HomeMy WebLinkAbout42-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BER.RDINO - REQUEST tbR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
General Plan Amendment No. 92-02,
Subject: to change the land use designation
from RS and RMH to CO-I, between
7th & 8th Streets, west of Western
Avenue on 6.16 acres.
Mayor and Cornmon Council l-1eeting
Mr:lY lH, lqq?
De~: Planning & Building Services
Date: Apr i I 30, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The site was designated RS, Residential Suburban and ~1H, Residential
Medium High with the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989.
On April 7, 1992 the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a
Negative Declaration and approval of amending the General Plan to
change the land use designation to CO-Ion 6.16 acres.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the Mayor and Common Council adopt
the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No.
92-02 based on the Findings in the resolution; or
That the hearing be closed and the Mayor and Common Council deny
General Plan Amendment No. 92-02.
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $25.00
Source: (Acct. No.)
001-171-53150
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
W (Jv----
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
i2.
I CITY OF SAN BER.RDINO - REQU~ST IPR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 92-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
May 18, 1992
REOUEST
This City-initiated General Plan amendment is to change the
land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium High and RS,
Residential Suburban to CO-I, Commercial Office on 6.16 acres.
The amendment site is located between 7th and 8th streets,
west and adjacent to the extension of Western Avenue.
BACKGROUND
The site is composed of two parcels of partially developed land.
Parcel 139-273-03 is developed with the westside Medical Clinic
and is designated RS, Residential Suburban. Parcel 139-273-01 is
partially developed with the Casa Ramona, a non-profit community
facility. The southerly portion of this parcel with the Casa
Ramona building is designated RS, Residential Suburban. The
remainder of parcel 139-273-01 is vacant. It is designated RMH,
Residential Medium High.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposal and the
Initial Study on February 27, 1992 and recommended a Negative
Declaration. The review period for the Initial stu~y and the
Negative Declaration began on March 5, 1992 through March 25,
1992.
COMMENTS
No comments have been received.
ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use Designation
Parcel 139-273-03,which fronts on 8th Street, and the land north
and west of it are designated RS, Residential Surburban. The RS
designation permits single family residences. The existing
professional administrative building is legal nonconforming.
Parcel 139-273-01, a through lot which extends from 7th Street to
8th Street, is partially designated RMH, Residential Medium High,
on the northerly portion of the parcel. The RMH designtion permits
a diversity of mUlti-family uses. The existing Casa Ramona
facility is situated on the southerly portion of the parcel which
is designated RS, Residential Suburban.
The CO-I, Commercial Office land use designtion permits
administrative and professional offices, hospitals, and supporting
retail uses, and senior citizen and senior congregate care housing
at a maximum density of 47 units per gross acre.
75-0264
UC;J...L.CJ...c.;..~ .....~~.... ~:"""."'-"''''''''''''''''4''._'''.''''''' ..'4__ .,- V_
Mayor and Common C~cil Meeting
May 18, 1992 .
Page 2
.
Neither environmental nor compatibility impacts are associated
with this General Plan Amendment, as discussed in the Staff Report
to the Planning commission (Attachment l)Amendment and it is
consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies.
, .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the
Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No.
92-02 at a noticed public hearing on April 7, 1992.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No.
92-02 based on the Findings in the resolution.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan
Amendment No. 92-02.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves
General Plan Amendment No. 92-02.
Prepared by: Denise S. Moonier, Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning commision
Attachment A: Initial Study
Exhibit A: Location & Land Use
Designation Map
Attachment 2: Resolution
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Legal Description
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
W
tn
C
(.)
AGENDA ITEM 5
HEARING DATE 4-7-92
WARD 1
APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
92-02
OWNER:
Casa Ramona, Inc.
1524 W. 7th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92411
t-
tn
W
::>
o
w
a:
A proposal to change the land use designation from RMH,
Residential Medium High and RS, Residential Suburban to
CO-I, Commercial Office on 6.16 acres. The amendment site is
located on 8th Street, west and adjacent to the extension
of Western Avenue.
......
c
w
a:
c
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Wests ide Medical Clinic RMH,RS Residential Medium Hi /
and Casa Ramona, Inc. Residential Suburban
North Single Family Residential RS Residential Suburban
South Single Family Residential RS Residential Suburban
East Park PP Public Park
t1Est Single Family Residential RS Residential Suburban
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: XX NO
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: XX NO
..I 0 NOT
C APPLICABLE
t-
Ztn
WO
:= Z 0 EXEMPT
Z-
OQ
a:~
-~
>
Z XX NO SIGNIFICANT
W EFFECTS
c:rTV 0# IAN ~
ClJIIIJlAL -...aIEIlWlUS
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A
ZONE: ~ NO 0 ZONE B
AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES
CRASH ZONE:
~NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS WITH
MITIGATING MEASURES
NO E.I.R.
o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES
Z
o
~
C
~Q
~Z
CW
t-:=
tn:=
o
CJ
W
a:
( SEWERS:
~YES )-
o NO _
REDEVELOPMENT lCKYES
PROJECT AREA:
o NO
~ APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
o DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
PLAN.llm PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
Attachment 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA 92-02
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
4-7-q2
2
r
...,
REQUEST & LOCATION
This City initiated proposal is to change the General Plan land
use designation from RS, Residential Suburban, and RMH,
Residential Medium High to CO-1, Commercial Office for a site
which is partially developed with two administrative, professional
office structures. The site consists of approximately 6.16 acres
and is located west of Mt. Vernon Avenue, on 8th Street, west and
adjacent to the extension of Western Avenue, between 7th and 8th
Streets.
AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The site is composed of two parcels of flat partially developed
land. Parcel 139-273-03 is developed with the westside Medical
Clinic and is designated RS, Residential Suburban. Parcel
139-273-01 is partially developed with the Casa Ramona, a
non-profit community facility offering varied programs for
residents on the westside. The southerly portion of this parcel
with the Casa Ramona building is designated RS, Residential
Suburban. The remander of parcel 139-273-01 is partially vacant.
It is designated RMH, Residential Medium High (see Attachment A,
Exhibit B ).
The surrounding land uses are residential with the exception of
the land immediately east and adjacent to parcel 139-273-01 which
is designated PP, Public Park by the General Plan.
MUNICIPAL CODE
The existing professional office use on parcel 139-273-03 is not
permitted in the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation,
and is legal nonconforming, but would be permitted in the CO-1,
Commercial Office General Plan land use designation. The General
Plan permits only minor expansions of nonconforming uses. If the
structure becomes vacant for a period of 180 days or more, the
nonconforming use cannot be re-established and future land uses
must conform to the General Plan land use designation.
The existing administrative building and community facility use
on parcel 139-273-01 is not permitted in the RS, Residential
Suburban land use designation and is legal nonconforming.
....
~
ClT'f OF SNI ~
ClNnW. MHnliIG.RVIC:U
PLAN.8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (A.90)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GAP 92-02
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
4-7-92
3
r
...,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
The General Plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental
Review Committee reviewed the proposal and the Initial study
on February 27, 1992 and determined that the proposed amendment
would not have an adverse impact on the environment and
recommended a Negative Declaration. The review period for the
Initial study and the Negative Declaration began on March 5, 1992
through March 25, 1992 (see Attachment A, Initial Study).
ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use Designation
Parcel 139-273-03 and the land north and west of it are designated
RS, Residential Surburban. The RS designation permits single
family residences. As stated previously, the existing
professional administrative building and land use are not
permitted in this designation and are legal nonconforming.
Parcel 139-273-01 is partially designated RMH, Residen~ial Medium
High, on the northerly portion of the parcel. The RMH designtion
permits a diversity of mUlti-family uses. The existing Casa Ramona
facility is situated on the southerly portion of the parcel. The
southerly portion of the parcel being designated RS, Residential
Suburban.
During the General Plan update in June 1989, the subject 4.85 acre
parcel was given two General Plan designations. The vacant
portion to the north was designated RMH, Residential Medium High,
and the south portion, which contains Casa Ramona, was designated
RS, Residential Suburban. The intent was to accomodate the future
plans of Casa Ramona to construct a senior housing project on the
vacant portion of the lot.
Parcel Map 13725, a proposal to divide parcel 139-273-01 into two
lots of 1.83 and 3.02 acres was approved by the Planning
Commission on June 4, 1991. The parcel map has not recorded
with the County of San Bernardino.
Proposed Land Use Designtion and Compatibility
.....
~
ClTY~_~
CEtmW. MNnNOIEfMCIS
PLAN.S.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (..QO)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA 92-02
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
4-7-92
4
r'"
~
The purpose of the CO-l designation is to meet the City'S
objective, as follows:
" Provide for the continued use, expansion, and new develop-
ment of administration and professional offices and
supporting retail uses in proximity to major transportation
corridors an densure their compatibility with adjacent
residential and commercial uses. II (General Plan Objective
1.28)
The preceding passage (General Plan Objective 1.28) reflects the
City'S intent to retain and enhance existing administrative and
professional offices. The amendment site is well established in
the neighborhood and has contained the commercial building and use
for a long time. Essentially, the amendment proposal will not
change the status quo of the site or neighborhood and, it will not
create impacts related to land use compatibility or circulation.
Additionally,the purpose of CO-1 is to meet the City'S policy, as
follows:
" Permit the development of senior citizen and senior
congregate care housing by Conditional Use Permit. (General
Plan Policy 1.28.12)
The CO-1, Commercial Office land use designtion permits
administrative and professional offices, hospitals, and supporting
retail uses, and senior citizen and senior congregate care housing
at a maximum density of 47 units per gross acre. The amendment
proposal will permit a senior citizen apartment complex and will
not conflict with the compatibility of the proposed use.
CONCLUSIONS
There are no impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment
and it is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the
surrounding uses.
~
~
CITY Cl' _ ~
CE_~IE_CEI
PLAN.8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (..QO)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA 92-02
OBSERV A liONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
4-7-92
5
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives
and policies of the General Plan in that the redesignation of the
site from RMH and RS to CO-1 is compatible with surrounding uses.
The amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed
in the Initial Study. The Environmental Review Committee reviewed
the Initial Study and recommended that a Negative Declaration be
adopted.
The amendment proposes to redesignate 6.16
Residential Medium High and RS, Residential
Commercial Office uses. Because the site is
administrative and professional office uses,
stock would not be affected .
acres from RMH,
Suburban to CO-1,
developed with two
the City'S housing
The subject land is physically suitable for the CO-1, Commercial
Office land use designation and any anticipated future development
on it.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council:
make
a
1. That a Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance
with Section 21080.1 of the California Environmental
Quality Act for General Plan Amendment No. 92-02.
2. That the General Plan Amendment No. 92-02 be approved.
ing service~ Department
~
')~'/.//)-L /'. ~ i>>Yiv,
Den se S. Moonier
Assistant Planner
Attachment A: Initial Study
Exhibit A: Land Use Designation,
site Location Map
Exhibit B: Assessor's Parcel Map
crTY OF IWo ~
CfNlM&. MIiITINQ IEA"'CZS
PLAN.I.OB PAGE 1 OF 1 (..90)
Attachment "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
r'
""'llll
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
For General Plan Amendment 92-02
Project Number
project description/location To chanae
the land use desiqnation from RS.Residential
Suburban & RMH.Residential Medium Hiah to
CO-I, Commercial Office on Aoorox.6.16 acres
on 8th St..west and ad;acent to the extension
of Western Ave.,between 7th & 8th Streets.
Date Feb. 14. 1992
Applicant(s)
Prepared for:
CITY INITIATED
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
Address
City, state
Zip
Prepared by:
Denise S. Moonier
Name
Assistant Planner
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Ooc:Misc
InitialStudy
....
~
crn01_~
CItmIAI. -.o.1NC;U
plAN-a.o7 PAGE 1 OF , (A.g())
.
.
INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN ADMENTMENT 92 - 02
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the city of San Bernardino as the
Initial Study for General Plan Amendment 92-02. Section 2.0
provides a description of the project and site
characteristics.
As stated in section 15063 of the California Environmental
Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are
. to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project,
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared,
thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative
Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of a EIR, if one is required,
by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be
significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be signifi-
cant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potent-
ially significant effects would not be significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design
of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRS;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
~
~
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: /""-:,~'
Project Description: I:::::
- \
_.__ ,I ._...~,J ...\. ~ i\, .~" i -. "'" . _ "' -t""
',~.r -"-^\ . _J....,. ,~If._ '''- I' Q1f; '.
~ ~{~.-D~
Rl:::r i"'.
~~
'-.~
_^ \i-"". (~.::_.-.. --.. ......- /"... j --h '.....(
_ '-' __ ...........~ ___'.(~.'t" ....;1....
~ . . \ \ <:::::....': '-
K\"-:"c.,2.'- "",~. '---"-- 't _r-vy;..,.'l .~>~~ ~(V\ rt.
,
.r..- ,\ 'e, h --z:, ~ . c: - \ C-r::\. ;')- ,.-1='FtC G-
.~
..... .~. /< \ '.., (~..
-
i.. ' ....
I .,~
-.., - ,\ \
~ \- - .-. ~ , \
\ _ \-.: l:::.. ~,
"--
C' _ \ -::. ,- =- ~ ~~ ':::-T-."""~ ~./:-,-~I' 'l~c::...~
Location: .' ____<- ~ . _, - '....-' ' - ~_ . 'l. \ ' -...-J- . t...^-' ~...; \
r::= 'vi ~ - . - <:, ... n ..:....,j~ ' \ \, IF ~r.::. ETv...)\? ~ ,.Jc:'h. ~ <6 ttt a-\:~ .
Environmental Constraints Areas: ,-. ~ .1'.':' -= ~C~-: ~""\
--. I
<:. c:... '. (''\ -~.I' ....... ~.l./ \
'\..1'
~ \eDL~ .(
'I'
, C.. ........
\. \ l"'lo.
\
General Plan Designation: -~ '\1.'-..
~ c -~:--''::'- . .r..... ;. ......... (,
~ :::> ~... ~ .-._~
,
\
<: ~
.'- ..
I:. ..:. :'. \
Zoning Designation:
~" .....-
.;..... t... ='
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Ves No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic A
yards or more?
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? ..>:'
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic :"41
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical
feature? ---\"'
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0 -
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan?
~
-\-
1. Modification of a channel, creek or river?
-....
~
CITY 01- IAIlI ~
CfNTIW. MHnNG.IMCU
PLAN.Q.06 PAGE 1 01= _ (1 '.90)
g. Development within an area subjed to landslides,
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other?
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effed upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0. Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's
General Plan?
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration
of surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water?
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 _ . _ , and Section 16.0 .
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Pian?
f. Other?
4. Biological Aesources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0
. Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6. or greater)
e. Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities or other -noise. sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldr:- of 6.~ dB.(A) ext~rior and an Ldn o~ 45 dB(A) interior
as Identified In Section 14.0. Noise, Figures 57 and
58 of the City's General Plan?
ClT'r 0- ..... .~
CfNTllAL __ ""'VICES
Yes
x
)<
>(
~
X
><
No
x
~
x
x
X
X
x
Maybe
x
PLAH-i.06 PAGE 2 OF _ (1 '.110)
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Ves No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
are.. containing housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior?
c. Other?
6. Land u..: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the :x
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and :x
the Land Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as X
identified on the Land Use Zoning Distrid Map?
d. Other?
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? ^
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X
d. Other?
8. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand X
for additional housing?
b. Other?
i. Transportation I Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0. Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land X
use designated on the General Plan?
b. U.. of existing, or demand for new, parking X
facilities/structures?
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? >\
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or X
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X
h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways X
or intersections?
i. Other?
I c:rrt 0# 1M ~
~-...a1ElMGU PLAN.Q.Q6 PAGE 3 OF _ (11.90)
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Ves No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? X
b. ' Police protection? X
c. Schools (Le., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X
d. ParKs or other recreational facilities? X
. - ~
e. Medical aid?
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other?
11. Utllltle.: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? )(
5. Other?
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? ~
c. Require the construction of new faciliti.? JC\"
12. Aesthetlea:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any X
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental ~
to the surrounding area?
c. Other?
13. cunural Resource.: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section X
3.0 - Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources X
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other?
tJ/f'f ~ UIiI ~
c:ewrAAl~.-c:u
PLAN.SI.06 PAGE' o~ _ (".g())
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Ad states that tf any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below se" sustaining levers,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history X
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into X
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is reratively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the X
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effeds which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MmGAnON MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
,---~e-
7'9/ /~~
CI'T"f 01- SUI ~
cemw.~.uMCU
PLAN-Sl.os PAGE 50F _ (11.go)
.
.
~
~
D. DETERMINA 110N
In the basis of this initial study.
G' ~e proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared. .
O The p~pos.ed projeCt could have a ~~nif.icant effect on the environment. although there will not be a significant
effect In thIS case because the mitIgatIOn measures descnbed above have been added to the project. A
N~GA TIVE OECLARA TION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT
REPORT is required. .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA
Larry E. Reed, Asst. Director
Name and Title
S9nalu~i ~ 41
Date: /1/1 A /leI! "6 /.J) /11"';
.....
~
~~~~~
Pl>>f-9.Cl6 PAGE _ OJ: _ 111.90\
.
.
.2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is to amend the City's General Plan Land Use
Map to change the land use designation from RS, Residential
Suburban and RMH, Residential Medium High, to CO-1, Commercial
Office for two parcels. One parcel is partially developed with
the Casa Ramona Facility at 1524 W 7th Street. The other par~el
contains the westside Medical Clinic, located on the south s1de
of 8th- Street, west and adjacent to the extension of Western
Avenue between 7th and 8th Streets.
CO-1 permits a well defined range of administrative, medical and
professional office uses. The amendment site is comprised of
assessor's parcel numbers 139-273-01 and 03. The total area of
the parcels is approximately 6.16 acres. The current land use
designations for the area are shown on Attachment A.
2.1 Amendment Site Characteristics
The site is composed of two parcels of flat partially developed
land. Parcel 139-273-03 is developed with the Westside Medical
Clinic and is designated RS, Residential Suburban. Parcel
139-273-01 is developed on the southerly portion of the site with
the Casa Ramona, a non-profit community facility offering varied
programs for residents on the Westside. This is designated RS,
Residential Suburban.
The northerly portion of parcel 139-273-01 is
designated RMH, Residential Medium High.
2.2 Environmental Setting
The site is located in an area of potential liquefaction hazard.
vacant. It is
3. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
1. Earth Resources
a. through q.
The site is relatively flat and developed with office uses.
Any expansion of existing uses or reuse for other office uses
would be evaluated for project specific impacts.
The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
and contains no unique geologic or physical features or waterways.
It is not subject to wind or water.erosion.
However, the site is within an area subject of high liquefaction
susceptibility. A liquefaction report shall be prepared for any
project within the amendment area. The Standard Requirements of
the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works would reduce
the impacts to a level of non-significance.
.
.
2. Air Resources
a. through c.
The site is developed with two office uses and redesignation will
not have an effect on air quality. Reuse or expansion of the
existing uses would not lead to an increase in emissions that are
significant. The CO-l designation does not permit uses that
create.objectionable odors.
The site is not located in a high wind hazard area and the
potential for dust emissions is minimal.
3. Water Resources
a. through e.
Since the majority of the properties are developed, they already
contain impermeable surfaces. Improvements to or reconstruction
of the site/buildings could lead to changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns and the amount of runoff. This change would not
be significant because improvements or reconstruction would not be
substantially different than what currently exists.
The site is not located in.a flood hazard area as identified on
the FEMA maps.
4. Biological Resources
a. through d.
All natural vegetation that may have existed on this site was
removed when development occurred. The site is not located in the
Biological Resource Management Overlay and no unique, rare or
endangered plant or animal species are known to exist.
5. Noise
a. through b.
The site is not in an area where existing or future noise levels
would exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45dB(A)
interior. The proposed amendment would not contribute to any
increases in noise levels. The CO-l designation does not permit
industrial or commercial uses which generate excessive noise
levels on the surrounding residential land use. Reuse of the site
or expansion would be evaluated for project specific impacts.
6. Land Use
a.
The project is a change to the City's General Plan Land Use Plan.
The existing office uses are nonconforming under the RS,
Residential Suburban and RMH, Residential Medium high land use
designations.
.
.
b. throuqh c.
The site is not within an Airport Land Use District or in a fire
hazard area a. identified in the city's General Plan.
7. Man-Made Hazards
a. through c.
The existing business does not use, store, transport or dispose of
any measurable hazardous materials. Resuse or expansion of.the
site for existing permitted uses would be evaluated for proJect
specific impacts.
8. Housing
a.
The proposed general plan amendment would not remove existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing.
9. Transportation/Circulation
a. through h.
The proposed general plan amendment would not increase traffic
volumes or affect existing patterns of circulation because the
site is developed with office uses. Resuse for other office uses
or expansion would be be evaluated for project specific impacts.
The proposed land use designation change would not create impacts
to the public transit system, air or rail traffic or vehicles,
pedestrians or bicyclists.
10. Public Services
a. through f.
since the site is developed with commercial office uses,
redesignation to CO-1 will not create impacts on public services.
Reuse or expansion of existing uses would be evaluated for project
specific impacts.
11. utilities
a. through c.
The site already has utilities and a proposed land use designation
change would not create impacts to the levels of service or
require construction of new facilities.
12. Aesthetics
a. through b.
The existing uses or reuse of the site for other commercial uses
would not obstruct any scenic views. Development of a new office
#
.
.
use would be evaluated on a project specific basis to ensure that
there are no visual impacts.
13. cultural Resources
a. through b.
The site is not located in an area having potential archaeologic
or historic resources. Demolition of the existing buildings for
reuse of the site would be evaluated on a project specific basis
te ensure that there would be review of potential impacts.
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. through c.
The site is developed with two
redesignation to CO-1, Commerical
designation will not create any
continuation of that use or reuse
uses.
commercial office uses and
Office General Plan land use
significant impacts from a
with other commercial office
.
.
.
~
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCA TION
5
~
HEARING DATE
~
~~i' :u :;)~'i,~i~P1': ~ ~'i ~
.. II · I~ , :
--- -...,; !, . ~.J ~ :3i
'5 .~ liT ~
G -~ ~.
. ~ _ A1 · ~ 1, ~ __... ? ; I
, 1'liliiii .- ... __ I .~ ---..I --J
JI ~..... - J....1lfC
... - ,... III
· :; ..... ~ CIt...... ~
....11...... -,
OIP ! '- ~ J--~ ~.., )' -- " 1t:1 l~ r .
\- R M I I - - ~-; - J I M< -,j l:r I ~ ~I""',
i ..!!! - ~-.,IIJ!,4g ~- "~ I
:; '0'" 'l.. d~~' ~ -~~ I ~
\ _ l~~T ~r' ~ , "1 0" :It I""YT
~ I , ~ AL~LH '-u ,r.y ~ ' I pf... ~
___ ~,.. ~r l'~ . ~ I ~ i ~
f"lIlIlIo... thl __ ~T"""" -~ '
I · - I I I ~ - ... .... ......,.:...xr
~ Jiii. tl I ..." Iii;. IlJ"'ON 8 . I I 0 [
I I""'L. T _ Ul 5 ~ ~. ==
, . L..~ S. · '. ftt1H ~ ~--=-I ~- - -
~ . Lr OL.lI..... lifidI.. ~ 8 TH STREE~ - '-_..:":. -
I :. .h~~- .' l srd~ IS vo_. I I~ & AAo;Z n[
-- Ti- II I ~DMENT~ Ta STREET ICJ" lBr:
J jl ~ ~ ~~~.-~Ie\jl ~I Ir.~} ~~.'.-~t:T 1 rJ[
~ ~t..... ~ i :--
J -
~ 'r' e~
_ .....J 5'''/11.
.T~ ~~ l
---;. ... L '.1' ft
---
-
c:rTY Of _ .-....0
c:8mW.__.IMC:U
EXHIEIT A
.
.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM RS AND RMH - TO CO-l
-
@ii \
/~. J' /
@~
~....]IIIl:::'
"~QI
~I\)'"
,. ~
I Ie @;e i3 ~
~
~:I
"'~Q
en , (J)
~
i1 "'I iJ
~ ~
-t - ~ ~ePb .....
w
. ~. ~
@)~ ~
i
I STREET ~
__J_
@ e @ e @~
- - - ~
- - .
- . . (It ~
. Ch Q
~ u. . W to - co
.
2.. .
~
e
~
~'". -
tq ..
'\ 001 ~
..-. ~
. .9~. ., (~
" '?
.' .,.
J;'O!.( . ~""1
- ".~ ...... .-. ..~. -.
J . -... .. . .....:. .,: .-. 7. .
..-.a
.-
z
.
...
..
~
~
..s'
f .. t
.,
:,
- .. ~~ -
:z: ~
~ ;. ~ r>
~ .
::z:: .
", .
-.,. .
@i ~
ATTACHMENT B
;:.
oC
:'
Q:)
a
fft
iI
"'
"'
-i
~'
I
I
L
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 92-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
2 BERNARDINO.
3
4
5
6
1
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
7
June 2, 1989.
8
9
(b)
General Plan Amendment No. 92-02 to the General Plan of
the
City
was
Bernardino
of
considered
San
by
the
Planning
10
Commission on April 7, 1992, after a noticed public hearing, and
11 the Planning commission's recommendation of approval has been
12
considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
13
(c) An Initial Study was prepared on February 14, 1992 and
14 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
15 commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 92-
16
17
18
02 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
19 public review period from March 5, 1992 through March 25, 1992 and
20
all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning
21 Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the
22 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations.
23
e)
The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
24 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan
25
Amendment No. 92-02 and the Planning Division Staff Report on April
26
7, 1992.
27 / / / /
28
1
.
.
1 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-02 is
2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and
8 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
4 existing General Plan.
5 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration
6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on
9 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared
10 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
11 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
12 SECTION 3. Findinas
18 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the
14 City of San Bernardino that:
The change of designation from RS, Residential Suburban and
RMH, Residential Medium High, to CO-I, Commercial Office on
the 6.16 acres located between 7th and 8th Streets, west and
adjacent to the extension of Western Avenue, for the proposed
amendment will change the land use map only is not in conflict
with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
All public services are available to the study area. Any
development permissable under the CO-I, Commercial Office
designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on
15 A.
16
17
18
19
20
21 B.
22
23 c.
24
25
26
27 IIII
28 IIII
such services.
2
1 D.
2
3
4 E.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 A.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 B.
.
.
The proposed amendment is to redesignate 6.16 acres to CO-1,
Commercial Office. No existing housing stock will be
affected.
The amendment site is physically suitable for the requested
land use designation. Anticipated future land use has been
analyzed in the Initial study and it has been determined that
project specific mitigation measures will be sufficient to
eliminate any environmental impacts.
SECTION 4.
Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 6.16 acres
from RS, Residential Suburban and RMH, Residential Medium High
to CO-1, Commercial Office. This amendment is designated as
General Plan Amendment No. 92-02 and its location is outlined
on the map entitled At.tachment A, and is more specifially
described in the legal description entitled Attachment B,
copies of which are attached and incorporated herein be
reference.
General Plan Amendment No. 92-02 shall become effective
21 immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
22 SECTION 5. MaD Notation
23 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be
24 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously
25 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are
26 on file in the office of the City Clerk.
27 IIII
28 IIII
3
.
.
1
2
SECTION 6.
Notice of Determination
The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
3 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
4 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental
5 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration.
6 IIII
7 IIII
8 IIII
9 IIII
10 I I I I
11 I I I I
12 I I I I
13 I I I I
14 I I I I
15 I I I I
16 I I I I
17 I I I I
18 I I I I
19 I I I I
20 I I I I
21 I I I I
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 I I I I
28 IIII
4
.
.
1 RESOLUTION... ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-02 TO THE GENERAL
2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
meeting therefore, held on the
5 Bernardino at a
6 day of
7 wit:
8 council Members
9 ESTRADA
10 REILLY
11 HERNANDEZ
12 MAUDSLEY
13 MINOR
14 POPE-LUDLAM
, 1992, by the following vote, to
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
15 MILLER
16
17
18
19 of
20
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day
, 1992.
21
22 Approved as to
form and legal content:
w. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
23
JAMES F. PENMAN,
24 City Attorney
25 By: [k""M f . P-v'\~
o
26
27
28
5
CITY F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-02
TIT L E T.()r~rrT()N M~ p
""
'"
I
~
~
~
Uo
o.
c ...
~~
...
~~
~&
CD _
c ~o
~~J2
o
c:
i
Q)
c:t\I
0;::=
(I).
en
~~
~.
o
It:
~
tf
------. , .-...
"':'
~J- I@ I L
'~m~):'
:;; ~~..~
~ ~~ x"x"x~~ I ~
~..J~' '><xx~x ~~~~ ~ ;
". ytXX >< X H~ i<xX ')( x X(1 ~
e?aX< ,~~~ ~"xz.~
~ \J ,~x~.t x;<;<, ~ )C ~ x x ~.,c; X X )
c:l~ ><;;:<; ~~~)(x)<~~.;<x~ -
~1lI ~~XXX)l!!"X)(" I<~~~XA. I
It ... ~~~~~x~ ~~~.~ ~, ()
I ~ IJIlIIIA ~\X ~ ...,
_ I XX< . ~1)( XxVx~'><x~ v
~f~ ~88W~f~V0h"x~X;- ~
@) ~~ i~l~
~ _.~;i.~
~,-~. A' 1 '~:.~... 0 - I.. lit -~ '~.~ ~ L--
~:K@ ,- - 21ft.. .. .. !! !! g ~ ~
~ - -. ~,@, @ ~ @Ie @ e ~ @ ~ i
,_ 'Il'..' .--- 1-0".,. -- I
...... .
\ . ~ .Li3&S -:- .,NOWflJ ~_.~
~@ ~ I
-(\I- . - -, "1 _ , ~ @ ~ -- , .J". kl - ~ -
~;; H) ;... i@~ . 3 · !!~ ... a@~ !; ~ ~@i
~; . ~ i ~~(~~- ~ ~ I -~;'(~- ! l
5 ~ ~.~ t'HOW..
~ ~ ~ ~ <!)I I@ ~ I
_uJ
I
~~
-_.
--..-
~ ~ ~I
~
~ ~ ~ e.
"t.
01 3!> 08. ~ @I ~
~ ~ ,.,
ei
~
i@
--
I@
i@
~
I~
--
I@
5@
--
~ ~ IfitI
: " _\!6I
... . .-.-
II)
~
~
~i
e~
~
--_.
T.
-i-ilO
I~
~
....
_L_:iLDuSJ
I \
l I ,
A T T A C HM E N T A
I~~
Ir~
LL
i
~
~
...
o
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
(
~
~
II
~
CITY F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-02
TITLE
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
"""
r
PARCEL NO.
DESCRIPTION
139-273-01
BOOK 8406, PAGE 1010, DOCUMENT NO. 701-
RECORDED APRIL 10, 1984. OWNER OF RECORDED:
CASA RAMONA, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION.
LOT 5, BLOCK 22, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, AS PER
PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 30 FEET.
139-273-03
BOOK 8406, PAGE 1010, DOCUMENT NO. 701-
RECORDED APRIL 10, 1984. OWNER OF RECORD:
CASA RAMONA, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION.
THE EAST 165 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 22, RANCHO
SAN BERNARDINO, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7
OF MAPS, PAGE 2, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 264 FEET AND THE
NORTH 30 FEET.
ATTACHMENT
B
~
L