HomeMy WebLinkAbout29-Planning and Building
. >
REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION
CITY OF SAN BERNjQDINO -
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Dept: Planning and Building Services
Subject: Appeal of Conditions of Approval of
Parcel Map No. 13723
Da~: March 13, 1991
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April I, 1991, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On February 19, 1991, the Planning Commission, by a 6 to 0 vote, conditionally
approved Parcel Map No. 13723.
No previous Council action.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; and, that Parcel Map No.
13723 be approved subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval contained
in the February 19, 1991 Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit nOn). (Supports
Planning Commission's action by a 6 to 0 vote).
OR
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld; and, that Parcel Map No.
13723 be approved subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval
contained in the February 19, 1991 Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit nOn),
but deleting Public Works Department Condition #14 requiring the 11' street widening
improvement. (Supports Appealant's request).
OR
That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld; and, that Parcel Map No.
13723 be approved subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval
contained in the February 19, 1991, Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit nOn),
but amending Public Works Department Conditions #14 to require the 11' street
widening improvement prior to building permit issuance. (This motion has been
agreed to by the Public Works Department and is staff's recommendation).
Director
'( Reed Signature
Con~ penon: I arry F. R...ed
Phone:
~R4-5~57
Supporting data attached: Staff Reoort
Ward:
?
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item NO~
75.0262
CITY OF SAN BERNA'itDINO - REQUEST FtCl COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Parcel
Map No. 13723
Mayor and Common council Meeting of
April 1, 1991
REOUEST
The applicant is appealing two Public Work's conditions of
approval (#14 and #15) of Parcel Map 13723. The applicant
requests that the Mayor and council reconsider these condi-
tions and waive the requirement of street widening.
BACKGROUND
Parcel Map 13723 is a proposal to divide one 0.47 acre parcel
into three lots at 1524 North Sierra way (sierra Way and
Magnolia Avenue). There are three existing residences built
in 1924 on the 20,447 square foot parcel. The proposed net
lot configuration (after right-of-way dedication) is as
follows:
Parcel 1 - 6, 473 square feet with 858
residence
Parcel 2 - 7,093 square feet with 1,080
residence
Parcel 3 - 6,473 square feet with 864
residence
square foot
square foot
square foot
The proposal is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (Section 15315, Class 15).
The surrounding properties are a combination of single-family
and mUlti-family residential land uses in the RS, Suburban
Residential, land use designation. The RS designation re-
quires a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. However,
Planning Commission Interpretation 90-2 established a finding
of consistency for this type of infill subdivision with the
General Plan because it would help to maintain the character
of the neighborhood: the residences are existing: it would
help to preserve a potential historic resource: it would help
maintain existing affordable housing: and, it would promote
home maintenance and upkeep resulting from home ownership.
During the review process, the Public Works Department
specified that an additional 2.75 feet right-Of-way dedica-
tion along sierra Way and an 11 foot street widening
improvement would be required to comply with the Circulation
Element of the General Plan and Public Works standards for
secondary arterials. The General Plan requires the right-of
way dedication and road improvements as part of all new
developments.
o
of parcel Map~o. 13723
of
,
, .
Appeal of Conditions of Approval
Mayor and Common council Meeting
April 1, 1991
Page 2
.
The applicant is arguing that this subdivision proposal is
not a new development, and that a legal "nexus" has not been
established for the requirement of street widening. (See
Appeal letter with attachment, Exhibit "A").
All subdivisions are considered new developments. The fact
that the homes are existing does not diminish the obvious
economic benefit derived from the subdivision to the home-
owners. When the homes were first built, Sierra way was not
a secondary arterial as it is now designated. The city is
required to bring these roads into compliance with standards
over time as development occurs or as a capital improvement
project. A possible compromise might be to modify Condition
#14 so that the improvements would be required when building
permits are applied for on the parcels, instead of at the
time of approval of the final parcel map. This would defer
the street widening indefinitely until either building permit
issuance or a formal street improvement program was
established.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
The Mayor and council may deny the appeal and approve the
Parcel Map as originally conditioned by the Planning commis-
sion on February 19, 1991: uphold the appeal and approve the
Parcel Map deleting condition '14, which requires the street
widening improvements: or, uphold the appeal and approve the
parcel Map but amending the timing of the street improvements
to occur prior to building permit issuance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the
Parcel Map be approved with
the street widening prior
permits.
prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP
principal Planner
appeal be
Condition
to the
upheld and that the
'14 amended to require
issuance of building
Exhibits: A - Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and council
B - statement of Official Planning commission
Action
C - Public Hearing Notice
D _ February 19, 1991, planning commission
Staff Report
SRAPPEALPK13723
~~
J..~IL~ r
o
tgQme~
~
o
. ~OlllllilllilDllil@
Date: Feb. 28, 1991
File: 10301.11
City of San Bernardino
City Council
300 N. '0' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Attention: City Clerk
Regarding: Tentative Parcel Map 13723
Dear City Council Members:
This letter will serve as an appeal of engineering conditions for Planning
Commissioned approved Tentative Parcel Map 13723.
Although the Planning Commission approved both the Plannig Commission
Interpretation (Sept. 11, 1990) to allow the creation of substandard lots and the
Tentative Parcel Map (Feb. 19, 1991), there are conditions of approval levied on
this Parcel Map that are unacceptable to the applicant/property owner. These
include those conditions that require the widening of Sierra Way by removal of
existing curb and installation of new curb at the ultimate location.
Public Works Condition numbers 14 and 15:
14. All public streets within . and adjacent to the
development shall be improved to include combination curb
and gutter, paving, handicap ramps, street lights,
sidewalks and appurtenances....
15. For the street listed below, dedication of adequate
street right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from
street centerline to property line and placement of the
curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be
as follows:
Sierra Way: R.W. 44' (2.75 addit'!.) C.L. 33' (11' addit'I.)
34636 Counly Line Road. SUite 31 . Yucaipa. CA 92399 . (714) 795-1899
eVUTQTT "All
o
o
On behalf of the property owners, it is requested that the requirement of street
widening be waived for Tentative Parcel Map 13723.
$UPPORT
1. There are very few locations along Sierra Way that are developed to the
ultimate street width between Baseline Ave. and Highland Ave. This site is no
different than any other single family residence on Sierra Way, other than the
form of ownership (rental vs. fee title).
2. The additional widening will not provide additional traffic lanes to assist in
improving the level of service on Sierra Way. The residents may have visitors
park their cars on the street without restriction as a result of the widening;
however, there is on site parking available for guests as well.
3. The installation process may force the removal of six mature palm trees, which
are in excess of 50 feet tall. Additionally, since it will reduce the front landscaped
area by and average of 545 square feet, it would seem appropriate to delay this
impact until all homes on Sierra Way are affected similarly, if and when the street
improvements are installed.
4. However, the most compelling argument in support of waiving the street
widening cosndition is that of nexus, or the connection between that of the
condition imposed and the burden created by the development. As this land
division creates three parcels for homes that already exist and proposes no new
residential construction, expansion or remodeling, there are no impacts to city
facilities and services.
Specifically, the traffic burden to Sierra Way will not increase as a result of this
project. Since street widening is a mitigation measure used to offset the
additional traffic generated by the development and this development genrates
no traffic, street widening should not be required.
There appears to be legal rulings supporting this issue as well. In Rohn vs. City
pf Visalia. [No. F011088. Fifth Dist. Oct. 26, 1989.], the State of California
Appellate Court found a street dedication and widening condition excessive
because it found no nexus, or linkage, between the dedication condition and
alleged traffic burden. The opinion by Justice Baxter has been attached.
Ordinarily, 150 feet of street widening and improvements would not be
considered excessive. In this instance, the property owners are not in an
economic postion to undertake the cost of the improvement (estimated to be
$10,000 to $12,000) and the burden on these owners is far greater than the
o
o
overall benefit to the traffic circulation system. Therefore, a far more equitable
solution is to undertake the street widening to a time when a formal improvement
program is established and all property owners are assessed their share.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
TOOMEY AND ASSOCIATES
~" \ ,-,
, ; '? ; 7)/"-'
l'~' ..-,
I i "----.)
Paul Toomey
Planner
Attachments: Case law excerpt.
.'
o
o
.
ROHN P. CITY Of VISALlA
214 CaI.App.3d 1463; - Col.Rptr. - IOct. 1989)
1463
(No. FOII088. Fifth Disl. Ocl. 26, 1989.)
ROBERT ROHN et al., Plaintill's and Respondents, v.
CITY OF VISALlA, Derendant and Appellant.
SUMMARY
Landowners who were granted a site review and building permit to con-
vert a house to an office building sought a writ or mandate to compel the
city to delete a dedication condition to the issuance or the building permit.
The condition required the landowners to dedicale over 3,000 square reetto
the city ror the realignment or a street. The trial court granted the writ
based on its determination there was no reasonable relation between the
required dedication and the use ror which the building permit was request-
ed. (Superior Court or Tulare County, No. 123745, Edward Kim, Judge.)
The Court or Appeal affirmed. The court held the trial court had substan-
tial evidenee rrom which to conclude there was no reasonable relationship
bet~n the conditional dedication and the proposed use or the property,
noting it was clear that the street realignment was made necessary by an
instanee or poor planning during the original development or the intersec-
tion, and that the city viewed the landowners' application ror rezoning and
site plan review as the "hook" it needed to acquire the property ror nothing.
The court held the city could proceed with its general traffic plan, but ir it
wanted the portion or the landowners' property contained in the dedication
ror a street project lacking any relation to the proposed conversion, it must
pay ror it. (Opinion by Baxter, J., with Stone (W. A.), Acting P. J., and
Dibiaso, J., concurring.)
HEADNOTES
C1assiRed to California DiSCSI of Ofticial Reports, 3d Series
(la, Ib) Building Regulations f 3-Dulldlng Pennlt........condltlon-Dedl.
catlo_Valldlty-Relatlonshlp Between Dedleatlon and Vse.-The
trial court properly granted property owners a writ or mandamus
ordering a city to delete a condition to the issuance or a building
o
o
.
ROHN Y. CITY OF VISAI.IA
214 Col.^rr.3d 1463; - Col.Rrlr. - (Ocl. lqSq]
1464
permit and approval ofa site plan rcview, that the owner dedicate over
3,000 square feet of his property for street realignment, where there
was no reasonable relationship between the dedication condition and
the converted use of the property. The street realignment was made
necessary by an instance of poor plnnning during the original develop-
ment of the affected intersection, and the conversion of a building
from residential to office use would have no adverse effect on traffic.
The city simply viewed the owner's application for rezoning and site
plan review as the "hook" it needed to acquire the property for noth-
ing.
(Supreme Court's views as to what constitutes "taking:' within
meaning of Finh Amendment's prohibition against taking of private
property for public use without just compensation. note, 89 L.Ed.2d
977. See also CaI.Jur.3d, Eminent Domain, ~ 312; Am.Jur,2d, Emi-
nent Domain, ~ 158.]
(2) DediCtltion I2-Delinitlons Ind Dlstinetlons.-A dedication involves
the uncompensated tFlnsfer of an interest in private property to a
public entity for, public use.
(3) Eminent Domlin ~ lll-Compensltion-Whlt Constitutes Tlking or
Dlmlge-DediCtltion.-Although I regulatory body may constitu-
tionany require I dediCltion of land as a condition of development,
and such a requirement is not viewed as an act of eminent domaIn. the
government is limited in its power to impose conditional dedications.
A IFlnt of public privilele, such as a buildinl permit, may not be
conditioned on the deprivation of constitutionll protections. An Irbi-
tFlrily conceived ellaction will be nullified as a disguised attempt to
take private prnperty for public use without resort to eminent domain
or as a mask for discriminatory tallation. If the applicant must donate
property for a public use that bears no relationship to the benefit
conferred on the appliClnt or the burden imposed on the public, there
is a taking of property. Conversely, if there is such a rational relation-
ship, the requirement of dediCltion of property is a validly imposed
condition. Any lovernment action, including a dedication require-
ment, which deprives the owner of all reasonable use of his property
amounts to a taking which must be compensated.
(4) Munieipllltles ~ 26-Pollce Power_Property-Permits Ind Prlvi.
leges-VllIdlty.-Where the conditions imposed by I public entity for
I use of privlte property Ire not reasonably related to the landowner's
proposed use, but Ire imposed to shin the burden of providing the cost
of I public benefit to one not responsible, or only remotely respectively
o
o
1465
r. ern' OF "'S.\LM
'OII.Arr.Jd 146J: - C.I.Rrlr. - (0,'. I.~.I
, benefitinll from it. there is an unreasonable exercise of police power.
. Whether there has bccn a reasonable exercise of lhe police power is a
. queslion for the court. The rellltionship between the condition exacted
, by the public cntily and Ihc usc proposed by the 11Indowner presents a
. factual inquiry for the trial court.
. Real Estate Sales ~ II 6-Subdivislons-Conditlons-Dedieation.-A
public entity may conditionally appro\'e a subdivision map on condi-
lion the subdivider dedkare Jlr"J'CrlY for streets or parks. Dedicalion
of land for streelS. in order to prlwide reasonable traffic now for the
leneral welrare or lot owners and Ihe public. is not a taking under the
, rower of eminenl domain since it is rCllSll/lably related 10 the increased
. traffic and other needs of the proposed subdivision.
Kabot &. Michner and S. L. Kabot ror Derendant and
&. Jordan and Steven R. Williams ror Plainliffs and
INTROI)UCTION
R, J.- (1a) We arc cnlled upon to deternline whether the City
ia may condition approval of a site plnn review and issuance of a
permit on dedication of 14 perccnt of respondents' land to correct
ment of Court Street at its intersection with Tulare Avenue eonsis-
with its lleneral plan. Since there is no reD50nable relationship between
. tion condition and the converted use of the property, we affirm
lrial court's judllment deletinll the condilion.
FACTS ANI) PRocmmlNGS DI;LOW
Slreet runs north and south and intersects Tulare Avenue, which
_t and wesl. The intersection is within the city limits of Visalia. The
of Court Street 50uth of Tularc Avenue is skewed to the east; it does
o
o
.
1466
ROliN .. CITY OF VISAUA
214 Cal.Arr.Jd 1463: - Cal.R",r. - lOcI. 1989)
not line up perfectly with the continuation of Court Street as it crosses
Tulare to the north. It appean that this imperfect intenection came into
existence during the original rlanning develorment of the area.
In 1978. the city amended its general rlnn and approved the transition of
Court Street and Locust Street to a common two-way major arterial and the
eventual connection of Court and Locust north of Tulare Avenue. The
decision was not made based on the projected future use of the adjacent
parcels. but because of the general need "to plan for the future growth needs
of the City of Visalia." The prorosal also included a rlan to correct the
imperfect alignment of Court Street at its intersection with Tulare Avenue
by curving Court slightly to the west to match the northern cornen. The
city has not begun work on either thc connection or the realignment.
Respondents own real property at the southwest corner of Court Street
and Tulare Avenue. A single family residence was on the property and it
was zoned for either single or multifamily residences. On May 14. 1985.
respondents applied to the city for an amendment to the general plan to
change the land use designation from residential to professional administra-
tive offices. The ownen intended to convert the house to an office building.
On July 22. 1985. the planning division prepared a report for the Visalia
Planning Commission discussing the imract of the convenion. It compared
the potential traffic that would be generated by apartments. which could be
built without an amendment or zoning change. and by the prorosed offiee
building. Two other sites adjoining the property were also considered as
potential oIfice buildings. The planning stalT determined that thl! convenion
of the three parcels to profes.~ional offices would appear "to generate less
traffic impact than their development to ellisting multiple family zoning
potential." The report also noted that the proposed Court Street realign-
ment "will necessitate the dedication of additional right-of-way along the
northeast comer of the subject rroperty. However. staft'does not feel that
this will create a constraint on the future convenion of the ellisting struc-
ture." There was no indication that the dedication was required because of
increased traffic from the converlion. when the dedication would be de-
manded. or the ellact amount of rroperty that would be required for the
dedication.
On July 22. 1985. the planning commission held a hearing on the pr0-
posed amendment to the general plan. During the discussion about the
property. the proposed realignment of Tulare and Court was discussed.
Two residents stated their concerns abouttmffic in the area. However. there
was no mention of dedication of rroperty as a condition of obtaining the
amendment or rezoning the property. The matter was continued for further:
1
~
~...
o
o
1467
ROHlf f. CITY OF VISAUA
114 CaI....PP.3d 1463; - Ca\.Rptr. - lOcI. 19191
discussion on rezoning the twO parcels discussed in the planning staft" re-
port. which are adjacent to respondents' property.
On August 12, 1985. the planning commission held another hearing on
the proposed amendment. which was recommended by the planning staft". A
member of the planning staft" stated that professional offices would not
create any greater traffic than multifamily developments for which the site
was already zoned. A city engineer "explained the plan and proposed align-
ment for Court Street. He stated that at this point in time there is not a
committed time frame when this will occur." While the Court Street plan
was explained, there was no mention that the owner would have to dedicate
any portion of the property for the realignment. A motion approving the
amendment to the general plan was adopted by the planning commission.
In the meantime. the Visalia Historic Preservation Advisory Board rec-
ommended the placement of the existing single family residence. known
locally as the McSwain Mansion. on the local historic register. The board
felt that the structure was of such character that it qualified as a historic
landmark. On September 3. 1985. the Visalia City Council amended the
local historic register to include the site. Any eltpansion or alteration of the
exterior of the structure. or requests for re7.oning. would have to be ap-
proved by the advisory board.
On September 3, 1985. the Visalia City Council held a hearing on the
proposed amendment to the general plan. A memo from the,planning staft"
recommended the amendment. An environmental impact report (EIR) for
the area was also presented to the council. The EIR stated that the project's
location is consistent with the general plan's requirement that professional
offices have direct access from major arterials. In reviewing potential envi-
ronmental impacts. including traffic capacity. thc EIR concluded that no
significant adverse impacts would result from conversion of the property to
professional offices.
On September 16, 1985. the cilY council passed the amendment to the
general plan. unconditionally changing the land use designation from resi-
dential to professional administrative office.
On October 24. 1985. respondents applied for a zoning change from
multifamily residential to profcs.'ional administrative office. consistent with
the amendment to the general plan. On January 8. 1986. the zoning change
was considered by the Historic preservation Advisory Board. Tbe proposed
realignment of Court Street was discussed. but there is nothing to indicate
that a conditional dedication was also mentioned. The board unconditional-
ly recommended the zoning change:
-,
o
o
..
1468
ROHN .. CITY OF VISAlIA
214 Cal.Arr.3d 1463; - Cal.Rrtr. - 10e1. 1919)
On March 3, 1986. the city council approved Ihe rezoning. The tran-
scripts of the zoning hearing are nol included in Ihe record. However.
appellant states that the existence of the general plan requirements for
Courl Street. "and the fact that a dedication of a rortion of the subject real
property would be required as a condition of any change of use," was made
clear to the resrondents during the administrative process.' This conclusion
is based on the fact the planning slall' rerort, dated July 22, 1985, wu
included in the materials presented to the cily council during the 7.oning
proces.s. As discussed above. ,this rerort conlains statement!; referring to the
need for "dedication of additional righl-of-way." Resrondents submitted
applications for a site plan review and building permit to convert Ihe resi-
dence to professional office space. The conversion involves installing bath-
rooms equipped for the handicapped. creating on-sire parking facilities, and
other relalively minor renovations. The sire plan and building permit were
approved on condilion that resrondents dedicale part of their land for the
realignment of Court Street. The pertinent conditions relating to the street
dedication were contained in the engineering and traffic reviews. The engi-
neering stall'review sheet has a check mark for a right-of-way requirement
and the following language; "Reqd. Per info available in Engineer's office."
A small note is superimrosed at the bollom of the page; "We could need
some additional (right-of-way] at the (comer] for the Court/Locust St.
Transition." The traffic division review states that "(a]dditional (right-of-
way] along Court St. (and] 30' radius (at] CourtlTulare" is required. The
site plan review fails to specify the precise location and amount of properly
required for the street dedication.
The city stall' presented a precise dedication propou) on March 28, 1986.
The prorosed dedication consists of a triangular piece of land on the east
edge of the properly. At its widest roint. the triangle is approximately 25
feet wide. The entire property is 24,259.6 square feet; the proposed dedica-
tion is for 3.401.6 square feet. The prorosed dedication represents 14 per-
cent of the entire property. Rcsrondents claim that the land prorosed for
dedication is worth S25.OOO.
On May IS. 1986. the planning commission held a hearing on respon-
dents' challenge to the dedication condition. The planning commis.sion de-
nied the challenge to the dedication condition. rellsoning that it was proper
because respondents were aware of the relllignment.
On June 2. 1986. the city council heard resrondents' challenge to the
conditional dedication. The council denied the appeal and required the
'This stalement seems to indicale Ihat the chan.e or.... and mama.. ralher than lhe
buildin. ,.......i1. was conditioned on the dedication.
:f
"
o
o
.
.
1469
RORN r. CITY OF VISALlA
114 CaI.App,3d 1463: - CaI.Rptr, - (Oct, 19s91
dedication of the parcel as a condition of Irantinlthe site plan approval and
the issuance of the buildinl permit.
On June 25. 1986. respondents filed a petition in Tulare County Superior
Court for a writ of mandamus orderinl the city to delete its dedication
condition to the issuance of the buildinl permit. On AUlust 2. 1988. the
trial court issued its order Irantinl the writ of mandamus. The court deter-
mined that the increased traffic Row in the area caused by the professional
development was of a "very minuscule nature." The court acknowledled
the city's power to require the dedication of land as a condition of develop-
ment but ruled that it was limited by Government Code section 65909. It
determined that there was no reasonable relation between the required
dedication and the use for which the building permit was requested.
The city appeals the order grantinl the writ of mandamus on the bases
that Government Code section 65909 is inapplicable to Visalia. a chartered
city. and that the dedication was a reasonable requirement of the site plan
and buildinl permit due to increased traffic from the conversion. Respon.
dents claim there is no reasonable relationship between the issuance of a
building permit and the dedication of 14 percent of their property.'
DISCUSSION
Moy the City Co"ditio" ApproWJI of the Site Plo" o"d Issuo,,<< of the
Building Pt""it 0" Re.fpo"de"ts' Dtdicotio" of the Lo"d for the
Reolig"me"t of Court Strut'
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously relied on the limita-
tions of Government Code section 65909 when it rejected the conditional
dedication. Section 65909 is contained in chapter 4 of title 7 of the Govern-
ment Code. entitled "Zoninl Relulations'" The applicability of this chapter
to local entities is limited by Government Code section 65803. which states:
"ElIcept as otherwise provided. this chapter shall not apply to a charter
city. ellcept to the elltent that the same may be adopted by charter or
ordinance of the city'" Accordinlly. Visalia's status as a chartered city
provides an ellemption from the zoning regulations in the Government
Code. includinl section 65909. (Verdugo Woodlo"ds Homeow"ers etc. Ass".
v. City of Gle"dole (1986) 179 CaJ.App.3d 696. 702.703 (224 CaJ.Rptr.
903).} .
Even though section 65909 does not control the instant action. this does
not end our inquiry. We must determine whether the trial court properly
I An asrecm...t between ....pondents and the cily allowed ....pondents to obtain Ihe build-
ins rermil and complete _tion or the structure on concIition ....pond...tssurrender the
deed 10 the disputed pareelto lhelr anomey "",,dins resolution or this action.
- .
o
o
.
1470
ROHN P. CITY Of VISAUA
214 CoI.AJlJl.3d 1463: - CoI.RJlIr. - [Ocl. 19191
determined that the conditional dedication was not reasonably related to
the proposed conversion.
(2) A dedication involves the uncomrensated transfer of an interest in
private property to a public entity for public use. (Cars/~n.f v. California
Coas/al Com. (1986) 182 Cat.App.3d 277, 285 [227 Ca\.Rptr.
135}.) (3) A regulatory body may constitutionally require a dedication of
land as a condition of development, and such II requirement is not viewed as
an act of eminent domain. (Associated 1I0me Bllilders ~/c.. Inc. v. City of
Walnu/ CN!~k (1971) 4 Ca\.3d 633. 638-640 [94 Cal.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d
606.43 A.L.R.3d 847); Sol/on Bay Marina. Inc. v. Imperiallrriga/ion DiJI.
(1985) 172 Ca\.App.3d 914, 936 [218 Ca\.Rptr. 839].)
The government is limited. however, in its power to impose conditional
dedications. A grant of public privilege, such as a building rermit, may not
be conditioned upon the deprivation of constitutional protections. (ScrullOn
v. County of Sacram~nto (1969) 275 Ca\.App.2d 412. 421 [79 Ca\.Rptr.
872].) "An arbitrarily conceived eltBction will be nullified as a disguised
attempt to take private property for public use without resort to eminent
domain or as a mask for discriminatory taxation." (Ibid.) If the applicant
must donate property for a public usc that bears no relationship to the
benefit conferred on the applicant or the burden imposed on the public,
there is a taking of pro )'lefty. (R~mm~nga v. California Coas/al Com. (1985)
163 Ca\.App.3d 623, 627 [209 Ca\.Rptr. 628).) "Convel'!lely, if there is such
a rational relationship. the requirement of dedication of prorerty . . . is a
validly imposed condition. [Citations.)" (Ibid.)
Any government action, including a dedication requirement, which de-
prives the owner of all reasonable use of his property amounts to a takins
which must be compensated. (Sollon Bay Marina. Inc. v.lmperiallrrigation
Dist.. supra. 172 Ca\.App.3d at p.937.) (4) Where the conditions im.
posed are not reasonably related to the landowner's proposed use, but are
imposed by a public entity to shift the burden of providing the cost of a
public benefit to one not responsible, or only remotely or speculatively
benefiting from it, there is an unreasonable exercise of police power. (UHr.
ty v. Ctllifornia Coastal Com. (1980) 113 Ca\.App.3d 491. 502 (170
Cat.Rptr. 247]: W1ta/~r's J'iI1ag~ Club v. California Coas/al Com. (1985) 173
Ca\.App.3d 240. 259 (220 Ca\.Rptr. 2].)
Whether there has been a reasonable exercise of the police power is a
question for the court. (U~rty v. California Coastal Com., supra. 1\3
Cat.App.3d at p. 502.) The relationship between the condition eltBcted by
the public entity and the use proposed by the landowner presents a factual
o
o
.
1471
ROHN r. CITY OF VISALlA
, 214 CaI.App.3d 1463; - CaI.Rptr. - [Ocl. 19891
inquiry for tbe trial court. (Sc:rutlon v. County of Sac:ramento. supra. 275
CaI.App.3d at p.422.)
(5). An entity may conditionally approve a subdivision map on condi-
tion tbe subdivider dedicate property for streets or parks. Dedications of
land for streets. in order to provide reasonable traffic now for tbe general
welfare of lot owners and the public. is not a taking under the power of
eminent domain because it is reasonably related to the increased traffic and
other needs of the proposed subdivision. (Ayres v. City Counc:iI of Las
Angeles (1949) 34 Cal.2d 31. 42 (207 P.2d I. \I A.L.R.2d 503]; Liberty v.
California Coastal Com.. supra. 113 Ca\.App.3d at p.5oo.)
In Associated Home Builders etc:.. Inc:. v. City of Walnut Creek. supra. 4
Ca\.3d 633. a subdivider was required to provide property for parks and
reereational facilities. or pay a fee in lieu of property. as a condition of
approval of tbe subdivision map. The requirement for providing park space
was part of the city's general plan of preserving open spaces for recreational
facilities in tbe face of increased development.in tbe area. (Id. at pp.635-
637.)
The requirement was valid even tbough tbe subdivision alone did not
create tbe need for tbe dedication. Associated Home Builders has been
interpreted as bolding tbat tbe ju'tiftcation for required dedication is not
limited to the needs of or burdens created by the project. (Remmenga v.
California Coastal Com.. supra. 163 Ca\.App.3d at p.62g.) The decision.
however. was based on the city's overall need to preserve open land for
parks because of tbe increased growtb and development from subdivisions.
In addition. tbe enabling statutes required tbat tbe amount and location of
dedicated land or fees bear a reasonable relationship to tbe use of the
recreational facilities by future inbabitants of tbe subdivision.' Wbile tbe
facilities need not solely beneftt the subdivision. tbey must serve tbe subdivi-
sion directly or indirectly. (Associated Home Builders etc:.. Inc:. v. City of
Walnut Creek. supra. 4 Ca\.3d at pp. 639-64\.) The court found a reason-
able relationship between the needs of tbe subdivision and the condition
imposed based on tbe inftult of new residents into tbe subdivision. wbicb
increased tbe need for recreational facilities tbrougbout tbe community.
The subdivision residents beneftted indirectly witbin tbe framework of tbe
eity's primary objective of providing recreational facilities.
Dedications and easements also have been required as a condition of
obtaining coastal development permits. In Liberty v. California Coastal
'Former Business Ind professionS Code seclion It546 is now Governmenl Code sectionS
66417, 66419.
.,
.
o
o
.
1472
ROH'" .. CITY Of VISALlA
214 CII.A"".Jd 1463; - CII.Rptr. - lOcI. 19891
Com.. suprtJ, 113 CaJ.App.3d 491, plaintirr sought to demolish an existing
structure and erect a restaurant across from a beach. The California Coastal
Commission approved the plan on condition that plaintirr provide adequate
parking for the patrons. He was also required 10 record a deed restriction to
provide free parking until 5 p.m. in the restaurant's lot for 30 years to orrset
the need for public parking near the beach. The area required additional
public parking because of an earlier planning failure to require other restau-
rants to provide sulllcient parking. (/d. at pp. 495-496.) Plaintirr challenged
the condition as an abuse of discretion and a taking wilhout just compensa-
tion.
The court agreed with the commission's determinalion Ihat parking was
a problem near Ihe beach. While the commission wns aUlhorized to require
adequate parking for the reslauranl, it could not require "a landowner to
dedicate property for free public parking far beyond his own land use
requirements. . . ." (113 CaJ.App.3d at p. 502.) It distinguished A.uociotfti
Hom~ Build~n because the commission was only authorized to provide
access to the coast, rather th.n require dedication for public parking. (Ibid.)
Conditions imposed on land use applications "are valid if rea.wnably
conceived to fulfill public needs emanating from the landowner's proposed
use." (Li~"y v. Coli/omio CDtlSlol Com., suprtJ. 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 503.)
" 'Various factors are taken into consideration by courts in determining
whether in a given situation there is a proper exercise of the police power, in
wbich case. . . ., tbe landowner must yield "uncompensated obedience"
[citation], or wbetber a governmental exercise of tbe power of eminent
domain is masquerading in tbe guise of tbe police power. The determinating
factor,. . ., is fairness.''' (/d. at pp. 502-503.) Wbile it was appropriate for
tbe commission to require ample parking for tbe intended use. it was unfair
to go beyond tbat and require plaintill'to provide free parking for tbe beach
and otber restaurants for wbicb sulllcient parking bad not been originally
planned or provided. "Tbe State CommillSion is bere attempling to disguise
under tbe police power its actual exercise of tbe power of eminent domain.
That it cannot do." (/d. at p. 504.) To impose tbe burden on one property
owner to an extent beyond bis own use "sbifts tbe lovernment's burden
unfairly to a private party." (Ibid.)
The United States Supreme Court recently reviewed tbe validity of an
easement required by tbe California Coastal Commission as a condition of
obtaininla buildinl permit. In Hollo" v. Coli/omio Coostol Comm '" (19g7)
483 U.S. 825 [97 L.Ed.2d 677, 107 S.Ct. 3141], plaintirr was required to
obtain a coastal development permil when be decided to demolish an exist-
inl bouse and build a new one on his seafront 101. The commis.sion lranted
tbe permit on condition tbat plaintill' allow tbe public an easement to pass
. .
<
o
o
1473
ROHN ,. CITY OF VISALlA
214 CaI.App.3d 1463: _ CaI.Rplr. - (Oct. 19891
across a portion of his property to the beach. The commission determined
that the new house would block the view of the ocean and create a wall of
residential houses, preventing the public from" 'psychologically. . . realiz-
ing'" the existence of the shoreline. (Id. at 1'.828 (97 L.Ed.2d at p. 684].)
The new house would also hinder public access to tlte beach, and the
eommission required an olfset of thai burden by providing additional access
to the public beaches through an easement across plaintilf's property.
The court noled that a laking dearly would have resulted if the comnlis-
sion simply required such an easement, rat Iter than impose it as a condition
of the building permit. (483 U.S. 01 1'.831 (97 L.Ed.2d at PI'. 685-686].) The
requirement of an uncompensated easement outright would violate the
Fourteenth Amendment. "(T]he question becomes whether requiring (the
conveyance] . . . as a condilion for issuing a land-use permit alters the
outcome." (Id. at 1'.834 (97 L.Ed.2d at p. 687].)
The commission could have prohibited the permil if the new house sub-
stantially impeded the purposes of protecting the public's ability to see the
beach, unless the denial would so drastically interfere with the use of the
property that it was a taking. (Nollall v. Califomia Coas'al Comm'n, supra,
483 U.S. at p.835 (97 L.Ed.2d 01 p. 688].) "The evident constitutional
propriety disappears, however, if Ihe condition substituted for the prohibi-
tion utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justifieation for the
prohibition. When that essential nexus is elinlinated, the situation becomes
the same as if California law forbade shouting lire in a crowded theater, but
granted dispensations" if an individual contributed a sum of money. (Id. at
p.837 (97 L.Ed.2d at p. 689].)
In reviewing the commission's reasons for requiring the easement, the
court determined that the required nexus was absent.
"(T]lte lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of
the (coastal] building restriction converts that purpose to something other
than what it was. The purpose then becomes, quite simply, the obtaining of
an easement to serve some valid governmental purpose, but without pay-
ment of compensation. Whatever ..ay be the outer limits of 'legitimate state
interests' in the takings and land-use context, this is not one of tltem. In
short, unl_ ,he penni' condi/ion .t~r'lCS ,he same go.ernmen,al purpose as
,he dnelopmen' ban, ,he building res'ric'ion is no' a Wllid regula,ion of land
Ilse bu' 'an ou,-and-ou, plan of ex,or,ioll. ' (Citation.)" (Nollnn v. California
Coas,al Comm'n, supra, 483 U.S. at p. g37 [97 L.Ed.2d at p, 689], italies
added.)
In requiring a "'sub.t,alllinl advanc(ing]' of a legitimate state interest" as
a condition of abridging property rights through the police power, the court
o
o
1474
ROH'" v. CITY OF VISAUA
214 C.I.^pp.3d 1463; - C.I.Rplr. - (Oct. 198'1)
viewed compliance as more than "a plending requirement," or "an exercise
in cleverness and imagination." (Nollan v. Califorllia coostal Comm'n,
supra, 483 U.S. at p.841 [97 L.Ed.2d at p. 692].) "We are inclined to be
particular)y careful about the adjective where the actual conveyance of
property is made a condition to the lifting of a land-use restriction. since in
that context there is heightened risk that the purpose is avoidance of the
compensation requirement. rather than the stated pdlice power objective."
(Ibid.) The commission could continue its coastal access program by use of
its eminent domain power. but "if il wanls an ensement acrolls the Nollans'
property, it must pay for it." (Id. at p.842 (97 L.Ed.2d at p. 692].)
(lb) The disagreement in the instant case is whether there is a sufficient
nexus or relationship between the condition imposed and respondents' pro-
JlOSed conversion. The authority relied upon by the city to impose the
conditional dedication is section 7429 of its zoning regulations. Section 7429
permits the city to grant the planned development permit on condition the
applicant dedicate. among other things, all necessary rights-of-way to widen
a bordering or traversing major street to its ultimate width established as
the standard for such major street. Section 742'1 provides: "REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS. Because of changes which may occur in a local neighbor-
hood due to increased vehicular traffic generated by facilities rtquiring a
planned development permit, and upon the principle that sllch developme"lllS
should be required to provide strtet dedicatian.f and impravements propor.
tionate to such increased vehicular traffic. the following dedications and
improvements may be deemed neces.~ary by the Site Plan Review commit-
tee and may be required as a condition to the approval of any site plan.
Residential developments should not, however, be required to provide such
street facilities for non-related vehicular traffic." (Italics added.) By its
terms. the premise of section 7429 is to require developers to provide vari-
ous street dedications to otrset the increased vehicular traffiC resulting from
the development. The ordinance represents a valid exercise of the police
power in requiring developers to compensate for the increased burden
placed on local traffic patterns by the inftux of additional residents or tranie.
The trial court determined that there, was not a reasonable relationship
between the condition imJlOSed and the use of the property. The dedication
requirement is based on a 1978 amendment to the general plan to alter
existing traffic patterns in southeastern Visnlia. The underlying purpose was .
to plan for general future growth needs of the city by providing a thorDOlh. '.
fare between Court and Locust Street. The major part of the plan calls for. I
curved arterial near Locust Street. which is well north of respondents'
properly. As part of this general plan amendment. the council also decided ~
to realign Court Street at its intersection with Tulare Avenue, which,IS"
result of an earlier planning failure. is imperfectly aligned. The plan was ncti
.
o
o
.
1475
IlOH'" .. CITY OF VtSALlA
2t4 CaI.App.3d 1463: - Cal.llplr. - (Oct. 19891
designed because of projections on the future traffic needs' of the
Courtrrulare area. or its deyelopment as a major professional enclaye. but
as part of the general plan for the growth of the community. The correction
of the original imperfect intersection was included as part of the street
conversion.
The city staft'. in evaluating the proposed professional office deyelopment.
concluded that no significant traffic problems would result from the conyer-
sion of the parcel. In eyaluating the traffic impact from the conversion of
two adjoining parcels to professional offices. the stall' concluded that "the
conversion of these three properties to [professional) uses would appear to
generate less traffic impact than their deyelopment to existing multiple
family zoning potential.... The stall' report also mentioned that "the pro-
posed Court St. alignment will necessitate the dedication of additional right-
of-way along the northeast comer of the subject property." The report does
not state that the alignment is necessary because of increased traffic from
the development; rather. the report referred to the realignment as part of
the 1978 general amendment.
The trial court had substantial evidence from which to conclude that
there is no reasonable relationship between the conditional dedication and
the proposed use of respondents' property. It is clear that the Court Street
realilnment was made necessary by an instance of poor planning during the
oriainal development of the intersection. There is nothinl in the record to
indicate that development of professional offices. both on respondents'
propcrty and the two adjoining parcels. would generate such "increased
vehicular traffic" that respondents should provide street dedications which
are clearly not "proportionate to such increased yehicular traffic" pursuant
to section 7429 of the zoning regulations.
Appellant argues. pursuant to Au<<itlttd Hom/! Build/!rs. that the condi-
tional dedication need not be based on the impact caused by the proposed
development. The recreation dedication required by Walnut Creek. how-
ever. was part of the city's oyerall plan to oll'set increased residential dcyel-
opment by reserving open spaces for parks that milht otherwise succumb to
additional development. The court concluded that present and future resi-
dents of the subdivision would benefit both directly and indirectly by the
existence of parks in settled locations throughout the city.
In the instant case. the conditional dedication resembles the public park-
ing easement required in LilHrty. The condition is not related to the Pro-:
'The amendment 10 lhe acncral plan. which chanJed Ih. land use dosilnalion or respon-
.....1.. properly. also chanJed the d..lanalion or lhe IWO adjacenl parcel. which were dis-
cussed by lhe plannlnl report when II ..alualed lhe Iralfic: impact or prmessional 0lil....
o
o
,
1476
ROH" ,. CITY OF VISALlA
214 CaI.API'.3d 1463: - Cal.Rptr. - lOcI. 19191
posed professional development but is a "means of shining the burden of
providing the cost of a public beneftt to another not responsible for or only
remotely or speculatively benefiting from it." (Librrty v. California Coastal
Com.. supra. 113 CaI.App.3d at p.502.) The proposed dedication bears
absolutely no relationship. either direct or indirect. to the present or future
use of the property. The city's attempt to condition the building permit on
the dedication of 14 percent of respondents' property is merely an attempt
to "disguise under the police power its actual ellercise of the power of
eminent domain." (rd. at p. 504.) The administrative record indicates that
the city purchased the property necessary to proceed with an earlier project
to widen Walnut Avenue and intends to purchase additional property to
accomplish the CourtlLocust connection to the east and west. The way the
ultimate dedication requirement evolved is also revealing. It appeared, al-
most like an afterthought. in the Engineering Department's site plan review:
"We could need some additional [right-of-way] at the cor[ner]. . . ."
Appellant argues that the required nellUS ellists because respondents'
project imposes a greater traffic burden and creates the need for the street
widening and realignment. This argument is based on "common sense:'
which indicates that the proposed conversion will result in an increased
traffic flow and therefore contribute to the overall traffic problem. "The
change in use imposes a greater traffic burden on the City's streets, and in
particular on the streets immediately adjacent to the subject property."
The city contends that as long as there is some nellUS, the amount of
property required for dedication is unlimited. We need not reach this is..ue
because there is no such nellUS between the dedication condition and the
alleged traflic burden created by the conversion. Contrary to appellant's
contentions, the record disputes that the change in use of the property will
impose a significant traffic burden in the area or the city's streets in general.
The EIR concluded that the conversion of the property would impose no .
significant traffic problems in the area. The planning report acknowledJed
that conversion of the property, and others in the area, to professional use
would decrease the potential traflic that could result if the zonin. remained
the same and apartments were built. The dedication required by the Site
Plan Review was not based on any such traflic problems, but as a means or
implementin. the 1978 Court/Locust connection and the long-awaited re-
alignment of Court Street at its intenection with Tulare Avenue. The deter.
mination of whether a le.itimate state interest is being substantially ad.
vanced by the dedication condition is "more than a pleading requirement"
(Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra. 483 U.S. at 1'.841 [97 L.Ed.2d
at p. 692].) The record fails to present the required nellUS.
. .
Our review of the record indicates that the city viewed the landowners'.
application for rezoninj and site plan review as the "hook" it needed to .
i
o
o
.
1477
ROHN ,. CITY OF VIS^L1^
214 C.I.A"".3d 1463; - C.I.Rrtr. - (Oct. 1989)
acquire this property ror nOlhing, even though the reasons ror the dedica-
tion ellisted long berore Ihe conversion or the McSwain Mansion was pro-
posed. The "hook," however, is unavailable. As ill Nollon. the city may
proceed with its general traffic plan, but ir it wants 3,400 square reet or
respondents' property ror a street project lacking any relation 10 the pro-
posed conversion, it must pay ror it.
DlsrOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs or appeal.
Stone (W. A.), Acting P. J., and Dibiaso, J., concurred.
~:=..;:;;,""",,,,-
JI,I
~
. '0
city of San Bernardino
o
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
parcel Map No. 13723
Applicant:
Bernard and Myrna Waltzer and Russell and
Hazel Cummins
owner:
Toomey and Associates
ACTION
Meeting Date: February 19, 1991
X Approved Request Based Upon the Attached
Findings of Fact (Attachment B) and Subject to
Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) and
standard Requirements (Attachment D).
CONDITIONS
This project was approved subject to the Conditions of
Approval and Standard Requirements contained in Attachments C
and D.
YQn
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Cole, Corona, Jordan, Lindseth, Sharp, Stone
None
None
Clemensen, Lopez
I, hereby, certify that this statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
commiSS~ion f the City Of. San Bernardino.
_ ~ ~/ r:~;U))L<?91
signatu e Da e
Larrv E. Reed. Director of Plannina , Buildina Services
Name and Title
cc: Project Applicant
Project property owner
Building and Safety Department
Engineering Division
Case File
PCAGENDA:
PCACTIONA
-
-
o
o
.
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE'THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Parcel Map No. 13723
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY Aoolicant
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF WARD '*
PARCEL MAP NO. 13723
2
PROPERTY Located at 1524 North Sierra Way
LOCATION :
(Sierra Way and Magnolia Avenue)
.
PROPOSAL: To sibdivide one 0.49 acre parce into three lots.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNAROINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3CO NORTH "D" $1 ra= I
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, April 1, 1991, 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED DDCftIIlTlClN Oil' THE P1tOfllOSAL IS ON ,.LE IN THE PLANNING DlPARTIiIENT IIif CITY
HALL. II' 'IOU WOULD LIICIE I'UR'I'ID INP'ClltMATIOII MOUT TtlS PIlOPOSAL. PIII0.. TO THE PUIUC
HIEMING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DlPAIlTMIENT IN PlEllSON Cllt BY PHONlNl
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
"
I.., ._ cor
rYl-HRTT "r"
--..',;.----
,
..
ILl
rn
c
(,)
ffi
:)
o
ILl
a:
-
c
ILl
a:
c
-
o
-4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
7
2-19-91
2
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
SUMMARY
...
Parcel Map No. 13723
APPLICANT:Bernard & Myrna Waltzer
o,.mers: Russell & Hazel CUnmins
2185 Ranch\<<lOd Place
Riverside! CA 92506
Engineer: 'lbaney & ASSOCiates
3436 . Coonty Line Imd 1131
'lhe applicant requests approval to subdivide one 0.49 gross acre parcel
into three lots in the RS, Residential SUburban, General Plan land use
designation under the authority of the San Bernardi.oo !Ulicipal 0Jde
section 18.28.
'!he subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of appraximately 0.49 gross acres having a frontage of approximately 148.6
feet on the west side of Sierra Way and being located approximately 173.94
feet north of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue and is further described
as 1524 N. Sierra Way.
EXISTING
LAND lJSE
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPERTY
ZONING
Subject
North
South
East
West
'lhree existing. residenceS
Single-family residential
Single & nulti-family
Single & nulti-tamily
Single & nulti-family
RS
RS
RS
~
RS
Residential SubJrban
Residential SubJrban
Residential SubJrban
Residential Medium
Residential SubJrban
GEOlOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: GO YES )
HAZARD ZONE: CI NO ZONE: 121 NO o ZONE B o NO
HIGH FIRE o YES AIRPORT NOISE! o YES REDEVELOPMENT
HAZARD ZONE: [21: NO CRASH ZONE: ~ PROJECT AREA:
NO
... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL
C APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
irn MmGATlNG MEASURES ~ ID
NOE.I.R. CONDITIONS
ILICJ ~Q
:lZ !Xl EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ~ffi 0 DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
OQ Class 15 WITH WTlGATlNG ~~
a:~ MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-~
> o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Z fd
ILl EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES a:
PLAN-IJ)2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.00)
The applicant requests approval to subdivide one 0.49 gross acre
parcel into three lots in the RS, Residential Suburban, General
Plan land use designation under the authority of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code Section 18.28.
SITE LOCATION
The subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximatelY 0.49 gross acres having a frontage of
approximatelY 148.6 feet on the west side of Sierra Way and being
located approximatelY 173.94 feet north of the centerline of
Magnolia Avenue and is further described as 1524 N. Sierra Way.
(see Attachment UF". Location Map).
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT STATUS
The parcel map application is categoricallY exempt per Section
15315. Class 15 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND
On the subject property. there are three existing residences and
two garages that were built in approximatelY 1924.
On August 24. 1990. the property owners submitted a request for a
planning Commission Interpretation for a proposal to create three
lots from one lot with two lots having less than the minimum
required square footage.
On September 11. 1990. the Planning Commission approved Planning
Commission Interpretation (PCI) No. 90-02 with a Finding of
Consistency which permitted the owners to submit an application for
a parcel map to divide their one lot into three parcels.
On November 14. 1990. the Planning Department received the
applicant's request for the three lot subdivision under Parcel Map
No. 13723. The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed
subdivision at its December 20. 1990 meeting and recommended
conditional clearance of the map to the Planning Commission.
..
. ~
PLNloLllB P_'Of, (4-10)
~~-:I.::
.
o
-n
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE IM NO. 13723.
7
2-19-91
3
...j
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...
""'I
,
ANALYSIS
Lot Characteristics
The proposed parcel map will subdivide a 20.447 square foot site
into three parcels. Parcel No. 1 will consist of approximately
6.473 square feet and contains an existing single-story 858 square
foot residence. Parcel No.2 is comprised of 7.093 square feet and
is occupied by a single-story 1.080 square foot house and 243
square foot garage. Parcel No.3 encompasses 6.473 square feet and
includes an 864 square foot single-story residence and a 216 square
foot garage on the proposed parcel.
There are no plans for further development of the properties at
this time.
Surrounding Area
The surrounding properties are a combination of single-family and
multi-family residential land uses. The proposed subdivision is
not in conflict with the existing or proposed land uses.
General Plan
The subject property is designated by the General Plan as RS.
Residential Suburban. The RS designation permits single-family
units at a density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre with a
minimum lot size of 7.200 square feet. . The property owners
submitted a request for a Planning Commission interpretation to
make provisions for the creation of parcels less than 7.200 square
feet in size.
Planning Commission Interpretation No. 90-02 established the
Finding of Consistency that the proposed lots were consistent with
the intent of the General Plan goals. objectives and policies based
on the following:
The proposal is consistent with Objective 1.8 of the Land
Use Element because it would help to maintain the
character of the neighborhood by permitting a compatible
use.
The proposal is consistent with Objective 1.11 of the
Land Use Element because the houses are existing in a
predominatelY single-familY neighborhood.
I
I
...
PLAN-UB PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-DO)
ClT'l'CI'_~
--..--
o
-^
.
.
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723
7
2-19-91
4
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Element
because it would help to preserve a potential historic
resource and existing affordable housing by providing an
opportunity for home ownership and maintenance and upkeep
resulting from pride of ownership.
The applicant's original request was to create only two lots of the
three below the minimum 7,200 square feet. During the review
process, the Public Works/Engineering Department specified that
they would require additional dedication of 2.75 feet along Sierra
Way. The result of additional right-of-way dedication subtracts
132 square feet from Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No.3 and 144.65
square feet from Parcel No.2. Under the PCI, Parcel No. 2 was
greater than 7,200 square feet. however, the net balance is now
7,093 square feet. With the exception of the reduction of the lot
area of Parcel No.2, all other conclusions, findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission Interpretation are the
same as approved on September 11,1990.
Municipal Code
The Planning Commission. by approving PCI No. 90-02, waived the
minimum lot area required under Title 18. Section 18.40.250 and
Title 19. Section 19.08.030. In lieu of compliance with the area
and width requirements of the Title 18 and the land use ordinance
of the RS. Residential Suburban designation, the Planning
Commission determined that the lots having a reduced lot area shall
be compatible in design to adjacent facing and siding lots of
abutting development.
The Planning Commission also determined that an undue hardship
would likely be imposed if all standards were complied with in that
one of the existing homes would have to be moved in order to comply
wi th current standards. The interpretation to create lots less
than 7.200 square feet would help to preserve an existing viable
neighborhood and prevent further decline. It also helps to ensure
that the neighborhood to which the subject homes are a part remains
intact as a potential historic district and as such would not be a
detriment to the surrounding properties. but instead would be an
asset.
....
..
__ __'OF' (4-00)
~====
.
,
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723
7
2-19-91
5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
City and State Requirements
The proposed parcel map is consistent with the provisions of Title
18 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act
of the State of California, in that each parcel is of buildable
size and has access from a dedicated street. Parcel No. 1 and
Parcel No. 3 have frontage of approximatelY 48 feet along the west
side of Sierra Way. Parcel No. 2 has frontage of approximatelY
52.6 feet on Sierra Way (see Attachment "E", Plot Plan).
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The proposal was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC)
at their meeting on December 20, 1990. The DRC recommended
conditional approval of the proposed parcel map and clearance onto
Planning Commission. The Public Works/Engineering and Water
Departments have included Standard Requirements for the parcel map
(see Attachment "0").
The San Bernardino City Unified School District commented that the
buildings, site, and all accruements, present and future, shall not
obstruct or impede the safe conduct of student/pedestrian and/or
vehicular traffic to and from the local area public schools.
CONCLUSION
Parcel Map No. 13723 meets the intent of the General Plan and
Municipal Code. Although the General Plan establishes density and
lot size requirements, it also recognizes the need to preserve
existing viable neighborhoods. There are three existing houses on
the subject property which are compatible in size and style with
the surrounding single-familY properties. The parcel map is
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, in that the proposed
parcels are of buildable area and have access to a dedicated
roadway.
~=--==
....
..
PLAN-IlII PAGE 10F 1 (4-80)
~.
It is recommended that the Planninq Commission:
Approve Parcel Map No. 13723. subject to the attached
Findinqs of Fact (Attachment "B"). Conditions of Approval
(Attachment "C") and Standard Requirements (Attachment
"D") .
6~;:P'
Director of planninq and Buildinq Services
'f>~ ~
Patti Nahill
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B - Findinqs of Fact
C - Conditions of Approval
D - Standard Requirements
E - Plot Plan
F - Location Map
....
.
PLAN-UI PMaE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
c..:=--==
-
,
o
Attachrrent "A"
-0
,.-
"'II
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM N:>. 13723
7
2-19-91
7
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
MUHJCIPAL_CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANC~
Cateaory ProDosal MuniciDal General Plan
Code
Permitted Parcel Map Yes Yes
Use
Frontaqe All lots Required on N/A
all lots
Lot Area See below 7,200 square 7,200 square
feet feet
Width See below 60 feet N/A
Depth See below 100 feet N/A
Lot Coveraqe See below 35 % N/A
Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3
Lot Area 6.473 square 7,093 square 6,473 square
feet feet feet
Width 48 feet 52.6 feet 48 feet
Depth 134.85 feet 134.85 feet 134.85 feet
Lot Coveraqe 13 % 20 % 18 %
Additional 132 square 144.65 132 square
Riqht-of-way feet square feet feet
to.
~====
PlNH.OI PAGE 1 OF 1 (A-IO)
--
.
.
o
Attachrrent "B"
-n
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723
2-11-91
R
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 13723 is consistent with the
General Plan in that it meets the intent of the General
Plan as specified by Planning Commission Interpretation
No. 90-02 and Municipal Code as they pertain to infill
subdivisions of property in the RS, Residential Suburban,
land use designation.
2. All lots created conform to the lot requirements of the
Municipal Code and all provisions of Title 18 in that the
Planning Commission approved Planning Commission
Interpretation No. 90-02 which allowed the reduced area
lots to be created as they were compatible in design with
adjacent and surrounding developments, they contained
sufficient buildable area and that they are each adjacent
to a dedicated roadway.
3. The lot design meets the approval of the Planning
Department in that it will adequatelY accommodate the
existing residential development and most allowable uses
permitted in the RS, Residential Suburban. General Plan
land use designation.
4. All lots created abut upon a dedicated street; that being
Sierra Way.
5. The legal owners of record have offered to make all
dedications required to the City of San Bernardino.
6. The division of land is consistent with the provisions of
Title 18 and the Subdivision Map Act in that lots are of
buildable size and have access to Sierra Way.
..
~=-1
Pt..N<f.U8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
--
-
ttachrrent "e"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
2-1q-q1
9
r'
-.
1.
S'l'aJln.avn ~ONnrt'YONS
2.
~
Hinor modifications to the plan shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planninq. An increase of more than 10
percent of the square footaqe or a siqnificant chanqe in the
approved concept shall be subject to (Planninq commission and
Development Review Committee) review and approval.
Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the
Plans approved by the Development Review Co_ittee, Planninq
Commission or Director of Planninq.
The developer is to submit a complete master landscape and
irriqation plan (4 copies) . for the entire development to the
EDqineerinq Department with the required fee for approval,
the landscape plans will be forwarded to the Parks,
Recreation, and Community Servic_ and the Planninq
Department for review and approval. (Note: the issuance of a
wildinq permit, by the Department of Buildinq and Safety of
the City of San 8erna..-dino,. does mrt waive these
requir~ts/conditions.) No qradinq permits will be issued
prior to approval of landscape plans.
The desiqn shall include, but not be limited to the
followinq:
a.
Street trees shall be planted on 30 foot center
spacinq unless otherwise indicated by the Departlllent
of Parks, Recreation, and Ccmaunity Services. The
Parks Department shall determine the varieties anc1
locations prior to plantinq. All trees shall be 24"
box specimens. Trees are to be inspected by a Park
Division representative Drior to plantinq.
Planters shall be enclosed with concrete curbinq.
.......... "AGE 1 011 ' '....
....-
"'
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES OEPARTMENT
,..
.
,
CASE
No. 13723
CONDITIONS
AGENDA m:M
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
2-1C)-gl
10
r
b. The lanc1scape anc1 irriqation plans shall cOlIIply with
the "Procec1ure anc1 Policy tor I.anc1scape anc1
Irriqation" (availaDle tro. the Parks Department).
SUbject to the Conc1itions ot the Department ot Parks anc1
Recreation (attachec1).
3. Trees, shrUbs anc1 qrounc1cover ot "a type anc1 quality qenerally
consistent or cOJIpBtiDle with that characterizinq sinqle-
tllllily homes shall ~e provic1ec1 in the tront yare! anc1 that
portion ot th sic1e yarc1s which are vis iDle trom the street.
All lanc1scaped ar_s lIWIt a provic1ec1 with an automatic
irriqation syst_ ac1equate to iDaur. their viuili1:y. The
lanc1scape anc1 irriqation plans shall ~e approvacl ~y the Parks
aDc1 Recr_tion Depart:llent.
At all times the ~ine.. will a operatec1 in a manner which
doeS not proc1uce oJ:Inoxious noi.e, viDration, oc1or, c1ust,
80M, qlare, or other nui.ance.
A siqn PZ~6&a tor the multi-tenant co.a.rcial/inc1ustrial
center shall be approvec1 ~ the Plann1nq Deparaent prior to
isauanc:e ot Certiticat. ot oc:c:upanc:y.
4. ID the event that this approval i. leqally cballenqed, the
Ci1:y will promptly notify the applicant ot any claia or
action anc1 will cooperate tully in the c1etans. ot the _t-:er.
0Dce notified, the applicant aqree. to c1eten4, inc1eanify, anc1
bolc1 harmle.. ~ Ci 1:y, i 1:5 offic.rs, aqents anc1 ..ploy.es
tzaa any claim, action, or proc:e.~ift9 aqainst the City ot San
Jernarc1ino. Th. applicant further aqre_ to reillDurs. ~e
Ci1:y ot any costs UId attorn.ya' te_ vhic:h the City -y ~e
~ec1 ~ a court to pay a. a result ot suc:h action, ~t
-= participation shall not relieve applicant ot his
.liqation WIder this conc1ition.
The set!laCb trom the north _ , south _ ,
east , we.t _ property line shall~. D.r:llec1
at a ~.yi~ 3:1 slope anc1 shall~. plantec1 with a
tall t..cu. type turtqras..
A tan4Scape ~utf.r zone shall ~e installec1 De1:"~.en
facilities anc1 street.
-..-.... ..... ~ t ...
m.:-
~"""U
.
o Attacl1rlent "D"
-n
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
-
CASE PM No. 13723. .
~
~
7
2-19-91
11
...
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
':l.T.
1
Parcel .MaI;l. No. 11723 shall be in effect for a period of
~ months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission
and/or Planning Department. However, if the final map has not
been filed with the county Recorder's Office at the end of
the 24 month time period, the approval shall expire.
Additional time may be approved by the Planning Commission upon
written request of the applicant if made 30 days prior to
expiration of
the ~ month time period.
Expiration Date: F",h,."",rv 19. ] 993
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D.
~=-===
..
a. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & 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
provisions 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.
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 in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
c.
PL.AN-l.10 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
u,o'_
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
PM No. 13723
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
2-19-91
12
P'"
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 wording prohibiting the storage
or parking of trailers, boats, campers, motor homes, and
similar vehicles outside of the specified common areas.
2.
PARKING:
a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of
----L parking spaces, on each buildable lot.
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 Engineer. Parking spaces shall be striped and
have wheel stops installed at least three feet from any
building, wall, fence, property.line, or walkway.
c. 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. -
d. Whenever an off-street parking 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 height shall be erected 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 storage areas shall be lighted
during hours of darkness for security and protection.
3. Recreational vehicle storage areas shall be screened by at least
a six-foot high decorative wall with screened gates.
ClT'l'OI.,.."""""
---
...
PLAN.B.10 PAGE' OF , t4-lO)
"'-,~"""
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CASE
PM No. 13723
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
2-19-91
n
""l
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
No. 204 or equivalent, shall be constructed at
the development. Location and design shall
approval of the Engineering Division.
Standard Drawing
each entrance to
be subject to
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
wall. Location, size, type and design of wall are
the approval of the Planning Department and Division
Services superintendent.
Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and
local requirements.
decorative
subject to
of Public
4. LANDSCAPING:
a.
Four (4) copies
submitted to the
approval. The plan
the following:
1) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed.
of a master landscape plan shall
Engineering Division for review
shall include, but not be limited
be
and
to,
2) Irrigation plan.
3) Such other alternate plants, materials and design
concepts as may be proposed.
b.
4) Erosion control plans.
Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior
to planting by the Director of the Parks and Recreation
Department or his/her designee. A minimum number of one
in~h caliner/15 aallon multi-branched trees ~hall ~
PLANol.l0 PAGE 1 OF 1 fo'-IO)
""
::n:~.~=
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
PM No. 13723
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2-1~-91
14
r-
planted within the parkway for each of the following types
of lots, as per the City's specifications:
1) CUl-de-sac lot -- one tree;
2) Interior lot -- two trees;
3) Corner lot -- three trees.
c. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual
impact, surfaces of all cut slopes more than five feet in
height and fill slopes more than three feet in height shall
be protected by planting with grass or ground cover plants.
Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall also be
planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten feet on
centers; or trees, spaced at not to exceed 20 feet on
centers; or a combination of shrubs and trees as cover
plants. The plants selected and planting methods used
shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of
the site:
Trees 10%, 15 gallon; 40% 5 gallon; 50%, 1 gallon.
Shrubs 20%, 5 gallon; 80%, 1 gallon.
5.
Ground cover loot coverage.
d. Slopes required to be planted shall be provided with an
irrigation system approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
e. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall
be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer
to individual ownerShip.
f. All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion
control planting of graded slopes, shall be done in
accordance with a grading plan approved by the City
Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any
grading being done.
All lots shall have a minimum area of 6,473 square feet, a
minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum width of 48 feet,
(-,--feet on corner lots). In addition, each lot on a cul-de-
sac or on a curved street where the side lot lines thereof are
diverging from the front to rear of the lot, shall have a width
of not less than 60 feet measured at the right angle to the lot
depth at the midway point between the front and rear lot lines,
and a width of not less than 40 feet measured alona the front
...
crrrClF" ..........,
---
PLAN-B.10 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4010)
r
o
-n
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723 .
7
2-19-91
1<;
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
"""'l
lot line as delineated on the tract map. (As per PCI No. 90-2).
Where lots occur
depth of ____ feet
less than
demonstrate t~a
the lesser depth.
on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, a minimum lot
will be permitted. If the proposed depth is
feet, a plot plan must be submitted to
buildable lot area is possible and to justify
Variable front
averaging
feet shall be
entrances on a
18 feet.
building setback lines of at least feet and
feet, and side street building setbaCk lines 15
delineated on the final tract map. All garage
dedicated street shall have a minimum setback of
Perimeter walls and walls required along the rear of all double
frontage lots shall be designed and constructed to incorporate
design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback,
decorative masonry, columns, or otber such features to provide
visual and physical relief along the wall face.
The developer shall obtain planning Department approval of the
visual or engineering design of the proposed wall.
When graded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the
slope face shall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to
this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer.
Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the city
Engineer in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to
precipitation.
Compliance with all recommendations of the Geology Report shall
be required (if applicable).
Any clubhouse, swimming pool, spa, putting green, picnic areas
or other amenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on
the approved site plan.
During construction the city Engineer may require a fence around
all or a portion of the periphery of t.he tract site to minimize
wind and debris damage to adjacent properties. The type of
fencing shall be approved by the city Engineer to assure
adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control.
...
""
~~T~
PLAN-I.IO PAGE, OF' (4-110)
o.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
2-19-91
Hi
,...
No certificate
compliance with
provisions of the
of occupancy shall be issued prior to
these standard Requirements as well as all
San Bernardino Municipal Code.
6. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT:
a. All utility service boxes, connections and service lines
shall be painted to match the building exterior on which
they are located.
b. All existing overhead utility services and wiring shall
be relocated underground.
c. No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on any building
(except for solar collection panels).
d. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone,
water, sewer and Cable TV shall be provided for
underground, with easements provided as required, and
designed 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.
::..=. ~ - ,~
.....
,
PLAN-I.'O PAGE 1 OF 1 (4oIQt
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE PM No. 13723 .
7
2-19-!H
17
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A composite Development Plan (COP) shall be filed with the
Engineering, planning, and Building & Safety Departments prior
to Final or parcel Map processing by the City pursuant to
Ordinance No. MC-592. The CDP shall provide additional survey
and map information including, but not limited to, building
criteria (e.g. setbacks), flood control criteria, seismic and
geological criteria, environmental criteria and easements of
record. The CDP shall be labeled with the title "composite
Development Plan", and contain a section entitled "Composite
Development Plan Notes". The applicant shall have listed
under the CDP Notes section the following conditions or
mitigating measures required for the development of the
subject property:
7. The property owner shall sign a covenant running with the land
agreeing that if the required landscaping is not maintained,
the city may enter on the the property and install and main-
tain the required landscaping and may lien the property for
the costs. The covenant shall be signed and recorded with the
County of San Bernardino Recorder's Office prior to the
issuance of any Certificate of occupancy. In addition, land- .
scape maintenance easement shall be filed with the Recorder's
Office, which gives the City the right to enter the property
and perform maintenance to the required landscaping.
latlOj9j90
DOC:PCAGENDA
DOCUMENTS .1
....
r;:.:.:.J:li...':Ii
P6..AN-8.10 PAGE 1 OF 1 (~
-CITY OF SAN wQ,.ARDINO PUBLIC
CASE
.1.....
P.M. 13723
STANDARD REQlIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM 7
HEARING DATE /-1 q-q1
Utilities:
3. X Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
-accordance with City Code. City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility. including gas; electric, telephone. water, sewer
and cable TV.
9. X 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.
10. ....1.-Util ity services shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required.
11. X 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. BB-65
(Non-subdivisions).
12. X Existing utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
-relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer.
Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
-maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed 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.
13. X A "Communication Conduit" shall be installed in all streets within and
adjacent to this project. The conduit shall be dedicated to the City
and its primary use shall be for Cable TV installed by the Cable
TV Company under permit from the City of San Bernardino.
. . CITY OF SAN ~ARDINO PUBLIC
CASE
I/DIClR.
P .~1. 13723
STANDARD AEatJREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM 7
HEARING DATE 2-19-91
14.
Street Improvement and Dedications:
X All public streets within and adjacent to ~he development shall be
-improved to include combination curb and gutter. paving. handicap
ramps. street 1 i ghts. si dewa lks and appurtenances. i ncl udi ng. 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.
X For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street
-right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline
to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation
to the street centerline shall be as follows:
15.
SIERRA WAY
Right-of-Way (Ft.)
44" (2.75' additll
Curb Line (Ft.)
33' (11' +/- Widenin
Street Name
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
-the following streets:
..
-
. CITY OF SAN
ARDINO PUBLIC
CASE
I/ENGIIl
D M 1~7?~
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
7
2-19-91
,.
Mapping
16
x
A Final/Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required.
All street names shall be subject to approval of the City
Engineer prior to Map approval.
17
x
Additional survey and map information including, but not limited
to, building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and
setbacks, geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be
filed with the City Engineer in accordance \~ith Ordinance No.
MC-592.
Improvement Completion
19
x
Street, sewer, 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
accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the
City will be required.
18
x
x
If the required improvements are not completed prior to record-
ation of the Parcel Map, an improvement certificate shall be
placed upon the Map stati n9 that they ~Ii 11 be compl eted upon
development. Applicable to parcel maps consisting of less than
5 lots only.
As an alternative to a Subdivision Agreement, the Subdivider may
.pay to the City the.equivalent cost of widening Sierra Way, or
the Subdivider may petition the City to form an Assessment
District to accomplish the widening, subject to approval of the
City Engineer.
20
-
-
lIiJ
.
-0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC OIIKI/1IIClIl
CASE P.M. 13723
STANDARD AEOlIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM 7
HEARING DATE 2-19-91
A Zl
Required Engineering Permits:
Grading permit (if applicable).
On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Building and Safety).
21.
x
Off-site Improve~ents construction per~it.
Applicable Engineering Fees:~
22. X Plan check fee for Final/Parcel Map.
23. X Plan check and ins pec t i on fees for off-s f te i mprovelilents.
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings; see Building and Safety).
Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permit required).
Bridge improvement fee in amount of S
Drainage fee. Exact amount of fee
Department of Building and Safety at
building permit.
Landscape Phn Review Fee S 100.00 .
Traffic System Fee of S 12.92 per vehicle trip for City-wide
traffic mitigation. The total amount of the Traffic System Fee
shall be determined by the City Traffic Engineer at time of
application for building permit.
.
shall be determined by
time of application for
24.
~ Street Light Energy
period of 4 years.
recording.
A Landscape Ma f ntenance Dfstri ct sha 11 be imp 1emented to
maintain landscaping within the following areas:
Fee to pay cost of street light energy for a
Exact amount to be determined prior to map
-
A
lJ J III
.
,
, Ornardino City Water Departme. - 0 0. ~
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS r;PV-./
.
Review of Plans: #
Location: 170'
Type of Construction:
Owner/Developer:
PM.it13723
Date:
Nlof Magnolia Ave. on W.side of Sierra Way
Subdivide l-ac. par into 3-lots.
Bernard & Myma Waltzer & Russell &Hazel
Approved:
Denied:
CUIminscontinued:
Shirley L. Cism:lWSki
Date:
12-17-90
ENGINEERING: Name:
25. [j{ P.S. I. 45-50
26. ex Size of Main Adjacent to the Project 6" C. I.
D Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
27. ex Off-site Water Facilities Required to Meet Peak Flow Demand.
28. ex Comments: n s it'i1
29. ex Subjecttothe Rules & Regulations of the Water Department in effect atthetime of Application for Water Service.
D This Area is Serviced by East Valley Water District and All Fees/Conditions will be Determined by their
Engineering Department.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT: Name: _j" riA K /11(,.( Date: /2'/ J- 1:/(;
:J R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
o Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
e Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
No Backflow Device Required.
Name:D f~J-oate:
/,y'~~
30.~
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER:
L...: Industrial Waste Permit Required by Environmental Control Officer.
II Grease Trap Required by Environmental Control Officer.
LJ Pre-treat ent Required by Environmental Control Officer.
egenerative Water Softeners May be Installed Without Prior Approval.
31. Approved by Environmental Control Officer.
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Name: ~ TL""",,~-
Date:
1'lj'1/91J
33.~.
34.)'1
o No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the City Water Department for the Amount of
Day. Equivalent Dwelling Units: ~
Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit.
Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building & Safety Department Priorto Issuance of the Building Permit.
i'43 Gallons Per
32.)'
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
-~ "'4P~ ~ :::).gl
8t/~
o.,.J
WATA.3.04
tITYOl'SM<I'E~
CiIrlTIII....._tWGSEAVICES
'216 13-901
o
Attachrrent "E"
i-Ij f '
i" J !l i
HI i~ t
8> n i f
.. - )
i!! ,~ i
~
~
f.
.
J
.
.\
. r:; ~
,'I.."
I !~i-' i
~. II!
~'ll t
~ ! "\3
. ,I."
,'"
1 I
, ~ s.
l .
~- -
t
f
~ 1
\ I
'. . I
. Ii II
_.~.l
1 ~
--
.
I
l
al i
;. '@ I
f. I ~
~I
h t ~ ~
: ' .( t c'
or I 0 II ,.
,,\IJnt
i ", c 1 j-
! ", -< I
I .
~ .
J i~-h (
! : 1: fl,'''! 1
. I ~ I ~ . ~
I 1 I ~
I i I 9
I r I I {
,~ >
" : ( : II
: : \ {
I il lC "
i' .\' i/. . I
11 j ,...,.
....
d ~
.~
\
'.
t
a.J
~! I~
\r ;
p
I f.
..,
...
in
iPi t
.....
,
,
,
I
il
I
11
"
\II
.,
7'
. .'
~ II c I ,II ~ n 0
'. \ ! If
O. I
,
,
;111111 ;fllil lii"I' I
1.1 ~ ~
I
1m I
lie
Iii
ill
i I
!
ififl i';11 it;11
Jill, 1:11 '~Il
~h i ( -, r
I I ·
- I
.,
:t
IPI
eel'i
I . I
.11-
.iI.1
. u-
II 11111,1' Ii J II!!; "
h il I' r I ilia
II II I.: 111;,i
.' in i ! I 5
,I ..' . 'r
Ii IP I · M
II · ~ Iii
t :! Iii
~,
J
I
H
II
!
I !Be
. (
~
.
i
.
nml
liU
i@~U I
,J'I'
'i il
..
r
i
~
;i
~
~
-0 Attachnent "F"
~
r-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE Pf1 No. 13723
LOCATION
....
r-
HEARING DATE 2-19-91
.
~ i~~" "~ri~
· . ~ l ~ 2. II · .-
,_.1~ \' 9I'PEEr.. .. OJ
.-' ,M'... ~. I"'" ...,..
,bt I~ I. '; ~ ~ ~ @ 1 t'* ~
-4 ,J'!.." -~-,.~- ... T.... -..,---
A q. ~ f' ~ "'@l J.& ~
1::51 I ~- -'-;--
~I@.;'II
. @)~ I I
AI) ; e> · ." @
.. 0\ U*
@ .
.._-~ ~-
-
Il
-
.it ,.
!';. .
~-.f>---
~
..." i @) .
+;,(1'" !
m. 18 ?
~ .l.e
l!
~ ~ @)
'" ~ 8
-,-
~ @!? II ~
--..,----
,!}~- ~--~-:
&~ . ...
...-..r lilt,
-.
& ..,
e. @ e e ~t.f~
'-
,~
-
e
,~.
8 .-
-
~=::r:==
.. e oj. ~
..
. @ll-.
\SI
...,,- .
AGENDA ~
ITEM #
..
7
~
e
I @1L
II
i
.. c:..\V1t.L*
, .
-... -'
I. .
I
I
..
~
\I-
. .
~ ~
@ e'8
81 r
~ ~ 8 7a1T ....,.11..
,., !II.:: e L
&:l\ ,.._ ._
'C' _.
8 IL
:s:
~ <?>
(i)~ I
/f1..
--..-~ -~
~ ~ ..~'i'
i e>~.
@"*'?
~!li:1O
~~ ~/1
IV ..
""'"
@ II II
~---- -.
-l'
.
~8
....
i
,j '.
I
.~~ I 1
- -
- --. --
;~ ~
_:J>--~j
_.___~__t: .
. @ !.
re &I I
~i) -t
.. 8
e
"
...
~#@A ~
~AI.' ,
W/U//J ~
i--.
,
~ ~~I ~
e e e J.17iir l
- f I
,- MAGtNoLl I AVIMIE-l-;
. 'Ci)' e- .~ 1, .\'l ~. .~: 'ii' ~.~ 8.!-1'
: : .~".' @i ~~ (!) ,. ~2 f!). :''--" ..'._ i\
(i) '-'., ~- ,.~~- .:':: i~~;?- llEi) ""1 ~~
1 .' I .. ~. .--, .,,.
..:-.... ~. v: -...::: .
-?".. -~- . ~. , .' .: .
.~- ....-..:..
~".:' .-1..~ .. ~_~. '. ,
.' . ."-'" -.... -..... ~~.....- ,-
\* ~..,.#"'.'I~ll. · ~
- "I ... '
T
...
I'
I .
~
~
PL.AN-8.11 PAGE1OF1 (<6<<))