HomeMy WebLinkAbout50- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNk ADINO - REQUEST Fl _4 COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 93-02
to allow auto body work and painting in
Dept: Planning & Building Services the CG-1, Commercial General , land use
designation with approval of a CUP.
Date: November 18, 1993 MCC meeting of December 6, 1993 @ 2 :00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
06/02/89 - The Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan for the City of San
Bernardino.
05/13/93 - The Mayor and Common Council directed Staff to initiate a Development Code
Amendment to allow legally established existing auto body/paint businesses
(approximately 30) to become conforming uses and to permit new facilities
to be established.
11/15/93 - The Mayor and Common Council heard the first reading of Development Code
Amendment No. 93-07, which would, in part, allow auto body work and painting
in the CG-1, Commercial General , land use designation.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the Resolution be adopted which adopts the Negative
Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 93-02.
oln&6� 2
� ig�naM-re
AL B0UGHE
Contact person:. Al Boughey Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached: Yes Ward:_ City-wide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-02
REQUEST/LOCATION: This is a City-initiated request for an amendment to the General Plan
(Policy 1.19.11) to permit auto body work and vehicle painting with approval of a Conditional
Use Permit in the CG-1, Commercial General land use district. This General Plan Amendment
will allow the related revision to the Development Code regarding auto-related uses, specifically
auto body work and painting in the CG-1 land use designation, to be implemented.
This amendment will affect the entire incorporated portion of the City of San Bernardino.
KEY ISSUES: The key issues are as follows:
• The City of San Bernardino General Plan was adopted on June 2, 1989.
• On May 13, 1993, the Mayor and Common Council directed Staff to initiate a
Development Code Amendment to allow legally established existing auto
body/paint businesses (approximately 30) to become conforming uses and to
permit new facilities to be established in the CG-1 district.
• The related change to the Development Code has been included in Development
Code Amendment (DCA) 93-07, which revised the tables of permitted uses.
• The Development Code allows auto related uses to operate in the CG-1 land use
designations subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The primary
function of the CUP is to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and to
ensure that all auto related uses are conducted within a totally enclosed building.
Please see the analysis and attachments contained in Exhibit 1, Staff Report to the Planning
Commission.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and
Common Council may:
1. Approve General Plan Amendment 93-02 as proposed; or
2. Deny General Plan Amendment 93-02.
ENVIRONMENTAL: The Initial Study was completed by staff and a Negative Declaration
proposed. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), reviewed the proposed amendment
at their regularly scheduled meeting of September 9, 1993. A Negative Declaration was
recommended. The Initial Study was available for public review and comment from September
13, 1993 through October 4, 1993. No comments were received during the public review and
comment period.
General Plan Amendment 93-02
Mayor and Common Council meeting of
December 20, 1993
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed
General Plan Amendment 93-02 on November 3, 1993, and voted 7-0 to recommend to the
Mayor and Common Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the General
Plan Amendment, based upon the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment A).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt
the Resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment
No. 93-02, based upon the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment A).
Prepared by: Jeffery S. Adams, Assistant Planner
For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services
EXHIBITS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachments:
A. Findings of Fact
B. Initial Study
2. Resolution
General Plan Amendment No. 93-02
Agenda Item 4
Hearing Date: 11-3-93
Page 3
I
FINDINGS OF FACT
for
General Plan Amendment No. 93-02
1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan in that there are
no other provisions which prohibit auto body work or painting in the CG-1 land use
designation.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City in that proposed changes are permissive in nature but
do not change the ability of the City to review and condition development projects.
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
City in that the land use designation will not change as a result of this amendment.
ATTACHMENT A
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-02
Project Description/Location: A proposal to amend the General Plan (Policy 1.19.11) to
permit auto-related retail and service uses, including auto body and painting with a Conditional
Use Permit in the CG-1, Commercial General land use district. This General Plan Amendment
will allow the related revision to the Development Code regarding auto-related uses to be
implemented. This amendment is City-wide.
Date: September 7, 1993
Applicant:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Prepared by:
Jeffery S. Adams
Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
ATTACEMIENT B
INITIAL STUDY FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-02
INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment 93-02.
It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed Amendment
is adopted.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study
when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not
exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal,
not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
The following components constitute the Initial Study for General Plan Amendment 93-02;
1. Project Description
2. Location
3. Environmental Impact Checklist
4. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
5. Conclusion/Environmental Determination
Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study.
t
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to amend the General Plan (Policy 1.19.11) to permit auto body work
including auto painting with a Conditional Use Permit in the CG-1, Commercial General land
use district.
2. LOCATION
The amendment will apply to all incorporated land within the City of San Bernardino designated
as a CG-1, Commercial General.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
See Next Page
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES:DDE:PART:MENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIS
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: General Plan Amendment No. 93-02
Project Description:
Amendment to General Plan Policy 1 . 19 . 11 to allow auto-
body work and related painting in the CG-1 , Commercial General land use
designation with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Location:
This amendment will be City-wide.
Environmental Constraints Areas: City-wide
General Plan Designation: CG-1 . Commercial General
Zoning Designation: CG-1 . Commercial General
S. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic X
yards or more?
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? X
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic X
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical X
feature?
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0-
Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan? X
f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? X
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0 - Geologic& Seismic,
Figures 48, 52 and 53 cf the City's General Plan? — X
X
h. Otherl —
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD? — X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? — X
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0- Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's
General Plan? —
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? _ X
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? — X
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration X
of surface water quality? —
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? _ X
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 _, and Section 16.0- X
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? _
f. Other? _ X
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41,of the City's X
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including X
stands of trees? _
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or X
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6'or greater) X
e. Other? _ X
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities or other`noise'sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior
as identified in Section 14.0- Noise, Figures$7 and
58 of the City's General Plan?
low
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses aoove an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? X
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning District Map? X
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A& B, or C as
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? X
X
d. Other?
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
a.- Use, store,transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil,
pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? X
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential heafth/safety hazards? X
d. Other? X
S. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand X
for additional housing?
b. Other? X
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0 -Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? X
b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking
facilities/structures? X
C. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
I. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X
h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways X
or intersections?
i. Other? X
a
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)?
X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Medical aid? X
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other? X
11. Utilities: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
X
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? X
5. Other? X
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X
c. Require the construction of new facilities? X
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any X
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? X
13. Cuttural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section X
3.0 -Historical, Figure 8,of the City's General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey? X
C. Other? X
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history X
or prehistory? -
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the X
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
See following pages.
4. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
1. Earth Resources
a-g. The proposed amendment to the General Plan has no potential to directly impact any of
the earth resources. Auto related uses are already permitted in the CG-1 land use
designation, the amendment will allow auto body and related painting but is procedural
in nature and will not impact earth resources. No potential for significant negative
impacts has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
2. Air Resources:
a-c. Auto-body work/painting may create potential air quality impacts, however project
specific standard development review will continue and remain unaltered. Auto-related
uses are conditionally permitted and therefore are required to meet certain air quality
standards for approval. Standard requirements will mitigate any potential for significant
negative impacts that are identified, therefore no mitigation is required for this
amendment.
3. Water Resources:
a-f The proposed amendment has no potential to directly impact any of the water resource
issues. Changing the permitted land use in a specific designation will not create any
impacts to water resources. The review process will require a conditional use permit and
will continue to address future development in order to protect people and property from
flood hazards and address issues relating to water. No potential for significant negative
impacts has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
4. Biological Resources:
a-d. The proposed amendment does not alter the amount or location of any biological
resources or natural habitat. The level of review a development project is required to
undergo will not be reduced due to this amendment. No potential for significant negative
impacts has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
5. Noise:
a-c. Auto-body work may create potential noise impacts, however standard development
review for noise impacts will continue and remain unaltered. Auto-related uses are
conditionally permitted and therefore are required to meet certain noise standards for
approval. Standard requirements will mitigate any potential for significant negative
impacts that are identified, therefore no mitigation is required for this amendment.
i
6. Land Use:
a-d. The amendment does not change any land use designations but does allow additional
activities that are not currently permitted. There are numerous existing auto-body shops
in the CG-1 designation and auto-body work and related painting was allowed in the
same land use designation prior to the adoption of the General Plan in 1989. The
amendment will not create any negative impacts to existing land uses within the Airport
Districts nor within the Foothill Fire Zone, therefore no mitigation is required.
7: Man-Made Hazards:
a-d. Auto-body work and related painting is currently permitted with a Conditional Use
Permit in CR-4, CH, IL and with a Development Permit in CCS-2. The use,
transportation, storage or disposal of any hazardous substances will be controlled during
the review process of the specific project. The amendment will not reduce the review
criteria nor thresholds at which a project is required to maintain. Therefore, no potential
for significant negative impact has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
8. Housing:
a-b. None of the proposed modifications has any identified potential to remove existing or
create a demand for additional housing. Therefore, no potential for significant negative
impact has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
9. Transportation/Circulation:
a-i. The proposed amendment does not have the potential to increase the land use density, or
create a greater traffic load beyond that which is already permitted for the General
Commercial land use designation.
10. Public Services:
a-g. The proposed amendment does not alter access to public services in any manner. All
projects are required to provide access to public services. There are no potential impacts
to public services created by this amendment beyond those forecasted in the City's
General Plan. Therefore, no potential for significant negative impact has been identified,
and no mitigation is required.
11. Utilities:
a-c. The amendment will not alter the requirement to demonstrate adequate access to, or
service by public utilities. The amendment will not create the demand for construction
of additional utility infrastructure, nor has any significant negative impact been identified
as a result of this amendment. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
12. Aesthetics:
a-c. Aesthetics are addressed during a review of the project at the development phase by the
City. This amendment will not alter the review process nor the City's ability to evaluate
the aesthetic impact of a project. Therefore, no potential for significant negative impact
has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
13. Cultural Resources:
a-c. This amendment has no potential to directly impact cultural resources. Standard review
requires an evaluation of cultural resources on a project by project basis and will not be
altered as a result of this amendment. Therefore, no potential for significant negative
impact has been identified, and no mitigation is required.
doc:6060sa)
S. CONCLUSION/ENVIRON-NTENTAL DETEK IINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
Name and Title
Signature
Date
professional and financial offices in areas designed as "Commercial
General' (CG-1) (I1.1).
1.19.11 Permit the development of new and used car dealerships and auto-related
retail and service uses a'd faint) with a Conditional a
Use Permit to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses (II.1 and I1.6).
Density/Intensity and Height
1.19.20 Permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0.7 and height of two stories (30 feet)
except on parcels immediately abutting a freeway where the height may
be increased by Conditional Use Permit (IM).
1.19.21 Allow for modifications of the height to preserve significant viewsheds
from adjacent properties and open space (I1.1).
Design and Development Guidelines
1.19.30 Require that new commercial developments be designed to convey a low-
rise, pedestrian-scaled, community-oriented environment including:
a. avoidance of large undifferentiated, flat facade, 'box" or "warehouse"-
like structures;
b. incorporation of architectural elements which differentiate the facade
(articulated columns, beams, and spandrels, offset planes,recessed or
projecting windows,etc.);
c. siting of buildings around common -pedestrian- walkways,- plazas,:
courtyards, and open spaces;
d. incorporation of pedestrian sidewalks, arcades, or trellises linking the
site to peripheral sidewalks and uses;
e. inclusion of extensive site landscape (including shrubs and trees);
f. provision of art and other visual amenities;
g. incorporation of non-reflective glass and doors along the majority of
the ground elevation of the facade-to provide visual and physical
penetration;
h. location of percentage of the ground elevation of the building abutting
peripheral sidewalks and pedestrian spaces within two vertical feet of
these; and
1-78
a
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
3 AMENDMENT NO. 93-02 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO.
4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
5 OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
6 SECTION 1. Recitals
7 (a) Whereas, the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino
8 was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-
9 159 on June 2 , 1989.
10 (b) Whereas, General Plan Amendment 93-02 to the General
11 Plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning
12 Commission on November 3 , 1993 at a noticed public hearing, and
13 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been
14 considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
15 (c) Whereas, an Initial Study was prepared on September 7,
16 1993 and reviewed by the Environmental. Review Committee and the
17 Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment
18 93-02 would not have a significant effect on the environment and
19 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
20 (d) Whereas, the proposed Negative Declaration received a 21
21 day public review period from September 13 , 1993 through October 4,
22 1993 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the
23 Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance
24 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
25 regulations.
26
27
28
4 �
s
Zug-
1 (e) Whereas, the Mayor and Common Council held a noticed
2 public hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General
3 Plan Amendment No. 93-02 and the Planning Division Staff Report on
4 December 6, 1993 .
5 (f) Whereas, The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 93-02
6 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City
7 and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
8 existing General Plan.
9 SECTION 2 . Negative Declaration
10 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
11 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
12 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on
13 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared
14 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
15 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
16 SECTION 3 . Findings
17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
18 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT:
19 A. The change allowing autobody work and painting within the CG-
20 1, Commercial General land use district is not in conflict
21 with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
22 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
23 interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
24 C. The proposed amendment will not impact the balance of land
25 uses within the City since it does not alter the current
n
26 balance of land uses.
27
28
7
1 SECTION 4 . Amendment
2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
3 A. The General Plan of the City of San Bernardino is amended by
4 revising Policy 1. 19. 11 to allow autobody work and painting,
5 with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, in the CG-1,
6 Commercial General land use designation of the General Plan of
7 the City of San Bernardino.
8 B. Policy 1. 19. 11,Permitted Uses, 1-78, is amended to read as
9 follows:
10 "Permit the development of new and used car dealerships and
11 auto-related retail and service uses with a Conditional Use Permit
12 to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses (I1. 1 and I1. 6) . "
13 C. General Plan Amendment No. 93-02 shall become effective
14 immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
15 SECTION 5. Notice of Determination
16 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
17 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
18 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental
19 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 A RESOLUTION. . .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-02 TO THE GENERAL
2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
6 day of 1993, by the
7 following vote, to wit:
8
9 Council Members: AYES NAYS. ABSTAIN ABSENT
10 NEGRETE
11 CURLIN
12 HERNANDEZ
13 OBERHELMAN
14 DEVLIN
15 POPE-LUDLAM
16 MILLER
17
18 City Clerk
19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day
20 of , 1993 .
21 Tom Minor, Mayor
22 City of San Bernardino
23 Approved as to form
24 and legal content:
25 JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
26
By:
27
28 61
4