The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About25-Development Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 97-08; to amend the land use designation from CG-l, Commercial General to CH, Commercial Heavy, for 7.2 acres at the northeast comer of the intersection of Waterman A venue and 9th Street Dept: Development Services ORIGINAL Date: October 15, 1998 MCC Date: November 2, 1998 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: N/A OCT 1 a lS98 Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing and adopt the resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 97-08, based on the Findings of Fact. ~.~ Contact person: Michael E. Havs Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Reoort. Resolution Ward(s): 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) N/A (Acc!. Description) Finance: Council Notes: II fml Agenda Item No. ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-08 Mayor and Common Council meeting of November 2, 1998 OWNER: Harold Willis P.O. Box 5607 San Bernardino, CA 92412 (909)889-0828 APPLICANT: Toomey & Associates 34590 County Line Road, #5 Yucaipa, CA 92399 (909)795-1899 REQUEST/LOCATION: A request to change the land use designation of 7.2 acres of a 11.8 acre parcel from CG-1, Commercial General to CH, Commercial Heavy. The remaining 4.6 acres will remain as CG-1. The property is located at the northeast comer of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street (the old K-Mart building) and is identified as 999 North Waterman Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 0147-211-16). KEY ISSUES: None ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study on April 30, 1998 and determined that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment and recommended a Negative Declaration. The public review period was from May 7, 1998 through May 26, 1998 and no comments were received. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 (Durr, Enciso, Hendrix, Schuiling, Suarez & Thrasher) to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the July 7, 1998 staff report (Exhibit 2). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 97-08, based upon the Findings of Fact. Prepared by: Margaret Park AICP, Senior Planner For: Michael Hays, Director of Development Services Exhibits: 1 - Location Map 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments: A. Location Map B. Site Plan C. Applicant's letter of request D. Initial Study 3 - Resolution . . -- ....--- ~--- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO EXlDBn "1" GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6-2-89 Date 1-.:,(/- </. '7 Panel No. ~ " Ii r< . , ,~ .^\-- ~ nr . ., rT...f ..f: ~ . EAHlBIT "2" SUMMARY =============================================== CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION CASE: AGENDA ITEM: HEARING DATE: WARD: General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 3 July 7, 1998 2 APPLICANT: Paul Toomey Toomey & Associates 34590 County Line Road, #5 Yucaipa, CA 92399 OWNER: Harold Willis P.O. Box 55607 San Bernardino, CA 92412 REQUEST I LOCATION =============================================== A request to change the land use designation of7.2 acres of a 11.8 acre parcel from CG-l, Commercial General to CH, Commercial Heavy. The remaining 4.6 acres will remain as CG-l. The property is located at the northeast comer of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street and is identified as 999 North Waterman Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 0147-211-16). CONSTRAlNTS/OVERLA YS ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Subsidence/Liquefaction ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- o Not Applicable o Exempt from CEQA . No Significant Effects, Negative Declaration proposed o PorentialEffects STAFF RECOMl\iffiNDATION: ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- o . o APPROVAL ::J DENIAL CONTINUANCE TO: CONDITIONS =============================================== General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 Hearing Date: 7-7-98 Page 2 REOUEST AND LOCA nON A request to change the land use designation of 7.2 acres of a 11.8 acre parcel from CG-1, Commercial General to CH, Commercial Heavy. The remaining 4.6 acres will remain as CG-l. The property is located at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street and is identified as 999 North Waterman Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 0147-211-16). SETTING/SITE CHARACTERlSTICS The 11.8 acre site is flat with a single 104,000 s.f. building existing since the 1960's. The site was originally home to a Kmart which has been closed for several years. It has frontage on both 9th Street and Waterman Avenue. To the east is a public school that is designated PF, Public Facilities; to the west across Waterman Avenue is retail commercial and is CG-1, Commercial General; to the north is a commercial mini- mall that shares parking with this property and is also CG-1, Commercial General and to the south across 9th Street is CG-1 as well. Directly on the northeast of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street are two fast food restaurants, Burger King and a closed El Polio Loco. Also across 9th Street to the southeast are several light industrial businesses. Across Olive Street to the north is Waterman Gardens, a large multi-family development. Overall, the local area is a mix of land uses. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. A review of the General Plan reveals that is request appears to be in conflict with Policy 1. 7.13 is of concern because it specifically identifies 9th Street and Waterman Avenue: "Continue community-serving commercial districts along... 9th Street and Waterman Avenue. " A change to Commercial Heavy will open the door to uses that are not focused on the surrounding neighborhoods. There are higher density neighborhoods within walking distance of this site, making it a possible focal point for unifying the community. With the thriving gas station/convenience store just to the north, the new 5 Star Market recently opened on the next parcel and the request to establish an indoor retail concession mall submitted for approval, Staff believes that this area is seeing an upturn in interest. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. u 11 ~... ~ ~ [I General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 Hearing Date: 7-7-98 Page 3 An Initial Study was prepared and a Negative Declaration is proposed for this plan amendment. Because this site has been vacant longer than 1 year, either a Development Permit Type 1 (administrative), Type 2 or 3, or Conditional Use Permit would be required for any use proposed at this site. Specific issues that may be related to each use would be evaluated under these permits. 3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. This change to the General Plan Land Use Map would place the weight of land uses toward industrial users and other heavy users, instead of toward the community encircling this intersection. It is clear to Staff that there are numerous properties around the City designated for Commercial Heavy uses and similar Light Industrial uses. Staff considered a change to IL, Industrial Light as an alternative to Commercial Heavy because it does not allow outside uses. but was concerned that commercial uses would be even more limited under the IL designation. A review of the list of potential uses allowed under the CH designation (Attachment X) makes it clear that many uses have the potential to cause conflicts with both the adjacent elementary school and surrounding neighborhoods. 4. The subject parcel is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development. The subject site is suitable for a variety of commercial uses due to its access to both 9th Street and Waterman Avenue and the availability of existing infrastructure. Several issues are of concern: a. The 104,000 s.f building is a fairly old structure that would likely need renovations regardless of what type of business was established. A change of land use designation would not waive or eliminate the need for upgrades to the building and to the parking and landscaping. b. Because the site is adjacent to a public school, additional conditions of approval may be placed on proposed businesses to minimize or eliminate use conflicts. Compatibility of uses may become a problem. Further, many uses only subject to a Development Permit would be allowed without any public noticing requirement. Staff believes that the less intensive commercial uses permitted under Commercial General fulfill the intent of General Plan Policy 1.7.13 better than Commercial Heavy. c. Outdoor activities and storage are permitted which would likely occur at the front of the parcel most visible to both streets. If screening of these areas was possible, such solid screening (a 6' wall) would block visibility and destroy any connectivity there may be between the school and mobilehome park to the east and the commercial uses at the intersection and the residential General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 Hearing Date: 7-7-98 Page ~ area to the north. east and west. Further. such screening would substantially reduce the visibility of both the existing strip mall and the new 5 Star Market. CONCLUSION The proposal does not meet one or all necessary Findings of Fact for approval of the general plan amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 97-08, based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report. Respectfully Submitted, . ItJ!-- ~1kt Michael E. Hays Director of Planning and Building Services f1,~p~ Margaret ~rk, AICP Senior Planner Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Location Map Site Plan Applicant's letter of request Initial Study CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ATI'ACHMENT "A" GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6-2-8~ Date 1-;'</- 9." Panel No. II Ie t ,e~ S r< " " z II ! , I I ~. ;ofMt . sf ~ I~ I. . i~ i ~ · i Jlp ~ U ~!. 2 ~. 511 13' l'~ Iddi ni~ U~ i I i~b I Db I~ 51 - ~~I~ Ii Hli ~ ~~ < ~~t h i I. 0( < Ii ~iHc il i~ ~p~1 !! 3 HII~ ~~ ~I i!I; il ti" t Sl, J. t .. iI ~ ... ...., I i- I t ~;; . 'd~f. ! :. 1! i J" : iP ; HI' P I' I . i ATTACHMENT "B" . ., , III' I , l I ~ ~ . ~ i ~ .; 2' . -.l .f ~ ".I ~ . 1 .~ . ". f o. 0 . ., t .. -.l - .~ - _;S. l:lI....;. '''''I?lt~.:? "'XI""" .1:..Ill'~ " ~! .. <~~a .~ ; c!;! II ~ liil i' i"\ i' \, ' '\\ z ~ 1: 0: .. tj- 1: i , ~ ~I l!1 I 'd n --.. "..~ .: ~ - , - II/Iilllll/' '., -" j','/ ;-/'-'1/'.,/,,/' /' //-/ . .: I , ! I I / I .;:: !~f~ -(!) "'i""~ia ;;;0' aN"" """7"; I ' I @~'. I- ' : I . ; ~"''''''a.G'''''''' i'lt'I.LN:aaIt;;;~ J,. 11...."'='.1.1. "'tI"Ioot "". .. .oomey " asso.ta.es ATTACHMENT "C" ~lr0 r March 20. 1998 fD)[g@[gOW~~ ln1 MAR Z 6 1998 ~ City of San Bernardino Planning & Building Services 300 N. '0' Street San Bernardino. CA CITY OP IAN IIRNAllIIINO OIPAllTMINT 0' PLANNING . IUILOINCI 1.lWleR Attention: Margaret Park, AICP, Associate Planner Regarding: General Plan Amendment at Ninth St. and Waterman Ave., Harold Willis proponent. Application No.: GPA 97-08. Dear Margaret: As part of our request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on the subject parcel, we are providing this letter as support documentation. As you are aware. the building occupying the site was constructed for Kmart, and was occupied by Kmart until 1993. Since that date. Mr. Willis has been searching for a replacement user for the 104,200 square foot building. With the site designated CG-l, those contacted have been limited to retail uses. However, the number of users capable of supporting 104,200 square feet of floor area are extremely limited. Food for Less considered taking about half of the building but declined. Other supermarkets showed little interest. WalMan did not consider the location appropriate for their needs. In general, after years of trying to land a tenant for this site. it has become clear that while the size of the building may be suitable for the large retail user. the location is not. The demand for a large scale retailer in this portion of the city is insufficient to warrant occupancy of the site. As an alternative to the large retail user, dividing the interior into several smaller units, much like a mall. was considered. This would be the only effective method of creating retail units of reasonable size that could attract tenants which are set up for smaller space needs. However. after researching the demand for such space (interior retail units), it was clear that location was again a critical factor which would limit the leasing of sufficient units to achieve economic viability for the center. In fact, the owners of the large swap meet in the old Sears building in Pomona were contacted to consider this building in the same way. They visited the site and chose not to convert the building to a large indoor concession mall. I :r~~~ition. city officials have expressed concern ""ith the economic health of retail centers Lot th< "~Yo '" port of. ""'~ fi" th< ""''''_w proj'" " """"" Om" "'" 34590 county line rood. suite 5 · yucaipa. ca 92399 . (909) 795-1899 Willis Genera1 Plan .....--.."t University Parkway. comments from staff and/or city council showed concern for the health of the project by asking what the exact nature of the proposed commercial uses would be and commenting that ''we don't need another dead commercial center in the city." Given this level of concern expressed for the economic success of a multi-tenant center, it would appear potentially inconsistent with city goals to force a commercial site to develop in such a way that would most likely yield unsuccessful results. Amending the land use designation to CH allows a much greater fleXIbility in locating a user with a need for over 100,000 square feet in building size. The general plan identifies the permitted uses in the Commercial Heavy district to include "new and used automobile and truck sales and repair facilities, lumberyards, and related building materials and hardl1,'(1re sales. plam nurseries. light industrial manufacturing and storage facilities and similar uses \,hich require extensive outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service, and/or storoge." These uses are much more likely to need a building of this size than the uses found in the standard commercial sector. 'Ibis site is configured in such a way that permits a light manufacturing use to occupy the building and site without extensive changes or modifications. The site provides the ability to offer loading at the rear of the building and parking and/or storage (with aPPrOpriate screening) at either in the N"mth Street or Waterman Avenue parking lot area. The building is setback a significant distance which reduces impacts to the street areas. The mechanical and electrical systems in the building are currently adequate for any number of users. For those users that house manufacturing activities with the sales or administrative activities. where a large floor area, outdoor storage, and a large parking area is a requirement, this facility is ideal. Relative to the land use compatibility with the surrounding uses and districts. the proposed amendment affects a change to only two of the adjoining land use districts. By retaining the CG-l designation on the west and north portions of the Willis property. the district change to CH affects the east and south property lines. The use on the east is a elementary school and the uses on the south are primarily commercial and industrial. The land use district directly opposite the subject site is currently. IL. Light Industrial. The parcel to the east has been designated PF, Public Facility. and is occupied by an elementary school. The west portion of the site, along Waterman Avenue, is to remain CG-l. The north parcel will remain CG-I as well. Therefore, along the west and north boundaries of the site the appearance of typical commercial development will not change. The front of the CH designated area will actually be Ninth Street. With the distance from the street to the CH designation totally ::00 feet. there is sufficient area to develop additional commercial sites on property fronting on Waterman Avenue. Given the depth of the parcel, the split- zone condition resulting from the proposed amendment would be similar to many other properties. There are about a half a dozen sites throughout the city where the CH designation shares a boundary ....ith the CG designation. On the north side of the property. the CH designation ends approximately 300 feet south of Olive Street. Across the street is the IUJ designated property. With the CG-l 2 Willis 0enen1 Plan A-""l designation remaining intact at this location, no change or impact should occur to the residential properties. In addition, it should be noted that the city recently approved the amendment changing the CG-2 designation to CH along Baseline Ave. from just east of Waterman to Del Rosa Avenue. Which seems to indicate the incompatibility between residential districts and the CH district is relatively minor or insignificant. While the approval of the proposed amendment would create the only area designated CH among the adjacent properties. so called "spot-zoning," the land use designation across Ninth Street is IL. Of course there are many examples of spot-zoning occurrences throughout the city. some very small parcels and some large. It is generally accepted that where a district exceeds a minimllm size it would no longer be considered spot-zoning. With the proposed district size totaling 8.9 acres. this would not necessarily be considered a spot-zone condition. There are no minimum district sizes established in the General PIan or Development Code: however, the county establishes five acres as the minimum size for all commercials districts. The proposed CH site can be argued to be an extension of the existing light industriaVmanufacturing area, so designated as IL. With the subject property fronting on Ninth Street, the manufacturing use is quite consistent with most of the uses along Ninth Street. In fact, between Waterman and Tippecanoe, the IL designation makes up two-thirds of the street frontage. One use on Ninth Street that could be considered incompatible with some of the permitted uses in the CH district would be the elementary school adjoining the east property line. Although the Development Code identifies a large variety of commercial and light industrial uses permitted in the CH district, the only component of these uses allowed outside is storage or lot sales. Any form of the use's operation must occur within an enclosed structure. Therefore, any operational impacts should be found to be insignificant, since it occurs indoors. Given the limited amount of space between the building and the east boundary/school property, essentially only deliveries and distribution will likely occur at this location. Outdoor storage would be found in the larger open areas on the site. Of course the necessary solid screening walls would be required to surround any outdoor storage areas. In conclusion, we must recognize that, like the city itself, the General Plan is a living, ever- changing document. While it provides an overall plan that shapes the character of a city, it also becomes responsive to the direction a city appears to heading, which is one of the reasons the state requires the plan to be updated on a regular basis. As the larger retail commercial uses locate in the southern section of the city, near the freeway interchange, the function of the center of the city. relative to commercial uses, is changing. Larger retailers find more economic success located in the vicinity of other similar uses. This leaves the smaller retailers left to niche markets and residential SUpport uses. As pointed out in this discussion, the subject site in not conducive to these businesses. As a result of changes in market conditions and demographics. this area of the city is evolving to more of a light manufacturing center. The recent general plan amendment on Baseline Avenue from CG-2 to CH is a prime example of the predominance of the heavy commercial nature of the uses in the area. Unless the city is bound and determined to make a stand to keep 3 Wtllis GeoeraI PIIII ".....dm.ott large commercial uses at this location. the proposed amendment is just another step in acknowledging the ever-changing conditions of the city. Thank you for your consideration in this maner. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Re~funy submitted. TO Y & ASSOCIATES Paul Toomey Planner 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND Bun.DING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT "D" The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. 1. Project Title: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97008 2. Lead Agency Name: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Address: 300 NORTH 'D' STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 3. Contact Person: Phone Number: MARGARET PARK, SENIOR PLANNER (909)384-5057 4. Project Location (Address/Nearest cross-streets): The northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street 5. Project Sponsor: Harold Willis Address: P.O. Box 5607, San Bernardino, CA 92412 6. General Plan Designation: CG-l, Commercial General 7. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project. and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary): A request to change the land use designation of 7.2 acres of a 11.8 acre site from CG-l, Commercial General to CH, Commercial Heavy. Staff is recommending that the site be changed to IL, Industrial Light. This Initial Study will evaluate both alternative land use designations. The Assessors Parcel affected by this proposal is: 0147-211-16. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the east is a public school that is designated PF, Public Facilties; to the west across Waterman Avenue is retail commercial and is CG-l, Commercial General; to the north is a commercial mini-mall that shares parking with this property and is also CG-l, Commercial General and to the south across 9th Street is CG-l as well. Directly on the northeasat of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street are two fast food restaurants, Burger King and a closed El Polio Loco. Also across 9th Street to the southeast are several light industrial businesses. Across Olive Street to the north is Waterman Gardens, a large multi-family development. Overall. the local area is a mix of land uses. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None IS-l ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AI'll> Bun.DING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and PlllllIling o Population and Housing o Geological o Waler o Air Qualily o o o D D o TransponatioDlCirculalion Biological Resoun:es Energy and Mineral Resoun:es Hazards w Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources o o ""' ..... Noise o Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination. On the basis of this Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino, Environmental Review Committee finds: That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, . and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. That although me proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0 mere will not be a significant effect in mis case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 0 there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to mat earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures mat are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name 15-2 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially , Significant - I Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I Impact lncotpOrated Impact Impact' I 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Will the I proposal result in: I I a) A conflict with the land use as 0 0 . 0 ! designated based on the review of the General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map? b) Development within an Airport District 0 0 0 . as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? c) Development within Foothill Fire 0 0 0 . Zones A & B. or C as identified on the Land Use Districts Zoning Map? d) Other? 0 0 0 . II. POPULATION A.'{D HOUSING. Will the proposal: a) Remove existing housing (including 0 0 0 . affordable housing) as verified by a site survey/evaluation? b) Create a significant demand for 0 0 0 . additional housing based on the proposed use and evaluation of project size? c) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 0 0 . either directly or indirectly (e.g.. through projects in an undeveloped area or an extension of major infrastructure)? IS-3 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Polelltially Significant POlelltially UnlCSll Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact m. EARTH RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on 0 0 0 . slopes of 15 % or more based on information contained in the Preliminary Project Description Form No. D? b) Development andlor grading on a slope 0 0 0 . greater than 15 % natural grade based on review of General Plan HMOD map? c) Erosion, dust or unstable soil 0 0 0 . conditions from excavation, grading or fill? d) Development within the Alquist-Priolo 0 0 0 . Special Studies Zone as defmed in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? e) Modification of any unique geologic or 0 0 0 . physical feature based on field review? f) Development within areas defmed as 0 0 0 . having high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? g) Modification of a channel, creek or 0 0 0 . river based on a field review or review of USGS Topographic Map (Name) San Bernardino South? 15-4 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant I Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No , Impact Incorporated Impact Impact , Development within an area subject to 0 0 . 0 , h) landslides, mudslides, subsidence or I other similar hazards as identified in I Section 12.O-Geologic & Seismic, I I Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan'? i) Development within an area subject to 0 0 . 0 liquefaction as shown in Section 12.0- Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the City's General Plan? j) Other? 0 0 0 . IV. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 . patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces that cannot be mitigated by Public Works Standard Requirements to contain and convey runoff to approved storm drain based, on review of the proposed site plan? b) Significant alteration in the course or 0 0 0 . flow of flood waters based on consultation with Public Works staff'? c) Discharge into surface waters or any 0 0 0 . alteration of surface water quality based on requirements of Public Works to have runoff directed to approved storm drains'? d) Changes in the quantity or quality of 0 0 0 . ground water'? IS-5 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially , i Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IncolpOrated Impact Impact e) Exposure of people or property to 0 0 0 . flood hazards . as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 06071C868~, and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? t) Other? 0 0 0 . V. AIR QUALITY. Will the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 . contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation based on the thresholds in the SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"? b) Expose sensitive receptoI:S to 0 0 0 . pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 . temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors based on 0 0 0 . information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form? VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA nON. Could the proposal result in: a) A significant increase in traffic 0 0 . 0 volumes on the roadways or intersections or an increase that is significantly greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b) Alteration of present patterns of 0 0 0 . circulation? IS-6 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND Bun.DING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) A disjointed pattern of roadway 0 0 0 . improvements? d) Impact to rail or air traffic? 0 0 0 . e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or 0 0 0 . off-site based on the requirements in Chapter 19.24 of the Development Code? t) Increased safety hazards to vehicles, 0 0 0 . bicyclists or pedestrians? g) Conflict with adopted policies 0 0 0 . supporting alternative transportation? h) Inadequate emergency access or access 0 0 0 . to nearby uses? i) Other? 0 0 0 . VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Could the proposal result in: a) Development within the Biological 0 0 0 . Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.D-Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? b) Impacts to endangered, threatened or 0 0 0 . rare species or their habitat (including, but not limited to, plants, mammals, fish. insects and birds)? c) Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or 0 0 0 . . migration corridors? d) Impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., 0 0 0 '. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? IS-7 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially ! Significant I Potentially Unlw Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No I Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Removal of viable, mature trees based 0 0 0 . on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form and verified by site survey/evaluation (6' or greater tnmk diameter at 4' above the ground)? t) Other? 0 0 0 . vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy 0 0 0 . conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a 0 0 0 . wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 . known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Will tbe proposal: a) Use, store, transpon or dispose of 0 0 O. . hazardous or toxic materials based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form, No. G(1) and G(2) (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Involve tbe release of hazardous 0 0 0 . substances? c) Expose people to the potential 0 0 0 . health! safety hazards? d) Other? 0 0 0 . IS-8 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLAl'lNING ANf) BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IncotpOrated Impact Impact X. NOISE. Could the proposal result in: a) Development of housing, health care 0 0 0 . facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other noise sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.0- Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? b) Development of new or expansion of 0 0 . 0 existing industrial, commercial or other uses which generate noise levels above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses based on information in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. G(l) and evaluation of surrounding land uses No. C, and verified by site survey/evaluation? c) Other? 0 0 0 . XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 . b) Medical Aid? 0 0 0 . c) Police protection? 0 0 0 . d) Schools? 0 0 0 . e) Parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 0 . IS-9 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING M/D Bun.DING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant . I Potentially UDiess Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ! , f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 . I , g) Maintenance of public facilities, 0 0 0 . I including roads? i h) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 . ! XII. UTIUTIES: Will the proposal, based on the responses of the responsible Agencies, Departments, or Utility Company, impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? a) N arura! gas? 0 0 0 . b) Electricity? 0 0 0 . c) Communications systems? 0 0 0 . d) Water distribution? 0 0 0 . e) Water treatment or sewer? 0 0 0 . f) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 . g) Result in a disjointed pattern of utility 0 0 0 . extensions based on review of existing patterns and proposed extensions? h) Other? 0 0 0 . XIII. AESTHETICS. a) Could the proposal result in the 0 0 0 . obstruction of any significant or important scenic view based on evaluation of the view shed verified by site survey/evaluation? . 15-10 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING ANI> BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STIJDY Potentially , Significant ! Potentially UoJess Less Than Significant Mitigalion SignifiCant No lmpaa lncorporalCd lmpacI Impact b) Will the visual impact of the project 0 0 0 . create aesthetically offensive changes in the existing visual selling based on a site survey and evaluation of the proposed elevations? c) Create significant light or glare that 0 0 0 . could impact sensitive receptors? d) Other? 0 0 0 . XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Could the proposal result in: a) Development in a sensitive 0 0 0 . archaeological area as identified in Section 3oG-Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? b) The alteration or destruction of a 0 0 0 . prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 300-Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? c) Alteration or destruction of a historical 0 0 0 . site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? d) Other? 0 0 0 . XV. RECREATION 0 Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood 0 0 0 . or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational 0 0 0 . opportUnities? IS-11 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY POlentially Significanl POlentially Unless Less Than Significanl Mitigation Significanl No Impact Incorporaled Impact Impacl XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 . degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- I sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 . achieve shon -term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 . individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in cOMection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 . effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? IS-12 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING ANt> BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY REFERENCES. The following references cited in the Initial Study are on me in the Planning and Building Services DeparanentlPublic Works Deparanent. 1. City of San Bernardino General Plan. 2. City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map. 3. City of San Bernardino Development Code (Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code). 4. City of San Bernardino Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey. 5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 8. Public Works Standard Requirements - water. 9. Public Works Standard Requirements - grading. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. (a). The proposal is for a general plan amendment from CG-!, Commercial General to CH, Commercial Heavy, or to IL, Industrial Light as proposed by Staff. The change to CH would allow a greater number of potential land uses than were pennitted under CG-l. The Development Code describes the CH district as follows: "This district is intended to accommodate automobile and truck sales and repair facilities, lumberyards, and related hardware sales, plant nurseries, light industrial manufacturing and storage facilities, and similar uses requiring extensive outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service and/or storage, excluding neighborhood commercial. " A change to IL would allow a different type of potential land uses than were pennitted under CG- 1. The Development Code describes the IL district as follows: "This district is inteded to retain, enhance, and intensify existing and provide for the new development of lighter industrial uses along major vehicular, rail, and air transportation routes serving the City." Artached is Table 08.01 which lists all the permitted and conditionally pennitted uses in both the CH and IL land use districts. There is an existing 104,020 square foot building on the site that was constructed in 1968. Because the building has been vacant for a number of years, the property owner is requesting this general plan amendment in the hopes of rmding a tenant to reuse the building. However, no development or redevelopment is proposed with this project. Any business that would locate here must comply with all City requirements inCluding the Development Code, Building Code, Fire Code as well as requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). IS-13 ERC 3/26/98 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND Bun.DING SERVICES INITIAL STUDY m. (h). The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for subsidence as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figures 48 & 51. Figure 51 in the General Plan shows the extent of the historic area of subsidence which is within the thick, poorly consolidated alluvial and marsh deposits of the old artesian area north of Loma Linda. Potential subsidence within this area may be as great as 5 to 8 feet if ground water is depleted from the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basin. In 1972, the San Bernardino Municipal Water District began to maintain groundwater levels from recharge to percolation basins which filter back into the alluvial deposits. Since the recharge program began. probletns with ground subsidence have not been identified. Adherence to the Building Services Division Standard Requirement regarding the submittal of a soils study and the implementation of standard engineering practices for foundation design will reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance. (i). The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48. Compliance with the requirements of the City's liquefaction ordinance, MC-676, which stipulated the preparation of a liquefaction report by a registered geologist or a registered engineering geologist will reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance. VI. (a). The change of land use designation may create additional traffic along the two street adjacent to this site. Waterman Avenue is a major arterial and 9th Street is a Secondary Collector. The Traffic Division has confirmed that the level of service for the intersection is B in the AM and C in the PM and that a change to either CH or IL would not adversely impact the intersection. IS-14 ERC 3/26/98 INDUSTRIAL m~'CTS - 19.01 C. IE (INDUSTRIAL 1!A1KACTIVE> DISTRICf This district is intended to promote the mining and processing of the City's mineral resources in the Cajon Creek, Lytle Creek, and Santa Ana River areas, while ensuring their compatibility with adjacent land uses. Additionally, this land use district provides for the development of interim uses including, but not limited to lumber yards, outdoor storage, plant nurseries, r=aIion (non- structural), etc., which do not impair the long term ability to extract and Pl~ mineral resources. 19.08.020 PERMITTED, DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED AND CONDmONALLY PElUDTTED USES The following list represents those primary uses in the manufacturingfmdustrial zoning districts which are Permitted (P), subject to a Development Permit (0) or a Conditional Use Permit (C): TABLE 08.01 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS LIST OF PERMITTED USES Me 888 1/6/94 LAND USE ACTIVITY CH OIP n. m IE 1. AccesstJry structures/uses typically appurtenant to a 0 0 0 D D principally permitted land use activity; 2. Agricultural Production-crops; D 0 3. Agricultural Services; 0 0 D 4. Assembling, cleaning, manufacturing, processing, 0 0' 0 D repairing or testing of products including automotive related (except dismantling) and welding and excluding explosives, conducted entirely within an enclosed structure except for screened outdoor storage areas; 5. Assembling, cleaning, manufacturing, processing, repair 0 D of products, research, storage, testing or wholesale land uses (except explosives) with a portion of the operation (other than storage) occurring outside of the enclosed structure: A. Outside land uses in the CH and IH districts C C within 150 feet of a residential land use district; 6. Concrete batch plants, processing of minerals and C C aggregate and other related land uses, not including extraction activities; n-w 2/94 INDUSTRIAL DlSTRlcrs - 19.0ll LAND USE ACTIVITY CH OIP II. ~ IE 7. Crematory; D D D - 8. Dwelling unit for a full-time security guard and family; D D D 9. Educational Service, including day care; D D D C 10. EntertainmentlRcc:reational Uses: A. Adult Entertainment C C B. Auditoriums, Convention HalIs and Theaters C C C. MisceI1aneous Indoor; and D C D D D. ~iS('~I1~n<<lUS Outdoor C C C C 11. Financial; D D 12. Fuel Dealers; C C D 13. Funeral ParlorsIMortuaries; D D .D 14. Gasoline Service Stations; D D D IS. HeliportslHelipads; C C C C C 16. Impound Vehicle Storage Yards (with or without C C D towing) 17. Membership organizations, including religious facilities, D D D meeting halls, and fratemallodges; 18. MininglExtraction, including aggregate, coal, gas, metal C and oil; 19. Mobile Home Dealers (sales and service); D D D 20. Offices/Services (administrative and professional); D D D 21. Outdoor contractor's, lumber, and rental yards and D D D D storage areas for building supplieS; 22. Outdoor Horticultural Nurseries; D D D D 23. Parking Lots; D D D D D 24. Personal Services; D 0: D' 25. Pipelines (As defined by Section 19.20.03Q[12][E] or as C C C C C superseded by State or Federal law); 26. Public utility uses, distribution and transmission D D D D D substations and communication equipment structures; 27. PublishinglPrinting Plants; D D D D 28. Railroad Yards; D 29. Recycling Facilities; (In compliance with Section 19.06.030[2][M]) n-129 2/94 INDUSTRIAL DNl'RICI'S . 19.01 LAND USE ACTIVlTY CB OIP n. ~ IE 30. RC$CI1'Ch and Development, including laboratories; D D D D 3l. Retail Commen:ial; D D' D' 32. Salvage and Wrecking (dismantling) yards; C C 33. Salvage and Wrecking Facilities (completely within an C C C enclosed structure); 34. Swap Meets; C C C C 35. Towing Services; D D D 36. TransponationlDistribution; . D D D 37. Truck Stops; C C 38. Veterinary ServiceslAnimal Boarding; D D 39. Warehousing and Wholesaling, including self-service D D D mini-storage; and 40. Other A. Antennae, Satellite and Vertieal; D D D D D B. Cleaning/Janitorial; D D D C. Copy CenterslPostal Service Centers and D D D Blueprinting; D. Equestrian Trails; P P P P P E. FenceslWaIls; D D D D D F. PolicelFire Protection; D D D D D G. Single-Family Residential P P P P P (Existing - Me 823 3-5-92); and H. Temporary Uses (Subject to a [T] Temporary T T T T T Use Permit) 'Except auto related. 2Incidentalto a primary use, and contained within a primary structure (IS% malt.). Other similar uses which the Director finds to tit within the purpose/intent of the zones, in compliance with Section 19.02.070(3). 11.130 2/94 tU 3 ll" II ff iff Idll !I i ,ill Ii ei : Iii ~ JI ~ II' ; I,' ~~I~-"" ~ i ~ ~ ~.a..1' , Ul~ - . P I , t ... ... / 'I I I I J I ~ \ \\\\ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\,\\" '1 I ::31 1..:,\\\\\\" \ \\\ \ \\\\\<<\ \'" .' AI I / ""7"17,, T, :7":' ,,;',?,~, ;X/,'.'/>'.' ~/' , .. I VI, '/ ///I///I/IIII'//7771l//1 (j I 1~I!I'lil!~ ',1.__ .., Ql\"1-'- '.:;/ ,'! II!I' i II lillll! I - . . I . . I Ii . ... --'l. lA""" . , at: .Id' , .. . , \ .' - .1.11<1--1 - ..._~, . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ur"J~ ...."1HW'.ru...... .. , I I I . => a . )- ~ , a -< Z . . Ii- -< r .' - ':;.~ .,;.... ;:=;; t() ~~ I'- (1- , ~ ,~ ATTACHMENT "A" rJ.:r~~1 IN .......: l~t.o,a7 _" """'.' rJO"I~I5?I"vJ 14-.a::> rJ q 0' tX)'a;:J" w ~ 14-..a:::>' / ...- -'. ~ 1I'i ((\ r ~ t- ~ I.l\ "l .. L , \U ~ ~ -Z .- .... ~"2 - - ~lii ~ Q \'l L J i~r ~ ,,~\ f;~ ~i~ \\l !-z. ~i ~, , ".-- - "$- ~ltJ T:-\ $oTR,e5T N~"~d~lIe. ~!!!>l.~l . '.....- , ~O.~ "\;. -'.l .~ \f I I I -~: -...- .1 CARSON L. STORER PLS 3913 EXPIRATION DATE. JUNE 30, 2000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT "B" THAT PORTION POF LOTS 9 AND 10. BLOCK 42. RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO. IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF NINTH STREET AND WATERMAN AVENUE. THENCE SOUTH 90' 00' 00" EAST B51.30 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID NINTH STREET 44.00 FEET WIDE, HALF WIDTH; THENCE NORTH O' 13' 57" WEST 44.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID WATERMAN AVENUE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID NINTH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUI' NORTH O' 13' 57" WEST 661.00 FEET ALONG SAID PARAELLEL LINE; THENCE THENCE NORTH 90' 00' 00" WEST 314.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTERLINE OF NISTH STREET; THENCE NORTH O' 13' 57" WEST 74,00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 9~ 00' CO" WEST 146.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAIL CENTERLINE OF SAID N:NTH STREET; THENCE SOUTH ~ 13' 57" EAST 735.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTERLINE OF WATERMEN AVENUE TO A POINT ON THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID NINTH STREET; THENCE NORTH 90. 00 00" EAST 460.00 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNNING. t/ CARSON L. STORER PLS 3913 EXPIRATION DATE. JUNE 30, 1998 . , o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (g(Q)~W RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-08 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM CG-l, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, TO CH, COMMERCIAL HEAVY, FOR 7.2 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9TH STREET. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals (a) WHEREAS, 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) WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 to the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1998, after a noticed C 14 public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been considered 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 by the Mayor and Common Council. (c) WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared on April 30, 1998 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. (d) WHEREAS, the proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day public review period from May 7, 1998 through May 26, 1998 and all comments relative thereto have bee reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. e) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on July o 27 7, 1998 in order to receive public testimony and written and oral comments on General Pia 28 Amendment No. 97-08 (a proposal to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from '/(0. :<5""" 1/ /2-/0 f7 . Q c o 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 CG-l, Conunercial General to CH, Conunercial Heavy for 7.2 acres of an 11.8 acre parcel located at the northeast comer of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street, identified as 999 N. Waterman A venue and fully reviewed and considered the Planning Division staff report and the reconunendation of the Environmental Review Committee. t) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Conunon Council held a noticed public hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 and the Planning Conunission and Environmental Review Conunittee reconunendations and Planning Division Staff Report on November 2, 1998. (g) WHEREAS, the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 97-08 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. Nel!ative Declaration NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor and Conunon 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 Conunittee as to the effect of this proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. SECTION 3. Findinl!s BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that: A. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan in that it meets Objective 1.30 which provides for limited conunercial and industrial uses characterized by an extensive use of outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service and or storage. B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, 2 c 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 o () of this resolution. SECTION 5. MaD Notation This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 6. Notice of Determination The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 1111 1111 1111 4 o 1 2 3 4 5 RESOLUTION. . .ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 97-08 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM CG-!, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, TO CH, COMMERCIAL HEAVY, FOR 7.2 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE. INTERSECTION OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND 9TH STREET. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and 6 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 7 day of 8 Council Members . 1998, by the following vote, to wit: ABSTAIN ABSENT AYES NAYS 9 10 11 12 13 ESTRADA LIEN (VACANT) SCHNETZ Q 14 DEVLIN o 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANDERSON MILLER City Clerk , 1998. The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of JUDITH V ALLES, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN City ttorney ./1 /1 .J'e~ 5 ATIACIIMENT "A" ( ,J1~~1 IN .,._ 1.04-t.-.a:7 _" .........' ,JO"I~I?l':vJ 1+' a::;> , N &{0'~'c:O" vJ ~14-.a::;>' I ...- -'. o . , . )~ ()~ "' "2 ~ <( :-r !~ .. j ,- . I.r -r ,\.1\ 4,. '- ~I~ \\l I~ 11 I t ~ fi !(\ \' $: . " ~ '2 I!\ ~ ~ 1i\ \ ~ i(\ L r ~ '2 , '.....- , ~o.~ ~. -...: I ~....- ~ ~IJ TH .$TRe5T N ~",,,d?,~"e. ~e>l.~' I - I -:- . ~.: o CARSON L. STORER PLS 3913 EXPIRATION DATE. JUNE 30, 2000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATfACHMENT "B" () THAT PORTION POF LOTS 9 AND 10. BLOCK 42, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF NINTH STREET AND WATERMAN AVENUE, THENCE SOUTH 90. 00' 00" EAST 851.30 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID NINTH STREET, 44.00 FEET WIDE, HALF WIDTH; THENCE NORTH O. 13' 57" WEST 44.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID WATERMAN AVENUE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID NINTH STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUIN NORTH O. 13' 57" WEST 661.00 FEET ALONG SAID PARAELLEL LINE; THENCE THENCE NORTH 90. 00' 00" WEST 314.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTERLINE OF NINTH STREET; THENCE NORTH ~ 13' 57" WEST 74.00 FEET c:> ALONG A LIN~ PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTER LINE OF WATERMAN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 9~ 00' 00" WEST 146.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID NINTH STREET; THENCE SOUTH O. 13' 57" EAST 735.00 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID CENTERLINE OF WATERMEN AVENUE TO A POINT ON THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID NINTH STREET; THENCE NORTH 90. 00' 00" EAST 460.00 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNNING. tJ CARSON L. STORER PLS 3913 EXPIRATION DATE, JUNE 30, 1998 c:> 1/-2-9F ;rzs CITy O~ San l)ernardino RACHE~ C~ARK CITy CL.ERK November 3, 1998 Mr. Paul Toomey Toomey & Associates 34590 County Line Road, #5 Yucaipa, CA 92399 Dear Mr. Toomey: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on November 2, 1998, the following action was taken regarding General Plan Amendment No. 97-08, to amend the land use designation from CG-1, Commercial General, to CR, Commercial Heavy, for 7.2 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Waterman Avenue and 9th Street: The hearing was closed; and the Mayor and Common Council adopted the resolution which approves the negative declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 97- 08, based on the findings of fact as listed in the staff report dated October 15, 1998, from Michael E. Hays, Director of Development Services. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ., '!-7 (i' . _.:A\.rj,.,~{_ ~. j_t'_'-_R. Rachel G. Clark City Clerk cc: Michael Hays, Director of Development Services Harold Willis, Property Owner P. O. 80X 1311, SAN aIRNARDINO. CA '24.' 300 NORTH O. STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CA.LIFORNIA 92418.QOOI C'0')"..'002 "0')"..51112 'A.'CI.t)I'..S111 TDD/TTY.'...)1....55.. 'C, ,~ ", " .. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT .. RESOLunON AG&"'iDA ITEM TRACKING FORM Meeting Date(Date Adopled): II / ().2. /98[tem # p(,~ Resolution # 9J" - 3/1 ~ Vote: Ayes: ~ ~.~ ~ k. 7 Nays: ~ Abstain: &- Absent: r::r y~ Change to motion to atnend original docs: ,^ ~ , -"" , ,,' .'1 Attacbmems: ' Contract Term: r --k<-- " Resolution # On Attacb.menu: ~ Conttact Expiration Date: Date Sent to Mayor: II / ~g /98 Date of Mayor's Signarure: jl / 0'1 /98 Reso Log Updated: /" Date RetUrned from Mayor: Date of Clerk's Signature: V /1 / (JEI'98 II ,tJ~ 198 Seal Impressed: DateMemoSenttoDepartmentforSignarure: J'''''t _---198 Date Letter Sent to Ouuide Party for Signarure: 60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day: 90 day Reminder Letter Sent OD 45th day: _ day Reminder Letter Sent: SeeAttaebed: Date Received Back: See Attaebed: Date Received Back: See Attached: See Attached: See Attached: Note With/On Reso of Attachment stored separately: Direct City Clerk-PUBUSH, POST. RECORD W COUNTY (Mill) Bille. See Attached: Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached: t:pdated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below): Updated CITY Personnel Folders (64-13. 64-29. 64-33, 10584, 12634): Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557): Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655): ,./'" Yes_ No_ By -..21_ Date /1 ,P2>!t, Date II / (J~ /9E Date /1/ "f; 198 Date II ~ IS Date II / i7IP /S Yes_ No V-- By mam Yes_ No~' By ...... Yes_ No v By ...... Yes No .....--- By ....'" Copies Distributed To: City Attornev &< Others: j)c.w,.g~~ .'6e~'t:~ By: mam Date: /I / P "/98 Other: BEFORE mING REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE RF.1lF. ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE VIARL Y RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term, etc.) Ready to File: M:IIl_ Date: II / I V /9 fI' Last Uodated: 10/09/1998 RESIDENTIAL T R - -- - - - - -- i i 126' 1601 - -- IN 0 C� O O 4,-1 U� � r � b z - � c IN 0 C� O O 9 It OU QN r Z I yo T z IV, A] RM 1 -JULTJ-FAMILN M150. COMMERCIAL 5HOP5 l; '1 TiGl iT E\j5TINr7 LAND H" rn AX ■ --7L- 70 I I 1 4E! -4 (1k 41- rn !- R- E E.. T 240 - -fa . 1, --a --� -11, ja ja r 11 i M 0 z O tit 70 � ts� O Z ' � U � .�, z rn c ...., --� O rn �► c� � � r � � rq qN rl, Q1 M r 0 1,3-0 ul rn 44, Z I> -A Qo:L, r F 0 Z r-I t1l qt, �dQ)— r— F Q -1 u ��' �p z z Z —, , rn 0 r `3 z— Q, T > U20 - Q\ I J4 rn j> > J�, z x ➢ T tit rn tj j5 cn rn o t�� - M rT, 0 E� AO m r 0 0 E� i n w d di O ca. ' N _ v i In f: i 7 R1 X_ 2 fu t-- all i LL lJJ < 11f �1L QL i Al .OS` F- L lu tit Q � LL - N W w z tL �- w 0 d i LL lJJ < 11f �1L QL i Al .OS` F- L lu tit LU z LU L ly � N W w z tL �- w 0 d J O p r U v �i W G y N: • � Q � Q � x w � z z � p o LU z LU L ly � N 4 iA ° 0 J O p U v p G N: • � Q LU z LU 0 ID z CL < I rl L i �, u tu ow IL Z) It z IL 41, Z 0 k. 114c, ill c 4r hl Lu lu > -A Z -A LU < c/ X Z lu lu Ck Lo C2 S� IL E 100 1 0 0 O ow IL Z) It z IL 41, Z 0 k. 114c, ill c 4r hl Lu lu > -A Z -A LU < c/ X Z lu lu Ck z -Al Lo C2 75 E 100 1 0 0 O v7 Q CY) u > z -Al -77 O 240 E E T O z O rn � � cn Oz '� rn � .�:,OG� ��Orn ,rn ✓��ro 7rntl ra ITI 70 rl m A ';y CA c�- z rq ja z c Si A t j 67 Tf i rn m M, Si Si ➢ p y m or rnm N p � � 'O to � > rncj z -TI ' �'�n r G rn [WO7 o cz UL O LU Q Z� v f �! f %�1 Gel; �)I-a .,-LGio �Gn ON',el 4PNI -Ls N:1 N�i 1-Z q)k) Ewa All > Q, I W, (, I A rt tiff o� 11) tu It 11 Q)l ,n YD 0 OL �)I-a .,-LGio �Gn ON',el 4PNI -Ls N:1 N�i 1-Z q)k) Ewa All > Q, I W, (, I A rt tiff o� 11) tu It 11 Q)l ,n YD 0 IE51PENTIAL T- -R E E T M� - � O (T 0 O