The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About61-Planning . 'CITY OF SAN BERN(1IDINO - REa'UEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September l, 1989 Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to require an EIR for Tentative Tract No. l3554 Mayor and Common Council meeting September 18, 1989, 2:00 p.m. From: Brad L. Kilger , ,'. . ...- Director of Plan~~-MlMULo..".. Subject: Planning Departmel8ll9 SEP -1 PM 2: 17 Dept: Synopsis of Previous Council action: ~II-";'r~..,..~ ~~"ELVi> No previous Council action. On August 22, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to require an Environmental Impact Report addressing certain issues for Tentative Tract No. 13554,. The vote was 4 to 2, with one abstention and one absent. ' Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied; and, that a fQcused Environmental Impact Report be prepared prior to the deli- berations of the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract 13554. (Supports Planning Commission's action.) OR That the hearing be closed1 that the appeal be upheld1 and, that a focused Environmental Impact Report not be required or prepared prior to the deliberations of the Planning Commission for Te at've Tract No. 13554. (Supports Appellant's request.) ~ L. Contact person: Brad L. Kilqer Phone: 384-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 5 FUNlJING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct, No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item NO'~ - - CITY, OF SAN BERN~!DINO - ,- ~ REQUEST FQIS COUNCIL ACTION "". , , STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REQUIRE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13554 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING 1989, 2:00 P.M. SEPTEMBER 18 , REOUEST The applicant, Forecast Corporation, is appealing the deci- sion to require an Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Tract No. l3554 by the Planning commission. The applicant requests that the Mayor and Council reconsider this decision and make a determination that a focused Environmental Impact Report is not required, so that the Planning commission pan reconsider the decision to approve or disapprove of Tentative Tract 13554. BACKGROUND Tentative Tract 13554 is a proposal to subdivide 68.1 acre site located at the northerly terminous of "H" and "I" Streets north of North Park Boulevard into 286 single-family lots which are a minimum of 7,200 square feet. The proposal is located in the General Plan Use Designation of RS, Resi- dential Suburban, which allows for single-family residences on lots a minimum of 7,200 square feet in size and a maximum density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The project was filed on November 11, 1988, and deemed complete for review on April 5, 1989. The following studies were performed for this proposal: * Two drainage studies. * Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Geological/Soils 'Study) . * Traffic Impact Study * ,Environmental site Assessment * Cultural Assessment 7~~0264 ..L - L - - - City of San Bern~ino <:> Mayor and city Council Meeting, September IS, 1989 Page 2 * City Water Tank Analysis * Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey (Biological Study) An Initial study was prepared that considered these studies and comments from the affected review agencies, including the county/Flood Control Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This study was reviewed by the Enviroamental Review Committee (ERC) and on July 13, 1989, the ERC recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. l3554. The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and made available for public review from July 20, 19Q9, to August 2, 1989. No comments were received during,the public review period. There has been public opposition to this proposed subdivi- sion. ~On August 22, 1989, the Planning Department received an ele~en page letter from the Law firm of Brunick and Pyle who represents some neighboring land owners and Frank Tracadas. This letter presented opinions regarding the environmental review of the project (See Attachment "B"). This ,tudy and testimony from interested citizens was heard at the August 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. The Plannipg Commission by a 4 to 2 vote decided to require a focuse~ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing the following issues: . 1. on-site and off-site drainage and its contribution to f).ooding. 2. potential hazards in the High Wind and High Fire Hazards Zilnes. 3. Impacts upon public services, such as Police and, Fire ~sponse times. 4. Location of faults and sources of seismic activity. 5. Traffic impacts. 6. ~pacts upon public schools and California State Uni- versity, San Bernardino. ~ 7. I~pacts to the overall quality of life in the area. 8. Impacts upon the infrastructure in the area. . . I J J - - City of San BernJ:lino <:> Mayor and city Council Meeting, September 18, 1989 pag:e 3 On August 3,0, 1989, this decision of the Planning Commission to require a focused EIR was appealed by th~ applicant, Forecast Corporation (See Attachment "A"). The basis for their ,appeal is that they have conducted studies which analyze the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project, have agreed to mitigations concerning those consequences, and that certain items of the proposed soope of the EIR are not relevant or appropriate. Specifically, the inappropriate items are the study of impacts on public schools or the California State University. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and require a focused EIR or uphold the appeal and not require the EIR. RECOMMENDATION ANALYSIS Staff originally recommended approval of the project with a mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission voted to require a focused EIR before deliberating on the project. The safest legal course is to require an EIR due to the public concern and controversy of this proposed project. However, most of the issues raised have been reviewed and considered. An EIR would allow the Commission and/or Council to legally approve the project with overriding considerations, and alternatives to the proposed design and density would be analyzed. This type of alternative analysis goes beyond the scope of an initial study. The motions for the two alternatives are as follows: That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be denied 1 and that a focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared prior to the deliberations of the Planning commission for Tentative Tract No. 13554 (Supports Planning commission's action). OR That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld; and, that a focused Environmental Impact Report not be prepared or required prior to the deliberations of the Planning Com- mission for Tentative Tract No. 13554 (Supports Appellant's request). ' - L - City of San 'B~rn~ino <:> Mayor and Cit1 Council Meeting, September 18, 1989 Page 4 i " Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP Principal Planner \ for Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning . ATTACHMENTS: A- B- C- D- E : , , Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council Letters of Protest, including the AUgust 2l, 1989 letter from Brunick and Pyle Public Hearing Notice August 22, 1989 Memorandum to the Planning Commission August 8, 1989 staff Report to the Planning Commission - - o O1TBJB:C&3{J CORPORATION Construction! Developmen t August 30, 1989 Mayor and Common Council CITY OP SU BBRNARDINO 300 North "D" street San Bernardino, California 92418 HE: APPBAL OP PLANNING COIDlJ:SSION ACTJ:ON TBNTATIVE TRACT NO. 13554 Dear Mayor and Member of the City Council: Forecast corporation hereby appeals the action of the Planning commission on August 22, 1989 relative to Tentative Tract No. 13554. In particular, it appeals the decision requiring a focused Environmental Impact Report on the subject Tentative Tract. The grounds of this appeal include, without limitation, the following: A. Forecast Corporation has over the past three years communicated directly with all required departments of the City of San Bernardino including, without limitation, planning, engineering, traffic, fire, County flood control, and federal emergency management agency relative to the requirements for the Tentative Tract. In all instances, Forecast Corporation' has followed the direction of all such departments and satisfied the requirements for the approval of the subject Tentative Tract. B. Forecast Corporation in conjuction with city approval has conducted studies, which have been submitted to the various dep~rtments of the City of San Bernardino, and which have addressed the ex.tent to which off-site drainage and its contribution to flooding; location of faults and sources of seismic activity; and specific detail on measuring traffic impacts. These studies set forth in detail on items requiring mitigation for the approval of the subject Tentative Tract. Forecast Corporation has been and is at all times prepared to employ such measures to conform to the mitigation requirements set forth in these studies. 106iO Civic Center Drive ~, . Rancho Cucamonga. Califimlia 91730 . (71~ 987-7788 o o Mayor and Common Council Planning Commission Appeal certain items the Planning Commission has requested inclusion within the proposed focused Environmental Impact Report, are not relevant issues under the California Subdivision Map Act for approval of the subject Tentative Tract. These items include, without limitation, impacts on public schools and impacts on California state University, which are issues within the jurisdiction of the state of California. Further, in this regard, Forecast Corportion will pay all builder school fees required by law. All studies that have been conducted as directed by the City of San Bernardino and the proposed mitigation measures are adequate and address or adequately mitigate all significant environmental effects associated with the subject Tentative Tract. The proposed mitigation program satisfies the requirements of the California Public Resources Code and the intent and purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. The relief sought from the Council is a determination that a focused Environmental Impact Report as required by the Planning commission is not reauired, and that the Planning Commission reconsider the approval of Tentative Tract 13554. C. . D. E. Sincerely, August 30, 1989 Page 2 . FORECAST CORPORATION ct. 7'~ Chris top er A. Faber Project Manager CAF:pmc "..,~-""""-- - ",,"J.- .LJ\\..n!VJ~l'\lT "J:jU o o - BRUNICK &. PYLE WIL.'"I...... .J. ."UNIC" lItAYMOND O. ~YI.C . 00N"'1.0 lit. AI.V.....E\E MAlItOUC"ITE lit. .ATTE....., . "AlItEN .OEQ~t:" MCHUQH .JAMES ~ ANOENSQN DONALD ,.. eASH . STEVEN .... ICENNEO" ""ANCES G. HC".ClItT ~lItOraslONAL LAW COlltPQIltATION 183. COMMCIltCENTEA WEST ~O.T 0"1"'(:& .OX .4'. SAN .e.N....OINO. CALIPO_NI... 92412 TE~E"HONE: AIltEA CODE 7'4 888.8301 .24.0823 2115 CAJON STREET " O. .OX 13'0 REO.....NO.. CAI..,,.OIltNIA .2373 TE~E~HONC C7'4~ 7.3-0818 PI..EASE IItC'CIllt TO August 21, 1989 I . , ~ kUL , ,- Honorab~ Members of the Planning Commission ,CITY OF:SAN BERNARDINO 300 Nor~ "D" street San Bernardino, CA 92418 . . Re~ ' Tentative Tract 13554, City of San Bernardino Gentlemen: This office represents Frank Tracadas, a citizen and registered civil engineer who is concerned about the effects of your proposed action approving Tentative Tract 13554 in the City of San Bet~ardino. Mr. Tracadas, in his professional capacity, Professor James Mulvihill, and I have reviewed the environmental assessment (including the recent mitigation monitoring addition to the: initial study), conditions of approval, and various studies which were performed in relation to this proposed project. A summary of our consensus of opinion is as follows: , 1. The initial study and inadequate and fail to significant environmental project; proposed address effects mitigation measures are or adequately mitigate associated with the 2. The proposed mitigation monitoring program is ineffectual and does ,not satiSfy the requirements of Public Resources' Code section 21081.6 or the intent or purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); , 3. The proposed conditions of approval are so vague as to be substantially unenforceable, are inconsistent with the environmental assessment of the project and fail to adequately condition the project to protect even minimum levels of public health and safety; 4. The studies which form the basis for recommendation of approval are based upon and/or inaccurate or incomplete data; and much of staff's faulty assumptions o 0 Planning Commission/City of S.B. '1"l' 13554 Auqust 21, 1989 Page Tw9 5. The Commission is unable. based uoon ,the followina factors. to ad09t a mitiaated neaative declaration on this or01ect: a. Evidence has been presented and is a part of the public record in this matter which identifies specific and substantial environmental consequences of this project which have not and cannot be mitigated on the basis of information available: b. There exists on the public record substantial public controversy over significant environmental effects associated with this project which have not and may not be mitigated on the basis of information available. These concerns are based upon facts and considerations which are verified on the record, including the City's own General Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., "CEQA"), and CEQA Guideline 15064(h) (1) reauire that even in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project aay have a significant effect on the environment, "if there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. II In this case, public controversy exists over legitimate and substantiated environmental concerns, and the decision whether to require an EIR is not discretionary. c. Disagreement exists between experts over the significance of environmental effects related to this project. Mr. Tracadas is a registered civil engineer whose opinion must be treated equally with that of the developer's engineers as to the potential environmental effects of this project as proposed. He has voiced his concerns on the public record, and those concerns are amplified by his opinion as stated in this letter. CEQA Guideline 15064(h)(2) requires that where experts differ over the significance of an environmental effect, that effect must be treated as significant and an EIR shall be prepared. The decision whether to require an EIR in this case is not discretionary, because the experts differ as to the significance of several potential environmental effects of the project. d. The Commission stands, make cannot, based the mandatory upon the findings of record as it significance o o I ~ Planninq Commission/City of S.B. TT 13554- August 2'1, 1989 Page Three ~ ess~ntial to its ability to adopt a negative declaration on thiS' project, particularly in the area of cumulative impacts (see discussion below). In addition, the question of the existence of an endangered species (the horned lizard) on the site has been raised. CEQA Guideline l5065{a) requires that whe~ there may be a threat to an endangered species, an EIR must be conducted. In this case, at a minimum, a complete biotic survey must be conducted in order to satisfy the minimum requirements of the law. To adopt a negative declaration on this project would constitute a 'violation of the law and of the California Environmental Quality: Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Not only i~ the Commission unable to make the mandatory findings of significance essential to its legal ability to adopt a negative declaration, but CEOA clearlv and uneauivocallv mandates that the Commission reauire the DreDaration of an environmental imDact reDort Drior to aDDrovina this Droiect. This EIR must, at a minimum, be focused in the areas of geological conditions, biotic (flora 'and fauna) resources, drainage (including flood control), public .services, traffic and circulation, seismic safety (risk of upset) ,and cumulative effects, and must include a section which analyzes reasonable project alternatives. ~ Inm~king your own evaluation, as the discretionary decisio*makers in this matter, we are asking you to consider specifi~ facts about the project, about the public record as it exists,. and about the recommendations of staff relative to the approval of this project as proposed. The record is replete with information which is inconsistent, inadequate, incomplete, and unsubstantiated, as well as testimony which amplifies substantial environmental concerns about the project. In reviewing the documents which form the record, including the staff report, initial. study and 'recommendation, and without altering our position that the preparation of an environmental impact report is mandated by the law in this case, we have the following comments: I~8 Ic,itial studv and DroDosed Mitiaated Neaative Declaration. a. .Cumulative ImDacts. The proposed project is known to lie in a geographical area of the City which suffers from exposure to flooding, fires, high winds, seismic activity, existing drainage and traffic and circulation problems, inadequate police and fire protection and questionable water pressure. Each of these areas of exposure involves a significant risk to 'public health and safety. The cumulative picture for the . o 0 Planning commission/City of S.B. TT l3554 August 21, ,1989 Page Four project increases that risk factor substantially. Yet the combination of environmental forces which now affect the project area and which will be aggravated by the proposed project has been virtually ignored by the environmental documents. In addition, the environmental assessment and supporting documents fail to take into consideration the "worst case scenario," which is crucial to a clear understanding of the potential for disaster which exists. As stated above, the question has been raised (on the record) whether the project site is a habitat for the horned lizard, a protected species. This question must be addressed as a cumulative impact as well as specifically by the initial study. A detailed biotic survey must be required in order to substantiate this fact. b. Feasible Alternatives. Because an environmental impact report is clearly required for this project, CEQA mandates that feasible project alternatives be explored. Even were an EIR not specifically required, this project should be considered in light of feasible alternatives, including lower density development and different development configurations designed to avoid such problems as drainage, fire, flood control and traffic and circulation impacts. This project is not an ideal project for its geographical setting. No alternatives have been proposed or examined. However, alternatives to the project most likely can and would mitigate the substantial environmental concerns which have been raised by the public, by the city and by the developer's own consultants. The economic advantaae to the developer of beina able to simplv super~mpose aeneric plans over a pro;ect area should not take precedence over careful and considered desian and plannina in an area where the potential for environmental and eventual human disaster are known. If this area is ever exposed to that once-in-a-lifetime fire combined with high winds and followed by a loo-year flood, we can only anticipate that it will be d~cimated. Random avoidance of requirements of the Greenbelt Study, is inappropriate, particularly where compliance is tailored to the desires of a project proponent without regard to overriding safety considerations. The consideration of feasible alternatives to the project, including wider spacing between structures, lower density, drainage and circulation configurations could significantly alter the potential for disaster. ~ - o o Planninq Commission/City of S.B. TT l3554 August 21, 1989 Page Five The commission can, and leaa11v must recuire the consideration oforoiect alternatives. Even were' an EIR not recuired. alternatives should be considered. c. Imoacts on Public Services. The Initial Study indicates that staff believes that there will be no impact on city services as a result of serving this project. However, public testimony at the hearings on this project indicates that existing pOlice and fire service in the area may not be adequate. The addition of another 286 residential units will impact police and fire service in a manner which may expose new and existing residents to an aggravated threat to their health and safety, not to mention the threat to new residents generated within the project itself. This is particularly true with fire service, where the project area is in a high wind and fire zone and 'where water pressure and fire flows may also be inadequate. At a minimum, item should be amended police protection. enhanced service accommodate the new requirements as fire number 10 of the Initial study (page 5) to indicate a potential effect on fire and Mitigation could include fees to provide or to raise the level of service to development or such additional construction sprinklers and burglar alarms. d. Mitiaation Monitorina. The proposed mitigation monitoring program not only fails to establish a meaningful system for monitoring compliance with conditions and mitigation measures, but also suffers from a basic fundamental flaw: it fails to establish phasing for installation of required infrastructure or mitigation measures such as erosion control which is designed to protect the project and existing development during project ,buildout. In fact, it appears from the record that the final drainage configuration has not yet been determined and will be delayed until some unspecified date when the City's Engineer makes a determination of the extent to which it must mitigate drainage problems associated with the project. Prior to approving this project, the Commission must consider, p:,rticularly in light of the Amber Hills problem, the effect of ~nadequate conditioning and phasing of such things as grading and erosion control. If substantial grading takes place on this project without ongoing erosion control, what will happen when the project is not complete and it starts raining? What will' be the result if the project is graded but not complete and the 100-year flood occurs? This type of consideration should be the focal point in obtaining compliance with the CEQA - o o Planning Commission/City of S.B. TT 13554 August :11, 1989 Page Si~ requirement of adequate conditioning and monitoring of mitigation measures. The conditions of approval and mitigation measures which have been crafted for' this project fail to establish a phasing requirement for the project, for construction of residences or for construction of infrastructure. The vagueness of the conditions, mitigation measures, and monitoring enhance the potential this project has for a total disaster at some point in the construction process. The public has requested information and conditioning of the project to ensure construction phased from the northwest extreme down the hill. They have further requested information and conditioning to ensure that storm drains and flood control channels are adequately and completely planned and phased so that they are in place prior to construction. Phasing of construction of the traffic signal at the intersection of "H" Street and Northpark Boulevard is also essential to the project and has not been adequately established by conditioning or by mitigation. This signal should be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, not prior to issuance of "certificates of occupancy." Current: proposed conditioning does not require specific compliance at any time until the last certificate issues. These conditions, and others, have either not been placed on the project or are so unspecific as to be meaningless during the construction and occupancy period, as conditions of approval or as mitigation measures. This pro;ect should not be approved until all infrastructure plans and reauirements are complete and can be reouired to be built at a time when the earliest impacts of the pro;ect will be felt. or without specific phasina reouirements for construction. Th,e project must also not be approved without adequate and enforceable conditions and mitigation measures which can be monitored for compliance. An example of the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation monitoring is maintenance of the debris (,as ins . These basins are clearly a condition of approval ~r:ated to, mitigation of potential flooding of the project. However, the project is not adequately conditioned to establish who will maintain the debris basins, when (in the sequence of construction) they must be completed, or how maintenance will be monitored and compliance enforced. Not only is mitigation and conditioning inadequate, but there is no proposed monitoring for compliance. The lack of adequate mitigation and monitoring poses a direct threat to human safety. - JII. .4 o o. planning commission/City of S.B. TT 13554 Auqust 21, 1989 Page Seven Adeauacv of Studies and Reoorts uoon which oroiect aooroval mav be based. The following studies and reports have been reviewed by Frank Tracadas, registered civil engineer, and Professor James Mulvihill: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Roger A. Shervington, dated December l6, 1988. Traffic Impact Study for Tract 13554, prepared by BSI Consultants, Inc., dated November 28, 1988. Drainage Study, Tentative Tract 13554, prepared by W. J. McKeever, Inc., dated December 1, 1988. ,Sycamore-Badger Debris Basins, Tentative Tract No. 13554, prepared by W. J. McKeever, Inc., dated September 21, 1988. These studies ~ave been found inadequate in the following areas: a. Geotechnical Investiaation. It appears from this report that it is based upon findings which were made subsequent to the preparation of the study. According to the project maps, excavation and trenching took place in December 1988, while the field study (Price) was prepared in June 1987. This, plus .the 'fact that inadequate trenching was done in order to accurately determine the seismic status of the project area, renders the report and its findings extremely suspect. Because the project area is known to be particularly vulnerable to seismic disruption, this report, and its accuracy, are essential to adequate review of the project. b. Traffic Studv. This report suffers from four basic defects: (1) the study was conducted at a time when its results are suspect (Thanksgiving week, when school attendance may be affected and traffic and circulation may be generally unusual, and, by the Report's own admissions, when a reported rapist was in the neighborhood), (2) it is based upon,the false premise that all traffic will leave the project v,,,tbound on Northpark Boulevard to University, (3) it is inadequate iri scope in that it reviews impacts at only six intersections along Northpark Boulevard, and (4) it fails to consider the cumulative impacts of other approved projects in the area, including, but not limited to proposed Tentative Tract 14448 which will empty out directly onto Northpark with many of its driveways facing onto Northpark, and ignores the - - o o Planning commission/city of S.B. T'l' l3554 , August 21, 1989 page Eig1\t impacts of the school district's approval of a central food preparation and distribution facility which may be expected to add substantial truck traffic to Northpark Boulevard. These potential impacts are now known and can and should be evaluated. Existing traffic does not generally follow the route projected as the primary route for all traffic leaving the proposed project. The Report failed to evaluate the possibility that traffic will flow (as it does now) in a north-south direction, down "H" street to the Kendall intersection, down Electric and Mountain view into the City, or down University Parkway. These routes are more direct than that projected by the Report, and involve already-impacted intersections. It is our opinion that had the Traffic Study adequately evaluated the flow of traffic from the project" additional mitigation of impacts at "H" and Kendall and other intersections to the south would have been required. Public testimony and testimony of City officials has verified the existing problem at "H" and Kendall, which problem has not been addressed or evaluated by the Traffic study. We believe that if an adequate traffic analysis were conducted, additional signalization would be required at at least one intersection, and mitigation would also be called for at other north-south intersections. c. Drainaae. The on-site drainage study indicates substantial grounds for concern for human health and safety related to the construction of this project. It projects on-site drainage primarily down "I" street to Northpark Boulevard, across and down "H" street. It is difficult to understand how run-off amounts have been calculated when elevations and plans for the project have apparently (and inconsistently with normal' City procedure) not been examined or reviewed. The grades of the project area are steep, existing soils conditions permit a great deal of absorption, and impermeable surfaces will create a new and dramatic condition which can :ind must be carefully evaluated. Another obvious basic flaw in this study is that even if the ~roposed drainage plan does carry ,the flow of water as projected to "H" Street, the existing drainage confluence at the intersection of "H" and Northpark is already a problem. o 0 planning Commission/City of S.B. TTl3554 August 2~, 1989 Page Nine In addition to the study itself being inadequate, it now appears that the final drainage study and plans will be revise~ at some future date. This is not only inappropriate given the sensitivity of the site and the existing aggravated drainage condition of the neighborhood, but it perpetuates and aggravates an already bad situation which directly threatens human life and safety. The revised stUdV must be DreDared and reviewed. and the Dro;ect adeauatelv conditioned and construction of infrastructure Dhased Drior to Dro;ect aDDrova1. The Commission c1earlv cannot recommend a neaative declaration on a Dro;ect where a Dotential substantial environmental imDact has not vet been determined. e. Debris Basins. Off-site drainage affecting this project and affected by this project has also been reviewed based upon unsubstantiated or faulty analysis. The debris basin study assumes a hillside accumulation without any test as to accuracy of its presumptions. Design assumes 915 cfs through the spillway in a storm, carried by an earthen channel (concrete lined at the project, in the back yards of many residences). In addition, this flow is projected to continue 'down "H" street immediately adjacent to the schoolyard, which is at a lower elevation. No consideration has been given to potential impacts on the school, no barrier is provided to protect the school or schoolyard from flooding, and no consideration has been given to the effects of erosion through the earthen channel with the rapid (17 feet per second) flow. The report also assumes a hillside accumulation without any test as to accuracy, and fails to calculate (as does Los Angeles County) the potential for debris contribution of the project. Past experience during flooding would indicate that the figures are underestimated and that the proposed additional capacity is inadequate. Despite representations from the applicant and its engineers, neither San Bernardino County Flood Control nor FEMA have approyed the project. At most, FEMA has indicated that it believes that McKeever's figures are "conservative." Both ClC'~ncies have clearly indicated in their correspondence that they have not been provided with adequate detail to enable' them to review the proposed project. The April 20, 1989 letter from the County specifically states that further study must be made prior to County approval. Copies of the County and FEMA letters are attached. This further studY. based UDon accurate Dro;ections and detailed Dlans should be - o 0 planning Commission/City of S.B. TT l3554 August 21, 1989 Page Ten comnlete nrior to nro;ect annroval. All flood control measures necessarv to the nrotection of the nro;ect and neiahborina residents must be adeQUate Iv desianed and nhased to ensure nrotection of human health and safety. In addition. careful consideration should be aiven to the fact .that this nro;ect maY 11. in a desianated lOO-vear flood area. If so. additional FDA reQUirements may need to be met nrior to annroval of the nro;ect. with regard to the debris basins, it is also not clear from the conditions who will maintain the basins. Inadequate and vague conditions such as this, plus the complete failure of mitigation monitoring, perpetuate disaster and defy the requirements of CEQA. This pro;ect clearlY has the potential for extreme environmental conseQUences which mav be mitiaable throuah the nreparation of an environmental imnact report. The law explicitlv reQUires the preparation of an adeQUate EIR aimed at ensurina the best possible nro;ect for that particular site. This pro;ect must be adeQUatelv reviewed and conditioned prior to approval. To date. many QUestions remain unresolved. or have been resolved in a manner which avoids the lona-ranae implications of the nro;ect. Not only must accurate and complete information form the basis for sound decisionmaking it must also be based on a careful consideration of project phasing (a continuum of effects) which is designed to protect the environment and existing development from disaster related to construction activities. We are requesting that the Planning commission consider carefully the long- and short-range implications of its decisionmaking in light of the comments made in this letter and in light of a host of community concerns about the project which have been expressed curing the public hearing process. This project should not be >',}proved as recommended. Alternatives must be examined, based ~pcn complete and accurate studies and information. Proper and adequate conditioning and mitigation are essential to the pcoject. Generic plans generically conditioned may ultimately ." ,,:', t in a disaster which could have been anticipated and dealt , ., ,t th is time. A full and complete environmental' impact -'.2f)(",t is required by law on this project, and must, be completed prior to project approval. a - - - - o o Planning Commission/City of S.B. TT13554 August 21,' 1989 Page Eleven . Thank you for your careful consideration of our comments. , Yours sincerely, . BRUNICK & PYLE ~:!~~~.~y I, Frank Tracadas, a registered civil 7ngineer, studies and reports as indicated ~n this professional opinion the studies and reports described above. have reviewed the letter. In my are inadequate as , . ..---- Dated: ~1z.1 /cB'1 . ._ 4- ~ ../. .........., /t.A. ..........~ ~ tI Frank Tracadas ) cc: Clients Mayor and Common Council o o August 15, 1989 Mr. MiChael LIndseth, After attenaing the pUOlic hearing on Tues. Aug. 8, 1989, regardmg tentative tract No. J 3554 I wanted to convey some items pertaining to this proposal before 1t IS approved As vou ar~ aware this IS a proposal to approve the bulldlnO 286",1)11,<,< on 68..1 acres north of Northpark Boulevard ana "H" and T streets,' . In view of this proposal I wanted to advise the commission of the followIng facts that should be resolved before approval Is granted for this project. I have conveyed this to Ann of your staff and she said to send my thoughts to the commission In writing. I. Forcast Homes has stated all along that they are wl11lng to work with exsisting home owners to resolve the issues and concerns of the neighbors. At the public hearing very few of tt',€- issues raised to them have been solved Examples of tt',es€- issues are WOOC fences that blOW down, and traffic congestion If they were serious they would have Sincerely worked with the local residents to make cnanges H'l the projects Many promises are outstanding and not documentea 2 Planning staff o~flclences: "H" Street south of 48th narrows to Slng'e on€- lanes, WhICh w111 not hanale the traffic. The staff report stated that a traf: Ie 11ght mStalled at "H" ana Nortnpark would eliminate trafflc congestIon I mamtam tnat traffIC wlli baCk up past Dover making it difficult to get out Of Dover and "H" TraffIC cannot get out of "H" and Kendall at this tl:r.e eit~.f~ ~~c': one mer.tlon na:, oeer'! made of thlS The analysis has to be incomplete a: t~1:.~('3.j (H) cannot hanale all the traffic now } The aO,l1tio:",al i€\;'iew.of the project recommenaed tt'oat a strorm o,a:" Of completed to I street, yet tne city engineer has eliminated this requirement saymg It 15 not neeOed Tne ;>lanning commission ShOuld lOOk at thIS close]'" as even with the sllgt'itest rain "H" street turns into a ditch. The cIty neecs to document why this requirement was omitted 4. Zoning Ordinances: The area is zoned as a Fire Zone B. The minimum dIstance between hOmes shOuld be thirty feet. Woodedn fences are also not allowed in tnls zone. These requirements have been waived. The comlssion needs to k.now, they blow down. The nelghoors have told Forcast, but they have ignored us The . commiSSion IS our only hOpe. Again the city should document the current fence situation immediatly west of Nor.thpark school. Most of the wood fences are dOW~, Some have been replaced only to blow down agaIn. Why permit more to be OullP: I feel it should be documented to the area residents why these requirements we~e walVed If a dIsastrous .fire Should oc~ur then the city COUld be held l:a~:~ t i-V. H '. .~.., 5'; " '" t. - - 4. Ij,. - o o 5. Open Space If the zcnmglS walVed for 30' feet between r-,cuses tt',en ope~, ~pllce :lhOuld be required Thl:l 1:l11 very importllnt concept to. :lociety. Before approval the commission needs to review the proposed hOuse denSity: Two hundred and elghty six homes would increase the number of people in our neighborhood Dy at least 600 people. Why isn't a park being manated?? A~a111 thIS question should De answered 6. SenSitive Species: AS dlfficult a issue as it is, the Horned L1zard IS 1;", I Being realistic about this project, probably nothlngwi11 save this species, I note this only to provide you more Information In making a intelligent deCision. The major problem I see with this proposal Is too many hOuses. Almostevery neighbor Is okay with devolpment of this tract. Bottom line Is that Forcast is gOing to develop to the maximum and be gone, Many problems will be left behind for the city to deal with. AS a reSident here, I would De more than glad to disCUSS this with membe,s of your staff. : 00 p;a:\ to atteitd the next meeting of thiS Issue en August 22 :t ,s really a Shame that members of your staff could not meet with the reSidents Ali or the atlove opportunities could have been worked out. It IS not too late, let your staff CheCK everytri1ng out Defore approval is made Alot of QuesUons remalr. un-answered aM ur.,11 they are resolved I opposed this project Demg approveCl TW';~9 my comments to De Ile.rd FRED J KRUEGER 672 Dover Dr San 8ernarCl1nC' C? - - - 'J. -~ .e1.. o o ,-..... I .~ ~ : lJ. . , ' ! il ' , "l '8 - 15-8 '1 .... '';' :P\lV\V".;~ "b i('e..c...~r . Cl~ c-f ~cU'\ &(N\.(&U/'-D AUG 181989 em";....,, SAr.] G~;',';-",:'.~ ..~. <). J=. ....u00\c,~ ~k.. ~-t LfD1;J ~\ou5l'1 ('e:(D\f1oi<:~f ~ ",e~C\..-\;,v<", c'-ec.~oJa..:h.()r\ ~t\ +v'\~'""~ ~C~~ n.o. 1'336~. Ai (", - ~en.\- -tlv-Y\e... L. hr St,\<<~ ~c..DYw-v\N:>...-\,f)~ l~ -to :.:J.f:-t rfCV'ik 0~'(8("o~,.J-.. ~lY\ J..('cUn~ -6. ~C<~\A'c.... t-\Ol.C6Jef +t~ E:-'W'lrGh- mer-rtiJ e.e.v;~ &n(Y),1{~ .st\fL\\c\.~ tt~ 0... S-\ \nc...,^ J.'-cun be... ~b~ uf' ~ ~Dr\e~l.. -:L Iodie..;~ +-t"\cct- +-t,,;<;::, Nc-':n b ML\Y'.c"'-~("1 -\'0('" ~ .(; \\~-.; ':) '\ec,~,,~' - ~Drl-L(c,-('l <)(.~"oc\ d--$e<...-\-\y b(c~<<s t-\ S-tl~t '--'-~'-'<"'~\ (,\. \\e.c~'-l +\;;C.k~ (;'~J Ird fYl',\g, v\-o~~ - ;te..iJ \, \oC\ ':::, \r,o..vc:. w"\V\~~$'J.. d'l..I!1,(;?1'i. \-1lil/', :'.::' ,e1 d+ ~.:.\r -t:(," , - ~ (~'r~:'<::: d.e,-.eJ,~''''''''''' - :,u..:'II\ c.DveC -c" IJ,'.' evec,- c...J 'S(:f':~. '(X.:,) (€.SL:t~,~ .r' In(J(:,(~56~ \-1;(' ,~,. . - H 6~\- d~~c.s "L,(,"1:} l"t...l'1..; \..$\, h w,l\ lfuvc- 6(\\'7 one.. pc;",\- J {Ylr~\Ail.C.\'_ n~:' a.i~.\Idt.'ff"1'~ i\ I L .. -" '1 ' .\)\;.ol"TV \i~, \~';l':':' ..\ \.,~~ ,)\0 \..(8'?- y':"... 1., .,at (:tfP,1x, the {xt;'e'J<' ('\~YdL\'" ", \ i..YI\il tt~ di;~~. i::. vo:.~ c('" c....ft: \'\ ~()VI('<:r.~~'"?L\ ~fuJ-- Sh.:l',\ IS :..~:((\e\t:-\.'.'" , I', \ \.: .Tht.\.l'?\c "'Ie..; -:L\ uv' <-CY"1S\( BCq\C'- RII\:;' Ho.rrc.l\ 55L\~ kl. k\.,y.x: ~V1 ~ejY"\J -..' '.y , o () ~UJ.j AUG 07 1989 ., . ., ..~ August;: 3, 1989 em i'i.Ai\:~;;;G DEPARTMENT SA:J BEfiiJARDIND. CA We. the undersigned residents of Dover Street. are in opposition to the proposed construction of 286 houses at the northerly extension of "H" and "r" Streets of Northpark Blvd. because of flood and fire hazards. The present field serves as a barrier to prevent fires originating from the mountains to come to the present residential houses in Dover Street and neighboring streets. (Tentative Tract # 13554) tJ ,,-:t.t: ,\ ._ ~_.L ./ &~~ i)~ J-!a ~~ ~"1/j'-':;~ , . c;.w,- 0;:('~" .- /~ 'l "- '-,- . " y.::'(~ 'T'ynl~ / o o ATTACHMENT "e" PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A notice of the appeal hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the applicant at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per Municipal Code Section 19.81.020. A copy of this notice if? attached. - o o r OFFI'CIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION I S DECISION TO REQUIRE. AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. l3554 THIS is TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY the aoolicant SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. l3554 APPEAL WARD ::# 5 PROPERTY The 68.l acre site is located at the northerly LOCATION : terminus of "H" and "I" Streets north of North Park Boulevard. PROPOSAL: To create a 286 lot single-family subdivision .J ( PUBLIC HEARiNG, LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET \ I SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418 I' .. lr HEARING DATE AND TIME: September 20, 1989, 2:00 p.m. _, n_'_O . , ---.. ,. . - A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY . HALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING; PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING (714) 384...,5057. THANK YOU. .J j'" IN4 .ly o CITY OF SAl ATTACHMENT "D" o - .JlEMORANDUM BERNARDINO To The Planning Commission From The Planning Department August 22,1989 Subject Tentative Tract No. ,13554 Date Approved Agenda Item No. 1 Date Owner/Applicant: Forecast Mortgage Corporation 10670 civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 The applicant proposes a 286 lot single-family SUbdivision of a 68.1 acre site located at the northerly terminus of "H" and "I" streets, north of Northpark Boulevard. This item was continued at the August 8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the applicant to comply with Public Resources Code 21081.6. This is a law that went into effect on January 1, 1989 and requires the preparation of a Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program whenever a Nega- tive Declaration or EIR with mitigation measures is adopted or certified. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. Attached is the Reporting/Monitoring Program for the mitiga- tion measures proposed in the initial study with the excep- tion of the mitigation measure proposed for the Land Use Sec- tion Nos. 6c and 6d. Staff has reevaluated the discussion in the Initial study and proposes 'the following substitute language: This proposal will result in development within Greenbelt Zone "B" and :dthin a high fire hazard zone. These zones have been identified to ensure that planners and developers are fully aware of the pec~liarities of the region that can lead to a natural fire disaster such as was experienced in the 1980 "Panorama" fire which occurred in the area of the proposed development (Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program, 1983 and the City of Sar Bernardino General Plan, 1989). Recognizing the pot~ntial fire hazard associated with ~he gecgraphic:ocation and accompanying fd:::;;ors of terrain, cl, imate and vegetation, the project has been fully conditioned with standard desi9n and development standards (Conditions 10 through 46) that have been developed for use in high fire hazard zone aeeas and included (or recom- ~ended for inClusion) in the City's Development Code and the City's Building Code. Development of t~e proposed project in conformance with those conditions reduces the potential for fire zone related impacts on the project to levels of non- significance. - H o o Memorandum to \ Tentative Tract Page 2 , Planning Commission, Augu No. 13554 22, 1989 Staff believes the attached Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program satisfies the requirements of CEQA and the Pub', ~ Resources Code 21081.6. A condition of approval of the trect will be that the applicant comply with the requirements of this program. In conclusion, the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and is con- sistent with the Municipal Code and the City's General Plan, Recommendation, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration with the proposed modifi- cation to the wording in the attached Initial Study, 2. Approve Tentative Tract No. 13554, subject to the attached Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements, with the additional condition that the applicant shall comply with the approved Miti- gation Reporting/Monitoring Program, and 3. Approve the attached Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program. Respectfully submitted, -// BRAD L. KILGER Director of Planning ANN LARSON-PERBIX Senior Planr.er Attachm~nt: Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Plan for T.T. No. 13554 PCAGENDA:TTl3554 . Introduction o '0 MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PLAN tor the Tentative Tract 13554 Milieated NeJ8tlve ))eelaration In compliance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by passage of AB3180 (Cortese)), public agencies approving projects which may cause significant environmental impacts must monitor the mitigation of those impacts. This Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Plan, prepared for Forecast Mortgage. ensures implementation of the mitigation measures adopted by the Planning Commission in approving the project and the Mitigated. Negative Declaration, Mitil!ation Measures and Reoortinl!/Monitorinl1 Activities Prior to beginning construction the applicant shall furnish the City Planning Department with a checklist chart to use in tracking the mitigation monitoring and rei>orting activities. The chart shall list each mitigation measure, monitoring or reporting action and be ruled into columns that are designed to record responsible agency, dates of completion, inspector or other certifying person and the person recording the information. Earth Resources Mitigation Measures la. 1. .. -. k. 1. 2. Grading bond posted through the City Engineering Department to ensure work is in conformance with Section 7014 (C) of the Uniform Building Code. 2: 1 Slopes Fugitive dust shall be controlled by periodic watering of the site. Erosion shail be controlled by the placement of sandbags and/or ground cover, if deemed necessary. Llrth RcslIurces Reporting/Monitoring Action :a. ,. lIpon n:cciving proof Ill' hllnJing and issuing graJing permits for the parcel, the City Engineering Department shall provide written notice to the City Planning Department of such action, The planning staff shall retain such' notice in the projeci file and annotate the project file indicating compliance. , Prior to i..suing grading permits for the parcel the City Engineering Department sllall Jetermine that no slopes of greater than 2: I are planned. such a determination shall :Je rcported to the City Planning Department. Again when the project grading is inspecteJ the City Engineering Department shall determine whether any slopes havc been constructed at a ratio steeper o o Ie. 1. than 2:1. If steeper slopes have been constructed no further permits will be issued until the slopes have been reconstructed to acceptable standards. When the City Engineering Department certifies that constructed slopes on the parcel are satisfactory and that grading bonds can be released back to the developer, written notice of such action will be given to the City Planning Department. Upon receiving notice from the City Engineering Department on both of these occasions the planning staff sball retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file indicating compliance. The developer shall maintain a daily log of watering events used to control dust at the construction site until ground disturbance is completed. This record will be given to the City Planning Department at the end of each construction phase. Such records will be retained in the project file by the planning staff, During site inspections, the City inspector shall make a record of fugitive dust conditions at the construction site. If fugitive dust is not being controlled, the contractor shall be directed to provide additional water spray for control. A memo to file shall document any unacceptable conditions, the directives to the contractor to correct. such conditions, and the contractor's written response. , . 2, Upon completion of the Landscape Plan Review the City Engineering Department shall certify that the plan meets the City's erosion control requirement. Prior to issuing Certificates of Occupancy for each phase of development the City Engineering Department shall certify that inspection confirms the erosion control effectiveness of implementing landscape plan has ,been attained for the phase. Upon receiving notice from the City Engineering Department on these occasions the planning staff shall retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file indicating compliance. Air Resources Mitigation Measures 201. To control fugitive dust produced by the development of the site, periodic watering will be required. 2~. The project lies within a High Wind Hazard Area which requires that all new devclopmenl consist of tile roofs with hurricane clips for wind protection. .\il l{csourccs Rcporting;:\lonitoring Action 201. The developer shall maintain a daily log of watering events used to control dust at the construction site until ground disturbance is completed. This record will be given to the City Planning Department at the end of each construction phase. SUC;l records will be retained in 1he project file by the planning staff. During site inspections, the City representative shall make a record of fugitive dtl,t conditions at the construction site. If fugitive dust is not heing controlled. the contractor shall be directed to provide additional water spray for controL A memo to file shall document any unacceptable " o o conditions, the directives to the contractor to correct such conditions, and the contractor's written response. 2c. When inspection of roofing units is completed by the Department of Building and Safety compliance with this construction standard shall be noted in writing to the City Planning Department. The planning staff shall retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file indicating compliance. Water Resources Mitigation Measures 3a.l1,c.1. 3f. Improvements to Badger and Sycamore debris basins shall include lowering the bottom and raising the existing levee to increase capacity in accordance with the engineering reports. 2, Public Works Standard Requirement #47 shall be met by the developer. An earthen dike three feet in height shall be constructed from the water tank to "H" Street. I. Water Resources Reporting/Monitoring Action :1a.h.e.1. 3t. Upon final acceptance of the developer's work effort in Badger and Sycamore Debris Basins, the City Engineering Department shall notify the City Planning Department in writing of compliance, The planning staff shall retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file indicating compliance with the measure. , Upon final acceptance of the developer's work effort in meeting Puhlic Works Standan.l Rcquirement #47, the City Engineering Department shall notify thc City Planning Department in writing of compliance. The planning staff shall retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file indicating compliance with the measure. Upon finai acceptance of the developer's work eifort in constructing the earthen dike, the City Engineering Department shall notify the City Planning Department in writing of compliancc. The planning staff shall retain such notice in the project file and annotate the file indicating compliance with the measure. TranspnrtatiLn/Cir,ulation Mitigation Measures :i;i,,,:,CII ." it'df;';" ,j.~nal sh;iil h,; instalkJ at the: intcr.,cction of "1-1" Street unt! :'\orthpark B(lulevard ;mor I" issuance oi Certificates of Occupancy for the project. 3 ..IilI o o Transportation/Circulation Reporting/Monitoring Action 9a,d,f,h,l. When the traffic signal is inspected and accepted by the City Engineer the City Engineer shall notice the City Planning Department in writing of the acceptance. The planning staff shall retain such written notice in the project file and annotate' the file to indicate compliance. Public Services Mitigation Measures lO,c. The project shall he suhject to school facility fees as established by the Board , of Education. Public Services Reporting/Monitoring Action Ilk. The developer shall obtain written certification, showing payment of the school facility fees, from the Superintendent of Schools at the time such fees are paid and deliver the cerlification 10 Ihe City Building Hnd Safety Dcpartmenl prior to issuance of huilding permits. Upon satisfaclion of the requirement the City Building and Safety Department will notice the City Planning Department in writing. The planning staff shall retain such certification in the project file and annotate the file to indicate compliance. Aesthetics Mitigation Measures 12.h. Structures shall he designed to convey a "high quality" image including: I. The use of architectural design styles which complement and do not dominate the environmental setting. 2. The use of building materials, cnlors, and forms which contribute IC. a "neighhorhood" character and which arc in harmony with the environmental setting. AcslhcticsRepnrting/Monitoring Actiun 12h, J. Upon acceptance of the architectural design by the Development Review . . Committee, the City Planning Department sball provide written notice of such accept:mce to the project file. The planning staff shall also annotate the file lo indirate, compliance. 1211.) LJP"ll alceptance of proposed huil~ing materials. colors and forms'by the Development Review Committee, the City Planning Department shall provide written /lolice of such ;I.:ceplance to the project file. The planning staff shall also annolate the file to inuicate compliance. 4 - - o o Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 13.a. Should subsurface cultural deposits be exposed during development, construction shall be halted until these resources are evaluated and appropriate protection/data recovery measures are taken. Cultural Resources Reporting Monitoring Action 13a. The developer shall immediately notify the City Planning Department if any subsurface cultural resources are encountered. The City shall confirm any discovery of cultural resources; document the occurrence with a memo to the project file; and include a copy of the archaeologist's report on any resources and their final disposition, The planning staff shall retain these documents in the project file and annotate the t'!le to indicate completion. Conclusion This Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program shall be retained by the City in the Planning Department project file for Tentative Tract 13554. As various mitigation mea~ures are fully implemented their completion should he documented by appropriate notation on the checklist chart provided specifically for this project. When all measures have been cllnfirmcJ as completed on the checklist, this Reporting/Monitoring Plan is complete. 5 _ J1 o ATTACHMENT "Ell o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 1 8 2-89' , ! ---~---_. ..,I .,.-.."., It; l&l :) " l&l It ..... cr l&l a:: <l: APPLICANT' l&l (I) cr o 'l'ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13 5 5 4 OWNER, Forecast Mortgage Co. 10670 Civic Center Drive , Rancho .Cucamonga, CA 91730 i , I , Same The request is to create a 236 lot single-family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The 68.1 acre site is generally located at the northerly terminous of "fI" and "I" Streets north of North Park Boulevard. l_ r---- --.... r;- I u _ , EXISTING I PROPERTY I LAND USE I Subject I Vacant Xortl, ; I Flood Control basin ,. SO'-lth 'II School and residential I East ,Residential , , : West ; I VaC<lnt )! j: _.-JL , (- G~~;G:C ~-SEISMIC eg YES )" FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES' OZONE A ; '-- HAZARC ZONE LJ NO _ ZONE Q NO OZONE B i ( - HIGH FI;E ~YES) r-;,-RPORT NOISE / 0 YES I ,--_~~:_ARO_ ZONE ONO _ ~ CRASH ZONE GlNO I (~, ,..- 0 N~r - XJ POTENTIAL SIi,N,FICANT l z '<t I I AP"LICABLE EFFEcrS 0 1 i'" I, WITH MITlGAT'NG ..., . , Z", I MEASURES NO E,I R, I ; "~(!)I! k.,O I ... Z I I C ,XEMPT 0 E' R REQu'RED BUT NO I k., ~ I Z - I SIGNiFICANT EFFECTS I oCl:'" ; I 00 ; : WITH MITIGAT!NG ~ :=IE , , a: Z ' , MEASURES (I) :=IE I':;ii: I: 0 I I~... :J NO 0 S!GNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 ... SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E R C l&l EFFECTS MINUTES a: \ ... ZONING RS PFC PF and RS RS RS NO.;' 1911 REVISE:O ""LY 11.2 SMY Cencrill Pldll DESIGNATION RS PFC PF and RS RS DYES SEWERS 0 NO REDEVELOPMENT DYES PROJECT AREA GaNO (lXl " APPROVAL I lXl CONDIT IONS 0 DENIAL I 0 CJNTI NUANCE TO l ) -'~ , I I i I I I .J ,RS I , ) o 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT13554 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM , HEARING DATE 8-8-8Q PAGE 2 1 . REOUEST The applicant requests approval to family subdivision with a minimum feet. The site has a General Plan Residential Suburban. create a 286 lot lot size of 7,200 Designation of RS, single- square 2. SITE LOCATION The 68.1 acre "H" and uI" is generally north, Dover street on the west. site is located at the northerly terminous of Streets north of Northpark Boulevard. The site bounded by County Flood Control basin an the Drive and Northpark School on the south, Louise east and the extension of Mountain Drive on the 3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in conformance with the General Plan as shown in Attach- ment "A". 4. ~~A STATUS At its regularly scheduled meeting ot July 13, 1989, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Negative Decla'ration for Tentative Tract NO. 13554. The proposed Negative ,Declaration was advertised and made available for public revie" from July 20, 1989, to August 2, 1989. No co~ce~td were received during the public review period. :.. ANhLYSIS ;I~S C~ARACTERISTICS The Sk~e is curren~ly vacant shrubs. It has a slope from +lv{_~ percen~. with various weeds, grasses and north to south of approximately I ~ CITY OF SAN RNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE '1''1' 1 ~554 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 8-8-89 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The 286 square shapes. tract. phases require time of single-family lots will have a minimum size of 7,200 feet. The lots'consist of rectangular and irregular "I", "H" and 55th Streets will be extended into the The project will be constructed in seven phases. All will have two means of access (Phases 4 and 5 will the construction of "I" Street and "K" Road at the development of these phases). The phasing of the tract will be as follows: PHASE NUMBER OF LOTS 1 48 2 45 3 43 4 38 5 38 6 37 7 37 286 COMPATIBILITY The proposed single-family subdivision is compatible with the surrounding uses which include an elementary school and single-family homes. In order to ensure that the homes built in tD8 proposed subdivision are compatible with the surrounding area, the use of the architectural styles, building materials, colors and forms which complement and do ~ot dominate the environmental setting shall be required. NOISE The development of the projecc site will result in a small increase in existing noise levels in the area, mainly attributed to additional vehicular traffic. The increase in noise should be insignificant since vehicular noise on the trace will be intermittent and short in duration. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE T1' 13554 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 1 . HEARING DATE ~':l-~~ PAGE _. ACCESS ~s required by the Municipal Code, the tract will have at least' two standard means of access. "I", "H" and 55th Streets will provide access to the tract. As previously stated, each phase will also have two means of access. The portion of "H" Street adjacent to the Northpark Elementary School will be widened to 60 feet. SURROUNDING USES Surrounding land uses include a County Flood Control debris basin and a City water tank to the north, Northpark School and single-family homes to the south, single-family homes to the east, and vacant land to the west of the site. DRAINAGE The proposed development has raised concerns regarding the ability of "H" Street to handle storm runoff. The applicant has submitted two drainage reports regarding the site. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, County Flood Control and the City Public Works Department have all 'reviewed the reports and accepted their recommendations. Improvements to be made include the following: 1. Lowering the bottom of the basin levees to increase capacity of debris basins. and raising existing Badger and Sycamore 2. Construction of a 51-inch tract south on "I" Street east to "H" Street, then east on 40th Street to basin. storm drain extending form the to Northpark Boulevard, then south to 40th Street, and then discharge into Little Mountain / I J 3. A 6 foot high block flood wall will be constructed along the north property line of the tract and along both "idtOS of the flood control channel that runs into "H" Street. -- - ~"' l) CITY OF SAN'lrERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE '1"1" 1""4 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE l' R_~_Rq The City Public Works Department has indicated that the development of the site with the required improvements will reduce storm runoff flowing down "H" street due to the required improvements to the debris basins. Additionally, the tract will be graded to convey most of the runoff into the proposed storm drain in "I" street or into Louise Street via 55th street. WATER TANK A City water tank with a capacity of approximately 2.5 million gallons is located approximately 400 feet north of the tract. There has been concern with the hazards associated with a possible rupture of the tank. An analysis submitted by the applicant and reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer indicates that "H" Street would adequately handle any flows created due to a rupture of the water tank. The applicant proposes to construct a 3-foot high earthen dike from the water tank to "H" street to convey all flows into the street. In addition, the proposed flood walls along the northern periphery will provide protection for the tract. TRAFFIC I I I i I I I I , A traffic study submitted by the applicant was reviewed and accepted by the City Traffic Engineer. The City will require a traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of "H" Street and Northpark Boulevard to mitigate traffic impacts created by the project. This is required in Standard Requirement NO. ~6 (see Attachment D) . ~A7ER Y~IN EXTENSION AI, ,..,xtension of the water main is required to serve to the t:c'i.lct. The applicant Shilll submit an approved map to the WatQr oepartme~t. who will then develop a plan fo~ the ,..,xtensiDn of the water main and assess fees to cover the cost of ti':e extension. A Condition ha~ been included (Attachment C) . l BLOCK WALL REOUIRED """ Code Section 18.40.230 ...here lots back up to a street and ";,,,,,' lots do not take direct access to said street. a six fee1, decorative masonry wall shall be required on the rear ~ I j ! , J I I I i L , .- CITY OF SAN ERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13554 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 8-1-tl'J F; property along "H" C) . line. street. to the .lots (Attachment This requirement shall apply A Condition has been included ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES A cultural assessment of the project site was conducted by a certified archaeologist. A records check and a field survey revealed no cultural resources on the site. However, should subsurface cultural deposits be exposed during development, construction shall be halted until these resources are evaluated and appropriate protection/data recovery ..asures are taken. This has been included as a Condition of Approval (see Attachment C). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site is located near an area designated as a habitat of the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse designated as a Federal Candidate Species Category 2. The United States Fish and Wildlife Sevice has indicated that this animal may warrant consideration as an endangered species and recommended a study be conducted to determine the extent or the Pocket Mouse's habitat on the project site. A biological survey, dated April 7, 1989, prepared by O'Farrell Biological Consulting was submitted. The report concluded that no possibility exists for the past or future occupation of the site by the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse. This conclusion was based on trappings which resulted in no Los Angeles' Pocket Mice. A determination was made that the habitat on the site was not consistent with normal Los Angeles Pocket Mouse habitat. EARTHOliAKE FAULT ZONE The nor~heast tip of the subject site falls within the Alquist-Priolo Special St'ldies Zone in that the San Andreas ruult is within one-quarter mile north of the property. A pre'1 i:ninary geotechnical Investigation prepared by Roger A. 3nc-cl.i.g1:0n, ?E., on Decenbcr 16, 1988, concluded that the si'te is suitable for single-family residences. This conclusion is based, in part, on the opinion that fault ~o,e!:\8nt will not occur across the site. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE 'f"l' 1 ,0;0;4 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ ts-a-o~ 7 HIGH WIND HAZARD The tract lies within a High Wind required to provide tile roofs with protection. A 'Condition has been C) . Hazard Area and will be hurricane clips for wind included (see Attachment HIGH FIRE HAZARD The tract lies within Foothill Fire Zone "B" Which is characterized as a High Fire Hazard Area. The City Fire Department has indicated that the tract can be safely developed since the debris basins to the north provide a fire break, all houses will have tile roofs, and applicable standards of the Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program for Zone "B" will be applied to the development of the tract. 6. COMMENTS RECEIVED Several comments from residents have been received. Most of the comments relate to runoff on "R" Street, traffic, water tank rupture and fire hazards. All of the comments received have been addressed in this report. San Bernardino City Unified SChool District has commented that the project will be subject to school facility fees establlshed by the Board of Education. lil " CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE 'T''T' 1 'lC;C;4 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE r 8-8-89 8 7. CONCLUSION The proposed subdivision is compatible with the adjacent elementary school and single-family residences. The required two means of access are provided. Concerns regarding traific,'drainage, and the water tank have been mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. Archaeological and Biological Resources were investigated and none were found. The site is suitable for development as long as applicable standards are adhered to that mitigate hazards associated with High Wind, High Fire and earthquake faults. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the Municipal Code. 8. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning commission: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration; and 2. Approve Tentative Tract NO. 13554, subject to the attached Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. Respectfully submitt~d, / I,~~. ....-' """ ,. ..-:. 'r:: _ ~_ I -'i --r .' - ----- I' Br_9d L~;il r . ! Dlrector 0 Planning j I . / , j James P. Mulder Planner I ATTAcm,E:-<T A - MllniciFal Code and General Plan Confor- mance B - Findings of Fact C - Conditions of Approval J Standard Requirements E - Initial study F - Tentative Tract Map G - Location Map ! -^- CITY OF SA~'1~ERNARDINO PLANNU~'''G DEPARTMENT CASfl'T 13 5 5 .\ OBSERVATIONS 1. 8-8-tl9 9 \. AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Category Proposal Municipal Code General rlan Permitt(:d Use Single-family Residential N/A RS, Residential Suburban Lot Si:oe All exceed 7',200 sq. Et. 7 , 200 sq. ft. minimum 7,200 sq. ft. minLnum FrontA<lc on dedicated str'e;8ts .' All lots front on dedicated streets All lots to front dedicated streets N/A Cul-dc-s.:J"S Maximum length 400 ft. 500 ft. maximum N/A Densit:: 4.2 u/acre N/A 4.5 u/""rc maximum Lot I-Jidlh r,t) Et. or more 60 ft. minimum N/A CrJt".., i- l, J: 'N i"ll :1 1;11 ft. or Olun' '"1(1 ft. minimum N/^ I I I l o ATTACHMENT "a" o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS of FACT CASE TT'1<;<;4 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning code in that it conforms to the General Plan designation of Residential Suburban, 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre and meets all standards regarding size, shape, and orientation of lots, blocks and streets. AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 1~-~-~'-:' ' PAGE '_--.---:-..1 . .. _.. ...-') I 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of develop- ment in that it is large enough to accommodate the proposed number of parcels in compliance with applicable zoning and subdivision standards, and all environmental impacts can be adequately mitigated. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improve- ment are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the site is not a known habitat of any endangered species and hazards of erosion and flooding will be adequately mitigated. 4. The design improvement prOblems in mitigate the dust. of the subdivision or the proposed is not likely to cause public health that adequate measures will be taken to impacts of storm runoff, traffic, fire and 5. The design of the sUbdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the ~roperty within the proposed subdivision. 6. The discharge of waste from the proposed SUbdivision into the existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements precribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) in that adequate sewage treatment capacity exists to handle the waste from the proposed subdivision. . /n::>g PCACE:;DA: TT13 5 54 F o o ATTACHMENT "COO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE . TT13554 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 1 , HEARING DATE _8 8 ~_~ PAGE 11 .....~-,- 1. Minor amendments to the plan shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. An increase pf more than 10 percent of the square footage or a signi- ficant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Con~ struction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the Development Review Committee, Planning commission or Director of Planning. 2. In the event that this approval is legally challenged; the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers; agents and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligation under this condition. 3. The developer shall submit typical footprints, floor plans and elevations for design review. , I , I I I I I I I I I , 4. The applicant shall submit an approved map to the water Department. The Water Department will develop a plan for the extension of the water main and assess fees for the cost of the extension. 5. A decorative masonry wall shall be constructed along the rear of lots adjacent to "H" Street. 6. All dwellings constructed shall consist of tile roofs with hurricane clips. 7 . Structures shall be designed to convey a "high q'uality" image including the use of architectural styles, building materials, colors and forms which complement and do not dominate the environmental setting. If subsurface cultural deposits are exposed during development, construction shall be halted until the resources are evaluated and appropriate protection/data recovery measures are taken. 8. lL o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE T'1'1 (E;t;.1 CONDITIONS 1 8-8-89 12 '\.. AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE '\ 9. Developer shall coordinate the lowering of bottom and ra~s~ng of levee of Badger and Sycamore debris basins with County Flood Control and City Engineer in accordance with ,drainage studies. The following shall apply to the development of the project site: 10. At least two different publicly dedicated ingress egress routes for all residential projects. 11. Minimum 26 foot paved width with parking on one side of each street. 12. Minimum of 45 feet for cul-de-sacs turnarounds radius of curves, dips. \ 13. No dead end streets, require temporary cul-de-sac. 14. Maximum street grades at 12-14% all weather, non-skid surface. 15. Non-combustible and reflective street marker visible for 100 feet. 16. Non-combustible and reflective building address with 3- inch high lettering and numbers visible at least 100 feet. 17. Removal of dead fuel for 10 feet, encourage maintained vegetation. 18. Thinning and other vegetation modification for 100 feet. 19. ste.tic water sources shall have access on one side of at least 16 feet. 20. A minimum of two private spigots available facing foothills per building. 21, Each hydrant shall be identified with approved blue reflecting street markers. 22. Each cul-de-sac greater than 300 feet in length requires a minimum of one hydrant. - ~ _J1 o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE rt''''' ':tE;c;.4 CONDITIONS \.. AGENOA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 ~ ~ ~':I 13 ..~-.. ~ 23. Fire flow gpm, duration and hydrant spacing according to minimum standards of community jurisdiction or district. 24. A slope analysis shall be filed with all discretionary and non-discretionary application, the contour interval shall not be more than 5 feet and indicate a category of 30\ and more. 25. underground utilities for new subdivisions and individual structures. 26. Open ends of tile roofs must be capped with non- ignitable material to prevent bird nests or other combustible material to be located within the roof structure. 27. Decking with exterior materials of at least one hour fire resistant rating. 28. Attic vents under the roof shall be located near the roof edge rather than toward the external wall. other vents covered by 1/4 inch corrosion resistant wire mesh, not to exceed 144 square inches. 29. I 30. ! , I I 31. I , I ^', oJ.... i 1 33. I I i , I I 1 I I 1 No combustible materials such as patio covers with plastic, bamboo, straw or fiberglass. Exposed piping shall be non-combustible, all other piping underground. Limit all accessory buildings, guest housing and secondary housing to all FIRE ZONE standards. UBe exterior one hour fire walls. Require the following: A. UBe non-combustible roofing materials, non-wood. B. UBe fire resistant construction materials, non- combustible sidings. e. Chimney spark arrestor, 12 guage wire screen 1/2 inch opening mounted in vertical position visible from ground. D. structures supported to any degree by stilts shall have all under floor areas encased to the ground with the same fire retardant materia:s as required for fire walls. o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT13554 CONDITIONS AGENOA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 H-r!-)j':t 1J J L_, E. Glazed with extra strength glass or double-paned glass facing wildlands. F. Non-combustible fencing materials with gates for access. G. All new property lines to be placed at top of slopes. 34. Buildable pads on natural slope of less than 30% and adjacent to slopes greater than 30%, minimum pad setback of 30 feet from edge of slope where slope is greater than 30 feet in height, unless the entire slope or 100 feet, whichever is less is landscaped with fire resistant vegetation maintained by an irrigation system. 35. Install and equip every swimming pool or other signi- ficant water source such that the water may be obtained quickly and easily for fire fighting purposes. 36. Firewood stacked on a contour away from home. 37. Fuel tanks shall be located at least 10 feet from building with vegetation clearance. 38. Require compaction on all fills. 39. Prior to permit issuance require approval of erosion and drainage control plans prepared by qualified pro- fessionals for all new projects. 40. Require project referral notices be sent to appropriate Resource Conservation District for erosion control comments just for foothill area. 41. Where appropriate in erosion control plan, 'require fire resistant revegetation for erosion control. 42. Where appropriate, require PUD Home Owner's Association to maintain firebreak fuel modification zones. 43. Require that before building permits are issued (individual lots and SUbdivisions) county Fire Warden or appropriate fire district is notified. 44. Require through conditions of approval that new CCR's require all transactions of property involve disclosure to purchaser of high fire hazard restrictions. o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT13554 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 1 , HEARING DATE --R::l,1=-lU.. ) PAGE -L'i 0.- _ ---~ 45'. Attic vents which are placed under roof overhang must be located near the roof edge rather than toward the 'external wall. 46. Any roof and wall penetrations and appendage shall be constructed of non-combustible materials. /nmg PCAGENDA:TT13554C CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS o o A'l'TACHMENT "0" CASE TT 13554 STANDARD AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1 8-3-89 16 "."'....-..._,~ ! x RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 c. "" Tentative Tract No. 13554 shali be in effect for a perioN of 24 months from the date of approval by the Planning Co~misslon 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 (SBMC 18.24.020). Additional time may be approved by the Planning Commission upon written request of the applicant if made 30 days prior to expiration of the 24 month time period. , Expiration Date: Auqust 8. 1991. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.O. 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 "hich have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assess~ent 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 develcpment. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC & R's "hich shall include compulsory membership of all owners 0: lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessmencs 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 ~ illS sky CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TT 13554 CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS 1 R-R-RQ' 17 r I I I 1---. I I . 1 I ,- 2 L- I \ . i I \ I I \.. a six-foot high decorative wall with screened gates. There shall be provided for each unit, within the garage or carport, or other specifically designated area, a loft Or o~her usable storage area with a minimum of 150 cubic feet in addition to standard utility storage. Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads s~all 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 snall 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 docu~ents covering this rna~ter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the ?l~nning Department. A.l~ ~efuse storage areas are .oj.",) -: ~ :"ocation, 5ize 1 type ~h~ approval of the Planning Ser,ices Superintendent. to be enclosed with a and design of wall are Department and Division decorative subject to of Public Energy and noise insu:ation shall comply with all state and local require~ents. LAl-')SCAPING: a. Fcar (4) copies of a master landscape plan shall submitted to the Engineering Division for review approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited the following: be and to, :) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed. L) Irrigaticn plan. 1) Such other alternate plants, materials and design concepts as may be proposed. 4) Erosion control plans" b.' :'::ee varieties and exact locations will be determined prior ~ ..II Illy o o , STANDARD "'- I I I I c , I , i I I l I ~ x t- -=-- '" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS 1 R-R-Rq 19. TT13554 CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE to plant'lng by the Director of the Parks and Tl,,,,,, 0"'" "'" 1 Department or hiS/her designee. A minimum number of one inch caliper/15 gallon, multi-branched trees shall be planted within the parkway for each of the ~ol1owlng 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; 40t 5 gallon; sot, 1 gallon. Shrubs 20%, 5 gallon; 80t, 1 gallon. Ground cover 100% coverage. d. Slopes raquired to be planted shall be provided with an irrigation system approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. e. ~he maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual ownership. r. All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion ~ontrol 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 oeing done. All tot.s shall ~<ive a minimum area of 7,200 square' feet, a minimum depth of -1..QQ feet, and a minimum width of 60 feet, (~feet on corner lots). In addition, each lot on-a-cul-de- sa~ or on a curved street where the side lot lines thereof are , It.. Illy STANDARD o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS TT 13554 CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1. 8-8-89 19 " " 4 x 'J x G I >: r- i 1--- . I I , I .. " , 5 , 1 x I . I I . L diverging from the, front'to rear of the lot, shall have, v:;j';h 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 along the front lot line as delineated on the tract map. Where lots occur on the bulb of the cul-de-sac,' a minimum lot depth of feet will be permitted. If the proposed depth is less than--- ____ feet, a plot plan must be submitted to demonstrate that a buildable lot area is possible and to justify the lesser depth. Variable front building setback lines of at least ~ feet and averaging ~ feet, and side street building setback lines 15 feet shall be delineated on the final tract map. All garage entrances on a dedicated street shall have a minimum setback of 18 feet. Per~met~~ walls and walls required along the rear of all dOUble frQ~t~gc lots shall be designed and constructed to incorporate des.qn features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, ctec~rative masonry, columns, or other such features to provide 'lis:..al and physical relief along the wall face. rhe developer shall obtain Planning Department approval of' the vis.al or engineering design of the proposed wall. Wher. graded slopes occur within .Jr between individual lots, the ;lope face snall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to this requirement must be approved by the city Engineer. ''';r.". i.~'1 ar.d =evegetation shall be staged as required by the city Ent, ',,,,er in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to :.Jr~.!~_ ip~ 'Cation, '~":r't,Lia:lce ,..lth "a recommendations of the Geology Report shall ~e :~q~ired (if applicable). ^~y cA~hhouse, ~wimming pool, spa, pu~ting green, picnic areas _c <) "..c ",:nenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on tn" ..pproved sitE' pla:1. '),:rlns ::O:1struct ion the City Engineer may require a fence around i.ll ~r d portion or the p6riphe~J of the tract site to minimize "J'.n:, and det:.=i,;; damage to adjacent properties. The type of f~ncing shall be approved by the City Engineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control. ~ I." Iky o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS TT13554 CASE AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 8-8-89 PAGE _~iL_ , 10 x " No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to COOlp. ~,'j.l ;,,' with these Standard Requirements as well as all provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. 11 x MECHANICAt EQUIPME~T: 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 unless screened as specifically approved by the Departme~t <except for solar collection panels). building Planning d. i t I \ I I . . \ I 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 utili~y provider. Telephone, Cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residences. I I l I'.. .., - - J - - o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS CASE 'T'''''1.~r:....., . AGENQA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE ....-Jl:-~_=1l-2._ PAGE --.?~~__ .~', 12 x COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A composite Development Plan (COP) shall be filed with the Engineering, Planning, and Building & Safety Departments prier 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 " section entitled "Composite Development Plan Notes". The applicant shall have listed under the COP Notes section the following conditions or mitigating measures required for the development of the subject' property: Standard Requirements Nos. 3 through 6, 48 and Conditions of nnoroval Nos. 5 thorough 9. csj! 1:j8/se DOC:PCAGENDA :JOCUMENTS.l I I , l I t j , i ! , j I \ I I I'.' I.Y o o ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE 'r'rl35';4 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS 1 8-8-89 'J'J '\.. AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE Project Description: TN. l'3c;54- :J.f?'> -y'7'? /).1 "lJ" " V/Y n 5rtC€€r ,I.}u/-;"H o.c Ajoll7"J-IPA1!!K. vLVl) Date: 7-/~ Pr~pared By: I/~ Page ~ of pages t c; r<; Lv" ;/ !';.-/; Reviewed By: 13 Applicant: ;:i~Cc.,;S7" NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the appl1cant 1S responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted ~rior to submittal of Building Plans. Drainaqe and Flood Control --bAll necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to requirements of the City Engineer, ~Ihich may :>e based in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino Flood Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage and flood control. -2{A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impact~ or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense. and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. 1 . _ The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps; therefore, a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued by the City Engineer shall be required. _ The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps; therefore, all building pads shall be raised above the surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer. _ Comprehensive storm drain Project No. is master planned in 'the vic~nity of 'your development. Th1S drain sha'l1 be designed and cO,nstructed by your project unless your Engineer can conclusively show that the drain is not needed to'. protect your development or mitigate downstream impacts. 15 > ~1' 1rainage from the development a~~rcved public drainage facility. dralnage ,facilities and easements satisfaction of the City Engineer. sha 11 be If not sha 11 be directed feasible, provided to an proper to th e. 00 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/DIGIl CASE TT13554 STANDARD REQlIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE ..J!;-8-89 pii;i 2J Pro jec t Des cr i pt ion: 1il / ~C;C;4- Date: "7-/ti~J'~ Page ....:k or.ti...- ages Prepared By: I'1wt-Reviewed By: 16 Grading xIf more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed. the site/olotl grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civi' Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The g,'ading >,lan shall be prepared in strict accordance' with the City', "Gracing Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in advance., ~If more than 5.000 cubic yards of earthllork is proposed. a grading bond will be required and the grading shall be supervised in . accordance with Section 7012 (c) of the Uniform Building Code. 17 A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. io.ny grading requirements recommended by the approved 1 iauefacticn report shall be incorporated in the grading p1an. An on-site 1mprovement Plan is required for this project. Wher-e feasib1e. this plan shall be incorporated 11ith the grading plan and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04"!57 of the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). The on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City ongineer. ^ rnci procal easement approval it ,'eciprocal proposed to cross lot recorded to remove the sha 11 be recorner! pr.; or t,) 'Jr",l; nr, pi ,lr1 d r a i nag e. ace e s s. s e., e r. an <J lor par kin g I '. lines, or a lot line adjustment shall be interior lot lines. 18 ---KThe project Landscape Plan shall be reviel1ed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit ~ copies to ,the Engineering Division for checking. 'An on-site Lighting approved by the C~ty +"~ grading plan. or Plan for the project shall be revie.len anc Engineer. This plan can be incorporated with on-site improvement plan, if practical. U 't.~ ; 1 tie s : 19 -Leesi gn and construct all accordance Vii th Ci ty Code. serving utility, including a nd cab 1 e TV. public utilities to serve the site in City Standards and requirements of the gas. electric. telephone. vlater, seller o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE TT13SS4 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 1 HEARING DATE 8-8-89 PAGr: --Z4 - Project Description: 7/.!. / ;'<;'>4 Date: i:-14 --1(9 PaQe ~, 08 ~ pages Prepared By: {tW(- Rev i ewed By: 20 .KEach parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer -facilities so it can be sened by the City or the agency providing such services in the area. 21 XSewer 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. 22 .xUtility services shall be placed underground and easements -provided as required. 23 XAil existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site -on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Ordinance No, MC-60l (Subdivisions) or Resolution No. 88-65 (Non-subdivisions). 24 ---LExisting 'Jtilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer. Sewers within private stre,ets or private parking lots wi1 ~ not be -:naintained by the City but shall be designed and constructec 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. o o ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE TT11C,~d STANDARD R.EQUIREMENTS 1 AGENDA ITEM HEARING l?~!~ . P_E R-R-R9 25 PrOject Description: ~ t3r:;C;tf Date:, 7-tl/-Ff Prepared By: /'1o.<J(,.-- Reviewed By: Page ~ of ~ pages 25 Street Improvement and Dedications: -LAll publ ic streets within and adjacent to .the development sha1 ~ be improved to include combination curb and 'gutter, paving, handicap ramps. street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, traffic signals, traffic signal modification, relocation of pUblic or private facilities which interfere with new construc~ion, striping, signing. pavement marking and markers, and street name signing. All design and construction shal~ ~e accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "St~eet 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 snall be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 26 ~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: :;treet Name "II" 5T fi ... /. ",. "1 ., D, E, r, 1:7.. fS5J1.1 ALL. OT~ Right-of-Way (Ft.) 40' 30/ 25' Curb Line (Ft.) .30/ 18 I 18 ' ~., ~, X A~l rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated fro~ -th'2 foll o"i ng streets: ";1" S~ E'xcrr>T /17 "e"AoAD /1';;" k~[rT/C'N. A traffic study and report is required for this project. The report shall be prepared by a properly 1 icensed Traffic Eng; neer I "iv;l Engineer ~no"ledgeable in Traffic Engineering. The :'~:. It shall be prepared in accordance I.ith the City of Sar, 3ernardino Department of Public Wor'ks "Traffic Policy" and is SuDJect to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. All recommen<1ations. as approved by the City Engineer. shall become Conditions ot Approval of the project. 28 -K.Cuf8 Fe:,..-Ir-:f/ f'f/LJA II ':'//f)L L \ , 1.3r.= .:J)" . o o r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE TT13554 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS 1 B-B-B9 26 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE Project Description: 77l1'?%t..f Date: 7-/<!-"Cf Page ~ of ~ pages Prepared By: Hv..X:-- Rev i ewed By: 29 , ' --KIf the project is to be developed in phases. each individual phase shall be designed to provide maximum public safety. conven- ience for public service vehicles. and proper traffic circulation, In order to meet this requirement. the fol'lowing will be required prior to the finalization of any phase: a. Completion of the improvement sufficient plans beyond the feasibility of the design to Engineer. A Plan shall be submi tted for Engi neeri ng Di vi si on, Fi reo and ting what improvements will be phase. subject to the following: pl ans for the total project or phase boundary to verify the the sati~,faction of the City ~ , rev i ew and approva 1 by the Pl anni ng Departr.1ents i ndi ca- constructed with the given (1) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32-foot radius paved turnaround area. (2) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum 28-foot paved width. (3) Street improvements beyond the phase boundaries. as necessary to provide secondary access. (4 ) Drainage facilities. such as storm drains. earth berms. and t-lock wall S. as necessary, the development from off-site flows, channels. to protect ( 5 i A properly designed water requi red fi re fl O~I. perhaps t,h e ph as e b 0 u n d a r i e s . system capable of providing loopi ng or extendi ng beyond '~) Easef"1ents for any of the ahove and the installation of necessary !Jtilities. and (71 Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. ) 30 31 32 -33 34 35 36 37 o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS'_. CASE TT13S54 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENOA ITEM HEARING :J~ 1 "_a_cQ 77 ' rproject Oescri pti on: Ti' /3<:;l;f../- Date: Page {, 7-/X'?1 of _~ages Prepared By: 11C(f(- Revi elled 9y: Mapping X A Final/Parcel Map based upon field survey lIill be requirea. X All street naCles shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to Map approval. X Mcitional survey and map information including. but not lir.lited to, b'Jilding setbac~s. floodi'!g and zones. seismic lines and setbacks. geologic mapping and archeolog;cal sites shall be fi"ied "Iith the City Engineer in accordance ~Iith Ord~na~ce No. r~C-592 . Improvement Completion ,X Street. se\ler. iind drainage ir~pr6vement pliins for the entire project shal, he completed. subject to the approval of the City ~n~ineer. pr~or to the recordation of the Final/Parcel Hap. ~ If the required improveMents are not completed recordation of the Final/Parcel r~a~. an improvement accompanied by an agreement exec'Jted by the developer City wi11 be required. pricr to security an>: the If the required improvements are not completed prior to record- ation of the Parcel Hap. an ir;lprovement certificate shall be placed upon the Map stating that they \lill be cOI~plp.t~d IIp''" de Ve' 0 p 1,1 e" t . A P P lie a b 1 e top arc e 1 r.l a p s con s i st.; n S 0 fIe s s t h a " 5 lots only. Rec~irec Engineering Permits: .....Gr:ldi~g pernot (if appi'ic;ole). r" site improvements construction permit (except build';ngs - see 3ui1ding and Safety). -----2~ (Jff-s i te improvements constructi on permit. 38 39 40 ~l 42 43 44 45 o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PU8UC WORKS/INQII. ICASE T'T'11r;~1\ STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING OATE 1 ts-tJ-tl~ 4'.ts Project Description: 77c.f3C;C;L/ Date; 7f:!-YI , Page ---Z of __ pages Prepared By: /Iur-- Rev;~wed By: ~ Applicable Engineering Fees:~ X Plan check fee f0r Final/Parcel Map. X Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements. Y Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except buildings; see Building and Safety). \ Plan check and inspection fees for grading (it permit re~uired). Bridge improvement fee in amount of $ X Ora i nage fee. Exact amount of fee sha 11 be determi ned by Department of Building and Safety at time of application' for building per"it. / Landscape Plan Revie~ Fee $ 65.00 >< Traffic System Fee of $ 12.54 per vehicle trip for City-\'lide traffic mitisation. The total amount of the Traffic System Fee shall be determined by the City Traffic e:ngineer at time of application for building permit. :< Street Light e:nergy peri0d ot 4 years. recording, Fee to pay cost of street light energy for a Exact amount to be determined prior to map A ,Landscape Maintenance District shall be implemented to m~intain landscaping within the follouing areas: ;'k. ra:s /ffl-E 5(/&JEcT To CHRNGt? Wllil"",r N()~ce. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. , CASE T1' 13554 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE 1 8-89 :.t~ 46. 47. 48. ~9. 50. 5:;'. 52. ).~ . Proj~ct D.scription: TR 13554 Preplred Plgl 8 DltI: 8y: MWG of 8 8/1/89 Rtv1eWI4 By: plglS X A tr-affic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of tiorthpark Bou].evard and "H" Street. The design shall be accomplished by the Developer's Traffic Engineer subject to approval of the City Engineer. X The t1aster Plan Storm Drain sball be constructed per CSDP Project tio. 7-BIB (subject to update per current Flood Control District design policy). from little Mountain Basin to 48th Street. Additional extension Northerly will be required as indicated by the drainage study and as directed by the City Engineer. X i<~' high structural wall capable of reSisting mud flow to a height of 4' shall be constructed along the North line of the tract. The wall shall be 'continuous around the "A" Road cul-de-sac and be continuous down "H" Street adjacent to the nel/ lots. X The exi st i ng bul b on the South si de of 55th Street opposi te lot 15 shall be reI;loved and reconstr-ucted to the new street alignment, if feasible. X An earthen dike shall be designed and constr-ucted to divert flollS to "H" Street in the event of rupture of the exi sti ng I/ater tank located Northeast of the subdivision. A permit from the Flood Control District will be requir- ed for the \~ork. x Developer shall comply \/ith the requireI;lents of the SBVmlD concerning its' SO'-vlide easement which crosses the subdivision along "I" Str-eet. All reculrements are subject to approval of the City Engineer. COI;lpiete cul-de-sac at the tlorth end of "A" Road. Acquire right-of-way from tne San Bernardino County Flood Control District as necessary. r':cdifi cations to the Badger and Sycamore debri s basins i nc1 udi ng bOttOr.l 1 ollering . levee raising, spi1l1~ay and outlet channel improvements beb/een, the spi1 hlay and thi s tract shall be per the requi rements of the San Bernardi no County Flood Control District and the City Engineer. I )0' sreenbelt shall be landscaped and irrigated along the North side ~f the ,.rGct. A permi t to allow 1 andscape maintenance 0, 1 andscape mai ntenance n:,ernent shall be obtai'ned from the Flood Control District. A landscape cldintenance district shall be formed to maintain the landscaping. Subdivider shall pay all cost of establishing the district. f. x ,\ o 0 ATTACHMENT "E" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY r TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13554 TO CREATE a 286 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7,200 SQUARE FEET, ON 68.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF "I" AND "H" STREETS AND NORTH OF NORTHPARK SCHOOL JUNE 22, 1989 PREPARED FOR: FORECAST CORP. 10670 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 PREPARED BY: JAMES P. MULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 '" ~ .' o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13554 The request is to create a 286 lot single-family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet on 68.1 acr~s located at the northerly extension of "I" and "H- Streets and north of NorthparkSchool. The site has' a General Plan designation of RS, Residential Suburban. The project site is an undeveloped parcel of land, which slopes downward from north to south, and is surrounded by a flood control basin to the north, vacant' land to the west, single-family homes to the east, and Northpark School and single-family homes to the south. Vegetation on the site consists of that which is normally found along the foothills including grasses, small shrubs, weeds and wild flowers. The site is located within High wind and High Fire Hazard Areas. According to the City'S Technical Background Report, the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse may exist in the area of the project site. The site is located within an area of archaeological concern. I o o , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "'" PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST "" ~ , "'" A. BACKGROp~ Application Number: Tentative Tract No. 13554 Project Description: To create a 286 lot single- family subdivi- - sion. ----" Location: North of the terminus of "r" and t1Ii" Streets north nf :-';nrt:hpi'lrk S,.,hnnl Environmental Constraints Areas: High Wind, High Fire Hazard, Possible habitat of Los Anqeles Pock~t Mouse and Archaeoloqical Sensit'ive Area RS, Residential Suburban General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: RS. Residential Suburban B. ~tlY]~9l:l~f;mbL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. Ea..~b F,e~Q.l1 rces Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or x fill) of lO,OOO cubic yards or more? b. Development and/or grading on x a slope greater than l5% natural grade? c . Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies x Zone? d. Modification of any unique x geologic or physical feature? \... ~ REVISED '211; 7 PAGE' OF 8 o o , Maybe "" e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? g. ,Development subject mudslides, other similar I h. Other? within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? 2. bIR_RESQYRCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial an effect quality? emissions or ambient air air upon b. The creatio~ of objectionable odors? c. Development within a high wind x hazard area? 3. Will the libTE~__~ESOURCES: proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? d , Chanae in the quantity or quality of ground waters? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f, Qther? "'- "EVISED 121.37 Yes x No x x x x x x x x x x x ~ PAGE 2 OF B o o , 4. BIOLOGICbL R~SOURC~9: proposal result in: Could the 6. a. Change unique, species habitat trees? in the number of any rare or endangered of plants or their including stands of Yes x x x x x x x No "" b. Change unique, species habitat? in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their c. Other? 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: Maybe x x x ~ I i I I , '\.. REVISED 10/87 a. Increases in existing noise x levels? b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c. Other? LAND USE: resuit in: Will the proposal a. A change in desig'nated Plan? the land use as on the General b. Development within an Airport District? c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? d. Developmeot witni~ a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? PAGE 3 OF 8 o ~ '...,; ~ Maybe ~ 7. MAN-MADE HA~~N>~: project: Will the a. .Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove create a housing? existing housing or demand for additional' b. Other? 9 . :rBM~~PQBTAT.lllN/C1BS;lJ1ATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on che General Plan? b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? c. I~pact upon existing public . transpolt~tion systems? d. A:~eration of present patterns of ci'rculation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to . vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians? " REVISED tO/87 Yes No x x x x x x x x x x x x ~ PAGE 4 OF 8 o o , Yes Maybe " g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? h. Other? Increase in traffic which ' WOULQ arrect level or serv~ce lO. P~LJ~_SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? Police protection? Schools (Le. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? b. c. d. Parks or other recreational facil ities? e. Medical aid? f. Solid waste? g. Other? 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natu ral gas? 2. Electricity? 3. I'iater? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? <), Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed ut il i ty c. Require the construction of new facilities? '- REVISED 10/87 No x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ~ PAGE 5 OF 8 o .-. \wi r Yes No Maybe " 12. AESTHETJ~: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? x b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? x c. Other? x 13. ~P~TURb~__Ft~QYRCES: proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Could the x b. Adverse impacts histor ic object? physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or x c. Other? x 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section lS06S) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a. Does the project have the potentiQl to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife specie~, cause Q fish or wlldlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate .' '- REV'SED 10/87 ~ PAGE 6 OF 8 ~ - 0 0 , " Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) x x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x x , C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) ---- ------------- -------..---- ------ ~ ~ PEY'SED '10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 - - o '" v ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEASLftES l..a. The proposed project will involve approximately 225,000 cubic yards of cut and 170,000 cubic yards of fill. There will be no export of soil since surplus cut will be eliminated through compaction with fill on the site. The following mitigations apply: 1. Grading bond posted through the City Engineering Department to ensure work is in conformance with Section 7014 (Cl of the Uniform Building Code. 2. 2:1 slopes. 1.c. The northeast tip of the subject site falls ,within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone in that the San Andreas fault is within one-quarter mile north of the property. A preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Roger A. Shervington, P.E. on December 16, 1988, concluded that the site is suitable for single-family residences. This con- clusion is based, in part, on the opinion that fault movement ,will not occur across the site. 1.e. Potential on-site soil erosion during development of the site will be controlled through the following standard mitigations of the Engineering Department: 1. Fugitive dust shall be controlled by" periodic watering of the site. 2. Erosion shall be controlled by the placement of sandbags and/or ground cover, if deemed necessary. 2. a. 'Tu c::it.::-ol fugitive dust produced by the development of the site periodic watering will be required. 2.c. The project lies within a High Wind Hazard Area which o 1""\ V ENVIRONMENTAL EV ALUA nON AND MITIGATION MEASlItES .... requires that all new develop~ent consist of tile roofs with hurricane clips for wind protection. 3.a.b.e. Development of the project site will result in changes to the drainage and flood control patterns and the amount of runoff due to impermeable surfaces. In addition, the proximity of the project to Sycamore and Badger debris basins exposes people and property to potential flood hazards. TWo drainage reports prepared by W. J. MCKeever, Inc., dated Septe~er 21, 1988, and December 1, 1988, have been submitted for the project site. The City Engineering Department has reviewed the reports and has determined that they adequately address the drainage concerns associated with the project. Based on the reports, the following mitigations shall be required: 1. Improvements to Badger and Syca~ore shall include lowering the bottom existing levee to increase capacity with the reports. debris basins and raising in accordance 2. A 51-inch storm drain shall be constructed in "I" Street fro~ the project site to Northpark Boulevard, then east to "H" street, then south to 40th and then east to discharge into the Little Mountain Basin. A City Water tank with a capacity of approximately 2.5 million gallons is located approxi~ately 400 feet north of the project site. An analysis prepared July 1, 1989, by W.J. McKeever Inc. was submitted to the City Engineering Department and was determined to be adequate. The analysis assessed possible impacts if the tank were to rupture and recommends a dike be constructed to convey possible flows into "H" Street which could handle potential flows. The following mitigation is required: ' 1. An earthen dike three feet in height shall be constructed from the water tank to "H" street. '" o o r NMENTAL EV ALUA TlON AND MIi'1GA TION MEA~ES ENVIRO. . 4.b. The project site is located near an area designated as a habitat of the Los ,Angeles Pocket Mouse which is designated as a Federal Candidate Species category 2. The United states' Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that this animal may warrant consideration as an endangered species and recommends a study be conducted to determine the extent of the Pocket Mouse's habitat on the project site. ., A biological survey,dated April 7, 1989, prepared by O'Farrell Biological Consulting was submitted. The report concludes"that no possibility exists for the past or future occupation of the site by the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse. This conclusion was based on trappings which resulted in no Los Angles Pocket Mice and a determination that the habitat on the site was not consistent with normal Los Angeles Pocket Mouse habitat. 5.a. The development of the project site will result in an increase in noise levels, mainly attributed to an increase in vehicular traffic. This increase will be small and the resulting impact on the area minimal, since the vehicular noise on the tract will be intermittent and short in duration 6.c.d. The project site is located _ within Foothill Fire Zone "B" which is characterized as a High Fire Hazard area. The following mitigations shall be required: 1. At least two different publicly dedicated ingress egress routes for all residential projects. 2. Minimum 26 foot paved width with parking on one, side of each street. 3. Minimum of 45 feet for cul-de-sac turnarounds, radius of curves, dips. ~. No dead end streets, require temporary cul-de-sac. 5. Maximum street grades at 12-14% all weather, non skid surface. 6. Non-combustible and visible for 100 feet. reflective street marker \. , 4L II ~ o o eNVIRO.~MENT AL EV ALUA TlON AND MITIGATION MEAStR:S ,7. Non-combustj.ble with 3-inch high least 100 feet. and reflective building address lettering and numbers visible at 8. Removal of dead fuel for 10 feet, encourage main- tained vegetation. 9. Thinning and other vegetation modification for 100 feet. 10. Static water sources shall have access on one side of at least 16 feet. 11. A minimum of two private spigots available facing foothills per building. 12. Each hydrant shall be identified with approved blue reflecting street markers. 13. Each cul-de-sac greater than 300 feet in length requires a minimum of one hydrant. 14. Fire flow gpm, duration and according to minimum standards of diction or district. hydrant community spacing' juris- 15. A slope analysis shall be filed with all discre- tionary and nondiscretionary applications, the contour interval shall not be more than 5 feet and indicate a category of 30% and more. 16. Underground utilities for new subdivisions and individual structures. 17. Open ends of tile roofs must be capped with non- ignitable material to prevent bird nests or other combustible material to be located within the roof structure. 18. Decking with exterior materials of at least one hour fire resistant rating. 19. Attic vents under the roof shall be located near the roof edge rather than toward the external wall. other vents covered by 1/4 inch corrosion resistant wire mesh, not to exceed 144 square inches. , 20. No combustible materials such as patio c~vers with plastic, bamboo, straw or fiberglass. \.. o 8 ENVIRO.!'-lMENT AL EV ALUA TlON AND MfTIGA TlON MEASlIIES , 21. Exposed piping shall be non-combustible, all other pipinq underground. 22. Limit all accessory buildinqs, quest housinq and secondary housing to all FIRE ZONE s~andards. 23. UBC exterior one hour fire walls. 24. Require the followinq: UBC noncombustible roofinq materials, non- wood. UBC fire resistant construction materials, noncombustible sidinqs. Chimney spark arrestor, 12 quage wire screen 1/2 inch opening mounted in vertical position visible form ground. structures supported to any deqree by stilts shall have all under floor areas encased to the ground with the same fire retardant material as required for fire walls. Glazed with extra strength glass or double paned glass facing wildlands. Non-combustible fencing materials with gates for access. All new property lines to be placed at top of slopes. 25. Buildable pads on natural slope of less than 30% and adjacent to slopes qreater than 30%, mlnlmum pad setback of 30 feet from edge of slope where slope is qreater than 30 feet inheiqht, unless the entire slop or 100 feet, whichever is less is landscaped and fire resistant vegetation is main- tained by an irrigation system. E. F. G. A. B. C. , D. 26. Install and equip every swimming pool or other significant water source such that the water may be obtained quickly and easily for fire fighting purposes. 27. Firewood stacked on a contour away from home. 28. Fuel tanks shall be located at least 10 feet from building with vegetation clearance. 2~1. Require compaction on all fills. 30. Prior to permit issuance require approval of erosion and drainage control plans prepared by qualified professional for all new projects. o o ENVIRO~MENT ~L EV ALUA T1QN AND MITIGATION MEAStI'ES 31. 'Require project priate Resource control comments referral notices be sent to appro- Conservation District for erosion just for foothill area. 32. Where appropriate in erosion control plan, require fire resistant revegetation for erosion control. 33. Where appropriate, require PUD ation to maintain firebreak zones. Home Owner's Associ- fuel modification 34. Require that before building permits are issued . (individual lots and SUbdivisions) County Fire Warden or appropriate fire district is notified. 35. Require through conditions of CCR's require all transactions disclosure to purchaser of restrictions. approval that new of property involve high fire hazard 36. Attic vents which are placed under must be located near the roof edge toward the external wall. roof overhang rather than 37. Any roof and wall penetrations and appendage shall be constructed of non-combustible materials. 9. a.d.f.h. A Traffic Impact study, prepared by BSI Consultants, Inc. and dated November 28, 1988, has been submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. Based on the City Traffic Engineer's recommendations, traffic congestion and impacts produced by the project shall be mitigated by the following: 1. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of "H" Street and Northpark Boulevard prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the project. lO.c. l;,e Sin Bernardino City Unified School the F,"ans for the project and indicated be subject to school facility fees as Board of Education. District has reviewed that the proj~ct will established by the 12 .b.. o :> eNV1RO.~MENT AL EVALUA TlON AND MfTlGA T10N MEASlfIES In order to reduce any detrimental visual impact of the project on the surrounding area, structures shall be designed to convey a "high quality" image including: 1. The use of architectural design styles which complement and do not dominate the environmental setting. 2. The use of building materials, colors, and forms which contribute to a "neighborhood" character and which a.re in harmony with the environmental setting. 13.a. The project site is located within an area of archaeological concern. A cultural assessment of the project site was conducted during March 1989 by victor c. Oe Munck,/Ph.O. of Archaeological and Ethnographic Field Associates. A field survey of the site found no cultural resources. However, should subsurface cultural deposits be exposed during development, construction shall be halted until these resources are evaluated and appropriate protection/data recovery measures are taken. PCAGENDA:TT13554.IS -, ""'l DETERMI~A1'JON On the basis of this initial study, o The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMEt~AL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q o ENVIRONMENi'AL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Ann Larson-Perbix Name and,Title / -'- , , -, .. "" . ... I ~'..:.~l_. . -,,' Signature - j- .' J-" . Date: "-.', -' J '"' .-, I'''''': . -ll\'-; ,..., . I \. ~ AE'II::f~) 1;:/~7 PAGE 8 OF '; " , . ~ OTTACHMENT "F" ,....." v ., -'- .. ;;1- ~.. I"J I . "'.. ,I ! ~. .., g~~gl~ · hi ;~ih i-II' _c.~. I'i: V-, -e. '.iit.~" I\~' ,~:'d".1J'" , "~~-.I:,4~ r....:.~ \~ ..10 \" \~... \ ~ ~'('('i,^ ',l'ft"" r, ".~.,. .~... '<. .' :s,.'. ~ .:t~.. .",,.,'ttf;} ':-:- .. .. ~ ! j :p~I-~ ~1: I ".., "" . . . 1-. _. ~~ .', . " ~ :1..... ~ ..1 ~ -. 1:1 11......4.:' ,.....'.111 ,'.:1 _ : :1'" Ii r.1111....~1 ~ '! ;!IiJi;. h,..!1 !1:;II.1 1!l11'1~I'lt I I !li ~!! II & i '.. ATTACHMENT "G" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATION ///1]} BLVD C ""'0" "11M .flf . : AGENDA ITEM # CASE TTl3554 HEARING DATE 8-8-89 1 " " ~I-. . .... .