The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About38- Planning & Building CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Memorandum RECEIVED--CI-I'( CLEPK '94 SP 15 P 3 :52 TO: Mayor Mino and the Common Council FROM: Al Bough Director, Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment 93-15, Conditional Use Permit 93-01 (reconsidered) , and General Plan Amendment 94-02 DATE: September 15, 1994 COPIES: Shauna Clark, City Administrator, James Penman, City Attorney --------------------------------------------------------------- These items appear on the Council meeting agenda for September 19, M 1994. It is necessary to continue the items to the next meeting of the Mayor and Common Council on October 3 , 1994 , in order to meet the legal noticing requirements prescribed by state law. CITY OF SAN BERN ADINO - REQUEST F 3 COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 - To change the land use designation from Dept: Planning and Building Services OIP to CG-1; northeast of Mill Street and Waterman Avenue Date: September 1, 1994 MCC Meeting of September 19, 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council action: ' The Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan on June 2, 1989. The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to process a General Plan Amendment on March 7, 1994. aDttlN.. 4OFFICEi 2 SEP ge, .1_ 30 Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 94-02, to change the land use designation from OIP to CG-1, based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment C) . Al Bou �- \\ atu re - Contact person: Al Boughey hone: X5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Resolution Ward: #1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $30.00 Source: (ACCT. NO.) 772-171-2451 \v(ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Finance: 5 Council Notes: 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of September 19, 1994 REQUEST AND LOCATION To change the General Plan land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to CG-1, Commercial General, IL, Industrial Light or to retain the current OIP designation at a vacant 8.8 acre site located on the north side of Mill Street approximately 175 feet east of the intersection of Waterman Ave. and Mill St. The site has a 625 foot frontage on Mill St. and consists of two lots. The north lot does not have direct access to a public right-of-way. The site adjoins those properties designated CG-1 by General Plan Amendment No. 93-04. BACKGROUND The Mayor and Common Council approved GPA 93-04 on May 7, 1994. The amendment changed the land use designation from OIP to CG-1 for properties on all corners of the Mill St./Waterman Ave. intersection. The subject site was considered but excluded from GPA 93-04 as it would create a large node of CG-1 designated land in the area. As a result of a specific request by the property owners of the subject site, the Mayor and Common Council directed Planning staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment to consider alternative land use designations. KEY ISSUES • Staff evaluated two alternatives; Alternative 1 proposes designating the site CG-1 as the land adjoining the site on the west side is already CG-1. The addition of the 8.8 acres creates a large commercial node (21.5 acres) at the Waterman Ave./Mill St. intersection, and the conversion of Norton Air Force Base to civilian use will support commercial use in this area; Alternative 2 proposes designating the site IL because of the presence of existing IL designated land to the east of the site. Due to the large expanse of IL there is little General Commercial available to support tertiary uses. • The site is designated OIP but no longer has access to Waterman Ave. It is isolated from other OIP designated land along the Waterman Ave. corridor because the only access is from Mill Street. Leaving the site designated OIP is not a practical option since it does not fit the General Plan description of the OIP designation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 12, 1994. The ERC recommended a Negative Declaration and the Initial Study was made available for public review and comment from May 19, 1994 to June 9, 1994 . Public comments were not received. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed GPA 94-02 on August 2, 1994 and recommended adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration and approval of the amendment to change the land use designation from OIP to CG-1. The vote was 5-0 (Affaitati, Gaffney, Gonzales, Melendez, Stone in favor; Cole, Strimpel, Trasher, Traver absent) . OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and Common Council may: 1. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 to change the land use designation from OIP to CG-1 or; 2. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 to change the land use designation from OIP to IL or; 3. Deny General Plan Amendment No. 94-02. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council: Adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 to change the land use designation to CG-1 based on the attached Findings. Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner Prepared for: Al Boughey, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Exhibits: 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Staff Report (August 2, 1994) Attachments; A. Location and General Plan Land Use Designation Map B. Land Use Map C. Findings D. Letter dated January 5, 1994 (Vanir Development) E. Initial Study 3. Resolution Attachments; A. Site Location Map B. Legal Description EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ITEM# CASE LOCATION HEARING DATE �•� _ c° Qo'_'e Ap r ME o lb !i ' p• � :oUwT a T � r T ST �c wF ; 3 is r 0 C co it T a 1 i VA. ST 1 N ( ► i 11 w i q q y /- 0 too-I Go-I AT sAm KINTO ST cN CffYOF SM HERNAROM GEK ^q^M PLAN-8.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 (440) EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM #3 SUMMARY HEARING DATE August 2, 1994 WARD 1 APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino W 300 North "D" Street N San Bernardino, CA 92418 Q General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 OWNER: Vanir Development Co. , Inc. U P 0 Box 310 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Cl) W To change the land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to n CG-1, Commercial General , or IL, Industrial Light, on an 8.8 acre vacant a site on the north side of Mill Street, approximately 175 feet east of LU Waterman Avenue. W a ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Vacant OIP Office Industrial Park North Commercial Storage 11 11 11 " South Commercial Retail CG-1 Commercial General East Vacant IL Industrial Light West Retail/Gas Station CG-1 Commercial General L:=C/SEISMIC ZI YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: K7 YES ZONE: ❑ NO ZONE: NO OZONE 8 ❑ NO - ) HIGH FIRE 13 YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT ❑ YES HAZARD ZONE: M NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: L) NO L4 NO ..1 ❑ NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ® APPROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH O E.I.R. CONDITIONS MITIGATING MEASURES Z w NO W C ❑ M Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R.REQUIRED BUT NO IL Z SIGNIFICANT_Z EFFECTS W ❑ DENIAL O Z WITH MITIGATING 1- 7. Q MEASURES N X. ❑ CONTINUANCE TO Z ] NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES Q an a wi�wwsc Ql/IML/ANIMOEwYftA m•..wwn s•n�.I.f. • wr GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 AND AGENDA ITEM: #3 HEARING DATE: August 2, 1994 Page 1 REQUEST AND LOCATION This City-initiated General Plan Amendment proposes to change the General Plan land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to CG-1, Commercial General, or to IL, Industrial Light, and considers the option to retain the current OIP designation. The vacant 8.8 acre site is located on the north side of Mill Street approximately 175 feet east of the intersection of Waterman Ave. and Mill St. The site has a 625 foot frontage on Mill St. and consists of two lots. The north lot does not have direct access to a public right-of-way. (See Location and Land Use Designation Map, Attachment A) . BACKGROUND The Mayor and Common Council approved General Plan Amendment No. 93-04 on May 7, 1994, which redesignated to CG-1 properties on all corners of the Waterman Ave. and Mill St. intersection. The 8.8 acre site of this project was considered then but was not included in GPA 93-04 due to the potential for an over-abundance of CG-1 designated properties at the Waterman Ave./Mill St. intersection. A decision was made to evaluate a land use designation change for the properties due to concerns of the property owner (see Attachment D, Letter dated January 25, 1994) . The Mayor and Common Council directed the Planning Department staff to prepare a General Plan amendment for the Vanir Development property for consideration of changing the land use designation from OIP to CG-1 or IL. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 12, 1994 (Attachment E) . The ERC determined that no significant impacts would result from the proposed amendment and recommended a Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for public review and comment from May 19, 1994 to June 9, 1994. Public comments were not received. The ERC recommended approval of the proposed Negative Declaration to the Planning Commission. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 AND AGENDA ITEM: #3 HEARING DATE: August 2, 1994 Page 2 ANALYSIS Site and Area Characteristics The 8.8 acre site, located approximately 175 feet to the east of Waterman Ave. , and fronting on the north side of Mill St. is a flat, vacant, irregularly-shaped property. Waterman Avenue and Mill Street are classified as major arterials on the Circulation Plan. The land to the east is designated IL and is undeveloped. The land to the south and west is designated CG-1 and consists of that redesignated to CG-1 by GPA 93-04 . The property to the north is comprised of a commercial storage and vehicle rental facility and is designated OIP having its frontage on Waterman Ave. The Warm Springs Flood Control Channel is to the northwest of this area. Euisting Land Use Designation The purpose of the OIP designation as stated by General Plan Objective 1.31 is to "Establish the Waterman Avenue corridor and other appropriate areas as distinctive office industrial parks and corporate centers serving the San Bernardino community and region. " Supporting retail uses are also permitted but must be located in corporate office industrial park structures. (General Plan Policies 1.31. 10 and 1.31.32) . As a result of the changes made by GPA 93-04 this portion of the OIP land is now isolated from the Waterman Corridor, as it only has frontage on Mill St. , and no longer fits the General Plan's description of the OIP designation. Proposed Land Use Designation Alternative 1 proposes designating the subject site as CG-1. The purpose of the community-serving commercial uses, of which CG-1 is part, as stated by General Plan Objective 1.19, is to "Provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new locations as new residential growth occurs. " As stated, the CG-1 should occur along major arterials and intersections such as Waterman Avenue and Mill Street to provide commercial services to the surrounding developments. The CG-1 permits a diversity of community-serving retail and service uses, entertainment uses, and professional and financial offices. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 AND AGENDA ITEM:#3 HEARING DATE: August 2, 1994 Page 3 Alternative 2 proposes designating the site as IL, Industrial Light. The Objective of the General Plan for the IL districts is to "Retain, enhance, and intensify existing and provide for the new development of light industrial uses along major vehicular, rail, and air transportation routes serving the City of San Bernardino. (Objective 1.32) . The redesignation of this site as IL would be appropriate as it adjoins a large area of IL designated land. In addition, Mill St. is a major arterial and also is one of the major access routes to Norton Air Force Base which is being redeveloped into an international airport with adjoining commercial/industrial development. Although the final design for the Norton redevelopment will be decided sometime in the future, any proposal for the former base will be enhanced by the proximity of IL to it. There is a large amount of IL designated land located in close proximity to Norton Air Force Base and adding an additional 8.8 acres will not appreciably affect the potential for industrial development as much of the existing IL land is undeveloped. Additional general commercial land will be required to support the large area of light industrial properties with the potential for development as well as for the land made available by the closing of the base. Adding the 8.8 acres to the area recently changed to CG-1 by GPA 93-04 will create a fairly large node of CG-I designated land at the Waterman Ave./Mill St. intersection, but this will be offset by the future need for commercial uses to support one of the main entry arterials to the former Norton AFB. General Plan Consistency A commercial district (or a node) generally provides a diversity of services to the adjacent and surrounding areas. Alternative 1 (CG- 1) would result in the creation of a 21.5 acre commercial node (the existing 12.7 acres plus the 8.8 acres of this amendment) which is large for what exists in the general area today. The potential development of the adjoining IL land and of Norton would justify an increased commercial area to support the future projects. A redesignation to IL, Alternative 2, for the subject property would also be consistent with the General Plan but with the availability of so much undeveloped IL properties, adding the 8.8 acres will not allow for additional area for commercial development that will be needed when the surrounding IL area is developed. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 AND AGENDA ITEM: #3 HEARING DATE: August 2, 1994 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS The approval of GPA 93-04 left the subject site isolated from Waterman Ave. The site no longer has access to Waterman Ave. and therefore does not meet the definition of the OIP designation. Both Alternatives 1 or 2 as proposed by staff are consistent with the intent of the General Plan and are compatible with the surrounding uses and potential future development. Alternative 1 proposes an increase in CG-1 designated land at the Waterman Ave./Mill St. intersection, and identifies a future need to support potential development in the adjoining industrial area. Alternative 2 proposes increasing an already large area of undeveloped IL land which will be further increased upon development of the former base. There is a proposed Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the: 1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration; 2. Approval of Staff's Alternative 1 proposal for General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment C) . R e s mitted, Michae Hay Assistant Director Planning and Building services z- 0 i hn R. Burke Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Location and General Plan Land Use Designation Map B. Land Use Map C. Findings D. Letter dated January 51 1994 (Vanir Development) E. Initial Study N I I NI,NMtN1 "N" FSAN BERNARDi..O AL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6-2-69 4R 1 4 1°9d Panel No. = � I � • 5`S�Q�P, � 1 1 _ 'r , - 4 gTU[t � u � r —tooIJFT T 'Pat T Cpla 3 .+, u r O Congo a r j Q or f M � ob 7 s ~ /r 1 S�r,E i i.��,t ATTACHMENT "B" EXISTING LAND USE GPA 94-02 GG COMMERCIAL �G STORAGE g VEHICAL RENTAL C sm 7� RETAIL CENTER v v VACANT BLDG A S T VACANT V ANT C R WROPOSEO a TAURANT MILL STREET CUP 93-24 SITE VACANT =E,AACANT RETA� CENTER LIQUOR W INDUSTRIAL STORE Q CENTER ELDI Z SUPPLY Q COMMERCIAL STORAGE Q W Q I N GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 AND AGENDA ITEM: #3 HEARING DATE: August 2, 1994 ATTACHMENT C GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 FINDINGS 1. The proposed amendment (Alternative 1) is consistent with the intent of the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan in that a CG-1, Commercial General designation will serve the needs of the City. 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 minimally impact the balance of land uses within the City in that the land use designation of OIP, Office Industrial Park, will be decreased by 8.8 acres. 4. The subject land is physically suitable for the CG-1, Commercial General, land use designations and any anticipated future development on it. ATTACHMENT "D't Exhibit "3a" "Imll$'in ROM 'v'. NIR DEVELOPMENT CONIPA.NY,I`C. 7.0.Box 310.%antr-aµer.Citc Hall Plaza.pan Bcrnaraino.Cziiiornta 92402.0310 Teieonone:;9091 784-Ql7.. —orn,T.mial.Indt.S(rtat Dt,ciopers-Real Estate Brokers January 25, 1994 Mr. At Boughey, A.I.C.P. Director DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES JAN 2 i CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 North "D" Street C` Y San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 :�j.:r`t,v_. Dear Mr. Boughey: The Planning Commission for the City of San Bernardino is currently reviewing a proposed amendment for changing existing zoning of an approximate .52 acre site from Office Industrial Park (OIP) to Commercial General (CG-1). Staff found in their opinion that this single isolated zone change "could be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that it would result in a disjointed pattern of land use." Staff recommends on the other hand to add an additional 12.72 acres of land to the change of zone from OIP to CG-1 and felt it would create a commercial node that would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. As adjacent land owners, we concur with Staffs findings. However, we believe that their findings should be extended to include the adjacent 8.8 acre parcel in the commercial node being created by the City for the very reasons concluded by Staff in its Positive Findings to change the land use of the adjacent 12.72 acres. Staff is reluctant to include the 8.8 acres in the General Plan Amendment as it "would result in an intense commercial area rather than a node." Staff concludes that a node is okay at 12.72 acres but not okay at 21.5 acres. We believe on the other hand with the several hundred acres zoned OIP and industrial in the area that 21.5 acres would remain a node and would have no adverse affect. I CIS 'NC.::LFS . .�: 3FR%ARD1s'0 %I E_.*ro Exhibit "30" Mr. Al Boughey, A.I.C.P. Director DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO January S, 1994 Page Two r In addition, our planning shows a maximum development of approximately 97,000 square feet 1 where Staff has calculated that our development would be a 496 p approximately _87, square feet of new commercial space which is virtually impossible for this property and is approximately four times more than the 12.72 acres current use. Additional considerations: 1. The requested zone change is consistent with our own plan for development of the Propel Ly- 2. The property is fronting on one of the main entrances to Norton Air Force Base and on the major north/south artery of the City to the San Bernardino mountains,both of which will require commercial development 3. Rezoning the 8.8 acre property from OIP to commercial use is consistent with all the uses surrounding the area Your consideration to include our adjacent 8.8 acres into the proposed General plan Amendment will be greatly appreciated. Rey' I VANIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 2 BENJAMIN DOMINGUEZ Senior Vice President BDacs i . j s i ATTACHMENT "E" - INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 Project Description/Location: To evaluate changing the land use district from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to CG-1, Commercial General, or IL, Industrial Light. The 8.8 acre site is located at the north side of Mill Street, approximately 175 feet east of Waterman Ave. Date: April 27, 1994 Owner: Vanir Development Company, Inc. San Bernardino, CA 92410 Applicant: City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared by: John R. Burke Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street M San Bernardino, CA 92418 INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 94-02. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed land use designation is changed from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to CG-1, Commercial General or to IL, Industrial Light. 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. 94-02: 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. 94-02 is a City-initiated General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for a 8.8 acre vacant site, from -OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial General, or to IL, Industrial Light. 2. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The property is an irregular-shaped vacant parcel of land consisting of two Assessor Parcel Numbers (136-391-37 and -38) comprising a total of approximately 8.8 acres and having a frontage of about 625 feet on the south side of Mill Street and being located approximately 175 feet east of Waterman Avenue (See Exhibit too,*, A) . The site lies to the east of an area recently amended (March 7, 1994) from the OIP land use district to the CG-1 land use district by General Plan Amendment No. 93-04. The land to the north is designated OIP and contains a commercial storage and vehicle rental facility. That land east of the site is designated IL. Mill Street lies to the south and the land south of Mill Street is designated CG-1 (GPA93-04) and contains a retail strip, vacant land and an auto repair business (see Exhibit B) . 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is adjacent to developed businesses on three sides and vacant light industrial property to the east. It lies within an area of potential for liquefaction and also an area having the potential for subsidence. Much of the southern portion of the City of San Bernardino is within these areas. The potential for subsidance and for liquefaction is a factor of the deapth-to- groundwater and can cause structural damage in severe groundshaking due to seismic action. Future development construction shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with all necessary design standards to minimize damage during earthquakes. The site is flat and undeveloped and has apparently been disced to reduce weed growth. There are no trees or vegetation other than weeds and grasses normally associated with previously disturbed land. There are no hazards of significance 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 Application Number. �E.✓�,QiyL ��gt/ ��lE•✓D�JT /�/p �4—QZ Project Description: 1®Ceti�G� �r,� l�t.✓i)l/�.� d�sisy�sc�-r�., tiQD� Q/� 7Z) C�-/ �.2 /L Location: 4W '00-Plffe" sYrE .4i 7;VZ ,r�n.CT.� sro,E mf 1"11144- Environmental Constraints Areas: /�si Dfi✓ L/Ql�,�' c�� General Plan Designation: /p Zoning Designation: Qlop 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/br fill)of 10.000 cubic yards or more? X b- Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15%natural grade? i c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 120-Geologic a Seismic.Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? _ Y d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e- Development within area defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 120- Geologic 4 Seismic,Figure 53,of the City's General Plan? _e f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? X =44==- 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. OMert Sugs1DAVcE rF4ir. S'1) X 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? X 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 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? _ 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 O0.20-9,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 Resouroes,Figure 41,of the City's General Plan? �( b. Charge in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? Q 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) e. Other? 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing,health care facilities,schools, libraries,religious facilities or other Onoise,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 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? Y _ an OF w..wuoro con""POWN0 Pw+e.os PAGE 2 of marn 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 x 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 identif ied 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 identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? d. Other? ` T. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: f 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? c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? f3. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. Transportatlon/Circulatlon: 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? _Y b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking facilides/structures? x c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X_ d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X_ I e. Impact to rail or air traffic? x f. increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? _Y g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? L Other? PLAN486 PAGE 3OP_ (i i4M 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.)? _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? . X_ e. Medical aid? X _ f. 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: 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 Surrey? _ c. Other? WJWKAM KA"M PAGE 4 OF_ (114M 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that ff 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? 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 ft future.) _ CL 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? _ X C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) - .S�E r f t r ° ` KA111- d PAGE s of_ (1141M S. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Earth Resources: a-f. 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. Future development shall address any grading or earth movement. 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, and in an area having the potential for ground subsidence (same section Figure 51, page 12- 15) . Future development on the property will address liquefaction/subsidence issues at the development/design phase of such a project. 2. Air Resources: a-c. The site is vacant. Future use of the site should not lead to an increase in emissions as future use will be of an intensity consistent with the land use designation of CG-1 or IL as contained in the General Plan, however, these concerns and those associated with the potential of creating objectionable odors will be addressed when a project is proposed. The site is not within the high wind/high fire hazard area. 3. Water Resources: a-e. Future development on the site would create impermiable surfaces. There would be little difference between projects designed for uses permitted in the OIP, CG-1 or IL land use districts. Absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the amount of runoff will be a factor of the site design and such review shall occur at the time of project proposal. 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 no trees on the project site. 0 S. Noise: a,b. The potential future uses are not generators of noise, nor will any of the surrounding uses have an adverse noise impact on any potential use. Noise associated with future use will be evaluated at the time of project submittal. 6. Land Use: I a. The proposed project will change the land use designation from OIP, Office Industrial Park, to CG-1, Commercial General or to IL, Industrial Light. 7. Man-Made Hazards: a-c. Future uses will be reviewed for storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous, toxic and waste materials. In addition, the potential for release of hazardous substances or the exposure of people to health and safety hazards will be a matter of review and action at the time of project proposal. S. Housing: a. The project is a change in land use designation on vacant land only. The potential for use will not remove existing housing nor create a demand for new housing due the size of the amendment site. 9. Transportation/Circulation: a-h. The general plan amendment will not affect existing traffic or traffic patterns. Future use may affect traffic circulation due to the potential for site design to accommodate future 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. 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 not located in the Urban Archaeological District as identified in the General Plan, Section 3 .0, Historical, Figure 8, nor in an area of concern for archaeological resources. 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 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 Sandra Paulsen , Senior Planner Name and Title Sig lure May 12 , 1994 Data: j - RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN 2 AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 5 SECTION 1. Recitals 6 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 7 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on 8 June 2, 1989. 9 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 to the General Plan of 10 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning 1.1 Commission on August 2, 1994, after a noticed public hearing, and 12 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been 13 considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 14 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on April 27, 1994 and 15 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning 16 Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 93- 17 04 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 18 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 19 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day 20 public review period from May 19, 1994 through June 9, 1994 and all 21 comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning 22 Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the 23 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. 24 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public 25 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan i 26 Amendment No. 94-02 and the Planning Division Staff Report on 27 September 19 , 1994. 28 1 r 1 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 is 2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and 3 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 4 existing General Plan. 5 SECTION 2. Negative Declaration 6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan 8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on 9 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared 10 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this 11 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 12 SECTION 3 . Findings 13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the 14 City of San Bernardino that: 15 A. The proposed CG-1, Commercial General land use designation is 16 internally consistent with General Plan Goal 1G(i) in that it 17 will add to the existing commercial node which contains a 18 diversity of commercial retail and service uses on the 19 Waterman Avenue/Mill Street intersection and the proposed a 20 designation is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and 21 Policies of the General Plan. 22 B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public 23 interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City 24 in that the amendment area is vacant and adjoins existing 25 commercial uses and is compatible with future commercial 26 development of the site. 27 C. The proposed amendment to change the land use designation on 28 8.8 acres from OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial 2 I General would enhance the balance of land uses in that 2 existing and proposed development on the site would provide 3 commercial retail and services for the Waterman Avenue/Mill 4 Street intersection. 5 D. The 8.8 acre amendment site is physically large enough for 6 uses permitted in the CG-1, Commercial General land use 7 designation and all parcels have or will have adequate access 8 to Mill 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 12 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 8.8 acres from 13 OIP, Office Industrial Park to CG-1, Commercial General. This 14 amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 15 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A, 16 and is more specifically described in the legal description 17 entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and 18 incorporated herein be reference. 19 B. General Plan Amendment No. 94-02 shall become effective 20 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 21 SECTION 5. Map Notation 22 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be 23 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously 24 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are 25 on file in the office of the City Clerk. 26 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 27 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 28 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 3 1 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental 2 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 3 4 6 7 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 0 1 RESOLUTION. . . ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 TO THE GENERAL 2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 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 therefore, held on the 6 day of , 1994, by the following vote, to 7 wit: 8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 NEGRETE 10 CURLIN 11 HERNANDEZ 12 OBERHELMAN 13 DEVLIN 14 POPE-LUDLAM 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 19 of , 1994. 20 21 Tom Minor, Mayor City of San Bernardino 22 Approved as to 23 form and legal content: 24 JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney 25 By: 26 27 28 5 Ate, ATTACHMENT A CpUNTy CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO � z GPA 94-02 00 �2oz �Q o coca OIP to CG-1 M. N W�N N g{O ,�TRA. 7014 N \ 4 TR.A. Lo- V a � M { R O v► sx a �. cl Vf m v „ N p TDOOLITTLE DRIVE Ob _ -x o 3 'co-, � � � ATTACHMENT "B° GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 94-02 Legal Descriptions i THE LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Assessor Parcel No. 136-391-37 PARCEL NO. 2 OF PARCEL MAP 8999 AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 100, PAGES 1 AND 2. Assessor Parcel No. 136-391-38 PARCEL NO. 3 OF PARCEL MAP 8999 AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 13, PAGE 94. it E i f