HomeMy WebLinkAbout64-Planning & Building
ctv OF SAN BERNARtlNO - REQlIST FOR COUNCIL A~ION
.rom:
Dept:
Larry E. Reed
Director of Planning and Building Subject:
Appeal of Conditions Placed on
Review of Plans No. 89-44 for
Tract No. 10432
Mayor and Council Meeting of
December 18, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
Planning
.
Date:
December 5, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
-On September 14, 1989, the Development Review Committee approved Review of
Plans No. 89-44, subject to Standard Requirements and Conditions.
-On November 7, 1989, the Planning Commission, by a 7 to 0 vote, denied the
appeal and approved Review of Plans No. 89-44, subject to the conditions
imposed.
-No previous Council action.
;-:',;
,
- .
f''lj
.;;")
r.::::::
Recommended motion:
~;
t'-...,!
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; that Review'Of ~~ans
No. 89-44 be approved subject to the Findings, of Fact, Conditions and Stan-
dard Requirements contained in the October 17, 1989 Planning Commis~,io!i~ staff
report (Exhibit D); that the Mitigated Negative Declaration beadopted1'and,
that the Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program be adopted. (Supportif: staff
recommendation and Planning Commission action.) c: '
or
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld; that Review of Plans
~o. 89-44 be approved subject to the Findings of Fact, Conditions and Stan-
~ard Requirements contained in the October 17, 1989 Planning Commission staff
report with the deletion of the conditions to construct a storm drain expan-
sion and street improvements along University Parkway; that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration be adopted; and that the Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring
Program be adopted. (Supports the appellant's re~est.)
ctW / /di"1 ~ ~J
~ ' /' Signature
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5071
Ward:
5
Supporting data anached: Staff Report
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
n/a
Source: {Acct. No.l
(Acct. Descriptionl
Finance :
.ouncil Notes:
15.0262
Agenda Item NO..-6...!I
C.V OF SAN BERNARrAO - REQUAT FOR COUNCIL AC'-'N
.
STAFF REPORT
subject: Appeal of Conditions Placed on Review of Plans No.
89-44 for Tract No. 10432
Mayor and Council Meeting of December 18, 1989
REOUEST
The applicant, the Robert Osborne Company, is appealing the
imposition of certain conditions of approval for Review of
Plans No. 89-44 by the Development Review Committee and the
Planning Commission. The applicant requests that the Mayor
and Council reconsider these conditions and remove them as
conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Review of Plans No. 89-44 is a proposal to construct 42
single-family homes on 8.9 acres located on the westerly side
of University Parkway, south of Kendall Drive and north of
College Avenue in an area designated RS, Suburban Residen-
tial, by the General Plan. The homes are proposed to be
constructed on Tract No. 10432 which was approved on July 18,
1978. The final map for that tract was approved by Council
on January 20, 1982.
.
The applicant is appealing the conditions requiring: 1) the
installation of a storm drain along University Parkway per
Master Plan storm Drain No. 7-E25, and 2) the installation of
curb, gutter and sidewalk along University Parkway, together
with the incidental widening of the street.
The applicant contends that these conditions were not
included in the original tract approval, and that the Review
of Plans for the construction of homes is a non-discretionary
process, in which the placement of additional conditions is
not appropriate or legal. The City's position is that we do
have the legal authority to place these conditions on the
project because the Review of Plans process is discretionary,
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for
protection of life and property through the placement of
appropriate mitigating conditions, and there were conditions
of approval on the original tract map that allow for the
imposition of specific conditions to be placed on this Review
of Plans approval. (For a detailed review of this issue,
please review Exhibits A and D.)
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
.
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and approve Review
of Plans No. 89-44, subject to the Findings of Fact, Condi-
tions and Standard Requirements contained in the October 17,
1989 Planning commission staff report; adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and, adopt the Mitigation Report-
ing/Monitoring Program. (Supports the Planning Commission's
action. )
75.0264
.
.
.
.
Appeal of
Mayor and
... .
Cond~t~ons Placed on RP 89-44 for
Council Meeting of 12/18/89
Tract 10432
Page 3
.
or
Uphold the appeal and approve Review of Plans No. 89-44,
subject to the Findings of Fact, Conditions and Standard
Requirements contained in the October 17, 1989 Planning
Commission staff report with the deletion of the conditions
to construct a storm drain expansion and street improvements
along University Parkway: adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration: and, adopt the Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring
Program. (Supports the appellant's request.)
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the need to place conditions on the project to
protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is recom-
mended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and approve
the project as originally conditioned by the Development
Review Committee and Planning Commission.
Prepared by
John E. Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
for Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning and
Building
Exhibit
A - Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council with
Attachments
B - Statement of Official Planning Commission
Action
C - Public Hearing Notice
D - October 17, 1989,. Planning Commission staff
Report
mkf
M&CCAGENDA:RP8944
.
.
EXHIBIT A
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
.
GA"V'''' ,. ..."'......I:....I:IIIOlE".
.,1.....1:. It. ..00''1:"
~...U... '''COCIII'C .........
WI......'..... It. .'lEl..
.'e"..'''o A. CU"NUTT
...CO......"O.... ..........Cl,.
..0"'''' .. HUltI,.SUT. ......
M'CHAEI.... '....IU....
"UL'OIllO... 0......... .JIt.
THCOOGIU; I. WAL...",CC, ......
IItON",.O II!. "''''''INOTO...o
'''=10.,\111110 ~ .."'.
........."',,,.... N. "1:"''''''''''''"
.0al:"T c. ."''',1001
.OGC" A. O"....l.c.
1:0."'111'0 O. .,..C.,...... ......
T..O...... S. .......'NOC..
ItO.CII,. W. .........IIT.
0"''''0 C. ......".......
(:1,.''''0''0 C. "III'COC'"
..c......I:.. O. IIU.,N
...... G. .,VINO
...1:,..,,1:1'.... oDe..........
..Io.e..... O. CA'UIlUTM
.T..... WOI.COTT"
.aalE," So aowc"
OAV!C1 .... ......c....u.1l
"'..."C.A.... "O"'S""1oI
WU.L1AM ... .....''''ICOllllE.''.
..1.....1:....000.."'.
......"'1: NIU.aOH .................
W',............. oJ. CA....AN
M,C..ACI.. T. NOllt"'''''''
JANICe. 1... CCr..OTTI
"""I.'" O. 1Il0HM
"I0C.. O. MU"E".C"G
STEVEN A. "ICHa'-S
""0"'''. G. .II0C""NGTON
WU.L'''''' W. WYNOEII
I:VIII,O'''',!V'C'''II O"LL'"
"""'O"LL Ill. .....U....
"'''liT Ill. 0.111:1:'"
....,L... Ill. ..III'",CI:
""0"'''..1. CII""'C
.JO"'" L. ,.t:LLOWS It.
O"V'O ... "'OC"NEII
",..II"'.. """Z'EII
"'AII'N Y. ",II0GIUS
S"UCE". E"'''"0
1'''0'''''. G. "'I:LC"
OU"'E ,.. WA"'LOU"T
Ill. "'AT..It.'NIt .JE""O'"
.eOTT II. "'''''0'''1:
OIl'C. .J. COGC
II.C.....II0 G. "'O",TEVIOI:O
O..VIO .. COSOIIOVE
",..II. .MI"" "LYNN
LOll. ....IINCII SM'T"
.J..."'E.... "I"'EIITT
CliNE." .. .LATTE. "I
GUY E. .....ILLY
""'''HLCItN ,.Oll....T.. E.,.A.....N.
"'I'" O. 1''''0....50''''
.I"'TNIt O"'NO.."'Y T...TLOII
.IE"".ET we.THEI..ell
..A"". VAN LIGTEN
MATTHC. Jl.. liD..
"'ICH"'EL O. TUII""EII
...NOIIC'" II. C"'LI:'"
.I. IIUS.CLL TYLEII. .JII.
1I0.C'" O. OWCN
....11111' L. "DAMS
"'0"'''' N. VOLJl.I:II"
,JE,.,.III;T A. GOLD"AII.
...."""0.0 ...ATZ
.....TT...EW ~ .EC.EIIOEII
CHESTe..... "UCH"'LS'"
,.. .eVIN .II"'ZIL
LAyNE.... MELZEII
.....TIIICIC IC. ""'''''E"TT
0"'''''''' .. T....C"'NE"
L. ."'1 H"'''"IS0N
.COTT Ill. .CHOE"'W"Lo
....11...01 .I. ICNECHT
0"''''' SL...TE.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
... W. lII'U,...... "..0_'.7.1
.J""'E. .. TUCICCII. .11.11....'..01
M'L"Ollo W. 0...."'. SII. ".,."...,
... 1I000e. HOWELL 10....'..31
... .....IIT"'EIIII"'.. '''CLUO'NG ..II0rCSSION"'L cO....O....TIO...
CENTRAL II"'NK TOWE... SUITt"i4'OO".
o..VIO .J. O..."I....LOI. III
0" COU".C"
SOUTloI CO"'ST PL"'Z'" TOWN CENTER
ell ANTON BOULEV.....D
1II05T O""'CE 110)( ,..0
COST... ME5.... C"'L"ORHI'" e2112e-eeeO
REr:7.t.~...~._(":l""Y ;l_r:R~
I "//-14- v;tl iJT
TltLC.....ONE 11141 1141-5iOO
-.' .... .J 121~1 1125-751115
TELECOPIER 11141 5415-0035
TELEX SIO IIS.-Iees
C....LI: ...00llES5 _UTAH TUC elM...
November 14,
1989
IH IIE"LY "LE...SE IIE"EII TO
Honorable Mayor and Members
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" street
San Bernardino, California
of the Common Council
00 rn@rnnwrn ill
NOV 151989
...-----
92410
CITY PLANrJlNG DEPARTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
.
Re:
Appeal of Conditions Placed on Review
of Plans 89-44 for Tract No. 10432
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council:
This office represents the
applicant for Review of Plans
relates to Tract No. 10432, an
residential subdivision located
University Parkway.
Robert Osborne Company, the
89-44. This application
approved 42-single family
near Kendall Drive and
The particular subject of this appeal is the imposition
of two conditions by the Development Review Committee under
the City'S administrative review of plans procedure. These
conditions relate to the construction of a second 30-inch
storm drain pipeline alongside one that already exists on
University parkway, and the installation of curb, gutter and
sidewalk improvements along University Avenue.
.
The project is one of three identical tracts (together
with Tract Nos. 10430 and 10431) on University Parkway
previously approved simultaneously by the Common Council.
Final subdivision maps for all three have already been
recorded, and the two tracts on either side of the project
now in question have been constructed. Neither of the
adjacent constructed tracts was required to include the
improvements now being demanded of the Robert Osborne
Company.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT L.AW
.
.
.
... ."',"HellS"'. INC~UD'NG -'O..t..'o.....~ co.-o.""'OI<II
.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
November 14, 1989
Page 2
.
1. Procedural Background.
The Development Review Committee imposed the appealed
conditions on September 14, 1989. The conditions were
appealed in writing to the Planning commission, and a hearing
was held on October 17, 1989. After presentation of Mr.
Osborne's legal position with respect to the conditions, the
Planning Commission continued the matter pending further
analysis by the City Attorney's office.
The matter was again taken up by the Planning Commission
at its meeting of November 7, 1989. There, a representative
of the City Attorney's office opined that Municipal Code
Section 19.08.035, governing review of plans, creates
discretionary authority to impose further conditions on a
project for which a final tract map had already been
recorded. Apparently basing its action on this advice of
counsel, the Planning Commission voted to deny Mr. Osborne's
appeal of the conditions. Mr. Osborne's legal position on
the matter is set forth in a series of correspondence with
the City, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits B
through F.
Mr. Osborne respectfully requests the Mayor and Common
Council's attention to two reasons why imposition of these
conditions as this stage of proceedings is inappropriate.
First, none of the bases articulated by staff grant the city
the authority to impose these additional conditions. Second,
even if authority is present, there is a complete absence of
a factual record tying the need for such improvements to the
pUblic service demands generated by the project. These
points are treated separately below.
2. Legal Authority.
According to statements made by the representative
from the City Attorney's office at the November 7, 1989
meeting, staff relies upon (1) alleged discretionary elements
in the review of plans ordinance to assert that CEQA is
triggered, which in turn (2) gives the City discretionary
authority to impose1 conditions to offset purported
environmental effects. We believe that this analysis is
.
Staff originally relied upon city Resolution No. 86-420,
which incorporates certain discretionary items of review to a
1
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT L.AW
.
.
.
... ......,..EII'$..'. '''C:~'''O'''G MOOI'hS'OK&L C:OII~nONI
.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
city of San Bernardino
November 14, 1989
Page 3
incorrect on both counts.
First, the review of plans procedure does not constitute
a completely new discretionary approval of the project, as
staff's position suggests. A copy of the applicable
ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The specific
elements of review listed include maximum unit sizes, minimum
square footage of habitable area, and setbacks. Each element
contains precise numerical criteria, subject to automatic
application, not requiring any discretion.
.
Staff advised that the language in Section 19.08.035
relating to "compatibility with surrounding residential
buildings" injects a discretionary element. We respectfully
disagree. The scope of the review is governed by the
automatic criteria listed in the statute. Moreover, if the
level of discretion the City Attorney finds in this statute
has existed since its enactment in 1984, the creation of such
discretionary elements for commercial, industrial and multi-
family buildings in Resolution No. 86-420 would have been
completely unnecessary. It would therefore appear that
staff's current construction of section 19.08.035 is
inconsistent with positions taken by the city previously.
Second, even assuming the review of plans has a
discretionary element, CEQA does not provide independent
authority for the city to impose further conditions. (Public
Resources Code section 21004: 14 California Code of
Regulations section 15040.) To date, staff has failed to
identify any legal authority independent of CEQA upon which
it may impose these conditions.
A final tract map for this project has already been
recorded, and all conditions placed upon the tentative tract
have been met. The review of plans procedure simply does not
reopen the discretionary approvals already given: and even if
CEQA is applicable, it does not authorize these conditions.
.
prior Resolution No. 83-48. This position is apparently been
abandoned, since Resolution No. 83-48 relates only to
commercial, industrial and mUlti-family projects, thereby
exempting single family residences such as the project at
issue here. Staff now apparently relies solely on section
19.08.035.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.
.
.
.. """"1:""". ''''CWCI'''O ....,I'UI'O....~ c:O"'O....TIOHI
.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
November 14, 1989
Page 4
3. Absence of Factual Record.
.
Of course, it is axiomatic that conditions opposed
upon a project must be related to the burdens it creates.
Here, the improvements being required of the Robert Osborne
Company will not serve the project, and are unrelated to any
services needs the project may create.
The Mayor and Common Council may be aware that a 30-inch
pipeline to serve the drainage needs of the project has
already been constructed, as part of the original final map
approval. All drainage from the project site will flow into
a downstream pipeline, which is in all respects sufficient
for this purpose. The second pipeline now required will not
serve any portion of the site, but rather is to be
incorporated into a City-wide system, parts of which will be
funded by the City itself.
It may be arguable that the project will incrementally
increase regional drainage needs, but the project is also
subject to payment by the developer of over $30,000 in
drainage fees for this purpose. Requiring construction of a
second pipeline as part of the system for which these fees
are collected appears to be a classic case of "double-
dipping," and simply cannot be supported by the drainage
requirements of the project. To date, staff has only
indicated that the Environmental Review Committee has deemed
that this pipeline is necessary for "public health, safety,
and welfare." This conclusion and its bases are vague, and
belied by the actual drainage situation on the project site.
While staff's goal of attempting to advance overall regional
improvements without pUblic costs may be understandable, the
requirement of a second drainage pipeline is unsupportable
here, both on the facts and the law.
The same applies to the proposed street improvements.
The project design calls for a solid wall all along the
project's frontage on University. consequently, there will
be no vehicular or pedestrian access to this area. The Mayor
and Common Council may be aware that the two developments
immediately adjacent to this project, also fronting on
University, were not required to install the street
improvements. Staff has made references to changed
conditions in the neighborhood, but the City authorities
under which development conditions are imposed have not
.
.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
A.TTORNEYS AT LAW
.
.
.
'" _"fItS"'., '''C~UDI'''G IOflOrc...'O....1. CO~......"O..S
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
November 14, 1989
Page 5
changed substantially since those project approvals, and the
record is devoid of any indication why such improvements
would be required from this project.
It may also be noted that both the street improvements
and the pipeline are being required in a vacuum; neither will
connect to improvements existing on either side of the
project. Thus, apart from their legal difficulties, the
conditions defy logic by requiring improvements which lead to
nowhere.
4. Conclusion
Both the city and Mr. Osborne are interested in
having a quality residential development on this site. Mr.
Osborne has agreed to all conditions placed upon the issuance
of building permits here, except for the two now under
appeal. Applicable legal authorities simply do not allow the
City to advance regional public improvement programs by
requiring improvements which have no demonstrable
relationship to this project. Both as a matter of law and
fact, these conditions are inappropriate. We therefore
respectfully request the Mayor and Common Council to uphold
the appeal, remove these conditions, and allow for the
issuance of building permits for the project.
Very truly yours,
Phi
PDK/jb
cc: Mr. Robert E. Osborne
Mr. Marshall Julian
8/159/063099-0004/001
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
A
Municipal Code section 19.08.035
B
Letter to Planning commission from Philip D. Kohn, dated
October 31, 1989
c
Letter to Marshall Julian from Philip D. Kohn, dated
October 24, 1989 (includes proposed Agreement for
interim resolution of dispute)
D
Letter to Planning commission from Philip D. Kohn, dated
September 19, 1989
E
Letter to Henry Empenio from Philip D. Kohn, dated
August 31, 1989
F
Letter to Henry Empenio from Philip D. Kohn, dated
August 15, 1989
J
for eaCh zOne
MinImum Lot
Width
60 feet
80 feet
100 feet
150 feet
200 feet
330 feet
SOO feet or as approved
by the Commission
B. Minimum depth. Minimum depth shall be one hundred feet.
(Ord. MC-566. 12-8-86; Ord. MC-367, 5-7-84; Ord. 3422 (part),
1974; Ord. 1991 fi 4.2(A), 1953.)
...: .
.. R~J-7,200
R-J-JO,800
R-I-20,OOO
R-I-I Acre
R-I-2 ~ Acres
R-I-5 Acres
R-I-40 Acres
.#.-c,.....c, .
c.::iMinlmum Lot
Area
7,200 Square feet
10,800 Square feet .
20,000 Square feet
I Acre
2~ Acres
5 Acres
40 Acres
"
19.08.035 Development review.
An administrative review of plans shall be required for all
R-I zone developments. Site plans, floor plans and conceptual
elevations shall be submitted in conjunction with the processing
of the application for administrative review of plans, and
compatibility with surrounding residential buildings and
structures shall be required in accordance with the following
criteria:
A. When adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood,
the minimum unit size shall be not less than eighty percent
of the average unit sizes of existing single-family residences
within five hundred feet of the project area.
B. Each dwelling unit shall contain a minimum square footage
of enclosed habitable floor area in accordance with Section
19.08.050.
C. Dwelling units shall comply with the requirements of this
chapter. including but not limited to building setbacks and
height limitations.
D. Existing lots with established single-family residential
neighborhoods shall be exempt from the minimum floor
area requirements of Section 19.08.050 provided the
enclosed habitable floor area is compatible with the sur-
rounding established single-family residences.
E. Existing dwelling units with less than 1.000 square feet
of enclosed habitable floor area shall be exempt from the
minimum floor area requirements of Section 19.08.050.
(Ord. MC-367. 5-7-84.)
;
.
1079
(5.n Bernardino 3-17)
.
.
. .
..fli':
A
'}" ~~:.~~.;
.
.
8
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
.
0."...... ~ ........c....r..Qc..
..:....1:... MOO_C'
....Ul. ".coe.,e .......
..,1.1.,..... ..r;...
'''c....o .. c:""...u""
..1.0.....0... .......1:1-
..0"" .. ..........U.. ..".
....e....c..... '....10....
oo'I.O'OltO..... :;I..........
."COOO",C', ......I...c.c...".
-0".1.0 II: ...'"01'0'''
..e",..o .. .,..,
................ ..C."........
"0.1.." C. ........
.001.. .. 0......1:.
1.:;1.......0 O. ,...1:...... .",'
TMOM"'S S. '..1.,"'01t""
_oar.",. w ....1.....,
OA""O C. ,-".SC'"
1:1."0'0.0 C. ...,I:OIt..
..'c....1:1,. Q. It....,,,
I.'" Q. 1lI1"'....
.lIt..,..lty ... 001t.....,..
..ole... o. c...",...
STA" WO...COT~'
IIc.e., S. .0..1._
0,,"""0 ... ....1.,..,.1(
.....ClA .. "ellll''I''!'''
WI....'.... ... ....'""CO.c...
..."'.1..... ..0"'''''
......e ...1:1..0.. ..."'.......
w,.....,...,J. c..."'....
...c.....CI. T. "O.fIII.1Il
......ce.... Cel-OTT.
....'-... 0_ 0l0....
.,toe... Q "''''''1:''.1:.0
.TIEVe.... "'CMa...
,."'0..... G. ..OC.'''O'''O''
.."..I.,........ ...,...oc.
1:.,,"'10llU..,,'CII"0...1.1.....
....1010......... ... ......""...
.......,....O.CCN
~"11.'~". ~"'..cc
...0......... =......e
_0....;... ..'t_.~"'S'd
~"''''O .. ..oc....e.
...... II, .....Z e'"
",..."... '!'. "'.OG'".
..""CC .... e......o
....0...... o. ",eI.C..
O,,",IIC", ......I.Qu..,.
.. "'''''''..e.'NC ..1:,,"50'"
.CQ"''' II. ~".zo..e
O.IICII ;.I. COOE
..C......O o. "0"":""01:0
0"""0 s. co.o.o."e
....1111....'....1,..,.....
1.0.' ........:. .....,...
.......:.. "....:".,..,.
C....:_.,.... "'1.....,.,.1:. '"~
0....,. C. .....,1.;.."
1t...,...I..:.:.....,.....,...c..............
It... 0, ,...0....0...
.....'NC :1....0...11" ,..."1.0.
....:......:" *e."'''':'''CII
....... .".... ..'0'1'':..
....,.,...c.. It. "0.'
..'c....CI. o. ........:.
....o.e.. II. ="'I.C"
.... .U'SCI... T.,....C". ",,,
.O'C"'" ~ .,..c..
..."".,.... ..0.....
..0....... "o...ItC"'''
...:...."c.,. ... 001,.0"....
.......0.0 S.....TZ
.....TT..C II .. S':':'C.OC"
c..e.T1:." ."'c....I,...,
... Ite....... .....z'l,.
1o....,...C... "e..zc.
~"'T.,e. .. ."""C.T...
OA"" II. '....C..Ne..
.... .., .........0..
.COTT" .c..OC.......1.0
............. ."I;c"'"
0..... SI....TC.
A.TTORNEYS A.T I.....w
.., II. .UT.... "..0-'."'.'
......e. s. Tue..:"'. ."'. u.......'='.
"'''''0''0.. 0....... ."'. "........,
.. -O::lo.e. ..owl.l,... 1........~,
.. ....,..!!:....,.. '''CIo;.lO...G ...O..CSS.ON..... CO."Oll.."'O'"
CENT'U,1.. ..NI'I. TOWlE". S\lITI[ '''00
SOUTI'O COAST "'I.....Z... TOWN CENTE"
e., "'NTON 1!!l0UI..EV.AO
1lI0ST O""'CE .OX .eso
COSTA trolESA. CALIP'OlltNIA 928ZS....0
:::....'0 .... 0".""l..0'. n.
... c......,..
TE..E"'NONE 17141 041-15,100
12131 8ZS-7See
TEI..ECO.'EJIl 1714' 54e'9035
October 31,
1989
'E\,CX "0 ....'..3
CA'..C ..ooa':l. .U'A'" 'we cs....
,.. IIC"l..T .."C....C .C"C. TO
0.._____
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re:
Review of Plans 89-44
Continuance of October 17, 1989 Public Hearing
Appeal of Conditions/Neqative Declaration
.
Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission:
At your last meeting on the above subject conducted on
October 17, 1989, you requested that we summarize the
position of the Osborne Development Company with respect to
the storm drain and sewer-related conditions of approval
imposed by the Development Review Committee and appealed by
the applicant. In general, our opposition to the appealed
conditions encompass (1) the lack of legal authority to
impose the conditions, and (2) the absence of a factual
record to justify the necessity of t~e conditions.
.
1. Lack of Leqal Authority. The process now underway
is the City's review of plans procedure. As you will recall,
Tract No. 10432 is a recorded final map and Mr. Osborne is
seeking building permits for the individual residential lots.
None of the authorities identified by City staff, however,
allow for the imposition of the conditions now being„appealed. In a nutshell, the review of plans procedure is a
ministerial process as to the project. Municipal Code
Section 19.08.035 deals simply with unit sizes, lot sizes,
setbacks and heights; these matters do not entail the
exercise of discretion. Resolution No. 86-420 (which amends
.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT r.AW
.. _.,..'"11...... ...cwo.... _..._~O.~...OO".
.
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
October 31, 1989
Page 2
Resolution No. 83-48) is inapplicable on its face to single
family residential projects; instead, it pertains only to
commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. The
original conditions of approval and the improvement plans for
Tract No. 10432 have already been satisfied, otherwise the
final map would not have recorded. A mitigated negative
declaration is improper because the State CEQA Gudelines
exempt ministerial projects (see 14 Code of Cal. Regs.
9 15369), so CEQA is not an independent source of authority
to impose conditions.
.
2. Absence of Factual Record. City staff conveniently
overlooks the fact that the approval of Mr. Osborne's project
has been conditioned on the payment of approximately $30,000
in drainage fees to mitigate off-site impacts. The' project
will ultimately drain only into an existing 30" pipe. City
staff is now proposing that Mr. Osborne be required to
construct a second 30" pipe, which no one else has been
required to do in the area, when his project does not create
the need for this additional improvement and will not benefit
by the improvement. Mr. Osborne cannot be charged to
contribute a pro rata share toward general master plan
facilities and then be further required to build them at his
expense. As to the street-related improvements, there is
again no showing that the project will contribute to the need
for those improvements. There is a continuous wall along
University Parkway, with no vehicular or pedestrian access.
Substantially identical proj ects (for example, Tract Nos.
10430 and 10431) were found not to contribute to the need for
any of the improvements at issue, and the applicable City
regulations have not materially changed in the interim.
In clOSi.ng, Mr. Osborne i.s not at all disagreeable to
paying his "fair share" of improvements required as a
consequence of his project. We believe, however, that the
appealed conditions go far beyond this standard and fail to
have any basis in law or fact. We again request, therefore,
that the appeal be sustained. Thank you for your
consideration.
Very truly yours,
.
PDK/jb
130/063099-0004
cc: Mr. Robert E. Osborne
Henry Empenio, Esq.
.
.
c
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
.
0"""'''111 ... ......lo..C...CltGIt..
.......11:. II. MOO_C.
...."".. '.II:OII:III"e .......
""1.1,.1""". .,C...
.,C.....O ... CUlt..""
..1:0.......0... ........c...
..0..,. .0 .."........,. .....
M'CMACl. w. ,"'...:t....
.......0.0 .. 0........ .....
"..eODa.1t I. .........ce. .... "
.0.....1,.0 '". &''''''.OTO...
..e......o ... .....
..........,,1. N. ..C.........."'.
ltoeelt' C. ....."..
.ooc" .... ........c.
CO.......O o. ..,.c."'.... "'''.'
'1'..0...... S. ....I.,..OIt".
.OSC." .. .....r..,.
0......'0 C. Io....e...
C"""O.O C. '.,EGeN
...c....c.. D. ."....
I.'" Q. .....,.._
"C"'.Cy ... DOC.........
...o.c..... O. C......"..
.T..... .0..CO""
.0SCl'" s. eOWlE.
OA"'ID ... ...loe.....e
.....c.... .... 'O.S"'"
"',1...,........ ......'Ico.e....
........:.10. .0..'1
A.....C "CIoSO.. 1,..............
w.....,....... c.....I........
..'c.....ltl. T. ...0....._
..lA..,CC 10. CC...OTT.
."'1,.'. Q. .0....
..011:1. Q. ."""1:..1:"0
.'cove..... ..,c..o..'
'..0..... D. ..OCIII"O'O..
w,......,.... w. .""OC.
C"'.'O'"" '''''C'Ul 0...........
.....010...... "". .......:...
M".~ M. O.CC"
~..,...,~ .... ~"'''CC
....OM... ~. c.....C
~O.... .... 'c...~O*" H'
:1....,'0.., ..OC....CII
....."'.. '.""C"
....... ,. "'.00'1.1.
..\lCC ... C......O
To.O..... o. "'C"'c"
ou.c ,. ........01.1'.'
... "'..~..c.,..C ..C...O..
.CO~" .. ~'''.I0''C
O,"C" ... COOC
..C.....O O. "'O..U:..,.DCO
0....,.0 .. CO.O.O...c
......11 ....,.. '.........
...0.' ......1.. ....,..
.......e.~. "..1:.'"
I:...C..... .......,..1:. '"
0..... I.. ....'......,
...,.....r.C.. 'O....~.. ES'........,
.... O. '..0....0..
.I..,,..e 0.....0.".,. ~....1.0"
...c.....e~ .e.'''I:,...e.
....... ..,..... ...,o'e..
....."..e. II. "0..
...C....CI. D. '\I."C.
....O.c.... C.....C",
... .u..e...... ..,1.1:.....
.o.e.' O. o.e..
....... .... ...0...",.
...0"..... ..,0......1:.'
...e.....C1' .. 001.0......
.......0.0......"
......"..ew ~. see.e.oc.
c..cs~c. ... ~uc........e'
'. .c"'''' ..10"1.
.........I:.....C...ZC,.
~.....'C. .. .,,"C.'"
0........ 'Asc....e.
.... S", ......'.0..
.COTT ". .C..OE.....I.D
...IIt....... ...cc..,
0.... ......'EIIt
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
..,.. ....,.... "..0...""
......C... '\lceE.. 'I.. "......'10'
"'1.'0.0 w. 0........ 'I". ".'..,...,
... "o.oOC" ..0.1....... h.."_'..~i
.. """'HIE....." IJroICl.I.lOI"G ""Orc..,o..,,1.. CO."O"""O".
CENTlItAI. .ANIll 'OWE". SUITE 1400
SOUT... COAST ~I..AZ. 'OWN CENTC.
0....,10 .... 0""'."1..0'.
0" CO.....I.
ell A",TON eOI"lI.IEVA.O
_OST O......'CC 80X '850
COST" MESA. CA~I"'ORNIA eleze.eeeo
'EI..E~MONE 171.' .."5'00
IIIJI .n'7Se.
TIEI..ECO"'lElIII 111.., S....g03S
'1It...c:x .,0 S...I...J
CASI..C: ...oolles. .1.1'''''' 'UC C.",A
October 24,
1989
IN .e"l.1' ~I..r.....l .ere_ '0
VIA TELECOPY
...----
.
Mr. Marshall Julian
City Administrator
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California
92418
Re: Tract No. 10432
Osborne Development Corporation
Reauest for Buildinq Permits
Dear Mr. Julian:
I am w=iting to follow
last Friday afternoon with
matter.
up
regard
on our telephone conversation
to the above-referenced
.
As I indicated to you, the Osborne Development
Corporation has received design approval for its residential
project. Mr. Osborne has, however, appealed certain of the
Development Review Committee conditions pertaining to storm
drain and street-related improvements. These improvements
are not located within any of the lot boundaries for home
construction. Thus, the appeal does not affect individual
lot construction. Nevertheless, Mr. Osborne has been told by
City officials that no building permits can issue until the
appeal is finally determined. I acknowledge there is a
dispute regarding the appealed conditions, yet that should
not hold up the issuance of building permits.
J
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT L.AW
.. ....,.c.s.... "'CLUO".G ~"C.'oO""L "'__"'00'"
Mr. Marshall Julian
October 24, 1989
Page 2
Pursuant to our discussion, I am enclosing a proposed
draft of an agreement whereby the City would issue building
permi ts for Mr. Osborne's proj ect (more particularly, the
model homes and first phase of homes), notwithstanding the
pendency of the appeal. Numerous safeguards for the City are
built into the agreement.
Needless to say, Mr. Osborne is anxious to initiate
construction as soon as possible inasmuch as the City-
approved grading has been completed and the carrying costs
for the project are continuing to accrue.
I sincerely appreciate your attention to and
consideration of this matter. I look forward to hearing from
you at your earliest convenience once you have had an
opportunity to review the draft document so that we may
discuss any revisions you believe are appropriate. Thank you
again for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
RUTP/JIL
Philip D. Kohn
PDK/jb
Enclosure
c~: Mr. Robert Osborne
1301063099-0004
,------ --
.
.
.
.
.
AGREEMENT
.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _ day of October, 1989,
by and between the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO (the "CITY"), a
municipal corporation, and OSBORNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
("OSBORNE"), a California corporation.
WHEREAS, OSBORNE is the owner of approximately 8.9 acres
of real property located in the CITY commonly referred to as
Tract No. 10432, for which a final map was recorded; and
WHEREAS, OSBORNE submitted an application for Review of
Plans for 42 single family houses, designated by the CITY as
No. 89-44, which was conditionally approved by the CITY'S
Development Review Committee on september 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, OSBORNE appealed to the Planning commission
certain of the conditions approved by the Development Review-
Committee relating to the installation of a storm drain and
of curb, gutter and sidewalk along University Parkway; and
WHEREAS, there is no other appeal pending with regard to
the residential construction proposed to be undertaken in
Tract No. 10432 as approved by the Development Review
Committee; and
WHEREAS, the above-referenced storm drain and street-
related improvements pertain to portions of Tract No. 10432
lying outside of the individual residential lot boundaries
within the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, tr.e final outcome of OSBORNE'S appeal will have
no impact on its entitlement to proceed with the residential
constructicn of the 42 lots in accordance with the approval
by the Development Review Committee subject to the other
approved conditions; and
WHEREAS, OSBORNE desires to commence residential
construction of its proposed model houses (on lots 40-42) and
its proposed first phase of houses (on lots 8-14 and 21-32);
and
.
.
.
.
.
.
WHEREAS, the CITY is agreeable to issuing building
permits for such residential construction subject to certain
understandings, safeguards and protections;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of
recitals and promises set forth in this
parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. The CITY agrees to forthwith issue building permits
to OSBORNE for Tract No. 10432 for the limited purpose of
commencing residential construction of OSBORNE'S proposed
model houses (on lots 40-42) and its proposed first phase of
houses (on lots 8-14 and 21-32). OSBORNE agrees to
diligently proceed with such construction in accordance with
the non-appealed conditions of approval imposed by the
Development Review Committee pursuant to Review of Plans No.
the foregoing
Agreement, the
.
89-44.
2. OSBORNE agrees that the CITY may withhold
certificates of occupancy for any of the houses authorized to
be constructed until there has been a final determination on
the appeal of the storm drain and street-related
improvements. If, upon the exhaustion of all available legal
remedies, the appealed conditions are upheld as valid, then"
OSBO~~E agrees to install those improvements.
3. OSBORNE agrees that the issuance of building
permits subject to this Agreement shall not create any
estoppel which would prevent the CITY from withholding
certificates of occupar.cy in the event that OSBORNE fails to
comply with all applicable final conditions of approval. The
CITY agrees that the issuance of building permits subject to
this Agreement shall not create any estoppel which would
prevent OSBORNE from maintaining its above-mentioned appeal.
4. OSBORNE agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the
CITY, its officers, employees and agents, from any and all
obligations, liabilities, claims or losses for damages or
injuries to persons or property occurring as a proximate
result of the construction authorized by the building permits
issued by CITY as set forth above, except where such damages
I
.
-2-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
or injuries arise sOlely from the negligence or willful
misconduct of the CITY, its officers, employees or agents.
5. Each of the persons executing this Agreement
warrants and represents that he is authorized to do so by the
party on whose behalf the Agreement is executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Agreement the day and year first written above.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OSBORNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By
Marshall Julian
City Administrator
By
Philip D. Kohn
Attorney-at-Law
ATTEST:
By
City Clerk
130/063099-0004/001
-3-
.
.
D
.
CJ3
EJl&
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
.
~.CV'''' S".l.l.c..ac.Gc.'
.......It... "OO_C'
........ ".coc.,e "'.....
..1.1.,..... ..e..
..c....O.. c"...u....
I.Co"..._o .. .......Cl.
..0.... ._ ",,_,,''''''. ....
...c...c..... ......It..1.
.'''''0_0''' 0...... ....
....!tooo.e '. ....."'...ce. "..'
.lto......o .. .......OTQN.
..c.....a .. ,....
............ N. .C..........
_oac.' c. .........
.OOC_" 0......1:.
co....o D. ....c...... ... .
...0.... s. .....,..OC..
_o.r..' w .....c.,..
OA....O C. ......c...
CL'UO.O C. ....coellol
.'C".C.. O. _WS'N
I.... O. .,"'....
..C"".C1' ... DOC.......
..O'C." Q. C...U....
S"A.. WOI.C01'T'
_oac." S. ao...ltlt
OA""O ... ."'CS"'.C
....c,.. ... ..o.,n..
......,,,.. N. ...."ICO.II...
..1.......10.. "0_"
.....11 NC"SO" ...........
.,.."..... ... c.........
.,e.....c.. T. MO.....'"
......'Cll ... CC..OTT.
_...,. D. MO,,"'"
",OCI, O. OIIU.C.'C.O
'''evCN .. ",C"D"S
T..O.... o. .!tOe.tNOTO..
.'1.1..'"'' .. .,.NDC.
CYI"DII'" IYICIUI 0.........
...fIID..I.1. M. e"..lJ."
.....,.... ."CCfII
~M''''~ M. ~.'NCC
""001". .J. C"ANC
.JOMfII ... II'C""O.. III
:I.V'O" -O:'C;....II:.
...... . '..',C.
......." ".00'''.
.."CC. C"UlIO
""0"... ..e:..c..
OlJ.C , W......Ou.."
.. ..."..e:....C ..C....O..
.CO'!"" .. .''''0''11:
O'.C. .J. CO.C
.'C"".O .. .0",,,cv'OCO
0.""0. CO..IIO"'C
..... ....".. '.."...
1..0.. .....c. ..."..
.....C.~. '...e:"'"
C....C." w, ......,"C. '"
(Ii". C .........
...'.....1:1:.. "0"."" CS".""'"
..... 0 ,...0....0..
.......11: 0....0....... ,......::t.
..I:"'.C" WI:.""I:'.C.
...... V..... ..'0"1:"
.."""I:W ... .OS.
.'C_Ae:.. D. "...-C.
.fIIO.C" .. CA"C.
..., ...,..C.... ""I.C.. ...
.O.C." 0 owC.
e..""" ... ..0....
"OA. ... VO...C'"
.JC.....C. A. .0..."'....
.......0.0 .....n
."".'C. 011. ..........
.oec"" "ONOWITZ
"0'" D. ....C..O..
."""NCW ., .cceciIlIGC.
CMC.TC" ... .uc.........
11'. .CYlfII e""""
.~.".. I.. "0..".
I,.......C... _C..,c.
."".IC. ., .......c.".
DAN" .. "...C.......
1,.. .., ........0..
.CO"" N. .CMOC_"1.0
."""".J. .NCC.."
DAN .I,...TC.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.., " .",..... "..0.'.".'
,1."1:".. ""C"II:.. 5. ........SO'
.......0"0 *' 0...... S. ...... ....
.. ttO~Gl. "owl..1.. ..........J.
.. .......C.S.... ''''C''UO'''G ..0'e:S5'0....1.. CO..O"""'O"S
CEN"........ ....NI( "owElII. SUITE ,.00
SOUT... COAST P.....Z... TOWN CENTElII
ell ANTON .0ULEVAlIIO
POST O""ICE .OX '.50
COSTA MESA, CALIP-OIIINIA 92e2e.9990
1)....0,1. G.......~'.
0" ~0.._.1l_
TELE.MONE 171'" .41..100
1.11.31 6.1S-75..
TELleo",!:. 17'4' S".-.0.35
.CI.IU .'0 ....,...3
CA...C ADD_ca. _U'A.. 'UC ca..A
September 19,
1989
'" .C~.." "I.e".e iIlICII'C. "0
DATE
RECIEVED ~ OJ/, /~,n
-d~ /(~
RECIEVED BY
'..- -
.
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
Attn: Brad L. Kilger/Vivian Ray
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re:
Review of Plans 89-44
Approval of Conditions/Neqative Declaration
Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission:
This office represents the Osborne Development Company,
the developer of Tract No. 10432, consisting of 42 single-
family residential lots located near Kendall Drive and
University Parkway. On September 14, 1989, the City
Development Review Committee ("DRC") approved Review of Plans
89-44 for the project subject to various conditions, most of
which Mr. Osborne is perfectly willing to satisfy.
.
Please. consider this letter and the accompanying $75.00
fee to constitute an appeal of the following two conditions
that were imposed on the DRC approval: (1) the installation
of a second 30" storm drain parallel to University Parkway,
and (2) the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk along
University Parkway together with an incidental widening of
the street. Pursuant to a telephone conversation between Ms.
Ray and Mr. Osborne I s office, the ownership list/mailing
labels will be transmitted under separate cover.
.
.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.. -.,......... -cwo.1OG _III.O....~ C:O._."'O"~
.
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
September 19, 1989
Page 2
As you may recall, Tract No. 10432 was part of a phased
residential project proposed by the McCarthy Company/William
Lyon Company and was approved by the City in conjunction with
Tract Nos. 10430 and 10431. Tracts 10430 and 10431 were
built out and are occupied I the commencement of Tract No.
10432, which is located between the other two tracts, was
delayed because of the City's adoption of a moratorium in
response to circumstances entirely unrelated to Tract No.
10432. A final subdivision map for Tract No. 10432 was
recorded, the subdivision improvement plans were approved by
the City, and the necessary subdivision improvement bonds
have been posted.
.
The essence of this appeal by the Osborne Development
Company is that the DRC seems to be using the Review of Plans
process as an opportunity to conduct a wholesale reevaluation
of a prior subdivision approval and to exact additional
subdivision-wide improvements. We respectfully submit that
applicable federal and state constitutional guarantees, state
law and municipal regulations prohibit such a practice.
The following
consideration:
points
are
presented
for
your
1. Neither Tract No. 10430 nor Tract No. 10431 were
required to install the improvements which are the
subj ect of this appeal, even though these other
subdivisions are substantially similar (if not
identical) to the project for Tract No. 10432.
2. The Review of Plans process, which is governed by
Municipal Code Section 19.08.035, is a ministerial
procedure confined to an examination of a project's
site plans, floor plans and elevations in order to
ascertain such matters as floor area, lot sizes,
setbacks and building heights. This code provision
does not authorize the imposition of new
subdivision conditions such as those being
appealed.
3.
There is no reasonable relationship between any
needs and impacts created by the subdivision and
the appealed conditions. By way of prominent
example, the project will not even be contributing
any drainage to the additional storm drain now
being required. Furthermore, over $30,000 in
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RUTAN &. TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
. .......c..... IIICwOO..c. -.oo'CIIt._.. co___u.o...
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
September 19, 1989
Page 3
drainage fees are being paid as a condition of
project approval.
4. Finally, ORC has suggested that the appealed
conditions are necessary because of the mitigated
negative declaration prepared for Review of Plans
89-44. However, inasmuch as the Review of Plans
process entails a ministerial procedure, the
application is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's own
implementing regulations. Thus, this appeal
extends to the negative declaration as well as the-
protected conditions.
The foregoing points were raised both at the
Environmental Review Committee and the ORC meetings. The
City Attorney's office has been apprised of our concerns on
more than one occasion, but no official ~esponse has yet been
received.
In closing, we respectfully request the Planning
Commission determine that (1) the appealed conditions be
deleted and (2) the negative declaration be set aside as
unnecessary since the project is exempt from CEQA. We assume
that because this appeal relates only to certain conditions
of approval, rather than the approval itself of the proposed
structures, building permits for the individual residences
will continue to issue in the ordinary course notwithstanding
the pendency of the appeal.
Please advise us as to when this appeal will be heard.
We look forward to appearing at the meeting to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you for your attention to this
matter.
Very truly yours,
::f/jTO~
POK/jb
130/063099-0004
cc: Mr. Robert E. Osborne
Henry Empenio, Esq.
.
R.AN
E..
& TUC.R
.
.
0...."'... ... ..........c...lE..oc".
.......r.. It. "OO_C'
~...u... ".Cl)C.'C .........
"'.1,...,....... .,el..
.'0;......;1 .... CUIltHU"'"'
"'eON.....O ... .......el.
..1000.. .. ............1'. ....
..,c............ .....cr...
"'''''OltO W. II....."'. .....
"'HCOOOltt I. ...........o::C. .....
IIto.......o It. ........OTO...
.u:......O., .,..
............,,1. N. .it.."..........
.0.11:.... C. .....u..
lIooe.....o.......e.
ED..ltO Q. ''''CS''''" .....
......0...... s. ....""..oe..
_O'CII... W. "'",.e""'1
0"'''''0 c. .......11:...
0::1.1"0.0 C. ".'C::lC"
...c......... 0 ."'....
IIU. O. .."'....
..C""l:l' N. DOC.........
",OIC." D. C....."'"..
.,...... _O",o;OTT"
lto.CIt... S. 10WE"
0......'0 ... A..e,ool.e
......c.... .... '0.'"''''
Wll...',.... ... .....,.,CO.C."'..
.......e. I.. _0.."
........Il "C"SON ...............
.,1...........0;....1......
...c.....c!". T. ..0......
.......'ee ~ CCI.OTT'
...,\.,. O. "'0....
..1011:1.. :). IlU.C.'CItO
sTevr....... ...c..o...
.....0...... 0 ..0eK....01'O..
w.....,..... w. w....OC.
CV.'OIlU .v.eKlI O".......s
.......0....... .... ......""...
...........O.CIE..
............, ".'..elE
...o.....s~. c.....:
~o....... "'c.....O...s '"~
~"V'O ... ..OC.....:.
........ .....1'11:..
.......,..,.. ".OO",S
...""ell:"', 11:"""0
"...o....s 0, "11:..=..
:t""...c "'. .........o"".S"
Ill. .....,...IE.,..c ~II:"'SO'"
seor.'''. .....zO..1I:
OI"CK..I.II:OOII:
..C......O O. "'0""1:""01:0
~"'V'O .. C;tSO.Ovl:
"'...... S"""" ....,....
..0.' S......c.. S""""
.....lEs.. "'''C''''''
iE""'CST W. c",,'.c.. '"~
0"''' c.. ..........."
.....'....ce.. ..0....1'0. IES'.........
.... O. ""O".SO"
..........11: O....Ows." .....0.
..IE"'''.II:'' "'11:.'''1;'''11:.
...... ."..... ..,O"IE..
....,.,...r.;IO... "OSS
"'C",,,&..::I. .""...IE.
....0...... .. C.....c..
~. ."'..r..... ,.....c.. .I..
.0....... O. C)w....
........... ...o.....S
...0........ "'01..'11:."
"r."'''.r.'' ... 00..0'....
......"'0.0 ."'...u
.....TT..CW .. ...c.r..olE.
C..CS1'r.. .... ......C.."..S..
"'. ...Cv,,, .....ZI..
.........II:.....CI.ZIE.
....,..'CIII 01. ...."''''r..T..
CI.......... '....C....IE.
... Sl" .........0..
SCO"" Ill. .C..Or...........CI
...."..... ~. OI..II:C..'
C)".. s"",'r."
ATTO"N!:V$ AT L.AW
...... .."",...... ....0..."..
.."..c. .. .""CI<I:.. Sit. "...-'..e.
..'.."'0.0....0........ S.. ".........
". .C:JOr... ..awe.... "..s....~,
... ...T"IIE.S..'" '''Cl.""O'''G ,..Oll'IIESSIO....... C:O..Ollt"'TIO"S
CENT"'....1. ....NK TOwEll!. SUITE 1400
SOUTH COAST (ltI.AZA TOWN CENTEA
ell ....NTON IIOUI.EYAlIlIO
IIOST O""'CC 1I0x ,.50
COSTA Il4ESA. CAl.I"OANIA .2&Z8....0
:J.....'O ~. 0.........::1..
00' CO"".IE~
n::..t...o..t 1"4' e4"5100
1113' eZS-75ee
TII;I.E:~"'ltlIl 171.' 5.e-9035
n::..cx .'0 S...,...)
C......I: "'OClllIlESS .UT....... ,.ue c:S"''''
August 31,
1989
..... III1El'U ."IIEASIIE _c"'IIEII 1'0
...-----
Henry Empenio, Esq.
San Bernardino City Attorney's Office
300 North "0" Street, Room 668
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re:
Tract No. 10432
.
Dear Mr. Empenio:
As I indicated to you during our most recent telephone
conversation on the above subject, the City's Environmental
Review Committee determined to recommend the adoption of a
mitigated negative declaration in connection with Osborne
Development Corporation's application for review of plans and
building permits. One of the staff members present at the
meeting attributed an opinion to your office that the review
of plansjbuilcing permit procedure is a discretionary process
which is subject _~ environmental review and which may
properly be the basis for exacting additional subdivision-
wide improvements.
.
While the City now appears to concede that the design
review process pursuant to Resolution 83-48 is inapplicable
on its face to Mr. Osborne's project and, instead, Section
19.08.035 of the Municipal Code governs the proceedings
underNay, it remains our vigorous contention that: (1) the
review of plans and building permits procedure is a minister-
ial process with a limited scope of inquiry floor area,
lot size, and setbacks and height limits -- and without the
authorization to impose materially new conditions, especially
conditions unrelated to the review criteria and unrelated to
demonstrable needs or burdens created by the subdivision so
as to invoke due process and equal protection concerns, and
(2) the review of plans and building permit procedure is
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS .AT LAW
.
.
.
.. __.....c~""OOJOCll_~ co__
.
Henry Empenio, Esq.
August 31, 1989
Second Page
exempt from CEQA and the City's own implementing regulations.
To understand our position, it would be useful to care-
fully examine the judicial opinion in Friends of Westwood,
Inc. v. City of Los Anqeles (1987) 191 cal.App.3d 259. You
should pay particular attention to the discussion at pages
264-273, which strongly supports our view that the applicable
City process involves a ministerial exercise. (See also 14
C.C.R. S15369.) To the extent that we are correct in char-
acterizing the process as a ministerial/mandatory one and in
characterizing the additional conditions as excessive, the
City and its officials should be aware of their potential
exposure, especially under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
(See, ~, Bateson v. Geisse (9th Cir. 1988) 857 F.2d 1300
and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 482 U.S.
, 96 L.Ed.2d 250.)
.
Mr. Osborne remains hopeful that a mutually agreeable
resolution of the dispute can be achieved during the admini-
strative process and, of course, available remedies will be
dil igently exhausted; however, his optimism is waning in
light of the City'S continued and increasingly strident
insistence that a wholesale re-evaluation of his tract
approval can be conducted and that new conditions can be
imposed via the building permit/plan review procedure. (In
this regard, it is noteworthy to observe that Mr. Osborne
could complete the previously approved tract improvements and
market the project as a lot sale subdivision, resulting in
individual building permit applications which obviously could
not be conditioned as is presently proposed.) Something must
be accomplishec as soen as possible, preferably prior to the
September 14 Design Review Committee meeting, if the City is
ga~~i~el~ in~e~es~sd i~ resolvin; the matter. The carrying
costs and other expenses and liabilities incurred as a conse-
quence of the delay in processing are still mounting. Any
suggestions would be appreciated.
Veri truly yours,
RUT~ JZj
Philip D. Kohn
PDK;jam
cc: Mr. Robert E. Osborne
8/130/063099-0004/001
.
.
.
a.....".... l'; ........1:...1:..01:..
.......c. It. MOO.C'
...."'" ".II:III:..e ........
.....1,.,...... ..1:1,
..1:"'....0 .... c..........,.'/'
..&:).......0 A. .......e..
..0.... .. ......".""". ....
'''C''''1:1o _. '....e....
....."0.0 .. 0....10. "I",.
1:_1:000_C:.. ......~cc. ~.,.
.0........0 .. ........"0...
. ..c.....O I"; .....
.............. 00, .c....\.......
.O.C." c. .".....
.00C_...O........c.
eel.... O. .".C...... ..",,'
'..0....... s. ......,...c..
_0,,1:1t,. .. .....1:.".
0"""0 c. ......e...
CIoI....O.O c. ....coc..
...c....CI. O. ."".'''''
.... Q. .,Y....
""C"'.I:" N. DOC.........
..OSC." O. c........"..
.T..... wO\'COT'!'o
.oee." .. ..a-c.
DAVID .,l. .....I:.....e
......c.... .... 11'0.'"''''
..II......... N. .....TlCO.(......
......c. ... "0.."
......It ..c".o.. _.._...
............... c....I."..
..,c....c.. T. ..0.......
......".ce... c:c..o,",
'h.""I" O. 1l0""
...oc.. Q. .""ltC..C.O
."C"(" ... ..c..o...
".0..... Q. ..OC"'U'O~ON
............... .""'01.11
Cvll'O"U .V,Cotll O"'fo.~'
1I....0...fo.fo.... ......"...
......l'...OIlCC...
."""".". ..'NCC
'..0......... e.......t
...0....... "'1.10100.' ,,'
O",,,'Q". ..Oc.....C.
.....ot e. "'...1'1..
....... 1'. ..OQ'....
.....CC... C......o
...0..... Q. otCloe"
O...otCO' ........0....'1'
.. ot","OOCIIINC ",C,,'ON
'COl'''.. ....I:t..e
a.IICot .... COGe
..C........ O. "o..l'CY'OCO
0""'0 .. CO'O.OYC
....... ........ ..fo.......
..Oil' .......e. ...."..
.......1.. II "'''1..1""
1.....1.." w. "fo."""C. III
0"" C. ."'fo.fo."
.....l'...fo.CC.. ...0....1"... c...........
"... O. "..0....0...
...........1. O....O..ot... .""fo.OIl
..1."''''.1.'' wC.1""C.ooCII
....... ".... ",'01"C..
....,.,...1.. ot 110"
...C.....Cfo. 0. 1'''.NCII
....0.1..... C.....C...
.... ......Cl.fo. ""...1... .III.
.0.1.11" O. O.C...
....." 10- ..0.....
..0....... vO...otCII1"
..1......1." ". OOfo.O........
....."'0.0....."1
....,.,....1.. .. 'CC.CIIOC.
C.CI"CII ... ....C.........,
.... .e.'V'" ....llfo.
.........e. "'. "Cfo.IC.
....,..'Cot.. .......C.,..,
0...... II. ,....C.....C.
... 'ot. ........0...
'CO"".. .C..OC.........O
........01. ....e.e.1'
0..... .~,c.
r
.AN & Tu<eER
ATTORNEYS AT LA.W
.......,....."..0......
......c. .. "ue"CII. ,. ".......0'
""."'0110.. a....... ... .,.'.......
.. 1tCl00C. "'O.Cfo." "........1,
.. .A.,..CIIS'''. ...Cfo....O...O ".O"C"'O"Afo. caIlIlOIl."'O'"
CEN""AI. aANK "QwE.. SUI'E 1400
SOuTIoI CO"'ST .......Z. 'OWN CCN"ElIt
ell "'NTON eOuI.E"'''''''O
11011' O"'..u:c eox .eso
COSTA ...E5.... C....LII"OlltN..... e2828-"'0
::...".O....O.........a'.
0" co.....&~
TC~C"NONC 171'U .al.~IOO
lil:l~1 .,s-7se.
TCI.CCO".CII 17.al sa..90.3$
August 15,
1989
1"1l::.CX .'0 .......3
c..,,, Aoa.css ""TA'" ""e ::s....
"" ..c.."l' ""CA'C IIC"'CII '0
-.. ---
Henry Empenio, Esq.
San Bernardino City Attorney's Office
300 North "0" Street, Room 668
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re:
Tract No. 10432
.
Dear Mr. Empenio:
I am writing to follow up on our recent telephone con-
versations regarding the above-referenced tract, located near
Kendall Drive and University Parkway. As I indicated to you,
this office represents the Osborne Development Corporation,
who is the owner and developer of the subdivision. Tract
10432, consisting of 42 single family residential lots, was
approved by the City in conjunction with Tracts 10430 and
10431 as a phased project proposed by the MCCarthy Com-
pany/William Lyon Company. Tracts 10430 and 10431 were built
out and are occupied; and the commencement of Tract 10432,
which is located between the two other tracts, was delayed
because of the City's adoption of a moratorium unrelated to
the circumstances surrounding Tract 10432. The subdivision
improvement plans for Tract 10432 have been approved and the
necessary bonds have been posted.
Mr. Osborne has sought the issuance of building permits
and has been told that the subdivision must first undergo a
"plan review process," ostensibly pursuant to city Council
Resolution No. 83-48. As a result of an initial City staff
meeting on August 3, it was suggested that Mr. Osborne would
have to: (1) construct a second storm drain parallel to
University Parkway, even though the subdivision does not
.
,
'.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT L..AW
.
.
.
A __ IOOCwo...O ~"O_~ C;;O.IOO_.nO"
.
Henry Empenio, Esq.
San Bernardino City Attorney's Office
August 15, 1989
Second Page
contribute water to such a storm drain; (2) install curbs,
gutters and sidewalks along University Parkway, beyond the
rear lot lines and perimeter block wall of the tract, even
though neither of the adjoining tracts were so improved; and
(3) alter the radius of interior streets from 20 feet to 25
feet. No final decision has been rendered to our knowledge,
nor has Mr. Osborne received written notice of any decision.
Please let us know when formal action has been taken.
.
First and foremost, it is Mr. Osborne's contention that
his subdivision is clearly exempted from the plan review
process. Section 1 of Resolution No. 83-48 makes it clear
that the process pertains only to "commercial, industrial or-
mUlti-family residential development intended for occupancy
by more than two families." As noted above, Tract 10432 is a
single family residential project. (Not surprisingly, the
criteria for the plan review process are remarkably similar
to the subdivision considerations and, therefore, the exemp-
tion of single family residential projects is understand-
able.) Furthermore, the additional improvements initially
suggested were not conditions of approval for Tract 10432,
were not required as building permit conditions for Tracts
10430 and 10431, and are apparently not specifically author-
ized by any municipal code amendments adopted since all of
the tracts were approved (including but not limited to Sec-
tion 19.08.035, as has been mentioned by a planning staff
member) .
I also related to you the City staff's position that the
request for building permits is subject to an environmental
review process. Mr. Osborne is of the view that this process
is also inapplicable to his project inasmuch as all discre-
tionary approvals for the tract have already been obtained
and the City's own environmental review procedures expressly
exempt building permits from the process (see Resolution
13157, S 7(a)). We have been informed that an Environmental
Review Committee meeting has been set for August 24, which is
entirely unnecessa~.
I appreciate your willingness to look into the matter.
Mr. Osborne is anxious to proceed with the project. The
additional improvements suggested at the initial plan review
meeting carry a price tag of about $150,000 and, together
.
, '.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTOlltNEVS AT ~W
.
.
.
........~ IOOCI.IIOlMO U6 .- CO.._....
Henry Empenio, Esq.
San Bernardino City Attorney's Office
August 15, 1989
Third Page
with the environmental review process, would cause additional
delay to the project (which has a monthly carrying cost of
over $50,000). Consequently, we are looking forward to a
prompt disposition of the matter. If we can provide you with
any further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me. Thank you again for your attention and consideration.
Very truly yours,
RUT4TUlIL
Philip D. Kohn
PDK:jam
cc: Mr. Robert E. Osborne
8/130/063099-0004/001
.
.
.
.
. EXHIBIT B .
.
city of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
I
Review of Plans No. 89-44
Number:
Applicant:
Osborne Development
ACTION
Meeting Date:
X
November 7, 1989
Denied Appeal and Approved Project Based Upon
the Attached Findings of Fact (Attachment A)
and Subject to the Conditions and Standard
Requirements in Attachment B.
VOTE
Ayes:
Cole, Corona, Lindseth,
Stone
None
None
Clemensen
Lopez, Nierman, Sharp,
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
commission of the City of San Bernardino.
~ /ZU'/
Signat:ure
Official Action
of the Planning
~{}t/ /6 , {~7'
Date
Larry E. Reed
Director of Planning and Building and Safety
Name and Title
cc: Project Applicant
Project Property Owner
Building and Safety Department
Engineering Division
Case File
mkf
PCAGENDA:
PCACTIONA
.
.
.
EXHIBIT C
.
Public Hearing Notice
A notice of the appeal hearing was sent to the property
owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the
applicant at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per
Municipal Code Section 19.81.020. A copy of this notice
is attached.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN
MAYOR AND COMMON
APPEAL OF
BERNARDINO
COUNCIL
CONDITIONS PLACED ON REI1IE.W OF PLl\NS NO. 89-44
.
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY APPLICANT
~
SUBJECT: Appeal of conditions placed on Review of Plans No. WARD *'
89-44 for Tentative Tract No. 10432 5
PROPERTY lDcated on the westerly side of University Parkway south of
LOCATION: Kendall Drive and north of College Drive.
PROPOSAL: To construct 42 single-family homes on a site enccrnpassing
approximately 8.9 acres.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION; SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "D" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO I CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: December 18, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
j"', 1984. ..y
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
.
EXHIBIT D
.
(
.
-
MEMORANDUM
.
To
PLANNING COMMISSION
From Planning Department
Subject
REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 89-44 Date
APPEAL OF CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES
October 17, 1989
Approved
Date
Agenda Item II 2
APPLICANT:
Osborne Development Co.
25301 Cabot Road #122
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
The William Lyon Co.
8540 Archibald Avenue Suite B
Rancho CUcamonga, CA 91730
OWNER:
REOUEST
.
The applicant is proposing to construct 42 single-family
homes on a site encompassing approximately 8.9 acres located
on the westerly side of University Parkway south of Kendall
Drive and north of College Avenue in an area designated RS,
Residential Suburban on the General Plan. The applicant ~s
appealing certain portions of the following Public Works
Standard Requirements:
NO. 34
Comprehensive Storm Drain Project No. 7-E25 is
master planned in the vicinity of your development.
This drain shall be designed and constructed by
your project.
NO. 45
See Attachment "B", as it relates to University
Parkway (street improvements).
See Attachment "B", as it relates to University
Parkway (street improv_ents).
NO. 46
NO. 47
Existing street
5547) shall be
standards and to
and sewer plans (Dwg's 5544 and
revised to meet current design
add University Parkway.
Specifically,. . the applicant is appealing: (1) the
installation of a second 30" storm drain parallel to
University Parkway, and (2) the installation of curb, gutter
and sidewalk along University Parkway together with
incidental widening of the street (see Attachment "A").
.
.~ "!'..J:
.".It ~ ~
..;t.o,:,-
.'
~ " I ~)i " .
,..,,...,
''11, :-'
.
.
.
.
.
.
RP89-44
.
City of San Bernardino
Memorandum to the Planning commission for 10/17/89 meeting.
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Planning commission recommended approval of Tentative
Tract '10432, for 42 lots, on July 18, 1978 subject to
certain conditions (See Attachment "C"). The Mayor and
Common Council approved Tentative Tract 10432 on August 7,
1978. Several Extensions of Time were granted, the final one
being from February 1, 1981 to February 1, 1982. The final
map was approved on January 20, 1982 by the Mayor and Common
Council. The tract has been recorded.
On July 21, 1989, the applicant submitted the subject Review
of Plans application for approval of the site plans, floor
plans and elevations of 42 single-family homes. An Initial
Study was prepared by staff (see Attachment "0") and on
August 24, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee
recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and the
public comment period was provided from August 31, 1989 to
September 13, 1989. No comments were received.
On September 14, 1989, the Development Review committee
approved Review of Plans No. 89-44 based on Findings and
subject to Standard Requirements and Conditions. The
Negative Declaration was adopted and the Mitigation
Reporting/Monitoring Program was approved (see Attachment
"E") .
On September 19, 1989, the applicant filed the subject appeal
(Attachment "An) which stays all of the above approvals until
the Planning Commission decides upon the appeal.
Analvsis
The applicant is requesting an appeal of two Engineering
requirements. The applicant failed to identify the specific
condition numbers on the appeal letter. However, based on
the two issues presented in the appeal letter, staff has
identified four (4) Public Works Standard Requirements that
relate to the two issues indicated in the appeal letter.
.
.
.
RP89-44
.
.
City of San Bernardino
Memorandum to the planning commission for 10/17/89 meeting.
Page 3
The first condition, the applicant is appealing, is the
installation of a second 30" storm drain parallel to
University Parkway. There are no Conditions or Standard
Requirements that say this. However, Standard
Requirement. NO. 34 requires design and construction
of CSDP NO. 7-E25 based on a drainage study for the
project (Standard Requirement No. 33). Based on the
drainage study, the size of the required storm drain
will be determined.
.
The second condition, the applicant is appealing, is the
installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk along
University Parkway with an incidental widening of the
street. Public Works Standard Requirements Nos. 45, 46
and 47 all relate to street improvement and
dedications. The applicant did not specifically appeal
these standard requirements, they are appealing them as
thev relate to Universitv Parkway. The applicant is
not appealing the requirement for the other required
street improvements and dedications required by these
Standard Requirements.
In the appeal letter, the applicant is alleging that the
Development Review Committee is using the Review of Plans
process as an opportunity to conduct a complete
reevaluation of a prior subdivision approval and to exact
subdivision-wide improvements. The appeal letter presents
four points to consider. In summary they are: (1) Tentative
Tracts 10430 and 10431 were not required to install the
improvements that are the subject of this appeal, (2) the
Review of Plans process is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (3) there is no reasonable
relationship between the impacts created by this subdivision
and the required improvements and (4) the Development Review
Committee imposed the conditions based on the Initial
Study/Mitigation Measures on the project that is exempt from
CEQA.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's
appeal letter and has provided the Planning Department with a
memorandum responding to the appeal (see Attachment "F"). In
summary, the Engineering Department indicates that contrary
to the appeal letter, Tentative Tracts 10430 and 10431
constructed a 30" storm drain along University Parkway.
Standard Requirement No. 34 requires Tentative Tract 10432 to
construct the Master Plan Storm Drain per CSDP No. 7-E25. The
.
.
_.
.
.
RP89-~~
.
.
City of San Bernardino
Memorandum to the Planning commission for 10/17/89 meeting.
Page 4
Engineering Department
down stream flooding
contribute drainage.
believes this is necessary to mitigate
impacts to which this project will
Condition No. 3 of the original Tentative Tract approval
. (Attachment "C") indicates that "all drainage and flood
control will be subject to recommendations of San Bernardino
Engineering Division and the City Engineer's requirements'and
approval." Attached are the San Bernardino County Flood
control District's recommendations (Attachment "G").
Clearly, the original condition on the tract required
compliance with the county Flood Control District ~ the
city Engineer. The application should have appealed the
condition in 1978 when it was originally required if they did
not agree with it.
.
The City is currently constructing a portion of the Master
Plan Storm Drain. As new projects come in, they will be
required to construct the portion of the drain adjacent to
it. The City will use its storm drain construction monies to
complete the drain along developed parcels.
In response to the appeal of University Parkway street
improvements and dedication, the Engineering Department
indicates that the appellant's letter seems to imply that
they have a vested right to build under the 11-year-old
Conditions approved for Tentative Tract 10432 in 1978. The
Engineering Department knows of no authority in the state
Subdivision Map Act or the Municipal Code which would afford
them vested rights to build under the original conditions of
the tentative map approval. The Engineering Department
explains in their memo that in 1978 University Parkway was
envisioned to reflect a rural concept, which was adequate at
the time. Due to large growth in the area, the rural concept
is no longer appropriate and all new developments adjoining
university Parkway are required to install street improve-
ments. These improvements are necessary to assure the health
and safety of the residents of the new developments.
In response to the appellant's claim that a Review of Plans
to construct 42 single-family homes is ministerial, staff
presents the following rebuttal. "Ministerial II describes a
governmental decision involving little or no personal judge-
ment as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project.
Resolution No. 86-420,specifically, grants the Development
Review Committee the responsibility of determining com-
patibility of structures with the surrounding neighbor-
hood. This involves discretion on the part of the
.
.
.
.
.
.
city of San Bernardino
Memorandum to the Planning Commission for 10/17/89 meeting.
Page 5
Development Review Committee and, thus, makes. Review of
Plans subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
CONCLUSION
.
. Review of Plans applications are not ministerial and are,
therefore, subject to California Environmental Quality. An
Initial study was conducted and it was determined by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) that there was a
potential public health and safety impact from the project.
Mitigation measures to lessen the impact to non-significance
were proposed by the Engineering Department and agreed upon
by the Environmental Review Committee. Those mitigation
measures were included as Conditions of Approval for the
proposed development. The applicant is now appealing those
conditions. One of the Conditions (to construct the Master
Plan storm Drain) was an original conditon of the tract.
Circumstances and conditions in the area of the proposed
development have changed significantly since the original
tract approval approximately 11 years ago. Additional street
improvements are necessary to protect the public health and
safety of the future residents of the proposed development.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning commission uphold the
decision of the oevelopment Review Committee; deny the appeal
of that decision; approve Review fo Plans No. 89-44, based on
the Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval and standard
Requirements (Attachment "E"); adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and, adopt the Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring
Program.
Res
,
tZvw ~.f!uh
Ann Larson-Perbix
Senior Planner.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RP89-44
City of San Bernardino
Memorandum to the Planning commission for 10/17/89 meeting.
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Appeal letter
B- Public Works Standard Requirements
C- Oriqinal Conditions of Approval (TT10432)
D- Initial Study
E- Review of Plans 89-44, Findings, Condi-
tions and Standard Requirements
F- Public Works Memo
G- Flood Control District Recommendations
(TT 10432)
H- site Plan
1- Location Map
.
.
.
.
. ' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT"
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
4
10-17-B9
5
""
APPLICANT'
Osborne Development Co.
25301 Cabot Road, #112
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
The William Lyon Co.
B540 Archiblad Avenue,Ste.
>Rancho Cucamonga, CA
1&1
(I)
<
(,)
REVIEW OF PLANS NO. B9-44
OWNER,
t;
1&1
;:)
a
1&1
a::
....
<
1&1
a::
<
To develop 42 single-family homes on 42 existing lots created
by Tentative Tract No. 10432 located on the west side of Uni-
verity Parkway south of Kendall Drive and north of College Avenu
The applicant is appealing Development Review Committee Condi-
tions of Approval. The site consists of B.9 acres.
.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant Residential Suburban RS
North Single-family " " RS
South Single-family " " RS
East Multiple-family Residential Medium RM
West Single-family " " RS
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DVES FLOOD HAZARD DVES OZONE A >{ill YES
HAZARD ZONE I! NO ZONE I!9NO OZONE B SEWERS 0 NO
HIGH FIRE DVES AIRPORT NOISE I DVES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE [il NO CRASH ZONE ~NO PROJECT AREA Ii] NO
oJ o NOT KNoOTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z f] APPROVA~. RPB9-44
~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING ~ ~ CONDITIONS
Z(I) MEASURES NO E.I. R.
1&Ie!) o EXEMPT o HR> REOUlRED BUT NO ...Q \;I DENIAL of requested
2Z ...ffi
Z- SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS ~2 appeal
OQ WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a::Z MEASURES 02
s:iL 0
oNO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (,)
. Z 1&1
1&1 SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R C. a::
EFFECTS MINUTES
NOV. 1'1' REVIIEO ",UI..Y 1.1.
..v
.
.
(
tTACHMENT
"A"
.
(
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
.
L.....'...' ~",,~,.~,,(lt~Gt...
- .. ,,~~ .. ...~,.",.....
""""_ ~"CIH."''; ...."..
... '~L'"'''' .'(.
.. ,:....,,:1... eu....u.....
<.[0...."0.. ........CL
..0...... "V"Leu"'; .I'"
"'C'''''!:LW. .....11:.....
"'<.O'OltO w 0....1.. ,JII.
T..CODO"I!: f. WALLAce, .III.'
110....<.0... ...'NOTOI'f'
..C...."D II. SIMS
......"....I......IIC...L.......
_0.['" C. ....U..
.00t"...O......c.
tOWAAO D. SUltl!l...... "".'
."0....55. $"'<""OE""
"08e""'. "L8t"...S
OA...,O C, L....SC...
c<......O.O t. ...,tOCN
..'c....t<.O "UB'"
.... G. .,V'N-
....:.....1[.,... DOC..........
.lOSt".. o. c....un.
ST.... wOLCOT"
.O.C"'" I!I .owe"
CAVla.l_ ....I:...'.e
.....C...... "0".""'''
*'LL'.... N. ..""...oCOIII'!:."'''
.......t.l_ ..0_'''.
ANNt "11:"'.010 ......"......
......1....... J. CAli"."
"'.C....II:<. T. ..O......M
,J..Nlce I.. 1:U.OT...'
"",\.," O. ..0....
JOC-to. g. lIlu..c:..It.G
STEvEN ... NIC"OLS
'..0...... O. ..OC..'NOTON
WILL...... W. W"Noe"
e""'O'''' ,"'1;11.11 O....LL....S
......0..1..1.. M, .....US..
M""'" M. Gotcc..
.....Ll...., ...,..I;C
T..OM.....l.I;.......C
.10.... L. "CLLO.... ,It
0""'0" ..Ol;....t.
....... II. ......I.'c.
.....'.. ,. ".OC;'U'
..uce .. e.......o
'..0....... G. ..CLe..
ou..e ". .....LOU..'
.. ....n.c.'...I:.JC...'O...
.co.,.. ......ZO"'I:
o,..e".J.I:oGI:
..c.....o G. ..o...,c".Ol:O
0""'0. COSo.o"c
....... ....".. "L''''N
1..0.' ........1:. S"'TH
"....I:s... "...It.'"
1:...ItS' w. ..\....,'It. ,to
GU'" It, ......,1..1.....
....,..\.ltc... ..0....". es...........,
..'... 0 '000"'''50'''
..l""'''C O""OW$"'" ''''''.0''
..llt"".c.... "'C,.'Hltl...C."
....NS ""N l.O'It...
......."HIt... 01. "OS'
...'cH....eL o. ,u...It.
.....0.1t.... C....lC...
..l. .u..ell '''lit.. .J.
"O.C.' 0, owe..
....,... l. ....O....S
..0..... ... "o\.tole.'
,J1t"".!:' ... OOlO"....
''''''''0.0 .H....'Z
....,..C..... ...."'l..
..o.e., ..OHOw,TZ
.OH' O. "..e...o..
......."...I:W... .1t1t.e.GE"
C"'esTc:..... ..UC......l...'
". ..CY,.. .""Z'l
.O......\.. ..os......
\....,,"'c... ..ltlze.
..........,e....... ......"E.T..
0""''' II, ''''CH..e.
\.. ...., ......,50..
.eoTT ... .c..oeNW...lO
........,J.....c:C..,
0"'" .l....'I:.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
"..,
~.. ~ ,',"
... ",.",TNEA5""" INCLUD'NG .."'0l"1:55.0....l CO"'''"O.....,,,:;..s
...'c.-,'" ...
....,0 . 'N'
CENTRAL ....NK TOWER, SUITE:. '0400
SOUT... COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTE:R
O""O..l Ga..... .,_"".."
n. e~,,," ., .
ell ANTON IIOULE:VARO
POST o,.nCE IIOK ,.$0
COSTA MESA. CAL,"ORNIA Itzezs.aaltO
TELE""'ONE (7,.) 6.,'5'00
lZ']1 e2S.7Se6
TELECI)P '(lit (7,04, S.t;,,.,C,',,:-
.nc:x 0'0 596-,88'
c..llle "00"1:55 "'UT"" Tue CS....
September 19,
1989
r,":\ F'
l'.' I"
i ~;
,p,j ":"l' "l~"SI: .I:'E'" '0
"'
t'F"
.J l'
I, '
..~ r'
f, ~ ~
....-.:-..-......
~.f..::
.
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
Attn: Brad L. Kilger/Vivian Ray
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re:
Review of Plans 89-44
APProval of Conditions/Neqative Declaration
Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission:
This office represents the Osborne Development Company,
the developer of Tract No. 10432, consisting of 42 single-
family residential lots located near Kendall Drive and
University Parkway. On September 14, 1989, the City
Development Review Committee ("DRC") approved Review of Plans
89-44 for the project subject to various conditions, most of
which Mr. Osborne is perfectly willing to satisfy.
Please consider this letter and
fee to constitute an appeal of the
that were imposed on the DRC approval:
of a second 30" storm drain
and (2) the installation of
University Parkway together with an incidental widening of
the street. Pursuant to a telephone conversation between Ms.
Ray and Mr. Osborne's office, the ownership list/mailing
labels will be transmitted under separate cover.
the accompanying $75.00
following two conditions
(1) the installation
parallel to University Parkway,
curb, gutter and sidewalk along
.
.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.
... ''''Af''{'''5'''~ 'OOC"JO'"G -.o>C~SIO".< C..'....",~",...~
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
September 19, 1989
Page 2
As you may recall, Tract No. 10432 was part of a phased
residential project proposed by the McCarthy Company/William
Lyon Company and was approved by the City in conjunction with
Tract Nos. 10430 and 10431. Tracts 10430 and 10431 were
built out and are occupied; the commencement of Tract No.
10432, which is located between the other two tracts, was
delayed because of the City's adoption of a moratorium in
response to circumstances entirely unrelated to Tract No.
10432. A final subdivision map for Tract No. 10432 was
recorded, the subdivision improvement plans were approved by
the City, and the necessary subdivision improvement bonds
have been posted.
.
The essence of this appeal by the Osborne Development
Company is that the DRC seems to be using the Review of Plans
process as an opportunity to conduct a wholesale reevaluation
of a prior subdivision approval and to exact addi tional
subdivision-wide improvements. We respectfully submit that
applicable federal and state constitutional guarantees, state
law and municipal regulations prohibit such a practice.
The following
consideration:
points
are
presented
for
your
1. Neither Tract No. 10430 nor Tract No. 10431 were
required to install the improvements which are the
subject of this appeal, even though these other
subdivisions are substantially similar (if not
identical) to the project for Tract No. 10432.
2. The Review of Plans process, which is governed by
Municipal Code Section 19.08.035, is a ministerial
procedure confined to an examination of a project's
site plans, floor plans and elevations in order to
ascertain such matters as floor area, lot sizes,
setbacks and building heights. This code provision
does not authorize the imposition of new
subdivision conditions such as those being
appealed.
3. There is no reasonable relationship between any
needs and impacts created by the subdivision and
the appealed conditions. By way of prominent
example, the project will not even be contributing
any drainage to the additional storm drain now
being required. Furthermore, over $30,000 in
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RUTAN & TUCKER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
,......,..I[.s..,.".c:wo...G_rs.,o<o..~c:O.-.:..UIO...
City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
September 19, 1989
Page 3
drainage fees are being paid as a condi tion of
project approval.
4. Finally, ORC has suggested that . the appealed
conditions are necessary because of the mitigated
negative declaration prepared for Review of Plans
89-44. However, inasmuch as the Review of Plans
process entails a ministerial procedure, the
application is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's own
implementing regulations. Thus, this appeal
extends to the negative declaration as well as the
protected conditions.
The foregoing points were raised both at the
Environmental Review Committee and the ORC meetings. The
City Attorney's office has been apprised of our concerns on
more than one occasion, but no official response has yet been
received.
In closing, we respectfully request the Planning
Commission determine that (1) the appealed conditions be
deleted and (2) the negative declaration be set aside as
unnecessary since the project is exempt from CEQA. We assume
that because this appeal relates only to certain conditions
of approval, rather than the approval itself of the proposed
structures, building permits for the individual residences
will continue to issue in the ordinary course notwithstanding
the pendency of the appeal.
Please advise us as to when this appeal will be heard.
We look forward to appearing at the meeting to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you for your attention to this
matter.
Very truly yours,
::PA~W!--
POK/jb
130/063099-0004
cc: Mr. Robert E. Osborne
Henry Empenio, Esq.
.
..
.
.
CITY OF SAN tSERNARDINO PUBLIc' tYORKS/ENGR.
CASE RP 89-44
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ::?~I~E
PAGE
.
AT'l.....:INT "B"
.
5
10-17-89
1:n-
pz;:::.t D~scriPtion~I/PM-44- G,~rL~v 4j.,,-:: t;,: ;:;:::U.lP
, ,
Prepared By: 17~ Reviewed By:
Date: fr~ '
Page -L 0 pages
34.
APplicant:j!,UJAn? LynN Ce.
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required.
the appllcant Ts, responsible for submitting the Engineering plans
directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior
to submittal of Building Plans.
Drainaae and Flood Control
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 Flood
Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all
necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
~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 0 s expense. and
right-of-way dedicated as necessary.
_ The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore. a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued
by the City Engineer shall be required.
_ The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore. all building pads shall be raised above the
surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer.
jComprehensive storm drain Project NO'h~-~r:iS master planned in
the vicinity of your development. T s rain shall be designed
and constructed by your pro.ject.
35.
-XAll drainage from the development
approved public drainage facility.
drainage facilities and easements
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
sha 11 be
If not
sha 11 be
directed
feasible.
provided
to an
proper
to the
.
45.
.
.47.
.
(
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
CASE RP 89-44
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~i~?~I~~E
PAGE
L.A&ENT "B"
5
10-17-89
1"2
Project Description: .Rf? I/fi-44-
Date: 8-Z~ Prepared By: ~Reviewed .By:
Page ~ of pages.
46.
Street Improvement and Dedications:
--2(AII public streets within and adjacent to ~he 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 modification,
relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with
new construction. striping. signing. pavement marking and markers,
and street name signing. All design and construction 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.
-1(For the streets I isted 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
c.JMll/il!Slry PKWY
.
~LO~
Right-of-Way (Ft.)
SclS71"'f':t
30'
Curb Line (Ft.)
53'
/8 ·
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
----the following streets:
A traffic study and report is required for this project. The
----report shall be prepared by a properly licensed Traffic Engineer
or Civil Engineer knowledgeable in Traffic Engineering. The
report shall be prepared in accordance wi th the Ci ty of
San 8ernardino Department of Public Works "Traffic Policy" and is
subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. All
recommendations. as approved by the City Engineer. shall become
Conditions of Approval of the project.
-1L~':S1iNE, ~;n.EeT t ~R. f'tANS (P.,6,'s ~4 t ~""7).s1lPu. 6F ~54ID'
-ro MeeT QlItUHT J>E'SI61J oSrItHblttt'/>S /WI) 10 APf) ()Irv~"1I' ~kVf}.
.
.
.
'.
.
.ATTACHMENT "C'.
-
CITi
OF
'\' ~ l~ ~.
SAN BERfvARDINO
~
To: THE MAYOR AND CO~10N C
Date: July 19, 1978
WARD 5
Re:
Tentative Tract Maps No. 10430, 10431, and 10432 -- For 44, 41, and
42 residential lots, respectively, a totai of 127 individual residential
lots located northwest of the intersection of College Avenue and State
College Parkway and being approximately 1200 feet southwest of the inter-
section of Kendall Drive and State College Parkway
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on July 18, 1978, the following
recommendation was made:
That the applications for Tentative Tract Maps No. 10430, 10431, and 10432,
as rrferenced above, were recommended for approval based on findings of
fact and subject to the following co~ditions:
T~a' ~ tio. 10430:
1. Street Dedication and Improvements:
I. College Avenue: No additional dedication of street right of way
required. Curb line to be set 32 feet from center line of street.
Curb, gutter, paving and sidewalk to be constructed. Hon-vehicular
access to College Avenue from lots 1 - 11 and lot 32.
b. "A" Street, "B" Street: Dedication of 60 feet of street right of way.
.Thirty-six foot curb separation. Curb, gutter, paving and .sidewalk
to be constructed. Sidewalk to be constructed adjacent to curb.
t. .C" Street: Dedication of 30 feet street right of way. Curb line
to be set IB feet from center line of street. Curb, gutter, paving
and sidewalk to be constructed. Sidewalk to be constructed adjacent
to curb.
"E" Street dedication of 50 feet street right of way. Thirty-six
foot curb separation. Construct standard cul-de-sac with minimum
40 foot curb radius at north end of street. Curb, gutter, sidewalk
and paving to be construtt~d. Sidewalk to be constructed adjacent
to curb. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
M & CC
Tracts 10430. 10431. & 10432
P. 2
7/19/78
Tract No. 10431
1. Street Dedication and Improvements:
a. College Avenue: No additional dedication of street right of way
required. Curb line to be set 32 feet from center line of street.
Curb. gutter. sidewalk and paving to be constructed. Non-vehicular
, .,.. access from Lots 120 to 127.
0.":>
b. State College Parkway: No additional dedication required. Non"
vehicular access from Lots 109 to 120.
c. "A" Street, "Oil Street: Dedication of 60 feet street right of way.
Thirty-six foot curb separation. Curb. gutter. sidewalk and paving
to be constructed. Sidewalk to be constructed adjacent to curb.
d. "C" Street: Dedication of 30 feet street right of way. Curb line
to be set 18 feet from center line of street. Curb. gutter. sidewalk
and paving to be constructed. Sidewalk to be adjacent to curb.
.
Tract No. 10432:
.
1. Street Dedication and Improvements:
a. State College Parkway: No additional street dedication required.
Non-vehicular access from Lots 94 to 108.
b. .C" Street. "0" Street: Dedication of 60 feet street right of way.
Thirty-six foot curb separation. . Curb. gutter, sidewalk and paving
to be constructed. Sidewalk to be constructed adjacent to curb.
c. "F" Street: Dedication of 30 feet street right of way. Curb line
.to be set 18 feet from center line of street. Curb. gutter. sidewalk
and paving to be constructed. Sidewalk to be constructed adjacent
to curb.
All Tracts:
2. Prior to acceptance of improvement plans by City Engineer, subdivider's
engineer shall submit sufficient soil tests by a recognized soil testing
lab to demonstrate adequacy of pavement design indicated on street cross
sections shown on improvement plans.
3. ~11 drainage and flood control will be subject to recommendations of San
(Iernardino County Flood Control District; also. City of San Bernardino
tr.gineering Division and the City Engineer's requirements and approval.
lnqineer for subdivider to furnish all necessary data relating to drainage.
Dr~inage easements shall be provided as necessary.
.
.
.
.
.
.
M & CC
Tracts 10430, 10431, & 10432
P. 3
7/19/78
.
~. All grading on tract sites shall be done in strict compliance with City
Grading Ordinance 3695.
5. Tracts to be served by City of San Bernardino Water and Sanitary Sewer
System.
6. All lots shall drain to a public dedicated street.
7. Ornamental street lighting shall be installed as required by Section
4.50 of City Ordinance 1984. An electrical energy fee must be submitted
to the City of San Bernardino covering cost of electrical energy for a two
y'ear period per Item c, Section 4.50 of City Ordinance 1984.
~ 8. .All spring water uncovered during construction shall be drained by under-
ground system. No open drainage pennitted on tract site.
.9. Street signs and other regulatory signs as may be required by City
Engineer to be paid for and installe~ by subdivider.
10. Utility service for subdivision shall comply with Section 4.60 of City
Ordinance 1984. (Underground Utilities).
11. Public utility easements as required by serving utility companies.
Tract No. 10430:
12. A six foot high masonry wall to be constructed at southerly prcperty line
of lots 1 - 11 and lot 32 along College Avenue (sight visibility to be
considered).
Tract No. 10431:
'. 12. A six foot high masonry wall to be constructed at southerly property line
of lots 120 - 127 along College Avenue and along east property 1 ine of lots
109 - 119 (sight Visibility to be considered). .
Tract No. 10432:
12. A six foot high masonry wall to be constructed at east property line of
lots 94 - 108 along State College Parkway (sight viSibility to be considered).
All
13.
Tracts:
Fire hydrants shall be spaced as indicated by A.I.A. Bulletin No. 285.
. .
14. Fire flow shall meet requirements of National Fire Protection Association
Handbook, 14th Edition, Table 11-2.G. .
15: StreEt names shall meet approval of. Fire Department.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7119118
M & CC
Tracts 10430. 10431. & 10432
P. 4
'.
16. provide emergency access as secondary means of ingress and egress.
17. If the proposed development will utilize sewerage system we have no
comment. If the use of septic tank system is proposed. this Board's
guidelines may preclude such use and the proponent is urged to contact
the Water Quality control Board for early clarification of this matter.
18. Will need temporary cul-de-sac for refuse units to turn. around.
19. Back-up lots in these subdivisions present a future potential "eye sore"
and a city policy relative to this problem needs to be established.
Developer is to supply and plant street trees as per city specifications.
~ 20. These tracts are reasonably free of serious flood hazards from major flood
channels and drainage courses. However. the site is traversed by tributary
local drainage flows from the undeveloped area to the north. primarily in
street flow conditions. It is. therefore. recommended a separate report
be obtained from the City Engineer in this regard.
21. ~ater from San Bernardino Municipal Water Department is available to serve
the above mentioned tracts. In order to serve the development with water.
a certain amount of main extensions will be required. Cost for the main
extensions will be in accordance with Rules and Regulations of the Board
of Water Commissioners in effect at time of application.
22. All lots shall conform in size to the R-1-7200 zoning district. Minimum
lot width shall be 60 feet/minimum lot depth shall be 100 feet...(Ordinance
. 1991. Section A.2-1-2-3). Corner lots shall be 10 per cent wider (Ordinance
1984. Section 4.44-c).
23. Approval of Change of Zone No. 1070 by the Mayor and Common Council.
24. Noise insulation sha" cotq:lly with a" ,FHA standards and requirements.
* 25. A variance in lot depth to 90 feet for Lot 51. Tract 10432. is approved based
on over-a" square footage of. lot which is greater than 7200 square feet.
26. Regarding street dedication and improvements required in Condition No.1:
Phase I Development
All street improvements shall be installed along north side College Avenue
from State College Parkway to west line of Tract 10430.
27. Regarding walls required in Condition No. 12:
Phase I Development
Wall to be of slumpstone construction and installed along the south property
lines of lots 1 through 11. inciusive and lot 32. Tract 10430; and lots t21
through 127. inclusive. Tract 10431.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
M & CC
Tracts 10430, 1043i & 10432
P. 6
7/19/78
.
Phase II Deve 1 opment r-
-""If..
Wall to be of slumpstone constrUction and installed along east property
lines of lots 109 through 120, inclusive, Tract 10431; and lots 94 through
108,' inclusive, Tract 10432.
An walls to be constructed to Building Department specifications. Wall
heights at street corners shall be approved by Traffic Engineer.
28. Regarding cul-de-sac requirement in Condition No. 18:
A temporary cul-de-sac shall be installed at the northerly terminus of
"D" Street, Tract 10431, until such time as the property to the nortn is
developed or an east/west temporary 30 foot wide street could be provided
north of lots 62 and 83, Tract 10431, connecting "c" and "D" Streets.
29.. Regarding second means of access required in Condition 16: .If fire depart-
ment requires this access prior to development of either Tract 10430 or
10431 then it shall be provided at time of development of said tract, other-
wise, said access shall be provided to Kendall Drive or Truscan Street prior
to recordation of Tract 10432. The Fire Department and Planning Department
shall approve said access.
30. Landscaping: To be approved by Park and Recreation Director.
a. 1. State College Parkway: Developer shall be responsible for full
improvements of the area between the wall and street paving.
Special landscape design features should be provided here utilizing
land form mounds and mature trees and shrubs, with grass. An auto-
matic water system shall be:provided.
2. College Avenue: Developer shall be responsible for full improvements
of the area between the wall and curb line. Said improvements shall
.include but not be l1mitedto: Automatic sprinkler systems, water,
sidewalk, trees, and other plant material deemed appropriate by the
Director of Park and Recreation.
b. All landscaping required shall be maintained by developer for minimum
of three years from date of acceptance of the landscape improvements by
the Park and Recreation Director.
.
.
c. A registered landscape architect shall prepare and submit irrigation and
landscape plans for city approval and supervisor installation.
d. Develooer, as part of acceptance by the city of final map shall post a ,
1raithful performance bond or similar type security with the City Engineer '
in an a~ount sufficient to insure the installation of the watering system.i I
and plant ma.terials within the parkway areas as well as the maintenance t'l
In a professional manner, as specified by the lanscape Contractor's"
Association. of the area for a three year time period after landscape
instanation acceptance by troe Park and Recreation Director.
I.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
'.
M & CC
Tracts 10430, 10431, & 10432
P. 6
7/i9/18
e. Upon completion of the three year landscaping maintenance period
by the developer, the lot owners shall assume responsibility for
a monthly payment for continual maintenance of the area at no
cost to the city. The monthly payment shall appear on the water
utility bill as a service charge. The Department of Real Estate
of the State of California in the final tract report will be
required to post such notice in the report. Irrevocable Conditions,
Covenants, and Restri ctions contai ni ng such payment. clauses shall be
submitted to the City Attorney for approval.
31. Building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review
.and approval by the Planning Commission. Variable' setbacks for houses
'shall be provided.
32. Compliance with Ordinance 1885, regulating hedges; shrubs, and trees at
the corners of intersecting streets and other places in the city.
33. Compliance with Ordinance 102, relating to numbering of buildings.
Ano~her motion was made by the Commission to approve the responses to comments
and to adopt the Negative Declaration which has been reviewed and considered.
These tracts will be on the agenda for the Council meeting of August 7, 1978,
at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
'q-4: -~d /~
RONALD L. SMITH
Planning Director
fm
cc: E. F. (Gene) Shaw
. 12642 Daniger Rd.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Building & Safety Dept.
Engineering Dept.
Zoni ng Offi cer
. ....j
.:-..1
..
~;
.
.TACHMENT "D" .
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Initial study of Environmental Impacts
For Review of Plans 89-44
To construct 42 homes on existing lots
on a 8.9 acre site located on
University Parkway south of Kendall Avenue
and north of College Avenue
August 24, 1989
.
Prepared for:
Osborne Development
25301 Cabot Road #112
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Prepared by:
Vivian Ray
Planner II
city of San Bernardino
planning Department
300 N. "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
.
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
,.
Review of Plans 89-44
The project is for review of site plans and elevations of 42.
sinqle family homes proposed for existinq lots of record. The
8.9 acre site is located on the westerly side of University
Parkway south of Kendall Avenue and north of Colleqe Avenue.
The site
potential
is located within
hiqh noise area.
the Hiqh wind
area and a
RP89-44IS
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO '"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
Iio.. ~
r '"
A. BACKGROY!1!2
Application Number: Review of Plans 89-44
Project Description: To construct 42 sinqle family ~s on 8.9 acres
Location: West side of university Parkway
Environmental Constraints Areas: High Win:l.
General Plan Designation: RS, Residential SUbJrban
zoning Designation:
B. ~BVIB~~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1- Ea~~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more? x
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade? x
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies X
Zone?
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
... ~
.
.
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
I
.'
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. ~IR RESQYRCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area? X
3.
Will
the
~B RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
\.
REVISED 12/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
""""
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
I
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
. . . ( .
. , """"
Yes No Maybe
4. BIOLOGICbL R~SOURCE~: Could the
proposal result in:
a. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees? X
b. Change in the number of any .
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat? X
c. Other? X
I.
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels? X
. b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB oi:
interior noise levels over 45
dB? X
c. Other? . X
6. LAND_ USE: will the proposal
result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan? X
b. Development within an Airport
District? X
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C? X
d. Development within a high fire X
hazard zone?
e. Other? X
.
....
~
PAGE 3 OF 8
REVISED 10/87
.
.
.
.
,
"""'li
.
.
. \..
7.
MAN-MADE HAE~JlP~:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
.
9. :rRAN~PORTATIqN/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b.
Use of existing,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
c. Impact upon existing public
tranqport-llt ion -systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
REVISED 10/87
Yes
x
No
x
x
x
X
X
X
Maybe
X
X
x
X
X
PAGE 4 OF 8
J
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
""""
g.
h.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
10. FUBLI~_SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
b.
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
\..
REVISED 10/67
-
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
\
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PAGE 5 OF 8
~
.
:e
.
.
.'
Yes
No
Maybe
'"
12. AESTHETI~:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
x
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
x
13.
~P~TURA~~ES9URCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
x
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
Other?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
x
.
c.
x
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
<Section 15065)
...
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the
range ofa rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
I
.
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 6 OF 8
.-
.
.
.
,
Yes
No
Maybe
""
.
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
x
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future. )
x
.
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
x
x
.
.J
Iil...
REVISED 10t87
PAGE 7 OF 8
.
.
.
eo
.
.
e
,.
""""ll
D.
DETERMINA~!ON
On the basis of this initial study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
~ environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
~ tbis case because the mitigation measures described above have
. been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
~tJ Holif~D~W PfJM.tPU Aftf)IJt/:.
Name and Title I
~t~~
Date: ~ - ~- <81
~
'lo..
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
.
.
.
.
. ,.
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA T1QN AND MITIGATION MEAS~ES
2.c. .
The proposal will result in development within the High Wind
Hazard area. city Ordinances require that the roof be tile
and attached with hurricane clips. This is a Building and
safety Department Standard Requirement. The Building and
Safety Department will insure that the roof meets city
requirements prior to issuing building permits. Therefore
this potential impact is non-significant.
3.a.
The projec~ could result in changes in drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable
surfaces. The Engineering Department will require that the
storm drain located in University: Parkway be up graded to
meet the City Master Storm Drain Plan. A condition of
approval shall be added to the project requiring the storm
drain improvement.
5.b.
.
The project could result in the exposure of people to
exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels
over 45 dB. The General Plan has identified University
Parkway as generating noise levels above 65 dB in this area.
The General Plan also states, "These estimates of roadway
noise shoud be considered only as approximations as they do
not incorporate the possibility of variations in terrain or
the possible occurrence of intervening structures which may
provide a "Shielding effect". The City has required a 30
foot setback from university Parkway. The Parks and
Recreation Department will required that the setback be well
landscaped. In addition, a 6 foot block wall is required
along University Parkway. The. elevation of the wall is four
feet above the road bed. Both the block wall and the
landscaping will reduce the potential impact. No further
mitigation is required of this development and the potential
impacts are non-significant.
6.a.
The project site is designated as RS-Residential Suburban by
the General Plan adopted June 2, 1989, by the Mayor and
Common Council. This designation allows a minimum lot size
of 7,200 square feet and a density of 4.5 units per acre.
This site is a recorded Tract with lot sizes ranging from
.
. '....
.
.
.
.
.
,
ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEAStflES
7,200 to approximately 11,250 square feet. The density is
4.7 units per acre. These are legal lots of record and no
mitigation is necessary.
9.d.
The project will result in an alternation of present patterns
of circulation. The project will complete both Varsity
Avenue and Cambridge Avenue to Universal Avenue to City
Engineering Department standards. This will improve the
circulation in the area and requires no mitigation. The curb
and qutter along University Parkway which abuts the property
to the east will have to be brought up to current city code.
The Engineering Department will add a condition of approval
requiring that the curb and gutter along University Parkway
be brought up ~o current code 'requirements.
11.a 3.
.
The proposal may impact the Water Department beyond the
capability to provide adequate levels of service. The Water
Department will require a water main extension and that sewer
capacity rights be purchased prior to .issuing building
permits. This reduces the potential impact to a level of
non-significance.
References
General Plan
City Water Department
Engineering Department
City of San Bernardino
PC:.
RP89-44ISMM
.
. ~... ..
.
.
.
.
· ATTACHMENT "E-
.
.~-:-:;'~.'::~ :...
-'" '"
, "
CITY OF
.~._.
"
San Bernardino
.
. ..
. ....
'0_""
P LAN N I N G D E P A ~ T MEN T
BRAD l
KILGER
c ~:: -: . :::: 0;: ;I ~ ,;, 'I', ',::'
September 18, 1989
Osborne Development Co.
25301 Cabot Rd., '112
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
RE: REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 89-44
Dear Sir;
At their meeting of September 14, 1989, the Development Review
Committee took the following action;
That the application for Review of Plans No. 89-44, to construct
42 single family homes on 8.9 acres located on the west side of
University Parkway, south of Kendall Drive and north of College
Avenue, was approved based on the attached Findings of Fact.
said approval is subject to compliance with the standard require-
ments attached hereto and the conditions listed below.
The plans, complete with the necessary revi~ions, may be submitted
to the Building and Safety Department for Plan Check Review to
obtain building permits.
In accordance with San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.77.030
and Resolution No. 83-48 as amended, the following applies to a
Review of Plans application:
"The Planning Department shall approve. or xeject the plans
submitted for review, and the decision shall be final unless
an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed, in writing,
within ten days of the decision."
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the above provisions of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action of the Committee shall
be final.
I
,;
io ';", ! = ;:. 'j .;. ..
" .
,';' "
., ,.. :I,... I 0 S .,
.
.
.
.
OSQprne Dev~.opment~o.
September 18, 189
Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
_TTACHMENT "E"
.
1. Submit revised plans reflecting the additional 6 feet of set-
back.
2. Submit revised elevations for units to be placed on lots 7,
17, and 18 illustrating front treatment extended to fence
line.
3. Subject to the attached Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Plan.
Respectfully,
~-" !. .J ,--c-
. /1;.....~r:~-r.
, U
~John Montgomery
. principal Planner
JM/ke
cc: Jim Bailey
Wm. Lyon Co.
8540 Archibald, Ste. B
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Philip D. Kohn
Central Bank Tower, Ste. 1400
South Coast Plaza Town Center
611 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Mike Grubbs,
Engineering
Larry Reed,
Director of Building & Safety
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE RP 89-44
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
35
STANDARD CONDITIONS
4.
Minor modifications to the plan shall be sUbject to approval
by the Director of planning. An increase of more than 10
percent of the square footage or a significant change 'in the
approved concept shall be subject to (Planning commission and
Development Review Committee) review and approval.
Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the
Plans approved by the Development Review Committee, Planning
Commission or Director of Planning.
The developer is to submit a complete master landscape and
irrigation plan (4 copies) for the entire development to the
Engineering Department with the required fee for approval,
the landscape plans will be forwarded to the Parks,
Recreation, and Community Services and the Planning
Department for review and approval. (Note: the issuance of a
building permit, by the Department of Building and Safety of
the City of San Bernardino, does HQl waive these
requirements/conditions.) No grading permits will be issued
prior to approval of landscape plans.
The design shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
Street trees shall be planted on 35 foot center
spacing unless otherwise indicated by the Department
of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. The
Parks Department shall determine the varieties and
locations prior to planting. A minimum of 25% of the
trees shall be 24" box specimens. Trees are to be
inspected by a Park Division representative prior to
planting.
x
Planters shall be enclosed with concrete curbing.
The setbacks from the north ____ , south ____ ,
east ____ , west ____ property line shall be bermed
at a maximum 3:1 slope and shall be planted with a
tall fescue type turfgrass.
A Landscape buffer zone shall be installed between
facilities and street.
I
1---------
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE RP 89-44
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5.
x
6.
x
.
.7.
x
The landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with
the "Procedure and Policy for Landscape and
Irrigation" (available from the Parks Department).
Subject to the Conditions of the Department of Parks and
Recreation (attached).
Trees, shrubs and groundcover of a type and quality generally
consistent or compatible with that characterizing single-
family homes shall be provided in the front yard and that
portion of th side yards which are visible from the street.
All landscaped areas must be provided with an irrigation
system adequate to insure their viability.
At all times the business will be operated in a
does not produce obnoxious noise, vibration,
smoke, glare, or other nuisance.
manner which
odor, dust,
A sign program for the multi-tenant commercial/industrial
center shall be approved by the planning Department prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
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
obligation under this condition.
PCAGENDA:STNDCONDITIONS
9/8/89
.
.
.
.
.
.
CITY
OF
SAN
BERNARDINO
CASE
RP 89-44
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING 'OATE
PAGE -2l._
~~S
..
'"
1. X
I
Review of Plans 89-44 shall be in effect for a period 'of
12 months trom the date of approval by the Planning Commission
and/or Planning Department. However, if the final map has not
been tiled with the County Recorder's Office at the end of
the 12 month time period, the approval shall expire.
Additional time may be approved by the Planning Commission upon
written request of the applicant it made 30 days prior to
expiration of
the ~ month time period.
Expiration Date: October 17.1990
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D.
a.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ICC , R's) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior
to final approval of the tract maps. The CC & R's shall
include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the
open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads,
and exterior of all buildings. The CC & R's shall also
include a statement that no radio frequency antenna shall
be included within the complex except for central antenna
systems.
.
b. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold
unless a corporation, association, property owner's group,
or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess
all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas
and common facilities in the development, such assessment
power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity,
and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain,
all of said mutually available features of the development.
Such entity shall operate under recorded CC & R's which
shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots
and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to
meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC & R's shall permit enforcement by the City of
provi5ions required by the.City as conditions to approval.
The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the Commission
prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not
apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
c.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an
appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an
undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or
(2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership i~ an
.
'"
~
I"S Sly
,-
.
.
.
.
~
CASE RP 89-44
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
\..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE'
PAGE
III
.~
Whenever an off-street parkinq area is located across the
street from property zoned for residential uses, a solid
decorative wall or equivalent landscaped berm not less than
three feet in heiqht shall be e~ected and maintained along
the street side of the lot not closer to the street than
the required depth of the yard in the adjoining residential
area. No fence or wall located in the front setback shall
obscure the required front setback landscaping. Said wall
shall be located on the north ____, south ____, east ____,
west ____, or peripheral ____ property lines.
All parking areas and vehicle storaqe areas shall be lighted
during hours of darkness for security and protection.
2.
x
.
d.
.
.....
""I
association, owninq the common areas and facilities.
d. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including
parkways, shall be provided for in the CC & R's.
e. The CC & R's shall contain wordinq prohibiting the storage
or parkinq of trailers, boats, campers, motor homes, and
similar vehicles outside of the specified common areas.
PARKING:
a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of
-1-- parking spaces in a garage for each unit.
b. All parking and driving aisles shall be surfaced with two
inches of AC over a suitable base or equivalent as approved
by the City Enqineer. Parkinq spaces shall be striped and
have wheel stops installed at least three feet from any
building, wall, fence, property line, or walkway.
Whenever an off-street parking area is adjacent to or
across an alley from property zoned residential, a solid
decorative wall six feet in height shall be erected and
maintained along the property line so as to separate the
parking area physically from the residentially zoned
property, provided such wall shall be three feet in height
when located within the required front or street side yard
setback. Where no front or street side yard is required,
such wall shall be three feet in height when located within
ten feet of the street line. said wall shall be located on
the north ____, south ____, east ____, west or
peripheral ____ property lines.
c.
I
x
Recreational vehicle storaqe areas shall be screened by at least
~
1"S Iky
.
.
.
.
i.
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CASE RP 89-44
. AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
lq
.
4.
x
5.
x
....
a six-foot high decorative wall with screened gates.
There shall be provided for each unit, within the garage or
carport, or other specifically designated area, a loft or other
usable storage area with a minimum of 150 cubic feet in addition
to standard utility storage.. .
Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads shall be
subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval.
A commercial-type drive approach, as shown on Standard Drawing
No. 204 or equivalent, shall be constructed at each entrance to
the development. Location and design shall be subject to
approval of the Engineering Division.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, access rights shall be
granted to the City for the purpose of allowing access over the
private drives within the project for all necessary City
vehicles including fire, police, and refuse disposal vehicles,
and any other emergency vehicles. The documents covering this
matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the
Planning Department.
All refuse storage areas are to be enclosed with a decorative
wall. Location, size, type and design of wall are subject to
the approval of the Planning Department and Division of Public
Services Superintendent.
Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and
local requirements.
LANDSCAPING:
a.
Four (4) copies
submitted to the
approval. The plan
the following:
be
and
to,
of a master . landscape . plan
Engineering Division for
shall include, but not be
shall
review
limited
1) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed.
2) Irrigation plan.
3) Such other alternate plants,. materials and design
concepts as may be proposed.
4) Erosion control plans.
b.
Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior
..., Ity
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CASE RP Rq-44
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 40
PAGE
6.
x
No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior
with these standard Requirements as well as all
the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
MECHANICAL EQUIPME~:
a. All utility service boxes, connections and service lines
shall be painted to match the buildinq exterior on which
they are located.
"""Ii
to compliance
provisions of
b. All existinq overhead utility services and wirinq shall be
relocated underqround.
d.
No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on any
unless screened as specifically approved by the
Department (except for solar collection panels).
All utility systems includinq qas, electric, telephone,
water, sewer and Cable TV shall be provided for
underqround, with easements provided as required, and
desiqned and constructed in accordance with City Codes and
the utility provider. Telephone, Cable TV, and/or security
systems shall be pre-wired in the residences.
building
Planning
c.
.
.
\..
.... Iky
.
.
.
(
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE RP 89-44
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
dl
1. Comply with attached policy and procedure for landscaping and
irrigation which includes landscape Assessment Districts.
2. Provide conceptual drawings of the Assessment District portions
prior to actual working drawings. Once the Parks Department
review and approve the conceptual concept, working drawings may
proceed.
.
I
.
.
r.
.
.
~
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
-
7.
8.
9.
10.
-11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
-
10...
CASE RP 89-44
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE 42
.~
"
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
x
x
x
x
x
y
x
x
x
\...
Submit plans prepared by a Registered
Architect or civil or Structural Engineer. Wet signed and stamped.
Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis prepared by a
Registered civil or Structural Engineer or Architect.
Enerqy Calculation Fores
buildings
Submit State of california Title 24
for residential,
including a signed compliance statement.
Submit calculations and structural drawings, prepared by a
Registered civil Structural Engineer or Architect, for the
following items: TRUSSES. TILE LOADING ON ROOF
Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses and
.existing materials of construction.
Submit five complete sets of construction plans including:
a. Copy of conditions.
b.
Soils
report.
c. Enerqy Calculations.
d. Structural calculation.
Submit a
preliminary
(soils)
report
person licensed ~o
. .
prepared by a
do so.
Submit a single line drawing of
all equipment, conduit and wire
service ground size and grounding
the electrical service.
sizes and types. Show
electrode.
Show
the
Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical plans.
Permit required for demolition of existing building(s) on site.
Submit a
system.
equipment
plan of the heating, ventilating or air conditioning
(Clearly identify the location and rating of the
and the sizes and material of all ducts, registers and
~
.." I.,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
"-
.
.
,
,
16.
17.
18.
.
19.
x
20. X
2l. X
22. X
23. X
24. X
25. X
.
...
.
.
.
CASE RP 89-44
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
43
~
X
the location of all fire dampers).
mechanical ventilation as required by
Code.
Submit gas pipe loads, sizing calculations and isometrics.
X
Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed sewer
system.
Submit a letter clearly indicating the intended use of all areas
of the building. List the materials to be used and the projects
produced giving the amount of each kept in the building. If th~
building is used for more than one purpose, list all other uses.
Submit isometric plans of the cold and hot water and drain-waste
and vent systems.
Show compliance with Title 24 for the physically handicapped in
the following:
Submit plans approved by the County Health Department.
Indicate methods of compliance for sound attenuation (exterior,
interior party walls, floor/ceiling assembly, ceiling) as per
study, U.B.C., local or State Law.
Show compliance with requirements of high fire areas.
For structures located within high wind areas: TILE ROOF REQUIRED
a. Design structure, including roof covering, using 20 p.s.f.
wind load.
X
City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for Worker's
Compensation Insurance.
266-451-1, 14, 19
Assessor's Parcel Number. 266-452-1-20
. 266-453-1-15
Contractor's City 11cense.
Contractor's State license.
Sewer capacity rights from Water Department, 384-5093, Neil
Thomsen.
School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
...
"I' Iky
.
.
.
.
.
. CASE RP 89-44
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
44
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
.
.
Other:
"'Ii
x
26.
DEPOSIT: SA _ Ann ~T.aN ("~(,,lC tJJfa~~ T
8,400 PLAN CHECK PHASE II
$16,800 TOTAL
csj/8-3-88
DOC:PCAGENDA
DOCUMENTS. 2
...
I
~
I..' ..,
.
.
.
(
.
. '
"""I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
""-
r
CASE RP 89-44
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4<;
POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
SECURITY LIGHTING
.
Lighting levels on the exterior of building is to provide a nnnimum of one
(1) foot candle of "maintained" illumination on the parking surface from
dusk until the ternnnation of business each operating day.
All exterior doors to building shall be equipped with an Illumination
device capable of providing a minimum of one (1) foot candle of maintained
Illumination at ground level during hours of darkness.
All exterior lighting devices are to be Inaccessible to common reach or
climbing shall be protected by weather and vandalism-resistant and be
va1dal resistant. All exterior lighting shall be projected so as not to
cast light onto adjoining properties.
All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with
either iron bars, metal gates, stamped metal or shall be alarmed and meet
with approval of the Police Department.
Interior night lighting shall be maintained in those areas that are visible
from the street (ground floor only).
DOORS, LOCKS. AND WINDOWS
27. -1L- Swinging exterior glass doors, wood or metal doors with glass panels, solid
wood or metal doors shall be constructed or protected as follows:
a. Wood doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness
of 1 3/4 inches.
b. Hollow metal doors shall be constructed of a minimum equivalent to six-
teen U. S. guage steel and have sufficient reenforcement to maintain
the designed thickness of the door when any locking device Is Installed
such as reenforcement being able to restrict collapsing of the door
around the locking device.
c. Except when double cylinder dead bolts are utilized, any glazing uti-
lized within 40' of any door locking mechanism shall be constructed or
protected as follows: Fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant
glazing or Iron or steel grills of at least l/S" metal with the maximum
2" mesh secured" on the inside of the glazing may be utilized or the
glazi ng shall be covered with iron or steel bars of at least 1/2" round
or 1" x 1/4" flat metal, space not more than 5" apart and secured on
the Inside of the glazing.
e8.
-L
"'-
MAY"
All swinging exterior wood and steel doors shall be equipped as follows:
..,
~
IA. PO." C
'''01 I 0' 1$
..
(.
(
.
.
r
CASE RP 89-44
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
"'l
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
"-
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
110
.J
29. -X-
.
JO. --L
31. -L..
."
..AY....
"
a. A single or double door shall be equipped with a double or single
cylinder dead bolt. The bolt shall have a minimum projection of I" and
be constructed so as to repel cutting tool attack.
b. The dead bolt shall have an embedment of at least 3/4" into the strike
receiving the prOjected bolt. The Cylinder shall have a cylinder
guard, a minimum of five pin tumblers and shall be connected to the
inner portion of the lock by connecting screws of at least 1/4" in
diameter. The recommendation does not apply when panic hardware is
required or an equivalent device is approved by the Building Code.
Double doors shall be equipped as follows:
a. The active leaf of double doors shall be equipped with metal flush
bolts having a minimum embedment of 5/8" into the head and threshhold
of the door frame. Double doors shall have an astragal constructed of
steel, a minimum of .125" thick which will cover the opening between
the doors. This astragal shall be a minimum of 2" wide and extended a
minimum of I" beyond the edge of the door to which it is attached. The
astragal shall be attached to the outside of the active door by means
of welding or with nonremovable bolts spaced apart on not more than 10"
centers. Hinges for outswinging doors shall be equipped with nonremo-
vable hinge pins or a mechanical inner lock to preclude removal of the
door from the exterior by removing the hinge pins. Strike plates shall
be a mi ni mum of 3i" in length and secured to the jamb wi th screws a
mi ni mum of 2i" in length.
Wi ndows:
a. All inoveable windows shall be equipped with a locking device and shall
be constructed in a fashion to restrict them from being lifted out of
its track when in closed position.
Garage type doors; rolling overhead, solid overhead, swinging, sliding or
accordi on styl e. .
a. The above-described doors shall conform to the following standards:
(1) Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of five-sixteenths (5/16)
inch in thi ckness wi th the locki ng hardware bei ng attached to the
support framing.
(2) Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of .0215 inches and
riveted together a minimum of eighteen (18) inches on center along
the outside seams. There shall be a full width horizontal beam
attached to the main dool' structure which shall meet the pilot, or
pedestrian access, door framing within three (3) inches of the
strike area of the pilot or pedestrian access door.
~
a.... 'ORM c
PAGEZOII5
.,.... -.
.
.
.
.
,
CASE RP 89-44
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
""
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
lit.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
47
~
,
""'Il
.
3 2 . ....L.-
.
\..
W.V 'I"
Each house shall display street address numbers placed in
a prominent location as near the street as practical. Numbers shall be a
minimum of six (6) inches in height and a contrasting color to the
background.
All individual offices and buildings within the complex shall be clearly
identified by numbers, letters, or a combination thereof.
The exterior business walls shall be posted with Municipal Code
Section 9.52.070 relative to trespass.
The interior cashier/sales counter shall be located so it is visible from
the building exterior. The floor area inside the counter shall be elevated
a mi ni mum of six (6) inches above the floor of the busl ness.
Access Controls
An access control override device shall be provided for use by Police
Department personnel to gain immediate access.
Common walls shall be as sound proof as possible.
Lockable cold beverage (beer) cases shall be locked at 2:00 a.m.
A pre-set gas monitoring system that allows for prepayment of gasoline
shall be installed to reduce petty theft attempts.
A photo-electric beam across entry door which will audibly notify or ring
when customers enter the store shall be installed.
lee machines shall not be installed in front of store windows.
Uti 1 i zati on of outsi de intercom speakers is prohi blted.
The placement of outside public telephones shall be restricted to an area
immediately adjacent to the front door of the store.
There shall be a minimum of twenty (20) foot candles of illumination per
square foot of surface area adjacent to gas pumps.
Any display of light should take into account adequate positioning of fix-
tures in order that .stray. light does not affect adjoining property
owners.
Perimeter fencing or cross fencing to prevent criminal movement or acti-
vity shall be installed.
Reflecti ve wall-mounted mi rrors shall be 1 nstall ed to di scourage
Shoplifting.
The placement of machinery (compressor equipment) shall be away from resi-
dential areas to abate the intensity of noise.
~
alt. '0111" C
'AU .. Of I~
.-
. . -- .
CITY OF SAN tSERNARDINO PUBLIC, NORKS/ENGR.
CASE RP 89-44
. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~i~?~16~~E
PAGE 4 B
.3.
.
Project Description: RPM-44- u,tJt;rJ!t/ch 4L 5.'; t;. ON ?i~~
Lore; IbCA77?I> ~1J we:r.r ~a; IJiJ/~ V R{"JV <:"'cmI fFK,&NM~ ,~.
", .
Date: ~",Rq Prepared By: hll.1lr Reviewed By:
Page -J- 0 ~ pages
Appl i cant :JHu IJIJY1 LynN c..
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required.
the appllcant ls.responsible for submitting the Engineering plans
directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior
to submittal of Building Plans.
Drainaae and Flood Control
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 Flood
Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all
necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
~ A 1 oca 1 dra i nage study will be requi red for the pro ject. 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.
_ The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore. a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued
by the City Engineer shall be required.
34.
_ The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore. all building pads shall be raised above the
surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer.
-X Comprehensive storm drain Project No. 7-E2~is master planned in
the vicinity of your development. This drain shall be designed
and constructed by your project.
35.
-X All drainage from the development
approved pUblic drainage facility.
drainage facilities and easements
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
shall be
I f not
shall be
directed
feasible.
provided
to an
proper
to the
.
.
36.
37.
.
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLI\, WORKS/"",
CASE ~p RQ_.d.4
. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAG
~,
Project Description: ~ 8'-<14
Date: ..:z:-J-Z-8'1
Page ~ page5
Prepared By: ~6-Reviewed By:
Grading
-KIf more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed. the site/plot/
grading 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 in advance.
~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 {cl of the Uniform Building Code.
A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report must
-be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction
report shall be incorporated in the grading plan.
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"). The
on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
A reciprocal easement shan be recorded prior to grading plan
-approval if reciprocal drainage. access. sewer. and/or parking is
. proposed to cross lot lines. or a lot line adjustment shan be
recorded to remove the interior lot lines.
38. ~ The pro ject Landscape Pl an sha 11 be revi ewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 4
copies to the Engineering Division for checking.
An on-site Lighting Plan for the project shall be reviewed and
-approved by the City Engineer. This plan can be incorporated with
the grading plan. or on-site improvement plan, if practical.
Utilities:
.
39.
--2t.Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance wi th Ci ty Code, City Standards and requi rements of the
serving utility. including gas. electric. telephone. water. sewer
and cable TV.
'\..
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC. WORKS/ENGR.
CASE RP 89-44
.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
. HEARING DATE
PAGE
Project Description: RP~q-44..
Date: $-~ Prepared By: ~ Reviewed By:
Page ~ of pages
40.
~Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer
facilities so it can be served by the City or the agency providing
such services in the area.
~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.
--2S..Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
42. provided as required.
41.
~All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site
on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance
with Ordinance No. MC-601 (Subdivisions) or Resolution No. 88-65
(Non-subdivisions).
44. ~Existing utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer.
43.
'.
Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
-ma i nta i ned by the City but shall be desi gned and cons truc ted to
City Standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction
Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can
be incorporated in the grading plan. where practical.
.
.
45.
.
.
.
--
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
. CASE RP 89-44
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAG
~l
Proje1:t De.scription: Rf/' ~fj-44-
Date: 8.~~ Prepared By: ~~Reviewed By:
Page ~ of pages
Street Improvement and Dedications:
--2tA11 public streets within and adjacent to ~he 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 modification,
relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with
new construction. striping. signing. pavement marking and markers,
and street name signing. All design and construction 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.
46. .-AFor the streets 1 isted below, dedication of adequate street
right-of-way (R.W.l to provide the distance from street centerline
to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.l in relation
to the street centerline shall be as follows:
Street Name
cJlolVB!SIT'{ PKWY
,
~.L 0 '1"JH!I'<:'
Right-of-Way (Ft.l
e,c,STI",fit
30'
Curb Line (Ft.l
53'
/8 '
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
----the following streets:
47.
____A traffic .study and report is required for this project. The
report shall be prepared by a properly licensed Traffic Engineer
or Civil Engineer knowledgeable in Traffic Engineering. The
report shall be prepared in accordance with the City of
San Bernardino Department of Public Works "Traffic Policy" and is
subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. All
recommendations. as approved by the City Engineer, shall become
Conditions of Approval of the project.
-1L 6c':>fiNr:, ~~EeT "~R. /'tJwS (P..6~ !S1I4 ( 55>"'117) $HF/U.. ~~:;e
.
-ro MHT (N/tpHT J>eSlt!l1J .s"'It",Att~/)S AN/) To APf) (j,fWt'/tSIrV ~"""'~ .
\..
.
(
.
.
(e .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC; WORKI/DIQII.
CASE RP aq-214
.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
, AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAG
:JL
rproject Description:
/?fJ 8f-44
Da te : '1'/3'8'
Page --S:- of ~ pages
Prepared By: I1~Reviewed By:
Mapping
A Fina,/Parce1 Map based upon field survey 'will be required.
All street names sha1 i be subject to approval of the Ci ty
Engineer prior to Map approval.
Additional survey and map information including, but not limited
to, building setback.s, flooding and zones, seismic lines and
setback.s, geologic mapplng and archeological sites shall be
filed with the City Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No.
MC-592.
Improvement Completion
Street, sel'/er, and drainage improvement plans for the entire
project shall be completed. subject to the approval of the City
Engineer. prior to the recordation of the Final/Parcel Map.
If the required improvements are not completed prior to
recordation of the Final/Parcel Map. an improvement security
accompani ed by an agreement executed by the developer and the
City will be required.
If th~ required improvements are not completed prior to record-
ation of the Parcel Map, an improvement certificate shall be
p1 aced upon the Map stati n9 that they \Ii 1 i be comp1 eted upon
develop~ent. Applicable to parcel maps consisting of less than
5 lots only.
Required Engineering Permits:
4B. )C Grading permit (if applicable).
On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
B~lding and Safety).
49. X Off-site improvements construction permit.
.
.
.
.
.
. --
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLK, WORKI/INQJt
. CASE RP 89-44
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~:~16~E
p 53
50.
Project Description: ~p 61f-44-
Date; ~-/t89 Prepared By: ~ Reviewed By:
Page --L 0 pages
Applicable Engineering Fees:~
Plan check fee for Final/Parcel Map.
X Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements.
I
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings; see Building and Safety).
X Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permi t required).
Bridge improvement fee in amount of $ .
X Drainage fee. Exact amount of fee shall be determined by
Department of Building and Safety at time of application for
building permit.
)( Landscape Plan Review Fee $ 65.00 .
X Traffic System Fee of $ 12.54 per vehicle trip for City-wide
tra ffi c mitigation. The total amount of the Traffic System Fee
shall be determined by the City Traffi c Engineer at time of
application for building permit.
Street Light Energy Fee to pay cost of street light energy for a
period of 4 years. Exact amount to be determined prior to map
recording.
X A Landscape Maintenance District shall be i mo.l emented to
maintain landscaping within the foll olli ng areas: Will.
J!M.KWR'f.
X l!errl/tloi ~/1I5 ON Sl'....7 C"'Jf:tSS .9fAf-l- liE zr'
-
X l>Jt I vr:w~ 5i )~ ..StHMI.. NDT exCEl!!!) B".
~ ree5 I/'tlE s v!1Jec.r To CHImGG WI ~",r Norlce.
\..
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
..---'.
.
58.
.60.
.
.
~
CASE/;tl fj-'f 'I
AGENDA ITEM .: I
HEARING DATE ~l~Ja
REVIEWED BY . A
PAGE /' // h' ,
V/lJICY
--
CITY
OF
SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
page 54
PIKE DEPARTIlBIIT REQUIIlEIIEJl'I'lI
(lENERAL REQUIREMENTSl
(J Pl'OYide OM extra Nt of construction p1am to BuUdlrc and Wety tar Plre Departm..t UM at time of plan cheCk.
[J ConLlet Fire Department tor specific or del.lIed requiremenu - ...PO.TANT.
[1 The developer shall provide for adeqUlte Fir. Flow u computed by the fire prevention 8w-eau. Plre Flow shaD be beNd
on tQUlre tootAle, COftIuuction t..tu.... and ~. ",Iormation u ~Iled by the developer and may be taken (ram two
hydranu.
ACCESS:
[I Provide two cIItte",nt rout.. ot 1",","",_ to tile property ..t....... TIle rout.. shill be poYld. ......t/ler.
~ Provide an ICC:" roadway to uch buildlrw for fire IIpp8Ntus. AcceII roIIdway shall have an IIll-weatner drivinc surrace
or not leu than 2lrfeet ot unobstructed width.
Eztend roadway to within 150.'"' or all porUanI of the exteriot walls of alllin(le-ltory buiJdinp.
Extend roadway to within $I).t..l or the exterior w..u. of aU multlple-ltOl'1 buildlnp.
Provide RHo PARKING" signs whenever Partdnr of vehlda would poalbly reduee the clearance at accell roadways to lea
then the required width. Signa are to read "PIkE LANE - NO PARKINO" (All cape). "M.C. Sec. 15.11".
DeaHod streets shall not exceed ~Oo-feet in length and shaD have a minimum 3$-foot radius tumaround.
The names of lIfty new streets (public or private) shall be umilled to the Pire Department tor apprcwlll.
I]
( J
( I
I]
( J
59.
~AU access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combuStible construction. . ..
[; Private nre hydrants shall be inIta11ed to protect each buiJdlnrlocated more thin lS~teet trom the curb Une. No tire hydrant
should be within 4~feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants .hall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2i-inch and one 4-inc:h outlet.
and 8$)proved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants aN to be protected trom damace by providlnr suitable trattlc buTlers.
The area around the fire hydrant tha1l be desacnated u a "NO PAR KINO" &oM by peintirC an I-inch wide. red stripe for u-teet
in .ach direction in front of the hydrant in such a IftaMIr that it wW not De olocked by parKed v.hicles. SUltaDle "NO
./'PARKING" sips ore require<!. .
{ff Public Clre hydrants .hall be provided alone ItreeU at 3O.-feet Intervals for commereial &rkJ multt-foesidenti"al areas and at
SOo-.feet intervall tor residential areas.. InIt.t1I.-tion IhaIlrcanlorm't.o E:lty tpecilications and be installed prior to eombultible
construction or stot....
61
SU~NG: .
(~The address at the strUcture, in All inch numerals. IhaI1 be inltaUed an the buildlnr at in other apptO'ted location in such a
maMer u to be visible from the tront.,_ street. The eo1ot of the numberS .haIl contrut with color of the becklfOUl'd.
(I 14entily each CD and electric meter with the number at the unit which it services.
,:' Fire eninCUishers mUlt be installed prior to the bul1dlnc btlnc occupied. The minimum retine for any tire extiJ'ICUisher Is
2A 10 SIC. Minimum distribution of tire extin(uishers must be such that no Interior part of the buildinr is oyer u-teet trevel
distance from a fire extinrufshet.
AU buUdincs. other than residential over 5.000 square 'eet, shall be provided with an automatie fire sprinkler system. designed
to HFP.... standards.
Submit plans for the tire protection system to the Fire Department priot to befinninr conltruction on the system.
Tenant improvements in aU sprinklered buildinp are to be approved by the Fin Department prior to construction.
Provide an automatic fire alarm erequired throuChout). Plan must be approved by the Plre Department, prior to installation.
Fire Department connection to (jpri.nk1er system/standpipe system) shall be required It curb line.
( J
II
( ]
, .
, .
II
..==;:SES.==S..-====......~=-aaa-
----
------
-
.sss~===___-__
-
NOTE: The applieant must request. in .rittre. any chanCe in thue or other requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
FPB 170 7/86
.
. .
I BERNARDINO CITY WATER OEPARTMI 'S
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
page 5'
.
ReviIWOfPllns: # ~ -# Olte:
LOCltion:.lo\.~~;~~~ Approved:
TYPI of Construction' . 0" - Olnild:
Owner/Developer: _ _ ___ ..!--- _ ~e "t:e/. Continued:
ENGINEERING: Nlme:~ k.tL1A....lA1A.A~ Dlti:
62.cs:... P.S.1. "'\ #? - ~ ~ .
63. tJiI... SiztOfMlinAdjlc~ttotheprOject ~"'ti~J,~$ie~Iif'1r~ ~~ ~
~,"-~ c: ~... .e>Fo ~~~~. "A~~-t"u r-\V .
o 'PresSure'Regulltor u med on Customers Si e on the Metif. . . .I ~
64 .)I!t... Commenu:
~~ ~ e-~,~,.,c/ ~~'...IIC:>.C=:,~
D Subject to the rula & regulltions of the Wlter Deplrtment in effect It the time of Ipplication for water Slrvice.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT: Nam~5'i ~ Jlfe::-
D R.P.P. Backflow Devicl Required It Service Connection.
D Double Check Blckflow Device Required It Service Connection.
D Air Glp Required It Service Connection.
D No Backflow Device Required.
Date:
.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER: Nam~ vJAr--r.~J
D Industrill Weste Permit MIY Be Required by Environmentl! Control Officer.
D Grelse Trep Required by Environmental Control Officer.
D No Regeneretive Wlter Softenel$ MIY Be Instilled Without Prior Approvel of thl Environmenlll Control Officer.
D Approved by Environmlnlll Control Officer.
Dati:
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Nlme:.f ~l~ r 1'7_____ A Dlte: ~ e:.
D No Sewer CIPlcity Chlrge Appliceble It This Time. ~ e kI: ~ ~
65:,fiIL. Sewer Clplcity Right Must Be Purchll8d from the Redevelopment Agency ~, 11.4 Ma,u", ~ .eaA~Uiil ' ,
of Glllons Per DIY. Sewer Clpecity Rights
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons P~
..=\?~ ~\Mr. ~ -- I
~~ 1:2.. e:::=.P - tA--
And/or:
.6.,::::a'\ Proof of PurchlSl Must Be Submitted to the Wlter oeplrtment Prior to Ipulnce of the Building Permit.
D This Arel is Slrviced by East Valley Wlter District Ind All Fe. Will Be Determined by Their Deplrtment.
#216 5185
.
.
.
.
.
.
Agenda Itee4
Page 57
October 17, 1989
MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PLAN
FOR THE
-REVIEW OF PLANS 89-44 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
INTRODUCTION
In compliance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 (enacted
by passage of AB3180 (Cortese), public agencies approving projects
which may cause significant environmental impacts must monitor the
mitigation of those impacts. This Mitigation Reporting /Monitoring
Plan, prepared for Osborne Development Company, ensures
implementation of the mitigation measures adopted by the
Development Review Committee in approving the project and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring Activities
Pr ior to beginning construction the applicant shall furnish the
City Planning Department with a checklist chart to use in tracking
the mitigation inoni tor ing and reporting activities. The chart
shall list each mitigation measure, monitoring or reporting action
and be ruled into columns that are designed to record responsible
agency, dates of completion, inspector or other certifying person
and the person recording the information.
Water Resources Mitigation Measures
3.a.
The project could result in changes in drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces. The
Engineering Department will require that the storm drain located
in University Parkway be up graded to medt the City Master Storm
Drain Plan. A condition of approval shall be added to the project
requiring the storm drain improvement.
Water Resources Reporting/Monitoring Action
Upon Final acceptance of the developer's work on the storm drainage
facilities, the City Engineering Department shall notify the City
Planning Department in writing of compliance. The planning staff
shall retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file
indicating compliance with the measure.
Transportation/Circulation Mitigation Measures
9.d.
The curb and gutter along University Parkway which abuts the
property to the east shall be constructed to meet current City
codes.
Transportation/Circulation Reporting /Monitoring Action
Upon final acceptance of the developer's work effort in
.
.
.
.
(
.
.
.
RP89-44
Page 58
constructinq the curb and qutter alonq University Parkway, the City
Enqineerinq Department shall notify the Planninq Department in
writinq of compliance. The planninq staff shall retain such notice
in the project file and annotate the file indicatinq compliance
with the measure.
. CONCLUSION
This Mitigation Monitorinq/Reporting Program shall be retained by
the City in the Planninq Department project file for Review of
Plans 89-44. As various mitiqation measures are fully implemented
their completion should be documented by appropriate notation on
the checklist. chart provided specifically for this project. When
all measures have been confirmed as completed on the checklist.
this Reporting/Monitorinq Plan is complete.
I
,'-.
.
/
I A&TION "FIt
.
.
C I T Y
o F
SAN
B ERN A R DIN 0
... INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: BRADKILGER. Director -- Planning Department
FROM: MICHAEL W. GRUBBS. Senior Civil Engineer --
___--- Public Works/Engineering
SUBJECT: RP 89-44: 42 SFR Lots Located Near Kendall Drive and
University Parkway (Osborne Develop.ent Company)'
DATE: October 6. 19B9
FILE NO: RP 89-44 (Recorded TR 10432)
Attention: Ann Larson
...
We are providing the following comments in response to your Rapid
Memo. dated 10-3-89. requesting review of an appeal of Conditions
of Approval submi tted by Rutan and Tucker. Attorney for Osborne
Development Company. in their letter dated 9-19-89.
Point 1 of Rutan & Tucker letter (page 2)
1. Installation of a 30" storm drain along the Westerly side
of University Parkway -- Contrary to the appeal letter.
TR 10430 and TR 10431 constructed a 30" storm drain along
the Westerly side of University Parkway. Condition of
Approval No. 34 requires that Tract No. 10432 construct
the Master Plan Storm Drain per CSDP Project No. 7-E25.
Thi s project is needed to mi ti gate down stream fl oodi ng
impacts to which this project will contribute drainage.
The City is currently constructing a portion of this
Master Pl an Storm Drai n under the 1-215 Freeway. and we
expect to require each new project to construct the
portion of the drain adjacent to it as adjourning
property develops. The City will use it's storm drain
construction monies to complete the reaches along
developed parcels. The storm drainage fees paid by this
project is used to solve City-wide drainage problems.
which benefits all city residents.
2.
Construction of Curb. Gutter. and Sidewalk Along
Universit~ Parkway With Incidental Wldening -- Tracts No.
10350. 10 51. and 10352 were orlgina11y approved in 1978.
These tracts were some of the first to start construction
along University Parkway between the 1-215 Freeway and
Kendall Drive and the rural concept for University
Parkway was adequate at the time. However. now we have 4
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8'RAD KILGER. Director -- Planning
October 6. 1989
File No. RP 89-44 (Recorded TR 10432)
Subject: RP 89-44: 42 SFR Lots Located Near Kendall Drive &
University Parkway (Osborne Development Company)
Attn: Ann Larsen
large apartment complexes
commercial development under
commercial development being
existing.
construction'
planned next
one small retail
and one large retail
to College Avenue.
Due to this growth. the rural concept is no longer appropriate
and all new developments adjoining University Parkway are
being required to construct curb & gutter, sidewalk, street
lights, road widening and parkway landscaping. The apartment
projects across the street from Tract No. 10432 were required
to improve University Parkway as stated above. These
improvements are necessary to assure the health and safety of
the residents. and visitors to the new developments.
The appellant's letter seems to imply that they have a vested right
to build under the 11 year old conditions approved for Tentative
Tract No. 10432 in 1978. We do not know of any authority in the
Subdivision Map Act or the Municipal Code which would afford them
vested rights to build under the original conditions of the
tentative map approval.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
MICHAEL W. GRUBBS
Senior Civil Engineer
MWG:pa
-2-,
.
/
'. ,~t:)~~;f'
.;...
.
.
&CHMENT
..f:Ian ~~,nf,. ,,~
. '\ 4 ; ~ .. ",....," , ~ . , , ,'" ...
I' ,',!J VJ{;!IU} U/;;'lliLf
.
.
"GII
Re. .,aw of Plans 89-44
COUNTY 'F SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLlC-'WORKS AGENCY
-..--..-..............
825 E..' Third ..r..' Son ..'fto,dlfto.CA '2415 T.I.....". (71..1 383-166~
June 19, 1978
./
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commiasion
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Re: Tentative Tracts 10430,
10431, and 10432
City of San Bernardino
Gentlemen:
By your transmittal dated June 8, 1978, thia office was requested to
review and comment on the subject tracts located adjacent and west of
State College parkway between Kendall Drive and the Barstow Freeway,
in the City of San Bernardino. .
These trscts lie in the same general area on Which Tract 7452 was filed
in 1964. In our opinion, these tracts are reasonably free of serious
flood hazards from major flood channels and drainage courses. However,
the site is traversed by tributary local drainage flows from the undeveloped
area to the north, primarily in sheet flow conditions. It is, therefore,
recommended a separate report be obtained from the City Engineer in this
regard.
It should be noted that the preliminary Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan
for the area indicates a 66" RCP along State College Parkway and a 75" RCP
along a portion of College Avenue. A copy of the Preliminary Comprehensive
Storm Drain plan is enclosed for your review.
If this office can provide any additional information, please advise.
Very truly yours,
"
d;~ C..A?...
, dtL'c. MANN /' .
Assistant Flood Control Engineer
Water Resources-Land Development
-
SKV:km
Encl as noted
cc: City Engineer
E.F. Shaw
Joseph E. Bonadiman & A_soc.
.
.
<~
,
~
tL
U.
.
.
.
i
( ATTENTION ..
--.- -. /. , i
. ','" -'I. ...., , t
..- .... .,., I III --" :" , I .! ,; !
", I'" """J'! .. ,..., ,. I.! _
c'", ." J! '~J . ;1'- ;.;! t~:1 il j: -, ' I,
nil.i! 'I' ;:. I,.! ;-n .Id , ;a i II , . _ .
S'" d' .. I' If. .' I ...... I. .
i'i joo i.' ';;, I: II . i i I 'I,l: I Ii! ; , i , j f! .' .
ill!i. U! III; ,I; HI! I i it !i' Iii. =,;;1: . ii ~I i !I In .1 ~ t !5 ~
8.1 1-. 1111'1 ~ 1. ! J 'I" rI" ,'!, !" ~ .;; .: .: . .
ii'; ~~i :i '~n! i ..i i! ;~!' ijr,~, i:1 ~.." l~ \\ - '" /'/
"11. I"" · I ",,,, , I :: '., ,.., .. ii I -j . l . .
::i ~'I'II'i .',hHi. I"':!I li'liU;"I.11 \ Ii ~~ \ hI,-
i Ji i ,I~ ili. j;11', i II :I~.! .'i: l'i.!IJ'I5I~I' I~ \. '#.. ,.y"",.' r:v'/l
I' ,.: ' II ' II.. ""'I'j" I j';;;;:;;; .\ ~ ."; _/1
~ I~.; ji,:i. !,,!i fjjj ~ll j !~ dd ::i , !:i.i: i .. "b4;--- .. I
!II 1:1i ",. , " , , , ; .....,.,
.. " . "'."' ~--=, ~
Q, i }1
J 'I f J! : I h'
1l;;;i:ilJi . ~~ i.l lift
~~~H!liIIHFI'I.JI -'-'~~'/7~ j
Ii III ~ ~ ~ ! ~ " Ii;; ; llf; ~
. I :: I.. .. I..
' G 0 I ...
---...~-.....~ t / I. .
I~y. ~ t I,...
~ I.';'
._-"~'. ~~~;~7,
.. -~\l ~,
- ~gllj ,j ;.ii~ ...' .,
~ It.
W -- it,: .__~
I 1'.'.. I.
IS '-i' t
. I .
j f.
~' .
.. ,...- ...., L
A.!.V'.~ .'
. . I .
- -
,
(
RP 89-44
,
,
,
111
~
~,
....
N
~
N
N
~
N
It'9'OI
'0.; 1I.L
o
..
'?>
.,., l.:.1I'I1&U1l1J
~
I ~~1 g
-1~
11
!
. .
. i "
.~
iil ,
b.
I, I! I
11.. ..
.
; -
~
o
,~
I: t
i~ t
.. I
. "'-
. ,."
t~ ..,..
.~ ~!
~ ~ r
Uu
<
0:
...
!'i
,
i; i
'1.
'1'
. Y I I !
l _ I'
h'i'l!
w ~! !it
I: : I lJ .
Ii ;' I
I
~
.
.
.
.
of PlansB9_44
"IJi. .
. _ _.' - ~ (all(,.,:! ~t;'lt.. \ '.)i1"R~
. San Ii':'"rmu'rlinll r
. ,
.. .
. .o'
"'0 :: ,
"0: ::". I
:~:.
1/
---1 '
. " 'v. .,
. .--i.". t ..9~
t.. ;. ~
..: ~.,.-
." . 11- - -_.;,_.
. ,__ - T"-. , 0432.-
~.-:~.:::-: AI?EA" B"~
,:/:.......~.....
.:: /..... ....<
" .... '0. 0..
00 ..............~
~i\..n,I:lI; .... .... ..... '-
. . ~ h ....... "0.'
. '~~I:~ I "1;.,..,.::......>~~~
I.. ... ~_ "00 00
..~",,". -i. ........'" ".,-..
,\ , . ..... '" "~'
wi~' 00 ,"'0 ..~
~ ._u., Of '0. ........ ....
~" _g ResF.:~ .I)H "~.'o 00 ..... .... ....~
0::.\\ .-- .0. '00 .."":.... ......
''; . 0000 -',"0.
lIc.-t\\~., .' " '" ". ",
_ . .... ..::::t~:.
."
j',
.~
0/ ,
1''' -- \
.I
i
'( .
(
i
.',
CH.AI'O:c.
.:eOf...tct: ...
5i
cj
Z
~,"
"
-.-,... -
- ..
ill
llJ
::r
\..!\
ill
Ui
\S\
;
.
(
-ATTACHMENT "I".
.
(
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE RP 89 89-44
HEARING OATEOctober 17.
1989
AGENDA
ITEM '#
4
~ ! t r
~ l
.. =
,
~
'. .
I~ ,
I~ t
rf~ ,.
/'
. 0
0
0:
N:
.