Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout62-Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BERRARDINO -REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION General Am=.ru~ient No. 91-02, to change the From: TaNY E. Reed, Director Subject: land use designation from OIP to IL on 13.: P1 and Buildin Services acres on the southwest corner of Georgia Dept: ~T14 g Boulevard and Campeau Drive. Date: April 1, 1991 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Mayor arrl Camnn Council Meeting of April 15, 1991 2:00 p.m. the amendment area was designated OIP, Office Industrial Park upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. At their meeting of March 6, 1991, the Planning Cannission reaa:tmrxled adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Artendaent No. 91-02. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted. C - it;'G~G~" Signature Contact person: ~~' E. Reed Phone: 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.l (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: CITY OF SAN BERN7[RDINO -REQUEST I~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 15, 1991 REQUEST This application is to change the General Plan land use designation from oIP, Office Industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light on 13.2 acres of land (see Exhibit A of the Initial Study). The site is located on the southwest corner of Georgia Boulevard and Campeau Drive in the State College Business Park. The area is part of the State College Redevelopment Project. BACKGROUND During the hearing process for the adoption of the General Plan a designation of oIP was assigned to the site. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial Study on January 31, 1991 and proposed a Negative Declaration. COMMENTS The County of San Bernardino Flood Control District has stated that they should be informed when a specific develop- ment project is submitted as the land to the south of the site is part of the flood control system and is known as Macy Basin. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 at a noticed public hearing on March 6, 1991. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 based on the Findings in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 91-02. c . General Plan Amen ent No. 91-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 15, 1991 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-02. Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner for Larry E. Read, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission Attachment A: initial Study Exhibit A: Location & Land Use Designations Map. Attachment 2: Resolution Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Legal Description das gpano.91-02 i + Q CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM ~ SUMMARY HEARING DATE - - WARD APPLICANT: e5 T. Schultz Reid & Hellver 599 N. Arrowhead Avenue Q Ca~SIE[iAI, PLAN AMFPIDt~1+II' N0. 91-02 OWNER: g Rop r~~ ~ 92401 C) c/o Pfaaesn Develornlent Co, 9121 Haven Avenue, Suite 200 Rancho CA 91730 ly Zb change the General Plan land use designation fran OIP, Office ~ Industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light on 13.2 acres on the south Q west corner of Georgia Boulevard arr3 Canq~eau Drive in the State ~ allege Business Park. Q W S Q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND L1SE DESIGNATION Subject Vacant OIP Office Industrial Park North Industrial II, Industrial Light South Mace Basin OIP Office Industrial Park Fast Vacant OIP Office Industrial Park West Railroad/Cajun Blvd. OIP Office Icsdvstrial Park GEOLOGIC ~ SEISMIC ? YES FLOOD HAZARD ? YES ? ZONE A SEWERS: t'& YE5 HAZARD ZONE: t?j NO ZONE: [$ NO ? ZONE B L; Np HIGH FIRE ? YES AIRPORT NOISE/ O YES REDEVELOPMENT Q+ YES HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO CFII~SH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: 1~ NO ? NO Q ? NOT ? POTENTIAL SIGNIFCANT Z IXJ AppROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH Q f. MITIGATING MEASURES ~ IZ ~ No E.I.R W C ? CONDITIONS = Z ? EXEMPT ? ECG i~ IRED~ ~O a IZ ? DENIAL ~ ? ~ uRE3 TING y ? CONTINUANCE TO W Z ®NO SIGNIFICANT ? SIGNIFCANT EFFECTS ~ W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. ' MINUTES ATTACHMENT~_ ,y ~°.i,~Yy~ PLAN-Y.p2 PKSE t OF • IKEI ~ A CITY OF SAN BERNAROINO PLANNING CASE GPA No. 90-2 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 3-s-91 PAGE 2 REQUEST & LOCATION The applicant requests a General Plan land use designation change from oiP, Office Industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light on approximately 13.2 acres located on the southwest corner of Georgia Boulevard and Campeau Drive in the State College Business Park (see Exhibit A of the Initial Study). AREA CHARACTERISTICS The amendment site is within the State College Redevelopment Area. It is generally rectangular in shape, flat and vacant, and has been previously graded. San Bernardino County Flood Control District's Macy Basin is at the southern boundary of the site. The Atchison Topeka 8 Santa Fe railroad tracks and Cajon Boulevard are to the west. The area to the north and east is comprised of~industrial sites and vacant land. f MUNICIPAL CODE Not applicable CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS The General Plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial Study (Attachment A) on January 31, 1991 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended a Negative Declaration. There was a public review period from February 7, 1991 through February 27, 1991 to review the Initial Study. COMMENTS RECEIVED San Bernardino County Flood Control District The Flood Control District would like to review the site specific proposal at such time as it is submitted. ~"'~°~ PLMF9~9 PI1GE ~ OF 1 (490( o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA No. 90-2 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 3-6-91 PAGE 3 ANALYSIS Land Use Northerly of the site from Cajon Boulevard to the I-215 freeway is designated IL, Industrial Light. South of that line it is designated OIP, Office Industrial Park over to Hallmark Parkway and CG-1, Commercial General from Hallmark Parkway over to the freeway. The IL designation permits manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, mini-storage, outdoor display and storage and similar uses characterized by the location of their predominant activities in enclosed buildings !General Plan policy 1.32.10). It also permits supporting retail and personal service commercial uses within the structure of the primary use at up to 15 percent of the building square footage. The OIP designation is similar in that it permits a diversity of corporate office, light manufacturing, research and development, and supporting retail service uses (General Plan policy 1.31.101. The OIP differs from the IL in that the emphasis is more on the office and research and development uses than the IL where more light manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted. The IL designation is consistent with the developed portion of the State College Business Park and won't preclude the remaining OIP from developing. The General Plan contains policies for specific development projects for both designations to ensure that compatibility occurs and that visually attractive projects are constructed. Circulation The northertt portion of the amendment site has approximately 600 feet of frontage on Georgia Boulevard. The City's Traffic Engineer indicates that the designation change will not have an adverse impact on traffic in the area. CONCLUSIONS There are no impacts associated with the General Plan amendment from an environmental or compatibility standpoint. ,y,,,yy~~O~,y~ P{µ.B.OB PMae 1 OF 1 X490) , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA Db. 90-2 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 3-6-91 PAGE 4 FINDINGS The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest. health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed in the Initial Study. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. This amendment will not impact the balance of land uses within the City. This amendment only affects the specific types of uses permitted in industrial designated areas. The subject land is physically suitable for the IL, Industrial Light land use designation and any anticipated future development on it. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommenda*_ion to the MdYOr and Common Council: 1. That a Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080.1 of the California Environmental 2uality Act for General Plan Amendment No. 91-02• 2. That the application for General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 be approved. Respectively submitted Larry Reed, Director Planning and Building Services Department ~ ~~.,t~ John R. Burke Assistant Planner Attachment A: Initial Study aa~ aw ~ PUN~BAB PiYGE ~ OF + 1~1 ~ Attachment "A" ~ '= ' , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDIN SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 Protect Description: To change the land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light on approximately 13.2 acres. Protect Location: The amendment site is located on the southwest corner of Georgia Boulevard and Campeau Drive in the State College Business Park. I i Date: January 22, 1991 Applicant: Charles T. Schultz i REID & HELLYER 599 N. Arrowhear Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401 Owner: H. Roger Wanq c/o Prowestern Development Company 9121 Haven Avenue, Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Prepared bv: John R. Burke T t e: Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ATTACHMENT A ~,.° :,saes © a INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-02 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 to change the land use designation from oIP, Office Industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light on approximately 13.2 acres of land on the southwest corner of Georgia Boulevard and Campeau Drive (See Location Map, Exhibit AI. As stated in Section 15063 of the California 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 EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration: 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by; (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. r INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-02 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed amendment request is to change the land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light on approximately 13.2 acres of land on the southwest corner of Georgia Boulevard and Campeau Drive. The land has approximately 600 feet of frontage on Georgia Boulevard. The OIP designation permits a diversity of corporate office, light manufacturing, research and development, and supporting retail service uses and the IL designation permits manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, mini-storage, outdoor display and storage. 2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed amendment site is flat, generally rectangular in shape and vacant. It is within the State College Business Park which is within the State College Redevelopment Area. There is an industrial site to the north, railroad tracks to the west and vacant land on the other sides. The land to the south belongs to the San Bernardino County Flood Control Agency. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Setting The amendment site is rectangular in shape, flat, and undeveloped. The site is not in a biological resource area nor an area of seismic concern. ~ ~ • CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number. ~iENER9G Pcyd /ti1iE,JD.!"i,E.?r /1/p. 9/-02 Project Description: ~ CXA.?G6 7:r/E L9.?~ uS6 hESi6n//9Tr~Lr~? FQB~~ ~/'/~/G/` ~lY/rTX//9G /~d~tK >7~!' _ZL~ I,.?/X/J7~P/AG G{~YT~ Locatbn: ~N 7~r/i SGa!irorufrT !o.Q,vrc mf Cs60.PC.oD ,~tit,ESGv-¢~ ~~rr ~ A p A-'D Li1NJOEyy /~Ci/2' .W 7X// . rATf CDILerGE /JU.lw.~JS' //JKlt{. Environmental Constraints Areas: A/oi?C General Plan Designation: DZP~ OFf,C~ 1,.2r..ne.crc /~.x~.t Zoning Designation: A/fi9 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources wll the proposal resuh in: Yos No Maybe a. Earth movomom (cut and/or f81) m 10,000 whit ~ yards or more? b. Dovobpment ardor grading on a sbpo greater than 1596 natural gradol c. Devebpmera within the Aquist-Prbb Spoeial Studios Zone as defined b Section 12.0 - Geobgb X 8 Seismic, Fgure 47, of the Ciy's General Plan? d. Modification of any unique geobgb or physical feature? X a. Dovobpment within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as idarhdied in SeUbn 12.0 - Geobgb 6 Seismic, Fgure 53, of the City's General -~ Plan? Modification of a channN, seek or river'? PWJ.9A8 PKaE tOF_ (i/•9~ e g. Devebpmem within an area subject to landslides, Yes klo Maybe mudslides, liquefegbn or other similar hazards es idemifwd in Section 120 • Geobgb 6 Seismic, fipuros 46, 52 and 53 of the City's General PIan7 X n. ah.rt 2 Alr Resources: Will the proposal resuk in: a Substantial air emissbns or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AC!MD? _ 1 b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Devabpmem wthin a high wind hazard aroa as idemRed in Secton 15.0 -Wind & Fire, Figuro 59, of the City's Generel Plan? X 3. Water Reaourps: Will the proposal rosuk in: a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due m impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or fbw of fbod waters? X~ e. D'aeharge imo surface waters or any akeratbn of surface water quality? X - d. Change in the quamiry of quality of ground water? X e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurorww Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281 GIO /O - 8 ,and Section 16.0 - Fboding, Fguro 62, of the City's General PIan7 f. Other 4. 8(ologieal Reaourgs: Could the proposal resuk in: a Dewbpmertt wthin the Btdogipl Aesouroes Managemem Overlay, as ideMRed in Section 10.0 - }Velure? Resounzs, Figure 41, of the Ciy's X GenerolPlen? b. Change in the number of any unque, roro or endangerod species of plems or their habitat including stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique, roro or endangerod species of animals or tMir habkat7 ~ d. Removal of viable, mmuro trees? (6' or greater) X a. Olher7 5. NoW: Could the proposal resuk in: a Devebpment of housing, heakh care facilities, schools, libraries, relpbus faeilkles or otMr'noiae' wnskiw uses in arose when existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 d8(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 d8(A) iMarbr as identified in Sedbn 14.0 -Noise, Fguros 14.8 and X 14-13 of the City's General Plan? m°~inwwy"w~~s~'w'~cS PLAN.ypB PAOE 40F_ (11A0( b. Dewbpment of rtew or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which gwarote noise levels on eras wrttaining housing. adtools, heaNh care facilities or other aensltiw uses above an Ldn of t35 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB{A) imerior'! x c. afar? d. Land Use: wN the propose! resuN in: a. A changern the land use as desgnated on the General Plan? b. Devobpmonl within an Airport District as identNed in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone {AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? r« Dowbpment wthin Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as idontN'ad on the Land Use Zoning District Map? X d. Other? 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the projorx: a Use, store, transport or dispose of haurdous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pestbidos, chemicals or radiation)? X b. Involve the rolease of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential heaNh/safely hazards? d. Other? B. Housing: VVfll the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or ereste a demand for addgbnal housing? b. Otherl g. Tranaportatton ! grwfaHon: Cook! tM proposal, in comparison with the Ciratlatbn Plan as identified in Section 6.0 • CircuFation of the City's Gensrd Plan, resuN in: a. An inaease in traffic the! is greater than the lend use designated on the Gaaral Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for now, parking taeilities/shuetures? J~ c. Impact upon existing public transportation SyaUms? d. ANerotbn of preaem patterns of clrculatbn? _2~ a. Impact to rail or air trafb? X f, krcreased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ~ g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X h. SipnNicant inaoase in traffic vohrmes on the roadways or imerseclions? X i. Other? ®°r"i„w~ PI.ArFGDB PAGE 00F__ (11-901 10. PubOc Servlps: Wilt the proposal hoped the tolbwing Yes No Maybe beyond the eapaM7ily to provide adequw levels d service? a Fro protection? x b. Ponce protedbn? X o. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaras, overbad, eta)? d. Parks or other recrostbnal faciiitks? e. Medical aid? x t. Sol'~d Waste? X g. Other? 11. Utllitles: tMlf the proposal: a Impact the folbwing beyond the capablsy to provide adequate lereb d service or require the corotrudbn d new ttu:ilities? j 1. Natural gas? x ~ 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Others ~,_ i b. Result in a disjointed pattern d utility extensans? _ C I ~ c. gequiro the wnstrudion d new faallties? i 12. Aesthetbs: a Could the proposal resuh in the obstrudbn d eny X swnb view? b. W+p t!re visual impact d tM project he detrimental to the sunoundirg area? k ' e. Other? 19. CuRural Resources: Could the proposal resuh in: a The alteration or destruction d a prehistoric or hbtoric archaeobgical she by dewbpmeM within an archaeological sensitive aroa o: identll'red in Section 3.0 - Histoneal. Figuro 8, d Me Clty'a General Plan? ~ b. Alteration or destruction d a hiatorieal aae, atnuturo or object as listed in the Ciry's Hiatorie Resources X Remnnaissance Survey? a Other? PlM40D6 PI6E tOF_ It Y9% i 14. Wrtdatory Fktdfnge of Slgnffldnw (Section 15065) The California Environmental Oualiy Ad states that if any of the tolbwing care be answered yes or maybe, the project may haw a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, subataMialty reduce the habihd of a fish or wildlife species, puss a fish or wildlife population to drop bebw eel( sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plats or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangerod plain or animal or etiminan important exampka of the major periods a<Califamia history or prehistory? ~' b. Does the project have tM potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of brtg-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on tM environment is one which oxuro in a reiativey braf, definitive period of time while bng-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which aro individually limited, but cumulatively conalderabk? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources whero the impact on each rosource is relstivey small, but where the affect of the total of those impacts on the environment is sign'rficant) d. Does the project haw environmental affects which will cause subataMial adveroe effects on human beings, eitMr d'uectly or indiracty? X R DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMIENTAL EVALUATION AND MTIGA71tNd MEASURES (Attach shears as necessary.) - - ~E RTTi9C/s6D S~Y~ErS m°'~miw"".n.~1O. PI.AN•Y.06 PAGE SOF_ (irA% INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-02 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.2.1 Earth Resources l.a. The site has previously been graded and development might require earth movement in the form of grading with cut and/or fill activities. Such activities could involve earth movement exceeding 10,000 cubic yards. 3.2.2 Air Resources ~ 2.a. The proposed amendment does not meet the criteria that could indicate statewide, regional or areawide significance due to its size. 2.b. An industrial development could emit objectionable odors, however, any proposed uses are addressed on a case-by- case basis and mitigated as deemed necessary. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.a. Any development on the site will reduce the area available for absorption and thus increase the runoff into the current drainage system. Development would create impermeable surface areas due to building footprints, streets and parking areas. These surfaces would also act as catchments for contaminants such as hydrocarbons, petroleum products (engine fluids) and particulate matter from exhaust emissions and increase the level of pollutants into the drainage system. The effects from development at this site will be minimal. Specific development projects will be required to address drainage and impermeable surfaces and include design specific mitigation measures as needed. 3.2.4 Land Use 6.a. The amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan from OIP, Office industrial Park to IL, Industrial Light. r a INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-02 3.2.5 Man-Made Hazards 7.a,b,c. The storage and use of toxic materials is an inherent safety concern associated with industrial developments. These safety concerns will be addressed at the project review stage of future development. 3.2.6 Transportation/Circulation 9.a thru h. The project is located to the southwest of Georgia Boulevard at the intersection of Campeau Drive. Hallmark Parkway is approximately 800 feet to the northeast of the site and is classified as a secondary arterial in the General Plan. Georgia Boulevard and Campeau Drive are local streets. University Parkway, a major arterial, is to the east of the site. The land is presently designated for office industrial use and the land to the north and west of the site is designated for light industrial use. Including this area in the IL designation, a slightly more intense use, will not significantly impact traffic or circulation plans. 3.2.7 Mandatory Ffndings of Signiffcance The general plan amendment is not anticipated to have impacts that would be significant. t Y D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial study, 'The proposed project COULD NOT have a sgnificaM eNeet on the environment and a NEGATNE DECLARA- TION wll be prepared. The proposed project could have a signficant eMeet on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case bedew the mitigation measuros described above have bean added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION wNl be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant eHed on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requirod. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW C.OMMRTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ICI -.~eev r"1ay7Gnr?bel' P.e.au.9rLC /~i.vrw.v~..E' Name and Tttla l/ w, Sig ra Date: / - .~/ - 9 0 ~R AR~~N_02 ~F gpN pMENT NO N C~ ` PLpN pME E yG,NpTi ~ DER p u 1 , _, y 1 ' / `4W 4 +~+~w ~ /// i 1 ~' LY ~ 4~r ~ J~~ i ~ '~r~ '° s / ? i~ 4 ~' j ~ ' ' S1TE i"' I ~ y. V t,, ~ ~ i ~~`'~' A j ~ E X 1-11811 ''".- 1 ~pv ~ 1 9 ' j i Resolution No. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE ~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLIAWS: s SECTION 1. Recitals 7 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was $ adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89- 9 159 on June 2, 1989. 10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 to the General ii plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the 12 Planning Commission on March 6, 1991, after a noticed public 13 hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of 14 approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 15 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on January 22, 1991 16 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the 17 Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan i8 Amendment No. 91-02 would not have a significant effect on 19 the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative ~ Declaration be adopted. 21 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day ~ public review period from February 7, 1991 through February ~ 27, 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 4uality Act 26 and local regulations. 27 //// 28 //// 1 ~' RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEGATI~! DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public ~ hearing and fully reviewed and considered the proposed 4 General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 and the Planning Division 5 Staff Report on April 15, 1991. 6 (f) The adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 91- 7 02 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of $ the City and is consistent with the goals, objectives and 9 policies of the existing General Plan. 10 SECTION 2. Negative Declaration I1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by 12 the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed amendment to 13 the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no 14 significant effect on the environment, and the Negative 15 Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review 16 Committee as to the effect of this proposed plan is hereby 17 ratified, affirmed and adopted. 18 SECTION 3. Findings 19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council ~ of the City of San Bernardino that: 21 A. The change of designation from OIP, Office Industrial ~ Park to IL, Industrial Light for the proposed amendment ~ will change the land use map only and is not in conflict ~ with the goals, objectives and policies of the General ~ Plan. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// z '' RESOLUTION.~ADOPTING THE NEGATI~r/ DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 91-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the $ public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare 4 of the City. 5 C. All public services are available to the study area. Any 6 development permissable under the IL, Industrial Light ~ designation proposed by this amendment would not impact 8 on such services. 9 D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 13.2 acres to 10 OIP, Office Industrial Park. No housing stock will be 1] affected. 12 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the 13 requested land use designation. Anticipated future land 14 use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has 15 been determined that project specific mitigation 16 measures will be sufficient to eliminate any 17 environmental impacts. 18 SECTION 4. 5mendment 19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council ~ that: 21 A. The Land use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San ~ Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 13.2 ~ acres from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to IL, ~ Industrial Light. This amendment is designated as 2r General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 and its location is ~ outlined on map entitled Attachment A, and is more 27 specifically described in the the legal description ~ entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. 3 r T ' ' RESOLUTION.,.ADOPTING THE NEGATI© DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 H. General Plan Amendment No. 91-02 shall be effective 3 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 4 SECTION 5, ~v Notation 5 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall 6 be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been 7 previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common ~ 8 Council and which are on file in the office of the City 9 Clerk. 10 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 11 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a 12 Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County 13 of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA 14 in preparing the Negative Declaration. 15 //// 16 //// 17 //// 18 //// 19 //// 20 //// 21 //// 22 //// ~ //// 24 //// ~ //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 4 '~ '` RESOLUTION aADOPTING THE NEGATI~ DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 .Z I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly ~ adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 4 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the 5 day of , 1991, by the following vote, to 6 wit: 7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN 8 ESTRADA 9 KELLEY 10 FLARES it MAUDSLEY 12 MINOR 1~ POPE-LUDLAM 14 MILLER 15 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 19 day of , 1991. 20 21 22 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor ~ City of San Bernardino 24 Approved as to form and legal content: ~ JAMES F. PENMAN, 26 City ASE orney ,, i 27 28 5 ~"" ~xscx~(~ s~.~ ' aao - Gpp91-02 _ S ~ 0 Cf ~ ~•t ~ ,.,,,, z ,~ °r ,. d~y~ Z R -- ~, ~A~___ A ^~'~~ '~O {pOj ~O1 ~ ~ Vz'~ O ~ ~ i C~V~N ~ Y Z ~ 4 ` J i a~~ N M f A J ~y a~ova9 O~ M~Jd I~Q 0 Z `~fi 1 . V7.LZi a ,p p1/ ~C ?~'p EeO ~ 9. .a ~9 t1 • ~ I } u. •~C ~ S ~ _ a / i ?v ~ O l l r•~ _ .y. '~. • .A ~ 5 i i ~'1 ®~llB : i e1~'b . O ~ 11 _ a ~ ~' ~" ~- it ~' ~ ~ ~ 1 w ~ ~ i lI '_s ' w ~ ~ w • a~ "s ~ g Sri $~+ ~ ~ 3 ~ gs x~ ;t ~ ~ ~ t 1. ,,, a;~ . ~,r Sw :i ~ ~5+~ ~ a~ x • '~ ~ ~ n~'d ~ ~ "..a' 1 1M.. 09 \ • ~ N [p~ =e 0J ~ O~ © ),, 7Y (s.w~ A ,~~~ s ® A'I'` :6 bs ~~~4 R ~ ' CIT OF SAN BER ARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-02 TITLE ~L n.zu~s PAtiCEL NO. DESCRIPTIQV 266-361-76,77 Iaid situated in the State of California, County of San Bernardino and is described as follows: Parcels Nos. 53 and 54 of Parcel Map No. 5902 in the City Of San Bernardim, Caurtty of San sw,-.,a,~,i; m ~ y^}yte of California, as per plat recorded in book 64 of Parcel Maps, pages 30 through 32, inclusive, records of said aounty. ATTACHMENT a