HomeMy WebLinkAbout23-Development Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: July 8, 2003
OR1G\NAL
Subject: Appeal No. 03-05 - A request to overturn
the Planning Conunission's denial of Tentative Parcel
Map No. 15893 to subdivide 6.64 acres into four
parcels with minimum lot sizes of 1.0 acre. No
construction of houses had been proposed with the
subdivision. The property is located at 7585 N.
Martin Ranch Road, at the northwest corner of
Meyers Road and Martin Ranch Road, in the
Residential Estate (RE) land use district.
From: James Funk, Director
Dept: Development Services
MCC Date: July 21,2003
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
That the public hearing be closed, and that the Planning Conunission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map No.
15893 (Subdivision No. 02-04) be upheld.
r~
Contact person:
Rrhm PO()tp
Phone:
,R4- ~n~7
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Af'C'f np~('ripti()n!
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item N
#c23
9/ d)tJ3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of July 21, 2003
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map No.
15893 (Subdivision No. 02-04)
APPELLANTS/OWNERS:
ENGINEER:
Dennis & Monica Soares
7575 Martin Ranch Road
San Bernardino, CA 92407
(909) 887-2349
Jim Hamlin
Krueper Engineering & Associates, Inc.
568 N. Mountain View Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(909) 884-2159
BACKGROUND
The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission denial of Tentative Parcel Map 15893, a
request to subdivide a 6.64-acre lot into four parcels with a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre, and no
construction of houses proposed with the subdivision request. The property is located at 7585 N.
Martin Ranch Road, at the northwest comer of Meyers Road and Martin Ranch Road, in the RE,
Residential Estate land use district (see Exhibit I-Location Map).
At its meeting on March 18, 2003, Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Tentative
Parcel Map 15893 to allow Dennis and Monica Soares to create four (4) parcels from the existing
6.64-acre lot. Planning staff recommended that the subdivision application be denied because
all Findings could not be made, including General Plan consistency, inadequacy of existing and
proposed infrastructure/public services, and the potential for causing serious public health/safety
problems (see Exhibit 2-Planning Commission Staff Report for the complete analysis). The
President of the Martin Ranch Road Association, Mr. Eddie Evans, submitted written comments
that explained five concerns of the area's residents and expressed the Association's rejection of
the proposal (see Exhibit 3-Letter to the Planning Commission). The letter from Mr. Evans
also explained the Association's unwillingness to dedicate their interest in the primary means of
access to the future subdivision, Martin Ranch Road (the subdivision applicant does not have any
fee interest in Martin Ranch Road). Commissioners Coute, Enciso, Lockett, Morris, and
Thrasher voted in favor of the motion to deny, and Commissioners Durr, Sauerbrun, Vasquez,
and Welch were absent.
The appellants and their engineer spoke in favor of the proposal and disagreed with the Planning
Commission's decision at the Meeting of March 18, 2003. As a result, the appellants filed an
appeal to the Mayor & Common Council on April 1, 2003 (see Exhibit 4-Appeal). The
appellant is requesting that the Mayor and Common Council overturn the decision of the
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 2
Planning Commission and approve Tentative Parcel Map 15893 with conditions of approval,
based on the appellant's specific grounds for the appeal.
The appellant's specific grounds for the appeal were submitted with the application (see Exhibit
4-Appeal). The appellants dispute Findings of Fact I ~ 4 and 6 - 7 contained in the Planning
Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 2). The appellants dispute Finding I by stating that the
existing single-family residences in their neighborhood have established the precedent for future
subdivisions and development. Appellants state that recent single-family homes constructed in
the area have not been required to install underground infrastructure and connect to City
services, and therefore, installation of infrastructure should not be required for Tentative Parcel
Map 15893. Planning staffs response is that the City's records indicate that tentative maps have
never been approved when they did not propose installing necessary infrastructure and providing
City services. All subdivisions, for at least 10 years, have been required to provide underground
improvements and City services (on-site, as well as off-site when necessary) prior to approval of
a tentative map.
The appellants dispute Finding 2 by stating that future single-family dwellings will be subject to
a Development Permit, and the installation of infrastructure should be addressed at the time of
Development Permit approval, as has been the case with other residences in their neighborhood.
Planning staffs response is that tentative parcel maps are subject to the state's Subdivision Map
Act and the City's Subdivision Regulations (Development Code SI9.30). The appellant
discusses the construction of one house on an existing lot, which is not the same proposal as a
subdivision to create new lots for future houses. The Standard Requirements and Conditions of
Approval applicable to tentative parcel maps always require the installation of improvements to
provide City services. This is not required of individual houses constructed on existing lots.
The appellants dispute Finding 3 by stating that secondary access has never been required of
other developers that have built single-family dwellings on adjacent lots. Planning staffs
response is that the Subdivision Regulations are applicable to subdivisions, not to Development
Permits. The City's records indicate that tentative maps in the Foothill Fire Zone have never
been approved when they did not propose installing a secondary access road. All subdivisions in
a Foothill Fire Zone, for at least 10 years, have been required to provide a secondary access road
adequate for general traffic circulation prior to approval of a tentative map.
The appellants dispute Finding 4 by stating that the City did not require adjacent property owners
to install underground improvements or connect to City services when they built single-family
houses on existing lots. Planning staffs response is that the Planning Division cannot preclude
issuance of a Development Permit (for construction of one house on an existing lot) because of a
lack of underground water, sewer and utility connections and City services. If a subdivision is
proposed, however, the Planning Division is not required to recommend approval if the
necessary Findings cannot be made and the applicant does not intend to install all improvements
and connect to City services. For example, an unrelated tentative parcel map in 1990 was
located across the street from the appellant's property; this previous tentative parcel map was
never approved due to the subdividers' unwillingness to install off-site improvements into the
location of the subdivision, nor install a secondary means of access. Also, several other tentative
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 3
parcel maps over the past 10 years have been required to extend the infrastructure to the location
of the subdivision, in compliance with the usual Standard Requirements and Conditions of
Approval.
The appellants dispute Finding 6 by stating that the Fire Department has previously visited the
subject site and did not issue any concerns during those times. Appellants also discuss the
issuance of Development Permits for single-family units without requiring road improvements to
Meyers Road. Planning staffs response is that the Subdivision Regulations (Development Code
919.30.050 and 919.30.200, respectively) are applicable to tentative parcel maps, not to
Development Permits. The Subdivision Regulations are applicable when tentative parcel maps
are being processed by the City, not when the Fire Department inspects a neighborhood. The
Fire Department Plan Checker reviewed the tentative parcel map and then submitted comments
to Planning staff explaining that, based on past problems with access and fire fighting at that
location, the Fire Department was opposed to subdivision and development unless full
improvements were to be installed on-site and off-site.
The appellants dispute Finding 7 by stating that off-site improvements, such as sidewalks, are
nonexistent beyond the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive approximately one
mile away. Therefore, appellants should not be required to make improvements off-site, and this
would maintain the rural and estate character of their neighborhood. Planning staffs response is
that the Subdivision Regulations (Development Code 919.30.050) require the subdivider to
install all on-site improvements, and off-site as necessary, to properly serve the subdivision. The
Subdivision Regulations make no provision for exceptions or waivers to the requirements for
improvements, and all subdividers are held to the same subdivision standards. Commissioners
Coute, Morris, and Thrasher discussed infrastructure with the applicants, the engineer
representing the applicants, and Planning staff. The Commissioners expressed concern that
allowing this subdivision to forego the current standards may jeopardize future developments.
After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the subdivision request.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT
None. The applicant paid the processing and appeal fees.
RECOMMENDA nON
It is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893, based upon the Findings of
Fact contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Staff Report
3. Letter to the Planning Commission from Mr. Eddie Evans
4. Appeal
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 4
fie Appeal No. 03-05
annR Dale 07/21/03
Page 5
EXlIIBIT 1
- LOCAT
ION MAP
, :- Martin Ranch Rd
, ,{/' I I .
'i I
o
"""
fC/"
'"
'-
----
-
EXHIBIT 2 -- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 6
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893 (Subdivision No. 02-04)
3
March 4. 2003
5
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Jim Hamlin
Krueper Engineering & Associates. Inc.
568 N. Mountain View A venue
San Bernardino. CA 92401
909-884-2159
Dennis & Monica Soares
7575 Martin Ranch Road
San Bernardino. CA 92407
909-887-5359
REQUEST /LOCA TION:
A request for approval for subdividing 6.64 acres into four parcels with a minimum lot size
of 1.0 acre. with no construction of houses proposed with the subdivision request. The
property is located at 7585 N. Martin Ranch Road, at the northwest comer of Meyers Road
and Martin Ranch Road, in the RE, Residential Estate land use district (A.P.N. 0348-101-34).
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
Fire Hazard Area (Zone B-High Hazard)
Wind Hazard Area (High Hazard)
Biological Resources Management Overlay
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
D Not Applicable
o Exempt from CEQA, Section 15270 - Projects Which are Disapproved.
D No Significant Effects
D Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
D Approval
D Conditions
o Denial
D Continuance to:
Appeal No. 03-05
" t' Hearing Date 07/21/03
IVlee It.
EXHIBIT 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Page 7
REOUEST AND LOCATION
A request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893 for subdividing 6.64 acres into
four parcels with a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre. Parcell will be 1.84 acres, Parcel 2 will
be 2.4 acres, Parcel 3 will be 1.4 acres, and Parcel 4 will be 1.0 acre. The subdivision
application does not anticipate any construction of houses in conjunction with the tentative
parcel map.
The property is located at 7585 N. Martin Ranch Road, at the northwest comer of Meyers
Road and Martin Ranch Road, in the RE, Residential Estate land use district (see Attachment
A-Location Map).
SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is a rectangular lot 6.64 acres in size (see Attachment B-Site Plan). Currently,
the site has an existing 3,175-sq.ft. single-family house at the north quarter of the lot, which
will have a 1. 84 acre parcel after the subdivision. The remainder of the parcel is vacant,
and that portion will become three lots for future single-family dwellings. The vacant
portion of the lot consists of sandy topsoil and gravel, and has been previously disked for
weeds. There are no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, septic tanks, or water wells on the site. The
City does not provide water, fire hydrants, sidewalks, or sewer to the area north of Little
League Drive.
The area surrounding the property to the north and east is undeveloped land. To the south
and west are single-family homes on lots of at least 1.0 acre in size. The RE, Residential
Estate land use district surrounds the subdivision site on all sides.
BACKGROUND
The proposal was reviewed by the Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERe)
on October 3, 2002, and moved to Planning Commission.
FINDINGS AND ANAL YSIS
1. Is the proposed map consistent with the General Plan and Development Code?
No, the proposed parcel map is not consistent with General Plan Objective 1.8( c),
which allows expansion into vacant and low-intensity use lands within infrastructure
and environmental constraints. The applicant anticipates individual water tanks,
propane tanks, and septic tanks for future single-family dwellings. The tentative
parcel map also conflicts with General Plan Policy 1.9.30, which requires that
residential sites and units be designed to establish a high quality, "upscale" character
within the RE land use district. Future residential units expected by this subdivision
would not be connected to City water and sewer systems. Therefore, the infrastructure
constraints do not allow subdivision and development at this time.
EXHIBIT 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 8
The proposed subdivision complies with most of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code as shown in Table "A," except for Access which does not
conform to the Development Code.
TABLE 'A' -- DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
! CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERAL PLAN
: I Parcel Map Subdivision
Permitted Use Permitted Permitted
Parcel 1 - 1.84 ac.
Parcel 2 - 2.4 ac. 1.0 acre minimum 1.0 acre minimum
Lot Area Parcel 3 1.4
- ac.
Parcel 4 - 1.0 ac.
,
i
! Parcel 1 - 182 ft.
Lot Width Parcel 2 - 263 ft. 150 feet minimum N/A
Parcel 3 - 171 ft.
Parcel 4 - 220 ft.
Parcel 1 - 432 ft. (avg.)
Lot Depth Parcel 2 - 402 ft. (avg.) 100 feet minimum N/A
Parcel 3 - 352 ft. (avg.)
Parcel 4 - 211 ft. (avg.)
One (1) existing private Two (2) standard means of
Access* road, dead-end at N/A
terminus access
* See discussion in Finding No.3.
2. Is the design of the proposed subdivision consistent with the General Plan?
No construction of single-family dwellings, townhouses, condominiums, or mobile
homes are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision application. Design and
development guidelines are not applicable since there is no request for a development
permit.
The tentative parcel map will allow the future development of low-density residential
units located on large lots and conveying an "estate" and "rural" character. However,
constraining factors include a lack of existing infrastructure (e.g. water, gas, sewer,
etc.). The applicant does not propose installation of the necessary infrastructure to
prepare for future residential development. Therefore, the proposed tentative parcel
map will not implement the objectives and policies of the General Plan.
EXHIBIT 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 9
3. Is the site physically suitable for the type of proposed development?
The tentative parcel map conforms to the subdivision design standard for minimum lot
area, lot depth, and lot width, as specified by the Development Code. However, the
tentative parcel map does not conform to the subdivision design standard of two (2)
standard means of access, since only one (I) means of access is provided to the site via
Martin Ranch Road, a private road off of Meyers Road.
4. Is the site physically suitable for the proposed density of development?
Yes, the site is physically suitable for the proposal in that the division of land is
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and the lot sizes are a minimum of 1.0 acre.
However, the tentative parcel map does not meet the Development Code requirement
for secondary access.
No fire hydrants are available in the area of the proposed subdivision. Also, the City
does not provide water to the area where the proposed subdivision is located. Without
the City's hydrants or water supply, future residences would be required to install
sprinklers at the time of construction, as well as install an auxiliary water supply (an
auxiliary water supply is typically a 5000-8000 gallon tank located in the front yard of
the property). Future dwellings with aboveground tanks will not be compatible and
harmonious with existing and future developments within the RE land use district and
the general area. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not conform to the
objectives and policies of the General Plan.
5. Is the design of the subdivision likely to cause substantial environmental damage. or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat?
The proposal is for subdivision of a parcel map and is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Section 15270 for
projects which are disapproved.
6. Is the design of the subdivision likely to cause serious public health problems?
Yes, the design of the proposed subdivision does not meet the Development Code
requirement for two (2) standard means of access. This provision was established to
minimize serious public health and safety problems in the event of a fire or other
disaster in the vicinity. The subdivision site is within the Fire Hazard Area, Zone B-
High Hazard, and several Historic Fire Bum Areas.
In the event of an emergency, such as a wildfire or domestic fire in the area, the City's
Fire Department would be required to access the area via the existing sub-standard
roads that currently exist. Martin Ranch Road (a private road) is paved up to the
existing house, and is unpaved beyond the house. Meyers Road is extremely narrow
at its terminus, and does not conform to City standards. The result is that fire engines
find it very difficult to gain access to the area, and impossible to reach the vacant lots
which surround the subdivision site.
EXHIBIT 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
0".,,..,,,, I()
The tentative parcel map will not provide adequate infrastructure such as roads, water
supply, or fire hydrants. Therefore, the tentative parcel map will not minimize serious
public health and safety problems.
7. Will the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements conflict with any
easements. acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision?
No, in accordance with the Preliminary Title Report dated August I, 2002, the existing
layout, which will remain as is through the tentative parcel map, does not conflict with
any of the easements within the proposed subdivision. No improvements are proposed
in conjunction with the tentative parcel map, with the exception of upgrading the
existing Martin Ranch Road with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to conform to the
current City standards.
CONCLUSION
The proposal does not make all applicable Findings of Fact to allow approval of the Tentative
Parcel Map.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893
based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report.
\~a.'Ifu'A f:l ~1~.
Respectfully Submitted,
James G. Funk
Director of Development Services
\.',> " ---.-
~:1 ~"-.... -._>~,~
Brian Foote
Assistant Planner
Attachment A
Attachment B
Location Map
Site Plan
EXHIBIT 2
\IIRFPORT
""riNG COMMISSI( I', ~;l
PLAl'I' I
Appeal No. 03.05
Hearing DOle 07121/03
Page! I
A r \.\CH\lI.\ T.\
L()(\ii(l'; \1.\1'
....
~
~
S
.....
.~
Project Site
"
.
/
__~__,_._u,,~~~__ : 1.
. (I, / (0)7 :I~ f\ \
I ) !- '\; :~ ''/ I \,' i \
' ,J PARCEll ) ~';"'" ..y "J\ / JJr ',\
I I \ "'AC. '\ I I \ ' . ~
" l-.!_____.,,__L__.:"'" Z=t --~,' :; I! I
r ,t ~= -",------ --=-=-- I; / "I
: () / II! '( /
I (/1 ..
I \ /lMTSC<'TRf!5 -, PARCEll i 'I I
I ! ~ v--""v_ 2.AOACt I t I 0 I
'r I \ ); I ,"
"I ( / ;"'Z I,/Oj
.J \ """i~,'''' ,./ ! 1! Il"
I ( ..-./ ! ( ,
, ~ ~ ./ I I ! II I
, I \ \ , 'I I I
I i )- I " I I:
I \ ", I (, IV
I> )~! :Iz
L .J. ---.. ., J
.7 '-- ~u'-~--1---J -\-. I ~
III \'-( /_/,-./'(~\ '- --=---1 ( 1'''61
'I - - '- ~ ,/ If, Zo< I
I '_/ I' l-~ ,,"'I'
- I ~~ ..
. , . ~
i PARCEl 3 I r f ,1~~I
I : UOAC.: ; ~i{~J
\ d . l~
V--.., I~ 'I '
'-~ "" >., _"""""",..,m'5""
",,-"- ' II ~ or ClINg
'- '~'-~-----." ,-"",--=--"'-1-=-- -:; -f ~'1 -
" " I _ ~
'" " , I
~~ -.', I
~~r! ,', PARCEl 4 ~ f I I
"'(." UlDAC '"
'" ./" I,
~'3'" :~ 11' fl \
"""" " ........t" I
,,\ "", (".~~ I dl1 :
,,\<~:~isC<'~ I' I l
'~-..~~\ 1_
~..::--... ~. \ --
--...... ---d '--
j- _., ~l --==---
..~
I '/";',;';),\::;,-"""""
EXHIBIT 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RHORT
ATTACHMENT B
SITE PLAN
,
(r -:
I'
~ .
, \
I
e,( -"~r'
I ./
~8
,"'-
/
~e'rE
_ t;:s ~
~"OA
1NTt(01YaSAN~ _ D
--
1l!fT'TM
PARCEL MAP NO. 15893
~ING A 5U~OIVI5ION Or" I'"ARCfl
NO. ...!.t,!ARC%L M~ NO. 35"'0. 16
RfCVNJfO IN f"ARCel MAP OOQfC.. NO.
3 I . PAGf &4 RfC0RD5 Of' THf
COUNTY Or" SAN efRNAR.DINO. STATf:
Or" CAUr"QRNIA. AUGuST 2002
M,
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07121/03
Page 12
\.
~
5CAI1, j'..30
"-'GlJ5T 2002
1
.4
V1CfNITYMAJ'
-
-.......-
"1I_"'1IDI(I
_-.o.JM7
Jr1.!PIOI;...,an
....""'-
..... ...~w;
.XI..........__
__atMI
-~-
1llDIQ(.....1'W
'''___10
(']~
C/CSII~'" Jft,
-.._ ...nDM
e2=S~
~I " ,c!
.:\....::...".<~.:
V:::::;'
"""
""1lICIl'CllII"'QIC~
--
IUQBI'IIlDl)U....4,.~
....lO__ca_ervlllll'
.--
......._lIIIe_lII_
.....rs__lII
1leI\#llC-""1VIlill:D
.--
_~_e.___
_""'_0"'.._
___...e___
'r.....-'---
\IllJIIS
iilIl!r1IMurt...._
~-.!Im;,.,..
~.. 1CIJoQIIl....-
--
~30~2/IltOI
~"'AVUl&
""""""'"
..l....OWO_D<<IC'IIIlIlO...
~tll..'IIC.PJI(IIcr~,~
:s-::=~~
"""
1J'lIWGr:C*"'lll~lIe'D1n
o(IlIIIllJClJl_IlIIIc.lf~tlOI'CII~
1'OlIll~_ne.Il!_'
(I..........
,,~otMmll(~!r
'lIe~lIIlI.lClItGlIll'~'O.f:lIC;
""""""""""
PIIIUl~',~_IIl."",fIO:lIlIllI.
IIXI.Jt.l'OlZ~cr"Oll3l\W5.~
(J' """""IIPI\'
--
"MUI
EXHIBIT 3 - LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM MR. EDDIE EVANS
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 13
March 3,2003
[K{ rn@rn Q wrn lID
MAR 0 3 Z003
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. D. Street
San Bernardino. Ca. 91418
em OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVEl.OPMENT SERVICES
OEPARTMENT
RE: Tentative Parcel Map ISR93
C01l1111issiollcrs;
As long time residents of the Verdemont area and property owners of Martin Ranch Road (a private road),
Wt: have the follmving concerns allO\ving any lot splitting to be done north and \vest of Meyers road and
Little League Dr..
Concerns:
I. Property owners that front Meyers Rd. are simply splitting there land to avoid having to do the
improvements on Meyers Rd.
2. Meyers Rd. width at the present, when meeting "any" on coming traffic is considered a near miss.
It is only a matter of time before someone is killed or seriously injured. Adding to this danger by
increasing traffic is something the city needs to look at very closely.
3. There are no city utilities available in the vicinity ofth15 one acre lot split and therefore private
wells and septic tanks will need to be installed. This is somewhat counter productive wouldn't
you say, with being in a HIGH fire hazarded area and with our ground water of San Bernardino
already at critical levels of contamination?
4. Iftbere is indeed a requirement by the city for off-site infrastructure to Meyers Rd., why was the
applicant recently allowed to build and occupy a house on the proposed lot split without fulfilling
said requirements? In addition. the requirements was not enforced previously on other properties
east on Meyers Rd. This, and point #1 illustrates an unwillingness of the city to enforce its own
requirement and if allowed, the current lot split reinforces the ease by property owners to
circumvent current requirements.
5. All property owners of parcel map 3540 have no intentions of dedicating there interest in Martin
Ranch Road to the city. Martin Ranch Road is under the control of the association and the
association votes 110 to any dedication. Meyers Rd. and Martin Ranch Road was not, and is not
built to handle the increased traffic which this lot split would burden this road with.
In closing, existing residents of North West Verdemont have only "One" ingress and egress to their homes
and each time the city allows more residents to the area without infrastructure to support the growth, is
putting our lives at risk. Drive up Meyers Rd. off Little League Dr. on a school day at 3:30 p.m. and you
tell me could residents be evacuated quickly in an emergency situation as the conditions exist?
Respectfully Yours,
~' '&
~i/r ~,114 .
Eddie Evans, President of Martin Ranch Road Association
cc. Mayor of San Bernardino. Joe Saurez. Carol Thrasher. Mr. Funk
EXHIBIT 4 - APPEAL
City Of Silll Bemardillo
Develoyment services
D~pilrt1lleJIt
Application for Appeal
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 14
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
o Development Services Director;
o Development/Environmental Review Committee; or
~ Planning Commission
Al0 3>.- 0 r;
Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893 (.Sub_division No. 02-04)
Case number(s):
Project address: 7585 N. Martin Ranch Road,.San Bernardino, California [(1.<\01
Appellant's name:
Appe lIant' s address:
Appellant's phone:
Dennis and Monica Soares (Owners)
7575 Martin Ranch Road, San Bernardino,
California
(909) 887 -234'1
Attn: Jim Hamlin
Contact person's name.: Krueper Engineering & Associates, Inc.
Contact person's address: 568 N. Mt. View Avenue, San Bernardino, California ~1.t\t;'l
Contact person's phone: (909) 884-2159
Fax: (909) 888-8910
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date ofthe appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and
time of the appeal hearing.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Date appeal filed: {J ~J C 1/ 7. D (> .~
Received by: (r (' v ~ I j I~ l J (. . I
f
fij l~~^: ..
.-.....
/D)rncsrn~~
UU APR 0 1 2003 12;
o.
u.
IEVL
01:1-"..
CITY Of SAN DERNARDIND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
5/1/01
EXHlBIT 4 - APPEAL
REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL
Appeal No, 03-05
Hearing Date 07121/03
Page /5
Specific action being appealed and the date of that action: The' deni al of Tentative Parcel Map No.
15893 by the Plannin9 Commission, based on the finding of facts contained in the
staff report at the meeting of March 18, 2003.
Specific grounds for the appeal:
See Attach~ent "A"
Action sought:
To overturn the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map
No. 15893 (Sub No. 02-04), and approve said Tentative Parcel Map
No. 15893 with conditions of approval.
Additional information:
See Attachment "A"
Signature of appellant:
J
., /), f
" ;' , '
, /!
1:1 ", . , ,? ~
.I / II;v"J/'j-. __, Jt ~rZ.-"
I
I
Date: _2, r; ( (;3
/'
2
S:\IQ\
EXHIBIT 4 - APPEAL
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Date 07/21/03
Page 16
ATTACHMENT A
2. Specific Grounds for Appeal
Item 1 of the staff report.
Presently, single-family residential development of the surrounding area is not
consistent with the general plan objective in the fact that infrastructure is not a
requirement on existing lots surrounding the subject project. The nearest connection
point for water and sewer is approximately 1,500 feet and 3,000 feet, respectively.
The appellants are agreeable to connecting to water and sewer services when made
available, but at this point in time, their costs for a four-lot development are not
feasible, and there is no project date for the extension of services. Wells, holding
tanks for fire suppression, and propane services are approved with single-family
developments on single lots. The appellants had a single-family structure permitted,
which occupies proposed Parcel 1, in June 2001. This structure is of an "upscale"
character and is valued above $300,000.00. The site includes a holding tank, well,
and propane services, and the structure is sprinklered.
Item 2 of the staff report.
Future structures, if the project is approved, will be developed under the
development permit process, thus allowing for scrutiny of the proposed building(s) to
keep with the estate and rural character of the area. Again, water and sewer
services are not within the economic feasibility for a four-parcel subdivision, such as
this project. The appellants are aware that road improvements could be conditioned
along the frontage of Meyers Road, adjacent to the subject project, but this would be
the only piece of improvements for 1,500 feet west of the last portion of improvement
to Meyers Road. Again, nothing is done to gain road improvements when permitting
single-family development, thus creating gaps in the infrastructure system.
Item 3 of the staff report.
Secondary access was not a question until the staff report was issued. Secondary
access does not exist from the intersection of Meyers Road and Little League Drive,
yet single-family permits are issued to the adjacent lots. Secondary access can be
gained by a 40-foot-wide exclusive easement along the westerly portion of the
subject project for the use and benefit of the four subject parcels and the adjoining
parcel to the north. This access is not meant as a road for circulation purposes, but
secondary access for the five parcels in question.
Item 4 of the staff report.
Again, the secondary access issue can be addressed by the proposed 40-foot-wide
easement.
EXHIBIT 4 - APPEAL
Appeal No. 03-05
Hearing Dale 07/21/03
Page 17
Presently, development permit process would give the city a chance to condition
applications to screen water tanks and other facilities. Development goes on now
without regard to being harmonious and compatible with existing uses. The
appellants are aware of the sprinkler requirement, as the structure occupying
proposed Parcel NO.1 was required to be constructed with a sprinkler system.
Item No.6 of the staff report.
Again, the 40-foot-wide ingress/egress easement could mitigate the secondary
access concern.
Martin Ranch Road, a private road, from the intersection of Meyers Road, is 20:1: feet
in width, not only fronting the subject site, but also beyond the adjacent parcel to the
north. The paved length is over 0.6 of a mile from the northerly line of the subject
property.
On several occasions, the city fire department has been to the appellants' property
and has been able to traverse Meyers Road and Martin Ranch Road to the subject
site without issuing a concern.
Meyers Road extends approximately 1,500 feet to the west. Again, permits are
issued west of the subject site for single-family residential units without requirements
for additional road improvements.
Item NO.7 of the staff report.
As with all parcel maps, the appellants are aware that the improvements that front
the subject project can be conditioned for improvements (curb, gutter, and paving)
within the public right-of-way. The closest sidewalks are 3,000 feet to the southeast,
at the intersection of Little League Drive and Meyers Road. In keeping with the rural
and estate character of the area, are sidewalks titting?
Additional Information
It appears that the planning commission had the Martin Ranch Project in mind when the
project was voted on. Comments were made that the subject project was a good project,
but it was not the right time. Martin Ranch will be the next project to bring upscale housing
to the City of San Bernardino, but when will this happen? Two years? Five years? Ten
years? With all the issues surrounding the area and the size, etc., one could not predict
when this might happen. If this project is being held up by the Martin Ranch Project, the
appellants are being denied the privilege to subdivide, which neighbors have enjoyed, or
the owners of adjacent properties have had to build without the conditions of upgrading the
utilities and road systems. If single-family development continues in this area, San
Bernardino will never capture the infrastructure necessary to provide the health and safety
mitigations that they seek.
Please keep in mind that this application being appealed is for the subdivision of the
subject parcel only, and no development of the parcels is being considered at this time.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -19.30
.f
3.
ALLEYS
All alleys shall have a minimu,m width of 20 feet. Intersecting alleys shall have a corner
cutoff or radius of not less than 20 feet.
4. CORNER TREATMENT
At all block corners there shall be a rounding at the curb to a minimum radius of 25 feet.
There shall also be a rounding of the property lines or a corner cutoff as established by
the City Engineer.
19.30.180 CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
The design of a subdivision shall provide I or more appropriate cable television systems an
opportunity to construct, install and maintain any necessary equipment, pursuant to Map Act
Section 66473.3. Conduits and manvaults shall be dedicated to the City. This Section is not
intended to require free access to a subdivision, but to allow a cable franchise the opportunity to
negotiate for providing service.
19.30.190 ENERGY CONSERVATION
/tF;;>i!,
..,""'"
Y.':.,~:~~
The design of a subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities, pursuant to Map Act Section 66473. I.
19.30.200 ACCESS Highlighted sections read into the record by City Attorney
Penman
All subdivisions shall abut upon or have an approved access to a public street. In addition, the
following standards shall apply:
1. Each lot or unit within the subdivision shall have approved direct access to a public or
private street;
2. Street layout shall be designed to provide for future access to, and not impose undue
hardship upon, property adjoining the subdivision;
3. No new direct driveway access from individual residential lots onto divided major
arterials, major arterials or minor arterials shall be permitted, unless approved by the
Director and City Engineer;
4. In the case of private streets, the subdivider shall provide an appropriate method for
permanent maintenance subject to approval of the City Engineer and the City Attorney;
5. Reserve strips, or non-access at the end of any street or at the exterior boundary of the
subdivision, shall be dedicated unconditionally to the City, when required; and
I1I-92
# :) "3 5/91
~-;)-03
.,
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 19.30
6. A tentative tract or parcel map shall provide for at least 2 different standard routes
for ingress and egress, except as provided below. A standard route is a road which is
dedicated to the City and has a minimum paved width of 24 feet. The different standard
routes shall be designed to utilize separate roadways or streets, or a common street that
provides access from opposite directions, provided that the access from each direction
utilizes an independent street system. The purpose of these routes is to permit
accessibility to fue fighting and other public equipment and to permit orderly evacuation
in the event of flood, fue or other emergency. Prior to recordation of the final map,
adequate security shall be provided to ensure construction of the required improvements
before any certificate of occupancy is issued.
Exemptions. A tentative tract or parcel map may be exempted from providing 2 different
standard routes of ingress and egress and provide only 1 standard route only if all of the
following circumstances exist:
A. General
(1) The Fire Chief, the Director, and the City Engineer determine that there is
no feasible alternative to providing 2 different standard routes of access for
the tentative subdivision map.
(2)
(3)
The determination is made by the City Traffic Engineer that a second
standard route is not necessary for circulation purposes (this determination
may require the submittal of a traffic study addressing the issue).
~
':fii}fI
The Fire Chief specifically fmds that the public health, safety, and welfare
in the event of flood, fire, or other emergency do not require both such
routes, under the circumstances of that particular tentative map,
development agreement or specific plan application. The Fire Chief shall
provide written documentation of this finding to the Planning Commission
and may recommend approval or denial of the request. The Planning
Commission shall make its recommendation to the Mayor and Common
Council for fmal decision of the tentative map with only 1 standard access
route, based on the determination of the City Traffic Engineer and the
findings and recommendation of the Fire Chief.
B. Tentative Maps Located within the Foothill Fire Zones
Where the subject property is located within a Foothill Fire Zone, as defmed in
Chapter 19.15, the Planning Commission, upon the recommendation of the
Director, the Fire Chief and the City Engineer, may approve a tentative map with
1 standard and 1 non-standard access route. A non-standard access route is a road
which is not constructed in full conformance with the requirements for a standard
route set forth above. In no event may a tentative map be approved within a
Foothill Fire Zone unless 2 access routes are provided, of which 1 shall be
standard. One standard and 1 non-standard access route may be approved
11I-93
5/91
.,
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -19.30
where it is found that with respect to the non-standard access route when all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The public health, safety and welfare do not require that the secondary
access be a standard route;
(2) That such route shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
load of fIre apparatus and shall have a surface sufficient to provide all-
weather driving capabilities;
(3) That such route is at least 20 feet in width to accommodate emergency
vehicles, in accordance with Article 10 of the Uniform Fire Code;
(4) A City-approved traffic analysis has been completed which documents that
a second standard access is not needed for general traffic circulation.
C. Conditions for 1 Standard Access Route
Any tentative tract or parcel map approved with less than 2 standard routes of
access shall be subject to all of the following:
(1)
All structures shall be provided with interior automatic sprinklers in order
to help decrease the spread of fIre. The design and installation shall be
approved by the City Fire Department.
:l'~;}-,.
:!Ii...,_
~f-.~'.-<
(2)
Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 500 feet may be permitted with a maximum
of 30 dwelling units, unless otherwise approved by the Planning
Commission upon the recommendation of the Director, Fire Chief and
City Engineer, or as otherwise provided in Chapters 19.15 and 19.17.
(For the purposes of this Development Code, a cul-de-sac is defmed as a
street or connection system of streets having only one outlet for vehicular
traffIc and ending in a turnaround. The length of the cul-de-sac is
measured along its centerline from the centerpoint of the turnaround to the
intersection of the centerlines of the cul-de-sac and the fIrst street that has
at least two outlets to a street system outside of the project boundaries; in
situations where no secondary access route is provided, the access route is
the cul-de-sac outlet.)
(3) The Water Department General Manager shall determine if a looped
system or similar mechanism shall be installed at the time of development
to ensure adequate water service.
(4) Any other recommended requirements the Fire Chief deems necessary to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare, including, but not limited to
structural design, and number and location of fIre hydrants.
III -94
4/94
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RACHEL G. CLARK, C.M.C. . CITY CLERK
300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino. CA 92418-0001
909.384.5002. Fax: 909.384.5158
www.ci.san-bernardina.ca.us
July 23, 2003
Dennis and Monica Soares
7575 Martin Ranch Road
San Bernardino, CA 92507
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Soares:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on July 21, 2003, the following action
was taken relative to Appeal No. 03-05, a request to overturn the Planning Commission's denial
of Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893:
That the matter be continued to Tuesday, September 2,2003 at 7 p.m.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
q"-t-lv--t h. CL<-'Lk
Rachel G. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
RGC:lls
Enclosure
cc: Development Services
CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity. Accountability. Respect for Human Dignity. Honesty
~ ~
I
i
i
~
,
I
1Dtnni~ ~oatt~
7575 Martin Ranch Road
San Bernardino, CA 92407
Phone (909) 887-2349
. .-----............, fax (909) 887-5953
,; t./O.3
~
:l3
~../..J. ~. ~
City Clerk/COC Secy
City of San Bernardino
Entered into Record"
COllncillCmyOevCms Mfg:
September 2, 2003
.
~
by
re Agenda Item
City of San Bernardino
Esteemed Council Members
300 N. D. Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
.
~"
RE: MR. EVANS letter concerning Parcel Map 15893,3/3/03.
Dear Council Members
I find Mr. Evans letter interesting and somewhat amusing. I have lived here not as long as he,
however I do believe as a taxpayer, homeowner and citizen of San Bernardino, I should have my
rights respected also.
My wife, Monica, and I own halfthe land and original parcels that are a part of the so called
Martin Ranch Road Association. We have attended all meetings in the last 7 years here (two, I
believe) and the only things discussed were the concerns over the big Martin Ranch Project and
Martin Ranch Road. Since we are at least half the votes of this association, this concern of the
members he writes about is really invalid.
Mr. Evans and I discussed his concern over the split prior to this letter. The only thing he had a
problem with was the one acre parcel. This was approved by DRC and the planning commission
but if it is a bone of contention, it could be mitigated by including it along with the 1.3 acres and
allowing the lot to be split into 3 parcels instead of 4.
Mr. Evans has had his own lot split from the original plan and the same amount of property
located directly across from the proposed property was split when previously owned by Mr.
Michael McGlathery.
Of course traffic will never get better, however, we are not asking to build but only to lot split
and that would have negative impact on existing traffic.
.
We have an existing well that provides abundant water at 140ft. on the property plus a contract
for 25% of the well on my existing home property that is to be shared by the four original
parcels that hasn't even been used at the property at question vet.
We would be open to consider bonding for city water when the need arises if and when building
takes place.
All building requirements were met to build the current "Up Scale" home on the NW comer of
this property.
As for fire hazard, my lots are cleaned repeatedly and will be less hazardous if we can maintain
them individually as separate.
When Mr. Evans writes all owners of Parcel Map 3540 have no intentions of dedicating their
interest he is referring only to himself, the Kellys and us. So he is using us to formulate a case
with his concerns against us. Please see his letter for what it is, just a step in denial of the Martin
Ranch Project.
I will close by mentioning the ingress egress question also. We have a definate plan that will
mitigate this question. Also, we will be the only home (of well over 50 up here) in the North
West Verdemont area that will have had to do this. Again, we are not adding cars or people with
this request to split lots.
I am just a private citizen using my own finances and sincerely hope you wi11look favorably
upon my intentions of doing my part of making San Bernardino a better place to live. I have no
axes to grind or conflicts to cause in my desire to achieve this.
Respectively Y of's,
Ci0~~
Dennis Soares
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RACHEL G. CLARK, C.M.C. - CITY CLERK
300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino. CA 92418-0001
909.384.5002. Fax: 909.384.5158
www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us
Q.1
September 3, 2003
Dennis and Monica Soares
7575 Martin Ranch Road
San Bernardino, CA 92507
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Soares:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on September 2, 2003, the following
action was taken relative to Appeal No. 03-05, a request to overturn the Planning Commission's
denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 15893:
That the hearing be closed; and that the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative
Tract Map No. 15893 (Subdivision No. 02-04, be upheld, based upon the Findings of
Fact contained in the Planning Commission staff report.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
{2tLc~z. b C~Jt_-
Ra~elb. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
RGC:lls
Enclosure
cc: Development Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARnINO
ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity. Accountability. Respect for Human Dignity. Honesty