HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Planning and Building
-
city OF SAN BERNARAo - REQUEST FOR ~UNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 91-1O
Date: August 20, 1991
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
October 7, 1991 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan. In
August , 1990, planning staff was directed to determine a way to preserve
8 single family homes of distinctive character located in the vicinity of
Atlantic and Palm.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan
Amendment No. 91-10.
J ---/ /
/Ldf"ll~ ) . L'.-e~/
;- Signature
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
Contact person:
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
Ci ty ~li de
FUNDING REOUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
71;._n?l:.?
Aaenda Item No.
3q
-
CITY 9F SAN BERNAR~O - REQUEST FOROOUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 91-10,
To allow existing single family residential
structures in the CO-2, Commercial Office,
land use designation as conforming, permitted
uses.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
Ocotber 7, 1991
REOUEST
General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 is proposed to allow exist-
ing single family residential structures as conforming,
permitted uses in the CO-2, Commercial Office, land use
designation citywide.
BACKGROUND
This is the first of several General Plan and Development
Code amendments proposed by staff in an effort to preserve
unique residential structures in the vicinity of Atlantic
Street and Palm Avenue, as directed by the Common Council.
The purpose is to allow the residences to be preserved until
conversion to low intensity office uses occurs sometime in
the future.
The general plan amendment was reviewed by the Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) on July 11, 1991 and a determination
was made that the proposed amendment will not have any signi-
ficant effects on the environment. The ERe recommended
adoption of a Negative Declaration. The 21 day public review
and comment period extended from July 18, 1991 to August 7,
1991. No comments were received. (Attachment A of Attach-
ment 1, Initial StUdy).
On August 6, 1991, General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public
hearing. The Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor
and Common Council adopt the resolution amending the General
Plan and adopt the Negative Declaration. (Attachment 1,
Planning Commission Staff Report).
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the resolution to
adopt the Negative Declaration and amend the text of the
General Plan; or
The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment
No. 91-10.
75-0264
~eneral Plan Amendme~o. 91-10
Mayor and Common cou~~ Meeting of
October 7, 1991
Page 2
o
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declara-
tion and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 as pre-
sented.
Prepared by:
Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
for Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director
Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1 - Staff Report
1991
Attachment A - General
Attachment B - Initial
to Planning Commission August 6,
Plan Page 1-94
Study
Attachment 2 - Resolution
Attachment A - General Plan Page 1-94
SRGPA91-10
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
10
8-6-91
1 and 2
APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino
W
(/)
<
(.)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-10
OWNER:
N/A
ti
W
::)
o
W
a::
-
<
W
a::
<
To add policy 1.29.13 to the General Plan which would allow existing single
family residential structures in the CO-2. Commercial Office .
land use designations as a permitted use.
PROPERTY
EXISTING
LAND USE
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
All CO-2 designations City wide
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: N A 0 NO
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO
N A
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A SEWERS: DYES
ZONE: o NO OZONE B N A o NO
AIRPORT NOISEI 0 YES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
IVA 0 NO N/A o NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z !Xl APPROVAL
EFFECTS WITH 0
MmGATlNG MEASURES ~ 0
NOE.l.R. CONDITIONS
o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Q
II.Z 0 DENIAL
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS <W
WITH MlTlGA TING til
MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
fd
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES a::
Pl.AN-U2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (<.oo)
... 0 NOT
< APPUCABLE
!Z(/)
WCJ
::E Z ["1. EXEMPT
Z-
OQ
a::ii!!:
-II.
~ ~ NO SIGNIFICANT
W EFFECTS
CITY 01- _ .-.....0
----
ATTACHMENT 1
..Planning Commission Jt'\ting August 6, 1991 0
General Plan Amendme~No. 90-10
page 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent
with the General Plan in that General Plan
policies, objectives and goals encourage the
revitilization of existing housing stock and the
conversion of residential uses in the CO-2 to low
intensity office uses and permitting existing
residences to become conforming furthers the
policies contained in the General Plan.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to
the public interest, health, safety, convenience or
welfare of the City in that adding residential use
of existing residential structures as a permitted
use allows the structures to be a conforming use
which ensures the owners of the ability to maintain
the structures which is in the public interest.
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appro-
priate balances of land uses in the city in that
permitting an existing land use does not affect the
balance of land use.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a
recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with
Section 21080.1 of the California Environmental Quality
Act for the General Plan Amendment.
2.
The General Plan be amended to allow
family residential structures in the
Office designation as a permitted use.
existing single
CO-2, Commercial
Respectfully submitted,
6E.C~nt Directo,
Planning and Building Services
----- ~ -
'-. ,;.
/;.,A. - .~--
sandra aulsen
Senior Planner
Attachments: A - General Plan Page 1-94
B - Initial Study
SRGPA91-10
REOUEST
o
o
"
This a a city-initiated general plan amendment to add text to
the General Plan to allow an existing single family residence
in the CO-2, Commercial Office, designation as a legally
conforming permitted use.
BACKGROUND
When the General Plan was adopted on June 2, 1989, it in-
cluded provisions for the conversion of a residence to an
office in CO-2. On April 15, 1991, the Mayor and Common
Council added provisions for a combination residence/office
use in CO-1 and CO-2.
CEOA STATUS
An Initial Study of the proposed General Plan Amendment was
prepared and presented to the Environmental Review Committee
on July 11, 1991. A Negative Declaration is proposed. The
Initial Study was advertised and made available for public
review from July 18, 1991 to August 7, 1991. No comments
were received.
ANALYSIS
The General Plan designates a very small portion of the City
(approximately 22 acres total) as CO-2, Commercial Office.
The purpose of the district is to allow the conversion of
residential structures to low intensity office uses.
Therefore, many single family residences now exist in the
Commercial Office designation. These homes have become legal
non-conforming uses when occupied as a residence. As a legal
non-conforming use, the homes may be occupied unless vacated
for a continuous period of 6 months. However, repairs,
alterations, and additions are severely limited. It is
proposed that "1.29.13 - Allow existing single family resid-
ential structures to remain as conforming permitted uses" be
added to the General Plan on page 1-94 (Attachment A). The
purpose of the amendment is to make existing residences a
permitted use thereby allowing them to become a conforming
use again.
Goal 1A of the General Plan is to "provide for the continua-
tion and development of sufficient land uses to serve the
housing, commercial, educational, cultural, recreational and
social needs of existing residents and population growth".
Goal 1G(C) of the General Plan is to "provide for the revita-
lization, adaptive reuse, and upgrade of deteriorated neigh-
borhoods and districts." The objective of the goal
(Objective 1.7) is to provide for the evolution of random
patterns of development into a network of interrelated
activities. The policy statement to achieve the goal is
1. 7.1 "accommodate new development, adaptive reuse, and
renovation in accordance with the Land Use Map."
.Planning Commission ~ing August 6, 1991 c:>
General Plan Amendmen~o. 90-10
page 2
objective 3.2 is to "provide incentives to private owners of
historic resources to maintain and/or enhance their
properties in a manner that will conserve the integrity of
such resources in the best possible manner".
Policy 3.2.7 is to "encourage appropriate adaptive reuse of
historic resources in order to prevent misuse, disrepair and
demolition, taking care to protect surrounding neighborhoods
from disruptive intrusions."
The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with these
goals, objectives and policies. The first goal,
"continuation...of sufficient land uses to serve the
housing...needs of existing residents..." provides direction
that existing housing stock should be allowed to continue.
General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 will allow for the
maintenance and upkeep of single family residential units
until such time as an office conversion is proposed in
accordance with Goal 1G(c), Objective 1.7 and Policy 1.7.1.
To allow the existing residences to become conforming will
allow for revitalization and perhaps upgrades of the
residential areas designated CO-2.
Since many of the single family homes in the CO-2
designations have historic potential, Objective 3.2 and
Policy 3.2.7 are both furthered by General Plan Amendment 91-
10. Three of the four existing CO-2 districts lie within the
bounds of the Central City Area potential historic district
as identified in Implementation I3.9 of the General Plan. The
amendment proposed will enable "...maintenance and/or
enhancement of ...properties..." (Objective 3.2) as well as
"...to prevent misuse, disrepair and demolition..." (Policy
3.2.7) until such time as an office conversion is proposed.
The property owner of a non conforming single family
residence in CO-2 may be unable to secure home improvement
loans, property insurance and other necessities to maintain a
structure. This could lead to further deterioration of
single family structures which could eventually cause
demolition of the units as opposed to adaptive reuse. To
permit the single family use furthers the goals, objectives,
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to allow existing single family residences as
a permitted use in CO-2 to enable the structures to be
conforming uses instead of the legal non-conforming status
which exists now. This will further the goals and policies
of the General Plan.
Since the homes are existing and being used as residences,
and since no new residential units will be permitted, there
will be no negative environmental impacts.
ji
.c
1.28.31
1.2832
1.28.33
1.28.34
1.28.35
.QId<<tIw~
Enc:ourageQ.t a minimum 0130 ~.t ~ pa"r-ly fraat.p be
occupied bY structwes (within 25 feet of the sidewa1lc) for I*ceIs 01 at
_t 1.50 feet in width (11.1).
Require an extensive landscape buffer (inanporating ground cover,
flowering shrube, and trees) a1cms the stnlet iron., unless it Is the
objective to create a continuous pedestrian-orienled corridor a1cmg the
sidewa1lc (11.1).
Require that adequate vehicular and service flows be provided between
all individually developed I*ceIs au and 11.6).
Require that all office development provides bulfers with adjacent
residential land uses; indudins dec:ontive walls, landscape seth-dcs,
restricted vehicular -ccess, endo&we of parkinS. structures to prevent
sound transmission, and control of lighting and ambient illumiIlatian au
and 11.6).
Require that senior dtizen and senior amsregate care housing be
designed in accordance with Policies 1.16.13 (11.1, 11.6, and 11.9). .
,
.
It shall be the objective of the Oty 01 San Bernardino to:
1.2.9 Allow for the conversion 01 existing residential structures in designated
areu for administrativ, pm. Jllona! offtces (11.1).
~
ZDIida.
It shall be the polley of the Oty 01 San Bemardino to:
~
1.2.9.10
1.2.9.11
1.29.12
1.29.13
. Permit tile alIlversion 01 r-iil-.tial structures for low-intensity use
adJninistrative and F-: ~,f~mal offi-- in areu designated u
"'CommercI.l Office.Residential'" (~2) (11.1).
Allow new amstructian 01 administrative and prolesakmal offices,
provided that it exhibits the visual appearance of a residence consisIent
with existing adjacent residential structures (11.1 and 11.9).
-Allow for ~ De of an office within an
exl8tin9 occupied ruidence if no ..jor
external ~al alteraUona or addiUona
an ..de. .0 advertidJllJ, 18 peraitted except
for an identifioatiOD alp, of up to 2 aqua"
feet. 1-9'
Allow existing singl~ family ~esidential structures
to remain as conform~ng, perm~tted uses.
Attachment "E"
.'
^
t"\
,..-
--
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
...I
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
For General Plan Amendment No. 91-10
Project Number
project description/location To add
policv 1.29.13 to the General Plan
which would allow existina sinale
familv residential structures in
the CO-2. Commercial Office land
use designation as a permitted use.
Date July 11. 1991
Applicant(s)
Prepared for:
Citv of San B@rnardino
300 North "0" Strp-p-t
San RATnardinn. ~~ q241R
Address
City, state
Zip
Prepared by:
Sandra Paulsen
Name
Senior Pl;!1nnAT
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North no" street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Doc:Misc
InitialStudy
...
...I
C1TYOI....~
---
PI.AN-8.07 PAGE' OF 1 (4-90)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
r'
Following is the language to be added to the General Plan
as policy 1.29.13.
Allow single family residential structures, existing on
or before July 1, 1991 to remain as conforming, permitted
uses.
This policy is added to policies in the CO-2, Commercial
Office, land use designation.
The CO-2 designation comprises approximately 22.5 acres
located in the following general vicinities:
1. The northeast corner of 5th Street and Mt. View
Avenue.
2. "D" Street north of 13th Street.
3. The northeast corner of 8th Street and "F" Street.
4. Arrowhead Avenue between Baseline Street and Highland
Avenue.
L
~~~
P!.AN.8.07 PAGE' OF 1 (4-QO)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number:
General Plan Amendment NO. 91-10
Project Description:
To add policy 1.29.13 to the general plan
which would allow single family structures existing on
or before July 1, 1991 to remain as conforming, permitted
uses in the CO-2 designation.
Location: Citywide
Environmentel Constraints Areas:
None
General Plan Designation:
CO-2
Zoning Designation:
CO-2
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Re80uICM Will the proposal resu~ in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? X
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater X
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Spacial
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic X
& Seismic, Flllure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Modnication of any unique geologic or physical X
feature?
e. Development w"hin areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identniad in Section 12.0-
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General X
Plan?
X
f. Modnication of a channel, creak or river?
~~L..."""
..
....
PL.AN-l.06 PAGE10F_ ('1.10)
--
g. Development w~hin an area subjeclto landslides,
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identWied in Section 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h.. Other?
2. Air Re8our_: Will the proposal resutt in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air qualby as defined by AQMD?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Development wbhin a high wind hazard area as identWied
in Section 15.0 . Wind & F'n, Figure 59, oflhe City's
General Plan?
3. Water Raaour_: Will the proposal resutt in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage palIems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the CXlUrse or flow of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters or any atteration
of surface water qualby?
d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground water?
e. Exposure of people or properly to flood hazards as
identnied in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 -, and Section 16.0 .
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan?
f. Other?
4. Biological Raaource.: Could the proposal resutt in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, F'lllure 41, of the City's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered Ip8Cias of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6. or greater)
e. Other?
5. Nolaa: Could the proposal rHutt in:
a. Development of houling, hedh care fecllbies, schools,
libraries, religious facllhiel or other "noise. ..nlhive uses
in areal where exlating or future noise levels exceed an
Leln of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Leln of 45 dB(A) interior
as identnied in Section 14.0 - Noise, Figures 14-6 and
14-13 of the City's General Plan?
...
~.:.r.....
--
Yes
-
No
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Maybe
~
PLNH.08 PAGE 2 OF _ (11-10)
r'l t'\ n
,.. - "'I
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
commerciel or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing. schools, heahh care facilities
or other sensbive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior?
c. Other? X
6. Land U..: Will the proposal resun in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Development within an Airpon District as identHied in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Repon and
the Land Use Zoning District Map? 1(
c. Development wbhln Foothill Fire Zonas A & B, or C as
identHiad on the Land Use Zoning District Map? 1(
d. Other? X
7. MIIn-Maclll Hazarda: Will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limbed to oil, X
pesticidas. chamicals or radiation)?
b. Invoive the release of hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the poIential heanhlsafaty hazards? X
d. Other? X
8. Houalng: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand X
for addbional housing?
b. Other? X
8. Transportation I CIrculation: Could the proposal. in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identHiad in Section
6.0 - Circulation of the Chy's General Plan, resun in:
a. An increase In traffic that is greater than the land X
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing. or demand for n_. parking X
facilities/structures?
c. Impact upon existing public transponation systems? X
d. Aneration of present patterns of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or X
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pattarn of roadway improvements? X
h. SignHicant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways X
or intersections?
i. Other? X
cnvOl-....~ PLAN.'.Cl6 PAGE3OF_ 111-10)
---
.
.
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impaclthe following Yes No Maybe
beyond the capabiltty to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fir. protection? X
b. Polioe protection? X
c. Schools (i.... attendance. boundaries, ov.rload, etc.)? X
d. Parks or other recreational faciltties? X
.. Medical Bid? X
f. Solid Wast.? X
g. Other? X
11. Utllhles: Will the proposal:
a. Impaclthe following beyond the capabiltty to
provide adequate lev.1s of servica or require the
construction of n.w faciltties?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electrictty? X
3. Water? X
4. S._r? X
5. Other? X
b. R.sutt in a disjointed pattem of utlltty extensions? X
c. Require the construction of new facilities? X
12. Aeathetlca:
a. Could the proposal resutt In the obstruction of any X
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be d8lrim.nlal X
to the surrounding area?
c. Other? RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED X
UNITS
13. Culturel Ruourcee: Could the proposal resutt in:
a. Th. "eration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological stt. by developm.nt within an
archaeological sensitive ar.a as id.ntifled In Section X
3.0 . Historioel. Figur. 8. of the Ctty's Gen.ral Plan?
b. A1t.ration or destruction of a hlstorioel site. strUcture
or object as listed In the Ctty's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Surv.y? X
c. Other? X
&'J..::.'::__~
PLAN.9.06 PAG~. O~
"t.Ol'll
14. MandatQry Flndlnga of Slgnlflcllnce (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Ad Slates that ff any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a signfficant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Ves
No
Maybe
a. Does the project have the potantial to degrada the
quality of the anvironmant, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlna species, cause a fish or
wildlffe population to drop below sa. sustaining lave Is,
thraaten to aliminata a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict tha range of a rare or
andangared plant or animal or afiminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does tha projact have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-tarm impact on the ,environment is one
which occurs in a ralatively brief, definnive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the fulure.)
x
x
c. Does the projact have impacts which are individually
limned, but cumulatively considerable? (A projact may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on ellCh resource is ralatively small, but where
the effect of thelo1a1 of thosa impacts on the
environment is signfficanl)
d. Does the projact have environmantal effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
enher directly or indirectly?
x
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA110N AND MI11GAnON MEASURES
(Attach shaats as nec:assary.)
12(c). In the event an existing unit is destroyed by fire or
natural catastrophe, the possibility exists that proposed
reconstruction could be aesthetically displeasing. However,
the reconstruction would require a development permit which
the Planning Division would review. During the review, the
division would make certain that the reconstruction is
compatible with the existing, surrounding structure. There-
fore the possibility is diminished to a level of insignifi-
cance.
~====
PLAN-1.06 PAGE 5 OF" _ (11.90)
I ...
D. DETERMINAnON
On the basis of this initial study,
o The proposed project COULD NOT have a signijicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA.
TION will be prepared.
o The proposed project could have a signnicant effect on the environment, aithough there will not be a signijicant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a signnicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
H.c 1IJff!!t.
Name and Tille
w. Ge"~; Se.ll~ C IV, C @lw~
~c~~
Date: 7 - 11- 11
cm'0I"'~
--......
PLANoI.oe PAGE_OF_ {1HIO}
,
,
./
o
o
o
o
Resolution No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-10 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals
(a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-
159 on June 2, 1989.
10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 to the General
11 Plan of the city of San Bernardino was considered by the
12 Planning Commission on August 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 July 11, 1991 and
16 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the
17 Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan
18 Amendment No. 91-10 would not have a significant effect on
19 the environment and, therefore, recommended that a Negative
20 Declaration be adopted.
21 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day
22 public review period from July 18, 1991 through August 7,
23 1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by
24 the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in
25 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
26 (CEQA) and local regulations.
27 IIII
28 IIII
1
;
./
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
o
o
o
(el The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
hearing and fully reviewed and considered the proposed
General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 and the Planning Division
Staff Report on October 7, 1991.
(fl The adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 91-
10 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. Neaative Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by
the Mayor and Common Council that the proposed amendment to
the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino will have no
significant effect on the environment, and the Negative
Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review
Committee as to the effect of this proposed plan is hereby
ratified, affirmed and adopted.
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 goals, objectives and pOlicies
contained in the land use element and the historic
preservation element of the General Plan support the
text amendment which will further those goals,
objectives and policies.
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
2
,
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
~
24
~
26
27
~
o
o
o
o
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare
of the City in that adding the residential use of
existing residential structures as a permitted use
allows the structures to be a conforming use and gives
the property owners the ability to maintain the
structures, which is in the public interest.
C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate
balance of land uses within the city in that permitting
an existing land use does not affect the balance of land
uses.
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
that:
A. The text of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by adding Policy 1.29.13 to page
1-94, (Attachment A) and is more specifically described
as allowing existing single family structures to remain
as conforming, permitted uses in the CO-2, Commercial
Office, land use designation. This amendment is
designated General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 a copy of
which is attached and incorporated herein by reference.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 91-10 shall be effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
IIII
IIII
IIII
~
l.
.,'
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
o
o
o
SECTION 5. Text Notation
This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall
be noted on the appropriate General Plan page that has been
previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common
Council and which is 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 CEQA
in preparing the Negative Declaration.
IIII
I I I I
IIII
IIIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
4
'.
,i
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
RESOLUTIO~.AD~ING THE NEGA~ ~CLARATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
91-10 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
OF
NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common council of the city of Sah
Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the
day of 1991, by the following vote, to
wit:
council Members:
~
~
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
city Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 1991.
w. R. Holcomb, Mayor
city of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES
City
F. PENMAN,
ttorney .,
+",-_1. j~:-U'l-<-
5
, .
....~ 1.28.31 ~ageQ. a minimum d 30 ~t eN. )M..~tr &wm~r be
occupied bY structureS (within 25 feet of the sidewalk) for puaIs d at
Ieat 150 feet in width m.l).
1..28.32 ~ an extensive 1andscape buffer (Uu:arporating ground cover,
flowering shrubs, arid tnes) alang the stzeet frontage, unless it Is the
objective to crate a amtinuous pedestrian-oriet8d cmridCI' akms the
sidewalk m.l). .
1.28.33 Require that adequate whkuJar IIId serrice flows be provided betlHell
all individually developed parcels m.l arid n.6).
1 ?8]4 Require that all office degeIopment provides buffers with Idjlant.
z-i"ential land uses; indudiDg dec:arative waDs, Ivd...". ~~
restricted whkuJar ~C( II. encbure of parldng'strudUJ'eS to p...,1l\t
soU11d t:ransmission.lIId amtrol d lighting aDd unbient i11mwrifta~ m.l
arid n.6).
...
1 2835. Require that senior dtizm Uld IIIIior congrepIe aN housiJlI be
designed in accordance with Policies 1.16.13 m.l, n.6, and nS). ~
.
. .
.abJ<<tIft ~
It sba11 be the objEctive of the Oty oi SIll Bemudhlo to:
1.29 ADow for the 0AA,.,_.at d eciII:ing nlSidential structureI in designated
anIU for administrative ~ul ooIQN1 oIRces m.l).
"-...
.laIida.
It sba11 be the policy oi the Oty oi SIll Bemardino to:
~
1.29.10
1.29.11
1.29.12
.
1.29.13
.PeImit the CIlIlveniclft 01 residential structureI for low-iI\teIlIity tile
IdmiIUstratift aDd )MA .1.....1 Nfl,.. in anIU ~-tpted as
""CoaunerciU OfBc:e.J1-"ential'" (0)2) aU).
ADow new amst:ruc:tian oi administrative aDd pro_Iion-) tWfl~1
provided that it ecbibill the visual appearuu::e of a NSi<.4-.ce amsisteftt
with existing Idjacent rea"ential stnU:tUrelI (n.l arid nS).
.Ulov for 1:he ue of .. off1ce v11:h1n an
a1at1D9 -,ap1ed naldenCe 1f no ..jor
~ ~ aluraUou or ad41tiou
an ude. .0 adVUt:1a1nlJ, 18 puaitted except
for aD 1dat1f1c:aucm alp, of up to 2 aquan
feet. 1-94 '
Allow existing singl~ family ~esidential structures
to remain as conform~ng. perm~tted uses.