ff/J-v .
. , .
Location: A ;-,yr h"..lt17/L~'{,- u',<'N'L-"<: C~ kENM{{ MIJ'l' ;9-/Z>
/!tJun tJN!'#'t' '-
Environmental Constraints Areas: .c"');:!hI KLsa,x05s' /1.11< #Q'w,('GtfS
,
4i;;72'~ ~L!SN.RU'-J; J3/tU'-;It:/((. J?IfSN.R~S A.1'/Jt!' MA/J'~- 11~-I'~JtJE Mi!>9KAS
/ .
- General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
B. ~NVIBONM~NTAL-1MPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1- Ea~~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more? )(
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade? X
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone? X
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
\.
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
~
f"\
Maybe
"""
r
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of' a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h.
Other?
2. ~IR_RESQYRCES: will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area? )(
3.
Will
the
~bn:B_ RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
....
REVISED 12/87
Yes
No
x
x
X'
x
x
'X
x
>(
x
x
x
)(
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
.- .-
-.-"-.-
j ..
,
Yes
Maybe
""'lIII
4.
BIOLOGIC6L R~SOURCE9:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
c. Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b.
exterior
dB or
over 45
Exposure of people to
noise levels over 65
interior noise levels
dB?
c. Other?
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan? )(
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
\..
REVISED 10/87
No
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
)(
~
PAGE 3 OF 8
""'",'
,
Maybe
"'IIIl
7.
MAN-MADE HAg:~FP~:
project:
Will
the
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
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
~
9. 1'RA~~!,ORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General"
Plan? ^
b.
Use of existing,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
c. Impact upon existing public
transpolt~tion systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
-...
REVISED 10/87
No
)(
x-
X
x
X
x
x
><
)(
x:
x
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
-
,.
es
No
Maybe
"""'lIt
g.
h.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
x
X
10. ~~~~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
8.
b.
c.
Fire protection?
police protection?
x
X'
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
x
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
.x'
X
X'
X
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
ll...
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
x'
X
X
4. Sewer?
x
X
5. Other?
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
.x
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
X'
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
-
..
--
...
No
--
,.,.
Yes
,.
12. AESTHETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
X'
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
X
c. Other?
13. CP~~URA~--FESQURCES: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alterat ion or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic X
archaeological site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic
impacts to a prehistoric or
historic site, structure or X
object?
c. Other? X.
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.
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
-
Maybe
"""lI
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
1 ~
,.
-
Yes
No
Maybe
""
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? (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. )
x:
x
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. )
x
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
.t;;;;.& Ar-r-AC#H) SH~O-S
~
"'"
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
,
.- -
o
o
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-2
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Earth Resources
1. f.
The proposed amendment, or the alternatives, will not
impact on the Cable Creek flood control channel. Future
development will require initial dedication of 60 feet
for channel right-of-way and additional setbacks for
buildings could be required to protect and minimize
structural damage from erosion due to flood overflow
prior to permanent improvements being made to the
channel.
Air Resources
2. c.
The amendment site is within the High Wind Hazard Zone.
The redesignation will not be a cause of concern, but
future development will be required to comply with the
design requirements of development within such an area.
Water Resources
3. a, h, c, d, ea
The site is designated Zones "A" and "B" by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and is subject to, and has a
history of, floodwater overflow according to the San
Bernardino Flood Control District. Any development on
the site will reduce the area available for rain or flood
water absorption and thus increase the runoff into the
flood control channel directly or by another drainage
system. The City is proposing to line Palm Avenue with
curbs so as to complete the street drainage system from
Washington Avenue to the flood control channel.
According to the City Engineer the project is scheduled
to start in December, 1990. This will preclude run-off
water from crossing the site by way of the drainage ditch
that now traverses it. Commercial development would
create the largest impermeable surface area due to
building footprints and parking areas. These surfaces
would also act as catchments for contaminants such as
hydrocarbons, petroleum products (engine fluids) and
particulate matter from exhaust emissions and increase
the level of pollutants in the channel. The effects from
development at this site will be minimal, however, the
cumulative impacts from commercial developments bears
o
o
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-2
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
watching. Future development will be required to address
this problem and will include design specific mitigation
measures.
Biological Resources
4. a, b.
The site lies within the Biological Resource Overlay
Zone. This General Plan Amendment does not affect the
land at this time, but upon proposal of a specific
development the 5 to 6 trees and assorted shrubs will
become a matter of i~terest and might require a
biological study to determine possible impacts.
Noise
5. a, b.
Since the project site is undeveloped, a land use
designation change would not have an impact on the noise
levels in the area. Future development of uses permitted
by the CG-l, Commercial General or the CN, Commercial
Neighborhood designations would potentially increase
noise levels over the RL, Residential Low designation but
mitigation would ensure interior noise levels below 45
dBa and exterior noise levels below 65 dBa. Alternative
3 (the RU-l designation) would have a slightly elevated
noise level over the current designation but would have
a minimal impact on the area.
Land Use
6. a, c.
The proposed amendment will change the General Plan land
use designation. The site is within the "Greenbelt" Zone
C which is a moderate fire hazard area. Development
considerations are addressed at the project specific
stage.
Man-Made Hazards
7.a.
Future commercial projects under Alternatives 1 and 2
could use hazardous or toxic materials not normally found
or not normally found in quantity in residential areas
(i.e. dry cleaners, paint stores, etc.). Specific uses
are addressed at the project development stage and
mitigation measures applied if necessary.
o
o
INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-2
3.2.B
Housing
B.a.
The residential land use to commercial land use ratio is
not significantly affected by Alternatives 1 or 2.
Alternative 3 would increase the permissible dwelling
units by 6 which would have little effect on the area.
Additional housing demand of significance is not
anticipated as a result of the commercial designations.
3.2.9
Transportation/Circulation
9.a.
The City Traffic Engineering Department advises that
future commercial acti vi ties could generate some
additional traffic but that.most of the trips to the site
would originate from existing trips and not from new ones
generated. The increase in traffic from Alternates 1 or
2 would be insignificant. The RU-l, Residential Urban
designation (Alternate 3) would generate an insignificant
number of additional trips.
1"\
-
...,
..,
r
D. DETERMI~~110N
On the basis of this initial study,
o
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 a 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 ~~Y have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
~
o
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
..k~", !ft;,II'T-;;:Jld.Ri/ #IA'C//'#L- ~IV'/"e
.
Name and Title
s~~
g -t7<{-70
Date:
......
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
'-
CITY F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. -90-2
TITLE ALTERNATIVE 1 (Applicant,s Proposal)
~
RL
I
CG-1
~
'"
"'-"
,
v
CQ
'I
IL
EXHIBIT A
1. _ _ _ _
CITY F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. JlO-2
TITLE ..J.OCAJION MAP
~
"" I~
/ ~
rt')
~
.
~
EXHIBIT B
'.
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Addendu)ll.1:o
GeneraJ__l'_~~I1_~eDdmeT!LNo c ~9_:- ~
Projec;t PeJ~q:.J.pUQn: To change the land use designation
from RL. Residential Low to CG-l, Commercial General on
approximately 1.65 acres of land in the Verdemont area.
or to chanqe the designat ion to CN. Commercial
Neighborhood. Qr to change the desiqnation to RU-l.
Residential Urban.
Addendum Descr ~J2tJ,Qn: To incl ude the CO-I. Commercicll
Office desiqnation as an alternative proposal for the
General Plan Amendment.
Proieg~LocatiQn: One parcel on the northeast corner of
Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue, north of Cable Creek.
pate: August 14. 1990
Applicants/OWners Name and Address:
Richard W. and Ruth E. Beamish
1229 Heathcot Place
El Dorado Hill. CA 95630
Prepared by:
Name: John R. Burke
Title:. Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planninq and Buildinq Services
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
l
ATTACHMENT
A
-- -
-
-
o
o
2 ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This repcrt is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Addendum to the Initial Study for General Plan
Amendment No. 90-2 adding the CO-I. Commercial C>ffiee
designation as Alternative 4 (see Exhibit A to this
addendum) to the applicants' request ror a CG-l,
Commercial General designation and staff's orooosed
alternatives of CN. Commercial Neighborhood and RIJ-l.
Residential Urban designations. The site is located on
a 1. 653cre parcel of land on the northeast .:.:>rner of
Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue, north of the Cable Creek
Flood Control Channel.
2.0 PR0JECT DESCRIPTION
This is an Addendum to General Plan Amendment No. ~Q-2 to
include the CO-I. Commercial Office desiQ'nation as an
additional alternative to those proposed in the Initial
Study dated March 29, 1990. The CO-I. Commercial Office
designation permits a diversity of administrative.
professional and medical offices and supporting retail
commercial uses.
2.1 AMENDMENT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Same as Initial Study.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Same as Initial Study.
.,.1.--
,..
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
""
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
...
II""
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: ,4bD,flN/)UII7 ~ ~1#e~AL A"'N J9""'N~~.rA6. 9?7-.:z
~"'lll/IHDescription: % /A/~/;'JbE 7iYL c.!J-/, t!2Nw~-tC/"'~ ~ ~/~A".1YeW
A.S "'AI AL.rLIfi1IVAr,;v", At2"",~.rA~ 7'e' ~ C;-~"'';L~'''C ,Il~.-' ~.......v~r.
Location: RN~ JI'I?~a~
/PH lJ iJJUf? h'v...ltC/J'
,
pY ~/ A/~,"",L-!JlJT c.PA';fN1t' p, ~A/~~<C.. bR,;Ji
UdJlfi1/"H t!P/ ~4'U C}UL;'-.
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation:
RL
,
RGSIUlVrtAC L~
Zoning Designation: AI /A
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resuU in: Ves No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut andlDrfill) ol10,ooo cubic
yards or more? X
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? X
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone? X
d. ModHication 01 any unique geologic or physical
feature? y
e. Soil erosion on or 011 the project lite? )(
f. ModHication 01 a channel, creek or river? )(
g. Development within an area subject 10 Iandslicles, X
mudslides, liqualaction or other similar hazards?
h. Other? X
.... ....
~-=-=== PLAN-lUll PAGE' OF 6 (0-10)
....
...
,_ '_20Ft (WIll
~~--
-
#II\.
, - "'"
7. Man-Made HaZIIrda: Will the project: Y.s No Maybe
a. U... IIOre.tranlpllrt or dispoae 01 hazardous or
toxic mat.rials (including but not tim~ed to oil, X'
pa81icides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involv.the releas. 01 hazardous substances? ><
c. Expose peopl. to the pot.ntial h.aIlhIsalely hazards? )(
d. Other? )(
8. Housing: Willth. proposal:
a. R.mov. .xisting housing or create a d.mand >(
lor add~ional housing?
b. Other? >(
8. Transportation I Circulation: Coulclthe proposal resu~ in:
a. An increase in traffic thet is gr.at.r than the land X
us. designated on th. G.n.ral Plan?
b. Use of .xisting, or demand lor new, parking
IaciI~i.slstruClur.s? X'
c. Impact upon .xisting public transportation syst.ms? )(
d. AIl.ration 01 pr...nt palI.ms of circulation? )(
.. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
I. Increased sal.ty hazards to v.hicles. bicyclists or
pedestrians? >(
g. A disjointed palI.m of roadway improv.m.nts? X
h. SignKicant incr.... in traffic volum.s on th. roadways <
or inleraeClions?
i. Other? X
10. Public Sarvlcaa: Willth. propoael impacIthe following
beyond th. capabil~ to provide adaquata Iavals of "Mce?
L Fire protection? X
b. Potice protection? X
c. Schools (i.... att.ndance. boundarias. ov.rload. ale.)? X
d. Parks or oth.r ntCntational tacil~ies? X
.. Medical aid? X
t. Solid Wast.? ~
g. Other? X
11IIo..
..j
:,o;.:..=.~ --
PL,M.I.DI PAGE. 3OF. (540)
^
t"\
.....
r'.
11. UlIIltJea: Will the proposal:
L Impel the following beyond the e8P8bIlity 1ll
~ -*luate levels of service or require the
conllruclion CII new IcUbies?
1. Natural gu?
2. Eleclricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewr?
5. Olher?
b. ResuU in a disjointed pallern of utility eX1ensions?
c. Require the construction of new lacilhies?
12. Aeathetlca:
a. Could the proposal resuU in the obstruction 01 any
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact 01 the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area?
c. Olher?
13. Cunural Reeourcea: Could the proposal resuU in:
L The aU.ration or destrUction of a prehistoric or
historic archuolagical sUe?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impsClllll a
prehialoric or historic .... slTUClUre or objscl?
c. Olher?
v..
No
'X
)(
X
)(
X
X
X
)(
)(
X
x
x
)(
Maybe
14. llendatory findings of Slgn"1c8ncs (Section 15065)
The California Environm.nta1 Quality Ad aIaIHthat H any of the following can be an.wered ye. or maybe.
the project may have a .ignHicsnl eIISC1 on the enviRlnment and an Environrn.nlsllmpacl R.pan shall be
prepared.
a. Doe. the project have the patentiellll degrade the
quality of the environment, aubalantlally reduce the
habi\aI of a fish or wildlile speciH. _ a fish or
wlIdlll. population to drop below ..H suatalnlng levels.
threaten 1ll eliminate a plant or animal community.
reduce !he number or restriclthe range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate inportsnl
exampIH of the major pariod. of CalHornia history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the patentiallll achieve .hon.
term. lllthe disadventage of Iong.term. anvironmental
goals? (A .hon.lsrm impel on the enviRlnment is one
which occurs in a relatively brieI. definltivs pariod
of time while IDngoferm impacts will .ndure _II into
the luture.)
Ves
No
Maybe
)(
)(
...
,_ '__OF' (0-10)
=:.:.~ 1[" .......r
c. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MI11GAnON MEASURES
(AlWch shHls as necessary.)
SE E ATT"C:V~Z> .siV.E4T.s
,
""-
~
CIf'l'ClI''''~
__ .II.
P1.AN-I.DI PAGE 1M. (SolO)
'.
-.
o
o
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY fer GPA90-2
3.2
3.2. I
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth Resources
1. f.
Same as Initial StQdy.
Air Resources
2. c.
Same as Initial Study.
Water Resources
3. a, b, c. d, e.
The Water Resources concerns are similar to those
addressed in the Initial Study as they pertain tc
commercial uses. The CO-I. Commercial Office desiQnat ion
would potentiallY have an intensity of use less than that
of the CG-I. Commercial General desiQnation. Develc~mer,t
on the site would, however. produce a similar area of
impermeable surfaces and similar pollutants as th:>se
produced with development in a CG-I area.
BioloQical Resources
4. a, b.
Same as Initial Study.
Noise
5. a, b.
Same as Alternatives I and 2 of the Initial Study.
Land Use
6. a, c.
Same as Initial Study.
o
o
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY for GPA90-2
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.10
Man-Made Hazards
7.a.
Same as Alternatives 1 and 2 of the Initial ~tudy.
Hcusing
8.a.
Transportation/Circulation
9.a.
Traffic generation for a CO-I. Commercial Office
designation is similar to that tor CG-l. Commercial
General. The potential impacts are !he same as addressed
in the Initial Study for Alternative 1.
Public Services. Utilities. Aesthetics and Cultural
Resources are not affected by this addendum.
-
r
-
~
D. DETERMINATION
On the buis 01 this initial study.
0The pnIpllHd project COULD NOT have a signHicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DEClARA-
TION will be prepared.
O The proposed projacl could have a signHicant effect on the environment. dhough there will not be a signHicant
effect in this case because the m~igation measures described above have baan added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed projacl MAY have a signHicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAl REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CAliFORNIA
-::;;1("; ;(~(.,,~r. ~''';fc:. g..,NU
Name and TRia I
~~~~
s~re
Data: ~ -03 -'70
~
..
:::.:.-=--==
..........111 '__llF _ CHlII
,. CITy..oF SAN t:Sc.HNAnUII...U I I
. GENERAL P~N AMENDMENTo.O. JU)-2
'.
,
TITLE ~LrEp.NAIIVE 1- -
~
"... , I-\,
/. ~
rt')
,
.
,
EXHIBIT A