HomeMy WebLinkAbout51-Planning DepartmentCI`. I OF SAN BERNARDI..0 - REQUE-.,T FOR COUNCII. AC . SON
Michael W. Loehr Appeal of Tentative Tract
From: Interim Director of Plann~'~.-A~~.~'~o. 13307 -Planning Commission
Denial
Dept: Planning ~ ~~ ~ #;
yor and Council Meeting of
Date: September 23, 1988 October 3, 19 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous Council action.
On August 9, 1988, the Planning Commission by a 3 to 3 vote, with one
abstention and two absent, effectively denied Tentative Tract No. 13307.
According to the Bylaws of the Commission, if there is not a majority
vote on an item, then the item is not approved.
Recommended motion:
That the appeal be denied and that Tentative Tract No. 13307 be denied
based upon the conclusion that the necessary off-site Verdemont Area
infrastructure master plan, implementing financing and subsequent
environmental review of those elements has not been completed.
.. ,,
i
Signature
Michael W. Loehr
Contact person: Michael W. Loehr Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: n/a
Source: {Acct. No.?
Acct. Descri tion
Finance:
~~
Council Notes:
•~
~s-o2e2 Agenda Item No ~,
CI'; ' OF SAN BERNARD( D - REQUE T FOR COUNCIL AC : DN
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 13307 - Planning
Commission .Denial
Mayor and Council Meeting of October 3, 1988, 2:00
p.m.
REQUEST
The applicant, McKeever, Inc. on behalf of Mirna-Overland
Enterprises, is appealing the effective denial of Tentative
Tract No. 13307 by the Planning Commission. The applicant
requests that the Mayor and Council reconsider the effective
denial of the project and approve of the tract proposal.
BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract No. 13307, requesting approval of a 70 lot
%' subdivision located between Belmont and Irvington Avenues in
the Verdemont Area, was effectively denied by the Planning
Commission on August 9, 1988. The Planning Commission's vote
~.,~ for a motion of denial was as follows:
AYES: Corona, Lindseth, Nierman
NAYS: Brown, Lopez, Sharp
ABSTAIN: Stone
ABSENT: Cole, Gomez
According to the Bylaws of the Commission, if there is not a
majority vote on an item, then the item is not approved.
Attached are the minutes of the August 9, 1988 Planning
Commission meeting outlining the concerns of the citizens and
the Planning Commission, as well as the original Planning
Commission staff report of July 19, 1988.
The testimony presented at the August 19, 1988 Planning
Commission meeting by the neighboring landowners and the
subsequent Planning Commission discussion have raised impor-
tant issues concerning adequate infrastructure planning and
environmental review for this tentative tract proposal.
The main issue raised at the Planning Commission meeting was
the consideration of infrastructure programming and timing.
A Verdemont Area public facilities master plan and its
subsequent implementation financing program have not been
finalized, formally adopted and authorized. If the appro-
priate infrastructure plan and the financing. program are not
developed in advance or in conjunction with the tract revive,
then the mitigation conditions would not be complied with in
an appropriate manner. .This problem would then invalidate
75-0264
Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 13307
Mayor and Council Meeting of October 3, 1988
Page 3
the adoption of a Negative Declaration for the environmental
impacts of the proposed tract. For example, if flood control
mitigation measures were indicated to be needed, they must be
built prior to occupancy of residences in the tract. This
would not be possible, unless the full extent of the needed
flood control measures had been analyzed, and a financing
plan agreed upon in advance or in conjunction with tract
approval. An appropriate environmental review is also not
possible when the infrastructure elements are not specifi-
cally detailed in advance of that review.
Predetermining the needed infrastructure elements, their
costs and their financing methods is needed. The financing
plan, in particular, could become very complicated because of
recent legislation concerning development fees (AB 1600).
Under this legislation, the City must (1) identify the
purpose of the fee; (2) identify the use to which the fee
will be put; (3) determine haw there is a reasonable rela-
tionship between the fee's use and the type of development
project on which the fee is imposed (a "type" nexus or
connection); and, (4) determine how there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the public facility and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed (a
"burden" nexus or connection). This process outline maybe
perceived as simple, but it involves the development and
adoption of acceptable "levels of service"; the development
of an infrastructure plan, which identifies the capital
facilities that will be required for the planned population,
densities and land uses, and their phasing and construction
costs; and finally the establishment of legal development
fee(s) based on units of measurement, such as dwelling unit
equivalents, trips generated, etc. The prior planning of
service levels and infrastructure programming becomes
critical in establishing a defensible basis for determining
fees and conditioning approval of a development project.
This needed infrastructure planning has not been completed,
as the testimony during the public hearing has indicated.
A subsequent, related issue is the environmental review of
all the infrastructure elements, including the tract's
relationship to the existing Verdemont Area Plan Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR discusses the environ-
mental issues for the Verdemont Area Plan, but because of the
general nature of the area plan, the environmental issues
were analyzed in a broad, general manner. This approach does
not eliminate the need for further environmental review as
infrastructure and development proposals become finalized and
site-specific. This "tiered" review is required under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, an
environmental analysis of the Verdemont Area infrastructure
plan, once it is formulated, and the specific impacts of this
Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 13307
Mayor and Council Meeting of October 3, 1988
Page 4
development proposal, including its relationship to the
overall infrastructure plan, needs to be performed. However,
as previously stated, the first prerequisite is the infra-
structure plan.
CONCLUSIONS
The Verdemont Area Infrastructure Master Plan, including its
financing, has not been finalized, formally approved and
authorized.
The subsequent environmental analysis of the proposed devel-
opment, as it relates to the infrastructure plan has not been
performed.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Uphold the appeal, approve Tentative Tract No. 13307 subject
to the findings of fact, conditions of approval and standard
requirements listed in the July 19, 1988 staff report, and
adopt the Negative Declaration.
or
?~ Deny the appeal and deny Tentative Tract No. 13307 based upon
~'~ the above conclusions.
RECOMMENDATION
That the appeal be denied, and that Tentative Tract No. 13307
be denied based upon the conclusions that the necessary off-
site Verdemont Area Infrastructure Master Plan, implementa-
tion financing and subsequent environmental review of .those
elements have not been completed.
Attachments: A - Letter of Appeal
B - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
August 9, 1988
C - July 19, 1988 Planning Commission Staff
Report
mkf/9/23/88
M&CCAGENDA:TT13307
m
ATTACHMENT "A"
W. ). McKeever Inc.
Civil Engineering
;~~ . _ .
August 10, 1988
Mayor and Common Council
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Tentative Tract No. 13307
Dear Mayor and Council:
On August 9, 1988, the City Planning Commission heard our application
for Tentative Tract 13307, being a 70 Lot subdivision in the R1-10,800
zone located between Belmont Ave. and Irvington Ave. in the Verdemont
area.
This tract was filed in December of 1986 after completion of the
Verdemont Community Plan. The project was subsequently held up by
the moratorium and reactivated upon the cities adoption of the
Intirum Development Plan.
This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the Verdemont Comm-
unity Plan, the Intirum Development Plan and the City Municipal Code.
[Je are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and the
City Planning Staff has recommended approval of the tract.
On August 8, 1988, the City Planning Commission denied our application
on a three to three vote. The reason for denial appeared to be a dis-
satisfaction ~oith the Infrastructure Plan adopted by the City Council
on May 23, 1988. We have agreed to participate in this infrastructure
plan and are conditioned accordingly.
On behalf of my client, Mirna-Overland Enterprises, I hereby appeal
the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
~-~
Dennis Stafford
DS/Ly
;~G 1 i 1°88
•.. '~•' L'i+
647 North Main Street -Suite 2A - Riverside, California 92501 - Ph. (714) 8245307
..ity of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 7
ATTACHMEP7T "B"
Commissioner Nierman suggested that, if the sewer comes within 200 feet
of the property, it could be required to hook up or an assessment
district could be required to extend sewer lines.
Commissioner Lindseth made a motion to approve Sewer Connection Waiver
No. 88-4 based on the following findings of fact:
1. The Planning Commission determined that the size of the parcel,
coupled with the proposed use, warranted the sewer connection
waiver.
2. The distance from the site of the proposed project to the existing
sewer main poses a natural obstruction to sewer connection.
and subject to the following conditions:
1. Should the sewer main be extended .to within 200 feet of the
subject property, the development shall be required to connect to
the sewer system.
2. This property shall be required to participate in an assessment
district, should one be formed to extend sewer lines to the area.
The motion was seconded by Cmmissioner Stone and carried with all but
the abstention of Commissioner Brown.
John Montgomery, Principal Planner,
propose a change (to the ordinance)
from sewer lines, there could be
Commissioner Nierman suggested that
hook up to the sewer if sewer lines
was the consensus of the Commis.
amendment to the ordinance.
asked if it would be appropriate to
that if the site is beyond 200 feet
an exemption to sewer connection.
there be a mandatory requirement to
are within 200 feet of the site. It
lion to direct staff to prepare an
ITEM NO. 9
Tentative Tract No. 13603 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.2 acres located at the
southeast corner of Ohio Avenue and Chestnut Avenue and having a
frontage of approximately 671.37 feet on the south side of Ohio and a
frontage of 696.52 feet on the east side of Chestnut. The request is
to establish a 33 lot subdivision in the R-1-10,800 Single-Family
Residential zone, designated as RS 10,800 Residential Suburban - 10,800
square foot lots on the Interim Policy Document.
Owner: John Markley
Applicant: Dennis Stafford, McKeever Engineering
Ward 5
Proposed Negative Declaration, Staff Recommends Approval.
(Comments on Item Nos. 9 and 10 were presented and discussed at the
same time. Comments noted here may also apply to Tentative Tract No.
13307, Item No. 10.)
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 8
Vivian Stevens presented comments as contained in staff's report. She
noted that a Negative Declaration for environmental impact is proposed
and the site is in an area of limited environmental constraints. Ms.
Stevens stated that conditions reflect requirements that the olive
trees along the Chestnut Avenue right-of-way and Ohio Street should be
retained to enhance the future equestrian trail to be developed along
the right-of-way, or the trees should be transferred elsewhere on the
site. She noted the infrastructure plan which includes improvements to
the Palm Avenue box culvert, a traffic signal at Palm and Kendall and
.the Bailey Canyon storm drain and debris basin.
Ms. Stevens noted that Chestnut Avenue is to be vacated, although not
required by this tract, to provide for equestrian trails which are to
be developed according to the Verdemont Area Plan. She stated that the
proposed map is conditioned to comply with the requirements of the
Verdemont Area Plan.
Ms. Stevens noted corrections to conditions -- Condition #7 should have
an added sentence that reads, "Where possible, trees are to be saved.";
the last paragraph of standard requirement #5 (#6 for Tentative Tract
No. 13307) is to be deleted, since the Interim Policy Document requires
30 foot setbacks. Ms. Stevens noted that Standard Requirement #13 (for
Tentative Tract No. 13307) is to be deleted. An additional condition
was noted, that "No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued prior to
compliance with standard requirements." She also noted that lots will
back to Irvington and a block wall will be required. A condition is
included requiring the developer to participate in the capital
improvements plan.
Commissioner Stone did not participate in discussion or action taken on
these items in order to avoid a conflict of interest.
Chairman Nierman commented that these items were previously continued
because of concern over Building Code requirements. Ms. Stevens
responded that the Building and Safety Department has adopted the 1985
Uniform Building Code standards and has also required, through resolu-
tion, hurricane clips and the roofs.
Mr. Chris Saldecke, of Falm Avenue, commented that Palm Avenue between
Irvington and Belmont, is 35 feet wide and gets to a narrow two-lane
road of 15 foot wide lanes. He noted a resident who had built an
earthen dam along Chestnut Avenue to protect his property from flood-
ing. Mr. Saldecke submitted photographs showing flood waters that had
gone through the area and noted that there needed to be flood-control
measures on the westerly side of the tracts on Chestnut Avenue to
protect existing residences from flooding.
Mr. Saldecke commented on the Panorama Fire and that it had burned
through the wash, foothills, towards Devore and up to the. corner of
Palm and Belmont.
Ms. Stevens stated that conditions on both tracts require that Palm
Avenue be improved, including curb and gutter.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 9
Mr. Saldecke noted numerous accidents on Palm Avenue, including a.
fatality. He was concerned that there is no real access out of the
area during a rain and they were getting more housing and no improve-
ments are being put in and fees have been collected.
Mr. Glen Gipson, of Palm Avenue, presented a map of the Verdemont Area
with photographs of existing homes in the area. He stated that the
homes are 2,000 to 3,200 square feet in size and all were built with
the idea that the area would stay one-acre lots. Mr. Gipson stated
that the proposed tracts are completely incompatible with the area and
what is existing. He stated that residents had moved to.the area in
order to have more elbow room and their whole lifestyle is going to be
destroyed. Mr. Gipson stated that the City has an Interim Policy
Document that can still be changed and asked why they always had to
settle for the minimum. Mr. Gipson asked the Commission to consider
the people who have been living in the area for quite some time and
that he felt the area should have larger lots. He stated that.resi-
dents were told as much as ten years ago, when they pulled their
building permits, that the area would remain one-acre lots because of
environmental constraints of flooding, high winds, etc.
Mrs. Helen Kopczynski, of Cable Canyon Road, noted that the proposed
projects were reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on May 5,
1988, and wondered how the Committee knew the Interim Policy Document
designation one month before the document was adopted. Mrs. Kopczynski
noted the extension of sewer lines and wondered if these projects
represented "leap frog" development. Mrs. Kopczynski asked what
substantiation there was that olive trees could be transplanted
successfully and if they were located on individual properties, would
the City lose the right to control them. She commented .that the
purpose of saving the olive trees is to have them act as a windbreak
for new homes and as erosion control for run-off from the mountains.
Mrs. Kopczynski expressed concern about the capital improvements and
what would happen to requirements if the plan was challenged. She
commented that the proposals do not conform to Verdemont Area Plan
standards -- that projects follow the natural topography of land and
drainage courses; that there be no new direct access to major or minor
arterials; that a park be established; that site layouts preserve
existing knolls.
Mrs. Kopczynski felt that if staff had requested an Environmental
Impact Report for these projects, issues and questions raised would
have been addressed through that process. Mrs. Kopczynski felt that
the proposed projects were incompatible with what is currently in the
Verdemont Area and a Negative Declaration for environmental impact is
not appropriate.
Some of the questions raised by Mrs. Kopczynski included the following:
an open drainage channel should not be developed through the tracts; is
stair-step grading proposed?; what is the square footage of proposed
homes?; will the finished lots be less than 10,800 square feet?; will
the one-acre or more of parkland (as required under the Verdemont Area
Plan for projects of over 50 lots) be provided?; questions on potential
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 10
flood hazard; question on the tremendous amount of earth movement; who
would be providing an easement on Chestnut Avenue?; where is the
certified statement from the Water Department that they will be able to
adequately service the tracts?
Commissioner Sharp asked Mrs. Kopczynski what she felt staff and the
Planning Commission had not done that they should have done. Mrs.
Kopczynski stated that she felt staff should have been asking hard
questions about whether or not there needed to be an Environmental
Impact Report done. She felt that too many projects were given Nega-
tive Declarations and the process had a big loophole that needed to be
closed.
Ms. Barbara Sky, of 6464 Palm Avenue, commented that at the March 17,
1987 Planning Commission meeting when these items were heard, the
Commission suggested that developers should meet with residents. She
stated that residents were not present this evening because they had
lost faith in the system and the City has completely ignored the pleas
of the residents of the area. Ms. Sky stated that the proposed pro-
jects are not compatible with the area. She noted that the only
improvement to the area since March 17, 1987 was the box culvert above
Belmont Avenue on the Genel property. Ms. Sky stated that she felt the
projects were "leap frog" development. She submitted photographs of
the area, noting that all property owners were not notified.
Ms. Sky commented on the Environmental Review Committee minutes of May
5, 1988, stating the she and Mrs. Kopczynski were present at that
meeting and that was not reflected in the record.
Ms. Kathy Haffis, a resident currently building a home in the area,
stated that they had bought the property under the impression that the
area would remain one-acre lots. She stated that she was not notified
of the hearing and that Planning Department maps are over two years
old.
In regard to Item No. 9, Tentative Tract No. 13603, the applicant, John
Edwins, commented that 48 percent of the tract would have lots of over
10,800 square feet. He stated that the widening of Palm Avenue is
being addressed in the infrastructure plan adopted by the Mayor and
Council. Mr. Edwins noted a history of the project. He stated that it
is consistent with the Verdemont Area Plan and the Interim Policy
Document. He stated that he did not feel that drainage and flooding
problems were as serious as described on Chestnut Avenue and that the
property owner that built the dam was permitted to use the dirt for
fill on his property. Mr. Edwins felt that most concerns expressed by
Mrs. Kopczynski were addressed in staff's report.
Mr. Edwins stated that they had expended funds on fees for improvements
in the area and improvements had been done in other parts of the City.
He stated that there is no particular plan that assesses anyone,
however, Ken Hendersen of Community Development is trying to put
together a plan where properties would be assessed a prorata share for
infrastruacture in Palm Avenue, Bailey Canyon and Chestnut Avenue.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 11
In regard to Item No. 10, Tentative Tract No. 13307, Dennis Stafford,
representing the property owner, commented that the school district has
purchased a ten acre site at Belmont and Palm. In regard to drainage
issues, he stated that.Chestnut Avenue is in the master plan for storm
drain with 48 inch pipe adjacent to both of the proposed projects.
Debris would be handled by construction of a debris basin and a closed
underground culvert and the equestrian trail would qo over the top of
it. Mr. Stafford stated that tracts have been designed to retain the
existing olive trees with homes being shielded from Belmont by the
trees. None of the homes will front on Irvington and all streets are
designated local or local collector. Streets within the tracts will
have 50 foot right-of-way, 36 feet from curb to curb. He stated that
the proposal is consistent with the Verdemont Area Plan and the Interim
Policy Document.
Mr. Stafford stated that a liquefaction study was done by a geologist
and there was not an indication of groundwater problems. He stated
that they had provided the City with an updated mailing list made from
the latest assessor's records available at the time. Mr. Stafford
stated that they are in agreement with all conditions of approval, as
modified, and requested approval of the projects.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
In response to a question from Commissioner Brown as to whether the
Commission could ask questions of Commissioner Stone in regard to his
testimony before the Planning Commission in 1987 as contained in
Planning Commission meeting minutes (before he was a Commissioner),
Attorney Empeno stated that questions could not be asked or responded
to due to conflict of interest rules.
Commissioners commented on the proposals. Commissioner Brown was
concerned that developers get together with residents to come up with a
compromise. Commissioner Lindseth expressed concern that the project
be compatible and complimentary to existing neighborhoods and that
quality of life and compatible lot sizes be maintained. Commissioner
Brown expressed concern that the proposed project lot sizes were not
large enough (need to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet) to
accommodate horses and the equestrian trail would pass by these Lots.
Commissioner Corona was concerned about the hazards that could be
created by going ahead with this project and wanted to see infra-
structure going in in conjunction with building or ahead of it.
Commissioner Lopez concurred with staff's report and felt that all
questions raised had been mitigated through conditions and standard
requirements. Commissioner Lopez made a motion to approve Tentative
Tract No. 13503. There was no second to the motion.
Discussion followed. Commissioner Sharp asked if there had been enough
attention given to the area in regard to traffic safety. Ms. Stevens
responded that the area is not of concern to the Police Department.
Mr. Loehr stated that an outline of the infrastructure plan has been
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page I2
submitted to and approved by the Mayor and Council and they are now
working on the financing plan and it will be going back to the Mayor
and Council for approval of the cost and charge-back fees. He stated
that the Planning Commission has the right to review projects and
determine if all environmental issues have been adequately addressed
and may make recommendations.
Commissioner Nierman commented that what the City does with the Verde-
mont Area can set future history of San Bernardino. He noted that they
had the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission
recommend approval of one-acre lots for the Verdemont Area and the
Mayor and Council went down to 10,800 square foot minimum lots. He
stated that he felt the Mayor and Council were wrong in what they did.
Commissioner Nierman felt that the area should have a Specific Plan or
they would not be able to forsee problems that will affect the overall
area. Commissioner Nierman stated that he would not approve of any of
these developments until he could see an infrastructure plan, and
approval of them without such a plan would be approving blind without
knowing what is going to happen there which is not good planning.
Commissioner Lindseth felt that the position of the Commission was to
provide for the care and concerns of the community. He also stated
that he would like to have all information available so that he could
make an informed decision.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to adopt the Negative Declaration and .
approve Tentative Tract No. 13603 based upon findings of fact contained
in staff's report and subject to the conditions and standard
requirements, with modifications. The motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Sharp and did not carry with the vote as follows:
AYES: Brown, Lopez, Sharp
NAYS: Corona, Lindseth, Nierman
ABSTAIN: Stone
ABSENT: Cole, Gomez
Since the motion did not carry a majority vote, the item is deemed to
be denied.
Tentative Tract No. 13307 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 22.7 acres having a frontage
of approximately 680 feet on the north side of Irvington and a frontage
of 680 feet on the south side of Belmont and being located
approximately 720 feet west of the centerline of Palm Avenue. The
request is to establish a 70 unit single-family subdivision in the R-1-
10,800 Single-Family Residential zone, designated RS 10,800 Residential
Suburban on the Interim Policy Document.
owner: Mirna Overland
Applicant: Dennis Stafford, McKeever Engineering
Ward 5
Proposed Negative Declaration, Staff Recommends Approval.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 13
Comments listed for Item No. 9, Tentative Tract No. 13603, may also
pertain to this item, as staff presented comments pertaining to both
items and the items were discussed at the same time.
Commissioner Lindseth made a motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 13307.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Corona, with voting as follows:
AYES: Corona, Lindseth, Nierman
NAYS: Brown, Lopez, Sharp
ABSTAIN: Stone
' ABSENT: Cole, Gomez
Since the motion did not carry a majority, the item is deemed to. be
denied.
ITEM NO. 11
Review of Plans No. 88A-59 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately five acres having a
frontage of approximately 945 feet on the north side of Industrial
Parkway and being located approximately 2,700 feet east of the center-
line of Palm Avenue. The request is to construct a 25,160 square foot
metal building in the M-2 General Industrial zone, designated IH
Industrial Heavy on the Interim Policy Document.
Owner: San Bernardino Associates
Applicant: Jimmie Cartee
Ward 6
Categorically Exempt, Staff Recommends Approval.
This item was considered on the Consent Agenda and was approved subject
to the conditions and standard requirements listed in staff's report
dated August 2, 1988.
* ~
Public Comments
Commissioner Nierman expressed concern about a shopping center located
at Eureka and Del Rosa which was boarded up. He stated that the boards
are being torn down and the site has become an absolute nuisance and he
wanted to fill out a complaint requesting Code Enforcement to investi-
gate the situation.
Attorney Empeno stated that it was not appropriate for the Commission
to take action on the item.
Commissioner Nierman requested staff to put the item on the next
agenda.
Commissioner Brown commented in regard to a building at Rialto and
Mount Vernon and that the Commission had asked that screens be removed
from windows as a condition of approval and they have not all been
removed.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARo MENT
CASE
U6SERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM ~
HEARING DATE ~ 8 _.
1. RFOUEST
The applicant requests to establish a 70 lot subdivision
in the R-1-10,800, Single-Family Residential Zone.
2. LOCATION
The subject property is a 22.7 acre parcel located
westerly of Palm Avenue, east of Chestnut and between
Belmont and Irvington Avenues.
3 . MUNICIPP~L_CODE._AND _~ENF~R~L,~IlA~1 ,~QN~QRM~NCE
The proposed Tent;
the Municipal Code
the Interim Policy
Common Counc i ]_ on
1988, and approved
Research on June 9,
4. CEQA STATUS
3tive Tract 13307 is consistent with
as shown in Attachment "A" and with
Document adopted by the Mayor and
May 23, 1988 and amended on June 6,
by the State Office of Planning &
1988.
An Initial Study was prepared by staff which addressed a
number of environmental concerns (see Attachment "E").
It was presented to the Environmental Review Committee
on May 19, 1988 and a Negative Declaration was proposed.
The Initial study was available for public Review and
comment from May 26, 1988 to June 8, 1988. No comments
were received.
5. BACKGROUND
The application for Tentative Tract 13307 was submitted
December 4, 1986 and was heard before the Planning
Commission on February 3, 1987. It was continued to the
Planning Commission Hearing of March 5, 1987 to allow
the Planning staff to address the issues of building
standards and timing of improvements related to
drainage, flood control, street access, signalization
and schools. (See Attachment "F".)
On March 5, 1.987, the Planning Commission denied the
Application for Tentative Tract 13307, with the
direction that the Planning Department staff prepare
findings of fact for adoption at the March 17, 1987
hearing. (See Attachment "G".)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
;;ASE TT 13307
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING GATE ~ / ~ 9 / 8
On March 17, 1987, the Planning Commission continued the
Tentative Tract indefinitely until such time the
applicant is prepared to present a Capital Improvements
Program for the Verdemont area for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission. (See
Attachment ~~g~~ .
On June 11, 1987, the State of California imposed a
moratorium on the City of San Bernardino, at which time
Tentative Tract No. 13307 was put on hold. The February
5, 1988 letter from the State Office of Planning and
Research lifted the moratorium of development of 10,800
square foot lots or larger, north of the Saldecke-Sky
Line. At this time, this Application was able to
proceed.
on June 21, 1988, Tentative Tract 13307 was continued to
July 5, 1968, by the Planning Commission to allow staff
additional time to receive a legal clarification to
determine how a tentative tract map will be required to
comply with the Interim Policy Document.
6. ANALYS~I,S.
Topq.3~~P11Y _ ~nd.~gQlo4v
The subject site is located in an area of limited
environmental constraints. The general existing
topography drops approximately 70 feet from north to
south at an approximate gradient of 4.59$. The
northernmost portion of the property is approximately
3/4 mile south of the San Andreas Fault Alquist-Priolo
special Studies Zone. Such a distance does not require
any particular geology study for fault determination.
f:~ i~~.i~_. Ve.9~~at i on
The site of the proposed tract has an extensive amount
of vegetation in the form of olive trees along Belmont
Avenue and the Chestnut Avenue right-of-way. The trees
were planted many years ago as wind rows probably during
the period when the Verdemont Area was originally
subdivided as the town of Irvington in February 18,
1886. The center of the proposed town was at the
intersection of Palm and Belmont Avenues just east of
the proposed tract.
CITY OF SAN 6ERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GASE TT 13307
OBSERVATIONS AGENDA I?EM
HEARING SATE 7 19 88
The size and configuration of the proposed lots along
Belmont Avenue are such that many of the existing olive
trees wil] remain. Trees which need to be removed
should be transplanted Elsewhere in the tract in an
effort to retain as much of the mature vegetation in the
area as possible and to establish a unique character to.
the tract itself.
The olive trees found along Chestnut Avenue should be
retained to enhance the future equestrian trail to be
developed along the right-of-way. However, if any need
to be removed, they should be transferred elsewhere on
the site, as transplanting of olive trees has been very
successful. (A condition of approval has been added
moreover to retain and preserve the olive trees found on
the subject parcel..)
~u~~oul'1,d~j1C~' .L~nd. LTSCv
Vacant lard surrounds
residences on larger
eacter]y of the site.
most of this site. Single-family
lots are located southerly and
Vehicular access will be provided via a 50-foot wide
publicly dedicated road, extending from Irvington Avenue
at the south to Belmont Avenue to the north. Lots will
front onto Aelmont Avenue in an effort to place the
existing olive trees within the front yard setback. Lots
located here have a greater depth in order to accomplish
this. Even though Belmont Avenue is designated as a
collector street in the Verdemont Area Plan, the
prajectec7 future traffic ]_evels will not create an
undesirable or unsafe living environment.
i,ots will not front onto Irvington Avenue, which is
designated as a local collector but have a right-of-way
cross-section of 62 feet. By not fronting lots numbered
1-~5 and 25 onto Irvington, a better transition is
created between the existing single-family development
on one acre sites to the south fronting onto Irvington
Avenue.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNINr DEPARTMENT
CASE TT X3307
08SERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING DATE 7 ~ 19 ~ 8 8
F~oQd_ Hazard
The Chestnut Avenue area has been severely flooded in
times past. Development in the area has been retarded
due to the former ].ow density allowance and the cost of
improvement of Chestnut Avenue and the 12 inch storm
drain pipe. Deletion of the Chestnut Avenue roadway
will help development cost. However, construction of
the necessary storm drain improvement is paramount.
(A condition of approval has been added regarding
participation in developing and having a Capital
Improvements Plan in place.)
Fi~~_1?.s~~ard
The site is located within the City's designated High
Fire Aazard area. The required two way emergency access
is achieved via Irvington Avenue to the south and
Belmont Avenue to the north. Additionally, the site is'
within the Zone C of the City's Foothill Fire Protective
Zone. Minimal additional building development standards
are required as the area is not prone to wildland fire
hazard as zones A and B located to the north.
L4~. C~].dX~c~.@ti.~~~~
The lot sizes run fron- 10,800 square feet to 12,600
square feet. Twenty-four lots are irregularly-shaped
and six will front on Belmont. The project consists of
two phases, Phase I consists of 38 parcels and Phase 2
consists of 32. Of the 70 lots proposed, 14 are
adjacent to Chestnut. These lots include area which
will be dedicated for equestrian trails. Chestnut will
he required to be vacated. The approval of this tract
wil]_ not result i.n automati.c approval. of the vacation.
This portion of Chestnut (a condition, of approval
ref-]ects this.) Chestnut as a whole will be vacated at
a later date.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDtNO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 13307
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING OATS ~ 19 8 8
EguEsl_i~n_ Tr~~il
The subject parcel is located adjacent ~o the Chestnut
Avenue right-of-way. The Verc7en~ont Area Plan deletE•d
Chestnut Avenue as a necessary stieE~t. Rerlacing it
will be an equestrian trail within a 30 foot easement to
be developed on top of the storm drain pipeline proposed
underground. Equestrian trails should be developed as
stated in the Verdemont area Plan. A condition of
approval reflect:: this.
~c.h44~. F~~~.~-~.~.~~
The Verdemont l,rea Plan ha, de~iynated the southern
portion of the subject property as a future school site.
The San Bernardino City Unified School District has not
indicated that. the school site he reserved for future
school development. Consequently, it must be assumed
that an alternative location elsewhere in the Area Plan
will be needed.
7. AGEN Y CQMMENT$
Agency comment:; ~., b., and c. were submitted for the
Tentative Tr~~ct prior to the Planning Commission
Meetings i.n 19F7. Comment d. was received from the
County of San F~ernardino Environmental Public Works
Agency Water ResourcEC Division on April 28, 1988.
a. Califorr~;a Regional 47ater Quality Control Board has
suggested tt.at the applicant be required to provide
a certified :statement to the Board Office from the
City of San Bernardino Water DcFariment stating
that adequate waste treatment capacity is available
in the City's treatment pant and that connection
of this: project to the :ewer system will not result
in a vi.o]ati.on of the Aoard's waste discharge
requ it cn~entG .
b. Southern California Edison Company Mated that the
propo~ecl subdivision will not unreasonably
interfere with the free and complete exercise of
any easements held by the Edison Company within the
boundaries of said tentative tract map.
CITY OF SAN 6ERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SASE TT 13307
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O AGENOAITEM - 67 19 8
~" ATI NS
HEARING OATS
c. The City Parks and Recreation Department has
suggested a size requirement for future street
trees. A condition reflecting this suggestion has
been adc~ecl.
d. The Water: Resources Divi:-ion of the San Bernardino
County P'nvironr~ent:al Tuk,lic Works Agency has stated
that the we^t portion of the tract appears to Iie
within the fringe area of the overflow path from
Meecham Canyon. The southwest corner appears to be
within the fringe area of the overflow Fath of
Cable Creek. They have inc].udecl recommendations
(see Attachment "I").
8. CONCI,LISIOD'
Tentative. Trar_t too. 13307 has been he~-~rd before. the
Planning Commission on three occasions in 1957 and has
also been continues] from the Planninu Commi::.ion Meetinc
~~f: .7une 21 , ] 98P, . The tract contains 70 single-fami 1;-
lots which meet the I`9unicipal Code Requirements and is
consistent with tl',e Interim Policy Document and the
State Map Act. Conditions have been added reflecting
the c7eve?opment of a Capital Improvements Plan and its
imp.l:ementation>. the preservation of existing olive
trees, the vacation of Chestnut right-of-way and
complying with the Verdemont Area PJan.
9. RFCOC~tMFr~nA~-~r~r~
Staff z c•c c~mmc•rd;: that the Planniny Comm:i~sion approve
Tentative Tract No. 13307 subject to the Findings of
Fact (Attachment "B"), Conditions of Approval
(Attachment "C"), and Standard Requirements (Attachment
"D"~.
Respectfully submitted,
MTCHIIEI, W. I~OH13R,
Interim Director of P]anniny
~_Gn- CG
Mary L ier
Planner I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 1 '~ "~ n 7
~" R VAT I Q N S AGENDA ITEM 6
0~~~ HEARING OATS 7/19/88
Attachment "A" - Municipal Code & Cener. c~'.. P1 an
Conformance
Attachr~cnt "B" - Findings of Fact
attachment "R(1) - IPD Consistency Finding
Attacr,rnent "C" - Conditions of Approval
Attachment "D" - Standard Requirements
At.tacY,n-ent "E" - Initial Study
Attachment "F" - February 3, 1987 Planning Commission
T?]nUtE-'a
Attachment "G" - March 5, 1987 Planning Commission
Minutes
Attachment "H" - March 17, 1987 Planning Commission
Minutes
Attachment "I" - Letter from Water Resources Division
Ai.tacl~ment "J" - Page 7 and 8 from the Interim Policy
L'~ocun,ent which refers tc: the Verdemont
Area
Attachment "K" - Interpretation of the t~ot:.on rerarding
the Verdemont Area
Attachment "L" - Tentative Tract flap
Attachment "M" - T_~ocation Map
doc.pcagend~.tt]33070.]
7/8/6A
TTTIICHMENT "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDiNO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
EASE TT 13307
y RVATIQNS AGENDA ITEM E~
C~BSE ~ HEARING OATE7
PAGE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
CATEGORY PROPOSAL MUNICIPAL CODE GENERAL PLAN
Permitted Single- Single-Family Res. Residential sub.
Use Family Res. 10,800 sq.ft. 10,800 sq.ft.
10,800 sq.ft. +
Lot Size 10,800 sq.ft. 10,800 sq.ft. 10,800 sq.ft.
to 12,600
Frontage All lots Title 18 requires N/A*
an Dedicated front on all lot front on
Streets dedicated dedicated street
(Belmont & streets
Irvington)
*Verdemont Area Plan requires two means of access.
'TACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 13307
FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING DATE 7 / 19 / 8 8
1. The requested subdivision is consistent with the Interim
Policy Document adopted by the Mayor & Council on May
23, 1988 and amended on June 6, 1988 and approved by the
State Office of Planning & Research on June 9, 1988.
2. The rectangular shape and gradual slope of the site is
suitable for R-1-10,800 development.
3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or cause serious public health problems in that
development will .occur according to the' conditions of
approval and standard requirements contained in this
report.
4. The proposed tract meets or exceeds the minimum
requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title
18) and the State Subdivision Map Act. All lots will
have frontage on dedicated streets.
5. All proposed streets meet the minimum requirements of
the Department of Public Works for street improvements.
6. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision in that Southern California Edison has
stated that it will not interfere with any of their
easements and that an easement for equestrian trails
along Chestnut be provided.
ML:cros
doc.pcagenda
tt13307F.1
7/26/88
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 13307
FINDINGS of FACT NGARNG'DAE 6
E
INTERIM POLICY DOCUMEPIT COr]SISTENCY BINDING
ACTIONS
The land use designations identified on the approved
Preferred Land Qse Alternative, as amended, were reviewed in
relation to their bearing and effect on the proposed land use
project.
The policies in the approved Interim Policy Document, as
amended, were reviewed in relation to their bearing and
effect or. the proposed land use project.
The underlying zoning district and applicable district
regulations were reviewed in relation to their bearing and
effect on the proposed land use project and the Interim
Policy Document.
These actions were taken for the land use project identified
in __ Tentative Tract Map No. 13307
Application and are the basis for making the following
findings
FlrmzN
The proposed use is consistent with the Interim Policy
Document adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on May 23,
1988, amended on June 6, 1988, and approved by the State
Gffice cf Planning and P.esearch on June 9, 19°8.
c?cc.:,~isc. ipCf findings
7-8-98
AT'*"~CHMENT "C"
- - - --~-.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STANDARD ~A;E TT 13307
O ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM 6
C HEARING DATE 7 ~ 19 ~ $ 8
1. The Tentative Tract shall comply with all requirements
of the Interim Policy Document.
2. No development shall occur until the comprehensive
infrastructure plan has been approved.
3. The tentative tract shall comply with all the
requirements of the Verdemont Area Plan.
4. The applicant shall comply with requirements of the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District.
5. The tentative tract is subject to all the mitigation
measures addressed in the Initial Study.
6. Submit a grading plan showing existing olive trees and
which are to be saved. All olive trees shall be saved
whenever possible.
7. Promulgate and execute valid covenants, conditions and
restrictions to protect the olive trees along Belmont
Avenue and Chestnut right-of-way. Any trees removed
shall be transplanted into front yards elsewhere in the
tract.
8. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map does not include
approval of a vacation of the Chestnut right-of-way.
Approval of this tract is contingent upon the subsequent
approval of the vacation of Chestnut.
9. Double front lot on "F" Court and Irvington will front
on "F" Court and shall have a rear wall on Irvington and
any set back required along Irvington shall be
landscaped.
10. Street trees shall be at least 15 gallon size and
planted on 35 feet center spacing unless otherwise
indicated by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The
Department shall determine the varieties and locations
prior to planting. Trees shall be inspected by the
Parks and Recreation Division prior to planting.
ML:cros
doc.pcagenda
tt13307C.1
7/26/88
11.
12.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD
CONDITIONS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 13307
AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING GATE
X Minor amendments to the plan shall be subject to
approval by the Director of Planning. An increase
of more than 10 percent of the square footage or
a significant change in the approved concept
shall be subject to (Planning Commission)
(Development Review Committee) review and
approval. Construction shall be in substantial
conformance with the plans approved by the
Development Review Committee, Planning Commission
or Director of Planning.
~_ Three sets of Landscape Plans, along with the
appropriate fee, shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department for processing. No
grading permits will be issued prior to approval
of landscape plans.
At all times the business will be operated in a
manner which does not produce obnoxious noise,
vibration, odor, dust, smoke, glare, or other
nuisance.
subject to the Conditions of the Department of
Parks and Recreation (attached).
13.
X 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.
A sign program for the multi-tenant commercial/
indestrial center shall be approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of Certifi
Cate of Occupancy.
SP:lmc
PCAGENDA
STNDCONDITIONS
"TTACHMENT "D"
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
:ASE TT 13307
AGENOA ITEM 6
HEARING GATE
PAG E
RESIDENTIAL DEVELQPMENT
X Tentative Tract No. 13307 shall be in effect for a
period of _~Q_ months from the date of approval by the Planning
Commission and/or Planning Department. However, if no
development has been initiated at the end of the 24 -month time
period the approval shall expire. Additional time may be
approved by the Planning Commission upon request of the
applicant prior to expiration of the 24 -month time period.
Expiration Date: August 2, 1990.
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D.
a. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to
final approval of the tract maps. The CC & R's shall
include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the
open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads,
and exterior of all buildings. The CC & R's shall also
include a statement that no radio frequency antenna shall be
included within the complex except for central antenna
systems.
b. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold
unless a corporation, association, property owner's group,
or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess
all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas
and common facilities in the development, such. assessment
power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity,
and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all
of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC & R's which shall
include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or
dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet
changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC & R's shall permit enforcement by the City of
provisions required by the City as conditions to approval.
The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the Commission
prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not
apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
c. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an
appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an
undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or
_-- ....
CITY Of SAN BERNARDiNO casE TT 13307
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEAR NG' OATE 7 19 88
PAGE
Recreational vehicle storage areas shall be screened by at least
a six-foot high decorative wall with screened gates.
There shall be provided for each unit, within the garage or
carport, or other specifically designated area, a loft or other
usable storage area with a minimum of 150 cubic feet in addition
to standard utility storage.
Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads shall be
subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval.
A commercial-type drive approach, as shown on Standard Drawing
No. 204 or equivalent, shall be constructed at each entrance to
the development. Location and design shall be subject to
approval of the Engineering Division.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, access rights shall be
granted to the City for the purpose of allowing access over the
private drives within the project for all necessary City
vehicles including fire, police, and refuse disposal vehicles,
and any other emergency vehicles. The documents covering this
matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the
Planning Department.
All refuse storage areas are to be enclosed with a decorative
wall. Location, size, type and design of wall are subject to
the approval of the Planning Department and Division of Public
Services Superintendent.
2.
3.
X Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and
. local requirements.
X LANDSCAPING:
a. Four (4) copies of a master landscape plan shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division for review and
approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
1) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed.
2) Irrigation plan.
3) Such other alternate plants, materials and design
concepts as may be proposed.
4) Erosion control plans.
~s~s sky
r- CITY OF 5AN BERNARDINO :ASE TT 13307
STANDARD REC~UiREMENTS HEAR NG' OATE ~~19~88
PAGE t4
b. Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior
to planting by the Director of the Parks and Recreation
Department or his/her designee. A minimum number of one
inch caliper/15 gallon, multi-branched trees shall be
planted within the parkway for each of the following types
of lots, as per the City's specifications:
1) Cul-de-sac lot -- one tree;
2) Interior lot -- two trees;
3) Corner lot -- three trees.
c. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual
impact, surfaces of all cut slopes more than five feet in
height and fill slopes more than. three feet in height shall
be protected by planting with grass or ground cover plants.
Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall also be
planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten feet on
centers; or trees, spaced at not to exceed 20 feet on
centers; or a combination of shrubs and trees as cover
plants. The plants selected and planting methods used shall
be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the
site:
Trees 108, 15 gallon; 408 5 gallon; 508, 1 gallon.
Shrubs 208, 5 gallon; 808, I gallon.
Ground cover 1008 coverage.
d. Slopes required to be planted shall be provided with an
irrigation system approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
e. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall
be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to
individual ownership.
4.
f. All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion
control planting of graded slopes, shall be done in
accordance with a grading plan approved by the City
Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any
grading being done.
X All lots shall have a minimum area of 10,800 square feet, a
minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum width of 80 .feet,
( 88 feet on corner lots). In addition, each lot on a cul-de-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
(STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CASE TT 13307
AGENDA ITEM ~
HEARING GATE ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ 88
PAGE 15
sac or on a curved street where the side lot lines thereof are
diverging from the front to rear of the lot, shall have a width
of not less than 60 feet measured at the right angle to the lot
depth at the midway point between the front and rear lot lines,
and a width of not less than 40 feet measured along the front
lot line as delineated on the tract map.
X Where lots occur on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, a minimum lot
depth of 100 feet will be permitted. If the proposed depth is
less than 100 feet, a plot plan must be submitted to demon-
strate that a buildable lot area is possible and to justify the
lesser depth.
X Variable front building setback lines of at least 30 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
I8 feet.
X Perimeter walls and walls required along the rear of all double
frontage lots shall be designed and constructed to incorporate
design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback,
decorative masonry, columns, or other such features to provide
visual and physical relief along the wall face.
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval of the
visual or engineering design of the proposed wall.
8.
9.
10.
11.
X When graded slopes occur within or between individual Iots, the
slope face shall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to
this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer.
X Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the City
Engineer in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to
precipitation.
X Compliance with all recommendations of the Geology Report shall
be required (if applicable) .
Any clubhouse, swimming pool, spa, putting green, picnic areas
or other amenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on
the approved site plan.
X During construction the City Engineer may require a fence around
all or a portion of the periphery of the tract site to minimize
wind and debris damage to adjacent properties. The type of
fencing shall be approved by the City Engineer to assure
adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control.
ise> eRy
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO casE
TT 13307
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEAR NG 1 GATE 7 / 19 ~ 88
PAGE _
12.
13.
14 .
_~_ No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on any building unless
screened as specifically approved by the Planning Department
(except for solar collection panels).
X Within 75 feet of any single-family residential district, the
maximum height of any building shall not exceed one-story or 20
feet unless the Commission determines that due to unusual
topographical or other features, such restrictive height is not
practical.
X All utility lines shall be installed underground subject to
exceptions approved by the Planning Department and the City
Engineer.
No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to compliance
with these Standard Requirements as well as all provisions of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
csj/5-9-88
DOC:PCAGENDA
DOCOMENTS.1
19sa sir
CITY OF SAN 6ERNARDINO PU6LIC
WORKS/Eld
CASE TT 13307
v ~ STANDARQ REC~UtREt1AENTS AcEN~A ITEM 6
HEARING GATE 7 19 88
15.
16.
Project Description: Tentative Tract Flo. 13307 -- 70-Lot SFR
subdivision Locate or o ruing on venue, es o a m
Date• May 24, 1988 Prepared By• MWG Reviewed By: GRK
Page•~ o ~_ pages •
Applicant: Dennis Stafford
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required,
t e app ic'-ant iTs responsible for submitting the Engineering plans
directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior
to submittal of Building Plans.
(Drainage and Flood Control
X Ali necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be
subject to requirements of the. City Engineer; which may be based
in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino Flood
Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all
necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
X A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any
drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to
mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be
designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and
right-of-way dedicated as necessary.
The development is located within tone 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 vicinity of your development. Thi`Ts`drain shall be designed
and constructed by your project unless your Engineer can
conclusively show that the drain is not needed to protect your
development or mitigate downstream impacts.
17.
X All drainage from the development shall be directed to an
approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper
drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
_._... _
qTY O~ SAN BERHARDINO IF~e1.hC wORxS~,
CASE TT 13307
STAN~ARQ R1EC~REMENTS ~~ ~G i ATE
pq~ 18
18.
19.
20.
Project Description: Tentative Tract No 3307
Date: May 24, 1988 prepared By: f4WG Reviewed 8y: ~~
Page
Gradin
X If more than 1' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot/
grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil
Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan
shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading
Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings",
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in advance.
X If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading
bond will be required and the grading shall be supervised in
'accordance with Section 7012 (c) of the Uniform Building Code.
A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report must
be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction
report shall be incorporated in the grading plan.
An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where
feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan
and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the
Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). The
on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan
approval if reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is
proposed to cross lot lines, or a lot line adjustment shall be
recorded to remove the interior lot lines.
X The project Landscape Pian shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 4
copies to the Engineering Qivision for checking.
An on-site Lighting Plan for the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer. This plan can be incorporated ~~ith
the grading plan, or on-site improvement plan, if practical.
^• 21.
Utilities:
X pesign and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance ~~ith City Code, City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sever
and cable TY.
CITY OF SAN 6~RNARDINC PURI.IC Wt~RKS/ENGR.
A CASE TT 13307
STAN®ARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 6
NEARING DATE 7/19 88
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Project Description: T~ntativ~ Tram Nn, 1~3n7
Date: _ Prepared By: MWC Reviewed Sy; ~~_
Page -_3__ o pages
X Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer
facilities so it can be served by the City or the agency providing
such services in the area.
X Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be
constructed at the Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer
Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings.
X Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
~ provided as required.
X A11 existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site
~on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance
with Ordinance No. MC-601 (Subdivisions) or Resolution No. 88-65
(Non-subdivisions).
X Existing utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer.
Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed t~
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 inco~`porated in the grading plan. where practical. }
CIT1~ OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
CASE TT 13307
27.
28.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS A,GENOA ITEM G
HEARING DATE 7/19/88
Project Description: Tentative Tract No._133_U7
Date: May 24, 1988 Prepared By: Mt~IG Reviewed By: GRK
Page o 1 pages
Street Improvement and~Dedications:
x Ail public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be
improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap
ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but
not limited to, traffic signals. traffic signal modification.
relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with
new construction, striping, signing. pavement marking and markers,
and street name signing. Ail design and construction shall be
accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street
Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings". unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required,
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's
"Street Lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall
be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
x For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street
right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline
to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation
to the street centerline shalt be as follows:
Street Name Right-of-Way (Ft.~ Curb line (Ft.)
Irvington Avenue 30' 18'
e ~p ~ ,~~
Interior Streets 25' 18'
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
the following streets:
A traffic study and report is required for this project. The
report shall be prepared by a properly licensed Traffic Engineer
or Civil Engineer knowledgeable in Traffic Engineering. The
report shall be prepared in accordance with the City of
San Bernardino Department of Public Works "Traffic Policy" and is
subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. All
recommendations, as approved by the City Engineer, shall become
Conditions of Approval of the project.
EIT1~ OF SAN 6ERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
_-. CASE
STANDARD REQlJIREMENTS ~AR NG i GATE ~~~~
oer:c ~:'T-
Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13307
Date: Mai 24: 1488 Prepared By: MWG Reviewed By: GRK
Page ~ 7 pages
29.
X If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase
shall be designed to provide maximum public safety, conven- fence
for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In
order to meet this requirement, the following will be required
prior to the finalization of any phase:
a. Completion of the improvement plans for the total project or
sufficient plans beyond the phase boundary to verify the
feasibility of the design to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
b. A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments indica-
ting what improvements will be constructed with the given
phase, subject to the following:
(1) Oead-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, channels,
earth berms, and block walls. as necessary. to protect
the development from off-site floes,
(5) A properly designed water system capable of providing
required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond
the phase boundaries,
(61 Easements for any of the above and the installation of
necessary utilities. and
(7) Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
4 A
30.
31.
32.
33.
C1?~f OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/EI~iQ1~,
CASE TT 13307
STA~ARD R~Ql~1REIlA~NT~ AGENDA ITEM _._G.
HEARING GATE .714 8
Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13301
Date: ~Ma 24, 2988 Prepared By:M~~~ Reviewed 8y: GRK
Page o oT _L pages
Ma in
X A Final/Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required.
X All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer
prior to Map approval.
Improvement Completion .
X .Street, sewer, and drainage improvement plans for the entire
project shall be completed. subject to the approval of the City
Engineer, prior to the recordation of the Final/Parcel Map.
X_If the required improvements are not completed prior to
recordation of the Final/Parcel Map, an improvement security
accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the
City wfll be required.
If the required improvements are not completed prior to record-
ation of the Parcel Map, an improvement certificate shall be
placed upon the Map stating that they will be completed upon
development. Applicable to parcel map only less than 5 lots.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Required Engineering Permits:
X Grading permit (if applicable).
On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Building and Safety)
X Off-Site improvements construction permit
Applicable Engineering Fees:
X Plan check fee for Final/Parcel Map.
X Plan check and inspection fees for~off-site improvements.
Plan .check end inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings; see Building and Safety).
CI'Tlf 01~ SAH BERHAROtNO Pue«c wc~~c~f.
CASE
gT/~~~~ ~~~~~5 AGENDA ITEM ~
HEARING DATE 7 ~'1 9 /R
Project Description: rp,~+a+zv~ Tr~rt tai,. ~~?n~
Date: May 24, 1988 Prepared By: r^~IG Reviewed By: GRK
Page o pages
38.
I X Pian check and inspection fees for grading (if permit required.
I Traffic impact mitigation in the amount of S
For
Bridge improvement fee in amount of S
39,
40_
I X Drainage fee based on ~ See Building & Safetyper square foot.
Total fee = E
~~( _Landscape Plan Review Fee S 50.00
Traffic System Fee of S per vehicle trip for City-wide
traffic mitigation based on ~'-`o~#`
Total Fee = E
41.
42.
X Pay Lump Sum Fee to cover cost of street light electrical energy for
a period of 4 years.
X Pavement at least ZO' wide sha11 be provided on Belmont Avenue and
Irvington Avenue between this subdivision and Pali!- Avenue.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO casE TT 13~oz
TANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEAR NG' DATE 7/~ ~/SS '
S PAGE z4 J
~3.
X That the developer or property owner, as appropriate,
'~ participAte in the development of the financing and
implementation plan for the following improvements and
agree to pay their proportionate share of those
improvements.
I. Palm Avenue Box Culvert.
2. Bailey Canyon Storm Drain and Debris Basin.
3. Chestnut Street Storm Drain and Debris Basin.
4. Traffic Signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive.
5. Fu11 street improvements, including curb and gutter
at the following locations:
a. Palm Avenue - from Kendall Drive to Ohio
Street.
b. Irvington Avenue - from Chestnut Street and
Pine Avenue
c. Belmont Street - from Chestnut Street and Pine
avenue.
d. Pine Avenue - from Belmont Avenue to Ohio
Street.
~e~a ~kv
l ~
Attachment "E"
,-,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Initial Study
for
Environmental Review
Tentative Tract No. 13307
To establish a 70 lot subdivision located on the
north side of Irvington and approximately 720 ft.
.~ west of Palm Avenue in the Verdemont area
r-
May 19, 1988
Prepared by:
Mary Lanier
Planning Department
300 North "D" street
San Bernardino, CA 9241f3
Prepared for:
Dennis Stafford
l4cReever Engineering
647 N. Main Street ~2.A
Riverside, CA 92501
f ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•,,,,,
Section
1.0 ~ INTRODUCTION
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project .
2.2 Project Impacts
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics .
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
4.1 Environmental Setting
4.2 Environmental Effects
4.2.I Earth Resources
4.2.2 Air Resources
4.2.3 Water Resources
4.2.4 Biological Resources .~ .
4.2.5 Land Use
4.2.6 Utilities
5.0 REFERENCES
6 . G' APPENDICES
Appendix A - Environmental Itr~pact
Checklist .
Appendix H - Liquefaction Letter .
Appendix C - Geologist Eva luation
Appendix D - Site Plan
Appendix E - Location Map
Page
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1,2-Z
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1,4-2
4-2
4-2,4-3
4-3
4-3,4-4
4-S
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-10
6-13
6-IS
6-16
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San
`" Bernardino as an Initial Study for Tentative Tract
"' rio. 13307 to establish a 70 lot subdivision located
on the north side of Irvington and approximately
720 feet west of Palm Avenue in the Verdemont area.
As stated in Section 15063 of the State of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are
to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an
EIR is prepared, thereby, enabling the project
to qualify for a Negative Declaration.
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required by:
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects
determined to be significant.
b. Identifying the effects determined not to
`,,. be significant.
c. Explaining the reasons for determining
that potentially significant effects
would not be significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assess~;,ent early in
the design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for
the finding in a Negative Declaration that a
project will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR
could be used with the project.
1-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-~ INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
-~ 70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to establish a 70 lot
subdivision in the R-1-10,800, Single Family
Residential zone. The subject property is an
approximately 22.7 acre parcel located on the north
side of Irvington extending to Belmont and 720 feet
west of Palm Avenue.
2.2 Project Impacts
Impacts identified in the attached checklist
include:
l.a. The cut of 25,000 cubic yards and fill of
20,000 cubic yards.
._ l.g. Development within. an area subject to
~,,,, liquefaction.
2.c. Development in an area subject to high
wind hazards. .
3.a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of surface
run off due to impermeable surface.
3.e. Exposure of people or property to flood
hazards.
4.a. Change in the number of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants or their
' habitat including stands of trees.
6.a. A change in the land use as designated cr.
the General Plan.
6.c. Development within Greenbelt Zone A, B or
C?
6.d. Development within a high fire hazard
zone.
2-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Paim Avenue
May 19, 1488
ll.a.5. Impact Capital Improvements Pro
the capability of the City
adequate levels of service and
construction of new facilities.
gram beyond
to provide
require the
2-2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
` INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
`" 70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The proposal is located on a 22.7 acre site on the
north side of Irvington extending to Belmont and
720 feet west of Palm Avenue.
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The site is presently vacant with the exception of
stands of mature olive trees on the northern and
western boundary of the site. The topography drops
approximately 6S feet from north to south at an
approximate gradient of 4.598. The Chestnut Street
drainage is located along the western portion of
the site. The site is approximately 3/4 miles from
~.-- the San Andreas Fault.
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
The proposal is to create a 70 lot Single Fami~y
subdivision in the R-1-10,800, Single Fafi,i~y
Residential District. The lot sizes ra--^,ge from
10,800 square feet to 12,600 square feet. Twenty-
four lots are irregularly shaped and 6 will front
on Belmont. Irvington and Belmont provide access
into the project. The project consists of two
phases, Phase 1 consists of 38 parcels and Phase 2
consists of 32.
3-1
M
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSr1ENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
Belmont Avenue is the northern boundary, Irvington
Avenue to the south and the Chestnut Street
Drainage to the west. The eastern portion is
bordered by mostly vacant land. Single family
homes are found in the general vicinity of the
site. These homes are on larger than 10,800 square
foot lots. The area is vacant and has been disked.
It has a relatively flat terrain with a slope from
north to south which has a difference in elevation
of about 65 feet. The 65 foot change in elevation
occurs over the 1415.18 foot length of the site.
Mature olive trees are found on the west side of
the property along Chestnut and the north side
along Belmont Avenue.
._ 4.2 Environmental Effects
~.•
The environmental checklist identifies several
areas of potential concern. Each item checked
"maybe" or "yes" on the checklist is identified
below and followed by a recommended mitigation
measure.
4.2.1 1. Earth Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill? of
10,000 cubic yards or more?
The Preliminary Environmental Description
Form submitted by the applicant indicates
25,000 cubic yards of cut and 20,000
cubic yards of fill. The City
Engineering Department will require ;.hat
a grading bond be posted for any
earthwork over 5,000 cubic yards to
ensure that the work is done in
accordance with section 7014 (c) of the
Uniform Building Code.
g. Development within an area subject to
land slides, mudslides, liquefaction or
`" other similar hazards?
.",,
The site is in an area subject to licue-
4-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNII~C.: L`EPARTDIENT
` INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
faction. A report was submitted to the
City Geologist for evaluation. The
conclusion and recommendations are:
1. Historically, the ground water has
probably been below 4Q feet of
depth.
2. The potential for liquefaction of
near surface soils appears to be
low.
3. No further liquefaction studies or
reports are necessary. The usual
soils investigations for foundation
and seismic design are necessary.
4.2.2 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
~. c. Development within a High Wind Hazard
Area?
..r-
The project is located in a high wind
hazard area. The City requires that new
projects located in the hich wind area
have the roofs with hurricane clips for
wind protection. Clips used are to meet
manufacturers specifications.
4.2.3 3. Water Resources: Will the proposa: result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of
surface run off due to impermeable
surfaces?
The tract is engineered to drain
southeast.
e. Exposure of people or property to flood
hazards?
The property in
flooded and as
approval for the
debris basin in
storm drain along
The improvements
question is sometimes
3 result a condition of
tract will be that the
the foothills and the
Chestnut be developed.
are to be designed an8
4-2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
v INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
bonded prior to recordation and
constructed prior to occupancy.
4.2.4 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal
result in:
a. Change in the number of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants or their
habitat including stands of trees?
Mature olive trees are found on the
western boundary along Chestnut and along
the northern boundary along Belmont. The
trees are to be saved whenever possible.
A grading plan showing the trees and
designating which ones are to be saved
shall be submitted prior to removal of
any tree. CC ~ R's will be required to
protect the trees along Chestnut and
Belmont that are not in the public right
~ of way.
4.2.5 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on
the General. Plan?
Approval of the Tentative Tract is
consistent with the letter dated February
5, 1988 from the State Office of Planning
and Research which lifts some restriction
and allows for "single family development
(R-1) provided that the minimum standard
be 10,800 square feet per single family
residential unit for any such project
allowed to proceed north of the Saldecke
Sky line."
c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A, B,
or C?
The proposal is located in Zone "C" of
the Greenbelt Study. Mitigation measures
are enumerated below.
~,,,, The project is required and does have two
publicly dedicated ingress and egress
routes in that both Belmont and Irvington
4-3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING D~:PARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
`" 70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
are points of exit or entry.
In addition the development will be
required to have non-combustable and
reflective street markers and 3 inch high
house numbers that are all visible for
100 feet.
The development will be required to
provide six inch or larger circulating
mains and storage capacity sufficient to
provide the approved minimum fire flow
direction and hydrant spacing with a
residual pressure of 20 pounds per inch.
Each hydrant
approved blue
Utilities are
Open ends of
with non-ign
bird nests or
to be located
shall be identified with
reflecting street markers.
to be placed underground.
the roofs must be capped
stable material to prevent
other combustible materials
within the roof structure.
vents are to be covered by 1/4 inch
corrosion resistant wire mesh not to
exceed 144 square inches.
UBC Rxterior fire walls.
Chimney spark arrestor, 12 gage wire
screen 1/2 inch opening mounted in
vertical position visible from ground.
Vegetation clearance and modification 30
feet from structures (some ornamental and
ground cover exceptions).
d. Development within a high fire hazard
zone?
The proposal is located within the high
fire hazard zone and the mitigation
required for the Greenbelt Zone "C" is
~, the same. No combustable materials
located on site until water is available
for the site.
4-4
CITY O~ SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~- INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
~-- 70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
4.2.6 11. Utilities: Will the proposal result in?
a.5. Impact the Capital Improvements Program
beyond the capability of the City to
provide adequate levels of sewer and
require the construction of new
facilities?
The Engineering Department will impose
fees, approved by the Common Council
based on their estimate of the future
needs of the area. The fee will be for
improvements such as storm drains, park
fees and etc. The developer will be
required to connect to the City water and
sewer facilities.
Water and sewer rights are available. A
~ fee will be imposed to complete the
bridge across Palm Avenue. The bridge
will be constructed when all monies have
been collected.
.~.
4-5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNII~C~ I)}:PARTMENT
__ INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
-- 70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
5.0 REFERENCES
Huston Carlyle, State Office of Planning and
Research
Persons Contacted:
Michael Grubbs - City Engineering Department
Dr. Floyd Williams - City Geologist
~..
5-1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMFN'I
INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13307
-- 70 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue
May 19, 1988
6.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A - Environmental Impact Checklist
Appendix B - Liquefaction Letter
Appendix C -Geologist Evaluation
Appendix D - Site Plan
Appendix E - Location Map
csj/5-12-88
DOC:MISC
ISTT13307
~...
`'~ 6-1
._~~PENDIX - A
C1~'Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: Tentative Tract No. 13307
Project Description: 70 Lot Single Family Subdivision on 22.7
acre site.
Location: rjor h sid of Trvin~~n, Pxtc~nrling north o R lmnnt,
and 720 feet west of Palm Avenue.
Environmental Constraints Areas: High Wind Hazard Area, Hic~h_
~j ra u~)arr~ nrsa~ t;rPPnbpl t 2.nnP _
General Plan Designation: N/A
Zoning Designation: R-1-10,800
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IM AP CTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in:
a. Earth movement tcut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more?
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15$
natural grade?
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone?
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
Yes No Maybe
X
x
X
X
REVISED t2/87
6-2
PAGE t OF A
ML/csj
TT 13307
Yes No Maybe
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site? X
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river? X
~•
.`
g. Development within an area
subject to landslides,
mudslides, liquefaction or
other similar hazards? X
h. Other? X
2. AIR _RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
an• effect upon ambient air
X
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors? X
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area? X
3. WATER RESOURCES: Will the
pro posal 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? X
c.~ Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality? X
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters? X
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards? X
f . Other? X
REVISED 12/3i
PAGE 2 OF 8
iT 13307
Yes No Maybe
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Could the
proposal result in:
a. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees? x
b. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat? x
c. Other? %
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in
a. Increases in existing noise
levels? X
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45 R
aB?
c. Other? X
6. LAND USE: Will the proposal
result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
b. Development within an Airport
District? %
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C? X
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone? R
e. Other? X
..
REVISES 10/3i
PAGE 3 OF 8
1 t lSjU!
Yes No Maybe
7. MAN-MADE HAZARDS: Will the
project:
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
mater;ais (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release of
hazardous substances? K
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other? x
6. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing? X
b. Other? t
9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan? '~
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures? X
c. Impact upon existing public
tran:,~:oi ration systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
„"~~~~ ~vio~ PAGE d OF 3
TT 1330:
Yes No Maybe
g. A disjointed pattern of
roadway improvements? X
h. Other? X
14. PU3LIC_SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a. Fire protection? X.
b. Police protection? __1~____
c. Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)? X ,
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Medical aid? K
f. Solid waste? X
g. Other? X
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. PZatural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. water? ,~._
4. Sewer? X
5. Other? X
b. Result in a disjointed
pattern of utility
extensions? X
c. Require the construction of
new facilities? X
REVISED 10/87 P AGE 5 OF 3
12. AESTHETICS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
13.
14.
TT 13307
Yes No Maybe
x
b. will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other? X
CULTURAL RF~SOURCFS: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic
impacts to a prehistoric or
historic site, structure or
object?
c. Other?
Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
x
X
X
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that 'if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce
the cumber or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
Rc`lIScD 10/97 PAGE S OF 8
TT 133Q~
Yes No Maybe
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory? ~ x.
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
terra, 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 X
future. )
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 X
significant.)
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
C. DISCUSSION OF ErIVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
REVISES 10/87
P~~E70F8
TT 13307
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
(~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
u environmen'- 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 ENVIROt:MET~TAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMEN'T'AL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORPIIA
~NrRarVM~lrA~ ,~Yi,~7/ ~oMM~TrE~
Name and Title
~~lt~,uiG•~e~
Signature
Date: ~~ ~9~f9g8 -
Rc~/ISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8
APPENDIX - B
GA~.Y S. RAS~VSSEN 8a A.SSOC~AT~S / ~vcrNFER~~vc csococr
tell 50 COMM[RGLNT[R W[ST • f,-N e[IINAROINO. GlIR011NIJ- 91~Oe • ~714~ sse.s.ss • ~71d~ S23•~Ol2
April 25, 1988
W.J. McKeever Inc.
647 V. Main Street, Suite 2A
Riverside, California 92501
:attention: Dennis Stafford
Project No. 2540
Subject: Geologic Factors Regarding Liquefaction Potential, Tract No. 13307,
South o! Belmont Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. San Bernardino,
California.
In accordance with your request, we have researched the geologic factors affecting
the potential for liquefaction at the site of the proposed residential development.
The site lies just wiLtiin a zone of llquelactioa susceptibility as defined by tiiatti
and Carson (1986).
•.- Ground-water information in the vicinity of the site was obtained from published
~-, and unpublished reports. Ground-water records were researched dating back to
1936. The site lies outside of the boundary of an artesian area or ~ upper confining
area as defined by Dutcher and Garrett (1963) and Mendenhall (1905). The tract
lies within an area of sparse ground-water information. Historic ground-water
conditions beneath the site can only be extrapolated from nearby data. Ext.~apola-
tion of published data indicates the site had ground water greater than. 100 feat in
1936, 1945 and 1951 (Dutcher and Garrett, 1963).
From 1951 to 1978, the basin was significantly overdrafted. Following the years of
abnorsallp high precipitation in 1978 to 1983, ground-water levels in the basin rose
significantly. Matti and Carson (1986) show the minimum depth to ground water
beneat.`: the site as 40 to SO feet during the period of 1973 through 1983. However,
their data in this vicinity is based primarily on a well (State Well No. O1V/OSpJ-
03H2) which is located approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site and adjacent to
Gajon Creek Wash. In addition, the 'minimum depth to ground-water' contours
shown by liiatti and Carson are dashed in the vicinity of the site, indic.3ting a
degree of uncertainty. The site may be in a separate ground-water subbasin which
6-10
W.J. McKeever Inc. Tract No. 13307 Project No. 2540
Aprll 2S, 1988
is not directly related to the well site from which they obtained their data. A
second and closer well (State Well No. O1N/04W-07F01), located approximately 1 mile
southeast of the tract, has not had ground water shallower than 50 feet during the
same time period.
Matti and Carson's preliminary liquefaction susceptibility analysis for the greater
San Seraardino Valley area relies heavily on the depth to ground water. All other
factors being equal, they assign areas with a minimum depth to ground water of
greater than 50 feet no potential for liquefaction and areas with a minimum depth
to ground water of less than 50 feet high potential.
The site is underlain by approximately 200 to 300 feet of Holocene wad Pleistocene
age alluvium (Fife, et al., 1976). Dutcher and Garrett (1963) have mapped the
alluvial materials oa the site as Pleistocene In age. Morton (1974) wad Matti and
Carson (1986) have mapped these materials as Holocene In age. If the surficial
~-- materials are Holocene is age, they are expected to be uaderlaia at relatively
~-. shallow depths by Pleistocene-age alluvial fan materials. as Pleistocene-age faa-
glomerates are exposed north, northwest and northeast of the site. Tinsley, et al.
(1985) indicate that progressively older deposits have lower liquefaction suscep-
tibility, reflecting the increased compaction, relative density wad longer history of
seismic shaking of older materials.
The site lies approximately 3/4 miles southwest of the active Saa Andreas fault and
approximately 2 1 /2 miles northeast of the active San Jacinto faun. We expect
maximum peak ground accelerations in bedrock under the site to be 0.668 (Campbell,
1988), with a maximum repeatable bedrock acceleration of 0.438 (Ploessel and
Slosson, 1974).
Youd and Perkins (1978) and Youd, et al. (1978) list the parameters for increzsed
liquefaction susceptibility as: 1) high ground water (less than 33 feet below the
surface); 2) sandy sedimentary deposits; 3) recent age of material; and 4) close
proximity to an active fault. Based on the Information available at this time, the
2
dAFt! S. RASMVSS~N de ASSOC:ATTS
W.J. McKeever Inc.
April 25, 1988
Tract No. 13307
Project No. 2540
sediments on the site fall Into at least one of these geologic parameters. Based oa
the anticipated depth to ground water and on the anticipated character of the
underlying sediments, the sediments on-site appear to have a Iow potential for
llqueiaction from a geologic standpoint.
If a more detailed liquefaction analysis is considered necessary for this site, the
character of the underlying alluvial materials with respect to their liquefaction
susceptibility should be evaluated by the project soils engineer.
WAR:pg
Enclosure 1: References
Respectfully submitted,
GARY S. RASMUSSE'~1 & ASSOCIATES, INC.
UV ~' v -
Wessl A. Reeder
Registered Geologist. RG 4270
Distribution: W.J. McKeever Inc. (6)
3
dARY 9. RAS:dV53~V do A38OC=A'~~5
APPEWI\ - C
FLOYD J. WiLLIAMS Ph.D. ~ i'~ _ ^
~ ~.. ~: l
MINING ENGfNEER ANQ REGISTERED GE0l0G15? =2143 MAY ~ i~ I~?3 130 Sunridge Way
Redlands, California 92373
~~7~~ ~ ~.;.:.... . ;i;:'?.': ;j P14) 792-8208
Sai~ Vri„~/~1ir:1~iU, .. r. D
MEMORANDUM ~~ ~~~ GEO~~ ;~`
~ „~ .
7 ~ ii.Jly .. ~il~~if:~:lj~`7:
T0: VALERIE C. ROSS
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE s i:0. 2343 ~ . _
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO N~ ~; \. ~
K• . ~r /
FROM: FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, REGISTERED GEOLOGIST ~~~crOr ^ FO'/'
CONSULTyYT TG T$ C:T~f- Or SAN BERNARDINO ~.~ ~~ ~
DATE . MAY 5. 1988--~~!•;: ~/.~ /-.'~::. "_.
SUBJECT: Review of liquefaction study/geology report. TT 1330?.
Chestnut-Belmont Assoc.. Minna Overland Enterprises,
your letter of Mav 3. 1988.
---------------------------------------- ------------------------
TITLE OF REPORT:
Geologic factors regarding liquefaction potential, Tract No.
..,. 13301, south of Belmont Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, San
"' Bernardino. California. Prepared by Gary S. Rasmussen &
Associates, Project No. 2540, dated April 25, 1988.
DISCUSSION
I made a site inspection on May 4. 1988. From telephone
conversation with you I understand that one or two story
homes are proposed for the tract. As Z reviewed the subject
report I referred to the U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 86-562. by J. C. Matti and S. E. Carson referenced by
Rasmussen & Associates. I also compared the location of the
subject property with the Exhibit "A" map attatched to
Resolution 82-345 of the City of San Bernardino.
The~site is underlain at the surface by an alluvium of
Holocene age. Groundwater has fluctuated in depth beneath
the site through time. but it probably has rarely been
shallower than about 40 feet beneath the surface. Well data
are too sparse to allow more precise definition of
groundwater levels.
The report discusses the seismic environment of the site.
The San Andreas fault is located approximately 3/4 mile to
the northeast and the San Jacinto fault is located
approximately 2 1/2 miles to the southwest. Maximum peak
_- ground accelerations in bedrock at the site are expected to
- be 0.668 anal maximum repeatable bedrock accelerations are
expected to be 0.438 due to earthquake.
6-13
MEMORANDUM: Ross/Williams TT 2330?, Chestnut-Belmont Assoc ,
5/5/88. ""
A statement in the report is, "the sediments on-site appear
to have a Iow potential for liquefaction from a geologic
standpoint."
CONCLUSIONS ANA RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The subject property is outside the area on Exhibit ~- o:
Resolution 82-345 where liquefaction reports are required.
2. Historically, the groundwater has probably been below 40
root of death.
3. The potential for liquefaction of near-surface soils
appears to be low.
4. No further liquefaction studies or reports are
necessary. The usual soils investigations nor foundation
and seismic design are necessary.
C^~~ ~~~
,,,
~
t:a. 243 ~1 a
~ ~~ i-a~'.~V~
~~,~~
2
APPENDIX - D
._ _. ....
`.-
i
t j
.s, ~ r'
-~-~~
~~
r~
T r ~~
~r ~ ~r i
r
~~
rr~KK fLtt1o11_
•-' Y ~ 1i' ~IO~~ •
'a' Y s Y awn
• ~
H ` N
.s:~. y e-~t-%-~-
~M1M}dl w~MR
TENTATIVE
TRACT /3307
stws ~ wwrvuior a wry ~ ~ ~ xar
s~iw°~~iiiit :~a**r°6poi iiwNO~ ~ i~o~io, ec~ou~u•.
~ ...a. ,. ...
~- a
uee~: r-ter
~ '~•.i..p_f ~~
t a~r .t~e• ...~
,`
t Y•r
~ ~~~~
y~ • 1 M
r ~ . ti~
~• ~~-1 ~•
~' ~
Y.l 3-t/%f2
.,.
oww.+ w.e..~... ~.
w rwar. r .•:r
~ ..n .. ~.~w .r .N .r.
., v wn <rw•• w ru ww au rww ..ru .rv
.. w.. w~ .wa w rr.u r~r.r rr~r.
.. wr wwns r r r.ur. .. .
rw r r.r in s .» r•rr~r
a~n~c r.na: ua:rwr. n. ..
~srr~ •.u.wn• w w
r~..:~ w r~r.n~~ ~n i+nus w.n .rmir
----
- ~,~_
~• :f,..
~ ~ ._,--~
~n
E:
._ .:~ ~1.
..
Jr ~ _ .h
~ ~ A`
~ I ~
_ -•
.w '"
"tom •-_
~`_--- .
t ~
'"
• ~y~. -
•
-+ w
,~~.
1 t • M
=C I.:.Jt• ~ -.
•
V /R~
~ • /
~~ i
.~ • ~..•
~~
~I ~'! ~~•
. Ar O
..~
~ ~v
6-15
APPENDIX - E ~
CITY OF SAN BERNAROINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AT t O N CASE TT NO . 13'07 _
LOC - --
HEARING GATE __._
6-I6
pGENOA
ITEM 70~
Attachment "F"
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/3/87
Page 5
ITEM N0. 8, Ward 5
Teptative Tract Nos 13530 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 15.1 acres located at the
southwest corner of Ohio Avenue and Palm Avenue and having a frontage
of approximately 707 feet on the south side of Ohio Avenue 'and a
frontage of approximately 961 feet on the west side of Palm AVenue.
The applicant requests to establish a 45 lot subdivision in the R-1-
10,800 Single-Family Residential zone.
Palm Avenue Investors, owner/applicant.
Ronald Running presented comments, noting the request and location of
the site and that it had been rezoned through the Verdemont Area Plan
to low density residential use at four units per acre. Two fifty foot
roads would serve the lots within the interior of the property. It was
noted by Mr. Running that the site is located in the High Fire Hazard
Zone and the two required means of access would be provided by this
roadway network. He stated that the project has received agency
approval from Southern California Edison and the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board will require a certified statement that
there is adequate waste treatment capacity in the City's treatment
~- plant. Mr. Running stated that the Environmental Review Committee
recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for environmental impact
and staff recommends approval of the tentative tract, subject to the
conditions and standard requirements.
Mr. Dennis Stafford was present representing the applicant and stated
that they were in agreement with all recommendations and all proposed
conditions. He was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Al Walters, owner of five acres immediately
site, was present and stated that he had a dirt
property through the subject site. He stated
his property but grew Christmas trees there a~
daily. Mr. Walters stated that he wished to
property and the proposed map would cut off his
south and west of this
road for access to his
that he did not live on
nd used the access road
retain access to his
access.
Mr. Running stated that he had discussed this situation with the
Engineering Division and a modification to the proposed subdivision
could include allowing access to remain for Mr. Walters' property.
Mr. Walters stated that he had not discussed the situation with the
applicant.
Ms. Barbara Sky, a resident of the area, was present and submitted
photographs of tracts of homes built last year in her area and showing
wind damage from winds which occurred early Tuesday, February 3,.1987.
,J Ms. Sky noted wind damage which had occured, such as roofs blowing off
any block walls hlowing over, and stated that the quality of
construction was very poor and she was concerned that mote homes of the
same type would be built.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/3/87
Page 6
Ms. Sky also expressed. concern about traffic on Palm Avenue and about
the length of the cul-de-sac within the tract, noting that the site is
within the High Fire Hazard Area.
Mr. Schuma stated that projects that have been approved 'for the Verde-
mont Area have been required to pay their fair share of proposed street
signaliztion at locations on Kendall Drive and Palm Avenue and, in
part, for payment of the ultimate construction of the Palm Avenue
crossing of Cable Creek. Mr. Schuma stated that, to date, those
improvements have not been done. He further noted that the Planning
Commission does not have a voice in the collection of traffic signal
fees and how they are spent and permits are not required for. the
construction of block walls for single-family residential development.
After some discussion of building standards and the building inspection
process, Commissioner Nierman made a motion to direct the Planning
Department staff to write a letter to the Board of Building Commis-
sioners, the Building and Safety Department and the Mayor and Council
expressing concern that no building permit is required for a block
wall, and calling attention to the fact that block walls in the
Verdemont Area, which did not have reinforcement or grouting, are being
`` blown down by high winds. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Brown and carried with all but the opposition of Commissioner
Lightburn.
Mrs. Barbara Roberts, of 3766 Belmont Avenue, was present and stated
that she had been touring the area with Ms. Sky and one of the problems
is that there is not enough inspection. Ms. Roberts suggested that
members of the Planning Commission come out to the .area accompanied by
Building Inspectors to see what the problems are as they occur. Mrs.
Roberts stated that the safety of the people living in the area must be
the uppermost concern.
Mr. Bob Stone, of 3097 Belmont Avenue, was present and requested that
Ztem Nos. 8, 9, and 10 be postponed to allow the residents an~ oppor-
tunity to review the proposals more thoroughly.
Commissioner Lightburn stated that, after seeing the photographs of the
wind damage, he wanted something very definitive as to whether or not
the proposed tract would be constructed the same as those pictured.
the proposed tract would be constructed in the same manner as the one
shown in the photographs. Commissioners Nierman and. Maudsley
concurred. Commissioner Merman was in favor of continuing the items
to allow staff to further review the proposals and to receive any input
from neighbors.
Mr. Phil Smith, of 6504 Churchill, was present and stated that he had
received a notice of the hearing for Items 4 and 10, but had received
no notice for Item 8, which is directly behind his property. Mr. Smith
stated that the elementary school in this district is already over-
burdened and has six auxiliary trailers. He also noted that only one
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/3/87
`„ Page 7
house in his tract suffered wind damage from the recent winds and that
damage was from a tract above where windows broke out and debris was
blown by the wind.
Approximately ten persons in the audience raised their hands indicating
that they had not received a notice of the hearing for all items (Nos.
8, 9 and 10).
In response to a question from Commissioner Nierman, Mr. Schuma stated
that staff had received a letter in opposition to Tentative Tract No.
13505, Item No. 10, from the San Bernardino Unified School District.
Mr. Dennis Turley, of Washington Street, south of Irvington Avenue, was
present and asked how needed schools would be built and where the
school fees were going. He stated that his children could not go off
their street because Palm Avenue is a racetrack. Mr. Turley also
stated that he did not think it was right that the proposed tract would
face he and his neighbors' properties which are one acre lots.
Mr. Morenas Gedson, owner of property on Ohio Avenue, was present and
stated that one of his neighbors had their roof blown off. Mr. Gedson
also noted that they had problems down on "E" Street just as in the
Verdemont Area.
Mr. Driscoll, a resident of Washington Avenue, was present and stated
that it was his understanding that the east side of Irvington Avenue
was to be designated for one acre lots. Mr. Driscoll further commented
that he had concerns on street improvements, water and envornmental
concerns. He was concerned that projects would be approved prior to
improvements being provided in the area. Mr. Driscoll stated that he
had moved to the area because of the large lots and had horses and
other animals and did not want the proposed homes in the area.
Mr. Running explained the Area Plan and public notification process
during which the area referred to by Mr. Driscoll was considered for a
change in zoning designation. Mr. Running also noted that the City has
not adopted a'Capital Improvements Program which gives a schedule as to
when improvements will be dons. Discussion followed regarding the
needed improvements of bridges, flood control measures, traffic
signals, curb and gutter and other improvements required as safety
measures. Assessment districts for improvements were also discussed.
Chris Selnecke, a resident in the area of Palm and Belmont Avenues, was
present and stated that what gets built is not quite like what the
plans show. He stated that Building Inspectors are not catching
everything and problems are being overlooked. Mr. Selnecke stated that
he was in the construction business and could see things other people
~- would not. He noted that when there is a power outage, the sewage goes
in~o a basin and into the flood control channel. Mr. Selnecke asked
who was going to pay for cleaning and sanitizing the whole north end of
Kendall Drive. Mr. Selnecke also noted poor grading in the construc-
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/3/87
Page 8
tion of block walls on the north side of Irvington Avenue where a brick
has been removed from the wall at each lot to allow for drainage. Mr.
Selnecke further commented that the Verdemont Area Plan Citizen
Advisory Committee was stacked with developers and what residents
wanted was overruled by the Planning Commission and Mayor and Council.
Ms. Susan Romanski, resident of the corner of Irvington Avenue and
Chestnut Avenue, was present and concurred with the concerns previously
expressed by her neighbors. She noted that there are beautiful hawks
and eagles that live in trees on the site and their environment will be
destroyed. She was also concerned that if the trees above her property
were moved, she would have a flood in her yard.
Mr. Ron Carlyle, of 3042 Belmont Avenue, was present and stated that
the. public is very much against the proposed developments and was not
represented in the Area Plan. Mr. Carlyle stated that he lived in the
area for the serenity and if these projects are built it would ruin all
of his reasons for living in San Bernardino. Mr. Carlyle stated that
there was really no need to rezone the subject properties, because
there is plenty of property closer to the City (downtown area) that can
be developed at a higher density instead of backwards as is being done.
- Mr. Carlyle also asked if there was going to be a City General Plan
that would be updated every five years. He stated that residents of.
the area were not happy that the Verdemont Area Plan was adopted and
felt that their safety and concerns were not considered.
Ms. Joy Kolstad, of 1542 Indian Trail, requested that the items be
continued to allow residents who were not notified to review the plans.
Mr. Dennis Stafford stated that he was the representative for Item Nos.
8, 9 and 10. He stated that Tentative Tract No. 13530 (Item No. 8l
conforms with the General Plan and Verdemont Area Plan. He stated that
notification is provided to property owners within a 500 foot radius of
the site from the latest Assessor's roles. Mr. Stafford requested
approval of the proposal. He stated that Mr. Stone received a notice
within a week of the hearing and it was difficult to determine his
specific concerns. Mr. Stafford stated that he had not been approached
by residents and he had not met with or knocked on any doors of
residents of the area.
Mr. Stafford stated that an offer of dedication for the portion of
Meyers Road used for access by Mr. Walters for his five acre parcel was
put on when the tract for 7,200 square foot lots was approved. He
stated that the tract has expired. Mr. Stafford stated that the five-
acre parcel (owned by Mr. Walters) would normally take access from
Belmont Avenue. He noted that Meyers Road, at that location, is not a
`,. dedicated road but was an offer of dedication and the street has been
moved 200 to 300 feet north on the proposed map to facilitate the size
of the proposed lots.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/3/87
Page 9
`.,
Discussion followed amongst Commission members and staff. Commissioner
Lopez concurred with continuance of the items. Commissioner Nierman
wanted staff to address the issue of poor construction and inspection
in the Verdemont Area before he would put his approval on any further
development in the area. Commissioner Lightburn repeated his concerns
regarding quality of construction. Roofing materials were also
discussed.
Commissioner Nierman made a motion to
13530 (Item No. 8), Tentative Tract No.
five Tract No. 13505 (Item No. 10) to the
of March 5, 1987, with the instruction
staff address the issues of building
improvements related to drainage, floor
signalization, and schools. The motion
Lightburn and carried unanimously.
continue Tentative Tract No.
13307 (Item No. 9) and Tenta-
Planning Commission meeting
that the Planning Department
standards and the timing of
~ control, street access and
was seconded by Commissioner
Same discussion followed amongst Commission members regarding develop-
ment standards in the Verdemont Area.
ITEM. NO. 9. Ward 5
Tentative Tract No. 13307 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 22.7 acres having a frontage
of approximately 702 feet on the north side of Irvington Avenue and
approximately 695 feet on the south side of Belmont Avenue and being
located approximately 720 feet west of the centerline of Palm Avenue.
The applicant requests to establish a 71 lot subdivision in two phases
in the R-1-10,800 Single-Family Residential zone.
Mirna-Overland Enterprises, Inc., owner/applicant.
This item was continued
1987. Discussion and
Tract No. 13530.
ITEM NO. 10 , F~lard 5
to the Planning Commission meeting of March 5,
comments are noted under Item No. 8, Tentative
Tentative Tlact_No. 13505 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.6 acres located at the
northeast corner of Belmont Avenue and Palm Avenue and having a
frontage of. approximately 715 feet on the north side of Belmont Avenue
and a frontage of approximately 707 feet on the east side of Palm
Avenue. The applicant requests to establish a 49 lot subdivision in
the R-1-7200 Single-Family Residential zone.
Richard Hobgood, owner; Mike Cole, applicant.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 5,
1987. Discussion and comments are noted under Item No. 8. Tentative
TcuCt NO. 13530.
At ~hment "G"
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
Page 3
STEM N0. 5, Ward 5
~ntatyvg Tract No. 13307 --- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting o£ approximately 22.7 acres having a frontage
of approximately 702 feet on the north side of Irvington Avenue and a
frontage of approximately 695 feet on the south side of Belmont Avenue
and located approximately 720 feet west of the centerline of Palm
Avenue. The applicant requests approval to establish a 71 lot
subdivision in two phases in the R-1-10,800 Single-Family Residential
zone.
Mirna-Overland Enterprises, Inc., owner/applicant.
Chairman Flores indicated that Item Nos. 5, 6 tTentative Tract Na.
13530), 7 (Tentative Tract No. 13505), and 13 (Tentative Tract No.
13572) would be reviewed and discussed at the same time, since all of
the tracts are in close proximity to each other.
Ronald Running presented comments, describing each item and noting
their location on the overhead map. He stated that the items were
`' continued because of concern expressed by residents of the area regard-
ing lack of proper building standards, Code enforcement and inspec-
tions, and the lack of adequate flood protection, streets and school
facilities.. Mr. Running stated that representatives from the Building
and Safety and Engineering Departments were present to answer ques-
tions.
Mr. Running stated that the southern portion of Tentative Tract No.
13307 is designated as a potential school site. He noted that the
San Bernardino Unified School District has applied to participate in
the Leroy F. Greene Lease-Purchase Program. The program provides funds
for land acquisition and construction of schools based upon certain
eligibility guidelines. The School District anticipates a favorable
determination later in the year. Mr. Running stated that, while the
School District does not have adequate funds at the present time, it is
their intention to acquire school sites in the future. .However,
Mr. Running further indicated that approval of the subject tracts
should not be contingent upon future School District action.
Mr. Running noted the location of the 72 inch concrete pipe storm drain
on Chestnut Avenue and that staff recommends that the condition regard-
ing storm drain requirements be strengthened to require the applicant
to install flood control improvements as specified in the. Engineering
Division's Storm Drain Project No. 7, Line E-13.
Mr. Running also noted the issue of access to Meyers Road and that an
ad;acent property owner had been using a stretch of Meyers Road to gain
access to his property to the west. He stated that staff recommends
that a condition be added to Tentative Tract No. 13530 that the right-
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
Page 4
of-way be maintained and the lot layout be redesigned to provide for
access. A schematic map, provided by the applicant's engineer, showing
access to the property via Meyers Road was shown on the overhead
projector. Mr. Running also noted the orientation of lots along Palm
Avenue and that driveways will not be directly on Palm Avenue. He
stated that staff recommends an additional condition requiring that the
other two tracts (Tentative Tract Nos. 13505 and 13572) along Palm
Avenue be required to participate in the establishment of an assessment
district for maintenance of landscaping along Palm Avenue.
In conclusion, Mr. Running stated that staff recommends approval of
Tentative Tract Nos. 13307, 13530, 13505 and 13572 based upon findings
of fact and subject to the conditions and standard requirements con-
tained in the staff reports. Staff also recommends adoption of the
Negative Declarations for environmental impact.
Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer, was present and responded to questions
from staff and Commissioners. Mr. Hardgrave stated that the Chestnut
Avenue storm drain has not been started and as development occurs, he
expected the storm drain to be installed. In regard to the Palm Avenue
bridge, Mr. Hardgrave stated that the Engineering Division is recom-
mending that a fee of 5310 per lot be levied for each Iot of the four
subject tracts. He noted that a total of S66,000.would be collected in
this manner towards the estimated S300,000 cost of the box culvert.
Mr. Hardgrave stated that it was hard to say exactly when improvements
would be put in, because it was dependent upon the rate of development.
Commissioner Shaw noted the concerns of area residents and asked when
certain flood, road and traffic signal improvements would be put in
place and if the City had defined a program which could explain to the
public when certain improvements would be put in place to accommodate
the development that the Verdemont Area Plan allows.
Mr. Hardgrave stated that the City looked at the area and estimated the
number of lots that could be developed and came up with a unit/lot cost
and until development comes in, there is no money. In response to a
question from .Commissioner Lopez, Mr. Hardgrave stated that he did not
expect improvements to be in before people move into the homes and that
it could take up to five years before enough money is raised for the
traffic signal and bridge improvements. Mr. Hardgrave felt that there
were viable alternatives to the method of assessing fees as development
comes in, currently used by the City, and suggested establishing
assessment districts to spread the cost over~ali the properties and
raise the money up front as a better way of providing improvements.
Mr. Hardgrave suggested that the Planning Commission and Mayor and
Council could place a hold on development until a mechanism was in
place to finance improvements.
Com,~~issioner Watson noted that several cul-de-sacs are proposed in each
tract and asked if these pose any problems to public safety or circula-
tion. Mr. Running stated that the use of cul-de-sacs reduces speed and
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
Page 5
the amount of traffic. He stated that the Fire Department and the
Environmental Review Committee expressed no concerns. Mr. Anderson
stated that cul-de-sacs are typically sought after by residents because
of reduced traffic. Ae stated that they tried to balance the types of
streets to get variation in design.
Commissioner Flores had questions about wind damage, walls blowing down
and roofing materials.
Charles Dunham, Senior Plan Check Engineer of the Building and Safety
Department, was present and responded to questions. He stated that he
had seen the buildings and photographs of buildings with wind damage
and noted that winds were recorded up to 93 miles per hour and a normal
roof is designed to withstand 60 miles per hour. He said that roof
companies would not even certify a roof for that kind of wind. Mr.
Dunham stated that the area is noted throughout the United States for
this unique high wind situation. Mr. Dunham stated that builders are
required by the City to use a heavier shingle (300 pound), six nails
instead of four and to hand tab until summertime when you get the real
seal in your roof. He also stated that the wind damaged roofs were
inspected and the six nail requirement had been met.
~~ Mr. Dunham responded to Commissioner Nierman regarding block walls,
stating that most agencies have been lenient on block walls because
they are low profile and normally do not experience a high wind area.
8e stated that most walls are designed to withstand ten pounds per
square inch rather than 20 pounds, which is what the recent winds were.
He also noted that, presently, there is no building permit required for
fences (block walls) and this would be a new ordinance requirement, but
a retaining wall over two feet in height requires a permit. Mr. Dunham
also stated that there was a lot of wind damage to the roofs. He
stated that, to avoid any real safety problems, heavier roofing mater-
ials and a greater number of nails or staples per shingle should be
required.
In response to a question from Commissioner Nierman, Mr. Dunham stated
that the present City Building Codes do not design for the type of wind
experienced recently in the area. Mr. Dunham stated that they require
the stability of the buildings to be designed for a larger wind load
and use the 30 percent exposure increase factor and require the struc-
tural engineers to use 20 pound wind instead of the normal 15 pound.
Commissioner Shaw asked if
to prepare recommendations
to address some of these
Dunham stated that they
standard application, and
240 or 260) and a greater
Mr. Dunham also noted that
bonds to be sure that they
finalized.
Mr. Dunham or other City staff would be able
for changes in the City's building standards
problems that have been experienced. Mr.
require earthquake ties, which is not a
require heavier the (300 pound instead of
number of nails or staples per shingle.
they had required the builders to post cash
made all repairs before the buildings were
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
/ Page 6
Ms. Barbara Sky, a resident of Palm Avenue, was present and felt that
ail development should be stopped in the ~erdemont Area until the
current problems are resolved. She submitted a copy of a letter from a
roofing company which told residents to turn their roofs in to their
insurance companies. She stated that she would like to see the build-
ing inspectors carry a ladder in their truck so that they could climb
onto the roofs to make inspections.
Mr. Allen Bairns, of 2385 Hyatt Road, was present and stated that the
shingles on his roof did not have more than two staples per shingle
and he had had the roofers out three times to fix the roof since he had
moved in January 10. He noted that the last wind was not more than 30
miles per hour and his roof came off. Mr. Bairns stated that the
cellophane strips on the shingles were still on them.
Mr. James Tissue, of 5945 Shepherd Drive, was present and stated that
his roof was blown off and one-third of the shingles still had the
cellophane strip on them which is supposed to be removed for proper
adhesion. Mr. Tissue stated that the house next door to him suffered
no damage and he felt the roofing company was putting the shingles on
incorrectly. Ae felt that further development should be stopped or
-- building inspection procedures should be looked into.
Ms. Jo Silvas, of 6113 Shepherd, was present and stated that she had
had the same problems with her roof and it had been fixed three times.
Ms. Silvas felt that Code requirements should be maintained to address
the wind conditions. She stated that a building inspector inspected
the roof next door after it was fixed and indicated that it was still
not fixed properly and we should contact Forecast Development and have
them do it completely over. Mr. Silvas stated that she had contacted
Forecast Development and they said they would take care of it the same
way as they had done in the past.
Mr: Glen Gibson, a resident of the intersection of Belmont and Palm
Avenues (64951, was concerned about Tentative Tract No. 13505, directly
to the north of his property. Mr. Gibson was very concerned about the
construction of this tract to the north. Mr. Gibson was concerned
about wind and flooding problems and did not feel that the problems of
flooding had been adequately addressed by the developer. He also
expressed concern about the problem with dust when the tract is built.
He noted the dust problems currently experienced by residents to the
south. Mr. Gibson was also concerned about the general traffic
situation, noting that they do not have stop signs and bridges where
they are currently needed, and the situation will only get worse if the
proposed tracts are built without any advance planning before people
move in. Mr. Gibson was in favor of holding down construction until
these things (improvements) are addressed.
Ms. Lily Price, of 2404 Hyatt Road, was present and stated that before
the high winds occurred there were a number of homes, including her
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
~ ~• Page 7,
own, where shingles were already coming off and when the high winds did
strike, they Iost their shingles down to the wood. Ms. Price stated
that she called manufacturers and West Coast distributors of the
shingles who suggested that, in our area of high winds, roofing nails
be used instead of staples. Ms. Price wanted to see Forecast
Development have their roofing company come out and nail every one of
those shingles down so that the damage does not reoccur. Ms.. Price
also noted that she had a big dip in her roof that was missed by
inspectors.
Ms. Connie Copp, of 2414 Hyatt Road, was present and stated that she
had had the same problems with shingles blowing off and in the latest
wind, which was not as high as previously experienced, they had lost
almost as many shingles as when the winds were 80 plus miles per hour.
She stated that her roof had been repaired twice previously and her
insurance man, after inspecting the roof each time, indicated that it
was not repaired properly and shingles were put in with staples or
nails with heads so small that they had already cut through the
shingle and it should be redone. Ms. Copp stated that a man from
Forecast Development came and said that their roofing company had not
been working out too well and they would repair the roof themselves
with larger headed nails, however, Ms. Copp was still concerned about
`~ the rest of the shingles on the roof that still had staples.
Mr. Allan Walters, of 4933 North "F" Street, owner of five acres
immediately to the west of Tentative Tract No. 13530, was present and
stated that his arguement would be eliminated if the developer agreed
to redraw the map and not vacate Meyers Road.
Mr. Anderson stated that a condition of approval is to be included foc
Tentative Tract No. 13530 requiring modification to the design of the
tract to reflect a "T" intersection to maintain access via Meyers Road
to Mr. Walers' property. Mr. Running noted the site plan on the
overhead map, showing how access would be maintained to Mr. Walters'
property via Meyers Road.
Mr. Chris SaLdLcke of 6464 Palm Avenue, noted a waiver of storm drain
fees which was requested by Forecast Development on November 3, 1986.
He asked what had happened on the request and was concerned about where
the money would come from if developers were getting waivers of fees.
Mr. Saldecke also wanted to know what was going to happen with the
General Plan.
Mr. Hardgrave noted that the request referred to by Mr. Selnecke was
denied by the Mayor and Council. Attorney Grace stated that the Mayor
and Council adopted a work program for revision to the City's General
Plan which should bring the City into conformance with State guidelines
-- and the City is free to do business as usual unless there is a
restraining order or injunction placed upon the City.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
_ Page 8
Mrs. Barbara Roberts, of 3766 Belmont Avenue, was present and asked how
many people were present at the meeting who lived in the Verdemont
Area. (Approximately 25 persons raised their hands to indicate that
they were Verdemont Area residents and 9 persons indicated that they
resided in the Forecast Development tract.) Mrs. Roberts stated that
there is a continuing problem with roofs blowing off and flooding and
asked if there was any kind of figure as to how many houses they
started with and how many have been built since 1974 to 1983. She
stated that she had not seen any improvements in bridges or anything
since 1974 and wanted to know where the fees were that had been
collected.
Mr. Hardgrave stated that the ordinance requiring payment of storm
drainage fees was adopted in 1978-79 and since that time developers
have paid approximately S2,000 per acre which goes into the City-wide
storm drain line construction fund. He stated that those funds are
allocated on a yearly basis by the Mayor and Council in order of
priority as they see fit. Mr. Hardgrave also noted that the crossing
of Cable Creek would be a street improvement and those funds would not
be applicable to that project.
Mrs. Roberts stated that the Commission should look at the cumulative
v effects of development in the area. She stated that she had checked
with her insurance company and they reported that 2,000 claims were
filed in the area during the January 20, 1987 winds, 55 of which were
Verdemont Area homes with damaged roofs, fences and windows. Mrs.
Roberts felt it would be a valuable survey to have figures on the types
of losses there were and when they occurred. She further noted that
another insurance office had indicated that premiums for homeowners
insurance in the Verdemont Area would probably be raised because of the
high losses occuring due to shoddy workmanship.
Mrs. Roberts also expressed concern that access to planned equestrian
trails be maintained. She noted a tract adjacent to her that. was
approved with a condition requiring equestrian trails, but since it has
been completed it has been determined that the people who purchased the
homes were not' advised that the trails were not exclusively for them
and feel that the trails belong only to them.
Ms. Liz Grogan, a resident of the area, was present and stated that she
owned several horses and did a great deal of riding. She stated that
several years ago a group of residents, with the help of Ron Running,
laid out an equestrian and hiking trail system for the Verdemont Area
before most of this development was in. She stated that it appeared
that all of their efforts were totally worthless, since the only so
called equestrian trail has a chain link fence across ft and is only
for the use of the people who live in that development. She stated
-- that some of the trail is on the side of a hill and another portion has
a fence across it. Ms. Grogan stated that she had felt that the
Verdemont Area was one of the last opportunities the City had to
develop with some sort of class like other cities do, bqt obviously
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
_. Page 9
the class is going out of the window and the equestrian and hiking
trails proved this point to her.
Mrs. Roberts stated that one of the tracts being considered (Tentative
Tract Na. 13307) includes an equestrian trail. Mrs. Roberts commented
that she lived on and owned three acres adjacent to Tract No. 11118 on
which they have patented water rights (Julius Meyer Water Patent) that
were signed by President Howard Taft. She stated that those who put in
the subdivision were required to realign the water system. Mrs.
Roberts stated that Joseph eonadiman had filed suit against her and 22
"John Does" claiming that they do not have rights to the water. She
was concerned about approval of the proposed tracts without some
determination as to the private water line easements for domestic use
and felt that other people may become unwitting defendants as Mr.
Bonadiman tries to acquire the water rights. She stated that the
Julius Meyer water patent rights run all throughout the territory and
she wanted to see all of the water lines marked and recorded.
Mrs. Roberts also expressed concern about the equestrian trail system
and the tract where residents are totally convinced that they own the
equestrian trail which is shown on the City's maps.
Mrs. Roberts further commented that she did not feel anyone was paying
_ attention to details when the tracts go through. She wanted to know if
every house had been inspected. She expressed concern about the lack
of an adequate number of building inspectors and having to rely on the
builder. Mrs. Roberts felt that current standards were not adequate
and the Code should be strengthened and better enforced.
Mrs. Helen Ropczynski, of 8150 Cable Canyon Road, was present and was
concerned that the standards in the Verdemont Area Plan were deleted or
changed by the Council Legislative Review Committee, which consisted of
Councilmembers Quiel, Reilly and Strickler. She also asked how a site
designated for a school became a housing site and was concerned that
the Verdemont Area would not have adequate school facilities in the
future.
Mr. Anderson stated that the City had identified the site as a school
site and the San Bernardino Unified School District has advised the
City of their procedure. However, there is nothing the City can do to
hold a property vacant until the school district is ready to purchase
it, the school district must determine its priorities. Discussion
followed. Mr. Running stated that the school district is willing to
purchase the site but does not have the funds.
Mrs. Ropczynski expressed concern regarding the total number of units
proposed and density permitted. She also felt that there may have been
a conflict of interest, since the Deed of Trust for Tentative Tract No.
-- 13307 was signed by an individual who was a member of the Verdemont
Area Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. She expressed concerns regarding
the need for abridge at Cable Creek and whether the projects met the
requirements for 80 percent of the average unit sine within 500 feet of
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
_ Page 10
the sites. She commented that portions of Palm Avenue would be in a
landscape maintenance district and portions would not be and existing
homes would have block walls facing them. Mrs. Ropczynski was also
concerned about the numerous cul-de-sacs and block walls proposed,
noting that the site is in the High Fire Hazard Zone and fire trucks
will have to go all the long way around to get to some units.
Ms. Rita Harrison, of 6866 McClay, was present and stated that she had
lived in her home for four months and had yet to have a walk-through
inspection. Ms. Harrison stated that they had lost their roof three
times and their insurance adjuster indicated that they had a defective
roof. She stated that she had spoken with Don Hesterley, City Code
Compliance Officer, who indicated that it would not be a good practice
to leave the cellophane on the shingles and the shingles should have
six fasteners each and fasteners may be nails or staples. Ms. Harrison
stated that she appreciated the comments made in regard to correcting
the situation, but wanted to see something done about the existing
homes.
Mr. Jim Ballard, of 2739 North "F" Street, was present and stated that
he had been a resident for 33 years. He noted the poor drainage in the
tracts referred to by residents with roofing problems. He stated that
they would probably be looking at five to six years before there is a
school built. Mr. Ballard questioned whether the Verdemont Area Plan
was a stop-gap measure to continue growth and exploitation of the open
area land. Mr. Ballard also was concerned about potential conflict of
interest in regard to the voting that took place on the Verdemont Area
Plan. Mr. Ballard felt that the City should read the message that the
citizens of the Fifth Ward and throughout the City cast on Tuesday
night (March 3, 1987) and deny the proposed tracts or postpone action
on the tracts until sometime in May when there will people who can make
decisions on public policy who will answer to the people instead of
private interest.
Barbara Sky submitted photographs of Chestnut Avenue and of grading
that was approved in the Verdemont Area.
Mrs. Kopczynski asked if the applicant had satisfied the requirement
that adequate waste water treatment capacity was available to accommo-
date the proposed units.
Dr. Jim Mulvihill, of the University of California - San Bernardino,
was present and stated that there was concerned about many basic
things. Dr. Mulvihill noted that the Mayor and Council had initiated
procedures for a revised General Plan and he was concerned that there
would be a tremendous rush of development taking place by individuals
who want to propose projects prior to revised standards taking place.
Dr. Mulvihill requested that the Commission deny the requested Negative
Declarations until the Council establishes procedures to deal with
potential development that may take place between now and when the new
General Plan takes effect.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
~-~ Page 11
Dr. Mulvihill commented in support of Mr. Selnecke's concerns in regard
to the General Plan by reading a portion of a court case, Camp vs. the
i~gndgpinQ_Coun ~~,rd~of Supervisors, where a subdivision was approved
at a time there existed no adequate General Plan for physical
development of the County. Dr. Mulvihill stated that the Mendocino
County Board of Supervisors could not legally find the subdivision to
be consistent with the requisite General Plan and such approval was.
therefore, unlawful and would be set aside.
In response to a question from Commissioner Shaw, Dr. Mulvihill stated
that he felt the Verdemont Area Plan did not have any real legal
significance. Dr. Mulvihill noted that in the Noise, Housing and
Scenic Highways Elements of the Verdemont Area Plan reference is made
to standards that exist that will be contained in the General Plan,
which, in fact, do not presently exist. Dr. Mulvihill repeated his
concerns in regard to the flood of development that is anticipated
during the two to three year period prior to new standards taking
effect. He noted the thousands of apartments, existing and proposed,
and the very high vacancy rate in the State College Area. Dr.
Mulvihill felt that the Mayor and Council needed to prepare interim
procedures or adopt a slowed growth policy. He stated that the City's
General Plan could never stand litigation and the City would be in an
extremely weak position if taken to court.
Mr. Tom Minor, of 5429 North "E" Street, was present and requested that
all of the subject tracts be denied.
Joy Rolstad, of 1542 Indian Trail, was present and stated that she had
purchased her home six years ago and it was a lemon. Ms. Rolstad
stated that the problems experienced by the homeowners are not new and
have been going on for years. She related the numerous problems she
had had with her home, including, poor grading which created a natural
swimming pool on the property, flames coming out of electrical outlets,
water coming Qut of the walls and the shower head pulling out because
plumbing was never hooked up, the siding on her house (and entire
tract) falling off, and the 400 foot block wall built for the
development falling down three times. Ms. Rolstad stated that one
fourth of her roof would blow off at a time and she finally did get her
ten-year warranty because she had gotten the manufacturer from Chicago
to come out and see if it had been installed correctly.
Ms. Rolstad related the problems that she and her neighbors had when
they got together to get the contractor to replace the siding on their
homes. She noted that her neighbors had similar problems with elec-
trical outlets and she was aware of bathroom walls falling down in
homes on an adjacent street and of six tracts that have had roofs blown
off and shingles flying into windows. Ms. Kolstad stated that some-
thing is wrong here and she said residents are asking the City to do
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
v Page 12
something about the problems. Ms. Rolstad also noted the provisions of
the existing General Plan for schools and parks and other public
facilities which have not been fulfilled.
Mr. Joseph Bonadiman, of 606 East Mill Street, was present and stated
that problems mentioned should be brought up with the City Council. He
noted that there is a wind problem throughout the County of San Bernar-
dino and just because people are having problems in this area does not
justify a moratorium on building in the entire Verdemont Area.
Mr. Bonadiman suggested a workshop to discuss alternatives regarding
engineering issues amongst staff. He stated that changes to the
Verdemont Area Plan were not significant and some revisions to the Plan
may still be needed. He noted that problems discussed were unrelated
to the proposed developments. Mr. Bonadiman responded to a question
from Commissioner Watson, stating that the Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Fire Code, plumbing standards and others are used, but the
things described this evening indicate shoddy workmanship.
Mr. David Mlynarski, representing a developmen~
substantial interest in the area, was present
moratorium could affect potential projects of
company desired to build quality homes and the
prejudiced against all builders because of the
workmanship.. Mr. Mlynarski requested that the
proposed projects to proceed.
t company with a very
and stated that a
his company and his
City should not be
tracts having shoddy
Commission allow the
Dennis Stafford, representing the applicant for each of the subject
proposed tracts, was present and stated that the isssues of drainage
and traffic have been addressed and they have agreed to all conditions
and the special assessment district and have agreed to enter into
future assessment districts. Mr. Stafford stated that. the projects
meet the letter of the Verdemont Plan and have been awaiting the
approval of that Plan.
In regard to Tentative Tract Nos. 13505 and 13572, Mr. Stafford stated
that they are in complete agreement with conditions and findings and
have no problem with staff's recommendation. In regard to Tentative
Tract No. 13307, Mr. Stafford asked for clarification of the condition
regarding the Chestnut Avenue drainage facilities
Mr. Running stated that staff is suggesting that the applicant install
flood control improvements on the westerly portion of the tract.
Mr. Stafford stated that they would be opposed to such a condition,
since the natural drainage course does not flow alongside. their
property but comes down Chestnut Avenue to the corner of their property
and curves off in a westerly direction and there would be no outlet for
water if there is construction of a portion of the channel. He noted
that they would not be opposed to entering into an assessment district
for future construction of a storm drain.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
Page 13
In regard to Tentative Tract No. 13530, Mr. Stafford Commented that the
property could be developed as shown on the overhead site plan, how-
ever, if the stub street (Meyers Road) was developed, it would be a
burden. Mr. Stafford noted that Mr. Walters' property has access to
Belmont Drive and they would be opposed to providing Meyers Road as a
stub street in that location. Mr. Stafford requested that action be
taken on the proposed tracts.
Staff members responded to questions. Attorney Grace stated that staff
testified that there was an offer of dedication for Meyers Road and if
it has not been accepted by the City, it is not a dedicated road and
does not require vacation.
Discussion and comment followed amongst Commission members.
Commissioner Nierman stated that he was convinced that, at this time,
they were not prepared to handle development in the Verdemont Area. He
complimented the Planning Department for doing everying to bring
information to the Commission and the Building and Safety Department
for doing what they have done with a limited number of people, however,
the problem is the fault of the City. Commissioner Nierman felt that
in order to forestall insurance companies from collectively filing suit
~- against developers and the City, they needed new standards. fle noted
that it appeared that standards in the Verdemont Area Plan were voted
out by the Legislative Review Committee. Commissioner Nierman was
concerned that the City had the lowest standards of any City in South-
ern California and that proposals meet the bare minimum.
Commissioner Nierman felt that, before there is any further development
in the area, they needed standards to cope with high wind and needed
the Building and Safety Department to present standards for new ordi-
nances for walls and roofing. Commissioner Nierman indicated that he
could not approve any of the four subject tracts.
Commissioner Brown made a motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 13307,
with the dir~:ction that the Planning Department staff prepare findings
of fact for adoption at their March 17, 1987 meeting. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Lightburn and carried with the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Lightburn, Nierman, Shaw, Watson
NAYS: Knowles, Lopez
ABSTAIN: Flores, Maudsley,
ABSENT: None
,_ Prior to the vote being taken, some discussion ensued amongst staff and
Com~~lission members. Mr. Anderson suggested the alternative of sending
the items back to the Environmental Review Committee for a wind study
and preparation of a Capital Improvements Program.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
Page 14
Commissioner Lopez stated that he would like to see standards
strengthened and made more uniform in the area of high winds, but he
stated that, whenever you build in the canyons or foothills you are
accepting problems unique to the area and not encountered in the flat
Lands. Commissioner Lopez stated that he was not in favor of a
moratorium, but was in favor of getting better standards.
Commissioner Shaw stated that he agreed that development should not
proceed until such time as improved development standards are adopted.
Commissioner Nierman wanted the word sent out that developers are going
to have to do better than the minimum.
Attorney Grace indicated that Commission members Flores and Maudsley
would be entitled to one vote, either as Planning Commission members or
in their near future status as Council members. Commissioner Maudsley
withdrew his motion for denial of Tentative Tract No. 13530. Commis'
sinners Flores and Maudsley stepped down and did not participate in
action taken on the subject tracts.
Commissioner Knowles stated that he did not disagree with testimony
~~ presented but concurred with Commissioner Lopez, stating that the State
Subdivision Map Act does not address quality control improvements. He
stated that he would be in favor of the staff report and would
recommend approval of the tracts based upon the fact that issues would
be treated separately.
Commissioner Watson was concerned about quality control and stated that
the developer was not concerned about the quality of work and he would
have liked to hear the developer give some testimony that the quality
of work would be improved in these proposed developments. Commissioner
Lightburn stated that he had not seen anything in this County quite as
serious as the situations in the photographs (submitted by resident,
Barbara Sky) and stated that he could not support approving any of the
tract maps.
Commissioner •Nierman stated that storm drain needs have not been
adequately addressed and he repeated his comments regarding the need
for standards for block walls and roofing. Commissioner Nierman was in
favor of directing staff to come up with a Capital Improvements Program
so that a program can be implemented for major improvements and that an
ordinance be prepared providing new standards for flood control,
drainage and traffic circulation and that staff work with the Building
and Safety Department to develop the ordinance necessary for block
walls and fences and the ordinance addressing roofing requirements in
the high wind areas.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87
Page 15
ITEM NO. 6. Ward 5
Tentative ~~~c~ No. 13530 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 15.1 acres located at the
southwest corner of Ohio Avenue and Palm Avenue and having a frontage
of approximately 707 feet on the south side of Ohio Avenue and a
frontage of approximately 961 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue.
The applicant requests approval to establish a 45 lot subdivision in
the R-1-10,800 Single-Family Residential zone..
Palm Avenue Investors, owner/applicant.
Staff's report, discussion and public comment on this item are noted
under Item No. 5, Tentative Tract No. 13307, as the items were consid-
ered concurrently because of their location in close proximity to each
other.
Commissioner Nierman made a motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 13530,
with the direction that the Planning Department staff prepare findings
of fact for adoption at the March 17, 1987 meeting. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried with the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Lightburn, Nierman, Shaw, Watson
NAYS: Knowles, Lopez
ABSTAIN: Flores, Maudsley
ABSENT: None
ITEM ~IQ . 7 , Ward 5
~ent~tive Tract No. 13505 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.6 acres located at the
northeast corner of Belmont Avenue and Palm Avenue and having a
frontage of approximately 715 feet on the north side of Belmont Avenue
and a frontage of approximately 707 feet on the east side of Palm
Avenue. The applicant requests to establish a 49 lot subdivision in
the R-1-7200 Single-Family Residential zone.
Richard Hobgood, owner; Mike Cole, applicant.
Staff's report, discussion and public comment on this item were noted
under Item No. 5, Tentative Tract No. 13307, as the items were consid-
ered concurrently because of their location in close proximity to each
other.
Commissioner Watson made a motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 13505,
with the direction that the Planning Department staff prepare findings
of fact for adoption at their March 17, 1987 meeting. The motion was
sec.~nded by Commissioner Lightburn and carried with .the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Lightburn, Nierman, Shaw, Watson
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/8/87
Page 16
NAYS: Knowles, Lopez
ABSTAIN: Flores, Maudsley
ABSENT: None
After the motions were made on the preceeding items, discussion
followed amongst Commissian members. Commissioner Nierman was in favor
of directing staff to come up with a Capital Improvements Program to
address flood control, drainage and traffic and to work with the
Building and Safety Department to develop the ordinance necessary for
block walls and fences and an ordinance to address roofing in the gigh
Wind Hazard Area. Discussion followed amongst Commissioners.
Commissioner Shaw made a motion that the Planning Commission direct a
task force to prescribe, as a first order of business, interim develop-
ment standards/procedures for the entire City and that the Planning
Department staff report back in 60 days. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously.
* ~
A recess of the meeting was taken from 10:25 to 10:38 p.m.
Commissioner Lightburn left the meeting during the recess.
ITEM NO. 81 Ward_2
Cgnditional_~se gelmit No._ 86-SS -- Subject property is a rectangu-
larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .26 acre
located at .1434 Parkside Drive. The applicant requests approval of a
conditional use permit under authority of Code Sections 19.?8.020.12
and 19.78.020.19 to permit the conversion of an existing single-family
residence to a day care center in the R-1-7200 Single-Family Residen-
tial zone. The applicant also requests a waiver of Code Section
19.56.090.C to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces.
Alfred and Maggie Williams, owner; Larry Vesely, A.I.A., agent.
Sandra Paulsen presented comments, stating that this item was pre-
viously continued to allow for redesign of the parking layout.
Ms. Paulsen stated that the applicant has not produced an easement from
adjacent property owners. Based upon the site plan and subsequent
mouifications, the site is inadequate to accommodate the proposed use
and staff recommends denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit.
,ttachment "H"
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Mfnutes of 3/17/87
Page 7
Commissioner Brown stated that she was concerned because she was in
that parking lot twice weekly and there is a problem with parking in
the lot and she had to be very careful about leaving children in the
area. She noted that cars have been broken into in that parking lot.
There was no one present to speak to this item.
Mr. Anderson noted four letters of protest received by the Planning
Department from Glenn Skinner, of 380 West 23rd Street; Myrna Lunsford,
of 372 West 23rd Street; Bernice L. Hirsema, of 372 West 23rd Street;
and Cherie Nielsen, of 379 West 23rd Street. Concerns noted in the
letters included the current lack of parking, congestion in the area,
close proximity to a school, crime and drug dealing currently
experienced, late hours, noise, broken glass and trash, numerous police
calls and disturbance to the nearby residential area.
Deputy City Attorney Grace stated that there was concern about the
enforcement of parking agreements, since they are private agreements
and the City is not a party and they could be rescinded as soon as the
Conditional Use Permit is approved. She further commented that the
,_ hours of operation of adjacent businesses conflict and there would be
no way of ascertaining whether the lease agreements were voided by both
parties and no .way of notifying lessees of the adjacent, currently
vacant spaces. Attorney Grace recommended that leases be recorded and
be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney's office.
Commissioner Watson made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No.
87-6 based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated
March 17, 1987. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and
cacried with all but the opposition of Commissioner I,ightburn.
ITEM N0._~_j~d_5
~g~~,tj:yg~~act No. 13513 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.2 acres located at the
southeast corner of Ohio Avenue and Olive Avenue and having a frontage
of approximately 697 feet on the south side of Ohio Avenue and a
frontage of approximately 559 feet on the east side of Olive Avenue.
The applicant requets approval to establish~a 45 lot subdivision in the
R-1-7200 Single-Family Residential zone.
Donahue and Dorothy Wildman, owners; Robert Sessa and ~. F. Davidson,
applicants.
This item was heard after Item Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, at which time the
applicant, Mr. Addison, stated that he had just received conditions of
approval and needed time to answer questions. Mr. Addison requested a
continuance of the item for an unspecified length of time.
Mr. Addison also agreed to waive the statutory time requirements for
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/17/87
Page 8
processing of tentative tract maps according to the State Subdivision
Nap Act.
Commissioner Knowles made a motion to continue Tentative Tract No.
13513 indefinitely. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and
carried unanimously.
~T~M_ ~IQ~ 6 . Wa fd 5
Tent~i.,~y~_T~Ag~ No. 13307 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 22.7 acres having a frontage
of approximately 702 feet on the north side of Irvington Avenue and
approximately 695 feet on the south side of Belmont Avenue and being
located approximately 720 feet west of the centerline of Palm Avenue.
The applicant requests to establish a 71 lot subdivision in two phases
in the R-1-10,800 Single-Family Residential zone.
Mirna-Overland Enterprises, Inc., owner/applicant.
Vice--Chairman Shaw indicated that Item Nos. 6, 7 (Tentative Tract No.
13530), 8 (Tentative Tract No. 13505), and 9 (Tentative Tract No.
13572) would be reviewed and discussed at the same time, since all of
the tracts are in close proximity to each other.
Attorney Grace stated that at the last meeting the Commission took no
action on the Negative Declarations for the subject tracts .and the
Commission should make a motion as to their decision to approve or not
to approve them.
Mr. Anderson presented comments, stating that staff has a request from
the applicant representing the four tracts for a continuance to allow
the applicant to present to the Planning Commission a full summary of
improvements which the developer intends to grovide for that area and
speaking to the issues of drainage, bridge crossings and issues of high
wind relative to roofing and fencing materials.
Attorney Grace stated that in order to take the items off calendar for
an indefinite period of time, the applicants would have to waive their
rights in regard to the statutory time limits for processing and
approval of tract maps as contained in the Subdivision Map, Act,
California Environmental Quality Act and Permit Skreamlining Act.
Commissioner Lopez was in favor of allowing a continuance for 30 days,
with the stipulation as specified by Attorney Grace.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue Tentative Tract No. 13307
for an indefinite period of time to allow the applicant to prepare a
Capital Improvements Program for the Verdemont Area for review and
~~- consideration by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Lightburn and carried with all but the opposition of
Commissioner Brown.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/17/87
Page 9
Prior to the vote being taken, discussion ensued amongst Commission
members and staff. In response to comments from Commissioner Nierman,
Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant had met with staff and the
Councilman of the Ward and the developers indicated that they would
provide a bridge crossing and channelization for Cable Creek and would
address roofing issues through an actual ordinance amendment and adhere
to certain requirements for construction permits for any walls and
fences. He noted that the wall issue could be addressed through
adoption of standards for all block walls. The issue of roofing
materials such as the roofs and heavier materials and addressing tie
downs for tale components would also be reviewed. Mr. Anderson stated
that the applicants wish to cooperate in each of the areas.
Commissioner Shaw stated that the Commission had asked staff to return
with a Capital Improvements Program and had specific questions
regarding building standards and answers were not satisfactory. He
stated that now the applicant has met with staff and agreed to come up
with amore detailed set of programs for evaluation by the Commission
and he hoped that the applicant would meet with residents of the area
so that they would be aware of the new proposals.
v Commissioner Nierman noted that the Commission voted to deny the
subject projects and had directed staff to prepare findings of fact and
he saw no reason for the items to come back before the Commission.
Attorney Grace stated that she had advised the Commission that their
decision would not be final until adoption of findings of fact and a
move to continue the items would mean that the action was not final.
Attorney Grace concurred that, in essence, what had been presented was
a request for reconsideration.
Commissioner Lopez stated that most of the damage noted previously by
residents was to new buildings and he was in favor of allowing for a
reconsideration of the projects to see if the applicants could show
impcoved quality in the buildings.
Commissioner Nierman stated that it sounded like there are definite
problems in the area and action was needed by the City ~to overcome
problems. He felt that allowing one developer to come in and say he
would do things for his project was putting a band-aid on something
that needs a turniquet or major surgery. Commissioner Nierman felt
that a continuance, rehearing or reconsideration of the four subject
tracts may solve the problems for these tracts,.but not for the entire
Verdemont Area.
Mr. Anderson stated that the intent is to provide a means by which
improvements could be made up front and the applicant would like to
propose a method by which improvements could be made for the entire
area so that they have a coordinated effort.
Commissioner Shaw felt that it was productive to have City staff and
property owners work together to come up with comprehensive solutions
City of San Becnardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/17/87
Page 10
to development problems in that region of the City
Commission feels that the solutions are not adequate, the
has the discretion to say so. Commissioner Nierman felt a
would be productive, if they were going to attempt
improvement problems for the entire area.
and if the
Commission
continuance
to resolve
Mr. Dennis Stafford, applicant representing the four subject tracts,
agreed to waive the statutory time limits for processing and approval
of tract maps, (as contained in the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, and
Permit Streamlining Act) and stated that they hope to have a reasonable
proposal within the next 30 days.
Commissioner Shaw stated that the proposal should be well thought out
and should include the participation of residents. He did not think 30
days was sufficient time to accomplish that. Commissioner Shaw again
stated that he felt it would be productive that residents of the area
have an opportunity to review the proposed plan and participate prior
to the next hearing on these items. He stated that, when the program
is ready, the Commission would ask that staff notify residents of a
workshop prior to consideration of the plan by the Planning Commission.
~gLltatiyg_.~~~g~ r]o,, X3530 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 15.1 acres located at the
southwest corner of Ohio Avenue and Palm Avenue and having a frontage
of approximately 707 feet on the south side of Ohio Avenue and a
frontage of approximately 961 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue.
The applicant requests to establish a 45 lot subdivision in the R-1-
10,800 Single-Family Residential zone.
Palm Avenue Investors, owner/applicant.
Discussion and comment on this item are noted under Item No. b,
Tentative Tract No. 13307, as the items were considered concurrently
because of their location in close proximity to each other.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue Tentative Tract No. 13530
indefinitely until such time as the applicant is prepared to present a
Capital Improvements Program for the Verdemont Area for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission.
C
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/17/87
--~ Page 11
ITEM N0. B. Ward 5
TgD~ative Tr$~~ No,_13505 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.6 acres located at the
northeast corner of Belmont Avenue and Palm Avenue and having a
frontage of approximately 715 feet on the north side of Belmont Avenue
and a frontage of approximately 707 feet on the east side of Palm
Avenue. The applicant requests to establish a 49 lot subdivision in
the R-1-7200 Single-Family Residential zone.
Richard Hobgood, owners Mike Cole, applicant.
Discussion and comment on this item are noted under Item No. 6,
Tentative Tract No. 13307, as the items were considered concurrently
because of their location in close proximity to each other.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue Tentative Tract No. 13505
indefinitely until such time as the applicant is prepared to present a
Capital Improvements Program for the Verdemont Area for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission.
~~~M_ N0. 9 . Ward 5
~gD~~~~yg Ttag~ No. 13572 -- Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.4 acres located at the
southeast corner of Ohio Avenue and Palm Avenue. The request is to
establish a 48 lot subdivision in the R-1-7200 Single-Family
Residential zone.
Melvin Harrison, owner/applicant.
Discussion and comment on this item are noted under Item No. 6,
Tentative Tract No. 13307, as the items wece considered concurrently
because of their location in close proximity to each other.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to continue Tentative Tract No. 13572
indefinitely until such time as the applicant is prepared to present a
Capital Improvements Program for the Verdemont Area for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission.
Commission members discussed Engineering Division conditions of
approval for projects.
Commissioner Shaw stated that the conditions are vague and do not
address solutions to engineering issues. He stated that conditions do
not nail down solutions to problems that members of the public raise as
concerns. Commissioner Shaw also requested that standard requirements
be included in Planning Commissioner's packets.
p TACHMENT I ~,~~/li f(i/c: •~
)EPNRl MENT OF TRAM: " ITATION/ COUNrY OF SAN BERNARDINO
~LOOD CONTROL/AIRPORTS , ~;~`~'~'!'%; PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
~~ i~
t,...st Third Street • San Bernardino. CA 92415-4835 • tT14~ 387.2800 ~ ~~~ MtCHAEI G. WALKER
/%/~il~,\\\~ Cireetor
• March 1g, 1987
File: 8(CTY)-12
Tract 13307
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 1lorth "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Mr. Don Williams
Re: Zone 2, Meecham Canyon
Tentative Tract 13307
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your transmittal with accompanying tentative tract map,
requesting the District's review and comments. The tentative Bract is
located on the east side of Chestnut Avenue between Belmont and Irvington
Avenues, in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino.
The west portion of the tract appears to lie within the fringe area of the
overflow path from Meecham Canyon, a debris-ladened watershed of approximately
U00 acres. The southwest corner of the tract appears to lie within the
fringe area of the overflow path or Cable Creek, the main drainage facility
for the Devore area.
Therefore, in our opinion, the westerly portion of the site may be subject
to infrequent flood hazards by reasons of overflow, erosion or debris
deposition from Meecham Canyon in the event of a major storm until permanent
channel and debris retention facilities are arovided. The lots in the area
of the southwest corner of the site may be subject to infrequent flood
hazards by reason of overflow, erosion and debris deposition :'rom Cable
Creek in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris
retention facilities are provided for this system.
Our recommendations are as follows:
1. A structural block wall should be constructed along ~he north and
west tract boundaries, or some other adequate barrier provided, to
intercept overflow from Meecham Canyon.
y
Letter to '.ne City o: '~:~,~ Be~nar~.iao
tlarch 19, 1987
Page 2
2. The City should require adequate provisions for intercepting and
conducting flows from Meecham Canyon around or through the site in
a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream
properties. Because of the magnitude of the area developments,
attention should be directed toward construction of the local
storm drain identified as ?roject ?-c13 in Comprehensive Storm
' Drain Plan Ho. 7. Updating engineering hydraulics and developing
current methods of financing to allo'.+ construction of the local
storm drain should be coordinated with the City Engineers Office.
l•!e would not recommend closed conduits be used for flows from t4eecham
Canyon due to the debris load in the area until adequate debris
retention facilities are provided.
3. In an attempt to minimize overflow damage, future building pads should
be elevated a minimum of 18-inches above natural ground or finished
grade, whichever is greater.
4. Provisions for flood proofing the site per Federal Insurance
Administration (FIA) requirements should be included in the design
for those portions on the site located within Zone "B". This
should be coordinated with the City En3ineer's Office.
5. It is assumed the City will require provisions for handling local
drainage and dewatering the tract in a manner which will no~
adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.
6. Section 16.0212(8) of the County Code sets the fee for this revie:+
and analysis at $125.00. This fee is to be submitted directly to
the District Office :+ith an indication that it is for Flood Hazard
Review of ID 112816, File t;o. Tract 13307. The fee should be
mailed to:
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Water Resources Division
825 E. Third Street, Room 120
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
There gill be no further review of this site until the fee has
been recci~: ed.
Should you h=ve any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at (714) 337-2515.
V r~iy yours,
ROBERT .J. CORCHERO, Chief
1~fater Resources Division
R'~J C :'fi! S : ^: j s
cc: City Engineer
ATTACHMENT "J"
11. Further expansion of the Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Park in the
area designated RU, Residential Urban, located north of the
existing park, shall require approval of a Conditional Use
•_ Permit.
12. a. Notwithstanding Section IV, items 42 and 43, development
within the Verdemont area bounded by little League Orive on
the west, Devil Canyon Creek on the east, the alignment of
Cable Canyon Creek Flood Control Channel on the south and
the Forest Service boundary on the north, shall require pre-
paration of a comprehensive plan for public improvements and
infrastructure pursuant to the following:
1) Palm Avenue Box Culvert
2) Bailey Canyon Storm Orain and Debris Basin
3) Chestnut Street Storm Drain and Debris Basin
4) Traffic Signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive
The comprehensive plan for public improvements and
infrastructure shall be approved prior to any new develop-
ment within the area defined.
All developers and property owners shall participate in the
preparation of this plan and the costs for improvements.
b. The comprehensive plan for public improvements and
infrastructure shall also address full street improvements
at the following locations:
_ 1) Palm Avenue: From Kendall Drive to Ohio Street
2) Irvington Avenue: From Chestnut Street to Pine Avenue
3) Belmont Street: From Chestnut to Pine Avenue
4) Pine Avenue: From Belmont Avenue to Ohio Street
c. All development in the Verdemont area shall be consistent
with the Verdemont Area Plan adopted in 1986. The following
standards shall also apply:
1) All residential structures (houses, garages, barns)
shall have clay the or concrete tila roofs.
2) Minimum front set-back requirements.
Minimum
• lot Size Setback Allowances
7,200 sq. ft. 25 feet May vary provided that the
10,800 sq. ft. 35 feet average setback for all
14,400 sq. ft. 45 feet buildings is equal to the
18,800 sq. ft. 50 feet required minimum setback
20,000+sq. ft. 60 feet for the lot size in
question.
3) Landscaping shall be provided at the intersections of
all Arterial and Collector streets and a maintenance
~" district established prior to the release of improve-
ment bonds.
7
r
4) Landscaping shall be provided for all open space
fronting Parkways, Arterials and Collector thorough-
fares prior to the release ~f improvement bonds.
5) Every residential zoned property shall include front
yard landscaping and front yard street trees as a
requirement of bond release.
6) All developments opening onto an Arterial/Collector
streets shall provide an entry treatment.
7) All developments having perimeter fencing shall use
slump stone, split face block, river rock or concrete
block with stucco color coating only. Wood and/or
chain link fencing shall not be allowed on the peri-
meter of or corner lots within any developments.
8) Conditions, Covenants b Restrictions: All developments
shall include restrictions covering satellite dishes,
equestrian/hiking recreational trails, screening of
recreational vehicle storage, repair of motor vehicles
and other matters approved by Council.
These development standards are effective immediately and include
all projects in various phases of development, including tentative
tract maps and projects going through final engineering as of
May 19, 1988.
13. The depth of parcels within strip commercial areas along
'" arterials may vary in order to accommodate commercial
development.
14. The Roesch Bus Lines site located on the north side of 9th Street
and west of the Warm Creek Flood Control Channel may be operated
as a bus yard by Roesch or any other company as a legal con-
f orming use and may expand up to 20~ in size. However, if the
bus storage use is terminated or discontinued for more than 90
consecutive days, the land use designation shall be RU,
Residential Urban.
15. The RMH, Residential Medium High, designation located north of
6th Street and east of Sterling Avenue shall have a cap of 15
dwelling units per gross acre.
16. The CO, Commercial Office, designation along Arrowhead Avenue
shalt encourage the conversion of existing single family struc-
tures to office uses. No new office buildings will be permitted.
17. The office use at the southeast corner of Arrowhead Avenue and
16th Street shall be "grandf athered° as a legal conforming use.
18. Existing residential structures along Waterman Avenue within the
area designated CO, Commercial Office, shat] not be permitted to
convert t.o office uses. Only new office structures shall be
~. permitted.
8
OF SAH BERHARD~H=E~E~UEST FOR COUHCIL ACTIC
Councilman Tom Minor
Recommended Motion:
- 2 - Verdemont Area Improvement Plar.
That the Director of Community Development be instructed to
coordinate. the development and adoption by the Mayor and Common
Council of a financing and implementation plan for the following
improvements in the area bounded by Little League Drive on the west,
the alignment of Cable Canyon Creek on the south, Devil's Canyon
Creek on the east and the National Forest boundary on the north:
1. Palm Avenue Box Culvert
2. Bailey Canyon Storm Drain and Debris Basin
3. Chestnut Street Storm gain and Debris Basin
4. Traffic Signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive
S. Installation of Curbs and Gutters, along with
Full Street Improvements at the Following
Locations:
a. Palm Avenue - from Kendall Drive to
Chio Street
b. Irvington Avenue - from Chestnut Street
to Pine Avenue
c. Belmont Street - from Chestnut to Pine
Avenue
d. Pine Avenue - from Belmont Avenue to
Ghio Street;
That all departments be instructed to give full cooperation to
the Director of Community Development in the development of said plan,
as a time frame of six nonths has been set by motion of the Mayor
and Common Council;
That the Planning Department be instructed to continue the pro-
cessing of applications for single family developments on 10,800
square foot or larger lots within the area described above; and that
approval of any application for development in the area be conditioned
upon the participation of the developer and property owner, as
appropriate, in the development of the financing plan for the
improvements noted above, and their agreement to pay their proportionate
share of said improvements;' _
Except for minor additions and improvements on existing residential,
that the Director of Building & Safety and the City Engineer be instructs
not to issue building or grading permits within the aforementioned area
until further notice from the Mayor and Common Council, or until the
adoption of the public improvement plan, whichever is first.
~~ a
. ATTA`~M~Z3T L
SEMS~t IV£
133pT ~ao,,,.~
p1a~i'~^~xq ~''M` R
~~
~yi"'r-
{
1
t
~--'~
1
~J Y~~
i
~-
.~~'
rjiPly Ira. 1F In
rHe- W-t` ~ti pF~
r. ~' ~ ~~ r l.r 7rrr +11J ~Iqq
11 /F ~ ~~ M 1~ MOytr~ ~1F
o-• yr eirll"r
N Mlr ~~ nLL ~„+~
„.F yfK111p r µ Ate' V,
~~~1 pr r,n
"~
V
t
a
r
.,
_. .,./.-
~~ ~~
• r'~~ iJ,
~.~~ i,~~
p1MAYW
~M
TTACHMENT "M"
r --
CITY OF SAN gERNAR~iNO PLANNING ~EPAP.TMENT
LQCAT I a N CASE TT NO . 13'07
HEAF2ING GATE _.1L19 ~ ~ ~
AGENDA
ITEM ~
0
6-16