HomeMy WebLinkAbout47-Planning and Building
. CITY OF SAN BHARDINO ... REQUES9FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:. Al Boughey, Director
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 t<
Subject: change the land use designation fr<
IL to CR-3, on approximately 33
acres bounded by Waterman Ave (wes1
Caroline St (north) Gardena $t
(east) and the sout~ern Pacif1c RR
right-of-way (south) .
Mavor and Common Council Meetinq
September 8, 1992
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Dau: August 19, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Upon the adoption of the General Plan,on June 2, 1989, the
amendment site was designated IL, Industrial Light.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution adopted.
. natu re
Al B
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report & Resolution
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: IAcct. No.!
IAcct. DescriDtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Aoenda It~m No. '17
CITY OF SAN BERIORDfNO - REQUEST \:bR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
subject: General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq
September 8, 1992
REOUEST
The proposed amendment is to chanqe the land use desiqnation from
IL, Industrial Liqht, to CR-3, Commercial Reqional, on 35
contiquous lots consistinq of approximately 33 acres of land. The
amendment site is bounded by Waterman Avenue (west), Caroline
street (north), Gardena street (east) and the Southern Pacific
Railroad riqht-of-way (south). (See Attachment C of the Staff
Report to the Planninq Commission)
BACKGROUND
Prior to adoption of the current General Plan, the amendment area
was zoned M-1, Liqht Manufacturinq. Upon adoption of the General
Plan on June 2, 1989, the land use desiqnation was chanqed to IL,
Industrial Liqht.
ENVIRONMENTAL
On April 23, 1992, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the
Initial Study which was prepared to evaluate the CR-3 desiqnation
and recommended a Neqative Declaration.
At the time that the Initial Study was prepared, the proposed
amendment area did not consist of all 35 parcels within the above
described boundaries. However, because the Initial Study did
evaluate the larqer area, it is possible to consider the currently
proposed amendment area.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The amendment request was considered by the Planninq Commission at
a noticed public hearinq on Auqust 4, 1992. An owner of property on
Artesia Street, one block east of the amendment site, spoke in
opposition to the amendment as proposed because the amendment site
did not extend eastward to include the blocks between Gardena
Street and the City limits, and thus felt "disenfranchised."
After closinq the public hearinq, members of the Planninq
Commission expressed concern that the amendment area did not extend
eastward to the City limits. The Planninq Commission then passed
two motions. The first was to recommend adoption of the Neqative
Declaration and adoption of GPA 91-06 as proposed by staff. The
second motion was to recommend that the Mayor and Common Council
5.0264
c
---,
-'"
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 8, 1992
paqe 2
direct staff to prepare a City initiated qeneral plan amendment to
chanqe the land use desiqnation of the parcels bounded by Gardena
Street, Caroline Street, Gaqe Canal (City limits) and the Southern
Pacific riqht-of-way; this reco~endation of the Planning
Commission is addressed in a separate Request for Council Action.
ANALYSIS
The objective of the CR-3 land use desiqnation is to continue and
expand the reqion-servinq mixed use centers established by the Tri-
City/Commercenter and Club areas. The proposed amendment area would
provide an eastward continuation of the "Club" commercial
development south of the I-1D freeway, which would reinforce the
commercial character of Waterman Avenue south of the freeway. The
Waterman Avenue overpass would then provide a physical and visual
transition to the industrial and residential uses south of the
railroad.
Redesiqnatinq the amendment area would also lessen the visual
impact of IL type development in an area characterized by the newer
CR-3 uses west of Waterman Avenue. Additionally, a CR-3 designation
alonq the eastern frontaqe of Waterman Avenue will serve to provide
a visual buffer from the remaininq IL desiqnated properties east of
Gardena Street, which do not necessarily require direct frontaqe
onto a major arterial to maintain their viability.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Neqative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 based
on the findinqs in the resolution.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment
No. 91-06.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Neqative Declaration
and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 as presented.
Prepared by:
Greqory S. Gubman, Assistant Planner
for Al Bouqhey, AICP, Director
Department of Planning and Buildinq Services
c
r--.
............
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq
September 8, 1992
paqe 3
Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Auqust 4, 1992
Attachment A - Initial Study
Attachment B - Amendment Area Proposed by Applicant
Attachment C - Amendment Area Proposed by Staff
Attachment D - Location Map
Attachment 2: Resolution
Attachment A - Location Map
Attachment B - Leqal Description
<
W
a:
<
W
t/)
<
o
APPUCANT:J.N. Beeler & Assoc.
6104 Riverside Ave., Ste B
Riverside, CA 92506
OMER: Dale & Genevieve Gross eta
1550 Regal Court
Riverside, CA 92506
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 91-06
....
t/)
W
~
a
W
a:
To change the land use designation from IL, Industrial Light
to CR-3, Commercial Regional on approximately 22.4 acres
located at the southeast corner of Caroline Street and
l'Jaterman Avenue.
-
EXISTING
LAND USE
Vacant, Residential,
Commercial
Residential & Commercial
Railroad & Industrial
Residential & Industrial
Commercial
PROPERTY
Subject
ZONING
IL
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Industrial Light
North
South
East
West
...I
~
Zt/)
WCl
:=Z
Z-
OO
a:~
-~
>
Z
W
CITT(JI'_~
---
CG-l
IL
IL
CR-3
Commercial General
Industrial Light
Industrial Light
Commercial Regional
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC -0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: CDxNO
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A ( SEWERS: ~ YES )
ZONE: !XIxNo OZONE B o NO
AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES REDEVELOPMENT ~ YES
CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
~ NO o NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z a APPROVAl
EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0
NOE.l.R. < CONDITIONS
~Q
o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO Il.Z 0 DENiAl
SIGNIFICANT EFFEClS <W
WITH MITIGATING ....:=
MEASURES (1):= 0 CONTINUANCE TO
o SIGNIFICANT EFFEClS 0
0
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES a:
PL.AN-I.D2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-llOj
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: ]D{ NO
o NOT
APPLICABLE
o EXEMPT
XiI NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
"'.L....L. _ _,_
c
..-..
,
-
General
Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
8earina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 1
REOUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant requests an amendment to the General Plan Land Use
Plan to chanqe the desiqnation from IL, Liqht Industrial to CR-3r
Commercial Reqional on approximately 22.41 acres of land (proposed
by the applicant) on the southeast corner of Caroline Street and
Waterman Avenue. (see Proposed Amendment Area, Attachment B). Staff
has increased the study area by approximately 11 acres to a total
of approximately 33 acres (Attachment C).
AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed amendment site is flat, qenerally rectanqular in shape
and vacant. It is within the South Valle Redevelopment Area. The
site is bordered on the north and east by residential properties
which front on Caroline and Gardena Streets respectively. The
Southern Pacific Railroad is on the south side of the property and
a frontaqe road is on the west side. The frontaqe road parallels
Waterman Avenue where the embankment rises for the Waterman Avenue
overpass of the railroad.
The properties adjoininq the proposed amendment area (which, as
discussed later in this staff report, are recommended by staff for
inclusion into the amendment area), as well as properties to the
north and east, are characterized by vacant parcels and poorly
maintained residences, some of which have been converted over to
small-scale repair businesses. The properties on the north side of
Caroline Street are desiqnated CG-1, Commercial General, while the
adj oininq properties and properties to the east are desiqnated IL.
To the west of the amendment area, across Waterman Avenue, is a
larqe scale commercial center (The Club), consistinq of several
reqional and sub-reqional commercial uses, and is desiqnated CR-3.
Properties to the south of the amendment area, across the Southern
Pacific Railroad riqht-of-way, consist of several high-intensity
truckinq facilities and vacant land, and are desiqnated IL.
BACKGROUND
Prior to adoption of the General Plan, the amendment area was zoned
M-1, Liqht Manufacturinq. Upon adoption of the General Plan, the
land use desiqnation was chanqed to IL, Industrial Liqht
MUNICIPAL CODE
Not applicable
c,
r""~..,...
'...,.)
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 2
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
An Initial study was prepared by staff and was presented to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on April 23, 1992. Because a
recommended alternative to this map chanqe may encompass several
parcels surroundinq the proposed sUbject property, the Initial
Study examined the potential impacts assuminq a larqer amendment
area of approximately 33 acres bounded by Caroline Street to the
north, Waterman Avenue to the west, Gardena Street to the west and
the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way to the south.
The ERC determined that the proposed amendment would not have an
adverse impact on the environment, and a Neqative Declaration was
recommended. Pursuant to Article 13, Section 15206(b) (2) (B) of
CEQA, the proposed General Plan Amendment was deemed to be of
areawide siqnificance and the Initial Study was submitted to the
State Clearinqhouse. The proposed General Plan Amendment was
assiqned a State Clearinqhouse Number (SCH 92042123) and the
proposed Neqative Declaration was available for public review and
Comment from April 30, 1992 to May 30, 1992. No comments were
received durinq the public review period.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Caltrans
Caltrans submitted comments to the Planninq Division, which were
received on December 10, 1991, recommendinq a traffic study
analyzinq future traffic conditions based on a maximum intensity
CR-3 type development on the amendment site. Such a traffic study
was prepared a month prior to the Cal trans comments, and is
discussed in a later section of this staff report.
ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use Designation
The purpose of the IL desiqnation is to meet the followinq City
objective:
" Retain, enhance and intensify existinq and provide for
the new development of liqht industrial uses alonq major
vehicular, rail and air transportation routes servinq the
City of San Bernardino." (General Plan Objective 1.32)
c
~
....J
General
Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 3
The IL, Industrial Liqht land use desiqnation permits low intensity
industrial uses such as manufacturinq, warehousinq, research and
development, outdoor display and outdoor storaqe. Supportinq retail
and personal service commercial uses may also occupy up to 15
percent of total buildinq square footaqe of a liqht industrial
development. All uses permitted in the IL land use desiqnation are
characterized by the location of their predominant activities
within enclosed buildinqs
The amendment site is located adjacent to Waterman Avenue a major
arterial, which qualifies as a major vehicular transportation route
pursuant to General Plan Objective 1.32.
proposed land use designation
General Plan Objective 1.17 states the followinq intent for the CR-
3 land use desiqnation:
" Continue and expand the ~ri-CitY/Commercenter and Club
areas as reqion-servinq mixed use-centers; capitalizinq
on their location alonq the Interstate 10 corridor and
establishinq a well-defined linkaqe to the City's major
commercial and industrial districts and residential
neiqhborhoods. "
Specific CR-3. use types identified in the General Plan include
corporate and professional offices, research and development
(usually within a business park settinq), retail commercial,
theaters and other forms of entertainment, financial
establishments, sit-down restaurants (includinq outdoor dininq),
hotels and motels, and "warehouse" retail. South of the I-IO
freeway, drive-throuqh restaurants are also permitted.
Development within the CR-3 land use desiqnation is required to
utilize urban desiqn elements which promote the appearance of an
inteqrated urban center, and convey a hiqh quality "corporate park"
character."
Land Use and zoning TranSformation Patterns
In the years prior to the adoption of the cur~ent General Plan, the
area approximately bounded by Hunts Lane/Colt'.m city limits (west),
Caroline Street (north), Gaqe Canal/Lema Linda city limits (east)
and Commercial Road (south) was zoned M-I, which is rouqhly
analoqous to the current IL designation with respect to intent and
permitted uses. Parcels between Caroline Street, Redlands Boulevard
and the east/west city limits were zoned C-M, which permitted a
diverse ranqe of liqht industrial and commercial uses, includinq
o
....--
\ ....J
General
Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 4
automobile repair and sales. The areas currently referred to as
Tri-City and Commercenter were also zoned C-M. The area alonq
Hospitality Lane commonly referred to today as nrestaurant row" was
zoned C-3A. The C-3A zone permitted a ranqe of commercial uses,
which included used car and trailer sales lots, trade schools and
trailer camps (SBMC 19.2S.02D).
The types of uses that have developed on the properties described
in the paraqraph above have evolved the character of the area into
a sub-reqional to reqional commercial/professional district. Except
for a portion east of Waterman Avenue, between Redlands Boulevard
and Caroline street, which has been desiqnated CG-l, all of the
aforementioned C-M and C-3A zones have been redesiqnated CR-3 with
the adoption of the current General Plan. The M-l zoned parcels
west of Waterman Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific riqht-of-
way, have also been redesiqnated CR-3 in accordance with the
development of these properties.
compatibility of XL Designation with Surrounding Development
Most of the previously M-l zoned properties east of Waterman
Avenue, south of Caroline Street--including the amendment area--
have been desiqnated IL. Also, the strip of land west of Waterman
Avenue, between the railroad riqht-of-way and Commercial Road, has
remained desiqnated for liqht industrial use. OVerall, the amount
of land desiqnated for liqht industrial uses has been siqnificantly
reduced over time, callinq in to question the compatibility and
viability of developing these properties.
The only recent liqht industrial development that has occurred in
the area consists of the Desert Empire truck transfer and storaqe
facility and Laymon Candy Company buildinq (formerly Roqer's
Bindery) located at the northwest corner of Waterman Avenue and
Caroline Street. the compatibility of these uses with the
surroundinq planned residential developments is problematic at
best.
Existinq larqe scale and viable industrial uses are predominantly
concentrated on the east side of Waterman Avenue, between the
railroad and Commercial Road. These uses primarily consist of
truckinq facilities. those abuttinq the railroad appear to be
utilizinq spurs for the transfer of truck freiqht aboard railroad
cars (npiq9Ybackinqn). The concentration and intensity of uses
within these boundaries promotes internal compatibility among the
facilities and increases the likelihood of future development
occurrinq on the vacant parcels. While these facilities may be
visually incompatible with the surroundinq vicinity, they are
located below the qrade of the Waterman Avenue overpass, so a
OJ
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 5
visual buffer, such as a combination of screeninq walls and
landscapinq, could eventually be installed alonq the eastern edqe
of the overpass.
The amendment area and peripheral properties are contiguous to
commercially desiqnated properties and developments to the north
and east. As such, IL type uses may be incompatible from an
aesthetic standpoint. In qeneral, the IL desiqnation is
characterized by tilt-up or metal warehouse type structures.
Additionally, outside storaqe and rooftop equipment may be visible
from the Waterman Avenue overpass without substantial screeninq.
Viability of rL Designation on Amendment site
The IL desiqnated properties east of Waterman Avenue, between
Caroline street and the railroad--of which the amendment area
comprises a larqe portion--remains larqely vacant, with scatterinq
of auto repair businesses, salvaqe dealers and other miscellaneous
uses operatinq out of converted residences. The remainder of the
area consists of larqely deteriorating sinqle-family housinq stock.
Al thouqh the southern portion of the amendment area has the
potential for railroad related activities, this area has been
desiqnated for liqht industrial use for several years now. The fact
that siqnificant private investment has not occurred in the area
thus far casts doubt upon the perception that viable liqht
industrial development could occur: the reduction of manufacturinq
zones in the area in favor of the CR-3 desiqnation has potentially
fragmented the IL properties below a feasible critical mass.
As discussed previously, there are many potential aesthetic impacts
associated with the development of the amendment area for IL uses
due to its proximity to newer commercial development. The desiqn
effort in developinq the amendment area for IL purposes would thus
be substantially more involved than a similar development in an
area that is characterized by industrial uses. Landscapinq,
architecture and screening would have to be correspondinqly
upqraded to achieve compatibility from an urban desiqn standpoint.
Compatibility, Viability and General Plan Consistency
of CR-3 Designation on Amendment Site
Several community-servinq commercial uses have already been
established to adequately serve the local market area. A larqe
commercial area exists on Redlands Boulevard, east of Waterman
Avenue, which continues throuqh the City of Lema Linda. Another
commercial area has been established on Hunts Lane and Barton Road
in the City of Colton. Thus, it appears that the area would not be
able to support additional local retail development. Therefore, if
o
~
,~).
General
Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aoenda Item No: 6
Hearino Date: 8-4-92
Paae 6
the amendment site is to be qiven a cOlDIDercial desiqnation, then it
would only be appropriate to redesiqnate the area for larqe-scale,
regional cOlDIDercial development.
Previously, it was stated that the objective of the CR-3 land use
desiqnation is to continue and expand the region-servinq mixed use
centers established by the Tri-City/ColDIDercenter and Club areas.
The proposed amendment area would provide an eastward continuation
of the "Club" cOlDIDercial development south of the I-10 freeway,
which would reinforce the cOlDIDercial character of Waterman Avenue
south of the freeway. The Waterman Avenue overpass would then
provide a physical and visual transition to the industrial and
residential uses south of the railroad.
Redesiqnatinq the amendment area would also lessen the visual
impact of IL type development in an area characterized by the newer
CR-3 uses west of Waterman Avenue. Additionally, a CR-3 desiqnation
alonq the eastern frontaqe of Waterman Avenue will serve to provide
a visual buffer from the remaininq IL desiqnated properties east of
Gardena street, which do not necessarily require direct frontaqe
onto a major arterial to maintain their viability.
If only the amendment area is redesiqnated to CR-3 and the
adjoininq peripheral properties fronting Caroline Street and
Gardena Street remain IL, then the viability of the amended area
would be somewhat undermined. Those remaininq IL desiqnated
properties would be fra9lllented to the point that it may be unlikely
that the parcels would ever be consolidated to allow larqer-scale,
more viable liqht industrial development. Hence, the result may be
numerous small scale liqht industrial uses operatinq from converted
residences without siqnificant investment toward upqradinq the
area. It would therefore be necessary to redesignate the entire
area bounded by Waterman Avenue (west), Caroline street (north),
Gardena Street (east) and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-cf-
way (south) to CR-3 to ensure land use compatibility and viability.
Traffic and Circulation
A traffic study was prepared by Lawrence S. Eisenhart, consultinq
enqineer, to determine the impact that development in accordance
with the proposed CR-3 desiqnation would have on traffic volumes
and circulation patterns compared development based on the current
IL desiqnation. The study concluded that chanqinq the land use
desiqnation from IL to CR-3 "would increase the anticipated trip
qeneration tenfold." Because the report determined that IL
generated traffic would not significantly add to traffic volumesr
the report compared only CR-3 qenerated traffic to a scenario of no
development. The scope of the study included an analysis of the
o
"')
\~
General
Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 7
assumed two main access points to the site: the intersection of
Waterman and Caroline, and the intersection of Redlands Boulevard
anc Gardena S~reet.
In the vicinity of the study area, 1988 traffic counts provided ADT
estimates of approximately 17,096 vehicle trips on Waterman Avenue
and 1986 counts estimated approximately 16,173 vehicle trips on
Redlands Boulevard. A time series analysis was used to estimate
ADTs for the year 2010, which predicted an ADT of 34,000 on
Waterman and an ADT of 28,900 on Redlands Boulevard. Based on these
estimates, a peak-hour capacity analysis of turninq movements at
the two access points was conducted, first without a project
included, and then adding the impact of a CR-3 project. The
predicted level of service (L.O.S.) at the Waterman/Caroline
intersection by the year 2010 was D without a project added to the
study area. Addinq the project led to a predicted L.O.S. of D-. The
Redlands/Gardena intersection.
Usinq the findinqs and mitiqation recommendations of the traffic
study, the City Traffic Engineer determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment and the hiqher intensity of use that may
result in the study area "may not siqnificantly adversely impact
future circulation" if the followinq mitiqation measures are
implemented at the project-specific staqe:
o Desiqn and install a traffic siqnal at Redlands and Gardena
with interconnection features;
o Provide traffic siqnal coordination between Redlands at
Waterman Avenue and Redlands at Gardena;
o Widen Caroline from Waterman to Gardena to accommodate two
travel la~es in each direction;
o Widen Caroline at Waterman to accommodate a westbound
exclusive riqht-turn lane;
o Modify the existinq traffic siqnal at Waterman and Caroline to
include a westbound riqht-turn overlap;
o CUrb off the existinq frontaqe road intersection on the
southeast side of Caroline Street which is located a few feet
away from and parallel to Waterman (the City may need to
abandon the frontaqe road);
o Establish all project site accesses along Caroline and Gardena
streets only, with primary accesses located at the mid-blocks.
c ,:)
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 8
Additionally, the City may require a focused traffic analysis at
the project development staqe to account for the Conqestion
Manaqement Plan (eMP), specific desiqn characteristics of the any
subsequent development plan or other issues that may affect the
qeneral area circulation.
In context with the recommended widening of Caroline street, The
city Traffic Enqineer advises that the City may need to reclassify
this section of Caroline Street from local to collector in the
General Plan. Prior to doinq so, however, staff sugqests that the
entire lenqth of Caroline Street, extendinq westward to Hunt's
Lane, be evaluated for reclassification as a collector.
CONCLUSION
The character of uses and land use desiqnations in the vicinity of
the amendment site have evolved from heavy commercial and
manufacturinq to a sub-reqional and reqional nature.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is in conformance with the
qoals, objectives and policies contained in the General Plan. The
proposed amendment will increase the existinq CR-3, Commercial
Reqional district located to the west of the amendment site. The
result is that the area will have more land available for the
development of reqional and sub-reqional commercial services. It
can be reasonably determined that the development of CR-3 type uses
on the Amendment site would be more consistent with the character
of the newer development occurrinq in the area than would uses
permitted under the existinq IL desiqnation.
If a General Plan Amendment to the area proposed by the applicant
is to be considered, then it would be appropriate and necessary to
also redesiqnate the adjoining peripheral properties frontinq
Caroline street and Gardena street the entire area bounded by
Waterman Avenue (west), Caroline street (north), Gardena Street
(east) and the Southern Pacific Railroad riqht-of-way (south) from
IL to CR-3 to ensure land use compatibility and viability.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed CR-3, Commercial Reqional land use designation is
internally consistent with the General Plan in that such a
desiqnation is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and
policies of the General Plan, and will facilitate the
continued and orderly expansion of the area's reqion-servinq
mixed use centers pursuant to General Plan Objective 1.32.
o ,:)
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
Aaenda rtem No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 9
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City
in that traffic and circulation impacts can be mitiqated and
the visual impacts associated with CR-3 type commercial
development can reasonably be expected to be less than typical
light industrial development.
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance
of land uses within the City in that the proposed amendment is
supported by the transformation of the area's character to a
reqional commercial district, while a sufficient amount of
viable, IL-desiqnated property is available in industrial
districts elsewhere in the City and Sphere of Influence, such
as the State Colleqe Business Park, the Devore area and in the
area southwest of Norton Air Force Base (as well as possible
new IL areas after the closure of Norton AFB).
4. The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested
land use desiqnation and anticipated land use development in
that the size (approximately 33 acres) a directly accessible
major arterial (Waterman Avenue) are able to support a larqe
scale, reqion-servinq commercial development.
o
~
....)
General
Plan Amendment No. 91-.06
Aaenda Item No: 6
Hearina Date: 8-4-92
Paae 1.0
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends that the Planninq Commission make a recommendation
to the Mayor and Common Council that:
1. A Neqative Declaration Be adopted in accordance with Sect~on
21.08.0.1 of CEQA,
2. The General Plan Land Use Plan be redesiqnated from IL to CR-3
on approximately 33 acres, consistinq of the 22.41 amendment
area proposed by the applicant, plus the adjoininq peripheral
properties recommended for inclusion into the amendment area
by staff, as shown on Attachment B.
Respectfully
and Buildinq Services
Greqory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Initial Study
B - Amendment Area Proposed by Applicant
C - Amendment Area Proposed by Staff
D - Location Map
Attachment "A",-..
CITY OF SAN BE
..
DINO PLANNING AND BUILDI . _cRVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
,.
-,
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
for
GENERAL PLAN AMENDME,N'1' NO. 91-06
PROJBCT DBSCRIPTION: To change the land use desiqnation from IL,
Industrial Liqht to CR-3. Commercial Regional.
PROJBCT LOCATION: The Study Area consists of approximately 33 acres
and is bounded by Caroline Street on the north, Waterman Avenue on
the west, Southern Pacific Railroad riqht of way on the south and
Gardena Street on the east.
April 23, 1992
Prepared for:
J. N. Beeler and Associates
6104 Riverside Avenue, suite B
Riverside, CA 92506
Prepared by:
Gregory s. Gubman
Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Bui:ding Services
300 NOrth "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
e..... OJ _ --.c
~~_IMCU
PLAN.8007 PAGE 1 o~ , (4.;o)
c
,-
! )
'-'
INITIAL STUDY FOR
GENERAL PLUl' AHEIlDKI!:HT NO. 91-06
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 to
chanqe the land use desiqnation from IL, Industrial Liqht
to CR-3, Commercial Reqional on approximately 22.41 acres
of land (p:::-oposed by the applicant) on the southeast
corner of Caroline street and Waterman Avenue. (see
Location Map, Exhibit A).
As stated in Section 15063 of
Environmental Quality Act quidelines,
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Aqency with information to use as
the basis for decidinq whether to prepare an EIR or
Neqative Declaration;
the California
the purposes of an
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Aqency to modify a
project, mitigatinq 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
siqnificant, and
(C) Explaininq the reasons for determining that
potentially siqnificant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
desiqn of a projec~;
5.
Provide documentation of the factual basis
finding in a Neqative Declaration that a
will not have a siqnificant effect
environment;
for the
project
on the
6. . Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared ErR could
be used with the project.
i
o
"'-',
-)
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amendment request is to chanqe the land use
desiqnation from IL, Industrial Liqht to CR-3, Commercial
Reqional on approximately 22.41 acres of land on the
southeast corner of Caroline Street and Waterman Avenue.
Because a recommended alternative to this map chanqe may
encompass several parcels surroundinq the proposed
subject property, this Initial Study will examine the
potential impacts assuming a larqer amendment area of
approximately 33 acres bounded by Caro1in~ Street to the
north, Waterman Avenue to the west, Gardena Street to the
west and the Southern Pacific Railroad riqht of way to
the south.
The CR-3 desiqnation permits "...a diversity of region-
servinq uses including corporate and professional
offices, retail commercial, entertainment, financial
establishments, restaurants, hotels/motels,
warehouse/promotional retai~, supportinq retail and
services, and similar uses..."(General Plan Policy
1.17.10). It also permits research and development, hiqh
technoloqy, and other business park uses.
2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed amendment site is flat, qenerally
rectanqular in shape and vacant. It is within the South
Valle Redevelopment Area. The site is bordered on the
north and east by residential properties which front on
Caroline and Gardena Streets respectively. The Southern
Pacific Railroad is on the south side of the property and
a frontaqe road is on the west side. The frontaqe road
parallels Waterman Avenue where the embankment rises for
the Waterman Avenue overpass of the railroad.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental Setting
The amendment site is rectanqular in shape, flat, and
undeveloped. The site has an approximate 1%, or less,
slope to the west. It lies within the 500 year flood
plane (Zone B, Federal Emerqency Manaqement Aqency map) .
A part of the San Jacinto Fault System lies just to the
south across the Railroad tracks. The site has been
previously disturbed and contains typical qrasses and
weeds that exist after discinq. The site is within an
area of hiqh potential for liquefaction.
ii
o
~..."
'-I
.,
,.-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
...
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number:
6~~ 1" """'1 .Aot'I.~CNI60..\"'" No CO! 1-0(,.,
Project Description: 'PP'Of"~p..,-- "'\0 ~t.:.e:- "I..-te... ~e...l~.p..,
F'I-">...J ~v.:o...IA"',~ ~r-'I 11.-'-0 ~-.3
Location: ~ ~ I C>t*'_ (">F" ""IA-r~~e...
,
'5P'''''~, 5~ fU-r ~ 1141 Of'" /'. /'l:..,. J"\~ '7r
I .
#Jn~..,.....I- ~ -rw~
( 17. b2. tv" ~"? )
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation: I L-
I~~II>-L- t...\~~
Zoning Designation: I L-
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resutt in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,OCO cubic V
yards or .more?
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater ,/
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development w~hin the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic V
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Mod~icatio" of any unique geologic or physical v
feature?
e. Development within area. defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as ident~l8d in Section 12.0 -
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan?
./
f. Mod~ication of a channel, creek or river?
V'
...
(:ITY Of _ -...AOINO
Utrmw..~.IMCLS
PlAN-SI.06 PAGE 1 o~ -.ll- (It.!Kl)
-
1) '0
~
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other sim~ar haZards as
identified in Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic, /
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of tha City's General Plan?
h. Olher? V
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result In:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AQMD? V
b. The creation of objectionable odors? V
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's V
General Plan?
3. Weter Resources: Willlhe proposal resutt in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impennaable surfaces? V
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? V
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration V-
of surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? V
e. Exposure of people or propany to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 0602B1 Lr:> - A , and Section 16.0 . V-
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan?
f. Other? V
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal resutt in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's V
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including V
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique. rare or V-
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6" or greater) ........
e. Other? V
5. Noise: Could the proposal resutt in:
a. Development of housing. health care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities or other "noise" sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior
as identified in Section 14.0 - Noise, Figures 57 and V
5B of the City's General Plan?
..... ~
tT""~""""_1IOIIIO PLAN-i.06 PAGE 2 OF ..lL 111-iO)
a__-.GSlIl",,"S
.rJ 0
-
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
. commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas conteining housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior V
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior?
c. Other? v
6. Land Use: Will the proposal resutt in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the V
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport District as identijied in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and V
the Land Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as V
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map?
d. Other? V
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, V
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? V
w. Expose people to the potential heatth/safety hazards? V
d. Other? .,/
8. Houalng: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand ,/
for additional housing?
b. Other? V-
B. Transportation / Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identijied in Section
6.0 . Circulation of the City's General Plan, resull in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land V
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking ../
facilities/structures?
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? V
d. Atteration of present patterns of circulation? v
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? ../
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? V/
g. A disjointed pahem of roadway improvements? V
h. Signijicant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways V
or intersections? --
I. Other? ~ I
... ~
CIl'YCI_~ PLAN.Sl.06 PAGE 3 OF" ...1l- (11.QO)
CflffRAl.--..caJMCU
(""'). ['\.
...
10. Public Servlcu: Will ttie proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire prolllClion? V
b. Police protection? V
c. Schools (I.e.. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? V
d. Parks or othe' re=reational facilities? v
e. Medical aid? v
f. Solid Waste? V'
g. Other? V
11. Utllltle.: Will the proposal:
a. Impaclthe following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? V
2. Electricity? V
3. Water? ./
4. Sewer? V
5. Other? V
b. Resun in a disjointed pattem of utility extensions? V
c. Require the construction of new facilities? V
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal ,esun in the obstruction of any V
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental V
to the surrounding area?
c. Other? v
13. Cultural Resource.: Could the proposal resun in:
a. The aneration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section V
3.0 - Historical, Figure e, of the City's General Plan?
b. Aneration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources V'
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other? v
l.
~
OT'<CI'.......~
altTMl~.-cu
P\.AN.Q.Cl6 PAGE~Ot:...Lt-- 111.go)
r
o
I::>
14. Mandatory Findings of Slgnlflcan,.. (Seclion 15065)
The California Environmentai :)uality AD. states that ff any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the projeel may have 2 signfficant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of tne env:r:>nment, substantially reduce the
habita~ of a fish or wildlile species, cause a fish or
wi/dine population to drop below sell sustaining levels,
threaten 10 eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restriClthe range of a rare or
endangered plan: or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Calffomia history
or prehislory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
lerm, 10 the disaovamage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while Iong.term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
v
y
c. Does the p.oject have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A projeel may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the Iota: of those impacts on the
environment is signfficanl)
./
d. Does the projeel have environmental effeds which will
cause subStantial adverse effeels on human beings.
either directly or indirecUy?
"../
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
.o:,e.e Jloo.'f-r~e:,p
.
...
anCll'....~
~~.1lllIC(1
PLAN.g,DS PAGE so~...1L 111.ClO)
o
o
GPA 91-06
April 23, 1992
paqe 6 of 11
3.2 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVAWATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.2.1 Earth Resources
La.
The site has previously been qraded and development miqht
require earth movement in ,the form of qradinq with cut
and/or fill activities. Such activities could involve
earth movement exceedinq 10,OOD cubic yards. Mitiqation
measures, such as the approval of truck haulinq routes
for excessive export, will be determined at the project
specific staqe.
1.q.
According to Fiqure 48 of the General Plan, the study
area is located wi thin an area of hiqh liquefaction
susceptibility. A liquefaction report shall be prepared
for any project within the study area that is found to be
subject to Ordinance No. 676.
3.2.2
Air Resources
2.a.
Presently, the site is not developed and has no
substantial impact on the air quality in the area.
However, intensive commercial or industrial development
could affect air quality as a result of increased air
emissions in the area, which is already impacted by
traffic on Interstate 10 and Waterman Avenue.
3.2.3
Water Resources
3.a.
Any development on the site will reduce the area
available for absorption and thus increase the runoff
into the current drainage system. Development would
create impermeable surface areas due to buildinq
footprints, streets and parking areas. These surfaces
would also act as catchments for contaminants such as
hydrocarbons, petroleum products (enqine fluids) and
particulate matter from exhaust emissions and increase
the level of pollutants into the drainaqe system.
The development of the site for commercial uses, however,
may lead to the creation of larqer areas of impermeable
surfaces than would be the case for light industrial
.
o
o
GPA 91-06
April 23, 1992
paqe 7 of 11
development. Parkinq requirements are more intense for
commercial uses than they are for liqht industrial uses,
which may result in more paved surfaces to accommodate
parkinq and internal circulation, rather than
landscapinq. The potential net increase in impermeable
surfaces is not viewed as siqnificar.~, though, because
the vicinity is urbanized. At the project specific staqe,
the need for infrastructure improvements will be
evaluated based on the nature of those projects.
3.b, e.
The study area is located entirely within a 5DO-year
flood plain, as identified on the FIRM maps (Community-
Panel 060281 0020 A), and thus may serve a function in
directinq or accepting storm runoff. The development of
the site--whether for commercial or i~dustrial uses--may
result in the creation of impermeable surfaces or other
obstructions that may change the course or flow of flood
waters. At the development review s~aqe, the project will
be reviewed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District, whereby specific mitiqation measures shall be
determined.
3.c, d.
As discussed in item no. 3.a. of this section,
development of the study area would involve the
construction of impermeable surfaces. Impermeable
surfaces, such as asphalt or concrete, collect solid
exhaust particulates and other air emission solids, as
well as enqine fluids, residue from automobile tires and
other chemical pollutants. Durinq periods of rain
(especially since the site is located within a flood
plain), surface pollutants are washed into the water
ways. Cumulatively, such polluta~ts can chanqe the
quality of qround waters. The quantity of qround water
may also be affected because impermeable surfaces chanqe
water absorption rates. However, the proposed revision to
the land use designation would not result in a chanqe in
surface and qround water quality that is siqnificantly
different from the IL desiqnation at the highest
intensity of development.
3.2.4
Bioloqical Resources
4.d.
Reqardless of the land use desiqnation, development
within the study area may require the removal of viable,
o
o
GPA 91-06
April 23, 1992
paqe 8 of 11
mature trees. At the development review staqe, if'a
project site within the study area is found to contain or
otherwise threaten the existence of five or more trees
with trunks havinq a diameter of six inches or qreater,
a California Certified Arborist report shall be prepared
prior to the preparation of a project-specific initial
study. As mitigation, arborists typically recommend the
replacement, relocation anp/or in situ preservation of
mature, viable trees. The arborist report, if deemed
acceptable in form and content by City staff, shall be
the basis for the determination of mitiqation measures.
3.2.6.
Noise
5.b.
Development of the site in accordance with CR-3 standards
may lead to increased noise levels due increased traffic,
thereby affectinq residential development in the
vicinity, as well as possible future health care
facilities. However, according to Figures 14-6 and 14-13
of the General Plan, existinq and future ambient noise
levels from the railroad and roadways are estimated to
well exceed 65 Db. Noise impacts to the immediate
vicinity will be evaluated at the project review stage.
3.2.7
Land Use
6.a.
The amendment is to change the General Plan Land Use Plan
from IL, Industrial Light to CR-3, Regional Commercial.
3.2.8
Man-Made Hazards
7.a, b, c.
The storaqe and use of toxic materials is an inherent
safety concern associ2~ed with commercial developments.
These safety concerns will be addressed at the project
review staqe of future development.
3.2.9
Housinq
8.a.
Residentially occupied structures are present within the
study area that may be removed to accommodate hiqher
intensity development. This possibility exists whether or
not the land use desiqnation is chanqed to CR-3.
c
o
GPA 91-06
April 23, 1992
paqe 9 of 11
Compliance with State and Federal relocation laws shall
be verified durinq development review.
3.2.10
Transportation/Circulation
9. a, d, e, f, h.
A traffic study was prepared by Lawrence S. Eisenhart,
consultinq engineer, to determine the impact that
development in accordance with the proposed CR-3
desiqnation would have on traffic volumes and circulation
patterns compared development based on the current IL
desiqnation. The study concluded that changing the land
use desiqnation from IL to CR-3 "would increase the
anticipated trip generation tenfold." Because the report
determined that IL generated traffic would not
significantly add to traffic volumes, the report compared
only CR-3 qenerated traffic to a scenario of no
development. The scope of the study included an analysis
of the assumed two main access points to the site: the
intersection of Waterman and Caroline, and the
intersection of Redlands Boulevard and Gardena Street.
In the vicinity of the study area, 1988 traffic counts
provided ADT estimates of approximately 17,096 vehicle
trips on Waterman Avenue and 1986 counts estimated
approximately 16,173 vehicle trips on Redlands Boulevard.
A time series analysis was used to estimate ADTs for the
year 2010, which predicted an ADT of 34,000 on Waterman
and an ADT of 28,900 on Redlands Boulevard. Based on
these estimates, a peak-hour capacity analysis of turninq
movements at the two access points was conducted, first
without a project included, and then addinq the impact of
a CR-3 project. The predicted level of service (L.O.S.)
at the Waterman/Caroline intersection by the year 2010
was D without a proj ect added to the stuC::J' area. Addinq
the project led to a predicted L.O.S. of D-. The
Redlands/Gardena intersection.
Usinq the findinqs and mitigation recommendations of the
traffic study, the City Traffic Engineer determined that
the proposed General Plan Amendment and the t.igher
intensity of use that may result in the study area "may
not siqnificantly adversely impact future circulation" if
the following mitiqation measures are implemented:
o Desiqn and install a traffic signal at Redlands.and
o
-
~
GPA 91-06
April 23, 1992
paqe 10 of 11
Gardena with interconnection features~
o
Provide
Redlands
Gardena~
traffic siqnal coordination between
at Waterman Avenue and Redlands at
o Widen Caroline from Waterman to Gardena~
o
Widen Caroline from Waterman to Gardena
accommodate two travel lanes in each direction.
citv mav need to reclassifv this section
Caroline Street from local to collector in
General Plan:
to
The
of
the
o
Widen Caroline at Waterman to accommodate
westbound exclusive riqht-turn lane:
a
o Modify the existinq traffic siqnal at waterman and
Caroline to include a westbound right-turn overlap~
o CUrb off the existinq frontaqe road intersection on
the southeast side of Caroline Street which is
located a few feet away from and parallel to
Waterman (the City may need to abandon the frontaqe
road)~
o
Establish all project site
and Gardena Streets only,
located at the mid-blocks.
accesses alonq Caroline
wi th primary accesses
Additionally, the City may require a focused traffic
analysis at the project development stage to account for
the congestion Manaqement Plan (CMP), specific desiqn
characteristics of the any subsequent development plan or
other issues that may affect the qeneral area
circulation.
....t
D. DETERMINATION
.
J" the basis of this innial study,
~ ~e proposed project COULD NOT have a signijicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA.
TION will be prepared.
o The proposed project could have a signijicant effect on the environment, ahhough there will not be a signijicanl
effact in this case because the mnigation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a signijicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
~ ~. f1::W, c.w..\~...J
Name and Title
dt'e?
Signature t
r~~/
Date: IrJAAll "SO ,I'?f';(
~
)
CIT'I' Cll' _ --..0
---
PLAN-.... PAGEJLOF..lI..- In...,
.
o'
:~:
---_"'o
I~
'.
--T-T
~_A~ . ~I
i
il
;
.11 ~
~
>
-p
,-- -.
f r T'
~;.,...--.
i
.
.
!!
:lEs:
-----
"
I
-
..,-~._~: j
~I .'
::- Rb ~. ~.,..
!
iI
,."
, '"
.:- i~
'~
r
SCALE: l' = 1/2 MI.
LOCATION
MAP
GPA 91-06
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
4
o
o
I .~;:;-~.~.:-.~, W'.
r -,.~~.....! : ~ . Ii
C,I ,~- _., : ___. .
. ~ I 'lo-':= ~- . \..J"'~
""'-. .\f~-' --. ",
"-1-, . _, ..: ...
,C,/ot:_ ...._. . ,
:~ ".:......,..- - ,
,~ :::c'";-}J f l I' /'
.~-~~~ .~~.
.", -""", ........ i I
: y,,:C . .- I
"-!;::-;--: ~ ,of .
! ~ ~?;7':a! "', f
,,, ......... J
'1Ii.~ S'f, I J
: 'S~t ~t 1. \
~ ._....~.uftl.\
._-~.~
:i~ ',,;:' ";0,
I~' ,.... ..""
.IQ :.~ .1'"
. it::' :::
.ilII ..10
,., ::~
. ' R -'"
':~ f:!
:- if ~
.... ...
I~ ,~
ji
~
...
~~~fi
~.. .:~
~. ::~
1"'-
. ~ i
....
:;.
4 ~ .
,-.
,
.
I
.
,
1
I
1:.//'1'111
I ./.1' I
II!: "
'i!1
I 111111
III ,I
,
z
o
:::;0;0. ~
5:!
(")
:iJ
I
~
'..
'"'
",
,r-
!~
.~
/i
. tr= ::: -=r
I~ ..
-1Ef-- :5
<> ...
... ..
~ Ie.
"' .
I
,
i
,
f : I
!-..ATr.Mm-
I
- AWltDE
."". >,..'" I'.'",.. """"'"
,.",,,,,,,,
..
~ :'.-0
;;., ".>0.
t} "..
j "~
! ~e
.. 'l-A
: Vi!
~)>
"-'.Ie,
"
,; ..
.: ~
~ i
.:.~ ;
~
.'.'............
(")
Ci)
I
-
- l
r ~
~
I
I~
l;:: ~
'"
if
;' "
, "'\"':\.~"'~
!-- GAnD~NA
-
r
..., '/../--
-/ .. -
- ..-'..
.. .- ':;'
-. ;: !
. .I~
..:
,
,
,
'" r--
r:;~
'""
.",.
~I~
.-
;~".
! i
I ,
-
~'
.-. "-
.,
" ,
,
'".,.
>~
~>
"''''
~o
~."
r."!-,
%::
""55
!:o
-.. ,,,
"''''
>:::
r
I
i I
GPA 91-06
EXHIBIT "B"
STUDY AREA
.'/
~;
!I'
. ~.
-0:
I ~ ~
'Q
I-
Z
C3
<C~
wc.
a:<C
<C>
1-10
Zo
Ww
:lE(/)
00
Zc.
Wo
:lea:
I~i:-
i555!!!
. .::.....
ii~~m~
. .
o
Atta.chment
o
"Bit
: ! ;
- .u~
CI'
0:
~;
~
.
Cl::
(.)
--.DJfllUr4- !
1--
I III
f-
c::::~
0-
z
\
n'] ;.'I'~~" ,-
r , --tB-.......,,~ ~~.I ;
. I' ~ ,\&'~~.,
j - . - . ,. '.
J' . C__.J_I";1
._.,:. ~-...c~:~
; --.! ," ~y.-:. f:
",. ~,.....I ~ ---- ;
\..... ,t 1'1'. '~-I~'
",r' , I ~.~-=::I :,:
~,1.1':-!. ~':-l' '-~I~':
:1-= -;.~'\ ..-..'
~ I ~.' :~_..~ I~:
. I ~. "J:.::.~J i~
- --- '-
--. ~... r
- .
"'"
J
~
!
I ~
. ~I
I : ~;.
~:! ~
.;I~ ~
;~ ~,
..f ai,
I:nP "',.. . iu .
'ul_ It "'.; ~~.:
~I'.;'. '-'I:-~:; I:;
~ ., ",... ~ eJ..
~:; ~. c:: ~i':
- .. .,u'j
"
~
~l ·
;;1 ;
; lrl..:
_ g i ,;; .
jO,;, fa
e<
8~
~~
c:-
.:..i::;
11..:1
0=
-
. -
-'"
~~
iil_;,'i I~" ;
..tOOl:! ..
_.:.. ~ i
I --
e- -E
';:1. :::r
t,-- i""
:I;~ ~ J!
!!.i, j.
"c i:.
!if:' .. '..
r-' ! Jr"
I~!
II ~
=1 :
fC j ,;l
u.
u.
~
en
<>
wm
a:: 0
<w
1-0
ZZ
ww
:E:E
O:E
ZO
wo
:Ew
<a::
I...........
:::::::::::0
..........
i::::::::::
:::::::::::
:::::::::::
...........
Em!::::::.
. .
o
Attachment "e"
..I
-
Q'
..
..,
,",.
o
I I !
-J
-
/
-ltJ'IrllUr4-i-_
I I I
Ii')
,
a::
(.)
\
~' 'j .....,.=-.--... .---
1 f -.....--.....;...r.:!-"-c.
I I.l:a ~.~"
~ -,.
J ,'w I~~;
. ,'= "~L".
I. ~-......, .
) ~. " . t:="~ I
' I '.... qc:..;~
/, ''-'j' ,t~~, ,-~:
, 'f l ""'''-J ~.
\. .. .a.&: __ ~_
, tj. . .-- '" '-~~I""
.. . 1--- 0_';;.
':11 J--,--~a\ .._....
... . ~-tL l~'
I .~:~.:.:::-.~. .\.l
; I ... . .0
Q. "!,r:-~' '.
-. I 1.' 'I__~... i
---- - 04
J
~
I ..,
~ il
~
~
I ~I
!!I
, ...
. ~; ~,
. . 01" ~I ~
..,t . "'I:
; ....
.... . ....,. ~ " '
~. I :;!. ~ :t.
~:, ~;
0,;,; l ~~~ ....
(!) - 1'0
c: i ,~
i 0; fa
Cc
......
:s=
~~
=::
'"-...
...:1
QC
z
c.....
<:I
:1<
,fl_!I~ I~' - ~
,:. H" :: I
... a. . ..
~
Q
. Attac{1ment "D"
(')
AGENDA """I
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
. AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA 91-06
LOCATION
6
..
HEARING DATE R-4-CJ2
...
...
~F" I r __~
~
'1".0'." T a' f....
I'tL"'"
LA.'
I
l:::::::::::~ PROPOSED
111111111111 AMENDMENT SITE
~
0-
N
CITY OF _ ---.0
---
Pl.A,N.8.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 (..g())
o
"
RESOLUTION NO.
o
RESOLUTION .OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
1 DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 91-06 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
2 BERNARDINO.
3
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
4
SECTION 1.
Recitals
5
6 adopted by the Mayor and Common Cpuncil by Resolution No. 89-159 on
7
8
(a)
The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
June 2, 1989.
(b)
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 to the General Plan of
9 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planninq
10 Commission on Auqust 4, 1992, after a noticed public hearinq, and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the Planninq Commission's recommendation of approval has been
considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
(c) An Initial Study was prepared on April 23, 1992 and
reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 91-
06 would not have a siqnificant effect on the environment and
therefore, recommended that a Neqative Declaration be adopted.
(d) The proposed Neqative Declaration received a 30 day
public review period from April 30, 1992 through May 29, 1992 and
all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planninq
Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local requlations.
e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
hearinq and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan
endment No. 91-06 and the Planninq Division Staff Report on
September 8, 1992.
27 ////
28
I
.
o
,""'')
...
1 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 is
2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the city and
3 is consistent with the qoals, objectives and policies of the
4 existinq General Plan.
5 SECTION 2. Neqative Declaration
6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no siqnificant effect on
9 the environment, and the Neqative Declaration heretofore prepared
10 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
11 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
12 SECTION 3. Findinqs
13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the
14 City of San Bernardino that:
15 A. The proposed CR-3, Commercial Reqional land use desiqnation is
16 internally consistent with the General Plan in that such a
17 desiqnation is not in conflict with the qoals, objectives and
18 policies of the General Plan, and will facilitate the
19 continued and orderly expansion of the area's reqion-serving
20 mixed use centers pursuant to General Plan Objective 1.32.
21 B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
22 interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City
23 in that traffic and circulation impacts can be mitiqated and
24 the visual impacts associated with CR-3 type commercial
25 development can reasonably be expected to be less than typical
26 liqht industrial development.
27 ///
28 ///
2
,......-...
1 c.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 D.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 A.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 B.
26
27 ////
28 ////
c
.~
The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance
of land uses within the City in that the proposed amendment is
supported by the transformation of the area's character to a
reqional commercial district, while a sufficient amount of
viable, IL-desiqnated property is available in industrial
districts elsewhere in the City and Sphere of Influence, such
as the State Colleqe Business Park, the Devore area and in the
area southwest of Norton Air Force Base (as well as possible
new IL areas after the closure of Norton AFB).
The amendment area is physically suitable for the requested
land use desiqnation and anticipated land use development in
that the size (approximately 33 acres) and a directly
accessible major arterial (Waterman Avenue) are able to
support a larqe scale, reqion-servinq commercial development.
SECTION 4. Amendment
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by chanqinq approximately 33 acres from
IL, Industrial Liqht to CR-3, Commercial Reqional. This
amendment is desiqnated as General Plan Amendment No. 91-06
and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A,
and is more specifically described in the leqal description
entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and
incorporated herein be reference.
General Plan Amendment No. 91-06 shall become effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
3
,-_..
c
.~
1
2
3 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously
SECTION 5.
MaD Notation
This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be
4 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are
5 on file in the office of the City Clerk.
6
SECTION 6.
Notice of Determination
7
8 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
9 certifyinq the City's compliance with California Environmental
10 Quality Act in preparinq the Neqative Declaration.
11 IIII
12 IIII
13 IIII
14 IIII
15 IIII
16 IIII
17 IIII
18 IIII
19 IIII
20 IIII
21 IIII
22 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
The Planninq Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
4
c
o
1
2
3
RESOLUTION.. .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-06 TO THE GENERAL
PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foreqoinq resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
4
5
6
7 wit:
Bernardino at a
meetinq therefore,
held on
the
day of
, 1992, by the followinq vote, to
8 Council Members
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
9
10 REILLY
HERNANDEZ
11
12 MAUDSLEY
13
MINOR
14
POPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17
City Clerk
18
The foreqoinq resolution is hereby approved this
day
19 of
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
, 1992.
w. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and leqal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City, Attorney
.Pe~
28
5
o
..-
'-'"
,
!'!DL"~r~J.~
t1li
J.J~.J; L
.... !rnur-- ....,.
[ .. ....... .......
.... ....... .......
t mE:: :::,iif,
::m:: ::.:::.
.... i iii!" ;;;;;;;
: im ii mmi...
~. :::::0:::::::: im::::51:aW
~ :immmmmmm!::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::ii:immii 1;
CR-3 I :mm::mmmm:m::mm:mmm:'::mi:m:::m'm....'_.
~ I ~..'~~.~.~~~~~i~i~iii!iiiiiiiiii~~~~~iii~!f5.:. .::~~i~~ ii:::i::::::,::::
'.'.Hm:.::::::::
' I '.'.'.'.i:.i:.'.'.'.'.,im::::::i:::!::!!::" mi:
- ............::::::::::::::::
N0l11 TH' 1!!I!!I!!lliiiliLiiiiiriiioiiiiiic" R":!:3m1jl!!!I!!1 jjjjljJ.!~~
II ~ mmmii . mmm lfilf:fi~~
JI :iimm'.!!mm:. .:m!!m:m:m:::immii .....mEmm: !
~ ::::::::::::,::- .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ................ ~
,. ::llllll!:i::;!ll!illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll :::::::..:::;;;; 3
r ..............................................1... I
-l-I'- . .;;;;;;;;::mmmmmiii!l!!!llillill ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ...
'- --""CII'IC .. .............. 1
II.tILRo>.to
lL
CG-1
l::::::::~:1 AMENDMENT AREA
I::::::::::::::
Immmf!!!!
:.............::
IL
Attachment "A"
,--".
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-06
TITLE
THAT PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 75, RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY QF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS
OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF
TRACT NO. 2170, INTER-CITY NO.5, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 31, PAGE 49 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL
OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED
OCTOBER 21, 1959, IN BOOK 4961, PAGE 220, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SAID SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER BEING THE
POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WATERMAN
AVENUE WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY;
THENCE NORTH 00. 00' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 121.29 FEET
(RECORDED AS 120.0 FEET MORE OR LESS), TO AN ANGLE POINT;
THENCE SOUTH 89. 47' 00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 35.00 FEET, TO AN
ANGLE POINT;
THENCE NORTH 00. 00' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 674.16 FEET TO
THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 43 IN SAID
TRACT NO. 2170, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 386.00 FEET;
THE PRECEDING THREE (3) COURSES BEING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID WATERMAN AVENUE;
THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 386.00
FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16. 19 I 12", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
109.95 FEET TOA POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE WITH A CURVE, CONCAVE
WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 433.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE AT SAID
POINT BEARS SOUTH 73. 40' 48" EAST;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 433.00
FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16. 19' 12", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
123.34 FEET;
'"
A T T A C H MEN T "B"
-,-..
'.
CITYO.F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-06
TITLE
THENCE NORTH 00. 00' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 46.71 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE AT SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 89.
47' 00" EAST;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00
FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90. 00' 00", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
31. 42 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 43;
THE PRECEDING FOUR (4) COURSES BEING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF SAID WATERMAN AVENUE AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED AS PARCEL 1 TO JAMES L. DE YONG, A
SINGLE MAN, BY DEED RECORDED MAY 18, 1991, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91-
161032, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
THENCE NORTH 00. 00' 00" EAST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 43, A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER
THEREOF, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
CAROLINE STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 2170;
THENCE NORTH 89. 47' 00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SAID CAROLINE STREET AND THE NORTHERLY LINES OF LOTS
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, AND 51 IN SAID TRACT NO. 2170, A
DISTANCE OF 1142.82 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT
51, SAID CORNER BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CAROLINE STREET WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF GARDENA STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 2170;
THENCE SOUTH 00. DO' 00" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 51 AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 52 IN SAID TRACT NO. 2170, A
DISTANCE OF 370.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89. 47' 00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00. 00' 00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 71.00 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 52;
THENCE NORTH 89. 47' 00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 52, A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER
THEREOF;
~
A T T A C H MEN T "B"
,
O. ~
'-
r- CITY O.F SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-06
.
TITLE
THENCE SOUTH 00. 00' 00" WEST, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF
LOTS 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, AND 58 IN SAID TRACT NO. 2170, A DISTANCE
OF 781. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 58;
THENCE SOUTH 89. 47' 00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00. 00' 00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 79.05 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 58, SAID POINT ALSO BEING
ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY;
THE PRECEDING SEVEN (7) COURSES BEING ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT
OF WAY LINE OF SAID GARDENA STREET;
THENCE NORTH 80. 00' 00" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A DISTANCE OF
1163.56 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A T T A C H MEN T "B"
I--.J.
, ~
. / ~1~
1~~~~
f,# I ~,-
r x:I ( /(/ 4.D~(t-l rJ rR/)(O a.
-
~~ t2t --- /hd um/ #l ~t'
oj. ~ - - Jtd -# 1/7
..,'..\\\, Gir. h _. .. .- A )
tt'D.-f>;,,'" ~
\\ ~ 1~ 24
esl ':i;.? - e
J !#u,..; A c (AU_ Ie
4..5 Lc"'17W{ /J r.-J R~rcv?C'AJCC ~ yCAJ6:/'ZAZ filA)
AAACJt?AcAJ1 ;00. '1/0f: w11111Cc(t;1ItOJ 10 C'/4J~>J./t{ ;!i9It.Jt{
;:: !ZClJi .t:'/. /fO. c(1:J.
'17/6 vo7Zt1.J I 11k tC/SIJt?6J 15. Ho.!\ 11/6 c?oJ6-/(',.,).;<(!-AJr: tJeAJ.Jfir.J
{/to./'\. A pArr. cC L or L /\ JD (J&,uJ t. (}f,J (0 (V~ cLh'(1frJ I r~
,JJ/!fult~t. f-,.OJN Of2u! ~ '
f ,4.f1(" 11f6' (()JAJCd~ A-lo fI,,/i,JJ ,,.,/(, cO.M/V.fla.J ro
!<rvUf .A".A-t<W#.P<-6,J';' f('CJ-6 -tt> t,.Jc{v-PC p/.-;a'l.LA-lO tvC.5for
A-fL f0 S t If I C-A .sF "r r; NV::iV...rI /I. .f 0 ./ rfI of" CA- /2.0 L IA./ 6 M 0 .JJd f? rt)
of -r1f () '11?1-c le...s ,
f ,c~c-c '11k j/cC/.ftoJ 10 .f~t'17 #' J,/+IJO ~$-crc;;
{J ( rl." " v4..'> </.) 1"",,1. 'TV;1/' &'.-,A'./' ~ C ~A-,.] t? do)" Q( .{
A --' 0 fJ </f' rut?.Y fl.6 fl v E.s r" 1I6'111f' -./( '" c,;..w,{,; -rfk:'
f?..C' .M,11 rJ /"j{ f'A-tf.(6.,( 5 of' LMD '10 &6 S',4-A-IC A-J -rt/4r Afftfcf?'Q
~/ ~.11l. !lo_ 'TloO:
f~,t6' I
1--' ~
4.hJK you
J~J .tJ Pk (~..JI. J ().Ja/Zrf/-
/~ J) f/eJP~~
-<-.2 6'>-- J C7A/2,tX..J /J- .r.r-
.>/NJ e Ci/(..,<J NZ?1v...J=
~ q2q'(/J>'
//( 7'/-/1//3'
f.ff: f;..A-..h.J t -<f ( C1z>.M..-'< t /'.ft 0-0
(OUAl elL A6 ......~cr.e.::.
A.Ar~
f Me: z.
I_...J.
.4.f. c t/V...K
/; cv?-J C fJrJf(2i 41/16 -r1I/.5 t671~2,
~IL yoJ
~A <" J' {? rid I (f rJ t .r wo/1111-
r'''~ D ~'/'~