Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout33-Planning and Building elT,V' OF SAN BE~ARDINO - REQUES~OR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director General Plan Amendment No. 92-05, A reque, Subject: to change the land use designation from RI to CO-Ion a 1.93 acre site containing tW( existing office buildings and located at the northwest corner of 6th St. & Sierra Way. Mayor and Common Council Meetin2 October 19, 1992 Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: October 1, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On June 2, 1989 the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan which designated the site as RH, Residential High. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the resolution be adopted. Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 184-<;1<;7 Supporting deta attached: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $25.00 Source: (Acct. No.) 772-171-24515 (Acct. DescriDtion) Fish & Game Fee Final1::e~ Council Notes: 75-0262 Ao~nrf. It~m Nn ..33 C:;'TY OF SAN BERtORDINO - REQUEST Q.R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 19, 1992 REOUEST The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use designation from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office on two contiguous lots consisting of approximately 1.93 acres of land and containing two existing office buildings. The amendment site is located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Way. (See Exhibit A of the Initial Study) BACKGROUND Upon adoption of the General Plan, the site was designated RH, Residential High. Because the RH designation does not permit office uses, the existing buildings and uses are non-conforming. ENVIRONMENTAL On May 14, 1992, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study which was prepared to evaluate the CO-1 designation and recommended a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on September 8, 1992. The Planning Commission recommended the adoption of the Negative Declaration and the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 to change the land use designation from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office on the amendment site. ANALYSIS The general plan amendment will eliminate the nonconformity of the office uses. Both the buildings and the uses are permitted in the CO-1 designation and meet the requirements for minimum lot standards. In addition, redesignation of the site will implement the City's General Plan objective (as it applies to the amendment site) to retain the existing commercial offices and office users. 5-0264 - c :> General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of October 19, 1992 Page 2 Because the site is developed, redesignation from the RH to the CO- 1 will not create land use impacts in the neighborhood or result in impacts to the area's traffic and circulation patterns. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 based on findings in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 92-05. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 as presented. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Department Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission September 8, 1992 Attachment A - Initial Study Exhibit A Existing Land Use Map Exhibit B Land Use Designation And site Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Resolution Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Legal Descriptions - o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ... r f"'""". '"'" r ?- m ~ " W a: - cr: W a: cr: ............ " SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 2 . 9-8-92 1 ...,j , APPLICANT: Robert & Nancy Sedlak and' Sedlak Family Trust 3272 Parkside Drive OWNER: San Bernardino, CA 92404 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT W en cr: o NO. 92-05 " , A request to change the General Plan land use designation from RH, Residential High to CO-I, Commercial Office on approximately 1.93 acres of land located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Wai. r EXISTING LAND USE ~~isting Office Uses ~ingle & Multi-Family ~eccombe Park pffice & Multi-Family ~ingle & Multi-Family pffice Uses , PROPERTY Subject North East South West " ZONING RH Uses RMH PP Uses RH Uses/ RH r GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES HAZARD ZONE: XX NO '- ( r ..... ... ~ zen WCJ :2Z Z- OO a: 3; -II. > Z W ..."- ~'::l=;;;= HIGH FIRE 0 YES HAZARD ZONE:XIXI NO o NOT APPUCABLE o EXEMPT fi NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS , r I FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES " ZONE: XX NO r AIRPORT NOISE! I CRASH ZONE: o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES NOE.l.R. o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. MINUTES o YES ~ NO -- Z o ~ cr: 11.0 II.Z cr:W til o fd a: ./ \ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential High Residential Medium Public Park Residential High Residential High Hig o ZONE A OZONE B ( SEWERS: ~ YES) o NO _ r REDEVELOPMENT XX YES I PROJECT AREA: ] o NO r~ , APPROVAL 0 CONDITIONS 0 DENIAL 0 CONTINUANCE TO " ...,j pLAN-8m PAGE 1 OF , (4.QO) Attt=lrhm~n+- 111" o "-",,, ",) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 AGENDA ITEM: 2 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 1 REQUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests an amendment to change the land use designation from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office for a site located at the northwest corner of 6th street and Sierra Way. (See site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map, Exhibit B to Attachment A) DEVELOPMENT CODE The existing commercial office buildings and uses are not permitted in the RH designation. Chapter 19.62 of the City's Development Code classifies the structures and the uses as legal nonconforming. General Plan Policy 1.7.9 permits the continuation of nonconforming uses and allows for minimal expansion, however, the office structures and uses would remain nonconforming. If the buildings become vacant for a periOd of 180 days or more, the nonconforming uses cannot be reestablished and future land uses must conform with the underlying land use designation. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ICEOAI STATUS The general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on May 14, 1992 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was recommended. The public review period for the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on May 21, 1992 and ended on June 10, 1992. The ERC completed their review and the project was cleared to the Planning Commission on July 2, 1992. BACKGROUND Upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the amendment site was designated RH, Residential High. c :> GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 AGENDA ITEM: 2 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 2 ANALYSIS SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS Amendment site The amendment site is comprised of two adjoining lots and contains approximately 1.93 acres of land. The two lots are improved with two existing office buildings and on-site paved parking areas. Surrounding Area The property located north of the site and across Victoria street is developed with single-family uses and a scattering of multi- family uses in an area designated RMH, Residential Medium High. East and across Sierra Way is Seccombe Park in the PP, Public Park designation. South of the park and across 6th Street the PP designation continues with public and quasi pUblic uses. South and across 6th Street (on the southwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Way) is an existing office use with mUlti-family uses located west and adjacent in the RH. West and adjacent to the site are single- family, multi-family and office uses in the RH designation. Further west and across Mountain View are commercial and office uses in the CR-2, Commercial Regional designation. (See Exhibit A to Attachment A) EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The RH, Residential High land use designation permits the development of multi-family condominiums and apartments with a maximum density of 31 units per gross acre. The existing office buildings and uses on the amendment site are not permitted in this residential designation. As such, the site is classified as legal nonconforming. (See previous discussion under Development Code) PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION The following citation from the General Plan describes the purpose of the CO-1, Commercial Office designation: It shall be the objective of the City . . . to: "Provide for the continued use, expansion, and new development of administrative and professional offices and supporting retail uses in proximity to major o o GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 AGENDA ITEM: .2 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 3 transportation corridors and ensure their compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses." (General Plan Objective 1.28) The CO-1 designation permits administrative and professional offices as well as limited supporting retail uses and medical facilities. The buildings and uses existing on the site are permitted in the CO-l designation and the parcels meet all of the minimum lot standards. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY The passage cited in the preceding section (General Plan Objective 1.28) reflects the City's intent to retain existing professional and medical offices. Similarly, General Plan Objective 4.11 addresses the City's need for maintaining the existing office user base as well as other related issues. Regarding compatibility, professional and medical offices generally can coexist well with surrounding residential neighborhoods. The amendment site is well established in the neighborhood and has contained commercial offices and uses for several years. Essentially, the amendment proposal will not change the status quo of the site or the neighborhood and, it will not create impacts related to land use compatibility, traffic or circulation. COMMENTS RECEIVED No comments have been received. CONCLUSIONS The general plan amendment will eliminate the nonconformity of the office uses. Both the buildings and the uses are permitted in the CO-1 designation and meet the requirements for minimum lot standards. In addition, redesignation of the site will implement the City's objective (as it applies to the amendment site) to retain the existing commercial offices and office users. Because the site is developed, redesignation from the RH designation to the CO-l will not create land use impacts in the neighborhood. Nor will the amendment proposal result in impacts to the area's traffic and circulation. c o GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 AGENDA ITEM: 2 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 4 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 CEQA. 2. The General Plan Land Use Plan map be changed from RH, Residential High to CO-1, Commercial Office for the site as shown on Exhibit A of the Initial Study. ReSpe~IY s bitted, AI~ l ~Pla\n ~ . I!e. . \ ~ '\ ' O~o~oldruff ociate Planner -".~I- jdw Attachment: A - Initial study Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Existing Land Use Map Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map o :) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 AGENDA ITEM: 2 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER B, 1992 PAGE 5 FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 1. The proposed CO-1, Commercial Office land use designation will change the General Plan Land Use Plan map and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and pOlicies of the General Plan. The existing commercial office buildings and uses are compatible with the adjacent residential, commercial and office uses and will not create any adverse impacts. 2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed in this report. 3. The amendment proposes to redesignate 1. 93 acres from RH, Residential High to CO-l, Commercial Office. The City's housing stock will not be significantly affected. 4. The amendment site is physically suitable for the CO-1, Commercial Office land use designation. 5. All public services are available to the proposed amendment site. Any future development permissible under the proposed designation would not impact on such services. o Attachment "A" o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY .... ~ ..., Initial Study for Environmental Impacts For GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 Project NUmber Project Description/Location To chanae the Genral Plan land use desianation from RH. Residential Hiah to CO-I. Commercial Office on 2 adioinina oarcels consistina of 84.000 sauare feet and oresentlv imoroved with two existina office buildinas. The 1.93 acre site is located on the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Way and within the Central City North Redevelooment Area. Date May 4. 1992 Prepared for: Applicants Robert J. & Nancy W. Sedlak Sedlak FamilY Trust Co-Trustees Address 3272 Parks ide Driye San Bernardino. CA 92404 Prepared by: Name Title Paul G. Scroaas Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 GPA 92-05 CI"'<:7_~ --- ... P\.ANo8.Q7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (...9Cl'I o o , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT " , ... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ .., A. BACKGROUND Application Number: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 project Description: To change the General Plan land use desiqnation from RH, Residential High to CO-l, Commercial Office on 2 adjoining parcles comprising a total B4,000 square feet (1.93 acres). Location: The 1.93 acre site is located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Way with frontages of 300 and 280 feet, respectively for the 2 parcels. The site is further identified as 600, (620) and 646 North sierra Way and is within the Central City North Redevelopment Area. Environmental Constraints Area: The subject site is located in a zone of potential high liquefaction susceptibility and ground subsidence as well as within an urban historical/archaeological cultural resource area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain _IS. where apprcpnale. on a seoarale attached sheel 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resutt in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movemem (CUI and/or fill) 0/10.000 cubic X yards ar more? b. Oevelopmem andIar grading on a slape greater X than 15,.. natural grade? c. Oevelopment within Ihe Alquisl-Prialo Special Studies Zone as defined in S8CIion 12.0 - Geologic X & SeismIC. Figure 47. of the City's General Plan? d. Modfficalion of any unique geologic or physical X feature? e. Oevelopmem within areas defined for high potential for waler or wind erosIOn as identified in Section 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic. Fogure 53. of !he City's General Plan? X- X f. Modffication of a channel. creek or river? .... ...,j eryo,o ",. ,... .--..., --- :It,AN..9.08 PAGe 1 OF.LJJ... ~11.~ c o """l g. Development within an area subJeelto landslides. Yes No . Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other sim~ar hazards as identified in Section , 2.0 - Geologic & Seismic. X Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? )( 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal resun in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effeel upon ambient X air quality as defined by AQMD? b. The crealion of objectionable odors? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section' 5.0 . Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's X General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal resun in: a. Changes in absorplion rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to X. impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteralion X of surface water quality? d. Change in the quanlity of quality of ground water? X e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as idenlified in the Federal Emergency Managemem Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community Panel Number 0602B' Da20 . A , and Section' 6.0 - )(, Flooding. Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f. Other? X 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal resun in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overfay. as identified in Section' D.O - Natural Resources, Figure 4'. of the City's X General Plan? b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including X stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique. rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? X. d. Removal of viable. mature trees? (6' or greatar) X e. Other? X. 5. Noiae: Could the proposal resun in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools, libranes, religious facilities or Dlh8r 'noise' sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 6.5 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB~) interior as Identified In Section , 4.0 . Noise, Figures and X 58 of the City's General Plan? ... ..... Cfl"o Of' ..... ---.0 PLAN-R.DS PAGE 2 OF.J.4. (1 '.10) ClonIIII.L_MIMC:liS 0 0 "" . b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commerciaJ or other uses which generate noise levels on are.. containing housing, schools. heanh care facimies or other uns.lve uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? c. Other? ')( 6. und U..: Will the proposal resun in: a. A change in the land use.. designated on the X General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identnied in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and ')( the land Use Zoning District Map? c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B. or C as identnied on the land Use Zoning District Map? ')( d. Other? ')( 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use. slore, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limned to oil. X pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. hvolvethe release of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential hea~h/safety hazards? X. d. Other? X 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand ')(. for addnional housing? b. Other? '< 9. TrllnsportBtlon I Circulation: Could the proposal. in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0 - Circulation of the City.s General Plan. resu~ in: a An increllS8 in traffic that is greater than the land X use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing. or demand for new, parking X facilitieststruclures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? 'X d. A~eration of present patterns of clrculation? ')<. e. Impact to rail or air traffic? 'X l. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or X pedestrians? g. A disjointed pattem of roadway improvements? . )<. h. Signnicant inae... in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? 0" X L Other? >< '" cn"r ClI' ...... -......:> ~ PLAN.g.06 PAGE 3 OJ: 10 --- ~ '" (1'-90) 0 8 , "I 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capabiltty to provide adequate Iewlls of service? a. Fire protection? ~ b. Police protection? ~ c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload. etc.)? X. d. Parks or other recreationallacilhies? X e. Medical aid? X I. Solid Waste? X g. Other? )(.. 11. Ulllltla.: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels 01 service or require the construction 01 new lacilhies? 1. Natural gas? ~ 2. Electrictty? X. 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? )(. 5. Other? 'X. b. Resull in a disjointed pattern 01 utility extensions? X. c. Require the construction 01 new lacilhies? 'X. 12. Aaathatlca: a. Could the proposal resull in the obstruction 01 any X scenic view? b. Will the visual impact 01 the project be cletrimental to the surrounding araa? X c. Other? X 13. Cultural Reaource.: Could the proposal resull in: a. The allaration or destruction 01 a prahislllric or historic archaeological she by development within an archaeological sensitiva area as identified in Saction )(. 3.0 - Historical, Figure 8, oltha City's General Plan? b. Allaration or destruction 01 a historical site. structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources X Reconnaissance-Survey? c. Other? X ClIT'f'OI'....~ --- ...,j PLAN-S1.06 PAGE40~.1.!:l. 1".g(Jj .'''''' ,....,) ,) ~ "I 14. Mandatory Findings of SlgnRlcsnce (Section 15065) The CalHomia Environmental Quality A/:j states that H any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project mey have a signHicant 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 qual~y of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlHe species. cause a fish or wildlHe population to drop below seH sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal CXlmmunity. reduce the number or restrict the range 01 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples 01 the major periods 01 CaIHomia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term. to the disadvantage 01 long-term . environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, delin~ive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into theluture.) x 'X.. c. Does the project have impacts which are individually lim~ed. but cumulatively CXlnsiderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impect on each resource is relatively small. but where the effect 01 the total 01 those impacts on the environment is signHicant.) d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, e~her directly or indirectly? x x C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MmGAnON MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) SEE ATTACHED SHEETS Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics: The site is comprised of 2 adjoining, same-sized 140 X 280 foot rectangular parcels, which are both presently improved wi th existing office buildings and on-site paved parking areas. The parcels located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Way also have existing offices, though this corner, like the subject property and other parcels to the west have RH, Residential High land use designations. Most of the adjoining parcels to the west and north are developed with mixed single and multi-family residential uses with also some additional scattered offices and related commercial businesses. To the east and southeast across Sierra Way are the YWCA, City Parks and Recreation Department and surrounding Seccombe Lake State Urban Recreation Area that is all designated PP, Public Park land use District. 0T'f17"'--.c --- PlAN.Sl.06 PAGE 501= to (11-90\ ,. o ::) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT "'I INITIAL STUDY r ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASORES DISSCOSSION 1. EARTH RESOURCES-1g. Potential High Liquefaction, SUbsidence Area The subject site is located in a City designated area of high liquefaction susceptibility and potential ground Subsidence. since both GPA parcels are presently improved with existing office buildings and adjoining yard improvements only future structural expansions will be subject to any foundation and/or other additional building reinforcement requirements for construction within these designated zones. The proposed General Plan Amendment change from.the current RH, Residential High land use designation to CO-1, Commercial Office will not of, itself, pose an impact either to the subject site or to surrounding properties in that any future development planned for the site can be structurally designed to meet and/or exceed code require- ments for construction within these designated zones. 3. WATER RESOURCES - 3a & 3b. Absorption Rates, Runoff & DiSCharge Both of the subject parcels are already improved with existing office buildings and adjoining, paved parking areas. As such, most hardscapes areas are already in place with no proposed plans for further office building expansions. Consequently, absorption rates and runoff amounts will likely remain constant with those that presently occur during periods of occasional heavy precipitation. All such runoff shall be directed to and into approved City storm drain facilities already developed along Sierra Way and 6th Streets. The proposed GPA land use designation change to Commercial Office of the two subject parcels will not impact or change discharge levels into these public sewers and storm drain facilities nor be otherwise detri- mental to the City'S existing underground water tables. 5. NOISE - 5b. Subject property Abuts Residential Uses The site area of the proposed General Plan Amendment has it's western and northern property lines abutting RH, Residential High designated land use districts whose properties are improved with mixed single and multi-family residences. The present office use of the two subject parcels has proven to be compatible with these adjoining residential uses with most potential noise generated only from occasional employee and patron auto traffic accessing the two parcel site. Since most access to the corner lots is by the way of Sierra way, a long established north-south traffic arterial, the proposed GPA change to Commercial Office will not substantially increase or change traffic nor noise levels to nearby residences. "" Pl.AN-B.O? PAGeC,oF 10 (4-510) cm'0f'_~ CEfrmW."""__!;B c o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .., INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES DISCUSSION CONT. 6. LAND USE - 6a. proposed Land Use Desiqnation Change - General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 proposes to chanqe the land use designation of two existing, legal parcels comprising a total 84,000 square feet or 1.93 acres from RH, Residential Hiqh to CO-l, commercial Office. The two parcel site is located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Sierra Way. 9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - 9h. site Access - primary access to the corner, two subject parcels is off Sierra Way, a lonq established north-south traffic arterial. As such, the close proximity of Sierra way to access the corner subject site minimizes traffic and potential noise levels to the surroundinq mixed sinqle and mUlti-family residential uses to the north and northwest. General Plan Amendment No. 92-05, if approved, will not change access nor circulation patterns to the subject's existinq office buildings or present use of the subject properties. 13. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -13c. Urban Historical/Archaeoloqical Area Both subject parcels are presently developed with existing, office buildings and adjoining paved parking and related yard improvement areas. HoweVer, since both lots are within a City desiqnated area of potential Urban Historical/Archaeoloqical cultural resources, they are currently beinq reviewed and will require clearance from Dr. Ross of the San Bernardino County Archaeoloqical Information Center both for the proposed GPA land use desiqnation chanqe and for any future office buildinq expansion proposal, thouqh no such project has been or is presently proposed by the applicant/owners. pqs GPA 92-05 ins QTVCl'...._ --- _.........07 -N>E"(O' Ie '''901 - c o ,. D. DETEflMINAnON On the basis of this initial study. ~ The procosed projlld COULD NOT have a signdicant eHed on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- ~ TION will be prepared. n The procosed projlld could have a significant efllld on the environment. although there will not be a s.gndicant L.....J efled in this case because the mttigation measures desenbed above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ::J The crocosed projlld MAY have a signdicant eHlId on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reqUIred. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA ~~~~ ~"L<rt:"11 -se.-:f>L....,~ Name and Itle ~, q.../~ Sig re Date: '7//'1/".;l.. I ~ ..... ..... ..-...c ~~-...... ... ~'-"""i_O& ~AGE..z..O!: 10 11,.gm ~. - - - - - -STREET-~ o 0 0imiimmmmmgmiiiiiiiiiiiigiimmmm SI TE r.. 1:,. , . ~11jjlll1llililmm1ll1li".iilil1llili1llill11j11jl11l~ L,.~ foP' .f(6 ...f ~ "f ~m~illliliil~~!l~~liimm!immi~im;.:: /'zt>. A/t..o ~ .....................:::::::::::::......................... I.... ,t> . 02. :;.mmmmmmmmmimmimmimiimii .- f~ ~ -4 :::::::::::::....................................... <I: 6~ ,----- ...............::::::::::::::::.::::m::::::::::::::: ~ 1\1 p. .lliillllllililili~~dI~~i~mmi!~i~mmi <I: ~ ~~ p. ~ CS~l CE 1111~1~1111111!l1!..i..i..t.t.II..li;..1111111!1!1!1!111!1!IIIIII::~ 00 ~ ~ .........................'iAl.ilp,........................ in I ~ ~ ~ /-W ,1!!~!~!~!I!lllllllll1111!111!!1111111111111!1l!11l11! ftS' ! /_.-- I .._ i o E)..0BIT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING Existing Land AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT GP/~~-05 CASE LOCATION Use Map HEARING DATE ----.. -- ..' ._n. - . ,TREET ; ~ .4 ... ~ ~ > .<1: o 0@ (0 6 .: ~" , :@ . t ," ~;ZZ @)r.;:, ~.CQW~,,@ ~.:; ?>f bf 'G ",;:. " fe) (61 (6) I ;,p ill} 1lP. 0" bf ~ ~ @ @) I · "'f bf(e. 4P .. (i) 4.f ~ @ ~ " 6- -:;.~'~ ;;0 ~ ~ . . 0) V . . tC!,~1""'1f"~\"\'" \ @ ..., ".. STREET ~ I ii ...s' ~ 6 II&S z ;- &345 42 <<> ,. 'S1 J'~ J': ... ~. ~ .... > <I: I 1 ~-::~\~~ i II ~~ ~I I /I I 1 I I ,,- - " , ,\i:'. ~ , 7 @ I ~~~4-c= II ~+ "7 ::-i . ~". Q .. ,'l) _ ,_ti!I...,- . ~ CfT'f'C'_~ --- "A" AGENDA ITEM # N/A ... :: 7th iZ"$"- . . ~ .. . " .~ ,~ ."'h ~ ~ I . /.s I 'i I, Iii I 24 ,. . "---l :'ff5r-!-- ~.~=,1~ '-;; I . ~T'g"'--i -'i.. ?~1""! ;.~l .~ '(!)5 I ~ :::~! ~ lit.;: ~ PL.AN-I.l1 PAGE"TOFIG t.4-QO) o EXHIBIT "B" r ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING Site Vicinity and Land AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Use Designation ~1ap fo CASE r,PII q?-nc; o AGENDA . ITEM# LOCATION HEARING DATE N/A .. J r'111 ,- ! 1 I 0 ..-""t ;:::F=;1r---j W.' Irll'l-f .l'tOtmv' ii-' 11'1""'-:-~ =t .,.. 1 I I , .iI.. l"l' ric~ ".111 J 1[2. ;"...; ?1!II~f.r'; ~, I rft~ ~ t'f IH1,f.u :;~ .. ,:c-6t...~: :..-:dJl:J~' :";'w ~r::~~~ -:.. ,i I: L....J - : =_ ., II .... ~ ~~ ..i2:: .r-;;:::;;:-s'!.... - I :J I ,1 " I ' ."'--' , .~ I \r7t ;=.fJ , ....J cr--= ~~r,' ",=;~~:UU! -j;-;'f1ti - '-'q~j 2J '.' ~ ~ ~ T I rl' _.~ I "-~. ~ .. I ~ ~I IiI... llj 'iU~ II ~~- ; ~~""" Jlv1Ji[5EJ J ~~ J aM~ 1. JI J~ 1]~q1IJ,T-nJhg~;' I~ ~ l'd' 1_- r-1~!~."~ ","'. '::1 t-- ~ i ~F. ~i~~~ ~ , II'; . ~ Ilr-I [] hjt!r. -'~c.c.~~ vo~ ..J:1RIl1HjII Pr II~. FI~ i ~~..~""~:: .... ~M:U-&11 '" II I . _,;1 jl~ !..~ ! i pi r .. r r fl. - I. . _ E =- . j 1 i"O.::1 1 ~ n i\~ / I=- I ,. 1 crnu ~ I r~ _ I , 'i \ I:C_T.&" ..JI"'~ I ~' Vr<.-\ . ~l ~,.) IL....:_~......Q ,Wi ~ c.n V~ ~ II --' l/ ~I. .~, l"r ~! ~ I, ~ /fl ~~LJ.i1:, " \\ l~P it ;:J ~llD . 1"~' ~ - .'i':"'F! r r ,5r .~I ". :.j ...~ . :J .,.~ I . . . -. ,...-. . ~ . --~ ~.~.~--rit PL..AN-I.l1 pAQEI60F.e (4-10) o c) 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. 92-05 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989. (b) General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 to the General Plan of City the of Bernardino San considered by the Planning was 10 11 12 considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 13 14 15 16 Commission on September 8, 1992, after a noticed public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been (c) An Ini tial Study was prepared on May 14, 1992 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 92- 05 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 17 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 18 19 20 21 22 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day public review period from May 21, 1992 through June 10, 1992 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. 23 24 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan 25 Amendment No. 92-05 and the Planning Division Staff Report on 26 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public October 19, 1992. 27 IIII 28 1 o o 1 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 is 2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the city and 3 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 4 existing General Plan. 5 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration 6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan 8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on 9 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. SECTION 3. Findinas BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino that: The proposed CO-1, Commercial Office land use designation is internally consistent with the General Plan in that such a designation is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, and the existing commercial office buildings and uses are compatible with the adjacent residential, commercial and office uses. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city in that the existing office uses will not result in any adverse impacts. The proposed amendment would redesignate 1.93 acres as CO-1, Commercial Office. The City's housing stock will not be significantly affected. 10 11 12 13 14 15 A. 16 17 18 19 20 21 B. 22 23 24 25 c. 26 27 28 IIII 2 1 D. 2 3 4 E. 5 6 7 8 9 A. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 B. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested land use designation in that it is developed with commercial office buildings and uses. All public services are available to the proposed amendment site. Any future development permissible under the proposed designation would have no impact on such services. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 1.93 acres from RH, Residential High to CO-l, Commercial Office. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A, and is more specifically described in the legal description entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein be reference. General Plan Amendment No. 92-05 shall become effective immediately upon adoption 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. 3 -- .-.. v o 1 2 RESOLUTION. . . ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 4 5 6 7 wit: Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the day of , 1992, by the following vote, to 8 Council Members 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~ l:lAXQ ABSTAIN ABSENT ESTRADA REILLY HERNANDEZ MAUDSLEY MINOR POPE-LUDLAM MILLER City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 19 of 20 21 22 , 1992. W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN, 24 city Attorney 25 BY:~~ ../ 26 27 28 4 '--., 0 v J L ''''dlt)' 7th . l STREET ; 01 ~, ~, 0$11 "" "" 0$" ". <-,'() 62.$ D 0 0 0 0 @ @ @ @ .0 6 ~ ~ . ~ \ ~ ).. ~ U / @ @ @)@)@ @ e " /,,-() 4 @) @) .." .so so "S 31' 7/J .." 311 "" 8z. VICTORIA - - -48- - - - - - STREET -~ I 4'1> J'II 43 '" e 0 0 ~ , 'RH +0 ~ eo-, . 0~ 0 \ .4'" .4'''' 'fh STREET ~ ... I I Assessor's Map Book 135, Page 03 San Bernardino County Attachment "A" CIT OF SAN BER ARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-05 TITLE r THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL NO. 1 (APN 135-033-07) LOT 1, BLOCK 48, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL NO. 2 (APN 135-033-06) LOT 8, BLOCK 48, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 8 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR LAWRENCE STREET (VICTORIA STREET), AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM SAMUEL R. CONE AND ESTELLE H. CONE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, RECORDED JANUARY 31, 1927, IN BOOK 191, PAGE 246, OFFICIAL RECORDS. A T T A C H MEN T "B"