The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About44-Planning & Building CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO - REQUEST FA COUNCIL ACTION Fr,Larry E. Reed, Director Dep: Plannincr and Building Services Date: February 13, 1991 Subject:General Plan Amendrrent No. 90-16, to change the land use designations fran RMH and RM to C0-1 on the south>l'est and north>l'est corners of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue. Synopsis of Previous Council action: Mavor and Carmon Council M:etino Barch 11, 1991 The southwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue was designated RMH, Residential ~Edium High and the northwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue was designated RM, Residential ~um with adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. Recommended motion: e '!hat the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted. ~du/ / Signature Larry E. Contact person: Iarrv E. Reed Phone: /714\ 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Rerort and Resolution Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.! (Acct. Descriotion) Finance: C_il Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. L/'f CITY OF SAN BERN~INO - REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION e e e 75-0264 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11, 1991 REQ!)EST This City initiated general plan amendment is a request to change the land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium High to CO-i. Commercial Office on 0.32 acres located at the southwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (788 North Arrowhead Avenue) and from RM, Residential Medium to CO-ion 0.86 acres located at the northwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue 1808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue). (See Exhibit B of Attachment A to the Planning Commission Staff Report). BACKGROUND Both sites are developed for administrative and professional office uses. During the land use hearings for the General Plan. the two sites were inadvertently designateu for multi-family uses. Under Title 19, Chapter 19.66 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the existing office buildings and uses are legal nonconforming. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study (Attachment A to the Planning Commission Staff Report), prepared to evaluate the CO-1 designation, and recommended a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed publ ic hearing on February 5, 1991. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 to change the land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium High and RM, Residential Medium to CO-1, Commercial Office on two sites containing 1. 18 acres of land. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 based on findings in the resolution. 2 . The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to address alternative land use designations. e e e - . . General Plan Amendment No. 90-1E Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11. 1991 Page 2 3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendm6nt No. 90-16. RECOMME.1ID~ILQN Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Counci 1 adopt th6 resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 as presented. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission February 5, 1991 Attachment A: Initial Study Exhibit A: Site Location and Land Use Designation Map Attachment 2: Resolution Attachment A: Attachment B: Location Map Legal Descriptions - -~ . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 5 2-5-91 1 SUMMARY APPLICANT: City Initiated w en 0( (..) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 OWNER: Various .... en w ~ " w c:: A proposal to change the land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium High to CO-I, Commercial Office on .32 acres at the southwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (788 North Arrowhead Avenue) and from RM, Residential Medium to CO-I, Commercial Office on .86 acres at the northwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue) . - 0( W c:: 0( PROPERTY Subject North South East EXISTING LANn USE Professional and Medical GENERAL PLAN [,)~SIGNATION RMH, Residential Medium High and RM, Residential Medium RM, Residential Medium RMH, Residential Medium High RM, Residential Medium ZONING Offices Multi Family & Single Family Uses Multi Family & Single Family Uses Multi Family-Single Family Uses and Church Facility Multi Family & Single Family Uses RM, Residential Medium and West GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC !!:j{ YES FLOOD HAZARD [] YES :::: ZONE A ( SEWERS: :1 YES ) HAZARD ZONE: :::: NO ZONE: lCl NO C ZONE B = NO HIGH FIRE ~ YES AIRPORT NOISE! :::: YES REDEVELOPMENT x: YES '-' HAZARD ZONE: 00 CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: NO X"l( NO NO ...I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIACANT Z []I APPROVAL 0( APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 MITIGATING MEASURES - .... !;;( 0 zen NOE.l.R. CONDITIONS WO II.Q :iz o EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z 0 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS O(W OQ WITH MlTlGA TING t;~ c::iE MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO -II. 0 > ~ NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Z (..) W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES c:: Attac:hItent 1 ern 01' ... .--.0 PLAN-I.02 PAGE 1 01= , 14-1C11 --- . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT '. CASE GPA NO. 90-15 5 2-5-91 2 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE REOQES'r ~Q LQCAUON This City initiated project is a request to amend the General Plan land use designation from RMH. Residential Medium High and RH. Residential Medium to CO-1. Commercial Office. The project consists of two sites. The first site. located at the southwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (788 North Arrowhead Avenue). is designated RHH. The second site, located at the northwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue). is designated RH. (See Exhibit B of the Initial Study.) AREA CHARACTERISTICS The two sites are flat and irregular in shape and consist of four parcels developed for commercial office uses. For this discussion. the site designated RHH will be referred to as Site A and the site designated RH will be referred to as Site B. The two sites together will be referred to as the amendment site or site. Site A contains one parcel and consists of approximatelY 0.32 acres of land. It is developed with a 14.000 square foot office building and a small parking lot. Site B contains three parcels and consists of approximatelY 0.86 acres of land. It is developed with a 15.000 square foot office building and a parking lot. Surrounding land uses consist of single-familY and multi-family uses in the RHH and RH designations. A large church facility is located on the southeast corner of the intersection in the RM designation. (See Exhibit A of the Initial Study) BACKGROUND During the land use hearings for the General Plan. the amendment site inadvertently was designated RHH. Residential Medium High and RH. Residential Medium. PLAN-l.ae PAGE' Ot= , ,<-tOI ""'''-~ --- ( - -- - - - . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA NO. 90-16 5 2-~-9l 3 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE "tUNICIPAL CODE The existing commercial office uses are not permitted in the RMH or RM designations and are legal nonconforming uses pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 19.66 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMC). General Plan Policy 1.7.9 permits the continuation of nonconforming uses and allows for minimal expansion, however, the office structures and uses would remain nonconforming. If the buildings become vacant for a period of 180 days or more, the nonconforming uses cannot be reestablished and future land uses must conform with the underlying land use designation. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS The general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on December 13, 1990 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was recommended. The publiC review period for the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on December 20, 1990 and ended on January 9, 1991. COMMENTS RECEIVED AMENDMENT SITE PROPERTY OWNERS The property owners of Site A and Site B were contacted for this amendment proposal. Because the properties are nonconforming under the current designations, they support the amendment proposal. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC DIVISION The Traffic Division has determined that the proposal does not meet the minimum criteria for a traffic impact study and will not cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system. PLAN.I.oa PAGE 1 OF 1 (...0) Cf1"I'O#_~ --- ~ - - - --~~- . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-16 5 2-5-91 4 OBSERVATIONS OTHER COMMENTS Comments received from other agencies do not pertain to the general plan amendment. ANALYSIS EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The RMH and RM land use designations permit the a diversity of multi-family uses. As stated, the existing medical and professional office uses and buildings on the amendment site are not permitted in these residential designations. As such, the site is classified as "legal" nonconforming. (See previous discussion under Municipal Code sectionl. PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION AND COMPATIBILITY The following citation from General Plan describes the purpose of the CO-1. Commercial office designation: It shall be the objective of the City . . to: "Provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of administrative and professional offices and supporting retail uses in proximity to major transportation corridors and ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses." (General Plan Objective 1.28) The CO-1 designation permits administrative and professional offices as well as limited supporting retail uses and medical facilities. The buildings and uses existing on the site are permitted in the CO-1 designation and the parcels meet all of the minimum lot standards. P\.M-8.C8 PAGE 1 OF 1 ,...., ClT'l'C11_~ --- - - . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 90-16 OBSERVATIONS 5 2-5-91 5 The preceding passage (General Plan Objective 1.28) reflects the City's intent to retain existing professional and medical offices. Similarly, General Plan Objective 4.11 addresses the City's need for maintaining the existing office user base as well as other, related issues. Regarding compatibility, professional and medical offices generally can coexist well with surrounding multi-family residential neighborhoods. The amendment site is we 11 establ ished in the neighborhood and has contained commercial offices and uses for well over a decade. Essentially, the amendment proposal will not change the status quo of the site or the neighborhood and, it will not create impacts related to land use compatibility or circulation. CONCLUSIONS The general plan amendment will eliminate the inconsistency with the General P Ian and the existing structures and uses will be conforming. The office buildings and uses are permitted in the proposed designation and meet the requirements for minimum lot standards. In addition, redesignation will carry out the City's objective (as it applies to this amendment site) to retain the existing commercial offices and users. Because the site is developed, redesignation from the RMH and RM designations to CO-I, Commercial Office will not create land use impacts in the neighborhood. Nor will the amendment proposal result in impacts to the area's traffic and circulation. crr<'CI'_~ --- P~'~ P~E'OF' '....1 - - - - - - - - - . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA NO. 90-16 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT / AGENDA ITEM 5 I FINDINGS OF FACT HEARING DATE 2-5-91 PAGE 6 FINDINGS The pre,posed CO-l, Commercial Office 1 and use desiqnation will chanqe the General Plan Land Use Plan and is not in conflict with the qoals, objectives and policies of the Ge,neral Plan. The existinq commercial office buildinqs and uses are compatible with the adjacent multi-family residential uses and will not create impacts. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed in this report. The amendment proposes to redesiqnate 0.32 acres from RMH. Residential Medium Hiqh and 0.86 acres from RM. Residential Medium to CO-I, Commercial office. The City's housinq stock will not be affected. The amendment site is physicallY suitable for the CO-I. Commercial Office land use desiqnation. All public services are available to the proposed amendment site. Any future development permissible under the proposed desiqnation would not impact on such services. crrrt1l...~ --- PLAN-I.Q6 PAGE' O~ , 14-10) - -- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA NO. 90-16 5 2-5-91 7 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ECOMHENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080.1 of CEQA. 2. The General Plan Land Use Plan be changed from RMH. Residential Medium High and RM. Residential Medium to co- l. Commercial office for the site as shown on Exhibit B of the Initial Study. Respectfully submitted. d( (1.1.. '1J..X ~ _ 'R..wL L~) Larry ~Reed, Director Planning and Building Services ~ . .. '.. ,\. , " " l... tl.,)~-C~, L.AJ~IJ LVI. p---- Deborah Woldruff r I Associate Planner . Idw Attachment: A - Initial Study Exhibit A Existing Land Use Map Exhibit B Site Location and Designation Map Land Use em' 01' _ ........, --- PL.AN-LDI PAGE 1 OF 1 1"40) , , - ... - - - ATTACHMENT A ... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 Proiect Descrintion: To chanQe the land u.e de.iqnation from RMM. Re.idential MediUDI HiQh to CO-l on 0.32 acres and from RM, Re.idential Medium to CO-l. Commercial Office on 0.86 acre. for a .ite containinQ two office buildinQ. on approximatelY 1.18 acre. of land. Proiect Location: This project i. located at 788. 808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue on the .outhwe.t and northwe.t corner. of We.t 8th Street and North Arrowhead Avenue. ~ November 30. 1990 ADDllcant(s) Name and Address: City Initiated APplication PrOD8rtv ewmer(a) .... and Addr...: Joe M. Syk.. .14 North Arrowh.ad Av.nu. San B.rnardino. CA 92401 lAa....or.. parc.l Number. 140-213-15 and 241 Morton and Elain. M.rinQ 4030 Birch Str..t '106 M.wport B.ach, CA 92660 lAa....or.. Parc.l Number 140-213-231 Gerald O. EQan and Betty EQan 7.8 North Arrowh.ad Av.nu. San Bernardino. CA 92401 lAa....or'. parc.l Number 140-282-76) Initial Study PreDarAd by: Deborah woldruff. As.ociat. Plann.r Clty of San Bernardlno Departaent of PlannlnQ and BulldlnG Servlce. 300 WOrth 000 Street San Bernarcl1no. CA 92418 ~'_'OF' - ~. ~ ~ - ... . (e INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 NOVEMBER 30. 1990 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan A1nendment No. 90-16 which proposes to change the land use designation from RHH. Residential Medium High and RH. Residential Medium to CO-l, Commercial office on a site comprising 1. 18 acres. located at 788. 808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue, on the southwest and northwest corners of West 8th Street and North Arrowhead Avenue. (See Exhibit A) This amendment proposal is a City initiated project. As stated in Sect ion 15063 of the Ca 1 ifornia Environmental Quality Act guidelines. the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration: e 2. Enable an appl icant or Lead Agency 'to modify a project. mitigating adverse impacts before an ElF. 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, (Bl Identify the effects determined not to be significant. and (Cl 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 finding in a Negative Declaration that a will not have a significant effect environment, fOl the project on the e 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs: - .'. . e INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 NOVEMBER 30. 1990 7. Determine whether a previous 1 Y prepared EIR coul j be used with the proiect. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This City-initiated proposal is to change the City's General Plan land use designations for a site l~cated a~ 788, 808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue, on the southwest and northwest corners of West 8th Street and Nor~h Arrowhead Avenue. During the land use hearings for the adoption of the General Plan, the site was designated for multi-familY uses. The site consists of 1.18 acres and, for purposes of this discussion. is divided into tWO sites _ Site A and Site B (EXhibit A). Any reference to the site in its entirety is meant to include both Site A and Site B. Site A. designated RMH. Residential Medium High, located at 788 North Arrowhead Avenue on the southwest corner of West 8th Street and North Arrowhead Avenue. consists of one parcel approximately 0.32 acres in size and contains a 14.000 square foot office building. Site B. designated RH, Residential Medium. located at 808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue on the northwest corner of the same intersection, consists of three parcelS comprising approximatelY 0.86 acres and contains a 15.00~ square foot office building. Staff proposes to change the land use designations for Site A and Site B to CO-l. Commercial Office. Ie The proposed CO-l. commercial office designation permits a diversity of administrative and professional offices. supporting retail commercial uses and medical facil i ties. Senior citizen and senior congregate care housing also is permitted in the CO-1 designation by conditional use permit. 2.1 Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics The amendment site is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 1.18 acres of land. The site contains four developed parcelS of land which range in size from 7,850 square feet to 14,950 square feet. All of the parcels are developed for commercial office uses with parking. e The site is surrounded by single-family and multi-familY uses in RHH and RM designations. A large church facility . f. ~ INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 NOVEMBER 30, 1990 is located on the southeast corner of the intersection at 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue. (See Exhibit A) 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Settinq While the site is not located Special Studies Zone, it is susceptible to hiqh liquefaction subsidence. in an Alquist-Priolo locatej in an area and potential ground e ~ ( - - - '. , .. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number:a.lI&IGl eltln Q~...6MIOAI\~A) Nn. qo -I' .~ Project Dascription: .i'2.. ~""'";' 'ii~ 1Irr1....""'~iI"., ... a.1i. ..- -10. · ~ iil:.. ~{e.it'\i i1AI ~~~if~. Orl Cl"~lN.ie~~~S Df l.w{. locatIOn: ~ 1'1 ,1.1 ~J~fl..rv.t!/"IL.: J~lAWO 0'" .u..~<:/)LLi-t..- f1.V~, E'ninronmantal Constrllinls Araas: ~ W~"1"1~ tu.td5,rn"lI'ld ~/Jh<;~f1,^".# . Genaral Plan Oasignalion: ~Pc:.i dP......i.: ~ I MPd;u - ~'" ., ~F M J ~ irlp....~Cll . ~"JA.^- laning Designation: -Alj1t B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain a_rs, whare appropriata, on a seperata attached shaet. 1. Earth RallOurcaa WiD the proposal rasuk in: Vas No Maybe L Earth movamant (CUI and/or fUll of 10,000 cubic X yards or mora? b. Developmant and/Or grading on a slope greater X than 15% natural grada? c. Devalopment within the A1quist-PrioIo Spacial X SlUdias lane? d. ModKicalion of any uniqua geologic or physical '" faatura? ~ - a. Soil arosion on or off tha projaclsila? Y f. ModKicalion of . channal, creak or river? "" g. Devalopmant wlIhin an araa sUbjacl to Iandslidas, 'I. mudslidas, liquafllClion or othar simUar hazards? . h. Other? S., ~<"Id.I"J/L(!.1" v... ............ ~_IOF' IWOl ~~.- . -- . - '. 2. Air ~u~: Will the proposal fesutt in: Ves No Maybe a. Substantial air emissions or an ellad upon ambient :x air quality? b. The creation of objadionable odors? ~ c. Development within a high wind hazard area? " 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal rasutt in: a. Changes in absOrption ratas. drainage pattams. or the rate and amount of surface Nnoll due to )( impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? '/. c. Discharge into surface wate.. or eny atteration '1 of surface water qualrty? d. Change in the quantrty of quslity of ground water? 'I e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? "I. f. Other? 'i 4. Biological Rellllurcea: Could the proposal rasutt in: a. Change in the number of any unique. rara or endangered spacias of plants or their habitat induding )( stands of trHs? b. Change in the number of any unique. rare or --L endangered species of animals or their habitat? c. Removal of viable. matUre _? (6" or Ilrealer) X d. Other? X 5. HolM: Could the proposal rasutt in: L Increases in uisting noise levels? ~ b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels ovar .J. 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? . c. Other? X Ii. Land U..: Will the proposal rasutt in: L A change in the land usa as designated on the -1- General Plan? b. Developmant within an Airpon District? )( c. Developmel'll within "Graanbait" lane A. B. or C? --X- e d. Developmant within a high fire hazard zone? + e. Other? . ~ PlGi20~' I..... l?;7-~ ~~~~-;:;: . ~. 7. Man-Made Huarda: Will the project: V.s No Maybe L Us.. store. transporl or dispose of hazardouS or toxic mat.rials (including but not limilad to oil. X pesticid.s. ch.micals or radiation)? b. Involve the r.iaas. of hazardouS substances? 'i c. Expose people 10 the pot.ntial h.aIthisafety hazards? X d. Other? 1- 8. Houalng: Will the proposal: L Ramov. .xisting housing or creat. a demand >( for addilional housing? b. Other? X I. Tranaponatlon I Circulation: Could the proposal resull in: L An incr.as. in traffic that is gr.at.r than the land "i usa dasignatad on the Gan.ral Plan? b. Usa of axisting. or damand for naw. pa1\(ing -L- facllities/stnlClUras? e c. Impact upon axisting public transporlation systams? X. d. AIlaration of prasent pattams ot circulation? 'I.. a. Impact to rail or air traffic? )( f. IncrUS8d safety haZards to vahiclas. bicyclistS or -1- pedestrians? g. A disjointed pattam of roadway improvamantS? X h. SignHicant incra_ in traffic volumas on the rolMlways -X- or intersections? i. Other? )( 10. Public Sarvlaaa: WiU the proposal impact the following beyOnd tha capability to provide adaquata Iavais of service? L Flra protection? )( b. Po~ce protaction? ~ c. SchoOls (i.... a1tancfanCll. boundarieS. ovarload. .u:.)? ~ d. Pa1\(S or athar raaaational tacililias? X a. Maclical .HI? j. e f. Solid Waste? -L- g. Other? J- ._ 'MIUOH ....,,. ~.,..-~.~ - . , . 11. UtIIItJa: Will the proposal: Ves No Maybe L Impel the following beyond the capability to provide adequme IllYels 01 service or require the constNclion of new lacil~ilIs? 1. Natural gas? 't 2. Electricity? l( 3. Water? )( 4. Sewer? '" 5. OIher? -L b. Resutt in a disjointad pattern of utility extensions? ~ c. Require the conSlNction of new lacil~ies? )( 12. Aesthetics: L Could the proposal resutt in the obSINdion of any 'I.. scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental "I- to the surrounding area? c. OIher? X 13. CUnul1ll Ae8OurcH: Could the pIllposal_utt in: L The alter.uon or destrUClion of a prellislOric or ~ historic archaeological...? b. ~ physical or MSthetIc impKlS to a ..J. prehistoric or historic aite. IlfIIC\IIf8 or object? c. OIher? -e+ -X- 14. Mandatory Flncllnga of S1gn"__ (Section 15065) The Calftomia Environmental Quality N;t _.. thai ft any of the following cen be ana_red yes or maybe. 1M project may haVe a aignfticanl effect on the environment and an Environmentallmpad Repen shall be prepared. Yas No Maybe e L Does the project haVe the potential to degr.te the quality of the environment. aullalantiaIY reduce the MbiIat of a fish or wildlife species. - a fish or wildlile populmion to drop billow ad sustaining lllvels. th,..en to eliminGe a pIanI or animal community. reduce the number or rntricI the !1lng8 of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminGe important _pies of 1M major periocla of c.JiIomia history or prehistory? b. Does the project haVe the potential to chiave aholt- 18rm. to the diaadvan\&lJe CllIong.tann. environmental goals? (A aholt.term impaCl on the environment is one which occurs in a relatiV8ly briel. clafiMive period of time whUe long-term impac\S wiD endure _II into 1M fUlUre.) -X- x PLMMJII PAGE.~' (MOl rr-01_~ :"'.-=. _.-_",y_OJ. - . '. c. Does the projecl have impa:lS which aN individually limhad, but cumulalively considarable? (A projecl may impact on two or maN separate NSOUrcaS wheN the impact on elch NSOUrca is Nlalively small, but wheN the effect of the lOlal of tho.. impa:lS on the environment is signHicanl) d. Does the project have environmemal effects which will cause substamial adverse effects on human baings, ahher directly or indiractly? . Yes No C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAllON AND MlTlGA1l0N MEASURES (Altach shHls as necassary.) ~[IItt~ _ ~ _ ....-.0 -,-. _..-...-........~< Maybe x x PL.AN.ID& PAGE 5 o~. ,,",,,, .r. .. re INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 NOVEMBER 3D, 1990 3.2 Environmental Impacts 3.2.1 Earth Resources 1.a. Sites A and B both are developed for commercial office uses and the structures appear to be fully occupied and in Qood condition. As such. redevelopment is unlikely. However, any redevelopment on Site A or Site B could require earth movement in the form of reqradinq. It is unlikely that such activities would exceed 10.000 cubic yards. 1.b. e The site is relatively flat and any redevelopment woulJ not result in development or gradinq on a slope Qreater than 15% natural qrade. 1.c. ,d. ,e. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (Figures 47 and 54. General Plan) and it is not subject to soil erosion (Fiq. 53. General Plan). The site does not contain any unique geoloqic or physical features. 1.g. .h. The site is located in an area susceptible to hiqh liquefaction (Fig. 48. General Plan) and potential ground subsidence (Fiq. 51, General Plan). This will not require a change to the existinq buildings. 3.2.2 Air Resources 2.a. ,b. e The site is developed for commercial office US03S anJ changing the designation to CO-I will not have an effect on the air quality in the area or create objectionable odors. 2.c. The amendment site is not located in the High Wind Area (Fiq. 59. General Plan). - L. . (_ INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 NOVEMBER 30, 1990 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.a. ,c. ,d. The amendment site is developed for commercial office uses and already contains impermeable surfaces in the form of parking areas, sidewalks. driveways and building pads. Redesignation of the site to the CO-1 designation will not affect absorption rates, change the course or flow of flood waters, al ter surface or ground water quality or quantity. 3.e. The amendment site is not located in the 100 year flood plain (Environmental Concerns Map, Planning Division), _3.2.4 Biological Resources 4.a. ,b. ,c. Vegetation on the amendment site consists of commercial landscaping materials which includes several mature trees. Since the site is already developed, the possibility of redevelopment occurring is unlikely as is the removal of the site's mature trees. The site does not contain any unique or endangered plant species and it is not located in the Biological Resources Management District (Fig. 41, General Plan). 3.2.5 Noise 5.a. ,b. Redesignation of the site from the multi-familY residential designations to the CO-1 designation will not increase the existing noise levels or expose people to excessive noise levels. 3.2.6 Land Use _ 6.a. Site A is designated RMH, Residential Medium HiQh and Site B is designated RM. Residential Medium. Under these multi-familY designations the existinQ commercial office - '. '. (eINITIAL STUDY FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1990 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 uses are leqal nonconformin9 uses. If adoPted fc.r the entire site. the CO-I desi9nation will render the office uses permitted and conformin9 uses. 6.b. The amendment site is not located in an Airport Distric~ (Environmental Concerns Map. Plannin9 Division). 6.c. .d. The amendment site is not located in the ~oo~_Q~JJ Communities protective "G.r_~enpelt" Plan and is not located in an area of hi9h fire hazards (Fiq.61, General Plan) . 3.2.7 Man-Made Hazards 7.a. ,b. e At least two of the leasehold spaces on the site are used as medical offices. Medical practices qenerallY do use. store and dispose of hazardous items in the form of pharmaceuticals, chemicals. and radiation materials. Such hazardous substances inadvertently could be released durinq usaqe. storaqe or disposal activities. These types of issues are addressed at the project specific staqe. In this case. the uses are existinq on the site and redesiqnation of the site will not intensify or chanqe these uses. 7.c. As per the previous discussion. redesiqnation of the site to CO-I will not exPose people to potential health or safety hazards. 3.2.8 Housinq 8.a. The amendment proposal will not remove existin9 housin9 or create a demand for additional housinq. e ... .. (e INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 NOVEMBER 30. 1990 3.2.9 Transportation/Circulation 9.a - h. The project is located on North Arrowhead Avenue which is classified as a secondary arterial in the General Plan. West 8th Street is classified as a local street. Changing the land use designation will ,not affect the traffic, circulation or parking requiremen~s in the area since the project site is developed for uses permitted in the proposed designation. Given the nature of uses permitted in the CO-l designation, it is unlikely that redevelopment of the site for some other office use would create traffic impacts in the area. 3.2.10 Public Services 10.a. through f. e Since the site is developed for commercial office uses. redesignation will not create impacts on publiC services additional to the those already existing. Similarly, redevelopment of the site for some other office use would not create additional impacts. 3.2.11 Utilities 11 . a . throuqh c. Impacts on the current levels of service for utilities resulting from redesignation of the site to CO-l are not anticipated. In addition. the proposal will not require the construction of new facilities or result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions. 3.2.12 Aesthetics 12.a. .b. \e The amendment site is developed for commercial office uses and as such. the proposal will not create visual impacts or result in the obstruction of scenic views. '. .. (~INITIAL STUDY FOR NOVEMBER 3D, 1990 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 3.2.13 Cultural Resources 13 .a. ,b. The amendment site is located in the Urban nrchaeol~gic~l District (FiQ. 8, General Plan), The site, however. is developed and redevelopment is unlikely, If redevelopment does occur, a records search will Le required throuQh the San Bernardin;;> County Musoaum t::> determine if the site contains prehistoric or historic artifacts. 3.2.14 Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 14.a. throuqh d. ~ The site is desiQnated for multi-family residential use on the City's General Plan and is developed for commercial office uses. RedesiQnation of the site as ~n- 1. commercial office would allow the existinQ commercial office uses to continue as conforminq and permitted uses. As such. there are no siqnificant impacts. ~ D. DETERMINAnON ,e On the basis of this initial study, 0The proposed project COULD NOT haw a signiflCllnteffecl on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. O The proposed project could have a significant effllCl on the environment. although there will not be a significant effad in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a signllC&r1l effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA .do,&.) ~~rr,lne,.€r. ~,vu,P,4" ,.q;IW~~ Name and Tille ' n.L r. i~ !Jnature U Date: Id? - /3 - 50 (e : .... all _ ....-:t --- PL.ANoI.DI PMiE_OF_ ,...., CITY", SAN BERN~ .OINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 i / TIT LELAND USE DESIGNATICNS AND SITE ui:ATION MAP . ;~" .;:. ., ; ~! . ".. ., . , '~ EXHIBIT 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 . . Resolution No. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 TO THE GENERAL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. ADOPTING THE AND ADOPTING PLAN OF THE 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. 90-16 to the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning Commission on February 5, 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 November 15, 1990 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 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 December 20, 1990 through January 9, 1991 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 and local regulations. I e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 21 ~ ~ 24 ~ 26 27 ~ e e RESOLUTION..~DOPTING THE NEGATIV'" DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-16 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. 90-16 and the Planning Division Staff Report on March 11, 1991. (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 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 RMH, Residential Medium High to CO-1, Commercial General on 0.32 acres located on the southeast corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (788 North Arrowhead Avenue) and from RM, Residential Medium to CO-1, Commercial Office on 0.86 acres located at the northwest corner of 8th Street and Arrowhead Avenue (808 and 814 North Arrowhead Avenue) for the proposed amendment will change the land use map 2 e e e - RESOLUTION...~PTING THE NEGATIVE~ DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-16 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. OF NO. 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 only and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city. C. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissible under the CO-1, Commercial General designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on such services. D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 1.18 acres to CO-1, Commercial General. No housing stock will be affected. E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. Anticipated future land use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has been determined that project specific mitigation sufficient to eliminate any will be measures environmental impacts. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 0.32 High and acres from RMH, Residential Medium approximately 0.86 acres from RM, Residential Medium to CO-l, Commercial General. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 and its location is 3 . e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 21 ~ ~ 24 ~ 26 27 ~ e e - ~ RESOLUTION..~OPTING THE NEGATIVJlt DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-16 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. OF NO. outlined on the maps entitled Attachments A-1 and A-2, and is more specifically described in the legal descriptions entitled Attachment B-1 through B-3, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-16 shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION 5. Mao 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 IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII 4 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . RESOLUTION. ._OOPTING THE NEGATIV' DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-16 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. OF NO. 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 wit: council Members: AYES 9 ESTRADA REILLY FLORES MAUDSLEY MINOR POPE-LUDLAM MILLER , 1991, by the following vote, to NAYS ABSTAIN city Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1991. Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, Cl~ By: 4,,) ./ - W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 5 ~ION HAP General Plan Anendrrent No. 90-16 . e San Bernardino City - Tax Rate Area 7006 _ : 140-28 T L . ~TH , .., STREET-,,---+ U_ II : t/' 444"1..: StI' It/' StJ' '2. I I 'RmH +0 I 141 , ::l I ~ c.o -I \,@ @ @ ;>, I ct f 5 4 6 ~+ I cQ t:-t -., e V I' I ( I I ,t .,. 4.7 @ ~ J< I I I , t I'Z. I. 9 I I _ I l! -1.8 @ ~ I I liDO" " ,17. I I~O" ~ I @. u~@,. @ ~ ~- --l ~ .. 1".1- I @) .. ;; -l. @ 'r .., '.?-4" ~ @ I'''. 4 , ... 3 .l.@ @ ~ ~ 1 I .. , Q ~t/. ct I @~ 141 :z: @ ~\l@ 1 ~ ... @ @ @ 0 ~ 1- ,~ Q: Q: I @li! ct I I e 71' 4S' '-S' So. I' 411.$ I ;., : STREET -oj -"-r-- S"t/' "?TW Attac:hnent A-l e e e - I SO' 0 ~ 'Z,$' - 0 ~ .1. ~ D zS" :!) !) ~ - ~ ~....... ' ~S' i , , . 'I; @ ; - "S' - ..+ 1_ $'" I ~ 4!: loJ ~ I I 1 I ~ I 62 I I I I CQ -.I loJ it ).. ~ ::E I I ~ I ...L .. -LOCATION M1IP · General Plan l\nendrrent No. 90-16 Son Bernardino City Tax Rete- Area 7001 "I , crT~ STREET -..- .. +- - - , : _4I-,J ~. -. /N" _.S . I CV ~ ~. 0 .' CD 0 6 @ ~. loJ ! ~ @ . ~ /2+ @ +--~--- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ r-- ~'6) ~ ~ @ Q ~ ~ ~ o a:: a:: ~ 7'.7"7 I ~ ' STREET - s - ..+-- ~ . . " TH t r 140-2/ @ 'R m +0 c.o - I AttachIrent A-2 . . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 TITLE Leqal Descriotions PARCEL DESCRIPTION 140-282-76 (RMH to CO-I) County of San Bernardino, State of California Lots 1 and 2, Bright's Subdivision, in the City of San Bernardino, as per plat recorded in Book 4 of Maps, page 4, records of said County. 140-213-24 140-213-15 (RM to CO-1) Parcel No.1: That portion of Lot I, Block 62, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page I, records of said County, described as foll ows: . Beginning at a point 25 feet East to the Southwest corner thereof; thence East 70.67 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 147.2 feet to the North line of said lot; thence East 53.33 feet, more or less, to the Northwest corner of property conveyed to Johnathan Richardson and ~ary C. Richardson, by deed recorded February 7, 1888 in Book 68 Page 573, of Deeds; thence South 147.2 feet to the South line of Lot 1; thence West 53.33 feet to the true point of beginning. Parcel No. 1A: A right of way for driveway purposes over the rear 10 feet of the following described property: That portion of Lot I, Block 62, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page. I, records of said County, descri- bed as follows: Beginning at a point 25 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence East 70.67 feet; thence North 147.2 feet; thence West 70.67 feet; thence South to the point of beginning. A T T A C H MEN T B-1 - - . . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-I6 TITLE Legal Descriptions PARCEL DESCR! PTI ON Parcel No. 2A: That portion of Lot 1, Block 62, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page !, records of said County, described as follows: Commencing 150 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 8, of Block 62; thence West 150 feet, more or less, to the West line of the East 1/2 of Lot 1; thence South 47.2 feet; thence at right angles East 150 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Lot 1; thence North 47.2 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel No. 2B: That portion of Block 62 of the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page 1, records of said County, descriBed as follows: Commencing 100 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 8 in said Block 62; thence West 150 feet more or less, to the West line of the East 1/2 of said Lot 8; thence South 50 feet; thence at right angles East 150 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Block 62; thence North 50 feet to the point of beginning. 140-213-23 (RM to CO-I) County of San Bernardino, State of California Parcel No. lA: A portion of Lot 1, Block 62, of the City of San .B~rnardino, in the City of San Bernardino, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page 1, records of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the East line of said Lot 1, I97.2 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 8 of said Block 62; thence South 50 feet; thence West 149.5 feet, more or less, to the West line of the East 1/2 of said Lot 1; thence north 50 feet; thence East 149.5 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. A T T A C H MEN T B-2 - - . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-16 TITLE leaal ne~crint;ons PARCEL DESCRIPTION Parcel No. IB: Portion of Lot 1, Block 62, of the City of San Bernardino, in the City of San Bernardino, as per plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, page 1, records of said County, described as follows: Commencing at a point 247.2 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 8, in said Block 62; thence West 150 feet, more or less, to the West line of the East 1/2 of said Lot 1; thence South 50 feet, more or less to the South line of said Lot 1; thence at right angles East, following the South line of said Lot 1, 150 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 50 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. A T T A C H MEN T B-3