HomeMy WebLinkAbout45- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BER. .ARDINO - REQUEST W-'OR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director General Plan Amendment No. 91-17
Subject: to change the designation from
Dept: Planning & Building Services RS to RMH on the south side of
Sunrise Lane.
Date: February 18 , 1993 Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 8 , 1993
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
November 18 , 1991 , the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to
initiate the appropriate General Plan/amendment (s) to address the
non-conforming multiple family uses in the Arden Guthrie area.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted that
adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan
Amendment No. 91-17 .
Signature
Al Boughey. '
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Resolution 7
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $25 . 00
Source: (Acct. No.) 171-53150
Acct. Description) Professional & Contractual Services
Finance•
Council Notes:
75-0262 Agenda Item No.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT General Plan Amendment No. 91-17
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
March 8, 1993
REQUEST AND LOCATION
This General Plan amendment is City-initiated and proposes to
change the land use designation from RS, Residential Suburban to
RMH, Residential Medium High on twenty-six parcels of land
comprising a total of approximately 5. 84 acres. The project site
is located on the south side of Sunrise Lane (formerly Roca Street)
between Sterling Avenue and a point coinciding with a southern
extension of McKinley Street.
KEY POINTS
The site is developed with multi-family units and is part of
a multi-family residential development to the north.
All of the parcels have frontage to the north, onto Sunrise
Lane and are separated by an alley from the single family
neighborhood on the south.
The boundary between the single-family neighborhood and the
multi-family neighborhood should coincide with the land use
designation boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study which
was prepared to evaluate the redesignation to RMH, Residential
Medium High and recommended a Negative Declaration. No comments
were received during the public comment period. No changes in the
environment have occurred since the preparation of the Initial
Study.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 based
upon findings in the resolution.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may deny General Plan Amendment
No. 91-17 .
GPA NO. 91-17
MCC Mtg. of 3/08/93
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The amendment request was considered by the Planning Commission at
a noticed public hearing on March 17, 1992 . The Planning
Commission recommended the adoption of the Negative Declaration and
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 to change the land use
designation from RS, Residential Suburban to RMH, Residential
Medium High on the project site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
resolution, copy attached, which adopts the Negative Declaration
and approves General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 as presented.
Prepared by: John R. Burke, Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2 : Staff Report to Planning Commission
Attachment A - Initial Study
Attachment 3 : Resolution
Attachments Al, A2 , A3 - Location Maps
Attachment B - Legal Descriptions
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-17
Project Description: To change the land use designation from RS,
Residential Suburban to RMH, Residential Medium High on 26 parcels
comprising approximately 5.84 acres.
Project Location: Those parcels fronting on the south side of Roca
Street between Sterling Avenue and the southern extension of
McKinley Street.
Date: October 24, 1991
Applicant: City of San Bernardino
Owners: Various
Prepared by: John R. Burke
Title: Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Services
300 North "D11 Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CM "�
�M""`"'�N'"'O ="C" PLAN-8.07 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-17
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino
for City-initiated General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 which
proposes to change the land use designation from RS,
Residential Suburban to RMH, Residential Medium High on
approximately 5.84 acres on the south side of Roca Street
between Stirling Avenue and the southern extension of McKinley
Street.
As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental
Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are
to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative
Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project,
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, tlmdy
enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration;
3 . Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by;
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
4 . Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design
of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have
a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7 . Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used
with the project.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-17
2 .0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This City-initiated amendment proposal is to change the
General Plan Land Use Plan designation from RS, Residential
Suburban to RMH, Residential Medium High on an area consisting
of approximately 5.48 acres on the south side of Roca Street
between Sterling Avenue and the southern extension of McKinley
Street.
2.1 Amendment Site and Surrounding Area Characteristics
The site is comprised of 26 parcels which are developed with
4-plexes on them. They are part of a group of such units
which lie to the north of Roca Street and on the north and
south sides of 19th Street (see Exhibit A) . The site is
located in the middle of a residential area. There is multi-
family designation (RMH) to the north and single-family
designation (RS, Residential Suburban) to the west and south.
Emmerton Elementary School (designated PF, Public Facilities)
lies to the west of the site.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental setting
The site is developed with multi-family units. Emmerton
Elementary School and Sterling Avenue, which are located at
the east and west of the site area, are within the 500 year
flood zone. There are no other environmental constraints.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND �y
Application Number: 4r131 % 1- 17
Project Description:
Location:
Environmental Constraints Areas: A4-1-71V-40-
General Plan Designation: _ �s S�df.✓rr�9 �.3Gr,Q/��,,,/
Zoning Designation:
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? _X _
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan?
d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical
feature?
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identif ied in Section 12.0-
Geologic&Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General
Plan?
f. Modification of a channel,creek or river?
CT'OF SM OUP&nno
CEMIRAL PRINnNG SERNCES PLAN-9.06 PAGE 1 OF_ (11.90)
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, —�
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other?
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0-Wind&Fire, Figure 59,of the City's
General Plan?
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in:
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 X
of surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? _ Y
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rte Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 &m/S- and Section 16.0- X
Flooding, Figure 62,of the City's General Plan?
f. Other?
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41,of the City's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or x
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6"or greater) X
e. Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health care facilities,schools,
libraries,religious facilities or other'noise"sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior and an Ldn of 45 dBtA)interior
as identified in Section 14.0-Noise, Figures 57 and
58 of the City's General Plan?
crrr �" PLAN-9.06 PAGE 2 OF_ (11.90)
CENTRAL X:,-SERVICES
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? X
c. Other?
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning District Map? X
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A&B,or C as
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? X
d. Other?
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
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 of hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? _
d. Other?
S. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? )('
b. Other?
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking
facilities/structures? X
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? _
h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways x
or intersections?
i. Other?
amm ar MN BERMAIMINO
CENTRAL PHNRING SERMCE3 PLAN-9.06 PAGE 30F (11-90)
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? x
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. Water? �(
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? _d!
c. Require the construction of new facilities? X
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic view? X
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other?
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section
3.0-Historical, Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? X
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other?
CfTy ff SAN BERNARWO
CENTRAL PwrmNcsEmces PLAN-9.06 PAGE40F_ (11-90)
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that H any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?(A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental eff ects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? XI
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
SEE /9TTi9CNEb .Sh/EETS
CrrYffSAN HEMAIWONO
CENTRAL PR,m„ogRMCEy PLAN-9.06 PAGE50F (11-90)
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-17
3.2 Environmental effects
3 .2. 1. Earth Resources
1. a thru g.
Since the site is already developed, future grading is
unlikely. Future reuse as permitted in the RMH,
Residential Medium High designation will most likely be
of similar or less intensity than existing on site today.
The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone and contains no unique geologic or physical
features. The site is not subject to wind or water
erosion.
3 .2 . 2 Air Resources
2 . a, b, c.
The site is developed and redesignation will have no
effect on air quality. Future reuse of the site will not
lead to an increase in emissions as future reuse will be
of the same or less intensity. The RMH designation does
not permit uses that create objectionable odors. The
site is not within the high wind hazard area.
3 . 2 . 3 Water Resources
3 . a thru e.
Since the site is developed, it already contains
impermeable surfaces. Improvements to or reuse of the
site/buildings could lead to changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, and the amount of runoff. The
potential for change of impermeable surface area would
be minimal due to the permitted uses in the amendment
site under the RMH designation. The site is not within
a Zone A (100 year flood plain) or Zone B (500 year flood
plain) flood hazard area as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, but the east and west
boundaries abut lands designated as Zone B (500 year
floodplain) .
3 .2 . 4 Biological Resources
4 . a thru d.
All natural vegetation that may have existed on this site
was removed when development occurred. The site is not
located in the Biological Resource Management Overlay and
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-17
no unique, rare or endangered plant or animal species are
known to exist in the area.
3 .2 . 5 Noise
5. a, b.
The noise associated with the site is that generated by
the present development. The proposed RMH designation
reflects the existing uses and future development is not
anticipated to generate noise of significance.
3.2 . 6 Land Use
6. a.
The project is to change the City's General Plan Land Use
Plan designation from RS, Residential Suburban to RMH,
Residential Medium High.
6. b, c.
The site is not within an Airport District nor the
Foothill Fire Zones.
3 .2 .7 Man-Made Hazards
7 . a thru c.
The existing development does not use, store, transport
or dispose of any measurable hazardous materials. Future
reuse would not involve such materials.
3 .2.8 Housing
8. a thru c.
The proposed amendment will have no direct impact on
existing housing nor create a demand for additional
housing.
3 .2 .9 Transportation/Circulation
9. a thru h.
The amendment site is developed at an intensity that is
the same or less than any future reuse. The City Traffic
Engineer indicates that the proposed land use designation
change will not adversely impact the circulation in the
area and that a traffic impact study is not required.
INITIAL STUDY for GPA91-17
3 .2 . 10 through 13 . Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics and
Cultural Resources
These sections are not impacted by the proposed General
Plan amendment.
3 .2 . 14 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The site is developed with a residential use and
redesignation to RMH reflects the existing development
on it. There are no significant impacts to the
environment by the continuation of the present use and
none are anticipated by any permitted future reuse.
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
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.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
c
Name and Title
•�,..�s'-mot-
Signa
Date: ���(/
CJ V Or EAN EMAMNO PLAN-9.06 PAGE_OF_ (11-90)
CEN LPMN NG SEANCES
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINQ
[ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO . GPA 91-17
TITLE
r�
DaTE
f If
z � O ,� C � � �. o
i — rHIGHLA�
/ L
of soft f ` 1
'Z
ST
zi
z
T r
!'1 St r 1
sr
ST
�)/ n I LES ++. ./E T i sr
T sl w
i PACIFIC T
Sao
_ r >
•4..0.10
7
� = Q f , T MI./1 /
4 ►90L
w a
C* = 1
.ivE ST kCL�
a E° ST a mommmomm� ..
a o :
-77 t EXHIBIT
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
3 AMENDMENT NO. 91-17 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO.
4
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
5 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
6 SECTION 1. Recitals
7 (a) The General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was
8 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on
9 June 2 , 1989.
10 (b) General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 to the General Plan of
11 the City of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning
12 Commission on March 17 , 1992, after a noticed public hearing, and
13 the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval has been
14 considered by the Mayor and Common Council.
15 (c) An Initial Study was prepared on October 24 , 1991 and
16 reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the Planning
17 Commission who both determined that General Plan Amendment No. 91-
18 17 would not have a significant effect on the environment and
19 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
20 (d) The proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 day
21 public review period from November 21, 1991 through December 11,
22 1991 and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed by the
23 Planning Commission and the Mayor and Common Council in compliance
24 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
25 regulations.
26 (e) The Mayor and Common Council held a noticed public
27 hearing and fully reviewed and considered proposed General Plan
28
1
1 Amendment No. 91-17 and the Planning Division Staff Report on March
2 8, 1993 .
3 (f) The adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 is
4 deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the City and
5 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
6 existing General Plan.
7 SECTION 2 . Negative Declaration
8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
9 and Common Council that the proposed amendment to the General Plan
10 of the City of San Bernardino will have no significant effect on
11 the environment, and the Negative Declaration heretofore prepared
12 by the Environmental Review Committee as to the effect of this
13 proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and adopted.
14 SECTION 3 . Findings
15 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
16 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT:
17 A. The change of designation from RS, Residential Suburban to
18 RMH, Residential Medium High for the proposed amendment will
19 change the land use map only and is not in conflict with the
20 goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan.
21 B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
22 interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
23 C. All public services are available to the study area. Any
24 development permissible under the RMH, Residential Medium High
25 designation proposed by this amendment would not impact on
26 such services.
27 D. The proposed amendment will minimally affect the balance of
28
2
I land uses within the City.
2 E. The amendment site is physically suitable for the RMH,
3 Residential Medium High land use designation. Anticipated
4 future land use has been analyzed in the Initial Study and it
5 has been determined that the existing development on the
6 twenty-six lots of record may continue in accordance with
7 Development Code Section 19. 04 . 010 2 .E.
8 SECTION 4 . Amendment
9 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
10 A. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San
11 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 5.84 acres
12 consisting of 26 parcels from RS, Residential Suburban to RMH,
13 Residential Medium High. This amendment is designated as
14 General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 and its location is outlined
15 on the map entitled Attachments Al, A2 and A3 and is more
16 specifically described in the legal description entitled
17 Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated
18 herein by reference.
19 B. General Plan Amendment No. 91-17 shall become effective
20 immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
21 SECTION 5. Map Notation
22 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be
23 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously
24 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are
25 on file in the office of the City Clerk.
26 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination
27 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of
28 ////
3
1 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino
2 certifying the City's compliance with California Environmental
3 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration.
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1 RESOLUTION . . .ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-17 TO THE GENERAL
2 PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore held on the
6 day of 1993 , by the following vote to
7 wit:
8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
9 ESTRADA
10 REI LLY
11 HERNANDEZ
12 MAUDSLEY
13 MINOR
14 POPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17 City Clerk
18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of 1993 .
19
20
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
21 City of San Bernardino
22 Approved as to
form and legal content:
23 JAMES F. PENMAN
24 City Attorney
25 By: .
26
27
28
5
�o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
W GPA 91-17
W v
0
s
W p �
STERLING -- i - --- - --
AVENUE
PD
4 W
U -
rn I
•Il fJ ,!/1G
— ARGYLE - _-- _
- - - ---�_.AVENUE - -
3` v rn C7 p
b ~ n
- U � N in
1 lM
m W
c11
m
w T `° O al I i
N O
cn
0 0 CA UN\
MNN w�
j
CD
O C7 yr ji _
O O I N '
v N) n 4 !� .✓
I w
n m -
c N'
CD a 0 OD
u rn
A.0
f1 < T w �r
V�
ATTACHMENT Al
Vv 0,
y � �
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO °N�0•'``°
g GPA 91-17
1
4D
b
a$
w r; -
lNil X000
fM i
toy b » 0
N � y
� s w
® � k9e.p
u I �IU 6D
0 i +j•� O
a• � n V1
• v ' fit �
EY t-Bfi—�--
r
pm n
JD
1
7 O N Np�
7t h O
C-
O
O
W
c A
N
QD
ao <
W
N ^
ATTACHMENT A2
z
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Nlptltl�
b
V
GPA 91-17
0
Z_-
0
N
. W
(D
OD
lJ W W
u 3i V
430, CJ�
R !S
ro D1
iJ3 0
O
ie z I
I
D
O m
i
u �
i43ow
w
(n CD D O1
O O to
pp to :I3 04
WNy XO
O CD V �Om
1 H IJ OJ S m a.
�a i na
W is O n
j a Z.Z �� - J3
ALLEY
h
Nwu ® N
Nm� co
jm
uam w
c
t n I
ATTACHMENT A3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-17
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
APN DESCRIPTION
286-322-03 and Lots 1 and 2 and lots 19 through 32 of Tract
286-322-01 thru No. 6647 of Map Book 86, pages 30 and 31.
286-322-14
286-346-01 and Lots 10 and 11 of Tract No. 6969 of Map Book
286-341-01 90, pages 59 and 60.
286-381-08 thru Lots 1 through 9 of Tract No. 12398 of Map
286-381-16 Book 171, pages 65 and 66.
ATTACHMENT B