HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-Planning
L.,U
. cfjy OF SAN BERNAR~O - REQU.QT FOR COUNCIL AC1il>>N
Frank A. Schuma
From: Pl anni ng Di rector
Subject: Change of Zone No. 84-29
Mayor and Council Meeting of
February 4, 1985, 9:00 a.m.
Dept: Pl ann i ng
Date: Ja nua ry 24, 1985
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on January 22, 1985, the followin9
recommendation was made:
The application for Change of Zone No. 84-29 was unanimously recommended for
approval.
The Negative Oeclaration for environmental review was also recommended for
approval.
Recommended motion:
To approve the responses to comments and to adopt the Negative Declaration for
environmental review which has been reviewed and considered.
To approve, modify or reject the findings and the recommendation of the
Plannin9 Commission and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
amendments to the Zonin9 Ordinance.
Q-L~
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
Supporting data attached:
Yes, Staff Report
Ward:
383-5057
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance :
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item NOU,
41
C
r CITY OF SAN
lit
1 ~
o
BERNARDINO
1!{'
o
PLANNING
o
DEPARTMENT """
SUMMARY
""'"
1IJ
!a
o
ti
1IJ
::;)
o
III
a:
"-
<t
11.I
a::
<l
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
17
1-22-85
1
~
Change of Zone No. 84-29
and
Lot Line Adjustment No, 84-15
APPLICANT: Concept Environmental Sciences
P.O. 80x 865
Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352
City of S.B. Redevelopment Agenc
Cliff Carel & Associates
41 E
OWNER:
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 2.36 acres having a frontage of approximately 329 feet on
the south side of Court Street and a frontage of 428 feet on the north
side of 3rd Street and being located approximately 241 feet east of the
centerline of Sierra Way.
The proposal is to change the land use zoning district from "0", Open
Space to R-3-1200, Multiple-Family Residential and to adjust the lot
lines between two. parcels in the "0", Open Space zone.
PROPERTY
Subject
North
Sou th
East
West
EXISTING
LAND USE
Vacant & Office Structure
Single-Family Residential
Cty.Prk./Comm.Off./Vacant
City Fire Station
S.F. & Multi. Residential
..J
~
z(/)
L&.\
:e(!)
z~
OQ
a::Z
::;ii:
Z
L&.\
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC
HAZARO ZONE
HIGH FIRE
HAZARO ZONE
o NOT
APPLICABLE
o EXEMPT
~NO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFE CTS
NOV. 1981 REVISED JULY 1t82
SKY
DYES
IDNO
ZONING
"0"
R-3-1200
liD", C-3A
11011
11011
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Residential 15-36 u/ac.
Civil District
Residential 15-73 u/ac.
Civic District
Residential 15-36 u/ac.
( SEWERS ~~~S )
DYES
~NO
FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A
ZONE 0 NO OZONE B
AIRPORT NOISE I 0 YES
CRASH ZONE 1!l NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES NO E,I.R.
o E.LR. REQUIREO BUT NO
SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R. c.
MINUTES
z
o
~
'Q
ILZ
ILI&J
;:::E
(1)2
o
()
L&.\
a::
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
[X] YES
oNO
00< APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
o DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
lill!
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CZ 84-29 &
OBSERVATIONS ~~~~?:~t~~:I~i_22_85
PAGE ?
r
1. The proposal is to change the land use zoning district from "0", Open
Space to R-3-1200, Multiple-Family Residential and tOI adjust the lot
li,nes between the two existing parcels. The site consists of approxi-
mately 2.4 acres having a frontage of approximately 3?9 feet on the
south side of Court Street and a frontage of 428 feet on the north
side of 3rd Street and being located. approximately 241 feet east of
the centerline of Sierra Way.
2. The subject property was included within the boundaries of General
Plan Amendment No. 82-7 which established the current General Plan
designation of Medium High Density Residential 15-36 units per acre
from an Open Space designation. Said Amendment was adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council on November 1, 1982 per the recommendation of
the Planning Commission.
3. The requested change of zone from "0" to R-3-1200 woul d be consi stent
with the amended General Plan and would also be compatible with the
surrounding zoning designation of R-3-1200 on properties located to
the north and west of the site although their current land uses do
include existing nonconforming single-family residences. Property
abutting the site to the east is developed with a City Fire Station
and wi 11 retai nits current "0" Open Space zone desi gnati on.
Surroundi ng properti es to the south across Thi rd Street i ncl ude aCHy
Park ("0" Open Space) and commerci a 1 offi ce uses and vacant property
within the C-3A, Limited General Commercial zone.
4. The site is located within the Central City East Redevelopment Project
area to which the Ci~y Redevelopment Agency has requested both the
approved General P~an Amendment and the requested change of zone. The
Open Space designation on the site and surrounding properties is due
to potential flooding from the unimproved Warm Creek Flood Control
Channel which traverses the site from a north to south direction.
Said channel is currently in the process of being placed underground
within a 60 inch storm drain I'hlich is to be realigned within Court
Street.
5. The subject property is located adjacent to the City Fire Station,
which could si9nificantly impact any residential use due to noise ema-
nating from the fire station. The noises may include: sirens, the
rumbling of heavy diesel engines, and general maintenance activity
noises at all hours of the day or night. Residential uses, developed
on the site would need mitigation of the noise impacts through a com-
bination of setbacks, greenbelts, buildihg design, building orien-
tation, and noise attenuation'in the construction of the buildings.
..a.
I'[J I
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CZ 84-29 &
OBSER rATIONS LLA 84-15
VM. I . . ~~~~~~/6~~E ~:22-85
PAGE 3
6. The requested lot line adjustment would realign a property line which
coincides with a portion of the irregular Warm Creek Flood Control
easement boundaries which is proposed to be abandoned following the
construction of the new storm drain. Said lot line adjustment would
di vi de the property in a east/west di recti on wi th frontage onto Court
and Third Streets. Each lot would meet the minimum development cri-
teria of the R-3-1200 zone relative lot area and dimension.
.'
J1.
tilt
1Y"
,
~ 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CZ 84-29 &
FINDINGS f FACT LLA 84-15
AGENDA IT~M 17
o HEARING DATE l-??-R'l
PAGE 4
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 84-15
1. The requested lDt line adjustment is consistent with the minimum deve-
lopment standards of the R-3-1200 zone relative to minimum lot size
and di mensi ons.
2. The proposed lot line adjustment conforms to the provisions of the
State Subdivision Map Act and Title lB of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code.
3. The proposed lot line adjustment would create two lots which are more
approximately shaped to accommodate multiple-family development.
4. The proposed lot line adjustment is categorically exempt from C.E.Q.A.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends adoption of the proposed Negative
Declaration and approval of Change of Zone No. 84-29 and Lot Line
Adjustment No. 84-15.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
,
a~~~
DAVI D ANDERSON
Principal Planner
r
'"
CITY OF SAN B
NARDINO
CASE CZ 84-29 &
LLA 84- I::'
. AGENDA ITEM 17
HEARING DATE 1-??-85
PAGE 5
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
'"
.l.:...
Street Improvements and Dedications:
I
All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall
be improved to include combination curb and gutter, sidewalk,
paving, ornamental street lights, and appurtenances as required
by the City Engineer.
The structural section for all streets shall be designed and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval using a TI assigned
by the City Engineer and an R value obtained on the subgrade
after rough grading by a recognized soils testing lab. All
streets shall have a minimum AC thickness of 2-1/2 inches.
All driveway approaches shall be cons.tructed to City standards
or as may be approved by the City Engineer.
For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street
right-of-way (R.W.) to Drovide the distance from street center-
line to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in
relation to the street centerline shall be as follows (fDr the
streets marked * the existing improvements shall be removed
and replaced to the dimensions noted):
Court Street
R.W. (ft.)
41. 25 (exi st)
30.00 (exist)
C. L. (ft.)
Street Name
Third Street
33*
20
2.. Grading:
All grading shall be done in compliance with Title 15 of the
Municipal Code and the requirements of the City Engineer.
The site/plot/grading plan submitted for a building permit shall
~contain sufficient ground elevations (both existing and propos-
ed), building pad and finished floor elevations, graded slopes,
and gradients to define the amount of grading to be done and
the means of draining the site.
Each parcel shall be graded to drain to a public dedicated'
street, alley, or drainage facility. If this is not feasible,
proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to
the sati sfaction of the. City Engi neer.
"
..)
1.83 sky
-1-
u
-
J
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE CZ 84-29 &
LLA84-15
. AGENDA ITEM 17
HEARING DATE 1-22-85
PAGE 6
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
r
""'ll
Grading:
All grading shall be done in compliance with Title 15 of the
Municipal Code and the requirements of the City Engineer.
The site/plot/grading plan submitted for a building permit sha'l
contain sufficient ground elevations (both existing and propos-
ed), building pad and finished floor elevations, graded slopes,
and gradients to define the amount of grading to be done and
the means of draining the site.
Each parcel shall be graded to drain to a public dedicated
street, alley, or drainage facility. If this is not feasible,
proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. Utilities:
Each oarcel shall be provided ~ith separate water and sewer
facilities so it can be served by the City or the agency pro-
viding such services in the area.
A sewer backflow prevention device is required for all parcels
with building finished floors lower than the nearest upsteam
manhole rim of the servin~ sewer main.
Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be con-
structed at the developer's expense.
Utility services shall be placed underground and easements pro-
vided as required.
'\..
~.
I'" sky
-2-
JlIII
Jl
~
-
IJjJ
o
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
TII~r rp.-:-T/PIV ?,p P",A,lU:eL.~. "/10 PAeL:lL$.
j?' PA*Z&~;L MAP IV'. 7/40. IN T,III(j/7Y UP
!5,AAlI!:J6'~K"'~/#P. bPi/NT>' ~F.9,AN' ~~N,AIU7IPO
"-1fT4." c.AUi'YJI,lZN/.....,;f4'P~ P4Ar,rp~1FO
'IV ~p',I& .,." PF .+1,14'6 'p.46F-6 / ;lNt::'~.
~1C.4?~~ tt:" _.,,"#7 ~"p,vrY,4#1'7 arA7l'I
p,lFeeM'.f'R-, I"~+
).
~
~
!
~~.
"\
epvJlt-r ~~ "'''''JH",!SIJ.'jf ~t.,*.<#i'
" -.: __~~,_7# ,.,:' _"'~
.'", ,r".'~'';i'7t'i0 ."
."~ '" L' ,1 I~ZM ...;J.;.. ~
I t~.. t. ~;.:$Jtllc..... ~ #. :J
1 ~ ':::;:I"'--."/~I..I"" ..
'.t:~~. ."'!JI*"N.'. !"
'ff,'.' - T7; !lU.q J
l~" ",..,IIf'N'" ,'/ 'lVh-,.,',Z'1f ._' ~
I..;t! 5 <##'t'~~7 -Z~ ...
I ~t't ,I'e~'~".,.?:~._ ~_~;"'.T-""" ~
I~.; .' N '.s7<;;;';;"~~N
<#~b.'1ii
=
~
'I
M~
(CoIn' ~/'~ ~l'nltJIV )
I
I _-
-1----
I
I
,
i'
,
I
,
--
..
-
rH/~v
5T.
cl
"."It.."'-)
~
"
~
~
"
I ~ I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I L-L-..L.
I I I r-----
T~-r~+_t-+---
I I I I I I t-----
i~
.ti44u 1~N'6'
,AI'E/I!J'
ptp'A~ .,...
j/elN FAlle.IL 4- '
t?~ 'A~6L #.
/l'ew P~L .#~
-1',764 !;V'.
H,/~":J-.'"
,.,.~~.,,:
6"7.J!,~9-"
"WIIG'I!5:
OI.JP/" ;fI!". C,,,A~EJ. ;, AtI~.tJC/~
A "'''''''''''-'''.7'''_
/"'leA~r4!!i.jJ. ~r.
!IiA /II ~6'cN;iYf!4?f"'#7. CA. "i"<<~I""
(7/4-) e>t'56~ ft.,~
Ap.N. I.,.,-/N~f/I
~~:':If#N"::.-~:::::'~
1.1IJ.N'~"N'P.9't:
"9AJ1/ 8#,<NAA!O/"'g. CA. ,,~/O
(714.J .,~~. HAt
A'/tI. I~,./~/-#:L
"
CES
~(rrrir_IScrenc.
211lO..................._
bllooitoOtoo.CA\IM:l'>
111~~
V!t-INITY' HAl'
LolA
$11-\5
411
C)
II
Ll
~
, .
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE C.Z. //84-29 & L.L.A.
1JH4-1)
HEARING DATE 1/22/15)
.R-3
(2go
WZJ.!3~
g(ge;9
~'A
, ""
R-3 ~
~""
. I t- rt)
. c-)A 0:: 0
6TH ST.
7TH
BT.
VICTORIA
C-M
C-4
C-3A
R-4
110'.
...
..
C-3A
C-4
C-3A C-3A
R-'
~. C-3A'
tIR-3
~
C-M
C-M
M-2
. M-2
M-2
M-2
R-3.
~CHOOL
R-3
CIT., YARDS
. nTI:C-
o
AGENDA
ITEM #
17'
R - 3 1110"1 I' an. ST. W):' I ":
CoM.
C-3A -.... ~
. I
'" . '," .' 1"=.Soo'!
I C-M
(.)
'I "
o
1
,
I
...J LLI L...J .., I ~I I I ;O~_':""::"","_,-_J I
j ffi~ \':'''l~ .-; ~j~.
J!~ ::. ~~'l~ "
J....r:~.~T .:'
EJ St;.ltOOL
9-88
JGi
In '8 !il A'P 'A-P
:.J C-4'"
'"
o
C-4 :i .."
ED
382HO . 'M '0" [J"'"
.' ~ .
,M" '. CoM .' . LlC.!!!.l. ....
.. '.' I C-M I R-~. ~
. AVE.. .
aTH ST
~~
:::r R-3 iI'd
o
." "011
z
..
,.
'"
...
..
~
C-M
COM
--
CoM
VilA
C-
'RO J~l' ?,'.
UJ v:
!1:T
R-3 rn :
ST.
C.M.
R -3.
R-3
RIALTO
R-3 R-3
n
I
I
s:0.
.
s .
R-3-2000
C'M R: ,:~ooo
IA TO.
..
..
..
...
..
,
o
~
-
~ITY OF
SAN BERN
DINO PLA
ING DEPARTMENT
J.
APPLICATION FOR
CHANGE OF ZONE NO.
11
}l >-\ - Cl.",J
OWNER: City of San Bernardino
Redevelopment Agency
ADDRESS: 300 North "0" St.
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
TEL: (714) 383-5081
APPLICANT :Concept Environmental Science fi
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 865 ~
Lake Arrowhead, Ca. 92352 ~
TEL: (714) 882-6969
EXISTING ZONE:
"0"
PROPOSED ZONE:
High Density 24-36u/a
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
High Density 24- 36u /a
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 135-181-62, 135~191-12
Parcels 2 and 5, Parcel Map No. 7140, M.B. 69/1-2
~
REASON FOR CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST:
To comply with the General Plan and allow the development of apartment
units.
SUBMITTALS:
o APPLICATION (3 COPIES)
o MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (10 COPIES, FOLDED
TO 8 V2 "XII")
o PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
FORM
o GUMMED LABELS (2 SETS)
o PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT OR GRANT DEED
0500 FT. PROPERTY OWNER'S MAP (EXHIBIT A)
o LETTER OF CERTIFICATION (NOTARIZED)
o LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION (NOTARIZED)
o TRANSPARENCY OF MAP
SIGNATURE OF
LEGAL OWNER (S)
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED:
DATE APPL ICAT ION ACCEPTED:
( OAPPROVED
oDENIED
DATE'
DATE'
DATE,
II ;'-'17 j.\ if
I I
f,t,,;'r
)
E.R.C, MEETING
P.C, MEETING
M/C,C. MEETING
rov._ MI.,"!.l?Q4
o
"
o
o
o
Frar.k A. Schema
Page 4
January 17. 1985
. a housing development for persons and
families of low or moderate income. The
determination of the means by which a city,
county, or city and county will comply with
this chapter shall be 1n the sole discretion
of the city, county, or city and county;
provided, that no developer shall be required
to enter into an unacceptable agreement as a
prerequisite to approval of a housing
development."
In construing the provisions of Government Code Section
65915 as set forth above, the Attorney General's Office
stated that:
"We believe that it is more reasonable to
conclude that a local government is free to
choose alternative incentives as well as to
provide additional aids to a developer if it
so desires. Sufficient 'controls' are built
into the statutory system so that the
purposes of the legislation will be
effectuated even though a density bonus or
other incentives listed in section 65915 are
not provided." (63 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 478, 6-
9-80 )
It is further stR(ed that:
,
"We conclude that when a developer of
housing agrees to construct at least 25
percent of the total units of a housing
development for persons and families of low
or moderate income, the local government need
not grant a density bonus or provide at least
two of the incentives specifically listed in
section 65915 as long as two alternative
incentives are provided that are acceptable
to the developer and carry out the purpose of
the statute." (63 Ops.Ca1.Atty.Gen. 6-9-80)
Government Code Section 65915 as presently constituted
continues to provide to the City the same broad bounds
within which to fashion an agreement as to "equivalent
financial value" with the developer. At Government Code
Section 65915(b) it is stated, in pertinent part:
o
o
-0
o
Frank A. Schuma
Page 5
January 17, 1985
"(b)
90 days of
notify the
the manner
section."
. . The city, . . . shall, within
receipt of a written proposal,
housing developer in writing of
in which it will comply with this
Pursuant to this section, the discretion remains with the
City as to how it will comply with the mandate that it
provide at least a twenty-five percent density bonus or
other incentives of "equivalent financial value".
Where the City sets forth in its response to a request for a
density bonus, that it will provide industrial development
bond financing in support of the project in an amount which
has "equivalent financial value" to at least the value of a
twenty-five perceqt density bonus, such grant of the
industrial development bond financing would constitute
"equivalent financial value". Provision is made for such
"direct financial contribution" at Government Code Section
65916 which states that:
"Where there is a direct financial
contribution to a housing development
pursuant to Section 65915 through
participation in cost of infrastructure,
write-down of land costs, or subsidiZin~ the
cost of construction, the city, . . . s arr-
assure-cont~nued availability for low- and
moderate-income units for 30 years. When
appropriate, the agreement provided for in
Section 65915 shall specify the mechanisms
and procedures necessary to carry out this
section." (Emphasis added.)
In response to the last question, Government Code
Section 65915(b) sets forth that:
" . . . The city. . . shall establish
procedures for carrying out this section,
which shall include legislative body approval
of the means of compliance with this
section. "
Guidance as to the consequence of a failure to adopt
procedures pursuant to the mandate of this section can be
found in the following excerpt.
'" I I
o
o
o
o
"
Frank A. Schuma
Page 6
January 17, 1985
"Traditionally, the question of whether a
public official's failure to comply with a
statutory procedure should have the effect of
invalidating a subsequent governmental action
is characterized as a question of whether the
statute should be accorded directory or
mandatory effect, which in turn is determined
by looking to the purpose of the procedural
requirement to ascertain whether invalidation
is necessary to promote the statutory design.
Where such statute relates to the performance
of a public duty, does not affect any private
right or interest, and concerns the public
alone, imperative or obligatory language
employed therein is generally regarded as
directory rather than mandatory, . . .
On the other hand, statutory requisitions
or regulations intended for the protection of
the citizen, by a disregard of which his
rights might be and generally would be
injuriously affected, are construed as
mandatory rather than directory, and the
statutory duties involved must be followed or
the subsequent governmental acts will be
declared invalid." (58 Cal.Jur.3d, Statutes,
Section 152.' .
\
The City may not through its failure to adopt procedures as
mandated by Government Code Section 65915 avoid the grant of
density bonuses on the basis that it has no mechanism
through which to make such grant. By such action the City
will directly, injuriously affect the right of the developer
willing to agree to construct rental housing in the
requisite categories. In addition, the City will
injuriously affect the right of the low-, moderate- and
lower-income persons, families and households whom Government
Code Section 65915 is intended to benefit. Such intent is
expressly set forth at Government Code Section 65917, which
states:
, "In enacting this chapter it is the intent
of the Legislature that the density bonus or
other incentives offered by the city, . .
pursuant to this chapter shall contribute
significantly to the economic feasibility of
All
I '
c>
o
o
o
..
.-
Frank A. Schuma
Page 7
January 17, 1985
.. low- and moderate-income housing in proposed
housing developments."
In the absence of the formal procedures mandated by
Government Code Section 65915, the City would have no basis
on which to deny a density bonus to the developer of a
project which meets the basic qualifications for such bonus.
As previously indicated, the City has wide discretion in
developing what it considers to be "equivalent financial
value". However, any such formulation must be presented in
the context of an overall procedure for processing density
bonus requests as mandated by Government Code Section 65915.
The options as to "equivalent financial value", specifically
set forth in original Section 65915 remain available today.
To reiterate, these include (a) exemption of the project
from the community park requireme~t of Government Code
Section 66477, (b) construction of streets, sewers and
sidewalks appurtenant to the proposed housing development,
(c) providing land using federal or state grant money or
local revenues, and (d) exemption from any local ordinance
that may increase the price of the project. The previously
discussed option of providing industrial development bond
financing would fall into category (c).
The Planning DepaTtment has recently identified a problem
that arises from the interaction of the density bonus
requirement with the zone change laws. The question is one
of whether in the processing of an application to allow a
zone change to provide for the maximum density allowed under
the General Plan, consideration can be given to the
likelihood of a subsequent request for a density bonus for
the same property and of the impact on housing density of
any such subsequent request. The solution desired by the
Planning Department is that the zone change be limited to a
density less than that contemplated by the General Plan such
that upon the grant of any density bonus, the overall
density would remain within General Plan limits. With
respect to this proposed solution, Government Code Section
65915 provides in pertinent part that "(c) . . . The density
bonus shall not be included when determining the number of
housing units which is equal to 10 or 25 percent of the
total. . . ." This language does not preclude the inclusion
of the density bonus when considering a ~ change. And,
..
'_.1
o
"
o
o
o
.-
Frank A. Schuma
Page 8
January 17, 1985
therefore, does not preclude the density limitations
approach favored by the Planning Department.
A proposed alternative resolution to the zone change/density
bonus problem is that, when processing the zone change
application, the maximum den~ity be granted on the condition
that the owner of the property enter into a binding
convenant guaranteeing that no application will subsequently
be made requesting a density bonus for the subject property.
Both the latter and the original proposed responses to the
problem are within the authority of the Common Council to
undertake pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section
19.06.090 (B). Neither approach conflicts with the
limitations on the use of the density bonus set forth at
Government Code Section 65915(c).
When considering the approaches proposed by the Planning
Department to the grant of a zone change in the context of a
probable, subsequent request for a density bonus,
note should be made of Government Code Section 65917. This
section provides:
"In enacting this chapter it is the intent
of the Legislature that the density bonus or
other incentives offered by the city, county
or city and county pursuant to this chapter
shall contribute significantly to the
economic f~asibility of 10w- and moderate-
income housing in proposed housing
developments."
Any approach to the grant of a density bonus which results
in a number of units being provided as low or moderate
income or lower income housing which is less than the
numbers mandated by Government Code Section 65915 and which
does not otherwise provide "equivalent financial value",
could be subject to attack under this Section. However,
where such efforts are undertaken in good faith, without an
intent to circumvent state law, a zone change or binding
agreement or any such equivalent approach, should withstand
a court challenge.
In summary, Government Code Section 65915 does not require
that a developer apply for industrial development bond
financing prior to making a request for a density bonus.
If, following negotiations with a developer, the developer
"., l ,
o
0-
o
o
.'
Frank A. Schuma
Page 9
January 17, 1985
is willing to accept some alternative arrangement as an
offset against the twenty-five percent density bonus, such
alternative arrangement constitutes "equivalent financial
value" for purposes of Government Code Section 65915. This
may include industrial development bond financing provided
by the City. Finally, given the expressed intent of the
legislation, the failure of the City to adopt the requisite
guidelines and procedures would probably work to
disadvantage the City in its efforts to control the
utilization of density bonuses by developers.
CONCLUSION
A developer requesting a density bonus need not first apply
for industrial development bond financing. The issuance of
such financing by the City constitutes '~quivalent financial
value" where such has specifically been agreed upon by the
City and the developer. In that situation, no further
density bonus need be granted. .
If the Planning Commission and Common Council do not adopt
the procedures required .by Government Code Section 65915,
the City will be hampered in its ability to control the use
of the denisty bonus by developers.
\
R~:~~Ubmitt'd'
~~~ City Attorney
JFW:dp
cc Mayor
City Administrator
City Clerk
Concur:
;7~;;p 00
{/ 'L(Pt!"f!>>:/ ,L/ ~/
City A torney
o
.,.
o
o
o
DEPARTMENT ""
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
SUMMARY
\..
l&J
U)
ct
o
~
::;)
o
III
a:
....
<t
l&J
a:
ct
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
II
12-18-84
S
..,j
APPLICANT:
J. E. Bonadiman and Assoc.
P.O. Box 5852
San Bernardino, CA 92412
Cable Lake Association
3931 MacArthur Blvd. Ste. 113
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Change of Zone No. 84-14
OWNER:
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 20 acres having a frontage of approximately 1,568 feet on
the north side of Frontage Road and being located approxiamtely 1,100 feet
'westerly of the centerline of Little League Drive.
The proposal is to change the land use zoning district from MHP, Mobile
Home Park to PRD-7, Planned Residential Development at 7 units per acre.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION ,
Subject Vacant MHP Residential 4-7
North Vacant MHP & '0' Residential 4-7 .
South Pet Cemetary R-3-3000 Residential 4-7
East Flood Control Channel '0' Residential 4-7
West Freeway ------ Freeway
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A C SEWERS DYES )
HAZARD ZONE lX}(No ZONE JdXINO OZONE B QNO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE DNO CRASH ZONE l4XlNO PROJECT AREA )[XI NO
~ o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z lib< APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATiNG - 0
Z(I) MEASURES' NO E,I.R, ti CONDITIONS
IIJ(!) D EXEMPT D E,I,R. REQUIRED BUT NO LL.O 0
2z LL.Ci .DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING ~2 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a::Z MEASURES (1)::1
:;:&L 0
Z UNO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
IIJ SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E,R. C, l&J
EFFE CTS MINUTES a::
~~~, 191. REVISED JULY 1982
-
. u
11.,.'1.;1
ITY,OF SAN BERN~DINO PLA~ING DEPARTMENT
CASE Change of Zone
OBSERVAT~ONS ~~~~~N~~i~~:~::-1~-b4
PAGE 2
'" .
1. The app li cant is proposi ng a change of zone from the exi sting KiP, Mobil e
. Home Park zone to the PRD-7, Pl anned Resi denti al Development at 7 units to
the acre on a site th~t is located northerly of Little League Road and
easterly of Frontage Road. The site area consists of approximately 20
acres.
2. The State College Area Plan designates the site presently for residential
uses at 4-7 units per acre. The requested zoning is at 7 units per acre
which would give the developer the maximum number of units per acre as per-
mitted by the General Plan.
3. Should the present owner or any subsequent owner of the site wish to pro-
vide affordable housing they may be eligible for a density bonus of 25%
which would permit up to 8.75 units per acre.
4. Consideration of two alternatives could be made on request for residential
zone changes. The first being to allow no more than seventy-five percent
of the top end of the density range of the General Plan so that in the
event a subsequent request for a density bonus, the final density would be
in conformance with the General Plan. The second alternative to the den-
sity bonus issue would be that the zone change to a higher density could be
accompanied by a statement or certificate to be recorded with the property
indicating that a density bonus will not be pursued by the current property
owner or any subsequent property owner.
. 5.A Planned Residential Development zone would allow for a variety of resi-
dential uses from a single-family project to a multiple-family project.
through the approval of a conditional use permit. With zoning at 7 units
to the acre, the most viable type of housing product to be built on the
site would appear to be a single-family development.
6. This 'zone change was part of the tDtal development proposal that appeared
before the Environmental Review Committee on September 13, 1984. At the
meeting, the Committee required a focused Environmental Impact Report to
determine the environmental impacts as a result of limited vehicular
access. The applicant appealed that determination to the Planning
Commission at the meeting of October 2, 1984. The Commission upheldd the
decision of the Environmental Report Committee and denied the appeal for
the focused Environmental Impact Report. Subsequent to that decision, the
applicant made an appeal to the Mayor and Common Council which granted the
appeal and wai ved the focused Envi ronmental Impact Report and issued a
Negative Declaration.
".
. .~
....
-
L
.. .
ITV OF SAN BERN
DINO PLA
ING DEPARTMENT.
CASE Change of Zone
i.~o. 64-14
AGENDA ITEM b
HEARING DATE 12-lS-b4
PAGE -3
OBSERVAT~ONS
7. The Planned Residential Development zone would require flexibility in resi-
. denti al type and development standards yet wi 11 requi re substanti al upgra-
d~s such as higher parking requirements and 25 percent usable open space.
A conditional use permit is required with any type of development proposal
/ in the PRD zone, therefore, any development proposal subsequent to the zone
change will require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
8. The surrounding land uses consist of Barstow (1-215) Freeway to the west
aC'ross Frontage Road and the Pet Cemetary to the south wi th vacant land in
all other directions.
9. The Verdemont Study which is close to final stages of completion indicates
that the proposed land use type designated for the site is that of
Resi~ential at 4 to 7'units per acre. Therefore, the requested change of
zone is in conformance with the Verdemont Study.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the observati ons contai ned wi thi n, the staff report and that a negati ve
declaration has previously .been approved for the subject site by the Mayor and
Common Council C!nd that the requested zone change is consi stent wi th the
existing and proposed density per their respective plans, Staff recommends
approval of Change of Zone Change No. 84-14.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Plannin Director
,
o.
.... .
-
.L
~'
.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE ~e of Zone
OBSER~~~IONS o. li-30
AGENDA ITEM 19
. HEARING DATE l-ZZ-11:>
PAGE L
1. The proposal is to change the land use zoning district from R-3-3000,
Multiple-Family Residential .to PRD 14u, Planned Residential Develop-
ment. The subject property consists of approximately 2.3 acres with
frontages onto both "J" and "I" Streets located approximately 217 feet
south of Hazel Street.
2. The property recently underwent a previous zone change from R-I-7200,
Single-Family Residential, to R-3-3000, Multiple-Family Residential
which was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on November 14,
1984. The density requested by the current proposal is equal to that
of the previous zone change approval. However, the PRD zone would per-
mit the applicant to develop the property as condominium units as well
as apartments. In general, the development standards of the PRD zone
allow for greater flexibility in project design which could potentially
provide for more desirable development of this parcel.
3. The density proposed by the zone change is consi stent wi th General Plan
Amendment 83-2 which encompassed approximately 50 acres bordered by
Mi 11 Street on the north, "J" Street on the west, Grant Avenue on the
south and Interstate 215 on the east. The General Plan as amended by
the Mayor and Common Council on November 21,1983 per the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission reflected a land use designation of
medium density residential at 8-14 units per acre for the site and
surrounding properties to the north. The previous General Plan
designation for the site included both Single-Family Residential at 4-7
units per acre and Me~ium-High Density Residential at 15-36 units per
acre.. The General t' I an currently desi gnates the surroundi ng properti es
to the south for an elementary school, Light Industrial to the east
across "I" Street and Single-Fami ly Residential to the west across "J"
Street.
,
4. The surrounding land use and zoning designations included non-
conformi ng Singl e-F ami ly Resi dences withi n the C-M, Commerci a 1
Manufacturing zone, to the north, Urbita Elementary School within the
R-1-7200 zone to the south, non-conforming single-family and multiple-
family land uses within the C-M zone to the east and single-family
residences within the R-1-7200 Single-Family Residential zone to the
west. The 2.3 acre site is irregularly-shaped with two street fron-
tages consi sti ng of 132 feet on the west si de of "I" Street and a fron-
tage of 35 feet on the east si de of "J" Street. Although access can be
achieved via both "J" and "I" Streets, the units will probably be
ori ented to the wi der frontage on "I" Street. Development of the par-
cel under the provi sions of the PRD 14U zone would assure that a pro-
ject is compatible with surrounding uses.
II
'III'
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Change of Zone
OBSER"ATIONS AGEND:o;T:~-;9u
V,", I HEARING DATE 1-22-85
PAGE 3
,
5. The flat, vacant site has no physical deterrents to development. The
proposed PRD 14U zoning designation would permit a maximum of 32 units
on the si te.
6. The Environmental Review Committee on December 27, 1984 recommended the
issuance of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 84-30. The
Committee found that the site is not subject to any environmental
hazards.
o
o
o
o
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE ~e of Zone
FINDINGS of FACT ~~~~~~G~~~~E4-1~_22_85
\. PAGE. 4
r-
1. The proposed change of zone from R-3-3000 to PRD 14/U does not increase
the density of permitted development.
2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan per
General Plan Amendment No. 83-2.
3. There are no adverse environmental effects associated with the change
of zone request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of
Change of Zone No. 84-30 frQm R-3-3000, Multiple-Family Residential to
PRD 14U, Planned Residential Development District based on the observa-
tions and findings contained in the staff report.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
;6~L-P, ~-
AN E. CAMERON
Associate Planner
....
""
~
~.~
.
o
III
I
<;'12-( AM:J MO.lSl:/V8
,lot!"
';i' , "
I< . q
'" .IJ."HI' ---~~- -
\Ii ~
" --.:.;-- .- .
R -: .......1 v
_y'L_ .."
.. f ~ ---,-
.~ ~'I
~ _ ~...L ~ ~ ~~I
, v --~~ ~ " ~"1
... l "~/~'~
.~ .-- .~ .'~I ,'~
'i'
~
'il
~
~
':l
'-1
I I
. I I
I I
:tS ,
;:j'
~
~
~
~
~
v
, I
, I 1
~ I I
~ . -O~~:~-i
~ ~. 1
____--I
I
!
~
~
\)
.
~ ~----~
~ 'I
" .. ".1
.~... ~
,..,
.;l9 ;.
u: .#!1 .U
~ ~
.... '
I~I
~
;;. .,..-.", ~
~[-1 ~
. "":il
...'; :t ~
r-,>:~;, ~
~I ,,~~ ~
, ~ ,
.'*+ -tin ,'"
~ r.
h ~
.. ~ "
~' \)
. "'~
~ ~~.
I ,:,",\1I-.:,
h \,~.. ~
~ i,-" ,
'-J~~ "
~~:.:: ofl
~'-'l" ~
'- . ,
"-Y ..,,~ ,~
...
" ,
I
I
I
,.,.
;1
"
."
". I '
o
~
.'
'-
~
l
-.
I
.
.
. th
Bin,
.s ~!'
IH~.
u
a..
<!
~
W
Z
0
N
LL
0
W
<.9
Z
<1
:I:
<.)
,'''' ... .'"
"
.f. .
,
--I ~
0 \\! ~
0 ~ l
:r:
u
tJ) &
::;: '-
t>1 . ~
--l " ~
hI \
<(
r
it1 ~
it:
=> ~ '-
to.
_r. .~
.~ I~I
..
~
I I I I
I (7kI.tHf"'&r"'J
I I I I I
'.
o
o
o
o
,
LOCATION
CASE C.Z. 1f84-30
HEARING DATE l/ZZ/'6':J
'"""'I r AGENDA ....
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
19
""
"'"
R-I
-
R':"I
.' . R-3
I R-3
)
M.
) T R-3 R-3
) .',
) T. R-3, R-3
>
I T
I
fi-I
.VALLEY. COLLEGE
JR.~ HIGH
SCHOOL
C-M
II~ I~I '
~i'
!H
~~ Cill[ID MilL ST.
M-I
I .. T C-M
'" II< ,
'" 0::
'R-I' M-I M-I
R-I ..C-M
, T C-M c... .
I
'"
T C.-M
>
I T
,
-ODD
,.:
1:11 0
"- R-I R-I R-I R-I
1-
"
...
~
LAUR
.. m r
~-i-'
o
o
o
o
CITY OF
SAN
...."...-""."
BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT :;1
~ :
-
APPLICATION FOR
C~=nANGE OF ZONE NO. ~>\-30
ij
l\
)1
1lI"""~""'-~r~r.'
~rr..l:"rl~
Not responsible for any cost
OWNER: fees on Change of Zone
ADDRESS: Bank of America
3600 Lime St.
Bldg 6 Ste 611
TEL: Riverside, Ca. 92501
for
APPLICANT:
'ADDRESS:
TEL:
John Winters
1139 North "on St.
San Bernardino, Ca. 92410
(714) 883-1359
EXI STING ZONE:
Med. Den. 8-14
PROPOSED ZONE'
PRO 14
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Med Den. 8-14
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, . 1 U 1-711- n 1
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL
REASON FOR CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST:
To allow the development of a Condominium complex.
SUBMITTALS:
o APPLICATION (3 COPIES)
o PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT OR GRANT DEED
0500 FT, PROPERTY OWNER'S MAP (EXHIBIT A)
o MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (10 COPIES. FOLDED
TO 81/2"XIlII)
o PRELIM INARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
FORM
o GUMMED LABELS (2 SETS)
o LETTER OF CERTIFICATION (NOTARIZED)
o LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION (NOTARIZED)
o TRANSPARENCY OF MAP
Bank of America as Trustee
SIGNATURE OF ht'.... .\--:::.::-~>
,'~ (
LEGAL OWNER (S 6 xi"':
under the will of Geol5SA:::Watson
(
(
c
DATE'
. ~l
DATE'
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED:
DATE APPL ICATlON ACCEPTED:
E,R.C. MEETING
P. C. MEETING
( OAPPR~VED
ODENIED
)
M/C.C, MEETING
-p-"
-...........7
._.~
_.J
rn__MAR..::)"4
m
I.. '
\
I "
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT I:
\.lETTER OF AUTHORIZATI9~
TO: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(TEL, NO,):
Bank If America
3600 Lime ::it. Bldg 6 :;,te
Riverside, Ca. 925U1
7111) 181 jj99
611
FROM:
(NAME):
(ADDRESS):
REi APPLICATION NUMBER (S):
THIS LETTER IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT I(WE). AS LEGAL
OWNERlS) OF THE PROPERlY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B"
(ATTACHED) HEREBY AUTHORIZE:
(NAME):
(ADDRESS):
(TEL. NO.):
Concept Environmental Sciences
P.O. Box 865 Lake Arrowhead. Ca. 92352
/714) 882-6969
TO FILE AND REPRESENT MY lOUR) INTEREST IN THE ABOVE
REFERENCED APPLICATION (S),
Bank of America as Trustee
SIGNATURE(S) OF' "
LEGAL OWNER{S) ,~;vc- ~ ~d
,..... ''''-\;-1
DATE
I '--If -tY
DATE
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California Ri id }
vers e S,S,
Countv of
On this 18th day of December . in the year 1984 before me Laura Osterman
a Notary Public in and for the Riverside Countv. personally appeared Richard Cerda & Shirley Riggs
Sr. Property Mgr. & Trust Officer
\ 0 personally known to me Dl proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person!s) who executed the within instrument as or
. on behalf of the Corporation herein named and acknowledged to me that the Corporation executed it.
(SEAL}
~~"",,-~,.c,"'='-~~"-ll
-- -<c;;~ OFFICIAL SEAL il
.;,v'...>'~ 1\' .,... ,- .._,,,. , t.
:L.l:Y./;. 1.".,1",.\ 8~:t..:h\:..N
€V' ""..' ,,' ,,,.-',"'(", ",-.",' . u,' i,or,rJlA I
" .. '. ",,'.! "",' .. .
, ~~"'~.: .,'-) r.'..-.-....r.~ "'(""rry
.!i!!!:~=~~:~.~~:~i0:~:.:~-;-;~~~~:~~~.:;~j(
WITNESS my hand and <>ffidal seal, ~
C7f ~ ;l1/1l4!~
Notary Public in and for the Riverside County and State,
P-)69x 10-82 (Rev.)
MV commission expires
3-28
.19J!L
O,?,~
:.- /:'t!/
;'!..........-
.
o
o
o
809290
"
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR
REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS:
A FEE
AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE
PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM
WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
1 :
GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84, NOW A
LIEN NOT YET PAYABLE.
2:
AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL
PURPOSES, IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2270, PAGE 434, OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
SAID EASEMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE NORTH 5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 10 ACRES OF THE WEST 20 ACRES
OF LOT 35, BLOCK 54 OF MISCELLANEOUS SURVEY OF RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO,
IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (EXCEPTING
PORTION IN LUCINDA OR "I" STREET). (EXCEPTING GRANT STREET).
DESCRIPTION:
A PORTION OF LOT 35, BLOCK 54, MISCELLANEOUS SURVEY OF THE RANCHO
SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
,
PAGE 2
. __ .. _ . _on . ~ __, _ ..._.......
~I
'~ I
~,-,w
'-J. ///.e
s;.",_t---
o
o
809290
o
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 35, THAT IS
558.52 FEET NORTHERLY FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT;
THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 179.40
FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT,
126.52 FEET, TO A POINT 430.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID LOT; THENCE'EASTERLY PARALLEL WITH AND 430.00 FEET NORTHERLY
FROM THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 463.00 FEET, TO THE WEST
LINE OF "I" STREET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE
OF "I" STREET, 129.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT THAT IS
226.75 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF HAZEL AVENUE, AS THE
SAME NOW EXISTS; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE
OF HAZEL AVENUE, 246.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH
THE WEST LINE OF "I" STREET, TO A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 132.00
FEET FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF HAZEL AVENUE; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL
WITH SAID SOUTH LINE OF HAZEL AVENUE, 396.65 FEET, TO THE WEST
LINE OF LOT 35; THENCE SOUTHERLY ,ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
LOT 35 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 35, 132.00
FEET SOUTH FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF HAZEL AVENUE; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 60.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY PARALLEL WITtI
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35, 179.4 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY
AND PARALLEL WI'fH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, 60.00 FEE'f; TilENCE
WEST 179.4 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE MOST WESTERLY 29.40 FEET WHICH
LIES WITHIN "J" STREET.
-
NOTE: PRO-RATION OF TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1962-63:
FIRST INSTALLMENT: $92.76 PAID
SECOND INSTALLMENT: $02.76 PAID
CODE 7001, LINE 141 231 03
MWW/MJS
PAGE 3
~ .. ." __0 ....r... .... ,..'...., .... ......;n Ie ..,..... .ft........I.