HomeMy WebLinkAbout42-Planning & Building
CITY OF SAN BERNaDINO - REQUEST I4R COUNCIL ACTION
Date:
February 11, 1991
General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 to
Subject: change the land use designation from
CG-l to RS and RU-1, and from RH to RS
and RU-l on various parcels on the west
side of "E" Street, south of 28th Street
generally in the area of the Old Laurel
Hospital
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 11, 1991, 2:00 p.m.
Fe
Dept:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Services
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The amendment area was designated CG-1, Commercial General and RH, Residential
High with the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. At their meeting
of January 8, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration and approval of Alternative 2.
Recommended motion:
e
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted.
r-'
Director
Contact person:
Larrv E. Reed
Phone:
384-5057
5
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
encil Notes:
Agenda Item No "I~
75-0262
CITY OF SAN BERN.DINO - REQUEST Fe. COUNCIL ACTION
e
e
e
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
March 11, 1991
REOUEST
This is a City-initiated general plan amendment to evaluate
the land use designation on and around the location of the
former Laurel Hospital. The area is generally located on the
west side of "E" Street between 28th Street and Courtland
Drive and is comprised of 4.94 acres (see Exhibit F of the
Initial Study). Staff evaluated four alternatives (see
Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 2) for the
Planning Commission's consideration and three additional
alternatives (see Planning commission Staff Report,
Attachment 4) at the Commission's request.
BACKGROUND
The location of the former Laurel Hospital, its adjacent
properties and residential properties in the area were
designated CG-1, commercial General upon adoption of the
General Plan on June 2, 1989.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposal and
the Initial Study on August 9, 1990 and proposed a Negative
Declaration for Alternatives 1 through 4. Alternatives 5, 6,
and 7, evaluated at the Planning Commission's request, are of
an intensity that is less than Alternatives 1 through 4 and
the review of August 9, 1990 is sufficient to also propose a
Negative Declaration.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The seven alternatives were considered by the Planning
Commission at noticed public hearings of November 7, 1990 and
January 8, 1991. After public comment and discussion, the
Commission recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No.
90-7, Alternative 2. This alternative designates the medical
building and its associated properties as RU-1, Residential
Urban. RU-1 permits single-family detached units and multi-
family units to a density of 9 dwelling units per acre.
senior citizen and senior congregate care developments are
permitted to a density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The
RU-1 designation would permit reuse of the medical building
as a senior project. The vacant parcels along Acacia Avenue
(previously used for parking) could be developed as a cluster
---- ----------
e
General Plan AmenJltnt No. 90-7
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
March 11, 1991
Page 2
.
or single-family project. The designations proposed on the
remainder of the amendment area recognize existing uses. It
was found that this alternative was best suited for
compatibility with surrounding uses, possible uses of the
medical building and associated lands, and consistency with
the General Plan.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve General
Plan Amendment No. 90-7, Alternative 2, based on
the findings in this report.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may continue the
hearing and direct staff to prepare findings for
approval of another alternative.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan
Amendment No. 90-7.
e
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declara-
tion and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 as per
Alternative 2.
Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Services
Attachment A: Memorandum to Planning Commission, January 8,
1991
Attachment 1: Memorandum to Planning Commis-
sion, November 7, 1990
Attachment 2: staff Report to Planning Com
mission, October 9, 1990
Attachment A: Initial Study,
July 10, 1990
Exhibit A: Alter-
native 1
Exhibit B: Alter-
native 2
Exhibit C: Alter-
native 3
Exhibit D: Alter-
native 4
e Exhibit E: Land
Uses
Exhibit F: Loca-
tion Map and Land
Use Designations
r--
e
e
e
General Plan Amend~t No. 90-7
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 11, 1991
Page 3
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Alternatives
Alternatives
Current Land
Attachment B: Resolution
.
1 thru 4
5 thru 7 and
use Designations
Attachment A-l and A-2: Location Maps
Attachment B-1 thru B-4: Legal Descriptions
CITY OF SAN.ERNARDINO - .,EMORANDUM
To
ebject
Planning O::mni.ssion
From Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning & Building Services
Date January 8, 1991
General Plan J\irendrrent No. 90-7
Approved
Item No. 11
Date
BA~KGROUN~/~~QU~ST
At the Planning Commission's noticed public hearinq of November 7,
1990, General Plan Amendment No, 90-7 was heard and Alternatives 1
through 4 were discussed / see Attachment 3', The Commission
members requested that Planning staff evaluate additional
alternatives which would include the RS. Residential Suburban
designation for those lots fronting on Acacia Avenue within the
amendment site. Staff has prepared and evaluated three additional
possibilities designating them Alternatives 5. 6 & 7 and are shown
on Attachment 4 along with the current land use designations.
e
. CALIFO~J~IA EJ'fYJ_RO~I1E1frAL QUALITY_~9TL~E:QA) STA'l'lJ~
The three additional alternatives prepared by staff as a result of
the Planning Commission's request are of an intensity that is less
than the most severe evaluated for Alternatives 1 through 4. Those
alternatives were recommended for a Negative Declaration by the
Environmental Review Committee and. therefore. the CEQA
requirements have been fulfilled by the ERC review of the Initial
Study on August 9. 1990.
ANALYSJS
The medical building sits on a through lot which lies between "E"
Street and Acacia Avenue. Designating one half of the medical
building property as RS and the remainder another designation is
impractical as the building itself would have two designations and
this would not resolve any concerns.
e
PRIDE ;
QRESS
ATTACHMENT A
General Plan Arnenclrrent r- 90-7
January 8, 1991 .
Page 2,
.
e
The followinq are the three additional alternatives p:-opos,;,d
staff:
Alternative 5
This alternative proposes to designate all e,f the site ;.Jest :>=
Acacia Avenue and the properties south of the medical buildinq and
fronting on Acacia Avenue and the two single-familY homes south ~f
Courtland Drive as RS, Residential Suburban. The medical buildi~g
and dental office will be designated CO-I, Commercial Office ana
the duplexes fronting on "E" Street RU-l, Resident~al Urtan.
The six parcels frontinq on the west side of the vacated section .~
Acacia Avenue could yield six single-familY homes on substanda~j
lots of approxima~ely 3,600 squar8 f@~~ aft8r deciication fnr ~~~
completion of Acacia Street (40' x 90' lots). To meet miniIl'u~
setback and habitable area req11irements new development WC".l~j
prob"bl y require two story homes which are permitted in the ?:=
designated areas.
The remainder of the RS area is cornorised 'Jf exis~inq sing18-~a~i:
homes many of which are on lots that are below the mini~um area :f
7,200 square feet. The lots average about 6.500 square feet a~j
the smallest is approximately 4.600 square feet, General Plan
policy 1.8.31 encourages
e
"... the design lof) residential pro1ects which maintain
the scale and rhythm of the existing lot divisions of
7,200 square feet and larger, or 'lse other creative
design and planning solutions which establish and
maintain a distinctive character and environm-ant fer
existing residential neighborhoods."
Although the lots don't meet the minimum lot
are consistent and compatible with the
neighborhood.
si=e r~quirement. ~h~~r
existinq surroundin;
The duplexes on "E" Street are ~~ be desiqna~~d RU-l in ke~~i~~
with the uses on those parcels.
e
A CO-l designa~ion for the medii:a: CUll~~nq c~cDer~i~s ~erm~~3 ~
div~rsity or admiIlistrative ana prctessi.:>nal .~f:i.~es an,.l :;~lppt')l.t~:-.:;
retail commercial ~ses and m~dlcai f~cili~ies. S~ni~r :i~~=~n ~~~
senior congregate care facilities are permit~ed up t.: ~ jensity :~
54 units per IJl"OSS 3.cr,=, .~ comm€r.::ial office desiJ'r:at':':)il 1.3 ~
concerl1 as it intrcduces commercial tr3ffic, and 1:5 ~~lat~j ncis~
and safety concerns. int,~ a resident ia1 ileiqhborh.).:-d ~.-:d .:..n t;,:....;
case would continue a commercia" island within :he :-8sid-ant.:.,,~
area. The uses permitted il1 a {~0-1 ar8a 3.~'~ '7.;n~rall'! ----
intr~sive than those permitted in ~he ~G-l area as the ~0urs ar~
usually limited to jay time and the tr~lck (deli'/er-;' ~rafiic --
usually less. Any iu~ure prsj~ct ~culd b~ ~onditi0ned ~0 r~st~i:~
:::ommercial ":r~!iic rr:Jrn A(:=3.ci=3. ;'..IE:n11e ~ll.~wirlq .3.<':':8S::; ::::cm -
3trB'9"'C .:;lnly.
General Plan AnendITent Nc
January 8, 1991
Page 3,
'lO-7
.
.
e
AlternaLive 5
This alternative proposes an RS Residential S~burtan desig~ation
for the site with the exceptioTl of the RU-l, Resider.'ial Urban
designation for the duplexes fr8ntinu on "E" Str~e~. Thi3
alternative would probablY require the demolition of the medical
building because reuse would be very limitad and would in~lude only
a church or school if the other development standards :ould be met,
The building could not be used f,)r medical ,n Othel offi,,,
purposes.
If th~ medical buildina sita WE~e to be r6us~d for si~~le ~ami:y
homes then a tentative tract application would be required to
create lo~s that meet all City ~equi~ements. 5uch an arrangemEn~
could yield up to ten Single-familY lots with five fronting 0n
Acacia Avenue and five on "E" Street. The General Plan seeks to
1 imi t the number of dr i veways onto ma jor ar1:er ial s, for safety
purposes, however, this section of "E" Street is r"si,jential and
the maximum of five driveways would have minimal impact on the
traffic on "E" Street.
The same concerns exist f0r the substandard lets fron~ing en ~~~
west side of Acacia Avenue as was discussed under Alternative 5
e Alternative 7
This 31ternative proposes to designate t~e m~di=al ~Ul~~lG'J
properties and the duplexes along "E" Stre~~ 35 R~-l 2esiden~i3:
Urban. The parcels fronting ,)n the wes: siJe .of t~e v"l.:at-=)
section of Acacia Avenue We,U1G be desi:;<nated PS, Eesider,tial
Suburban along with the r~mainjer of the site.
The objective of the RU-1 designation 1s to "Prom0te the
development of single-family (detached or at:ached!, duplex, mcbile
home parks and small lot subdivisions., ," The maximum permitted
density is 9 dwelling units per gross acr-:. t'!l},lti-::-le family
housing would be required to complY with pelicy 1,12.32 30 as t:
prQviJe t'~rchitectural articulati~n of building facades ~0 ~xcr~ss
a single-family character." Resid~~tial Urban pr~j8~ts ars
requi~:ej "... 'to be .jBsigned ,,:.~ ~on~'!ey the 'Jisual SBns-=- c.:c a 1 :,:..;
jensi'ty residential neighbcrhood." A -:luster 0r duple:{ pr:>~..;c~
would be compatibl~ wi~h ,,:he s~r=ounding neighborhood ani would ts
consistent with the Ger.eral Plan.
S8nior c~ti=en and senior congrsqate ~are faciliti2s ~r6 permittej
in RU-l areas with a density up to 14 dwelling unlt3 per ac:-e.
This is an option for the reuse of the vacant medic=l =ui~di~q.
e
The concerns of the six parcels on th8 west side of AC3cia S~~~e~
are Jisc~ssed under Al:ernative 5 3bove.
General Plan J\dIrendrrent .
January 8, 1991
Pa;Je 4,
.90-7
.
e
CONCLUS I O~_S
Alternatives 6 and 7 are compatible wit~ t~e sQrroundina uses 3~j
consistent with the General Plan goals, ob:iecti'Jes and polici8s.
The CO-l. Commercial Office desiqnation rec::.qnizes the medic~l
building and its parking but also recognizes it as a commercial
island within a residential neiqhb.~rh~cd. ;'.lternaeive 5. 310ng
with Alternative 4, presents the least intrusive of the ~roposej
commercial designations.
ThE: RS. R€s~dential 21lour~an jesi:.]n-:.:i':<n cf th~ 3i:.: l.:-~s :.r: +:h=
west side of the v3cated ~~asi3 Av~nu€ is ,:omcatlL16 ~l:~
surrounding us~s. TheSE lots ~'JU~j haVE ~o be d;~!elcc~d 33 is. in
that they are lots of record., cr ~..Jculd have to be c-,mbined tc
conform, as close as is f~asitle. to curren~ ~taoj3rds.
Development as is weuld result in lots that are consider"tbly
smaller than the ~eiqhborhood lots.
The RU-l designation for those 10es frontina on the west side 0:
Acacia Avenue as per Altern~tive 2 would permit one d~ellin~ ~ni~
per lot, but would also allo;.: the deletion cf lot lines to je\'el~]:'
a cluster pro1ect at the maximum density of 9 units per ~cre. ~h~s
provides more flexibility for development because the substandarj
lots will be extremely Jifticult to develop.
e
It is staff's conclusion that Alternative 2 is the optimum propesa)
for compatibility with surrounding uses, possible uses of the Ian]
and consistency with the General ?lan.
RE.G.9~ENDAr_I.Oli
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a r';::'i11rr.endatio:1
to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1. .Z\. Negativ<3 Declaration be adopted in acc~r-.i3n':e \oJith
Section 21080.1 of CEQA f':Jr General Plan !I.mendment ";0:..
90-7, Alternative 2.
~.
Genet"al Plan .i;.!nB!1dmeot He. 90-7 .;It:ern.~t.:..''~ ...-:-
approved based on the Findings ie: the Stat: ::e;.'~rt
(Attachment 2) ~o change ~h6 !3en8ral Plan ~anj Us~ ;l~:
from CG-l. Cammer,:ial Gener"l and ?E. 9.esid€nti,.j Hi::rh tc
RU-l, Residential Urt3n and RSr Residenti~l Sub~rb3n.
e
General Plan Arrendrrent Nr 90-7
January 8, 1991 .
Page 5,
.
e
PL~NING COMMl~SION OE'rIQl'iS
The Planning Commission has the f~llowing o~tions:
1. To concur with staff's recommendation.
.2. To continue the agenda item to F8br11ary 5. 1991 and realJ';s~
s~aff to prepare findings for Alternatives 1. 3. ~, 5, 6. cr
Respectively submitted
k!~.;~l ~:~O Sf
Direc~or, Planning and Euil~ing 2€=vic~s D.;parTm~n~
John R. Burke
Assistant Planner
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Memo t.::> Planning C.:mrni5sion .iated :-Ji=,',.:embe~ i, 199:'.
Staff Report to Planning Commission dated Octouer 9.
1990, with Initial Study.
Alternatives 1 thru 4.
Alternatives 5 thru 7 and Current Land Use
Designations.
Attachment 3:
At~achmen~ 4:
e
CITY OF SAN eERNARDINO
-
.EMORANDUM
To
&iect
Planning Commission
From Larry E. Reed, Di rector
Planning & Building Svcs.
Date November 7, 1 990
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7
Approved Item No. 5
Date
OWNER
various
APPLICANT
City of San Bernardino
BACKGROUND
e
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 was continued (without
hearing) from the Planning Commission meeting held on October
9, 1990 in error to November 6, 1990, which is Election Day.
To correct this error, the item was placed on the agenda for
the Planning Commission meeting held on October 16, 1990 and
again, continued (without hearing) to the correct date of
November 7, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative 2 based on the
findings in the Staff Report dated October 9, 1990.
Respectfully,
6.~ee~tor
Planning And Building Services
.4.~.A!" ~
~~ ~ Burke
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report to Planning Commission
e
F~;C= .
.,. .,,::;:;.---:=
~-' -, '-- -. -'.
~"-~!
.. .. I'
~'
'ATTACHMENT
1
J
(
W
t/)
0(
o
l-
t/)
W
~
o
W
a::
-
0(
W
a::
0(
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
West
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
5
10/9/90
5
SUMMARY
APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7
OWNER: Various
To change the land use desi~n~tion from CG-I, Commercial General to
RS, Residential Suburban, PU-I, Residential Urban or CO-I, Commercial
Office and/or from RH, Residential High to RS, Residential Surburban,
and/or RU-I, Residential Urban and/or from RS, Residenital Surburban
to CO-I, Commercial Office on various parcels up to 5.75 acres. The
area being considered is located on the west side of "E" Street,
north and south of Courtland Drive. Four alternatives have been
considered.
EXISTING
LAND USE
Vacant Medical Building,
Parking Lot, Vacant Land,
Residential
Residential
Residenital
Residential
Residential
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
CG-I, Commercial General
RS, Residential Suburban
RH, Residenital High
RS, Residential Suburban
RS, Residential Suburban
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: c3 NO
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A ( SEWERS: !tl<YES )
ZONE: IlO NO OZONE B = NO
AIRPORT NOISEI 0 YES REDEVELOPMENT eYES
CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
~ NO lL\ NO
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO
... 0 NOT
0( APPLICABLE
I-
zt/)
Wc:l
2 z 0 EXEMPT
Z-
OO
a::~
-u..
>
z C>> NO SIGNIFICANT
W EFFECTS
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z g APPROVAL Alternative 2
EFFECTS WITH 0
MrTlGAnNG MEASURES ~ 0
NO E.I.R CONDITIONS
o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO u..O
u..z 0 DENIAL
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS O(W
WITH MnnGAnNG t;2
MEASURES 2 0 CONTINUANCE TO
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
0
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES a::
eft'\' ",. ... -....a
---
ATTACHMENT
2
-
'.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-7
5
10/9/90
2
OBSERVATIONS
~~.QlJEST ~_L..QCATJ;Q~
This is a City-initiated O'eneral plan amendment to evaluate '::he
land use designation on and around the location of the former
Laurel Hospital. The area is generally located on the west side of
"E" Street between 28th Street and Courtland Drive and is comprised
of 4.94 acres (see Exhibit F of the Initial Study). Staff has
evaluated three alternatives encompassing up to 5.75 acres. The
land uses in the area are shown on Exhibit E of the Initial Study.
Al terna t i ve 1 (see Exhibit A of the Ini tial Studv) Eva 1 uates
chanO'inO' the land use desiO'nation from CG-l. Commercial General to
RS. Residential Suburban on 4.94 acres.
Alternative 2 (Exhibit B of the Initial Study) proposes to
desiO'nate 3.94 acres as RU-l, Residential Urban for the medical
bUildinO'. parkinO' lot and vacant land and the duplexes alonO' "E"
Street and 1.69 acres as RS. Residential Suburban. This
alternative includes the area at the southwest corner of "E" Street
and Courtland Drive.
Alternative 3 (Exhibit C of the Initial Study) proposes a
designation of CO-I, Commercial Office on 2.82 acres for the dental
office. medical bUilding. unused parkinO' lot. and vacant land. RS.
Residential Suburban is proposed on 1.69 acres for the sinO'le
family homes and RU-l. Residential Urban is proposed on 1.24 acres
for the duplexes fronting on "E" Street north and south of
Courtland Drive.
Alternat ive 4 ( Exhibit D of the Initial Study) proposes a C0-1
desiqnation for the dental office and medical building on 2.06
acres on "E" Street. RU-l, Residential Urban is proposed on 2.0
acres comprisinO' the parkinq lot. vacant land and duplexes on "E"
Street and RS. Residential Suburban is proposed on 1.69 acres for
area comprising the single family homes.
AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The project site is irregular in shape. flat and mostly developed.
A vacant medical bUilding fronts on "E" Street. A parking lot and
three parcels of vacant land front on the west side of the vacated
section of Acacia Avenue. The land south of the medical bUilding
is comprised of duplexes and sinqle-family residences. The land
west of the parkinq lot and vacant land is comprised of sinqle-
family residences.
::..:: - --
JIUH.&M 1It_ t.".,
-
I --- --
-
-
..
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-7
5
10/9/90
3
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
The area surroundinQ the site on the north. south, and west is
comprised of sinQle and multi-family residences with the exceptions
of a vacant private hospital on the east side of Acacia Avenue. a
parkinQ lot, and a dental office north of the medical building on
"E" Street and a City water pump station which ad10ins the north
boundary of the medical facility parking lot on the west side of
Acacia Street. The land uses on the eas~ side of "E" Street are
residential (sin91e and multi-family) and a public park with an
adjOining fire station.
"E" Street is desiQnated a major arterial on the Circulation Plan
and the remaining streets, immediately surroundinQ the site. are
local streets. The area lies within the Urban Archaeological
District. There are no bioloO'ical resource/natural hazard
concerns.
BACKGROUND
Pr ior to the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the
vacant medical bUildinO' and the two residential parcels south of it
alonO' with the parkinO' lot and vacant land on the west side of the
vacated section of Acacia avenue were zoned A-P, Administrative-
Professional. The two residential parcels have been nonconforminO'
with the CG-1, Commercial General desiO'nation.
The medical buildinO' was constructed around 1950 and was operated
as a hospital throuO'h the mid-1970s. Since then proposals for an
alcohol treatment facility, a church with school, an elderly care
facility. and a chemical dependency treatment facility have been
processed for the medical buildinO'. The chemical dependency
rehabilitation residential hospital was approved on May 15, 1989,
throuO'h Conditional Use Permit 88-56. A citizen-initiated request
to chanO'e the land use desiO'nation from CG-1, Commercial General to
CO-1. Commercial Office was not approved and the CG-1 desiO'nation
was retained at the Mayor and Common Council meetinO' of May 24,
1989. Citizens expressed stronO' opposition to the chemical
dependency treatment facility. The applicant withdrew CUP 88-56 in
February, 1990.
The parcels frontinO' on "E" Street were previous I y zoned R- 3,
Mul tiple Family Residentia.l. lncl uded here is a dental off ice
(located north of the hospital structure) which was a nonconforminO'
use. and still is a nonconforminO' use under the RS. Residential
Suburban desiO'nation. The duplexes on "E" Street are nonconfor~inQ
under the CG-1, Commercial General desiqnation.
....--
-
~ "IGII"'" ...
(
=:.: ..
.
------
-----.------ ...-
-...-----.. ...-------
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-7
5
10/9/90
4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
The previous zoning for the remainder ~f the area addressed in ~h~
alternatives was R-l, Single Family Residential. Seven sioc;rle
family homes have been made nonconforminc;r with the CG-l. Commer-cial
General designation.
MUNICIPAL CODE
The medical bUilding has been vacant for over 180 days and in
accordance with the Urgency Ordinance and Title 19 of the Municipal
Code any future development must comply with the provisions of the
underlYing land use designation.
CALIFORNIA ENVIROJ'!~ENJ}\J,_ ~~:n'Y _P.C;:T _ (CEQA.l....sTATU_S
This General Plan amendment is subject to CEQA. Attachment A is
the Initial Study prepared for this projecc The Environmental
Review Committee reviewed the proposed project and staff's three
al ternatives on August 9, 1990. determined that none of the
proposals would have an adverse impact on the environment and
recommended a Negative Declaration. A public review period was
held from August 16. 1990. through September 5. 1990. for review of
the Initial Study.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
A letter was received on July 30. 1990 from Hr. James Wirth. who
represents area residents. opposing the CG-1. Commercial General
designation and opposing the chemical dependency treatment faci 1 i tv
on the site. His letter includes the information he presented to
the Mayor and Common Council in an appeal to the approval of C~P
88-56 in May. 1989.
ANALYSIS
Existina Desianation
The General Plan designates the amendment cro;ect area as CG-l,
Commercial General. The objective (1.19) of this designation is to
provide for general retail uses "... along maior transportation
corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the
residents." The CG-1 designation permits a variety of retail and
service uses including offices and medical facilities. however. the
site has never been used for -retail purposes. There are CG-l
designated areas at Highland Avenue. south of the site. and at
Marshall Boulevard, north of the site.
.......... ".., 0# t ,.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GPA NO. 90-7
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
10/9/90
5
OBSERVATIONS
The uses in the immediate area are residential although the lots
differ in size with some less than 7200 square feet. However.
the character of the area is consistent with the intent of the RS.
Residential Suburban designation as per General Plan objective 1.11
which addresses the development of single family units in a
suburban setting.
The section of "E" Street between Highland .>.venue end Harshell
Boulevard lies within an established residential neighborhood. A
CG-1. Commercial General designated area is intended to lie along
major transportation corridors and intersections. General Plan
goal 1G strives to achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses
that retains and enhances established residential neighborhoods
allows" for the infill and recycling of areas at theil.'
prevailing scale and character", and tries to achieve a..... high
quality of life and secure environment for the City's residents.....
A CG-1 designation at this location is not in keeping with the
intent of the General Plan objective 1.19 as the area is
residential and it is not at or near a major intersection.
A commercial designation will probably cause commercial vehicles to
encroach into the residential area and increase the safety and
noise concerns on the local streets. This is not in keeping with
General Plan Goal 6A which strives to "Achieve an inteQ'rated.
balanced, safe and efficient transportation system "in the
City. Issue C of the General Plan Circulation Element states that
"The impacts of truck traffic should be minimized partiCUlarly in
residential areas."
Alternative 1
Al ternative 1 proposes designating all of the CG-1 area as RS,
Residential Suburban. The residential sections of the site are not
affected, but the medical building, parking lot and vacant land
could be reused and yield up to 10 new hOUSing units. The duplexes
along "E" Street would exceed the RS. Residential Suburban density
but would be conforming uses because of General Plan pOlicy 1.7.10
which allows for the reconstruction of residential bUildings that
are destroyed by a catastrophe to the original density when the
density exceeds that of the General Plan land use designation. The
duplexes are single family in character as their deSign conveys the
imaqe of Single-family Single-story homes. The RS designation
would not permit the use of the medical bUilding for medical
purposes. However. schools. churches. and funeral homes may be
permitted with a conditional use permit.
=m" - ===
PL.NrW.aI 'IlOl' OF 1
,....
- ---_._~._- ---------- .~- - ~-
. GPA NO. 90-7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5
OBSERV A TIONS HEARING DATE 10/Y/YU
PAGE 6
Ten infill single family homes would generate about 100 additicn~l
dally trios which would not impact on th~ surrounding streets. The
General Plan seeks to limit the number of driveways onto m=~:'r
arterials. for safety purposes. however. this section of "E" Stre9t
is residential and the maximum of four driveways would have minimal
impact on the traffic on "E" Street. Single family homes would be
compatible with the surrounding uses and are consistent with
General Plan objective 1.8 as they would retain the scale and
character of the existing neighborhood.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 proposes an RU-l. Residential Urban designation for
the medical buildinq, parkinq lot. vacant land and the duplexes
fronting on "E" Street and a designation of RS. Resident ial
Suburban for the sinqle family desiqnated CG-l. Commercial General
and RH, Residential Hiqh. The objective of the RU-l designation is
to "Promote the development of sinqle-family (detached or
attached). duplex, mobile home parks and small lot subdivisions..."
The maximum permitted density is 9 dwelling units per qross acre.
This desiqnation could yield 20 units of infill housing. The
multiple family housinq would be required to comply with policy
1.12.32 so as to provide "architectural articulation of buildi~Q
facades to express a sinqle-family character." Residential Urban
projects are required "... to be desiqned to convey the visual
sense of a low density residential neiqhborhood." Such multi-
family development would be compatible with the surrounding
neiqhborhood as far as density and desiqn are concerned.
General Plan policy 1. 12.11 permits senior citizen and senior
conqregate care facilities in RU-l areas with density up to 14
dwellinq units per acre. The vacant medical buildinq could be
adapted for such a use.
Traffic qenerated would be about 150 average daily trips and would
not impact on the surrounding streets. Access could be excluded
from "E" Street with construct ion of ,,"cacia Avenue as a thr :-ugh
street.
.......---
---
~ ''''~1 I....
-
---
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-7
5
10/9/90
7
.1\.1 ternative 3
Alternative 3 proposes a designation of CO-I. Commercial Office for
the dental office, the medical building, the parking lot and vacant
land. The remainder of the area is RS. Residential Suburban for
the Single-family homes and RU-l. Residential Urban for the
duplexes on "E" Street. The CO-I deSignation permits " a
diversity of administrative and professional offices and supporting
retail commercial uses and medical facilities..." Senior citizen
and senior congregate care facilities are permitted up to a density
of 54 units per gross acre.
A CO-l deSignation could generate up to 400 additional average
daily trips and they would be divided between "E" Street and Acacia
Avenue. Although the streets can handle the additional traffic it
is commercial traffic that creates the safety concerns. These
concerns have been addressed previously under the EXisting
Designation section of this report.
Administrative or professional offices, or a medical use on the
site, whether it involves the completion of Acacia Avenue or not,
will probably result in the operation of commercial vehicles within
the residential neighborhood. A Commercial Office designation
would only serve the dental office as well as the medical facility
and its associated properties and is therefore not in keeping with
the General Plan objective 1.28 which is to "... ensure
compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses" as the
remainder of the site is developed with residential units.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 proposes a CO-l designation for the medical bUilding
and dental office only and RU-l for the parking lot and vacant
land. The remaining properties would be deSignated RU-l for the
duplexes and RS for the single family homes. Alternative 4 could
yield seven housing units in the RU-l designation. This is the
least intrusive of the commercial designations as it limits
commercial traffic to "E" Street. but would result in a commercial
.spot zoning". As discussed under Alternative 3, senior citizen
and senior congregate care facilities would be permitted.
-
=.: - ===
~ ~IIGE IOF , ,....
-
n~
CITY OF SAN BERNA'NO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-7
5
10/9/90
8
CONCLUSIOti~
Retaining the CG-l. Commercial General designation is '-,: t
compatible with the uses in the surrounding area as it is a
commercial intrusion into an established residential neighborhood.
That part of the site consisting of the medical bUilding and its
associated properties is the only part likel, to be affected by the
commercial designation as the remaining properties are developed
residentially.
The RS, Residential Suburban designation. as in Alternative 1. i~
compatible with the surrounding uses and is consistent with the
General Plan in that a single-family development would maintain the
character of the neighborhood. This designation would limit the
reuse possibilities for the medical building.
The Alternative 2 designation of RU-l, Residential Urban is alse
compa tibl e with the surrounding land uses. The higher dens i ty
permitted. as compared to RS. is compatible with the density cf
many of the residential units in the surrounding area. The Gen6ral
Plan policies pertaining to RU-l help ensure compatibility from ~
development and design standpoint. This designation would allow
for the possible reuse of the medical bUilding as a senior proje~t.
A designation of CO-I. Commercial Office as in Alternatives 3 and
4 is compatible with the prior use of the medical building. the
parking lot and vacant land. however. development as a contiguous
project would continue to introduce commercial traffic into the
residential area, disrupting the neighborhood and increasing the
safety concerns on the local streets. A CO-l designation for the
medical bUilding and dental office only would eliminate the
commercial traffic on the local streets but would retain a
commercial use surrounded by developed residential properties.
FINDINGS
Alternative 2 is consistent with the goals. objectives and policies
of the Genera 1 Plan in that the uses permitted in the RU-l.
Residential Urban deSignation are compatible with the surrounding
land uses and the surrounding designations.
Alternative 2 is not detrimental to the public interest. health.
safety. convenience, or wel fare of the City because it reduces
potential impacts by taking commercial uses out of the residential
neighborhood.
-
Alternative 2 proposes to Change 1.36 acres from CG-l. Cemmer=ial
General to RS. Residential Suburban. 3.58 acres from CG-l
Commercial General to RU-l. Residential Urban. 0.33 acres from RH.
~-===
~ "IGI' OF f I'"
~
-
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-7
5
10/9/90
9
OBSERVATIONS
Residential High to RS, Residential Suburban and 0.36 acres from
RH. Residential High to R~-l, Pesiuenti~l Urb3n. The m3;ority or
the area is developed and the proposed changes in designati':H,s
recognize existing uses. The change in designation for the medical
building, the vacant parcels, and parking lot minimally impact the
ratio of commercial to residential designations in the City.
Alternative 2 is physically suitable for development of residentiel
uses as permitted in the RU-l designation. All inrrastructure is
available at or ad~acent to the site. The medical bUilding could
be reused as senior housing which is a permitted use or it can be
removed and new residential units built.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance \."i ':h
Section 21080.1 of CEQA for staff's proposed Amendment
No. 90-7, Alternative 2.
2. The General Plan Land Use Map be chanqed from CG-l.
Commercial General and RH. Residential High to Rl'-l.
Residential Urban and RS, Residential Suburban as p-=r
Exhibit B of the Initial Study.
Respectively submitted
6EC~
Director, Planninq and Buildinq Services Department
f~~e ?
Assistant Planner
Attachment A:
Ini tial Stud~'
......--
-
~ ~*IIi t atr 1 I'"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
GeT!eral_ Plan Amendment No.~~7
Proiect DescriDtion: To chanqe the land use desi~nation
from CG-l. Commercial General to RS. Res idential Suburban
on various parcel s compr isinq 4.54 acres. Staff has
proposed three alternatives as described wi thin this
study.
Proiect Location: The site is located on the west side
of "E" Street approximately 210 feet south of 28th Street
to Courtland Drive and on the west side of Acacia Avenue
approximately 310 feet south of 28th Street to a point
approximately 240 feet north of Courtland Drive.
e
Date: July 10. 1990
ADDlicant(sl Name and Address:
City of San Bernardino
PreDared bv 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
e
ATTACHMENT
A
'.
e
e
e
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-7
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 to
chanqe the land use desiqnation on approximately 4.54
acres from CG-1. Commercial General to RS. Residential
Suburban (see Location Hap. Exhibit F). Staff has
proposed three additional alternatives with an expanded
project area comprisinq up to 5.25 acres.
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act quidelines. the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as
the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an EIR or
Neqative Declaration:
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a
project. mi tiqatinq adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared. thereby enablinq the project to qualify for
Neqative Declaration:
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR. if one is
required. by:
(AI Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant.
(Bl Identify the effects determined not to be
siqnificant. and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determininq that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
desiqn of a project:
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a project will not
have a siqnificant effect on the environment:
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs:
7. Determine whether a previous I y prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
e
e
.
e
~
~.
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-7
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This CitY-initiated project. Alternative 1 (Exhibit AI,
is to chanqe the land use desiqnation from CG-l.
Commercial General to RS. Residential Suburban on various
parcels comprisinq 4.54 acres on the west side of "E"
Street between Courtland Drive and 28th Street.
The site is comprised of a vacant medical bUildinq
between "E" Street and Acacia Avenue and an unused
parkinq lot and vacant land on the west side of Acacia
Avenue. The remainder of the site is comprised of
residential properties (see Exhibit El. The land use
desiqnations are shown on Exhibit Fl.
Staff has evaluated three alternatives which are
described in the fOllowinq paraqraphs.
Alternative 2 (Exhibit Bl would chanqe the desiqnation of
the medical buildinq. the unused parkinq lot. the vacant
land and the residential properties frontinq on "E-
Street from CG-l. Commercial General to RU-l. Residential
Urban. The residential parcels frontinq on Acacia Avenue
and -F" Street would be chanqed from CG-l. Commercial
General to RS, Residential Suburban and the southwest
corner of Courtland Drive and "E- Street would be chanqed
from RH. Residential Hiqh to RS. Residential Suburban and
RU-l, Residential Urban. This alternative proposes to
chanqe the desiqnations on 5.14 acres.
Alternative 3 (Exhibit Cl would chanqe the desiqnation of
the medical bUildinq. the unused parkinq lot and the
vacant land frontinq on Acacia Avenue from CG-l.
Commercial General to CO-I. Commercial Office. The
dental office. located north of the vacant medical
buildinq. would be chancred from RS to CO-I. The
desicrnations on the remaininq areas would chanqe as
descr ibed in Al ternative 2. This al ternative proposes to
chanqe the desiqnations on 5.25 acres.
Alternative 4 (Exhibit Dl is the same as Alternative 3
except that the unused parkinq lot and vacant land on the
west side of Acacia Avenue would be desiqnated RU-l.
Residential Urban instead of CO-I. Commercial Office.
2.1 AMENDMENT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Amendment Site and Surroundinq Area
Exhibit E shows the location and General Plan land use
desiqnations in and around the site of the proDosed
e
e
e
-~
......
--
'.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-7
amendments. The uses on the site are described in
section 2.0. The section of Acacia Avenue between the
City water pumpinq station and the sinqle-family
residences to the south has not been constructed and
Acacia Avenue is not a throuqh-street in this area.
A dental office and parkinq lot border the north boundary
of the medical bUildinq qrounds. North of that parkinq
lot on the east side of Acacia Avenue is a vacant private
hospital trest home. The City water pumpinq station
borders on the north of the unused parkinq lot on the
west side of Acacia Avenue. The remainder of the
surroundinq area west of "E" Street is comorised of
sinqle-familY and duplex units. There are apartments.
sinqle-familY residences. a fire station and a cemetery
and park on the east side of "E" Street.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental Settinq
The area considered in all
irreqularly shaped. flat and
adjacent parcels comprisinq
vacant.
of the alternatives is
mostly developed. Three
13.800 square feet are
e
e
CITY OF SAN BERNAtlNO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
AppIica1ionNumbllr: ~~~ k /J117#Dn,i!A",,~ M. 9/1-7
- /~/
Project Description: /LJ CH-M/'f.L liY~ LHNL> v.s.t' ~.r,~N~7?'PN ~~.tf7?7 ~~
,
(A,,"'~AO,f' ~"""A/ ~ Rs l2t.o~-+'r/~ ~Jfu.R~ t!:)'I/ ~s~ ~r.
.
..s~FF AIt1f AtfAP~.l> ~~ ~~,T)14"~.r
. .
l.ccation: /J" PIlE 4~/- .f"'IU "F f ..$i;t?4ilT ~M:3?TRV dlAt'-rr. Siav/H ~~.fPYS;-:
,
II-N" ,pH 7/U Ui!S/- Si~ "'F &~AIIJJ/A,A{/~ &4fIp..r1""'7.4LY J'7t'n ~ to" ..?r~-.
Environmantal Constraints Areas: M!'NJIt
Genaral Plan Dasignation:
C~-/
,
c;,17~~C/~"- Y~.IL~L.
Zoning Dasignation: ~
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain _rs, whare appropriata, on a sapar..a allachad shHl.
1. EIIrth Ra80UnlU Willtha proposal_u. in: Vas No Maybe
L Earth movamam (cut and/or fUI) 0110.000 cubic
yards or mora? X
b. Davalopmam anellor g~ing on a slope graatar
than 15% natural g~a? )(
c. Davalopmam within tha A1quill-Prio1o Spacial
Studies Zona? X'
d. Mod"icaIion of any unique geologic or physical ><
faatura?
a. Soil arosion on or off tha projact sile? II
f. Mod"icaIion of a channal, creak or river? X'
g. Devalopmant within an .... subjact to Iandalidas,
mudslidas, liquafaction or othar similar hazards? Jt
h. Other? X.
~..,~
Pl.NH.llI P_ 1 OF. lwo)
Cl"f1'_~
---
PL.AN-I.OI PAGE 2 OF'
lWO)
.
7. Man-M8dl1 HazIlrda: Will the projec:l: V.s No Maybe
L U... era, transport or dispose of hazardous or
Illxic ~rials (induding but not lim~ed III oil.
pesticid.s. chemicals or radiation)? X
b. Involve the ralease of hazardous substanClts? X
c. expos. people to th. pot.ntial h.althlsalety hazards? X
d. Other? X
8. Haualng: Willth. proposal:
L Remov. .xisting housing or cr.at. a d.mand
lor actd~ional housing? X
b. Oth.r? X'
I. Tranaportetlon I Circulation: Could th. proposal r.sun in:
a. An incr.as. in traffic that is great.r than th. land X
use d.signated on th. G.n.ral Plan?
b. Us. 01 .xisting, or d.mand lor n.w, parking X
lacil~ies/structur.s?
c. Impact upon .xisting public transportation syst.ms? )(
d. Alt.ration 01 pr.sent patterns 01 circulation? x:
.. Impact III rail or air traffic? X
I. Increased salety hazards to vehicles. bicyclists or X'
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed patt.m 01 roadway improv.m.nts? X
h. SignKicanl incre_ in trallic volum.s on the roadways
or intersections? X'
L Other? X'
1 D. Public Services: Win the proposal impact th. lollowing
beyond th. capebil~ III provide adaquat. I.vels of service?
L Fira protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools (i.... att.ndanClt. boundaries, overload. elC.)? ><
d. Parks or oth.r rtlCf8ationallacil~las? X
.. Medical aid? )(
I. Solid Wast.? )(
g. Other? ><
GrPPCIf.............,
---
PI.AN-UI PAGE30~' lWO)
.
-
11. Utllltlu: Will the proposal:
L Impel the following beyond the capability to
pnwide -'equate levels of service or require the
oanetIUClion 01 n_ facilities?
Yes
No
Maybe
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
x
)(
X
.x:
X:
X
X
b. Resull in a disjointed pattem of utility extensions?
c. Require the construction of new faciiities?
1 Z. Aeathetlcs:
a. Could the proposal resull in the obstruction of any
scenic view?
)t.'
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area?
c. Other?
x-
X
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal resull in:
e
a. The aIIerlllion or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
)(
x:
b. Adye..e physical or Msthatic impels to a
prehistoric or historic site, structure or object?
c. Other?
X'
X
14. Mandatory Findings of Slgn"lcance (Section 15065)
The Califomia Environmental Quality AI:J states that W sny of 1he following can be answered yes or maybe,
the project may have a signWic&nt affect on the enyilonment and an Enyironmemallmpact Repon shall be
prepared.
Yes
No
Maybe
L Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlWe species, cause a fish or
wildlWe population to drop below se. 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 imponant
examples of the major periods of CalWomia history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project hayethe potential to achieve shan.
term, to the dis-'vantage of long-term, envilonmental
goals? (A shan-term impel on the 8Ryilonment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time wh~e long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
x
)(
~~._~=cr
P\...AN-I. PAGE.O~'
(WIll
.
Ves
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
Nmilect, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impel on each resource is relatively small, but where
the affect of the 1Dlal of those impacts on the
environment is signHicant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
causa substantial adverse effeets on human beings,
either direly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheats as necessary.)
~~ /JrJ'~C".#~l> .~Hil/".f
....01..._
---
-
-
No
Maybe
)(
>(
PlAH-I.DI PAGE 5 OF I
,....
e
e
e
- ----- --------
.
.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-7
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
Impacts on Earth and Air Resources. Public Services.
Utilities and Aesthetics will be minimal as the majority
of the site is developed. A 13.800 square foot area is
undeveloped. There are no biological. seismic or natural
hazard concerns.
Water Resources
3.a.
Rainwater absorption rates. drainage patterns. and the
rate or volume of run-off will change upon future
development. Development under any of the alternatives
will have a minimal effect on these factors. These
concerns will be addressed at the project review staQe
and mitigation measures will be established at that time
if necessary.
Noise
5.a.
General Plan. Table 36. shows this section of "E" Street
as having an existing noise level of between 62 and 64
dB(AlLdn. This is below the preferred maximum of 65
dB(AlLdn. The medical building and the vacant lots on
Acacia Avenue will potentiall y increase the traffic noise
level in the area whether they are used for commercial or
residential purposes. Specific uses will be addressed at
the project review stage. The eXisting residential uses
included in all of the alternatives will not change
existing or future noise levels.
Land Use
6.a.
The proposed amendment and alternatives will change the
General Plan Land Use Plan.
Man-Made Hazards
7.a.
Commercial uses permitted bv the CO-I. Commercial Office
land use designation (Alternative 2) could result in the
storage. sale and use of toxic materials not normally
found or not found in quantity in residential areas.
However. potential impacts are essentially the same as
with the existing CO-1. Commercial General desionation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-"'W"
.
.
'.
e I"ITIM~tyID' for G~~-9!t~J
This issue will be addressed at the proiect review Dhase
and mitigation measures will be applied as necessary.
3.2.6
Housing
8.b.
This General P Ian Amendment will minimall y change the
City's supply of housing. Alternative 1 could provide an
additional 11 dwelling units due to the site's size and
configuration. Alternative 2 could provide 20 additional
units. Alternative 3 would not affect the City's supply
of housing and Alternative 4 could add 4 dwelling units.
3.2.7
Transportation/Circulation
9.d.
,
The volume and form of the circulation patterns in the
area will increase upon future development. The existing
trips are generated from residential uses as the medical
building is vacant and the parking lot on the west side
of Acacia Avenue is unused. The remaining land is
undeveloped. The uses permitted under the current land
use designation of CG-1. Commercial General could
potentiallY increase the volume on either Acacia Avenue
or on "E" Street by up to 600 to BOO average dailY trips.
This will not impact on either street as the capacity on
Acacia Avenue. as a through-street. is between 2.000 and
3,000 daily trips and the capacity on "E" Street is
30.000. However. commercial traffic through a
residential neighborhood could create safety concerns.
e
A CO-1. Commercial Office designation. as per Al ternative
3. would permit a commercial use that could qenerate 300
to 400 additional dailY trips. This additional traffic
would be split between "E" Street (which currently
handles 13.400 average daily trips) and Acacia Avenue.
Such a use would not necessarily require Acacia Avenue to
be completed as a through-street. The commercial traffic
safety concerns would still exist.
Al ternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 in that the
vacant parcels and parking lot on the west side of Acacia
Avenue would be deSignated RU-1. Residential Urban. This
would generate less than 50 daily trips. The commercial
designation would have access from "E" Street and access
on Acacia Avenue would not be required.
e
Alternative 2 would generate approximately 150 trips per
day based on the potential units perDli tted by RU-1.
Residential Urban designation if the vacant medical
-----...--- ------ .....
-
'.
.
~ INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-7
buildinq, parkinq lot and vacant parcels were developed
accordinqly. This total would be split between Acacia
Avenue and "E" Street and would not create impacts on
either street.
Al ternative 1 would qenerate approximately 100 daily
trips based on development of the vacant medical
bUildinq, parkinq lot and vacant parcels consistent with
the RS. Residential Suburban desiqnation. There would be
no impacts to circulation.
3.2.8
Cultural Resources
13. a.
The proposed amendment site is located within the Urban
Archaeoloqical District. Future development will require
a complete archaeoloqical records review to ensure that
any archaeoloqical concerns are addressed.
~
~
'.
e
e
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
.
D. DETERMINATION
On the bale of this initial study,
o The p,~a8d project COULD NOT have a eignKicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA.
noN will be prepar8d.
o The propos8d project could have a significant effect on the environment, ahhough there will not be a signKicant
effllCl in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been add8d 10 the project, A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepar8d, <I
o The propos8d project MAY have a signKicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT
REPORT is raquir8d.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
.::k1J 11()Jrft;~r . 1J;";~/I"Jft.. Il~
Name and Title I
r ~<.,
Date: 'if - r - <to
..... tJI- .. ----'
---
....-.... '__0"_ cWO)
CITvtbF SAN SER RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
ALTERNATIVE 1. COUNCL -NTIA TED
~
~ IZ .
4 13 "
-----.
~ , 14 .
15 "
".....;.;:,.
,
I. ,
I ,
,
'T",...-- \-
. 17 " .
l
.---~
, " I ,.
.....
,
I
7' . 9 /(1, I'
17 I. 1/5 14 i: I~'
i JO 31 I 311 u:
. . .
t " ... ~ Ii ~ ',l) \,
,
. 261h
I
'.
e
TITLE
27lh
'1'+\, .~I' ~ .-.
I I .
hi';,
W:
t ' I 10
I 7 .
to' ;
I I
STREET
I 11~4
@> I. @
-7:;....~--.-.- -
(!I 17
.~... r ~-' .."'1""1 .,. ., _"
,'. "I i I
. .
II" '.' I l.i &
11.11 ,II) l.~., I;J ' .'4
- I. -I r-, ..
1 I I: I ~
/I .r I'Z I. li3 ,I. I~ I. 15
. I i I I',
10 :, I /'
I
~., I .,
I
I
,,:-!~'
9
....
... r
~
....
en
5. '..
, 57
'.
'"
,
5 ,
"J' , 51...." 54.
/' ~
60 [.. 53'
'-
90-7
I
I
I
... +--
::l -
Z ~
... \-
>
~ 1 '-:;;;J;F;.
,
. ,- -----
.~
----
-
....
.
8t
~
I
UJ
.
~.
...
::>
z
...
,.
..
..
i3
..
<.J
..
COJRTlAND
ORIV~ :
0 . I. ri.,
35 ' . , ~ ~ li!J ~
" ~I (fj , " I.D _.
, ~ "' .. "-= _.. J
... ; '. ~
, - ----
" .:; 34 9 31 39 '" 4' " "3~1 i ~
5 ,
1 .
...... EXHIBiT A
.'
STRE~T: :-
1;-
",,'W""-l, "'~',,";lr~
-
-
CIT~tbF SAN BER RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-7
e TITLE ALTERNATIVE 2
~
~ IZ.
,
.. i I.J.!
--r-----
,
, I I. (,
s /1 15 "
~.....-..
-.;-.1 IfJ ;- ~
, ,
I: 7D"'~-\- ""
, I 17 " ,~
! ',~ l 0
.---r. ...i
,
!, '~ I ~
27lh
n'~
ie'"
ri' I '
~,
I
,
I
.
, ,
, : I
:1:E1
, I
\ 30 31. 32
" ,
~I! .... ,IJ.
-
1(1. II:
14 f 13
I
~~~:-,..
33
.
, " I.
IZ-,
"26lh
I
STREET:.~ ,
,
28lh STREET
,..
.-.
.-
, ".
@ " @
""7~"~-- -.--
I
I
I
...
::l
Z
~
~ 1
~ ..-
.
iI
~- . -
~ !_~'- &~
\-. ...~-
----- --+--
~
I- I-
~ ;T.-+-T: ~
- "!'!' ~! I-
III "1-+-+- III
i 13
~."....~...
/7
(!>
@
-----
.
""',
..
,~
'.14'
,-
:0 ..
',..,.z~'~
~ ",tr.
'? ~..
~ ~,.J ~
" "'""..
.,@ ~
... ".;r"..
> .
'_\~ 4.'
\ 0./4)'
o
i!)
"
, zz @)
I
." 7
€;I 23
-.-... ...-.-
-
~ 2.
'. ,
~ I
_W'
. STREET .. ~-
UJ
.
'0
-:~~
I-
... .
... r
~
III
.
,
I
,
I
,
...
51 :.'
" 57
12
"
.,
,
'.'!.
..
,
5...
53 .
<t
<3
<t
'-'
<t
CCXJRTLAND
DRIVE :
o 35
o
, .
" 0 ~ (fj
37 31
:'
.
" "..
~
~
3'
.
...
.
'~ .J4
"
.
EXHIBIT B
CITY~F SAN BER' RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
AL 1ERNA WE 3
e
TITLE
281h
.....
~
~
i::l -r-.;-.;-
f: ~'~"I i 2~
III ;"j _ +- +_
~ I !
~~..~~
~ 12.
.. 13 "
o ..
, ! I.',
.-
. . 5
'_\~ 4.'
; (14)'
'II 15 "
.....J.
-";-', " ;- ~
, ,
; "D'-""-\- ::'l
. , [ 17 : ,~~.; 5
---;-r-;-;- - r; 7
._.~. I. _W"
.,. .,
, -
" ,
- - ..c
~ g
STREET
:ft::~:::,::,::.::::::::::::.:::::::::::
::::::::::;.;.r -+-r.:
:111: :~:: >r CG-1 to CQ-1 ::::
:":::~::::. :r-*:*:~~:~::::
I.:e .,. ..,............,............
. .. ... ..
.. ............ ............
;~~ ; ~~ ~ ;; ~I:; : . : i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :: : : : : : : : : ~: : : : : : : :
.' .'.!I...,f
:::~:
STREET-
SP I " .
~ ,; @) " @
... 7~"~-- -.~ -
~ (!I 17
III
--
@ . ,..,/ ~
-"7= -- ., .
.
. ,-
. ,.., Z Nib'
- . ".i"'" -. . ~
<?) . ~ .
~.
@) ~ Por.! ~
. .<4\....
-" . -
.. ~
, ZZ
-
€:I 13 ~
~ z. @
- -
. .~-
.
10 i
I -;-!'
~
7 , g 10 /I 12 ... r ,. 57
l:D' - II! .
. ,. jf)" , ..
"". ~
en
I I .
, I
, I . I · : · I Co
.:1.: __':. J - '~J,_:3_.
I .
30
,I'
90-7
....
I
I
I
... ~-
i ~ ~
~ \ - 1--- ~.$rl...._
,-: -;~
.- --"--- ~............--
.~ ~
-.-- - -+
AS to CQ-1 ,~
- @!) :~: :::::
:::::::::::H~::::::::: i
en
-
.
if
... ...............
. :::::::::::.:::::::::: :::
............... ........
:::::::::::: T.:: :::: ::: :::
:~.;.;-::.;..j~.\..:.~
w
..
,.
" '., '
...
::>
54 .
53 ,
.
,
I
.
I
Of
U
Of
U
Of
COUR1LANO
DRIVE :
31 32 33 (1) 0
. ,
. , !5 d
... .IJ ',l\ , " 0 (!)
.
...
. 2,;..)4 rT !I 3f
.,
STREET:.':- 1
:'
..
EXHIBIT
C
CITY ~F SAN SER RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-7
TITLE ALTERNATIVE 4
28th
STREET
.
.....
--
I os.&
@ " @
--;';;...~-- --.~ -
(!I "
i1
.:II IZ.
@
--.--
I
I
J
I.a.f +-- '
~ ~ ~
-- ~ \- ~--
"Par.I ! 1 -,~
42 .. ,,- --'--- .....----
,... @.8J
~ Pot z,/J\ " _..:-- - ~-----
~ q; RS to CQ-1 ,~
· P.,i"J. ...1 1:,' " , ,
.. oWlo.. _ ~ .~~:..:::::
. zz @)::::::::::.:@:::::::
~
.... '
....
~
CI\
...
~..."" -r-.:":
'1"!' 2~
CI\ ,..,_+--+_
, , J
I
~~...~.~
'0 .
. .... ".;r" .-
. l3 .,
--r---'
5 ' I. '0
o
@)
.
;.-",
'-'~ 4,' ,
: ClE>-
0.._ .
. II 15 "
'~.#'
-..;--"/ If' ; - ~
, ,
,: ~D-,"-\- 1lI
. · I '1 : :~. l 5
.---;. ....
,
, .~ '~ I r ~
'-~- -
':::::::::::.:::::::::::: i
€:I
I 23 @
.
-,. .,
-- .-.'. . ".-."
-
~
2.
::::::::::::1'::::::::::::
"
.
,
CG-1 to 00-1',
-><' '
STREET
....
.;J.';~':':~~~""
!!;>:!!.:..,}!!,'!!;!!!! w
::~:.o..;:-;-;-:;-;.-:::-::-'-;-;:;-;:
10 I
.
I 7
to'
I
"';-!,
.'
...
"" t
~
...
CI\
I. 51
,. .
.
,
10
12
/I
...
::>
7'
-
.
,
"/I.
'.
"
'"
,
" [' . ' . ,
:_ 'TIS _L:_l
, I
i 30 '3' 32
. .
, , -
.1' ,... ~IJ'
':"'.
,'" 51 _
/' "
so
ot
i3
ot
<.l
ot
54 .
l(l, II
53 ,
,. I '3
I
,~.r-.-..
I
COURTlAND
DRIVE :
~: - ~-
~I r (!)
'S713a
.
33
: CD 35
,
,
~
l
.
~ ,~ \.
12./
,
...
.
"
STREET:~ 1
.
'2., 34
3t
EXHIBIT
D
-c....::'~'T,....
~~,;.'_., .
CITY t>F SAN BERN, RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
LAND USES
28th STREET
0'" ,',.. - I .."@ I
::; -r- SNaE-FAMLyT-i----." - !oJ +-- -k Q
~ ~:!.! . - ,-' /7 ~ * ~ - ~ -
Ul ....1 _ ;-1+_ in ~ \::-, ~,- , ~- ~-
,3 @ ~ I -
I I -..-'-- . .- --'--- -i-...J
:'''-:' :. .;:,,; PRIVATE HOSPITPJ...--9.. -t-- ~~ ,-'
.. - - Ii I I ,
.. ~~ of",s-
!_\~ 4 ,-:5 , _ , i!> _ _ pAA(I'JG LOT . ~._ 8 ~.J
; ql4;)' , III @ , · @
TITLE
~
~ '
,
It .
. :
'3 "
--r---'
, ! I. "Ii
II " 15" \
~-~.
_-;-.0' I. i ~
o ,
; ~""''1'''-\- l:lS
I 7" .
· ! / ',~ l 0
.-~-r. ..,j
,
'~ I .
€)
23
,. ( 9
O CJ
z'
~ if"
~ ~~
.16 7
..--"..-....
-
~
,
0' .
- - ..:
~ ,
oW"
.~,~
~LL
I
~i
.so
27th
,STREET. ~-
'~., .~..' r. J_' -".;"1 ... ., -
I' : I II .
I I I' I . I J. ~ II
,.9J II.JJ I 'u) 1141' I I IJ 1 .14.
'. I - t-. 'Ii
ii, I II ~
I I ! \
10 i I/'r " I. 113.1. 'i,l. '5
I I I I
10 :, I ',~ ,.,
.1/ ,";., I .2
,
I
21 e -<
I
VACANT
hi
jg) I
ft , I'
I,
7
~ 0 57~:~'
SNGLET~Y'~~:-
. . /.' \. 5..'
. .~.
" I10I~5~' ~
.
,
.
o.
I
I
7 I .. 9 I .(J, ~ II;
'7 '11 I" .. i 13
i .JO : 3' ,32 ; 31
'" '.,. , IJ ~ .'ii) ...
00-7
.
.
i
...
::.
z
...
::.
..
MEOCAL FACLITY
,I . (VACANTI -r'
.
~ .-_. --- -
.
L___.___ W
I ,
. 3
1"+--- - .---
Po,.' ~ Po", .
>- ..j6' @)
! ..
.. .., .
0 0
rn I
, - I
I W I
i X
w
- ~
.
"52 .5 .'
COURlLAND
ORIVE :
0 .
35 d
" 0
,
...
, 3T
" ~ 34
I :..
.
SNGLE - FAML Y " :!;,
_ .., .2
5
ClR.EXES
'261h
I
STREET::- 1
,
.~ ~
.
EXHIBIT
E
CITY ~F SAN BER~' RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-7
TIT L E LOCA TON MAP with LAND USE DESK3f'..IA TONS
ff I I'.
EXHIBIT F
AL.~TaIE 1 -
e-Q
" ,
,. ,
. .
I ....
..-.=--.
"
-.........,. iI.
I " .. a
-_.~
, I .
27'Il
"
11;'
." 10'
"
I ~ ' .
ID"
I
-
S1AEET
. I.. e
~_...-...
e "
..
i -r,I:; !
.. ,.-..,.-"
I'
-','
. .
..--;- ~"
D3:'
.. ~
(> n ~
--.-
~ ..,
'.'':J 4
C11D
. ,
..- ,-
~l ~~
'.,
, "
I
"_.," ~ ... I. '..1. "
I
"1 .
"i.. .. I" .,
_____.i. ,_:___
>> , II
.. f U
,J \ .'
r' :
..
SnIUT.;'"
-Q
" .
.,-,
. II"
_._~
, I .
-....-.,. '.
I : " . a
----,
.
I';
.~
to I 'I
" .,
;
.
"
,"
I
~ ,",I ,: .:,..
" ! . I' .
..
..
i -t~d~i i
. ;,....... ..
;.
S1AEET
. I.' a
.~---...
e "
..
.-.--
','
';,,- ~
1>._; 3:'
..~
a ~
" ,.
as.
.,.~
11:1'
-." f
.' . J:
. .
'.'':.1.
@
. ,
tl
!l
. ,
~-I-
k,19'
J&)' .
't'I'"
"
2'7'11 ~.-
- : - ....,.. CG-1 tl AS
'!" ,I '-:1 !~.
I ,
ID.I
. I
, I
, I
"o,! " ~ ....~ HI I. ,,'
l.' j
.!
"
;
.
I ,;
:1:1:1:~<
--Lr"-7".L :-.....
;>> f II L)ll II
f' I . r ,J r.
. - .,.,..:-
-
.. I"
o
..../~ ...'
'--
- !
a. ~
.
I ..
; ,~ El..J---
-"8---1--17
---- ~--
..
-
-
- . ,j. : .. '.": oM ~, J'
, I'" ---..
.. <II r. ., J'
EXHIBIT A
II ..
J .r ,,~
,'- .-~--
. ---..~
.11
--- - ~--
AS tl CC>-1 ..
e .
..
1> . ;;:
CXlU'ITI.NC)
~ - .. "'-''''AS
; r : (: ~ ~7;
R-t tl FlJ-1
I
~"
-
EXHIBIT C
CG-1 tl AS
'!" '"I f~l'
" ,
".,i" ~ ... j. '.1. "
Ii"
AL.~TalE2 -
. \'-::
. -~-~t'= .
! 'I t I.' !
. ;,.~.,.' .
,
N
".
.. ,
. .
'~'':.J ..
@
i
..
, ..
----,.',
, ., ., !
--.,
~ I II
27'Il
..- .-
..
~-
- - -- .-'..._-
~:;
..,I '0,
I,
I,
ID'I
I
I
, I .
,
,
.
i i
:. i : I : i : r IS
__._.L....:.......
r 7 i .. i ~; r ~ ,"
'a 11IIIIT..~
I
AL.~TaIE 4
~
I'
i -.~-~!~i i
. ;,.~";.' .
.
.~
. .
".
...
. .
'.''1.1.
C1JP
i
, I'"
~._.~
I
, ..
--......-.~_. I.
I " , i
-.';
--.,
..- ,-
..
:fD~-; ~
'. I ~
I I
- , I II;
..
.. ..1'. ~ .. I. "'1. t'
, ,
~l ~.
, I,
ID'I
.
, I
.' ! I . I .-. i. ;,
" ! II i ... l" :. IS
--.-..,-.....
;.;: J' .. La
f' I' i"
.. mar-:-
I
.
STAEET
II I. @)
I~--~'';~
e ..
~
i ~.
J+-.r.. -
ll! l- _l..~;;.._
!
"~..
. .
..~-~~
. ,
i
. .
..
-
"
!
..
.,.. .,.r~~ ....
'--
- ~ SI'
I
co..Frf'LN() 3llIC:
1> .
>. L
~~~;' f'~ f: ~tD~:
:, JI
EXHIBIT B
-
-
i~~'.
J +-- -
, ,~ .!!.L.$__
. -'--- ~--
-~! - --~---
AS 10 CC>-1 ..
e ..
..
i
. ,
. ,
,
..
"
.
;
.
..'. ...
~ "--
-,
: SlI
CCUIT\.NID
-
,"
/
--: .
1).~:~~r.. "'-'1OAS
. ':.' l. '.J; ~,.,..,
Z. II · . I . ~' .
I ,
o
IATTACHMENT
3
J
:;, v ,.
~ 1--'-- -.-
. . "JS3:i,. ,
~ ,"'"
) r~":::'~
'f i ; 11 Co..RT1.AfID ;IIfo,r
<-~ .
't...
.1 i. ~H ~. RH ~
RS RU-1
-1--- .. - ...
,i !
-~ ! "4--~'-
"1 ,,- ~~
n~_ ~
7""""~f--: - I r -.. . !
- I. - . 1
I'
..
nl'l Sf,,"T ..-
,
"- ....-
ili
- .
'.
~.
'r----
r. )C
..
0'
261>
I
Srlt(f--
I i
@
7 281>
^ -< .'
W ! F~' ,- ~i ~
, ~. "::y
. ,J' I ' .
----. ~ '~
.;r;,:_ j t'$
: i-~'::' ~ r:; :
, . , ~ '
,
i'7t't ST,,"'/'
-
S1AEET
~ I" f)
-0'7"'""""'--"'-
!' "
i I..
J ~.-r. "
, l-j;::-~--
--a---.....
--- - ---t-----
.. q
..!'.l
~ -{ "!!fft
~ ,
~~3J
.. ~
,
8 _
'.
I-
,I
I
.
~
..
s
.
S1AEET
i '. IE)
.....,....--
!- "
_l
i
.
'~""~' ;in~j; ~:.
... ~..... - ..- 1)::..., I
.J. I ~." -..--....; .
__~~ ~ I .~ . 5 !~~tt
t -' -'IIi-- i~J
.~, ~ 1 -dp 1 l.:-."
1. "
. ~~-~-.; r- '1 ; r'., f
i
.
; i ' . .
-.t 1.._...._
II- Ie..
~ ~_...I"'__"'s.._
)~~~~~:~~.--
I I , 8-.
// , "'-
'///
)00 J1 .. JI
?7tl
iUf"!T' .
I---!". "~~'.:' -,,,:.~,,
, -t'../~ ,. ,.,' ~~; /,
~/ .. .~.....
. L~'// "/~1' i/,,/ "":,,,.,..
'''','/'-'~ -...-..-...~-+....
. ~'//,L- ~G - S''': . .
//~// v -1 1.0 R ////' l.l.o
,.""'/;' ," --/-
r;:;:,f."T4 My/
/C///~ '"l
w
..~ - ,
,
~
- .
r
;,x-
"
1IP"
- " ,..
; !-- ---~
~J_'
,
.
)
/'~, ::::~
) :t
~----
l' 10
.:(
r- ____
! .
. ..
COJm.AN:l
n
26"
I
;;r"frr-
;77)
CURRENT LAND USE
; i .__
~ ;+-.-~;-;
~ It-........--......ir--
tf~~=~:.-?=u
I, ..,
, .
i J:!l.'~
.
j
'"
~
~
"
~
.~
~~'~1 i~1
-;---~--:. ~ r- . : j
--~;.. ',: I, - 1
.
- .~--
!' 0'
<
!... ~-~-- ~i ~
~ ,.. _.-
, ,
.. !'_l~'
'!) {:r~.ft
: RS :!:'
t---. ,,~
r--~_- ,~ ~
!' I.
.:1-
, ! :: I. " H. J.
! ~.__.:....- -.- i i
~i ~'--:~
'r) 0~~" :::! l ~1r/
! i It CCt.flTLA/'{)
r-~
n .
~ J5 '.
27" s""rt..
w -. ". ,....,
ili RS ..I-
- . , .
I""
1 " ..
11D ~ ,.. _._n_
i ":f53j'
, .. ...
, \'
! ~S.~ !).
,:( ~
;1tI',( I ..
r -----.:
~ 0' n r , . .
!
ili
-,
.. iIf.....
~_..-
n lO J. 11
261>
I
- ,
I .. ~ . ..
;;f."ff1"- I
3
w
COLFl-n..AN:) ;".,(
..
~i-' __'-n
., ,
261\
I
I I
l"'i"n
IATTACHMENT
4
J
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~
21
~
~
U
~
26
27
.
.
.
.
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE 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. 90-07 to the General
Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the
Planning commission on January 8, 1991, 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 July 10, 1990 and
reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the
Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan
Amendment No. 90-07 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 August 16, 1990 through September
5, 1990 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
28 IIII
and local regulations.
1
~-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~
21
~
~
~
~
26
27
~
.
e
~
RESOLUTION..~OPTING THE NEGATIVE~ DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
(e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General
Plan Amendment No. 90-07 and the Planning Division Staff
Report on March 11, 1991.
(f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 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. Neqative 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. Findinqs
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
of the City of San Bernardino that:
A.
The change of designation from CG-l, commercial General
to RS, Residential Suburban and RU-l, Residential Urban
and from RH, Residential High to RS, Residential
Suburban and RU-l, Residential Urban for the proposed
amendment will change the land use map only and is not
in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of
the General Plan.
IIII
2
R,'?J'lil/ll~"..,_,,~,,::-,."!l!l(',~,",~::'1;~~,
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e
e
RESOLUTION..~OPTING THE NEGATIV~ DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
C.
D.
E.
that:
A.
IIII
IIII
IIII
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
of the City.
All public services are available to the study area. Any
development
permissible under
RU-I
the
and
RS
designations proposed by this amendment would not impact
on such services.
The proposed amendment is to redesignate 5.63 acres of
land and the balance of land uses within the city will
be minimally affected.
The amendment site is physically suitable for the
requested land use designations. Anticipated future
land use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it
has been determined that project specific mitigation
measures
will
sufficient
any
eliminate
to
be
environmental impacts.
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 1.36
acres from CG-1, Commercial General to RS, Residential
Suburban (APNs 149-116-01, 02, 03, 46, 47 and 149-155-
01, 02, 03, 04), approximately 3.58 acres from CG-1,
3
_a.__""__._~_<
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e
e
;-""'';'~:-::''~'\::)-<;a;,'
. .
RESOLUTION...ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
Commercial General to RU-1, Residential Urban (APNs 149-
116-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 41, 45, 48 and 149-155-
09, 10, 11, 13, 14), approximately 0.33 acres from RH,
Residential High to RS, Residential Suburban (APNs 149-
154-08, 09) and approximately 0.36 acres from RH,
Residential High to RU-l, Residential Urban (APNs 149-
154-12, 13). General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 and its
location is outlined on the maps entitled Attachment A-1
and A-2, and is more specifically described in the legal
descriptions entitled Attachment B-1 to B-4, copies of
which are attached and incorporated herein by reference.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 shall be effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 5. Mac 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 Department 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 CEQA
in preparing the Negative Declaration.
IIII
IIII
IIII
4
9 ESTRADA
10 REILLY
11 FLORES
M_~...d"~_.
e
e
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e
;,l.-; '''1'''<4~''':-,~;tJ;~
RESOLUTION. .!DOPTING THE NEGATIV' DECLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a
meeting therefore, held on the
day of
, 1991, by the following vote, to
wit:
ABSTAIN
Council Members:
NAYS
AYES
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
Cit~12. .
By: V4l .
./ -
5
.'
,
I
I
.
~:!""Il'IV-:",,~." "C.'
-
-
,
a,
...
:
i3
" "
.!: ~
"E<l
"
c ..
,-
.."
lDll:_
c ..0
" _0
(f)'=::""
I'f)
I'f)
......
-
o
~
t!:i
,
-
o \
~
-
~ U
~ e
0",1'==q,
<..).t Q!O
~, -,
~f.O 4i~
::.~lXIcq
&~~~
~ ~
1XI
c:
o
i
~
"
&
~
~~~:-:- .
..J
C)
@
I
,
I
,-
~
~
,
~ -'.L33I/.1S
I
i@l ~
H ..L
.'411-1
I
.I.,-~' t
I
~,iJ 1,
---'3nN3AtJ-J
" '
~@ "
, ,
, I
~ It:
~
"'
1'~9 SFI sr
o
-
.
(
.....
..... ,
~~
acc
--"--
'L
" I
..3 ~ '\
en
CC
o
-
.....
I
<!)
a
~_ ~'i'~
~_ ..t\li'~",~\:J
~ i@i I Q-~<V 0"
, ..
,
@ ~'€J
,
"
~ .L331/.LS
I " 1
- ~t " 1" ..,
+ -\ -j-
\~' 1
! ---.--
~G"""
I
~ .133I/.1S
;
, "
,
'-~)
!1
.. "'
~. ~ $' 'S' .AfF
I I
@I ' [\<9
-I- .~
I ';.
I
I
(il,
"
I
'"
..
en
H
a
'i"
.. I
., 'I,
'~) I
, I
I
':@l'"
''it '
... - I ,~
~ -I ~J
@' 'I
,
I
10
'j,
I
I
E)I
"
I
r,,,..'
\..}
~
\~)
8.
l"lQ') "
!!! \
"'.'i'
.. ,"'
~/""
I
I
,ar
I
...
l:J
~
U)
I
".:J.
,
!:?
!
,_..F'":s"'"r/
I'!!
@
,
r- - - - ...
..
. -
'--~--'-
. '
@
..
on
.r#
3SItlOl- --~-'
~,.; " ~ ,-'"""' I
I., ...
~~ ]
.
"
--@-~
~ ~
'- T-
, @ ::
,
! ,~,,..
'i'_
! '
~ (0) !1
r'~"" ..r:
, ~
~ ',- "~' ~, (~) ',~I \!j l.~ ',-!::'j \:1
... .. "'
"'
v_,_
~ ~3"tI
I
t, i.... I
, 1 1
~ " -"1 ---T--- ; ''! I
; e I :: I ~ ~
, 1'__'1'
~
ll)
'"
.. "' ..
"
'. \- ,'!II \!\ ~:'
,
~
*",,-, "',
I
I
II
"
~ .L331/.LS
\
,....
'~: .'!.'>
'!!
!
on
\~.'
@
~
,\313)/1/38 -
~ ...., .....
(!) ~
I I
I~) I
-t- ,.
,
.
~
I
,
I
,.,
on
-
""\~I....
~ I!:: I
,
~
..,
- .
~~,
..
"'\
-
I
... I
-I-
'011
I
\"
'"
~
I
I"',
, ~
t~) ~ ti
I I
I
t (-. -
~-:S-I"'~'
...-:'"...----t
(..J
..
'-~.
,
'~_T ~
. .
;
r
I
I.
"
"
-;S,,-
~--T---
l
I
o
~
ATTACHMENT A-I
"<I' :::ll:
..,.;:8<;;' ,
2: ~,;.
" ~
,,- -,..
<:'! <i. ~~
:
c
~
"
::<>
8-"0
~ 8'.5
o.."E
.. "
~It.. 0'> c:
"... '
::l-Ji
"'" 7
.."C
..""
<llDlIl
~
- ~
.3.~
a:sO
S
.oi
- 0
III ~
-~ "
aU)
~ ~
~ t
~"
<< E
, ,
~..
~
10_
~~
....
...,
:!:!
Q:.Q,:
.:.
ll)0
0>0
"Ill
.go
..
....
DD
~~
t;t;
""
'c
~r.
()
"'
..
!!!
~
'l
~
.
10 --.~- ~--- .
-
,
0> ..J I
...
,.... ~
e , t l33~lS
::::>
l:.'
u 0
-
00 ,....
S ~ ,
~<( (!)
0
0" ()
,""
., 0
"l<,_ C/)
o ~O a:
~~~ 0
-
,.... -
, - ; 3nN3^~
(!)
() -~
"
~.~, " ..
'"
..
'"
@ .
,
-..3..- ~ ,....
,
J, ::::>
a:
~ 0
ii: -
0 ::c
a:
C/)
a:
0
-
111~11~11 I
a:
,"!'
'" C0 Go
'" '"
9 ill
,!J ...
'"
c,;9..,'
'" :l;
'"
~) ':
e
...
'"
(.:)
C1l \ l33~lS
C\I
1Or& 2:! (~
r<) ....
e ,Ill
0'-
2:'" :: ,;!
...
-~
U::!:
0 2 \~J
~
Go ~)
CD l~\
...
-
..
(!'
1IO ~'t
.. :!I
'" ~)
~
, .. \~'I ..
i:!
~
- - 0
..,
e r
~ l33~lS
"I
(..'.
T'--[)
~ ..:1" t-
~ '.,
\0') ;1; ..' ~,7 .c_
, !:!
'" @
" " '" ,
(~! !: .....-
.. @ .
'"
@ !!! ........
~- ;;; (;)
(~ !!! ,'-w ~
:;: ~
8 !:: .- .
.. @
@ !II f ..
-
.. @
~\ 2! ..
;,,',#
,~) 2 ~ @
"
~,I .. ill ~,
..
(..;) .. '" (~\
.. .. ,
",,".
, ,
(~) '" .. c&"
.. .. \
-,..' ~
.....1.....
~'
~
0>
L
i
s
'"
...
'I:'
..9.. '~'
@
o
ATTACHMENT A-2
'"
c
"
o
IllU
0..,0
00>0
::e 0'.
Q""
"' -
'...0'1 g
0... -
=-~
.,'"
",00
",00
<(Ull/)
(:)
'r}~,'-: ii:..
- ~
Q ~
...J'E
(1)<3
~ .
m'~
.
'''1!
60>
"
" "
~ -
" ~
""
.. E
, "
~'"
Q
Z
Go
"
!!!
.
c
,
..,
.
'~ . ;.'.' .
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07
TITLE
Leqal Descriptions
From CG-1 to RS
PARCEL
149-116-01
DESCRI PTION
Real property in the City of San Bernardino
County of San Bernardino, State of California described as:
149-116-02
The South 20 feet of the West 115 feet of Lot 29 and the West
115 feet of Lot 30, Block 1, Tract 1733, recorded in Book 26
of Maps, Pages 7 through 12, inclusive
Real property in the County of San-Bernardino,
State of California, described as follows:
The South 20 feet of the West 115 feet of Lot 27, and the West
115 feet of Lot 28, and the North 20 feet of the West 115 feet
of Lot 29, Block 1, Tract No. 1733, in the City of San
Bernardino, as per map recorded in Book 26, pages 7 to 12,
inclusive, of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said
County.
149-116-03
Real property in the County of San Bernardino,
State of California
149-116-46
West 115 feet of Lot 26, and the North 20 feet of the West 115
feet of Lot 27, Block 1, Tract 1733 Thompson Brothers Poultry,
as per map recorded in Book 26, pages 7 through 12, inclusive,
of Maps records of said County.
Real property situate in the County of San Bernardino
State of California, described as follows:
149-116-47
Parcel #2 of parcel Map #4887 as per plat recorded in Book 44,
Page 66, records of said County.
Real property situated in the County of San Bernardino,
State of California, described as follow, to wit:
Lot 1, and the South 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 1, Tract No. 1733,
Thompson Brothers Poultry Colony, as per plat recorded in
Book 26 of Maps, pages 7 to 12 inclusive, records of said
County.
A T T A C H MEN T B-1
r.'~"""-'~"".".,~_.._ ~ .. -j!;"
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07
TITLE Legal Descriptions
PARCEL DESCRIPTION
149-155-01 Real property in the City of San Bernardino
County of San Bernardino, State of California
149-155-02
149-155-03
149-155-04
From CG-1 to RU-1
149-116-19. 20.
21, 22. 23. 24.
35. 41, 48
Lot 49. Tract 3529
Real property in the City of San Bernardino
County of San Bernardino. State of California, described as:
Lot 50, Tract 3529. as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps.
pages 57 and 58, records of said County.
The following real property in the County of San Bernardino.
State of California:
Lot 51. Tract No. 3529, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of
Maps. pages 57 and 58. records of said County.
County of San Bernardino. State of California
described as follows:
Lot 52. Tract 3529. as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps.
pages 57 and 58. records of said County.
Real property in the City of San Bernardino.
County of San Bernardino. State of California described as:
The North one half of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 to 9. inclusive
and the East 140.25 feet of Lots 25 to 30. inclusive. Block 1.
Tract No. 1733 as per plat map recorded in Book 26 of Maps.
pages 7 to 12. inclusive. records of said County.
Excepting therefrom the West 25 feet of Lots 7 through 9.
inclusive.
Also excepting therefrom any portion thereof lyigg within the
West 115 feet of Lots 25 through 30. inclusive.
A T T A C H MEN T B-2
~.J;
.
e
~.~
.-- --"--~:-<"7}J'.'Z;:'7('T;,,;
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07
TITLE
Le9al Descriptions
PARCEL
149-116-45
DESCRIPTION
149-155-09
Real property in the City of San Bernardino
County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as:
Parcell of Parcel Map 4B87, in the City of San Bernardino,
County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map
recorded in Book 44, page 66 of parcel maps, in the office
of the County Recorder of said County.
The followin9 described real property in the City of San
Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California
Lot 45 of Tract No. 3529, as per map recorded in Book 46 of
Maps, page 57, records of said County.
EXCEPTING therefrom the North 18.5 feet thereof.
149-155-10
The following described property in the County of San Bernardino
State of California
149-155-11
The North 18.5 feet of Lot 45, and the South 33 feet of Lot 46,
Tract No. 3529, as per map recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages
57 and 58, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
Real property in the City of San Bernardino
County of San Bernardino, State of California described as:
Lot 46, except the South 33 feet thereof, and Lot 47, except
the North 40.5 feet thereof, Tract No. 3539, in the City of
San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California,
as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58,
records of said County.
149-155-13, 14
Real property situated in the County of San Bernardino,
State of California, described as follows:
The North 40.5 feet of Lot 47, and all of Lot 48, Tract No.
3529, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and
58, in the office of the recorder of said County.
A T T A C H MEN T B-3
e
.,.--""-
-
~,--;?",:,,;,.~,~.,.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07
TITLE
Legal Oescriptions
PARCEL
OESCR I PTI ON
From RH to RS
149-154-08
All that certain real property lyin9 and being in the
County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly
described as:
149-154-09
Lot 41, Tract No. 3529, in the City of San Bernardino, County
of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Plat recorded
in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County.
All that real property situated in the City of San Bernardino,
San Bernardino County, California, described as follows:
Lot 42, Tract No. 3529, in the City of San Bernardino as per
map recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, in the office
of the recorder of said County.
From RH to RU-1
149-154-12
The following described real property in the State of
California, County of San ternardino, City of San Bernardino
The South 5 feet of Lot 44 and all of Lot 43, Tract 3529, as
per Map recorded in Book 46, Pages 57 and 58 of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County.
149-154-13
The North 40.5 feet of Lot 47 and all of Lot 48, Tract No.
3529 in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino,
State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps,
pages 57 and 58, records of said County.
EXCEPT from said Lot 46 the North 51.5 feet thereof.
A T T A C H MEN T B-4