HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-123
,
1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-123
2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR WATER
3 CONSERVATION IN THE LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
4 WHEREAS, The City of San Bernardino, California has adopted a
5 General Plan by resolution on June 2, 1989 that established a new
6 framework of land use policies and a new official land use plan for
7 all incorporated property in the city of San Bernardino;
8 WHEREAS, the General Plan requires the establishment of design
9 standards in the Development Code of the City;
10 WHEREAS, Development Code Amendment 92-11 is concurrently
11
12
13
14
15
adopted with these design guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Renumber Section G19.28.120 LANDSCAPE DESIGN
16 GUIDELINES of the Development Code to Section G19. 28 .130 (See
17 Exhibit "A", Page III-78 of the Development Code, attached hereto
18 and incorporated herein by reference.)
19
SECTION 2.
The Design Guidelines of the San Bernardino
20 Development Code are amended to add Section G19.28.130(5) WATER
21
CONSERVATION for the implementation of water saving measures within
22 the City of San Bernardino, to read as shown in Exhibit "B"
23 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Pages III-80
24
25
26
and III-81 of the Development Code.
SECTION 3.
This resolution shall take effect upon the
effective date of an accompanying ordinance adopting Development
27 Code Amendment 92-11, which incorporates the standards for water
28 conservation in the City of San Bernardino.
II / /
1
RES 93-123
1 RESOLUTION ...ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR WATER CONSERVATION IN THE
LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENT.
2
3
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
Bernardino at a
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
TPqular
5 day of
lQt-h
6 wit:
7 Council Members
8 ESTRADA
9 REILLY
10 HERNANDEZ
11 MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
13 POPE-LUDLAM
14 MILLER
15
Apri 1
16
17
AYES
----X...-
----X...-
----X...-
----X...-
----X...-
-X-
meeting therefore, held on the
, 1993, by the following vote, to
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
x
Ce~~
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
18 of
19
20
April
, 1993.
21 Approved as to
form and legal content:
22
JAMES F. PENMAN,
23 City Attorney
24 .:k? ;1
25 B() ~ . ilC:~,
26
27
28
day
2
RES 93-123 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES-Gl9. 28
Gl9.28.l30 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
1 . PURPOSE
The following design guidelines are intended as a reference
framework to assist the designer in understanding the city's
goals and objectives for high quality development. The
guidelines will be utilized during the City's design review
process to encourage the highest level of design quality while
at the same time providing the flexibility necessary to
encourage creativity on the part of project designers.
2. APPLICABILITY
The provisions of this section apply to all development
projects within the city, unless otherwise specified herein.
Any addition, remodeling, relocation, or construction
requiring a building permit subject to review by the DRC,
shall adhere to these guidelines where applicable.
Unless there is a compelling reason, these design guidelines
shall be followed. If a guideline is waived by the
Development Review Committee, the Mayor and Common Council
shall be notified. An appeal, which does not require a fee,
may be filed by the Mayor or any Council person within 15 days
of the waiver approval.
3. GENERAL GUIDELINES
A. Landscaping and open spaces should be designed as an
integral part of the overall site plan design.
Landscaping and open spaces should enhance the building
design, enhance public views and spaces, provide buffers
and transitions, provide for a balance of solar uses, and
provide screening.
B. Landscape design should accent the overall design theme
through the use of structures such as arbors and
trellises which are appropriate to the particular
architectural style of adjacent structures.
C. Landscaped areas should incorporate plantings utilizing
a three tier system; 1) grasses and ground covers, 2)
shrubs, and 3) trees.
D. The following are common planting design concepts that
should be used whenever possible:
1. Specimen trees used in informal grouping and rows
at major focal points
2. Extensive use of flowering vines both on walls and
arbors
3. Pots, vases, walls or raised planters
4. The use of planting to create shadow and pattern
against walls
5. Trees to create canopy and shade, especially in
parking areas
6. The use of flowering trees in informal groups to
provide color.
111-78
Exhibit "A"
RES 93-123
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS-19.28.
s. WATER CONSERVATION CRITERIA
Each project shall be
Conservation in Landscape
a minimum of 75 points in
in compliance with the Water
Ordinance. A project must receive
the landscape category.
A.
Landscape Techniaue
Points
1.
Water conserving plants used in 75% or
more of the total landscaped area.
20
2.
Turf limited as follows:
20
a. Residential Projects - 50% of total
landscaped area
b. All Other projects* - 30% of total
landscaped area.
(* Except those areas designated as
"Recreational Areas")
3.
Plants placed or grouped into hydro zones
according to their watering needs.
10
4.
Polymers incorporated into the soil to
improve water holding capacity in turf
and ground cover areas.
10
5.
A maintenance Program consisting of:
10
a. periodic irrigation system repair.
b. Seasonal adjustments to the irrigation
system.
c. Practices which foster long term
landscape water conservation.
6. Hardscape (non-irrigated) surfaces, such as 5
non-removable alluvial rock or decorative
paving, used in 10% or more of total
landscaped area.
7. Where turf is used, utilize varieties which 5
have been proven to have low water
requirements, such as "marathon."
8. Where no ground cover is used, utilize wood 5
chips, bark, or other organic mulch, to a
depth of three inches on top of exposed soil
or landscape fabric, such as underneath shrubs.
9. Organic soil amendments to improve water 5
holding capacity of soil, where soil
conditions merit.
111-80
Exhibit "B"
RES 93-123
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS-19.2S'
B. Irriqation Technique
Each project shall be in
Conservation in Landscape
receive a minimum of 75
category.
compliance
Ordinance.
points in
with the Water
A proj ect must
the irrigation
Points
1. Low gallonage irrigation system, or higher 20
gallonage systems with automatic controller
capable of repeat cycling, used for more than
75% of the total landscaped area. Turf areas
must utilize "spray" coverage, drip systems
may not be used for turf.
2. Automatic controller for irrigation system. 20
3. Irrigation system designed using hydrozones 10
to water plants according to their water
needs (i.e. - landscape materials which
require different watering needs are
irrigated by separate control valves).
4. Rain sensors used in conjunction with an 10
automatic controller.
5. Soil-moisture sensors used in conjunction 5
with an automatic controller.
6. Wind sensors (e.g. - anemometer) used in 5
conjunction with an automatic controller.
7.
In-head or in-line check valves are utilized
(whenever the cross gradient is greater than
three feet in elevation).
5
8. Irrigation is sensitive to slope factors (i.e. 5
- low gallonage heads, repeat start times,
water basins). Plan notes shall delineate
how slopes are addressed to conserve water.
9. Use of reclaimed or recycled water. 5
10. Irrigation schedule which varies by season, 5
and developed through the use of
Evapotranspiration data (ET).
11. Provide on-site public information through 5
models, illustrations, examples, literature,
or any combination of the above, on water
conservation in landscaping.
III-S1
RE S93-123
CITY(7MN~
cemw. PMlN11HGSBMCES
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
3
03/16/93
Citywide
SUMMARY
APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino
w
Ul
<
o
Development Code
Amendment No. 92-11
OWNER:
City of San Bernardino
I-
Ul
W
~
a
w
a:
This is a City initiated Development Code Amendment to
incorporate water conservation requirements, as outlined
in State Assembly Bill AB 325, into the landscape portion
(Chapter 19.28) of the Development Code for the City of
San Bernardino.
-.
This amendment will affect the entire incorporated portion
of the City of San Bernardino.
<
w
a:
<
PROPERTY
EXISTING
LAND USE
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
This amendment is Citywide, encompassing all
land use designations.
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO
FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A ( SEWERS: DYES )
ZONE: o NO OZONE B o NO
AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
0 NO o NO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z a APPROVAL
EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES j:::
NO E.I.R. < 0 CONDITIONS
11.0
o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z 0 DENIAL
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS <w
WITH MITIGATING t)::E
MEASURES ::E 0 CONTINUANCE TO
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
0
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES a:
PLAN.9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.go)
Attachment IlA"
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO
...I 0 NOT
< APPLICABLE
I-
ZUl
w"
::E Z 0 EXEMPT
Z-
OO
a:i:
-II.
S; ~ NO SIGNIFICANT
W EFFECTS
RES 93-123
. .
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE: 3-16-93
Page 1
REOUEST
This is a City-initiated Development Code Amendment to incorporate
water conservation requirements, as outlined in state Assembly Bill
AB 325, into the landscape portion (Chapter 19.28) of the
Development Code for the City of San Bernardino.
LOCATION
The amendment is applicable to the entire incorporated portion of
the City of San Bernardino.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Development Code Amendment 92-11 will modify Section 19.28,
Landscaping Standards, of the Development Code to incorporate water
conservation measures in the landscape environment in conformance
with State Assembly Bill 325. The Amendment conforms to the City's
General Plan, Section 11.1, to reduce the rates of energy and water
consumption in the City of San Bernardino through architectural
design, use of efficient utility systems, trip reduction, and other
techniques.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOAI STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 5, 1992 (Exhibit
D). The ERC determined that no significant impacts would result
from the proposal and recommended a Negative Declaration. The
proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study
was available for public review and comment from November 12, 1992
to December 3,1992. No comments were received from the pUblic
during that period.
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill AB 325, Water Conservation in Landscaping, requires
that each city and county agency, unless exempted by State law,
address water conservation in landscaping through the ordinance
process by January 1, 1993. If the agency does not adopt its own
ordinance, it must adopt findings which state that a water
efficient landscape ordinance is unnecessary, or the State Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will become effective by
default.
RES 93-123
.
.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE: 3-16-93
Page 2
The city of San Bernardino, being a Charter City, is legally exempt
from the requirements of Assembly Bill AB 325, however, staff is
proposing adoption of a water conservation ordinance as discussed
below.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the requirements of AB 325 and discussed the
options available to the City.
OPTION 1 Do nothing, which implies a water efficient landscape
ordinance is unnecessary.
The City of San Bernardino currently has a substantial ground water
reserve, however, the City still utilizes some State supplied water
resources. If the City chooses not to address efficient water
usage in landscaping, it could potentially jeopardize future
allocations from the State.
OPTION 2 Adopt the State's Model Ordinance.
The State's Model Ordinance is a very thorough and comprehensive
document. It covers, in detail, the many aspects of water
conservation in the landscape environment. It also establishes
separate criteria and processes for determining if a project meets
the minimum requirements set forth in the provisions of the
Ordinance. There is a significant amount of research, data
compilation and analysis required to satisfy the demands of the
Ordinance.
OPTION 3 Adopt a City generated ordinance to address water
conservation in the landscape.
staff has developed a water conservation ordinance which addresses
the requirements of AB 325 and the needs of the citizens of the
City of San Bernardino at the same time. Some of the requirements
and criteria for water conservation which have been incorporated
into this ordinance were taken from the State Model Ordinance and
surrounding jurisdictions which have had positive results from
their ordinances.
A water efficient landscape and irrigation system will be
beneficial to both the city and to its applicants, in that costs
are usually reduced when efficiency increases.
RES 93-123
. .
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE: 3-16-93
Page 3
In addition, many of the ordinance requirements being proposed are
current landscape practices and will not impact the development
industry.
state Model Ordiance - Required provisions
The following is a list of the provisions required by Assembly Bill
AB 325 relating to developing a Water Conservation Ordinance.
1. provisions for water conservation through the appropriate use
and groupings of plants that are well adapted to particular
sites and to particular climatic, geological, or topographical
conditions. The ordinance shall not prohibit or require
specific plant species.
2. provisions for the use of automatic irrigation systems and
seasonal irrigation schedules, incorporating water
conservation design and utilizing methods appropriate for
specific terrains, soil types, wind conditions, temperatures,
and other environmental factors, in order to ensure a high
degree of water efficiency.
3. provisions for grading and drainage to promote healthy plant
growth and to prevent excessive erosion and runoff, and the
use of mulches in shrub areas, garden beds, and landscaped
areas where appropriate.
4. Provisions for the use of reclaimed water supplied through
dual distribution systems, if feasible and cost effective, and
subject to appropriate health standards.
5. provisions to educate water users on the efficient use of
water and benefits of doing so.
6. provisions addressing regional differences where necessary and
feasible, including fire prevention needs.
7. provisions to exempt landscaping which is part of a registered
historical site, where feasible.
8. Provisions for the use of economic incentives to promote the
efficient use of water, where feasible.
9. provisions for landscape maintenance practices which foster
long-term landscape water conservation.
10. The ordinance shall exempt cemeteries.
RES 93-123
.
.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE: 3-16-93
Page 4
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of water conserving measures can be addressed
through the Ordinance/Resolution process to amend the Development
Code.
Ordinance The Ordinance (Exhibit B) will will create the
requirement for water conservation in the landscape by amending the
Development Code, which includes guidelines for applicability,
implementation and exemptions to the water conservation
requirements.
Resolution - The Resolution (Exhibit C) will establish the criteria
by which water conservation in the landscape can be measured.
There are two areas which are evaluated; Landscape Techniques and
Irrigation Techniques. Each project will be reviewed against the
landscape and irrigation criteria and given points for water
conservation measures incorporated into the design. The resolution
establishes the points awarded, and the number of points needed for
the project to be acceptable in terms of water conservation.
CONCLUSION
The Development Code Amendment is being initiated by the City to
conform to State Assembly Bill AB 325 which requires local
governments to adopt a Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance.
No significant environmental impacts will be created by
establishing a Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance, and
modifying the Development Code to include water conservation
techniques.
The referenced Ordinance and Resolution are a result of the
combined efforts of several City Departments including Parks,
Recreation & Community services, Public Works, the Water Department
and Planning & Building Services.
RES 93-123
. .
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE: 3-16-93
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends that the Planning commission recommend to the
Mayor and Common Council the:
1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration; and,
2. Approval of Development Code Amendment No. 92-11 subject to
the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A).
(r)
ly kilbmitted,
. i~kor
Exibit:
A - Findings of Fact
B - Ordinance
C - Resolution
o - Initial study
RES 93-123
.
EXHIBIT "A"
.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE: 3-16-93
Page 6
FINDINGS OF FACT
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11
1. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that
General Plan Obj ecti ve 11.1 states that it shall be the
objective of the city of San Bernardino to reduce the rates of
energy and water consumption in the City through architectural
design, use of efficient utility systems, trip reduction, and
other techniques.
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city
in that the implementation of water conservation measures will
result in long term benefits to the city and its residents by
preventing or delaying the imposition of water rationing or
restrictions.
RES 93-123
Exhibit "D"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
XJiTJ:TXAL STUDY FOR BllVJ:ROHMBHTAL XMPACT
FOR
Development Code Amendment DCA 92-11
project Description/Location: To amend the Development Code,
section 19.28 relating to landscaping, to implement the State
mandated water conservation landscape ordinance. The
amendment is citywide in its application.
Date: October 28, 1992
Prepared for:
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared by:
Jeffery S. Adams
Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
CITYOFSN<lBERNA,RDINO
C~mRAl~NnNGSEAYlCES
PLAN-8.07 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
RES 93-123
e
e
e
.
.
J:NJ:TIAL STUDY FOR
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 92-11
Introduction
the city of San Bernardino for
It contains an evaluation of
occur if the proposed amendment
This Initial Study is provided by
Development Code Amendment 92-11.
potential adverse impacts that can
is approved and adopted.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the
preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain
discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt
from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine
whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a
Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) must be prepared.
The following components constitute the Initial Study for
Development Code Amendment 92-11:
1-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Project Description
site and Area Characteristics
Environmental Setting
Environmental Impact Checklist
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
ConClusion/Environmental Determination
Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study
for Development Code Amendment 92-11.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to amend the City of San Bernardino's
Development Code relating to landscaping requirements. The state
of California has approved an Assembly Bill, AB 325 which mandates
that each city or county adopt a water efficient landscape
ordinance by January of 1992, or the state's Model Ordinance will
become effective by default.
The intent of AB 325 is to promote the conservation of water in the
landscape through the selective choice of plant material, efficient
irrigation practices, and education of the public. Development
Code Amendment 92-11 will incorporate the objectives of AB 325 into
the City's Development Code.
2. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposal will apply to the entire city of San Bernardino. The
City covers approximately 55 square miles and is at the base of the
San Bernardino Mountains.
RES 93-123
;
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING. AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number:
Development Code Amendment DCA 92-11
Project Description:
To amend the Development Code. Section 19.28
relating to landscaping, to implement the State mandated
water conservation landscape ordinance.
L~tion: The proposal will encompass the entire City of
San Bernardino.
Environmental Constraints Areas: N / A
General Plan Designation:
Citywide
Zoning Designation: Citywide
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resu~ in:
a. Earth movement (cut and/or IiII) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
No
Maybe
Yes
x
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade?
c. Development w~hin the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0 - Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47,01 the C~'s General Plan?
d. Modffication 01 any unique geologic or physical
leature?
x
x
x
e. Development within areas delined lor high potential lor
water or wind erosion as identffied in Section 12.0 -
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, 01 the C~'s General
Plan?
x
X
t Modffication 01 a channel, creek or river?
arr~aMlI!IIUfDIC)
---
pLAN-a.06 PAGE 10F
(11-90)
RES 93-123
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquelaction or other similar hazards as
identnied in Section 12.0. Geologic & Seismic, X
Figures 48, 52 and 53 01 the c~'s General Plan?
h. Other? X
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal resu~ in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient X
air quality as delined by AQMD?
b. The creation 01 objectionable odors? X
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identffied
in Section 15.0 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59, 01 the City's X
General Plan?
3. Watar Resources: Will the proposal resu~ in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to X
impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or llow of flood waters? X
c. Discharge into surface waters or any a~eration X
01 surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X
e. Exposure 01 people or property to llood hazards as
identilied in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 - _ , and Section 16.0 -
Flooding, Figure 62, 01 the City's General Plan? X
l. Other? X
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal resu~ in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identffied in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41,01 the c~'s X
General Plan?
b. Change in the number 01 any unique, rare or
endangered species 01 plants or their habitat including
stands 01 trees? X
c. Change in the number 01 any unique, rare or
endangered species 01 animals or their habitat? X
d. Removal 01 viable, mature trees? (6" or greater) X
Other? X
e.
5. Noise: Could the proposal resu~ in:
a. Development 01 housing, hedh care lacilities, schools,
libraries, religious lacilities or other 'noise" sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn 01 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior
as identffied in Section 14.0 - Noise, Figures 14-6 and X
14-1301 the c~'s General Plan?
c:ny CF au! IIENWIMO PLAN-D.os PAGE 2 OJ:::: _ ("..go)
---
RES 93-123
b. Development 01 new or expansion 01 existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, heahh care lacilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior X
or an Ldn 0145 dB(A) interior?
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal resu~ in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Development within an Airport District as identffied in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlcUZ) Report and X
the Land Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Fcothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as
idenlffied on the Land Use Zoning District Map? X
d. Other? X
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release 01 hazardous substances? X
c. Expose people to the potential hea~h/salety hazards? X
d. Other? X
8. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
lor additional housing? X
b. Other? X
8. Transportation I Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0 . Circulation 01 the c~'s General Plan, resu~ in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? X
b. Use 01 existing, or demand lor new, parking X
lacilitieSfstructures?
Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
c.
d. A~eration 01 present patterns 01 circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
l. Increased salety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or X
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pattern 01 roadway improvements? X
h. Signfficant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways
or intersections? X
L Other? x
~CI=:'= PLAN.1l.D6 PAGE 3 OF 11'-90)
RES 93-123
ClTYOFMN~
---
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the lollowing Yes No Maybe
beyond the capabil~y to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. Schools (I.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X
d. Par1<s or other recreational lacilities? X
e. Medical aid? X
l. Solid Waste? X
g. Other? X
11. utilities: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels 01 service or require the
construction 01 new lacilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? X
5. Other? X
b. Resu~ in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X
c. Require the construction 01 new lacil~ies? X
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal resu~ in the obstruction 01 any
scenic view? X
b. Will the visual impact 01 the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? X
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal resu~ in:
a. The a~eration or destruction 01 a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identffied in Section X
3.0. Historical, Figure 8, 01 the City's General Plan?
b. A~eration or destruction 01 a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey? X
c. Other? X
PLAN-8.D6 PAGE 4 OF"
(1'-~\
RES 93-123
14. Mandatory Findings 01 Significance (Section 15065)
The caJffornia Environmental Quality Act states that ff any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a signfficant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes
a. Does the project have the polentialto degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
hab~at 01 a lish or wildlile species, cause a lish or
wildlffe population to drop below seW sustaining leveis,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range 01 a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples 01 the major periods of calffornia history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the polentialto 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 briel, delinitive period
01 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 01 the total of those impacts on the
environment is signfficant)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
See Attached
c:rfTCI'IMJt~
---
No
Maybe
x
x
x
x
PlAN-O.os PAGE 5 OF
(11-90)
RE S93-l23
e
e
e
.
.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of San Bernardino is adjacent to and intrudes into the San
Bernardino Mountains, as well as spreading out onto the valley
floor, The local climate is mediterranean in nature, with low
annual rainfall and is prone to periodic drought, There are
seasonal Santa Ana Winds which create additional negative impacts
to the area,
4. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1, Earth Resources:
The proposal to implement a water efficient landscape
ordinance will not impact any earth resources due to its
secondary nature, No development will occur as a result of
this proposal.
2, Air Resources:
The implementation of efficient irrigation and water saving
practices will not negatively impact air resources, nor cause
objectionable odors.
3, Water Resources:
a, The proposal may result in changes to the absorption rate
of landscaped areas, However, by increasing the efficiency of
the irrigation practices the absorption rate should improve
thereby reducing potential run-off. No negative impacts are
anticipated.
b 'C, The proposal will not any impact on flood waters, nor
will it cause any discharge into surface waters. There is a
potential for an improvement to surface waters if run-off is
reduced, but further study is not required to determine the
positive impact a proposal may have.
d, The proposal may impact the quantity of groundwater
available by reducing the demand and thereby increasing
groundwater reserves. The quality of groundwater will not be
impacted by the proposal.
e. The proposal, since it does not provide for development
will not expose people to flood hazards.
4, Biological Resources:
Biological resources will not be impacted by the
s~nce water conservation practices will apply
artificially installed or maintained landscapes.
proposal
only to
RES93-l23
e
e
e
.
.
5. Noise:
Noise will not be generated by the proposal, nor will the
proposal allow development which will produce noise.
Irrigation practices and plant material is a normal portion of
development and this proposal will only enhance the water
conserving aspects the that process.
6. Land Use:
The proposed proj ect will not alter the current land use
designation of any portion of the city.
7. Man-Made Hazards:
The proposal will not involve toxic or hazardous material or
expose people to any health risks.
8. Housing:
The proposal applies to
commercial/industrial but will
for housing.
residential as well as
not create or lessen the demand
9. Transportation/circulation:
There is no development accompanying this proposal, No
traffic will be generated nor will there be impacts to
circulation or any transportation systems be created by this
proposal.
10 , 11. Public services , Utilities:
The project will not have any impact on any public service or
utility due to its nature. The incorporation of guidelines
for drought tolerant landscaping and water conservation may
improve water availability to some degree, but would not
create any negative impacts.
12. Aesthetics:
a. The proposal will not be a development of any kind so it
cannot obstruct any views.
b, The incorporation of "xeriscape" (meaning "dry landscape")
guidelines into the landscape portion of the Development Code
will not create any negative visual impacts. Like any other
type of landscape, it needs to be properly maintained, If it ..
is not, it has the potential to become an eyesore, There is
an advantage to xeriscape over conventional landscaping in
that since there is less water being used, there are usually
less weeds to contend with and maintenance is usually easier,
RE S93-l23
e
e
e
.
.
13, CUltural Resources:
There will not be any impacts to cultural resources since the
application of water conservation practices will only occur in
conjunction with development proposals which will be review
for site specific impacts to cultural resources.
T
RES 93-123
; D. DETERMINATION
On the basis 01 this initial study,
~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a signfficant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
D The propos,ed project could have a signfficant effect on the e~vironment, a~hough there will not be a signfficant
effect In thiS case because the mrtlgatlOn measures descnbed above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D The proposed project MAY have a signfficant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Larry E. Reed
Assistant Director
Name and Title
"~i C~/
Date: :J~ S- , I rr ~
J
c:m'ClF.....~
---
PL.AN-8.D8 PAGE_OF_ (11-110)