Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout47- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN EEhr1ARO1NO - REQUESI FOR COUNCIL ACTIOI From: Al Boughey , Director Subject: Development Code Amendment No . 93-01 Amendment to the Single Uept: Planning S Building Services Room Occupancy (SRO) Ordinance . Date: April 23 , 1993 Mayor S Common Council meeting of 05/ 10 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On October 8 , 1991 , the Mayor and Common Council adopted the existing Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities Ordinance (MC 809) . Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed , the Negative Declaration be adopted and Development Code Amendment No . 93-01 be approved based on the Findings of Fact ; that the first reading be waived and that the proposed Ordinance amending Section 19 .06 .030 (2) (s) of the Development Code be laid over for adoption . Al Bo ghe i Mature Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: Citywide FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct No ) N/A (Acct Description) N/A Finance: Council Notes:�_�M&W1Z!!/ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-01 PROPOSAL: Amendment to the Development Code, Chapter 19. 04, Section 19.06.030(2) (S) with respect to Single Room (SRO) Facilities to delete the reference to bars from the 250 foot distance requirement; to modify the kitchen appliance requirement; and to reorganize the existing SRO Ordinance by making the reference to the prohibition of the conversion of motels, hotels, or apartments to SRO Facilities a separate subsection. KEY POINTS• Development Code Section 19. 06. 030 (2) (5) sets forth the provisions under which SRO Facilities are permitted in the City. Subsection 1 stipulates that "SROs shall not be located within 250' of a parcel which has a school for children, adult bookstore or theatre, bar or liquor store. . . " It was anticipated originally that if SROs were located near these uses, there could be problems with the residents of the SRO. Subsection 11 of the SRO Ordinance states that kitchens in SRO units "shall include a range stove, sink with garbage disposal and refrigerator. " The proposed amendment will broaden this provision by adding microwaves to the list of allowable appliances in SRO kitchens. The last portion of the proposed amendment would make the prohibition on the conversion of motels, hotels, and apartments to SROS in Subsection 1 a separate subsection at the end of the Ordinance. This is just reorganizing the ordinance and doe$ not change its intent. On February 4, 1993 the Development Review Committee moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the approval of the proposed amendment but, at the suggestion of the Police Department, to delete only the reference to "bar" from Subsection 1 and to leave in "liquor store" . The applicant had requested deletion of both, but did not object to this change. The proposed amendment would make the SRO Ordinance locational criteria equitable with other provisions of the Development Code which do not specify a distance requirement between residential uses and businesses such as bars. Planning staff believes that the strictly controlled and monitored ingress and egress requirements for SRO Facilities, the required management plan and security provisions as stipulated by the SRO Ordinance will provide the means to control any potential conflicts with establishment selling alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. The proposed amendment was originally proposed to be exempt from CEQA because of the general rule in the CEQA guidelines that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. However, based on comments raised by the City Attorney at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, an Initial Study was completed for the proposed amendment. The initial Study in its analysis points out that the potential impacts on the environment are non-existent. In addition, the Development Code permits SROs in the CR- 2 and CG-2 designations only with no more than 500 occupants total citywide. This amendment does not change that. The applicant also has filed for a conditional use permit to construct a 271 room SRO Facility on the northwest corner of 5th and "E" Streets and is presently awaiting a public hearing before the Planning Commission pending the outcome of this issue. The project site is located across the street from a bar which is within 250' of the proposed SRO. Please see the analysis and attachments contained in Exhibit "A", Staff Report to the Planning Commission and Exhibit "B", the Initial Study. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study for this Development Code Amendment was reviewed by the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 25, 1993 at which time the Committee recommended the proposed Negative Declaration for public review. The public review period for the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on April 1, 1993 and ended on April 21, 1993. No comments on the proposed Negative Declaration were received. On April 22, 1993, the Environmental Review Committee recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of its public hearing on March 3 , 1993, the Planning Commission indicated its intention to deny proposed Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 and instructed staff to return with findings to support the denial. On March 16, 1993 the Planning Commission voted to deny the proposed Development Code amendment based on the finding in Attachment "C" of Exhibit "A". Most of the testimony before the Commission dealt with the applicant's conditional use permit request for the 271 room SRO Facility at 5th and "E" and the appropriateness of SRO development in the City; however, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed amendment, by eliminating bars from the 250 foot locational criteria, would create potentially adverse conditions . MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 and adopt both the Negative Declaration and the Ordinance, as shown on Exhibit "C", amending the Development Code by deleting the reference to bar from the 250' distance requirement; by modifying the kitchen appliance requirements; and by reorganizing the SRO Ordinance making the reference to the prohibition of the conversion of motels, hotels or apartments to SRO Facilities a separate subsection. 2 Deny Development Code Amendment No. 93-01. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment "A" of Exhibit "A") , adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt the Ordinance (Exhibit "C") amending the SRO Ordinance in the Development Code as specified above. Prepared by: John Lampe, Assistant Planner For: Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services Exhibits: "A" = Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachment "A" Findings of Fact for Approval Attachment "B" Proposed Rewording of Section 19.06.030 (2) (S) Attachment "C" Findings of Fact for Denial "B" = Initial Study for DCA 93-01 "C" = Ordinance EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission From: Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Subject: Development Code Amendment Date: January 28 , 1993 No. 93-01 Agenda Item: 4 Date: February 16, 1993 RFOUEST• The request is for an amendment to the Development Code, Chapter 19. 06, Section 19 . 06. 030 (2) (S) with respect to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities to delete the reference to bar and liquor store from the 250 foot distance requirement; and to modify the kitchen appliances requirement. This amendment will be citywide. The staff felt that it would also be appropriate at this time to make a slight reorganization of the SRO ordinance by making the reference to the prohibition of the conversion of motels, hotels or apartments to SRO facilities in Subsection 1 a separate Subsection at the end of the SRO Ordinance. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15061 (b-3) of the CEQA guidelines, the proposal to delete the reference to bar and liquor store from the 250 foot distance requirement; to modify the kitchen appliances requirement; and to reorganize the SRO ordinance are exempt from CEQA as they are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. BACKGROUND: Section 19.02. 050 of the Development Code defines Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities as "a cluster of seven (7) or more units within a newly constructed residential hotel of weekly or longer tenancy providing sleeping or living facilities for 1 or 2 persons per unit, in which sanitary facilities maybe provided within the sleeping units, and cooking facilities may be shared within the hotel . " Development Code Section 19 . 06 . 030 (2) (S) sets forth the provisions under which SRO Facilities are permitted in the City. Subsection 1 stipulates that "SRO's shall not be located within 250' of a parcel which has a school for children, adult bookstore or theatre, bar or liquor store. . . " ' 1 Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 1993 Page 2 The applicant also has filed Conditional Use Permit No. 92-30 to construct a 271 room SRO Facility on the northwest corner of the intersection of 5th Street and "E" Street. This request is presently under staff review and will be heard by the Planning Commission at a later time. The project site is located across the street from a bar called the "Gold Room" which is within 250 feet of the proposed site of the SRO. Unless the SRO Ordinance is modified, the proposed project can not go forward. Subsection 11 of the SRO Ordinance states that kitchens in SRO units "shall include a range stove, sink with garbage disposal and refrigerator. " The applicant is proposing to broaden this provision by adding microwaves to the list of allowable appliances in SRO kitchens. In addition, Subsection 17 of the SRO Ordinance requires that the SRO ingress and egress "be strictly limited and monitored by the use of a front desk area which has a full view of the entry/lobby area. . . " Subsection 24 requires a "management plan" and Subsection 25 requires detailed security provisions for SRO's. DEVEL40PMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE: On January 28, 1993 and February 4, 1993 the Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed amendments to the SRO Ordinance. The Police Department objected to deleting liquor stores from the list of uses in Subsection 1 of which SRO's shall not be located within 250 feet. On February 4, 1993 the Development Review Committee moved that the Planning Commission recommend the approval the proposed amendments but to delete only the words "bar or" from Subsection 1 and to leave in "liquor store. " The applicant did not object to this modification. ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Development Code Amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that it will encourage the diversity of regional- serving uses in the downtown area by making it easier for SRO Facilities to meet locational criteria and by making them more attractive to prospective tenants by increasing the variety of available kitchen appliances (General Plan Policy 1. 16. 10) . Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 Planning commission Meeting February 16, 1993 Page 3 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT Section 19 . 06. 030 (2) (5) --the SRO Ordinance--was added to the Development Code by Ordinance MC 809 adopted October 8 , 1991 by the Mayor and Common Council. Subsection 1 of the Ordinance stipulated that "SRO's shall not be located within 250 feet of a parcel which has a school for children, adult bookstore or theatre, bar or liquor store. . . " It was thought that if SRO'S were located near these uses, there could be problems with the residents of the SRO. Another section of the Development Code, Section 19 . 06. 030 (2) (B) , which regulates businesses requiring ABC licenses, does not specify a minimum distance between on-site ABC licensed facilities and residential uses and only 100 feet between an off-site ABC licensed site and property designated for residential uses. SRO Facilities are classified as "residential hotels" under the Development Code. The proposed amendment would make the SRO Ordinance locational criteria more equitable by making it similar to this portion of the Development Code which regulates businesses needing ABC licenses. In addition, staff believes that the strictly controlled and monitored ingress and egress requirements; the required management plan; and the security provisions of the SRO Ordinance will provide the means to control any potential conflicts with establishments selling alcoholic beverages. However, reflecting the concerns of the Police Department, staff concurs in not deleting "liquor store" from Subsection 1. Adding microwaves to Subsection 11 of the SRO Ordinance will increase the variety of allowable cooking appliances.Presently, the list of cooking appliances includes only "range stove. " This addition is consistent with the State Housing Code which states that efficiency units shall be provided with a cooking appliance but does not specify type. AMENDMENT: The amendment proposes to delete the reference to a "bar" from the 250 foot distance requirement; to modify the kitchen appliances requirement by adding "microwave" ; and to reorganize the provisions of the SRO ordinance (See Attachment "B") . Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 1993 Page 4 CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment to Section 19. 06. 030 (2) (S) to delete a "bar" from the locational criteria will make the SRO Ordinance more equitable with the other provisions in the City's Development Code which regulate the location of sites selling alcoholic beverages and the distances to residential uses. The ingress and egress, management and security provisions in the SRO Ordinance will insure that there will be no difficulties resulting in deleting the reference to a "bar". The provision for allowing microwaves will make SRO's more attractive to prospective tenants. The proposed amendment will encourage SRO's to locate in the downtown area and thereby further General Plan policies to diversify the range of uses in the downtown area. The reorganization of the SRO Ordinance is purely technical in nature to make the Ordinance easier to use. RECOMMENDATION• Staff proposes that the Planning commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council approve Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 as per Attachment "B" subject to the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment "A") . Respectful Submitted, Al ugh Di r o Planning and Building Services W. J Lampe Associate Planner Attachment "A" - Findings of Fact Attachment "B" - Proposed Rewording for Section 19. 06. 030 (2) (S) Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 1993 Page 5 ATTACHMENT "A" FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that the amendment further implements the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan. 2 . The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, in that the amendment will make the locational criteria between SRO's and sites selling alcohol more equitable by making it similar to other such provisions in the Development Code and shall be additionally regulated by the controlled access, security provisions, and requirement for a management plan of the SRO Ordinance and will make for an increase in the variety of kitchen appliances for future tenants. b O Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 1993 Page 6 ATTACHMENT "B" PROPOSED REWORDING FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 19. 06, 030 (2) (S) (Subsections 1. 11 and 29) : S. SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) FACILITIES (MC809 10-8-91) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities are subject to Conditional Use Permit review and approval and shall conform to the following standards: 1. SRO's shall not be located within 250 feet of a parcel which has a school for children, adult bookstore or theatre, b°r ^- and liquor store; and emirting metel: Gv-BR9=s. 11. A full common kitchen facility shall be provided on each floor, if complete kitchens are not provided in each unit. Complete kitchen shall include a microwave or range stove, sink with garbage disposal , and refrigerator. Other cooking appliances or facilities shall be prohibited in each SRO unit, unless approved in writing by the management staff. 2_9_,_ Existina motels hotels or apartments shall not be permitted to convert to SRO's. Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1993 ATTACHMENT "C" FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City, in that the proposed amendment will eliminate bars from the 250 foot locational criteria and thereby create potentially adverse conditions of loitering and crime arising between businesses selling or serving alcohol and the future residents of Single Room Occupancy Facilities. EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO 93-01 Proiect Description: The request is for an amendment to the Development Code, Chapter 19 . 06, Section 19.06. 030 (2) (S) with respect to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities to delete the reference to bar from the 250 foot distance requirement; and to modify the kitchen appliances requirement to allow microwaves. The reference to deleting "liquor store" has not been included and is not considered as part of the project description. Proiect Location: This amendment will be citywide; however, Single Room Occupancy Facilities are permitted only in the CG-2, Commercial General-Baseline/Mt. Vernon, and the CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown, land use zoning districts with an approved conditional use permit. The CG-2 land use district consists of those properties and parcels on both sides of Baseline from Lytle Creek on the west to the boundary of the City of Highland on the east. The CG-2 also consists generally of those parcels on both sides of "E" Street from Baseline on the south to 18th Street on the north and also of those parcels on both sides of Mount Vernon from 9th Street on the south to the I-215 Freeway on the north. The CR-2 consists of those parcels in the downtown area centered along 5th Street from the I-215 Freeway to Mountain Avenue. Date: March 15, 1993 Applicant's Name and Address: Larcon Development Inc. 330 North "D" Street, Suite 110 San Bernardino, CA. 92401 Initial Study Prepared BY: John W. Lampe Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building services Department 300 North nDn Street San Bernardino, California 92418 umww�nrc�wu PL "7 PIGS i OF 1 (4-9q Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93- 01. Section 2 . 0 provides a description of the project and site characteristics. As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration; 2 . Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impact before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration; 3 . Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and, (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant; 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7 . Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. b 4 Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 2 . 1 Project Description and Location The request is for an amendment to the Development Code, Chapter 19. 06, Section 19 . 06. 030 (2) (S) with respect to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities to delete the reference to bar from the 250 foot distance requirement; and to modify the kitchen appliances requirement to allow microwaves. The reference to deleting "liquor store" has not been included and is not considered as part of the project description. This amendment will be citywide; however, Single Room Occupancy Facilities are permitted only in the CG-2 , Commercial General-Baseline/Mt. Vernon, and the CR-2 , Commercial Regional-Downtown, land use zoning districts with an approved conditional use permit. The CG-2 land use district consists of those properties and parcels on both sides of Baseline from Lytle Creek on the west to the boundary of the City of Highland on the east. The CG-2 also consists generally of those parcels on both sides of "E" Street from Baseline on the south to 18th Street on the north and also of those parcels on both sides of Mount Vernon from 9th Street on the south to the I-215 Freeway on the north. The CR-2 consists of those parcels in the downtown area centered along 5th Street from the I-215 Freeway to Mountain Avenue. This proposed amendment will potentially allow SRO Facilities to occupy sites in the CG-2 and CR-2 land use zoning district which can not be utilized under the existing SRO Ordinance because of the locational criteria. Whether the reference to "bars" in the distance requirement is deleted or not, SRO projects can only proceed under an approved conditional use permit from the City Planning Commission. Modifying the kitchen appliance requirement to allow microwaves in SRO Facilities will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; it is considered to be "Categorically Exempt, Class 1" under CEQA Guidelines. As such, reference to microwaves will not be discussed in the potential environmental impact section. Secondly, the minor reorganization of the SRO Ordinance proposed by the amendment is an administrative matter and has not been included in this Initial Study review. Lastly, 0 Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 under Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines "economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. " Therefore this Initial Study shall consider only the potential adverse effects on the physical environment. 2.2 Site characteristics Those properties in the CG-2 and CR-2 land use zoning districts where SRO Facilities could potentially be located because of this amendment are situated in the urban portions of the City. These sites are located in areas where there is no marked relief, sites are level and there are no natural features. These areas are served by various City public services and facilities. Properties on Baseline and Mt. Vernon are developed to commercial uses with vacant parcels and scattered residential. Properties on "E" Street are developed mainly to commercial uses. Development in the CR-2 downtown areas consists mainly of a mixture of office and general commercial , institutional and governmental uses. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: Development Code Amendment No . 93-01 Project Description: Amendment to the Development Code with respect to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities to delete the reference to bar from the 250 foot distance requirement and to modify the kitchen appliances requirement to allow microwaves . Location: Citywide But restricted to those narcels in the CG-2 and CR-2 where SRO Facilities are allowed with a conditional use permit . Environmental Constraints Areas: Wind Erosion Liquefaction Susceptibility , High Noise and Urban Archaelogical concerns . General Plan Designation: Commercial General - Baseline/Mt . Vernon and Commercial Regional - Downtown - Zoning Designation: CG-2 and CR-2 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 X yards or more? b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater X than 15%natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic X &Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical X feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Sermon 12.0- Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General X Plan? f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? X PI -9. 6 PAGE t OF n1 g0) mnwumxn��s 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 h. Other? N/A 2 Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AOMD? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind& Fire, Figure 59, of the City's X 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 impermeable surfaces? X b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? R 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 Agencl/s Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 060281 0 0 10 - A and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62,of the City's General Plan? * X f. Other? N /A 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? X b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered spades of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? X 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 greater) X e. Other? N/ A S. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities,schools, libraries, religious facilities or other'noise*sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.0- Noise, Figures b7 and 58 of the City's General Plan? X *Also Community Panel Nos . 61JZ61 UUZUA an Pua-QX PAGE2or_ m2o� nun?R1 nn?SA 0 b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing Musing, schools, health 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? N/A 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the X General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and X the Land Use Zoning District Map? c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A& B, or C as X identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? d. Other? N/A 7, Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use, store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, X pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? N/A S. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing Musing or create a demand X for additional housing? b. Other? N/A 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 X use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking facilitieststructures? X c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X a. Impact to rail or air traffic? X f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or X pedestrians? g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X h. Significant increase in traff ic volumes on the roadways X or intersections? I. Other? N /A PL -Q, 6 PiioEIOP_ 01901 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? X c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? X f. Solid Waste? X g. Other? N/A 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? X 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? X S. Other? N/A b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X c. Require the construction of new facilities? X 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? X b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental X to the surrounding area? c. Other? N/A 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 X 3.0 -Historical, Figure B,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 X Reconnaissance Survey? c. Other? N/A °rnnw PLAN 9M PAGE 4OF_ 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 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 self 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? X 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.) X 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.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direly or indirectly? X C_ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) (See attached) wrtwarwnw PU .qm PRGE50F_ (11-WI ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES DISCUSSION-CONTINUED �vrniws PLAN 0.O6 PAGE_OF_ Its-001 D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, (DThe 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 sigriftent 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 Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner Name and Title 0 Signature Date: March 25 , 1993 j vuwone PAGE—OF_ neon Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. 1 Environmental Setting The sites where SRO Facilities could potentially be located are in the urban, developed portions of the City where they may be in whole or in part subject to Wind Erosion, Liquefaction Susceptibility, High Noise, and Urban Archaeological Concerns. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.2 .1 Earth Resources i.e. through d. As noted above future SRO Facilities are restricted to those areas designated CG-2 and CR-2 . None of the sites for SRO Facilities including those that might potentially be utilized because of this amendment are located where extensive cut or fill earth movement would be required; where development or grading on slopes greater than 15% would take place; where development would take place within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or where there are any unique geologic or physical features. i.e. A small portion of the area designated CG-2 is subject to the high potential for wind erosion as identified in Section 12 .0 - Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53 , of the City's General Plan. Any potential site in this area that might be utilized because of this proposed amendment would have to comply with standard City requirements for dust control and wind erosion. 1.f. No natural channels, creeks or rivers cross the potential areas for SRO's; therefore, any potential site that might be utilized because of this proposed amendment will not result in the modification of a channel, creek or river. 0 0 Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 1.g. Much of the area in the CG-2 and CR-2 land use zoning districts are subject to either moderate, moderate high, or high liquefaction susceptibility. Any potential site that might be utilized because of this proposed amendment would be required to submit a liquefaction report prior to the issuance of building permits to assure that proper measures will be employed to mitigate such susceptibility. 3.2.2 Air Resources 2.a. The City's SRO Ordinance limits the total number of SRO residents to 500 occupants. As some of the SRO units can be expected to have more than one occupant, the total number of SRO units will be somewhat less than 500. This number does not exceed the AQMD thresholds for either hotel or residential development. Therefore any potential site that might be utilized because of this amendment will not have a substantial adverse impact on air quality. 2.b. and c. SRO units are defined as residential hotels in the City's Development Code. As such any SRO Facility that may utilized a potential site because of this amendment would not create any objectionable odors. Also, none of the sites available for SRO development in the CG-2 or CR-2 zoning districts are located in a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59 of the City's General Plan. Therefore any potential site that might be utilized because of this amendment will not be affected by high wind. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.a. The utilization of any potential site for an SRO Facility because of this amendment may result in some potential impacts relating to absorption rates, drainage patterns, and surface runoff. Standard requirements and conditions of approval will reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. Public Works Department Standard Requirements requiring conveyance of site drainage and runoff to public drainage facilities will apply. Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 3.b. No natural streams or rivers cross the areas where SRO Facilities are allowed. Therefore any potential site that may be utilized for an SRO because of this amendment will not result in changes in the course or flow of flood waters. 3.c. and d. As all future SRO development in the City including any that may potentially utilize a particular site because of this amendment will be required by the Public Works Department's Standard Requirements to convey site drainage and runoff to approved public drainage facilities, no adverse impacts to surface water or ground water quality will result from this amendment. 3.e. None of the areas in the CG-2 and CR-2 where SRO's could be developed are subject to flood hazards with the exception of the extreme east end of Baseline Avenue where a 500 year flood plain exists. Any sites within the flood area which potentially could be utilized for a SRO Facility because of this amendment would have to comply with the requirements of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to mitigate any adverse flooding impacts to insignificant levels. 3.2.4. Biological Resources 4.a. througb c. None of the future SRO sites in the CG-2 and CR-2 in the City are within the Biological Resources Management Overlay as identified in Section 10. 0-Natural Resources, Figure 41 of the City's General Plan. Therefore the utilization of any potential site as an SRO Facility because of this amendment will not have an adverse impact on any rare or endangered animal or plant species. 0 Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 4.d. Before any potential site which has mature trees that would be removed may be utilized as an SRO Facility because of this amendment, an Arborist Report will be required to discuss the health and condition of the trees and how they may be saved or replaced. The recommendations of the report would be incorporated into the conditions of approval of the SRO project to mitigate any adverse impact on existing trees. 3.2.5 Noise 5.a. Some of the areas in the CG-2 and CR-2 land use zoning districts experience or will experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB(A) as identified in Section 14 . 0 - Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan. Before any site which is subject to high noise levels may potentially be utilized as a SRO Facility because of this amendment, an acoustical study will be required to analyze how noise levels can be reduced to acceptable levels. The recommendations of the acoustical study will be incorporated into the conditions of approval of the SRO Facility to mitigate noise impacts to acceptable levels. 5.b. As a residential use, any SRO Facility that potentially utilizes a site because of this amendment will not 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. 3.2.6 Land Use 6.a. through c. No changes in the land use designations shown on the General Plan are proposed by this code amendment. None of the potential SRO sites in the CG-2 or CR-2 land use zoning districts are in an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map. Also, none of these areas are within Foothill Fire Zones A & B or C as identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map. o 0 Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 3.2.7 Kan-made Hazards 7.a through c. Because SRO's are classified as residential hotels, any hazardous materials used, stored or disposed will be those materials normally associated with a residential use. In addition any hazardous materials over 55 gallons, 500 lb. 's or 200 cubic feet of gas must be under permit by the Department of Environmental Health Services of the County of San Bernardino. Any site that may be potentially be utilized as an SRO Facility because of this amendment will not result in man-made hazards. 3.2.8 Housing 8.a. Some of the sites that potentially could be used as an SRO Facility because of this amendment may involve the removal of existing housing. However, any housing lost because of this code amendment will be replaced by the new housing of the SRO Facility. Also, no demand for additional housing will be created by this code amendment. 3.2.9 Transportation 9.a. through h. The number of SRO occupants and units within the City is limited by the SRO Ordinance to a level that will not have an adverse impact on the City's Transportation Facilities. Because of the limited number of allowable units, any individual SRO project that may potentially utilize a site because of this amendment will not have an adverse impact on the City's transportation facilities. Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 3.2 . 10 Public Services 10.a. through f. The number of SRO occupants and units in the City is limited by the SRO Ordinance to a level that will not have an adverse impact on the City's Public Services. In addition as all of the units will be single occupancy, (i.e. , no families) little or no impacts on City school systems are anticipated. The security measures and management plan required for SRO projects will insure that any SRO Facility that potentially utilizes a site because of this amendment will have no adverse impact on the city's police department. 3.2 . 11 Utilities ii.a. through c. The number of SRO occupants and units in the City is limited by the SRO Ordinance to a level that will not have an adverse impact on the City's Utilities. The option of using microwave appliances for cooking will have a beneficial impact on electrical utilities as microwave cooking is more efficient with less energy demands. 3.2 .12 Aesthetics - 12 .a. As future SRO sites in the CG-2 and CR-2 are located towards the center of the City at lower elevations, there will be a limited possibility of the obstruction of scenic views. In addition, any site that may potentially utilize a particular site because of this amendment will be required to be reviewed through the conditional use permit process to insure that scenic views will not be adversely impacted. I, o Initial Study for Development Code Amendment No. 93-01 March 15, 1993 12.b. Visual impacts to surrounding areas resulting from any SRO that may potentially utilize a particular site because of this amendment will be mitigated by various measures. These measure include: all SRO' s are subject to the Commercial Development Design Standards; all SRO projects located in the CR-2 District would be regulated by the Design Standards of the Main Street Overlay District; and those adjacent to the I-215 Freeway would be subject to the Design Standards of the Freeway Corridor Overlay. 3.2 . 13 Cultural Resources 13.a. Large portions of the CG-2 and CR-2 land use zoning district are located in the Urban Archaeological District--an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3 .0-Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan. Any site in this area which potentially could be utilized as an SRO Facility because of this amendment will be required to prepare appropriate archaeological reports and studies or to have a qualified archaeologist on site during the construction phase. 13.b. Some of the sites that potentially would be used as an SRO Facility because of this amendment may involve the alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey. In such cases the mitigation measures of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance will apply. 3.2.11 KANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065) The proposed project will amend the Development Code, Chapter 19.06, Section 19 .06. 030 (2) (5) with respect to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities to delete the reference to bar from the 250 foot distance requirement and to modify the kitchen appliances requirement to allow microwaves. The response to the checklist questions indicate that the project will not result in any significant impacts. No cumulative impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified. I ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19. 06, SECTION NO. 19. 06. 030(2) (S) (1) AND (11) AND ADDING SECTION 3 NO. 19. 06. 030(2) (5) (29) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE PERTAINING TO SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) 4 FACILITIES. 5 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 6 SECTION 1. Section No. 19.06. 030 (2) (5) (1) and (11) , SINGLE 7 ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) FACILITIES, is amended to read as follows (See 8 Attachment A-1, Pages II-117B and II-1170 of the Development Code, 9 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference] : 10 °S. SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) FACILITIES 11 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities are subject to 12 Conditional Use Permit review and approval and shall conform 13 to the following standards: 14 1. SRO's shall not be located within 250 feet of a parcel 15 which has a school for children, adult bookstore or 16 theater, or liquor store. 17 11. A full common kitchen facility shall be provided on each 18 floor if complete kitchens are not provided in each unit. 19 Complete kitchen shall include a microwave or range 20 stove, sink with garbage disposal, and refrigerator. 21 Other cooking appliances or facilities shall be 22 prohibited in each SRO unit unless approved in writing by 23 the management staff. 24 SECTION 2 . Section No. 19 . 06. 030(2) (S) (29) , SINGLE ROOM 25 OCCUPANCY (SRO) FACILITIES, is added to read as follows [See 26 27 28 1 1 Attachment A-2 , Page II-117G of the Development Code, attached 2 hereto and incorporated herein by reference] : 3 1129. Existing motels, hotels or apartments shall not be permitted 4 to convert to SRO's. " 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I ORDINANCE. . . AMENDING CHAPTER 19. 06, SECTION NO. 19. 06.030 (2) (S) (1) AND (11) AND ADDING SECTION NO. 19 . 06. 030 (2) (S) (29)OF THE SAN 2 BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE PERTAINING TO SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO) FACILITIES. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance 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 , 1993 , by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 ESTRADA _ 9 REILLY _ 10 HERNANDEZ _ 11 MAUDSLEY 12 MINOR _ 13 POPE-LUDLAM _ 14 MILLER _ 15 16 City Clerk 17 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this day 18 of , 1993 . 19 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor 20 City of San Bernardino 21 Approved as to form and legal content: 22 JAMES F. PENMAN, 23 City Attorney 24 By: 4r�n T • � � 25 26 27 28 3 CL .MERCUL DISTRICTS-19.06 11. The structure shall be made to conform to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code for commercial structures. 12. Trash receptacles should be placed to the rear of the structure and screened from view. Location and size of receptacles will be deter- mined at project review. S. SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY(SRO) FACILITIES (MC8o9 10-8-91) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities are subject to Conditional Use Permit review and approval and shall conform to the following standards: 1. SRO's shall not be located within 250 feet of a parcel which has a school for children, adult bookstore or theater, or liquor store. 2. SRas shall be located within 1/4 mile of a bus stop. 3. SRO's shall comply with the following parking requirements: 1 per full time SRO employee at maximum shift and 1 per 10 oc- cupants 4. Secured bicycle or motorcycle spaces shall be provided at a ratio of 1 space per 10 occupants. 5. Any design of a SRO project shall coordinate with and complement the existing architectural style and standards of the surrounding land uses and local community. If a design theme has become es- tablished in an area, this should be reflected in the design and scale of the SRO project. 6. An unrestricted drop-off/pick-up/loading/temporary parking area shall be provided near a single entry located adjacent to front entry/desk area. 7. Exterior common areas and/or open courtyards should be provided throughout the project. If common areas are made available,these areas should be designed to provide passive open space with tables, chairs,planters,or small garden spaces to make these areas useful and functional for the residents. Exterior common areas,in- cluding parking areas,should be illuminated with a minimum of 2 footcandles by low pressure sodium fighting from dusk to dawn. 8. Each SRO unit shall be provided with the following minimum amenities: II-1178 Attachment A-1 7192 C ugERC1AL DISTRICTS-19A6 Adequate heating and air conditioning. (Window air conditioning units are not permitted. Air conditioning units may be installed for each SRO unit as long as they are flush with the exterior wall sur- face.) Kitchen sink with garbage disposal. Counter top measuring a minimum of 12 inches deep and 24 inches wide. Space and proper wiring for a microwave and small refrigerator. (These appliances must be available for rent) Pre-wired for telephone and cable television. Toilet and sink in a separate room that is a minimum of 20 square feet. One bed space per person. One closet per person. One storage/desk arrangement per person. Intercom system. Lockable door, which is a minimum of 36 inches wide,opens in- ward, and has a reprogrammable key card access from a secured enclosed interior hallway or common area. 9. The maximum occupancy and minimum unit size (not including toilet compartments) shall be: I person- 150 square feet 2 persons - 175 square feet The maximum unit size shall be 325 square feet 10. Elevators shall be required on new SRUs which are 3 stories or more in height 11 . A full common kitchen facility shall be provided on each floor if complete kitchens are not provided in each unit. Complete kitchen shall include a microwave or range stove, sink with garbage disposal , and refrigerator. Other cooking appliances or facilities shall be prohibited in each SRO unit unless approved in writing by the management staff. 11-117 C 7192 CG AERCIALDISTRIM-19,06 tion arrests are occurring at the SRO facility, the Operators Permit issued to the SRO facility may be revoked pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 5.82. Further operation of the SRO facility shall not occur without first processing and obtaining approval for a new Operators Permit. 27. Condition compliance inspections by the City may be made on an annual basis, and the costs of such inspections, up to$5,000.00 ad- justed annually for inflation, shall be paid by the SRO facility operator. Any violation(s) of the conditions of approval,municipal codes, or state or federal laws or regulations pertaining to SRO facilities, as they exist at the time of the inspection,shall be cor- rected within the time period(s) specified in the notice of violation. If the Director makes a finding that the corrections have not been made within the specified time period(s), the Conditional Use Per- mit and Operators Permit for the SRO facility may be revoked pur- suant to the provisions in Chapter 19.36 and 5.82 of the Municipal Code. 28. The maximum number of SRO units to be brought into service within the City of San Bernardino after the effective date of the Development Code, shall be the number that accomodates 500 oc- cupants. Prior to any proposed amendments to these SRO stand- ards or to an increase in the maximum number of SRO units-in ser- vice, the Department of Planning and Building Services shall present a report to the City Council with the following information: the number and location of permitted SRO projects, the number and capacity of existing SRO units, the average occupancy rate, the rent levels, the average number of vehicles per resident, and the perceived adequacies or deficiencies of the management services provided in the SRO facilities." 29. Existing motels, hotels or apartments shall not be permitted to convert to SRO's. 11-117G n++­km,..,+ n_o eoo