The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About48-Planning & Building Services i :ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Michael E. Hays, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 - To change the General Plan land use designation from RL, Residential Low, to RS/3.1, Residential Suburban, and Tentative Tract No. 15743, a 41 lot subdivision located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Palm Avenue. Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: June 19, 1997 JUN 1 9 1997 MCC Date: July 7, 1997 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: N/A Recommended Motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. / ~ ~ .. Mic ael ys Contact person: Michael Hays Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Re.port and Resolution Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/ A Source: (Acet. No.) N/A (Acet. Descrintion) Finance: Council Notes: Continued to 07 /:J./ / "7 Agenda Item No. Jj ~ 1/7/17 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCn.. ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-07 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15743 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 7,1997 OWNER: Palm Partners, A California Partnership 1484 Red Hill North Upland, CA 91786 Phone: (909) 985-3370 APPLICANTS: Dave Mlynarski MAPCO P.O. Box 5932 San Bernardino, CA 92412-5032 Phone: (909) 885-3800 REQUESTIWCATION: The applicant is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-07, to change the General Plan land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low (3.1 units per acre density, 10,800 square foot minimum lot size) to RS/3.l, Residential Suburban/3.l (3.1 units per acre density, 7,200 square feet minimum lot size. The applicant is also requesting the approval of Tentative Tract No. 15743 to subdivide the 14.45 acre site into 41 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 8,056 square feet. The site is located at the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue in the RL, Residential Low land use district. (See Exhibit 1, Site Location Map) KEY POINTS o The General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract were filed concurrently, hence the final decision for the Tentative Tract rests with the Mayor and Common Council along with the General Plan Amendment. o The applicant originally requested to amend the General Plan land use designation from RL (3.1 units per acre, 10,800 square foot minimum lot size) to RS (4.5 units per acre, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size). However, the applicant indicated that the amendment was not being sought for the higher density allowed by RS, but for the smaller lot size. o The applicant agreed to an RS/3.l General Plan land use designation for the site which would allow the smaller lot size but limit the density to 3.1 units to the acre. Based on testimony received at the Planning Commission regarding area residents' concerns with General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of July 7, 1997 Page 2 the 7,200 square foot lot size of the RS, the applicant has further agreed to limit the minimum lot size in the RS/3.l designation to 8,000 square feet. [] The proposed amendment does not conflict with General Plan Goals which pertain to the pattern and distribution of land uses. More specifically, the proposal is consistent with General Plan Objective 1.11 which states that it will be the objective of the City to: "Promote the development of single-family detached units in a high quality urban setting. " The Planning Commission Staff Report prepared for the October 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting provides the detailed background and analysis of this project (Refer to Exhibit 2). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study was prepared by staff for the Tentative Tract and General Plan Amendment and was presented to the Environmental Review Committee on February 20, 1997. A Negative Declaration was proposed. The Initial Study was made available for public review and comment from February 27, 1997 to March 19, 1997. Nocommentswerereceived. On March 20, 1997, the Environmental Review Committee recommended the adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration for both projects (Refer to Exhibit 3, Attachment F). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At their June 3, 1997 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the Mayor and Common Council that they deny General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743, based on their belief that the RS land use designation and smaller lots were not compatible with the one acre lots and existing homes on the north side of Washington Street. The Planning Commission vote was as follows: ayes were Enciso, Gonzalez, Hamilton, Lockett, Quiel, Schuiling, Suarez, and Thrasher; nays were Reilly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Adopt the Resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 to change the General Plan land use designation from RL, Residential Low to RS/3.l, Residential Suburban! 3.1 units per acre on the 14.45 General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of July 7, 1997 Page 3 acres of land located at the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue, based .on the Findings of Fact contained in the Resolution (Exhibit 4); and, 2. Approve Tentative Tract No. 15743 based upon the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements contained in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachments D and E to Exhibit 3). Prepared by: Michael R. Finn, Senior Planner for MICHAEL HAYS, Director of Planning & Building Services EXHIBITS: 1 - Site Location Map 2 - Tentative Tract Map and Proposed General Plan Amendment Map 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report (June 3, 1997) and Attachments 4 - Resolution EXHIBIT 1 ~ AGENDA ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE &11n:lt~ LOCATION HEARING DATE to. i . , . I t" : I I PlAN-I." PAGE' OF , (..". EXHIBIT 2 . I . I' I; I - '~ IF. . r. ." ., i,l ~ . t _ t ,. -I - t .r =:: Ii h. ! ,H I ! 'I 'I '. ,,!.. ."'" .' .., ~ ~ ~ ~J . . .,' ",. ,. I II _. ., 'i ,. 'I I to -;!i ~ I ~ 1__ ii .:" i _. . i , .! ~ hJ. III ,Iii I~ I!,,, " , .. _ II:ilIJ I!. , ~ 1;1 h ...:!' I i .a,,,,,JI!itI '~iiP.1 . iii' II '-r.: 'I I I" pi rZ I ';>U .. Ii"" I ,,'I' , .' ~" ' C I .- ~ to. I ;oli, s: l I Oil ... I..... rJ !ir! L. G~ II. iiiil , Ii:!;: I . ill "'l'! .1 ''i'- . ,,,, .r I~ Ii I~ II , I ! I t llii! 111~ lltlii Iii I! Ii l. h~ii II~ [}Ji) rtr ~ ~~ [!Ji) lD'i ,..'i ". M" Mli II "' = , , , \1 " ;4 l~ " II :' :~ ~I :1 if tl ..: , !1 Ii e, !4 " il " i\' jr:' !I" liil f ~ ~~ " : ., i' " ,. if 111. f//l! / / / / :1 ~" / ..ij / / / / j' /' , / / ,/ .;' ~,__t~=/ . __;~;/ /" [? ~(U)~; ~ ~. .. ~fE :S[? ~ u ~[!!ill a ~ ~ 'j z = ;[? ~~ ~[? ~~ [!!ill [? -r""~ !. I , r\ i i. ~' ~, , · 1 i . I ...........- / : ,..~ " " ~ It lDii ~.~_ r , , , j , j / 1iri- e " 'Ii · . ~~ ~. . \ .~ ~Ii ," Nil -, I _~...J I . ( ~ ~ i ~ t II ~ ! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ t> ~ /i . . , i 5 t ~ I I i I I i i 1,,11 ill ~ T ~,- ~H ;, ll,( iSl .1 !I!'l I; i', ': )1 . ~Ii I .. . ::.. 55 H!~ !i;51 ..il!! - u;~ uu"...... --:0- i " ., I.j - J ~ "0 ,'\ .. g \!) ~ ;; !!: --------, ~ I . 4. Q I wc~\:i I ~ I I I ~ . '. -,. ". '.:..nN3^'1 . ..:a..' ; ~ #<.... .0: ....... !l: ,. ""..- ;c @.. \,:'/ .~, ;'.. .~ ~- $\." ...... " -. l.~" .cl cil (~ cs u ~ ~ i III I- .~~ fI! . ~ "$.. -':- -]""'3AY' ~:l I ~ ,go ~ ~ \@ ",' ..~ ... ~ f'. t ",'-Jf-~""l '- ...... .. r'" ~.@;. = \. \ i )J ~ \n...~ , """"C) ~ U ...\\ ~.elo , ..0 ". ~ I .. ~ - ,.....,.... 0.-_' I , .- , , ! ~:: \tE1Ji~;gfj -J ':,)r ------ ::4 ,~~, I lClU-a r-, .., - " - I I 1 - " .., " ..". ,,,, a. I~I 1-' ,", , I I I ~ I I ~ ~ .. ~ ~ III ,.. ~ ., ~ ::~ . -j "" . ; ~dft ~:. .:': . ~II' , (t..l! I'" '. ~ 'I~;! ":~$.;. .1 '.1 I . ; i I .\\1' .. oJ; . i @'." ~1 . . . . 'I~:. ;' ; .' 1ft I~I .! I . -I '.1 I j' . I I I ... I I "Itfi ~ I~I ,': U IQ: "I j :~,. r#/I,1 . ,', L"' 1Jf . -.lIIN...... ,Jt~ , ~ /'- I __. '{I' 'L .-:t;/ ! .. 'I ., .. 1/1' ," if / I, ~t, ,1'.~l,~i . I' t~. ';' .:;.. I ~.. . I !i! I lit . S Ii ; ..- I -;" :f ',. rJ' , .. 'f . I j.1. .... ,.. . . ll~iI='.' li_:::.... .........~. ~~.~!; iVliij IffU'. IIJ1UI @.! n~lh . ,~ -l~ l J -~"""""~- - ~ . . ., SUMMARY EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION ----------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - -- CASE: AGENDA ITEM: HEARING DATE: WARD: General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 4 June 3, 1997 5 APPliCANT: Dave Mlynarski MAPCO/Bonadiman Engineers, Inc. 680 S. Waterman, Bldg. A San Bernardino, CA 92408 OWNER: Palm Partners A California Partnership 1484 Redhill North Upland, CA 91786 =============================================== REQUEST I WCATION - A request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low (3.1 units per acre) to RS, Residential Suburban (4.5 units per acre). The proposal includes a Tentative Tract to subdivide the site into 41 lots with a minimum lot size of 8,056 square feet. The site is located on the southeast comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue in the RL designation. ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- CONSTRAINTS/OVERLA YS Flood Hazard Zone X 500 Yr. ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: o Not Applicable o Exempt, Section 15303(a) (Class 3) . No Significant Effects o Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . o o APPROVAL . DENIAL CONTINUANCE TO: CONDmONS ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- GcneraI Plan Amendment No. 96-07 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 1 REOUEST AND LOCATION The applicant requests the approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban. The applicant also requests the approval of Tentative Tract No. 15743 to subdivide the 14.45 acres into 41 single-family lots. The site is located at the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 is a proposal to change the land use designation of the 14.45 acres site from RL (3.1 dwelling units per acre) to RS (4.5 units per acre). The RL allows a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet while the RS would allow a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The applicant bas indicated that the proposal is not to increase the allowable number of lots that would be possible under the RS, but rather to allow the smaller lot permitted by the RS. An alternative bas been proposed by staff for the amendment. The alternative would be to change the land use designation from RL (3.1 units to the acre) to RS/3.l (3.1 units to the acre). The RS/3.l would allow the smaller 7,200 square foot lot size allowed by RS, but would limit the density to the 3.1 units to the acre now allowed by the RL. This staff proposed alternative would necessitate a text amendment to the General Plan to create the RL/3.l designation. The applicant is not opposed to this alternative. Tentative Tract No. 15743 is a proposal to subdivide the site into 41 single-family lots. The proposed lot sizes would range from 8,056 square feet to 40,646 square feet. The proposed subdivision would result in a density of 2.84 dwelling units per acre. SEITING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is roughly triangular in shape and is located on the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue. Palm Avenue is identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, Section 6.0, as a secondary arterial. The site is bordered on the south by Cable Creek Flood Channel. The site is undeveloped and relatively flat with a slight slope to the south-southeast of 1-2 percent. The site is generally devoid of vegetation with the exception of several mature walnut trees, and shows signs of having been disked for weed abatement. Surrounding land uses include a multi-family apartment complex across Palm Avenue on the east, single-family homes on one acre lots across Washington Street on the north, and vacant commercially designated land to the west and south across Cable Creek Channel. General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 2 BACKGROUND Previous Tentative Troa On September 19, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14209, a proposal to subdivide the 14.45 acre site into 41 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet. This tentative subdivision is in compliance with all applicable Development Code Standards for the RL land use district. Tentative Tract No. 14209 has received two extensions of time from the Planning Commission; one 1-year extension on November 6, 1991, and one 2-year extension on May 8, 1993. This placed the tract expiration at September 19, 1994. The tract was eligible for and received one 2-year automatic extension and another 1-year automatic extension through state legislation. The current expiration date for Tentative Tract No. 14209 is now September 19, 1997. Thus, this tentative subdivision remains valid. in discussions with staff, the applicant has indicated that a Public WorkslEngineering Standard Requirement for constructing a scour wall on the Cable Creek right-of-way line (Standard Requirement No. 56, TT142(9) is cost prohibitive and makes the subdivision infeasible. The current application has been submitted to avoid the necessity of the scour wall. The applicant has redesigned the tract, adding a 100 foot building setback required by the San Bernardino County Flood Control district in lieu of the scour wall to minimize flood hazards to the proposed homes. in order to retain the 41 lots originally proposed in Tentative Tract 14209 while maintaining the 100-foot flood control setback, Tentative Tract No. 15743 has been designed with smaller lots (less than the 10,800 square feet required by the RL designation) and placed the central access road within the 100-foot flood control setback. The smaller lots has necessitated the applicant's request for General Plan Amendment to RS, for without the amendment, the design of Tentative Tract No. 15743 could not be approved. The Department of Public Works/City Engineer has indicated that they will require the developer to design and construct improvements along Cable Creek to harden the channel and minimize the potential for erosion of the roadway. The hardening can take the form of a mud and scour wall along the property line or other measures acceptable to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Hence, the proposal will require some type of channel improvements to protect the subdivision from erosion, similar to the requirements of Tentative Tract No. 14209. Development Review Committee The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee and cleared onto Planning Commission on March 20, 1997. The Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Fire Department and Water Department have all provided Standard Requirements for the proposal. General Plan A nvmdnvmt No. 96-07 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY Acr (CEOA) STATUS o The Initial Study was prepared by staff, and presented to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 20, 1997. The ERC proposed a Negative Declaration. See Initial Study, Attachment F. o The Initial Study was made available for Public Review and Comment from February 27, 1997 to March 19, 1997. No comments were received. o On March 20, 1997, the Environmental Review Committee cleared the proposal with a recommendation for adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS General Plan AmeDdment 1. The proposed omendmelll is consistelll with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with General Plan Objective 1.11 which states that it will be the objective of the City to: "Promote the development of single-family detached units in a high quality urban setting. " 2. The proposed omendmelll would not be detrimelllal to the public illlerest, health, sqfety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposal would not result in an any increase in allowable density since the RS/3.1 would allow the same density as the current RL designation. The smaller 7,200 square foot lot sizes would be permitted, and would act as a transition from the legal non-conforming apartment complex across Palm Avenue on the east, to the RE on the north side of Washington Street. hence the amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 3. The proposed omendmelll would mailllain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The RS/3.1 land use designation would not significantly affect the balance of land uses within the City since the proposal would nominally increase the existing RS district by 14.45 acres without allowing an increase in density. The site is currently a residential designation and is to remain so under the proposed amendment. General Plan ,A.......d.......t No. 96-C7 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Hearinll Date: 6-3-97 Pale 4 4. The subject parcel is physically suitable (induding, but lWt limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use desig1Wlion and the anticipated land use development. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the RS land use designation. It will form a transition from the legal non-conforming apartments across Palm Avenue on the East to the larger RL lots on the north side of Washington Street. The anticipated land use development will remain as single-family with no increase in allowable density. Tentative Tract Man As previously noted, Tentative Tract No. 15743 is dependent upon approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-07. The following findings are made based on the assumption of approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. 1. The proposed map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan in that the project is designated RS/3.l, Residential Suburban (3.1 units per acre). The map conforms to the standards concerning distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The proposed design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan since the RL/3.l designation permit lot sizes 7,200 square feet in area and the smallest lot proposed is 8,056 square feet. The subdivision proposes a density of 2.84 units per acre which is well within the 3.1 units per acre Permitted by the RL/3.l. There are no applicable specific plans. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the lots created meet all applicable design standards specified by the Development Code and summarized in Attachment C. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the RS/3.l permits a density of 3.1 units per acre and the development will result in a density of 2.84 units per acre. Gene1al Plan .... nvmdnvmt No. 96'{)7 Tentative Tract No. IS743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 PageS 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as addressed in the Initial Study. 6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision will not cause any serious health problems as addressed in the project Initial Study. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements. acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, propeny within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements since any existing easements would be abandoned or relocated by the Public WorkslEngineering Department through processing of the Final Map. CONCLUSION The proposed General Plan Amendment to change the RL land use designation to RS/3.1 will allow smaller lot sizes creating a transition from the existing legal non-conforming apartments across Palm Avenue to the east to the larger 1 acre lots in the RE district on the north side of Washington Street to the north without any increase in allowable density. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the amendment and meets all applicable Development Code Standards for the RS designation. All environmental impacts have been mitigated as addressed in the Initial Study and all mitigation included as Conditions of Approval or Standard Requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E). General Plan A .......dment No. 96-07 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 6 Respectfully Submitted, ~jJJr LL/j Michael E. Hays '-"'-D . Director of P . and Building Services Michael R. Finn Senior Planner Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Location Map General Plan Amendment Map (B-1), Tentative Tract Map (B-2) Development Code and General Plan Consistency Table Conditions of Approval Standard Requirements Initial Study ATTACHMENT A ~ AGENDA ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE LOCA liON HEARING DATE .. . I' ...- @ ~==-_....a PLAM-8.11 PAGE 10Ft (4-101.. -,.. ~nN:3^,I' .. ~ ~ s: !!: ---------, ~ I 4. 0 I .4J. I U.I .. a: I I I ATTACHMENT B-1 --i-- 0- ;s, (~!:!~2 ~... .. I~I ;: 1 ,<=,; iii I · I >c I I .,.. - I I I I I · I ::> '''" a: I '::i' I ,., ,", I ' , . I I I ~ ~~\ \0 ~ IJ~'!. I .J 0 .. 1 a: &I. I a. 1 I I I I ~ / , , \ , ,. ~ ;! CIl e .. .1 . '.;., ~t'=' : .... ' I . .. ;+..."t-~_ ..... ~."1> all" ..@"l . .. l. . "\.@ ... ~.f'. l. +.. ~,Cil . -JIVONt . I It).... ~ . ... " o ..\'\. .'~:e\~ . , ..0 ~ .., , , ~ I .. ~ l ., ."....,.... "--'''"1 ,:-. -.' -- ATTACHMENT B-1 __- 0- ~~ !!B""ji1:)lo7,'~) !~, .~~-~:::~ "~.~I : .:.:... .; I I , , . . " '''' '::i' I.' ,", . I , I ~ , , I ::l_~1,- ~ l:! - I /1 , , i , -I €> .. .., -I I , I I .. :z: l:! '" :z: ;;; !!: --------., ~ I 4. 0 I C"J. I U.I .- a: I I I . 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 ~ '\0 ~~.... ..~ I ~ '!. I ..I I a: I I 1 I I I ,... I ::l a: " ~ :! '" . -. o II. D- ,.... I " ~.;. I , .'=1 I . 'k " ~.. " , ., .'. -,. .- .~nN3^". ~H.~' -- _ ,.... .....'" @)l.- i!)'\.- Jt..+' - ~ .""".. '\. "" . \@ ... ~..,.. 1. .... "';.{i . _. -JlVGAW' 'l,l;I ..I a: It) .. ~ . ... CJ (;) ,,~ .~:.e~ ~ '. - .. ~. ..0 .. . ., ~ a , , ~ I s . t ., """''1'''''' . ..__..i.... .:_.. ATTACHMENT B-2 i,! ~p dl!!. l!"i ~r.: !' I I ~ ;: i ~ -~ f u~ll l ~!!. ~ ~ - ~~ ~':r I -I f~;:~ _ II t 9 I I! ~ s ~ ~ IW - ~- _if:> i ! i!a i;C gi~~ii~-1t1 ;~7~ !i; II ~Ii : ~ i>lj~"!2i!lfllillli.!j1 'I !Ii i !! ..!~ ; I II Vii !i~t; t-G; II N w c !:I j. I i ~ EH.:ll .!l1 tiil ~iii! ~lii! ,;j :...!:. ~~ -I~ '~l iI!! ! I,.. -Iii! d ~:!' II 11'1 ' ; I Ii I !j -I . P: !I- Ill! , , 1 II ! "! I, 1..lol1J I, ;1" ,I.!, 1,1..1 !m!!!Il' " Ii:' -~::; -! d~;\- 1!1r Il~ g- ~~~~ : ;: 101~ i; ,;.! 1",;/10 ~~ ! --. 18'1: ~~ :- !l -!!e? 1_~h;~I~ ~il "i.:O' ., 'II! 'llr;; .il C. 'i ~ ~11"i!j 'Ii !!II ':l 8. ,Ii.!. d... all! l,. ~$! ill ;; "~I I . .I?~ !lilii i~1 ~;l:l'i .,"~ ..". aii1u ~ ~~~~~~~=~:~-:~~"'"~~:Qr IPi ~ -rufT. ! .~ ~ ii ~ii ~il ~!! ~!i ~!i ~;i - ~il i : i f y : , -I i ,I i [ : --rr""---t~slT.T-~.,--~t ' / I ---.".---- : / ,gj " '.'tJ ii' Is i: I ~i~ ;:;ii gj_!f ~i~.! ~;i ,I .' ii' 1 ! I , / / 0' j: ,: ~,;. ,: / /! h ~15 Nil ~i5 ~IY f / / " I ii, !! .,: 'A j' / / i~' ~ / / HI.; ~,; .~1 . / I if ~II ~!I -'I (J~ ,~. i1 ;'1 ! " !4 ii :' i'; ..:, I~: I I.il , 14 , , [M) ~ ~ [DD = i~ [? .0 (] II = 0 o ~~ m ~G:S ~[? , z ~ o u I'~! - . EI ~ ;Ii ta!l!~ 11';:1 i1~ i~ ~ ~.n. It ..Ill!; ij~~ ,,~! -l~"~ I' , - ? ~J i, !~ " ~~ m = [? ~ ~[? =12 ~ [? . ~ i I o"~ -I, ~..; _i- " z . ~ ~ " o / / / / ! ! ! I ~ , u / / / 17~ _ h Ii i~ l " / / / / / / / / / / , / / ,/ . / ")^V J.rtIJ.S3-I:l-_/ __~~/-- /' _____m__m______~..____ / ./ , , ' / , / , w - I~!I ,\, ~F w ~;I' ffi! -I !Ii,. I; i!t "'! I: .j,J i I ~!. uti j ," NI~ -, .-.JIiI3-.-~J.~n.v. / " / II. ,t' -I; / , ,I . fl i' " i . , ~ !~ !~ 'z i' ." !~ " ,j / / /1 General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 Tentative TtllCt No. lS743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 9 ATIACHMENT C DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Development General Catelmrv Prooosal Code Plan Permitted Use Single-Family Permitted Permitted Subdivision Lot Size 8,056 s.f. 10,800 s.f.(RL) 10,800 s.f. (RL) 7,200 s.f (RS) 7,200 s.f. (RS) Lot Width Interior Lots 69 feet 80 feet (RL) N/A 60 feet (RS) N/A Comer Lots 89 feet 88 feet (RL) N/A 66 feet (RS) N/A Lot Depth 106 feet 100 feet (RLIRS) N/A Lot wI Rear Abutting an 122 feet 110 feet (RLIRS) N/A Arterial Street (palm) Density 2.84 DUlAC 3.1 DUlAC (RL) 3.1 DUlAC (RL) 4.5 DUlAC (RS) 4.5 DUlAC (RS) Access All lots have All lots shall N/A direct access to have direct a public street & access to a provisions for public street & 2 standard means provisions for of ingress/egress 2 standard means are provided of ingress/egress required General Plan Amendment No. 96"()7 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 10 ATTACHMENT D CONDmONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract No. 15743 1. Within two years of this approval, the filing of the final map or parcel map with the Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the final map or parcel map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk. The date the map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map. The review authority may, upon application filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant an extension to the expiration date pursuant to Section 19.66.170 of the Development Code and the State Map Act. Project: Expiration Date: Tentative Tract No. 15743 (Two Years from date of Approval of Tentative Map) 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable. a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; General Plan Aml'Pdmenl No. 96-07 Tenlalive Tract No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 11 b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures; c. Reconfiguration of archiieCtural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme; and, d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project. 5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure sha1l be occupied or no change of use of land or structure(s) sha1l be inaugurated, or no new business commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate. The deposit or security sha1l guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit. 6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air pollution; glare control; exterior lightning design and control; noise control; odor control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control. Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter cabinets sha1l be archiieCturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground. 7. A six foot decorative block wall, wrought iron, or combination decorative block/wrought iron fence or other barrier approved by the City of San Bernardino Planning Division and County Flood Control District sha1l be constructed along the Flood Control District's right-of-way adjacent to the site. 8. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the following City Departments or Divisions: a. Public Works (Engineering) Department b. Water Department c. Fire Department General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 Tentative TtllCt No. 15743 Hearing Date: 6-3-97 Page 12 d. Parks and Recreation Department STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: . NOTIE TO APPUCANT: When! sepame EngIneering plans aA! requIred, the applIcant Is teSpOnslble for submitting the EngIneering plans dIrectly to the EngIneering DlvIs1on. They may be submitted prior to submittal of BuildIng Plans. 1. Drainaae and Flood Control a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood control. b) This project lies adjacent to Cable Creek Channel that is an unimproved channel subject to heavy, debris laden, erosive flows. The Developer shall be required to design and construct improvements along Cable Creek to harden the channel and minimi%e the potential for erosion of the levee adjacent to this project. This hardening can take the form of a mud and scour wall along the property line or other measures within or adjacent to the channel which are acceptable to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Any proposed work within the channel right-of-way will require plan approval and a permit from the County Department of Transportation and Flood Control. c) A permit will be required from the Department of Transportation and Flood Control if any work is required within the Flood Control District's right-of- way. Page 1 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: d) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. e) The development is located within Zone X (shaded) on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps and may be subject to sheet overflow to a depth of less than 1 foot in a 100 year storm; therefore all building pads shall be raised above the surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer. f) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit Requirements. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 5 acres of more of land. h) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan, approval shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. Page 2 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: 2. Gradina and Landscaoina a) If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/ploVgrading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code shall be obtained from the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits. c) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 7012(c) of the Uniform Building Code. d) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). e) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the On-site Improvement permit issued by the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. Page 3 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: f) This project is located in the "High Wind Area", Therefore, all free standing walls and fences shall be designed for a minimum wind load of 23 pounds per square foot of vertical surface, unless a lower value is approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, g) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Engineering Division for Checking. h) A Landscape Maintenance District shall be implemented to maintain landscaping within the following areas: i) Parkway area and slope along the westerly side of Palm Avenue adjacent to the site. An easement for landscape purposes shall be dedicated over the slope. ii) Parkway area along the south side of Washington Avenue adjacent to the site. iii) Parkway area along the south side of "A" Street adjacent to Cable Creek Channel. i) All required maintenance districts shall be formed prior to Map recording. j) Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the Landscape Maintenance District. k) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's Real Property Section of the Department of Public Works with a signed copy of the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each property purchaser. Page 4 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: 3. Utilities a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV. b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it. c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole. d) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. e) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. f) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Section 19.30.110 ofthe Development Code. g) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer'S expense as directed by the City Engineer, except overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.30. Page 5 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: 4. MaDDina a) A Final Map based upon field survey will be required. b) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to Map approval. c) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to, building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks, geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592. d) If this Map is located in an Assessment District and the assessment has not been paid off, the subdivider shall submit an apportionment application to the Real Property section of the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. Application forms can be obtained form the Real Property Section at (909) 384-5026. e) Assessment District Apportionment Fees: . Final Maps or Parcel Maps of more than 4 Parcels - $ 2.250.00 plus $25.00 for each final assessable lot or parcel. 5. ImDrovement ComDletion a) Street, sewer, and drainage improvements plans for the entire project shall be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the Map recordation. Page 6 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: b) If the required improvements are not completed prior to Map recordation, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the City will be required. c) Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period of 4 years shall be paid. Exact amount shall be determined and shall become payable prior to map recording. d) All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from the following streets: i) Palm Avenue from lots 34 through 41. ii) Washington Avenue from lots 1, 2, 7, 8, 18, 19, 33, and 34. 6. Street ImDrovement and Dedications a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with new construction, striping, shall be accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street Lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Page 7 of 12 Pages 3128/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line(C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: . Street Name Riaht-of-Wavfft} Curb Line(ftl Palm Avenue 44' (Existing) 32' (Existing) Washington Ave. 30' 1a' A, B, C, and D Streets 25' 1a' c) Construct a" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to the site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb and gutter. Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic safety and drainage as approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. d) Construct cul-de-sacs and knuckle in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 101. e) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 202, Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb). f) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site. Dedicate sufficient right-of"way at the comer to accommodate the ramp. g) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard Nos. SL-1 and SL-2. Page 8 of 12 Pages 3128/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: 7. Phasina a) If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase shall be designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this requirement, the following will be required prior to the finalization of any phase: b) Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond the phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design shall be complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; c) A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments indication what improvements will be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following: d) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32 foot radius paved width; e) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum 28 foot paved width; f) Street improvements shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries, as necessary to provide secondary access; g) Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms, and block walls, shall be constructed, as necessary, to protect the development from off-site flows; Page 9 of 12 Pages 3128/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: h) A properly designed water system shall be constructed which is capable of providing required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond the phase boundaries; i) Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities shall be completed; and, j) Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 8. Reauired Enaineerina Permits a) Grading permit (If applicable.). b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Planning and Building Services), including landscaping. c) Off-site improvements construction permit. 9. ADDlicable Enaineerina Fees 1 a) Map Checking fee - $ 1,000.00 plus $ 30.00 per lot or parcel. I All Fees are subject to change without noUce. Page 10 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: b) c) Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%, respectively, of the estimated construction cose of the off-site improvements. Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements(except buildings _ See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the estimated construction cose of the on-site improvements, including landscaping. d) Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter. e) Drainage fee in the approximate total amount of .$55.055 . Based on i 0.133 oer SQuare foot of net lot area. f) Traffic system fee in the estimated amount of J6.337 Based on ~ houses at $154.57 per house. g) Sewer Connection fee in the approximate amount of $11.274 on 144 bedrooms @ $274.97 per bedroom. Based h) Sewer inspection fee in the amount of $759 . Based on 41 connections @ ~ 18.51 per connection. 'Estimated Construction Cost for Off.S/te Improvements Is based on a list of standard unit prices on fll. with the Department of Public WorlcsIClty Engineer. . , Estimated Construction Cost for On-Sit. Improvements Is based on a list of standard unit prices on fll. with the Department of Public WorIls/Clty Englnee" Page 11 of 12 Pages 3/28/97 STANDARD REOUffiEMENTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743 CITY ENGINEER DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE AGENDA ITEM LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO: i) Street or easement dedication processing fee in the amount of $ 200.00 per document. This will apply if dedications are made by separate documents. 10. Additional Reauirements - Verdemont Area Proiects a) This development will be required to pay Infrastructure Development Fees prior to issuance of building permits in the amount of $1.500.00 per single family residence. b) This single family residential project lies within the Chestnut Storm Drain Fee boundary. Therefore, a storm drain Surcharge Fee of $ 0.155 per square foot shall be paid (not to exceed $ 2.393.84 per lot) to the City prior to approval of building permits. c) This project lies within the proposed boundary of the Palm Avenue Box Culvert and Traffic Signal Fee area; therefore, a fee of .$ 0.02 per square foot of net project area shall be paid to the City prior to approval of building permits. Page 12 of 12 Pages 3128/97 A,?r-J 2-lpl- /f,Z -CB rlcJl.i/l~ BKL:~ 49b4 e-;;"'PI'i IT~'" SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Review of Plans: t:tPA q\D -[) 7 'IT 1'7143 OwnerlDeveloper: nLA-1 fAenuhf?', Type of Project: C~JMi,(' LA-h) t/Ji ~c,.J(j,.l/ir,W fir r. r. Location: 5/C; w:4'~HI.J~ 72,.) f'7f:1WE:HJ C.JR.i1J1l T I mu..-, WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING: Pi L.L... r.ryM:JJ Date Compiled: r;f/?ic Compiled By: f:J. "L,.t.;TSuJ Number of Units: Contact: Phone: ~E4 t;39L Fax: 584 '3532'_ . Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department. o Size of Main Adjacent the Project: 8" S'iFH. ,..J WAft.4tJF,) /Ie" 5~ 1..1 fJH.,u ~ ~p CAJw./...c I o Approximate Water PreSrre: ~ :>1 Elevation of Water Storage: I~ It. Pr Hydrant Flow @ 20 psi: > l50o~~ o Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: ~; ZJ..~ ;"115~6IC b" f:"HS. Aio.1/lm .stAff ~ iJltJlj/.JIf~,J I loA vf:#.JR ./~<'W ~5>"~} /: ZL..JAi.t . Ji \~a' 1/'Lc..iJ,f:EM.>> fH ad, .l,OE' fJtc.,..., (.. , . ~ '4 o Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter. o Off-site Water Facilities Required. o Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. o Comments: WATER OUALITY CONTROL: Contact: ~A..J 4"'N~'\Y Phone: 3f('I-~,J"It. Fax: o R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. o Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection. o Air Gap Required at Service Connection. XNO Backflow Device Required at This Time. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLIINDUSTRIAL WASTE: Contact: J)DtJ Q\S?iJc Phone: ~ ~7 Fax:.384- '71-67 Note: No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed. o Industrial Waste Permit Required. o Grease Trap Required. o Pre-treatment Required. SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Contact: Ale~1 -rh~.. AP/~o";6;) "0 N3c: "... c.. ,~ . 0, ;"",A-IG-...I1J Phone: 3k4- 5l'93 Fax: Jf4- 5:JIS Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building & Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit. o No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time. r!ewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for - Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units: 4/ o Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit. Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day: STDREQUI2.FRM (4194) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT ff IS?'!] STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case: Cf6 -07 Date: J--J-~ Reviewed By: ^ ' .q \,'" ~ V\ ~ ~ ~ GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: o Provkle one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check. o Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements. ;Ii{. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be baled on square footage, construction feltures. and exposure information supplied by the devek)per and DIIlt be available .arlar: to placing combustible materials on site. WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION: 'Q The tire protection water 18Nice for the are8 of this project is provided by: --S San Bernardino Municipal Water Department - Engineering t9091 384-5391 o Eost Volloy Wstor District - Engineering 19091 888-8986 o Other Weter Purveyor: Phone: PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: -s.. Public fire hydrants ar. required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi.re.identialar8as and at Interval, not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. -s. Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1.500 gpm 8t a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-re8idential .r.... Minimum fire hydrant flow rates at 1,000 gpm at 8 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required tor residential ar.as. D Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted. 8S deemed appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations. """'b1 Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. o Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor'. discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. ACCESS: '"g Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved. all weather. --s. Provide an access road to .ech building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an al~weather driving surface of not Ie.. .than 20 feet of unobstructed width. o Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings. e Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings. e Provide -NO PARKING- signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs oro to reod "FIRE LANE. NO PARKING. M.C. Soc 15,16", "1iJ Dead--encl streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround. tt.. The names of any new streets (public or privatel shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. SITE: ~ All accesl roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction. e Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants ahould be within 40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants ahall be Wet Barrel type, with one 21/2 inch and 4 inch outlet. and approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants shall be designated as a -NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. BUILDINGS: 'i: Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage atreet. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall. single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. o Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves. e Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 1GB/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior pan of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. e Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels (motels) with 20 or more units, or apanments or hotels (motels) three stories or more in height shan be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards. o All buildings, other than residential. over 5.000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 180 days. Is.. Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. e Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Depanment prior to stan of construction. e Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Depanment prior to stan of installation. o Fire Depanment connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Depanment approved location. Note: The applicant must request. in writing, any changes to Fire Department r quirements. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ~' Yobio'Jf ;) /' f"/re ;; "dl';;/lf< ,. /S / .P I"'; :/'~ q" / /o,~fldi/!. FP8170 111-941 - crTY OP SAN BERNARDXNO PARKS, RBCREATXON . COMMDNXTY SBRVXCES DEPARTMENT STANDARD REQUrREMENTS c..e:GP~ (:::!V'O! flll.:7'P Date: ~ \?lIC1b . Revi_ed By: 1'1.St/.uIOY'O\ d u__KAL UQ1JJ:IlJDCBNTS: ( ] ~I eo..ercial Indu.trial and MUlti-OBit aa......nt Di.trict .eaidantial Purpo.e, Guideline. and .ubmittal procedure Irrigation and Land.caping plan.. Contact the City of San .enaar4ino pad:.,.ecreation and C 'Iftity Servicea Department at ('0" 384-5217 or nt-53U for apecific detailed requir_nt.. SP~XPXC a.wu~XBNBHTSI [ ] fXl ~l [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] PLAJI"1' IIA'l'IDlXALS r~l [)V .aintenance of land.cape area. Planter Area. Interior Planter Area. Irrigation Sy.t... Betback Area. Slope Area. Ground Cover and .eddinlJ Katedal Rro.ion Control Weed Control Plant li.t and climatic condition. Street Tree. Plant Katerial Si.e .equirameat. and .atio. DlSPBCTrON .um o-..IIAI< RBQ1JJ:liUn.ln1Ts ICote. Irrigation Sy.t.. Land.capinlJ Bard.cape It... Street tree Specification. Arbori.t .eport a_al or de.truction of tr... BcreeninlJ aequir...nt (City, Dav.Code' to the Parka, aecreation and KS':U ATTACHMENT F CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIAL STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR Tentative Tract No. 15743 and General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 PROJECT DFSCRIPTIONILOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 is a request to change the General Plan Land Use Designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low (3.1 dulac) to RS, Residential Suburban (4.5 dulac). Tentative Tract No. 15743 is a request to subdivide 14.45 acres into 41 single-family lots. The site is located at the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue in the RL, Residential Low land use designation. DATE: February 20, 1997 PREPARED FOR: David E. Mlynarski MAPCO/Bonadiman Engineers 680 South Waterman Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92408 PREPARED BY: Michael R. Finn Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 (909) 384-5057 City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY Project: General Plan Amend,ment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 Owner: Palm Partners, a California Partnership Applicant: David E. Mlynarski Introduction This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 are approved. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study whenever a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The following components constitute the Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743: 1. Project Description and Location 2. Site and Area Characteristics 3. Environmental Setting 4. Summary 5. Environmental Determination 6. Environmental Impact Checklist 7. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures 8. Supporting InformationJLocation Map, Tentative Tract Map and Map of Proposed General Plan Amendment Area Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743. Documents, surveys, and reports referenced in this Initial Study are available for public review on request at the City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services, Third Floor City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418. City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 3 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Pion Amendment No. 96-07 General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 is a request to change the General Plan land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential. Low (3.1 dulac) to RS, Residential Suburban (4.5 dulac). The RL allows a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet while the RS would allow a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The General Plan Amendment is requested not to increase the number of lots possible on the site, but rather to allow the smaller lot size allowed by RS. An alternative to the proposed amendment would be to change the General Plan land use designation from RL to RS/3.1 (3.1 du/ac) which would permit the smaller 7,200 square foot lot size in the RS, but would limit the density to the 3.1 dulac of the present RL designation ensuring that a greater number of lots would not result from a subdivision at some future date. Such an amendment would also require a text amendment to the General Plan establishing the policy for development under the. RS/3.l land use designation. Tentative Tract No. 15743 Tentative Tract No. 15743 is a request to subdivide 14.45 acres into 41 single-family lots. The proposed lot sizes would range from 8,056 square feet to 40,646 square feet. The 41 proposed lots result in a density of 2.84 dulac. 2. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The 14.45 acre site is roughly triangular in shape, and is located on the southwest corner of Washington Street and Palm Avenue, in the RL, Residential Low land use district. Palm Avenue is identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, Section 6.0, as secondary arterial. The site is bordered on the south by the Cable Creek Flood Channel. The site is vacant and relatively flat with a slight slope to the east-southeast at 1 to 2 percent. The site is generally devoid of vegetation with the exception of several mature walnut trees and shows signs of having been disked for weed abatement. Surrounding land uses include a multi-family apartment complex across Palm Avenue on the east, single family homes across Washington Street to the north, and vacant commercially designated land to the west and south across Cable Creek Channel. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETflNG The Cable Creek Channel is located adjacent to the site on the south. The site lies within Zone X which includes flood hazard areas that will be inundated by a 500-year storm event, and areas that will be inundated by a lOO-year storm event with average depths of less than 1 foot. The City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 4 site is also located within an area identified by the General Plan as having a high potential for liquefaction susceptibility. 4. SUMMARY The project site is located within a flood hazard zone, and area identified as having a potential for liquefaction susceptibility. Project Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 5 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, .lL The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMTITEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Valerie Ross. Principal Planner! ERCIDRC Chair Name and Title Vttw:W,~ Signature February 20. 1997 Date City Contact Person regarding this Initial Study: Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Phone: (909) 384-5057 City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sheet. "No" answers are explained on this checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environmental Description Form, where necessary. (SECTION 6) Yes No Maybe 1. Earth R.esources: Will the proposal result in: a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on slopes of 15% or more based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. D.(3)'? x b. Development and/or grading. on a slope greater than 15% natural grade based on review of General Plan HMOD map, which designates areas of 15 % or greater slope in the City'? .x.. c. Development within the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.o-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan'? x d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature based on field review'? x e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.o-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan'? .x.. City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 7 Yes No Maybe f. Modification of a channel, creek or river based on review of USGS Topographic Map (Name) San Rdno NW 7.5 Minute ? ..x... g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, subsidence or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Ge0logic & Seismic, Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? ..x... h. Development within an area subject to liquefaction as shown in Section 12.o-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the City's General Plan? ..x... i. Other? 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by South Coast Air Quality Management District, based on meeting the threshold for significance in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"? ..x... b. The creation of objectionable odors based on information contained in Preliminary Description Form, No. G.(3)? ..x... Yes c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.o-Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's General Plan? ...x... 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces that cannot be mitigated by Public Works Standard Requirements to contain and convey runoff to approved storm drain based on review of the proposed site plan? b. Significant alteration in the course or flow of flood waters based on consultation with Public Works staff? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality based on requirements of Public Works to have runoff directed to approved storm drains? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground water? City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 8 No Maybe ..x.. ...x... ..x.. ...x... City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 9 Yes No Maybe e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 06071C7930F, and Section l6.o-Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan'? X f. Other'? 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0- Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan'? ..x.. 1. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. B.(I) and verified by on-site survey/evaluation'? .x. 2. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. E.(8) and verified by site survey/evaluation'? ...x.. City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 10 Yes No Maybe 3. Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or migration corridors? .x... b. Removal of viable, mature trees based on site survey/evaluation and review of the proposed site plan? (6" or greater trunk diameter at 4' above the ground) .x... c. Other? 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other noise sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.O-Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? .x... b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, commercial or other uses which generate noise levels above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses based on information in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. G.(l) and evaluation of surrounding land uses No. C., and verified by site survey/evaluation? .x... c. Other? City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 11 Yes No Maybe 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated based on the review of the General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map? b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? .x... ...x... c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as identified on the Development Code Overlay Districts Map? x d. Other? 7. Man-Made Hazards: Based on information contained in Preliminary Environmental Description Form, No. 0.(1) and 0.(2) will the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ...x... b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? .x... d. Other? 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing as verified by a site survey/evaluation? .x... City of San Bernardino Environmental ImpactChecklist Page 12 Yes No Maybe b. Create a significant demand for additional housing based on the proposed use and evaluation of project size? ..x.. c. Other? 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.o-Circulation of the City's General Plan and based on the conclusions of the City Traffic Engineer and review of the Traffic Study if one was prepared, result in: a. A significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections or an increase that is significantly greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? ..x... b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities! structures? ...x.. c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? ...x.. d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? ..x.. e. Impact to rail or air traffic? ..x.. f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ..x... g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? ..x... h. Other? City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 13 Yes No Maybe 10. Public Services: Based on the responses of the responsible agencies or departments, will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? ..x. b. Police protection? ..x. c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? ..x. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ..x. e. Medical aid? ..x. f. Solid Waste? .x... g. Other? 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Based on the responses of the responsible Agencies, Departments, or Utility Company, impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? .x... 2 E1 ..? .x... . ectnClty . 3. Water? .x... 4. Sewer? .x... 5. Other? City of San Bernardino Environmental ImpactChecldist Page 14 Yes No Maybe b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions based on review of existing patterns and proposed extensions. ..x.. 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any significant or important scenic view based on evaluation of the view shed verified by site survey I evaluation'? ..x... b. Will the visual impact of the project create aesthetically offensive changes in the existing visual setting based on a site survey and evaluation of the proposed elevations'? ..x.. c. Other'? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0- Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan'? .x.. b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey'? .x.. c. Other'? City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 15 Yes No Maybe 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Based on this Initial Study: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? ..x.. b. Does the project have the to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals'? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) .x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ..x.. City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 16 Yes No Maybe d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ~gs, either directly or indirectly? .x.. B. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (SECTION 7) 1. Earth Resources h. The project is located in an area identified as having a potential for high liquefaction susceptibility. Compliance with the requirements of the City's liquefaction ordinance, MC-676, which stipulates the preparation of a liquefaction report by a registered geologist or a registered engineering geologist will reduce any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. However, the construction of any wood frame detached residential structures on the residential lots created by the tentative tract are exempt from the requirements of providing a liquefaction study pursuant to the provisions contained in MC-676. 2. Air Resources b. As identified in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form, item no. 0.(3), project construction will result in impacts on the community in the form of dust. Engineering Standard Requirements concerning compliance with Section 70l2(c) of the Uniform Building Code will reduce these potential impacts to a level of non-significance. c. The proposal will result in the development of single-family homes within a high wind hazard area. Building Division Standard Requirements requiring design of the roof and structure of the dwellings to be developed on the site to withstand 80 mile per hour wind load, exposure C, will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 3. Water Resources e. Cable Creek is adjacent to the tract on the south and has been partially improved to an earth graded channel with rail and wire bank protection. These improvements are considered interim in nature by San Bernardino County Flood Control District and not adequate to contain major storm flows. Storm flows could break out of the channel upstream or adjacent to the ttact and ttaverse the site. According to the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 0607lC7930F, dated March 18, 1996, the site lies within Zone X. Zone X includes flood hazard areas that will be inundated by a 500 year storm event, and areas that will be inundated by a lOO-year storm event, with average depths of less than 1 City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 17 foot. Engineering Standard Requirements and the following project conditions of approval will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance: (1) The construction of homes shall comply with the latest Federal Insurance Administration flood proofing requirements in force at the time of construction. (2) 100-foot flood control building setback margins shall be provided outside the Flood Control District's upper Warm Creek Right-of-Way for all structures to reduce the possibility of damage due to overflow and/or erosion. The setback may be reduced if bank protection and/or deepened structural wall footing are provided. The 85 foot setback shown on the tentative map will be allowed in this particular case based on the location of the street adjacent to District right-of- way. The 100 foot setback shown on Lot 1 is acceptable. (3) The 85-foot flood control building setback on Lot 41 has been determined to be unacceptable to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and shall be revised to a lOO-foot setback. (4) A six foot decorative block wall, wrought iron, or combination decorative block/wrought iron fence or other barrier approved by the City of San Bernardino Planning Division and County Flood Control District shall be constructed along the Flood Control District's right-of-way adjacent to the site. (5) Due to erosion potential, the road adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel shall be no lower than the adjacent channel bulk depth. (6) A permit will be required for any encroachment onto Flood Control District right-of-way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks processing time should be allowed. (7) Mud flow and erosion protection of the roadway adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel shall be provided subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 4. Biological Resources a. The site is located in a somewhat urbanized area bordered by residential development across Washington to the north and across Palm Avenue to the east. However, the site lies within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Figure 41 of the City's General Plan. A biological resources survey was prepared by L & L Consultants. The site is primarily un-vegetated, showing signs of recent disking for weed abatement. What little vegetation cover that does occur on the site primarily consists of a sparse, scatter of walnut treeS and non-native grasses and herbs. The predominant non-native plants observed on-site included Bermuda Grass, Foxtail Chess, Ripgut Grass, Short-pod Mustard, and Russian Thisle. These species are characteristic of highly disturbed waste, roadside, residential, flood channels, ephemeral drainages, and City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 18 agricultural soils of the local, surrounding vicinity. Disturbed soils vegetated by these species are described as RuderalIDisturbed areas, and offer only limited cover for forage for native wildlife and do not usually provide habitat for sensitive plants or animals. Although the natural, native habitat was removCd~ a few hardy native plant species grow on-site as remnants of former habitat. The predominant tree growing on-site is the California Black Walnut; the predominant weedy native shrubs, grasses and herbs include Squaw Bush, Spiny Redberry, Annual Sunflower, Scale-Broom, and Telegraph Weed. Several scattered mature California Black Walnut trees occur on-site and may represent the remnants of a California Walnut Woodland habitat. In addition, a few scattered specimens of Blue Elderberry, Western Sycamore and Freemont Cottonwood grow intermittently on the site. The trees have been disturbed and show signs of degradation/damage by resident activities. Based on visual observation and review of the NDDB (Natural Diversity Data Base) records for sensitive species, L & L Consultants considered the biological value of the trees to be very low. Despite a thorough and systematic field survey of the entire site by L & L Consultants, no sensitive species of any kind were discovered. Sensitive species are not expected to occur on-site due to the absence of habitat potentially capable of supporting sensitive species, on-going weed abatement and or fire suppression activities, and the lack of NDDB records for sensitive biological elements, on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. L & L Consultants concluded from their analysis that the subdivision and subsequent development of the site will not result in significant impacts to sensitive species, because none were observed and none are expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. b. The subdivision could result in the removal of the scattered mature California Black Walnut trees and other mature trees that occur on the site. Project Conditions of Approval have been added requiring the submittal of an Arborist's Report to address the condition of native trees with recommendations as to the potential use and relocations of the trees. Additionally, project compliance with Development Code Section 19.28.090 requiring the submittal of a Tree Removal Permit will also help reduce impacts resulting from the removal/relocation of the trees. Project Conditions of Approval have been added to require the submittal of the Arborist's Report with the Tree Removal Permit, prior to the removal, relocation or destruction of any trees on-site. S. Noise b. As identified in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form, item no. 0.(1), project construction will result in impacts on the community in the form of noise. Adherence with the City's noise ordinance regarding hours of construction (Municipal Code Section 8.54) will reduce these potential impacts to a level of non-significance. City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist Page 19 6. Land Use a. The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment which would change the existing General Plan Land Use/Zoning of the 14.45 acre site from RL, Residential Low (3.1 duJac) to RS, Residential Suburban (4.5 duJac). The RL designation allows a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet whereas the RS would allow a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the RS designation is being request to allow the smaller 7,200 lot size and not the additional density permitted by the RS. An alternative to the proposal is to create an RS/3.1 designation that would allow a 7,200 square foot lot size with a maximum density of 3.1 units to the acre. This alternative would require a text amendment to describe the RS/3.1 designation. The area across Palm to the east is developed with multi-family apartments. The area north across Washington Street is an existing single-family neighborhood with a minimum lot size of one acre. To the south of the site across Cable Creek is an area designated CG-5, Commercial General. The current RL zoning would allow the development of a 45 lot single-family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet. Redesignation of the 14,45 acre site to RS would allow development of a 65 lot single-family subdivision (20 more lots than the RL designation) with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Redesignation of the site to RS/3.1 would allow the development of a 45 lot single-family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The Any residential development proposed under the RS or RS/3.1 land use designation would be subject to subsequent environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Potential environmental impacts from the land use change will not be significant. 9. Transportation/Circulation a. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has determined that the additional vehicle trips resulting from the proposal will not cause any significant impact on the adjoining street system. Potential impacts are, therefore, not significant. 8. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 8-1 Location Map 8-2 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Map 8-3 General Plan Amendment Map r- AGENDA """"l ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE ~~..;;;; LOCATION HEARING DATE ... . , . t PLAN-I.ll PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-00)" ! " I' i-I I ,i ~i ! '(. I" "'~'!!. - "'l"Eil'~-"i l!, , ..', I'" i i .' - " .. "" Hi-, . ~ " ~- ~ I! E~ If ~ l. _~!= u~. I ~: !o>. ~ t ~ l II - ~ 1:11 .. ~b I! ill i~-;~ lli~Ill:-Ji!:! ~:; :1 I H 1l,'11 i j; Co It lill' ~~ iii' b1ill'-!'-!>i'! .' ~. I! 1".... , ., "'. ',if'! I ",u ~ :' ~_ Iii, Ii!! r i'ii~:: I ~ Ii! ~ ~ . !e ~ ~ ; ! I t t. 1;11 5 r ~ v I I" I r::: ...... !I~ ~~ I~ Ii ~dII! i' .! ill-Ill, I~~! I~ gl~! ;PI i I I~AJt~i~ . ~ 1;1 iili5 illl! Ell I I _ ! i I I." it, I. Ii j;.jU if 5, il. I. ;ii!:ilJ....jj m '"I;' [j:Ji) ~ [f::l .: on'i i~ < [!ji) Ill"; ,..'i lD"i (JI~i z ;;11: a ~Ii ~I- ~I- ~I- ~,- 0 -I "' "' "' "I ~ ~ = < 0 is ~ [? ~ ,: ," g'; a~ lDlIi ~ ~IE Mi! t: .; (U) Il Ii N' Nli z fo . , , ;; i a ~ < z -r"'''~ a ~ r;;:= ,: 1'),,; m [S ,- Z iI -I ~IE Nli ~I; !. , < , , ~ ~ [? 0 . ~ > . " ~ . ! : I: z I ;S 0 . I .; [kill I ",.; l(J'i !1.L z 0 -Ii -I- 0 S! "' < ~ z ~ . a . 'I ~ I ~ m z = ~ < [? _"i ~ _l- is " ! ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ [? ! i" ,..:i ~- i ~ {2 I " "'i: I :; . J, [kill ; II I: I ~.-r_ .- , [? , , . K / / r ill / ~ I gl- I a , ua' I ,- I ill -I / I _!""_ ...J IS < _I W'I I " i; ~'l @ . /i " ,; }I " ~ i- !i . . " E,. . " "II I. ~ i I; u *'"@ CJ3w 'l ..... . C:UI ... _...- -]nNlIl" i~ I l ~ " . ;:.. .=0 =>u ,tug ~1!ao ! I:!Q mero 5" - V)~.2e .cl cil (~ 8 .. !! ~ ~ I I.; . I I I I I 1 I J 1 ~ b~\ 1 '~~ I I I 1 I I I I '"J: I(Bi j;~';';;~j -' 0, ._~.:.::.~:.. :J I~.~I i ~ ,'--, ~ ~ II - I::' I I . - " -f " i::/."" .. ,,,' .\0.:. ~ I~I ~ lVi, U) , , t.::\ I I ~., ~ r:i3- ~ ~ ~ / , \ ! ~ :"e .. ~ '" <: ;;: !!: --------, ~ I ,4.0 I w..~1J I P' I I I .... I " ".1;'1, , ,'=I . I 'it ',f tr ' I ~ . '. " ,., . '. _':' h -';lnN3A'I' .J. ..-... _.~~ I.. .,.'1. 4. ".'l ~ @t- "@\.- ':~, . ii !l1'i ': '~t~t. - ~i 1111 ~ , J -\"', -- P:\ ~~ ..... 'l . @.." \. .. ,. <II + tS ~.@"- . i:. ... \@ ... ~..,.. \. +. )! Q: \t\-Q- .t-"~ ~ V :.-\\ "is'' CI.ail'" ll~:>~. _ill,,:.. ~lfm: il.~.~ ~ ,..u.~ ~ .lItU' @ I n~u~ . , ~t-.... ' l J -.-- .' ..0 ~. . , , ~ ~ > . I .,......,,,.. ..--' ..... ,r" 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN 3 BERNARDINO. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals (a) WHEREAS, the General Plan for the City of San Bernardino was adopted by the Mayor and Common Council by Resolution No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989. (b) WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 to the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino was considered by the Planning 11 commission on June 3, 1997, after a noticed public hearing, and the 12 Planning Commission's recommendation for denial has been considered 13 by the Mayor and Common Council. 14 (c) WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared on February 20, 15 1997 and reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee who 16 determined that General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative 17 Tract No. 15743 would not have a significant effect on the 18 environment and therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration 19 be adopted. 20 (d) WHEREAS, the proposed Negative Declaration received a 21 21 day public review period from February 27, 1997 through March 19, 22 1997 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act 23 (CEQA) and local regulations and no comments from the public were 24 received relative thereto. 25 e) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed 26 public hearing on June 3, 1997 in order to receive public testimony 27 and written and oral comments on General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 28 1 1 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 (a proposal to change the General 2 Plan Land Use Designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low 3 to RS/3.1, Residential Suburban/3.1 units per acre and to subdivide 4 the 14.45 acre site into 41 single-family lots with a minimum lot 5 size of 8,056 square feet) and fully reviewed and considered the 6 Planning Division staff report and the recommendation of the 7 Environmental Review committee. 8 f) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council held a noticed 9 public hearing and fully reviewed and considered General Plan 10 Amendment No. 96-07 and the Planning commission and Environmental 11 Review Committee recommendations and Planning Division Staff Report 12 on July 7, 1997. 13 (g) WHEREAS, the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 14 is deemed in the interest of the orderly development of the city 15 and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 16 existing General Plan. 17 SECTION 2. Neaative Declaration 18 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor 19 and Common Council that the proposed tentative tract and amendment 20 to the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino will have no 21 significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration 22 heretofore prepared by the Environmental Review Committee as to the 23 effect of this proposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and 24 adopted. 25 SECTION 3. Findinas 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the 27 city of San Bernardino that: 28 A. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the 2 ~. 1 2 3 4 B. 5 6 7 8 9 c. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 D. 17 18 19 20 21 A. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 General Plan provisions contained in Objective 1.11 pertaining to promoting the development of single-family detached units in a high quality urban setting. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the proposal will not result in any increase in allowable density. Lot sizes have been limited to a minimum of 8,000 square feet. The proposed amendment to change the land use designation on the 14.45 acre site from RL, to RB/3.l would not significantly affect the balance of land uses within the city in that the proposal will not result in any increase in allowable density for the site and both the RL and RBI 3 .1 designation are intended for the development of residential single-family homes. The subject site is physically suitable for the RB/3.l designation. The anticipated land use development will remain as single family with no increase in allowable density. SECTION 4. Amendment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that: The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the city of San Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 14.45 acres of land from RL, Residential Low to RB/3.1, Residential suburban/3.1 units per acre. This amendment is designated as General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and its location is outlined on the map entitled Attachment A and further described in Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated herein be reference. 3 1 B. The Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San 2 Bernardino is amended by adding policies 1.11.11 to establish 3 permitted use, density and height for the Residential 4 Suburban/3.1 land use designation, and 1.11.33 to establish a 5 minimum lot size for the Residential Suburban/3.1 land use 6 designation. A copy of the text is attached hereto as 7 Attachment C and incorporated herein by reference. 8 C. General Plan Amendment No. 95-05 shall become effective 9 immediately upon adoption of this resolution. 10 SECTION 5. Mat) Notation and Text Chanae 11 This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be 12 noted on such appropriate General Plan maps as have been previously 13 adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are 14 on file in the office of the City Clerk. This resolution and the 15 addition of policies to Land Use Element affected by it shall be 16 inserted in the appropriate location in the General Plan Land Use 17 Element, which has been previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common council and which is on file in the office of the 18 city Clerk. 19 SECTION 6. Notice of Determination 20 The planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 21 Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino 22 certifying the city's compliance with California Environmental 23 Quality Act in preparing the Negative Declaration. 24 25 26 27 28 IIII IIII IIII IIII 4 L_ 1 RESOLUTION. . .ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 3 4 Bernardino at a 5 6 7 8 9 10 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the city of San day of meeting thereof, held on the , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: Council Members: ~ ~ ABSTAIN ABSENT NEGRETE CURLIN ARIAS OBERHELMAN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 of DEVLIN ANDERSON MILLER City Clerk The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this , 1997. day 19 20 Approved as to form 21 and legal content: 22 23 24 25 26 Tom Minor, Mayor City of San Bernardino JAMES F. PENMAN, city Attorn1: By: ~ ~()/l~ 27 28 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE LOCATION HEARING DATE ...- rr~:=n:=~ ATTACHMENT A r' AGENDA """"l ITEM # .. .... . I . PL.M-8.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 (443)' ATIACHMENT B Assesor's Parcel Number 261-182-08 '" '. ATI'ACHMENT C TEXT AMENDMENT The following text amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element shall be inserted in the appropriate location of the General Plan: Insert following General Plan Policy 1.11.10 "1.11.11 Permit the. development of single-family detached units at a density of up to 3.1 units per gross acre and height of 2.5 stories (35 feet) in areas designated "Residential Suburban" (RS/3.1), (11.1 and 11.2)." Insert following General Plan Policy 1.11.32 "1.11.33 Require that lots be developed with a minimum of 8,000 square feet in areas designated RS/3.1, (11.1, 11.2 and 1.1.6)." . MAPCO PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING RECEIYE'J--Cm C:LEF~ July I, 1997 '97 JUl -2 P 4 :33 Mr. Michael Hayes, Director of Planning and Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North 'D' Street SanBemardino, CA 92418 Re~.' .. Tentative"Tract No~i 5743 (TI){ 1.5i43jandGeiieratI'i8liAiiiendmen~.~6;Q5 Dear Mr. Hayes: On behalf of the owner(s), Palm Partners a California Limited Partnership, of the project noted above we are respectfully requesting that the following information be forwarded to the Mayor, members of the City Council, City Attorney and Administrative staff for their review in consideration of the scheduled public hearing on July 7, 1997. PROPERTY HISTORY Palm Partners purchased the subject property, consisting of approximately 14.5 acres, approximately ten years ago. Subsequent to months of hearings, law suits and financial hardships for the City and landowners, a new General Plan and Development Code was adopted. The land use designation for the subject property was RL, Residential Low (10,800 sq. ft. minimum). Palm Partners sold the 14.5 acres to an Asian investment group. It was this investment group that filed for the initial tract map 14209. This map consist of 41 single family lots with a minimum lot size of 10,800 sq. ft. and an overall density of2.84 dwelling units per acre. The investment group was marketing the individual lots to families overseas at a price far above the local market. This fact was the key reason why the investment group was not concerned with the expense of certain infrastructure improvements or finish lot costs. Their main focus was on developing and selling the fmish lots quickly. Unfortunately, their 'timing' was awful. Although the land values were reaching highs of 24,000.00 to 26,000.00 per lot, home sales were declining and unemployment was rising. Shortly thereafter, lot prices began to decline rapidly to the point they are today, $5,000.00 to $ 10,000.00 per lot. It soon became apparent that their investment was lost and the oriental investment group defaulted on their mortgage note. :#~8 680 S. Waterman Ave., Building A . San Bernardino, CA 92408-2353 . (909) 885-3800 . Fax (92/ J~9876 Page 2 Tract 15743 July 1, 1997 At approximately this same point in time, the city imposed an assessment district on all vacant, undeveloped properties. These assessments were to pay for the construction of certain drainage improvements, street improvements and traffic signals in the Verdemont Community, There was no amount of these improvement costs assessed to existing homes in this area of the city, although these homeowners would receive the same benefit as the assessed landowners. This assessment has cost Palm Partners over $20,000.00 to date and will cost an additional $80,000.00 before the bonds are retired. This amount is in addition to the over $150,000,00 paid to date for property taxes, weed abatement and other city assessments. Palm Partners regained ownership of the property via a foreclosure process. It was at this time, just a few years ago, that we began to reevaluate the costs of the previously approved project to determine the feasibility of developing the site. Upon our offices review of the project we discovered an excessive amount of urmecessary expense in the infrastructure design. We informed Palm Partners that with minor modifications to the project we could produce a project that is feasible, does not increase the density and provides for the completion of public improvements. It was at this time, approximately two years ago, that we began the design and processing of the revised Tentative Tract No. 15743. The current application being considered at this time was submitted to the city on July II, 1996. PROJECT COMPARISON TRACT 14209 TRACT 15743 # OF LOTS 41 41 DENSITY 2.84 D.U.lACRE 2.84 D.U.lACRE ACREAGE 14.5 ACRES 14.5 ACRES MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,800 SQ. FT. 8,056 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM LOT SIZE 20,000 SQ.FT. 40,646 SQ. FT. Page 3 Tract 15743 July 1. 1997 PROJECT REVENUES At this time, the approximate total of property tax, bond assessments, weed abatement and other assessments annually for the vacant, undeveloped property is S 18,000.00. Less than 5% of this amount is returned to the city via State or County 'pass-thru' of collected revenues. Should Tract 15743 be approved by the Mayor and City Council, the projected revenues and economic activity, will be as follows: Annual taxes (without special assessments) for 41 homes will increase from $ 11,000.00 annually to approximately $ 80,000.00. Each business performing work at the project site will be required to obtain a city business license (if not already performing work in the city). Plan Check & Inspection Fee's Public Works Department $ 42,000.00 Plan Check, Inspection and Park Fee's Parks & Recreation Department S 70,000.00 Plan Check & Inspection Fee's Building Department S 40,000.00 Development Impact Fee's Various Departments Verdemont Infrastructure Fee Storm Drain Fee Sewer Connection Fee Sewer Capacity Fee Traffic Systems Fee Water Meter Fee Water Acquisition Fee S 430,000.00 San Bernardino Unified School District Fee S 120,000.00 $ 702,000.00 Page 4 Tract 15743 July 1, 1997 Construction Loan Amounts Public Improvement Costs Home Construction Costs Development Fee's Financing, architecture, Sales, marketing, etc.... $ 500,000.00 $ 3,300,000.00 $ 700,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 4,800,000.00 Approximately $ 3,500,000.00 of the costs of construction will be paid to or recognized by loca~ Inland Empire based businesses, laborers, material suppliers, insurance agents, mortgage and finance companies, in addition to, the local gas stations, restaurants and other service enterprises in the city who will receive 'income' from the employees of these businesses on a daily basis. In comparison, the annual revenue received by the city from an existing 2500 square foot, single family home, on a one-acre lot is approximately $ 500.00. ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES It has been stated, although unfounded, that the proposed project will have adverse effects on real estate values throughout the neighboring properties. From research performed and information obtained, from the San Bernardino County Tax Assessors Office and Records Department, we offer the following statistics for your review: 1. To the east of the project site is a large apartment complex. The construction of a single family subdivision will have no change in assessed value. 2. The property located to the south of the project site is vacant, with proposed plans for a commerciaVretail center. The addition of more homes in the area will enhance the chances for this retail center to be developed. This activity will increase property values, increase retail sales tax and provide for improved infrastructure throughout the area. 3. The property located to the west of the project site is approved for 69 single family lots, similar in size to Tract 15743. The proposed project will extend utilities to the west that will enhance the chances for the development of more homes, which will enhance the activity at the retail site and increase property values. Page 5 Tract 15743 July 1, 1997 4. The properties to the north of the project site consist of 17 individual parcels, 14 developed and 3 vacant. Single family homes are constructed on the developed parcels. The following is a list of assessed values for the 8 lots I homes directly across from the project site (located on the north side of Washington Avenue) taken from statistics in 1990-91 and 1996-97: 90-91 96-97 Lot # 13 34 30 31 32 27 28 29 16,000 140,000 160,000 170,000 16,000 101,000 100,000 105,000 17,500 136,000 175,000 195,000 17,500 130,000 118,000 122,000 average value 101,000 113,800 As a comparison of diminished land values, Palm Partners 14.5 vacant parcel in 90-91 was assessed at $ 900,000.00. In 96-97 the value is $400,000.00. Other interesting statistics and facts are: 1. The average value ofa single family home constructed in Verdemont today is $170,000. 2. Property values will increase resulting from improvements constructed by 'new' construction, such as; streetlights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, widened streets and landscape. 3. A 'finished' single family lot is valued today at approximately $35 to 40,000.00. This value is double that of a rural, one (1) acre lots in the same neigh borhood. Page 6 Tract 15743 July 1. 1997 CLOSING COMMENTS In other discussions with San Bernardino Unified School District, San Bernardino Water Department, San Bernardino Police Department and San Bernardino Fire Department it was represented by those individuals responsible for servicing the Verdemont Community that new development is a welcomed source of revenue. Although new homes and commercial development tax the systems of these departments and agencies, new development also provides an increase in tax dollars, developer impact fees, stronger neighborhood watch programs, badly needed street lights and street improvements, new schools and parks, new customers and stronger communities. During the preparation of Tract 15743 we have consulted and retained the services of the following professionals to assist with the planning, design and construction of this project: Archeologist Certified Arborists Registered Civil Engineer's Registered Biologist Acoustical Engineer Licensed Land Surveyor Structural Engineer Registered Landscape Architect Licensed State Contractor Golden Pacific Bank - Lending Institution Licensed Real Estate Appraiser Urban Land Planner To date, there has been no aspect of the proposed development that does not meet or exceed the requirements and standards of local public agencies either in the proposed design of the public improvements or construction of the homes and on-site improvements. Page 7 Tract 15743 July 1, 1997 It is with sincere commitment to our project that we respectfully request that the Mayor and City Council, without further delay, grant our proposal their approval as recommended by your professional city departments and staff members. Sincerely, On behalf of Palm Partners ilil David E. Mlynarski, MAPCO DEM/tm Attachments, which include: Original tract map 14209 Proposed tract map 15743 Letter sent to surrounding property owners dated January 9,1997 MAPCO PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING August 9,1996 Re: Redesign of Tract 14209 Washington Avenue - Verdemont Community City of San Bernardino Dear Property Owner, Weare writing you this letter on behalf of the property owners of the parcel ofland referred to as Tract 14209. This property is generally located on the south side of Washington Avenue between Palm Avenue and Chestnut Avenue / Cable Creek. You may recall, approximately 6 years ago the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract 14209. This subdivision contained 41 lots with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet (see map enclosed). Recently, the property was "taken back" by the property owners. Over the previous six years, developers attempted to design and develop the property. As you can see they were unsuccessful. What is left behind is an undeveloped parcel ofland. In addition, the City has assessed this land, and other undeveloped land in this area, with special taxes and other impact fees. In an attempt to turn a bad situation into a good one, we have been working with the property owners in the redesign of this property. We have determined that by redesigning the property and setting the parcels away from the flood control channel we could reduce construction cost by up to $20,000.00 per lot. In order to avoid this unnecessary expense, we have had to reduce the size of the parcels (see revised map and lot size breakdown). We have designed a subdivision which contains the original 41 lots, limits street access points to Washington Avenue and reduces visual impacts to your neighborhood on the north side of Washington Avenue. Weare proceeding ahead with the processing of our application for the new subdivision. Our projected schedule at this time would be to be heard by the Planning Commission sometime in the month of October. We would welcome your thoughts and comments regarding our project. Please take the time to contact our office by letter, telephone or to set a meeting to discuss this matter. I would further encourage you to contact the City Planning Department @ (909) 384-5057 and Councilman Jerry Devlin @ (909) 384-5278 with your comments and concerns. Thank you for the time you have taken with this matter. 680 S. Waterman Ave., Building A . San Bernardino, CA 92408-2353 . (909) 885-3800 . Fax (909) 888-4826 ,- . ~. _-,.J J !-/' c...:.:. , j / r'. !:..n , \ , , , co. .-- I ;.....) 0:..../D ~)C- r~ J/32 ' , , , , I --, - , - - , , , , ----- , , l- '"C / ,~ --x <'''-, ~- G .._~~ "-- . V"- / .., ---"'1 ~ ~'~",,\., ~ ----- ~ ... ,I1\o..j -- , "........ ~~ \ < ~ -' '-- . ,~~~', /... ['1 t -'0, _':1) () I '",\J~. I I \~ " ". I I t'" ,_ If, I '_... '..j n ~ -:.-.,;.. I / ._---.... -- - , , '.. -, " I~ , , \ .., 1 \ U 1.>.)6' \~ L! 7:"1 _..._~ -~7Y{-,.) ~..;J;y/[t~ - \ .... -- 1-- J,,- " ' ,\ e. &s 'i- ~ ........ CJ '";::;..~ b1 l\);~. 'I;>,] ; '[\}J>. ~ t:! , , , , --, \ ~ ,- I~r( I ( , , I , , \ , , , , ~ '", \ , r , I r I I ~, ~r " " , , '" I I , , I , , , r I , \ \ \ \ r \ 1 I \ , , , . '11OIilCAD ~~ ~ . c.oua . ,..~ ro' I. N =-.1. _I!: Ci o>:-l j- =1" ~ ~.. '. I ----I ''e .,' . 'i , , :-D '-'...> "-~, <'.. ' ....,,: J> :nZ"'l' ~~, kr I Ci"i C) , ""'1 ~ .,' <J_ .. t-.:' -.;r &5",>t. ........ C. . (3 ;\.~~ .. --~ \ J> -( v" . ;; . CSi! ~~~ ~N ~ :::;~! .... ~~ . . :t~; ~a' ~. - .. r.~ --, , ;; . - ~ ?~N lll__ 0- -~~- 100' , -:'1:1I .... 0 i2 F:~I\) '~oN - i!5 Utru - 'g EO "" ... -ell 0..,_ CJ__!<:-__ ~-.1'::.!"__ t/J1'l I 100' roo' ~" ~ ~ " -- -.j- Q !5~_ 't 8 uq:n \1 V'Of 15' rid --=-'-""Q-- ~- o . 0 ~ 8 r: 01 ~'" ,11,. ',. -_-J--., o &i C I: .!I:;;~ ~... t: , "" 7 . , . \ J , ---- - - _. -'- i5~\ ;; SIler, CD~ 15;:;" ~... , ~ ,... -. ..., :... i i e; 3 ~ ~ ~ ~. '. l,f '. ~ c ~ 8 -~ ..--. L r-~~ ~... ~ , 1-..',.. ~ ... "~~.'" ""-' - - ".: r !! 1- ! "j I j I,'J i 1 i!;:1...:.~ ,"::11. ~2i ' I ., ill j'!lllH"I!l' l:!~ : :: '! ~ I'~~~liill~~ 'II ld b' ~ li:!:li::Isml. ~~ , 'I '111II~ Jl1 . I ,.:. : l i;=i q} i ~ . I a J I L~ ii!5liHlIi I ! i : I dl! . ~ I - ~.r.-~-. III 1"- .,~. - :! lii'!.. . .. i" I ~~ = _ ~ .. ! ., ~.s :l a !lid 1 ~- I D ~ ! I Ii. I Ii: r~ l: I ~1l! "', ; ~ ;;',.~ ", I ,Ii,~,tllj I '::>1' 'II , I 2 " . I" . iJ II = . I~' 4J~ ~I ~i ~,. I.. 1', ' - '".';, ," .., i"!: . ' .. . I'" ;0 , /!l '" ~J- . . ! ~~~! II ~I~!~! ~i H ~ Irt~t~J ~ II i~t.il, IIj.....i,i.ilhl.;;a.I....lllllliliiiii ""S' r u.....~ ~= ~ [V = D= o' ((J) u;..!J! z n~f ; 0 "~'l . ~ < ~ J~ Z . ~ t~i 0 ~ z < '.!il' ~ '1 . ~ D= ~~i 0 ,.. - .,,~ !I ~ "'" ."n-. u (;Cr.. ~ .~ ,; ,'l'" :!: ,!!1.J 0 ~~=ii: 'Ii ~ !~:...1;! z ij"'f' 3 0 ir~~i . = ~ D= ~ 0 - ~ u ~ D= :!: ~ [tf] r~ I D= '" ~~-:_._-~-:-~~~-;;:_:_;~-~~~:;.;;;;.;.::=~;~~~:.:;..'?..;:::~..-~ ono -"'--r ~__:!!"_...:.-1-""!!..--=.."U..!L~~~~..!.J'LIIIt.A:'l..o~'l___;.._____....:____L__~_~ "'! ~ -. .l -. . j . - -. ,~~~ --rUr! ~.' ',r. r ~!'; on"! I .0', ...., 10'1 o'~ I. B /;1 - ' 'I E I .., >"Ii~ >"I!- >"Ii- i >"IP >"I~- ~ "':r It F '11 ' I I' ,i : ~ I 1 '1 '1 '1 'I "I I 01 !Oil , - 'I' · , ',' ~. .-; . .;--;:<; i : I ~ T' I . ~ I __,___,4a.... f---Y--~~ " otj lS . . M" 1\, / Q{ i i~ : 1/ I / /-, '~ / : ii' . / ' ~ / :! 1-' , / / . I / i R " I ! / J , ,;,// / / ~~ i/ >~ ------......:.. :' :t,~ " /~ / ',' / . - / / ./ .I .I / / .' , 11, ". :1" :1 :1 ~. ~ :~.:I I ,~ :i;: , '~ . ~j.' l :1 ;. " . !! ' i ~ il " , .:1 , il:'t 'i:' 'I:I ' . " 'I:', ~11 ':~~. -I , ~: r ~o ,I l!.__~__ ~ " -r~~ " I I ha , " i ~ 1~ :. I I. ~I- t - ~.- l i j , ~ q :1 , . ,'/! '. J , , b [~~ / ~... f ' :, / : ~ / 'i :" AI _I,' :. / ! ".t , :r ' ..l,j /' " " " 1-'~- IH'iD~: 5 I". . f "~riL ~ " / / ';. . G ~ I'~ I' '.'. " .., I --.-10.' ;~~ !J! "':!" . . ~ ! .. ~ ., tfl 1'3 i;:; .. :L F 1= I" ! I . ,I ~ Oversized Map Attached to Original Backup