HomeMy WebLinkAboutR02-Redevelopment Agency
. "e&VELOPMENT AGl!NCY.~QUEST FOR 9..ISSION/COUNCIL AglON
i"'lm:
~t:
Glenda Saul, Executive Director
Subject: OVERLAY ZONE IN CENTRAL CITY SOUTH
STUDY AREA AND CHANGE OF ZONE #86-22
Redevelopment Agency
Oats: September 25, 1986
Synopsis of Previous c;ommission/Council 1ICti0n:
.'
12/16185
DeBignation of a Committee to study that area between Ria1to Avenue and
Mill Street and "E" Street and InterBtate 215.
313/86
a) Approval, in concept, of traffic circulation pattern propoBed by team
and URS and pursue recommendationB for Specific PlBn.
b) Resolution 4858 authorizing negotiationB to purchaBe for realignment
of "F" and "G" Streets (Mill & "G")
continued on 1lelI:t page....
Recommended motion:
(MlYOR & COMIION COUNCIL)
o
a)
First Reading
Motion to adopt, by title only, an ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING AN OVERLAY ZONE IMPOSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
AND DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK UPON AN AREA DESIGNATED AS CENTRAL CITY SOUTH STUDY
AREA, waiving further reading and laying it over for final adoption.
b) Motion to approve the reBponBeB to commentB and adopt the Negative Declaration
for environmental review.
c) Motion to approve change of Zone No. 86-22 and direct the City Attorney to
draft the appropriate ordinance.
s1D-r~~~
Signature
Contact penon:
Glenda Saul I Sandy Lowder
Amount: $
MIA
Phone: 383,5081
1
Ward:
CCS
Project:
Date: September 29, 1986
Supporting data attached:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
YES
No 1Idv_ Impact on City:
OCil No1lls:
A ___.J_
1583G/JH
09:' 2'JI86 -::tI- .:J.
o
o
o
o
o
Fr_: Glenda Saul, Executive Director
OVEIILAY ZONE IN CENTRAL
CITY SOUTH STUDY AREA
AND CHANGE OF ZONE #86-22
Septeaber 2-S, 1986
.
Synopsi8 of Previou8 Cam,8sicmlCouncll Action:
(continued from paae 1)
c)
d)
e)
f)
0 4121/86 a)
b)
c)
ReBolution 4859 authorizing initiation of acquisition of Bouthwest
corner of Rialto and -E- Streets (Railroad property)
Motion to study feaBibility of aBBe8ament diBtrict.
Motion to Btudy feaBibility of underground utility diBtrict.
Ordinance MC-SOl impoBing 120 day moratoriUlll - exempting Simi
PartnerBhip.
ReBo1ution 4876 authorizing execution of an agreement with Brown &
Mullins, Inc. to provide engineering Bervices.
Referred Specific Plan propoBa1 back to Btaff to requeBt additional
proposals.
RequeBt Btaff to report on financial feaBibi1ity of Btudy area
improvements.
612/86 Resolution 4888 to execute an agreement with URS to develop an Overlay
Zone for the study area.
6/21/86 Council Workshop and progress report.
9/22/86 Set public hearing for October 6, 1986 and continued conBideration of
first reading of ordinance to September 29, 1986.
o
lS83G/JH
09/29/86
CI9t OF SAN BERNARDQO - REQUQT FOR COUNCIL AC~ON
o
o
o
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
On September 22, 1986, Council continued conBideration of the Overlay Zone and a
Change of Zone #86-22 in the Btudy area of Central City South. The attached
reportB from Planning and Agency Btaff were thoBe presented on September 22, 1986.
.'
,
l583G/JH
09/29/86
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING AN OVERLAY ZONE IMPOSING DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK UPON AN AREA DESIGNATED AS
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH STUDY AREA.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
.
DO,ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. The Mayor and Common Council have reviewed,
considered, and received public comments upon the proposed design
guidelines and development framework for the Central City South
Study Area of the City of San Bernardino, California, as prepared
by U.R.S. Corporation, Anil Verma Associates, and Solstice Design
Associates.
These proposed design guidelines and development
13 framework cover the area bounded on the north by the center line
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
2]
~
~
24
25
26
27
of Rialto Avenue~ on the east by the center line of .E. Street~
on the south by the center line of Inland Center Drive; and on
the west by the east right of way line of the Interstate Highway
I-215.
B.
The Mayor and Common Council have determined that
there is a need to upgrade the design standards and the
development framework throughout the area described in Recital A
above.
C. The area which is the subject of this overlay zone is
blighted and the proposed design guidelines and development
framework will be an asset to the community by upgrading the area
both aesthetically and economically.
SECTION 2. The Mayor and Common Council hereby adopt an
overlay zone imposing design guidelines and development framework
28 for the Central City South Study Area. The boundaries of the
1
~
/~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 Central City South Study Area covered by this Ordinance are
2 hereby established as follows:
3 Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line
4 of Rialto Avenue with the easterly right .of way line of
I~terstate Highway I-2l5, which, is the .point of 6eginning.,
5
6 thence proceeding easterly along said center line of Rialto
7 Avenue to the center line of .E. Street; thence in a generally
8 southerly direction along the center line of .E. Street to the
9 point of intersection with the center line of Inland Center
10 Drive; thence in a generally southwesterly direction, along the
center line of Inland Center Drive to its intersection with the
11
12 easterly right of way line of Interstate Highway I-215~ thence
13 northerly along the easterly right of way line of Interstate
14 Highway I-2l5 to the point of beginning.
15 All property within the boundaries hereinabove described
16 shall be subject to the design guidelines and development
17 framework hereby adopted by the Mayor and Common Council, which
18 are incorporated herein by reference. The design guidelines and
19 development framework as set forth in a booklet prepared by U.R.S
20 Corporation, Anil Verma Associates, and Solstice Design
21 Associates, entitled .Design Guidelines and Development
22 Framework, Central City South Study Area/San Bernardino,
23 California., as on file with the City Clerk of the City of San
24 Bernardino, is hereby approved and adopted, subject to the
25 following modifications:
26 On pages 122 and 123, commencing with the paragraph
27 numbered I, Preliminary Conference, the text is amended to read
28 as follows:
2
0
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
o
o
o
o
-I. preliminarv Conference. The Developer conf:rs
informally with the City to identify potential development issues
including: scope of the project, potential design issues and
concerns, requirements including these Guidelines, <'compliance
wit;h the California Environment~l Quality Act, and'the City's
processing of the project. Information required on the
developer's submission will be determined. A City Project
Coordinator will be assigned to be liaison between the developer
and the review committee. A determination will be made whether
the project may be submitted directly to the Development Review
Committee or whether it must first receive City Council and/or
Planning Commission approval.
II. Development Review Aoolication. A site plan and
other information determined to be needed will be submitted with
a Development Review Application. The City reviews and responds
within ten days.
III. Council/Commission Review Aoolication. A site plan
and other required information will be submitted with the
appropriate application to the Planning Department. The City
reviews and responds in thirty to sixty days depending on the
type of application.
IV. OVer the Counter Review. This review is used for
smaller projects such as minor additions and signs. Within a
maximum of five business days, the construction drawings are
25 returned. If approved as submitted, the developer may submit to
26 Plan Check. If there are conditions, the applicant will resubmit
27 within thirty days. Notice of satisfactory compliance will be
28 given within ten days of resubmission.
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 V. Develooment Review Committee. The Committee reviews
2 projects and may render a decision in as little as ten days. If
3 there are revisions necessary, the drawings would need to be
4 reviewed. Once evaluated and approved by the Committee, the
.
5 project is then submitted for P~an Check. Generally, Plan Check
6 takes no more than thirty days for smaller projects and sixty to
7 ninety days for larger projects.
8 VI. Comoliance with California Environmental OUality Act
9 (CEQA). All submitted projects requiring City Council and/or
10 Planning Commission approval will be reviewed by the City
11 Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The ERC will determine
12 whether a particular project is exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
13 Negative Declaration or will require an Environmental Impact
14 Report. Projects which may be submitted directly to the
15 Development Review Committee are typically exempt from CEQA,
16 although the more complex ones may have certain environmental
17 impacts which warrant review and action by the ERC.-
18 SECTION 3. The design standards established by the design
19 guidelines and development framework hereby adopted shall not
20 replace or supersede current street design standards established
21 by the City Engineer. Any deviation from current standards will
22 require specific approval of the City Engineer.
23 SECTION 4. Any violation of the terms of this Ordinance
24 shall be an infraction, subject to punishment under the
25 provisions of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 1.12.010.
26 SECTION 5. The City Clerk, in conjunction with the
27 Planning Director, shall cause to be recorded in the Office of
28 the San Bernardino County Recorder, notice to all affected
4
o
o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 of
18
19
20
o
o
o
persons of the existence of this Ordinance, and of its effect on
all property within the boundaries of the Central City South
Study Area as herein established.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
,
Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
, 1986, by the following vote, to
day of
wit:
AYES:
Council Members
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
, 1986.
day
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
21 Approved as to form:
22 ~~~r--
~,~~City Attorney ~
/<. 24
25
26
o 27
28
5
, CI'O OF SAN BERNARDC)O - REQUIQT FOR COUNCIL ACOoN
Frank A. Schuma Central City South OVerlay
.'From: Planning Director Subject: District and Change of Zone
0: No. 86-22
Planning Mayor and Counc:j.l Meeting of
DatB: September 18, 1986 September 22, 1986
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 1986,
the following recommendation was made:
The Development Framework and Guidelines, with modifications,
creating the Central City South OVerlay District and Change of
Zone No. 86-22 were recommended for approval.
Vote: 5-2, I-abstention, I-absent.
RecommBndBd motion:
o
That the Mayor and Council adopt the Development Framework and
Guidelines, with modifications, creating the Central City South
OVerlay District, and that
the Mayor and Council approve the responses to comments and adopt
the Negative Declaration for environmental review, and that
the Mayor and Council approve Change of Zone No, 86-22.
~L~
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
Supporting data Bttached:
Staff Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
FinenCB:
0""""" :;P"; hJ -In d. ~;: ~!i!r,,4,{{:::;~ ~r A ~~,,~"' _
1- d-d- f~
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
~T'f OF SAN BERCRDINO 0 MEMORANDUMO
To
!Qect
The Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22, Ward 1
From The Planning Dept.
Date September 16. 1986
Approved
Item Nos. 6 and 7
Date
In Decembec, 1985, the Mayor and the Common Council requested
the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Department to study
the area bounded by Rialto Avenue on the north, Inland Center
Drive on the south, -E- Street on the east and the I-2l5
Freeway on the west. An advisory committee was appointed to
work with Planning and Redevelopment Agency staff and con-
sultants to study the area. The purpose of the study was to
establish a development framework and design guidelines to
help redevelop the area through the use of an overlay
district.
The final
asked to
sections:
report, which the Planning Commission is being
review and approve, basically contains two maJor
a Development Framework and Design Guidelines.
This staff report contains:
(fJ
l.
2.
3.
4.
A review of the Development Framework.
A review of the Design Guidelines.
An analysis of Change of Zone No. 86-22.
Recommendations on the three items above.
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:
The Development Framework defines the City's overall goals
and policies for the study area, the development review
process for development of the area, and the circulation
network. The framework contains five plan elements:
1. Land Use and Zoning
2. Circulation and Transportation
3. Development Opportunity Sub-areas
4. Design Theme
5. Landscape, Hardscape and Identity
Land Use and Zoning
o
The Development Framework is not intended to amend the
General Plan nor the Central City So~th Redevelopment Plan.
Rather, the framework's land uses are to be ~sed as a guide
for future development by defining areas of -allowable land
uses.- The allowable land uses are actually categories of
commercial development and include Commercial Retail, Service
Commercial, Wholesale Commercial and Warehouse Distribution.
Designated locales for these uses within the project area are
shown on Page 10 of the final report.
C'J'Y' Oil J'HI=M~"
o
o
o
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Planning
Central City South Overlay
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 2
o
Commission
District and
,Circulation
A key element to the Development Fra~ework is the circulation
plan. It will place emphasis on four important aspects of
development to assure the success of the overall project.
Vehicular Circulation: Theprimary intent is to create a
vehicular corridor between Central City Mall and Inland
Center Mall. To do so, existing roadways will be realigned
to provide the desired flow pattern. New internal roads will
be provided, including a new entry point into the project
site from -E- Street opposite Valley Street. These roads
will be designed to: 1) accommodate all sizes of commercial
vehicles needed to service the area, 2) serve a variety of
different land uses and 3) divide the project site into
developable areas.
pedestrian Circulation: A plan for smooth, progressive flow
of pedestrians within thei[ own exclusive area as well as
within the public right-of-way is developed to stimulate the
commercial success of the project. It has been carefully
prepared to meander through the overall project so that
pedestrians can easily and safely promenade from one land use
to another. Between major land uses complimentary outdoor
activities such as patio cafes and flower carts will be used
to enhance the project producing an active sidewalk
environment.
Parking: Parking will be provided as defined in the San
Bernardino Municipal Code. In facilitating prov~s~ons for
parking areas, several factors were taken into account: 1)
The appearance of parking areas are not to dominate the
buildings that the parking serves, 2) excessive asphalt is
discouraged, 3) direct pathways from the parking areas to
their respectiye buildings is to be utilized, 4) within the
overall project area a minimum of curb cuts are to be used,
5) grouped parking to serve several businesses is encouraged,
6) parking is encouraged to be placed behind or to the side
of buildings rather than in front.
Public Transportation: Routes should be adjusted by Omni-
trans to accommodate the increased demand that will be
generated by the study area. A transit network could ulti-
mately link the project area with development within the
Hospitality Lane area, Seccombe Lake area, the Civic Center,
Orange Show Fairgrounds and that of Central City Mall and the
Inland Center Mall. Bus shelters will be incorporated into
the landscaped public rights-of-way to serve the users of the
transit system. .
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 3
Development Opportunity Suh-areas
.
Six opportunity sub-areas are contemplated within the study
area. Each, specifically, designates a select land use with
its own market needs and potentials. These select sub-areas
are shown on Page 14 of the final report and include:
1. WE- Street Corridor
2. Railroad Parcels
3. Interior Parcels
4. Freeway Parcels
5. Triangle Parcels
6. South of Mill Parcels
The -E- Street corridor is along the west side of _gw Street
and will be encouraged to develop as a highly landscaped
pedestrian oriented corridor. Support uses include cafes,
mini-parks, flower carts and attractive newsstands. The
intent within this corridor is to attract pedestrian and
vehicular traffic from the downtown and Hospitality Lane
areas to the study area.
The railroad parcels are landlocked and are presently being
under-utilized as railway spurs for warehousing uses. The
area is. being treated as a reserve land area which ultimately
will be used in a variety of ways ranging from use of the
property as a future transit center to using the railroad
facilities as a focus for a . railroad-theme retail/enter-
tainment center~
The area which lies in the interior of the project site is
the target for initial development. Land uses for this area
could include such things as a design center or a specialty
retail center.
The freeway parcels immediately east of the I-215 Freeway
have good visibility and accessibility and, therefore, have
potential for such land uses as retail, office and institu-
tional facilities.
Across the flood control channel from the main portion of the
study area and east of the 1-215 Freeway and north of Mill
Street lie what are designated as the -Triangle- parcels.
The framework circulation plan incorporates a bridge spanning
the flood control channel which could eventually be linked
with Mill Street. . Appropriate development would include
retail or design center uses or freeway-related and region-
ally-oriented uses.
10
~
o
c
o 0
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 4
o
Those parcels located south of Mill Street areL cur~ently
occupied with a mixture of wholesale and retail rarehousing
uses and related open parking. The plan proposes to retain
these same uses within this sub-area.
Design Th@m@
This element is focused on the public space landscape and
hardscape. A specific design for sidewalks, street furni-
ture" signing and street lights has been incorporated using
design elements from the history of San Bernardino. No
specific architectural design theme such as -Western- or
-Spanish- will be established. Instead, architectural
cohesiveness and identity will be accomplished through a
series of common design guidelines. These guidelines will
pay special attention to walls, doors, windows and color
palette throughout the study area.
Landscap@. Har:dscap@ and Id@ntity
The landscape concept for the study area is to create a lush
landscaped microcosm to provide a tranquil environment. It
will provide a park-like setting with well integrated commer-
cial and ancillary uses.
Large landscaped nodes are to be established at major inter-
sections. Entry nodes are to be used to attract visitors to
the study area while landscaped medians will separate the
paved surface with plant material.
Street fixtures and ornamental street lights will produce a
higher standard for the area than the standard bus benches or
standard street lights.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The design guidelines were developed to encourage, through
public and private investment, a cohesive, well designed
development. They contain minimum standards which address
rr~jor components (e.g. setbacks, landscaping, architectural
standards, etc.) for the physical development of the study
area.
New development or expansion of existing structures would be
required to comply with those standards established in order
to receive a building permit. The standards will be utilized
by the City departments as a basis of evaluation and review
of all projects within the study area. The guidelines, with
o
~
c
o
Memorandum to the P1ann~g Commission C)
Central City South Overlay District and
Change .of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 5
o
there accompanying framework plan, will constitute the
overlay district. These guidelines are in addition to the
existing zoning standards. Wher, conflicts arise, the
stricter of the two will prevail.
The guidelines address:
1. Allowable land uses
2. Access and parking
3. Height, bulk and setbacks of structures
4. Building appearance
5. Signage and identity
6. Ground floor frontage
7. Landscape and hardscape criteria
8. Right-of-way usage
9. Property rehabilitation
10. Administration of the guidelines
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-22:
In conjunction with the adoption of
and Guidelines, a change of zone is
implement the Overlay District.
Presently, within the 195 acre Project area, the existing
zoning includes C-3, C-M, M-l, and M-2 zones. These zones
would permit a myriad of potentially non-compatible land
uses. For instance, the C-3 zone would permit general types
of commercial uses from retail to offices. The C-M zone
permits those uses within the C-3 zone as well as those uses
permitted within the M-l zone. The M-l zone would permit
light industrial types of uses, such as warehousing and
manufacturing plants. The M-2 zone would permit heavy indus-
trial land uses such as impound yards, junk yards or any
industrial use not prohibited by law.
the proposed Framework
requested in order to
The proposed change of zone would rezone all parcels within
the study area to C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing. The plan,
however, would restrict certain uses otherwise permitted in
that zone. Specifically, the plan would prohibit the follow-
ing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plant nurseries
Outdoor storage
Open uses such as agriculture
Drive-in theaters
Trailer camps
Auto washes
o
~
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Plann~ng
Central City South Overlay
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 6
o
o
Commission
District and
7. Tire retreading and recapping
8. Used car and trailer sales lots
9., Sales of new and used cars,
lO.Repair garages, including automobile
repair
The change of zone to the C-M classification is considered to
be in conformance with the existing General Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan.
,
and truck
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has carefully reviewed the final report and recommends
the following modifications.
SECTION III. GUIDELINES, part 11, Administration, (Page 22)
should be modified as follows:
I.
Preliminary Conference
(Add)
II.
A determination will be made whether the project may be
submitted directly to the Development Review Committee
or whether it must first receive City Council and/or
Planning Commission approval.
Development Review Application
(Change -30 days. to -10 days-)
III. Determination of Review Level
(Revise as follows)
III. Council/Commission Review Application
A site plan and other required informa~ion will be
submitted with the ap,propriate applica ion to the
Planning Department. The City reviews nd responds
in 30 to 60 days depending on the type of applica-
tion. I
IV. Over the Counter Review
(No change)
V.
Development Review Committee I
(Revise as follows)
The Committee reviews projects and m~y render a
decision in as little as 10 days. ~f there are
revisions necessary, the drawings would I need to be
I
o
CJ
o
o
o
o 0
. Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 7
reviewed. Once evaluated and appro~ed by the
Committee, the project is then submitted for Plan
Check. Generally, Plan Ch~ck takes no more than 30
days for smaller projects and 60 to 90 days for
larger projects.
VI.
Compliance with California
Act (CEQA)
(Revise as follows)
Environmental Quality
!
All submitted projects requ1r1ng City Council
and/or Planning Commission approval will be
reviewed by the City Environmental Review Committee
(ERC). The ERC will determine whether a particular
project is exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
Negative Declaration or will require an Environ-
mental Impact Report.
Projects which may be submitted directly to the
Development Review Committee are typically exempt
from CEQA, although the more complex ones may have
certain environmental impacts which warrant review
and action by the ERC.
In addition to the modifications listed above, the Engineer-
ing Division has submitted a memorandum (attached) which
outlines five concerns regarding streets, traffic and circu-
lation.
o
o
;0
o
. 0
Memor~ndum to the Planning
Central City South Overlay
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
page 8
o
o
Commission
District and
Staff recommends approval, with modifications, of 'the Devel-
opment Framework and Guidelines creating the Central City
South Overlay District, and approval of Change of Zone No.
86-22. In addition, staff would recommend adoption of the
Negative Declaration for both items.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
/~
C/ /--. ?!':-d.
~
Vincent A. Bautista, Principal Planner
~ITY OF SAN BEFOIARDINO 0- MEMORANDUIO
FRANK SCHUMA
Planning Director
. Central City South Study Area - Conments on
Framework and Design Guidelines
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir. of
From Public Works/City Engineer
Date September 5, 1986
File No. 6.2101
Approved
Date
.
,
We have the following comments regarding the subject study:
1, The document contains a number of design guidelines which conflict with
current street design standards. Therefore, a statement should be added
clearly indicating that the guidelines do not supersede current street
design standards and that any deviation from current standards will re-
quire specific approval of the City Engineer.
2. Additional studies will be ,needed to develop new street design standards
specifically for the study area if current standards are not acceptable.
this will include such items as street lights, driveway approaches, traffic
signals, sidewalks, median islands, etc.
co
3. The final traffic study as. approved by the City Engineer should be in-
cluded as an appendix to the design guidelines.
4. A sketch or table should be included to identify street classification
(major highway, secondary highway, etc,) and location of existing and
proposed traffic signals within the study area.
5. The latest traffic study reconmends Mill Street be 6 lanes within the
study area, To obtain 6 lanes, the street right-of-way half width should
be 55' instead of the currently planned 41.25'. Since the .traffic study
was based on a worst case pattern of development, 6,lanes on Mill Street
may never really be required. However, to provide for the possibility of
it being needed, consideration should be given to requiring additional
landscaped setback along Mill Street.
ROGER G, HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
t7JttdJtf;~
MICHAEL W. GRU8BS
Senior Civil Engineer
o
CITY PlANNllm D~PARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
A.L,
o,V!._
E,C;._
.' G,G<__
K,M,_
M...,_
Wo.F. __
M.tJ._
RR_
S.W._
V,R
MWG:rs
00 rn@rn~wrn rID
SEP 09 1986
FIL.E_
CIFY Oil FH.:;M~
o
o
o
o
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.....
AGENDA
ITEM #
o
LOCATION
CASE C.Z. 86-22 arid
CENT. CITY SOUTH 0, L 6: "7
HEARING DATE 9-16-86, 'I
"'"
~ ....
....
11-1 II N I' C-M ID'M
R'I Ill' R'I L-J
IIIALJR.....8f
D~~'3 I R-I I
~1 I U l!!l R-t I
<1 R-I R-3 EfEj
R-I
3B It.. 1 R-I
Il2 . R'3 ,
R-I
i R,I
I W~:.LJ t
filiAL T IN
R-I
CoM
R-I
R-I
(0
Ii
'" e. cny LtM"S
-
D
n
...~ R-'
I
R'I
R'I
"\tf
. 1....
....
;~.c
,
/ I
,IJ "0"
,"
"
1--
o
o
c.~\\'l~'C.
o
O.Uf Of CALIIOINlA-lUSINISS AND ntAHSPOIIT_AnON AGENC'
OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
llISTlIICT I, 0,0, lOX 231 .
SAN II!RNARDlNO, CAllfORNIA 92_
o
aeoaGl! IlEUlUlolElIAN, _
Development Review ~
<A'd- ..:uS' _ .s~.:r*.Gl"
(Co Rte PM)
-3.;;p~~.r /~ /93"
Date
.;zc . J?" -.1.~
(Your Reference)
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 9Z418
o
,('
"V ~ ~ ("".<)/1"',. ~ "'" 8di.., ~f?
~ri'" ~~.fl~,.q/l,tC~
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been
indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under
additivnal comments.
It should be noted that if any work is necessary within the state
highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment
permit from the District 8 office of the State Department of
Transportation prior to beginning the work.
..
If additional information ~s desired, please call Mr. Will Brisl
at (714) 383-4671.
~ R. G. POTE
d District Permit Engineer
00 rn 00 rn n \VJ m lID
SEP 17 1986
o
Att,-,
4
Forlll,,8-PD18 (Rev. 1-86)
:.,-',:;.".',
-...,,'. ;:
CITY PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
SAN BERNARDlND.CA
STJtFt'>
R:; . .
y.-
F.~~
D.A.
V.S,
A<l.. __
O.'l'';.__
E.G.__
G.G._
K~!.'" __
r.a.z._
tl..7._
ftl t..:._
i'Lr.".._
5.\f___"
V.7..._'
.L=
' -
.- .
---0
o
to
o
o
o
DEVELOPMENT
1lE~ FORM
~
..5Lld- :l1S'- S.oS%;.O,,"
(Co Rte PMI
..2C . i'e, - ;l:J...
(Your Rdferencel
WE WCUIJ) LI1CE '1'0 1lO'1'Z:
-
.l
-
-
-'L
This propo.al is con.iderably 1'8..ove4 frOlll any exis1:inq or proposed s1:a1:8 highway.
Al thouqh the tra~fic and. drainage g.n.ra1:1K1 by th1s proposal do not appelll; to have
a s1qnifican1: .ff.C1: 011 the state highw.y .y.1:.... consid.era1:ion IIlUs1: b. given to
the CUIIlul.tive .ff.c1: of continUlld d.velope.nt in this ar.a. Any ..asures
n.c....ry to mitiga1:. the cumulative i..pac1: of traffic and drainage should be
provid.d prior 1:0 or with d.evelopeent of the ar.. that necessitates th....
It appears th.1: the traffic MI' '.I.i ~_ qenerate4 by this proposal could have a
siqn1fiCllft1: .ff.C1: on the state hiqhW.y syste.. of 1:h. uea. Any ...asures
n.c.ssary to ..itiqat. the traffic .... 'wd"",,-.! illlp.cts should be included. with the
c!evelopaen1:. ;lIE
~.
'1'his por1:1011 of S1:a1:8 h1qhWay-u '-LncW4e4 in the Califomia Mu1:er Plan of Sta1:8
HiqhW.YS El1q1bl. for Official Sc.nic H1qhw.y D.siqna1:1on. and in the fut:ure YO'J1"
agency ...y wish to have th1s rout. officially d.dqn.te4 as. stat. scenic h1ghWay.
'1'Ids por1:ion of S1:.1:8 h1qhW.y has been officially 4esiqn.te4 as a s1:at. scenic
h1qhW.y. and. 4evelopllllln1: in th1s corridor should be COIRp.t1!>l. with the SC8lU.C
hiqhway COllcep1:.
It is recoqlUzed. tha1: there is condd.rabl. public concem about noise l.vels
adjacen1: 1:0 he.vily travellKl hiqhW.ys. Lan4 a.velopaent, in ord.r 1:0 be cOIllp.tible
wi1:h this conc.rn, ".y require special noise attenu.tion ...uures. D.velope.nt of
proper1:Y should inclu4e my n.cessary nois. at1:.nu.tion. <
WE UCO!V1EIIIl:
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
-
half-w14th .on the s1:.1:8 h1ghway.
1II0rlll.l riqh1: of way 4e4ic.tion to provid.
1II0....al str..1: improvemsnts to proviae
half-wid1:h on the state hiqhWay.
.
Curio- and qu1:1:.r. 51:.1:8 5tand.ar4
, alonq the state h1qhW.y.
r..s1us curb re1:U=s be provi4e4 at intersec1:iolUl with the state h1ghWay. A
Siiiidard han4icap ramp _.1: be provi4e4 in the return. .1: leqal crosswalks.
Positive veh1cular barrier .uch as 111:. 4ike. sub.1:antial fence, or physical
topoqraplUcal fe.1:V". be provi4e4 to limi1: acce.s to the stat. highway.
V.hicular accan not b. 4evel0pe4 4irectly to the sta1:8 h1qhWay.
v.h1cular accass 1:0 the .1:a1:8 h1qhWay be provided. by .xist1nq public road
connections.
v.hiC'.llar .cc.ss1:o the s1:a1:8 hiqbWaybe prov14e4 by _ s1:an4ar4 _ driveways.
Vehicular access 1:0 the st.te h:\.qhway be prov14e4 by a ro-.s-t'ype connection.
o
o
<0
o
-
Vehicular access conC:>~ions be pavea a~as~ wi~hin ~he 3~~~. hiqr.way r~ of
way.
Aceess "points to ~..tate hiqhway ~ aevel~~ ;ft.a manner tn~t wiil ~rovide
_ siqftt ci1s1:ance adequa1:e for ..ph &lonq 1:ha stata h1q""ay.
I1HII /J"!J....~/i.J.p.Jy
-
-
..x.
-
-
-2L
~
.x
A l.f~-t:ur:l lane, includ!.nq any necessary wideninq, be provided on the sta:t:e
hiqhWay at
conaiaera1:ion be" 'liven to eM provision, or future provision, of signalization
~ liqhtinq of the intersaction of &lid the nate h1qhway,
A ~raffic study inci1catinq on- ana off-site flow patterns ana vol.....,., probable
impacu, a...a propose<! mitiqa1:ion _as"",a. be prepare<!. *
Mequata off-stra.t parlc1nq, wltich ao.s not reqo.:1re bacl<i%lq onto ~he S1:ate
lIiqhway. be proviaaa.
Parlcinq lot ba aavelope in a ........r that will not ca.... any vehicular ..ow_nt
conflicts, inclu41nq parlcinq stall antranca and e><11:, within
of ~ha .ntrance frOll tha stata hiqhway.
...
aa"ci1cap parlc1nq not be c!a_J..opad.J.n tha buay driftway antrance area.
Cara be ~aklln Whan aevelopinq this property to pres.rve ana perpetuate tha
existinq drainaqa pattern of the S1:ata hiqhway. Particular consiaeration shc"l"
be qi_n to CUISUlati"" increased storm runoff to insure that a hiqhWay drain;;.
problem is not create<!.
Any nacessary noi.. attenuation be providac! as part of the develop:llltftt of ~his
proptrty.
~nl~
L?tIrJL A- A""r ~"'I'. ao /J"/W'"6~~
, ='"
,,,,,,, /,"rM." J
,/~
.
/~,..y 'Yh,,_
4~hJ~'; <1IC~_
, ,
~~ 9/..;,.,
.A7e,;)<I" /"'~
,.h"'1/,y' be
r"bn-su.(-.d C\S
.A~~y'fipC:
,
~/o/
q..-Jp.5'"
Pla~ refar to attache<! additional ~_1:s~
;Jt ;J.:)UIJ) LID TO RECJ::IVB:
'"
.L A copy of any conditions of approval or revi..d proposal.
A copy of any aOCUlllanU proviQ1nq ac1ditional stata hiqhWay riqht of way.
:""1 WOULD LID TIll OPPORTUIII1TY TO REVlZW DUllIIIIG TIl! APPROVAL PROCZSS:
~
-A..
Ally proposals
to further develop this property.
r;f.bt 0-1) ,
traffic ~n';~;.Iu-ntal study. if rlIquirec!.
A copy of tha
d. 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 9241B (714) 383- 5057
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
(!. C, ~,.,.J(.
A.I? N.
~'~
H
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET' WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/QR
RECQMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE, IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E.R.C. DATE: ~~-=t/8t. PLANNING COMMISSION 'DATE' ~C;
; I
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEMCS):
o APPROVAL 0 DENIAL
..
"i
,
(si;nature)
(q,gency)
..
(date)
OCT. 'as. *'
VtC FOIIM I(
o
o
o
o
No. 11B
Jan. 19B4
MEMORANDUM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
DATE
September 19. 1986
TO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
FROM
Glenda Saul. Executive Director
.
SUBJECT
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT
To assist in evaluating the feasibility of the project. Brown & Mullins.
Inc. has developed the attached construction cost estimates for the
public improvements (underground electrical lines, street construction,
landscaping in medians, intersection nodes, etc.>. In addition, we need
to add the costs for acquisition and demolition of existing properties in
rights of ways. URS Corporation has provided the following estimates:
o
288 South "E" Street Property
Value
Structure Demolition
Subtota 1
304 South "E" Street Property
Value
Structure Demolition
Subtota I
696 West Mill Street Property
Appraised Value
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
640 Velarde Street Property
Val ue
Relocation of Resident
Structure Demolition
Subtotal
o
$ 730,000.00
10,000.00
$ 740.000.00
$
$
180.000.00
3,000.00
183.000.00
$
$
775.000.00
15,000.00
790.000.00
$
90,000.00
7.000.00
2.000.00
99.000.00
$
.~ .
( ~/:z;j;~ ---to _~f17l-17dbL. dl. 9/ /'1 i~ rO t?: 'tJ-O,:t. /1'1
q - ;J. ,;) - g Co ~ 0 ~WL {!A ~J)lM~
o
o
o
o
o
Mayor and Common CouncIl
Page 2
September 19, 1986
o
o
223 South "G" Street Property
AppraIsed Value
Structure DemolItIon
Subtotal
$ 1,200,000.00
20,000.00
$ 1,220,000.00
.
Sub-Total $ 3,032,000.00
Phase I ConstructIon EstImates $ 8.882,888.77
Phase I Total $11.914,888.77
Phase I Is the area north of Mill Street. It contains 139 acres net of
the exIsting streets and storm draIns. DIvidIng the total cost by the
area yIelds an average cost of $1.95 per square foot. Individual parcels
will be hIgher or lower dependIng upon the benefits they receIve. The
majority of this cost is for items that would be requIred of developers
even if the Overlay DIstrict did not exist. For example. the standard
utIlities that are required would total $0.61 per square foot. Most of
the street improvements and some of the landscapIng would also normally
be required. About 20% of the costs result from the medians and the
enhanced treatment of intersections and landscapIng.
Phase II, south of Mill Street. averages $0.49 per square foot (there are
no buildings to be acquired).
%~/$ ~~J
GLENDA SAUL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GS:JH:jmh:2351K
'.,i....,.~~,:~ ,,('l;. ,'.
"
"
~-
#'
(I~ - "I
o
\:/i.,
{'<'."
C'yr'
l,.":,
~'
c 0
COl!14C1L ACTION CORRESPONDENCE
..~..
To Glenda ~ecutive Director,
RedeVelopment Asency
Date se\.!ir 25, 1986
Meeti"g Date ~..
r 22 1986
Subject
Central City South Overlay
D:Letrict' and Chllll8e of Zone
No. 86-22 (I11alto Ave. 011 thenort ,
"E" St. 011 the eaat, Inllll1d Center
Dr. 011 the eouth and 1-215 Freeway
......
,
Agenda Item N~:y llS-4
Action
)2):t!J.~;~7:.'
The _tter cOllCera1ng the Cen.tral City South OverlaY. .Diatriet and Chauge .
of Zone No. 86-22, to change the land use zoning4.e~t1cm in the 195
acr"'J:easto C-M, Couaercia1-~factudn8 for the,.property located within
the boundades deBcribed in the proposed ordinancei\vaac01ltinued to a
meeting of the Mayor and c-n Council to be held. Jfon4ay, Sept.-ber 29 ,
1986, at 9:00 ...., in the Council Cheaa~er8. J\l;;", ,
........
A public hearing vas eet for October 6. 1986. for the second reading and
final edoption of the following ord:lDance:,., .,'
Ordinance of the Mayor and C~ Council of the City of San Bernardino
adopting an overlay cone 1mpoeing design guidelinea ~ .deve1~nt frame-
work upon an area de81gn,ated ~ Central City South Study' Area.
The City Clerk vas directed,..to provide public notice thereof.
SC:pa
cc: City Attorney
Planning Director
City Engineer
SHAUNA CLARK
City Clerk
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 both aesthetically and economically.
0<
'<
..
*
():- "
~,-:; ~'f
o
o
o
1
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING AN OVERLAY ZONE IMPOSING DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK UPON AN AREA DESIGNATED AS
CENTRAL CITY SOUTH STUDY AREA. (I,s- Cw,)
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
5 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
6
7
8
9
10
2
3
4
SECTION 1.
Recitals.
A.
The Mayor and Common Council have reviewed,
considered, and received public comments upon the proposed design
guidelines and development framework for the Central City South
Study Area of the City of San Bernardino, California, as prepared
by D.R.S. Corporation, Anil Verma Associates, and Solstice Design
11
12 Associates.
13
14
15
16
These proposed design guidelines and development
framework cover the area bounded on the north by the center line
of Rialto Avenue; oRoth.e east by the. center line of WE- Street;
on the south by the center line of Inland Center Drive; and on
the west by the east right of way line of the Interstate Highway
17
J8
I-215.
B.
The Mayor and Common Council have determined that
there is a need to upgrade the design standards and the
development framework throughout the area described in Recital A
above .-
C.
The area which is the subject of this overlay zone is
blighted and the proposed design guidelines and development
framework will be an asset to the community by upgrading the area
26 SECTION 2. The Mayor and Common Council hereby adopt an
~ 27 overlay zone imposing design guidelines and development framework
28 for the Central City South Study Area. The boundaries of the
1
, 0<
.
*
...1
o
o
o
1 Central City South Study Area covered by this Ordinance are
2 hereby established as follows:
3 Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line
4 of Rialto Avenue with the easterly right of way line of
5 Interstate Highway 1-215, which is the ftpoint of beginning-,
6 thence proceeding easterly along said center line of Rialto
7 Avenue to the center line of ftE- Street; thence in a generally
8 southerly direction along the center line of -E- Street to the
9 point of intersection with the cen~er line of Inland Center
10 Drive; thence in a generally southwesterly direction, along the
center line of Inland Center Drive to its intersection with the
11
12 easterly right of way line of Interstate Highway 1-215; thence
13 northerly along the easterly right of way line of Interstate
14 Highway 1-215 to the ,.point of beginning.
15 All property within the boundaries hereinabove described
16 shall be subject to the design guidelines and development
17 framework hereby adopted by the Mayor and Common Council, which
18 are incorporated herein by reference. The design guidelines and
19 development framework as set forth in a booklet prepared by U.R.S
20 Corporation, Anil Verma Associates, and Solstice Design
21 Associates, entitled -Design Guidelines and Development
22 Framework, Central City South Study Area/San Bernardino,
23 California-, as on file with the City Clerk of the City of San
24 Bernardino, is hereby approved and adopted, subject to the
25 following modifications:
26 On pages 122 and 123, <commencing with the paragraph
27 numbered I, Preliminary Conference, the text is amended to read
28 as follows:
2
,
~
~..'
.~
~
o
o
o
o
1 aI. preliminarv Conference. The Developer conf7rs
2 informally with the City to identify potential development issues
3 including: scope of the project, potential design issues and
4 concerns, requirements including these Guidelines, 'compliance
5 with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the City's
6 processing of the project. Information required on the
7 developer's submission will be determined. A City Project
8 Coordinator will be assigned to be liaison between the developer
9 and the review committee. A determination will be made whether
10 the project may be submitted directly to the Development Review
11 Committee or whether it must first receive City Council and/or
12 Planning Commission approval.
13 II. Develooment Review Aoolication. A site plan and
14 other information determined to be needed will be submitted with
15 a Development Review Application. The City reviews and responds
16 within ten days.
17 III. Council/Commission Review Aoolication. A site plan
18 and other required information will be submitted with the
19 appropriate application to the Planning Department. The City
20 reviews and responds in thirty to sixty days depending on the
21 type of application.
22 IV. OVer the Counter Review. This review is used for
23 smaller projects such as minor additions and signs. Within a
24 maximum of five business days, the construction drawings are
25 returned. If approved as submitted, the developer may submit to
26 Plan Check. If there are conditions, the applicant will resubmit
27 within thirty days. Notice of satisfactory compliance will be
28 given within ten days of resubmission.
3
j
3
J
o
o
o
o
1 v. Develooment Review Committee. The Committee reviews
2 projects and may render a decision in as little as ten days. If
3 there are revisions necessary, the drawings would need to be
4 reviewed. Once evaluated and approved by the Committee, the
5 project is then submitted for Plan Check. Generally, Plan Check
6 takes no more than thirty days for smaller projects and sixty to
7 ninety days for larger projects.
8 VI. Comoliance with California Environmental OUalitv Act
9 (CEQA). All submitted projects requiring City Council and/or
10 Planning Commission approval will be reviewed by the City
11 Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The ERC will determine
12 whether a particular project is exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
13 Negative Declaration or will require an Environmental Impact
14 Report. Projects which may be submitted directly to the
15 Development Review Committee are typically exempt from CEQA,
16 although the more complex ones may have certain environmental
17 impacts which warrant review and action by the ERC.-
18 SECTION 3. The design standards established by the design
19 guidelines and development framework hereby adopted shall not
20 replace o~ supersede current street design standards established
21 by the City Engineer. Any deviation from current standards will
22 require specific approval of the City Engineer.
23 SECTION 4. Any violation of the terms of this Ordinance
24 shall be an infraction, subject to punishment under the
25 provisions of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 1.12.010.
26 SECTION 5. The City Clerk, in conjunction with the
27 Planning Director, shall cause to be recorded in the Office of
28 the San Bernardino County Recorder, notice to all affected
4
_.~
"r\
'j
.
/"
18
19
20
21
22 ~~~f.7~
City Attorney ~
o
1
2
3
,4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 of
24
25
26
(j) 27
28
.-or
o
o
o
persons of the existence of this Ordinance, and of its effect on
all property within the boundaries of the Central City South
Study Area as herein established.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
.
Bernardino at a
day of
meeting thereof, held on the
, 1986, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
Council Members
NAysi
ABSENT:
-"'.
.
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
, 1986.
day
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form:
..
/,'
---
~..Q OF SAN BERNARDQo - REQUL)T FOR COUNCIL AcQON
Frank A. Schuma Central City South OVerlay
frl)m: Planning Director Subject: District and Change of Zone
~t: No. 86-22
Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of
Date: September 18, 1986 September 22r 1986
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning commission on September 16, 1986,
the following recommendation was made:
The Development Framework and Guidelines, with modifications,
creating the Central City South OVerlay District and Change of
Zone No. 86-22 were recommended for approval.
Vote: 5-2, l-abstention, I-absent.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Council adopt the Development Framework and
Guidelines, with modificatic:ms, creating the Central City South
OVerlay District, and that
.:;J
the Mayor and Council approve the responses to comments and adopt
the Negative Declaration for environmental review, and that
the Mayor and Council approve Change of Zone No. 86-22.
~LQ-M-
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Contact penon:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
1
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
,J)Cil Notes:
rJ .e:' ~I"
-
) 0 _ . <( OF SAN BER)lARDINO 0- MEMORANDUO
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No, 86-22, Ward 1
From The Planning Dept,
Date September 16, 1986
To
I;) .Jbject
The Planning Commission
Approved Item Nos. 6 and 7
Date
In Decembe., 1985, the Mayor and the Common Council requested
the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Department to study
the area bounded by Rialto Avenue on the north, Inland Center
Drive on the south, -En Street on the east and the 1-215
Freeway on the west. An advisory committee was appointed to
work with Planning and Redevelopment Agency staff and con-
sultants to study the area. The purpose of the study was to
establish a development framework and design guidelines to
help redevelop the area through the use of an overlay
district.
The final
asked to
sections:
report, which the Planning Commission is being
review and approve, basically contains two major
a Development Framework and Design Guidelines.
This staff report contains:
3J
1.
2.
3.
4.
A review of the Development Framework.
A leview of the Design Guidelines.
An analysis of' Change of Zone No. 86-22.
Recommendations on the three items above.
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:
The Development Framework defines the City's overall goals
and policies for the study area, the development review
process for development of the area, and the circulation
network. The framework con~ains five plan elements:
1. Land Use and Zoning
2. Circulation and Transportation
3. Development Opportunity Sub-areas
4. Design Theme
5. Landscape, Hardscape and Identity
Land Use and Zoning
J)
The Development Framework is not intended to amend the
General Plan nor the Central City South Redevelopment Plan.
Rather, the framework's land uses are to be used as a guide
for future development by defining areas of -allowable land
uses.- The allowable land uses are actually categories of
comm~rcial development-and include Commercial Retail, Service
Commercial, Wholesale Commercial and Warehouse Distribution.
Designated locales for these uses within the project area are
shown on Page 10 of the final report.
c.ry ON rHE.:M~V.
J
-j
o
J)
~
000
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 2
o
,
,Circulation
A key element to the Development FrameworK is the circulation
plan. It. will place emphasis on four important aspects of
development to assure the success of the overall project.
Vehicular Circulation: The<primary intent is to create a
vehicular corridor between Central City Mall and Inland
Center Mall. To do so, existing roadways will be realigned
to provide the desired flow pattern. New internal roads will
be provided, including a new entry point into the project
site from -E- Street opposite Valley Street. These roads
will be designed to: 1) accommodate all sizes of commercial
vehicles needed to service the area, 2) serve a variety of
different land uses and 3) divide the project site into
developable areas.
Pedestrian Circulation: A plan for smooth, progressive flow
of pedestrians within their own exclusive area as well as
within the public right-of-way is developed to stimulate the
commercial success of the-,.<project. It has been carefully
prepared to meander through the overall project so that
pedestrians can easily and safely promenade from one land use
to another. Between major land uses complimentary outdoor
activities such as patio cafes and flower carts will be used
to enhance the project producing an active sidewalk
environment.
Parking: Parking will be provided as defined in the San
Bernardino Municipal Code. In facilitating provlslons for
parking areas, several factors were taken into account: 1)
The appearance of parking areas are not to dominate the
buildings that the parking serves, 2) excessive asphalt is
discouraged, 3) direct pathways from the parking areas to
their respective buildings is to be utilized, 4) within the
overall project area a minimum of curb cuts are to be used,
5) grouped parking to serve several businesses is encouraged,
6) parking is encouraged to be placed behind or to the side
of buildings rather than in front.
Public Transportation: Routes should be adjusted by Omni-
trans to accommodate the increased demand that will be
generated by the study area. A transit network ~ould. ulti-
mately link the project area with development within the
Hospitality Lane area, Seccombe Lake area, the Civic Center,
Orange Show Fairgrounds and that of Central City Mall and the
Inland Center Mall. Bus shelters will be incorporated into
the landscaped public rights-of-way to serve the users of the
transit system. .
)
/J
o
))
-
c
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 3
Dev~lopment Opportunity Sub-areas
Six opportunity sub-areas are contemplated within the study
area. Each, specifically, designates a select land use with
its own market needs and potentials. These select sub-areas
are shown on Page 14 of the final report and include:
1. WE- Street Corridor
2. Railroad Parcels
3. Interior Parcels
4. Freeway PArcels
5.. Triangle Parcels
6. South of Mill Parcels
The -E- Street corridor is along the west side of -E- Street
and will be encouraged to develop as a highly landscaped
pedestrian 'oriented corridor. Support uses include cafes,
mini-parks, flower carts and attractive newsstands. The
intent within this corridor is to attract pedestrian and
vehicular traffic from. the downtown and Hospitality Lane
areas to the study area.
The railroad parcels are landlocked and are presently being
under-utilized as railway spurs for warehousing uses. The
area is being treated as a reserve land area which ultimately
will be used ina variety of ways ranging from use of the'
property as a future transit center to using the railroad
facilities as a focus for a railroad-theme retail/enter-
tainment c4i!nter~
The area which lies in the interior of the project site is
the target for initial development. Land uses for this area
could include such things as a design center or a specialty
retail center.
The freeway parcels immediately east of the I-215 Freeway
have good visibility and accessibility and, therefore, have
potential for such land uses as retail, office and institu-
tional facilities.
Across the flood control channel from the main portion of the,
study area anp east of the 1-215 Freeway and north of Mill
Street lie what are designated as the -Triangle- parcels.
The framework circulation plan incorporates a bridge spanning
the flood control channel which could eventually be linked
with Mill Street. Appropriate development would include
retail or design center uses or freeway-related and region-
ally-oriented uses.
~
~
~
~
o
-
o
o
o
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 4
Those parcels located south of Mill Street are, currently
occupied with a mixture of wholesale and retail ~arehousing
uses and related open parking. The plan proposes to retain
these same uses within this sub-area.
Design Theme
This element is focused on the public space landscape and
hardscape. A specific design for sidewalks, street furni-
ture" signing and street lights has been incorporated using
design elements from the history of San Bernardino. No
specific architectural design theme such as -Western- or
· Spanish- will be established. Instead, architectural
cohesiveness and identity will be accomplished thLOugh a
series of common design guidelines. These guidelines will
pay special attention to walls, doors, windows and color
palette throughout the study ~rea.
~andscape. Hardscape and Identity
The landscape concept for the study area is to create a lush
landscaped microcosm to provide a tranquil environment. It
will provide a park-like setting with well integratedcommer-
cial and ancillary uses.
Large landscaped nodes are to be established at major inter-
sections. Entry nodes are to be used to attract visitors to
the stUdy area while landscaped medians will separate the
paved surface with plant material.
-!
Street fixtures
higher standard
standard street
and ornamental street lights will produce a
for the area than the standard bus benches or
lights.
DESIGN GUIDELINES;
The design guidelines were developed to encourage, through
public and private investment, a cohesive, well designed
development. They contain minimum standards which address
major components (e.g. setbacks, landscaping, architectural
standards, etc.> for the physical development of the study
area.
New development or expansion of existing structures would be
required to comply with those standards established in order
to receive abuilding permit. The standards will be utilized
by the City departments as a basis of evaluation and review
of all projects within the study area. The guidelines, with
./'
"
.~
J)
.-
o
Memorandum to the P1an~g commis5ion()
central City South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 5
o
'there accompanying framework plan, will constitute the
overlay district. These guidelines are in addition to the
existing zoning standards. Where conflicts arise, the
stricter of the two will prevail.
The guidelines address:
1. Allowable land uses
2. Access and parking
3. Height, bulk and setbacks of structures
4. Building appearance
5. Signage and identity
6. Ground floor frontage
7. Landscape and hardscape criteria
8. Right-of-way usage
9. Property rehabilitation
10. Administration of the guidelines
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-22:
In conjunction with the' adoption of
and Guidelines, a change of zone is
implement the Overlay District.
Presently, within the 195 acre project area, the existing
zoning includes C-3, C-M, M-l, and M-2 zones. These zones
would' permit a myriad of potentially non-compatible land
uses. For instance, the C-3 zone would permit general types
of commercial uses from retail to offices. The C-M zone
permits those uses within the C-3 zone as well as those uses
permitted within the M-l zone. The M-l zone would permit
light industrial types of uses, such as warehousing and
manufacturing plants. The M-2 zone would permit heavy indus-
trial land uses such as impound yards, junk yards or any
industrial use not prohibited by law.
the proposed FrameWork
requested in order to
The proposed change of zone would rezone all parcels within
the study area to C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing. The plan,
however, would restrict certain uses otherwise permitted in
that zone. Specifically, the plan would prohibit the follow-
ing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plant nurseries
Outdoor storage
Open uses such as agriculture
Drive-in theaters
Trailer camps
Auto washes
o
....,f,
--.
Q
j)
..~
o
~emorandum to the P1annlng
centra1 city South Overlay
Change ot Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
Page 6
o
. .0
Commlsslon
District and
7. 'Tire retreading and recapping
8. Used car and trailer sales lots
9. Sales of new and used cars
10. Repair garages, including automobile and truck
repair
The change of zone to the C-M classification is
be in conformance with the existing General
Redevelopment .Plan.
considered to
Plan and the
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has carefully reviewed the final report and recommends
the following modifications.
SECTIQN III. GUIDELINES, part 11, Administration, (Page 22)
should be modified as follows:
I. Preliminary Conference
(Add)
..
A determinationwil1~be made whether the project may be
submitted directly to the Development Review Committee
or whether it must first receive City Council and/or
Planning Commission approval.
II. Development Review Application
(Change -30 days- to -10 days-)
.,
,
III. Determination of Review Level
(Revise as follows)
III.
Council/Commission Review Application I.
A site plan and other required informa~ion will be
submitted with the appropriate applica~ion to the
Planning Department. The City reviews and responds
in 30 to 60 days depending on the type !of applica-
tion. !
Over the Counter Review
(No change)
Development Review Committee
(Revise as follows)
IV.
V.
The Committee reviews projects and may render a
decision in as little as 10 days. If there are
revisions necessary, the drawings would i need to be
,
o
,""//
)
../
-,
~
:))
~eroorandum to the Plan~g Commission ()
central C~ty South Overlay District and
Change of Zone No. 86-22
September 16, 1986
page 7
o
reviewed. Once evaluated and approved by the
Committee, the project is then submitted: for Plan
Check. Generally, Plan Check takes no more than 30
days for smaller projects and 60 to 90 days for
larger projects.
VI.
Compliance with California
Act (CEQA)
(Revise as follows)
Environmental Quality
i
All submitted projects requ~r~ng City Council
and/or Planning Commission approval will be
revieWed by the City Environmental Review Committee
(ERC). The ERe will determine whether a particular
project is exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
Negative Declaration or will require an Environ-
mental Impact Report.
Projects which may be submitted directly to the
Development Review Committee are typically exempt
from CEQA, although the more complex ones may have
certain environmental impacts which war.rant review
and action by the ERC.
In addition to the modifications listed above, the Engineer-
ing Division has submitted a memorandum (attached) which
outlines five concerns regarding streets, traffic and circu-
lation.
co..'
Ac cc. ~."
, ",eJllO~ 1\ . ~o t.he Planning
-,) g~nt~~~t.y south Overlay
,/./ anS\il ~r sone No, 86-22
... Septel\l~.t H 1986
.. Page a '
--
o
COJI\ltIission
District and
Staff recommends approval, with modifications, of 'the Devel-
opment Framework and Guidelines creating the Central City
South Overlay District, and approval of Change of Zone No.
86-22. In addition, staff would recommend adoption of the
Negative Declaration for both items.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
c/~
cc//',~- ~~
.
Vincent A. Bautis~a, Principal Planner
r
,.
.J
.
'r
~ve;F SAN BEFC/ARDINO 0-
FRANK SCHUMA
'. To Planning Director
MEMORANDUro
/
, 4lubject . Central City South Study Area - Conments on
Framework and Design Guidelines
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir, of
From Publ ic Works/City Engineer
Date September 5, 1986
File No, 6.2101
Approved
Date
We have the following comments regarding the subject study:
1, The document contains a number of design guidelines which conflict with
current street design standards, Therefore, a statement should be added
clearly indicating that the guidelines do not supersede current street
design standards and that any deviation from current standards will re-
quire specific approval of the City Engineer.
2. Additional studies will be ~eeded to develop new street design standards
specifically for the study area if current standards are not acceptable.
this will include such items as street lights, driveway approaches, traffic
signals, sidewalks, median islands, etc.
.
3. The final traffic study as approved by the City Engineer should be in-
cluded as an appendix to the design guidelines.
4, A sketch or table should be included to identify street classification
(major highway, secondary highway, etc.) and location of existing and
proposed traffic signals within the study area.
5. The latest traffic study recommends Mill Street be 6 lanes within the
study area. To obtain 6 lanes, the street right-of-way half width should
be 55' instead of the currently planned 41,25'. Since the 'traffic study
was based on a worst case pattern of development, 6,lanes on Mill Street
may never really be required, However, to provide for the possibility of
it being needed, consideration should be given to requiring additional
landscaped setback along Mill Street.
-~
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Sr.4FF
IiOIJT.iNG
F.AS.
O,A .~
~'ck.l(,().~
MICHAEL W. GRUBBS
Senior Civil Engineer
.
CITY PLANNII~G iKPARTMENT
SAN BERi~ARDlflO. CA
l' A.L< '
O,W._
E,(\,_
.' G,G,__
K,/,l,_
M<ll._
r,:,F,__
M,I;,_
Rn,_
S.W._
V,R
MWG: rs
00 rn & rn 0 \YJ rn rID
SEP 09 1986
FILE_
C.7Y ON 7H.=M~VIE
,
-/
/'
~/
./ - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.
LOCATION
CASE C.Z. 86-22 arid
CENT. CITY SOUTH
HEARING DATE 9-16-86
AGENDA
ITEM #:
6/7
Ig a'l IDD lJC~ 0 ,...~'" I ~~tLJ 1
a'l
a" If! a'l
"I.L~ 'ALTO .wE
!J a'l ~ I a-I II
~E!l I !i!I a-, II
~ R-3 I I
.'LL.YII. It-I
3B~ R-' I I a-, I
a, <. R'3 ,
0- ,
R-I
R-a .~I
C'IoI 101-1
., '0. 101-1
18B .0. .0.
l8E]
G- .0.
. ...., .'1' R-I i
a-I
a'l .... MlGH
ICHOOL 101,1
R-3 .;
R-3 8ElSFil CoM CoM
fffB
R-3 C-II
.1 R~ .'
C .~ C-M
.....
0'" R-I
..
~... ) T C~1lI
......
...
R-I R-I C-1oI
.. l~4'
'I... CITY ltMITS
. -
fiR ......
Cl
~.'l
.a.. R,t R'I R-I
I
;/
~l
0/'
/..
0<
o
c.b~~'O
o
.'AT! Of CALlFOINlA-IUSlNISS ANO TlANSPOIITATtOH ~
DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
IlIST1IICT .. '.0. lOll ~1 ,
SAN _ROtOlO. CA_ "<<12
0KIRGf DElJlCMlJlAN, 0.-
--=>~~9fc'"~.r /~ /9.f"
Date
Development Review .
<~d- .US - .s'S~.G1"
(Co Rte PH)
.2c RtD-:l:a.
(Your Reference)
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Thank you for the opportunity. to review the proposed rM~p.
. ~,.. .;)"/J//1~ ~ c- 01"
.
located fIIJ" VAfZ. p~ '" Y- O!( #- d.". t"J,I' T-:JJS" az.y.,-'-n
#"
Z;; /.u, rI ("l.o/J~" LH- yo
.8d:im ~~
~r\'" B~"t4/J";;~
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been
indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under
.dditi~nal comments.
It should be noted that if any work is necessary within the state
highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment
permit from the District 8 office of the State Department of
Transportation prior to beginning the work.
..
STPF
II(; . .
t:..!.
D.A.
V.B.
A.l. __
o. .~':. __
If additional information~s desired, please call Mr. Will Brisl
at (714) 383-4671.
~ R. G. POTE
d District Permit Engineer
:,oJ;", . ..
00 rn 00 rn n \VI m rID
SEP 17 1986
E.G.__
G.G._
K.!.....__
tL.:l._
u..~. _
ftt.::.._
il.!-"..._
5.1:'.__.
'1.7. _'
.
Att.{;
., <
Forlll;:8-PD18 (Rev. 1-86)
;.".:......,. ":
CITY PLANNit'.lG DEPARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. ,CA
/S
.
0,
/<
.
'.
t
.
/'"
o
llE~ rOM
o
DEVELOPMENT
SL3c:J- ';VS~ S..:s~.o"
(Co Rte PM)
.:lc. ~ - ,;;1;1.
(~our ~ference)
< WE WCC"'..Il LIlCZ "1'0 lIIOTZ:
-X..
-
)(
Tltls prOposal ls c,onsideralolY re.oved frOll UlY exist1nq or propo.ed .tate h1qhway.
Althouqh the trdflc and drainage qenerated by this propo.al do not appea>; to h._
. sl.qDj.f1cant .ff.ct on the state hlqhVay ayst... cODs1der.t1on IlIUSt be qi....n to
the c:uaulaU_ effect of continued d.....lopa...t ln this .rea. Any ....ur.a
n.cessary to II1t1qate the =lat1_ l.p~ of traffic and dra1naqe .hould be
prov14ed prior to or with developll.nt of the ar.a that neces.itat.s the..
It appears that the trdf1c .... i.1J:..~_ qenerat:ed by t:h1s proposal could h..... .
s1qnj.ficallt effect on the state hiqhVay Systell of the u.a. Any .easures
necessary to II1t1q..te the trdfic ... i"t' "-". 1IIlp.cu should be l.ncluded with the
~_lopllent. ~ ,
. ,
This portion' of state hiqhw..y-ia '~ncl4acled 11l the Califom1.. Master 1'1an of State
Hiqhways E1.1qible for Official Scenic Hiqhw..y Des1c;nauon. and l.n the future lfO"1r
aqency ...y wish to h...... this route officially d.sic;nat:ed as.. state scenic hiqbw..y.
This portion of state hiqhVay has been offi.cially des1qnat:ed as a state sC8ldc
h1qllW"y, and de...lopment 1n 1:hi.s corridor should be cOlllpatible with the scenic
hiqllWay COtlcept. .:<.'
, I
It is recoqn1zed that there is con.id.ralol. public concern about noi.. l.....ls
adjacent to heavily tra...led h1qhV.ys. Land d.velopment, ln order to be comp.tible
with this COftcern. lIlay require special noise at1;en1l.tion IIl.U1IreS. Developnent of
property should'l.nclude any nec...ary noi.. atten1lat!.on. '
WE Ill!:COMI1EHl):
-
half-width .on 1:IIe .t..te h1qllWay.
lIormal riqht: of way d.cUc.tion to provide
lIo;mal str.et 1..provw..nts to prov1c!.
h.lf-width on the state hiqllW"y,
,.
Cur~ and gutter. State Standard
. alonq the .tate hiqhway.
radius curb returns be provided .t intersections with th. stat. hiqhw..y. A
.tandard hand1c.p rup .ust be provic!ed in the returns .10 leqal cro....alks.
-
Po.itive vehicular barrier such as AC cUk., S1Ib.tantial f.nce. or physical
,topoqrap!U.cal feat:1Jrtls be provided to 11..1t access to the' stat. hlqhVay.
Vehicular acca.s not ,be de...loped directly to th. .tate hiqllWay.
x
Vehicular acc... to the .tate hiqhVay be provic1ed by exisc1nq public road
connections.
Vehic-..t1ar acces. to the .tate hiqbwaybe provided by _ .tanc!ard _ driveways.
Vehicular acc:e.. to the state hiqhway be provided by a rolid.-type conn.ction.
J\
o
.
..
.
-
/
,~
Vehicular access co~t1ons tie paved a<:).asc within Che 3C~:. hiqr.way rc:.: of
way.
AccesS .points to ~~-state hiqnway ~ dev-lap-d in.a manner t~~t will ?rovide
_ siqht discance ..aquate for mph alonq the state hiqhvay.
I1J/// /JP-&Af::j.;i.J~.Jy
-
-
-X.
-
-
-
x
2.-
~
., left-l:Ur.1 lane. includinq any necessary wideninq, be provic!ed on the staee
hiqnway at
conaiderati01l be" qiven to the provisi01l, or future provisi01l, of siqnalizatioft
and 11qht1nq of the in1:erS.ct101l of UId the scat. hiqhway.
A traffic study 1ndicatinq on- and off-site flOW patterna and volume,.. probable
impacts, Eld proposed mit1qation ~Uures be prepared. *
Mequate off-street pUld.nq, wlU.ch does not req'n:e baclc1Dq onto the scat.
lU.qnway, be provided.
Par~nq lot ba d.valopR iD a mllZUler that will not cauae lmY ..Mcular ..o..._nt
c011fl1C1:s. iDcludinq parld.nq stall en~anc. and exi1:, with1D
of the e,,~...ce fr_ the state hiqhWay.
.,.
Ka'ldicap parld.nq not be degeJ.oped..1n the busy dri_way entrance area.
Care be taken vbe" de...lopinq this p1'operty to preserve and perpetuate the
ex1st1nq drainaqe pattern of tile stat. hiqnway. Particular c01lsid.rat1011 shO'.:l A
be qivan to CUIIlUlat1ve incre..ed stOr1ll runoff to 1naure that a hiqnway drain",
proble.. 1s not created.
Any neeassery 1101.. attenuation be provided ... part of the development of this
propotrty.
.
,.f?t'^A- h,.,,~r *(~ .90A~/W'6~~
.A"J~
//1~",,,~t1J
J".,
.
/~~y Yh,,~
4dl.'A1 J <1 1(" t..n _
. '
~~ y;;"
A'1tf),;)<I' /~~
..Anu/r/ he.
(,,",""'~,rl<4l't2d c:\s
.d"';~~it<
~
o/JpSC'1
~vplo/'
PleaiM( refer to attachecl additional c.......ts~
,',
liE li'JCIJ) LDCE TO lll!:CEIVB:
...
1.
A copy of any conditi..... of approval or revised proposal.
A copy of any dOCUlllents provid1Dq .&!1ti011al stat. hiqbway riqht of way.
..<: WOULD I.IJZ 'l'HB OppOIlTUIIIrl'Y TO REVlEW IlURIBG 'l'HB APPROVAL PROCESS:
-L
~
-
Any proposals to further clevalop this property.
" ~~J .
A copy of the traffic ,pr"!In';~Ju".ntal study, it requ1recl.
_ A Check print of the Parcel or Tract Map, if requ1recl.
-2t. A checlc print of the Street IaDZ'o...._nt 1'1..... for the state h1qbway. if required.
./
~ C, '0' 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 NQRTH "0" STREET S. S., CA, 92418 (714) 383- 5057
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
(!. C . t:1,...if.
A.r! N.
H
~'.5
THIS APPLICATION HAS SEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CQMMITTEE, PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-.
CLQSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET' WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/QR
RECQMMENDATIONS SEFORE THE E. RoC, DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASQNS, KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YQUR FILES IF YQU SQ DESIRE,
E,R.c. DATE: o/"Z~/a;:, PLANNING COMMISSION'DATE' p~
. ..
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE A80VE REFERENCED ITEM(S):
o APPROVAL 0 DENIAL
..
..I
(signature)
(qgency)
(date)
..
OI:1:'U 0 ...
PC FORM IC
;-~------ -----
d
~ ~
f ~
...... )-
~ ~
~ ~
6 ~
. ~\\\
~~ ~ r ~
.\\ ta
-
~... ~ ~
,,$ - ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,\ ~
'J\ . ~
~
~~~
*~*!
~c i~i ~~
~~~t~~~ ~~
~,~~t~'I\\\\ ~~
-4.,,~~~~
~~t~l~~
.....it- ~ +.. ~ ~
- -,~ ~ -\
~ ~ ~ ,1.1\ ....
,,\~~ ~-\
~ ~v~ "
~\\" ~t
t " l'
4~ ~ \1)\ ~:}i
i ~,~ t ~
~~h
Jii ~~)
IIi ~t
I~! I
.. I
~~
- *
...~ -
~ ~!-
o
~
!
~
~
~
-
~
ii~ I~ ~
i:::l {l
~ i~
I~
~
!~
'~
I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~
z. ~I~I. z. ~I~I. z. ~i~l. z. ~I~I.
+--\-~!" ~ +--\-~!" ~ +--\-~! "l ~ +--\-.-!" ~ ~
- ~!t ~ I~ _ ~!t ~ Il _..."'!t ~ Ill. - ~!t ~ Il ".
...~~~l i~~i *. ~~l '~~i ~~~I '~~I ~~~~ i~~i ,~
h~i '''~i h~i ~Ji~~~i i~ ~~~I'''~i
11* UI~ u* hl~ hi hi hi UI~
\\' ~~'J~ \\' ~~'J~ \\~ ~~'J~ \\' ~~'J~
i~t:.4-~ l~~:L 1~s:.4-~ l~~:L 1~\4--- lt~lL "'~ l~~:L
~~~~~ I~!~ ~~...t~ I~!~ ~~~~ I~~; ~~~1- II!~ ~
~tl~~ i~il- ~tl~~ i~il ~t!~~ l~~i ~t ~ i~ill ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,