HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-Planning
c
o
o
tb -;2 -?'1
o
an OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN ATIACHMENT 1 (1 June 1989)
Plan Revisions, Mayor and Common Council, 31 May 1989
1. Page 6, Table 1A
"Redevelopment Plans", delete text in "Comments" column and replace with the
following:
General Plan will incox:porate the land use provisions of the Redevelo.pment Plans as
now existing and as may from time to time be amended: provid~ that in the event
of conflicts as to the land use provisions the General Plan (and not the
Redevelopment Plan land use provisions) shall control.
2. Page 46, Table 3 (Continued)
"CR-2, Downtown", revise text in "Development Intensity/Density" column as
follows:
a. 199% B8ftI:lS fer senierl senier feftg'l'egate flH'e
b. Senior/Senior Congregate Care: .ws 150 du/ acre maximum
3. Page 72, Policy 1.7.21, revise as follows:
Consider, by Conditional Use Permit. the expansion of commercial lot depths
along.....
4. Page 90, Policy 1.16.23, revise as follows:
Permit a maximum density of .ws 150 units per net acre and no defined height limit
for sites....
5. Page 1%, Policy 2.6.1, revise as follows:
...and provide a bonus density of SO percent in all areas except the downtown, where
the BeftUS sftaII. Be 199 pe1'eeflt permil!sible density may be increased by % units per
acre (178 percent) to a maximum of 150 units per acre.
6. Pages 203-204, 12.19, revise as follows:
...senior congregate care units at an iftereasea aeMity ef up to fifty (SO) percent
above the permissible density in all multi-family designated areas and CG-2, eRe
Muu:lrea (199) pereeftt up to 150 units per acre in the downtown area (19g IHIits per
Ret aere), and 54 units...
1
Cl
(j'
o
C)
o
an OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN ATIACHMENT 2 (1 June 1989)
Plan Text Revisions to Reflect Land Use Map Changes
The attached pages indicate the revisions in the General Plan text to reflect changes in
the Land Use Map approved by the Mayor and Common Council In each case, the full
page has been revised for insertion into the Plan document.
-1
o
o
o
o
Oty/Commercenter, "Regional Opportunities Corridor", Norton, Cal State, railroad
yards, Waterman Avenue, corporate park, local-serving commercial "strips" and
"villages", etc.), links these by transportation, and provides linkages to major open
space resources (Santa Ana River, Cajon and Lytle Creeks, and the San Bernardino
Mountains). These key "centers" are differentiated by use and development intensity
and should be recognized throughout the City and region.
Land Use and Urban Design policy provides for the linkage of development with
available and expanded streets, transit, sewers, water, storm drainage, energy,
communication, and other public infrastructure and services. It is intended that the
timing of development be phased with the provision of necessary infrastructure/ service
improvements and their costs be distributed on a pro rata basis to beneficiaries.
Plan policies provide for the protection of significant environmental habitats in the City;
particularly those located in the foothill drainages, Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, and
Lytle Creek. In addition, the Plan provides for the limitation of critical development in
high earthquake hazard areas (fault zone and liquefaction areas) and increased
standards for development in high wind and fire hazard areas.
The key element of the Land Use and Urban Design policy is the Land Use Plan
(contained in the rear pocket), which depicts the permitted type and density/intensity
of use for all lands within the planning area. Lands have been categorized according to
residential, commercial, industrial, office-industrial, and public uses. Table 3 indicates ~
these categories, their principal uses, and densities. 'J-~I/",jlI-~;o
Development in accordance with the Land Use Plan will accommodate , 26 120 ~
additional dwelling units. Of these, 12,956 13303 are single-family units (;0 51 % and ;\}--'T
13,972 12.817 are multi-family units (59 49%). This would accommodate a population ~
increase of 65,979 70300. The Plan will permit the development of an additional --^" ,~
36,,1;,1;1,62135.629.620 square feet commercial (office and retail) and S9,7Yi,i98 53.218.123 I,}.>Y. 0
square feet of industrial and office-industrial uses. Table 4 indicates the amount of new
development which will be accommodated by each land use category.
Relationship to Open Space
As discussed in the Introduction. the General Plan is or~anized accordini to four major
topics: Community Development. Infrastructure and Community Services.
Environmental Resources and Hazards. Open space is not differentiated as a se,parate
element (chapter or section) of the Plan. but is addressed throuihout.
The City's General Plan addresses open space throuih maps. text and ioals. objectives.
policies and implementation measures. The text includes backil'ound data and an
assessment for each topic. From this. the ioals. objectives. policies and implementation
measures were formulated. Table 4A shows the sections of the Plan and the various
maps that address open s.pace. Table 4B lists the Open Space Resources and
summarizes the actions that constitute the Open Space PrOil'am. Both tables list the
42
Estimated General Plan Buildoutl
Changes From Existing Use
Buildout
Dwelling
Units
o
o
TABLE 4
Use
Residential
Acres of
Change2
Estate (RE)
Low (RL)
Suburban (RS)
Urban (RU)
Medium (RM)
Medium High (RMH)
High (RH)
Hillside Management (MH)
Overlay
977 1.019
-l;.m~
794 899
~995
~l!!ll.
~155
2621
3,734
Commercial
Regional (CR)
General (CG)3
Office (CO)
Neighborhood (CN)
Heavy
~101
48S~
>!94 318
43
19S 22B.
Industrial and Office-
Industrial Park
light and Office
(IL and DIP)
Heavy
Extractive
~ 1.496
~557
1,134
Total
Res
Com!)
Ind
Population Increase: 79,119 70.300
Source: Envicom Corporation.
o
o
Building
Square Feet
~646
a;8B9 4.026
~ 3.358
~ 5.273
8;554 .2.ffi.
~2.929
667 483
2,095
588 ~Q1S,Q7i5.065528
.LZm.ll,i6a,326 13.230.643
11,129-,36111.664572
1,2."1,973 1.266.485
3,611,8874.402.392
36,1-79,17838.647.303
1 i,3Qi,233 14.570.820
NA
23)lH 28.120
36,551,&2135.629.620
59,7!71,t98 53.218.123
1. Includes City and Sphere of Influence.
2. Includes development of vacant lands, intensification of development (e.g., single-family to multi-
family), and recycling to another use.
3. Includes RM and RMH in CG-2 areas.
o
o
o
o
GOALS. OBTECI'lVES. AND POLICIES
The following presents the goals, objectives, and policies for land use and urban design
in the City of San Bernardino. Implementing programs are contained in the following
subsection. At the end of each policy is listed a capital '1" and number in parentheses
which refers to the pertinent implementing program.
ISSUE ONE: WHAT TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF LAND USE SHOULD BE
ACCOMMODATED IN THE CITY?
~
It shall be the goal of the City of San Bernardino to:
lA Provide for the continuation and development of sufficient land uses to
serve the housing, commercial, educational, cultural, recreational, and
social needs of existing residents and population growth.
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.1 Provide lands for the housing and commercial and public services for the
City's existing population and growth of 79,11970.300 persons.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.1.1 Designate lands currently developed with housing for continued
residential, unless conversion to another use is provided for by policies of
this Plan (11.1).
1.1.2 Designate a minimum of 9;e99 9.300 acres for the development of housing
to accommodate population growth (11.1).
1.1.3 Designate lands for a mix of residential unit types and densities,
including:
a. ''Residential Estate (RE)": custom single-family residential units, at
densities and standards in accordance with Policies 1.9.10 through
1.9.33.
b. ''Residential Low (RL)": eastem single-family residential units at den-
sities and standards in accordance with Policies 1.10.10 through
1.10.23.
58
o
o
o
o
1.1.6 Allow for the continuation of existing parks in areas of the City designat-
ed as ''Public Parks (PP)" and establish standards and regulations for the
development of a minimum of ~ 807 acres of new parks to provide for
the needs of population growth (11.1, 11.2, 11.4, 11.5, and 11.12).
1.1.7 Allow for the provision of governmental administrative, health, social, re-
ligious, and other similar services to meet the needs of existing and future
residents; designating lands for the continuation of existing public and
quasi-public agencies and establishing standards and guidelines for the
development of new facilities (11.1).
1.1.8 Establish standards and allow for the development of specialty commer-
cial areas of the City, which capitalize on the City's historical and ethnic
heritage designated as "General Commercial-Specialty/Theme (CG-
4)"(11.1 and 11.4).
1.1.9 Establish "Hillside Management Overlay District" for detached single-
family units at densities and standards in accordance with Policies 1.14.10
through 1.14.41 (11.1).
.Gm
It shall be the goal of the City of San Bernardino to:
18 Provide employment opportunities for existing and future residents of the
City and those of adjacent communities.
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.2 Provide for the continuation and development of land uses which offer a
minimum of 27,000 new employment opportunities.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.2.1 Allow for the development of a minimum of 90 acres to accommodate
new employee-generating business/professional office uses and 1,000
acres to accommodate new industrial uses in areas of the City designated
as:
a. "Commercial Office (CD-I and CO-2)"
b. "Office/Industrial Park (DIP)"
60
o
o
o
o
In the southwest portion of the City that borders on the City of Rialto, there are a large
number of mobile home parks in standard condition. The few substandard units that
exist are single-family residences in older neighborhoods.
C. POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The total number of potential units addressed by the Draft Housing Element is smaller
than those identified in the Draft General Plan Land Use Element because the former's
analysis is limited to the area within the City's current jurisdictional borders, while all
the other elements analyze the 64 square miles comprising the planning area.
Within the City of San Bernardino, the Draft Land Use Plan Map land use designations
will accommodate an additional 25,12:2 25.190 units on 8,496.7 acres of land. The num-
ber of units within current city limits is approximately 10 percent smaller than the plan-
ning area total of 28,911 28.120. Prel'ertieMtdy there is a slightly greater retitietieR iR
lftt:Hti iamtiy lHlits, 13 l'ereent, tftaR iR siftgle f8Hlily aRits, 8.3 l'efeef\.t. The resulting
proportion of single-family and multi-family units within city limits therefore differs
slightly from the planning area distribution.
Table 9 shows the development densities of the various land use designations and the
number of units that could be developed at each density. Some of the designated land
is vacant, other parcels have been rezoned, in most cases to accommodate increased
density. The size of available parcels of land varies widely, providing ample opportuni-
ties for both infill development and new subdivisions.
While land in the categories of residential estate and residential low and in the Hillside
Management Overlay allows the development of higher priced housing, the 11,327
11.545 units in the medium-, medium-high, aftEl high-density, Re&ional Commercial and
General Commercial/Mixed Residential classifications offer some opportunity for the
production of more affordable ownership housing such as condominiums or townhous-
es. Other opportunities for increasing housing affordability include the provision for
mobile homes throughout the City. ana fer seeella 1:HlHs in eefltfal. ei.ty Jleigh.bemeeEis.
Finally, rental housing could be built in medium and high density, the downtown. and
mixed commercial-residential areas.
Table 10 shows the distribution of potential single-family and multi-family units by
quadrant. The distribution of types City-wide is skewed slightly. Single-family devel-
opment accounts for S4B 54.2 percent of the potential units and multi-family develop-
ment accounts for 45,.1. 45.8 percent of the total units.
Figure 9B, Existing Land Use, shows the distribution of residential uses in the City by
single-family and multiple-family densities. Figure 9C, Generalized Land Use Concept,
includes vacant lands that are designated for residential uses and existing residential
areas where higher densities are permitted.
169
'iJJ.'"ii'''
o
o
o
TABLE 9
Potential Residential Development Within City Limits
(As Accommodated by the Draft Land Use Plan)
Potential
Land Use Designation Maximum Density Units
Residential Estate 1 upa 694 572
Residential Low 3upa ~~
Residential Suburban 4.5 upa ~2.976
Residential Urban 9upa 5;598 4.672
Residential Medium 14 upa 7;598 6.152
Residential Medium-High 24 upa ~ 2.596
Residential High 36 upa 667 428
Regional Commercial 54 upa 588
(Downtown)
General Commercial/Mixed 14 upa and 1.781
Residential 24 upa
Hillside Management (Avg. 0.8 upa)1 ~ 1.857
Overlay District
ToW 25,122 25.190
Source: Envicom Corporation
1. upa = units per acre.
o
Percentage
~~
:B14
612
a. 19
3324
:B.l.Q.
32
2
7
97
100
o
o
o
o
TABLE 10
Potential New Residential Development Within City limits
by Quadrant
Single-family Multi-family Total
Ouadrant Acres DUs Acres DUs Acres DUs
Southeast 107.7 79a 784 544.6 6;G346.150 652.3 ~6.735
Southwest 808.1 ~~ 2625 2;e;7 2.708 1/070.6 5;841-5.857
Northeast 3,301.4 ~ 2.1/1 129.8 ~ 1.553 3/431.2 3;949 3.951
Northwest 3,251.7 6;497 6.426 90.9 ~ 1.134 3,342.6 6;7e8 6.727
Total 7,468.9 13/795 13.645 1/027.8 11,32711.545 8,496.7 25/122 25.190
Source: Envicom Corporation.
o
o
o
o
About half of all potential multi-family units would be in the southeast quadrant of the
City while nearly half of all potential single-family units would be in the northwest
quadrant.
Of the 8,496.7 acres on which the new residential units will be developed, 7,264.6 acres
are vacant and 1,2321 acres are developed with low density housing and will be recy-
cled at higher densities. Generally, the vacant lands occur on the periphery of existing
development, primarily in the northwest and northeast along the foothills, in the south-
east along Interstate 10, and in the southwest. Large vacant parcels, also, are found near
the downtown. Areas subject to residential intensification primarily occur east of
Interstate 215, between the downtown and Highland Avenue, and west of 1215 to
Mount Vernon Avenue.
D. HOUSING NEEDS
Housing needs can be classified as those associated with current city residents and
those related to potential and future residents. The characteristics of each are evaluated
in this section.
1. Current Housh\! Needs
The housing needs of the city's existing residents are related to affordability, suitability,
and special needs groups.
a. Affordability of Housing
The June, 1988 Reiional Housin~ Needs Assessment (RHNA), formulated by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), estimates that in January,
1988, approximately 11,775 households in the City (21 percent of the total) were consid-
ered "in need". A household is defined as "in need" when it is a lower income house-
hold (whose income is 80 percent or less of the County's median income, with adjust-
ment for household size) paying over 30 percent of its income for housing. Federal and
State agencies regard income-to-housing costs ratio greater than 30 percent as an "inor-
dinate share of income" for housing, called "overpaying".
Of those lower income San Bernardino households identified as overpaying for hous-
ing, 8,993, or 76 percent, are renters. A number of factors contribute to this condition.
Statewide, the median income for renter households is less than half of that of owner
households. Though the median contract rent for San Bernardino is lower than both the
County and the State median, the City also has a higher percentage of persons living in
poverty than in the County or the State. In part, this is attributable to the limited range
of job opportunities in the City and their comparative low salary levels. Some lower-in-
come households occupy dwelling units whose rental value has increased while their
per capita income has either remained the same or decreased due to changing house- .
hold size (having children or taking in a relative) or changing income (retirement, or
loss of employment by one or more members of the household).
174
o
o
o
o
price of new housing low, which in turn, has kept down the price of land itself.
This image problem does not directly impact the sale of moderately priced housing, be-
cause new units are readily absorbed by first time buyers from more expensive areas of
the Inland Empire, as well as from Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Instead, it inhib-
its the production of "move-up" housing because of a perception in the development
community that there is not a market for a high-end housing product. This market, ac-
cording to local realtors, will seek housing product in Redlands, Loma linda, Lake
Arrowhead, and other nearby communities with positive image identification.
2. Governmental Constraints - Local
Local governments affect the supply, distribution, and cost of housing through their ac-
tions and policies. This section discusses some of the constraints to housing develop-
ment imposed by government.
a. Land Use Controls
As indicated in "C. Potential Residential Development," the Draft Land Use Plan per-
mits the construction of an estimated 25,122 25.190 new dwelling units on land within
the City that is vacant or whose use designation has been changed by the new general
plan. The Plan was developed based on the community's desired residential density,
capacity of current and projected infrastructure, and severe environmental constraints
in some areas of the City caused by earthquake, landslide, fire, and wind dangers. If
demand for housing exceeds the maximum number of units allowed by the plan then
the plan will become a constraint on housing. However, the environmental and infra-
structure difficulties constitute a pragmatic limit to housing development.
b. Infrastructure
Generally, the policies and programs of the Utilities Element of the General Plan pro-
vide that the infrastructure supporting new housing development will be expanded
concurrent with development!. The City Water Department indicates that it has suffi-
cient capacity to accommodate the demands attributable to the Plan's housing buildout.
It will be necessary to extend water distribution lines, boosters, and water storage facili-
ties for new housing tracts on the periphery of existing development. Costs for such
improvements will be borne by the developers. However, the City is unable to mandate
that service be extended by individual water purveyors within the City. This could af-
fect the timing and location of development.
The Municipal Water Department has initiated a program to expand its wastewater
treatment capacity. Present design capacity is 28 mgd of primary and secondary treat-
ment, and three mgd of tertiary treatment. The expansion will add 30 mgd of primary
treatment capacity, 15 mgd of secondary treatment capacity, 10.5 mgd of tertiary treat-
1 Refer to Section 7.0, Utilities.
188
~';
o
o
o
o
neighborhood groupings, and historic buildings, displace existing homeowners and
tenants, and increase traffic congestion and noise.
Assuming the even distribution of the Land Use Plan's housing capacity over 20 years,
the City's regional fair share allocation would be approximately 6;28G 6.298 units.
F. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The following summarizes the significant housing issues of the City of San Bernardino.
1. Availability of Adeqllate Sites
a. As the Oty's population increases over time, of concern is the ability to provide ade-
quate land for housing development. Ultimately, the City's capacity to provide land
for housing will be constrained by the Oty's environmental resources; including the
mountains along the northern edge, the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault systems,
floodplain areas of the Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek, Lytle Creek, and other moun-
tain drainages, and significant wildlife and vegetation habitats. It has been conclud-
ed by analyses for this General Plan that previous forecasts of regional population
growth could not be accommodated within the capacities of these resources.
b. Currently, there is a deficiency of sites being developed for housing for higher in-
come professionals and executives. These needs are being met by housing develop-
ments in adjacent cities.
2. Preservation of Existing Housing
Much of the Oty's housing in and proximate to the downtown is aging. Some is in a
considerable stage of disrepair and dilapidation. Others are being maintained but are
subject to considerable economic pressures to replace these with higher density units.
Of concern, are the maintenance and preservation of significant older single-family resi-
dential neighborhoods and evolution of mixed-density deteriorated neighborhoods for
other units.
3. Availability of Affordable Housing
While the Oty contains a comparatively high percentage of affordable housing units in
comparison to other southern California communities, this advantage is expected to dis-
appear over time. Continued development of the Los Angeles metropolitan basin cou-
pled with the Oty's declining resource of developable land will ultimately constrain the
housing market and force up their costs and prices. This concern has been exemplified
by the increasing rates for mobile homes in the Oty in recent years. Of concern will be
the ability to provide housing for an expanding population of low and moderate in-
come households.
191
.~
o
o
o
o
GOALS. OBTECI'lVES. AND POLICIES
The following presents the goals, objectives, and policies for housing in the City of San
Bernardino. Implementing programs are contained in the following sub-section. At the
end of each policy is listed a capital "I" and number in parentheses which refers to the
pertinent implementing program.
.G2il.
It shall be the goal of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
2A
Facilitate the development of a variety of types of housing to meet
the needs of all income levels in the Oty of San Bernardino.
Objective
It shall be the objective of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
21
Provide adequate sites to accommodate 25,122 25.190 new dwelling
units.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
2.1.1
Accommodate the production of new housing units on currently
vacant or underutilized land at densities and standards designated
in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (121).
21.2
~~tMmro~erstocom~ctsecondunitson~pertiesin
residential neighborhoods within the "RU" Land Use designation
in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan (126).
21.3
Accommodate residential components in areas of the Central Oty
designated for mixed commercial use and residential use in
accordance with policies in the Land Use Element (121).
Objective
It shall be the objective of the Oty of San Bernardino to:
22
Emure that building impection is adequate to enforce both codes
and development standards during comtruction process.
193
o
o
o
o
HOUSING PROGRAMS
The following indicates the programs which shall be carried out by the City of San
Bernardino to implement the goals, objectives, policies, and standards of the Housing
Element. These provide for the continuation and enhancement of existing and imple-
mentation of new City programs. A five-year schedule of actions and programs is in-
cluded to implement the policy. Each program is preceded by a capital "1" and number
which is referenced by the pertinent policy which it implements in the preceding sec-
tion.
A. CURRENT HOUSING PROGRAMS
New Construction
12.1
Provision of Adequate Sites
As described in "C. Potential Residential Development", 8,500 acres
have been designated in the Land Use Plan with a wide range of
residential classifications and densities. This land would permit
the construction of approximately 1S,122 25.190 additional dwell-
ings.
Responsible Department Planning
Time Frame: On adoption of the General Plan
Funding: N / A
12.2
Development Review Committee
Continue weekly meeting of all relevant City departments to
review site plans and schematics and to provide developers with
coordinated development processing.
Responsible Department: Joint responsibility of all City
departments involved in permit processing for development; coor-
dinated by the Planning Department.
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding: N / A
Related Tasks: N / A
12.3
Ener~ and Water Conservation
Continue to require that all new housing construction meet the
standards of energy and water conservation prescribed by Title 24.
198
-.
c
o
o
o
C. FIVE-YEAR HOUSING GOALS
The City believes that over the next five years it should produce approximately ~
6.298 housing units to contribute to its share of regional housing needs. These units are
distributed as follows based on the percentages established by the SCAG RHNA. The
rationale for the production of these units is more fully addressed in Section E. Con-
straints on Housing Development.
Income Percent Number Percent
Group Of Median Of Units of Units
Very Low 50% or less 994 907 14.4%
Low 50% to 80% ~ 1.467 23.3%
Moderate 80% to 120% ~ 1.411 22.4%
. Upper Over 120^% ~ 2.513 39.9%
Total ~~ 100.0%
Housing costs have increased dramatically over the past few years and it is no longer
possible for the market to produce housing affordable to low and very low income
households without some form of government assistance. Between 1965 and 1980 the
federal government assumed major responsibility for funding housing programs for its
lower income citizens. However, since 1980, federal support for housing has decreased
over 70 percent and local governments all over the country have had to identify new,
local sources of support for housing. The City of San Bernardino has a number of
programs serving its low and moderate income residents and over the next five years
will assist in the provision of approximately 474 units or about ~ 13% of all low and
moderate income units. Table 11 shows the projected distribution of City-assisted units
by tenure.
In order to achieve these objectives the City will continue or initiate the programs
described in Sections A and B of this chapter. While the City recognizes the need for
low and moderate income housing within the City, it also recognizes that in the absence
of increased state and federal funding, it may be difficult to reach the numerical
objectives set for the production of housing affordable to very low and low income
households.
209
""'""'",
o
o
o
o
.... ..
..
c:: ~ ..
~ ~ ~
;I: ~
'2
~ ~ ~
~ (3.
'<I' ~
~
8
~ '"
In ]
c::..c: l')
..... {.:l
-g o~ '* 1
1ii gj
o~ 0 ~
l:l::e
<..
~.l!! N
.~ o~ ~ ~I &'0
::r u~<Il N a.
~ z \D ~
g~ ...
=:
:agJ ..
~ ii:
~ ta >. .21
~l ]c::..c: ~ B
Olil '*
~~ o!!l ::r
<Il~
..... oS <..
o gj ~<Il
5~ u~ ~I ~
~ z
> !5
li:
-~~ .~
o c:: ~ ~ '2
;aogos J
... o~
0"0
E-<~ ~ ! ~
-
0
~
0
e
.l!! ,g
~ ~
! .!1l
8...
~ .s '"
.... ~8
~
.
'h,"C',:,'W"
o
o
o
o
6. Given the projected expansion of the Inland Empire economy and the continued
popularity of Southern California as a destination for recreation and tourist
activities, the demand for hotel-motel facilities is projected to increase in the future
at rates comparable to those experienced during the last 15 years.
7. Table 20 provides an analytical overview of the residual demand for hotel and motel
facilities. Currently, there is a competitive inventory of 2,985 rooms with an overall
71 percent occupancy rate, whereas an occupancy rate of 70 percent is the acceptable
break-even level under normal hotel measurement criteria. Thus, if the same
number of rooms that are now in demand were in a market with an occupancy rate
of 70 percent, the total inventory would be 2,998, 13 more rooms than currently exist.
Therefore, there is an estimated under-supply of 13 rooms.
Given that the absorption rate is projected to continue at 95 rooms a year, the market
could support an additional 2,280 rooms over the next 24 years. Including the
current under-supply, a total of 2,293 rooms could be absorbed into the inventory
over the next 24 years.
Of the total 2,293 rooms that may be absorbed by 2010, 946 rooms are either planned
or under construction. This analysis suggests that approximately 1,321 additional
rooms that can be supported in the Central San Bernardino market over the next 24
years have not yet been planned or proposed.
8. Currently, the planning area has three-quarters of the existing hotel supply in
Central San Bernardino and approximately 60 percent of the planned and proposed
supply. Assuming a sustained continued capture of future activity, it is estimated
that an additional 1,010 rooms, not currently planned, will be built within the
planning area by the year 2010. Including the 557 rooms currently planned but not
yet constructed, a total of 1,567 additional rooms are projected to be constructed in
the planning area by 2010. Approximately 32 acres will be absorbed for this use in
average increments of three to six acres. The Land Use map adequately provides for
this demand by designating 120 acres for regional commercial activity (44 acres
more are required for regional retail activity).
E. ISSUES
1. Previous regional forecasts, projected that the planning area population would grow
from 195,256 to 276,870 by 2010, a 42 percent increase over the 1987 population.
However, this was a reflection of growth trends of the time and did not account for
environmental constraints and infrastructure capacities. The Plan's population ca-
pacity is 65,979 70.300. The planning area's share of the County population will,
however, decrease slightly due to the high growth rates of other, smail cities. Still;
t;fte prejeeted grewth ill. the pllHlfling lli'E!a ,...in result ill. 8ft iIl.erease sf lee,9gg
resideats. . Residential development, particularly single-family homes, represents a
net drain on City funds in that the cost of services such as police, fIre, city
administration, etc., is more than revenue derived from the residents' property tax,
sales tax, and fees.
271
o
o
o
o
GOALS. OBJECTIVES. AND POLICIES
The following presents the goals, objectives, and policies for parks and recreation in the
City of San Bernardino. Implementing programs are contained in the following
subsection. At the end of each policy is listed a capital "I" and a number in parentheses
which refers to the pertinent implementing program.
.QsW.
It shall be the goal of the City of San Bernardino to:
9A Improve the quality of life in San Bernardino by providing parks and rec-
reation services to the City's residents..
Objective
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
9.1 Provide park facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents,
including ~ 455 acres to offset the current deficit and an additional 35G
352 acres for projected population growth.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to:
9.1.1 Establish the following as initial standards for park development, which
may be modified by a parks master plan:
a. Mini-Park: 1/2 to 3 acres
b. Neighborhood Park: 5 to 10 acres, with 1/2 to 1 mile of its users
c. Community Park: 15 to 25 acres, within 1 to 2 miles of its users
d. Regional Park: 50 acres and greater (19.1)
9.1.2 Establish a comprehensive parks master plan for the City, defining exist-
ing and anticipated recreational needs (based on population size, density,
and demographics), locations for new or expanded facilities, timing of de-
velopment, and funding sources (19.2).
9.1.3 Disperse park facilities and equipment throughout the City, to prevent an
undue concentration at any location; including sports fields, basketball
courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, picnic areas, and other facilities
(19.1).
450
!:'tt\1L"'!;";Q'h'--".".-,",., "g.-.,o-"'-i'_,"-'c,,'-
c
@
o
o
o
~OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN AlT ACHMENT 3
Addenda and Errata (1 June 1989)
1. Page 6, Table 1A
The publication dates for the Interim Policy Document and General Plan should be
reversed.
The seventh document is correctly titled: "East San Bernardino Highland, East
Highland Community General Plan"
2 Page 97, delete Policy 1.20.30 (replaced by Policy 1.7.21)
3. Page 136, 11.1, subsection (10): Revise as follows:
"Residential Urban" (RU-1 and RU-2)
4. Page 178, subsection (b), second paragraph: revise first bullet as follows:
· The provision of zoning designations that permit the development of senior and
senior congregate care housing (128), and the...
5. Page 188, last line revise as follows:
...treatment capacity, 215 mgd of secondary treatment capacity up to 10.5 mgd of
tertiary treat-...
6. Page 193, delete Policy 2.1.2.
7. Page 199, delete Program 12.6.
8. Page 200, 12.7, revise last line as follows:
...lots designated for sift&e flHllilr residential use.
9. Page 200, 12.8, revise last line as follows:
...of senior citizen and senior congregate care housing.
10. Page 288, Policy 4.19.4, revise as follows:
Provide for a "high activity" sub-area in Downtown San Bernardino, where it is the
intent to achieve a high level of evening activity, and HmH encourage the
development of uses...
1
_~o"o,oo ,
o
o
o
o
11. Page 371, delete second complete paragraph.
12. Page 345, Policy 6..11, revise as follows:
Correlate approvals of new development with roadway improvements that would
be necessary to either maintain an acceptable level of service (a vekuRe te eapaeity
rase ef 9.79 er less) and other performance...
13. Page 393, 17.33, revise as follows:
...The City shall use available SelitBt:ffl Califemia BeiseR CeHlf'&ftY ap'plicable funds
to underground existing above-no
14. Page 410, policy S.4.3, revise as follows:
Require all new residential and ReW existin~ multi-family (three or more units)
development to install and maintain adequate smoke detection systems. All rental
units w~etfter single er Hulls family new or existin~ shall iR!ltaR retain adequate
smoke detection systems US.11 and IS.15).
15. Page 438, 18.39, revise as follows:
The City shall incorporate art in ReW Oty buildings. This may include paintings,
sculpture, historical artifacts, and other elements. Emphasis should be placed on
obtaining works of art created by local artists.
16. Page 456, Policy 9.4.6, delete program reference U9.10) and add 19.7 and 19.20.
17. Page 459, 19.4, revise as follows:
Require iR the ZemBg Ol'EiiRanee, that all residential development projects of five or
more units provide on-site open space facilities and pay in-lieu fees fer similar
faeilUies fteilf'By or dedicate parklands in accordance with standards to be included
in the Development Code.
IS. Page 459, 19.4A, revise as follows:
Require that all non-residential development provide on-site open space facilities or
pay in-lieu fees in accordance with standards to be estallliskeEi included in the
Development Code.
19. Page 504,110.24, revise as follows:
The City shall consider providing information to the public regarding local public...
2
o
-~~""'. . .,,~" .
o
o
20. EReetlfllgf tfte H\tSrperatieR sf v.'llter ana €Rergy feflllePVftaeR ffaMes Evaluate the
means of establishin~ an ap,propriate program by which en~ efficient fixtures and
ener~ savin~ desi~ elements can be installed in existing multi-family residential,
commercial, and industrial developments iR aeteMaRfe l".;d\ State Law (I11.3A).
3
o
=...=^~'!"l'""""'"y,~:.~.
. 'of)
o
o
(P-;7-'61'
,'-
......
MEMORANDUM
Date: June I, 1989
To: City of San Bernardino
From: Envicom Corporation
Subject: San BemBIdino General Plan EIR Finalizing Addendum
This memorandum to the Fmalizing Addendum of the San Bernardino General Plan EIR
addresses the land use map changes made by the Mayor and Common Council and their effect
upon the determinations of significance provided in the EIR. As a result of the Mayor and
Council's changes, the following comparison regBIding additional development buildout can be
made:
LAND USE DRAFI' PLAN FINAL PLAN DIFFERENCE % CHANGE
Residentia1(d.u.) 26,028 28,1201 2,092 +8.0%
Population 65,070 70,300 5,230 +8.0%
Commercial(sq. ft.) 36,551,621 35,629,620 922,001 -2.5%
Industrial(sq. ft.) 50,774,408 53,218,123 2,443,715 +4.8%
While the Final Plan's land use numbers exceed those of the Draft Plan in most instances, the
new numbers cOITelate or are within the scope of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. More
specifically, the impacts that would occur as a result of these land use changes would be similar
to those determined under Alternative H:
LAND USE FINAL PLAN ALTERNATIVEH DIFFERENCE %CHANGE
Residentia1( d.u.) 28,120 31,974 3,854 -12.0%
Population 70,300 79,935 9,635 -12.0%
Commercial(sq. ft.) 35,629,620 53,100,000 17,500,000 -33.0%
Industrial(sq. ft.) 53,218,123 46,400,000 6,800,000 +14.7%
Because the impacts that may result from the changes to the land use map made by the Mayor
and Council will be similar to those analyzed by the EIR or its alternatives, the level of
significance (i.e. significant or not significant) is as determined in the EIR.
. ,.-., '.,.'ii,"~?""~
.~o
. ~
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN
ADOPTED, 2 JUNE 1989
Prepared By:
ENVICOM CORPORATION in association with
OKS Associates · Albert A. Webb Associates · Natelson-Levander-Whitney .
Sage Associates · Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
o
o
o
o
o
CTIY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Evlyn Wilcox
Esther Estrada
Jack Reilly
Jess Flores
Michael Maudsley
Tom Minor
Valerie Pope-Ludlam
Norine Miller
Roy Nierman
Cheryl Brown
Ruben Lopez
Victor Corona
Michael Lindseth
Robert Stone
Richard Cole
Alexander Sharp
Brad Kilger
Vincent A. Bautista
Valerie C. Ross
Tricia Thrasher
Catherine Edwards
Mary Lanier
Ma,yor and Common Council
Mayor
Councilmember, Ward 1
Councilmember, Ward 2
Councilmember, Ward 3
Councilmember, Ward 4
Councilmember, Ward 5
Councilmember, Ward 6
Councilmember, Ward 7
Plannin,g Commission
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Plannin,~ Dl:partment
Director of Planning
(Project Management Team)
Principal Planner
Senior Planner
Planner II
Planner I
Planner I
o
o
o
o
GENERAL PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMlITEE
John Traver - Chairman
Brenda Fredrick - Vice-Chairman
Evelyn Alexander
Betsy Starbuck
Courtney Buse
Wade Byars
Mark Cantrell
Ron Coats
Bob Cooley
Glen Gipson
Patricia Green
Bob Heeren
Harry Jacks
Jim Kennedy
Helen Kopczynski
Steve Landrus
Rich Levin
Jim Lorenz
Jim Mulvihill
Vivian Nash
Qaritza Parker
Earl Parrish
Herb Pollock
Michael Ponce
Roland Roy
Walt Schuiling
Martha Scudder
Scott Shira
Margaret Southerland
Richard Valdez
o
CONSULTANf STAFF
o
o
o
Envicom COqJoration
Joseph G. Johns
Elwood C. Tescher, AICP
Joseph G. Gibson
David J. Duncan, AICP
Karin Pally
Stephen Svete
Karen Warner
Lauren A. Tarr
David Yale
Steven Quintanilla
Carl Wishner
Scott Kruse
Catherine E. Bernstein
Greggory R Wood
Roger Jinks
Teresa Clemen
Alain Bally
Mary R. Predmore
Brenda Housego
Deborah Hardy
Natelson-Levander-Whitney
Jay Nate1son
Anita Kramer
John Steinmetz
Steven Manheim
DKS Associates
Michael P. Meyer
Rena Lum
Gary Hamrick
Daryl Fleming
T.Imada
Joel Falter
President
Project Manager and Principal Planner
Director of Environmental Services
Senior Planner tUrban Designer
Urban Planner (Housing)
Urban Planner
Urban Planner
Planner
Planner
Planner
Biologist
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Scientist
Graphics Coordinator
Graphic Artist
Graphic Artist
Graphic Artist
Word Processing Coordinator
Word Processor
Word Processor
Manager of Economic Tasks
Principal Economist, Economic Development Element
Economist
Economist
Principal, Circulation Element
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Engineer
o
Albert A. Webb & Associates
Sam I. Gershon
Cheryl A. DeGano
Marc P. Bierdzinski
Kristi L. Lovelady
Sage Associates
Orrin Sage, Ph.D.
Perry Ehlig, Ph.D.
Cindy Sage
Rosenow Spevacek Group. Inc.
Felise Acosta
o
o
Vice President
Environmental Specialist
Environmental Specialist
Environmental Specialist
Manager of Seismic Minerals and Hazardous
Materials Elements
Geologist
Environmental Scientist, Hazardous Materials and
Uses
Manager of Redevelopment Baseline Data Work
Tasks
o
o
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
o
INTRODUCTION
A. Role and Purpose of the General Plan
B. State Requirements
C. Organization and Content of the General Plan
D. Relationship Among General Plan Elements
E. Monitoring and Update of the General Plan
F. Relationship to Other Documents
G. Planning Area
H. Overview and History of the Planning Program
I. Community Participation in the Plan's Preparation
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP TO SAN BERNARDINO'S
QUALITY OF LIFE
CHAPTER ONE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1.0 Land Use and Urban Design
2.0 Housing
3.0 Historical and Archaeological Resources
4.0 Economic Development
5.0 Urban Design for Public Open Spaces
CHAPTER TWO: INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
6.0 Circulation and Traffic
7.0 Utilities
8.0 Public Facilities and Services
A. Police
B. Fire
C. Education
D. Civic Institutions and Cultural Facilities
9.0 Parks and Recreation
i
~
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
5
9
11
12
18
148
211
253
294
335
361
396
403
414
428
440
o
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued)
o
CHAPI'ER THREE: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
10.0 Natural Resources
A. Biological Resources
B. Mineral Resources
C. Climate and Air Quality
11.0 Energy and Water Conservation
CHAPI'ER FOUR: HAZARDS
12.0 Geologic and Seismic
13.0 Hazardous Materials and Uses
14.0 Noise
15.0 Wind and Fire
16.0 Flooding
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Noise and Its Effects on People, Techniques for
Noise Control, and Model Community Noise
Control Ordinance
ii
~
462
477
487
506
514
550
558
582
593
,,0
o
o
o
LIST OF FIGURES
~
1. Regional Location 7
2. Planning Area Jurisdictions 8
3. Historic Growth Patterns: Number of Annexations 19
4. Generalized Existing Land Use 22
6. Generalized Land Use Concept 67
7. Typical Characteristics of Pedestrian-Oriented Uses 86
8. Environmental Resources Management Overlay 130
9. Environmental Hazards Overlay 131
9A. Structural Conditions 166
9B. Generalized Existing Land Use 172
9C. Generalized Land Use Concept 173
10. Archaeological Sensitivities 215
11. Historical Architectural Styles: A 219
12. Historical Architectural Styles: B 221
13. Potential Historic Districts 228
14. Historic Patterns of Development in San Bernardino (1860-1935) 229
15. Historic Landmark Locations 231
16. Historic Landmarks 235
17. San Bernardino Market Areas 254
18. Major Office Concentrations 262
19. Major Industrial Concentrations 268
20. Existing Urban Design Structure 296
21. Districts 297
22. Nodes 302
23. Landmarks 305
24. Paths/Edges 307
25. Streetscape Elements 310
26. Urban Design Plan for Public Open Spaces 317
27. Prototype Streetscape Improvements 321
29. Circulation Plan 344
30. Sewerage Service Area Boundaries 362
31. Water Service Area Boundaries 365
32. Storm Drain Sub-Areas 367
33. Telephone Service Areas 370
34. Geothermal Resources 372
35. Police Services 397
36. Fire Services 404
37. Emergency Joint Response Areas 406
38. School District Boundaries and Facilities 415
39. San Bernardino Oty Unified School District Ten-Year School 422
Construction Plan
ill
Q
o
o
0'
UST OF FIGURES (Continued)
bgg.
40. Civic Institutions and Cultural Facilities 420
41. Parks and Recreation Facilities 445
42. Conceptual Equestrian Trail System 452
43. Known Sensitive Elements 464
44. Biological Resource Management Overlay 471
45. Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Sectors 478
46. South Coast Air Basin 488
47. Temperature Inversions 490
48. Faults that May Generate Damaging Surface Rupture 516
49. Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration From Earthquakes 518
SO. Major Fault Locations 520
51. Uquefaction Susceptibility 522
52. Greatest Density of Building Structures in 1930 525
53. Critical, Sensitive, and High Occupancy Facilities 528
54. Potential Subsidence Areas 529
55. Slope Stability and Major Landslides 530
56. Soils Umitations 532
59. Community Response to Noise 560
60. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 561
61. Existing Noise Conditions 563
62. Future Noise Conditions 570
63. Wind Hazards 583
64. Historic Fire Burn Areas 585
65. Fire Hazard Areas 586
66. One Hundred Year Floodplain 594
Draft Land Use Plan
Back Pocket
iv
,,0
o
o
o
UST OF TABLES
~
1A. Relatioship to Other Plans and Documents 6
1. Existing Land Use (1987) 21
2. Existing Residential Units and Commercial and Industrial Building 23
Area
3. Land Use Categories and Densities 43
4 Estimated General Plan Buildout, Changes From Existing Use 48
4A. Open Space Resource and General Plan Relationship 49
4B. Open Space Resource and Programs 51
5. Selected Population Characteristics . 157
6. Selected Housing Characteristics 1980 and 1988 161
7. Selected Housing Characteristics 1980 and 1988, County of 162
San Bernardino
8. Age of Housing Stock 163
9. Potential Residential Development (as Accommodated by the 170
Draft Land Use Plan)
10. Potential Residential Development by Quadrant 171
11. City of San Bernardino Five- Year Housing Objectives by Tenure 210
12. Inventory of Known and Pending Archaeological Sites 214
13. Potentially Significant Historic Structures 224
14. Designated Historic Landmarks 232
15. Planning Area Purchasing Power 1986 255
16. Planning Area Purchasing Power Projections 256
17. Net Supportable Regional Space for Combined Market Areas 259
18. Total Potential Capture of Demand for Retail Sales, Combined 260
Market Areas
19. Size Distribution of Existing Hotel-Motel Facilities in Planning 270
Area and Vicinity
20. Demand Projections for Hotel and Motel Facilities in Central 272
San Bernardino Area
21. San Bernardino City Unified School District Enrollment Projections 417
22. Rialto Unified School District Enrollment Projections 419
23. Colton Joint Unified School District Enrollment Projections 420
24. San Bernardino Park Classification System and Standards 441
25. City Parks and Recreation Facilities 443
26. Ambient Air Quality Standards 493
27. Description of Air Contaminants 495
28. Violations of State Standards 497
29. Violations of Federal Air Quality Standards in Days 498
v
o
o
o
liST OF TABLES - (Continued)
~
30. Ozone Episode Levels 499
31. Significant Faults Potentially Affecting the City of San Bernardino 517
32. Railroad Noise Contributions 564
33. Estimated Noise Levels (Ldn) Near Major Roadways 566
34. Estimated Noise Levels (Ldn) Near Major Freeways 568
vi
Q.
>
'0
o
o
o
.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
89-159
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE
NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING
3 FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION
REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN.
4
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
5 OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
6
SECTION I.
RECITALS.
7
A.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the
8 existing General Plan for the City of San Bernardino by
9 Resolution No. 7336 on August 17, 1964; and
10
B.
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, hereinafter
11 "City", initiated a comprehensive update and revision of its
12 existing General Plan in late 1986 and early 1987; and,
13 C. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council appointed in
14 July 1987, a 35-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC),
15 composed of individuals representing a diverse array of interests
16 and residential locations in the City, to assist the City in
17 drafting a new General Plan; and,
18
D.
WHEREAS, the CAC over an almost two year period of
19 time convened in excess of 70 meetings as an entire body and as
20 subcommittees to solicit broad community input for the Draft
21 General Plan; and,
22
E.
WHEREAS, the CAC recommended approval in December
23 1988, of the City of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land
24 Use Issue POlicy Statements, a document which identified
25 preferred pOlicy direction on key issues affecting the types,
26 distribution, and intensity of land uses to be permitted by the
27 Draft General Plan; and,
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
1
'0
o
o
o
1
F.
WHEREAS, there are between 65,000 and approximately
2 70,000 parcels of land within the City of San Bernardino and the
3 Draft General Plan would affect the permitted uses or intensity
4 of uses for more than 1,000 property owners; and
5
G.
WHEREAS, after giving public notice as required by
6 California Government Code Sections 65353(c) and 6509l(a)(3), the
7 City Planning Commission recommended approval of the City of San
8 Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy
9 Statements at a Public Hearing on December 13, 1988; and,
10
H.
WHEREAS, after giving public notice, the Mayor and
11 Common Council approved the City of San Bernardino General Plan
12 Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy Statements, with modifications
13 on January 30, 1989 after Public Hearings held on December 16,
14 1988 and January 30, 1989; and,
15
I.
WHEREAS, the City published in March 1989, a Draft
16 General Plan which included input from CAC, City staff, local
17 neighborhood associations, business organizations and members of
18 the community; and,
19
J.
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan incorporated by
20 reference the following three research and analysis documents:
21 City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical Background
22 Report, February 1988; City of San Bernardino General Plan
23 Update, Land Use Alternatives Working Paper, March 1988; and City
24 of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy
25 Statements, December 1988 and January 1989; and,
26
K.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted noticed
27 public hearings on April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, May
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
2
'0
o
o
o
1 22, and 30, 1989 in order to receive public testimony and
2 written and oral comments on the Draft General Plan; and,
3
L.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held noticed
4 Public Hearings on April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
5 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989 in order to receive all
6 public testimony and all written and oral comments in response
7 thereto with respect to the Draft General Plan and the
8 modifications recommended by the Planning Commission; and
9
M.
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan was made available for
10 review to the public, responsible agencies, and other interested
11 persons for their review and comment as required by state law;
12 and
13
N.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving
14 public testimony, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1
15 recommending adoption of the Draft General Plan as modified by
16 the Planning Commission; and,
17
o.
WHEREAS, the City determined pursuant to California
18 Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") Sections
19 15060(c) and 15063(a) that the Draft General Plan may have a
20 significant effect on the environment and thus warranted the
21 preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and,
22
P.
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared on the Draft General
23 Plan addressing the Draft General Plan's and other alternatives'
24 environmental impacts in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
25 Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures
26 specified in Resolution No. 13157 implementing CEQA; and,
27
Q.
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was made available to the
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
3
'0
10
o
o
o
1 public, responsible agencies and other interested persons for
2 their review and comment from March 24, 1989 to May 12, 1989, as
3 required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
4 Environmental Review Procedures; and,
5
WHEREAS, written comments were received on the Draft
R.
6 EIR; and,
7
WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally
S.
8 and in writing as required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the
9 City's Environmental Review Procedures; and,
T.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed Public
11 Hearings on April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, May 4, 22,
12 and 30, 1989 in order to receive all public testimony and all
13 written and oral comments in response thereto with respect to the
14 Draft EIR and Final EIR; and,
15
u.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held noticed
16 Public Hearings on April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
17 20, 22~ 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989 in order to receive all
18 pUblic testimony and all written and oral comments in response
19 thereto with respect to the Draft EIR and Final EIR; and,
20
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no
21 substantial modifications to the Draft General Plan which were
v.
22 not considered by the Planning Commission during its Public
23 Hearings prior to its adoption of Planning Commission Resolution
24 No. 89-1 on May 30, 1989; and,
25
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Initial Study
W.
26 and Supplement to the Checklist, February 1, 1989; the Notice of
27 Preparation, February 1, 1989; the Responses to the Notice of
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
4
{;'",i...
o
o
o
o
1 Preparation (various dates); the Draft EIR released March 24,
2 1989; the three research and analyses documents incorporated in
3 the Draft EIR by reference: City of San Bernardino General Plan
4 Update, Technical Background Report, February 1988, City of San
5 Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Working
6 Paper, March 1988, and City of San Bernardino General Plan
7 Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy Statements, December 19, 1988
8 and January 1989; the comments received on the Draft EIR during
9 and after the public review period; the responses to those
10 comments; the Finalizing Addendum to the Draft EIR and Response
11 to Comments Documents; the minutes of the hearings and the Staff
12 Reports, all documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence
13 presented at the following Public Hearings of the Planning
14 Commission: April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, May 4, 22,
15 and 30, 1989; Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1
16 recommending certification of the Final EIR as adequate and
17 complete; the minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports, all
18 documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence presented at
19 the following Public Hearings of the Mayor and Common Council:
20 April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31,
21 and June 2, 1989; this Mayor and Common Council Resolution No.
22 _certifying the Final EIR as adequate and complete; the
23 Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Thereof; and the
24 Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the
25 Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program; and,
26
x.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council has reviewed and
27 considered all material comprising the Draft EIR and the Final
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
5
-.
'0
o
o
o
1 EIR and has found that the Final EIR contains all environmental
2 impacts of the proposed General Plan and is complete and adequate
3 and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
4 Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures;
5 SECTION II.
6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
7 Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, State of
8 California, in a Public Hearing assembled on June 2, 1989 that:
9
The findings contained in the Statement of Findings
A.
10 and Facts In Support Thereof with respect to the significant
11 impacts identified in the Final EIR to the new General Plan are
12 true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the
13
record, including documents comprising the Final EIR.
The
14 Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Thereof is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit "1" and is incorporated herein by this
16 reference as if set forth in full.
17
B.
The facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding
18 Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence
20
19 in the record, including those documents comprising the Final
EIR.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached
21 hereto as Exhibit "2" and is incorporated herein by this
23
22 reference as if fully set forth in full.
C.
The Final EIR has identified all significant
24 environmental effects of the new General Plan and there are no
25 known potentially significant environmental effects not addressed
26 in the Final EIR.
27
28
D.
All significant effects of the new General Plan are
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
6
~
'0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
set forth in the statement of Findings and Facts In Support
Thereof.
E. Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that would result if the new General Plan
is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided
or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation
of the new General Plan and the implementation of mitigation
measures as set forth in the Statement of Findings of Facts In
Support Thereof for the Final EIR.
F. Potential mitigation measures and Project
alternatives not incorporated into or adopted as part of the new
General Plan were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific
economic, social or other considerations as set forth in the
Statement of Findings of Facts In Support Thereof in the Final
EIR.
G. The significant impacts of the new General Plan, as
identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts In Support
Thereof which will not have been reduced to a level of
insignificance will have been substantially reduced in their
impacts by the implementation of the new General Plan and the
implementation of mitigation measures.
In adopting the new
General Plan, the Mayor and Common Council has given great weight
to the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that the significant
unavoidable adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by the
economic, social and other benefits of the new General Plan, as
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
7
""...--
'0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
hereto as Exhibit "2".
H. The Final EIR has described the alternatives to the
new General Plan, even when those alternatives might impede the
attainment of the new General Plan objectives and might be more
costly.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that a good faith
effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of
the Final EIR and a range of reasonable alternatives were
considered in the review process of the Final EIR and the
ultimate decision on the new General Plan.
I. A good faith effort has been made to seek out and
incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Final
EIR as indicated in the Public Record on the new General Plan.
J. During the Public Hearing process on the new General
Plan, the Mayor and Common Council evaluated a range of
alternatives, and the new General Plan as recommended for
approval by this Resolution is included within that range of
alternatives.
SECTION III.
A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
of the City of San Bernardino that it does hereby certify that
the Final EIR is adequate and complete in that it addresses the
environmental effects of the proposed new General Plan and fully
complies with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Environmental
Review Procedures.
Said FinalEIR is composed of the following
elements:
1. Initial Study and Supplement to the Checklist,
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
8
~
'Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
February 1, 1989;
2. The Notice of Preparation, February 1, 1989;
3. The Responses to the Notice of Preparation (various
dates);
4. The Draft EIR released March 24, 1989;
5. City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical
Background Report, February 1988;
6. City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use
Alternatives Working Paper, March 1988;
7. City of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land
Use Issue POlicy Statements, December 19, 1988 and
January 1989;
8. The comments received on the Draft EIR during and
after the public review period;
9. The responses to those comments; The Finalizing
Addendum to the Draft EIR and Response to Comments
documents;
10. The minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports,
all documentary evidence, and all testimonial
evidence presented at the following Public Hearings of
the Planning Commission: April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15,
17, 18, 25, May 4, 22, and 30, 1989;
11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1 recommending
certification of the Final EIR as adequate and
complete;
12. The minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports, all
documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
9
'.
oQ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
presented at the following Public Hearings of the
Mayor and Common Council: April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8,
10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989;
13. This Mayor and Common Council Resolution No. 17-1f'/
certifying the Final EIR as adequate and complete;
14. The statement of Findings and Facts In Support
Thereof;
15. The Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
16. The Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program (attached
hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by this
reference);
B. The Planning Department is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of
San Bernardino showing certification that the Final Environmental
Impact Report is available to the public.
SECTION IV.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that
it does hereby adopt the new General Plan as modified by the
Mayor and Common Council. Said new General Plan supersedes the
previous General Plan adopted in 1964.
Said new General Plan,
including the Land Use Plan (Map), are those documents entitled
"City of San Bernardino General Plan" on file in the office of
the City Clerk and attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated
herein by reference.
/ / / /
/ / / /
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
10
-. .
'0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESO~UTION. . .CE~FYING THE NEW~NERAL PLAN ENV!.RONMENTALI~
IMPAC;T REPORT; Al'l~OPTING FINDIWl, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDIiM'
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM;
AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at an adjourned regulalllleeting thereof, held on the 2nd
day of
, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
June
AYES:
Council Members Estrada, Reilly. Floes. Maudsley.
Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
~aw?'P~
cj;;f'y Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this -1A~ day
of
, 1989.
June
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
BY=)- J f~
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
11
JJ
o
o
o
ORDINANCE NO. MC-660
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADDING CHAPTER 19.83 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE;
PROHIBITING CONFLICTING USES AND PROVIDING FOR INTERIM
IMPLEMENTATION OF AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW GENERAL PLAN.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 19.83 is added to the San Bernardino Municipal Code
to read as follows:
Chapter 19.83
INTERIM URGENCY ZONING ORDINANCE
19.83.010 Findings and Purpose.
The Mayor and Common
Council find and declare:
A. The new General Plan of the City of San Bernardino,
adopted on June 2, 1989, is a complete revision of the previous
General Plan adopted in 1964.
B. The new General Plan is a document and map which
changes land uses, development intensities and development
guidelines throughout the City of San Bernardino.
C. The City's current land use zoning ordinances and land
use zoning map substantially differ from the General Plan and the
General. Pl.an's Land Use Pl.an (hereinafter "General. Pl.an Map")
D. In order to protect the publ.ic heal.th, safety, and
wel.fare; future development in the City must be consistent with
the land uses, development intensities, and development
guidelines of the General Plan and Map.
E. If development is al.1owed to occur which is not
consistent with the City's General. Pl.an, then development at
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
1
o
o
o
higher densities would take place. Conflicting uses would arise.
Infrastructure and community services, including streets,
utilities, sewers, schools, and pOlice and fire protection
services would be over-burdened and over-capacity. New
development would be inadequately protected from seismic, noise,
wind, and fire hazards.
Air quality would worsen.
These
conditions constitute an immediate threat to public health,
safety and welfare.
F. It is therefore necessary to amend the City's zoning
ordinance and zoning map to achieve consistency with the General
Plan and Map.
G. During the next twelve months, the Planning
Department, other City agencies, the Planning Commission, and the
Mayor and Common Council will be studying and considering new
zoning ordinances and amendments which will be consolidated into
a "Development Code" and which will make the City's land use
zoning ordinances and land use zoning map consistent with the
General Plan and Map.
H. During the next 45 days, the Planning Department will
be studying and considering a Development Code work program and
an outline of proposed amendments to the zoning ordinances and
which will advance the City towards consistency between its
zoning ordinances and zoning map with the General Plan and the
General Plan Map.
I. By imposing the requirements of this Interim Urgency
Zoning Ordinance while the Development Code is drafted and
reviewed, the City will be prohibiting uses which may be in
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
2
o
o
o
conflict with the General Plan and the proposed Development Code.
J. This ordinance imposes standards on an urgency basis
and is necessary to protect against a current and immediate
threat to the public's health, safety, and welfare for the
reasons stated above. The approval of development projects which
includes the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits,
variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement
for use, under the City's current zoning ordinances, would result
in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
K. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority
granted by the California Government Code, Section 65858.
19.83.030 Inconsistent Provisions.
Any section of the Municipal Code or amendments thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent
of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby superseded or
modified by this ordinance to that extent necessary to effectuate
the provisions of this ordinance.
19.83.040 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase, or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason declared invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
The Mayor and Common
Council hereby declare that it would have adopted this ordinance
and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or
portion thereof irrespective of the fact that phrase, or any
portion thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
3
o
o
o
19.83.050 Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective upon the date of
adoption.
19.83.060 Repeal.
This ordinance is an interim ordinance adopted as an
urgency measure under California Government Code Section 65858
and shall have no force or effect on and after forty-five (45)
days after its adoption, unless action is taken by the Mayor and
Common Council to extend the provisions of this ordinance.
19.83.070 Report.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d), ten days
prior to the expiration of this interim ordinance, the Mayor and
Common Council shall issue a written report describing the
measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the
adoption of this ordinance.
19.83.100 Definitions.
1.
Floor Area Ratio.
A fraction, expressed in decimal
form with the square footage of a building gross floor
area as the numerator and the square footage of the
lot or parcel as the denominator.
2.
Gross Floor Area.
The total area of a building
measured by taking the outside dimensions of the
building at each floor level intended for occupancy or
storage.
3.
Development Project.
Any activity requiring the
issuance of a grading permit, building permit,
certificate of occupancy, home occupation permit,
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
sign permit, conditional use permit, variance
approval, review of plans approval, parcel map
approval, tentative tract map approval or any other
entitlement for land use by the City.
4. General Retail. - Smaller vs. Bulkier Items. (Term is
used in the Table of Permissible Uses.) Retail uses
such as furniture stores, carpet stores, major
appliance stores, etc. that sell items which are
large; that need a relatively large amount of storage
or display area for each unit offered for sale; and,
that therefore generate less customer traffic per
square foot of floor space are the bulkier item retail
uses.
5. Office, Service, Research and Development - Customer
vs. Employee Oriented.
(Term is used in the Table of
Permissible Uses.)
Office, service and research and
development operations which are designed to attract
and serve customers or clients on the premises such as
the offices of attorneys, physicians, other
professions, insurance and stock brokers, travel
agents, etc. are customer oriented uses.
Operations
designed to attract little or no customer or client
traffic other than employees of the entity operating
the principal use are employee oriented uses.
6.
Combination Residential/Office Use.
(Term is used in
the Table of Permissible Uses.) A structure used for
a residence and an office where no major external
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
5
o
o
o
structural alterations or additions are made, and no
advertising is permitted, except for up to a two
square foot attached sign identifying the name of the
occupant or business.
19.83.110 Finding of Consistency.
No Development Project may be issued a grading permit,
building permit, certificate of occupancy, home occupation
permit, sign permit, variance approval, review of plan approval,
parcel map approval, tentative tract map approval or any other
entitlement for land use unless a written finding is made by the
City that the development project is consistent with the General
Plan and the General Plan Map.
19.83.120 Zoning Map Superseded.
The General Plan Land Use Map supersedes the City's land
use zoning map. Municipal Code Sections 19.06.010 and 19.06.020
are hereby repealed.
19.83.130 Projects Grandfathered.
All development projects which have received valid permits
or valid final approvals by the City prior to the date of
adoption of this ordinance may be completed in accordance with
the terms of their permits or approvals; so long as those permits
or approvals remain unrevoked and unexpired.
19.83.140 Extensions of Time.
No extension of time application may be approved unless a
written finding is made by the City that the development project
is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Map.
/ / / /
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
6
o
o
o
19.83.150 Amendments to Zoning Ordinances.
No amendments to the zoning ordinances of the City may be
adopted unless a written finding is made by the City that the
amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the General
Plan Map.
19.83.300 Compliance with the General Plan Land Use
Designations -- Uses and Standards (Attachment "A") and the Table
of Permissible Uses (Attachment "B").
All development projects, except those exempted under
Section 19.83.130, shall comply with the General Plan Land Use
Designations - Uses and Standards (Attachment "A") and the Table
of Permissible Uses (Attachment "B") which are hereby
incorporated into and made a part of this chapter.
Attachment "A" is a description of the General Plan Land
Use Designations and the Hillside Management Overlay District of
allowed uses and applicable standards.
An underlying zone
district(s) is referenced for each Land Use Designation, and some
of the applicable standards that apply to development proposals
are enumerated. Some standards of the referenced zone district
are intentionally superseded by Attachment "A".
The Land Use
Designations describe in general terms the allowed uses in each
designation and references Attachment "B" (the Table of
Permissible Uses) as a matrix listing the allowed uses for every
Land Use Designation.
Attachment "B" is entitled "Table of Permissible Uses".
The Table of Permissible Uses is a list of those uses which are
categorized according to their impacts rather than by listing the
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
7
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
types of enterprises involved.
Both the General Plan Land Use Designation - Uses and
Standards and the Table of Permissible Uses were derived from the
General Plan. Some of the
uses listed are only allowed by
special permits (usually a Conditional Use Permit).
19.83.400 Prohibited Uses.
The fOllowing uses are prohibited in all Land Use
Designations in the City:
A. Exotic Animal Husbandry;
B. ASbestos-Manufacturing;
C. Blast Furnaces;
D. Curing, tanning, or dressing of raw hides and skins;
E. Feed lots;
F. Fireworks or explosives (manufacture or storage);
G. Refuse incineration;
H. Slag dump;
I. Slaughter of animals or stockyards; and,
J. Smelters or smeltery.
19.83.500 Conditional Use Permits.
The following uses may be permitted, subject to securing a
conditional use permit in the land use districts designated by
their assigned classification numbers in the Table of Permissible
Uses. (Sections 19.78.010 and 19.78.020 are hereby repealed.)
Use Classification Number
Use
3.100
Blood Bank
4.200
Industrial or Hazardous Waste
/ / / /
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
8
~
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
4.200
4.200
4.200
4.200
4.200
2.110
10.210
Insulation Materials - Manuf.
Meat Packing Plant
Asphalt Batch Plant
Weapons Manufacture
Welding or Metal Repair Shop
Alcoholic Beverages - Retail
Mini-Warehouse
19.100
Swap Meet
parking in a Residential Land
Numerous Uses
Use Designation where a
finding is made that the
residential neighborhood is
not adversely impacted.
19.83.600 General Plan Amendments.
General Plan Amendments initiated by the public shall not
be accepted or processed until 180 days have passed since the
adoption of this interim ordinance. The Mayor or Common Council
may initiate General Plan Amendments at any time.
19.83.700 Interpretation.
Whenever there is a question regarding the interpretation
of the provisions of this ordinance or its application to a
specific case or situation the Planning Commission shall
interpret the intent of this Chapter and General Plan, after the
submittal of an application and a fee paid for such
interpretation.
The application shall contain sufficient
information to enable the Planning Commission to make the
necessary interpretation.
The decision of the Planning
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
9
-<<"'.'..'"-'.":.'-'"'~:'.'';j;'''.-,"" '
C>
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ORDINANCE: AN I~IM URGENCY O~NANCE. . .ADDING CHAPTERr-\.83
TO THE S~ BERNAR~O MUNICIPAL ~E; PROHIBITING CONFLICTI~
USES AND PROVIDING FOR INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION OF AND CON-
SISTENCY WITH THE NEW GENERAL PLAN.
1
2 Commission may be appealed to the Mayor and Common Council.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5
meeting thereof,
Bernardino at a
adiourned reqular
6
, 1989, by the following
held on the
2nd day of
June
7 vote, to wit:
8
Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores,
AYES:
9
Maudslev, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is
effective this ;2ntf- day of
hereby approved and becomes
-
tj/A/, , 1989.
cox, Mayor
19 San Bernardino
20 Approved as to form
and legal content:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
Br 1 fL-..
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
--"".->
o
types of enterprises involved.
.,"
Both the General Plan Land Use Desig~ation - Uses and
,
,-
i
Standards and the Table of Permissible Uses ~ere derived from the
I
,-
General Plan. Some of the uses 1ist~p are only allowed by
f
special permits (usually a Conditional U~e Permit).
,
,
19.83.400 Prohibited Uses.
/
/
,
Pobhibited in all Land Use
/
I
I
/
I
The following uses are
Designations in the City:
A. Auillla.l t1usbandry;
l
B.
Exotic Animal Husbanqry;
C.
,
ASbestos-Manufacturing;
i
i
D.
Blast Furnaces;
E.
!
Curing, tanning,lor dressing of raw hides and skins;
F.
Feed lots;
/
/
G. Fireworks or 1Xp1osives (manufacture or storage);
/
H. Refuse incin~ration;
;
I. Slag dump; !
J. SlaUghter~f animals or stockyards; and,
K. smelters/or smeltery.
19.83.500 nditional Use Permits.
ing uses may be permitted, subject to securing a
conditional u e permit in the land use districts designated by
their classification numbers in the Table of Permissible
Uses. (Sect ons 19.78.010 and 19.78.020 are hereby repealed.)
Use C1 ssification Number
Use
3.100
4.200
Blood Bank
Industrial or Hazardous Waste
HE/dys
June 2, 1989
8
"'=.''''''''."<-~,,'_F'>'-.'
C I T Y
o Ps AN B E RQA R
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8906-2301
o
. O.
DIN 0
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS "A" AND "B" to URGENCY ORDINANCE
DATE: June 1, 1989
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosed are Attachments "A" and "B" to the Urgency Ordinance
for your review. The text of the Urgency Ordinance is being
reviewed and finalized by the City Attorney's office, and
will be distributed at tomorrow's meeting.
Director 0
_,.,.."~.C''''>;j'",,,._.'';;_'.''
,0,
o .I\.TTACID1ENT "0
o
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN - URGENCY ORDINANCE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNA nONS
USES AND STANDARDS
The General Plan Land Use Designations - Uses and Standards is a
series of descriptions of the allowed uses and applicable standards
for each Land Use Designation enumerated in the General Plan.
Specific zone district standards are referenced for each Land Use
Designation (LUD). The applicable standards of that zone district
shall apply in the design of development projects in the corres-
ponding LUD, unless otherwise specified in this document.
JUNE 1. 1989
"." .",,_.,,'m
C OF SAN BE INO
Pl.AJ.'JNI!liG DEPARThtE.'iT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RE - RESIDENTIAL ESTATES
Allowed Use:
Custom single-family residential units on lots which are a
minimum of 1 gross acre per unit.
Applicable Standards:
The R-1-1 acre zone district standards shall apply, unless
a Planned Residential Development (PRO) is proposed. If a
PRO is proposed, then the PRO zone district standards shall
apply, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. The
Mobile Home Park zone district standards shall apply for
mobile home parks, and a CUP is required.
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then
those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
1 acre
150 feet
100 feet
3 stories or
45 feet
35 percent
35 feet
5 feet
20 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback
Minimum Rear Setback
GP:LUHANDOUTl
.,=.,<,<",~..".<
C OF SAN BERNARDINO
PI.AJ.'lNL'iQ DEPARThfE.;~"T
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RL - LOW RESIDENTIAL ESTATES
Allowed Use:
Single-family residential units on lots which are a
minimum of 10,800 square feet per unit. The maximum
density is 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre.
Applicable Standards:
The R-l-l0,800 square feet zone district standards shall
apply, unless a Planned Residential Development (PRO) is
proposed. If a PRO is proposed, then the PRO zone
district standards shall apply, and a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) is required. The Mobile Home Park zone
district standard shall apply for mobile home parks, and
a CUP is required.
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
If the, site is
Area and the
restrictive, then
located within a Redevelopment Project
redevelopment standards are more
those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
10,800
80
100
2.5
35
35
25
30
5
20
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Average Front Setback
Minimum'Side Setback
Minimum Rear Setback
square feet
feet
feet
stories or
feet
percent
feet
feet
feet
feet
GP: L UHANDOUT 2
2
Cj,
n 1"\ 0
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Pl.AJ.'lNL.'iG DEPARThtE.'fr
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RS - SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
Allowed Use:
Standard single-family residential units on lots which are
a minimum of 7,200 square feet per unit. The maximum
density is 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
Applicable Standards:
The R-l-7,200 square feet zone district standards shall
apply, unless a Planned Residential Development (PRD) is
proposed. If a PRD is proposed, then the PRD zone
district standards shall apply', and a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) is required. The Mobile Home Park zone
district standards shall apply for mobile home parks, and
a CUP is required.
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then
those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback
Minimum Rear Setback
7,200
60
100
2.5
35
25
5
20
square feet
feet
feet
stories or 35 fee
percent
feet
feet
feet
GP:LUHANDOUT3
3
,Q.
CI OF SAN BE ARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RU-1 URBAN RESIDE~IAL
#;;:~
=;~milY residential units,?- duplexes, secvud
, mobile home parks, and small-lot subdivisions
with lots which range from a minimum of 5,000 square
feet to 7,199 square feet. The maximum density is 9
dwellings units per gross acre. Senior citizen and
senior congregate care housing is permitted with a
maximum density of 14 units per gross acre, a maximum of
two stories (thirty-five feet), feasibility study is
prepared, and a conversion plan is prepared requiring a
reduction in units to the normal density if the project
is ever not occupied by qualified seniors.
Allowed Use:
Applicable Standards:
The R -1- 7,2000 square feet
shall apply for single-family
proposals.
zone district standards
residential development
The R-2 zone district standards shall apply for duplex
development proposals.
The MHP zone district standards shall apply for mobile
home parks. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required
for a mobile home park. In the Verdemont area the PRO
standards shall apply for mobile home parks.
Development proposals of 12 dwelling units or more shall
require a CUP.
If Planned Residential Development (PRO) is proposed,
the PRO zone district standards shall apply, and a CUP
is required. Small-lot subdivisions shall be developed
as a PRO. In the Verdemont area a PRO is required for
all development proposals in the RU Land Use Designation
and thirty percent developed open space is required.
Page 1 of . 2
GP:LUHANDOUT4
4
--,
o
C OF SAN BE :ARDINO
PLA.'fNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RU-l URBAN RESIDENTIAL
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
If the site
Area and
restrictive,
is located within a Redevelopment Project
the redevelopment standards are more
then those RDA standards shall apply.
GP: LUHANDOUT4
Page 2 of 2
5
"'~"", '
,0
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
PL.ANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RU-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
, j j-( ~ o-uJ. 17
It( jPV'/1
/tL
Single-family residential units, , duplexes, ~~~nn~ dweriings,
mobile home parks, and small-lot subdivisions with lots which
range from a minimum of 5,000 square feet to 7,199 square
feet. The maximum density is 9 dwellings units per gross
acre. Senior citizen and senior congregate care housing is
permitted with a maximum density of 14 units per gross acre,
a maximum of two stories (thirty-five feet), feasibility
study is prepared, and a conversion plan is prepared
requiring a reduction in units to the normal density if the
project is ever not occupied by qualified seniors~Duplexes
. . may be built on existing lots of
record, as of the date of he adoption of the General Plan, ~aut
which are 6200 square feet or more, provided that all othe~
applicable standards and set acks are complied with. ~~"l
, n....:J.LL ,J AM1;d...d. tMPtJ~)~.JLlYf' ,. J.
Applicable Standards: 1J-~. r u'-' l ~~
The R -1- 7,200 square feet zone district standards shall~.~
apply for single-family residential development proposals. ~
standards shall apply for duplex ~
~
~
~
J.6,l;d
&g
of 12 dwelling units or more shall ,~
The R-2 zone district
development proposals.
Allowed Use:
The MHP zone district standards shall apply for mobile home
parks. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for a
mobile home park. In the Verdemont area the PRO standards
shall apply for mobile home parks.
Development proposals
require a CUP.
If Planned Residential Development (PRD) is proposed, the the
PRD zone district standards shall apply, and a CUP is
required. Small-lot subdivisions shall be developed as a
PRD. In the Verdemont area a PRO is required for all
development proposals in the RU Land Use Designation and
thirty percent developed open space is required.
If the site is located within a
and the redevelopment standards
those RDA standards shall apply.
,-
If
an!!
tho
i l
Redevelopment Project Area
are more restrictive, than
GP:LUHANDOUT4.1
Page 1 of 2
6
,~._"..~".,. 0,
C OF SAN BE INO
PLA.'lNINO DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RU-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback
Minimum Rear Setback
R-l-7.200
60 feet
100 feet
35 feet
35 percent
25 feet
5 feet
20 feet
R=2.
60 feet
100 feet
35 feet
40 percent
20 feet
3 feet
10 feet
GP: LUHANDOUT4.1
Page 2 of 2
7
. ,-,.,,,..
.0,
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RM - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
Allowed Uses:
Single-family residential units, and mUlti-family resi-
dential units on lots which are a minimum of 14,400
square feet. MUlti-family residential units may be
developed on lots smaller than 14,400 square feet and at
the maximum RU-Urban Residential standards and density
of 9 dwelling units per gross acre. For multi family
dwelling units a minimum of 3,000 square feet of lot
area is required per dwelling unit. The maximum density
is 14.dwelling units per gross acre. Senior citizen and
senior congregate care housing is permittd with a
maximum density of 21 units per gross acre, a
feasibility study is prepared and a conversion plan is
prepared requiring a reduction in units to the normal
density if the project is ever not occupied by qualified
seniors.
Applicable Standards:
The R -1-
shall apply
proposals.
7,200 square feet zone district standards
for single-famiy residential development
The R -3- 3000 square feet zone district standards
relative to open space, amenities, balconies, patios,
parking, building separation and unit size shall apply
for mUlti-family residential development proposals.
Development proposals of 12 dwelling units or more shall
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
If a Planned Residential Development (PRD) is proposed,
then the PRD zone district standards shall apply, and a
Conditional Use Permit is required.
The Mobile Home Park zone district standards shall apply
for mobile home parks, and a CUP is required.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project
Area and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
Page 1 of 2
GP:LUHANDOUTS
8
~_..
.0 n n a
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Pl.AJ.'I1NIlIiG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RM - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side and Rear Setback
GP:LUHANDOUT5
3,000 square feet
60 feet
100 feet
3 stories or 42
feet
50 percent
Varies per Code
Varies per Code
Page 2 of 2
9
,0,
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
Pl.AJ.'1NING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RMH - MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL
Allowed Uses:
single-family residential units, and multi-family
residential units on lots which are a minimum of 20,000
square feet. MUlti-family residential units may be
developed on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet, but the
maximum density shall be 14 dwelling units per gross acre
for lots proposed to be smaller than 14,400 square feet to
19,999 square feet, and 9 dwelling units per gross acre for
lots proposed to be smaller than 14,400 square feet. For
mUlti-family dwelling units a minimum of 1,800 square feet
of lot area is required per dwelling unit. The maximum
density is 24 dwelling units per gross acre. . senior
citizen and senior congregate care housing is permitted
with a maximum density of 36 units per gross acre, a
feasibility study is prepared, and a conversion plan is
prepared requiring a reduction in units to the normal
density if the project is ever not occupied by qualified
seniors.
Applicable Standards:
The R-1-7,200 square feet zone district standards shall
apply for single-family residential development proposals.
Development proposals of 12 dwelling units or more shall
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The R-3-1800 on-site development zone district standards
shall apply for mUlti-family development proposals.
If a Planned Residential Development
then the PRD zone district standards
Conditional Use Permit is required.
(PRD) is proposed,
shall apply, and a
The Mobile Home Park zone district standards shall apply
for mobile home parks, and a CUP is required.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then
those RDA standards shall apply.
Page 1 of 2
GP:LUHANDOUT6
10
. (),
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNA nONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RMH - MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling unit
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side and Rear Setback
GP:LUHANDOUT6
1,800 sq. feet
60 feet
100 feet
3 stories or
42 feet
50 percent
Varies per Code
Varies per Code
Page 2 of 2
11
-0.
OF SAN B ARDINO
PLANNIl'G DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RH - HIGH RESIDENTIAL
Allowed Uses:
Single-family residential units and mUlti-family resi-
dential units on lots which are a minimum of 20,000
square feet. MUlti-family residential units may be
developed on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet, but
the maximum density shall be 14 dwelling units per gross
acre for lots proposed to be 14,400 to 19,999 square
feet, and 9 dwelling units per gross acre for lots
proposed to be smaller than 14,400 square feet. For
multi-family dwelling units a minimum of 1,200 square
feet of lot area is required per dwelling unit. The
maximum density is 36 dwelling units per gross acre.
Senior citizen and senior congregate care housing is
permitted with a maximum density of 54 units per gross
acre, a feasibility study is prepared, and a conversion
plan is prepared requiring a reduction in units to the
normal density if the project is ever not occupied by
qualified seniors.
Applicable Standards:
The R -1-
shall apply
proposals.
7,200 square feet
for single-family
zone district standards
residential development
The R -3-
development
residential
1,200 square feet zone
standards shall apply
development proposals.
district on-site
for multi-family
Development proposals of 12 dwellings units or more
shall require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
If a Planned Residential Development
then the PRO zone district standards
Conditional Use Permit is required.
(PRO) is proposed,
shall apply, and a
The Mobile Home Park zone district standards shall apply
for mobile home parks, and a CUP is required.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment project
Area and the redevelopment standards are more
restrictive, then those RDA standards shall apply.
Page 1 of 2
GP:LUHANDOUT7
12
.0.
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
RH - HIGH RESIDENTIAL
STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling unit
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot Coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side and Rear Setback
GP:LUHANDOUT7
1,200 square feet
60 feet
100 feet
" stories or
56 feet
50 percent
Varies per Code
Varies per Code
Page 2 of 2
13
-0
. f"\ t"\
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
MH - HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
Allowed Uses and standards:
Single-family detached and attached residential units. A
Conditional Use Permit is required.
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT YIELD
, Slope
Maximum Units Per Gross Acre
o - 15
15+ - 25
25+ - 30
30+
2.0
1.0
.5
.1
SITING STANDARDS
, Slope
Standards
o - 25
cut and fill pads or
Stepped footings
Minimum grading
Stepped footings
Minimum grading
25+ - 40
40+ No development wherein on-
site density transfer
allowed to lower slope
categories
TRANSFER OF ALLOWABLE UNITS STANDARDS
A transfer of total allowable units is permitted by
increasing the lower slope categories allowable density
yield by fifty percent. For example, if 10 acres of a 20
acre development proposal is above forty percent, the one
additional dwelling unit may be added to the 0 to 15 percent
slope category, as that would be a fifty percent increase in
yield. However, in no situation may the yield allowed for
the total development be increased, only an internal
transfer to the lower slope categories is allowed.
Page 1 of 2
GP: LUHANDOUT8
'4
.0.
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
PlAJ.'fNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNA nONS -USES AND STANDARDS
MIl - HIT.T .'lIDE MANAGEMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
AVERAGE SLOPE MEASUREMENT
The average slope of an area shall be determined according
to the following formula:
S = .00229 IL
A
Where: ".00229" is the conversion factor for square feet;
"I" is the contour interval in feet, ilL" is the combined
length of the contour lines in scale feet within the area of
the parcel; "A" is the gross area of land to be divided in
acres; and, "S" is the average slope expressed as a percent.
The calculation of the average slope shall be prepared by a
registered civil engineer or land surveyor using the
following criteria:
Parcel Size
Minimum Scale
Smaller than 20 acres
1" = 40'
20 acres or larger
1" = 100'
Maximum Contour Interval
5 feet
~ V~ ~
GP:LUHANDOUT 14
15
-0
^ . n n
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNIl'iG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CN - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
Intent:
Local serving commercial uses such as convenience food
stores and service stations subject to a Conditional Use
Permit, cleaners, drugstores, shoe repairs, notions,
florist and other similar uses.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CN Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The standards of the C-1 zone district shall apply. The
Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 shall not be exceeded. For
parcels 150 feet wide or greater, structures should be
located within 25 feet of the sidewalk along 30 percent
of the property frontage.
If the site is
Area and the
restrictive, then
located within a Redevelopment Project
redevelopment standards are more
those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setbacks
Minimum Side Setbacks When
Abutting Residential
1 story or
25 feet
10 feet
5 feet
GP:LUHANDOUT18
16
.(>-.
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLA1'll'NIl'iG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CO-l COMMERCIAL OFFICE
Intent:
Administrative and professional offices such as financial
institutions, medical or dental offices, and related commercial
facilities which support office uses and hospitals.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as permitted
in the CO-l Land Use Designation are allowed. Senior citizen .
and senior congregate care housing is permitted with a maximum
density of 54 units per gross acre, and a feasibility study is
prepared.
Applicable Standards:
The AP zone district standards shall apply. The Floor Area
Ratio of 1.0 shall not be exceeded, except for hospitals, where
the intensity may be increased with approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. Retail uses shall be limited to a percentage of
the ground floor of any project. For parcels 150 feet wide or
greater structure should be located within 25 feet of the
sidewalk along 30 percent of the property frontage.
If the site is located within a
the redevelopment standards are
RDA standards shall apply.
Redevelopment project Area and
more restrictive, then those
STANDARDS
*Maximum Building Height 4 stories or 52 feet
*Maximum Building Height When 2 stories or 30 feet
Within 75 feet of the RS-
Residential Surburban
Land Use District
Minimum Front Setback 20 feet
Minimum Side or Rear Setback When
Abutting Residential or On Corner Streets 5 feet
*There is no height restrictions for hospitals.
GP:LUHANDOUT17
17
CI OF SAN BE INO
Pl.AJ.'fNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CO-2 COMMERCIAL OFFICE
Intent:
Administrative and professional offices such as
institutions, medical or dental offices, and related
facilities which support office uses permitted in
reused residential units and new construction
architecturally expressive of a residential structure.
financial
commercial
adaptively
which is
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as permitted in
the CO-2 Land Use Designation are allowed. Senior citizen and
senior congregate care housing is permitted with a maximum
density of 54 units per gross acre, and a feasibility study is
prepared.
Applicable Standards:
The AP zone district standards shall apply. (section 19.22.140
does not apply.) The Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 shall not be
exceeded.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project Area and
the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then those RDA
standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
2 stories or
30 feet
10 feet
5 feet
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side or Rear Setback When
Abutting Residential or on Corner Streets
GP:LUHANDOUT17.1
18
. ().
t"\ !"\
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNI!'iG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CG-1 GENERAL COMMERICAL (COMMERICAL CORRIDORS)
Intent:
A wide range of goods and services
retail stores, restaurants, furniture
stores, offices and other similar uses
commercial corridors throughout the City.
such as general
stores, liquor
located along
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CO-2 Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The C-2 Zone district standards shall apply. The Floor
Area Ratio of 0.7 shall not be exceeded for commercial
or office uses. For parcels 150 feet wide or greater,
structures should be located within 25 feet of the
sidewalk along 30 percent of the property frontage.
Along Highland Avenue from "E" Street to Waterman
Avenue, the floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.0.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
*Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback When
Abutting Residential
*The maximum building height
areas adjacent to a freeway
a Conditional Use Permit.
2 stories or 30 feet
5 feet
5 feet
may be exceeded for CG-1
subject ot the issuance of
GP:LUHANDOUT13
19
Cl1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLA.'lNIl'iG DEPARTME.;....&
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CG-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (MOUNT VERNON & BASELINE)
Intent:
A wide range of goods and services such as general
retail stores, restaurants, furniture stores, liquor
stores, offices and other similar uses located along
Mount Vernon and Base Line. In addition, medium
residential (14 units per gross acre) located along
Mount Vernon between Base Line and .~ street, and ~
st~ee.t: 'P9V.... of MOUJ:lt ~.7~rnen Avw;;u""e and medium-high
residential (24 units per gross acre) located along Base
Line east of I-215 are allowed ~ith approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 4tb (!tuJ ~r
Allowed Uses:
Q~
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CG-2 Land Use Designation are allowed.
Senior citizen and senior congregate care housing is
permitted with a maxinum density of 21 units per gross
acre along Mount Vernon and 36 units per gross acre
along Base Line, and a feasibility study is prepared.
The R-3 1800 residential uses are allowed with approval
of a Conditional Use Permit in the CG-2 Land Use
Designations along Base Line east of I-215. The R-3-
3000 residential uses are allowed with approval of a
Conditional Use Permit in the CG-2 Land Use DesignatiQns
along Mount Vernon between Base Line and ~ street, ~ ~
"!ith3'treet w""",'t--Df M,.,11Rt ~nOR .VlenU6'i'- qf?:.- ttu-l1-t--(
Applicable standards:
The C-2 zone district standards shall apply for office
and commercial uses. The Floor Area Ratio of 0.7 shall
not be exceeded. The R-3-1800 zone district standards
shall apply for residential uses along Base Line east of
I-215, and a Conditional Use Permit shall be required.
The R-3-3000 zone district standards shall apply for
residential uses along Mount Vernon between Base Line
and ~ street, and-l!lLh .SL.....et: west of l"lount Ve..hOR
A=on11~, and a Conditional Use Permit shall be required.
For parcels 150 feet wide or greater, structures should
be located within 25 feet of sidewalk along 30mpercent
of the property frontage. 'V"W ().o{
Pace 1 of 2
GP:LUHANDOUT14
20
-0.
C OF SAN BE ARDINO
PLAi.'l'NING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CG-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area and
the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then those
RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Minimum Contiguous
Area for Residential Development
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback When Abutting
Residential
1 acre
2 stories or 30 feet
5 feet
5 feet
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
R-3-1800
R-3-3000
24 units per acre
14 units per acre
Page 2 of 2
GP:LUHANDOUT14
21
'0
CI'lY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNIl'iG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PlAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CG-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (California state university)
Intent:
A wide range of goods and services such as general
retail stores, restaurants, offices, research facilities
and other similar uses which primarily serve students
and faculty (e.g., financial institutions, book stores,
art supplies, food stores, theaters, dry cleaners and
hair styling).
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CG-3 Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The C-2 zone district standards shall apply. The Floor
Area Ratio of 0.7 shall not be exceeded. For parcels
150 feet wide or greater, structures should be located
within 25 feet of sidewalk along 30 percent of the
property frontage.
If the site is located within Redevelopment
and the redevelopment standards are more
then those RDA standards shall apply.
Project Area
restrictive,
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback When
Residential
2 stories or 30
5
Abutting 5
feet
feet
feet
GP:LUHANDOUTI5
22
'0
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLAl'fNI!liO DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CG-4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
(Theme/Specialty Centers)
Intent:
A wide range of goods and services with emphasis on
"specialty" retail (clothing boutiques, gift shops, art
galleries, bookstores, etc.) restaurants, theaters,
cultural facilities and social service uses. Furniture
stores, "chain" supermarkets and drugstores, and build-
ing materials and supply uses are not allowed.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CG-4 Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The C-2 zone district standards shall apply. The Floor
Area Ratio of 1.0 shall not be exceeded. Structures
should be located within 15 feet of the sidewalk except
for setbacks for pedestrian oriented activities or
landscaping. Fifty percent of the permitted uses should
be open for public use during the evening hours.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback When
Residential
3 stories or 42
5
Abutting 5
feet
feet
feet
GP:LUHANDOUT16
23
,0
o
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLAJ."lNIlIiG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CR-1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (Central City and Inland Center Mall)
Intent:
Large scale retail operations providing a wide range of goods
and services which serve a market area of many square miles
and a population of 150,000 to 200,000 persons. Department
store anchors with supporting retail, restaurants,
entertainment, banks, professional offices and similar uses.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CR-1 Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable standards:
The C-3 zone district standards shall apply. The Floor Area
Ratio of 1.5 shall not be exceeded.
If the site is located within Redevelopment project Area and
the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then those
RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback with abutting
Residential
4 stories or 52
5
5
feet
feet
feet
GP:LUHANDOUTIO
24
,0
C OF SAN BE UDINO
Pl.AJ.'1NIl'iG DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNA nONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CR-2 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (DOWNTOWN)
Intent:
Government, professional and corporate office; hotel and
convention facilities; entertainment; culturejhistorial;
supporting retail uses; restaurants; and residential
including senior and congregate care housing.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CR-2 Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable standards:
The C-4 zone district standards shall apply for office
or commercial uses. The R-4 zone district standards
shall apply for residential uses, and a minimum contigu-
ous area of one acre is required for residential
development. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.0 shall
not be exceeded for commercial or office uses. For
multi-family dwelling units the maximum density is 54
dwelling units per acre. Senior citizen and senior
congregate care housing is permitted with a maximum
density of 150 units per acre with no defined height
limit, and a feasibility study is prepared. The FAR of
4.0 shall not be exceeded for developments incorporating
residential units above commerial and/or office,
provided that a minimum floor area ratio of 1.0 is
maintained for the residential portion, and that the
minimum parcel size is 20,000 square feet for such
development. There is no defined height limit in the
CR-2 Land Use Designation. Buildings should be located
within 25 feet of the sidewalk except for pedestrian
oriented activities or landscapilng. A percentage of
the ground floor of commercial and office structures
shall incorporate pedestrian oriented retail uses, such
as restaurants, florists, gift shops, bookstores,
clothing stores, shoe repair, etc.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
GP:LUHANDOUTll
25
'0
CI OF SAN BE ARDINO
Pl.AJ.'1NING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CR-3 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
Areas)
(Tri-CityjCommercenter and "Club"
Intent:
Large scale office and retail operations providing a wide range
of goods and services which serve a market area of many square
miles and a population of 150,000 to 200,000 persons. Corporate
offices, research and development, hotel and motel, restaurants,
entertainment, warehouse retail, region serving retail centers
and suppporting retail.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as permitted
in the CR-3 Land Use Designation are allowed. Drive-through
restaurants are prohibited in the Tri-cityjCommercenter area.
Applicable Standards:
The C-3 zone district standards shall
Ratio of 0.7 shall not be exceeded for
office and overnight accommodations and
development.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area and the
redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then those RDA
standards shall apply.
apply. The Floor Area
commercial, 3.0 for
1.5 for research and
STANDARDS
*Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback with Abutting
Residential
4 stories or 52 feet
20 feet from curb
5 feet
*The maximum building height may be exceeded with a Conditional
Use Permit.
GP:LUHANDOUT12
-.-.-,
Q. ~ n Q
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARThIE"~"T
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CR-4 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
(Auto Plaza Area)
Intent:
Large scale automobile retail operations providing a
wide range of vehicles and services which serve a market
area of many square miles and a population of 150,000 to
200,000 persons.
Allowed Uses:
The automobile sales or related uses listed in the
Table of Permissible Uses as permitted in the CR-4 Land
Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The C-3 zone district standards shall apply. The Floor
Area Ratio of 0.7 shall not be exceeded.
If the site is located within Redevelopment
and the redevelopment standards are more
then those RDA standards shall apply.
Project Area
restrictive,
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
2 stories or 30
feet
5 feet
5 feet
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback When
Abutting Residential
GP:LUHANDOUT9
27
. ~ t"\ t"\
em OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNL."iQ DEPARTME."'t"T
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CH - HEAVY COMMERCIAL
Intent:
Limited commercial and industrial uses that require
outdoor sales, display and/or storage areas such as auto
repair yards, new and used car and truck lots, lumber
yards, plant nurseries and other retail uses which
require extensive enclosed or outdoor storage areas.
This land use designation is intended to exclude
neighborhood commercial uses.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the CH Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable standards:
The standards of the M-l zone district shall apply. The
Floor Area Ratio of 0.7 shall not be exceeded.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Major and Secondary Highway
All Other Streets
Minimum Side Setback When Abutting
Residential
45 feet
10 feet
6 feet
5 feet
28
GP:LUHANDOUT19
C OF SAN BE INO
PL.AN'NINO DEPARTMENt
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
OIP - OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK
Intent:
Corporate offices, limited research and development, light
industrial (no outdoor storage or equipment), and supporting
retail, restaurant or financial offices integrated with the
primary use.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the OIP Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The standards of the M-lA zone district shall apply. The
Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 shall not be exceeded.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area and
the redevelopment standards are more restrictive, then those
RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
1/2 acre (smaller area
may be approved with a
Conditional Use Permit)
3 stories or 42 feet
50 feet (smaller area
may be approved with
a Conditional Use
Permit, but not less
than 20 feet)
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Front Landscaping
Minimum Side Setback
When Abutting Residential
When Abutting Street
All Others
20 feet
50 feet
25 feet
20 feet
Minimum Rear Setback
When Abutting Residential
or Streets
All Others
50 feet
20 feet
GP:LUHANDOUT20
29
J
.Q.
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
Pl.Al.'lNL'iG DEPARTME1't'T
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
IL - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
INTENT:
Warehousing, manufacturing, research and development,
mini-storage, outdoor display and storage, and other
similar uses. Sales of products manufactured on site
are also intended.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the IL Land Use Designation are allowed.
The sale of products manufactured on site is allowed.
Supporting retail or personal serving commercial uses
(restaurants, newstands, florist, etc.) are premitted on
a limited 15 percent basis.
Applicable Standards:
The M-1 zone district standards shall apply. The Floor
Area Ratio of 0.75 shall not be exceeded for "employee-
intensive" uses and 1. 0 shall not be exceeded for
"hardware-intensive" use.
If the site is located within Redevelopment project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
r;
,
Standards
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Major and Secondary Highways
All Other Streets
Minimum Side Setback When Abutting
Residential
2 stories or
50 feet
10 feet
6 feet
5 feet
GP:LUHANDOUT22
30
,~=:.;,
. o.
o n n
em OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNI!liO DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
IH - HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
Intent:
Uses that require large parcels of land or outdoor
storage areas such as steel fabrication plants, junk
yards and other similar uses.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the IH Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The M-2 zone district standards shall apply. The Floor
Area Ratio of 0.75 shall not be exceeded.
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
If the site is
Area and the
restrictive, then
located within a Redevelopment Project
redevelopment standards are more
those RDA standards shall apply.
STANDARDS
No Defined Maximum Building Height
Minimum Front Setback
Major and Secondary Highways
All other Streets
Minimum Side Setbacks When Abutting
Residential
10 feet
6 feet
5 feet
GP:LUHANDOUT24
31
C OF SAN BE INO
PLANNL'iG DEPARTMEo~"
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
IE - EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIAL
Intent:
Uses which mine and process
which contain producing
mineral reserves.
mineral resources in areas
or potentially productive
Allowed Uses and Standards:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible as permitted
in the IE Land Use Designation are allowed subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit and compliance with
the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Interim
use standards will be based on the use proposed, and
shall be similar to the standards applied to like uses
in the other Land Use Designations where those uses are
allowed.
In the Verdemont area, the Verdemont Area Plan Standards
shall apply, except that the density limitations of the
General Plan must be complied with.
If the site is located within a Redevelopment Project
Area and the redevelopment standards are more
restrictive, then those RDA standards shall apply.
GP:LUHANDOUT23
32
C'i,
^ ^ n
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLA.'lNINO DEPARTME.~"
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
PFC - PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL
Intent:
Flood control facilities, open spaces and extractive
uses in publicly owned flood control areas.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the PFC Land Use Designation are allowed.
Extractive industries are allowed subject to approval of
a Conditional Use Permit.
Applicable Standards:
The standards of the "0" zone district shall apply.
If the site is located within Redevelopment
and the redevelopment standards are more
then those RDA standards shall apply.
PP - PUBLIC PARKS
project Area
restrictive,
Intent:
Public parks and recreation facilities and open space.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the PP Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The standards of the "0" zone district shall apply.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
33
GP:LUHANDOUT25
,0 0 0 0
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
PCR- PUBLIC/OUASI-PUBLIC
Intent:
Public and private golf courses, baseball stadiums,
arenas, exhibition, convention, sporting facilities,
entertainment, hotels, restaurants, specialty com-
mercial, farmers market, open space and similar uses.
Allowed Uses:
The uses
permitted
subject to
listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
in PCR Land Use Designation are allowed
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Applicable Standards:
The standards of the "0" zone district shall apply. The
Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 shall not be exceeded. There
is no maximum defined building height. The appropriate
intensity will be determined on a case~by-case basis.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
GP:LUHANDOUT21
34
0, n ^ Q
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
Pt.A.'lNL"iG DEPARThfE:"'"
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
PF - PUBLIC FACILITIES
Intent:
Uses operated by a public agency and open space.
Allowed Uses:
The uses listed in the Table of Permissible Uses as
permitted in the PF Land Use Designation are allowed.
Applicable Standards:
The standards of the PF zone district shall apply.
If the site is located within Redevelopment Project Area
and the redevelopment standards are more restrictive,
then those RDA standards shall apply.
GP:LUHANDOUT2b
35
C OF SAN B INO
Plk'lNL"iG DEPARTME1\i,.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH
For the area bounded by Inland Center Drive on the south,
"E" Street on the east, Rialto street on the north and I-2l5
on the west, the land use categories shall be those shown on
page ten of the Central city South Redevelopment Plan. The
uses designated as being allowed in Central City South
Redevelopment Plan shall be allowed for those land use
categories.
The eM, Commercial-Manufacturing zone district standards
shall apply to all development proposals. However, if the
standards of the Central City South Redevelopment Plan are
more restrictive, then those RDA Standards shall apply.
GP:LUHAlilDOUT28
36
,0,
o
o
o
CI1Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LAND USE DESIGNATION GUIDEUNEMATRIX
.?,tl-1~ W:1o L..
~tol
~"'W<1'I~
A~~~ W-614
~"'N"
~_I~IA_ .
~.I.'" A .-
IZ.I_.A.
1IZ.-"2
l2.-".&DOD
~A "'.1 0."",
~.~.I~
re.......
'-"- - . 'tV!'"' .
." e-tJotiI
,(-1
/:-_'2..
/:--&
b.A-
A.....
loA. I
""'-IA
LA_~
...-r:
f)
:;....-
~1t7ltrJ..'AI. Ut'1~~IA\. 1""1:7. ~&L.lc::.
.fj "[mll! ~ '<'
!I \- "r"
:r > t J; ~ ~ ~
(\ II ~i 1~1~
- N1~"':.w~'
~~~~Q!~~~~~~~~~~~: ~ ~1~i~l}tt~
.-
e ..
~
let
T
..
I
~.
:tOt
~l-tIt
~
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
300 North '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
REVISED 5/22/89
~~
-0'
OATTACHHENT "0
o
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN - URGENCY ORDINANCE
TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES
The Table of Permissible Uses is a list of those uses which are
categorized according to their impacts rather than by referencing
the types of enterprises involved.
Thus, for example, uses
involving retail sales are categorized according to whether the
enterprise tends to generate a higher or lower volume of traffic
per square foot of floor space and whether goods are displayed
or stored outside enclosed buildings.
The use classification numbers assigned to the different categories
of uses provide a convenient, shorthand means of referencing
use types.
JUNE 1. 1989
.....
,0, 0 ~ Q ':;
llOd I :
Q , !
...J O~d I
a:l ~d.
~
Q. dd
31
C HI
~
11
dlO I I
H::> ,
~ -ll::> I I
X ~ ,
C-ll::>
...J X :>< : :>< X .
e-ll::>
< I :
- I-II::>
()
a: t-O::> xl i
,
W , I
2 Coo::> ,
2 >: xi ,
Z-E)~ X X :<
0 X
U 1-0::>
e-o::> X ,
1-0::> X
N::>
.,..1 I >< :><
...J Hll X X X X " " :>< " " ~ ~ ,
< HWll X X X X X X X :>< X >< X >< > X >< ><
-
I- Wll X X " " X X " .,.. ~ ~ , X >< ><
z X X
W e'l-nll X X X X X >< X X. X X >< ~ : X X
9 511 >< " " ."" ~ ! X X
rn X X
W 111 X :>< X X X [ , X , X X
,X
a: X X X i X ,
311 X X X X X
Wen , ;
~ ;: ;
~ ~ l""I l""I 0 ~ ; ;. ~ ; ~ 0 ; 0 0
enl- ,...., N N l""I 0 0
~U ..... ~ ,...., ,...., N ;;: l""I "" "") ;" ir it U"l .;, ..... co
. 0 0 0 ...4 ~ 0 0 ";1
C~ ..... ~ ,...., ,...., ~ ~ ,...., ,...., , ,...., ~ ,...., ..... ,....,
QI I ; I ''-< !
zen ~ ,
.... I , "" I;
<- .... I NI III , II
...JC en CIl I I ,...." QI. I ,....,
I-li , Ill, , ~ ~ QI
Z , ~
, . III , O' QI' O. 0 ~
0 on 'g '0 E '0 III .... =1 ...., 0' 0 Ql
QI Ql QI QI l::: .'0 0' :E oj: p., Cl
I- .c .c .c .... = Q) I ~ p., = 0; ~ ~ ; ;:J '.-1' 0 I
e: 0 0 U I-l 0 = ;:J: ::l' , U ...: = .-l
III III III I Q) .c ... ! III V ... ;;;. -.-I p., III
a: ...:l ... ... ... ] > l::: I-l +: III '.-1. I l::: ;:J I ..-1
,,:z: Q) Q) Q) l::: ~ ~ 0 Q) III '0 l I-l U ...
() H Q Q Q 0 0 ..-1 ..... I:t: Ql I-l III Q) l::: l::: p.,
en E-t u E-t ,,:z: III '0 - = III .. ,...., ... I 0 Q);:J
;; ~ ;; '"
W z Q) ~ ;; ~ = l::: 0 0 1 p., Q) III ..-1 onu
r.l = ::l III o' Q) = Il:l ;:J ... I-l III ... ..-1
C Q .... ..-1 ..-1 0 J Q) ..-1 = ... I-l U 0 r... Q) ~ III I
H e = = - '.-1 0 ..-1 ..-1 l::: III Q) I-l :<: ..-1 & III
- ~
W CIl III III I-l III = l::: = = ..-1 I-l U I-l 0 :::: I on ... ::l
en r.l r... r... III r... Q) III Q) III III = 0 t;! III ~ t ... Q) ..-1 0 ...
I:t: I ... I ,...., I ,...., ~ r... on r... r... 0 .... .;.. U In I-l I-l g r
~ Q) ,...., Q) ::l Q) '.-1 >< I -.-I I I on l::: E Q) III 0 0
,...., '.-1 ~ '0 ~ .a Q) ..-1 III ..-1 ..-1 l::: III = ..-1 '0 -.-I p., .~ = ,...., III I-l [
D> ::l 0 il ~ '6 ... Q) ... ... 0 Q) l-I III ,...., = ;:J 0 Q) l::: 0 Q)
l::: Il:l l::: ::: l::: ,...., I:t: ,...., ,...., U = 'M I-l ..-1 o U ~ = ... ~ CIl = 0
-.-I '.-1 '.-1 ::l ~ .e f 0 .... ::l .c ~i 0 0
CIl CIl CIl Q = l::: Z U - CIl =
.. .. -
~
rc I ~
~ tl i~ IU
- :Hd I
~
lXI ~d
::>
ll. dd !
31
0 HI
Z X X >
11 '" " x X1 >:I
, X: ,
dlO , "
H:) X iX x > X' ,
i ,
v- tl:) , , i
: ,
8-tl:) ~ X' ~x , IX :X :><
~ Z-tl:) :>< >: X ! X , :><
<
- ~ -tl:) >: X X . ~
u
a: X X :
1>-0:) '" :><:
W :>< i
~ 8-0:) X X , ,
~ z-~o > :>< X --; Xl X i i
0 ~-o:) :>< > X: i I
u X X
Z.O:) ); X. I ' >:
1-0:) :>< "" . '"
N:) X . X X
Htl :>< I : i
~
< Hl"ltl >:
-
.... l"ltl
Z X
W Z'I-nll X
C --- -
Stl i I
UJ +
W 1tl , i +--
,
a: _.
311 I I I . I I
wUJ d !
~ :; I ~ ~
0 0 0 , I ~
UJ.... 0 ..... ..... I I <-
::>S:2 '" ..... ~ ~ N NI r "
. . . .' j
O~ ..... N <'- <'- N . N <'- ~ "
, I
ZUJ J ti
< 0 UJ g I , i .j.J I I-< Q)
. ; ::s >t '8 Q) : 1 ~
~ . -M I-< .~ ~ I-< 0 i El
Z U) Q) ( i Ql , I-< 0 0 :
Q ::J ..... ~ 'M , .c rd .j.J a
I-< 0 ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ 1..-: .j.J: Q) tIl ! ~ :
.... 0 ::c: rd ~ ~ ~ ';l" 'M tIl ::J ~
e: 'M El ~ ~ f} ~ ~ , () ~ ~ i
s:: Q) CIl ~ I 'M ..... j:Q ., ~ , , !
a: Q) I-< .~ 'r ~ tIl ,. ~ .~ , .., ..,
u ~ rd , , ~ :;: , ..... .~ s:: ~ s::
() ~ 'r 'M ~ C. 'M Q) Q)
UJ s:: ..... i: ..... ~ ~ ..... o Q ..... rd ~ ~ ~
Q) 'M ~ 'M 0 'M 'M .., .~
W N Ql . rd ~ ~ rd ~ rd rd .c I-< rd ~ ~ m 0 0
0 'M .., .., .., ~ ~ ii I-< .., .., 0 .., ..... .....
.., ~ . Q) Q) 0 m i ~ m:i Q) 'tl ~ Q) 'tl
W 'M p:; ~ p:; ~ .., ~ ~ ( > Q) > Ql
UJ () Q) j tIl CIl Q) .., Q) ..,
~ , ..... ~ ..... tIl 'M ..... ~~~~~ ::J Q s:: Q
::;) I-< rd rd El Q Q) rd 0 ~ .~ Q) .~
0 s:: p., I-< ~ I-< Q) . 'tl I-< .c 'tl 'M 'tl '!
'M 0 0 Q) Q) .., I-< 'M Q) Q) 'r s:: I-< s::
s:: () () s:: .: CIl s:: 1-1 0 ~ tIl s:: ~ CIl _~ 1-1 I-< u * rd 0 ~ rd (
Q) Q) Q) Q) rd
CIl t.!) t.!) t.!) t.!) ~
Q
..J
a:l
::>
Q.
'~Q
:Hd
,d
dd
31
Q
Z
HI
11
..J
4(
-
o
II:
W
~
~
o
o
dlO
H::>
.- ~::>
E-~::>
~-~::>
I-~::>
..!)::>
E-!)::>
z..'E)Q
I-!)::>
~-O::>
1-0::>
N::>
H~
Hl'l~
..J
4(
-
I-
Z
w n-nll
Q
en
w
II:
l'l~
S~
1~
3~
wen
en I-
::>Q
Q~
zen .-I
4( is en .~
..J 'z ~
Q Q)
I- ~
9: 8
II: ...:l ~
o l<l; III
en H ..-1
W g: ;J
Q CJl III
::J ::l
W Q '0
en ~ ~
::>
><
><
><
><
x
x
x
x
>
>
x
x
!><
!><
~
><
x
x
x
x
o
.....
.....
o
'"
.....
....
....
~
..
i
'0 0
.e ~
I:: .-I
Q) III
.~ .~ .;
o +l C
III
I-< ::l (
Q) '0
e I::
o H
~ ~ ~ ]
..-1 '.-1
...:l ...:l
x x
x
x
x
x
o 0
o 0
'" M
. .
.... ....
.-I
III
..-1
I-<
+l
III
::l
'0 p..
I:: ::J
~ U
Q) I
I-<
E g
() ..-1
III III
.... III
::l Q)
I:: ()
III 0
:I: I-<
p..
i'
> '0
III 0
Q) 0
:::: .....
I
!
i
>d
!><
><
><
><
><
!><
!><
!><
!><
::
~
It
c
x ><
x
x
x
x >
x > !><
X !>< X
X > !><
>< ;x
>< ><
>< X
!>< X
>< X
!>< X
!>< X
I
~ ~ ~;
ltl. - ~ .,
II" ltl:
III
.-I
o
o
.<::
()
CJl
I
iQ
;
I >-
1
!><
>
>
>
:>
><
><
><
><
>-
><
x
>-
><l
. >-
, !><
!><
Id
o
'M
I~
i
I
><
I I
III
'0, CU
1::: tlI
l'ti! r
, i
IIlI <t
.-I Q)..
III ::l' ~ III
~g g'~ 3~
U:jp~.<: ~U
I III ::J 8.j. 3
..~ ;> () U ~..-I ...
o CJl:3: III
I-< :> I Q)
I ~ I-< III III ~ ~ .~
III I:: 0 ~ Q). ..-1 Q)
. 0 ~.<:: I-< .-I
() Q) Q) () e Ill.-l
~'g:::~ltJtT
t!. f: t .~
~ ~
...
.
+l'
1-<1
l<l;
.-I
III
I::
I-<
Q)
I +l
III
I-<
.....
x
x
x
x
x
X'
X
X
10
'0
1--:
ltl
1-<' p..
o ::J
U
III
..Q
::l
.-I Ill'
t) J ,-i:
, ';cil
p;:'
I::
o
..-1
I::
::J
'" III
.-I f
III 't:I
..-1 0
() ~
o
CJl I
!
: !
X
X
X
X
X
><!
X .
, ! !
!
! i
I '
I
0'
, .....i
I "":;
"'t
E-t I,
Z Q);
~ ~. ~
~ ~ ~
l<l; I::
E-t ... or-6
~ 1::1 III
r4 0' +l
E-tl ..-11 ~
_~i ~ ~
" Q) I::
:21 I-< r4
o ()
H Q) I-<
E-t ~ 0
rj Q) +~
~ '0
U ..-1
r4 III ~
~ I::
H
X
,x
!><:
, !
I -.
1 '
- +--- - - j
!
III
I-<
Q)
+l
III
Q)
tl
~ .1
~
X X
X i
i
x: i
"'. !
i
i 010
"'I M
...... .....
'" '"
,
i
10
I~
p.. '"
::J
U I-<
o
X'-'i
X,
X
.
;;;
I
X
al p..
I-< ::J
ou
e
0'1
t:l III
..-/ I::
+l 0
III III
o '0 I-<
.-I 0 Q)
"": ~ Co
'" 0 0
() 0
I-< ()....
o Ill.....
III
..-1
'0
III
+l
CJl
1~
.~ I I ::::
~ :><: :><: :><: :><:gj:><: :><: :><: C I I
...J :HcI :><: !
lXl ~4 :><: :><: :><: :><: :><:
:) I
a.. dd :><: I
31 :><: :><: :><: :><:
0 HI :><: :><:
~ :><:
11 :><: :><: :><:
diD :><: I !
HO :><: :><: : :><: :><: :><:
.-1:l0 I I
I
E-1:l0 >< :><: . I I
...J Z-1:l0 >< I I I I !
-< I
- t-1:l0
0 I .
a: .-ElO '" , ,
w
2 E-ElO > T
2 z.()~ > :><: :><: :><: :><: i
0 I
0 t-ElO > :><: :><: :><: :><: , I
z-oo ..)C :><:
t-OO i" :><: I
:><: :><:
NO > , ,
i
HI:l :><: > I :
...J
< HVlI:l :><: >
-
~ Vll:l :><: ><
Z
W n-nl:l :><: > ,
9 :
SI:l > -, I
CIJ :><: I
W > T - -
11:l :><: I ,
a: I
31:l :><: > :><: I -j
wCIJ 0 ~ I I o! I I
CIJ~ 0 0 0 0 0 I 0' 0 I 0 0
..... M ... '" \D ~I I 00' 0' 0 , 0 0
:)0 N e- N N N N I N .....1 N M ...
. '" . . . . : I .; . . . .
O~ \D \D \D \D \D \D I\D 1" I' I' I'
-i.l -i.l I T I ~
ZCIJ ~ ~ 'tl ~ 0
<- ~ Q) . Q) I-l i III I Q) ..-4 I I
...JO CIJ 0 2 a- ~ e Itl I I ,;.: 0: I-l -i.l III
Z ..-4 P 0 ~ 0 g I I-l H a-, Itl E i ~ I
Q -i.l ..-4 a- u '.-4 ..-4 ..Q III Itl E-o pi U 0 I I
Itl Itl P -i.l Itl Q) Q) a- i p u: '.-4 ..-4
Q) -i.l U I Itl -i.l -i.l ..-4 I-l a- E-o, , . -i.l -i.l ..... I
~ I-l I-l g Q) I-l ~ Itl 'tl -i.l Q) P H ~I ..... III ::l Itl i
~ u Q) I I-l Q) ,;.: a- ..-4 Itl ..... u i Itl ~ -i.l a- ~
Q) -i.l U -i.l ~ CIl P p:: Q) U ..-4 H ..-4 P 0 a- I
a: p:: ~ - I &! .~ Itl U a- .c: i ..-4 I U U -i.l U ..-4 P !
0 r"I III fa p:: I-l P a- E-o .c: ~ -.-Ii 0 Q) III -i.l U
Q) ..Q g ..... I 0 U p i Q) III 9 CIl I-l ~ - u
CIJ 'tl I-l ::l Q) I-l ..... U Q) I > ,;.: ~ Itl H III Q) I
W ..-4 0 ..... t 'Cl 0 0 . III I ..-4 ~ . u ~ I-l
III U ~ '.-4 ..-4 ~ U Q) I > ..... I Q) ..... I-l III
0 -i.l -i.l ~ III -i.l > -i.l ..... III ~ Itl a- I-l 'tl ..... ..-4 0 Q)
::l ~ -i.l ~ ..-4 Q) r"I ..Q Q) III ~ Itl ..... H I-l U ..-4
W 0 ~ 8 ::l ~ I-l I-l Itl ..-4 ,;.: 0 it r ..-4 ~ Itl -i.l
CIJ -i.l 0 Q ::l -i.l e u ~ ..-4 ~ i .c: -i.l I-l ..-4
Q) Q) ~ Q) -i.l III CIl Q) Itl ..-4 -i.l U '.-4 0 .....
:) -i.l III l u U III ..... Itl ,;.: 'tl I-l I Itl 'i ~ ..-4
Itl ~ ..-4 ..-4 j ..... ~ I-l Q) Itl -i.l Q) a- Q) a- 'Cl a- Itl ..... U
> ..... ..... 0 'i Itl III U Q) > P I-l P ~ P ~ CIl Itl Itl
..-4 .;: ..Q ..Q ~ a- I-l ~ U ..-4 U U U Itl U - ~ r..
I-l ::l ::l 0 Itl I-l Q) ~ Q)
a- a- a- ... p:: Q p:: , Z a-
"
~
-
..J
co
::::>
0..
-
ell.' ><
:>~d
~d
dd
o
~
31
HI
II
...J
4(
-
()
a:
w
2
2
o
()
dlO
H:>
1> - I,l:>
8-1,l:>
Z-I,l:>
~ -I,l:>
1>-8:>
&-8:>
z.o::>
~-8:>
ZoO:>
\-0:>
N:>
HI,l
...J
4(
-
....
z
W z'~-nll
o
-
en
w
a:
HI"jI,l
I"jll
Sl,l
ll,l
31,l
wen
en....
::>9
c~
zen
<-
...J 0 en
Z
Q
....
9:
a: 00
() Eo<
en ~
w 0
o .0:
Eo<
W 00
C/) r.1
::> l>:
x
><
><
><
><
><
><
><
><
><
g
,....,
Q)
x
x .
x
x
x
x
x
""
x
x
x
o
o
N
Q)
. .
x
jQ
I
,
x
x
X
x'
x'
,
,
x
x
""
xl
x
",'
x
x
x
'....
x
x
x
o
o
M
o
o
...
Q)
Q)
J :::
(: I
P. H
B t ~ b
I '8 E '"
00 0 00 ~
~ r.. 1: g
:;l .jJ ~ ::; 00
o 00 0
l-l '" l-l'
..c: r.. ..c:':'
Eo< I Eo< I'l
I 00 I 0
Gl .jJ . Gl
> I'l > 'tl
'~~J'~~
Q ::l .~ Q 0
o~'f .~
zoo.. M '"
Gl
l>:
I
In
><
><
><
><
g
;;:
'"
:
I
i I
1-
iOO
l-l,OO
0' GlI
...
..-l
<1l l-l
.jJ 0
1:1.
.W I'l
l>: 0
Eo<
Q)
.-I' Gl
t) I'l
..-110
..c:-
Gl
:> 00
Gl
l-l.-l
'"
J 00
:
,
: ~
H
~
:>
l>:
o
Eo<
o
:E:
><
><
i
><
><
x x ,x
x x'
x XI
x
x
I
i !
r 1
i !
! 0 0
o 0
M ...
;.. i;" ~
o
o
N
..c:
.jJ
..-1.
~I
I
00
Gl
.-I
'"
00
Gl
,....,
t) I
..-1
-; ~
P. ~ .~
B f u
:E:
'tl
p. I'l
, 0 '"
it)
i I g
I .~ 'j
I !!! .~ p.i
, Q) '" 0'
p. l>: p.j t)
BGlGli,
.-I .-I
t) t) ~
..-1 ..-1 l-l
..c: ..c: 0
Gl Gl ~
:> :>
l-l l-l .6
000
.jJ .jJ ~
~ ~
1(')
....
......
It'I
I
x' x
x
x
x x
'" "
x
'x
,x
, xi
x
x
I
~-- -
t-
10 10 0 !
~ ~ 5 I
p. ~ l
o t) aD
t) ..-1 0
I R1..c: .,.
.... ~ a p.
Gl _ (I) 0
t) 00' I l-l tIl t)
..-1 Gl' 0
> .-I' ..c: .jJ ~ I
l-l '" 00 ~ 0
~oo~ .-Ie
Gl~Gl~.:1~
'ti ~ 'ti !!! ~ Gl
..-1 ..-1 >: l>: I'l
..c: I'l ..c: 0 0
~ .~ ~ ~ " l-l
.jJ Q)
l-l '" l-l ] . >
$t$ ~2
o 9
:E: i! Eo<
'"
I
I
I
;2
..J
CD
::>
~
'ljQ
~~d
~d,
dd
31
a
Z
HI
11
dlO
H~
.-lj~
..J
<
-
o
a:
w
:&
:&
o
o
E-ljO
NjO
1-1:10
y-OO
E-OO
~-OO
1-00
~-OO
1-00 ;x;
NO
HI:I
...J
~
~
Z
W n-nl:l
9
00
w
a:
HWI:I
WI:I
SI:I
11:1
31:1
x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
wOO
cn~
::>~
a~
ZOO
<-
..J C1. 00
Z r.:I
Q t!J g
~ ~ ,.-I
9: ~ ~
a: CI) 0
(,) f;i -;
OO...:i ~
W ~ III ~
CI r.:I +'
...:i 0
W 0 ...:i
00 :I::
::> s: g
,.-I
.><:
~
aJ
p.,
o 0
o .....
..... N
o 0
..... .....
~
'tl
~ ~ ~
aJ 0 '~
~ tl (
0-1 I:: ~(
~ r.:I ~
><
><
><
><
~
o
.....
~ ~
u
I
~ 'tl
" (l)
~ ~
0-1
()
I::
r.:I
>,
0-1
(l)
+'
(l)
0-1
~
o
u
jQ
,
i
,
><
><
Xi
!
i
X
X
X
x
x
> )< ~
> )< )<
> >< )<
> )< )<
> )< )<
x > .. ..
x > x )<
)< x ><
x > x )<
> x >
> )<' )<
> > '"
>< >< ><
~ ~ ~
> >< ><
x > >< ><
x > >< ><
>< >< ><
> >< x
> >< ><
> >< x
)< >< ><
)< >< ><
><, >< x
~ '" '"
)< >< x
x )< x x
g ~
N ~
~ '"
..... ~
g\i g
N M
. .
M M'
1""""1' ~I
Ie
, >
>
..
>
..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
..
>
>
>
>
..
>4
>'
)<
I ..
I )<
-)<
~
x
x
x x
x -:"
x x
xlC
!
x x
x x
x
~ x
,
~
x
x
x x
x x
...
x i
x
x,
x
v
x
!X
x
x
x'
x
x
x
><
x
'x
x
x
;-;;-
x x
x
x x
!
I
i
I
x
'"
><
><
><-e-- ,-
,~
><
x
,
\ fl.. I
,I:)
i Y ~I
; u: +',
I ~,~ ] ~ I:
, ' J ~ ,~,~:;
'~ '~~~.~~~
]d.!,~q
.~ i.t~Qj
~~c(~.:lte
'\:~~,~~5~t
" , ~ ~ :I ::;: i:
I
: u'
x
x
x
x
x
g 2
o ~
....: '"
..... ~
p.,
I:)
~ 1Il~
~ ';; E : ~
_ E ! Q,)
r.:I', I e
~ i ~ : aJ
~~~i(EIIlI~
~ (U '~I::
I ? ~ I , < ,~'tl p.j
.><:" t +' aJ ?
1::,,0-1 aJE!'-
::l ~ aJ ~ ~_~
.., ~ ,::: c ( ~ CI) I
;"'~i'~~~C~t
Rl(~ '~Q().i:
~~i g;~r.,(
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
>
)<
,
.
M
0-1
1
> I ,
, ~ ~ ~ ~
.. .,. ~ It
~ o-l ..... ~
. .
If> If> '"
..... ..... .....
o 0 0
o 0 0
M ... 0
o
o
.....
~
~
";;
~
I '~
~
:
"
, ,:
: :;:
~
r
" p.,
~ B
"
.....
o
..Cl
-E
..-1
(l)
Z
I
III
(l)
,.-I
+'
,.-I
0-1
,.-I
()
III
r..
.e. 'C
~ ~
'.0 .i.
I:)
1
"'-
.,";;;~.
::-
I
a
I
~
x ><
xI Xi ><
~ I ><
X ><
X X ><
..r
d'" X
:)~d X
~d X
dd X
31 X
HI X
11 v
dlO X
H:) X
17- i:j:) X
8-i:j:) X
Z-i:j:) X
I-i:j:) X
17-0:) X
8-0:) X
Zoo:) X
1-0:) X
ZoO:) X
1-0:) X
N:) X
.~
><
:x
:x
><
><
:x '"
" v
:x
:x X
:x
:x
X
I
X
X X
X
Q
..J
CD
:J
Cl.
Xl
I vi
I
X
X
~
:x
X
X
X
X X
X
.
Cl
Z
v
X
"
X
X
X
... Xl J
X >4
X :<. xi
X X
'"
X
X
X
IX
X
X
X
X
I
I
! X X
: ><
i ><
! "
><
, "
><
:x
:x
:x
><
><
'"
><
><
><
'"
><
:x
:; ~
N C
~ ~
X:
X
IX
X
X
X
X
:
..J
<
u
a::
w
~
~
o
u
:x X
><
>< X
>< X
X X
X
X X
X X X
X
!X
X
i
~
X
X
X
X X
X X X
X
X
X
!
X >< X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
IK
X
X
:x
X
x
X X
Hi:j X
HVli:j X
X
X
X
X
..J
<
-
!Z Vli:j X
W G'l-ni:j X
Cl
-
00
w
a::
X
X
""
X
X
X
X
.
,
: : i
I !
~
+--___,_ u
I !,
, !
T - .
I
-- ; - ,
Si:j X
1i:j X
3i:j X
~
X
X
I ! X
X
I I g,
i 1 oj
~
N'
1:;1 i
I....
. ~,II
'll'l
N
: Q)
, tll
i 10l"'4 I
. ' I = rtl
I ~, p.; rtl Q) I-<
I ..-4 ;:x I-< I-< Q)
rtl. U Q) p..1 c.
'I I-< I c. I 0
tll E-I' I' O~! '
~u~I'I-<.-lI:>,O ~
en~1 ~I! .~ ~; ~
_ 1>:, ~ z..-4 "'
E" "' ~ tll
'0 ~ Q) Q)
~'ef~il ~
e&1'..~o~~,g
~tll~ .Z~~
~! g i ~
,
01
0'
0:
'i
\D,
N'
o 01
o 0\
~ ~l
M ~I
N N
o
10
I NI
I ~,
o 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~
wOO
oo~
:Jg
o~
ZOO .J.J ~
<ooo~~~~
...J . Q).... Q)
Z.J.J .J.J If
Q ~ ~ ~ ;;-
~
9: ~ ~ ~
a:: '0 I
U ~ :5 ~
00 ~ I ~
W ~ tll s::: tll
o1l1l1l1l
~ tll s::: tll
W l<l;'.-4 l<l; ..-4
00 . Q . Q .~
:J tll Q) tll Q) l<l;
I-< .J.J I-< .J.J p..
Cll ..-4 Cll ..-4 ::> s:::
~ .-l ~ .-l U !!!
o 0 ~
E-I E-I 0
o
o
....
o
o
N
o ....
N N
'" '"
.... ....
(J)
....
(J)
....
:
I
"'
.-l
rtl
..-ti
.J.J,
s:::
Q)
'01
..-4
tll
Q)
I>: (IJ
~ tll
o ::>
..-4
~ g
~ .~
~ ~
o
u
,
.~ ~I ~.
= tll Q)
Cll ::s ..-4
1-<. U >
p.., I-< Q)
I '.-41 I>:
s::: U
0, ....., I
. i
..c:i rn~ -
.j.J1 -tJ!.
..-41 ~'u
~I ~i ~
II ~
~ ~ ';; i, ~
.-l .: ..-4 rtl
. rtl , rtl .-l
en ~ r.. p..
I ,
tll
Q)
'.-4
I-<
rtl
::s
.J.J
tll I-<
Cll 0
.-l :0:
tll rtl
.J.J en
Cll
.>0:
I-<
rtl
:0:
~
~
rtl
Q
p..
::>
u
p..
::> I
U
=
I ::s
..-4
~ ~
rtl .J.J
.J.J rtl
Q) =
= Q)
Cll I-<
U U
u p..
'0 B
11
al tll
~ i
~ u
tll
.-l Cll
rtl =
I-< 0
::s :=
.J.J
.-l .-l
::s rtl
u I-<
'.-4 Q)
.J.J s:::
g ~
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
o
o
(d-.;:l- 1?i"7
;2-U ~~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFYING THE
NEW GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING
FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION
REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A NEW GENERAL PLAN.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
RECITALS.
A. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the
existing General Plan for the City of San Bernardino by
Resolution No. 7336 on August 17, 1964; and
B. WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, hereinafter
"Ci ty" , initiated a comprehensive update and revision of its
existing General Plan in late 1986 and early 1987; and,
C. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council appointed in
July 1987, a 35-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC),
composed of individuals representing a diverse array of interests
and residential locations in the City, to assist the City in
drafting a new General Plan; and,
D. WHEREAS, the CAC over an almost two year period of
time convened in excess of 70 meetings as an entire body and as
subcommittees to solicit broad community input for the Draft
General Plan; and,
E. WHEREAS, the CAC recommended approval in December
1988, of the City of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land
Use Issue Policy Statements, a document which identified
preferred pOlicy direction on key issues affecting the types,
distribution, and intensity of land uses to be permitted by the
Draft General Plan; and,
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
1
c
o
o
o
I
1
F.
WHEREAS, there are between 65,000 and approximately
2 70,000 parcels of land within the City of San Bernardino and the
3 Draft General Plan would affect the permitted uses or intensity
4 of uses for more than 1,000 property owners; and
5
G.
WHEREAS, after giving public notice as required by
6 California Government Code Sections 65353(c) and 65091(a)(3), the
7 City Planning Commission recommended approval of the City of San
8 Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land Use Issue Policy
9 Statements at a Public Hearing on December 13, 1988; and,
10
H.
WHEREAS, after giving public notice, the Mayor and
11 Common Council approved the City of San Bernardino General Plan
12 Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy Statements, with modifications
13 on January 30, 1989 after Public Hearings held on December 16,
14 1988 and January 30, 1989; and,
15
I.
WHEREAS, the City published in March 1989, a Draft
16 General Plan which included input from CAC, City staff, local
17 neighborhood associations, business organizations and members of
18 the community; and,
19
J.
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan incorporated by
20 reference the following three research and analysis documents:
21 City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical Background
22 Report, February 1988; City of San Bernardino General Plan
23 Update, Land Use Alternatives Working Paper, March 1988; and City
24 of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy
25 Statements, December 1988 and January 1989; and,
26
K.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted noticed
27 public hearings on April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 25, May 4,
;$
28 I
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
2
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
22, and 30, 1989 in order to receive public testimony and
written and oral comments on the Draft General Plan; and,
L. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held noticed
Public Hearings on April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989 in order to receive all
public testimony and all written and oral comments in response
thereto with respect to the Draft General Plan and the
modifications recommended by the Planning Commission; and
M. WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan was made available for
review to the public, responsible agencies, and other interested
persons for their review and comment as required by state law;
and
N. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving
publiC testimony, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1
recommending adoption of the Draft General Plan as modified by
the Planning Commission; and,
O. WHEREAS, the City determined pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") Sections
l5060(c) and l5063(a) that the Draft General Plan may have a
significant effect on the environment and thus warranted the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and,
P. WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared on the Draft General
Plan addressing the Draft General Plan's and other alternatives'
environmental impacts in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures
specified in Resolution No. 13157 implementing CEQA; and,
Q. WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was made available to the
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
3
c
10
11
12
o
o
o
1 public, responsible agencies and other interested persons for
2 their review and comment from March 24, 1989 to May 12, 1989, as
3 required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
4 Environmental Review Procedures; and,
5
R.
WHEREAS, written comments were received on the Draft
6 EIR; and,
7
S.
WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally
8 and in writing as required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the
9 City's Environmental Review Procedures; and,
T.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed Public
Hearings on April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17,/(5, May 4, 22, and
30,. 1989 in order to receive all public testimony and all
13 written and oral comments in response thereto with respect to the
14 Draft EIR and Final EIR; and,
15
u.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held noticed
16 Public Hearings on April land 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18,
17 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989 in order to receive all
18 public testimony and all written and oral comments in response
20
19 thereto with respect to the Draft EIR and Final EIR; and,
v.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council made no
21 substantial modifications to the Draft General Plan which were
22 not considered by the Planning Commission during its Public
23 Hearings prior to its adoption of Planning Commission Resolution
24 No. 89-1 on May 30, 1989; and,
25
W.
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Initial Study
26 and Supplement to the Checklist, February 1, 1989; the Notice of
27 preparation, February 1, 1989; the Responses to the Notice of
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
4
o
o
o
o
1 Preparation (various dates); the Draft EIR released March 24,
2 1989; the three research and analyses documents incorporated in
3 the Draft EIR by reference: City of San Bernardino General Plan
4 Update, Technical Background Report, February 1988, City of San
5 Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Working
6 Paper, March 1988, and City of San Bernardino General Plan
7 Fundamental Land Use Issue POlicy Statements, December 19, 1988
8 and January 1989; the comments received on the Draft EIR during
9 and after the public review period; the responses to those
10 comments; the Finalizing Addendum to the Draft EIR and Response
11 to Comments Documents; the minutes of the hearings and the Staff
12 Reports, all documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence
13 presented at the following Public Hearings of the Planning
14 Commission: April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 25, May 4, 22, and
~
15 30, 1989; Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1 recommending
16 certification of the Final EIR as adequate and complete; the
17 minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports, all documentary
18 evidence, and all testimonial evidence presented at the
19 following Public Hearings of the Mayor and Common Council: April
20 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and
21 June 2, 1989; this Mayor and Common Council Resolution No.
22 certifying the Final EIR as adequate and complete; the Statement
23 of Findings and Facts In Support Thereof; and the Summary
24 Statement of Overriding Considerations; and the Mitigation
25 Reporting/Monitoring Program; and,
26
x.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council has reviewed and
27 considered all material comprising the Draft EIR and the Final
28
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
5
0
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
EIR and has found that the Final EIR contains all environmental
impacts of the proposed General Plan and is complete and adequate
and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Review Procedures;
SECTION II.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, State of
California, in a Public Hearing assembled on June 2, 1989 that:
A. The findings contained in the Statement of Findings
and Facts In Support Thereof with respect to the significant
impacts identified in the Final EIR to the new General Plan are
true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the
record, including documents comprising the Final EIR. The
Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Thereof is attached
hereto as Exhibit "1" and is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full.
B. The facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence
in the record, including those documents comprising the Final
EIR.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached
hereto as Exhibit "2" and is incorporated herein by this
reference as if fully set forth in full.
C. The Final EIR has identified all significant
environmental effects of the new General Plan and there are no
known potentially significant environmental effects not addressed
in the Final EIR.
D. All significant effects of the new General Plan are
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
6
0
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
set forth in the statement of Findings and Facts In Support
Thereof.
E. Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that would result if the new General Plan
is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided
or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the implementation
of the new General Plan and the implementation of mitigation
measures as set forth in the Statement of Findings of Facts In
Support Thereof for the Final EIR.
F. Potential mitigation measures and Project
alternatives not incorporated into or adopted as part of the new
General Plan were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific
economic, social or other considerations as set forth in the
Statement of Findings of Facts In Support Thereof in the Final
EIR.
G. The significant impacts of the new General Plan, as
identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts In Support
Thereof which will not have been reduced to a level of
insignificance will have been substantially reduced in their
impacts by the implementation of the new General Plan and the
implementation of mitigation measures.
In adopting the new
General Plan, the Mayor and Common Council has given great weight
to the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that the significant
unavoidable adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by the
economic, social and other benefits of the new General Plan, as
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
7
0
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
o
hereto as Exhibit "2".
H. The Final EIR has described the alternatives to the
new General Plan, even when those alternatives might impede the
attainment of the new General Plan objectives and might be more
costly.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that a good faith
effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of
the Final EIR and a range of reasonable alternatives were
considered in the review process of the Final EIR and the
ultimate decision on the new General Plan.
I. A good faith effort has been made to seek out and
incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Final
EIR as indicated in the Public Record on the new General Plan.
J. During the Public Hearing process on the new General
Plan, the Mayor and Common Council evaluated a range of
alternatives, and the new General Plan as recommended for
approval by this Resolution is included within that range of
alternatives.
SECTION III.
A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council
of the City of San Bernardino that it does hereby certify that
the Final EIR is adequate and complete in that it addresses the
environmental effects of the proposed new General Plan and fully
complies with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Environmental
Review Procedures.
Said Final EIR is composed of the following
elements:
1. Initial Study and Supplement to the Checklist,
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
8
0
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
o
o
o
February 1, 1989;
2. The Notice of Preparation, February 1, 1989;
3. The Responses to the Notice of Preparation (various
dates);
4. The Draft EIR released March 24, 1989;
5. City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Technical
Background Report, February 1988;
6. City of San Bernardino General Plan Update, Land Use
Alternatives Working Paper, March 1988;
7. City of San Bernardino General Plan Fundamental Land
Use Issue POlicy Statements, December 19, 1988 and
January 1989;
8. The comments received on the Draft EIR during and
after the public review period;
9. The responses to those comments; The Finalizing
Addendum to the Draft EIR and Response to Comments
documents;
10. The minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports,
all documentary evidence, and all testimonial
evidence presented at the following Public Hearings of
the Planning Commission: April 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15,
17, Z5, May 4, 22, and 30, 1989;
l~ .
11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-1 recommending
certification of the Final EIR as adequate and
complete;
12. The minutes of the hearings and the Staff Reports, all
documentary evidence, and all testimonial evidence
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
9
0
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
o
o
o
presented at the following Public Hearings of the
Mayor and Common Council: April 1 and 26, May 3, 6, 8,
10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 31, and June 2, 1989;
13. This Mayor and Common Council Resolution No.
certifying the Final EIR as adequate and complete;
14. The Statement of Findings and Facts In Support
Thereof;
15. The Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
16. The Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program (attached
hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by this
reference);
B. The Planning Department is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of
San Bernardino showing certification that the Final Environmental
Impact Report is available to the public.
SECTION IV.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that
it does hereby adopt the new General Plan as modified by the
Mayor and Common Council. Said new General Plan supersedes the
previous General Plan adopted in 1964.
Said new General Plan,
including the Land Use Plan. (Map) , are those documents entitled
"City of San Bernardino General Plan" on file in the office of
the City Clerk and attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated
herein by reference.
/ / / /
/ / / /
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
10
0
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
-
RESOLUTION.
IMPACT REPORT;
CONSIDERATIONS
AND ADOPTING A
.CER~FYING THE NEWQENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL 0
&~D ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
AND MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM;
NEW GENERAL PLAN.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
day of , 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day
of
, 1989.
Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
By: r~ J fl-;"M'-'"
/~
HE/dys
May 31, 1989
11
\..
~
~
..
erO OF SAN BEOARDINO V ....
Pl.AJ.'1NING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -USES AND STANDARDS
:It
RU-2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL
STANDARDS
R-1-7.200
R-2
Minimum Lot width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Lot coverage
Minimum Front Setback
Minimum Side Setback
Minimum Rear Setback
60 feet
100 feet
35 feet
35 percent
25 feet
5 feet
20 feet
60 feet
100 feet
35 feet
40 percent
20 feet
3 feet
10 feet
GP:LUHANDOUT4.1
ey...\~-r'{V Co- taTS dF ,rt:WIZ~ A-~ ~ IW~ OJ..."Tta oF-
No"":'/{ AKJIJ(>"IUlN o"f-1'IIE ($-.P. ~Hl~1f />AtE '-2-00 0' on.A4~S:.
^" b'f '{? pe.~JC'..(~....u) H'1+ !. .. ., I pvr?l.---."':s....,..-
'1f47o ~ "-'NuLl: r-k'1AIV)~~/201l)I7W ')104-1' /Ju.. ".,.,erz.
r;~M" ,.,u;. ~~t'I.IU? ~,f'}1 I ~
III rfl-I~AI'7Ve.. ...,t.1J ...u ~"'r'" ._,---~
~ ~ l.hT 'Pep. 'I ...,.. ,..... "'~
~u~f'1r~vr ~..i:~U~ ,*1$$(, lJOI1 <JI1- ~e6~ .
to",u(.., ~ 1\.ItVl 0
'y
~(~
Page 2 of 2
7
. 'i"',
, , ",-
o
o
~-o
EXHIBIT 1
i: STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
~",;~~'b<AND FACfS IN SUPPORT mEREOF
;,-.. .~
.
The City Council of the City of San Bernardino (the "Council"), in approving the 1989
General Plan for the City of San Bernardino (hereinafter referred to as "Project") mlllrf!$
the following findi...&, which are supported by the correspondiDg facts pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Guidelines Section 15041.
I. BACKGROUND
,'~.
,
;-.-......
The City of San Bernardino initiated a comprehensive uPdate aud revwcmof itaaistiDg
General Plan in late 1986. This update was needed w-account for .the CCQi~kplllll'ge
of time since the clistiDg Plan's adoption aud the addition of ~ eJ~J,ls Jhati
not been integrated into a siDgle, nnified plan document. 'TIJe aUiOption _ 01. ~
General Plan is the project being considered for '"i'1',oval by die CitY in this instance. . .
City Council is responsible for fiDal adoption of the 1989 General Plan after receivilJai a
recommendation from the City P1l1nni1\g Commiuion. . ,_ .," .._ ,'_' .,_,_.:;.~-::;;
The City's goals in developing a new General Pl&lfare to correct deficiencies in the
cIistiDg Plan, to eusure consistency between the various elemeuts of ~e Plan, aud to
provide a comprehensive long-range plan to guide the City's futUre development. Apl'lUVal
of the 1989 General Plan will establish the framework by which the City's physical aud
economic resources are to be mllnllged aud utilized over the plllnning period which extends
from adoption through the year 2010. The project also acts to clarify aud articulate the
City's intentions with respect to the rights and expectations of the general public, property
owners, and prospective investors and bn"iness interests.
A Project Description and ReqJIired J\&lproval
The 1989 General Plan contains the seven elements mllndated by state law which
include: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. Six
permissive elements have been prepared to reflect specific issues aud objec:lives of the City:
urban i1-ign, historical resources, economic development, infrastructure/utilities, public
services, and parks aud recreation. The text and maps contained in the 1989 General Plan
elements are cnpni7'-ed as presented in the attached Table 1 abstracted from the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specific objectives of the 1989 General Plan
have been defined as follows (page 2-1 of the General Plan EIR):
a. Address legislative planning requirements of the State of California.
b. Integrate into a single plan document an required and permissive elements,
replacing previously adopted elements;
1
>'0
o
o
o
u
e. ProVide data and analyses regarding conditions and factors influencing the
, ~ia the late 1980s and projected to occur to 2010; and
~-^;~
".~"._. ~.~
* d. _ Define policies and programs to guide conservation of existing uses, new
development, and resource management which are reflective of community
needs and objectives. >
Full development in conformanc:e with the land use map and the goals, objectives and
policies in the 1989 General Plan could ultimately result in converting appro o1!imSltely 11.123
acres of currently undeveloped, under-developed or recycled land to residential, commercial
and industrial uses (see attached Table 2 from the General Plan BIR for detailed acreage
estimates). Buildout of the General Plan would result in 28,120 additional residences in
the Oty, an estimSlted 35.6 million square feet of additional c:ommerc:ial structures, and an
estimated 53.2 million square feet of additional industrial structurea. > The p1.~ area's
population would rise by 70,300 new persons from the present ,level of 195,256' to an
estimated 26S,s56 total residents.
The .989 _.... -..... a "pl...... ......wbid1........ _'-~'.
square miles of land currently within the Oty's bouDdaIy and 9 square miles" >
unincorporated land within the Oty's Sphere of Influence. A map sbowiIIa the .
the pl.nning area is attached to this document. .~, - .
~
B. The Environmental Tlt\l!l1mentation
The environmental review process for the 1989 General Plan began on February 1, 1989
when the Oty released the Initial Study for the document. Based on the findinp in the
Initial Study, the Oty made a determinSltion to prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) that addresses all of the environmental issues outlined in the Initial Study checklist.
The Oty released the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation to the public on February 1,
1989. These two documents and the responses to the Notice of Preparation are included
in the Final Environmental Impact Report as appendices A. B and C. ~
The Draft EIR for the Oty of San Bernardino General Plan (SCH# 89021308) was
prepared by Envicom, Corporation and released to the public on March 24, 1989.
Comment letters were received and responses to comments have been included in the Final
EIR. The Fmal EIR for the Oty of San Bernardino General Plan consists of the following
components:
a. The Initial Study and Supplement to the checklist, February 1, 1989
b. The Notice of Preparation, February 1, 1989
Co ,Responses to the Notice of Preparation (various dates)
d. The Draft EIR, released March 24, 1989
2
"0
o
o
o
e. 'The comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review process
8Dd the responses to those comments, and
':f.:;,....
f.' TIie Staff report and Exlnbits containing Statement of Fll'1dinlP' and Facts in
_ Support of Adoption; Snmmllry Statement of Overridirig Considerations; and
Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program.
t
Co Public HeariIlp for C'nmments on the Project and F.1R
The following public hearings were held at which comments were 8cc:epted on the EIR
and proposed project:
~
April I, 1989
JleviewiJw Jbbt
aty Planning Commic.cion-and
Common Council
. .."........V."iClJ I..
.,;;11,<....' -....
..,..,' .,:-'- "
'""i~'u'r ~~~~~~e~.'
,i, .;~_=!lli~t.?_t::,;,l.i.\;:
';.?
April 3, 1989
April 6, 1989
April 8, 1989
April 10, 1989
April 13, 1989
April 15, 1989
~11989
, I S,I'i'i'1
April2S,1989
April 26, 1989
April 27, 1989
May 3, 1989
May 4, 1989
May 6, 1989
May 8, 1989
May 10, 1989
aPl'Co ,.
ty anmng' mm._OIl'
. " "_. .- [.',
"
aty Planning CommiHi<Hl'u::~ ~. .;w,....;k.:~...>,
a PI . Com"
ty SInnIng m1c.9on
dty Planning CommiqiOn
. . ,",.1,-'-;"='" r..,.-....L......-.
aPl'Co ..
ty annmg mmll....on
aPl'Co ..
ty ann.ng mm.qlOn
CiPl' Co"
ty annmg mm."$'on
H ~~ ~
City PlS1nning Commkcion
City Council
City Environmental Review Committee
aty Council
aPl'Co ,.
ty S1nn.ng mm.c.c,on
aty Council
City Council
City Council
3
.0
o
o
o
May 13, 1989
~"'.. -..,.
May 11tJ989
.-,$'
. ~ 18, 1989
May 18, 1989
May 20. 1989
May 22, 1989
May 22, 1989
May 22, 1989
May 23, 1989
May 24, 1989
May 30. 1989
May 31, 1989
June 2, 1989
City Council
City Council
City Environmental Review Committee
City Council
City Council
City Environmental Review Committee
CiPl' Co"
ty linn,"! mm'8'on
City Council
City Council .
City Council
PI . Co ..
IInn'ng mm'-on
~:.~~~. ..:~'~
4~A
..tU,.
,,,. ....,... ,"
l~
t-
t
City.Counci1
. l:.ta..t:.t:-;i-
.:/ ';
'JH"~, . ;~;i~-!-r>.~.""'." '-~;t
City Council
IL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (d) requires that EIRs descn'be "a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the .
basic objectives of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives."
The General Plan EIR presents a comparative evaluation of five project alternatives, These
are:
A. No project: buildout of the existing General Plan
B. Alternative . A:. low growth
C. Alternative B: moderate growth
D. Alternative C: high growth
E. Alternative H: draft plan variation
The following findings and facts in support thereof are presented for the above
alternatives:
4
"0
o
o
o
'.
A n::L~- alternative is a default alternative required to be included in the
lIDalysia by.~GuideIines Section 15126 (d) (2). Adoption of the no project alternative
woq1d result in lrig1rificantly higher density of development compared to the proposed
General Plan. Spec:ifically, development under the existing General Plan has been
cal...t1S1ted to increase the number of residential units by approrimSltely 3.4 times the
number of units that can be construc:ted under the proposed plan. Commercial square
footage under the no project alternative would be increased by approximately 68 percent
and industrial square footage would be slightly less than 31 percent greater under the
existing General Plan.
The Council finds that implementation of this alternative would increase all potential
adverse i"'P8CtS by a significant amount due to the increased development permitted under
the existing General Plan. All direct development i"'P8CtS will be increased because
development controls are minimSllandthe intensity of development will not be JDitip.....
by such features as the Biological Resources Overlay, the Hillside Management Overlay
District and amilSl" development controls contained in the new General Plan. Further, the
ClIyCouadl.........__....__..._~'
be iDcreased by more than 3S0 percent under the no project alternative co.......ed.to .'
proposed project alternative. Specific: reference to the inc:reasecl'level of ~'c:m .
found in Table 29 of the F'mal EIR (paaea 54 through 5-lS).wbicb provides a
evaluation of the existing General Plan and the new General PIaD. .-::~.."::., "
<>. . . " '. -. -"-~"'" ,.
The Council finds that the no project alternative is not a feasible alternative ~.cw'se
it was judged by the San Bernardino County Superior Court to be an inSldequate General
Plan for guidance of future development within the Oty. The Oty further finds that in
addition to being an infeasible alternative, the existing General Plan poses the greatest
potential adverse impact if future development within the Oty occurs under its' provisions.
Therefore, the Council finds that the no project alternative would prevent the Oty from
meeting the objectives stated at the beginning of this document and that the no project
alternative would cause more significant adverse impacts than the proposed alternative. For
these reasons the no project alternative is rejected
B. Alternative A~ Low Growth
The purpose in evaluating a low growth alternative was to determine whether a less
intensive residentiSll and industrial development alternative land use element could fe8S1bly
reduce the potential significant adverse impacts below that associated with implementing
the proposed General Plan. Alternative A would allow development of approYimSltely two-
thirds of the residential units; approximately SO percent more commercial/office space; and
about one-third of the industrial space. The buildout population under Alternative A is
estimated to be 241,000.
Because Alternative A contains a mix of more intense and less intense uses the
adverse impacts range from less to more significant for specific issues than those identified
S
.0
o
o
o
for the ~. ~ Plan. For --"'PIe. traffic generation would increase by
apprmmatcly four~.... .... (page 5-31 of the Final E1R). 'Ibis would result in a more
sigJ'ifi....nt adverse tjtIC 1""V1ot tban currcndy ~ population dependent impacts
would be gcuera11y ~but have been judged non....igJ'lfitllnt for the ~ General
Plan as \fell. WIth the costS of infrastrUCtUl'C .,stem improVements already included within
the ~ Plan's policies, the potential for adverse infrastrUcture impact is not significant
for either altcrDative.
Affordable. housing impacts arc projcc:tcd to be appfo~maWy the same (in termS
of low income housing units, page 5-5 of the Fmal E1R) as the ~ project wbicb bas
been evaluated as being AigJ'ificant. Alternative A would result in Aigr,;ficantly fewer homes
being built and a greater disparity in the number of allowable units versus those identified
in the Southern California .Assomtion of Qoycrnments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs
.....e-.ment (RHNA). Thus, Alternative A would result in more PlP"ificant adverse housing
impacts tban the prOposed General Plan.
Other issues illustrate slmilRr" ditfercnCCS in significance of impactL Air qu&1ity
impacts will be more "irficant from AlterD8tive A (page 5,~. of the .Pinal E1R)-clne"to. .
inCreased mileage under this alternative. On the other band gcueral biOlOgical resourca ..~ ..
will incur less impact under Alternative A, bot .lODIitive biolojical resources could.be loIt i
under both alternatives and potential significant adverse i"'J'RCt5 arc equivalent under both-;
a1tcmatives. . 1
Because the absolute increase in traffic cine to the greater square footage otcommerciaf
uses under Alternative A contains fewer trucks, noise l~ from the traffic, the ~
source in the commnnity, will be slightly lcsa, .2dBA, tban the proposed General Plan. The
difference of .2dBA average noise ,loycl c:baDgc is l"..ndible to hn.....- and the ac:WA1
adverse impacts, although Significant for both alternatives. is not considered a substantial
reduction in noise. The substantial increase in commcrcial uses under this alternative in
areas where residential uses exist increases the potential land use conflicts relative to the
proposed General Plan. Reductions in industrial desilP"ations do reduce future potential
conflicts, but the City Council concludcsthat this reduction is less tban the impacts that will
occur due to the increased commcrcialdcvelopment. Fmally, the increased ~tion
exposed to ground sh..lri1\g impact remains significant under both alternatives. but fewer
residents would be exposed under Alternative A. .
On balance. the City Council finds that Alternative A is a fe8S1Dle alternative that
could reduce impacts for a few environmental resources as outlined above. However, the
Council further finds that the policies dcsilP"ed to protect environmental resources in the
proposed General Plan result in it posing less silP"ificant impacts overall tban Alternative
A. The Council therefore concludes that Alternative A should be rejected in favor of the
proposed General Plan because it has the potential to cause more severe adverse
environmental impacts.
6
'0
o
o
o
C. Alternative B: Moderate Growth
.---'
'l'Iie. . Tfuate growth alternative is similar to the proposed General Plan because
it allows IIpv> *at..ty equivalent residential development ~ most of the community. It
permits inte.lIIIia development in hillside areas, downtown commercial areas and in
ecopomic:a1ly depressed areas. The result is that the proposed General Plan will allow
approximately 1,131 more units to be constructed in the plllnnil1g area than Alternative B;
seDSitive hillside development would be increased; commercial square footage would be
substantially increased by approximately 72 perCent; industrial square footage would be
reduc:ed by approwimlltely 37 million square feet; and buildout population would be about
2,828 greater than for the Alternative B. .
When Alternative B is compared to the proposed Genend Plan all of the
infrastructure i"'P"t:ts are slightly lower (although generally oon"ll"'ifiCl'lnt), but the traffic
i"'P"t:t5 are increased by 12 percent (page 5-42 in the Fmal EIR). The i"'P"t:ts due to this
increase in traffic has the potential to create traffic stoppages at many locatioDI' withUt the
Oty, wbich will operate at an acceptable level under the proposedGeDeral PIaD:-. $fittltirr\1, .
the air quality impact from Alternative B will be substantially greater than the proposed
Gene::: ~:~fi::~=::::l:i=ased if the Oty . =iJ~'!'\X'
under Alternative B. Biological resources will incor more 1dgerse-i'*'P"- in. . ......~
Erosion and soil losses have the potential to be substllntilllly increased. VIsual f"'P"-" ...,.
the Oty's background visual setting would also be substantilllly increased under Altel'Datiw . ,..
B (see pages 5-11 through 5-15 of the Fmal EIR).
Noise impacts would be increased under this alternative due to increased traffic Iiild
land use compatibility would suffer due to greater exposure of commercial and residential
interfaces. The ground Shll1ril1g impacts would be nearly equivalent with a slightly greater
population being exposed to significant hazards due to the proposed General Plan when
compared to Alternative B.
The Oty Council finds that Alternative B is a feasible alternative that meets the
project objectives. However, based on the general increase in "lgJ"ificant adverse impacts
associated with Alternative B, the Council finds that it will result in more ..il"'ificant adverse
impacts than the proposed General Plan. Therefore, the Council rejects this alternative.
D. Alternative C: Hip Growth
The high growth alternative provides for more intense development throughout all
of the land use designations compared to the proposed General Plan. Compared to the
proposed General Plan, it would approYimlltely double the number of residences; increase
commercial development by approximately 250 percent; reduce industrial development by
. apprnYimlltely 29 million square feet (about SO percent); and increase the plllnnil1g area
population by about 85 percent.
7
'0
o
o
o
The substantial increases in population and development deDSities posed by
Alternative C. would cause more substantial adverse impacts in each environmental
category. FOtl~"'Ple, the road system would experience an approximate 47 percent
increase. in tndIC and the plAnnil1g area's circulation system would be severely overloaded.
Air quality i1llp"cts would be more significant and all natural resource impacts would be
subftantialb' increased (see pages 5-50 through 5-57 of the Final EIR). All infrastructure
systems would incur substantially greater (about 100%) i1llp"cts.
The aty Council finds that Alternative C is a feas1ble alternative that meets the
project objectives. However, based on the substantial increase in adverse environmental
impacts, the Council finds that this alternative is I1n"~ptable. Therefore, the Council
rejects this alternative on the basis of greater adverse impact.
Eo Alternative H: Draft Plan Variation
Alternative H incorporates several changes in the Draft General Plan plOp9Sed by
the public. The primary variations between Alternative H and the ~. are:
appJ'(WimAtely 3,854 additional dwelling UDits; an appl...itnSlte 49 percent iDcre--- in
commercial square footage; an apprnYimAte 12 percent reduction in iDdustrial IqUlIa
_ ODd a bulJdout........... _ to be --.."....., ~ :1-.. ....... .
proposed General Plan.j' . . _
. .....;. :; .:....;~_.- ,I~'; _,' ....._._ ~r-..,.-~
As in the previous two inswnces, Alternative H inc:reuea 1.."..- to all _ .' :'-
across the board due to both direc:t and indirec:t uses from inc:reaecl resi~ ad .
commercial uses. An additional 23 percent trips will be generated with substantial iDcreases
in circulation system and air quality impacts. All infrastnlc:ture and natural resource
impacts would also be increased. The specific nature of these increases is charac:terized on
pages 5-4 through 5-15 of the Final EIR.
The aty Council finds that Alternative H is a fea5lble alternative that meets the
project objectives. However, based on the substantial increase in adverse environmental
impacts, the Council finds that this alternative is unacceptable. Therefore, the Council
rejects this alternative on the basis of greater adverse impact.
F. SnmmA1:Y of the Alternatives Comparison
The Final EIR presents five alternative general plan configurations for comparison
with the proposed General Plan. These alternatives are judged by the Council to represent
a reasonable range of alternative land use plans from which to determine whether
alternatives are available to reduce adverse impacts below a silV'lficant level. Of key
concern has been the aty's goal to achieve a mix of uses which will result in a bAlAnce of
growth in the future. Based on the analysis presented, one alternative, the no project
alternative (retention of the existing General Plan and development under its land use mix
and policies), is rejected because it is both infeasible and would cause the most significant
adverse impacts on the environment. Alternative A, the low growth alternative, would
reduce some impacts below that caused by the proposed General Plan but would not reduce
any significant adverse impacts below a significant level In fact, this alternative would
8
'0
o
o
o
cause more significant adverse impacts for air quality, the circulation system, land use
~tibility ad housing. Therefore, the Council judged it the second most
enviroooment.aDf.PJlS1... .tive plan alternative to the proposed project. Alternative B would also
reduce i..".....~ Aipificant adverse i~ exposure to groUDd l'h..1ril1g from a major
region.. ~ but all other ~ificaDt impam would be inc:reased and one impact
(aestheticsl not c:urrently found significant would become llil1'ificant. All other alternatives
wole found to be feasible, but cause more lIigJ'ificant i11'lp"':tS than the proposed General
Plan. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed project is the most feasible and
least environmentally d..mllgil1g alternative available for consideration.
DL CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ADVF.1lSR IMPAcrs
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
..
(a) "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for whicJUn.EJR._
been completed which identifies ODe or more tdl1'ificant environ~J ~
of the project unless the public ageDC)<......lres one or more wriuea. findh"p-
for each of those significant effed$llCCO"'l,..ni.d by a-brief,expl-nArioaof tho
rationale for each finili11g
1.
- --.'::. -..("=
". ..~: . '''' ,-. ,-...--, .
.." .' \' '.- .
O"'118es or alteratioDs have been required in, or incorporated__the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
- " ;" ~
The po5S1ble finilinp are:
2. Such Ch"l1ges or alteratious arewithin the responsibility andp,n'l<Ji.ction
of another public agency and not the agency m..1ril1g the fWilil1g Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency, OHan and should
be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infea51ble the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR
(Section 15091 of the Guidelines
A J- Found To Have No Potendal For Slpifleant Adverse 'mDael Based on the
EftI_tIon In The Final EIR
Based on the Initial Study prepared for the proposed General Plan, the City made
a decision to prepare a full scope evaluation of environmental issues. The Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains evaluations of 23 environmental issues
(impact categories) that present information on potential adverse impacts of future
development under the proposed General Plan. Of these 23 impact categories, seven were
found to have no potential for significant adverse impact and thus required no mitigation
measures (refer to pages 8-9 through S-21 and the "Oass 3" impact discussion in the final
EIR). None of the comments received from the public on the Draft EIR altered this
9
.0
o
o
o
conclusion (refer to the comment letters and respoDSeS in the RespoDSe to Comments
document). ~ore, the Council finds that the following issues have no potential for
significant ... ill1pAl;t from approval of the proposed General Plan and does not
recommench.,"titiption.
4f';:
. 1. _ Water
2. Solid Waste
3. Sewage Disposal
4. Natural Gas
s. Electrical Service and Geothermal Resources
6. Commnnications
7. Mineral Resources
B.
Mttlnble Imoadl and Mttfptfon MIM.Dn!I ". f
The analysis presented in the Final BIR for the Oty of San Bemardino Generallin
determined that the issues discussed below can be fullJ mitipted to a level otiAaigJUfic:aDCe
by adoptiDg mitigation measures and/or iDc:orporatingpolic:ies into the ptaplllf1l GeMral
Plan. The mitipble impacts, mitigation measures and the Plan policies required to mitigate
them are disc:ussed below. The ~tiption measures will be monitored by the Oty through
adoption of a mitigation reportiDgJmonitoring program which is provided as a separate
exlnDit to the Oty Council's resolution. The Plan policies will be monitored and
implemented by the Oty as part of its-ongoing implementation program for the new
General Plan and through its review and approval process for specific projects.
The issues that can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by adopting and
implementing mitigation measures and utiH,nl1g policies in the General Plan are as follows:
1. Vi~u,l
significant Effect
The final EIR identifies an overall increase in mass, scale, and intensity of urban form
as a result of development allowed by the proposed General Plan. This will include a loss
of visual open space relative to the existing conditions.
Finding
Chllnges or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the above-referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in
the final BIR and its components.
10
'0
o
o
o
FflCI8 i1t.~ of Finditqp
The ~1. Plan contains policies and programs the will enhance the visual
character ~ area and reduce the impact of lost open space and increased
urbp form.resultiDB from future development. The policies tbat will result in enhancement
include 1.43.1, 1.43.2, 1.44.1, 1.45.1-1.45.10 and implementation programs tbat contribute
to enhancement include 11.1-11.4, 11.6, 11.9, 11.12, 11.17, and 11.23. Existing areas within the
Oty will be improved as well as new development incorporating better desigDs. The visual
quality of development and construction will be improved by implementing policies 1.13.32,
1.13.34, 1.14.40, 1.15.34, 1.16.32, 1.19.30, 1.19.31, 1.20.31, 1.20.34, 1.21.33, 1.22.31, 1.22.32,
1.22.34, 1.23.30, 1.23.31, 1.24.30. 1.24.32, 1.25.31, 1.25.33, 1.26.31, 1.27.30, 1.27.31, 1.28.30,
1.29.32, 1.31.31, and 1.32.30. These include architectural t1-igJ> pidelines wbich enhance
the cbaracter of residential areas and ground elevation visual settings in commercial areas.
All of the policies' from 1.1.1 through 1.38.1 contribute to the mitigation ofvisuallmpacts
within the ccnnmnnity. . .', ' ,
.'i,"'O"P"{:_; .....-
These PIan policies and programs can be carried OUt bY aty'staff 8nd' Other I~
as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the applOpdate
time in the future to ensure tbat the mitigation is effective in minimi~ pot...mal adveJp
i""P"cts on visual resources within the planning area. $
.t
..4..
2.
Pnlif"jl!
.J.:....,.
lo..,' .'
r." .- . 'i.f.-" '.
Significant Effect
'. '
The final EIR identifies a demand for additional sworn police oftlcers and 'support
manpower and equipment to maintain and improve existing levels of semce at the buildout
population.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the above referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in
the final EIR and its components.
Facts in Support of Finditqp
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow Oty Police
services to meet the projected increase in demand at full buildout. Policies 8.1.1-8.1.4 and
8.1.6 and 8.2.1-8.2.4 and implementation programs 18.1-18.2, 18.4-18.6, 18.8-18.10 accomplish
this mitigation by ensuring tbat law enforcement resources expand as needed over the life
of the Plan.
11
'0
o
o
o
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by Oty staff and other agencies
as ~. Tberefore, the Council dire<:tS staff to implement them at the apJbopriate
time in the ~~- to eusure that the mitigation is effective in minimi,nng potential adverse
i"'P"Mc on poIfc&,5eIViceI.
~"f- .
,
3.. Em..
Significont Effect
The final EIR. forecasts the potential for increased fire service response times and for
both general and wildland fire hazards. Oty responsibility for wildl..nd fire suppression and
prevention will also increase with development in the hillside area.
Finding
r.hanges or alterations have been incorporated into the projec:t..}Vhic:ll_L~ or
substantially lessen the pot"nti..1 significant fire hazard and service i"'P"cts, ~!"'~ed
in the final EIR. and its components. --., ,'f""-- - "
.... ~ .'.....
Facts in Support of FlIIIiintP _ .
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies wbich will a1Iow as, ~-
services to meet the projected increase in demand at full buildout.lIDd to ~I/W" 1'1:
increased fire hazard potential below a significant level The pertinent polldel ~"'":
8.3.1-8.3.4, 8.4.1-8.4.6, 8.5.1, 8.6.1, 15.1.1 and 15.1.3-15.1.8, and 15.2.1, 15.2.3-1S.2.5~ lS.2.8-
15.2.9 and implementation programs I8.1~I8.20, and 115.1-1lS.10. These policies and
implementation programs include such items as incorporating l..ndscapiDg and construction
provisions of the Foothill Communities "Greenbelt" Program. These Plan policies and
programs can be carried out by Oty staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the
Council dire<:tS staff to implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that
the mitigation is effective in minimi,nng potential adverse i"'P"<:ts on fire services and
increased in fire hazards.
4. Education
Significant Effect
The final EIR. indicates that buildout development under the proposed General Plan
will generate 13~19 additional students requiring the equivalent of 1.1 additional high
schools, 2.6 additional jr. high schools, 13.3 additional elementary schools and all their
support personneL
Finding
n...nges or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the above referenced significant environmental effect, as identified in
the final EIR. and its components.
12
'0
o
o
o
Facts in Suppmt of Fi1u:lin&f
Plan polieiel8.7.1-8.7.3, and 8.8.1-8.8.6 and implementation programs 18.20-18.28
address Cty COOperation with the school districts and a Cty role in trs\('1ri"g future growth
and development as it may impact school facilities. These policies and programs will help
the. school district to meet future education demand without sigoifkant adverse impact.
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by Cty staff and other agencies as
appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time
in the future to ensure that mitigation is effective in minimi,;"g potential adverse i'l'lpS'l't.s
on education services. ., , .
s. Parb Sind Recreation
Significant Effect
The final EIR identifies a demand for 8(17 additional acres of park and rec:reationsplWle
to meet future demand from the Plan's buildout popu1atiou. ,.-i,e " .i}.;,;., ii'
-"::.1..
-=~'::~~~~~~
the final'EIR and its components. i', . .~. - ,,-- ~. -,. .' - '~,
Facts in Suppmt of Fi1u:lin&f
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow demand for
parks and recreation facilities to be met over the life of the Plan. Plan policies 9.1.1-9.1.14,
9.2.1-9.2.7, 9.3.1-9.3.10, 9.4.1-9.4.8, 9.5.1, and 9.5.2 and implementation programs 19.1-19.9
and 19.11-19.23 address the expanding demand for parks and recreation facilities in the Cty.
These programs include a future park master plan and acquisition of land to meet future
demand through benefit asscn"'ent districts and special taxes. These Plan policies and
programs can be carried out by Cty staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the
Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensue that
the mitigation is effective in minimi,;"g potential adverse impacts to park and recreation
users within the Cty.
6. F1nntlinr
Significant Effect
Development under the proposed General Plan will further encroach on existing flood
plains within the Cty boundaries. Three areas with 100-year storm flows are not presently
carried in storm drain facilities and land development in the vicinity of these drainages must
be protected. In addition, future construction of storm runoff facilities will have adverse
impacts on site specific environmental resources.
13
'0
o
o
o
FindintJ
~....
ChA11p" ca>:aIteratioDs have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or subftAntu.lly lessen the potential flood hazard effects, as identified in the final EIR
aIll\ its CCllQIIUnents.
Facts in Support of FiIuIings
The proposed General Plan incorporates policies 7.9.1-7.9.9, 7.10.1-7.10.3, 7.11.1, 7.11.2,
and 16.1.1-16.1.4 and implementation programs 116.1, 116.2, 17.6, 17.20-17.23, 17.41 and 17.8
for controlling potential flood hazard impacts. These policies require construction of new
flood control "hAnnel facilities prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy or limitation
of new development in certain areas until flood control facilities are available. Conatruc:tion
is also prohibited within the l00-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency unless a special Flood Hazard Permit is obtAined pursuant to SedioP
15.72 of the Municipal Code. Mitigation for spec:ific: CODSbUc:tion of~ flood'..bul
facilities is deferred until specific: development proposaJ~ are presented to the Oty. These'
Plan policies and programs and mitipVon "'f'uure can be carried out brGtrI1aff and
other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to i"ll"-nt1"
policies, programs and mitigation meuure at the appropriate time in the future to
. that the meuures are effective at mid.ti.,. flood ~to _;- 'I"ifi~~~ .':~.
7; H"'..mml. MateriallUses . '" 'C.' .
. .
.-:-.~''- .,
Sigrrificant Effect
The land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan will increase use of hazardous
materials, including the storage and transport of such materials. This increase will result
in exposure of a greater population to potential health hazards related to hazardous
materials.
FindintJ
Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant adverse effects attn'butable to use of
hazardous materials, as identified in the final EIR and its components.
Facts in Support of FiIuIings
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will allow the City to
control use of hazardous materials so as to reduce potential adverse ift\PA<:l to an
in!rigJ"ificant leveL Policies 13.1.1-13.1.3, 13.21-13.24 and implementation programs 113.1-
113.8, 113-28, and 113.29 specify planning and operating criteria to control hazardous waste
disposal, public risk reduction, recycling, waste minimi7J1tion and all other mAnAgement
requirements. Emergency response plAnning requirements are provided in policies 13.3.1
and 13.3.2 and programs 113.1-113.3. Surface and subsurface contAminAtion issues are
14
..0
o
o
o
addressed in policies 13.4.1-13.4.4 and programs 113.6, 113.47-113.49, 113.50, 113.58, and
113.59. Aa ..dditin....1 measures, the final EIR recommends that future development in
areas suspec:tafto have soil contAmin..tion shall require detailed soil analysis u part of the
environ-..I~ procedure. Tbis analysis or survey will identify any residual
hazardoua maiaIa1a aDd the necessBJY mitigation measures. In recognition of the Oty's
scope of responSIbilities sand finand.1 capabilities, the Cty shall treat contaminated ground
water and surface water using the most effective and best available control t....hnology.
These Plan policies and programs and mitigation measure can be carried out by Cty staff
and other agencies u appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them
at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that hazardous material }Iandli"'g impacts
are mitigated to an in$igJ'ificant leveL
8. EDd
Signifiamt Effect
".l '",..
The final EIR identifies the potential for future structures in High W'md AIeu to be.
exposed to potential wind d..mAge and for potential wind tunnel impacts. to be created by
larger buildings in the downtown area. ... '0.
Frnding'lk<r... r
nUII9"'. or alterations have been incorporated into the project wbidl POid. w
substantially lessen the potential wind ill1pllCtS to an inlligJ'ificant level, u id~ in the .
final EIR and its components.
Facts in Support of Fi:ndin&J
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies and programs to reduce
potential wind impacts below a sigDificant leveL The policies iDcorporated in the Plan
include 15.1.1 and 15.1.3-lS.1.8 and 15.2.1 and 15.2.3-lS.2.5, lS.2.8,and lS.2.9 and the
programs include IlS.1-llS.10. These policies and programs create and expand bui!di1\g and
development st..nd'ilrds to mitigate the impact of wind speeds on structures. The Plan also
includes policies and programs to minimi7e fire risk from high wind conditions, including
policies lS.2.1 and 15.2.8 and programs 115.1-llS.3, IlS.5, and 115.6. These Plan policies
and programs can be carried out by Cty staff and other agencies u appropriate.
Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the appropriate time in the future
to ensure that high wind hazard impacts are mitigated below a significant leveL
lS
'0
o
o
o
C. Un.mld.hle Imn.d. Whlcll {"-Annot Be Reduced Below A SlplftC!llnt Leftl
--......
Despite ~on of extensive mitigation measures directly in the Plan as
polic:iea: A~ and some additioDal mitigation measures, eight categories of
e~ : ,'" p.mAin which c:annot be mitigated below a Iligroificant leveL These
environmental categories are: land use, housing. historic:al/archaeologic:al resources,
circ:bIationltraffic:, air quality, biologic:al resources, geologic and seismic hazards, and noise.
These impacts and the measures proposed to minimi7.e them to the degree feast'ble are
discussed below.
1. , "nd Use
SitJnijicont Effect
0Yerall increase in development within the plAnnil1l area.. There will be alOllof open
space as vacant lands are developed. Potential land use CODfIic:tl ezist between ~Jand
use designations. Some commercial and light industrial developnumt ,in,lICCIOl'daDce witb
the proposed General Plan will result in displacement of llIistiDg ,teJIant&,lIIML historie
buildings. , .. " ;
""1.,,1:......." 1,-
r.........'I!i "itir~r i -. :to .~- ;;:
n.A1\ges or alternations have been required in, ~ ~tedhuo, tile pqect wdh
lessen the above-referenced Rigroific:ant environmental effect, ..identified in thefiDllEIR
and its components. However, these ~hA"" or alterations cannot .reduce,the- iMntifled
Ilipiflcant land use effects of the i>10p0DeCl Plan to a level of inRipifica"ce. SpecifIc
economic:, social, or other considerations make infeasible the additional mi~tion neces5a"Y
to reduce these land use i""P"Mc to a level of insigoific:ance.
Fact3 in Support of Findi:n&J
The proposed land use element establishes many new d"'$igroAtiOns that reduce the
intensity of development throughout the Oty compared to the existing General Plan. In
many instances decisions have been made to establish new uses in noise sensitive areas or
commercial areas that will result in more compatl'ble uses, but may also result in 1011 of'
affordable housing stoc:k. Further, some existing open space areas will be lost to new uses
over the life of the Plan even though these uses will be developed under a better set of
Sla"dArds contained in the proposed General Plan.
Mitigation of land use impacts is achieved through a number of policies (outlined
below) and three mitigation measures. A total of 348 policies and 23 programs have been
established to guide future development within the Oty and minimi7,e adverse impacts.
16
.0
o
o
o
Policies 1.10 through 1.19 inclusive provide permitted uses and describe density and height
restrictiODl , ; . . and bi11side mAn"gement designations. Policies 1.30 and above
establish ' .a . development guidelines for residential, bi11side mAn..gement,
c:ommerdaI; .......strial park,' industrial and public "-igrultioDS which incorporate
measures to ' potential land use conflicts. Objective 9.1 establishes the requirement
for ~ addiaonal 8f11 acres of parlrlAnds to meet the needs of existing and future residents.
In addition, three mitigation measures, identified in 4.1.1.4 of the final EIR, identify
measures to mitigate the following: a) housing displacement i"1p'lCts (Measure 1); b)
conflicts posed by regional serving uses (Measure 2); and c) land use conflicts in "depressed"
commercial corridors (Measure 3).
The GtyCouncil finds that these policies and programs and mitigation m(,lIsure8 lessen
the adverse i~ to future land uses under the proposed Plan, but they are not capable
of recb.d"l i"'P"Mll below a significant leveL The Council aJso finds tbat the lou<< open
space is an unavoidable significant adverse impact of adopting the.proposed.Plaa.. n.e.e,
policies and measures can be carried out b}t-the City..'-'..aad ........r..~M..
apPIOpriate. Therefore, Council directs staff to implement themat the appnJpriate'J1Ohlt'
. . the fu tha the .. . . -- . . .... "'-,--:"1-
time m ture to ensure t mltjpuon IS guecti.Vec m .KU..U..'ftIllr'_pof_....- '
adverse land use impacts. - " .; .~.-:~~~
The Council further finds that no additional measures areknowlrtbatrcm bdf.r-
reduce adverse land use i"1p'1Cts for the Gty for tile GtJ without, lIipiffe-~ -..
substantially interfering with community objectives for futurCldevelopment. '
2.' Hnllllil1(
SigniJicont Effect
The final EIR identified the removal of affordable housing units as areas in the Gty
rec:ycle to new uses and the inability of the Gty to meet its slIare of the regional housing
needs as a sigJ"ificant effect which cannot be fully mitigated below a significant leveL .. '
Finding
ChAnges or alteratioDS have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
reduce the identified low income housing shortage, as identified in the final EIR and its
components. However, these changes or alteratioDS cannot reduce the identified significant
effects to a level of inRigJ"ificance. Specific economic, social, or other consideratioDS make
infeasJ.'ble the additional mitigation necessary to reduce these housing impacts to a level of
insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed General Plan contains policies to provide adequate numbers of new
housing units and to assist in mAnng a portion of these units affordable to low and
moderate income households. Housing growth is accommodated by promoting new housing
17
.,0
o
o
o
UDits on currently vacant and under-utill7ed land. Policy 2.1.1 and implementation program
12.1 facilitate the development of new housing UDits. Policy 2.1.3 and program 12.1 allow
mi...~ ~tW/co"'n.ercial uses in the Oty's downtown area. The Plan also establishes
polic:iet aud ;.."~-.ms for continued financial assistance for housing rehabilitation to eligible
owners of.1~.units with lower income tenants (policy 2.3.1 and programs 12.10 and
12.11). Bligible low income home buyers are also supported through policy 2.3.3 and
pr$am It22. Support for nonprofit housing developers of affordable housing is provided
in policies 2.4.2, 2.4.1 and 2.4.3 and programs 12.18, 12.21, 12.28, and I2.32. Similar policies
and programs (2.6.1, 2.6.3, and 2.6.4 and 12.1, I2.8, 12.19, I2.26, 12.28, I2.32 and I2.34,
respectively) have been incorporated into the Plan for large families and senior adults. Two
additional mitigation measures have been identified which can assist .w!.~ .ciJJ& housiJ!&
ift\P'"c:ts. These measures require relocation assistance in accordance.With theCalifomia
Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assiatu,Ice and Real Prop,erty
Acquisition Policies Act when housing UDits are displaced by new uses aud.monitoring .of
state and federal programs for low and moderate income bousi,ng lIISistaJ!Ce.to ~
advantage of all programs available in the future. ., ,~r ..."H""~
The Oty Council finds that these policies and p1'9gRIIS 1eisentb;..~t::r
future housing resources, but they are not capable of reduciDg ift\P'"- below a ...."- :,:~;
level The Council also finds that the "market" in the COI/llnnnity may DO I~r:@'. ~:.;.
housing affordable to lower income groups and that public IUbsidfes might be <. .
make housing affordable to these householdL The Council further fi:ads that DO . .:'
"''''MUres are known that can further reduce adverse housing ~ for the Qty . . .~.
RigJ1ificantly and substantially interferiDg with commnnity objectives for future ~._lIl""
.' ;>
;-.:,... ....~Ti.-"..
These .PIan policies and programs aud mitiption measures can. he . carriod QU\by the
Oty staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the CouDdl ~ staff to
impJeJl1e'lt them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that ",~mnm hou,sing
ift\P'"<1 mitigation is accomplished in the Oty. . , .
3. HistoricaJl ArchaeoloKi~ Resources
Significant Effect
The final EIR identifies a potential for loss of significant historical resources as a result
of overriding concerns for public safety. As yet undiscovered archaeological resource may
also be lost during construction for individual projects in the future under the proposed
Plan.
Finding
rha1'lges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into. the project which
reduce the potential for loss of historical or archaeological resources, as identified in the
final EIR and its components. However, these changes or alterations cannot reduce the
identified significant adverse effects to a level of insignificance. Specific economic, social,
or other considerations make infemble the additional mitigation necessary to reduce these
housing impacts to a level of insignificance.
18
.,0
o
o
o
FtICts m.Support of FintJin&!
'-'~
The pl~id General Plan contains policies to reduce the impact of future
development oti.historical and archaeological resources in the City. Policies 3.1.1-3.1.14,
3.2...1-3.2.7, '.3.1-3.3.8, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5.1-3.5.8, and 3.6.1-3.6.4 min;m;7.e future disruption of
prehistoric resources. Implementation programs (13.1, 13.2 and 13.22) have been established
to carry out these policies. Additional poIides and programs are t1es;l"ed to preserve
historical resources. These include policies 3.1.4, 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 and programs 13.3, 13.6
and 13.20 which establish a Historic Preservati,ou.. ~J;1ay ~ne to protectbistoric resources.
Policies 3.3.1-3.3.8 and programs 13.2, 13.12-13.15 and 13.16-13.18 promote COlnhh.n;ty
awareness and involvement in historic preservation. Policies and programs that provide
incentives to revitalize resources while protecting them include polices 3.5.1-3.5.8, 3.4.1, and
3.4.2 and programs 13.5, 13.7, 13.10-13.12, 13.18-W1. {3.23 and 13.25-13.26. 1Wo additional
oneuures have been identified for miti8l'tion. One is to notify owneD when Rigroifl....nt
resources are identified on their property. The ~ is to "bHllll.a~ 0(
rehabilitation, preservation. and retrofitting ofoldel homes and structurea wbere it mipt .
be needed to reduce VIbration impacts due to traffic as determineclby l";dAl;nes of the
Historic Resources Comm;lt~ion.
'" ......
. - - .. "~'~.'" - : .-~~
The City Council finds that these policies;.oo ~ and mitiption .......~~ ~
the adverse ;"'P"o::ts to historical and arcbaeoIogica1. reIOlD'C& The Council aim
acknowledges that future circumstances may result in d...-lanus impacting hiItorica1
resources or in accidental loss of archaeological resources. The Council further fiDds that
no additional measures are known that can further reduce adverse bistorica1/arcbaeologica1
resource impacts in the City without significantly and substantlaI1y interfering with
comm1ln;ty objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs and mitigation measures can be carried out by the
City staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council direo::ts staff to .
implement them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that
historical/archaeological resources are protected to the mllY;1IIIJIJl degree fea51ble.
4. Cirl!l11ationlTntfFit!
Significant Effect
The final EIR identified decreases in Level of Service (LOS) to "EM or "F' on 49
roadway segments as a result of development under the proposed General Plan.
19
.0
o
o
o
FintJinB
0....,.. ~~ have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
reduce the ~JIOw ~"'P"l1S, as identified in the final EIR and its components. However,
these c:baIIgea ahlteratiODl cannot reduce the identified significant adverse traffic effects
to J level.of ~Migrlificance. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infea51ble the additional mitigation necessa"Y to reduce these traffic impacts to a level of
insignificance. .
Faas in Support of Fi1u:Jin&J
The proposed General Plan contains policies to substantially increase circulation system
capacity and to maintain acceptable flows along most roadways within the City. Policies
6.1.1-6.1.14 establish procedures to mitigate traffic i"'P"cts to the level feaS1ble.
Implementation of policies 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 is not fully implementable by the City Council
~l'se many locations within the City already exceed the LOS "C' Shlnd.rcf l'lnfttlIinNI in
these policies. An additional reason is the physical limitation on road widtbI in. many
portions which prevent the City from meeting the LOS .C' stBnd.rct without ......a.., severe
and unacc:eptable adverse i"'P"o:ts on adjacent property. In addition to the poIic:ie1 cited
above, impl..m-rion programs 16.1-16.22 establish the m~.n~_ to reduce tn4ic .
~"'P"o:ts to the level feasible. 'I\vo mitiption measures have been jdl!nrifi'=li in the fiji1l
EIR that wiD require traffic studies and transportation demand systems m.n....... to lie
implemented for specific projects in the future. The Council finds that these measures sid
be implemented as out);n~ "... .
The City Council finds that these policies and programs lessen the adverse ~"'PIct5 to
future circulation/traffic systems, but they are not capable of reducing these ~"'PIct5 below
a Sil"~ficant level. Certain locations within the circulation system cannot pbysicaDy be
i.n9roved to allow an acceptable LOS without severe and unacc:eptable adverse ~cts on
adjacent properties. Beea'J5e of this limitation imposed by existing development and the
existing circulation system, the Council finds that adverse traffic impacts cannot be reduced
to an ~nsil"ificant leveL The Council further finds that no additional measures are known
that can further reduce adverse circulation/traffic impacts for the City without lligrlificantly
and substantially interfering with comm..n~ty objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs and mitigation measures can be carried out by the City
staff and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement
them at the appropriate time in the future to ensure that circulation/traffic impacts are
mitigated to the m.nm..m degree fe8Slble in the City.
5. Air OnAl1\V
Significant Effect
The final EIR indicates that future development under the proposed General Plan will
generate an additional 211 tons per day (tpd) more carbon monoxide, 36 tpd of nitrogen
oxides, 4.4 tpd of sulfur oxides, 6 tpd of fine particulate matter and 19 tpd of reactive
20
"0
o
o
o
orgauic gases relative to 1987 emissions. The increase in emissions is considered to be a
substantial ~on to existing air quality violations.
F.....l:..!;. _",:-~' .
.,.."...~." "
___*,~Sl11gCS or alterations have been incorporated into the project which reduce the air
'{Wllity emissions and contribution to air quality violations, as identified in the final EIR and
its components. However, these changes or alterations cannot reduce the significant
adverse effect to a level of ;nRigp;ficance. Specific economic, sMAI, or other considerations
make infe..ihle the addition of mitigation necessary to reduce the forecasted air quality
;111p"cts to a "level of ;nRigp;ficance. .
FfICb in Suppott of Findi:n&t
The proposed General Plan contains policies to nrin;m;..~ air pollutant ('nri",,;OllS and
to reduce the ;111p"oCt on existing violations of ambient air quality standards, both state and
federal. Policies 10.11.1-10.11.13, and 10.11.12 and implementation progrBJDIl1o.1~l1o.18,
110.19, 110.23,110.24, n0.27-110.29, and 110.31 establish .......hAn;_ to ndnhm~vehicle
travel and provide for participation in regional progrBJDI to reduce ...m...u.ns and impIoye
air quality. The City Council finds that these policies and progrBJDIl__ the adveue
impacts to airquaHty, however, it is not possible to provide for additional vehicle miles atad
population growth without incurring air polb....nt .....-..... that wiD clIIIttibute jo
conrim,;ng violations of the ambient air quality bealth standards. E1dstiD& tedmology m."'"
nririptiOD of mobile source emissions and related air quality i""P"~,:t4 a. Jcvdof
;n&igpificanceinfewole. The Council further finds that DO additional ~i.UI~ are known
that can further reduce air quality ;111p"""' for the project without dpif!C4Dtly and
substantially interfering with commumty objectives for future development.
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by the Cty staff and other
agencies as 8.pp.opdate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the
applOp.iate tiine in the future to ensure that air quality emissions from future growth and
development are reduced to the mn;mum degree fewole in the Cty.
6. Biolopcal Resour,"".
Signifiamt Effect
Development of vacant land within the Cty under the new General Plan has the
potential to cause significant loss of sensitive biological resources within the pIAnn;11g area.
Fmding
C'hAl1ges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potential adverse biological effects, as identified in the final
EIR and its components.
21
.'0.
o
o
o
Facts in Support of Fint:Iin&s
The propuiiif GeDeral Plan cont.ainll a series of policies and programs designed to
reduce ~""'l-'1l' on biological resources from development under the Plan to the
degree leuibJII"TbeIe i_hide: policy 10.1.1 and program 110.1 which are ded!V'oed to
"'"qI,ire and mllint.llin a biological data base. for the plllnni11g area; incorporation of
development restric:tiom and stllnil"..ds in the Development Code (110.2); mitigation and
monitoring, policy 10.2.2 and program 110.2-110.5; acquisition of important biological
resource corridbrs, policy 10.4.1, 110.6, 110.7 and 110"; preservation and enhllncement of
riparian habitats policy 10.5.1, 110.1, 110.2 and 11M; protec:tion of federally-eUillll1gered
plant species, policies 10.2.1 and 10.6.3 and prograp lJO~110.5; and review of projects
located in the BRM by the Oty's Environmental Revi~ <;Ommittee and c:onsulting biologist
or other environmental professionals, policy 10.2.2aj1d~~ 110.2 ~ 110.3.. .
The Oty Council finds that these policies and . and mitipriOll measure lessen
the adverse i1l\P"dS to biological resources. The. QRuIc:il also that future
clrc:umstances may result in land use d....lr . . .. or raulting
in the accidental loss of biological ~The., l'ilMtlftII1Il
measures are feasible at this time ~ . . . resource
i~ in the Oty without 1l1!V'ifiquUij._"" '. .
objectives for future development. ~'llIfiD'5~ .',and
by Oty staff and other agencies U:;~~ .., -
imp~t ~~ ~.the ~_~T-"J to:.
effective m m,n,m''ft11g potentiaH~~...!'r"~ .,' ."
. . -. ~t;?!~1f~.~~.~:~:::~::.<r~~"::~~f~~~'~~~~'~" - ~:'_.~
T. GeoIOfY 1~I"'mle:- . .-::.::~~::\t' ~;;.,tf.~:"'. .;. ~;r 'f'" ":i;~~i',,-' .
S" E ect ""3~'~i~12:-:;)X:'i~~~t~~..,~,~,,'. , ._
ignifU:ant 'ffi . "'",.:'":ri:~'~'~:f d ..."o~;,,:im':':;~;*' :~'.';:':~i",\:-':;"
Future development under.~ p.~~ ~ralPIinwiD';"":~' ., ,: ....,0..
and structures to potential fault ~..J'rOiind iI....~ . -.' ... '. . .~. .'
wind/water erosion bazards;..;~o.'Io significant gl'OUIICI1......~"'... r""~ -.
to this impact cannot beA1.4-~I't~td to lULi-.,.m....~il'..'":,~+:~i~ .
F~ '. ~:c:'7~'L:~'~.~\:'. . ..~....~.'".:~"..; .'
C"'ha11ges or. a1teiatiOiIl'.:~~:~ . incorporated into the.. project which avoid or
substlll1rilllly 1__",'~ Jet'itenced significant geologic- and....iomric 1Jazards, as
identified in the l!"~~EfR.:1Uld ifs.'components. ...
,"~.'......;:..."r~,_,c
Facts iIf. ~of'FfIIIiin&t
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies which will minimi'7.e the
exposure of future residents and structures to geologic and seismic hazards. However,
exposure to-significant regional ground sbaking and related impacts cannot be avoided.
Fault rupture mitigation is incorporated in policies 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 and implementation
programs 112.1-112.5, 112.10, 112.27, and 112.29. Policy 12.2.1 and programs 112.1-112.5,
22
.()
o
o
o
. - . -.~.. -~
112.l8, and 112.23-112.29 mitigate potential structural collapse by incorporating programs
that establish _ill1niC performance standaJ'ds, etc. liquefaction hazard reduction is
CODtAin..d inpQlfdes 12.3.1-12.3.4 and programs 112.1, 1112, 112.S, 112.6, and 112.18-112.20
and 112.22. pMW- and programs for critical facilities are "'-':-rd 12.4.1-12.4.8 and 1121-
112.3, 1l2.S, 1W-112.11, 11218, 112.19, 112.23, 1l2.26, 112.27, 112.34, 112.37, and 112.38.
Impacts Oil existing structures that are hazardous can be mitigated by policies l2.S.1 and
12.3.2 and programs 11210, 11211, 11213-112.14, 112.27, 112.43, and 112.46. Emergency
preparedness plans are outlined in policies 126.1-12.6.3 and programs 112.7 and 112.30-
112.37.
The City Council finds that these policies and programs lessen the adverse i~ from
geologic and seismic hazards. The Council also acknowledges that futnre Mill1ni~ events
pose an UDaVOidable, sigJ"ifiQnt risk for existing and future residents.. The. CouDcil further
fiDda that no additional measures are fea51ble to further reduce this -amic risk without
slgJ"ificantly and substantially interfering with community objectives for futute deftlopment.
These Plan policies and programs can be carried out by the .OJl(.,r and otber.~
u appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to implement them at the ~~ r-te
time in the futnre to ensure that geology and seismici11\P"cts BDClIIl_rdurel~..
~ low::el achievable within the City. '_~, .:;:~"e;;~~~la~:'
-.~. l.', ~ -=-_;.;-..r;;a. ..., _.
Sitprificant Effect
.~., . . I' '-;;. ~."...:.~~~~ ,,'-:
The final EIR projects an overall 4.4 deabel noise increase due to trafIfi.eues
alone. Auchble noise increases of S deabels or more will occur on the folJowiDa;Mlds: MDl
Street, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Sterling Avenue, University Parkway, TCendaQ Street, BStreet,
Rancho Avenue, Sth Street, InlAnd Center Drive and CajOD Boulevard. . ~tle of
existing residents to such increues is considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact
of future development under the proposed General Plan. .
Finding
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the noise effects of this project, u identified in the final EIR and its
components.
Facts in Support of FinJ:Iin&f
The proposed General Plan contains a series of policies and programs which can reduce
noise but not to acceptable levels given the City's noise exposure criteria. The policies that
reduce noise levels include 14.1.1, 14.21, 14.3.1-14.3.9, 14.4.1, 14.4.2, 14.5.1, 14.5.2, 14.6.1-
14.6.5, 14.7.1-14.7.3, 14.8.1, 14.8.2, 14.9.1, 14.9.2, 14.10.1, and 14.10.2 Noise reduction
programs include 114.1-114.14 and 114.16-114.26. These policies reduce noise generation,
prevent new sensitive uses from being developed in high noise areas. and fail to provide
for noise buffers to reduce noise to acceptable levels along certain existing transportation
routes where development already exists. Mitigation in such &feU is not feasible due to the
23
-"0
o
o
o
~DSe of noise buffers, the conflict with other goals determined as more important (such
as commnnity ~gn) and physicallimitatioDS which occur along many thor011p"'res).
The City-~..., fiDds that these po1iciea and programs lessen the adverse noise
i111p".... withiaitle commnnity. The Counc:il also acknowledges that future circumstances
wil\ occur where noise objectives C8DDOt be met and where significant noise impacts (many
of which currently exist) will be unavoidable. 1be Counc:il further finds that no additional
measures can be feasJ.bly implemented to reduce adverse noise impacts at certain locations
in the City without Ripificantly and substantially interfering with community objectives for
future development. These PIan policies amlprosr....... can.be carried out by theCi1;y staff
and other agencies as appropriate. Therefore, the Council directs staff to imp'''ment them
at the Api>>opDate time in the future to ensure that the mitigation is provided to minimi..~
noise level exposure to the degree feasJ.ble.
IV. SUMMARY
",-
... t:,.U;:.i ..u:-."",:\
The City Council finds that all environmental issues except land use, housiD&
historical/archaeological resources, circulation/traffic, air quality, biological rescJIJnles,
geologic/M'i.....ic: hazards, and noise can be and will be mitiglo~ below a ~,...nt level
by implementing the policies and imp. .......~tion programs and themitip~.. ~
identified in the above analysis of environmental issues. 1be Counc::il ~des.~ P
City canimplMn~ all of the measureaoa it-owa-'Ibe Counc:ilalsofouDdthat .,
transportation,circulation policies may Det be fully implemented in the future. J,."
j,~! '
24
00
"""";
&:~
~.c-
J
c::
III
;s:.-
~.
I
-
....
J ~
1"
0>
QI
~ j ~
5
:g
03
=
1 .~
.- ~
~
~8
...
x~
.....
J!!
-=
J!=
j _llO
I:l C
,,=
'0-
-; .~
"'a
IIC.....
o
~ Cl 0
0".... ~
'"\ "'- cD
~ ~ "
II I
U\~. ~
11'1..-
it~ ~
I! I
~i ~
...' '" 0
~m I
-10 tr
lri i
1m I
~~
Cfl.-
18~
:8;;
-.:...~
0_
...
-
b>. J!
-- -
SOs =
~ III 'a
d. ";' -
'ill::! "
c= IIC
us::E ;;
-
~
CI\
all
.
..,;
too
too
:z
,
...
...
o ~ () rn
"to .... <'11 0
~ ~- .0, (3' 0
",0 .. ~ ~
it:;t\ ~- ~ ~t
~- C'1 ~
n J i 51
o
"0
CI)\I'l iJl $"
-~ :rA
I'f)" ~ ~-
~! ! I
s
f
'2
.
~
C'f C) 0 rf\ >.
I'!""b :I <1 .s 1
~1Ii' '1: i": :
:1a.o .Q <'1:: vi' ..l.
..~. lit It'I " ... 'i,.
-= <1 '" In ~ ~. Ii?
II II I ,I
'.r! 1
~:r i '-
H ii f
-8
'a
,s
~~ I ~. i i
~ ~ rt !lit') ... ..
. '" ... ...
... or
'2
.!!
C
a
=
--
Q
<<
zz
i ~
.
...
.....
.::
,g-
;;
-
I:f
"
S
E
a
.....
!II
~ ~. i
i ! j
a i ;;
'; :s 'i
-- 'a ~
~ .e :.
I
Cl.
Q
]
..
'tl
f
]
-
8=
=.!
o~
..
..0
o
o
o
TABLE 1
.' ..... Organization of Draft General PIan Topics
'h..c.l~th Respect to Required and Optional Elements
J -
San Bernardino
General Plan T01'ic:s/eements
Chapter One: Community
Development
1.0 Land Use and Urban Design
2.0 Housing
3.0 Historical Resources
4.0 Economic Development
5.0 Public Space Urban Design
Chapter Two: In&astruc:ture and
Community Services
6.0 Circulation
7.0 Utilities
8.0 Public Facilities and Services
9.0 Parles and Recreation
Chapter Three: Environmental
Resources
Mandated Element "Permissive" Element
Land Use
Housing
Urban Design
Historical
Economic Development
Urban Design, ,d .
,
Circ:ulation
L
'..:.' ~
JnfrastructurelUtiBties"" -
Public Services
Parles and Reaeation
Public Safety
Open Space
. -. :.; 'v" ~ M":' ~. ~
"
10.0 Natural Resources Conservation
Open Space
11.0 Energy and Water Conservation Conservation
Chapter Four. Hazards
12.0 Geologic and Seismic
13.0 Hazardous Materials and Uses
14.0 Noise
IS.0 Wmd and rU'e
16.0 Flooding
Public Safety
Public Safety
Land Use
Noise
Public Safety
Public Safety
Land Use
ilII!IIJ
"0
. ,
o
en
Z
o
j!:
<J
Q
en
a:
::l
~
<
w
a:
<
N CI
w iE
a: Z
::l Z
Cl ~
~ lL
r- 2
; 'e.
o Ill_
III
III
-
c.:
o
c
'E
01
C
..
..
11I-
ce
~~
'0;
>o~
.-
<JO
.. CI
.c
~i
o.
(1)-
:::..a..
II &
I!!I
o
.
-I
o
-
J.
-.
d ~.;.,.. _ ...
'li;J&
~.
a
~
8
~
~
LQ
.
:i:
i
o~
o
~C5
,
. .
o
o
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
PRO.TECf BENEFITS
In order to make a decision whether to approve a project that will have an adverse
environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed must be balanced against its
unavoidable, significant adverse environmental impacts. "If the benefits of a proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be
considered 'acceptable'" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a
project are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur
without the proposed project. The benefits from adopting a new General Plan are
preliminary based on the higher quality community environment that will exist as the City
develops under the new Plan. The sections below briefly describe the most important
benefits identified as a result of adopting the General Plan as proposed.
Benefits
1. The General Plan will provide opportunities to continue and strengthen the
City's region-serving role by intensifying existing and introducing new uses that will attract
the clientele and meet the needs of the greater region. These include employee-generating
commercial and industrial, corporate and professional office, visitor and convention-serving,
governmental, educational and cultural uses.
2. The Plan will improve the general quality of development and construction
by mandating extensive use of on-site landscaping and amenities and providing architectural
design guidelines which dispense with undifferentiated "stucco-boxes" and establish a
"pedestrian oriented" character in the ground elevation of commercial structures in key
activity areas of the City.
3. The General Plan requires the preparation of a comprehensive historic .
resources survey, a preservation ordinance and an Historic Resources Commission that will
help to preserve historic and archaeological resources. Retention and protection of the
City's early built environment will create a recognizable identity and a source of community
pride.
4. The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing types
to meet the needs of all segments of society by establishing programs for the provision of
affordable housing, the preservation and improvement of existing housing, a provision for
the development of shelters for the homeless and the provision of housing for people with
special needs.
1
-
-
o
o
o
o
5. The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with available
and expanded infrastructure and services including streets, transit, sewers, water, storm
drainage, energy, and communication. The timing of development will be phased with the
provision of necessary infrastructure/service improvements, the cost of which shall be borne
by those deriving the benefit.
6. The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and programs
designed to provide a transportation network with adequate capacity to accommodate
proposed build out, including mechanisms to monitor and maintain acceptable traffic
conditions.
7. The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic-generated noise
through policies that require the installation of mitigation measures such as noise walls or
landscape and inhibits through trips by the use of cul-de-sacs and one-way streets in
residential neighborhoods.
8. The General Plan designates a Geological Hazards Overlay that helps to
reduce the risk to life and property, economic and social dislocation and disruption of vital
services that would result from earthquake damage by increasing setbacks and construction
standards beyond those currently required by law. Design and performance standards, the
prohibition of buildings within 50 feet of either side of an active fault, site specific studies
for proposed projects within areas of liquefaction, and the prohibition of critical facilities
within Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are some of the requirements.
9. The General Plan contributes to the health and safety of the residents of the
City by providing city-wide programs for disaster preparedness and recovery planning in
the event of a major earthquake, fire flood or other disaster.
10. The plan designates a Biological Resources Management Overlay District in
the foothills and in the foothill drainage courses, which regulates development for increased
protection of significant plant and resources. Development restrictions and standards will
minimize removal of vegetation, minimize erosion, sedimentation and runoff by appropriate
protection or landscape, prevent groundwater depletion or substantial interference with
surface and subsurface flows, and provide for natural vegetation buffers.
11. The General Plan provides programs emphasizing proper management of
hazardous materials, siting of facilities and effectiveness emergency response in order to
protect the residents of San Bernardino and the environment from damages resulting from
improper handling of hazardous materials.
12. The General Plan will provide increased fire protection for foothill areas by
incorporating into the City's Development Code design and development standards from
the "Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program" including fire resistant roofing
and fencing materials, dual access into neighborhoods and subdivisions and management
of vegetation.
2
_ .L
o
o
o
o
13. The General Plan will improve the quality of life for the residents of San
Bernardino through implementation of the policies pertaining to upgrading police and fire
services, civic institutions and cultural facilities, education and their interrelationship with
the other elements of the Plan. This City will become a safer and more desirable place for
families to reside and will provide families increased opportunities to further their
participation in civic, cultural and educational events.
14. The General plan establishes a Hillside Management Overlay District to
encourage a sensitive form of development which complements the natural and visual
character of the hillsides and protects the public health, safety and general welfare by
insuring development does not create soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage,
flood problems and severe cutting or scarring.
II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all the
adverse impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which reduce those impacts to
insignificant levels (where feasible), and have analyzed the reasonable project alternatives
to determine whether such alternatives might reduce or eliminate significant environmental
effects. Significant environmental effects which cannot be mitigated to insignificant levels
will occur if the proposed General Plan is approved by the Council and future development
is guided by the Plan. CEQA provides that a Lead Agency (the Council in this case) may
approve a project despite the occurrence of significant environmental impacts if it
determines that such impacts are acceptable when balanced against the social, economic,
and other benefits of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). This section
sets forth the factors considered in the Council's balancing effort.
The Council has evaluated five alternatives to the adoption of the proposed General
Plan. These alternatives are described in Section II of these findings which is hereby
incorporated by reference. The Council has analyzed each of these alternatives to
determine whether and to what extent they minimize or eliminate significant environmental
effects caused by implementation of the proposed General Plan and whether and to what
extent they meet the proposed project objectives. The Council finds that these alternatives
(no project, low growth, moderate growth, high growth, and draft plan variation (Alternative
H)), do not significantly decrease the environmental impacts caused by the implementing
the proposed General Plan and/or do not meet the project objectives for the reasons
specified in Section II of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof and are therefore
infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364).
The Council finds that the more intense development alternatives (no project, moderate
growth, high growth and draft plan variation) could meet project objectives but they also
have the potential to cause additional intolerable significant adverse environmental impacts
than the proposed General Plan. The moderate growth alternative would result in about
1,131 fewer residences being constructed than the proposed General Plan, but the only
significant impact that would be reduced when compared to the proposed General Plan is
exposure to ground shaking. All other significant adverse impacts would remain the same
or be increased under this alternative. This occurs because commercial square footage is
3
I
o
o
o
o
increased substantially in the moderate growth alternative which increases traffic and
related adverse impacts. The Council rejects these alternatives in favor of the proposed
General Plan, which is the environmentally superior alternative.
The Council finds that the low growth alternative can reduce some adverse impacts, but
that it will result in more significant adverse impacts in four of the eight significant impact
categories identified for the proposed General Plan. These were: land use compatibility,
housing, circulation and traffic, and air quality. The reductions in significant impacts from
the low growth alternative includes exposure to regional seismic ground shaking and noise.
The potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources and to biological resources
remain approximately the same for these two alternatives. The Council finds that when
reviewed in total, the low growth alternative produces more significant adverse
environmental impacts than the proposed General Plan. The Council rejects this alternative
in favor of the proposed General Plan, which is considered the overall environmentally
superior alternative.
The Council finds that an alternative location for the project is infeasible since the a
general plan must inherently govern the community for which it has been prepared. Thus,
the Council rejects an alternative location as infeasible and unable to meet project
objectives.
The Council has reviewed the entire record, all public comments and findings for the
certification of the City of San Bernardino 1989 General Plan Final EIR. The Council and
City Planning Commission have held over 20 public meetings and hearings during the past
three months. The Council has identified several (seven) issues where no potential for
significant impact can occur and thus no mitigation is proposed. These issues are addressed
in Section llA of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof. The Council has also
identified eight (8) potentially significant environmental effects for which feasible mitigation
measures and alterations incorporated into the proposed General Plan are available to
lessen such effects to a level of insignificance. These effects are described in Section lIB
of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof. The feasible mitigation measures identified
in Section lIB are hereby adopted by the Board as part of its resolution approving the
proposed General Plan.
The Council has identified eight potentially significant environmental effects that cannot
be substantially mitigated to a level of insignificance. These effects are described in Section
IIC of the Findings and Facts in Support Thereof and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Despite their inability to fully mitigation environmental impacts, the Council adopts the
mitigation measures and alterations incorporated into the proposed General Plan as part
of its resolution approving the Plan. These measures will minimize the identified
environmental effects to the fullest extent feasible.
The Council has identified several social, economic and other benefits which will result
from implementation of the proposed project. These benefits are described in Section I of
this Summary Statement of Overriding Considerations and are hereby incorporated by
reference. The Council has balanced the substantial social, economic and other benefits
from approval and development of the proposed project against the identified significant
4
o
o
o
. .
adverse environmental effects of the proposed General Plan. The Council finds that the
social, economic, environmental and other benefits identified herein override the identified
significant adverse environmental effects.
5
o
_ 4.
.~
,
o
o
&-0
.
EXHIBIT 3
MITIGATION REPORTINGIMONITORING PROGRAM
for the 1989
City of San Bernardino General Plan
Introduction
In compliance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by passage of AB3180
(Cortese)), public agencies approving projects which cause significant environmental impacts
must monitor the mitigation of those impacts. Implementation of the City of San
Bernardino Draft General Plan may result in significant environmental impacts. This
Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program (the "Program"), prepared for the City of San
Bernardino, ensures implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the findings
made by the City Council in adopting the Draft General Plan.
Mitil!ation Measures and ReDortin~lMonitorine Activities
Land Use Mitigation Measures
1. Relocation assistance shall be provided in accordance with the California Relocation
Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act.
2. The City shall actively involve the public in the formulation and review of specific
plans for regional serving uses proposed for the "Regional Opportunities Corridor."
3. The City shall monitor economically "depressed" commercial corridors in the.
Northwest Redevelopment Project Area, as well as other depressed commercial
corridors, to determine to what extent development is or is not occurring and report
the findings with recommendations to the Mayor and Council every two years.
Land Use Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the three land use mitigation measures can and should be
implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs
that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following
additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1
.c
o
o
o
.
1. The staff shall document compliance with the State of California Uniform Relocation
Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act by placing the administrative record of each intermediary action into a separate
file that will be summarized and reported to the Council every two years after the
adoption of the General Plan.
2. The staff shall document such public involvement by maintaining a transcript of such
meetings as might be held specifically to develop and review specific plans for the
"Regional Opportunities Corridor."
3. The staff shall gather summary data on each project approved for development in
each of the "depressed commercial corridors" within the Northwest Redevelopment
Project Area, as well as other depressed commercial corridors, and present the data
to the Council in a report format comparing each of the areas. This report shall be
presented to the Council every two years from the date of adoption of the General
Plan.
Housing Mitigation Measures
1. As existing housing units are displaced for higher density or other uses, the City shall
require that relocation assistance is provided in accordance with the California
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act.
2. The City shall monitor state and federal programs and increase funds, as available,
for assistance in the provision of housing for low and moderate income households.
Housing Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the two housing mitigation measures can and should be
implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs
that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following
additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall document all assistance provided in accordance with the California
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act and summarize this information in an annual report
to the City Council.
2. City staff shall itemize in annual financial statements to the Council the annual
change of real state and federal dollars available and spent as assistance in the
provision of housing for low and moderate income households.
Historical and Archaeological Resources Mitigation Measures
1. To more effectively implement the City's program of certifying historic resources,
implementation program 13.4 should be amended to provide for the notification of
2
. C'
o
o
o
owners when significant resources are identified on their property, together with
explanation of the benefits and constraints that this condition represents.
2. To reduce vibration impacts due to traffic, establish a program of rehabilitation,
preservation and retrofitting of older homes and structures where it tnight be needed
as detertnined by guidelines of the Historic Resources Comtnission.
Historical and Archaeological Resources Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that these historical and archaeological tnitigation measures can and
should be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City
Council directs that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that
the following additional measure be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the
mitigation action:
1. City staff shall initiate and maintain a correspondence file for property owner
notifications initiated by staff and for resultant correspondence from owners with
staff notations regarding disposition of the resource.
2. Following development of a program to rehabilitate, retrofit, and preserve older
homes and structures consistent with Historic Resources Comtnission guidelines, the
City staff shall retain a copy of the program in the City fIles for review by the public.
Circulation and Tramc Mitigation Measures
1. Prior to development, a detailed traffic analysis should be required for projects
expected to produce vehicle trips in excess of a threshold established per
implementation program 16.13 and appropriate tnitigation measures identified to
reduce trip generation and/or maintain a LOS of "C" or otherwise acceptable to the
Mayor and Common Council. Studies shall identify specific tnitigation measures such
as signalization improvements, driveway location, parking, vanpools, carpools,
preferential parking for carpools, flextime schedules, bike facilities or other suitable
tnitigations.
2. If necessary, the City should require the implementation of Transportation Demand
Systems to provide for area-wide transportation management for new projects
identified as having a significant regional impact on the transportation system.
Circulation and Tramc Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that the two circulation and traffic mitigation measures can and
should be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City
Council directs that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that
the following additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the
mitigation action:
3
. O'
o
o
o
1. City staff shall make permanent entry in development files, for projects meeting the
threshold criteria, of the location where the required analysis can be located and of
the disposition of the mitigation measures recommenced by that analysis.
2. City staff shall make permanent entry in development files, for projects meeting the
significant regional criteria, of the implementation particulars of Transportation
Demand Systems as applied to the particular project.
Water Supply Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new water facilities would be identified during the environmental
review process for specific development proposals.
Water Supply Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds that full implementation this mitigation measure is outside of the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino however the changes can and
should be adopted by each local agency having such responsibility and jurisdiction. With
regard to the aspects of this mitigation measure within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of the City of San Bernardino the City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should
be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council
directs that implementation of this measure be carried out by City staff and that the
following additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation
action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific water facility development proposal.
Sewage Disposal Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation Measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new wastewater facilities will be identified during the environmental
review process for specific development proposals.
Sewage Disposal Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measures be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific sewage disposal facility development proposal.
4
\
. o.
, .
o
o
o
Communications Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new communications facilities would be identified during the
environmental review process for specific development proposals.
Communications Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measures be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific communications facility development proposal.
Flooding Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation measures for potentially adverse secondary impacts resulting from the
construction of new storm drain and flood control facilities would be identified
during the environmental review process for specific development proposals.
Flooding Reporting Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
these measures be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measures be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action:
1. City staff shall maintain a full and complete record of the environmental review
accomplished for each specific storm drain and flood control facility development
proposal.
Hazardous Materials/Uses Mitigation Measures
1. Future development in areas suspected to have soil contamination shall require a
detailed soil analysis as part of the environmental review procedure. This analysis
or survey will identify any residual hazardous materials and necessary mitigation
measures.
2. Recognizing the City's scope of responsibilities and financial capabilities, the City
shall treat contaminated groundwater and surface water using the most effective and
best available control technology.
5
.0-
. .
o
o
o
Hazardous Materials/Uses ReportingfMonitoring Action
The City Council finds that the two hazardous materials/uses mitigation measures can and
should be implemented by the City in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City
Council directs that implementation of these measures be carried out by City staff and that
the following additional measures be accomplished by staff to report or monitor the
mitigation action:
1. City staff shall make permanent entry in development files, for projects meeting the
previous contamination criteria, of the location where the required analysis can be
located and of the disposition of the mitigation measures recommended by that
analysis.
2. The City shall retain treatment program documents (including the type of treatment
technology utilized) in public files when ground water or surface waters are treated
to remove contaminants.
Biological Resource Mitigation Measure
1. The City shall complete and present the studies identified in implementation
programs nO.6 and no.s to the Mayor and City Council within two years of Plan
adoption.
Biological Resource Reporting/Monitoring Action
The City Council finds this mitigation measure can and should be implemented by the City
in its regulatory and legislative authority. The City Council directs that implementation of
this measure be carried out by City staff and that the following additional measure be
accomplished by staff to report or monitor the mitigation action;
1. The City staff shall retain the dated hearing notices to document compliance with
this measure and the studies shall be retained on file for public review.
Conclusion
This Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program shall be retained by the City in the Planning
Department general plan project file. As various mitigation measures are fully implemented
their completion should be documented by appropriate memorandum to that file.
6