HomeMy WebLinkAbout23-Planning
CITAF SAN BERNARDIN:) - REQUE~ FOR COUNCIL ACtON
From: Frank A. Schuma Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 85-2
Planning Director
Dept: Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of
Date: July 18, 1985 August 5, 1985, 9:00 A.M.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Previous Planning Commission action.
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on July 16, 1985, the following
recommendation was made:
The application for General Plan Amendment No, 85-2 was unanimously
recommended for approval of Alternative IV, Exhibit VII,
The Negative Declaration for enviromental review was approved.
Recommended motion:
To approve the responses to comments and to adopt the Negative Declaration for
enviromental review which has been reviewed and considered.
To approve, modify or reject the findings and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance,
10/\ ,~~ \ (r""Vv-
Q
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
Supporting data attached:
Yes
Ward:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Am,"rl~ It~m Nn ~( 5 J
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<:) R~SOLUTION NO~5-2
o
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SNA BERNARDINO
AMENDING SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS SHOWN ON THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, 7 on July 7,
1964, establishing a General Plan Land Use Element for the City of San
Bernardino Which was subsequentely adopted by the Mayor and Common Council
via Resolution No, 7336 on August 17, 1964; and,
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission conducted a
legally advertised and announced public hearing on an amendment to the
General Plan (General Plan Amendment No, 85-2) Land Use Element on June 4,
1985: June 18, 1985; and July 16, 1985; and
WHEREAS, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, complete with an Initial Study
relating to Amendment No, 85-2, has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
'and local regula~ions; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of Amendment No, 85-2 in accordance with Exhibit
VII, (Alternative No, 4) is deemed in the interest of the orderly develop-
ment of the City and is consistend with the Goals and Objectives of the
existing General Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO hereby adopts Resolution No, 85-~ and recommends
to the Mayor and Common Council adoption via said resolution pertaining to
General Plan Amendment No, 85-2, that the Land Use Element of the General
Plan of the City of San Bernardino be amended by changing the approximately
618,3+ acres bounded by Etiwanda Avenue on the north, the City of San Ber-
nardino City Limits on the west (generally Eucalyptus and Pepper), Rialto
Avenue on the south, and Rancho Avenue and the Lytle Cajon Flood Control
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
area on the east, as'Olilled ~n the maQntitled Exhibit VB, a copy otO
Which ,is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, from General
Commercial, Industrial, Medium-High Density Residential (15-36 du/ac),
Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac), Medium-Low Density Residential
(4-7 du/ac), and Open and Conservation (Flood Control) designations to
General Commercial, Commercial-Industrial, Public/Quasi-Public, Medium-Low
Density Residential (4-7 du/ac), Medium Density Residential (8-14 du/ac),
Open and Conservation (Flood Control) designations,
I, HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the 16th day of July 1985, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
Christie, Flores, Knowles, Lightburn, Lopez
Shaw, Watson, Vincent
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
,
"
Cutler
~ -- . \
.\'t""'S \t ,,",,("J.. '~o:\,r,-
~cretary t
The foregoing
Jul v, 1985
, '
reso 1 uti on is hereby approved thi s 16th day of
~
/
<,...: ' k/' z:;/
/ ,-', . ," _ i 'n,,,,,, '
..~. ,:,.,-.tt\".J, .. . :,..c...~".'(.... ,
P ann1ng Comm1 Slon Cha1rman
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO PL NNING DEPARTMEN
G.P.A. SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 7/1h/P,~
WARD 3
- ....,
APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino
UJ I niti a ted
(/) General Plan Amendment No, 85-2
4 OWNER: Various
(,)
-
Subject property includes 618+ acres bounded by Etiwanda Avenue on the --------
north, the City of San Bernardino City Limits on the west, Ria1to
Avenue on the south, and Rancho Avenue and the Lytle/Cajon Flood
Control area on the east,
The proposal is to evaluate amending the General Plan from the current
General Commercial, General Industrial, Medium High Density
Residential (15-36), Medium Density Residential (8-14), Medium Low
Density Residential (4-7), and Open and Conservation (Flood Control)
designations to the following designations:
General Commercial, Public/Quasi-Public, Medium Low Density
Residential (4-7), Medium Density Residential (8-14), Open and
Conservation (Flood Control) or other designations that the legisla-
tive body may deem appropriate,
....
(/)
UJ
j
0
UJ
a::
....
4
UJ
a::
4
,
~
~UIII .., 0,
1.l'.A. PO_ C
_1101'1
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
West
EXISTING
LAND USE
Residential (S.F., M.F"
mobilehomes), commercial,
public uses, industrial
and vacant.
Si ngle-fami ly resi denti aI,
Flood Control
Single-family, mobile-
homes, vacant
Flood Control, Indus-
trial, Residential,
vacant
Residential, commercial,
public uses, vacant
HIGH FIRE
HAZARD ZONE
DVES
fia NO
ZONING
Various
(see Exh i bi t I I )
R-l, "0"
R-l, R-2, R-3,
PRO, C-2, C-3A
110", M-l,M-2,
C-M, C-3A
City of Ri alto
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Vari ous
(see Exh i bi t I II )
Medium-Low (4-7),
Open
General Commercial,
Medium Density (8-14)
Open, General
Commercial, General
I ndustri a 1
City of Ri alto
( SEWERS ~ ~~S )
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE
aVES
DNO
FLOOD HAZARD ~VES fiaZONE A
ZONE xfl NO OZONE B
..J
;!
Z",
bJCl)
::Ez
z-
OO
a::Z
:;iL
z
bJ
....NE ... ..,
AIRPORT NOISE / D VES
CRASH ZONE x1UNO
D POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MiTiGATiNG
MEASURES NO E,I.R,
o E,IR, REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATiNG
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E,R, C,
MINUTES
o NOT
APPLICABLE
o EXEMPT
EaNO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
z
o
-
ti
lLO
lLl5
~2
",2
o
u
bJ
a::
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ARE^
DVES
Xi! NO
APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
o DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
"P,A, fORIII C
PAGE 2 Of 2
.cITY OF SAN BERN
DINO PLA
ING DEPARTMENT
CASE GPA NO. 85-2
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1
7/16/85
1
1, In August, 1984 the Planning Commission directed staff to analyze
possible changes to the existing General Plan for the study area.
Issues of concern included the dominance of strip commercial along
Foothill and the density of the residential designations, specifically
the 8 to 14 and 15 to 36 dwelling units per acre designations (see
Exhi bit III).
2. In March, 1985, after analyzing the preliminary alternatives prepared
by staff, the Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment No,
85-2 and directed staff to file and process the application,
3. Currently, two cases are pending the outcome of General Plan Amendment
No. 85-2, They are:
(1) Chanqe of Zone No, 84-17: From C-3A to R-3-l200 on the north side
of Foothill between Dallas and Macy Streets. This case has been
continued by the Planning Commission until September 17, 1985,
(2) Conditional Use Permit No. 85-20: A mini-storage facility in the
C-3A zone located on the south side of Foothill, west of Macy
Street. This case was denied by the Planning Commission on May
8, 1985 and has been appealed to the June IS, 1985 Mayor and
Common Council meeting.
4. GPA 85-2 was originally scheduled before the Planning Commission on June
4, 1985, It has been continued until this date in order to accomodate
two community meetings, The meetings were held June 6 and June 26; the
purpose of the meeti ngs was to fami Ii ari ze area resi dents wi th the
issues and to receive input from the community. Approximately 60
people total were in attendance.
The Planning Department presented Alternatives 1,2 and 3 and compared
these options to the existing General Plan, A variety of issues and
concerns were discussed, These included the deletion of the industial
area and the commercial along Foothill east of Terrace; apartment
development, especially low income, Section 8 housing; mini-storage
uses; and infrastructure concerns.
Generally, the people in attendance supported Alternative No.1. Most
in attendance felt, however, that the industrial area should remain in
commercial-industrial uses, The residents expressed concerns about:
The noise generated from the Railroad and Fourth Street Rock, the
topography of the site (which is generally floodplain), and the status
of the existing commercial/industrial areas. As a result of these
concerns, Alternative 4, the Community Alternative, was developed,
j
-
o
.cITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CPA NO. 85-2
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM ]
HEARING DATE 7/l6/W,
PAGE 4
5. The existing General Plan was adopted on August 17, 1964, The land
use designations and their respective acres are outlined in Table I,
Also delineated in Table I are the acreages of the existing land uses
and of the various land use designations proposed in the Alternatives.
The primary difference between the existing General Plan and the pro-
posed alternative is the 14.4% reduction in commercial acreage. To
compensate for this, the acreage designated residential was
increased, especi ally in the Medi um Low (4-7) category, along wi th a
less significant increase in the Open Space category. The proposed
Alternatives 1,2,3 and 4 are displayed in Exhibits IV, V, VI and VII
respectively.
6. Staff prepared an initial environmental assessment to evaluate the
impacts the proposed changes would have on the environment, At the
Environmental Review Committee meeting of May 2, 1985, the Committee
determined that the project would not have a significant effect upon
the environment. The following environmental issues, however, warrant
di scussi on.
A, Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
The northeastern portion of the project is located within the
Special Study Zone of the San Jacinto Fault. A geologic report was
prepared for residential development in July, 1977, No active evi-
dence of fault rupture was found. The Creek is located within the
boundaries of the Special Studies Zone and future excavation of the
creek may requi re additional analysi s and mitigation.
B. Mineral Resource Zones
The State Mining and Geology Board has designated Mineral Resource
Zones for the San Bernardino Region. One of the targeted areas is
located in the wash area of Lytle Creek. The existing and proposed
Open Space designation recognizes this non-renewable natural
resource.
C. Flood Zone A
The boundaries of the identified lOa-year flood areas (Zone A) are
confined to the Lytle/Cajon Flood Control area on the eastern
boundary.
CITY OF SAN BERN
DINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE f'P' lIIn A'?
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1
7/16/85
5
D. Schools
.,
At first glance it may appear that the increased residential
acreage would adversely impact the school districts that serve the
project area. However, as exhibited in the Evaluation Matrix
(Table 2), the number of students generated by the alternatives is
less than the students generated with implementation of the
existing General Plan. Based upon the existing land uses, imple-
mentation of either the existing General Plan or the alternatives
would increase the student population in the project area, Impacts
resulting from future residential projects would be addressed and
mitigated at the development stage.
E. Traffi c
The average daily trips generated by the Existing General Plan are
93,826. Existin9 development results in 34,564 average daily
trips. Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 generate 46,834, 47,738, 49,138
and 47,890 average daily trips respectively. The impact of these
proposals is significantly less than the current general plan impact.
F, Utilities
The impacts of the proposed Alternatives for all utilities
(electricity, natural gas, water consumption, waste water genera-
tion, and solid waste generation) are significantly less than those
tabulated for the Existing General Plan (refer to Table 2), Among
the four alternatives, however, the utility usage varies very
li ttle.
The utility usage proposed in either the Existing General Plan or
the Alternatives is, however, greater than the current estimated
utility usage for the project area. This difference can be attri-
buted to the 26.6% of the site that is currently vacant,
Development of the vacant acreage in accordance with the General
Plan or the Alternatives would thereby increase utility usage.
It shoul d be noted th at the i niti a 1 envi ronmenta 1 assessment is not
designed as a master environmental assessment and individual develop-
ment projects may be required to perform additional studies identifying
appropriate mitigating measures.
7, The Alternatives recognize the dominance of single-family residential
uses in the area, especially north of Foothill, Alternatives 2 and 3
differ from Alternative 1 in that they increase the acreage available
for the Medium Density (8 to 14 du/acre) land use designation,
\..
,
o 0
-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CPA No R'i-7
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1
7/1f..1P..r;
6
In Alternative 2 the 8 to 14 is located adjacent to the north side of
Foothill and west of Rancho Avenue south of Foothill, in an area
currently designated for Industrial. The increased density at these
sites would stimulate the transition from Commercial to Residential and
from Industrial to Residential, and provide more creative opportunities
for noise mitigation treatment.
Alternative 3 proposes additional Medium Density Residential along
Rialto Avenue in an area of scattered single-family residences and
mobilehome developments. The 8 to 14 designation could encourage a
transition from mobilehome developments to apartments or condominiums
more rapidly than a 4 to 7 land use designation, Omnitrans currently
has a bus route on Rialto Avenue between Pepper and Rancho that could
service the increased population in this area.
Alternative 4 retains a commercial-industrial designation of 40,55
acres. The remaining development is designated single family residen-
tial, except for those sites currently developed as apartments.
8. It should be noted that all of the land use alternatives necessitate a
change inexisting land uses. This is especially true of the commer-
cial and industrial uses, Many of the existing commercial uses are
currently vacant, others are marginal in appearane, Although the
industrial uses are located near railraod access other locations in the
City, especially redevelopment project areas, provide greater oppor-
tunities for industrial development, Alternative 4 does provide for
the retention of commercial-industrial uses along the easterly portion
of the project. The proposed alternati ves are, however, compati ble wi th
existing residential development; approximately 52% of the project area
is developed in residential land uses.
9. One of the dominant land use features of the study area are the various
rai lroad tracks that transect the project. Noise mitigation measures
would have to be incorporated into any proposed residential develop-
ment. The Medium Density (8-14) designation generally provides greater
flexibility for appropriate mitigation.
10. The proposed Public/Quasi-Public designation recognizes the existing
park, fire station and Southern California Edison facility, This
designation is proposed in all three Alternatives,
11. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment would require a city ini-
tiated Change of Zone. Depending upon the Alternative ultimately
approved, the Planning Department, at the direction of the Planning
Commission and the Mayor and Common Council, should process a zone
ch ange to ensure development in accordance wi th GPA 85-2,
'"
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CPA NO. 85-2
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1
7/16/85
7
CONCLUSIONS
1. Based on the analysis, Staff finds that the proposed Alternatives are
consistent with other portions of the General Plan. In Staff's opinion
Alternative 4 would best ",..meet the ultimate needs of the community
when developed to capacity." Specifically, Alternative 4 would
"encourage and promote ba 1 anced and di versi fi ed future urban deve 1 op-
ment".
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment to Medium Low Residential (4-7),
Medium Density Residential (8-14), General Commmercia1, Commercial-
Industrial, Public/Quasi-public, and Open (Flood Control) (in accor-
dance with Alternati ve 4, Exhi bit VII) is compati ble wi th the exi sti ng
residential land uses.
3. Alternative 4 would provide opportunities to stimulate reinvestment and
encourage the transition of commercial, and vacant land uses in the
area.
4, The environmental constraints that may exist on the site do not
directly impact this project, Any development of this site, however,
would need specific mitigation measures applied,
RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends adoption of the negative declaration and adoption of
Resolution No. 85- 2 approving General Plan Amendment No. 85-2,
A lternat i ve 4 as per Exh i bit VI I .
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
,;'udt... I .>>>1, I
PAULA MCG~
AssociatelPlanner
.
o
'"
,
co
co
o
z:
>-
z:
W
:E
o
z:
W
:E
<(
z:
<(
-'
"-
-'
<(
'"
W
z:
W
'"
Q)
.c
'"
>-
..,. ..
Q)
>
~
'"
"
~ ~
Q) Q)
~ ~
u
<(<(
M"
Q)
>
~
'"
"
~ ~
Q) Q)
~ ~
U
<(<(
'" ..
Q)
>
~
'"
"
~ ~
Q) Q)
~ ~
U
<(<(
~
"
o
-..
Q)
>
~
'"
"
~ ~
Q)Q)
~~
U
<(<(
~
'"
"
U
'"
U
Q)
0>
'"
Q)
~
U
<(
c..
'"
"-
'"
~
Q)
"
Q)
'"
0>
"
I ~ ~
~Q)
~~~ .
Q)"
~
=>
."
"
'"
-'
0>
"
~~
~ Q)
~
" U
W<(
z:
o
W>-
V><(
CO> z:
'"
0_
z: V>
<(W
-'0
....
~
"
Q)
."
~
Q)
'"
co
'"
~
0>
M
CO
.,.
.,.
co
'"
CO
.,.
~
.,.
'"
M
~
co
'"
.,.
~ M
.,. '"
'" CO
.,.
0>
0> '"
~
.,. -
0>
CO CO
CO
.,.
0> '"
M .,.
M '"
~
M
0>
o
'"
~
CO
M
~
0>
o
'"
'"
~
,
.,.
~
o
-'
E
"
al
:E
0>
'"
-
-
'"
-
co
0>
'"
M
'"
CO
M
M
M
o
'"
CO
.,.
,
CO
E
"
."
Q)
:E
.,.
'"
M
CO
<0
~
0>
'"
co
'"
M
,
CO
-
~
0>
I
E
"
'0
Q)
:E
M
M
'"
'"
CO
~
~
o
I
Q)
.c
o
:E
o
'"
'"
co
'"
~
-
co
'"
co
'"
~
co
'"
co
'"
~
co
'"
co
'"
.....
'"
~
'"
M
<0
<>
o
co
0>
M
'"
U
~
Q)
~
o
u
'"
~
Q)
"
Q)
'"
.,.
.,.
-
.,.
~
'"
.,.
.,.
.,.
~
'"
.,.
.,.
.,.
.....
'"
.,.
.,.
.,.
~
'"
.,.
M
co
CO
o
'"
u
.c
"
"-
,
~
'"
"
o
---
u
.c
"
"-
<0
'"
co
CO
o
.,.
M
o
'"
o
'"
....
L
~
~
"
."
"
..
'"
U
~
Q)
~
o
u
o
0>
CO
o
.,.
<0
M
co
'"
~
CO
'"
'"
';:
~
~
"
."
C
Q)
U
'"
0.
V>
"
Q)
0.
o
'"
<>
-
o
'"
<0
'"
co
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
co
o
o
'"
'"
'"
co
o
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
'"
'"
M
~
M
co
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
L
~
"
o
U
'0
o
0.
...
L
..
r
~
o
co
.c
'"
'"
'"
co
M
0>
.,.
'"
."
'"
o
~
~
"
'"
U
'"
:>
'"
'"
:)
o
o
'"
-
-
M
CO
-
'"
o
o
o
M
co
'"
o
o
<>
M
co
'"
1
I
i
,
o
o
o
M
co
'"
o
o
o
M
co
'"
o
'"
o
M
co
'"
-'
<(
>-
o
>-
Utilities
--
Elec. Consumption ( kwh day) 131,834 379,964
Gas Consumption (c. f. / day) 797,462 2,078,933 1,
Water Consumption (GPD) 1,336,426 3,355,531 2,
Waste Water Generation (GPD) 620,357 1,546,082 I
il,
i
Solid Waste Generation (lbs./day) 41,652 128,597 l
--~~_..~.~-~- -.-._----~ -~- _._------~- --_.._--
.
Q
Item
- -------. ----
- --- -----
Number of Dwelling Unit~
7u/ac
14u/ac
36u/ ac
Mobi1ehomes
TOTAL:
Population
Residents (2.6 persons/SFR)
(2.2 persons/MFR)
Students (0.78/SFR)
K-12 (0.71 MFR)
Traffic Generation (ADT)
Residential (SFR>: 10/unit
Residential (MFR): 6/unit
Commercial: 40 trips/1000 s.f. 9fa
Public/Quasi-Public: 3 trips/emp.
Industrial: 55 trips/1000 s.f. gfa
TOTAL ADT:
993 1,465 : 3,422
I
--------- 2,1281 253
668
2,765 .
845 ---------
o
o
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2
Table 2
Evaluation Matrix
Ex; sti ng
Land Use
Ex; sti ng
Gen. Plan
2,506
6,358
5,910
14,574
1,848
4,616
9,930 14,650
9.078 29,358
13 ,586 46,330
1,498 ---------
472 3,488
34,564 93,826
:)
A1t.
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
2.973
2,273
3,139
253
1,152
2,552
3,675 I 4,125 4,~_~
I
9,454 10,2641 11 ,524 8,7
2,848 3,584 2,4
3,137 I
r- t-
34,220 29,730 22,730 I 31,3
I
1,518 6,912 15,312 I 1,5
I
7,514 7,514 7,514 7,5
I
, ,
3,582 _~~~~~J 3,582 i 3,5
,
,
------ ------ I 3,8
i I
46,834 47,7381 49,138 I 47,8
I
157,738 158,782 160,392 251,0
242,701 1,250,944 1,263,544 1,234, :
067,643 2,237,827 2,502,427 1,983,7
045,461 1,108,531 1,206,531 1,001,5
50,508 52,813 60,225 79,5
~,
92
18
48
90
18
14
82
86
90
79
l89
79
48
81
. , :)
C'I
I
It)
co
1-
c :!lJ' ~, -.. !Z -
N T CJ
. .
W Z
~ I I- z
, 0
,0 -
:0 . w m N
2 l-
e - z
.
, %: w
u z a:
~ >< a:
;:)
W (J
..J
e
a:
w
~ z
~ w
,
u CJ
1-.' ; ti_
.
~~ ~
,
u
T C
. . ~
. u , ! j" -l ~
~ lil. S
, ~- . -l Q
u ~
... :0
'IA" ~ e t;
,.. ~ ""0 fj ~
..; j" & ... ::. -lJ
, .. ! , c ~ Z S~
, - ~ . . c ~ CI:
" ~ ~ . . E
I ~ ~~
~ v 0 ~
. ~ -l
c L- ao
> :::. ~
c . e -l a!i
c> !a ~ ""
IQ e ::>
;;; .. ~ :s: ;ll IE ~:5
. , .. ""
. C ~ ::l:S:
. i \D
~ 'f -<;'
0 ... , E
~ <.J oJ :Iii
I ;- -ti I
J.__ c llilriliii
...
/1: l!:a:" f
T ~ -ti-
-'. ~r- -- . i ~~~~~
- If --e
~J~~~
....
.....t o':'~5~
-.D
:z
~ i!i ~~
'f!A ~
11
, ... .1
. It:ri:f
If: It: 0 Ii
:II
. . ~
C\I
. I
I FLORJ~ E-o
E-oO Vl It)
VlO
"'N X co
.... E-o
... ...
YL- ... - W
x
- E-o VANIA Z - rn
0 w :J
z 2 Q
Q t- z
z - <
w m ...I
~ 2 ...
< -
::a: z
z w
< >< a:
..I a:
A. W :J
0
...I
<
~
W
Z
w
C
U
..J
, lD
I- ::::>
U a..
.. ... <{
..J l.L Cf)
<{ ::::> ..J <{
U Z <{ ::::>
<{ 0
... a: ::E a: "-
w I- U
.. ::E
::E Cf) ..J
::E ::E ::::> lD
0 0 0 ::::>
u u Z a..
. ~ ~
,....., .. ....
..J .
. ::::
0 .
.
- . ....
r- a: . ....
,
I- Cf) ~
z w
0 a: Cf) a..
U >- w <{
I ..J a: a..
..J 0 ::E >- w
0 <{ ..J ::E
-'1 0 l.L ::E 0
..J I
lJ.. W <{
~ ..J l.L ..J
Q '" Z ~ C) I lD
z ... E-o W a: ..J
.0: :c u a.. <{ z ::::> 0
~ E-o "'"
... 0 It;5 0 a.. Cf) ::E ::E
E-o 0
'" ... 0:
U-:l ~I rn II ~
.- 11
~ .. .;,0 ,I
. ;.";.
-"
u .'
'", ',,'.;. ~
.0: '~.'~ ..
'" '"
, .
("II z
I FLORd~ ... I 0
... 1Il II) i=
1Il
'" :I: <(
... CO
'" ~ Z
.., '" Cl
..
u YL- - (j)
:I: 1Il t- -
- ... VANIA W
'" Z - a
0 w
z :E z
a t- <(
Z ..J
- Q.
W In
:E ..J
<( - <(
:J: a:
z w
C >< Z
..J W
A. W CJ
..J t-
<( Z
IlC W
W a:
z a:
w :)
CJ 0
...J LU
<( ...J U
U <( <(
a: a: a-
LU I- en
~ en z
~ ::> LU
0 0 a-
U Z 0
...
~ ~
>~,
, .
'C
- ,......
r- ,...... <0
,...... .". ('I)
""'- T""" ,
I , II)
.". co T"""
'-' '-' '-'
I ...J ...J ...J
.J CJ_ <( <( <(
-~ I Il l- I- I-
Z Z Z
LU LU LU
0 0 0
Q .., -
z ... ... en en en
.. :I: U LU LU LU
3: ... !<Xl
... 0 ..... a: a: a:
...
'" 0 "'"
.. '"
u...> [ill~1
......
~
u ....
..
'"
,
C'\lI
,",0 '"' I
'"
"'0 II)
"'''' :r:
-< ... CO
'" ..,.
.., " ...
'"
u ,
:r: "'-< 'iL- >
- ... I-
VANIA Z
0 - ..
z W
~ III
0 t- >
z -
w - ...
~ ~ CO c
c Z
- a:
z :I: III
C ...
... >< ...
Q. W C
...
c
a:
w
z
w
c:J
.. ... 0
,..
... ~
.. ~ CO
... <( :::>
,.. 0 c..
..
.. ...... 0: C/)
... UJ <(
... ~ :::>
.., ~ a
.. 0 ......
.. 0 0
z :J
co
UJ :::>
CJ c..
~
..
..
.
r- .
I
-.1 UJ
0
-'1 ...... <(
...... '=I'
I"- ,.... c..
I , C/)
'=I' eX)
Cl '-' '-' z
z ,
'" ... C/) C/) UJ
:3 u UJ UJ c..
... "'"
... ...... 0: 0: 0
'" =
0:
u..:> ~
- ~ i
..... I
HD: :II
u
'" ... .' Ii
0.. ...~.
..
,
-
, ,
r-
I
-1
-'1
"
2:
..:
3
...
E-o
'"
:t:
E-o
o
2:
E-oO
"'0
w'"
...
'"
... "
..:
u .
"'...
bo~LJ
ICARd
..
'.'
..
.. ... ...
.. : ..
... ".
~:
.. l1.l:
.. ..
..
E-o
'"
:t:
...
.,.
0
C\I
I
It)
CO
...
~ >
Z N
III
::E III
Q I- >
z -
III - t-
::E m C
C Z
- a:
z J: III
C >< t-
... ...
A. W C
...
c
a:
III
Z
III
C
()
...J
...J CO
<( ::>
() a..
a: CJ)
L.U
~ <(
~ ::>
0 0
"-
() ()
Z ...J
CO
UJ ::>
C) a..
YL-
VANIA
Cl1lL.
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
UJ
.-.. ()
.-.. "" <(
,.... .- a..
I , CJ)
"" CO
... '-' '-' Z
... ,
:t: E-o CJ) CJ) UJ
E-o u L.U UJ a..
8 we
- a: a: 0
.. =
0:
u,..:, ~ ~ I
...... ~
""" ~
.
- -'
u
..: ~
..
"
,
o
-
'"
E-<
o
Z
E-<O
UlO
W'"
....
W
.., "
..;
U
Ul....
, ,
r-
I
.J
-~I
"
z
..;
3
...
E-<
W
MU
I FLORJ~
ICARd
'..
.. : : :
...
..
.. '..
.. :
'" : ..
EO:
" lI:"
.. ..,
'"
Ul
'"
E-<
.,.
..,
H
'"
E-<
o
o
..
E-<
U
"'"
"""
we
a:
'-"-'
HH
"-<
>-e>::
u
..;
..
). YL-
VANIA
~
C\I
I
It)
CO
...
~ -
Z > t')
ILl
:E ILl
0 >
z I- -
ILl I-
:E - c
c m z
- a:
z ::I: ILl
C I-
..J >< ..J
A. C
..J W
c
a:
ILl
Z
ILl
CJ
0
...J
...J en
<: ::::>
0 a..
"-
a: en
UJ
~ <:
::::>
~ 0
0 "-
0 0
Z ...J
en
UJ ::::>
C) a..
... m
..
..
.. ..
..
.. ..
.. .
..
.......
r--
,
v
'-'
cr.i
UJ
a:
.......
v
~
,
co
'-'
,
UJ
o
<:
a..
en
z
UJ
a..
o
en
UJ
a:
~.. ~ ~"
::: (<0'.
n~.;.s.
. . . .. ,~ I.,
~
-
.
,I
~
..
I
I
" 0
C\I
lE!-r,JL.,~ ,., I
"'0 II) It)
11)0
"" c, '" CO
~ I GARd ~. ,.,
"" ." 'to
.., "
..
u , YL- ~
'" II)~ -
- ,., VANIA Z - ..
0 IU >
z 2 IU
0 I- >
z -
..
IU - C
ClliL 2 m z
c - II:
Z J: IU
C >< ..
.... ....
A. W C
....
C
II:
IU
Z
IU
CJ
r-
I
.J
-'1
o
z
..
3:
...
,.,
""
()
:::i
.....J en
<{ ::>
() a.. ~
~ CC en en
l.U <{ ::>
~ ::> Cl
~ a z
0 ...... ...
() () ~
:::i ~
Z en
l.U ::> 0
C) a.. ()
.......
.. ... ~
....... .. ...
..
.. ...
...... :: ...
.. ...
.. ...
..
MU
..,
H
:I:
Ii-<
o
o
...
Ii-<
u
"-lCl
"""
"'0
0:
u,.;,
>+<
~
U
..
..
,...... ,......
,.... "t
, T-
~ ~
u5 en
Ii! ~
rn~
l.U
()
<{
a..
en
z
l.U
a..
o
~
.
.
,II
~
"
< -
c
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE __r..P,A. IIfl~-2
;(1 ,,( ,,'J
1
\"
HEARING DATE
\"
_('L.u. _._ J I ~I _
-Jf' ,--,''''''''',. -' U II '1'[' "...".., I,"" I,
--I- I. '. ' .. \'
-J" "J j~' '~~ .,~~>, , ,,\
. ,"_ r: -D:SiiE~~~< ,', '\',.
__I,~~_-=:---=-J --::-:-,:rn=.::...:..::::, \\. I \
l,r l:i [r,'\,i~"";-:,n-r;'I":~',',',\\:;"":", \
0_ _ L______ _ 'I I. j ,~=.C - ""Ll ',' \1 \ '~\'
--; II '~------
i~l
,"0"
,W)
\ '
L_'",
\-- ~
!
/
~~1""
"::J'
.." I
~ll '.
'~-~ij':;'~"";'
7-::1 . '"
",-, ,,' r;:',~I_:~ 02'/0 ~H' ,,'
I L:.:.:,_ _<~~
iC ,.-.- - :'~':{ ~rjr
~. ~i~"t;;~.. - - ~FJI~J;"('ii
-::: to!: "'f'~' L~ J ., :~ "~o " ''L'' lj 1
1rlr'l(r~--~' I ;~:":~~""., Ir:Yr:;:'~~: 1\"1 I
'c
.,-
, c-" \'_
, 'Idt~' .', C\
~.\ ,~LCb~'
::I-,,\A"['
,,' q" 7::fL'" '\" ~-'"
,L ~,'~,Jl f'l"~6;
r---/- - 'I j ,- ----
l_ 'M-I
R'~ i ~
1 :;;; 1-:::- ;~;al :.:::
k-,
, -
c
o LUTHER T. FAIR 0
2505 W. Foothill Blvd., Sp. 101
San Bernardino, Ca. 92410
714-888-0854
o
$
--
en
n
,-n
~
~
B
~
July 23, 1985
(;J
-J
Han. Mayor Wilcox
and Common Counci.l
300 North "D" Street
SWl Bernardino, Ca.
Re: Planning CCIl1lIIission's
Amendment to the
General Plan
fronorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
I wish to appeal the General Plan Amendment No. 85-2 (Alternative No.4)
adapted and recommended to you, the council, the evening of July 16, 1985.
While I and many others do not disagree altogether with the proposed changes,
we feel a modification of No. 4 to include some of the proposals set forth
in the other alternatives, merits your consideration.
I and other owners on Rialto Avenue believe adoption of Alternative No. 4
would be counter-productive. The property in most instances between Rialto
Avenue and the P.E. Railroad to the north is approximately 500 feet deep and
could not be converted by the owners to R-1.
Sincerel'.},
-4~'-/~j/. '
LUTHER T .-FAIR
ce. ""lll'l.':_