HomeMy WebLinkAboutR39-Economic Development Agency
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FROM:
Gary Van Osdel
Executive Director
SUBJECT:
OR1GlNAL
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA PLAN AMENDMENT-
EMINENT DOMAIN -
REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
_Q.~TE~__~ugust 10, 2004 ______]>OM~_________________
Svnoosis of Previous CommissionlCouociVCommittee Action(s):
On January 24, 2000, the Connnunity Development Commission authorized the Executive Director to prepare plan
amendments to reinstate eminent domain in the Central City North, Central City South, Central City East, Uptown and
Meadowbrook Project Areas.
On July 1,2002, the Mayor and Connnon Council adopted a resolution for the procedures for the formation and election
of a Project Area Committee for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment for the Uptown Project Area and calling
for the formation of a Project Area Committee (pAC).
On October 21, 2002, the Mayor and Connnon Council adopted resolutions modifying the PAC procedures and the
scope of the proposed plan amendment to reinstate eminent domain for all properties located within the Uptown Project
Area.
On May 5, 2003, the Mayor and Connnon Council adopted a resolution acknowledging the results of an election of
Project Area Committee members and rmding that all applicable procedures were followed in the election of the Project
Area Committee for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
On June 7, 2004, the Connnunity Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino adopted a resolution setting a
date and time, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.rn. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to reinstate the powers of
eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
On June 7, 2004, the Mayor and Connnon Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted a resolution setting a date and
time, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.rn. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to reinstate the powers of eminent
domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
On July 19, 2004, a Joint Public Hearing of the Mayor and Connnon Council of the City of San Bernardino was held to
consider an Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Plan and Certification of the Environmental Impact
_~!?EL- ___________________________________________________________
Recommended Motion(s):
(Community Develooment CommissionlMavor and Common Council)
Contact Person(s):
Gary Van OsdeVMike Trout
Uptown
Phone:
(909) 663-1044
1,2 and 7
Project Area(s)
Ward(s):
Supporting Data Attached: Ii"! Staff Report Ii"! Resolution(s) Ii"! Ordinance Ii"! Map(s) Ii"! Letters/Misc.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Amount: $
N/A
Source:
N/A
N/A
SIGNATURE:
get Authority:
1Z~:e c~/?oo1'd.s
CfX'-1 2004 - 2"
'2.CI"'\- 2.(., <;
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/16/2004
Agenda Item Nnmber: R.Jq
P:\Agendas\Comrn Dev Conunission\CDC 2004\04-08-16 Uptown SR.doc
THAT SAID RESOLUTIONS BE ADOPTED AND THAT SAID ORDINANCE BE LAID OVER
FOR FINAL ADOPTION.
MOTION A: RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSffiLE AGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS.
MOTION B: RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ON
THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
MOTION C: RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS
TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN.
MOTION D: ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
-------------------------------------------------------- -----------
P:\AsCJldas\Comm Dev CommisSKln\CDC 2004\04-08-16 Uptown SR.doe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/1612004
Agenda Item Nnmber: R 3 ~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
Uptown Redevelopment Proiect Area Plan Amendment-
Eminent Domain - Reinstatement of Eminent Domain
BACKGROUND:
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area was established on June 18, 1986 and encompasses 433
acres that are divided into two (2) Subareas. Subarea "A" has 349 acres and Subarea "8" has 84
acres. With the improving local economy, the Agency is seeing increasing development interest
within the project area. In recognition of this trend, it is important for the Agency to have a variety of
tools available to assist redevelopment. One of the most effective tools for redevelopment is the
power of eminent domain. However, the power of eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area expired on June 18, 1998.
On January 24, 2000, the Mayor and Common Council authorized the initiation of an amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan to re-establish the power of eminent domain over only
those properties that are within non-residential land use districts in the General Plan or are currently
being used for non-residential purposes.
On July I, 2002, the Mayor and Common Council approved and adopted the procedures to be used
for the formation of a PAC for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and calling upon the citizens
of the City to participate in the PAC.
On July 15, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the July 25, 2002 public workshop on the
proposed amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
On July 25, 2002, Agency staff conducted a public information workshop to present the proposed
amendment, explain the amendment process, and answer questions of the attendees. This workshop
was announced by mailed notices to the property owners and site addresses in the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area.
On August 27, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the September 10, 2002 Project Area
Committee election for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
On September 10, 2002, Agency staff conducted a PAC formation election for the purpose of creating
a PAC from property owners, residences and business owners within the Uptown Project Area.
However, the election did not take place due to the fact that there was not a sufficient nwnber ofP AC
applications submitted.
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev CornmisJion\CDC 2004\04-0&-16 Uptown SR.OOc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/1612004
Agenda Item Nnmber: ~
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 2
October 21,2002, the Mayor and Common Council modified the PAC procedures and the scope of
the proposed plan amendment to reinstate eminent domain over all properties within the Uptown
Project Area. The proposed amendment would reinstate the power of eminent domain for a period of
twelve (12) years.
Reinstating eminent domain in this project area and the Central City North Project Area has the
potential to result in direct physical changes in the environment by enabling the Mercado Santa Fe,
the San Bernardino Old Towne, and other expected projects to proceed. It is also reasonably
foreseeable that cumulatively significant impacts will result from the combined construction of
several smaller projects now in various stages of implementation. These include the widening of 1-
215, the construction of senior citizen housing projects, the construction of an elementary school and
other development projects. Due to the potential environmental and traffic impacts that may result
from these project area plan amendments a Program EIR is required as opposed to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The most notable environmental issues would likely be
transportation/circulation, air quality, and changes in land use.
On November 18,2002, the Community Development Commission adopted a resolution authorizing
the execution of an agreement for professional services for the preparation of a Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related traffic study.
On December 10, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the December 18, 2002 community
meeting concerning the Initial Study and input concerning the scope of the Environmental Impact
Report for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
On December 18, 2002, Agency staff conducted a combined Uptown and Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area community meeting to introduce the environmental consultant and to
provide draft copies of the Initial Study which stated that since the proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment, a environmental impact report was required.
On February 10, 2003, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the February 20, 2003 PAC information
meeting and the April I, 2003 Project Area Committee election for the Uptown Redevelopment
Proj ect Area
On February 20, 2003, Agency staff conducted another PAC formation meeting to discuss the need
and importance of the PAC. Those attending this meeting were encouraged to participate and were
given PAC applications to fill out.
On March 12, 2003, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the March 26, 2003 scoping meeting for
the Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area informing the
community of the scope of the Environmental Impact Report and take comments from the public.
P:\Agcndall\Conun Dcv CommiIIsion\CDC 2004\04-0&-16 Uptown SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/16/2004
Agenda Item Number: tt
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 3
On March 26, 2003, Agency staff and the EIR consultant held a combined community scoping
meeting for both Uptown and Central City North project areas to receive input from the community
concerning possible alternatives and the development of the EIR. For the next several weeks Agency
staff and the EIR consultant worked together to develop the required alternatives in addition to the
principal project description.
A normal schedule for the effort would result in completion and certification of the EIR in March or
April 2004. However, due to a turnover in personnel with the EIR consultant, the related traffic
studies that would accompany the EIR slipped past the initial deadline. This resulted in the
completion and certification schedule to be increased by four months.
On April 1, 2003, Agency staff conducted the PAC formation election in which six (6) individuals
were elected thereby forming a PAC for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area. The election was
over seen by the City Clerk's Office. Subsequently, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a
resolution, on May 5, 2003, acknowledging the results of the Uptown PAC election.
Though a PAC had been elected, the PAC held no meetings since there were no preliminary
documents concerning the proposed text amendment or the Draft EIR for review. However, once
these documents were available for review PAC meetings began in March 2004 to discuss the text
amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan, the Initial Study and the Draft EIR.
On July 6, 2004, Uptown PAC voted to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council and the
Community Development Commission to adopt the 2004 Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area Plan reinstating eminent domain within the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
On July 19, 2004, the Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission of
the City of San Bernardino held a Joint Public Hearing in which these were written and oral
objections received concerning the adoption of an Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Plan. The public hearing was closed and the items were continued to August 16,2004 to provide
staff sufficient time to prepare written responses as required by the California Redevelopment Law
("CRL").
The Uptown Redevelopment Project was adopted in 1986. Conditions of blight which existed at the
time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan were extensive and substantial. The Redevelopment
Project Area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") remains blighted today. One
tool which the Agency may use to address conditions of blight in appropriate situations - the exercise
of eminent domain - lapsed in the Project Area in 1998. The proposed Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan will reinstate the power of the Agency to acquire land by eminent domain for
twelve (12) years.
The Project Area includes deteriorated commercial frontage lots abutting either side of several
principal streets in the center of the City. Comparatively little residential use property is in included
in the Project Area although it estimated that more than 2,000 individuals may reside in the Project
Area. In an older commercial area such as the Project Area where small substandard lot sizes are so
P:\Agendas\Comm Dcv Commission\CDC 2004\04-08-16 Uptown SRdoe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/16/2004
Agenda Item Nnmber: ~
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 4
prevalent, an important element of an effective program to address actual conditions of blight is the
ability to assemble small parcels of land under separate ownerships into useable sites under current-
day standards. The reinstatement of the condemnation power for the Agency is believed to be an
important factor in addressing conditions of blight which remain in the Project Area. As long as the
ability of the Agency to acquire land for specific redevelopment activities is limited to negotiated
purchase, grant, exchange or other voluntary forms of sale, the potential for sustained and large-scale
redevelopment of the property in the Project Area involving multiple parcels ofland is limited. This
is especially so when existing owners and other persons who are prepared to invest new capital in the
community cannot expand or acquire land of adequate size and shape for development and use under
current City standards.
The evidence of blight in the Project Area is readily apparent to anyone who drives along its principal
streets. One striking factor of the Project Area is the relative absence of any visible new construction
or rehabilitation activity. Since the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1986 little in the
way of new improvements of rehabilitation has occurred and nearly one fourth (V.) of the individual
lots in the Project Area are currently vacant. Many of these currently vacant lots were formerly
improved with structures which over the years became so dilapidated and substandard, the owners
were compelled to remove them.
The proposed 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is limited to the reinstatement of the
Agency's power of eminent domain. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan and in particular
no changes to the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan are proposed.
The Agency's power to acquire property by eminent domain expired in 1998. In general, the Agency
has used the power of eminent domain in the past in its redevelopment project areas only in a few
exceptional circumstances and for specific redevelopment project activities. The Agency has not
acquired any property in the Project Area by eminent domain at any time since its adoption in 1986.
Over the years, a vast majority of the land which the Agency has acquired in its various
redevelopment project areas has been acquired by negotiated purchase. Since 1986, the Agency has
acquired certain property in the Project Area by negotiated purchase but at this time, the Agency has
not been able to assemble enough land by negotiated purchase for an effective redevelopment activity
involving multiple parcels of land to deal with conditions of blight on a large scale. Under current
circumstances, without eminent domain authority the Agency cannot plan for or assume that all of
land which is necessary for a specific redevelopment activity will be available to the Agency under a
negotiated purchase arrangement. In such a situation, the Agency cannot make realistic and feasible
plans to assist owners or third parties who are prepared to eliminate blight under specific and
enforceable terms involving multiple parcels ofland, since the otherwise available land is not useable
or new development is not economically feasible without additional land to solve specific conditions
of blight. Without the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain, the range of the Agency's
ability to foster redevelopment in the Project Area is greatly reduced.
The California Redevelopment Law ("CRL") authorizes an Agency to reinstate the power of eminent
domain after it has lapsed in a Redevelopment Project Area, if the Agency finds that conditions of
blight still persist in the Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the Agency has previously
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/16/2004
Agenda Item Number: IJ 1
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-0&-16 Upcown SR.OOe
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 5
initiated certain actions to consider the adoption of the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Uptown Redevelopment Project which reinstates the power of eminent domain for a twelve (12)
year period of time.
Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") states that when the Agency submits
an amendment to the redevelopment plan to the Mayor and Common Council ("Council") for
adoption, the Agency must also submit a report entitled the Report to Mayor and Common Council
("Report"). For a redevelopment plan amendment, the contents of the Report are only those,portions
warranted by the proposed amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide, in one document, all
information, documentation, and evidence regarding'the 2004 Amendment to assist the Council in its
consideration and in making various findings and determinations that are legally required to adopt the
2004 Amendment. This report to the Council has been prepared in accordance with all requirements
of Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the CRL.
The Section 33352 Report to the Council; the resolution of the Community Development
Commission dealing with the E1R; the resolution of the Community Development Commission
dealing with the Section 33352 Report to the Mayor and Common Council; and the ordinances of the
Council adopting an Amendment to the Project Area Plan were previously transmitted to the Council
and Community Development Commission in the "Black Binder" provided at the Joint Public
Hearing on July 19, 2004.
CURRENT ISSUE:
On July 19, 2004, the Council and the Community Development Commission of the City of San
Bernardino held a legally noticed joint public hearing on the proposed adoption of an Amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan, the Amended and Restated Plan for the Central City
North Project Area, the Program Enviromnental hnpact Report, and other entitlements. The public
testimony portion of the joint public hearing was opened, oral and written testimony was received and
the public testimony session was closed. The joint meeting of Common Council and the Commission
was then continued to August 16, 2004 to consider written and oral objections to the adoption of an
Amendment to the Project Area Plan.
Section 33367 of the CRL requires that before considering an adoption of an amendment to a
redevelopment plan, the legislative body, the Common Council, shall evaluate all evidence and
testimony, both for and against the adoption of the amendment to the redevelopment plan, and make
written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity.
Attached to this staff report is Exhibit A "Written Responses and Findings to Written and Oral
Objections". This Written Response and Finding is organized into two (2) parts. Part I contains the
written response and fmdings of the Council with respect to the written objections of interested
persons as presented prior to or at the time of the joint public hearings. Although the CRL does not
require the Council to consider or prepare a written response and finding with respect to oral
objections to a proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan, nevertheless and without waiving the
power of the Council to overrule an oral objection without first making a written response and
approving certain findings in support of overruling such an oral objection, a set of written responses
P:\ApndaI\Con'm Dev Commission\COC 2004\04-08-16 UptOwn S1tdoc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/1612004
Agenda Item Number: ~ 9
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 6
and findings regarding the oral objections has also been prepared. Accordingly, Part II of the
Written Response and Findings contains a written response and fmding of the Council with respect to
each of the oral objections presented at the time of the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004.
In Part I the text of each of the three (3) written objections is presented followed by a written
response and finding of the Council as relates to the written objection. It should be noted that no
affected taxing entity submitted any objection to the proposed redevelopment plan amendments.
Part II is set up differently, as it deals with oral testimony and objections. A written response and
finding of the Council is presented for each ofthe twelve (12) oral objections submitted.
Also included are four (4) attachments. Attachment No.1 is a verbatim transcription of the oral
testimony of each of the twelve (12) individuals who presented oral. Attachment No.2 is a copy of
all of the "speaker slips" submitted by interested persons to the City Clerk at the time of the joint
public hearings on July 19, 2004. Attachment No.3 is a summary of mailed notice contact
information for those persons submitting speaker slips at the Joint Public Hearing. Attachment No.4
is redevelopment agency property acquisition relocation polices and guidelines and responses to
frequently asked questions regarding property acquisition and relocation.
By adopting the attached resolutions of the Community Development Commission, the Commission
will be adopting the Environmental Impact Report; the 33352 Report and the proposed eminent
domain amendment and authorize Agency staff to transmit the Report to the Council and 2004
Amendment to the Project Area Plan to the Council.
By adopting the attached resolution, the Council will adopt the written responses to written and oral
objections to the Amendment of the Project Area Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Agency and the City of San Bernardino retained Lilbum Corporation to prepare an Initial Study
to determine potential impacts related to the reinstatement of eminent domain and other entitlement
actions. At their meeting of February 5, 2004 the Development/Environmental Review Committee
(D/ERC) reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the Central City North and Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area Plans, and other entitlement actions. The D/ERC concurred that the Initial Study
adequately addressed the issues and determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
would be required.
The Agency and the City retained LSA Associates to prepare the EIR. The Notice of Preparation was
published in the San Bernardino County Sun and public agencies. The public review period for the
Notice of Preparation was February 17, 2004 through March 17,2004.
Upon completion of the Draft Program EIR, the Notice of Completion was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun. The Draft Program EIR was made available for public review at the City of
San Bernardino Development Services Department, the Feldheym Central Library, and the City of
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/16/2004
Agenda Item Number: JfJ.3 q
P:\Agendas\Conun Dcv Commission\CDC 2004\04-08-16 Uptown SR.doc
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 7
San Bernardino web site. It was also distributed to public agencies and made available to the D/ERC,
Planning Commission, and Mayor and Common Council. The public review period was April 8, 2004
through May 29, 2004. Comments were received from four agencies and are included in the Final
Program EIR along with staff responses.
As analyzed in the Draft Program EIR, the impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant with mitigation measures are certain air quality and traffic impact related to the
development of the Mercado Santa Fe project. There are no significant impacts related to the
reinstatement of eminent domain. There are potential for impacts from future development within the
proposed General Plan Amendment area. Those impacts cannot be specifically identified or
quantified until such time as an actual development project is proposed. However, it is likely that
development of this area will result in impacts similar to those related to the proposed development of
the Mercado Santa Fe project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based on contracts entered into with consultants for this amendment, the costs will total $131,627.
Funds for this activity have been budgeted and approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Community Development Commission and Mayor and Common Council adopt Motion A,
B, C, and D.
/t
Gary V?OSdel, Executive rector
EXHIBIT:
A. Written Responses and Findings to Written and Oral Objections
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 08/16/2004
Agenda Item Number: ,fJ q
p:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\COC 2004\04-08-16 Uptown SR.doe
L ..___J
'--J[---
L-_ L-.__ -
_=.=1 rno [:==J I
---- W' I-olE 11 I
[-I L_~E:31
.--J C--rE31
[J-JrV -- I r
I I
, -
.......
111111 l::n.:. SUBAREA "A"
SUBAREA "B"
.......
~
w__
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
.~~ft Her-n.m1ino. Califolllia Figure 2
o
EXHIBIT" A"
WRITTEN RESPONSES AND FINDINGS
TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS
RECEIVED PRIOR TO OR AT THE
JULY 19,2004
JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS
FOR THE
AMENDED & RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH PROJECT AREA
AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
AND THE
o
SECTION 33352 BLIGHT REPORTS TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Introduction:
On July 19, 2004, the Mayor and Common Council ("Council") and the Community
Development Commission ("Commission") of the City of San Bernardino conducted two
(2) joint public hearings. The first joint public hearing considered the proposed adoption
of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
The second joint public hearing considered the adoption of an Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Project. The Council and the
Commission also considered the certification of a Final Program Enviromnental Impact
Report (the "Program EIR") during the joint public hearings as part of the redevelopment
plan amendment process. In addition, the Council also conducted a public hearing to
consider an amendment to the City's General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 04-02),
which affects a small portion of the Uptown Project Area.
c
The two (2) redevelopment plans provide the Agency with the power and authority to
undertake certain types of redevelopment programs to eliminate blight within the
boundaries of specific areas - referred to in this Response as the "Project Areas." As a
general rule, the Agency does not function outside of a redevelopment project area and
48204987-5456.1
I
CJ
the Agency cannot acquire land outside of a redevelopment project area except in certain
limited situations. The Redevelopment Agency can only acquire property by eminent
domain if the property is located in a redevelopment project area.
The main purpose of both of the two (2) redevelopment plan amendments is the same;
namely to reinstate the power of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Bernardino (the "Agency") to acquire land by eminent domain in the Uptown Project
Area and in the Central City North Project Area. Although the Agency may purchase any
property if it is for sale, the Agency's power to acquire property by eminent domain in
both Project Areas lapsed in 1998.
The Agency can only acquire property by eminent domain in a redevelopment project
area which displays symptoms of blight for a twelve (12) year period of time following
the adoption of the redevelopment plan. However, the Agency may reinstate the power
of eminent domain after such a twelve (12) year time limit, if blighted conditions persist
in a redevelopment project area and if the exercise of eminent domain may be a useful
tool to prevent and eliminate the spread of such blight.
o
General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 affects a portion of the redevelopment project area
of the Uptown Redevelopment Project referred to as "Uptown Subarea B." General Plan
Amendment No. 04-02 proposes to change the land use designation for approximately 22
acres of Uptown Subarea B, from the current "Industrial" use designation, to a new land
use designation of commercial and office professional land use. Single family dwelling
units which lawfully existed as of 1991 in the area affected by General Plan Amendment
No. 04-02 are permitted in an "Industrial" General Plan/zone use area. Likewise, single
family dwelling units which lawfully existed as of 1991 are also permitted in a
"Commercial/Office Professional" General Plan/zone use classification.
The public hearing testimony portion of the Council's consideration of the General Plan
Amendment No. 04-02 and the Council's and the Commission's consideration of the
redevelopment plan amendments was conducted concurrently. Oral and written
testimony was received and the public testimony sessions were closed for all three (3) of
these related public hearings on July 19,2004. The joint public meetings of the Council
and the Commission were then continued to August 16, 2004 to consider the written and
oral objections submitted by interested person during the joint public hearings to the
adoption of the two (2) redevelopment plan amendments.
c
Health and Safety Code Section 33367 requires that before considering the adoption of an
amendment to a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (in this case the Council) shall
evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the adoption of the amendment
to the redevelopment plan, and make written findings in response to each written
objection submitted by affected property owners or taxing entities. In this document, the
reference to "CRL" means and refers to the California Redevelopment Law. The CRL is
found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. Health and Safety Code Section
33367 is part of the CRL.
48204987.5456.1
2
This Written Response and Finding is organized into two (2) parts. Part I contains the
written response and findings of the Council with respect to the written objections of
interested persons as presented prior to or at the time of the joint public hearings.
Although the CRL does not require the Council to consider or prepare a written response
and finding with respect to oral objections to a proposed amendment to a redevelopment
plan, nevertheless and without waiving the power of the Council to overrule an oral
objection without first making a written response and approving certain findings in
support of overruling such an oral objection, a set of written responses and findings
regarding the oral objections has also been prepared. Accordingly, Part II of the Written
Response and Findings contains a written response and finding of the Council with
respect to each of the oral objections presented at the time of the joint public hearings on
July 19, 2004.
In Part I the text of each of the three (3) written objections is presented followed by a
written response and finding of the Council as relates to the written objection. It should
be noted that no affected taxing entity submitted any objection to the proposed
redevelopment plan amendments.
Part II is set up differently, as it deals with oral testimony and objections. A written
response and finding of the Council is presented for each of the twelve (12) oral
objections submitted.
Also included are four (4) attachments. Attachment No.1 is a verbatim transcription of
the oral testimony of each of the twelve (12) individuals who presented oral.
Attachment No.2 is a copy of all of the "speaker slips" submitted by interested persons
to the City Clerk at the time of the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004. Attachment
No. 3 is a summary of mailed notice contact information for all persons submitting
speaker slips at the Joint Public Hearing. Attachment No.4 is redevelopment agency
property acquisition relocation polices and guidelines and responses to frequently asked
questions regarding property acquisition and relocation.
.
Attachment No. I
Transcript of Oral Testimony
Attachment No.2
Speaker Slips of All Persons Who Presented Oral Testimony
Attachment No.3
Joint Public Hearing Mailed Notice Contact Information For All
Persons Submitting Oral Testimony
Attachment No.4
Redevelopment Agency Property Acquisition and Relocation
Polices and Guidelines and Responses to Frequently Asked
Questions Regarding Property Acquisition and Relocation
4820-4987-5456.1
3
July 17, 2004
Mayor and City COundl Members
300 North D street
San Bernardino, Ca. 92418
. ""( ~\ i!\<\\
~tt~\'.J~D-C\ I "~'
'04 J\l 19 p 2 :20
; ~..
Deanna H.P. Adams, Ph.D.
1156 North F street .
San Bernardino, Ca. 92410
909-884-6105
. Re: . Objection to Eminent Domain for the
Central City North Redevelopment project.
Dear Mayor and City COundl Members:
. This letter is an objection to the Eminent Domain Central City North
Redevelopment project. The City of San Bernardino has targeted our area
for Eminent Domain in order to acquire our property and business
and disPlace us from the place we live, own, and earn our livelihood. I
. believe Eminent Domain is an Injustice forced upon the free enterprise
nature to the COnstitution. Thus, Eminent Domain is Interfering with
the process of free enterprise and democracy. Tlte only appropriate
manner Eminent Domain maybe viewed democratically if the voters agree
to such act.
I.have been a dtizen of San Bernardino for 20 years leaving an affluent.
and desirable area to make a difference in the environment. 1.8Ift
attracted peoples from all our neighboring dtles to Victory Chapel (1156
North F. st.) Our chapel is the beacon of the neighborhood, and despite
of the low income I receive from the ministry I have been
faithful and established "Good Will". I believe the "Good Will"
of Victory Chapel was significant to sooththenegadve energy
and hardness in the environment and changes for 20 years. Despite of
"Blight" Victory Chapel is an example of free enterprise, vision, and
Good-Will.
Now, the City of San Bernardino has increased Reai Estate values in
excess of 57% and the population haS grown in excess of 37% since
4b{23 ;t
1,9-0 CI
1999. These are Indkato~ of prosperity not blight. The population
lP'Owth and Real EState boom should help get rid of bUght In ~I: area.
ThIs positive change Is the r~ltof dedication, goodwIl, and,a"",
desire to make a difference to our beloved Cfty of San Bernardino. ' . . '. '.
Ilook fOlWard to harvesdllJ from seeds ~wn for 20 years, and
since things are looking up in the futUre for San Bernardino I would
I~e to partake In her prosperity. .
The future Is. bright not bUght and I seek the terminadon of
Eminent Domain for the Central Qty North Enter:prlse project.
,The people should be inspired toenpge free enter:prlse and
sdmulate lP'Owth for profit and/or ,ood-wiI.The dty has shown
little effort to sdmulate and ,ensase free enter:prise In this area. .
Also, I did ootrecelve the letter I~ the mall. I COfttaicted the
Redevelopment department and ask to have the letter sent~ Our
Vietnamese nelghbon(a church) did not undentand the letter
and our Spanish nelghbon (a church) could not find a inter:preter.
We are a meldng pot of relislons, cultures, languages, and need
clarity and simplidty in addressing Issues regarding the essence
of their lives. Thank you.
Sincerely,
,-" ~~~ "
----.
Rev. Deanna H.P. .Adams, Ph.D.
PART ONE - WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OR DURING THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS
Written Response and Finding
To Written Objection Presented by Deanna Adams
As an initial matter, the Agency staff notes that Ms. Deanna H. P. Adam's written
objection is labeled as an objection to the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan
for the Central City North Redevelopment Project. However, the property which Ms.
Adams refers to in her objection as "Victory Chapel" (1156 North "F" Street) is in fact
located in the redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project. fu
addition, the joint public hearing notice records of the Agency indicate that Helena
Petrovna 1174 Kotenberg, San Jose, California is the "owner" of the property located at
1156 North "F" Street, based on the most current property tax assessor records of the
County of San Bemardino. The Agency staff has learned since the July 19, 2004, joint
public hearing that Deanna Adams is the owner of the property at 1174 Kotenberg, San
Jose, California, and that the initial "H" in Ms. Adams' narne refer to "Helen" or
"Helena" and that the initial "P" in Ms. Adam's name refers to Petrovna (See joint
public hearing notice mailing notes in Attachment No. 3). Accordingly, this Written
Response and Finding assumes that Ms. Adams is the owner of the property and treats the
written objection of Ms. Adams as an objection to both the amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project and the Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project.
The written objection of Ms. Adams appears to present three (3) main themes. Ms.
Adams expresses a general objection to the exercise of eminent domain by the Agency to
eliminate blight in the Project Area. Ms. Adams also appears to challenge the existence of
blight in the Project Area. Finally, Ms. Adams contends that inadequate notice or no
notice was provided to her by the City or the Agency regarding the two (2)
redevelopment plan amendments.
Response Rel!ardinl! Eminent Domain Issue:
The .approval of the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project and the amended and restated redevelopment plan for the Central
City North Redevelopment Project will reinstate the Agency's power of eminent domain
which expired in both Project Areas in 1998.
At the present time, the Agency has no plans to acquire the property at 1156 North "F"
Street, nor does the Agency have any plans to acquire any land in the immediate vicinity
of 1156 North "F" Street. The Victory Chapel is located just to the south of Baseline
Avenue along a street where several other small churches have clustered together. fu
between these churches there is an isolated single family home and a
commercial/industrial businesses and vacant lots. Multifamily dwellings and other
48204987-5456.1
4
vacant parcels are located to the south of the Victory Chapel along "F" Street as the
neighborhood transitions into a more uniform and compatible residential area. The
residential neighborhood to the south of Victory Chapel and the cluster of other small
churches is for most part outside of the Uptown Project Area. The Agency has no power
to acquire land outside of the Uptown Project Area by eminent domain and so none of the
property in the residential neighborhood to the south of the Victory Chapel could ever be
acquired by the Agency by eminent domain.
The Agency views the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the Project Areas
as an important tool to address the conditions of blight. Like the section of "F" Street on
which Victory Chapel and the other nearby small community churches are located, other
areas of the Uptown Project Area display similar land use incompatibilities - isolated
single faruily homes, such as the dwelling located at 1129 North "F" Street situated
between non-residential land uses. The outdoor off-premise highway billboard sign on
the adjacent vacant lot next door to the Victory Chapel on the south, further illustrates
just one of many examples of incompatible land uses which are documented in the
Section 33352 Reports for both the Uptown Project Area and the Central City North
Proj ect Area.
Eminent domain, often called "condemnation," is the right, authority, or the power of
local government to acquire private property for public use after all efforts to negotiate a
purchase have failed. Payment by the local govermnent agency for the acquisition of the
property must be equal to fair market value, also known as 'Just compensation." If just
compensation is paid to the owner, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution, authorize the use of eminent domain by local government to acquire
private property for public purposes including for the purpose of community
redevelopment. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has approved the use of
eminent domain by redevelopment agencies to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight
as part of neighborhood revitalization efforts. (Bremen v. Parker (1954) 348 U.S. 26 and
in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) 467 U.S. 229). In this context, the CRL
specifically provides for the exercise of eminent domain for the purposes of
redevelopment and in addition to the requirement that just compensation must be paid for
any property acquired by eminent domain, the State has enacted a series of specific
additional protections for private property owners under the California Eminent Domain
Law (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230 et seq.).
The Agency believes that the use of eminent domain in the Project Areas may be
particularly effective to assist existing businesses and property owners in appropriate
situations to acquire underutilized, vacant or blighted adjacent lands so that these existing
businesses and property owners can expand their businesses, eliminate blighting
conditions on nearby lands, and make capital investment in the improvement and
rehabilitation of their property economically feasible. If the Agency cannot provide such
land acquisition assistance to property owners who are prepared to make an investment in
dealing with conditions of blight, then the ability of the Agency to effectively eliminate
and prevent the spread of blight in each Project Area will be reduced.
482ll-4987-5456.1
5
In Attachment No.4 to the Written Response and Findings, the Agency presents several
illustrations of the different procedures to be followed if the Agency may undertake the
acquisition of property by eminent domain or by negotiated purchase in either of the
Project Areas in the future. It should be emphasized that since the time when the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1986, the Agency has not used its condemnation
power to acquire any property in the Uptown Project Area. In the case of the Central
City North Redevelopment Project, the Agency has used its condenmation prior to 1998
in only limited cases and then only to acquire land located to the south of Fifth Street.
Residential displacement has historically been kept to a minimum in both Project Areas.
The historical record shows that the Agency has used the power of eminent domain only
rarely in the past in these Project Areas. The current land acquisition policy of the
Agency as summarized in Attachment No.4, provides for eminent domain power to be
considered only when all other reasonable avenues of negotiated purchase or property
have not been successful. The adoption of the amendments to the redevelopment plans in
this instance does not constitute a taking of anyone's property as the redevelopment plan
amendments do not authorize the acquisition of any property. Instead, the Agency retains
the discretion, in an appropriate situation, where the elimination of blight can be
accomplished by specific improvements to property, to use the power of eminent domain
to accomplish those specific improvements.
ReSDonse Re2ardinl!: Blil!:ht:
The Section 33352 Reports for both redevelopment plan amendments contains ample
evidence of the existence, at the present time, of blight in the Project Areas. Ms. Adams
makes reference in her objection to rising property values in the City of San Bemardino
as evidence that blight does not exist in the Project Areas. While property values may be
rising in the City - - particularly in recent years - - the evidence contained in both Section
33352 Reports indicate that increases in assessed property values in both Project Areas
have been substantially less in recent years than for the City as a whole. In the case of the
Uptown Redevelopment Project, Table B-6 in the Uptown 33352 Report shows that
between tax year 1998-99 and tax year 2002-03, assessed property tax"values City-wide
increased at a rate of 1.79% per year, while in the Uptown Project Area over the same
period the rate of increase of assessed values of property was 1.37%. In other words, this
rate of increase of assessed values of property in the Uptown Project Area was
approximately 25% less than the City as a whole. This difference conceals the fact that in
much of the Uptown Project Area assessed property values for this period actually
decreased. These results are also shown as Table B-6 of the Section 33352 Report for the
Uptown Project Area. The annual rate of increase of assessed property values was much
worse in the Central City North Project Area for the same period of time. (See Table B-2
Section 33352 Report for Central City North: 0.69% rate of annual income in assessed
value for the Central City North Project as compared to 1.76% for the City as a whole).
The sluggish performance of assessed property tax values in the two (2) redevelopment
Project Areas is only one of several indicators of the continued existence of blight in each
of the Project Areas. It should also be pointed out that since 1998, the eminent domain
4820-4987-5456.1
6
power of the Agency in both Project Areas has lapsed. Therefore the potential threat of
Agency condemnation (which somehow serves to depress property values) cannot be the
reason why the increase in assessed property tax valuations in these Project Areas has not
kept up with City-wide increases in assessed values since 1998.
Response Ree:ardine: Lack of Notice of the Joint Public Hearine: (Uptown
Redevelopment Plan Amendment):
Ms. Adams asserts that she did not receive notice of the joint public hearing. The Victory
Chapel property is located in the Uptown Project Area. The notice of the joint public
hearing for the Uptown Project Area redevelopment plan amendment was published in
the manner required by law prior to the time of the joint public hearing (See Exhibit "2-
1" entered into the record at the time of the joint public hearing). The mailing records of
the Agency as relating to the mailed notice given prior to the joint public hearing for the
Uptown Project Area indicate the following for Ms. Adams and the property located at
1156 North "F" Street:
to the owner of record, a written notice was sent by United States First Class Mail
to Helen Petrovna at 1174 Kotenberg, San Jose, CA 91525. This notice was return
to the Agency as "forward order expired." The Agency staff is informed that
Deanua Adams is owner of record of the property located at 1174 Kotenberg, San
Jose, California. The property tax records of the County of San Bernardino
indicate that the property tax payee, Helen Petrovna resides at 1174 Kotenberg,
San Jose, California; and
to the "Occupant" of 1156 North "F" Street, San Bernardino, California, a written
notice was sent by United States First Class Mail, addressed to the "Occupant."
This notice to "Occupant" was not returned to the Agency. (See Attachment No.
3).
Additionally, on June 29, 2004, in the telephone contact records of the Agency Staff
indicate that Ms. Adams spoke with Agency staff (Mr. Mike Trout) and that she
identified herself as owning a business and property located at 1156 North "F" Street.
She stated that a neighbor had received a notice of the joint public hearing but that she
had not and Ms. Adams requested that another notice be mailed to her. Agency staff
complied with her request and on June 29, 2004, a separate and additional notice of the
joint public hearing for the Uptown Redevelopment Plan amendment was sent to Ms.
Adams by United States First Class Mail at 1156 North "F" Street, San Bernardino, CA
92410.
Findine::
Based on the response set forth above, testimony received at the joint public hearings
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, and other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Reports for the Uptown Project Area and the Central City
North Project Area and the record before the Council and this Written Repose and
4820-4987-5456.\
7
Finding, the Council hereby finds that all redevelopment activities of the Agency will
adhere to all applicable laws, including the CRL. The information set forth in the Section
33352 Reports for the Uptown Project Area and the Central City North Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in each Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in each Project Area is warranted
at this time. The Council finds that the Agency has no current plan to acquire the
pro~rty located at 1156 "F' Street by negotiated purchase or with the use of eminent
domain. However, the Agency may have the necessity to acquire such property in the
future, after further notice has first been given to the property owner to facilitate the
redevelopment of the Uptown Project Area. If the Agency may in the future undertake
the acquisition of any property in the Project Area, each affected property owner, or
displaced business, tenant or resident on any land which the Agency may hereafter seek
to acquire by negotiated purchase or by condenmation will be entitled to relocation
benefits, and the property owner will be entitled to receive fair market value for the
property as provided for by the CRL and all applicable law. The Council also notes that
both Redevelopment Plans and the Owner Participation Rules under each Redevelopment
Plan provide procedures and protections for property owners and business tenants who
are interested in correcting property deficiencies. Such interested property owners and
businesses may request that the Agency issue a certificate of conformance evidencing
that the property owner and/or business has taken or has agreed to take appropriate action
to .remedy conditions of blight on the property. In appropriate circumstances, if a
property owner agrees to cooperate with the Agency to eliminate specific conditions of
blight on his or her property, the Agency may agree to not acquire such property for
redevelopment purposes except upon the terms of a negotiated purchase. Ms. Adams is
invited to contact the Agency staff to discuss any such interest which she may have in
this regard.
The Council finds that adequate notice of the joint public hearing for the Uptown Project
Area was given to Ms. Adams and that Ms. Adams received actual and appropriate
written notice of the joint public hearing for the Uptown Project Area prior to the time
and date of the joint public hearing.
The objection presented by Ms. Deanna Adams is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
8
. JULY 17, 2004
MAYORANP CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
300 NORTII D ST
SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92418.
,
~fetlVF.Q.e\T'( CIEHri :
'04 JJt 19 P2 :20'
PAUL ADAMS .
1156 N. F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
........~~.~BJECTIOOi6E~f'ij~F~~CENrR.ALCt1Y. .
NORl1-IREDEVELQPf\4ENT PROJECt.
Dear Mayor and City council members:
I would like to join in the chorus of individuals that theEIR has ignored.
lam pneof these individuals that do riot haveth~ resources or the ability to
speak against tht;l city. It is one of the favorite trickS of lawyers and
politicians to use "fuzZy math" and this ElRreport uses just that bias
statistics that show one side of the story of the people and the business of
the proposed area. . ...
We have lived under the axe of eminent domain for the last 5 years
. . - -. .
becailse oflake and streams project and know we received a letter that you
would like to hold this axe for 12 more years. If it is my civic duty
to live with the threat of eminent domain, it interferes .the. constitutiOllal
right of freedom of the pursuit of happiness. How can somebody plan his
future u~n variables that are under the threat of change? . ..
The EIR incorporates the use of statistics that are questionable at hest.
The ElRstates that in the projectarea that there ill a higher percentage of
. disrepair b~ldings , higher cnme rates,and mord code violations. Much like
ENRON these numbers are created by the s.arne entity that wishes the .power .
of eminent domain. How can we the people have faith in numbers that are
so easily twisted by the need and the whinls of the city? If you want to find
deterioration of building look harder in the areas you wish, If you want a
higher crime rate send more police into the area, and if you want to have
more code violations send more code enforcement officers to that area, does
this sound right?
Finally, the most important reason in which I find myself moved to write
df-'es::>'
i-,G-t\U
~ ,
.'
this letter (the people of san Bernardino); When I drive thru this cjty, Ido
not see "Blight". I see PeQ.pleworkingthere~destto put there~hildren .
throughschool. I see the pursuit oUreedom of religionfroril the . .
. Vietnamese and central American churches who's operators have fled the .
persecution of the homeland. I see the poor masses that made this country
great by hard work. I see the smiles on the face of a small business owner'
. that just paid of his mortgage and finely as the ability to make his dreams
come true. I see life, I see hope, But most of all I see America and what it
'. staIul for the people. Moreover, ItswhaUdo not see tlult makes me the .
. ~piestl do notsee the Samsclm,. thebpme depot; thel)ilW;.fi!leSlUl~the .
'7'..U:~~~6~lat~~~~:~'~:Jf~::9~'=~0!J.;"
. future to be limi~d to working for bigcol'p!)ratiOllS as a manager?' . 'J
Itjs in the Mayor and the city council members hands. I urge you to vo~ ..'
no.ori,the development project artq.keep.thefutureofsanBemardino in the .
hands.ofthe people' ofsanBeniardino nOt oulof state developers to fill
there coffers with the sweat of the little person, .
1'I1ankyou, .
Paul Adam
Written Response and Finding
To Written Objections Presented by Paul Adams
As an initial matter, the Agency staff notes that Mr. Paul Adam's written objection is
labeled as an objection to the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central
City North Redevelopment Project. However, the property which Mr. Adams refers to in
his objection as "Victory Chapel" (1156 North "F" Street) is in fact located in the
redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project. In addition, the joint
public hearing notice records of the Agency indicate that Helen Petrovna is the "owner"
of the property located at 1156 North "F" Street, based on the most current property tax
assessor records of the County of San Bernardino. (See joint public hearing mailing
notes in Attachment No.3). Accordingly, this Written Response and Finding treats the
written objection of Mr. Adams as an objection to both the amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project and the Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project. It is
not clear from his objection whether Mr. Adams is an owner of the property located at
1156 North "F" Street.
This written objection appears to present three (3) main themes. Mr. Adams states that
because of the Lakes and Streams project, he has lived under a threat of eminent domain
for the past five (5) years and he opposes another twelve (12) years of the threat of
eminent domain from the Agency, and in general, Mr. Adams expresses an objection to
the exercise of eminent domain by the Agency to eliminate blight in the Project Areas.
As a second theme, or focus of objection, Mr. Adams appears to challenge the existence
of blight in the Project Areas. Mr. Adams asserts that the Final Program Environmental
hnpact Report for the amendments to the redevelopment plans for the Project Areas
includes "fuzzy math" and "incorporates the use of statistics that are questionable at
best".
Response Rel!ardinl! Eminent Domain for the Last 5 Years:
The power of the Agency to acquire any land in either of the Project Areas lapsed in
1998. Mr. Adams refers to the "lakes and streams project" in his objection and states that
the public discussion planning and valuation of the lakes and streams project has imposed
a burden on him, and presumably has also imposed a burden on the property at 1156
North "F" Street. The Lakes and Streams project to which Mr. Adams refers and
specifically "North Lake" which could affect a small portion of the Uptown Project Area,
is not a public project of the City of San Bernardino or the Agency. Nevertheless, the
Lakes and Streams project has been the subject of community discussions in recent years
and public discussion and participation in the planning process for public projects is part
of the American system of local representative government. Sometimes the planning
process involves extensive consultations with property owners before the local
government agency can commit public funds to undertake a particular project.
4820-4987.5456.1
9
As mentioned above, the Lakes and StreamsINorth Lake project to which Mr. Adams
refers is not a redevelopment project of the Agency. It is a study proposal which is being
considered by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the San
Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority formed as a joint powers authority to
study various water supply alternatives with the City of San Bernardino. Mr. Adams
refers in his objection to the North Lake component of the overall Lakes and Streams
project concept proposal. The North Lake component of the Lakes and Streams project
could affect as much as approximately twenty (20) acres of the Uptown Project Area,
including the property at 1156 North "F" Street. None of the Central City North Project
Area is affected by the Lakes and Streams project. In any case, the San Bernardino
V alley Municipal Water District would be the public agency which would undertake such
a public project for the acquisition of any land for the construction of the North Lake and
related municipal water district domestic water supply operations on a site which is
generally bounded by Baseline Avenue on the north, Ninth Street on the south, "H" Street
on the west and "E" Street on the east (e.g., "North Lake"). The exact size of such a lake
project within this general area has not yet been determined by the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District. A public scoping session was conducted in January 2004 as
part of the preparation of a draft environmental review document under the Califoruia
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the Lakes and Streams project. However, a
draft environmental review document has not been completed and released for public
review by at the time when this Written Response and Finding was prepared.
At this time the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has not iuitiated any
program to acquire land for a North Lake facility, and the Lakes and Streams project
remains in the early stages of design and the early stages of public discussion and
evaluation.
The Council does acknowledge that the North Lake component of the Lakes and Streams
project could, if undertaken by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District,
include the acquisition of the property at 1156 North "F" Street under one of several
different alternatives to such a project. However, any potential acquisition of land for the
Lakes and Streams project affecting the Uptown Project Area which may be considered
in the future, would be undertaken by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District pursuant to its separate and independent property acquisition and condemnation
pow~. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has much broader powers
of eruinent domain, as the water district is not limited to acquiring property solely within
a specific and liruited redevelopment project area such as the Uptown Project Area. The
Agency could not undertake such a project as the North Lake because most of the site for
North Lake and the related water supply improvements is not situated in the Agency's
redevelopment project areas. Thus, the issues of whether there may ever be a lakes and
streams project which may include a portion of the Uptown Project Area and the final site
and methods selected by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to
undertake such a project in the future, is not dependent upon the reinstatement of the
Agency's eminent domain power in either Project Area.
4820-4987.5456.1
10
Both redevelopment plan amendments to reinstate the Agency's eminent domain power
were initiated in early 2000. The process for the redevelopment plan amendments in
these two Project Areas has been delayed by virtue of a number of factors primarily
related to the need to prepare a Program EIR for General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 and
the Mercado Santa Fe development concepts which affect Uptown Subarea B. Since
2000, the Council and the Agency have moved forward to reinstate eminent domain
powers in several other redevelopment project areas including the Central City South
Redevelopment Project, the Mr. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project and the State
College Redevelopment Project. Unlike the redevelopment plan amendments for these
other project areas which did not contemplate any specific redevelopment proposals, the
CEQA review for the proposed amendment for the Uptown Project Area has included
certain specific development proposals for Uptown Subarea B which has in turn required
the Agency to prepare a Program EIR.
In any case, as stated above, the Agency has no plans to acquire any property in the
Uptown Project Area for or on behalf of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District.
As stated in the Written Response and Finding to the written objection of Ms. Deanna
Adams, the Agency's exercise of the power of eminent domain involves several
procedurallayeis of prior notice and consultation with property owners. These measures
are described in the Agency property acquisition policy materials assembled in
Attachment No.4. The Agency believes that in appropriate situations, the Agency's
ability to acquire property by eminent domain will enhance the effectiveness of a specific
proposal to deal with conditions of blight in the Project Areas. Much vacant lands exist
in both Project Areas as described in the Section 33352 Reports. The vacant land often
abuts small underutilized parcels of land in different ownership. In other redevelopment
project areas it is not uncommon for owners of successful businesses or owners of
substandard sized parcels of land to contact the Agency seeking assistance to acquire
small, underutilized parcels of adjacent land so that a business owner can expand his or
her business. A hallmark of the configuration of the vast majority of parcels in both
Project Areas, is the small average size of most parcels. The redevelopment project area
boundaries of Subarea A of the Uptown Project Area in which Victory Chapel is located
have not been selected or configured to accommodate the types of "big box" retail
business which Ms. Adams describes as destructive of the American ideal or which
would displace large numbers of existing business, residents and churches. This is
apparent upon the most casual of inspection of a project area boundary map for the
Uptown Project Area. The redevelopment project area boundaries of the Uptown Project
Area have been designated with the primary purpose of assisting existing businesses and
owners to remain and expand their business in the City of San Bernardino. Likewise, in
the area of the Central City North Project Area to the north of Fifth Street, the Central
City North Project Area is simply not a place were it is feasible or likely that
redevelopment could ever result in the construction of any "big box" retail business uses.
The proposed reinstatement of eminent domain power in the Project Areas will enable the
Agency to assist small scale urban in-fill redevelopment projects in situations where
4820-4987-5456.1
11
assembly of few key parcels of land which are required to form a useable new site which
cannot otherwise be acquired by private enterprise acting without redevelopment. The
land acquisition policies of the Agency are summarized in Attachment No. 4 and the
policies emphasize that the use by the Agency of condenmation to acquire property is
seldom used and then only as a last resort to support a specific redevelopment project
activity in which affected property owners receive ample prior notice. In the twelve (12)
years prior to 1998, the Agency did not acquire any property in the Uptown Project Area
by eminent domain. Likewise in the case of the Central City North Project Area, in the
twelve (12) years before 1998 the Agency used its condemnation powers for the
acquisition of only a few parcels of land to the south of Fifth Street. No land situated to
the north of Fifth Street has been acquired in the Central City North Project Area by
eminent domain.
Response Rel!:ardinl!: Existence of Blil!:ht:
Mr. Adams asserts that blight does not currently exist in the Project Areas. The Section
33352 Reports contain ample evidence to the contrary. The numerous boarded-up
commercial buildings in close proximity to 1156 North "F" Street provide grim evidence
of the existence of blight in the Project Areas. Unfortunately despite the prior efforts of
the Agency, blight remains as a prevalent condition affecting a large number of properties
in both Project Areas.
Response Rel!:ardinl!: the Claimed InadeQuacv of the Proeram EIR:
The City Planning Department has prepared a respouse to Mr. Adams assertion that the
Program ElR is inadequate or deficient in a number of unspecified respects.
Findinl!::
Based on the response set forth above, information presented at the joint public hearings
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Cousultant, Agency Counsel, and other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Reports for the Uptown Project Area and the Central City
North Project Area, this Written Respouse and Finding and the record before the Council,
the Council hereby finds that all redevelopment activities of the Agency will adhere to all
applicable laws, including the CRL. The information set forth in the Section 33352
Reports for the Uptown Project Area and the Central City North Project Area
demonstrate that conditions of blight remain in each Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in each Project Area is warranted
at this time. The Council finds that the public discussion and community involvement in
the Lakes and Streams project concept of the San Bemardino Valley Municipal Water
District has not resulted in the condemnation or temporary taking of any property and that
no decision has been made by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, the
City of San Bernardino or any other public agency regarding such a public project which
may result in the acquisition of any property, including the property located at 1156 "F"
Street in the Uptown Project Area The Council finds that the Agency has no current
plan to acquire the property located at 1156 "F" Street by negotiated purchase or with the
4820-4987-5456.1
12
use of eminent domain. However, the Agency may have the necessity to acquire such
property in the future, after further notice has first been given to the property owner to
facilitate the redevelopment of the Uptown Project Area. If the Agency may in the future
undertake the acquisition of any property in the Uptown Project Area, each affected
property owner, or potentially displaced business, tenant or resident on any land which
the Agency may hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by condenmation
will be entitled to receive relocation benefits, and in addition to relocation benefits, the
property owner will be entitled to receive fair market value for any property acquired by
the Agency as provided for by the CRL and all applicable law. The Council also notes
that both redevelopment plans for the Uptown Project Area and the Central City North
Project Area, and the Owner Participation Rules under each redevelopment plan, provide
procedures and additional protections for property owners and business tenants who are
interested in correcting property deficiencies. Interested property owners and business
tenants who wish to participate with the Agency to eliminate blight from the Project
Areas may request the Agency to issue a certificate of conformance subject to appropriate
terms and conditions acceptable to both such property owner and the Agency, that could
provide assurance to the property owner that its property satisfies the standards of the
applicable redevelopment plan. The Council finds that Owner Participation Rules and
the general property acquisition policies of the Agency as sununarized in Attachment No.
4 provide, all property owners and occupants of lands in the Project Area with significant
and effective protection of their rights and interests.
The objection presented by Mr. Paul Adams is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
13
July 18,2004
,
lu:eE1VI'D.ll>InOWil\ ",'
To: City Clerk "I . ..
Honorable Mayor and Common Council members
City Hall 300 North "D" Street '04 Jtl 19 P 2 :20
. San Bernardino, Cll92418
From: GIuo<<..n Norman Abdullah and family
1129 North "f" Street
San Bernardino, Ca 92410
Dear H.Mayor and members of the Common Council;
We the AbdUllah family and many of our neighbors in the UptOwn subarea A are writing
this letter to object to,Jhe teinstatement of eminent domain for the Central City North
Redevelopment Project and the "Combined project EIR" .
We believe that taking our homes and displacing Qur elderly parents who are on fixed
incOmes and disabled is morally wrong and unconstitutional and doesri'tserve the
greater public good.'y ou claim it is to eliminate blight in this &rea. We chall. this
notion since it is the city itself that sets the standards and defines what blight is and as
they see fit inorder to aclUeve the overall goal of aeql!iring property at a loWer cost We
think the real reason behind this project is to increase overall tax revenues as a fix for the
ailing city budget. We urge you to remo\'e this label "blight" for our areil(Uptowil
Subarea A)where we live and work and promote more hOme ownership mvli"'Pl'Ovements
.Do not chase us and our families away. This redevelopment project is unconstitutional as
it prays on the less fortunate and on the weak with limited resources who are unable to
. defend for themselves. It takes one mans property and gives it to the wea11Jly real estate .
developer or other investors who have more money.' Who are tbc:sC developers any way?
is it a secret? shouldn't this information be disclosed to us the residents and citizens of
San Bernardino. What is the exact p1an?Your cOnstituents need to know this.
We take pride in our community, homes, and businesses and We urge you to reject this
redevelopment project and in reinstating eminent domain . We do not want to be uprooted
from our homes and displaced, nor do we want to have the cloud of eminent domain reign
over us and adversely affect our lives,goals and future plans. \ . . .
The ElRisintompli':te, inadequate and not thorough enough as it leaves out Jtl{my issues
. that &renot ansWered. For example hOw many disabled citizens ,children, elderly living
on fixed income, and other low income residents will be displaced by the project What .
~mm~onthe~~mb~~andthe~~~~~inaddi~
to the estim!'ted revenues lost and m impact on the unemployment ral9. What about the
.num~ of churches impacted; I know of four or five at least. What is l:he impact of this
project on the loc8l flora and the dispersion of West NIle Virus. Also the impact on air
pollution levels in PPM and dust dispersion aJid their impact the prevalence of respiratory
ailments and for how long. What about the impact of high intensity noise levels greater
than 60 decibelS which may be quite harmful in themSelves. In Stlmmmy the EIR bas
many flaws and gaps. Thank you for hearing this objection.
Sincerely,
GNAbdullah .PI IV
.',.--"
41:12-3;>
7-/7~6q
Written Response and Findings
To Written Objection Present by Ghassan Norman Abdullah
As an initial matter, the Agency staff notes that Mr. Abdullah's objection is labeled as an
objection to the reinstatement of eminent domain for the Central City North
Redevelopment Project and the "Combined project EIR". However, the property which
Mr. Abdullah refers to in his objection (1129 North "F" Street) is in fact located in the
Uptown Project Area. Accordingly, this written response treats this written objection as
an objection to both the Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment
Proj ect.
Mr. Abdullah states that he resides at 1129 North "F" Street. His written objection
appears to present our (4) themes. Mr. Abdullah objects to the labeling of the Project
Areas as blighted and he appears to challenge the existence of blight in the Uptown
Project Area. Mr. Abdullah objects to the Agency's acquisition of property in the Project
Areas by eminent domain and asserts that the exercise of eminent domain is a devise
which allows the Agency to "[acquire] property at a lower cost". Mr. Abdullah asks
several questions relating to the redevelopment process and how the Agency may in the
future make a decision about property acquisition. Finally, Mr. Abdullah asserts that the
Program EIR document for the redevelopment plan amendments is incomplete and
inadequate especially in the area of potential relocation impacts or residents and
businesses.
,
ResDonse Reeardine the Existence of Blieht in the Project Areas:
Mr. Abdullah expresses a concern that the existence of blight in the Project Areas is
based upon a subjective and easily manipulated standard. fudeed, as Mr. Abdullah
appears to assert, the City and the Agency may condone conditions which cause blight in
order to reduce property values. The standard for finding the continued existence of
blight in the Project Areas is set by the CRL not the City or the Agency.
The Section 33352 Reports for the Project Areas contain substantial and convincing
evidence that conditions of blight - both physical conditions and economic conditions of
blight - continue to exist in both Project Areas. fu point of fact the Uptown Project Area
neighborhood in which Mr. Abdullah resides at 1129 North "F" Street, provides an
illustration of several of the blighting conditions which are more fully documented in the
Section 33352 Reports for the Project Areas. Mr. Abdullah resides in an older single
family home which is sandwiched between a commercial/industrial land use on a
small/substandard sized adjacent lot to the south and an institutional or religious
charitable institution use adjacent on the north side of his home. Directly across the street
to the west is a large vacant area containing miscellaneous debris which marks a
transition between the strip commercial land uses to the north along Baseline Avenue and
an older residential neighborhood to the south. The large number of vacant parcels in a
fully urbanized environment such as the Uptown Project Area is a symptom of the blight
4820-4987-5456.1
14
which affects the Uptown Project Area. (See Section 33352 Report for the Uptown
Project Area).
The adoption of the redevelopment plans for the Uptown Project Area and the Central
City North Project Area did not cause the blight which is observed in the Section 33352
Reports. The adoption of both redevelopment plans was a response by the community to
attempt to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in each of the Project Areas.
Responses to Rel!:ardinl!: the Exercise of Eminent Domain:
Mr. Abdullah apparently believes that the Agency may acquire property by eminent
domain for less than its fair market value. This belief is not supported by the facts nor is
it supported in actual practice particularly in light of the procedural protections in favor
of property owners and occupants of property who may be displaced by redevelopment
programs undertaken by the Agency. The procedural protections in favor of both
property owners and tenants of property are described in Attachment No.4. The property
acquisition protections and safeguards described in Attachment No.4 in favor of private
property owners and tenants reflect the current practices and policies of the Agency.
Where Mr. Abdullah suggests that the Agency is currently pursuing a program which has
the effect of depressing property values, Mr. Abdullah concedes that the Project Areas
contain blight. In fact, the Agency is not, and never has pursued such a policy to create
so-called pre-condemnation damages as a way of reducing the cost of acquiring property.
The Project Areas display a number of symptoms of blight. But none of these conditions
were caused by the City or the Agency.
Response Rel!:ardinl!: Redevelopment Process:
The Agency has no plan to acquire the property located at 1129 North "F" Street. Mr.
Abdullah asks several related questions regarding the circumstances under which the
Agency may provide redevelopment assistance in a particular case. The reinstatement of
the Agency's power of eminent domain is not itself a project - no specific redevelopment
project activity is proposed for Mr. Abdullah's property at this time. Eminent domain is
one of several programs which the Agency may use to assist property owners and
businesses to invest private capital in the Project Areas to prevent and eliminate the
spread of blight.
As a practical matter, it should be noted that Mr. Abdullah as the owner of an older single
family dwelling unit in an otherwise commercially developed neighborhood is not a
likely candidate for seeking Agency assistance to acquire neighboring property to
increase the size of his home or to cause the adjacent land to be redeveloped for new
residential use along with his own property. However, other commercial neighbors on
either side of Mr. Abdullah may in the future have specific plans for the expansion of
their businesses or operations which may cause Mr. Abdullah a degree of inconveuience.
Hypothetically speaking, if either neighbor proposed an expansion or intensification of
use on their property, the power of the Agency to assist the neighbor to acquire additional
4820-4987-5456.1
15
land to mitigate or offset the negative impacts on their residential neighbors as part of an
overall plan to address conditions of blight, may result in the commercial property
owners being willing to consider a better planned commercial project which buffers
nearby residential use property.
One of the stated goals of the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project is to assist existing owners and businesses to expand and to better manage or
buffer the impacts of commercial land use on nearby or adjacent residential use property.
The Rules for Owner Participation further support this goal.
The selection of third party developers to undertake specific redevelopment projects is
not a secret process as Mr. Abdullah may fear. Once again, the Rules for Owner
Participation assure existing property owners, including Mr. Abdullah, that before the
Agency would consider any redevelopment proposal of a third-party developer (e.g.,
someone who does not already an owner of neighboring property) the Agency would first
consult with existing property owners to determine whether the existing property owners
have an interest and the financial ability to redevelop their property.
Finally, before the Agency could undertake any specific redevelopment project which
may include the acquisition by eminent domain of another owner's land, the Agency
must first conduct a public hearing on such a proposal in accordance with the CRL. In
addition, the owners of all affected property would receive prior written notice by mail of
the Agency's intention to proceed with a specific project which requires the acquisition
of land owned by third-parties.
ReSDonse to Concerns Relatinl!: to the Prol!:ram EIR:
The City Planning Department has prepared a response to Mr. Abdullah's assertion that
the Program ElR is inadequate or deficient in a number of unspecified respects. In
addition, the materials assembled in Attachment No. 4 contain a comprehensive
description of the policies, programs and procedures of the Agency which give property
owners, businesses and residents special protections and benefits under relocation
assistance programs.
Findinl!::
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony received at the joint public hearings
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, and other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Reports for the Central City North Project Area and the
Uptown Project Area, this Written Response and Finding and record before the Common
Council, the Common Council hereby finds that all redevelopment activities of the
Agency will adhere to all applicable laws, including the CRL. The information set forth
in the Section 33352 Reports for the Project Areas demonstrate that both physical and
economic conditions of blight exist in both the Project Areas and that the reinstatement of
the Agency's eminent domain power in each Project Area is warranted at this time. The
Common Council finds that the Agency has no current plan to acquire the property
4820-4987-5456.1
16
located at 1129 North "F" Street by negotiated purchase or with the use of eminent
domain at this time. However, the Agency may have the necessity to acquire such
property in the future, after further notice has first been given to the property owner to
facilitate the redevelopment of the Uptown Project Area. The Council finds that any
affected or displaced business, tenant or resident will be entitled to relocation benefits,
and the property owner will be entitled to fair market value for the property as provided
for by the CRL. The Common Council also notes that both Redevelopment Plans and the
Owner Participation Rules provide procedures and protection for property owners and
business tenants who are interested in correcting business deficiencies. Such interested
property owners may request that the Agency issue a certificate of conformance
evidencing that the property owner has taken or has agreed to take appropriate action to
remedy conditions of blight on the property. In appropriate circumstances, if a property
owner agrees to cooperate with the Agency to eliminate specific conditions of blight on
his property, the Agency may agree to not acquire such property for redevelopment
purposes except upon the terms of a negotiated purchase. Mr. Abdullah is invited to
contact the Agency staff to discuss such interest which he may have in this regard.
The objection presented by Mr. Ghassan Abdullah is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
17
PART TWO
WRITTEN RESPONSE AND FINDINGS TO ORAL OBJECTIONS
RECEIVED AT THE:
JULY 19,2004
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE
AMENDED & RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH PROJECT AREA
AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
AND THE
SECTION 33352 BLIGHT REPORTS TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
4820-4987-5456.1
18
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objections Present by Deanna Adams
Ms. Adams delivered oral testimony in opposition to the redevelopment plan
amendments during the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004. A verbatim transcript of
her oral testimony is presented in Attachment No. I (Oral Objection No. I).
ResDonse:
It appears from a review of the transcription of the oral testimony presented by Ms.
Adams on July 19, 2004, that her testimony closely tracks the text of her written
objection which appears above in Part One of this Response. Accordingly, the response
to Ms. Adams' written objection is incorporated into this Written Response and Finding
to Oral Objection by this reference.
Findinl!:
It appears from a review of the transcription of the oral testimony presented by Ms.
Adams on July 19, 2004, that her testimony closely tracks the text of her written
objection which appears above in Part One of this Written Response and Finding to Oral
Objection.
Accordingly, the findings as set forth in the Written Response and Finding to the Written
Objection of Ms. Adams are adopted as the findings of the Council with respect to the
oral objection of Ms. Adams.
The oral objection presented by Ms. Deanna Adams is hereby overruled.
/
4821J-4987-5456.1
19
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objection Presented by Ghassan Norman Abdullah
Mr. Abdullah delivered oral testimony in opposition to the redevelopment plan
amendments during the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004. A verbatim transcript of
his oral testimony is presented in Attachment No.1 (Oral Objection No.2).
Response:
It appears from a review of the transcription of the oral testimony presented by Mr.
Abdullah on July 19, 2004, that his testimony closely tracks the text of his written
objection which appears above in Part One of this Written Response and Finding to Oral
Objection. Accordingly, the response to Mr. Abdullah's written objection is incorporated
into this Written Response and Finding to Oral Objection by this reference.
Findinl!:
It appears from a review of the transcription of the oral testimony presented by Mr.
Abdullah on July 19, 2004, that his testimony closely tracks the text of his written
objection which appears above in Part One of this Written Response and Finding to Oral
Objection.
Accordingly, the findings as set forth in the Written Response and Finding to the Written
Objection of Mr. Abdullah are adopted as the findings of the Council with respect to the
oral objection of Mr. Abdullah.
The oral objection presented by Mr. Ghassan Norman Abdullah is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
20
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objections Presented by Paul Adams
Mr. Adams delivered oral testimony in opposition to the redevelopment plan amendments
during the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004. A verbatim transcript of his oral
testimony is presented in Attachment No. 1 (Oral Objection No.3).
Response:
It appears from a review of the transcription of the oral testimony presented by Mr.
Adams on July 19, 2004, that his testimony closely tracks the text of his written objection
which appears above in Part One of this Written Response and Finding to Oral Objection.
Accordingly, the response to Mr. Adams written objection is incorporated into this
Written Response and Finding to Oral Objection by this reference.
Findinl!::
It appears from a review of the transcription of the oral testimony presented by Mr.
Adams on July 19, 2004, that his testimony closely tracks the text of his written objection
which appears above in Part One of this Written Response and Finding to Oral Objection.
Accordingly, the findings as set forth in the Written Response and Finding to the Written
Obj~ction of Mr. Adams are adopted as the findings of the Council with respect to the
oral objection of Mr. Adams.
The oral objection presented by Mr. Paul Adams is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
21
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objections Presented by Abdel Esmat
Mr. Esmat delivered oral testimony during the joint public hearings. A verbatim
transcription of his oral testimony is presented in Attachment No. I (Oral Objection No.
4). Mr. Esmat resides in the Central City North Project Area.
It appears that Mr. Esmat expresses at least two (2) concerns in his oral objection. The
first concern is that the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power
may frustrate his plans to reside and enjoy his home and his neighborhood. The second
concern appears to be that Mr. Esmat is unsure whether he will be consulted or notified in
the future if the Agency undertakes any program which could affect him or his property.
Response:
The Agency staff notes that Mr. Esmat has apparently acquired the property located at
762 West Sixth Street in February 2004 (See: Attachment No.3: joint public hearing
mailed contact notes). The previous owner of Mr. Esmat's home did not reside at the
address and the prior owner may not have informed Mr. Esmat of his receipt of the
Agency's prior mailed notices over the past many months regarding the proposed
redevelopment plan amendment for the Central City North Redevelopment Project.
Although as summarized in Attachment No.3, the Agency did not send mailed notice of
the Central City North Project Area joint public hearing to Mr. Esmat as the owner of the
property at 762 West Sixth Street, nevertheless the Agency did send separate potice by
United States First Class Mail of the joint public hearing for the Central City North
Project Area joint public hearing to the 762 West Sixth Street address marked to the
attention of "Occupant". It appears that Mr. Esmat received such notice by mail.
It is an encouraging sign that a single family home owned by a former absentee
landowner has recently been sold to an owner occupant such as Mr. Esmat. Mr. Esmat
obviously displays interest in his community and his neighborhood. One of the goals of
the Central City North Redevelopment Project is to encourage homeownership.
The Agency believes that the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the
Central City North Project Area may facilitate the assembly and redevelopment of vacant
and underutilized lots in the Project Area for new single family homeowner development
such as the Agency assisted twenty-two (22) new single family home development just
breaking ground in the Meadowbrook R.edevelopment Project.
In fact, a large vacant parcel of land is located immediately across the street from Mr.
Esmat's home on Sixth Street. Although the Agency has no plans to acquire or to assist
the owners of the large vacant tract of land on the south side of Sixth Street to develop it
with new single family homes, in other areas of Project Area, property owners or
developers of new single family housing may request the assistance of the Agency to
acquire an isolated vacant parcel or a poorly maintained duplex or small apartment
4820-4981-5456.1
22
building, so new homes may be constructed on such parcels in a well planned manner.
Such targeted land acquisitions by the Agency, to assist the development of new homes
or the rehabilitation of existing single faruily houses, can help serve as a catalyst for the
revitalization of a neighborhood such as the one in which Mr. Esmat resides.
The Agency has no plans to acquire the property which Mr. Esmat owns. However, the
Agency believes that the reinstatement of eminent domain in the Central City North
Project Area may encourage other new homebuyers to purchase homes in the Central
City North Project Area which are owned by absentee owners.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, testimony received at the joint public hearings
from Agency staff, Redevelopment Consultants, Agency Council and the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Central City North Project Area and this
Written Response and Finding, the Council hereby [mds that blight continues to exist in
the Central City North Project Area The Council further finds that adequate notice of the
joint public hearings for the Central City North Project Area was given to the owner and
occupants of the property located at 762 West Sixth Street by First Class United States
Mail. The Council further finds that the general property acquisition policies of the
Agency as sununarized in Attachment No.4 provide all property owners and occupants
of the lands in the Central City North Project Area with significant and effective
protections of their rights and interests.
The oral objection of Mr. Abdel Esmat is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
23
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objections Present by James Oronoz
Mr. James Oronoz presented oral testimony at the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004.
A verbatim transcript of his oral testimony appears in Attachment No.1 (Oral Objection
No.5).
The testimony of Mr. Oronoz was focused upon the property located at 1212 West
Second Street which is part of a larger assembly of parcels of land which Mr. Oronoz
states he manages for the owner. The property ownership records of the Agency indicate
that Robert L. Kovats is the owner of the property (1158 through 1224 West Second
Street). The property which Mr. Oronoz manages is located within Uptown Subarea B
and is referred to in this Written Response and Finding as the "EI Tigre Market
Property." The EI Tigre Market Property is situated on four (4) assessor parcels and
comprises one of the largest commercial properties in the Uptown Project Area under
common ownership. The EI Tigre Market Property is approximately 7.9 acres in size.
In his oral objection, Mr. Oronoz states two (2) general concerns or objections. Mr.
Oronoz opposes the reinstatement of eminent domain in the Uptown Project Area. Mr.
Oronoz also opposes the Mercado Santa Fe Project conceptual redevelopment plan which
is considered in the Project ElR for the Uptown Project Area redevelopment plan
amendment.
Response Rel!ardinl! Mercado Santa Fe Proiect Concept:
The conditions of blight which persist in the Uptown Project Area, including Uptown
Subarea B are documented in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area.
Section 33352 Report Exhibit B-2 indicates that the El Tigre Market Property has been
the site of City Code Enforcement Department efforts in recent years. A photograph of a
portion of the EI Tigre Market Property at Section 33352 Report page B-9 depicts several
physical symptoms of blight which are present on the EI Tigre Market Property. In
addition to the badly damaged roof covering the easterly Y. of the commercial building at
1184 West Second Street, as depicted in the photograph, the vacant and dilapidated
portion of this building does not appear to have been commercially used for quite some
time. A vast amount of debris, collapsed ceiling and roof material, garbage and refuse is
visible inside the building which is readily viewed between the boarded-up windows and
doors on the public sidewalk adjacent to the building. As Mr. Oronoz concedes in his
oral objection, the EI Tigre Market Property very definitely".. .needs some work and it
needs some fixing up.. ."
In recent years the City has made an investment in the restoration of the nearby Santa Fe
Railway Passenger Depot building on the north side of Third Street just to the north of
the EI Tigre Market Property. Since the early 1990s the Santa Fe Railway Passenger
Depot building has been the eastern terminus of the MetroLink commuter rail passenger
line. Each day thousands of commuter rail passengers use the Santa Fe Railway
4820-4987-5456.1
24
Passenger Depot to commute to jobs in Los Angeles County. The San Bernardino
Associated Governments, a regional planning and public mass transportation planning
authority, has relocated its general business offices to the Santa Fe Railway Passenger
Depot in recent months after the City completed some major restoration work.
In view of the fact that the old Santa Fe Railway Passenger Depot has become the site of
an increasingly important part of the regional public mass transportation system, in 2001
the Agency solicited interest from property owners in the neighborhood of the Uptown
Santa Fe Railway Passenger Depot regarding their interest in redeveloping their property.
In 2001, the Agency contacted all the property owners within a nine (9) acre site in
Uptown Subarea B immediately to the south of the Santa Fe Passenger Depot site to
explore their potential interest. The El Tigre Market Property comprises the greatest part
of this site, and the remaining 1.1 acre portion of the site is owned by several other
individuals.
The owner of the El Tigre Market Property, Mr. Robert Kovats, did not respond in 2001
to the efforts of the Agency to establish contact to discuss his potential interest in
redevelopment of the property. After it appeared to the Agency that existing property
owners were either not interested or could not be readily engaged in discussion about
potential redevelopment interest for their property, in August 2001, the Agency entered
into an agreement with a third party developer (Arthur Pearlman Corporation) to study a
range of potential redevelopment alternatives or concepts which have since been referred
to by the Agency as the "Mercado Santa Fe Project." A general description of the
Mercado Santa Fe Project is included in the Program ElR. The conceptual study of
various redevelopment alternatives for the Mercado Santa Fe Project indicated that
preparation of an environmental impact report for such a project would likely be required
and that if such a project was to be accomplished, the Agency may be required to assist
such a project with the acquisition of all the land necessary for a well-planned and
economically feasible program of redevelopment. A general chronology of the evolution
of the Mercado Santa Fe Project development concept is presented in the Agency staff
correspondence dated July 14, 2004, addressed to Mr. Oronoz, attached immediately
following this Written Response and Finding to Oral Objection.
During his oral testimony, Mr. Oronoz claims that he was unaware of the Agency's prior
efforts to contact the owner of the El Tigre Market Property to explore mutual
redevelopment interest. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Agency used the publicly
available contact information for Mr. Kovats in 2001 and later, in an effort to contact him
and involves the owner of the El Tigre Market Property in its redevelopment. As stated
in the July 14, 2004, Agency staff correspondence addressed to Mr. Oronoz, the Agency
staff was able to obtain updated and current property tax information for Mr. Kovats in
2004 before the joint public hearing notice was mailed. Mr. Oronoz states that the first
time he heard of the Agency's interest in working with the owner to accomplish the
redevelopment of the E1 Tigre Market Property was as part of the joint public hearing
notice process for the Uptown Project Area in 2004.
4820-4987-5456.1
25
As part of the preparation for the joint public hearings for the Uptown Project Area and
the certification of the Program ErR, the Agency staff mailed notice of the joint public
hearing to Robert L. Kovats as the owner of the El Tigre Market Property. In addition,
the Agency staff mailed notice of the joint public hearing to the street address given by
Mr. Oronoz as his business address 1212 West Second Street (See: Attachment No.3).
The Agency staff also mailed a total of twelve (12) notices of joint public hearings to the
various business addresses (each addressed to "Occupant" at the various Second Street
addresses) in the buildings on the El Tigre Market Property.
It is unfortunate that neither Mr. Kovats nor Mr. Oronoz have contacted the Agency
sooner to explore feasible and effective means of redeveloping the El Tigre Market
Property and nearby lands. Now that such lines of communication has been established,
it is hoped that Mr. Kovats and Mr. Oronoz will actively participate with the Agency in
formulating plans for the redevelopment of the El Tigre Market Property and the
Mercado Santa Fe Project.
It is also noted that the adoption of the amendment to the Redevelopment plan for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project and the certification of the Program EIR is not an
approval of any particular redevelopment concept for either the Mercado Santa Fe Project
or the El Tigre Market Property. The Agency has not approved any specific
redevelopment proposal for the site or for any other portion of the Uptown Subarea B.
The 2001 agreement which the Agency entered into with the Arthur Pearlman
Corporation relates to the conduct of a study for a full range of alternatives for the
redevelopment of such property. To this end, the Program EIR for the redevelopment
plan amendments considers the potential impact on the environment of the
redevelopment of the Mercado Santa Fe Project. Much further study and planning is
required before the Agency could enter into an agreement with any property owner or a
developer to provide any specific form of redevelopment assistance with respect to the
Mercado Santa Fe Project. In addition, the Agency is required to conduct a separate
public hearing before it may approve any agreement to acquire land or provide any form
of redevelopment financing assistance in support of the redevelopment of a project such
as the Mercado Santa Fe Project. The Rules for Owner Participation for the Uptown
Project Area provide additional guidelines and protections to existing property owners
who have the capability and interest in participating with the Agency in eliminating and
preventing the spread of blight in the Uptown Project Area.
Response to Obiection to Eminent Domain:
Mr. Oronoz objects to the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the
Uptown Project Area. The reinstatement of eminent domain in the Uptown Project Area
may be necessary in order to accomplish the redevelopment of the Mercado Santa Fe
Project and the El Tigre Market Property and nearby lands for the reasons indicated in the
preceding paragraphs of this Written Response and Finding. The site is in multiple
ownerships, there are multiple commercial business tenants on the site who have leases or
rental agreements of unknown duration (e.g., see objection of Mr. Diem N. Mach below),
and not all current property owners and commercial business tenants may be ready of
4820-4987-5456.1
26
financially capable of participating in the redevelopment of such a project. Nonetheless,
the Mercado Santa Fe Project site contains blighted properties and the elimination of
blight within the Mercado Santa Fe Project site and bn nearby lands will materially assist
with the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight elsewhere in Uptown Subarea
B.
The conceptual study conducted to date for the Mercado Santa Fe Project indicates that
the optimal site would include a larger area than just the EI Tigre Market Property. In
addition, the integration of the land between "K" Street and the EI Tigre Market Property
into a new site will allow for the new development to be better designed than the old
improvements on the EI Tigre Market Property to accommodate the significant changes
in topography or street grade between Third Street on the north and Second Street on the
south. Without the ability to attach additional parcels of land to the site, neither Mr.
Kovats, the Arthur Pearlman Corporation nor any other person may be able to formulate
a well planned or economically feasible redevelopment concept for the elimination of
blight on such property. .
At this time, the Agency has made no decision to proceed with any type of specific
redevelopment project which includes the acquisition by the Agency of the EI Tigre
Market Property. Much planuing and additional consultations with property owners,
existing bnsiness tenants, new tenants and lenders and qualified developers remains to be
accomplished before any such decision would be made by the Agency.
----
Mr. Kovats, Mr. Oronoz and the tenants who presently occupy the El Tigre Market
Property, will get separate notice by mail prior to any public hearing at which a specific
plan for development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project or the El Tigre Market Property
may be considered by the Agency. Ouly after the Agency makes a final and publicly
announced decision following a public hearing would the Agency begin any action to
acquire any property for the Mercado Santa Fe Project by eminent domain.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel and the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area and this Written
Response and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
warranted at this time. No final decision has been made by the Councilor the Agency to
proceed with the Mercado Santa Fe Project. The certification of the Program ElR by the
Council shall in no wayforeclose or prevent further review, study or public consultations
with the community, Mr. Kovats, Mr. Oronoz, and any other interested persons
conceruing the redevelopment of the lands which may be included in any such project. If
4820-4987-5456.\
27
the Agency may in the future undertake the acquisition of any property in the Uptown
Project Area; including without limitation the El Tigre Market Property, each affected
property owner, or business or tenant residing on any land which the Agency may
hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by condemnation will be entitled to
receive relocation benefits, and the property owner will be entitled to receive fair market
value for the property as provided by the CRL and all applicable law. The Council also
notes that Owner Participation Rules for the Uptown Project Area contain significant and
effective protections for each business tenant on the El Tigre Market Property who may
wish to remain as a tenant within a new project. The Owner Participation Rules also
contain protections for any business which may elect to relocate to another address either
inside the Uptown Project Area or elsewhere in the community at a location which is
reasonably suitable to the continued operation of such a business. The Council further
finds that the owner of the El Tigre Market Property, Robert L. Kovats, and each of the
current business occupants of the El Tigre Market Property, including Mr. Oronoz, have
been given adequate prior notice of the joint public hearing on the amendment to the
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
The oral objection presented by Mr. James Oronoz is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
28
City of San Bernardino
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Redevelopment. Community Development. Housing . Busit18ss: Recrultment. Retention. Revitalization. Main Street, Inc.
~
July 14, 2004
James Oronoz
P.O. Box 3827
La Habra, CA 90632
Re: Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project: Subarea B (Mercado Santa Fe Project)
Robert L. Kovats Property, 1140 - 1228 W Second Street, San Bemardmo, California
(Assessor Parcel No"(I138-263-02; 0138-301-01; 0138-301-06; 0138-301-10)
Dear Mr. Oronoz:
On behalf of Maggie Pacheco and myself, I want to let you know that we enjoyed meeting with
you and your son, David, on June 29, 2004, to discuss what the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Agency") is trying to do to in the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area to encourage redevelopment and the elimination of blight
\
It is our understanding that you represent the interests of the owner of the property located at
1140 - 1228 W Second Street, San Bernardino, California (the ~'Property"). In our discussions
you expressed concern that Mr. Kovats, as the owner of the Prdperty, as well as the owner of
several other properties located within Subarea B of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area,
and you as the representative of Mr. Kovats, had not received notice from the Agency in recent
months concerning the proposed amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the
Agency's condemnation power, nor has the Property Owner received notice of the formation of a
Project Area Committee (pAC) for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area. You also
informed us that you were not aware that the Agency has been making efforts over the past many
months to contact the owner of the Property as part of the Agency's preliminary planning and
study of a proposed redevelopment project referred to as the "Mercado Santa Fe Project" and the
selection of a qualified developer to undertake such a project The initiation of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project could affect the Property.
Our records indicate that the Agency has made a sustained effort to contact the owner of the
Property and to inform the owner of potential plans for its redevelopment The Agency's effo~
include the correspondence with has been assembled and enclosed for your reference with this
letter. One of the attached items of correspondence from March 2003, contains a notice and
201 North E Stree~ Suite301-San BemartJlno. CeIifomia 92401-1507-{909) 663-1044 -Fax (909) 888-9413
www.sanbeman:fino.eda.OIJ1.
James Oronoz
. July 14, 2004
Page 2
invitation to the owner of the Property to participate in an enviromnental impact report scoping
meeting for the Uptown Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
As we explained to you on June 29, 2004, the Property Owner contact information avaiJ!!!>le to
the Agency comes from the property tax payer mailing address information which we obtain
from the San Bernardino County Assessors and County Records. The Agency has sent various
items of correspondence notices of redevelopment activity to the following addresses which we
obtained for the Property Owner: P.O. Box 2444 Corona, CA 91718; 314 N Robertson Court
Placentia, CA 92870; 961 E Torrey Pines Place Placentia, CA 92870; P.O. Box 1365 Placentia,
CA 92871.
In the future the Agency will send correspondence and notices to the owner of the Property and
to you, as his representative, at the following address: P.O. Box 3827 La Habra, CA 90632. In
addition, the Agency will continue to address correspondence and notices of redevelopment
activity affecting the Property, as required by law to the address to which the County Tax
Collector mails the annual property tax bills for the Property.
In our discussions you also informed us that Mr. Kovats had recently received an offer to
purchase the Property, from the Arthur Pearlman Corporation. Although you did not indicate the
specific price or terms included in such an offer, you stated to us your view that the offer was
low. You also informed us on behalf of Mr. Kovats you would not accept that offer.
We also discussed the Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) with you during our meeting on June
29, 2004, and after you reviewed the conceptual site plan for the Mercado Santa Fe Project that
was included in the EIR, you stated that you could possibly put together a better concept for the
development of the site than the one provided to the Agency by Arthur Pearlman Corporation.
As Ms. Pacheco stated during our meeting with you, the Agency has not made any specific
. \ commitment to anyone concerning the potential redevelopment of the Mercado Santa Fe Project
or the Property, and the owner of the Property is encouraged to submit proposal for
redevelopment of the Property and nearby lands if you believe filch redevelopment is feasible.
The Agency staff currently believes that a substantial investment of both private and public
capital is required in Subarea B of the Uptown Redevelopment Project and in particular on the
Property in order to correct existing conditions of blight in the project area.
Ms. Pacheco has also inquired as to whether your principal would be interested in selling the
Property to the Agency. You stated during our office meeting that you believed your principal
does have such an interest in selling the Property if the price was fair and reasonable. In that
regard, Ms. Pacheco stated that the Agency staff are prepared, to obtain an appraisal of the
Property at the present time, and is also prepared, subject to the concurrence of the governing
board of the Agency, to make an offer to purchase the Property for its current appraised fair
market value in its current "as is "condition subject to all leases and existing occupancies. She
also stated that separately from any such offer to purchase the Property, the Agency would be
respoDSlole for relocating the existing tenants, and that the owner of the Property would not need
to be concerned with causing any of the existing tenants to terminate their occupancy before the
time when the Agency would be prepared to pay the agreed upon purchase price for the Property
1:........ ~~h.. Als.uI'c,K.-.(o.a..)..Ic:Ucr.6-2t1Lev3.dDc
James Oronoz
July 14,2004
Page 3
to the owner.
AE. we agreed during our meeting. I am enclosing for your review a copy of the Draft
Environmental hnpact Report (OEIR) and the Final Environmental hnpact Report (FE~Uor the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan Amendment and copies of certain items of correspondence which
the Agency has previously sent to the owner of the Property.
In closing, we look forward to working with you as Mr. Robert Kovats' representative.
I f you have any question concerning this matter, please contact me at (909) 663-1044.
Sincerely,
~
Mike Trout
Project Manager
cc: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director (w/o enclosures)
Maggie Pacheco, Deputy Director (w/o enclosures)
Robert L. Kovats
File
Enclosures:
May IS, 2001 letter
July 16, 2002 mailer
August 27, 2002, mailer
I December 10, 2002, mailer
February 10,2003, mailer no. 1
February 10,2003, mailer no. 2
February 10, 2003, mailer no. 3
March 12, 2003, mailer no. 1
March 12, 2003, mailer no. 2
March 12,2003, mailer no. 3
June 19,2004, notice of joint public hearing
~th,A'~1 ...d .......EowIllI(o.c-)........WtItft3.doc
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objection Presented by Diem N. Mach
Mr. Diem N. Mach presented oral testimony at the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004.
A verbatim transcription of the testimony submitted by Mr. Mach is included in
Attachment No. 1 (Oral Objection No.6). Mr. Mach occupies certain commercial
property as a tenant' of either Mr. James Oronoz (See Response to Oral Objection of
James Oronoz, above) or Mr. Robert L. Kovats who is the owner of the El Tigre Market
Property. Mr. Mach received mailed notice of the joint public hearing as the "Occupant"
of1224 West Second Street.
Mr. Mach does not actually present an objection in his testimony. However, Mr. Mach
does express a concem that he may be displaced as a business tenant from 1224 West
Second Street as a result of potential redevelopment activity by the Agency.
ResDonse to Comments of Mr. Diem N. Mach:
Mr. Mach's attention is directed to the Written Response and Finding provided to the oral
objection of Mr. James Oronoz, which appears above.
At this time, the Agency has not approved any plan or action which would require the
displacement of the commercial business occupancy of Mr. Mach at 1224 West Second
Street. However, the Agency is studying the conceptual redevelopment proposal for the
Mercado Santa Fe Project which is also generally described in the Written Response and
Finding to Mr. James Oronoz. In addition, a description of the conceptual redevelopment
proposal for the Mercado Santa Fe Project is described in the Program ElR for the
Uptown Project Area.
The attention of Mr. Mach is also directed to the materials in Attachment No. 4 which
describe the Agency property acquisition policies and practices. Commercial businesses
also qualify for relocation assistance payments if the Agency undertakes a redevelopment
program which results in the displacement of the business. As a general rule, an
established business such as the one conducted by Mr. Mach, qualifies for a minimum
relocation assistance payment of $20,000. (See Goverurnent Code Section 7262 and 25
Califomia Code of Regulations Section 6100). Additional sums of relocation assistance
payments could be payable to Mr. Mach for the actual cost to move a particular business,
including all of its inventory and operating equipment, the cost to obtain permits to
operate at a new location, the cost to install improvements at the new location to
accommodate the business and other expenses. Relocation assistance payments are in
addition to other sums which the Agency may be required to pay a business which is
displaced by a particular project, such as any potential loss in value of the "business
goodwill" of the particular business. The calculation of the amount of such relocation
assistance benefits varies from business to business based upon the particular facts. Since
the determination of the amount of commercial relocation benefits is dependant on so
many factors and since the longer period oftime a business has to plan a potential move,
4820-4987-5456.\
29
the less the actual cost of the move may be, it is the policy of the Agency to consult with
a particular business which may be relocated as far in advance of a displacement as
possible.
Before any project is approved by the Agency which could result in the displacement of
Mr. Mach's business, including the Mercado Santa Fe Project, the Agency will give Mr.
Mach written notice of the time and date when the Agency will consider the approval of
such a project. However, the reinstatement of the Agency's power to acquire land in the
Uptown Project Area does not mean that the Agency will in fact move forward with the
Mercado Santa Fe Project, or acquire the EI Tigre Market Property or compel Mr. Mach
to relocate his business, either into the Mercado Santa Fe Project or move his business to
another address. A separate and additional public hearing would be necessary before
such action could be taken by the Agency which may result in the displacement of Mr.
Mach's business.
As outlined above, if the Agency may later approve a project which requires the
displacement of Mr. Mach's business, Mr. Mach will be eligible to claim certain
relocation assistance benefits. Depending on the terms of this store lease with Mr.
Oronoz, Mr. Mach may also be entitled to receive a portion of the Agency's payment for
the purchase of the property as the "leasehold value" of the remaining term of this
business lease. Furthermore, a business which is displaced by the Agency qualifies to
receive relocation assistance payments as a separate item of compensation - in other
words, the l'llldlord cannot claim any part of the tenant's relocation benefit payment. The
commercial business tenant qualifies for such a payment regardless of whether the tenant
has a month-to-month lease or whether the tenant has a multi-year lease.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Cousultant, Agency COWlSel, the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area and this Written
Response and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditious of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
warranted at this time. The Agency has made no determination to displace the business
operations of Mr. Mach. If the Agency may in the future undertake the acquisition of any
property in the Uptown Project Area, including without limitation the EI Tigre Market
Property, each affected property owner, or displaced business or tenant residing on any
land which the Agency may hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by
condemnation will be entitled to receive relocation benefits and each business tenant
under a multiple-year lease will be entitled to receive fair market value for the leasehold
interest of the business as provided by all applicable law. The Council also notes that
Owner Participation Rules for the Uptown Project Area contain significant and effective
4820-4987-5456.1
30
protection for each business tenant on the EI Tigre Market Property who may wish to
remain as a tenant within a new and redeveloped project or alternatively to each business
which may elect to relocate to another address either inside the Uptown Project Area or
elsewhere in the community at a location which is reasonably suitable to the continued
operation of such a business. The Council further finds that each of the current business
occupants of the EI Tigre Market Property, including Mr. Mach, have been given
adequate prior notice of the joint public hearing on the amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
The oral objection presented by Mr. Diem N. Mach is hereby overruled.
482ll-4987-5456.\
31
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Presentation Submitted by Jason Desjardins
Mr. Jason Desjardins presented oral comments at the joint public hearings on July 19,
2004. A verbatim transcript of the comments presented by Mr. Desjardins is included in
Attachment No. I (Oral Objection No.7).
Mr. Desjardins states that he is an owner of several parcels of land. These parcels are
located in Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area. Mr. Desjardins states that he is neither
for nor against the amendment to reinstate that Agency's condemnation power in the
Uptown Project Area. However, Mr. Desjardins expresses an interest in being informed
of any specific plans which the Agency may propose in the future for the redevelopment
of the property he described in his oral testimony.
Response to Inquiry of Mr. Desjardins:
The Agency has no plans to acquire any of the parcels which Mr. Desjardins described in
his testimony.
However, the Agency does note that the State of California may in the future seek to
acquire for 1-215 freeway right-of-way widening purposes some portions of the vacant
parcels of land located on the east side of "I" Street directly opposite from the improved
property which Mr. Desjardins owns at 274 North "I" Street. However, neither the City
nor the Agency is involved with any such 1-215 freeway right-of-way acquisition by the
State of California.
The Agency is not the sole entity which formulates or proposes activities for the
elimination of blight in the Uptown Project Area. Current property owners and
businesses are encouraged to submit proposals for the redevelopment of the property and
nearby lands to the Agency. If Mr. Desjardins is interested in participating with the
Agency in the redevelopment of his property or lands adjacent to his property, he is urged
to contact Mr. Mike Trout, Redevelopment Project Manager at the address indicated in
the notice of joint public hearing for the Uptown Project Area. If he is contacted, Mr.
Trout can provide any interested property owner or business tenant with a suitably
detailed explanation of the types of redevelopment assistance which the Agency may be
able to provide in a particular situation. Mr. Trout can also describe the type of
information which Mr. Desjardins will need to submit to the Agency which sets forth a
proposal for a specific redevelopment program on the part of the property owner. Once
such a specific plan for redevelopment of the property is submitted to the Agency by the
owner, the Agency can review the proposal and determine whether it is feasible and
whether the Agency can in fact assist the property owner to accomplish the
redevelopment of the property under the terms of a written "owner participation
agreement" by and between the property owner and the Agency.
4820-4987-5456.1
32
A goal of the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project is to
encourage existing business property owners and business tenants to make capital
investments in their property and expand their businesses in the Uptown Project Area.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from. Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, this Written Response
and Finding and the other evidence contained in the Section 33352 Report for the
Uptown Project Area, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
warranted at this time. The Agency has no current plan to acquire the property owned by
Mr. Desjardins by negotiated purchase or with the use of eminent domain. However, the
Agency may have the necessity to acquire such property in the future, after further notice
has first been given to the property owner to facilitate the redevelopment of the Uptown
Project Area If the Agency may in the future undertake the acquisition of any property
in the Uptown Project Area, each affected property owner and business tenant on any
land which the Agency may hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by
condemnation will be entitled to receive relocation benefits, and in addition to relocation
benefits, the owner of the property will be entitled to receive fair market value for any
property acquired by the Agency as provided by all applicable law. The Council also
notes that Owner Participation Rules for the Uptown Project Area contain significant and
effective protections for each property owner and business tenant in the Uptown Project
Area regarding prior consultations with the Agency concerning any potential purchase of
the property by the Agency.
To the extent that the oral testimony presented by Mr. Jason Desjardins may be construed
as an oral objection to the adoption of the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project such oral testimony is hereby overruled.
48204987-5456.1
33
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objections Presented by Guillermo Corona
Mr. Guillermo Corona presented oral comments at the joint public hearings on July 19,
2004. A verbatim transcription of the comments presented by Mr. Corona is included in
Attachment No. I (Oral Objection No.8).
Mr. Corona states that he is a renter and resides in Uptown Subarea B. Mr. Corona does
not appear to have an objection to the reinstatement of the Agency's condemnation power
in the Uptown Project Area In point of fact, Mr. Corona is concerned that the general
neighborhood in which he resides appears to be neglected and in need of repair and
maintenance.
Response to Testimonv Presented bv Mr. Corona:
Mr. Corona is interested in the redevelopment of his neighborhood and the Council
thanks Mr. Corona for briuing to its attention the fact that certain lands and areas in
Uptown Subarea B require maintenance and improvement.
Although the Agency has no current plans to acquire the property on which Mr. Corona
resides, the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area indicates that conditions
of blight are present in the Uptown Project Area, including Uptown Subarea B.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area and this Written
Response and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
warranted at this time. If the Agency may in the future undertake the acquisition of any
property in the Uptown Project Area, including without limitation the property on which
Mr. Corona resides, each affected property owner, and each residential tenant residing on
any land which the Agency may hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by
condemnation will be entitled to receive relocation benefits and the property owner will
be entitled to receive fair market value for the property as provided by the CRL and all
applicable law.
To the extent that the oral testimony presented by Mr. Guillermo Corona may be
construed as an oral objection to the adoption of the amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project, such oral testimony is hereby ovenuled.
48204987-5456.1
34
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objection Presented by Shade Awad
Mr. Shade Awad presented oral comments at the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004.
A verbatim transcription of the comments presented by Mr. Awad is included in
Attachment No.1 (Oral Objection No.9).
Mr. Awad expresses a concern that the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain
power in the Uptown Project Area could adversely affect his family business if the
Agency decides to acquire the property. Mr. Awad expresses a concern that his family
and he may not be able to plan for the future if the Agency may reinstate its
condenmation power.
Response to Concerns of Mr. Awad:
The business operated by Mr. Awad and his family at 685 West Baseline Avenue is
situated in an attractive and well maintained small strip commercial shopping center.
Unlike many of the other business property locations near to the Mr. Awad's store, all of
the commercial store space in Mr. Awad's small strip commercial shopping center is
occupied by various businesses which appear to be successful and which provide
important services to the community. If the other commercial properties near Mr.
Awad's place of business had the type of commercial business tenants and maintained
their property in a similar condition, conditions of blight in the Uptown Project Area
would be dramatically reduced. The small strip shopping center in which Mr. Awad's
business is located is well planned, has adequate on-site vehicle parking (unlike many
other nearby strip commercial properties) and enjoys good access and vehicle traffic
circulation between the adjoining public streets and the property because of the newer
site plan of design which takes into consideration vehicle traffic and circulation issues.
Since the strip shopping center in which Mr, Awad's business is located is well planned
and designed and maintained particularly in comparison to other nearby properties, it is
not surprising that after many years of hard work Mr. Awad has a successful and vital
business.
The Agency has no current plans to acquire the property in which Mr. Awad's business is
located. The property on which Mr. Awad's business is located is not blighted. Not all
property included in a redevelopment project area must be blighted. The very nature of
the designation of redevelopment project area boundaries often times requires that non-
blighted property be included with blighted property so that all property (both blighted
and non-blighted property) can be benefited by redevelopment programs.
The attention of Mr. Awad is directed to the written materials assembled in Attachment
No.4 which provide an explanation of the Agency's property acquisition policy and
programs.
4820-4987-5456.1
35
Findinl!::
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff,. Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area and this Written
Response and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
warranted at this time. The Agency has no current plan to acquire the property on which
Mr. Awad conducts his business operations by negotiated purchase or with the use of
eminent domain. However, the Agency may have the necessity to acquire such property
in the future, after further notice has first been given to the property owner to facilitate
the redevelopment of the Uptown Project Area. If the Agency may in the future
undertake the acquisition of any property in the Uptown Project Area, each affected
property owner, or displaced business or tenant residing on any land which the Agency
may hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by condemnation will be entitled
to receive relocation benefits and the property owner will be entitled to receive fair
market value for the property as provided by the CRL and all applicable law. The
Council also notes that Owner Participation Rules for the Uptown Project Area contain
significant and effective protections for each business tenant who may wish to remain as
a tenant on commercial property which the Agency proposes for acquisition and
redevelopment or who alternatively may seek to relocate to another address either inside
the Uptown Project Area or elsewhere in the community at a location which is reasonably
suitable to the continued operation of such a business.
The oral objection presented by Mr. Shade Awad is hereby overruled.
I ,
4820-4987-5456.1
36
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objection Presented by Jay Lindberg
Mr. Jay Lindberg presented oral comments at the joint public hearings on July 19, 2004.
A verbatim transcription of the comments presented by Mr. Lindberg is included in
Attachment No.1 (Oral Objection No. 10).
In his comments Mr. Lindberg does not indicate which of the two redevelopment plan
amendments his concerns are focused. Mr. Lindberg does not appear to either own
property or reside in either of the Project Areas. However, Mr. Lindberg does appear to
be concerned with groundwater contamination issues which could potentially effect both
the Uptown Project Area as well as the Central City North Project Area.
ResDonse to Concerns EXDressed bv Mr. Lindbere: Relatine: to Potential
Contamination of Groundwater Resources:
Mr. Lindberg is correct where he notes that potential groundwater contamination
problems are present in the greater San Bernardino community area.
The CRL also identifies environmental contamination problems as one of many different
elements of blight which may affect property in a project area. (CRL Section
3303l(b)(l)). However, neither of the redevelopment plan amendments are being
undertaken by the Agency in order to enable the Agency to assist with the clean-up of
properties which contain hazardous waste or are the potential source of any groundwater
contamination.
The reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain in both Project Areas is not
being undertaken for the purpose of addressing groundwater contamination clean-up
concerns. The Agency is not responsible for conducting such regional groundwater
resource restoration programs.
The proposed actions outlined in the Program Environmental Impact Report, i.e.,
reinstatement of eminent domain; the conceptual Mercado Santa Fe development; the
General Plan amendment (zoning change) are not related to any groundwater pollution.
There are no known sources of groundwater pollution in either the Central City North
Project Area or Uptown Redevelopment Project Areas.
Findine::
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Reports for the Project Areas and this Written Response
and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which may be
undertaken by the Agency following the amendments to the redevelopment plans for the
Project Areas shall comply with all applicable law. The information set forth in the
4820-4987-5456.1
37
Section 33352 Reports for the Project Area demonstrates that conditions of blight remain
in the Project Areas and that the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in
the Project Areas is warranted at this time.
The oral objection presented by Mr. Jay Lindberg is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
38
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objections Presented by Hope E. Durbin
Ms. Hope E. Durbin presented oral comments at the joint public hearings on July 19,
2004. A verbatim transcription of the comments presented by Ms. Durbin is included in
Attachment No. I (Oral Objection No. 11).
Ms. Durbin is the owner ofmultifarnily dwelling property at 213 through 219 North "J"
Street. This property is located in Uptown Subarea B and is also within the area affected
by City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02.
Ms. Durbin expresses a number of concerns in her comments. For the most part her
concerns and comments are addressed or directed to what Ms. Durbin believes is a vague
and ambiguous process. Ms. Durbin essentially wants to know"... what's going on... ?"
Ms. Durbin also questions whether there is any reason to believe that the Agency will
treat property owners fairly, if the Agency may seek to acquire property. Ms. Durbin also
claims that although she did not receive notice of the joint public hearing, her residential
tenants did receive such notice and that "...[the City and the Agency] pretty much are
scaring our tenants out of their homes. Are they going to continue to pay rent. I don't
know."
ResDonse to Comments of Ms. HODe E. Durbin:
As a preliminary matter, the Agency has no current plan to acquire the property at 213
through 219 North "f' Street by negotiated purchase or by eminent domain.
As a second point which bears emphasis, residential tenants who are in breach of their
rental agreements do not) qualify and are not eligible to receive relocation assistance
benefits from the Agency if their landlord's property is acquired. As a practical matter, it
is an exceeding rare situation in which a residential tenant will be late or withhold the
payment of rent if that tenant's eligibility to receive relocation assistance payments is
jeopardized. (See Agency property acquisition and relocation assistance policy materials
included in Attachment No.4).
The reinstatement of the Agency's condemnation power in the Uptown Project Area does
not necessarily mean that any property in the Uptown Project Area will ever be acquired
by the Agency by eminent domain. The Agency's power to acquire property by eminent
domain lapsed in the Uptown Project in 1998. In the twelve (12) years preceding 1998,
the Agency did not acquire any property in the Uptown Project by eminent domain.
However, the potential use by the Agency of its eminent domain power to acquire
property in the future could assist the Agency to eliminate and prevent the spread of
blight in the Uptown Project Area. In view of the fact that conditions of blight persist in
the Uptown Project Area as documented in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown
Project Area, it is appropriate for the Agency to consider the reinstatement of the power
of eminent domain to assist the Agency to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight.
4820-4987-5456.1
39
The procedures which the Agency follows in acqumng property are set forth in
Attachment No.4. There are a number of features which are part of the Agency's
property acquisition policies which provide assurance that property owners will be
treated fairly anytime the Agency may seek to acquire their property.
In addition, interested property owners are invited to consider whether they may wish to
enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with the Agency as relates to the
redevelopment and use of their property. As stated above, the Agency has no current
plan to acquire the property owned by Ms. Durbin. If Ms. Durbin has a proposal for the
redevelopment of her property, including other lands, she is invited to submit a written
proposal to the Agency. In light of the City's approval of General Plan Amendment No.
04-02 (changing the land use designation of her property from industrial to commercial
,and office/professional), Ms. Durbin, as well as other property owners, may wish to
consider entering into an agreement with the Agency for the study of a specific plan for
the redevelopment of her property for that new land use classification.
If Ms. Durbin has questions regarding the process of submitting a specific redevelopment
proposal to the Agency she is invited to contact Mr. Mike Trout at the address indicated
in the notice of joint public hearing for the Uptown Project Area.
Ms. Durbin expresses a degree of frustration in her comments with the length of time and
complexity required for accomplishing the redevelopment process. However, the
redevelopment process is lengthy in large part because public participation is at its center.
The redevelopment process may appear to be complex because the rights of property
owners and tenants must be respected and protected.
Finally, Ms. Durbin expresses a concem that the Agency failed to give her notice of the
joint public hearing. However, as summarized in Attachment No.3, the Agency did in
fact mail notice of the joint public hearing to the most current address on the County
property tax records for the owner of the property. In addition, the Agency also sent
separate notice by mail to each of the tenants or residents who live on the property. It
appears that one or more of Ms. Durbin's tenants did contact her about the notice of joint
public hearing which the tenants received from the Agency.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area and this Written
Response and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
4820-4987-5456.1
40
warranted at this time. The Agency has no current plans to acquire the property situated
. at 213 through 219 North "J" Street by negotiated purchase or by eminent domain.
However, the Agency may have the necessity to acquire such property in the future, after
further notice has first been given to the property owner to facilitate the redevelopment of
the Uptown Project Area. If the Agency may in the future undertake the acquisition of
any property in the Uptown Project Area, including without limitation with Uptown
Subarea B, each affected property owner, or displaced business or tenant residing on any
land which the Agency may hereafter seek to acquire by negotiated purchase or by
condemnation will be entitled to receive relocation benefits and the property owner will
be entitled to receive fair market value for the property as provided by the CRL and all
applicable law. The Council also notes that Owner Participation Rules for the Uptown
Project .Area contain significant and effective protection for each property owner in the
Project Area. The Council further finds that Ms. Durbin as the owner of the property
located at 213 through 219 North "]" Street has received adequate prior notice of the joint
public hearing on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project.
The oral objection presented by Ms. Hope E. Durbin is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
41
Written Response and Finding
To Oral Objection Presented by Martha Reyes
Ms. Martha Reyes submitted oral comments during the joint public hearings on July 19,
2004. A verbatim transcription of the comments of Ms. Reyes is included in Attachment
No. I (Oral Objection No. 12).
Ms. Reyes owns the property at 244 North "J" Street. This property is located in Uptown
Subarea B. Ms. Reyes is a homeowner. In her comments, Ms. Reyes wonders whether
the Agency may ever acquire her property, how can she be sure that she will be treated
fairly by the Agency and how can she be confident that just compensation will be paid to
her for her home.
Response to Comments or Ms. Martha Reves:
The Agency has no current plans to acquire the property located at 244 North "J" Street.
The property acquisition policies and procedures of the Agency are summarized in
Attachment No.4. As described in the written response to the comments of other persons
who provided testimony at the joint public hearings, the Agency's land acquisition
policies and procedures provide property owners with assurance that they will be treated
fairly by the Agency and the Agency will pay fair market value for any property which it
acqurres.
Findinl!:
Based on the response set forth above, the testimony presented at the joint public hearing
from Agency Staff, Redevelopment Consultant, Agency Counsel, the other evidence
contained in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area and this Written
Response and Finding, the Council hereby finds that the redevelopment activities which
may be undertaken by the Agency following the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Uptown Redevelopment Project shall comply with all applicable law. The
information set forth in the Section 33352 Report for the Uptown Project Area
demonstrates that conditions of blight remain in the Uptown Project Area and that the
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain power in the Uptown Project Area is
warranted at this time. If the Agency may in the future undertake the acquisition of any
property in the Uptown Project Area, including without limited the portion of Uptown
Subarea B affected by City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, each affected property
owner, or displaced tenant residing on any land which the Agency may hereafter seek to
acquire by negotiated purchase or by condenmation will be entitled to receive relocation
benefits and the property owner will be entitled to receive fair market value for the
property as provided by the CRL and all applicable law.
The oral objection presented by Ms. Martha Reyes is hereby overruled.
4820-4987-5456.1
42
AITACHMENT"I"
TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL OBJECTIONS
RECEIVED AT THE:
JULY 19, 2004
JOINT PUBLl,C HEARING
FOR THE
AMENDED & RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH PROJECT AREA
AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
AND THE
SECTION 33352 BLIGHT REPORTS TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
482ll-4987-5456.\
43
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
THE CLERK: Three letters, one dated July 17th, 2004, from a Mr. Paul Adams, 1156 North "F"
Street, second letter is dated July 18th, 2004, from Ghassan Norman Abdullah and family, 1129
North "F" Street, the third letter is dated July 17th, from Deanna H.P. Adams, Ph.D., at 1156
North "F" Street, San Bernardino, California.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.1
MS. ADAMS: Thank you, Mayor" and Common Council. My name is Deanna Adams. My
residence is 1156 North "F" Street. I reside there and have been so for 20 years here in San
Bemardino. I would object to the eminent domain for the Central City for Redevelopment
Project. TIlls objection to the eminent domain Center City North Redevelopment Project, the
City of San Bernardino, has targeted our area. That's also my area for eminent domain. In order
to acquire our property in business and displaces from the place we live, own, or earn our
livelihood. I believe eminent domain is an injustice forced upon the free enterprise nature to the
constitution. Eminent domain is interfering with the process of free enterprise and democracy.
The only appropriate manner eminent domain may be viewed democratically is if it's for
agreeing to such an act. I have been a citizen of San Bernardino for 20 years leaving an affluent
and desired area. I make a difference in our environment. I came here to make a difference, and
I did so. I was 37 years old, and my son, 15. I attracted people from allover our neighboring
cities to Victory Chapel. Our chapel is the beacon in our neighborhood, and in spite of the low
income I have. received for 20 years -- and I tell you that is low income -- I've been faithful to
the ministry, and I've established goodwill. I believe the goodwill of Victory Chapel was
significant for all these years to sooth the negative energy or hardness in the environment and
changes for 20 years, despite the blight, as you say. Victory Chapel is an example of free
enterprise, vision and goodwill. Further, now, the City of San Bernardino has increased real
estate values in excess of 57 percent, and the population has grown in excess of 37 percent since
1999. These are indicators of prosperity, not blight. The population growth and real estate boom
4814,3501-6448.1
1
to help get rid of the blight in your area, dispositive changes is a result of dedication, goodwill,
and a desire to make a difference in the beloved City of San Bernardino. I look forward to
harvesting from seeds I've sown for 20 years. And as I have mentioned to you before, I made
very little money in those 20 years, but I was there as a beacon in the neighborhood. Our chapel
is beautiful, and we have done many, many services. As a matter of fact, our chapel is more
beautiful than the most infamous chapel, Edwards Mansion. However, it is area, area, area But
I stayed and made the place different, a change. So I look forward in partakiIlg into the future of
our beautiful San Bernardino in her prosperity. Why should I be outcasted and given the boot
after I've been so loyal for 20 years. The future is not blight, it's bright. And I see an
alternative, perhaps, through education, that we can educate the people in the area to make a
difference. The people should be inspired to engage in free enterprise system and stimulate
growth for profit and also goodwilL This City has shown very little effort to simulate and
. engage free enterprise in our particular area. I'd like to concluded that I did not receive a letter
in the maiL I contacted the Redevelopment - the gentleman that is sitting there -- I'm a little bit
nervous. I forgot his name -- and he did send me one in the maiL And our Vietnamese
neighbors also at church did not understand the letter, couldn't understand the language. And
our Spanish neighbors could not find an interpreter. So here we are in a neighborhood that is
mixed with religions, cultures, languages, and we need clarity and simplicity in addressing issues
regarding the essence of their lives. As I mentioned to you before, I've been there for 20 years, .
and I made very little money. And I'm not poor, but I love the ministry. Because making a
difference in people's lives and -- in the area, that's what I'm all about. If I can do that as an
example, you can inspire other people to do the same. I'm just human. Everyone has the same
heart and same desires. Thank you very much for listening.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.2
MR. ABDULLAH: Yes. Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tern and Members of the City CounciL
My name is Ghassan Norman Abdullah. I reside at 1129 North "F" Street, San Bernardino,
4814-3501-6448.1
2
92410. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council, we, the Abdullah Family, and
other members of your community, our neighbors in Uptown Subarea A, are writing this letter to
make a formal -- we're objecting to the reinstatement of eminent domain in the Central City
North Redevelopment Project. I'd like also like to comment briefly on the Environmental
hnpact Report. We believe that taking our homes and displacing our elderly parents who are on
fixed income and disabled is morally wrong and unconstitutional, because it infringes upon our
right of pursuit of happiness. And do not -- we do not deserve -- this does not serve the overall
greater public good. You claim that it is to eliminate blight in this area. We challenge this
notion, since it's the City itself that sets the standards and defines what is blight as they see fit, in
order to achieve the overall goal of acquiring property at a low cost. We think the real reason for
-- behind this project is to increase overall tax revenues as a fix for an ailing City budget and
possibly other fiscal matters. We urge you to remove this label of "blight" from our area,
Uptown Subarea A, where we live and work, and to promote more home ownership and
improvements, not chase us and our families away. This redevelopment project is
unconstitutional as it preys on the less fortunate and on the weak with limited resources who are
unable to defend themselves. It takes one man's property and gives it to the wealthy real estate
developer or other investors who have more money. Who are these developers anyway? Is this
a secret? Shouldn't this information be disclosed to the residents and citizens of San
Bernardino? What is the exact plan? Your constituents needed to know this. We do take pride
in our community, homes and businesses, and we urge you to reject this development project and
end in the reinstatement of eminent domain. We do not want to be uprooted from thesehomes
and displaced, nor do we want to have the cloud of eminent domain reign over us and adversely
affect our lives, goals and future plans. I would like to have comment on the Environmental
Impact. I did read it. I do believe that it is incomplete, inadequate, and not thorough enough as
it leaves many issues that are not even addressed or answered. For example, how many disabled
citizens are impacted? Children? Elderly living on fixed income, and other low income
residents who will be displaced by this project? What about. the impact of the number of
4814-3501.{)448.1
3
business that will be lost, in the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of this? In addition to
an estimated revenue lost, and how about the impact of the current unemployment rate? What
about the number of churches that will be impacted and the exercise of free religion? We know
of at least five churches we have spoke with that will be impacted by this. What is the impact of
this project on local flora, for example, and the dispersion of new entities, such as the West Nile
Virus? None of these were addressed by RSG Consultants. This dust dispersion, also their
impact on the prevalence of respiratory elements, of which many of our citizen have. Also,
many other factors such as the impact of high intensity noise levels greater than 60 decibels
. which may be quite harmful themselves. In summary, the EIR report has many flaws and gaps.
And I thank you for giving me this opportunity to be heard~
ORAL OBJECTION NO.3
Reverend Paul Adams
MR. ADAMS: Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tem, City Council members. I am here to, of
course, raise my objection to the reinstatement of eminent powers upon the redevelopment area.
I would also like to say that I'm one of the individuals who will be affected by this course of
action that the City plans on taking. See, it's one of the whole politician's favorite choices and
lawyer's favorite choices of tricks to use fuzzy math when they put together these reports. They
use statistics that really only show one side of the story. It doesn't show the story of the people,
the story of the business of the proposed areas. We have lived at 1156 under the acts of eminent
domain for five years, and you ask us to live under it again for 12 more years. If it is my civic
duty to live under this action, then I'll bear this burden; however, it does interfere with my
pursuit of happiness, my pursuit to know where I'm going to be next week, next year, next
month, is affected by this decision. Another 12 years of my life where I don't know where I'll
be next week. The EIR incorporates the use of statistics that are questionable at best. The ERA
states the project area has a higher percentage of disrepaired buildings, higher crime rates, and
more civil code or code violatious. Much like Enron, who uses their numbers to promote
4814-3501-6448.\
4
themselves, the City is the main person who gets its statistics. If they want more code violations,
you just send more inspectors to that area. If you want more police or you want more arrests,
you simply send more police to that area. It's simple. Pins these areas that you are engaging in
are major thoroughfares through the state or to the City of San Bernardino. But all those being
aside, I think that the most important thing that we have to consider when dealing with the idea
of eminent domain against people, against businesses, is the most important reason. And that is
the reason why I'm here today. It is for the City or the people who live in the City of San
Bernardino. And I drive through the City. I do not see the blight that is what our RSD, or
whatever consultant decides he deemed as blight. Being from Santa Ana, I'm sure he has a
different idea of what blight is than I so. Because I see people who are working and toiling hard
to put their children through school. I see the people from different cultures, from the
Vietnamese church across the street from where we're at to the Central American church who
escaped religious persecution in their own land to come here to build a church to get people to
come to their services, and they're going to be asked to leave. I see the poor masses who work
hard coming from different countries. I always see the poor masses of people who might not
have all the benefits that other people have working hard to make this place great. I see the smile
on that small business owner who filing pays off his mortgage to his business and is able to see
the dreams of possibility of the future. I see light, I see hope. Most of all, I see America and
what it stands for: The People. It is not what that - and again, even if you look at more of these
big map, it's what I don't see. It's what I don't see that is really important to me in San
Bernardino. I don't see in the middle of our downtown area, the middle of our City, another
WaI-Mart, another Sam's Clubs, another high-rise which takes away from individual people and
gives money to out-of-state developers for them to develop. Or probably think we've been here
working hard to improve this place for. That these needs to be taken into consideration. Now I
don't envy your jobs. None of you. You sit there, and you make decisions upon people's lives
that effect every aspect of their lives. And I understand that it's not an easy job all the time.
You have to do what you think is in your heart is best. But as for me, don't neglect the people of
4814-3501-6448.1
5
San Bernardino. They are our greatest resource that we have, more important than Sam Wal-
Mart, more important than anybody else. They might have the money. They might have the
power. They might have the ability to put that money into their community to make it a better
place. But what happens to the individual business owner? What happeus to him? Does he
work for Wal-Mart again? Maybe that's the whole state of our future. Maybe that's everywhere.
Maybe that's just not San Bernardino. Maybe that's just the way it all is going to go. The
business is going to take over everything, but now is our opportunity, and I urge the City Council
Members to take this moment to think and reflect upon this, and to really take care of your small
business owners. The people who care about this City who really -- it matters to them whether
we go or whether we stay. God bless you all.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.4
MR. ESMAT: My name is Abdel Esmat, and I'm living at 762 West Seventh Street, San
Bernardino. I'm not here to add to whatever has been said. Whatever has been said, it's a lot,
but I'm here to say that I'm with Sunsource Surgery Line, and I find out that in Califomia itself,
they are 25 percent of the people of California, they have homes and houses. Twenty-five
percent. That's all. And the rest is they are renting from different. And to have a house in
California, it's really, really huge. It's not an easy. It's not an easy, especially for somebody's
working so hard, and he has dream. He make his dream true. And he saw so many happiness in
that little place he live was, and sees so much with their community. Living in the City and see
the City change day after day and grow. And I don't believe that any plan, it will make the City
so much different and actually, I had a thought in that City in the middle of that project. Ifwe
assume that we have a museum for the best artist in the world on the wall, are they going to
make this plan? Are they going to demolish that museum, or are they going to say, "No, we
cannot touch that"? i can answer that for you. I'm sure they would leave that museum there
because of the best art of the best people in the world. But there's something that's more than
that. There's a dreams for those people. They live therein the community. I'm living day in,
4814-3501-6448.1
6
day out for those people. I have neighbors. We laugh. We communicate together. There is a lot
of things, a lot of hope, a lot of dream, a lot of things. You cannot just demolate it. You cannot
just say by one of the law we can demo late all your dreams in one second. You cannot take all
the dreams out of all the happiness between those people in just by somebody saying, "Okay.
We have that project." We don't have to have permission about that project. We never made
notified about what's going on in that City exactly from A to Z. We just say, well, you are here
to say whether you're going to get that or not, but I'm here to share with all those people that the
(
thought and the agreement that I wish that if it's going to work, it's going to work the right way.
And I don't know, if, you know, if it's going happen or not. I'm just part of something here, I
tried to present it, and I hope it's going to work as the best for all these people. And thank you.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.5
MR. ORONOZ: My name is James Oronoz, and I did take the oath. This is for 1212 West
. Second Street in San Bernardino. And it's across from La Tigra, the market the first lady that
was talking about on the other side. And I wanted to oppose the eminent domain, and I wanted
to let you know that I've managed -- it's a large piece of property, a large piece of commercial ,
property. I've managed that property for over 20 years. I'm here to represent about 25 small
business tenants that currently occupy that place and that had made their livelihood, and have
their business there. When we came to that property, Stater Bros. moved out. They moved into
a brand new building. That whole place was totally vacant. The only thing that was there was a
Crown Drugs. And we got in there, and we started working. We tried to build that place up, and
we tried to bring it back to life with minimal funds. We didn't have money to go ii1 and
blockbuster and do a big thing, but we did the best we could, and think that we've done a fair
job. It needs some work, and itneeds some fixing up, but that place has, in the last 10 or 15
years, has brought families there that have made their livelihood from that place. And then for
me to hear this lady say that the city's going to come in and just tear everything down and even
though they're going to build another market there, we already have a market there. We have a
4814-3501-6448.1
7
market that is viable to that type of an area, Mexican/American area. And it's a
Mexican/American market. If you want to put a Best -- or Best Buy or Best Foods there,
whatever, it's not going to work. And then, I want to say, you know, San Bernardino has a lot of
new buildings sitting allover the place, and they're not doing anything for the City. Another
new building over there, vacant new building, or vacant landis not going to help the City at all.
So I ask that you, please reconsider eminent domain and reconsider what it is that you're
planning on doing to that -- to that property. I also just want to comment -- and I have no
expertise in this -- but how is it that people from Santa Ana, Van Nuys, Santa Monica, can come
over hereto San Bernardino and tell us what's best for our City? It makes no sense to me. I
mean, they're growing and they're viable out there. But I'm sure we have good companies right
here in the City that would be able to do redevelopment or whatever. I'm not sure exactly. All
I'm trying to say is that let's keep it in the City.
MR. MC GINNIS: I wanted to ask one quick question for the man from La Tigra.
MR. ORONOZ: Yes.
MR. MC GINNIS: Did the redevelopment agency ever offer your business to participate in the
redevelopment?
MR. ORONOZ: I'm not aware of it. They did not come to my business or any of our businesses
and offer us a chance to participate.
MR. MC GINNIS: Because my understanding is that the La Tigra owner, the building owner,
was offered, and we insisted - wait a minute -- we insisted, the Council did, insisted that they
would participate in the project. And what we were told is that they didn't want to participate ill
the project.
MR. ORONOZ: That's very well -- that very well could be. I'm not aware of any of the other
tenan~. I am the owner of the business next to it, and I was not asked to participate.
MR. MC GINNIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ORONOZ: I'm not sure if anybody else was.
THE MAYOR: Thank you.
4814-3501-6448.1
8
MR. ORONOZ: And his reason, probably - and I've not talked to him about it-- but his reason
probably for not wanting to participate is because the area, you know, it's hard to work with it.
And it's a struggle to keep a business.
MR.MC GINNIS: You know, under redevelopment, we will be offering that property again to
the people who are there if they want to continue their business in that area. So they will get first
-- first right at it, because we like to keep the flavor there, but we'd like to have new structures.
MR. ORONOZ: Sure. Except the only difference will be the difference of paying $400 a month
and paying $4,000 a month.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.6
MRMACH: Hi. My name is Dean Mach. I'm from address 1224 West Second Street. llease
the property from the Coronas. And 1 just wondering what's going to happen to that place. We
have a lot of poop Ie in that place. And one week I hear somebody come over and said, "We're
going to buy this property and going to smash it down." And I lease an extra unit next door to
my business, so I have two right now. And 1 have a long lease with the Coronas. And - but I
don't know what's going to be happening to me. And I need the answer. The Coronas doesn't
even know when the City is going to tear it down. What's going to be next? That's all.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.7
MR DESJARDINS: Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Jason
Desjardins. I'm a property owner close to vacant property, I can give you an AP number, 0134-
263-19, -20, c21, -22, -23, -26 and -27. It's across the street from a historical building or a
building of historical value in 1913, before the Courthouse here, within a existing business,
which I have interest in possibly getting involved with in the future. The question I have is, how
soon is this project going to take place, that is, in your Lower Central North Project area? I
cannot say that I am. for or against the project. I come from L.A. I lived there for 25 years, you
know. ht most older areas over there, they do redevelopment where they give property owners
4814-3501-0448.1
9
incentive before they go in and they clean sweep it. And so we have Tippecanoe over here
where they've done that. They put all the big buildings and Costcos, and everything else. How
/
degrees. I don't have a degree. I had graduated high school, but I employed 40 employees, is, in
. my consideration and in President Bush) consideration, the backbone of America. Most
4814-3501-9448.1
10
businesses, this is what your tax base is from, the whole City of tax base comes from the smaller
businesses. Yes, you get a lot of stuff from, you know, maybe Flesh Girls, or god knows what
other Hospitality. There's a bunch of businesses over there. I guess my point is what are you
guys planning on doing as far as these business, if you're going to take and push the housing out,
or keep them up and put everything, I can't afford to buy another house into a housing project
like they do in Los Angeles. That's not my business. And I'm a business owner. So I'm not
here to negate that sort of movement.
MR. MC GINNIS: I'll tell you, like in any HUD project-wise, you spoke up. He have about 80
houses that we had to displace. I found each and every single person who wished it, another
home to live in, at a comparable rate. There was one gentleman who only managed three
properties, and he believed that's all he could do. We found him three other properties to
manage in trade for his properties. Those who wanted to be bought out were bought out. So we
managed every single one of those people, and cared for every single one of them. And that
project area, that happens to be in my area So I took the time with a lot of them myself to make
sure. We have small businesses that are in our project area, and we'd like for them to stay here
in San Bernardino. If they don't fit into the project that we're doing, we'd like to help them
relocate to an area which they would be better served in the community. We have lots of places
in San Bernardino. And -- but we believe that what redevelopment does is to try to bring up the
level of the environment so that we will have greater participation for people who like to shop,
and for people who would like to live. A lot of the project area will have new homes in it. We
don't drive anybody away, then we have homeowner assistance. We have down payment
assistance. We've low-interest loans to provide for them. All kinds of things. But it's all
through redevelopment, and redevelopment funds. It's not something we can take out of the
general fund. If you don't have a project, you can't get fund money, okay? So, these things will
4814-3501-6448.1
11
also help us to upgrade our City on an ongoing basis. Some of the houses from the project area
were built here from the turn of the century, and so we have, you know, very, very old houses.
It's something that we have to look at all the time about upgrading. And plus, we also have to
look into how many times we have fire emergencies and police emergencies in a particular area.
And one of the reasons for those emergencies, is how much is it costing the City to handle those
emergencies? All of those things have been taken into consideration before we ever think we
wanted to run into displacing people and moving them around. And so, you know, we've taken a
lot of things into consideration when we think about doing a project here, a whole lot of them.
MR. DESJARDINS: Sir, I find that very commendable, that right there you said about how
,
you're helping people to find comparable housing. That is very commendable. A lot of cities do
not even take that into consideration because of the skyrocketing housing market.
MR. MC GINNIS: Even the renters that were in the area, we give them $5,000 in relocation
expenses to help them find another place to rent.
THE MAYOR: Thank you.
MR. DESJARDINS: I'm sorry, ma'am. I had a couple other questions. Mr. Derry, I don't
know, you said you worked for Edison, was it?
MR. DERRY: Yes.
MR. DESJARDINS: Okay. I notice you've got a joke, or you're laughing. On Friday, our
business was without power for about six hours, and we lost a considerable amount of revenue
from Edison. What do you do about failing power lines to our area, because it's the oldest area
in San Bernardino, as far as I understand? What are you guys going to be doing about that?
THE MAYOR: Excuse me. I think the testimony we're taking has to be relevant to the issue
that we're addressing.
MR. DESJARDINS: This is part of the redevelopment plan. I'm a business or land owner in
this business. Are you guys to go to be --
4814-3SOl~.1
12
THE MAYOR: Don't take this personally.
MR. DESJARDINS: No. I'm just asking questions. I'm just saying displacement in this area,
and we are able to maintain our business in the area, is that going to be on voluntary basis, or is it
going to be only elected by the occupants, or going to be elected by the land owners or what if
the landowner wants to sell the land? Is the business going to be displaced? That's part of the --
I guess what we're asking. Thank you.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.8
THE WITNESS: Hello. I'm Guillermo Corona, 239 North "J" Street. I rent. And the only
reason I'm coming up here is because I'm noticing -- I don't know if it has to do about the
redevelopment. But I think it does. Now that it's going to be a commercial zone, and I'm
noticing that there's - the conditions in the area are being neglected, like the trees are going
wild. You can't even park your car under some of the trees because the trees are overhanging
too low, and there's potholes in the streets and stuff. I don't know if it's being neglected,
because it's being overlooked or because of that, or what, but that's -- I just wanted to make that
clear.
ORAL OBJECTION NO.9
THE WITNESS: Shade Awad, 685 West Baseline, regarding Midway Market. My family has
owned that business for 14 years. I'm 24 years old now. When I was 10 years old, we came
from Michigan to California for this business. It took us nine years to pay for the business after
getting loans and all this. And after 9 years now, we're starting to be successful. Last year, we
were considered by the State of California to be a supermarket. Supermarket means we do about
over $2 million worth of sales every year. It just took us so long to work hard to get where we
wanted to be. And even if they remove us and put us in a different spot, better location, it's still
going to take away our customers, because the customers that come for our gallon of milk or for
a loaf of bread right now we're employing 14 to 18 people normally, people with full-time jobs,
4814-3501-#18.1
13
part-time jobs. We have a school across the street. People that come for fifty cents worth of
candy, half of the time it's a food stamp card, or 25 cents. We wait on them patiently, becalll!e
they're our customer base. If with do get relocated, we won't have that kind of customer base.
What's going to ensure that a person that has big amount, large amount of income? What's
going to ensure that they are going to come to our small store? What's not going to ensure them
from going to Stater Bros.? A lot of these times, these people right now, they don't have the
means,car means, or they travel on a bus or travel less than a block just to get what they need.
And for us, it's kind of hard, because we worked so hard to get to our point. And now we're at
that point where my uncle can take a vacation, my dad can take a vacation, if I take two days to
spend with my kids in San Diego, I can do that. But it took me so long to get to that point I'm in
now. I'm getting to that point job, That's going to happen tomorrow. And eminent domain,
does that mean, "Okay. This is the plan." We're within five years you're going to be out right
now? Within five years we're going to pay you this amount, within five years, within ten years,
within six years, within four years." We don't have a time frame. And the time frame is huge.
If someone wants to come up and say, "I want to purchase your business, but, oh, I heard about
the late project." "Oh, I heard about the 2020 project," or "I heard that you guys might be out in
two years," what am I going to say? You know, if my kids -- should I invest in the City of San
Bernardino, or shouldl invest in running away? And how is -- I don't understand blight. Blight
doesn't make sense for me. Does blight - whose perception of blight is it? My perception of
blight would work hard. We all day there we're 13 hours working everyday, and so we're 13
hours. And we're seeing fruits. That's why we're working hard, you know. And now, since we
see it, what are we going to do? Are we going to run away? Are we going to go somewhere
else? Is there a positive? I just don't know what to say. I'm just like say I am nothing to write.
I even came here because yesterday. Gentleman gave me the letter that says, "Well, we want to
go erninent domain. You better go there." I read the letter. I said, "Well, I'm, you know, we're
-- this is our business. If I'm not going to do something about my business, who is?" And the
main thing for me is as long as we know or the community knows what's going on. How can I
4814-3501-6448.1
14
plan for my family if! don't know what's going to happen two or three or five years from now?
And the problem with this process is there's no chart. It does not say that, "In this year, this will
happen. Weare going to give you this much money if we relocate you. Your business is worth
this much. You know, our property is worth this much." Who's going to succeed? Is it the
people in San Bernardino? I doubt it, because after you guys relocate them, it might be true.
You know, I'm playing it is true if the people of San Bernardino, the inner people that are there,
if you guys move them somewhere else, are better people, better quality of people, that are going
to live there, or are you guys going to give them the same property? I don't know. I'm just
talking from a business standpoint. What am I going to go do as of now? Shall I look to move
out of San Bernardino and not help San Bernardino? Or am I going to wait and see maybe 5, 10,
15 years from now, or I might have lakeside property with no customers. Doesn't make sense to
me. That's it.
ORAL OBJECTION NO. 10
THE MAYOR: Not here. Jay Lindberg.
MR. LlNDGERG: Good afternoon. Jay Lindberg, 664 West "E" Street. The truth is so
dangerous, in City politics and it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies. We need to -- I'd
like to see us, for a change, actually tell the people what's really going on; That you have some
really nasty waste plumes, water plumes, that are working down your underground, your
underground wells, they're contaminated, you know. We know that, you know. Anything west
of Waterman all the way to the freeway in San Bernardino, the groundwater is polluted. We all
know that. And we all know we have to clean it up. Now, the easiest way to clean it up is to
aerate it. We know that what we've got to do is we've got to, you know, to me, it sounds like it
would be a lot simpler if you told these people that we're rapidly run out ofsafe drinking water,
and we need to set up a mechanism to clean the water we've got left, so that we have water to
drink. To me, that's sounds like a whole lot simpler and more logical way to deal with this mess
than just, you know, saying, "Well, we need this for redevelopment." The bottom line is we do
need to clean up the plume that's west of Waterman all the way to the freeway. We've got to
4814-3501-6448.1
15
clean it up. Aerating it, as far as I know, is the only way to clean it up. You can't expose the
public to the -- the -- volatile organics, solvents, and stuff like that. You can't expose the public
to that when you're cleaning it up. So you've got to move them out. Now, ify'ou try to explain
it to the public and say, "Look, this is what we've got to do so we have safe drinking water
instead of wrapping it up behind these developments and the whole bit. And so just tell them the
,
truth. It may be they will be a lot more cooperative. Let me just ask a question. Does anybody
up here on the Council live in one of those areas where they're going to be doing these
redevelopments? Anybody? I didn't think so. I guess I really don't need to say anything more.
Just try to be honest with these people. We do have I'm because we're running out of clean
wells to drink -- to drink from. We know that. Just tell them the truth, and you might be even
get a lot more support. Thank you.
ORAL OBJECTION NO. 11
MS: DURBIN: Hello. My husband and I, we own property on 213 through 219 North "J"
Street. And I guess we're one in the Mercado area, I guess, number one. We're just really
confused. And just as business owners -- not business owners but we own property we just kind
of want to know what's going on. And everything that I've read on your website is just super
vague, super uninformative. Unfortunately, for the average person, .I think it's just a bunch of
mumbo jumbo to sort through. I think the average person here is just totally confused about
what you guys are doing. You're not being clear. Number two, we were not notified. The only
way we found out was because my mother-in-law also owns property a street over, and her
tenant gave her the flier. These notices were sent to our tenants, not to us, the owners. You
pretty much are scaring our tenants out of their homes. Are they going to continue to pay rent? I
don't know. Are you telling them whenthis is going to happen? No. You're not giving a time
frame. We currently are listing this property. We've had an offer that was just given this
weekend, after we found out on Friday, for $300,000. Is the City going to match that kind of
pricing? Are they going to lowball all of these property owners? You know, the real estate
market is booming. Can we, in good conscience, still accept an offer knowing that our property
4814-3501-6448.1
16
is now going to be under the eminent domain? I don't know if that's ethical. You've put us in a
position where we don't really know what to do. We -- you know, this is my husband and my--
this is our investment. Are we going to lose out? And the thousands of dollars that we put into
this property in the last two years fixing it up, painting it, cutting the trees, which is very
expensive, you know, cleaning the rain cutters, retexturing all the walls, redoing all the
plumbing, and for our tenants so they have a good place to live. And now we're going to lose
out on that, or are we? Because we don't really know what's happening, and noOOdy's being up
front and being honest with all of these people. What exactly is going to happen? What is this
redevelopment thing mean? Who is going to lose their properties? Are we going to gain? And
as investors, we kind of feel like you guys are going to be giving this land, your taking it from
us, and then selling it at a high price to these other investors that are going to buyout with big
dollars. And at least give us the chance to cash in. I mean, if we have to lose our homes and
properties, we should be the ones profiting. The City is not a business. And we -" I just want to
make sure that everybody, including myself, is treated fairly in this situation, and that we are
given what our property is worth, and also realizing that we're losing out, especially
homeowners, I mean, they are being inconvenienced Completely. As an investor, I mean, as an
investor, if you pay us well and we get what we believe our property is worth, you know it's not
the end of the world. But if we feel like we're being lowballed, and we're not being treated
fairly, but for homeowners, even more they should be compensated. And my concern is that
everyone is treated. fairly. And when you guys are being honest with us, and that we know that
we're given a time frame, and we're informed on what we should do, what is ethically correct,
can we sell our property, and run out, like some people were saying, should we be selling, and
can we sell telling people that, you know, we're going to sell this to you, but in a year or take six
months from now the City is going to take it from you. And those are just some questions that I
would like addressed. And everybody else want to know what's happening, you know. Be
straight up with us. Also, if we are forced to sell, are we going to have to give 30 percent of our
money to capital gains, because in a way, we are being forced to pay taxes.
4814-3501'6448.1
17
ORAL OBJECTION NO. 12
MS. REYES: My name is Martha Reyes, 244 North "]" Street. I moved there about two and a
half years ago. I was 25 at the time, and I moved there because it was seemed like a good area.
The street is a nice streets. There's a big tree. Sorry about that. I moved there to invest in a
house, first-time buyer. And people started telling me that, you know, the house was going to be
tom down, which is fine as long as I get what I put into the house, the amount of money, plus the
equity. Without, you know, with rezoning into commercial zone, doesn't seem like I'm going to
get the amount of money that I want or that I deserve. I mean, I bought it at $60,000, and now
it's a worth at least $150. That's a lot of -- that's a good amount of money that I'm going to
lose. Now, I understand people are complaining that they're going to lose their houses and
everything, but seriously, those houses in that area are not very good. I am not a mother yet, but
when I do become a mother, I do not want to be living there. So I also want to know the time
frame when I intend to expect to be bought out so I can move. That's all I'm waiting for,
because I don't think I can sell knowing that it's going to be tom down. That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
THE MAYOR: Thank you. That was the last of the speaker cards that we have. I want to make
sure that I didn't miss anyone out there.
4814-3S01-M48.1
18
AITACHMENT ','2"
SPEAKER SLIPS OF ALL PERSONS WHO PRESENTED ORAL TESTIMONY
RECEIVED AT THE:
JULY 19,2004
JOINT PUBLIC HEARlNG
FOR THE
AMENDED & RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH PRomcr AREA
AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROmCT AREA PLAN
AND THE
SECTION 33352 BLIGHT REPORTS TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROmCT AREA
AND THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROmCT AREA
4820-4987-5456.1
44
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
5 (/8 A ufd1Mv1 V .
30 -32 /""
Agenda Item No.
Date 7/1"l./20~Cf
Name Goo'" I\S$A,J AB.oI\LLIlIf
. 'l /I
Address 11.2 'i NoKTif F sr-~1Sc?/
oS 1\1 13 fJltJ" Il.D I,.J\J J qa-.
~ tk -rerl"ft) &7M"'- ,~ ~O
~ pport AQDroval of Item
:2j . r Support Denial of Item-X-
3//
CNCl-2.01
'-"-'.'''".
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
cct-!
0-3L
Date'
Name Abckl d2..' E.<;mo:i
Address 7 ro 2.. w. 7 T~ S T
SPN b'1-rV)o,vyc4:v-e>
rA- CjzL}f 0
Ii-
Support ADD,oval of Item
Support Denial of Item--X-
CNCl.2.o1
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
1:C
Agenda Item No. Jb- 3.;2-. Cf/Lh'" t&......
Date () 7/t 'I /0"1"
Na ;0 (.,JHv d J1 Ao /4 tI7.s: / Pi. '.)
me.... ..~
Address 11J6 fl/fj ~(<. F:c,
_)C4J '8 kUJ, ~ c;,,)~ia
q 0 1- ~ ~ .; - b /0 ..-
Support Anoroval of Item
Support Denial of Item 1----
;i S~~Cl-2.01
,
d
~~
1;
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agend"
(
~
'T-
Sue. A' vpttJvJ V1 M
. '1 f ",.,../. ~
Agenda Item No. () - 3 p. ~ l/
Date 07/1 t7J 0,/
Name' l.t/. fAt(L IlIJlffJJ
Address 1/ db f1"6I?./L f: 61
San IS I h Cj.2HN
Support Ann,oval of Item
Support Denial. of Item L----
CNCl-2.01
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
......... - - A..... X
')u\)/J lAji..f-r'w"1
Date.
Name --J €Itt,
Address I~ lJ',
Support !,DDrDval of Item
\
~
Support Denial of Item
CNCl.2.01
I
~'f
i
,
,
":','~'~~""',""<<"""-""-,"~.-.'...'.< ,.-.,.". -'-","..-~--' ._-,'-;....,...~..,.--~--.-.- "'- '.~--'-,"
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
~ 1Ae.
~ lII(ltNv'
~30
'""
l\I\e{cMO! ~A:'1{<\ fe k
r~(P
~
Name 'lV,1 twlO
J,q AJ. J
'0(\"6 \~l(lo((1 A J~ tv
N'N /l_Ofl\lt) L-tffeS)? 5tfft--b
1 _-1
~ Support ADDroval of Item
Date
Address
J.r w,.
Support Denial of Item /
CNCl-2.01
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
Date
<; L\ 12, /l v, p-hfwv'l
Agenda Item No.
7- /9- c;t.-/
() 12 C) /f/ ().7-
1/11. ~ 15!!2.- 57
---
Name~,qMr.::.S
Address J ~ / ~
.
CNCl.2.01
"'~_"._ '._.'_ _ ".".., ..,.-,.. _"'To. """.".-~ .,.-,,0:.' -.", -c:". '.--~~-""..,...' ."_",' _'-,~~~_.';A..:::'!~_
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
SV\,1l, ~ IA~...
Ire
Agenda Item No. ~::. \ \.:)Eve
Date 01 /'''l/pF
Name . ..Juo,Ji:>eSJA4'-br.JS
Address Z. 70/- AI. r $L
.;Si.t~..-.D:DIO,- CA 92fflO
(' ~ ).k~-- I
~ I./:; dJr'
~\tA-J;Y Support ADDroval of Item
0.0>'/ Support Denial of Item
~ eNCl-'..'
Speaker's ReqUeslfc( 'd'~
Mayor and Common Council t
Regarding Item on Ageifc.
/l/trt Ilt
".:>ub 'b Itp1-iWv1
Agenda Item No.
'17 '
St-i/5,t. Y"".t'A- fJ
Date.
Name .(; / ~
Address 10 3D
RAnJf:S
w. ,?,,,zj S/
. ~ -
.,S"''''A/ L5KJ-N,4V AJl '7.;1 '7'/d
~:e7;L9 ~)€-sgY"r s~Nd
/c/.c'YS ~ e ('" '1]1..$;0:'
Support ADDroval of Item
Support Denial of Item
\------
CHa..2.01
.._____,._~_,__ __._ ._.._.._~__~_n_. _'.~'.'-" __......"""._....,.....r-.....~.....""_.......>:r.<.......-"'''"''!
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
s'^~ ~ Vov?Jrrvv.",
'f
Agenda Item No. 5JJ D
Date l-IIQ/o 4-
Name~g- E D~IA.J
Address _I t?t7;7? r/'rf3'(l(2jt,L ,f1~:tI11l?
fi?JVI~A:) eft q/h?:]<
~lot ...,.... Ln....... i'>>.n
';<'13' IV cI v 01 (Vl7:> - l.-'~,,\"'"
Support ADDroval of Item
?
Support Denial of Item
CNCl-2.o1
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
\
\
~l)?, . A ...."i'.ffw...VI
. S0>J~
Name
Agenda Item No.
Date .r::::.711
J
Address C?r6 W &<;e.\ ;oe .
31)t\ OOI\~;IkJ , (A. ~;)LJrD
Support ADDroval of Item
Support Denial of Item
CNa..2.01
Speaker's Request To Address y
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda / \
,
--.:.,'V
N~J..4t
Support ADDroval of Item
Support Denial of Item
CNCl.2.01
~r ~
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
Speaker's Request To Address
Mayor and Common Council
Regarding Item on Agenda
)\l.P> ....A LA~ {r/.-
. . ~
Agenda Item No. J o-3~ ,p t>>;u..
07//1/0<1
l CUI?~L L'~
l/~ ~t:rdL :j:sr
13 ~,_ (A6 1:l.. <.f ic)
~ v<.f':. ~ W(lh'W"'...
~
Date'
Agenda Item No. "*:{}
Date 1
rog
Name
Name
Address
Address
04,
Support Annroval of Item
Support Annroval of Item
Support Denial of Item
v
Support Denial of Item
.
CNCL.2.01
CNct-2.o1
,
ATIACHMENT "3"
JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS MAILED NOTICE CONTACT INFORMATION
FOR ALL PERSONS SUBMITTING ORAL TESTIMONY
RECEIVED AT THE:
JULY 19,2004
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE
AMENDED & RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH PROJECT AREA
AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
AND THE
SECTION 33352 BLIGHT REPORTS TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
4820-4987-5456.1
45
Speaker Slips
EIRICCNiUptown
7-19-2004, Public Hearing
Deanna Adams
Address on speaker slip was: 1156 North F Street
Victory Chapel; APN: 0140-031-45; Uptown" A"
In her written objections she identified herself as Deanna H.P. Adams, PH. D.
At the Public Hearing she identified herself as Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams.
Spoke to Deanna Adams on 6129; she stated that she did not get a letter and requested one; owns business & property
at location.
Owner notice sent to Helena Petrovna, 1174 Kotenberg, San Jose CA 91525. NOTICE RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 1156 North F Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
FATCO Fastweb property info shows Helena Petrovna as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Helena Petrovna as owner since 1987
Ghassan Abdullah
Address on speaker slip was: 1129 North F Street
SFR; Homeowner Exemption; APN: 0140-041-40; Uptown "A"
Ghassan Norman Abdullah sent written objection.
At Public Hearing he identified himself as Ghassan Norman Abdullah
In July 20th Sun newspaper article he was identified as Abdullah Ghassan
Owner notice sent to Norman S Abdullah at 1129 North F Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 1129 North F Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
FATCOFastweb property info shows Norman S Abdullah as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Norman S Abdullah as owner since Jan 1996
Rev. Paul Adams
Address on speaker slip was: 1156 North F Street
Victory Chapel; APN: 0140-031-45; Uptown "A"
Paul Adams sent written objections
Owner notice sent to Helen Petrovna, 1174 Kotenberg, San Jose CA 91525. NOTICE RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 1156 North F Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
FATCO Fastweb property info shows Helena Petrovna as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Helena Petrovna as owner since 1987
SB County Assessor web site shows Victory Chapel having an interest in property since 1988
. Abdel R. Esmat
Address on speaker slip was: 762 West 7th Street
SFR; APN: 0140-263-23; CCN .
Spoke to Abdel Esmat on June 215t concerning the notice; what was going to take place; eminent domain; stated that
he was an owner resident.
Owner notice to Saman Behnam, 12862 Eveningside Dr, Santa Ana 92705. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 762 W 7th Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
FACTO Fastweb property info shows Abdelrahman Esmat as owner.
SB County Assessor web site shows Abdelrahman Esmat as owner since Feb 2004
Speaker Slips
EIRICCN/Uptown
7-19-2004, Public Hearing
James Oronoz
Address on speaker slip was: 1212 West 2nd Street
Business at that address is Maria's Fashions; APN; 0138-263-02, Uptown "B"
Owner notice sent to Robert L. Kovats, PO Box 1365, Placentia CA 92871. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 1212 West 2nd ~treet. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Stated that he owned a business; that he represents the businesses; represents Robert L. Kovats
Diem N. Mach
Address on speaker slip was:1224 West 2nd Street
Business Owner (Rainbow Sea Food Market); APN; 0138-263-02; Uptown "B"
Owner notice sent to Robert L. Kovats, PO Box 1365, Placentia CA 92871. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 1224 West 2nd Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Jason Desjardins
Address on speaker slip was: 274 North I Street
Big Z Auto; APN: 0138-273-08; Uptown "B"
Owner notice to Bud M Nickles Trust; 932 W Riviera Dr, Santa Ana 92706. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 274 North I Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
F ATCO Fastweb property info shows Bud M NicklesIBedia N Nassour as owners
SB County Assessor web site shows Bud M Nickles owner and Bedia N Nassour as some type of interest
Guillermo Corona
Address on speaker slip was: 239 North J Street
SFR; Homeowner Exemption; APN: 0138-273-31; Uptown "B"
Owner notice send to Fernando Ahumada at 239 North J Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice sent to 239 North J Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
FATCO Fastweb property info shows Fernando Ahumada as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Fernando Ahumada as owner since Nov 1992
Shade Awad
Address on speaker slip was: 685 West Baseline, Suite ABC
Business (Midway Market); APN 0140-031-33, 34, 35, 48; Uptown "A"
Owner notice to Dootson Baseline Property LLC, 11625 Clark Street, Arcadia 91006. NOTICE NOT RETURNED
.TO EDA
Occupant notice was sent to 685 West Baseline Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
F ATCO Fastweb property info shows Dootson Baseline Property LLC as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Dootson Baseline Property LLC as owner since 1996
Speaker Slips
EIRICCNlUptown
7-19-2004, Public Hearing
Jay Lindberg
Address on speakerslip was: 6340 Orange Knoll
No notice was mailed to Mr. Lindberg as he does not live within either project area.
Hope E. Durbin
213-219 North J Street; 2 Duplex units; APN: 0138-273-29; Uptown "B"
Address on speaker slip was: 16007 Merrill #14B, Fontana, CA 92335
On speaker slip she wrote "owner"
Owner to Armando Orejel, 15711 Grevillen Street, Fontana 92335. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notices sent to 213 215, 217, 219 North J Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
FATCO Fastweb property info shows Armando Orejel as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Armando Orejel as owner since July 2002
Martha Reyes
Address on speaker slip was: 244 North J Street
SFR; Homeowner Exemption; APN: 0138-272-13; Uptown "B"
Owner notice sent to 244 North J Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
Occupant notice was sent to 244 North J Street. NOTICE NOT RETURNED TO EDA
F ATCO Fastweb property info shows Martha Reyes as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Martha Reyes as owner since Dec 2001
Keith Rhodes (left and did not speak)
Address on speaker slip was: 1030 West 3rd Street
Could not find a bldg with I 030 West 3rd
Business (Fast Undercar); APN: 0138-272-39, 40; Uptown "B"
Found bldg with 1037 West 3rd(Fast Undercar)
Found bldg with 1047 West 3rd (Warehouse)
Owner notice was sent to Keith Rhodes at 1037 West 3rd Street
Occupant notice was sent to 1033 West 3rd (0138-272-39)
Occupant notice was sent to 1047 West 3rd (0138-272-40)
Notice to owner was not returned to EDA
Notices to occupant addresses were returned to EDA.
FATCO Fastweb shows Keith L Rhodes/Sharon K Rhodes as owners of both APN's
SB County Assessor web site show Keith L Rhodes ISharon K Rhodes as owners of both APN's
Carol Calvin (left and did not speak)
Address on speaker slip was: 1156 North F Street
Victory Chapel; APN: 0140-031-45; Uptown "A"
Owner notice sent to Helen Petrovna, 1174 Kotenberg, San Jose CA 91525
Occupant notice sent to 1156 North F Street
Notice to owner was returned to EDA.
Occupant notice was not returned to EDA
FATCO Fastweb property info shows Helena Petrovna as owner
SB County Assessor web site shows Helena Petrovna as owner since 1987
SB County Assessor web site shows Victory Chapel having an interest in property since 1988
ATIACHMENT "4"
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY ACQUlSmON AND
RELOCATION POLICIES. GUIDELINES AND RESPONSE TO FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND
RELOCATION
RECEIVED AT THE:
JULY 19, 2004
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE
AMENDED & RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH PROJECT AREA
AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARE^,PLAN
AND THE
SECTION 33352 BLIGHT REPORTS TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FOR THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
4820-4981-5456.1
46
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of San Bernardino
WHEN A PUBLIC AGENCY ACQUIRES YOUR PROPERTY
Introduction
This document describes important features related to Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Procedures, which the Redevelopment Agency must follow whenever it
acquires property. This document contains a general overview and provides general
information about public acquisition of real property (real estate).
Acquisition of real property by a public agency for a project in which redevelopment funds are
used is covered by State Law. When a public agency offers to acquire property, it informs the
property owner of the reasons for the offer to purchase and the use for which the public
ag~ncy seeks to acquire the property. If the public agency is acquiring property for community
redevelopment purposes, it will so inform the owner.
This document may not answer all of your questiOns. If you have more questions about how
the Redevelopment Agency acquires property, please contact the particular public agency
responsible for the public project. (Check the back of this document for the name of the
person to contact at the Redevelopment Agency.) Ask your questions before you sell your
property.
General Questions
What Right Does A Public Agency Have To Acquire My Property?
Each local government agency has certain powers, which are necessary for their functions.
One such local government power is the power to acquire private property for the public
purposes served by that particular public agency. In general all public agencies can purchase
property. In addition, a large number of public agencies have the power to acquire property by
condemnation, if the private property owner is unwilling to sell or if the private property owner
sets a sale price for the property which is too high based upon objective market price
conditions for comparable property. This is known as the power of eminent domain.
The rights of each private property owner are. protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and by State oonstitutions. The eminent domaiillaws
guarantee that if a public agency takes private property it must pay "just compensation" to the
owner.
,
Does. the Adoption of a. Redevelopment Plan or the Amendment of a Redevelopment
Plan Mean That My Property Will Be Condemned?
No. The adoption of a redevelopment plan does not mean that the Redevelopment Agency
will condemn your property. A redevelopment plan authorizes the Redevelopment Agency to
undertake certain redeveiopment programs in a specific neighborhood or area for a specific
4845-4915-0352.1
8ISI04 12:00 jnun
1
period of time. However,the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan does not result
in the taking or purchase by the Redevelopment Agency of anyone's property.
Before the Redevelopment Agency may acquire any specific parcel of property by negotiated
purchase or by condemnation, a number of steps must be followed by the Redevelopment
Agency. The following paragraphs of this document describe those steps.
In general, the Redevelopment Agency will only acquire private property if the Redevelopment
. Agency has publicly announced a specific redevelopment project activity or program which
requires the purchase of one or more specific properties. For example, the Redevelopment
Agency may be requested by a owner of a business in a redevelopment project area to help
acquire additional land so that the business can expand. The Redevelopment Agency would
consider such a proposal and if it appears feasible and if the proposal helps to eliminate blight
in the redevelopment. project area,"-the Redevelopment Agency may enter into a written
contract with. the business owner in which the Redevelopment Agency agrees to provide
specific types of redevelopment assistance; subject to appropriate conditions relating to the
. business owner's commitment to eliminate blight. . Once such an agreement is in place the
business owner and the Redevelopment Agency would coop~rate in a mutual. effort to expand
the business and the Redevelopment Agency may assist with the purchase of nearby property .
required for the business expansion or improvement. .
In other situations, the Redevelopment Agency may assist third party property owners to
acquire land for specific redevelopment purposes. . For example, a single. family housing
developer may propose to acquire a number of vacant lots which are adjacent to a deteriorated
apartment building and an old commercial bUilding in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
The Redevelopment Agency rnay be willing to assist suCh a housing developer to acquire the
old commercial building and deteriorated apartment building in order to produce a larger and
better suited site for a new single family dwelling in-fill housing development. Provided the
housing developer is willing to agree to construct new single family housing dwelling units
which comply with current City design and affordability standards, the Redevelopment Agency
could enter into an agreement with' such a third party housing developer to assist with housing
site acquisition, subject to certain conditions.
In either the case of commercial or residential land acquisition assistance, the Redevelopment
Agency could only enter into such a redevelopment contract with a business or a third party
housing developer after a public hearing has first been conducted by the Redevelopment
Agency. The community and potentially affected private property owners would receive prior
written notice of any such public hearing. .
Who Made The Decision To Buy My Property?
The decision to acquire.a property for a redevelopment project usually involves many persons
and many determinations. The final determination to proceed with a redevelopment project is
made only after a thorough review which may include public hearings to obtain the views of
interested persons.
If you have any questions about the redevelopment project or the selection of your property for
acquisition, you should ask a representative of the Redevelopment Agency.
484S-491~3S2.1
8/5104 12:00 ittun
2
-,.
How Will The Redevelopment Agency. Detennlne How Much To Offer Me For My
Property?
Before making you an offer, the Redevelopment Agency will obtain at least one appraisal of
. your property by a competent real property appraiser who is familiar with local property values.
The Redevelopment Agency will give you written notice thatlt intends to obtain an appraisal of
your property before it niakes an offer to you (unless you have already listed your property for
sale with a real estate broker). The appraiser will inspect your property and prepare a report
that includes his or her professional opinion of its current fair market value.
The Agency must offer you "just compensation" for your property. This amount cannot be less
than the fair market value of the property stated in the written appraisal. "Just cOmpensation"
for your property does not include the extra payments which the. laws requires the
Redevelopment Agency to make available for your specific relocation needs. If you are eligible
for relocation .assistance, the relocation payments would be made in addition to the purchase
price for the property.
What Is Fair Market Value?
Fair market value is defined as that amount of money which would probably be paid for a
property in a sale between a willing seller, who does not have to sell, and a willing buyer, who
does not have to buy.
The fair market value of a property is generally considered to be "just compensation." Fair
market value does not take into account intangible elements such as sentiniental value, good
. will, business profits, or any special value that your property may have for you or the special
value which your property may have to the buyer.
. How DOes An Appraiser Detennlne The Fair Market Value Of My Property?
Each parcel of real property is different and therefore no single formula can be devised to
. appraise all properties. Among the factors an appraiser typically considers in estimating the
value of real property are:
· How it compares with similar properties in the area that have been sold recently.
· How much rental income it could produce.
· How much it Would cost to reproduce the buildings and other structures, less any
depreciation.
Willi Have A Chance To Talk To The Appraiser?
Yes. You will be contacted and given the. opportunity to accompany the appraiser on his or her
inspection of your property before the Redevelopment Agency completes its appraisal. You
may then inform the appraiser of any special features which you believe may add to the value
of your property. It is in your best interest to provide the appraiser with all the useful
information you can in order to ensure that nothing of allowable value will be overiooked. If
-48454915-6352.1
81s.\l412:OO inun .
3
you are unable to meet with the appraiser, you may wish to have a person who is familiar with
your property represent you.
How Soon Willi Receive A Written Purchase Offer?
Generally, this will depend on the amount of work required to appraise your property. In the
case of a typical single-family house, it is usually possible for the Redevelopment Agency to
make a written purchaSe offer within 45 to 60 days after the date an appraiser is selected to
appraise the property.
Promptly after the appraisal has been reviewed (and any necessary corrections obtained), the.
Redevelopment Agency will approve the written appraisal report as submitted and give you a
written purchase offer in the full amounf of the value stated in the written appraisal along with a
"summary statement," explaining the basis for the Redevelopment Agency's offer. The
summary statement will include the street address, sales price and date of recent property
sales which the appraiser has used to base his or her opinion of fair market value for your
property. No negotiations will take place before you receive the written purchase offer and
summary statement.
What Is In The Summary Statement Of The Basis For The Offer Of Just Compensation?
The summary statement of the basis for the offer of just compensation will include:
· An accurate description of the property and the interest in the property to be acquired.
· A statement of the amount offered as just compensation. (If only part of the property is to
be acquired, the compensation for the part to be acquired and the compensation for
damages, if any, to the remaining part will be separately stated.) .
.. A list of the buildings and other improvements covered by the offer. (If there is a separately
held interest in the property not owned by you and not covered by the offer (e.g., a tenant-
owned improvement), it will be so identified.)
. Comparable property sale information.
Must I Accept The Agency's Offer?
No. You are entitled to present your evidence as to the amount you believe is the fair market
value of your property and to make suggestions for changing the terms and conditions of the
offer. The Agency will consider your evidence and suggestions. When fully justified by the
available evidence of value, the Redevelopment Agency's offer price will be increased.
. May Someone Represent Me During Negotiations?
Yes. If you would like an attorney or anyone elSe to represent you during negotiations with the
Redevelopment Agency, please inform the Redevelopment Agency. . However, State Law does
not require the Redevelopment Agency to reimburse your for the coSts of such representation.
4845-4915~352.1
8/5104 12:00 imm
4
If I Reach Agreement With The Redevelopment Agency, How Soon Willi Be Paid?
If you reach a satisfactory agreement to sell your property and your ownership (title to the
.property) is clear, payment will be made at a mutually acceptable time. Generally, this should
be possible within 30 to 60 days after you sign a' purchase contract. If the title evidence
obtained by the Redevelopment Agency indicates that further action is necessary to show that
your ownership is clear, you may be able to hasten the payment by helping the Agency obtain
the necessary proof. (Title evidence is basically a legal record of the ownership of the
property. It identifies the owners of record and lists the restrictive deed covenants and
recorded mortgages, liens,. and other Instruments affecting your ownership of the property.)
What Happens If I Don't Agree To The Agency's Purchase Offer?
If you are unable to reach an agreement through negotiations, the Redevelopment Agency
may conduct a public hearing to determine whether it is necessary and appropriate under the
particular circumstances to file a lawsuit in the Superior Court to acquire your property through
an eminent domain proceeding. An eminent domain proceeding is often referred to as a
condemnation. If your property is to be acquired by condemnation, the Redevelopment
Agency will give you notice of a time and date for such a public hearing after negotiations have
failed to produce a mutually agreeable sales price for your property and after such a public
hearing has been held the Redevelopment Agency would file the condemnation suit without
unreasonable delay.
What Happens After The Agency Condemns My Property?
You will benotified of the action. Condemnation procedures vary, and the Redevelopment
. Agency will explain the procedures that apply in your case if you ask.
After the public hearing to authorize the filing of a condemnation action, the Redevelopment
Agency files a condemnation suit and in most cases the Redevelopment Agency also deposits
with the Superior Court an amount not less than its appraisal of the fair market value of the '
property. . You can withdraw this amount (less any amounts necessary to payoff any mortgage
or other liens on the property from the Superior Court before there is a jury trial to prove the
final amount of just compensation payable to you. Withdrawal of your share of the money will
not affect your right to seek additional compensation for your property.
During the condemnation trial you will be provided an opportunity to introduce your evidence
as to the value of your property. Of course, the Agency will have the same right. After hearing
the evidence of all parties, the court will determine the amount of just compensation. If that
amount exceeds the amount deposited by the Agency, you will be paid the difference, plus any
interest that may be provided by law.
To help you in presenting your case in a condemnation proceeding, you may wish to employ
an attorney and an appraiser.
What Can I Do If I Am Not Satisfied With The Court's Detennlnatlon? .
If you are not satisfied with the trial court judgment setting the final value or just compensation
amount for your property, you may file an appeal with the State appellate court. The
. 4845-4915-6352.1 5
. 81510412:00jtiun
Redevelopment Agency can also file an appeal if it believes the amount of the trial court
judgment is too high.
Willi Have To Pay Any Closing Costs?
You will be responsible for the payment of the balance on any mortgage and other liens on
'your property. Also, if your ownership is not clear, you may have to pay the cost of clearing it.
But the Redevelopment Agency is responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs for:
o Typical legal and other services required to complete the sale, record documents, revenue
stamps, transfer taxes and any similar expenses which are incidental to transferring
ownership to the Agency. '
o Penalty costs and other charges related to prepayment of any recorded mortgage on the
, property that was entered into in good faith.
o 'Real property taxes covering the period beginning on the date tIle Redevelopment Agency
acquires your property.
Whenever possible, the Redevelopment Agency will make arrangements to pay these costs
directly. If you must incur any of these expenses yourself, you will be repaid-usually at the
time of closing. If you later discover other costs for which you should be repaid, you should
' request repayment ,from the Redevelopment Agency immediately. The Redevelopment
Agency will assist.You in filing a claim. Finally, if you believe that you were not properly repaid,
you may appeal the decision to the Agency.
May I Keep Any Of The Buildings Or Other Improvements On My Property?
Very often, many or all of the improvements on the, property are not required by the
Redevelopment Agency. This might include such items as a fireplace mantel, your favorite
shrubbery, or even an entire house. If you wish to keep any improvements, please let the
, Redevelopment Agency know as soon as possible.
If you do arrange to keep any improvement, the Redevelopment Agency will deduct only its
salvage value from the purchase price you would otherwise receive. (The salvage value of an
item is its probable selling price if offered for sale on the condition that the buyer will remove it
at hiS or her own expense.) Of course, if you arrange to keep any real property improvement,
you will not be eligible to receive a relocation payment for the cost of moving it to a new
location.
Can The Redevelopment Agency Take Only A Part Of My Property?
Yes. But if the purchase, of only a part of your property reduces the value of the remaining
part(s), you will be paid for the loss in value to the remaining part which the Redevelopment
Agency does not purchase. Also, if any remaining part would have little or no utility or value to
you, the Redevelopment Agency will offer to buy that remaining part from you; Occasionally, a
redevelopment project will increase the value of the part that is not acquired by the
Redevelopment Agency. Under some 'eminent domain laws; the amount 'of such increase in
, value is deducted from the purchase payment the owner would otherwise receive.
4845-4915-6352.1 6
8/SI04 12:00 jnun
Willi Have To Pay Rent To The Redevelopment Agency After My Property Is Acquired?
. If you remain on the property after the acquisition, you may be required to pay a faii' market
rent to the Redevelopment Agency. Such rent will not exceed that charged for the use of
comparable properties in the area. .
How Soon Must I Move?
.In the typical case a mutually agreeable date for the move will be worked out. In no case
would you have less than 90 days advance written notice to move from your property after the
Redevelopment Agency has purchased it. You will not be required to move before you receive
the agreed purchase price. If the property is acquired by condemnation, you cannot be
required to move before the estimated, fair market value of the property has first been
deposited with the Superior Court so that you can withdraw your share and you have also
been given at least 90 days to move.
If you are being displaced from your home or apartment, you will not be required to move
before a comparable replacement home is available to you.
Willi Receive Relocation Assistance?
State Law requires that certain relocation payments and other assistance must be provided to
families,individuals, businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations when they are displaced
as a result of an acquisition of property for redevelopment activities.
The'Redevelopment Agency will fumish you a full explanafion of any relocation assistance to
which you may be entitled before you are required to move from the property. If you have any
questions about such assistance, please contact the Redevelopment Agency. In order for the
Agency to fulfill its relocation obligations to you, you must keep the Redevelopment Agency
informed of your plans.
My Property Is Worth More Now Than When I Bought It. Must I Pay Capital Gains Tax .
On The Increase?
When the Redevelopment Agency acquires real property for community redevelopment
purposes, . the property owner usually may postpone the payment of Federal capital gains
taxes ~m any profit from the sale if he or she reinvests the profit in similar property within a
three (3) year replacement period. To take advantage of this right, you should file the details in
a statement with your Federal income tax retum for the tax year in which you realize the gain.
Intemal Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 544 explains how the Federal income tax would
. apply to a gain or loss resulting from the condemnation of real property, or its sale under the
threat of condemnation, for public purposes. If you have any questions about the IRS rules;
you should discuss your partiCUlar circumstances with your personal tax advisor or your local
IRS office. .
484S-491~352.1
Rl.c;:N I?Mirrnn
7
I'm A Veteran. How About MyV A Loan?
After your VA home mortgage loan has been repaid, you will be permitted to obtain another VA
loan to purchase another property. Check on such arrangements with your nearest Veterans
Administration Office. .
Is It Possible To Donate Property?
Yes. You may donate your property or sell it to the Redevelopment Agency for less than its
fair market value. The Agency must obtain an appraisal of the property and offer just
compensation for it, unless you release the Agency from this obligation.
Addltlonallnfonnatlon
If ~ou have any questions after reading this document, contact the Redevelopment Agency
and discuss your concems with the Redevelopment Agency representative.
Redevelopment Agency
City of San Bernardino'
201 North "E" Street, Suite 301
San Bernardino, CA 92401.1507
Office Hours:
M-Th 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Fri 7:30 a.m. t04:30 p.m.
Telephone:
Person to Contact:
(909) 663-1044
Maggie Pacheco, Deputy Director of the Economic Development
Agency
484S-491H3S2.1
8/m412:OOjrnm
8
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Most Frequently Asked Relocation Questions
1. WHAT STEPS WILL THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAKE TO ENSURE
THAT THE RESIDENTS WHOSE HOMES ARE ACQUIRED AS A RESULT OF
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ARE ABLE TO OBTAIN A COMPARABLE
HOME AND AT PRICES THAT THEY CAN AFFOlU)?
The Redevelopment Agency will implement several measures to ensure that any acquisition
program will minimi7.e inconvenience to affected residents. and that potential hardship to
residents will be avoided. First of all, wherever possible, the Redevelopment Agency will
acquire property by negotiated purchase. . Only when: property acquisition negotiations with a
particular owner reach an impasse will the Redevelopment Agency consider using. eminent
domain to acquire the property of that owner. The law requires the Redevelopment Agency to
pay just .compensation to an owner of property acquired for a project by. eminent domain. A
number of procedural safeguards to protect property owners assure that this fundamental right is
. respected - a public agency must pay the full amount of just compensation for property it
acquires by eminent domain. In addition, thll Redevelopment Agency is also required to provide
relocation assistance and to pay a specific amount of relocation benefits in cash to persons who
are displaced by a redevelopment project. Relocation assistance payments are sums which are in
addition to payment for the purchase of the property~
Before any project land acquisition begins that could displace residents for a particular
redevelopment project the Redevelopment Agency will prepare a written project specific housing
relocation plan. The Redevelopment Agency will also.prepare written real property appraisal
reports for each parcel of property to be acquired. These reports must be prepared in accordance
with State law and will be prepared by the Redevelopment Agency after written notice has first
been given to affected property owners which begins the process of land assembly for a
particular redevelopment project.
The replacement housing needs of affected residents .will be identified, actual relocation cost
estimates will be prepared and the existence of an adequate supply of comparable and affordable
relocation or replacement dwellings will be determined as part of the Redevelopment Agency's
preparation of the required relocation plan. The Redevelopment Agency will give affected
residents an opportunity to participate and comment on the preparation of the written relocation
plan before the relocation plan is given final consideration and approval by the Redevelopment
Agency.
The Redevelopment Agency will also ask each affected. property owner to meet with the
Redevelopment Agency's real property appraiser before the appraisal is completed. Property
owners can provide the appraiser with information concerning the value of their properly,
including the value of special improvements and amenities inside of a home or business, which
might not be apparent to an appraiser if the owner does not point them out.
48~983-8080.1
8/5104 12:00 jnun
I
The preparation of these plans lIlld reports by the Redevelopment Agency before any
redevelopment land acquisition program begins will help ensure that.all residents whose homes
are acquired will be able to obtain comfortable and comparable new homes at a price or rrntal
rate which they can afford. .
No person will be required to move from any home or apartment unit unless within a reasonable
period of time priOl'to displacement a selection of comparable replacement dwellings is available
. to such person lIlld the Redevelopment Agency has submitted a written offer to purchase the
property to the owner which satisfies the requirements of State law.
2. CAN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROVIDE SOME CONCRETE
EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS MEANT BY "RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PAYMENTS" FOR RESIDENTS?
The amount of relocation assistance payments which the Redevelopment Agency must pay to a
displaced person will depend upon a number of factors. . In general, the most important factors in
determiIling the amount of a relocation payment for a particular household include the number of
persons in the family, the family's income and whether thefamily owns a home or whether the
family rents a home or apartment For example:
A. Renter Households Relocation Payments
For a family who rents a home or apartment, a replacement dwelling is. deemed to be within their
financial means if the total monthly rent (including utilities and other reasonably recurring
housing expenses) minus. any replacement housing payment available to such family does not
exceed thirty percent (30%) of the family's monthly income.
Ina concrete example before any displacement occurs, assume that a family of two (2) adults
and three (3) children rents a one (I) bedroom apartment for $6!l5 per month. The gross monthly
income for the family is $1,950 per month.
It Should be noted in this example that this family ali'eady pays more than ~O% of its monthly
income in rent Its affordable rental payment before displacement should be only $585 per
month and not the higher amount of $685 per month which it pays to the landlord. A second
point which should be noted is that under applicable relocation guidelines defining "comparable
safe and sanitary replacement housing", this family is living in too small an apartment. Thus the
replacement dwelling which the Re4evelopment Agency will need to make available to this
family must be larger - at least two (2) bedrooms. This also means that the replacement dwelling
could have a higher rent than the apartment where the family currently resides.
In this concrete example, the Redevelopment Agency's relocation consultant would give the
family the addresses and telephone numbers of the landlords for three (3) different two bedroom
apartments and I rental house which are in fact available to them. The rents for the apartments
range from $850 to $930 per month and the house rents for $910 per month. All four (4) of these
dwellings have been inspected by the relocation consultant and are in compliance with all
building and safety codes and are in comparable or superior neighborhoods to the dwelling being
acquired by the Redevelopment Agency.
~983-8080.1
8/5104 12:00 jrnm
2
The family selects the $925 per month two bedroom apartment beCause it is located on a bus
route and the apartment management company has an after school study program for the children
of residents. Under these facts this family will receive relocation payments as follows:
Monthly rental payment at replacement dwelling
$925
Family's maximum rent based upon current income
(Note: this figure is less than their current
rent of$685 per month)
Redevelopment Agency's monthly rental
assistance/relocation payment
($585)
$340
. The Redevelopment Agency will make this relocation aSsistance payment of $340 per month
available to this family each month for the next j Yo years after the date of its relocation for a
total relocation payment of$14,280.
The Redevelopment Agency is also responsible for paying for the cost to move the furniture and
possessions of the family to the new dwelling. This payment will vary depending upon
household size, but the cost will be based upon the moving costs charged by a professional
moving company - and such moving costs could easily exceed $500.
B. Home Owner Relocation Pavments
The calculation of the precise amount of a relocation payment for a homeowner involves the
consideration of a larger number of factors than in the case of a renter household. But in general,
for homeowners, a replacement dwel1llg is deemed within their financial means if the purchase
price of the replacement dwelling, including related increased interest costs and other reasonable
expenses; including new house escrow closing costs, does not exceed the total of the amount of
. .
just compensation provided for the dwelling acquired and the replacement housing payment
available to the displaced homeowner.
In an example, assume the homeowner household has two(2) adults and three (3) children and
that they live in a three (3) bedroom home of approximately 1,450 square feet in size which they
purchased six (6) years ago for $105,000. The family has a mortgage for $85,000 on the home.
Their monthly mortgage payment is $625 per month. The Redevelopment Agency has submitted
a written appraisal of just compensation of $193,000 which the homeowner has accepted. In this
case the family has found that replacement dwellings of the same size in comparable
neighborhoods as their home range in cost of between $180,000 and $200,000. But the family
now wants a four (4) bedroom home, and typically four (4) bedroom homes in the community
cost approximately $10,000 to $14,000 more than a three (3) bedroom home. A 1,875 square
foot four (4) bedroom home is available, but its sales price is $204,000 or $11,000 more than the
amount of just compensation. paid by the Redevelopment Agency for their smaller three (3)
bedroom home.
4825-6983-8080.1
8/5Al4 12:00 jnnn
3
m this particular example the Redevelopment Agency's relocation housing payment would
. consist of the following elements:
Real estate broker commission amount payable
by displaced family for its new home
$6,300
New mortgage loan fees appraisal, costs and
expenses for purchase of new home (assume
family takes new $85,000 mortgage and has
only an average credit rating)
$3,720
Buyer Escrow costs on new home, including
inspection fees and new title insurance
$1,400
New home purchase differential for 4 bedrooms
required by homeowner
$11,000
. Total relocation payment by Redevelopment Agency
$22,420
The Redevelopment Agency will also be responsible for the payment of moving costs which in
the case of a homeowner could cost anywhere between $900 to more than $1,500 depending on
the amount of furniture and other possessions to be moved. In addition, if the household has
other special needs, such as particular improvements required for a disabled member of the
household, then the Redevelopment Agency would also be responsible for these extra costs, in
addition to the relocation payment of$22,420 described in this example.
C. Homeowner ProDertv Tax Benefit
Under relocation assistance guidelines for homeowners, any homeowner who is displaced by a
project acquisition of the Redevelopment Agency will also qualify for a special property tax
benefit In the example of the homeowner who purchased their home six (6) years ago for
$105,000, they would ordinarily pay more property taxes when they sell their home and
purchased a new and larger home for $204,000. Their annual property tax bill would increase by
about $980 per year.
However, under the provisions of California law, if a homeowner has their home purchased by a
public agency, then the homeowner is entitled to transfer 120% of the amount of just
compensation paid by the public agency for the old home as the property tax basis for the new
home which replaces it. In the example of the homeowner relocation above, the homeowner will
be able to transfer its $105,000 property tax valuation on 120% of the just compensation amount
of $193,000 paid to them for their old home, to any new home they purchase in California. In
the example above, the homeowner purchased a new and larger home in S~ Bernardino for
$204,000. Their new property tax bill at the new home will be tIie same as it was at their old
home. In other words, the tax assessor will value the new $204,000 home as if its value was only
$105,000. In fact, the homeowner could purcliase a new home for up to $231,600 (which is
120% of the $193,000 just compensation figure paid by the public agency) and still pay the same
property tax amount as assessed to the old home. .
4825-6983-8080.1
8/5104 12:00 inun
4
The longer a homeowner has lived in the home which the public agency is acquiring, the more
valuable this property tax benefit is to the homeowner.
D. ,Last Resort Honsine: Relocation Assistance PaYments
In addition the types of relocation assistance payments available to renters and homeowners as
outlined in the above examples, it is possible that in some unusual circumstances a comparable
replacement dwelling may not be available, or may not be available within the monetary limits
payable by a renter or a homeowner. '
, As a general rule, if no such comparable replacement dwelling is available, such a fact would be
identified as part of the preparation of the relocation plan at an early point in the Redevelopment
Agency's land acquisition planning process for a particular redevelopment project. If there is
evidence that no comparable replacement dwellings are available, then the relocation regulations
mandate the Redevelopment Agency to implement a "Last Resort Housing Plan" to provide
additional levels of relocation assistance payments for persons who would experience a financial
hardship in the absence of such additiorilil assistance payments. Under ordinary circumstalices
very low-income househOlds may qualify for Last Resort Housing Assistance, but it is possible
for Some low-income or even moderate-income households to have special housing needs
associated with a very sick or disabled member of the household. These households could also
qualify for Last Resort Housing Assistance. , A "very low income household" refers to a person
or family with annual income of 50% or less of County median household income; "low income
household" refers to a household with 8oo/. or less of County annual median household income;
and "moderate income household" refers to a household with annual inCome of 120% above the
County median household income level.
3. HOW WILL THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ASSURE RESIDENTS THAT
THE RELOCATION PROCESS WILL TREAT RESIDENTS WITH DIGNITY
AND COMPASSION?'
The preparation of a written housing replacement ' plan before any property,is acquired for a
particular redevelopment project is probably the best meanstQ ensure that the relocation process
will function smoothly and minimi7.e inconvenience. Respect for the dignity and needs of
affected residents is the centerpoint of the relocation program. Clear lines of communication and
responsibility will be established under the relocation plan. Affected residents will be personally
contacted ,and interviewed by trained professionals long before any person is requested to
actually mOVe from their home. The professionals that work in the field of public relocation are
very sensitive to the situations in which displaced persons find themselves, and speCial
, consideration is given to the needs of the elderly. The intent is to make the transition of each
displaced person or household to replacement housing as smooth a process as possible. Many
times displaced persons move to new homes which are much nicer than the ones they leave
behind.
4825-6983-8080.1
81S104 12:00 jnnn
5
4. WHAT wn..L THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DO TO ENSURE THAT
RESIDENTS DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIVITIES ARE
NOT FORCED TO MOVE FROM TIlE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OR TO
RELOCATE INTO SUBSTANDARD HOUSING ELSEWHERE WITHIN. THE
CITY?
It is a requirement of law that all persons displaced from residential properties be rehoused into
comparable decent, safe and. sanitary dwelling units. No person who is displaced by a
Redevelopment Agency project will be allowed to move into a substandard dwelling either in the
City or elsewhere. Relocation personnel will counsel and assist displaced persOns in finding and
securing safe, sanitary and decent housing. The decision to move to a certain dwelling is at the
sole disCretion of the person who is displaced by the project provided the new dwelling into
which the displaced person relocates must in fact be decent, safe, and sanitary. Below are
definitions for "Comparable Replacement Home" and "Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Housing".
5. WHAT IS A COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT HOME?
A comparable replacement home shall be:
. Decei1t, safe and sanitary.
· . Functionally equivalent to (and equator better than) your present home.
. Actually available for you to buy.
· Affordable. (Ordinarily, there is no increase in monthly mortgage .payments for
principal and interest.) . .
.. Reasonable accessible to your place of employment.
· Generally as well located with respect to public and commercial facilities, such as
schools and shopping, as you present home. .
· Not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions.
· Available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
6. WHAT IS DECENT, SAFE AND SANITARY HOUSING?
Decent, safe and sanitary housing is housing that:
. Meets applicable housing and occupancy requirements.
. Is structurally sound, weathertight, and in good repair.
. Contains a safe, adequate electrical wiring system
· Has adequate living space for the occupants.
. Has a kitchen with a sink, hot and cOld running water, and connections for a stove
and refrigerator.
· Has a separate, complete bathroom with hot and cold running water.
. Has heating as required by climatic conditions.
· Has an unobstructed exit to safe, open space ground level.
· Meets standards protecting occupants from lead-based paint hazards.
· If you are physically handicapped, is free of any barriers Which would preclude
your reasonable use of unit.
4825-6983-8080.\
81SoIJ4 12:00 imm
6
7. MANY OF THE RESIDENTS IN A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHO
COULD BE AFFECl'ED BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECTS SPEAK
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE. HOW WILL THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ASSURE RESIDENTS, INCLUDING RESIDENTS WHO ONLY HAVE
LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH, THAT THEIR. RIGHTS. TO
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE WILL BE PROTECTED?
Relocation regulations and adm;n;strative guidelines are in place on both the federal and state
level and these provide protection to all displaced persons. These regulations mandate equal
treatment under the law regardless of what language may be spoken in any affected household.
They are desiguedto carry out the policies of the relocation laws. These laws provide for the
following:
(1) To ensure that uniform, fair and equitable treatment is afforded persons displaced from
their homes, businesses or faiJps as a result of the actions of a public entity in order that such
persons shall not suffer disproportionate injury as a result of action taken for the benefit of the
public as a whole; and
(2) To ensure consistent and fair treatment for owners of real property to be acquired by a
public entity, to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreement with owners of such property
in order. to avoid litigation and .relieve congestion in courts, and to promote confidence in the
public land acquisition process.
(3) . Apublic entity shall not participate in Or undertake a project that will displace individuals
from their home unless comparable replacement dwellings will be available within a reasonable
period of time prior to displacement.
(4) The relocation guidelines are intended to establish only minimum requirements for
relocation assistance and payments. They shall not be construed to limit any other authority or
obligation which a public entity may have to provide additional assistance and payments.
(5) The relocation guidelines and laws are intended for the benefit of displaced persons, to
ensure that such persons receive fair and equitable treatment and do not suffer disproportionate
injuries as a result of programs designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. The relocation
guidelines and all applicable laws on which determinations are based shall be construed to affect
this intent. .
As the Redevelopment Agency begins the planning and preparation for acquiring specific
properties for projects, the Redevelopment Agency will also prepare the appropriate relocation
plan for each such project. Residents who are affected by such a project will be involved in the
preparation and revieW of such relocation plans. Notices will be given to interested persons in
English and Spanish languages that a relocation plan is being prepared and that relocation
assistance benefits will be payable. Consultations and interviews by Redevelopment Agency
personnel and relocation coDsuItants will be conducted in a language other than English if the
affected resident sO requests; All persons who are eligible for the payment of relocation benefits
can have any dispute regarding the amount of a payment submitted to the governing board of the.
Redevelopment Agency for prompt consideration and action in accordance with all applicable
law.
4825-6983-8080.1 7
815104 12:00 jnnn
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
0 ]4
15
]6
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
0
REtJQ)~V
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMEl'ITAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMEl'IT PLAN AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino (the
"Common Council") has previously taken certain actions in coordination with the Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") as relates to a
proposed reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Agency") within two (2) separate redevelopment project areas of
the Agency known as: (i) the Uptown Redevelopment Project and (ii) the Central City North
Redevelopment Project, in order that the Agency may undertake programs to eliminate arid
prevent the spread of blight in each of these redevelopment project areas; and
19
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project
(the "Central City North Redevelopment Plan") was approved by the Common Council
20
Ordinance No. 3366 in 1973, and the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project (the "Uptown Redevelopment Plan") was approved by Common Council Ordinance No.
MC-527 in 1986, and the condemnation powers of the Agency under the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan expired in 1998 and the condemnation powers of the Agency under the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan also expired in 1998; and
.1.
P;\Azendls\RnolutionsIRnolutions\2004\04-08-16 Upl~~n CCN [n.. CDC Rno.dllH:
C 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino (the "City") in consultation with the Agency.
has also taken action to consider certain changes in the land use element of the City General
Plan, as adopted by Common Council Resolution No. 89-15, in order to compliment the
potential redevelopment and use of certain lands in a portion of the redevelopment project area
of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Upto\vn Project Area") referred to as "Upto\\n
Subarea B". and specifically within Uptown Subarea B the lands which are also affected by the
proposed changes in the land use element of the City General Plan are described as a two block
area bounded by I-215 on the east, "K" Street on the west, 3rd Street on the north, and 2nd
Street on the south, and the potential vacation of "I" Street and Kendall A venue within this two
block area which such General Plan amendment also contemplates; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council and the Commission have previously called upon the
residents, property owners, businesses and community organizations within the Uptown Project
Area and the redevelopment project area of the Central City North Redevelopment Project (the
"CCN Project Area") to form project area committees for each such redevelopment project area,
in order for interested residents, business owners and property owners to consider the potential
effect of the reinstatement of the Agency's power to acquire land within each such
redevelopment project area and to submit a report and recommendation to the Common Council
and the Commission relating to reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Agency in
each such redevelopment project area and the implementation by the Agency of program to
eliminate blight in each such redevelopment project area which programs may include the
acquisition of property by the Agency using the power of eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, during calendar year 2003, an Initial Study was prepared under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") which evaluated the
potential effect on the environment of the reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the
Agency in the CCN Project Area and the Uptown Project Area and the potential effect on the
environment of an amendment to the land use element of the City General Plan relating to a
-2-
P:\AI~adas\Rcsolutio.u\Rnolutlons\2004\04-08-16 Uptown CC:"l EDV coc ~.doc
I
portion of Uptown Subarea B and the potential development of an Agency-sponsored I
o 2 redevelopment program to remedy certain conditions of blight in Uptown Subarea B referred to I
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
3
as the "Mercado Santa Fe Project"; and
4
WHEREAS, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact report was issued in
5
March 2003 relating to the proposed amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the
6
Central City North Redevelopment Plan, the Mercado Santa Fe Project and an amendment to
the land use element of the General Plan; and
7
WHEREAS, in the months following March 2003, the completion of the preparation of
a draft of an environmental impact report document for the reinstatement of the powers of
eminent domain in each of the redevelopment project areas was deferred as certain refinements
of the Mercado Santa Fe Project were considered, and subsequently, on February 5, 2004, the
Environmental Review Committee of the City determined that the environmental study of the
reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the two (2) redevelopment project areas and
the associated redevelopment activities relating to such reinstatement of the power of eminent
domain in each such redevelopment project areas as described below as the "Project" for
purposes of compliance with CEQA, warranted the preparation of a Program Environmental
Impact Report (a "Draft EIR") where the elements of the Project include the following:
. reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain to acquire land in the
Uptown Project Area and the CCN Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
. rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Central City
North Redevelopment Plan and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to conform to
current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation of displaced persons and
businesses and affordable housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project
Area conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations as currently in
effect or hereafter modified or amended (the rescission of such special development regulations
to be accomplished by a restatement of certain provisions of the Central City North
-3-.
.:\Atlndls\RnolulioRJlResohllionsIJ004\D4.0...16 TJptown CCS Env CDC Ruo.He:
02
014
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
Redevelopment Plan to conform with the City's General Plan, zomng
regulations currently in effect or hereafter modified or amended);
and development
I
3
a General Plan Amendment affecting approximately 19,02 acres within a portion
.
4
of Uptown Subarea B bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K" Street and 1-215 from
"IL" (Light Industrial) to "CG-I" (General Commercial), and such General Plan Amendment is
5
6
identified as General Plan Amendment No, 04-02;
7
.
analysis of a future retail development project within Uptown Subarea B. This
8
development is proposed for approximately 9,2 acres of land generally situated to the south of
3rd Street and is referred to by the City and the Agency as the Mercado Santa Fe Project. For
the purpose ofCEQA analysis, the proposed retail development concept assumes approximately
9
10
11
96,241 square feet of retail use and is based on the on-site vehicle parking standard of 4 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of retail use, the proposed use requires a minimum of 385 on-site vehicle
12
parking spaces. The Mercado Santa Fe Project as proposed provides approximately 440 parking
13
spaces.
Collectively, the potential environmental effects of the elements of the Project (the
15
proposed redevelopment and related activities generally described in the four (4) subparagraphs
t6
preceding this sentence) is, for the purposes of the indicated analysis under CEQA, described in
17
this Resolution as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a public scoping meeting to solicit public comments on
the preparation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") for the
Project; and
\VHEREAS, the 2003 Initial Study was updated and the March 2003 notice of
preparation was updated and revised as the Notice of Preparation of the City to prepare a Draft
EIR for the Project, and was published and circulated to the public, responsible agencies and
other interested persons from February 17, 2004 through March 17, 2004, as required by
CEQA; and
.4-
P:\ACtndaJ\Resolutions\Rnolulions\IOO4\04-08-16l:plown CCN En... CDC Rno.dec:
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
l'
18
19
o
WHEREAS, the text of the Draft EIR (including all appendices) was made available to
the public, responsible agencies and other interested persons for their review and comment
between April 8, 2004 through May 29,2004 as required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, verbal and written comments were received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally and in writing as required
by CEQA and the Final Environmental Impact Report document (State Clearinghouse No.
200303 I 072), dated June 15, 2004 (the "Final EIR") has been prepared and transmitted to each
responsible agency which submitted comments to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted two (2) noticed joint public hearings on July
19, 2004, with the Common Council as relate to the Project and the Final EIR with the first such
joint public hearing held in connection with the amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
and the certification of the Final EIR and second joint public hearing held in connection with
the amendment of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan and the certification of the Final
EIR, and during the course of each such joint public hearing conducted on July 19, 2004, the
Commission fully reviewed and considered the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the
Planning Division staff reports and the recommendations of the Planning Commission as relate
to the Project and the Final EIR and drafted its own Facts and Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations base upon its review such documents.
20
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:
21
In connection with the consideration by the Commission of the
Section 1.
22
amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power of eminent
domain in the Uptown Project Area and the amendment and reinstatement of the Central City
23
24
North Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power of eminent domain in the CCN
Project Area, the Commission conducted the following public hearings on July 19,2004:
25
-5- .
';l.Acendas\Rnolulions\RtsoIUlions\100.\04-0S.16 Uplown CCS En" CDC Reso.6oc:
02
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
(i) a joint public hearing with the Common Council to consider an amendment of:
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the eminent domain power of the Agency in the I
I
3
Uptown Project Area and the potential implementation with the assistance of the Agency of the
4
Mercado Santa Fe Project in Uptown Subarea B and the potential environmental effects of these
actions as set forth in the Final EIR; and
5
6
(ii)
a joint public hearing with the Common Council to consider an amendment of
7
the Central City North Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the eminent domain power of the
Agency in the CCN Project Area and the restatement and amendment of the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan to rescind the special development regulations contained in such 1973
redevelopment plan and to conform the provisions of such 1973 redevelopment plan to the
current-day Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation of displaced persons and
businesses and affordable housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project
Area conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect and the potential environmental effects of these actions as set forth in the Final EIR.
During the course of the joint public hearings identified above, the Commission received
and considered all written comments previously received and all oral comments submitted by
interested persons relating to the Project and the Final EIR. The Commission hereby finds that
the conduct of these public hearings was full and fair and that the Commission has fully
considered the potential effect on the environment of the Project. The Final EIR in the form as
submitted to the Commission upon the conclusion of these joint public hearings is hereby
acknowledged and declared to be the Final EIR for the Project.
Section 2.
The Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003031072) is a "program
environmental impact report" as this term is defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, for
the Project. The Final EIR for the Project, includes consideration of the potential environmental
effects of the development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project and General Plan Amendment No.
04-02, and the Final ErR has been prepared and considered in compliance with CEQA. The
-6-
P:\Al:~ndll"Resolulions\ResolulionJ'2004\04-08.-16 Vplown CC:'<I Env CDC Rno.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
Final EIR (including the text of the Draft ErR, all technical appendices, the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration) and all the
notices, with comments and staff reports related thereto are on file with the City Clerk's Office.
Section 3.
The purpose of this Resolution is to evidence the actions of the
Commission as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in approving the amendments to the
Central City North Project Plan and the Uptown Project Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
. Sections 15050 and 15096 the Commission as a "responsible agency" shall consider and certify
the lead agency's ElR prior to approving a project, including providing findings supported by
substantial evidence in the record related to substantial environmental effects the project will
have on the environment and a statement of overriding considerations addressing the
environmental impacts which are not avoidable and cannot be substantially lessened as a result
of the project. The Final ErR was presented to the Common Council as the "lead agency" and
I the Commission as the "responsible agency" for the Project under CEQA, and the Commission
I has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to the adoption by the
I Commission of an amendment to the Uptown Project Plan reinstating the Agency's eminent
I
I domain power in the Uptown Project Area, and prior to the adoption by the Commission of an
amendment to the Central City North Project Plan reinstating the Agency's eminent domain
power in the CCN Project Area as well as the related rescission of the special land development
regulations and the reinstatement of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan to conform to
current City General Plan, zoning and development regulations and current day provisions of
Community Redevelopment Law relocation and affordable housing standards. The
Commission has adopted Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as
part of its certification of the Final EIR and approval and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the Proj ect.
Section 4.
The Commission hereby finds that:
(1) the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project,
including the potential development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project.
-7-
P:\Acend.J\RelOlulions\Raolutions\Z004\04-08-16 Uplo...n CCN En.. CDC Rcso.doc:
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
\
i
I
(2) the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would I
result but which significant effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant provided I
that the applicants and owners of land who may undertake the development of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project (if it occurs), and other future development within the portion of Uptown
Subarea B affected by General Plan Amendment No. 02-04 (if such development occurs)
undertake feasible environmental impact mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan for the Final EIR to reduce or eliminate such potential impacts to a level which
is less than significant. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan and all information contained therein is
included in the Final EIR and incorporated herein by reference. The basis on which the
Commission finds that such potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have
been or shall be mitigated to a level which is less than significant is set forth in the Facts and
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the Project. The Facts and Findings
and'Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is attached as Attachment "A" and
incorporated in this Resolution by this reference,
(3) the Final EIR concludes that despite the implementation of feasible mitigation
measures to lessen the potential impact of certain effects of the Project on the environment, that
in three (3) areas of environmental concern under CEQA, the potential effects on the
environment of the Project cannot be fully mitigated or reduced to a level which is less than
18
significant. These areas are identified as follows:
(i) temporary construction activities of the Mercado Santa Fe Project (dust and
construction vehicle exhaust) - although the Final EIR sets forth mitigation measures which are
estimated to reduce the potential impacts by 50% the remaining effect, even after the
implementation of the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR is still significant
in the case of temporary construction activity impacts of the Mercado Santa Fe Project in
Uptown Subarea B;
11/
-8-
P:\ACtnduIRnoluliOftJ\RnoluliuRIU004\o.&-08-16 Uplown CCS En.. CDC Rno.doc
(ii) the Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts or the air emissions (stationary
o 2 source plus mobile/traffic source) of the Mercado Santa Fe Project and General Plan
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
o
3
Amendment No. 04-02 are forecast in the Final EIR exceed the thresholds for significant effect
4
established by the SCAQMD. However, there are no mitigation measures currently available to
5
reduce emissions from mobile sources, and as a consequence, the long-term air quality impacts
6
of the Project remain significant and unavoidable;
(iii) Year 2008 Freeway Segment Conditions and Year 2025 Freeway Segment
Conditions are both indicated in the Final EIR to be operating at unsatisfactory conditions, and
the Project will contribute to such adverse conditions in the year 2008 and in the Year 2025
under the traffic impact generation models considered in the Final EIR. Although certain
mitigation measures could be implemented in the case of the freeway segment conditions to
improve the operation of the freeway segments to an acceptable level of serve (or a non-
significant impact on the environment for both 2008 and 2025), the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission to implement.
Caltrans has jurisdiction for providing for capital improvements to the indicated freeway
segments, and at the present time Caltrans has not formulated any mechanism for proponents of
the Project (in particular the Mercado Santa Fe Project and the owners of land benefited by
General Plan Amendment No. 04-02) to pay fees or make other fair share contributions to
improve mainline freeway segments to so eliminate the adverse impact of the development of
such land on the operation of the freeway segments.
Potential mitigation measures or other project alternatives relating to the three (3)
unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as generally identified in this Section IY.E., were
not incorporated into or adopted as part of the Project, as the mitigation of these impacts is
regarded as infeasible and not economically or socially viable based on specific economic,
social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
25 Considerations.
-9-
P:\A~ndlS\RaoluliunJ\Rl$olulions\Z004\04.0"'16 Uplown ees En~ CDC RcIo.doc
0 2
,
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
0 14
15
16
10
(4) the Commission has given great weight to the significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts of the Project. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth in the Facts and
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Commission hereby finds and
determines that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly
outweighed by the elimination of blight which affects each of the redevelopment project areas
and the economic, social, cultural and other benefits to the community which shall be realized
by the Project, including the potential development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project, the
redevelopment of the lands affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, as set forth in the
II
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is hereby adopted and
approved by the Commission as the responsible agency under CEQA for implementing certain
aspects of the Project.
(5) the findings contained in the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations with respect to the significant environmental impacts of the Project identified in
the Final EIR are true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the record,
including documents comprising the Final EIR.
(6) the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the Facts and Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment
17
of the Agency and the Commission.
18
Section 5.
The Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
19
approved and adopted; the Final Program Environmental Impact Report is certified; and the
20
Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA
Mitigation Monitoring Plan is approved and adopted.
21
Guidelines Section 15097 the Commission ensures that the Agency shall comply with the
requirements of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, including the submission of any
22
23
necessary reports dunng (i) all condemnation proceedings initiated by the Agency on land lying
within the CCN Project Area or the Uptown Project Area; (ii) the construction of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project if assistance is granted by the Agency; and, (iii) any redevelopment
24
25
-10-
P;\Agcndas\Rl'SOlutions\Rcsollltions\20Q4\fI4-08-16l'pto..n eeN En" CDC Rae.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
project lying within the land affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 to which the!
Agency grants assistance.
Section 6.
The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby directed, in cooperation
with the City Planning Division, to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San
Bernardino Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the Commission's compliance, as a
responsible agency under CEQA in reviewing and approving the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Project, including the adoption of the Facts and Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations and the approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. A copy of such
Notice of Determination shall be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 7.
10
11 1/1/
/II
12
/II
13
0 /Ii
14
III
. .
15
/II
16
./ / /
17
1//
18 /II
19 /II
20 /II
21 /II
22 /II
23 /II
24 /II
25 III
0
-11-.
P:l.AccndlS\Rc50lulionsl.Resolutlon$\%004\04-08-16l.plown CCN [n" CDC RQO.doc:
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
o
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting
thereof, held on the
day of
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
Commission Members:
Aves
Navs
Abstain
Absent
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
KELLEY
JOHNSON
MC CAl\1MACK
19
Secretary
20
day of
,2004.
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
21
22
Judith Valles, Chairperson
Community Development Commission
of the City of San Bernardino
23
24
By:
25
-12-
P:\AI~ndasl.ReSlllufions\Rcsolllfions\!004\04.08-16lJplown CC:'Ii [n\l CDC Rno.doc
C 2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
II
14
0 15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2S
0
RESOLVTI~~ ~y
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city and municipal
corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California;
12 and
13 WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (the "CRL''). The CRL is found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City ("Common Council"), by
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-527 on June 18, 1986, approved and adopted the Redevelopment
Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has subsequently adopted certain amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as follows:
(i) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-927 on December 19, 1995; and
(ii) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 on December 1,2003.
\VHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as adopted
by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-527, and as amended by Common Council Ordinance
No. MC-927, and as further amended by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 is referred
to herein as the "Redevelopment Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has initiated proceedings for the adoption of a further
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power to acquire land in the
4825-3864-24321
-1-
P:'Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions'2004\04-08-16 l'ptOV.ll Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
10
redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Are:1"') by
eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, Common Council and the Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") which serves as the governing board of the Agency
have called upon the owners of property, residents, business operators and neighborhood
organizations in the Project Area to form a Project Area Committee for the purpose of having
consultations concerning the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain
and the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "2004 Amendment") and the
potential of the Agency's exercise of the reinstated power of eminent domain to displace low-
and moderate-income residents through the exercise of eminent domain on residential properties
within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Project Area Committee for the Project Area have
considered and approved the 2004 Amendment and have voted to recommend the Common
Council and the Commission that the 2004 Amendment be approved at the Joint Public Hearing
scheduled for July 19, 2004 on the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Amendment does not propose to modify the boundaries of the
Project Area or change any of the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. The 2004
Amendment is focused solely on the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority
with respect to all property in the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the
adoption of the ordinance of the Common Council adopting the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council consented to hold a joint public hearing with the
Commission with respect to the 2004 Amendment, at which public hearing any and all persons
having any objection to the 2004 Amendment or the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report described below, or the regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2004
Amendment, would be allowed to appear before the Commission and the Common Council and
show cause why the 2004 Amendment should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the joint public hearing of the Commission and the Common Council was
duly held on July 19, 2004 regarding the certification of the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report and the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS. a Final Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in
connection with the consideration and approval of the 2004 Amendment and certain related
4825-3864.24321
-2-
P:\AgendasIResolutlOns\Resolul1ons'2004\04-0S-I6 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
o
redevelopment implementing activities, including a redevelopment study project referred to as
the "Mercado Santa Fe Project" and the City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, and the
Common Council has adopted its resolution entitled:
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING A
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND
OTHER ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS, APPROVING CERTIFYING A
TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC L\tIPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, Al\'D
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMEl\TIMENT NO. 04-02"; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted its resolution entitled:
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING
FIl\TIINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT. AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY
THE COMMISSION OF SUCH REDEVELOPME:\'T PLAN AMENDMENTS";
and
21
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the passage of this Resolution have occurred and
been taken in accordance with applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND AND DETERMINE AS
FOLLOWS:
22
23
24
SECTION I. The information set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution is true an
25
correct. The Commission has conducted a full and fair joint public hearing with the Commissio
Council on July 19,2004 regarding the 2004 Amendment.
SECTION 2. The purposes and intent of the Commission with respect to the 2004
Amendment is to reinstate the Agency's eminent domain authority with respect to all property in
26
27
28
4825-3864-2432.1
-3-
P:\.A.gendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-08-16 Uptov.m Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
o
I
I
I
the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period thereby protecting and promoting the sound:
redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City byl
providing a method of property acquisition through the potential use of eminent domain in order
for the Agency to be able to assemble parcels, attract redevelopment interest by owners of land
and third persons and secure capital improvement in the Project Area by insuring its ability to
deliver property for redevelopment purposes as part of specific programs to eliminate and
prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area.
SECTION 3. The Commission has reviewed and considered all of the staffreports and
8
consultant reports prepared by or at the direction of the Agency and the City, the staff and
9
consultant's presentations submitted at the joint public hearing, including without limitation the
10 visual display of maps, graphs, charts and photographs and the written correspondence and oral
II I comments of interested persons submitted to the Commission and the Common Council at the
12 joint public hearing. and the "Report to Mayor and Common Council, 2004 Eminent Domain
13 Amendment, Uptown Redevelopment Report" (the '"Section 33352 Report"). as part of its
14 consideration of the 2004 Amendment.
7
21
SECTION 4. (a) The Section 33352 Report contains a summary of facts and
information which indicate that conditions of blight continue to burden the Project Area. The
observation of the conditions of blight which afflict the Project Area is described in the Section
33352 Report. The Section 33352 Report includes both field observation of conditions in the
Project Area and analysis of technical data. The field observation was conducted by AgencY
staff and qualified consultants. as described in the Section 33352 Report. all of whom have
significant experience in compiling and evaluating data relating to the existence of blight in a
redevelopment project area.
21
The Project Area displayed substantial evidence of blight in 1986 at the time when the
Redevelopment Plan was adopted. The existence of blight in 1986 was so prevalent that blight
caused a reduction and lack of property utilization of the area to such an extent that the lands in
the Project Area posed a physical and economic burden on the community.
CRL Section 33031 contains the primary source of law for the definition of "blight".
The following contains a summary of the information contained in the Section 33352 Report
which is organized under each of the four (4) elements or categories of "physical blight" (CRL
Section 3303 I (a)) and the five (5) elements or categories of '"economic blight" (CRL Section
23
24
25
26
"
.,
28
4825-386-1-2.1321
-4-
P:'Agendas'.ResolutionsResolutions'1004\O.!-08-16 Cptown Blight Analysis CDC Rcso.doc
33031(b)). The applicable text of the statute is presented in bold-faced type, followed by a
o ~ summary of the applicable facts contained in the Section 33352 Report.
3 eRL Section 33031(a)(I): "Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for person
4 to live or work. These conditions can be caused by serious building code violations
5 dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty 0
0 15
16
17
] S
19
20
~I
22
,-
_0
24
25
26
,-
.,
28
0
6 inadequate utilities, or other similar factors."
This provision describes one of the "classic" symptoms of blight. The informatio
8 summarized in the Section 33352 Report was assembled from field observation of the exterio
9 areas of buildings and structures visible to Agency staff and consultants from the public street
10 and public right-of-ways in the Project Area. It is believed that interior inspection of th
12 many properties which were not visible from public streets. would likely indicate many more an
13 potentially very serious life and safety related building deficiencies than described in the Sectio
14 33352 Report.
II buildings and structures in the Project Area, as well as closer inspections of the exterior areas 0
Nevertheless, the Section 3352 Report indicates that 17.9% of the improved parcels 0
land in Subarea A of the Project Area contain buildings which display signs of dilapidation an
deterioration, and that 17.1 % of the improved parcels ofland in Subarea B of the Project Are
contain buildings which display signs of dilapidation and deterioration. [Section 3352 Report B
3 and B-4.] It is noted that these numbers are likely to conceal a number of problems 0
symptoms of blight for the reasons stated above. Elsewhere in the Section 33352 Report, it i
noted that the Project Area contains a comparatively large number of vacant parcels of land
nearly one fourth (!14th) of parcels are vacant [Section 33352 Report B-5]. In an older and full
urbanized area of a community such as the Project Area, such a large percentage of vacant 0
unused parcels of land often is an indication of long-standing conditions of blight. This larg
number of vacant parcels of land, in an otherwise fully developed urban area, is in large part th
result of an effective and sustained effort on the part of the City to enforce building and safet
laws [Section 33352 Report B-23]. As buildings have deteriorated in the Project Area, the Cit
has taken action to compel property owners to respond to such deterioration and life safet
dangers. In many, many cases over the past ten (10) years, property owners have elected t
4825-3864-24321
-5-
P:'..AgendasiResolutlons\ResoIUlions'10o.+,04-08-16 Uptown Bllgh,t Analysis CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
o
I
demolish such unsafe structures rather than repair them. [See Section 33352 Report B-23: "FoJ
the five-year period of 1997-98 through 2001-02, code compliance for deterioration an~
dilapidation cases for the Project Area were higher by 6 times the City average."]
Thus the unusually high percentage of vacant parcels of land, plus the conditions a
observed in the Section 33352 Report relating to the condition of buildings serve to provid
confirming evidence that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33032(a)(1) is presen
in the Project Area. [Section 33352 Report B-2 through B-7 and accompanying photographs a
B-8 through B-1 1.]
Furthermore, despite the extensive availability of vacant land to support new constructio
in the Project Area, new construction simply has not occurred for a number of interrelate
factors. A key among these is the fact that old lots - especially the commercially zoned lots
12 are too small to permit new development under current day planning and zoning standards
unless such vacant parcels are first assembled with adjacent.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereb
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(a)(1) is present in the Projec
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilizatio
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden 0
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by privat
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
23
CRL Section 33031(a)(2): "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the
economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. Tbis condition can be caused by a
substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack
of parking, or other similar factors."
This condition or symptom of blight remains present in the Project Area. The large
number of vacant lots in the Project Area - 24% of all legal parcels are vacant in the Project
Area comprising approximately 22% of the total acreage of the Project Area - evidences this
symptom of blight [Section 33352 Report B-5]. The small size of parcels ofland in the Project
Area also contributes to the problem and in particular, prevents the reuse of many parcels on
which older buildings have already been demolished because of age and deterioration or
24
25
26
27
28
4825-3864.2432.1
-6-
P:\Agendas'Resolutlons\Resolutlons'1004\04-08.16 Cptown Blight AnalysIs CDC Reso.doc
02
015
16
o
3
economic obsolescence. Small lot size - particularly on community yard properties - 8.000
square feet where the current zoning and development standards require 10,000 square foot
commercial lot size minimum standard - prevent economically feasible reuse of property in the
Project Area in many, many cases. As stated in the Section 33352 Report, "assessing all the
parcels in the Project Area and comparing to the City's minimum lot requirements for each
General Plan land use, 70.1 % of the parcels are non-conforming and do not meet the minimum
lot requirement". [Section 33352 Report B-18]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(a)(2) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or goverrunent action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(3): "Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with
each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions
of the project area."
This condition is a symptom of blight and is found in the Project Area. [Section 33352
Report B-15 through B-16 and accompanying photographs.] In addition, this condition is
compounded by the fact that the substantial majority of the residential use parcels of land which
are mixed in among the commercial use parcels along the main street traffic arterial streets are
non-conforming parcels of land. In the case of the "medium density" residential parcels of land
which are interspersed among the commercial use parcels (e.g. a residential parcel of land
improved with a fourplex situated between two small commercial use parcels improved with
"office" type or other nomesidential uses), 82.2% of such "medium density" residential use
parcels are non-conforming [Section 33352 Report B-19]. It should also be noted that the total
number of residential use parcels in the Project Area is fairly low (125 parcels out of a total of
1,144 parcels) in comparison to the other "general commercial"/industrial uses of land in the
Project Area. And yet the average number of residents per residential use parcel of land is
remarkably high (e.g. approximately 2,760 residents in the Project Area [Section 33352 Report
B-21)). This indicates that the average number of residents per residential parcel is
approximately 23 persons per parcel. Since the majority of all residential use parcels are non-
4
5
6
"
,
8
9
10
II
12
]3
14
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4825-3864-2432.1
-7-
P:\Agcndas\Resolulions\Rcsolutions'1004\04-08-16 Uptov.n Blight AnalySIS CDC Rcso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
015
16
17
28
o
conforming or substandard in size, the evidence of incompatibility of land uses also ser.'es to
provide evidence of the conditions of residential overcrowding which is observed in the Project
Area.
18
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (a)(3) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(4): "The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and
shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple
ownership."
This condition of blight is also present in the Project Area. The ownership pattern of
land in the Project Area is exceedingly diverse and such small ownership pattern indicates that
land assembly by private property owners has not occurred. It is likely that given all the other
burdens affecting the Project Area, and the comparative ease for commercial businesses and
buyers of property to select other less challenged and newer areas of the community for
investment, that the assembly of small parcels into larger parcels of developable land in the
Project Area is not reasonably likely to occur without redevelopment assistance in one form or
another.
19
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(a)(4) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(1): "Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired
investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing
hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article 12.5
(commencing with Section 33459)."
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4825-3864-2432.1
-8-
P:\AgendasResolul1onsResolul1ons'2004\04-08-16 UptO"'" Blight AnalySIS CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
015
16
28
o
9
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. Despite recent news reports and
general views about rising real estate investment values in the Inland Empire and in San
Bernardino in particular, the Project Area appears to be an area of the community which has not
benefited from these generally favorable economic conditions in recent years. In part of fact,
since the time when the Project Area was established in 1986 a serious and sustained series of
negative economic factors have produced an almost "perfect storm" of adverse economic
conditions in the Project Area. The economic down-turn of the late 1980's and early '90s,
coupled with the closing of the nearby Santa Fe railway locomotive repair shop facility and the
closing of nearby Norton Air Force Base have resulted in a major exodus of commercial
business activity from the Project Area since 1986.
As is readily apparent in the Section 33352 Report, as well as apparent to an untrained
observer who merely takes a drive through the Project Area, virtually no new development or
construction activity since 1986, is apparent in the Project Area today. In light of the large
number of vacant parcels ofland available in the Project Area, this fact is particularly significant
and indicative of this economic condition of blight.
The Section 33352 Report provides a good summary of the available evidence of the
existence of stagnant and depreciated property values which serve to illustrate this problem:
"In order to examine the economic health of the Project Area, trends in secured property
values, which include the land and improvement values, were analyzed for the fiscal
years 1998-99 through 2002-03. The Project Area assessed values increased by 1.37%
annually during this period. The secured assessed value for the City increased by 1.79%
annually from 1998-99 through 2002-03.
A more detailed, analysis by San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Map Book and
Page of the Project Area assessed values revealed that despite the slow growth in the
value of the entire Project Area, many blocks actually declined and did not keep pace
with the Proposition 13 inflationary adjustment, due to declining market values. The
analysis revealed that parcels on 16 map book pages declined in value and in addition to
this, parcels on 15 more map book pages did not grow by the Proposition 13 inflationary
adjustment rate of2%. These 31 pages represent 54% of the total Project Area's blocks."
[See Section 33352 Report Table B-6]
10
11
12
1-
J
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4825-3864-2432.1
-9-
P:\AgendasIResolulIons"Resolutions'2004\04-08-16lJptown Blight AnalYSIS CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
21
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031 (b)( I) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(2): "Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low
lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an
area developed for urban use and served by utilities."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. The photographs and the Section
33352 Report portray a number of vacant commercial use structures in the Project Area. The
number of vacant and under utilized commercial buildings particularly along Highland Avenue
is quite noticeable to the casual observer. In addition, the unusually high percentage of vacant
parcels in the Project Area provides evidence that this condition of blight exists.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303I(b)(2) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(4): "ResidentiaI!>vercrowding or an excess of bars, liquor
stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of
public safety and welfare."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. Residential overcrowding is a
significant problem and one which is not likely to improve without redevelopment. Although
the sustained efforts of City code enforcement have produced very positive results in the Project
Area, government action alone cannot remedy the problem in the near term. The investment of
private capital is required to address the problem of residential overcrowding. Given the extent
of blighting conditions in the Project Area, it is unfortunately not surprising that the investment
of private capital in the Project Area since 1986 has not made much of an improvement since the
time the Project Area was established. This is confirmed by the finding under CRL Section
48~5-386~.2432.1
-10-
P:\Agendas\Resolutlons\Resolutlons'.200-l\04.08-16 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
"7
8
9
10
11
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
o 28
12
33032(a)(3), above. Furthermore, the presence of so-called "adult business" activities in the
Project Area, such as on Highland A venue, provides evidence of the persistent and adverse
nature of these conditions of blight. [Section 33352 Report B-29 and B-30]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(b)(4) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(5): "A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the
public safety and welfare."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. [Section 33352 Report B-26
through B-30.]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(b)(5) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
(b) In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission
hereby finds that the conditions of blight described in CRL Section 33031 are present in the
Project Area and that these conditions are prevalent and substantial conditions which cause a
reduction and lack of utilization of the Project Area and substantially contribute to a serious
physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or government action, or both without
redevelopment.
(c) The Commission hereby further finds that the 2004 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan shall assist the Agency to correct and eliminate the spread of blight in the
Project Area by means of assisting owner participants and third party developers under the terms
of specific redevelopment agreements and covenants acceptable to the Agency to consolidate
23
24
25
26
27
4825.3864.2432 I
-11-
P:lAgendasIResolullons\Reso\Ullons.2004'.o4-08.16 eplown Blight. AnalySIs CDC Reso.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
parcels, eliminate obsolete or blighted structures or conditions on commercial use property and
preserve and create new employment and private capital investment in the Project Area.
SECTION 5. The Commission hereby acknowledges its receipt and approval of thei
33352 Report. The Commission hereby requests the Common Council to consider and approve
the 33352 Report in the form as submitted at the joint public hearing for the adoption of the
2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 6. The Commission hereby acknowledges its receipt of a document entitled
"Written Responses and Findings to Written and Oral Objections Received Prior to or at the July
19, 2004, Joint Public Hearings for the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the
Central City North Project Area and for the Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area Plan" (the "Written Responses and Findings") and the Commission hereby approves and
adopts the responses and findings contained therein in cOlU1ection with the adoption of the 2004
Amendment to he Redevelopment Plan. The Commission hereby requests the Common Council
to approve and adopt the Written Responses and Findings and to overrule each and every written
and oral objection submitted by any person to the adoption of the 2004 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan. A copy of the Written Responses and Findings is on file with the City
Clerk.
SECTION 7. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the 2004 Amendment, a
copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary, and which 2004 Amendment is incorporated
herein by this reference, and the Commission designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended
by the 2004 Amendment (hereinafter, the "Amended Redevelopment Plan") as the official
redevelopment plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project subject to the adoption of an
appropriate Ordinance of the Common Council which approves and adopts the 2004
Amendment and the Amended Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 8. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Resolution, is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Resolution. The Commission hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Resolution and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution,
4825-3864-2432.1
-12-
P:\Agendas\Resolulions\Resolutlons'2004\04-08-16 Lptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
O2
3
4
5
irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions of this Resolution be declared invalid for any reason.
SECTION 9. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. The Agency Secretary
shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
//1
6 //1
7 /1/
8 /1/
9
/1/
10
/1/
II
/1/
12
/1/
13
/1/
14
0 /1/
15
/1/
16
/1/
17
/1/
18
//1
19
20 /1/
21 /1/
22 /1/
23 /1/
24 /1/
25 /1/
26 //1
27 /1/
0 28 //1
4825-3864-2432.1 -13-
P:\AgendasIResolutionslResolutionsI2004\04-08-16 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
6
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
02
3
4
5
7
8
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
9 Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting
10 thereof, held on the
II
12 Commission Members
13
ESTRADA
14
0 LONGVlLLE
15
MCGINNIS
16
DERRY
17
KELLEY
18
JOHNSON
19
MC CAMMACK
20
21
day of
, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
Secretary
22
23
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
,2004.
24
25
26
27 Approved
I 0 28 By:
Judith Valles, Chairperson
Community Development Commission
of the City of San Bernardino
4825.3864-2432.1
-14-
,
I
P:\AgendasIResolutionslResol ons\2004\04-08-16 Uptown Blight AnalysIs CDC Reso.doc
.
C 2
,
,
4
5
6
7
13
014
o
RESOLUTION~ 0) fp Y
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO
WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city and municipal
corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California;
8
and
9
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
10
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
11
Redevelopment Law (the "CRL"), and CRL is found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000
12
et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardin
(the "Commission") is the governing board ofthe Agency; and
15
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino ("Common
16
Council") and the Commission have undertaken proceedings in accordance with the California
1,
Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq. ("CRL") to
18
adopt an Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area ("Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed Amendment is to reinstate eminent domai
19
20
authority throughout the Uptown Redevelopment Project Areas for a period of 12 years from th
21
date of adoption as a redevelopment tool to help alleviate and eliminate the spread of blightin
22
conditions in the Project Area; and
23
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2004, the Common Council and the Commission held their join
24
public hearing ("Joint Public Hearing") on the adoption of the proposed Amendment; and
25
-1-
r:\A,endn\RetclluliOlls\RnohltioIlJ\ZOO4'.04-08-16 Vplowa Wrllltlt Rnpon__
0 C
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
014
o
I
i
WHEREAS, at the Joint Public Hearing, the Mayor, as the presiding officer of thd
Common Council and the Chair of the Agency. called for public testimony, and all persoJ
present were afforded the opportunity to testify and submit written materials; and
WHEREAS, written and oral objections were presented at the Joint Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the CRL provides that, where written objections ar
received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopmen
plan, the legislative body: ......shall respond in ""Titing to the Mitten objections... The Mitte
responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall addres
the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections an
11
suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in it
12
response. . . .": and
13
WHEREAS, the Agency staff has reviewed the written and oral objections presented a
the July 19, 2004 Common Council and the Commission Joint Public Hearing and hav
15
participated in the preparation of written responses to said objections ("'Responses"); and
16
WHEREAS, Agency Counsel hired a court reporter to prepare a transcript of the Ora
17
Objection presented at the Joint Public Hearing onJuly 19,2004; and
18
WHEREAS, the Agency staff has compiled a summary of those citizens completin
19
speaker slips for the Joint Public Hearing on July 19, 2004.
20
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0
21
22
SAN BERNARDINO, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER, A
23
FOLLOWS:
24
25
-2-
P:\Acendlli\ReJOlulionl\JtnoJulions\1004'04-08-16 Uptown Wrilltn Rnponllft"doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
014
Section I.
The facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correc
and are hereby made part of the findings and determinations of the Common Council as related!
to the approval and adoption of the Responses.
Section 2.
The August 10, 2004 Staff Report for the Uptown Redevelopment Projec
Area including Exhibit "A" and Attachment I, 2, 3 and 4 of Exhibit "A" to the UptO\\
Redevelopment Project Area Staff Report are incorporated and made part of this resolution b
reference.
8
Section 3.
The Common Council hereby approves and adopts the Responses, in th
9
10
form submitted herewith, as their findings and responses, based upon legal analysis and othe
11
discussions and presentations of facts and the substance of each comment, to the written and ora
12
objections presented at or prior to the July 19, 2004 Joint Public Hearing on the adoption of th
13
Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan. The Common Council furthe
finds and determines, based upon the summary of the speaker slips (Attachments No.2 and No.
15
3) as presented at a Joint Public Hearing that adequate notice was given as required by the CR
16
to the property owner and tenants within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
17
Section 4.
The City Council hereby overrules the written and oral objections to th
18
Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
19
20 /II
21 II/
22 1/1
23 1/1
24 1/1
25 I I /
0 1/1
-3-
P;\AlCenduR_lutionsIJb5GlulionsUO(W\04-0S.1611plown Wrluen RqponMJ.doc:
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO
WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE AMEND!\IEI\T TO THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
02
4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
5 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
6
day of
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
7 Council Members:
Am
Navs
Abstain
Absent
8
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
9
MCGINNIS
10
DERRY
11
KELLEY
12
JOHNSOJ\;
13 MC CAMMACK
0 14 I
I
,
15
16 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
17
18
19
20 Approved as to form and Legal Content:
21 By: .p~
22
23
24
25
0
Rachel G. Clark, Citv Clerk
day of
,2004.
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
-4-
P:\ACfncllJ\Rc5olutioll,I.Rnoluli.ons\100"\04-08-16 Uplown Wriucn Re:spon..dK
0 e
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
II
Ie
13
14
0 15
16
j7
18
19
20
21
22
23
o 28
ORDINANCE NO. ~
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND OM. ON COJtCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS. the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city and municipal
corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California;
and
8
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (the "CRL"). The CRL is found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City ("Common Council"), by
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-527 on June 18, 1986, approved and adopted the Redevelopment
Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS. the Common Council has subsequently adopted certain amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as follows:
(i) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-927 on December 19, 1995; and
(ii) . Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 on December 1.2003.
24
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as adopted
by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-527, and as amended by Common Council Ordinance
No. MC-927, and as further amended by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 is referred
to herein as the "Redevelopment Plan"; and
25
WHEREAS, the Common Council has initiated proceedings for the adoption of a further
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power to acquire land in the
redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") by
eminent domain; and
26
27
4819.9325-1584.1
-1-
P:.Agendas'ResolulJons\ResolulJons\2004\04-08-16 Uptown Ordmance 2004 Amend.doc
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
S
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
o 28
WHEREAS, Common Council and the Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") which serves as the governing board of the Agency
have caIled upon the owners of property, residents, business operators and neighborhood
organizations in the Project Area to fonn a Project Area Committee for the purpose of having
consultations concerning the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain
and the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "2004 Amendment") and the
potential of the Agency's exercise of the reinstated power of eminent domain to displace low-
and moderate-income residents through the exercise of eminent domain on residential properties
9 within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Amendment does not propose to modify the boundaries of the
Project Area or change any of the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. The 2004
Amendment is focused solely on the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority
with respect to all property in the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the
adoption of the ordinance of the Common Council adopting the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council consented to hold a joint public hearing with the
Commission with respect to the 2004 Amendm~nt, at which public hearing any and all persons
having any objection to the 2004 Amendment or the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report described below, or the regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2004
Amendment, would be allowed to appear before the Commission and the Common Council and
show cause why the 2004 Amendment should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the joint public hearing of the Commission and the Common Council was
duly held on July 19, 2004 regarding the certification of the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report and the 2004 Amendment; and
23
24
WHEREAS, a Final Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in
connection with the consideration and approval of the 2004 Amendment and certain related
redevelopment implementing activities, including a redevelopment study project referred to as
the "Mercado Santa Fe Project" and the City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, and the
Common Council has adopted its resolution entitled:
25
26
27
4819-9325-15841
-2-
P:\Agendas'Resolutlons\Resolutions\20Q.+\04-08-16 UptO\\ll Ordinance 2004 Amend.doc
0 C
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING A FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS
OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND OTHER
ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS, APPROVING CERTIFYING A TRANSPORTATION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, AND ADOPTING GEJ\'ERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 04-02'"; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted its resolution entitled:
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS
OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO
THE MAYOR AJ'..'D COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN
A>'\1EJ'..'DMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the passage of this Ordinance have occurred and
Ii been taken in accordance with applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR ANTI COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The facts set forth in the Recitals of this Ordinance are true and correct
and are hereby made part of the findings and determinations of the Common Council as relate to
the approval of the 2004 Amendment.
SECTION 2. Conditions of blight still affect the Project Area. At the present time, the
Agency may acquire land in the Project Area by purchase and other negotiated means, but the
Agency's power to acquire land necessary for specific redevelopment project activities lapsed in
1998. In general, the purpose and intent of the Redevelopment Plan is not changed by the 2004
Amendment. The purpose and intent of the Common Council with respect to the 2004
Amendment is to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area. The
4819-9)2;-1 ;84.1
-3-
P:\.!.\gendas\Resolutions\Resolutions.2004\04-08-16 Uptown Ordmance 2004 Amend.doc
0 ~
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority with respect to all property in the
Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary
and appropriate to achieve this purpose and intent. The 2004 Amendment shall assist the
Agency to achieve this goal of promoting the redevelopment of the Project Area and the general
welfare of the inhabitants of the City, by enabling the Agency to assemble parcels which are
necessary to support specific redevelopment activities to prevent and eliminate the spread of
blight in the Project Area. Apart from the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain, the
2004 Amendment does not add territory to the Project Area or make any other revision to the
9 Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 3. (a) The Common Council hereby acknowledges its receipt of the
written report, dated July 2004, on the 2004 Amendment which has been prepared pursuant to
CRL Section 33352 (the "'Section 33352 Report"). As set forth in CRL Section 33457.1, the
Section 33352 Report contains the information relating to the 2004 Amendment to the extent
warranted by the proposed reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the Project Area.
The following subsections of the Section 33352 Report for the 2004 Amendment do not require
further discussions or consideration as the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's
redevelopment powers does not change the content or analysis of the matters covered under such
subsections of the report which was prepared and considered by the Common Council under
Section 33352 at the time when the Redevelopment Plan was originally adopted in 1986. The
subsections of the Section 33352 Report relating to the 2004 Amendment where substantive
analysis is not required at this time are identified as follows:
Section 33352(c)
Section 33352( d)
the Five Year Implementation Plan;
why the elimination of blight cannot b
accomplished by private party action alone;
method of financing;
the relocation plan;
analysis of the preliminary plan;
report and recommendation' of the Plannin
Commission;
Section 33352( e)
Section 33352(f)
Section 33352(g)
Section 33352(h)
4819-9325-158.11
-4-
P:\Agendas'Resolulions\Resolutions\2004\04-08-16 Upto\\TI Ordmance 200.f Amend.doc
,
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
general plan conformance;
report of the County fiscal officer; and
summary of Agency consultations with affecte
taxing agencies.
The reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain does not require further
analysis at this time under any of the foregoing subsections.
Section 33352(j)
Section 33352(1)
Section 33352(n)
The Common Council further acknowledges its receipt of the other written reports,
exhibits and information presented by City and Agency staff and consultants at the joint public
hearing which was conducted prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, together with all written
and oral testimony and statements presented by interested persons prior to the close of such joint
11 public hearing.
(b) The Common Council hereby finds and determines that the joint public hearing
conducted with respect to the 2004 Amendment was full and fair.
SECTIO:--J 4. The Common Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The Common Council has previously found and determined in Ordinance No
MC-527, that the Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which i
necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. For the reason
set forth in the Section 33352 Report, the Common Council hereby further find
and determines in connection with its consideration of the 2004 Amendment, th
that such findings and determinations originally set forth in Ordinance No. MC
527 continue to be valid. Conditions of blight in the Project Area as originall
observed at the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan remain in existence
which blighting conditions as observed in 2004 include deteriorated an
dilapidated buildings (33352 Report pages B-4 to B-13), substandard design tha
prevents or substantially hinders economically viable use or capacity of th
buildings or lots (33352 Report pages B-13 to B-15) mixed and incompatibl
commercial, industrial and residential uses (33352 Report pages B-15 to B-17)
lots of irregular form and size creating a hindrance to future development (3335
4819-9325-1584.1 -5-
P:\.-\gendas\Resolutions\Resolutions'1004',04-0S.16 CptO\\TI Ordinance 2004 Amend.doc
.
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
I
Report pages B-IS to B-19), prevalence of absentee owners having detrimentaJ
I
effects on building conditions and maintenance of such buildings (33352 Repo~
page B-19), impaired investment leading to high vacancy rates and depreciate
values (33352 Report pages B-20 to B-21), prevalence of building and zonin
code violations (33352 Report pages B-22 to B-24), and high levels of seriou
criminal offenses in the Project Area (33352 Report pages B-25 to B-29). In 200
the Project Area displays symptoms of both ;;physical and economic blight" a
these terms are defined in CRL Section 33031.
b. The reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the Project Area will assist
with the redevelopment of the Project Area in conformity with the CRL and is in
the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare.
c. The adoption and carrying out of the 2004 Amendment remains economically
sound and feasible for the same reasons as indicated at the time when the
Redevelopment Plan was adopted.
d. The 2004 Amendment will not change the original findings of the Common
Council that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with and conforms to the
General Plan of the City including, but not limited to, the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
e. The adoption and carrying out ofthe 2004 Amendment will promote the public
peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City and would effectuate the purposes
and policies of the CRL and in particular will assist the Agency to elimination
and prevent the spread of blight on lands which the Agency may not otherwise be
able to acquire by negotiated purchase or cause to be abated by other means.
f. The power to acquire real property by condemnation upon the reinstatement of
the Agency's power of eminent domain, as provided for in the 2004 Amendment,
is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions
have been made for payment for property to be acquired, if any, as provided by
law.
4819.9325-1584.1
-6-
P;\AgendasIResolulIons\ResolulIons\2004\04-08-16 Lptown Ordmance 2004 Amend.doc
.
02
015
16
o
g.
3
4
5
6
h.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
J.
24
25
26
27
28
4819-9325-1584.1
The Agency has adopted the relocation rules and regulations of the State of
California and therefore has a feasible method for the relocation of families andl
persons displaced from the Project Area, if the implementation of the 2004
Amendment should result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any
occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area.
The Common Council hereby finds and declares that in the event that any person
is displaced from the Project Area as the result of the Agency's acquisition of
property, whether by exercise of the power of eminent domain or otherwise, that
there shall be provided in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less
desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at
rents or prices within the financial means of such persons and families displaced
from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the
number of and availability to the displaced families and persons and reasonably
accessible to their places of employment.
The Common Council hereby finds and declares that in the event the Agency
may acquire any property in the Project Area by exercise of the power of eminent
domain or otherwise, that the families and persons who reside on such property
shall not be displaced by the Agency prior to the adoption of a relocation plan
pursuant to CRL Sections 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons
and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior
to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to CRL Sections 33334.5,
33341 and 33413.5.
Based upon the information set forth In the Section 33352 Report, the
noncontiguous portion of the Project Area referred to as "Subarea B" is blighted.
k.
The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area in the
absence of the 2004 Amendment is not reasonably expected to be accomplished
by private enterprise acting above without the aid and assistance available to the
Agency under the 2004 Amendment in light of the fact that blight continues to
P:\AgendasIResolutions\Resolutlons\2004\04-08-16 Uptown Ordinance 2004 Amend.doc
-7-
.
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
exist in the Project Area on a broad and substantial scale, and private property
owners acting alone often cannot address conditions of blight on land which they
own or can acquire without Agency assistance because such land, standing alone,
is too small in size, too irregular in shape, too obsolete in present use or
configuration or is too adversely affected by other blighting conditions which
impair its value and limit investment of new capital and prevent its economic
reuse and redevelopment, all as demonstrated in the Section 33352 Report.
I. The time limitation on commencement of eminent domain proceedings contained
in the 2004 Amendment, is reasonably related to projects to be implemented in
the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the
Project Area. The 2004 Amendment does not amend or affect any financial
provision or other time limitations or amend or affect the limitation on the
number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the
Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 5. The Common Council has adopted its Resolution entitled "A Resolution
of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Adopting Written Responses
to the Written and Oral Objections to the Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area Plan." The Common Council hereby approves and adopts each of the findings set forth in
such Written Responses. The Common Council hereby overrules each and every written and
oral objection to the adoption of the 2004 Amendment, as submitted to the Common Council
prior to the close of the joint public hearing which preceded the adoption of this Ordinance.
The Common Council hereby finds and determines that in calendar year 2004, the
Project Area is a predominantly urbanized area and displays a combination of conditions set
forth in CRL Section 33031, and the Section 33352 Report, which remain and are today so
prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of, and lack of, property utilization of the
lands in the Project Area to such an extent that such conditions constitute a serious physical and
economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprises or government action, or both, without redevelopment.
4819-9325-1584.1
-8-
P:\Agendas\Resoluuons\Resolutions\2004\04-08-16 Upto\'-TI Ordinance 2004 Amend.doc
.
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
SECTION 6. The Common Council hereby amends the Redevelopment Plan as
follows:
Subsection "c. Property Acquisition" of Section "V. PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS" of the Redevelopment Plan is herby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
"C. Propertv Acauisition
1. Acauisition of Real Propertv
Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire real property by
any means authorized by law, including by purchase, lease, obtain option upon,
acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise, or otherwise, any real or personal property,
and any improvements on it, including repurchase of property owned by Agency,
exchange, cooperative negotiation, or eminent domain.
It is in the public interest and is necessary in order to execute this Plan, for the
power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire real property
in all portions of the Project Area, with the following exclusions:
a.
Except as otherwise provided, within, or otherwise provided by
law, no eminent domain proceedings to acquire property shall be
commenced after twelve (12) years from the date of adoption of
the ordinance approving and adopting the 2004 Amendment to the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
Agency shall not acquire from any of its members or officers any
property or interest in property except through eminent domain
proceedings.
Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the
Agency through eminent domain, but property of a public body
shall not be acquired without its consent.
b.
c.
4819-9325-1584.1
-9-
P:\AgendasIResolutionslResolutionsI2004\04-08-16 Uptown Ordmance 2004 Amend.doc
.
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
d. The Agency at the request of the Common Council may accept a
conveyance of real property (located either outside a survey area),
owned by a public entity and declared surplus by the public entity,
or owned by a private entity.
The Agency may dispose of such property to private persons or to
public or private entities, by sale or long-term lease for
development. All or any part of the funds derived from the sale or
lease of such property may at the discretion of the Common
Council be paid to the City, or to the public entity from which any
such property was acquired.
Any exercise of its power of eminent domain by the Agency shall be subject to
all of the limitations set forth in this 2004 Amendment. These limitations may
only be extended by subsequent amendment of the Plan.
The Agency shall, if at all, exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance
with the provisions and prerequisites of the California Eminent Domain Law
[Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1230.010 et seq.] and the California Relocation
Act [Government Code Sec. 7162 et seq.].
2. Acquisition of Personal Property, Anv other Interest in Real Property, arid
Any Improvements in Real Property
Where necessary in the implementation of the Plan, the Agency is authorized to
acquire personal property, any other interest in real property, and any
improvements on real property including repurchase of developed property
previously o\\ned by Agency by any lawful means."
SECTION 7. The Common Council designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended
by the text of the 2004 Amendment as set forth in Section 6 of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the
"Amended Plan"), as the official redevelopment plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
4819-9325-15841
-10-
P:\Agendas\ResolutJons\Resolutions\2004\04-08-16 Cpto\\n Ordinance 2004 Amend.doc
,
C 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
0 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
SECTION 8. The Common Council hereby authorizes and provides for the CitY'sl
expenditure of money to implement the Amended Plan.
SECTION 9. The Agency is hereby vested with the responsibility for carrying out the
Amended Plan in accordance with the provisions thereof and of applicable law.
SECTION 10. The Common Council hereby declares its intention to undertake and
complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the
Amended Plan.
SECTION II. The City Clerk shall comply with the applicable procedures of the CRL
with respect to the adoption of this Ordinance, including the transmission of a copy of this
Ordinance to other public entities and the recordation of this Ordinance, or the recordation of a
Notice of Amended Plan as authorized by the CRL.
SECTION 12. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance, is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Common Council hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Ordinance and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.
SECTION 14. The City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be
transmitted to the Agency.
4819.9325-15841
-11-
P:\AgendasIResolul1onslResolul1ons\2004\04-08-16 Uptown Ordmance 2004 Amend.doc
,
,
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
015
16
28
o
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINEl'iT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMEl'iT PLAl'i FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
Council Members:
Aves
Navs
Abstain
Absent
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
KELLEY
JOHNSON
MC CA.c\1MACK
p
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
] 8 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of
,2004.
19
20
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
21
22
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
23
~?/~
Vy Attorney
By:
24
25
26
27
~819-9)25-15g4.1
-12-
P;.AgendasIResolutions'Resolutlons\2004\04-08-16 Uptown Ordmance 2004 Amcnd.doc
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FROM: Gary Van Osdel
Executive Director -. --
DATE: Jul 12'20040R1G\NAL
-------------~---- --------
SYDODsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s):
On January 24, 2000, the Community Development Commission authorized the Executive Director to prepare plan
amendments to reinstate eminent domain in the Central City North, Central City South, Central City East, Uptown and
Meadowbrook Project Areas.
SUBJECT:
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PLAN AMENDMENT - EMINENT
DOMAIN - REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN
On July I, 2002, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a resolution for the procedures for the formation and election
of a Project Area Committee for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment for the Uptown Project Area and calling
for the formation ofa Project Area Committee (pAC).
On October 21, 2002, the Mayor and Common Council adopted resolutions modifying the PAC procedures and the
scope of the proposed plan amendment to reinstate eminent domain for all properties located within the Uptown Project
Area.
On May 5, 2003, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a resolution acknowledging the results of an election of
Project Area Committee members and fmding that all applicable procedures were followed in the election of the Project
Area Committee for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
On June 7, 2004, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino adopted a resolution setting a
date and time, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to reinstate the powers of
eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
On June 7, 2004, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted a resolution setting a date and
time, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to reinstate the powers of eminent
domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area _,,!!<!,~_,,!!!fic~tion of the E~~irol!!l1el!..~ Im.l'act R!!p!?!!~_______________
Recommended Motion(s):
OPEN JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
(Community DeveloDment CommissionlMavor and Common Council)
IF WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE PRESENTED
MOTION A: THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED; THAT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT BE CONSIDERED; AND THAT WRITTEN FINDINGS BE
PREPARED IN RESPONSE THERETO AS APPLICABLE AND BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
OR
______________________~E NEXT PAGE)
Contact Person(s):
Gary Van OsdellMike Trout
Uptown
Phone:
(909) 663-1044
1,2and 7
Project Area(s)
Ward(s):
Supporting Data Attached: 0 Staff Report 0 Resolution(s) 0 Ordinance 0 Map(s) 0 Letters/Misc.
N/A
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Source:
SIGNATURE: I A
Gary)"fu Osdel, Executiv irector
-=====---======:t:=====-_-==--======----------------====.
P,\Ag<"""ICo~D,,,Commi";."\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Upto~ PH SR."" COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/19/2004
Agenda Item Number: ~3J
IF NO WRITfEN OBJECTIONS ARE PRESENTED
MOTION B: THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED; THAT SAID RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AND
THAT SAID ORDINANCE BE LAID OVER FOR FINAL ADOPTION.
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSffiLE AGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL
BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS.
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ON
THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07.19 Uptown PH SR.doe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meedng Date: 07119/2004
Agenda Item Number: t'3 /
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
Public Hearinl! - Uptown Redevelopment Proiect Area Plan Amendment-
Eminent Domain - Reinstatement of Eminent Domain
BACKGROUND:
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area was established on June 18, 1986 and encompasses 433
acres that are divided into two (2) Subareas. Subarea "A" has 349 acres and Subarea "B" has 84
acres. With the improving local economy, the Agency is seeing increasing development interest
within the project area. In recognition of this trend, it is important for the Agency to have a variety of
tools available to assist redevelopment. One of the most effective tools for redevelopment is the
power of eminent domain. However, the power of eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area expired on June 18, 1998.
On January 24, 2000, the Mayor and Common Council authorized the initiation of an amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan to re-establish the power of eminent domain over only
those properties that are within non-residential land use districts in the General Plan or are currently
being used for non-residential purposes.
On July 1,2002, the Mayor and Common Council approved and adopted the procedures to be used
for the formation of a PAC for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and calling upon the citizens
of the City to participate in the PAC.
On July IS, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the July 25, 2002 public workshop on the
proposed amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
On July 25, 2002, Agency staff conducted a public information workshop to present the proposed
amendment, explain the amendment process, and answer questions of the attendees. This workshop
was armounced by mailed notices to the property owners and site addresses in the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area.
On August 27, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the September 10, 2002 Project Area
Committee election for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
On September 10, 2002, Agency staff conducted a PAC formation election for the purpose of creating
a PAC from property owners, residences and business owners within the Uptown Project Area.
However, the election did not take place due to the fact that there was not a sufficient number of PAC
applications submitted.
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Conunission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 UptOwn PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 06/07/2004
Agenda Item Number: R 3/
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 2
October 21,2002, the Mayor and Common Council modified the PAC procedures and the scope of
the proposed plan amendment to reinstate eminent domain over all properties within the Uptown
Project Area. The proposed amendment would reinstate the power of eminent domain for a period of
twelve (12) years.
Reinstating eminent domain in this project area and the Central City North Project Area has the
potential to result in direct physical changes in the environment by enabling the Mercado Santa Fe,
the San Bernardino Old Towne, and other expected projects to proceed. It is also reasonably
foreseeable that cumulatively significant impacts will result from the combined construction of
several smaller projects now in various stages of implementation. These include the widening of 1-
215, the construction of senior citizen housing projects, the construction of an elementary school and
other development projects. Due to the potential environmental and traffic impacts that may result
from these project area plan amendments a Program ElR is required as opposed to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The most notable environmental issues would likely be
transportation/circulation, air quality, and changes in land use.
On November 18,2002, the Community Development Commission adopted a resolution authorizing
the execution of an agreement for professional services for the preparation of a Program
Environmental Impact Report (ElR) and related traffic study.
On December 10, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the December 18, 2002 community
meeting concerning the Initial Study and input concerning the scope of the Environmental Impact
Report for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
On December 18, 2002, Agency staff conducted a combined Uptown and Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area community meeting to introduce the environmental consultant and to
provide draft copies of the Initial Study which stated that since the proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment, a environmental impact report was required.
On February 10, 2003, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the February 20,2003 PAC information
meeting and the April 1, 2003 Project Area Committee election for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area
On February 20,2003, Agency staff conducted another PAC formation meeting to discuss the need
and importance of the PAC. Those attending this meeting were encouraged to participate and were
given PAC applications to fill out.
On March 12, 2003, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the March 26, 2003 scoping meeting for
the Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area informing the
community of the scope of the Environmental Impact Report and take comments from the public.
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04.07.19 Uptown PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/1912004
Agenda Item Number: ,(j3 J
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 3
On March 26, 2003, Agency staff and the EIR consultant held a combined community scoping
meeting for both Uptown and Central City North project areas to receive input from the community
concerning possible alternatives and the development of the EIR. For the next several weeks Agency
staff and the EIR consultant worked together to develop the required alternatives in addition to the
principal project description.
A normal schedule for the effort would result in completion and certification of the EIR in March or
April 2004. However, due to a turnover in persounel with the EIR consultant, the related traffic
studies that would accompany the EIR slipped past the initial deadline. This resulted in the
completion and certification schedule to be increased by four months.
On April 1,2003, Agency staff conducted the PAC formation election in which six (6) individuals
were elected thereby forming a PAC for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area. The election was
over seen by the City Clerk's Office. Subsequently, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a
resolution, on May 5, 2003, acknowledging the results of the Uptown PAC election.
Though a PAC had been elected, the PAC held no meetings since there were no preliminary
documents concerning the proposed text amendment or the Draft EIR for review. However, once
these documents were available for review PAC meetings began in March 2004 to discuss the text
amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan, the Initial Study and the Draft EIR.
On July 6, 2004, Uptown PAC voted to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council and the
Community Development Commission to adopt the 2004 Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area Plan reinstating eminent domain within the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
CURRENT ISSUE:
The Uptown Redevelopment Project was adopted in 1986. Conditions of blight which existed at the
time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan were extensive and substantial. The Redevelopment
Project Area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") remains blighted today. One
tool which the Agency may use to address conditions of blight in appropriate situations - the exercise
of eminent domain - lapsed in the Project Area in 1998. The proposed Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan will reinstate the power of the Agency to acquire land by eminent domain for
twelve (12) years.
The Project Area includes deteriorated commercial frontage lots abutting either side of several
principal streets in the center of the City. Comparatively little residential use property is in included
in the Project Area although it estimated that more than 2,000 individuals may reside in the Project
Area. In an older commercial area such as the Project Area where small substandard lot sizes are so
prevalent, an important element of an effective program to address actual conditions of blight is the
ability to assemble small parcels of land under separate ownerships into useable sites under current-
day standards. The reinstatement of the condemnation power for the Agency is believed to be an
important factor in addressing conditions of blight which remain in the Project Area. As long as the
ability of the Agency to acquire land for specific redevelopment activities is limited to negotiated
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown PH SRdoc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/19/2004
Agenda Item Number: 1f<3/
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 4
purchase, grant, exchange or other voluntary forms of sale, the potential for sustained and large scale
redevelopment of the property in the Project Area involving multiple parcels ofland is limited. This
is especially so when existing owners and other persons who are prepared to invest new capital in the
community cannot expand or acquire land of adequate size and shape for development and use under
current City standards.
The evidence of blight in the Project Area is readily apparent to anyone who drives along its principal
streets. One striking factor of the Project Area is the relative absence of any visible new construction
or rehabilitation activity. Since the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1986 little in the
way of new improvements of rehabilitation has occurred and nearly one fourth (V.) of the individual
lots in the Project Area are currently vacant. Many of these currently vacant lots were formerly
improved with structures which over the years became so dilapidated and substandard, the owners
were compelled to remove them.
The proposed 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is limited to the reinstatement of the
Agency's power of eminent domain. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan, and in particular
no changes to the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan are proposed.
The Agency's power to acquire property by eminent domain expired in 1998. In general, the Agency
has used the power of eminent domain in the past in its redevelopment project areas only in a few
exceptional circumstances and for specific redevelopment project activities. The Agency has not
acquired any property in the Project Area by eminent domain at any time since its adoption in 1986.
Over the years, a vast majority of the land which the Agency has acquired in its various
redevelopment project areas has been acquired by negotiated purchase. Since 1986, the Agency has
acquired certain property in the Project Area by negotiated purchase but at this time, the Agency has
not been able to assemble enough land by negotiated purchase for an effective redevelopment activity
involving multiple parcels of land to deal with conditions of blight on a large scale. Under current
circumstances, without eminent domain authority the Agency cannot plan for or assume that all of
land which is necessary for a specific redevelopment activity will be available to the Agency under a
negotiated purchase arrangement. In such a situation, the Agency cannot make realistic and feasible
plans to assist owners or third parties who are prepared to eliminate blight under specific and
enforceable terms involving multiple parcels of land, since the otherwise available land is not useable
or new development is not economically feasible without additional land to solve specific conditions
of blight. Without the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain, the range of the Agency's
ability to foster redevelopment in the Project Area is greatly reduced.
The California Redevelopment Law ("CRL") authorizes an Agency to reinstate the power of eminent
domain after it has lapsed in a Redevelopment Project Area, if the Agency finds that conditions of
blight still persist in the Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the Agency has previously
initiated certain actions to consider the adoption of the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Uptown Redevelopment Project which reinstates the power of eminent domain for a twelve (12)
year period of time.
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commillsion\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown PH SR.doe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/19/2004
Agenda Item Number: I.. i /
. -
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 5
Section 33352 ofthe Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") states that when the Agency submits
an amendment to the redevelopment plan to the Mayor and Common Council ("Council") for
adoption, the Agency must also submit a report entitled the Report to Mayor and Common Council
("Report"). For a redevelopment plan amendment, the contents of the Report are only those portions
warranted by the proposed amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide, in one document, all
information, documentation, and evidence regarding the 2004 Amendment to assist the Council in its
consideration and in making various findings and determinations that are legally required to adopt the
2004 Amendment. This report to the Council has been prepared in accordance with all requirements
of Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the CRL.
During the joint public hearing the Commission and Council will consider the information presented
by the Agency Staff and consultants regarding the Report and the 2004 Amendment. Testimony and
comments of interested members of the public will also be received. If one or more written objections
are presented to the Council before or during the joint public hearing on July 19, 2004, a written
response to such written objections must be prepared and considered before the 2004 Amendment
may be adopted.
By adopting the attached resolution of the Community Development Commission at the conclusion of
the joint public hearing, the Commission will approve the Report and the proposed eminent domain
amendment and authorize Agency Staff to transmit the Report to Mayor and Common Council and
the 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Mayor and Common Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Agency and the City of San Bernardino retained Lilbum Corporation to prepare an Initial Study
to determine potential impacts related to the reinstatement of eminent domain and other entitlement
actions. At their meeting of February 5, 2004 the Development/Environmental Review Committee
(D/ERC) reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the Central City North and Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area Plans, and other entitlement actions. The D/ERC concurred that the Initial Study
adequately addressed the issues and determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (ElR)
would be required.
The Agency and the City retained LSA Associates to prepare the ElR. The Notice of Preparation was
published in the San Bernardino County Sun and public agencies. The public review period for the
Notice of Preparation was February 17, 2004 through March 17,2004.
Upon completion of the Draft Program ElR, the Notice of Completion was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun. The Draft Program ElR was made available for public review at the City of
San Bernardino Development Services Department, the Feldheym Central Library, and the City of
San Bernardino web site. It was also distributed to public agencies and made available to the D/ERC,
Planning Commission, and Mayor and Common Council. The public review period was April 8, 2004
through May 29, 2004. Comments were received from four agencies and are included in the Final
Program ElR along with staff responses.
.---.----------------------------------------
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Conmtillsion\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/19/2004
Agenda Item Number: f( 3/
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 6
As analyzed in the Draft Program EIR, the impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant with mitigation measures are certain air quality and traffic impact related to the
development of the Mercado Santa Fe project. There are no significant impacts related to the
reinstatement of eminent domain. There are potential for impacts from future development within the
proposed General Plan Amendment area. Those impacts cannot be specifically identified or
quantified until such time as an actual development project is proposed. However, it is likely that
development of this area will result in impacts similar to those related to the proposed development of
the Mercado Santa Fe project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based on contracts entered into with consultants for this amendment, the costs will total $131,627.
Funds for this activity have been budgeted and approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Community Development Commission and Mayor and Common Council adopt either
Motion A or Motion B.
/I
Ga;Y'n Osdel, Execu
EXHIBITS:
1. Staff Report
2. Redevelopment Project Area Map
3. Report to the Mayor and Common Council
4. Text of the Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
5. Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR")
6. Copies of Written Comments to PEIR received by May 29, 2004
7. Certification of Mailing and Copy of Newsletters
8. Certification of Newspaper Notice and Copy of Notice
9. Project Area Committee Report and Minutes
10. Resolution of the Community Development Commission
II. Resolution of the Community Development Commission
12. Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/19/2004
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07.19 Uptown PH SR.doc
Agenda Item Number:
)(31
.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
2
3
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino (the
"Common Council") has previously taken certain actions in coordination with the Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") as relates to a
proposed reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Agency") within two (2) separate redevelopment project areas of
the Agency known as: (i) the Uptown Redevelopment Project and (ii) the Central City North
Redevelopment Project, in order that the Agency may undertake programs to eliminate and
prevent the spread of blight in each ofthese redevelopment project areas; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project
(the "Central City North Redevelopment Plan") was approved by the Common Council
Ordinance No. 3366 in 1973, and the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project (the "Uptown Redevelopment Plan") was approved by Common Council Ordinance No.
MC-527 in 1986, and the condenmation powers of the Agency under the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan expired in 1998 and the condenmation powers of the Agency under the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan also expired in 1998; and
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-1-
p:\Agendu\Relollldo...\ReIoludo..IUOO4\04-07-1' Uptolnl CCN Env CDC Reso.doI:
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino (the "City") in consultation with the Agency,
2
has also taken action to consider certain changes in the land use element of the City General
3
Plan, as adopted by Common Council Resolution No. 89-15, in order to compliment the
4
potential redevelopment and use of certain lands in a portion of the redevelopment project area
5
of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Uptown Project Area") referred to as "Uptown
Subarea B", and specifically within Uptown Subarea B the lands which are also affected by the
proposed changes in the land use element of the City General Plan are described as a two block
area bounded by 1-215 on the east, "K" Street on the west, 3rd Street on the north, and 2nd
Street on the south, and the potential vacation of "I" Street and Kendall Avenue within this two
block area which such General Plan amendment also contemplates; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council and the Commission have previously called upon the
6
7
8
9
10
11
residents, property owners, businesses and community organizations within the Uptown Project
12
Area and the redevelopment project area of the Central City North Redevelopment Project (the
13
"CCN Project Area") to form project area committees for each such redevelopment project area,
in order for interested residents, business owners and property owners to consider the potential
14
15
effect of the reinstatement of the Agency's power to acquire land within each such
redevelopment project area and to submit a report and recommendation to the Common Council
16
17
and the Commission relating to reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Agency in
18
each such redevelopment project area and the implementation by the Agency of program to
eliminate blight in each such redevelopment project area which programs may include the
19
20
acquisition of property by the Agency using the power of eminent domain; and
21
WHEREAS, during calendar year 2003, an Initial Study was prepared under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") which evaluated the
22
23
potential effect on the environment of the reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the
24
Agency in the CCN Project Area and the Uptown Project Area and the potential effect on the
environment of an amendment to the land use element of the City General Plan relating to a
25
-2-
P:\Agelldu\RelelutlolU\Relo1lldoal\1004\04-07-I' Uplown CCN EDl' CDC Reao.doc:
1
portion of Uptown Subarea B and the potential development of an Agency-sponsored
redevelopment program to remedy certain conditions of blight in Uptown Subarea B referred to
2
3
as the "Mercado Santa Fe Project"; and
4
WHEREAS, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact report was issued in
5
March 2003 relating to the proposed amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the
Central City North Redevelopment Plan, the Mercado Santa Fe Project and an amendment to
the land use element of the General Plan; and
6
7
8
WHEREAS, in the months following March 2003, the completion of the preparation of
9
a draft of an environmental impact report document for the reinstatement of the powers of
eminent domain in each of the redevelopment project areas was deferred as certain refinements
10
11
of the Mercado Santa Fe Project were considered, and subsequently, on February 5, 2004, the
Environmental Review Committee of the City determined that the environmental study of the
reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the two (2) redevelopment project areas and
12
13
the associated redevelopment activities relating to such reinstatement of the power of eminent
domain in each such redevelopment project areas as described below as the "Project" for
14
15
purposes of compliance with CEQA, warranted the preparation of a Program Environmental
Impact Report (a "Draft EIR") where the elements of the Project include the following:
16
17
reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain to acquire land in the
.
18
Uptown Project Area and the CCN Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
19
20
rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Central City
.
21
North Redevelopment Plan and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to conform to
current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation of displaced persons and
businesses and affordable housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project
Area conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations as currently in
effect or hereafter modified or amended (the rescission of such special development regulations
to be accomplished by a restatement of certain provisions of the Central City North
22
23
24
25
-3-
p:\Agendu\ResoJutlolll\Reloluttonl\1:004\D4-G7-19 Upton CCN Env CDC ReIo.doc
1 Redevelopment Plan to conform with the City's General Plan, zomng and development
2 regulations currently in effect or hereafter modified or amended);
3
a General Plan Amendment affecting approximately 19.02 acres within a portion
.
4
of Uptown Subarea B bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K" Street and 1-215 from
"IL" (Light Industrial) to "CG-I" (General Commercial), and such General Plan Amendment is
5
6
identified as General Plan Amendment No. 04-02;
7
.
analysis of a future retail development project within Uptown Subarea B. This
8
development is proposed for approximately 9.2 acres of land generally situated to the south of
3rd Street and is referred to by the City and the Agency as the Mercado Santa Fe Project. For
the purpose of CEQA analysis, the proposed retail development concept assumes approximately
96,241 square feet of retail use and is based on the on-site vehicle parking standard of 4 spaces
9
10
11
12
per 1,000 square feet of retail use, the proposed use requires a minimum of385 on-site vehicle
parking spaces. The Mercado Santa Fe Project as proposed provides approximately 440 parking
13
spaces.
14
Collectively, the potential environmental effects of the elements of the Project (the
proposed redevelopment and related activities generally described in the four (4) subparagraphs
preceding this sentence) is, for the purposes of the indicated analysis under CEQA, described in
15
16
17
this Resolution as the "Project"; and
18
WHEREAS, the City conducted a public scoping meeting to solicit public comments on
the preparation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") for the
19
20
Project; and
21
WHEREAS, the 2003 Initial Study was updated and the March 2003 notice of
22
preparation was updated and revised as the Notice of Preparation of the City to prepare a Draft
EIR for the Project, and was published and circulated to the public, responsible agencies and
other interested persons from February 17, 2004 through March 17, 2004, as required by
23
24
25
CEQA;and
-4-
p:\Agend.u\Relollltlolll\Relolutloll.\1004\04-07-19 Uphnnl CCN Env CDC Reso.doc
1
WHEREAS, the text of the Draft EIR (including all appendices) was made available to
2
the public, responsible agencies and other interested persons for their review and comment
3
between April 8, 2004 through May 29, 2004 as required by CEQA; and
4
WHEREAS, verbal and written comments were received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally and in writing as required
by CEQA and the Final Environmental Impact Report document (State Clearinghouse No.
2003031072), dated June 15,2004 (the "Final EIR") has been prepared and transmitted to each
5
6
7
8
responsible agency which submitted comments to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted two (2) noticed joint public hearings on July
19,2004, with the Common Council as relate to the Project and the Final EIR with the first such
joint public hearing held in connection with the amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
and the certification of the Final EIR and second joint public hearing held in connection with
the amendment of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan and the certification of the Final
EIR, and during the course of each such joint public hearing conducted on July 19, 2004, the
Commission fully reviewed and considered the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Planning Division staff reports and the recommendations of the Planning Commission as relate
16
to the Project and the Final EIR and drafted its own Facts and Findings and Statement of
17
Overriding Considerations base upon its review such documents.
18
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:
19
20
21
Section 1.
In connection with the consideration by the Commission of the
22 amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power of eminent
23 domain in the Uptown Project Area and the amendment and reinstatement of the Central City
24 North Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power of eminent domain in the CCN
25 Project Area, the Commission conducted the following public hearings on July 19, 2004:
-5-
P:\At;e.du\RaoludoDs\ReIol.tto..\1OO4\040&7-19 UploWII CCN ED" CDC Rao.cIoc:
1
(i)
a joint public hearing with the Common Council to consider an amendment of
2 the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the eminent domain power of the Agency in the
3 Uptown Project Area and the potential implementation with the assistance of the Agency of the
4 Mercado Santa Fe Project in Uptown Subarea B and the potential environmental effects of these
5 actions as set forth in the Final EIR; and
6
(ii)
a joint public hearing with the Common Council to consider an amendment of
7
the Central City North Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the eminent domain power of the
Agency in the CCN Project Area and the restatement and amendment of the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan to rescind the special development regulations contained in such 1973
redevelopment plan and to conform the provisions of such 1973 redevelopment plan to the
current-day Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation of displaced persons and
businesses and affordable housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project
Area conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect and the potential environmental effects of these actions as set forth in the Final EIR.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
During the course of the joint public hearings identified above, the Commission received
15
and considered all written comments previously received and all oral comments submitted by
interested persons relating to the Project and the Final EIR. The Commission hereby fmds that
the conduct of these public hearings was full and fair and that the Commission has fully
considered the potential effect on the environment of the Project. The Final EIR in the form as
16
17
18
19
submitted to the Commission upon the conclusion of these joint public hearings is hereby
20
acknowledged and declared to be the Final EIR for the Project.
21
The Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003031072) is a "program
Section 2.
22 environmental impact report" as this term is defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, for
23 the Project. The Final EIR for the Project, includes consideration of the potential environmental
24 effects of the development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project and General Plan Amendment No.
25 04-02, and the Final EIR has been prepared and considered in compliance with CEQA. The
-6-
p:\Alendu\Rcsoludolll\ReloludoIltUOO4\lM-07.19 Uptowa CCN Eav CDC Rao.doe
1 Final EIR (including the text of the Draft ErR, all technical appendices, the Mitigation
2 Monitoring Plan, the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration) and all the
3 notices, with comments and staff reports related thereto are on file with the City Clerk's Office.
4
Section 3.
The purpose of this Resolution is to evidence the actions of the
5
Commission as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in approving the amendments to the
Central City North Project Plan and the Uptown Project Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15050 and 15096 the Commission as a "responsible agency" shall consider and certify
the lead agency's EIR prior to approving a project, including providing findings supported by
6
7
8
9
substantial evidence in the record related to substantial environmental effects the project will
have on the environment and a statement of overriding considerations addressing the
environmental impacts which are not avoidable and cannot be substantially lessened as a result
10
11
of the project. The Final EIR was presented to the Common Council as the "lead agency" and
12
the Commission as the "responsible agency" for the Project under CEQA, and the Commission
13
14
has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to the adoption by the
Commission of an amendment to the Uptown Project Plan reinstating the Agency's eminent
domain power in the Uptown Project Area, and prior to the adoption by the Commission of an
amendment to the Central City North Project Plan reinstating the Agency's eminent domain
power in the CCN Project Area as well as the related rescission of the special land development
regulations and the reinstatement of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan to conform to
15
16
17
18
19
current City General Plan, zoning and development regulations and current day provisions of
20
Community Redevelopment Law relocation and affordable housing standards.
The
21
Commission has adopted Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as
22
part of its certification of the Final EIR and approval and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the Proj ect.
23
24
Section 4.
The Commission hereby finds that:
25
(1)
the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project,
including the potential development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project.
-7-
P:\Acmdu\Reloludolll\ReIQlutlona\2000f\lM.{17.19 VptoWII CCN I.v CDC ReIo.doc
1
(2)
the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would
2
result but which significant effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant provided
that the applicants and owners of land who may undertake the development of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project (if it occurs), and other future development within the portion of Uptown
Subarea B affected by General Plan Amendment No. 02-04 (if such development occurs)
3
4
5
6
undertake feasible environmental impact mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation
7
Monitoring Plan for the Final ErR to reduce or eliminate such potential impacts to a level which
8
is less than significant. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan and all information contained therein is
9
included in the Final ErR and incorporated herein by reference. The basis on which the
10
Commission finds that such potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have
11
been or shall be mitigated to a level which is less than significant is set forth in the Facts and
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the Project. The Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is attached as Attachment "A" and
12
13
incorporated in this Resolution by this reference.
14
(3) the Final ErR concludes that despite the implementation of feasible mitigation
15
measures to lessen the potential impact of certain effects of the Project on the environment, that
16
in three (3) areas of environmental concern under CEQA, the potential effects on the
environment of the Project cannot be fully mitigated or reduced to a level which is less than
significant. These areas are identified as follows:
17
18
19
(i)
temporary construction activities of the Mercado Santa Fe Project (dust and
20
construction vehicle exhaust) - although the Final ErR sets forth mitigation measures which are
21
estimated to reduce the potential impacts by 50% the remaining effect, even after the
22
implementation of the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR is still significant
23
in the case of temporary construction activity impacts of the Mercado Santa Fe Project in
24
Uptown Subarea B;
25
/1/
-8-
p:\Ageadu\Relolutloll.\Resolutlo...U004\04-07-19 Uptowll CCN Ellv CDC Rno.doe
1
(ii)
the Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts or the air emissions (stationary
2 source plus mobile/traffic source) of the Mercado Santa Fe Project and General Plan
3 Amendment No. 04-02 are forecast in the Final EIR exceed the thresholds for significant effect
4 established by the SCAQMD. However, there are no mitigation measures currently available to
5 reduce emissions from mobile sources, and as a consequence, the long-term air quality impacts
6 of the Project remain significant and unavoidable;
(iii) Year 2008 Freeway Segment Conditions and Year 2025 Freeway Segment
7
8
Conditions are both indicated in the Final EIR to be operating at unsatisfactory conditions, and
the Project will contribute to such adverse conditions in the year 2008 and in the Year 2025
under the traffic impact generation models considered in the Final ElR. Although certain
9
10
11
mitigation measures could be implemented in the case of the freeway segment conditions to
improve the operation of the freeway segments to an acceptable level of serve (or a non-
12
13
significant impact on the environment for both 2008 and 2025), the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission to implement.
14
Caltrans has jurisdiction for providing for capital improvements to the indicated freeway
segments, and at the present time Caltrans has not formulated any mechanism for proponents of
15
16
the Project (in particular the Mercado Santa Fe Project and the owners of land benefited by
General Plan Amendment No. 04-02) to pay fees or make other fair share contributions to
improve mainline freeway segments to so eliminate the adverse impact of the development of
17
18
19
such land on the operation of the freeway segments.
20
Potential mitigation measures or other project alternatives relating to the three (3)
unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as generally identified in this Section IV.E., were
21
22
not incorporated into or adopted as part of the Project, as the mitigation of these impacts is
regarded as infeasible and not economically or socially viable based on specific economic,
23
24
social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
25
Considerations.
-9-
P:\Agendu\Reloladollll.Relolullollll.2004\Q4..07-19 UptoWII CCN Env CDC ReIo.doc
1
the Commission has given great weight to the significant unavoidable adverse
(4)
2
environmental impacts of the Project. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth in the Facts and
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Commission hereby finds and
3
4
determines that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly
outweighed by the elimination of blight which affects each of the redevelopment project areas
and the economic, social, cultural and other benefits to the community which shall be realized
by the Project, including the potential development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project, the
redevelopment of the lands affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, as set forth in the
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is hereby adopted and
approved by the Commission as the responsible agency under CEQA for implementing certain
aspects of the Project.
(5) the findings contained in the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Considerations with respect to the significant environmental impacts of the Project identified in
13
14
the Final ErR are true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the record,
including documents comprising the Final EIR.
(6) the Final ErR, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the Facts and Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment
of the Agency and the Commission.
15
16
17
18
Section 5.
The Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
19
approved and adopted; the Final Program Environmental Impact Report is certified; and the
20
Mitigation Monitoring Plan is approved and adopted.
Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA
21
Guidelines Section 15097 the Commission ensures that the Agency shall comply with the
22
requirements of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, including the submission of any
23
necessary reports during (i) all condemnation proceedings initiated by the Agency on land lying
within the CCN Project Area or the Uptown Project Area; (ii) the construction of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project if assistance is granted by the Agency; and, (iii) any redevelopment
24
25
-10-
P:\Age.du\ReIolutloDs\Raollldolll\1004\04-07-19 Uplown CCN Env CDC Reso.doe
1 project lying within the land affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 to which the
2 Agency grants assistance.
3
Section 6.
The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby directed, in cooperation
8
with the City Planning Division, to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San
Bernardino Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifying the Commission's compliance, as a
responsible agency under CEQA in reviewing and approving the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Project, including the adoption of the Facts and Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations and the approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. A copy of such
Notice of Determination shall be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
4
5
6
7
9
Section 7.
10 .
III
11
III
12
III
13
III
14
III
15
III
16
III
17
III
18 III
19 III
20 III
21 III
22 III
23 III
24 III
25 III
-11-
P:\Aaendu\Reloludool\Re80lndonl\1:004\D4..G7-19 Vptown CCN E.v CDC Rno.doe
2
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSmLE AGENCY
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVffiONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
10
Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting
11
thereof, held on the
day of
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
Commission Members:
Aves
Navs
Abstain
Absent
12
13
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
KELLEY
JOHNSON
14
15
16
17
18 MC CAMMACK
19
Secretary
20
day of
,2004.
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
21
22
Judith Valles, Chairperson
Community Development Commission
of the City of San Bernardino
23
24
By:
25 A
-12-
P:\A&elldu\Relolutiooa\Rnollldolls\1004\04-07-19 Uptown ceN Env coe Reso.doe
ATTACHMENT "A"
Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino
as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown/Central
City North Redevelopment Project Area 2004 Eminent Domain
Amendments (State Clearinghouse #2003031072)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Commission")
as a responsible agency under the California Enviromnental Quality Act in approving and
certifying the Final Program Enviromnental hnpact Report adopted by the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino (the "Common Council") (the "Final EIR") for the
Uptown/Central City North Redevelopment Project Area 2004 Eminent Domain Amendments
presents the facts and makes the findings described below and adopts the Statement of
Overriding Considerations presented at the end of these Facts and Findings. The "Project" under
consideration for purposes of the Commission's discretionary action is:
The reinstatement of the powers of eminent domain in the two (2) redevelopment project areas
and the associated redevelopment activities described below for purposes of compliance with
CEQA, where the elements of the Project included the following:
. reinstatement of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino's (the
"Agency") power of eminent domain to acquire land in the Uptown Project Area and the
Central City North ("CCN") Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
. rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Redevelopment Plan
for the CCN Redevelopment Project and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to
conform to current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation and affordable
housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project Area conform with
the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in effect (the
rescission of such special development regulations to be accomplished by a restatement
of certain provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the CCN Redevelopment Project to
conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect); and
. a General Plan Amendment affecting approximately 19.02 acres within a portion of
Subarea B of CCN Uptown Project Area (bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K"
Street and 1-215) from "IL" (Light Industrial) to "CG-l" (General Commercial) and the
General Plan Amendment is identified as General Plan Amendment No. 04-02;
. analysis of the Mercado Santa Fe Project within Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area,
proposed for 9.2 acres south of 3rd Street. For the purpose of CEQA analysis, the
proposed retail development concept assumes approximately 96,241 square feet of retail
1
P:\Agendas\Connn Dev ColllDlission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement ofOveniding CollSiderations.doc
use and is based on on-site vehicle parking standard of 4 spaces for 1,000 square feet of
retail use, the proposed use requires a minimum of 385 on-site vehicle parking spaces.
The Mercado Santa Fe Project as proposed provides approximately 440 parking spaces.
Collectively, the potential environmental effects of the elements of the proposed redevelopment
and related activities for the purposes of the indicated analysis under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), is described in this Resolution as the "Project".
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the following elements:
. reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain to acquire land in the Uptown
Project Area and the CCN Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
. rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Redevelopment Plan
for the CCN Redevelopment Project and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to
conform to current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation and affordable
housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project Area conform with
the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in effect (the
rescission of such special development regulations to be accomplished by a restatement
of certain provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the CCN Redevelopment Project to
conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect);
. General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 affecting approximately 19.02 acres within a portion
of Subarea B of Uptown Project Area (bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K"
Street and 1-215) from "IL" (Light Industrial) to "CG-l" (General Commercial; and
. analysis of the Mercado Santa Fe Project within Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area.
This development is proposed for 9.2 acres south of 3'd Street and is commonly referred
to as the Mercado Santa Fe.
The Project affects three (3) areas located in the central portion of the City. The Uptown Project
Area includes two (2) of these areas which are referred to as Uptown Subarea A and Uptown
Subarea B. Uptown Subarea A is located along Highland Avenue and Baseline Street from
Interstate 215 (1-215) on the west to Waterman Avenue on the east and along "E" Street from
Highland Avenue on the north to Eighth Street on the south. Uptown Subarea A includes
approximately 348 acres of land. Uptown Subarea B is bounded by the Santa Fe Railroad yard
to the north, Rialto Avenue and King Street on the south, 1-215 on the east, and Mount Vernon
on the west. Uptown Subarea B includes approximately 84 acres of land. The CCN Project
Area is bounded by Eighth Street on the north, Fourth and Court Streets on the south, Arrowhead
2
P:\Agendas\Conan Dev Connnission\COC 2004\04-07.19 Uptown eCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
Avenue on the east, and 1-215 on the west. The CCN Project Area includes approximately 278
acres ofland.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the Project is to sustain the redevelopment programs and goals of two (2)
established redevelopment plans of the Agency: (i) the Redevelopment Plan for the CCN
Redevelopment Project; and (ii) the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project. The goals of these two (2) redevelopment plans are summarized at Final EIR (D) 3-6
through 3-7.
The reinstatement of the power of eminent domain will promote the efforts of the Agency to
eliminate and prevent the spread of blight by further enhancing the Agency's ability to promote
redevelopment in both Project Areas by attracting public and private development. Further, the
reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the case of the Uptown Redevelopment Project
may result in a specific redevelopment implementation activity being able to move forward in
Uptown Subarea B, (i.e., the Mercado Santa Fe Project). In addition, the City is also proposing
an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan, affecting an approximately 19 acre
portion of Uptown Subarea B in order to encourage and foster economic reuse and
redevelopment of this area in light of current conditions, and the proposed freeway improvement
of nearby segments ofI-215.
Apart from the potential redevelopment of the Mercado Santa Fe Project, currently no other
redevelopment implementation activities are planned at the time of certification of the Final EIR
in either the Uptown Project Area or in the CCN Project Area which may require the use by the
Agency of the power of eminent domain as part of the land assembly program to assist either an
owner participant or a third party developer to redevelop blighted areas within either Project
Area. However, the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain will enable the Agency, to
promote further redevelopment by giving the Agency (and ultimately a third party
developer/owner participant) a greater ability to acquire property for the effective redevelopment
and elimination of blight within these two Project Areas.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted the environmental review of the Project as follows:
. an initial study was prepared for the proposed project in March 2003 and based upon this
March 2003 initial study it was determined that preparation of an environmental impact
report for the proposed Project was indicated;
. a notice of preparation for an environmental impact report for the proposed Project was
prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other
interested persons on March 14,2003;
. subsequent to the close of the comment period on April 14, 2003, for the March 14,2003
notice of preparation, the City refmed the original initial study for the proposed Project
3
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-.07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
and the City redistributed an updated and revised Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested persons for a second 30-
day comment period for the environmental impact report from February 18, 2004 to
March 18, 2004.
. a public scoping meeting was held on March 26, 2004, to give the public the opportunity
to provide comments as related to the proposed Project and the issues the public would
like addressed in the Draft EIR.
. a Draft EIR was distributed for public review on April 8, 2004, for the 45-day review
period with the review period ending on May 24, 2004. Four comment letters were
received before the close of the public review period. The specific responses to the
written comments are in the Final EIR: 3-1 through 3-14.
. the Final EIR was distributed for a lO-day notification period beginning on June 15,
2004.
. on June 22, 2004, the City Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the
Project.
. on July 19, 2004, the Common Council conducted a noticed joint public hearing with the
Commission to consider the approval of an Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Uptown Redevelopment Project (Reinstatement of Eminent Domain) of an Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project and
certified the Final EIR.
A. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
The City retained LSA Associates, Inc., to assist with the preparation of the Draft EIR and Final
EIR. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR were prepared under the direction and supervision of the
City, Development Services Department, Planning Division. The Final EIR includes the
documents, reports, technical appendices, correspondence, notices, minutes of public scoping
meetings and related materials described in Final EIR 1-1. The Final EIR is on file with the City
Clerk and is available for inspection and copying as a public record of the City by interested
persons during the regular business hours of the City Clerk. The Agency participated and
cooperated with the City in the review and commenting process during the EIR preparation.
Finding: The Final EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The
Commission has considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to the approval of the Project.
The Commission has exercised its independent judgment in reviewing and considering the
contents of the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(d).
B. FINDINGS ON THE FINAL EIR
Finding: The Commission hereby declares that the Final EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the
4
P:\Agcndas\Conun Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less
than significance as set forth in Section III.F. However, there are certain other significant effects
which either cannot be fully mitigated or for which no feasible or practical mitigation currently
exist, and these unavoidable significant impacts are discussed in Section III.G of these Findings.
C. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
The Commission has reviewed the mitigation measures applicable to the Project set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan and adopted by the City, as the "lead agency".
Findings: The Commission hereby finds that the mitigation measures summarized in the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall reduce all potential significant impacts of the Project to a level
of less than significant, except as set forth in Section III.G. The Commission hereby adopts all
mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The Commission hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project in the form as submitted to the Commission at the
joint public hearings when the Final EIR was considered. If a mitigation measure identified in
the Final EIR has, through error, been omitted from the Mitigation Monitoring Plan from these
Findings, or that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that mitigation measure
shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The detailed analysis of potential enviromnental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for
the Project presented in Final EIR: (D)I-I through 1-5 and 4.1 through 4.6, inclusive. Responses
to comments and any revisions or omissions to the Draft EIR are provided in the Final EIR: 3-1
through 3-14.
The Final EIR evaluated two (2) major enviromnental categories (transportation/circulation and
air quality) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both
project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these two (2) enviromnental
categories, the Commission concurs with the conclusions in the Final EIR that with respect to all
except the issues considered in Section III.G., that all of the other issues and sub-issues discussed
in these Findings can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold and for those issues
which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance (See Section III.G.), overriding
considerations exist which make impacts acceptable. In addition to the two (2) major
enviromnental categories addressed in the Final EIR, four (4) other major categories were found
to be non-significant in the Initial Study prepared by the Project. The Commission concurs with
the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR)
and finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to those categories identified in the
Initial Study and no further analysis is required.
E. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR AS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
REQUIRING NO MITIGATION
Certain effects for the Project were found not to be significant and were identified as such in the
initial study for the Project. The basis on which the effects of the Project found to be less than
potentially significant were set forth in summary in the Final EIR. These less than potentially
5
P:\Agendlls\Comm Dcv Commission\CDC 2004\04-07.19 Uptown CCN SlllIemenI ofOvmiding Considerations.doc
significant effects of the Project are the following the reasons set forth in the Final EIR: (0)2-5
through 2-14:
Agricultural Resources;
Biological Resources;
Energy and Mineral Resources;
Hazards;
HydrologylW ater Resources;
Population and Housing;
Public Services
Public Utilities; and
Recreation
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) as having
the potential to cause significant impact and were carried forward to the Final EIR for detailed
evaluation. These issues were found, either on the basis of further analysis in the Final EIR or
because the identified impacts have been fully mitigated, as having no potential to cause
significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. Each resource issue is
identified and the potential for significant adverse enviromnental effects is discussed below:
Aesthetics
Any project initiated within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas would be subject to City-
mandated development standards relative to the design, construction, and maintenance of
structures, parking areas, landscaping, and site amenities.
New development within the project areas adhering to City-mandated design standards may
result in the construction and operation of uses that contrast with the existing scale, pattern, and
aesthetic character of adjacent development. Because of the deteriorated aesthetic character
currently exhibited within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas, and because any future
development that may occur will be required to adhere to current City design and development
standards, no significant adverse aesthetic impacts would result from either the proposed
reinstatement of eminent domain or the implementation of the proposed General Plan
Amendment 04-02.
The planned future Mercado Santa Fe Project proposes demolition of several existing residential
and commercial uses within a portion of Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area. The future
construction of a retail-commercial center and the installation of public amenities and
infrastructure improvements will alter the existing character of the site. The proposed retail-
commercial project will be required to adhere to applicable City-mandated design guidelines and
development standards. The proposed future development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project per
applicable City standards would eliminate blighted conditions that are present on site, generally
improving the aesthetic character of the site. Therefore, no significant adverse aesthetic impacts
are anticipated to result from the development of the proposed future Mercado Santa Fe project.
Lighting
6
P;\Agcndas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
The location, amount, intensity, or direction of existing lighting sources would not be directly or
inunediately affected by the reinstatement of eminent domain or implementation of the proposed
General Plan Amendment 04-02. As redevelopment occurs within the Uptown and CCN Project
Areas, alterations to the existing lighting environment may occur. Development of the proposed
future Mercado Santa Fe Project will result in the construction and operation of retail-
conunercial uses and may alter the amount, intensity, and/or location of lighting.
The installation/operation of new lighting sources within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas
would be required to adhere to the standards in the City's General Plan and the Development
Code. These standards address the effect of lighting and glare and require that no new sources of
light or glare be visible beyond parcel boundaries. Thus, no adverse effects would occur on
neighboring properties and potentially light- sensitive uses. Furthermore, the standards require
such measures as security lighting at entrances and exits to new developments, which may prove
beneficial to neighboring properties. Because the design, installation, and operation of lighting
sources are governed by established standards, and because adherence to such standards is
required of all new development, no potentially adverse lighting impact will result from the
implementation of any component of the proposed Project at this level of analysis.
Cultural Resources
The reinstatement of eminent domain and the proposed General Plan Amendment 04-02 will not
result in direct physical changes to existing structures other than those located on the proposed
retail site, which are addressed in this analysis. Redevelopment activities within the Uptown and
CCN Project Areas will, however, be enabled by these actions and will occur when and where
market conditions and the development and redevelopment climate are favorable. Any
subsequent development activities will be required to adhere to applicable City, State, and
federal regulations governing projects that may impact (either directly or indirectly) the integrity
of an identified historic structure, object, site, or landmark. Subsequent project-specific
historic/cultural resource investigations will be required for future development projects;
consequently, no significant impacts would result from these actions. Anticipated future
development of the retail center on the Mercado Santa Fe Project site will, however, necessitate
the demolition of ten (10) structures, including three (3) residential structures, three (3) active
commercial structures, and four (4) abandoned structures that formerly housed or supported
conunercial uses.
In sununary, visual inspection and historical research of the proposed retail project site
demonstrated the presence of single- and multi-family domestic residences of Euro-American
blue-collar and middle-class residents. The residences were constructed over a succession of
years from about 1905 through the 19l0s, and were occupied by successions of individuals and
families. The commercial properties were constructed in the 1950s. As none appear eligible for
listing on the California Register, the demolition of the residences and the conunercial buildings
is not considered an adverse effect under CEQA guidelines. The anticipated Mercado Santa Fe
Project retail center development will have no adverse effect on any potential historic properties
on-site or in the immediate area.
F. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED
BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES
7
P;\Agendas\Conun Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Slatem.mt ofOveniding Considentions.doc
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been completed, which identifies one or
more significant effects, unless the public agency makes one or more of the following fmdings:
I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
The following issues from the environmental categories analyzed by the Final EIR were found to
be potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the imposition
of mitigation measures:
. Air Quality,
. Traffic and Circulation,
. Cultural Resources and,
. Noise.
The Commission finds that all potentially significant impacts of the Project listed below can and
will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the
Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Specific findings of the Commission for each
category of such impacts are set forth in detail below:
The Commission hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21081 that the following potential
environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR:
AIR QUALITY
The development assumptions of the Project are set forth in Final EIR (D) Table 3.A. These
development assumptions produce certain affects on Air Quality under the guidelines set forth by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). These SCAQMD guidelines
were applied to the assessment of Air Quality impacts of the Project. Essentially, these
development impacts are associated with the amendment to the land use element of the General
Plan and the Mercado Santa Fe Project.
The analysis conducted in the Final EIR (Final EIR (D) 4.2-1 through 4.2-18) indicates that the
Project will not have an adverse environmental effect on two (2) elements of Air Quality. These
two (2) elements are referred to as "Architectural Coatings in Construction Activities" and
"Long-Term Microscale (CO Hotspots) Impacts." However, the analysis of two (2) other
8
P:\Agendas\Co1llIll Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN SlatemmI of Overriding Considerations.doe
elements of Air Quality in the Final EIR (Final EIR (D) 4.2-18 through 4.2-22) indicate that the
Project will have certain unavoidable adverse impacts even after the implementation of
mitigation measures. These two (2) elements are identified in the Final EIR as "Construction
Impacts" (construction equipment exhaust and dust) and "Long-Term Regional Air Quality
Impacts" (vehicle traffic effects on air quality).
Air Quality/Construction Impacts (SEE ALSO SECTION ill.G. SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE):
According to the Final EIR the short-term construction impacts associated with the Mercado
Santa Fe Project can be reduced if mitigation measures are implemented. However, even with
the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, short-term adverse
effects on sensitive receptors during the course of construction of the Mercado Santa Fe Project
will remain significant and unavoidable.
Findings: The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall
substantially reduce the adverse effects of the short-term construction improvements, but not
reduce them to a level of insignificance. All construction activities undertaken as a result of the
Project shall be required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air
pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best
available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402
requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a
nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below.
Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and
thus the PMI0 component).
Rule 403 Measures applicable to the proposed actions include:
. apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more);
. water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be
thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving);
. all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should
maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of
California Vehicle Code (eve) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between
the top of the load and top of the trailer);
. pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road; and
. traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
In addition to Rule 403 measures, the following measures shall apply to the proposed actions:
9
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
. disturbed areas shall be (re)vegetated as quickly as possible;
. all excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph;
. all streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent
streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water);
. wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
roads; and
. the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low
emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline
powered engines where feasible.
The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that
work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through
October) the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the
size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same
time.
The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak
hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a
flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the
construction crew.
Air Quality/Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts (SEE ALSO SECTION III.G.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE):
Long-term air emissions are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources. The
Final EIR forecasts the potential effect on long-term air emissions of the Mercado Santa Fe
Project and the new development potential associated with the amendment to the land use
elements of the General Plan. The Final EIR assumes that 21,419 daily vehicle traffic trips will
be generated as a result of such development in calendar year 2008 (Final EIR (0) 4.2-21
through 4.2-22 and Final EIR (D) Table 4.2.1).
10
P;\Agendas\Conun Dev Commisaion\CDC 2004\04.07-19 Uptown CCN Statement ofOvcrriding ConsideratioIl!l.doc
In light of the emissions produced by these new vehicle trips and the related stationary source air
emissions of the completed project, the Final EIR reports that emissions of carbon dioxide,
reactive organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide and visibility reducing particles (PMIO) will
exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD for these pollutants.
Findings: The Final EIR notes that no measures are available to reduce emissions from mobile
sources (vehicle trips) and that it is mobile source emission which is the primary source oflong-
term air quality impacts associated with the Project. The Commission hereby concurs with this
finding.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Findings: The Commission hereby finds that adherence to the following mitigation measures
shall reduce the potential adverse effects on cultural resources to a level of insignificance:
In the event construction activities expose a cultural or archaeological resource, a
qualified archaeologist shall be notified to ascertain the significance of the find. The
qualified archaeologist shall be empowered to halt or divert earthmoving activities in the
vicinity of the find to allow for the adequate (as determined by the City, State, or other
responsible entity) recordation and/or recovery of the fmd.
If human remains are encountered, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner must be notified of the fmd immediately. If the remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NARC),
which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission
of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the descendent may inspect the site
of the discovery. The descendent shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of
notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials.
NOISE
The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall substantially reduce
potentially significant noise impacts from short-term construction operations, but not reduce
them to a level of insignificance:
During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the project contractors shall equip
all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained
mufflers consistent with manufacturer's standards.
The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
11
P:\Agendas\CoDDll Dev Commission\CDC 2004\O4.()7-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Qveniding Considerations.doc
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the
greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during all project construction.
During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all
construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. Only limited construction that would not affect
adjacent sensitive uses is permitted on Sundays and govemment holidays.
Finding: The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall reduce
potentially significant noise impacts from long-term construction operations to a level of
insignificance:
An air-conditioning system for all commercial/office buildings will be required in any
location impacted by traffic noise levels exceeding 57 dBA CNEL.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Finding: The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall reduce
potentially significant traffic impacts to a level of insignificance:
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the project proponent shall install a traffic
signal at the "L" Street! Second Street intersection.
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the Project proponent shall install a traffic
signal at the "J" Street! Second Street intersection.
Finding: The Commission hereby finds that implementation of the following mitigation
measures relating to intersection improvements for year 2025 with project conditions, the
minimum level of service standards are maintained at study area intersections where a significant
Project impact is identified, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level:
The Project shall make a fair share contribution to the following mitigation measures:
Station Way/Giavanola A venue/ Second Street - Installation of a traffic signal.
"L" Street!Second Street - Installation of a traffic signal.
"K" StreetlThird Street - Addition of one westbound through lane.
"J" Street! Second Street - Installation of a traffic signal.
1-215 Southbound On-Ramp/Second Street - Restripe southbound approach as one
dedicated left turn lane, one shared through/left turn lane, and one right turn lane.
12
P:\Agendas\Cooun Dcv Conmission\CDC 2004\04.07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
G. IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR, the following adverse impacts of the proposed project stated below are considered to
be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in
the Final EIR, in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on
this Project. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation
measures which are imposed and which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible:
Both short-term construction-related impacts and long-term vehicular air quality impacts have
been identified as significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
Air Quality
Construction Emissions (Fugitive Dust/Construction Equipment Exhaust). While
compliance with the standard control measures will reduce by half the emissions of fugitive dust,
these emissions as emission of nitrous oxides (NOX) or exhaust from construction equipment,
will remain above thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District;
therefore, impacts resulting from the development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project will remain
significant and unavoidable. The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts. Most of the Project's long-term air quality impacts
are generated by vehicle emissions. No mitigation measures are available to substantially reduce
long-term air quality impacts of the Project. Therefore, impacts remain significant and
unavoidable. The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
Traffic
Year 2008 with Project Freeway Conditions. All freeway segments examined on Interstate 10
(1-10) and 1-215 are projected to operate below acceptable levels of service. There are no
feasible mitigation measures for these impacts; thus, they remain significant and unavoidable.
The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
Year 2025 with Project Freeway Conditions. All freeway segments examined on the 1-10,1-
215, State Route 259 (SR-259), and State Route 30 (SR-30) are projected to operate below
acceptable levels of service. There are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts; thus,
they remain significant and unavoidable. The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
Finding: The Commission concurs with the conclusion of the EIR that there is no feasible way
of assuring funding of the following specific mainline freeway improvements, and that
accordingly the adverse impacts from the Project to existing "Below Level of Service Threshold"
operations ofthese freeway segments will be significant and unavoidable:
1-10 - 1-215 to Waterman Avenue: Addition of one eastbound mixed-flow lane and one
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, and one westbound HOV lane.
13
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statenv:nt of Overriding Considerations.doc
1-215 - Mt. Vernon Avenue to Orange Show Road: Addition of one northbound mixed-
flow lane, one northbound HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one
southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - Orange Show Road to Inland Center Drive: Addition of one northbound mixed-
flow lane, one northbound HOV lane, and one southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - Inland Center Drive to Second Street: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow
lane, one northbound HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one southbound
HOV lane.
1-215 - Second Street to Fifth Street: Addition of one northbound HOV lane and one
southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - Fifth Street to SR-259: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow lane, one
northbound HOV lane, and one southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - SR-259 to SR-30: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow lane, one northbound
HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one southbound HOV lane.
1-125 to Highland Avenue: Addition of one HOV lane in the northbound and
southbound directions.
SR-259 - Highland Avenue to SR-30: Addition of one HOV lane in the northbound and
southbound directions.
SR-30 - 1-259 to Waterman A venue: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow lane, one
northbound HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one southbound
Improvements to 1-10, 1-215, SR-259, and SR-30 are under the authority of Caltrans. However,
there is no mechanism for development project proponents to pay fees or make fair-share
contributions toward improving mainline freeway lanes. Even if there were such a mechanism,
there is no way to ensure that such payments would be directed to a specific freeway
improvement project. Consequently, there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts.
The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
H. RESERVED
14
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\COC 2004\04"(}7-19 Uptown CCN Statement ofOveniding ConsideratiolU.doc
I. PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits derived from the approval of the Project are related to eliminating conditions of
blight in the Project Areas. The Project fulfills the goals outlined in the City's General Plan, the
goals outlined in each respective project area plan as well as the primary purpose of the Agency
under Community Redevelopment Law by means of assisting owner participants and third party
developers under the terms of specific redevelopment agreements and covenants acceptable to
the Agency to (i) consolidate parcels; (ii) eliminate obsolete or blighted structures or conditions
on commercial property; and, (iii) preserve and create new employment and private capital
investment in the Project Area.
The following benefits will occur as a result of Project implementation:
1. Implementation of the Project will result in the eliminate obsolete or blighted
structures or conditions.
2. The Project will result in the preservation and creation of new employment and
capital investment within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas.
3. The construction and operation of the proposed project will provide new employment
opportunities, both short-term construction and potential long-term retail
employment.
4. Establishment of the Mercado Santa Fe Project within Subarea B of the Uptown
Project area will provide additional shopping amenities to serve the residents of the
City and adjacent communities.
5. Development of the proposed Project will provide a logical extension of convenient
and aesthetically compatible uses, which will strengthen the economic viability of the
City.
J. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Commission adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the
significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR.
The following significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project
after implementation of all project-specific mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of the
Final EIR:
Air Quality
The proposed project would create significant air quality impacts from short-term construction
activities and during long-term operations of the site. Pollutant emissions resulting from short-
term construction activity would exceed thresholds for NOx and PMIO emissions after mitigation.
Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operation activities would also exceed thresholds
for CO, ROC, NOx, and PMIO. These impacts remain significant after mitigation.
15
P:\Agcndas\Co1Jllll Dev Commission\COC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement ofOvcrriding Considerations.doc
Traffic
Two significant unavoidable traffic impacts would result from implementation of the proposed
project.
The proposed project creates or contributes to unacceptable freeway operations (LOS F) during
the p.m. peak hour in year 2008 on the following:
. 1-10 from 1-215 to Waterman Avenue; and
. 1-215 from Mt. Vernon Avenue to SR-30.
In year 2025, the project creates or contributes to unacceptable freeway operations (LOS F)
during the p.m. peak hour on the following:
. 1- 10 from 1-215 to W aterman Avenue;
. 1-215 from Mt. Vernon Avenue to SR-30;
. SR-259 from 1-215 to SR-30;
. SR-30 from State Street to 1-215; and
. SR-30 from 1-259 to Waterman Avenue.
Although mitigation of these impacts could be obtained by adding HOV or mixed-flow freeway
lanes, these improvements are under the authority of Caltrans. There is no mechanism for
development proponents to pay fees or make fair-share contributions toward improving mainline
freeway lanes. Even if such a mechanism existed, there are no means to ensure that such
payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project. Consequently, there are
no feasible mitigation measures for identified freeway impacts.
AIR QUALITY
While implementation of mitigation measures will reduce construction-related air quality
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, short-term construction air quality impacts resulting from
the proposed future retail center known as Mercado Santa Fe Project unavoidable. Nevertheless,
the elimination of blight in Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area is hereby found to outweigh
this temporary short-term adverse impact.
No measures are available to reduce emissions from mobile sources, which are the primary
source impacts. Long-term air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
All of the freeway segments examined on 1-10 and 1-215 are projected to operate below the
acceptable level of service threshold under 2008 with project conditions. The addition of
project- generated traffic contributes to these unsatisfactory operations. Improvements to 1-10
and 1-215 are under the authority ofCaltrans. However, there is no mechanism for development
project proponents to pay fees or make fair share contributions towards improving mainline
freeway lanes, and even if there were such a mechanism, there is no way to ensure that such
16
p;\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project. Consequently, there are
no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts.
Because there is no feasible way to ensure payment for the identified mitigation, these impacts
remain significant and unavoidable.
NOISE
The increase in short-term traffic on the surrounding roads due to construction activities is
expected to be small reduction in and the associated increase in long-term traffic noise will not
be perceptible. However, short-term intermittent high noise levels associated with truck traffic
can be anticipated.
This section of findings specifically addresses the requirements of Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which require the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against
its unavoidable significant impacts and to determined whether the impacts are acceptably
overridden by the project benefits. The Commission finds that the previously stated major
project benefits, see Section F above, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed project cited
in the materials prepared at the direction of the City by the EIR consultant are hereby determined
to be, in themselves and independent of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all
unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and in these findings.
The Commission's fmdings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse
environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures, which can reduce impacts to less
than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts
remain. The findings have also analyzed four alternatives to determine whether there are
reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or
eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The Final EIR, present
evidence that implementing the development of the project will cause significant adverse
impacts, which carmot be substantially mitigated to nonsignificant levels. These significant
impacts have been outlined above and the Commission makes the following finding:
Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, the Commission
hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially
significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and that no additional feasible mitigation is
available to further reduce significant impacts. Further, the Commission fmds that economic,
social, and other considerations of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts
described above. The reasons for accepting these remaining unmitigated impacts are described
below. In making this fmding, the Commission has balanced the benefits of the project against
its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks.
Finding: The Commission finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and override each
unavoidable impact of the project.
17
P:\Agendas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04.07.19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc
K. ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION
MEASURES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires the Commission to adopt a monitoring or reporting
program regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid
significant effects on the enviromnent. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan included as Section 5 in
the Final EIR is hereby approved and adopted by the Commission, and the Commission hereby
fmds that such plan satisfies CEQA's mitigation monitoring requirements. Furthermore, the
Commission shall ensure the Agency shall comply with the requirements of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and make such reports as necessary during: (i) all condemnation
proceedings against land lying within either Project Area; (ii) the development of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project if assisted by the Agency; and (iii) the development of any other redevelopment
project lying on land affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 to which the Agency
grants assistance.
1. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the
project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation;
and
2. Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
18
P:\Agendas\Co1llIll Dev Conmission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement of Overriding Considerations.doc:
RESOLUTION NO.
2
3
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city and municipal
corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California;
and
11
12
13
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (the "CRL"). The CRL is found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City ("Common Council"), by
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-527 on June 18, 1986, approved and adopted the Redevelopment
Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has subsequently adopted certain amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as follows:
(i) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-927 on December 19,1995; and
(ii) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 on December I, 2003.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as adopted
by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-527, and as amended by Common Council Ordinance
No. MC-927, and as further amended by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 is referred
to herein as the "Redevelopment Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has initiated proceedings for the adoption of a further
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power to acquire land in the
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Upto\\1l Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
3
redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") by
eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, Common Council and the Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") which serves as the governing board of the Agency
have called upon the owners of property, residents, business operators and neighborhood
organizations in the Project Area to form a Project Area Committee for the purpose of having
consultations concerning the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain
and the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "2004 Amendment") and the
potential of the Agency's exercise of the reinstated power of eminent domain to displace low-
and moderate-income residents through the exercise of eminent domain on residential properties
within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Project Area Committee for the Project Area have
considered and approved the 2004 Amendment and have voted to recommend the Common
Council and the Commission that the 2004 Amendment be approved at the Joint Public Hearing
scheduled for July 19, 2004 on the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Amendment does not propose to modify the boundaries of the
Project Area or change any of the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. The 2004
Amendment is focused solely on the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority
with respect to all property in the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the
adoption ofthe ordinance ofthe Common Council adopting the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council consented to hold a joint public hearing with the
Commission with respect to the 2004 Amendment, at which public hearing any and all persons
having any objection to the 2004 Amendment or the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report described below, or the regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2004
Amendment, would be allowed to appear before the Commission and the Common Council and
show cause why the 2004 Amendment should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the joint public hearing of the Commission and the Common Council was
duly held on July 19, 2004 regarding the certification of the Final Program Environmental
hnpact Report and the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Final Program Environmental hnpact Report has been prepared in
connection with the consideration and approval of the 2004 Amendment and certain related
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
-2-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\R.esolutions\2004\04~07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
redevelopment implementing activities, including a redevelopment study project referred to as
2 the "Mercado Santa Fe Project" and the City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, and the
3 Common Council has adopted its resolution entitled:
8
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING A
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND
OTHER ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS, APPROVING CERTIFYING A
TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, AND
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02"; and
4
5
6
7
9
10
16
WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted its resolution entitled:
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING
FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY
THE COMMISSION OF SUCH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS";
and
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the passage of this Resolution have occurred and
been taken in accordance with applicable law.
21
22
NOW, THEREFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND AND DETERMINE AS
FOLLOWS:
23
24
Section 1.
The information set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution is true an
25
correct. The Commission has conducted a full and fair joint public hearing with the Commissio
Council on July 19, 2004 regarding the 2004 Amendment.
26
27
Section 2. The purposes and intent of the Commission with respect to the 2004
28
Amendment is to reinstate the Agency's eminent domain authority with respect to all property in
-3-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptovm Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period thereby protecting and promoting the sound
redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City by
providing a method of property acquisition through the potential use of eminent domain in order
for the Agency to be able to assemble parcels, attract redevelopment interest by owners of land
and third persons and secure capital improvement in the Project Area by insuring its ability to
deliver property for redevelopment purposes as part of specific programs to eliminate and
prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area.
Section 3. No written objection to the 2004 Amendment was received by the
Commission prior to the joint public hearing and no written or oral objection was submitted to
the Commission or the Common Council prior to the close of the joint public hearing on the
2004 Amendment. Based on all staff reports and consultant reports prepared by or at the
direction of the Agency and the City, the staff and consultant's presentations submitted at the
joint public hearing, including without limitation the visual display of maps, graphs, charts and
photographs and the oral comments of interested persons submitted to the Commission and the
Common Council at the joint public hearing, and the "Report to Mayor and Common Council,
2004 Eminent Domain Amendment, Uptown Redevelopment Report" (the "Section 33352
Report").
Section 4. (a) The Section 33352 Report contains a summary of facts and
information which indicate that conditions of blight continue to burden the Project Area. The
observation of the conditions of blight which afflict the Project Area is described in the Section
33352 Report. The Section 33352 Report includes both field observation of conditions in the
Project Area and analysis of technical data. The field observation was conducted by Agency
staff and qualified consultants, as described in the Section 33352 Report, all of whom have
significant experience in compiling and evaluating data relating to the existence of blight in a
redevelopment project area.
The Project Area displayed substantial evidence of blight in 1986 at the time when the
Redevelopment Plan was adopted. The existence of blight in 1986 was so prevalent that blight
caused a reduction and lack of property utilization of the area to such an extent that the lands in
the Project Area posed a physical and economic burden on the community.
CRL Section 33031 contains the primary source of law for the definition of "blight".
The following contains a summary of the information contained in the Section 33352 Report
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
-4-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
which is organized under each of the four (4) elements or categories of "physical blight" (CRL
Section 33031(a)) and the five (5) elements or categories of "economic blight" (CRL Section
33031(b)). The applicable text of the statute is presented in bold-faced type, followed by a
summary of the applicable facts contained in the Section 33352 Report.
CRL Section 33031(a)(I): "Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for person
to live or work. These conditions can be caused by serious building code violations
dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty 0
inadequate utilities, or other similar factors."
This provision describes one of the "classic" symptoms of blight. The informatio
summarized in the Section 33352 Report was assembled from field observation of the exterio
areas of buildings and structures visible to Agency staff and consultants from the public street
and public right-of-ways in the Project Area. It is believed that interior inspection of th
buildings and structures in the Project Area, as well as closer inspections ofthe exterior areas 0
many properties which were not visible from public streets, would likely indicate many more an
potentially very serious life and safety related building deficiencies than described in the Sectio
33352 Report.
Nevertheless, the Section 3352 Report indicates that 17.9% of the improved parcels 0
land in Subarea A of the Project Area contain buildings which display signs of dilapidation an
deterioration, and that 17.1 % of the improved parcels of land in Subarea B of the Project Are
contain buildings which display signs of dilapidation and deterioration. [Section 3352 Report B
3 and B-4.] It is noted that these numbers are likely to conceal a number of problems 0
symptoms of blight for the reasons stated above. Elsewhere in the Section 3335A Report, it i
noted that the Project Area contains a comparatively large number of vacant parcels of land
nearly one fourth (1/4tb) of parcels are vacant [Section 33352 Report B-5]. In an older and full
urbanized area of a community such as the Project Area, such a large percentage of vacant 0
unused parcels of land often is an indication of long-standing conditions of blight. This larg
number of vacant parcels of land, in an otherwise fully developed urban area, is in large part th
result of an effective and sustained effort on the part of the City to enforce building and safe
laws [Section 33352 Report B-23]. As buildings have deteriorated in the Project Area, the Ci
-5-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P:\Agendas\Resotutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07 -19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
has taken action to compel property owners to respond to such deterioration and life safe
dangers. In many, many cases over the past ten (10) years, property owners have elected t
demolish such unsafe structures rather than repair them. [See Section 33352 Report B-23: "Fo
the five-year period of 1997-98 through 2001-02, code compliance for deterioration
dilapidation cases for the Project Area were higher by 6 times the City average."]
Thus the unusually high percentage of vacant parcels of land, plus the conditions a
observed in the Section 33352 Report relating to the condition of buildings serve to provid
confirming evidence that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33032(a)(I) is presen
in the Project Area. [Section 33352 Report B-2 through B-7 and accompanying photographs a
B-8 through B-l\.]
Furthermore, despite the extensive availability of vacant land to support new constructio
in the Project Area, new construction simply has not occurred for a number of interrelate
factors. A key among these is the fact that old lots - especially the commercially zoned lots
are too small to permit new development under current day planning and zoning standards
unless such vacant parcels are first assembled with adjacent.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereb
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303l(a)(I) is present in the Projec
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack ofutilizatio
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden 0
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by privat
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(2): "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the
economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a
substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack
of parking, or other similar factors."
This condition or symptom of blight remains present in the Project Area. The large
number of vacant lots in the Project Area - 24% of all legal parcels are vacant in the Project
Area comprising approximately 22% of the total acreage of the Project Area - evidences this
symptom of blight [Section 33352 Report B-5]. The small size of parcels ofland in the Project
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07.19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
Area also contributes to the problem and in particular, prevents the reuse of many parcels on
which older buildings have already been demolished because of age and deterioration or
economic obsolescence. Small lot size - particularly on community yard properties - 8,000
square feet where the current zoning and development standards require 10,000 square foot
commercial lot size minimum standard - prevent economically feasible reuse of property in the
Project Area in many, many cases. As stated in the Section 33352 Report, "assessing all the
parcels in the Project Area and comparing to the City's minimum lot requirements for each
General Plan land use, 70.1 % of the parcels are non-conforming and do not meet the minimum
lot requirement". [Section 33352 Report B-18]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 I (a)(2) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(3): "Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with
each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions
of the project area."
This condition is a symptom of blight and is found in the Project Area. [Section 33352
Report B-15 through B-16 and accompanying photographs.] In addition, this condition is
compounded by the fact that the substantial majority of the residential use parcels of land which
are mixed in among the commercial use parcels along the main street traffic arterial streets are
non-conforming parcels of land. In the case of the "medium density" residential parcels of land
which are interspersed among the commercial use parcels (e.g. a residential parcel of land
improved with a fourplex situated between two small commercial use parcels improved with
"office" type or other nonresidential uses), 82.2% of such "medium density" residential use
parcels are non-conforming [Section 33352 Report B-19]. It should also be noted that the total
number of residential use parcels in the Project Area is fairly low (125 parcels out of II total of
1,144 parcels) in comparison to the other "general commercial" lindustrial uses of land in the
Project Area. And yet the average number of residents per residential use parcel of land is
remarkably high (e.g. approximately 2,760 residents in the Project Area [Section 33352 Report
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
-7-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
3
B-21 D. This indicates that the average number of residents per residential parcel is
approximately 23 persons per parcel. Since the majority of all residential use parcels are non-
conforming or substandard in size, the evidence of incompatibility of land uses also serves to
provide evidence of the conditions of residential overcrowding which is observed in the Project
Area.
4
5
6
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 I (a)(3) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(4): "The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and
shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple
ownership."
This condition of blight is also present in the Project Area. The ownership pattern of
land in the Project Area is exceedingly diverse and such small ownership pattern indicates that
land assembly by private property owners has not occurred. It is likely that given all the other
burdens affecting the Project Area, and the comparative ease for commercial businesses and
buyers of property to select other less challenged and newer areas of the community for
investment, that the assembly of small parcels into larger parcels of developable land in the
Project Area is not reasonably likely to occur without redevelopment assistance in one form or
another.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 I (a)(4) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(1): "Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired
investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article 12.5
(commencing with Section 33459)."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. Despite recent news reports and
general views about rising real estate investment values in the Inland Empire and in San
Bernardino in particular, the Project Area appears to be an area of the community which has not
benefited from these generally favorable economic conditions in recent years. In part of fact,
since the time when the Project Area was established in 1986 a serious and sustained series of
negative economic factors have produced an almost "perfect storm" of adverse economic
conditions in the Project Area. The economic down-turn of the late 1980's and early '90s,
coupled with the closing of the nearby Santa Fe railway locomotive repair shop facility and the
closing of nearby Norton Air Force Base have resulted in a major exodus of commercial
business activity from the Project Area since 1986.
As is readily apparent in the Section 33352 Report, as well as apparent to an untrained
observer who merely takes a drive through the Project Area, virtually no new development or
construction activity since 1986, is apparent in the Project Area today. In light of the large
number of vacant parcels of land available in the Project Area, this fact is particularly significant
and indicative ofthis economic condition of blight.
The Section 33352 Report provides a good summary of the available evidence of the
existence of stagnant and depreciated property values which serve to illustrate this problem:
"In order to examine the economic health of the Project Area, trends in secured property
values, which include the land and improvement values, were analyzed for the fiscal
years 1998-99 through 2002-03. The Project Area assessed values increased by 1.37%
annually during this period. The secured assessed value for the City increased by 1.79%
annually from 1998-99 through 2002-03.
A more detailed, analysis by San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Map Book and
Page of the Project Area assessed values revealed that despite the slow growth in the
value of the entire Project Area, many blocks actually declined and did not keep pace
with the Proposition 13 inflationary adjustment, due to declining market values. The
analysis revealed that parcels on 16 map book pages declined in value and in addition to
this, parcels on 15 more map book pages did not grow by the Proposition 13 inflationary
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
-9-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07 ~ 19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
3
adjustment rate of 2%. These 31 pages represent 54% of the total Project Area's blocks."
[See Section 33352 Report Table B-6]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (b)(1) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(2): "Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low
lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an
area developed for urban use and served by utilities."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. The photographs and the Section
33352 Report portray a number of vacant commercial use structures in the Project Area. The
number of vacant and under utilized commercial buildings particularly along Highland Avenue
is quite noticeable to the casual observer. In addition, the unusually high percentage of vacant
parcels in the Project Area provides evidence that this condition of blight exists.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
fmds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (b)(2) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(4): "Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor
stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of
public safety and welfare."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. Residential overcrowding is a
significant problem and one which is not likely to improve without redevelopment. Although
the sustained efforts of City code enforcement have produced very positive results in the Project
Area, government action alone cannot remedy the problem in the near term. The investment of
private capital is required to address the problem of residential overcrowding. Given the extent
of blighting conditions in the Project Area, it is unfortunately not surprising that the investment
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
-10-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-G7-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
of private capital in the Project Area since 1986 has not made much of an improvement since the
time the Project Area was established. This is confirmed by the finding under CRL Section
33032(a)(3), above. Furthermore, the presence of so-called "adult business" activities in the
Project Area, such as on Highland Avenue, provides evidence of the persistent and adverse
nature of these conditions of blight. [Section 33352 Report B-29 and B-30]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(b)(4) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(5): "A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the
public safety and welfare."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. [Section 33352 Report B-26
through B-30.]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
fmds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(b)(5) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
(b) In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission
hereby finds that the conditions of blight described in CRL Section 33031 are present in the
Project Area and that these conditions are prevalent and substantial conditions which cause a
reduction and lack of utilization of the Project Area and substantially contribute to a serious
physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or government action, or both without
redevelopment.
(c) The Commission hereby further fmds that the 2004 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan shall assist the Agency to correct and eliminate the spread of blight in the
Project Area by means of assisting owner participants and third party developers under the terms
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
-11-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07.19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
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
of specific redevelopment agreements and covenants acceptable to the Agency to consolidate
parcels, eliminate obsolete or blighted structures or conditions on commercial use property and
preserve and create new employment and private capital investment in the Project Area.
Section 5. The Commission hereby acknowledges its receipt and approval of the
33352 Report. The Commission hereby requests the Common Council to consider and approve
the 33352 Report in the form as submitted at the joint public hearing for the adoption of the
2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
Section 6. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the 2004 Amendment, a
copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary, and which 2004 Amendment is incorporated
herein by this reference, and the Commission designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended
by the 2004 Amendment (hereinafter, the "Amended Redevelopment Plan") as the official
redevelopment plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project subject to the adoption of an
appropriate Ordinance of the Common Council which approves and adopts the 2004
Amendment and the Amended Redevelopment Plan.
Section 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Resolution, is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Resolution. The Commission hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Resolution and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution,
irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions of this Resolution be declared invalid for any reason.
Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. The Agency Secretary
shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
11/
11/
11/
11/
11/
-12-
P:\Agendas\ResoJutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
meeting
9 Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
10 thereof, held on the
11
12 Commission Members
13 ESTRADA
14 LONGVILLE
15 MCGINNIS
16 DERRY
17 KELLEY
18 JOHNSON
19 MC CAMMACK
20
21
day of
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
.
Secretary
23
22
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
24
25
day of
,2004.
Judith Valles, Chairperson
Community Development Commission
of the City of San Bernardino
26 Approved a t Form and Legal Content:
27
By:
28
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
-13-
Clark Ra ~
From:'
Sent:
To:
Subject:
JENNIFER MANCEBO [MANCEBO@lbbslaw.com]
Monday, July 19, 200412:28 PM
Ross_Va; TIM Sabo; Clark_Ra; gvosdel@sbrda.org; Pacheco_Ma; mtrout@sbrda.org
Monday Morning Revised Joint Public Hearing Script
!lJ
Shortened Public
Hearing Scrip...
Attached is the Monday morning edition of the Joint Public Hearing Script.
It includes a number of reV1S1ons suggested by Valerie Ross as well as Maggie Pacheco. In
addition, as presently drafted if there is an objection to either Redevelopment Plan
Amendment, then all action of the Commission and the Common Council will be continued to
another meeting date at which time the written response to objections will be considered.
If there is an objection the enclosed draft does NOT contemplated that the Mayor and
Common Council will certify the Program EIR and adopt the General Plan Amendment No. 04-
02. Everything will simply be continued to the City Council Agenda at which the written
response to objections can be submitted. (Likely the meeting of August 16, 2004)
As revised, the script effectively ends on page 14 after the Commission and Common Council
have returned from a brief recess at the conclusion of public testimony (See page 11 of
revised script) .
If you have any comments please contact me. I will be in Maggie Pacheco's office as of
2:00 pm this afternoon.
David F. Gondek
Jennifer Mancebo
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
650 East Hospitality Lane
Suite 600
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(909) 387-1130
Fax (909) 387-1138
It])O
1
,
PUBLIC HEARING SCRIPT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE
UPTOWN AND CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS
Date of Public
Hearings:
July 19, 2004
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02, FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION AND
AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND EMINENT DOMAIN POWER ON
ALL PROPERTY IN THE UPTOWN AND CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS
Subject:
[CALL TO ORDER]
Mayor:
'We will now move on the first of three (3) public hearings on the
amendments to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the Central
City North Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment No.
04-02 and the Program EIR for these."
"These three (3) public hearings are identified on our posted
agenda for this meeting as Agenda Item No. 30 and Agenda Item
No. R-31 and Agenda Item No. R-32.
"The Common Council does not generally have three (3) separate
but interrelated public hearings on redevelopment plan
amendments on our agenda, so I believe that Mr. Gary Van Osdel,
our Redevelopment Agency Executive Director should say a few
words about the public hearings we will be considering this
afternoon."
Gary Van Osdel: "These three (3) public hearings all relate to redevelopment
matters. This afternoon the Community Development Commission
and the Common Council will consider a redevelopment plan
amendment to reinstate condemnation powers of the Agency for
one of the oldest redevelopment plans - Central City North
Redevelopment Project (1973) as well to reinstate condemnation
powers for one of the newer redevelopment projects - the Uptown
4812-7078-2976.1
7119/04
Page 1
Redevelopment Project (1986). There is also a Project
Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment which
goes along with these redevelopment plan amendments."
Gary Van Osdel: "Notices for these public hearings were sent by mail to property
owners, businesses and residents in the Uptown Redevelopment
Project and the Central City North Redevelopment Project, about
one month ago. Some of the folks here this afternoon have
received mailed notice of the proposed amendment to the Uptown
Redevelopment Project and Final Program EIR certification, and
other folks have received mailed notice of the proposed
amendment to the Central City North Redevelopment Project and
Final Program EIR. And finally - a small number of people here
this afternoon may also have received mailed notice within the last
two weeks or so of the public hearing for the General Plan
Amendment which affects a small portion of the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area or Subarea B as we call it."
"Redevelopment is an important program for our City and it
provides means for our community to improve property values and
our quality of life. All three (3) of the pUblic hearings relate to
redevelopment. "
Mayor:
"I hereby declare open the first of our three (3) related public
hearings this afternoon. This is now the time and place for the
Mayor and Common Council to consider proposed General Plan
Amendment No. 04-02 and the Final Program EIR for the Uptown
and Central City North Redevelopment Project Amendments."
Mayor:
"Now is also the time and place and I hereby declare open the joint
public hearing of the Mayor and Common Council and the
Community Development Commission (this is joint publiC hearing
Agenda Item No. R-31) to consider the Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project and
an ordinance adopting the Amendment, and related matters and
the Program EIR."
Mayor:
"For the purpose of the joint public hearing to be conducted by the
Common Council and the Commission, as mayor of the City of San
Bernardino, I will chair this joint public hearing."
Mayor:
'Will the City Clerk please call the roll for the Commission Members
and the Common Council Members meeting in joint public hearing
session?"
City Clerk:
[Roll call for Common Council]
4812-7078-2976.1
7119/04
Page 2
[Roll call for Commission]
Mayor: "Now is also the time and place for our third related public hearing
and I hereby declare open the joint pUblic hearing of the Mayor and
Common Council and the Community Development Commission to
consider the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Central City North Redevelopment Project, an ordinance adopting
the Amendment, and related matters."
Mayor: 'Will the City Clerk also note on the record that the roll call for this
Agenda Item No. R-32 joint pUblic hearing Common Council and
the Commission is the same as for joint public hearing Agency item
No. R-31?"
City Clerk: "I will so note on the minutes."
Mayor: "Mr. Van Osdel, could you please give us a brief overview of the
matters you believe will be covered in these three public hearings?"
Gary Van Osdel: "As the Mayor has indicated there are three public hearings and a
Program Environmental Impact Report (the "Program EIR") has
been prepared which covers each of the public hearings. Except
for potential acquisition of land in the Uptown Project Subarea B for
the Mercado Santa Fe Project - the Redevelopment Agency has no
plans or is aware of any potential or specific redevelopment
activities where private property may be acquired with
Redevelopment Agency assistance. The Program EIR considers
the potential environmental effects of:
. the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 which is
the first public hearing - Ms. Valerie Ross the Deputy
Director/City Planner will be the lead person for this staff
presentation. The General Plan amendment affects the area
just to the west of the 215 Freeway and to the north of 2nd
Street - about 20 acres. This area is inside the Uptown
Redevelopment Project. The General Plan Amendment
changes the industrial land use designation for this area to
commercial - Also as part of this first public hearing City
staff will present some of the details about the proposed
Mercado Santa Fe Project which takes in the land where the
El Tigre Market is now located;
. the second public hearing is Common Council Agenda item
No. R-31 - this is a joint public hearing of the Common
Council with the Community Development Commission
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 3
relating to the Uptown Redevelopment Project and the
reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the
Redevelopment Agency in the Uptown Project for the next
twelve (12) years;
. the third public hearing is Common Council Agenda Items
No. R-32 - it is also a joint public hearing by the Common
Council with the Community Development Commission
relating to the reinstatement of the eminent domain powers
of the Redevelopment Agency in the Central City North
Redevelopment Project for the next nine (9) years."
Gary Van Osdel: "After all three (3) of these public hearings are completed then the
Common Council and the Commission will consider taking formal
action on these public hearings as appropriate.
rFPPC/FAIR POLITICAL REFORM ACT POTENTIAL CONFLICT ISSUESl
Mayor:
"Before we get into the substance of any of these public hearings I
think it is appropriate to ask my colleagues if any of them own
property or have any economic interest in these redevelopment
projects which they think may be significantly affected by the
General Plan Amendment or the Redevelopment Plan
amendments. If so, I request that the Council Member please state
for the record what that interest is and whether the Council member
believes that such an economic interest may disqualify them from
participating in our public hearings today."
Common Council
Member:
[Each Common Council member indicates whether he/she may
have a conflicts disclosure issue, as applicable]
Mayor:
"Thank you."
Mayor:
"If any member of the public wants to speak to any of these
matters, please get one of our speaker cards and fill it out and hand
it to one of our City Clerk's assistants here at the front of the
Council Chambers - that way when the time comes after the City
and Agency staff reports, the Commission and the Common
Council will consider your comments, and I will call your name and
you can come up here to the podium and give us your comments."
Mayor:
"Please write on your speaker card whether you want to speak on
public hearing Number 30 (the General Plan/Program EIR) or
public hearing Number R-31 (Uptown Redevelopment Plan
Amendment) or public hearing Number R-32 (Central City North)."
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 4
Mayor:
Mayor:
City Clerk:
Mayor:
Mayor:
Mayor:
Valerie Ross:
Valerie Ross:
Mayor:
Common Council
Members:
4812-7078-2976.1
7119/04
"If you are not sure which public hearing you want to speak about -
that is o.k. just write the words "Redevelopment - Not Sure Which
Project Area" on your speaker card and staff can determine the
item for you."
"If you think you are going to want to speak on any of these three
(3) public hearings and the Program EIR please stand-up at this
time and the City Clerk can administer the oath to you regarding the
truthfulness of the testimony you may want to give this afternoon."
[Administration of oath for all three (3) public hearings]
"Thank you."
"Now if you have a statement in writing which you want to present
to the City or the Redevelopment Agency this afternoon regarding
any of the three (3) public hearings, please hand that written
statement to the City Clerk at this time so that your written
statement can be included in our records."
"Our first public hearing is for proposed General Plan Amendment
No. 04-02 and the certification of the Program EIR. Before we
actually consider public testimony for this public hearing we will
receive a staff report from Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City
Planner - Ms. Ross."
"Thank you. Before I get into my report on the General Plan
Amendment and the Program EIR, please allow me to point out that
we have a number of maps and drawings here. There is a large
map of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area boundaries and a
large map which shows the Central City North Redevelopment
Project boundaries. Also, we have a large map which shows the
area which is affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02.
Finally, I have a site plan and some conceptual drawings here in
the front of Council Chambers which show the Mercado Santa Fe
project.
[Additional Presentation by Valerie Ross of Staff Report on General
Plan Amendment, TIA and Program EIR]
''Thank you: are there any questions for City staff at this time?"
[Questions from Council members]
Page 5
Valerie Ross: [Responses to questions from Common Council Members]
Mayor: 'Will our Economic Development Agency Executive Director, Gary
Van Osdel please provide the staff presentation for the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan Amendment."
Gary Van Osdel: [Gary Van Osdel Presents Uptown Materials]:
[Subtopic No.1 - Uptown Materials and Binder]:
There is a large 3-ring binder of written materials which each
member has received - This binder contains 12 tabs - and different
materials are under each tab. For example, Tab No.1 is the Staff
Report and Tab No.3 is the Section 33352 Report to the Common
Council.
V' Written staff report (Tab NO.1 of Binder);
V' Summary of the background and reasons for the Amendment to
the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Project Area;
V' [Mike Trout] Summary of notices and mailing dates issued by
Agency for Uptown;
V' Summary of Project Area Committee process;
[Subtopic No.2 Central City North Materials and Binder]:
There is also a large 3-ring binder of materials for Central City north
Plan Amendment. It also includes 12 tabs - Tab No.1 is the Staff
Report and Tab No.3 is the Section 33352 Report.
V' Written staff report (Tab No.1 of Binder);
V' Summary of the background and reasons for the Amendment to
the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Project Area;
V' [Mike Trout] Summary of notices and mailing dates issued by
Agency for Uptown;
Summary of Project Area Committee process;
Don Gee:
[Presents the Section 33352 Reports to Mayor and Common
Council. (Tab No.3 of Binder for Uptown also Tab NO.3 of Binder
for Central City North)]
4812-7078-2976.1
7119/04
Page 6
Gary Van Osdel:
Mayor:
Common Council
Members:
Agency staff:
City Attorney/
Agency Special
Counsel:
Mayor:
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19104
"Mayor - we believe there has been very thorough documentation
presented in the Agenda materials - the Section 33352 Reports for
each project - which confirm that blight still exists in both of these
project areas and that the reinstatement of the Agency's powers of
eminent domain will be an important and effective tool to help the
Agency eliminate blight."
"Do any members of the Commission and the Common Council
have any questions at this time for the Agency staff or the
consultant?"
[Specific questions are presented to Agency staff]
[Responds to specific questions of Commission/Common Council]
"I request introduction of the following documents in evidence for
joint public hearing R-31."
,/ the affidavit of The Sun newspaper regarding the publication of
the notice of joint public hearing for the Uptown Redevelopment
Plan Amendment - EXHIBIT 2-1;
,/ the affidavit of Michael Trout of mailing of notice of joint public
hearing to property owners and to occupants for the joint public
hearing for the Uptown Redevelopment Plan Amendment -
EXHIBIT 2-2;
,/ the 3-ring black binder of documents for the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan Amendment which contains documents
identified under each of the 12 tabs in the index, including the
text of the Staff Report at Tab No.1, the Section 33352 Report
at Tab No. 3 and the text of the Redevelopment Plan
Amendment at Tab NO.4 - EXHIBIT 2-3;
,/ the CD ROM identified by the expert witness and
redevelopment consultant to the Agency, Mr. Don Gee,
containing the property condition survey data for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area on which the Section 33352
Report is based - EXHIBIT 2-4.
"If there are no objections, Exhibits 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 are
accepted in evidence."
Page 7
City Attorney!
Agency Special
Counsel:
Mayor:
City Attorney!
Agency Special
Counsel:
City Clerk:
4812-7078-2976.1
7f19/04
"I request introduction of the following documents in evidence as
relates to the Central City North Redevelopment Plan amendment
and joint public hearing R-32."
v' the affidavit of The Sun newspaper regarding the publication of
the notice of joint public hearing for the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan Amendment - EXHIBIT 3-1;
v' the affidavit of Michael Trout of mailing of notice of joint public
hearing to property owners and to occupants for the joint public
hearing for the Central City North Redevelopment Plan
Amendment - EXHIBIT 3-2;
v' the 3-ring black binder of documents for the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan Amendment which contains documents
identified under each of the 12 tabs in the index, including the
text of the Staff Report at Tab No.1, the Section 33352 Report
at Tab No. 3 and the text of the Redevelopment Plan
Amendment at Tab No.4 - EXHIBIT 3-3;
v' the CD ROM identified by the expert witness and
redevelopment consultant to the Agency, Mr. Don Gee,
containing the property condition survey data for the Central
City North Redevelopment Project Area on which the Section
33352 Report is based - EXHIBIT 3-4.
"If there are no objections, Exhibits 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 are
accepted in evidence."
"I will now ask the City Clerk to enter into the record at this joint
public hearing any written objection concerning the Uptown
Amendment that has been received by the City Clerk up to now."
[Describes by author and date each letter or statement and states
that the same was distributed to each member of the Common
Council. (If letters are received that have not previously been
distributed to the Common Council members, or distributed to
Common Council members at the meeting, these letters should be
read into the record. If no written objections are received, Clerk
should state that none have been received)]
Page 8
Mayor: "I will now ask the City Clerk to enter into the record at this joint
public hearing any written objection concerning the Central City
North Amendment that have been received by the City Clerk up to
now.1I
City Clerk: [Describes by author and date each letter or statement and states
that the same was distributed to each member of the Common
Council. (If letters are received that have not previously been
distributed to the Common Council members, or distributed to
Council members at the meeting, these letters should be read into
the record. If no written objections are received, Clerk should state
that none have been received)]
Gary Van Osdel: "Mayor, I would like to address the process for these public
hearings relating to the Uptown Redevelopment Project and the
Central City North Redevelopment Project. The process was
started over two (2) years ago by the City and the Redevelopment
Agency. Since that time the staff of the Redevelopment Agency
have sent numerous notices by mail to property owners, residents
and businesses in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and in
the Central City North Redevelopment Project Area. Notices of
public meetings have also been published several times in the
newspaper. Last year property owners and residents and business
representatives held elections for the selection of Project Area
Committee Members for the Uptown Redevelopment Project. In
2004 a Project Area Committee for Central City North was formed."
Mayor: "I believe that some members from the Uptown Project Area
Committee and the Central City North Project Area Committee are
here with us this afternoon is that correct Mr. Van Osdel? I would
like them to stand up at this time and be recognized."
Mayor: "On behalf of my colleagues on the Common Council, I want to
thank each of you for your service to the community. Your work on
the Project Area Committee will help our community to keep our
momentum going on improving our neighborhoods and espeCially
improving the Uptown Redevelopment Project and the Central City
North Redevelopment Project. Thank you."
Mayor: "Thank you - now it is time to actually begin the public testimony for
all three of our public hearings: Common Council public hearing No.
30, Commission and Common Council public hearing No. R-31 and
Commission and Common Council public hearing No. R-32:
Mayor: I have some speaker cards - I will call some names and if those
persons can come up and sit here in front and then you can give us
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 9
your comments while you stand at the podium in the order that I call
your name."
Mayor:
[Mayor calls 3 names]
Mayor:
"Please give your name and address and the address of the
property you own or which you have questions about when you
speak. We have a stenographer who is transcribing our public
hearing testimony today - so try to speak clearly and directly into
the microphone - Also tell us whether you support or oppose either
one of the Redevelopment Plan amendments which are of interest
to you and whether you support or oppose the General Plan
Amendment."
Mayor:
"Please also direct your testimony and any question you have to
me. That way I can instruct the appropriate City or Agency staff
person to respond."
Mayor:
"There are many people who may want to speak today and so we
will wait to answer specific questions until after we have received
your comments and the comments of other interested folks before
to try to answer them. Please also bear in mind that your testimony
should be relevant to the matter we are considering here today."
Mayor:
[Mayor Calls Speaker No.1 to give testimony]
Speaker No.1 testimony
Mayor:
[Mayor Calls Speaker NO.2 to give testimony]
Speaker NO.2 testimony
Mayor:
[Mayor Calls Speaker No. 3 and Mayor also reads 3 more names
and asks those persons to walk down to the front and wait to be
called for the time at the podium]
Mayor:
Speaker No.3 testimony, ETC, ETC, ETC.
"I believe that is may last speaker card for these three (3) public
hearings - Did I miss anyone? Is there anyone whose name I did
not call who wants to speak on this matter?"
[other persons??]
Mayor:
"Alright, I believe that is all the testimony for the moment" -
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 10
Mayor:
"At this time are there any questions for the City staff or Agency
staff from the Commission and Council Members?"
Council Members: [Questions from Commission and Council Members to City staff
and Agency staff]
City staff: [City staff response to questions from Commission and Council
Members]
Agency staff: [Agency staff response to questions from Commission and Council
Members]
Mayor: "Let us take a recess from all three (3) of these public hearings."
Mayor: "Do I hear a motion of the Common Council and the Commission to
recess all three (3) of these public hearings Agenda Item 30 and R-
31 and R-32 for 10 minutes?"
Council Member: [I make a motion to so recess]
Council Member: [I second that motion]
Mayor: "I have a motion and second - any discussion?/any objection?
Seeing none I order Common Council and the Commission public
hearings recessed for 10 minutes."
[RECESS FOR ALL THREE PUBLIC HEARINGSl
Mayor: "Thank you, we are returned in session for our three (3) public
hearings this afternoon on the General Plan Amendment, Traffic
Impact Analysis Report the Program EIR, the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan amendment and the amendment to the
Central City North Plan. Will staff please give us a report on how
you recommend that we respond to comments that we have heard
earlier this afternoon relating to the Redevelopment Plan
amendments."
Valerie Ross: [Summary response to comments]
Gary Van Osdel: [Summary response to comments]
Mayor: "Thank you for those reports. Based on that I believe that it is
appropriate for us to close these joint public hearings. Do I hear a
motion of the Common Council and Commission to close the joint
public hearing Agenda Item No. R-31 and R-32 (Uptown
Redevelopment Plan Amendment)?"
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 11
Commission
Member:
"I move that the Common Council and the Commission close these
joint public hearings R-31 and R-32."
Commission
Member:
"I second the motion."
Mayor:
"There is a motion and a second - hearing no objection the joint
public hearings of the Common Council and Commission are
closed - these are is Agenda Items No. R-31 and R-32."
Mayor:
"Do I hear a motion for the Common Council to close the pUblic
hearing on the Program EIR, the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the Statement of Overriding
Considerations and the approval of General Plan Amendment No.
04-02?"
Common Council
Member:
"I move that Common Council joint public hearing No. 30 be
closed:
Common Council
Member:
"I second the motion."
Mayor:
"There is a motion and second - hearing no objection this public
hearing Agency Item No. 30 of the Common Council is closed."
rg..OSE PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-021
rEND OF ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS1
[Discussion and action on implementing actions relating to all three public
hearings including adopting resolutions and ordinances as applicable
Please note that if objections are received on the proposed Uptown Plan
Amendment and/or the proposed Central City North Plan Amendment then the
Commission may take no action relating to any of the Commission resolutions
described below and the Common Council may take no action on the resolution
certifying the Program EIR and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 or either of
the two ordinances described below]
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19104
Page 12
IF WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED FOR THE UPTOWN
AMENDMENT:
Mayor:
City Attorney/
Agency Special
Counsel:
Mayor:
Mayor:
"Now I believe we need to consider taking action on the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Mr. Van Osdel or one of our
lawyers what do you believe is indicated at this time?"
'We have received certain written materials which could constitute
objections to the adoption of the amendment to the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan. Pursuant to Sections 33363 and 33364 of
the California Community Redevelopment Law, where such written
objections are received, the Common Council is required to
respond in writing before proceeding to consider adoption of the
Plan Amendment. In light of this requirement, I would request that
the Council/Commission schedule consideration of the receipt of
written responses to objections at the meeting of the
Council/Commission on August _, 2004,"
"Are there any questions by members of the Council/Commission?"
[Questions by members of the Council/Commission, if any.]
"If there is no objection, this matter will be presented to the
Commission and the Common Council at the August _' 2004
meeting for consideration by the Council/Commission when final
consideration will be given to responses to the objections to the
Uptown Amendment submitted prior to or at the joint public
hearing."
IF WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED FOR THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH AMENDMENT:
Mayor:
City Attorney/
Agency Special
Counsel:
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
"Now I believe we need to consider taking action on the Central
City North Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Mr. Van Osdel or
one of our lawyers what do you believe is indicated at this time?"
'We have received certain written materials which could constitute
objections to the adoption of the Central City North amendment to
the Redevelopment Plan. Pursuant to Sections 33363 and 33364
of the California Community Redevelopment Law, where such
written objections are received, the Common Council is required to
respond in writing before proceeding to consider adoption of the
Page 13
Plan amendment. In light of this requirement, I would request that
the Council/Commission schedule consideration of the receipt of
written responses to objections at the meeting of the
Council/Commission on August _' 2004."
Mayor:
"Are there any questions by members of the Council/Commission?"
[Questions by members of the Council/Commission, if any.]
Mayor:
"If there is no objection, the matter will be return to us at the August
_, 2004 Council/Commission meeting and consideration will be
given to responses to the objections to the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan Amendment submitted prior to or at the joint
public hearing."
[CONTINUE ACTION ON CERTIFICATION OF PROGRAM ErR AND GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02]
Mayor:
"Now that we have taken care of the two (2) redevelopment plan
amendments we should consider the Program EIR and the General
Plan Amendment. Ms. Ross what do you suggest?"
Valerie Ross:
"Since the Commission and the Common Council cannot take final
action of either of the Redevelopment Plan Amendments until after
the written responses to objection are prepared and submitted for
your considerations, I recommend that the Common Council
continue its final consideration of certification of the Final Program
EIR, the TIA, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations as well as the General Plan Amendment
No. 04-02 until August _' 2004, and after you have considered
those written responses to objections."
Mayor:
"If there is no objection, this matter involving the certification of the
Final Program EIR and the approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 04-02 will be continued until August _, 2004."
[END OF SCRIPT WHERE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO EITHER
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTl
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 14
[IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS TO EITHER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT - THEN THE FOLLOWING MAY BE CONSIDEREDl
Mayor: "The next business item on our Common Council agenda is to
consider the adoption of the resolution certifying the Final Program
EIR, approving the Transportation Impact Analysis Report,
approving the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and adopting a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the Redevelopment Plan
Amendments and the General Plan Amendment."
Mayor: "Is there any discussion about this proposed action?"
Common Council
Member: [Discussion, if any]
Mayor: "Do I hear a motion to adopt the resolution?"
Common Council
Member: "I move that the following resolution be adopted:
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADOPTING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, CERTIFYING THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT
OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE UPTOWN AND CENTRAL CITY
NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLANS AND
OTHER ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS, CERTIFYING THE TRAFFIC
IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 04-02"
Common Council
Member: "I second the motion."
Mayor: "I have a motion and a second and if there is no further discussion I
believe that the Common Council should vote on this resolution,"
IF NO WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL OBJECTION IS RECEIVED REGARDING
UPTOWN:
Mayor:
"Since there is no objection to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
amendment the Community Development Commission will now act
on the following resolution entitled:"
4812-7078-2976.1
71t9f04
Page 15
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS
THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY
NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS."
Mayor:
"Is there a motion or further discussion on this Commission
resolution?"
[COMMISSION VOTE ON AGENCY CEQA RESOLUTION]
Mayor:
"The Community Development Commission can now act on the
following resolution entitled:"
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING
FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, APPROVING THE SECTION
33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ON
THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
[COMMISSION VOTE ON AGENCY BLIGHT FINDING
RESOLUTION]
Mayor:
"The Mayor and Common Council will now act on the following
ordinance entitled:"
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
Page 16
Mayor:
Mayor:
Mayor:
"Is there a motion or further discussion?"
[ COMMON COUNCIL ACTION]
"The Common Council will now introduce and conduct first reading
(by title only):
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
"Is there a motion or further discussion?"
IF NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTION IS RECEIVED REGARDING CENTRAL
CITY NORTH:
Mayor:
Mayor:
Mayor:
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING
FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE CENTRAL CITY
NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, APPROVING THE
SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON
COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY
NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE
2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
"Is there a motion or further discussion on this Commission
resolution?"
[COMMISSION ACTION ON BLIGHT FINDINGS RESOLUTION
FOR CENTRAL CITY NORTH]
"The Common Council will now act on the following ordinance
entitled:"
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004
AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
"Is there a motion or further discussion?"
Page 17
.
Mayor:
fEND OF SCRIPTl
4812-7078-2976.1
7/19/04
[COMMON COUNCIL ACTION]
"The Common Council will now introduce and conduct first reading
(by title only)."
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004
AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
Page 18
THE
SUN
ltOT1CeOFJ,*,PUBUCHURlNGOfTH~IIAYQR
ANDCOlIIIIQNCOUMCllAND1M!COMWtirYOMlJ)Plll!NJ
. COWil6SIOHOFntEClT'fOf&.UI1EllNo\RDlNO
PROPOSED_AMeNllM!Nf1'OlH!II2llEVELOPI!tIT
P\.AMFOAlMEtII'TO'MlIlEDMLOl'IIENTPIIllJECT
"'"'C~lIOtIOFAl'IlALEN\'llIONIIl!Nf'AL1lIPACT
AEPO!ITFORlllEUPTOWNIIEtlE'i!UI'llEI!RQ.IECTARE4
ANllTHECENTRAl.Clf'fHOllTllREOEVEl.OPIlENTPROJEC'fAllEA
,~ElS==:=:oI~~~s.r:r~)=~~:
.~('Ageocy"lll'lconducl.joIltpUlli:lheame""t.IonlII\\JiAtll1.2CI)l."4:OOP.m.,or"-'lhnaIlor.rn<<tbopractlc:ll,1Il
t~'~~I~ChInt>oJ$,ClIyo/Saf\~,300NMh'O'Strtel.SM~.CA92401.
g;rr:"~1 u.. pilI.puliII;.......... wtt'be to concIder 11) 1ho ceni'lcation d ~'1NI ~ lmpIcl AIfIO/IIor IN Uplgwn
PnljeelArtllIl'ld,lhoc.Mml()ytlDrlh~PrQjeclArM'lh~ProjKlElR'I~lO"CIlIIonOI
,~'QudlyM.l'CEQ,I,1:II'Id(llltl"lIllI>fIMIIIofl'~2004~IO,....~~!at..iJI*lWn
~Prejodr~l.
I' .
I' PrajldLaIo'" Th.llIdewIopmen1proj<<:ta..ao/l"UjII_Rodevtlopm8nlI'ProjoclN"'llnc:Udeo~433iloraalllnd
WtiI'''Ciyols.n8trrlafllno.Ca_ThiP,,,j<<:tAruCllllllllso/lwO(2)ncr.c:001IgI.Il._:(1)~&bartaAil:~
:l49,_,ln~and\l6fll/ltJrdJdesf1lloorrmerciallyrrO~mal:lnQ.""""oI~!N<<lJllIIIllllalllntSlrl8l""
lho~215F""""'0I1"WI"IOWJIe""""....'...eon..._.lOIdUplownSubuuA""'iIcWn...~tndmiuod\lll
MARGART PARKER ==::,::~;:S:'il:=E~'::'~~ocolhso.:==:s::.~~==~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGEl ::==-.~~Ls::~=~~=~:~~~~"~
201 NORTH EST .
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 ~~'%~..oc:I=~d&U1;:"4:::~e.m::=;:=:=~;=
.....iI;..,"Mlh1lle1qlt'qar<l.copymaYbo_d,byl"'lil11....mdilf/1lClllall'lCo;:ooI!rotnll>t~olkeIlII201N/l!tl?StrHt,
SW30\,San8emlrdino, CdIom1a924tl1 ll\JIYlg..gula'b\I&lnlOI_
399 North . D~Slreel
San Bemardino, CA 92401
(909) 397-3986
(2015.S C.C.P.)
o-rtpUonlllPr"""""Actlo"':TheProloctAlal""'*'"."'di$pIoy.~drymplOlM.d~, Tha,\,gency<lUl'ltllt1hatlhfpowtr
..!"l'd\MlpropoI1yilIhaPllljoctAlalillllppcil1d~ilI""..,.'""l'on.nagoIIladba4.The.......,.oIlha~lO,..
~domail""""lo~pioparIy.-arvlorhthilaliDnol\ll91ln..ProjactAlalllpNOhl- ThalllOllOlllldan
PUBLICATIO. ~....Ihe~~IhI.~oIlha~.'"""'dDrIlaiIpowtfllilIhlProjld.""'IO.......propar1ylor
~~puIpOIIS..,.toI~lIylhl~llI.._"')lol~,lorlldlpl\'lJlllty."~1hr
~wiI...........~.pcll'ilf1Oat:qLinlptqllllyby-w.oI........dornIilil....PrIljod_Ior..,lldiIlonaIt2)W1
~Joii~6), ~ollhlpaMllot."inInldorNiolor1haAgancyta~.propar\l'.MlIlOI~toIPr1ljodAfll
boundliInOl.......lypaSol~actMl\IIorpo,tlli;~wl\IdlN~m..,..,.....OIhnoa.ThaComlliled
PIOjldElR~......ot1tla~~tllocton1ha~I....~.appltHICI,ThaCOlrlblnadProjlc:lEIA
UoliclAla,lPIdficmiligl!ion_.mcIIfinpllnleillldwlrN.>alearlail~.,...lIllactIlOllMlwhlch.lMIllIIn
~HowIvIr.1haComt*\lClPrlljldEIAdoIIilcIiI;Itt'tIIlcalllilpclrillly"'"""......~blUy~I/fMldld.and
....~Ihort_<OI\SlIUCIiOfl.CJlIII1rnpac1S,long\emlmcda_airquallly~1IlIl kni_nflii:il\pIclIDflI.l01llll
l~l5,SiI:lIhM~lI....-.dItCalln"'lI~'I"CI_.""...gWitoryrnacl'ltnlnllorl'"JPll1Y-and~lO'""'"
!U8IIIIaconllillJl:lon!;toIhlC05lotrnpro.i"ll~mairlPlllrlftl'lSllP*'ll.
PROOF OF
State of California
County of San Bernardino
I
1M
NoliceType:
HRGSB NOTICE OF HEARING-SB
Ad Description:
Allhililnl_this_OIJMIPllblltHoamgloinutd.tIIAf1ttcf""noplwaNIhllltakonnoolharllttionlOlC:IJ*lanyprllpllly
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPME =a=~-:":~~iZ:~~=T=~~~~=== .
AREA ~'E1Aand.roIenldl<l..lhI'\lll<cadoSamaF"dIveIDpmIN~.,-"'~18~lJIIlfIhlMlr\:ldOSlnlaf'
conIPQIlOI1lio""lllJlIll'I'od"NMu"by\l1aAgency,lhInlht.."c:ouIdll:ql.Wlll""Pfl'11f1UplDwnSo.Dnl8by~purdlaso
OfbYewliHollhlpgwerofemiltnldomail..Tha~r;:y$llll~lIIIl""~oI'hl~-*'~ol'"
4gtN:f1O..... proparty intha Pmjed.fowl. irlaupponol.sptClficladl'/tlOpmM'llaoMyil"'MIn,I~wiI""""'Agancv
lopll'/ll'lla'ld"inW1at1lheSP<!llldolOlighliltl1e~octA!ll.F\IIWnIOI'lhalaNlll8montollldllllnillrllcbmlirlll/tllllltY"JllaIowlha
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years, ===IOOl~I~~";~~~;"I.IpIoM\StPfKAoI"'I'roja(:I"""'U"'.otlIr
to or Interested In the above entitled matter. t am the representali\ . .
and publisher of The Sun, a daUy newspaper printed and publlshet Tha l'flliaCt AlaI, and il pl/til:>Jlll n...1Od1 an cornm......1Iy trod rait\OnIiIIy zonad. may to'IIIIn del ItII1 .",1isIId in lhlI Slate 01
language in the City 015an Bemardino, County of San Bernardino. CalIlomiI ~_...... S<IbiIanoss SIltIlr.' p,....nllo Govemrr>or1I;CodI Saclion65ll62,5(I).
a newspaper.of general circulation as defined by the laws of the St! ..-AtoInollhtAmendmlnl.IhIC<<nblntdl'fojaclflRandIlllllldDoc""*,,,: Tha.&.giarq'.I\tpoII.lOlhar.loycrandConlmon
by the 5upenor Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of C Oo\sIci('RepoIIjonthaproposadA.....onsrnwillalsoboprllllfllod..lhlIjonpul*hIar'ng. ThtIleporl.thalnlo1..AmerOnlrl.lI1Id
date June 20,1952, Case No. 73084. That the notice, of which th 1/PIdlhl Cornbilacl,Proie<:l EIR togaUItr 'Illl1l1'1O Mtrltn laspOnM 10 eotmIIIIts prtYiW5ly.-Wld on lhlI CornbJlld p~ EIR are
printed copy, has been published in each regular ard entire: 11"<1i1b111orpublc_en000lIl'"191lIhlAgeney'.o/fieMlI201t101\h-e'SMI1,S\lIla30I,g.,~.CA9240t
newspaper and not in any supplemenl thereof on the following date
06l24104,07fOtf04,07f08l04
i\t.....phIpWr;chaoring.lh.Mlj'OIandC>nrnonCourd;rld1l1.ComniIIionIlllIOOl"OllicWaI,~andll31l<nony~lIy
inIIrISIIdparlO/l.foraNIIllMlSllhllproposad~"'oO'ldthaCombinldI'llljel:lEIR.Al~h3W>\lanyobjocdonlOlhapmpouc!
.I.maIIliMIIlll'lllnllCombrlldPrqeclElRmaYapplllbaloNlhlMoyofondOommon()gu/loiondOom\inionanclllhowCIIMwtr;h
~AA1l11Gt111'11ll/'1CMJld_balOlOplldandIhaCornbir>tdProjlClEIRahoIidnolbac:arlilild.li1al.
.i.t~tin>I.nol'"'..1tlI!\IIIehO.....!orthajoi1lP""",,",rilg""I'POraonrnayr"'>oriIlInstal",,*,,~IhICityC1a"'OIIl>eir~
lONpllIpONIIAmarrimentorlh.CorrOnIdProjoclEIR,'Tha_oINCIlyCllllcilCilyHall3O(lNlrtl"O'SlreM.San~.
CaIiIomII92418.AlWlill801wl1lOlllloornmanlllol.,iIfIJIIldPell,,,ns,,;Ybaoonlldlrldbylhalo\al'O'nConvnonCounclland'blCoomliosion
1I1h11irNloltllejolnt~""rilQonJ<Zl19.2004,..tohedulorl_f'll'I1I",objaclionlo"""""-'orIhlComlW>ldPJOjact
ElAlltlilmllodlolhaCtyCIar1<baloreoratIhaVrMOlll>ojoillp<.Cllichllling,,,MayoronaCorrmonColrddprlpll"wrillII1lnlin9s
.,.l'IfIP(lIulo.co::ha..ritI""obiactionandcornmenlpriorIoOOopliollol1hlpropoatd..............,ondCSrtM\:llionollhlConP1IdProjad
'"
l ~21JJ/
Signature
1I..,.\olttrItIod~rI'tOive.lIcopyollhiGtloliceofJol1lPublIcHMringllyUrDldSlalISMaI.aucl1d11MrybymaYindicaII1lhiil\llo
InIIrI6tIdpe'""'enhltownsproplJ1yill..ProjeclA...or"""'.bulIinar;eoM'or"""""'..U..PIojod.......~ltlo~ilIadop1orl,
...Aglw:yOOlJldinltlaMcrlf;OllUi..llIYpropaIty"lhaProjoclAlOllby.......ldomain.outIjIoltoh/qlrl:fl~,.,1I1.
~oI.~apjlIcII>IolawilfldPl\'flll/llol~compWrionloth._
llyoi1Mv1""YC(IiI5lion~thisN(lh:.oIJoiltPWicHeeringIllldClr1lficalicJ'ollh.~ProjoctEIR,or~yOOhlMl"'l'o...r
'l"tsticinnogardirlgl""_e<11.thoCorrkllClProjl(:lElRor81l'/dll1orelai'!'l~,piAMconlOtlt,ikaTrout,ProjII:It.Ien....,et
~_lQ44dwirlg"guIorbusfteuhoolraol"'AQInoy,oroon\aOlh...by-;!ll"~
I Th.c-rlyolSln80mllldinor~l(sobtgatlonIoPrllYidltQlJlll__IOPWic...-lO~incIIvklJlII.with<hebllliall. P\IIII
<iDIV:tI...DirIc!orcHaciIliuMeo1egamtnlI36ol-5244!ll'/QworI<i'lgdayl;prioIlolhlmaolllgwithlliY......mloilHStf\llbkl
!~.lo"'~do;"1IIPI<<fl-
1 NotaofJo&rtPllbl~I';.,gg/llenJ,",e le,2004.
Executed on: 0710812004
At Los Angeles, CalifornIa
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is t
CTTYOF SAN BERIiARDlNO
SJ RamoIIhIt
"'...
..-----.
flEDEVEl.OPt.1E~AGENCYOF"lHECITYOF
SAN BERNARDINO
m r"'lVlllln~
--
D
_D
.1';
rrll
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TROUT RE NOTICE OF HEARING
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
I, MICHAEL TROUT, declare that I am a resident of the State of California, over eighteen (18)
years of age and I have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein:
1. I am an employee of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino
("Agency"), a public body corporate and politic and my job title is "Project Manager". I have
been an Agency employee since October of 1991.
2. The Agency previously approved the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan") in 1986 and the Agency has initiated
proceedings for the adoption of a "2004 Eminent Domain Amendment" to the Redevelopment
Plan, which would amend the Redevelopment Plan and reinstates the Agency's eminent domain
authority with respect to all property in the redevelopment project area of the Uptown
Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") for an additional twelve (12) year period.
3. I am generally familiar with law and procedures as applicable to the adoption and
amendment of redevelopment plans in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et
seQ. (the "Community Redevelopment Law"), and specifically the provisions of Health and
Safety Code Section 33452, as applicable, to the preparation and dissemination of published
notices of public hearings and joint public hearings relating to the proposed amendment of a
redevelopment plan.
4. As the Project Manager of the Agency, I have the responsibility for preparing
notices to the public of public hearings and joint public hearings, including the joint public
hearing as presently scheduled for July 19, 2004, to be undertaken by the Community
4823-1149-4656.1
1
Exhibit 2-2
Development Commission ("Commission") as the governing board of the Agency and the Mayor
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino with respect to redevelopment activities of
the Agency, for the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
S. A document entitled "Notice of Joint Public Hearing of the Mayor and Common
Council and the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino / Proposed
2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Uptown Redevelopment Project and
Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area and the Central City North Redevelopment Project Area" (the "Notice of Joint Public
Hearing") has been prepared as part of the preparation for the joint public hearing of the
Commission and the Mayor and Common Council scheduled for July 19, 2004. A copy of the
Notice of Joint Public Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
6. The Notice of Joint Public Hearing was published once a week for three (3)
successive weeks in The Sun, a newspaper of general circulation with the first such publication
commencing on June 24, 2004, in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code
Section 334S2(a) and Government Code Section 6063.
7. In addition to the publication of the Notice of Joint Public Hearing, I obtained or
caused to be prepared two (2) separate lists of names and addresses of property owners and site
addresses of persons, residents and businesses who may have an interest in the proceedings
described in the Notice of Joint Public Hearing, and who are entitled to be given notice by
United States First Class Mail of the Joint Public Hearing scheduled for July 19, 2004, regarding
the 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, as set forth under the
provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 334S2(a).
4823-1149-4656.1
2
8. The first such list of names and addresses corresponds with persons and entities
(e.g., "assessees") who own one or more parcels ofland in the Project Area as set forth in Health
and Safety Code Section 33452(b) which provides:
"(b) Copies of the notices published pursuant to this section shall be mailed by first-
class mail, to the last known assessee of each parcel of land not owned by the agency
within the boundaries referred to in subdivision (a), at his or her last known address as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the county; or where a city assesses,
levies, and collects its own taxes, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the
city; or to the owner of each parcel of land within these boundaries as the ownership is
shown on the records of the county recorder 30 days prior to the date the notice is
published, and to persons, firms, or corporations which have acquired property within
these boundaries from the agency, at his or her last known address as shown by the
records of the agency."
The list of names and addresses of such persons (the "County Assessor List") is attached
as Exhibit "B".
9. I obtained the County Assessor List for the mailing of the Notice of Joint Public
Hearing from Ms. Ruth Parish, Information Systems Administrator of the City of San
Bernardino, after I requested Ms. Parish to prepare for the Agency's use the current property tax
assessment information for property owners and site addresses within both the Central City
North Redevelopment Project area and the Uptown Redevelopment Project area.
10. Ms. Parish is the City Official who is responsible for compiling and maintaining
City general business databases including County property tax assessment information for lands
located within the territorial jurisdiction of the City. I am informed that as part of Ms. Parish's
duties each year she obtains from the County of San Bernardino Assessor's Office a copy of the
last equalized assessment roll for property located in the City. Ms. Parish informed me that the
County Assessor List attached as Exhibit "B" corresponds with all of the assessees of each parcel
4823-1149-4656.1
3
ofland within the Project Area as shown the last equalized assessment roll of the County of San
Bernardino.
II. The second list (the "List of Project Area Occupants") of site addresses, which I
compiled using the information provided to me by Ms. Parish and the County Assessment List
and from a list of street address of property in the Project Area, which was also provided to me
by Ms. Parish. The addresses on this list correspond with the persons described in Health and
Safety Code Section 33452(c)(I), namely, "residents" or "occupants" within the Project Area.
The List of Project Area Occupants is attached as Exhibit "C".
12. It should be noted that there is a degree of overlap between the names and
addresses of assessed property on the County Assessor List and the List of Project Area
Occupants, as some owners of property in the Project Area also reside on the property which
they own in the Project Area. However, since the overlap is not precise, I compiled the List of
Project Area Occupants by inspecting the information for each parcel ofland in the Project Area
as set forth on the County Assessor List to determine whether each particular parcel was
improved with residential dwelling units and whether the property tax bill was sent to the
property owners' street address on the parcel in the Project Area, or to an address other than the
street address of the parcel. In addition, I inspected the County Assessor List to determine
whether there was more than one (1) dwelling unit or a commercial business on any particular
parcel indicated on the County Assessor List.
14. After I determined which properties on the County Assessor List were not taxed
to a person or address on that parcel of land or that the parcel contained multiple units, I
physically drove to each street listed on the County Assessor List in order to independently
4823-1149-4656.1
4
verify and confirm the number of multiple-units located at each and every address in the County
Assessor List, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33452(c)(I) and (2).
15. While at each street I examined listed addresses on curbsides, buildings and
mailboxes in order to compile an accurate List of Project Area Occupants from the information
on the County Assessor List.
16. As part of my physical inspection of the improved properties at the addresses on
the County Assessor List in preparing the List of Project Area Occupants, I observed that some
properties did not have clearly marked addresses. In order to ensure that as many occupants,
residents and businesses as possible would receive the Notice of Joint Public Hearing, the List of
Project Area Occupants that I compiled included more street addresses than may actually exist
on certain streets within the Project Area. This resulted, as expected, in a number of copies of
the mailed Notice of Joint Public Hearing being returned to the Agency as described in Recital
19, below.
17. After I completed the preparation of the List of Project Area Occupants, I
personally mailed a copy of the Notice of Joint Public Hearing by First-Class mail to each
"Occupant" at each address on the List of Project Area Occupants attached hereto as Exhibit "C"
on June 18,2004.
18. Based on the foregoing I mailed out a total of Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty
Four (2,454) copies of the Notice of Joint Public Hearing: 1171 notices were mailed to addresses
on the County Assessor List and 1283 of the notices were mailed to addresses on the List of
Project Area Occupants. Three Hundred Eighty Nine (389) of such notices were returned to me
as undeliverable as of July 16, 2004. Sixty one (61) of these returned notices came from
4823-1149-4656.1
5
addresses on the County Assessor List and three hundred and twenty eight (328) of these
returned notices came from addresses on the List of Project Area Occupants.
19. The List of Project Area Occupants referred to in recital 11, above, also includes
businesses with street addresses within the Project Area.
20. I independently verified the existence of such businesses by physically driving to
each street listed on the County Assessor List and by comparing what was listed as commercial
addresses and confirming the existence of businesses which were present on that location, as set
forth on the County Assessor List, after which I made appropriate notations, including adding
additional addresses to the List of Project Area Occupants and then I caused to be mailed a copy
of the Notice of Joint Public Hearing by first-class mail to the addresses of such businesses
within the Project Area on June 18, 2004.
21. Based on other information available to the Agency I determined the name and
address of each of the public agencies that levies taxes upon property in the Project Area, and I
personally mailed, by certified mail, return receipt requested, copies of the Notice of Joint Public
Hearing to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies that levies taxes upon any property
in the Project Area, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33452(d).
I declare under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct,
and that this Declaration was executed at San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California,
this 11- day of July, 2004.
-U~~
MICHAEL TROUT
4823-1149-4656.1
6
Exhibit "A"
Notice of July 19, 2004 Joint Public Hearing
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE MAYOR
AND COMMON COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVEWPMENT PROJECT AREA
AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino ("Mayor and Commoo Council") and
the Community Development Commission of the Cily of San Bernardino ("Commission") acting as the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
San Bernardino ("Agency") will conduct ajoint public hearing on Monday, July 19,2004, at 4;00 p.m., or as soon lbereafter as may be p!8Ctical,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, City of San Bernardino, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401.
The purpose of the joint public hearing will be to consider. (i) the certification of a final Enviromnental Impact Report for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area and the Central City North Redevelopment Project Area (the "Combined Project Em") pumuml to the California
Enviroumental Quality Act ("CEQA'1; and (ii) the approval of a proposed 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project ("Amendment").
preject Location: The redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment ("Project Area") includes approximately 433 acres of land
within the City of San Bernardino, California. The Project Area consists of two (2) non-contiguous areas: (I) Uptown Subarea A is
approximately 349 acres in size and generally includes the ct>lnmercially mixed-use lands along either side of Highland Avenue and Baseline
Street between the Interstate 215 Freeway on the west to Watennan Avenue on the east, and Uptown Subarea A also includes the commercial and
mixed use lands along either side of"E" Street between Eighth Street on the south to Highland Avenue OD the north; and (2) Uptown Subarea B
is approximately 84 acres in size and is bounded on the north by Third Street and the Burlington Santa Fe rail yanI, on the south by Rialto
Avenue/King Street, on the west by Mount Vernon Avenue and on the east by the Interstate 215 Freeway. A map which depicts the boundaries
of the Project Area ill included in this Notice of Joint Public Hearing relating to the Amendment and the Combined Project EIR.
A metes and bounds legal description of the Project Area boundaries has previously been rewrded on November 10, 1987, as Recorded
Instrument No. 87-400893, Official Records of the Recorder of San Bernardino County. The metes and bounds legal description of the Project
Area is on file with the Agency and a copy may be obtained by any interested person at no cost from the Agency's offices at 201 North "F'
Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, California 9240 I during regular business hours.
Description of Prepoaed Actions: The Project Area continues to display a number of symptoms of blight. The Agency currently has the power
to purchase property in the Project Area in support of redevelopment its efforts only on a negotiated basill. The authority of the Agency to use
eminent domain powers to acquire property necessary for the elimination of blight in the Project Area lapsed in 1998. The proposed action
authorized under the Amendment is the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain powers in the Project Area to acquire property for
community redevelopment purposes upon the payment by the Agency to the owner of just compensation for such property. If adopted, the
Amendment will reinstate the Agency's power to acquire property by exercise of eminent domain in the Project Area for an additional 12 years
(through July 2016). Reinstatement of the power of eminent domain for the Agency to acquire property will not change the Project Area
boundaries or alter the types of redevelopment activities or public improvements which the Agency may undertake or finance. The Combined.
Project EIR contains an analysis of the potential adverse effect on the envirorunent if the Amendment ill approved. The Combined Project EIR
also identifies specific mitigation measures, which if implemented will reduce certain potentially adverse effects to a level which is less than
significant. However, the Combined Project EIR does indicate that certain potentially adverse effects cannot be fully mitigated or avoided, and
these include short te[IIlconstruction air quality impacts, long teon mobile source airquaJity impacts. and long temllraffic impacts on 1-10 and
1-215, since these freeways are under Callrans jwisdiction and there is no regulatory mechanism for property owners and developers to make fair
share contributions to the cost of improving such mainline freeway segments.
At the time when this Notice of Joint Public Hearing is issued, the Agency has no plans and bas lakeD no other action to acquire any property in
Uptown Subarea A of the Project Area by eminent domain. However, the Agency ill studying a proposal to redevelop certain lands in Uptown
Subarea B of the Project Area near the Santa Fe Passenger Terminal facility. This rWev"elopment study proposal is identified in the Combined
Project EIR and is referred to as the "Mercado Santa Fe" development CQmponent. If the Amendment is approved and if the Mercado Santa Fe
component is also approved in the future by the Agency, then the Agency could acquire property in Uptown Subarea B by negotiated purchase or
by exercise of the power of eminent domain. The Agency staff reconunends that the reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Agency
to acquire property in the Project Area, in support of a specific redevelopment activity in the future, if necessary, will enable the Agency to
prevent and eliminate the spread of blight in the Project Area. Furthennore the reinstatement of such eminent domain authority will allow the
Agency in appropriate situations to assist both existing owners of land or businesses in Uptown Subarea A of the Project Area as well as other
private entities with the assembly of land for redevelopment and the elimination ofblight.
The Project Area, and in particular lands which are commercially and residentially zoned, may contain sites that are listed in the State of
California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(e).
PubUc Review or the Amendment., the Combined Prnjeet EIR and Related Doalments: The Agency's Report to the Mayor and Common
Council ("Report") on the proposed Amendment will also be presented at the joint public hearing. The Report, the text of the Amendment, and
text of the Combined Project EIR together with the written response 10 comments previously received on the Combined Project EIR are
available for public review and copying at the Agency's offices at 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA 92401.
At the joint public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council and the Commission will consider all evidence and testimony submitted by
interested persons ror and against the proposed Amendment and the Combined Project EfR. All persons having any objection to the proposed
Amendment and the Combined Project EIR may appear before the Mayor and Conunon Council and Commission and sbow cause why the
proposed Amendment should note be adopted and the Combined Project EIR should not be certified as final.
At any time, not later than the hour set for the joint public hearing, any person may file a written statement with the City Clerk of their objection
to the proposed Amendment or the Combined Project EIR. The address of the City Clerk. is City Hall 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino,
California 92418. All written and oral CQmment.'l of interested persons will be considered by the Mayor and Common Council and the
Commission at the time of the joint public hearing on July 19, 2004, as scbeduled above. If a written objection to the Amendment 01 the
Combined Project EIR is submitted to the City Clerk before or at the time of the joint public bearing, the Mayor and Common Council will
prepare written fmdings in response to such a written objection and comment prior to adoption of the proposed Amendment and certification of
the Combined Project EIR.
If an interested person receives a copy of thill Notice of Joint Public Hearing by United States Mail, such delivery by mail indicates that the
interested person either owns property in the Project Area or owns a business andlor resides in the Project Area. [f the Amendment is adopted,
the Agency could in the future acquire any property in the Project Area by eminent domain, subject to the Agency's compliance with the
requirements of all applicable law and payment of just compensation to the owner.
If you have any question regarding this Notice of Joint Public Hearing and Certification of the Combined Project EIR, or if you have any other
question regarding the Amendment, the Combined Project EIR or any of the related documents, please contact Mike Trout, Project Manager, at
(909) 663-1044 dwing regular business hours of the Agency, or contact him by ema.il at mtmut[a)shrda.o[lP.
Notice of Joint Public Hearing given June 1 S. 2004.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
IS! RacheIClaric
City Clerk
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
ISf GaN VIID Osdel
AgencySel;:retaIy
Publish In: The Sun
June 24, 2004
July 1,2004
July 8,2004
[Map ofProje<:t Area Boundary Attached: Uptown Redevelopment Project]
="""'*-
,
....
SUBAREA "A"
UPlPWN
LO, I -I Otl6 V;) 'OlI!P.reWOII lmS
IOE O,!US '100JjS ,,3,, ljl.ION IOl
huojjy ,uowdopAOa ,!WOU<Y.l1!
Exhibit "B"
County Assessor List
0145124270000 0150281150000 0150281130000
1588 E STR TRUST (12-26-02) 276 E HIGHLAND AVENUE INC 276 E HIGHLAND AVENUE INC
9920 19TH ST #1 276 E HIGHLAND 276 E HIGHLAND
AL T A LOMA, CA 91737 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
015028112??oo 0150281110000 0150281010000
276 E HIGHLAND AVENUE INC 276 E HIGHLAND AVENUE INC 276 E HIGHLAND AVENUE INC
276 E HIGHLAND 276 E HIGHLAND 276 E HIGHLAND
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014519117??oo 0140041400000 0145033360000
848 W VIRGINIA STREET TRUST 6-1-01 ABDULLAH, NORMAN S ABO ENTERPRISES CO. INC
PO BOX 30225 1129 N"P ST 13424 DOUGLAS ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92413 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
014503312??oo 0145033040000 0145033030000
ABO ENTERPRISES CO. INC ABO ENTERPRISES CO, INC ABO ENTERPRISES CO. INC
13424 DOUGLAS ST 13424 DOUGLAS ST 13424 DOUGLAS ST
YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
014503337??oo 0138312550000 0140151210000
ABO ENTERPRISES CO. INC ABUNDIS, MANUEL G ACOSTA, MANUEL R
13424 DOUGLAS ST 2990 DONNER WY POBOX7
YUCAIPA, CA 92399 RIVERSIDE, CA 92509 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402
0140151220000 0140151310000 0140151140000
ACOSTA, MANUEL R ACOSTA, MANUEL R ACOSTA, MANUEL R
POBOX7 POBOX7 PO BOX 7
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402
0140151250000 0140151240000 0140151320000
ACOSTA, MANUEL R ACOSTA, MANUEL R ACOSTA, MANUEL R
POBOX7 POBOX7 POBOX7
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402
014015123??oo 0140011140000 0140011120000
ACOSTA, MANUEL R ACQUIPORTIAMSDELL I LIMITED ACQUIPORTlAMSDELL I LIMITED
POBOX7 PARTNERS PARTNERS
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 PT A-AMS #466 PO BOX 19156 PTA-AMS #466 PO BOX 19156
ALEXANDRIA VA 223200156 ALEXANDRIA VA 223200156
014001113??oo 0140011240000 0140011110000
ACQUIPORTIAMSDELL I LIMITED ACQUIPORTIAMSDELL I LIMITED ACQUIPORTIAMSDELL I LIMITED
PARTNERS PARTNERS PARTNERS
PTA-AMS #466 PO BOX 19156 PTA-AMS #466 PO BOX 19156 PTA-AMS #466 PO BOX 19156
ALEXANDRIA VA 223200156 ALEXANDRIA VA 223200156 ALEXANDRIA VA 223200156
0140011150000 0146011300000 0145191050000
ACQUIPORT/AMSDELL I LIMITED ADAME, JAMES F ADAMS, BEVERLY J
PARTNERS 2155 N ARROWHEAD AVE 832 W VIRGINIA ST
PT A-AMS #466 PO BOX 19156 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
ALEXANDRIA VA 223200156
013827214??oo 0145021150000 0138273310000
AGHADI, CHUMA AGUILUZ, JOSE E AHUMADA,FERNANDO
242NJST 563 E MONTROSE ST 239 N 'J' ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 RIAL TO, CA 92376 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151060000 0140203160000 0140203160000
ALANA SOCIAL CLUB OF SAN ALBERT, MICHAEL 0 ALBERT, MICHAEL 0
BERNARDINO 12881 COLONNADE DRIVE 12881 COLONNADE DRIVE
449 10TH RANCHO CUCAMONGA, GA 91739 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140212150000 0138271140000 013831120??oo
ALBERTS, REGINALD E ALEJANDRE, GEORGE TRUST 7-11-03 ALFEREZ,ESPERANZA
25826 ALTO DR 200 KENDALL AVE 104 N J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013831121??oo 0146032110000 0146032240000
ALFEREZ, PETRA ALKANA, DIOSDADA L TR ALKANA, DIOSDADA L TR
1024 W RIALTO AVE 287 E HIGHLAND AVENUE 287 E HIGHLAND AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0134331260000 0134331130000 0138293200000
ALLEN, MICHAEL P ALLEN, MICHAEL P ALVARADO, JOAN M
PO BOX 5411 PO BOX 5411 10701 CEDAR AVE SP #48
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92412 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92412 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
0138293200000 0140151130000 0140212160000
ALVARADO, JOAN M ALVARADO, JOAN M ALVAREZ AND ASSOCIATES
10701 CEDAR AVE SP #48 950N DST 201 NEST #202
BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0146243180000 0140151100000 0140151090000
AMEMAR LLC AMERIGO, AUGUSTINE J AMERIGO, AUGUSTINE J
11980 S MOUNT VERNON 980 N "0" ST 980 N "0" ST
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051380000 0140051370000 0134331250000
AMMONS, LARRY W AMMONS, LARRY W ANDERSON, JOE V
1189NEST 1189NEST 400 N FARMER ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 PRINCETON, WI 54968
0149222190000 0149222180000 014007321??oo
ANDERSON, STEPHEN F ANDERSON, STEPHEN F ANDONIAN BROTHERS
3344 BROADMooR BLVD 3344 BROADMooR BLVD 5800 S EASTERN AVE 5TH FLR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 CITY OF COMMERCE, CA 90040
0140073060000 0140073060000 0145061340000
ANDRADE, MIGUEL ANDRADE, MIGUEL ANDRAWIS, ADEL
145 BASELINE ST 145 BASELINE ST 690 W 4TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145242040000 0138312540000 0138312540000
ANDREWS, ELIZABETH TR ANGUIANO, LAURA E ANGUIANO,LAURA E
2426 BELLE ST 115 N J ST 115NJST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140211450000 0145192600000 0145192570000
AQUARlAN ENTERPRISES INC ARATEX SERVICES INC ARATEX SERVICES INC
2026 N RIVERSIDE AVE., STE C 119 115 N FIRST ST 115 N FIRST ST
RIAL TO CA 92376 BURBANK, CA 91501 BURBANK, CA 91502
0145192120000 0138302130000 0145141120000
ARATEX SERVICES INC ARCINIEGA, DOLORES R ARCINIEGA, LETICIA J
115 N FIRST ST 987 W EVANS ST 890 VERONA AVE
BURBANK, CA 91502 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 SAN JACINTO, CA 92583
0145141130000 0145141110000 0138312260000
ARCINIEGA, LETICIA J ARCINIEGA, LETICIA J ARIAS, MANUEL F
890 VERONA AVE 890 VERONA AVE 170 NORTH I
SAN JACINTO, CA 92583 SAN JACINTO, CA 92583 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146222190000 0145123250000 0145123240000
ARIAS, MIGUEL ARMENDARIZ, RICARDO ARREOlA, HECTOR A
1692 W 26TH ST 17323 SANTA BARBARA ST 507 W 17TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405
0145033170000 0145033160000 014020310??oo
ARROWHEAD CENTRAL CREDIT UNION ARROWHEAD CENTRAL CREDIT UNION ARROWHEAD SERVICE CORP
POBOX 2727
POBOX735 POBOX 735 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92406
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402
0140203050000 0140202170000 0140202160000
ARROWHEAD SERVICE CORP ARROWHEAD SERVICE CORP ARROWHEAD SERVICE CORP
POBOX 2727 POBOX 2727 POBOX 2727
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92406 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92406 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92406
0145241080000 013831262??oo 0145222070000
ASHMENT, DARRELLR TR ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO
286 E ALEXANDER AVE POBOX 512485
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 POBOX 1738 LOS ANGELES CA 90051
TOPEKA, KS 66601
014522231??oo 0145033480000 01450334??oo0
ATlANTIC RICHFIELD CO ATOLAGBE, JAMES E ATOLAGBE, JAMES E
POBOX 512485 371 W HIGHLAND AVE 371 W HIGHLAND AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90051 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145242230000 0150241370000 0145031120000
AUZENNE, CHARLES B AVILA, PETRA A AYOUB, MAHMOUD
5914 HUDSON 2247 LUGO AVE 924 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014502234??oo
BACHOIAN FAMILY TRUST
13519 EMELITA ST
VAN NUYS, CA 91401
014603131??oo
BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA
750 B ST STE 1500
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
013426327??oo
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0134263210000
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0140081250000
BARAJAS, ELlBORIO
1215 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145174190000
BARAJAS, JAVIER
1490 N 'E' ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145022330000
BARNBLATT, LLOYD & ANITA UTA 3/25/
11 OAKMONT DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
0138293130000
BARRAGAN, RAMIRO S
1186 KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
014009107??oo
BATEY, BILLY JTR
255 E BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014005214??oo
BEAUCHAMP, JAMES & MARTHA FAMILY
TRU
17291 IRVINE BLVD #251
TUSTIN, CA 92760
014501111??oo
BAKER, NEAL T ENTERPRISES INC
1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0134263220000
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0134263260000
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0134263200000
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0140081020000
BARAJAS, ELlBORIO
1215 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146231020000
BARAJAS, JAVIER M
1215 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014008201??oo
BARNER, FERELL R
26326 TUDOR CT
REDLANDS, CA 92374
0145211040000
BARTO, LINDSAY M
401 EDGEMONT DR
REDLANDS, CA 92373
0140091060000
BATEY, BILLY J TR
255 E BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052150000
BEAUCHAMP, JAMES & MARTHA FAMILY
TRU
17291 IRVINE BLVD #251
TUSTIN, CA 92780
0138272110000
BALLWEBER, STEPHEN
1055 W FOOTHILL BLVD
ARCADIA, CA 91006
0134263190000
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0134263230000
BANK OF SAN BERNARDINO
140 SOUTH ARROWHEAD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
0140081010000
BARAJAS, ELlBORIO
1215 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145174200000
BARAJAS, JAVIER
1490 WE' ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146231320000
BARAJAS, JAVIER M
1215 SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140041390000
BARNETT, WILLIAM R
2160 NOLAN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0146243340000
BASELINE K1S ENTERPRISES INC
296 BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051010000
BEAUCHAMP, JAMES & MARTHA FAMILY
TRU
17291 IRVINE BLVD #251
TUSTIN, CA 92780
0145033380000
BECKHAM, JAMES B
1308 MEDALLION ST
REDLANDS, CA 92374
0138301070000 0146231030000 0146032230000
BELlCHEFSKY CHILDREN FAMILY TRUST BELLINO, V M BFS RETAIL & COMMERCIAL OPER
3863 SIERRA WY 333 E LAKE ST
914 N BEECHWOOD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 BLOOMINGDALE, IL 60106
RIAL TO, CA 92376
0140152140000 0146013060000 0146013120000
BHASIN, Y PAL BHASIN, Y PAL BHASIN, Y PAL
1255 NEWMAN ST 1255 NEWMAN ST 1255 NEWMAN ST
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
0140152130000 0140152120000 0136272420000
BHASIN, Y PAL BHASIN, Y PAL BIAS, GARY A
1255 NEWMAN ST 1255 NEWMAN ST 6067 BRANDING IRON LN
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
0145031250000 0145031260000 0140151070000
BLACK FAMILY 1993 REV TRUST BLACK FAMILY 1993 REV TRUST BLODGETT, STACEY
35001 GRAPE ST 35001 GRAPE ST 35101 RAVENCRESTCT
YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
0145244240000 0149221140000 0145123220000
BLOOM, SAM M BOBBITT, GARY M TR BOFA DEZZ INC
POBOX 35370 1590 E BONITA VISTA DR 3464 AUTUMN AVE
LOUISVILLE KY 402325370 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
0149193220000 0136271050000 0136271040000
BOISSERANC, EMILE JR TR BONAR, CASHIN S BONAR, CASHIN S
526 TAHOE 260 KENDALL AVE 260 N KENDALL
PLACENllA, CA 92670 SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145231030000 0150231270000 0150231260000
BOND, LAQUAMIE J BONSHIRE, MARY P TR BONSHIRE, MARY P TR
625 BRINSEY AVE POBOX 1015 POBOX 1015
DUARTE, CA 91010 CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007 CARD91FF BY THE SEA CA 92007
0150231260000 0140203070000 0136271160000
BONSHIRE, MARY P TR BORGES, CRYSTAL BOWLUS, KIRK D
POBOX 1015 551 W UNION ST 4669 ARLINGTON AVE
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
0136271190000 0140042220000 0146013250000
BOWLUS, KIRK 0 BOYD, ROBERT BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC
4669 ARLINGTON AVE POBOX 12421 POBOX 5015
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 SAN DIEGO CA 921123421 BUENA PARK CA 90623
0145031220000 0145242210000 0140042160000
BRADLEY, DONALD D BRAMAN, L M BRAMBILA, JAVIER
23965 ENCANTO CT 25536 FISHER ST 311 EECHOCT
RECHE CANYON, CA 92324 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140051030000
BRASWEll, EFFIE B TR
140 W PIONEER SP #1
REDlANDS, CA 92374
0150261550000
BREAKTHRU ENTERPRISES LLC.
30622 PASEO DEL NIGUEL
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
0145243050000
BRIMMER, LORNE E
771 W 21ST ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145031020000
BRODERICK, JAMES P
416W21STST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140201370000
BROOKENS FAMILY LIVING TR 1/26/99
1505 W 94TH PL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90047
0140051320000
BROWN, SAMEUL L
1705 DUMBARTON
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145061170000
BUELER, JOHN JR
1947 NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138302160000
BUSTAMANTE, EUGENE J L AND HELEN M
1120W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151330000
BWE PROPERTIES INC
1445 DONLON ST STE 20
VENTURA, CA 93003
0140151030000
BWE PROPERTIES INC
1445 DONLON ST STE 20
VENTURA, CA 93003
0145243040000
BYE, MARY A
2963 TAHOE ST
EL CAJON, CA 92020
0145192300000
CALDERA, CARMEN
607 W VIRGINIA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150201210000
CALTON, DON T
256 W HIGHLAND
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150201300000
CALTON, DON T
256 W HIGHLAND
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140211130000
CANNAN, DONALD G TR
356 W 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033150000
CANNAN, DONALD G TR
356 W 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150241360000
CANTRELL, LEWIS H
28710 HILLTOP DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145151180000
CANTWELL TRUST 3-16-2000
205 E SUNSET DRIVE N
REDLANDS, CA 92373
0138293160000
CARDONA, OLIVIA
1202 KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140211250000
CARGILL, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0150261550000
BREAKTHRU ENTERPRISES LLC
30622 PASEO DEL NIGUEL
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
0146031160000
BRONSTRUP R.H. & C.L. TR 5120/95
2842 N FREMONITA DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145202300000
BUCKNER, JOHN H AND CHRISTINE R ET
A
36956 SYCAMORE DR
MENTONE, CA 92359
0149221160000
BUSY BEE DISTRIBUTORS INC
461 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140151340000
BWE PROPERTIES INC
1445 DONLON ST STE 20
VENTURA, CA 93003
0145244130000
CALDERON,FRANCES
POBOX1691
MONROVIA CA 91017
0150221740000
CAMPOS, ERASTO G
1400 THURLENE RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
0145033140000
CANNAN, DONALD G TR
356 W 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145151180000
CANTWELL TRUST 3-16-2000
205 E SUNSET DRIVE N
REDLANDS, CA 92373
0140211260000
CARGILL, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211230000
CARGill, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211240000
CARGill, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211220000
CARGill, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211190000
CARGill, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211440000
CARGill, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211270000
CARGill, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140211180000
CARGILL, BOYD
275 W RIDER ST
PERRIS, CA 92571
0140201070000
CARMONA, J JAVIER
657 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201080000
CARMONA, J JAVIER
657 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331220000
CARTER, WilLIAM DANIEL TRUST
2013 OTTAWA DR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
0134331210000
CARTER, WilliAM DANIEL TRUST
2013 OTTAWA DR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
0138301040000
CASTIllO, GILBERT
9852 CORNWALl
WESTMINSTER, CA 92683
0138301050000
CASTillO, GILBERT
9852 CORNWALL
WESTMINSTER, CA 92683
0138301030000
CASTillO, GILBERT
9652 CORNWALl
WESTMINSTER, CA 92683
0138291140000
CASTillO, JOSE F
969 SPERRY DR
COLTON, CA 92324
0140152210000
CASTRO, JUVEN
PARTNERSHIP
PO BOX 10905
SANTA ANA CA 92711
0138272270000
CATREN, CHARLES R
17844 COOPER QUEEN IN
PERRIS, CA 92570
0145244190000
CENLAND ASSOCIATES l TO
1565 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10036
0149221210000
CHAMBERS, STEDMAN
482 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014524=0000
CHANDLER, DAVID M
5799 SAN SEVAINE RD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
0145061310000
CHANEY, DORIS M TR
5075 N GENEVIEVE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0149191230000
CHAO, LANCEl TR
1503 WIGDAL AVE
CORCORAN, CA 93212
0149191230000
CHAO, LANCE l TR
1503 WIGDAL AVE
CORCORAN, CA 93212
0145141210000
CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORP
3415 VISION DR
COLUMBUS, OH 43219
0148023320000
CHAU, HOWARD
3741 N TAMARIND AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0146023330000
CHAU, HOWARD
3741 N TAMARIND AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0145234030000
CHHU,SEAN
546 W BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145054220000
CHIANG, KUO MEI-L1
12107 RANCHITO ST
El MONTE, CA 91732
0140091380000
CHilDREN GROWTH FAMilY LIMITED
PTNSP
8533 SUNSET BLVD STE 201
LOS ANGELES, CA 90069
0140091320000
CHilDREN GROWTH FAMilY LIMITED
PTNSP
8533 SUNSET BLVD STE 201
LOS ANGELES, CA 90069
0146222010000 0138293010000 0145182120000
CHO, CHI HWAN CHO, SUNG HO CHOI, HAN-PYO
198 W BASELINE 1225 W SECOND ST 126 ARDEN
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 IRVINE. CA 92620
0145182120000 0145112200000 0145243020000
CHOI, HAN-PYO CHOISNET, THOMAS F CHOVlCK, JAMES
126 ARDEN POBOX2176 3001 MUSCUPIABE DR
IRVINE, CA 92620 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92406 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145243010000 0140212210000 0140212010000
CHOVICK, MARILYN CHRIS, ENTERPRISES INC CHRIS, ENTERPRISES INC
3001 MUSCUPIABE DR 889 NORTH 0 ST 889 NORTH 0 ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140212020000 0145141100000 0146223030000
CHRIS, ENTERPRISES INC CHRISTIAN, DAVID 0 CISNEROS, ISIDRO
889 NORTH 0 ST 890 VERONA AVE 1237 GENEVIEVE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN JACINTO, CA 92583 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145191160000 0138291180000 0140051420000
CITIMORTGAGE INC CITIMORTGAGE INC CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
5280 CORPORATE DR 15851 CLAYTON RD MS 314 300 N "0" ST 5TH FLR
FREDERICK, MD 21703 BALDWIN, MO 35051 SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92401
0140152150000 0145241060000 0146242010000
CK MEDICAL PARCTlCE TRUST CLARK FAMILY REV TR 9121/83 (FBO AMY CLARK,RALPH
909 N '0' ST#14 232 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 3100 ISLAND VIEW DR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
VENTURA, CA 93003
0145191030000 0150201240000 0140151160000
COCROFT, ANTON COLEMAN, WILLIAM R & MONIQUE TRS COLLINS TRUST 5-26-99
816 W VIRGINIA 932NDST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 3151 VALENCIA SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140151150000 0140051410000 0146021060000
COLLINS, TRUST 5-27-1999 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONE, DONALD R
1190W SUNSET DR 686 E MILL ST 2133 SIERRA WY
REDLANDS, CA 92373 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146021070000 0146021060000 0146223210000
CONE, DONALD R CONE, DONALD R COOPER, WILLIAM H
2133 SIERRA WY 2133 SIERRA WY POBOX 2534
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92406
0145244250000 0145244250000 0140061280000
CORDOBA, OSCAR CORDOBA,OSCAR CORONA AUTOMOTIVE
1231 N '0' ST 1231 N '0' ST 1420 E POMONA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SANTA ANA. CA 92705
014006101??oo 014008301??oo 0146233010000
CORONA AUTOMOTIVE LTD CORTES, HUMBERTO CORTES, HUMBERTO
1420 E POMONA ST 207 E BASELINE 207 E BASELINE
SANTA ANA CA 92705 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014519102??oo 0140051260000 0140211330000
CORTEZ, IGNACIO JR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO COX, HATTIE C FAMILY TRUST
808 W VIRGINIA ST 825 E 3RD ST 366 24TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
0140211320000 0140201250000 0140201380000
COx, HATTIE C FAMILY TRUST COYLE, FRED A COYLE, FRED A
366 24TH ST 5838 OSBUN RD 5838 OSBUN RD
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140013080000 0138312220000 0138272350000
CRAM, DORTHEA TR CRAMP, PROPERTIES L.P. CRAMP, PROPERTIES L.P.
5975 MCKINLEY DR 1370 N "0" ST APT 109 1370 N "0" ST APT 109
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138312300000 0138312200000 0146023160000
CRAMP, PROPERTIES L.P. CRAMP, PROPERTIES L.P. CRAPO, PAUL J TR
1370 N "0" ST APT 109 1370 N "0" ST APT 109 200 GLENWOOD CIR APT 837
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 MONTEREY, CA 93940
0149222260000 0149222090000 0149222110000
CRAWFORD INVESTMENT CO, PROF CRAWFORD INVESTMENT CO, PROF CRAWFORD INVESTMENT CO, PROF
SHAR PL SHAR PL SHAR PL
1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE 1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE 1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149222120000 0149222130000 0140151350000
CRAWFORD INVESTMENT CO, PROF CRAWFORD INVESTMENT CO, PROF CRAWFORD, CHRISTOPHER A
SHAR PL SHAR PL 1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE
1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE 1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92406
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140013240000 0140013110000 0140013120000
CRUZ, ANTONIO CRUZ, ANTONIO CRUZ, ANTONIO
727 W BASELINE AVE 727 W BASELINE AVE 727 W BASELINE AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
0140013250000 0138291160000 0145091110000
CRUZ, ANTONIO CRUZ, DINORA I CRUZ, JESUS
727 W BASELINE AVE 151 NMTVERNONAVE 1767 N "E" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013829112??oo 0145242280000 0145242180000
CRUZ, JOSE G CURLIN, FREDERICK TR CURLIN, FREDERICK TR
2094 N WATERMAN AVE POBOX 6666 P.O BOX 6666
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92412 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92412
014004223??oo
CURREY, PHILIP J
1091 ACACIA AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0149221180000
DANIELS, EDWIN 0
n2 E 19TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145061300000
DAVIS FAMILY TRUST 12-24-01
813 N 0 ST STE 2
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140143190000
DAVIS, DENNIS
813 N 0 ST#2
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014004214??oo
DE DOES, PETE TR
817 E 26TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145091130000
DE LEON, BENIGNO
487 W 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138311420000
DEVIS, JOSE L
1045 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013831245??oo
DiAl, JOE
16391 COLEGIO DR
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745
0140041010000
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
CHARITIES
13550 E RAMONA BLVD
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
0140041440000
DISABLED AMERICAN VETS CHARITIESILA
13550 E RAMONA BLVD
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
0140041420000
DANH, THANH CHEP
1153 "F" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146011090000
DAVID, ANITA
2163 N ARROWHEAD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140143190000
DAVIS, DENNIS
813 N 0 ST#2
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140042170000
DE DOES, PETE TR
817 E 26TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145061280000
DE LA TORRE, JOE L
1083 N LA CADENA DR
COLTON, CA 92324
0145242290000
DEAN, THERESA
402 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138312120000
DiAl, ALEJANDRO
182 RANDALL
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143470000
DIMAS, SANTIAGO
990NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140041510000
DISABLED AMERICAN VETS CHARITIES/LA
13550 E RAMONA BLVD
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
0140041460000
DISABLED AMERICAN VETS CHARITIESILA
13550 E RAMONA BLVD
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
013827113??oo
DANIEl, JAMES H
333 POPPY RD
REDLANDS, CA 92373
0145061290000
DAVIS FAMILY TRUST 12-24-01
813 N 0 ST STE 2
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140143180000
DAVIS, DENNIS
813NDST#2
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140042280000
DE DOES, PETE TR
817 E 26TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145054030000
DE LATORRE, TOBIAS
2008 NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138273190000
DELATORRE, JOSE C
2 PEPPERMILL LN
POMONA, CA 917664717
0138312590000
DiAl, FEDERICO
18345 RORIMER ST
LA PUENTE, CA 91744
0140041020000
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
CHARITIES
13550 E RAMONA BLVD
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
0140041070000
DISABLED AMERICAN VETS CHARITIES/LA
13550 E RAMONA BLVD
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
0145033340000
DODSON, THOMAS
2150 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145242050000
DOEGON INVESTMENT CORP
POBOX 1874
HAWTHORNE CA 90251
0140213030000
DOK, SAREN
2511 W SUNFLOWER T 14
SANTA ANA, CA 92704
0145123230000
DOLAN, CHRISTOPHER J
2551 G ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92102
0140031330000
DOOTSON, BASELINE PROPERTY LLC
11625 CLARK ST
ARCADIA, CA 91006
014003134??oo
OOOTSON, BASELINE PROPERTY LLC
11625 CLARK ST
ARCADIA, CA 91006
014003148??oo
DOOTSON, BASELINE PROPERTY LLC
11625 CLARK ST
ARCADIA, CA 91006
0140031350000
DOOTSON, BASELINE PROPERTY LLC
11625 CLARK ST
ARCADIA, CA 91006
013830227??oo
DOUGLAS OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA
POBOX2197
HOUSTON, TX 772522197
0145233020000
DRAKE, RICHARD T
590 W BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014523301??oo
DRAKE, RICHARD T
590 W BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0150261360000
DRUMM, FRANCIS E JR TR
3763 ASPEN DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261490000
DRUMM, FRANCIS E JR TR
3763 ASPEN DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261300000
DRUMM, FRANCIS E JR TR
3763 ASPEN DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145131110000
DUARTE, MIGUEL
478W 16TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145151210000
DUNN, JAMES 0
1598N H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138312110000
DURAN, ~QUIEL
159NJST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272160000
DURAN, JIMMY L
16742 RAMONA AVE
FONTANA, CA 92336
0138272160000
DURAN, JIMMY L
16742 RAMONA AVE
FONTANA, CA 92336
0145243060000
EARHART, DAVID A
1277 NORTH 0 ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140211340000
EHMED, IQBAL
5905 OLD WHEELER
LAVERNE, CA 91750
0145033350000
EIBAND, JAMES H
22501 INSPIRATION PT
CANYON LAKE, CA 92587
0146022150000
EKE, KENNETH C
28948 GLENROCK PL
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0146022140000
EKE, KENNETH C
28948 GLENROCK Pl
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0140211420000
EL KHANSA, JAMIL
27941 NARCISO
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692
0145031010000
EL-AWAR, CHEHAB
329 E 51ST ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145011100000
ELlZARRARAZ, SILVIA
1248 W 10TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
0146242220000
ELLIS, DAVID N TR
3244 N PARKSIDE DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138272250000
ELTON, ANTON P
355 E 2ND ST
RIAL TO, CA 92376
0140031470000
ENRIQUEZ, ALEJANDRO
1501 N ROSS APT 103
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
0140213050000
ESPINOZA. GILBERT R
886 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140031300000
EVANS FAMILY LIVING TRUST 9-11-1991
1629 LILAC AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92376
0145203530000
FABEAN, SHAWN E
1371 WELSHWY
RAMONA, CA 92065
014524127??oo
FACE, THOMAS 0 TR
35747 PANORAMA DR
YUCAIPA, CA 92399
014021114??oo
FAIRCHILD, WILLIAM H
POBOX 1510
LAKE ARROWHEAD CA 92352
0146222180000
FAROOJI, FARAMARZ S
2423 N SYCAMORE AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0140151040000
FEDERICO, AL
453 W TENTH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145033460000
FIETSCH, HOLLY A
3667 BROADMOOR BLVO
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014514127??oo
FISCHER, ERNEST J
1554 STODDARD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0136302280000
FLORES, FLORENCE C
5210 WILSON DR
RIVERSIDE, CA 92509
0140031310000
EVANS, JOHN
1139GST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
014520356??oo
FABEAN, SHAWN E
1371 WELSHWY
RAMONA, CA 92065
0145241260000
FACE, THOMAS 0 TR
35747 PANORAMA DR
YUCAIPA, CA 92399
0145131250000
FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY/SAN
BERNARDINO
1669 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014001326??oo
FAWI>Z.,ALI
16091 NELSON ST
WESTMINISTER, CA 92683
014503210??oo
FERNANDEZ, MYRNA L
496 W 20TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140041470000
FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF REDLANDS
1445 FORD ST
REDLANDS, CA 92373
0145141290000
FISCHER, ERNEST J
1554 STODDARD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138311160000
FLORES, GERERDO G
124 N.J. ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150241680000
F & C CORPORATION
111 N GOLDEN WEST AVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
0145241280000
FACE, THOMAS D TR
35747 PANORAMA DR
YUCAIPA, CA 92399
0145241250000
FACE, THOMAS 0 TR
35747 PANORAMA DR
YUCAIPA, CA 92399
0146021100000
FAMtL Y TRUST OF L R (6-3-03)
POBOX 2908
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92406
0134331160000
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP
5024 PARIWIAY PlAZA BLVD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
0145033450000
FIETSCH, HOLLY A
3667BROADMOORBLVD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145131150000
FISCHER, ERNEST J
487 W 17TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013831251??oo
FISHER, ANNETTE TR
13078 MINDANAO WY
MARINA DEL REV, CA 90292
0145055050000
FLORES, VICTOR SR
11712WALCROFT
LAKEWOOD, CA 90715
0145182100000 0145123010000 0145123020000
FLORY,WAYNESTR FOGLIO, FRANK A FOGLIO, FRANK A
4257 NELSONBARK AVE 1620 N 'E' ST 1620 N 'E' ST
LAKEWOOD, CA 90712 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145192290000 0145241130000 014008104??oo
FOSTER, BOBBIE J TR FOURCHE INVESTMENTS FRENCH, ROBERT L
815VIRGINIAST 1277N E ST 1308 W ROBINHOOD STE 14
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 STOCKTON, CA 95207
014520350??oo 0140202110000 0140051170000
FRIDAY, DENNIS GABRIEL BROS GABRIEL BROS
POBOX 167 3558 PARKSIDE DR 3558 PARKSIDE DR
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140202130000 0140202120000 0145061180000
GABRIEL BROS GABRIEL FACTORS GABRIEL, I J TR
3558 PARKSIDE DR 3558 PARKSIDE DR POBOX 9653
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
0145061190000 0145221100000 0140082080000
GABRIEL, I J TR GALE, WILLIAM F TRUST 2000 - EST OF. GALINDO, EDMUNDO JR
POBOX 9653 14204 PARKVIEW DR
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 19886 TOMAHAWK RD FONTANA, CA 92335
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
0145033260000 0145244210000 0145244230000
GALINDO, FRANCISCO GALSTIAN FAMILY TRUST 6-29-75 GALSTIAN FAMILY TRUST 6-29-75
734 23RD ST 100 W BROADWAY STE 950 1ooWBROADWAY STE 950
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 GLENDALE, CA 91210 GLENDALE, CA 91210
0145244220000 0145244280000 0149222170000
GALSTIAN FAMILY TRUST 6-29-75 GALSTIAN, GAGIK TR GALVEZ, JULIO
100 W BROADWAY STE 950 100 W BROADWAY AVE STE 950 1161 BRENTWOODAVE
GLENDALE, CA 91210 GLENDALE, CA 91210 RIAL TO, CA 92376
013829111??oo 0138312080000 0138293190000
GARCIA GERARDO GARCIA, CUAUHTEMOC GARCIA, ENRIQUE L
1254 W KING ST 11511 BRADDOCK DRIVE 2230 3RD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 CULVER CITY, CA 90230 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0150221750000 0150231320000 0138312090000
GARCIA, LEON GAZZOLO FAMILY TRUST 6-26-03 GERGEN, TIMOTHY 0
1911 COMMERCENTER EAST 11214 2558 YORKSHIRE DR 4934 DAVID WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92408 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014623121??oo 0145033090000 0140203170000
GHATTAS, ELlE GMAC MORTGAGE CORP GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
1220 N LUGO AVE 500 ENTERPRISE RD 500 ENTERPRISSE RD STE 150
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 HORSHAM, PA 19044 HORSHAM, PA 19044
014003142??oo 0145091240000 0145032130000
GODDARD, JOHN 0 GOLDEN SECURITY BANK GOMEZ FAMILY TRUST (5-25-99)
1468 PIEDMONT LN 30 W VALLEY BLVD 9338 DATE ST
REOLANDS, CA 92373 ALHAMBRA, CA 918015048 FONTANA, CA 92335
0148011290000 014801126??oo 0148011150000
GOMEZ, ANTONIO GOMEZ, ANTONIO GOMEZ, ANTONIO
1005 N ACACIA AVE 1005 N ACACIA AVE 1005 ACACIA AVE
RIALTO, CA 92376 RIAL TO, CA 92376 RIAL TO, CA 92376
014020221??oo 01402022??oo0 0148021290000
GONZALES, GERARDO GONZALEZ, DELFINO A GONZALEZ, IGNACIA
667 N "PST 661 "P ST 2138 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92705
014519104??oo 0140202190000 0138311040000
GONZALEZ, PETER N GONZALEZ, REFUGIO GRANADO, JOSE A
824 W VIRGINIA ST 580 W UNION ST 1069 E 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146222170000 0145211140000 0145211150000
GRASSO, SANDRA GRAVES, ROBERT GRAVES, ROBERT
2874 SEINE AVE 481 W 14TH ST 479 W 14TH ST
HIGHLAND, CA 92346 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140031430000 0138311390000 0150201130000
GREENE, NELLIE GREENWICH FURNITURE INC GROSS, RICHARD J TR
1618 HOME ST POBOX 1802 200 N EUCLID AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 ONTARIO, CA 91762
0150201230000 0145173240000 0138272230000
GROUP I EL MONTE PROPERTIES L m GUERRERO, ELIZABETH GUTIERREZ, JESUS
4900 SANTA ANITA 2-B 1500 N "E" ST PO BOX 280
EL MONTE, CA 91731 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 POMONA CA 91768
013827224??oo 0145032120000 0145242240000
GUTIERREZ, JESUS GUTIERREZ, JORGE GUTIERREZ, MIGUEL A
POBOX280 3808 BROADMOOR BLVD 1254 N "0" ST
POMONA CA 91768 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140203060000 0140211010000 0140211410000
GUZMAN, LOUIS GUZV, CHARLES F GUZV, CHARLES F
1027 6TH ST 685 NORTH E ST 27124 STRATFORD
REDLANDS, CA 92374 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145032250000 0138273240000 0150231430000
GWC 781NC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY SAN HALE, MONTE L
2090 N 0 ST BERNARDINO, PO BOX 3026
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 POBOX 1.550 WRIGHTWOOD CA 92397
REDLANDS CA 92373
0140052130000 0140052080000 015024167??oo
HARBAUGH, TERESA l HARDIE, PATRICIA l HARRIS, DALE
3449 VALENCIA AVE 476 E RANDALL AVE PO BOX 267
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 RIAlTO, CA 92376 SEARCHLIGHT, NV 89046
0145241090000 0145211080000 0140052090000
HARTLE, LUCILLE C HAWK, RONALD l HAWK, RONALD l
3235 NORTH F ST 1359 NORTH E STREET 1359 NORTH EST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
015022134??oo 0150221330000 0138273350000
HEAD FAMilY TRUST DTD 1/3/87 HEAD FAMilY TRUST DTD 1/3187 HEFFTNER, BRUCE W
1629 S THIRD ST 1629 S THIRD ST 4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
ARCADIA, CA 91006 ARCADIA, CA 91006 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138273340000 0138273030000 0138273040000
HEFFTNER, BRUCE W HEFFTNER, BRUCE W HEFFTNER, BRUCE W
4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE 4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE 4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013827301??oo 0138273360000 0138273060000
HEFFTNER, BRUCE W HEFFTNER, BRUCE W HEFFTNER, BRUCE W
4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE 4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE 4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138273020000 0138273050000 0138273070000
HEFFTNER, BRUCE W HEFFTNER, BRUCE W HEFFTNER, BRUCE W
4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE 4801 NMOUNTAINVIEWAVE 4801 N MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146231290000 0145091120000 0138311070000
HEISER, SUSAN E HENRY, BARRY H HERNANDEZ, ELIAS P
148 E BASELINE ST 1700N EST 1041 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
0138312580000 0138312390000 0140031320000
HERNANDEZ, GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ, JAIME J HERNANDEZ, ROSEMARY 0
123 N J ST 11222 HAWTHORNE 1149NGST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 HESPERIA, CA 92345 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145033060000 014007307??oo 014007307??oo
HERRERA. CESAR HILARIO, TEOFllO HILARIO, TEOFllO
372 W 20TH ST 137 E BASELINE 137 E BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138311130000 0138312150000 0150281210000
Hill, JOHN HilLIARD, LAWRENCE C HINZE FAMilY LIVING TRUST
160 N J ST 31387 HALLWOOD CT 2200 W ACACIA APT E422
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 MENIFEE, CA 92584 H.EMET, CA 92545
0150281220000
HINZE FAMILY UVlNG TRUST
2200 W ACACIA WT E422
HEMET, CA 92545
014603213??oo
HINZE, ROBERT A TR
2200 W ACACIA APT E422
HEMET, CA 92545
0134172040000
HOLCOMBE, CHARLES E JR AND AMY
POBOX31
REDLANDS CA 92373
013416207??oo
HOLCOMBE, CHARLES E JR AND AMY
POBOX31
REDLANDS CA 92373
0145011300000
HOSMANEK ENTERPRISES LTO PT
BONO
4255 MAIN ST
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
0140203330000
HOUSING AUTHORITY COUNTY SAN BONO
1053 N "0" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151280000
HUGHES, BEVERLY A
11691 KNOLL VISTA
MORENO VALLEY, CA 92360
0146233050000
HUGHES, BILL W SR FAMILY TRUST (4-4-
822 NORTH RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924042441
0138291090000
HUIZAR, SALVADOR
1238 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014603214??oo
HINZE, ROBERT A TR
2200 W ACACIA APT E422
HEMET, CA 92545
0138312530000
HOAK BROS PLATING
939 W SECOND
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134172030000
HOLCOMBE, CHARLES E JR AND AMY
POBOX31
REDLANDS CA 92373
0138271210000
HOLLY, EDWARD L
POBOX 2157
COVINA CA91722
0145011050000
HOSMANEK ENTERPRISES L TO PT
847 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138293150000
HOVERSTEN, FRANCIS J
27310 369TH AVE
PLA TIS SO 573696316
0140151270000
HUGHES, BEVERLY A
11691 KNOLL VISTA
MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555
0146233150000
HUGHES, BILL W SR FAMILY TRUST (44-
822 NORTH RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924042441
0138291090000
HUIZAR, SALVADOR
1238 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014603212??oo
HINZE, ROBERT A TR
2200 W ACACIA APT E422
HEMET, CA 92545
0134172050000
HOLCOMB, CHARLES E JR AND AMY
POBOX31
REDLANDS CA 92373
0134172020000
HOLCOMBE, CHARLES E JR AND AMY
POBOX31
REDLANDS CA 92373
0145011290000
HOSMANEK ENTERPRISES
847 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0140203320000
HOUSING AUTHORITY COUNTY SAN
1053 N "0" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0149221220000
HOWE, LARRY
486 HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146233020000
HUGHES, BILL W SR FAMILY TRUST (44-
822 NORTH RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924042441
0146233020000
HUGHES, BILL W SR FAMILY TRUST (4-4-
822 NORTH RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924042441
0150261530000
HUMANE SOCIETY OF SN BONO VALLEY
INC
763 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145013280000
HUMANE SOClETYISAN BERNARDINO
VAlLEY
763 W HIGHlAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140211160000
HUMBERT, DONAlD G
POBOX318
LAKE ARROWHEAD CA 92352
0140211150000
HUMBERT, DONAlD G
POBOX318
LAKE ARROWHEAD CA 92352
013827222??oo
HUYNH, CHANH DUC
8791 SAVOY CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
0145141190000
IBARRA, ERNESTO
2280 N SYCAMORE AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0145141200000
IBARRA, ERNESTO
1547 NORTH"E" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013829113??oo
IBARRA, MARTHA A
1270 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO,'CA 92411
0150201390000
IGLESIA DEL DIOS VIVO COLUMNA Y APOY
302 S 4TH ST
REDLANDS, CA 92373
0138311090000
ISAAC, MARIA
188NJST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0148013150000
ISKANDER, NARDINE TR
163 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013631134??oo
J K INVESTMENTS
1096 W RIAlTO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146243310000
JACK AND JILLS COFFEE SHOPS INC
1224 WATERMAN
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145013270000
JAPAGE PARTNERSHIP
7887 KATY FREEWAY STE 220
HOUSTON, TX 77024
0145013160000
JAPAGE PARTNERSHIP
7887 KATY FREEWAY STE 220
HOUSTON, TX 77024
013827107??oo
JAQUEZ, ELIZAR
250 KENDAlL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271120000
JENKINS, RITCHIE L
POBOX 8353
GREEN VALLEY LAKE CA 92341
014922214??oo
JENSEN, PAT TR
1770 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
01450222??oo0
JIFFY LUBE INSURED INCOME PARTN L P
PO BOX 4369
HOUSTON TX 772104369
0140211170000
HUMBERT, DONAlD G
POBOX318
LAKE ARROWHEAD CA 92352
0149221190000
IBARRA, ERNESTO
480 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145141230000
IBARRA, ERNESTO
2280 N SYCAMORE AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0148031260000
INLAND WOMEN'S BUSINESS LLC
249 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138311350000
J K INVESTMENTS
1096WRIAlTOAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146243210000
JACK AND JILLS COFFEE SHOPS, INC
2340 MUSCUPIABE DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145013270000
JAPAGE PARTNERSHIP
7887 KATY FREEWAY STE 220
HOUSTON, TX 77024
0138271110000
JENKINS, RITCHIE L
1137 ECHO DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145022210000
JIFFY LUBE INSURED INCOME PARTN L P
POBOX 2967
HOUSTON TX 77252
0140202080000 0140202100000 0138273180000
JOHNSON REVOCABLE TRUST AGREE 6- JOHNSON, PAUL JOLLY, DONALD L
1~ 880 N E ST#45O POBOX951
880NEST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014524107??oo 014021217??oo 0145241120000
JOSEPH, ELIZABETH JOYWAYCAPITAL TRUST JOYWAYCAPITAL TRUST
1095 N 10TH ST PO BOX 2825 C888 PO BOX 2825 C888
COLTON, CA92324 TORRANCE CA 90509 TORRANCE CA 90509
0150231350000 015023134??oo 0150261380000
KALAM, MOHAMMAD KALAM, MOHAMMAD KANAGA, MARIE A REVOCABLE TRUST
2760 HUDSON AVE 2760 HUDSON AVE 5372 PARK LN
CORONA, CA 92881 CORONA, CA 92881 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261500000 0146223270000 0146223280000
KANAGA, MARIE A REVOCABLE TRUST 7-6- KANG, BYONG Y KANG, BYONG Y
7455 OLD BRIDGE RD 7455 OLD BRIDGE RD
5372 PARK LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346 HIGHLAND, CA 92346
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146223020000 0146223010000 0146021140000
KANG, BYONG Y KANG, BYONG Y KEMPTHORNE, JAMES H
7455 OLD BRIDGE RD 7455 OLD BRIDGE RD 103 E HIGHLAND AVE
HIGHLAND, CA 92346 HIGHLAND, CA 92346 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014602127??oo 0146021130000 0145112190000
KEMPTHORNE, JAMES H KEMPTHORNE, JAMES H KENNEDY, DAVID C TR
103 E HIGHLAND AVE 103 E HIGHLAND AVE 505 E RALSTON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145112210000 0145033470000 0140201400000
KENNEDY, JAMES N KHIV, THEANG KHOURY, ZIAD
1700 NEST STE 201 393 W HIGHLAND AVE 2770 W IRVINGTON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
014020141??oo 0145244120000 0140201390000
KHOURY, ZIAD KIKUDA, CHRISTINE KIM,JAEW
2770 W IRVINGTON AVE 323 W 13TH ST 3708 HEMLOCK DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146231040000 0146231330000 0145061210000
KIM, KWANG KIM, KWANG KIM, SUNG AE
998NHST 998NHST 2653 SHADY RIDGE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
0145061220000 0140211350000 0140203260000
KIM, SUNG AE KIM, UKYONG KIM, YONG T
2653 SHADY RIDGE POBOX 292505 556 W 8TH ST
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 PHELAN CA 923292505 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140061050000 0145241010000 014503201??oo
KIM, YOUNG C KIM, YOUNG KYU KISSI, DORA
24243 DELTA DR 6783 MONTEREY PL 11325DOGWooDCT
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ALTALOMA. CA 91701 FONTANA, CA 92337
0145241020000 0145033390000 0145203190000
KLEITZ FAMILY TRUST (61812000) KLUGE, ooNALD W SR REV LIVING KNEPSHIELD, ROBERT L TR
5323 N H ST TRUST 1022 N PINE AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 5866 MC KINLEY AVE RIAL TO, CA 92376
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
013831257??oo 0138312160000 0149222160000
KNOPP, STUART 0 KNOPP, STUART 0 KNOWLES, MELVIN L
PMB 247 5318 EAST SECOND STREET PMB 247 5318 EAST SECOND STREET 503 W POPLAR
LONG BEACH CA 908035354 LONG BEACH CA 908035354 COMPTON, CA 90220
0138302250000 0138302250000 0138301060000
KNUTSON, WAYNE W TR KNUTSON, WAYNE W TR KOVATS, ROBERT L
2931 INDIAN CANYON CT 2931 INDIAN CANYON CT POBOX 1365
HIGHLAND, CA 92347 HIGHLAND, CA 92347 PLACENTIA, CA 92871
0138301100000 0138291100000 013830101??oo
KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L
POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365 P.O. BOX 1365
PLACENTlA, CA 92871 PLACENTIA, CA 92871 PLACENTlA, CA 92871
0138291190000 0138293080000 0138293070000
KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L
POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365
PLACENTIA, CA 92871 PLACENTIA, CA 92871 PLACENTIA, CA 92871
0138283020000 0138302260000 0138291020000
KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L
POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365
PLACENTIA, CA 92871 PLACENTIA, CA 92871 PLACENTIA, CA 92871
0138291030000 0138291040000 0138291050000
KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L
POBOXI365 POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365
PLACENTlA, CA 92871 PLACENTlA, CA 92870 PLACENTlA, CA 92871
0138293030000 0138293040000 0138293050000
KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L KOVATS, ROBERT L
POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365 POBOX 1365
PLACENTIA, CA 92871 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 PLACENTIA, CA 92870
0145123300000 0145013290000 0140042310000
KRAUW, WILLIAM H KRITIKOS, GEORGE TR LAIR, GERALD M
21941 ERIE LN 3579 ORANGEWOOD 530 10TH
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 RIALTO, CA 92377 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143060000 0140042190000 0145232310000
LAIR, GERALD M LAIR, GERALD M LAM, TONY D
530W 10TH ST 530 W TENTH ST 12122 LOWER AZUSA RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 EL MONTE. CA 91732
0150221320000 0145021140000 0140052070000
LARKIN. MARCIE LATINO DENTAL COUNCIL LE. PETER PHUOC QUANG
5835 ELMWOOD ROAD 811 6TH ST #205 1148NDST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SANTA MONICA. CA 90403 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302170000 0149221170000 0138273320000
LEDESMA, RAMON 0 LEE. GRACE Y LEE. JACK W
1126W KING ST 6608 GLORIA ST 3850 E ATLANTIC AVE #105
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 CHINO, CA 91710 HIGHLAND. CA 92346
0140202150000 0136311030000 0138272170000
LEE. JACK W LEE. JACK W LEE. JACK W
3850 E ATLANTIC AVE #105 3850 E ATLANTIC AVE #105 3850 E ATLANTIC AVE #105
HIGHLAND. CA 92346 HIGHLAND, CA 92346 HIGHLAND. CA 92346
0138272190000 0138272200000 0138272430000
LEE, JACK W LEE. JACK W LEE. JACK W
3850 EATLANTICAVE SP 105 3850 EATLANTICAVE SP 105 3850 E ATLANTIC AVE #105
HIGHLAND, CA 92346 HIGHLAND. CA 92346 HIGHLAND. CA 92346
0146231310000 0140052220000 0150201080000
LEE. MAN UN LEE, OK JA LEE. TAY-KUEN
108 E BASELINE 1198 "D" ST 63 W PAMELA RD
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92415 SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405 ARCADIA. CA 91007
0150201380000 0150201400000 0145033010000
LEE. TAY-KUEN LEE. TAY-ZENG LEE, VERNON H TR
63 W PAMELA RD 63 W PAMELA RD 522 MARIPOSA
ARCADIA. CA 91007 ARCADIA, CA 91007 REDLANDS. CA 92373
0146241160000 0146241120000 0146023340000
LEE. YONG K LEE. YONG K LEGENDS INVESTMENT GROUP INC
228 E BASELINE DR 228 E BASELINE DR 1222 MAGNOLIA AVENUE #105 BOX 144
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410 SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92410
CORONA, CA 92881
0146023340000 0140143200000 0145174220000
LEGENDS INVESTMENT GROUP INC LEIR, MARCIA R HEIRS OF LEUNG, STELLA W
1222 MAGNOLIA AVENUE #105 BOX 144 4709 DORCHESTER RD 3114 SAN GABRIEL ST
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
CORONA, CA 92881
0145174210000 0145174230000 0145182260000
LEUNG, STELLA W LEUNG. STELLA W LEWIS. HAROLD P
3114 SAN GABRIEL ST 3114 SAN GABRIEL ST 21460 PALM AVE
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
0145182150000 0138273280000 0145022150000
LEWIS, HAROLD P L1, LYNDA 0 L1VACICH, FRANK
21480 PALM AVE 205NJST 4072 SHAHEN DR
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145022180000 014502217??oo 0145022160000
L1VAClCH, FRANK S LIVACICH, FRANKS L1VACICH, FRANK S
4072 SHAHEN DR 4072 SHAHEN 4072 SHAHEN
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
015028114??oo 0145243150000 0140073090000
LOEB, JAMES AND DONNA TRUST (10/4100 LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY
LLU FOUNDATION BC 203 FOUNDATION ADMINISTRATION
19411 COUNTRY CLUB DR LOMA LINDA CA 92350 LOMA LINDA, CA 92350
RIAL TO, CA 92376
014524314??oo 0145181120000 0138293090000
LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY LOMELI, MARIA E LOPEZ. CIRlLO R
FOUNDATION ADMINISTRATION BG-203 1501 N 'E' ST 4498DAVIDWY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
LOMA LINDA CA92350
0146243200000 0146243040000 013831141??oo
LOPEZ, DANIEL C LOPEZ, DANIEL C LOPEZ, FERNANDO
8661 CALLE QUEBUADA 8661 CALLE QUEBUADA 2758 UNION ST
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 RIAL TO, CA 92376
0146242270000 0138271080000 0134162080000
LOPEZ, HECTOR M S LOPEZ, LUIS LOS ANGELES SMSA LIMITED
244 E BASELINE 9014 ACASO DR PARTNERSHIP
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 POBOX 19707
IRVINE CA 92714
0145031280000 0145033330000 0145182110000
LOUGHRAN FAMILY TRUST DTD 8-2-90 LOUNSBURY, GORDON A TR LOVE, MILTON
5514 WESTERN AVE 6252 TECATE DR 222 N ARROWHEAD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924072906 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014518211??oo 0145021190000 0145021200000
LOVE, MILTON LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR
222 N ARROWHEAD 37275 IRONWOOD DR 37275 IRONWOOD DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
014502120??oo 0145021210000 0145021230000
LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR
37275 IRONWOOD DR 37275 IRONWOOD DR 37275 IRONWOOD DR
YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
0145021230000 0145021220000 0140031050000
LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR LUBINSKY, NORMAN B TR L!)CATERO, GONZALO
37275 IRONWOOD DR 37275 IRONWOOD DR 631 W BASELINE AVE
YUCAIPA, CA 92399 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140031060000 0138272440000 0145013300000
LUCATERO, GONZAlO LUGO, ANTONIO A LUONG, STEVE Q REV LIV TRUST 9-9-03
631 W BASELINE AVE 239 N KENDALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 10928 ABRAHAM DR
SOUTH EL MONTE, CA 91733
0138312290000 0138312280000 0138293110000
LYNCH,JASON LYNCH, JASON MACIAS, ADALBERTO R
156N I ST 156N I ST 1176 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293110000 0146022280000 0140211120000
MACIAS, ADALBERTO R MAGGARD, ENTERPRISES INC MAlZLAND, RICHARD 0
1176 W KING ST 10370 HEMET ST STE 240 POBOX566
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 RIVERSIDE, CA 92503 YUCAIPA CA 92399
0150201140000 0150201150000 0140202160000
MALDONADO, JORGE MALDONADO, JORGE MALKI, JOHN A
3422 N AMBERWOOD AVE 3422 N AMBERWOOD AVE 565 W 9TH ST
RIALTO, CA 92377 RIAL TO, CA 92377 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140211500000 0140202020000 0140202030000
MALKI, JOHN A MALKI, JOHN A MALKI, LENDEN M
565 W 9TH ST 565 W 9TH ST 565 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146031280000 0140201160000 0145211110000
MALL COMMERCIAL, LLC MALLINGER FAMILY TRUST 8-25-89 MALOTTE, JOSEPH F
9454 WILSHIRE BLVD 1226 42ND PL 73-689 MESQUITE CT
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 PALM DESERT, CA 92260
0145202220000 0140052050000 0138272290000
MARIZ, CARMEN MARTINEZ, ANTONIO MARTINEZ, CIPRIANO
1372 N "E" ST 5014 STEWART AVE 1039 MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293100000 0140073040000 0138271060000
MARTINEZ, ENRIQUE P TR MARTINEZ, JOSE J MARTINEZ, JUAN V
1214WRIALTO 167 BASELINE ST 252 KENDALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143460000 0140201090000 0140201060000
MARUTSOS, STEVE B MATTY, GUS J AND THELXE L TR MATTY, GUS J TR
4625 N GENEVIEVE ST 24327 SANTA CLARA 24327 SANTA CLARA AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 DANA POINT, CA 92629 DANA POINT, CA 92629
0138231090000 0138231020000 0138231050000
MAYCO DEVELOPERS MAYCO DEVELOPERS MAYCO DEVELOPERS
POBOX 167 POBOX167 POBOX167
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402
0138231040000 0138231100000 0140071050000
MAYCO DEVELOPERS MAYCO DEVELOPERS MAZAL, VICTOR
POBOX 167 POBOX167 251 W BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402 SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
014007104??oo 0140071060000 01492=3??oo
MAZAL, VICTOR MAZAL, VICTOR MC CAMMACK, DAVID
251 W BASELINE 251 W BASELINE 396 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO;CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149=??oo 0149=10000 014=00000
MC CAMMACK, DAVID C MC CAMMACK, DAVID C MC CAMMACK, DAVID C
398 W HIGHLAND AVE 398 W HIGHLAND AVE 398 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014520317??oo 0145033070000 0140052060000
MC CARTHY, RITA MC CARTY, DANIEL MC CARTY, JAMES P
531 W VIRGINIA ST 420 E LORAINE 71500 18TH AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 GLENDALE, CA 91207 SKY VALLEY, CA 92241
0140013070000 0140013060000 0145032090000
MC WEST INC MC WEST INC MCLANE, RICHARD C
3920 ELDERBANK DRIVE 3920 ELDERBANK DRIVE 488 W 20TH ST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90031 LOS ANGELES, CA 90031 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140013050000 0140013040000 0145243130000
MEISTER, JIMMY M MEISTER, JIMMY M MELENDREZ, ANDREW S JR
12232 ROSEDALE AVE 12232 ROSEDALE AVE 1550 COUNTRY CLUB DR
COLTON, CA 92324 COLTON, CA 92324 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
0140221370000 0146014130000 0146014330000
MELGAR, ESTEBAN MENA, JUAN 0 MENA, JUAN 0
885 N ARROWHEAD AVE 4859 N CAMBRIDGE 4859 CAMBRIDGE AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0138311190000 0138311190000 0145211530000
MENDEZ, JULIO MENDEZ, JULIO MENDEZ-DEXTER, DEBORAH L
110NJST 110NJST POBOX209
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
014008207??oo 0145033300000 0145033290000
MERCHAlN, RICK METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO
189 E BASELINE PO BOX naa PO BOX naa
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658
0138271200000 0138293120000 0140201140000
MICELI, SYLVIA MID GAL SERVICES MILES, JANET R TR
21 TOLUCA ESTATES DR 410 W BADILLO ST 2ND FL 2111 EDGEWATERWY
TOLUCA LAKE, CA 91602 COVINA, CA 91723 SIINT A BARBARA, CA 93109
0140201330000
MILLER, R EDWARD ETAL
PO BOX 116
LOS ANGELES, CA 90014
0140064040000
MJK REAL ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY LLC
790 ESTATE DR STE 100
DEERFIELD, IL 60015
0150221760000
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
PO BOX 392
HOUSTON TX 770010392
0150221230000
MOLLER, JAMES L -EST OF
POBOX 2506
NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
0145021160000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145021170000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145021180000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140211460000
MONTANE2, MARK
7815 LAYTON AVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
0140073120000
MORENO, STELLA
116W ORANGE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0150261520000
MORRISON, BILL G
POBOX215
CATHEYS VALLEY CA 95306
0146014340000
MITCHELL, JESSE 0
2150 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140064050000
MJK REAL ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY LLC
790 ESTATE DR STE 100
DEERFIELD, IL 60015
0140143490000
MOLAYEM,HOUSHANG
10660 WILSHIRE BLVD #904
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
0150221220000
MOLLER, JAMES L -EST OF
POBOX 2506
NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
0145021160000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145021170000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145021170000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138272280000
MOON, PALOY
232 E OLIVE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145203510000
MORRIS, TED J LIVING TRUST (12-16-94
2624 W MAGNOLIA BLVD
BURBANK, CA 91505
0140221360000
MRA FUNDING CORPORATION
1444 ALPINE DR
WEST COVINA, CA 91791
014524103??oo
MITCHELL, ROBERT R
478 W BASELINE AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140203090000
MJN 1994 TRUST
409 ARCADE PL
GLENDALE, CA 91206
014014348??oo
MOLAYEM,HOUSHANG
1641 E DELAMO BLVD
CARSON, CA 90746
0145021160000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145021160000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014502117??oo
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145021180000
MONSON, DOROTHY C TR
1792 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
013831111??oo
MORALES, CARLOS A
180 N J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
015026133??oo
MORRISON, BILL G
POBOX215
CATHEYS VALLEY CA 95306
0140221350000
MRA FUNDING CORPORATION
1444 ALPINE DR
WEST COVlNA, CA 91791
014022134??oo
MRA FUNDING CORPORATION
1444 AlPINE DR
WEST COVlNA, CA 91791
0138312560000
MURRAY, BILLY B TR
7 TRIBUTE CT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
0145131100000
NAVA, OSCAR
476Wl6THST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145192280000
NELSON, GEORGE C F TR
1017 W BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
014021304??oo
NGUYEN, JOSEPH 0
30071 CORSAIR
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
0150211320000
NGUYEN, TRUNG CAO
405 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146021050000
NGUYEN, VICTOR
212321252127 SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92405
013827308??oo
NICKLES, BUD M TR
932 W RIVIERA DR
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
0145061150000
NILES, DARWIN W AND NORMA A TRUST
OF
78795 GOLDEN REED DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
0140143170000
NORTH AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRIES
INC
898 N "E" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
0149221230000
MULLEN, TIMOTHY JOHN
17450 WINOCREEK CIR
RIVERSIOE, CA 92503
0149191240000
NAIVE, JOEL A TR
POBOX369
BIGFORK, MT 59911
014502130??oo
NEAL T BAKER ENTERPRISES
1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0140143050000
NELSON, SIGURD H
6968 GROVE AVENUE
HIGHLAND, CA 90346
0140201050000
NGUYEN, TAM THANH V
8641 WASHINGTON AVE
MIDWAY CITY, CA 92655
0146021050000
NGUYEN, VICTOR
212321252127 SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92405
0140151110000
NICHOLS, RENATE TRUST 2-21-01
581 COUNTRY CLUB RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138312310000
NIJJAR, SANJEET S
4900 SANTA ANITA #2-C
EL MONTE, CA 91731
0145061160000
NILES, DARWIN W AND NORMA, TRUST OF
78795 GOLDEN REED DR
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
0140202090000
NORTH AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRIES, INC
898 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140073080000
MURILLO, BAMEZA
127 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201030000
NATIONAL ASSET RELIEF SERVICES-2
1473 S 600 E
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 64105
0145192550000
NELSON, GEORGE C F TR
POBOX 5074
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0145031230000
NGUYEN, BUSRIN
172 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145031210000
NGUYEN, TRUNG CAO
405 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146021050000
NGUYEN, VICTOR
212321252127 SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92405
0140151120000
NICHOLS, RENATE TRUST 2-21-01
581 COUNTRY CLUB RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145061140000
NILES, DARWIN W AND NORMA A TRUST
OF
78795 GOLDEN REED DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
014506120??oo
NISHIDA, AUDIE K TR
19 GOLDFINCH DR
AMERICAN CANYON, CA 94589
0146021180000
NUNEZ, LEONEL
, 4Q393 LOCKHART LN
HEMET, CA 925447344
0146021160000 0138312020000 0138312030000
NUNEZ, LEONEL NUNEZ, SARA M NUNEZ, SARA M
40393 LOCKHART LN 7290 SANTA BARBARA CT 7290 SANTA BARBARA CT
HEMET, CA 925447344 FONTANA, CA 92336 FONTANA, CA 92336
0140051220000 0140051400000 0140051250000
OBERSHAW, CHARLES 0 AND SHELBY J OBERSHAW, CHARLES 0 TR OBERSHAW, CHARLES E AND SHELBY J
TR 3470 N CIRCLE RD TR
3470 N CIRCLE RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 3470 N CIRCLE RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140211360000 0138312330000 0140013090000
OCHS, CHRISTOPHER R TR OOOM, BERNICE M OGSTON, DANNY L
16191 SUNSET TR 134 N I ST 8919 COTTONWOOD
RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 HESPERIA, CA 92345
0146021150000 0145031290000 0140151050000
OH, HA YOUNG OISHI, YUZURU OJEDA, ALFREDO JR
127 E HIGHLAND AVE 463 W HIGHLAND AVE 451 W 10TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151050000 0145202210000 0145202290000
OJEDA, ALFREOO JR OKURA, ALBERT OKURA, ALBERT R
451 W 10TH ST 1394 EST 1398 NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145231270000 0145231280000 0145231260000
OLIVA, FRANCISCO OLIVA, FRANCISCO OLIVA, FRANCISCO
POBOX 666 POBOX 656 POBOX 3555
MIRA LOMA CA 91752 MIRA LOMA CA 91752 FONTANA CA 92335
0145231020000 0145231010000 0140213020000
OLIVA, FRANCISCO OLIVA, FRANCISCO OPTION HOUSE INC
PO BOX 666 POBOX 3555 POBOX970
MIRA LOMA CA 91752 FONTANA CA 92335 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
0138273290000 0140202140000 0138311160000
OREJEL, ARMANDO ORNELAS, MARIA OSIAS, CANDY
15711 GREVILLEN ST 534 UNION STREET 25830 COTTAGE ST
FONTANA, CA 92335 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
0138273250000 0138273250000 0138273250000
OTT, JAMES E OTT, JAMES E OTT, JAMES E
1605 LAURELWooD 1605 LAURELWooD 1605 LAURELWooD
COLTON, CA 92324 COLTON, CA 92324 COLTON, CA 92324
0138273250000 0146023140000 0138272450000
OTT, JAMES E OTTO, JAMES 0 TR PADILLA, JOSE R
1605 LAURELWOOD 12065 WESTWOOD LN 1232 CANYON RD
COLTON, CA 92324 GRAND TERRACE. CA 92313 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138272080000
PADILLA, JOSE R
1019W3RDST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014624301??oo
PAGOH MAHA INTERNATIONAL PTE L TO
1055 CORPORATE CENTER DR #420
MONTEREY PAR/<, CA 91754
014624332??oo
PAGOH MAHA INTERNATIONAL PTE L TO
1055 CORPORATE CENTER DR #420
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
0145141090000
PANHWAR, SANI H
4128 W 163RD ST
LAWN DALE, CA90260
0140151200000
PARADA, JUAN J
3410 WHITTIER BLVD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90023
0150231660000
PARKER, DENNIS
PO BOX 941
BLUE JAY CA 92317
014521156??oo
PATEL, MAHESH KUMAR D
1363NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140152160000
PEAK III ENTERPRISES LLC
12749 E TURQUOISE AVE
SCOTTSDALE, AZ. 85259
0145124240000
PELAYO, VICTOR
170 S MAIN ST STE 575
SALT LAKECITV, UT 84101
0138271150000
PEREZ, ABEL
116121ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0138272060000
PADILLA, JOSE R
1019 W THIRD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146243020000
PAGOH MAHA INTERNATIONAL PTE L TO
1055 CORPORATE CENTER DR #420
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
0140201150000
PALMA, EDWIN
862 NORTH .p STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140212200000
PAPADOPOLO, CONNIE B
863 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140151170000
PARADA, JUAN J
3410 WHITTIER BLVD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90023
0145192270000
PARRA, ANTONIO
831 W VIRGINIA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138291010000
PATRICK REAL TV CORP
1550 W WASHINGTON BLVD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90007
014015220??oo
PEAK III ENTERPRISES LLC
12749 E TURQUOISE AVE
SCOTTSDALE, AZ. 85259
0138271150000
PEREZ,ABEL
116121ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0138271170000
PEREZ,ABEL
116121ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0146243290000
PAGOH MAHA INTERNATIONAL PTE L TO
1055 CORPORATE CENTER DR #420
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
0146243280000
PAGOH MAHA INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD
1 055 CORPORATE CENTER DR #420
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
014514114??oo
PANACEA INVESTMENT CORP
7265 JURUPA AVE
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
0140151160000
PARADA, JUAN J
3410 WHITTIER BLVD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90023
0140151190000
PARADA, JUAN J
3410 WHITTIER BLVD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90023
0145131120000
PATEL, DASHRATH S
1611 NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0140152240000
PEAK III ENTERPRISES LLC
12749 E TURQUOISE AVE
SCOTTSDALE, AZ. 85259
0140152190000
PEAK III ENTERPRISES LLC
12749 E TURQUOISE AVE
SCOTTSDALE, AZ. 85259
0138271160000
PEREZ, ABEL
116121ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0138271150000
Pl"REZ, ABEL
11612 1ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0138271150000
PEREZ, ABEL
116121ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0138293170000
PEREZ, TAOEO R
9093 CROCE DR
FONTANA, CA 92335
0138293020000
PEREZ, TADEO R
18408 STALLION LN
BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
0140051090000
PETERSON, ALYCE J TR (MARITAL TRUST)
15901 VENANGO RD
APPLE VALLEY,"CA 92307
0146243190000
PETREY, MARTH A
11980 S MTVERNON
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
0145244060000
PHAM, THANG Q
9 CATANIA
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657
0140083060000
PHAM, THE
2341 E 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0139272120000
PICCIOLO, ANTHONY A
6021 LOYNES DR
LONG BEACH, CA 90803
0140071030000
POPPINO, RAY C
291 W BASEUNE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146223220000
PULOS, JOHN REVOCABLE TR (5113/99)
4405 SPYGLASS DR
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
0136271150000
PEREZ, ABEL
116121ST ST
WHITTIER, CA 90604
0138293020000
PEREZ, TADEO R
18408 STALLION LN
BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
0140051350000
PETERSON, ALYCE J TR (MARITAL TRUST)
15901 VENANGO RD
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
0140051330000
PETERSON, ALYCE J TR (MARITAL TRUST)
15901 VENANGO RD
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
0140031450000
PETROVNA, HELENA
1174 KOTENBERG AVE
SAN JOSE, CA 91525
0140083050000
PHAM, THE
2341 E 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140083030000
PHAM, THE
2341 E 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140212180000
PINEDO, JUAN
883 N "0" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140071240000
POPPINO, RAYC
291 W BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146223230000
PULOS, JOHN REVOCABLE TR (5113199)
4405 SPYGLASS DR
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
0138271150000
PEREZ, ABEL
116121ST ST
WHmlER, CA 90604
0138293020000
PEREZ, TADEO R
18408 STALUON LN
BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
0140051340000
PETERSON, ALYCE J TR (MARITAL TRUST)
15901 VENANGO RD
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
0145211550000
PETERSON, ALYCE J TR (SURVIVOR
TRUST
15901 VENANGO RD
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
0140031480000
PHAM, KATHY T
POBOX 2825-C888
TORRANCE CA 90509
0140083040000
PHAM, THE
2341 E 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140083020000
PHAM, THE
2341 E 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92404
0140212190000
PINEDO, JUAN
883 N "0" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138302230000
PORTILLO, ENRIQUE M TR
1214WRIALTOAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146223240000
PULOS, JOHN REVOCABLE TR (5113/99)
4405 SPYGLASS DR
SPRING DALE, AR 72764
0146223260000
PULOS, JOHN REVOCABLE TR (5113199)
4405 SPYGlASS OR
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
014503310??oo
QUINTANA, ARMANDO
2646 TAYLOR RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138302220000
RAMIREZ, DELFINO R
1150WKINGST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145233310000
RAMIREZ, MARIO
653 N GARFIELD AVE
PASADENA,CA91101
0138293060000
RAYA, GERARDO
5731 LUCRETIA AVE
MIRA LOMA, CA 91752
0146012160000
RED CARNATION INVESTMENTS LLC
2164 N MOUNTAIN VIEW
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145242320000
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY/SAN
BNDO
201 N "E" ST 3RD FLR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0134331230000
RENFROE, KENNETH L TR
895 W RIALTO
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
0146232020000
RENO, F HARRISON JR AND ELIZABETH L
309 CORAL
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
0146223250000
PULOS, JOHN REVOCABLE TR (5113199)
4405 SPYGlASS DR
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
0150261290000
QUIROZ RENTALS INC
POBOX 56733
RIVERSIDE CA 92517
0140211040000
RAMIREZ, EVENCIO R
465 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145124210000
RANDALL, HARMON H
245 N MAGNOLIA AVE
RIAL TO, CA 92376
0145061230000
RAZO, GABRIEL
481 W 20TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0146012150000
RED CARNATION INVESTMENTS LLC
25232 E 17TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145031110000
REDINGER, THEODORE B
2155 N "E" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0134331240000
RENFROE, KENNETH L TR
895 W RIAL TO
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
0146232240000
RENO, HARRISON TR
309 CORAL
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
0140061040000
PYRGOS INC
202 N CURRY ST STE 100
CARSON CITY, NY 897034121
0138312010000
QUIROZ, MARIA DE JESUS
105 N J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138302150000
RAMIREZ, FERNANDO
1116WKlNGST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140041040000
RATZLAFF, ROBERTA F
4535 DEL MAR AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92107
014524414??oo
REA, LARRY
1288 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145242330000
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY/SAN
BNDO
201 N "E" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138273170000
REED,MDTR
POBOX 3298
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92413
0134331200000
RENFROE, KENNETH L TR
895 W RIALTO
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
0146232310000
RENO, HARRISON TR
309 CORAL
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
0146232320000
RENO, HARRISON TR
309 CORAL
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
0136293140000
REYES, FRUMENCIO
1166W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272130000
REYES, MARTHA
244 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0149193090000
REZK-BASTA IRREVOCABLE TRUST 10-31-
o
8753 KING RANCH RD
AL T A LOMA, CA 91701
0138272390000
RHODES, KEITH L
1037 W 3RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140091040000
RIOS, MARGARITO
243 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0150211350000
RITCHIE, DIANNE J
6784 WOODMERE DR
RIVERSIDE, CA 92509
0138273200000
RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY
POBOX 51479
ONTARIO CA 917610079
0138273150000
ROBERTSON, YOLANDA M
4733 HASKELL AVE STE 47
ENCINO, CA 91436
0145061130000
ROBLEOO, JOSE M M
1119 AILERON AVE
LA PUENTE, CA 91744
0146232230000
RENO, HARRISON TR
309 CORAL
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
0138293140000
REYES, FRUMENCIO
1166 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145192260000
REYES, ROCIO
839 WVlRGINIAST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149193060000
REZK-BASTA IRREVOCABLE TRUST 10-31-
o
8753 KING RANCH RD
AL T A LOMA, CA 91701
0138272400000
RHODES, KEITH L
1037W3RO
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0150211350000
RITCHIE, DIANNE J
6784 WOODMERE DR
RIVERSIDE, CA 92509
0138273210000
RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY
POBOX 51479
ONTARIO CA 91761 0079
0138273140000
ROBERTSON, YOLANDA M
236 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
0145191180000
ROBINETT, RICHARD L
PO BOX 85101
SAN DIEGO, CA 92186
0146222160000
ROBLEDO, NICHOLAS
1345 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146232030000
RENO, HARRISON TR
309 CORAL
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 9Z662
0145181110000
REYES, MARIA
466 MAGNOLIA AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145192580000
REYES, SAMUEL M
847 W VIRIGNIA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149193120000
REZK-BASTA IRREVOCABLE TRUST 10-31-
o
8753 KING RANCH RD
AL T A LOMA, CA 91701
0140091050000
RIOS, MARGARITO
247 E BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
0150211340000
RITCHIE, DIANNE J
6784 WOODMERE DR
RIVERSIDE, CA 92509
0138273400000
RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY
POBOX 51479
ONTARIO CA 917610079
0138273150000
ROBERTSON, YOLANDA M
4733 HASKELL AVE STE 47
ENCINO, CA 91436
0145191060000
ROBINETT,RICHARD &L YNNE REV TR(7/29
PO BOX 6006
BLUE JAY CA 92317
0138311170000
ROBLES, FERNANDO
132 N "J" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145123290000 0145244150000 0140082270000
ROBLES, GILBERTO ROBLES, RENE R RODRIGUEZ, JESUS
524 W 16TH ST 1278 N ARROWHEAD AVE 173 E BASELINE ST
, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272340000 0145033080000 0138272260000
RODRIGUEZ, JOSE B RODRIGUEZ, JUAN C RODRIGUEZ, MARIANO V
261 KENDALL AVE 388 W 20TH ST 1040 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARD~NO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
0140202060000 0140202070000 0140202040000
ROE, JAMES ROE, JAMES ROE, JAMES
325 W SIXTH ST 325 W SIXTH ST 325 W 6TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140202050000 0145032110000 0140042130000
ROE, JAMES ROE, JAMES TR ROGERS, HERMAN
325 W 6TH ST 325 W 6TH ST 2763 W RIAL TO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 RIAL TO, CA 92376
0140042130000 0146031290000 0146023180000
ROGERS, HERMAN ROJAS FAMILY TRUST ROMAIN, RUSSELL A
2763 W RIALTOAVE 247 E HIGHLAND AVE 412S0LDRANCHRD
RIAL TO, CA 92376 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ARCADIA, CA 91006
0146023170000 0145202010000 0150231300000
ROMAIN, RUSSELL A ROMERO, LUIS RON STUART CO
4321 E TERRA VISTA LN 532 W VIRGINIA PO BOX 491192
ANAHEIM, CA 92807 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 LOS ANGELES CA 900499192
0150231290000 0150231330000 0150231250000
RON STUART CO RON STUART CO RON STUART CO
PO BOX 491192 POBOX 491192 POBOX 491192
LOS ANGELES CA 900499192 LOS ANGELES CA 900499192 LOS ANGELES CA 900499192
0150231640000 0148243330000 0149221130000
RON STUART CO ROSENROTH, JACOB TR RUFFOLO, MICHAEL C
POBOX 491192 203 N ELM DR 3638 RIDGELlNE DR
LOS ANGELES CA 900499192 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0149221120000 0140042320000 0140042350000
RUFFOLO, MICHAEL C RUST, EMIL J TR RUST, EMIL J TR
3638 RIDGE LINE DR 2948 ADELlTA DR 2948 ADELIT A DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 HACIENDA HTS, CA 91745 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745
0140042340000 0140042240000 0140042330000
RUST, EMIL J TR RUST, EMIL J TRUST RUST, EMIL J TRUST
2948 ADELIT A DR 2948 ADELlDA DR 2948 ADELIDA DR
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745
0140042090000
RUST, EMILJ TRUST
2948 ADELIDA DR
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745
0140202220000
SALDANA, EMMA
869 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014015222??oo
SAM INVESTMENT CIRCLE CORPORATION
320 N "f" STREET #202
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
013831217??oo
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENT
472 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
013831247??oo
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENT
472 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0145233180000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "F" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234080000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014523411??oo
SAN BERNAROINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
444 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014523421??oo
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013831227??oo
RUTHERFURD, DAVID M
166N I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014015201??oo
SAENZ, RONALD C
1002 N DST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014601313??oo
SALEEB, NARDINE TR
183 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014601314??oo
SALEEB, NARDINE TR
183W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138273390000
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENT
472 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
013827337??oo
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENT
472 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138312460000
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENT
472 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138273360000
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENT
472 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401
0145234140000
SAN BERNjlRDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
444 N"PST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
0145233170000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "F" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234280000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N"PST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
01452333??oo0
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234090000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
01452341??oo0
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
0145234120000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
444 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014523413??oo
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
444 N"P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234200000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCH
DIST
777 N "P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234160000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIED/SCHlDIST
777NFST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234190000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIED/SCHIOlST
777NFST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145234180000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIEDlSCHIOIST
777NFST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052190000
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY L THSIBLlND
INC
762 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92401
0140031490000
SAN BNDO VALLEY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
1350 E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138302240000
SANCHEZ. TEODORO P
781SKST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143510000
SB VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
13505 E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0140152230000
SCHUBERT, WILLIAM L AND LYNDA M TR
636 E NORTH RD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150231360000
SECCOMBE, ELEANOR TR
2135 N ARROWHEAD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 93405
0138312350000
SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
1600 N BROADWAY SUITE 100
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
0145234150000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIED/SCHIOIST
777NFST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145241340000
SAN BERNARDINO POLICE OFFICER'S
ASSN
PO BOX 2967 I 1299 NEST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92406
0140042100000
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNI WATER
738 S WATERMAN STE B-35
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0146021170000
SANCHEZ, ANTONIO
2174 N LUGOAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261320000
SAUCEDO, GILBERT
1750 S LOS ROBLES AVE
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
0140143500000
SB VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
1350 S E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
0140042010000
SCOTT, CHARLES W TR
4040 PIEDMONT DR SP 248A
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0140203200000
SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN DEli
1600 N BROADWAY #100
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
0145033310000
SECURITY TRUST COMPTNY TR (#003614)
POBOX 1589
SANDIEGOCA92112
0145234170000
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
UNIFIED/SCHIOIST
777NFST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145233290000
SAN BERNARDINO UNIFIED CITY SCH
DIST
777 N.P ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143160000
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNI WTR
DIST
323 COURT ST STE 402
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138302190000
SANCHEZ, TEODORO P
781SKST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302190000
SAVALA TRUST
1126 W CONGRESS ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146022270000
SCHMID, ROBERT J TR
912 W MARSHALL BLVD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145241140000
SCOTT, CHARLES W TR
4040 PIEDMONT DR SP 248A
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0138312360000
SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
1600 N BROADWAY STE 100
SANTA ANA, CA 92706
0145033160000
SECURITY TRUST COMPTNY TR (#003614)
POBOX 1589
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
0145033320000
SECURITY TRUST COMPTNY TR (#003614)
POBOX 1589
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
0150201030000
SERMAK, CASIMIRJ
2299 ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146011100000
SHAH, DEEPAK M
171 GALLERYWY
TUSTIN, CA 92782
0138312320000
SHELTER, LLC
5641 E BEVERLY BLVD #G
LOS ANGELES, CA 90022
0145141080000
SHORTER, EZRA L
POBOX941
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145141160000
SIKES FAMILY TRUST (10-26-89)
6621 SUMMIT DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145141330000
SIKES FAMILY TRUST (10-26-89)
6621 SUMMIT DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145244070000
SIMJEE, ABDUL R
2660 lWAlN DR #21
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0140042060000
SITZMAN, CARL J JR AND VIRGINIA M TR
579 E 40TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140221030000
SKIPPER, RONALD G
323 W COURT ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0145211580000
SELBERIS, JOHN M AND GEORGIA J TR
3941 E 28TH ST
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0146011280000
SHAH, DEEPAK M
171 GALLERYWY
TUSTIN, CA 92782
0138312140000
SHANTI RESTAURANT LLC
1405 N 'H' ST
LOMPOC, CA 93436
0140212040000
SHEPHERD, JOHN
880 N MAYFIELD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0138311100000
SIFUENTES, CANDELARIA
187 WALKER PL
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145141300000
SIKES FAMILY TRUST (10-26-89)
6621 SUMMIT DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145055010000
SIKES FAMILY TRUST (10-26-89)
6621 SUMMIT DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0140081030000
SINISI, DONATO
123 E BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92346
0140042070000
SITZMAN, CARL J JR TR
579 E 40TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140221010000
SKIPPER, RONALD G
323 COURT ST STE 305
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0145181100000
SENSINTAFFAR, THOMAS L
480 MAGNOLIA AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146011110000
SHAH, DEEPAK M
21520 'G' YORBA LINDA BLVD #555
YORBA LINDA CA 92887
0138311220000
SHANTI RESTAURANT, LLC
1405N "H"ST
LOMPOC, CA 93436
0150211330000
SHIDLER FAMILY TRUST #1DATED 8-2-200
180 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145141150000
SIKES FAMILY TRUST (10-26-89)
6621 SUMMIT DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145141320000
SIKES FAMILY TRUST (10-26-89)
6621 SUMMIT DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0146242260000
SILVA, ALICE
236 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146222200000
SIQUE, APOLlNARIO
1225N MTVIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140221380000
SKIPPER, RONALD G
323 COURT ST STE 305
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140221020000
S!<lPPER, RONALD G
323 COURT ST STE 305
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140221040000
SKIPPER, RONALD G
323 W COURT ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0145203210000
SMIDERL Y, JUNE TESTMT TR (2-27-95)
1265 SOUTHWOOD LN
UPLAND, CA 91786
0138272100000
SMITH, DERRICK L
248 NORTH" J" ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
014503327??oo
SMITH, MONTE C AND ALMA L SNYDER
TRS
747 GLENDENNING WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146013090000
SMITH, OSCAR J
POBOX993
HIGHLAND CA 92346
0140082280000
SORGENTE, MICHELE
POBOX 3602
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92413
01402033??oo0
STElLER, R W
28395 CARRIAGE HILL DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145022040000
STOHLER, CAROLYN J
5608 N SYCAMORE DR
RIAL TO, CA 92377
014502202??oo
STOHLER, CAROLYN J
5608 N SYCAMORE DR
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0149221200000
STRAWN, EVELYN R TR
22917 GRAND TERRACE RD
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
0138272150000
SKY D UMIT 1 REAL ESTATE INC
2336 MESQUITE DR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145203160000
SMIDERLY, JUNE TESTMTTR (2-27-95)
1265 SOUTHWOOD LN
UPLAND, CA 91786
0138272090000
SMITH, DERRICK L
248 NORTH" J" ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
0145033410000
SMITH, MONTE C AND ALMA L SNYDER
TRS
747 GLENDENNING WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145054010000
SOMADHI, SOHMA
515W21STST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138301080000
SPAR, ALICE E
951 HAMILTON AVE
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
0140203240000
STElLER, R W
28395 CARRIAGE HILL DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145022010000
STOHLER, CAROLYN J
5608 N SYCAMORE DR
RIAL TO, CA 92377
0138312370000
STOUPAKlS, DAVID
106N I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312100000
STRUTHERS, ALEXANDER JR (TRUST D)
616 W EDITH ANN DR
AZUSA, CA 91702
014520320??oo
SMIDERL Y, JUNE TESTMT TR (2-27-95)
1265 SOUTHWOOD LN
UPLAND, CA 91786
014603112??oo
SMILE SAVERS ENTERPRISES
255 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014506112??oo
SMITH, LORNA
1897 NEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014503342??oo
SMITH, MONTE C AND ALMA L SNYDER
TRS
747 GLENDENNING WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145054020000
SOMADHI, SOHMA
515W21STST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014020311??oo
STANDARD MORTGAGE CO
PO BOX 107
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92402
0140203310000
STElLER, R W
28395 CARRIAGE HILL DR
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0145022030000
STOHLER, CAROLYN J
5608 N SYCAMORE DR
RIALTO. CA 92377
0145203180000
STOUT, MARVEEN
2651 RECHE CANYON RD
COLTON, CA 92324
0145242030000
SUTHERLAND,S STEPHEN
426 W BASEUNE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140091160000
TABERNAClE CHURCH
1168 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013830214??oo
TEMORES, RICARDO
1106WKINGST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145173210000
TEMPLE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH
1583 W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
0146241110000
THOMAS, NICHOLAS
8559 MANGO
FONTANA, CA 92335
0145033050000
TOMPKINS, BLANCHE L TR
360 W 20TH
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150221770000
TOURLUK, VICTOR JR
29871 SOUTHWOOD LN
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0150231700000
TRAN, JOHN C
354 ELMHURST PL
FULLERTON, CA 92835
014515117??oo
TRISTAR HOLDING
1400 N"H" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0138273260000
TRUST NO. 982-22 UAD 9-4-95
982 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273300000
VALENCIA, TOMAS
229NJST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140071260000
TACOS MEXICO INC
5120 E OLYMPIC BLVD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90022
0149193130000
TANG, CHE PHEY
14665 ARIZONA ST
FONTANA CA 92335
0138302140000
TEMORES, RICARDO
1106W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145173230000
TEMPLE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH
1583 W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
014517322??oo
TEMPLE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH
1583 W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
0146241150000
THOMAS, NICHOLAS
8559 MANGO
FONTANA, CA 92335
0140051300000
THOMPSON, MILTON L
6209 BRADFORD AVE
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0140051100000
THOMPSON, MILTON L
6209 BRADFORD AVE
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0140212260000
TORRES, VALENTIN
12633 BROWNING CT
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
0138291150000
TOSETTI, JOHN
1278 W KING
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
0150221760000
TOURLUK, VICTOR JR
29871 SOUTHWOOD LN
HIGHLAND, CA 92346
0150231700000
TRAN, JOHN C
354 ELMHURST PL
FULLERTON, CA 92835
0145151200000
TRISTAR HOLDING
1400 N "H" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145151190000
TRISTAR HOLDING
1400 N "H" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145022190000
TRUJILLO, ANGEL G
579 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
0138273270000
TRUST NO. 982-22 UAD 9-4-95
982 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA92410
014009134??oo
UNITED EL SEGUNDO INC
17311 S MAIN ST
GARDENA, CA 90248
0138291170000
URBAR, FRANCISCO J
153 MT VERNON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145241320000
VAN MOUWERIK, HENRYVTR
232 SUMMIT AVE
REDLANDS, CA 92373
014919321??oo
VAN STEENWYK, WANDA Y
P.O BOX 66207 AMF OHARE
CHICAGO IL 60666
0149193200000 0149193100000 0140052110000
VAN STEENWYK, WANDA Y VAN STEENWYK, WANDA Y VAAP
POBOX 66207 IWF OHARE POBOX 66207 IWF OHARE 1100 N "0" ST
CHICAGO IL 60666 CHICAGO IL 60666 SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410
0140052170000 0140052160000 0140052100000
VAAP VAAP INC VAAPINC
1100 N "0" ST 1100N "0" ST 1100 N "0" ST
SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052160000 0140091080000 0138302030000
VAAPINCORPORATED VASQUEZ, GILBERT VASSILIUO, JOHN
1100NDST 259 W BASELINE ST 4161 HATHAWAY ST #47
SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 LONG BEACH, CA 90815
0138311150000 0150201250000 0150201010000
VAZQUEZ. LOURDES VEDRES, FRANK A VEDRES, FRANK A
140 N J ST POBOX 11234 114 TOPSAIL MALL
SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410 MARINA DEL REV CA 90295 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292
0150201220000 0150201040000 0150201020000
VEDRES, FRANK A VEDRES, FRANK A VEDRES, FRANK A
114 TOPSAIL MALL 114 TOPSAIL MALL 114 TOPSAIL MALL
MARINA DEL REV, CA 90292 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 MARINA DEL REV, CA 90292
0140064030000 0134331190000 0140064230000
VERDIN, JOE C VERDIN, JOE C VERDIN, JOE C
339 W BASELINE AVE 339 BASELINE 339 BASELINE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312340000 0140064220000 0140064220000
VERDIN, JOE C AND MARIA C TRS VERDIN, JOE C TR VERDIN, JOE C TR
339 W BASELINE 339 W BASELINE 339 W BASELINE
SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203080000 0140041410000 0138302200000
VICENTE, MICHELLE VIETNIWESE EVANGELICAL CHURCH VILLALPANDO, FERMIN V
5775 RIVERSIDE DR #45 1153"F" ST 1146 W KING ST
CHINO, CA 91710 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410
0138302210000 0138293180000 0145243030000
VILLALPANDO, FERMIN V VILLANUEVA, SALVADOR VILLATORO, ELIAS M
1146W KING ST 1216W KING ST 1255 N "0" ST
SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNAADlNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
0146023130000 0138271010000 0138271020000
VILLAVICENCIO, MILLIE L VIVIAN, ALAN R VIVIAN, ALAN R
1629 S THIRD AVE 156NJST 156 NORTH J ST
. AACADIA, CA 91006 SAN BERNAADINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013831112??oo
VIVIAN, ALAN R
156 N "J" ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145202020000
VIZCARRA, JOSE E
544 W VIRGINIA
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014007324??oo
VOUKELATOS, JERRY
2717 W MC FADDEN
SANTA ANA, CA 92704
0150231310000
WARSAW, NELLIE P TR
1096 DEVORE RD
DEVORE, CA 92407
0134263150000
WATERS, E DAVID G & DORA P L1V TR 3-
POBOX581
REDLANDS CA 92373
0145033020000
WATTS, HELEN M
2142 ARROWHEAD AVE #204
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014503127??oo
WEBB, DEBORAH G
1300 DELL AVE
CAMPBELL, CA 95008
0146012100000
WEINGARTEN, TERESA
500 S SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 600
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
0146221030000
WESSEL, EDGAR
302 SANTA HELENA
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
014505502??oo
WESTERN EMPIRE INDUSTRIES, INC
POBOX 2713
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92406
0138311140000
VIVIAN, ALAN R
156 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140073050000
VOUKELATOS, JERRY
157WBASELlNE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0145192590000
WARD, MARY R
POBOX 1954
HAWTHORNE NV 89415
014021203??oo
WASHINGTON, ARTHUR JR
3025 KIMBERLY DR
WEST COVINA, CA 91792
0134263030000
WATERS, E DAVID G & DORAP L1VTR3-
POBOX 581
RED LANDS CA 92373
0140051020000
WDJ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1973 COG HILL DR
CORONA, CA 92883
0145242250000
WEBBER, MARCELlNA SHEILA SAMSON
427 W MAGNOLIA AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146012120000
WEINGARTEN, TERESA
1640 S SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 515
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
0146221010000
WESSEL, EDGAR TR
302 SANTA HELENA
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
0150281200000
WESTERN PROPERTIES THREE LLC
111 GREAT NECKRD STE412
GREAT NECK, NY 11021
0138271030000
VIVIAN, ALAN R
156 J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014007303??oo
VOUKELATOS, JERRY
2717 W MC FADDEN
SANTA ANA, CA 92704
0140203290000
WARNICK, WILLIAM
123WBST#G
ONTARIO, CA 91762
0134263160000
WATERS, E DAlVDG & DORA PLlVTR 3-
POBOX 581
REDLANDS CA 92373
0138311060000
WATKINS, DANIEL C TR
982 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203040000
WEAVE, ELISA M
565 W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146012110000
WEINGARTEN, TERESA
500 S SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 600
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
0140212270000
WESCH, PETER H
813 N D ST#1
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924011025
0145055030000
WESTERN EMPIRE INDUSTRIES, INC
POBOX 2713
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92406
014020201??oo
WJ-IITACRE, MARY L
591 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151080000 0145211050000 013827221??oo
WilCOX, EVLYN TR WilEY, JIMMY R WILLIAMS, ROGER
3096 PARKSIDE DR 2245 INDIGO HILLS DR APT. 4 1010 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 CORONA, CA 92879 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014021301??oo 0145173200000 0145173200000
WilSON, DARRELL l WilSON, HENRY WILSON, HENRY
335 W 9TH ST 1250 WEDGWOOD CT 1250 WEDGWOOD CT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 RIAL TO, CA 92376 RIAL TO, CA 92376
014020132??oo 0140031500000 014505504??oo
WilSON, JEANINE l WIMBERLEY, GROVER C III WIMBERLY, GROVER C III
2266 DENAIRAVE APT 115 643 W BASELINE 1932NEST
HIGHLAND, CA 92346 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
014624317??oo 0146243160000 0140151260000
WINSLOW, LAWRENCE J & CLARISSA WINSLOW, LAWRENCE J & CLARISSA WITHERSPOON, WilLIAM H III TR
TRS TRS 2161 SAN JOAQUIN HillS RD
1270 N WATERMAN AVE 1270 N WATERMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0140151360000 0138311400000 0145032020000
WITHERSPOON, WilLIAM H III TR WOOD, GEORGE S WOOTEN, CALVIN K
2161 SAN JOAQUIN HillS RD 1095 W 2ND ST 416W 20TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149221150000 0149222150000 0138271220000
WOSOUGHKlA, FARIBORZ TR 2-5-03 WRIGHT, CHARLES W YAGHOUBI, DARIUSH
850 N BIRCH ST #101 POBOX 1542 11112 BETTES Pl
SANTA ANA, CA 92701 BLUE JAY CA 92317 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92540
0145232360000 0140091310000 0146012250000
YEE, EDVIN B TR (EDVIN B YEE TRUST) YONG, JAMES TR YU, JONG HO
148 CHANNING ST 2140 ROESSLER CT
19534 KllFINAN ST REDLANDS, CA 92373 PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
NORTHRIDGE, CA 91326
0145141260000 0150241320000 0145011270000
YU, PYONG 0 YUNG, yooN T ZARATE, HUMBERTO
2141 SKYE DR 232 W CHESTNUT AVE 825 W HIGHLAND AVE
RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
013827311??oo 0138273120000 0138273100000
ZUlCH, LA VERNE A ZUlCH, LA VERNE A ZUlCH, LA VERNE A
3520 BROADMooR BLVD 3520 BROADMooR BLVD 3520 BROADMOOR BLVD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138273160000 0138273090000 0138273330000
ZUlCH, LA VERNE A ZUlCH, LA VERNE A ZUlCH, LA VERNE A
3520 BROADMooR BLVD 3520 BROADMooR BLVD 3520 BROADMooR BLVD
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0138273130000
ZULCH. LA VERNE A
3520 BROADMOOR BLVD
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92404
Exhibit "C"
List of Project Area Occupants
0134162070000 0134162080000 0134172020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH I ST NORTH I ST 345 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134172030000 0134172040000 0134172050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
, 341 NORTH I ST 347 NORTH 1ST 345 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263030000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
860 W 2ND ST 877 W MAIN ST 873 W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
875 W MAIN ST 879 W MAIN ST 881 W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
887 W MAIN ST 889 W MAIN ST 891 WMAINST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
893 W MAIN ST 895 W MAIN ST 899 W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
885 W MAIN ST 887 W MAIN ST 221 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
223 NORTH I ST 225 NORTH I ST 227 NORTH 1 ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150,000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
229 NORTH I ST 231 NORTH I ST 233 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
235 NORTH I ST 237 NORTH I ST 239 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263150000 0134263150000 0134263160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
241 NORTH I ST 243 NORTH I ST 860 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263160000 0134263160000 0134263160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
862 W 2ND ST 864 W 2ND ST 866 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263160000 0134263160000 013426316??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
868 W 2ND ST 870 W 2ND ST 872 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263160000 0134263160000 0134263160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
874 W 2ND ST 876 W 2ND ST 878 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013426316??oo 0134263160000 013426316??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
880 W 2ND ST 882 W 2ND ST 884 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263160000 0134263160000 0134263160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
886 W 2ND ST 888 W 2ND ST 890 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263160000 0134263160000 0134263160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
892 W 2ND ST 894 W 2ND ST 896 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263160000 0134263190000 013426320??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
898 W 2ND ST NORTH I ST 245 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134263210000 0134263220000 013426323??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH I ST 880 W MAIN ST WMAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013426326??oo 0134263270000 013433 \130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH I ST 899 W 3RD ST 895 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013433118??oo 0134331190000 01343312??oo0
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
165 NORTH 1 ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 WWATERS ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331210000 0134331210000 0134331210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 NORTH 1 ST #A 155 NORTH 1 ST #B 155 NORTH 1 ST #C
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331210000 0134331210000 0134331210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 NORTH 1 ST #D 155 NORTH 1 ST #E 155 NORTH 1 ST #F
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331210000 0134331210000 0134331210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 NORTH 1 ST #G 155 NORTH 1 ST #H 155 NORTH 1 ST #1
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331210000 0134331210000 0134331210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 NORTH 1 ST #J 155 NORTH 1 ST #K 155 NORTH 1 ST #L
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331210000 0134331210000 0134331220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 NORTH 1 ST #M 155 NORTH 1 ST #N 133 NORTH 1 ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331230000 0134331240000 0134331250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH 1 ST 101 NORTH 1 ST NORTH 1 ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0134331260000 0138231020000 0138231040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
895 W 2ND ST 340 NORTH 1 ST 932 W 3RD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138231050000 0138231090000 0138231100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
936 W 3RD ST 340 NORTH 1 ST 308 NORTH 1 ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138263020000 0138263020000 0138263020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1184 W2ND ST 1220 W 2ND ST 1218 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013826302??oo 0138263020000 0138263020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1216 W 2ND ST 1224 W 2ND ST 1226 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138263020000 0138263020000 0138263020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1228 W 2ND ST 1212 W 2ND ST 1164 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138263020000 0138263020000 0138263020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT P.O.C.
1160 W 2ND ST 1158 W 2ND ST PO BOX 1623
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
0138271010000 0138271020000 0138271030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 3RD ST 1065 W 3RD ST W 3RD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271 04??oo 0138271050000 013827106??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N KENDALL AVE 260 N KENDALL AVE 252 N KENDALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271070000 0138271080000 0138271110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
250 N KENDALL AVE 248 N KENDALL AVE 224 N KENDALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271120000 0138271130000 0138271130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
224 N KENDALL AVE 210 NKENDALL AVE 212 N KENDALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271130000 0138271130000 0138271140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
214NKENDALLAVE 216 N KENDALL AVE 200 N KENDALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271150000 0138271160000 0138271170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1056 W 2ND ST 203 NORTH K ST 209 NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271170000 0138271170000 013827117??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
213 NORTH K ST 215 NORTH K ST 217 NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138271170000 0138271170000 0138271170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
219 NORTH KST 221 NORTH KST 223 NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0138271170000 0138271170000 0138271170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
225 NORTH K ST 227 NORTH K ST 229 NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0138271180000 0138271190000 0138271190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH K ST 263 NORTH K ST #A 263 NORTH K ST #B
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0138271190000 0138271190000 0138271200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
263 NORTH K ST #C 263 NORTH K ST #D NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0138271210000 0138271220000 0138272060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH KST N KENDALL A VB W 3RD ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0138272080000 0138272090000 0138272100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH J ST 248 NORTH J ST NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92411 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272110000 0138272120000 0138272130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
246 NORTH J ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 244 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272140000 0138272150000 0138272160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
242 NORTH J ST 1022 W MAIN ST 1024 W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272160000 0138272170000 0138272180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1026 W MAIN ST 224 NORTH J ST 1023 W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272190000 0138272200000 0138272210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
214 NORTH J ST 210NORTHJST 1010 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272220000 0138272230000 0138272240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1016 W 2ND ST 1024 W 2ND ST W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013827225??oo 0138272260000 013827227??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1040 W 2ND ST 1040 W 2ND ST 1048 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272280000 0138272290000 0138272340000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
237 N KENDALL AVE 1039 WMAIN ST 261 N KENDALL AVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272350000 0138272390000 0138272400000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
267 N KENDALL A VB 1033 W 3RD ST 1047 W 3RD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272420000 0138272420000 0138272430000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
247 N KENDALL A VB 249 N KENDALL A VB 1030 W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138272440000 0138272450000 0138273010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
239 N KENDALL AVE 1019 W 3RD ST W 3RD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273020000 0138273030000 0138273040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
971 W 3RD ST 981 W 3RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273050000 0138273060000 013827307??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
3RD ST 3RD ST 3RD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273080000 0138273090000 0138273100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
274 NORTH I ST NORTH I ST 254 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273110000 0138273120000 0138273130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
WBROADWAYST WBROADWAYST WBROADWAYST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273140000 0138273140000 0138273140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
244 NORTII I ST #A 244 NORTH I ST #B 244 NORTII I ST #C
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273140000 0138273150000 0138273150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
244 NORTII I ST #0 236 NORTH I ST 234 NORTII I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273160000 0138273170000 0138273180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W MAIN ST NORTII I ST 216NORTHIST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273190000 0138273190000 0138273190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
208 NORTII I ST 204 NORTH I ST 206 NORTII I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273190000 0138273190000 0138273190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
212 NORTII I ST 910W2NDST 914 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273190000 0138273190000 0138273190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
924 W 2ND ST #A 924 W 2ND ST #B 924 W 2ND ST #C
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013827319??oo 0138273200000 0138273210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
924 W 2ND ST #0 W 2ND ST W MAIN ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273240000 0138273250000 0138273260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
950 W 2ND ST 968 W 2ND ST 982 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273270000 0138273280000 013827329??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST 205 NORTH J ST 2.\3 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO,.CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273290000 0138273290000 0138273290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
215 NORTH J ST 217 NORTHJ ST 219 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273300000 0138273310000 0138273320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
229 NORTH J ST 239 NORTH J ST 245 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273330000 0138273340000 0138273350000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W MAIN ST NORTH J ST WBROADWAYST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273360000 0138273370000 0138273380000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W BROADWAY ST W 3RD ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138273390000 0138273400000 0138291010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 W 2ND ST N MT VERNON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138291020000 0138291030000 0138291040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST W 2ND ST W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138291050000 0138291090000 013 8291 090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST 1238 W KING ST 174 N mov ANOLA
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138291100000 0138291110000 0138291120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W KING ST 1254 W KING ST W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138291130000 0138291140000 0138291150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1270WKlNGST 1272 W KING ST 1278 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138291160000 0138291170000 0138291180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
151NMTVERNONAVE 153 N MT VERNON AVE 155 N MT VERNON AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138291190000 0138293010000 0138293020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST 1225 W 2ND ST 1223 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293030000 0138293040000 0138293050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST 1207 W 2ND ST W2NDST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293060000 0138293070000 0138293080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1195 W 2ND ST W 2ND ST 1185 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293090000 0138293100000 013829311??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1179 W2ND ST W 2ND ST 1176 WKING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293110000 0138293120000 0138293120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
176 NORTH L ST 1180 W KING ST 155 N GIOV ANOLA
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293130000 0138293140000 0138293150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1186 W KING ST 1190 W KING ST 1196 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293160000 0138293170000 0138293180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1202 W KING ST W KING ST 1216 WKING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138293190000 0138293200000 0138301010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1220 W KING ST 1226 W KING ST W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138301030000 0138301040000 0138301050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1109 W 3RD ST 240 NORTH K ST 232 NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013830106??oo 0138301070000 0138301080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST 1108 W2ND ST 1122 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
OE38301100000 0138302030000 0138302130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1140 W2ND ST 1155 W 2ND ST NORTH K ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302140000 0138302150000 013830215??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1106 W KING ST 1116 WKING ST 1118 WKING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302160000 0138302170000 0138302180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1120WKINGST 1126 W KING ST 1130 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302190000 0138302200000 013 830221 0000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1136 W KING ST W KING ST 1146WKINGST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013830222??oo 0138302230000 0138302240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1150 W KING ST 1156 W KING ST 1164 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302240000 0138302240000 0138302250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1166 W KING ST 1168 W KING ST 1170 W KING ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138302260000 0138302270000 0138302280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 2ND ST 1169W2NDST 1115 W2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311030000 0138311040000 0138311070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1075 W 2ND ST 1069 W2ND ST 1041 W2NDST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311080000 0138311080000 0138311080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1007 W 2ND ST 1009 W 2ND ST 1017 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311080000 0138311080000 0138311080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1015 W 2ND ST 1023 W 2ND ST 1025 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311090000 0138311100000 0138311110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
188 NORTH J ST 187 NWALKBRPL 180 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311120000 0138311130000 0138311140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
172 NORTH J ST 160NORTHJST 156 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311150000 0138311160000 0138311170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
140NORTHJST 136 NORTH J ST 132 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311180000 0138311190000 0138311190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
124 NORTH J ST 110 NORTH J ST 110 1/2 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311200000 0138311210000 0138311220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
104NORTHJST 1024 WRlALTO AVE 1051 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311340000 0138311350000 0138311390000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH K ST 1096 WRlALTO AVE 1050 WRlALTO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138311400000 0138311410000 0138311420000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1095 W 2ND ST 1083 W 2ND ST 1045 W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312010000 0138312020000 0138312030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
105 NORTH J ST WRlALTOAVE 982 W RlALTO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312080000 0138312090000 0138312100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
147NORTHJST NORTH J ST 157 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312110000 0138312120000 0138312140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
159 NORTH J ST 182 N RANDALL AVE 963W2NDST #1
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312140000 0138312140000 0138312150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
963 W 2ND ST #2 963 W 2ND ST #3 961 W 2ND ST #A
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 , SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312150000 0138312160000 0138312170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
961 W2NDST #B 163 W RANDALL AVE W 2ND ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312220000 0138312260000 0138312270000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 170 NORTH I ST 166 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312280000 0138312290000 0138312300000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
156 NORTH I ST NORTH I ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312310000 0138312320000 0138312330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
140 NORTH I ST NORTH I ST 134 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312340000 0138312350000 0138312360000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
126 NORTH I ST 124 NORTH I ST 116 NORTH I ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312370000 0138312390000 0138312450000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
106 NORTH I ST W RIALTOAVE 980 W RIALTO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013831246??oo 0138312470000 013831251??oo
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT W RIALTOAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
0138312530000 0138312540000 0138312550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
939 W 2ND ST 115 NORTH J ST 995 W 2ND ST #1
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312550000 0138312550000 0138312550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
995 W2ND ST #2 995 W 2ND ST #3 995 W 2ND ST #4
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013831255??oo 0138312550000 0138312550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
995 W 2ND ST #5 995 W 2ND ST #6 995 W 2ND ST #7
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312550000 0138312550000 0138312550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
995 W 2ND ST #8 979 W 2ND ST #1 979 W 2ND ST #2
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
013831255??oo 0138312550000 0138312550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
979 W 2ND ST #3 979 W 2ND ST #4 979 W 2ND ST #5
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312550000 0138312550000 0138312550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
979 W 2ND ST #6 979 W 2ND ST #7 979 W 2ND ST #8
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312570000 0138312580000 0138312580000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
958 WRIALTO AVE 123 NORTH J ST 125 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312590000 0138312590000 0138312590000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
139 NORTH J ST 137 NORTH J ST 135 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312590000 0138312590000 0138312590000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
131 NORTH J ST 129 NORTH J ST 127 NORTH J ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0138312620000 0140011110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W2NDST 1158 NORTH H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140011120000 0140011130000 0140011140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1158 NORTH H ST 1158 NORTH H ST 1158 NORTH H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140011150000 0140011240000 0140013040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1158 NORTH H ST 1158 NORTH H ST 771 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140013050000 01400 13060000 01400 13070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W BASELINE ST W BASELINE ST W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
01400 13080000 0140013090000 01400 1311 0000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT . OCCUPANT
739 W BASELINE ST 741 WBASELINEST 1188 NORHT G ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140013120000 0140013240000 01400 13250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1182 NORTH G ST 727 W BASELINE ST 707 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140013260000 0140031050000 0140031060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
799 W BASELINE AT 639 W BASELINE ST 631 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
/
0140031300000 0140031310000 0140031320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1139 NORTH G ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 1149 NORTH G ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140031330000 0140031340000 0140031350000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH G ST NORTH G ST NORTH G ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140031420000 0140031430000 0140031450000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT 1186 NORTH F ST 1156 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140031460000 0140031470000 0140031480000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
609 W BASELINE ST 615 W BASELINE ST 685 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140031490000 0140031500000 0140041010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH F ST 643 W BASELINE ST 595 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140041020000 0140041040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 0140041070000
585 W BASELINE ST 553 W BASELINE ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140041390000 0140041400000 0140041410000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1121 NORTH F ST 1129 NORTH F ST 1155 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140041420000 0140041440000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 0140041460000
1153 NORTH F ST 1185 NORTH F ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140041470000 0140041510000 0140042010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1165NORTHFST 575 W BASELINE ST 545 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042060000 0140042070000 0140042090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1168 NORTH E ST 1162 NORTH E ST 1152 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042100000 0140042130000
OCCUPANT 0140042110000 OCCUPANT
1140 NORTH E ST OCCUPANT 1090 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042140000 0140042170000 0140042180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1064 NORTH E ST 1036 NORTH E ST 1010 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042190000 0140042220000 0140042230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1000 NORTH E ST 552 W 10TH ST 1091 N ACACIA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042240000 0140042280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 0140042290000
N ACACIA A VB 1058 NORTH E ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042310000 0140042320000 0140042330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
530 W 10TH ST N ACACIA A VB 1160 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140042340000 0140042350000 01400510 I 0000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
505 W BASELINE ST 535 W BASELINE ST 1199NORTHEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051020000 0140051030000 0140051090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
473 W BASELINE ST 459 W BASELINE ST 1035 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051100000 o 140051170000 0140051220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1059 NORTH E ST 1177 NORTH E ST 1167 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051280000 0140051300000
0140051250000 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT 1101 NORTH E ST 1071 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051320000 0140051330000 0140051340000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1075 NORTH E ST 1015 NORTH E ST 1040N STODDARD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051350000 0140051370000 . 0140051380000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
lOll NORTH E ST 1189 NORTH EST 1185 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140051400000 0140051410000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 0140051420000
1139 NORTH E ST 1095 NORTH E ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052050000 0140052060000 0140052070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1172NORTHD ST 1164 NORTH D ST 1148 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052080000 0140052090000 0140052100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1I46 NORTH D ST 1138 NORTH D ST NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140052110000 0140052130000 0140052140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1I00 NORTH D ST 1143 NORTH D ST 1147NSTODDARDAVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052150000 0140052160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 0140052170000
N STODDARD A VB N STODDARD A VB OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140052180000 0140052190000 0140052220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N STODDARD A VB 439 W BASELINE ST 1198 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140061010000 0140061040000 0140061050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
397 W BASELINE ST 363 W BASELlNE ST 355 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140061280000 014006403??oo 0140064040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
383 W BASELlNE ST W BASELiNE ST 301 WBASELlNEST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140064050000 0140064220000 0140064230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1184 N ARROWHEAD A VB 345 W BASELlNE ST 333 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO,CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140071030000 0140071 050000
OCCUPANT 0140071040000 OCCUPANT
273 W BASELlNE ST OCCUPANT 263 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140071 060000
OCCUPANT 0140071 070000 0140071080000
251 W BASELlNE ST OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140071240000 0140071280000 0140073030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
289 W BASELlNE ST 205 W BASELlNE ST 177 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140073040000 0140073050000 0140073060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
167 W BASELlNE ST 157 W BASELlNE ST 145 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140073060000 0140073070000 0140073080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
145 WBASELlNE ST 137 W BASELlNE ST 127 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140073090000 0140073120000 0140073210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
125 WBASELlNE ST 116WORANGEST 101 W BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140073240000 01400810 10000 0140081020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
199 W BASELlNE ST E BASELlNE ST 115 E BASELlNE ST
SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDiNO, CA 92410
0140081030000 0140081040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 0140081250000
123 E BASELINE ST 147 E BASELINE ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014008201??oo 0140082070000 0140082080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 E BASELINE ST 187 E BASELINE ST 195 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140082270000 0140082280000 0140083010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
171 E BASELINE ST 175 E BASELINE ST 207 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140083020000 0140083030000 0140083040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
211 E BASELINE ST 215 E BASELINE ST 219 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140083050000 0140083060000 0140091040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
225 E BASELINE ST 225 E BASELINE ST 243 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014009105??oo 0140091060000 0140091070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
247 E BASELINE ST E BASELINE ST 255 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140091080000 0140091160000 0140091310000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
259 E BASELINE ST 290 E ORANGE ST 261 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140091320000 0140091340000 0140091380000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
299 E BASELINE ST 235 E BASELINE ST 271 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143050000 0140143060000 0140143160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
543 W 10TH ST W 10TH ST 900 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143170000 0140143180000 0140143190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 9TH ST 534 W 9TH ST 544 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
01401432??oo0 0140143460000 0140143470000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 9TH ST 998 NORTH E ST 990 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143480000 0140143490000 0140143500000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST NORTH E ST 932 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140143510000 0140151030000 0140151040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST W 10TH ST 453 W 10TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151050000 0140151060000 0140151070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
451 W 10THST 449 W 10TH ST 431 W 10TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151080000 0140151090000 0140151100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
998 NORTH D ST 980 NORTH D ST 966 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151110000 0140151120000 0140151130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH D ST NORTH D ST 950 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151140000 0140151150000 0140151160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH D ST 932 NORTH D ST NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151170000 0140151180000 0140151190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
902 NORTH D ST 902 NORTH D ST 902 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151200000 0140151210000 0140151220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
902 NORTH D ST 454 W 9TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014015123??oo 0140151240000 0140151250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
460 W 9TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151260000 0140151270000 0140151280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
901 NORTH E ST 909 NORTH E ST 901 NORTHEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151310000 0140151320000 0140151330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
941 NORTH E ST 955 NORTH E ST 961 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140151340000 0140151350000 0140151360000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
973 NORTH E ST 999 NORTH E ST 937 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014015201??oo 0140152120000 0140152130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
995 NORTH D ST W 9TH ST W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140152140000 0140152150000 0140152160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
909 NORTH D ST 929 NORTH D ST 933 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140152190000 0140152200000 0140152210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
955 NORTH D ST 963 NORTH D ST 965 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140152220000 0140152230000 0140152240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
975 NORTH D ST 989 NORTH D ST 939 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201030000 014020105??oo 0140201060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
687 W 9TH ST 671 W 9TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201070000 0140201080000 0140201090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
657 W 9TH ST W 9TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201140000 0140201150000 0140201180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
862 NORTH F ST 860 NORTH F ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201250000 0140201320000 0140201330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 881 NORTH G ST 808 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140201370000 0140201380000 0140201390000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
673 W 9TH ST 824 NORTH F ST 693 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014020140??oo 0140201410000 0140202010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
880 NORTH F ST 607 W 9TH ST 591 W9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202020000 0140202030000 0140202040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
575 W 9TH ST 565 W 9TH ST 563 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202050000 0140202060000 0140202070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
555 W 9TH ST W 9TH ST 537 W9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202080000 0140202090000 0140202100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
815 W 9TH ST 898 NORTH E ST 880 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202110000 0140202120000 0140202130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
860 NORTH E ST 860 NORTH E ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202140000 0140202150000 0140202160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
534 W UNION ST 546 W UNION ST W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202170000 0140202180000 0140202190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
560 W UNION ST 572 W UNION ST 580 W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140202200000 0140202210000 0140202220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
861 NORTH F ST 867 NORTH F ST 869 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203040000 0140203050000 0140203060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
565 W UNION ST W UNION ST 553 W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203070000 0140203080000 0140203090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
551 WUNlONST 539 W UNION ST W UNION ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203100000 0140203110000 0140203160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
850 NORTH E ST 840 NORTH E ST 538 W 8TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203170000 0140203200000 0140203240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
550 W 8TH ST 572 W 8TH ST 821 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203260000 0140203290000 0140203300000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
556 W 8TH ST 560 W 8TH ST 801 NORTH F ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140203310000 0140203320000 0140203330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
849 NORTH F ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0140211010000 0140211040000 0140211120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
885 NORTH E ST 465 W 9TH ST 407 W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
~
0140211130000 0140211140000 0140211150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH D ST 866 NORTH D ST 864 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140211160000 0140211170000 0140211180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH D ST NORTH D ST 836 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140211190000 0140211220000 0140211230000
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 804 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140211240000 014021125??oo 014021126??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 8TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 W 8TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014021127??oo 0140211320000 0140211330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
444 W 8TH ST 839 NORTH E ST NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140211340000 0140211350000 0140211360000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
847 NORTH E ST 861 NORTH E ST 863 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014021141??oo 0140211420000 0140211440000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
471 W 9TH ST 879 NORTH E ST 822 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140211450000 0140211460000 0140211500000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
451 W 9TH ST 449 W 9TH ST 461 W9THST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140212010000 0140212020000 0140212030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
887 NORTH D ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 367 W9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140212040000 0140212150000 0140212160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
880 N MA YFlELD A VB 825 NORTH D ST 827 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014021217??oo 0140212180000 0140212190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
841 NORTHDST 851 NORTH D ST 863 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140212200000 0140212210000 0140212260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
883 NORTH D ST 885 NORTH D ST 805 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140212270000 0140213010000 0140213020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
813 NORTH D ST 335 W 9TH ST 333 W9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014021303??oo 0140213040000 0140213050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 9TH ST W 9TH ST 886 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140221010000 014022102??oo 0140221030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 W 9TH ST W 9TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
0140221040000 0140221340000 0140221350000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 9TH ST N ARROWHEAD AVE OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014022136??oo 0140221370000 0140221380000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
879 N ARROWHEAD AVE 885 N ARROWHEAD AVE OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
014022147??oo 0140221490000 0145011050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 W IDGHLANDAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145011100000 0145011110000 0145011270000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
815 W IDGHLAND AVE 807 W IDGHLAND AVE 825 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145011290000 0145011300000 0145013160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
847 W IDGHLAND AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145013270000 0145013280000 0145013290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
795 W HIGHLAND AVE 763 W IDGHLAND AVE 715 WHIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145013300000 0145021140000 0145021150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
723 W IDGHLAND AVE 695 W IDGHLAND AVE 687 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145021160000 0145021170000 0145021180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
679 W IDGHLAND AVE 673 W IDGHLAND AVE 671 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014502119??oo 0145021200000 0145021210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
655 W IllGHLAND AVE 647 W IllGHLAND AVE 635 WIllGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145021220000 0145021230000 0145021300000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92(105 627 W IllGHLAND AVE 601 WIllGHLANDAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014502201??oo 0145022020000 0145022030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2102NORTHEST NORTH EST 2102 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145022040000 0145022150000 0145022160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST 2173 NORTH F ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145022170000 014502218??oo 0145022190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
595 W IllGHLAND AVE 587 W IllGHLAND AVE 579 W IllGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145022200000 0145022210000 0145022330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
571 WIllGHLANDAVE 559 W HIGHLAND AVE 555 W IllGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145022340000 0145031010000 0145031020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
525 W IllGHLAND AVE 2120 NORTH D ST 416W21STST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145031110000 0145031120000 0145031210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2155 NORTH E ST 2105 NORTH E ST 421 WIllGHLANDAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145031220000 0145031230000 0145031250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
415 W IllGHLAND AVE 401 WIllGHLANDAVE 445 W IllGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145031260000 0145031210000 0145031280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
431 WIllGHLANDAVE 487 W IllGHLAND AVE 457 W IllGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145031290000 0145032010000 0145032020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
463 W HIGHLAND AVE 2016 NORTH D ST 416 W 20TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145032090000 0145032100000 0145032110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
488 W 20TH ST 496 W 20TH ST 2079 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145032120000 0145032130000 0145032250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2095 NORTH E ST 487 W 21ST ST 2090 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033010000 0145033020000 0145033030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
308 W 20TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 W 20TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033040000 0145033050000 0145033060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 20TH ST 360 W 20TH ST 372 W 20TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033070000 0145033080000 0145033090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
380 W 20TH ST 388 W 20TH ST 2005 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA92405
0145033100000 0145033120000 0145033130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2015 NORTH D ST W 20TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033140000 0145033150000 0145033160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2039 NORTH D ST 2075 NORTH D ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033170000 0145033180000 0145033260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2121 NORTH D ST NORTH D ST 357 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033270000 0145033290000 0145033300000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
347 WHIGHLAND AVE WH1GHLANDAVE 315 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033310000 0145033320000 0145033330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N ARROWHEAD A VB N ARROWHEAD A VB 2160N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014503334??oo 0145033350000 014503336??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2150N ARROWHEADAVB 2142 N ARROWHEAD A VB 2130 N ARROWHEAD A VB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033370000 0145033380000 0145033390000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N ARROWHEAD A VB 2102 N ARROWHEAD 2100N ARROWHEADAVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
01450334??oo0 0145033410000 0145033420000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
371 WHIGHLANDAVB 339 W HIGHLAND A VB 331 WHIGHLANDAVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033450000 0145033460000 0145033470000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2035 NORTH D ST 2037 NORTH D ST 393 W HIGHLAND A VB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145033480000 0145054010000 0145054020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W HIGHLAND A VB NORTH E ST 515 W 21ST ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145054030000 0145054220000 0145054230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2008 NORTH E ST 1996 NORTH E ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145055010000 0145055020000 0145055030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1956 NORTH E ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145055040000 0145055050000 0145055060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1932 NORTH E ST 540 W 19TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145055070000 0145061120000 014506113??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT 1897 NORTH E ST 1905 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145061140000 014506115??oo 014506116??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1923 NORTH E ST 1927 NORTH E ST 1931 NORTHEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SANBERNARDINO,CA92405
014506117??oo 0145061180000 0145061190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1947 NORTH E ST 1963 NORTH E ST 1963 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145061200000 0145061210000 0145061220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1979 NORTH E ST NORTH E ST 1989 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014506123??oo 0145061280000 0145061290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
481 W20THST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 1994 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145061300000 0145061310000 0145061340000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1900 NORTH D ST 1980 NORTH D ST 1801 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145091110000 0145091120000 0145091130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1767 NORTH E ST 1799 NORTH E ST 487 W 18TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145091240000 0145112190000 0145112200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
488 W 17TH ST 1700 NORTH E ST 1700 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145112210000 0145123010000 0145123020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1700 NORTH E ST 1634 NORTH E ST 1620 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145123220000 0145123230000 0145123240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
523 W 17TH ST 513WI7THST 507W 17THST
SANBERNARDINO,CA92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145123250000 0145123290000 0145123300000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1660 NORTH E ST 524 W 16TH ST 1600 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145124210000 014512424??oo 0145124270000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1562 NORTH E ST NORTH E ST 1588 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
01451311??oo0 014513111??oo 0145131120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
476 W 16TH ST 478 W 16TH ST 1611 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014513115??oo 0145131250000 0145141080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
487 W 17TH ST 497 W 17TH ST 1579 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145141090000 0145141100000 0145141110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST NORTH E ST W 16TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SANBERNARDINO,CA92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145141120000 0145141130000 0145141140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 16TH ST N STODDARD AVE 1572 N STODDARD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SANBERNARDINO,CA92405
014514115??oo 0145141160000 0145141190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 N STODDARD AVE N STODDARD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014514120??oo 0145141210000 0145141230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N STODDARD AVE 440 W 15TH ST 1543 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145141260000 0145141270000 0145141290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1531 NORTHEST 1554 N STODDARD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145141300000 014514132??oo 0145141330000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1557 NORTH E ST 1571 NORTH E ST 1561 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014515117??oo 0145151180000 0145151190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1400 NORTH H ST 1598 NORTH H ST 1400 NORTH H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014515120??oo 014515121??oo 01451732??oo0
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1400 NORm H ST 1584 NORm H ST 1550 NORm E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145173210000 0145173220000 014517323??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1542 NORm E ST 1524 NORm E ST 1514 NORm E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 9240$ SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145173240000 0145174190000 0145174200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1500 NORm E ST 1496 NORm E ST 1490 NORm E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145174210000 0145174220000 014517423??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST NORTH E ST 1418 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145181100000 0145181110000 0145181120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
480 W MAGNOLIA AVE 488 W MAGNOLIA AVE 1501 NORm E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145182100000 0145182110000 0145182120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
480 W 14TH ST 488 W 14TH ST 1401 NORTH EST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014518212??oo 0145182150000 0145182260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1401 NORm E ST 479 W MAGNOLIA AVE 1443 NORm E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 . SAN OOltNARDINO, CA 92405
0145191020000 0145191030000 0145191040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
808 W VlRGlNlA ST 816 W VlRGlNlA ST 824 W VlRGlNlA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145191050000 0145191060000 0145191160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
832 W VlRGlNlA ST 840 W VlRGlNlA ST 848 W VlRGlNlA AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145191170000 0145191180000 0145192120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W VlRGlNlA AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014519226??oo 0145192270000 0145192280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
839 W VIRGINIA ST 831 W VIRGINIA ST 823 W VIRGINIA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145192290000 01451923??oo0 0145192550000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
815 W VIRGINIA ST 807 W VIRGINIA ST 1344 NORTH H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145192570000 0145192580000 0145192590000
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT 847 W VIRGINIA ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145192600000 0145202010000 0145202020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1328 NORTH H ST 532 W VIRGINIA ST 544 W VIRGINlA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145202210000 0145202220000 0145202290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1394 NORTH E ST 1372 NORTH E ST 1398 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145202300000 0145203160000 0145203170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
535 W 14TH ST W VIRGINIA ST 531 WVIRGINlAST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145203180000 0145203190000 0145203200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1370 NORTH E ST NORTH E ST NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145203210000 0145203500000 0145203510000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST 1302 NORTH E ST 1314 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145203530000 0145203560000 0145211040000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1334 NORTH E ST 1322 NORTH E ST NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145211050000 0145211080000 014521 II 10000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1347 NORTH E ST 1359 NORTH E ST 1375 NORTH EST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145211140000 0145211150000 0145211530000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
481 W 14TH ST 479 W 14TH ST 1395 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145211550000 0145211560000 0145211580000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1351 NORTH E ST 1363 NORTH E ST 1303 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145221090000 0145221100000 0145221110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 1228 NORTH H ST 1292 NORTH H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145221120000 0145222010000 0145222020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1248 NORTH H ST W BASELINE ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145222030000 0145222040000 0145222050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W BASELINE ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145222060000 0145222070000 0145222080000
OCCUPANT
OCCUPANT 794 W BASELINE ST OCCUPANT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145222130000 0145222140000 0145222150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH H ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 NORTH H ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145222170000 0145222180000 0145222210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 13TH ST W 13TH ST W 13TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145222230000 0145222240000 0145222250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 13TH ST NORTH G ST NORTH G ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014522226??oo 0145222270000 0145222280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH G ST NORTH G ST W 13TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145222290000 014522230??oo 0145222310000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 13TH ST W 13TH ST 1 794 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0145222320000 014523101??oo 0145231020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH H ST W BASELINE ST 694 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014523103??oo 0145231260000 0145231270000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1219 NORTH G ST 1218 N BERKELEY AVE 652 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014523128??oo 0145232310000 0145232360000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
676 W BASELINE ST 632 W BASELINE ST 604 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145233010000 0145233020000 0145233170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
590 W BASELINE ST NORTH F ST 1200 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145233180000 0145233290000 0145233300000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1200 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014523331??oo 0145234030000 0145234080000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
554 W BASELINE ST 546 W BASELINE ST 1200 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145234090000 0145234100000 0145234110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1200 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145234120000 0145234130000 0145234140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1200 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST 1299 N ACACIA ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145234150000 0145234160000 0145234170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1298 NORTH E ST 1290 NORTH E ST 1276 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145234180000 0145234190000 0145234200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTH E ST 1262 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145234210000 014523428??oo 0145241010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1200 NORTH E ST 1200 NORTH E ST 456 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014524102??oo 0145241030000 0145241060000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
468 W BASELINE ST 478 W BASELINE ST 1231 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SANBERNARDINO,CA92405
014524107??oo 0145241080000 014524109??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1233 NORTH E ST 1243 NORTH E ST 1251 NORTH EST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145241120000 0145241130000 0145241140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1269 NORTH E ST 1277 NORTH E ST 1285 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014524125??oo 0145241260000 0145241270000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1201 NORTH E ST 1201 NORTH E ST 1221 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145241280000 0145241320000 0145241340000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1201 NORTH E ST 1261 NORTH E ST 1299 NORTH E ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145242030000 0145242040000 0145242050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
426 W BASELINE ST 428 W BASELINE ST 438 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145242180000 0145242210000 0145242220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1298 NORTH D ST 1284 NORTH D ST 1280 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145242230000 0145242240000 0145242250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1262 NORTH D ST 1254 NORTH D ST 1252 NORTH D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014524228??oo 0145242290000 0145242320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1286 NORTII D ST 402 W BASELINE ST 1238 NORTII D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014524233??oo 0145243010000 0145243020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NORTII D ST 1237 NORTII D ST 1245 NORTII D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145243030000 0145243040000 0145243050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1255 NORTII D ST 1261 NORTII D ST 1269 NORTII D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145243060000 0145243130000 0145243140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1277 NORTII D ST 1285 NORTII D ST 1293 NORTII D ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145243150000 0145244060000 0145244070000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1299 NORTH D ST W 13TI1 ST 363 W 13TH ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145244120000 0145244130000 0145244140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
323 W 13TI1 ST 1298 N ARROWHEAD AVE 1288 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145244150000 0145244190000 0145244210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1278 N ARROWHEAD AVE 306 W BASELINE ST 360 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145244220000 0145244230000 0145244240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
360 W BASELINE ST 360 W BASELINE ST 398 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0145244250000 0145244280000 0146011090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1231 NORTII D ST 324 W BASELINE ST 2163 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146011100000 0146011110000 0146011150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W mGHLAND AVE 299 W HIGHLAND AVE 2188 NPERSHING AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
01460 11260000 0146011280000 01460 11290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
265 W IDGHLAND AVE W IDGHLAND AVE W IDGHLANDAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146011300000 0146012100000 0146012110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2155 N ARROWHEAD AVE N PERSIDNG AVE N PERSIDNG AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014601212??oo 014601215??oo 0146012160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
245 W IDGHLAND AVE 2164NMTVIEW AVE 2164NMTVIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146012250000 0146013080000 01460 13090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
207 W IDGHLAND AVE N MTVIEW AVE 2165 NMT VIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146013120000 0146013130000 0146013140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
179 W IDGHLAND AVE W IDGHLAND AVE 163 WIDGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146013150000 0146013250000 0146014130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2172 N GENEVIEVE ST 189 WIDGHLAND AVE 123 WIDGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014601433??oo 0146014340000 0146021050000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
155 WIDGHLAND AVE 2150N SIERRA WAY 2127 N SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146021060000 0146021070000 0146021100000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2133 N SIERRA WAY 2137NSIERRA WAY 2163 N SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146021130000 0146021140000 0146021150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
117EIDGHLANDAVE 119 E IDGHLAND AVE 123 E IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146021160000 0146021170000 0146021180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
129 E IDGHLAND AVE 2174NLUGOAVE N LUGOAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146021270000 0146021290000 0146022140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
103 E ffiGHLAND AVE 2155 N SIERRA WAY 155 EffiGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146022150000 0146022270000 0146022280000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
165 E ffiGHLAND AVE 2167NLUGOAVE 145 EffiGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146023130000 0146023140000 0146023160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
183 EffiGHLAND AVE 195 E HIGHLAND AVE 219 EffiGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146023170000 0146023180000 0146023320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
235 E ffiGHLAND AVE 2174 N WALL AVE 215 EHIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146023330000 0146023340000 0146023340000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
E HIGHLAND AVE 173 E HIGHLAND AVE 173 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146031120000 0146031160000 0146031260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
255 E HIGHLAND AVE 2172 N BELLE ST 249 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146031280000 0146031290000 0146031310000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
261 E HIGHLAND AVE 247 E ffiGHLAND AVE 245 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146032110000 0146032120000 0146032130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
287 E ffiGHLAND AVE 291 EffiGHLANDAVE 297 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146032140000 0146032230000 0146032240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2180NWATERMAN AVE 271 EHIGHLANDAVE 287 E ffiGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146221010000 0146221030000 0146221250000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W BASELINE ST 290 W BASELINE ST NMTVlEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
014622127??oo 014622128??oo 0146221290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W BASELINE ST 200 W BASELINE ST 226 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014622201??oo 0146222160000 0146222170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
198 W BASELINE ST 164 W BASELINE ST W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014622218??oo 0146222190000 01462222??oo0
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
188 W BASELINE ST N GENIVlEVE ST 1225NMT. VIEW AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146223010000 0146223020000 014622303??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W BASELINE ST N GENEVIEVE ST 1237 N GENEVIEVE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146223210000 0146223220000 0146223230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1218NSffiRRA WAY N SIERRA WAY 106 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146223240000 0146223250000 0146223260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
116 W BASELINE ST W BASELINE ST 116 W BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0146223270000 0146223280000 0146231020000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
146 W BASELINE ST W BASELINE ST 1219 N SIERRA WY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146231030000 0146231040000 0146231210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1227NSffiRRA WAY 1235 N SffiRRA WAY 1220 N LUGO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146231290000 0146231310000 0146231320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
148 E BASELINE ST 108 E BASELINE ST 1215NSffiRRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014623133??oo 014623202??oo 0146232030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N SffiRRA WAY E BASELINE ST 1219 N LUGO AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
014623223??oo 0146232240000 0146232310000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1216 N SEPULVEDA AVE N SEPULVEDA AVE N LUGOAVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146232320000 0146233010000 014623302??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
180 E BASELINE ST 216 E BASELINE ST 214 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
0146233050000 0146233150000 0146241110000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
NSEPULVEDAAVE 208 E BASELINE ST N WALL AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146241120000 0146241150000 0146241160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
228 E BASELINE ST 220 E BASELINE ST E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146242010000 0146242220000 0146242230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
232 E BASELINE ST~ 258 E BASELINE ST 244 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146242260000 0146242270000 0146243010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
236 E BASELINE ST 244 E BASELINE ST N BELLE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146243020000 0146243040000 0146243160000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N BELLE ST N BELLE ST 1270 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146243170000 0146243180000 0146243190000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1260 N WATERMAN AVE 1248 N WATERMAN AVE 1244 N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146243200000 0146243210000 0146243260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1236 N WATERMAN AVE 1228 N WATERMAN AVE 218 E BASELINE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0146243290000 0146243310000 0146243320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
270 E BASELINE ST N WATERMAN AVE N BELLE ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
014624333??oo 0146243340000 014919123??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1292 N WATERMAN AVE 296 E BASELINE ST 808 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149191240000 0149193080000 0149193090000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
850 W HIGHLAND AVE W HIGHLAND AVE W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149193100000 0149193120000 0149193130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
718 W HIGHLAND AVE 742 W HIGHLAND AVE 758 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149193200000 0149193210000 0149193220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
718 W HIGHLAND AVE 718 W HIGHLAND AVE 798 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149221120000 0149221130000 0149221140000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
400 W HIGHLAND AVE 412 WHIGHLAND AVE 424 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149221150000 0149221160000 0149221170000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
432 W HIGHLAND AVE 442 W HIGHLAND AVE 444 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149221180000 0149221190000 0149221200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
454 WHIGHLAND AVE 460 W HIGHLAND AVE 472 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149221210000 0149221220000 0149221230000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
482 W HIGHLAND AVE 486 W HIGHLAND AVE 494 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149222090000 0149222110000 0149222120000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2290 N ARROWHEAD AVE 2360 N ARROWHEAD AVE N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149222130000 0149222140000 0149222150000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2230 N ARROWHEAD AVE 302 W HIGHLAND AVE 328 W HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0149222160000 0149222170000 0149222180000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
338 W IDGHLAND AVE 348 W IDGHLAND AVE 352 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SANBER1<ARDINO,CA92405
0149222190000 0149222200000 0149222210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
364 W IDGHLAND AVE 372 W IDGHLAND AVE W IDGHLANDAVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0149222220000 0149222230000 0149222260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
384 W IDGHLAND AVE 398 WIDGHLAND AVE 2270 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0150201010000 0150201020000 0150201030000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N ARROWHEAD AVE N ARROWHEAD AVE 2295 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0150201040000 0150201080000 0150201130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W 23RD ST W 23RD ST 208 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0150201140000 0150201150000 0150201210000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
214 WIDGHLANDAVE 214 WIDGHLANDAVE 256 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0150201220000 0150201230000 0150201240000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
272 W IDGHLAND AVE 276 W IDGHLAND AVE 288 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0150201250000 0150201300000 0150201380000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
296 W IDGHLAND AVE 256 W IDGHLAND AVE 236 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SANBER1<ARDINO,CA92405
0150201390000 0150201400000 0150211320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
248 W IDGHLAND AVE 220 W IDGHLAND AVE 172 W IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
0150211330000 0150211340000 0150211350000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
180 WIDGHLAND AVE 190WIDGHLANDAVE 196WIDGHLANDAVE
SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BER1<ARDINO, CA 92405
015022122??oo 015022123??oo 0150221320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2334 N SIERRA WAY N SIERRA WAY 150 W IDGHLAND A VB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150221330000 015022134??oo 0150221740000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
W IDGHLAND A VB 160 WIDGHLAND AVB 2266 N SIERRA WAY
SANBERNARDINO,CA92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
015022175??oo 0150221760000 0150221770000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2340 N SIERRA WAY 2312 N SIERRA WAY 2282 N SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150221780000 0150231250000 0150231260000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
108WIDGHLANDAVB N LUGOAVB N LUGOAVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150231270000 0150231280000 0150231290000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2274 N LUGO A VB 2262 N LUGO A VB N LUGOAVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150231300000 0150231310000 0150231320000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N LUGOAVB 138 E IDGHLAND A VB 124 E IDGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 SAN BERNARDINO, CA'I2404
0150231330000 0150231340000 0150231350000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
E IDGHLAND A VB EIDGHLANDAVB EIDGHLANDAVB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150231360000 0150231430000 0150231640000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
N SIERRA WAY 2495 N SIERRA WAY 2337NSIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150231660000 0150231670000 0150231700000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2485 N SIERRA WY 2441 N SIERRA WAY 2339N SIERRA WAY
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
0150231710000 0150241320000 0150241360000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2441 NSlERRA WAY 178 E IDGHLAND A VB 2237 N LUGO A VB
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150241370000 0150241670000 0150241680000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2247 N LUGO AVE 148 E illGHLAND AVE 160 E illGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261290000 0150261300000 015026132??oo
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
2286 N LEROY ST 222 E illGHLAND AVE 250 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261330000 0150261360000 0150261380000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
248 E illGHLAND AVE 222 E HIGHLAND AVE 218 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261490000 0150261500000 0150261520000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
222 E HIGHLAND AVE 220 E HIGHLAND AVE 248 E illGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150261530000 0150261550000 0150281010000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
238 E HIGHLAND AVE 204 E HIGHLAND AVE W 23RD ST
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150281110000 0150281120000 0150281130000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
276 E HIGHLAND AVE E HIGHLAND AVE E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
0150281140000 0150281150000 0150281200000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
258 E HIGHLAND AVE EHlGHLANDAVE 284 E HIGHLAND AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
015028121??oo 0150281220000
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
290 E HIGHLAND AVE N WATERMAN AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
o
UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PLAN AMENDMENT
o REINSTATE EMINENT DOMAIN
(taken from black 3-ring binder)
o
Exhibit 2-3
o
o
o
UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
1. Staff Report
2. Redevelopment Project Area Map
3. Report to the Mayor and Common Council
4. Text of the Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
5. Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR")
6. Copies of Written Comments to PEIR received by May 29,2004
7. Certification of Mailing
Public Information Meeting - July 25, 2002
Project Area Committee Election Meeting - September 10, 2002
Public Initial Study Meeting - December 18, 2002
Project Area Committee Information Meeting - February 20, 2003
Public EIR Scoping Meeting - March 26, 2003
Project Area Committee Election - April I , 2003
Joint Public Hearing - July 19,2004
8. Certification of Newspaper Notice and Copy of Notice
9. Project Area Committee Report and Minutes
10. Resolution of the Community Development Commission
11. Resolution of the Community Development Commission
12. Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council
o
o
o
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FROM:
Gary Van Osdel
Executive Director
SUBJECT:
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
PLAN AMENDMENT - EMINENT
DOMAIN - REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN
DATE: July 12,2004
SvnoDsls of Previous Commlssioo/CouDelJJCommittee Action(s):
On January 24, 2000, the Community Development Commission authorized the Executive Director to prepare plan
amendments to reinstate eminent domain in the Central City North, Central City South, Central City East, Uptown and
Meadowbrook Project Areas.
On July I, 2002, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a resolution for the procedures for the formation and election
of a Project Area Committee for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment for the Uptown Project Area and calling
for the formation of a Project Area Committee (pAC).
On October 21, 2002, the Mayor and Common Council adopted resolutions modiiying the PAC procedures and the
scope of the proposed plan amendment to reinstate eminent domain for all properties located within the Uptown Project
Area.
On May 5, 2003, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a resolution acknowledging the results of an election of
Project Area Committee members and fmding thst all applicable procedures were followed in the election of the Project
Area Committee for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
On June 7, 2004, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino adopted a resolution setting a
date and time, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to reinstate the powers of
eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
On June 7, 2004, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino adopted a resolution setting a date and
time, July 19, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an amendment to reinstate the powers of eminent
domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
Recommended Motion(s):
OPEN JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
(CommuDity DeveloDment CommlssioolMavor and Common Council)
IF WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE PRESENTED
MOTION A: THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED; THAT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT BE CONSIDERED; AND THAT WRITTEN FINDINGS BE
PREPARED IN RESPONSE THERETO AS APPLICABLE AND BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING.
OR
(SEE NEXT PAGE)
Contact Person(s):
Project Area(s)
Gary Van OsdellMike Trout
Uptown
Phone:
(909) 663-1044
1,2 and 7
Ward(s):
Supporting Data Attached: iii Staff Report iii Resolution(s) iii Ordinance iii Map(s) iii LetterslMisc.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
SIGNATURE:
Source:
N/A
N/A
P:\Aam:Iu\Comm Dcv ColDlllisllion'lDC 2004~7-19 Uptown PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meetlog Date: 07/19/2004
Agenda Item Number:
o
o
o
MOTION B:
IF NO WRITI'EN OBJECTIONS ARE PRESENTED
THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED; THAT SAID RBSOLUfION BE ADOPTED AND
THAT SAID ORDINANCE BE LAID OVER FOR FINAL ADOPTION.
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSffiLE AGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL
BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS.
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ON
THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/1912004
P:\ApIdas\Comm Dcv Commission\COC 2004\D4..07.19 Uptown PH SR..doc
Agenda Item Number:
o
o
o
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
Public Bearin!! - Uutown Redeveloument Project Area Plan Amendment-
Eminent Domain - Reinstatement of Eminent Domain
BACKGROUND:
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area was established on June 18, 1986 and encompasses 433
acres that are divided into two (2) Subareas. Subarea "A" has 349 acres and Subarea "B" has 84
acres. With the improving local economy, the Agency is seeing increasing development interest
within the project area. In recognition of this trend, it is important for the Agency to have a variety of
tools available to assist redevelopment. One of the most effective tools for redevelopment is the
power of eminent domain. However, the power of eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area expired on June 18, 1998.
On January 24, 2000, the Mayor and Common Council authorized the initiation of an amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan to re-establish the power of eminent domain over only
those properties that are within non-residential land use districts in the General Plan or are currently
being used for non-residential purposes.
On July 1, 2002, the Mayor and Common Council approved and adopted the procedures to be used
for the formation of a PAC for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area and calling upon the citizens
of the City to participate in the PAC.
On July 15, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the July 25, 2002 public workshop on the
proposed amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
On July 25, 2002, Agency staff conducted a public information workshop to present the proposed
amendment, explain the amendment process, and answer questions of the attendees. This workshop
was announced by mailed notices to the property owners and site addresses in the JUptown
Redevelopment Project Area.
On August 27, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning the September 10, 2002 Project Area
Committee election for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
On September 10, 2002, Agency staff conducted a PAC formation election for the purpose of creating
a PAC from property owners, residences and business owners within the Uptown Project Area.
However, the election did not take place due to the fact that there was not a sufficient number of PAC
applications submitted.
P:\.o\pIdu\Comm Dcv CommiNioll\CDC 2004\D4-07-19 UpCowII PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting nate: 06/07/2004
Agenda Item Number:
o
o
o
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 2
October 21,2002, tbe Mayor and Common Council modified tbe PAC procedures and tbe scope of
the proposed plan amendment to reinstate eminent domain over all properties within tbe Uptown
Project Area. The proposed amendment would reinstate tbe power of eminent domain for a period of
twelve (12) years.
Reinstating erninent domain in this project area and tbe Central City North Project Area has tbe
potential to result in direct physical changes in tbe environment by enabling tbe Mercado Santa Fe,
tbe San Bernardino Old Towne, and otber expected projects to proceed. It is also reasonably
foreseeable that cumulatively significant impacts will result from tbe combined construction of
several smaller projects now in various stages of implementation. These include tbe widening of 1-
215, tbe construction of senior citizen housing projects, tbe construction of an elementary school and
otber development projects. Due to tbe potential environmental and traffic impacts that may result
from tbese project area plan amendments a Program EIR is required as opposed to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The most notable environmental issues would likely be
transportation/circulation, air quality, and changes in land use.
On November 18,2002, tbe Community Development Commission adopted a resolution autborizing
tbe execution of an agreement for professional services for tbe preparation of .a Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related traffic study.
On December 10, 2002, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within tbe Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning tbe December 18, 2002 community
meeting concerning tbe Initial Study and input concerning tbe scope of the Environmental Impact
Report for tbe Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
On December 18, 2002, Agency staff conducted a combined Uptown and Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area community meeting to introduce tbe environmental consultant and to
provide draft copies of tbe Initial Study which stated that since tbe proposed project may have a
significant effect on the environment, a environmental impact report was required.
On February 10, 2003, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
witbin tbe Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning tbe February 20,2003 PAC information
meeting and the April I, 2003 Project Area Committee election for tbe Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area
On February 20,2003, Agency staff conducted anotber PAC formation meeting to discuss tbe need
and importance of tbe PAC. Those attending tbis meeting were encouraged to participate and were
given PAC applications to fill out.
On March 12, 2003, mailers were sent to residents, businesses, organizations and property owners
within tbe Uptown Redevelopment Project Area concerning tbe March 26, 2003 scoping meeting for
the Environmental Impact Report for tbe Uptown Redevelopment Project Area informing tbe
community of tbe scope of tbe Environmental Impact Report and take comments from tbe public.
P:\Apndas\Comm Dev Clrnmis3ion\CDC 2004\04.07-19 Uptown PH BR.ckIe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 0711912004
Agenda Item Number:
o
o
o
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 3
On March 26, 2003, Agency staff and the EIR consultant held a combined community scoping
meeting for both Uptown and Central City North project areas to receive input from the community
concerning possible alternatives and the development of the EIR. For the next several weeks Agency
staff and the EIR consultant worked together to develop the required alternatives in addition to the
principal project description.
A normal schedule for the effort would result in completion and certification of the EIR in March or
April 2004. However, due to a turnover in personnel with the EIR consultant, the related traffic
studies that would accompany the EIR slipped past the initial deadline. This resulted in the
completion and certification schedule to be increased by four months.
On April I, 2003, Agency staff conducted the PAC formation election in which six (6) individuals
were elected thereby forming a PAC for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area. The election was
over seen by the City Clerk's Office. Subsequently, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a
resolution, on May 5,2003, acknowledging the results of the Uptown PAC election.
Though a PAC had been elected, the PAC held no meetings since there were no preliminary
documents concerning the proposed text amendment or the Draft EIR for review. However, once
these documents were available for review PAC meetings began in March 2004 to discuss the text
amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan, the Initial Study and the Draft EIR.
On July 6, 2004, Uptown PAC voted to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council and the
Community Development Commission to adopt the 2004 Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area Plan reinstating eminent domain within the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
CURRENT ISSUE:
The Uptown Redevelopment Project was adopted in 1986. Conditions of blight which existed at the
time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan were extensive and substantial. The Redevelopment
Project Area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") remains blighted today. One
tool which the Agency may use to address conditions of blight in appropriate situations - the exercise
of eminent domain - lapsed in the Project Area in 1998. The proposed Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan will reinstate the power of the Agency to acquire land by eminent domain for
twelve (12) years.
The Project Area includes deteriorated commercial frontage lots abutting either side of several
principal streets in the center of the City. Comparatively little residential use property is in included
in the Project Area although it estimated that more than 2,000 individuals may reside in the Project
Area. In an older commercial area such as the Project Area where small substandard lot sizes are so
prevalent, an important element of an effective program to address actual conditions of blight is the
ability to assemble small parcels of land under separate ownerships into useable sites under current-
day standards. The reinstatement of the condemnation power for the Agency is believed to be an
important factor in addressing conditions of blight which remain in the Project Area. As long as the
ability of the Agency to acquire land for specific redevelopment activities is limited to negotiated
P:\Agcndu\Comm OevCommission\COC 2OO4\{)4..(l7.19 Uptown PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/1912004
Agenda Item Number:
o
o
o
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 4
purchase, grant, exchange or other voluntary forms of sale, the potential for sustained and large scale
redevelopment of the property in the Project Area involving multiple parcels of land is limited. This
is espeCially so when existing owners and other persons who are prepared to invest new capital in the
community cannot expand or acquire land of adequate size and shape for development and use under
current City standards.
The evidence of blight in the Project Area is readily apparent to anyone who drives along its principal
streets. One striking factor of the Project Area is the relative absence of any visible new construction
or rehabilitation activity. Since the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1986 little in the
way of new improvements of rehabilitation has occurred and nearly one fourth (Yo) of the individual
lots in the Project Area are currently vacant. Many of these currently vacant lots were formerly
improved with structures which over the years became so dilapidated and substandard, the owners
were compelled to remove them.
The proposed 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is limited to the reinstatement of the
Agency's power of eminent domain. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan, and in particular
no changes to the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan are proposed.
The Agency's power to acquire property by eminent domain expired in 1998. In general, the Agency
has used the power of eminent domain in the past in its redevelopment project areas only in a few
exceptional circumstances and for specific redevelopment project activities. The Agency has not
acquired any property in the Project Area by eminent domain at any time since its adoption in 1986.
Over the years, a vast majority of the land which the Agency has acquired in its various
redevelopment project areas has been acquired by negotiated purchase. Since 1986, the Agency has
acquired certain property in the Project Area by negotiated purchase but at this time, the Agency has
not been able to assemble enough land by negotiated purchase for an effective redevelopment activity
involving multiple parcels of land to deal with conditions of blight on a large scale. Under current
circumstances, without eminent domain authority the Agency cannot plan for or assume that all of
land which is necessary for a specific redevelopment activity will be available to the Agency under a
negotiated purchase arrangement. In such a situation, the Agency cannot make realistic and feasible
plans to assist owners or third parties who are prepared to eliminate blight under specific and
enforceable terms involving multiple parcels of land, since the otherwise available land is not useable
or new development is not economically feasible without additional land to solve specific conditions
of blight. Without the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain, the range of the Agency's
ability to foster redevelopment in the Project Area is greatly reduced.
The Califomia Redevelopment Law ("CRL") authorizes an Agency to reinstate the power of eminent
domain after it has lapsed in a Redevelopment Project Area, if the Agency finds that conditions of
blight still persist in the Redevelopment Project Area. Accordingly, the Agency has previously
initiated certain actions to consider the adoption of the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Uptown Redevelopment Project which reinstates the power of eminent domain for a twelve (12)
year period of time.
P:\Agendu'Comm Dev Commission\COC 2004\()4.(J7-19 Uptown PH SR.doe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07119/2004
Agenda Item Number:
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 5
o
Section 33352 01 the Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") states that when the Agency submits
an amendment to the redevelopment plan to the Mayor and Common Council ("Council") for
adoption, the Agency must also submit a report entitled the Report to Mayor and Common Council
("Report"). For a redevelopment plan amendment, the contents of the Report are only those portions
warranted by the proposed amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide, in one document, all
information, documentation, and evidence regarding the 2004 Amendment to assist the Council in its
consideration and in making various findings and determinations that are legally required to adopt the
2004 Amendment. This report to the Council has been prepared in accordance with all requirements
of Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the CRL.
During the joint public hearing the Commission and Council will consider the information presented
by the Agency Staff and consultants regarding the Report and the 2004 Amendment. Testimony and
comments of interested members of the public will also be received. If one or more written objections
are presented to the Council before or during the joint public hearing on July 19, 2004, a written
respouse to such written objections must be prepared and considered before the 2004 Amendment
may be adopted.
By adopting the attached resolution of the Community Development Commission at the conclusion of
the joint public hearing, the Commission will approve the Report and the proposed eminent domain
amendment and authorize Agency Staff to transmit the Report to Mayor and Common Council and
the 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Mayor and Common Council.
o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Agency and the City of San Bernardino retained Lilburn Corporation to prepare an Initial Study
to determine potential impacts related to the reinstatement of eminent domain and other entitlement
actious. At their meeting of February 5, 2004 the Development/Environmental Review Committee
(D/ERC) reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the Central City North and Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area Plans, and other entitlement actions. The D/ERC concurred that the Initial Study
adequately addressed the issues and determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (ElR)
would be required.
The Agency and the City retained LSA Associates to prepare the ElR. The Notice of Preparation was
published in the San Bernardino County Sun and public agencies. The public review period for the
Notice of Preparation was February 17, 2004 through March 17, 2004.
Upon completion of the Draft Program EIR, the Notice of Completion was published in the San
Bernardino County Sun. The Draft Program ElR was made available for public review at the City of
San Bernardino Development Services Department, the Feldheym Central Library, and the City of
San Bernardino web site. It was also distributed to public agencies and made available to the D/ERC,
Planning Commission, and Mayor and Common Council. The public review period was April 8, 2004
through May 29, 2004. Comments were received from four agencies and are included in the Final
Program ElR along with staff responses.
o
P:\Agendas\CommDev Commission\CDC 2004\04-01.19 UptOwn PH SR.-doe
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 07/19/2004
Agenda Item Number:
o
o
o
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan Amendment
Page 6
As analyzed in the Draft Program EIR, the impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant with mitigation measures are certain air quality and traffic impact related to the
development of the Mercado Santa Fe project. There are no significant impacts related to the
reinstatement of eminent domain. There are potential for impacts from future development within the
proposed General Plan Amendment area. Those impacts cannot be specifically identified or
quantified until such time as an actual development project is proposed. However, it is likely that
development of this area will result in impacts similar to those related to the proposed development of
the Mercado Santa Fe project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based on contracts entered into with consultants for this amendment, the costs will total $131,627.
Funds for this activity have been budgeted and approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Community Development Commission and Mayor and Common Council adopt either
Motion A or Motion B.
1. Staff Report
2. Redevelopment Project Area Map
3. Report to the Mayor and Common Council
4. Text of the Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
5. Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR")
6. Copies of Written Comments to PEIR received by May 29,2004
7. Certification of Mailing and Copy of Newsletters
8. Certification of Newspaper Notice and Copy of Notice
9. Project Area Committee Report and Minutes
10. Resolution of the Community Development Commission
II. Resolution of the Community Development Commission
12. Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council
P:\Ascadu'CommDcv Commission\CDC 2004\04-.07.19 UptowR PH SR.doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 0711912004
Agenda Item Number:
o
D II II 'c=JD F=
DI I r] iRnI I .. 1
8'-rirej _,,;=iE;l""jlfi 'i~ bJ >r E ~, l, ;ili Iii2iJJ
.r 11! '<j' 111:-C-..r . 'I I! 1
b ob! (!6Iml '01 I: ~ IL
ED I: :Billillrnrn =.. :
f?[]1 II ~~ iBDrnrn_~DL[
f-II +qEJOO[]]OODD [
[J.....rJl m. ono :=(=11 ~l ....
nn n b:lliJ -t. U LL L.- CJ . -.r ~ r; '- tIJmTI [L, ~ c- _
/"~ ,-, i. l~ ~m... '. "'fT. m...,..,-,r;- WJ'" j.E3TIP4ffltIIIIIH-J~ ,J-
=i ~f[]. tJ I 1c:JLJt::jU[ J
DBd_D: u DJOI Ii :8
-- ,-- --
B~ I 11.,l!. ~r?lnl... Oi ~~
OL._. 11T1fT :'. i=l~.~rr::..lil !u,nJ _0. II~
I I .n' I ..... ---1J > I,
j, l> ~ __" r~;; "~~-.. - l> J -
r: - .. L-' .-..
-oo I rir=i.. =.:::. SUBAREA "A"
i:
~
o
SUBAREA"B"
.-..
.....
~.-
-
_ '211,'
~1Ct,TI I ii. . I
o Y': wwl EbB!",
~~!~~,I
CiIy 01 San Bsmatdino .
__ ~__~u._ __._. ____ ________
UPTOWN
o
2004 Eminent Domain Amendment
Uptown Redevelopment ProjectArea
R8part to MaJar and
CaImciI
o
July 2004
RedevelopmentAgenc;' of the City of San Bernardino
201 North "E" Slreet Suite 301
San Bernardino, California 92401-1507
Rosa_ Spevacek Group, Inc.
o
217 North Main Street, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92701
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-mail: info@webrsg.com
o
City of San Bernardino
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
Judith Valles, Mayor
Esther Estrada, 1st Ward
Susan Lien Longville, r Ward
Gordon McGinnis, T Ward
Neil Derry, 4th Ward
Chas A. Kelley, 5th Ward
Rikke Van Johnson, f!' Ward
Wendy McCammack, "fh Ward
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF
Gary Van Osdel, Economic Development Agency Director
o
Maggie Pacheco, Deputy Directorl Housing and Community Development
Director
Mike Trout, Project Manager
REPORT PREPARED BY ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
o
o
o
o
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................. i
Redevelopment Plan Amendment.......................................................................... ii
Contents of this Report .......................................................................................... Iv
Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects
Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting
Conditions Found In the Project Area ..................................................... A-1
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the
Project Area ............................................................................................ B-1
Deteriorated and Dilapidated 8uildings ..............................................................8-4
Defective Design/Defective Physical Construction ..........................................8-11
Substandard Design .........................................................................................8-13
Mixed and Incompatible Uses...........................................................................8-15
Lots of Irregular Form and Size ........................................................................8-18
Prevalence of Absentee Owners......................................................................8-19
Depreciated Property Values and Impaired Investment ..................................8-20
Building and Code Violation..............................................................................8-23
High Level of Crime...........................................................................................8-26
Five-Year Implementation Pian............................................................... C-1
Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot Be
Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Agency's Use
of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment............................ D-1
The Method of Financing ........................................................................ E-1
The Relocation Plan ................................................................................ F-1
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan ...........................~................................. G-1
Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission ................... H-1
o
Report of the Project Area Committee .................................................... 1..1
General Plan Conformance ..................................................................... ..1-1
Environmental Impact Report ................................................................. K.1
Report of the County Fiscal Officer ........................................................ L-i
Neighborhood Impact Report..................................................................M.1
Relocation .......................................................................................................... M-1
Traffic Circulation.................................... .... ....... ................................... ............. M-2
Environmental Quality............ ............................. ........................... .... ................ M-2
Availability of Community Facilities and Services ............................................. M-2
Effect on School Population and Quality of Education...................................... M-2
Property Taxes and Assessments..................................................................... M-3
Low and Moderate Income Housing Program .................................................. M-3
o
A Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies .... N-1
Exhibit 1: Initial Study and Program Environmental Impact Report
Exhibit 2: 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
10
I
on
Introduction
On June 18, 1986, the Mayor and Common Council ("Council") approved
Ordinance MC-527 that adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project ("Project") and Project Area ("Project Area").
The Plan was subsequently amended on December 19, 1995 with the
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-927, establishing and amending certain
limitation of the Plan, and on December 1, 2003, eliminating the time limit to
incur debt with the adoption of Ordinance No. MC-1161.
The Uptown Project Area constituted a total of 433 acres divided into two sub
areas (Exhibit A-1). The Project Area is located in the central part of the
City. Sub Area A is located along Highland Avenue and Baseline Street from
Interstate 215 (1-215) on the west to Waterman Avenue on the east, and
along "E" street from Highland Avenue on the north to Eighth Street on the
south. Sub Area B is bounded by Santa Fe railroad yard to the north, Rialto
Avenue and King Street on the south, 1-215 on the east and Mount Vernon on
the west.
o
Sub Area A of the Project Area is generally characterized by strip commercial
structures, consisting of older structures intermixed with new development
such as fast food franchises and convenience stores. Automobile-related
uses are generally located along "E" Street, south of Baseline Street. Single-
family and multiple family residential uses are scattered amongst commercial
uses throughout Sub Area A. Sub Area B is characterized by a mixture of
industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
The purpose of the Project is to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight
and deterioration in the Project Area by participation with owners and tenants
in rehabilitation, demolition and/or construction, land assembly and or other
incentives. Relocation assistance and public improvements will be provided,
if necessary. The redevelopment of land by private enterprise and public
agencies for uses in accordance with the Plan is encouraged. Generally, the
purpose of this Plan is to provide for the rehabilitation of existing commercial
and residential structures and to facilitate new development on vacant or
underutilized areas within the Project Area boundaries.
o
To this end, the Plan permits the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Bernardino ("Agency") to acquire real property by any means authorized by
law, including eminent domain. Although the Agency has not used
condemnation in the past, the ability to acquire property through eminent
domain is a necessary and effective tool to facilitate redevelopment of the
Project Area. Except for potential land assembly assistance in support of the
proposed Mercado Santa Fe Project in Sub Area "B", the Agency has no
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
specific plans to use eminent domain to acquire property at this time, staff
recommends that preserving this power will be necessary to complete any
future redevelopment projects involving land acquisition.
The Agency's existing eminent domain authority is restricted to a 12-year
time limit, and expired on June 18, 1998 for the Project Area. Under the
California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law"), the Plan's eminent
domain time limit may be extended by up to 12 years if the Agency
undertakes a plan amendment as prescribed by the Law. As the Agency
envisions possible land acquisition activities for future redevelopment
projects, the Agency is proposing to amend the Plan to extend the eminent
domain time limit by 12 years, or until the twelfth anniversary (12th) of the
effective date of the ordinance approving the 2004 Eminent Domain
Amendment ("Amendment"). The Agency proposes to reinstate the power of
eminent domain on industrial and commercial properties and extend this
authority to residential properties.
Redevelopment Plan Amendment
Subsection "C. Property Acquisition" of section "V. PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS' of the Plan is hereby amended in it's entirely
to read as follows:
C. Prooertv Acauisition
1. Acauisition of Real Prooertv
Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire real
property by any means authorized by law, including by purchase, lease,
obtain option upon, acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise, or otherwise,
any real or personal property, and any improvements on it, including
repurchase of property owned by Agency, exchange, cooperative
negotiation, or eminent domain.
It is in the public interest and is necessary in order to execute this Plan,
for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to
acquire real property in all portions of the Project Area, with the following
exclusions:
a. Except as otherwise provided, within, or otherwise! provided by
law, no eminent domain proceedings to acquire property shall be
commenced after twelve (12) years from the date of adoption of
the ordinance approving and adopting the 2004 Amendment to the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
b. Agency shall not acquire from any of its members or officers any
property or interest in property except through eminent domain
proceedings.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-11-
SAN BERNAROINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
c. Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the
Agency through eminent domain, but property of a public body
shall not be acquired without its consent.
d. The Agency at the request of the Common Council may accept a
conveyance of real property (located either outside a sUNeyarea)
owned by a public entity and declared surplus by the public entity,
or owned by a private entity.
The Agency may dispose of such property to private persons or to
public or private entities, by sale or long-term lease for
development. Allor any part of the funds derived from the sale or
lease of such property may at the discretion of the Common
Council be paid to the City, or to the public entity from which any
such property was acquired.
Any exercise of its power of eminent domain by the Agency shall be
subject to all of the limitations set forth in this 2004 Amendment. These
limitations may only be extended by subsequent amendment of the Plan.
The Agency shall, if at all, exercise the power of eminent domain in
accordance with the provisions and prerequisites of the Califomia
Eminent Domain Law [Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1230.010 et. seq.]
and the Califomia Relocation Act [Govemment Code Sec. 7262 et. seq.].
o
2. ACQuisition of Personal Prooertv. Anv other Interest in Real Prooertv.
or Anv Imorovements in Real Prooertv
Where necessary in the implementation of the Plan, the Agency is
authorized to acquire personal property, any other interest in real
property, and any improvements on real property including repurchase of
developed property previously owned by Agency by any lawful means.
Although the proposed Mercado Santa Fe Project, if approved in the future,
could involve the Agency in land assembly efforts, the Agency does not have
any immediate or specific plans to use eminent domain to acquire property at
this time. However. staff, consultants, and legal counsel feels that it is very
important to preserve this power because it is a necessary component to
completing future redevelopment activities. The power of eminent domain is
especially necessary for those projects involving land acquisition. The ability
to consolidate lots for new development and abate or provide mitigation
between incompatible uses is essential in addressing the remaining
conditions of blight in the Project Area.
Incompatibility issues between commercial use and residential use properties
can be resolved by fostering redevelopment of commercial and industrial use
property on a sustainable economic basis and by applying current building
construction standards to remodeled and new commercial and industrial
structures and by requiring adequate buffers between different uses. Being
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
-III-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
sensitive to surrounding businesses and residents is part of being a good
neighbor.
This document is the Agency's Report to the Mayor and Common Council
("Report") on the proposed Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to
Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the Law. Pursuant to Section 33352 of the
Law, the Agency is required to submit a Report containing specific
documentation regarding the proposed Amendment. The purpose of this
Report is to provide the information, documentation, and evidence required to
support the adoption of the Amendment. This information, documentation,
and evidence are provided to assist the Council in its consideration of the
proposed Amendment, and in making the various determinations in
connection with its adoption.
With respect to the Amendment, this Report supplements the documentation
and evidence contained in the 1986 Report to the Mayor and Common
Council ("Original Report"), prepared in connection with the original Plan; the
Original Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Contents of this Report
The contents of this Report are presented in 14 sections, which generally
correspond to the subdivisions presented in Section 33352 of the Law. The
sections are as follows:
o
SECTION A
SECTION B
SECTION C
SECTION 0
SECTION E
SECTION F
SECTION G
SECTION H
SECTION I
10
Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific
Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve
or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area
A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions
Existing in the Project Area
Five-Year Implementation Plan
Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot
be accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by
the Agency's Use of Financing Altematives Other Than
Tax Increment
The Method of Financing
The Relocation Plan
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
Report and Recommendation .of the Planning Commission
Report of the Project Area Committee
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-IV-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
SECTION J
SECTION K
SECTION L
SECTION M
SECTION N
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
o
o
General Plan Conformance
The Environmental Impact Report
Report of the County Fiscal Officer
Neighborhood Impact Report
A Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing
Agencies
Initial Study and Program Environmental Impact Report for
the 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment
2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-v-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
011
Reasons for the AnlCndlnent and a
Description of Specific Projects Proposed
and Mow These ~ Mil Improve or
Alleviate Blighting COnditions Found in the
Project Area
When the Project was adopted in 1986, the Plan established various financial
and time limitations involving the use of some of the redevelopment tools. In
compliance with the Law, the use of eminent domain expired on June 18,
1998, 12 years following the date of adoption of the ordinance approving and
adopting the Plan. While the Agency may continue projects and receive tax
increment revenue, it is no longer able to use eminent domain without an
amendment reestablishing this time limit.
o
The ability to acquire property for revitalization is one of the fundamental tools
of Redevelopment. In the Project Area, extension of the power of eminent
domain will enable the Agency to consolidate lots in order to provide
increased opportunities for redevelopment in the Project Area. Indeed, the
major issues concerning the Project Area are the physical condition of
structures, the inadequate lot size and occurrence of incompatible uses,
which are affecting not only property values but also the quality of life for
residents within the Project Area. These issues are among the most serious
factors confronting the Agency as it implements redevelopment programs in
the Project Area, and were chief reasons for establishing the Project Area.
By re-establishing the Agency's power of eminent domain, the Agency has
the option to consolidate parcels for a comprehensive program of providing
rehabilitation and stimulating redevelopment activity.
The Agency's existing eminent domain authority is restricted to a 12-year
time limit, and expired on June 18, 1998. Under the Law, the Plan's eminent
domain time limit may be reinstated by up to 12 years if the Agency
undertakes plan amendment efforts prescribed by the Law. As the Agency
envisions possible land acquisition activities for future redevelopment
projects, the Agency is proposing to amend the Plan to extend the eminent
domain time limit by 12 years, or until the twelfth anniversary (1ih) of the
effective date of the ordinance approving the Amendment.
Over the history of the Project, eminent domain has not been used by the
Agency. However, the ability to use eminent domain is still critical for
successful property negotiations. For example, without this authority,
property acquisition efforts could stall if an owner of a substandard sized
c
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-A-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
vacant lot held out for an excessively high price, because without his
substandard sized vacant lot being joined with a neighbor substandard sized
vacant lot, the two lots could not be joined together for redevelopment under
current development requirements. In the Project Area, eminent domain is
particularly important because of the significant amount of underutilized
and/or irregular form and size shaped parcels that are insufficient for proper
usefulness or development. This condition can contribute to economic
decline and impaired investment as current owners are not able to
rehabilitate their properties and future development is limited.
Even though the Agency has had some success in spurring economic
development and providing for rehabilitation, the majority of the original
conditions of blight documented in the Original Report continue to exist and
demand further redevelopment activities. This is due in part to the economic
downtum of the 1990's. The region, City and Project Area has never
successfully recovered from this downturn or the closure of two major air
force bases located within San Bernardino County ("County"). With the local
economy stagnant, assessed value revenues have declined or remain limited
for much of the first decade of the Project. This has severely limited the tax
increment revenue available to the Agency to conduct redevelopment and
only recently has the Agency been able to complete various rehabilitation
activities that will now allow revitalization to move forward. However, with the
expiration of the Agency's eminent domain authority, further efforts by the
Agency to continue with revitalization, rehabilitation, and economic
development could be seriously jeopardized.
o
The proposed Amendment text that would extend the Plan's eminent domain
time limit as presented in the Introduction Section of the Report.
The Agency does not intend to undertake projects outside the scope of the
Plan, and as analyzed in the Original Report. A description of the proposed
redevelopment projects are contained in the Original Report and incorporated
herein by reference.
The Project Area is divided into 2 sub areas and comprises of a total of
approximately 433 acres. The largest, Sub Area "N, comprises 348 acres
generally involving those properties along Highland Avenue and Baseline
Street between Interstate 215 and Waterman Avenue; and along "E" Street
between 8th Street and Highland Avenue. Sub Area "B" involves roughly 84
acres comprising an area between Interstate 215 and Mt. Vemon Avenue,
north of Rialto to the Santa Fe Railroad yards as shown in the following
Exhibit A-1.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
-A-2-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
t
[
o
r
~"A'
"~"lI" ..
~.
UPTOWN
EXHIBIT A. 1: PROJECT AREA MAP
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-A-3-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
SeetlGI'
A Description of the Physical and Economic
Conditions Existing in the Project Area
o
Section 33352(b) of the Law requires a description of the physical and
economic conditions that cause the Project Area to be blighted. This
information was provided in the documentation that was prepared and
provided as evidence that the Project Area was deemed blighted at the time
of adoption.
Although the definition of "blight" has changed since the adoption of the Plan
in 1986, this Report will examine the continued existence of the specific
conditions of blight, which were found to exist in the Project Area by the
Council in 1986 under the then-current Law. When the Council adopted the
Redevelopment Plan, it determined that blight existed in the Project Area
based upon evidence in the record. Those findings are deemed to be final
and conclusive under the Law. It follows that portions of the Project Area,
which were blighted during their original adoption, have not been upgraded or
modified since that time, and are still conclusively deemed to be blighted.
This Section of the Report will examine both portions of the Project Area,
which have not been modified and can be presumed to still be blighted, and
which of the original conditions of blight are still present in the Project Area
today.
The Original Report documented the following blighting conditions in the
Project Area:
o
Structural Blight
. Defective design and character of physical construction
. Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing
. High density of population and overcrowding
. Inadequate provision of ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces, and
recreational facilities
. Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or
shifting of uses.
Economic Blight
. An economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty
planning
. The subdivision and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and
inadequate size for proper usefulness and development
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
. B-1.
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
. The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other
topography or physical characteristics of the ground and the
surrounding conditions.
For the purposes of this Amendment, the Law does not require that the
Project Area be as blighted as it was when the Project was adopted. Nor
does the Law require, supporting the amendment that the Council finds that
the existing Project Area would meet the same standards for adoption of a
new Project Area, but only that some of the original blighting factors continue
to exist. The Law acknowledges and anticipates that the Agency's
redevelopment program will eliminate at least some of the original blighting
conditions, and accordingly, the Law requires this report to deltcribe what
blight remains. Under the Law in effect as of the time of the original plan
adoption, even a single blighting factor may be sufficient to support the
adoption of a redevelopment plan, so long as that condition causes a
reduction of, or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it
constitutes a serious burden on the community which cannot be solved by
private enterprise acting alone.
This Section B will demonstrate that many of the original blighting conditions
found to exist in the Project Area in 1986 still exist. As a result of the
declining economic base, there has been little private investment in the
Project Area, which has prevented many of the problems of the area from
being resolved through private activity.
The Agency has engaged in various activities in order to eliminate the
detrimental physical, social, and economic conditions that were negatively
impacting the area. Specific projects include:
. Provided assistance to Games for Fun to expand their
operations/facilities;
. Assisted Hair Master School of Beauty with the construction of public
improvements, parking lot expansion;
. Provided assistance for the renovation of the Smart & Final Shopping J
Center; and
. Provided low interest single-family home rehabilitation loans.
One of the future projects that the Agency hopes to undertake is a retail
center commonly referred to as the Mercado Santa Fe. The site is 9.2 acres
and located within Sub Area B. The site of the proposed development is
zoned CG-4 (Commercial General 4). The CG-4 zone permits the
development of "Theme/Speciality Centers" accommodating uses such as
"speciality" retail, restaurants, theaters, cultural facilities and social service
uses.
Due to these actions, the Agency has been able to eliminate a small portion
of the blighting conditions that existed in the Project Area. However, the area
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-B-2-
o
continues to be faced with dilapidated, deteriorated, aged. and obsolescent
properties and structures (including housing, commercial, retail and industrial
buildings) along with impaired development and investment due to poor
parcelization.
The physical and economic blighting conditions still prevailing in the Project
Area is summarized for each the sub areas in the following Table B-1 and
B-2.
TABLE B.1
SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUB AREA A
No. of
No. of Parcels Developed % of Parcels
with Blighting Parcels in with Blighting
Blighting Cond~ions Cond~ions Project Area Conditions
Physical Blighting Conditions
Buildings UnsafeJUnhealthy to live or work
Dilapidation/Deterioration 163 912 17.9%
Defective Design/Physical Cond~ions 22 912 2.4%
Factors that prevent or Hinder the economically
viable use or capacity of buildings
0 Substandard Design 23 912 2.5%
Lack of Parking 16 912 2.0%
Lots of inadequate size 569 912 62.4%
Incom atible Land Use 27 912 3.0%
No. of Parcels with one or more h ical br htin cond~ions 612 912 67.1%
Economic Blighting Conditions
Depreciated/Stagnant Property Values (1998-99 to 2002-03) 245 912 26.9%
Adult Businesses 8 912 0.9%
Abandoned Buildin s 53 912 5.8%
No. of Parcels with one or more economic bli htin conditions 289 912 31.7%
No. of Parcels with one or more physical or economic blighting
conditions or both 695 912 76.2%
Sources
City of San Bernardino Information Services Depatfmenf
RSG Field Survey, October 2002
HDL Coren & Cone
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-B-3-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
TABLE B.2
SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUB AREA B
Blighting Conditions
Physical Blighting Conditions
No. of Parcels
with Blighting
Conditions
No. of
Developed
Parcels in
Project Area
% of Parcels
with Blighting
Conditions
Buildings Unsafe/Unhealthy to live or work
DilapidationlDeterioration
Defective Design/Physical Conditions
251
251
17.1%
10.4%
43
26
Factors that prevent or Hinder the economically
viable use or capacity of buildings
Substandard Design
Lack of Parking
Lots of inadequate size
Incom tibia Land Use
No. of Parcels with one or more h ical bli htin conditions
251
251
251
251
251
11.2%
6.0%
90.8%
2.4%
93.2%
28
15
228
6
234
Economic Blighting Conditions
Depreciated/Stagnant Property Values (1998-99 to 2002-03)
Adull Businesses
Abandoned Buildi s
No. of Parcels with one or more economic br hti conditions
11.2%
0.0%
4.4%
13.9%
28
o
11
35
251
251
251
251
No. of Parcels with ono or more p yslcal or economic blighting
conditions or both
251
93.6%
235
Sources
City of San Bernardino Infotmation Services Department
RSG Field SUlvey, February 2003
HOL Coren & Cone
DetelioIated and Dilapidated Buiklngs
The existence of deteriorated and dilapidated buildings is an indicator of
blight and is a sign of lack of reinvestment in the area. The commercial and
industrial structures within the Project Area are some of the oldest buildings
within the City and are characterized by dilapidation, deterioration, and age.
The average age of the buildings within the Project Area is 46 years old
according to 2003 FFIEC' Census Report. The average structural life of a
building is 55 years and buildings begin to show signs of age and
obsolescence after 25 years. For example, most roofs last 20-30 years and
regular repainting and repairs are needed to protect and maintain the integrity
of the buildings. As expected, conditions of many of the structures within the
Project Area show significant signs of age, deterioration, and lack of
maintenance. Much of the Project Area's buildings are deteriorated, 17.9% of
all parcels in Sub Area A and 17.1 % of all parcels in Sub Area B, as a result it
1 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
.8-4-
o
o
o
is unlikely that individual investment and rehabilitation will occur. Only a
comprehensive program will be able to address these conditions to provide
the needed rehabilitation required to improve the Project Area.
For commercial or industrial structures the Agency may need to acquire
offending properties. Acquisition of such properties may require the use of
eminent domain to accomplish the Agency's goal of eliminating these
conditions of deterioration.
In February 2003, a field survey of the Project Area noted that the majority of
the buildings remain deteriorated, including housing, retail establishments,
and industrial buildings. The survey team was comprised of Sweta
Bhattacharya and Katherine Han and accompanied by John Hoeger, Project
Manager and Mike Trout, Project Manager, both with the Economic
Development Agency, City of San Bernardino. Sweta Bhattacharya received
her Bachelors of Art from Jadavpur University in Calcutta, India and her
Masters in Planning from the University of Southern Califomia. Ms.
Bhattacharya has worked on various projects for El Monte, Montclair,
Stockton, Fontana and Grand Terrace. Katherine Han graduated with a
degree in Real Estate Finance from the University of Southern Califomia.
Ms. Han has worked on projects for the City of Palm Desert, Lake Forest, Bell
and Contra Costa County. Both Ms. Bhattacharya and Ms. Han have been
with RSG for over two years. The purpose of the field survey was to locate
and evaluate the exterior blighting conditions prevalent and remaining
throughout the Project Area.
Felise Acosta and Don Gee supervised the survey team. Felise Acosta is the
Project Manager and Principal at RSG. Ms. Acosta has directed the creation
or amendment of project areas for the Cities of Buena Park, Burbank, Carson
and Fontana. Don Gee is a Senior Associate with RSG and has worked on
redevelopment plan adoptions and amendments, housing projects, economic
development and business development activities.
RSG is a multidisciplinary firm specializing in consulting services since 1979.
Their clients have remained constant in their need for services in the areas of
redevelopment planning, fiscal consulting, economic development, housing,
govemmental services, real estate acquisition, and real estate economics.
RSG utilizes a studio format, under the direct supervision of five managing
partners. Their personnel shares years of experience, making the consultant-
client relationship one of long-term confidence in maintaining its projects with
a hands-on approach throughout.
A significant number of vacant parcels were observed during the field survey.
According to San Bemardino County Assessor records, accessed through
Metroscan, the Project Area has a total of 1,163 parcels. Of the 1,163
parcels, 274 were vacant, resulting in a 24% vacancy rate. Based on
acreage, 22% of the Project Area is vacant.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY20Q4
-8-5-
SAN BERNAROINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
The magnitude of structures that are aged and deteriorated poses a
significant liability for the City, in regards to both health and safety issues as
well as an economic liability. By allowing citizens to work and live in deficient
structures, the community is subjected to increased safety risks from fire,
accidents, and other hazards found in deteriorated structures.
The process of deterioration and dilapidation can be self-perpetuating. The
presence of properties which exhibit signs of deterioration may deter owners
of neighboring 'properties from improving or maintaining their properties
because it appears to the property owners that any benefit which might
accrue to their properties will be diminished or neglected due to the condition
of surrounding properties. For instance when deteriorating conditions are
prevalent throughout an area, it is often difficult for a property maintained
property to attract a buyer because the area's degenerating conditions send a
message of apathy to potential investors, which presents a risk in terms of
possible decrease in property values if these conditions continue to persist.
As demonstrated by Figure B-1, if regular maintenance is not done, first
minor, and then major failures will result over time. As the cost of renovating
the building goes up exponentially over the years, structural failures occur
and the building cannot be recovered. Since the property owners fear that
they will not realize a retum on an investment in rehabilitation, buildings are
often neglected. Poor building conditions indicate limited reinvestment in the
building stock through renovation and rehabilitation, and reflect a weak
environment for private sector development or redevelopment.
FIGURE B-1
r ~~~!~~~-----------------------r---------7-
I I
Structure not usable I,
---------------------------------------------~
I I ;
C I I ;
--;----
!
8 Startofmajormlures
.~
!"
NonnaJ wear
~~2~Jl!!t~E:!!~_______
Minor repair
Time in years
Preventive
maintenance
~
Total cost of major repair (C)
Total cost ofmmor repair (B)
Total cost of preventive maintenance (A)
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (bottom tine) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing
building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or
threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense.
This diagram is adapted from Preventive MainteJUlnce of Buildings (New Yark: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
1991),p.3.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
- B-9-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
Of additional concern is the economic impact imposed upon the Project Area
by having the majority of the structures in poor physical condition. As the
buildings within the Project Area have aged and maintenance has been
deferred, property values, including those in surrounding areas have declined
along with tax revenues and sales tax revenues. Discussion of these effects
is included in the economic conditions of this report.
The following Photos 1 though 8 exhibit examples of deterioration and
dilapidation that still exists in the Project Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-B-7-
o
Sub Area A
o
Photo 1: (140-081-04, tOO Block of W. Baseline Stree~ CG-2- Commercial General -
BaselineIMt. Vemon) The auto repair establishment is in deteriorated and dilapidated condition.
Tiles from the roof overhang are missing at several locations and overhead power lines appear
to be connected to the building in an obsolete manner. Also, the garage doors are damaged
and warped and there appears to be insufficient parking on the site for the type of business.
Photo 2: (145-031-22, 400 Block of W. Highland Avenue, CG-1- Commercial General) This
abandoned structure has broken windows and has deferred maintenance.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-B-8-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
Sub Area B
Photo 3: (1000 block of 2nd Street) Abandoned old FEDCO building. The corrugated metal
sheet on the sbucture is rusted, the roof is caving in at plaoes and there is trash and debris on
the property. Note the destroyed trailer in the parking lot surrounded by weeds and debris.
Photo 4: (0138-271-02, 1000 block of:Jnl Slree~ CG-4 Commercial Generai - Theme Centers)
The dilapidation of the wall materials is so severe that corrugated metal sheet has been used
to repair the damage. The corrugated metal sheet is also rusted and is a substandard building
material. The front doors leading into the building and the roof are also made of corrugated
metal sheets. The sbucture also lacks adequate weather protection, which makes the
sbucture more susceptible to damage and deterioration.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
- 8-9-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
Photo 5: (0138-311-14, 100 Block of J Stree~ IL- Indusbial Ught) This single family house has
damage to the foundation. Note the crack on the foundation of the porch supports on left side.
Also, the stairs leading up to the house in damaged and the exterior wall materials have dry
rot. A tree is growing so close to the house that the tree roots could damage the foundation
and the leaves and branches could damage the roof.
o
Photo 6: (0138-312-26, 100 Block of N. I Street, IL- Indusbial Ught) The extemal building
material of the structure is in dilapidated condition; also the porch roof is severely damaged,
especially around the eaves showing evidence of dry rot, water damage and weathering.
Note the excessive outdoor storage blocking the driveway and creating a fire hazard.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
- 6-10-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
Photo 7: (0138-311-08, 900 Block ofW. 2nd Street IL-Industrial Ught) The garage next to the
house is severely dilapidated. The structure is in really bad condition; the walls are out of
alignment, there are gaps in the walls, and the roof is broken at several places.
o ~tive DesigrVDefec;tive PhysIcal Construction
A parcel and/or building suffers from defective design when setbacks do not
comply with current municipal requirements; there is lack of parking; ingress
and egress are difficult for vehicular traffic; structures lack sufficient loading
area; buildings are being used for purposes for which they were not originally
constructed or intended; or when a building or site has been poorly laid out.
A parcel suffers from defective physical construction when structures appear
to be built from materials that are outdated or substandard, such as
corrugated metal, and would not be permitted if the structure were built today;
have cracked foundations; are leaning; lack windows; or have a variety of
other physical inadequacies.
Conditions of defective design or physical condition can be manifested in a
number of ways. One example is where existing conditions do not meet the
modem construction standards established to ensure the health and safety of
the building occupants. Such defects may not be technically code violations
but rather deficiencies resulting from evolutionary improvement in building
code standards that have occurred since the building's construction.
10
I
i
,
I
The analysis of the field survey reveals that 22 parcels in Sub Area A and 26
parcels in Sub Area B or 2.4% and 10.4% respectively of all parcels exhibit
one or more conditions of defective design including inadequate vehicular
ROSENOW SPEVACEK ~ROUP.INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-8.11.
o
o
o
and pedestrian access, substandard building material(s), poorly constructed
additions. and lack of natural light and ventilation.
Sub Area B
Photo 8: (0138-311-07, 1000 Block of W. 2"' Street, II.- Industrial Ught) Note severely
deteriorated and damaged building at the back of a house. This back unit is made of
corrugated metal sheet, which is rusted, and in really unsafe condition for inhabitation. The
corrugated metal sheet is also considered as a substandard extemal building material. The
door leading to the unit is also severely damaged from lack of adequate weather protection
and the driveway is unpaved with overgrown trees and shrubs.
Photo 9: (0138-291-11. 1200 Block of King Stree~ CG-4- Commercial General- Theme
Centers) Unimproved vehicular driveway leading to the house posing difficulty in ingress and
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY20Q4
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
- 8-12-
o
o
o
egress for cars. Also, lots of automotive parts and debris are lying around. Rust, oil, gasoline
and solvents from cars can create unSafe and unhealthy living conditions.
Substandard Design
Substandard design is identified as a factor that prevents or substantially
hinders economically viable use or capacity of the buildings or lots under
Section 33031(a) (2) of the Law. A building suffers from substandard design
when building sizes, setbacks, and design themes are inconsistent with
surrounding buildings. A parcel exhibits conditions of substandard design
when it is not consistent in size with surrounding parcels or is inadequate for
its existing use. Outdoor trash, debris and other storage are also signs of
substandard design. Many of these properties are inadequate for their
existing use. This, in turn, can be contributed to the converted use of such
properties or construction of structures not adequate for the current lot size.
Furthermore, many residences have been converted to industrial and
commercial uses and do not have the necessary capacity to house such a
use due to their current lot size and/or configuration.
Inadequate loading/unloading areas result in trucks loading and unloading in
public right-of-way or parking lots, often-impending access to the business
and restricting traffic movement. In conjunction to lack of loading/unloading
spaces, there is often uncovered trash, debris and other storage on property.
The following Photos 10 through 12 illustrate the instances of Substandard
Design existing in the Project Area.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
- 8-13-
o
Sub Area A
Photo 10: (0149-222-21, Highland Avenue, CG-1 Commercial General) Single family
residence converted to restaurant It can be inferred frorncthe nature of conversion, that the
current use would have insufficient amenities for its current use like providing adequate
customer par1dng, vehicular ingress and egress, loading and unloading spaces, and other
amenities required by a restaurant The restaurant is closed and the site is for sale, an
indication that the conversion was not a success.
o
Sub Area B
Photo 11: (0134-172-02, 300 Block of Jnl Street, IH- Indusb'ial Heavy) This indusb'ial building
has inadequate loading/unloading space. The way the loading/unloading dock is laid out the
trucks when parked in the loading/unloading bay, would extend out into the driveway thereby
resb'icting traffic movement.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-B-14-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
Photo 12: (0138-311-39, 1000 Block of Rialto Avenue, IL- Industrial Ught) Outdoor storage in
the par1ting lot of a manufacturing building which is unscreened and lakes up required par1ting
spaces.
o
Mixed and Incompatible Uses
The Project Area is characterized by commercial, industrial and even
residential uses located adjacent or in close proximity to each other. Sub
Area A has 3% of all the parcels exhibiting incompatible adjacent uses and
Sub Area B has 2.4% parcels exhibiting this blighting condition. By allowing
conflicting uses to exist adjacent to each other, local residents and
businesses are faced with conditions that can be detrimental to a healthful
living environment and can result in declining property values. Incompatible
uses present safety hazards as individuals are subjected to high levels of
noise, pollution, and additional traffic hazards. There is also an increased
risk of exposure to dangerous and hazardous accidents that may occur at
neighboring industrial sites. These conditions adversely affect the quality of
life for the local residents and impact the local businesses.
Retail and industrial uses are adversely impacted by their location among
different incompatible uses. These conditions can make loading access more
difficult because ingress and egress to commercial properties are more
complicated. This can lead to traffic congestion and overall limited expansion
potential. As a result, property. values can decline due to the limited quality
and quantity of development opportunities.
o
In order to make redevelopment of this area possible, expensive corrective
measures will be needed to reduce and/or eliminate existing incompatibility.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
-6-15-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
Conflicting uses lead to a negative physical, social, and economic
atmosphere, which leads to neglect of property and buildings. The effects of
incompatible uses and the resulting declining property values and quality of
life for local residence result in reduced tax revenues to the community,
increased costs for public services, and a decline in public services and
facilities. Re-establishing the power of eminent domain will allow the Agency
to effectively buffer and/or consolidate parcels to deal with the problem of
incompatible land uses.
The following Photos 13 through 15 are examples of incompatible adjacent
land use in the Project Area;
Sub Area A
o
Photo 13: (0145-011-10, 800 Block of W. Highland Avenue, CG-1- Commercial General)
Single-family residence next to a restaurant and lacks adequate buffers between the two
incompatible uses.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-8-16-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
Photo 14: (0146'()23-13, 100 Block of E. Highland Avenue, CG-1- Commercial General)
Single-family residence builds up right next to a commercial use. In this case, the single-
family residence is so close to the commercial building that it is not possible to introduce any
form of barrier or buffer between the two uses. Also note the cars parked in front of the house
indicating lack of parking and the lack of a yard.
Sub Area B
o
Photo 15: (Ol38-301'()3, 1100 Block of W. 3'd Street CG-4- Commercial General- Theme
Centers) A Barbe(s shop in front of a single-family residence. There are no buffers between
the two incompatible adjacent uses and the barber shop structure is in need of major repair.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-8-17 -
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o Lots of Irregl.ar Form and SIze
Lots of irregular size and shape are also prevalent in the Project Area
creating a hindrance to future development. The analysis presented in this
section of the Report is on a parcel by parcel basis where a parcel may
consist of one or more lots owned by one or more persons and/or entities.
The Project Area contains many parcels of land that are either too small, too
large, or of such shape that makes them difficult to develop with modem
building and development standards. In fact, there are a significant number
of parcels that are vacant due to poor intersections of streets, the bisection of
the I - 215 Freeway, and the insertion of on- and off-ramps in the Project
Area.
In fact, the median commercial parcel size2 in the Project Area is 8,000
square feet whereas the City development standard has a minimum lot
requirement of 10,000 square feet for commercial development. The smaller
size parcels effectively limits future redevelopment because they are unable
to meet current parking, landscaping, and building code requirements. The
power of eminent domain may be necessary to assemble lots or other parcels
to create a parcel large enough for modern development.
Assessing all the parcels in the Project Area and comparing to the City's
minimum lot requirements for each General Plan land use, 70.1% of the
parcels are non-conforming and do not meet the minimum lot requirement.
o
The following Table B-3 lists all the nonconforming parcels by land use
designation.
2 According to infonnation obtained from San Bemardino County Assessor's from MetroScan 2003.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-8-18-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
TABLE B.3
NON CONFIRMING PARCELS
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Non Conforming Total Number % of Non
Parcels of Parcels Conforming Parcels
Commercial General
Commercial Office
Industrial Heavy
Industrial Light
Public Facilnies
Residential Medium
Residential Heavy
Residential Suburban
Residential Urban
663
120
11
200
25
45
21
39
20
1144
67.3%
64.2%
100.0%
89.5%
0.0%
82.2%
61.9%
71.8%
55.0%
70.1%
446
77
11
179
o
37
13
28
11
802
Source: City of San Bernardino Information Systems
In order to mitigate these blighting conditions and their effects, the Agency
hopes to develop a comprehensive program that will consolidate lots and
redevelop or rehabilitate them for proper future development. However,
much of the housing was built over 46 years ago and subsequent commercial
and industrial development occurred later where there was space, regardless
of surrounding uses. By consolidating lots into larger parcels, the City would
be able to unify land uses, ownerships, and improve traffic conditions created
by excessive subdivided lots.
Prevalence of Absentee Owners
The prevalence of absentee owners can have detrimental effects on building
conditions and their maintenance. In fact, a major contributing factor to the
deterioration of buildings in the Project Area is the high percentage of
absentee owners within the area. When owners of property do not live within
the same area where the property is located, there is a less likely chance that
they will visit the property on a regular basis and provide the needed
maintenance. This was confirmed by San Bernardino's Code Compliance
Department, which identified absentee owners as a significant contributor to
the deterioration of the buildings within the Project Area.
The following Table B-4 illustrates the prevalence of absentee owners in the
Project Area compared to the City and other neighboring cities.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-8-19.
o
o
o
TABLE B-4
ABSENTEE OWNERS
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
City Total Number 0 Absentee % of Absentee
Parcels Owners Owners
Colton 13,691 3,594 26.25%
Fontana 35,574 7,107 19.98%
Grand Terrace 3,696 775 20.97%
Highland 13,987 3,235 23.13%
Rialto 23,132 4,374 18.91%
San Bernardino 55 328 18000 32.53%
Untown Prolect Area 1163 833 71.63%
Source: Mefroscan 2003
The significant amount of the properties owned by owners outside of the area
leads to deferred maintenance, which may lead to unsafe and unhealthy
working and living conditions for residents of the area. These conditions can
limit future redevelopment opportunities and therefore are also a contributing
factor to the economic blight in the area.
Depreciated Property Values and Impaired Im._b....nt
According to Applied Geographies Solutions3 data, approximately 44.4% of
the residents of the Project Area are below the poverty line. Additionally, the
residents of the Project Area and the overall city have substantially lower
incomes when compared to the San Bernardino County and national
averages. In fact, the per capita income national average is more than
double the average per capita income of the Project Area residents. The
limited income of the residents results in less disposable income and
therefore less money for expenditures in the area and investment into their
properties.
Following Table B-5 is a comparison of the income levels of the Project Area
residents with the City, County and national average.
, Provider of demographic data
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
- 6-20-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
TABLE B-5
ECONOMIC COMPARISON
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Uptown Uptown Uptown City f Sa County of
Project Project Project B 0 rd' n San Nation
Subarea A Subarea B Combined ema Ino Bernardino
2002 Population
2002 Per Capita Income
2002 Median Household Income
2002 Average Household Income
2002 Average Household Size
Unemnlovment
2,053
$10,684
$44,304
$36,964
3.5
4.78%
716
$9,169
$46,587
$35,708
3.9
4.14%
2,769
$10,292
$44,894
$36,639
3.6
4.61%
187,464
$15,375
$48,182
$51,485
3.3
4.11%
1,760,908 286,999,83C
$19,126 $22,128
$52,086 $44,508
$62,419 $58,807
3.3 2.7
3.17% 5.78%
Source: Applied Geographic Solutions
When the assessed values of properties of a specific area are increasing at a
comparable rate to the surrounding areas, or the city as a whole, it is often an
indicator of a healthy economy. Conversely, if the assessed values are
decreasing, or decreasing at a considerably slower rate than the remainder of
the city, the area's economy is likely to be in a state of decline.
In order to examine the economic health of the Project Area, trends in
secured property values, which include the land and improvement values,
were analyzed for the fiscal years 1998-99 through 2002-03. The Project
Area assessed values increased by 1.37 % annually during this period. The
secured assessed value for the City increased by 1.79% annually from 1998-
99 through 2002-03.
A more detailed, analysis by San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Map
Book and Page of the Project Area assessed values revealed that despite the
slow growth in the value of the entire Project Area, many blocks actually
declined and did not keep pace with the Proposition 13 inflationary
adjustment, due to declining market values. The analysis revealed that
parcels on 16 map book pages declined in value and in addition to this,
parcels on 15 more map book pages did not grow by the Proposition 13
inflationary adjustment rate of 2%. These 31 pages represent 54% of the total
Project Area's blocks.
The 31 blocks affected by declining or stagnant property values are listed in
following Table B-6.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-B-21-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
TABLE B.6
SECURED ASSESSED VAlUE COMPARISON
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
1998-99 2002-03 Annual Change
City of San Bernardino $ 3,856,207,176 $ 4,131,626,923 $ 68,854,936.75 1.79%
Project Area $ 106,759,788 $ 112,617,455 $ 1,464,416.75 1.37%
Map Book Pages which Decreased in Assessed Value
0140-14 $ 872,449 $ 669,129 $ (50,830.00) -5.83%
0138-23 $ 757,958 $ 607,894 $ (37,516.00) -4.95%
0140-05 $ 4,698,272 $ 3,780,499 $ (229,443.25) -4.88%
0150-23 $ 3,022,888 $ 2,674,930 $ (88,989.50) -2.88%
0145-17 $ 421,588 $ 375,034 $ (11,633.00) -2.76%
0150-20 $ 2,888,697 $ 2,620,717 $ (88,995.00) -2.32%
0146-24 $ 2,210,241 $ 2,023,425 $ (46,704.00) -2.11%
0140-15 $ 3,513,171 $ 3,307,644 $ (51,381.75) -1.46%
0146-01 $ 4,090,200 $ 3,927,315 $ (40,721.25) -1.00%
0140-04 $ 2,992,995 $ 2,880,296 $ (28,174.75) -0.94%
0150-26 $ 1,676,199 $ 1,632,650 $ (10,887.25) -0.65%
0146-03 $ 3,073,206 $ 2,999,000 $ (18,551.50) -0.60%
0140-03 $ 1,710,219 $ 1,673,883 $ (9,064.00) -0.53%
0145-14 $ 838,080 $ '820,603 $ (4,369.25) -0.52%
0145-05 $ 1,010,570 $ 995,749 $ (3,705.25) -0.37%
0145-20 $ 1,185,751 $ 1,179,726 $ (1,506.25) -0.13%
0149-22 $ 3,700,209 $ 3,712,001 $ 2,948.00 0.08%
0140-21 $ 3,388,840 $ 3,418,119 $ 7,319.75 0.22%
0138-30 $ 1,074,341 $ 1,086,051 $ 2,927.50 0.27%
0145-01 $ 1,845,028 $ 1,877,333 $ 8,076.25 0.44%
0145-23 $ 1,420,439 $ 1,455,739 $ 8,825.00 0.62%
0150-21 $ 465,449 $ 484,186 $ 4,684.25 1.01%
0134-33 $ 636,301 $ 666,921 $ 7,655.00 1.20%
0140-20 $ 2,682,101 $ 2,839,903 $ 39,450.50 1.47%
0145-18 $ 601,202 $ 637,870 $ 9,167.00 1.52%
0146-23 $ 1,895,335 $ 2,024,081 $ 32,186.50 1.70%
0145-12 $ 950,267 $ 1,014,948 $ 16,170.25 1.70%
0149-19 $ 3,003,382 $ 3,221,357 $ 54,493.75 1.81%
0146-22 $ 1,622,906 $ 1,742,121 $ 29,803.75 1.84%
0150-24 $ 1,028,070 $ 1,107,049 $ 19,744.75 1.92%
0145-24 $ 5,433,860 $ 5,863,277 $ 107,354.25 1.98%
Source:HDL Comn & Cone, San Bernanlino County Audnor/Controller-Reooniar
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-8-22-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
Builclng and Code VIolatIon
Building and zoning code violations are indicators of blighting conditions.
Table B-7 illustrates the number of code violation cases in the Project Area
compared to the City.
TABLE B.7
OODECOMPLIANCECASES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
C Code Cases
1 2 3 4
v..... " ... -~ " "
1997 794 15.96% 3,701 74.39% 452 9.09% 28 0.56% 4,975
1998 1,446 28.02% 3,253 63.04% 439 8.51% 22 0.43% 5,160
1999 2,296 37.84% 3,333 54.93% 415 6.84% 24 0.40% 6,068
2000 2,258 43.03% 2,614 49.82% 353 6.73% 22 0.42% 5,247
2001 2,762 49.49% 2,662 47.70% 146 2.62% 11 0.20% 5,581
Totals 9,558 35.35% 15,563 57.57% 1,805 6.68% 107 0.40% 27,031
UDtown Proiect Area Code ComDllance Cases
1 2 3 4 Tn'" "....
v":~~ " OL ... T::O:O OL _n~..
1997 37 30.58% 69 57.02% 13 10.74% 2 1.65% 121
1998 19 18.81% 70 69.31% 8 7.92% 4 3.96% 101
1999 41 25.95% 104 65.82% 10 6.33% 3 1.90% 158
2000 52 48.15% 49 45.37% 5 4.63% 2 1.85% 108
2001 11 12.79% 84 74.42% 8 9.30% 3 3.49% 86
Totals 160 27.87% 356 62.02% 44 7.67% 14 2.44% 574
SourcesINotes
1) Oty of San Bemardino Information Services 2002
2) Oty of San Bernardino Code Compliance 2002
3) RSG Case CodIng 2002
4) Net of ROA means cases in redevelopment project 8l'88S were not part of the Citywide totals
5) Categories: 1= Minor VIolation. 2= Moderate Violation. 3= Major Violation, 4= OeterIorationlDilapidatlon
For the five-year period of 1997-98 through 2001-02, code compliance for
deterioration and dilapidation cases for the Project Area were higher by. 6
times the City average. This indicates that the Project Area still has blighting
conditions that needs tei be corrected through redevelopment activities. Some
code compliance problems have been outstanding and are a continuous
problem for the City and the Code Enforcement personnel. Exhibit B-1 and B-
2 indicates location of the properties cited for non-compliance with the code
for Sub Area A and Sub Area B respectively.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-B-23-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
25tH
,
i 25TH
h"_.. ...
I~
i
24TH
.....--- -~-_.
24TH
;
l;ll
, 'm
III ~ ~ I~
-l ::c" :~
-L8l!!_--U! 1 ,m
en---T
l> . .
1rn-t < l 17TH
m1~ r"'''''''-
IE IF
,0' t~
l :0
I 19Tr
...----,-,--.........,........
I
-tr:-.-ti-------
,C .~
,8 '~17TH
: r----
! E 16TH ST ,
: 1m
~lST !~
!~ \m
'.2< I.
i~ 1
_.._L---L-
'--
lIT!:!._
\
--.\
i
16TH
. . , .
_ L' I -1JL,~
NOUA ~_NOUA "^"_____ ~1A z! 1 i :~
14TH 5! !II~
-- m TH :14TH:~ i <C
VIRGINIA --i"'--jF-j Z
WABASH ~
0:
16TH
AN.
\ "
~.
/)"
/
L~/
OlIVE
WiD HST E1DTHST 1DTHS
TEMP~E
-------1
E 9THiST
z
~
-l
,r
'c
I"
.0
VINE
Il
City of San Bernardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project Subarea A
Code Compliance Cases 1997-2001
.,
.
o
EXHIBIT B-1: CODE COMPLIANCE CASES- SUB AREA A
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC_
JULY 2004
- 8-24-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
,
8TH 1 !
-"-r--+---
I"
I
,
!
'--'---~r~-
0:
U);
'"
31
<'
oj
7TH'
._-J--""-'--~l
1 .
I~ I I~ 1-
+~__I__.___ _ 7TH!
I i~ i
! j
_L._~_.L_._____
o
ill
'"
o
m
z
-<
31
10
j~
j> VINE
,Q-----.---
m
j________.. _~.._____..J
C!~ Z - VINE
o - - - I:
'" ....
I -------m
I ~ _Vl_ ~~____ lie:
r----- 0
I Z. ,
r.----'.t~. Z! <-..----mi----... _.~.L___._
, 1- 01 m ~l
I 18 ~!._-.-.- ____~--_- PRUCE
1 ii:! !
j ffi: I
! xi j
.~
\"
m
KINGMAN
__n______._.______...
I
!
;
---..-----i-
!
;
"U !
i~
'"
;
,-
______J
,
i
!
SPRUCE
o
W 4TH ST
3RD
"
---~l'>--
o
"
-.0.----
o
BELlEVIE
I~
- !~-l--~~UEV::'L-- ~=~~:~:_______ ._.
II ;?! CON~,~~!_,_.__
'0
1'1l
!~
-<
~I
z CONGRESS
Si: ------
~ CII
~ VAllEY Q
---.--.-.--- CII
....
_~NGRESS en
""!:-TF--
..... 1m
< !~
m ,:u
,m
;0'
Z
o
'Z-'
)>
OREGON
0,-.------..----
f/ "
j J~
1 ~-
'"
ill
CII
....
.~~~l--_i
B!...RCH__._~-'m
, c
: ~
,. 1 ~
,'I) , ,
. ,
2,000
3,m
m
P<flAR
!
OAK
i
,~
!
500
1,000
II....................................................................
. .
II .....
City of San Bel'l1ardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project Subarea B
Code Compliance Cases 1997-2001
EXHIBIT B-2: CODE COMPLIANCE CASES- SUB AREA B
o
.,
m
m
:u
,jij
r
m ,
,-< rnlt
f--
I
W 6TH S1
WSTHS
j"Tl
,
_~l!:!__l_
~
i
IIElARDE :
BIRCH
,~
II........................
.........<........................ :
""':
,...."",,,...
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
- 8-25-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o HIgh Level Gf Crime
According to the Law, "a high crime rate constituted a serious threat to the
public safety and welfare" constitutes a condition of economic blight. Part 1
crime data from the City's Police Department and the State of California
Department of Justice crime reports were analyzed. Part 1 crime data
constitutes serious criminal offenses like homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny theft, grand auto theft, and arson.
Table B-8 below illustrates the findings of the comparative analyses. For year
1999-2000 through 2001-02, the rate of homicide in the Project Area is much
higher than the rate for the City. In 1999-2000, the instances of robbery in
Project Area were higher by 103%, in 2000-01, it was higher by 108% and in
2001-02, and it was higher by 113%.
TABLE B.8
CRIME STATISTICS COMPARISON
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
o
Murder
Robbefy
Assault
Rape
Arson
1999-2000
Project Area
No. %
2 0.5%
100 27.2%
144 39.1%
6 1.6%
6 1.6%
11
City
No.
25
800
2,691
137
113
%
0.42%
13.4%
44.9%
2.3%
1.9%
7.1
2000-01
Project Area
No. %
2 0.5%
126 30.8%
188 46.0%
11 2.7%
9 2.2%
7
City
No. %
31 0.6%
825 14.8%
2,m 49.9%
131 2.4%
144 2.6%
2001-02
Project Area
No. %
5 1.3%
145 37.1%
152 38.9%
4 1.0%
8 2.0%
19.7
City
No.
36
897
2755
145
116
%
0.7%
17.4%
53.4%
2.8%
2.2%
7
Sources:
City of San Bernardino InfonnBtion Service 2002
City of San Bernardino Police Deparlment 2002
The following Exhibits B-3 and B-4 illustrate the distribution of the Part 1
Crime in the Sub Area A and B respectively and Exhibits B-5 and 8-6
illustrates the occurrences of Misdemeanor crimes in Sub Area A and Sub
Area B respectively, for years 1999-00 through 2001-02. The exhibits
illustrate that crime is scattered throughout the sub areas and not
concentrated in one area. This indicates that the entire Project Area is in
need of redevelopment.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
-6-26-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
IOLlve
-- ---_._..._-~---_.
VI! 10 H 5T E 10TH 5T~ 10TH 5
I
---------~p~~-
E 9TH!5T
Ie
18
o
L_ 26TH
("'''' 25TH
jl? -2:-
:J' :J: 24TH
12"---- -t
L-
- ---'" '
2STH ~--'-
~; ;
....' ,
-ibr~'!"
._.~l.tL
___~T!:L__
25TH
25TH
24TH
24'"
_~!!?L,
1'l1
I~
.m
'01
18TH t
J.__.
oi I
I
17TH ~I ---'-~_.
m 17TH
16TH T I
I
i NOU
GN
14TH
VlRGIN~ ;
WABASH ",.~1jAsH
o
., I-
- '"
I'BTll. ~:r:--
I : \z
250 500
- -
8 H
T
I
i
II
I? ,. J1ST
t<-"'~
im ,.- I..
i~ ~ ll!!
, I ,r-
i 19TH' ;m
I
I 1m
- _u,_ut'll
jr- 'e
( I~
,8 i:g 17TH
! r>'~----
,
,
i E 16TH 5T ,
,
,
,
I , .
j 1 15TH
---+---.---.-----.
! ' i
Z, I .
#A j ! , ;
"". , : :
m ~TH !14TH!;e I
'~"'--';"~-r-uF-l
== 18 1 i I
):10 j , , ;
VINE
City of San Bernardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project Subarea A
Part 1 Crimes from 7/31/99 to 7/31/02
EXHIBIT B-3: PART 1 CRIMES- SUB AREA A
o
..
m
~
-~r,
~1 .
01
<5,
<r'
-lD-../
\__.-1
17TH
,..---.----
16TH
EVANS
Wi
0'
~i
~;
..
,..-;, "
-'>)<~"
\,~// ).
uQ(J\fp_
z
~
QJ
II
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC_
JULY 2004
-8-27-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
!~
:?Z I~
.__.._~-..-'~--..BEu,gV,LE,':L
jr
tn "u' CONGREi3$
i: 'IZ 0
OREGON -I 10 !G
8r----'-- .;ii i~ ~
if'!+L___~_"'.jLN. U!!
G') O! i
,m ~ B~.CIi I 1m
P,LAR .;a i ,~
, .11l,~ OAK
<iAK ,j; r----
1,000 1,500 2,Q'/Pee
o
,
,
~--oi
~i
"-
l~
,.,
l~
i--
I~
I"
I~
jZ
--JL---
III
___.1",__
l~ I~
~NI~_ 'z 10
j!B l~
z "
'i"'--~-T'
-I.__._-~~
m '
:;:u i TTH!
Z--T-~--
o .__\IlqroR!~_
)0 I
~---1ilj---
----If..-
!
ViCTORIA
. ,
_ i
J.6TH ,6TH j
ffir--1l~! .
0:1 (I) lMi
~l ~ ~j.,
, ,
I:!! ~;
'8",
I--"-~"---
! ~
! w
--t-- KING~_.__,.___
I W4TH 8T
ORa
o
! KING
i
W RIAL TO jlWE
_SE RITOS
"
>
z
~
;0
o
o
"
i
1-0
n_.. ......To......
jO
BEUEVl
:1'
-I
~
250 500
- -
II-
[i
- ,
~_...~..J
I ' I
- I
I I
~_L____.
I 1 I'
!" I" !i I-
i 'I~ leD I
I <!! 1 7THI I
--!--I"I=--r-~
jJ-J..-..L,
j-
~
~
~~NE
m
@ORI
SPRUCE
RUCE
---~
...
';0
';0
'"
W5TH~
Z
Q !"'II
tn i
~___ 4TH i
,~
,~~~~~.
;l
CONGRESS
-----
III
VAUEY C)
III
....
III
III
....
OAK
I~---"--
City of San Bel'l1ardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project Subarea B
Part 1 Crimes from 7/31/99 to 7/31/02
II
EXHIBIT B-4: PART 1 CRIMES- SUB AREA B
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-B-28-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
19TH T
z ...
Cl
HSf ,. zE .THST z
E ~
Cl
Sf 0 17TH ST
S ~
17TH S z
ST W E 6TH $T ,.
18THS
,. Sf z
W ..
z m
F 0
E m w
'" "
m ... in
'" 1: ~
1: m
m z
"1 REECE
0
Wll
z IVEST
r-
'"
E 10TH ST
Legend Sf
. Lewd conduct z
ST
. Prostitution m
'"
. Marijuana offenses $!
8TH ST "
. Indecent exposure ~
VINES
. Other drug offenses z
. HS 7THS E 7TH ST
Annoying children ... "1
~ z W ClORIA T
0 Nonsupport "
z "1
. Drunk m Sf 6TH ST
...
URCH f
- - E 5TH ST
~ W25 ST
'"
g W24 ST
;; W CST
25TH S
W25HST
2STHS
W2 ST
500 1 000
II..............................................................
... .
2000
-
.
City of San Bernardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project Subarea A
Various Crimes 08/97 to 08/02
EXHIBIT B-5: VARIOUS CRIMES- SUB AREA A
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
- 8-29-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
Legend
. Lewd conduct
. Prostitution
. Marijuana offenses
. Indecent exposure
. Other drug offenses
. Annoying children
o Nonsupport
. Drunk
W6 ST
"
Z z
:!! g
z
~ ~
W KlNGMAN ST
W 4TH ST
W 2ND ST
z
:!!
o
~
U>
:!!
o
l:
m
Z
-i
t;
w '"
> W6T ST z W6 HST
~ z
~ z ~
W SPRUCE U> W PRUCE ST
~ " Z
t; ~
~ W 5TH ST -i
<
z
z
;::
-i
;Ii
'"
z
o
z
~
z
"
U>
-i
U>
l!!
ill ~
!: ~
)0 W ELLEVlEW ST
U>
~
U> U>
"1lW NGRESS S -4
o
U>
."
m
~
~
'"
~
~
"
U>
U>
"
U>
-i
we EWST
~
U>
-i
we GRESS ST
....
U>
~
"
~ W CONGRESS S
;;i
~
~
<
m
'"
z U>
z m
,. z
<
m
WVM..LEf ST
-i
~
U>
-i
U>
m
c
'"
m
~ WOAKST
<
m
W OAK ST
U>
~
U>
-i
W CHESTNUT ST
500
II.
:................
2000
.F
3000
City of San Bernardino
Uptown Redevelopment Project Subarea B
Various Crimes 08/97 to 08/02
11
EXHIBIT B-6: VARIOUS CRIMES - SUB AREA B
-B-30-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
o
o
o
Section
F'.,.Year 1m
Plan
On December 20, 1999, the Agency adopted its current Five Year
Implementation Plan for the Project ("Implementation Plan"). The
Implementation Plan contains specific goals and objectives for the Project
Area, the specific projects, and expenditures to be made during the five-year
planning period, and an explanation of how these goals, objectives, and
expenditures will eliminate blight within the Project Area. The Implementation
Plan is not affected by this Amendment, and is incorporated herein by
reference.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-C-1-
o It
the 8imination of Blight and
Cannot Be AccoInplished by
Private . Acting Alone or by the
Agency's Use of Financing Alternatives Other
Tfian "tax IncroIuent
Section 33352(d) of the Law requires an explanation of why the elimination of
blight in the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone,
or by the Agency's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment
financing. This information was previously provided in the Original Report
and supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time of the
adoption of the original Plan. The proposed Amendment will not make any
changes that would affect the validity of the previously prepared
documentation.
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-0-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
on
The Method of Financing
Section 33352(e) of the Law requires inclusion of a proposed method of
financing the Project. This documentation was provided in the Original
Report, incorporated herein by reference. Because the Amendment will not
alter the Project Area boundaries or affect the base year value of the Project
Area, the Amendment will not change the method of financing the Project.
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
-E-!-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
on
The Relocation Plan
Section 33352(f) of the Law requires inclusion of a Method of Relocation for
the Project. Concurrent with the adoption of the original Plans, the Agency
adopted as its Method of Relocation the California Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Guidelines, as they existed or are subsequently
amended. Also, as a public agency, the Agency is required to adhere to
State Relocation Law to the extent relocation is necessary.
The Amendment does not alter the Agency's existing Method of Relocation.
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
-F-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
Section
Analysis of the Preliminary Plan
Section 33352(g) of the Law requires the inclusion of an analysis of the
Preliminary Plan. This information was provided in the Original Report
prepared at the time the original Plan was adopted. The proposed
Amendment does not alter the analysis of the Preliminary Plan contained in
the Original Report.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REOEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-<3-1-
on
Report and Recol1uncndation of the Planning
Commission
Section 33352(h) of the Law requires inclusion of a report and
recommendation of the City of San Bemardino Planning Commission
("Planning Commission"). The Planning Commission selected a project area
and prepared the Preliminary Plan on September 24, 1983, in which they
recommended approval. A record of this action is documented in the
approval minutes of the Planning Commission.
No further action is required by the Planning Commission is required in
connection with the Amendment as no change in the boundaries of the
Project Area or in the scope of the proposed public improvements in the
Project Area will occur as a result of the Amendment.
o
10
I
I
,
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-H-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
on
Report of the Project Area Committee
On February 20, 2003 the Agency held a Community meeting to infonn the
residents, business and property owner of the proposed Amendment after a
public notice was published in the newspaper and a newsletter sent to all the
aforementioned parties. Since there will be eminent domain on residential
properties occupied or designated residential in the General Plan of the City
and that may displace low- and moderate-income residents, the fonnation
and consultations of a Project Area Committee ("PAC") is necessary in
connection with the Amendment.
The PAC was provided with a.draft of the'Text of the Amendment and other
related documents at least 30-days prior to the July 19, 2004 joint public
hearing to consider the adoption of the Eminent Domain Amendment.
o
On July 6, 2004 the PAC met and voted to recommend to the Mayor and
Common Council and the Community Development Commission adoption of
the 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area Plan.
The minutes and actions of the previous PAC meetings follow this page.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-1.1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
~
..
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BER."IARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
July 6, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sutherland, at 7: 10 p.m., called the regular meeting to order of the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) Tuesday, July 6, 2004 in the Board
Room at the Economic Development Agency. 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San
Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren.
Jack Cone.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public: Steve Sutherland
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE MINTUES
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee Meeting of Aprill, 2004 be reviewed as submitted in
typewritten form and approved.
.,
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee meeting of May 6, 2004 be reviewed as submitted in
typewritten form and approved.
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone and Seconded by Committee
Member Charlie Catren that the minutes of the April I, 2004 and May 6, 2004 Uptown
PAC meeting be approved. The motion passed 3-0.
4. DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UPTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA PLAN.
MOTION:
That the Uptown Redevelopment PAC recommends to the Mayor and
Common Council and the Community Development Commission to adopt
the Draft Text Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
Reinstating eminent domain authority in the project area.
o
o
~
o
4.
.....,..,.-
~
..
DRAFT TE7'T .-\ME~Di\lEi'iT TO THE UPTOW:-; DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
.-\REA PLAN. (continued)
A discussion ensued concerning the time length of the eminent domain authority and
types of properties that when be included. Agency staff stated that, if approved. the
eminent domain authority would be reinstated for a period of twelve (12) years and that
all properties would be included in the eminent domain authority. Agency staff tilrther
stated that the authority for eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
would not be used to acquire any property for the Lakes and Streams project That would
either be the City or the Water Department much like the School District acquiring
property for the new school located in the Central City North Redevelopment Project
Area.
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone, seconded by Committee Member
Charlie Catren that the Uptown PAC recommend to the Mayor and Common Council and
the Community Development Commission that they adopt the Draft Text Amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan reinstating the power of eminent domain within the
project area. The motion passed 3-0.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Committee Member Jaek Cone, seconded by Committee Member
Charlie Catren that the meeting be adjourned to Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 7:00 pm. in
the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Stret:l, S~ite 301,
San Bernardino, CA. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 7:45 p.m.
By:
Jack Cone, Vice Chainn\lnlSecretary
t
o
AGENDA
.
UPTOWN PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 3, 2004
Economic Development Agency
20 I North "E" Street, Suite 30 I
San Bernardino, CA
7:00 p.m.
o
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED
I
.,
,
.;"
. , , . . .
, " .... \ ':~f;.::f.i):.;,.~..~.":.>
. ':: :~_: ';.r,
"':;'~'.ii;::i;;'D~.(:i~i~~~~,.
'" ,,';l;:'-'"t;.t~~~~ji~I~:l~~\tl'~~l~~ ~';
, -, - ~".", Jot. :>o;"~~~~,'...I.'~. ...,,._~:~.~~:..'"
;,": .>~:"_::i: .'~[;:~}i3~tW:~~~tt~.~~~~\'
.....~:r:..,..... ..~.
" ,',' -~'. '~~~'r;~~'~-.~!_;.' -::" \,.~~ .
, ': ~::;'..-,
6~
:;:,..
o
o
~.
.
.
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
May 6, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Trout called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m., Thursday, May 6, in the Board
Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San
Bernardino, CA. Due to the fact that there was not a quorum of PAC members present,
no PAC business was conducted. The next meeting will take place on Thursday, June 3,
2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the EDA Board.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Charlie Catren.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public: none
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE MINTUES
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee Meeting of April I, 2004 reviewed as submitted in
\ Typewritten form and approved.
4. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP~.CT REPORT (EIR) FOR
THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
5. REPORT ON UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
6. TOPIC(S) FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
There was a discussion among the committee members concerning having LSA, the EIR
Consultant, to be at the next meeting to explain the EIR. Mike Trout told the committee
members that he will contact LSA about being at the next PAC meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
By:
Jack
The meeting was adjourned at approximatel
L
o
o
o.
.
,
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDlNO
REGULAR MEETING
April 1 , 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chainnan Sutherland, at 7:05pm, called the regular meeting to order for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) Thursday, April I, 2004 in the Board
Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San
Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren,
Jack Cone.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public: none
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE MINTUES
MOTION: That tlie minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee Meeting of March 25, 2004 reviewed as submitted in
Typewritten fonn and approved.
"
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone aAd Seconded by Chairman Linda
Sutherland that the minutes of the March 25, 2004 Uptown PAC meeting be approved.
The motion passed 3-0.
4.
DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY FOR THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY
NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
It was discussed the need for the Initial Study and the part that it plays in determining
whether or not a full EIR is required. The Initial Study looked at the affects to the
environment as a result of the reinstatement of eminent domain in the Uptown and
Central City North project areas; the Mercado Santa Fe development project; and the
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change within Uptown Subarea "B" for. The proposed
zone change will affect the area bordered by "K" Street, 1-215, 3n1 and 2nd Street. The .
zone change woUld be from Industrial Light (IL) to Commercial General (CG).
o
o
o.
\
,
.
5.
REPORT QN UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
,
Mike Trout provided an update to the committee members concerning the progress of
land acquisition and clearing within Subarea "B" as it relates to the proposed Mercado
Santa Fe development. Site clearance of the acquired properties on K Street should start
within the next two weeks.
Committee members were given a copy of the Screen Check EIR (SCEIR). They were
also provided with a draft copy of the amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area Plan reinstating the authority of eminent domain.
6. TOPIC(S) FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
There was a discussion among the committee members concerning having LSA, the EIR
Consultant, to be at the next meeting to explain the EIR. Mike Trout told the committee
members that he wiII contact LSA about being at the next PAC meeting.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Committee Member Charlie Catren, seconded by Committee
Member Jack Cone that the meeting be adjourned to Thursday, May 6,2004 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 20 I North "E" Street, Suite
301, San Bernardino, CA. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was '~djourned at
approximately 8:05 p.m.
"'-
ne, Vice Chairman/Secretary
','
o
o
o
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
March 25, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Trout called the PAC meeting of the Project Area Committee (pAC) for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area to order at 7:10p.m., Thursday, March 25, 2004 in
the Board Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301,
San Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren,
Jack Cone.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public: none
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
ELECTION OF PAC OFFICERS
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone and seconded by Committee
Charlie Catren that Committee Member Linda Sutherland and Committee Member Jack
Cone be appointed as the Uptown PAC Chairman and Vice Chairman/Secretary
respectively. The motion passed 3-0.
,
4. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PAC MEETINGS
A discussion took place between the Committee and EDA staff concerning the date, time
and location of future PAC meeting. A motion was made by Committee Member Charlie
Catren, and seconded by Committee Member Jack Cone that future meetings of the PAC
take place on the first Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the
Economic Development Agency. The motion passed 3-0.
Additionally, members of the PAC and EDA staff discussed the make-up of the PAC;
what categories were vacant; the total number of persons that can serve on the PAC.
o
o
o
5.
DlSCUSSIQN OF INITIAL STUDY FOR THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY
NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mike Trout, EDA Project Manager, briefly discussed the Initial Study process and the
need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR.). He stated that PAC members would
have the opportunity to review the EIR, the Report to Mayor and Common Council and
the Text of the Amendment. He explained that any comments of the PAC would be .~
included for consideration in the staff report for the adoption of the Amendment to the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
Additionally, Mike Trout gave a status report on the Mercado Santa Fe project in within
the Subarea B portion of the Uptown Project Area.
It was decided among the committee members that they would go through and discuss the
Initial Study at the next PAC meeting.
6. TOPIC(S) FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
None were discussed
7.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Committee Member Charlie Catren, seconded by Committee
Member Jack Cone that the meeting be adjourned to Thursday, April 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite
301, San Bernardino, CA. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 8:05 p.m.
."
o
o
o
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETfNG
March 18,2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Trout called the PAC meeting of the Project Area Committee (PAC) for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area to order at 7: 15p.m., Thursday, March 18,2004 in
the Board Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301,
San Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public:
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3.
ELECTION OF PAC OFFICERS
4. DlSCUSSION OF FUTURE PAC MEETINGS
a. Place
b. Date
c. Time
~ I
5.
DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY FOR THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY
NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
6.
INITIAL STUDY FORCCN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
7.
ADJOURNMENT
There was not a quorum of PAC members therefore no PAC business was conducted.
The next meeting of the PAC will be March 251h, 7 p.m. in the Board Room of the
Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:35p.m.
o
o
o
SeeliO;
General Plan
Section 333520) of the Law requires a finding of General Plan conformance
per Section 65402 of the Government Code. Concurrent with the original
adoption of the Plan, the Planning Commission adopted a finding that the
Plan conformed to the City's General Plan.
This Plan Amendment extends the eminent domain authority over residential
properties, occupied or with a General Plan residential land use designation.
This Plan Amendment would not affect the previous finding of conformity with
the City's General Plan land uses.
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-J-I-
011
Environmental Impact Report
Section 33352(k) of the Law requires environmental clearance prepared
pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. The EIR was
included in the Original Report and is incorporated herein by reference.
o
For the Amendment, an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, and based upon the analysis contained
in the Initial Study; the Agency proposes the presentation of a Program
Environmental Impact Report for the sections that comprise the proposed
'project" for CEOA purposes. These include the reinstatement of eminent
domain in Central City North and Uptown Redevelopment Project Areas, as
well as other entitlement actions within Sub Area B of the Uptown Project
Area. The Agency is proposing amendments to Central City North as well as
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan as well to make certain changes to the text
. in each Plan. These changes will reinstate the power of eminent domain
within both project areas. As such in June 2004, an EIR for the proposed
amendment was completed. On July 19, 2004, the Agency will consider a
resolution to approve and adopt the EIR. A copy of the Initial Study and EIR
are included as Exhibit 1 to the Report.
A Program EIR was prepared for the amendment as some projects were not
analyzed for potential impacts in the original environmental documentation.
The proposed projects that are being addressed in the Program EIR are a
General Plan Amendment IZone Change and analysis of a future retail
development project.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-K-l-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
on
Report of the County FISCal Officer
The proposed Amendment does not alter the Project Area boundaries;
therefore, the base year report for Project Area prepared pursuant to Section
33328 of the Law by the City of San Bernardino Auditor-Controller and State
Agency of Equalization, respectively ("Base Year Report"), does not need to
be reformulated. The Base Year Reports are included in the Original Report
and incorporated herein by reference.
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-L-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
01:1
Neighborhood Impact Report
The Redevelopment Law requires that a Neighborhood Impact Report
discuss the impact the Plan will have on low and moderate income persons
or families in the following areas: relocation, traffic circulation, environmental
quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school
population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, and
other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood.
The Neighborhood Impact Report must also address: the number of dwelling
units to be removed or destroyed; the number of low or moderate income
persons or families expected to be displaced; the general location of housing
to be rehabilitated or constructed; the number of dwelling units to house
persons and families of low or moderate income planned for construction or
rehabilitation; the projected means of financing the aforementioned dwelling
units; and the projected timetable for meeting the Plan's relocation,
rehabilitation and replacement housing objectives.
Relocation
o
At this time, full redevelopment of the Project Area is not expected to cause
substantial relocation. Agency staff does not anticipate the removal or
destruction of dwelling unit as of the date of this Report.
If relocation activities are undertaken, the Agency will handle those relocation
cases, which result from project activities on a case-by-case basis, in
accordance with its Method of Relocation. As an Agency formed under the
provisions of state law, the Agency is required to adhere to the State
Relocation Law (Govemment Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow
the Califomia Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Guidelines ("State Guidelines') as established in the Califomia Code of
Regulations, Title 25, and Chapter 6.
Prior to commencement of any acquisition activity, which will cause
substantial displacement of residents, the Agency will adopt a specific
relocation plan in conformance with the State Guidelines. To the extent
appropriate, the Agency may supplement those provisions provided in the
State Guidelines to meet particular relocation needs of a specific project.
Such supplemental policies, if adopted in the Agency's sole discretion, will
not involve reduction, but instead enhancement of the relocation benefits
required by State Law.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
.M.1.
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
T.cdI"lC CirculatIon
The Amendment will allow the Agency to construct road improvements, either
to directly address inadequacies, such as widening of streets or provide
improvements that will alleviate existing pressure on major thoroughfares,
which would otherwise be delayed indefinitely without Agency assistance.
EnvInH'm....ta1 Quality
The Amendment seeks to eliminate continuing blighting conditions and cause
improvements including traffic circulation, sewer, storm drain, streetscape,
parking, and other improvements. The Initial Study reviewed the impacts of
the Amendment, including the potential new development and public
improvements that could be facilitated by the Agency. The Initial Study found
that there would be potentially significant impact of the quality of environment
in the areas of Air, Noise, Transportation/Circulation, Land Use, and
Planning. As a result, a Program Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared to deal with these issues.
Availability of Convnunity Facilities and ServIces
The Plan provides that any redevelopment activity is to be subject to, and
consistent with, the policies set forth in the City's General Plan, Development
Code, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter
amended; the General Plan incorporates policies to mitigate impacts on
public services. The Initial Study found that there would be potentially
significant impact to the cultural resources. The Initial Study found that there
would be no impact to public services, utilities or sewer systems. All
potentially significant impacts have been examined and analyzed as a part of
the Program Environmental Impact Report.
Effect on Sd100I Population and Quality of Education
The Project Area is served by the San Bernardino Unified School District
("School District"). While activity to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to
the Plan at this point in time may encourage additional development within
the Project Area, the School District that serves the Area will receive state .
property tax revenues, development fees for new school construction, and
mandatory payments from the Agency every year over the life of the Plan. As
identified in the Public Services Report in Section 2.0 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, this Amendment will not create additional need
for new schools in the area.
Adoption of the Amendment will not result in development in excess of that
allowed by the City's General Plan. Therefore, the adoption of the
Amendment will not cause the Project Area to generate more students than
could occur in connection with development allowed in the General Plan.
Since the City has adopted policies in the General Plan to mitigate impacts of
General Plan build out on schools, adoption of the Amendment will not create
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNAROINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
-M-2-
o
significant unmitigated impacts. The potential impact of additional students
on area schools can be more accurately determined once specific
redevelopment proposals are formulated. In addition, the overall impact of
the Amendment on school facilities will be positive, as redevelopment
activities will result in enhanced economic viability of the Project Area and
thus a larger tax revenue base for the School Districts.
Additionally, pursuant to the Law, the Agency is required to make tax-sharing
payments to the affected taxing entities, including school districts, from its
annual allocation of tax increment revenues. The payments are designed to
alleviate any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing entities
may incur as a result of the adoption of the Amendment.
...~ Taxes and AsS! ssrr.....t..
Because redevelopment agencies do not have the authority to levy taxes,
implementation of the Amendment will not cause an increase in property tax
rates. Rather, the principal method of financing will be the utilization of tax
increment revenues generated by the Project Area. Tax increment financing
merely reallocates property tax revenues generated by increases in the
assessed value of property in the Project Area. Although development of the
Project Area will increase the assessed valuation, property owners will not
experience increases in property taxes beyond those normally allowed by
other state law and state constitutional provisions.
o Low and Moderate Income Housing ..."",..n1
A. Number of Dwelling Units Housing Low and Moderate Income
Households Expected to be removed by the Redevelopment Project
The Agency does not anticipate that adoption of the Amendment
would cause the removal of any housing units in the Project Area, as
of the date of this Report.
B. Number of Persons and Families of Low and Moderate Income
Expected to be displaced by the Redevelopment Project
As discussed above, the Agency does not anticipate that the adoption
of the Amendment would cause the displacement of any persons or
families of low and moderate income in the Added Area, as of the
date of this Report.
C. General Location of Replacement Low and Moderate Income Housing
to be Rehabilitated, Developed, and Constructed
The Agency has prepared a Housing Affordability Compliance Plan
("Compliance Plan"), which is part of the 1999 Implementation Plan
for the Project Area. The Compliance Plan addresses the Agency's
housing production needs. As set forth in the Compliance Plan, the
c
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
-M-3-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMDN COUNCIL
o
Agency does not anticipate undertaking any activities at this time
which will result in the destruction or removal of dwelling units housing
persons and families of low or moderate income and thus the Agency
does not have any replacement obligations under Section 33413(a) of
the Law. In the event that any such destruction or removal should
occur, the Agency is bound by the Law to replace within four years, by
a variety of means, any low and moderate income dwelling units
removed by a redevelopment project. In addition, the Agency does
not anticipate the construction of any residential units; therefore, the
Agency does not have any inclusionary housing requirements under
Section 33413(b) of the Law.
D. Number of Dwelling Units Housing Persons of Low and Moderate
Income Planned for Construction or Rehabilitation Other than
Replacement Housing
Because the Agency has not yet formulated and approved specific
housing proposals, it is difficult to determine the exact number or
location of low and moderate income units expected to be
rehabilitated over the life of the Project. In addition, funds over the
next five years in particular are very limited and there is little vacant
land remaining in the Project Area.
E. Projected Means of Financing Rehabilitation and New Construction of
Housing for Low and Moderate Income Households
o
The Agency intends to utilize not less than 20% of the Project's tax
increment revenues to finance the rehabilitation and construction of
housing for low and moderate-income households, in accordance with
the provisions of the Law, as it now exists or may hereafter be
amended. The Agency will also cooperate with the City to pool funds
and resources beyond the tax increment set aside funds if it is
determined to be necessary by both bodies in order to improve the
City's affordable housing stock.
F. Projected Timetable for Meeting the Plan's Relocation, Rehabilitation,
and Replacement Housing Objectives
The adoption of the Amendment is not expected to cause the Agency
to remove or relocate any dwelling units in the Project Area. The time
frame for rehabilitating units pursuant to the Plan will be subject to the
availability of housing fund revenues. Rehabilitation activities will be
gradually phased in over each of the remaining years of the Plan.
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC.
JULY 2004
.M-4-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
A Summary of Agency Consultation with
Affected Taxing Agencies
As a part of the Original Plan's adoption activities, the Agency consulted with
affected taxing agencies to discuss the Plan's impacts and formulate fiscal
mitigation agreements. The proposed Amendment would not detrimentally
impact affected taxing agencies because the Amendment does not affect the
financing of the Project Area in any way, nor will it change the plan's land use
policies or list of public improvement projects.
On June 18, 2004, the Agency transmitted the notice of the July 19, 2004,
joint public hearing to all affected taxing agencies. Thus far, the Agency has
not been contacted by any taxing agencies seeking consultations regarding
the Amendment.
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
-N-1-
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
Initial Study and Program Environmental
Impact Report
The Initial Study and Program Environmental Impact Report are herein
incorporated by this reference as part of this Report and provided under
separate cover.
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: Reinstatement of Eminent Domain in the Uptown (Subarea A and B) and Central City North
Redevelopm~nt Project Areas
Lead Agency Name:. City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
Address: 201 North "E" Street, Third Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507
Contact Person:
John Hoeger
Phone Number:
(909) 663-1044
Project Location (AddressINearest cross-streets): The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area includes two
subareas in the City of San Bernardino. Subarea A is located along Higbland Avenue and Baseline Street from
Interstate 215 on the west to Waterman Avenue on the east, and along "E" Street,'from Eighth Street on the
south to Highland Avenue on the north, as designated in the Uptown Environmental Impact Report (January,
1986). Subarea B is bound by the Santa Fe Railroad yard to the north (directly north of Third Street), Interstate
215 on the east, Rialto Avenue and King Street oIithe south, and Mount Vernon Avenue on the west. Figure 1
shows the regional location of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area, and Figure 2 shows the Project Area
boundaries for each Subarea.
The Central City North Project Area is encompassed by Eighth Street on the north, Fourth Street/Court Street
on the south, Arrowhead A venue on the east, and Interstate 215 on the west; Figure 3 shows the Central City
North Redevelopment Project Area boundaries.
Project Sponsor:
Address:
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
201 North "E" Street, Third Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507
Description of Project
The City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency (SBEDA) proposes the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project, which includes the reinstatement of eminent domain in
the Central City North and Uptown Redevelopment Project areas, as well as specific projects within Subarea
B of the Uptown Project Area.
The EDA is proposing amendments to the Central City North Redevelopment Plan and the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan to make certain changes to the text in each Plan to reinstate the power of eminent domain
within the Project Areas for 12 years to enable the Agency to retain eminent domain as an available tool in
implementing each Redevelopment Plan. In addition, there is proposed development activity in Subarea B of
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan Area that will require environmental review.
The Uptown Redevelopment Plan
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area includes 433 acres within two subareas in the City of San
Bernardino. Subarea A is comprised of 349 acres of commercial area along Higbland Avenue and Baseline
Street between Interstate 215 on the west and Waterman Avenue on the east, and along E Street, between
63Wptown-CNN Initial StudylMarch 13, 2003
IS-l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
INITIAL STUDY
Eighth Street on the south to Highland Avenue on the north. Subarea B is comprised of 84 acres bounded by
Third Street and the Santa Fe Railroad yard to the north, Interstate 215 on the east, Rialto Avenue and King
Street on the south, and Mount Vernon A venue on the west.
The proposed text changes to the Plan do not amend, modify, change or affect the physical or regulatory
environment with regard to implementation of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan. The use of eminent domain
in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area was originally part of the Uptown North Redevelopment Plan
when it was adopted in May 1986. This Plan was considered and evaluated in the Uptown Program EIR
prepared for the Plan in 1986. Eminent domain powers in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area expired
June 18, 1998.
o
In addition to the reinstatement of eminent domain, there are two projects proposed for Subarea B. The fIrst is
a reuse project which includes the development of approximately 88,000 square feet of commercial space
(general retail) and 550 parking spaces on 8.9 acres. The proposed project may include additional parldng in
the form of a two-level, 240-car parking structufe intended for the use of Metrolink passengers who board
across Third Street adjacent to the Santa Fe Depot Building. These project components would require the
removal three existing single-family residences and 72,500 square feet of commercial buildings that are
currently partly vacant and partly used for general retail. The second project is a City -initiated zone change.
Although there is no proposed development project at this time, the City is initiating a zone change from Light
Industrial (IL) to a General Commercial (CG-l) District in a two-block area bounded by 1-215 on the east, "K"
Street on the west, Third Street on the north and Second Street on the south. Both "I" Street and Kendall
Avenue would be vacated in this two block area. The CG-I designation is intended to provide for a variety of
retail, personal service, entertainment, and offIce and related commercial uses along major transportation
corridors and intersections to service the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and
centers and establishing new locations as residential growth occurs.
Related projects that are currently underway include the restoration of the Santa Fe Depot Building (an
. environmental analysis of traffIc and parking was previously completed for this refurbishment), and the
proposed freeway widening and on/off ramp modifIcations that Caltrans will undertake.
Figures 4 through 7 show examples of existing conditions in the portions of the Uptown Redevelopment
Project Area.
Central City North Redevelopment Plan
The Central City North Redevelopment Project Area is a 278-acre area delineated by the 1-215 Freeway on the
west; Eighth Street on the north, Arrowhead Avenue on the east and. Fourth Street/Court Street on the south
(Fourth Street between the freeway and E Street, and Court Street between E Street and Arrowhead Avenue).
Figure 3 illustrates the boundaries of the Central City North Redevelopment Project Area.
o
The use of eminent domain in the Central City North Redevelopment Project Area was originally part of the
Central City North Redevelopment Plan when it was adopted in February 1973. This Plan was considered and
e~a1uated in the Overall Central City Plan and Program EIR prepared for the Plan in 1975. Eminent domain
powers in Central City North expired on January I, 1999.
6331Uptown-CNN Jnitial StudyJMarcb 13, 2003
IS-2
o
o
c
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
The proposed text change$.to the Plan do not amend, modify, change or affect the physical or regulatory
environment with regard to implementation of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan as described in the
1975 Program ElR. Environmental documents for significant projects since 1975 include an ElR and Traffic
Impact Analysis for a 12-story office building and an EIR and NEPA document for a 20-screen theater
complex.
Other projects currently in the planning stages, located within the boundaries of the Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area, but which are not redevelopment projects, include a proposed 48,525 square
foot elementary school with a capacity of 841 traditional or 1,051 year round students on a 100acre site to be
asSembled by the School District. This project is the subject of a Draft EIR currently in preparation by the
School District. The Draft EIR has not been released for public review at the time of this Initial Study, butis
anticipated to be released in the very near ,future. Two senior residential projects are also planned in the
Project Area; these two projects will add a total 150 residential units. Finally, portions of the Lakes and
Streams project, a joint water planning project between the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino
Municipal Water District is being considered in this Redevelopment Project Area. These projects are the
subject of separate environmental documents but will be addressed in the cumulative analysis of this EIR.
~
633JUplown-CNN Initial SludylMarch 13, 2003
lS-3
i {f,
. '-.
--.,,("
o
\ "
\ \~
'L ~
u\ ..
.J .,fr,
\
"
~ Dl
N,
--
o
......
NORTH
Not to Scale
,
~
-..
.."
....
.
"'''
50'
LEGEND:
_ Central City North
_ Uptown
.......
j
~
L --1 City limits
...........,-
-
11
c
City of San Bernardino
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Uptown and Central City North Redevelopment Project Areas
San Bernardino, California
Figure 1
c
DB
. EJ[illdrnrnOD .
.. BCJrnrn. ,
EJDDDJ DO
1.11 In 0
DR~DD
[
[
[
[
[
o
o
II
DJDI II
. . III
Dl
18
~ ~~:I
I
,
I ~ SUBAREA "A"
SUBAREA "B"
---
---
-.-
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
San Bernardino, California Figure 2
o
fl
o
..
o
.
i
~
=
~
-<
...
..
Q,I
.~
~
d'~
Q,I e
6.s
l:I.O-
,gB
Q,I .
~ 0
Q).5
1l]
~e
'E~
o l;j
Z'"
~
U
-
=
..
... .
=
Q,I
U
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a project has been evaluated in an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the lead agency must make a determination that any changes in the
project description after the project has been approved will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The Uptown Redevelopment ProjeCt EIR was prepared in 1986 and the Overall Central City Project Area
Redevelopment Plan EIR was prepared in 1975. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR
has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless the lead agency determines that
changes in the project or in the circumstances under which the project will be carried out, could cause
potentially significant effects on the environment not already addressed in the certified EIR. This Initial Study
has been prepared to provide information to the Agency about the existing physical, and regulatory
environment that may affect redevelopment of the Uptown and Central City North Redevelopment AreaS.
Although the Redevelopment Projects and their boundaries ate the same, aad the reinstatement of eminent
domain as a tool to facilitate redevelopment in the Project Area does not, in and of itself, constitute ~ignificant
new information, changes in the existing physical or regulatory environment during the past 27 years since the
adoption of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan and 16 years since the adoption of the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan, cumulative projects occurring within the Cenqal City Project Area, and prpposed reuse
projects in the Uptown Project Subarea B, may be considered substantial with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is undertaken (CEQA Guidelines 15162 (a)(2)).
6331Uptown-CNN Initial SntdyfMarch 13. 2003
IS-7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL F ACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
.
181 Land Use and Planning 181 Transportation/Circulation' 181 Public Services
181 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 181 Utilities
0 Earth Resources 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 181 Aesthetics
0 Waler 181 Hazards 181 Cultural Resources
181 Air Quality 181 Noise 0 Recreation
181 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination.
o
On the basis of this Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, the Economic Development
Agency of the City of San Bernardino finds:
That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 0
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. .
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 0
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 0
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
YiJJ.AilJf/. W
Signature
OJ /'''/03
Date
C YAielZ/B C.RO'f15 CiTY fLMJjJeR-
Printed Name I
633lUptown-CNN Initial StlldylMarch 12, 2003
IS-8
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Will the proposal
result in:
a) A conflict with the land use as [81 .0 .0 .0
designated based on the review of the
General Plan Land Use PlanfZoning .
Districts Map? .
b) Development within an Airport District .0 .0 .0 [81
as identified in the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (A1CUZ) Report
and the Land Use Zoninl! District Man?
c) Development within Foothill Fire Zones .0 .0 .0 [81
A & B, or C as identified on the Land
Use Districts Zoninl! Map?
d) Other? .0 .0 .0 .0
.
ll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Will the
proposal:
a) Remove existing housing (including [81 .0 .0 .0
affordable housing) as verified by a site
survey/evaluation?
b) Create a significant demand for [81 .0 .0 .0
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of project
size? , .
c) Induce substantial growth in an area [81 .0 .0 .0
either directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or an
extension of major infrastructure)?
. ~
.
6331Uptown-C~ Initial Stu:lylMm::h 13. 2003
IS-9
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
... Significant
Potentially Unless . Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
.
ID. EARTH RESOURCES: Will the proposal result
in:
a) Earth movemenl (cut and/or fill) on 0 0 0 181
slopes of 15% or more based on -
information contained in the Preliminary
Project Description Form No. D?
.
b) Development and/or grading otJ.a slope 0 0 0 181
greater than 15% natural grade based on
review of General Plan HMOD map?
c) Erosion, dust or unstable soil conditions 181 0 0 0
from excavation, grading or fill? I'
d) Development within the Alquist-Priolo 181 0 0 0
Special Studies Zone as defined in .
Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure
47, of the City's General Plan?
e) Modification of any unique geologic or 0 0 0 181
physical feature based on field review?
t) Development within areas defined as 0 0 0 181
having high potential for water or wind
erosion as identified in Section 12.0-
. GeologiC &: Seismic, Figure 53, of the
City's General Plan?
g) Modification of a channel, creek or river 0 0 0 181
based on a field review or review of
USGS Topographic Map (Name) San
Bernardino. South.
h) Development within an area subject to 0 0 181 0
landslides, mudslides, subsidence or ,
other similar hazards as identified in
Section 12.O-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's
General Plan?
6331Uptowo-CNN bWaI SIndyIM_ 13, 2003
IS-1O
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Inco1]lOrated Impact Impact
i) Development within an area subject to a a 18I a
liquefaction as shown in Section 12.0-
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan?
D Other? a Q a a
N. WATER. Will the nroDosal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 18I a a a
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff due to impermeable
surfaces that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard Requirements to
contain and convey runoff to approved
storm drain based on review of the
proposed site plan?
b) Significant alteration in the course or a a a 18I
flow of flood waters based on
consultation with Public Works staff?
.
c) Discharge into surface waters or any a a a 18I
alteration of surface water quality based
on requirements of Public Works to have
runoff directed to approved storm
drains?
d) Changes in the quantity or quality of a a a 18I
~und water?
e) Exposure of people or property to flood a a a 18I
. hazards as identified in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map 06071 C7940F and
Section 16.0-Flooding, Figure 62, of the
City's General Plan?
f) Other? a a a a
6331Uptown-CNN Initial StudylMarch 13, 2003
IS-II
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
I. Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact IncOJ:porated Impact Impact
V. AIR OUALITY. Will the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or I8l 0 0 0
contribt,lte to an existing or projected air
quality violation based on the thresholds.
in the SCAQMD's "CEQA Air Quality -
Handbook"?
. b) Expose sensitive receptors to PQilutants? I8l
0 0 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 tJ 0 I8l
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d) Create objectionable odors based on I8l 0 0 0
information contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description Form?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Could
the proposal result in:
a) A significant increase in traffic volumes I8l 0 0 0
on the roadways or intersections or an
increase that is significantly greater than
the land use designated on the General
Plan? .
b) Alteration of present patterns of I8l 0 0 0
circulation?
c) A disjointed pattern of roadway I8l 0 0 0
improvements?
d) ImPl;lct to rail or air traffic? 0 0 0 I8l
e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or I8l 0 0 0
off-site based on the requirements in
Chapter 19.24 of the Development
Code?
6331UptownOlN Inmal SludyIMucl> 13.2003
IS-12
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) Increased safety hazards to vehicles, 0 0 0 181
bicvclists or oedestrians?
g) Conflict. with adopted policies 0 0 0 181
sUDoortinl! alternative transportation?
,
h) Inadequate emergency access or access 0 0 0 181
to nearbv uses?
i) Other? , 0 0 0 a
.
-
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Could the
proposal result in:
a) Development within the Biological 0 0 0 181
Resources Management Overlay, as
identified in Section W.O-Natural
Resources, Figure 41, of the City's
General Plan?
b) Impacts to endangered, threatened or rare 0 0 0 181
species or their habitat (including, but
not limited to, plants, mammals, fish,
insects and birds)?
c) Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or 0 0 0 181
mil!fation corridors?
d) Impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, 0 0 0 181
riDarian and vernal ooon?
e) Removal of viable, mature trees based on 0 0 0 181
information contained in the Preliminary
Project Description Form and verified by
site survey/evaluation (6" or greater
trunk diameter at 4N above the ground)?
f) Other? 0 a 0 a
6331UpO>W>>CNN Iniliol StudyIM_ 13, 2003
IS-l3
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the DfODOSal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy 0 0 0 181
conservation olans?
Use non-renewable resources in a .
b) 0 0 0 181
wasteful and inefficient manner?
I.
c) Result in the loss of availability.of a 0 0 0 181
known mineral resource that would be of
future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
IX. HAZARDS. Will the oroDOsal:
a) Use, store, transport or dispose of 0 0 181 0
hazardous or toxic materials based on
information contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description Form, No.
G(l) and G(2) (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? .
b) Involve the release of hazardous 0 181 0 0
substances?
c) Expose people to the potential 0 181 0 0
health/safetv hazards? .
d) Other? 0 0 0 0
X. NOISE. Could the OroDOSal result in:
a) Development of housing, health care 0 0 0 181
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.O-Noise,
Figures 57 and 58 of the City's Gene(ai
Plan?
6331U~ lnilial StudylMuch 13,2003
1S-14
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
-:-
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Development of new or expansion of ~ 0 0 0
existing industrial, commercial or other
uses which generate noise levels above
an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of
45 dB(A) interior that may affect areas
containing housing, schools, health care .
facilities or other sensitive uses based on
information in the Preliminary
Environmental Description FOIDl No.
G( I) and evaluation of surrounding land
uses No. C, and verified by site
survev/evaluation?
c) Other? 0 0 0 0
XI. PUBUC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
-:-
a) Fire protection? ~ 0 0 0
b) Medical Aid? ~ 0 0 tJ
c) Police orotection? 18I 0 0 0
d) Schools? ~ 0 0 0
e) Parks or other recreational facilities? ~ 0 0 0
t) Solid waste disnosal? ~ 0 0 0
g) Maintenance of public facilities, ~ 0 0 0
including roads?
h) Other governmental services? ~ 0 0 0
633JUpt0wn..CNN Initial StudyJMarcb 13,2003
IS-15
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Xll. UTll.ITIES: Will the proposal, based on the
responses of the responsible Agencies,
Departments, or Utility Company, impact the
following beyond the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or require the < ..
construction of new facilities?
a) Natural gas? . ~ 0 0 0
<
b) Electricitv? ~ 0 0 0
c) Communications svstems? ~ 0 0 0
d) Water distribution? ~ 0 0 0
e) Water treatment or sewer? ~ 0 0 0
t) Storm water drainage? ~ 0 0 0
g) Result in a disjointed pattern of utility ~ 0 0 0
extensions based on review of existing
patterns and prooosed extensions?
h) Other? 0 0 0 0
XllI. AESTHETICS.
a) Could the proposal result in the 0 . 0 0 ~
obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed verified by
site survev/evaluation?
b) Will the visual impact of the project ~ 0 0 0
create aesthetically offensive changes in .
the existing visual setting based on a site
survey and evaluation of the proposed
elevations?
c) Create significant light or glare that ~ 0 0 0
could impact sensitive receptors?
d) Other? 0 0 0 0
6331Upcown-CNN Initial StudyIMarch 13.2003
IS-16
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
.- Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Could the proposal
result in:
a) Development in a sensitive [8] 0 0 0
archaeological area as identified in
Section 3.0-Historical, Figure 8, of the .
.
City's General Plan?
b) The alteration or destruction of l! [8] 0 0 0
prehistoric or historic archaeological site
by development within an archaeological
sensitive area as identified in Section
3.O-Historical, Figure 8, of the City's
General Plan?
c) Alteration or destruction of a historical [8] 0 0 0
site, structure or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survev?
d) Other? 0 0 0 0
XV. RECREATION. Would the oronosal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 [8]
regional parlcs or other recreational
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational 0 0 0 [8]
opoortunities?
6331UptoWD-CNN Initial StudyJMarch 13, 2003
IS-17
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Potentially
.. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ~
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 elilninate 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 or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to ~ 0 0 0
achieve short -term, to the disadvantage
of lone:-term, environmental e:oals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are ~ 0 0 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable". means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other cuo:ent projects, and the effects of
probable future proiects.)
d) Does the project have environmental ~ 0 0 0
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
6331Upt<>wl>-QlN Imlbl StudyIM_ 13.2003
IS-I8
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
INITIAL STUDY
REFERENCES. The following references cited in the Initial Study are on file in the Planning and Building
Services DepartmentlPublic Works Division.
I. Resolution No. 4890 and Program EIR for the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
2. Resolution No. 2659 and Overall Central City Redevelopment Project EIR
3. City of San Bernardino General Plan.
4. City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use PlanIZoning Districts Map.
5. City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental hnpact Report.
6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
8. Federal Emergency Managerrtent Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
9. Public Works Standard Requirements - water.
10. Public Works Standard Requirements - grading.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACT LEVELS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
o
a)
. The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area includes two separate Subareas (Subarea A and Subarea B)
within the City of San Bernardino. Subarea A consists of the commercial areas along Highland
Avenue and Baseline Street, from Interstate 215 on the west to Waterman Avenue on the east, and
along "E" Street from Eighth Street on the south to Highland Avenue on the north. Subarea B is
bounded by the Santa Fe Railroad yard to the north, Interstate 215 on the east, Rialto Avenue and King
Street on the south, and Mount Vernon Avenue to the west. The Central City North Project Area is
encompassed by Eighth Street on the north, Fourth Street/Court Street on the south, Arrowhead
Avenue on the east, and Interstate 215 on the west; Figure 3 shows the Project Area boundaries. The
redevelopment plans for these areas allow the City of San Bernardino to reduce the blighted conditions
within each study area and bring the land uses into conformance with the existing land use
designations for that area.
Most neighborhoods and business districts within the project areas are largely unchanged from their
condition as described in the respective EIRs; characterized with strip commercial land uses with
businesses which tend to locate in the areas often for short periods of time. Residential developments
were observed in all areas, and some industrial developments currently exist in the west portion of
Subarea A.According to the Uptown EIR, the Redevelopment Project will continue to be
predominantly used for commercial land uses in Subarea A; Subarea B would include commercial,
industrial, and residential land uses. The Central City North area is characterized by commercial,
institutional and government uses, and residential properties.
o
The proposed development project within the Uptown Subarea B would include approximately 88,000
square feet of commercial retail space, parking for approximately 550 vehicles, and potentially parking
for 240 vehicles in a 2-level parking structure to augment parking for the Metrolink Station. The site
is located on 8.9 acres of land located near Third Street and "f' Street. The existing City General Plan
designation at this location is Light Industrial (IL), the development of 88,000 square feet of
6331UptowD-CNN Initial StudylMarcb 13.2003
IS-19
c
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
commercial retail space would require a General Plan Amendment to a General Commercial Land Use
designation. The proposed project also involves the demolition of three single-family residences, and
72,500 square feet of existing retail space that has suffered from numerous vacancies and under-
utilization.
The City is also initiating a change in landuse in a two-block area bounded by 1-215 on the east, "K"
Street on the west, Third Street on the north and Second Street on the south. Both "I" Street and
Kendall Avenue would be vacated in this two block area. Although there is no proposed development
project at this time, the City is initiating a zone change from light Industrial (IL) to a General
Commercial (CG-I) District. The CG-I designation is intended to provide for a variety of retail,
personal service, entertainment, and office and related commercial uses ~ong major transportation
corridors and intersections to service the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors
and centers and establishing new locations as residential growth occurs.
The EIR will analyze the proposed land use amendments and the loss of existing residential and
commercial structures.
b)
The project areas are not within an Airport District as identified in Land Use Zoning District Maps.
The closest airstrips or airports are located approximately 4';4 miles to the east (San Bernardino
International Airport, former Norton Air Force Base) and approximately 10 miles to the west (Rialto
Municipal Airport). There are no significant project-related impacts associated with airports or
airfields.
b) The projectareas are not located in a Foothill Fire Zone as outlined on Figure 61 of the City's General
Plan.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) The proposed project includes the reinstatement of eminent domain in order to facilitate
redevelopment within the specified Project Areas. Residential neighborhoods within both project
areas may be impacted if these uses are not in conformance with the land use designation for the area,
as envisioned by the respective Redevelopment Plans.
The proposed development project within.the Uptown SubareaB encompassing approximately 88,000
square feet of commercial retail space, parking for approximately 550 vehicles, and potentially parking
for 240 vehicles in a two-ievel parking structure to augment parking for the Metrolink Station, would
be located on 8.9 acres of land located near Third Street and "f' Street. The proposed project also
'involves the demolition of three single-family residences, and 72,500 square feet of existing retail
space that has suffered from numerous vacancies and under-utilization. The EIR will address the loss
of existing residential and commercial structures.
c) The implementation of eminent domain to acquire and assemble properties and redevelop land within
the Project Areas des<;ribed. Redevelopment in the Uptown and Central City North Project Areas will
create additional employment opportunities. In addition, the Redevelopment Plan objectives aim to
633/Up1:ow1t-CJ"N Initial SrodylMarch 13, 2003
IS-20
o
o
o d)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
increase housing opportunities for a wide range of income levels. However, the project may not result
in a significant demand for additional housing, as housing is needed for low and moderate income
residents that currently reside in the community, and would seek the employment opportunities that
would likely result from the redevelopment projects, would be the highest priority.
With regard to the Central City North Project Area, there are a number of projects currently proposed
in that area that are not redevelopment projects, but never the less, would occur within the boundaries
of the Redevelopment Project Area. At least two of these projects would require the removal of
existing housing, including many single family homes. The cumulative effects of the removal of
housing and relocation of residents will be evaluatedin the EIR. Note: the draft EIR for the proposed
elementary school on 10 acres (San Bernardino Unified School, District eroject) within the Central
City North project area will address removal of residences and relocation of residents for that project.
The draft EIR's release for public review has notoccurred but is anticipated to occur in the near future.
c)
The reinstatement of eminent domain wilf not result directly in infrastmcture expansion that was not
previously considered in the respective Redevelopment Plans or the City's General Plan. However,
the upgraded infrastmcture that would result from the proposed development project within the
Uptown Subarea B on 8.9 acres ofland located near Third Street and "f' Street may result in inducing
. additional growth and development in this Subarea surrounding the Santa Fe Depot. This type of
growth inducement is the goal of the Redevelopment Planning process and will be addressed in the
EIR.
m. EARTH RESOURCES
a-c) The majority of the area encompassed within the redevelopment project areas is developed on
relatively flat topography. As there are vacant sites throughout the area and the project may involve
demolition of existing stmctures for redevelopment, site grading and additional soil and building
. materials may be necessary. Site specific soil engineering and foundation investigations would be
required forconstmction projects within the respective redevelopment areas, and for the proposed
development project in Subarea. B,in accordance with development standardsadrninistered by the
City's Development Services and Public Works Divisions.
Dust will be generated whenever grading or demolition isnecessaryc New rules and regulations
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have been enacted since the
adoption of the Redevelopment Projects and Program EIRs. Such rules include regular watering on a
daily basis to reduce dust hazards during constmctionin accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Rule
403 requires implementation of best available fugitive dust control measures during grading and
constmction activities with additional measures implemented under high wind conditions. See Section
V - Air Quality for additional information on dust control and particulate matter that could be
generated by development within the project area. The EIR will address impacts associated with
grading and demolition related to erosion 311d dust control.
The City of San Bernardino is situated in a seismically active region where numerous faults are located
that are capable of generating moderate to large earthquakes. The San Andreas Fault zone traverses the
}
63Wptown-C~N Initial StudyIMarch 13, 2003
IS-2l
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
City in a northwest-southeast direction along the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The
Uptown Project Area (Subarea A) is located approximately 2Yz miles south of the San Andreas Fault
System. The San Jacinto Fault System also traverses the City through Cajon and Lytle Creeks,
generally to the southwest/west of the Project Area. The Uptown Project Area (Subarea B) is within
one mile northeast of the San Jacinto Fault System. The Glen HelenlLoma Unda Fault Systems mn
parallel of the San Jacinto Fault System, according to Figure 47 of the City General Plan, the Uptown
Project Area (Subarea B) lies within the approximate alignment of the inferred San JacintolLoma
Unda Fault line. Further studies may be required in Subarea B to determine the location of any
subsurface active faulting. The proposed project in Subarea B will be required to address the inferred
fault location to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to issuance of building permits.
These fault zones are located within Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones, a designation given when
surface rupture may occur in the immediate vicinity due to movement along these faults. The
redevelopment project areas are located outside the limits of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones
for the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Lorna Linda, and Glen Helen faults as defined in the City's General
Plan (reference Figure 47 of the City's General Plan) therefore surface rupture is not likely to occur in
these Project Areas; however, the Uptown Project area B is located in-line with the inferred fault
alignment of the San JacintolLoma Unda faults therefore the potential for ground rupture is present,
however the risk is unknown based on current information. The project areas, like most of the City, are
likely to experience peak ground acceleration from a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 8.5
on the San Andreas Fault, 7.5 from the San Jacinto and Glen Helen Faults (reference Figure 46 of the
General Plan).
Groundshaking is due to seismic waves emanating from the epicenter after initial movement on the
fault. Groundshaking will impact structures during earthquakes. The magnitude of the impact is related
to the construction of the building and its foundation. The City has adopted seismic performance
standards for all new construction. Any new buildings proposed must be constructed in conformance
with the UnifOrm Building Code and any additional performance standards adopted by the City. It is
anticipated that major earthquake groundshaking will occur during the lifetime of redevelopment
projects in the Project Areas from either the San Andreas or the San Jacinto fault systems.
Due to the likelihood of earthquakes to occur within either of the large fault zones, the City requires
soils/geotechnical studies for development projects to determine any impacts likely to occur on a
specific project site. These would also be required of all government buildings in the project areas.
Site-specific geotechnical investigations would routinely be prepared for new development projects
requiring earthwork to be performed. Recommendations of the investigations are routinely
incorporated in the design and construction of new projects. TheEIR will generally address these
issues and describe City and other building requirements in areas susceptible to impacts associated
with earthquakes.
e)
The project area does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.
f)
Neither of the project areas is located in an area identified as having High Potential for Water or Wind
erosion as shown on Figure 53 of the City's General Plan.
6331Uptown-CNN Initial StudylMarcb 13. 2003
IS- 22
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
g)
The Uptown Subarea A and Central City North project areas both lie within the Wann Creek drainage
area, and the Uptown Subarea B lies within the Lytle Creek drainage basin. However, as currently
proposed neither reinstatement. of eminent domain nor the commercial retail project would result in
modification of either creek or associated channels.
h)
Almost the entire land area within the two project areas exists in a potential subsidence area as shown
on Figure 51 of the City's General Plan. According to Section 12 - Geologic and Seismic, Subsection
F of the General Plan, the historic area of subsidence was within the thick, poorly consolidated alluvial
and marsh deposits of the old artesian area north of Lorna Linda. Figure 51 in the City's General Plan
shows a generalized area that takes in most of the City of San Bernardino between Highland Avenue
on the north and the 1-10 Freeway on the south. Potential subsidence within this area may be as great
as five to eight feet if groundwater is depleted from the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basjn. Since 1972,
the San Bernardino Municipal Water District has maintained groundwater levels through recharge to
percolation basins that in time" filters bacKinto the alluvial deposits. Problems with ground subsidence
have not been identified since the groundwater recharge program began. However, this issue will be
discussed in the EIR.
. Landsliding can occur during an earthquake in areas where there are extreme changes in elevation such
as in the foothills or mountain areas of the City. Neither project areas occurs within an area susceptible
to landslides as shown on Figure 52 of the General Plan.
i)
Sections of both the Uptown and the Central City North project areas are susceptible to liquefaction, as
referenced on Figure 48 of the General Plan. Liquefaction.is a phenomenon that occurs when strong
earthquake shaking causes soils to collapse from a sudden loss of cohesion and undergo a
transformation from a solid state to a liquefied state. This happens in areas where the soils are
saturated with groundwater. Loose soils with particle size in the medium sand to silt range are
particularly susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to seismic groundshaking. Mfected soils lose
all strength during liquefaction and failure of building foundations can occur. As development projects
are proposed, site-specific geotechnical liquefaction reports will be required by the City's Public
Works Division to determine potential surface ground failures from liquefaction prior to site
development/redevelopment. This is a standard requirement for development proposals in areas
subject to liquefaction. The standards provided in those geotechnical reports are determined to be
adequate to mitigate the effects of liquefaction; no additional analysis is required in the EIR.
IV.
WATER
a-d)
The Uptown (Subarea A) and the Central City North project areas lie within the Warm Creek drainage
area of the upper Santa Ana River watershed. The entire study area (both project areas) has been
urbanized and the drainage is currently managed via the existing streets and urban storm drain systems.
Subarea B is located within the Lytle Creek drainagebasiII with all runoff channeled by the "K" Street
Storm Drain into Lytle Creek. The permeable soils within the Subareas also reduce any risk of
flooding.
633JUptown-CNN Initial StudylMarch 13,2003
IS-23
o
o
o
e)
V.
a-b)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
The proposed reinstatement of eminent domain for the Uptown and Central City North redevelopment
project areas would not produce changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount
of surface runoff not previously identified in the respective EIRs. As development projects are
proposed, drainage and erosion control plans must be prepared in accordance with development
standards as administered by the City's Development Services and Public Works Divisions. The
proposed development project located in Subarea B will be required to address site-specific drainage
design details through the Development Review process with the City Development Services and
Public Works Divisions. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
The Project Areas do not occur witIiin a loo-year Flood Plain as shown on Fignre 62 of the City's
General Plan.
AIR OUALITY
Air quality is affected by both the' rate and location of pollutant emissions.' and by meteorological
conditions which influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind
speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link
between air pollutants and air quality.
The City of San Bernardino is in the northeast portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which
includes Orange County, and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The
SCAB is an area of 6,600 square miles bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel,
San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east. The mountains reach heights of up to
11,000 feet above mean sealevel (rnsl) and act to prevent airflow and thus the transport of air pollutants
out of the basin.
The San Bernardino Valley portion of the SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for nitrogen
dioxide,sulfates, particulate matter, and ozone. The criteria pollutants identified in the SCAB that would
be associated with the proposed project include:
-Ozone (03)
-Carbon monoxide (CO)
- Nitrogen dioxide (N~)
- Particulate matter (PMIO)
- Sulfur dioxide (S~)
- Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
. Redevelopment within the Uptown and Central City North Redevelopment Project Areas may result in
demolition, construction and site grading. A typical redevelopment project will not exceed SCAQMD
air quality thresholds. However, since the South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment status for ozone
and suspended particulates (PMIO) standard measures have been adopted by the City based on
SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize the project contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants.
Additionally, fugitive dust generated by construction activities would add to the arrtbient PMIO levels but
should not exceed SCAQMD threshold of 150 lbslday after standard dust abatement procedures are
6331UpIO~ Initial StudylMarch 13, 2003
IS-24
o
o
VI.
e a)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
c-"<l)
applied. However, cumulatively, construction projects may exceed thresholds in the short-term. This
issue will be discussed in the EIR.
The City's General Plan policies 10.10.2 and 10.10.4 require dust abatement measures during grading
and construction operations, and cooperation with SCAQMD by incorporating pertinent local
implementation provisions of the SCAQMD. Implementation of Rule 403 and standard construction
practices during all operations capable of generating fugitive dust, will include but not be limited to the
use ofhest available control measures, such as: 1) Water active grading areas and staging areas at least
twice daily as needed; 2) Apply water or soil stabilizers to form crust on inactive construction areas and
unpaved work areas; 3) Snspend grading activities when wind gusts exceed 25 mph; 4) Sweep public
paved roads if visible soil material is carried off-site; 5) Enforce on-site-speed limits on unpaved surfaces
to 15 mph; and 6) Discontinue construction activities during Stage 1 smog ~pisodes.
Therefore, the reinstatement of eminent domain for the Uptown Project Area would not alter the
requirements for projects to comply with hdes and regulations regarding air quality. However, there
are a number of proposed projects within the Central City North Project Area that cumulatively, may
adversely affect air quality.
In addition, the proposed development project within the Uptown Subarea B which encompasses
approximately 88,000 square feet of commercial retail space, parking for approximately 550 vehicles,
lind potentially parking for 240 vehicles in a 2-level parking structure to augment parking for the
Metrolink Station, located on 8.9 acres of land located near Third Street and "f' Street, may exceed air
quality thresholds. The EIR will include an Air Quality analysis of both project and cumulative
impacts.
The local climate can be classified as Mediterranean with hot and dry summers and short, warm and
relatively dry winters. Temperatures range from a low of 320 Fahrenheit in the winter toa high in excess
of 100" during the summer. Mean annual temperature is 650. Average annual precipitation for the area is
18 inches, which is almost exclusively rain. Proposed reinstatement of eminent domain would not affect
the physical environment The redevelopment plans for the project areas are consistent with the City's
General Plan and zoning with regard to permitted land uses in each project area (although the proposed
development project in Uptown Subarea B would require a GP A). Plan implementation and adoption of
eminent domain would not increase air emissions over that considered in the Uptown or Central City
EIRs.
Reinstatement of eminent domain to facilitate redevelopment in the Project Areas will not result in
objectionable odors. Land use designations in the Project Area are predortrinately professional and
commercial office uses. However, the proposed development projeCt in Subarea B and related parking
structure for the Metrolink, may cumulatively result in odors associated with vehicle exhaust. This issue
will be addressed in the EIR.
TRANSPORTATION
As the project areas undergo redevelopment, there would likely be an increase the number of vehicles
traversing within the area, but result in a general improvement in traffic circulation conditions in the
633/Uptown-CNN Irlilial StudylMattb 13.2003
IS-25
o
ble)
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
City. A common goal of the Redevelopment Project areas is to encourage circulation improvements,
parking facilities and transit services. The reinstatement of the powers of eminent domain establish on
of the tools available to the EDA in accomplishing such goals but would not result in direct impacts to
traffic and circulation within the project areas.
The proposed development project within the Uptown Subarea B encompasses approximately 88,000
square feet of commercial retail space, parking for approximately 550 vehicles, and potentially parking
for 240 vehicles in a two-level parking structure to augment parking for- the Metrolink Station, is
located on 8.9 acres of land located near Third Street and "f' Street. The proposed project also
involves the demolition of three single-family residences, and 72,500 square feet of existing retail
space that has suffered from numerous vacancies and under"utilization.. The EIR will include an
analysis of increased trips generated by the proposed development project as well as the proposed zone
change from IL to CG-I in a nearby area within Subarea B.
The reinstatement of eminent domain would not result in the alteration of the present pattern of
circulation in either project area. Similarly, the reinstatement of eminent domain will not change the
basic paths or patterns of circulation in the immediate area, and will not create any disjointed roadway
improvements. One of the primary goals of the Redevelopment Plan is to encourage circulation
improvements and transit use within the specified project areas. However, the EIR will address the
cumulative impact of roadway improvements associated with the proposed development project and
the proposed zone change from IL to CG-I in Subarea B and generally describe proposed roadway
improvements that may occur with development of other proposed projects in the Central City North
project area by others. This issue will be discussed under cumulative impacts in the EIR.
d) The reinstatement of eminent domain would likely not impact rail or air traffic. The nearest airports are
located approximately four miles to the east (San Bernardino International Airport, former Norton Air
Force Base) and approximately ten miles to the west (Rialto Municipal Airport). The nearest passenger
railroad operation is the Amtrak Station at Third Street and Mt. Vernon, located immediately north of the
_ Yptown Subarea B Project Area The project would not likely stimulate any activity that would place
- demands on rail or air traffic, nor interfere with their operations. The proposed projectin Subarea B
should result in enhanced accessibility and greater parking availability for the Metrolink station.
e) All parking fOr individual projects would likely be provided on-site for future development projects.
Parking spaces for individual projects within each project area would be in compliance with the
reqIJirements of Chapter 19.24 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. One of the goals of the
redevelopment plans is to improve access to parking facilities throughout the project areas. Theproposed
Subarea B project may include a 2-level parking structure to provide additional parking for Metrolink and
the Santa Fe Depot, the parking needs of the proposed development project and adjacent uses in Uptown
Subarea B will be analyzed in the EIR.
1)
o
The reiustatement of eminent domain would not affect proposed roadway improvements planned by
the City of San Bernardino, or the County of San Bernardino in its redevelopment of the County
Government Center area. This area is located in the east side of Arrowhead A venue immediately
outside the Ceutral City North project area boundary. Increased traffic associated with growth in the
6331Uptown-C~ IRiDal SrudylMarch 13.2003
IS~ 26
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
redevelopment project areas would not interfere with existing vehicle flows or bicyclists and
pedestrians. Both project areas are urban and includes sidewalks, crosswalks, and signalized
intersections with pedestrian crossing lights at the busiest intersections. Bicycle use has increased in
recent years, as employees of minimum wage jobs have adopted this as a viable mode of
transportation. Consideration of bicycle lanes could resolve any future conflicts between cyclists and
vehicles. This issue will be qualitatively discussed in the ElR.
g) The reinstatement of eminent domain will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
modes of transportation, and the implementation of the proposed project in Subarea B should result in
enhanced accessibility and greater parking availability for the Metrolink station.
h) New and redeveloped construction design will include adequate emergency access on-site as standard
requirements by City public safety departments. Design plans for these projects must be in compliance
with the City's Development Code and will be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshal and
Police Department prior to site disturbance. Therefore, the reinstatement of eminent domain would not
affect emergency response.
VII, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a-c) The project areas do not occur within a Biological Resources Management Overlay as shown on
Figure4l of the City's General Plan. The California Department of Fish and Game maintains a
Natural Diversity Database that lists threatened and/or endangered species that occur within a given
area. Both project areas"occur within the San Bernardino South Quandrangle. Wildlife species listed
, within the quandrangle do not occur within the boundaries of each project area due to the area's urban
development. Additionally, no sensitive plant or animal species are expected to occur due to the highly
disturbed nature of the area and urban surroundings. Development within and surrounding the project
areas has eliminated any wildlife corridors that may have occurred in the past. Reinstatement of
eminent domain and development of properties in either project area would not affect biological
resources.
d) The project areas do not contain wetland or riparian habitat. Uptown Subarea A and Central City North
project areas lie within the Warm Creek drainage area of the upper Santa Ana River watershed. The
Creek has been channelized and lined with concrete. It is maintained)as a flood control channel and
does not represent a natural habitat, therefore, reinstatement of eminent domain would not affect
Warm Creek. The Uptown Subarea B Project Area lies within the Lytle Creek drainage basin.
Currently areas of Lytle Creek are highly disturbed with sand and gravel excavation occurring within
the wash area. The existing creek conditions and riparian habitat would not be impacted by either the
reinstatement of eminen.t domain or the proposed project within the Uptown Subarea B Project Area.
,e)
Many mature trees occur throughout both project areas. Removal of some mature. trees may be
required to accommodate site construction and/or grading/paving activities. The City reqnires an
applicant to prepare an arborist's report on the condition of mature trees that have six inch or greater
trunk diameters. A Tree Removal Permit would be issued concurrent with project approval for the
anticipated removal of mature trees in conjunction with any proposed development in accordance with
6331Uptown-CNN Initial StudylMarch 13,2003
lS-27
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
INITIAL STUDY
Development Code Section 19.28.090. Reinstatement of eminent domain would not affect the status of
existing trees in theProject Area, and the existing ornamental landscaping within the boundaries of the
proposed development project in Subarea B would be assessed during Development Review.
. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Reinstatement of eminent domain and development of properties in the Project Areas would not result
in any conflicts with adopted energy conservation measures as required by the City of San Bernardino.
Compliance with existing codes, ordinances, recognized conservation measures, ongoing "best
available technology" and the City's General Plan would occur with Agency approval of final project
plans for any development projects to reduce any net decrease in -enef!~y resources. As proposed,
redevelopment in the project areas would not create any significant demand on existing/planned energy
resources and facilities, since most of the properties are already developed with urban uses. In
addition, county, state and federal construction projects, or projects proposed by the School District,
which may occur in the project areas are 'not subject to City building review, must still comply with
state and federal guidelines for energy conservation.
b)
Non-renewable resources to be used by contractors during redevelopment include diesel fuel, and
natural gas. All uses shall be designed to be efficient; no wasteful use of non-renewable resources will
occur. Reinstatement of eminent domain would not alter this requirement.
o
b)
Reinstatement of eminent domain and the development of properties in the Project area would not
result in the loss of valuable mineral resources because the areas are not identified by the state
Department of Conservation as a mineral resource area due to urbanization. Lytle Creek is identified as
a resource for aggregate material. Neither the proposed reinstatement of eminent domain nor future
development projects that may be proposed in the redevelopment areas would not affect that resource
because projects would redevelop existing urban uses.
Redevelopment may include aggregate resources in the construction of parking lots and buildings.
Steel, concrete, and asphalt would be required as part of c.onstruction. These resources are
commercially available in the local area without any constraint and no potential for adverse impacts to
. . the natural resource base supporting these materials is forecast to occur over the foreseeable future.
This demand is not significant due to the abundance of available local aggregate resources.
IX. HAZARDS
633lUplowo-C~ InitialSrudylMarch 13.2003
IS-28
o
a"b)
o
XI.
,a-e)
XII.
a-h)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
not alter these regulations. A general discussion of land uses in the project areas and likely
hazardous/toxic mat~rials that may be used or transported in such an urban environments along with a
discussion of the likely agencies with oversight will be included in the EIR.
c)
Some existing sites in the project areas may contain discarded wastes. If a parcel is suspected of
containing underground storage tanks and/or other materials known to contain hazardous materials, a
Phase 1 Site Assessment would be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor (REA).
Recommendations contained in the report would be implemented prior to any site development.
Requirements for conducting Environmental Site Assessments on properties to be redeveloped will be
discussed in the EIR. '
x.
NOISE
Reinstatement of eminent domain would not create noise levels within the project areas that were not
previously identified within the respective EIRs. Future development projects may be required to
conduct noise studies if it can be shown that they may have an adverse impact on the existing
environment (new commercial uses adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood forexarnple).
The proposed project within Uptown Subarea B encompasses approximately 88,000 square feet of
, commercial retail space, parking for approximately 550 vehicles, and potentially parking for 240
vehicles in a 2-level parking structure to augment parking for the Metrolink Station, on 8.9 acres of
land located near Third Street and "f' Street. The EIR will include an analysis of potential impacts
associated with this proposed development project.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The reinstatement of eminent domain by itself would not result in any additional demand on public
services. However, due to the age of the program EIRs for the respective project areas, a
socioeconomic analysis will be undertaken to update existing conditions in each project area, and
describe any future needs and plans by public service departments or agencies to upgrade or expand
services.
UTILITIES
,The reinstatement of eminent domain by itself would not result in any additional demand on utilities
and public infrastructure. However, due to the age of the program EIRs for the respective project
areas, a discussion of utilities and providers' ability to provide service and upgrade infrastructure to
support redevelopment projects in the project areas will be discussed in the EIR.
XIII. AESTHETICS
o
a-b)
Eminent domain would be used to stimulate redevelopment activities to achieve an overall upgrade of
the area and provide a climate for efficient business activity and an enhanced environmental setting.
633/Uptowo-CNN Initial SrudylMarclt 13, 200J
IS-29
o
o a-c)
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
The proposed project within the Uptown Subarea B encompasses approximately 88,000 square feet of
commercial retail space, parking for approximately 550 vehicles, and potentially parking for 240
vehicles in a 2-level parking structure to augment parking for the Metrolink Station, on 8.9 acres of
land located near Third Street and "f' Street. The proposed project also involves the demolition of
three single-family residences, and 72,500 square feet of existing retail space that has suffered from
numerous vacancies and under-utilization. The EIR will include a discussion of the Aesthetic impacts
and improvements to the project area associated with the proposed project.
c) Reinstatement of eminent domain and the redevelopment of the Uptown and Central City North
Redevelopment Project Areas may include additional light and glare from new structures. Although
the Uptown Project Area is largely made up of commercial and professional office buildings and
commercial retail uses; new light would not significantly affect other future development in the area.
However, this area is located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods that may be affected by
redevelopment of commercial properties. This issue will be addressed in the ElR and standard
conditions ofapproval for development ptojects will be identified to ensure compliance with the City's
Development Code standards for light and glare. The EIR will also specifically address the additional
light and glare that may result from the proposed development project within Subarea B.
. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Both redevelopment project areas are located within an area of "Urban Archaeological District -
Historic Archaeological Resources of 19th Century San Bernardino" according the City General Plan
Figure 8. Future redevelopment of commercial areas in the Project Area may involve the demolition
of older commercial and residential structures. The previous ElRs for both the Uptown and Central
City North project areas recommended that prior to future development projects involving demolition
or altering of cultural resources, an assessment should be completed to ensure the compatibility with
the surrounding environment or the existing resource itself. Reinstatement of eminent domain would
have no impact on any potentially cultural resources in the Project Areas. However, this issue will be
addressed in the ElR to. describe existing conditions and to identify measures that would ensure
potential historic resources are protected as future redevelopment projects may affect Historic or
Archaeological resources.
The proposed development project within the Uptown Subarea B involves the demolition of three
single-family residences, and 72,500 square feet of existing retail space that has suffered from
numerous vacancies and under"utili:zation. The EIR will include an analysis any potential impacts to
historical/cultural resources associated with this proposed project.
XV. RECREATION
a-b) This issue will be addressed in conjunction with the discussion of Public Services in the EIR.
6331Uptown-CNN Initial StudylMuch 13. 2003
lS- 30
o
o
,0
I
I
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
XVI
MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) The project areas do not occur within a Biological Resources Management Overlay (reference
Figure 41 of the General Plan). The majority of each project area is developed and any exiting vacant
areas have little potential to contain a native biological community. Future redevelopment project
would mainly involve the renovation or the demolition of existing structures and replacement with
new structures. Redevelopment should not result in the degradation of environment or loss of any
wildlife habitat that has not already been considered in the respective Redevelopment Plan EIRs.
Redevelopment may result in the removal of historic structures or the unearthing of archaeological or
historic resources. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
b)
The reinstatement of eminent domain and future development of properties in each project area would
allow for the redevelopment of blighted areas. Both project areas would be redeveloped with a mix of
commercial, professional, and residential land uses. Redevelopment would be in compliance with the
General Plan, and the project areas is not located in a sensitive Biological Resource Area according to
the Uptown EIR.
Redevelopment within the Uptown and Central City North redevelopment project areas may result in
. demolition, construction and site grading. A typical redevelopment project would not likely exceed
SCAQMD air quality thresholds. However, since the South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment
status for ozone and suspended particulates (PMIO) standard measures have been adopted by the City
based on SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize the project contribution to regional emission of criteria
pollutants. Additionally, fugitive dust generated by construction activities would add to the ambient
PMIO levels but should not exceed SCAQMD threshold of 150 Ibs/day after standard dust abatement
procedures are applied. However, cumulative air quality impacts as well as temporary construction
related impacts will be addressed in the EIR.
c)
The proposed redevelopment in the Uptown and Central City North project areas would improve the
general condition of each area both aesthetically and functionally. The reinstatement of eminent
domain within these project areas could result in cumulative impacts with respect to other project in
the area, particularly in the Central City North project area where there are a number of projects
proposed by others (not redevelopment projects). Cumulative impacts will be addressed in the EIR.
d)
No substantial adverse environmental effects not previously considered in the Uptown orCentraI City
EIRs were identified for the proposed reinstatement of eminent domain within the project areas. The
majority of either project area has previously been disturbed, and the proposed project would eliminate
the blighted conditions, improving the general aesthetic value of the area. However, a final
determination as to the direct or indirect effects to humans will be made in the EIR.
633/Uptown-CNN Initial StudylMarcb 13,2003
IS-31
o
o
o
o
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVEL;OPMENT PROJECT AREA
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
O'
\"
I:.'
..-.11....".
:,'';;" ,.,::::
,:.:
.:~ ..."
o
juneI5.2004-
o
o
o
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Development Services Department
300 N. "0" Street, 3" Floor
San Bernardino, California 9240 1
Contact: Ms. Valerie Ross, City Planner
Prepared by:
LSA Associates. Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500
Riverside. California 92507
(909) 781-9310
Reviewed by:
. The City ot: SanBemardino bas independently reviewed, analyzed. and exercised judgment in the analysis
contained.in the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documentation pursuant to Section 21082
of the California Environmental QuaiityAct (CEQA).
LSA Project No. CBD23 1 .
IIf(__
June 15. 2004
o
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0: SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACf REPORT............................... I-I
1.1 INTRODUCfION ........................................................................................................... I-I
2.0: PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT..................... 2-1
2.1 LIST OF PERSON, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
COMMENTING.ON THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FROM UTILITY PROVIDER.................. 2-1
2.1.2 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES.................... 2-1
3.0: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE UPTOWN/CEN1'liAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FINAL EIR .............................................................. 3-1
4.0: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR .........................................................................................4-1
5.0: MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN.:................................................................................... 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST .........................................................................5-2
TABLES
Table 4.6C: Year 2008 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service.......................................... 4-1
Table 4.6.E: Year 2025 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service.......................................... 4-2
Table 4.6.H: Year 2008 With Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................... 4-3
"Table 4.6.J: Year 2025 With Project Intersection Levels of Service............................................... 4-4
R:1CBD2311FEJR\C- T - T.doc (6115104)
o
..
o
o
1.0 SUMMARY OF TIlE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI' REPORT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Uptown/Central City North Redevelopment
Project Area (State Clearinghouse No. 2003031072) bas been prepared in accordance with the
California Envirollmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA.
Hereafter, the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical
. Studies, and Final EIR containing Responses to CQmments and including the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan cOnstitnle the EIR for this project. These documents will be referred to collectively as the EIR.
The persons, organizations, and public agencies that have submitted comments on the Draft ElR
. through May 26, 2004, are listed in Section 2.0 of the FEIR. A total of four comment letters were
received. Three (3) comment letters were received nom public agencies, and one (I) was received
from a utility service provider.
The individual comment letters submitted regarding the DEIR and individual responses to each'
comment are included in Section 3.0 of the FEIR.. The primary objective and purpose of the EIR
public review process is to obtain comments on the adequacy of the analysis of environmental
impacts, the mitigation measures presen~ an" other analyses conlliine4 in the repOrt. CEQA
requites that the City respond to all significant envitonmental issues raised (CEQA. Guidelines Section
15088). The City's response to environmental issues, "... must be good faith, reasoned analysis."
Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in this document (Le., are outside the scope of
this document) are not given specific responses. However, all comments are included in this section
so that the decision-making bodi for the proposed project is aware of the opinions of public agencies,
organizations, and the general public.
.Based. upon the review of the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, portions of the Draft EIR have
been revised. Section 4.0 of the FEIR identifies those portions of the OEIR that have been revised
sUbsequent to the release of the document for public review. Per CEQA Guidelines (Section
150885[aD, ". . .New information added to an EIR is not 'significant' unless the EIR is chaugedin a
way that deprives the. public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the project of a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement." While minor
editorial revisions have been made, no revisions to the PEIR were made in response to any comment
received during the public review period. The minor editorial revisions made to the OEIR do not
constitote significant "new information" that would require the recircu1ation of the EIR.
Section 5.0 includes the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the proposed project As required
by State law (public Resources Code, Section 21081.6), the MMP bas been prepared to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed project by the City of San .
Bernardino. Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 requires the adoption of a reportiug or
monitoring program for those conditions placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on
the environment.
R..-'aID23I\fEIR'&ctioa 1.doc ((jJISflOO()
I-I
o
o
O'
2.0_ PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
- 2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR.
Per Section 15105(a) of the Stale CEQA Guidelines, a DEIR submitted to the Stale Clearinghouse for
review by Stale agencies sball have a review period, "..;not less than-45 days." The public review
period the DEIR extended from April 8, 2004 to May 24, 2004, a period of 41 days. The public
- review period for the DEIR exceeded the minimum required byCEQA: The Draft EIR was properly
noticed and distributed and was available at San Bernardino City offices and at the Feldhym Central
Library. Additionally, the document was available in its entirety on-line at the City's website.
. Comments to the DEIR were received by mail only.
The per8i'ns, organizations, and public agencies_ that submitted comments-regarding the DEIR
through May 26, 2004, are listed below. A total -of four comment letters were received. Three
comment letters were received from public agencies and one comment letter was received from a
utility provider. The City accepted one comment letter subsequent to the close of the public review
period. While the City is not required to respond to comments received after the close 9f the public
- -review period, to ensure the _ thorOugh consideration of public opinion, this letter has been responded
to in full. -
2.1.1 Comment Letters Received From Utility Provider (1 Letter)
A The Gas Company (April 29, 2004)
Rogelio A. Rawlins
Technical Services Supervisor
2.1.2 Comment Letters Received From Public Agencies (3 Letters)
B Southern California Association of Govemments
Jeffrey M. Smith, A1CP
Senior Regional Pianoer, Intergovemmental Review (May 12,2004)
C Stale of California, Department of Toxic Substance Control
Greg Holms, Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch (May 21, 2004)
D San Bernardino Associated Governments
Steve Smith, Principal Transportation Analyst (May 26, 2004)
-R.'CBD2311FElR_:uo. (61l5J2OO4)
2-1
o
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE UPTOWNlCENfRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVEWPMENT PROJECT AREA FINAL EIR
The .comments on the UptowulCentral City North Redevelopment Project Area Draft Em (State
Qearinghouse No. 20(3031072) and the individual responses to each comment are iDcluded in this
.section. Thepriu;w:y objective and purpose of the Em public review process is to obtain Comments
on the adequacy of the analysis of enviioomental impacts, the mitigation measures pre5el1tM. and
other analyses contained in the report. The California Environmental Quality Act (CBQA) requires
that the .City of San Bernardino respond to an significant environmental issues raised (CBQA
Guidelines Section 15088). Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in this document (i.e.,
are outside the scope of this document) are not given specific responses. However, an COnuDents are
included in this section so that the decision-makers know the opinions of the comuientors.
o
In the process. of responding to the co_ts, minor revisions to the Draft Em. have been made.
None of the changes to the Draft Em is considered to be significant new information (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 [a)).
Conunent letters are arranged in chronological order. Aside from the courtesy statements,
introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified
and assigned an a1phA-nllll1eric identifier. The first digit in the identifier indicates the specific
comment letter, while the second digit identifies the specific comment within the each comment
letter.' For example, the comment identified as A2 will correspond to the second comment, in the first
comment letter received.
Copies of each comment letter. are included in the Final BIR. Brackets delineating the individual
Comments and the aIpba-numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of each letter.
. Following each comment letter is (are) the page(s) of responses to each individual commenL
o
"''<:80231''''''- 3.doo (6115/ll104)
3-1
o
o
o
.. .' _._.._._....._-._~...
OO[g@~UW~1ID
MAY 07_
...
-~
-""-
_1It~_
_CA 9231.o1Il2O
. 1IaIlao-
l!O__
_CA ...:12_
IF.,.'
A ~ Sel:lq#a Energy" uIIIly
April %9, 2004
City of Sa Baluudillo
~tSerricesDepartmat
380 N. "D" S8'eeC
Sa BenaarcIiJut, CA 9241B
. Attcatfola: VaJme C ll8ss
Ba:: Uptowa ad Cmtnl City J(ortlr. ReckvelopmeDt Projed Area Plus - City of Sa
BenaanfIao.
atY OF $AH IIBINA/IllNO
llE\IaOI'I8IT ~...s.
IlEI'MTUI!Nr
..
1'haJlk you f<< die uwu'wly to R&pODd. to 1he abcJvc.m"e.GoGcd plOject. PIeasc DOle tbat
SouIbenI c.JjMnri:l GU Comr"l\Y has facilities in the ~ ~ die abcwe named project is
JllllPOSC" GU scnil:e to theprojeet COI11d be proviac.i wjtI10ut my sipifi"""t impact on die
CD'oi1...-.nt. '1'be service would be in ~wi1h tho c-pmy's pcWd"S md axtension
JD1cs on fiJc with lbe ~ Public Ublitics (Hnmi..w. at~ li1llC coatradual ~
me made. ..
You sbou1d beawm: tbat this letter is not to be intcqxctcd as a coatractua1 ~tuiCat to serve
the I"~ project, bUt coJy as an mrormational ~ . 'Ibc awiJabilit.y of natuPl gas
scnioc, as set forth in this letter, is based upclI1 preseut eormnODS of gas SUJl9l:Y md IegDIatmy
policies.. A$ a pllbIic uIiIi1y. '1'be Soulbcrn c.Iit;.rm:l GU ~~ is 1II1CIer lbe juri8diclioo of
die C.lifNTri:l Public 'Ulilitics C~~. We. c:m ako be .a1fcclDd by act:i0ll$ of federal
IllgUlBtoIy 'agcaoies.. Should 1hesc apICies tab: my aCtion, Which affects gas &Upply, or lhC
coodiliODS UDoCl<< which SClVicc is avaiJablc, gas $eCVice will be prO'ridcd in accordance with
miscd c:oadhim~ .. .
Typical~ use for:
a. R.eddcntial (Syslrm Area Al'JPgcMr: Pa- Meta-) X!l!dx
SiDglcF;uui1y . '199 ~dwl:IIiu:llIIit
MuIli-Family 4 or Jess lIIIilS . 4&2.~ct-lIinguait
Multi-l";uui1y 5 or_1IIIfls 483 ~ dwcIliDgllllit
'Ibesc ava2gc& are based on tolal gas ~ in. r;aMofitoI \IDit$ served by ~
C..!imm;a GU ~, and it should DOt be implied 1hat my plIl'licular homl; _Ibdrt 0(
llaCtofbomcs will usethesc ~ of CD4f3.
A1
A2
o
o
o
April 29, 2004
'Pa&e 2
....
b. Q>.......... cia!
Due to tht: fact thai: c:oDSIl'IIClim varies so widely (a glass ~ va. a heavily J
iDSllbIM bai/tfnl&) and tbcrc is such a wide variaIioa ia tJpcs of ~I, ami, a A2
typK:aI d..m:md fi&1nisDOt available fq: Ibis type of ~ ""I""I..hOllS .
woulflneed lD be IDlldc atWthe 'buiJdiag has beea ~
We lIawn...-d SidlI )A',"",~ prI1&o- available lD 1'~.""_ci8I/iQdustrial ~llD }A3 '
provide ....1__ in Il"~ tht: _ c:tleetift. appli~ of -V of oar eacrgy
....-....tiClll ~.-. p1eass ~ oar O......-.dalIIorluslrial Suppon Calteut l-8OO-GAS-
2000. '
SiatereIy,
-?~~- a ~ t:;
.~RawIiDs
TeclmicaI Services Supervisor
J
o
O'
o
LS. "SOCIAT.S. .IIC.
JU.. "..
"'MAL ....
U.TO....IC...T....L CITY MO.'TH UDI!.YELO,....lfT ..OJ.CT &aKA
S.' ....SPON.. TO COU....MT.
RESPONSE TOLE'l'TER A
The Gas Co~y
Respoose to Comment AI: The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix A of the
Draft E1R) states that prior to approval, development within the Redevelopment Project Areas would
be required to provide evidence that it can be adequately serviced by the natumI gas and electricity
providelC, and submit plans showing the incotporatioo of energy conservation measIires .into the
project in accordance with Tide 24 of the California Admini.....tive Code. Adherence to these
requirements would reduce utility impacts to a less significant level The Gas Company comment
that, .''Gas service to the project couId be provided without any significant impact on the
environment," corresponds with the Initial Study's findings related to the provision of gas service.
. Respoose to Commetlt A2:. The estimated eneq:y reqUirements detailed in the Initial. Study were .
based on South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) generation factors (Tai?le A9-11
Estimating Emissions from Electricity Consumption by Land Use, SQ;\.QMD CEQ;\. Air Quality
No~book.). Using these generation factors, the Meccado Santa Fe componept of the proposed project
was e.<Ii""'led to consume approximately 9,303 cubic feet of natumI gas per dsy. Development
projects within the Redevelopment Project Areas undertaken subsequent to the reinstatement of
eminent domain would be subject to review by the City and. the Gas Company to ascertain tbe
significance of potentisl impa~tslo the provision of natumI gas.
Response to Comment A3: The Qty recognizes and appreciates the availability of the Gas
Company's Demand Side Management programs. The City will convey to the proponents of future
development within the Redevelopment Project Areas of the availability of these programs.
.
R.:"C8D231u;BIR'5ectioo 3.doc (6I15flOO4)
3-4
o
sOUTHER" CAUFOlNlA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
... 0IIIce
818__ Street
I2Ih _
Los AAaoles. CaUlomla
_7-3435
.--' '(21312)klloo
1l213l_
-....
--= ~; - . ,..~
as....... War.......... - ...
. ..... . s.- .. ~
..........~c....,....
: .. - . .......a.tes.
....... .
----........"""".
~--
.. ..... c:..lat..... ....... ....
...-..-c...r-"'" . . "NtfMs
c.u.cr..............s..w.w.....
-~.~_..._.
........ Old:. ...... .. '- ......
-.---."'"
--....-..-.
-.........-.--.
-.--..-.--
.. ,.... .. ..... ... c..,... .. ..
-..-.--...
..................-~....
----"--_.
.,,~..--.............
-....---.""
-..-.--...-
..............................
.-..-,...-..-.
........... .................
-.---.-
--....-.--
.....................~...
-...-....--.
---...-
. ------.
...... ............. ...... ..... ..
M..........M.~.....
-.....--.-..
....... &.- ...... ... -. We
......_..............tlenI....
.. ..............
-_..... --
r...,.........................
---....-
...... .. "" .... GICIleW Or .. ...
--
s.a ........ c...tF Pal ....' Sa.
....... c....r .. . ...... ....
-.---..-
""".---.........,......
c.:.l....s.........s-r ..
~................
~'::t.""'--_.
...... _.(001_",
, .TIIii...............
c....,- .1. ~
.....--
....... ...... - . ~ r-w-
---
.....c..r- ....t-w...
--..... .
e-__ __
....
-.-......
,h _ .
__~t
.:. . U.', t'"'!
,.....-: ':
t.:
. .....,.,
^:..... . '! t.,
. .'
WIn: 33
May 12, 2004
(. .
s.'~-': ":.( .
':~"_:'2';O
Mr. Mike Trout, PrqectManager
Economi<: OeIoelopment ~
300 Norltl i:r Street
San BemanfIllO, CA 92418
RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. I 20040220 Uptown and Central CIty
~'hedeveIopment Plojed Aiea Plans
Dear Mr. Trout:
Thank you. for submitting the. Uptown 'and Central City North
Redevelopment Project. Area . Plans review and' comment. As area~
clearinghouse for reglonaDy sIgnlfIcant projects, SCAG. reviews the
consistency of local plans, projects and progranis. with regfonaI plans. This
activity is based on SCAG's responsibUities as a regfonaI planning
organiza1lon ptlISU8Ilt to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance
provided by lhasa .reviews is intended to assist local agencies and .~
sponsors to take actions thfit coritrIbute to the attainment of regional goals
and policies~ .
We have ieviewed ttie Uptown and Central City North ~pment
Project Area Plans, and have delem1ined that the proposed'Project is not.
regionally significant per SCAG Inlergovemmental Review (IGR) Criteria and
CaIifomia En)IIronmenIaJ Quality Ad. (CEQA) GuIde&nes (SeclIori 15206): B1
Therefore, the proposed Project does not war:rant COIlTIleI1ls at this flrne.
Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would
appreciate the oppoItuiIity tOl'l!View and.convnent at that time.
A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 1-15,
2004 l~entalRevlew Oearinghouse Report for public review and
=~
The project tiUe and SCAG Clearinghouse runber should be. used iri all
correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence shouid
be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. "you have any
Qt!eStions. please oontact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you.
Sincerely,
uz{J~~.~
JEFFREY M. SMITH. AlCP .
SenIor Regional Planner
Intergovemrnenta Review
o
...... ...oeIATE'. It.c.
J.'" ,u. .
PUlA!. a.a
VPTOlOIJa,urr...1. CITT WORTH ..aOIVELO.....KT ."OJICT AtEA.
1.. .....0.... TO CO......NT.
RFSPONSE TO LETTER B
Southern California AssOciation of Governments
Response to Comment HI: .Jfbe letter iDfOl1llOd the City tbat based on seAG's IntergOVeJTI......tal
Review (lGR) Criteria and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206), the proposed project is not legiona1ly
significanlNo comments ~ warranted. The City recognizes and appreciates SCAG's review of the
DBIR. Because no comments related to the scope. or adequacy of the DBlR were raised, no response
to SCAO's comment is required.
o
o
R."'CBD23IveR.&c:tioa 3.doc (6IlSl2OO4)
3-6
c
e
-~
--'
~
...
T...,...........
AaencrSWl.,
CIlEPA
Department Of Tuxic Substances Control
. a.twlP'p Lowry, 0lRldar
, 1001'" Shet, 2s'" FIocr
P.O:Bale806
, ~Ito. C8!ifilmia 9S812~
.
. AmaId$J_:r .d~
~
TO:
oorg@~n\YJrgr;y
MAY 2 UiAl; ll!J
Rania Zabaneh, CITY OF SAN SEiItWlllINO
Site t.ilIgalIan Pro9ram. ~4~ ~ '. ~8aIVICa .
GuenlherW. Mo&kat. ChIef IJ - . .
Planning & ErivIromitenfaI AnaIyais Section
ME.MORANDl)M
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AprIl 13, 2004
CECA ENVIRONMeNTAL 0ClCUMENT REVIEW FOR: UPTOWN/CENTRAl
CITY NORTH "RI!DEWl.O'PMeNTPROJECT. SCH# 2003031072
o
The 0I'Iice r:#ErMrtlI.mental AnalysIs. RegulaljoolS & Aucflfs (OEARA) receM!d' the alIached
. docunent from an outside ageI1Cy fOr I11'Sc. niiIIew as a pOte. dial RespcasIl1Ie Of IntetestBd
Agency ~1he CaIfilmIaEtiv/rmmentaNMIity Act (CECA). A pre/lrnnary review offhls
doc:ument by our olIice shows that the project may tal within the regu/aIDIy authority of DTSC
becalJ$4! It InwIves one of the foO(lMng'Jand uses that oouId potent/a//y expose indMduaIs to
hamrds Ol'hazaIdous materials: '
B
181
N4 SXIS1'/NG OR PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE
SENSITI\IE LAND USES,{aQ.. daycare~. nursing hOine, hospllal)
NON-SENSIT1\fE LANJ ~ (e.g., ~llll\llldal or IndusIrialfaclilles)
This document Is being forwardecl to)'OUr otIic:e for further : I "nent Please provide the
Lead A/jJeB:Jf lhaUs Jde,d".ed Oil a... .dtoo..l...d NoIk:e of Cclmp/elIon FormWilh any .........""'.
yOu may have on this docunerit before the dose of ll1e OOlI./l8Ilt period (m4I.ZOO4). .After)'OlD"
review, pin. OOl......1helnfonl.afun~:fn lhB. bOx below andrefum lhI$fi:xm to cu
oIIlce atlhefollowingaddress: '
CEOA Trackk1g Cenler
0IIice of BMronmentaJ Analysis, RegulatIons & Audits
10011 Slreet, 22nd FIoocf P.O. Box. 806
SaaanledO. CA~12
, .
~WERE. SBlTTOlllElE.4D. AGelCY and a copyfawardedto oEARA via:
~M alIachOlenl. to 1hIs downllnt
o Fax@~6J32NZ15
COMUENTSWEREJfQI SENT TO 1liElEAD ~ W31se:
o The ~ CId notflll wilhin!he jufsdldIan d DTst:
D The document """""""'Y ass e 5 i e d impeds fnlm !he pl~ project as It..... Ie>
DTSC's _ or,..isdio:lion
c
. e PIlr*'II... RooJded PIIpor
S/5 IlflVd
IIIBIIIS_61116'OI
,&PIB/SUld Dupas 4D ;('1':J'H02ld &S'&I HI-"Z-AIIH
o
o
o
e
,,,'
-~.
-
-:-
.
...
Department ~f.1 oxic.Substances Control
~ F.lowry. Director
~~Avenue
.. ~ CaIibnIa 90630
TenyT.dl.a...
Agonq/ SM....r
CIlIEPA
Amd4 se..-...lO\
~
May 21. 2004.
oo~~~~:~@
Ms. Valerie Ross
Deputy DIredorICity Planner
Redevelopment Sentipes Department
City of San Beman:Jlno
300 North "D" StJeet
San Bernardino. Caflfomia92418-0001
NOTICE OF COMPlETION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE UPTOWNICENTRAL crrYNoRTH RI;oEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PlAN
AMENDMENTS (SCH # 2003031072)
CITY OF SAN SSlNAftl)L'IO
!JE'I9,OPI,;:.'\T IICIttIICes
DEl'Al\TUIiNT
Dear Ms. Ross:
The Department of Toxic Substances 0Jnfr0I (DTSC) has received yqur Noli<:e of
Completion (NOC) of a draft Emiironmei1tallmpact Report (EIR) for the above-
. mentioned ProJect.
Based on the revfewofthe doa.t(llenf, DTSC's comments are as follows:
"
1. DTSC's commenfs dated ApOl8. 2003. regarding the NotIce of Preparation }et .
(NOP) for 8 dmft 8R have not been pwjlerfy add~ In the currenUy .
submitted draft E1R
2. The lniIiaI.Sludy with the NOP states that some ~'Y $ites .lnJbe.projed
areas may contain d~$tfwastes. It also stateslhat if a parcellS suspected
of conlainlng uni:fEitgrotlnd Storageia'nks and/or ofhermaterialsknown to
contaln hazardousmaferials. Ii Phase I Site Assessment\WUkf be prepared by C2
a Registered EnvironmeritaIAs5essound requirements for conducting
EnvironrnenlaI Site Assessmenfs on properties to be redevelOped will be
cflSQlSSed In the EIR ~. the dmft E1R shows nO addlflonal discussions.
3. The draft BR needs fb~ any known or potentially contamInated sites
wifhln lite proposed Project area. For a111denti1ied sIfes. the draft EIR should
evaJuate Whether conditions at the site pqse a Ihreatto human health or the'
.ec\IIfronment . A Phase 1.4$$-; ,rnent maY be sufficient to Identify these sites..
Following are the databases of some of the regu/afoIy agencies:
C3
217.. '2~'"
. $-...~- .. .
lIlIAl.lqfJiA~R.t::'.b'1.;. . Sprll/SUld DUP8S .Ja "<"lJ:1'HO~d 7.C;'F-t -."_"X_K\..IU
o
o
o
lImB
Ms. Valelfe Ross
May 21.2004
Page2of3
- NatIonal P~ List.(NPl): A list Ismainl3ined by the United States
EnvironmenfaI ProtedIon Agency (U.s.EPA). .
- CalSites:A Database primariy used by the California Department of Toxic
Substances ConIroI.
-Resource ConservatIon and RecoveIy Information System (RCRlS): A
database of RCM faclillfes thatls maintained by U.S. EPA .
- ComprehensiveEnvironmentaJ Response Compensation and liability
lilfonnatlon System (CERCUS): A d_base of CERClA sites that Is
maintained byU.S.EPA C3
· SoIldWaste Infonnatlon System (SWIS): A~ provided by the .
California J~ Waste Management Board wf1ich. consists of both
open as well as closed. and Inactive solid waste .dlsposaf faciIilies and
fnlnsfer stations.
· leaking Underground Stomge Tanks (Lusn I SpDIs,leaks.
Invesligations and Cleanups (SUC): A fist that is maintained by Regional
Water Quality Confml Board (RWQC8).
. Local County andCily maintain lists for hazardous substances deanup
6iIBs and Ieakfng und8lground stoIage tanks. .
PriorfD approving the draft BR, p/ease address aD of DTSCs comments.. As the lead }
egency. ltis your responsibilityw ensute fhat all of DT$C's Cl1I'1CeIllS ~property C4
. . addressed.
{JTSC provides guidance for preparation of a PmIimInary Enda~ hse ssme.Jt
(PEA). and cleanup oversight through. 1he Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). .For
addlUonal informatfon on the VCP. please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.oov.
S/E: lClVd
eallls treE:6lII6' a I
SPIB/SUld DUpBS ~o ~~'a'HOHd ~S'E:t "-.~-AVN
o
, .
o
o
.~.
Ms. Valerie Ross
May 21, 2004
Page 3 of3
.If)QI have ~ questions regaIding this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham,
Project Manager, at (714) 484-0476.
Sincerely,
GI8g. Holmes
Unit ChIef
Southern California Cleanup ~ns Branch
Cypress Office - - -
. -
. cc: Govemots Office of Planning andResearoh
S1ate Clearinghouse
P.O. Box3044
SacramerrtO, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moslart. Chief
Planning and EnvIronmental.Analysis Section
CEOA Tracking Center
Deparlment of Toxic SubstanceS Control
P.O. Box.806
Sacramento, CaIifomia958.12~6
.J
&PIS/SUld _ss sa <<-U:J'ICOZld r;S'E:1 _-..r;-JlVII
a,. II'!I\:I~
ea89Io9E:8GlS' Q I
o
L'" .....OClA.T... IKC.
Ju.a ....
..II.u.au.
VPTOWlUaa.T1AL OITT IIORTH ...D.VELO.....T ."OJaOT .........
'1.1' .....0... TO CO......T.
. RESPONSE TO LETTER C
California Department of TODC Substance Control
Response to Comment Ct: The Noti"" of Preparation (NOP) referenced by the commentor was
prepared by the City and distributed on March 14, 2003, to the State Clearinghouse, responsible
agencies, and other interested parties for a 30"<h.y review period. This public review period extended
from March 14 to April 14,2003. Subsequent to the initial distribution of the Initial Study (IS) and
NOP, the City refined the proposed project to more appropriately focus the environmental document
on the programmatic nature of the proposed project. The discussion of potential hazardous material
impacts associated with the proposed project was similarly revised.
.To ensure adequate ag~ncy review of the 'changed character of the proposed projec~ the City
redistributed an updated and revised IS and NOP to public agencies for a 30-day review that extended
from Febrwuy 18.to March 18,2004. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) did not
provide comments on the recirculated Initial StudyJNOP,
The following discussion is provided to ensure that the concerns expressed in the agency's. April 8,
2003 Comment letter are adequately addressed (numbering equates to the comment number included
in the April 8, 2003'comment letter.)
o
1-5: Only the proposed site of the Mercado Santa Fe retail development was recognized as having
a potential for on-site hazardous materials. Prior'to demolition of structures andlor
construction, the City wilI require a Phase I Site Assessment to determine the
presence/absence of hazardous materials. The remediation, removal, andlor disposal of any
hazardous materials identified during the course of the Phase I Site Assessment will conform
to applicable Federal, State, and local requirements; thereby, reducing potential impacts
related to this issue to a less than significant level.
The site-specific risks associated with other future development within the Redevelopment
Project Areas cannot be sufficiently' identified at a program level.
-
. 6: The required contents and procedures for preparation of an Initial Study are established under
Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA does not mandate the use ofa standard
Initial Study Checklist. Section 15063(f) states; "...pnblic agencies are free to devise their
own format for an initial study." The Initial Study Checldisihasbeen determined by the City .
fe.adequately ful6.Uthe reqnirements established byCEQA. '
7-12: Futore development within the Redevelopment Project Areas wilI be subject to City- and
State-mandated standards relative to the identification, removal, and disposal of potentially
hazardous building materials. This effort will result from future project-specific CEQA
review~
c
Response to Comment C2: The document reviewed by the DTSC is a "Program EIR," which
evaluates the broad-scale impacts of the proposed reinstatement of eminent domain and other actions'
described which, in total, cOnstitute the "projecf' under consideration. A Program EIR, addressing the
impacts of policy decisions, such as those presently under consideration, can be thought of as a "first
tier" document, evaluating the broad-scale impacts on the environmen! expected to result from the
adoption or implementation of such decisions. Tiering refers to the concept of a multi-level approach
R..."'CBODI\FEIR\Sectioa 3.doc (6ItSJ2004)
3-11
o
o
O'
UA AaSOcu.n:l. UtC.
JUNI!:UU
..nu..L....
UPTO'WIfICEMTaA.L CITY MORTit: ...KD...LO......T ."OJ_aT .......
.... ...,.ORla TO CO.....lfT.
to preparing environmental docuinents (CEQA Guidelines, Section (5152). A Program BlR does not
typically address site-specific impacts that subsequent development projects permitted by th<:
approved policy decisions may have. CBQA requires every subsequent development project within
the scope ofa Progmn EIR to be evaluated at a later stage for its particular site-specific impacts.
These impacts are typically encompassed in "secood-tier documents," such as Supplemental or
Subsequent BIRs, an Addeodwn to the Program EIR, .or a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. which
typically evaluate the impacts of a single activity undertaken to implement some specific portion of
the overall plan.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), together with other Federal, State, and local
agenCies, administer a comprehensive set of laws and regulations that has been developed to protect
public health and the environment from accidental spills and releases. Compliance with these
progr.mis, as in effect at the time, will ensure that there will be no significant adverse. impact in the
event of a spill or release associated with project operations. The proposed project includes the
reinstatement of eminent domain within the Redevelopment Project Areas, and a General Plan
Amendment. These. actions are not physical projects that would result in potential impacts associated
with hazardous materials. Any future project initiated within the RP As sUbsequent to the
reinstatement of eminent domain would be subject to review by the City and the DTSC.
Response to Comment C3: Hazardous or toxic materials .transported in association with
redevelopment projects (including the future proposed retail projeCt) may include items such as oils
and fuels. All materials required during development and operation of businesses would be used and
transported in cOlnpliance with all State and local regulations. Likewise, substances that would likely
be used and stored by typical wban businesses would be in controlled environments in accordance .
with existing requirements of the County Department of Health or Fire Department. DTSC, South
Coast Air Quality Management District or other permitting agencies. Reinstatement of eminent
domain and the redevelopment of any properties in either project area would not alter the requirement
of compliance with all applicable regulations.
~on 2.4.1 (pages 2-7 and 2-8) of the Dtaft BlR recognizes the potential for hazardous materials
within the site of the. proposed . Mercado Santa Fe retail development. Because of this potential
hazardous material impact. aPbase I Site Assessment will be required prior to the demolition of any
structures suspected to contain hazardous materials. TIie remediation. removal, and/or disposal of any
~us materials identified during the cOurse of the Phase I Site Assessment will conform to
applicable Federal, State, and lcicaI. requirements; thereby, reducing potential impacts related to this
issue to a less than significant level
The site-specific risks associated with other future developioent within the Redevelopment' Project
Areas . cannot be sufficiently identified at a program level. BecaUse no specific development will
result from project actions. without additional CEQA. review incotporaiing appropriate studies of
iRlpaCled structures, impactS related to the storage, Iiansport. or disposal ofhazanlous wastes or the
release of hazanlous substances are considered less than significant at a programatic level.
Response to Comment C4: It is the opinion of the City that the response stated above adequately
Iiddress lJI'SC's comments. The com"""'ts from DTSC, as well as the comments of others, will be
cOnsidered in developing the FmaI. BlR that will be used in the decision whether 10 approve this
project. CBQA requires the Lead Agency (in this case the City) to exercise independent judgment in
determining ire environmental impacts of a proposed project and in deciding whether to approve a
project.
. R"'CBD23I\FEIR1Secdc. l.doc (6/I.Y2OO4)
3-12
o
o
o
...
JUN-e?-84 14_13 PROM.Cl~y of SB~no PIng/BIdS.
ID-08938468ee
PAGE 1/1
Gc.vt;!-rj'nerl1S
~mr;
~ .~---. - ,~.. -
\ -~ .
',: - _1-/
'/ - N C '- '1 [ ~
San 8emall. dino Associated Gov.roments. ~
02 No ~ Awftuoi San ..._,r. 0, CA 92401-1"21 . rr (ill. II.
"""""l9OPI88A,8276 """ 19OPI88U.co7 Web.-.saObli-....
. $cn~-CcMwy1L...-.~.Oo.._A4u.1 . Santem ..I..-c:c..nv1'c~. & - .1viltodJy
· $cn"'~4~0:Mdv~._ - . Mol :.~tl_"IOf/ttt:N. ~~~~En-v-u..
oorn@~D\Yl~fID
NAY 27 ~
May 26, 2004
Ms. Valerie Ross
Deputy DireclodCity PIaMer
City ofSao BcmanIino .
300 North "D" Slrcet
San 8ernanfmo,CA 92418
Re: . Up1own.and Qn1XaI City Ncnh Red&velopment PtojOCl Area Draft EIR - Tnsffic rmpe<:t Analysis
SANBAG File No. 0400006
ctIY.tJ# &Nt SfftIWI)IN()
--
-
Dear Ms. Ross:
Thank yoU for the oppoc1utrily 10 review and <lOI'llIIleIIt OIl the above referenced uat!ic imJ>>ct repM dated
April 6, 2004 and revisions datcd May 25, .2004. 0.... analysis ~ !hat with dle replacement of
auached Tables H, J, l., N, It; and T, tbe Sludy -lhe.~tbe 2003 CMP.
In accocdallCC with your cit,y'$ RSOluliOll adopling tbe tand UselT~ Analysis ProgRm, tho
f1'affic SIlIdy is 10 be IIDde o:vaiJable 10 tho Planuing Commi$siQn lIIldIor4lo City Council and CaItrans for
iafonnatiOll rogardiog project impacts TO 1hc CMP system of 8Itcrial_.
Should you have all}' questions or COIlIJI1eaIS, please contact me or Andrea ZlIRick at (909) 884-$276.
Siocerdy.
.~~
. PriDcipaJ TtlIIl$pOlUliocl Ana/y$t
}01
}02
. CIIeo ~ IIg 1ecO'.... QIIno, ClIne>..... COlan, FonIona, G<<lIliS_1/eClOlIa, HIf;IN<md.........lOlda. MonrcIair.
. -~6iilodo. -"', llQo'llO. _ ~Scm~."'...t,M..1tIOIII. Up/ancf. --. 'lUccIpo
_<II:"",*\tlIey. _-.,. CounlyotScm I : rJllO
c
1.. U~Cl"'T".' "..0.
JV.. It..
nwAl. a.1.
I VPTOWIIIO..TI.A.L CITY KORTH UD.Y&LO.....rr 'kOJECT .....
.., ......0..-. TO oOaU...T'
REsPONSE TO LEITER D
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Response to Comment Dl: The DEIR contains the Traffic IDlPact Analysis (TIA) (April 6, 2004)
prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. While incltJded as an appendix to the DEIR:, the TIA was submitted
to the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and received a separate review; . Based
. on SANBAG review of the TIA, revisions to the document were made. Upon. revision of the TIA
(May 25, 2004), SANBAG bas determined the TIA meets the requirements of the 2003 Congestion
Management Program (CMP.)
The TIA and other technical studies/supporting data are included in Appendices A-F to the DEIR.
These appendices were provided in their entirety in a. PDF format Revisions to the Draft EIR
resulting from revisions to the TIA are identified in Section 4 of the FEIR.
. Response to Comment D2: As the TIAwas included as an Appendix to theDEIR, the TIA bas been
made available to the City, and Caltrans for review.
o
o
R....\QID2:] l\EEIR\Sec6oa 3..doc (61ISllOO4)
3-14
o
o
o
. 4.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFf EIR
The folloWing section contains a set of addendum pages to the Draft EIR dated April 6, 2004. The
. revisions identified in this section are the result of staff and public review, and are meant to provide
clarification of the issues and to correct editorial and typographical errors that were discovered after
circulation of the Draft EIR The revisions cited in this section were found by the City of San
Bernardino notto be substantial; there tOre, the recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.
In the following pages, headings describing the location of changeS in the Draft EIR are underlined
(i.e., Section 4.1, page 4-1, paragraph I). Below this entJy, are the revisions made to the Draft EIR
Additions of text are noted by the double underlining of new text. whereas deletions are shown as
strikeout text (elll tellt).
Table 4.6C, page 4.6-10
Table 4.6C - Year 2008 Withont Project Intersection Levels of Service
Illtersectloll COlltrol P.M. Peak Hour
VlC Delav LOS
\. PeoDer A venue/Rialto Avenue SiWlllI 0.497 16.2 B
Rancbo Avenue/Rialto Avmue SiI!IIal 0.291 IS.4 B
Mount VernOll A venueIBaseline Street Signal ~ ~ C
~. ~
.
Mount V Omon A veilUe/Fifth Street , Sil!l13l 0.592 23,6 C
. S. Mount Vernon Avenue/Second Street Sil!l13l 0.704 3S.9 D
Mount Vernon Avenue/Rialto Avenue Sil!l13l 0.407 16.3 'B
Mount Vernon A venueIMiII Street Sil!l13l 9.603 32.3 C
8. Viaduct Boulevard/Second Street TWSC 13.9 B
(iiavanola A venue/Second Street TWSC 9.4 A
10. "L" StreetlThird Street i1itersection created bv oroiect
11. "L" Street/Second Street TWSC 10.4 B
12. "It" Street!Third Street TWSC 10.6 B
13. "It" Street!Second Street AWSC 0.276 9.2 A
14; "r Street!Third Street TWSC ' 10.1 B
IS. "r S1reetISecond S\I:eeI .TWSC 11.4 B
16. 1-21S SouthboundOff-Ramplfhird Street Signal .'~ .,.2t,s . C
."~ .Z2A
17. 1-21S Soutbbound On-Ramp/Second Street Si2naI 0.497 2\.7 C
18. I-21S Norlhbound On- Street Si2naI 0.491 21.8 C
19. 1-215 Norlhbound Off nd Street Sil!l13l 0.613 2\.9 C
120. "E" Street!Bascline Street SiWlllI 0.538 14.2 B
12\. "E" Street/Fifth Street Sil!IIaI 0.528 17.8 B
122. "E" Street!Second Street Sil!l13l 0.668 33.5 C
.123. "E" Street/RiaIto Avenue Simal 0.471 22.7 C
VIC-VoI1IJDO/capocily.-
DcIay.- A_ COIIIrot dcIay in seconds. At W1Signali2l:d iIm:oedi_ """'~ approach is Rp<K1o<1
LOS - Lovd ofSer/ice
1WSC -T_Way Stop Control
AWSC=AI1-Way Stop Coolrol
R;\CBD23 tlFElR\Sedion '.doc <"15/2004)
4-1
c
o
c
La.. ,.....OcIA:r... ...c.
JU.. ....
PI.ALlna
VI'TOWIUC..TLU. CITY RoaTH UDIVBLO."'R.T ."OJIOT .A......
. f.1 ..IVI.ro.... TO TRI DL&.FT Ira. .
Table 4.6E, page 4.6-13
Table 4.6.E - Year 2025 Without Project latersection Levels of Service
P oM. Peak Hoar
Intersection Control VlC Delav LOS
I. Pepper AvenuelRjalto Avenue Signal 0.678 19.2 B
~ Rancho A venue/Rialto Avenue SjgnaI O.S20 17.5 B -
[J. Mount Vemon A venue/Baseline Street Signal .M41, iBJl C
~ 24.6
14. Mount Vernon AvenuelFifth Street Sitmal 0.663 24.3 C
. . Mount Vernon A venue/Second Street Signal 0.761 39.5 D
b. Mount Vernon A venneJRialto Avenue Signal O.S86 18.2 B
. Mount Vemon Avenue/Mill Street $jgnaI 0.790 393 D
8. V"1JIduct BoulevardlSecond Street TWSC .45.0 E"
. GiaVll!l!>Ia A venue/SecondStreet TViSC 9.4 A
. 10. "L" Streel/Third Street Intersection created IV nroiect
II. "L" Street/Second Street TWSC 10.4 B
12. "K" Streel/Third Street TWSC 16.0 C
13. "K" Street/Second Street AWSC 0369 9.9 A
14. "}" Streel/Third Street TWSC 12.5. B
IS. "}" Street!Second Street TWSC IS.9 C
16. 1-215 Southbound Off-RampJ'fhird Street Signal ~ ;!9,(; C
fJ.1S'l 29.2
17. 1-215 Southbound On-RamP/Second Street SjgnaI 0.997 44.3 D
18. 1-215 Northbound On- Street Sil!llal 0.591 24.7 C
19. 1-215 Northbound OffRamnfSecond Street . Sitmal 0.870 29.0 C
~. "E" StreetlBaseline Street Sitmal 0.613 16.2 B
21. "E" StreetIFifth Street Sitmal 0.726 21.5 C
22. "E" Street/Second Street Signal 0.869 44.1 D
23. "E" StreetIRialto Avenue SjgnaI 0.n8 26.0 C
I
..Exoccds level of semoe standard
VIe = VoIumekopocity.....
IlcIay ~ A_ conttoI delay in seconds. At unsignaJi2Jod u....c..;_ worst-ase opprooch is reporO:d.
LOS ~ Lc-Id of Service
. .1WSC=1Wo-WaySlllpCooool
AWSC = AD-Way S1l>vCootroI
R:ICBD2311FElR1ScoU.. <.doc (61IS1lOO4)
4-2
o
o
c
L'. AI'OOIAT.', .IIC.
IV.. 'tI.
J'IKAL..."
UPTOWlflOa.TIU.l. OITY .oaTH ......nJ.:O'IIt..T '.OJEaT .Ll.B.
t.. 1.",'1110.' TO TR. DILU'1' &11.
Table 4.611, page 4.6-21
Table 4.6.H - Year' 2008 With Project Intersection Levels of Service
Illterseelloll COIlII'oI P.M.: Peak Boa.
VlC Delav LOS
I. Peooer A venuelRialto Avenue Si~.1 0.511 16.6 . B
2. Rancho AvenuelRialto A value Si~.1 0309 15.4 B
3. Mount Veroon AvenuelBaselllle Street Signal .~ ~ c
06n1 23.li
4. Mount Vernon AveouelFitlh Street Si~.1 0.608 '13.7 C
S. Mount VernooAvaluelSccond Street Si~.1 0.808 44.2 D
6. Mount Vemon Aveoue/Rialto Avenue .sil!llll! 0.426 16.6 B
7. MOUIIt Vernon Aveoue/Mill street Sil!IllI! 0.616 33.0 C
8. Viaduct.BonlevardlSecond Street Ce4ses to Exist
9. Station Wav/GlavanQla Avalue/Second Street TWSC 14.9 B
10. "L" Street/ThinlStreet TWSC 12.5 B
II. "L" Street/Second Street . TWSC 68.4 F*
- wUh miJj<>alion - . Sicmnl 0.295 11.0 B
12. "K" Street/Thinl Street TWSC 21.4 C
13. "K"Street/SecondStreet AWSC 0391 10.5 B
14. "J" Street/Third Street TWSC 13.1 B
15. "J" StreetISecond Street TWSC >300 F*
- with miti!!ation - Si~l 0.521 23.1 C
16. 1-215 Southliound Off-RampfI'bird Street Signal 0M3 ~ C
, . lUH 23..ll
17. 1-215 SouthbonndOn-RamoISecond Street Si~.1 0.620 20;7 C
18. 1-215 NQrfubound On-RanmlI'bird Street Sian.1 0.669 28.0 C
19. 1-215 Nm:1hbonnd Off dStreet Sil!llll! 0.630 223 C
20. "E" StreetlBaseline Street Si~a1 0.550 14.4 B
21. "En StreetlFifth Street . Siona 0.540 17.9 B
22. "En StreetISecond Street Siona 0.680 33.9 C
'13. "E" Street/Ria1to Avenue Si~.1 0.490 22.8 C
. _level of......._
VIe - VoIumclcapocily I1llio
IlcIay=A_cootroI delay in seconds- Al....ignaI;",d ~ _-case opproadl is 1qlOded.
LOS - Lcvd orScivicc .
.1WSC = rwo-Way Stop Cool!ol
AWSC = A\l-Way stop CooiIioI
R.:\C8D231\FEIR~OD 4.doc(6fU/2004)
4-3
o.
o
o
U.. ,UaOOIAT... '.0.
JV.. "U
. PI.AI. aIR.
UPTOWJIIa..TUL GITY woaTa .....nLopv..T P"OJ.CT ..a...
6.t ".TlS'O.. TO T.. D!tAPT ....
Table 4.6.J, page 4.6-25
Table 4.6.1 - Year 2025WiCll Project IDtersectioa Levels of Service
IntenectioD CODtrol P.M. Pair. BODr
VlC Delav LOS
1. p.;;;;;:;- A venueJRialto Avemae Sional 0.690 19.5 B
2- Rancho AvenuclRia1to Avenue Sitmsl 0.537 17.7 B
3. Mount Vernoa Av""uelBase1ine Street Sigaal ~:~~ ~ C
:M.1
4. Mount Vernoa AvenuelFifth Street Siftllll 0.679 24.6 C
S. Mount Veri100 AveauelSecond Street Siftllll 0.854 49.4 D
6. Mount Vemoa AveaudRialto Avenue Sional 0.603 18.4 B
.7. Mount Vernon AveauelMill Street Si2D8l 0.802 40.6 D
8. Viaduct BoulevardlSecond Street Ceases to Exist
9. Statioa Wav/Giavanola AvenuelSecond Street TWSC - - ">300 P'
- with miJjaation - SimaJ 0.858 37.7 D
10. "1." StreetIfhird Street - TWSC 14.5 B
11. "L" Street/Secood Street TWSC 116.7 P'
- with miti;;Crtion - SimaJ 0.308 10.1 B
12. "K" Street/lbird Street TWSC 44.9 E'
- withmi~ion - - TWSC 27.0 D
13. "K" StreetISecood Street AWSC 0.488 11.6 . B
14. "J" StreetlThird Street TWSC 16.5 C
15. "J" StreetlSecoad Street TWSC >300 P*
- with mitiaation - - SimaJ 0.520 24.0 C
16. 1-215 Southbound Off-RamplThird Street Signal M49 m D
ll.2D2 fi.S.
17. 1-215 Southbound On-Romnlsecond Street Si2D8l 1.039 49.6 P'
- with miti"ation - - Si<m,aJ 0.840 32.1 C
18. 1-215 Northbound 00- Street- Si2D8l 0.786 29.9 C
19. 1-215 Northbound Off dStreet Si2Dal 0.887 29.6 C
20. "E" StreetIIlaseliae Street Silmlll 0.624 16.4 B
21. ''E" StreetlFifth Street Silmal 0.738 21.6 C
22- "E" StreetlSecoad Street Siftllll 0.899 46.5 D
23. "E" Street/Rialto Avenue Silmal - 0.796 26.5 C
. &cecds level ofscmoc standard
V1C=VoI1llll<kapacily1llio
!ldIy - Average coolrot dc1ay in seconds. At uosignaIi2lOlI;--.., WOIllt-oasc approaoh is JqlOI1<:d.
LOS = Lcvd orService
1WSC - T_Way Stop Como(
AWSC= Al~Way StopCootroI
R:\CBD2311FE1R1Se<Uoo ..doc(6IIS12OO4).
4-4
o
U.A. .....OOU.T... ..0.
.JO'W. ....
....u: ....
vnoYlUC..Ta.AL alTT WO"TH ...DanLorl..n paOJ&CT .......
6.e ..."UJOM. TO TaE DtUT ....
"
Sectioil 7.0, page 7-1
. Delete the references to the following reports:
ReJ16l't te she .'.fayeI' sn4 G6/t1!rl61t Ce_iJ, 1(J()J Emilleltl ];)6l1raHt Ame..'ldmeltt, Ge1tll'61 City
Ne1'th Reic-;elBpmeltt PI'l!icet, Resell6w. Spe\.aellk GFeup, Ine., MlIfc\l2003.
lWpoit to the Ats,'8/' 8itd Gemmalt CermeiJ, 1003 Emilwltt Demai1t.11/te1tdme1tl UptOWIt
.'?efJe-.elBpment !'I'ejeet, ReSllI\8W, 8jlo'JQ/lek Gfflup, lao., JulyZ.o03. .
Appendix F, Traffic Impact AJi.alysis
Revisions to Tables H, I, L, N, R, and T as reflected by the changes made to Tables iI.6C,
4.6E, 4.6H and 4.61 in the DEIR. The Level of Service worksheets from which the
.revisiol)S to Tables H, I, L, N, Rand T were derived were reviSed.
o
c
.R:\C1lD23I\FE1l!.\Sedioo ..doc(61IS/1OO()
4-5
o
o 2)
o
5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
This mitigalionmonitoring plan has been prepared for use in implementing certain of the COnditiODS of approval for:
UprownlCentral City North Redevelopment Project Area
The program bas been prepared in compliance with State law and the Environmental Impact Report (''ElR") (SCH No.
2003031072) prepared for the project by the City San Bernardino.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures .
placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Public Resource Code Section 2108\.6) The .
law states that the reporting or mouitoring prograni shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The mouitoring program contains the following elements:
.1) The mitigalion measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some
instances, one action may be nsed to verify implementation of several mitigation meaSures.
A procedure for compliance and verification bas been outlined for each action necessary. 'This procedure
designates who will take action, what action will be taken and wheD, and to whom and when compliance will be
reported.
3) The program bas been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may
be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible fur the program. As changes are made, new
monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.
R:\CBD23I~ S MitigotionMQoi1Dring Progmm.doc(61ISI2OO4)
5-1
o
o
o
-I-
U)
.~ ~
(,) Iii
w 0'"
:J: =I!:!
(,) Q..o(
c> :to
~
<<
o
....
Z
o
:E
~
o
~
Cl
1=
i
(
~
GI
UO
Jl!
.0(
IL
W
0:
., IL
0>-
~O
~~
ii:<D
1>:ci
"'1=
0_
..~
IL_
l::::
::t
N
~ <( -0.9
..c v cn1itQ
_en C\i CfRC"C
0.....$ ..f 01.-ca~caLo."C'
.m. :ii t! :5 cP ~ S Q. E 1i..R c:....:
o C 0 ~ I- .6 U Qn 0) ~ m (Q'
.... :J as::J .....-::.. >
noe-alent) ,J:2.E(I).E-(,)>o
mQ.oC>>CU.r(t)c"C "C 10,-
.c e o~ CD~ c: 0 ca"g,m: GJ> ~
I- a..!::;! ~ oS 80 l:n ca ~5 f ca
IlUC~U).5G)(''''''(lJllIi(O')-;;(;;
ccu:pfm50lD:f::O::J::J
O~.-::JE-~;l!.""""C"tJ
'0..==:0)0 0 ~Jt:::CD
lDO.a(O'~..CO-::;.lD
~ dl C-.c -(I)>
a._E-_:JOCDO:::.~
.c '" 0-0::..0 r-
::;.=,G-C;" -""CE"Ol 0
:> ro 0 1:0 c ca "0 _ 02 ~
UlJ3f1J4D 0.-....0 C
>-E c:IDQ.:!:'--- .~.
a.,-foooa:~.C:6C
E .!! oS (,) 't:J 0....., lD lD 0 0
01 rrlD- -......cp::J~GJa.
o t "W - ., at 0 a. b.2" ~ 0 E
o.....g::s5(1)g.CCC::Jo
.B1ii("')='t:J"C ..~'fi."Co
"'C Ot~ ~ii 5 Cli GJ,S i ~o
~ c ca::s ~~ ::J b c'is.. c .......
.:;.0 dl-., dlo-'" E 0 E":;;
0";:J3:_.a:goo'ii_oQ..
f-co:::.o,ofCUcol=O'J;:co4J
.. ~ 0 :6 4J. .0 e;; ~ 0 ~ ~
__ "'!:o.s=c:,::s a.
..... c ~ =-- C 0.- J! ::s a."!Z UI
0-- (II "C :::J,&!' c:J
.9t_~~:Oa)5ilD(IJ -ti=
e.~o=~.6 ~ E~1;j-g."C
0..:(1) 0 a.ca:J Gt"ii:J N- C
Q)CO ~CDdJ~a..2"Cic~
.c-cn0:55 E-.!!E.2c
l-<ucO c-C.Q coO
.~OCD_.600CDtGE":c
<( 'Ui.o(G..!"iifii~:J!~
~U)(I)"""=..o":;L..a..Q.4J
NQ)"EU) --EO'"Q.-+.a.c
~"5 :lO.:! 4)o<t,L..::JCD
....L...Q)'lJCD~........... CU.OJ
..
c
o
'g
tv
."
dl
..
o
a.
o
~
a.
dl
,G
B
dl
:a
..
.Q
a.
a.
..
..
dl
~
:>
..
..
Gl
:;;
...,
00.
....dl
."
Gl:>
:;<l
O:.E
Oldl"
c>cu
:o~~
~.."
~.E ."
..- dl
...."
Gio~
~_OJ
:ClIO>.
j!C-
CD~ ~
'6lJ~C;-
.'PC:; 4) ~
ft~.BE
_ a. ~
Etn.,o
4D. 'as en
iif!f~
o~.'lJ
"l<.il 0
nOC""
+:limo....
s'5'g.e
clil:>~
>-EJ>,..
D... ~ 0
-2-B3~
.
~~ :1ii 4008..:-
0-'= oC~>.4J
ft ~ of! ]i 4i e.. e-7i
o a ~.5:~ 4J_b
d~ = ~.8 -c ft! ::
~ 0 c8~ ..
_.. ....::!2 (Q .0 ca
(i.C: 0::J"E.>Q...!!
"= __0 9.."'D" 0
Gl";:' o-li 1$:<: lil-
o ., L.. CG 40. "C
1 .... ci \-0 0 c > E 51
1ft 8~ :i-g:o..!-c~
GlOO CD~CiE.o
.!! E ..,.>020-
1OB€ .e 3~1i~;!
.10 ca CD.O tI_
co-. OJ..ool= 01= 0
_ c _--
"ii 0.9 3.9 00.". g.
.!::.... as co- (ft~+:li
~'tJo .c'-~"""""
:c:s(G"i:: ca~cC")=
oaD. tncnidlEN
.. ." i}. c C
L...~;s"C fO~dl
CDL..lD b 4D--":P
Gi....... _40::S0
?;j ~ ~ ~~ f~1:
.
.
G
J!!
o
.0
10
...,;
."..
"0
o~
~c
.,-
....
8;
",G
SE
..0
04=
.6.!!
., -
c"
3dl
,G
~B
"c
0..0
dl
.0
.
..c
..
..
."
..
o
..
."
dl
> .
....
a."
co!!
:>~
_0
Cii:
cQ.
OE
~u,.
.,~
8.B
..."
03
lI'::>
tV."
~f
.
.
N
.
.....
~
<::!
~
~
u
o
i
J!
1
~
~
"
Jl
i
SiJ
~
"
o
..
u
o
~
!!:
l:i
t:l
..
9
~
o
o
..,
.
on
m ,,0
CG "It G)1i;
L:. N CUJC.C
U'=S ...f O~L...!!~.!!L.."O
.1l.5i ~ 5 4D uH a.~ a..e fim
ecO~5 ::JCGg>>::Jg>>~~>
o.oe-~.4)-:J:J:eU):ao.E
CD 3"8:e:~ c 6 m"g" CD"> ~
~ a...C ::i!:::!: c 80 6. C'U 6.= f cu
>- .,'" - J9 " '" -., GJ~CtCi(l"~ l)" -- . 4) 4) CI"'C :;;-
g>.o <a as_ 4) ~.o ;c 0
:g .o::J o.'L:" .,,,, ,G.2F,G,Glii., o~ ,G,G" .. 0
0 ".,JI :!l" '6= ~ ti ::J _ <:!
=., - ~~ ...
:; .!!.I>~ C - 1l -lis. .....
:!1! .s::;.. J!" 1)0~~" ~
0- n.. ~~ aii .," ... -.0 ~.
0; " .!!-oc-!E~J! _'" ilEg--U'tJ~~
.. "'c ., u
in .. ..:!!! >_11 e." .. e.Gt~s.a::J .- c.!! Oo.c -8
C " _cE ... tJ - C .co,,_ C NO .!ioi=~ci ~
c.. >'l'lti e> 010 "le C J!I ..
0 .!! :8~ j" c"" _.a -.tlE $i::J
-"" ".IlI,"ll 1i ca oJ a CL. CD E
.. u J! 0. Ii .. tis" ...0 ..
.... ::J.!! ~
f .. . ti~ ~"Cf "'0.9. to .c->o CD 1i~1O .c._::Jc.N~
::J" '" "",G .!!51Jg. ... .. 01= .. - = .-gii2~=SE. "~
.. .. ~ 0. 0. c~GI"Cj
.... 0'" l'l,gS; 39.. L.. 0 GJ.c::J ~ i-;g ~ II E,G 1: 0l:E ~
"0 .. " -lj,,5j"i!-s; s
01" ... "C >0 C ~- .. .sJ!.>...E E"
Eo- c- c.. C e ~~ .a~ taCt _c -ljc" -a
Me - 0- o ., J:J' (I).c L.. 0) .. 3 .o!! cu,,:JaJc. . ~
00- .. ~... _,,0. .. ~ !: c::J.2'-ljCE ..E., .l>c~:;8:,g,G
...... .0 ..."'C '. 0..... .o!"n" o-.c meLt:: ij.!!l&=- b Gi ~
DC,& $"E $ oi"C,:Q.~.g t.e-:o i-
.!!4'i ti l~i~! Oi O"j oD.oc..>;'Q
::J 0 .s::; "S;E "'l'l'" ., ECcCDtr'I- o~ a_ 0:6" CI c ".,
a:- .. C .. ~ '" c a. ca: 0 .5. 4) g c.5:J= >-"~ 51
'CU C'-U) .0 .!! c: GO ".c -.a GI
0>- .. -.,<,< f~ fa::l :ao~ "> g~fo-gcca o"i~ ~f!::ofii. ...
-a. C .. Olj" 1i '" o -H ....0 ~
Co- .. C .. .." ei -_ () il" C "''l'l E ~ 'l'l ~ 0. il 0lS; ",,G .. .. 0. 0
0.. 0 ~ "" .. .s::; ii.. CG g>> t'G c( il C C 0 ",,G .. 0 ."
""- 1ii ..ti .,." 0 .. C "6J!06i:"0 II
:C\i OJ ,,:0 >.,)( J9.... ~"C !>~ C ..oGJ "o.IEi ~ c ~
".s:: ., ..- l'l" ., "ti E c ca 0 N 0 l5'l'lc'l'l'l'l"~lJ co.-o a:gGt0-~1.
.... ~ .0" )(C~ "-c E -.. E- '" oil~ilil839'" o .. 0 illl 0>= " ~ E
C ~.. !!:
C '" 0. .olO ....J9 ~S8 .. ~ ,G E () O"iij calC.a.
., 0. ..0- i-.. GtJ! ....."'2 " ...... c(j .en .~t:"C4i.D."5
::J -.... b .c-Cc -. ~
:J -.. -::J::J ~ C F ...- F8~881i~i- F~8.F8~6~1i~i
'" (J) 0.. <i:..0l <tEe .. .. E ..
.. - . c '"
.. .
<,<., " . . . 0 9
-IE 0 U . . . ~
o
o
c
",G.c..~
,G ;: g' ,:;$
o~..
tJeii:-
E."'_" c
,.."to?j-
J.!c..J!
= cO c..E
..-,., ..
.c(5u:!:E
"'ci:--
'-o~l!.B
Q-o"
o ctJ" C1~ ~
;:"!!,G.f;,.
coE J!~
ow-CS.."
O - ~..
~E'" 0
:1:J5i.....
cos;'Co.cDt
~~ca.m..=::;
oOO1:Jcutn
::ICUtE<<I.c:~
.peal.,-G)
CI'Io.bG) 0
c:p....cc...
00::1<<12-
O::lO_~C
b.l: 40.
0~OQ.O
GI c tatE a.m..
~ 8 8.;: .:nl
1:J'"
C,G
..~
1::.2
a"'
a.",
a.>
::I""
..c
'"
=g
..-
.c_
..-
..
~c
~;:
..1:J
.bC
c"
0",
Oc
"C
c.."
o ii GJ
ll"ll
i::gc
~ &~
ol!o
o. :I-S
Gtg~
.cco
....GJO
.
c
OJ~
.s 0
1:J::I
....,
~"'
OlC
010
CO
';:: "0
::J C
0..
'0 _
ro Q'~CD 0
Q)1:JGJ.g>4i"'~
CI'IlDrUO...Oco
o~"":E.2.!i>
~.. .f; -5 "" ~ .. 8
CD::J.1!L.,t:O~CD
mO"L..cuGl_w....
~CG1j,o~(ij~o
os: 4)-rn GJ GiS-:t:;
:&:JOca~> Oc
O....O(ij-"OfU(U
ca::J-::s'OCr
c~"Oo-o-'=aa
o CD G) lD... GJ >-~
""~::;.c..,G.o..
O(ijot-.c-1:J"D
.,g 0 c. 0 GII....8
UJ m CD 'O.B~.5
CO..aC"Co;:::S::lD
0- q::.....t:....
o21i.....~.!!b
-...c,GIl~.,,,,,
~.ccn_::lD't:Jc
> ~ -;; 0 &.-6 OJ CD
""c.?jEc.!!..!!
~o.f!ClD-;;.!!:a
......._o5.4Dcam-o
cf:q::.Q::p::sac
-,a c="5a"a..q::
<e{-iiaal:QCDlDCD
NU:U(ii~g~f=
..;
.;
....
~
c
",0
.sll
1:J::I
l!.b
","'
c
g>8
'Cl:J
::Ic
0..
o
o
m
sg~5~~~C'O.~oG)d~rn
J9_c"""!,,, lJli,sN.,,sJ:"~
en...2..... n"C., "CO:: <( ...
,soom.......c,so...$z--
ti..o~~,Gl:J~~~,G..!!..~~
l!.$~'6c'li~.,.$ ~,G~,G~..
.$J!C 0 ~>.~ 08>'''''
c..g-g~'Ct::p,oO~. .cL...5
::J 0". .ca_~La.. ca .
8~ ....z-~~..-coE..
d..cCIJ:. ~e~.51i~=CI.
i~~aCJo'O~.c_.c~~cac"'~
O_~1:JC ~OC~. o. ~
.~~oo ~~~.oE-~~i~
.a5_o~.~S~~_~~.E5
~....o. .0^~4Dc"c,,~8
.o~_.~ccoo~~.c-oc.c"C
c.u....o -= .S~ .
.eno~~E~;:~~oli~~~'liE
ECD=CGfIJ .....z "'Coe~E..<l:
."'C.c.........._~c..~"'Co8..,
~ 0 .c 1: 0:: -. c c ....._ - .c ~ >
0-1:: ceOa. "...,. -~
~~~~~e=~:~~~~Nf~~
EJ! c GJ~ 0_0_ :i=I~ C >.cu
jcuca"'C~O-.E-_e~~..=
~en~..~~~,GE~O>~~E>~
~1:J~..~ScG~8:Oci>8cogl:J
C_"'C_ ::r--c: 0 .b.!!
aI'!] (IS i<3.!!S &_.. ~ .~~.. t'CI
~~eE::r i~s~~:~. ~~
M....~.~.Ei-c:.~Ea.~.c2
"::J.cE~ 0.,,,, .co..
"fII :r:.f:!.s::. a.t- _ a.:I: c a..... = .!: t- C <<I
....
.
'"
"
~
~
'"
:e.
u
i
.!:
i!l'
..,
~
~
Ii
."
G
..
."
:i!
~
"
o
."
g
~
~
~
'"
\.!
0\
o
'"
.
'"
....
~
....
....
....
Q
..: ..: ..: ..: ~
e e e e
rn2 E~ ",0 ",0 .,-
.S 0 e"" .E~ eO
0_ 0
" " "" "" ~~ ..!!~~
111'" 11I.j, f!-= -n.ID.a
~ '" ~'"
"'e "'e ",l!! "'e ~ ""~ C/)
",0 g>8 g>8 g>8 CD~a::CD
eO
"0::"'0 ""''' ""''' "C" >=-c.!!
" e .::J C ::Jc ::Jc .::ICO
0111 0111 0111 0111 n:ml1lz
0 !2 !2 !2 ~
ro m m U
0
0
!2
0 0 0 0 0
ro m m m m
"C == >-:6 =ClID .!!'0't:J a .'0 0 c1)"O' [
c <U -=.~ IV.!! :6 I'lS Ii oe o6S-OlC "..
111 a. .. 0_ 111", .. '" <:!
"_ a. 8c", o.",::J c"iiJ E ~ ~ >>'" ~
c:Jo_ ~:. "tI CD -e8" CC ",.
00"''- C .. II ~ o~dJdoCG le.
~ G) a. GJ = 01 ,-o,S ..'6
- '" ....5-;; '80- c"
aI-~(;i a._ .. g" C c" g
> "ii .- EC 'i 06 ""I; i:'8" .:;::J -.. ""
nI.c'~ (I) .'=.. en "ll i
~ CI) _ 5 ~S".I!. "'i:.!!"~C/)
'"- ~ co..... =2!CJ
G) ~~ 0 .c..,g .2 aI.!! 0 8~c.s1G5 at '3 (I)
"'06 a. omO'- e
G,J.E.g0 "!lca. ~ <T- o.
~08 .b "OlD 8.c 06" .e..~ "~
:!::~E:U ~"''' c=So6 ~-.2'E cll ~..
E..-
CII.!::J.....lf: tai :; 8):"- ",!!.colOg S"'" S
_co:J _ern -a
"~8~ E t-E~ cal'rf -"Ec '8 co:::.!! :ll
o - i:" ~~ g.
g.9-(ij o~Cal "'=-8 c.
eox"C '8..0.. e1iF5,:..:'~ en to "'''0 "
a. m. -.::: lD fIi ::JC .. '8 C C "'l!': 0
<T.. a..c ... 8 - >> ""
'0 +J.!: "0 0.... i;~ic .. f~ .. CG "2..5. ..
"
='-cJ!&... = L,. 0."."0 o:!2 .P ~
<UD.4Dc.g .l!.5E g ~ 8 3~ .~:20).!~'~ ~"3>o
mGJEliC 0"" 0 ""'''' on
~04= a"~:;E..c
c:6.9-e.1! a. i: '" 58" II
'C _::l (4 ..f:cf~ Cb 0=>41
.::J G) 0" "tJ UJ ....l! t:j!~l!! "t:c .c>o~"tJ ~l!':~ 0"
o~GJc1... ::J8_ --;;8 II
t:g..o a <<fGJCC (ij~aI i
C ~ccaG) .. "" 0 c,.;,.;o"c _ a. 0
eo ~ ~"C.!! _CD.O .ll:"E..J
O;J Q).a o . en G)
..- c.oc- '8 .. C !:!.- E ll-W
OcO "0 .. "8",0 ~cZ
<(g>~+JJ! lllC",o ~1j~t Qi:~...gJlE <(.. ou ~
(',1-- fI} CG::J NO.!::::... N.>!~ GJ ME""..:
. -0 c Gi C .:,:1-00 06c'8 ".llI.>" 06El'lm ~
~~oo.m :i!.!'l5. 10::1.,_
~OlooE .,f <T_ 0= .,f8..1:~~g, .,f8!!"
1)"0 c cu ~
o
l:?
~
~
~
Q Q
~ ~ u
"' .. "'
c_ c_ c
cu 0 CUo ..
Ci.~>. 0:;:>- 0:
_<>-0 -.1) 'C -
0-5.a o;;.a 0
;: <> "' ;:<>.. ;:
<>0:: 0 <>0:: 0 <>
'5""C !E ;;-o:e ;;
<> C CU <>ccu <>
O::cu.l> O::cu.l> 0::
0
0 0 0
c
w
U
{'f~
c_
~CU
r~
0.2'
- "'
00
"110
$cu
tUJ:1c
.gftl~
"-0
L."iij Q)
~Uif
'OE.!!
lU=E
ocu_
c.<: <>
cu"' <>
:J-.I>
:~(J)
.- c:""C
.sac
~ g- g
.C.... G)
a.. 2'(1)
0:;'
-~~
<E~
~ o.(J)
q) IV ~
-.:i~~
w
u
~<>
c,s
cu-
0."
iJ1ii
0-5-
0__
-"'
00
":e
~gc
te=tU~
""-0
....j G)
8.f
-c<>
0__
., = c
0"-
c.cGi
.... <>
:J-'p
:5i(J)
..... C:"D
.sOc
~ 0. 8
00
-.::~<>
0. 2-(1)
0:;'
.9!,<>
me:
or: Q.((J
... .,.
'<i,s;>
w
u
<>
~
cu
.<:
..
~
:i!..
<>
..~
"'
....
-","
cuE
Ec
o
""
=..
~g
""E
1:)'"
.9!,c
o~
a~
.e
".s
(3.c
o
..
<(.5
"!li
...c
'<i8
..,
0;
g
(J)
."
C
8
..
(J)
o
If'
..
.10
..
-
o
c
o
..
..
G J!i
:J ..
C . e
~1
....
00
e:e
!J!cu
...10
-cu
~'i5
~6
..
eCU
0=
..s
S..
(J)E.
.
."
e
:J
o
B
..
-~
.,
c
o
-
o
e
o
""
'6
:)l
I
-
..
g
(J)
."
~
~~
.4Do!!
J:.<:
(J)g'
. 0
~,6
-
.,
g
(J)
."
e
o
o
-~
.,
.,
.p.
(J)"
. e
.J~
. ..
.
o
:e
'"
.10
..
-
o
c
o
..
..
J!i
..
e
0;
..
.p
(J)
."
e
8
..
(J)
:::.
.,
..
.10-,
U)._~
. '"
..,-
. ..
.
-'0
.
.....
1=.,
.. c
-:go
=:s-g
.103'"
(I) ~ .r
."..c
c:"O"!!
8~E
..o.;:!
!!!==
0. .,
E'5:2
....'"
~ 2:J
c a. e
o i-,s
"O.,,~
cc~
:J:J..
00.<:
.D ~.. .
".....,..
":See
a~o.!!
Cf.J..rc
a.C~
ItJJi.!!=,
N:E-5
...!. cx::.a.C
'"
g
<:!
~
'"
-le.
u
.lj
@
~
e
..
~
-lj
s
-a
~
"
i
-"
~
~
"
o
-.,
~
!<!
~
!!:
l'i
"
'"
y
i<
.
.
o
o
01
.c
o
""
\G.
">
~
..a
~
o
...
.!!
32
o
411
.c
o
.s
>0-
lD
~
(ij OJ
c: c:
u:: lfi
'0 :i
c m '0
~ 0 .!!
CG 0) as ..
'E c 0 lU
a :s q:: "tJ
:rl as ~ 0
lr Ci 0 t:
:!'! " :!'!>.O
~ ~ ~.g ~
~ ~-~..~
~li~~~g,?
......~ No.. ("')0 "ft
c:
o
",
o
;:: .g
'" ..
z g
"fie 0
ro lU {!.
~ E ~
",0.0
~"*;t
I ii I
<(0 m
(;
~
o
"0
'"
~
o
c
'" OJ
E OJ
a. c:
o OJ
Qi "0
> OJ
'" "
o ~
~ ~
'c OJ
:J c:
E :i
E ii:
o
u:~
I c: 0
a~'
0",,-
o~ 0
(ij
>
E
a.
~
-
-
E
~
'"
"-
>.
o
c:
OJ
~
G;
~
o
m
15
'"
.c:
o
c:
..
ii:
o
c:
o
'ti
:J
.p
..
c:
o
o
"5
o
.c:
OJ
:J
o
~
1
o
OJ
'"
c:
OJ
"ii
OJ
"
(;
~
..
..
c:
.61
c:
w
-'"
(3
w
o
....
.
on
..
"
c:
o
m
~
o
-
~o..
o.::l
"0
o .. c:
C~~
]i g J!l
~~(3
. . I
'" Ul ....
..
OJ
'5
~
UJ
-
~
o
a.
OJ
lr
~
li!
E
.c
"
UJ
.!!
f!
..
o.~
....
UJ:i
. -
o!':
c:
o
",
..
a.
E
o
o
c:
o
I
o
OJ
c:
",
..
~
..
o
I
W
'"
g
<!
~
~
u
o
i
.l:
.~
~
~
g
."
.!
~
'"
..
c:
OJ
"ii
OJ
"
~
o
1ii
1l
II:
o
OJ
c:
!!
"S
m
OJ
OJ
c:
OJ
"ii '"
OJ '"
"Ii,
~~
.. ~
0.0
..-
o.!!
~5
~ ~
"-iL
.
00
"-IL
~
a
o
."
u
i
i"i
A
'"
9
III
o
m
).
o
2004 Eminent Domain AlncndnlC.nt to the
Redevelopment Plan
o
o
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
JULY 2004
SAN BERNARDINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o uptown Redevelopment ProjectArea
2004 En*Ient DamI*I
to the PIIm
Adopted on:
Ordinance No.
o
RedevelopmentAgerq of the City of San Bernardino
201 North "E" Street, Suite 301
San Bernardino, California 92401-1 fJJ7
~~----~
~ ~--'. -
_;.Jllli\~i=
.___..______________.n._ __m._ __ .... "h'___
ROI Bnow Spevacek Group, Inc.
217 North Main Slreet.Su~e 300
Santa Ana, California 92701-4822
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax: (714) 836-1748
E-Mail: info@webrsg.com
o
o
2004 Eminent Domain At"ondrllont
Uptown Redevelopment ProjectArea
Table of Contents
IlItre>>clllc:tiC>>I1............................................................................... i.
Amendment ...............................................................................2
o
o
P:'CEVEl.ClPt.E~~MeDoENf6-21-04'OOC
o
o
o
2004 Eminent Domain AnlOl'ldnlCnt
,
Uptown Redevelopment ProjectArea
Introduction
The Common Council of the City of San Bernardino ("Common Council")
approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") on June 18, 1986 by Ordinance No.
MC-527. On December 19,1994, the Common Council adopted Ordinance MC-
927, establishing certain time and financial limitations imposed by the passage of
Assembly Bill 1290 in 1993. On December 1, 2003, the Common Council
adopted Resolution No. MC-1161, which eliminated the debt incurrence deadline
for the redevelopment plan.
The 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project ("Amendmenf) makes certain changes to the
text of the Plan. This Amendment would reinstate the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of San Bernardino's ("Agency") power of eminent domain within the
Project Area for twelve (12) years from the date of effectiveness of the ordinance
adopting the Amendment. This would enable the Agency to retain all tools
available to the Agency in implementing the Plan and revitalizing the community.
The original Uptown Redevelopment Plan only had eminent domain authority
over industrial and commercial properties and residential properties were exempt.
The Agency proposes to reinstate the power of eminent domain on industrial and
commercial properties and extend to residential properties.
The Agency does not have any immediate or specific plans to use eminent
domain to acquire property at this time. However, staff, consultants, and legal
counsel feels that it is very important to preserve this power because it is a
necessary component to completing future redevelopment activities. The power
of eminent domain is especially necessary for those projects involving land
acquisition. The ability to consolidate lots for new development and abate or
provide mitigation between incompatible uses is essential in addressing the
remaining conditions of blight in the Project Area.
The changes by this Amendment are not to be construed to amend, modify,
change or affect in any other provisions the text of the Plan and does not add or
delete territory from the boundaries of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
The Plan is hereby amended as follows:
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
PAGEl
o
Amendment
That "Subsection C. Property Acquisition" of "Section V. PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS" of the Plan is hereby amended in it's entirely to
read as follows:
C. Prooertv Acauisition
1. ACQuisition of Real Prooertv
Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire real properly by
any means authorized by law, including by purchase, lease, obtain option upon,
acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise, or otherwise, any real or personal properly,
and any improvements on it, including repurchase of properly owned by Agency,
exchange, cooperative negotiation, or eminent domain.
It is in the public interest and is necessaty in order to execute this Plan, for the
power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire real properly
in all portions of the Project Area, with the following exclusions:
o
a. Except as otherwise provided, within, or otherwise provided by law, no
eminent domain proceedings to acquire properly shall be commenced
after twelve (12) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance
approving and adopting the 2004 Amendment to the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan.
b. Agency shall not acquire from any of its members or officers any properly
or interest in properly except through eminent domain proceedings.
c. Properly already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the Agency
through eminent domain, but property of a public body shall not be
acquired without its consent.
d. The Agency at the request of the Common Council may accept a
conveyance of real property (located either outside a sUNeyarea) owned
by a public entity and declared surplus by the public entity, or owned by a
private entity.
The Agency may dispose of such properly to private persons or to public
or private entities, by sale or long-term lease for development. All or any
part of the funds derived from the sale or lease of such properly may at
the discretion of the Common Council be paid to the City, or to the public
entity from which any such properly was acquired.
c
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC.
PAGE 2
o
Any exercise of its power of eminent domain by the Agency shall be
subject to all of the limitations set folth in this 2004 Amendment These
limitations may only be extended by subsequent amendment of the Plan.
The Agency shall, if at all, exercise the power of eminent domain in
accordance with the provisions and prerequisites of the Califomia
Eminent Domain Law [Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1230.010 et seq.]
and the Califomia Relocation Act [Govemment Code Sec. 7262 et. seq.].
2. Acauisition of Personal Prooerlv. Anv other Interest in Real Prooerlv. or Anv
ImDrovements in Real Prooerlv
Where necessary in the implementation of the Plan, the Agency is
authorized to acquire personal properly, any other interest in real
properly, and any improvements on real properly including repurchase of
developed properly previously owned by Agency by any lawful means.
END OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT
o
o
ROSENOIN SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
PAGE 3
C Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
2004 Eminent DanII*I
to the PIIm
Adopted on:
Ordinance No.
c
RedevelopmentAgenqt of the City of San Bernardino
201 North "E" Street Suite 301
San Bernardino, California 92401-1507
5[ ... ":',.- ~
_;.Jilll \ ~~i'=
____ ___n___n_______________m __ _ ._ _n___ _ ________
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
217 North Main Street, Suite 300
Santa Ana. Califomia 92701-4822
Phone: (714) 541-4585
Fax:(714)~1748
E-Mail: info@webrsg.com
c
c
c
c
2004 Eminant Domain AI11.end.llant
uptown Redevelopment ProjectArea
Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................1
Amendment ...............................................................................2
~lI'I'OWNFfW.REPCRT/IK)1eXT'0:llM~.N.IKU3fI'~
C 2004 Eminent Domain AI1lC.ndnlent
uptown Redevelopment ProjectArea
Introduction
The Common Council of the City of San Bemardino ("Common Council")
approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") on June 18, 1986 by Ordinance No.
MC-52? On December 19,1994, the Common Council adopted Ordinance MC-
92?, establishing certain time and financial limitations imposed by the passage of
Assembly Bill 1290 in 1993. On December 1, 2003, the Common Council
adopted Resolution No. MC-1161, which eliminated the debt incurrence deadline
for the redevelopment plan.
c
The 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project ("Amendmenr) makes certain changes to the
text of the Plan. This Amendment would reinstate the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of San Bemardino's ("Agency") power of eminent domain within the
Project Area for twelve (12) years from the date of effectiveness of the ordinance
adopting the Amendment. This would enable the Agency to retain all tools
available to the Agency in implementing the Plan and revitalizing the community.
The original Uptown Redevelopment Plan only had eminent domain authority
over industrial and commercial properties and residential properties were exempt.
The Agency proposes to reinstate the power of eminent domain on industrial and
commercial properties and extend to residential properties.
The Agency does not have any immediate or specific plans to use eminent
domain to acquire property at this time. However, staff,consultants, and legal
counsel feels that it is very important to preserve this power because it is a
necessary component to completing future redevelopment. activities. The power
of eminent domain is especially necessary for those projects invoMng land
acquisition. The ability to consolidate lots for new development and abate or
provide mitigation between incompatible uses is essential in addressing the
remaining conditions of blight in the Project Area.
The changes by this Amendment are not to be construed to amend, modify,
change or affect in any other provisions the text of the Plan and does not add or
delete territory from the boundaries of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
The Plan is hereby amended as follows:
c
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
PAGEl
c
Amendment
That "Subsection C. Property Acquisition" of "Section V. PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS" of the Plan is hereby amended in it's entirely to
read as follows:
C. Prooertv Acauisition
1. Acauisition of Real Prooertv
Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire real property by
any means authorized by law, including by purchase, lease, obtain option upon,
acquire by gift, grant, bequest devise, or otherwise, any real or personal property,
and any improvements on it, including repurchase of property owned by Agency,
exchange, cooperative negotiation, or eminent domain.
It is in the public interest and is necessaty in order to execute this Plan, for the
power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire real property
in all portions of the Project Area, with the following exclusions:
c
a. Except as otherwise provided, within, or otherwise provided by law, no
eminent domain proceedings to acquire property shall be commenced
after twelve (12) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance
approving and adopting the 2004 Amendment to the Uptown
Redevelopment Plan.
b. Agency shall not acquire from any of its members or officers any property
or interest in property except through eminent domain proceedings.
c. Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by the Agency
through eminent domain, but property of a public body shall not be
acquired without its consent.
d. The Agency at the request of the Common Council may accept a
conveyance of real property (located either outside a survey area) owned
by a public entity and declared surplus by the public entity, or owned by a
private entity.
The Agency may dispose of such property to private persons or to public
or private entities, by sale or long-tenn lease for development. All or any
part of the fu'nds derived from the sale or lease of such property may at
the discretion of the Common Councif be paid to the City, or to the public
entity from which any such property was acquired.
c
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
PAGE 2
c
Any exercise of its power of eminent domain by the Agency shall be
subject to all of the limitations set forth in this 2004 Amendment These
limitations may only be extended by subsequent amendment of the Plan.
The Agency shall, if at all, exercise the power of eminent domain in
accordance with the provisions and prerequisitss of the Califomia
Eminent Domain Law [Code of GMI Procedure Sec. 1230.010 et seq.]
and the ~Califomia Relocation Act [Govemment Code Sec. 7262 et. seq.].
2. Acauisition of Personal Prooertv. Anv other Interest in Real ProDertv. or Anv
ImDrovements in Real Prooertv
Where necessa1Y in the implementation of the Plan, the Agency is
authorized to acquire personal property, any other interest in real
property, and any improvements on real property including repurchase of
developed property previously owned by Agency by any lawful means.
END OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT
c
c
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
PAGE 3
c
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
\.
c
"..~.."I.'.'...I....
"-".x.;.",;.- ':C'_':'_':'." :.:'_-:
. ..,...., ....,--.. ,,'"
'I,:;"""':" -'.:.:.,., ,:
. ............. ".','." . .:.'
;".:::.,::::,:,... ,,:::::y.. .::
i '"":":):;' ."+; .H.?;':,:r-' .
. ,"_'_',,', n','_ ,"'"
.................. --.-..
c
]uneI5.2004
c
c
c
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Development Services Department
300 N. "D" Street, 301 Floor
San Bernardino, California 9240 I
Contact: Ms. Valerie Ross, City Planner
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500
Riverside, California 92507
(909) 781-9310
Reviewed by:
The City of San Bernardino bas independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgment in the analysis
contained "in the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documentation pursuant 10 Section 21082
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
LSA Project No. CBD23 I
I~;,jj~~il;~
It.-D....._
juneI5, 2004
c
o
c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.1.0: SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT............................... I-I
I. I INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... I-I
2.0: PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT..................... 2-1
2.1 LIST OF PERSON, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
COMMENTlNG.ON THE DRAFT EIR ........................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FROM UTILITY PROVIDER.................. 2-1
2.1.2 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES ....................2-1
3.0: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FINAL EIR .............................................................. 3-1
4.0: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ......................................................................................... 4-1
5.0: MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................... 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST ......................................................................... 5-2
TABLES
Table 4.6C: Year 2008 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service........................................... 4-1
Table 4.6.E: Year 2025 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service.......................................... 4-2
Table 4.6.H: Year 2008 With Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................... 4-3
Table 4.6.]: Year 2025 With Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................... 4-4
R:\C8D231\FEIRIC- T - T.doc (6I1SI04)
c
1.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Uptown/Cenlnll City North Redevelopment
Project Area (State Clearinghouse No. 200303 1072) has been prepared in accordailce with the
California EnviroIlmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines for the implementation of CEQ~.
Hereafter, the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical
. Studies, and Final EIR containing Responses to Comments and including the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan cOnstitute the EIR for this project These documents will be referred to collectively as the EIR.
The persons, organizations, and public agencies that have submitted comments on the Draft EIR
throngh May 2(>, 2004, are listed in Section 2.0 of the FEIR. A total of four comment letters were
received. Three (3) comment letters were received from public agencies, and one (I) was received
from a utility service provider.
o
The individual comment letters submitted regarding the DEIR and individual responses to each'
comment are included in Section 3.0 of the FEIR. The primary objective and purpose of the EIR
public review process is to obtain comments on the adequacy of the analysis of environmental
impacts, the mitigation measures presented, an<! other analyses contiined in the repOrt. CEQA
requires that the City respond to all significant environmental issues raised (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088). The City's response to environmental issues, "... must be good faith, reasoned analysis."
Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in this document (i.e., are outside the scope of
this document) are not given specific responses. However, all comments are included in this section
so that the decision-making body' for the proposed project is aware of the opinions of public agencies,
organizations, and the general public.
. Based. upon the review of the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, portions of the Draft EIR have
been revised. Section 4.0 of the FEIR identifies those portions of the DEIR that have been revised
subsequent to the release of the document for public review. Per CEQA Guidelines (Section
15088.5[aD, ". . .New information added to an EIR is not 'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a
way that deprives the. public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
enviroIlmental effect of the project of a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have dec1ined to implement" While minor
editorial revisions have been made, no revisions to the DEIR were made in response to any comment
received during the public review period. The minor editorial revisions made to the DEIR do not
constitute significant "new information" that would require the recirculation of the EIR.
c
Section 5.0 includes the Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the proposed project. As required
by State law (public Resources Code, Section 21081.6), the MMP has been prepared to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed project by the City of San
Bernardino. Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 requires the adoption of a reporting or
monitoring program for those conditions placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on
the environment
R:\CBD23I\FEIR'&ctiou.I.doe (&'ISl2OO4)
I-I .
c
o
c
2.0 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR.
Per Section 15105(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a DEIR submitted 10 the State Clearinghouse for
review by State agencies sball have a review period, "..,not less than.45 days." The public review
period the DEIR extended from April 8, 2004 10 May 24, 2~, a period of 47 days. The public
. review period for the DEIR exceeded the minimum required by CEQA. The Draft EIR was propetly
noticed and distributed alid was available at San Bernardino City offices and at the Feldbym Central
Library. Additiollll1ly, the document was available in its entirety on-line at the City's website.
. Comments to the DEIR were received by mail only.
The persons, organizations, and public agencies. that submitted comments regarding the DEIR
through May 26, 2004, are listed below. A Iotal of four comment letters were received. Three
comment letters were received from public agencies and one comment letter was received from a
utility provider. The City accepted one comment letter subsequent to the close of the public review'
period. While the City is not required to respond to comments received after the close of the public
review period, to ensure the thorougb consideration of public opiuion, this letter bas been responded
to in full. .
2.1.1 Comment Letters Received From Utility Provider (1 Letter)
A Tbe Gas Company (April 29, 2004)
Rogelio A. Rawlins
Technical Services Supervisor
2.1.2 Comment Letters Received From Public Agencies (3 Letters)
B Southern Califoruia Association of Governments
Jeffrey M Smith, A1CP
Seuior Regiollll1 Planner, Intergovernmental Review (May 12,2004)
C State of California, Department of Toxic Substance Control
Greg Holms, Unit Chief
Southern Califoruia Cleanup Operations Brancb (May 21, 2004)
D San Bernardino Associated Governments
Steve Smith, Principal Transportation Analyst (May 26, 2004)
. R.-\CBD2J1'\FElR\Section 2.doc (611S12004)
2-1
c
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FINAL EIR
The comments on the Uptown/Central City North Redevelopment Project Area Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2003031072) and the individual responses to each comment are included in this
section. TbeprimaIy objective and purpose of the EIR public review process is to obtain comments
on the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts. the mitigation measures presented. and
other analyses contained in the report. The Ca\ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires
that the .City of San Bernardino respond to all significant environmental issues raised (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15(88). Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in this document (i.e.,
are outside the scope of this document) are not given specific responses. However, all comments are
included in this section so that the decision-ma1rers know the opinions of the commentors.
c
In the process of responding to the comments, minor revisions to the Draft EIR. have been made.
None of the changes to the Draft EIR is considered to be significant new information (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 [a]).
Comment letters are arranged in chronological order. Aside from the courtesy statements,
introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each 1etter have been identified
and assigned an alpha-ilumeric identifier. The first digit in the identifier indicates the specific
comment letter, while the second digit identifies the specific comment within the each connnent
letter. For example, the connnent identified as A2 will correspond to the second comment, in the first
coounent letter received.
Copies of each comment letter. are included in the FmaI EIR. Brackets delineating the individual
comments and the alpha-numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of each letter.
Following each coounent letter is (are) the page(s) of responses to each individual comment.
c
R:'CBD231~3.doc:(6Il.SJ2OO4)
3-1
o
c
c
. .u",_,_~.,_"""".~"'..'
OO{g@~U\Yl~fID
MAY 0 7 200II
...
CITY OF $AN IIEIlfUUlIlIIIO
~SEIIIIlI:E!S
DEPAR1Ul!Hr
-~
....~
_w...--_
_CAlI!3I'oo'9JZO
, .......-
l'O"'_
_CA.....-
Fl.:
A ~ Sellqll'll Energ( ulIIty
April 29> 2004
City of SaIl Benardillo
~tSemc:esDepartmellt
300 N. '"D'" Stnet
Sa BenanIIDo, CA !n418
AtteatfoJa: V.... c.lt8sa
Ra: UptoWll ad Cadnl Oty l(ortlr. RedeveJopmellt I'rojlld Area l'1aD. - Oty of SaIl
BemdfDo.
1baJdc you fir tile opportunity to xespoad. to !be ~ JllO.iect. Please DOle that
Soutbem OoNfiwnja Gas. ~ has Dcilitics in !be ~ wbt.ro tile &bo've DaIIICd project is
JXOll_d Gas. scnice to tbeJllO.iect coaJd be p:oviileci wjIhout any cigltifil:ant impad mb
CD"i.....tW!llt. The scnice woaId be in .MXdaace with b ~ po&ies lIIId axIl:DSim
roIcs m file with tIleCalifumiaPllbIW Utilities Collllllis$iCl1atJ;he tinlcc:cllllrlWtwlJ ......~ ..-
are made.
You sbould be aWU'O that this kucr is not to be iutbtplacd as a c:om:rae1Ual............~ to serve
!be p<~ projCCl, bat only as aD iDfomlati<Im1 ~ Tba availability of u.1UIal gas
SllI'Vioc, as set foI1h in this Jet1m', is based upon "" ~s:m Qordmnn& of gas supe)y lIIId regulatory
policies.. 1.$ a pIlb& uliIity, '[be SouIhcrJI CaliPnia Gas ~y is \IIldcr tile jurisdicticm of
!be c.ur'l(ftia PllbIW Uti1itios C""""';.dul. We can also be .11fCClrXI by acliOllS of federal
RlgUIatory .~"" Should Ibcsc -r--i"" ~ any aCtiClll, Wbich a1rcets gas supply, ar thC
eaoditiOllS uudm' whic:b semcc is available, gas savice will be pro'Vidcd in 8llCCIdance with
zevised CClIJdidtIn& . . .
Typical <lez>-Id use for:
a. Re6i.lHdi_l (SystcmAzr:aA~ Pa-Mater) ~
S. Family . 799.~dwelJiugllDit
Multi-Faui)y 4 ar less units 4S2 tbltmsfyc8I: dwe1Iing Ullit
Multi-Family S armore 1IDits 483 ~ dwdIiogllDit
1besc aVU2ga: are based m toIBl gas COI'''''Tm in. ~M1sMI uaits ~ by SonlVm
c-lifiwnill Gas CoIropatty, mi it should DOC be implied \bat my particular ~ "ITC&1U.CDt or
tract ofhomlls will use tbcsc aJDOUDfS of enetgY.
A1
A2
....
o
AptiI29.2OO4
~2
b. Couw..=iaI
Due to the fact that COIISlIUCtia:I varies 10 wicIc1y (& glass 1luillIiq 'tL a hcm1y J
iIIp.bted ~ldirog) md tba:cis SIIllb a wjdc,...;- ill lJpeaof~.I. aud. a A2
typicIl """""'" fipn; is DOt awiIIbIe far this type of coastrucliaa. C*ulati0llS .
would need to be lIlICIe afta- the buiJdiDg bas becIl cJeArd
We lIawDcaland Siclo ~~ pl~- naiIab1e to 4'>.......da1/iQduslria1 C<bto-rs to }A3 '
p:oYicfe ...!- ill 101-", & DIllSt dfoclive' IpplilWij.... of mcqy of CIQ(' f1M:t&Y
....-.moo programs. please ~ ourr....~.._.~ SupportCartcnt l-8OO-GAS-
2000.
o
Slm:erely.
f~~_ fl ~ l;
.iQdioA. RawIiDs
Tcdmical Services Supcrvisoc
c
o
LI. "'OCIATES. INC.
JUN_ UU
p.MA1.an,
UPTOYKICENTaAL CITY JfO..-TH aI!Da:va:LOPMaNT paOJaCT AtKA
S.. ....IPO.I. TO OO"M&NTI
RESPONSE TO LETFER A
The Gas Company
Respoose to Comment AI: The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix A of the
Draft EIR) states that prior to approval, development within the Redevelopment Project Areas would
be required to provide evidence that it can be adequately serviced by the natural gas and electricity
provider, and submit plans showing the incorporation of energy conservation measures into the
project in accordance with Tide 24 of the California Adminioh'ative Code. Adherence to these
requirements would reduce utility impacts to a less significant level The Gas Company comment
that, "Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the
environmenl," corresponds with the Initial Study's findings related to the provision of gas service.
Respoose to Comment A2: The estimated energy reqUirements detailed in the Inilial Study were
based OIl Sooth Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) generation factors (Table A9-11
Eatinulting Emissions from Electricity Consumption by Land Use, SQAQMD CEQA Air QlUllity
No~book.) Using these generation factors, the Mercado Santa Fe componept of the proposed project
was estimated to consume approximately 9,303. cubic feet of natural gas per day. Development
projects within the Redevelopment Project Areas undertaken subsequent to the reinstatement of
eminent domain would be subject to review by the City and the Gas Company to ascertain the
significance of potential impacts to the provision of natural gas.
o
Respoose to Comment A3: The City recognizes and appreciates the availability of the Gas
Company's Demand Side Management programs. The City win convey to the proponents of future
development within the Redevelopment Project Areas of the availability of these programs.
c
R:'CBD231\FBIR.\Soctioa J.doc (6I1S12:OO4)
3-4
o
$OUTlIERN CAUFORtl'A
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Mila 0IIke
818 West _nth Slreet
12lh fIoo<
Los AnpIes, c.UIumI.
_7'3435
I (..]I 2]6-1'"
1(:u]l_'5
....~~.....
__ ....... ':i .'" PeIy,.
OjiRnf ........."- ~ 1M
....... .. s...I WiGI ~
: ~~~.:=r;;:
HrIilDl .
-----'-.
..SIlidIIl.......
....... '-'IJr.... ....,....
.......c...,............,.fMAapIn
c.u.,................s..G6W.Paul
............... '-CIIIIBIIIr, lI!I.......
........ CII4. ....... .. .... ......
-.---.""
--...-..-.
..... GMef. ... ~ .. ".. G.ftdt.
-.--..-.--
.. ..... .. --- .... c-..... .. ..
...........-................ ....
INcII .. .... ..... ... __ .. IdtIl
--.---.
........................ .......
....... ... ere-. SIlO 1IIIIb" Ala
-..-.--..-
........__.._.._...fb.....
..-...-.....-..-.
.........,......--.............
...........---........
........._.....,.........
..,................c.-........
.... -...... .......... ~..
. .............
--"",--,-.
..... ..... ......... .. .... ..... ..
M.......,...~.....
..... c.t. ......... ..... .. ~
........__........."""l*
1RlI.._......................
................
....... .... ... MIIr. ......
................bIIe...........
---...-
...... .. "" .... ~ Or .. ..
--
...--....-...
...... c..tr .. . ~ .....
-.--.....-
,..,.'-'...........s.m.
c-ir...s......s..........
...0.-.-'___
~_....._-_.
...... sw........ c.t........ s.
.. ..................
c..., - ..... AIIIldr:
.....---
...... CMIIr" . l' c-w.:
---
....ClMIlr- - C-W-..
....5l1li.... .
tit ................ ....,.....
I!m!IB
~.-_...
-;- ~::'
~._~" "O{
,,,--: .
.-:
~:' " .~~ ill m IG: '33
May 12, 2004
(' .
s.......: ~~~.. .
':-:-~.:'.>:O
Mr. Mike Trout. Project Manager
Economic Development ~
300 NoIth "D" S1reet
San Bemardino, CA 92418
RE: SCAG CIearIngh0us8 No. I 20040220 Uptown and Central CIty
NO/'I!1' Redevelopment Project Aiea Plans
Dear Mr. Trout:
Thank you. for submitting the. Uptown and Central CIty North
Redevelopment Project Area 'P1ans review and' convnent. As areawide
clearinghouse for regionaDy slgnlficant projecls, SCAG. reviews the
consistency of JocaI plans, projeds and progranis. with regIOnal plans. This
activity is based on SeAG's respoIISlbDities as a regional planning
orgSnlzatlon pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance
provided by these . reviews Is intended to assist JocaI agencies andprojecl
sponsors to take actions that coriblbute to the attainment of regional goals
andpolicies~ .
We have reviewed the Uptown and Central CIty North Redevelopment
Project Area Plans, and have determined that the proposed Project is not.
regionaDy sIgnificanI per SCAG IntergovemmenlaJ Review (IGR)' Criteria and
Califomia Environmental QuaIty Pd (CEQA) Guidelines (SectIon 1s206): 81
Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant CXll1TIlents at this time.
Shoulcl there be a change In the scope of the proposed Project, we would
appreciate the llppOI1\.Il1lty to.1l!View and convnent at that time.
A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 1-15,
2004 IIJIergovemmenfa Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and
OChU~~4-
The project IitIe and SCAG Clearinghouse III.ITIber should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG OOllCelTling this Project. Correspondence shouid
be sent to the attention of the ClearInghouse Coordinator. If you have any
qt!8Slions, please contact meat (213) 236-1867. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
~~~.~
SenIor Regional Planner
IntergovemmentaI Review
o
L.... .....OCIA.Ta.. UIC.
JU". S.U .
'I.ALE...
U'TowltlCaMTIlAL CITY .oaTH ...D.nLO......T. .kOJaCT AREA
I.' .....0..... TO CO"IlU,KT'
RESPONSE TO LEITER B
Southern California Association of Governments
Response to Comment Bl: The letter informed the City that based on SCAG's Intergovernmental
Review (lGR) Criteria and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206), the proposed project is not n:gionaUy
significant. . No comments are warranted. The City recognizes and appreciates SCAG's review of the
DBlR. Becanse no comments related to the scope. or adequacy of the DBlR were raised, no response
to SeAG's comment is required.
o
c
R.o1.CBD23J\fEIR\Sectioa 3.doc (61ISI2OO4)
3-6
00
-~
--'
-
...
Ttny......6.oi.
At/JIIq ~...,
CIIIEPA
Department Of. Toxic Substances Control
. 'edwlPF lDwry. DQcIor
1001 ..,. Slreel, ~ FIocr
.P.O:Box806
&.../"'dCl!40. ~\lia 95812-0806
.
_lid__
GOI~.o
FROM:
OO~~~~:[gfP)
Rania Zabaneh, . arv OF SAN 9ERNA!llllNO
Site MtIgalIon PrognIm. ~4~ bu '. ~SEIlIIJCm
GuenlherW. ~ ChIef II- . m
Planning & EnvIronmert1lII Analysis Section
AprIl 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DAlE:
SUBJECT:
ceCA ENVIRONMatrAL DOCUMENT REVIEW FOR: UPTOWNICENTRAl
CITY NORTH AeDEWl.O'PMeNTPROJECT. SCH# 2003031072
o
The OfIic:&ofEnviluhll.eldaJ AnaIysf$. ReguIat!ons Ii. Audits (OEARA) recehedthe alIached
. doa.ment from an outside agency tor J;m3C. niiIIew as a pote.,1iaI Re!1ponslbIe or InteIesled
Agency ~ the CallfamlaEtivktll'iIl'Iel'ltal-C~ualit)' Ad (CECA). A pt........ry review at this
doalment by ourollice shows that the prqect may tal within the regu/atDry authadly at DTSC
beca..... It InvoIYes one d the foI/Owing.1and uses that could potentlaIJy expose indMChJa/S to
hazards orhazatdous rnaIeriaJs:
B
~
AN EX1S11NG OR PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE
SENSITlVE \.AND USES.{e..g.. daycare 1aclIIb'. nUl1ling home, hospilaJ)
NON-SENSITIVE LAND lJ!3l;S (e.g., ~ or hb;lrlal facII6es)
This document Is being forwarded to yot.I' ofIioe forfUrlher , s r! ! ,rnent, P/eaSe provide the
Lead AQew:JI !hatts Ide.dIfied on1ll6 ~ NoIIce ofComp/etian FormWilh any ..........enls
you may have on this doa.merit befare the c/ose at the comment period (lfI24I2OO4). AIklr your
revfew, p'e ireCXll.1lIeIB 1heInb,llafuinequesfsdin lhe box below and refJ.m thl$fixm IIoClll'
oCIIce at lhe folIo.wing address:
CECA Trad<k1g Center
Office at EnvIRlnmentaI An;l/)<sis. PFgIJkdItvJs & AudIts
10011 snet. 22nd Rood P.O. Box. 806
SacramentD. CA ~12
. .
~WERE SENTTOnlELEAD N3ENCV and a corrY forwarded to oEARA via:
~M alIachment to 1h/s dcxunilnt
o FaJC@t916J323-3215
COMUENTSWERE.I!IQI SENT TO ntE lEAD AGENCY """"-:
[] The proJed cId not flIIl wilI1in the pfsdIclIon d DT&:
[J The docl.Jnenledf<ptafely an ! 5 e d impada iom the proposed p'<lject as It.......
DlSC's_ofjl~
c
.. PifnIlld an Aot:jded PIper
5/5 S:J\td
.a.5~&6.6'ar
SPla/SUld oupas 40 ~~'~'NO~d &5'&1 "-.B-AWN
o
o
c
e
,~I
-=l&>"
-
-:-
.
IBJ!EI
Department ~f." oxic. Substances Control
~ F.I.OwIy, Olreclor
~"Corpcnte A'VllIIlHI
~CaL.""90630
AmtMJSdl-.-lOl
--
Ten,.T........
JoIMJ .......,
CIIIEPA
May 21, 2004
oo~~~~:~@
Ms. Valerie Ross
Deputy DiIeclodClly Planner
Redevelopment Serviges Deparlmerrt
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San BemardIno,eaflfomia 92418-i:lOo1
NOTICE.oF COMPLETION OF A. DRAFJ: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL crrYNORTH RS)EVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PlAN
AMENDMENTS (SCH # 2003031072)
CITY OF SAN SSlNAIl:lL'IO
IlE1f!ll)PI.=-"T llCRV'lCllS
DEl'AATUiHT
Dear Ms. Ross:
The Department of Toxic Substances CoofroI (DTSC) has received your Notice of
Complellon (NOC) of a dl1ilft EnWonmeiltal Impact Report (EIR) for the above-
mentioned Project.
Based on the revfewofthe doaJmenf, DTSC's comments are as follows:
1.
2.
C3
In:
SOWd
$ PrlnIOd... RrIl>dod P_ . .
eeeslo8E:aeS",ol.'. . &P1s/SUld DUpes ~a .0<"1:)'110"" ..co ..,.
.._.r._.........
o
o
o
II!Da
Ms. Valerie Ross
May 21, 2004
Page2of3
· National Priorili~ List (NPl): A list is maintained by the United States
Envimnmenfal ProtectIon Agency (U.S.EPA).
· CalSites; A Database primarily used by the Carlfomla Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
· Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRlS): A
database of RCM facliltles thatis maintained by u.s. EPA
· Cornplehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Uabllity
Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERClA sites that Is
mainfained byU.S.EPA C3
· Solfd Waste Information System (SWIS): A databalMt provided by the .
California J/1tegrab!d waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive sorld waste disposal faalities and
tJm ISler station$.
· leaking Underground Storage Tanks (lUS1) I SpDJs, leaks,
Investigations and Cleanups (SUC): A list that is maintained by Regional
Watsr Quality Control Board (RWQC8).
· tocaI County and City maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
Prior"fo approving the dl8ft EIR. p/ease addnlss aD of DTSC's commenls. As the lead }C4
agency, It Is )'OW' responslbilityfo ensule that all of DTSC's ~ ~ properly
addre$Sed.
OTSC provides guidance for prepaI3lion of a PrelimInary Endangerment Assessme.1t
(PEA), and cleanup oversight through, the Voluntary Cleanup Program (Vcp).For
addlfJonal information on the Vcp, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.oov.
S/E: 89\td
88l11S__6'OI
SPla/SUld GUpas ~o ~~'O'NO~4 ~S'&l .lII-.~-AVM
...
o
Ms. Valerie Ross
May 21, 2004
Page3of3
If you bave any questions reganJing this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham.
Project Manager, at (714) 484-5476.
Greg Holmes
Unit ChIef
Southem CaIIfomia Cleanup ~ns Blanch
. Cypress Office ... . ..
c
cc: Govemots Office of Planning and .Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Saa'amento. Califomla 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and EnvIronmentalAna/ysi$ secUon
CEOA Tracking Center
Deparfment of Toxic SubstanceS Con1roI
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, Califomia95812;,oaoa
c
5/" lI:NdI
8e8!1IoBt:Ses'!> I.
BpIS/GUld DUpes 10 ~~I~'NOK4 ~!I'El ...-..t-AVN
c
c
c
I... &I.OOIATa.. ..0.
JUllalt"
.UU.1. ....
U'TOWlIIGalfTI.AL CITY MOIlTR .aD.vaLO'''.lIT raOJllaT .A."..
s.t .."0.1a TO OO......T.
RESPONSE TO LETTER C
California Department of Toxic Substance Control
Response to Comment Cl: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) referenced by the commentor was
prepared by the City and distributed on March 14, 2003, to the State Clearinghouse, responsible
agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day review period. This public review period extended
from March 14 to April 14,2003. Subsequent to the initial distribntion of the Initial Study (IS) and
NOP, the City refined the proposed project to more appropriately focus the environmental document
on the programmatic natore of the proposed project The discussion of potential hazardous material
impacts associated with the proposed project was similarly revised.
To ensure adequate agency review of thechaoged character of the proposed project, the City
redistributed an updated and. revised IS and NOP to public agencies for a 30-day review that extended
from February 18to March 18,2004. The Department of Toxic Snbstance Control (DTSC) did not
provide comments on the recirculated Initial StudyINOP.
. The following discussion is provided to ensure that the concerns expressed in the agency's April 8,
2003 comment letter are adequately addressed (numbering equates to the comment number included
. in the April 8, 2003conllnent letter.)
1-5: Only the proposed site of the Mercado Santa Fe retail development was recognized as having
a potential for on-site hazardous materials. Prior to demolition of stroctures and/or
constroction, the City will require a Phase I Site Assessment to determine the
presence/absence of hazardous materials. The remediation, removal, and/or disposal of any
hazardous materials identified during the course of the Phase I Site Assessment will conform
to applicable Federal, State, and local requirements; thereby, reducing potential impacts
related to this issue to a less than significant level.
The site-specific risks associated with other future development within the Redevelopment
Project Areas cannot be sufficiently. identified at a program level.
6: The required contents and procedures for preparation of an Initial Study are established under
Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA does not mandate the use of a standard
Initial Study Checklist Section 15063(f) states, "...publicagencies are free to devise their
own format for an initial study." The Initial Study Checklist has been determined by the City .
to adequately fulfill the requirements established by CEQA.
7-12: Future development within the Redevelopment Project Areas will be subject to City- and
State-mandated standards relative to the identification, removal, and disposal of potentially
hazardous building materials. This effort will result from future project-specific CEQA
review.
Response to Comment C2: The document reviewed by the DTSC is a "Program EIR," which
evaluates the broad-scale impacts of the proposed reinstatement of eminent domain and other actions
described which, in total, cOnstitute the "projecf' under consideration. A Program EIR, addressing the
impacts of policy decisions, such as those presently under consideration, can be thought of as a "first
tier" documen~ evaluating the broad-scale impacts on the environment expected to result from the
adoption or implementation of such decisions. Tiering refers to the concept of a multi-level approach
R.-\CBD231\FEIR\Sectioa 3.doc (6I1S12OO4)
3-11
c
L'. ASIOCIATES. life.
JUJf. UU
1t...AL.....
'UPTO,",ICI.MTaAL CITY KORTH .....DBV.LO'.....T P..OJECT ....A
s._ a..po.u. TO COI"'l!NT'
to preparing environmental docuinents (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15152). A Program EIR does not
typically address site-specific impacts that subsequent development projects permitted by the
approved policy decisions may have. CEQA requires every subsequent development project within
the scope of a Program EIR to be evaluated at a Iater stage for its particular site-specific impacts.
These impacts are typically encompassed in "secood-tier dOCllJllellls," such as Supplemental or
Subsequent BIRs, an Addendum to the Program EIR, or a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration, which
typically evaluate the impacts of a single activity undertaken to implement some specific portion of
the overall plan.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), together with other Federal, State, and local
agencies, administer a comprehensive set of laws and regulations that has been developed to protect
public health and the envirooment from accidental spills and releases. Compliance with these
programs, as in effect at the time, will ensure that there will be no significant adverse impact in the
event of a spill or release associated with project operations. The proposed project includes the
reinstatement of eminent domain within the Redevelopment Project Areas, and a General Plan
A """,d_ut. These actions are not physical projects that would result in potential impacts associated
with hazardous materials. Any . future project initiated within the RP As subsequent to the
reinstatement of eminent domain would be subject to review by the City and the DTSC.
c
Response to Comment C3: Hazardous or toxic materials transported in association with
redevelopment projects (including the future proposed retail projeCt) may include items such as oils
and fuels. All materials required during development and operation of businesses would be used and
transported in compliance with all State and local regulations. likewise, substances that would likely
be used and stored by tYPical urban businesses would be in controlled environments in accordance
with existing requirements of the County Department of Health or Fire Department, DTSC. South
Coast Air Quality Management District or other permitting agencies. Reinstatement of eminent
domain and the redevelopment of any properties in either project area would not alter the requirement
of compliance with all applicable regulations.
Section 2.4.1 (pages 2-7 and 2-8) of the Draft BIR recognizes the potential for hazardous materials
within the site of the . proposed . Mercado Santa Fe retail developmenl Because of this potential
hazardous material impact, a Phase I Site Assessment will be required prior to the demolition of any
stroctures suspected to contain hazardous materials. The remediation, removal, and/or disposal of any
hazardous materials identified during the course of the Phase I Site Assessment will conforn'l to
applicable Federal, State, and local requirements; thereby, reducing potential impacts related totltis
issue to a less than significant level.
The site-specific risks associated with other future developinent within the Redevelopment. Project
Areas cannot be sufficiently identified at a program level. BecaiJse no specific development will
result from project .actions. without additional CEQA review incorporaiing appropriate studies of
impacted structures, impacts related to the storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous wastes or the
release of hazardous substances are considered less than significant at a programatic level.
c
Response to Comment C4: It is the opinion of the City that the response stated above adequately
address DTSC's coDIIIICnts. The comments from DTSC, as well as the comments of others, will be
considered in developing the FJ.UaI EIR that will be used in the decision whether to approve this
projecl CEQA requires the Lead Agency (in this case the City) to exercise independent judgment in
determining the enviroomental impacts of a proposed project and in deciding whether to approve a
projecl
R:'CBD231 \FEIR\Sectioa 3.doc (6/iSl2OO4)
3-12
c
o
c
~UN-.7-84 14_13 paO".Cl~y of SBdno Plng/Bldg
ID.ses3El4Seee
PAGE 1/1
GCVf?!~"'I"'"'er,fS
~,~l'r;
~... ---. IF' _
, -
San Bernardino Associated Goverllments ~
D2 N. ,,"-J.,d ~ San e.._<E._. CA 92401-1421 rr{l. .. ..
"-' 1'9091 88A-8276 """ 1'9091 88WA07 Wobowww._""8-\IO"
>,:,: ~ - ~~
.,.t- ~ -...;E 1
. $On...._..A_CwnIy...........1 Id.Co....l "tr. _ $Qn"'~ .I.....co.nvr.w~. - .Jahodty
. SCInIelll_di.oeo.a;,e~. J "~r..v-:I';'l ,~1qiI/N:N . ~~far:~Em-v-.....
oo~@~n\Yl~fID
MAY27m
May 26, 2004
Ms. Valerie ~
Deputy DireciodCity Planner
City ofSao IlemaIdino .
300 NorIh "D" Street
San BenwdiDo, CA 92413
Re: . Upll:lwn and Ccn1raI City NorIh Redevelopment ProjOCl Area Draft Em - Traffic lmpect ADaIysis
SANBAG File No. 0400006
ctlYC#_~
~-
--
Dear Ms. RQ$$:
ThalIk yoU for tho oppotIllIlity 10 review and 00IDI1leDt 011 the above reiWonced uaIJie impact report datod
April 6, 2004 """ rovisioas dlIIDd May 2S, .2004. Our MaIysis indicates that with the replacement of
~ Tables H, J, L, N,R; and T, the study _ the''''I~h...~dle 2003 CMP.
In accooI8nce with your city's moluliOll ~ the Land U~ ~ Program. lito
traffic study is to be made available 10 the PlomJing CommissiQn fIIld/oc tho City Council and Caltrans for
iofomwioo regardill8 project impacts 10 die CMP sysIIcm of arterialstroets.
Should yoU have""Y questions oc COIlImenlS, pJcasc ~t me or ~ ZlIleick at (909) 884-$216.
Sincctdy,
~~
PriDcipaJ TtlIIISpOlUIion Analyst
CIIoo 'fidffli5~ ,,1IIg -~ a.m. Clltlo..... 00lI0n, ~ ~_ HelI*a. HlgNand.I.OOlQ Iim.Iobo ':1...
_ _CUoaoIlOo__~_""__lO,,,,",~-'l!Ilt<nl__'/Ucdpa
_oI:_~"l\JoOO~ County 01_ _OIC1l1O
...
}01
}02
c
l.u. ......OOU.'I'II. -.Me.
JU.. Sf..
PINAL s.a.
UPTOYIIIC..n.u. eln .01.'I'B ...D.vaLO.....T '''OJ.OT .......
I.. .....0..1. TO 00......'1'.
REsPONSE TO LEITER D
San Bernardino Associated Governments
Respoase to Comment Dl: The DEIR contains the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (April 6, 2004)
prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. While included as an appendix to the DEIR, the TIA was submitted
to the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and received a separate review; Based
. on SANBAG review of the TIA, revisions to the document were made. Upon revision of the TIA
(May 25, 2004), SANBAG bas determined the TIA meets the requirements of the 2003 Congestion
Management Program (CMP.)
The TIA and other tecbnicaI studies/supporting data are included in Appendices A-F to the DEIR.
These appendices were provided in their entirety in a PDF format. Revisions to the Draft EIR
resulting from revisions to the TIA are identified in Section 4 of the FEIR.
Response to Comment D2: As the TIAwas included as an Appendix to theDEIR, the TIA bas been
made available to the City, and Caltrans for review.
o
c
R:\CBD23I\FEIR\Sectioa 3.doc (61lS12OO4)
3-14
c
4.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFf EIR
The following section contains a set of addendum pages to the Draft ElR dated April 6, 2004. The
revisions identified in this section are the result of staff and public review, and are meant to provide
clarification of the issues and to correct editorial and typographical errors that were discovered after
circulation of the Draft EIR. The revisions cited in this section were found by the City of San
Bernardino not to be substantial; therefore, the recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.
In the following pages, headings describing the location of changes in the Draft EIR are underlined
(i.e., Section 4.1, page 4-1, paragraph I). Below this entry, are the revisions made to the Draft EIR.
Additions of text are noted by the double underlining of new text.. whereas deletions are shown as
strikeout text (alii tent).
Table 4.6C, page 4.6-10
Table 4.6C - Year 2008 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service
o
Intersection Control P.M. Peak Hour
VIC Delav WS
\. Peooer A venue/Rialto Avenue Sismal 0.497 16.2 B
Rancho Avenue/Ria\to Avenue SismaI 0.291 .\SA . B
Mount Vernon AvenueIBaseline Street Signal ~ ~ C
~. ~
Mount Vernon A veilue/Fifth Street Sismal 0.592 23,6 C
. Mount Vernon Avenue/Second Street Sismal 0.704 35.9 D
Mount Vernon Avenue/Ria\to Avenue Sil!llal 00407 16.3 B
Mount Vernon A venne/MiII Street SiJ(na\ 0.603 323 C
8. Viaduct Boulevard/Second Street TWSC 13.9 B
Giavanola A venue/Second Street .TWSC 9.4 A
10. "L" StreetfIbird Street bitersection created by nroiect
II. "L" Street/Second Street TWSC lOA B
12. "K" Street/Ibird Street TWSC 10.6 B
13. "K" Street/Second Street AWSC 0.276 9.2 A
14. or. Street/Ibird Street TWSC, 10.1 .B
15. "r Street/Second Street TWSC 11.4 B
16. 1-215 Southbound Off-RampIIbird Street Signal .'~'.. 2h8 C
~ .22;4
17. 1-215 Southbound On-RamnlSecond Street . SiJ(na\ 0.497 21.7 C
18. 1-215 Northbound On~Street Sil!llal 0.491 2\.8 C
19. 1-215 Northbound Off econd Street Sil!DaI 0.613 2\.9 C
o. "E" StreetlBaseline street SismaI 0.538 14.2 B
\. "E" Street/Fifth Street Sismal 0.528 17.8 B
22. "E" StreetlSecond Street SiJrnaI 0.668 33.5 C
23. "E" StreetlRia1to Avenue Sismal 00471 22.7 C
we - VoIume/aqJocily'-
Delay.= Average control delay in seconds. At UllSignalized intersections, worst-case approach is reported.
Ws = Level of Service
lWSC" Two-Way Stop Control
A WSC ~ A11-Way stop Cootrol
c
R:\C8D23IIFEIR_ 4.doc(611SI2004)
4-1
o
c
c
U. A"OOU.Tal. .IIC.
n.. ....
P..AI. &.a
V.TOWlIlCJ:lITRAL cln ..oaTH ....VltLO.....T '.OJ.CT AR..
,., ...VUIO.. TO TR. DUPT all. .
Table 4.6E, page 4.6-13
Table 4.6.E - Year 2025 Witbout Project Intersection Levels of Service
P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection Control V/C Delav WS
1. Peooer A venue/RiaIto Avenue SismaI 0.678 19.2 B
Rancho A venuelRiaJto Avenue SismaI 0.520 17.5 B -
Mount VerRon A venue/Baseline Street Signal .Q,6# ;!Y C
o.6M 24.Ii
Mount Vernon A venue/Fifth Street SismaI 0.663 24.3 C
5. Mount Vernon A venuelSecond Street SismaI 0.761 39.5 D
Mount Vernon AveauelRialto Avenue SiJllllll 0.586 18.2 B
Mowt Vernon AvenuelMil1 Street SismaI 0.790 39.3 D
8. Viaduct Boulevard/Second Street TWSC .45.0 E*
Giavanola A venuelSecond Street TWSC 9.4 A
. 10. "L" Street/Third Street Intersection created bv proiect
ll. "L" Street/Second Street TWSC 10.4 B
12. "K" Street/Tbird Street TWSC 16.0 C
13. "K" StreetlSecond Street AWSC 0.369 9.9 A
14. "1" Street/Third Street TWSC 12.5 B
15. "1" Street/Second Street TWSC 15.9 C
16. 1-215 Southbound Off-Ramp.'fhird Street Signal ~ ~ C
fJ.1j1 22.2
17. 1-215 Southbound On-RamoISecond Street SiJllllll 0.997 44.3 D
18. 1-215 Northbound On-Ram Street SiJllllll 0.591 24.7 C
19. 1-215 Northbound OffRamolSecond Street Siena! 0.870 29.0 C
"E" StreetlBaseline Street Si2naJ 0.613 16.2 B
21. "E" StreetIFifth Street Siena! 0.726 21.5 C
2. "E" Street/Second Street SimaJ 0.869 44.1 D
23. "E" StreetIRialto Avenue Signa1 0.778 26.0 C
/
*Ex&::eeds IevcI. of service standard
Vie = VoIumelcapocity rotio
Delay = A_ conlrol delay in seconds. At llIISignaIized in1a=tions, worst-case approach is rq>o<1OO.
WS "" Level ofScrvicc
lWSC - Two-Way Stop Conlrol
AWSC = All-Way StopCon1rol
R:ICBD23I\FEIR\Scctioo 4.00c (61)5/2001)
4-2
o
o
c
L.... AlIOCU.T&'. IRO.
JO.. a...
~l.4J;...n.
U'PTO'nMU..T~ O1TT woaTH ...D1:nLOPU..T .I-OJ.aT .........
'.1 ..aYl.low. TO Till: D......T ....
Table 4.68, page 4.6-21
Table 4.6.H - Year 2008 With Project Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Control P.M. P~ Hour
V/C Delay WS
I. Penner A venueJRiaIto Avenue . SilmaI 0.511 16.6 . B
2. Rancho A venueJRiaIto Avenue Siimal 0.309 15.4 B
3. Mount Vernon Avenue/Baseline Street . Signal .Q.S9l iB,O C
ll.601 llJi
4. Mount Vemoo A venue/Fiflh Street Siimal 0.608 23.7 C
5. Mount VemOnAvenue/Secood Street Si2D81 0.808 44.2 0
6. Mount Vernon AvenueJRiaIto Avenue .Siimal 0.426 16.6 B
7. Mount Vernon Avenue/MiU Street Siimal 0.616 33.0 C
8. Viaduct.BouIevardISecood Street Ceases to &cist
9. Station Wav/Giavanola A venue/Second Street TWSC .14.9 B
10. "L" StreetJThird Street TWSC 125 B
11. "L" Street/Second Street . TWSC 68.4 p*
- with mitil!ation - . Siunnl 0.295 lI.0 B
12. "K" StreetJThird Street TWSC 21.4 C
13. "K" StreetISecood Street AWSC 0.391 105 B
14. "J" StreetIThird Street TWSC 13.1 B
IS. "J" StreetISecond Street TWSC >300 p*
- with mitil!ation - Si<mal 0.521 23.1 C
16. 1-215 Southbound Off-Rmnp/fhird Street Signal 9M3 ;!iW C
!l..lli 23.Il
17. 1-215 Southbound On-RmnolSecond Street Si...al 0.620 20:7 C
18. 1-215 Northbound On-Ranmffhird Street Si....al 0.669 28.0 C
19. 1-215 Northbound OffRmnolSecond Street Si2D81 0.630 223 C
20. "E" StreetlBaseline Street Siimal 0550 14.4 B
21. "E" StreetlFiflh Street Siimal 0.540 17.9 B
22. "E" StreetISecond Street Silmal 0.680 339 C
23. "E" Street/Rialto Avenue simaI 0.490 22.8 I. C
. Em::ccds level of serYlCCl SbUidard
VIe - Vol""",,c:opacity nIlio
Delay = A_.-o1 delay in _. At unsigoalizod inlcrsecti.... ......-<&so approach is RpO<tOd.
LOS = Lcvcl orScivi<:c
.1WSC=Two-W~SlJJpCo_1
AWSC = All-Way StDp CoIiIroI
R:1CBD231\FElR\Scctioo 4.doc (61lSflOO4)
4-3
.t
o.
c
c
L.. .IIOOIATII. Ufa.
lU'" a...
.llfAL a.a.
uPTo....roa..n.u. alTY .oaTH ....anLoP"..T PROJIOT Aaa...
.ot ....UIO.. TO TR. ...AFT .1..
Table 4.61, page 4.6-25
Table 4.6.J - Year 2025Witll Project Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Control P oM. Peak IIonr
V/C Delav ws
I. Peooer Avenue/Rialto Avenue Si211111 0.690 19.5 B
2- Rancho A venue/RJalto Av...ue Si211111 0.537 17.7 B
3. Mount Vemon A venuelBaseline Street Signal Cl.649 ~ C
lI./i63. 2U
4. Mount Vemon A venuelFifth Street Si211111 0.679 24.6 C
S. Mount V <mOD A venuelSecond Street Si211111 0.854 49.4 0
6. Mount V <mOD A venuelRialto AvCDl1c Si211111 0.603 18.4 B
7. Mount Vemon A veoue/Mill Street Si211111 0.802 40.6 0
8. Viaduct BoulevardlSecond Street Ceases 10 &ls1
9. Station Wav/Gia"""ola AvenuelSecond Street TWSC >300 P'
- with milillolion - SilfflQ/ 0.858 37.7 D
10. "L" StreetIfhird Street TWSC 14.5 B
II. "L" StreetISecond Street TWSC 1\6.7 po
- with milillalion - SilfflQ/ 0.308 10.1 B
12. "K" Street!l'bird Street TWSC 44.9 E'
- with milil!ation - - TWSC 27.0 D
13. "K" Street/Second Street AWSC 0.488 11.6 B
14. "J" Streetl\'hird Street TWSC 16.5 C
IS. "J" StreetISecond Street TWSC >300 P'
- with milillat/on . S/lfflQ/ 0.520 24.0 C
16. 1-215 Southbound Off-RamplThird Street Signal Q,949 m 0
0.262 ~
17. 1-215 Southbound On-Ramp/Second Street SW1al 1.039 49.6 P'
- wilh milil!ation - SiJ!nQl 0.840 32.1 C
18. 1-215 Northbound On- . d Street SW1al 0.786 29.9 C
19. 1-215 Northbound Off RanmlSecond Street Si211111 0.887 29.6 C
20. "E" StreetlBaseIine Street Si211111 . 0.624 16.4 B
21. "E" StreetlFifth Street Si211111 0.738 21.6 C
22. "E" Street/Second Street Sitmal 0.899 46.5 0
23. "E" Street/Rialto Avenue Silmal 0.796 26.5 C
. Exceeds level of SCIVlCe standard
Vie = VoIumclcapocity raIio
DcIay = A vcmgc control dcIay in seconds. At unsigna1i=1 """"""'"'lIS. worst..,.,. approach is reported.
WS = Level of Service
1WSC = Two-Way SlDp Control
A WSC - All-Way SlI>P Coolrol
R:\CBD2311FE1R1Sedioa '.doc (61lSflOO<).
4-4
J:1.,u.:.U.
U'T01nl/CalrT1A.L CITY .OaTH UDaVXLO,Va.T ,aOJaaT Uti
... .......1.10... T.O TRa bRUT aIR
c
L.A ...oaIAn.. 'RC.
.JO." ....
"
Section 7.0, page 7-1
Delete the references to the following reports:
RlJporll8 the !,fayeI' atJtfi CSIIt./'ff8l'1 Co_ii, 2(}(}J ERfittent Demain AllteNiment, Central City
Harth Retie'leloplltent .0.1'6)081, Resenaw, Sllevaeek GFaup, lue., Mareft 2003.
.'?eporl 16 t!te AlIl}'6I' aNi Ca",lff6l'1 Calt/WH, 2{J(}3 Eminent Damai1'l A_1tdment Uptown
Redevelopllte1'lt PYajeet, R~seRe'll, Slle,,'aeek GreBil, lue., Jul)'2QQ3.
AppendiI F, Traffie Impact Analysis
Revisions to Tables H, J, L, N, R, and T as reflected by the changes made to Tables 4.6C,
4.6E, 4.6H and 4.6J in the DEIR. The Level of Service worksheets from which the
revisiol)S to Tables H, J, L, N, Rand T were derived were revised.
o
c
. R:ICIlD23I\fE1I!.\S<dioo '.do< (6115/2004)
4-5
o
o
c
5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
This mitigalionmonitoring plan has beeJl prepared for use in implementing certain of the conditions of approval for:
Uptown/Central City North Redevelopment Project Area
The program bas been prepared in compliance with State law and the Enviromnental Impact Report ("ElR'') (SCH No.
2003031072) prepared for the project by the City San Bernardino.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures .
placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adver.;e effects on the environment. (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6) The
law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some
instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation mea$ures.
2)
A procedure for compIiance and verification bas been outlined for each action necess8I)'. This procedure
designates who will take action, what action will be taken and wheD, and to whom and when compliance will be
reported.
3) The program bas been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may
be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. As changes are made, new
monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.
R:1C8D23llfEmlS<dioo 5 Mitigation Mooi1Dring Program.doc (6115/2004)
5-1
c
c
c
I-
<n
Si!
o
w
X
o
Cl
z
it:
o
l-
S!:
o
:E
z
o
-~
Cl
1=
!E
4'
a
u ""
= I!:!
"'c(
.to
(
$=
m
o
w
~
a..
w
0::
..a..
">-
00
~~
ii:<n
iel
01=
..-
a..:!:
t:::
~
N
~
IV <( "'0.9
.c v co1aco
_(I) N ccnc0c
o_J! ..f o~....C'G=cu...."
.<11. Iii ~ 5 '" 'j'l .9 0. E 0.2 fii ~
eco:,p~ ;Joa.ccn"" <<I>
a.onca::J .bftlc::Jc_~
a.C""aCf') CD .,J:I.- 0'-0 CD e
~ E 8~ z= C8 5~-g-g co "$ 0.
1-a..~:2::i:.!: OmCQ~:61!~
CUe ~ :.!: GJN co Ji~1iU;
aS4=:! r... t'II:6~ ~_~ ~::J
'cn~'QiEo .2"~CD""'C
fDo.a:gfCD.!CO-S:!!
~ 0._ E-.E::>fi "'0:: "'''''
= .. o-o::..u ...-
.",.ffi,GoC~ "cE"OJ.
> UJ.1::IfI)CDOa=Oo.;!~
Z-ECDCGJQ.:!:.-_4= '.QJ
0.'-.: 0 0 00:: ~..'" co,G C
EQ)::JO'O..........ep 0
4j' U" CD _ a....... ... m ::J 1,:::::1 GJ 0-
S tCD:O Cf') lD'O a.a~J! (,) E
O.....(G:J:6cnO'CCC::J8
.E{iM='O-C i::iitJ'O
Urn~~"fiac1iilD.!ifo
fc tU:J>-~:JDc-ac:;;
"S"o.!!Ui en CD:C~ E.2 E~.c
U:J::JCD_.J:I-cOOtn- n.
f'"Oo::.aOf(Qicol=C'IJ~CI)CD
<II~o~lDGJ_OU;eO!!,G
.- o~...:P a. -
_ c~~ C 0.- m.a a."'ii~!2
0'- CDCf') .p.....::J.C:C-
.<11._0<("", <II 0 cD lii.... .c,G
o (,I) lUS::OE>--CO
.....;no=.....,p.... :,p en CD m"
O-U)CI),g D..CU s..!!a::J N":i
CD ca, C CD at .. 0..2 1::J i c-
.c:-<68"',G E_"EOc
l-l'lJc +=I c.-c2i "iio
'~OQ)_.EoCf')CDGlE"':clI
< 'iii.aCGlDc;;!:!ii.Q::J!~
~(I)cn_=::CU)'S""Q..o.CD
NCD-E" --EuD.q..eo.c
~"3",~O.:!..ClJO<l....::JlD
"Q".... ....UJ.7 ...._ ftlent>>
..
c
o
'j'l
..
"
..
..
o
a.
o
~
a.
..
,G
.9
..
:a
..
.!!
0.
a.
..
..
'"
~
::>
..
..
..
::0
'"
~Gi
"
.,::>
"3"U
D::.E
OJ....
c>"
-....
"u~
~....
~.E"
tI= lD
...."
~ ..
"n~
~~a
:0.,>--
j!lc-
..0"
..::>
=lJO-';-
~-= > '-
"0
-"U~E
lJ ...e
_ a. ~
eOl.O
GJ_ om U)
iif!!!iU'
ofal'O
.$l.il 0
nUc......
"'J!!O~
5::>'j'l2
ccE..
.. >
~E"'j'l
0.. C ca
1t.98.E
.
~~ :1GCD68-c-
:8-5 oc:6>t'lI4D CD
"::>0 .2j!,soo.= J!!
g,- I...c~_<<tg
..J ~ J! Oi.. -8 ~ ..
~.. 'l) E !! 0 'e ,G
~GJ ,-'CCiOG)o
Cii,o o"5"Ee>c..
"0_ ~~ ~.~ ~S
1j~ CO~ftI'i='C
~...C;; ~oc>Ei
il - "C 1:1-
.. 0 -5 Ii 4D 'C..!! 'C 'C
cuoo co~(ijECi~
=S~ ~8.&~.8-;
ca .... =a...:1i ::6_
.coca 01.001::001::0
S-.. c _-~
"ii.s~ 3.9 0 O"lt g.
."0 Rlf'i.!!::;
>ca"C .t::.mJ!C(f).c
~ao. 0(1) G)C\I"I=l
.. "~CiI2Eclii
'-4D! ;::I1::&;fot!
.!!Gi.!! .p'!!1)3~~
~j~ ~~';ec1l11
.
.
o
-0
-
-
..
..
.!!
-
..
{I-d
....
ol!
~C
..-
....
8;
",G
6E
'j'l,g
.6J!
..-
c"
8~
~.9
"c
11..0
'"
.c
Ci
.c
..
..
."
..
l!
"
..
> .
....
a."
c.!!
::>~
-0
'iii:
co.
OE
~I('-
",-
8..9
.."
0"
11':0
..::>
~."
I-~
.
.
N
.
on
""
o
~
~
~
u
i
e
..
lI'
"C
a
-a
~
a
o
."
!l.
."
::il
~
II
-~
~
g:
~
'"
y
..
o
t::
~
'"
~
(;j m "0,9
~ ~ .om (I)
en P" C0C0C
o_J!! -.rf o~...ca::::ca5"C
-lII.o c.. !! a CD ~ .g a. -E a.~ c -
cO:g.... :luCJ).QQl:-cug!
0.0 e-~il CDi;;J:.E ~.Eo ~ 0
CD fr8:f!:~ c 6-g"C~ co"S: a
~ 5..5:;:!:.E 30 ;:n fii a= ~ ~
c
c
~
o
m
01
c
-;e
o
:i:!
4) en
=5
fIi:g
flU
""
:; :2
.. 0
Eo.
..,~
00.
.....
.!!,s
" 0
0::-
0>-
-a.
Co.
o lU
., -
=am
".s:;:
lU '"
C '"
-..
:;
.,
lU
N"
'<IE
>-
is
-s
IT
.,
lU
"
$
S
..
01
~
.,
-=-
..
..0
Oi
.s:;:
'"
'"
c ca
o f
'it CG ai
. "C::c
'" .,-
.. -e:
<>. <l 0
go en 0.
en a =
-
.. .
"
a
...,
..0"
o
Oi~
ii~
"'S
c.,
~.E
..",
;o~
0.
o{l
01"
c"
- 0.
~-(I)
~" -
DCa
,,1'E
licU)
..'"
01-" "
~'s CD
.." ..
>CD~
~ -g CD
)(..~
.. <>..!l
.,'"
~ii:il,
.
-.!l - '"
(5 CD 'C" CD .~
'" .. $ II '"
.!!~.. -"
.Q.~ ~ta
"ii "C ~ e
>_ CD ..."0
_ c: E ... CD
>.tlOi.!!
".m.ll s-
~ "C ~ "C.e
CD ca~ CD c
a. +=I - 0
tls ~ ~ '"
c .... c"C
o G _ ta
-"D i CD e
f~$ ~ll
'" rl" Oi lil
~ S ii.~
.... f"
~~: ~i
II) C" CD
il.!!~ ~'g
.... E ..
J:a"C "ii L..
",s 8 "$
~~~ ~5i
.
-..
g'..o
'5-
em
OIii
'"
cig
c.,
lit!
....
llg-
~6
.,
,,!: .
ig~
cnL..'+'
;:;016
tU g;ai
"'>"
~ 0"
.. E.!:!
..€~
t::le
.
.
CD3;CD1Gm"C(IJ
=.2t:==lii"\;
C - ~
"0. c i!
.,oii'....~o
-.."..c.!::;EcJ!
..-....,,,
0f1J13O')o4=O-Pc
=~IEf6!.caE
"s'" ..0
..1:_ >0 as CD
fIJ-m=CD_r
c....m1:l:;elP
....OCD.c::s:5io:6
~,,5i"'l!_.5
as. _c:>
~~~~~~tl
o"C.cucaa.c
ii 0 CD1:I:D.3.g
CD EccOCT....
_ c-"o_c"Sl
- o.~ O"tl 0:
;: :ga-f! t!gdl
'9 ,," ~ 01,., C oj
..... .!:lI C oS! C c.o - c
c ~~ ~~i:~~
o oocoo"'crl
'tl 0 i:.~ti: Ss-=
" '" '" '" c '" c II
b c- C -4)
.. t:8i8811i~li}
e
o
t.l
.
~..
o c
0=
:gg
....
..01
.,-
.!:!O
.,,,
~~
cacti
ii-~
~- .,
~C..
..~.2!
.b a.!!
e- ..
0"-"
o [ S
e" .,
0....
'g~.E
i:$g'
",0"
e <>."
o ..
01i~
....$
.c.!!o
1-" a.
.
-- . CD CJ.'O
Cll'lICD:G.a4DC
==!; _. ca
CD 'E .-6 i'~ e- .
.....-.0 ,...
"Eo~""'ll
-me 0--
e~ "Co.c
G) j! io II IJ !I! Ii
_ "'''' <>.N
1iica~'6eo;IJE
.c__..... ..N'"
.-e-O .-.
-g"~'g=E
~ 1} E = " "']; ~
o.s.2->>i;.e E co
ta.::Icaeco .
~ee..i::;:8:ls=
0-11:- t; -
oD.ocaa4O>;':
Osi:6"'Ct'lc
c.s.cca_>>"'C~
o~.4Oo..o t'I
~....= co f'fi Ii
::> "'1' 01= ., CD <>.
~ C 0 a&; lIJ 0
",ofl1Ec -
5~~..!!-g"'Ci
o i: b 0I'i; " ~.." E
CUlC Q.
.. ...3I:::.c..... jg; 0.-
cp::l~x.g.
t:8soo..li..
.
...,
o
'"
i
<:!
~
~
u
-8
~
..
.t
-~
s
-a
~
a
o
-"
.
-,
~
~
a
o
-"
3
~
~
~
II>
9
..
o
.
c
c
.,...<:..z.
.. .~ g> >;.!! .
O~..
".:6=-
E:'_..e:
",,'1:08-
J!c.J!
=coc.E
..-'" ..
.co: u:!:: E
.. e:,g ..
~s;:l!s
.Q 0" '" .
~=J9.lD~
Jo .E".E~
e:olil.-nJ!",
CoP..
ocnE_L..o
:"fiiGJL..
cos:co.om
~~caJl.=J;
OOO"CCG0
,,"lI:".<:1l
..t::::IIcCUcnCf)G)
UlO-PGJ 0
~~5c5::
O:J c.!! ~ 5i
-t:~ox.o
GJcm'EQJ.11I.
.cOlDlGca'1:J
i-ua..p~m
"'.,
e:..
..~
1::.2
0..
0..,
0.>
"""
..e:
_8
m.s
.<:-
..-
..
~e:
s"
oJ>
:'g
e:"
Ool
oe:
1:
e:"s
0'<: ;>
'fl""
,,~ II
Jo1:e:
~ &~
0..0
o.:;~
lD8~
.<:e:o
\-"'0
.
-
.. -
tV "iirg'. 0
Q)"CCD.B'>:G"'~
(lJGJ~OO....OCD
o!:~: e.e ->
~(ij _~e: -5 +: ;= i 8
CD:J ...1:0 4D
(nCT cam_en....
""8","(ij~5
~,,-.. "'tis.-1';
:&:JUca~> Os:
O....Oai.-"GJcu
ca =r-::t" c.~
0"0 ....-=:p C
CCl)CD D"OGt >.0
OlD~Gt_..c:.....l.CII
~"':p.c-",-ca
o-ot-cu_"C'C
::JrJc .coe'"
Jo__.,;n...e:8
IIJ m... ~~-.-
c..2..a~"OcEf
821i.,f~.!l~
_...<:..lP~..""
~.c0_~CD"CC
> E '0 0 8.:fi (IJ CD
.. ""5> l'l E e: .!!..!!
G)~.2c4D";)J!:f!
.._olJ.........,;
cr!:-=..a:,;l::J5c
:;:~-5.~1i~ :lg.~
Nil:;;1ii~..-g~..
,.;
.j
...
~
e:
OJ~
.Eo
"'''
"b
~..
Ole:
g>8
Oi::"t:J
::J e:
0..
o
o
m
GlO....c "UGJC"oQ)"O-. '''C8')
~e:~o~e:.o..e:~..o~oe:E
...-0"".... 0" N.!l :e....
rnca.....fi.....a"t:G)~"t:-oIIb<( ~
.s;oOOlGJ~.c<;go..j:izl-
~~~!~..~~~~~~t..o'g
.s-e:"'5o.E~.!l ."1JE"E:
c~5~~"CE=~a~.8~!.E
8~0......!!~=~~g._e:o~~
d.ccn~. ~_~.sc~=.1i
i8~alDO"C..c_.c~~cac""~
.....~~~c.=~c...ca ~lDC..a
fccOo.~~~~oEc~~E"e:
.o~- n ~sc~-~o .
:p~O. .g-,.~i"Cc't:J::JO
.O~ ~-..c oo~_c-oe:'<:1:
CtDOCO -= ~s~ .
mWo~~~~~~~oa~f~oE
E.-CG~ G)....z "COG)::IE..<t
tD~m~tD........._~i="Co81ii"
....O~~_. Cc__ ~ ~>
O.~~c.OotD "Cev -~
~~8~gE~~:~~~FN~~~
E.J! C 4D.o 0_0_ ':,:::lI.. C ~CG
::ICGco't:J::JO-4DE-_e~5CGG)=
~w€"~z.~"a~O~.~E~~
-",~..Se:muo~e:J!>e:o '"
5i:a~'E~i~4)CG~iU:g..Jt!
~~~E~O~~j~~:~.~~~
.CGS.~G)E~~~~"" ~tDc.
~:etD~CGj~E~:e.oG)~'~~o.
""'I" ~ .s:. ~t- _ ~ co..... .. _ t- C co
...
.
on
..
o
o
<:!
on
~
.g
a
~
:!'
-c
a
-a
~
"
o
-"
Ii.
."
:sl
on
:l
."
l!
I
~
III
51
~
o
."
.
."
....
....
....
l:!
'"
....
Q
<( <( <( <( ~
c c c c
02 CD~ a:i tD2 ..-
.E 0 .so .~ 0 .S 0 CO
"" "" -gs -g.6 ..~>.
..~ l!J> -iLlD"
~ Ul O>~ ~.. ~.. o -s:.il
O>c O>c O>c ~ 0>.. (/)
0>0 g>8 g>8 g>8 ~.Ea:::.
CO
'C-o: 1::" "l::" 'c" ":;;g" .!!
"c ." c "c "c lD::JcO
0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. n:m..z
0
Q Q Q ~
m m m 0
0
0
Q
0 0 0 0 0
m m m m m
,,= >.,s =dJCD .m1)-oa .." 0 Cu" '"
c ";::';1: ".!!,s rlJ!Ii-E ,sJ!- o l! Ii ... 0
.. 0. ., '" 0
0 .... o::!
._ 0. 8c'0 oca.:::J c;lE~~ >.0> ~
c::lO_ -!fj" ~
o O'"~c .." .. CC
_ a.....GJ o l5 '" ciO" ..'6
,.," J! -l!lu mCl)::J:t:: 'fi - c" u
!l! 1i,s.!!! 0.- .. C.,
.. e C -c4ioOJ .6'fi Q"C -8 .g
rl..c";!:" OJ coO' lDo..3.:l l
.. C =e. ~S".i!. ".6.!! .. ~ (/) "x
..- ~ C 0'" =~..
1il..~8 ij",9 -fl".!!o 8~cSQia ...-
4J .9:g IQ ,so. '" 0 ~ ".. e
~08 '"IlCo. 8..c ,s" .e il ..
J> "" ~
:t::~E1D -fl.... cll J!,s ~=~EC~ E~..!
cnJ::iL..&: .C
- ~ 8 '"- (l)CG aio- S
_co::J caill) _"ii .. u~.s 'fiE J!'<>" .a
00 e ~E~ Cdl'r~ fO=.!! ~
t!.o" .i!.'- 0.6" ~~ g.
"e '0 ~-o 80.'- o,s l5" --0 Q.
-.. 'fi:a~ eliii~~0c6 0>"0 "
" C 0
a. lU. q:: CD cri <T., C O>I!: ."
'0 ..,r.E"'C u.... t;~~c D.-5f_S-;iQ' c.Eca ~
~
=....cJ9.... .m,c e =.... o"GJ"O o32.1:r ."
caa.lDc.g 8 C C 0.0 "-fl" s"= ""- ~
aCPECiC 000 -ctJ :30 .- ::J >-
....~4:: "O.88'fi 0>"~5E~..c ".<>.<> ~
c,s.9-eJ!! 0..6 >. c8" "
.- ::J (I) ",.sc!.6 Cob 0- OJ 0
:; .t O""'C (IJ ....~ ~~l~~ .~ C .c>'E"C ~Idl .ll
a._CDc,- 08....c~8 v
~ccalD ~l5," 1i.QftI ~
C co ~ o -c Gi ~.1i8 c,s,sO"c ,llli ~.J
O:Q a-fi ~4D:: c:.a co: ,g ~ .. ., "D-W ~
o C '" U .. ...... 0(1) C - E ~cz
<( 0> " ,., oil! mc..u u e o...t!. O.6,:.,.g~E <("'00 ~
N.E~ tU:s NO....1l, No..jdtE NctJ>.!~ G) ...e",<(
."0 c 4i c . ~ :a'o .- .. a.. ad c., CD.m.>" . e '" '"
1DCUoa.tG ~J!q)"" IQ::JCII- 100Um
-.:t (>>0 0 E '<f <T_ 0= '<f8O"~"0 ~o.2:"O y
.. - 0. tJwacca cu.o ca a ~
o
C2
~
C2
~
'"
Q Q
~ ~ u
.. .. ..
e:_ e:_ e:
.. 0 "0 ..
0.3::>. 0:;=>- 0:
_.,"0 -Gl"O -
0.5.a 0".;;1 0
;=.,.. ;=.,.. ;=
.,0:: 0 .,0:: 0 .,
-5"0 ll: 05"0 ll: "
Gle:.. ., e:" .,
O::..b O::"b 0::
C
0 0 0
c
-Gl
~,j;
~(;i
0.
g~
o.~
-..
00
"ll:
.s..
~.b C
If=<G~
'E-o
., ]I .,
Ofn~
-e:Gl
0-_
4D=.!:
0"_
e:.c: .,
.....,
::J-b
::6(1)
.- c"C
Boe:
~ 0. 0
000
"C'- (I)
a.. .eW
0:;'
oll!.Gl
<(0"
~b
~ 0.(IJ
cci 4h
...,1;.-'
w
u
","
o,j;
e:_
[..
g~
O..r:!!
-..
00
"ll:
.1!!cu
~.b C
"'~~
'E]I.,
8....
'O.E.!
.,= e:
0"-
e:.c:-
as.:
::J-b
=~(I)
.- c"C
BOe:
~ 0. 8
00
'1:: L.. GJ
Q. c.(/)
U:;,
-lI!."
IDO..
~b
~ 0.(1)
rD ...
...,1;;>
w
u
.,
~
..
.c:
..
~
j!..
..
.,
..:;
..
....
""..
..E
Ee:
o
""
=..
"01
.c:""
..--
E
UOl
-lI!.e:
0;:
~o
0.-
J2
~~
o
,.,
<(1:
"!};
rDe:
...8
I
Gi
1:
(/)
"0
e:
8
..
(IJ
-
..
::J
e: _
r~
..-.;
00
e:ll:
....
~b
-..
Q-
>-0
~5
""
e:"
0-
..]I
J!..
(lJE
o
Ii:
..
b
..
-
o
e:
o
""
..
j!i
..
e:
-
..
..
b
(IJ
"0
e:
o
o
.Gl
~
..
Gl
b-
(lJ7il
. e:
......2'
. ..
.
"0
e:
::J
o
B
..
~
..
e:
o
-
o
e:
o
""
'6
::z
I
-
.,
..
b
(IJ
1!
~~
...!!
l:.<:
(/)g'
. 0
~J;
.
o
Ii:
..
b
..
-
o
e:
o
""
..
j!i
..
e:
.
'"
.
V)
Gi
..
b
(IJ
"0
e:
8
Gl
(IJ
:;,
..
..
b--,
(I)-~
. 01
...,--
. ..
I"" Gl
..e:
....,,0
Gl.s"O
l:l'l:i
(/)- -
"0"
"OGle:
c'O..!!
8~E
"0.;;1
!!1....""
0. ..
E-6:2
....01
O::O::J
t: a. e
o l},I;
-c"C~
e:e:~
::J::J",
00.<:
1!~:ai
~::JcC
g~o..!
Cl)4DGfc:
.~ fa.a
V)"g_....
~G)E.c
~4D~D
-0::...-.::
"
g
<:!
~
~
u
.g
!
.t
-~
a
-c
~
d
o
-"
G
~
."
~
.
.
~
d
o
.'"
u
.
~
Pl
!!o
~
lil
51
~
o
~
o
(;j 01
c: c:
u: ~
15 'S
c m '0
~ 0 J!
.. 01 ..
"E c ~ :n
8 '6 "" "
cP ca .;& 0
0:: i!i 0 i!:
" " ",.,g
o "0 00>
s::. s=. ..cc
~ ~-~[~
~lt~l~ilen
......:!:~Q.MOV
o
c:
o
""
o
G>
a.
"'
c:
.s
.;;;
.
c:
o
,
<(
c:
o
""
o
~ .E
G> "'
Z l5
1i - 0
.. c: 0
wG>1-
~[o
;:~;t
I iD I
<(OlD
.
"C
o
':P
Ill"
">
II
..
..a
~
.9
o
G>
~
a
c
G>
E
a.
o
Gi
>
G>
o
~
.c
::J
E
E
o
OG>~
I ~ 0
o.Qt,
o"'a.
o~ 0
c
...
".
:;:
U
II
.c
o
J3
>-
II
:il:
~
o
~
a.
~
-
~
G>
a.
t;'
c:
G>
Jf
G;
~
o
lD
G>
..
c:
01
0;
..
"
~
o
~
..
c:
c:
.!!
a.
il
..
.c:
o
c:
..
a:
o
c:
o
""
o
::J
.b
"'
c:
o
o
:;
o
.c:
01
::J
o
f;
I
o
..
..
c:
01
0;
..
"
~
o
~
..
G>
c:
0.
c:
w
~
<3
, ,
w
o
t-
.
on
"'
"
c:
o
lD
~
o
-
0;
o a.
::>
G> 0
o .. c:
c: ... 0
]j g s
., .. 0-
0::0::
I
.,,<D....
"'
..
'6
.a
U)
-
J!I
~
o
a.
G>
es.
~
E
-"
::J
en
.s
..
~
..
g...
enli
. -
oe:
c:
o
""
..
a.
E
o
o
c:
o
I
o
01
c:
""
..
~
..
a.
o
I
W
"
o
~
~
~
-8
~
"
e
..
.if
s
.S
~
"
a
"11
"
""
:il
..
..
C
01
0;
..
"
~
o
(;j
U
Ie
o
01
C
!!
:;
lD
..
..
C
01
.. ..
.. ..
" l5.
01ii
.!:~
J!l ~
0.0
.. -
o.!!
8 <1
=a ~
a..ii:
~
"
a
."
o
i
~
'"
y
~
o
lD
00
a.lL
,
o .1::
. . . ~.
oorg~[gUW~lID
MAY 07 200ft
--
\
CITY OF SAN IlSlHAADINO
llE\IB.ONENT ..aI\o1..&
IIS'NmlIENT
-~
Gos~
-",..---
_CA~
. WIIIoo_
PO"_
_CA ..uI_
A ~Sempra Energy" utility
April 29. 2004
City of Sa Ber1IardiDo
J)e'I.-.,._t Senlr:esDepartDleDt
300 N. "D" SfJ'eeC
Sa BerunIbut. CA !n418
AttaatfoII: VaJerie C. R8ss
R8: Up1D1nI alld Cemral Qty ~ortl& RedeveJopmat Pro~ Area PIaDs - my or Sa
Berur'lIfDo. -
o
1'baIlIt yoll fOI' tbe opportuni1Y to IapoDd to dill abcJvo.RfeniDccd project. Please note that
SouIbem Calijhmi2 Gas C"""V'~ bas fadlitics in 1be ~ whall tbe 8bove named pro,joct is
prllllOSCd Gas sc:.nice to Ibr:projoct COI1ld be proviiJed wjtboIIt my cigIlifit=lt impact ootbe
CD'lrAuIlIDdIt. 'Ibe &enice woa1d be in eecordmcewith 1be Com:plalYB polini"$ 8Dd Cllda1Sica
J1l1cs ClIl file wilb tbe Califomia Public Utilities C--m<<b1 at~ u- caIJIrID\WlI ~
are made.
Ai
You sbouId be a_ that this leU<< is not to be ~ as a coatractua1 ~ to serve
tbe I"oposod projecl, but anJy as an iDformali<mal ~ 1ba availability or aaturaI gas
SIll'Vice. as . fcl1h in this leU<<. is based upon ~:. lot ixJodiriOO$ of gas supeJy 8Dd n:guJatccy
policies. A$ a pllblic utilitY, 'Ibe SoatherD o.liMmi2 Gas <:,~Y is uncIer 1be jurisclictiClll of
tbe CaHrQr'ri2 Public UtiIitics ~.dllll We can ako. be .dfCC:;tIOd by acUOO$ of fedcnl
. mgulatclly -.-es- Should IIIesc 19G1Clies tIblmy aCtiaa, Wbich aft'cct5 gas &Upply, ar tbe
c:oaditiOllB UDder which service is avaiIablc, gas savicc wiD be ~ in acc:crdarxx: with
Jl:Viscd 1lClIIdili-"
Typical4.........d lISll for:
L Re&idential (Syslan Art;a.AVlDgcMc Ptc Uctcr) Xgix
SUJ:lc Family . . 799. ~dwc1IiD& IlDit
Multi-FlmiIy 4 oc less IlllilS 4&2 ~-o-..a. dn1ling uait
Multi-Fami!y S ormore1lllils 483 ~ dwdJiDgtmit
A2
These avenges are based CIIl total gas COIIP11I1pliClI1 in. r;akoli>>l lIIIits served by SonIbI'rn
OaHMmia Gas COIIlI""lY, 8Dd it sbou1d DOl be ir1pIiM 1hat any parti<:u1ar hon1c, "P"'huCIrt OC'
tract ofhon.Jes will use 1besc aIDOUI1fS of energy.
c
...
c
April 29. 2004
Pa&e 2
b. Coa.aI=ia)
Due to the fact thtt COIIS1r1Idim varies 10 widely (a JIass ~ 'VB. a hcaviIy J
i111Ub1M bm1dlng) lIIId tIlac is SIIdl a wiele -mim ill ~ ofm*riIJIlIIII. a A2,
typK:aI "'-md fi&un: is DOt awiIIbIe far IIIis type of CClIIStrucliaa. CalGulliiClllS
would need to be IIJI4c atla-lbe buiJdiDg bas bec:D ~p-I
We lIa;eIlcmaDcJ Sidll V~~ pI'08I'lIIIIS llVIilabl.e to c..-....~ Cl><ll(). ..., to }A3 '
ptOYide ....;- ill 1IO~ the uiast cffec:live' lIR'li~ of cmeqy of oar lIIa&Y
__..di0ll programs. please ~ ourc...~,,~ SUpponCcatllrat l-8OO-GAS-
2000.
c
S'mcerely,
-?~/- a ~ t::.
'~Rawtim;
TedmicaI Sc:mccs Supervisee
c
c
SOUlllERN CAUFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Makl 0Illce
818 West _nth Street
12th Roar
Los AnpIes, CaUfomla
_7-3435
I (2lJl2]6-l8oo
fl2tJl_5
-~
-- ~-: .lwfiInJ.
01--'- - ...
...... .. SaMI ... frIIiMM:
. ~"'''''''.=:r i:::
....... .
-----""".
~--
.. __ CNIIlt.... ........ ....
..Alldesc...,.IIt'".........,..-..s
CIuMy....".......SMIiIWeI.,..."
-.--....-...-.
........ GIlt. ....... .. 11M' ......
-.---.....
--.""-...-.
..... "-C. ... __ .. ffant .......
-.--...-.--
................ c......-....
-...-.--...
.....-.. ... ...... -.. ..... .. MIl
-........---.
CItlltt........ .................
...... .. "ere-. SIllIIIIIlIMa....
-..-.--..-
')III.................................
..-..-.....-...-.
............ ....--.,...........
--.=--.-
--- .--
......GIIIIiI..........'*'-.Ja:l
......,..............4iIlwIfIIe.
.........~
------.
..... ............. ... .... .... ..
M.........~.lIlIiIIICtIo- . ," .
.......-'-'-.......... lid.. ~
........ ~............ We
..... .......ca....... ............
.. .............
___l __
c...,..___................
...... ..... VIler .. ... IMdlIp:.
..... .. "" .... c.ctIc*al Ow .. ..
--
si. ...... GlIIlIF ,.., IiIIt. S.
...... c..." .. . .......... ....
-.---.."",
-....'-..........__'-11.
........s.......SII.......
_...CIMIdt..............
(),,~...t::..~'=-'"'t;
..........II'Olt-..-
c....,~ -....
----
..... ...., - . 1 c...w.::
---
---c..Ir- - c--...1iI
...SW.... .
e................ ~
...
:.'0':' ~=-: 7'
0.._ "~'. r'~:
r:--: .
. ..,.. \" r.lll(\. '33
~:.p,- -.,! '"I ....~
May 12, 2004
CO
s'....!. ~~.. .
':~r.:'2'~O
Mr. Mike Trout, Project Manager
EconomIc Development ~
300 Nof1h "0" Street
San Bemardino, CA 92418
RE: SCAG ClearInghouse No. I 20040220 Uptown and Central CIty
~.~ProjectAiea Plans
Dear Mr. Trout:
Thank you. for submitting the uptown and Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area Plans review and comment. As areawide
clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG. reviews the
consistency of local plans, projects and programs. with reglOnaI plans. This
activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regIonaJ planning
orglinization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance
provided by these . reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project
sponsors to take actions that coritribute to the attainment of regional goals
andpolic/es~ .
We have reviewed the Uptown and Central CIty North Redev4!lopment
ProJect Area Plans, and have deleanIned that the proposed. Project is not
regionally slgnificant per SCAG Intergovernmental ReIIIew .(IGR). Criteria . and
CaIifomla Environmental Quality Ad (CEOA) GuIdelines (Secllon 15206). 81
Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time.
Should there be a change In the scope of the proposed Project, we would
appreciate the oppoc1uOity to review and.comment at that time.
A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's April 1-15,
2004 IIJlergovemmenta Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and
~~
The project tilIe and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG oonceming this Project. Correspondenoe shouid
be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any
ql!8S1ions, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you.
Sincerely,
oz?~~.4<--
JEFFREY M. SMITH. A1CP .
Senior RegionaJ Planner
IntergoiIermlent Review
o
o
~~
---
~
...
TIIIJ'..........;.
9xr--,
ClllEPA
Department Of, Toxic Substances Control
, &lwPF Lowry, Dlnldor
, 1001'" SlrHt, 2s*FIocr
P.O:Bax806
Sa<;rar\!e!1to. Cll!L'llia 95812-0806
.
AmI*I~~
QOl:lll~
TO:
oo~~~~:~@
RaniaZabaneh.. ' QJYOFSAN-'--
. ~-.....
Site t.IUgatIcn Program. ~4 ~ .bu '. DEPAlfIUarrf1ElMta
GuentherW. Mos/cat, 0lIef II- . -
Planning & ErNIronriI8I'n: Analysis Sedion
MEOMORANDI,IM
FROM:
DAlE:
SUBJECT:
AprD 13. 2004
CECA ENVIRONMENTAl DOCUMENT RfMEW FOR: UPTOWN/CENTRAL
CITY NORTH Rl'!DEV!LOPMeNTPROJECJ". SCHI2003031072
o
The OI'Iic:eofErMl<Aph".11aJ AnaIysls. ReguIat!ons 8. Aucfds (OEARA) I8CllhIedthe atIad1ed
cIcxBnent from an outside agerlCy' tOr~, riNIew as a pOtenfia/ Re:IpcItsIbIe or InleIestBd
AgencyllUSU8lfltfhe Ca8fomIa'Etivll'arirner.tal'Quality kt (CEQA). A preIInjnary review of this
document by our office shows that lhe proJect may tal wifhin the regllaklly aulhorif;y of OTSC
beca'J$e It JnvoIves one of the foIIl!lWing'Jand uses that could potenlIa/Iy 8)CpOSe indMduaIs to
hazards orhazaldou& rnatbfab: '
B
181
~ EXIS'I1NG C!R PROPOSED SCHOOL SfTE .
seNSfTI\IE LAND USES,(e.g.. daycare fadII\y. nlning Ilclme, hospllaI)
~ LAND ~ (e.g., CQIl1IIl8IdaI or IndustI1aI facIilles)
This document Is being forwarded to ~ office b"fUrther 11 i e s !'1lent Please provide the
Lead ~ lhaUs lde.dllied on lho. .dtoo.J...d NoIIce of Completion FormWilh any ..vhlf.."..
you may have onthls cIoamerit befclnJthe dose of the o.tllllo.1aIlt perfocf (5I24IZCI04). Afteryw-
revIeW. pia HI (Xlr.,.... the InfGnhdfL"'requesfedjn the bOx below and return this fi:ml'to CltI'
oftlce at the following address:
CEQA Tr.ac:IOOg Center
Office of EnWonmenIaJ AnllIysis, Regu/allons & Audll:s
10011 Shet. 22nd Flood p.o. Box. 806
Sacrarnelllo, CA~12
, '
~WERE. SENTTOl1:IELEAD AGENCY and a copy1awarded 10 OEARA via:
~N1 alIachment fa this cfcJlunilnt
o Fax@(916.l323-3215
COMUENTSWEREtfQI SEHTTO 1lfELEAD AGENCY I-"ll'"'<<
o 1be prlljed did not filii wilhin the jwlsd/clIan of DTSt:
C The doc:umenl""""""'Y iT ! is! d Impacls flllm the proposed pllject as It.... 10
DTSC"8_of~
o
'. PiInIlld... AecJded "-'
5/5 smtol
8985108E686'Ol
SPIB/SUloI OUPBS 10 ~~13'MO~d E5'EI .e-.Z-AVM
c
c
o
e
'I."
-:?&>.
-
-::-
.
II!mDI
Depcutment of 10xicSubstances Control
~ f. \..llwly, DIredcr
~CoipOI.A_
~ ClI/ifomIa 90630
TenyTlo..........
AaoncatSIJ .,
CaIIIEPA
AnxM~,",
~
May 21,2004
oo~~~~:~@
Ms. Valerie Ross
Deputy DlJ9dorICily Planner
Rede'J8lopment SEIfYiges Department
CIty of San Bernardino
300 Norlh "D" Street
San Bemardlno,Caflfomla 9241'8-0001
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE UPTOWNICENTRAL CrrYNoRTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
AMENDMENTS (SCH # 2003031072)
CIiY OF $AN llS\.'IARllL'oIO
~"3.\,T saMCllS
DS>AltTWiH'l'
Dear Ms. Ross:
The Deparlrnent of Toxic Sub:'rtances: ConfroI (DTSC) has received your Notice of
Completion (NOC) of a draft Emiironmei1tallmpact Report (EIR) for the above-
. mentioned Project.
Based on the revfewof the dOCUment, DTSC's comments areas follows:
DTSC's comments dated April 8. 2003, regarding the NotIce of PreparatIon }C1
(NOP) for 8 draft EIR have not been properfy addressed In the cummtIy
submitted draft E1R.
The lnilial.S1udy wIlb the NOP states that some ~'V $ites 1nJ:be.project
areas may contain ~\ IStes. It also sIates.that if a parcells suspected
of oontain/ng unCf8tground Storage tanks and/or ofhermaterials Icnown to
oontaIn hazan:Ious materials. a Phase I Site Assessment would be prepared by C2
a Registered EnvironmeritaIAS~ essar and requfrement& for concluding
Environmental Site Assessments on propeJ1ies to be redeveloped will be
discussed In the EIR. ~. the draft E1R shoWs no adcfllional cflSCUssions.
3. The draft EIR needs fo.identIfy any known or potentfaIfycontamfnated sites
within the proposed Project area. For all Identified sites. the draft EIR should
evaluate whether condiIions at the site pose a threaUo human health or the'
environment A Phase 1.455- S 5rnent may be sufficient to Identify these sites.
FollowIng are the databases of some of the regu/atDry agencies:
1.
2.
C3
In:
a~Vd
ft _..._ p~ . .
lIISlIIS IoSESlIIS"(Jl. ;. . Bp IS/Buld DUPas .ID ,("l':)' 110." .:c.,.,.
.._.x_ &'-'U
o
o
c
...
Ms. Valerie Ross
May 21,2004
Page2of3
· National Priarili~ List .(NPL): A list is maintained by the United States
EnvIronmental ProtedIon Agency (U.S.EPA).
· CalSites; A Database primarily used by the Carlfornla Department of Toxic
Substances Conbof.
· Resource ConservatIon and Recov&IY Information System (RCRlS): A
database ofRCRA facIIllIes thatis mainlalnedby U.S. EPA
. Complehensive -Environmental Response Compen$c1tion and Uablllty
Infonnatlon System (CERCUS): A Wlfabase of CERCLA sites that Is
maintained byU.S.EPA C3
· SolId Waste Information System (SWlS): A da1abaSEt provided by the _
California J~ Waste Management Board which consists ofbolh
open as well as closed and Inactive $Orld waste dlsposal facilitieS- and
transfer stations.
· Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSl) I SpD/s, Leaks,
Investigations and Cleanups (SUC): A list that is maintained by Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQC8).
. tocaJ County andCily malntain lists for hazardous subslances cleanup
sites and leaking und8lground storage tanks.
PrioTto approving the draft E1R, please addI8Ss aD 0( DTSC's comments. As the lead }
agency,lt Is ~ responsibilityfo ensure that all 0( DTSC's ~ ~pmperty C4
addressed.
DTSC provides guJdanc;e for preparation of a PrelimInary Endangerment has s sment
(PEA), and cleanup ~ht fI1rotISh, the Voluntary Cleanup Program (Vcp).For
additional infonnatlon on the VCP. please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.aov.
S/f: all"'''
eaeSIoaC&eS'OI
SPIS/SUI.. oupss ~o ~~Ja'NOB4 ~S'CI ..-.Z-AWM
...
o
Ms. Valerie Ross
May 21, 2004
PSge3of3
.If)'OO have allY questions regan:Iing this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham.
Project Manager, at (714) 484-0476. I
Greg Holmes
Unit ChIef
Southern CaJJfomia Cleanup ~ns 8Ianch
Cypress Office.. . ..
cc:
Govemo(s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Saawnento. CaIifomla 95812-3044
Mr. GuentherW. Moskat. Chief
Planning and Env/mnmental Analysis SecUon
CEQA TracIdng Center
DeparIment of Toxic SubstanceS ControJ
P.O. Box.806
Sacramento, earlfomia958.12~6
o
c
S/I> !elVd
888!1I>8ESlIlil' ~ 1.
&PIs/SUrd aupss sa ~~'~'MOa4 ~!I'El 1>8-1>~-AVN
o
o
c
~UN-.?-.4 14_13 PRO".Cl~y or SBdno Pln9/B1dg
ID.S89394seee
PACE 1/1
~
~.:Gvet~""'"'"1eF""ts
~T'Tl r;
-'" .._.......,__ IL ~_.
San Bernardino Associated Govern.eats ~
D2 H. ""'-"-I. A_ San ....""diao, CA 92401-1421 rrff .. ..
I'hono: 1909I ......276 "- 1909I ~7 W""'www.....h~~...
. -' ~ - ",H
l~:- M:: _ ,[ l
. sana.t .......eow.y.... 1_L..c......~.. Sonlern ",.~co.nvnallpQ.. ,Iahadly
. ScII...._41_CQolIyCCO............. .~, ._11q<<ot . ___"".-..-e..__......
May 26, 2004
OO[g@mo\VJ[g@
MAY 27200\
Ms. Valerie Ross
Deputy DireciorfCity plaftner
City of Sea Bemordino
300 North "D" Sbe<<
Son BenwdiDo, CA 92418
Re: . Uplown and Central City Ncrlh ~eIopment Projecl Area Draft EIR - Traffic Impact Aoa1ysis
SANBAG File No. 0400006
aTY.Of"'" --..a
--
-
Dear Ms. Ross:
ThanIc you for the oppottwrity to review and CO'II..lebt 011 the above IeD:renced tratJie impact n:pon dated
April 6, ZOO4 and _moos dated May 2S, 2004. Our..-lysls iM~ that with the replacement of
~ Tablos R,I, L, N,R; andT, the scudymeols thereq.Jinoma\ls.ofthe 2003 CMP.
In lItCOI'Ilance with your city's molaliOll adopling the Lind U~ ADaIysis Program. the
lr3ffic SIlldy is to be made available to the Plahing Commissi(ln .wIat tIto ~ Council and CaItrans for
iaformarioo rcgatdiog project impads TO the eMP syslml of arterial-.
Should you have IllY questions or COllIllleIlts, please contact Il1e or Andrea ZureicIc at (909) 884-3276.
Sinc=ly,
.~~
~~
PriDcipoJ Tt8Il$pOf1aIioo Ana/yst
. CIIeo<f.~ .1Ig_'-a.D>.CMlo-.OOlIon,~~_"-IQ.ItlI;IhIcInd.IoClllClLi1da.....I"li.
-. _CUOO'llOooQO._...._.............. "'..~...... UpIancf.-'1Ilcdpo
lOMvcl:_~ \tJoco~ Counly<<...._
...
}01
}02
0 2
3
4
5-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
01S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
028
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN. BERNARDINO
I am employed in the County of San Bernardino, State of
California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the
within action. My business address is 201 North "E" Street,
Suite 301, San Bernardino, California 92401.
On July 15, 2002, I served the following document described
as PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSED UPTOWN 2002 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to the
owners of property and to site addresses that appear on the
attached Exhibit "B" mailing list by placing [X] a true copy [
the original thereof sealed and delivered to the addresses as
follows:
See Exhibit "AN and Exhibit "BN
[X] (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
[] I deposited such envelope in the mail at San
Bernardino, California. The envelope was mailed with postage
thereon fully prepaid.
[X] I am readily familiar with the Agency's practice for
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice, this document will be deposited with the U.S.
Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid
at San Bernardino, California in the ordinary course of
business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
for mailing in affidavit.
[X] (~TATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the Sate of California that the above is true and
correct.
Executed on October 21, 2002, at San Bernardino,
California.
---JU4.
-1-
Public Meeting on Proposed
Uptown 2002 Redevelopment Plan Amendment
The CIIy of Sa! Bernardino ('City') nlthe Economic Development Agency
('Agency') Is coosIderlng an amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
To beIler Inform the residents, businesses nllnlelesled parties, the CIIy nl
Ioqerw:f have pIamed to hold a public lnfonnaIional meeting on July 25, 2002
at 6:15 pm In the CIty Council Chamben. Before the Uptown
RsdeveIopment Plan can be amended, a joint pubic hearing of the Mayor nl
Conunon CounclI nl Redevelopment Agency must be held. The schedule for
the meetings Is as follows:
Public Meellng: 7bUlSday, July 25, 2002
6:15 pm or /hereafter
C CouncJ/ Chambers
Monday, o.c.mJw 2, 2002
7:00 pm or /hereafter
C CouncJ/ Chambers
San &mllllllno Cify HaU
300 North "0" S""'
San Bemlllllln CA
Please consider atlen41ng these meellngs to Ieam more about the
proposed Plan Amendment or call (909) 663-1044 for Infonnation.
In 1986, the Redevelopment Agency of the CIIy of San Bernardino ('Agency')
adopted the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to start a 4O-year effort to improve
the Uptown Project Area. At the time of adoption of the Redevelopment
Project. the Uptown Project Area was experiencIog debimenlal physical,
social, nl economic conditions !hat were negatively impacting the ama. Due
to the Wtural and historical value of the arna,the Agency Inltialed a
comprehensive program to stimulate new deveiopment nl provide
I9habi1Itatlon activities In the Uptown Project Area.
Since 1986, the Agency has axnpIeted various projects In Its efforts to
improve the ama. These projecls Include:
" Provided assisfance to Games for Fun to expand their
operaIionsllaa1i1ies;
. Assisted HalrMaster School of Beauty with the construction of
publ"1C inprovements, parking lot expansion;
. Provided assistance for the renovation of the Smart & Rnal
Shopping Center, and
. Provided low interest s1ngle-famlly home rehabililallon loans.
Despite the Agerc{s best effort. adverse conditions continue to remain and
a additional projecls thai need to be completed In order to revilaIIze the
. To continue the redevelopment process, the Agency has to re-establish
. en! domain aulhorlly on certain portions of the Project Area. Please
see details on Page 2.
Se programa una Reunl6n abierta al pUblico,
tratandose de Ia propuesta Refonna al Plan de
reurbanizac/6n de Uptown de 2002
La cludad de San Bernardino {'Consejoj y la Agenda de fornento econllmico
('Agendaj estm1 conslderando una enmlenda aI Plan de IllUrbanlzaclcln de Uptown.
Para Informar a Ios resIdentes, negoclantes, Y a !as partes afectadas, eI Consejo Y fa
Agenda han programado una IllUnI6n InformaIlva. abieIta aI pQbIIoo, eI dla 25 de jullo
de 2002, a las 6:15 de la tarde en fa SaIa del Consejo. Antes de poder reforrnar eI
Plan de rewllanizacl6n de Uptown, debe ceIebraIse una audIencIa pQblIca entre eI
Consejo de fa eludad Y fa Agenda de IllUltanIzacI6n. EI horarfo de eslas asambIeas
sera io sIguIente:
Reunl6n PUblica Juevu. 25. julio . 2002
6:15 pm 0 pos/8I1otm<<Jle
en II Sala.,
Audlencla PUblica entre fa Lunes, 2. dlcIembre d. 2002
AgencIa de reurbanlzackln y el 7:00pm 0 pos/8I1otm<<Jle
Consejo en II Sa/a del Con$8jo
Lugar Ayuntamiento d.1a eludad d. San
Bemlllll1no
300 NOIfh "0" Streef
. San Bemllllllno CA
Por favor plense en as1stlr a es!as asambleas pars Infonnarae mas acerca de la
propuesta Enmlenda al Plan, 0 Dame al (909) 663-1044.
En 1986, la Agenda de reurbanlzacl6n de la Ciudad de San Bernardino ('Agenclaj
adopt6 eI Plan de reUlbanizacl6n de Uptown para darle Inicio a un esfuerzo de
cuarenla alios de mejoras a Ia Area de proyecto Uptown. En eI momento en eI CIJ!II
se adopt6 eI Proyecto de reurbanizacl6n, fa Area de proyecto Uptown experimentaba
condlclones peIjudicIaIes-llsicas, soclaIes, y econ(xnlca&.-.las cuales afectaban a la
area. Debldo.aJ valor cultural e hlst6rico de la area, fa Agenda InIcl6 un programa
extenso para estimuIar nueva urbanlzaclcln. y para propon:ionar adlvldades de
rehabililacl6n en fa Area de proyecto Uptown.
Desde 1986, fa Agenda ha cumplido valios proyeclos para mejorar la ama. Estos
proyectos lncIuyen:
. Le pIOpOftion6 asIstencia a 'Games for Fun' para amp/lar IUS
operacionesIInslalaclones;
. Le asIst16 aI CoIegIo cosrOOtico, HalrMaster, con fa conslnJcdcln de
mejoras a fa eludad y con eI ensanche del estacIonamiento
. Proporcion6 aslslenda para la renovacl6n del Centro ComercIaJ Smart &
F1nal;y
. Exped't6 prestamos de bajo interes para la rehabllilacl6n de hogares de
una sola fanulia
A pesa- de Ios esfuerzos leaIes de fa Agenda, alln existen condIdones adversas Y
quedan par e1aborarse proyeclos adicionaIes para revlIaIiza- fa area. Para continuar
con eI proceso de IllUrbanlzacl6n, fa Agenda debe restablecer su autorldad de
dominlo emfnente para dertas partes de fa Area de proyecto. Observa los delaIles en
I. p{lglna 2.
J'd~'( _1 \'[U[t'1 :)/1,'.'( )(;0_' Nt .I!'I'J'f:),-,;?u'l r f~/(I'1
. .
o :lmtiation ofthe2(}(}2
Amt:1ldmt:1lt to the
Redevelopmt:1lt PJao.
In Jaooary 2lOO. the Aqeoof decided to consider amending the
Rede\eIopmeI~ Plan In onler to re-es1abIIsh the use of eminent domain .
to the yea' 2015. The Uptown Redevelopment Plan estabIlshes varkius
tlme ald ftnanclal IImllalions Involving the use of redevelopment tools .
wlthin the 433 lICAl Project Area. 0iIe of these time Ilmils, involving the
use rI eminent domain to acquire real property in the Project Area.
expired JtIle 18, 1998. WhIle the Agencf would be aIlIe to COI11lIete
projects ald ooIect tax increment revenue Ihrough June 18, 2036, Ihe
Agencf oouId not CllfIlI11ElIICe lilY eminent domain proceedings in the
Project Area without IlHlS\abllshlng eminent domain.
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area consls1s rllwo (2) sublreas:
Subarea A Incfudes appt'Oldrnately 343 acres ald Subarea B includes
apprmdmaIe/y 85 acres. \'\lthIn Subarea A. the eminent domain pa.ver of
the Agencf wtII be Imited to IlOIHIlSIdential propel1ies. In Subarea B,
there Is no IlIId zooed or genernI plan as residential. However, there
appears to be a few residential dwelling units on propel1ies In Subarea B
which are deslgnaled for comrnerdaI or industrial development.
Therefore, wlthin a portion of Subarea B, the eminent dornain pa.ver of
the Agetq wII Include residentially occupied commerclal or industrial
zoned properties.
o=? public Involvement in the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
process, the City Council Is providing for Ihe creation of a
Area CommIIIee ("pAC"). The PAC will function as an advisory
body lhat reviews the Draft to the Amendment rllhe Redevelopnent Plan
ald, In partiQAar, wil ronsuK on housing ald resldential matters and
provide a fooJm for information dissemination. PAC procedures ald
appflClltions for persons interested In serving on the PAC wiD be provided
at the July 25, 2002 publ'rc meeting.
. " adopted, the amendment would extend the AIJeooIs Umired
authority to use eminent domain, U necessary, to acquire
property unlii 2015.
. Upon exen:lse of eminent domain, the agency is required to
justly compensaIe lMIl8IS rI acquired property ald toaow
eslabIIshed relocation guidelines.
. Please note the Agenq has no plans to use eminent dornain
at this lime.
The ability to acquire property is one of the fundamental tools In the
Redewelopment PllIl. In Uptown, acquisition enaIlIes the Agenq baKer
oppofIunIIies to consolidate parcels and Initiate redevelopment activities
in the Project Area.
Even though the Agencf has never used eminent domain In the Project
Area. fIII1her acquisition, perhaps by eminent domain, wi! be needed to
aIevIak! persistent physical and lald use b1'~ting condUlons. Eminent
domain authority Is essential for the Agency to achieve redevelopment
goals set forIh in the RedeveIopnent Plan.
c
"<.-" ~." {" "
Iniciacion a 1a Rnmit:1lda al PJao.
de reurbao.izacion de 2(}(}2
En enero d8 2lOO, fa Agencia decidi6 considerar reformar eI Plan de
reurbanIzacI6n para restabIecer fa Iacuitad de dominlo eminente haSta
2015. B Plan de reurbanlzacl6n de Uptown estabIece varias ImItaciones
la1to de p1azo y de Iinanzas-aln respecto aI usa de !as Iacuitades de la
reurbanlzaci6n dentro de la Area de proyecto (433 acres). Uno de estos
pIazos 1Im1les, tocante fa apIIcacl6n de domInlo eminente para adquIrir
blenes inmuebles dentro de fa Area de proyecto, se venci6 el18 de junlo de
1998. Aunque fa Agencia podrla complelar sos proyectos y recaudar
Ingresos de Impuestos lnaementaIes hasta eI 18 de junlo de 2036, fa
Agencia no podrA inlciar <iIlgencIas de 8lCIllOPlacl6n dentro de la Area de
proyecto sin hailer restabIecldo la Iacuitad de domInlo eminente.
La Area de proyeclo de reurbanizacl6n de Uptown ronslste de (2) sub-
areas: fa Sub-area A abarca aproximadarnent 343 acres y fa Sub-area B
abarca apoxtmadamente 85 acres. Centro de la Sub-area A. fa facuKad de
domInio emlnente que ejeroe fa Agenda se fimillW a bienes Inmuellles no
resldenciales. En fa Sub-area B, eI terreno no se hll ZllIIiflcado como
resldencial, tampoco 10 dispone asl eI plan general. Sin embaIgo, parece
que exlsten pocas unidades resIdenciaIes sabre bienes inmuellles dentro
de fa Sub-area B, !as coales estiIl designadas para su urbanizaci6n
comeroIaI 0 Industrial. Per 10 _, en una pon:i6n de fa Sub-area B, la
facuKad de domInlo eminente que ejerce fa Agencia se apIicarll a bienes
lnmueIlIes zonlfIcados como comeroIales 0 Industriales.
Para facilitar fa partIcipaci6n ptlblica en eI proceso a gestionar durante una
Propuesla reforma aI Plan de reurbanlzacl6n, eI Consejo dispone para fa
creaci6n de un Conilt6 de area de proyecto ("CAP'). B. CAP funclonanl
como organlsmo consuItaUvo que estudIa eI Booador de la Enmienda af
PllIl de reurbanlzaci6n y, en paf1Icular, consuttara asuntos de vivienda y
resfdencia, mas proveer.l un foro para fa disemlnaci6n de informes. Los
proced'lmientos del CAP, Y !as solicitudes para !as personas que esten
interesadas en fungfr como miembro del CAP, se repartlrtln durante fa
asambIea ptlbllca del 25 de juiio de 2002.
. Si es adoptada, fa reforma ampIiarfa fa aulorldad IImItada de fa
Agencia para que use eI domInio emInente, sI es necesario, para
. adqulrir blenes inmuebles hasta 2015.
. AI ejercer eI dominio emlnente, se requIere que la Agencia
reoompense jus\llnente a Ios due/los de aqueIIos Ierrenos
adquiridos, y que cump/a con !as reglas establecldas de
reublcaci6n.
. Haga favor de obsefvar que, aclUalmente, fa Agencia no tiene
pensado apl'rcar la Iacuitad de domInlo eminente. .
La capacldad de adquirir bienes inmuebles es una de !as ~
fundarnentales que emlllan del Plan de reurbanizacl6n. En Upta.m, la
adquIsici6n Ie faclrlla a fa Agencia mayores opoI\unldades para acumular
parteIas e lniciar activldades rewbanizadoras dentro de fa Area de
proyecto.
. ! f'lll'!'1I Rl'di'l'l'llIjlIII1'lIf Prll}l'! I 111'!1 BlJlllldal h',
o
BoUULJ
o -
L-.J
[
[
[
[
'B"-
I
I
I
I
......
= SUBAREA "A"
SUBAREA"B"
......
==.
c
UPTOWN
c
City of San Berwm:lino
Economic Development Agency
201 North ''E'' Street, Suite 301
San Bernardino, CA 92401
o
c
o
o
o
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
I, Mike Trout, whose business address is at the City of San Bernardino Econornic Development
Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507, do hereby certify that
the notice for the formation of a Project Area Committee (attached as "Exhibit A"), for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area, was mailed, via first class mail, to all property owners,
residents, business owners, community organization representatives, and interested persons in the
area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area as shown on the attached copy of the mailing
list (attached as "Exhibit B") at the United States Post Office, in San Bernardino, California on
At~,,~.,t-.i? 1 , 2002.
I certify under penalty of peJjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: 4j/ -<7 ,2002
v
~#
Mike Trout, Project Manager
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
Attachments: Exhbit A - Public Meeting Newsletter/Notice
Exhibit B - Mailing List
P;\Dc'vdopnmi ~ PAC, 2002, 09-10 EIcetioa.Cc:rt Mailing Af6davildoc:
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
c
o
Initiation of the 2002
Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan
In Ja1uary 2000, ihe AQenCI dedded to consider amending !he
Redeulllfll1lllld Plan In order to ~ !he use of eminent domain to
1I1e year 2015. The u~ RedeveIcpmenIPlan eslallIishes various time
and tinancialllnlllallons in'IIlIYing !he use of 1llde,e1opmenllools wllhIn !he
433 acre ProjecI Alea. One of these line imlts; invdYing the use of
eninenI domain to acquire real property In !he ProjecI Area, expired June
.18, 1998. WNIe!he AQercf wodd be able to ~e projects and coIect
laK ilClemeld _ Ihrough June 18, 2036; the AQenCI could not
conwellce ant eninenl domain proCeedings In tile Project Atea wllhout ra-
eslaIJIshIng emII1ent domain.
The upoWn ~ Project Atea consists of two (2) subaleas:
Subarea A Includes appnlldma\ely 343 acres and Subarea B Includes
approximaIeIy 85 acres. Withln.Subarea A. tile eminenlpain power of
tile Agaq \\tI be lmited~noMeSIdential propel1les. II:1.SJI\lllf9aB,tIiere
. .Is no.l;In<f zooed or general plan as residential. ~,t.ere appears.to
be~.few residenlIal d\veIog unils oopropef1leSlnSuIlaIeaBwhIcb are
designaledlOrc:ommen:lal. or induslriaI deveIopi11enl Therefore, wllhIn a
podlon of Subarea B, tile eminenI domain power.of 1Iie Ageroy willlnclud<i
resldenliaIly 0CCtJlied COO1ll18ICiaI or indusfrlilI zooed propefIies.
To IacIIiIate public InvoIvemenI In the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
Amencknenl process. tile City Council Is. proWling. lOr the aeation 01. a
Projea Atea CornmI1Iee("PAC1. The PAC Wlllundion as an advisory !leidy
1ha reviews tile Draft to !he Amendment of the RedeYelopmenl Plan and, in
partlcular, wi coosuIl on housing and residential mattelS and provide a
forum lor infoonalion dissemlnalion.
Being a member of tile PAC and W<lfting with !he PAC provides you the
oppclI1l.nIty 10 safeguanl your interesls and to provide input into !he
IlldeYeIopmenl process involving your neighbort1oods. The PAC also
ptMdes Input and recommendalions to the Mayor & Convnoo
CoonciIIConvnii Development COnVrisslon concemlng the adoption of
theAmendn1enl to the Uptown RedeV\llopmeot Plan.
. .
Imporfa1t dates to remember are: .
Fdday, 12:30 p.m., September 6, 2~. PAC appIicalions are due~ the
G:o.IOl.lic.1leYeIopmenI AtJeoct at 201 No<lh E StreeI. Slife 301 (above !he
. ~ Slnre)
1Ionday, 9:00 a.m., September 9,. 2002 - PAC absentee ba110l will be
available aI!he Eoonomic IleYeIopmenI AtJeoct, 201 Noo1h"E' Street, Suite
301 (above tile Big-5 Store)
Tuesday, 5:00 p.m., September 10, 2002 - PAC absentee ba110ls are due
at the Economic lJeo.eIopmenlAgeroy, Suite 301 (above the Big-5Store) "
Tuesday, 7:00 p.rn., September 10. 2002 - PAC eIecIions, Economic
IleYeIopmenI AQenCI, 80aJd Room. Sulte301 (above the Big-5 Store)
We encoorage you 10 paliclpate In the Iaination of !he Uptown ProjecIArea
CoIm1Illee. PAC procedures and applicaIions lor persons interested In
seMng 00 tile PAC are available at the ofIices of the EconomiC
0eveI0pment Ageroy, 201 Nath 'E' StreeI. Suite 301, San Bemarlino, CA.
Should you have any questions, please coolacl Mike Trout, Project
Manager, aI(909) 663-1044.
c
Iniciacion a ]a Enmienda al Plan
de reurbanizacion de 2002
Ell enero de 2000, Ie Agendadec1di6 COIlSidel31 reIcmtar el Plan de
reurbanizaci6n para ~ Ie facuIIad de domlrio 8IrinenIe hasIa 2015.
8 Plan de reurbanizaci6n de Uptown estabIece Y3Iias limllaclones Ian\o de
plaza y de lInanzas-con respecto aI usn de Ias facUIades de la
reurbanizaci6n denlro de Ia Area de proyeclo (433 aaes~ Uno de estos
pIazOS Ilnites. tocanle Ia apIicaci6n de dooinIo enilenle para a<kjuIli' bIenes
InIooebIes dentro de Ia Atea de pmyecto. se vencl6 el18 de junio de 1998.
Aunque Ie Ag8nciapodrla compIelar sus pmyectoS Y recaudar ~ de
Impuesloslocremenlales hasta el18. de junlo de 2036,Ia Agencla no podr3
lnlclar dfogenclas de expmpiacIOn dentro de Ia Atea de proyectO sin hailer
restabIecldo Ia facullad de dominIo eninente.
La Atea de pmyecto de IllUfllanizacll de UptDwn consIste de (2} sub-areils:
la S\lb-area A abarca apmxImadamerlle ~. aaes y Ie ~ B abarca
aproximadamenle 85 acres. 0entRl de Ie SUb-area A. Ie facuIlad de dominIo
~1e que ejerce Ia Agencla. se IImIlar.l a ~ ivnuebles. 00,
residenciales. ' EIlIa SutHlrea e, . el ~.JiQS!l ha 2OOificado como'
residenciaI, tampoco 10 c1spooe asi eI pIOO.geMi;t Sil Oilmgo, paecequ~
existen pocas unidades residendaleS.sOtxe'J>leiles InIooebIes dOObtHlela
Sub-area B. Ias cuales estan deslgnadas pam SUo UIbaniiad6n c:IlIOO<ciaI o.
indus1Jial. Per 10 tanto, en una pon:iOO de Ie Sub-area B, Ia facultad de.
dominio emInente que ejerce Ia Agencia se.apIicaJi a bienes inmuebles
zooificados como COfllefdales 0 indus1rlales. .
Para laemtar Ia participaci6n polblica enel proceso a gesIionar durante una
Propuesta reIonna aI Plan de reurbanlzacl6n, el Consejo dispone para la
creaci6n de un Comite de area de proyecto ('CAP'). 8 CAP Iuncionar3 como
organisrno coosullativo que estudia el Booador de Ia Enmienda aI.
Datos impof1antes de recordar son:
Vlemes. 12:30 p.m., Septiembre 6, 2002 - PAC ApIicaciones son vencidades
aI Agenda de Desarollo Economico, 201 North 'E' Street. Suite 301, (llIiba de
Big-5) c
.'.- -<,,'
Lones, 9:00 ..rn., Septiembre 9, 2002 - PAC boIelos de ausente& seran
diponlb1e en Ia olicIna de Agenda de DesaroIIo Economioo. Suite30f (anba
de~).
Martes. 5:00 p.m. Septiembre 10, 2002 - PAC boIelos de ausentes seran
venciodos alia oficlna de Agencia de DesaroIo Economioo; 201 North 'I:"
Street, Suite 301. (arilla Big-5)
. Martes, 7:00 p.m. Septiembre 10, 2002 - PAC EJecclones, de Ie ofoclna
Agenda de Desarol1o Economioo, BoaRl Room. 201 Noo1h 'E"StreeI. Suite
301 (ariba Big-5)
Los animamos que seanJlar1iceanleS en.l3formaclqn de 1e!An'iSiOO de
UplOWll Prcject Alea. Plan de 1eII~ y.. en pri:uIar" consu~
asuntos de. Yivienda Y resldilnda. mas ~ un 'foIoilOOl Iadiseininackln
de inIormes. ProcedimienIo de PAC Y ~ pnpll!SOOa$~
en semr en el PAC esl3l a su di$posicIon en Ia~ 'de Angecla de
DesaroI1o Economico 201 North 'E" StreeI. Suite 301, san Bernardino. -sitien
quaIquir pregunta. pc;.. favor de Il3Inar Mike Trout, prqect Managei. aI (909)
663-1044.
"
-
c
o
c
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
I, Mike Trout, whose business address is at the City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507, do hereby certify that
the notice for the Public Meeting for the Initial Study and EIR on the Proposed Uptown 2003
Redevelopment Plan Amendment (attached as "Exhibit A") , was mailed, via first class mail, to all
property owners, residents, business owners, community organization representatives, and
interested persons in the area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area as shown on the
attached copy of the mailing list (attached as "Exhibit B") at the United States Post Office, in San
Bernardino, California on December 10, 2002.
I certify under penalty ofpeJjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED:~/O ,2002
~
Mike Trout, Project Manager
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
Atiachments: Exhbit A - Public Meeting NewsletterlNotice
Exhibit B - Mailing List
P:\Dcvdopmc:Dt Dcpt\m'kc\Uptovm,2002.12-18InidalStudyMlgCatMailingAffidavLdoe
~ ;
..'"
.
,
'!' . ~."..
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING.
. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDIO
.UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF iNITIALSTUDY
. 'l ~ ,;
....,.
.. :!P' .
o
On Wednesday, December 18th at 6:00pm in the offices of the Economic Development Agency (EDA) there
. will be a public meeting concerning the Environmental Impact Report (BIR) for the reinstatement of eminent
domain powers throUghout all the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area. The BOA has hired the firm oflBA
Associates, Inc. to prepare the Em. and will be at the pUblic meeting to discuss the scope of the Em. and take
comments from the public. This meeting will be held at 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301 (above the Big-S), San
Bemardino, CA.
Untown Redevelonment Proiect Area
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area includes 433 acres within iwo subareas in the City of San
Bemardin6.SubareaAis comprised of349. acres of commercial area along Highland AvenUe and B!I8eline
Street from Interstate 2lS oil the west to Waterman on the east, and along"E" Street, between Eight Street on
the south to Highland Avenue on the north. Subarea B is comprised of 84 acres bounded by Third Street and the
Santa Fe Railroad yard to the north, Interstate 215 on the east, Rialto Avenue and King Street on th~ 'south, and
Mt Vemon Avenue on the west.
The proposed text chan&es to the Plan do, not lImend, modify, change or affect the physical or regulatory
environment With regard to implementation of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan. The use of eminent domain in
Q. . Uptown Redevelopment Project Area was originally part of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan when it was
pted in May 1986. This Plan was considered and evaluated in the Uptown Program Em. prepared for the
Plan in 1986~ Eminent domain powers in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area expired June 18, 1998.
In addition to the reinstatement of eminent domain, there are two projects proposed for Subarea B. The first is a
reuse project, which includes the development of approximately 88,000 square feet of commercial space
(general retail) and 5S0 p3rlcing spaces on 8.9 acres. The proposed project may include additional parking in the
form ofa two-level, 240-car parking structure intended for the use of Metro link passengers who board across
Third.Street adjacent to the Santa Fe Depot Building. These project components would require the removal of
three existing single-family residences and 72,500 square feet of commercial buildings that are currently partly
.vacant and partly used for general retail. The second project is a City-initiated zone cbimge. Although there is
. .. no proposed dcWeloPment projeCt attliis time, the City Is initiatnlg a ZOne c~e from ugbtInduStrlal (IL) to a'
General Commercial (CG-l) District in a two~block area bounded by 1-215 on the east, "K" Street on the west,.
Third Street on the north and Second street on the south. Both "I" Street and Kenda11 Avenue would be vacated
in this two-block area. The CG-l designation is intended to provide for a variety of retail, personal services,
entert3inment, and office and related commercial nses along major transportation corridors and intersections to
service the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new .
. locations as residential growth occurs.
Related projects that are currently underWay include the restoration of the Santa Fe Depot Building (an
environmental analysis of traffic and parking was previonsly completed for this refurbishment); and the
proposed freeway widening and on/off ramp modifications that Caltrans willunderlake.
ePies -of the Initial Study for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area are available at the front counter of the
Economic Development Agency of the City of San Bemardino, located at 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301
(above the Big-5 store), San Bemardino, CA during regular business hours between 8:00am - 5:00pm Monday
thru Th\lfSdayand 8:00am - 4:00pm on Fridays. .
o
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
I, Mike Trout, whose business address is at the City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507, do hereby certify that
the notice for the Public Meeting on the Proposed Uptown 2003 Redevelopment Plan
Amendment and the formation of a Project Area Committee (attached as "Exhibit A"), for the
. Uptown Redevelopment Project Area, was mailed, via first class mail, to all property owners,
residents, business owners, community organization representatives, and interested persons in the
area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area as shown on the attached copy of the mailing
list (attached as ''Exhibit B") at the United States Post Office, in San Bernardino, California on
February 10, 2003. .
I certify under penalty of peIjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
o DATED:.kg /3 ,2003
c
pz;4
Mike Trout, Project Manager
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
Attachments: Exhbit A - Public Meeting NewsletterlNotice
Exhibit B - Mailing List
P:\Acc:ouming Dept\Mh\UplOWft, PAC CertificIlicm ofMailin&: Affidavitdoc
o
c
c
',.
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Initiation of the 2003 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
In January 2000, the Agency decided to consider amending the Redevelopment Plan in order to
re-instate the use of eminent domain to the year 2015. The Uptown Redevelopment Plan
establishes various time and tinanciallimitations involving the use of redevelopment tools within
the 433 acre Project Area. One of these time limits, involving the use of eminent domain to
acquire real property in the Project Area, expired June 18, 1998. While the Agency would be
able to complete projects and collecttax increment revenue through June 18,2036, the Agency
could not commence any eminent domain proceedings in the Project Area without reinstating
eminent domain, which is used as a last resort.
To facilitate public involvement in the Proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment process, the
City Council is providing for the creation of a Project Area Committee ("PAC''). The PAC will
. function as: an .advisory..body that reviews .the Draft to the Amendmentof the Redevelopment
Plan and,in particular, Will consult on housing and residential matters and provide a forum for
information dissemination.
Being a member of the PAC and working with the PAC provides you the opportunity to
safeguard your interests and to provide input into the redevelopment process involving your
neighborhoods. The PAC also provides input and recommendations to the Mayor & Common
Council/Community Development Commission concerning the adoption of the Amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
Important dates to remember are:
Thursday, 6:00pm, February 20, 2003 - Project Area Committee (pAC) information meeting
will be held in the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, located at 201 North "E"
Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA (above the Big-5 store).
Tuesday, 6:00pm, April 1, 2003 - Project Area Committee (PAC) elections will be held in the
Board Room of the Economic Development Agency/located at 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301,
San Bernardino,CA (above the Big-5 store).
Monday, 7:00pm, April 21, 2003 - The Mayor/Common Council adopts a resolution affirming
the Project Area Committee (PAC) election results. This meeting will take placein the City of
San Bernardino Council Chambers, 300 North,"D" ~treet, San Bernardino, CA.
We encourage you to participate in the formation of the Uptown Project Area Committee. PAC
procedures and applications for persons interested in serving on the PAC will be available at the
PAC information meeting to be held on Thursday, February 20, 2003 at 6:00pm. Should you
have any questions, please contact Mike Trout, Project Manager, at (909) 663-1044. If you are
unable to attend the information meeting you make call the Economic Development Agency and
request the Uptown PAC procedures and application. The Uptown PAC procedures and
application will then be mailed to you after the information meeting.
o
o
c
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
I, Mike Trout, whose business address is at the City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507, do hereby certify that
the notice for the Public EIR Scoping Meeting on the Proposed Uptown 2003 Redevelopment
Plan Amendment (attached as "Exhibit A"), was mailed, via first class mail, to all property
owners, residents, business owners, community organization representatives, and interested
persons in the area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area as shown on the attached copy of
the mailing list (attached as "Exhibit B") at the United States Post Office, in San Bernardino,
California on March 10,2003.
I certify under penalty of peJjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: 17,t1u4.. ,2003
~~
Mike Trout, Project Manager
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
Attachments: Exhibit A - Public Meeting NewsletterlNotice
Exhibit B - Mailing List
P;\Aa:ouatilla Dept\Mike\llplowa, 2003, 03.26 ScopirJI M1J CertificlItioa ofMailin&: Affidavit.doc
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
The City of San Bernardino will be the Lead Agency for the preparation of an Environmental hnpact Report (EIR) for the
reinstatement of eminent domain powers throughout the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area.
Uotown RedeveloDment Proiect Area
The Uptown Redevelopment Project Area includes 433 acres within two subareas in the City of San Bernardino. Subarea
A is comprised of 349 acres of commercial area along Highland Avenue and Baseline Street from Interstate 215 on the
west to Waterman Avenue on the east, and along "E" Street, between 81b Street on the south and Highland Avenue on the
north. Subarea B is comprised of 84 acres bounded by 3'" Street and the Santa Fe Railroad yard to the north, Ihterstate 215
on the east, Rialto Avenue.and King Street on the south, and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the west.
The proposed text changes to the Plan do not amend, modify, change, or affect the physical or regulatory environment
with regard to implementation of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan. The use of eminent domain in the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area was originally part of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan when it was adopted in May 1986.
This Plan was considered and evaluated in the Uptown Program EIR prepared for the Plan in 1986; Eminent domain
powers in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area expired June 18, 1998.
In addition to the reinstatement of eminent domain, there are two projects proposed for Subarea B. The first is a project
which includes the development of approximately 88,000 square feet of commercial space (general retail) and 550 parking
spaces on 8.9 acres. The proposed project may include additional parking in the form of a two-level, 240-space parking
~cture intended for use of Metrolink passengers who board across 3'" Street adjacent to the Santa Fe Depot. This project
vuld require the removal of three single family residences and 71,500 square feet of commercial buildings that are partly
. vacant and partly used for general retaiL The second project is a City-initiated zone change from IL, Industrial Light to
CG-l, Commercial General.for a two block area bounded by 1-215 on the east, "K" Street on the west, 3M Street on the
north, and 2'"' Street on the south. Both ''r' Street and Kendall Avenue would be vacated in this two-block area. The CG-I
designation provides for a variety of retail, personal services, entertainment, and office uses. Although no commercial
development is proposed at this time, the City believes there is potential of the Santa Fe Depot rehabilitation project.
In addition to the rehabilitation of the Santa Fe Depot, Caltrans proposes to widen 1-215 and complete on/off ramp
modifications. Also included as a related project is a proposed amendment of the Central City North Redevelopment
Project to authorize reinstatement of the Redevelopment Agency's eminent domain powers.
Collies of the Initial Study for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area are available at the Economic Development
Agency of the City of San Bernardino, 20 I North "E" Street, Suite 30 1 (above the Big- 5 store), San Bernardino, CA
during regular business hours between 8:00am - 5:00pm Monday thru Thursday and 8:00am - 4:00pm on Fridays.
On Wednesday, March 26,2003, there will be a public scoping meeting concerning the Environmental Impact Report for
the reinstatement of eminent domain powers throughout the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area. LSA Associates, Inc.
. has been retained to prepare the EIR and will be at the meeting to discuss the scope of the EIR and take conunents from
the public. This meeting will be held at 6:00 pm at the Economic Development Agency. You may also submit written
comments regarding the scope of the EIR to Valerie Ross, City of San Bernardino Development Services Department, 300
N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA, 92418, through Monday, April 14, 2003.
For additional information, please contact John Hoeger at (909) 663-1044.
c
c
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
I, Mike Trout, whose business address is at the City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA 92401-1507, do hereby certify that
the notice for the Joint Public Hearing on the Proposed 2004 Eminent Domain Amendment to
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan and Certification of Final Enviromnental Impact Report
(attached as "Exhibit A"), for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area, was mailed, via first
class mail, to all property owners, residents, business owners, community organization
lepresentatives, and interested persons in the area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area as
shown on the attached copy of the mailing list (attached as "Exhibit B") at the United States Post
Office, in San Bernardino, California on June 18, 2004.
I certify under penalty of peIjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
o DATED: June 21, 2004
c
~~
Mike Trout, Project Manager
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
Attachments: Exhbit A - Public Meeting NewsletterlNotice
Exhibit B - Mailing List
P;~Dq:t~2004.Joint:PublicIfea!WtgCcrtorMailingAffid&vit.&:le
,
("
" ,.
"
;. . .." -~
, 4NuCN:~OF,,~i!~~UI!"Igr~<iQj'
, ,g(!O~=~l'~~oFSAN
'~'--"", ,.:o..,;,.-,..,~ "',,';',~,'
'~~-#;~::;'
.~ ~
;!~'~~;I~~js~1~_,:_->---';,t'"->-:,, ,.'-;~;
'ly.iPix _ ,-',.de';;fHigbJandAviu~_.i(f9akijiJ:c ,:'--",>-', ,:
':~~\A~.~'~~~~~-+"'~~'t)F-\;';>
" !.,
. ,,-~-
",-' , -''-,,:- ,,' '.- -."
,~:~-.~~_~?usJy,~:'~,'~_N~~_IO"i9S7,'_8!l..~_;
of "e:R~JJfSlll!_-~g'S_~ty. Tht\'~-~bounds legal"c:lescription o(tbe;Pro.F
maY;'_~- ~_b.y. ally inl~qi ~n-at llo-'c6~Hrom the Agency's offices at,201._N~"F'
"1a'92401 dur:ilis:.arbUSineS:Shout'!l\
,;at~~~~;
)bO'
-'" "'- "-. -'. - -- .','"
j~'''~:~_1vIiCD.~J;iOH~\t;i'o~tJ!~;I~ ii~-iS:j~:~C~AtencyhU.Di~iabs:~~~iaken-1lOQtbe.: acqoo to acqtiih, ani'~jD:
,~~'~'lL"';;'f~;~ec:f~WY~Df:d~)il:~iri~i' :H~;~;,_~AgeD.iijH~ .-" to redeVelop etrtain ~'m'tJ~io~'"
_.thC,~M~~_~~'Fe.':J,>~et..t~l-racnitY, sa! iSjdeniified-m-lhe_"~biricd
, "-,, o&8btli1!e!'-dCvd~f" _ -' edand:if~-MmadO"SantB;iFe
-~~;:~'~:A;g~;'.'-. ~:B~neglWaU#~~"
,- " " ,tdOmiililpowen-of;tl~~':~g~,:
.i(~.wilJ:~e_tbct_AjI;~.~i.-. '
-~ 40main alJtllOrity:-wiJl:~o.W:the
~wDiS;~a A oCttie'ProjeCt Area: as -.irdl }.S-'tither
';~!i~i~~:':I~, whieli^~ ,~iiiuy '~-1l;Si~~any~;z6'n~~~-~Y-~'~tain s~ ~.are ltsted;ii,. 'the ~,o(
,;:~~?~'~~~,8~~'~_~t~';OQ~en~~~i1(~'~f~:~~%~:,$(e). - - ,', ::.-
~:A~bb, _c';~bi~id~b;oj~cni;1R ..d:llt"~ted'-~U;,i ~(.I\gency'6 Repor(1o:1bc M~yor ab4,(i~
':~'~~_~tWill~~,~t~.at_jO~:J#.li~~:"-,The_~tbetext-Oftbe~:aad-,_
..' PttiJet1~1AA together wiUHlie 'wijItm-'rtspflnst; to ~>_Pie;vi0Us1i':~~ on the COmbiDcd Project.ElR ,ale,
. ,)-~'~Ug)atthti:~'i#ficeslit2?:J}:'orth"~S~:Suite:'3:W'.~Ji~Do;CA:92;40,J. . ,',
" _ _ ',~~~~~~jj~~f~i7~~~~;k~~~~~~~~~:~:?:j:
., ~;~, tIIC',~_ I'J'Oject, EIR may , IlpJ)CU before-~ Mayor "_ COuU:ncm CoimcilliDd Commisswn liDd show CIUSC:Wby the
/~;~;'~.bd':~~crnote lie adopted a#d theCOinbined ProjeCt EJR~UldQOibe,certi:~td~ final. '
'~~:tbe'~ ~:fOt,thcjom:q)~li~,heariDki aiiy_~ niay 61~_. wri~ s'taiemem With ~ City Ck:rloftheit QIij~ _'
, ,'-': . ,., -,~"ihi~~' ~ect-EIIt, "The ~dres:s-of-tbc-'c-~,tl&)iAs'CitY__HalJ.300'NOith ""''Slreeto SIlD,~;,,::
"':\~Jf~-;~.lUtCf;:~:~_,~.in~~,_Wilt^,tx:<~;~:'bY"~,:'MaYoi:afid'COInmon__~l-a~Kf:tbC':, '..
, ~ W,~1k ~.-,0Il'~ H~",2,0QiI~ ,lIS sclieitlill~~f'-;ibOvt:~-:'If'~~_obj~QD to the ~:ot__~<,,"
)@.;.to;.'~ City,QCtk-.,e(Ore or"it,ihC-,time,iOf_lI,lI:i,~,mJblic;';~",.ac, ~ and,~ Ct!unCtl,:.Vii1;I,:;;''!,.,
1~'tQ,~c1i'a,Wri~~eciibo,~~~~:~~"O~'~~-pfO~,~talidcert,m~_ti~-Q(:~';' ,,"
,:;.',..
" ~.~-:) J.i~~~~,-~ei~:;a,~'N,tirls:N~~_ofjoi!Jt ,hbliCH~g_Jiy~q~,:S,til~~~~;I;.~~ .'deli~ by:mail indicms tmd'the,
.:~~_~-cilii~_:~:~.tbe-ffi#ti\tetl"or\lWris-._~llIW~'mtde$.;liHhi,hoj~Area. lftheAmeodiDCiitis,8d~_'
_ ~~'''C'GuIdJn tbe"futbi1i_~iriie.iuiY pn:iPcrtYJ.~-dl~'~mi'ArC.,~by'~:',~ sul5jec(to the Agency's compl~_Witli-_tbe
:'.,-~:~f~t#PIiQb~~'aij~~~ot)ust~;toibe-owner;" ,'~-'_"i.-,:, --.' ,
'-;'~~~:~-~,~~~~-~'NoUce6~J~~icl'tearing~t~~~,:0~tbc;":9~~'~je()tErR, at ifyoubavc IDY~~/__-, .
:r:~~1M~\~'~'ProjectElRo;-auy6ftbe'~lifiAjJOFil~~fJ~COPt8ctMiU Troqt, Proj<<tM~er,'-"
:"~~1~1~~_~~~OftbC'Agency,orContaciliirnbY~i!,~~;0n!'" . ,":,:,' __, .'
,~,y
'C"..
. .'"
:'<., c"
" .-.,~, 1- - .
.',"
;-~~-
-"","
;"!',.-,:
,,;,^
',."-
'-Ad;:~--
~s~:':,
;~'''-~':-:~
}:~::;~~q,;{,~:;;;
''''~';':':;~,:r-;;',:::''
'-',:,,';,--
, ,:,<
"":.
'-'f: ..".,',',.
,,;'~> .;~:{1t':.
- "'i:h. .'~
.;);!~"'(';;~
.,-,'-,-',-.
'-,."-'C:'
}:'.c
'-:~;'
,':-','1
~c_ _.',',' .
''Lf~~tW~tit~~~~~~tt~: -
-:,c-?'
-,f;/;-" :~~(~/R~'d' tiir&ic,
'~?,~ ~~:~. ", :
'}~ljft,;<,}~,/;:',
;',"'-,'
,.:::-',1':.'-
:":':":':>;:-.' .::0.____ ,,--::-: _.. '- - ': ,:
. <-~~Of~~_i,~ _i.bijc~'~~~g giV~')uiJe,l,'8;'~,
~ 'j ,
(~'
114...
;~~;.w:~;tj~~~r~~or
,
, ", ,-~--'
.' ',- ,--, - '- - -
,,:,~~)tt-:'::-:-;'~~v~~1;i~K:~,:~;;:'e: "
'~AgencyS~,-" ','
',-.',
AOSHoltl:6 V::J '<>!J!p,ltltlmg1l1lS
t;:!'I~:~~jP4
1I. v 1. .!f\l(q,\ II. ~.
c
o
c
,
DECLARA liON OF MAILING
I declare that:
I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the City of Santa Ana, County of
Orange, State of California, over eighteen years of age, and employed with the
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC., doing business as consultants for the
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, City of San Bernardino, County of San
Bernardino, State of California.
My business address is: 217 North Main Street, Sutie 300, Santa Ana,
California.
I served the following documents by certified mail with return receipt requested:
1. Notice of Joint Public Hearing - For the Proposed 2004 Eminent
Domain Amendment for the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
with the United States Post Office (Spurgeon Station) 92702, in Santa Ana,
California.
By mailing true copies thereof on Friday, June 18, 2004, to the entities attached
hereto.
I declare under penalty of pe~ury that the foregoing is true and correct; and that
this Decleration was executed on Tuesday, June 22, 2004.
~'V.~
Date
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC.
G:\RSG\Administraion\MAD.JNG DECLARATIONS\DM_ San Bernadino _Uptown 062204.DOC
<~'
_'\11"1';)'
'Il....
-':~~,~U#, ,
'..i~:;.::;:';'..;"C_,
~~.~~~~~:7~~'
P~.,O"f:"',SOOIl,~aU:ij~.y,;~.~~~",~, .'.~,_--
: b;n~;;':}h ;~-Z;;=," ~~;:;:/,;,,"\ '"
~~~~~~l'ti?kct_~ (~i';~~'PiOlcct'1;IR~T~iO ,
, ~~~~:,.Of:$'I'1~,-~:~iImi:IU~t~';~'~Cf.~ p~:-Tht:::~
,i"
'-j,-".c-
~-'-i \
"-:;;:~~~i'l~l~~ ,,~~~co::;=::;~~~:~~;= .' ,;':,-:
,:'~4~!ti1i5 ,widii' a;-PdPf~ I:k: PblaiDod ~ any in~ ~D at no.cost hom the Agency's offices at'201 NOi'tb"'W'
~'~'3~1;-~~;,Ql1ifoi:Qia924fr1~,~~,b~iDesi~':"._ . ,
~~if~~II'l' '.: ,to~~)i~'~~9f~~,of;b!igbi ''IbCAga;q-~tfy.J;i!!~~,::'''" -.,-",
1:O;~~'lDti:iePii)jm:' _ '..i~~~,~,-~'a-:~'l;liSiS;;'TbdUlborityQftho,~to.,~-,,,:", 'r~,-;-"
, ~_~_~~t:'~~~~:Bon,:~~br~_,~~~~~;-~'~;::~~~~:__" ...
:,,~-, --- ,- ,~~-~~z~:.~_e,:",
_"""'r"-Wl...__~:I't'~,
Wijt.~:'_~_'.,'~:-'>-"
~.i~~
J'<
:: ~::-~~~~~:~f:~: .:.
,",.-.
..
,y:,
~ .... . i' - ,;,_-~
~. ~I-'"
'<;' _>, _ ,-;:.:--.-'"."<'!_~ _ - ': _,,, ,_' ',., _ ,E', _ :' __ ":'. _ ", -, -,
;:._~,~,;~,io>p.i!#ic=.~::l~:-1i.;1li~ '_", ' ildl.~-'~tZ.-u _:'~.." :~_sltcstbt.ce_'listl;.nD.'QleS~:-C)(:_, ~> -," ,'"f':;'
~:~~:.:',;:~;~~,~~~:_~t__5~~~_~~~~~~~~~:~o~f~~~*~~:: ,_ -', '_'_ " ':,' ,'_'-;:':f'::\:::_;;:-~:: '~';:_-j,,-:1~~:~\':
- '- t__~:~';'d'...~jhe,-C~~bb.'ed:rrojert~IR..dlt.tftI, ,',' '-"'-;~~,_~:$,JbiportlO,~Mayor'~'~':' ,'::~::
~'~~,~t-_Wilr-~-f:?e-~~,.tlie:jQ~~ "'1lie~u.ctext--Oftbc.~__-'-:- "
':""_ Pri)p;t)!Jll,~:-with_.tljC.~-:~,to ' -Yed',~the<:omlriDccJ'PiOj~:EII.t:';'ue',,'__.
." -~:;;i~;1~;;~~i_~~;~=~;!;+~:2,~~~
;~_'the C9mb~'P-fojeCt-EIR. maY.lwcar,before-!,bcMayor,.oo ~ CO'ui1oil and ComniisSiou and show causc:WbY-'th't
,- ,." BhC;~~~(f~tc-beadOpiedapdtheCombincdPrOjCclEIR:shoukl~&::_Cciti,@~,'fiMI. -' , ..~,'.. '_:
E;): .~~:',:.}:,,:
~_ ':(;'f~:<",
,',',;'
:;\':,:,6,<;,
- ~ :'~;::~i2.f:~f
,-,"
!g~~~~)~:~~'~} :'
,-,-:;<
"",<,-,
"',,-;."
."!o..'
/?'
",.;";
-', .
,- '. "-' .
. kO~HQjlZ;6V;);o!ijp.n!~aUl1s
,JOf aj,"s ~.4t'.I(l1ONlli:li
l'...\ii"<;l",, m':,",niTb:~k;--<i;~,''';'T...m;~
..' ... .
MR. MARK,UFFER, INTERIM CAO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
OARROWHEAD AVE, 5TH FL
ERNARDINO CA 92415-0120
DR. HERBERT FISCHER
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE
601 N 'E' ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
DR. ARTURO DELGADO, SUPERINTENDENT
SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
777 N 'F' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
MR. DONALD WILLIAMSON
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ASSESSOR
172 W. THIRD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA92415
MR. JOHN NOWAK
REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
215 NORTH 0 ST STE 304
c;ERNARDINO, CA 92401
o
J:\RSG\SANBERDO\UptoWll EDAmend\Uptown Taxingageylabels.doe
MR. JOHN PRESTON MILLER
PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD
SAN BERNARDINO CO. BOARD OF EDUC
601 N.'E'ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410
MR. FRED WILSON - CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 N '0' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92418
MR. C. PATRICK MILLIGAN, PRESIDENT
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MWD
PO BOX 5906
1350 S 'E' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92412-5906
MR. PATRICK MEAD, INTERIM DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC WORKS - FLOOD CONTROL
825 EAST THIRD ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92415-0835
MR. ooNALD AVERILL, ED. D., CHANCELLOR
SAN BERNARDINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
114 S DEL ROSA DR
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
MR. LARRY WALKER
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
AUDITOR/CONTROLLER
222 W HOSPITALITY LN
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92415-0018
c
P('lBL~~$
o
.
1
,
I,
F
,
.
,
1
F
F
c
.NoncE 1$ ~y ~J\4T... "'P""''''''''''' """".....CIIy..s..""- """"""'''''''''''' """""l'....... t
~~'~d-..,OIyalSM~~'_d1g....~~OI..CilyOlSiri
BImli'Ifni3('A18llCY")-....~.'ji:iit"'*hiering-GdUlin:tir.'~,a.2004..al-4:OOp.rn'!-or.IOOI'lbereaft8r.maybe~tl
"'ClIy"""""""""""""CIIy....,~3llO_,'II'_..,s..--;.<;A_, ','
The lUJlO$tol bii,~,'~~ 'W1be-monii:ir. iii'" ~ ~ .h1,'ClwhllilllWlt8Ilmp8ltftepcdfOt..~,
A..,llkIpMeoItPnWAi;aIndIheCtr*llCllyNCrfl~~I.Il~AreI.,(flI"CCllnbNCIProf8cl8frl:~'iO~ihe,CIllkmla
~OuIIIiy~'r:cem");Il1d(IJ1hillppRMfol'~2004,~-"llIflr1dMlopmiill'Plirlfor'lhit~
__r-.r,"" ' ,
~-~-TlMi:I8.. ~...ItJlRll8ct...oJ",~~~Mlit),:idudi8~4338l:iW_oI~
IIfIhil~City.ot~~~ ~,_~An.~-of_~nonCll"<g""'",,,,~l)~ti8rMAiI~
'349_'nUi,iIrid'~~"~mlXed-Use_""'.iidlaI~AVlnAeim'~~~
lie 'Iriln.ildlS'Fl8llwIyon'btwelt'mWalerirlanAvllnl>>OII"''''' and"llptllwn9l.MelAt.b:lldeB ",~1Itd n*8d_
lIrldt~-~~'cif;"F,~~'.-~~drl,~'~tD~"",-,-,on"'~~,Clr~~Ir::tt
~84~n:._""'~lIIl";nOrI)llr-11*tI:~..d,Ni~S8lii.Fe.raI~ik!_~~_IitRlallO'
~$trMt.:on....,by....VelIian.,\Yerurioftt1l"by"_~:215ftMway.-Am..;-_~~~
of..Ptojec;t-Ai&iB.(~n"~oIJoi1!tPliiliC~ieIilinglolili~livjh~~'m'--" :..," ,
, ..'- .. '-, ' : -.. . 1-:.. '- .. ' .., -. ~_: '.. .......... - .... c. .. , .. .. _' . .. ""::'" .. _
A'~..d~..-~,:a,~;~Ai.~_,,~b8enreaol'didon'Novembel:,lO:dI87;'as~
1n$fn(IlenI*-87~0IlcIaI'~-oI,",fMcOIderofSM8elnildnc!CGally.The:"ardbolnislegll~ofItiePtojlld
....l8onfilBw!lhI1ieAflir:;tInd..i:Qpy~blfcblahidbyartj~~atrQ-_tCmfleAQenay'a.._201t4olth_"E"Slr8ec.
,S.itOl..~gerriaitIino~_Clif(jmla92401.cbWlt)~,~holn, . . ,
~<<~.....;~'Proi.:t~conilUes-kl~"Ut.of~oI~ Tbe~cimeo1Iy"'.~po.,.;.
IO~JlRlPMYIl"~Proj.cf_ntuPPCllfol-~ltllelor1lcn,(IIl._'~bIsIs. ihUUlhOrilyofllM',t;gIncy~__
"~dclrnI*lpowersil)'~.prtlPIItyfMlCeilia!YlDffii'~of-""II"fIIl~-~~1n:1_~'TheprujloMddcfi
lIAbodzId IIIdBrthll~l8lht~oI."'~"""1bMIn jlowlWt;.rn:fleJ'lOjllctMil ~''''''~1oI'
oomm"*Y~~'~.~payment-bp"~tolletMner,ofjJst~lor.uohprQpeny.'"adl!I;ileIUle
~~~IheAgincy's~b)-~~bj...(t8lllNnldornailnlll~Areab~~12~ 1
(~_~~C)fOI: :I\8l....."'" aI'18pDl!1f8l of emne,tIcIlin'IUllcrbeAgwqtoqke piUpedywlnot~..:Pi'cject-Mla I
boundaIliIor......tWeSoi,."Mcpo,I....~orpll:llc~'IlhIdIIli~I'IlIY~,orhmt.The~. ,
.Profed8R-~.....d-...~...eh;i!ll\fIe:~.the.~.~ TMcOritbtl8!l_~.~A I
aIIa~1dMiIiiie,~~~i~;~MIi.i\'!~:..'~,~pat8riuaiy.aiMCHtffeijti"aleWi-~Je...-itian-, I
~ ~,...~_~,""'~........."""""Y......"""'_"..,........"".,...,.... "
-_"""'Ioiit!.~.....~~......._'._"""""............__.\>)o...
1'215,1ince...~~tri,~'~-~~~..Jio,~~for~o.nersMd~dIWelopetstoinlike
1ak8lwe~s~'H18d'of:~sida:~-frMway~' i.
NQncEOF .tOIftPUalc~o; ra!,IiAYOR
AND~ COUNCILAND.THE'CoriIIUIm:OEYaoPIlIENr
-c-:- _ 'lH ONOFlHEa:rYOFSAN~
"""","",,""'_10""'__
........l1IE___
ANDcsmi=IcAnoN OF A FiNAl. ElfMDIErw..1IPACT
REPORT~THE,~_'PAoJ!crAREA
~1HECENTRALUrtNQRlH~PRQJECUAEA
c
'. -,,<, , .>-~' ,,-. ,':-,_:";:, - ,::- . .' ',., -,'
Al'11e1lne~lhis.Notice-ot:~~Heilli'lQII:~'~~~"'i*mnl"tiienrio:0lher'~toaoqun.:.anypmpeity"
inlJptovln.8,lbnaAofIllPlt!lKtArel:br~.- .,', '.... _J~..',"'~., ....=:.'priJJiosaI.' '~~,Certail.. '.~h1.JplolPh','
_.'....._...."""..._1'< ... ..' "",,",1l!!N '........""""""'_"..."""""""
_ElR...",~....ii" ""'''''-'',~''~.'''''''''''''1i1io''''''''_~
". . ."'"'e . "~'''''''.''''''L.'''''''"T.z.,. ".'
-.. ' '. '.~...__._-~,,~_.-
.....--.'.'-". . ",.". .... ~..'-""-"-:"'."-'.'.'..lO...;",." --.....-.--.'.."...'_i.."--.-."..,~' ...~~~.'.--...
corbY" :', ..~JI_1Ii,~Dt:~~~po\ll.~fl:lf!#Ml,
',. '! ,.'.......-;::'.) ',> .~~~~I.""h~'~.Q,Jl~ .'.J<w1"flllbl;~,"~
jjf~..n., . ..,". . adi. . ~ d".
. "1.i'~.....~t1"''''~'~~''''''Oi.....,..=...",~i
t_ti*~'!5W91~~~~:~~ti
""'-.'.-."'.' .....' '.....~...'!,.......,.-.~.. .'......". ,"'"".... '. "",......... '.'C~'.' ."~.,'.L.:'<-...... c..~.~.'.' ...;ll'~..~'~.'..
._..........,'li.._~......._.......-........ ,,,....,..... .,
'~"..~~C/i!Il~'i.,f'li:;'~'''"''''''i>,~~,...j);;,'..iIio .< '~E/!l~'
"~!"~~~~~~~~~"r""""'~~",1,"'-",~~).., ../;
.'Atbe~pi.Ii:~~&'~Md.~,ColilChndlh8.~-.'~lII!~.lWld~sWRlinlidby .
__"'I"","""""Ii>o""""'!'~""'...__""...__..,,_...._
Am_hi.ifnl'lh8~Pluj8ctSR"""'..~-f\e....,.-lnICciii'lirisnC<ud8nlfCornri1l9slOri R'lIhaWe8irllBWlty-Jui
~~~ilotI,bt~~1l1e~.PfojKt8RtID.ltt.be~lIhL
--,>." .'.,~. ..... .,-'." .',::' -' .,-,: >-: ": -', ."- .. : "-".,.. -. ,
Al4nY.he.~~~1I!e_~~ior:~~~~;~perlClnmay.@e:.MMtIn~~N;r.llyClmdlher~
"lIl8ipnjposed~orlhe~,PniIel$_m,,~,IIi:h8I,alIl8C1iy,CIlwkIs~HeI;JJONoltl-"D"StrMt;San,Bet8Intlo.
CaIIOmia.92418..AI.MI;I8rt,m<<et.~af~perIOlIS~be~by...~ri~.eo.min:lItiliCormliselon
atlhehl!ofthe;on:jdllCheamg<<lJuly-'9;:2OO4;_~lbow.lfa-Mlten~ 1O-....~(IIIheCombinedPrajQ
er:t-is8tbililled"..CiIy~bekll1for"....~of..jot'lI:pcjlIc~...Mayor:-and ConimonCciOOollwllpreperewriftenliw:frlgS
, lnRl$pMse_lOsucha-ciljecIiol;\-and~prirx,"acbptonof-hpRll1088dAmenctnenlllldcertalionof(leCombinedPniject
EO!.
1
,
[
f
,
I
,
I
[
,
I
!
I
,I
,
I
I
I
;
,
1
I
"
.1
(
"
I
I
.1
,
,
,
o
Kin lnInIIBdpnon nlOIiVeI. ~of'.. Hob- dJoH NlIc~ ~lkiIIlssa.s'r.iaI.,etdl dllIiveiy b1....~.a,d..
Wermdpenon!lh;OWl'IS~ilIllePnljectArea-OfOllllll'buBilBIsll!di<<~h"~Area.I"~I.~
lie ~ ooUd In lie MLn iIr:quh.. pIOpIlty iIlb!iProjedArea bv ,...... domIi1;"UljlctIo hi Ag!JrtoII air!\pIilnie-.1lll
~,d"~~lild~d~I'''~~'~'~' ';' , _ _", ,-
II ,w'hilwen;,~,~fiII''''_OfJokllPii*'l;IIidi)g_CellI!Icatb:lof'' CombinId Pl'ojel:tElR,;'or'_YD4':i.iliilJoIlK.
~t.gd;g...AmtirdlMid."COmIlMtPtGjlclElfl'O{..of"~~,;""'calldMlalt~ ~~...
I' . iOO9l"''''~~.......IiO'n~~~~~~'''''~Ji~.,,:,,"- '. '. ......,.. ,
ThoCllil~"'~""""'II!'~.................""",,-,,-~... ',J"e "~
, """""-~'-,""",""",~I.~-""plCI"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''-
.......,,~.~!>bR::k*~ .', .
NolfcB d Joi1t NlIIc Herig given JlJ\rt'I8,2004:,
I . .
CI1"i OF SAN aatWONO
,ft;;t- RamiUlfrlril'"
ClIyClot<
. .
,
.
..
DD~
D~
neDEVEttlPt.lOOAGENcvOFTflECIT't"OF.
...~ ."
ISJ_" Gtr'VanO!ldl."
.,,'. -";*' '..;
sru....~.~.. t'
:.' '.~~I!~.,~(
F ...,-' . :'~I EE\Qtr OB~
. i.(Hf~E!3f1:ID[lJmQ ~.' ....... .c:.
BHBb-;' ""'"'BuilllIJD .......'t ". . ".
.~. I ~~~;'~~ggrnB8 - ....
::~ -.'" , gWoo '
~,~iL ' ,'ilDt D~JU, "
'~~;f~~~~IICJ~~" I
o ";:! " '. mnc:::J1 .1
'. ; 0 ~K ,ullliLJc::::::JI' I ....
, /C " ,,~ . ll!ilI.".i€. '.'
~l~J~n~
I
I
o
-
w
.,
. .
. . ........."4., '
. >.<
.
c
~.....t-::..ft-,
. ,.
u~
.
.
Nlah06rttIJ1J01~J08IiuSB$1692236
~~a:~:=!:r!~~ I ~!.:n~~..e.,~~~'!.':.~ 8~'1 ~!~~!1~2~!~!~t~ !ri!hIJ,I_.. Fllitfk1.2004-019iI4
o
o
c~
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
July 6, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sutherland, at 7:10 p.m., called the regular meeting to order of the Uptown
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) Tuesday, July 6, 2004 in the Board
Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San
Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren,
Jack Cone.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public: Steve Sutherland
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE MINTUES
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee Meeting of April!, 2004 be reviewed as submitted in
typewritten form and approved.
I
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee meeting of May 6, 2004 be reviewed as submitted in
typewritten form and approved.
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone and Seconded by Committee
Member Charlie Catren that the minutes of the April 1, 2004 and May 6,2004 Uptown
PAC meeting be approved. The motion passed 3-0.
4. DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UPTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA PLAN.
MOTION: That the Uptown Redevelopment PAC recommends to the Mayor and
Common Council and the Community Development Commission to adopt
the Draft Text Amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
Reinstating eminent domain authority in the project area.
o
c
c~
4.
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UPTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
.
AREA PLAN. (continued)
A discussion ensued concerning the time length of the eminent domain authority and
types of properties that when be included. Agency staff stated that, if approved, the
eminent domain authority would be reinstated for a period of twelve (12) years and that
all properties would be included in the eminent domain authority. Agency staff further
stated that the authority for eminent domain in the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
would not be used to acquire any property for the Lakes and Streams project. That would
either be the City or the Water Department much like the School District acquiring
property for the new school located in the Central City North Redevelopment Project
Area.
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone, seconded by Committee Member
Charlie Catren that the Uptown PAC recommend to the Mayor and Common Council and
the Community Development Commission that they adopt the Draft Text Amendment to
the Uptown RedevelopUlent Plan reinstating the power of eminent domain within the
project area. The motion passed 3-0.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone, seconded by Committee Member
Charlie Catren that the meeting be adjourned to Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301,
San Bernardino, CA. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 7:45 p.m.
By:
Jack Cone, Vice ChairmjlI1!Secretary
o
AGENDA
.
UPTOWN PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 3, 2004
Economic Development Agency
201 North "E" Street, Suite 301
San Bernardino, CA
7:00 p.m.
'.
o
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED
,
c.
c
c
c.
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (pAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
May 6, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Trout called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m., Thursday, May 6, in the Board
Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San
Bernardino, CA. Due to the fact that there was not a quorum of PAC members present,
no PAC business was conducted. The next meeting will take place on Thursday, June 3,
2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the EDA Board.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Charlie Catren.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
. .
Members of the public: none
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE MINTUES
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee Meeting of April 1, 2004 reviewed as submitted in
\ Typewritten form and approved.
4.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA"CT REPORT (EIR) FOR
THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
5.
REPORT ON UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
6.
TOPIC(S) FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
There was a discussion among the committee members concerning having LSA, the ElR
Consultant, to be at the next meeting to explain the ElR. Mike Trout told the committee
members that he will contact LSA about being at the next PAC meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
By:
Jack
The meeting was adjourned at approximatel
L
c
c
c.
\
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITIEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
April 1, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sutherland, at 7:05pm, called the regular meeting to order for the Uptgwn
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (pAC) Thursday, April 1, 2004 in the Board
Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San
Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren,
Jack Cone.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public: none
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE UPTOWN PROJECT
AREA COMMITIEE MINTUES
MOTION: That the minutes of the Uptown Redevelopment Project Area
Committee Meeting of March 25, 2004 reviewed as submitted in
Typewritten form and approved.
I
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone and Seconded by Chairman Linda
Sutherland that the minutes of the March 25, 2004 Uptown PAC meeting be approved.
The motion passed 3-0.
4.
DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY FOR THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY
NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
It was discussed the need for the Initial Study and the part that it plays in deterIi1ining
whether or not a full EIR is required. The Initial Study looked at the affects to the
environment as a result of the reinstatement of eminent domain in the Uptown and
Central City North project areas; the Mercado Santa Fe development project; and the
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change within Uptown Subarea "B" for. The proposed
zone change will affect the area bordered by "K" Street, 1-215, 3rd and 2nd Street. The
zone change would be from Industrial Light (IL) to Commercial General (CG).
o
c
c~
I
5.
REPORT QN UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Mike Trout provided an update to the committee members concerning the progress of
land acquisition and clearing within Subarea "B" as it relates to the proposed Mercado
Santa Fe development. Site clearance of the acquired properties on K Street should start
within the next two weeks.
Committee members were given a copy of the Screen Check EIR (SCEIR). They were
also provided with a draft copy of the amendment to the Uptown Redevelopment Project
Area Plan reinstating the authority of eminent domain.
6. TOPIC(S) FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
There was a discussion among the committee members concerning having LSA, the EIR
Consultant, to be at the next meeting to explain the EIR. Mike Trout told the committee
members that he will contact LSA about being at the next PAC meeting.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Committee Member Charlie Catren, seconded by Committee
Member Jack Cone that the meeting be adjourned to Thursday, May 6,2004 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite
301, San Bernardino, CA. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 8:05 p.m.
o
c
c
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (pAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
March 25, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Trout called the PAC meeting of the Project Area Committee (pAC) for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area to order at 7:10p.m., Thursday, March 25, 2004 in
the Board Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301,
San Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows; Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren,
Jack Cone.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members ofthe public; none
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
3.
ELECTION OF PAC OFFICERS
A motion was made by Committee Member Jack Cone and seconded by Committee
Charlie Catren that Committee Member Linda Sutherland and Committee Member Jack
Cone be appointed as the Uptown PAC Chairman and Vice Chairman/Secretary
respectively. The motion passed 3-0.
4. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PAC MEETINGS
A discussion took place between the Committee and EDA staff concerning the date, time
and location of future PAC meeting. A motion was made by Committee Member Charlie
Catren, and seconded by Committee Member Jack Cone that future meetings of the PAC
take place on the first Thursday of each month at 7;00 p.m. in the Board Room of the
Economic Development Agency. The motion passed 3-0.
Additionally, members of the PAC and EDA staff discussed the make-up of the PAC;
what categories were vacant; the total number of persons that can serve on the PAC.
c
o
c
s.
DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY FOR THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY .
NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mike Trout, EDA Project Manager, briefly discussed the Initial Study process and the
need for an Environmental hnpact Report (EIR). He stated that PAC members would
have the opportunity to review the EIR, the Report to Mayor and Common Council and
the Text of the Amendment. He explained that any comments of the PAC would be
included for consideration in the staff report for the adoption of the Amendment to the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
Additionally, Mike Trout gave a status report on the Mercado Santa Fe project in within
the Subarea B portion of the Uptown Project Area.
It was decided among the committee members that they would go through and discuss the
Initial Study at the next PAC meeting.
6. TOPIC(S) FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION
None were discussed
7.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Committee Member Charlie Catrell, seconded by Committee
Member Jack Cone that the meeting be adjourned to Thursday, April 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Board Room of the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite
301, San Bernardino, CA. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 8:05 p.m.
',>
c
o
c
MINUTES
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
March 18,2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mike Trout called the PAC meeting of the Project Area Committee (pAC) for the
Uptown Redevelopment Project Area to order at 7: ISp.m., Thursday, March 18,2004 in
the Board Room at the Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301,
San Bernardino, CA.
Those members of the PAC present are as follows: Linda Sutherland, Charlie Catren.
Also present: Mike Trout, Economic Development Agency.
Members of the public:
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3.
ELECTION OF PAC OFFICERS
4. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PAC MEETINGS
a. Place
b. Date
c. Time
5.
DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY FOR THE UPTOWN/CENTRAL CITY
NORTH PLAN AMENDMENTS
6.
INITIAL STUDY FOR CCN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN
7.
ADJOURNMENT
There was not a quorum ofP AC members therefore no PAC business was conducted.
The next meeting of the PAC will be March 25th, 7 p.m. in the Board Room of the
Economic Development Agency, 201 North "E" Street, Suite 301, San Bernardino, CA.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7 :35 .p.m.
C I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSmLE AGENCY
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVffiONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino (the
"Common Council") has previously taken certain actions in coordination with the Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") as relates to a
proposed reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Agency") within two (2) separate redevelopment project areas of
the Agency known as: (i) the Uptown Redevelopment Project and (ii) the Central City North
Redevelopment Project, in order that the Agency may undertake programs to eliminate and
prevent the spread of blight in each of these redevelopment project areas; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project
(the "Central City North Redevelopment Plan") was approved by the Common Council
Ordinance No. 3366 in 1973, and the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project (the "Uptown Redevelopment Plan") was approved by Common Council Ordinance No.
MC-527 in 1986, and the condemnation powers of the Agency under the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan expired in 1998 and the condemnation powers of the Agency under the
Uptown Redevelopment Plan also expired in 1998; and
-1-
P:~.u\1OlJ4\04..t7.I'llpmn.CCNEa.CDCRao.doe
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
C 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino (the "City") in consultation with the Agency,
has also taken action to consider certain changes in the land use element of the City General
Plan, as adopted by Common Council Resolution No. 89-15, in order to compliment the
potential redevelopment and use of certain lands in a portion of the redevelopment project area
of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Uptown Project Area") referred to as "Uptown
Subarea B", and specifically within Uptown Subarea B the lands which are also affected by the
proposed changes in the land use element of the City General Plan are described as a two block
area bounded by 1-215 on the east, "K" Street on the west, 3rd Street on the north, and 2nd
Street on the south, and the potential vacation of "1" Street and Kendall Avenue within this two
block area which such General Plan amendment also contemplates; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council and the Commission have previously called upon the
residents, property owners, businesses and community organizations within the Uptown Project
Area and the redevelopment project area of the Central City North Redevelopment Project (the
"CCN Project Area") to form project area committees for each such redevelopment project area,
"
in order for interested residents, business owners and property owners to consider the potential
effect of the reinstatement of the Agency's power to acquire land within each such
redevelopment project area and to submit a report and recommendation to the Common Council
and the Commission relating to reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the Agency in
each such redevelopment project area and the implementation by the Agency of program to
eliminate blight in each such redevelopment project area which programs may include the
acquisition of property by the Agency using the power of eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, during calendar year 2003, an Initial Study was prepared under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") which evaluated the
potential effect on the environment of the reinstatement of the eminent domain powers of the
Agency in the CCN Project Area and the Uptown Project Area and the potential effect on the
environment of an amendment to the land use element of the City General Plan relating to a
-2-
P:~IlI\ItaoIIIIhu\2004\04-07-I' UptewII CCN EIIvCDC Rao.doc
o
8
9
10
11
12
C 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
1 portion of Uptown Subarea B and the potential development of an Agency-sponsored
2 redevelopment program to remedy certain conditions of blight in Uptown Subarea B referred to
3
as the "Mercado Santa Fe Project"; and
4
WHEREAS, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact report was issued in
5
March 2003 relating to the proposed amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan and the
Central City North Redevelopment Plan, the Mercado Santa Fe Project and an amendment to
the land use element of the General Plan; and
6
7
WHEREAS, in the months following March 2003, the completion of the preparation of
,
a draft of an environmental impact report document for the reinstatement of the powers of
eminent domain in each of the redevelopment project areas was deferred as certain refinements
of the Mercado Santa Fe Project were considered, and subsequently, on February 5, 2004, the
Environmental Review Committee of the City determined that the environmental study of the
reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the two (2) redevelopment project areas and
the associated redevelopment activities relating to such reinstatement of the power of eminent
domain in each such redevelopment project areas as described below as the "Project" for
purposes of compliance with CEQA, warranted the preparation of a Program Environmental
Impact Report (a "Draft EIR") where the elements ofthe Project include the following:
. reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain to acquire land in the
Uptown Project Area and the CCN Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
. rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Central City
North Redevelopment Plan and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to conform to
current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation of displaced persons and
businesses and affordable housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project
Area conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations as currently in
effect or hereafter modified or amended (the rescission of such special development regulations
to be accomplished by a restatement of certain provisions of the Central City North
-3-
P:\ApR~tiolll\RelohdMu\2004\G4-07-1' UptDwlI CCN E.v CDC Rao.dec:
o
C 25
1 Redevelopment Plan to conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development
2 regulations currently in effect or hereafter modified or amended);
3
a General Plan Amendment affecting approximately 19.02 acres within a portion
.
4
of Uptown Subarea B bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K" Street and 1-215 from
"II.:' (Light Industrial) to "CG-I" (General Commercial), and such General Plan Amendment is
identified as General Plan Amendment No. 04-02;
5
6
7
.
analysis of a future retail development project within Uptown Subarea B. This
8
development is proposed for approximately 9.2 acres of land generally situated to the south of
3rd Street and is referred to by the City and the Agency as the Mercado Santa Fe Project. For
the purpose of CEQA analysis, the proposed retail development concept assumes approximately
96,241 square feet of retail use and is based on the on-site vehicle parking standard of 4 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of retail use, the proposed use requires a minimum of385 on-site vehicle
The Mercado Santa Fe Project as proposed provides approximately 440 parking
9
10
11
15
Collectively, the potential environmental effects of the elements of the Project (the
proposed redevelopment and related activities generally described in the four (4) subparagraphs
preceding this sentence) is, for the purposes of the indicated analysis under CEQA, described in
16
17
this Resolution as the "Project"; and
18
WHEREAS, the City conducted a public scoping meeting to solicit public comments on
the preparation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 Initial Study was updated and the March 2003 notice of
preparation was updated and revised as the Notice of Preparation of the City to prepare a Draft
EIR for the Project, and was published and circulated to the public, responsible agencies and
other interested persons from February 17, 2004 through March 17, 2004, as required by
19
20
21
22
23
24
CEQA;and
4-
P:~l\RaobIdo..ut04\04-87-1' (J~ CCN EIIvCDC RlM.dllC
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
C 25
WHEREAS, the text of the Draft EIR (including all appendices) was made available to
the public, responsible agencies and other interested persons for their review and comment
between April 8, 2004 through May 29,2004 as required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, verbal and written comments were received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally and in writing as required
by CEQA and the Final Environmental Impact Report document (State Clearinghouse No.
2003031072), dated June 15,2004 (the "Final EIR") has been prepared and transmitted to each
responsible agency which submitted comments to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted two (2) noticed joint public hearings on July
19,2004, with the Common Council as relate to the Project and the Final EIR with the fIrst such
joint public hearing held in connection with the amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan
and the certifIcation of the Final EIR and second joint public hearing held in connection with
the amendment of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan and the certifIcation of the Final
ElR, and during the course of each such joint public hearing conducted on July 19,2004, the
Commission fully reviewed and considered the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the
Planning Division staff reports and the recommendations of the Planning Commission as relate
to the Project and the Final EIR and drafted its own Facts and Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations base upon its review such documents.
20
NOW, TIIEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
TIIE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
In connection with the consideration by the Commission of the
amendment of the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power of eminent
domain in the Uptown Project Area and the amendment and reinstatement of the Central City
North Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power of eminent domain in the CCN
Project Area, the Commission conducted the following public hearings on July 19, 2004:
-5-
P:\AplI~u\2004\04-07-t, UptowJl CCN EIWCDCRao.doc
o
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
C 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
1
(i) a joint public hearing with the Common Council to consider an amendment of
2
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the eminent domain power of the Agency in the
3 Uptown Project Area and the potential implementation with the assistance of the Agency of the
4 Mercado Santa Fe Project in Uptown Subarea B and the potential environmental effects of these
5 actions as set forth in the Final EIR; and
(ii) a joint public hearing with the Common Council to consider an amendment of
the Central City North Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the eminent domain power of the
Agency in the CCN Project Area and the restatement and amendment of the Central City North
Redevelopment Plan to rescind the special development regulations contained in such 1973
redevelopment plan and to conform the provisions of such 1973 redevelopment plan to the
current-day Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation of displaced persons and
businesses and affordable housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project
Area conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect and the potential environmental effects of these actions as set forth in the Final EIR.
During the course of the joint public hearings identified above, the Commission received
and considered all written comments previously received and all oral comments submitted by
interested persons relating to the Project and the Final EIR. The Commission hereby finds that
the conduct of these public hearings was full and fair and that the Commission has fully
considered the potential effect on the environment of the Project. The Final EIR in the form as
submitted to the Commission upon the conclusion of these joint public hearings is hereby
acknowledged and declared to be the Final EIR for the Project.
Section 2.
The Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003031072) is a "program
environmental impact report" as this term is defmed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, for
the Project. The Final EIR for the Project, includes consideration of the potential environmental
effects of the development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project and General Plan Amendment No.
04-02, and the Final EIR has been prepared and considered in compliance with CEQA. The
-6-
P:\ApDd~.I'UptlnnlCCNElivCDCRae.doc
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
C 25
Final EIR (including the text of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices, the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration) and all the
notices, with comments and staff reports related thereto are on file with the City Clerk's Office.
Section 3.
The purpose of this Resolution is to evidence the actions of the
Commission as a "responsible agency" under CEQA in approving the amendments to the
Central City North Project Plan and the Uptown Project Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15050 and 15096 the Commission as a "responsible agency" shall consider and certifY
the lead agency's EIR prior to approving a project, including providing findings supported by
substantial evidence in the record related to substantial environmental effects the project will
have on the environment and a statement of overriding considerations addressing the
environmental impacts which are not avoidable and cannot be substantially lessened as a result
of the project. The Final EIR was presented to the Common Council as the "lead agency" and
the Commission as the "responsible agency" for the Project under CEQA, and the Commission
has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to the adoption by the
Commission of an amendment to the Uptown Project Plan reinstating the Agency's eminent
domain power in the Uptown Project Area, and prior to the adoption by the Commission of an
amendment to the Central City North Project Plan reinstating the Agency's eminent domain
power in the CCN Project Area as well as the related rescission of the special land development
regulations and the reinstatement of the Central City North Redevelopment Plan to conform to
current City General Plan, zoning and development regulations and current day provisions of
Community Redevelopment Law relocation and affordable housing standards. The
Commission has adopted Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as
part of its certification of the Final EIR and approval and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring
23 Plan for the Project.
24
Section 4.
The Commission hereby finds that:
(1) the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project,
including the potential development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project.
-7-
P:\Afnd~IlM\lM-81-19UpIoWaCCNEa..CDCReto.doe
C I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
o
C 25
(2) the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would
result but which significant effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant provided
that the applicants and owners of land who may undertake the development of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project (if it occurs), and other future development within the portion of Uptown
Subarea B affected by General Plan Amendment No. 02-04 (if such development occurs)
undertake feasible environmental impact mitigation measures as set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan for the Final EIR to reduce or eliminate such potential impacts to a level which
is less than significant. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan and all information contained therein is
included in the Final EIR and incorporated herein by reference. The basis on which the
Commission fmds that such potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have
been or shall be mitigated to a level which is less than significant is set forth in the Facts and
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the Project. The Facts and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is attached as Attachment "A" and
13
incorporated in this Resolution by this reference.
14
15
(3) the Final EIR concludes that despite the implementation of feasible mitigation
measures to lessen the potential impact of certain effects of the Project on the environment, that
in three (3) areas of environmental concern under CEQA, the potential effects on the
environment of the Project cannot be fully mitigated or reduced to a level which is less than
16
17
18
significant. These areas are identified as follows;
19
(i)
temporary construction activities of the Mercado Santa Fe Project (dust and
20
construction vehicle exhaust) - although the Final EIR sets forth mitigation measures which are
21
estimated to reduce the potential impacts by 50% the remaining effect, even after the
implementation of the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR is still significant
in the case of temporary construction activity impacts of the Mercado Santa Fe Project in
Uptown Subarea B;
22
23
24
/II
-8-
P:\ApllcIaI\IlaolIIItio.I\ResoIud-u0G4\14-07_19 UptP'II CCN EIIv CDC Rao.doe
c
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
1
(ii)
the Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts or the air emissions (stationary
2 source plus mobile/traffic source) of the Mercado Santa Fe Project and General Plan
3 Amendment No. 04-02 are forecast in the Final EIR exceed the thresholds for significant effect
4 established by the SCAQMD. However, there are no mitigation measures currently available to
5 reduce emissions from mobile sources, and as a consequence, the long-term air quality impacts
6 of the Project remain significant and unavoidable;
(iii) Year 2008 Freeway Segment Conditions and Year 2025 Freeway Segment
Conditions are both indicated in the Final EIR to be operating at unsatisfactory conditions, and
the Project will contribute to such adverse conditions in the year 2008 and in the Year 2025
under the traffic impact generation models considered in the Final EIR. Although certain
mitigation measures could be implemented in the case of the freeway segment conditions to
improve the operation of the freeway segments to an acceptable level of serve (or a non-
significant impact on the environment for both 2008 and 2025), the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission to implement.
,
Caltrans has jurisdiction for providing for capital improvements to the indicated freeway
segments, and at the present time Caltrans has not formulated any mechanism for proponents of
the Project (in particular the Mercado Santa Fe Project and the owners of land benefited by
General Plan Amendment No. 04-02) to pay fees or make other fair share contributions to
improve mainline freeway segments to so eliminate the adverse impact of the development of
such land on the operation of the freeway segments.
Potential mitigation measures or other project alternatives relating to the three (3)
unavoidable significant impacts of the Project as generally identified in this Section IV.E., were
not incorporated into or adopted as part of the Project, as the mitigation of these impacts is
regarded as infeasible and not economically or socially viable based on specific economic,
social, or other considerations as set forth in the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
-9-
P:~tIou\ReIoIIIlIo...uoo.NM-l7.1' Uptowli CCN EIIv coc ReM.doe
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(4) the Commission has given great weight to the significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts of the Project. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth in the Facts and
11
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations the Commission hereby finds and
determines that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly
outWeighed by the elimination of blight which affects each of the redevelopment project areas
and the economic, social, cultural and other benefits to the community which shall be realized
by the Project, including the potential development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project, the
,redevelopment of the lands affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, as set forth in the
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is hereby adopted and
approved by the Commission as the responsible agency under CEQA for implementing certain
aspects of the Project.
(5) the fmdings contained in the Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
12
Considerations with respect to the significant environmental impacts of the Project identified in
C 13 the Final EIR are true and correct, and are based upon substantial evidence in the record,
14
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0 25
including documents comprising the Final EIR.
15
(6) the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the Facts and Findings and
16
Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent review, analysis and judgment
17
of the Agency and the Commission.
Section 5.
The Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are
approved and adopted; the Final Program Environmental hnpact Report is certified; and the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan is approved and adopted. Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15097 the Commission ensures that the Agency shall comply with the
requirements of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, including the submission of any
necessary reports during (i) all condemnation proceedings initiated by the Agency on land lying
within the CCN Project Area or the Uptown Project Area; (ii) the construction of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project if assistance is granted by the Agency; and, (iii) any redevelopment
-10-
P:~\ItaeIlatio8l\2OO4\04-l.1'UptenCCNEIIVCDCRao.cIoc
c
1 project lying within the land affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 to which the
2 Agency grants assistance.
3
Section 6.
The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby directed, in cooperation
4
with the City Planning Division, to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San
Bernardino Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifYing the Commission's compliance, as a
responsible agency under CEQA in reviewing and approving the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Project, including the adoption of the Facts and Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations and the approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. A copy of such
Notice of Determination shall be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.
The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
5
6
7
8
9
Section 7.
10
III
11
III
12
III
C 13
III
14
III
15
III
16
11/
17 1/1
18 1/1
19 III
20 1/1
21 11/
22 11/
23 1/1
24 1/1
C 25 1/1
-11-
P:\ApadaI\RaobldolU\Jlelolgde..u:004\G4-87~1' UptoWII CCN I.v CDC ReIo.dec:
c
13
C
14
25
C
1
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSmLE AGENCY
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL
CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Conununity Development Conunission of the City of San Bernardino at a
10
meeting
11
thereof, held on the
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
day of
Aves
12
Conunission Members:
Navs
Abstain
Absent
ESTRADA
WNGVILLE
MCGINNIS
15 DERRY
16 KELLEY
17 JOHNSON
18 MC CAMMACK
19
Secretary
20
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
.2004.
21
22
Judith Valles, Chairperson
Conununity Development Conunission
of the City of San Bernardino
23
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
24
By:
Agency Counsel
-12-
P:\Ac_u\RetohIde.l\ReIoIati0asU0CW\CU.87.19 Uptewa CCN bv CDC Raa.dK
o
c
c
ATTACHMENT "A"
Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino
as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown/Central
City North Redevelopment Project Area 2004 Eminent Domain
Amendments (State Clearinghouse #2003031072)
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Commission")
as a responsible agency under the California Enviromnental Quality Act in approving and
certifying the Final Program EnviromnentaI hnpact Report adopted by the Mayor and Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino (the "Common Council") (the "Final EIR") for the
Uptown/Central City North Redevelopment Project Area 2004 Eminent Domain Amendments
presents the facts and makes the findings described below and adopts the Statement of
Overriding Considerations presented at the end of these Facts and Findings. The "Project" under
consideration for purposes of the Commission's discretionary action is:
The reinstatement of the powers of erninent domain in the two (2) red;evelopment project areas
and the associated redevelopment activities described below for purposes of compliance with
CEQA, where the elements of the Project included the following:
. reinstatement of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino's (the
"Agency") power of eminent domain to acquire land in the Uptown Project Area and the
Central City North ("CCN") Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
. rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Redevelopment Plan
for the CCN Redevelopment Project and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to
conform to current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation and affordable
housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project Area conform with
the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in effect (the
rescission of such special development regulations to be accomplished by a restatement
of certain provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the CCN Redevelopment Project to
conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect); and
. a General Plan Amendment affecting approximately 19.02 acres within a portion of
Subarea B of CCN Uptown Project Area (bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K"
Street and 1-215) from "IL" (Light Industrial) to "CG-l" (General Commercial) and the
General Plan Amendment is identified as General Plan Amendment No. 04-02;
. analysis of the Mercado Santa Fe Project within Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area,
proposed for 9.2 acres south of 3rd Street. For the purpose of CEQA analysis, the
proposed retail development concept assumes approximately 96,241 square feet of retail
1
P:\Agc:ndas\Conm DevCommissioo\CDC 2004\04-01-19 Uptown CCN Statement ofOvenidirlg ConsidlntiollS.doe
o
o
c
use and is based on on-site vehicle parking standard of 4 spaces for 1,000 square feet of
retail use, the proposed use requires a rninimum of 385 on-site vehicle parking spaces.
The Mercado Santa Fe Project as proposed provides approximately 440 parking spaces.
Collectively, the potential enviroumental effects of the elements of the proposed redevelopment
and related activities for the purposes of the indicated analysis under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), is described in this Resolution as the "Project".
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project includes the following elements:
. reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain to acquire land in the Uptown
Project Area and the CCN Project Area (this reinstated power of eminent domain to be
accomplished by written amendment to the text of each redevelopment plan);
. rescission of special and development regulations contained in the Redevelopment Plan
for the CCN Redevelopment Project and the amendment of this redevelopment plan to
conform to current Community Redevelopment Law relating to relocation and affordable
housing and to require that all new development in the CCN Project Area conform with
the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in effect (the
rescission of such special development regulations to be accomplished by a restatement
of certain provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the CCN Redevelopment Project to
conform with the City's General Plan, zoning and development regulations currently in
effect);
. General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 affecting approximately 19.02 acres within a portion
of Subarea B of Uptown Project Area (bounded by 3rd and 2nd Streets and between "K"
Street and 1-215) from "IL" (Light Industrial) to "CG-l" (General Commercial; and
. analysis of the Mercado Santa Fe Project within Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area.
This development is proposed for 9.2 acres south of 3rd Street and is commonly referred
to as the Mercado Santa Fe.
The Project affects three (3) areas located in the central portion of the City. The Uptown Project
Area includes two (2) of these areas which are referred to as Uptown Subarea A and Uptown
Subarea B. Uptown Subarea A is located along Highland Avenue and Baseline Street from
Interstate 215 (1-215) on the west to Waterman Avenue on the east and along "E" Street from
Highland Avenue on the north to Eighth Street on the south. Uptown Subarea A includes
approximately 348 acres of land. Uptown Subarea B is bounded by the Santa Fe Railroad yard
to the north, Rialto Avenue and King Street on the south, 1-215 on the east, and Mount Vemon
on the west. Uptown Subarea B includes approximately 84 acres of land. The CCN Project
Area is bounded by Eighth Street on the north, Fourth and Court Streets on the south, Arrowhead
2
P:~DevConmisaioa\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown COl Statement ofOvariding Considendioos.doc
o
o
c
Avenue on the east, and 1-215 on the west. The CCN Project Area includes approximately 278
acres ofland.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the Project is to sustain the redevelopment programs and goals of two (2)
established redevelopment plans of the Agency: (i) the Redevelopment Plan for the CCN
Redevelopment Project; and (ii) the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment
Project. The goals of these two (2) redevelopment plans are summarized at Final EIR (D) 3-6
through 3-7.
The reinstatement of the power of eminent domain will promote the efforts of the Agency to
eliminate and prevent the spread of blight by further enhancing the Agency's ability to promote
redevelopment in both Project Areas by attracting public and private development. Further, the
reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the case of the Uptown Redevelopment Project
may result in a specific redevelopment implementation activity being able to move forward in
Uptown Subarea B, (i.e., the Mercado Santa Fe Project). In addition, the City is also proposing
an amendment to the land use element of the General Plan, affecting an approximately 19 acre
portion of Uptown Subarea B in order to encourage and foster economic reuse and
redevelopment of this area in light of current conditions, and the proposed freeway improvement
of nearby segments ofI-215.
Apart from the potential redevelopment of the Mercado Santa Fe Project, currently no other
redevelopment implementation activities are planned at the time of certification of the Final EIR
in either the Uptown Project Area or in the CCN Project Area which may require the use by the
Agency of the power of eminent domain as part of the land assembly program to assist either an
owner participant or a third party developer to redevelop blighted areas within either Project
Area. However, the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain will enable the Agency, to
promote further redevelopment by giving the Agency (and ultimately a third party
developer/owner participant) a greater ability to acquire property for the effective redevelopment
and elimination of blight within these two Project Areas.
ID. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted the environmental review of the Project as follows:
. an initial study was prepared for the proposed project in March 2003 and based upon this
March 2003 initial study it was determined that preparation of an environmental impact
report for the proposed Project was indicated;
. a notice of preparation for an environmental impact report for the proposed Project was
prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other
interested persons on March 14,2003;
. subsequent to the close of the comment period on April 14, 2003, for the March 14,2003
notice of preparation, the City refined the original initial study for the proposed Project
3
P:\Agendall\Comm Dev Comnission\COC 2004\04-07.19 Uptown CCN Stakmcat ofOvmiding Consideodioas.doc
o
o
c
and the City redistributed an updated and revised hritial Study and Notice of Preparation
to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested persons for a second 30-
day comment period for the environmental impact report from February 18, 2004 to
March 18, 2004.
. a public scoping meeting was held on March 26, 2004, to give the public the opportunity
to provide comments as related to the proposed Project and the issues the public would
like addressed in the Draft EIR.
. a Draft EIR was distributed for public review on April 8, 2004, for the 45-day review
period with the review period ending on May 24, 2004. Four comment letters were
received before the close of the public review period. The specific responses to the
written comments are in the Final EIR: 3-1 through 3-14.
. the Final EIR was distributed for a 10-day notification period beginning on June 15,
2004.
. on June 22, 2004, the City Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the
Proj ect.
. on July 19, 2004, the Common Council conducted a noticed joint public hearing with the
Commission to consider the approval of an Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Uptown Redevelopment Project (Reinstatement of Eminent Domain) of an Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central City North Redevelopment Project and
certified the Final EIR.
A.
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
The City retained LSA Associates, Inc., to assist with the preparation of the Draft EIR and Final
EIR. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR were prepared under the direction and supervision of the
City, Development Services Department, Planning Division. The Final EIR includes the
documents, reports, technical appendices, correspondence, notices, minutes of public scoping
meetings and related materials described in Final EIR 1-1. The Final EIR is on file with the City
Clerk and is available for inspection and copying as a public record of the City by interested
persons during the regular business hours of the City Clerk. The Agency participated and
cooperated with the City in the review and commenting process during the EIR preparation.
Finding: The Final EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The
Commission has considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to the approval of the Project.
The Commission has exercised its independent judgment in reviewing and considering the
contents of the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(d).
B. FINDINGS ON THE FINAL EIR
Finding: The Commission hereby declares that the Final EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the
4
P:\Agc:ndas\Conm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-191Jplown CCN Statement ofOvcnid.ing Considcralions.OOc
()
o
c
mitigation measures" discussed in the Final ErR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less
than significance as set forth in Section ill.F. However, there are certain other significant effects
which either CatUlot be fully mitigated or for which no feasible or practical mitigation currently
exist, and these unavoidable significant impacts are discussed in Section ill.G of these Findings.
C. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
The Commission has reviewed the mitigation measures applicable to the Project set forth in the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan and adopted by the City, as the "lead agency".
Findings: The Commission hereby finds that the mitigation measures summarized in the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall reduce all potential significant impacts of the Project to a level
of less than significant, except as set forth in Section ill.G. The Commission hereby adopts all
mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The Commission hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project in the form as submitted to the Commission at the
joint public hearings when the Final EIR was considered. If a mitigation measure identified in
the Final EIR has, through error, been omitted from the Mitigation Monitoring Plan from these
Findings, or that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that mitigation measure
shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for
the Project presented in Final EIR: (D)l-l through 1-5 and 4.1 through 4.6, inclusive. Responses
to comments and any revisions or omissions to the Draft EIR are provided in the Final EIR: 3-1
through 3-14.
The Final EIR evaluated two (2) major environmental categories (transportation/circulation and
air quality) for potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both
project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these two (2) environmental
categories, the Commission concurs with the conclusions in the Final EIR that with respect to all
except the issues considered in Section ill.G., that all of the other issues and sub-issues discussed
in these Findings can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold and for those issues
which CatUlot be mitigated below a level of significance (See Section ill.G.), overriding
considerations exist which make impacts acceptable. In addition to the two (2) major
environmental categories addressed in the Final ErR, four (4) other major categories were found
to be non-significant in the Initial Study prepared by the Project. The Commission concurs with
the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR)
and finds that no significant impacts have been identified as to those categories identified in the
Initial Study and no further analysis is required.
E. IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR AS LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
REQUIRING NO MITIGATION
Certain effects for the Project were found not to be significant and were identified as such in the
initial study for the Project. The basis on which the effects of the Project found to be less than
potentially significant were set forth in summary in the Final EIR. These less than potentially
5
P;\Agendu\CommOl:vCoJrmission\COC 2004\04-07-19 Uprown CCN Statement ofOveniding Collsidcrations.lkx:
o
significant effects of the Project are the following the reasons set forth in the Final EIR: (D)2-5
through 2-14:
Agricultural Resources;
Biological Resources;
Energy and Mineral Resources;
Hazards;
Hydrology/W ater Resources;
Population and Housing;
Public Services
Public Utilities; and
Recreation
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) as having
the potential to cause significant impact and were carried forward to the Final EIR for detailed
evaluation. These issues were found, either on the basis of further analysis in the Final EIR or
because the identified impacts have been fully mitigated, as having no potential to cause
significant impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. Each resource issue is
identified and the potential for significant adverse environmental effects is discussed below:
Aesthetics
o
Any project initiated within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas would be subject to City-
mandated development standards relative to the design, construction, and maintenance of
structures, parking areas, landscaping, and site amenities.
New development within the project areas adhering to City-mandated design standards may
result in the construction and operation of uses that contrast with the existing scale, pattern, and
aesthetic character of adjacent development. Because of the deteriorated aesthetic character
currently exhibited within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas, and because any future
development that may occur will be required to adhere to current City design and development
standards, no significant adverse aesthetic impacts would result from either the proposed
reinstatement of eminent domain or the implementation of the proposed General Plan
Amendment 04-02.
The planned future Mercado Santa Fe Project proposes demolition of several existing residential
and commercial uses within a portion of Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area. The future
construction of a retail-commercial center and the installation of public amenities and
infrastructure improvements will alter the existing character of the site. The proposed retail-
commercial project will be required to adhere to applicable City-mandated design guidelines and
development standards. The proposed future development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project per
applicable City standards would eliminate blighted conditions that are present on site, generally
improving the aesthetic character of the site. Therefore, no significant adverse aesthetic impacts
are anticipated to result from the development of the proposed future Mercado Santa Fe project.
C Lighting
6
':\AgendaI\ComnI Dev Conmission\CDC 2004\04-01.19 Uptovm CC" Statcmmt ofOvt:rridinj; Considc:ratkms.doe
o
c
c
The location, amount, intensity, or direction of existing lighting sources would not be directly or
immediately affected by the reinstatement of eminent domain or implementation of the proposed
General Plan Amendment 04-02. AB redevelopment occurs within the Uptown and CCN Project
Areas, alterations to the existing lighting environment may occur. Development of the proposed
future Mercado Santa Fe Project will result in the construction and operation of retail-
commercial uses and may alter the amount, intensity, and/or location oflighting.
The installation/operation of new lighting sources within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas
would be required to adhere to the standards in the City's General Plan and the Development
Code. These standards address the effect of lighting and glare and require that no new sources of
light or glare be visible beyond parcel boundaries. Thus, no adverse effects would occur on
neighboring properties and potentially light- sensitive uses. Furthermore, the standards require
such measures as security lighting at entrances and exits to new developments, which may prove
beneficial to neighboring properties. Because the design, installation, and operation of lighting
sources are governed by established standards, and because adherence to such standards is
required of all new development, no potentially adverse lighting impact will result from the
implementation of any component of the proposed Project at this level of analysis.
Cultural Resources
The reinstatement of eminent domain and the proposed General Plan Amendment 04-02 will not
result in direct physical changes to existing structures other than those located on the proposed
retail site, which are addressed in this analysis. Redevelopment activities within the Uptown and
CCN Project Areas will, however, be enabled by these actions and will occur when and where
market conditions and the development and redevelopment climate are favorable. Any
subsequent development activities will be required to adhere to applicable City, State, and
federal regulations governing projects that may impact (either directly or indirectly) the integrity
of an identified historic structure, object, site, or landmark. Subsequent project-specific
historic/cultural resource investigations will be required for future development projects;
consequently, no significant impacts would result from these actions. Anticipated future
development of the retail center on the Mercado Santa Fe Project site will, however, necessitate
. the demolition of ten (10) structures, including three (3) residential structures, three (3) active
commercial structures, and four (4) abandoned structures that formerly housed or supported
commercial uses.
In snmmary, visual inspection and historical research of the proposed retail project site
demonstrated the presence of single- and multi-family domestic residences of Euro-American
blue-collar and middle-class residents. The residences were constructed over a succession of
years from about 1905 through the 1910s, and were occupied by successions of individuals and
families. The commercial properties were constructed in the 1950s. AB none appear eligible for
listing on the California Register, the demolition of the residences and the commercial buildings
is not considered an adverse effect under CEQA guidelines. The anticipated Mercado Santa Fe
Project retail center development will have no adverse effect on any potential historic properties
on-site or in the immediate area.
F.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED
BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES
7
P:\ApDdas\Comm Dev Conmisrioa\CDC 2004\04-01-19 Uptown CCN Stalemcnt ofOveniding Considerations.doc
o
c
c
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been completed, which identifies one or
more significant effects, unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final ElR.
The following issues from the environmental categories analyzed by the Final ElR were found to
be potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the imposition
of mitigation measures:
. Air Quality,
. Traffic and Circulation,
. Cultural Resources and,
. Noise.
The Commission finds that all potentially significant impacts of the Project listed below can and
will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures set forth in the
Final ElR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Specific findings of the Commission for each
category of such impacts are set forth in detail below:
The Commission hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21081 that the following potential
environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance, based upon the
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final ElR:
AIR QUALITY
The development assumptions of the Project are set forth in Final ElR (0) Table 3.A. These
development assumptions produce certain affects on Air Quality under the guidelines set forth by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). These SCAQMD guidelines
were applied to the assessment of Air Quality impacts of the Project. Essentially, these
development impacts are associated with the amendment to the land use element of the General
Plan and the Mercado Santa Fe Project.
The analysis conducted in the Fiual ElR (Final ElR (0) 4.2-1 through 4.2-18) indicates that the
Project will not have an adverse environmental effect on two (2) elements of Air Quality. These
two (2) elements are referred to as "Architectural Coatings in Construction Activities" and
"Long-Term Microscale (CO Hotspots) Impacts." However, the analysis of two (2) other
8
P:\AgeQdas\Comm Dev Cotmtission\COC 2004\04-07-19 UptOwn CCN SWcmcnI ofOvariding ConsMimltions.doc
o
o
c
elements of Air Quality in the Final EIR (Final EIR (D) 4.2-18 through 4.2-22) indicate that the
Project will have certain unavoidable adverse impacts even after the implementation of
mitigation measures. These two (2) elements are identified in the Final EIR as "Construction
Impacts" (construction equipment exhaust and dust) and "Long-Term Regional Air Quality
Impacts" (vehicle traffic effects on air quality).
Air Quality/Construction Impacts (SEE ALSO SECTION m.G. SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE):
According to the Final EIR the short-term construction impacts associated with the Mercado
Santa Fe Project can be reduced if mitigation measures are implemented. However, even with
the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, short-term adverse
effects on sensitive receptors during the course of construction of the Mercado Santa Fe Project
will remain significant and unavoidable.
Findings: The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall
substantially reduce the adverse effects of the short-term construction improvements, but not
reduce them to a level of insignificance. All construction activities undertaken as a result of the
Project shall be required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air
pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best
available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402
requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a
nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are sununarized below.
Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and
thus the PMI0 component).
Rule 403 Measures applicable to the proposed actions include:
. apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more);
. water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be
thoroughly watered prior ~o earthmoving);
. all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should
maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of
California Vehicle Code (CVe) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between
the top of the load and top of the trailer);
. pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road; and
. traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
In addition to Rule 403 measures, the following measures shall apply to the proposed actions:
9
P:\Agendat\Cotm1 Dev CommisSion\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN SWement ofOvcnidiRI Considcntions.doc
o
o
c
. disturbed areas shall be (re)vegetated as quickly as possible;
. all excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph;
. all streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent
streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water);
. wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
roads; and
. the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low
emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline
powered engines where feasible.
The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that
work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through
October) the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the
size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same
tim. .
e.
The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak
hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a
flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the
construction crew.
Air QualitylLong- Term Regional Air Quality Impacts (SEE ALSO SECTION m.G.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE):
Long-term air emissions are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources. The
Final EIR forecasts the potential effect on long-term air emissions of the Mercado Santa Fe
Project and the new development potential associated with the amendment to the land use
elements of the General Plan. The Final EIR assumes that 21,419 daily vehicle traffic trips will
be generated as a result of such development in calendar year 2008 (Final EIR (D) 4.2-21
through 4.2-22 and Final EIR (D) Table 4.2.1).
10
P:\AgePdas\Comn Dtv ComrnissioD\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statemcrat ofOvcniding Considerations.doc
o
c
c
In light of the emissions produced by these new vehicle trips and the related stationary source air
emissions of the completed project, the Final EIR reports that emissions of carbon dioxide,
reactive organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide and visibility reducing particles (PMIO) will
exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD for these pollutants.
Findings: The Final EIR notes that no measures are available to reduce emissions from mobile
sources (vehicle trips) and that it is mobile source emission which is the primary source of long-
term air quality impacts associated with the Project. The Commission hereby concurs with this
finding.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Findings: The Commission hereby fmds that adherence to the following mitigation measures
shall reduce the potential adverse effects on cultural resources to a level of insignificance:
In the event construction activities expose a cultural or archaeological resource, a
qualifieli archaeologist shall be notified to ascertain the significance of the find. The
qualified archaeologist shall be empowered to halt or divert earthmoving activities in the
vicinity of the find to allow for the adequate (as determined by the City, State, or other
responsible entity) recordation and/or recovery of the fmd.
If human remains are encountered, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NARC),
which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). With the permission
of the landowner or hislher authorized representative, the descendent may inspect the site
of the discovery. The descendent shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of
notification by the NARC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials.
NOISE
The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall substantially reduce
potentially significant noise impacts from short-term construction operations, but not reduce
them to a level of insignificance:
During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the project contractors shall equip
all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained
mufflers consistent with manufacturer's standards.
The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
11
P:\AgeDdas\Comm Dev Commission\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CO{ Statement orOvatiding Considerations.doc
o
o
c
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the
greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during all project construction.
During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all
construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. Only limited construction that would not affect
adjacent sensitive uses is permitted on Sundays and government holidays.
Finding: The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall reduce
potentially significant noise impacts from long-term construction operations to a level of
insignificance:
An air-conditioning system for all cornmerciaVoffice buildings will be required in any
location impacted by traffic noise levels exceeding 57 dBA CNEL.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Finding: The Commission hereby finds that the following mitigation measures shall reduce
potentially significant traffic impacts to a level of insignificance:
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the project proponent shall install a traffic
signal at the "L" Street! Second Street intersection.
Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the Project proponent shall install a traffic
signal at the "]" Street! Second Street intersection.
Finding: The Commission hereby finds that implementation of the following mitigation
measures relating to intersection improvements for year 2025 with project conditions, the
minimum level of service standards are maintained at study area intersections where a significant
Project impact is identified, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level:
The Project shall make a fair share contribution to the following mitigation measures:
Station W ay/Giavanola Avenue! Second Street - Installation of a traffic signal.
"L" Street!Second Street - Installation of a traffic signal.
"K" Streetllbird Street - Addition of one westbound through lane.
"J" Street! Second Street - Installation of a traffic signal.
1-215 Southbound On-Ramp/Second Street - Restripe southbound approach as one
dedicated left turn lane, one shared through!left turn lane, and one right turn lane.
12
P;\Agcndas\Co1DD Dev Commissicm\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statem=nt ofOvcrriding Considerations,doc
c
c
c
G.
IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR AND DETERMINED TO BE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
With the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR, the following adverse impacts of the proposed project stated below are considered to
be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based upon information in
the Final EIR, in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on
this Project. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation
measures which are imposed and which will reduce impacts to the extent feasible:
Both short-term construction-related impacts and long-term vehicular air quality impacts have
been identified as significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
Air Quality
Construction Emissions (Fugitive Dust/Construction Equipment Exhaust). While
compliance with the standard control measures will reduce by half the emissions of fugitive dust,
these emissions as emission of nitrous oxides (NOX) or exhaust from construction equipment,
will remain above thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District;
therefore, impacts resulting from the development of the Mercado Santa Fe Project will remain
significant and unavoidable. The Counnission hereby concurs with this finding.
Long-Term Regional Air Quality Impacts. Most of the Project's long-term air quality impacts
are generated by vehicle emissions. No mitigation measures are available to substantially reduce
long-term air quality impacts of the Project. Therefore, impacts remain significant and
unavoidable. The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
Traffic
Year 2008 with Project Freeway Conditions. All freeway segments examined on Interstate 10
(1-10) and 1-215 are projected to operate below acceptable levels of service. There are no
feasible mitigation measures for these impacts; thus, they remain significant and unavoidable.
The Counnission hereby concurs with this finding.
Year 2025 with Project Freeway Conditions. All freeway segments examined on the 1-10, 1-
215, State Route 259 (SR-259), and State Route 30 (SR-30) are projected to operate below
acceptable levels of service. There are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts; thus,
they remain significant and unavoidable. The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
Finding: The Counnission concurs with the conclusion of the EIR that there is no feasible way
of assuring funding of the following specific mainline freeway improvements, and that
accordingly the adverse impacts from the Project to existing "Below Level of Service Threshold"
operations of these freeway segments will be significant and unavoidable:
1-10 - 1-215 to Waterman Avenue: Addition of one eastbound mixed-flow lane and one
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, and one westbound HOV lane.
13
P:\Agmdas\Comn Dev Commission\CDC 2Q04\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statcmcot ofOvuriding Coasidcntions.doc
o
o
c
1-215 - Mt. Vernon Avenue to Orange Show Road: Addition of one northbound mixed-
flow lane, one northbound HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one
southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - Orange Show Road to Inland Center Drive: Addition of one northbound mixed-
flow lane, one northbound HOV lane, and one southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - Inland Center Drive to Second Street: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow
lane, one northbound HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one southbound
HOV lane.
l-215 - Second Street to Fifth Street: Addition of one northbound HOV lane and one
southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - Fifth Street to SR-259: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow lane, one
northbound HOV lane, and one southbound HOV lane.
1-215 - SR-259 to SR-30: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow lane, one northbound
HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one southbound HOV lane.
1-125 to Highland Avenue: Addition of one HOV lane in the northbound and
southbound directions.
SR-259 - Highland Avenue to SR-30: Addition of one HOV lane in the northbound and
southbound directions.
SR-30 - 1-259 to Waterman Avenue: Addition of one northbound mixed-flow lane, one
northbound HOV lane, one southbound mixed-flow lane, and one southbound
Improvements to 1-10, 1-215, SR-259, and SR-30 are under the authority of Caltrans. However,
there is no mechanism for development project proponents to pay fees or make fair-share
contributions toward improving mainline freeway lanes. Even if there were such a mechanism,
there is no way to ensure that such payments would be directed to a specific freeway
improvement project. Consequently, there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts.
The Commission hereby concurs with this finding.
H. RESERVED
14
P:\AgeDdas\Comn Dev Cotmrission\COC 2004\04-07-19 Uptown CCN Statement orOvcniding ConsideratioDs.OOc
c
c
c
I.
PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits derived from the approval of the Project are related to eliminating conditions of
blight in the Project Areas. The Project fulfills the goals outlined in the City's General Plan, the
goals outlined in each respective project area plan as well as the primary purpose of the Agency
under Community Redevelopment Law by means of assisting owner participants and third party
developers under the terms of specific redevelopment agreements and covenants acceptable to
the Agency to (i) consolidate parcels; (ii) eliminate obsolete or blighted structures or conditions
on commercial property; and, (iii) preserve and create new employment and private capital
investment in the Project Area.
The following benefits will occur as a result of Project implementation:
1. hnplementation of the Project will result in the eliminate obsolete or blighted
structures or conditions.
2. The Project will result in the preservation and creation of new employment and
capital investment within the Uptown and CCN Project Areas.
3. The construction and operation of the proposed project will provide new employment
opportunities, both short-term construction and potential long-term retail
employment.
4. Establishment of the Mercado Santa Fe Project within Subarea B of the Uptown
Project area will provide additional shopping amenities to serve the residents of the
City and adjacent communities.
5. Development of the proposed Project will provide a logical extension of convenient
and aesthetically compatible uses, which will strengthen the economic viability ofthe
City.
J. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Commission adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the
significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR.
The following significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project
after implementation of all project-specific mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of the
Final EIR:
Air Quality
The proposed project would create significant air quality impacts from short-term construction
activities and during long-term operations of the site. Pollutant emissions resulting from short-
term construction activity would exceed thresholds for NOx and PMI. emissions after mitigation.
Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operation activities would also exceed thresholds
for CO, ROC, NOx, and PM... These impacts remain significant after mitigation.
15
P:\Apldas\CofrmDr:v Commission\CDC ~7.19 UptOwD COl StIICmCDI.ofOvcrriding ConIidcntions.doc
c
c
c
Traffic
Two significant unavoidable traffic impacts would result from implementation of the proposed
project.
The proposed project creates or contributes to unacceptable freeway operations (LOS F) during
the p.m. peak hour in year 2008 on the following:
. 1-10 from 1-215 to Waterman Avenue; and
. 1-215 from Mt. Vernon Avenue to SR-30.
In year 2025, the project creates or contributes to unacceptable freeway operations (LOS F)
during the p.m. peak hour on the following:
. 1-10 from 1-215 to Waterman Avenue;
. 1-215 from Mt. Vernon Avenue to SR-30;
. SR-259 from 1-215 to SR-30;
. SR-30 from State Street to 1-215; and
. SR-30 from 1-259 to Waterman Avenue.
Although mitigation of these impacts could be obtained by adding HOV or mixed-flow freeway
lanes, these improvements are under the authority of Caltrans. There is no mechanism for
development proponents to pay fees or make fair-share contributions toward improving mainline
freeway lanes. Even if such a mechanism existed, there are no means to ensure that such
payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project. Consequently, there are
no feasible mitigation measures for identified freeway impacts.
AIR QUALITY
While implementation of mitigation measures will reduce construction-related air quality
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, short-term construction air quality impacts resulting from
the proposed future retail center known as Mercado Santa Fe Project unavoidable. Nevertheless,
the elimination of blight in Subarea B of the Uptown Project Area is hereby found to outweigh
this temporary short-term adverse impact.
No measures are available to reduce emissions from mobile sources, which are the primary
source impacts. Long-term air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
All of the freeway segments examined on 1-10 and 1-215 are projected to operate below the
acceptable level of service threshold under 2008 with project conditions. The addition of
project- generated traffic contributes to these unsatisfactory operations. Improvements to 1-10
and 1-215 are under the authority of Caltrans. However, there is no mechanism for development
project proponents to pay fees or make fair share contributions towards improving mainline
freeway lanes, and even if there were such a mechanism, there is no way to ensure that such
16
P:\Agendas\Conm Dev Cornniaioo\CDC 2004\04-07-19 Upown CO! Statement of Overriding Considtrabons.doe
c
payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project. Consequently, there are
no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts.
Because there is no feasible way to ensure payment for the identified mitigation, these impacts
remain significant and unavoidable.
NOISE
The increase in short-term traffic on the surrounding roads due to construction activities is
expected to be small reduction in and the associated increase in long-term traffic noise will not
be perceptible. However, short-term intermittent high noise levels associated with truck traffic
can be anticipated.
This section of findings specifically addresses the requirements of Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which require the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against
its unavoidable significant impacts and to determined. whether the impacts are acceptably
overridden by the project benefits. The Commission finds that the previously stated major
project benefits, see Section F above, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental impacts noted above. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed project cited
in the materials prepared at the direction of the City by the EIR consultant are hereby determined
to be, in themselves and independent of the other project benefits, a basis for overriding all
unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and in these findings.
C The Commission's fmdings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse
environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures, which can reduce impacts to less
than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels where significant impacts
remain. The findings have also analyzed four alternatives to determine whether there are
reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or
eliminate the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The Final EIR, present
evidence that implementing the development of the project will canse significant adverse
impacts, which cannot be substantially mitigated to nonsignificant levels. These significant
impacts have been outlined above and the Commission makes the following finding:
Finding: Having considered the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, the Commission
hereby determines that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially
significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and that no additional feasible mitigation is
available to furthl;!" reduce significant impacts. Further, the Commission finds that economic,
social, and other considerations of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts
described above. The reasons for accepting these remaiuing unmitigated impacts are described
below. In making this finding, the Commission has balanced the benefits of the project against
its unavoidable environmental impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those risks.
Finding: The Commission finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and override each
unavoidable impact of the project.
c
17
P:\Agendas\Conm De. Commission\CDC 2004\(}4..07.19 UptowD CCN StatcmcDt o(()vmiding Considmtions.doc
c
c
c
K.
ADOPTION OF A MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CEQA MITIGATION
MEASURES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires the Commission to adopt a mouitoring or reporting
program regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan included as Section 5 in
the Final EIR is hereby approved and adopted by the Commission, and the Commission hereby
finds that such plan satisfies CEQA's mitigation monitoring requirements. Furthermore, the
Commission shall ensure the Agency shall comply with the requirements of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and make such reports as necessary during: (i) all condemnation
proceedings against land lying within either Project Area; (ii) the development of the Mercado
Santa Fe Project if assisted by the Agency; and (iii) the development of any other redevelopment
project lying on land affected by General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 to which the Agency
grants assistance.
1. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the
project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation;
and
2. Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
18
P:\Aamdas\Cotmt D:v Commissioo\CDC 2004\04-07.19 Uptown CCN Statem:at of Overriding Coasidc:rationsdoe
C 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
c
c
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city and municipal
corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California;
12 and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
14
13
15
Redevelopment Law (the "CRL"). The CRL is found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City ("Common Council"), by
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-527 on June 18, 1986, approved and adopted the Redevelopment
Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has subsequently adopted certain amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as follows:
(i) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-927 on December 19, 1995; and
(ii) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 on December I, 2003.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as adopted
by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-527, and as amended by Common Council Ordinance
No. MC-927, and as further amended by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 is referred
to herein as the "Redevelopment Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has initiated proceedings for the adoption of a further
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power to acquire land in the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
P:\Agmdas\Resolutions\R.esolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
c
c
c
2
redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") by
eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, Common Council and the Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") which serves as the governing board of the Agency
have called upon the owners of property, residents, business operators and neighborhood
organizations in the Project Area to form a Project Area Committee for the purpose of having
consultations concerning the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain
and the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "2004 Amendment") and the
potential of the Agency's exercise of the reinstated power of eminent domain to displace low-
and moderate-income residents through the exercise of erninent domain on residential properties
within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Project Area Committee for the Project Area have
considered and approved the 2004 Amendment and have voted to recommend the Common
Council and the Commission that the 2004 Amendment be approved at the Joint Public Hearing
scheduled for July 19, 2004 on the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Amendment does not propose to modify the boundaries of the
Project Area or change any of the fmancial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. The 2004
Amendment is focused solely on the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority
with respect to all property in the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the
adoption of the ordinance of the Common Council adopting the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council consented to hold a joint public hearing with the
Commission with respect to the 2004 Amendment, at which public hearing any and all persons
having any objection to the 2004 Amendment or the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report described below, or the regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2004
Amendment, would be allowed to appear before the Commission and the Common Council and
show cause why the 2004 Amendment should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the joint public hearing of the Commission and the Common Council was
duly held on July 19, 2004 regarding the certification of the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report and the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Final Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in
connection with the consideration and approval of the 2004 Amendment and certain related
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
-2-
P:\AgcndasIResolutionslResolutions\2004I04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
C redevelopment implementing activities, including a redevelopment study project referred to as
2 the "Mercado Santa Fe Project" and the City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, and the
3 Common Council has adopted its resolution entitled:
4
"RESOLUTION OF THE CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING A
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE
CENTRAL CIlY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND
OTHER ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS, APPROVING CERTIFYING A
TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, AND
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02"; and
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted its resolution entitled:
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS A RESPONSffiLE AGENCY UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIlY ACT ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING
FINDINGS THAT A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS OF THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CENTRAL CITY NORTH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FULLY AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE APPROVAL BY
THE COMMISSION OF SUCH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS";
and
12
13
o
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 WHEREAS, aIllegaI prerequisites to the passage of this Resolution have occurred and
21 been taken in accordance with applicable law.
22
NOW, THEREFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND AND DETERMINE AS
FOLLOWS:
23
24
Section I.
The information set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution is true an
25
26
correct. The Commission has conducted a full and fair joint public hearing with the Commissio
c
Council on July 19,2004 regarding the 2004 Amendment.
27
Section 2. The purposes and intent of the Commission with respect to the 2004
28
Amendment is to reinstate the Agency's eminent domain authority with respect to all property in
-3-
P:lAgendaslResolutionslRerolutions\2004I04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
C
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
C 15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
16
the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period thereby protecting and promoting the sound
redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City by
providing a method of property acquisition through the potential use of eminent domain in order
for the Agency to be able to assemble parcels, attract redevelopment interest by owners of land
and third persons and secure capital improvement in the Project Area by insuring its ability to
deliver property for redevelopment purposes as part of specific programs to eliminate and
prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area.
Section 3. No written objection to the 2004 Amendment was received by the
Commission prior to the joint public hearing and no written or oral objection was submitted to
the Commission or the Common Council prior to the close of the joint public hearing on the
2004 Amendment. Based on all staff reports and consultant reports prepared by or at the
direction of the Agency and the City, the staff and consultant's presentations submitted at the
joint public hearing, including without limitation the visual display of maps, graphs, charts and
photographs and the oral comments of interested persons submitted to the Commission and the
Common Council at the joint public hearing, and the "Report to Mayor and Common Council,
2004 Eminent Domain Amendment, Uptown Redevelopment Report" (the "Section 33352
Report").
Section 4. (a) The Section 33352 Report contains a summary of facts and
information which indicate that conditions of blight continue to burden the Project Area. The
observation of the conditions of blight which afflict the Project Area is described in the Section
33352 Report. The Section 33352 Report includes both field observation of conditions in the
Project Area and analysis of technical data. The field observation was conducted by Agency
staff and qualified consultants, as described in the Section 33352 Report, all of whom have
significant experience in compiling and evaluating data relating to the existence of blight in a
redevelopment project area.
The Project Area displayed substantial evidence of blight in 1986 at the time when the
Redevelopment Plan was adopted. The existence of blight in 1986 was so prevalent that blight
caused a reduction and lack of property utilization of the area to such an extent that the lands in
the Project Area posed a physical and economic burden on the community.
CRL Section 33031 contains the primary source of law for the definition of "blight".
The following contains a summary of the information contained in the Section 33352 Report
-4-
P:lAgcndaslResolutionslResolutions\2004104-ll7-19 Uptowu 86gbl Analysis CDC Reso.doc
c
o
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C 28
2
which is organized under each of the four (4) elements or categories of "physical blight" (CRL
Section 33031(a)) and the five (5) elements or categories of "economic blight" (CRL Section
3303 I (b)). The applicable text of the statute is presented in bold-faced type, followed by a
summary of the applicable facts contained in the Section 33352 Report.
CRL Section 33031(a)(I): "Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for person
to live or work. These conditions can be caused by serious building code violations
dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty 0
inadequate utilities, or other similar factors."
This provision describes one of the "classic" symptoms of blight. The informatio
summarized in the Section 33352 Report was assembled from field observation of the exterio
areas of buildings and structures visible to Agency staff and consultants from the public stree
and public right-of-ways in the Project Area. It is believed that interior inspection of th
buildings and structures in the Project Area, as well as closer inspections of the exterior areas 0
many properties which were not visible from public streets, would likely indicate many more an
potentially very serious life and safety related building deficiencies than described in the Sectio
33352 Report.
Nevertheless, the Section 3352 Report indicates that 17.9% of the improved parcels 0
land in Subarea A of the Project Area contain buildings which display signs of dilapidation an'
deterioration, and that 17.1% of the improved parcels of land in Subarea B of the Project Are
contain buildings which display signs of dilapidation and deterioration. [Section 3352 Report B
3 and B-4.] It is noted that these numbers are likely to conceal a number of problems 0
symptoms of blight for the reasons stated above. Elsewhere in the Section 3335A Report, it i
noted that the Project Area contains a comparatively large number of vacant parcels of land
nearly one fourth (l/4th) of parcels are vacant [Section 33352 Report B-5]. In an older and full
urbanized area of a community such as the Project Area, such a large percentage of vacant 0
unused parcels of land often is an indication of long-standing conditions of blight. This larg
number of vacant parcels of land, in an otherwise fully developed urban area, is in large part th
result of an effective and sustained effort on the part of the City to enforce building and safe
laws [Section 33352 Report B-23]. As buildings have deteriorated in the Project Area, the Ci
-5-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
P:lAgcndaslResolutionslResolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
o
o
c
\ has taken action to compel property owners to respond to such deterioration and life safe
2 dangers. In many, many cases over the past ten (10) years, property owners have elected t
3 demolish such unsafe structures rather than repair them. [See Section 33352 Report B-23: "Fo
4 the five-year period of 1997-98 through 2001-02, code compliance for deterioration
5 dilapidation cases for the Project Area were higher by 6 times the City average."]
6 Thus the unusually high percentage of vacant parcels of land, plus the conditions
7 observed in the Section 33352 Report relating to the condition of buildings serve to provid
8 confirming evidence that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33032(a)(I) is presen
9 in the Project Area. [Section 33352 Report B-2 through B-7 and accompanying photographs a
10 B-8 through B- I 1.]
1\ Furthermore, despite the extensive availability of vacant land to support new constructio
\2 in the Project Area, new construction simply has not occurred for a number of interrelate
13 factors. A key among these is the fact that old lots - especially the commercially zoned lots
\4 are too small to permit new development under current day planning and zoning standards
15 unless such vacant parcels are first assembled with adjacent.
\6 In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereb
17 fmds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(a)(I) is present in the Projec
\8 Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack ofutiIizatio
19 of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden 0
20 the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by privat
2\ enterprise or govemment action, or both without redevelopment.
22
23
24
CRL Section 33031(a)(2): "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the
economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a
substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack
of parking, or other similar factors."
This condition or symptom of blight remains present in the Project Area. The large
number of vacant lots in the Project Area - 24% of all legal parcels are vacant in the Project
Area comprising approximately 22% of the total acreage of the Project Area - evidences this
symptom of blight [Section 33352 Report B-5]. The small size of parcels ofIand in the Project
25
26
27
28
-6-
P:lAgcndaslRcsolutionslRcsolutions\2004I04-o7.19 Uptown Bligb. Analysis CDC R<so.doc
c
c
c
I
2
3
Area also contributes to the problem and in particular, prevents the reuse of many parcels on
which older buildings have already been demolished because of age and deterioration or
economic obsolescence. Small lot size - particularly on community yard properties - 8,000
square feet where the current zoning and development standards require 10,000 square foot
commercial lot size minimum standard - prevent economically feasible reuse of property in the
Project Area in many, many cases. As stated in the Section 33352 Report, "assessing all the
parcels in the Project Area and comparing to the City's minimum lot requirements for each
General Plan land use, 70.1 % of the parcels are non-conforming and do not meet the minimum
lot requirement". [Section 33352 Report B-18]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 I (a)(2) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or govemment action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(3): "Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with
each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions
ofthe project area."
This condition is a symptom of blight and is found in the Project Area. [Section 33352
Report B-15 through B-16 and accompanying photographs.] In addition, this condition is
compounded by the fact that the substantial majority of the residential use parcels of land which
are mixed in among the commercial use parcels along the main street traffic arterial streets are
non-conforming parcels of land. In the case of the "medium density" residential parcels of land
which are interspersed among the commercial use parcels (e.g. a residential parcel of land
improved with a fourplex situated between two small commercial use parcels improved with
"office" type or other nonresidential uses), 82.2% of such "medium density" residential use
parcels are non-conforming [Section 33352 Report B-19]. It should also be noted that the total
number of residential use parcels in the Project Area is fairly low (125 parcels out of a total of
1,144 parcels) in comparison to the other "general commercial"/industrial uses of land in the
Project Area. And yet the average number of residents per residential use parcel of land is
remarkably high (e.g. approximately 2,760 residents in the Project Area [Section 33352 Report
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
-7-
P:lAgcndaslResolutionslR<solutions\2004104-ll7-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 28
B-21]). This indicates that the average number of residents per residential parcel is
approximately 23 persons per parcel. Since the majority of all residential use parcels are non-
conforming or substandard in size, the evidence of incompatibility of land uses also serves to
provide evidence of the conditions of residential overcrowding which is observed in the Project
Area.
13
14
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
fmds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (aX3) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which caunot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(a)(4): "The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and
shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple
ownership."
This condition of blight is also present in the Project Area. The ownership pattern of
land in the Project Area is exceedingly diverse and such small ownership pattern indicates that
land assembly by private property owners has not occurred. It is likely that given all the other
burdens affecting the Project Area, and the comparative ease for commercial businesses and
buyers of property to select other less challenged and newer areas of the community for
investment, that the assembly of small parcels into larger parcels of developable land in the
Project Area is not reasonably likely to occur without redevelopment assistance in one form or
another.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (a)(4) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which caunot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(1): "Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired
investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing
15
16
17
18
19
20
-8-
P:lAgcndaslResolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Bligh. Analysis CDC Reso.doc
c
o
c
2
hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article 12.5
(commencing with Section 33459)."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. Despite recent news reports and
general views about rising real estate investment values in the Inland Empire and in San
Bernardino in particular, the Project Area appears to be an area of the community which has not
benefited from these generally favorable economic conditions in recent years. In part of fact,
since the time when the Project Area was established in 1986 a serious and sustained series of
negative economic factors have produced an almost "perfect storm" of adverse economic
conditions in the Project Area. The economic down-turn of the late 1980's and early '90s,
coupled with'the closing of the nearby Santa Fe railway locomotive repair shop facility and the
closing of nearby Norton Air Force Base have resulted in a major exodus of commercial
business activity from the Project Area since 1986.
As is readily apparent in the Section 33352 Report, as well as apparent to an untrained
observer who merely takes a drive through the Project Area, virtually no new development or
construction activity since 1986, is apparent in the Project Area today. In light of the large
number of vacant parcels of land available in the Project Area, this fact is particularly significant
and indicative of this economic condition of blight.
The Section 33352 Report provides a good summary of the available evidence of the
existence of stagnant and depreciated property values which serve to illustrate this problem:
"In order to examine the economic health of the Project Area, trends in secured property
values, which include the land and improvement values, were analyzed for the fiscal
years 1998-99 through 2002-03. The Project Area assessed values increased by 1.37%
annually during this period. The secured assessed value for the City increased by 1.79%
annually from 1998-99 through 2002-03.
A more detailed, analysis by San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel Map Book and
Page of the Project Area assessed values revealed that despite the slow growth in the
value of the entire Project Area, many blocks actually declined and did not keep pace
with the Proposition 13 inflationary adjustment, due to declining market values. The
analysis revealed that parcels on 16 map book pages declined in value and in addition to
this, parcels on 15 more map book pages did not grow by the Proposition 13 inflationary
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
-9-
P:lAgcndaslResolutionslResolutions\2004104.Q7,19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
c
c
o
2
adjustment rate of2%. These 31 pages represent 54% of the total Project Area's blocks."
[See Section 33352 Report Table B-6]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 33031(b)(1) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(2): "Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low
lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an
area developed for urban use and served by utilities."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. The photographs and the Section
33352 Report portray a number of vacant commercial use structures in the Project Area. The
number of vacant and under utilized commercial buildings particularly along Highland Avenue
is quite noticeable to the casual observer. In addition, the unusually high percentage of vacant
parcels in the Project Area provides evidence that this condition of blight exists.
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (b)(2) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(4): "Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor
stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of
public safety and welfare."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. Residential overcrowding is a
significant problem and one which is not likely to improve without redevelopment. Although
the sustained efforts of City code enforcement have produced very positive results in the Project
Area, government action alone cannot remedy the problem in the near term. The investment of
private capital is required to address the problem of residential overcrowding. Given the extent
of blighting conditions in the Project Area, it is unfortunately not surprising that the investment
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1\
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
P:\AgendaslResolutionslResolutions\2004I04-07-19 Uptown Bligb' Analysis ax; Reso.doc
C 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
C IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o
14
of private capital in the Project Area since 1986 has not made much of an improvement since the
time the Project Area was established. lbis is confirmed by the finding under CRL Section
33032(a)(3), above. Furthermore, the presence of so-called "adult business" activities in the
Project Area, such as on Highland Avenue, provides evidence of the persistent and adverse
nature of these conditions of blight. [Section 33352 Report B-29 and B-30]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (b)(4) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the conununity which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
CRL Section 33031(b)(5): "A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the
public safety and welfare."
This symptom of blight is present in the Project Area. [Section 33352 Report B-26
through B-30.]
In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Commission hereby
finds that the condition of blight described in CRL Section 3303 1 (b)(5) is present in the Project
Area and is a prevalent and substantial condition which causes a reduction and lack of utilization
of the Project Area and substantially contributes to a serious physical and economic burden on
the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or government action, or both without redevelopment.
(b) In view of the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report the Conunission
hereby finds that the conditions of blight described in CRL Section 33031 are present in the
Project Area and that these conditions are prevalent and substantial conditions which cause a
reduction and lack of utilization of the Project Area and substantially contribute to a serious
physical and economic burden on the conununity which cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or government action, or both without
redevelopment.
(c) The Commission hereby further finds that the 2004 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan shall assist the Agency to correct and eliminate the spread of blight in the
Project Area by means of assisting owner participants and third party developers under the terms
26
27
28
-11-
P:lAgcndaslResolutionslResolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
of specific redevelopment agreements and covenants acceptable to the Agency to consolidate
parcels, eliminate obsolete or blighted structures or conditions on commercial use property and
preserve and create new employment and private capital investment in the Project Area.
Section 5. The Commission hereby acknowledges its receipt and approval of the
33352 Report. The Commission hereby requests the Common Council to consider and approve
the 33352 Report in the form as submitted at the joint public hearing for the adoption of the
2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.
Section 6. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the 2004 Amendment, a
copy of which is on file with the Agency Secretary, and which 2004 Amendment is incorporated
herein by this reference, and the Commission designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended
by the 2004 Amendment (hereinafter, the "Amended Redevelopment Plan") as the official
redevelopment plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project subject to the adoption of an
appropriate Ordinance of the Common Council which approves and adopts the 2004
Amendment and the Amended Redevelopment Plan.
Section 7.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Resolution, is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Resolution. The Commission hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Resolution and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution,
irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions of this Resolution be declared invalid for any reason.
Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. The Agency Secretary
shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
III
25 III
26 III
27 III
C 28 III
-12-
P:lAgcndaslResolutionslResolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Bligh. Analysis CDC Reso.doc
5
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
APPROVING THE SECTION 33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
o
2
3
4
6
7
8
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
9 Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting
10 thereof, held on the
11
12 Commission Members
13 ESTRADA
0 14 LONGVlLLE
15 MCGINNIS
16 DERRY
17 KELLEY
18 JOHNSON
19 MCCAMMACK
20
21
day of
, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
Secretary
22
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
,2004.
23
24
25
Judith Valles, Chairperson
Community Development Commission
of the City of San Bernardino
26 Approved as to Form and Legal Content:
c
27
28 By:
Agency Counsel
-13-
P:\AgcndaslRosolutionslRcsolutions\2004104-07.19 Uptown Bligbt Analysis CDC Rcso.doc
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C 28
-14-
P:\Agendas\Rcsolutiol1S\Rcsolutiol1S\2004104~7-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Rcso.doc
c
o
C 28
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
2
3
4
I, Secretary of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and
attached copy of Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy of that now on file in this office.
5
6
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino this
day of , 2004.
8
9
10
11
Secretary of the Community Development
Commission of the City of San Bernardino
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-15-
P:\Agendas\Resolutions\Resolutions\2004\04-07-19 Uptown Blight Analysis CDC Reso.doc
0:
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
025
ORDINANCE NO.
3
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEY,ELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4
5
6
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city and municipal
7
corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California;
8
and
9
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (the "CRL"). The CRL is found at Health and Safety Code Section 33000
10
11
12
et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City ("Common Council"), by
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-527 on June 18, 1986, approved and adopted the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has subsequently adopted certain amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as follows:
(i) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-927 on December 19,1995; and
(ii) Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 on December 1,2003.
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project as adopted by
Common Council Ordinance No. MC-527, and as amended by Common Council Ordinance No.
MC-927, and as further amended by Common Council Ordinance No. MC-1161 is referred to
22
herein as the "Redevelopment Plan"; and
23
WHEREAS, the Common Council has initiated proceedings for the adoption of a further
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reinstate the Agency's power to acquire land in the
redevelopment project area of the Uptown Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") by
24
eminent domain; and
-1-
P:\ApDdu\RaohIdo.l\ReMIutlou\2OCN\lM-07-19 Uptoln PH OnU....a.doc:
o
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WHEREAS, Common Council and the Community Development Commission of the
City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") which serves as the governing board of the Agency
have called upon the owners of property, residents, business operators and neighborhood
organizations in the Project Area to form a Project Area Committee for the purpose of having
consultations concerning the proposed reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain
and the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "2004 Amendment") and the
potential of the Agency's exercise of the reinstated power of eminent domain to displace low-
and moderate-income residents through the exercise of eminent domain on residential properties
within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Amendment does not propose to modify the boundaries of the
Project Area or change any of the financial provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. The 2004
Amendment is focused solely on the reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority
with respect to all property in the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the
adoption of the ordinance of the Common Council adopting the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council consented to hold a joint public hearing with the
Commission with respect to the 2004 Amendment, at which public hearing any and all persons
having any objection to the 2004 Amendment or the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report described below, or the regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2004
Amendment, would be allowed to appear before the Commission and the Common Council and
show cause why the 2004 Amendment should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the joint public hearing of the Commission and the Common Council was
duly held on July 19, 2004 regarding the certification of the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report and the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Final Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in
connection with the consideration and approval of the 2004 Amendment and certain related
redevelopment implementing activities, including a redevelopment study project referred to as
-2-
P:~~.I'U"""'PHOrdlance.dH
o I the "El Mercado Santa Fe Project" and the City General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, and the
2 Common Council has adopted its resolution entitled:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
0 13
14
15
025
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING A
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS OF THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE
CENTRAL CITY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND
OTHER ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS, APPROVING CERTIFYING A
TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, AND
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02"; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted its resolution entitled:
"RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING
CONDmONS OF BLIGHT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA OF
THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, APPROVING THE SECTION
33352 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ON THE 2004
EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE
2004 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT"; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the passage of this Ordinance have occurred and
16
been taken in accordance with applicable law.
17
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
18 SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
19
Section 1.
The facts set forth in the Recitals of this Ordinance are true and correc
20 and are hereby made part of the fmdings and determinations of the Common Council as relate t
21 the approval of the 2004 Amendment.
22
Section 2.
Conditions of blight still affect the Project Area. At the present time, th
23 Agency may acquire land in the Project Area by purchase and other negotiated means, but th
24 Agency's power to acquire land necessary for specific redevelopment project activities lapsed i
1998. In general, the purpose and intent of the Redevelopment Plan is not changed by the 200
-3-
P;~1OoN4-t7-1'Vpto1nIPHOnU._doe
o
0 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Amendment. The purpose and intent of the Common Council with respect to the
Amendment is to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area.
reinstatement of the Agency's eminent domain authority with respect to all property in th
Project Area for a twelve (12) year period following the adoption of this Ordinance is necess
and appropriate to achieve this purpose and intent. The 2004 Amendment shall assist th
Agency to achieve this goal of promoting the redevelopment of the Project Area and the gene
welfare of the inhabitants of the City, by enabling the Agency to assemble parcels which ar
necessary to support specific redevelopment activities to prevent and eliminate the spread 0
blight in the Project Area. Apart from the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain, th
2004 Amendment does not add territory to the Project Area or make any other revision to th
Redevelopment Plan.
Section 3. (a) The Common Council hereby acknowledges its receipt of th
written report, dated July 2004, on the 2004 Amendment which has been prepared pursuant t
CRL Section 33352 (the "Section 33352 Report"). As set forth in CRL Section 33457.1, th
Section 33352 Report contains the information relating to the 2004 Amendment to the exten
warranted by the proposed reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the Project Area
The following subsections of the Section 33352 Report for the 2004 Amendment do not requir
further discussions or consideration as the proposed reinstatement of the Agency'
redevelopment powers does not change the content or analysis of the matters covered under suc
subsections of the report which was prepared and considered by the Common Council unde
Section 33352 at the time when the Redevelopment Plan was originally adopted in 1986. Th
subsections of the Section 33352 Report relating to the 2004 Amendment where substantiv
analysis is not required at this time are identified as follows:
Section 33352(c) the Five Year Implementation Plan;
Section 33352(d) why the elimination of blight cannot be
accomplished by private party action alone'
-4-
P:\Agodu\RaobIdeu\RaoIu60.1UOO4\04-07-19 UJ*n PH Ql'd11lUce.dGc
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
Section 33352(e) method offmancing;
Section 33352(f) the relocation plan;
Section 33352(g) analysis of the preliminary plan;
Section 33352(h) report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission;
Section 33352(j) general plan conformance;
Section 33352(1) report of the County fiscal officer; and
Section 33352(n) sununary of Agency consultations with affected
taxing agencies.
The reinstatement of the Agency's power of eminent domain does not require furthe
analysis at this time under any of the foregoing subsections.
The Common Council further acknowledges its receipt of the other written reports
exhibits and information presented by City and Agency staff and consultants at the joint publi
hearing which was conducted prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, together with all writte
and oral testimony and statements presented by interested persons prior to the close of such join
15
public hearing.
16
(b) The Common Council hereby finds and determines that the joint public hearin
conducted with respect to the 2004 Amendment was full and fair.
Section 4. The Common Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The Common Council has previously found and detennined in Ordinance No
MC-527, that the Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary t
effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL. For the reasons set forth in the Sectio
33352 Report, the Common Council hereby further fmds and detennines in connection with i
consideration of the 2004 Amendment, the that such findings and determinations originally se
forth in Ordinance No. MC-527 continue to be valid. Conditions of blight in the Project Area
originally observed at the time of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan remain in existence
-5-
P:\ApllcW\ReeoIudou\Radou\1004\G4-07-I' Uptowa PH OnUu.ee.doc
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
C 25
which blighting conditions as observed in 2004 include deteriorated and dilapidated building
(33352 Report pages B-4 to B-13), substandard design that prevents or substantially hinde
economically viable use or capacity ofthe buildings or lots (33352 Report pages B-13 to B-15
mixed and incompatible commercial, industrial and residential uses (33352 Report pages B-15 t
B-17), lots of irregular form and size creating a hindrance to future development (33352 Repo
pages B-18 to B-19), prevalence of absentee owners having detrimental effects on buildin
conditions and maintenance of such buildings (33352 Report page B-19), impaired investmen
leading to high vacancy rates and depreciated values (33352 Report pages B-20 to B-21)
prevalence of building and zoning code violations (33352 Report pages B-22 to B-24), and hi
levels of serious criminal offenses in the Project Area (33352 Report pages B-25 to B-29).
2004 the Project Area displays symptoms of both "physical and economic blight" as these term
are defined in CRL Section 33031.
12
15
the public peace, health, safety, and welfare.
c. The adoption and carrying out of the 2004 Amendment remains economicall
sound and feasible for the same reasons as indicated at the time when the Redevelopment PI
was adopted.
16
17
18
d.
The 2004 Amendment will not change the original findings of the Commo
19
Council that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with and conforms to the General Plan of th
City including, but not limited to, the Housing Element of the General Plan.
20
21
e.
The adoption and carrying out of the 2004 Amendment will promote the publi
22
peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City and would effectuate the purposes and policies 0
the CRL and in particular will assist the Agency to elimination and prevent the spread of bligh
on lands which the Agency may not otherwise be able to acquire by negotiated purchase or caus
to be abated by other means.
23
24
-6-
P:\ApII~dou\1OO4\14-07-19Uptcnnl PH OnH.uce.doe
o
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
C 25
1
f. The power to acquire real property by condemnation upon the reinstatement of th
Agency's power of eminent domain, as provided for in the 2004 Amendment, is necessary to th
2
3 execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for payment fo
4 property to be acquired, if any, as provided by law.
5
g.
The Agency has adopted the relocation rules and regulations of the State 0
6
Califomia and therefore has a feasible method for the relocation of families and perso
displaced from the Project Area, if the implementation of the 2004 Amendment should result'
the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Projec
,
7
8
9
Area.
h. The Common Council hereby finds and declares that in the event that any perso
is displaced from the Project Area as the result of the Agency's acquisition of property, whethe
by exercise of the power of eminent domain or otherwise, that there shall be provided in th
Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and publi
16
and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of such persons an
families displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number t
the number of and availability to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible t
their places of employment.
17
The Common Council hereby fmds and declares that in the event the Agency ma
1.
18
acquire any property in the Project Area by exercise of the power of eminent domain 0
otherwise, that the families and persons who reside on such property shall not be displaced b
the Agency prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to CRL Sections 33411 an
33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not b
removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to C
19
20
21
22
23
Sections 33334.5, 33341 and 33413.5.
24
Based upon the information set forth in the Section 33352 Report, th
J.
noncontiguous portion of the Project Area referred to as "Subarea B" is blighted.
-7-
P:\Aptdu\Relollltiou\Resol~-l' Uptowa PH OrdJ.aac:e.doc:
o
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C 25
1
5
k. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area in th
absence of the 2004 Amendment is not reasonably expected to be accomplished by privat
enterprise acting above without the aid and assistance available to the Agency under the 200
Amendment in light of the fact that blight continues to exist in the Project Area on a broad an
substantial scale, and private property owners acting alone often cannot address conditions 0
blight on land which they own or can acquire without Agency assistance because such land
2
3
4
6
7
standing alone, is too small in size, too irregular in shape, too obsolete in present use 0
8
configuration or is too adversely affected by other blighting conditions which impair its valu
10
demonstrated in the Section 33352 Report.
9
and limit investment of new capital and prevent its economic reuse and redevelopment, all
1.
The time limitation on commencement of eminent domain proceedings contain
11
12
in the 2004 Amendment, is reasonably related to projects to be implemented in the Project Are
15
in the Redevelopment Plan.
16
Section 5.
The Common Council hereby overrules each and every written and 0
objection to the adoption of the 2004 Amendment, as submitted to the Common Council prior t
the close of the joint public hearing which preceding the adoption of this Ordinance.
The Common Council hereby finds and determines that in calendar year 2004, the Project Are
is a predominantly urbanized area and displays a combination of conditions set forth in C
Section 33031, and the Section 33352 Report, which remain and are today so prevalent and s
substantial that they cause a reduction of, and lack of, property utilization of the lands in th
Project Area to such an extent that such conditions constitute a serious physical and economi
burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated b
private enterprises or government action, or both, without redevelopment.
-8-
P:\Acfltdu\RaoIlldoDl\llaoIudoaaUOO4\04-O-19 Uptowa PH Ont1IwIee.doc
c
013
14
C 25
1
Section 6.
The Common Council hereby amends the Redevelopment Plan as follows:
2
Subsection "C. Property Acquisition" of Section "V. PROPOSED REDEVELOPME
3 ACTIONS" of the Redevelopment Plan is herby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
4
"C.
Property Acquisition
5
1.
Acquisition of Real Property
6
Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire real property b
any means authorized by law, including by purchase, lease, obtain option upon, acquire by gift
7
8
grant, bequest, devise, or otherwise, any real or personal property, and any improvements on it
9
including repurchase of property owned by Agency, exchange, cooperative negotiation, 0
10
eminent domain.
11
It is in the public interest and is necessary in order to execute this Plan, for the power of eminen
domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire real property in all portions of the Project Area
with the following exclusions:
a. Except as otherwise provided, within, or otherwise provided b
12
15
law, no eminent domain proceedings to acquire property shall be commenced after twelve (12
years from the date of adoption of the ordinance approving and adopting the 2004 Amendment t
the Uptown Redevelopment Plan.
16
17
b.
Agency shall not acquire from any of its members or officers an
18
property or interest in property except through eminent domain proceedings.
19
c.
Property already devoted to a public use may be acquired by th
20
Agency through eminent domain, but property of a public body shall not be acquired without i
21
consent.
22
d.
The Agency at the request of the Common Council may accept
23
conveyance of real property (located either outside a survey area) owned by a public entity an
declared surplus by the public entity, or owned by a private entity.
24
//1
-9-
P:IJ.&eadu\ReIoI.uou\Reloltldou\1ClCN\04-87-19 UptewD PH OnIlauce.doc
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
C 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
C 25
12
The Agency may dispose of such property to private persons or to public or privat
entities, by sale or long-term lease for development. All or any part of the funds derived fro
the sale or lease of such property may at the discretion of the Common Council be paid to th
City, or to the public entity from which any such property was acquired.
Any exercise of its power of eminent domain by the Agency shall be subject to all of th
limitations set forth in this 2004 Amendment. These limitations may only be extended b
subsequent amendment of the Plan.
The Agency shall, if at all, exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with th
provisions and prerequisites of the California Eminent Domain Law [Code of Civil Procedur
Sec. 1230.010 et seq.] and the California Relocation Act [Govemment Code Sec. 7262 et seq.].
2. Acquisition of Personal Property, Any other Interest in Real Property, an
Any Improvements in Real Property
Where necessary in the implementation of the Plan, the Agency is authorized to acquir
personal property, any other interest in real property, and any improvements on real prope
including repurchase of developed property previously owned by Agency by any lawful means."
Section 7. The Common Council designates the Redevelopment Plan, as amended b
the text of the 2004 Amendment as set forth in Section 6 of this Ordinance (hereinafter, th
"Amended Plan"), as the official redevelopment plan for the Uptown Redevelopment Project.
Section 8. The Common Council hereby authorizes and provides for the City'
expenditure of money to implement the Amended Plan.
Section 9. The Agency is hereby vested with the responsibility for carrying out th
Amended Plan in accordance with the provisions thereof and of applicable law.
Section 10. The Common Council hereby declares its intention to undertake an
complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by, the City under the provisions of th
Amended Plan.
/1/
24
-10-
P:\ApJtdU\Relellldoas\Rt:lollttll\2004\04-07-19 UptcnnI PH OrdI...ce.doc
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Section 11. The City Clerk shall comply with the applicable procedures of the C
with respect to the adoption of this Ordinance, including the transmission of a copy of thi
Ordinance to other public entities and the recordation of this Ordinance, or the recordation of
Notice of Amended Plan as authorized by the CRL.
Section 12. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portio
of this Ordinance, is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of an
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainin
portions of this Ordinance. The Common Council hereby declares that it would have adopte
this Ordinance and each, section subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of thi
Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses
phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shal
cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law.
C 13
III
14
III
15
III
16
III
17
III
18 III
19 III
20 III
21 III
22 III
23 III
24 III
C 25 III
-11-
P:~dns\2lO.f\04.07.t,u"""PHOnU.uau.doc
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
C 13
14
15
25
o
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE 2004 EMINENT
DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
UPTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
Council Members:
Ayes
Navs
Abstain
Absent
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
KELLEY
JOHNSON
MC CAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
16 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
17
day of
,2004.
18
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
19
20 Approved as to form and Legal Content:
21
By:
City Attorney
22
23
24
-12-
p:~\1ON\04-07.1'UpIowaPHOrdllIaace..doc