HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-RDA Item
AGEl\taJA ITEM INFORMATION SUMIVlARY
GENERAL ItjfORMATlON:
S~ ~ C-S
Author
Ext.
Funding Requirements
))6kf2..
Ward
Budget Authority
ProjllCl Area
/LJJrr
,
RDA MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
Committee
CommissionJCouncil
F'ding Dates
Meeting Dates
Dale
CLEARANCES:
Dale
Ex~~
3 -7 -q7)
Yes
Administrative Deputy
~
~/7
ManagerlSupervilOr
CITY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW:
Dale
Depl By
Depl By
1ZI
~
~
o
3-- y- fD
,
I ,--.......
City Administrator
RDA Committee recommendation
INFORMATIONAL DATA FORWARDED TO CITY DEPARTMENTS/COUNCIL OFFICES:
Sent to
Mayo(s Office
Council Ward
Council Ward
Council Ward
Council Ward
Department
Department
By
Date
COMMENTS/CONCERNS: Include penlnent comments and concerns of offices and persons clearing the
summary, such as controversial Issues, time constraints and funding complications. Indicate dates when
ICtl0n must be taken.
r
I~
RDA -174
REV. 6-29-89
Redevelopment Agency · City of San Bernardino
300 Nar1h "I)" SIreel, Founh Floor . 5111 Bem.dino, CIlifamia 92418
(714) 384-5081 FAX (714) 888-9413
4. III':; .f
Ve~
MARCH 13, 1990
AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO ALLOW RDA TO SET-ASIDE 20~ OF THE TAX INCREMENT
GENERATED IN THE CENTRAL CITY SOUTH PROJECT AREA
FOR LOW AND MODERATE HOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LEGISLATION 33334.6.
Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action:
05-03-76 Central City South Project Area was established as part of the City's
Redevelopment Plan by adoption of the Common\Council.
1983 Meadowbrook, Central City, Central City South and Central City East
Project Areas were merged by an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
03-12-90 The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the CDC for
adoption.
Recommended motion:
(Mayor and Common Council)
Move to adopt RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(Mayor and Common Council)
Move to waive further reading and layover for adoption the following
ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. MC-564 AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL
CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
(Community Development Commission)
Move to adopt RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A HOUSING FUND DEFICIT PLAN
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING THERETO
Respectfully Submitted,
Executive Director
Supporting data attached: Yes
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: None
Ward: 1
Project: CCS
Council Notes:
RBT:mv:1980R
Agenda of:
Item No.
Redevelopment Agency
S T A F F R E P 0 R T
RDA staff is requesting that the Mayor and Common Council approve and adopt
the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan as pertains to the Central City South
Project Area and the Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
The Central City South Project Area was established by the City's
Redevelopment Plan in 1976. In 1983 said project area was merged with the
Meadowbrook/Central City No.1 and the Central City East Project Areas for
purposes of pooling tax increment revenues. The project area merger occurred
as a result of legislation passed in 1980 which requires that 20~ of the tax
increment from a merged project area be deposited in the Housing Fund.
(Health and Safety Code Section 33487).
In 1985, the State legislature imposed the housing set-aside requirements on
Pre-1977 redevelopment projects. Previously, projects established under
Pre-1977 Redevelopment Plans had been exempt. As such, the Central City South
Project Area is subject to the 1985 legislation contained in Health and Safety
Code Section 33334.6 and to the 1980 legislation contained in Section 33487.
Ongoing projects, programs, and activities of the Agency as set forth in
Resolution Number 4917 adopted by the Community Development Commission on
August 18, 1986, will absorb all funds. In addition, new projects, programs
and activities of the Agency such as updating infrastructure will consume
anticipated future tax increment.
The proposed amendment to the City's Redevelopment Plan will allow the RDA to
set-aside 20~ of the tax increment generated in this project for low and
moderate housing in compliance with State Law. Research indicates the
proposal is consistant with the policies and objectives outlined in the
Housing Element of the City's General Plan. On December 21, 1989, the City's
Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and recommended the
adoption of a Negative Declaration.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
The Mayor and Common Council may adopt or deny the proposed amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan or continue the item to the next regular agenda meeting.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve the proposed
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Council's motions are provided.
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
On March 12, 1990, the Redevelopment Committee recommended that this agenda
item be forwarded to the Community Development Commission for adoption.
1980R
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY SOUTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
3
4
5
6
WHEREAS, staff has duly noticed the initial determination and presented
the initial study and environmental analysis concerning the potential for
negative impacts due to the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
7
8
9
10
11
the Central City South Park Redevelopment Project \Ordinance No.
) (the
"Pl an Amendment") to the Common Council for its determi nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
12 Bernardino Do Hereby Find and Resolve As Follows:
13
14
Section 1.
This Negative Declaration is certified to be noticed and
prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
15 Act (Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"),
16
Section 2.
An Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Department
]7 and was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee who determined that the
18 Plan Amendment would not have a significant effect on the environment and,
19 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
20
Section 3.
The proposed Negative Declaration received a public review
21 period and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed in compliance with
22 CEQA and local regulations.
23
Section 4.
The Negative Declaration is approved as an adequate
24 environmental review for the proposed Plan Amendment.
25
Section 5.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of
26 the City of San Bernardino that it does hereby find that the Plan Amendment
27 will not have a significant effect on the environment and that this Negative
28 Declaration be adopted.
1
Section 6.
The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of
2
Determination of the Negative Declaration with the Clerk of the County of San
Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA in preparing the
Negative Declaration.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the
3
4
5
6 Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
day of , 1990, by the following
7 meeting thereof, held on the
8 vote, to wit:
9 Council Members: AYES
10 ESTRADA
II REILLY
12 FLORES
13 MAUDSLEY
14 MINOR
15 POPE-LUDLAM
16 MILLER
17
18 1/1/
19 1/1/
20 1/1/
21 1/1/
22 1/1/
23 1/1/
24 1/1/
25 1/1/
26 1/1/
27
28
2775H
2
NAYS ABSTAIN
City Cl erk
1
RESOLUTION...ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
2
3
of
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
, 1990.
day
4
5
6
7 Approved as to
form and legal content:
8 JAMES F. PENMAN,
9 CIty A~,Q.<<
10 BY:~ )
./
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2775H
3
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. MC-564
AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL
CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3572 adopted on May 3, 1976, the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino,
California, duly adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the
Meadowbrook Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan");
and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. MC-564, adopted' on December 8,
1986, the Redevelopment Plan was subsequently amended by the
Mayor and Common Council in accordance with Legislative mandate
set forth in Health & Safety Code Section 33333.4(a) to include
certain provisions including without limitation provisions
relating to the number of dollars of taxes which may be divided
and allocated to the Commission pursuant to the Redevelopment
Plan;
WHEREAS, Section E-3b entitled "Limitation on Number of
Dollars of Taxes Which May be Divided and Allocated to Agency"
was added to the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to Ordinance No.
MC-564; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission has prepared
under the requirements of Section 33334.6(g) and adopted by
Resolution No. , a plan (the "Housing Fund Deficit Plan")
to eliminate the deficit in the low and moderate income housing
fund for the Redevelopment Plan (the "Housing Fund"); and
WHEREAS, Section 33333.4(c) provides that any city which
adopted an ordinance pursuant to Section 33333.4(a) shall amend
such ordinance to modify the tax increment limit in the
Redevelopment Plan when it determines that the tax increment
limit previously established is inadequate to fund the Housing
Fund deficit resulting from the imposition of the twenty
percent (20%) set aside requirement imposed by Section 33334.6;
and
WHEREAS, in order to elminate the deficit in the Housing
Fund, it is necessary to amend and modify the provisions of the
Redevelopment Plan relating to the tax increment limit; and
WHEREAS, the City has given notice pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et ~.) of its intention
to adopt a negative declaration of environmental impacts
relating to the amendment and modification of the Redevelopment
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following sentence shall be added to to
the end of Section "E-3b" of the Redevelopment Plan:
"An amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of that
amount derived from the above formula shall be added to
that amount resulting from the application of the above
formula to arrive at the total tax increment."
Section 2. Within fifteen (l5) days after its passage,
the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and
circulated in the City of San Bernardino. This Ordinance shall
take effect thirty (30) days following the date of adoption
hereof.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at an adjourned regular meeting hereof, held on the
~ day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this ___ day of
, 1990.
Mayor of the City of
San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
::~
02123/90
8464n/2601l20
- 2 -
...-
-.or
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A HOUSING FUND DEFICIT
PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING
THERETO
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South
Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan") was adopted
prior to January l, 1977; and
WHEREAS, under Health & Safety Code Section 33334.6, the
Commission must annually deposit twenty percent (20%) of the
taxes generated from the Redevelopment Plan project area and
allocated to the Commission pursuant to Section 33670 into a
low and moderate income housing fund (the "Housing Fund")
established pursuant to Section 33334.3; and
WHEREAS, the accompanying staff report evidences that there
is a deficit in the Housing Fund resulting from the imposition
of the twenty percent (20%) set aside requirement imposed by
Section 33334.6; and
WHEREAS. Section 33334.6(g) permits the Commission to adopt
a plan (the "Housing Fund Deficit Plan") which would eliminate
the deficit as well as enable the Commission to meet all
existing obligations and programs under the Redevelopment Plan.
NOW THEREFOR, the Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Commission finds and determines that
there is a deficit in the Housing Fund.
Section 2. The Housing Fund Deficit Plan for the
Central City South Redevelopment Project as presented by staff
is adequate, necessary and in the vital interest of the City of
San Bernardino in order to accomplish the original goals and
directions of the redevelopment plan and to increase, improve
and preserve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income
housing available at affordable housing cost to persons or
families of very low, low and moderate income.
Section 3. The Housing Fund Deficit Plan, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
approved and adopted.
---
-- ~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly
adopted by the Community Development Commission of the City of
San Bernardino at an adjourned regular meeting held on the
day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Secretary
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this
, 1990.
day of
Chairman of the Community
Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
DENNIS A. BARLOW
Senior Assistant City Attorney
B~)
02/23/90
8471n/260l/020
- 2 -
--
HOUSING PLAN - SECTION 33334.6(g)
OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Section 33334.6(g) of the Health and Safety Code provides in pertinent
part that if any agency deposits less than 20~ of tax increment in any year
to its low- and moderate income housing fund, the amount equal to the
difference between 20~ of the taxes allocated at the agency pursuant to
Section 33670 for each effected project and the amount deposited that year
shall constitute a deficit of the project. This Section goes on to state
"The agency shall adopt a plan to eliminate the deficit in subsequent years
as determined by the Agency."
This document constitutes the "plan" of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino to "eliminate' the deficit" within
the meaning of Section 33334.6(g) of the Health & Safety Code. The Plan is
as follows:
1. The City of San Bernardino has a variety of housing needs for
diverse elements of the population. Needs include the provision of housing
for seniors at affordable housing costs, as well as housing for families.
There is also a need for high-quality market-rate housing; however, it is
anticipated that resources other than monies from the Agency'S low-and
moderate income housing fund be utilized to deal with the community's needs
for market-rate housing.
2. Needs for the community include rehabilitation of existing
structures, the construction of new single family dwellings, the
construction of multi-family housing, and the provision of infrastructure in
connection with the development or rehabilitation of residential
neighborhoods having affordable housing stock.
3. Because of competing program needs, as well as the basic features
of tax increment financing, it is not possible to predict with specificity
what revenue will be available to the Agency to address the housing deficit
in the near future. The governing board of the Agency shall retain
flexibility to appropriate funds at those times and to such specific
activities as shall, in the judgment of the governing board of the Agency,
best effectuate the housing objectives of this plan. In establishing such
objectives, it is the pOlicy of the governing board of the Agency to
consider the housing objectives as set forth in the housing element of the
General Plan of the City of San Bernardino, as may be amended from time to
time. Specific funding techniques utilized will also be a function of and
shall be limited by the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law,
including without limitation, Section 33334.2 of such law.
4. This Housing Plan shall be amended from time to time as may be
deemed appropriate by the Agency.
1963R
--
ell OF SAN BERNARD~uO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Applicant (5)
Address
City, State
Zip
MISC:
IS PREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
'-
Initial Study for Environmental Impacts
Fo r -.N/..I
Project Number
Date December t ,It{"
.
Prepared by:
be~"I1'" lA)oLdrl.4{".f
Name
a<{tx'1Il..Vu~n.e.r
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
,.ea, -
Cte.
tAw
~~3J{.,.
--.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROYBQ
Application Number: ~
Project DescriPtio~: ~mMa,('A- ~I ~j 51uII.
fD DI/OW PTYf to ~tA5;&- JO" ~f fIt~ ~1. ;l/rHln&f-y~(~ ill ".JIu'f.p(fcfHt!4 hr
:~:~:;;:~t.}';:;'.v 6>~ ~<14If" 33n"~.
Environmental Constraints Areas: ~
General Plan Designation: $(,- ttlflJ~l..~ ~p
Zoning Designation: ~
B. ~NVIEONM~~I8~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. EaJth Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic 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?
x
i
.
~
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
~
- ~.
Yes
No
Maybe
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x
~
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
x
~
h.
Other?
2. bIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
The creation of
odors?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
~
b.
objectionable
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
WbTE!L_ RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
Will
the
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
4-
X
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 or
quality of ground waters?
-+-
-L
-L-
X
.
~
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
~
..... -
--
Yes
No
Maybe
4.
BIOLOGICbL R~SOURC~~:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
)(
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
)(
x.
c.
Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
~
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
x
X.
c. Other?
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
-L-
-L-
X
~
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
REVISED 10/87
PAGE: = = :
Yes
No
Maybe
7.
MAN-MADE HAEb~p:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
x.
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
'I..
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
x
-L
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
x
~
b. Other?
9. 1'RAtI~FQBTATION/CIRCll.bATION: Could
the proposal 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?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
x
X
~
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
x.
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 4 OF 8
Yes
No
Maybe
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
X
'i..
of
h.
Other?
10. fUBLI~_SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
d.
e.
f.
g.
a.
Fire protection?
)(
1.
b.
Police protection?
c.
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
x
,
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
x
~
,
Medical aid?
Solid waste?
)(
,
Other?
x
ll. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
b.
c.
1. Natural gas?
x
X
X
X
K
2. Electricity?
3. ~vater?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
x
Require the construction of
new facilities?
'i.
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 5 OF 8
-
12. AESTHETICS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
c. Other?
13.
~P~TURA~__R~SQQRCES:
proposal result in:
Could the
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
c.
Other?
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.
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 su~taining 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
Yes
x
~
X
No
x
J(
~
Maybe
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
-
-
Yes
No
Maybe
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future.)
x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant.)
x
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x.
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
t:::::~~?:~ :~:/7d~(4;:::;::~~;:;9~::~
Jt~U S; "j' .
Ex ~j :~~t;j::!;:;ett;::~::r:~i ~/'
aw!iuhlp.
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
-
- -
D. DETERMINAT10N
D
On the basis of this initial study,
~The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
L:J environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
D
The proposed project ~~Y have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP~RT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
:J:rlAl i1DA/-r(;on~/t'r; IR/A)~//'''It- ;e,AI#6t'
Name and Title
t:.t~
Date: /.J-iJ'/-ff
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF B
-
... ----
--- ~
-
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT -.... , AGENDA -....
ITEM #:
LOCATION
CASE Redevelopment Area:
Central C1ty South
HEARING DATE
....
~ ""
~
~
J
L/
~
,e,
-
II
(
O~AYL c
fJ ~ow <r
w
..OU".S ~
.. -.'~IlDIN.-S: f
o
0::
\70::
.~LT ~
,~
"
o
~
z
,
u