HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Community Development
CITY OF SAN BERNARDIIMO - REQUtl::ST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Subject:
Change of Zone No. 87-22
Dept:
Planning
Mayor and Council Meeting of
April 4, 1988, 2:00 p.m.
Date: March 28, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on March 15, 1988, the
following recommendation was made:
The application for Change of Zone No. 87-22 was unanimously
recommended for approval. The Negative Declaration for environ-
mental impact was also recommended for approval.
Vote: 6-yes, 3-absent.
Recommended motion:
To approve the responses to comments and to adopt the Negative
Declaration for environmental impact which has been reviewed and
considered, and
To approve, modify or reject the findings and the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary amendments to the Z~nip~ Co
) \\
~,
. I
Contact person:___
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone:
384-5057
Staff Report
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
L/,3.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
lJJ
U)
<t
()
AGENDA ITEM 7
HEARING DATE 3/15/88
WARD 3
APPLlCANT_: proj ect Admin. Team
225 W. Hospitality Lane
Suite 100
OWNER: San Bernardino, CA 92408
SP Commercial Developments
225 W. Hospitality Lane
CHANGE OF ZONE 87-22
....
en
LIJ
::>
o
&.Y,
0::
......
ex
l1J
a::
<t
The applicant requests approval under Code Section 19.06.06 to
change the zone from M-l, Light-Industrial to C-M, Commercial-
Manufacturing.
PROPERTY
PIQ
North
South
East
West
...J
<t
.....
Zen
UJ(!)
2Z
Z-
OO
a:Z
>iL:
z
L&J
The .45 acre site is a 20 foot wide strip of land that is
bordered by Waterman Avenue to the East and extends 985.55
feet westerly. It is 716.60 feet south of Caroline Street.
EXISTING
LAND USE
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Service Station/SF
Buyer's Club, Retail
ZONING
M-l
C-M
M-l
M-l
C-M
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE
HIGH FIRE
HAZARD ZONE
o NOT
APPLICABLE
o EXEMPT
UNO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFE CTS
NOli. 198\ REVISED JULY 1982
SKY
DYES
~NO
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
General-Industrial
General-Industrial
General-Industrial
General-Industrial
General-Industrial
GlYES
ONO
FLOOD HAZARD aYES OZONE A
ZONE 0 NO IZIZ0NE B
( SEWERS g~~s )
AIRPORT NOISE / 0 YES
CRASH ZONE ~ NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES NO E.I.R.
o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E. R. C.
MINUTES
Z
o
-
~
ILO
ILZ
L&J
~:i
cn:i
o
(,)
L&J
a::
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ARE^
DYES
@NO
~ APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
o DEN IAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CZ 87-22
~
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 3/15/88
PAGE 2
~
1. REQUEST
The request is for approval under authority of Section
19.06.06 to change the zone from M-l, Light Industrial
to C-M, Commercial Manufacturing.
2. LOCATION
The project area is a .45 acre rectangularly shaped
parcel, 20 feet wide that extends 985.55 feet west from
Waterman Avenue. It is 716.60 feet south of Caroline
Street. (See Attachment "D" - Location Map.)
3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The site is currently zoned M-l, Light-Industrial. The
application requests a C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing
designation. The Commercial-Manufacturing zone allows
all uses that are within the M-l Light-Industrial
District, the M-IA Limited Light-Manufacturing - In-
dustria] District as well as all those allowed in the C-
3A, Limited General Commercial District. The C-M zone
does not have a minimum area requirement. The C-M zone
has a 10 foot landscaped front setback requirement.
Approval of the proposed change of zone is consistent
with the letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987
August 16, 1987, January 14, 1988 and February 5, 1988,
from the State Office of Planning and Research to the
City of San Bernardino which stipulate that "...land
uses proposed during the period of the extension will be
consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan
provisions....", and with the City of San Bernardino
Housing and Scenic Highways Elements.
4. Cr~QA S'l'ATUS
An initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to
the Environmental Review Committee at the February 18,
1988 meeting. The study was accepted and made available
for public review from February 25, 1988 until March 9,
1988. No comments were received. A negative declara-
tion was recommended. (See Attachment "A" - Initial
Study. )
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CZ 87-22
OBSERVATIONS
\..
r
AGENDA ITEM 7
HEARING DATE 3/15/88
PAGE 3
5. BACKGROUND
The zoning on the 18.3 acre parcel to the immediate
north of this site was changed from M-1, Light-In-
dustrial to C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing with CZ 86-27
on May 8, 1987. The applicant has purchased- the subject
20 foot-wide strip to complete a commercial complex and
is processing a Parcel Map to include this strip within
the presently zoned C-M parcel.
The parcel to the south of the subject site is zoned M-
1, Light-Industrial. It is planned for additional
parking in excess of that required by Code to support
the retail center to the north.
Review of Plans 87-106 was approved February 18, 1988 to
develop a 90,920 square foot retail center on a 13.46
acre site that includes the property in the proposed
zone change.
6. ANALYSIS
The purpose of this change of zone is to utilize the
site as part of the development for the retail center
approved with Review of Plans 87-106. This site is a
part of a very large project that encompasses all the
land between Hunts Lane and Waterman Avenue from Red-
lands Boulevard south to the railroad tracks. ~ traffic
study has been done for the entire area to evaluate
traffic generated by the commercial uses. Mitigation
measures suggested in that study have been agreed to by
the applicant. This 19,711 square foot strip of land
will not add to the possible traffic congestion or to
the other environmental concerns in the area.
The area to the west has been developed as the Buyer's
Club, a commercial retail center. The area to the east
across Waterman Avenue is zoned M-l, Light-Industrial
and has a mixed land use of non-conforming single family
residences and a service station. The parcel to the
south extends to the railroad tracks and is zoned M-l,
Light-Industrial. The area is to be used as a parking
for the proposed retail center. The surrounding area is
a mix of commercial uses at present and the expansion of
the commercial center will complement the existing
development.
\..
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CZ 87-22
"
OBSERVATIONS
\.
r
AGENDA ITEM 7
HEARING DATE 3/15/88
PAGE 4
"
7.
COMMEN'l'S RECEIVED
No comments have been received concerning the change of
zone aplication.
8. CONCLUSION
The proposed C-M Commercial - Manufacturing District is
compatible with the existing land uses and surrounding
zoning. Traffic generated by the change of zone and
development was addressed in the traffic study and
mitigation measures were made a condition of approval
for the development.
9. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Approved the Negative Declaration; and
2. Approve the Change of Zone 87-22.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Vivian Stevens
Planner 1
VS:cms
pcagenda
cz87220
03-04-80
Attachment A - Initial Study
Attachment B - Site Map
Attachment C - Location Map
""
~
.
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
I nit i a 1 Study
for
Environmental Review
For
Change of Zone No. 87-22
To Change the Zone From M-1, Light Industrial
to C-M, Commercial Industrial on a .48 acre site
south of Caroline Street and west of Waterman Avenue
Prepared by:
Vivian Stevens
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
Prepared for:
Project Administration Team
225 West Hospitality Lane
Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Section
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
5.0
6.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1
Executive Summary
Proposed Project
Project Impacts
Project Description
Location
Site and Project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
Project Characteristics
Environmental Assessments
Environmental Setting
Environmental Effects
References
Appendices
Appendix A - Environmental Impact Checklist
Appendix C - Location Map
Appendix D - Site Map
6-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for
the Change of Zone No. 87-22, to change the zone on a .45 acre site from M-1,
Light Industrial to C-M, Commercial Industrial.
As stated in Section 15063 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) 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 EIR or a Negative Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating
adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby, enabling the pro-
ject to qualify for a 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. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
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 IER's;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the
project.
1-1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The request is for approval under authority of Section 19.06.07 from M-1, Light
Industrial to C-M, Commercial Manufacturing for a .45 acre site located south of
Caroline Street and west of Waterman Avenue. The application was filed in con-
junction with Parcel Map No. 11148, and Review of Plans No. 87-106 for a 90,920
square foot industrial tilt up building with 954 parking spaces provided.
2.2 Project Impacts
Impacts identified in the attached checklist include:
1.g. The possibility that the site is located in an area subject to liquefac-
tion.
6.a. The possibility that the change in the land use as designated in the
General Plan is different than that being proposed.
9.a. That the increased traffic will be greater than the land use designated on
the General Plan.
9.b. That there will be a demand for new parking facilities.
2-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The Change of Zone is proposed for a .45 acre site which forms a 20 foot strip
located 716.60 feet south of Caroline Street it stretches 985.55 feet west from
the Waterman Avenue right of way.
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The site is a rectangularly-shaped parcel consisting of .45 acre of flat
terrain. It is vacant and has no outstanding topographic features.
The total area of the project under consideration is a 13.46 acre site that
extends from Caroline Street south to the railroad tracks. This change of zone
deals only with a 20 foot strip connecting an area to the north that had a zone
change with Change of Zone No. 86-27. The area to the south, also a part of
this project, will be used for parking only and is not under consideration for a
zone change.
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
The zone change is proposed from M-1, Light Industrial to C-M, Commercial
Manufacturing. The land uses allowed in the C-M zone include all the allowed
uses of the M-1 zone as well as all the uses in the C-3A, limited General
Commercial District. The uses would be expanded to include all forms of retail
sales, office space and entertainment uses.
3-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ACCESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
The .45 acre stte is bordered by Waterman Avenue to the east and is 716.60 feet
south of Caroline Street.
4.2 Environmental Effects
The environmental checklist identifies four areas of potential concern. Each
item checked maybe or yes on the checklist is identified below and followed by a
recommended mitigation measure.
1.g. Will the proposal result in development within an area subject to landsli-
des, mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards?
The project is located within the area designated by the OPR letters to require
a liquefaction study. Leighton and Associates, Inc. of Riverside, preformed the
study and reported that Liquefaction evaluation indicates that, "in general, the
liquefaction potential of the site is low." The report was revie~ed and
approved by Dr. Williams, the City's Geologist, the City Engineering Department
and the City Building and Safety Department. That report is on file at the City
Planning Department.
6.a. Will the proposal result ln a change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan?
Approval of the proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the letters dated
June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987, and August 3, 1987 from the State Office of
Planning and Research t the City of San Bernardino which stipulate that ". . .
land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with
the purpose of the updated general plan provisions. . .", and with the City of
San Bernardino Housing and Scenic Highways Elements.
g.a. Could the proposal result in an increase in traffic that is greater than
the land use designated on the General Plan?
The Change of Zone could increase the traffic demand on the surrounding streets
so a traffic study was prepared by C & G Engineers for the applicant. That
study has been reviewed by the City Engineering Department's Traffic Engineer.
The mitigation measures recommended by the report have bee agreed to by the
appliant. That report is on file in the City Engineering Department.
9.b. Could the proposal result in an increase in the demand for new parking
facilities.
The Change of Zone would not necessarily increase the demand for parking
however, the project under consideration will require 256 parking parking spaces
and the preliminary plans show 368 parking spaces provided.
4-1
5.0 REFERENCES
Mr. Huston T. Carlyle, Jr.
Director
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(Letter of August 18, 1987)
Persons contacted:
Dr. Floyd Williams, City Geologist
Michael Grubbs, Civil Engineering Association, City Public Works
Charles Dunham, Plan Check Engineer, Department of Building and Safety
Consultants:
Leighton and Associates
1989 Atlanta Avenue, Suite 1
Riverside, California 92507
C & G Engineers
2627 South Waterman Avenue
San Bernardino, California
KDM
KIV CZ87-22Pl-7
2-23-88
5-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKgROl)@
Application Number:
Change of Zone No. 87-22
Project Description:
Change of zone from M-l. Li~ht Industrial to
C-M, Commercial Manufacturing
Location: .4') ;CH're. Wf'st cl WCltf>rm;:m A"f>nllp, sn1lt"h of r.::1rolinp ~rrppt
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation:
General Manufacturing
zoning Designation: M-l
--~-----~._---_._-~-_.
B. ~~Y1BQ~~~~~b~_~~ACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. EaJth-BgEQ~rces 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?
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
REVISED 12/81
PAGE 1 OF 8
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. bIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
WbTEB___ B-ESO.1JRCES:
proposal result in:
Will
the
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
Yes
No
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
--K_
x
x
x
x
x
x
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 2 OF 8
Yes
Maybe
4.
BIOLOGICb~~~p9URC~p:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
c. Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
c. Other?
6.
~~m:>_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
the land use as
on the General
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
REVISED 10/87
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 3 OF 8
Yes
No
Maybe
7.
MAN-MADE __ Jj!\_Z[\.~p:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
x
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
x
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
x
x
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
x
x
b. Other?
9. TM~f)PQFTATIO~L~lB~1l1ATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures?
x
c. Impact upon existing public
transpoltotion 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
PAGE 4 OF 8
REVISED 10/87
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
h.
Other?
10. PQ~LI~_SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
c.
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: 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?
2. Electricity?
3. Hater?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
disjointed
utility
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
of
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 5 OF 8
Yes
No
Maybe
12. AESTHETJ~p:
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.
~pr..rURf\r..__J<!;.Q9!lBCES :
proposal result in:
Could the
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
X
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
X
c. Other?
x
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
The California Environmental
Quality Act 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.
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
REVISED 10/87 PAGE 60F8
Yes
No
Maybe
im~ortant examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
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
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
jropact 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.)
x
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
D. DETERMI~b~JQ~
On the basis of this initial study,
o
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
o
The proposed project ~mY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
--_._----~-----
Name and Title
Signature
Date:
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
ATTACHMENT B
E "" n . 0
w
~flG1 I\.) :0
...... (f)
311 ~ I
e~ -. m ...... "U
~~ ~ Z 0 )>
Q~ Q r;)
. ~ - :0
· m 0
c ~ m
~ i. r
Z
~ ~ ~ C
:!.
B ~ s:
CO
m
:IJ
I FY\HCE.L 8, P NJ. 8 Ll-OJ
l~ P018 88/32-33
IY I
f_=-~tV.c:1/~~h" -4--
I~
\~,
I
I
I
.
r-~~:'" -
I
~
~ ~~
'0 . ~~
~ '~
.A
,;\' ;
I, i
",
'I "
" '
';!- \
id
~~.,,'.~
~ ir.
. ,'.'1
:t. "1
'I '}i
~ 1i ~,
t\ :.~ ~~
~ ~ ~~
~, 1\~
.~ ~ t\ ~
..-Q. ~" ~ ~
o ,~~ ;\,
'~\ ~ t, ~~
./\. ~ ~~
...-;; .~' ~ ~
VI, ~
j/ .'( ~ ~
~I ~ III
~} t ~
\" ;"J \Ii
\. r') ,', \ \)j
u0 ,.\ \~
\--' 1'1 .
,// '/',1
':,7 /.
\) '\ ~ / ("'r')
,~':' ~
-" ~
--.... I
~-6
,
~I
\,
~ I .
\tJ .
'\ \~
;-.,'
~
>- ~ ~'
'"d \ ~
'"d ~ ,~!
tTJ
Z
t::;j ~~
tTJ
~
'-'
~ ,.~ < ~
~l )> .
~ . 0 .......
)> 'J>
Z
-l
o
~
rn
"U
:JJ
m
"'U
)>
:::0
m
o
I
......
o
I
I\.)
o
I
CO
-"1
~
~
~~~\
~~~
'::It.
) I
, hI .,,"1
\ \,' '-J
'I' 10"'"
,I ,~
'~I
",
,.j.
'i;
. -
. ;
,",~
;~,"
i;"
,I
l~I'
~ '::1 }
~ ~
l~ I\~
_I'~~~1:'~d'?-'!r . -~~~~.~. _.__.~~.
'-- ~ MI,' 50J,n1l AF2'7l'l~~ -I
()
I
~
\ ..,.. ,
....
N
o
Z
m
o
I
)>
Z
G)
m
-0
r
~
};
o
po
Z
-l
~
~~
~
ATTACHMEN C
"'"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE CUP 87-22
7
HEARING DATE 3/15/88
c- N ~ ~ N.I~ "'
M-I
.
. L-..... II
-- r-:-= --'
-~
.0
M-I
..
..I.......' ...
.w'"
N -I
M-I
~
~ --
.
C-M
fiOL'
- (I-
C-M
-
CoM
~
I
-----l
N
p
Q
R
5
T
u