The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About41-Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BER.RDINO - REQUESTtOR COUNCIL ACTION General Plan Amendment No. 92-01, From: Al Boughey, Director Su~ect: to change the land use designatior from CG-4 to RS for a site locatec Dept: Planning & Building Services on the north side of 6th Street, approx. 204 ft. west of Mt. Vernor Date: April 29, 1992 Ave. Mayor and Common Council Meeting May 18, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On June 2, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan, thereby designating the amendment site CG-4, Commercial General. On January 21, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment to change the site's designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the resolution adopted. Al Al Boughey 384-5357 Contact person: Phone: Supporting data attached: Staff Report(s) & Resolution 1 Ward: $25.00 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) 001-171-53150 (Acct. DescriPtion) Professional Services Finance: ~-J [), Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda I tern No. 11 CITY OF SAN BER.RDINO - REQUEST .R COUNCIL ACTION .! STAFF REPORT SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common council Meeting of May 18, 1992 REOUEST This City initiated general plan amendment is to change the land use designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on three contiguous lots consisting of approximately 0.5 acres of land. The amendment site is located on the north side of 6th street approximately 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue and west of and adjacent to the alley. (See Exhibit A of the Initial Study) BACKGROUND On January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered an applicant's request for an interpretation of the General Plan Land Use Plan Map (planning Commission Interpretation No. 91-03) to adjust the boundary of the RS, Residential Suburban for the western portion of the site. Based on the information presented, the Planning commission could not make a finding of consistency and denied the applicant's request but recommended that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment. (See Attachment 3, Staff Report to Planning Commission, January 7, 1992) On January 21, 1992, the Mayor and Common council acted on the Planning Commission's recommendation and directed staff to initiate a general plan amendment to change the land use designation for this site from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban. (See Attachment 2, staff Report to Mayor and Common Council, January 21, 1992) ENVIRONMENTAL On March 12, 1992, the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study which was prepared to evaluate the RS designation and recommended a Negative Declaration. 75-0264 . . General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of May 18, 1992 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on April 21, 1992. The Planning Commission recommended the adoption of the Negative Declaration and the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 to change the land use designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on the amendment site. ANALYSIS The site is physically s~p~rated from the commercial district on Mt. Vernon Avenue by an alley which is located along its eastern boundary. The site is comprised of three lots that front on 6th Street. The easternmost lot abuts the alley and contains a single family residence. The remaining two lots are vacant and all three lots are adjacent to the RS district. It should be noted that (over time) the site will be become even more separated from the commercial district because of its exclusion from the Mt. Vernon Avenue Specific Plan project area. A more detailed discussion is available in Attachment 1 (the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, April 21, 1992). MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 based on findings in the resolution. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment No. 92-01. . . General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common council Meeting of May 18, 1992 Page 3 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. 92-01 as presented. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Department Attachment 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission April 21, 1992 Attachment A - Initial study Exhibit A Land Use Designation And site Vicinity Map Exhibit B site Layout Map. Attachment 2: Request for Council Action and Staff Report to Mayor and Common Council January 21, 1992 (Attachments not included) Attachment 3: Staff Report to Planning commission January 7, 1992 (Attachments not included) Attachment 4: Resolution Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Legal Descriptions CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 4 4-21-92 1 APPLICANT: Ci ty Initiated W tn Ill( o GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 OWNER: Various t- tn W ::) o W a: A proposal to change the land use designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on approx- imately 0.5 acres of land located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue and west and adjacent to the alley. ....... Ill( W a: Ill( PROPERTY Subject North South East t"1 est EXISTING LAND USE ZONING Vacant & Existing Residence CG-4 Single Family Residential Uses RS Commercial Uses CG-4 Alley & Commercial Uses CG-4 Single Family Residential Uses RS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial General Residential Suburban Comnercial General Commercial General Residential Suburban GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A C SEWERS: jQ{YES J HAZARD ZONE: UNO ZONE: xx NO OZONE B o NO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE! DYES REDEVELOPMENT ~YES HAZARD ZONE: XX NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: ~NO o NO ..I D NOT D POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL Ill( APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 t- MITIGATING MEASURES ~ D Ztn NO E.I.R. Ill( CONDITIONS We" u.C :Ez D EXEMPT D E.I.R. REOUIRED BUT NO u.Z D DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IlI(W OC WITH MITIGATING t-:E a:~ MEASURES tn:E D CONTINUANCE TO -u. > 6Q{NO SIGNIFICANT D SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 Z 0 W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES a: CITY Of SAN IIIEANAADI<<> PLAN.9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CENTRAL PltNTlNGlIEIMCU Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 92-01 OBSERV A liONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 4 4-21-92 2 ~ ~ REOUEST AND LOCATION This General Plan amendment request is a City initiated proposal to change the land use designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on approximately 0.5 acres of land. The amendment site is located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue and west of and adj acent to the alley. ( See Exhibit A of the Initial Study) SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The amendment site consists of two vacant lots and one developed lot which contains a single family use. The developed lot is located on the east side of the site, adjacent to the alley. All three lots are flat and rectangularly shaped. (See Exhibit B of the Initial Study) As indicated, a 15 foot alley is located east and adjacent to the amendment site. The alley is oriented north and south and provides rear access for the commercial properties fronting on Mt. Vernon Avenue in the CG-4, Commercial General land use designation. The property located south and across 6th Street is developed for commercial uses and located in the CG-4 district which extends west to Herrington Avenue. Southwest across 6th Street and west of Herrington Avenue are single family residential uses located in the RS, Residential Suburban designation. West and north of the site is land designated RS and developed for residential uses. BACKGROUND Upon adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the amendment site was designated CG-4, Commercial General. Prior zoning on the site was "T" (Transitional) which indicates that the residential uses were expected to transition to commercial uses. However, the anticipated land use change has not occurred and the site remains in the CG-4 designation with an existing residential use. On January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered an applicant I s request for an interpretation of the General Plan (Planning Commission Interpretation No. 91-03). The applicant requested that the Planning commission made a finding of consistency with the General Plan that the boundary of the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation be adjusted to encompass the two vacant parcels. Staff included the easternmost lot in the evaluation because it is residentially developed and separated from the commercial district by the alley. ..... ~ CITY Of SAN IEANARDN) CENTRAl. PRIN11NG SEIMCES PLAN.S.OS PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 92-01 OBSERV A liONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE .:1 .:1-?l-Q? 3 ~ ~ In its consideration, the Planning Commission noted the site's separation from the commercial district. It was also noted that the site is excluded from the Mt. Vernon Avenue specific Plan area. While the Planning Commission acknowledged that the site would be more appropriately designated as RS, it determined that a General Plan Amendment was the required course of action. As such, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request but recommended that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment. The Planning Commission's recommendation was heard by the Mayor and Common Council at their meeting of January 21, 1992. The Mayor and Common Council concurred with the Planning Commission and directed staff to initiate this general plan amendment. MUNICIPAL CODE Title 19 (Development Code) of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code does not apply to General Plan amendments. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOAl STATUS This general plan amendment is subject to CEQA. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the application on March 12, 1992 and determined that the amendment request would not have an adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was recommended. The Public Review period for the Initial study and the proposed Negative Declaration began on March 19, 1992 and ended on April 8, 1992. COMMENTS RECEIVED Comments received from City Departments and outside agencies are pertinent to the development specific stage and do not address the general plan amendment. ..... ~ CITY 01' SAN IEANAAIllNO CENT'RAL PflNTlNG liERVlCES PLAN-B.OS PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 92-01 OBSERV A liONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 4 4-21-92 4 ~ ~ ANALYSIS EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The purpose of the CG-4, Commercial General land use designation is to promote the upgrading and enhancement of Mt. Vernon Avenue through the establishment of diverse ethnic-themed and specialty commercial uses along Mt. Vernon Avenue (General Plan Objective 1. 24) . The purpose and intent of the General Plan is further clarified by the Mt. Vernon Avenue specific Plan which incorporates most of the CG-4 designated areas into a district that specifies commercial uses permitted and includes detailed architectural design guidelines. While the amendment site is designated CG-4, it is excluded from the Mt. 'VeTnon Avenue Specific Plan area. It should be noted that legally existing single family residential uses are permitted in all land use designations as a result of General Plan Amendment No. 91-20 and Development Code Amendment No. 91-10. The existing single family use on the site is permitted but no new residential development could occur on the vacant lots. PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION The purpose of the RS, Residential Suburban designation is to promote the development of single family detached units in a high quality setting (General Plan Objective 1.11). The RS designation permits the development of single family units at a density of up to 4.S dwelling units per gross acre. As indicated, two of the site's three lots are vacant and could be used for residential infill development. Both lots are legal nonconforming in that they do not meet current standards for lot area and width. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Changing the land use designation on the site to RS appears to be appropriate for a number of reasons. The amendment site is separated from the commercial district by the alley which is a logical land use boundary. The site is further removed from the commercial district by the existing residential use on the easternmost lot. If the site's two vacant lots were developed for commercial uses, the result would be a small commercial development surrounded on three sides by residential uses and isolated from the larger commercial district that is included in the Mt. Vernon Avenue Specific Plan area. The residential neighborhood would most likely be impacted by incompatible land uses, noise, congestion and visual aesthetics. .... ~ CITY OF SAN IIE-....o CENTMl. PANTlNGIERVlCES PLAN-8.OS PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) ___~-----.J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE GPA 92-01 OBSERV A liONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 4 4-21-92 5 r' ~ Further residential development on the site would be compatible wi th the adj acent residential uses. Moreover, this type of development would serve to anchor the eastern edge of the RS district which eventually could be eroded by commercial intrusions into the neighborhood. However, the current designation (CG-4) only permits legally existing residential uses and does not allow the establishment of new residential uses. New residential uses can only be established on the site if the commercial designation is changed to a residential designation. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The intent of the General Plan Land Use map was to include the properties abutting Mt. Vernon Avenue in the CG-4 designation and to not encroach into residential neighborhoods. Since the three lots do not abut Mt. Vernon Avenue and are, in fact, physically separated from the commercial district on Mt. Vernon Avenue, any commercial development on the site could result in an encroachment into the residential neighborhood. The General Plan encourages that established residential neighborhoods be maintained and enhanced and that provision be made to accommodate housing units on vacant land within infrastructure and environmental constraints (General Plan Goal 1G and Objective 1.8). Redesignating the site RS would help to achieve both the General Plan Goal and. Objective cited. CONCLUSIONS The amendment site is physically separated from the CG-4 district along Mt. Vernon Avenue and contains an existing residential use on one of its three lots. Commercial development on the site would not be compatible with the adjacent RS district and could result in impacts related to land use, noise, congestion and visual aesthetics. Redesignating the site RS would be consistent with the intent of the General Plan to maintain and enhance established residential neighborhoods. FINDINGS The proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use map from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on the amendment site is internally consistent with the General Plan. All elements of the map amendment proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the Initial Study does not identify any significant impacts. ~ ~ CITY OF SAN lIE-..oN> CE~ PRIHT1NGEIMCES PLAN-B.OS PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) OBSERVATIONS CASE GPA 92-01 AGENDA ITEM 4 HEARING DATE 4-~ l-~:l PAGE 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT The proposed map amendment will minimally effect the balance of land uses within the city. The amendment site is physically suitable for the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation in that the three lots of record are of a sufficient size to accommodate infill single family residential development. RECOMMENDATION 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 General Plan Amendment No. 92-01, as presented. 2. The General Plan Land Use Map be changed as per the CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban for the amendment site as shown on Exhibit B of the Initial Study. Services (~~J~~" ~ll ld;d{i~t</~ ~eborah Woldruff V U Associate Planner jdw Attachment: A - Initial study Exhibit A - Land Use Designation And site Vicinity Map Exhibit B - site Layout Map CITY OF SAN IIERNAADINO CENTRAl. PAlNTlll1GSERVlCES PLAN-B.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) R.t:.t:.acnment:. "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY r ~ GENERAL PLAR AMBNDMBN'1' RO. 92-01 Pro; ect DescriDtion: To chanqe the land use desiqnation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on three contiquous parcels of land consistinq of approximately 0.5 acres. Pro;ect Location: The site is located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue. ~: March 2, 1992 ADDlicantlsl Name and Address: City Initiated Application Initial Study PreDared Bv: Deborah Woldruff Associate Planner Ci~y of San BernardiDo PlaDDiDg and BuildiDg Service. Departm.D~ 300 .or~h "D" S~ree~ San BernardiDo, California 92418 ~ ~ CITY ell' MN lIEMMDII) c:smw.~~ P~8.a7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-80) . . 1. 0 III'1'RODUC'l' I OR This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 , which proposes to change the land use designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RB, Residential Suburban on three contiguous parcels of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acres. The project site is located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue. (See Exhibit A) 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 impact 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, (B) 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; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. I. . . 2.0 PROJBCT DBSCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND , This. City initiated proposal is to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Plan from the CG-4, Commercial General desiqnation to RS, Residential Suburban desiqnation for a site located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue. Upon adoption of the General Plan, the site was designated CG-4. Prior zoning on the property was "T" (Transitional) which indicates that the residential uses were expected to transition to commercial uses. The anticipated transition to commercial uses did not occur and the site was omitted from the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Specific Plan area. The site consists of three lots, two of which are vacant while the third is developed with.... sinqle family uses. For purposes of this report, the three lots shall be referred to from west to east as Lots 1, 2 and 3 , respectively. (See Exhibit B) 2.1 Amendment site an4 surroun4inq Area Characteristics The amendment site is rectanqularly shaped and flat. The three lots that comprise the site all front on 6th Street. As stated, Lots 1 and 2 are vacant while Lot 3 is developed with a sinqle family use. The topography in the area is generally flat. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains are located several miles to the north and the Lytle/Cajon Creek Wash is located a little over a mile to the west. The land uses north and west of the site are residential and designated RS, Residential Suburban. East and adjacent to the site is an alley with commercial uses that front onto Mt. Vernon Avenue located beyond. south of the site and across 6th Street are commercial uses in the CG-4 district which extends west to Herrinqton Avenue. 3 . 0 BJlVIROIDIBB'l'AL ASSBSSMBB'l' 3.1 Bnvironmental settinq The site is located in a potential subsidence area. It is also in an area where noise levels are between 60 and 65 dB(A). ~. CITY"OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ ~ A. BACKGROUND Application Number: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 92-01 Project Description: to change the land use designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban on approximately 0.5 acres of land. L~tion: The project site is located on the north side of 6th Street approx. 204 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue. Environmental Constraints Areas: None General Plan Designation: CG-4, Conunercial General Zoning Designation: Same B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? X b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade? X c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Sedion 12.0 - Geologic X & ~eismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Sedion 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? X 1. Modification of a channel, creek or river? X ~ ~ PLAN.8.06 PAGE 10F (11.go) 3 - . c:rTY a- aNt lIII!fNlIDNO c:emw.~atMC:U g. Development within an area subject to landslides. Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic. X Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? (Figure h Other? Potential Subsidence Area X 51, Gen. . plan) 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient X air quality as defined by AOMD? b. The aeation of objectionable odors? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's X General Plan? 3. Wider Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to X impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? X d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281 0 0 0 5 - ..h, and Section 16.0 - X Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f. Other? X 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? x b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? X c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? X X d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6- or greater) e. Other? X 5. Nolae: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other -noise- sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(Al exterior and an Ldn of 45 dBCA) interior as identified in Section 14.0 - Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? X em- OF aNI .--..0 C2Im'Al-'1MClIPMCIS PLAN.8.D6 PAGE 2 OF _ C11-11O) ", · b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X or an Ldn of 45 dB (A) interior? c. Other? X 6. Land u..: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the X General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? X c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as X identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? d. Other? X 7. Man""'de Hazards: Will the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, X pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X X c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? X 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand X for additional housing? b. Other? X 8. Transportation I Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0 - Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land X use designated on the General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking X facilitieslstNctures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? - X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? X i. Other? x c:rTY 01 aNI ~ PLAN-9.06 PAGE 30F 5, cemw.~8BMCU (11.90) 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Ves No Maybe beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police pr!)tection? X Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload. etc.)? X c. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X Medical aid? X e. Solid Waste? X f. g. Other? X 11. Utllltle.: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? X X 4. Sewer? 5. Other? X b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X Require the construction of new facilities? X c. 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? X b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? X c. Other? X 13. cunural Resource.: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section X 3.0 - Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? X c. Other? X aT\' OF 8M ......., cemw.fIIINIINQ~ PLAN.O.o& PAGE ~ OF _ (11.80) ,. 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Ad states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to 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 eliminate 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 achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) x x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x x C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAnON AND MmGAnON MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) See attached sheets. ~ "" CJI 8M .......0 C8I1'ML~1BMCD PLAN.I.D6 PAGE 5 OF (11.go) 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.~ 3.2.3 . . DlVIROIOIBR'1'AL IMPACTS Barth ae.ource. 1.a. Future development of Lots 2 and 3 could involve earth movement in the form of cut and fill. However, given the small size of the two lots combined, it is unlikely that any fill activity would require earth movement exceeding 10,000 cubic yards. Lot 3 is already developed with a single family residential use and redevelopment is unlikely. 1.b. throuqh f. The amendment proposal will not result in development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade since the site is flat and contains no unique geologic or physical features. The site is located in an area of potential ground subsidence as identified on Figure 51 in the General Plan. The site is not located within any other environmental constraint areas such as geologic, wind, fire, soil or water hazards as identified in the General Plan. Finally, the site is not located in the City's Biological Resources Management Overlay. Air ae.ource. 2.a. &Dc! b. The amendment proposal will not result in air emissions, affect ambient air quality or create objectionable odors. Presently, the residential development on Lot 3 has little or no effect on the air quality in the area. Likewise, future residential development on Lots 1 and 2 would have little or no effect due to the limited development that could occur. .ater ae.ource. 3.a. Future development of Lots 1 and 2 would result impermeable surfaces such as interior streets, sidewalks, driveways and building pads would be constructed. As a resul t, absorption rates would be decreased thereby increasing surface runoff. However , given the small size of the site, impacts from increased surface runoff would be minimal and would not constitute a significant impact. ,. 3.2.4 3.2.5 . . Boi.. 5.a. Additional residential development on the site potentially would increase noise levels but not to a significant degree. The RS designation would not result in intensive, high density residential development and potential impacts due to noise would be minimal. However, the project site is located in a noise corridor wherein existing noise levels are measured between 60 and 65dB(A) (Figure 57, General Plan). The future noise levels on the site are expected to range from between 60 and 70 dB(A). Noise levels along the Mt. Vernon Avenue corridor and on the eastern perimeter of Lot 3 are anticipated to exceed 65dB (A) (Figure 58, General Plan). The General Plan projections for the site are based upon the CG-4 designation and commercial uses. Residential development on the site should result in reduced noise levels. Impacts to residential uses can be mitigated through the development process. LaneS U.. '.a. The proposed amendment will chanqe the land use designation on the site from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban. This amendment would result in the establishment of single family residential uses rather than the commercial retail uses that would be permitted under the CG-4. At this time, the City block in which the site is located is divided by the CG-4/RS boundary. Except for the project site, all CG-4 desiqnated properties are located on the east side of the alley and front on Mt. Vernon Avenue. Because the remainder of the block is designated RS, land use impacts resultinq from the proposed amendment would be minimal. Moreover, the amendment would realiqn the CG-4/RS boundary to be contiguous with the alley. The alley is a loqical, physical barrier that would help to buffer the block's residential uses from its commercial uses. It should be noted that the project site, because of its location on the west side of the alley, was excluded from the Mt. Vernon Corridor Specific Plan area. Therefore it is unlikely that this property would be developed for CG- 4 uses and its removal from the City'S commercial acreaqe is not considered siqnificant. q. 3.2.' . . KARDATORY PINDINGS OP SIGNIPICAHCB (Section 150'5) 14.a. Redesiqnation of the site as RS, Residential Suburban ultimately would result in the establishment of sinqle family residential uses rather than commercial uses. This project will create secondary impacts that can be mitiqated to a level of non-siqnificance when Lots 1 and 2 are developed for residential uses. The impacts associated with future RS development would be less than those associated with future commercial development under the CG-4 desiqnation. No cumulative impacts from the amendment proposal have been identified. 10. ,/ D. DETERMlNA nON On the basis of this initial study. ~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- ~ TION ~i11 be prepCJred. o The proposed project could have a significant effect on the e~vironment. although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descnbed above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Services Name and Title S9~~J ~ /ld Dme: March 12, 1992 ern 01' _ ---.0 ~~1IEl'MCU P\.AN-i.D6 PAGE _ OF _ (ll.go) II. CITYe IF SAN BERi -,RDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 TITLE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND SITE VICINITY MAP AT c:...,." ~' . ~ \\.; , ,/ \ i ~ t EXHIBIT A CIT~. ~F SAN BER\..ARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 ~ 4: a: @ @ 5 e 1&.1 ::. e .. t-: IS 8 ~ ~ . "4~'" , d.1 ~z... "fh !:t Lot - 2 Lot 3 . I STREET I + cl I - LA,.. '411 . 1ft II j r 'Deu.wlfr2:0H .AUlI".~ %C EXHIBIT B C~TY OF SAN SER. \RDINO - REQUEST e4)R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: January 9, 1992 S b'ect' Proposed General Plan Amendment u J 'for the site located west of Mt. Vernon Avenue on the northside of 6th Street. Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 21, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: June 2, 1989 The Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan and the subject site was designated CG-4, Commercial General. January 7, 1992 The Planning Commission made a recommendation that the Mayor and Cornmon Council direct staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Cornmon Council direct the Planning Division to initiate a General Plan Amendment to consider a RS, Residential Suburban designation for the subject site located on the north side of 6th Street and west of Mt. Vernon Avenue and the alley. ~ ~ ~ /' ~ ignature Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: 25.00 Source: (Acct. No.) 001-171-53150 (Acct. DescriPtion) Professional Services Finance:~~Aa _./ /k~?r/ ~(., ./ Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda I tern No, Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN BERN.' ~DINO - R&:QUeST F"R COUNCIL ACTION , . . STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Initiation of a General Plan Amendment for a site located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 203.75 feet west of the centerline of Mr. Vernon Avenue. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The subject property contains three parcels of land and is approximately 20,250 square feet in size. The easternmost parcel is developed with a single family use. The two remaining parcels are vacant. The land uses north and west of these parcels are residential. East of the site and across an alley are commercial uses that front on Mr. Vernon Avenue. South of the site and across 6th Street, the commercial district extends west to Herrington Avenue. (See Attachment 1) Upon the adoption of the General Plan on June 2, 1989, the subject property was designated CG-4, Commercial General. Prior zoning on the site was "T" (Transitional) which indicates that the residential uses were expected to transition to commercial uses. However, the anticipated land use change has not occurred and the site remains in the CG-4 designation with a nonconforming residential use. On January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered an applicant's request for an interpretation of the General Plan (Planning Commission Interpretation No. 90-03). The applicant requested that the Planning Commission make a finding of consistency with the General Plan that the boundary of the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation be adjusted to encompass the two vacant parcels. (Staff included the easternmost parcel in the evaluation because it is residentially developed and separated from the commercial district by an alley.) In its consideration, the Planning Commission noted that the site is effectively separated from the commercial district by the alley and the nonconforming residential use. It was also noted that the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Specific Plan does not include these three parcels in its area of study. For these reasons, the Planning Commission acknowledged that inclusion of the site in the 5-0264 . . Proposed General Plan Amendment Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 Page 2 RS, Residential Suburban district appears to be appropriate. However, the General Plan does not contain a policy for a boundary adjustment in this instance and a designation change can only be accomplished by a general plan amendment. As such, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request but recommended that the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment. FUNDING REOUIREMENTS In addition to staff time for processing the general plan amendment, a $25 County filing fee will be required. RECOMMENDATION That the Mayor and Common Council direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment to consider a RS, Residential Suburban land use designation for the subject site located on the north side of 6th Street, west of Mt. Vernon Avenue and west of the alley. Attachment 1: Location and Land Use Designation Map (Assessor Parcel Book 138, Page 4 - portion) CITY OF SA~ERNARDINO - .,,~EMORANDUM To Planning Commission Subject Planning Commission Interpretation No. 91-03 From Al Boughey, Director Planning & Building S~ DaM January 7, 1992 Approved Agenda Item NO. 11 Date APPLICANT D. Kaye Wirtjes, Project Manager Map Builders 8439 White Oak Avenue, suite 104 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 OWNER R.L. Construction Company 16025 Gale Avenue, suite. A12 Industry, California 91745 REOUEST The applicant requests a finding of consistency with the General Plan that the boundary of the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation be adjusted to encompass two vacant and contiguous parcels which are currently located in the CG-4, Commercial General land use designation (Assessor Parcel Numbers 138-043-21 and 22). (See Attachment A, Applicant's Letter of Request) LOCATION AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is located on the north side of 6th Street approximately 203.75 feet west of the centerline of Mt. Vernon Avenue in the CG-4, Commercial General designation. The property contains two parcels consisting of 6,750 square feet and 4,725 square feet, respectively. Between these parcels and the alley to the east is another parcel (APN 138-043-29) which contains a single family residence. Staff has included this parcel in the analysis. (See Attachment B, Assessor Parcel Book 138, Page 04 - portion; and, ttachment C, Vicinity Map) A 15 foot alley is located east and adjacent to the subject property. The alley runs north and south and provides rear access for the commercial properties which front on Mr. Vernon Avenue in the CG-4, Commercial General land use designation. The property located south and across 6th Street is in the CG-4 designation and developed for commercial uses in conjunction with those fronting on Mt. Vernon Avenue. Southwest and across 6th Street are single- family residential uses located in the RS, Residential Suburban . PRiCE .t.f ~.,J"1 ,....J =cC.~= =~ ~ _..~(",'" .. ,I . I, _, '._............ . ~.,~ " i ..;...~~i .~:~..i/ . Attachment 3 . . Planninq Commission Interpretaton No. 91-03 for Planninq Commission Keetinq of January 7, 1992 paqe 2 designation. The property located west and north of the subject property is developed for residential uses and designated RS, Residential Suburban. ANALYSIS The purpose of this report is to determine if the proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. It lists general pros and cons of the proposed adjustment to the boundary between. the RS, Residential Suburban and CG-4, Commercial General designations. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Since the east parcel of the property is already developed for single-family uses, integra:ing all three parcels into the RS designation appears to be appropriate. This precept is evidenced by the fact that the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Specific Plan does not include these three parcels in its area of study. While it is not the purpose of this report to evaluate the proposal for environmental impacts, the removal of these parcels from the CG- 4 would not result in any apparent significant impacts. Conversely, commercial development on the site most likely would result in impacts on the residential neighborhood in terms of traffic, congestion, noise and visual aesthetics. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The intent of the General Plan Land Use map was to include the parcels abutting Mt. Vernon Avenue in the CG-4 designation and to not encroach into residential neighborhoods. This is further demonstrated through goals, objectives and policies which address retaining the scale and character of established neighborhoods (General Plan Goal IG and Objective 1.8). The General Plan includes a policy (1.7.4) which permits commercial uses to include adjacent residential land in order to help the viability of the commercial enterprise by allowing for expansion or the provision of parking. The inclusion of an adjacent parcel must not allow the commercial use to intrude into the residential . . Planning Commission Interpretaton Ho. 91-03 for Planning commission Meeting of January 7, 1992 Page 3 neighborhood. In this case, the parcels are physically separated by an alley and are not directly adjacent to the commercial district. The inclusion of the subject property in the RS district may be warranted for the reasons stated herein. However, no provision like Policy 1.7.4 exists for expanding the boundaries of residential districts. This can only be accomplished through a general plan amendment. CONCLUSION Upon adoption of the General Plan, the property was designated CG- 4. However, the existing residential use (located on the east parcel of the subject property) and the alley are effective barriers to commercial development. Moreover, the subj ect property is not included in the study area for the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Specific Plan. The intent of General Plan Goal 1G and Objective 1.8 is to retain and enhance existing residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. Inclusion of the subject property in. the RS, Residential Suburban designation would help to retairi both the residential neighborhood and the commercial district by moving the boundaries into a more logical configuration. While this request appears to be consistent with the General Plan, no provision exists for a boundary adjustment in this case. As such, a general plan amendment is required to make the designation change. FINDINGS A finding of consistency cannot be made for the boundary adjustment as requested. Findings could be made, however, for a general plan amendment to change the land use designation on the property from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban. . . Planninq Commission Interpretaton Bo. 91-03 for Planninq Commission Keetinq of January 7, 1992 paqe .. RECOMMENDATION staff feels that a finding of consistency can be made, but recommends that the applicant submit an application for a General Plan Amendment to make the designation change. Respectful \ submitted, ~ Al Bo , P ~. ec~o 1 Pl~ng and Building ~eb~lffJW~ sociate Planner services Attachments: A. B. Applicant/Property Owner's Request Attachment B, Assessor Parcel Map, Book 138, Page 04 Vicinity Map c. -- . :R: L CONSTRUCTI... CO. . ~CI 91-03 Planninq Commission Meetinq of . January 7, 1992 16025 Gale Ave.. SUIte A12 industry, CA 91145 818-855-1056 11/26/91 Mr. Al Boughey Director of Planning and Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North -0- Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Planning Commission Interpr~tation for APNM138-043-21 Dear Mr. Boughey: Plea.se consider this It?tter a.s a forma.l request accompa.nied by a check in the amount of 5265.00 for a. Planning Commission Intl?f"pretation for Zone on APN"13S-043-21. Pr~s~ntly it is sh~'n as CG4, however after ~ meeting with planner Deborah Woodruff, it appears the revist?d General ~ Plan I.AJOU 1.j conf i r.m an ~ de~ i gna t i on for APN*t 1 '3~..otf-'3-Zf/. fZ~ 13i- 043-~ Plt?~s~ determine the prop~r zoning for this APN and notifY. me? .~. t once, as the tMe hcu~.e p fans hat,". b~en slJbm it ted -ft:)r plan checK and we a.re on a ve~y tight dev~lopm~nt ~ch~dule. ThanK YOU for your coop~ratjon and consider6tionin this m:-. t ~o?r' . Si n.:erel )', 11 ~.~vrhf D. h :t. J' e/J I ,.. t. J Pr- .~j t? C t Nan age ATTACHMENT A . RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE 1 DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PIAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN 2 BERNARDINO. 8 BE IT RESOLVED BY.THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 4 SECTION 1. Recitals 5 6 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was 7 June 2, 1989. 8 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 to the General Plan of 9 the 't Cl Y of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning 10 commission on April 21, 1992, after a noticed public hearing, and 11 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been 12 considered by the Mayor and Common Council. 18 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on March 12, 1992 and 14 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning 15 Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 92- 16 01 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 17 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 18 19 public review period from March 19, 1992 through April 8, 1992 and 20 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the Planning 21 commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance with the 22 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations. 23 e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public 24 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan 25 Amendment 26 18, 1992. 27 IIII 28 No. 92-01 and the Planning Division Staff Report on May 1 . . 1 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 is 2 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the city and :I is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 4 existing General Plan. 5 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration 6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 7 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan 8 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on 9 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared 10 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this 11 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted. 12 SECTION 3. Findinas 13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the 14 City of San Bernardino that: The change of designation from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban for the proposed amendment will change the land use map only is not in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. All public services are available to the study area. Any development permissable under the RS, Residential Suburban designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on such services. 15 A. 16 17 18 19 B. 20 21 c. 22 23 24 25 D. 26 The proposed amendment will minimally affect the balance of land uses within the City. 27 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the RS, 28 IIII 2 . . Residential Suburban land use designation. Anticipated future land use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it has been determined that the three lots of record that comprise the site are of a sufficient size to accomodate infill single family residential development. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 0.5 acres from CG-4, Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A, and is more specifially described in the legal description entitled Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein be reference. General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 shall become effective 17 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 18 SECTION 5. Map Notation 19 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be 20 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously 21 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are 22 on file in the office of the City Clerk. 23 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 24 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 25 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 26 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental 27 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 28 IIII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B. 3 .' . 1 RESOLUTION... ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 TO THE GENERAL 2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the 6 day of , 1992, by the following vote, to 7 wit: 8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 ESTRADA 10 REILLY 11 HERNANDEZ 12 MAUDSLEY 13 MINOR 14 POPE-LUDLAM 15 MILLER 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 19 of 20 21 22 Approved as to form and legal content: , 1992. w. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 23 JAMES F. PENMAN, 24 City Attorney ~: BcrW,? "7. v~ 27 28 4 .ty of San Bernardino, Lo.ion Map GPA 92-01 (Portion of) Assessor Parcel Book No. 138, paqe 04 . +~ " I STREET- .. - -+- - , I /~I' '~..I . I .@ J ~ :) @ @ (@ @ 2 @ ~ ~ 7"- I&J '-" :> q , 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 e 4 ~ ~ ~ @ ~ U) 5 (i) @@ 6 (!J . .,.. . ~. . I V"I.(!, T()~1A AVENUE- t -~ - ..,. /47. S. /"'..1"# · I , ~ @ 0 \It 2 tlo:l 24 ~ @ e @ r - (, +~ I I I I t-: :e I I . 1_..- , I STREIT i --~- I I Attachment "A" CIT OF SAN SER ARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 TITLE Legal Description ..... ~ PARCEL NO. DESCRIPTION 138-043-29 LOT 7, BLOCK "B" OF SECURITY INVESTMENTS COMPANY'S GILBERT SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDATION BOOK 19 OF MAPS, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF SAID COUNTY. 138-043-21 LOT 7, BLOCK "B" OF SECURITY INVESTMENTS COMPANY'S GILBERT SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT ~ECORDATION BOOK 19 OF MAPS, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF SAID COUNTY. 138-043-22 LOT 7, BLOCK "B" OF SECURITY INVESTMENTS COMPANY'S GILBERT SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF SAN -BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDATION BOOK 19 OF MAPS, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF SAID COUNTY. -.. A T T A C H MEN T "B" ~