Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout44- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BER. ,ARDINO - REQUEST .'OR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 Dept: Planning & Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting Date: February 18, 1993 March 8, 1993 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 92-11. rr -Signature Al Boughey - --' Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 3R4-S'IS7 Supporting data attached: Staff Report. Resolution Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: NIA Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. 7 7 CITY OF SAN BERN. _MINO — REQUEST F- .oR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting March 8, 1993 REQUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan to change the designation from RMH, Residential Medium-High, to CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown, on approximately 0.48 acres of land located on the north side of 5th Street, approximately 214 feet east of the centerline of "G" Street (see Exhibit 1) . KEY POINTS The existing RMH designation permits residential development at a maximum density of 24 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased up to 25 percent if affordable housing is provided; or by 50 percent if senior citizen housing is provided. Assuming no physical constraints to the property, 12 to 17 multi-family residential units could be developed on the amendment area. ° The proposed CR-2 designation permits a diversity of region- serving uses including local, county, and state government/administrative , professional offices , cultural/historical and entertainment, convention facilities, hotels/motels, SROs, financial establishments, restaurants, supporting retail and services, educational institutions, public open spaces, and similar uses in downtown areas. Mixed residential and senior citizen housing is also permitted in the CR-2 designation at maximum densities of 54 and 150 units per acre, respectively. The affordable housing density bonus may also apply, thus potentially allowing a maximum of 32 to 90 residential units on the amendment site. ° The amendment area is contiguous to CR-2 designated properties to the west and south. o The amendment area is contiguous to RMH designated properties to the north and east. o Fifth Street is four-lane major arterial which experiences daily traffic volumes of up to 20, 000 vehicles. Such major vehicular paths are generally considered appropriate for designation as commercial corridors. 5-0264 General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting March 8, 1993 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On November 5, 1992, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study evaluating the proposed CR-2 designation, and recommended Negative Declaration. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 3) and approve General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 based on the findings in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 92-11. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on February 2, 1993 . No one was present to speak in opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission placed a motion on the consent calendar to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract No. 15407. The Commission then voted to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92-11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 as presented. Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman, Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Exhibit 1: Location Map Exhibit 2 : Staff Report to the Planning Commission February 2 , 1993 Attachment A - Initial Study Exhibit 3 : Resolution Attachment A - Amendment Map Attachment B - Legal Description Exhibit 1 City of San Bernardino GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 92_11 AMENDMENT AREA/LOCATION MAP FEBRUARY 2, 1993 La • i.. ..,.a :_tip,.,, ,� �9-66 0 0 :,5576 X39.23 q vi c • O.0 S a Z5 �s �w 6 I I I t �+ w L 1 mill 4'I i•9 17 20121 122 2G \`:�.\ �.��.:?r7 : 1- *y j cc y wc A Z f __ o c�e.s.�" o w �T. "- s _ o e o-�so + i � � • � �a! ens FT . XIMS 26 O 07 �'• NORTH LAHWIL L LAND Y OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 1 SUMMARY HEARING DATE -2-93 D W GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0, 92_11 aPPLICANT:John Lightburn N P.O. Box 1622 a San Bernardino, CA 92402 U OWNER: Wen Hong Yang 9650 Apricot Avenue Rancho Cucamon a, CA 91737 N W To change the land use designation from RMH, Residential LW to CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown, on approximately Medium High of land located on the north side of 5th Street, pprox 0.te acres W feet east of "G" Street. approximately 173 Q PROP RTV EXISTING LAN---D-Ua ZONS GENERAL PLAN Subject Motel (Currently vacant) RMH NATION Senior Citizen Apartments RMH Residential Medium High South Commercial & Vacant Residential Medium High East Community Center CR-2 Commercial Regional-Dow West Restaurant RMH Residential Medium High wn CR-2 Commercial Regional-Dow wn GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A HAZARD ZONE: Yfj NO ZONE: X SEWERS: YES �l NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES NO HAZARD ZONE:X (t NO CRASH ZONE: REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. YES XM NO ❑ NO _J ❑ NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH C APPROVAL W N MITIGATING MEASURES �' NO E.I.R. 0 ❑ CONDITIONS Z LL Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO LL L 0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS F ❑ DENIAL af 5Z WITH MITIGATING MEASURES N z 12 EFFECTS E LU IIFICANT 2 ❑ CONTINUANCE TO ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. C.1 MINUTES W PLAN-9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (y.gp) City of San Bernardino DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CASE GPA 92-11 AND BUILDING SERVICES AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 2-2-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 1 REQUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Plan to change the designation from RMH, Residential Medium-High, to CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown, on approximately 0.48 acres of land located on the north side of 5th Street, approximately 214 feet east of the centerline of "G" Street (see Proposed Amendment Area, Attachment B). SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed amendment area is located at the westerly periphery of the City's central business district A motel complex, currently unoccupied, stands on the amendment site. The area is fully urbanized and serviced. Surrounding land uses consist of a restaurant to the west, senior citizen apartments to the north, a community center to the west and vocational school, strip retail and vacant land-across Fifth Street-to the south. BACKGROUND Prior to the 1989 adoption of the General Plan, the amendment area was zoned C-4, Central Business District. Upon adoption of the General Plan, the land use designation was changed to RMH, Residential Medium-High. Construction of the motel was originally approved in 1962 under Conditional Development Permit No. 262, and most recently operated under the business name Golden Eagle Motel. In 1991, the City initiated proceedings to revoke CDP 262. Ultimately, the CDP was not revoked; however, because the motel was a nonconforming use in the RMH designation, vacant for more than 180 days (not due to the revocation proceedings), the motel lost its nonconforming status. In order to pursue the reuse of the site as a motel, the applicant submitted the application for General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 (GPA 92-11) on September 10, 1992. MUNICIPAL CODE Not applicable CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS An Initial Study was prepared by staff and was presented to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 5, 1992. The ERC determined that the proposed amendment City of San Bernardino DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CASE GPA 92-11 AND BUILDING SERVICES AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 2-2-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 2 would not have an adverse impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was recommended. The proposed Negative Declaration was available for public review and Comment from November 12, 1992 to December 2, 1992. No comments were received during the public review period. COMMENTS RECEIVED No comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. ANALYSIS Existing Land Use Designation General Plan Objective 1.13 states that the intent of the multi-family land use designations is to "promote the development of high-quality multi-family townhomes, condominiums, and apartments which convey a distinctive residential neighborhood character and are integrated with their setting." The RMH designation permits residential development at a maximum density of 24 units per acre (General Plan Policy 1.13.11). The maximum density may be increased up to 25 percent if affordable housing is provided in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915 (Policy ); or by 50 percent if senior citizen housing is provided (Policy 1.13.13). Therefore, assuming no physical constraints to the property, 12 to 17 multi-family residential units could be developed on the amendment area. Proposed Land Use Designation General Plan Policy 1.16.10 describes the scope of land use goals within the CR-2 land use designation as follows: Permit a diversity of region-serving uses including local, county, and state government/Administrative, professional offices, cultural/historical and entertainment, convention facilities, hotels/motels, financial establishments, restaurants, supporting retail and services, educational institutions, public open spaces, and similar uses in downtown areas... Mixed residential and senior citizen housing is also permitted in the CR-2 designation at maximum densities of 54 and 150 units per acre, respectively (Policies 1.16.14 et seq, Development Code Section 19.04.030). The affordable housing density bonus may also apply, City of San Bernardino DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CASE GPA 92-11 AND BUILDING SERVICES AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 2-2-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 3 thus potentially allowing a maximum of 32 to 90 residential units on the amendment site. Single room occupancy (SRO) facilities, quasi-residential/hotel/motel uses, are also permitted in the CR-2 designation, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval (Development Code Section 19.06.020). There are no specified density limitations for SRO facilities. Land Use Compatibility/General Plan Consistency The amendment area is contiguous to CR-2 designated properties to the west and south, and—for those which are developed and occupied—are used for commercial purposes. The senior apartment complex to the north is designated RMH, as is the community center to the east (Attachment B). Based solely on the criteria of size and location at a land use designation boundary, the compatibility implications of establishing a CR-2 designation on the amendment site area of little consequence. A compelling argument for the proposed General Plan amendment site is the fact that the amendment site has direct frontage on 5th Street (State Route 66), which is a four-lane major arterial. According to the General Plan Technical Background Report, average daily traffic volumes (ADT) on 5th Street, west of Waterman Avenue, are between 13,000 and 20,000 vehicles (p. 3-5). According to the City Traffic Engineer, the portion of 5th Street adjacent to the amendment site experiences an ADT of 20,000 vehicles. These traffic volumes are largely due to the fact that 5th Street is a major route which links I-215 freeway traffic to the Downtown professional and government offices. Such major vehicular paths are generally considered appropriate for designation as commercial corridors. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is in conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed amendment is compatible with all contiguous and surrounding land uses. A change in land use designation to CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown, will not create a significant negative impact on the environment. FINDINGS 1. The proposed CR-2, Commercial Regional land use designation is internally consistent with the General Plan in that such a designation is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, and will not encumber the continued and orderly expansion of the City's downtown area. City of San Bernardino CASE GPA 92-11 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM--!— AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE 2-2-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 4 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that the vicinity of the amendment area is fully urbanized and able facilitate region-serving downtown uses. 3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City due to the proximity of the amendment area to other similarly designated properties, its frontage on a major arterial and its location within the City's urban core. 4. The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and anticipated land use development in that the site is rectangular and flat in shape and topography—physical characteristics suitable for virtually any type of development. Also, since the CR-2 designation requires no front yard setback, no specified height limitation and a maximum floor area ratio of 4.0, the design of any future development will be subject to relatively flexible site design standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Negative Declaration be adopted; 2. The General Plan Land Use Plan be redesignated from RMH to CR-2 as shown in Attachment B. Respectfully sub itt , A u h CP Director o an Building Services Gregory S. Gubman Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: A - Initial Study Attachment "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY Initial Study for Environmental Impacts for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 92-11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To change the land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium-High to CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown. PROJECT LOCATION: Amendment site consists of approximately 0.48 acres located on the north side of 5th Street, approximately 214 feet east of the centerline of "G" Street. November 5, 1992 Prepared for: John Lightburn P.O. Box 1622 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 G PLAN-U7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (a•90� INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-11 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 to change the land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium-High, to CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown on approximately 0.48 acres of land located on the north side of 5th Street, approximately 214 feet east of the centerline of "G" Street (see Location Map, Exhibit A) . 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 EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration; 3 . Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by; (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7 . Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. i 2. 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed amendment request is to change the land use designation from RMH, Residential Medium-High, to CR-2 , Commercial Regional-Downtown, on approximately .48 acres of land on north side of 5th Street, approximately 214 feet east of the centerline of "G" Street. General Plan Policy 1. 16. 10 describes the scope of land use goals within the CR-2 land use designation as follows: Permit a diversity of region-serving uses including local, county, and state government/Administrative, professional offices , cultural/historical and entertainment, convention facilities, hotels/motels, financial establishments, restaurants, supporting retail and services, educational institutions, public open spaces, and similar uses in downtown areas. . . 2. 1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed amendment area is located at the westerly periphery of the City's central business district- A motel complex, currently vacant, stands on the amendment site. The area is fully urbanized and serviced. Surrounding land uses consist of a restaurant to the west, senior citizen apartments to the north, a community center to the west and vocational school, strip retail and vacant land across Fifth Street to the south. 3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. 1 Environmental Setting The proposed amendment site is flat and nearly square in shape. The site has been identified in the General Plan to be located within an area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction susceptibility and an area of potential ground subsidence. The U.S. Geological Survey has also documented the general vicinity to have a ground water depth of approximately 10 feet during analyses conducted between 1973 and 1983. The General Plan also identifies the site and vicinity as a potential historic district (Section 3 , Historical Element) due to the fact that the area is part of the original one-mile square survey of the City and contains the highest concentration of the City's oldest housing stock. Because of potential subsurface historical resources in the vicinity of the amendment site, General Plan has designated the area as an Urban Archaeological District. ii CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: Qt .l_ t._ &04sl -At Sgest40&LT nla 12-- II Project Description: MQR2W,d. :1 j2 4 — .PI.A t l 14&k2 T &I {0&1— WaAts{=— Location: —i—`�" Environmental Constraints Areas: t" ttJ. A- -rte F� General Plan Designation: _P-M IA k3m— f-t ri Zoning Designation: 1.14 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic y 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 X & Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? d. Mod fication of any unique geologic or physical x 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 v Plan? /� f. Mod fication of a channel,creek or river? �3M 2006AMIND Awn4a 3ERWZ3 PLAN-9.06 PAGE 1 OF g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? �- 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AQMD? b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind& Fire, Figure 59, of the City's General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? X b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X 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 Plan? X I. Other? X 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0 -Natural Resources, Figure 41,of the City's General Plan? X b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? X c. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? K d. Removal of viable, mature trees?(6"or greater) _K _ e. Other? X 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing,health care facilities,schools, libraries,religious facilities or other"noise"sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.0-Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? X crry OF COWMAL PLAN-9.08 PAGE 2 OF al am I b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on Yes NO Maybe areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A)interior? C. Other? x 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? X b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ)Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? —x— ---_ c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A& 8,or C as identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? X 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, Pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? b• Involve the release of hazardous substances? c• Expose people to the --- potential heaRh/safety hazards? X d. Other? — S. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? x-- 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking facilities/structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? — G d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or Pedestrians? x 9• A disjointed patt am of roadway improvements? h• Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? i• Other? —x x PLAN-9.06 PAGE 3 OF Of o 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? NO Maybe a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? X c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? —rL e• Medical aid? f. Solid Waste? 9• Other? 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to Provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? c. Require the construction of new facilities? 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? x b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? x C. Other? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0-Historical,Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? X b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site,structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? C. Other? C1 IT COMAL PLAN-9.08 PAGE a OF q d 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history 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 the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?(A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 7e, C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) C"CF am 8BOWWWW C*N'aALPq"d'ftGSERAM PLAN-9.08 PAGE50F !�L (17-90) GPA 92-11 November 5, 1992 Page 6 of 9 3 .2 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.2. 1 Earth Resources l.a. If the amendment site is designated CR-2, then the potential exists for the consolidation of the amendment site with the contiguous CR-2 designated parcels to facilitate a larger-scale redevelopment of those properties. However, due to the size of such a project area (approximately one acre) , the relatively flat topography and the low potential for the existence of subsurface contamination, it is highly unlikely that grading activities will result in the movement of 10, 000 cubic yards or more. This volume of earth movement would more likely occur from potential archaeological investigations of the site prior to redevelopment; the necessity for such activity will be analyzed if and when redevelopment is proposed. l.g. ,h. According to Figure 48 of the General Plan, the study area is located within an area of moderately high-to moderate liquefaction susceptibility. Figure 51 of the General Plan identifies the area as potentially subject to ground subsidence. A U.S.G.S. contour map prepared in 1986 estimates the ground water depth of the amendment site vicinity to be approximately ten feet. A liquefaction report shall be prepared for any project within the study area that is found to be subject to Ordinance No. 676. 3.2.2 Air Resources 2.a. Presently, the site, as developed, has no substantial impact on the air quality in the area. However, intensive commercial or government office development could affect air quality as a result of increased air emissions in the area. Such a determination shall be made at the project- specific stage pursuant to air quality standards in effect at the time. GPA 92-11 November 5, 1992 Page 7 of 9 3 .2 . 3 Water Resources 3 .a. The amendment site is currently fully developed with structures and paved surfaces. Thus, the redevelopment of the site is not likely to decrease absorption rates, but may alter drainage patterns. The alteration of drainage will not result in a significant impact because the area is fully urbanized and serviced. Hence, through proper design, the surface runoff from any new development on the amendment site can be directed to existing storm drain systems. 3 .d. Impermeable surfaces, such as asphalt or concrete, collect solid exhaust particulates and other air emission solids, as well as engine fluids, residue from automobile tires and other chemical pollutants. During periods of rain, surface pollutants are washed into the waterways. Over time, such pollutants can change the quality of ground waters. The individual impact of this proposal is sufficiently small, however, as to not have a perceptible effect on the quality and quantity of the ground water supplies. Based on current policies and standards, if this General Plan Amendment is adopted, the project area available for future CR-2 type development would not warrant groundwater contamination mitigation measures. 3 .2 .4. Noise 5.a. The amendment site is subject to existing and future traffic noise levels of 65 dB and 70 dB, respectively, from Fifth Street, a major arterial. The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies several land uses which may be sensitive to such noise levels. Some of these uses-- such as senior citizen housing, hotels/motels and community care facilities--are permitted in the CR-2 designation. The appropriateness of such potential future uses on the amendment site and/or necessary noise mitigation measures shall be examined at the project specific stage. 5.b. The amendment site is adjacent to a four-acre senior citizen residential complex, which is a recognized noise- GPA 92-11 November 5, 1992 Page 8 of 9 sensitive use. Certain uses that are permitted in the CR- 2 district, such as night clubs, may impact noise- sensitive uses. Noise impacts and other land use compatibility issues are addressed at the project specific stage, whereby mitigation measures and/or the appropriateness of a proposed use can be considered. 3 .2 .5 Land Use 6.a. The amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan from RMH, Residential Medium-High, to CR-2 , Regional Commercial-Downtown. 3.2 . 6 Transportation/Circulation 9. a. ,b. ,c. ,h. The City Traffic Engineer. has reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment and determined that a future high- intensity CR-2 permitted use on the amendment site is not likely cause a significant impact on the adjacent street system. Further evaluation may be necessary, however, based on the specific nature of a proposed future use. 3.2 .7 Cultural Resources a. The subject property is located within an area of concern for urban archaeological resources, as identified in the Historical Element of the General Plan (Section 3.0, Figure 8) . The San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center reviewed historical maps of the amendment site and determined that the potential for the. presence of historic archaeological resources warrants the preparation of an historical resources evaluation report. Such a report would consist of an archival investigation to document historic resources and determine whether subsurface investigations are necessary. Because this proposed General Plan Amendment does not directly involve physical changes to the amendment site, all archaeological investigations shall be deferred until actual development is proposed. D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, © The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a sign ficant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. E] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Name and Title Signature Date: 0"OF SAN K~ADIND CENTRAL PRINTWG SER11CF3 PLAN-0.08 PAGE!!![_OF (11-90) RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN 2 AMENDMENT NO. 92-11 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 5 SECTION 1. Recitals 6 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 7 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on 8 June 2, 1989. 9 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 to the General Plan of 10 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning 11 Commission on February 2 , 1993 , after a noticed public hearing, and 12 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been 13 considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 14 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on November 5, 1992 and 15 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning 16 Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 92- 17 11 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 18 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 19 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day 20 public review period from November 12, 1992 through December 2 , 21 1992 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the 22 Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance 23 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local 24 regulations. 25 26 27 28 //// 1 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public 2 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan 3 Amendment No. 92-11 and the Planning Division Staff Report on March 4 8, 1993 . 5 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 is 6 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and 7 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 8 existing General Plan. 9 SECTION 2 . Negative Declaration 10 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 11 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan 12 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on 13 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared 14 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this 15 Proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 16 SECTION 3 . Findings 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the 18 City of San Bernardino that: 19 A. The proposed CR-2, Commercial Regional land use designation is 20 internally consistent with the General Plan in that such a 21 designation is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and 22 policies of the General Plan, and will not encumber the 23 continued and orderly expansion of the City's downtown area. 24 B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public 25 interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City 26 in that the vicinity of the amendment area is fully urbanized 27 and able to facilitate region-serving downtown uses. 28 2 1 C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance 2 of land uses within the City due to the proximity of the 3 amendment area to other similarly designated properties, its 4 frontage on a major arterial and its location within the 5 City's urban core. 6 D. The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested 7 land use designation and anticipated land use development in 8 that the site is rectangular and flat in shape and 9 topography physical characteristics suitable for virtually 10 any type of development. Also, since the CR-2 designation 11 requires no front yard setback, no specified height limitation 12 and a maximum floor area ratio of 4 . 0, the design of any 13 future development will be subject to relatively flexible site 14 design standards. 15 SECTION 4 . Amendment 16 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: 17 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San 18 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 0. 48 acres 19 from RMH, Residential Medium-High to CR-2 , Commercial 20 Regional-Downtown. This amendment is designated as General 21 Plan Amendment No. 92-11 and its location is outlined on the 22 map entitled Attachment A, and is more specifically described 23 in the legal description entitled Attachment B, copies of 24 which are attached and incorporated herein be reference. 25 B. General Plan Amendment No. 92-11 shall become effective 26 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 27 28 3 1 SECTION 5. Map Notation 2 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be 3 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously 4 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are 5 on file in the office of the City Clerk. 6 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 7 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 8 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 9 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental 10 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 RESOLUTION. . . ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-11 TO THE GENERAL 2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the 6 day of , 1993 , by the following vote, to 7 wit: 8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 ESTRADA 10 REILLY 11 HERNANDEZ 12 MAUDSLEY 13 MINOR 14 POPE-LUDLAM 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 19 of 1993 . 20 21 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 22 Approved as to 23 form and legal content: 24 JAMES F. PENMAN, City ttorney 25 '� By: 26 27 28 5 mw CIT"t OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-11 TITLE: AMENDMENT MAP _ � r. i -. ai I rn 1�lu_ _+I aLaa� 1 fL7 oa'of IL�2�1 •e + �., �_ o O 40 0.0s _ w I i -- - is _L._ _ A — 71 L g� 4Z T• 43 --u,ta_ 4-- V IGTO R1A - .--�- zi AT M TT I r � to s � In IA to 'r i. t tZ it 110 9 d 17 8 S a •� 2-!t � `����''.�•'', I,';i L` ��` �; Q1. P 1 �.\�',\�\•�`\ .• � �..������\���� ��a {��• " tikes. • i4'I t8 f7 VI 1Z'Z�x . �)'oic\ Z. % \ \\ \ '}t ?7s'•. w '.^i ui A 4 -T— y 3- CR TO RMH� g Z1 VAL In rA n.s - c etz s rites---- _.._. ._4 —._-- _ r — 7+_ a I�� u L� - - c N .. 27 6E0.4� __ ..-+ YLf►..1_. .ilLlt .._.. 1 _ � 4--------� -----•-.a--- 07 -- � i � ' d1 s _.ros.. , I i4 Ul y NORTH • ' "", �yo ATTACHMENT L'A" CITY OF S M 11ERNAROND CfWRALPRWt*sGsERvicFs PLAN-6.12 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-11 TITLE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN 134-061-32 THE LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 139 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 38, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. F- ATTACHMENT "B" CffyOF 3AN affWPOINO C*W""LmitnidBi""cis PLAN-8.12 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)