Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-Planning and Building CfTY ~OF SAN BERN/QDINO -REQUEST FC~e COUNCIL ACTION General Plan Amendment No. 90-12, to From: Larry E. Reed, Director Subject: change the land use designation from PFC, Public Flood Control to RE, Resi- Dept: Planning and Building Services dential Estate on 13.5 acres. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of Date: January 15, 1991 February 4, 1991 Synopsis of Previous Council action: The site was designated PFC, Public Flood Control upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989. At their meeting of January 8, 1991, the Planning Com- mission recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of the RE, Residential Estate designation as per Alternative 1. ,- Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted. L rry E. ed, Signature Director Contact person: Larry E. Reed, Director Phone: 3R4-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 4~AdiacPnt) FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No.5~ CITY, OF SAN BERNQIDINO -REQUEST ~ COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 90-12 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 4, 1991 REQUEST This City initiated general plan amendment is a request to change the land use designation from PFC, Public Flood Control to a residential designation on 13.5 acres. The residential land use designations included in staff's evaluation are RE, Residential Estate (Alternative 1), RL, Residential Low (Alternative 2) and RS, Residential Suburban (Alternative 3). The site is located on the west side of Davfd Way approximately 720 feet north of 40th Street. (See Exhibit B of Attachment A to the Planning Commission Staff Report). BACKGROUND The amendment site contains six parcels developed for estate-type residential and equestrian land uses. During the land use hearings for the General Plan, the site was inadvertently designated PFC, Public Flood Control. The site, located an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County and in the City's Sphere of Influence, is part of an area being considered for annexation to the City. If annexed with the PFC designation, the residential and equestrian uses will be legal nonconforming under Title 19, Chapter 19.66 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study (Attachment A to the Planning Commission Staff Report) prepared for Staff's three alternative amendments, and recommended a Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The three alternatives were considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on January 8, 1991. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-12, Alternative 1 to change the land use designation from PFC, Public Flood Control to RE, Residential Estate on 13.5 acres. IS-0264 General Plan Amendment No. 90-12 Mayor and Common Cou¢~1 Meeting of 0 ' February 4, 1991 ~rv/ Page 2 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-12, Alternative 1, based on findings in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to prepare findings for Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. 3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 90-12. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 90-12 as per Alternative 1. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission January S, 1991 Attachment A: Initial Study Exhibit A: Existing Land Use Map Exhibit B: Site Location and Land Use Designation Map Attachment 2: Resolution Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Legal Description CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM $ SUMMARY HEARING DATE 1-8-91 WARD 4 APPLICANT: Clty of San 6ernardino W GENERAL PLAM AMENDMENT N0. 90-12 OWNER: Various A proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation from PFC> Public Flood Control to RE, Residential Estate, RL, Residential Low or ~ RS, Residential Suburban on 13.51 acres of residentially developed land. p The amendment site is located on the west side of David Way approximately W ~ 720 feet north of 40th Street. a i EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY ~ enln I ~sF j,Qy~,G DESIGNATION Subject Single-Family Residential N/A PFC, Public Flood Control North Single-Family Residential R5, Residential. Suburban South Flood Control and Vehicle/ Equipment Storage Yard PFC, Public Flood Control East Single-Family Residential RS, Residential Suburban West Flood Control and Open Space PFC, Public Flood Control GEOLOGIC / SEt3AMC ®YES FLOOD HAZARD ? YES ? ZONE A SEWERS: lIX YES HAZARD ZONE: ? NO ZONE: UnknOWn? NO ? ZONE B ? NO HIGH FIRE ~I YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ? YES REDEVELOPMENT ? YES HAZARD ZONE: ? NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: ~ NO 0p NO Q ? NOT ? POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH Q F Q O GAR NG MEASURES Q ? CONDITIONS ~ Z ? EXEMPT ? E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO u. Z ? DENIAL Q ~ WITHIFMITIGAT NF~ECTS a W Z ~ MEASURES ~ ? CONTINUANCE TO _ NO SIGNIFICANT ? SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V of Al tarnati va 1 W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. MINUTES ~ mnw~w n~~~ PIAN~YD2 PIOE 1 pF 1 (a~YO) ?TTA!`NMFNT 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE ~~'~ Plan AmencDnent AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 9o-lz AGENDA ITEM 8 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 1-8-91 PAGE 2 REQUEST This City initiated project is a request to amend the general Plan land use designation from PFC, Public Flood Control to a single- family residential designation. The site is comprised of six parcels developed for large lot single-family residential uses. Staff is proposing three alternative land use designations for this general plan amendment. Alternative 1 proposes the RE, Residential Estate designation, Alternative 2 proposes the Residential Low designation, and Alternative 3 proposes the RS, Residential ~ Suburban designation. LOCATION The amendment site is located on the west side of David Way approximately 720 feet north of 40th Street. AREA CHARACTERISTICS The amendment site is roughly rectangular in shape and cansists of 13.51 acres which is subdivided into six parcels ranging from 1.11 acres to 3.48 acres. Five of the parcels are developed for single- family residential uses. The remaining parcel is attached to one of the other parcels and appears to be developed for outdoar recreational uses (swimming pool, stable and open spacel. ISee Exhibit A of the Initial Study) The site, located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, is fairly level, but bounded on three sides by stepper hills. The grade on site is five to six percent and slopes to the sauth- southwest. A sharp ridgeline forms a natural baundary on the was*_ side of the site's southern half. The ridgeline appears to be man- made diking built for flood control purposes. North, east and southeast of the site are single-family developments designated RS, Residential Suburban. ~av*_h of *_he site is land awned by the San Bernardino Coun*_y Flaad Control District and used for the starage of vehicles and equipmen*_. This Land and the land west and narthwest of the si*_e is desigr.ate3 PFC, Public Flood Control. ISee Exhibit B of the Initial Studyl BACKGROUND The amendment site is located in an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County within the City's Sphere of Influence. During `~°.~'"nw~w' +110 vtwwp vKiE ~ of } µaap CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE ~~'~ PLC Amen~rn AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 0-12 AGENDA ITEM OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE -a-91 PAGE 3 the land use hearings for the General Plan, the site was inadvertently designated PFC, Public Flood Control. The Public Works Department is processing an application for annexation of an area of which this site is a part. MUNICIPAL CODE The existing single-family residential uses on site are net permitted in the PFC designation and are legal nonconforming uses. In accordance with Title 19, Chapter 19.66 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, legal nonconforming uses cannot be expanded or intensified. Similarly, nonconforming buildings cannot be added to or structurally altered, other than required by law. If the structures become vacant for a period of 180 days or more, the nonconforming uses cannot be reestabiished'and future land uses must conform with the PFC designation. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL_QUALITY ACT CE ) STATUS The general plan amendment is subiect to CEQA. The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on November 15, 1990 and determined that the proposed amendment would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was recommended for all three alternatives. The public review period for the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on November 22, 1990 and ended on December 17., 1990. COMMENTS RECEIVED Comments receive3 from the City's Traffic Division were addressed in the Initial Study. No other comments were received. ANALYSIS EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The PFC, Public Flood Control .land use designation permits flood control and open space uses. Residential uses are not permitted in this designation. As such, the existing single-family residential uses on site are not consistent with the General Plan land use designation and are nonconforming uses. To achieve General Plan :, vu~n r~ ~ oa i t+Am CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE General Plan ~trsr3oent AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT No. 90-12 AGENDA REM 8 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 1'8-91 PAGE A consistency, the land use designation for the site must be changed to a designation that permits single-family residential uses. It is a policy of the City to: "Designate lands currently developed with housing for continued residential, unless conversion to another use is provfded for by policies of this plan." (General Plan Policy 1.1.11 In this instance, conversion of the amendment site to flood control uses is not an option since the site is developed for residential uses. PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Alternative 1 The purpose of the RE, Residential Estate land use designation is to: "Promote the development of low-density residential units located on large lots and conveying an 'estate' and 'rural' character." (General Plan Obiective 1.9~ The RE designation permits estate-type single-famiLY detached residential development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. Two of the lots do not meet the minimum lot width established for the RE designation, al*_heugh they do exceed the minimum lot size and depth requirements. Further subdivision of the site is not likely because placement of the existing uses would make it difficult to meet lot size requirements. As such, development pressures for the site would be minimal. It appears that three of the six properties have stables and horses were observed on the properties. In accordance with Title 5, Chapter 6.12 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the minimum lot size required for the stabling, pasturing er keeping of a horse is 20,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the RE designation easily accommodates this ancillary use. The six properties are separated from the neighboring RS, Residential Suburban land uses by David Way and hillsides to the north and east across David Way. Magnifying the physical separation of the site are the differences be*_ween its land uses versus the RS type uses. Because of the larger lot sizes and equestrian uses, the character of the site is semi-rural whereas ~,'~nw°u :ewe vw+~eae rKiE i oc ~ paq CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE cesr_ral Plan Ame~nent AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM . 8 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE - 'PAGE 5 the character of the RS neighborhood is strictly suburban. The flood control land adjacent to the south and west of the site is vacant and, for the most part, maintained in its natural state. This land and the amendment site create a viswscape of open space and rural estates. For the reasons stated, the amendment site can be considered a micro-neighborhood and redesignation to the RE would not create any land use impacts. Alternative 2 The purpose of the RL, Residential Low designation is to: "Promote the development of low-density, large lot, high quality single-family detached residential units." (General Plan objective 1.10) The RL, Residential Low designation permits large lot single-family detached residential development at a density of up to 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The site is developed at a density that is less than the maximum permitted in this designation. Under the RL designation, the site could be further subdivided to potentially yield up to 42 dwelling units and development pressures for the site would be increased. Since the minimum lot size in the RL is much smaller than 20,000 square feet, future subdivision cculd eliminate the equestrian uses on site. As such, the RL 3esignation would not protect or preserve the site's unique rural setting. As described in the previous discussion, the site is isolated from surrounding land uses by lot size, land uses and topography. For this reason, the RL 3esignation would not craata land use slated impacts. Alternative 3 The objective of the RS, Residential Suburban 3esignation is *o: "Promote the development of single-family detached units in a high quality suburban setting." General Plan Objective 1.11) The RS, Residential Suburban designation permits single-family detached residential development at a density of up to 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Additional development under this designation could yield up to sixty dwelling units on the site an3 the pressures for development would be much greater than those of Alternatives 1 or 2. ` ~O PLAN-~D! PIOE t OF 1 (a.901 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE General Plan ~++P*+~ReT1t AND BlJILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 90-12 AGENDA ITEM 8 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 1-8-91 PAGE 6 Redesiqnation to the RS would make the site contiguous with the RS district adjacent to the north and east. For various reasons already discussed, the site is isolated from the RS uses to the north and east. Therefore, it is doubtful that the site ever could be considered an integrai part of that neighborhood. Subdivision under the RS could create serious land use impacts on the site by eliminating the semi-rural character of the site and the equestrian land uses. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Because it represents *_he worst cases, Alternative 3 was reviewed by the City's Traffic Division for potential impacts to traffic and circulation. Since development under the RS designation could Yield up to sixty dwelling units, interior streets would need to be constructed. The total depth and langth of the amendment site would accommodate the minimum lot requirements established for the RS designation as well as the dedication raquired for a local street. If the si*_e was cleared and subdivided for the RS designation, impacts on traffic and circula*_ion in the area would result. The Traffic Division determined that in this case, a development specific traffic study would be raquired. Due to access and lot configuration constraints and site layout, development occurring around the existing units is doubtful. Therefore, *_he three alternatives would not create significant impacts to the traffic and circulation in the area. (Refar *_e Section 3.2.7 of the Initial Study for this discussions. CONCLUSIONS Under the PFC, Public Flood Control land use designation, the existing residential uses on site are nonconforming. Because the site is developed for single-family residential uses, re3esignari~~n of the site to a single-family residential designation is necessary to attain General Plan consistency. Alternative 1, which proposes to redesignate the site to the RE, would accommodate the existing residential and equestrian land uses. The RE designation wnnli protect and preserve the unique character of the site. Redesiqnation of the si*_e *_o either the RL or *_he RS designation could change the character of the area and lead to the removal ~f the equestrian uses if subdivision and development occurred. Because the site is isolated by its land uses and the topography of the surrounding area, no land use impacts would be created by any of the three alternative designation proposals. "~ w°n ~"' ~ PLAN~AB PNGE t OF 7 µAO) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE General Plan Amendment AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT No. 90-12 AGENDA ITEM 8 FINDINGS OF FACT HEARINGDATE_ 1-8-91 PAGE 7 FINDINGS The proposed land use designation for Alternative 1 will change the General Plan Land Use Plan and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The existing estate- type single-family detached residential uses and ancillary equestrian uses are buffered from the adjacent land uses and will not create impacts. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as addressed in this report. The amendment proposes to redesignate 13.51 acres from flood control to residential uses. The City's housing stock will not be affected. Although two lots on *_he amendment si*_e do not meet the RE designation requirements for minimum lot width, all other lot requirements are met. Therefore, the amendment site is to be physically suitable for the RE, Residential Estate land use designation, as per Alternative 1. All public services are available to the proposed amendment site. AnY future development permissible under the proposed designation would not impact on such services. mnwr~w",~o~~ PWFMB PAGE / OF 1 (a40) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE General Plan Amenchrent AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 90-12 AGENDA ITEM 8 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 1-8-91 'PAGE 8 RECQMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. A Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with Section 21080.1 of the CEQA for Alternative 1 2 3. 2. The General Plan Land Use Map be changed from PFC, Public Flood Control to RE, Residential Estate for the site as proposed in Alternative 1. Res ectfully/submit L_ arry Reed, Director P a/1nninq and Bµilding Services Debora Woldruf~ ssociate Planner /dw Attachment: A - Initial Study Exhibit A Existing Land Use Map Exhibit B Site Location a,~d Land Use Designation Map ~ ~,~ ® PINHAI PAGE 1 OF 1 IK% HLLdCC]I02i1L "H" CfTY OF SAN BER DING PLANNING AND BUILDI ERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY C,fiNERAL PLAN AMEND!lE~iT NO. 90=12 Protect Description: To change the land use designation from PFC, Public Flood Control to a single-family residential designation - RE, Residential Estate, RL, Residential Low or RS, Residential Suburban - on a site comprising 13.51 acres. Protect Location: The site is developed with five single-family units and located on the west side of David Way approximately 720 feet north of 40th Street. Date: November 5, 1990 Applicantlsl Name and Address: City Initiated Application Initial,Studv Prepared Bv: Deborah Woldruff Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 w~.+~ nwao~ ray ~ oc + t~ c ~o I1IITIAL STUDY FOH (iP11 90-12 NOt/E14BER 5 , 1990 1.0 IIITRODUCTION Thia report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for general Plan Amendment No. 90-12 which proposes to change the land use designation from PFC, Pubic Flood Control to a single-family residential designation - RE, Residential Estate, RL, Residential Low or RS, Residential Suburban - on a site comprising 13.51 acres, located on the west side of David Flay approximately 720 feet north of 40th Street. lSee Exhibit B) This amendment proposal is a City initiated project. As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR • is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, • fH) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be • significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; ~- INITIAL STUDY FOB GPA 90-12 NOV'Bl1H81t 5. 1990 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This City-initiated proposal is to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Plan from PFC, Public Flood Control to a single-family residential designation for a site located on the west side of David Way approximately 720 feet north of 40th Street. During the land use hearings for the adoption of the General Plan, the site inadvertently was designated PFC which permits flood control and open space uses. The site consists of approximately 13.51 acres and contains 5 single-family unite. (See Exhibit Al Staff has evaluated three alternatives which are described in the following paragraphs. Alternative 1 would chanq~ the land use designation for the site to RE, Residential Estate. The RE designation permits estate-type single-family detached residential development at a density of 1 dwelling unit per gross • acre. Alternative 2 would change the land use designation for the site to RL, Residential Low. The RL designation permits large lot single-family detached residential development at a density of up to 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre. Alternative 3 would change the land use designation for the site to RS, Residential Suburban. The RS designation permits single-family detached residential development at a density of up to 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. 2.1 Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics The amendment site is irregular in shape and consists of 13.51 acres. The site contains six developed parcels of land which range in size from 1.11 acres to 3.48 acres. Five of the six parcels are developed for large lot residential use. The remaining parcel is attached to one of the residential parcels and is developed solely for an equine use. (See Exhibit Al The topography of the surrounding area is somewhat rugged ~ Q INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-12 NOYEMHER 3, 1990 and hilly and indicative of the site's location in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The site is situated at the base of several hills which surround it on three sides As a result, the topography of the site is less rugged and slopes gently to the south-southwest, away from the north and David Xay. The southern half of the site is bounded on the west by a sharp ridgeline which continues south to 40th Street. The ridgeline may be man-made diking built for flood control purposes. The land north, east and southeast of the site is developed for single-family uses and is designated RS, Residential Suburban. South of the site is land owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and used for the storage of vehicles and equipment. This land and the land west and northwest of the site is designated PFC, Public Flood Control. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Setting The site is subject to a number of environmental constraints. It is located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and in fact, is bisected by a branch of the San Andreas Fault. The southwest corner of the site is located in an area susceptible to high 2iquefactien and the eastern half is located in an area having a high potential for water erosion of the soil. in addition, the site is located in the High Kind Area and in Zone B of the Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Plan, an area of high fire hazard. The 100 year flood plain for East Twin Creek lies west and adjacent to the site and the City's Hillside Management Overlay District lies north and adjacent to the site. . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. eAacoROUNO ,, // AppNtadon Number. L~ ~P31P m( P~2vt ~Yria p,ntlGPA~ iLO. ~ O-/ a Project Daacriptbn: IZ~L' ~,~r5.~~. {-ln C l [Ln d i t S ~~r,~~ ern . ~ ail ~L ~'Jc~Cmyfn',I i=n R~ RPS:de~1'~(~<'fn~~~J"~I~,~T rarn~c.~i_oc,) ~r` RT~K:~n~-IC1l~thilr`F».~ rWf l~..rl~1L2°S. Locatbn: T~jP~,~Eisc~N,~rl~.~dCuc%/nS,r~C~lr-~it'i.' f(,ilikn~~f!irn~la( OYI~-t~PG1PSf-~a~r,~~r~vr{l~11~ Ximr~~a~~Q~Et?'f(1nr1~E.l'~ ~/ O f In 5tr'~ e'F• Environmemal ConstraiMS Areas: General PlanDesipnatbn: ~ F i~i!il~[_ cod ~,~~~~ Zoning Despnation: /~~ 8. ti?MRt7NMENTAL p~At:TS Explain anavero, whero appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. tSAh Reaourcea wll the proposal resuK in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movamerd (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or moro? b. Dwebpment andor gruling on a sbpe groater than 15% natural grade? c. Dewbpmem within the Alquist-Priob Spepal v Studies Zone? ~4---- d. Modilbatbn of any unigw geobgb or physical featuro? e. Soil erosion on or oe the project site? f. Moditicatbn of a channel, r1G or river? (Fc~~.rt~djCyC.~eul' .t g. Dwebpmem within an area subr~ct to mndsudes, mudslides, liquefaction or other simikr hazards? h. OIMr~ &^.&,k"+'iiCR4S wr~.sst< vw~ r oc s tsaA A Z AN haofsrws: Wll tM proposal resuu in: Ves Nlo Maybe a. ~ air emiaiorfs or an aBea won ambMnt !x h Pity c.ro~do~r'b:.auceaes~g~,{~~, -~ cn.. . a Devebpnwra widrin a high wind hazard area? 9. Water Auouras: NAtl the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorpbn rotas, dninepe patterns, or the rata and amount of surtax runoff dw b impermeable surfsoes7 b. Changes in tM course or 11pw of flood waters? c. D'acFarye itao surface wetera or arty aheratan of wrfaa wear quality4 d. CMnge in tM quantify of quality of ground water? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazartla? ,_,~_ t. OtMr? Btobpkal Rsearrdr. Could tM proposal nsuh kr: a. Charge in tM number of any unigw, ran or endangered of plaids or 1Mir habitat indudirp sta4~> trees? T;y.yLC~rdr-r~ 41~C~anGa~l b. Charils in tM number of any unique, ran or yM(anpe~ ~apeaes,' V an~mabo~~~MbRat? ,~ c. fieriroval of viable, mature tre~7 (B' or greater) ,~ d. OtMr? S. Nolan: Could the proposal resuh in: a. Increases in existing noise Iweb? b. Exposure of peoph to exUrpr noise levels over f}5 dB or imerio~ise ~vels own 15 dB? ` F,c~ ~~an~rr~.6s c~,c;terc+k Y4irnJ e. anti? 6. Lattd Use: Wtl the proposal result in: a. A charge in the land use as desgnated on tM General Plan? b. Dwelopment within an~ap~ rt Dauict? t~nv ~TCI`frK /Ybp~F'(p,1r~iVKa1~~J~ e. vebpment within'GreenbelP?.one A, B. or C9 d. Dewbpment within a high tin hazard zorw? e. Qttlef? /~ "°,W„}~',fl~ w~w.sas vwrasoFS fs+m 7. Ilamllada Flaaida: Wik 1M project: Ya No Maybe a. Uaa. store, transport or dhpow d hazardous or toetlo rttslerisN (Indudirp but not kmked b on, psstbWee, ohemiab or radiatlon)? f;*) b, bvoMe tM release d hazardous substances? a Expoaap people to tM potential Makhhafsry hazards? d. (Olhar7 Esau C nlytc CG~u+~ Y•i•.e Ctixd 45edN5~n~~Fe d* a Ilousktp: wia tla proposal: a. Remove exisdnp Musirq or enah a demand ~ r addkional tausinp? Pn.pcnn f oncy tc `~"~ 1ltie ca„cl ilsGdrs,~jr,a•Fi rY' b. Mr? 11. Tranaporhtlon / Ckeulatlon: Could tM proposal resuk in: a. M lrnreaee in traffic that a preate? than the land up deaipnated on tM General PIS? b, s• axatinp, or demand ror rww, paAcinp tackklea/structuree? C~ c. Impact upon existing pubNe transportation sysums'~~ d. ~toration d present e„ms d dreulation? e. Impact to rak or air Vatfie'~ (~-~ f. Increased safety hazards to vehicNS, bicydbts or ---~- nans? C,;.,vr,~lhb7~w<ir.~~~i.~ irafF~U~~r.,~e:3c'ic~ p. A disjamed pakem d roai~way improvemems? (}(-~ h. SgniliceM increase in traffic volumes on tM roadways or intersectioro7 i. OtMr? (IF'prLpesca dte: K•F include ae~tlcpmt.,fiple4vs~. 10. Publb Services: iNiN tM proposal impact tM tolbvrirg beyond the capabilky to provide adaquaa levels d service? a. Fn proteaion? b. PoNce protection? c. Schools (i.e., attendance. boundaries. overbad, etc.)?~*~ _~,~ d. • Parks or other recreational taalkies? C~) e. Medical aid? t. Solid Waste? p. OtMr? (# No t'Som,me~~fs ree~e:~ve=d) l:.f:.~S~ ruvwse vw~oocs rsx 11. ~NMIUe~ VIfl11hF proposal: Yes No AAsy1r a Impact thi IoNowino beyond tfr ctpabNilY b peovfde adequate levek d prvice a nquin the coltttrttetbn d new 1aeiNlia? 1. NaWral pat? 2. ENctrieky? 3. Wate(1 4. Sewell _,~ 5. Otf»r? b. Iiuull in a dgjointed paltam d utitlly exteMiona? a faequin the construction d new hcilkwt? 12. AaNMtks: a. Could the proposal result in the obatruetbn d any aanb view? b. VNq tM visual impact d tM props be detrimental to the aurrounditg ana? e. OtMr? ,~_ 13. farltun! tieaotrrces: Could tM proposal rauh in: a. The akeradon or destruction d a prehistoric or h'_ rb arehaeobqa~ sde? x • b. Atli physical or ataUMtb impacts ro a p~.hht0;b or hialorip aura, ~tnretura or d~jtet? lFi~j~ajG~N.~eeecY 1'Ic1n> c. h.r? 14. Mandatoryr Flndlnpa of SNpnHloattq (Section 15085) The CaNlomia Environmeraal t]uatily Act states that H any d the foNowirp pn be answand yes or maybe, tM project may haw a spnificam effect on tM envKOnmera and an Environmental Impact Rapon shall be prepared. lF'~~~ {'D {>~-ttt'~G('~'1r~ ~es/ Yea No awlayb. L Ooet 1M project haw tM pohndal t0 depress dN quaYly d iM ernrironmenl, substanliaNy ndua 1M habitat d a fbh or wilydNfe species, cope a fish or wildyfe population ro drop bebw wB austainirp lewla, threaten b ekminate a plant or animal community, educe 1M number or restrict tM range d a ran or endanpend plard w animal or elimiMte important eax• ~~drythe major periods d California history b. Does ttae propct have tlw potan8tl to achiwe shon- brm, to tM disadvaMape d brtq-Urns, environmerual Qoaft? (A atwn-term impact on the MvironmeM is OM which oxtxs in a nlatiwty brief. definitive period d time while brp-term impacts wiA endue weN irdo the future.) ?lAlFaat P/iaH ~Oit Isai Ya No ~Yba G Ooa tfii project haw Impacts which an indivtduaty MMad. bul atattulstlwly comidsrabNT (A ProMa ~Y MtPat on bMO or mom saparata ?aouroa wham tha Yapatl oe asah rasou?a 'r raltlhrtly setae, but wham tlta aMact ottir total of than impacts on tha amrironmanl is sipnkloaro.) d. Doe da project haw anvironmantal atfaets which wiN cause substart0itl atNara aBaets on human bairps, aeMr dkady or kdiractlyT C. DISCU>li810N OF ENVIROI~IFMA! EVALUATION AND eerrlrrAnoN MEIISUAES (Attach sheets a naasary.) PLAN~aq PgE60F• SSfi01 p t~ I1fITI11L STUDY !OR aPA 90-12 110VSl~8R 5. -1990 3.2 Environs?ental Istpacts 3.2.1 Earth Resources l.a. While the site is developed for single-family residential uses, redesignation to the RE, RL or RS designations could yield more residential units through future development. As permitted in the RE designation (Alternative i), the properties could be further subdivided to yield an additional seven dwelling unite. The RL designation (Alternative 2) could yield a total of fortytwo dwelling units and the RS designation (Alternative 3) a total of sixty dwelling units. In each case, earth movement in the form of grading with cut and/or fill activities would be required for the construction of the additional dwelling units. The grading would probably involve earth movement exceeding 10,000 cubic yards. l.c.,e.,q. The amendment site ie located within the Alquist-Priolo • Special Studies Zone lFiq. 47, General Pian). The southwest corner of the site is located in an area susceptible to high liquefaction (Fig. 48, General Plan). In addition, the eastern half of the site is located in an area having a high potential for water erosion of the soil (Fiq.53, General Plan). If the site were redesignated for any of the three alternative designations, future development could occur through subdivision. The numbers of residential structures and properties placed at risk would depend upon the land use designation adopted. The RE designation (Alternative 11 permits a very low density and would have less impact than would the RL designation (Alternative 2) or the RS designation (Alternative 3). 3.2.2 Air Resources 2.a. Presently, the development on site has little or no effect on the air quality in the area. However, future development of the site marginally could affect air quality because of increased air emissions resulting from additional automobiles traveling to and from the site and I1IITIAL STUDY POB aP11 90-12 110V8lIDSEt S, 1990 increased levels of human activity occurring in the area. 2.c. The amendment site is located in the High Wind Area (Fig. 59, t3eneral Pian). Because the site is developed for single-family uses, redesignation will not change or increase the existing wind hazard. Future development on the site as permitted by any of the three proposed designations must be designed to minimize the effects of high winds and building construction must comply with all applicable City ordinances and State Law. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.a.,c.,d. If the property were further developed for the RS designation (Alternative 3), impermeable surfaces such as interior streets, sidewalks, driveways, building pads and perhaps, patios would be constructed. As a result, absorption rates would be decreased thereby increasing surface runoff. Development under the RE and RL designations (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively), would have a similar, but lesser effect. Impermeable surfaces such as asphal*_ or concrete tend to collect solid exhaust particulates and other air emission solids as well as engine fluids, residue from automobile tires and other chemical pollutants. During periods of rain, surface pollutants are washed into the water ways. Cumulatively, these pollutants can change the quality cf surface and ground water in an area. The quantity of ground water also can be affected because impermeable surfaces decrease water absorption rates. Future development plans for the site will be reviewed for drainage issues at the project specific stage. 3.e. The amendment site is not located in the 100 year floo3 plain. However, it is difficult to determine it the site ie or is not located is the 500 year flood plain. The Federal Emergency Management Agency IFEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, community Panel number 060270-7945 D (Revised - September 28, 19901, places the site in Zone D, which delineates areas of undetermined, but possible INITIAL SYODY FOit OPl1 90-12 NOVB!lBBR 5. 1990 flood hazards. 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4.c. Vegetation on the amendment site includes a number of fully mature trees belonging to various species as well as shrubs and grasses. Tentatively identified were such species as oleander, eucalyptus, palms, willows and other types of deciduous trees. An impressive stand of eucalyptus fronts the site along David Way. Many of these trees would be removed if the six properties were subdivided and further developed. 3.2.5 Noise S.a. Additional residential development on the site potentially would increase noise levels but not to a significant degree. None of the three alternative land use designations would result in intensive, high density • residential development and potential impacts due to noise would be minimal. 3.2.6 Land Use 6.a. Under the current PFC, Public Flood Control designation, the six residential uses established on the site are legal nonconforming. If adopted, any of the three alternative amendments will change the General Plan land use designation and allow the residential uses to continue as conforming, permitted uses. However, at least three of the six properties have established ancillary equine uses. Title 18, Chapter 6.12 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code (SBMCI permits the stabling of horses only on lots of 20,000 square feet or greater. Redesignation of the site to the RE designation (Alternative 1) would not affect this ancillary use. Redesignation to the RL or RS designations (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively) would affect the use only if subdivision occurred because _ . o ~ o IIfI?IAL 81'OD1f !03! GPA 90-12 IIOVffilBSR S, 1990 minimum lot sizes !n either case, are less than 20,000 square feet. Then, the equine use would need to be terminated for health and safety reasons in accordance with Title 18, Chapter 6.12, SBMC. 6.c.,d. The Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Plan places the site within Zone B, an area of high fire hazard lFig. 61, General Planl. The site also is located in the High wind Area (Fie. 59, General Plan). During periods of hot, dry weather the risks of fire and the rapid spreading of fire may be increased substantially by high winds. Since the site already is developed for low density single-family residential uses, asingle-family, residential designation will not increase the wind or fire hazards on the site. However, intensification of residential uses resulting from subdivision and future residential development could increase the potential risks associated with wind and fire hazards. Said risks would be greater with an RS type development than with an RL or RE type development because of the permitted density. 3.2.7 Transportation/Circulation 9.f.,h. The City's Traffic Division evaluated cotential traffic impacts associated with development under the F.S designation (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 was chosen for evaluation because it represents the "worst case". At a density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre, the site :could yield up to 60 residential units. Access to the these residences would require the construction ~f interior streets which would feed onto David Way, a local street. All south bound traffic on David Way would feed onto 40th Street, a major arterial. At buildout, this type of development could generate up to 540 Avera:~e Daily Trips IADT). The Traffic Division indicates that if Alternative 3 involved a development proposal. a traffic study would be required. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not significantly impact circulation !n the areas. . ,.© Q I1fITIAL STUDY !'08 aPA 90-12 110VBaIDEit 5. 1990 3.2.8 Public Services 10.a.,b.,e. Future residential development on the site could impact services for police and fire protection and medical aid. The nearest fire station, which also provides medical aid, is located approximately 1 mile away at 282 Nest 40th Street (Fiq.33, General Plan). Police service is provided by the main police station, located in the downtown area, approxima*_ely 4 miles away (Fig. 32, General Plan). The degree to which these services are impacted will depend upon the density of future residential development. ' 10.f. Development as permitted under the RS designation (Alternative 31 would generate more solid waste than would development under the RL or RE designations (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). The City and its neighboring municipalities are approaching landfill capacity. Disposal and/or recycling of solid waste should be addressed at the time of development. 3.2.9 Aesthetics 12.b. The amendment site is situated at the base of the surrounding hills and is somewhat boxed in on three sides. Futur® development plans will be reviewed for site plan, grading, elevations and landscaping at the project specific stage to ensure compatibility with the site and surrounding area and quality design. 3.2.10 Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 150651 14.a.,b.,c.,d. The site is designated on the City's General Plan as PF^, Public Flood Control and is developed for low density, single-family residential uses. Redesignation of the site as RE, Residential Estate, RL, Residential Low or RS, Residential Suburban would allow the existing residential uses to continue as conforming and permitted uses and permit new development consistent with the permitted density. There are no significant impacts. a oeaRMINATION On tlia bola d 1ttA hdtlal study, dllta ptopoaad pojaet COULD NOT haw a sipnrfieant a(fact on tM anvironrnam and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION aiN a papered. Tha ptapaad peojaax could haw a sgnpicant aMatx on 1M arnironmant, allhouph than aAp not ba a spnpicant af(aa in ~ aaaa baeaua tln m7tiQation maawaa daaeibad above haw bean added >a the pn~aet. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION adN ba prapaad. TM proposed ptojaU MAY haw a sipnNiant aMact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is regaled. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C'R~Y(OFS~MI,B~ERNARDINO, CALIFORN/I~A c~01?A/_ ~/O~?~"('O.fCaCJ' T,~ibC/~AG~L.i.?~~~ Name and atua Dau: ~/~ ~5-~d rwwa ?~_oc_ rs+a . ~ CIT~ OF SAN 13t~,.~v~?rtu~n~u ' QENERAL LAN AMENDME NO. "~""D"~ TITLE earn v~ ~' M s ~1ic Flood ~ l'.a?i?~.1 4. f• w.r: r.ar f~• ~ ------ • ?h WI . Pub 1?c Flood mss" CoK'k'el '~' sF. Res. trtR.s '' ~ w~ 1 ~ R PuWtc s,f,Res. ~«e ca,.t.. ~ • vsh~c?e 1 ~ w. EXH181T~_ N $tK~~Ov •~,, ,n..~ -,Y ~ S A~NpM~NT C~~ N AM ~ . 4EN~R AL P ~' ~ ~ ~ TItLE ., ~ , J ~ ~,, 3 t yM 4 -~ ~ © r EXH18~T D '4 v~~>; ~C~r~r^~D Piamm~o and Builtltng 5ervtr.es Dept JAN 3 ,r ~yyy an Bernardino City Hall JUi:' N "L' SfrPet CITY OP SANBERNAADINO DEPARTMENT OP PLANNING & an Bernardino. Ca. 9241 B BUILDING SERVICES .;anuarv 29,1991 Dear Strs, we are wr(t~ntl (n retlartls to "GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.90-12" we both recommend that the area in question carry the destgnatton or °Rr~, Res(tlent(al Estate". David Wav would not be able to handle the traffic with a h~aher density rating for housing. This is a "rural like" neighborhood and we would like to see ~t preserved as such. As homeowners m th(s area for the past 16 years, we nave appreciated this type of neighborhood and would not like to look like East H~ahlands We are submitting our comments regarding this plan as ~??e are both employed and our schedules do not perm(t us to attend this meeting ~n person. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Sincerely, Antonio A.Lourenco Sandra L Lourenco 4385 David way man Bernardino, Ca. 92404 Q Q 1 Resolution No. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE s NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE 4 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: s SECTION 1. Recitals ~ (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 8 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89- 9 159 on June 2, 1989. 10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 90-12 to the General 11 plan of the City of San Bernardino was considered by the 12 Planning Commission on January 8, 1991, after a noticed lS public hearing, and the Planning Commission's recommendation 14 of approval has been considered by the Mayor and Common 15 Council. 16 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on November 5, 1990 17 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the 18 Planning Commission who both determined that General Plan 19 Amendment No. 90-12 would not have a significant effect on ~ the environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative 21 Declaration be adopted. ~ (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day ~ ~ public review period from November 22, 1990 through December ~ 12, 1990 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed ~ by the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council 26 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act 27 and local regulations. 28 //// 1 ' RESOLUTION...~PTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public s hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General 4 Plan Amendment No. 90-12 and the Planning Division Staff b Report on February 4, 1991. 6 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 90-12 is 7 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City $ and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of 9 the existing General Plan. 10 SECTION 2. Negative Declaration 11 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the 12 Mayor and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the 1g General Plan of the City of San Bernardino will have no 14 significant effect on the environment, and the Negative 15 Declaration heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review 16 Committee as to the effect of this proposed amendment is 17 hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 18 SECTION 3. Findings 19 gE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council ~ of the City of San Bernardino that: 21 A. The change of designation from PFC, Public Flood Control ~ to RE, Residential Estate for the proposed amendment ~ will change the land use map only and is not in conflict ~ with the goals, objectives and policies of the General ~ Plan. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 ' RESOLUTION. ~DOPTING THE NEGATIV~ DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 90-12 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare 4 of the City. 5 C. All public services are available to the study area. Any 6 development permissible under the RE, Residential Estate 7 designation proposed by this amendment would not impact $ on such services. 9 D. The proposed amendment is to redesignate 13.5 acres to 10 Residential Estate. No housing stock will be 11 affected. 12 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the 1g requested land use designation. Anticipated future land 14 use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has 15 been determined that project specific mitigation 16 measures will be sufficient to eliminate any 17 environmental impacts. 18 SECTION 4. Amendment 19 gE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council ~ that: 21 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San ~ Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 13.5 ~ acres from PFC, Public Flood Control to RE, Residential ~ Estate. This amendment is designated as General Plan ~ Amendment No. 90-12 and its location is outlined on map j 26 //// ~ 27 //// 28 //// 3 ' RESOLUTION..TISDOPTING THE NEGATIVL~' DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 1 2 ~ entitled Attachment A, and is more specifically 4 described in the legal descriptions entitled Attachment 5 B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein 6 by reference. 7 B. General Plan Amendment No. 90-12 shall be effective 8 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 8 SECTION 5. Man Notation 10 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall 11 be noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been 12 previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common 1$ Council and which are on file in the office of the City 14 Clerk. 15 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 16 The Planning Department is hereby directed to file a 17 Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County 18 of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA 19 in preparing the Negative Declaration. ZO //// 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 4 RESOLUTION..~DOPTING THE NEGATIVL'~' DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDZNO. 1 2 I HERESY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 3 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 4 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the 5 day of 1991, by the following vote, to 6 wit: 7 8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN 9 ESTRADA 10 REILLY 11 FLORES 12 MAUDSLEY 1$ MINOR 14 POPE-LUDLAM 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 19 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this ~ day of , 1991. 21 22 ~ W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino ~ Approved as to .fir form and legal content: ~ JAMES F. PENMAN, City ttornay 28 5 LOCATION V GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 90-12 '~ +ar i~ ~ N ~~o-~y~-~ ,; m SOS BCrnarelin0 PF C frlopBook ~3o I ~~i~o-iya-y Poole. l4 +o ~vo-~y~-~a I R ~ l3o-rya-~;~ 730- ~y~?- q I .c• * rn ~P aa.a i a d~ 40M SKe~t ;WK101Y NOOK RQ) a --- ~g\ ? / 15K~ '• , v s T ATTACHMENT A CITY F SAN BERN RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION 270-142-02 County of San Bernardino, State of California Parcel No. 1 That portion of Lot 2 of HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 west, SAN BERNARDINO BASE ANC MERIDIAN, according to Government Servey, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corner of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24 in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 730 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North along the west line of said Lot 2 to the h!orth line of Muscupiabe Rancho, as patented; thence Southeasterly along the said North line of the Muscupiabe Rancho to the West line of the parcel conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife, to W. 5. Hooper by Deed recorded in Book 432 of deeds, page 361; thence South along the West line of said parcel conveyed to said W. S. Hooper to a point on the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of the parcel conveyed by Lyman C. Marshall and wife, to John L. Kilian and wife, by Deed recorded November 29, 1946 as Instru- ment No. 56, in Book 1975, page 181, Official Records; thence West along said Northerly line and the Easterly extension thereof 505 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT therefrom the South 150 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 20 feet thereof, used for road purposes. Said property is also shown on Licensed Land Surveyors Map recorded in Book 1 of Records of Survey, page 124. Parcel No. 2 An undivided 1/2 interest in a well and pumping plant located approximately 50 feet North of the South line and 200 feet East of the West line of the following described property: That portion of Lot 2, HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, according to Government Survey, as per plat recorded in Book 2 ATTACHMENT B-1 CITY F SAN BERN RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION of Maps, page 42, records of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Lot, 2, 815.15 feet west of an iron stake recognized as the corrmon corners of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 380 feet to the true point of beginning of Parcel of land described herein; thence continuing North along said West line 250 feet; thence East 505 feet to the West line of Parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife, to W. S. Hooper by deed recorded in Book 48Y of Deeds, page 361; thence south along said West line 250 feet, more or less, to a line which bears East from the true point of beginning; thence west 505 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 20 feet thereof for road purposes. Parcel No. 3 Easement for ingress and egress and right to use, maintain, alter, repair, water lines and power lines over property described as follows: That portion of Lot 2, HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, according to Governemnt Survey, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records of said county, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corners of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the west line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 380 feet to the true point of beginning of Parcel of land described herein; thence continuing North along said West line 250 feet; thence east 505 feet to the West line of Parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife, to W. S. Hooper by deed recorded in Book 482 of Deeds, page 361; thence south along said West line 250 feet, more or less, to a line which bears East from the true point of beginning; thence west 505 feet to the point of beginning. ATTACHMENT a-2 CITY F SAN BERN RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 20 feet thereof for road purposes. Parcel No. 4 Easement for ingress and egress and right to use, maintain, alter, repair, water line and power lines over property described as follows: That portion of Lot 2 of HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, according to Government Survey, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as common corner of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24 in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 630 feet to true point of beginning of boundary of parcel of land described herein; thence continuing North along said West line 100 feet; thence East 505 feet to the West line of parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter et ux., to W. S. Hooper by deed recorded in Book 482, page 361 of Deeds; thence South along said West line 100 feet, more or less to a point in the Easterly extension of land conveyed to John Doe Evans, et ux., recorded in Book 1448, page 42, Official Records; thence West 505 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 20 feet for road purposes. Parcel No. 5 A right of way for ingress and egress over the driveway as it existed in February 1954, across the North 75 feet of the East 50 feet of the following described property: That portion of Lot 2, HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, according to Government Survey, as per piat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records of said County, described as follows: ATTACHMENT B-3 CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION BEGINNING at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corner of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line, 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 730 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North along the West line of said Lot 2, 150 feet; thence East 505 feet to the west line of the parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife, to W. S. Hooper by Deed recorded in Book 482 of deeds, page 361; thence South along said West line, 150 feet; thence West 505 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the east 20 feet for road purposes. Parcel No. 6 An easement for the use, maintenance, operation and repair of a water line and a power line over property described as follows: That portion of Lot 2, HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, according to Government Survey, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corner of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line, 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 730 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North along the West line of said Lot 2, 150 feet; thence East 505 feet to the west line of the parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife, to W. 5. Hooper by Deed recorded in Book 482 of deeds, page 361; thence South along said West line, 150 feet; thence West 505 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the east 20 feet for road purposes. 270-142-03 County of San Bernardino, State of California The South 150 feet of the following described property: That portion of Lot 2 of HANCOCK SURVEY of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records ATTACHMENT B-a CITY F SAN BERN RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TIT L E LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION of said County,. described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corner of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Towhship and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said west line 730 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North along the West line of said Lot 2 to the North line of the Muscupiabe Rancho to the west line of the parcel conveyed to D. J. Carpenter and wife, to W. S. Hooper by Deed recorded in Book-482, of Deeds, page 361; thence South along the west line of said parcel conveyed to said W. S. Hooper to a point on the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of the parcel conveyed to Lyman G. Marshall and wife, to John L. Lillian and wife, by Deed recorded November 29, 1946, as Document No. 56; thence West along said northerly line and the Easterly extension thereof 505 feet to the point of beginning, 270-142-04 County of San Bernardino, State of California That portion of Lot 2, of HANCOCK'S SURVEY, of part of Muscupiabe Rancho, Township 1 North, Range 4 West, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, as per map recorded in Book 2, Page 42, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as conmon corners of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence West 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2; thence North along said West line 630 feet to the true point of beginning of boundary of parcel .of land described herein; thence continuing North along said West line, 100 feet; thence East 505 feet; to the West line of parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter, et ux to W. S. Hooper by Deed recorded in Book 482 page 361 of Deeds, Official Records of said County; thence South along said West line 100 feet more or less to a point in the Easterly extension of land conveyed to John Doe Evans, et ux, recorded in Book 148 page 42; thence West 505 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom the East 20 feet thereof for road purposes. ATTACHMENT B-5 ' CITY F SAN BERN RQINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION 270-142-09 County of San Bernardino, State of California That portion of Lot 2 of part of Muscupiabe Rancho being in Township 1 North, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, Page 42, records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNIP~G at a .point on the South line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corners of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range; thence Northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence 505 feet to the West line of said Lot 2 being the true point of beginning; thence North along the West line of said Lot 265 feet; thence East 505 feet to the West line of a parcel conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife to W. 5. Hooper by deed recorded in Book 482 of Deeds, page 361 of Deeds; thence South along the West line of said parcel as conveyed to W. S. Hooper to a point 716 feet North of the Southline of said Lot 2; thence West to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East 20 feet thereof for road purposes. 270-142-16 That portion of Lot 2 Hancock Survey, of Part of Muscupiabe Rancho, lying in Township 1 North, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, records of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet west of an iron stake recognized as the common corners of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, in said Township and Range, thence northerly at an angle of 91° 44' with this line 716 feet; thence west 505 feet to the west line of said Lot 2; thence north along said west line 380 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing north along said west line 250 feet; thence east 505 feet to the west line of the parcel of land conveyed by D. J. Carpenter and wife to W.. S. Hooper by deed recorded in Book 482, page 361, Official Records; thence south along said west line 250 feet more or less, to a line which bears east from the true point of beginning; thence west 505 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom the east 20 feet for road purposes. Said property is also shown on Licensed Land Surveyors Map, recorded in Book 1, page 24, Records of Survey of said County. ATTACHMENT B-6 CITY F SAN BERN RD1N0 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-12 TITLE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL N0. DESCRIPTION APN 270-142-16 (More commonly known as 4360 David Way, San Bernardino, CA) 270-142-17 The North 115 feet of that portion of Lot 2,, of Hancock's Survey, of part of Muscupiabe Rancho, lying in Towhship 1 North, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 42, Records of said County, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Lot 2, 815.15 feet West of an iron stake recognized as the common corner of Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, in said Township and Range; thence northerly at an angle of 91 Deg. 44' with this line 716 feet; thence west 505 feet to the west line of said Lot 2, the point of commencement of the parcel herein conveyed; running thence north along the west line of said Lot 2, 380 feet; thence east 505 feet to the west line of the parcel conveyed by D.J. Carpenter, and wife, to W. S. Hooper, by deed recorded in Book 482, of Deeds, Page 361; thence south along the west line of said parcel conveyed to said W. S. Hooper to a point 716 feet north of the south line of said Lot 2; thence west .to point of beginning of the parcel herein- described. Except therefrom the east 20 feet thereof for road purposes. Excepting therefrom, a 1/2 interest in the well located approximately 175 feet east and 60 feet South of the northeast corner of said property. (Commonly known and referred to as 4296 David Way, San Bernardino, California) APN: 270-142-17 ATTACHMENT B-7