HomeMy WebLinkAbout47-Planning
C~TY OF SAN BERNADINO - REQUEST"" COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Date:
General Plan Amendment No. 90-10
Subject: To change the Land Use Designation
from RS'to RMH on a 1.47 acre parcel
on the southeast corner of Gilbert
Street and Cedar Street
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
nf Nnvpmhpr 1Q ,QQn
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
The site and surrounding City lands were designated RS, Residential Low upon
adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989.
',",
~. !.:
:..:.1
"
r:'!
,.,
" t;';'J
I,.;
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, that the Mayor and Common Council deny the application
for General Plan Amendment No. 90-10.
~.
~~/
Signature
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
2
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
tf7
CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO - REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 90-10
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
of November 19, 1990.
REOUEST
The applicant requests a land use desiqnation chanqe from RS,
Residential Suburban (4.5 dwelling units per acre) to RMH,
Residential Medium Hiqh (24 dwellinq units per acre) on a 1.47 acre
parcel of land on the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Cedar
Street (see Exhibit B of the Initial Study).
BACKGROUlQ)
The applicant's site contains a 26-unit apartment complex which is
about 50 years old. The previOUS 20ninq was R-1, Sinqle Family
Residential. It is desiqnated RS, Residential Suburban on the
General Plan Land Use Plan.
The land to the west of the site, across Cedar Street, is
desiqnated RS and is an established neiqhborhood comprised of one-
story, sinqle-familY homes. The land south and east of the site is
desiqnated RU-1, Residential Urban and is comprised of one-story
sinqle-family homes interspersed with duplexes and small multi-
famil y units. County Hospital is to the north, across Gi lbert
Street (see Exhibit A of the Initial Study).
Staff evaluated the applicant's request and concluded that the RMH,',
Residential Medium Hiqh desiqnation is not consistent with the
General Plan in that a density of 24 units per acre (yielding 35
units on the site) is not compatible with the surrounding uses and
desiqnations. This desiqnation would permit the existinq
structures to be removed and new units constructed in their place.
The structures could be built to a height of three stories.
The present use on the site is consistent with the General Plan as
policy 1.7.10 permits reconstruction to the present density in the
event of destruction by catrastrophe.
DVIROBMElftAL
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the applicant's
proposal and the Initial Study on Auqust 23, 1990 and proposed a
Negative Declaration.
75-0264
General Plan Amendment ~ 90-10
Mayor and Common Counci~et;ng of
November 19, 1990
Page 2
o
PLAlIlfIRG COMMISSIOR RBCOMMEIIDATIOR
The Planning Commission recommended denial of General Plan
Amendment No. 90-10 (Attachment II, at a noticed public hearing on
October 23, 1990. The vote was 3 for. 2 against, 3 absent. The
denial was based on the following findings as contained in the
attached staff report:
1. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals.
objectives and policies of the General Plan in that an RHH,
Residential Medium High designation is not compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
2. The proposed amendment could be detrimental to the publiC
interest, health, safety, convenience. or welfare of the City
by imposing a high density designation (RHH) into a low
density area (RS).
MAYOR AIm COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan
Amendment No. 90-10 based on the findings in this report.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may continue the hearIng and
direct staff to reevaluate the application to consider
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-10.
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny General
Plan Amendment No. 90-10.
Prepared by:
John R. Burke, Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed, Director
Department of Planning and BUilding Services
Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission
Attachment A: Initial Study dated August 2. 1990
Exhibit A: Proposed Amendment
Exhibit B: Location Map with Land
Use Designations.
'.
(
r',,-...
'-"
~
t)
W
~
"
W
a::
-
<
W
a::
<
\......-\
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
~ General Plan Amendment No. 90-10
<
(.)
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
4
10/9/90
2
.....
APPUCANT: Herbert Rankin, PRI Group Inc.
12555 High Bluff Drive, #318
San Diego CA 92130
OWNER:~harlies & Elaine Metzger
7511 Corte Lomas Verdes
Poway CA 92064
To change the land use designation from RS, Residential Suburban to RMH,
Residential Medium High on a 1.47 acre parcel located on the southeast
corner of Gilbert Street and Cedar Street.
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
West
EXISTING
LANO LJSE
Apartments
County Hospital
Residential
Residential
Residential
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
RS, Residential Suburban
CO-I, Commercial Office
RU-l, Residential Urban
RU-l, Residential Urban
RS, Residential Suburban
\..
( GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC CJYES ) FLOOD HAZARD CJ YES CJ ZONE A ( SEWERS: ~ YES )
HAZARD ZONE: n NO \... ZONE: IXJ NO CJ ZONE B o NO
( HIGH FIRE CJYES )( AIRPORT NOISE! CJ YES )l REDEVELOPMENT DYES )
HAZARD ZONE: ~ NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
01 NO DNO
-
...I
j!
ZU)
WCJ
:&Z
Z-
Oel
a::~
-u.
>
.. \. ifi
l-
...,ClII'....~
--.._ 11>.
o NOT
APPUCABLE
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS WITH
MITlGAnNG MEASURES
NO E.I.R.
o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH YTlGAnNG
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES
o EXEMPT
In NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
\
r;
o
~
u.el
~ifi
t):&
~
(.)
W
\. a:: I..
ATTACHMENT _1
. .
(
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE GPA 90-10
'.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
10/9/90
?
REOUEST 6 LOCATION
The applicant requests a land use desiqnation chanqe from RS.
Residential Suburban to RHH, Residential Medium Hiqh on a 1.47 acre
parcel located on the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Cedar
Street (see Exhibits A and B of the Initial Study).
AREA CHARACTERISTICS
.
I
The project site is rectanqular in shape and flat. It contains a
26 unit apartment complex that is about SO years old. Access to
the apartments is from Cedar Street only. There are residential
properties to the east, south and west. The properties to the east
and south are in the County of San Bernardino, and in the City's
sphere of influence. This area consists of sinqle-family
residences interspersed with duplexes and apartment bUildinqs. The
area is desiqnated RU-l, Residential Urban on the General Plan Land
Use Plan. San Bernardino County Hospital is across Gilbert Street
to the north and is desiqnated CO-I, Commercial Office. Part of
the south side of Gilbert Street between Cedar Street and Windsor
Drive is used for a parkinq lot and a heliport and is located in
the CO-l area.
BACKGROUND
The previous
Residential.
the parcel was
zoninq on this parcel was R-l,
Upon adoption of the General Plan on
desiqnated RS. Residential Suburban.
Sinqle Family
June 2, 1989.
MUNICIPAL CODE
Not applicable
CALIFORNIA ERVIROlIMEIITAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA' STATUS
The General Plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental
Review Committee reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Initial
Study (Attachment Al on Auqust 23. 1990 and determined that the
proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the
environment and recommended a Neqative Declaration. There was a
public review period from Auqust 30, 1990 to September 19. 1990 to
review the Initial Study.
. ....... NaI' CI" , .....
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(-
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
GPA 90-10
4
10/9/90
3
,
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments were received.
ANALYSIS
Land Use
The RS, Residential Suburban" land use designation provides for
single-family detached units at a density of 4.5 dwelling units per
acre. The homes to the west of the site are single family. The
RU-l, Residential Urban designation to the east and south is due to
the overall higher density because of the multiple family units
intermixed with the single family homes.
The surrounding neighborhood is mostly comprised of single story
detached homes which were bull t in the late 1940' s and earl y
1950's. Many of the lots are less than 7,200 square feet. The
apartments are one story units that, from a design standpoint. are
compatible with a detached single family neighborhood. The site is
within an established neighborhood and General Plan objective 1.B
states that the City will "Provide lands to accommodate housing
units which meet the diverse economic and social needs of the
residents ...[and] to retain the scale and character of eXisting
residential neighborhoods."
The apartments are built to a density of IB units per acre. It is
the stated intent of the applicant to obtain a land use designation
that would make the apartments conforming for insurance and
finanCing purposes and also to continue the present use of the
property. The apartments exceed the RS density, however, policy
1.7.10 permits the reconstruction of residential bUildings that are
destroyed by a catastrophe when the density exceeds that of the
General Plan land use designation.
The RHH, Residential Medium High designation being requested,
permits a density up to 24 units per acre. This designation
provides for the development of mul ti-famil y condominiums and
apartments up to a height of three stories. The RHH designation
could yield 35 units if the apartments were removed and new ones
constructed. This designation would constitute a spot zoning and
the higher density permitted would intrude upon the single family
neighborhood. Furthermore projects with a height of three stories
as permitted in the RHH designation would be unlikely to convey the
character of a single family neighborhood.
\ I;.l:-
\
......... ~.. to., ,...
. .
GPA 90-10
(
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPAFm.4ENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
10/9/90
4
'.
'"
"
Circulation
The eXisting apartments generate approximately 170 trips per day
which is within the volume and circulation capabilities of the
surrounding streets even though all of the apartment-generated
traffic feeds onto Cedar Street (a local street). An increase of
units to 35 would increase the traffic to approximately 230 trips
per day which would have minimal impact on the traffic in the area.
Gilbert Street is a collector street and is handling a volume well
below its capacity and the small increase of 60 daily trips would
not affect it.
CONCLUSIONS
The eXisting apartments are not a non conforming use because
General Plan policy 1. 7.10 permits their reconstruction to the
present density. The RMH, Residential Medium High designation
would be a spot zone and new construction as permitted in the RMH
designation would be an intrusion into the surrounding single
family neighborhood.
FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals. objectives
and policies of the General Plan in that the RMH. Residential
Medium High designation is an intrusion into the surrounding area
by the creation of a "spot zone" of a high denSity residential land
use designation. It is also architecturally incompatible with the
surrounding uses which are predominantly sinqle story detached
housinq.
The amendment may be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience. or welfare of the City as addressed in this
report.
~-
..
I
=-= ..
__'0.,
..oil
,-
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/
OBSERVATIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
SPA 90-10
10/9)90
5
'.
"
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
to the Hayor and 'Common Council that:
1. That the application for General Plan Amendment No. 90-10
be denied.
Respectively submitted
~/ r- 4/
Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and BUilding Services Department
~~/~
'John R. Burke
Assistant Planner
Attachment A:
Initial Study
l
::.& -
.....
11
........ ~.. 10' 1 c....
-
.
'.
,
l
0" 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
General Plan i\.m~l)dm.ent:.No. 90-10
P~Qie~t_Qe~~r;Pt:~on: To chanqe the land use desianation
from RS. Resident:ial Suburban to RMH. Residential Medium
HiOh on 1 parcel of land comprisinQ 1.47 acres.
I'r..Q~ct. J,ocat:.ion: The site is located on the southeast
corner of Gilbert Street and Cedar Street
D~he: Auoust 2. 1990
~.p.p.U~~nt..'..L~all!~L ancLAg9._~.@'l?j! :
Herbert Rankin
PRI Group Inc.
12555 HiOh Bluff Dr. #318
San Dieoo, CA 92130
Ojome_rs' .Name and Ad.gre~l!:
Charles and Elaine Hetzoer
17511 Corte Lomas Verdes
Poway, CA 92064
Pr~oare~: John R. Burke
Title: Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Plannino and BUildino Services
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
ATTACHMENT
A
.,
o
o
,
INITIAL STUDY for GPA 90-10
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is ~rovided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-10
which proposes to change the land use designation from
RS. Residential Suburban to RMH. Residential Medium Hiah
on one parcel of land comprising 1.47 acres lccated on
the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Cedar Street
(See Location Map. Exhibit Cl.
As stated in Section
Environmental '~uali ty Act
Initial Study are to:
15063 of the California
guidelines. the purposes of an
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
Negative Declaration:
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project. mitiqatinq adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared. thereby enablinq the project to qualify for
Neqative Declaration:
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR. if one is
required, by:
(Al Focusinq the EIR on the effects determined to
be siqnificant.
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(Cl Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
siqnificant.
4. Facili tate environmental assessment ear I y in the
desiqn of a project:
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
findinq in a Neqative Declaration that a project will not
have a siqnificant effect on the environment:
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs:
7. Determine whether a Ilreviousl Y prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
,
..
o
o
'.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project, shown on Exhibit A. is tc amend the City's
General Plan Land Use Plan from R$. Residential Suburban
to RMH. Residential Medium High for a 1.47 acre parcel
(APN 147-115-011 located on the southeast corner of
Gilbert Street and Cedar Street. An R$. Residential
Suburban designation permits single-famil y development up
to a density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre and RMH
permits multi-family development to a density of 24
dwellinq units per acre.
2.1 AMENDMENT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Amendment Site
The site is rectanqular in shape and flat. It is
developed with a 50-year-old apartment complex on it 26
units at a density of 18 dwelling units per acre. If the
apartments were demol ished then reconstructed at the RMH,
Residential Medium High density could yield a total of 35
dwelling units.
b. Surrounding Area
San Bernardino County hospital is situated on the north
side of Gilbert Street. north of the amendment site.
There is a \:larking lot on the south side of Gilbert
street between Cedar Street and Windsor Drive. There is
a helipad. which serves the hospital. in the middle of
the parcel that comprises the parking lot. South of this
parking lot is an area comprised of single-family
residences. The land to the east and south of the
project site is in the unincorporated area of. San
Bernardino County, and is in the City's Sphere of
Influence. This area has duplexes, 4-plexes and a 12-
unit apartment interspersed within a single-family
neighborhood. The Twin Creek Flood Control Channel is
approximately 450 feet east of the site.
3.0 ~NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental Setting
The amendment site is situated in an area of potential
subsidence. There are no other natural ha:ard concerns.
, w
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
r-
"'I
A. BACKGROUND
ApplicalionNumber: C1b./~AR' 1I....w ;;/11'Ni>/H~r M ?t'J-/O
Projed Description:
7ii ~I9Nt:'1! 'nfl' tAN/) v..u: N:.f'/t:~";-"",v /"A'~ ~S R~.r/~.vr,.L..
,
.sdAuAAII"/ 1C> 1f,Af# A'lJIwvn,,< I';~/)N_ hI~",. ew A /. 47 ~ ~Mal!..
.
Location: ON TNL SPt/NHiWr ~IV~-e ~ ~.M:r.f~"'A/" ~.cJ>Jl~ .)Hi!ar
Environmental Constraints Areas: !vI,N,i
General Plan Designation:
/{s ~fNNT/"<- .fu4u~ /.1~-'
,
Zoning Designation:
NJ9
,
B. ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACTS Explain answers. where appropriate, on a separate attached sheat.
1. Earth FlHourcee Will the proposal resu~ in: Ves No Maybe
e. Eerth movement (cut and/or IUI) 0110.000 cubic
yards or more? )(
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater )(
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone? J(
d. ModUication 01 any unique geologic or physical
leature? X
e. Soil erosion on or 011 the project s~e? )(
I. ModUication 01 a channel, creek or river? X
g. Development within an area subject to landslides. X
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards?
h. Other? POi/:NT7I9L _r;;e:./bLJC~ )(
... ~
m.:.~. = ~ PLAH.tJlI PAGE'OFI (....,
... If'It.
r' - - ~
2- Air RMou~: Will the proposal resuk In: Ves No Maybe
'.
.. SubIlanliaI air emissions or an effect upon ambient
airquallty? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Development wkhin a high wind hazard area? X
3. Water ReIOUrcu: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage palems. or the
rate and amount of surface NnoIf due to )(
impermaable surfaces?
b. Changes in the CXlUrse or flow of flood waters? X
c. Discharge into surface waters or any akeration
of surface water qualky? X
d. Change in the quantky of qualky of ground water? )(
a. Exposure of people or propaMy 10 flood hazards? X
f. Other? X
4. Biological RelOurcea: Could tha proposal rasuk in:
.. Change in tha number of any uniqua, rara or
endangered specias of plants or their habkat including X
stands of trees?
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered specias of animals or their habkat? . X
c. Removal of viable. mature trees? (6" or greater) X
d. Other? X.
5. HolM: Could the proposal result in:
.. Incr_s in existing noise levels? OX
b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over
65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? X
c. Other? X
6. Land Uaa: Will the proposal resuk in:
a. A change In the land usa as designated on the
General Plan? ')(
b. Developmant within an Airpon District? X
c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zona A. B, or C? X
d. Development within a high fire hazard zona? X
e. Other? )(
~.==ilfG
to.
....
PLNHI.llI P_2OFI (HCll
"'"
=-=. -111 ~ ~-
PLNI-tJlI P_OO'I lO<<>)
-'
1"\
""l
,.y
r'
,
11. UtIIItlM: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
plDVide adequ.e lavals of service or require the
construc:tion of new facil~ias?
1. Natural gas?
2, Elaclricity?
3. Water?
4, Sewer?
5, Other?
b. Rasu~ in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions?
c. Require the construction of new facilities?
12. Aaathetlea:
a. Could the proposal r..u~ in the obstruction of any
scenic view?
b. WliI the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area?
c. Other?
13. Cultural Rnourcaa: Could the proposal rasu~ in:
a, The a~aration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological s~e?
b. AdV8fH physical or Msthetic impacts to a
prehistoric or historic s~e, structure or objact?
c. Other?
t""\
Vas
No
l(
')(
>(
X
)(
X
)(.
-'(
~
X
x
x
X
Maybe
14. Mandatory FInclInga of Slgn"leanca (Saction 15065)
The CalIfornia Environmental Quality N::t st.as that W any of the following can be answered yes or maybe,
the projecl may have a signWicant etfact on the environment and an Environmantallmpact Report shail be
pre~. .
a. Doas the projecl have the polential to degrade the
quality of the environment, subalantially reduca the
habIIal of a fISh or wildlife apacias. cause a fish or
wildllle populaon to drop below uK austsining laYels,
thre.en to elimiNde a plant or animal community,
reduca the number or rastricI the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or ellmin.e important
examples of the major periods of Calmrnia history
or prahistory?
b. Doas the projecl have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmentel
goals? (A shol1-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a ralatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impactS will endure well into
the future.)
Ves
No
')(
x
Maybe
..
~=,'="'!f1
PLAM-I.08 PAGE. OF' (WO)
-~
"
JI!1'\.
1"\
~
-
Yes
No
Maybe
'.
c. Oaas the piojact have impIICIS which BIll individually
8m.eel, but cumulatively considerabl.? (A pIlIjact may
Impacl on two or mora separate rasourcas where th.
Impacl on nch resource is relalivaly small, but whera
the .rIect of the lOlal of thos. Impacts on th.
environment is aign"icant.)
d. Does the pIlIjact have environmental .rIacts which will
causa substantial adverse .ffeCls on human baings,
..her diractly or indirectly?
x
)(
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MI11QAnON MEASURES
(Attach shaats u n_ry.)
.fSE ArrACII~'b SHLLrS
.
=-=.~. ~ -=
...
P!.AN-a.a& PAGE 'OF' (HO)
'-
v
o
o
'.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.2. 1 Air Resources. Water Resources. Biological Resources,
Man-Made Hazards. Housinq. Public Services. Utilities.
and Aesthetics will not be impacted by a change in land
use desiqnation.
3.2.2 Earth Resources
l.h.
The project
subsidence.
affected by
developed.
site is located in an area of potential
The land use desiqnation chani;le is not
this constraint. however, since the site is
3.2.3
Noise
5.a.
Traffic noise levels will not increase as
land use desiqnation chanqe as the site
Demolition and reconstruction at the
Residential Medium Hiqh density would
traffic noise minimally as a result of an
units that would be permitted.
a result of a
is developed.
maximum RMH.
increase the
increase of 9
3.2.4
Land Use
6.a.
The amendment and the alternative are to change the
General Plan Land Use Plan.
6.e.
Due to the site's proximity to the helipad a future
demolition and reconstruction at the RMH. Residential
Medium Hiqh desiqnation would require coordination with
the appropriate aqencies to ensure adequate fliqht
clearances. The RMH desiqnation permits 3-storv
structures.
3.2.5
Transportation/Circulation
9.a.
. .
This amendment does not affect the traffic volume or
circulation as the site is developed. A small change to
traffic volume or circulation patterns would occur if the
apartments are demolished and rebull t at some future time
."
'.
3.2.6
o
o
to a maximum density of 24 dwellinc units oer acre as
permitted by the RHH. Residential Medium High
desionation. This would have minimal impact or. Cedar
Street which now handles approximately 350 averaoe daily
trips and has the capacity to handle up to 2.000. The
additional traffic would also have minimal impact on
Gilbert Street. Gilbert Street can handle in excess of
10,000 and currently carries about 7.000 dailY trips.
Cultural Resources
13. b.
Anv proposed demolition of the existing apartments are
subject to Ordinance MC-694. which requires the review
for the ootential historical significance, prior t~
issuance of a demolition permit. for structures built
prior to 1941, Mitigation measures, if necessary. will
be applied at that time.
f"\
..
r'
-
'.
D. DETERMlNAl10N
On the buia oIthilllnllial study,
o The propoeed project COULD NOT have a signWicant alIact on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA.
TION will be prepared.
o The propoaad project could have a signWiean! alIact on the environment. atthough there will not be a signWicant
afIact in this casa bacausa the mitigation measur. described above have baan added 10 the projact. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
o The propoaad project MAY have a signWican! elfact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT ill required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
::J.I/N #.,./7GDI1Vr I 4AJf/'lk.. ll"'AlK4e
Name and Tdla I
F~'"~'-
S' atur. .:.-.J
Data: 'i - "'-9 ()
I
~:.~=
I..
Pl.AN-S.llI PAGE_Of'_ {S4DI
'-i "'.
CITY OF SAN BER ARDINO
, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9thz>
TITLE L()CAr~~N' /11",~ ",)I'rN L;9IV~ t4-4 l)~SIt:iN"'r/PAl'..r
f-@
j .', ~,.~
,. '
. i
"
..
: I
'.
~
IT_
.~rf
i 'k
EXHIBIT 8
CITY F SAN BERN RDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-10
TITLE (JfUJP()SEi> IV1EN~tn.ENr
11iI~t. c.S .
I.
I
. ::'IJ.i.=~$~' I
.'~- ',i.F.'':''''': fJ I
.' . .1'0 ....,.. ,
" ';:- ~:~':~1'!.:':,' ~IJ&IAI 'Y"
.. . .........
H,S"T/J'-
I
I
I
t
.,
.~ -Q-
I
.
'.
,
....
,.I'
01"
--1--
,
I
t;".JJ~1l r
--,--
. ,
,
I
I
...
n
,
I
..".
_W
/3
. . . . .
Wr @~@l '!9 @
~, i "
r--'-" ..
.
, l,v_. fl',,' . I.
I _ ,..
"'\it- i-e . I
. II
.0( (i)u ,'.
,.' .
, lil_ t.
-
.
f" 11). .e
. ..
,i $" ~.. ..
. ..
"- C!) .. ... o(iJ" "e' e
" I (!) ., ..~ "V' .
i (!l"
Q)" "-- I I: il "
I I lol.\ .- lOt!) . ,
"... .' ~: ..
. C!)- /!', .. ..,.
i
..
.
@)
~ .. :..
(!) .... :~
. .' . ..
.
o
~
e.. I
~f---- I
.
-- .... .,. ,JI
.. .... ... . ' I, I
~, I 1
.. e.."lj@
"@) ....,
- -
(iil\
i'
j,
I'
I!
EXHIBIT ~