The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About43-Public Works ., CI., 1 OF SAN BERNARD[ :0 - REQUl ;T FOR COUNCIL AC.. .ON From: Michael W. Loehr Interim Director of Planning Planning Subject: Ap~eal of Review of Plans #88-60 '-'dpt: Date: August 31, 1988 Mayor and September Council Meeting of 19, 1988, 2:00 ~ Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous Council action. On June 2, 1988, the Development Review Committee denied Review of Plans No. 88-60 due to noncompliance with the applicable zoning setback, parking and circulation requirements. On August 16, 1988, the Planning commission unanimously denied the applicant's Appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-60. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Council deny the Appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-60. ilJlKLitU d Signature Michael W. Loehr Contact person: Michael W. Loehr Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N / A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: uncil Notes: 75-0262 Ag~nda Item NO.-~~.c1- CI' , OF SAN BERNARD. JO - REQU~ IT FOR COUNCIL At, . tON STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-60 Mayor & Common Council Meeting - September 19, 1988, 2:00 P.M. REQUEST The applicant, Michael Palmer & Associates representing M.S. Partner- ship, is appealing the denial of Review of Plans No. 88-60 by the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission on appeal. BACKGROUND Review of Plans No. 88-60, requesting approval to construct a 4,612 square foot multi-tenant retail building at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane, was denied by the Development Review Committee on June 2, 1988. The denial was based on failure to meet setback requirements, insufficient parking and dangerous circulation both on and off-site. On August 16, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the applicant's Appeal of Development Review Committee's denial. The subject parcel was created as the result of condemnation pro- cedures commenced by the City on July 18, 1985. The City condemned land adjacent to and south of this site to construct the westerly extension of Hospitality Lane to connect with Waterman Avenue. On March 12, 1987, Court Case No. 228191 concluded with a judgment that the City pay the property owner a total of $418,000.00. This payment included the fair market value of the land occupied by Hospitality Lane, severance damage for the triangular-shaped parcel in question. The parcel is unbuildable due to a 100 foot setback along the flood control channel, the 30 foot setback along Hospitality Lane estab- lished by Rancon Development (Tentative Tract No. 12034) and the 50 foot structural, 20 foot landscaping setbacks along Waterman Avenue established by the Interim Policy Document. The attached memo from the Public Works Department addresses the driveway access problems to the parcel and indicates "that any driveway there would totally disrupt travel through the intersection for all directions." CONCLUSION The City paid severance damage for this parcel because the severed, remaining triangularly-shaped parcel is unbuildable. The various setback requirements cannot be met. Driveway access would cause severe traffic flow disruption at the corner of Hospitality Lane and Waterman Avenue. 75-0264 CI1 ~ OF SAN BERNARDI 0 - REQUl )T FOR COUNCIL AC'., ..ON STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-60 Mayor & Common Council Meeting - September 19, 1988, 2:00 P.M. MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS The Mayor and Council may deny the Appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-60, or uphold the Appeal and approve Review of Plans No. 88-60. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the Appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-60. Prepared by: John E. Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner for Michael W. Loehr, Interim Director of Planning JM:cms Attachments: "A" - Letter of Appeal "B" - Public Works Department Memo "c" - Planning Commission Staff Report 75-0264 Thank !fou fait !fault COTUlLdeltatLon. ectluLL~ Au6miHed, ) -d&~ fl/IJ[s B. BOL TON f!JICH&1L tpA!XJ? & ASSOCIAT[S fYJ[J:f}6 CC: f!J.S. ?A'R.TNWHIF Ci. !Jot/!J f!J tpA T. RlLLtJ? ATTACHMENT "A" REf::"'.;-- ~_~ .. ' ,. -::; ~ ''''0 "....,.- ",. ,~. 2 t.~ ;",...:'.) l) ~!.,,- August 17, 1988 ;- .. ., Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino Civic Center c/o City Clerks Office 300 North 'D' Street San Bernardino, Cal1fornia 92418-0001 ; i; I , '. I L::,: "\1" (~;" '.:::;~t"~ I~ l.t:,'J \.A.\.. [ I . . .t: .' -: .:. 1-. .~'.~' :';:~~i'~f c.."' 't !t" ;--". ;~ ...,;...~ I C;\ ~".',.J ......,.".l.....I. - I Re: M.S. Partnership Commercial Retail Center located at the Northeast corner of Waterman Avenue &. Hospitality Lane ~ At a meeting ol the San Bernardino Planning Commission held on 8/16/88, our petition lor construction ol a 4621 square loot commercial retail center, located in the C-3A zone, was denied. The basis for denial was setback requirements. .. Please accept this letter as our lormal request to the City Council lor appeal for Plans 88A-.s-2.60 Please inlorm Margie Thomas, ol our office, regarding the hearing date and time. Respectfully submitted, MICHEAL PALMER PRINCIPAL MEP:ms cc: M.S. Partnership G. Dowd T. Fuller << AtYDl:.JJ. b U W1 Po -\-TA.c..H ~ A :DJ)E.J.JDO M s/~~ leg ( '\\-.\8. C \, '( o-r SAN ~ '=.R.N ItrcDl ~o QLANN i t\l& ::DE.:PA~"ME:.NT I~ ~\\LL 12EQuleL~('- Q \DD' SE.T !:SAC K FQD\;V\ SAoJ -n tv) o-tE:o CR.E:~.d( E V5;.~ \r\O\JG ~-\. <T\-\E A PPL\ c~ NT \-\AS SOBrvlITTED , DeA~'1\\6~ ~ l)OGO\I11EN..T~lDN SA-r lS~1' "-lG- 'REQL)leE.}.~ E.NTS OF- THE FLOOD CONTQC9L l)(~r~\cT. -n-\E Crr\( STATES l\~J\-r "11-\1:: SUBJ Ec..T S.lTt: \ ~ LJ N BUt LDAJSL~ ::DVE. \0 S 12E ..Tt\c-- A?PL\CANT 1SE:LIE:VD -rf\-f)\ ,HE .s\TE l S 1\,\0-,- UNBU\l.bA~LE {~ T~L2 1 ~O' $ ~ -r BAq<.. RE ~U\ ~Efi\~ f\t '\ (5 RE~vE.P.. ~- - I. ",,-- , - c: :..-- lJ') I '" C ~ C:: u... u co L.L.' fO Q: ~A1J K. au .~ f'I\.'"PA ATTACHMENT "B" I-&elYl A ~3 ~'2-<DO ~ l;::j !-= :-: \',r! ~ r;;1 :;:1 \'.n :: ,j \~ -- \ 'Iii '\ .;:, ,_J - - L0 AUG 1 5 1988 C I T Y ~ o F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 ~ Ql INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ~, 8808-602 '.J Ll TO: JOHN MONTGOMERY, Planning Department --,~ ''"\'''''E~'T CITY ?LMJN1~~G LJ::.:';" ;-.1,";1-1'1 SAN BEnNAnDl~O, CA FROM: GENE R. KLATT, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Access Control and Flood Control Setback - Waterman at Hospitality DATE: August 12, 1988 (7530) COPIES: Mike Grubbs, File No. RP-88-52 ------------------------------------------------------------- You had requested information on the access control require- ments and the flood zone setback for the northeast corner of Waterman Ave. at Hospitality Lane. The lOa-foot setback from the San Timoteo Creek is based on this area being shown as Flood Zone A on the most recent Firm Maps. Municipal Code Section 15.72 establishes construction control in Zone A areas and the lOa-foot setback has long been used by the City as a reasonable mitigation measure. It is used extensively along San Timoteo Creek in the area west of Waterman and for the Tri-City Development on the east side of Waterman Ave. With respect to this parcel, the Department has always indicated that the lOa-foot setback would not be necessary if full channel improvements were installed to the river to provide protection to the property and remove it from the Zone A designation. As for access control (not permitting driveways), Waterman Ave. is a major north south arterial with an anticipated ADT of 60,000 vehicles per day. The intersection at Hospitality is a difficult intersection now and will be more difficult in the future. Intersection and street capacity would be drastically reduced if access to driveways was permitted in this area. The entire frontage to the Santa Ana River Bridge is so controlled to allow for the required capacity. This particular parcel is so close to the intersection that any driveway there would totally disrupt travel through the intersection for all directions. This area has been studied in no less than four traffic engineering studies and all have reached the same conclusions. That is, the intersection is operating or will operate at level of service F and measures need to be taken to provide additional capacity. As a further note, in court proceedings on the compensation to the owner of this parcel, the property owner's attorney established that this parcel was unbuildable to the ~ourt in order to establish just compensation. It seems that if the court has already deemed this parcel unbuildable and ordered INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8808-602 Access Control and Flood Control Setback Hospitality August 12, 1988 Page 2 Waterman at payment based on this, it should be evident that it is indeed unbuildable, for the present. Should you have additional questions or need more informa- tion, please contact me. Cordially, ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Directo~ of Public Works/City Engineer '- / j) l// fY ~~'A-',(/!,{:l' GENE R. KLATT Assistant City Engineer GRK/ckc TACHMENT "c" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 2 8/16/88 1 l&J en <t u APPLICANT: Michael Palmer & Assoc. 3403 Hancock Street San Diego, CA 92110 OWNER: M. S. Partnership 1634 Adams Avenue Orange, CA 92667 REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 88-60 ~ UJ ::> o La.I a: "" <t l&J a: <;t The applicant requests approval to construct a 4,612 square foot multi-tenant retail center. The subject site is lcc~ted at the northeast corner of Hospitality Lare and Waterman Avenue on a 21,240 square foot parcel in the C-3A zone. I PROPERTY ( Subject North South East ,West i EXISTING LAND USE IPD DESIGNATION MU-2 MU-2 MU-2 MU-2 MU-2 ZONING C-3A C-M C-M C-M C-3A Vacant CO Vacant Flood Cont.Channel Commercial 6Zkv E S FLOOD HAZARD Ga YES C SEWERS KXYES ) ONO ZONE ONO ONO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I r~ ~ y BYES REDEVELOPMEN HAZARD ZONE ~O CRASH ZONE PROJECT AREA ONO ~ o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNI FICANT Z 0 APPROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0 I- I WITH MITIGATING - 0 ffi ~ I MEASURES NO E.I.R. ~ CONDITIONS o EXEMPT DEI R REQUIRED BUT NO lL,,0 @ :EZ lL"Z DENIAL Z- SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS UJ 00 ;::E Ia:Z! WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO \--1 MEASURES (I):E [j 0 o NO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS U SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED ER. C. l&J EFFE CTS MINUTES a:: NOli 198\ REVISED JULY 1982 SKY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE RP 88-60 OBSERVATIONS AGENOA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 2 8/16/88 2 r 1 . REQUEST The applicant requests the Planning Commission to reverse the decision of the Development Review Committee to deny Review of Plans No. 88-60. The proposal is to construct a 4,612 square foot multi-tenant retail building on a 21,240 square foot parcel located in the C-3A zone. The site is designated MU-2 on the Interim Policy Document Map (see Attachment "B", Letter of Appeal) . 2. LOCATION The triangularly-shaped parcel is locatel on the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and hvspitality Lane. It is bounded on the northeasterly side by a flood control channel. (See Attachment "GII, Location Map. ) 3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code as shown in Attachment "A". The proposed project is inconsistent with Policy #19 of the Interim Policy Document as shown in Attachment "A". However, the proposed land use is consistent with the Interim Policy Document Map. 4. CEQA STATUS The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA, Section 15300.1. 5. BACKGROUND The subject parcel was created as the result of condemnation procedures commenced by the City on July 18, 1985. The city condemned land adjacent to and south of this site to construct the westerly extension of Hospitality Lane to connect with Waterman Avenue. Prior to the City's action, this parcel, and the land used to construct Hospitality Lane, were included as a portion of the larger lot which is now the southeast corner of Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane. (See Attachment II 0", Air Photo.) j \.. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT <.;ASE RP 88-60 OBSERVATIONS AGENOA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 2 8/16/88 3 r On March 12, 1987, court case number 228191 concluded with a judgment that the City pay the property owner a total of $418,000.00. This payment included the fair market value of the land occupied by Hospitality Lane, severance damage for the triangularly-shaped parcel in question, and interest. It is important to note th~ City paid severance damage for this parcel due to the creation of an unbuildable parcel. The parcel is unbuildable due to a 100 foot setback along the flood control channel, the 30 foot setback along Hospitality Lane established by Rancon Development (TT #12034) and the "substantial" (determined to be 50 feet structural with 20 feet of landscaping) along Waterman Avenue as established by the Interim Policy Document (see Attachment "E", Buildable Area). On March 19, 1987, th~ City paid the prescribed $418,000.00 to Pinky Brier, the property owner. Subsequently, the property went into escrow with M.S. Partnership. On May 17, 1988, an application was submitted to the Planning Department for Review of Plans No. 88-52. The proposal was to construct a 5,250 square foot retail center at the site. On June 2, Development failure to parking and 1988, the application was denied by the Review Committee. The denial was based on meet setback requirements, insufficient dangerous circulation both on and off-site. On June 7, 1988, the applicants submitted an application for Review of Plans No. 88-60 which is the subject of this appeal. The proposed building area had been reduced, however, setback and landscape requirements had not been met, circulation was inadequate and parking was not met. (See Attachment "F", site Plan.) On June 23, 1988, Review of Plans No. 88-60 was denied by the Development Review Committee (See Attachment "G", Denial Letter.) On July 5, 1988, a letter of appeal of the DRC decision was delivered to the Planning Department. Although the letter of appeal exceeded the alotted ten day appeal period, the appeal was accepted due to City Hall closure for the Fourth of July Holiday. (Attach. "B") 6. ANALYSIS The proposed project, 4,612 square feet of retail space requires 19 parking spaces by Code. Parking shown on the plan included 18 spaces. However, ten of those spaces are located in the required landscaped setback ~ \... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNINt;~SEDE~~~T~ENT OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 2 8/16/88 4 r along Waterman. Ingress/egress to the site is provided by a 25 foot two-way driveway on Hospitality Lane adjacent to the flood control channel. Due to the elevation of the Hospitality Lane bridge over the flood control channel, entering and exiting the parcel could be dangerous. In addition, the Engineering Department spoke of plans for a landscaped median in Hospitality Lane which eventually would prohibit left turns into and out of the site. .., Proposed internal circulation throughout the site is via a 15 foot wide, one-way drive aisle. The refuse enclosure, located at the northerly end of the drive aisle is unserviceable by the Refuse Department. This is due to the fact that the refuse trucks cannot negotiate the tight radius turn created by the 15 feet drive aisle. This drive aisle however, which is situated in the first 15 feet of the property abutting Waterman, is virtually eliminated when setback requirements are imposed. The project shows no interior landscaped setback ,along Waterman. When the City constructed the Hospitality Lane Bridge, channel improvements imposed equalled what the Engineering Department required for this site, and all sites which abut the channel. That setback is 100 feet structural, or total improvement of the channel. The site plan shows a 30 foot building setback from the unimproved channel. When Rancon Realty developed Tri-City Corporate Center, the recorded Tract #12034 indicated 30 foot minimum setbacks throughout. Tri-City redevelopment project requires 20 foot from curb face setbacks. The Interim Policy document, adopted by the City Council on May 23, 1988, amended June 6, 1988, and approved by the state June 9, 1988 designates the site MU-2. This mixed use allows general commercial, commercial office and light industrial uses. Compatible zones include C-2, C-3, C- 3A, C-M, M-1 and M-1A. Policy #19 of the Interim Document states: "Setbacks on Waterman Avenue from Avenue shall be substantial landscaped." 1-10 to Rialto and heavily "Substantial" has been interpreted to be the most restrictive compatible zone requirements, those of the M-1A district. The requirements include a 50 feet from ~ "'-- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNINc~ED~; ~~~MENT OBSERVATIONS AGENCA ITEM . 2 HEARING CATE R / 1 ~ / 88 PAGE , property line structural which must be landscaped. setback, the first 20 feet of This requirement is ignored. """ 7. CONCLUSION The appeal is based on the fact that when City setback requirements are met, the parcel is unbuildable. The proposed project was denied because setback requirements of the City deem the parcel unbuildable. The City has paid severance damage to the property owner because the subject parcel was severed from the larger parcel when the Hospitality Lane extension was constructed. The City paid that severance damage because the severed, remaining, triangularly-shaped parcel is unbuildable. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS The Planning commission may: 1. Uphold the appeal and approve Review of Plans NO. 88-60: or 2. Deny the appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-60. 9. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Planning Commission deny the appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-60. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL W. LOEHR Interim Director of Planning .. ,/ .; .-----;-) 2L~ Ju \~~i:y-- Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner SP:cms ~ "-- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE' RP 88-60 OBSERVATIONS 2 8/16/88 6 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ,. Attachment "A" Municipal Code & General Plan Conformance Attachment "B" Letter of Appeal Attachment "C" Air Photo Attachment "0" Buildable Area Attachment "E" Site Plan Attachment "F" Denial Letter, Issue 1.0. Attachment "G" Location Map pcagenda.rp88600 8/2/88 \... Attachment "A" - '?" ... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT (,ASE RP 88-60 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 2 HEARING DATE 8/16/88 PAGE 7 . - , MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORlIANCE H!TERH1 POLlC:; CATEGORY PROPOSAL MUNICIPAL CODZ DGCUt'iENT Land Use Retail General Commercial IL, CG, CO, CR Setback Tri City (Waterman) 0 5' 30 ' (TT 12 0 3 4 ) 50 ' Structural 20' Landscaped (Hospitality) 20 5 ' 30' 30' (Flood Control) 30 100' Parking 18 19 N/A " '" ~ Attachment "?" -- ---- --~ ~ ~ ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ..I. F. Davidson Associates. Inc. ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE July 5, 1988 Planning Commission R. Ann Siracusa A.I.C.P. Director of Planning RE: Application 88A-60, Appeal of Development Review Committee Action of June 23, 1988 Dear Ms. Siracusa: On behalf of the June 23, Committee on notification our client please accept this letter of appeal of 1988 action of denial by the Development Review the above mentioned application. Please provide as to scheduled date of nearing by your Commission. Our appeal is based of the City are undevelopable. on our position that the setback requirements unduly restrictive and render the site If you have any questions, please call me at 714-686-0844 or John Rumsey at 619-291-0224. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, v --\6~ Tom G. Nievez project Manager TGN:czh fG-": Ii: 1 :"'-' .: .. \ r1 r: I ~' ~ " r", ;.- "'"' . I .>:! -$ 198fi cc: John Rumsey r- \", ,'~ '.' \ : :'1': (",:. 'l,l.LJ.: 71.0'ii,' ~,'-, P.llm llf' .1 ,'1 ( \(j1 C))~...lo ';" fAX Fil~' <.:I' ,t, '11,1 ~ I()(; (~ ~~1: '':''f~11):\ ,\ ,": ()IJllf. '"[) 7' :. ;j::'::> ;OH) --.- ....ach _ me n t " C '" ---- ~o~ndary rl.ginal Bound . ary Severed of Parcel of Parcel . . ~ A'T'TACHr.1ENT "0" .3?' 4IA1I-PIN6- SET ( &I1~k FIf&l'1 C u~1J ,qCE Q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ ~ \ .. \ " \ \ , ~ \ ... C) \ ..... '" ~I I I I I I I I I I . / ,:,0 / . ~' / ,/ - ... ~ ~ ,-. , " '\ \1\ \ \ \ \ \ I , \ ." "- ~ ----- -~O' ;(//LOIN6 SET "'A~<' LINE (. L.J1NIJSCJ:lPE: 5Atflfc AS TK"/~034)"' /t!J::J. 4::1 ----------------- - ~ 'fIlA 'E~I_7A~' !WE. ~ ~ '\J t: " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~'l ~ g f: I I I I I I I~ .> IfTi .It I~ I I> .< I~ i~ I ~ '" ex:> ex:> > I (j'I o ~. tJ. III ~ :I: ~ :z ? 8 3f . Q Q 0 ~ Jt;' u F . "' \'" - -~.-. ~.-' ~~,..tt:\:0. - . ATTACHMENT "E" -~~-'- ..~ /~"...........", , :- ' ,,-:--: .~ ',. . ,,..'\. '_ I _"""" . ... /' .,..,-..... ,,,,.10. ,~--", '. '-:::" - . -' I 'i I . ~...... '. .,. -.: :.~! ~, ""TACHMENT "F" CITY OF '--- - . ";-'5 1) '-,' _r . ..II "):'i~/Y- an e:rnardino ~~. PLANNING DEPARTMENT R ANN SIRACUSA, A C P DIRoCTOR OF p~"~~ING June 30, 1988 Michael Palmer & Associates Attn: John Rumsey 3403 Hancock Street San Diego, CA 92110 RE: Review of Plans No. 88A-60 Dear ~r. Rumsey: On June 23, 1988, the above Review of Plans application was reviewed by the Development Review Committee. The following action was taken. x Denied based on the following: See attached Issue Identification Form. If the item was continued, it will be rescheduled for Development Review Committee when a revised plan and/or additional information items have been submitted to the Planning Department. If you have any questions, contact this office at (714) 384-5057. Sincerely, ~rp~ Sandra Paulsen Senior Planner Attachment SP / lj cc: ~S Partnership 1634 Adams Avenue Orange, CA 9266J cc: Elliot Shaw 22400 Barton Rd., Suite 20e Grand Terrace, CA 923~ t) ;> , .. J ~ " ::J '3 ':" ::J ~ N BERNARDINQ .) :1 1'4/314.5057 ... . . .ISSUE IDENTIFICATION. -FORM . . . REVIEW OF' PLANS No. . I . I q~A -Go The following issues were addressed at the Development Review Committee meeting of I..../;l a I g,&, and are intended to assist the applicant in preparing an amended site ~I ' plan. ISSUES: 1. Site Plan lay-out / Building Orientation: 2. Elevations: 3. Spth:lC'ko:;: 4. l.ot Coverage: 5. Circulation: (l CJ ~~( ~~() ~ L-u4 Sd:b ~ ~ f2-t. ~. ~C.~*5' ~_ . '-be2~~_ AUO. '04 .kJ o He. FORM E f'AGE I Of .. . ! ). Handired. Parking' Access: ~ ~ ~ 11- I ~ -r4 1J1R "~~6 -tC:. ~ ~ W-I cl.~ 8. Landscaping: Ib9;(~ ~ ~ ~(~7 lA ~ ~ 9. Walls & Screening: 10. Refuse Container Location & Access: IA.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ vt G--a~ ~;;;'J~ 11. Geology & Liquefaction: Ji.~6 lI~J-t-~v',~ 12. Grading: 13. AUG, '114 .~, lUte. rON" t:: PAGE 2 Of 4 14. Fire: "/1.f> 15. ~ater & Sewer: ~ ., 16, ,Schools: Y1.-c ~~ 17. Police: ~~ 1~, Building & Safety: ~ J1.f/ ~ 19, Redevelopment Area: y. e-i--h, - rvt~ ~ ~ J-eU~ {r~~ . ./ ' 20, San Bernardino State College: 21. Flood Control District / Hazard: ~4' -Me(. AUG. '84 .kr /7 I!/- ! /tJtJ/ r ~ ORe. fORM E PAC.E :s Of 4 .- 22: Airport Landuse District: 23. Other: I, as applicant or designated representative for the above referenced project. acknowledge receipt of this form. Signature Applicant AUO, '84 akr Date llAt. fOAM E PAGE 4 Of 4 ATTACHMENT n, .., AGENDA ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATION o I \A M-I M-I C-3A C-3A 3 ~.A r LH ~ iA c-~~ Jl I.~ ;TATE ~ ~ ! ... .... .... \t ( --- 0 tl Goc1 ~ ?""---- .::::-..--....:--- CASE RP 88-60 2 HEARING DATE 8/16/88 w): , "; 800' M-I M-I . . ~ C tl1'i 5: e. GO~) "0" CoM CoM . . "0" "0" CoM C ' .-- CoM CoM CoM CoM (,\ CoM C-3A CoM C-3A HO!lPtT&L1y _ lilt C-3A <t L C>3A \ ~ R COM CoM C -M CoM COM C.M CoM M -I CoM CoM M-I ,,_ a. TR - \4SPORTATION/FLOOD Cf''\ITROL. DEPARTMENT - .. ,~\\II"I~~/ '~t~.... ~ .... -=: =:- -:;::.- ..;;:- ....~ ~, /1f'II,,\\\~' COUNTY OF SAN I"~~NARDINO ENVIRONM. AL PUBUC WORKS AGENCY 825 EU1 third Street. San Bern_dino, CA 92416-0835 · (7141381.2800 RECEIVED-en ~ CLER~ "89 JAN 13 P 3 :06ecanber KEN A. MIUER Director 8, 1988 File: 3-410/1.00 ., \/' '.. , \, !J~ '- "; f/., Den ~;=1 t., /,~".- '}i <'"C''' .,,",.' '':'' "''1 '-,',_ ~..., _. " J . . I Mr. Roger Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: .......,: 7'''''~-r As discussed in our meeting with Councilwanan Estrada and representatives-trclnIa-" Mancha Developnent at the City offices on November 30, 1988, the following information is provided to clarify the District's position with respect to the proposed developnent, located at the northeast corner of Waterman Avenue and Hospitality Lane. The parcel is triangular in shape, bounded on the northeasterly side by the San Tim:>teo Creek Channel. On September 21, 1987, District staff met with representatives of La Mancha Developnent and, as a result of this meeting, agreed to the following conditions for the developnent. A. In lieu of a 28-foot dedication for future .inq:>rovements of the channel by the Corps of Engineers, a 28-foot building setback line from Distr ict right-of-way YA:>uld be established and an access easement granted to the District for use in its maintenance and operation of the channel. There were to be no obstructions located within the 28-foot wide strip. B. As an option to the normal 100-foot building setback line for. this channel, the setback could be reduced bv oroviding building" footings or a structural wall that would mitigate erosional---' problems that could De expecteCr along the channel bank in this area. The District considered this site to be a unique location as existing channel controls are located at the upstream and downstream boundar ies of the project site in the form of br idge structures at road crossings. It was felt that these crossings do help to preclude erosion fran .inq:>inging upon the site. Coupled with a structural wall fran awroximately crossing to crossing, the erosional problan with the bank could be mitigated. This change in setback requirement should not be construed as a change in the District's long-standing position that developments should ei ther set back adequate distances fran the channel or provide canplete hard lining of the channel section. A similar project, for example, in a reach of channel not protected by nearby bridge crossings YA:>uld, undoubtedly, be required to setback 100 feet or nore or provide canplete channel lining for a much greater distance than the developnent boundary. Marsha Turoci Roger Hardgrave December 8, 1988 Page 'rOO c. The building pad be elevated appropriately in accordance with FEMA guidelines. D. Chain link fencing should be provided along Flood Control District right~f-way adjacent to the development. The fence should include removable sections that could accoImlodate District maintenance activities. Also, as discussed, no design for the necessary structural walll has been provided to, or approved by the District as of the date of this letter. If you have any further questions, please call me at 387-2623. Very truly yours, ~o..~ Km A. MII.J..m Director KAM: rc cc: CLL/pJMjVM:-Reading File