HomeMy WebLinkAbout46-Planning and Building
CiTY' OF SAN BER~DINO - REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-l4A,
A Proposal to change the land use
designation from RL to RS for a sitE
located on the northside of Foothill
Dr. approx. 1,180 feet east of
Sterling Avenue.
Dept:
Planning and Building Services
Date:
April 22, 1991
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Mayor and Common Council ~reeting
May 6, 1991
The site was designated RL, Residential Low with the adoption
of the General Plan on June 2, 1989.
or
At their meeting of March 19, 1991 the Planning Commission
recommended denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-l4A.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that General Plan Amendment No.
90-l4A be denied. (Planning Commission Recommendation).
That the hearing be closed and that General Plan Amendment No.
90-l4A be approved and that staff be directed to prepare the
resolution. (Staff Recommendation).
L~
r~
Signature
Reed
Contact person: Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
4
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
71',.n?62
Agenda Item No.
'-/6
-
-
CITY OF SAN BERN~INO - REQUEST FcQ COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SIlBJECT
General Plan Amendment (GPAI No. 90-14A
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 6. 1991
~EOUES'J'
The applicant requests to change the land use designation from RL,
Residential Low 13.1 dwelling units per acre) to RS. Residential
Suburban (4.5 dwelling units per acre) on approximately 8.12 acres
The amendment site is located on the north side of Foothill Drive
approximately 1.180 feet east of Sterling Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2. 1989. the site was
designated RL, Residential Low.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed
(Attachment B to the Planning Commission
recommended a Negative Declaration.
the Initial Studv
Staff Report) and
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at
a noticed public hearing on March 19. 1991. The Planning
Commission recommended denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve General
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A as presented and direct staff to prepare
the resolution.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment
No. 90-14A.
15-0264
. .
o
o
General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
May 6. 1991
PaCJe 2
2. The Mayor and Common Council may approve General Plan
Amendment No. 90-14A and direct staff to prepare a resolution.
3. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to address
alternative land use designations or other modifications to
General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff. Associate Planner
for Larry E. Reed. Director
Department of Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission
March 19. 1991
Attachment A: Proposed Text Amendments (Not
applicable to the map amendment
included as Attachment A to Staff
Report for GPA 90-14B)
B: Initial Study
Exhibit A Existing Land Use Map
Exhibit B Land Use Designations and
Site Location Map
C - J: Letters
8'C.'C.acnmeu'C. .J.
. . CITY OF SAN OERNARDINO
-
OEMORANDUM
To
Planning Commission
General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
From Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Svcs.
Date March 19, 1991
Subject
Approved I tem No. 2
Date
OWNER
Robert K. and Evelyn J. Blatter
5724 Palomar Court
San Bernardino. CA 92404
APPLICANT
W.R. Hendrix & Associates. Inc.
350 West 5th Street, Suite 202
San Bernardino. CA 92401
BACKGROUND
General Plan Amendment No. 90-14 was continued (without hearing)
from the Planninq Commission meetinq held on February 5. 1991 to
March 19, 1991. Due to confusion regardinq the map amendment
versus the text amendment. the two amendment proposals have been
separated. The map amendment is referred to as General Plan
Amendment (GPA) No. 90-14A and the text amendment as General Plan
Amendment (GPAl No. 90-14B.
This report addresses the map amendment only.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA 90-14A based on the findings in
the Staff Report dated March 19. 1991.
"G,';:'&./
Larr E. Reed, Director
Planninq and Buildinq Services
.' . .., I )J?jJ .'
@~uJA-l/V~IAi./M.--
Deborah Woldruff V 1/
ssociate Planner
Attachment: Staff Report to the Planninq Commission
;;RiG= i
4,., --o.~_-r. ~
. .i'~ ,"~.-!, . 'r""\--.~
,~~ ' ~~-~
~~:;p
. .
. li (')
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 2
SUMMARY HEARING DATE 3-19-91
WARD 4
/--.. APPLICANT: W.R. Hendrix & Assoc. ,Inc.
350 West 5th St., Ste. 202
W San Bernardino, CA 92401
tIJ GENERAL PLAN >>1ENIHNl' NO. 90-14A OWNER: Ibbert K & E.Velyn J. Blatter
C
(J 5724 Palanar Cburt
San Bernardino, CA 92404
'-../ "
r-...
i A proposal to ameni the General Plan 1anl use plan fran the RL,
Residential IDw designation (3.1 dwelling units per acre) to the
::::l RS, Residential SUI:mban designation (4.5 dwelling units per acre)
g for a site located on the oorth side of Foothill Drive awroximately
1,180 feet east of Sterling Avenue.
II:
-
C
W
II:
C
r r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DI;SIGNATION
SUbject Vacant RL Residential IDw
North San Bernardino ~ Flood RL Residential IDw
Control and Borrow S~te
South Flood Control 01annel and PFC/RS Public Flood control
Single-Family Residential and ~~
East Flood con~l 0Iannel~ RL/RS Res IDw ana
Single-Fami. Residen Residential SUOOrban
"West "Olurch Faci.1lty and Grounds RL Residential ra;,'
( r ( )
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC IXI YES I FLOOD HAZARD XI' YES XI ZONE A SEWERS: XI YES
HAZARD ZONE: o NO " ZONE: 0 NO 0 ZONE B o NO
"
( HIGH FIRE 121 YES ) AIRPORT NOISE! o YES ) L REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
" KI NO OQNO
r- Z g APPROVAL
... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
:! APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MmGATlNG MEASURES = 0 CONDITIONS
ZtIJ NOE.I.R.
WCJ L\.C
::IZ o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ~ifi 0 DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
OC WITH MmGATING t)::1
II:! MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-L\.
> o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Z l!9 NO SIGNIFICANT (J
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES II:
..>-....... \. '--"
~=-===
PLAN-I.D2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (-..0)
""~, '^
. .
r'\
""I
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-l4A
2
3-19-91
2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
REOYES'l' AND LOCAT:tQ~
The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use
designation from RL, Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban on
a site located on the north side of Foothill Drive approximately
1,180 feet east of Sterling Avenue. (See Exhibit B of the Initial
Study)
SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The amendment site, roughly rectangular in shape, consists of 8.12
acres and contains one parcel of undeveloped land. The topography
on site includes knolls and mounds and generallY slopes to the
south/southwest at a grade of approximatelY six percent. The
topography of the surrounding area is rugged and hilly and also
slopes to the south/southwest.
Two traces of the San Andreas Fault System run through the site
from the north/northwest to the east/southeast. The traces
parallel one another with a separation of approximately 250 feet.
The more northerly trace is located near and parallels the
northeast boundary of the site.
Vegetation on site appears unremarkable and consists of some native
grasses, small brush and unidentified weeds. However, the site is
located in the City's Biological Resources Management Area.
The land north of the site is owned by the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District and used as a borrow site. The Little Sand
Canyon flood control channel is located southeast and adjacent to
the site. The borrow site and the flood control channel (north of
Foothill Drivel are designated RL. Southeast and beyond the flood
control channel are detached Single-familY residences in an
unincorporated county area which is designated RS. South of
Foothill Avenue, the Little Sand Canyon flood control channel
continues south in an area designated PFC, Public Flood Control.
The land south/southwest of the site also is designated RS and
developed with detached single-familY residences. Northwest and
adjacent to the site is a church facility and grounds in the RL
designation. (See Exhibit A of the Initial Study)
...j
~.=~
PUN-IJlI PMlE IOf , 1..00)
'-,
. .
(')
()
,..
"""II
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-l4A
2
3-19-91
3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
,...
)fUNICIPAL CODE
The San Bernardino Municipal Code does not apply to the amendment
to the General Plan Land Use Plan map.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT~UALITY ACT (CEOAI STATUS
The general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental
Review Committee reviewed the application on November 29, 1990 and
determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse
impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was
recommended. The public review period for the Initial Study and
the proposed Negative Declaration began on December 6, 1990 and
ended on December 26. 1990.
The Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects
related to the proposed map amendment (GPA 90-14Al and the proposed
text amendments (GPA 90-14BI. To avoid redundancy, the Initial
Study is included as Attachment B to this report but only listed as
an attachment to the Staff Report for GPA 90-14B.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The County's comments relate to the proposed text amendments
contained in General Plan Amendment No. 90-14B (text amendment).
Those comments are summarized and addressed in that report.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANSI
Due to the proximity of the amendment site to a state highway
(SR301. consideration should be given to the cumulative effect on
continued developments. Any measures deemed necessary for
mitigating those effects are to be provided prior to or at the time
of development of this area.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRAFFIC DIVISION
Comments received from the Traffic Division regarding the general
plan amendment are addressed in the Initial Study. Comments
specificallY related to the development proposal wili be addressed
within the context of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 90-63.
~====
..j
PI.AN-I.DI PAGE, OF , (4010)
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-14A
2
1-1<l-<l1
4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNCIL OFFICES - WARD 4
Councilman Maudsley expressed concern regarding the location of
fault traces on site. the need for northern access to the site and
the land use compatibility of the map and text amendments with the
surrounding area.
OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED
Following the public review period staff received numerous phone
calls and inquiries from area residents and other interested
persons regarding the proposed map amendment (GPA 90-14AI and the
proposed text amendment (GPA 90-14B). In addition, staff received
three letters containing comments which are included as an
attachment to this staff report (see Attachment A).
ANALYSIS
This analysis evaluates only the proposed amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Plan map. It does not address issues related to the
proposed amendment to the text of the RS, Residential Suburban and
RL. Residential Low designations. Those issues are addressed in
the staff report prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 90-148.
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION
The purpose of the RL. Residential Low desiqnation is to:
"Promote the
lot, high
residential
1. 10)
development of low-density, large
quality single-familY detached
units." (General Plan Obje~tive
The RL deSignation permits the development of single-familY
detached residential units at a density of up to 3.1 units per
gross acre. Development under the RL designation could yield up to
25 dwelling units on the amendment site.
~~a.:=
...
....
PLM-UI PaGe 1 OF 1 ,.-10)
. .
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-14A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
j-1Y-!H
o
~
""""II
General Plan Policy 1.10.32, included in the Desiqn anu Development
Standards for the RL desiqnation. encourages developers to
incorporate specific desiqn features into RL developments. The
features outlined in the policy include interconnectinq pedestrian
paths and qreenbelts, consistent and well desiqned siqnaqe, entry
siqnaqe or monument, community amenities (such as clubhouse,
meetinq rooms, swimminq pools, tennis courts, health club, etc.',
and similar uses. This policy reflects the type and character of
development the City would like to occur in areas desiqnated RL.
PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION
The purpose of the RS, Residential Suburban desiqnation is to:
"Promote
detached
settinq."
the development of sinqle-family
units in a hiqh quality suburban
(General Plan Objective 1.11)
The RS desiqnation permits the development ~f sinqle-familY
detached residential units at a density of up to 4.5 dwellinq units
per qross acre. Development under the RS desiqnation could yield
up to 37 dwellinq units on the amendment site.
The Desiqn and Development Standards for the RS desiqnation also
include a policy that encouraqes the incorporation of desiqn
features such as qreenbelts, pedestrian paths, and other community
amenities in RS developments (General Plan Policy 1.11.31'.
Similar to the RL policy, this policy reflects the type and
character of development the City would like to occur in areas
desiqnated RS.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Chanqinq the land use desiqnation for the site from RL to RS would
increase the permitted density. However, the potential for land
use related impacts occurrinq is low due to the qeoqraphic settinq
of the surroundinq area. The site is buffered by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District'land on the north throuqh
the southeast, by Foothill Drive on the south and by the church
facility and qrounds on the west. In addition, the amendment site
is situated near the boundary between the RL and the RS desiqnated
=..:~. '11 ......,
...
..,j
PLNl-IJlI ,_, OF , (4-10)
~.1
. .
n
,...
~
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA NO. 90-14A
2
3-19-91
6
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
~
areas. Effectively, the sice could be
RS, developed accordinq1y and not
surroundinq neiqhborhood.
desiqnated as either RL or
siqnificant1y affect the
As indicated in the Initial Study, the site is located in the
A1quist-Pr io10 Special Studies Zone. A subsurface enqineer inq
qeo10qy investiqation report, submitted by the applicant,
identifies the locations of the two fault traces, the 50-foot
setback areas required by state law and the remaininq land that can
be developed. The development proposal for the site will be
evaluated for impacts related to seismic hazards and adherence with
the 50-foot setback areas will be required.
The City's Traffic Division has determined that increases in
traffic resultinq from chanqinq the desiqnation from RL to RS on
the site would be minimal. As such, the areas' circulation would
not be siqnificantly impacted. (See Attachment S, Initial Study)
CONCLUSIONS
The amendment site is buffered by a rinq of less intensive land
uses and is located near the boundary between the RS and RL
desiqnations. As such, redesiqnation of the site from RL to RS
would not create any siqnificant land use impacts.
The site is subject to seismic hazards and approximately fifty
percent of the land cannot be developed due to the location of
fault traces and setback areas. The remaininq buildable land will
require careful site desiqn and review at the project specific
staqe and, adherence to the setback areas will be required.
..
!lIl.:&:r==
....
Pl.M-I.OI PAGE 1 OF , 14-IllI
....:.
, .
""
()
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GPA NO. 90-14A
FINDINGS OF FACT
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
1-1Q-Ql
7
..
~
.....
FINDINGS
The proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use map from RL,
Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban on the amendment site
is internally consistent with the General Plan:
All elements of the map amendment proposal would not be detrimental
to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of
the City,
All elements of the proposed map amendment would maintain the
appropriate balance of land uses within the City: and,
The amendment site is physically suitable for the RS, Residential
Suburban land use desiqnation:
All public services are available to the proposed amendment site.
Any future development permissible under the proposed desiqnation
would not impact on such services.
...
~
~.c.:n:.:=jji
PLAN-UI PAGE 1 OF , (440)
~.~~
, .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
GPA NO. 90-l4A
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
3-19-91
8
""Il
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Plannino Commission make a recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1.
A Neoative Declaration be
accordance with Section 21080. 1
for General Plan Amendment (GPAl
as presented.
adopted in
of the CEQA
No. 90-14A.
2.
chanoed from
Residential
as shown on
The General Plan Land Use Map be
RL, Residential Low to RS.
Suburban for the amendment site
Exhibit B of the Initial Study.
~e~ectfullY submitt".
/A- r,d., d/
'LarrY~ Reed, Director
tP.~~;:~;~v1c.'
~:sociate Planner
Idw
Attachments:
A - Proposed Text Amendments (Not appl icable to
the map amendment - included as Attachment A
to Staff Report for GPA 90-14B)
B - Initial Study
Exhibit A Existino Land Use Map
Exhibit B Site Location and Land Use
Desionation Map
C - Letters
&1l.Ilt-=--==
--4
PLAN-I.llI PAGE 1 OF , (<<<l)
~!'L-"
n. 11'"1""""....1" V
, .
, . CITY OF SAN BERNA~O PLANNING AND BUILDING
VICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
"I
GE;~EAAL PI..NL NfENPM~NL_"Q..._. ~_O_-:J ~
Proiect DescriDtion and Loc.ation-,_ To chanQ'e the land use
designation from RL. Residential Low to RS. Residential Suburban on
a site comprising 8.12 acres. located on the north side of Foothill
Drive approximately 1.180 east of Sterling Avenue.
To amend the text of the RL and RS desiQ'nations to allow clustsrinO'
of attached dwellinQ units thai: does not ex=eed the permitted
density of either land use desiQ'nation. respectively. The
amendment to permit clusterinQ would apply Citywide.
Date: November 20, 1990
ADDlicant(s) Name and Ad~ress:
W.R. Hendrix & Associates
350 West 5th Street
Suite 202
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Owner(s) Name and Address:
Robert K. Blatter
Evelyn J. Blatter
5724 Palomar Court
San Bernardino. CA 92404
Initial Study PreDared B~
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and BUildinp Services
300 North -D- Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
...
~...~
"-'IMD7 .... 1 OF 1 c.....
Ii1ff'P-'5':);''''"^-
-
1L
-
-
, .
o
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardin~ as
an' Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-14
which proposes to chanqe the land use designation from
RL, Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban for a
site located on the north side of Foothill Drive
approximately 1.180 feet east of Sterlinq Avenue. This
amendment also proposes to chanqe the text of the RL and
RS desi9nations to allow clusterinQ of attached dwellin9
units that does not exceed the permitted density of
either land use desiqnation, respectively.
As stated in Section
Environmental Quality Act
Initial Study are to:
15063 of the Califernia
Quidelines, the purposes of an
1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use 3S
the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Neqative
Declaration:
2. Enable an applicant or Lead AQency to moJify a
project. mitiqatinq adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared. thereby enablinq the project to
qualify for Neqative Declaration:
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required. by:
(A) Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
I
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determininq that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Faci! i tate environmental assessment ear 1 y in the
desiqn of a project;
s.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a
will not have a siqnificant effect
environment,
for the
project
on the
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs:
o
o
'0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
7. Determine whether a previ~usly pre~ared EIR =~uld
be used with the prcject.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant's request is to amend the City's General
Plan Land Use Plan map to chanqe the land use designation
from RL, Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban for
a site located on the north side of Foothill Drive
approximately 1,180 feet east of Sterlinq Avenue. The RL
desiqnation permits detached sinqle-family residential
development at a density of 3.1 dwellinQ units per ~ross
acre. The RS desiqnation permits detached sinqle-family
residential development at a density of 4.5 dwellinq
units per qross acre.
The applicant also requests an amendment to chanqe the
text of the RS desiqnation to allow clustering of
attached dwellinq units within the permitted density.
Staff is evaluatinq an amendment to permit clusterinq in
the RL desiqnation, as well.
Exhibit A shows the eXistinq land uses in the surroundillq
area and Exhibit B is the land use desiqnation and site
location map.
2.1 Amendment Site and Surroundinq Area Characteristics
The amendment site is rouqhly rectanqular in shape and
contains one undeveloped parcel of land which consists of
approximately 8.12 acres. The topoqraphy of the site
includes knolls and mounds and qenerally slopes to the
south/southwest at qrade of approximately six percent.
Topoqraphy of the surroundinq area is ruqqed, hilly and
slopes to the south/southwest. The Little Sand Canyon
flood control channel is located adjacent to the site on
the southeast. A San Bernardino County Flood Control
borrow site is adjacent to the site and north.
Veqetation on site consists of some native qrasses. small
brush and unidentified weeds. Several Eucalyptus trees
are scattered near the southwest boundary of the site.
Soils on site tend to be coarse and sandy.
The land north of the site is used for flood control
purposes and may contain some remnants of a r'ipar ian
environment. East/southeast of the site are detached
sinqle-family residences beyond the flood control
-"=,-,,,,,,,
. .
o
'0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
channel. The land south and southwest of the site also
is developed with detached sinQle-familY residences. A
church facility and its Qrounds are located west of the
site.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental Setting
The amendment site has a number c.f er,vironmental
constraints. It is located in an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone and is crossed in twC' locatiolls by traces of
the San Andreas faul t. A narrow portion of thE. site.
adjacent to Little Sand Canyon flood control channel. is
located in the 100 year flood plain. The remainder of
the parcel is subject to minimal flood hazard. The site
is within Zone B of the FoothU_LC-,~.mmyn.,i,1;ii!L.p..r9.1;ec1;iv~
:'J3reenbelt" Plan. an area of hiQh fire ha:ard. In
addition, the site is located in the BioloQical Resources
ManaQement District.
.......0...- .
. . b '(')
r """I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
..
~ ~
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: ~CII\Q'Nl Q Pca.t" CL.1" ~,-\cL"f\ eH\~ NO' 9n-N
Projecl Description: ~.Q L-ffi (\ iN'i!ljf+f~1J (he.llO-(Q 0 ('<.0..,,, LiLw-I U<e des-
;5 V1a:-ttilH ~n1 RL ; P~~lriPJ.4a ( 1 t;>U) ia..li<~ 18;dP.,,'k'rA( ~/I fn/.rfa,..,a.
~au'r\ej.,ri$~ iiI fluId R~ 1to"t.~_p:21{1ut-(l{IIc::1P.,v'j ~ ~I'J:I/-
exc~d. f8,.e. pe r/}'\.i~~s j iij. _.., .
LoCition: "11 #.e. t'lI'-/"' I CrvnC>(!'If 1-fY,"'i-U.J( I."j)n "e /if'f'i"'lI I/nolPt:J
l;J!l12'''Kh~{'?,~~~:~ ~~
Environmlntal ConstrainlS Areas: ( . - t" ' ..:;:, ~ {J ':J^
- h re>(?I'rfI@D) n /Ad 7>lr.I~~f}Ur:P<. YYIet^--l:. h,s4ric/.,
General PllIn o.signelion: "RL ~:lrLPll.J.1.aJ 511kf U{?1.i!I
I
Zoning Designation: --AJ..I.&
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ExpIlIin ._ra, where apprapriatl. on . aparall allaChed sheet.
1. Earth Resourcel WiD thl proplII&l ..sub in: VIS No Maybe
.. Earth _....nt (CUI .ncIIor liD) 01 10.000 cubic "
yaftls or mo..? " X
b. Development aneIIor grading on . llope graallr )(
lhan 15% natural gralll?
c. Development wIlhin !hi A1quill.priolo Special -A-
SlUdill ZoM?
d. ModMication 01 any unique geologic or p/lyIicaI X
f.aturl?
..
.. Soh_ion on or 011 the project liII? X
t. ModMication of . channel, creek or river? X
g. Devllopment wIlhin an .... subjed to landllidls, X
mudslidn, liquefaction or other limilar hazards?
- .
h. Other? ~/A~rlP.N' e- X
.. ....
::.:. r ---'
,_ 'AIlE' OF. (MIl)
-
h
r """"lIi
2. Air fluourcea: Will tne proposal resuK in: Ves No Maybe
L Subltantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient )(
air qualily?
b. The creation of objectioneble odors? X
c. Development witnin a nign wind nazard area? X
3. Watar Reaourcea: Will tne proposal resuK in:
L Changes in abaorption ralas, drainage patterns. or tne
rata and amount of surface runoff due to X.
impermaable surfaces?
b. Cnanges in ttle course or flow of flood waters? x:
c. Discharge into surface waters or any aKeralion X
of surface water qualrty?
d. Cnange in ttle quantily of qualily of ground watsr? )(
,
e. Exposure ot people or property to flood hazards? X
f. Ottler? y:
4. BIDIogIcaI Reaourcea: Could the praposal ,..uK in:
L Change in the number of any uniqlHl, rare or
.ndangered apaciH of plants or their habilat including f-.
stands of trHs?
b. Change in fhe number of any uniqlHl. rare or )(
endangered apacias of animals or their habiIaf?
c. Removal of viable. matUre _? (8" or grUl.r) ,)(
d. Other? v.'
I. Na.: Could the plIIIlOAIrasuK in:
L mcr-a in existing noiH !wels? X
b. Exposure of paapIe to axtariar naiH IavaIs avar X:
65 dB or intariDr naiH !wels avar 45 dB?
c. Other? X'
,
e. L8ncI UN: WiD the pIlIpOsal rasllll in:
L A c:hanga in the land u.. as daaignatacl an the ~
General Plan?
b. Development wittlin an Airpan DiItricl? X
c. Development wittlin "Graanbalr Zana A. B. or C? X
,
d. Development wittlin a high fira hazard _? ')(
.. Other? X.
:;:'::'=:_il:l=
P_ PMlUOFI _
~"
'0 "f"'\
~ """
7. ...n-Uade Haurda: Will the project: Yes No Maybe
L U.., .,,., trenspon or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but notlim~ed to oil. X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the ,.Ia..e of hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential haalthlsalaty hazards? Y-.
d. Other? 'I..
.. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove .xisting housing or create a demand X
for add~ional housing?
b. Other? '"
e. Trenaportlltlon I CIrcUlation: Could the proposal resutt in:
L Art incr._ in traffic that is gr.at.r than the land K
us. d.signated on the G.neral Plan?
b. U.. of .xisting, or demand lor new, perking 'I-.
tacilili.I/StfUClur.s?
c. Impact upon .xilling public trensportation syst.ms? X
d. AII.ration of pNHnt patt.rns of circulation? 'I-.
e. Impact to rail or air trallic? 'f.
1. IncraaHd aatety hazards to vahiclal. bic,diIls or 'I---
padastrians?
g. A disjointed pattem of R*Iway implOV.mants? 'X
h. SignBicant incra_ in trallic volumas on the roadways 'I..
or intaraactions?
i. Other? ~
.
10. PubUc SerY"': WI' the jlIupo.al impact the following
beyOnd the capaIllIky to provide adaquate IaveIs of ..Mea?
L Fn protection? X
b. Police protaction? '"^
c. ~1s (i.... atI.ndance. boundarias. ovartoad. ate.)? X
d. Parks or other NCrSational facilities? X
.. Madicallid? X
l. Solid Wuta? ;<
g. Other? X
....
,_ PaIlE'OF. IMOl
~.,..ft====
'0
n
""""l
~
11. Utllltlea: Will the praposal:
.. Impact the following beyond the capabilily to
provide adequat. 1....1s of s.rvice or require th.
construction of new facilbias?
1. N.tur.1 gas?
2. Elactricby?
3. Wat.r?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b. Resun in . disjointad patt.rn of Ulillly .xtensions?
c. Require the conllNction of new facilbias?
12. Aaathetlca:
.. Could the propos.1 r.un in the obstruction of any
scenic view?
b. Will the visu.1 impact of the projaCl be d.trimental
to the sunounding ....?
c. Other?
13. CUltural RMouIllH: Could th. proposal r..un in:
.. The deration or deIlrUClion of . prehillOric or
historic .rchaeologicalsll.?
b. ~ phyaical or aaathatic ImpaclS 111 .
prehistoric or historic an., atructure or objaCl?
c. Other?
14. u.ndatDry Flndlnp of S1gnH_.- (Section 15065)
v..
No
.'f
'i..
'";\
'^
i'I
Y..
~
x:
.
x
. .
X
x
Maybe
x
X
The CdIomia EnviIonm.rwal Quality Ad. atat..1hal if any of th. following can be anawered y.s or maybe,
the plIljact may haft . aignificant alIact on the .nviIonm... and an EnvironmantallmpaCl FlapoIt shall be
prapared.
L Does the plIljact haft the potanlial1ll degrade the
quallly 01 the .nvillllllll8lll, aubltanlially reduos the
habiIaI 01 a fish or wIldUl. all. ci... causa a fish or
wiIdlI. populalion 111 drop below saif auataining .....Is.
threalan 111 eliminaI. a plant or animal oommunlly.
raduos the number or raatricl the range 01 a rare or
.ndangered plant or animal or eliminal. important
examples of the major periods of Callfomia history
or prehistory?
b. Does the plIljact have the pol.ntial1ll achieve ahort-
tarm, 111 the disadvantage oIlong.tarm. envilonmarut
goals? II. allon..rm impact on the environment is -
which oc:cura in a relatively brief, dafinlliw period
01 time while long-term impacla will endure wen imo
the tutu...)
v..
No
x'
....:L
Maybe
:::.:.-=--==
I'\NloI.llI 'llGUOFl CMllI
r
'0
'()
"""l
Yes
No
Maybe
c. Does the project have irnpacts which are individually
Jim_ad, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
im.-ct on two or more separate reSOUrces whe.. the
im.-ct on each resource is relativety small, but where
the -"act 01 tile IDta' 01 those impacts on the
environment is signHicanl.)
d. Does the project have environmental eKects which will
causa sullslantial adverse effects on human beings,
..lIer diractly or indirectly?
x
''/...
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MITIGAnON MEASURES
(Atw:h .hHlS as _.ary.)
L,f ~ ~ll\e,.c-f..;. ~,-@cL
~====
...
..
I'UlNoIJII PMlUOF.
(MOl
. .
-0
"(l
--
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
3.2 Environmental Impacts
This Initial Study will evaluate the ~roposed amendment
to the General Plan Land Use Plan Map. It also will
evaluate the applicant's request to amend the text of the
RS desiqnation and staff's modification to the amendment
request to permit clusterinq in the RL desiqnation. The
text amendments will be evaluated for the environmental
effects specific to the project site and for
environmental effects resultinq from clustered projects
in the two desiqnations, Citywide.
3.2.1
Earth Resources
La.
Project Site and Citywide: Development on the project
si te in accordance with the density permitted by the
current land use desiqnation, RL. Residential Low could
yield up to 25 dwellinq units. The proposed desiqnation,
RS, Residential Suburban could yield up to 37 dwellinq
units. In either case, earth movement in the form of cut
and/or fill activities would be necessary for residential
construction. It appears that clusterinq on the project
site. or on any project site, could reduce the amount of
qradinq necessary since construction only would occur in
concentrated areas.
Lb.
Project Site: The project. site slopes to the
south/southwest at an approximat:e six percent qrade (Case
Planner Site Inspection. 11-6-90). As such. the project
will not result in development or qradinq on a slope
greater than fifteen percent natural qrade.
Citywide: The general confiquration of clustered
developments will include small areas of micro density
and larqe areas of open space. Since the permitted
density of the RL desionation is lower than that of the
RS desionation. clustered developments in the RS
desiqnation could result in areas of micro-density
minimall y larqer than those found in the RL desiqnation.
It is conceivable that clustered developments could occur
on slopes havinq oreater than fifteen percent natural
qrade. However. it appears that these developments would
require less orading than would other residential
developments because less area would be developed.
. .
'0
()
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
1.c.
Project Site: The amendment site is located within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies :one (Fig. 47, General
Plan). A subsurface engineering geoloqy investiqa':ion
report was submitted by the appl icant . The report.
prepared by Gary S. Rasmussen & ,l..s:;ociates, indicates
that two overlappino traces c.f the San Andreas fault
occur on the site, approximately 250 feet apart. Beth
traces run parallel from the north/northwest to the
east / southeast with the more norther 1 y trace located
ad jacent to the northeast boundary of the site. The
southern trace bisects the proper':y near its mid ~oint.
The report sugoests that setbacks of SO-feet should be
maintained for either trace. The restricted use zone f0r
the southern trace is 200 feet wide and for the northern
trace, 1 SO feet wide because 50 feet of its northern
limit are off-site. At the time of development,
clusterino of dwellino units away from the restricted use
zones could mitioate the seismic hazards. Adherence to
the SO-foot setbacks would be required for clustered or
detached sinole-familY development on the site.
Because of the higher density of the RS desionation, the
seismic risks to human lives and property are increased.
Citywide: Clustered residential developments occurrir.g
within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone would need
to adhere to setbacks associated with restr iC':ed use
zones and all other seismic safety requirements.
1.e.
Project Site: The site is located in an are sub~ect to
surficial soil slips (FiO. 52. General Plan). Durin~ a
site inspection. the soils on site were observed to be ~f
a coarse and sandy texture. As such, soil erosion may
occur during periods of heevy precipitation (Case Pl3.nner
Site Inspection, 11-6-90).
Clusterino of attached dwellino units in the RL or the PS
desionations would result in areas of micro-density
leaving large areas of open space. Soil erosion of open
space areas could be mitigated with speCific landscapinq
materials.
CitYWide: Clustered residential developments will create
areas of micro-density and open space. Clustered
projects at either denSity could have fewer erosion
concerns because of the potential for less gradino, and
. .
'0
'0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
therefore. less disturbanoe ~o the s~il.
1. f.
Project Site: The Little Sand Cany,.n fl x'd <::>n:r.:>l
channel. an unimproved channel, is located scutheast and
adjacent to the site. The narrow portion c f -:he 5':' te
adjacent to the channel is in the 100 year flood plain
(Environmental Concerns Map, Planning Division and the
Federal Emerqency Manaqement Agency (FEMA) Floo:.d
Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281-0015 A.
July 16. 1979). The majority of ths site is in Zone '::
an area of minimal flooding. Development NI site may
require improvements to the channel :>r :>ther types of
structural mitiqatiQn against flood h~=~rjs.
The placement of clustered dwelling u~i-:s. in the EL or
the RS designations, away from the channel o~ulj reducE
the need for flood mitiO'ation.
Citywide: Modification to cr.,eks or chann.,ls 10ca-ed
within the boundaries of project sit€S for c'lustered
developments could be minimized by l=lacinQ' clustered
units away from the waterway. With clustered projects
there is the potential for leavinO' drainage ch3nnels in
their natural state as part of a project's open space.
l.g. .h.
Project Site: The General Plan indicates that the
amendment site is not in an area subject to liquefaction
(Fig. 52. General Planl or to subsidence (Fil,)'. 51.
General Plan). However. the subsurface investiQ'ation
states that the presence of phreatophyto,ls observed in the
flood control channel at the approximate location of the
fault crossinO' suggests O'round water could be less than
30 feet below the surface just north c.f the site. As
such. the oeologic parameters for increasi nq 1 iquefaction
susceptibility may be present on the site north of the
southerly trace of the San Andreas fault (Rasmussen &
Associates. paO'e 11).
The subsurface report also states that no su~sijence has
been documented in the vicinity of the site. However.
subsidence fissurinq could occur along the trace of the
San Andreas fault if siqnificant reO'ional su~sidence of
the San Bernardino Valley occurs (Rasmussen & Associates.
paqe 12).
It is not known if clusterinO' of attached dwellinO' units
on site will reduce or increase the risks associated with
'0
'0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
liquefaction or subsidenoe. AGY d~vel7cment ~n the li~e
must meet all applicable City ordinan~~s and State laws
reqardinQ seismic safety.
Citywide: Deve lopment prop~'sa 1 s fer c 1 uste:'ej
developments located in ;;..rei!'S slls:e):':i!:le to liquefacti':-r.
and/or subsidence will be required to comJ:,lv with all
applicable City ordinances and State law re~ardinq
seismic safety.
3.2.2
Air Resources
2.a.
Project Site: Presently, the site is undevelo):ed and has
no effect on the air quality in the area. However.
future development on the site, either RL or RS
marqinally could affect air qualitv because of increased
air emissions resultinQ from i!'dditional automobiles
travelino to and from the site and increased levels of
human activity occurrino in the area.
ClusterinQ ef future development on site will not affect
air quality any more or less than will detached sinQle-
family residential development. Permitted densities for
either type of development are the same.
Citywide: Clustered developments in the Rl or RS
desiqnations will not affect air quality any more or less
than will detached sinqle-family residential developments
since permitted densities remain the same, respective17.
2.c.
Project Site: The amendment site is not located in an
area of hiqh wind IFiq. 59. General Plan).
CitYWide: Clustered developments can be desiqned t.o
minimize the effects of hiqh winds and buildino
construction must comply with all ~pplicable City
ordinances and State Law.
3.2.3
Water Resources
3.8. ,c. .d.
Project Site: If the croperty were devel:-ped fo"r the RS
desiqnation, impermeable surfaces such as ir:terior
streets, sidewalks, driveways, building pads and perhaps.
. .
'b
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
patios would be cC'nstr'J.:ted. /l.S a result. a!:scrj:ti=,n
rates would be decreased thereby increasinQ surface
runoff. Develoj:ment under the RL 1esignaticn would have
a similar. but lesser effect. Imp~rmeable surfaces such
as asphal t ,or ccncrete tend to collect solid exhaus':
particulates and other air emission solids as sell as
engine fluids. residue from automobile tires and other
chemical pollutants. During periods of rain. surface
pollutants are washed int" the water ways. Cumulatively,
these pollutants can change the quality of surface and
qrC'und water in an area. The quantity or the gro'Jn:i
water also can be affected because impermeable surfaces
decrease water absor~ticn rates.
It is not known if clusterinQ of attach~d dwelling lwits
on site will reduce or increase ':he effects of
impermeable surfaces. At the time of developme.nt, a
drainage study should be submitted to the City.
Citywide: Clustered developments in the RL cr the R:'
deSignations will require the construction of imj:ermeable
surface. See previous discussion.
3.b. ,e.
Project Site: As indicated in previOUS discussions, a
small portion of the site is located in the 100 year
flood plain with the remainder of the site subject to
minimal flooding (Environmental Concerns Map. Planning
Division and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, C.:lInmunity
Panel Number 060281-0015 A. July 16. 19791. The severity
of the flood hazard associated with future develcpment is
not known. Clustering of attached dwelling units away
from the channel and the 100 year flood plain could
reduce the flood risks. At th~ time of development. a
drainage study should be submitted to the City.
CitYWide: The risks of flood hazards associ!lted with
clustered developments in the RL or the RS desiQnations
could be minimized by the siting the dwellinQ units aw~y
from areas susceptible to flood hazards. The
modifications to creeks or channels located within the
boundaries of clustered project sites could be reduced or
minimized in the same way.
3.2.4
Biological Resources
4... ,b. ,c.
Project Site:
The site is within the Biologi~al
. .
o
~o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20, 1990
Resources ManaQement District tFig. 41, General Plan anJ
Environmental Concerns Map. Planninq Divisicnl,
Vegetation en site consists 0f scm~ native }rasses, small
brush, and unidentified weeds. The site contains several
mature Eucalyptus trees located near the southWEst
boundary. An aborist's report should be submitted prior
to any development on the site.
No species of animals were observed ICase Planner Site
Inspection. 11-6-90). It should be noted, however, that
the San Bernardino County Flood Control borrow site
located north of the amendment site ac~ears to contain
remnants of a riparian environment. A biological report
for the site will be required at the time of dev&lo~ment.
Clustering of attached dwelling units. sited a~lay from
biologicallY sensitive areas. would result in open s~~ce
areas which could be preserved as naturel environments.
Citywide: The clustering of units could offer th~
opportunity to preserve biological habitats by including
those areas in the open space portions of a pro)ects.
Biolo;ical studies are required for all prciect sites
located in the City's Biological Resource ManaQement
District.
3.2.5
Noise
5...
Project Site: The noise levels on site are at 6(1-6~
dBIAl (Fig. 57, General Plan). _It is unlikely that the
amendment proposals to change ~he land use designation or
the text to permit clustering could result in the
exposure of people to high exterior or interior noise
levels.
Citywide: Clustered developments in the
designations will not generate any more or
than would their detached single-family
counterparts.
RL or P.S
less noise
reside~'t ia 1
3.2.6
Land Use
6.a.
Project Site: The proposed amendment will-change the
General Plan land use designation on the site from RL.
Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban. Thi&
. '
.
o
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
amendment would inc~e~se !he ~~rmi~~~d j~,'.sity :=~m ? 1
dwelling units per a::-re t~ 4.5 dwelli~9 uni:! p.~ ~~~e
and ~dd an additionll number cf unit3.
The amendment re.:;uest al S~ prC;:J05:5 t.::- :'hc;;:7€ t1":;, t~x':~!
the RS desicnatioIl t: a!l~~ the :lu$~6~:n~ ~f !~~3c~.~3
dwelling units. The ~ermlt':ed den5~tY ~f the f~
de;;lqn.3lticn w),;,ld n,:"~ .:-han'.:J~. =tc.f: 1;: ;~:::':' €':;ll.~=':l;l;;
the inclusion cf dusterin? cf att::o.::-h-:= :h.'el:ing uni':"
within the RL jesi~n3!i~n.
Th~ surrc.undioQ 1:1n1 1..1:;-S::: ?ore d-.::t!ich,=:! si;l~l€.-:::t;r:lly
:::esidential. ."'\ J.:.:'t-=n~ i:.l ~m;!..:''': s.~s..:-c :a<+:EJ 1./: ~~: 3
cluste.red re.::.id~r.":i=-l d~"E;lc.pment on ~:-:l~ 51":-: i:r
in.:ompatibil i ~~'. F-!':'~"e'./-=::- the s-l to: is t-:'.~nj.;.3.:,:; tw:.
sides by flood ::-~ntrol uses ~nd ~n one side by ~ ch~r=h
fa:=ility anJ Q'r':'1.1n:.l::: \""~.iC'h }:!':.vidc a l:uff-=~ f'~!' t~.;
d~tached single-family r~sidential uses.
Citywide: Cl'lS1:ere:.l ;:rc.jec':s can consist of. detached
and/or attached sinqle-family units consistent with ~h~
underlYing desiO'nation. While the clustering ::-o~,::-e;:~
offers the opportunity to create an attractive, via~l~
project while workinq around site specific constraints.
clustering may not be a~propriate in all areas of the
City because -f compatibility issues. Requiring public
review for all clustered projects qives surrcunding
property owners the op~ortunit: to parti=ipate i~ the
review process to h~lp ensu~e tha~ ~r~iects E:~:
compatible with surr,unjln~ con'..<:n:l.:-n"l sir""Je-f;;lT.ll:'
subdivisions.
6.b.
Project Site: The amendmen': site is n~t located in an
Airport District (Environmental Concerns Map. PI annllJ;:l
Division) .
Citywide: Residential developments. inclu:.linq cluster,,!
developments. occurrinq within an Airport District are
subject to all applicable City crdinances. State laws and
federal aviation laws.
6.c. .d.
Project Site: The project site is in :one E C'I the
Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Plan. an area
of hi~h fire hazard (Fiq. 61, General Plan). Clusterinq
of attached dwelling units in the P.L or' the P.:
designations could decrease the risks associ::ted with
fire hazards by creating more open space areas and mere
. .
o
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
separation from adjacent pr~~ect~. ~n th. c~h.r hsnd.
the threat c:>uld be increased Iod~hili th~ proiect itself
because the U1ii~s .:C'uld te cl~ser ~o";;cth€r t1an in ~.
single-family detached pr:oject.
Citywide: See l=revious I=e'.ragral=h. ':'he prtential .:mpa,:ts
and ben~fits apply on a Citywide basis alsc.
3.2.7
Transportation/Circulation
7.a.,d.,r.
Project Site: Develol=ment urd€r the RS jesi",.'.?ti.:r. coul.i
resul t in more trEffic in the ar.r,.!i :har: under :he ~L
desiQ'natiC'n. The F<;: design"'ti".., p€n'.i~s ~ hi'lh€r j-=nsi~:
than the RL designation. H:>we'lE:. tho: ir.crecs:s in
traffic and potential traffic ha=ar~s w~ul~ be minimal
and the City' s Traffic Di"isic.n indicates that
circulation in the area wC'ulu not si~nificantl:' impacted
(Conversation with Traffic Division. 11-19-90\,
Clustering in the RL or the RS designati.:-ns '''ould nc.t
reduce or increase traffic volumes associated with
development on the site since the Dermitt...d ..iensit.~.
remains the same.
CitYWide: Refer to previous discussion.
3.2.8
Public Services
10... .b. ,e.
Project Site: Future residential develoj:ment en the site
could impact services for police and fire protection anj
medical aid. The nearest fire station, which also
provides medical aid, is located approximately 3 miles
away at 282 West 40th Street (Fig.33 General Flu,'.
Police service is provided by the main police statjon.
located in the dowritown area. apprexlmately ~.5 miles
away (FiO'. 32. General Planl. Thto intenSity cf
development under the RS desiqnCltlon will not cre3te
impacts on the delivery of services.
There will be no additional impacts resultin" from a
clustered project on this site.
Citywide: Clustered develoJ:ments in the Rl or RE
desiO'nations will not impact public servic~s an? m~re or
less than would their detached single-family resi~enclal
counterparts.
. '
o
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
10.f.
Project Site and Citywide: D~'.'"l':';:.'lo:..~ -'. =~:';T,i"'-o,~
und~r the RS desiJnatlcrl ffiirilmal!y w(uld g~n~ra~~ m~~e
solid waste than '..I:'1.11d d.eve.l.;j:m6:"1~ 11fld,=r t:hs P".:
designation. Th~ City and it.. n'i!i;:hb:'rin;r mur.icipaliths
are ClPpr',achin9 lar,dfill :ao;;,cit.,.. ['isp:,o;;::l ar>~/,:l'
recycling of solid waste should be ~ddres:ej at the time
of development.
clustering ~f att2\ched dwelling unit.. 'lode:' the F:L :'1' the
RS designations will not reduce or illcrease the amoullts
of solid lJaste generated since tho: po:rmitteJ densit':
remains the s~me. r~sp~~tlv~ly.
3.2.10
CuI tural ReS011rces
12.a. .b.
Project Site and Citywide: The amendment site lS 1 )ce'':..::.
in an area of concern for archaeological r~souroes 'Fig,
8, General Plan \. A re:ords se<',l'ch thr:,~;h the ::"n
Bernardino County Museum should be submitt'i!d prior to
development to determine Dotantial imp~:ts to
archaeological resources. If su:h resources .-.
determined to be on site. clustering of attached dwelling
units could permit development to o~cur away from
archaeologi.::allY sensitive areas. All I:ro;e:t,; C=.~~l'ri'-.g
in sensitive archaeological areas mu..t comply with all
applicable City ordinances. State law,; and Federal Laws.
:1.2.11
Mandatory Findings Of Si(ynificance (Section 15065)
14.c.
Project Site: Redesiqnation of the sit~ as fS,
Residential Suburban would increase the permitted density
from 3.1 dwelling units per acre to 4.5 dwellinq ur.its
per acre and yield an additional numb~r of units.
Environmental constraints on the ~rcperty limit ~he
amount and location cf developable land, Clustering cf
attached dwelling units could mitiqate the effects ~f th€
environmental hazards and create areas of micro-density
surrounded by areas of open space.
Citywide: Changing
desiQnations to allow
units will not change
desiqnation. It will,
the text of the RL and RS
clusterinQ of attached- c.welli:.<,!
the permitted density ~f either
however, affect the F:l a"ld 5,S
.~.
. .
.-
o
~
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14
NOVEMBER 20. 1990
desionations cit,,'wide by creatin,l th.. 1:':'1:..ntial fe.r ar..:;.s
of micro-density within individual dEvel~pment prcjects.
It alsC' will result in lar'Jer at-,=;;:s .:f c.pen spac.. 1:,
development projects that utilize the conce~t of
clusterinQ. Clustered oroj9cts may net be ccmpatible in
all areas of the City. but this concern is addressed on
a case by case basis.
This 1=rol'=,s"l tC' "mer,d the land us.. me. end t€~:t \-iill
create impacts that
insi~nificanc... There
map or text change.
can be rnitiO-i!-::ed' to !l level c.!
are no cumula~iv; im~act~ from th€
r
,
r"\
-
. .
. .
-
""'l
D. DETERMINATION
On the bais of this inilial study,
r-7"''The p10paled project COULD NOT hew a signHicantelfact on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA.
~ noN will be prepared.
o 'The proposed project could haw a lignHicant elfect on the environment, a~hough there will nat be a lignHicant
alfed in this cue because the mhigation menur.. dalCl'ibed abova haw been added 10 tha proJect. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o 'The proposed project MAY have a signHicent affact on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA
::T.....t..l l1o~oM~{:f
Name and Trlle
-PflIJCI/'A... ({AtJlJE.~
I
~ ~r~d
Date: I l -.7':; -"'>0
~ ~
CP'" CJI ... .-....a
~~.......
p1LAN-l.os 1tAG& _ 0;:: _ '!l-tC
. .
. CITYrPF SAN BER.MRDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENt""NO. 90-14
TITLE
ElCIS'l'JN:; !RID USE
SAN BERNARDINO
.
, .
MARSHAll
BLVD
~
i
:i
Q:
~
en
~
~
Q
Q:
<
. EXHIBIT A
-
l;ll Y r,Jt" ~AN tst:H'" ~t1UINU
.' 'GENERAL Pt""AN AMENDMENMO. 90-14
TITLE
LAND USE DE:SlQUa'ICNS AND SITE :u:x:A:r'IOO MM'
EXHIBIT B
..,
, '
I 0 0 .;?J'7<..L/ 1';9/
'l2Jvvv t"./~'~;?I,.J7/ , .'.. '
Ii ...)L,.._,e r"/'" Y"<A./ /s-7d. ~" t:b7f;?;#-
!\~ -t""",.; - .Nh.4.. ;tf ~-V(/r(.. tfn, 90-''1, ~.
:;Z-V 1_t...uC. ,~A~_d;. hv d y-r:,{.. Qr':4 If.,.... ,,~L.'.,,~7Z-
:n"'<:' ?~ ~l ...... ~ ~ /?u.. &.t.
,I
Ii . ~ ~ r'.....~"'; ,J ~~ d.' ~Hf/- 7'~r.(.
i1.....dl/ J1.-"" ~<-c ~ /U.~";fV d. ~ ;?If ~>6 ". if h
" / /.' (/ i7 j 1 AA ~ ..,:,/. ..f' /
yt'...... ~ / ~:.L./ f<.d;"".... ...... ~ny. . V> ..,. /,,;;c..;. G/?-J '........4 4-<-
!1rr J-:l"~~:&-~! .t&.tj';l/ ...-"d/-..:..C ? ~L/
~;. j1'7f.1."'/f It'J-<--7L ..-I~v -'" ~.~.~ "'...( ~*V'.
:~>-..,...4;- ,.."....-i A<,vt ..k "'~.lftp . . ~#{-,._jf.".,.....(.
i!'~t..t7"~ It~~....,( ~/f..~ ~~~ ~"-~-"~~""~.$
-:14JJ-,{ ~_-t c-1t-{~....i( ~..{ ~.,..,~...:-
~-U-:,t'..k;/~, ",L;L d ~ ~? -r-,.,... ~,;"7f.vt,('4f-
~i~~' J ~..k..:t ~ -rl1't .:2 7;d .P ~"~:r '7 :fitd"
!",...;e-4 "::j~"~'../o// 1r.T~ d-f ~ ~""!:7b/f
: ~t:;..,( ~......:t:.-.
",-
i!
:1 ';"'1'~ /,.,e4 d;/":' ~._,t,tf.w ,.... p:-' G&s k
:~wC~~~.u'~~~. .tk '~717~'"
f,'&..~ /1~ ~ ;7., c.,"-:'~~;w( ~ .~ d/~ ---{,(.
~ (f~'~"~ d.e~ ~ Ar- /t~?/ ~ue1f;.. '/ r.o-L
/!A1uu",t.:./ AU';"'/...L...I_ "'.,....[ ~ 1ijt~9 ",..,.[
~'':''~ - ("'t-7- ,ff~~' d~ ft.:- ~,;..d. Ci-U .-'~,
~.~,..~~ ~'~r..16.-:i ~";I/.."tf. ~~~r'P:~/ r: ~7
(J..(,,"~.If..,:v 7 ~""7 19'1? .~ ..-u~"'~7 .-II:'zu,,,",,,,,,;v
! "I/:'NtU{. nz "/'''~ .,,(4. ~"~7 -'o/'~ ~4S<~ ~ ,,{g,..,
i,;d,.~ J,.tliJJtf;'ft /'''4''74-''
i . A
! ~.~~. 71(v~,(. ~~/ . .
I ~d..,.,-t rJ - 7/~. c4.r- v /,>i4JL,,,,
~.....i €! - .:::4t- t.Lr7c.. ~t/7 ,d,..(~/c ~u.:..:.. .
oommuwm[ID
MAR 0 \ 199\
ern Of! 1M ....,nlllrJ~
...~~. Attachment Co. I
~'"
:1 0
,. <:::)
:~~i...../;1/ 7~ c;~4 90-1'1 /7~ d--r-
I,
:j . .)d~~~,#~~~L~t?~/N~ .
i! d-r /4 ~r y ~:u ~ ~ ~ 4.:4L" ;tV ~.4.'~ /
~ ~et/h2) ~;t;..,.~/ ~ IT-- ~L/,e.f ~ i-~
r.&.y.....k<.- r ~L ;<f /f ~L ~ ~..('.
Ii ~ ~ ~/.~~ :d~-.,G~~ ~
!l1:~~N'.w.~ iPL. ,~~~. ~.~ ;'.~:t/-~;.t;J~~
!~V ~J~.;~.~ ~~f'~ ~~A7U-~~.~~.dt -e'L ~
II#{ 4~~'" ;t; '-' /~I ~ r k~ ~ .c~? :?/'7"'~
:\u-4 .~~t,~ du,- ~~ ~ ~Ji-~~) t!-~7 .
ir~ Cl 7 ~..--. ~ .;?.d4""~ ?i ~ ~d ~ t4.
~~;,.. &.7 ~......~~~RJ. ~~J~.~~ #C/
:\~ thlo.q ~ ~ ~~~(! .~~,t;.- ~ ,;6L..~e~~
ir~ ~~.d-.t~v~~~7~n.V~~r
17-dl/. ~.7~ ~ L~~v~4 ~/n/
:~~.~_ ~...".."tjl-d:./ ..-r:k.. ~"''f471i-~'",~~~ ~wv
~ik..t' A:.'7c../ttf ".4""7 ~ ~~<"'~. e..,,:~...//..;...~4 6~
"
'1
I: ~ ;~~~~ 'f .-.v ~:-J d-L/ r-l e...~' l'k~/
i(~~A~ (dLf? ~ .M-"'~ en~~'~7~rdz;v
:~1f a.~~ ~. 4~~ AA.~ -. ~ . ewrL:j. iZ..~,.t..:t:-
!.11r"t ~ a~ /~Y..~ ~i'.~-t-~l?~'u 4-~
~1/t.iZ.'Z.c/1f /2U,,-t-v', J.~IIkl! 4/...L z;4 d_u._ ~..e....?"u-L
\.~.,,~ ..,,/~:~L.. /-C;~vL ~k<:'7 ~'-' d.1-~I.::-':-
~~~k~{ ..H~- .A-~C-~ d- .A~,:,,'~j ..-?,,<.r,k'-$~~
: r .::zr tfUG.ff"''''~ ~~-'f!<-t.- /H"'~"'-t;;. -
,
Att.ac:hlrent C - ~
';...,
,!
i :..
I:: .
j;.
"
I 0
I~kd~' ~ c;jI14 9P-'~
,
! ~~ ~ ~t4?t..;.b nvd~. d~/~~
.r~~n-"'d ~ ,.~ ." ..~. "
'CT.- ~. ~ .e~f '.I: ,..... ~- ~--t"d., .
i -k ~ ~t1,,,~ +~ -:.- ,ilL --t ff ~
I ~~-erL H.J:u4 ry~~~rf tt,,~ '
! tn~/. n,utU~':'v:i .~~d ~_;,~ ~ ~u-<-
I ~~ ~/??~CU~~~~-.1#'
I ~~~-t-f:,~4'~.-;,J,/# ~"7;/~
! 1 tUT.e<L -'-,eo".: r;;. /'~ ':- d. ~ tr'lf,;..; ;/ Ar ~
i a-.&C. d7 M.dud ~ ~~ ~~~~A~-
I ~"I ~ ~',- p4.; ~ ~~,
i ~ ~~ IUL ~N-U4-'"-L.. ~~~ Jff"'A~'"
InV'AUljL~.,..,~~<,~, ~~~.c~/ ~l/~ ~d,
" ~~jd~A- ~ :4~
; ~~~ ~ "7.;7J:,wi-:'" {c ':...t --'- At'
! d..Utfr..,.;,.. r fl_"'~~~~all..:C'
,
o
~ ~.G:"r'
:~
i . . " .. I
il ,.d".~"Uf~ ~~~~ 41'_~
t ,\ . It .. .... I
11 . 'da.dL~.;z~,..,t- ~;..<.""-"- . ....-#- v&t...,&, -~..........
, ,
, r~/J.I~...t-1f~ M",-' ~ ,#~tf7/"'.zf.i'~ M/AW7t.--
I 7n~" ~C!~;{ Af",t e~/c. ~~~L",.~/
I ., / M.- e~~-~~.,e~~ft-r~~/~t-d-f
! L ,m~~kde,'~""/-,.=t-. 4 ~~k ~
i la.t~, t.-a .4 ~.c ~ ~~t'- ~. ~ ~zfz..
~,~~~~~:~-a-(
r~A~ e:t.... .&e?,,~,4__ ~~UezW ~.
II : "
I!
At~","",IL e-3
"""""'.....~,,-
o
o
Frederick L. Mack
2249 E. Foothill Drive
San Bernardino, California 92404
!f~ 1f,19f'
City of San Bernardino
Planning I Building Services
300 Horth "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Gentlemen,
Patricia, my wife, and I express our oooosition to General Plan
Amendment Ho. 90-1~, map and text.
We are opposed to this amendment change because we don't believe
a "cluster" development--or any multi-unit development-- is
appropriate for our area.
Please express our opposition to the Planning Commission prior
to the March 19, 1991, meeting.
Sincerely,
't-/V.",~.~ J.
hEDERICK L. MACK
~
f_i..aMi.?ftUJu
fD)~~~UW~rn
U\l fEB 22 \99\
SAN Bf!IItIARDlNO
C1T't~NT Of PL"N~IMG ·
DEPA llU1LD1NO SERViCl:S
Attachnent C. - ~
;;!""
, .
o
o ~~ - rn
m i" fi\l i? n \'/: ~ \ ~
:' ,~,''':?I'' . - "
w ..:: I.v: I.~ '-l '-01 - .i
, ~
Lfu fEa 0 it '.591
'.bnllT)' Z. lll91
Cl t,. ot So lIu'1Iardll1D
PlalUl1l11 . Iul1d1111 Servlce.
300 .art~ D Street
SaD Benuarclll1D Ca 92418
o~:~t:t\2::;~S,_:,'~'i ~
PlalUl1l11 eo.m..1DD:
I atrcms1,. oJIPDM IUI,. clualll8 In tbe Gelleral PIIU1 w1U ref.reDCII to IL
laalclantial Low Daalpatlon alld IS laa1clantlal SUburball d..lpatiDD a lt
partalD11 to GeHral P11UI delldent 10 90-14.
.,. objectioDII ar.:
SlI111.. f_ly ~_o_ra bought la thl. araa for ODe reaDD_lI111.
f_1,. ~_ pIIr tu bullelilll cod.; 1.. rHtrlctlODe that guaraatHcl tM
ccmtlllUlty of tbe IIelghbor~od.
'Jtoothill Dr. bet_a St.rl1l11 aJId. Arclell 1s all read,. a hig~-apaacl c_t.
rllllcl. To be.. a hlg~-claDlllt,. splll-aut .ach mn1I11/...n1111 _ld greatly
agility all alreacl,. uuat. ar.a due to tha bazarclou. ajar -dlp" In tha
road at tha lIearby math of Ll tUe Salld Creek.
!be _jar fault 1111e 1D Cal1tonla--TM SaD AIIdraaa 'ault-ruDII wet to
.at through tu center ot tha property. ,Jot to _lItiOIl ....ra1 mllDr
fault 11_ runll1l11 1lDrt~ to llDrtunt. TIIIt clty IUId tha local nalcla_
cloD't _d allD1:ur 1I.~"lre Canyon -act-at-god- eli..ater (flood); In tbe
c.. ot thi. propertY-1UI earthquake-to brilll bocI.lly lnjurie. alld pllraDII81
property la.ult. becau_ of poor p11U1Dlng juq.llt.
I ~1Id tha cl ty buy/u_ rig~t-at-em_t-daall1 IUId acqulre thi.
property IUId clave10p a park ar p..ra1 uap area to forestall pat.lltial
l1t1pt1D1l cauaecl by flawel re_1111 111 adopt1111 Gellerel P1all delllbent 10
90-14.
!beDta far l1aten1111.
Taura truly,
i:'''~
J De Irauter
~O!S Idpmnt Dr.
San Berll8rcl111D Ca 92404
Attlachroent C - 5
.,
t1
. .
. . THE UNDER3IGNED HOME ~'ERS DO HEREBY PETITION THE MEI'h S OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PlANNING ~ISSION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE V Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED GENERAL PIAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14 SL'llIiIT'ni:D BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND -EVELYN J. BLAT'ni:R. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS IOOATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXD'lATELY 1100 FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED mOPlE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICULAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLlDWING H:OPlE, ALL WHO LIVE IN ClDSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO THE DEVELOmR AND PROPERTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
NAME ADDRESS
~... _J. .~ ~/.~, ~'/1~t~~. J:z.~3 i!'.
? !.
O/J;'d.. - /~. _ A::/. /.L ~ ~~fI
.I 9'~ I
~~c:
I"r.c
p
~
P<.~~ '.1~
\ a ff) _ ~..:30S- uJJ.i..uw "-_ _ - q? 'fy/tDu,
-&z';- ~ dr:?as- w:~ l)... SV2f.,tf"7:~ 9_N'Cy'
f]oJ:i:L; O. ~OIJ.L 3fco6 ~c./L P<r. ~~~ q;L'-Iol.l
0&
Dr.
.
t(.J1/.A~ ~
tJY
9'iI l{.oCf
.9;z~
~d - ~
. ~. . '5<
~~/ ~------- JV5s ?: Hk';~ A./6 f'~~-
00 ~~J~B~m @
~,~ \"fro SA
OEPARTMENT~~ERNAP.~NO
BUu..DIN~ ;...~~~NNlNG R.
.J''=i)
ATTACHMENT 0-1
""
J;ld!
. .
. THE UNDERSIGNED HOME ~ DO HEREBY .PETITION THE MEMt""\! OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PlANNING C~SION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE ~ OF SAN BERNARDINO
cm COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROFOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14 SUBMIT'l'ED BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BLATTER. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS IDCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL'DRIVE APHlOXDiATELY Hal FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED HlOPIE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICULAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLLOWING H:OPIE, ALL WHO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO THE DEVELOHlR AND PROH:RTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
ADDRESS
.fl.il ~~Lco'aZ?e.
'/ ~/"
;(~~
~"'A''.(/~ .? 717/ A/
c;,w /2, /'
/#(_..!:o#~J''LU~ l
&~ j),
~'i~ 3 H:"'L"'~ k U
5.8
9'~"""'7
ATTACHMENT 0-2
THE UNDERSIGNED HOME~lERS DO HEREBY mTITION THE ~iE~1 :s OF THE CITY OF SAN
.' BERNARDINO PlANNING ISSION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMEND NO. 90-14 SUllMITTED BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BLATTER. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS lOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXDiATELY ll~ FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED moPIE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICULAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CIDSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLLOWING PEOPlE, ALL WHO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOULD BE AD~AN'l'AGEOUS ONLY TO THE DEVElOPER AND PROPERTY OIlNERS NAMED ~VE.
NAME )nt0j1~ dcV'/&-J ADDRESS ;'3(}...5- 'Du~d<-.fl,( S:.t5
~~~"'w~ ~."'-t:~~,sg
. ,,jp.-- fl.- i1f~ ,;~;;- k S.8
1....~~~A./ '5~Y/ ~-( ~.5'6,
. ~
-:1".
. .
"c. 33j' -r"'J9" I-r'C :DIL S' {3.
~~
~5./3
.
:2. :2~; Y\\;z..o I..Lt 'Df. S t$
.~(l a:......t s..J5_
.;3~o k. '
~~~~!: ~J;s
~;!.. . F ~i~L/.l2,. S"R'
ATTACHMENT 0-3
~:c:..
. .
, ,THE UNDERSIGNED HOME 1"'\..~ DO HEREBY mTITION THE MEM:Q; OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PlANNING ~SION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY TIlE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDME NO. 90-14 SUllMITTED BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BlATTER. TIlE SITE IN
QUESTION IS lOCATED ON TIlE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1100 FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. TIlE AEOVE NAMED mOPIE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICUlAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO mRMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
TIlE FOLIDW!NG PEOPIE, ALL WHO LIVE IN ClDSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO TIlE DEVEWPER AND PROPERTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
NAME . '--, ADDRESS
. ~4.~LLa,^ 3$77 '>:r7<0rr..d:t l.J-i.
tJ -'
~::L..OS
~~7'i
. ."}-U-A. L}- j'
//
~--j~/
....3;~9
/
c~
E /V, ~ .$____&.ev..;..d'~
E. .Jf/~ 1.;)~
'v'-' ((~4./ v-. S (j> 7') vo '(
~1 /... -~'/:;;- ~ .~/ .
..r v ,J , ,:> .A: CJ S .;,.. "-
!
~
ATTACHMENT 0-4
",.",.,.,
. THE UNDERSIGNED HOME^/ERS DO HEREBY PETITION THE ~~~ OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PlANNING lW-IISSION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE\Jl'Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROFOSED GENERAL PlAN AJolENDMENT NO. 90-14 SUBMITTED BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BLATTER. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS IDCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXDiATELY Hal FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED PEOPlE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICUUll AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLlDWING PEOPlE, ALL WHO LIVE IN ClOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
BE AD \\GEOUS ON~ TO THE DEVEIDPER AND PROFERT! OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
,
ADDRESS
~,(Et {J.;L" ,
-a,/70
.-'...- I '1
. .
~-~~/ /7
(!)
r- '....4 (. ',/"
-"; :- ...~" 1-- : '
.;j. --d:'0
''''J \ ,--:::.
, X \-
'" -, ,- //
,~/~2 //I/~"/~
At) 1M 1 UA1.ey,u,
~5f>-q n;W?1J~tIA 0/( S.8.
ATTACHMENT 0-5
;;'~
, '
. . TIlE lJNDE1!SIGNED HOMEQlERS DO HEREBY PETITION TIlE MEJr'\.s OF ~ CITY OF SAN
BE1lNARDINO PlANNING ISSION AND TIlE MEMBERS OF TIlE ~ OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY TIlE PROFOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14 SUBMIT'IED BY
W. R. IIENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BLA'M'Ell. TIlE SITE IN
QUESTION IS IOOATED ON TIlE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXIMATELY llEb FEET
EAST OF STERLDlC AVENUE. TIlE ABOVE NAMED PEOPIE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICULAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
TIlE FOLIDW:nc H:OPIE, ALL WHO LIVE IN ClOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THil CURllENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUS'JIRED) HOUSING
woum BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO THE DEVElOPER AND PROPERTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
NAME
~b~-Il. S 'f)1} , /'-J9-w#.AJE- ~ P1-J..t;J-L~/'.5
~ d t .
?b r -.. . ~ ..., \ r _ -
~62-67.:28
~S
~ ~ c10kfl.fMT#J.J.~'
:>:...t5
IJ.~ .t7; 9
t"t I{. t. 77:2.
"
"
,.
":2,,t ( C. F,,:/1,;// Or
,\'P?
I ,
, .
I .
ATTACHMENT 0-6
. .
. .THE UNDERSIGNED HOME ~ DO HEREBY HlTITION THE MEM1"'\.. OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PlANNING CWIsSION AND THE MEMllERS OF THE Wr OF SAN BERNARDINO .
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14 SUllMITTED BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BLA'l"l'ER. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOO'nIILL DRIVE APPROXDIATELY lllkl FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED mOPlE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICULAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLlDWING lEOPlE, ALL WHO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO THE DEVEUlmR AND PROH:RTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
ADDRESS
NAME 4~
. ~ 6?-n"j
a. e- . Wljtf.~
:2;)'. fl1F.sy> (, ,')1= f) /(.
2 2. qL; E f" , T H,' /../.- 1) R
J,J.4}
~ 7
3ftl 'Y11dj"~ .~~~.
34/,y ~?'~~.Jt'
5'cf~<j /JlJ7?: ,. /-,:::,
s: i:J '7 </0 Y
9::2'104
:;)~ Ii. \. tJr .
//&IP'~;#, 1<J~
EUw~~;;h
.~~
:a:z~ Pj
f,;J. yo t./
9.2<7tJ<;/
fZ. ~ c ..,L
J Vf.. r /?/,,#'4' .,;?;l/A./, T"
,
3s<l/ /l1;:=~h;
::]('4/ /11 T ~
7' ~ Yp~/
<'1;."..~
9;t.~ 'f
ATTACHMENT 0-7
~.,"
.' . THE UNDERSIGNED HOME c.nRS IX> HEREBY mTITION THE MEMll""'\ OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PlANNING coWsSION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE ~ OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROFOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-14 SUllMrmD BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELnI J. BlATTER. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS lOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 11En FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED mOPIE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICUlAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLLOWING HlOPIE, ALL WHO LIVE IN CIDSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE Cll1lREllT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOUlD BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO THE DEVElOmR AND FIl0H:RTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
NAME ADDRESS
t!::t!:r:!'{/t 31!l U ....L-J<-<Y ~'~2t-'1vhf
~{) ~ _ ~ ,',-" 3712.... ~L -c:y s..~. Q" 0 .7~4 t../-
( I ,,' )..j
92~O<
I
'2~
~y >< Vy
)( X
.~
"1-. ~TTA~ENt.<!l-8
"',"
. .
..... J.GNED HOME ~S DO HEREBY l'ETITION THE MEl :s OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERlWUJ_rlO PlANNING ~ISSION AND THE MEMBERS OF THFI'"\'l'Y OF SAN Ba:RHARDINO
CITY COUNCIL TO DE~ PROFOSED GENERAL PLAN AJoIENDMW NO. 90-14 SUBMITTED BY
W. R. HENDRIX AND ASSOCIATES AND ROBERT K. AND EVELYN J. BlATTER. THE SITE IN
QUESTION IS IOOATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1180 FEET
EAST OF STERLING AVENUE. THE ABOVE NAMED mOPIE HAVE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE OF
THIS PARTICUlAR AREA FROM RL TO RS AND TO PERMIT ATTACHED (CWSTERED) UNITS.
THE FOLLOWING FEOPIE, ALL WHO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS SITE, OBJECT TO
ANY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT ZONING, AND FEEL THAT ATTACHED (CLUSTERED) HOUSING
WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS ONLY TO THE IEVEIDNR AND PROH:RTY OWNERS NAMED ABOVE.
NAME ADDRESS
u
V ,/J~i;~/'_
;:;~
;/
'1
"
't'
3'=' 16 {~~L /Wl..~,(J '7;z.ifOr
d.6/'i. l-fem1cx...t Drtve.. Cf;).4oy
~n\H'
~~\\ , 8
BEl\.....140INO
IT" Of s...N l'L~N'NG ..
oEP BUILOINCl S~f\
ATTACHMENT 0-9
. .
W.R.(1NDRIX & ASSOClATE~\JC.
Civil Engineering. Land Planning. Land Surveying
March 19, 1991
l~i ~L0 rnU ~] ~ lID
J ~i;ul 1 ~ 1991
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attn: Debra Wo1druff
Advance Planner
CiTY OF S.b..'J ijitU~/\ROi~O
DfP.~RrMEtH O~ PLAM':::..G t.
bUlLOI\:G SERV::;i;S
Re: GPA 90-14A
Dear Debra:
Enclosed are ten letters in support of the above referenced
planning item before the Planning Commission this evening.
As you will note, some of the signers are members of Golden
Valley Christian Church who are not residents of the City.
However, since the project is adjacent to the church
property, we believe their support is just as valid as
someone living blocks away who may not support the
development.
I would appreciate you including the attached letters to the
file and providing a copy to each commissioner.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to
contact my office.
Sincerely:
W.R. Hendrix Engineering , Associates
By:
//)
-'" ."'. ' , ,
/.' -Lt.,. //
R. Hendrix, P. E.
, President
Wayne
Attachment E-l
350 west Fifth Street. SUite 202
Son Bernardino. CA 92401
714/3815483
Fox 7141381.0915
n
lIa
-
-
o
o
.. .
11
^~....
March 14, 1991
W- ,." t:'. '"" M"-
.. I.., I....;: II.! r=
jli0GUWt;:W
MAR 1 9 19st
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
C'-'O
II I F SAN BERN
CEPAj1TMf:rIT OF P "IROINO
e~ILD1NG Sfll~~~NG ...
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter to offer my support in favor of General
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning Commission
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed sJte plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely, ~
...P~~ n
".3'7:; o..).;I...lJIf..j U'V
Address: t1I'-
San Bernardino, CA Q2.."l44
Attachment E-2
..
t
~
,,'"
JII
A.
J.
'.'
....,.
~
o
o
~_.
~-..~.
. ;...~
~
.:.;.~
March 14, 1991
[Rj&&mnw&f01
MAR 1 9 1991 lJ!)
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CITy OF SMI
DEP';I!TMENT O:CRNAIIDIIVO
BUILDING SE~~~IVG "
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter to offer my support in favor of General
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning Commission
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed s~te plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
,"I
Name: :,
.':"-. .- r
':
'-:. ....1
( ..'
- '. . -- .
-
,-
_ !'(-~ r./
Address:
.'
-.K';-.-.
.__a.:-___...-'
J ,-. '"
7 :....J.~ '-;
....~.,,~....:..
.......-
San Ber.nardino, CA q;. ~-1 '..,' 7 '
Wk'J '1~, Ch~~ f!kv-Jo
O~15t .
dI "J .d . __
~ ~ /.;pvr'-. ~tfol.(
Attach~nt E-3
-
-
-
I
,
r
A
-
, .
o
o
'.
m
:.w:.:-r, ,
O1lE~&OW[f
"'~R I 9 1991 @
C"r'~
DIlP" 01' It""" "
B";M'Ii~ 0, ~.'V"Fi~INO
UILDIIVO II/!'-ANrvlfyr.; .
"\llce~ ..
March 14, 1991
Planning Co.mission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter to offer my support in favor of General
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning Co.mission
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed site plan
and I am in favor of the development. .
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,. /J k-
&~~- ~
Name: olf),/o -k.lt.f LH. S9.v /f$;rVN"~K&>- e"
Address: ?Z~~
San Be~Dardino, CA
....
~-
G'..t'k V4 ~ ~
"
~~,z. r~ ~
S.-5.
Attachment E-4
~
.-
1
.
. t.
Jj1
..
~;~it;; ,.'
~'_'\/~'.:'i',.. _
.. ~:: ~;'
o
~
o
'!i~
it~:."
~.
Cl /!@lIDWI1/ii)
I1AR , 9 1991 J.;
City O'
OEp ~ S'~IV
:4117'''-1,1'7' IIEI::/A"..
8(/;- '0" ... ",INO
~Ol/VG SEll' ~NllI^'G L
rtCES ..
March 14, 1991
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
......
,-.;"-~"
J....
Dear Planning Commission:
.,.,
I aa writing this letter to offer my support in favor of Genetal
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning Commission.
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed site plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
..nmd':f'l- ~L..
Name: ....;:.~ /!{/S~-.J ~
Address: 14~-..,t .f"""~L"
"
r z.,tDy.
San B.rnardino, CA
~ ~~e. - ~a.-I v'IIl.t..t::Jr' ~~f1r,.....j ~fZ..c.""
Attachment E-5
~
.1
--
;;:.."
I......'.
-. ....
..'
eO',
-
-
-
: :~~:~~;::.j!/' .',; .
.~~ ,...,'-i ~:. '0
.~ ;.,' ';
o
o
..
.
....... ~ .
E.
_..~..
{fjfl&!lOWIlIn1
NAR 1 9 1991 J.;
o CITy c.' 0
EPAItT/.,1F ~AN eEP.N Q
BU'L/) ~ OF PLJ:, A. .01'10
, INO SOn.. .1V/iII, ' ..
""'fl.-ICES \.Iq
..'~
March 14, 1991
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 Horth "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
..
Dear Planning Commission:
t.
I
I am writing this letter to offer .y support in favor of General
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning Commission
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed sjte plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
Name:~~
Address: ;rrsf 1~#yr
San Be,inardino, CA f;l.<fffl
.
~~~~~-~
, .
Attachment'E-6-
~:'''- ,~..-.
o
o
, .~~.'.-,:.
~~,;'
.. -.-- '
~_:.
'.'
March 14, 1991
ill m@rnuwrnIID
tiAR 1 9 1991
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 Borth "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CITY OF SAN B::f1NAIIDINO
DEPARTMENT OF Pl.ANNING .
BUILDiNG SERVICES
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
'.;~...~'~ ,..<-;: ;,. . ,,/!':
--
Dear Planning Commission:
fa f.... of .m:., l~
Planning Commhuon'., ,~'
I am writing this letter to offer my support
Plan Amendment Bo. 90-14A to be heard at the
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed s!te plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
9Y~~
Name: W. c:.. ~~ ,.so,.;
Address: {,Of''- MIl-~l...M'Sr,
San Bernardino, CA
H~: .~V~~cL.J.
Attachment E-1
. .
o
o
~
.
F-
~..
'..~.
.~
00 ffi@ffiDwrnlID
MAR 1 9 1991
March 14, 1991
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CiTY c;.: SA~~ BE~.i'~'1AOINO
Df?ARn'~"T O~ PLANNING to
6:.J!LCII~G SERVICes
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
.... .
Dear Planning Commission:
1
'"
I am writing this letter to offer my support in favor of General
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning Commission
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed site plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
Name:
r!'
...,. .
---- :
~
. ,/ ._- -'. ~- . -
'.-;,' i .....- ...~." .,!.~
,.
Address:
f~~?
San B&~uardino, CA
.~~ '( ~ QQ.J~aJ
v
~
'-'
Attachment E-8
0:,:'_;:,;-
~~. ~i''':
o
o
:
.... ;~
.'
. '-'YPI~'''''''':' -'.
,,' . - ~ . '. - - .
~~.~.~~~~, . . .::-.:~-
.~~; :~~: - "'~~'~.,
-,. ,._~...t..., ....
~""{"'- ,"
Planninl Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 Horth "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
f13 U m OWl/HiP
MAR , 9 1991 L!!J'
Ci1)'OF
DEPARTA1E!~~~~ElifWto'NO
aUIlJ:;lNG S~~""'~IIVG "
.., . ICEs
March 14" 1991
".,..~ .
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
.
-'"-, -:/t.Ji~;;~
_\~~"l~...,<,:
I..;<~,;.., -< ;:'t~~:
"":'~$
~~a::r~; ~~m;~::~:~',)!?~~;~'l
. ,... . ~;
..." :.
, ..irI~"!"
..
Dear Planninl Commission:
I aa writing this letter to offer my support
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the
on March 19, 1991.
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed s.ite plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
Name: ~~~;;CI-
Addre":~O'?!f~i:<L-..("-'t. $-
San B~.rdino, CA
, ~;,
rr~ \~ OLJ- ~.Q.
Attachment E-9
-~-/>:
o
o.
~-
..,.
'r-"
'I'~:'
. -
-;.. ~~fo.
J
....'.--
March 14, 1991
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
OO~@~DW~lID
MAR 1 9 19~t
~Z.-:~N BEIlNAIlOINO
BUILDING c:~r:NG"
~ .O<<h
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
('w... .
-i"'''-'
'-.~...'
I am writing this letter to offer my support in favor
Plan Amendment No. 90-14A to be heard at the Planning
on March 19, 1991.
1-"~-.
of General
Commission
-I'~':_~_~<;_E,';';'_:~
:'<':;.:"~~-:-":7~
. ,: -''''~. ..;
..:~~'~' .'
_ c'. - C,- ,.iio,,;..JLi
...., ..:~~
'. "~:~i*~::~'~'~> \::.
Dear Planning Commission:
I have reviewed the conceptual renderings and proposed sJte plan
and I am in favor of the development.
I respectfully request that you join my support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
Name: ~~ j "Ao.Nu.j ~~
Address: 3/74-~cf ;Or
San Be;~ardino. CA 9tl3 '-I I.,
~
-1t'"
;tfo/~- UCULLy G~~ ~LIL
. .
Attachment E-I0
-',',;.:p
,"'-'
'. ...T....-
~~.i~~..:.. :::;,~;i ~1~E':"h;
..... . .-,-;.;. :-.
o
o
'... ~.
::~,;^':'-::-~-~.:,;"f;
'::.t-',.:
~.." ."
:'<
00 rn@rn~wrn lID
MAR t 9 1991
Planning Commtaaion
City of San Bernardino
300 Nortb "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CITY OF SAIl BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING a.
BUILDING SERVICES
RE: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14A
.'..
.~~. - ..... _.. ~~.
Dear Planning Commiaaion:
"
I am writing rbie letter to offer my aupport in favor of Gen.~al
Plan Amend.ent No. 90-14A to be heard at tbe Planning Commia.ione
on Marcb 19, 1991.
I have reviewed tbe conceptual renderings and proposed s~te plan
and I a. in favor of tbe development.
I respectfully request tbat you join .y support and approve
GPA-90-14A.
Sincerely,
SaD
'~JL ~3';<S
~:41hO, CA '1;z~ol,
. .
Attachment E-11
"'-~"d'
. .~
.'"
'-+.:~!i
,~.
'..1:'.
..j.
':
~\
.......
.":.l!,
~
. _ ~J. . "_
I' .' '':''>'''J''!
. -.......~ .,.~ I::. -:., . ',:..:S:,' .
~-C'-^.;,;-lt;,:..___..~
Ir,--,....~--~
."' ~.i.:,~
} , ? "'~.' "~'t:.
.._.....:._~- ~- .~~c' ,;~'::;
. '.~
o
o
HBrch 16, 1991
fij) I':'Cl ~ " ., '7 R fii1
LfiJ LS b L; u \:; ~ ~
1'11'..1 1 9 b~l
Planning ('nmri -ia1
City of Sm Bemsrdioo
3X) North "D" Street
San BeJ:lIBIdim, CA 92418
CTrvc'" ,.
'., ." ... ,~~~ HCIIN':'C"oIlOlo
or.~.~'r'~ ...nt.;"
~,' ",r... :',i~':rr 0,= Pt.AN~w.'."" !O
["-'0'1'0 .." u
.....j'" j, SERViCeS
RE: GelEral Plan A-d.....t No. ~14A
Dear Planning n"""'_\aI mi Neighbors:
full to a prior CXJIIIIitm!nt, Evelyn mi I me tmlIIIBilable to attend the P1aming ('rmni....ia1 Hearing this
evening. I lolOUl.d lilGe to take this oppxtunity to set the record straight.
Ibring the past few teeks saae half~ths E:e disseminated concerning aIr Deve10pJent Applicatial am
General Plan AID!Id.....t:.
Evelyn mi I me both the I'L"I""'-Lj owners mi applica1ts for the GelEral Plan A-d....d: before jOU this
evening. To _ist lIS in the F~~ am futUIe ~ of aIr I'iup:rty, we have ,,",L~ fer
!lelldrix FzJginlering mi SoutIMst lllliltleTs, Inc. to rel'L..d I!IIt lIS.
Qn- --i"~ia1 with Hr. Wayne!lelldrix of!lelldrix Fngineering am Hr. Jdm Edwins of SoutIMst JllliJtIers,
Inc. has HJl' provided BaJ short c:uts; nor have we tequeSted ar received BaJ faIIors iran the Planning
Ilepartm!nt in pE"': !S8ing aIr applicatial.
To date we have III!t every request, provided every survey, tep)1't mi envi.ommtal study requiled by the
General Plan am/ar CE) (California FmiomII!ntal QJa1ity Act>, 1iIic:h includes the fo1lcwing: Arborist
Report; Biological St1Idy; Archaeological St1Idy am Historical Survey; Geological treDc:hing am Report;
Drainage St1Idy; am Soils Report.
We requested tliO items in aIr original appJ i...tiOll a'A ~13. 'l1E first _ a 2DIIf! chanae frau (RL)
Resitl.n~i"l law 3.1lD11!S per a:re to (llS) Residential &lbuIblm 4.5 lDII!S per a:re. 'l1E secar:I _ a
general plan text chanae deleting the wrd "Detached" frau Sectial 1.11, thereb, allowing both attached
am detached housing in the (llS) Residential &lbuIblm 2D11f!.
I IDpe aIr explanatial helps to clesr the air mi will prevent my further misunlerstalKling. To provide
additiallll. insight regarding attached housing, we have ....L_~ a slide presentatial far JOUr review.
Thank jOU for allowing lIS the oppxtunity to address this hearing. Both Evelyn mi I appreciate JOUr
pr JOe am tmdeI:s1..ming.
Attachment F
. .
o
o
25915 Foothill Dr.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
March 19, 1991
Planning and Building Services Department
San Bernardino City Hall
300 N. D St.
San Bernardino, GA 92418
Dear Sir or Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to express our opposition to
General Plan Amendment No. 90-14. Our home is located almost
directly across the street from the property in question, and
we are certain that .our neighborhood will be adversely affected
if this amendment is adopted.
When we purchased our home almost eleven years ago; we of course
investigated the zoning of the vacant land across the street.
Our home is the biggest investment we will ever make, and we
wanted to be sure that any future development in the neighborhood
would enhance the value of our property. The RL zoning of the
parcel across the street was compatible with our home and the
immediate neighborhood (we have approximately one-half acre).
The proposal of GPA 90-14, to change the parcel to RS, would change
the terms of our property investment after we had already made our
contract over ten years ago; this is completely unfair to all of us
who have invested in the neighborhood.
We also strongly Gppose1he provision in GPA 90-14 to allow cluster
development. Condomin1ums on Foothill Dr. would completely change
the character of this quiet neighborhood and would certainly devalue
existing homes in the area. When future prospective home buyers
drive into the neighborhood and see apartments, they will think,
"Higher crime, more traffic -- let's look elsewhere." They won't
know or care about the fact that the density of the development is
no greater than it would have been with single family homes.
ATr1lCIlMEN1' G
GPA 90-14l ~ .
~Jr: G, /rw(1fUJ
C-;/~~
We submit our emphatic "~10" to
o
o
David and Annmarie Child
227 East 47th Street
San Bernardino, Calif.
92404
March 7, 1991
City of San Bernardino planning Commission
C/O planning and building Services Dept.
City Hall, San Bdno., Ca.
Re: General Plan Amendment No. 90-14B consideration
& public hearing set for March 19, 1991, 7:00 p.m.
at Council Chambers of City Hall.
Dear Planning Commission and Public:
We appreciate this opportunity to submit our comments.
We are opposed to GPA 90-14B and its adoption to the General Plan.
We are registered voters of this City, County, and State (and by
the way, did vote in this most recent Primary Municipal Election)
and we are property owners and property tax payers of this City.
au. k-ltJ/A.CI_/ CM4:t
Annmarie Child
m~@~ll~~\ID
U\1 MAR 1 1 1991
CITY Of SAN ac"~~r.n,l~l~
OEP'nMENT or- PLA,~N,N" &
"aUILDlNG S:RVICES
Ar12\ClMENT H
. .
o
" I J Oc
-:;;'"01 -k''1/~7
~".., ~ ~T1erJ'4u
Hv~
(;4 7'oJ'I" v
e,t'! 0+ ,C" L,,,,,J'A.:J
3.;;.) ^/ D ..s.m~1
.s~.. t6"/I(~J,,," (/) C;2'/it
J)!(~Im,,,f .) I ?1''''''''7 i 3 ~,I,.rA7 S,.- .m-J
7 Ii} C r, t...
Ie; 7 I
[2~@ffillW~\lli
MAR 1 1 19:;1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING'
BUILDING SERVICES
! aWl
l(e G fA fa... 1,/ B
c.j" ..~J t- --It'r C /1c"'rrJ
'''' ~,j
p rvf.J ~.. I ~
f
We elo /10 t /1 t:,. J "HI.] t, ~.-..J' '7" bL, fJ,..p
I", --t::h ekS C'~cA RL ~"'/1r.J' S''l7/' ~ ~. J h.;rn d
c 1<e 10.1. cr: S oJ 1+ (L ,..... t- ~ -tl.....J<. C .........1 '
I -tr-V' 'ek r c {Ie....- 7 c (..,.du 01., l/'C lof w... t
1>1 Cf't',,~ 0.' ',j' ", 117 ~r'" -+ .s '.." If -r; "". 'J trneJ
~ll..d~ hhll'J t:-bv~+ CI1~-tl1(r {tyc/r,,- bv-tt,,,,-e -tJfe..
devd..../'m("i:. I., c. r&o-fttr/ JA.r+ -nthr Ic..v<f-c-h~ef.
'-'](,,~1~ u.'1/fs. oIt~"'(0f,fL CAd .tJc....,.,.,,( ~~-1-(1?..7
C f't --h> tie. '1 '
~ l I '
I Y1o{>-c. --f:t,.( fl'''Il'? 0nrnl..J!/~ """./ nQ+
~ \ 'tIel. -fo a. oI.-rv-eI"f"'J of,.J ,re -tu II~~ I"j
f:Hbn Oollld.. w..,,s,df/ --th.~ "13,.:5 ?c-/v'e.... C.1(lr(h
o-t ~'J ftuf'tI.j.,i.
. .
OVI' c.-tJ h".J .!J..N'1 cc....,..J~ f vf ''1
~7k h'jl, dr"/J. -b {JiNf"J C I.s. /;1 1rtrtfJ7
Vl>"1 -tv..;17 1uo.Jr~
CJ Cc-v. de '-V ()~
C L IIvO.: u P"'''-''/I,
eYlu'(J'" of
dr v-c (f o'.s
ATrAalMENl' I
o
20. 1991
The San Bernardino County Sun
399 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA
Attn; Voice of the People
In reference to the Planning Commission hearing of March 19. 1991
and the proposed development of the 8 1/2 acres of land located
at foothill Drive. I take this opportunity, as a lifetime resident,
to express an opinion widely heldamong my peers.
~his City is rapidly losing quality, younger residents. such as
myself, to more econcmically and socially desirable communities _
Redlands, Highland. Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga. Riverside and the
greater Orange county~ Each of the "concerned citizens" oppos~d
t~ the"development of this parcel vehemently expressed their
objections and further claimed to have the City's "long-term"
interests in mind.
I must first point out that the vast majority of those opposed
were older individuals. It is my opinion that such residents are
merely concerned with selfish. "short-term" interests _ keeping
their neighborhood status-quo for the remainder of their lives.
Let's face facts. The population of Southern California is changing
by the millions. Where are these future residents (especially the
desirable one's) going to go? A vacant field attracting weeds,
fire, vermin and crime surely does little to attract future
residents to our City and further, does little for the surrounding
property values.
After attending several related meetings, listening intently to
the City, the "concerned" residents an.d the owners/developers of
this property. I can say that I have objectively investigated
the matters inVOlving this proposal. After speaking wit~
Nr. Hendrix, Mr. Edwins and Dr. Bl.atter I nave learned that
their propsed development is one offering an upscale, MAINTAINED
(something not common to this City), gated community with average
selling prices well over $200,000.
Ai"l'J\CIlMENI' J-l
o
o
Not one of my fellow neighbors, so adamantly opposed, had the
common courtesy or decency to fully and objectively listen
to the full proposal; infact, most left the Commission hearing
after making their negative comments public.
It is time for the Mayor and Council, the Redevelopment Agency,
the Planning Departme~t, the Planning Commission, this newspaper
and the residents of this City to wake-up and smell the coffee.
This generation of younger, educated, well-to-do residents is
tired of narrow-minded, short-sighted opinions and attitudes.
When those opposed, older residents are gone, their homes
deter~orating and depreciating in value, with.DO upscale future
buyers in sight,this City will always have what remains _
trash, blight and an undesirable future.
It should be interesting...
some executive townhouse in
I'll probably be watching from
Redlands.
"CONCERNED" CITIZEN
SAN BERNARDINO
ce:
Maror Bob Halcomb
Ed tor, Arnold Garson
Reporter, Cassie MacDuff
AT1'N:HMENl' J-2
. .
o
o
2329 E. Willow Drive
San Bernardino, OA 92404
RECElven,'! ", ~
April 20,_c~~91
'91
APR 23 P4 :24
Mayor and Oity Oouncil
c/o Oity Administer
300 I. liD" street
San Bernardino, OA 92401
RBI General Plan Text Amendment 90-14
Dear Mayor and Oity Oouncill
we, the residents of the affected area regarding proposed text
amendment 90-14 and proposed development of clustered housing
by Dr. Blatter and Mr Edwins adjacent to Foothill Drive and the
Little Sand Oreek Oounty Flood Control property which is directly
west of our neighborhood, request that this adgenda item be
addressed at an evening meeting.
Oitizen representation at thie meeting is necessary so that
countering complaints against this majo~ destructive change
in San Bernardino's General Plan, now only two years old, may
be voiced. Most residents and others wishing to attend this
said meeting would be uaable to attend a day meeting due to
employment commitments.
We request further that we be informed of the date, time, and
location of your meetiag when this adgeada will .be addressed.
Thank you for your co.sideration of the citizens of our area
and of all San Bernardino who will be aegatively affected should
this proposal be passed by your judgement.
Yours ~incerel~~c~
'1!:::2f~
Shirley A. Bo~aa-and
Alice M. Snyder
Resident and Homeowner
at above address
)
Attachment J-3
::>
V ALDEAN M. WATSON
AlTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
:>
TELEPHONE
(714) 889-2Z89
May 2, 1991
RECEI'IF'
.. '/"'1 1=~~.,
- . 370 WESI' SIXIlI srREET, SUITE 100
SAN BERNARDINO, CAUFORNlA 92401
Pl :04
Common Council and the Mayor '91 MP,Y-6
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
RE: GPA 90-14A
Dear Mayor and Common Councilmembers:
Several homeowners who live in the site neighborhood
have requested that I address the issue of this proposed
amendment. They strenuously object to it as well as its
companion, GPA 90-14B.
In fact, no one with whom I have spoken in the
neighborhood is in favor of the proposed change. The
church nearby the site certainly would want the present
situation ameliorated. But the present proposal would not
do that, it would only change it. These homeowners are for
progress, they are for development, but they are not in
favor of the present proposal.
Let the owners and developers make use of the site.
But let them do it without the proffered amendment. Let the
site be a boon for the city, the neighborhood and the new
residents. Let it not be a monument to greed.
There is no EIR. It might seem advisable/considering
the special precautions that this site necessitates
considering the flood control district, the county lands as
well as the fault lines.
There appear to be several promotions being bantered
about by the developers that seem to be wishful thinking at
best e.g. that cluster housing is going to be warmly
embraced by local residents who are aged who want to move
into such housing. A development in the Redlands area, Del
Flora, proves this to be capricious thinking at its kindest.
The draw that will be necessary to attract buyers will
most likely be persons with lit~e roots in the area with
little care of its long term positive objectives. The final
building will probably be much less attractive to the
neighborhood, the city and the new residents than is now
even partially envisioned. The final product notoriously in
these type cases unfortunately do more than cut corners,
-1-
16
.!
)
)
they emasculate the area for the sake of a quick profit turn
around.
The Common Council has a fiduciary responsibility to
look out for the common good, not just the advantage to a
few on the short run. There is everything right and proper
about business people making profits on their investments.
But the risk so inherent should not be placed upon the
shoulders of the local citizenry who will reap only added
congestion, burdens on the city system schools etc. It is
not as if there is a dearth of for sale housing in the city
presently or in the future.
To amend requires a compelling interest for the change.
There is no compelling interest here. The amendment does
not benefit the neighborhood. Another development perhaps, but
not this development. It does not benefit the city in
consideration of the weighing of essential services etc. It
will probably bring in more transient types who will have
little interest in the city. We need permanent, long
ranging interests for the betterment of the city rather than
short-sighted, short-term, selective benefits to a few.
The site area requires development. But not this
development. Reject GPA 90-14A.
Thank you.
5t-...
-
.
Valdean M. Watson
Attorney and Counselor at Law
-2-
;)
)
April 30, 1991
Mayor and City Council
San Bernardino City
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, California
RECEIVt:~, --'T. ," -- ,
. i ,~.:'"""
'91 HAY -6 P 1 :04
Dear Mayor and City Council:
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBERS 90-14A and 90-14B
This is a protest in the most strong terms aqainst the
above noted amendments.
They are not in the best interest of the neighborhood,
they are not in the best interest in the people who would
move in and they are not in the best interest of the City of
San Bernardino. They are only in the best interest of the
developers who are out to make as much money as possible.
This is their opportunity. This is their risk. If they can
make more money that in and of itself is not wrong, but this
action does not benefit the city, nor the city schools, nor
the neighborhood nor the new residents.
This land should be developed, but reasonably, not just
with the idea to get as many as possible units on the land
as can be. My understanding is that the developers have
said things that are not correct. My understanding is that
they are encouraging acceptance based on some wild
speculations, like old people in San Bernardino will move
out of their present homes to buy into theirs. This has
been shown to NOT happen in the Redlands area. This is just
hype, hUffing and puffing on the developers to, again,
benefit their bottom line at the expense of so many others.
My understanding is that they have some
building projects that can and probably will
change when it comes time to actually build.
clearly an undesirable possibility.
plans for their
materially
This is
They have their free agency to make as good a deal as
possible, but, again, not at the city's long term expense
nor that of its residents.
Please reject General Plan Amendments Numbers 90-14A
and 90-14B.
Va~~
Valdean Watson
2295 Mesquite Drive
San Bernardino, California 92404
.1/6'- ~7
-
o 0
SIGLAND [, ASSOCIA Tf;S
SURVEYING
LAND DEVELOPMENT
364 ORANGE SHOW LANE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 12408
(714) 888-83s.t
May 6, 1991
YUCAIPA, CA
PHELAN,CA
Mayor & City Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
General Plan Amend. 90-14A
RL to RS
My home residence is 2455 Willow Drive, which is within less
than a half mile of the proposed site. I am the owner of
Sigland & Associates, a firm that provides Land Planning,
Engineer, Surveying services and also creates residential lots.
I have 39 years experience in Land Development.
Changing the density to a higher density makes no sense given
the restrictions on the property. Flood Hazard Zone, Fire
Hazard Zone, Geological Hazard Zone and Hillside property all
require low densities. This will change the standards' on lot
width from 80 ft. to 60 ft. and B.S.L. from 30' to 25'. This
will reduce lot sizes to smaller than the adjoining neighborhood
on the west, north and east. This would be spot zoning for this
property.
The site adjoins Little Sand Canyon on the East which is a major
drainage course. Flows from over 900 acres which can be highly
debris laden, are identified in letter from San Bernardino
County Flood Control, dated April 8, 1991 as a problem. They
are recommending a 100 ft. B.S.L. from their right of way. This
drainage area is twice the area of the Hampshire Street drainage
area. Do we want to have another situation like that past
problem. Please refer to the attached map for drainage areas.
Our City General Plan is only 2 years old. FOLLOW THE PRESENT
GENERAL PLAN, do not change existing neighborhoods. Deny
General Plan Amendment No. 91-14A.
om4^~~
Richard P. Siegmund
Professional Land Surveyor
.~ ~""',..;::;;:~ ;~~v.""~"""i':.'
?t11" ~I \~'D5~"~"""(",,,, "''<.,,''''''~ .~~'i '" ::~~:.".! ~
(1,")'1);' "-'~'~"7-~~:'"!j~~~~~"}~;{". r<<~'J..~
f" "'- )' .- ~c!-aY':~ ~,,~~ ~ -' ~..... '....
: :;" .~..,c?1lJ{.~:f': :<'",'>.l''if>~'-~?i- t(,:~~":~~":~': ~\~, ..." =
'-[-f'<-:'~hP~:r.(I;~"~'~~'\"::~"I';-;;' ~.', ,,";\"', .. (';
'7i<~;:clIj).,("t,"') .':..'1. u,' . ,,-";.' " ~'~
:~:;~il:~~1-r.~;~"1/,h'"'.'~' :in: J~"-:~,/:. :fJ!a~'-"'-":-:f ~ ~OI~-
?c /1, ......... /.~"/- .~, 'a'J '..=...::-:: 1. . 'l'-"'I", .~.
'-:'" :.:'::-~0'0{tl'; ~iI!);~.8\:''',:~,,;~:: ;i'<.;'{1b-',,:-;., '.
'X \,~...:,~ 1~I1tf:'1/ I ~(\ ' . ":~.-.~.~:-'t ./~~'tl(~:r~ '7 r.' _
il~:l;[!/JiI'l ~~i~r\~:~fJf::f~jr~: ' !hK~ ' .
~!t~~:~ii);W~\~0,.(l )lf~:jj~~?1'~;- ~J7~ ~_
}~:,\;;gc?::~11~_')~ \~"". .,'l,+.t$3t::-l:'~C':'r"r:e' __'
v -II_""~ m'J \C ,':~~;:~;::W~l/I." .1
,,,~=~~o5t.0-/Y';'{'" '.:.'::;;t!,';,.....".. _; _"
hI ('n h l,(\.~. .-.'i0~'J!" .' ;.",., ~
\~"~' . \\)~11," '~-iU;y;',: ...':;'7~" uJj' .
}-~\~~~' ~"&%!;f-',I;.~...~-~.:?;;:0!. tr~~:~~:/' ,// "~ . &
~~ V','I,j,'-"~JI:'-~:t\"!~:;"::"':I"'" ':--;;;. -..: ~'~ ., "
~ :!.. ko.g't..,-.;;r / . ....... /r. 'It&kf?~-~ .. _ . S" _ ""
'v' I/~ ~.=..",.,~. J.,....
" 1- 43 _
i~~',"\j'6r~'{, 01 ,I' !j~,~&-",:. ""r'Y,,;; :'; :"'.;..' V~ . )' "ol::S\~ ~ ~p .~'
,1[,." r"j (\....,....,(. ,'-'" I. . -.&. ". ') '" . '<'(~ f"- R:
11(, J r(<,\ .\....1'hiK' I~$: ; .".J,'. 'IILI;; c . .~"!
I~ ,...,}J, \,~y .z11ill:-'A;?~,:-j:;;;~...;. '~I' ,{A:1. " - [@ 51 "~~~l\\
(.>,Y.-VI' rf~~~ji-'.t ,;,"",'b,..n,. -.!fIo-1., ~ ~ - ii? ,l(~
r./~.V?~~t~I~~~~il,:,-.-~)7IJ :i'~ f:- )j~ W<D'~ ~~"I ~ =. ,~. r~ ~O~., s;j-" ~2
..yJ~~~... pr.' -. "1; . ';"'" ':'.~ "i ".~(C; .1'(')'7(P;,,~ ,~~'" @'~
'" , /V/'., ".". - '. . ,. '.'- ,. I' I,' . ""~""'ff", " ':-<: _ .. ....).,m~ """.
~I',-'" !"ji' 1'12" """:~~':':'r-'~' /: ~.'r. <'<::i';l u, :Ii '~I""
:~~ :;~~'\.;~)~I.".;..,::...<:~$a)r:~.d&~/,_, 1,~,}f1 ~ r& .'I?~4i,1f ~ ~
~~/~~~'} .;{;'#~~t.:/..,;..;~~Wi ?1,:~;j;a:::o/@~~' ~~' = ~_ ~~=.:, mJI~ P~~:,
~'r: U~~:H.~l~f,!H~~ ,.f!/!ffY! :ci:;;;'>>.'1!,j ~ .' . '." '~ . ~'
I j: '(..'0' (~:r ~2;~k-' '/I.~:'c!, I. ~~ ~I ,l;,,:) ". ~ I;' '. '" m ~~~~I
I ':,. ...,;;~, \<_' . ", f.. '. .,;;; -- , I~." . "!", ' Jli.,', ,~. ',"r,.,.,~ffi'
'/!.. 7 (. ~ ~~t " .;.:,~ ,.~..' l"(~J:'''' ..'. II ~ ,... ~ >. VI'
. '" Ud ".... . . .,. i""" _ , '.,..~ . >.. !I~_"',
I" :, ',; .,,:;,~~.:. :,.;': '~'.j,'~': c"" "/"r-', ~ 'Q "c~~~&t~.t~ "=
I,;' i '. I','."'~'=-' ,'" '. '< ..~~..,--,-. .\1, ...,= S~l
. ",', "~ """"'''/f.,\' ~..~ ') ',-'," .: ..~..... '~, ....., -;3::i-1 .' .; , _~
'.'.' " ';'\' 'J ~ 'I ......,.;..... 1/1 . '~~ill/l.
i'~ -,1:< .., . ,If' Ji';:~1 ~j~\\,!~ .~ .' ", .fil'~~' " .' ~'
,\, ~ "~r~':H ~. .:~;.. 1r41'{;";~N%. ~. ,.' ,', ~~ I .~ I
' ~' :: . rr'~,'WT". .\ :o~r;'. , _ ~~ ~""r/
' I ,= I !l';;' ~ _:-. ~~~ .' ,', , ~;
.\ :w.I, ~;:;A~.,.;,*".,:~ ~~ ,- '. .', _,,:mA ~ (~ I
I ~J ~':~~llf)I', .J~~,.A ,~ :~ ., ~~ 1 jful:'
'.- .. ".I~f.J/\~ n. /, ~ . ~ ':;;
," ' ,,~I.' -, ,_~ :1{",~~ (:, ~'~,::.r;" , ~ _ -i'",
" , , ,.' h( - .:...': .I.' ~ I~~~ ' ~. ".- '~"\l.'W..;t", '0 , (
; ,. 1 "', '.: ~ ' ~' I' ./ 1~" 'r 'i 1 I
I:~ ;~: '; -is {:~""\ . \; ; I~l~ J: I '/ ~~ X L~i~,~ ~ /l I~
,~,;:~~/-r ~ j~':" ,1~,i11 i~~' J/!'~(~-(; ~~'~ I ~~~~ ~/>~
I : 1 f.' ~ '''.'' ': "I d"~ ;'\. ~:r::]. ~ ~-; .r1~'~rq((_.
" ~",,< - i~Ep.r;f..:.r. ~-;nrs Y,;,!~ 1/}- 1.1- ! .'t"101>.. Kl . ". 0/Jt,.~\..\C.- ~
U ," " Sch,,!' )Jj~~ ,J,../,\'<<~~ "..~otj{'~"-,~:;s" ^ fl\'''--n:'\\ '-B-
..... .".. "~,:., '. w..,_:";~,.~,,.""~ '.. ~/'I":~: ~~('Kt.Ly:; :7A-
~ ,0 .>1.. i'<;i-< I ,~iXl ). 'i"'jfh i '~,..: --=c ~\.' .;%\1
-- 'Ii" TI"": - . r---- DEL &, So.. I R ;S'i~
. . pirJ . .-.-' /".......... ~, ~ l- I "" ,,/ '$t I
,. '" .
'. . ,u,' . . r=-.. .L.';' I"'~""' 1\ ~j~'~ J\ '''' . 0' '''''Jl:j
, - . ;,~it~.. i --.rti'. I\... ~ !'H"~;~Km i"I ~ ~ t .,,)., 'lS~.:.!!llr;i.!>> sr I'.. \[~
. "<;,', 3!l. \ !::..'>;;6"-- 0 , . :'''; "'~; I I! . I
lB. . ,,", '.. ;;;;;ii,.. AT'.s~!';.rAfA';-'~. ~. ~l' t~ Jf! ~f"'::.:1 .:.:, .,29 1l
... ;I.. -:a'~_.;' . - \ (. . "N/ /60i~~ l" inl... _~ ,... I Jt /\ r
" ~""'F'.t 'i'~jd:Ipel~ ''':J ,............. ~i 'iL,.
...
'IIJ-,~- ~~
"" ~-
, . ,
III
ii? >~; ~~
. JK~~' ~ ~ -~
~4"' , ~I ' )
',"-
~,:
~f
9 .~
.
,
,
~
"
~
~
Q~
~
<\