HomeMy WebLinkAboutMC-677
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
ORDINANCE NO. MC-677
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIRING A REVIEW
OF PLANS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE FOOTHILL AREA,
3 AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. MC-577.
4 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
5
SECTION 1.
Section 19.08 of the San Bernardino Municipal
6
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
7
"19.08.040 BUILDING HEIGHT
8
Maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet. No
9
accessory structure in the R-1-7,200 and R-1-10,800
zones shall have a height in excess of fifteen feet."
SECTION 2.
Chapter 19.80 is hereby added to the San
Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
"Chapter 19.80
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
(~':)othi11 Area)
19.80.01C. HeVlGIV ci PJilnS; Single Family Residence;
Foo-ch..~J.l Area.
The Planning Department shall establish and utilize
procedures pursuant to Chapter 19.77 of this Code for
the review and approval of plans to expedite
processing of applications for development and
improvements of any structure, including single family
residences, on vacant existing lots in the foothill
area or on a remodel of an existing structure which
would increase the height by ten (10) feet or more in
such foothill area.
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
1
MC-677
1 19.80.020 Conditions
2 Such procedures shall include the following conditions:
3
A.
The maximum height of a proposed structure shall
4
not exceed the midpoint of the structure on the immediately
5
uphill lot.
6
B.
Where there is no structure on the immediately
7 uphill lot, the maximum height shall not exceed a point
8 eight (8) feet above the average ground level of the uphill
9 lot.
10 19.80.030 Variance
11 Where the strict application of Section 19.80.020 to a
12
particular lot would prevent development of such lot, a
13
variance may be obtained, pursuant to the provisions of
14
Chapter 19.74 of this Code.
When such a variance is
15
granted, alternative height limitations shall be imposed on
16
the lot by the Planning Commission.
17 19.80.040. Notice
18
Every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the
19
subject property shall receive notice of the variance
20
application and shall be entitled to be heard on such
21
proposal.
22 19.80.050. Applications - View Criteria
23
All applications filed hereafter for foothill area
24
development permits shall be subject to the imposition of
25
conditions for the preservation of mountain and valley
26
27
28
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
2
MC-677
.'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
views in the foothill area for the preservation of light
2
and air to protect the public health and safety in the
3
foothill area.
4 19.80.060. Foothill Area Defined
5
The foothill area is defined as that area beginning on the
6
east side of the City limits at Boulder Avenue and Highland
7
Avenue; thence northwesterly along the extension of
8
Piedmont Drive to Victoria Avenue; thence northerly up to
9
the extension of Piedmont Drive westerly to Foothill Drive;
thence along Foothill drive west to Del Rosa Avenue; thence
north to the extension of 40th street; thence west along
40th street to Waterman Avenue; thence north to the P.E.
Railroad right-of-way; thence west along the P.E. Railroad
right-of-way to Northpark Boulevard; thence west along
Northpark Boulevard extending to the Muscupiabe Rancho
Line; thence west to the city limits, more particularly
described as shown on a map labeled Exhibit "A" on file in
19 19.80.070. Midpoint Defined.
the Planning Department.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Midpoint" as used in this chapter shall be that point
equidistant from the foundation at ground level to the apex
of the roof, but not including roof structures, stairways,
tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to
operate and maintain the building and fire or parapet
walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestakes,
wireless and television masts, or similar structures.
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
3
MC-677
.'
1 19.80.080 Immediately Uphill Lot Defined
2
"Immediately uphill lot" as used in this chapter shall mean
3
an adjacent, contiguous lot, whether or not separated by
4
streets, roads, easements, or the like, which has an
5
average ground level higher than the average ground level
6
of the subject lot.
If more than one lot meets the
7
definition of "immediately uphill lot" then the
8
measurements required by this chapter shall be made against
9
the lower lot.
10 19.80.090. Maximum Height
11
12
13
14
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow the
height of a structure, including a single family residence,
to exceed that allowed by Section 19.08.040 of this Code."
SECTION 3.
Section 19.72.010 of the San Bernardino
15 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
16 "19.72.010 Lots on Downhill Slopes
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
On property located on downhill slopes having a
twenty-five percent or greater slope (measured in the
general direction of the side lot lines), a private
garage may be constructed in the required front yard;
provided, however, that every portion of the garage
shall be at least five feet from the front lot line."
SECTION 4. Ordinance No. MC-477 is hereby repealed.
24 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
25 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
26
Bernardino at a reqular
meeting thereof, held on the 18th
27 day of September, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
28
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
4
!1(C-677 '
, ,
,"'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
1
Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores,
AYES:
2
3
Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller
NAYS:
None
4
ABSENT:
None
5
6
~//~-!~h'
C1'ty Clerk
7
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this I~~ day
of ~/,;hA_.h//V, 1989.
8
9
'~c'll1})lt1;~6'~
May6r Pro ?empore,
Ci~y of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
B~PW
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
5
Mc-677
OF SAN BERNARDINO
FOOTHILL AREA
CITY
EXHIBIT "A"
f'/-""')
C ( ,-,
"'. I _ r--J \
I' .~,-- 'c, L__, '-___-,
. . / Ll r-'
.' ,----, 1 I
.' r... -L I I
..... ' I "
.. -,__ ___J ,
... I
.... I
. "
. "Jr--
.
.
.
.
.
r--'
I I
I
._J
I
I
....... I
l.....r....f
HIGHLAND
AYE.
, , ...
--~ ... ~
r- 8 ..
, ~
, ..
__J =>
'" ." ST.
FOOTH'u.C' BLVD. oJ
I ill
., T .J A.
I oJ i Ii
MilL I ill ST r' ffi ~
I
rJ I L
I I IE
L____ -;-lj
z
..
is ~
;r
... ..
'" '"
-TO LOS ANGELES
A. BE'Ii'NARDfNO
FRWY.
~~.. ...-
.J L_J
---l
., r
"
--~
MILL ST.
"'-
r--r-}
- 1"'--
r'
J
~
JJ
'"
...
=>
o
..
"-
I I
\ I
I )
I ,
I _~
L_~
{t:
o
1/2
'mill
,_J'"--'
... I
I
'------,
I
I
I
I
I
I I
r.r----.
...
.....
_::.t
_J"l.n..,
I .
II&! e.
r-' I> .J'_
/!:". ... Let I ..,.~
;:LJ ,. AVE. .1..._ J L_=-
{'
L.,.,.
,
....
I Sf. '.
""-;;'"
I U
BASELINE
!! 3
'" ..
g ..
"
_.?
r-
I
, "
, I
L_Jsth
..f1
ST. I
__.......1.1
r-
r.........r
,__.J bi
/' ~
/
r
I
r.....--'
I
__J
r-
N ANAR NO FRWY
DlANOS
lye,
-----,
I
: r-l
...._J r-
/
,
/
r---l
~-...>
..
!
..
oJ
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
..
z
..
'"
o
'"
..
. MC-677
ATTACHMENT "8"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
INITIAL STUDY
""'I
Amendment to Text No. 89-1
Foothill View Ordinance
Prepared by
Sandra Paulsen
San Bernardino City Planning
Prepared for
The City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
August 3, 1989
./
..-- -. "
. MC-67.7
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
""
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
~
""
llo..
,.
A.
BACKGROUND
Application Number: Amendment to Text No. 89-1
P roj ect Desc r ipt ion: Foothill View Ordinance - to establish design criteria
to preserve viewsheds in the foothill areas.
Location:
Foothill areas as defined in the proposed ordinance.
Environmental Constraints Areas: High wind and fire, Alauist-Priolo,
Biolo~ical Resources. Greenbelt. Archtological ResQur~e~ (All Potenti~l)
General Plan Designation: Hillside Management Overlay. RL Residential Low,
RS Residential suburban and RE Residential Estates.
Zoning Designation:
B. ~NVIBONM~NT~1~PACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea~th Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a.
Earth
fill )
more?
movement (cut and/or
of 10,000 cubic yards or
x
b.
Development and/or
a slope greater
natural grade?
grading
than
on
15%
x
c.
Development
Alquist-Priolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
llo..
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
."
.MC-677.
,.
Maybe
""
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
quali ty?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
WbTEE RESOURCES:
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?
IIti....
REVISED 12/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
. MC~77
,
Yes
No
Maybe
""
4 .
BIOLOGICAL R~SOURC~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
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
c. Other?
x
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
x
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
x
c. Other?
x
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
the land use as
on the General
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
e. Other?
x
...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
Me-fi77
,
Maybe
~.
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~N>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)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a.
existing housing or
demand for additional
Remove
create a
housing?
b. Other?
9. TRAtc1~PQETATION/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b.
Use of existing,
new, park ing
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
c. Impact upon existing public
transpoltstion systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
""'"
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
..
Mc.,.{,17
Yes
No
Maybe
,
g.
h.
""'Ill
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
x
Other?
x
10. rUBLIC SERVICES will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Fire protection?
x
Police protection?
x
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.'?
x
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
x
Medical aid?
x
Solid waste?
x
Other?
x
11. UTILITIES: will the proposal:
lio..
REVISED 10/87
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
1. Natural gas?
x
2. Electricity?
J[
3. Water?
x
4. Sewer?
x
5. Other?
x
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
ut il i ty
x
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
~
x
PAGE 5 OF 8
-
,MC-6U
,.
Yes
No
Maybe
"'"
12. AESTHETICS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
x
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
x
13.
~p~rU~~--FBSQQRCES:
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 6 OF 8
,MC~F
. .
r
Yes
No
Maybe
",0
important 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
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. )
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.)
The ordinance will provide more protection than currently exists by reauiring
a Review of Plans for single family homes in the area defined in the orrlin~nc~
Each site will be evaluated and individual circUMstance relative to the site
will be miti~ated bv standard rniti~atinn (hi[h wino. high firPJ p~r) Th~
ordinance is 5pecific to existing lot~ of record as of Jan I. ]QR4.
fndividual single family homes are exempt from CEQA.
\..
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
MC-617
.'
" ,~
, ~
D. DETERMINA~JON
On the basis of this initial study,
D
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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.
D The proposed project ~~Y have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
:J:H,J tf~",rQOH6C7, flRtMCrl''It... /t'.Y'A/e.e
I
Name and Title
~"~
Date: 8'-3-87
lo.
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8