Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29A- Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BERN." MINO - REQUEST F R COUNCIL ACTION General Plan Amendment No. 9 - -- From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: To modify the Central City South Plan by removing the portion of the plan' Dept: Planning and Building Services south of Mill , between Inland Center Drive and I-215, and redesignating it Date: April 13, 1994 as CG-1, Comm. Gen. , IL, Indust. Light and PFC. Public Fac. District. MCC meeting of May 2, 1994 @ 2 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: 04/15/91 -- The Mayor and Common Council adopted the Central City South Plan (Resolution No. 91-145) . 04/05/93 -- The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment to evaluate Land Use Designations for the area of the Central City South Plan, south of Mill , between Inland Center Drive and the I-215. 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. 93-01. AL GHEY ure Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. ��a, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-01 REQUEST/LOCATION: This is a City-initiated request for an amendment to the General Plan (Central City South Plan) to amend the General Plan Land Use map by designating portions of the Central City South-1 (CCS-1) district in the Central City South (CCS) Plan area to IL, Industrial Light and (CG-1), Commercial General-1, and removing this portion of land from the Central City South Plan. This amendment will affect the area south of Mill Street, northwest of Inland Center Drive, and east of I-215. KEY ISSUES: The key issues are as follows: • The City of San Bernardino General Plan was adopted on June 2, 1989. • The Central City South Plan was adopted (Resolution No. 91-145) by the Mayor and Common Council on April 15, 1991 and incorporated in the General Plan by reference. • The study area for General Plan Amendment No 93-01 consists of the area south of Mill Street, east of the I-215 Freeway and northwest of Inland Center Drive. • The reuse and expansion of existing light industrial facilities in the study-area is not permitted due to the general commercial designation of the Central city South Plan • The amendment will change the land use designation from CCS-1 to CG-1, General Commercial and IL, Industrial Light. • The properties being proposed to be changed to CG-I are those having frontage on Inland Center Drive, those east of "G" Street on the south side of Mill, and on the east side of "H" Street north of Esparanza Street and south of Mill. (See Exhibit 3) • There has been strong public support for the amendment. Please see the analysis and attachments contained in Exhibit 1, Staff Report to the Planning Commission. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and Common Council may: 1. Approve General Plan Amendment 93-01 as proposed; or General Plan Amendment 93-01 Mayor and Common Council meeting of May 2, 1994 Page 2 2. Approve in concept and return to staff for specific revisions; or 3. Deny General Plan Amendment 93-01. ENVIRONMENTAL: The Initial Study was completed by Paul Toomey and Associates and staff proposed a Negative Declaration. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC), reviewed the proposed amendment at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 6, 1994. A Negative Declaration was recommended. The Initial Study was available for public review and comment from January 13, 1994 through February 2, 1994. No comments were received during the public review and comment period. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed General Plan Amendment 93-01 on April 5, 1994, and voted 6-0 to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council; adoption of the Negative Declaration; approval of the General Plan Amendment, based upon the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment A). Commissioners present: Affaitati, Gonzales, Melendez, Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council; adopt the Negative Declaration; approve the General Plan Amendment and adopt the Resolution. Prepared by: Jeffery S. Adams, Assistant Planner For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services EXHIBITS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments: A. Findings of Fact B - Location Map C - Proposed Land Use Designation D - Land Use Survey E - Existing Land Use Map F - Initial Study 2. Overlay Exhibit 3. Resolution C I RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; ADOPTING FINDINGS; AND 3 ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-01 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN MAP AND TEXT. 4 SECTION I . Recitals 5 (a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General 6 Plan for the City of San Bernardino by Resolution No. 89-159 on 7 June 2 , 1989; and 8 (b) WHEREAS, the Central City South Plan was incorporated, 9 by reference, into the General Plan; and 10 (c) WHEREAS, on January 6, 1994 the Environmental Review 11 Committee determined that General Plan Amendment No. 93-01, a 12 proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and text could not 13 have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative 14 Declaration would be prepared pursuant to the California 15 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; and 16 - (c) WHEREAS, the intent of the City to prepare a Negative 17 Declaration was made known to the public, responsible agencies and 18 other interested persons for their concerns and comments from 19 January 13 , 1994 to February 4 , 1994, as required by CEQA; and 20 (d) WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally and 21 in writing as required by CEQA; and 22 (e) WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a noticed 23 public hearing on February 22, 1994 and April 5, 1994 in order to 24 receive public testimony and written and oral comments on General 25 Plan Amendment No. 93-01; and 26 (f) WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Services Department 27 Staff Report dated February 22 , 1994 which summarizes the potential 28 1 Q 4 1 effects of the proposal (CG-1, Commercial General and IL, 2 Industrial Light) and summarizes the General Plan Amendment was 3 reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 4 (g) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public 5 testimony, recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration, 6 adoption of the Findings and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 7 93-01; and 8 (h) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed 9 public hearing on May 3 , 1994 and fully reviewed and considered 10 the Negative Declaration, Findings and the Planning Division staff 11 reports and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 12 SECTION II. Findings 13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE 14 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT: 15 A. Amendments to the Land Use Plan map and text: 16 1. General Plan Amendment No. 93-01 is consistent with the 17 General Plan, in that the new CG-1, Commercial General, 18 and IL, Industrial Light land use designations would 19 permit the development of equal intensity commercial uses 20 and low intensity industrial uses that would be 21 compatible with the surrounding uses. 22 2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the 23 public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare 24 of the City in that the uses allowed under the change are 25 not significantly more intense or obnoxious than those 26 currently allowed. 27 3 . The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate 28 balance of land uses within the City due to the similar 2 1 nature of the change from CCS to CG-1 and IL and the 2 limited size of the plan area. 3 4 . All elements of the General Plan Amendment will ensure 4 development of desirable character which will be 5 compatible with existing and proposed development in the 6 surrounding area in that future development within the 7 amendment area will be subject to all applicable 8 standards and requirements of the City's Development 9 Code. 10 5. The General Plan Amendment site, which includes 83 acres, 11 is physically suitable for the requested land use 12 designations and the anticipated development. All public 13 services and infrastructure are available to the project 14 site and any development permissible under the CG-1, 15 Commercial General or IL, Industrial Light would not 16 impact on these facilities. 17 6. The General Plan Amendment will ensure that development 18 of retail and commercial service uses on the site will be 19 of a size, scale, density/intensity and character that 20 will be compatible with existing and proposed development 21 in that the General Plan goals, objectives and policies 22 established for the CG-1, Commercial General and IL, 23 Industrial Light land use designations are intended to 24 encourage high quality development of a nature consistent 25 with surrounding developments in the commercial and 26 industrial areas. 27 28 3 1 SECTION V. Amendments 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL 3 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT: 4 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San 5 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 79. 5 acres 6 from CCS-1, Central City South - General Commercial and 3 . 5 7 acres from CCS-3, Central City South - Flood Control to CG-1, 8 General Commercial , IL, Industrial Light, and PFC, Public 9 Flood Control respectively. The location of this amendment is 10 depicted on the map entitled Exhibit A, a copy of which is 11 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 12 B. The map amendments described in Section V. , Subsection A. are 13 designated as General Plan Amendment No. 93-01 and shall take 14 effect upon approval. 15 SECTION VI. Maip Notations 16 This resolution and the amendments affected by it shall be 17 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps which have been 18 previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and 19 which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. 20 SECTION VII. Notice Of Determination 21 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 22 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 23 certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental 24 Act in preparing and adopting the Negative Declaration. 25 26 27 28 4 1 RESOLUTION . . .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION; ADOPTING FINDINGS; AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-01. 2 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 6 day of , 1994 , by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 NEGRETE _ 9 CURLIN 10 HERNANDEZ 11 OBERHELMAN 12 DEVLIN 13 POPE-LUDLAM 14 MILLER 15 16 City clerk _ - 17 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this day 18 of 1994 . 19 20 Tom Minor, Mayor 21 City of San Bernardino Approved as to 22 form and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN, City ttorney 24 By. 25 26 27 28 5 z .. r H z ao 4 at �`wi\ NNY Q W APO a � lop., ray d� W 2 n a Sr u o� y i �{ 6 CO 4t r—j. y 2 V s'% •� IoS�i U O DO f O 193tl15 7730Y E 0 E v � O C p U ? a r¢d r EXHIBIT A ii++s EXHIBIT #1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM_ #1 _ SUMMARY HEARING DATE—April 5. 1994 WARD #3 APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino W Cl) General Plan Amendment No, 93-01 VOWNER: Various F- The request is for an amendment to the General Plan land use map by N designating portions of the Central City South (CCS-1) district in UJI the Central City South (CCS) Plan area to IL, Industrial Light and CG-1, Commercial General , and removing this portion of land from the W Central City South Plan. Q This amendment scope is limited to a triangular area south of Mill W Street, northwest of Inland Center Drive and east of I-215. cc Q i EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING] DESIGNATION Subject Commercial/Industrial uses with some single-family dwelling units and scattered vacant, undeveloped parcels. - CCS-1 Central City South North Commercial & Industrial CCS-1 & 2 Central City South South/East Inland Mall & var. Commercial CR-1 & CG-1 Comm, Reg/Gen Comm. West Interstate 215 Freeway Right-of-Way GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC GS YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YE=ZONE SEWERS: F] VES HAZARD 20NE: ❑ NO ZONE: W N ❑ NO HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT YES HAZARD ZONE: g NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: � NO ❑ NO Q ❑ NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z APPROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH O H MITIGATING MEASURES W (n NO E.I.R. Q ❑ CONDITIONS M Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO W LL 0 Z ❑ DENIAL Z C SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W ? MEASURES N 2 ❑ CONTINUANCE TO Z ] NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS L) W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES ¢ rEnmu w,mmcznxue PV .9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (e W) © 0 General Plan Amendment No. 93-01 Agenda Item: 1 Hearing Date: 4/05/94 Page No.: 4 REQUEST The request is for an amendment to the General Plan Land Use map by designating portions of the Central City South-I (CCS-1) district in the Central City South (CCS) Plan area to IL, Industrial Light and (CG-1), Commercial General-1, and removing this portion of land from the Central City South Plan as shown on Attachment "C". LOCATION The amendment scope is limited to the area south of Mill Street, north of Inland Center Drive, and east of I-215. BACKGROUND The Central City South Overlay District was adopted on January 19, 1987. Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) zoning was adopted for the entire area, where the previous zoning had been light and heavy industrial. With the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the Central City South Overlay District was incorporated by reference into the General Plan. Due to difficulty in interpreting and implementing the Central City South Overlay District, this document was revised as the Central City South Plan and approved with revisions on April 15, 1991 by the Mayor and Common Council. Revisions to the plan by the Council included the elimination of the CCS-3 district that permitted light industrial uses in favor of CCS-1, which is a general commercial designation. As a result, the entire area south of Mill Street, excluding the flood control channel, in the CCS plan is currently designated CCS-1. _ CEQA STATUS The proposed amendment to the General Plan is subject to CEQA. An Initial Study was prepared and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 6, 1994. It was determined that the proposed plan will not have an adverse impact on the environment, and the ERC recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. The public review and comment period extended from January 13, 1994 to February 2, 1994. No comments received. ANALYSIS Existing Conditions The study area is triangular in shape, bounded by Mill Street on the north, Inland Center Drive on the south and east, and the I-215 Freeway on the west. Commercial land uses dominate the property adjoining Inland Center Drive through the study area and the eastern portion of Mill Street as well. On the interior of the study area are a variety of light industrial uses that range from construction support industries (e.g. air conditioning installation, electrical supplies and contractors) to warehouse distribution centers (e.g. Harris' warehouse). These uses were © Ge. d Plan Amendment No. 93-01 Agenda Item: 1 Hearing Date: 4105/94 Page No.: 5 generally established prior to January 19, 1987, when the zoning was light and heavy industrial. Attachment "D", Land Use Survey, identifies the Assessors Parcel Number and the respective land use, business name, if available, and present active status. The arrangement of these uses is reflected on Attachment "E", Existing Land Use Map. Approximately one-third of the commercial and industrial land uses within the study area are currently inactive or vacant. General Plan Consistency The proposed action amends the Land Use Plan Map of the General Plan and brings into conformity the current land uses within the study area. (The study area is part of an area identified as a "Regional Opportunities Corridor" in the General Plan). The Central City South Plan was incorporated by reference into the City's General Plan. This action, however, will remove the study area from the CCS Plan map, and therefore will no longer be subject to the Central City South Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map will be amended to reflect the change. The changing of the land use designations to include Light Industrial remains consistent with the goal of recognizing the existing industrial land uses as viable to the City's future. Goal 1.G.a and Policy 1.7.1 of the General Plan address the revitalization, adaptive reuse and upgrade of deteriorated districts within the City. Retaining the industrial uses though conforming General Plan designations supports the attainment of these goals. The mix of the proposed uses that help attract people to the area will also assist in satisfying the intent of the "Regional Opportunities Corridor," which is described in the General Plan as a region with an emphasis on pedestrian uses. AMENDMENT The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the Land Use Plan/Zoning Designation Map and the Central City South Plan Map to bring into conformance the light industrial uses located south of Mill Street. The following changes will be incorporated into the General Plan: 1. Remove the area south of Mill Street from the Central City South Plan boundary. 2. Establish the following land use designations as depicted on Attachment "C", Proposed Land Use Map: Ge. A Plan Amendment No. 93-01 Agenda Item: I Hearing Date: 4/05/94 Page No.: 6 IL -- Industrial Light CG-1 -- Commercial General PFC -- Public Flood Control Originally, the Central City South Overlay District (CCSOD) included all of the area between Rialto and Mill, and Mill and Inland Center Drive and was adopted because the area was recognized as being unique. Located between the two retail shopping malls it could provide a link between the downtown area and the Inland Center Mall. In addition, there was a large amount of vacant land between Rialto and Mill with freeway visibility and access. The appropriate goals in the CCSOD were carried over to the Central City South Plan. Although the intent of the plan stressed future commercial development, the document indicated that future development south of Mill Street would remain consistent with existing uses. During public hearings on the CCS Plan, and based on a potential retail commercial development proposal, the CCS-1 land use designation was expanded to encompass the entire area south of Mill Street. Existing light industrial uses became nonconforming. As indicated in the staff report for the CCSOD revisions, the proposed Light Industrial designation (CCS-3) "recognized the existing development, the majority of which are light industrial uses. Although some of the structures are older and were built under previous standards, they were felt to be viable uses and not likely to change in the near future. Some of the concerns with that area can be addressed through Code Enforcement efforts." This current proposal utilizes existing General Plan designations to provide consistency with the current land uses and the land use designations. Generally, the proposed CG-1 (Commercial General, is along Inland Center Drive, and adjacent to the Freeway west of "11" Street. The interior area is proposed as IL, Industrial Light. Currently, CCS-1 does not permit a variety of uses such as used car lots, and auto repair uses, nor drive-thru restaurants or convenience stores, which are permitted in CG-1. These uses were not considered consistent with the goals of the General Plan pertaining to the CCS Plan in creating a pedestrian environment. Although changing the land use designations would allow some of these uses through a Conditional Use Permit, they are not anticipated to create a significant impact due to the limited amount of vacant land, small lot parcel configuration and the nature of the existing development. The IL land use permits a broad range of light industrial uses that may include the assembly, cleaning, manufacturing, processing, repairing or testing of products. This land use district requires that the operation be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure, except for screened outdoor storage areas. A public forum was held to explain the amendment and to answer questions on March 17, 1994. The meeting was conducted by planning staff and the consultant retained to assist in processing General Plan Amendment 93-01. The property owners or representatives present voiced support for the proposal. OGe�_.al Plan Amendment No. 93-01 Agenda Item: #1 Hearing Date: 04/05/94 Page No.: 7 CONCLUSIONS The Central City South Plan created nonconforming uses that affect the adaptive reuse, expansion and improvement of the industrial uses in the core of the study area. This proposed amendment will recitfy that situation, as well as provide consistency with the intent of the General Plan through maintaining the mix of uses within the CG-1 district and the IL district. The study area will be removed from the CCS Plan. There is a proposed Negative Declaration. RECONIMENDATION Based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment "A"), staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration; and 2. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 93-01, by: a. Removing the area south of Mill Street from the Central City South Plan boundary; and b. Establishing CG-1 and IL land use designations as shown on Attachment "C". Respectfully, subm' Al Boughey, Di Planning and Building Services Prepared by: fle A s, Assistant Planner Attachment: A - Findings of Fact B - Location Map C - Proposed Land Use Designation D - Land Use Survey E - Existing Land Use Map F - Initial Study Gc. at Plan Amendment No. 93-01 Agenda Item: I Hearing Date: 4/05/94 Page No.: 8 FINDINGS OF FACT for General Plan Amendment No. 93-01 1. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Map is consistent with the goals established in the General Plan in that Goal 1.G.a and Policy 1.7.1 states a pattern and distribution of land uses shall be achieved through retention and enhancement of established commercial and industrial districts, and provide for revitalization, adaptive reuse and renovation. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that no new development is proposed as part of this action and that the subject area has been developed in accordance with this finding. 3. The proposed amendment does not change the balance of land uses within the City in that the proposed land use designations reflect existing land uses. 4. The proposed amendment includes areas which are physically suitable for the permitted land uses and is compatible with surrounding designations in that the amendment area is currently developed with land uses consistent with the General Plan designations. ATTACHMENT "A" O Second D Rialto ED❑� Are. C DTIE _ w tht °s e i Mill a , St. LL—JL DD r s O W � STUDY AREA "` I r a° Sr O� LOCATION MAP GPA 93-01 ATTACffi1IE qT B m z 0 rw .r d .r e_ W d * r 0 � m -o W 0 a l'H 6 r1^ cl c9 o ylpi�, U � m z `O Q'k 1301!7130V o U _ Y I a 4 ( U . ATPACE[ry T C ,e n Ge AI Plan Amendment No. 93-01 Agenda Item: 1 Hearing Date: 4/05/94 Page No.: 9 LAND USE SURVEY APN LAND USE (Company) STATUS 141-181-01 vacant land -02 vacant land -03 vacant land 141-184-06 Retail (Furniture Store) vacant -20 Warehouse (Pameco Aire) active -23 Retail (Olsen Center) active 141-185-01 Misc. Retail (clothing store) active -02 Misc. Retail vacant -03 _04 141-187-01 Church vacant -04 Commercial (Avis A/C) active -05 single family residence active 141-191-I1 Retail (Furniture Store) active -26 vacant land -29 office vacant 141-046-07 vacant land -09 vacant land 141-065-05 Warehouse/vacantland (Colton Truck Supply) active 141-066-02 vacant land -03 single family residence vacant -04 -05 -06 -07 vacant land -08 single family residence vacant -09 vacant land -10 vacant land -11 vacant land ATTACHMENT "D" OGe.. A Plan Amendment No. 93-01 _ Agenda Item: I Hearing Date: 4/05/94 Page No.: 10 LAND USE SURVEY APN LAND USE (Company) STATUS 141-071-08 Warehouse (Unisource) vacant -09 Warehouse (Keenan Elec. Supply) active -25 Office/Warehouse/vacant land active -27 Office/Warehouse (Graybar Elec.) active -28 RR spur vacant -38 Warehouse (Calif. Elec. Supply) active -46 Warehouse vacant -47 Office/Warehouse (Wesco) active -50 Warehouse (Harris', Carpet Corral, North American Stor. active -51 Warehouse (Bicycle distribution) active -52 Warehouse vacant -53 Warehouse vacant -54 Warehouse vacant -57 Commercial/parking (Brennan Elec.) active -60 vacantland -66/67 vacantland -68 RR spur -69 Retail/Warehouse (Levitz) active -70 RR spur -72 RR spur -73 — Commercial (Carl's Jr.) active -74 Commercial (Music Plus) active -75 Flood Control active -76 Commercial/Warehouse (Sears Service) active -78 Retail/Warehouse (Phil & Jim's) active -79 Wholesale/Warehouse vacant ATTACHMENT "D" JY Y•: ..::.. AYNXi_ XY.Y.Nn.n.YS.ywy.N.YY MF.NS........p.•. = X.Ni�..Y....Y. ..N.r ::.I..f1.N.F.1111.................�� ' `Ylllllllllllllllllllblltllpplp .nnun ..m..... x ••nunnmx.lun. �s �......_ 11;0X::....:u••• m ..._ nnnmmp:nnn - '111111111 pllYll _ 'IIIIb1�IMIIIIN .I Vn11111OInIlsp `..w..u..xW. ..Np W.u. ,•.Ilp lxx.... �Z Y Yr �®l�✓ xll�r .x..Y. ,elr-�gy. 11pbplp /' .� run.abu.•� n nsnwlmnu� — self.. lbnr 1fi InlnlbWxxpn..un MR!...mnF.am•mn b.0 .....ON4Y:NU.x NNI- ....... ....1....1....: ��tll II ........ .. lu�liiillil. a . .... ImLn2 u :: ;wnb wmo... - 1 rill!I INITIAL STUDY for ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT General Plan Amendment No. 93-01 December 7, 1993 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 93-01. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed General Plan Amendment is approved. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine if the proposal qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. The following components constitute the Initial Study for General Plan Amendment 93-01: 1. Project Description _ 2. Site and Area Characteristics 3. Environmental Setting 4. Environmental Checklist 5. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures 6. Conclusion/Environmental Determination Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The request is for an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts map to designate approximately 83 acres of the Central City South-1 district in the Central City South Plan area to Industrial Light and Commercial General-1, removing the study area from the Central City South Plan. Additional uses will be permitted due to change to CG-1 and IL land use designations and are identified in Tablet. Page 1 ATTACIIMENT F Table 1 Land Uses Permitted in Commercial General-1 and Industrial Light Districts Not Currently Permitted in CCS-1 Uses Permitted in CG-1 Uses Permitted in IL Not Permitted in CCS-1 Not Permitted in CCS-1 Automotive Related Uses Industrial Land Uses • Auto pans wlnstallation • Agricultural services • Auto pans w/o installation • Assembly,cleaning, manufacturing, processing, • Auto repair repairing or testing of products including automotive related and welling and excluding explosives, Eating/Drinking Facilities conducted entirely within an enclosed structure. • Nightclub/Lounges • Crematory/Mortuary • Restaurants, including drive-thru • Dwelling unit for on site family or security guard - Educational services/day,care Medical/Care Facllites/Social Services • Fuel dealers • Blood Bank • Helipon/Helipads • Health clinicslout patient surgery • Impound vehicle storage yard • Hospitals • Membership organ¢ations/churces, etc. • Out patient,treatment program • Mobile Home Dealers • Social services centers - Outdoor contractor's, lumber, and rental yards • Outdoor horticulture nurseries Personal Services • Publishing/printing plants _ • Dry cleaners - Research and development laboratories • Laundromats • Swap meets • Towing services Retail Commercial • Truck stops • Convenience Stores • Veterinary services/animal boarding • Liquor Stores • Warehousing and Wholesaling, including sett- • Medical equipment supplies service and mini-storage. • Mini malls • Office suppliestequipment Service Commercial • Veterinary service/Animal boarding Other Uses • Cable companies • Day Care facilities • Funeral Parlors • Helipads • Radio broadcasting • Trade/Tech schools Note: Permitted land uses based on Development Code Amendment approved by City Council 12.6-93. Page 2 o In addition to the differences in land uses permitted in the CG-1 and IL districts as compared to those in the CCS-1 district, there are differences in development standards as well. The current CCS-1 district development standards will be replaced by the CG-1 and IL standards. The IL and CCS-1 land use districts have significant differences in building height and minimum lot size. Development Standard CCS-1 IL • Building Height -- maximum 20' 30' • Minimum lot area (new subdivisions) 10,000 s.f. 20,000 s.f. The CG-1 land use district is subject to the same development standards as CCS-1. Also, CCS-3 (flood control channel) will change to PFC (Public Flood Control); however, there are no changes in permitted uses or development standards. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The triangular shaped study area is bounded by Mill Street on the north, Inland Center Drive on the south and east, and the 1-215 Freeway on the west. Commercial land uses dominate the property adjoining Inland Center Drive through the study area and the eastern portion of Mill Street. On the interior of the study area are a variety of light industrial uses that range from construction support industries (e.g. air conditioning installation, electrical supplies and contractors) to warehouse distribution centers (e.g. Harris' warehouse). These uses were established prior to the adoption of the Central City South Plan when the zoning was light and heavy industrial. Vacant land currently consists of approximately 5.5 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Located in a developed portion of the downtown area of the City, the study area is flat, with no natural features. The study area is located in an area identified by the General Plan as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction. Page 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: Project Description: 441°00 f-EJOY ' 4 G11c♦J }Z�,L {�,/�� c r -7io-J 1 GIN l SAL G iy -5�jTH 4+3 CGS I CG6.3�TO GG I i �IyL�� fG ter-✓IGti�6 rlI• Location: iaf`ir. t70L){J�rJ k,`/ � 11L.L Sr. IP44-� � 11-1;= I_ 2 15 I=•k2��1..1�-Y I Environmental Constraints Areas: 1_114U���T1 0�-I General Plan Designation: (:515Q I r,&L � 7 / Zoning Designation: CCit -l , G(�j- sjr B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement(cut and/or 01)of 10,000 cubic yards or more? X b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15%natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Pnolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic b Seismic,Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geologlc& Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General Plan? v I. Modification of a channel,creak or riven g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the Cut's General Plan? h. Other? IK 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AQMD? b. The creation of objectionable odors? K_ C. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind&Fire, Figure 59,of the City's General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to X impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? �( d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X a. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 060281 0020 .A,and Section 16.0- �( Flooding, Figure 62,of the Cuys General Plan? _ ✓� c omen 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0 -Natural Resources, Figure 41,of the Cuys General Plan? b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including �1 stands of trees? l� II Change in the number of any unique,rare or \ , endangered species of animals or their habitat? d. Removal of viable,mature trees?(6'or greater) a. Others 5. Noise: Could the proposal result cat: a. Development of housing,health care facilities,schools, libraries, religious facilities or other poise'sensitive uses _ in areas where existing m future raise levels(exceed an LcIn of 65 as identified n enerfo'and Noise, Figures 57)and rror 58 of the City's General Plan? b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing,schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A)interior? c. Other? 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identified 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 v identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? rY,\— d. Other? V, 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, Pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? x c. Expose people to the potential heahh/safety hazards? d. Other? B. Housing: Will the proposal: a Remove existing housing or create ademand for additional housing? b. Other? g. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan,result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parkirg facilities/structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. Alteration of present pattsms of circulation? o. Impact to rail or air traffic? 1. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or Pedestrians? g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? ---tom h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? L Other? PL Q= PK.E3OF_ nitq 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? x c. Schools(i.e., attendance, boundaries,overload, etc.)? Vra. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? a. Medical aid? _ I. Solid Waste? / g. Other? 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? _ 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? _ c. Require the construction of new facilities? 12 Aesthetics: IL Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? c. Other? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological gical sensitive site s development within on archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0-Historical,Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? b. Alteration or destruction of a historical she,structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources - Reconnaissance Survey? c. Other? ouwsas vwc 4 oc m-sm 4 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that it any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a signiticant 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,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sell sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals?(A short-tens impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?(A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) PUKOA6 PAGE SOE_ (tt-� D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. ® The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a sgnificam effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA Name and Title Signature Date: n � Central City South Plan—General Plan Amendment Eovrionmental Assessment Discussion Page 1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH RESOURCES a. The General Plan Amendment will not cause grading to occur within the study area. Future development projects on the remianing vacant land may require sub-excavation, compaction and site grading, which may total over 10,000 cubic yards, and will be subject to project specific review. b. The proposal will not result in development or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade in that the study area is relatively flat with an approximate slope of less than 2% to the southwest. c. Although the site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, according to Figure 47 of the General Plan, a portion of the Study Area may be located within an approximate fault location, based on Fife and Rodgers Special California Division of Mines Geology Report (1974). The possible fault connects the Glen Helen Fault to the Loma Linda Fault. Due to the built-out nature of the study area, there are no significant impacts to new development. d. The proposal will not result in the modification of any unique geologic or physical feature in that no such features exist in the study area. f. Lytle Creek is a concrete lined flood control channel that traverses the Study- Area from the 1-215 freeway to Inland Center Drive in a _ southeasterly direction. The channel and the adjacent right-of-way shall be designated PFC (Public Flood Control) in the General Plan. g. According to Figure 48 of the General Plan, the Study Area is located within an area of high liquefaction susceptibility. A liquefaction report shall be prepared for any project within the Study Area that is found to be subject toChappter 15.08 of San Bernardino Municiple Code. 2. AIR RESOURCES a., b. Although the General Plan Amendment will not affect air resources, land uses permitted in the IL and CG-1 districts may result in air emissions and the creation of objectionable odors. Such land uses include, but not limited to, gasoline stations, automobile repair garages, and land uses that involve the manufacture of rubber, plastics and non-explosive chemicals. There is limited vacant land available for new facilities of this nature, although the conversion of existing uses is possible. These types of issues are addressed at the project specific stage and mitigation measures shall be required when necessary. 0 Cmtral City South Plan--General Plan Amendment Envrionmental Assessment Discussion Page 2 c. The study area is not located within the high wind hazard area as identified on Figure 59, in Section 15 of the City's General Plan. 3. WATER RESOURCES a. The General Plan Amendment will not affect the amount of impermeable surface in that it is completely developed where the CCS-1 designation is proposed to change to IL, and vacant land is proposed to remain designated commercial. Lot coverage areas in the CG-1 district are similar to those in the CCS-1 district; as a result, no increase in building and parking areas are permitted over that currently allowed. b. The course and flow of flood waters in the Study Area will not be altered because the flood control channels traversing the study area are concrete lined and no other uses of the channels are permitted. c., d. Although the General Plan Amendment itself will not affect the quality of groundwater, land uses permitted in the IL and CG-1 districts may result in impacts to groundwater quality due to surface runoff. Such land uses include, but not limited to, gasoline stations, automobile repair garages, and land uses that involve the manufacture of rubber, plastics and non- explosive chemicals. During periods of rain, chemical pollutants that collect on impermeable ground surfaces, are washed into the water ways and the quality of groundwater can be impacted by these pollutants. The proposal will establish land use districts essentially as they were at the time the General Plan was adopted (June 2, 1989). As a result, changes in surface and ground water quality are not significantly different than what was previously evaluated in the environmental document adopted with the General Plan. e. The Lytle Creek flood control right-of-way is identified as a 100-year flood plain (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060281- 0020 A, July 16, 1979). The proposed PFC land use designation of the channel restricts uses to flood control related. All projects located adjacent to the flood control right-of-way shall be reviewed by and subject to the requirements of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. The study area is not located within the Biological Resources Management (BRM) Overlay as identified on Figure 41, in Section 10 of the City's General Plan. b. According to Figure 40 of the General Plan, there are no known sensitive plant species within the Study Area. r) Centel City South Plan--General Plan Amendment Envriomnental Assessment Discussion Page 3 c. The proposal will not result in any change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat in that the study area is not located within the BRM as identified in 4.a. above. d. No trees will be removed as a result of this General Plan Amendment. Future development is subject to project specific review. 5. NOISE a., b. Portions of the CG-1, General Commercial, designation are adjacent to the proposed IL, Light Industrial, designation. This may result in the development or expansion of noise-generating industrial uses which could impact nearby day care centers, health service facilities or other noise sensitive uses, which are permitted in the CG-1 district. As part of the development proposal process, the initial study shall evaluate to potential for adverse noise impacts generated by the proposed use or impacting a sensitive use from an adjacent use. 6. LAND USE a. The proposed action will change the current General Plan designation from CCS-1 (Central City South - general commercial) to IL (light industrial) and CG-1 (general commercial), and CCS-3 to PFC (Public Flood Control). The resulting land use designation permits light industrial uses within the study area, where only commercial uses are proposed in the current plan. However, the land use designation previous-to the CCS- 1 permitted light industrial uses, consistent with the historical development pattern of the study area. This proposal essentially returns the study area to its previous land use designations. b, c. The study area is not located within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Report or located within the Foothill Fire Zones A, B or C, as identified on the Development Code Overlay Districts Map. 7. MAN-MADE HAZARDS a.- c. The General Plan Amendment will not use, involve, or store hazardous or toxic substances. However, land uses permitted in the study area, primarily the IL district, may involve the manufacture, use, storage and transport of toxic materials. Such materials include rubber, miscellaneous plastics, inks, engine fluids, and pesticides. Future land use proposals will be subject to project specific review. Central City South Plan--General Plan Amendment Euvrionmental Assessment Discussion Page 4 S. HOUSING a. Existing residential units are permitted to remain legally in the IL and CG-1 districts, although no new residential development is allowed. Existing residential uses will be phased out as economic forces create the demand for additional commercial/industrial facilities. Due to availablity of vacant housing (generally 5% to 8% of housing stock), the loss of these units will not adversely impact the housing supply in the City of San Bernardino. 9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a, h. Under the current CCS-1 general commercial designation, the amount of traffic anticipated to be generated by the future uses in the study area, in conjunction with the balance of the CCS District, was expected to impact the Central City South area. Because fewer vehicle trips are generated by industrial uses than by commercial land uses (ITE Trip Generation Manual), converting approximately one-third of the study area from commercial to light industrial uses will reduce future traffic volumes. b. Since the parking requirements for industrial uses are less than those for commercial uses and the proposed land uses will reduce the amount of land designated commercial and change it to industrial, the resultant parking demand will be lessened. However, the conversion of vacant land and single family residential uses to commercial industrial uses will add to the parking total. Parking facilities will be provided by each development proposal on an individual basis. c. The existing transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed changes in land uses. Streets are of sufficient width, mass transit is available, additional street connections and access are not necessary. d. The proposal will not result in the alteration of the circulation pattern. e. The site is presently bounded on the south by rail lines. The spurs have been largely vacated within the study area. No alterations to the rail system are anticipated as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment, nor will there be an impact to air traffic. f. With the potential for commercial land uses adjacent to light industrial land uses, the interaction between pedestrians, vehicles and trucks may increase. Development project proposals will be required to address pedestrian safety and auto/truck conflicts on an individual case basis. g. The study area is traversed by several roadways, all of which are fully improved with curb and gutter and a minimum paved width of 36 feet. As a result of the level of street improvements in the study area, individual Central City South Plan--General Plan Amendment Em,rioomental Assessment Discussion Page 5 projects with street widening requirements will not impact the area in a disjointed pattern. 10. PUBLIC SERVICES a-f.The study area is approximately 90%n developed and currently receives public services including police and fire protection, medical aid, and solid waste removal. The General Plan Amendment itself will not change the demand for public services in this area. As a result , no impact to public services will occur. Schools in the area will not be impacted in that the proposal does not include any residential uses. 11. UTILITIES a-c. The study area is currently served by existing utility lines and the amount of remaining vacant land is not anticipated to be of sufficient size to generate development that can cause impacts to utility providers beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service. 12. AESTHETICS a. Because no new development is proposed as part of this General Plan Amendment, scenic views will not be obstructed. b. General Plan Amendment will have no visual impacts. Future development proposals will be subject to project specific review. 13. CULTURAL RESOURCES a, b. The study area is not located within an archaeological sensitive area as identified on Figure B, in Section 3 of the C8y's General Plan. There are no structures proposed for destruction as part of this proposal. - z � ol zrnn V aYb ti R c S o - r Go N V ki U E �y luau may _v y o U d a r lo t-ui J`IIIIII•11111 ■■..I./p ■N\,,�yL..wwP1■ :•YSY;:i'w••:: Innli:;1 1:;;1v:;;/:. •:::II I:::Ili IM. ..:.I: l:./'::::: ..:I;n\\4:1:111 I\II■II: III::: :Iy: .N40u1uI44.u4 11 I 1 I/ :III.IIIIIIIIIIIII.In1 II111..■...\1/ :Minil i;ilei!!!illliilllli;llll:!!�!l!III::°i! 5 ";III;II:iliii ili9i3......! `.111111111111 .111.... $un1I1Iu ..._ ll....- ���� �� 1 111111 11111wn '11111 1 •I 1 ill 6 11 y'1--I 1mu mul unnm A -_ l 1 I In11wN1 -- V\ILIL..1.. .1.11....... 'IIw011N' .. qll m mu n11 lIn:1111/ =nuum■ 11...11... 07 .� �' : lwunuuuu I) -- Np11111■nINN� � 11111111111111111N1/11t■ 1'"MITHM IIIIIIIIINIM111111111111 �_ 1\ u4nuuu\:lnumunulw •:1 �� I I:1111111111I111111I111111�N11S rl11111111111111111111111111 ..... _�_...1.1.... .1................... �IIIIIIIIII\1::1:1::111:1:\::1/ .IIIIIIIII....I.I..11.......... ;;II � 11 .. I............ 4 IIiII..:::I. 1....... IN IIIII1.ILInJ11....,.:Irq. - .1n IIII II I.....1...1.......7 .011111;"1'::.I;I;IS..I .. duuul{ulnmusnunw �1:::IIIIIIIII :1::111111IIIIIIII: ;=;: Rom _ 'i1 ..Riyl. L EXHIBIT H2 z 0 H z o-� •a a V Rr t� � � W �L X W ,gyp J ev v`s' Q w 0 a� sa Wit` . Go S 8 c U 0 o U r iose�' mse, 0 a, N t �' •, 193iLLS T30V E LL U R 0 a i [J1el goo „ e, ae iei CITY OF SAN BERN." MINO - REQUEST F R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 to change the Land Use Designation from Dept: Planning and Building Services RM to CR-2 on 0.55 acre site located on the southwest corner of Sixth Street Date: April 13, 1994 and North "F" Street. MCC meeting of May 2 1994 @ 2 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: 06/02/89 -- The Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the Resolution be adopted which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 93-03. AL BO HEY Signature Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward:—1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: 7ouncil Notes: 15-0262 Agenda Item No.� STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1994 REQUEST/LOCATION Under the authority of Development Code Chapter 19.50, the applicant requests to change the General Plan land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CR-2, Commercial Regional - Downtown on a 0.55 acre site located at the southwest corner of North "F" Street and 6th Street. The current use of the property (medical facility) is nonconforming, and the General Plan Amendment approval will bring that use into conformance. KEY ISSUES The key issues are as follows: • The City of San Bernardino General Plan was adopted on June 2, 1989. • At that time the City designated the project site as RM, Residential Medium. This made the medical facility a legal but nonconforming use and may only expand minimally. The amendment will establish the facility as a conforming use and expansion into the west 40 feet, which is presently unused, will be permitted. • The medical facility has been in existance since the 1970's. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study, prepared by staff, was presented to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 18, 1993. The ERC determined that no significant impacts would result from the proposed land use change and recommended a Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for public review and comment from November 24, 1993, to December 16, 1993. COMMENTS RECEIVED There have been no public comments received for this project. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At their regularily scheduled meeting of March 22, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 93-03. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS The Mayor and Common Council may: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 93-03; or 2. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 93-03. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council: Adopt the Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No.93-03 based on the findings contained in the resolution. Prepared by: John Burke, Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Exhibits 1. General Plan Land Use Designation Map 2. Planning Commission Staff Report (March 22,1994) Attachments; A. Location Map B. Land Use Map C. Findings D. Initial Study 3. Resolution Attachments; A - Site Location Map B - Legal Description O O 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE 3 DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN 4 BERNARDINO. 5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 6 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 7 SECTION 1. Recitals 8 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was adopted by the Mayor and 9 Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989. 10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 to the General Plan of the City of San 11 12 Bernardino was considered by the Planning Commission on March 22, 1994, after a noticed 13 public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been considered 14 by the Mayor and Common Council. 15 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on November 5, 1993 and reviewed by the 16 Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission who both determined that 17 General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 18 19 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 20 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day public review period from 21 November 24, 1993 through December 16, 1993 and has been reviewed by the Planning 22 Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the California 23 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. 24 25 26 27 i 28 0 1 2 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public hearing and fully reviewed 3 and considered proposed General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 and the Request for Council 4 Action Staff Report on May 2, 1994. 5 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 is deemed in the interest of the 6 orderly development of the City and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 7 existing General Plan. 8 9 SECTION 2. Negative Declaration 10 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor and 11 Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of San 12 Bernardino will have no significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration 13 heretofore reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this proposed 14 amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed, and adopted. 15 16 SECTION 3. Findings 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 18 Bernardino that: 19 A. The proposed CR-2, Commercial Regional - Downtown land use designation is internally 20 consistent with General Plan Objective 1.16 in that it will permit an existing commercial 21 22 use to be in conformance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. 23 B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public's interest, health, safety, 24 convenience or welfare of the City in that the amendment area already contains an 25 existing commercial use that would be made conforming and compatible with the General 26 Plan. 27 z 28 I C. The proposed amendment to change the land use designation on 0.55 acres from RM, 2 Residential Medium to CR-2, Commercial Regional - Downtown would enhance the 3 balance of land uses in that existing development on the site would continue to provide 4 service to the community. 5 6 D. The 0.55 acre amendment site is physically large enough for uses permitted in the CR-2, 7 Commercial Regional - Downtown land use designation and the parcel has adequate 8 access to both Sixth Street and North "F" Street. 9 SECTION 4. Amendment 10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: 11 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by 12 13 changing approximately 0.55 acres from RM, Residential Medium to CR-2, Commercial 14 Regional - Downtown. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 15 93-03 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment "A", and is more 16 specifically described in the legal description entitled Attachment "B", copies of which 17 are attached and incorporated herein be referenced. 18 B. General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 shall become effective immediately upon adoption 19 of this resolution. 20 21 SECTION 5. Mao Notation 22 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be noted on such appropriate General 23 Plan maps as have been previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council, 24 which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. 25 26 27 3 28 0 I SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 2 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County 3 Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with California 4 Environmental Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 21 4 1 RESOLUTION ... ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 TO THE 2 GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and 4 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting therefore, 5 6 held on the day of 1994, by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 NEGRETE 9 CURLIN 10 HERNANDEZ 11 OBERHELMAN 12 DEVLIN 13 14 POPE-LUDLAN 15 MILLER 16 17 City CleTk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of 19 , 1994. 20 Tom Minor, Mayor 21 City of San Bernardino Approved as to form 22 and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN 24 City Attorney 25 26 By: CvUi�x� 27 s 28 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . 93-03 TITLE Site Location Ma 2 STREET-[—�-- s:s zz2 O 5p p ppu i A Z (Nee p _ Z 0 O O I m O i O n a op R ® C o _ p ® N m8 —;"F" STREET- —♦ N d 0 z Sp i / 'y l2 S m$ �� r• � m PG) P .O V ti ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . 93-03 TITLE Legal Descri tion Assessor Parcel No. 137-061-34: That east 162 feet of Lot 6 Block 38, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Plat recorded in Book 7 of Maps, Page 1, Records of said County. ATTACHMENT "B" LAIIlDI I iil CITY OF SAN BERNAF,_INO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6-2-89 Date MAn 4 Pane! No. �t € a J u 1.7d f4^ 5 SS Am un COUNTY `J ST cC CN rim Nl Y.NOS C E N T R A L cn _ �{1 Iwa ��. o /V• CI I T ]u (, 0 ' pl [nVVAf?J IIIL_�1 J I♦ 1 M IC. � I .J-rti9,. 'J cc - • .T. jT LN fFL I�Y� I u 1 T LN. ' 1 1 n 1 o,X� r ' LLh-2 a MILL OAIxp / f5/�9ANL )/ EXHIBIT #2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM #3 SUMMARY HEARING DATE March 22, 1994 WARD #1 APPLICANT: Mr. Lenny Carlito W 167 Manchester Lane Cl) General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 San Bernardino, CA 92408 UOWNER: Dr. Alvaro Bolivar 598 North "F" Street San Bernardino CA 92410 H !A W � To change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to WCR-2, Commercial Regional -Downtown, on a 0.55 acre site at the southwest corner of North "F" Street and Sixth Street located at 598 North "F" Street. CC Q W Q Q Environmental Determination: Proposed Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Existing Medical RM, Residential Medium North Residential -RM, Residential Medium South Residential RMH, Resid. Medium High East Library PF, Public Facility West Residential RM, Residential Medium GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: j47 YES HAZARD ZONE: >I-1 NO ZONE: q NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT ® YES HAZARD ZONE: a NO CRASH ZONE: ® NO Central PROJECT AREA. h❑ NO Q 01 NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ® APPROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 f. MITIGATING MEASURES W U) NO E.I.R. Q ❑ CONDITIONS Z Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO LL LL 0 Z ❑ DENIAL Z p SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W OZ WITH MITGATING F M S LL MEASURES N M ❑ CONTINUANCE TO 2 © NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS U W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES Q rE.nnu PUN-9.02 PIiGE 1 OF 1 1a-90) REQUEST 8 LOCATION General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 is a request to change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CR-2 , Commercial Regional-Downtown on a 0. 55 acre parcel to enable the existing non- conforming medical facility use to be in conformance with the General Plan's land use designation. The site is located at the southwest corner of W. 6th Street and N. "F" Street, and is within the Central City North Redevelopment Area (see Location Map, Exhibit A, Initial Study) . GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONFORMANCE The Applicant's proposal is to redesignate the property from a residential designation to a commercial designation which permits the present use. The proposal conforms with the General Plan Goal 1C which is "To provide for the continuation and development of land uses which provide for the needs of and attract regional populations, in addition to local residents. " There is a medical facility on the site (City records indicate that a medical use has been at the site address since 1978) which conforms to General Plan policy 1.7 .9 which "Permit(s) the continuation of uses which exist at the time of adoption of the Plan which do not conform to the land use intent of the zone: allowing for their minimal expansion. " The medical use does not conform to the- requirements of the Development Code in that it is not a_ permitted use in the RM, Residential Medium, land use district. However, it does conform to the nonconforming requirements of section 19 . 62 . 030 and may continue in that status. The proposed amendment would ensure Development Code conformance with the requirements of the CR-2 district (Development Code Table 06. 01, G. 3) in which a medical use is permitted. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS The General Plan Amendment is subject to CEQA. An Initial Study (see Attachment A) was prepared on November 5, 1993 , and, as there were no significant environmental impacts, a Negative Declaration was proposed by the Environmental Review Committee on November 18 , 1993 . The Initial Study was available for public review and comment from November 24, 1993 through December 16, 1993 . No comments were received. 0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 Page 2 ANALYSIS site and Area characteristics The property is a rectangular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0. 55 acres having a frontage of about 150 feet on the west side of N. "F" Street and a frontage of about 162 feet on the south side of W. 6th Street. The street address is 598 N. "F" Street. The existing medical facility was developed on the site using all but the west 40 feet. This western 40 feet of the parcel is fenced off and presently unused. The project site is adjacent to developed commercial and residential properties. Feldheym Library lies to the east and is designated PF, Public Facility. Residential Medium High (RMH) designated property is to the south and contains apartments. The Residential Medium (RM) land use district is to the west, north and northeast. The CR-2 , Commercial Regional - Downtown, district surrounds the area containing the RMH and PF districts, to the west, south and east. The project proponent is requesting a CR-2 designation which would bring the medical facility use into conformance with the uses permitted by the General Plan. The medical facility is currently a legal, nonconforming use. As such, only minimal expansion is permitted. Having a use permitted by the General Plan/Development Code would allow for full site expansion within the limits of the Development Code design standards. The area to the immediate west of the site was not considered for inclusion in the General Plan amendment as it contains single- family dwellings and is appropriate to retain them in the residential land use designation. Proposed Land Use Designation A designation of CR-2 would allow a medical facility use. Such a designation is intended to permit a diversity of regional-serving uses including professional offices. Although a CR-2 designation at this site is separated from the CR-2 designation by the library it is a logical extension of the CR-2 district as a library is permitted in that designation. The medical facility is not an intrusion into the residential area as it is an existing use. In the event another use were to be proposed at some future date, the redesignation of the site to CR-2 would not be detrimental to the surrounding area in that a use permitted on the site would be compatible with other uses permitted in the zone. The CR-2 zone adjoins the residential properties in the surrounding areas. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 Page 3 COMMENTS RECEIVED There have been no comments received concerning this proposed General Plan Amendment. CONCLUSIONS The applicant's proposal is consistent with the General Plan in that a medical use is permitted in the CR-2 land use district. The change of land use zoning will not impact the surrounding uses as those uses permitted in the CR-2 district are consistent with the General Plan. The property may be utilized to its full extent without impact on the surrounding properties and ensuring quality expansion by compliance with the standards of the Development Code. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council: 1. That the Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080. 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act for General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 and 2 . That General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 be approved. Res eccttfu ly� submitted Al Boughe Director Departm tl of _1-efining and Building Services Department i JL John R. Burke Assistant Planner Attachments: A - Location Map B - Land Use Map C - Findings D - Initial Study ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ITEM n CASE GPA 93-03 3 LOCATION HEARING DATE 03/22/94 L ' tA — _. s i L -I eouNiY' Y ♦.SOS �CCMTIIA L CENTER ..[. a Cl T • G CA s� a g • -.n9� W C C�' I I AT. I � Tf �1 Y: GGh--2 _ O \' I Al Fl. FV PUN-SM PAOE i OF 1 14-901 ATTACHMENT "B" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ITEM # CASE GPA 93-03 3 LAND USE HEARING DATE 03/22/94 M[JLTI—FAMILY �' T '• � I�f ` ��� r S� LJ� II `rJ SINGLE FI sAMI IY �rrFELI c�EIM LIBRARY r L WT.— aE T� TI`F IL_l�LJI� ILY ❑UJ eouNr Vl 1 sr J / coos ccMreAL 111J 'O TC. � cr _ L � -U go ALA - - - -- p `.T.NifT i R• KK ST IELT� N �I Ri a om I S J � � e ATTACHMENT C GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 FINDINGS 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that a CR-2 , Commercial Regional - Downtown, designation will provide a means to retain, expand and reuse the site for purposes permitted in the CR-2 designation. 2 . The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed in the Initial Study. 3 . This amendment will not impact the balance of land uses within the City in that the land use (medical facility) is existing. 4 . The subject land is physically suitable for the CR-2 , Commercial Regional - Downtown, land use designation and any anticipated future development on it. ATTACHMENT V' INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 Project Description/Location: To change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CR-2, Commercial Regional. The site is comprised of 0.55 acres and is located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and "F" Street. Date: November 5, 1993 Owner: Dr. Alvaro Bolivar 598 N. "F" Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 Applicant: Lenny Carlito 167 Manchester Lane San Bernardino, CA 92408 Prepared by: John R. Burke Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-03 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 93-03. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed land use designation is changed from RM, Residential Medium, to CR-2, Commercial Regional. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The following components constitute the Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 93-03: 1. Project Description 2. Site and Area Characteristics 3. Environmental Setting 4. Environmental Impact Checklist 5. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures 6. Conclusion/Environmental Determination Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment No. 93-03 is a request to change the land use designation for a 0.55 Parcel, which contains a medical facility, from RM to CR-2 so as to ensure conformance of the land use to that permitted in the land use designation. 2. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The property is an rectangular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.55 acres having a frontage of about 162 feet on the south side of 6th Street and a frontage of about 150 feet on the west side of N "F" Street Drive and being located on the southeast comer of the intersection of 6th Street and N. "F" Street and being further known as 598 N. "F" Street (See Exhibit A). 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is adjacent to developed commercial and residential properties. There are no significant environmental hazards associated with the project site. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST See Next Page CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND q Application Number. GENE 294 /'[A.V &V 93 e 3 Project Description: ._ 419VI , Acre AESVti✓i9 Tye) ,�4e9jj 1G.G7 .�fE9Dr4nf� /�.ED/[I.oi 727 LQ 2� �LYl1/l1E2Ch9G fCEG/G>sKrc- Location: Environmental Constraints Arenas: &---44C General Plan Designation: /t/1 RESiDE�✓77y4 /y,E-D/[/iYI Zoning Designation: IV14 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result 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 than 15%natural grade? _X c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic &Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? _X d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geobgic& Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General Plan? x 1. Modif ication of a channel,creek or river? �L PiAN-9.06 PAGE 1 OF 111-M g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? X NND H4. 37. h. other 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AOMD? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind& Fire, Figure 59,of the City's k General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pettems,or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X— c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration - of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity 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 Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 060281 ,and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f- Other 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 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 species of animals or their habitat? d. Removal of viable, mature trees?(6'or greater) t a. Other 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing,health care facilities,schools, libraries,religious facilities or other Boise-sensitive uses in areas where existing or future raise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A)interior as identified in Section 14.0-Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? _�_ b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing,schools, heahh care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? x c. Other? 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? X b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? }( c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A 8 B,or C as identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? d. Other? 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? _X b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X' C. Expose people to the potential heahh/safety hazards? x d. Other? S. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand - - for additional housing? b. Other? 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? X b. Use of existing,or demand for new, parking facilities/structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? _ g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? K i. Other? PLW9A8 PAGE 30F (11901 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe - beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? _X b. Police protection? c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Medical aid? X I. Solid Waste? X g. Other? 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? x 3. Water? _x _ 4. Sewer? x _ s. Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? _ c. Require the construction of new facilities? X 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? c. Other? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0-Historical, Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? X' c. Other? PW OM PIGE40F_ n14M 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Oualhy Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have 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,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sell sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals?(A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) SEE .'EXT ✓".9GE �..� PLAA4ia6 PAGE 50F_ (11-90 t � 5. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND NUTIGATION MEASURES 1. Earth Resources: a-f. Since the site is already developed, future grading is unlikely. Future reuse as permitted in the CR-2 designation will most likely be of similar or less intensity than the existing medical facility on site today. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and contains no unique geologic or physical features. The site is not subject to wind or water erosion. g. The project site is located within an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48, page 12-9. Future reuse of the property will address liquefaction issues at the development/design phase of such a project. 2. Air Resources: a-c. The site is developed and redesignation will not affect air quality. Future reuse of the site should not lead to an increase in emissions as future reuse will be of a similar or less intensity, however, these concerns and those associated with the potential of creating objectionable odors will be addressed if a reuse project is proposed. The site is not within the high wind/high fire hazard area. 3. Water Resources: a-e. Since the site is developed, it already contains impermeable surfaces. Improvements to or reuse of the site/buildings could lead to changes-in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the amount-of runoff. The potential for change of impermeable surface area would be minimal due to the permitted uses in the amendment site under the CR-2 designation. The site is not within a flood plain hazard area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 4. Biological Resources: a. The project site is not within the boundaries of the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan. b,c. This amendment, or any future project, will have no affect on unique, rare, or endangered species of plants or animals. d. There are some trees on the project site, three of which may require removal. Those tree sizes are less than 6" in diameter. The remaining trees are to be incorporated into the parking lot landscaping. 5. Noise: a,b. The existing use and potential future uses are not generators of noise, nor will any of the surrounding uses have an adverse noise impact on this use. Noise associated with future reuse will be evaluated at the time of project submittal. 6. Land Use: a. The proposed project will change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CR-2, Commercial Regional. 7. Man-Made Hazards: a-c. The current use does store, transport or dispose of hazardous, toxic and waste materials in a manner normally associated with the operation of a medical facility. Future reuse shall be evaluated to ensure that such materials do not impact the site nor the surrounding area. 8. Housing: a. The project is a change in land use designation only. The potential for reuse will not remove existing housing nor create a demand for new housing due the small size of the project site. 9. Transportation/Circulation: a-h. The general plan amendment will not affect existing traffic or traffic patterns. Future reuse may affect traffic circulation due to the potential for site redesign to accommodate future change in use, however, these issues in addition to safety issues will be addressed upon any project submittal. 10. Public Services: a-f. The project will not have a significant impact on any public service. 11. Utilities: a. The project will not have a significant impact on any public utility, or create the need for new facilities. Utilities are available to the site. No impacts are anticipated. 12. Aesthetics: a-b. The project is to change the land use only. Future projects shall be evaluated to preclude scenic obstruction and negative visual impacts. 13. Cultural Resources: a-b. The project site is located in the Urban Archaeological District as identified in the General Plan, Section 3.0, Historical, Figure 8. The General Plan Amendment does not affect any resources, however, future projects will be reviewed for archaeological concerns. D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, The proposed project COULD NOT have a signOicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA. TION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA r r Name and Title Signature Date: 11-1f- PV 9= PAIGE-OF_ (i I' ) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA ITEM # AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT GPA 93-03 CASE LOCATION HEARING DATE �1 .I N Pr , eouRtT 1 CENTER NDDt CENTRAL CIT T' V ' ST ^[ c CIT • G c - - -- L zi MXTI I Loo VA EXHIBIT A