Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout46- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNA .DINO - REQUEST FG -, COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey , Director Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . 92-08 TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM Dept: Planning & Building Services RM TO CG-1 , SWC OF COULSTON STREET AND MTN . VIEW AVENUE . Date: March 2 , 1993 MCC Meeting of 3/22/93 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None Recommended motion: That the public hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No . 92-08 . Signature Contact person: Al B o u g h e y Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 TO CHANGE RM TO CG-1--MEETING OF MARCH 22 , 1993 REQUEST AND LOCATION: The proposed project is to amend the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General, on approximately 2 . 37 acres located generally on the westerly side of Mountain View Avenue between Coulston Street and the I-10 Freeway. KEY POINTS: The applicant initiated this proposal by requesting that the RM designation be changed to CG-1 for his parcel on the southwest corner of Mountain View Avenue and Coulston Street. This parcel is vacant. Staff proposed that an adjacent parcel under a separate ownership to the south next to the I-10 Freeway be evaluated as part of the proposed general plan amendment. Staff felt it would have been illogical to have not considered this adjacent property, especially as it is developed with a commercial use, an automobile service station. Surrounding land uses consist of apartments and vacant land to the west; of apartments and a church to the north; of the I-10 Freeway to the south; and to the east, lying within the jurisdiction of the City of Redlands, of an undeveloped area which has been planned for light industrial/office commercial. This area including the amendment site was within the City's sphere of influence and designated RM with adoption of the General Plan on June 2 , 1989. It was annexed to the City of San Bernardino on September 28, 1990 and the land use designation was changed to RM. Prior to this, the site lay in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County and was zoned for commercial and light industrial purposes. The purpose of the RM land use designation is to allow for multi-family townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The amendment site is a vacant parcel which is relatively small. Residential development of the site would not lead to "high quality multi-family townhouses, condominiums or apartments which convey a distinctive residential neighborhood character and are integrated with their setting" as called for by the General Plan. The purpose of the CG-1 land use designation is, in part, to provide for 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. Changing the land use designation to CG-1 is in conformance with General Plan Policies that call for locating commercial services in proximity of residents and locating these services at key intersections. There is no commercial zoning in the City along this portion of Mountain View Avenue; and the site is located at the intersection of Mountain View and the I-10. Changing the zoning to CG-1 recognizes the existing automobile service station; allows the station to become a conforming use; and allows for the development of uses which will be compatible with the adjacent freeway and multiple family residential uses. Please see the analysis and attachments contained in Exhibit "A,', Staff Report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This General Plan Amendment is subject to the provisions of CEQA. The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on October 15, 1992 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was recommended. Both the applicant's parcel and the expanded parcel were included in the Initial Study. The public review period for the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on November 6, 1992 and ended on November 30, 1992 . No comments on the proposed Negative Declaration were received. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on February 2, 1993 . The Planning Commission voted 6-0 with 3 absences to recommend the adoption of the Negative Declaration and the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 to change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General, on the amendment site. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS• 1. That the public hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted to adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 to change the General Plan Land Use Plan from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General. 2 . That the public hearing be closed and General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 be denied. RECOMMENDATIONS• Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing and adopt the resolution, copy attached. Prepared by: John Lampe, Associate Planner For: Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services. Exhibits: "A" = Location Map "B" = Staff Report to Planning Commission February 2, 1993 Attachment A - Findings of Fact Attachment B - Initial Study Attachment C .- Amendment Area Attachment D - Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map "C" = Resolution Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Legal Descriptions EXHIBIT "A" SAN BERNARJINO C I T Y O F GPA 92-08 FGGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . TITLE LOCATION MAP pAY CA AF CEA OR, i e' d OKCHARD � Q CA141ACN 2 , W rA I> t VACANT LAND —� ^oucaTON s7 I KES/DwT/�- 3 -SUBJECT Pi40PERTY t /oEW / L_ h n_ Q Z c� rr of jREOLAN PS ci r y of Lo L EX P N DEjo AK2�rN4 I -pp ?05 E O G 6 S rArE N/ 4HWA 1 00 0 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 2 SUMMARY HEARING DATE �T- INS WARD APPUCANT: Alex Goglanian Jr. w GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 92-08 40793 Mornin Glory Dr. Cl) Murrieta, CA 92562 VOWNER: Alexander Goglanian Sr. etal Lotfi A. Hapag 2052 Placenttia Ave. The applicant requests an amendment to change the land use designation N from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General , land use UJ designation on approximately 2.37 acres located on the westerly side of Mountain View Avenue between Coulston Street and the I-10 Freeway . W Q W Q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND i iSF ZONINCi DESIGNATION Subject Service Station & Vacant RM Residential Medium North Church & Apartments RM Residential Medium East Vacant S-D City of Redlands South I-10 Freeway -- City of Loma Linda West Apartments RM Residential Medium GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE Ate: HAZARD ZONE: NO ZONE: CNO ❑ ZDNE B ONO C C C HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES I�DEVELOp�I,IT ❑ Y� HAZARD ZONE: � NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: NOT R Q APPUCABLE EFFECTS YVITM�IFlCANT 0 APPROVAL f" MITIGATING MEASURES W a NO E I.R a ❑ coNDmoNs Z C] EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R.REQUIRED BUT NO U.Z Z Q SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS a W ❑ DENIAL QZ �SU�MITIGATING j u' G ❑ CONTINUANCE TO Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V W EFFECTS � S HED E.R.C. W Q Cr"CP PLA"M PAGE 1 OF 1 14-M GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE: 2 REQUEST AND LOCATION: The proposed project is to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General, land use designation for two parcels with a total area of approximately 2 . 37 acres. The amendment site is comprised of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 281-291-05, . 68 acres and 281-243-11, 1. 69 acres. The site is located on the westerly side of Mountain View Avenue between Coulston Street and the I-10 Freeway (Redlands Freeway) . The site vicinity and current land use designation are shown on Attachment "D" . The applicant initiated this proposal by requesting that the RM designation be changed to CG-1 for his parcel (281-291-05) on the southwest corner of Mountain View Avenue and Coulston Street. Staff proposes, however, that a separate, adjacent parcel (281-243- 11) under separate ownership be evaluated as part of the proposed general plan amendment. This latter parcel lies to the south of the applicant's parcel next to the I-10 Freeway. Staff believes that it would be illogical to leave this adjacent parcel out of the amendment, especially as it is partially developed with an existing commercial use (automobile service station) . SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS: As noted above, the irregularly shaped amendment site is composed of two parcels. Parcel 281-291-05 has a frontage of about 246 feet on Mountain View and 120 feet on Coulston; it is presently vacant. Parcel 281-243-11 has a frontage on Mountain View of about 190 feet and abuts the I-10 Freeway along its southerly boundary for 414 feet. This latter parcel is developed with an automobile service station on its front portion with the rear vacant except for an existing billboard. Both parcels are level. Vehicular access to the amendment site is provided by Coulston Street, a local street and Mountain View Avenue, a Secondary Arterial . In addition, Mountain View has on and off ramps to the I-10 Freeway with an on-ramp lying along the southerly boundary of the amendment site. The freeway lies above grade at this point. Surrounding land uses consist of apartments and vacant land to the west; of apartments and a church to the north; of the I-10 Freeway to the south; and to the east, lying within the jurisdiction of the City of Redlands, of an undeveloped area which has been planned for light industrial/office commercial. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE: 3 BACKGROUND: This area including the amendment site was within the City's sphere of influence and designated RM with adoption of the General Plan on June 2 , 1989. It was annexed to the City of San Bernardino on September 28, 1990 (Annexation No. 342) and the land use designation of the area was changed to RM, Residential Medium. Prior to the General Plan adoption, the site lay in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County and was zoned for commercial and light industrial purposes. DEVELOPMENT CODE: Chapter 19. 62 of the City's Development Code classifies the automobile service station as a legal nonconforming use allowing for its continuation and for minimal expansion. It further provides that if the station becomes vacant for a period of 6 months or more, the nonconforming status cannot be reestablished and the future use of the site must conform with the underlying land use designation. No development plans have been submitted with this application; however, the applicant has indicated that in the future he would contemplate developing the site for commercial uses. The property owner of the service station on the southerly parcel also has no immediate plans for developing the rear of his parcel. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS: This General Plan Amendment is subject to the provisions of CEQA. The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on October 15, 1992 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was recommended. Both the applicant's parcel and the expanded parcel were included in the Initial Study. The public review period for the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on November 6, 1992 and ended on November 30, 1992 . No comments on the proposed Negative Declaration were received. ANALYSIS: EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The purpose of the RM, Residential Medium, land use designation is to allow multi-family townhouses, condominiums, and apartments at a maximum density of 12 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 14 ,400 square feet (General Plan Policies 1. 13 . 10 and 1. 13 . 30) . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE: 4 The amendment site is a vacant parcel which is relatively small. Residential development of the site would not lead to "high-quality multi-family townhouses, condominiums or apartments which convey a distinctive residential neighborhood character and are integrated with their setting" as called for by the General Plan (General Plan Objective 1. 13) . As noted above, the existing automobile service station on the southerly parcel is not permitted in the existing RM, Residential Medium, land use designation. The use was made non-conforming when the zoning designation was changed and the City annexed the area. PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION The purpose of the CG-1, Commercial General, land use designation 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 residential growth occurs" (General Plan Objective 1. 19) . The CG-1 designation will permit the existing automobile service station to become a conforming use. New commercial development on the site will require either a Development Permit or a Conditional Use Permit which. will insure that the commercial guidelines as stipulated by the Development Code will be applied. Future development on the site also will be subject to the Freeway Corridor Overlay District. The purpose of this overlay district is to provide special design of non-residential structures within the immediate viewshed of motorists traveling the freeway. A minimum building setback of 50 feet from the freeway right-of-way is required along with a 25 foot landscape setback buffer from the right-of-way. Also, any outside storage or vehicles used in the business are required to be stored in an enclosed structure or behind architectural screening to prevent visibility from the freeway. Building facades, mechanical equipment and freeway signs are subject to special treatment. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Goal 1G of the General Plan calls for, among other things, achieving a pattern and distribution of land uses which provide distinctive and compatible residential neighborhoods and commercial districts and nodes; which provide a diversity of areas characterized by differing functional activity and scales and intensity of uses; and which locate commercial services in GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE: 5 proximity to residents. There is no commercial zoning in the City along this portion of Mountain View Avenue. In addition, policy 1. 1.4 of the General Plan calls for the accommodation of new neighborhood and community-oriented retail sales, services and other commercial uses which provide for the needs of residences and projected growth. Policy 1.7 . 14 states that the City establish community-serving commercial nodes at key intersections throughout the City. The site is located at the intersection of Mountain View and the I-10. Policy 1.7. 18 indicates that the prevailing pattern of single family residential uses with multi-family residential uses located adjacent to existing and planned commercial services should be provided throughout the community. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Changing the land use designation of the amendment site to CG-1 will allow for the continuation of the existing automobile service station and for future commercial development. Properties to the north and west are developed to apartment uses. A church also lies to the north across Coulston Street. As called for by General Plan Policy 1. 19. 35, future commercial development of the site will be required to provide appropriate buffers with the adjacent residential land uses including decorative walls, landscaped setbacks, restricted vehicular access, enclosures of parking structures to prevent sound transmission, and control of lighting and ambient illumination. The required buffer will help to insure the compatibility with the adjacent multiple family residential. In addition, although the two story height limit of the CG-1 may be increased along a freeway with a conditional use permit, the required public review for increased height will help to insure the compatibility with the adjacent multiple family residential. In any event, as the primary viewscape for these residents is towards the north away from the amendment site, any impacts on views will be minimal. Also, future commercial development must comply with the standards of the Freeway Corridor Overlay District to protect the viewshed of motorist on the I-10 Freeway. Therefore, the change of the land use designation to CG-1, Commercial General, will not adversely affect the aesthetics of the area nor result in visual impacts upon the surrounding area. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE: 6 The site is located along Mountain View Avenue, a Secondary Arterial, and is also adjacent to the I-10 Freeway (Redlands Freeway) . The proposed amendment to CG-1 has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer who has stated that the proposal does not meet the minimum criteria for a traffic impact study. The estimated number of trips is not sufficient to cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system. Total traffic volume will be less than street design capacity. CONCLUSION The amendment site is too small for cohesive/viable multi-family development as permitted under the existing RM designation. Changing the zoning to CG-1 would recognize the existing automobile service station, allow it to become a conforming use and also allow for the development of uses that would be compatible both with the adjacent freeway and the multiple family residential uses while providing for the commercial needs of the community. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2 , 1993 PAGE: 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080. 1 of CEQA. 2. The General Plan Land Use Plan map be changed from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General, for the amendment site as shown on Attachment "C" . Respectfull ubmitted, Al Bo ghey, Director Planning and Building Services vi 1 51 John W. Lampe Associate Planner Attachments: "A" Findings of Fact "B" Initial Study "C" Amendment Area "D" Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE: 8 ATTACHMENT "A" FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 1. The proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use map from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General, on the amendment site is internally consistent with the General Plan. 2 . All elements of the map amendment proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City of San Bernardino in that the Initial Study does not identify any significant impact. 3 . The proposed map amendment will minimally affect the balance of land uses within the City. 4 . The amendment site is physically suitable for the CG-1, Commercial General, land use designation in that the amendment site is sufficiently large to accommodate the setbacks, screening, landscaping and off-street parking required to protect adjacent residential uses and has access to Mountain View, a Secondary Arterial, and the I-10 a regional transportation corridor. ATTACHMENT "B" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-08 Project Description: Amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium) to CG- 1 (Commercial General) land use designation on two parcels with a total area of 2 . 37 acres. Project Location: The subject site is located on the westerly side of Mountain View Avenue between Coulston Street and the I-10 Freeway (Redlands Freeway) . Date: October 5, 1992 Applicant Name and Address: Alex Goglanian Jr. 40793 Morning Glory Dr. Murrieta, CA. 92562 Property Owners Name and Address: Alexander Goglanian et al 2052 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 Lotfi A. Haggag 11751 Nelson Loma Linda, CA. 92453 Initial Study Prepared By: John W. Lampe Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building services Department 300 North I'D$' Street Ban Bernardino, California 92418 CM OF CXMTRAL PUN 4A7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-08. 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. Initial Study of General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 2. 1 Project Description and Location The proposed project is to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General, land use designation for two parcels with a total area of approximately 2 . 37 acres. The amendment site is comprised of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 281-291-05 and 281-243-11. The project is located on the westerly side of Mountain View Avenue between Coulston Street and the I-10 Freeway (Redlands Freeway) . The current land use designation and location is shown on Attachment "A" . The applicant initiated this proposal by requesting that the RM designation be changed only for the parcel (281- 291-05) on the southwest corner of Mountain View and Coulston. Staff has proposed, however, that a separate, adjacent parcel (281-243-11) be evaluated as part of of the proposed general plan amendment. This latter parcel lies to the south of the applicant's parcel-- between it and the I-10 Freeway. Staff feels that it would not be logical to leave this adjacent parcel out of the consideration, especially as it is partially developed with a commercial use (auto service station) . The CG-1 designation is intended 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; reinforceing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new locations as residential growth occurs. Initial Study of General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 2 .2 Amendment Site Characteristics As noted above the amendment site is located on the westerly side of Mountain View Avenue between Coulston Street and the I-10 Freeway. The site lies below the freeway grade with a frontage along the freeway of approximately 414 feet. The irregularly shaped amendment site is composed of two parcels. Parcel 281-291-05 has a frontage of about 246 feet on Mountain View and 120 feet on Coulston; it is presently vacant. Parcel 281-243-11 has a frontage on Mountain View of about 190 feet and abuts the I-10 Freeway along its southerly boundary for 414 feet. It is developed with a service station on its front portion with the rear vacant except for a billboard. Surrounding land uses consist of residential uses (apartments) and vacant land to the west; of a church and day care facility to the north; the I-10, Redland Freeway, to the south; and to the east an undeveloped area lying within the jurisdiction of the City of Redlands which is planned for light industrial/office commercial. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND /� Application Number: G PA 92— ()Q Project Description: A 8 +�A CI t ,S V&Y'a 1#1M VIM 90-1- c 6--r , C11y 1&1 y-( 60 VI FLVU/S wf' fti a f� �l are 0f a Location: QRsAvIL., sidt, O-F &;h View Ave , be f Environmental Constraints Areas: �4 �S �Ca,`4 6A aVl Q r v► s General Plan Designation: S t G7QM1�/ / 144MA � Zoning Designation: it B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic yards or more? X b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater v than 15%natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Prlolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic b Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? _ d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General Plan? f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? MY OF SM BEFOWWWO PLAN-8.06 PAGE t OF_ (11-90) 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? h. Other? /J �k 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AQMD? b. The creation of objectionable odors? 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? _X c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? X d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X _ e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 0602813")os - 0 , and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62,of the City's General Plan? f. Other? /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? �( b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including x stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? X d. Removal of viable, mature trees?(6"or greater) e. Other? 5. 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 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? C" a two MEM-Acwo CFrnw nwrwa IEF-US PLAN-9.06 PAGE 2 OF— (11.90) b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing,schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? c. Other? N /A r- 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the v General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? X c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A&B,or C as identified on.the Land Use Zoning District Map? X d. Other? 1p1 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? �s c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? N /A B. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 0 1A 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing,or demand for new, parking �— facilities/structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? _ e. Impact to rail or air traffic? _ f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or J pedestrians? /\ g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? i. Other? /J/A QTY OF MM EOLVEM CEMAL^R^M01EAVOM PLAN-9.06 PAGE30F_ 01-90) 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? c. Schools(i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 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? X 2. Electricity? _X 3. Water? A 4. Sewer? X- 5. Other? X 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 X scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? >el— c. Other? N 1A 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? X b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site,structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? J( c. Other? / A «*.OF ,µ BEPVVJVMND CZIMIALPFA`"16SERVV." PLAN-9.06 PAGE40F_ 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below 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 v the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ✓ either directly or indirectly? L�__ C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) •r_ w sec. Q 11 AG 5621� cm o .µ MER+MO.o CENTR�.FWff..OSEWA= PLAN-9.06 PAGE50F_ (11.90) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES DISCUSSION-CONTINUED Cm or SAN �Iw+NONO PLAN-9.06 PAGE OF (7t-90) CEWTRU PNNnNG SFRNCES Initial Study of General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Setting The amendment site is located in an area subject to liquefaction susceptibility. There are no biological resource concerns nor is the site in an' area of seismic consideration. The site is within the Freeway Corridor Overlay District. The purpose of this overlay district is to provide special design guidelines and standards which address the siting and design of non-residential structures within the immediate viewshed of motorists traveling the I-10 corridor. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.2.1 Earth Resources i.a. The amendment site is vacant except for the front portion of the southerly parcel which is developed with an automobile service station and for a billboard to the rear of the service station. The site is fairly level; it is unlikely that future development would require earth movement of 10, 000 cubic yards or more. l.b. As noted above the amendment site is relatively flat and no development or grading will take place on slopes greater than 15%. 1.c. through f. The amendment site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (Figures 47 and 54 of the General Plan) ; and it is not subject to soil erosion (Figure 53 of the General Plan) . The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features, and there are no water courses on the site. 1.g. The amendment site is located in an area susceptible to Moderately High to Moderate Liquefaction susceptibility (Figure 48 of the General Plan) . A report addressing the liquefaction issues will be required at the time of development. Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.2.2. Air Resources 2.a and b. Existing emissions and odors from the service station are kept to a minimum by applicable regulations including those of the AQMD. Air emissions and odors from future development in the proposed CG-1 designation would tend to be kept to a minimum by the relative small size of the site which would restrict the intensity and scale of future uses. Also, all future emissions and odors would be controlled by appropriate regulatory agencies. 2.c. The study area is not located in a high wind hazard area as identified by Figure 59 in the General Plan. 3.2.3 water Resources 3.a. Commercial development of the amendment site will require the construction of impermeable surfaces to facilitate the land use and on-site circulation and parking. As a result, absorption rates would be decreased thereby increasing surface runoff. The Department of Public Works will require that the conditions of approval for any future development stipulate the conveyance of drainage runoff to an approved public drainage facility. This will insure that the potential impact is reduced to a level of insignificance. 3.b. and c. As there are no water courses or bodies of water on or near the amendment site, development of the site will not change the course or flow of flood waters nor discharge into surface waters. 3.d. As noted above, commercial development would cause the construction of impermeable surfaces such as asphalt or or concrete. Engine fluids, residue from automobile tires, solid exhaust particulates and other air emissions as well as chemical pollutants indigenous to commercial land uses tend to collect on impermeable surfaces to be worked into the ground water as runoff. If required, mitigation will be determined at the project stage. Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.e. The amendment site is not located within the 100 year flood plain as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281 8105-D, and in Section 16. 0 - Flooding, Figure 62 , of the City's General Plan. 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4.a. through d. All natural vegetation that may have existed on the amendment site was removed when development occurred on the site or the surrounding area. The site is not located in the Biological Resource Management Overlay and no unique, rare, or endangered plant or animal species are known to exist on the site. 3.2.5 Noise S.a and b. A change in the land use designation would not have an impact on the noise levels in the area. The amendment site is located adjacent to the I-10 Freeway within a noise corridor where noise levels may reach 70 dB(A) . Because of the proximity of the freeway, it is unlikely that future noise levels will decrease. The proposed amendment to CG-1 would not permit development of housing, health-care facilities or other "noise" sensitive uses. Also, future expansion of commercial uses would be reviewed at the project development stage for noise impacts upon the residential uses to the west and north. Because the amendment area is located adjacent to a freeway and within the Freeway Corridor Overlay District, future development would be subject to the special design guidelines and standards which address the siting and design of non-residential structures. These standards may result in a decrease in interior noise levels due to the requirements for a minimum building setback of 50 feet from the freeway right- of-way. Initial Study of General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.2.6 Land Use 6.a. The proposed amendment will change the General Plan land use designation. 6.b. and c. The amendment site is not located in an Airport District or within the Foothill Fire. Zones A, B or C. 3.2.7 flan-Kad• Hazards 7.a. through c. Additional commercial uses on the amendment site could result in the storage, sale and use of toxic materials. These toxic materials could include a diversity of products such as paints, dry cleaning solvents, detergents, engine fluids, fertilizers and pesticides;,' not found in the same quantities of less intensive land use categories. However, the relatively small size of the amendment site would limit the intensity and scale of future commercial development; and specific uses are addressed at the project development stage with mitigation measures applied if necessary. 3.2.8 Housing 8.a No existing housing will be lost by a change in land use designation. Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.2.9 Transportation/Circulation 9.a through h. The propose CG-1, Commercial General, permits for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal services, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors. Mountain View Avenue is a Secondary Arterial which handles about 12 , 100 vehicles per day. Coulston Street is a local street. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer who has stated that the proposal does not meet the minimum criteria for a traf f is impact study. The estimated number of trips is not sufficient to cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system. Total traffic volume will be less than street design capacity. 3.2.10 Public Services 10.a. through f. The proposal to change the land use designation to CG-1 will not impact public services beyond their capability to provide adequate levels of service. Future commercial development of the site would be reviewed for impacts to public services at the project specific stage. However, since the site is located in an urbanized area, it is anticipated that potential impacts upon public services would be insignificant. Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.2.11 Utilities li.a. through c. The proposal is to change the land use designation and will not impact utilities beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service, nor require the construction of new facilities. Future commercial development of the site would be reviewed for impacts to public utilities at the project specific stage. It is unknown at this time if future development of the site will require the construction of new facilities, such as water mains, sewer lines, or other utilities. Standard requirements of the City would ensure that any impacts upon public utilities are mitigated at the time of development. 3.2.12 Aesthetics 12.a and b. The change of the land use designation will not affect the aesthetics of the area. Development to the standards of the CG-1 land use designation will not result in visual impacts upon the surrounding area. The CG-1, Commercial General, designation permits buildings up to two stories in height or maximum of 30 feet, although higher structures are- allowed next to the freeway with a CUP. This would result, most likely, in structures no higher than in the existing residential development to the west. In addition the primary viewscape for these residents is towards the north, while the amendment site lies to the east. The Development Code also requires that any future development on the amendment site comply with the standards of the Freeway Corridor Overlay District as the site is adjacent to the freeway. Overlay district standards include a 25 foot landscape setback buffer along the freeway frontage and the screening of all outside storage, special equipment and loading areas. 3.2.13 Cultural Resources 13.a and b. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in impacts upon cultural resources since the site is not located in an area of known cultural resources, nor contains structures or objects as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey. Initial Study of General Plan No. 92-08 October 5, 1992 3.2 .14 XANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065) 14.a. through d. The proposal will result in a General Plan Amendment from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General. The response to the checklist questions indicate that the project will not result in any significant impacts. No cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project have been identified. 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. aThe 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 Larry E . Reed , Assistant Director Planning and Building Services Name and Title Sigfiature Date: October 15 . 1992 C N1N E1M4p00 cfwrp LMNlfMO SERVKU PLAN-0A6 PAGE_OF CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT "A" ITEM# LOCATION CASE GPA 92.08 HEARING DATE 5 i� N � u 0 f O RiYtRYItW NaMIIION 16 2 OR. OWALLACE SAN SERWARNWO AV Q V � - DCOOLEY icL Ip Z N u_ I VICTORIA ,V mARDT ST �� � N � f� Laft U \\ I[R OR I s; �< a V V C SLI COURT ST i u i N N G tAtRAM T 2 n A V '♦ r�ti Q to v -Coal R iein°.� PLA14411 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-W ATTACHMENT GPA 92-08 o OLUC � t-• 1 � N J � � oglJ v O X oC cZ,10 o 4 Nv7G 3d A d �✓ � i a 4 i W I � � _ w A Q ATTACHMENT "C" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . GPA 92-08 TITLE AMENDMENT AREA DAY CARE CENTB4 r " s ORCHARD '� Q oacaro_N sr VAC�4NT LAND 'CE9'D�'r'� '� -SUBJECT /"O/°ERTY / W PROf�SE fl C G -/ Z ON/NG ` . IDEN'riAL- ti 2 0 t _ c/ rr of R�0L,e/vo C/ r y of La L�Df► ! EXP NDED �RFA Zo�fN4 $ TAT E H/ 4HWA /O QN CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT "D" ITEM# CASE GPA 92-Gg LOCATION 2 HEARING DATE 2-2-9 3 IV u D a RIVE ol fnffvlfr z wM"a OR. OWALLACE •M GEOINARDINO AYE- dC. a v ILI H - COOLEY a D' VICTORIA ZV IM ST s d Hugo U \ \ IEI1 OR 1 M `W Z< � W Q T Coin.TreN V 10 N ' a SNM s N _ N cou*y MINAm T •S t R lf, Coif A PLA LI I PANE t Of 1 (4-M 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE 3 DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN 4 BERNARDINO. 5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 6 SECTION 1. Recitals 7 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 8 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on 9 June 2 , 1989 . 10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 to the General Plan of 11 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning 12 Commission on February 2, 1993 after a noticed public hearing, and 13 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been 14 considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 15 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on October 5, 1992 and 16 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning 17 Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 92- 18 08 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 19 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 20 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day 21 public review period from November 6, 1992 through November 30, 22 1992 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the 23 Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance 24 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local 25 regulations. 26 27 28 1 1 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public 2 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan 3 Amendment No. 92-08 and the Planning Division Staff Report on March 4 22 , 1993 . 5 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 is 6 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and 7 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 8 existing General Plan. 9 SECTION 2 . Negative Declaration 10 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 11 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan 12 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on 13 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared 14 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this 15 Proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 16 SECTION 3 . Findings 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the 18 City of San Bernardino that: 19 A. The proposed CG-1, Commercial General, land use designation is 20 internally consistent with the General Plan in that such a 21 designation is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and 22 policies of the General Plan, and will facilitate the 23 continued and orderly expansion of the area pursuant to 24 General Plan Objective 1. 19. 25 B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public 26 interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City 27 in that the Initial Study does not identify any significant 28 impacts. 2 1 C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance 2 of land uses within the City in that the proposed amendment is 3 supported by the mix of uses in the area while a sufficient 4 amount of viable, multi-family designated property is 5 available in surrounding areas. 6 D. The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested 7 land use designation and anticipated land use development in 8 that the amendment site is sufficiently large to accommodate 9 the setbacks, screening, landscaping and off-street parking 10 required to protect adjacent light industrial/office 11 commercial and residential uses and has access to the I-10 12 Freeway, a regional transportation corridor. 13 SECTION 4 . Amendment 14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: 15 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San 16 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 2 . 37 acres 17 from RM, Residential Medium, to CG-1, Commercial General. 18 This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 92- 19 08 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment 20 A, and is more specifically described in the legal description 21 entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and 22 incorporated herein by reference. 23 B. General Plan Amendment No. 92-08 shall become effective 24 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 25 SECTION 5. May Notation 26 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be 27 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously 28 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are 3 1 on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 3 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 4 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 5 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental 6 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 RESOLUTION. . .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-08 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 1993 , by the following vote, to 7 wit: 8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 ESTRADA 10 REILLY 11 HERNANDEZ 12 MAUDSLEY 13 MINOR 14 POPE-LUDLAM 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 19 of 1993. 20 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor 21 City of San Bernardino 22 Approved as to form and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN, 24 City Attorney 25 By: 26 27 28 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . GPA 92-08 TITLE AMENDMENT AREA oAY CARE CENTER• •so* A. e• - d Or2CHARD v� , Q - CAIACN z •1 .-. v � Vii.-. 4 coucaro/v sr _. `. VACANT LAND /CE9/DFJVJ'i4L . lk -S U8JEC T l"�OPERTY J 0 W P/CD�.IED CG -/ ZOV/Nc ` \^ s tDEM•/�L ti 2 m � a e/ ry of REDL.�NOS I C/ Ty OF LDLl�v E X P N D ED A R FA Pl2 �05EO Q S 7-A7E H/4H WAY /O N ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SAN BERNAHDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . GPA 92-08 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TITLE PARCEL NO. 1 APN 281-291-05 THE LAND REFERRED TO IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 1, INCLUSIVE, TRACT NO. 10532-1, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS, PAGES 13 AND 14, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL NO. 2 APN 281-243-11 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BOOK 72 , RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 7, PAGE 2 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST ZINE OF SAID LOT 1, WHICH IS NORTH 04 26' 55" WEST, 1, 575. 12 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO FELIX MOSSO AND NEVALL ROBERT MC COY, RECORDED APRIL 3 , 1930 IN BOOK 600, PAGE 305, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 894 33 ' 55" WEST, 414.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID MOSSO PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE NORTH 04 26' 55" WEST, 50. 0 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 894 33' 05" EAST, 414 . 00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 04 26' 55" EAST, 50. 0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ATTACHMENT s