Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Planning and Building elT~ OF SAN BERaRDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 91-11, to change the land use designation from RL to CG-1 at the southeast corner University Parkway & 1-215. De~: Planning & Building Services D~: November 14, 1991 Mayor and Common Council Meeting December 2, 1991 Synopsis of Previous Council ection: The site was designated RL, Residential Low during the review process for adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment at their meeting of November 6, 1991. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted. tit & .~ ftL- 1 fI Signature Al Bouahev. Director Contact person: Al Boughey Supporting data attached: Staff Report Phona: 384-5357 Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriDtion) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. < i '7 CITY OF SAN BERaRDINO - REQUEST a.. COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT j\:*~ ~.~ ~.:.~-. 8~1 -...ral Plan AIIlendment Ro. 91-11 Mayor and COIDIon council Meeting of December 2, 1991. DOUll8'! This applicant-initiated General Plan Amendment is ,to change the land use designation from RL, Residential Low to CG-l, COIDIercial General on approximately 9.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Univer8ity Parkway and the 1-215 freeway (see Exhibit A of the Initial study). B1C!KGRODIID A designation of RL, Residential Low was assigned to the are., which includes the .ite, during the General Plan adoption proce~. The land on the north side of University Parkway across from t:be site was designated CG-1. During that process a request was made to designate the site CG. The Planning COIDIission did not concur with the request, after discussion, at their meeting of April 15, 1989. The.... request went before the Mayor and COIDIon Council on May 17, 1989, and May 23, 1989, who also didn't concur with a CG designation and the RL designation was retained. ABLY8X8 There are a number of environmental constraints associated with the site which is within the following areas: * .'.. -, * * * * * * 75.0264 Hillside Management OVerlay District Foothill Fire Zone (A&B) OVerlay District High Wind Zone Biological Resource Management OVerlay Area of Archaeological Concern Area of Slope Stability Concern Area of High Potential for Water Erosion Partially within the 65dB(A) noise contour of the 1-215 freeway/university Parkway Corridor < . c 1\ I....,... General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 Mayor and .....on Council Meeting December 2-;:' un Page 2 .",'.' The site is part of a larger area of residentially desiqnated land, however, it is physically separated froa the remaining RL district to the east by hills. The site is relatively flat at the north, which 18 next to an RS, Residential Suburban desiqnation, and also relatively flat in an area between the two ridgelines to the south. The eastern portion of the site is cOllprised of hills. The site's topography combined with the Hillside Management overlay District's development standards limits the potential intensity of residential develOPlll8nt. The site is located adjacent to university Parkway and I-215, a major intersection. University Parkway is an arterial route and also the key entry point to Cal State. It can provide services to travelers to and from the area as well as local residents. The site designated as CG-l would provide an optimal location for a cOlllllercial use, separate from the adjacent residential, .. outlined in General Plan Goal lG. Because the site will remain .tn the Hillside Management OVerlay District, the policies ~ standards of the General Plan and Development Code will act .s mitigation. The purpose of the Hillside Management OVerlay District is to provide for low-density development in the City'S hillside areas and to assure that this development occurs in a manner which protects the hillside's natlU'al and topographic character and identity. Development standards within the overlay District are primarily focused on residential projects although COlllllercial developments are not excluded. The site is an almost continuous strip of land designated for cOllllllercial retail uses on University Parkway from College Avenue to south of Hallmark Parkway. The total area designated for CG- 1 in the general location, both east and west of the freeway, is approximately 70 acres. This includes developed and vacant land which includes the site. university Parkway is a major arterial and provides for entry into the California State University area and the State college Business Park. State Street is a local street providing access to University Parkway for the residents of the neighborhood to the north and northeast of the site. A "worst case" traffic scenario for a project on the site was evaluated and it was determined that the street system in the area could physically handle the increase in traffic providing mitigating measures were implemented (e.g. street signalization and riqht-turn-only traffic control). , , ~ o o General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting December 2, 1991 Page 3 ENVJ:ll.ONHENTAL The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial study on September 12, 1991 and recommended a Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day public review period from September 19, 1991 through October 9, 1991. The site lies within the Biological Resource Management OVerlay, however, a biological assessment was prepared for the applicant which determined that the site was not of significant environmental concern in that it. existed on land that has been disturbed and characteristics of the original vegetation and wildlife has not been retained. The Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, advises that a cultural resource report must be prepared prior to development as there is a moderate potential for the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources. This will be addressed at the time of project review. The Initial Study addressed the issues of development within the Foothill Fire Zone (A & B) and High Wind Zone. These concerns along with slope stability and erosion will also be addressed at the time of project development and conditioned as appropriate to reduce impacts to insignificant levels. The Initial Study determined that noise impacts would not result from the land use designation change. COMMENTS The comments received are associated with development on the site and will be addressed at that time. Comments relative to the proposed land use designation change have not been received. PLANNING COMMrssrON RECOMMEHDATrON The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 at a noticed public hearing on November 6, 1991. < . "', c' f~ V General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 Mayor and ~n Council Meeting Dec8lllber 2i'1Ul Page 4'..~: ~ 'C~' ID.YOR urn COIIIIO. COmrC:l:L 0":1:0.. '1. The Mayor and COllllllon council IIllY adopt the Neqative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91- 11 based on the Findings in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and COllllllon Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 91-11. RBCOllllllllDA'l':l:O.. staff recollllllends that the Mayor and COIIIIIIon Council adopt the resolution which adopts the Neqative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-11. . Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner for A1 Bouqhey, Director . Department of Planning and Building Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning COllllllission Attachment A: Initial Study Exhibit A: Location & Land Use Designation Map. Attachment 2: Resolution Attachment A: Attachment B: Location Map Legal Description c.;.;.~ o i "', _ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY ., AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE ll-b-91 WARD ~ W o ~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-11 Al'PUCANT: OWNER: ...oil Mr.. r er am en v. 9454 Wilshire Blvd., #650 Beverly HIlls, CA 90212 Mr. Craig Wrench/Northwest Ent 11777 San Vincente Blvd., #900 Los Angeles, CA 90049 r to- m :) 2 II: - To Change the land use designation from RL, Residential Low to CG-l, Commer- cial General on approximately 9.34 acres on the southeast corner of Univer- sity Parkway and the 1-215 freeway. The site is within the Hillside Manage- ment Overlay District. i:5 II: C eROP~R1Y ~ubJect North South East West EXISTING LANO lJAE Vacant Apartments Vacant/Freeway Vacant/Single-Family Fraternal Organization/Freeway/ Vacant C GEOlOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES _ HAZARD ZONE: 10 NO oJ i0 WCJ 2z z- OCl II:f :> m Il:. fill "mi~ HIGH FIRE lJJYES HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO o NOT APPUCABLE o EXEMPT J::'1 NO SIGNIFICANT 'II-' EFFECTS ) FLOOO HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ZONE: II NO 0 ZONE B ZONING RL RM RL RL RS CG-l AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES CRASH ZONE: Xl NO o POTeNTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MlTlGAnNG MEASURES NOE.I.R. o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH M1nGAnNG MEASURES o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS see ATTACHED E.R.C. MINUTES { " , ''t_: J GENERAl PLAN DESIGNATION Residential Low Residential Medium Residential Low Residential Low and Residential Suburban Commercial General C SEWERS: ~:S) REDEVELOPMENT /Xl YES PROJECT AREA: o NO ~ i= c ftCl at ~ fd II: ATTACHMENT ~ lXI APPROVAl o CONDITIONS o DENiAl o CONTINUANCE TO ~ ,;, .,: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OB~ERV A liONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 91-11 1 11-6-91 2 - ,.. ..... .-otnl8'r , LOCa'rJ:O. The applicant requests a General Plan land use.designat.ion cbancJe from RL, Resident.ial Low t.o CG-l, commercial General on approximat.ely 9.34 acres locat.ed on the southeast. corner of Universit.y Parkway and the 1-215 freeway (see Exhibit. A of the Init.ial St.udy). The sit.e lies within the Hillside Management OVerlay District. staff evaluated an alt.ernat.ive proposal wbich would remove the area from the Hillside Management OVerlay District in addition to redesignating the site CG-l. Staff recommended, and the Environmental Review Commit.tee concurred, that an environmental iapact report (EIR) would be required for the alternative proposal. The applicant stated that be was not interested in pursuing the EIR route. ".II!& CDDC'RIRJ:8TJ:C8 The amendment site is within the state College Redevelopment Project Area. It is irregularly sbaped and vacant. The site lies within the following areas of environmental concern: * Hillside Management OVerlay District * Footbill Fire Zone (A&B) overlay District * Higb Wind Zone * BiOlogical Resource Management overlay * Area of Archaeological Concern * Area of Slope Stability Concern * Area of Higb Pot.ent.ial for Water Erosion * Partially within the 65dB(A) noise contour of the 1-215 freeway/University Parkway Corridor There are areas of undeveloped land to the east and southeast of the site. Single-family and mUlti-family bousing is to the north, northwest and northeast of the site. State Street borders the site to the north, University Parkway to the west and tbe 1-215 off-ramp to the southwest. The site is relatively flat at the between two ridgelines to the south. site is .ostly billside. north and also in an area The eastern portion of the ... ~.=.~ Pl.AN-UI ,& 1 OF 1 (4<<1) " ~ ; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERVATIONS ....". CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 91-11 1 11-6-91 3 --J rl '.' IJ ,. The General Plan was adopted by the City on June 2, 11". DllrilllJ the review process a request was ..de to designate the land eG. The Planninq Commission refu.ed the request, after di.cussion, at their lIeetinq of April 15, 1989. The.... request went before the Kayor and Common Council lIeetinqs of Kay 17, and Kay 23, 1989, resultinq in the retention of the residential designation. l!ar.IPOIUIl:A IDIVIROIIIDDI'.rAL OUALITY AC'l' 1C~1l0A' S'J!A'.l'US The General Plan amendment is subject to CJ!:QA. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's propo.al and the Initi4]. study (Attachllent A) on September 12, 1991 and deterained that tile applicant's proposed amendment would not have an adver.. iapact _ the environment and recommended a Neqative Declaration. There,.. a public review period frOll September 19, 1991 throuqh October I, 1991 to review the Initial Study. An alternate proposal to remove the site from the Hillside Kanaqement OVerlay District was determined to require an EIR for further evaluation. COIlllllftS UCIIIVIlD The State of California, Department of Transportation, reviewed the proposal and advised that all accesses should be kept at lea.t 300 feet frOll the edqe of the freeway ramp riqht-of-way. Additionally, a weave pattern study to ensure adequate distance. between traffic exitinq the freeway Off-ramp and east-bound university.~arkway traffic, will be needed when access is proposed at the time of site development. The State of California, Department of Water Resources, state. that an encroachment on their california Santa Ana Valley Pipeline riqht-of-way alonq university Parkway exists and permits will be required upon development. The Archaeoloqical Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, advises that no surveys for cultural resources exist and a cultural resource report be prepared prior to development. There is a moderate potential for the presence of prehistoric archaeoloqical resources. lIIJnlltAlll. UI t,.. PL.AN-1.D8 PMIE, OF 1 (...." -::'\ . r - -- ..... .. OBSERV A liONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 91-11 1 11-6-91 4 .j CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT r .... a_T.YSX. Land Use The site is presently designated RL, Residential Low which permits single-family detached residences at a maximWl density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre and a minimWl lot size of 10,800 square feet. The site is contiguous with other RL desiqnated land to the east and southeast. This parcel of land is part of a much larger area of residentially desiqnated land, however, it is physically separated from the adjoining RL district by hills. '.file site's topography limits the actual density and location of residential development. Residential development would permit a maximWl of 29 units, however, this would be would be reduced due to location in Hillside Management OVerlay District. Because t.be majority of the site is elevated adjacent to the freeway and tts level area is adjacent to University parkway, residential development will be fairly limited. Consideration was given to the possibility of assigning a or, Commercial Neighborhood designation so as to provide for small scale, low-intensity commercial uses which serve and are in proximity to residential neighborhoods (General Plan Objective 1.26). However, the 9.34 acre site is somewhat larger than a typical neighborhood center 'and is physically separated from the nearby residential uses and the eN designation was not given any further consideration. A large area of land on the northwest side of University Parkway is designated CG-1. It contains a building for a fraternal organization and the remainder of the land is vacant. Additional CG-1 designated land exists on the west side of the I-215/ University Parkway interchange. This creates an almost continuous strip of_l_and designated for commercial retail uses on university Parkway from College Avenue to south of Hallmark Parkway. The total area designated for CG-1 in the general location is approximately 70 acres. This includes developed and vacant land in addition to the proposed site. The CG-1 designation is provided for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents: reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new locations as new residential growth occurs (General Plan Objective 1.19). .. ~-=.=I PI.MW.GI P_' 01" _ , n () , GPA NO. 91-11 1 11-6-91 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE ... OB~ERV A TIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , '1'llia .iu i. located adjacent to the ..jor inter.ection and arterial route and i. also the key entry point to Cal state. It can provide service. to traveler. to and froa the area as well a. local residents. Designation of the site as OG-l would provide for a distinctive commercial district, separate from the adjacent residential, as outlined in Goal lG. The site, with the exception of the most northern portion, lies within the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District. The purpose of the OVerlay is to provide for low-density development in the City's hill.ide areas and to assure that this development occur. in a manner which protects the hillside's natural and topoqraphic character and identity, environmental sensitivities, aesthetic qualities, and the public health, safety and qeneral welfare (General Plan Objective 1.14). The General Plan contains various policies pertaininq to transfer of density, slope map preparation, reduction in yield of development, clusterinq, minimized qradinq and access. These policies are carried over to the Development Code as development .tandards. The standards address specific project design such a. buildinq heiqht, inqress and eqress, street standards. In addition, the Development Code contains development performance standards pertaininq to soils/qradinq, public safety, water/drainaqe, animal and plant life and design. Althouqh the General Plan policies and Development Code standards deal specifically with residential uses, they are also applicable to non residential uses. While the General Plan amendment would permit a ranqe of uses and a maximum intensity of use, the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District policies and standards will somewhat limit the actual intensity of any project based on the various site constraints. The Hillside Manaqement commercial development is intensity and design. All projects in the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District require a Conditional Use Permit (Policy 1.14.14). certain findinqs must be made for approval to be qranted. Evaluation shall be based on, but not limited to, the project fittinq the existinq topoqraphy rather than the site beinq qraded to fit the project. The primary concern is the protection of any hillside areas of more than 15' slope. OVerlay District would ensure that suited to the site in terms of qradinq, The Initial study evaluated an alternate to remove the site from the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District. The Environmental Review Committee determined that there would be the potential for significant environmental impact. and therefore rec~ended the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the alternative. I\l.ll ,; P\.MoI.OI PIOE 10F 1 (4<<J) ~ """"II ...,j ""II 2'1 , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA NO. 91-11 1 11-6-91 6 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE .. "'I Circula1:ion university Parkway is a major arterial and presently handles approximately 25,000 average daily trips (ACTs). State street is a local street with a current ACT level of approximately 1,000. A "worst case" traffic scenario for a project in the proposed CG- 1 designation was evaluated and it was detel'lllined that such a case could generate 8,800 ACTs more than the RL designation. The RL could generate 200 ACTs. Many of the additional trips generated by such a project would, most likely, use state street as the primary means to gain entry onto the westbound lanes of University Parkway. The street system in the area could physically handle the increase in traffic providing mitigating measures as proposed in the study were implemented (e.g. street signalization and right-turn-only traffic control). State Street is a local street. The primary purpose of local streets is to provide access to the adjacent land uses and access to collector streets. In this case it is providing access from a residential area onto a major arterial. University Parkway is a ..jor entry point into the area servicing California State university and also it is the northbound freeway access to the State College Business Park. . Na'tural Resources The site is within the Biological Resource Management OVerlay. A biological assessment was prepared for the applicant which detel'lllined that the wildlife and wildlife habitat that existed on site was not of significant environmental concern in that it existed on land that has been previously disturbed and does not retain any characteristics of the original vegetation and/or wildlife habitat. Any future development would address other natural resource concerns at the project review stage and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to insignificant levels. Aesthetics Site development could alter the appearance of the topography of the area by the partial removal of the ridgelines and by intrusion into the hillsides. Some design latitude is pel'lllissible and evaluation would take place at the project design phase of future development. The amount of impact to the viewscape will be detel'lllined by the design of future development. ~~"l~~'= .. ..... Pl..MH.DB PAGE' OF , (4-101 > CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT GPA NO. 91-11 OBSERVATIONS -~ CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 11-6-91 I COBCLosrOBS The' site is designated for residential uses within Hillside Mllnllg_ent OVerlay District. The physical separation from the remaining residentially designated land by the natural boundary created by the hills indicates that a contiguous neighborhood is unlikely to develop. The site fronts on a DIlljor transportation corridor end is at . ..jor intersection which meets the objective of the city for. COIIDIunity-serving cODlDlercial use. It is also adjacent to the cODlDlercial district on either side of the freeway at University Parkway. A high intensity use at the site location could potentially create an undesirable high-traffic situation in the area. A considerable portion of the traffic increase would utilize state street as . _ans of egress from a development so as to gain access to University Parkway. The street syst_ can physically handle the increase with mitigation measures applied that are similar to those proposed in the traffic study. The Hillside Management OVerlay District policies and standards will regulate development in terms of intensity, aesthetics and grading. . .rJIDrBGS The amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare because the site would retain the Hillside Manag_ent OVerlay District designation which contains specific policies and development standards pertaining to health and safety. This amendment will impact the balance of land uses within the City to a small degree. The site could support up to 29 single family units based on the current RL, Residential Low designation. However, actual development could be somewhat less because of the Hillside Management OVerlay District and site specific concerns. Therefore, the balance of the land uses is miniDllllly affected. The subject site is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and anticipated development because the Hillside Manag_ent OVerlay District addresses access, utilities provisions and compatibility with adjoining lend uses as well as recognizing ~ physical constraints. lIIJnll:.'==:= fILAN.8.oe PAGE 1 OF , (~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUI~DING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OBSERV A liONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE GPA NO. 91-11 1 11-6-91 8 "'l UCO....GII1DA'rJ:O. Staff recOlllllends that the Planninq COIIIIIission make a recOlllllendation to the Mayor and COIIIIIon Council: 1. That the Neqative Declaration be adopted: and, 2. That General plan Amendment No. 91-11 be approved to chanqe the land use desiqnation from RL to OG-1 within the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District. Respectfully submitted, bMtt.~;V Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director Planninq and Buildinq Services Department 1~~' ~ih- )!~ John R. Burke Assistant Planner Attachment A: Initial Study ... :"..lU:.-='= PLNW.OB PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-80) """"'" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY ., General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 Proiect Descrintion: To change the land use designation from RL, ".idential Low to CG-1, COIDlercial General on 9.34 acres whicb lies within the Hillside Management OVerlay District. An alternative proposal is to remove the site froll the OVerlay District and change the land use designation to CG-1. Proiect Location: The amendment site is located on the southeut corner of university Parkway and the I-215 freeway. ~: July 5, 1991 Annlicant: Camden Development Ltd. Attn: Mr. Ari Miller 94~4 Wilshire Blvd, '650 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 OWner: Northwest Enterprises Attn: Mr. Craig Wrench 11777 San Vincente Blvd, '900 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Prenared bv: John R. Burke Title: Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 N. nDn Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ATTACHMENT --A..- ~&'1Ililf j I'UIW.07 P_ 1 OF 1 ...... o o 1.0 INTRODUCTION ai- Initial study is provided by the City of San llernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 which proposes to chanqe the land use desiqnation from RL, Residential Low in the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District to CG-1, commercial General on a vacant parcel of land at the southeast corner of University Parkway and the I-215 freeway. An amendment alternative would be to remove the site property from the Hillside Manaqement overlay District and chanqe the desiqnation to 00-1. The site i. located in the State Colleqe Redevelopment Area. See Exhibit A for site location and land use desiqnations. As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act quidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an EIR or Neqative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a project, mitiqatinq adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enablinq the project to qualify for Neqative Declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by; (A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to be siqnificant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be siqnificant, and (C) Explaininq the reasons for determininq that potentially siqnificant effects would not be siqnificant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the de.iqn of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a project will not have a siqnificant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. c~ o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~. proposed amendment, Alternative 1, is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan from RL, Residential Low to CG-1, commercial General on the site (Assessor Parcel No. 266-072-67). Alternative 2 is to delete the site area from the Hillside Management OVerlay District in addition to the designation change. 2.1 AMENDMENT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed amendment site is an irregularly shaped parcel comprising approximately 9.34 acres. It is located on the southeast corner of the I-2l5 freeway northbound off-ramp and University Parkway. The site is vacant. The topography of the site shows a ridge line in the center of the site generally downward sloping from the east to the west terminating just short of University Parkway. Another ridgeline is located at the southern extreme of the site and it slopes in the same general direction. A dirt trail enters the site from State Street at the northwest end of the site and parallels University Parkway south to the first ridge and then branches off to follow the ridgeline to the west past the boundary of the site. The trail also continues south past the ridge and into the area between both ridges. High voltage overhead lines cross the site adjacent to the eastern property line. The towers carrying the power lines are located at the eastern end of each of the two ridges. There are two areas on the site that are relatively flat, an area on the north adjacent to State Street and an area lying between the two ridges. The site is bordered by undeveloped land to the east and southeast. There is a single-family housing development to the northeast and mUlti-family to the north and northwest. University Parkway borders the western boundary of the site. A fraternal organization occupies a building on property on the west side of University parkway. The freeway lies to the south and southwest of the site. ',.,C;;~ o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 3.0 ENVIROlIIIENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental settinq The amendment site is undeveloped and has been previously disturbed. The site lies within the followinq areas of environmental concern: * Hillside Manaqement overlay. District * Foothill Fire Zone (A , B) OVerlay District * Hiqh Wind Zone * Bio10qical Resource Manaqement OVerlay * Area of Archaeoloqical Concern * Area of Slope stability Concern * Area of Hiqh Potential for Water Erosion * Partially within the 65dB(A) noise contour of the I-215 freeway/University Parkway corridor These concerns are individually addressed in the discussion section of the Environmental Impact Checklist that follows. The followinq studies were provided with the application and are incorporated by reference into this report: Traffic Impact Study, Bernardino, CA. 1991 University Parkway Plaza, San J. F. Davidson Assoc. Inc. June, Preliminary GeoloqicjSoils Enqineerinq Investiqation, University Parkway Plaza. Pacific Soils Enqineerinq, Inc. May 23, 1991 University Parkway Plaza, Bioloqical Assessment. Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. May 6, 1991 Arborist Report for University Parkway Plaza, Camden Development, Ltd. May 1, 1991 Phase I Environmental Assessment of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of the 215 freeway and University Parkway in the City of San Bernardino, CA. June 11, 1991 n t'\ ... ""l CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ... A. BACKGROUND Application Number: .c..,/~AAi... ~ /)""ut::.Mbtlr AI ,./-// ProjecI Description: 10 L!!NA ~ It nM ~~ u.J'L. b~S/~A~ ~ ~L ,LJ Ct;-I 4lW ~ '.311 -- ..sJ-4- thC TII c:l6'''''''''''' 71V6 b,".Ut:N~lYew ANl> ~PYL ~ .rta NIWt ~ IItU.UbL H..,~~.....r t!J,hAr ~AKr location: JII! T i'1I'4 r"k~I'AJ'r ~.--'~~ ,~ Mt-~lr(7 JZ...... ~ -.... -,,- r- 2/s Fh~A'1" Environmental Constreints Arees: ~L "M.~AI"'-",# .::t/ 6w?~I~~ . , .$..<<",..,/1<. General Plan Designation: RL Zoning Designetion: KIA B. ENVIRONMENTAL "'ACTS Explain _IS. where eppropriate. on a ..parale aIIached sheet. 1. Earth Reeourcn Will the plllp088l raauft In: Vea No Maybe a. E8Ilh movement (cut and/or III) 0/10.000 Cubic yllllfs or more? X b. Oe\.4,.ment and/or grading on . slope graal8r then 15% rIIIlUr8l grade? )( c. Develapment within the Alqui81.priolo Special Studies Zone . defined in SecIlon 12.0. Geologic >( & Seismic. Figura 47. of the City's General Plan? d. ModHication of any unique geologic or phyaiceJ le.ture? X e. Development within area defined for high potential for water or wind erosion u IdentHied in Seclion 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic, Figura 53, of the Cfty's General X Plan? I. ModHication of . channel, creek or river? V .. ...01 111.1'.&'- f'I.AH.I.llll PMlE,OF_ (11-101 ~--,. ,~~ n -- ~ g. Develapment within an area subject to Iandslidas, Vas No Maybe mudslides.liquefclion or other similar hazards as ldalllllied In Sec:Iion 12.0. Geologic & Seismic. >< fVulW.... 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. 0lIWr? 2- AIr "--: Will the proposal result in: L Substantial air amiselons or an effect upon ambient air quall\y as defll'lecl by AQMO? )( b. The ClllsIlon of objectlonabla odors? >( c. Development within a high wind hazard area as idanlHlecI in Section 15.0 . Wind & Fire, Flllure 59, of the City's X' General Plan? 3. Water Re8ourme: Will the proposal result in: L Changes In absorption retes, dralnaga pattarns, or tha rata and amount 01 surl_ runoll dua to impermeable surl_s? x: b. Changes in lhe oourse or flow of flood Wlllars? )( c. Discharge into surl_ watars or any alteration . of surl_ watar quality? )(' d. Change In the quantity or quality of ground watar? X a. Exposura of paopIa or property to flood hazards as idanllllad In lhe Fadaral Emergancy Managamant Agency's Flood Insurance Rata Map, Community Panal Numbar0602811JDIO . A., and SectIon 16.0. X Flooding. Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f. Other? 4- BIoIogIcaI~: Could the proposal resu. in: L DeveIopmer4 within tha BIologIcaJ Resources Managemant Overlay, .. idantIiad in Sec:Iion 10.0 . Natural Raaources, Figure 41. of tha City's X General Plan? b. Change In lha number of any unique, rare or andangarecl spacias 01 plants or thair ~ including )( stands 01 trees? c. Change In the number of any unique, rare or anclangalecl spacias of animals or their habltal? X d. Removal of viable, matura traas? (6" or graatar) )( a. Other? 5. No"': Could the proposal result in: L Davalopmant of hou8ing, hadh care facllllise, schools, librarlas. religious facllltise or olhar "no.." ..naIIiva usas In _ where existing or future noIsa IavaIs axcaad an Ldn of 85 dB(A) axtsrlor and an Ldn 0145 dB(A) intarlor .. idanllllad in Saction 14.0. NoiIa, Figures 14-6 and 14-13 of lha Cl\y's General Plan? X ... .... c:.:.t._ PlMUI P_ZOF_ 111-1ll1 ... ==. --, ~ ...,j ~_.. .-,",.._~,~.:...;...;.:"- - .- o ..... 14. IIIncI8IDry FlndlnpofSlgnlflcanoe ($ection 15065) Owr/IV#,GI>,.v Al4Xr '44"4. The c.IIamIa EnvIlIlnmenlal Qu8lily Ad .... that K any 01 the follawlng can be a_red yes Dr ..,....... prajec:l may haw a signKicanl a1fllCl on the envilllnmenl and an Enviranmantallrnpacl Report "I be pqpared. v.. No Maybe L Does the prajact haw the polanIiallD degrade the qudy 01 the erMlllnmen!, NIaIanliaIy reduoa the hIblIaI 01. fiIh or wIdIfa 1p8Cin. _ . fish or wIdlIe p"p'dMloollD dnIp below ... IWlalnlng levels, threaten lD a1m1nlte . plant or aninal oommunlly, reduoa the number or rastriclthe range 01. rare or ancIangaIwcI pIanl or aninal or eliminale important examples 01 the major periods aI Callfomia hIslory or lQhislDry? b. Does the prajact haw ... polantiallD achiavtt shol1- Wnn, to the disadvantage allong-tann. anviranmental goals? (A shol1-tann impact on the environment is Dna which _in . ....iveIy briaI. dalInItive pal10d allime while ~ impacts wiU endure WlIU inlD the lI!lUre.) StiJ! A.(E,lr7 ''''4"1. c. Does the prajact haw impacts which are individually ImIIad. but c:umuialIYely ClllIIIidarela? (A prajact may inpacl on two or mora I8parale __ whal8the impact on each __ is relaIMIy 8IllalI, but whal8 . the aIlect althe total aI those inpaclS on the envhanmant is lignlicanl.) d. Does the prajact haw anvinlnmental a1facts which wil _1ubeIanlial ~ a1facts on human beings, alIhar dw.ctly or indlNClly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVlRot-~AL EYAl.UA1'1oN AND MnGA11ClN MEASURES (AIIach Iheala _ ~lIIary.) s.e~ A7?'AlrM#,z, .Ilv~~rrl' .... IIli& - I'I.lII04a _I~_ Ill..., - .... o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 (ContinuedfrOll previous paqe) 14. Jlandatory Findinqs of siqnificance Findinqs of environmental siqnificance have not been found for Alternative 1 and questions 14.a. thru. 14.d. can be answered "no". Alternative 2 proposes the site's removal from the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay District and the answers to questions 14. a thru 14.c. are "maybe" and question 14.d. is "no". Consequently, the potential for siqnificant environmental impact exists and an environmental impact report needs to be prepared. ----------------------- 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.2.1 Earth Resources 1.a, b. The proposed land use desiqnation chanqe will have no direct affect on the area but there is the likelihood that future development will result in qradinq with cut and/or fill activities involvinq earth movement exceedinq 10,000 cubic yards. The site is predominantly within the Hillside Manaqement. OVerlay District. It has two ridqes traversinq the property in an east-west direction and much of the easterly portion of the site is on a hillside. Slopes in excess of 15% are present. Alternative 1 proposes to chanqe the desiqnation and retain the Hillside Manaqement OVerlay on the site. By keepinq the OVerlay the standards are maintained which are, in effect, mitiqation, and limitations to the amount Qf qradinq remain in place. Future development will be quided by the standards. The proposed Alternative 2 would eliminate the self-mitiqatinq standards of the OVerlay District and allow for the potential for qreater qradinq, more severe cuttinq and scarrinq and loss of natural topoqraphic character. Future development could impact the slopes as the flatter areas upon which development could be located are not contiquous. A contiquous development on the site would require removal of at least part of the ridqe that crosses the center of it so as to provide circulation between the north and south sections of the site. These o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 illpact. will be addre..ed at project review stage to enaure mitigation measures are provided. Readjusting the boundaries of the Hillside Management OVerlay District to exclude the site and assigning a co_ercial designation would eliminate the need to comply with the District's standards thus allowing for a greater intrusion into the hillsides and ridge lines but still protecting against erosion, Sliding and scarring. 1.e. The site is located within an area desiqnated in the General Plan as having the potential for water erosion. Mitigation at the project specific stage will be required to prevent wind and soil erosion. log. The site is within an area designated as having the potential for landslides. Project specific design will be required to address mitigation measures to preclude impacts to the hillsides and to ensure safety to persons and property. 3.2.2 Air Resources 2.a. The proposed amendment does not meet the criteria that could indicate statewide, regional or areawide significance due to site size. Intensive co_ercial development could create an environment that could increase air emissions by adding to the impact already created by traffic on I-215 and University Parkway. Project specific mitigation may be required. ~.b. Any commercially designated area has the potential to create objectionable odors due to the nature of the uses permitted on it. Future development will comply with development and design standards to preclude such a consequence. 2.c. The proposed amendment site is within the City's designated high wind zone and, as such, specific development will be designed to mitigate impacts. o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 3.2.3 "~.r Resources 3.a. Any development will potentially decrease absorption and increase runoff with the construction of impermeable surfaces to facilitate the land use, circulation and parking. These issues will be addressed at the time of project design review. 3.d. The imPermeable surfaces mentioned in paragraph 3. a. above would also act as catchments for contaminants such as hydrocarbons, petroleum products (engine fluids) and particulate matter from exhaust emissions and increase the level of pollutants into the drainage system. specific development projects will be required to address drainage and impermeable surfaces and include design specific mitigation measures as needed. . 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4.8. The site is within the Biological Resources Management OVerlay. The biological assessment provided with the application indicates that the on-site vege~ation is comprised of two distinct plant cOllllD.unities, coastal sage scrub and exotic grassland. The coastal sage scrub occupies a large segment of the sloped portions of the site and the exotic grassland occurs on the gentle slopes. Both plant communities have been heavily disturbed by past livestock grazing and off- road vehicles. ~e wildlife detected on the site during the assessment survey consisted of reptiles, birds and mammals. These were determined to be typical of the fauna to be found in many southern California habitats. No sensitive species of flora or fauna were reported in the area of the site. The results of the biological assessment were that the project, for which the study was commissioned, will not result in significant impacts to the biological resources of the property. The study evaluates a project that is intense enough to be considered adequate to cover any development that could be proposed as a result of approval of this General Plan Amendment. The study addresses mitigation measures that '0/ o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 could be applied upon specific project application to aoapensate for natural areas lost to the effect of CUJlUlative development in the surrounding area., There i. no impact to habitat at this time from a change to the land use designation. A development project application will address the impacts from any specific proposal. 3.2.5 3.2.6 Noise 5.a, b. The proposed amendment site is partially located within the 65dB(A) noise contour generated by traffic on the 1- 215 freeway and University Parkway. Future projects that are -noise sensitive-(e.g. health care facilitie.) will be reviewed to determine if mitigation measures would be required to ensure internal noise levels of 45dB(A) or below and external noise levels of 65dB(A) or below.: The commercial uses that would be permitted could increase traffic noise to some degree, however, it is not anticipated to be significant. Non-traffic noise could result from the proposed CG-1 designation. Removal of the Hillside Management OVerlay District could cause a very small increase in potential noise generation over projects that could be proposed if the OVerlay boundaries are not altered. Projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not generate noise which could impact permitted surrounding uses and that mitigation measures will be sufficient to reduce any noise to insignificance. Land Use 6.a. .nternative 1 is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan from RL, Residential Low to 00-1, Commercial General only. Alternative 2 would change the designation and r_ove the site from the Hillside Management OVerlay District. 6.c. The site is within the Development Code Foothill Fire Zone OVerlay District (A & B). Development Code standards to mitigate impacts will be required at project development stage. "~.~~.,~_.- . :. o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 ~-Made Hazards "i~..b.c. The storage and use of hazardous and/or toxic materials is an inherent safety concern associated with commercial developments. These safety concerns will be addressed at the project review stage of future development. Housing 8.a. Approval of this General Plan Amendment will not affect existing housing but will remove approximately 9.34 acres from the overall land designated for future housing. Transportation/Circulation 9.a. The Traffic Impact Study submitted with the application is directed at a specific project. However, the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning staff agree that the project analyzed is of such an intensity that it can be considered as a "worst case" scenario thus fulfilling the traffic analysis requirements for this General Plan Amendment. A commercial designation at this location will potentia11y~increase the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on University Parkway. The total ACTs on University Parkway is presently 25,000 and the designation change could potentially increase traffic to over 30,000 ADTs. Some of the traffic generated by a development on the site will most probably exit via State Street, a local itreet. Most of that traffic will proceed to University Parkway. The westbound ACTs on State street is currently 1,000 and traffic after development will increase due the n.ed to use a State Street exit to access the west bound lanes of University Parkway. State street can handle the anticipated increase. 9.e. The permitted uses on the site could cause an increase in demand for public bus service but it is unlikely to seriously impact such provision by omnitrans. o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 ,~,f. '!bere will be a potential for an increase in safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians due to increased traffic resulting from a future cOllDlercial development. The project development process will address potential safety hazards and identify mitigation measures as necessary. 9.h. As stated in paragraph 9.a. above the traffic will increase upon development of the site for commercial purposes. The degree of increase will depend upon the intensity of development. Mitigation measures to control and direct traffic will become a part of any future project design and traffic increases, although potentially substantial, will be within the capabilities of the roadway system. ~ 3.2.10 Public Services ~. This item is not impacted by this General Plan amendment. 3.2.11 Utili ties This item is not impacted by this General Plan amendment. 3.2.12 Aesthetics. 12.b. Development on the site could result in the partial altering of the two ridgelines. Alternative 1 would probably limit the amount of grading and therefore limit the impact to the ridgelines and hillsides. Alternative '2, r_oving the site from the Hillside Management OVerlay District, would allow for a considerable amount of cut " and fill action that would be detrimental to the hillsides' natural and topographic character and identity. Any development, residential or commercial, will remove some visual open space. o o INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-11 3.2.13 3.2.14 CUltural Resources 13.a. The site is within an area of archaeological concern. The CUltural Resource Review conducted by the Archaeological InforDUltion Center, San Bernardino County Museum, did not reveal the presence of any known cultural resources due to a lack of previous surveys. The Center does state that there is a potential for prehistoric archaeological resources at the site which would be fully addressed at project specific stage. Mandatory Findings of Significance The proposed general plan amendment, Alternative 1, is not anticipated to have significant environmental illlpacts as the Hillside Management OVerlay District standards in the Development Code provide mitigation. A Negative Declaration is recommended for this alternative. f Alternative 2 would have greater impacts due to the removal of the need to comply with the standards of the Hillside OVerlay Management District. The ridgelines and hillsides could be seriously impacted by the removal of the overlay standards which act as their own mitigation. Due to the potential for significant impacts, an environmental impact report is recommended for Alternative 2. . ~ a ... D. DETER..NATION Fo~ 1Jt...T1f.tN"n,/A L. On the ~ of thillnllial study, ,..,( The ~prajec:l COULD NOT Mve a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- ,.J&l lION wll be....,ed. O The pIIIpClHd project could have a significant effect on the environment. although thare will not be a signfficant affect in this - becauu the mltiglllon measures described above have bean addad to the project. A NEGATIVE DEClARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a signfficant affect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAl REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CAlIFORNIA Larry E. Reed, Assistant Dorector Nama and Tille ..'4z r /t.~ . Date: &"'9''1 a~ 1? . 1991 ... :::;.::.::.:U_ Pl.ANot.DI PAGE OF (11_ - .- D. DETEAIoINA1ION NIf. -'*.r~A/" r/J/4 .2 . . On the buia 01 Ill. inllial atudy, o The pIapOUd pnIjecI COULD NOT haw a aignllicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION wlII be prep.ed. o The pIapOUd pIajIct could have a aignllcant effect on the environment, although there win not be a aignNicant effect In Ill. _ becauae the mlligllllon meuura dncribed .tlove have bean added to the project. A NEGATIVE DEClARATION wll be pnlpaI8d. . kz( The pIapOUd pIajIct MAY have a aignHicant effect on the envilllnment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPORT. requiNd. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALFOANIA Larry E. Reed Assistant Director Name and TItle ~;:~ Date: August 12, 1991 I:l.ll - ~ ~ __ I'ME_OF_ (110lOI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o Resolution No. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 91-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN .BERNARDINO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989. (b) General Plan Amendment No 91-11 to the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1991, after a noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission's and recommendation of approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common Council. (c) An Initial Study was prepared on July 5, 1991, and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day public review period from September 19, 1991 through October 9, 1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the IIII 1 o o 1 2 california Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local 3 regulations. 4 (e) The Mayor and Common council held a noticed 5 public hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed 6 General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 and the Planning 7 Division Staff Report on December 2, 1991. 8 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 91- 9 11 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development 10 of the city and is consistent with the goals, objectives 11 and policies of the existing General Plan. 12 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration 13 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED 14 by the Mayor and Common council that the proposed 15 amendment to the General Plan of the city of San 16 Bernardino will have no significant effect on the 17 environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore 18 prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the 19 effect of this proposed amendment is hereby ratified, 20 affirmed and adopted. 21 SECTION 3. Findinas 22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common 23 Council of the city of San Bernardino that: 24 A. The change of designation from RL, Residential Low 25 to CG-1, Commercial General on approximately 9.34 26 acres located on the southeast corner of University 27 Parkway and the I-2l5 Freeway for the proposed 28 1111 2 o o 1 2 amendment will change the land use map only and is 3 not in conflict with' the goals, objectives and 4 policies of the General Plan. 5 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to 6 the public interest, health, safety, convenience, 7 or welfare of the city because the site will retain 8 the Hillside Management Overlay District designation 9 which contains specific policies and development 10 standards pertaining to the health and safety. 11 c. All public services are available to the study area. 12 Any development permissible under the CG-l, 13 commercial General designation proposed by this 14 amendment would not impact on such services. 15 D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 16 approximately 9.34 acres to CG-l, commercial 17 General. No housing stock will be affected. 18 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the 19 requested land use designation and future 20 development because the Hillside Management overlay 21 District policies and standards address access and 22 compatibility with adjoining land uses as well as 23 physical constraints. 24 F. The amendment site is physically suitable for the 25 requested land use designation. Anticipated future 26 land use has been analyzed in the Initial study and 27 it has been determined that project specific 28 1111 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ,.~-"...,-", '" o o mitigation measures will be sufficient to eliminate any environmental impacts. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 9.34 acres from RL, Residential Low to CG-l, Commercial General. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A, and is more specifically described in the legal description entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein by reference. B. General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 shall be effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution. SECTION 5. MaD Notation This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. I I 1/ IIII IIII I I 1/ A o o 1 2 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 3 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a 4 Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the 5 County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance 6 with CEQA in preparing the Negative Declaration. 7 II/I 8 IIII 9 IIII 10 IIII 11 IIII 12 IIII 13 IIII 14 IIII 15 IIII 16 I I I I 17 I I I I 18 I I I I 19 I I I I 20 II/I 21 I I I I 22 IIII 23 IIII 24 IIII 25 IIII 26 IIII 27 IIII 28 IIII 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o o RESOLUTION. . . ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the city of San Bernardino at a meeting therefore, , 1991, by the held on the day of following vote, to wit: Council Members: ~ ABSTAIN 1I1WlN1' ~ ESTRADA REILLY HERNANDEZ MAUDSLEY MINOR POPE-LUDLAM MILLER city Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 1991. W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney By: G.t1nU' 7- j~-v~..., // (J 6 . ' EXHIBIT A , r I '. i - CITY F SAN SER RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-11 TITLE Legal Description Pare.1. D8Berintion 266-072-067 THAT PORTION OF '!'HE RANCHO MUSctTPIABE, IN '!'HE CI'l'Y OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE. OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 23, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT '!'HE NOR'l'HEASTERLY CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, AS SAME WOUID BE LOCATED IF '!'HE GOVERNMEN'l' SURVEY WERE EXTENDED ACROSS SAID RANCHO; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 0 DEG. 22' 22" EAST, 370.41 FEET; THENCE, COURSE "A" SOUTH 81 DEG. 36' 53" WEST, 235.77 FEET; THENCE, COURSE "B", NORTH 31 DEG. 28' 26" WEST, 426.35 FEET; THENCE COURSE "C", NORTH 1 DEG. 54' 2." WEST, 117.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20 DEG. 31' 42" EAST, 302.96 FEET TO '!'HE BEGINNING OF A TANGEJIT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,215 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CEN'l'RAL ANGLE OF 12 DEG. 14' 14", AN ARC DISTANCZ OF 274.45 FEET TO '!'HE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIM S'l'RIP OF LAND,. 60 FEET WIDE, NOW A PORTION OF STATE COLLEGE PARKWAY, FORMERLY DEVIIS CANYON ROAD, AS CONVEYED TO '!'HE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1735, PAGE 351, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN SAID RECORDER'S OFFICE; 'l'HENCZ NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO '!'HE EAST LINE OF SECTION 18, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 18 TO TIlE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH ALL GRANTOR'S LEASEHOLD INTERESTS AND WATER RIGHTS RELATING TO AND WATER WELLS LOCATED ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEIS. EXCEPTING FROM PARCEIS "I", "H-1", "B-2", "G-1", "G- 2", "J", "K", IL-1", IL-2" AND IL-3", THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL AS RECORDED IN A DOCUMENT RECORDED ON JULY 7, 1967, IN BOOK 6851, PAGE 554, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. ATTACHMENT D - r' n - CITY OF SAN BERRrRDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-11 TITLE ~al Description ...-" S. -., r '1"IIA'l' IOR'1'ION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, IN THE RANCHO MOSCUPIABE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 23, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND, 70 FEET WIDE, THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF WHICH STRIP IS A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 70.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN STRIP OF LAND THROUGH SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4, DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECORDED NOVEMBER 12, 1926, IN BOOK 156, PAGE 324, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND IN DEED TO SAID COUNTY, RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1925, IN BOOK 35, PAGE 267, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ATTACHMENT B