Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31-Planning and Building CITY QF SAN BERNA~INO -REQUEST FO~COUNCIL ACTION General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 to From: Larry E. Reed, Director Subject: change the land use designtion from CG-1 to RS and from RH to RS on various Dept: Planning and Building Services parcels on the west side of "E" Street, south of 28th Street generally in the area Date: March 14, 1991 of the Old Laurel Hospital Mavor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1991, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: At their meeting of March 11, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved in concept the RS, Residential Suburban designation for parcels located west of "E" Street north and south of Courtland Drive. Recommended motion: The said resolution be adopted. Larry ed Signature Director Contact person: Larrv E. Reed Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: ~s-ozaz Agenda Item No.~- CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO -REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 1, 1991 R~OUEST This City-initiated General Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation from CG-1, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on 4.93 acres generally located on the west side of "E" Street between 28th Street and Courtland Drive (on and around the location of the former Laurel Hospi- tal). In addition, it includes the redesignation of 0.69 acres from RH, Residential High to RS, Residential Suburban located on the south side of Courtland Drive, west of "E" Street. BACKGROUND The portion of the amendment site which is north of Courtland Drive was designated CG-1, Commercial General when the General Plan was adopted on June 2, 1989. The area is comprised of tha old Laurel Hospital parcels, along with _ residential sites. The area on the south side of Courtland Drive is comprised of residential properties which were designated RH, Residential High. The Mayor and Common Council approved in concept the RS designation for various parcels currently designated CG-1 and RH, located on the west side of "E" Street, north and south of Courtland Drive. The proposed RS area includes the vacant Laurel Hospital parcels and residentially developed parcels. The Mayor and Common Council directed staff to prepare a resolution that reflects this determination. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ACTInN That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-07. Prepared by: John Burke, Assistant Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Planning and Building Services Attachment I: Request for Council Action dated March 11, 1991 with Supporting Documentation Attachment II: Resolution Attachment A-1 and A-2: Location Maps Attachment 8-1 thru B-4: Legal Descriptions SRGPA9007 75.0264 CITY. OF SAN BERN~iDlNO -REQUEST ~ COUNCIL ACTION General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 to From: Larry E. Reed, Director Subject: change the land use designation from CG-1 to RS and RU-1, and from RH to RS Dept: Planning and Building Services and RU-1 on various parcels on the west side of "E" Street, south of 28th Stree Dab: February 11, 1991 generally in the area of the Old Laurel Hosoital Mayor and Common Council Meeting of Synopsis of Previous Council action: March 11, 1991, 2:00 p.m. The amendment area was designated CG-1, Commercial General and RH, Residential High with the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. At their meeting of January 8, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of Alternative 2. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted. rry E~eed Signaturo Director Contact psrson:_ Larrv E Reed phone; 384-5057 Supporting dsta attached: Staff Reoort Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Sourot:lAcct. No.1 Acct. Deacriotionl Finana• Council Notes: ~ATTACHMENT~_ ,._nec, Aaende Item Nn CITY OF SAN BERN~IDINO -REQUEST F~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March il, 1991 $EQUEST This is a City-initiated general plan amendment to evaluate the land use designation on and around the location of the former Laurel Hospital. The area is generally located on the west aide of "E" Street between 28th Street and Courtland Drive and is comprised of 4.93 acres (sea Exhibit F of the Initial Study). Staff evaluated four alternatives (see Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 2) for the Planning Commission's consideration and three additional alternatives (see Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 4) at the Commission's request. HACRGROUND The location of the former Laurel Hospital, its adjacent properties and residential properties in the area were designated CG-1, Commercial General upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study on August 9, 1990 and proposed a Negative Declaration for Alternatives i through 4. Alternatives 5, 6, and 7, evaluated at the Planning Commission's request, are of an intensity that is less than Alternatives i through 4 and the review of August 9, 1990 is sufficient to also propose a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Tho seven alternatives ware considered by the Planning Commission at noticed public hearings of November 7, 1990 and January 8, 1991. After public comment and discussion, the Commission recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-7, Alternative 2. This alternative designates the medical building and its associated properties as RU-1, Residential Urban. RU-1 permits single-family detached units and multi- family units to a density of 9 dwelling units per acre. Savior citizen and senior congregate care developments are permitted to a density of 14 dwelling units par acre. The RU-1 designation would permit reuse of the medical building as a senior project. The vacant parcels along Acacia Avenue (previously used for parking) could be developed as a cluster 75.0261 ' General Plan Amen~ent No. 90-7 O Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11, 1991 Page 2 or single-lamily project. Ths designations proposed on the remainder o! the amendment area recognize existing uses. it was ~ found that this alternative was best suited for compatibility with surrounding uses, possible uses of the medical building and associated lnnds, and consistency with the General Plan. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-7, Alternative 2, based on the findings in this report. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may continue the hearing and direct staff to prepare findings for approval of another alternative. 3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-7. Staf! recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declare- - tion and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 as per Alternative 2. Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner for Larry E. Read, Director Planning and Building Services Attachment A: Memorandum to Planning Commission, January 8, 1991 Attachment 1: Memorandum to Planning Commis- sion, November 7, 1990 Attachment 2: Staff Report to Planning Com mission, October 9, 1990 Attachment A: Initial Study, July 10, 1990 Exhibit A: Alter- native 1 Exhibit B: Alter- native 2 Exhibit C: Alter- native 3 Exhibit D: Alter- native 4 Exhibit E: Land Uses Exhibit F: Loca- tion Map and Land Use Designations General Plan Amen~t No. 90-7 'Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 11, 1991 Page 3 Attachment 3: Alternatives 1 thru 4 Attachment 4: Alternatives 5 thru 7 and Current Land use Designations Attachment B: Resolution Attachment A-1 and A-2: Location Maps Attachment 8-1 thru 8-4: Legal Descriptions , CITY OF SA1~ ~RNARDINO - .~MORANDUM To Plannirxl Cam~isslon From Larry E. Reed, Director Planning & Building Service: Subject General Plan Amerrl<nent No. 90-7 Date January 8, 1991 Approved Itgn No. 11 Date BACKGROUND/REQUEST At the Planning Commission's noticed public hearin4 of November i. 1990, General Plan Amendment Nc. q0-7 was heard and Alternatives 1 through 4 were discussed !sea Attachment 31, The Commission members requested that Planning staff evaluate additional alternatives which would include the RS, Residential Suburban designation for those lets fronting on Acacia Avenue within the amendment site. Staff has prepared and evaluated three addi*_ional possibilities designating them Alternatives 5, 6 & 7 and are shown on Attachment 4 along with the current land use designations. 'CALIFORNIA ENIVI_RONMENT~UALITY ACT (CEQA1 STATUS The three additional alternatives prepared by staff as a resul*_ of the Planning Commission's request are of an intensity that is less than the most severe evaluated for Alternatives 1 through 4. These alternatives were recommended for a Negative Declaration by the Environmental Review Committee and, therefore, the CE<<A requirements have been fulfilled by the ERC review of the Znitial Study on August 9, 1990. ANALYSIS The medical building sits en a through lot which liar between "'n" Street and Acacia Avenue. Designating one half of the medical building property as RS and the remainder another designation is impractical as the building itself would have two designations and this would not resolve any .concerns. FE?tpE t'J PROGRESS ~':Ji ATTACHMENT A General Plan Amendtrent 1'- ~-7 January 8, 1991 ' . Page 2, The following are the three additional alternatives p~opo » d r. staff: Alternative 5 This alternative proposes to designate all cf the site west ~f Acacia Avenue and the properties south of the medical building and fronting on Acacia Avenue and *_he two single-family homes south ~=f Courtland Drive as RS, Residential Suburban. The medical building and dental office will be designer*_ed CO-1. Commercial Oifi.e and the duplexes fronting on "E" Street RU-1, Pesidential Urban. The six par~;els fronting on the west side of the va~~ated secti~» ?f Acacia Avenue could yield six single-family homes on substandar9 lots of approximately 3,500 s.~uare feet after dedication for the completion of Acacia Street 140' x 90' lotsl. To meet minimum se*_back and habi*_able area requirements new development would probably require two story homes which are permitted in the RS designer*_ed areas. The remainder of the RS aria is comprised of existing single-family homes many of which are on lots that are below the minimum area of 7,200 square feet. The lots average abOUt 6,500 square feet and - the smallest is approximately 4,000 square feat. General Plan policy 1.8.31 encourages the design iof) residential proiect~ which maintain the scale and rhythm of the existing lot divisions of 7,200 square feet and larger, or use other creative design and planning solutions which establish and maintain a distinctive character and environment for existing residential neighborhoods." Although the lots don't meet the minimum lot si.e requirement, they are consistent a»d compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood. The 3uplexes on "E" Street are to be designated SU-! in keeping with the uses on those parcels. A CO-1 designation for the medical buil3inq properties cermi*.~ a diversity of administrative and professional offices and supporting retail commercial users and medical facilities. Senior citi_an am9 senior congregate care facilities are permitted up to a density cf 54 units per gross acre. A commercial office :iesignati ~n is concern as it introduces commercial traffic, and its related noise and safety concerns, into a residen*_ial neighborho~~d ens _n tiffs case would continue a commercial island within the residentia area. The uses permitted in a ~"?-1 aria art generally less intrusive than those permitted in the CG-1 area as the h~+ars era usually limite3 to daytime and the truck f3~livery+ traffic is usually less. Any future proiect could be conditioned to restrict commercial traffic from Acacia Avenue allowing access from "E" Street only. General Plan Amenc>Rent Nc 9(Z 7 January 8, 1991 • Page 3, Alternative o This al*_ernative proposes an ZS. Rasidentlal Suburban desigr.a*_ion for the site with the exception of the RU-i, Residzn*_ial Urban designation for the duplexes fronting on "E" Stree*_. This alternative would probably require the demolition of the medical building because reuse would be very limited and wou13 include c•niy a church or school if the other development standards ~ouid be met. The building could no- 't•e used for me3_cal or other office purposes. If the medical building site were to be reused for si.^.qle :ami:Y homes then a tentative tract application would be required *_o create lots that meet all City requirzmen*_s. Such an arrangement could yield up to ten single-family lots wi*_h five rooting on Acacia Avenue and five on "E" Street. The General ^rlan seak.s *_e limit the number of driveways onto major arterials, for safety purposes, however, this section of "E" Street is residential and the maximum of five driveways would have minimal impact on the traffic on "E" S*_reet. The same concerns exist for '::^.e subs*.andard lc*_s fr.nt'ng ~_n t?~e west side of acacia avenue as was dis.ussed under Alternative 5. Alternative i This alternative proposes to dzsignate t5e mzdioal building properties and the duolzxes along "E" Street as R7-1. F.esidentiai Urban. The parcels fronting on the west side of *_he vaca*_ed section of Acacia Avenue wauld bz designate3 RS. Eesidential Suburban along wi*_h *_he remainder of the site. The objective of the RU-1 designation is to "Promote the development of single-family (detached or attached!. duplex, mobile home parks and small lot subdivisions..." The maximum permitted densi*_y is 9 dwelling ?nits per gross acre. Mul^_icle family housing would be required to comply with policy 1.12.32 so as to provide "architectural ar*_iculati~n of building fa,~ades to express a single-family character." Residential Urban projects are required "... to be designed to convey the visual sense cf a law density residential neighborhood." A cluster or dvplzx proizct would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would be consistent with the General Plan. Senior citizen and senior congregate :.are facilities are permitte3 in RU-1 areas with a density up to 14 dwelling units per acre. This is an option for the reuse of the vacant medical building. The concerns of the six parcels on the west side of AC3C13 $tr22t are discussed under Alternative 5 above. General Plan Achnendment ' ~-7 Janudiy 8, 1991 'Page 4, CONCLUSIONS Alternatives 5 and ~ are compatible with the surrour.di;~c u5es an3 consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies. The CO-1, Commercial Office designa*_ion recognizes *_he medical building and its parking but also recognizes it as a commercial island wi*_hin a residential neighborhood. Alternative s. along with Alternative 4, presents the least intrusive of the ;.ropnsed commercial designa*_ions. The RS. Residential suburban 3esignati^n ~,f the siz =s :•r. t;,=_ west side of the vacated Acacia Av?r.us is comF=_tiLie a~it'r. surrounding uses. These Lots would have b? davelC;. 3s .u. In that they era lots of record, or would have to b? combined tc conform, 35 0105? d5 iS feeslble, t^ ~'+;rl-P P.r ?t?a'~P.~~S. Development as is would result in to*_s that ar=_ c:.r:_idersi~i;• smaller than the neighborhood to*_s. The RU-1 designation for those lots frontino on *_he w?st side c: Acacia Avenue as per Alternative 2 would permit one dwaiiinr +_:,i* per lot, but would also allow the deletion ~f jot lines to 3e~•ai_-• a Cluster project 3t the maxlmL'm denSitV 0f G +a'n lt3 per 3rrc, h_~ provides mere flexibility for development because the substandard lots will be ?xtremely •iifficul*_ *_o develop. It is staff's conclusion *_hat Alternative 2 is the optimum proposal for compatibility wi*_h surrounding uses, possible uses ~' the ian.i and consistency with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission makes rP_~~omm:ndatien to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in ac^~r~:3n,:e wi*_h Section 21080.1 of CEgA for General Plan P.mendment Ne. 90-7, Alternative 2. 2. General Plan amendment P]e. 90-7, Alternative ? be approved based on the Findings in *_he Staf' =e::ort Attachment 2! *_o change the General Plar. ban:i Use Plan from CG-1. Commercial General and REi. Residen*_inl ~fi~rh tc RU-1, Residential Urban and RS, Residential Suburban. General Plan Amendment IS' 90-7 January 8, 1991 Page 5, PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the f~llowinq options: 1. To concur with staff's recommendation. 2. To continue the agenda i*_em to FabruarV 5, 191 acrd recuast staff to prepare findings for Alternatives i, 3. ;, 5, 6. or Respectively submitted L<i~.1 ~ ~~C~ Lam E! Reed D_rector, Planning 3:1C B~111~~1ng ab_V1C5 lJS C~rriTio n- John F.. Burka Assistant Planner Attachment 1: Marne to Planning C~=mmission dated :dovamber i, t99~?. Attachment Z: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated Gctober 1990. wi*_h Initial Study. Attachment 3: Alternatives 1 thru 4. Attachment 4: Alternatives 5 thru 7 and Current Land Use Designations. . CITY OF SAN ~RNARDINO - :('~MORANDUM To Planning Commission From Larry E. Reed, Director Planning & Building Svcs. Subject General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 Date November 7, 1990 Approved Item No. 5 Date OWNER Various APPLICANT City of San Bernardino BACKGROUND General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 was continued (without hearing) from the Planning Commission meeting held on October 9, 1990 in error to November 6, 1990, which is Election Day. orrect this error the item was placed on the agenda for To c , the Planning Commission meeting held on October 16, 1990 and again, continued (without hearing) to the correct date of November 7, 1990. RFCOMMENDATTON Staff recommends approval of Alternative 2 based on the findings in the Staff Report dated October 9, 1990. Respectfully, Lar Reed, Director Planning And~Buildi/ng Services John Burke /~ Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report to Planning Commission F!?tG~ ~ ATTACHMENT ~ :NyPRO~==., ~'~/'-~~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING . AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 SUMMARY HEARING DATE WARD APPLICANT: Clty of San Bernardino W General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 Q OWNER: VdriDU$ U To change the land use desi^nation from CG-1, Commercial General to F RS, Residential Suburban, RU-1, Residential Urban or CO-1, Commercial W Office and/or from RH, Residential High to RS, Residential Surburban, ~ and/or RU-1, Residential Urban and/or from RS, Residenital Surburban p to CO-1, Commercial Office on various parcels up to 5.75 acres. The W area being considered is located on the west side of "E" Street, ~ north and south of Courtland Drive. Four alternatives have been - a considered. W I, Q , EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY 1 pNp IC ZQlyl[1t,i DESIGNATION Subject Vacant Medical Building, CG-1, Commercial General ~ Parking Lot, Vacant Land, Residential North Residential RS, Residential Suburban South Residenital RH, Residenital High East Residential RS, Residential Suburban West Residential RS, Residential Suburban GEOLOGIC /SEISMIC ? YES FLOOD NAZARO ? YES ? ZONE A SEWERS: ~ YES HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO ZONE: GD NO ? ZONE B C NO HIGH FIRE O YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ? YES REDEVELOPMENT ? YES HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO CRASH ZONE: ~ ~ PROJECT AREA. ~ NO ~ ? A~PPUCAeLE ? P~OTEN~TUIL~ IFICANT ~ ~ APPROVAL Alternative 2 MITIGATNG MEASURES ~ ND E,1,0. ~ ? CONDITIONS ~ _ ? EXEMPT ? E.I.R REQUIRED BUT NO IWI. Z ? DENIAL Z C SIOIaFX:ANT EFFECTS a W WITH MITIGATING ~ ~ ~ = MEASURES N C ? CONTINUANCE TO W Z ® NO SIGNIFlCANT ? SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E0.C. W MINUTES Q ATTACHMENT 2 t~ O CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CAE 6PA N0. 90-7 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM _ PAGE 2 ~ OBSERVATIONS "~""~°"~ 10' REQUEST & LOCATION This is a City-initiated general plan amendment to evaluate the land use designation on and around the location of the former Laurel Hospital. The area is generally located on the west side of "E" Street between 28th Street and Courtland Drive and is comprised of 4.94 acres (see Exhibit F of the Initial Studyl. Staff has evaluated three alternatives encompassing up to 5.75 acres. TY~e land uses in the area are shown on Exhibit E of the Initial Study. Alternative 1 (see Exhibit A of the Initial Studyl Evaluates changing the land use designation from CG-1, Commercial General to RS. Residential Suburban on 4.94 acres. Alternative 2 (Exhibit B of the Initial Study) proposes to designate 3.94 acres as RU-1, Residential Urban for the medical building, parking lot and vacant land and the duplexes along "E" Street and 1.69 acres as RS, Residential Suburban. This alternative includes the area at the southwest corner of "E" Street and Courtland Drive. Alternative 3 (Exhibit C of the Initial Study) proposes a designation of CO-1, Commercial Office on 2.82 acres for the dental office, medical building, unused parking lot. and vacant land. RS, Residential Suburban is proposed on 1.69 acres fer the single family homes and RU-1, Residential Urban is proposed on 1.24 acres for the duplexes fronting on "E" Street north and south of Courtland Drive. Alternative 4 (Exhibit D of the Initial Studyl proposes a CO-1 designation for the dental office an3 medical building on 2.06 acres an "E" Street. RU-1, Residential Urban is proposed on 2.0 acres comprising the parking lot, vacant land and duplexes on "E" Street and RS. Residential Suburban is proposed on 1.69 acres for area comprising the single family homes. AREA CHARACTERISTICS The project site is irregular in shape, flat and mostly developed. A vacant medical building fronts on "E" Street. A parking lot and three parcels of vacant land front on the west side of the vacated section of Acacia Avenue. The land south of the medical building is comprised of duplexes and single-family residences. The land west of the parking lot and vacant land is comprised of single- family residences. _ " CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE 6PA N0. 90-7 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS "EAR~I~P~E s The area surrounding the site on the north. south, and west is comprised of single and multi-family residences with the exceptions of a vacant private hospital on the east side of Acacia Avenue, a parking lot, and a dental office north of the medical building on "E" Street and a City water pump station which adioins the nor*_h boundary of the medical facility parking lot on the west side of Acacia Street. The land uses on the east side of "E" Street are residential (single and multi-family) and a public park with an adioininq fire station. "E" Street is designated a major arterial on the Circulation Plan and the remaining streets, immediately surrounding the site. are_ local streets. The area lies within the Urban Archaeological District. There are no biological resource/natural hazard concerns. HACRGROUND r Prior to the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the vacant medical building and the two residential parcels south of it along with the parking lot and vacant land on the west side of *_he vacated section of Acacia avenue were zoned A-P, Administrative- Professional. The two residential Darcels have been nonconforming with the CG-1, Commercial General designation. The medical building was constructed around 1950 and was operated as a hospital through the mid-1970x. Since then proposals for an alcohol treatment facility, a church with school, an elderly care facility, and a chemical dependency treatment facility have been processed for the medical building. The chemical dependency rehabilitation residential hospital was approved on May 15, 1989, through Conditional Use Permit 88-56. Acitizen-initiated request to change the land use designation from CG-1, Commercial General to CO-i, Commercial Office was not approved and the CG-1 designa*_ion was retained at the Mayor and Common Council meeting of May 24, 1989. Citizens expressed strong opposition to the chemical dependency treatment facility. The applicant withdrew CUP 88-56 in February, 1990. The parcels fronting on "E" Street were previously zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residentia•1. Included here is a dental office (located north of the hospital structure) which was a nonconforming use, and still is a nonconforming use under the RS. Residential Suburban designation. The duplexes on "E" Street are nonconforming l under the CG-i, Commercial General designation. S,i,.. ~ w~wr aai,ar+ ra CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA N0. 90-7 ' AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS HEARNG~ATE 10/9/90 PAGE 4 The previous zoning for the remainder of the area addressed in *_i,: alternatives was R-i, Single Family Residential. Seven single family homes have been made nonconforming wi*_h the CG-1. Commercial General designation. MUNICIPAL CODE The medical building has bean vacant for over 180 days and in accordance with the Urgency Ordinance and Title 19 of tt~e Municipal Code any future development must comply wi*_h the provisions of the underlying land use designation. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL_QUALITY_ACT, CEQA) STATUS This General Plan amendment is subiect to CEQA. At*_achment P. is *_he initial Study prepared for this project. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposed project and staff's three alternatives on August 9, 1990, determined that none of the proposals would have an adverse impact on the environment and recommended a Negative Declaration. A public review period was held from August 16, 1990, through September 5, 1990, for review of the Initial Study. ~OlII~lENTS RECEIVED A letter was received on July 30, 1990 from Mr. James ilir*_h, who represents area residents, opposing the CG-1, Commercial General designation and opposing the chemical dependency treatment facility on the site. His letter includes the information he presented to the Mayor and Common Council in an appeal to the approval of COP 88-56 in May, 1989. ANALYSIS Existing Designation The General Plan designates the amendment project area as CG-1, Commercial General. The obiective (1.191 of this designation is to provide for general retail uses "... along maior transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents." The CG-1 designation permits a variety of retail and service uses including offices and medical facilities, however. the site has never been used for 'retail purposes. There are CG-1 designated areas at Highland Avenue, south of the site. and at Marshall Boulevard, north of the site. r r~ r{NMr NOi / Oi 1 MO ` ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA N0. 90-7 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS IiEARINGDATE 10/9/90 PAGE 5 The uses in the immediate area are residential although the lets differ in size with some less *_han 7.2!''0 square feet. However. the character of the area is consistent with the intent of the P.S. Residential Suburban designation as nor General Plan objective 1.11 which addresses the development of single family units ir, a suburban setting. The section of "E" Street between Highland Avenue and Marshall Boulevard lies within an established residential neighborhood. A CG-1. Commercial General designated area is intended to lie along major transportation corridors and intersections. General Plan goal 1G strives to achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses that retains and enhances established residential neighborhoods allows "... for the infill and recycling of areas at their prevailing scale and character". and tries to achieve a "... high quality of life and secure environment for the Ci*_y's residents...'• P. CG-1 designation at this location is not in keeping with the intent of the reneral Plan objective 1. 1? as the area is residential and it is not at or near a major intersection. A commercial designation will probably cause commercial vehicles to encroach into the residential area and increase the safety an3 noise concerns on the local streets. Thls is net in keeping with General Plan Goal 6A which strives tc "Achieve an integrated, balanced, safe and efficient transportation system ..." in the City. Issue C of the General Plan Circulation Element states `hat "The impacts of truck traffic should be minimized earticularly in residential areas." Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposes designating all of the CG-1 area as RS. Pesidential Suburban. The residential sections of the site are not affected. but the medical building, parking lot and vacant land could be reused and yield up to 10 new housing units. The duplexes along "E" Street would exceed the RS. Residential Suburban densi*_y but would be conforming uses because of General Plan policy 1.7.10 which allows for the reconstruction of residential buildings the*_ are destroyed by a catastrophe to the original density when the density exceeds that of the General Plan land use designation. The duplexes are single family in character as their design conveys the image of single-family single-story homes. The RS designs*_ion would not permit the use of the medical building for medical purposes. However. schools, churches. and funeral homes may be permitted with a conditional use permit. t:.L.. r nMwn r~o[,a, wa A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA N0. 90-7 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS HEARINGP~E Ten infill single family homes would generate about 100 additi^r:=1 daily trios which would not impaot on th.: surrounding streets. TF,e General Plan seeks to limit the number of driveways onto me'=_ arterials, for safety purposes, however, this section of "E" Streit is residential and *.he maximum of four driveways would have minimal impact on the traffic on "E" Street. Single family homes would be compatible with the surrounding uses and are consis*_ent ~+i*_h General Plan objective 1.8 as they would retain, the scale ar.d character of the existing neighborhood. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes an RU-l. Residential Urban designa*_ion for the medical building, parking lot, vacant land and the duplexes fronting on "E" Street and a designation of RS, Fesidential Suburban for the single family designated CG-1, Commercial General and RH, Residential High. The objective of the RU-1 designa*_ion is *.o "Promote the development of single-family (detached or attached). duplex, mobile home parks and small lot subdivisions..." The maximum permitted density is 9 dwelling units per gross acre. This designation could yield 20 units of infill housing. The multiple family housing would be required to comply wi*_h policy 1.12.:2 so as to provide "architectural articulation of building facades to express a single-family character." Residential Urban protects are required "... to be designed to convey the visual sense of a low density residential neighborhood." Such multi- family development would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as far as density and design are concerned. General Pian policy 1.12.11 permits senior citizen and senior congregate care facilities in RU-1 areas with density up to 14 dwelling units per acre. The vacant medical building could be adapted for such a use. Traffic generated would be about 150 average daily trips and would not impact on the surrounding streets. Access could be excluded from "E" Street with construction of Acacia Avenue as a thr~egh street. ~ ~ news n~ac,a, ,w !A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE GPA N0. 90-7 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA REM PAGE 7 OBSERVATIONS "~'"G°A~ 10'9' ° Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposes a designation of CO-1, Ccmmercial Office fer the dental office, the medical buil3inq, the parking lot and vacant land. The remainder of the area is RS. Residential Suburban for the single-family homes and RU-1. Residential Urban for the duplexes on "E" Street. The CO-1 designation permits a diversity of administrative and professional offices and supporting retail commercial uses and medical facilities Senior citizen and senior congregate care facilities are permitted up to a density of 54 units per gross acre. A CO-1 designation could generate up to 400 additional average daily trips and they would be divided between "E" Street and Acacia Avenue. Although the streets can handle the additional traffic it ~ is commercial traffic that creates the safety concerns. These concerns have been addressed previously under the Existing Designation section of this report. r Administrative or professional offices, or a medical use on the site, whether it involves the completion of Acacia Avenue or not, will probably result in the operation of commercial vehicles within the residential neighborhood. A Commercial Office designation would only serve the dental office as well as the medical facility and its associated properties and is therefore not in keeping with the General Plan objective 1.28 which is to "... ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses" as the remainder of the site is developed with residential units. Alternative 4 Alternative 4 proposes a CO-1 designation for the medical building and dental office only and RU-1 for the parking lot and vacant land. The remaining properties would be designs*_ed RU-1 for the duplexes and RS for the single family homes. Alternative 4 could yield seven housing units in the RU-1 designation. This is the least intrusive of the commercial designations as it limits commercial traffic to "E" Street. but would result in a commercial "spot zoning". As discussed under Alternative 3, senior ci?izen and senior congregate care facilities would be permitted. ~ :,~...4~ rwws nat,os, po C17Y OF SAN BERNAR INO PLANNING CASE GPA N0. 90-7 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 10/9/90 PAGE 8 CONCLUSIONS Retaining the CG-1, Commercial General designation is :-: •-t compatible with the uses in the surrounding area as it is a commercial intrusion into an establishe3 residential neighborhood. That part of the site consisting of the medical building and its associated properties is the only part likel7 to be affected by *_he commercial designation as the remaining properties are developed residentially. ~ The RS, Pesidential Suburban designation, as in Alternative 1. i5 compatible with the surrounding uses and is consistent with the ' General Plan in the*_ a single-family development would maintain *_he ~ character of the neighborhood. This designation would limit the reuse possibilities for the medical building. The Alternative 2 designation of RU-1, Residential Urban is also compatible with the surrounding land uses. The higher 3ensity permitted. as compared to RS, is compatible with the density cf many of the residential units in the surrounding area. The General Plan policies pertaining to RU-1 help ensure compatibility from ~ development and design standpoint. This 3esignation would allow f fcr the possible reuse of the medical building as a senior prcie^_~. A designation of CO-1. Commercial Office as in Alterna*_ives 3 and 4 is compatible with the prior use of the medical building. *_he parking lot and vacant land, however, development as a contivucns protect would continue to introduce commercial traffic into the residential area, disrupting the neighborhood and increasing the safety concerns on the local streets. A CO-1 designation for the medical building and dental office only would eliminate *_he commercial traffic on the local streets but would. retain a commercial use surrounded by developed residential properties. FINDINGS Alternative 2 is consistent wi*_h the goals. objectives and policies of the General Plan in that the uses permitted in the RU-1. Residential Urban designation are compatible wi*_h the surrounding land uses and the surrounding designations. Alternative 2 is not detrimental to the public interest. health, safety. convenience, or welfare of the City because it reduces potential impacts by taking commercial uses out of the residential neighborhood. Al*.ernative 2 proposes to change 1.36 acres from CG-l. Cemmer=ial General to RS. Residential Suburban. 3.58 acres from CG-?. Commercial General *_o RU-1, Residen*_iel Urban. 0.33 acres from RH. ~ :,~.:"~° Wawa aoc + a + ao . '® CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CAE GPA N0. 90-7 _ AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~GEHDA rTEM 5 OBSERVATIONS HE"R"'~P~E 9 90 Pesidential High to RS, Residential Suburban and 0.36 acres from RH. Residential High to RU-?, P.esilentia.l Urban. The maiority of the area is developed and the proposed chances in designations recogni.e existing uses. The change in designation for the medical building, the vacant parcels, and parking lot minimally impact the ratio of commercial to residential designations in the Ci*.y. Alternative 2 is physically suitable for development of residential uses as permitted in the F.U-1 designation. All infrastructure is available at or adiacent to the site. The medical building could be reused as senior housing which is a aermit*_ed use or it can be removed and new residential units built. i RECOMMENDATIONS i Staff recommends tha*. the Planning Commission make a recommen3atien to the Mayor and Common Council that: ~ , 1. A Nega*.ive Declaration be adopted in accordance wi*_h Section 21080.1 of CEQA for staff's proposed Amendment No. 90-7, Alterna*_ive 2. r 2. The General Plan Land Use Map be changed from CG-1. Commercial General and RH. Residential High to RU-1. Residential Urban and RS, Residential Suburban as per Exhibit B of the Initial Study. I Respectively submitted d i //_ ~ ~/~~ Larrl E. Reed Director, P~lanni~n~ and Building Services DeRartmen*_ ohn R. Burke Assistant Planner Attachment A: Initial Study t,.s.~w ruwaa nat i a ~ wsi o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO P~ANNWC, DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY Gene a Plan Amendment No, 90-7 Protect Description: To change the land use designation from CG-1. Commercial General to RS. Residential Suburbnn on various parcels comprising 4.54 acres. Staff has proposed three alternatives as described within this study. Protect Location: The site is located on the west side of "E" Street approximately 210 feet south of 28th Street to Courtland Drive and on the west side of Acscia Avenue approximately 310 feet south of 28th Strast to a point approximately 240 feet north of Courtland Drive. Date: July 10, 1990 • Applicant(s) Name and Address: City of San Bernardino Prepared by Name: John R. Burke Title: Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Bnildinq Services 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92416 ATTACHMENT~._ ® O INITIAL STUDY for GPA 9U-7 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 to change the land use designation on approximately 9.54 acres from CG-1, Commercial General to R5, Residential Suburban (see Location Map, Exhibit F). Staff has proposed three additional alternatives with an expanded project area comprising up to 5.25 acres. As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. the purposes of an Initial Study are to: i. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as . the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a ~ project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to Negative Declaration: qualify for 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by; ' (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, lB) 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 Declaratlon that a proiect will not have a significant effect on the environment: 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs: 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could bs used with the project. 1 ~fITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-7 Z.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This City-initiated protect. Alternative 1 (Exhibit A). is to change the land use designation from CG-1, Commercial General to RS. Residential Suburban on various parcels comprising 4.54 acres on the west side of "E" Street between Courtland Drive and 28th Street. The site is comprised of a vacant medical building between "E" Street and Acacia Avenue artd an unused parking lot and vacant land on the west side of Acacia Avenue. The remainder of the site is comprised of residential properties Isee Exhibit E). The land use designations are shown on Exhibit F). Staff has evaluated three alternatives which are described in the following paragraphs. Alternative 2 (Exhibit B) would change the designation of the medical building, the unused parking lot, the vacant land and the residential properties fronting on "E' Street from CG-1, Commercial General to RU-1. Residential ! Urban. The residential parcels fronting on Acacia Avenue and "F" Street would be changed from CG-1. Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban and the southwest corner of Courtland Drive and "E" Street would be changed from RH. Residential High to RS, Residential Suburban and RU-1, Residential Urban. This alternative proposes to • change the designations on 5.i4 acres. Alternative 3 (Exhibit C) would change the designation of the medical building, the unused parking lot and the vacant land fronting on Acacia Avenue from CG-1. Commercial General to CO-1, Commercial Office. The dental office, located north of the vacant medical building, would be changed from RS to CO-i. The designations on the remaining areas would change as described in Alternative 2. This alternative proposes to change the designations on 5.25 acres. Alternative 4 (Exhibit D) is the same as Alternative 3 except that the unused parking lot and vacant land on the west side of Acacia Avenue would be designated RU-1, Residential Urban instead of CO-1, Commercial Office. 2.1 AlIENDMENT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Exhibit E shows the location and General Plan land use designations in and around the site of the prooossd © 0 INITIAL ST[IDY for CiPA 90-7 amendments. The uses on the site are described in section 2.0. The section of Acacia Avenue between the City water pumping station and the single-family residences to the south has not been constructed and Acacia Avenue is not a through-street in this area. A dental office and parking lot border the north boundary of the medical building grounds. North of that parking lot on the east side of Acacia Avenue is a vacant private hospital/rest home. The City water pumping station borders on the north of the unused parking lot on the west side of Acacia Avenue. The remainder of the surrounding area west of •E" Strest is comcrised of single-family and duplex units. There are apartments, single-family residences, a fire station and a cemetery and park on the east aide of "E' Street. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Setting The area considered in all of the alternatives is irregularly shaped, flat and mostly developsd. Three adjacent parcels comprising 13,800 scuaze Eeet are vacant. f I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDINGS VICES DEPARTMENT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Appdeation Number. ~.~~ai ~ i /~dfL?~hE..7 /V[~r10-7 ProjeetDascriptbn• i ct~.~w{rt nre l~.voysE 2~s~G.vgrrav ~.aom C`-/ (M~,aEOaac liav~t To QS ~~ci~veysit SuBUaB~w d? RS~,saetr. ..Sirlfr ,s.9s ,aacolJED "A4EE ~,P,~nalt Location: ~W ~ kr~t: soE of F ..teo~r .A~xr,+~rK ~ a,E'<r..s~~.t~ d~e?~i/s~S--. a ~./nrf.PiEST fiL~e~ Ef /~~s~i~•Es< nl~anrie~ev~y .370Fr ,Sa~nre~.?~'/~t`5--. Emrironmantal Constraints Areas: NoNs General Plan Desgnatiar ~r ~pry,AE,fU/9C ~.[.9 t Zoning pasi0nation: a ENNIRONddEMAL Br~ACTS Exprin answers, wham appropriar, on a aeparata attached shoat. 1. Earth Maouroas tKrd the proposal resat in: Yas No Maybe a. Earth rrwwmem (cut andAOr fB) d 10,000 cubic yards or mon? b. Davebpmerd artdhr pradirg an a abpa prearr than t5% natural grade? _ c Dawbpmam witlun the Aquitt-Priob Spacial Sardis Zone? ~ d. l ~deicadon d arty ungw peobpic or physical e. Sod erosion on or oM the project sir? f. Modification d a dutnrrl, aeek or riwrt ~ p. Davebpmem within an ono subjeesto Wrdaddea. mudslide. Iquetacliort or other similar hoards? h. OtMr7 ~- nrw.as r~os r oc s t4am 2. Ad l9eeouras: Will the proposal nsuk in: Yes Na tdayb. a. Subsumtial sir emissions or an eflea upon ambient as quality? b. 71te aealion of objectionable odors? G Devebpment wkhin a hgh wind hoard area? X 3. Water l9eaourees: Will the proposal nsuk b: a. Changes in absorption razes, drainage pakerns, or the rate and amount of surtax runoff dw to impermeable surtaas? b. Changes in the course or fbw of food waters? a Discharge into surface waters or any akeration X of wrtace waUr qualty? d. Change in the quantity m quality of ground waur? a. Exposure of people or property to flood hoards? ~ 1. Others X 4. Blologbal Reaourgs: Could the proposal resole in: a. Change b the number of arty unique, nn a endangered ap•cies of plains or their habitat irrduding stands of trees? ~ b. Charge in tM number of any unpw, ran a endangered species of animate or their habkat? r« Removal of viable. mature trees? (6' or greater) d. Other? S. Iblae: Could the proposal resole in: a. Increases in existiep noise levels? b. Exposure of people to exurior noiw levels over 65 dB or'ederior noise levels owr t5 d8? a. OtMr? ~ 6. lend Use: Wile the proposal nwk b: ~~~'~ a. A change in the land uw as despnWd on tIM General Plan? b. Devebpment withb >n Airport District? ~ a peveloprnent wkhin 'Greertbek' Zan A, B. a C7 I ~ d. pevebpmeM within a hgh fin hazard zone? i e. OIMr? I a ruw.sa r~:oc• rsorn • 7. Man-Made tlarards: Wiil the project: Yes No Maybe a. Use,. atop, transport or dispute d hazardous or Linde materials (inducting but not imRed to oil, X peatieides, chemicals or radiation)? b. hrvofw tM ukase of hazardous substances? X a Expose people ro the potential health/safey hazards? ~ d. Other? -~ B. llatsbtg: wA the proposal: a. faemow existing housing or cnau a demand ~- tor addhional housing? b. OtMr~ ~ Y. Transportation / Clrwktlon: Could ttw proposal resuh in: a. M increase in traffic that is grater than the land X use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking }seilitkatstructuros? c. Impact upon existing public transportation sysUms? d. Aheration of presets patterns of drwlation? e. Impact to rail or air traftie? f. Irtereated safety hazards ro vehicles, bicyclkts or pedestrians? ' g. A dispimed pattern of roadway improwmerds? h. Signifieam inaeaN in traffic wlumea on the roadways ~- or imeraectiorx? i. Other? X 10. Public Servlds: wru the proposal impact the folbwirq beyond the capability m provide adaquaa kvek of aerviee? a. Fn protection? ~ b. Poioe protection? X a Sdgok (i.e., attendance. txwndariea, ovsrbad, ems.)? ~c _ d. Parks or other recreational fad6tks? e. Medical aid? L So4d Wask? X g. OtMr? r ~.,w14 PUlneab PAliiri 50F t (5101 11. UtghMs: YYIII the proposal: Yes No Maybe a. Impact rite toUowirtg beyond the eapabildy to provide adpuw leve& of serviw or ?puve the oatebuaion d new facd'aiu? t. Nriunl gas? ~ 2. Electridty? 3. Water? 4. s.w.n ,~ 5. ether? X b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utilhy extensbns? c. Fipuin the construction of new fuilitiea? X 12 AeslMtks: a. Cook! the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? X b. Will the visual impact of tM project be detrimental to the surtoundirg ana? i a Olher? 13. Cultural taesourees: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehisrorie or historic archuobgical site? _y b. Adverse physical or aesthetic inputs b a pnhietoric or historic site, atrrxwre or ebjerx? a och.n 14. Mandatory Flndhtgs of SlgnMlear?a (Section 15085) TM Calflomia Pnvkonmeraal OwYty Act states that it arty of the fo4owing an be aruwend ya or mayl», tfa project may new a signlficam e8eet on 1M ernironmem and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does 1M project haw tM potental to degrade 1M quaNy of the errvironmem, subetantraly reduce tfre furbkat of a fbh or wildlife specie, caws a fdt or wildWe population to drop below sets austainirtp Mvels, threaten to eWninate a plats a aninW onmmtarity, reduce the number or netrict the ranee of a ran or ertdartpend plant or animal or eliminate imponant ?tlte major periods of caliromi. niatory ~- b. Does the project haw tfw potential to acnieve eftort• teen, to tM dieadvamage of brag-urn, emriroraneraal goals? (A strort-urn impact on tM environment u om which oxure in a nlatiwly brief. delirtitive period or time while kxg-term impacts wia endue welt tree ~- tla futon.) ~,+ vtw.sp wutE~ovs rsaor Yea No neayb. c Does tM pnajeet haw impacts which an individually Ymlbd. but a+muWlvNy considerable? (A project may ~ on two or more separaa resounats wMn the inp~et on eadr naaaee is n{atiwy small. but when iM elNct of the tow of those impacts on the X emdronmem is sgnMieam.) d. Does the projeG haw emrbonmental elfeas which will eauN subsnmial adverse effects on human beings, edh.r direedy or indinclly? ~ C. DISdJSSION OF @MROI~pdFMAL EVALUA710N AND AArTiGAT10N iNEASURES (Attach sheets as naassary.) .SEE ATTAGlED S.rf~E%S j 0 0 ~, INITIAL STUDY for (iPA 90-7 3.2 ENVIRONMfiNTAL IMPACTS 3.2.1 Impacts on Earth and Air Resources. Public Services. Utilities and Aesthetics will be minimal as the majority of the site is developed. A 13.800 square foot area is undeveloped. There are no biological. seismic or natural hazard concerns. 3.2.2 Water Resources 3.a. Rainwater absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate or volume of run-off will change upon future development. Development under any of the al*_ernatives will have a minimal effect on these factors. These concerns will be addressed at the project review stage and mitigation measures will be established at that time if necessary. 3.2.3 Noise 5.a. General Plan, Table 36. shows this section of "E" Street as having an existing noise level of between 62 and 64 d8(A)Ldn. This is below the preferred maximum of 65 dH(A)Ldn. The medical building and the vacant lots on • Acacia Avenue will potentially increase the traffic noise level in the area whether they are used for commercial or residential purposes. Specific uses will be addressed at the project review slaps. The existing residential uses included in all of the alternatives will not change existing or future noise 2evela. 3.2.4 Land Uae 6.a. The proposed amendment and alternatives will change the General Plan Land Use Plan. 3.2.5 Man-Made Hazards 1.a. Commercial uses permitted by the CO-1. Commercial Office land use designation (Alternative 2) could result in the storage, sale and use of toxic materials not normally found or not found in quantity in residential areas. However, potential impacts are essentially the same as with the existing CG-1, Commercial General designation. © p INITI2iI1~~Y for GPA 90-7 This issue will be addressed at the protect review chase and mitigation measures will be applied as necessary. 3.2.6 Housing 8.b. This General Plan Amendment wail minimally change the City's supply of housing. Alternative 1 could provide an additional 11 dwelling units due to the site's size and configuration. Alternative 2 could provide 20 additional units. Alternative 3 would not affect the City's supply at ve 4 ou dd 4 dwell n un ts. ~ of housing and Altern i c ld a i q i 3.2.7 Transportation/Circulation 9.d. The volume and form of the circulation patterns in the area will increase upon future development. The exlstinq trips are generated from residential uses as the medical building is vacant and the parking lot on the west side of Acacia Avenue is unused. The remaining land is undeveloped. The uses permitted under the current land use designation of CG-1, Commercial General could li potentially increase the volume on either Acacia Avenue oz on "E" Street by up to 600 to 800 average daily trips. This will not impact on either street as the capacity on Acacia Avenue, as a through-street, is between 2.000 and 3,000 daily tripe and the capacity on "E" Street is 30,000. However, commercial traffic through n residential neighborhood could create safety concerns. A Co-1, Commercial office designation, as per Alternative 3, would permit a commercial use that could generate 300 to 400 additional daily trips. This additional traffic would be splft between "E" Street (which currently handles 13,400 average daily tripe) and Acacia Avenue. Such a use would not necessarily require Acacia Avenue to be completed as a through-street. The commercial traffic safety concerns would still exist. Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 in that the vacant parcels and parking lot on the west side of Acacia Avenue would be designated RU-1, Residential Urban. This would generate less than 50 daily trips. The commercial designation would have access from "E" Street and access on Acacia Avenue would not be required. Alternative 2 would generate approximately 150 trips per day based on the potential units permitted by RU-1. Residential Urban designation if the vacant medical © p INITIAL STgDY for 6PA 90-7 building, parking lot and vacant parcels were developed accordingly. This total would be split between Acacia Avenue and "E" Street and would not create impacts on either street. Alternative 1 would generate approximately 100 daily trips based on development of the vacant medical building, parking lot and vacant parcels consistent with the RS, Residential Suburban designation. There would be no impacts to circulation. 3.2.8 Cultural Resources 13.a. The proposed amendment site is located within the Urban Archaeological District. Future development will require a complete archaeological records review to ensure that any archaeological concerns are addressed. ~, D. DETERMINATION On tM basis of thb inBial study, Lj~'TM proposed pojat COULD NOT haw a sgnUswnt aflsG on the anvironmard and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TIONwill 6a prapand. Tha propoaad projsR could haw a spnUipM atlsct on the srwironmsnt, aUhough than will not ba a sgnUicant aeact in this eaaa baaws the mitigation maawra daaaibad above haw bean added m N» pmjsct. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiU bs pnpand. Tha propoaad gojact MAY have a signUiant aMset on the amrironmant, and an ENVIRONMENTAL UMPACT REPORT is raquirod. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Jive hov'1Gor~aali• ~Q,,./uRic ~Aw~ctSP Name and TdM S' aturo Dat.: 8 - 9- Flo CITY ~F SAN BERN RDINO • GENERAL PLAN. AMENDMENT NO. 90'7 TITLE ALTff~VATNE 1, CAUIVCL-NTIATEO 28th STREET ' 's " ~ ~ ~ ~ ® _ f N ~ ,_,l i 8? ~ ci n i a 8 s 3 Q ~ Idc ~ 7 ` ~ ••11 :0 ? -n- PM.2 0 a ~--- i M , 7 h ~ ~ -~ O I i 1 1 A 11 e ' © ~' ® ~ - 4 ~ - - -- j • 11 '~ 1 14 • -- - z: p 1 Tar~-l- '~' :, -' to 1 11 I y ~ 9 27tH ~ srR~r -'~ - - CG1 t0 RS ~ - ':1 I w' ....•' J-' A•s' ti I - r- ; ' ff s i ~o I i i it I• nJ .I. N.I. ~s I~ I I i I._•. n SSSSSY~~~~~~~ VI 2 ' i I i I _ 6 ,~ C 1 ~ I , h~'b~ 11s ~ +i i I Q - - - s~ f f I ro, ,,: 3J s ~ e~ i Q I '. Js S ; JO 3! ~ !Y ~ 3J , a i + • STREET; ~ ~ Jr ' ,~ EXHIBIT A ~~1t,.... ,~~ Ro? ~o F gAN pMeNi N°' C~ L PLAN AMEN GENERA ~ 2 'TLE ALA ~ - T ~ ' u "" - z ~t- 171 ~ ' 9y 13' _T'~~ .- M F. ~ 12 ~ :o ~ Q Qa3 1 ~n '--1 13 • ~ ; ' ~- ~ _ , 6 ~ ~ IS '7 ~ ~ ' -~' 24 7 li 1 •'>- J d i ~ 1 • ! .~- - t ~ ~,. ~I1.:11 ~ 1 w . ~ ~,-1 tp RS .III 1 ~r ~- 1 7 "~~ ~ i ilt` • ' 1 i 1.,, i llr, Is l` ', 11 1_,~il s7 ~ ~ Q~ r• ' Is 11 12 ~ y ~ ~.J`~' 1 1 11 y 10 ~ i in R N ~ 1 t a 11 T ~ ' ~1' ~ ~ - < ' a~ S S3 ~ ~ ORt>!E i r 1 lo. 1' .s,l 3i cyst It ' ~- "1' ' r•~ U ~ Cr~,1y ~ 1 -y - 1 ~ ~ , ~ `' tt . 31 32 , 33 ~ ~ ~ J 30 ~1=) i :i~ ~, EXNIB~~. ~G, ~Ya t ~ , t E v CITY F SAN BERN DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. TITLE ALTE~TNE 3 28th STFtEEr~ III u 2 1 ~ ~ . F 1 ' ~ ® I/ 11 ~ , , 1!! ~r~{' T~ ~ .:air--_. ~ ~ }~, r ~ t~ C ~ ~ ~ Ir • i J -~vO_ ~ 1 ~ a- -.-- -F ~ ~~'I~ /I. -;--.-- - ~ - - ° RS t0 CO-1 ~ PgQr / II lei''. 11 ~ --- ~ r:~~p 1 acres-~-~ - ---- -`-- --- y I 7 _ :~i:v: ++z~++-~a-: w+~ . /R::~...r 9 11 I 1' ~ / : +f -t: as• ?.71h ~ srR~r ~~~- - --~ ~7-1 10 ~'~ - of rl :::!r . ~,. ~ - r-_-_ _ _ W ,,. .,. , ..., CG-1 to RS - ~ ,I ~ _ - .....r . 1 , 1 i I ~ .H•::~:: I} s ~ to I 11.E a I. la .i. IW.I• Is :ao::...:::rt': 7 s s l0 11 I Ir ~ '~ . s7 ss W ~T1 ~ ' I e CG-1 ~ RS w ,,, ss~ e, . RU-1 ----T i r• ~ r ~ .rn ~~, ~ ~" e3 s a i n I/ I Is la , ~ n '' J/ COURTLMp D~vE .T -L - .}--. i ~ JO JI Jr ~ 3J u i ~ ' :,, :,; ~ ~,~ '~ ' ~ c~ ~ ~ RH do RS ~ . RH ~ RU-1 ,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4r r 26tl1 sr~er; = ~ 5 / ' EXHIBIT C CITY ~F SAN BERN DINO - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. ~-~ TITLE ALTEFiIVATNE 4 28th STREET N ~ -i-- ~- ~ -z.~ris -' i }as a ~ ,,~ z P.i. ~ ~1 LL::. Q llt 1 ~ -7 ~ 12 a i 3 _Y__ ~ a- "F ~ 2Y':' - ~ --t---~ . - - - o Q' RS to CO-1 ~, S Is ': ~ O ; J ~J4 ' ~' ~ s 1! +~'~ 114 -"-•-- z: p 1 ~ ,o-r-~- s 1~ I y , a -,--- -~ -' - - - CG1 t0 CO-1 '. ~71f1 ~ STREET ~ ~ - = ~ a. ~ ..~- _ +1 y~(~~ ~ .f ' I N• .N' .s' 1 J-T.. ~i.. ~, _.s C~ 1 W RS ~f •'~~~: .:J: ~ '.I I :r::.: W I II . _ _ ~- _ RU-1 _ I ~ ~ I 1- ~ - I ;1 jf 9 1 10 I 11 12 I• 113.1, 1.1.1• 16 , • b I l i i 1.. 7 ~ 9 10 n ~ IY m ", . ST si ".~ ~, ' tJLT 1 ~ ~ ' ~r i w, I ~i ~ 7 ~ J~ ~ - I ~ i - ° CG1 to RS ~ to .~, ~,~ _ ,3 RU-1 - ," 17 Ii I 10 11 , N ~ ~i C 1 '. a T . ORIVE ~ 30 31 ~ J2 ~ 3J , u i ~~'.. ~RH~RS ' RH to RU-1 . f ~ 3,. Jf >r Js 1 26th STREET== ~ Jr \\rc EXHIBIT~_ ' ~ CITY F SAN BERN DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 907 TITLE UPS 281h STREET _ W _ T . SN iEfAMLY ~-r /•- -11 - W }- w - y t~ _ i 1 ~1 Z ~ .v-'`~ - ~ f.p$PifAL'=8'~. ~-- 4 1 U • a . o • C PPo~A~~ 1 ' 0 s ~ I. !4 ~ -•- - ~ Pr p • 8 _ t-- - -- - _ ---1=„~---~- - -" O - . . , 17 _ ;y~; ~ ,a . -.- ~ _ ` '' MEDICAL FACLJTY ~ 1 27U1 ~ STREET ~ ~- `'-"'+-- - Y 4 i '' ~ _'' '"' ~ (''_' ~ ~ i~. ' ~ c, ~ ~ VACANT r'- - - - - - - II I I I ~ I ~ wr.2 r4r.1 ~ Ih s ~ to ~ ! 1.r 1: 6 liJ .I. 1 I, le Jp ~ • ~' ~ ~I I ~ 1 ~ i.. ice. 7 I . 10 11 12 ':. S7 3. W N N. r N .- W 1 w ~ 3 •r• Q 1 x SIVC~EfAMLY _ -. ~ ~ s4.s w g Q ~ 17 1. IS 14 I• 1J ', ~ • ' t .L. I J. ^ ~MVE . _ . _ JO JI 3P 33 u I i . ~ ~ ~ : _ ~ - FAMLY ~ .a ',~ ~E DUPLEXES y~ sl .,, o. •1 4p •a a ., 5 v - 26~ srREEr; ~ ' EXHIBIT E p SAN BERn R~?No-0 CITY pM~NDMENT N~' - pENERA~ PLAN ~SEDE`~A TITLE ~' ~~~~p UU / , a a , o oo~ . oo ~ ~ ao~ -__~ ~ o ~- ~5,~ o [boo 0 . °°f as , i. Q ~ ~ _ o ~ ,.fir ~ ~`a~0 1 '~ EXHIBIT 1 © V 1 ' ~, ' ~r a.~arxn~ 2 ~ " ~T F - %!- - 0 W r . r . • •v 44~, _ D B ~s ' ~ ?fr s • S'cT•r, _ ~ i '1 ?fr r w c. r y ~ r a • r ~ O_ . r r !nJf _ • r - / • ~ • ' a •r - - • 2T mar 1- zrn mar .- CGi bF~J-1 .1 _ _ W 1 i. '.1 ILJ W'1 b f1J ` W I ~ '1 1 i N~ 1 .art. JI Jl.a / i al • .iq LYL Y41. 1 Y 1 a. fs, /• (r'a ,~' ? =t.': ~, kr "! rkr _y s i r; i r , r , r . ,a ' t FH b RS RH b F~}1 - Y 1 1 i a~ s •r ~ al . r$ • I r Y J 1 r r r ~ _ i r ~-_~ EXHIBIT A ~-, Ex M1817 N.iffNAThE3 ~, • ALTffNATNE4 ~, smffr • ~I• - Q 0 ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a ® I y1-a G 4 i i Isi M e, ,. ~ i i . 4 f . ~ : 1.1 f Iw .r ~ _J~~.f-_ i._.J.~ + - .-r9-_ i...w • - ---~ ~ RS b Co- " ~ --~_ ~ RS b C:o-t ~ ~' \ 2M ~ mar ~ i t OG1bCo-iT 2JA r velar r- C(}1 " CGi b RS " r i a ..iN. YL.aby r. ~ ~.I Y u...N ..14.•b• Y ,• r ` ~, ~ • ~ • a u i v I~ • 1 ! 00.1 ~ ~ • • • r • ~ r ~ ~ ~Ti I CGi b RS 'b~ ~ ~ ~ CG-1 bRS ' rf'S r. ~ RJ-1 1. r/~: r. ~ RU-1 '~_ r r. /Iaf/~.. ~'a 1 s. .l 9+a Ia Iw 1Y j ter. r ~NQ 9alf .1r. r T ~~?D yf a T r i. ; 's FH b R$ a T s : = 7, .' ' FH b RS `/'\ "j `j I ~r '.j. ~ RibFU-1 I'C ~ i ~r ~~i.'. f~ibf~J-1 ~ 1 slar._ mar.. EXHIBIT C! Ex MIB17...Q_ ATTACHMENT 3 28n SifEEi' r _ ALTER~NAT~• Zen Sts+EE7 ~ D s r~ N +gj.. _ff ! w ,r ~i w le r 7 F . ~ r-~~-~rS~_ ~_y__ ' ~-. _ ` _ q _ f it f G.- s _ D _ i ~' •b ' , 2711 slfft7 :- / 27F nfntn :- ~t~_,y:,.^-.~%.Gl, L.~iY, W I' CG-t ~c RS ~-----' - „'~/,/ ~G-t io RS %',, /,y i/w Y i ~ ' __' ' i r~ w e fi.~ f•~. r rl • ~ : '~ . , r____._.. COIRILND :fnf rL` ' COIFILML :+.t N n 4 li Il _- ~ ~ ~ ' •r• F_ -- : RH [G . RH [o » '° ,. ~ n RH [C RH tG r. ,p:y'n RS RU-t ,.' _,. r'. ;l :;RS~RU-t - 28n frf[f* _ frffn - t ~ A T TIV 7 2tk1 stnfft CURRENT LAS USE DESIGNATIONS. , 4 ! ~ e . li Y .-r.,r ; III-~_..5~_ 1_I•__ ~ :r-~_ • e ' I a I, . 1 ,. f ' ' i 9 i '+' •s r ~ I JAS 27/1 fII4f7 _ a~ - - f ~,7'i' f 2771 frf'gr . . r . , ~ w ~ ~ `F r • f • 1 ~ / r • _ • • r I ~ COURTLN.D +.r -.. n _ N ~1 1rR[ - 2111 f»R. - . ~ ~ I 11,1 ATTACHMENT 4' © Q , 1 Resolution No. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE s NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: s SECTION 1. Recitals ~ (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 8 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89- 9 159 on June 2, 1989. 10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 to the General 11 plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the 12 Planning Commission on January 8, 1991, after a noticed 13 public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation 14 of approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common 15 Council. 16 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on July 10, 1990 and 1~ reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the i8 Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan 19 Amendment No. 90-07 would not have a significant effect on ~ the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative 21 Declaration be adopted. ~ (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day ~ public review period from August 16, 1990 through September ~ 5, 1990 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed ~ by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council 26 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Z7 and local regulations. 28 //// 1 RESOLUTION...I~PTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERA~PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public g hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General 4 Plan Amendment No. 90-07 and the Planning Division Staff 5 Report on March il, 1991. 6 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 is 7 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City 8 and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of 9 the existing General Plan. 10 SECTION 2. Negative Declaration 11 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the 12 Ma or and Common Council that the Y proposed amendment to the 1$ General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no 14 significant effect on the environment, and the Negative 15 Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review 16 Committee as to the effect of this proposed amendment is 17 hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 18 SECTION 3. Findings 19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council ~ of the City of San Bernardino that: 21 A. The chan a of desi g gnation from CG-1, Commercial General ~ to RS, Residential Suburban and from RH, Residential ~ High to RS, Residential Suburban for the proposed ~ amendment will change the land use map only and is not ~ in conflict with the ogle objectives and q 7 policies of ~ the General Plan. 27 //// 28 //// 2 , RESOLUTION...~PTING THE NEGATIVE ® DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare 4 of the City. 5 C. All public services are available to the study area. Any 6 development permissible under the RS designation 7 proposed by this amendment would not impact on such 8 services. 9 D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 5.63 acres of 10 land and the balance of land uses within the City will ll be minimally affected. 12 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the 1g requested land use designation. Anticipated future land 14 use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has 15 been determined that project specific mitigation 16 measures will be sufficient to eliminate any 17 environmental impacts. 18 SECTION 4. Amendment 19 gE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council ~ that: 21 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San ~ Bernardino is amended b chap in a y q' g pproximately 4.94 ~ acres from CG-1, Commercial General to RS, Residential ~ Suburban (APNs 149-116-01, 02, 03, 46, 47 and 149-155- 01, 02, 03, 04, 149-116-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 41, 26 45, 48 and 149-155-09, 10, 11, 13, 14), and 27 //// 28 //// 3 RESOLUTION...~PTING THE NEGATIVE ~ DECLARATION OF ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 ~ approximately 0.69 acres from RH, Residential High to 4 RS, Residential Suburban (APNs 149-154-08, 09, 149-154- 5 12, 13). General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 and its 6 location is outlined on the maps entitled Attachments A- 7 1 and A-2, and is more specifically described in the 8 legal descriptions entitled Attachments B-1 to B-4, 9 copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by 10 reference. 11 B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-07 shall be effective 12 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 1~ SECTION 5. Imp Notation 14 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall 15 be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been 16 Previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common 17 Council and which are on file in the office of the City 18 Clerk. 19 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination ~ The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a 21 Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County ~ of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA ~ in preparing the Negative Declaration. 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 4 ~ RESOLUTION...~DOPTING THE NEGATIVE ® DECLARATION OF • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly ~ adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 4 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the 5 day of , 1991, by the following vote, to 6 wit: 7 8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN 9 ESTRADA 10 REILLY it FLORES 12 MAUDSLEY 13 MINOR 14 POPE-LUDLAM 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 ~ 19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this ~ day of , 1991. i 21 22 ~ W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino ~ ~ Approved as to ~ form and legal content: e~ JAMES F. PENMAN, City. Attorney 27 By: ~Y~.. ~ ~ - ~ ~~ti 28 5 n P W..~ r w 1.r ^' r a Q 0 cc -~- 3 `~f U - ~ ~;, ~s ~ S a .r ' °' g ~ ~ l ~ aqN ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~ 1 r- ~ ~ ~ 4~~ t r ~ ~ ~ 1 'o a 1 ,{ off; ~ ~ ~- t m k~ ~ c rE o~ __~-3~N3AW' ~ 1 ins- ® ~ ® ~ N~ « ~ Q«i f n n O "~. d'ot M Y N Q ~ « ~ i. i - ~ { r Z ~ + (,} _ p• _- 6 ~ ~ C , y,f H a m m ~ 133Y15 !'J + j u _ ~ 1 a~ W~ 1 J ~ a ~F ~ _ _ NJ « t0 ` o = - ti • C `- ,$m N _ ~1 L~ ~" A Aa - ,... 11 w 4p p M I 1 , l~" ZQZ$ \ 3~.~.'_ 1 i~~ Y t ~ i'3 1~ ~ ~ - ~ t 1..- ± `w ...{, ~ 111 V ~ W _ _ r n ~ .4,)' ' ~+'L ` ~ ~ ~ yK "'~ E - ~ .S' r a .j.- - ~, . ~ .1 9; 1 i ,- , 1 4 ', ` Q ~ ~ .- RTSRC~~ A-1 0 ,^ CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TIT L E Leaa1 Descriations From CG-1 to RS PARCEL DESCRIPTION 149-116-01 Real property in the City of San Bernardino County of San Bernardino, State of California described as: The South 20 feet of the West 115 feet of Lot 29 and the West 115 feet of Lot 30, Block 1, Tract 1733, recorded in Book 26 of Maps, Pages 7 through 12, inclusive 149-116-02 Real property in the County of San-Bernardino, i State of California, described as follows: J The South 20 feet of the West lI5 feet of Lot 27, and the West ~ 115 feet of Lot 28, and the North 20 feet of the West 115 feet of Lot 29, Block 1, Tract No. 1733, in the City of San I! Bernardino, as per map recorded in Book 26, pages 7 to I2, ~ inclusive, of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of said ~ County. 149-116-03 Real property in the County of San Bernardino, State of California West 115 feet of Lot 26, and the North 20 feet of the West I15 feet of Lot 27, Block I, Tract 1733 Thompson Brothers Poultry, as per map recorded in Book 26, pages 7 through 22, inclusive, of Maps records of said County. 149-116-46 Real property situate in the County of San Bernardino State of California, described as follows: Parcel #2 of parcel Map #4887 as per plat recorded in Book 44, Page 66, records of said County. 149-116-47 Real property situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as fallow, to wit: Lot 1, and the South i/2 of Lot 2, Block 1, Tract No. 1733, Thompson Brothers Poultry Colony, as per plat recorded in Book 26 of Maps, pages 7 to 12 inclusive, records of said County. ATTACHMENT a-I , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. ~-a7 TITLE Leval Descriptions PARCEL DESCRIPTION 149-155-01 Real property in the City of San Bernardino County of San Bernardino, State of California Lot 49, Tract 3529 149-155-02 Real property in the City of San Bernardino County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as: Lot 50, Tract 3529, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County. 149-155-03 The following rea] property in the County of San Bernardino, State of California: Lot 51, Tract No. 3529, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of . Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County. ~ 149-155-04 County of San Bernardino, State of California described as follows: Lot 52, Tract 3529, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County. From CG-1 to RU-1 149-116-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 41, 48 Rea] property in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California described as: The North one half of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3 to 9, inclusive and the East 140.25 feet of Lots 25 to 30, inclusive, BTock I, Tract No. 1733 as per plat map recorded in Book 26 of Maps, pages 7 to 12, inclusive, records of said County. Excepting therefrom the West 25 feet of lots 7 through 9, inclusive. Also excepting therefrom any portion thereof lyigg within the West 115 feet of Lots 25 through 30, inclusive. ATTACHMENT B-z , , CIT F SAN BER DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-07 TIT L E Legal Descriptions PARCEL DESCRIPTION 149-116-45 Real property in the City of San 8ernardirto County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 4887, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 44, page 66 of parcel maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 149-155-09 The following described real property in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California Lot 45 of Tract No. 3529, as per map recorded in Book 46 of j Maps, page 57, records of said County. EXCEPTING therefrom the North 18.5 feet thereof. ~ 149-155-10 The following described property in the County of San Bernardino • State of California i The North 18.5 feet of Lot 45, and the South 33 feet of Lot 46, Tract No. 3529, as per map recorded in Sook 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58. in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 149-155-11 Real property in the City of San Bernardino County of San Bernardino, State of California described as: Lot 46, except the South 33 feet thereof, and Lot 47, except the North 40.5 feet thereof, Tract No. 3539, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County. 149-155-13, 14 Real property situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: The North 40.5 feet of Lot 47, and all of Lot 48, Tract No. 3529, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, in the office of the recorder of said County. ATTACHMENT B-3 ` CITY F SAN BERN DINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9D-07 TfT~E Legal Descriptions PARCEL DESCRIPTION From RH to RS 149-154-08 All that certain real property lying and being in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. particularly described as: Lot 41, Tract No. 3529, in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County. 149-154-09 All that real property situated in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California, described as follows: Lot 42, Tract No. 3529, in the City of San Bernardino as per map recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, in the office of the recorder of said County. From RH to RU-1 I49-I54-I2 The following described real property in the State of California, County of San Bernardino, City of San Bernardino The South 5 feet of Lot 44 and all of Lot 43, Tract 3529, as per Map recorded in Book 46, Pages 57 and 58 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 149-154-I3 The North 40.5 feet of Lot 47 and all of Lot 48, Tract No. 3529 in the City of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 46 of Maps, pages 57 and 58, records of said County. EXCEPT from said Lot 46 the North 5I.5 feet thereof. ATTACHMENT a-4