HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-Planning
-
.
,..
..
CITY OF SAN ~RNARDINO
~MORANDUM
-
.
To
~yor and Camen Council
DevelCJFllel1t Code - Planning Ccmnission
Final Fecatlrendations
Iarry E. Peed, Director"
Planning & Building Services
December 10, 1990
From
Subject
Date
Approved
Date
Attached are the
Common Council from
Development Code,
Recommendations).
final recommendations to the Mayor and
the Planning Commission on changes to the
(See Attachment "A" Planning Commission
Backaround
The following is a synopsis of the noticed public
hearings concerning the Development Code.
August 28, 1990
September 4, 1990
Articles I and II Public Hearing
Articles III and IV Public Hearing
Staff report (dated September 18,
1990) with recommendations concern-
ing public testimony and written
comments to date. Staff report
included "Attachment P" - an August
27, 1990 memo, and an October 2,
1990 memo regarding recommended code
clarifications and corrections.
October 2, 1990
October 16, 1990
continuation of review of staff
report and additional written
comments from public. Additional
recommendations and clarifications
cited in an October 11, 1990 and an
October 16, 1990 memo. Environ-
mental Review of Development Code
presented by Tom Dodson. Meeting
was continued to October 23 to
finalize issues concerning Fire
Department and Parks and Recreation
fees.
October 23, 1990/
November 7, 1990
Meeting scheduled but continued to
November 7, 1990 due to lack of
quorum. Two memos both dated
october 18, 1990 presenting final
recommendations concerning Fire
Department, Parks and Recreation fee
and three miscellaneous changes were
issued.
PRIDE ~
.dIN PROGRESS
~..~
..0
o
;:<'1
m
r:
<T1
CJ
r1
CJ
.!.J
<
.-,
-'
-u
,
~
N
Ul
,
;Tl
~J
(@
..
Development Code -~lanning commission Final ~commendations
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq
December 10, 1990
Page 2
As the review process proceeded, the Planning commission
made specific decisions and changed or concurred with staff's
recommendations. The final revised draft dated 10/90,
includes only the Planning Commission approved changes.
The Environmental review of the document was provided by
Tom Dodson and Associates and is in conformance with the
california Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
section 15168. The environmental review was recommended for
adoption by the Environmental Review Committee to the
Planning Commission on September 6, 1990. This environmental
review concluded with a recommendation there was no new or
additional adverse environmental impacts, and as such, the
Development Code is within the scope of the General Plan EIR
and, therefore, no further compliance with CEQA is required.
Any substantial changes in the Draft Development Code could
require additional Environmental review, (See Attachment "B"
Recommended Environmental Finding...)
On November 19, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council voted
to conduct a workshop December 10, 1990 on the Development
Code prior to setting a public hearing schedule.
Discussion
The purpose of this workshop is to discuss items of
concern of the Mayor, Common Council and City Administrator,
and to determine a course of action for the adoption of the
Development Code.
The Development Code is the implementing tool of the
General Plan and will replace the Urgency Ordinance adopted
June 2, 1989 and extended for a 12 month period June 1, 1990.
The Urgency Ordinance will expire on June 1, 1991 and state
law prevents further extensions. It is important to adopt
the first reading of the Development Code by April 15, 1991
so that the effective date of the Development Code is prior
to the expiration of the Urgency Ordinance. If the
Development Code is not effective by the date of expiration
of the Urgency Ordinance, development regulations for the
City will revert back to Title 19 of San Bernardino Municipal
Code which is inconsistent with the General Plan.
It may be advantageous to refer the Draft Development
Code to the Legislative Review Committee for review prior to
holding public hearings. In doing so, a sub committee of the
Council can come to a concensus on major issues which could
help expedite the public hearing process. Public hearings
could be set for March 11, 1991 and March 25, 1991 for
adoption of the Development Code and the necessary finding
for environmental review under CEQA.
-
-
Development Code -~lanning commission Final ~commendations
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
December 10, 1990
Page 3
Conclusion
The Planning commission considered all testimony
relative to the Development Code at 5 public hearings and
made certain changes recorded in the Final Draft dated 10/90.
Environmental review of the Final Draft occurred by the firm
of Tom Dodson and Associates. Environmental review of the
document was presented to the Environmental Review Committee
on September 6, 1990. On Novmeber 19, 1990 the Mayor and
Common council voted to conduct this workshop to consider a
course of action relative to the adoption of the Development
Code. It is necessary to adopt the first reading of
Development Code by April 15, 1991 to enable enactment prior
to the expiration of the Urgency Ordinance.
Recommendation
It is recommended the Mayor and Common Council refer the
Draft Development Code to the Legislative Review Committee
for discussion and to establish March 11, 1991 and March 25,
1991 as the first 2 public hearing dates.
Attachment A
Planning commission Recommendation
Attachment B
Environmental Clearance and Findings
Documents: M&CCAGENDA
DevelopmentCode
/das
-
A'l'l'1\CIHolENT "A"
Planning CcmniQion Rec::amendations, Draft ~oprent Code
Page/Topic
1-2 Review Authorities
Common Council
Mayor
and
Proponent
Public Works
Request/Discussion
Include following ". . . development
agreements, development projects in the
Central city South OVerlay District,
Surface Mining, ..." Add at the end of
the first sentence: "..., except Deeds
of Dedication and Parcel Maps of four or
fewer parcels with no agreements."
The acceptance of
dedications listed
the City Engineer
of the Development
the two types of
above is empowered to
as listed on Page 1-5
Code.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
1-4 Development
Membership (DRC)
Review
Committee
Proponent
Public Works
Request/Discussion
Is urban design professional to become a
sitting member of DRC?
Make two changes to the membership of
DRC as follows: 1. Eliminate urban
design professional from membership, 2.
Add at end of paragraph: "An urban
design professional may be retained on a
consultant basis, or placed on staff to
provide input on design review as
required by Chapter 19.68."
General Plan Implementation Policy 1.9,
Page 1-122 requires that a trained
professional be retained on staff at all
times. Due to budget constraints, this
is not possible at the present time.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
(1)
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
4.
o
1-5 Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) Powers
Public Works
Clarification of the sentence: "Deci-
sions of the ERC shall be final unless
appealed to the Planning Commission."
Change the word "Decisions" to "Deter-
minations."
The ERC makes determinations of the need
for Negative Declarations, Mitigated
Negative Declarations, Focused EIR's and
EIR's. The determination is forwarded
to the review authority body as a
recommendation upon the approval of a
project. In the case of a Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declara-
tion, Focused EIR or EIR requirement,
the determination of the need may be
appealed to the Planning Commission.
P.C. Recommendation change as requested.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
1-22
Slope - Definition
Staff
Included in the definition is a table
which shows the relationship of % grade,
degrees, and ratio. In the table, the
numbers is the "d.egrees" line are
incorrect and must be changed as follow:
% grade 100 50 40 33.3 30 25
degrees 45 26.6 21.8 18.4 16.7 14
% grade 20 15 12 10 8 6
degrees 11.3 8.5 6.8 5.7 4.6 3.4
The diagram which illustrates the
relationships must be changed so the
number of degrees corresponds to the
appropriate number in the Table. The
formula for slope degree is eliminated.
P.C. Recommendations Change as requested.
*****
(2)
December 10,
Page/Topic
Proponent
1990 c:>
Request/Discussion
o
1-23
Swap Meet - Definition
John Lightburn
To change the definition of swap meet to
read as follows: "Any outdoor place,
location or activity where new or used
goods or secondhand personal property is
offered for sale or exchange to the
general public by a multitude of
vendors, and a fee may be charged to
prospective buyers for admissions; or a
fee may be charged for the privilege of
offering or displaying such merchandise.
The term swap meet is interchangable
with and applicable to: flea markets,
auctions, open-air markets, farmers
markets, or other similarly named or
labeled activities.
It is felt that there would be little
impact if an indoor exchange of goods as
described were to occur. The impacts of
outdoor events could be significant and,
therefore, warrant more scrutiny than
indoor activities.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
~)
December 10,
1990 c:>
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request Discussion
P.C. Recommendation
Page/Topic
o
11-2 RU (Residential Urban) District
clarification of minimum lot size
staff
RU (Residential Urban) District
These districts are intended to promote
the development of detached and attached
units, duplex, mobile home parks, and
small lot subdivisions as part of a
planned residential development where
the intent is consolidate lots to
achieve maximum open space. The RU-1
and RU-2 district requires a minimum lot
size of 7,200 square feet. On existing
lots of record, recorded prior to June
2, 1989, a minimum lot area of 6,200
square feet and existing lot widths and
depths are permitted. The RU district
allows a maximum density of 8 units per
gross acre, and permits the development
of senior citizen and senior congregate
care housing at maximum density of 12
units per gross acre with a marketing
feasibility study and a conversion plan.
change as proposed for clarification.
*****
11-4
Development Permit - Definition
Proponent Public Works
Request/Discussion Development Permit and process are
identified in Article IV, Administra-
tion, on Page IV-22, Chapter 19.44.
P.C. Recommendation Leave definition on Page IV-22.
*****
(4)
December 10, 1990 c:>
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
-
-
o
11-7 Table 04.02, "Distance Between
Buildings" line
staff
Change to read, II Dis.tance
Buildings on the same parcel."
between
Add a note: "(4) See Section 19.XX.XXX
for accessory structure setback require-
ments"; change the existing note (4) to
note (5). These changes are for the
purpose of clarification.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-7 and 11-10 RU-2 Setbacks
Staff
Page 11-7 Table 04.02, Front Setback,
RU-2. The table shows a 20 foot average
front setback with a minimum setback of
15 feet. All other single family and
two family designations have a 25 foot
average setback with a minimum setback
of 20 feet. The RU-2 standard should be
altered to be consistent with the other
designations.
Page 11-10 Adjust the RU-2 graphic to
be consistent with Table 04.02.
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
*****
(5)
j
-4
December 10,
1990 0
o
Page/Topic
II-13
Accessory Structures - Setbacks
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
(A) Accessory structures.
end of the paragraph:
Add to the
"Accessory structures may be built to
the side and rear property lines
provided that such structures are not
closer than 10 feet to any other
structure.
Accessory
had been
Code.
structure setback provisions
left out of the Development
P.C. Recommendation Add language as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
11-8 to 11-11 Diagrams do
irregularly-shaped lots
different design criteria.
not address
which have
Proponent Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion It is acknowledged that not all lots are
rectangularly-shaped. It is necessary
to point out that the diagrams depict
minimum standards which must be met
regardless of the shape of the lot. The
definitions section of the Development
Code specifies how to measure
irregulary-shaped lots.
P.C. Recommendation To retain the diagrams as presented.
*****
(6)
December 10,
Page/Topic
Proponent
1990 0
Request/Discussion
o
11-18 Front/Rear Yard Averaging
Residential District
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
It is requested that yard averaging not
be mandatory in instances where topo-
graphic conditions impose a hardship.
To change section 19.04.030 (2) (D) to
read: "Front and rear setbacks required
by the base district in Table 04.02 may
be averaged on interior parcels within a
single-family detached or duplex
subdivision.
In the instance where a large rear yard
slope is required, it could be desirable
to move the houses forward to the
minimum setback distance to allow as
large as possible usable rear yard.
P.C. Recommendation Change language as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-18, 11-19, 11-26, and 11-32
Department Standards
Fire
Fire Department
Add in 5 separate places "Meet all
standards of the city Fire Department"
Chapter 19.20, Property Development
Standards, contains regulations appli-
cable to all zones. Page 111-8, Item 9
requires all structures to meet the
requirements of the city Fire Depart-
ment. Therefore, it is not necessary to
include the requirement in each zoning
district regulation.
P.C. Recommendation Leave text as is.
*****
(7)
...!
~
-
~
_ ..L
December 10, 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
11-19 Minimum Room size Standards-
Single Family Homes
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
To be allowed to ave:a~e room sizes and
to establish a m~n~mum average (45
square foot average bathroom, 140 square
foot average bedroom).
Allowing average room
blishing minimums will
bility for residential
home design.
sizes and esta-
permit flexi-
developers in
P.Co Recommendation Do not allow averaging. Adopt minimums
as proposed in the Development Code.
*****
Page/Topic
11-19 Minimum Home Sizes
Family Homes
Single
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
To allow an average square footage for
the tract (1,667 square foot average)
and to retain the existing 1,000 square
foot minimum size.
By allowing average home size and
establishing a m~n~mum of 1,200 square
feet will permit architectural flexi-
bility while insuring quality housing
stock.
PoCo Recommendation Do not allow averaging. Adopt minimums
as proposed in the Development Code. .
*****
(8)
December 10,
19900
o
Page/Topic
II-21 Front and Side Setbacks Indivi-
dual Mobile Home sites ( Item (J) (1) )
Proponent
Jerry Butler and Alevy & Associates
Request/Discussion
1. Reduce front yard setback from 10
feet to 2 feet.
2. Clarify "or zero lot line on one
side" (J) (1) (b).
1. By providing only a 2 foot separa-
tion between the street and the front
wall of a mobile home unit, would create
a barren, barracks-like atmosphere. Two
feet does not provide enough room to
stop a car and open a door. Ten feet
provides a nice buffer that is only 40%
of the conventional single-family front
yard setback (10 ft. as opposed to 25
ft.). The reduction of the 15 feet of
conventional housing substantially
reduces the per lot cost in a mobile
home park while still providing openness
and landscaping which contributes to the
quality of living.
2. (J) (1) (b) - Side setback. General
discussion in correspondence expressed
concern regarding mobile home park
affordability with the proposed stan-
dards and requesting reduction of those
standards unilaterally. Staff feels
that reduced standards for mobile home
parks as proposed are a reduction in
conventional single-family home develop-
ment standards by approximately 50% of
area requirements and, therefore,
provide necessary affordability.
P.C. Recommendation 1. Retain 10 ft. front setback require-
ment 2. Change (J) (1) (b) to read:
"Side - 5 feet on each side, or zero lot
line on one side with 10 feet on the
opposit,e side".
*****
(9)
4
4l
-
--
December 10, 19904:>
o
Page/Topic
1I-21 Required Parking - Mobile Home
Parks ( Item (J) (5) )
Proponent
Alevy and Associates
Request/Discussion
Change required parking (Page III-50
19.24.04) to "One space in an enclosed
garage and two tandem spaces in a
carport."
Alevy and Associates ascerts that the
Development Code requirement adds an
average 700 square feet per mobile home
site as opposed to a one car garage with
two tandem spaces in a carport. In
fact, a two car garage with a 15' X 20'
driveway access provides for a total of
700 sq. ft. The Alevy and Associates
proposal requires 580 sq. ft. with three
tandem spaces which can cause difficult
situations. The lot difference is 120
sq. ft. (the size of an average
bedroom), not 700 sq. ft. It is the
belief of staff that the Draft Code
requirement provides more openness
resulting in a better amenity.
P.C. Recommendation Retain standard as stated in draft, "Two
spaces in an enclosed garage plus one
guest space per unit.
*****
Page/Topic
1I-22, 1I-23, and 1I-25 All contain
amenities requirement table. The last
sentence on the table is changed to
read: "Add 1 amenity for each 100
additional units or fraction thereof."
Proponent
staff
Request/Discussion
The additional amenity for a fraction of
100 additional units is consistent with
the intent of upgrading large mobile
home parks, apartment complexes and
Planned Residential Developments.
P.C. Recommendation Include the words "or fraction thereof"
as requested.
*****
(10)
~
-
December 10, 19900
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
""9
o
11-23 Fire Safety Issues
Fire Department
Paved Access
Add to end
single-story
story."
To Structures Item (K) (7)
of requirement: "... for
and 50 feet for multi-
Fire Hydrant Requirement
Add Item (K) (10) to read "Private
hydrant shall be required when any
portion of the building is more than 150
feet from the street."
Fire Flow Requirement
Add Item (K) (11) to
shall be a minimum of
minute."
read:
1,000
"Fire flow
gallons per
Interior Sprinkler Required
Add Item (K) (12) to read: "All multi-
dwellings with more than 15 units shall
have installed an interior automatic
residential sprinkler system."
The Fire Department wants these stan-
dards included for the safety of resi-
dents of multiple family dwellings.
P.C. Recommendation Include the standards as requested.
*****
(11)
December 10,
19900
o
Page/Topic
11-24 Planned Residential Development
(PRO) Dwelling unit Separation Setback
Proponent
Bob Diehl, century Homes
Request/Discussion
To reduce the dwelling unit separation
requirement of 15 feet plus 1 additional
foot for each continuous 15 feet of wall
length.
Attached units can become large and
imposing if placed too closely together.
Therefore, the dwelling unit separation
required in mUltiple-family projects is
reasonable imposed here. In small lot,
detached unit subdivisions, it is more
reasonable to retain unit separation and
side yard requirements of single-family
zones. This will be consistent with
Table 04.02.
P.C. Recommendation To retain the requirement where attached
dwelling units are proposed, but to
reduce the separation to 15 feet with a
5 foot minimum side yard setback in
small lot subdivisions of detached
units.
*****
(12)
December 10,
Page/Topic
Proponent
19900
Request/Discussion
_ U11
-
o
II-25
Excessive
Defined
Open Space
- Open Space
Requirement Is
Is Not Clearly
Bob Diehl, century Homes
To reduce the 30 percent requirement to
25 percent.
When the Verdemont Plan was adopted in
1987, the 30 percent open space require-
ment for a PRO was imposed. The stan-
dards of that plan were incorporated
into the General Plan with its adoption
June 2, 1989. Rather than have two sets
of development standards (one set for
Verdemont and one set for the balance of
the city), Staff attempted in
incorporate those standards Citywide.
P.C. Recommendation Retain the 30% open space requirement.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
II-54
Residential Guidelines -Antennas
Glen Gipson
Eliminate the words:" are specific-
ally prohibited on roofs."
The phrase is a standard listed
guidelines section. Guidelines
not include standards.
in the
should
P.C. Recommendation Eliminate the phrase as requested.
*****
(13)
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
proponent
Request/Discussion
P.C. Recommendation
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
P.C. Recommendation
o
11-66 Publishing Permitted in CR-2
(item 27)
John Lightburn
Delete "Printing, Publishing and Allied
Uses" as a permitted use in the CR-2
land use designation.
Publication of a newspaper of regional
distribution (in this case the Sun and
USA Today) is appropriately permitted in
the downtown area near local, county and
state agencies. The Sun Company has
proposed upgrades, expansions and
improvements which were permitted due to
interpretation of permitted uses by
previous Directors. The purpose of
including Printing, Publishing and
Allied Uses in CR-2 is to bring the
previous interpretation into conformance
with the Development Code Table of
permissable Uses.
Retain "Printing, Publishing
Uses: as permitted a use in
zoning designation.
and Allied
the CR-2
*****
11-76 Church Locations
Uses Item 866
Permitted
Charles Wear
Allow in IL with Conditional Use Permit.
Many churches have grown beyond the
neighborhood meeting house concept of
years ago. These larger churches could
be compatible in a light industrial
zone. The Conditional Use Permit
requirement would ensure compatibility.
Amend
under
in IL
Table 06.01 #866. to add a "C"
the IL column to permit churches
with a Conditional Use Permit.
*****
(14)
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
o
II-79
Note
Table of Permissible Uses -Final
staff
Page 11-79 concludes the Table of
Permissible uses. The NOTE: at the
bottom of the Table is changed to read:
"NOTE: Uses not specifically listed
above are prohibited unless found to
be similar to a permitted use
pursuant to Section 19.02.070 (3}."
The change in the notation eliminates
the contradiction with Item 100 H. of
the Table which allows the Director to
make similar use determinations.
P.C. Recommendation Change the note to read as requested.
Page/Topic
proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-81 OIP Setbacks
Building Heights
and
Maximum
Kenneth Himes
1. Reduce front setback requirement to
10 ft.
2. Add "three stories" to 42 ft.
maximum height.
The General Plan requires "substantial"
setbacks in OIP to make Waterman Avenue
an attractive entrance to the City. A
20 ft. setback along Waterman Avenue and
other major or secondary arterials is
reasonable. There are local streets in
the OIP designation where smaller lot
subdivisions for industrial uses have
been approved. These areas will be
difficult to develop with a 20 ft. front
setback. The 10 ft. landscaped setback
will still provide an attractive,
landscaped buffer for industrial
development on the smaller width
streets.
P.C. Recommendation 1. Require 20 ft. front setback on
major or secondary arterials and
reduce front setback to 10 ft. on
all other streets.
2. Add "three stores" to 42 ft. maximum
building height.
*****
(15)
"
December 10, 1990 0 0
Page/Topic II-94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 114,
117 Fire Department Standards
Proponent Fire Department
Request/Discussion Add in 10 separate places: "Meet all
standards of the city Fire Department...
The requirement exists in Chapter 19.20,
Property Development Standards, which is
applicable to all zones.
P.C. Recommendation Leave text as is.
*****
Page/Topic
II-94 Viewing Area - Adult Entertain-
ment
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Page II-94 deals with Viewing Area in
adult establishments. In order to
maintain proper surveillance, Section
4.d. is added as follows:
4. Viewina Area
d. The opening to the viewing area
shall face the main aisle.
P.C. Recommendation Add item 4.d.
*****
(16)
."';.;.;.-.-
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
o
11-95 B. Alcohol Beverage Control
"ABC" License
staff
In 1986, the Mayor and Common Council
passed an ordinance which exempted large
supermarkets from the requirement to
obtain a Conditional Use Permit to sell
alcohol. In keeping with that ordi-
nance, Page 11-95 is changed as follows:
B. Alcohol
License
Beverage
Control
"ABC"
A business or establishment requir-
ing an issuance of an "ABC" license
is subject to a Conditional Use
Permit, excepting an establishment
containing 30,000 square feet or
more which does not sell alcoholic
beverages as its principal business,
and shall comply with the following
standard(s), in addition to condi-
tions imposed by the Commission:
Change the first sentence of the second
paragraph to read:
"The structure subject to an off-site
"ABC" license shall not..."
This is for clarification purposes. It
was not intended to impose distance
restriction on restaurants or night
clubs which require an on-site ABC
license.
P.C. Recommendation Change the text as recommended.
*****
(17)
"
.
4L
.
ti
..
_ J:1
II
December 10, 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
II-95
Area
Automobile Sales - Minimum site
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
At the end of (C) (1) add the words:
"except CR-4 where one acre minimum is
required."
This more restrictive standard is stated
in Table 6.02 on Page 11-81 of the Code.
It is reiterated here for clarification
and to reduce confusion.
P.C. Recommendation Add the phrase as recommended.
*****
Page/Topic
II-98 (F)
Process
Convenience stores Review
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Change the
Development
Permit.
required
Permit to
process from
Conditional Use
The reason for the proposed change is to
make the Development Code text consis-
tent with the Table of Permissible Uses
(Page 11-71, Number 5411) which requires
a Conditional Use Permit.
P.C. Recommendation Change the process to Conditional Use
Permit as requested.
*****
(18)
~
December 10, 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
11-99 Gasoline Dispensers
Fittings
Fire Department
Nozzle
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Add: "Pump nozzles shall not
equipped with hold open devices."
be
On page
read:
equipped
II-1l7
"No
with
add Item (M) (20)
pump nozzles shall
hold open devices."
to
be
The requested requirement was made in
reference to convenience stores. When a
convenience store sells gasoline, the
developer is referred to section (M),
Service station Standards. The require-
ment is more logically placed in section
(M) .
P.C. Recommendation Add the requirement on Page 11-117, Item
(M) (20).
*****
Page/Topic
11-100 Drive-through Aisle
Standards ( Item (H) (3) )
width
Proponent
Engineering
Change to read: "Drive-through aisles
shall have a minimum 12 ft. width on
curves and a minimum 11 ft. width on
straight sections."
Request/Discussion
This is an existing Engineering require-
ment which the Department of Public
Works wishes to retain.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
(19)
.. ~
December 10, 19904:>
o
Page/Topic
II-102
Drive-through Aisles Exit
Proponent
Engineering
Request/Discussion
Add (H) (14) to read: "No drive-through
aisles shall exit directly into the
public street."
Engineering would like to add the
restriction to reduce traffic conflicts.
P.C. Recommendation Add the restriction as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
II-114
Review
Recycling Permits
Annual
Proponent staff
Request/Discussion section 19.06.030 (K) (2) (e) limits
recycling facility permits to a term of
1 year to enable the city to review the
applicant's compliance with provisions
of the Development Code. The require-
ment to renew the permit annually is
unreasonable and should be deleted.
P.C. Recommendation Delete the requirement as recommended.
*****
Page/Topic
11-115 Service station Driveways (Items
(M) (7) and (8) )
Proponent
Public Works
Request/Discussion
Change to read: Item (7): "No driveway
may be located closer than 35 feet to
the curb return." Item (8): "The width
of the driveway may not exceed 36 ft. at
the sidewalk."
These are existing standards which
Engineering wishes to retain.
P.C. Recommendation Change the standards as requested.
*****
(20)
. J.
December 10, 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
11-161 and 11-165 Commercial Feedlots-
Prohibited
Proponent
staff
Request/Discussion
Page 11-161 and 11-165 list permitted
resource production uses in the Airport
District I and II. Because feedlots are
not permitted in San Bernardino,
B. Commercial Feedlots;
has been eliminated from the list.
C. and D. become B. and C.
P.C. Recommendation Delete Commercial Feedlots and reletter
as recommended.
*****
Page/Topic
11-173 Freeway Adjacent Sign - Maximum
Height
Proponent
Gary Quiel
Request/Discussion
Increase height to 25 feet
Change the seventh paragraph to read:
"The maximum overall installed sign
height shall be 25 feet, with a maximum
sign face height of 22 feet. The
monument or supporting structure shall
consist of an area equal to the sign
face or copy area. The maximum height
of the sign panel shall be 7 feet, the
maximum width shall be 25 feet, and the
total sign area shall not exceed 125
square feet per face.
Changing this paragraph makes the text
of the Code consistent with the proposed
change to Table 22.01 requested by Mr.
Quiel on September 9, 1990 and agreed to
by Staff at a subsequent workshop.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
(21)
u -
December 10, 19900 0
page/Topic Map Change - Foothill Fire Zone Overlay
Proponent Fire Department
Request/Discussion Designate all of the Hillside Management
Overlay District as Foothill Fire Zones
A and B, including Little Mountain, on
the official zoning map.
It is felt that by designating the
Hillside management Overlay District
Foothill Fire Zones A & B the city's
Slopes which are vulnerable to fire will
be more consistently protected.
P.C. Recommendation Change the Map as recommended.
*****
Page/Topic
11-175 Foothill Fire Zones - Clarifica-
tion of Purpose
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
On Page 11-175 of the Development Code,
the purpose of the Foothill Fire Zone
overlay is stated in section 19.15.010.
The purpose statement defines Fires
Zones A and B, however, C is not
defined. The purpose statement should
be changed to read:
19.15.010 Purpose
The purpose of this overlay district
1S to identify 3 foothill fires
zones that have different degrees of
hazard based on slope, type of fuel
present and natural barriers. The
foothill fire zones are: A-Extreme
Hazard, B-High Hazard, C-Moderate
Hazard. Fire Zones A & Bare
determined based on slope with Zone
B including slopes from 15-30% and
Zone A including slopes of 30% or
greater. Fire Zones A and B shall
be determined by the slope analysis,
submitted with the project
application. Fire Zone C includes
slopes from 0-15%. A reference map
is on file with the Department.
P.C. Recommendation Change as recommended for clarification.
*****
(22)
-
December 10,
1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
u
J. ~
u....
~-
-
o
II-175 ( 1-C-2 ) Foothill Fire Zone
standards
Fire Department
The deeper fuel-modified
would provide a better fire
emergency.
requirement
break in an
P.C. Recommendation Change as agreed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
II-176 (1-E and F ) Foothill Fire and
Hillside Management Overlay Standards
Fire Department
Change: 1) CUl-de-sac radius from 35
feet to 40 feet. 2) CUl-de-sac length
from 750 feet to 500 feet with a maximum
of 30 dwelling units and from 1,000 feet
to 750 feet with a maximum of 20 dwell-
ing units. The following standards were
agreed upon at a meeting between the
Fire Department and Planning.
1) On Page II-176 ( 1-E and F ) change
cul-de-sac radius from 35 feet to 40
feet. 2) Retain cul-de-sac length and
maximum number of dwelling units as
stated in draft.
P.C. Recommendation Change as agreed.
*****
(23)
I
December 10,
1990 0
o
Page/Topic
11-176 ( 1-G ) Foothill Fire Zone
standards
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Change driveway standards to allow a
maximum grade of 15% instead of 20%.
Reduce maximum driveway grade to 15% but
allow flexibility to exceed if approved
by Fire Chief and City Engineer.
Language would read as follows:
"...No portion of a driveway shall
exceed 15%, unless approved by the Fire
Department and City Engineer. Driveways
shall be designed so that the algebraic
difference in grades will not cause a
vehicle to drag or hang up. (A+B+C )."
P.C. Recommendation Adopt lnaguage as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
11-176 Foothill
Ingress/Egress
Fire
Zone,
Proponent
Engineering and Fire Department
Request/Discussion
To add the requirement that two publicly
dedicated standard means of access be
provided in Foothill Fire Zones A, B,
and C.
Add the language as follows: 19.15.020
(1) (I) A tentative tract or parcel map
shall provide for at least two different
standard routes for ingress and egress.
Standard ingress/egress is a route which
is dedicated to the city and has a
minimum paved width of 24 feet.
The lack of this standard was pointed
out be both the Fire Department and
Engineering Division. The proposed
language is identical to that language
found in the Hillside Management Chapter
on Page 11-199.
P.C. Recommendation Include the language as proposed.
*****
(24)
1
December 10,
1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Jl.
. ~
-
o
II-l77
Fire Flow Requirements
Fire Department
Add (4) (E) to read: "Minimum fire flow
shall be 1,000 gallons per minute."
This fire flow minimum would provide
adequate water available to fight a fire
should one occur.
P.C. Recommendation Add the requirement as requested.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-178 Foothill Fire
Construction Development
Lines At Top of Slope (Item
District
Design
C)
Lot
Joe Bonadiman
Add "whenever possible" to requirement
that all property lines be at the top of
a slope.
Maintain the requirement that the
property line be located at the top of
the slope, but add the provision:
"except where that parent parcel's
exterior boundary line does not extend
to the top of the adjacent slope(s)."
Requiring the property line to be
located at the top of a slope insures
that the property will be visible to the
property owner and, therefore, is more
likely to be cared for.
P.C. Recommendation Add the provision as proposed.
*****
(25)
December 10,
1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
o
II-178 Foothill Fire District standards
When Slopes Exceed Forty Percent
Attorney's Office
The request is to clarify that develop-
ment may occur on slopes that exceed 40
percent.
On Page II-178 change Item 6.0. to read
as follows: "Development on existing
slopes exceeding 30 percent may occur if
in conformance with all applicable
ordinances, statutes, and California
Environmental Quality Act. (A)"
The way the Draft Code is
implies that no development may
the upper slope categories.
written
occur in
P.C. Recommendation Change the language as requested.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
II-179
Standards
(Item U)
Foothill Fire
Distance Between
District
Structures
Mark Landers, Melcorp Corporation
Add the provision: "unless otherwise
approved by the Fire Department with
concurrance by the Development Review
Committee."
New technology and requirments for
sprinklers, vegetation, walls or other
devices reduce the likelihood of wild
fire. If mitigating measures are
incorporated into a project to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department,
then a more flexible dwelling unit
separation could be considered.
P.C. Recommendation Add the amendment as proposed.
*****
(26)
December 10,
1990 0
o
Page/Topic
II-179 (6-V)
Standards
Foothill
Fire
Zone
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Amend section to read as zollows:
"Provide for a fuel-modification plan,
which shall include a "wet zone" of a
minimum depth of 50 feet of irrigated
landscaping behind any required setback
and "thinning zones" of a minimum depth
of 100 feet of drought tolerant, low
volume vegetation, adjacent to any
natural area behind structures. This
fuel-modification plan must provide for
adequate maintenance and be reviewed and
approved by the city Fire Department.
(A+B) "
Adding the requirement will increase
public safety in the event of a fire.
P.C. Recommendation Add the requirement as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
11-179 City Fire Department Standards
(Item (6) (X) )
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Change "Uniform Fire Code" to "Standards
of the city Fire Department."
Not all of the City's Fire Department
Standards are contained in the Uniform
Fire Code.
P.C. Recommendation Change language as requested.
*****
(27)
December 10, 1990 c:> c:>
Page/Topic 11-180 Foothill Fire District Standards
Swimming Pool Access (Item Z)
Proponent Fire Department
Request/Discussion Does not tell how the Fire Department is
to be provided access.
The property owner should be
determine the most economical
providing access to the Fire
for use of pool water during
P.c. Recommendation Maintain existing language.
allowed to
method of
Department
a fire.
*****.
Page/Topic
11-180 Foothill Fire District Standards
Residential Interior Automatic
Sprinklers Required (Item BB)
Proponent
Joe Bonadiman
Request/Discussion
Allow credit for fire flow requirement
in exchange for sprinklers.
In the instance of a fire, interior
sprinklers will not be of help in fires
outside the home. The Fire Department
establishes fire flow requirements based
on exterior, as well as interior,
hazards
P.C. Recommendation Maintain existing language.
*****
page/Topic
11-180 Residential Fire
(Item (6) (BB) )
Sprinklers
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Add: "The design and
be approved by
Department."
installation shall
the city Fire
P.C. Recommendation
Add to the end of
following sentence:
installation shall be
city Fire Department."
Item 6.BB.
"The design
approved by
the
and
the
*****
(28)
December 10, 1990 c:>
o
Page/Topic
II-181 to II-195 Flood Plain Overlay
District
Proponent
Joe Bonadiman
Request/Discussion
Delete entire overlay
don't do a study
insurance.
district. If you
you don't get
Flood Plain Standards are currently
covered in Chapter 15.04 of San
Bernardino Municipal Code. The purpose
of the Development Code is to consoli-
date as much as possible, development
provisions and restrictions in the city.
The Flood Plain Overlay District chapter
identifies steps to be taken when
property is identified as being in a
Flood Hazard Area.
P.C. Recommendation Retain Flood Plain Overlay District in
the Development Code.
*****
Page/Discussion
II-187 Watercourse Identification
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
Require that the City Engineer "Notify
FEMA of the intended change and ensure
that the appropriate steps are taken to
update the Flood Insurance Rate Map."
Adding the requirement that the city
Engineer take appropriate steps
necessary to update the Flood Insurance
Rate Map could significantly increase
City funding requirements and possibly
commit money not available. Appropriate
steps often include extensive hydrology
studies which can be lengthy and
expensive. This requirement is
presently made a condition of approval
of a tentative map.
P.C. Recommendation Do not add the additional requirements.
*****
(29)
-
LL
December 10, 1990 c:>
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
L
o
11-198 Density
Management
Chart
Hillside
Joe Bonadiman
Would prefer chart to read:
0-10% 3 dujac
10-20 2 dujac
20-30 1 dujac
30-35 .5 dujac
35+ .1 dujac
The densities provided in the Develop-
ment Code coincide with those densities
stated in the General Plan. To change
the chart in the Development Code would
increase densities in the Foothills and
would require a General Plan Amendment.
p.e. Recommendation Retain chart as is.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-198 Development When Slopes Exceed
Forty Percent
Attorney's Office
The request is to clarify that develop-
ment may occur on slopes that exceed 40
percent.
On Page 11-198 Change Item 1. to read as
follows: "(Note: For areas with an
average slope above 40%, density trans
fer is encouraged.)" Change Item 2. to
read as follows: "within a project in
the Hillside Management Overlay
District, a density transfer ..." Change
Item 3. to read as follows: "No
absolute minimum parcel size, widths and
depths are specified."
The way the
implies that no
the upper slope
is written
may occur in
Draft Code
development
categories.
p.e. Recommendation Change Items
requested.
1., 2.,
and
3.
as
*****
(30)
-
December 10, 1990 c:>
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Ji
IL
o
11-199 Ingress and Egress (Item 6)
Joe Bonadiman
be for emer-
be narrower,
be maintained
home owner
Wants secondary access to
gency only, allow to.
steeper, graveled and, to
by developer or a
association.
The Fire Department does not support
this request and desires two different
dedicated ingress/egress routes.
P.c. Recommendation Retain requirement as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-200 (7-F) Foothill Fire and Hillside
Management Overlay Standards
Fire Department
Change: 7-F CUl-de-sac radius from 35
feet to 40 feet. CUl-de-sac length from
750 feet to 500 feet with a maximum of
30 dwelling units and from 1,000 feet to
750 feet with a maximum of 20 dwelling
units.
The following standards were agreed upon
at a meeting between the Fire Department
and Planning.
1) On Page 11-200 (7-F Change cuI de-
sac radius from 35 feet to 40 feet. 2)
Retain cul-de-sac length and maximum
number of dwelling units as stated in
draft.
P.C. Recommendation change as agreed.
*****
(31)
-
-
_ L
-
December 10, 1990 4:)
o
Page/Topic
11-200 Hillside Management
Requirement \
Joe Bonadiman
Sidewalk
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Request the elimination of the require-
ment for sidewalks in the Hillside
Management Overlay District. Mr.
BQnadiman feels that sidewalks are
unnecessary and invite street parking.
Engineering wishes to retain the
requirement, noting that sidewalks can
be installed on only 1 side of the
street with Engineering approval. The
sidewalks provide a safe place for
evening walks, jogging and the like.
P.C. Recommendation Retain 19.17.060 (7) (G) as written in
the Draft Development Code.
*****
(32)
4 .:L
December 10, 1990 0 0
Page/Topic 11-201 Development When Slopes Exceed
Forty Percent and Performance Standards
Proponent Attorney's Office
Request/Discussion
The request is to clarify that develop-
ment may occur on slopes that exceed 40
percent.
11-201 Development Performance
Standards (Item (1) (A.) (3) )
1. At the end of the last sentence add:
"... by using techniques such as
split level foundations of greater
than 18 inches, stem walls, stacking
and clustering."
The Development Code language
states, "special hillside architec-
tural and design techniques are
expected ..." but does not indicate
how. The additional language gives
the needed guidance on how to
implement the requirement.
2. (Item (A.) (4.) ) Change Slope
Category To "Greater than 30%"
3. Add the following three sentences to
the end of (1) (A.) (4): "Use of
larger lots, variable setbacks, and
variable building structural techni-
ques such as stepped or pole founda-
tions are expected. Structures
shall blend with the natural
environment through their shape,
materials and colors. Impact of
traffic and roadways is to 'be
minimized by following natural
contours or using grade
separations."
The language in the Draft Code is
ambiguous. It states "what" but not
"how." The additional language is
intended to provide clarification
and direction to both developers and
City staff.
4.
Eliminate Item 5. The way
Code is written implies
development may occur in
slope categories.
the Draft
that no
the upper
P.C. Recommendation Make all changes as recommended.
*****
(33)
December 10, 1990 c:>
o
Page/Topic
II-202 permissible Slopes
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Include a dimensional standard between
terraces or benches.
Add the following sentence at the end of
Item D: "; or shall not exceed 30 feet
in height between terraces or benches;
except that the Planning commission may
permit slopes exceeding these dimensions
where the slopes will be the result of
earth contouring which the commission
finds will result in a natural
appearance and will not create
geological or erosion hazards."
This is
Southern
included
a common standard throughout
California and should be
in the Development Code.
P.C. Recommendation Include the language as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
II-203 (2-A) Hillside
Overlay District Standards
Management
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Emphasize the Foothill Fire Zone
requirements for residential sprinklers
by adding 7. to read:
"7. Residential sprinkler requirements
as provided in the Foothill Fire Zone
overlay standards."
This language is consistent with Foot-
hill Fire Zones and is included here for
emphasis.
Also, for consistant language, change
the word "management" to "modification".
P.C. Recommendation Change the word and add the requirement
as requested.
*****
(34)
_ 1
December 10, 1990 c:> <:>
Page/Topic 11-206 Significant Ridgelines - Defini-
tion and Graphic
Proponent Joe Bonadiman
Request/Discussion
Would like definition of Ridgeline and
Significant Ridgeline.
On Page II-206 (5) (E), eliminate
"(i.e., a ground line...)". Include the
following sentences ~nd graphic on Page
11-206; "Ridgeline J.S a long, narrow,
conspicuous elevation which is visible
north of Highland Avenue from a freeway,
major arterial, secondary arterial, or
collector street, which forms part of
the skyline or is seen as a distant edge
against a backdrop of land at least 300
feet horizontally behind it."
The intent
1.14.40) is
By defining
developers
standing of
of the General Plan (Policy
to preserve ridgeline views.
"Ridge1ine" both Staff and
will have a clear under-
that intent.
PoCo Recommendation Add language & graphic as requested.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
11-207 Retaining Walls - Item (F) (2)
Joe Bonadiman
Don't restrict
appearance.
height,
restrict
A higher wall
appearance is
reduce grading.
constructed of natural
not an impact and could
Retaining walls are necessary when a
slope is cut into to grade for building
pads. Walls exceeding 5' in ht. would
be too high and imposing for residential
uses. There is already an additional
requirement for use of indigenous
materials (Item (F) (3) )
PoCo Recommendation Retain maximum 5 feet height for exposed
retaining walls.
*****
(35)
L
December 10, 1990 c:> <:)
Page/Topic II-221 Main street - Doors and Windows-
security grilles (Item (7) (E))
Proponent Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Add:
by
for
"security grilles. are prohibited
the California Code of Regulations
Title 19 occupancies."
The Fire Department would like to add
the sentence for clarification purposes.
P.C. Recommendation Add the sentence as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
III-2 Property
Planning Process
Dishes
Development Standards
Exemption - Satellite
Proponent
Glen Gipson
Request/Discussion
Add exemption for residential satellite
dishes.
Add exemptions for residential satellite
dish installation from the Planning
permit process when the following
criteria are met: 1. 10 1/2 ft.
diameter or less, 2. 12 ft. maximum
height 3. rear yard, 4. ground mounted,
5. all residential districts.
The smaller and unimposing dishes
single family zone when meeting
above criteria should be exempt from
review process requirements.
in a
the
the
P.C. Recommednation Change 3. ANTENNA.AND VERTICAL AND
SATELLITE DISH DESIGN STANDARDS , first
paragraph, to read: "All antennae,
including portable units, but exempting
residential satellite dish installations
which are 10.5 feet or less in diameter,
12 feet or less in height, located in
the rear yard and are ground mounted,
shall be installed in the following
manner:"
*****
(36)
December 10, 1990 c:>
o
Page/Topic
111-2 satellite Dish Location
Proponent
Glen Gipson
Request/Discussion
Delete 3.B.3. "street rear setback"
"street rear setback" is not a setback
that occurs in the city. To have a
street rear setback would require a
through lot that fronts on one street
and rears on a parallel street. In
instances where a through lot is
necessary, a one ft. easement is granted
to the City to prevent access to the
rear of the lot. There is no "street
rear setback" established.
P.C. Recommendation Eliminate 3. (B) (3) as requested.
Renumber 3. (B) (4) to 3. (B) (3).
*****
Page/Topic 111-2 Roof Mounted Antennae ( Item (3)
(B) (3) ) as previously renumbered
Proponent Planning Commission
Request/Discussion Change the first sentence to require
Planning commission approval for
'structure - mounted antennae.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
111-3 Clarification (Item (3) (C) )
Proponent
Glen Gipson
Request/Discussion
Add: "ground mounted" to C. for clarifi-
cation.
P.C. Recommendation
Change (3) (C)
overall height
antenna shall be
to read: "The maximum
of a ground mounted
35 feet above grade."
*****
(37)
,
J,.
.w..
-
December 10, 1990 c:>
o
Page/Topic
III-J
(E) )
Satellite Dish ~ Color (Item (J)
Proponent
Glen Gipson
Request/Discussion
Modify (J) (E) to allow black, grey and
green.
Eliminate "neutral" and add
green, black and grey.
colors
The work "neutral" would disallow the
colors green, black and grey which are
standard industry colors for satellite
dishes.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
III-7 Property Development Standards -
Prohibited Fence Materials/Chain Link
Fencing
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Add "Roof" to
read: "The use
roof, hedge..."
the first sentence to
of barbed wire...wall,
This will prevent the installation of
such materials on roofs which is
becoming a problem in the City.
P.C. Recommendation Add the word "roof" as requested.
*****
(38)
.lIIl
--
l1li
-
u .
December 10, 1990 c:> <:)
Page/Topic 1II-7 Property Elevation Difference
Height Measurement
Proponent Engineering/Public Works
Request/Discussion Measure from higher elevation.
Eliminate "0" and change "E" to "0" and
"F" to "E".
Because property lines will be at the
top of slopes, a six foot wall will be
constructed on the property line at the
higher elevation.
Eliminating D. will reduce confusion.
P.C. Recommendation Eliminate D. and renumber E. and F. as
requested.
*****
Page/Topic
1II-8 Wall Design standards
Proponent
Joe Bonadiman
Request/Direction
Change to read: "Walls shall have
aesthetics" rather than list standards.
The purpose of the Development Code is
to provide information to developers as
to the desires of the City. By stating
standards, developers know what to
expect. The guidelines reflect how the
City would like to see the standards
met. To say in the Development
Standards section of the Code, "Walls
shall have aesthetics," provides no
standards and leads to vague judgement
calls and discretionary action.
P.C. Recommendation Retain language as stated in the draft.
*****
i
I
I
I
(39)
.
41
~
-
4.
- ~
-
December 10, 1990 c:>
o
Page/Topic
111-9 Hazardous Materials
Proponent
Fire Department
1. Add "Article 80, Uniform Fire Code"
to applicable requirements in the
first sentence of the first para-
graph of Section 12.
Request/Discussion
2. Hazardous Materials (Item (12) (B) )
Change "County Environmental Health
Services..." to "administrating
agency."
3.
Hazardous Materials (Item (12)
Change Section 79.113(a) of
Uniform Fire Code to: Article
the Uniform Fire Code.
(C) )
the
79 of
4. Hazardous Materials (Item (12) (C)
(1) )
Delete the words: "or no later than
24 hours."
Requests from the Fire Department
for clarifications.
P.C. Recommendation Make changes as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
III-10
(D) )
Hazardous Materials (Item (12)
Proponent
Fire Department
Request/Discussion
Change to read: "Above-ground storage
tanks for flammable liquids shall meet
all standards of the City Fire Depart-
ment."
The Fire Department requests
to be consistent with Fire
Policy.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
the change
Department
*****
(40)
-
J.
-
-
&
......
4
December 10, 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
1II-12 Noise
Proponent
Fire Department
Add to the end of the first sentence:
"... except fire protection devices."
Request/Discussion
The Fire Department requests the change
for fire safety reasons.
P.C. Recommendation Change as requested.
*****
Page/Topic
1II-13 Public street Improvements (Item
(lS) (A) and (B) )
Proponent
Public Works
Request/Discussion
Add at end of each sentence: "in
accordance with Policies, Procedures and
Standards of the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer."
Public Works/Engineering requests the
change for clarification.
P.C. Recommendation Add phrase as requested to both items.
*****
(41)
..J...
-
tIL
.u.
.
..
~
December 10, 1990 c:>
o
Page/Topic
III-16 Underground utilities (Item 26)
Proponent
Public Works
Request/Discussion
Expand to non-subdivision development in
accordance with Resolution No. 88-65 as
follows:
The following types of projects are
exempt from the requirement to under-
ground utilities:
1. Electrical lines of 33KVA or
greater. Where one line is exempt,
all parallel lines on that same pole
are exempt.
2. Any single lot development in all
single-family residential zones and
residential urban zones.
3. Any single lot development on one
acre or less (net after required
dedication). This exemption shall
not apply where the requirement to
underground utilities is imposed as
a condition of approval for a
subdivision map.
4. Remodeling of existing buildings
where the cost of remodeling is less
than 50% of the replacement cost of
the existing structure as determined
by Building Permit fees.
Adding the proposed exemptions is in
compliance with existing City Ordinance.
P.C. Recommendation Amend Page
requested.
III-16
(Item
26)
as
*****
(42)
"
.
Ii
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
-
J
J
o
III-17 Applicability (Sign Regulations)
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Delete third
addition to
consideration
relationship
appearance..."
The sign industry representative
expressed concern that the applicability
sentence as written provided too much
discretionary power to planning staff.
By eliminating the requested phrase and
adding the proposed phrase, staff may
not arbitrarily limit the size of a sign
if the building is entitled to a larger
square footage.
"Therefore, in
standards,
to a sign's
overall
sentence:
enumerated
shall be given
to the
P.C. Recommendation Drop: Fourth line: "...which do not
necessarily ensure architectural compa-
tibility." Add to last sentence:
"...but shall not limit maximum
standards for signs."
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
III-17 Definition: Abandoned Signs
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Delete the word
the word "copy"
tures to remain
"display" and install
to allow support struc-
if they are conforming.
The definition proposed is from state
law. Adding the proposed sentence to
the abandoned sign section adequately
addresses the sign industry concern.
P.C. Recommendation Leave definition the same, but add a
sentence on Page III-28: "Legal,
conforming structural supports for
abandoned signs may remain, if installed
with a blank sign face and supporting
structures are maintained."
*****
(43)
4
-
December 10,
1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
~
o
III-19
Double-Face Sign Definition
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Change to read: "A single
designed with the intent of
copy of both sides."
structure
providing
The sign industry pointed out that not
all double-face signs are monument nor
are they always perpendicular to the
street. The modified definition simpli-
fies but still defines a double-face
sign.
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
111-19 Identification Sign Definition
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Add: "type of business" to permitted
copy.
Change the definition to read: "A sign
providing the name, type of business,.."
Many signs identify the type of business
conducted, either alone or in conjunc-
tion with the name and/or logo of the
business.
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
*****
(44)
-
411
-
December 10,
1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
o
III-19
Illuminated Sign Definition
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co
Drop words "incorporated internally" and
change "illuminated" to "lighting."
Signs can be internally or externally
lit. Dropping the words "incorporated
internally" has the same effect as
adding the word "externally." The
change from "illuminating" to "lighting"
eliminates the use of the word being
defined from appearing in the definition
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
111-20 Monument Sign Definition
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brother Sign Co
Change to read: "An independent struc-
ture suppo:ted from grade to the bottom
of the s1gn with the appearance of
having a solid base."
The draft definition states:" as
opposed to being supported by poles or
open braces." The sign industry indi-
cates that many monument signs are
supported by poles with facades con-
structed to give the appearance of a
solid base.
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
*****
(45)
. .J;:;I
December 10,
1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
o
111-20
Roofline Definition
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers sign Co.
Change to read: "EAVELINE - The bottom
of the roof eave or parapet."
Change "roofline" to "eaveline" through-
o~t the text including Table 22.01 (Page
11-31-38), 2. Add graphic as shown.
There is much
"roofline" being
of the roof. It
eaveline.
confusion
defined
is better
over the word
as the bottom
defined as an
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
111-22 Sign Program Requirement
Staff
19.22.040 (1) Eliminate the second
sentence of 19.22.040 (1). The second
sentence requires a sign program to be
concurrently reviewed with a Development
Permit or Conditional Use Permit.
There may be instances when a sign
program is not appropriate for a project
at site plan approval. Flexibility is
needed as to the timing of the sign
program requirement.
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
*****
(46)
December 10,
page/Topic
Proponent
19900
Request/Discussion
o
III-22
Sign Program Standard
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Add variation
appearance.
flexibility
in sign
Change 19.22.040 (2) (A) to read: "Using
the same background color, and allowing
signs to be of up to three different
colors and up to two type styles per
multi-tenant center", and add (D) to
read: "Major tenants will be permitted
to deviate from the sign program to
accommodate national trademarks or
logos."
Uniformity and good design can be gained
even though variations occur.
F.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
III-22 Exempt Signs
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Change: "Window signs ..." to "non-
illuminated window signs..."
Many window signs, particularly neon
signs, are illuminated and are often-
times installed incorrectly by unquali-
fied people. Such installations create
the possibility of fire and such sign
installations should be inspected which
would require permitting procedures and
therefore should not be exempt.
P.C. Recommendation Add to 19.22.051 (1)
"Neon signs of any
permit, if allowed."
(A) the sentence
size require a
*****
(47)
Ul
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
o
111-24 Exempt Signs
Staff
Add at the end of the Exempt Signs
section the following provision of pre-
existing sign program:
"N. Sign programs
approved prior to
Development Code."
This provision is necessary in order to
maintain consistency with centers which
have approved sign programs prior to the
adoption of the Development Code.
which have
adoption of
been
this
P.C. Recommendation Add change as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
111-24 Prohibited Signs (Items (B.) and
(F.) )
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
(B.) Modify to add at end "except
electronic message boards." (F.) Modify
to read: "Changeable message boards
except as allowed by Conditional Use
Permit for a movie theater, arenas,
stadiums, or auto malls."
Electronic message boards are becoming
more popular for activities which
attract a large number of people from
regional areas and should be permitted
if determined to be compatible with
surrounding uses.
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed.
*****
(48)
- 4.
December 10, 1990 0 0
Page/Topic 111-25 and 111-26 Off-site Billboard
signs (19.22.060 (G) and 19.22.080 (1) )
Proponent Hal Heywood
Request/Discussion
Allow off-site replacement of existing
billboards.
General Plan Policy 1.45.1 states:
"Prohibit the development of new bill-
boards in the City except as on site
replacements of existing units." To
allow anything other than that permitted
in the General Plan would require a
General Plan amendment due to the
inconsistency created. At various
workshops with the Mayor and Common
Council, the Planning Commission and the
public, staff was directed to make no
proposals that would require a General
Plan amendment.
P.C. Recommendation Retain both sections as written.
*****
Page/Topic
111-28 Abandoned Signs
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Allow for structural supports to remain
on signs, if legal and conforming in
size and height standards.
Add to 19.22.090:
"3. Legal, conforming structural sup-
ports for abandoned signs may remain, if
installed with a blank sign face and
supporting structures are maintained."
P.C. Recommendation Add change as proposed.
*****
(49)
-
-.
kI
-
-
December 10. 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
111-30 Sign Inventory and Abatement
proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Add section 19.22.150 to read:
"19.22.150 INVENTORY AND ABATEMENT
within 6 months from the date of
adoption of this code, the City shall
commence a program to inventory and
identify illegal or abandoned signs
within its jurisdiction. Within 60 days
after this 6 month period, the City
shall commence abatement of identified
illegal or abandoned signs."
This section is required by State law.
P.C. Recommendation Add section as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
111-31 Residential Sign Regulations
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Add number 10. to Signs Permitted in
Residential Districts as follows:
CLASS
"10. Business
Identification
TYPE
Wall or
Monument
MAXIMUM NUMBER
One per Street
Frontage
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
8 s.f.
MAXIMUM SIGN
. HEIGHT
5 ft.
LOCATION
10 ft. Setback
from property
line"
ILLUMINATION
ALLOWED
No
This will allow non-residential uses in
residential districts such as child care
centers or churches to identify
themselves.
P.C. Recommendation Add as proposed.
*****
(50)
-
-
-
December 10,
1990 0
o
Page/Topic
111-34, 111-36, and 111-38 Maximum Area
of Signs
Proponent
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Request/Discussion
Increase the square footage ratio to two
square feet of sign area per lineal foot
of building frontage in commercial and
industrial designations.
Existing Code is a ratio of 2 sq. ft. to
1 lineal ft. The intent of the proposed
reduction is to decrease the overall
signage City-Wide. The sign industry
expressed difficulty in designing
smaller signs and wished to retain the
existing ratio. During a workshop with
Planning Commissioners, sign industry
representatives and Planning staff, the
recommended ratio was agreed to by all
parties involved. The compromise allows
greater flexibility of design while
still reducing overall sign area.
P.C. Recommendation Increase sign square footage to 1.5 sq.
ft. per lineal ft. of frontage
everywhere it is currently 1 sq. ft. per
1 lineal ft. of frontage, (Page 111-34
(C) (a.), Page lII-36 (3) (a.), Page
III-38 (D) (1.) ).
*****
(51)
.
-
L1
1
-
lJIl _
1
December 10, 19900
o
Page/Topic
III-35, 111-37
Signs
Table 22.01 Freeway
Proponent
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Request/Discussion
Allow decorative cover. rather
monument and increase maximum
from 10 ft. to 25 ft.
than
height
A solid base
overwhelming
or decorative
attractive.
monument sign could become
where a modified monument
pole cover would be more
Twenty-five foot height that is well
designed will allow better visibility
from a greater distance and promote
quality signage.
P.C. Recommendation Under C (1) (E) and C (3) (F) of Table
22.01, Type "add: ..., or Pole sign with
decorative pole cover. "; and, under
Maximum Sign Height change to read: "25
ft., with 22 ft. maximum sign face or
copy area height, and monument or
supportive structure to consist of area
equal to sign face or copy area."
(Note: This change requires on appro-
priate revision to section 19.14.030 (b)
in order to be consistent.)
*****
Page/Topic
111-36, 111-37 Maximum Sign Area
(column) (III-36 (e.), III-37 (f.) )
Proponent
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brother Sign Co.
Request/Discussion
Item
ft.
ft.
(e.), change 75 sq. ft. to 75 sq.
per face; Item (f.), change 125 sq.
to 125 sq. ft. per face.
The table allows for a double face sign
but is not clear if the square footage
is per face or total. It was the intent
of staff to be "per face."
P.C. Recommendtaion Add clarification change as proposed.
*****
(52)
1
-
-
_ 1
UJ
"
December 10,
19900
o
Page/Topic
1II-37 Service station Identification
and Pricing
Proponent
Gary Quiel, Quiel Brothers Sign Co.
Eliminate pr~c~ng signs from table as
they are regulated by the State.
Request/Discussion
P.C. Recommendation Eliminate "and pricing from the Class
column for (C) (4) (a) of Table 22.01;
and, change the (b) remark in the Remark
column for (C) (4) (a) of Table 22.01 to .
read: "The monument sign shall be
designed to include the identity of the
station. Price signs are allowed in
accordance with State regulations."
*****
Page/Topic
III-52 Off-Street Parking Standards for
RV's
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Add specific
Vehicles by
III-52:
standard
adding to
for Recreational
the top of Page
"RV Parks 1 space for
recreational vehicle space."
each
This standard was needed when reviewing
a recent RV park proposal.
P.C. Recommendation Add standard as proposed.
*****
(53)
December 10, 19900
o
Page/Topic
III-55 Parking Requirement for Auto
Dismantling
Proponent
staff
Request/Discussion
Change the requirement from I space per
3,000 square feet of gross yard area to:
"One space for every 300
gross building floor area
for every 10,000 square
yard area."
square feet of
plus one space
feet of gross
The previous standard was too high and
this standard was obtained from the city
of Colton.
P.C. Recommendation Change requirement as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
III-56 Handicap Parking Illustration
Engineering staff
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Eliminate the words "Uniform Building
Code" from Section 19.24.050 (3) and
replace with "Standard Drawings approved
by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer." Replace illustration on Page
III-57 with Standard drawing.
P.C. Recommendation' Change wording and drawing as proposed.
*****
(54)
December 10, 19900
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
-
- .~
-
o
III-59 Aisle Width Parking standards
Engineering Staff
Change Column D for
parking to 15 ft. For
parking, change Column
18 feet to 19 feet.
all angles of
the 70 degree
D from 18.5 and
The minimum aisle width for one-way
traffic is 15 feet and 19' for 70 degree
parking, and Engineering Division
desires to maintain these minimums. In
addition, a question was raised regard-
ing allowing compact spaces at reduced
dimensions. Because standards size cars
often abuse compact spaces, it is
recommended to eliminate the compact
space provision.
P.C. Recommendation Revise table as proposed.
*****
(55)
"
December 10,
Page/Topic
Proponent
1990 0
Request/Discussion
- ~
o
111-60 Driveway Standards
Engineering Staff
Clarify driveway standards by changing
section to:
1. Minimum width of one-way driveway
from 12 ft. to 15 ft. 2. Change single-
family minimum driveway width to 16 ft.
for a two-car garage and to 24 ft. for a
three-car garage. 3. Reduce minimum
residential driveway length to 20 ft. to
coincide with RL, RB, and RU standards.
At the Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 1990, there was a lengthy
discussion concerning driveways. The
Commission requested that Development
Code Section 19.24.060 (5.) DRIVEWAYS
be rewritten for clarification.
P.C. Recommendation Change 19.24.060 (5.) Driveway section
to reads as follows:
5. DRIVEWAYS
A. Commercial/Industrial/Multiple
Family Residential
Driveways providing ingress and
egress to off-street parking spaces
shall be a minimum width of 15 feet
for a one-way driveway and 24 feet
for a two-way driveway.
(56)
December 10, 1990 0
o
B.
Single Family Residential
1.
Attached Garage
Driveways for an attached 2-car
garage shall have minimum width of
16 feet and a minimum length of 24
feet measured from inside the
sidewalk or apron to the front of
the garage.
Driveways for an attached 3-car
garage shall have a m1n1mum width
of 24 feet and a minimum length of
24 feet measured from inside the
sidewalk or apron to the front of
the garage.
2. Detached Garage
Driveways for a detached 2-car
garage shall be a minimum width of
10 feet with minimum 16 feet wide
by 24 feet deep back up area immed-
iately adjacent to the garage door.
Driveways for a detached 3-car
garage shall be a minimum width of
10 feet with a minimum 24 feet by
24 feet back up area immediately
adjacent to the garage door."
*****
(57)
-
1..
-
.L _
December 10, 19900
o
Page/Topic
111-60 Landscaping Standards in Parking
Lots
Proponent Engineering Staff
Request/Discussion Exempt from the requirements: 1. Parking
lots of ten spaces or less, 2. parking
lots entirely screened from public view.
P.C. Recommendation After a lengthy discussion it was voted
to recommend to change 19.24.060 (6) to
state:
"A minimum of 15% of the net area of all
surface parking areas shall be land-
scaped, except parking lots of 10 spaces
or less may be entirely screened by a 6
foot decorative masonry block wall, as
follows:
*****
Page/Topic
111-64 Wheel stops/Curbing Requirements
Engineering Staff
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Revise 19.24.060 (20) concerning curbing
requirements as follows:
1. First sentence should be reworded as
follows: "Continuous concrete curbing
at least 6" high and 6" wide shall be
provided at least 3' from walls, fences,
property lines, structures and walkways
where parking is adjacent thereto."
2. Add
walkways,
shall not
"
Where parked cars overhang
the clear width of the walkway
be reduced to less than 4'."
3. Add "Where drive aisles or parking
is parallel to a structure, a 6" high
and 6" wide continuous concrete curb
shall be provided at least 3' from the
face of the wall. Curbing may be left
out at structure access points."
4. Add "The space between the curb and
wall, fence, property line, structure,
or walkway shall be landscaped, except
that it may be paved if approved by the
Development Review Committee."
P.C. Recommendation Revise section as proposed.
*****
(58)
December 10, 19904:)
o
Page/Topic
111-65, 111-66
Requirements
Loading
Space
Proponent
Kenneth Himes, Commercial Developer
Request/Discussion
Reduce the required 15' X 50' dimension.
Section 4 on Page 111-66 requires on-
site maneuvering for loading spaces. The
15' X 50' requirement is established in
an effort to provide the on-site space.
Reducing the number of spaces required
eliminates the concern regarding the
area requirements of the loading zones.
P.C. Recommendation Amend 19.26.030 (1) as follows: "I.
Commercial, industrial, office, institu-
tional, hospital, hotel, school"
Eliminate the chart at the top of Page
111-66; and revise table at the bottom
of Page 111-65 to read:"
"Gross Floor Area
SDaces Reauired
Less than 25,000
s.f. of g.f.a.
1
25,001 + s.f.
1 + additional as
required by the
Director"
*****
Page/Topic
111-67 Wheel stops/CUrbing in Loading
Areas (19.26.040 (10)
Proponent Engineering Staff
Request/Discussion Add to section: "CUrbing shall be set
at least 3 ft. from any walk, fence,
property line, walkway or structure."
P.C. Recommendation Revise as proposed.
*****
(59)
J.
.Jll "
December 10, 19904:>
o
Pagel Topic
111-69 Landscape Plans (Item 40)
Proponent Engineering staff
Request/Discussion Add at the beginning of the section: "4.
Processing of landscape plans for
approval shall conform to Policies and
Procedures of the Department of Public
Works/City Engineer. A fully dimen-
sioned..."
P.C. Recommendation Revise as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
111-76 Maintenance of Landscaping
Proponent
staff
Request/Discussion
Revise the second paragraph of Section
19.28.080 (2) to read: "... the
landowner shall file a maintenance
agreement or covenant and easement
subject to the approval of the city
Attorney. The agreement or covenant and
easement shall ensure..."
This language is consistent with a
recently passed ordinance.
P.c. Recommendation Revise as proposed.
*****
(60)
December 10, 1990 0
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
- -
o
1II-76 New section Erosion Control
Engineering Staff
Add new Section 19.28.100 referencing
erosion control landscaping to read:
"19.28.100 EROSION CONTROL LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the purpose of erosion
control shall be in compliance with the
standards outlined in Chapter 15 of the
Municipal Code."
P.C. Recommendation Add section as proposed.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
1II-80 Grading
Clearance)
Requirements
( FEMA
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Obtain FEMA clearance to change maps
prior to start of grading.
If the City determines there is no flood
hazard or if hazard is mitigated as part
of the project, then a permit can be
issued and work can proceed while
application to FEMA to change the map is
processed.
P.C. Recommendation Leave Section 19.30.040 as stated.
Page/Topic
Proponent
Request/Discussion
*****
1II-81 Median Standards
Engineering Staff
Change " Encroachment
"Construction Permit"
Permit"
to
P.C. Recommendation Change title of permit as requested.
*****
(61)
-
4
!J!l .!l.
December 10, 19900
o
Page/Topic
111-82 Underground Utilities
Proponent
Joe Bonadiman
Request/Discussion
Not require the utility company to
underground the utilities; should allow
competition.
The Draft Code requires the subdivider,
as a condition of approval, to
underground existing and proposed
utilities. Item (1) states the
undergrounding shall be in compliance
with the specifications of the public
utility performing the service and to
make the arrangements for easements and
installation. The language does not
mandate that the subdivider use the
utility company in question but only
that the subdivider make arrangements
with the appropriate utility company.
P.C. Recommendation Retain language as stated.
*****
Page/Topic
111-85 Water Wells
Proponent
Joe Bonadiman
Request/Discussion
Not require wells to be abandoned.
Change 19.030.140 to read: "Any water
wells which are required to be abandoned
by conditions of approval or state law
shall be abandoned..."
P.C. Recommendation Change as proposed for clarification.
*****
Page/Topic
III-87
Length)
street Standards (Cul-de-sac
Proponent Engineering Staff
Request/Discussion Add maximum cul-de-sac lengths con-
sistent with 18.40.130 of the present
Code, to read: "3. No cul-de-sac shall
exceed 500 feet in length unless
approved by the Planning Commission or
as otherwise provided in Chapter 19.15
and 19.17."
P.C. Recommendation Add section as proposed.
*****
(62)
L
4.
~
-
December 10, 19900
o
Page/Topic
111-88 Sidewalk Standards
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
Reduce sidewalk widths to 4.5 feet.
Although this request was considered as
unwarranted reduction in the standards,
a clarification was thought to be
necessary in 2 (A) to read: "A.
Required sidewalk widths may include
street signs..." At end of (A) add:
"However, in no instance may the clear
path of travel be reduced to less than
four feet."
Four feet of clearance is required for
handicap accessibility.
P.C. Recommendation Change sections proposed for clarifica-
tion, but not to reduce width.
*****
Page/Topic
111-88 Sidewalk Standards
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
Make sidewalk requirement optional.
This has been a standard requirement for
subdivisions. The Engineering Division
has reviewed the Draft Code and has
given no indication of wishing to delete
this requirement. The Planning
Commission concurs.
P.C. Recommendation Retain sidewalk requirement as stated.
*****
(63)
December 10, 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
111-89 Access Requirement
Engineering staff
Proponent
Request/Discussion
Add requirements consistent with Chapter
18.40.160 of existing Code to read: "A
tentative map shall provide two
different standard routes of ingress and
egress. Standard ingress/egress route
is one that is dedicated to the City and
has a minimum paved width of 24 feet."
P.C. Recommendation Add proposed language as #6 to Section
19.30.200.
*****
Page/Topic
111-89, 111-90 Improvement Plans
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
Add time limits as' required by the
Subdivision Map Act.
State law requires
the Map Act. To
would be redundant.
the City to
repeat the
follow
Map Act
P.C. Recommendation Leave language as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
111-90 Improvement
Arrangements
Security
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
To not require contingency costs on bond
amounts for improvements.
Contingency is necessary to cover items
which may have been missed on the
improvement plans such as the relocation
of a fire hydrant. The contingency is
separate from the cost of improvements
and the labor and material costs.
P.C. Recommendation Leave draft as proposed.
*****
(64)
-
~
-
~
December 10,
19900
o
Page/Topic
III-97
Acceptance of Improvements
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
To allow redlined
approved plans.
corrections
to
"As builts" must be on file with the
City. The City should not be required
to revise approved plans.
After review by the Engineering staff,
they proposed to add two sentences to
the first paragraph of 19.30.220 (1) to
read: "The developer shall be
responsible for the cost of providing
'as built' revisions to the approved
original 'drawings of record' on file in
the office of the city Engineer. No
redlined drawings shall be accepted for
"as built" revisions.
P.C. Recommendation Add proposed language from Engineering
staff.
*****
Page/Topic
111-100 Park Area Standard
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Include wildlife habitat in parkland
formula.
Request/Discussion
Section 19.30.320 (3) establishes a need
of five acres of land for each 1,000
persons for park purposes. It excludes
wildlife habitat because that open space
is held for the purpose of wildlife, not
persons. The parkland requirement is a
supplement to wildlife habitat standard.
P.C. Recommendation Retain draft language as proposed.
*****
(65)
- -
December 10,
19900
o
Page/Topic
III-100, III-101
Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Reduce ratio of required park dedication
from five acres per 1,000 people to
three acres per 1,000 people, and base
park fee on population density and not
valuation
Request/Discussion
The Map Act provides the three acre
requirement unless calculations of
population, density, and existing park
areas are found to provide for more than
three acres per 1,000 people. The City
has made these calculations in the
General Plan. The proposed fee system
is based on the City'S present fee
system, and the Parks and Recreation
Department wants to maintain that
system.
P.C. Recommendation Retain Park's dedication and fee system
as stated.
*****
Page/Topic
III-102 Payment of Park Fees
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Eliminate permissive prepayments of park
fees.
Proponent
Request/Discussion
The prepayment of park fees is encour-
aged by the City through the authority
of the Council to reduce requirements in
exchange for the prepayment. The City
desires to retain this option.
P.C. Recommendation Retain language as proposed.
*****
(66)
December 10,
19900
o
Page/Topic
III-105
Supplemental Improvements
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
Provide
connection
users.
for reimbursement for sewer
fee from subsequent upstream
The Draft Code does provide for reim-
bursement of sewer fees for anyone
connecting to the constructed extension.
Reimbursement is also provided if the
City requires a sewer line larger than
the subdivision service needs, if the
City is aware of upstream future
development. The Draft Development Code
is consistent with the Map Act.
P.C. Recommendation Retain draft language as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
IV-13 Minor Modifications
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Request/Discussion
Allow 25% change of mix of units in a
single-family subdivision.
Minor modifications are intended to
modify an approved site plan or eleva-
tion up to 10%. The Planning Division
does not wish to make exception to the
10%. Anything in excess of 10% is
considered to be a revision, with the
appropriate review authority making the
decision.
P.C. Recommendation Retain language as proposed.
*****
(67)
-
L
December 10,
1990 0
o
Page/Topic
IV-25 and IV-28A
Performance Guarantee
Proponent
staff
Request/Discussion
Add performance guarantee section to
Development Permits and Conditional Use
Permits.
The developer may be conditioned to
provide performance security in a manner
similar to Section 19.30.230 for the
faithful performance of any or all
conditions of approval. However, the
conditioned time period for completion
may be reduced to six (6) months.
P.C. Recommendation Add the following section to Development
Permits on Page IV-25 and Conditional
Use Permits on Page IV-28A:
"19.XX.XXX PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
The developer may be required to provide
performance security in a manner similar
to Section 19.30.230 for the faithful
performance of any or all conditions of
approval. However, the conditioned time
frame for completion may be reduced to 6
months."
*****
Page/Topic
IV-34 Subdivision Map Content and Form
Requirements
Proponent
Bob Diehl, Century Homes
Specify city standard for storm water
runoff retention basin.
Request/Discussion
Design standards are contained in the
city Engineer's Policy and Procedures
for storm Drain Design. The design
standards could change over time and
should not be put in the ordinance.
Therefore, the Engineering staff is
recommending to amend "J" to delete
partial standard and just state: "J.
Any proposed location and sizes of storm
water runoff retention basins.
P.C. Recommendation Revise "J" as proposed.
*****
(68)
December 10 I 1990 0
o
Page/Topic
IV-35 Subdivision May Content and Form
Requirements
Proponent Engineering Staff
Request/Discussion Add section 19.48.110 (15) to read: "15.
Name of all street as approved by the
Fire Department and the Department of
Public Works/Engineering."
P.C. Recommendation Add section as proposed.
*****
Page/Topic
IV-69 Nonconforming Structures
Proponent
Staff
Request/Discussion
Delete "single-family" from the second
sentence of Section 19.62.020 (1).
During the Development Code workshops,
the Council decided to implement General
Plan Policy 1.7.10 which states:
"Allow for the reconstruction of resi-
dential buildings destroyed by a cata-
strophe to their pre-existing density in
residential zones wherein the permitted
density is less than the pre-exisitng
building. "
Be deleting the words "single-family"
from the sentence, the non-conforming
structure section includes all residen-
tial buildings and not just single-
family. This was the intent of General
Plan Policy 1.7.10.
P.C. Recommendation Delete "single-family" from section as
proposed.
*****
(69)
.,
O~IIBII
o
.
RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
FOR
ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT CODE
TITLE 19, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL CODE
1. INTRODUCTION
On June 2, 1989 the City of San Bernardino adopted a new General Plan which established
a vision or concept of future development of the City. A detailed Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the City as part of the review process prior to
approval of the General Plan. As is required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the General Plan EIR provided a broad overview of the future growth allowed
within the City in accordance with the Plan's vision.
One of the commitments made in the new General PllllJ. was to update the existing City
Development Code. The Development Code is the primary tool the City has to implement
the goals, policies, objectives, and design guidelines contained in the Plan. Updating the
Code to make it consistent with the new General Plan has been completed and a Draft
Development Code is currently being reviewed by the City PI~nning Commission and City
Council. The purpose of this document is to provide the City with the basis for making an
environmental determination on the Draft Development Code prior to finalizing it and
making it part of the City's Municipal Code.
2. PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
The Final EIR certified by the City for the General Plan encompassed the potential adverse
environmental impacts from developing the City in conformance with the Plan's concept.
This vision/concept includes the land uses, man-made infrastructure (such are roads,
utilities, and services), and natural resources and constraints within City's boun<:laries. The
Development Code implements and must be consistent with the new General Plan. The
State CEQA Guidelines provide a procedure for using a single EIR when it's content
adequately addresses the potential impacts of a subsequent action in a program.
Use of the existing, certified General Plan EIR as the environmental documentation for the
City's Draft Development Code is permitted because it serves as a "Program EIR" as
outlined in Section 15168 of the State Guidelines. According to the State CEQA
Guidelines, "A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that
can be characterized as one large project and are related......(3)In connection with issuance
of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing
1
Jill
o
o
program." The revised Development Code is a direct product of the recommended
Implementation Program outlined on pages 1-116 through 1-119 of the Plan.
Further, the role of the Development Code in implementing the General Plan is
acknowledged in the text of the Code (page 1-2): 'This Development Code is the primary
tool for implementing the goals, objectives, and policies of the San Bernardino General
Plan, pursuant to the mandated provisions of the State Planning and Zoning Law
(Government Code Section 65000 et seq.), State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code
Section 66410 et seq.), California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 21000
et seq.), and other applicable State and local requirements......No land shall be subdivided
and/or developed for any purpose which is not in conformity with the general Plan, and any
applicable specific plan of the City and permitted by this Development Code, or other
applicable provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code."
The Staff recommends the use of the certified General Plan EIR as the Program EIR for
the City's new Development Code. Under this procedure the City must undertake the
following steps (outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168) to ensure that the
Development Code is within the scope of the General Plan and the impacts analyzed in the
General Plan EIR:
a. "Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR
to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared."
The evaluation at the end of this document provides the examination that
demonstrates no additional environmental documentation is required.
b. "If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no
new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as
being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new
environmental document would be required." Based on the analysis below, the
conclusion is that the Development Code is covered by the General Plan EIR and
no additional environmental document needs to be prepared.
c. Should the City Planning Commission and City Council concur with this
recommendation, the following information shall be included in the notice for review
and approval of the Development Code:
(1) Approval and implementation of the Development Code is within the scope of
the General Plan program EIR previously approved by the City of San Bernardino.
(2) The General Plan EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of
CEQA.
If this CEQA review process is implemented by the City, no additional review or circulation
of any environmental document is required before the City can adopt the new Development
2
o
o
.
Code. It is Staffs conclusion that this is the appropriate environmental rmding for the
Development Code. Substantiation for this recommendation is provided on the following
pages of this document.
3. SUBSTANTIATION
Land Use Map
With the adoption of the new General Plan the City of San Bernardino implemented a one
map system that establishes both Plan designations and zoning designations. Because of the
one map which unifies both the General Plan designations and zoning designations, the
analysis in the General Plan EIR of future land uses fully addresses the zone designations
set forth in the Development Code.
Land Use Designations
Residential Districts
A comparison was made between Table 4 in the General Plan (page 1-26) and Table 04.02
in the Development Code. A comparative review of the two tables indicates that the
minimum development standards have been incorporated into the Development Code. The
CR-2 designation in Table 4 has a typographical error and should read 150 units of
maximum density as indicated in Policy 1.16.23 (page 1-73) of the Development Code.
Thus, consistency is achieved for all residential designations between the Code and Plan.
The remainder of the Development Code text that discusses residential uses identifies
specific use standards, such as accessory structures, day care facility design standards, density
bonuses, amenities bonus, setbacks, minimum room size standards, minimum dwelling size
standards, etc.. The design and development guidelines for residential uses contained in the
General Plan (pages 1-56 through 1-67) have been incorporated into the residential
development design guidelines in the Development Code (pages IT-33 through IT-58). The
effects of implementing these design guidelines (both beneficial and negative) have been
addressed in the General Plan EIR.
Commercial Districts
With one exception discussed below the Commercial designations in the Development Code
reflect the designations contained in the General Plan. The Plan restrictions on floor area
ratios are observed in the lot coverage standards established in Table 06.02 of the Code, and
the overall Plan design standards are generally carried forward in the Code in the
commercial development design guidelines (page 11-118 through IT-132). Based on a
comparative review of the text of both documents, the General Plan EIR fully evaluates the
effects of Development Code implementation.
3
o
o
The Development Code incorporates four additional commercial designations not found in
the General Plan. These are:
a. CCS-1 (Central City South-West Side "E" Street) District
b. CCS-2 (Central City South-Fronting "E" Street) District
c. CCS-3 (Central City South-Southside Mill Street) District
d. CCS-4 (Central City South-Flood Control Channel) District
These designations reflect a more focused planning effort for the area covered by the
Central City South Overlay District. This area was identified as a "regional opportunities
corridor" in the General Plan EIR and the designations proposed were generally included
in the forecasts for additional commercial, and industrial designation expansion contained
in Table 5 of the General Plan and used in the General Plan EIR for impact forecasts.
These more detailed designations in this area provide increased controls or the same
controls established by the standard zone designations. This approach conforms with Policy
1.7.6 of the General Plan (page 1-51). Based on this analysis, the effects of creating four
additional zone designations to control use within the Central City South Overlay District
are considered in the General Plan EIR.
Industrial Districts
The Development Code implements the three industrial land use districts contained in the
General Plan and incorporates the same or more restrictive design guidelines (see pages 1-
98 through 1-101 in the Plan and pages 11-134 through 11-149 in the Code). The analysis of
industrial land use impacts in the General Plan EIR fully addresses the implementation
section of the Development Code.
Special Purpose Districts
The Development Code directly implements three of the General Plan Designations
(Public/Commercial Recreation, Public Facilities, and Public Flood Control) as zoning
districts. The Code also contains two additional zoning districts, Public Park and Specific
Plan. The former district recognizes and protects public parks in a manner consistent with
the Parks and Recreation element of the Plan (Chapter 9). The latter district is an enabling
district designation that acknowledges the creation of specific plans to "further implement
the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan with respect to specific areas and uses
which by their unique character require a more comprehensive and intense evaluation and
planning effort. Because of the requirement for conformity between the Specific Plan and
the General Plan, this additional district does not cause any additional adverse impacts than
already addressed within the General Plan EIR. Refer to pages 1-117 and 1-118 of the
General Plan for confirmation of the important role of specific plans to the implementation
of the General Plan.
4
o
o
,
Freeway Corridor Overlay District
The Development Code includes another zoning district that is not specifically called out
in the General Plan. The FC District does not control land uses; instead, it focuses on
special design guidelines and standards "which address the siting and design of non-
residential structures within the immediate viewshed of motorists traveling the 1-10 and 1-215
freeway corridors and State Highway 30 and its connecting segment to the 1-215." Thus, this
district is consistent with the General Plan and will implement the visual quality goals,
objectives, and policies contained the Plan on pages 1-108 through 1-110. The FC district
will provide for additional controls over development within the freeway corridors and
thereby reduce potential impacts below that described in the General Plan EIR (Section
4.3.3).
Design Guidelines
Note that the Urban Design goals, objectives, and policies are carried forward from the
General Plan in each of the following sections of the Development Code: zoning districts,
property development standards, sign regulations, subdivision regulations, and variously in
the other chapters of the Code. These measures are all designed to reduce visual impacts
by establishing design standards that implement the General Plan and the mitigation
measures identified in Section 4.3.3 of the General Plan EIR. These sections do not cause
any additional adverse impacts not already identified int he General Plan EIR.
Airpon Overlay Districts
The General Plan discusses airport uses and effects under the Circulation and Noise
Elements. The General Plan impact evaluation of airport impacts occurs in the Noise
chapter (Section 4.4.4 of the EIR). The Airport Overlay Districts implement the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan and the mitigation measures in the. EIR;
therefore, the General Plan EIR impact forecast covers the potential impacts that could
result from implementing these districts.
Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District
This Overlay District is specifically identified in the General Plan (Chapter 8.B) as a
measure that must be implemented to ensure that the City is protected from brush fire
hazards. This portion of the Development Code implements this goal as well as the
mitigation measures identified in Section 4.2.3.2 of the General Plan EIR. It does not
create any additional impacts not addressed in the EIR.
Flood Plain Overlay District
The establishment of this Overlay District implements the General Plan (Chapter 16) and
the General Plan EIR mitigation measures contained in Section 4.4.2. This portion of the
5
tl
4.
o
o
Development Code implements goals and mitigation measures and does not create any
additional impacts not addressed in the EIR.
Hillside Management Overlay District
The Hillside Management Overlay District in the Development Code correlates directly to
the Overlay District discussion in the General Plan text, pages 1-64 through 1-67. However,
since the adoption of the General Plan, some questions have arisen regarding the
development of residential units on above 40% slopes. A review of the EIR indicates that
the total number of residential units includes 0.1 units for slopes 30% or greater. Thus, the
EIR addressed the potential impacts of potential units in the above 40% slope category.
The language of the General Plan indicates that 0.1 units can be constructed for slopes
above 30% (see page 1-64). Further, it indicates "no development above 40 percent wherein
the allowable units may be transferred to lesser slopes in accordance with Policy 1.14.13
(11.1 and 11.2)." The City has interpreted this to mean that where a density transfer is
accomplished development is no longer permitted. Where a density transfer is not
accomplished, development can occur at density of 0.1 dwelling units per acre and in
conformance with all other sections of the Plan and Development Code. Since the General
Plan EIR addressed the potential units on slopes above 40% and since standard erosion
control and design mitigation measures are included in the General Plan, the General Plan
EIR, and the Development Code, it has been concluded that the General Plan EIR has fully
addressed the potential impacts on slopes above 40%. No additional impacts will occur
from implementing the Development Code with language that permits development on
slopes above 40% as outlined above.
Historic Preservation Overlay District
This section of the Development Code has not been completed and therefore, no potential
exists to cause additional impacts beyond the guidance contained in the General Plan for
historic preservation.
Main Street Overlay District
The General Plan contains a comprehensive discussion of urban design guidelines for a
variety of "public spaces", including streetscape elements. The Main Street Overlay District
implements the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, Chapter 5. A review of
the proposed development standards indicates that the uses and development standards
proposed by Development Code fall within the measures identified within both the Plan and
the Plan EIR to enhance the community aesthetically. None of the measures included in
the Overlay District cause additional impacts beyond those identified in the Visual impact
and Land Use Sections of the General Plan EIR (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.3.3).
6
UI Jill1.
o
o
Remaining Development Code Chapters
The following remaining chapters include: Property Development Standards, Sign
Regulations, Parking Loading, Landscaping Standards, Subdivision Standards, and
Administration. Of these the Property Development Standards, Sign Regulations,
Landscaping Standards, and Sign Regulations primarily contain design requirements which
are aesthetic in nature. The exception is Property Development Standards which also
includes implementation of General Plan goals, objectives, and polices regarding air quality,
fire, glare, hazardous materials, noise, odor, toxic substances and other site specific
environmental issues. The Property Development Standards implement the General Plan
requirements for most of the remaining chapters in the General Plan. None of the
standards exceed the potential impacts forecasted in the General Plan EIR for the above
issues. In fact, the measures contained in the Development Code represent those identified
as policies in the Plan or mitigation measures in the Plan EIR to reduce potential adverse
impacts.
The Subdivision Standards address other General Plan requirements, including walls design,
grading requirements, sewer and storm drainage system requirements for subdivisions,
utilities, water supply, wells, wind erosion, and other design requirements. Similar to the
Property Development Standards, the Subdivision Standards serve to implement the
measures in the General Plan and General Plan EIR to reduce potential adverse
environmental impacts. The content of the Standards does not cause any additional adverse
environmental impacts than already described in the General Plan EIR.
The final section of the Development Code is the Administration chapter which establishes
the procedures for reviewing and issuing permits. The procedural process, itself, does not
have any potential for causing adverse environmental impacts.
Conclusion
The content of the draft Development Code for the City of San Bernardino Development
Code has been reviewed to determine whether its implementation would cause adverse
environmental impacts different than those identified in the City General Plan EIR. A
careful comparative evaluation of the content of each Development Code chapter with the
contents of the General Plan and the General Plan EIR has determined that the
Development Code falls within the forecasts of the program EIR prepared for the General
Plan. The Development Code contains some minor differences from the General Plan, but
these have been identified and evaluated and they do not cause any new or additional
adverse environmental impacts.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, it is concluded that no new environmental effects
will occur as a result of the adoption of the draft Development Code in its current form; no
new or additional mitigation measures will be required; and no new environmental
document needs to be prepared.
7
~
o
~
.
o
Thus, it is recommended that the City notice the public that the Development Code will be
reviewed and a decision made under the scope of the General Plan EIR which was
previously certified by the City of San Bernardino. .
8