HomeMy WebLinkAbout52-Planning Department
CI\ I OF SAN BERNARDL 40 - REQUI.-J T FOR COUNCIL AC\, ..ON
Date:
September 23, 1988
_ .;a...M l.IlWJJ:?eal of
Planning''I.'''~~. ~o: 13603
\9\1 st' 23 N P-e&li-al
Mayor and Council Meeting of
October 3, 1988 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Tract
- Planning Commission
From:
Michael W.Loehr
Interim Director of
Dept:
Planning
No previous Council action.
Synopsis of 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. 13603.
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. 13603 be denied
based upon the conclusion that the necessary off-site Verdemont Area
infrastructure master plan, implementation financing and subsequent
environmental review of those elements have not been completed.
/l
~JJg
Signature
Michael W. Loehr
Contact person:
Michael W. Loehr
Phone:
384-5057
Ward:
5
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
nta.-
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
as :,1 Wd ez d3S 8861
· .4.. -NIN"" 48431)1
Ananrl'!:t. 1+.o.rY\ 1\1n.
5,.2)
Cll .. OF SAN BERNARDI....D - REQUE~ I FOR COUNCIL AC1.~N
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of
Conunission
Mayor and
p.m.
Tentative Tract No. 13603 - Planning
Denial
Council Meeting of October 3, 1988, 2:00
REQUEST
The applicant, McKeever, Inc. on behalf of John Markley, is
appealing the effective denial of Tentative Tract No. 13603
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. 13603, requesting approval of a 33 lot
subdivision locatead at the southeast corner of Ohio Avenue
and Chestnut Street in the Verdemont Area, was effectively
denied by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1988. The
Planning Commission's vote for a motion of approval was as
follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Brown, Lopez, Sharp
Corona, Lindseth, Nierman
Stone
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 9, 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 review,
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. 13603
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 how 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 may be
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. 13603
Mayor and Council Meeting of October 3, 1988
Page 4
development proposal,
overall infrastructure
as previously stated,
structure plan.
including its relationship to the
plan, needs to be performed. However,
the first prerequisite is the infra-
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-
opmen~, 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. 13603 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. 13603 based upon
the above conclusions.
RECOMMENDATION
That the appeal be denied, and that Tentative Tract No. 13603
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 -
B -
Letter of Appeal
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
August 9, 1988
July 19, 1988 Planning Commission Staff
Report
C -
mkf/9/23/88
M&CCAGENDA:TT13603
ATTACHMENT "
Ol:/'':': ::--,
. .._~-
.. -",.
- -'-
w. J. McKeever Inc.
Civil Engineering
....,. 1
co ,--" 0 P.( :12
August 10, 1988
Mayor and Common Council
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
Dear Mayor and Council:
On August 9, 1988, the City Planning Commission heard our application
for Tentative Tract 13603, being a 33 Lot subdivision in the R1-10,800
zone located on the southerly side of Ohio Ave., westerly of Palm Ave.
in the Verdemont Area.
This tract was designed in late 1986 after adoption of the Verdemont
Community Plan, but because of the moratorium, the application was
not filed until April 1, 1988, after 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.
We are in agreement with all conditions of approval and staff has re-
commended approval of the project.
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 with 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, John Markley, I hereby appeal the decision
of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
Dennis Stafford
DS/ly
.-.,
.. .. I ;-:.1 r; r-"
--
. . ' .. ~;-~ ~
t:. " ; j
: :1 !
L_.....
~ :
nO'; ,
I! 1
;,'
.~ ..... -
.l\UG 11 1988
~~::.T .~. ~'.. \ \.~~ 1~ -:.: G ~ ~: .:',7.: ;~/. ;:.~~T
s;.~'"i s.~:: ::~!\ ~t'.;;'~.J.~ CA
647 North Main Street. Suite 2A - Riverside, California 92501 - Ph. (714) 824-5307
.TTACHHENT B
city of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 7
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
coupled with
waiver.
commission determined that the size of the parcel,
the proposed use, warranted the sewer connection
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, asked if it would be appropriate to
propose a change (to the ordinance) that if the site is beyond 200 feet
from sewer lines, there could be an exemption to sewer connection.
commissioner Nierman suggested that there be a mandatory requirement to
hook up to the sewer if sewer lines are within 200 feet of the site. It
was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to prepare an
amendment to the ordinance.
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: Oennis 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
hge8
Vivian Stevens presented comments as contained in staff's ~eport. She
noted that a Negative Declaration for environmental impact 1S 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-ot-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 sailey 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 17 should have
an added sentence that reads, "Where possible, trees are to be saved.";
the last paragraph of standard requirement IS (16 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, tha~ "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 tile roofs.
Mr. Chris Saldeeke, of Palm 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
through the wash, foothills, towards Devore and
Palm and Belmont.
that it had burned
up to the corner of
Ms. Stevens stated that conditions on both tracts
Avenue be improved, including curb and gutter.
require that Palm
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 ~f 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 courseS7 that there be no new direct access to major or minor
arterials 7 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 ~asement 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 h..rd, 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 "~eap 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
stated that they had bought the property under the
area would remain one-acre lots. She stated that
of the hearing and that planning Department maps
old.
a home in the area,
impression that the
she was not notified
are over two years
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. Edwina 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.
\,;1.ty of San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88
Page 11
In regard to It.. 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 go ~ver 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. 13603. 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
~~ty ot San Bernardino
Planning commission Meeting Minutes ot8/9/88
Page 12
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:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Brown, Lopez, Sharp
Corona, Lindseth, Nierman
Stone
Cole, Gomez
Since the motion did not carry a majority vote, the item is deemed to
be denied.
ITEM NO. 10
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 DEPARTMENT '"
SUMMARY
-....
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
5
7/19/88 .
5
~
w
~ Tentative Tract No. 13603
APPLIcANT: McKeever Engineering
647 No. Main, #24
Riverside, CA 92501
OWNER: John Markley
445 S. Arrowhead
San Bernardino, CA 92408
tn
LLI
:)
fa
a::
.......
cr
III
a:
4
The proposal is to subdivide an 11.2 acre site into 33 lots of
10,800 square feet and greater in the R-1-10,800 Single-Family
District.
The project site is approximately 11.2 acres located on the
south side of Ohio Avenue on the east. side of Chestnut.
.
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
West
EXISTING
LAND USE
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
RS-10,800
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Vacant
Single-Family
Tree Farm
Vacant
Vacant
ZONING
R-1-14,400
R-1-10,800
R-1-10,800
R~1-10,800
R-1-10,800
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC KXYES FLOOD HAZARD [>> YES OZONE A C SEWERS Kl YES )
HAZARD ZONE ONO ZONE DNa OZONE B DNa
HIGH FIRE ~ES AIRPORT NOISE / DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE ONO CRASH ZONE aaNO PROJECT AREA ONO
...J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z rxbc APPROVAL
~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 5ax CONDITIONS
Zen MEASURES NO E.I.R. !<<
LLle!) o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO &1.0 0
2z &I.~ DENIAL
z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING i!:IE 0 CONTI NUANCE TO
a::Z MEASURES en2
:;ii: 0
Z lXXNo o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (,)
I&J SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C. LLI
EFFECTS MINUTES ct:
NOV. 1981 UVI8EO .JULY .Iez
SKY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. . CASE: TT 13603
OBSERVATIONS
7~19/88
2
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAG
,
1 . REOUEST
The applicants request approval to establish a 33 lot
subdivision in the R-l-10,800, Single-Family Residential
Zone.
2 . SITE LOC~j'J.Oll
The subject property is a 11.2 acre parcel located at
the southeasterly corner of Ohio and Chestnut Avenues.
3 . t!P~..I_C I r l\.lt _ CQPJL~FP- _G~~~.AAk Y_L..At~L~FORMANCE
The proposed ploject is consistent with the Municipal
Code as shown in Attachment "Aft and with the Interim
Policy Document adopted by the Mayor and Common Council
on May 23, 1988, and amended on June 6, 1988, and
approved by the State Office of Planing and Research on
June 9, 1988.
4. rJ'lOA STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to
the Environmental Review Committee on May 5, 1988. The
committee recommended a negative declaration. The
report was advertised and made available for public
review and comment from May 12, 1988 to May 25, 1988. No
comments were received. See Attachment wEw, Initial
Study.
5. BACKGROU'@
The application for this tentative tract was submitted
subsequent to the March 16, 1988 letter from the State
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That letter
lifted the moratorium on single-family lots of 10,800
square feet and greater in the Verdemont Area. The
letter from OPR, dated June 9, 1gee, lifted the
moratorium for the entire City and established the
Interim Policy Document as the City's operating
procedures. The clarification, by Councilman Minor,
dated June 20, 1988, provided clear direction to the
Planning staff regarding how to process the maps. It
\..
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
, ~E TT 13603
OBSERVATIONS
5
7/1~/88
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAG
'''''''Ill
r
aJso clblifje~ the
the requirements of
Verdemont Area Plan.
from the June 21, 1988
this Hearing because of
needed clarification.
conditions needed in order to meet
the Interim Policy Document and the
this application was continued
Planning Commission Hearing to
the timing of the letter and the
6. ANALYSIS
~QPQgrapby
The site is located in an area of limi.ted environmental
constraints. The general existing topography drops
approximately 30 feet from the north to south. The
northernmost portion of the property is approximately
2,000 feet south of the San Andreas Fault Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone.' Based on that distancet the
project will not require any particular geology study
for fault determination.
E:.u.1?!...iP-9--~g eta t ion
The parcel recently has been disked. It is vacant, with
the exception of a row of mature olive trees. The trees
are believed to be remnants of wind rows planted when
this area was a part of the town of Irvington in the
late 1.880's.
The Initial Study addressed the trees. A condition of
approval has been added with covenants, conditions and
restrictions (CCR'S) will be required to protect the
trees along Chestnut and Ohio Street which are not in
the public right-of-way.
The olive trees found along Chestnut ~venue should be
retained to enhance the future equestrio~ trail to b~
developed along the right-of-way. However, if any of
the trees are removed from either Ohio or Chestnut, they
shall be transferred elsewhere on the site. Such
transplanting of olive trees normally is very
successful. A condition of approval is included.
""---
" ..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE TT 13603
OBSERVATIONS
5
7/19/88
4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
r
Cilculati9R.q~~_AG~~~~
Vehicular access will be provided via two 50-foot wide
publicly dedicated roads, extending from Palm Avenue
through Tentative Tract 13530, and Ohio Avenue. If the
adjacent tract is not approved or constructed
concurrently, this tract will be responsible for
improving the roadway to Palm Avenue. A condition of
approval has been added to reflect this.
Twenty-eight of the lots front on interior streets. Five
lots front Ohio Avenue which has been designated as a
local collector street with a 60 foot right-of-way.
Projected future traffic levels along Ohio Avenue are
low enough not to create an undesirable or unsafe living
environment.
Environmental~JllLC~~
The attached Initial Study addressed the need for storm
drain improveroents to the Chestnut Storm Drain and
debris basin. The Interim Policy Document requires that
the plan for public improvements and infrastructure be
approved prior to any new development in the area. The
infrastructure plan will include improvements to the
following: (1) Palm Avenue Box Culver, (2) Bailey
Canyon St.orn DLain and Debrip BaFin, (3) Traffic signal
at PaJro ~ve~ue and Kendall Drive. The Interim Policy
Document further requires all developers to participate
in the preparation of this plan and the costs for
improvements. Development has been determined to be the
issuance of building permits. In addition, the proposed
tract must meet all the requirements pet forth in the
Verdemont Area Plan including the conditions imposed for
the high wind and high fire hazard areas. See
Attachment WE", Initial Study.
Lot Charac_tjUj.stiQP
Lots within the tract vary in size from 10,800 square
feet to 17,000 square feet. Eight of the lots are
irregularly-shaped; 25 are rectantularly-shaped. All
lots meet or surpass the minimum requirements of the
Municipal Code. Eight lots are adjacent to Chestnut.
~
\..
~.;.~'" ...;. ~.. .
. :.,.......ltl.~ "!'.
'"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
" CASE TT 13603
OBSERVATIONS
"5
7/19/88
5
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
These lots include area which will be dedicated for
equestrian trails. Chestnut will be requited to be
vacated. Approval of this tract will not result in
approval of the vacation of this portion of Chestnut. A
condition of approval insures that approval of this map
does not vacate this portion of Chestnut. The
engineering Department is initiating the vacation of the
entire length of Chestnut.
Equest~ian Trails
The Verdemont Area Plan deleted Chestnut Avenue as a
necessary street. That plan designates a portion of the
right-of-way as an equestrian trail. The suggested 30
foot easement is to be developed on top of the storm
drain pipeline proposed underground. The equestrian
trails are to be developed as required by the Verdemont
Area Plan. The map is conditioned to comply with all
requirements of that plan.
7. aqENCY COMMENTS
The Southern California Edison Company
map will not unreasonably interfere
complete exercise of any easement
California Edison Company within the
tentative tract map.
advises that the
with the free and
held by Southern
boundaries of said
The City Water Department recommends approval and
reports that the nearest water main is located
approximately 1400 feet at Palm Avenue.
Both the City Public Services and the Southern
California Gas Company recommend approval.
The San Bernardino
the project will be
established by the
District.
Unified School District notes that
subject to school activity fees as
San Bernardino City Unified School
The County Flood Control Department says that the west
portion of the tract appears to lie within the overflow
path of storm flows from Meecham Canyon. "They have
included recommendations (See Attachment wFw.)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE TT 13603
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PA
~
"""'II
8.
CONCI,US ION
Tentative Tract No. 13603 contains 33 single-family lots
which meet the Municipal Code Requirements. The tract
is consistent with the Interim Policy Document and the
State Map Act. Conditions have been added reflecting'
the development of the plan .. for-public improvements in
the area, the preservation of existing olive trees, the
vacation of Chestnut right-of-way, complying with the
Verdemont Area Plan and extending "A" Street to Palm
Avenue.
r
9.
RECOMMENOATIQ~
Staff recommends that the Planning CommisRion approve
Tentative Tract No. 13603 subject to the Findings of
Fact (Attachment "B"), Conditions of Approval and
Standard Conditions (Attachment .C.), and Standard
Requirements (Attachment "0").
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL W. LOEHR
Interim Director of Planning
-' / i .- :-..
(/.--t ,~ ;..(:i: -r- .,,{j C': I....... 1-,;)....
Vivian Stevens
Planner II
VS:cms
Attachment "A" -
Attachment liB" -
Attachment "c" -
Attachment "0" -
Attachment "E" -
Attachment "F" -
Attachment "G" -
Attachment "H" -
'doc.pcagenda
tt1363030.l
7-13-88
Municipal Code & General Plan Conformance
Findings of Fact
Conditions of Approval & Standard
Conditions
Standard Requirements
Initial Study
County Flood Control
Site Map
Location Map
.
'\.
~
Attachment "At"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CAS! TT 13603
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM S
HEARING DATE 7/19/88
7
,.
.....
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category
Permitted
Use
Project
Tentative
Tract
Municipal Code
General Plan
Yes
Yes
Setbacks
(Front)
(Rear)
35 feet
Defer to IPD
35 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
Lot Size
10,800 sq. ft. 10,800 sq. ft.
minimum minimum
10,800 sq. ft.
minimum
Minimum
Width
80 ft. min.
80 ft. min.
80 ft. min.
Density
3.34 du/ac
4.0 dulac
31-43 du/ac
Special
Requirements:
Plan for
Public
Improvements
Condition
of Approval
Defer to IPD
Required prior
to Development
~
"-.
ctachment "B"
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 13603
FINDINGS of FACT
5
7/1'J/"d'd
9
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1. The requested subdivision' is in accordance with the
minimum lot development standards of the R-l-10,800,
Single-Family Residential Zone and is consistent with
the Interim Policy Document adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council on May 23, 1988 amd amended June 6, 1988
and approved by the State ,Office of Planning and
Research on June 9, 1988.
2. The rectangular shape and gradual slope of the site, is
suitable for R-l-lO,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:cms
doc.pcagenda
tt13307F.1 (TT13603)
7-8-88
""
Attachment "l
CITY 'OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 13603
.,
CONDITIONS
5
7/19/88
8
\..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING q~!E
PAbE
-.,
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
requirements of the Verdemont Area Plan.
the
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 Ohio
Avenue and the Chestnut right-of-way. Any trees removed
shall be transplanted into front yards elsewhere in the
tract.
8.
Approval
approval
Approval
approval
of th~s Tentative Tract Map does not include
of a vacation of the Chestnut right-of-way.
of this tract is contingent upon the subsequent
of the vacation of Chestnut.
9. Provide secondary access by extending wAw Street to Palm
Avenue.
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.
:cms
doc.pcagenda
TT13603C
7-13-88
colli
11.
12.
13.
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CASE TT 13603
CONDITIONS
"
\r..
AGENDA ITEM 5
HEARING DATE 7 /19/88
PAGE , n
~
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 oth~r
nuisance.
x
Subject to the Conditions of the Department of
Parks and Recreation (attached).
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/
industrial center shall" be approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of Certifi
cate of Occupancy.
"-
SP:lmc
PCAGENDA
STNOCONOITIONS
~
Attachment "D"
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
"'"
CASE
T'r 1 360 3
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
\....
AGENDA ITEM S
HEARING DATE 7/19/88
PAGE 11 ~
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1.
x
Tentative Tract No. 13603 shall be in effect for a
period of ~ 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 ~-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 ~-month time period.
Expiration Date: July 19, 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 & Rls 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 & Rls 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
IUS slly
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
""
CASE
TT 13603
STANDARD
"--
,.
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM 5
HEARING DATE 7/19/88
FlAG E 12
~
"'"
Recreational vehicle storage areas shall be screened by at least
a six-foot high decorative wall with screened gates.
I
There shall be provided for each unit, with.in 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
vehicies including fire, police, and refuse disposal vehicles,
and any other emergency vehicles. The documents covering this
matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the
Planning Department.
All refuse storage areas are to be enclosed with a
wall. Location, size, type and design of wall. are
the approval of the Planning Department and Division
Services Superintendent.
decorative
subject to
of Public
Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and
local requirements.
2. .
x
LANDSCAPING:
a.
Four (4) copies
submitted to the
approval. The plan
the following:
of a master landscape plan shall be
Engineering Division for review and
shall include, but not' be limited to,
1) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed.
2) Irrigation plan.
3) Such other alternate plants, materials and
concepts as may be proposed.
design
4) Erosion control plans.
~ ~
IU' slly
,-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
REQUIREMENTS
"'"
TT 13603
STANDARD
"'"-
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
~AGE
5
7/19/88
13
~
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 i~ height shall
be protected by planting with grass or ground cover plants.
Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall also be
planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten. feet on
centers; or trees, spaced at not to exceed 20 feet on
centers; or a combination of shrubs and trees as cover
plants. The plants selected and planting methods used shall
be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the
site:
Trees 10%, 15 gallon; 40% 5 gallon; 50%, 1 gallon.
Shrubs 20%, 5 gallon; 80%, 1 gallon.
Ground cover 100% coverage.
d.
Slopes required to
irrigation system
Department.
e. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall
be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to
individual ownership.
be planted shall be provided with an
approved by the Parks and Recreation
3.
x
All grading and drainage
control planting of graded
accordance with a grading
Engineer. A grading permit
grading being done.
All lots shall have a minimum area oflO,800 square feet, a
minimum depth of ~ feet, and a minimum width of ~ feet,
(~feet on corner lots). In addition, each lot on a cu1-de-
f.
facilities, including erosion
slopes, shall be done in
plan approved by the City
shall be obtained prior to any
~,u SJrf
r
CASE
TT 13603
5
7/19/88
14
~
"'"
STANDARD
\...
,
4.
x
5.
x
6.
7.
8.
9.
\...
CITY- OF SAN BERNARDINO
'"
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
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.
Where lots occur on the
depth of 100 feet will
less than ~ feet, a
strate that a buildable
lesser depth.
bulb of the cul-de-sac, a minimum lot
be permitted. If the proposed depth is
plot plan must be submitted to demon-
lot area is possible and to justify the
. Variable front building setback lines of at least -In- feet and
averaging ~ feet, and side street building setback lines 15
feet shall be delineated on the final tract map. All garage
entrances on a dedicated street shall have a minimum setback of
18 feet.
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.
x
When graded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the
slope face shall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to
this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer.
Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the City
Engineer in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to
precipitation.
x
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.
~
ItlS sky
'"
,.
CASE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
~
TT 13603
REQUIREMENTS
STANDARD
",-.
5
7/19/88
15
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
,
"'"
10.
x
11.
x
12.
x
No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on any building unless
screened as specifically approved by the Planning Department
(except for solar collection panels).
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.
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
with these Standard Requirements as well as
the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
prior to compliance
all provisions of
csj/5-9-88
DOC:PCAGENDA
DOCUMENTS.I
\....
~
I'" Sky
,
CITY OF SAN bcRNARDINO PUBLIC .vORKS/ENGR.
CASE TT 13603
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
7/19/88
16
r
Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13603 - Create 33 SFR Lots
Located at the Southeast Corner Ohio Avenue & Chestnut Avenue
Date: 5/18/88
Page ~ of ~ pages
Prepared. By: M~ Revi ewed By: GRK
Applicant:
John Markley
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required,
the app11cant 1S 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
L3. x All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be
subject to requirements of the City Eng:ineer~ 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.
14. -L.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 Zone A on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore, a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued
by the City Engineer shall be required.
_ The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore , all b u i 1 din g pads shall be ra i sed above the
surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer.
_Comprehensive storm drain Project No.7-E13 is master planned in
the vicinity of your development. This 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.
15.
-1... All drainage from the development
approved pUblic drainage facility.
drainage facilities and easements
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
shall be
If not
shall be
directed
feasible,
provided
to an
proper
t'o the
)
"
-
CITY OF SAN wERNARDINO PUBLIC. NORKS/--,
CASE TT 13603
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
--\
/
""
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING OA~!
PAG!!.
5
7/19/88
17
r . . ""
Project Descrlpt1on: Tentativ~ Tr~r~ ~o 13603 - Create 33 SFR lot!
Located at the Southeast Corn~r Ohin Aver:)Ilf & CtHHtRl:It .~veRt:te
Date: 5/i8'88
Page 2' of ..
- -.-
pages
Prepared By: lUUL
Reviewed By:
GRK
Grading
16.
If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plotl
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.
17. 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.
x
A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report must
-be submi tted and approved pri or to issuance of a gradi ng permi t.
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
----approval if reciprocal
proposed to cross lot
recorded to remove the
sha 11 be recorded pri or to gradi ng pl an
drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is
lines, or a lot line adjustment shall be
interior lot lines.
18. ~ The pro jec t Land sca pe Plan sh a 11 be rev i e\oJed an'd approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 4
copies to the Engineering Division for checking.
An on-site Lighting Plan for the project shall be reviewed and
-approved by the City Engineer. This plan can be incorporated with
the grading plan, or on-site improvement plan, if practical.
Utilities:
19.
-L-Desi gn and construct all
accordance with City Code,
serving utility, including
and cable TV.
public utilities to serve the site in
City Standards and requirements of the
gas. electric, telephone, water, se\'/er
\...
~
,.
CITY OF SAN beRNARDINO pUBLIC .iORKS/ENGR.
. CASE TT 13603
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
-
"'"
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
7/19/88
, R
~
Iflo.
,.
Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13603 - Create 33 ~FR I ot~
Located at the Southeast Corner Ohio Avenue & Chestnut AvpnlJP
Date: 5/1~/88
Page -3- of ~ pages
Prepared By: MWG Reviewed By: GRK
7.0. ~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.
21. ~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.
22. ~Utility services shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required.
23. ~All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site
on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance
with Ordinance No. MC-601 (Subdivisions) or Resolution No. 88-65
(Non-subdivisions).
24 . --L- Ex i s tin gut i 1 i ti e s w h i chi n t e r fer e wit h new co n s t r u c t ion s h all be
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City
Engineer.
Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
-maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to
Ci ty Standards and inspected under a Ci ty On-Si te Constructi on
Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can
be incorporated in the grading plan. where practical.
"'--
r-
CITY-OF SAN bcRNARDINO PUBLIC HORKS/ENGR.
CASE TT 13603
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
'"
li...
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
7/19/88
19
r
Project Description:Tentative Tract No. 13603 - Create 33 SFR Lots
Located at the Southeast Corner Ohio Avenue & Chestnut Avenue
Date: 5qa/88
Page ~ of.~ pages
Prepared By: ~ Reviewed By: GRK
Street Improvement and Dedications:
25. ~All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be
improved to i ncl ude combi nati on curb and gutter. pavi ng. handi cap
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 c~nstruction. striping. signing. pavement marking and markers.
and street name signing. All design and construction shall be
accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street
Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings". unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting. when required.
shall be -designed and constructed in accordance with the City's
"Street lighting Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall
be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
26. ~For the streets listed below. dedication of adequate street
right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline
to property line and placement of the curb line (C.l.) in relation
to the street centerline shall be as follows:
Street Name
Right-of-Way (Ft.)
Curb line (Ft.)
Ohio Avenue
301
20'
251
18'
Interior Streets
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 \oJith 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.
~
27.
) ~
-
CITY OF SAN DiRNARDINO PUBLIC .vORKI/".
CASE TT 13603
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM"
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
7/19/88
20
~
Project Description: Tentative Tri'lr:t Nn 13603 - r.rp;l'tp' '3'3 <::l='R 10tc::
Located at the .S.,Qutheast Corner Ohio Avenue 1. r.hp~'tnll't AvpnllP
Date: _ 5~18/88
Page --5 0 ~ pages
Prepared By: ~ Reviewed By: r,RK
Mapping
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
29. 2-Street. sewer. and drainage improvement plans for the entire
project sha 11 be compl eted. subject to the approval of the Ci ty
Engineer. prior to the recordation of the Final/Parcel Map.
28.
30.
comp 1 eted pr i or to
improvement security
the deve 1 oper and the
x If the required improvements are not
----recordation of the Final/Parcel Map, an
accompanied by an agreement executed by
Ci ty wi 11 be requi red.
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.
Required Engineering Permits:
31. ~Grading permit (if applicable).
On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
----Building and Safety)
32. ~Off-Site improvements construction permit
Applicable Engineering Fees:
33. x Plan check fee for Final/Parcel Map.
34. x Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements.
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
---- b u i 1 d" i n 9 s; see B u i 1 din 9 and S a f e t y ) .
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUILIC WORKS/..... .,
CASE TT 13.603
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
7/19/88
21
~
"""'II
Project Description:Tentative Tract No. 13603 - Create 33 SFR Lots
Located at the Southeast Corner Ohio Avenue & Chestnut Avenue
Date: 5/18/88
Page ~ of ~ pages
Prepared BY:M~ Reviewed By: GRK
35. ~Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permit required).
Traffic impact mitigation in the amount of $ 100.00 Der lot
----For Palm and Kendall Traffic Signal
____Bridge improvement fee in amount of $ 315.00 per lot
36.
X Drainage fee based on $ See Building & Safetyper square foot.
----Total fee = $
37.
~Landscape.Plan Review Fee $ 50.00
Traffic System Fee of $ per vehicle trip for City-~lide
----traffic mitigation based on ADT of
Total Fee = $
38.
~___Street Light Energy Fee to pay cost of street light energy for 4
years.
Ii..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CASE TT 13603
AGENDA ITEM 5
HEARING DATE 7/19/88
PAG E 22
~
39. xx
'"
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.
1. 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. Full 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.
\....
~
,en Ill,
ATTACHMENT "E"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Initial Study
for
Environmental Review
May 5, 1988
Tentative Tract No. 13603
Southeasterly Corner of Ohio & Chestnut Avenues
Prepared by:
Vivian Stevens
Planning Department
300 North nDn Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714)384-5057
Prepared for
John Markley
445 South Arrowhead, 16
San Bernardino,CA 92408
&
McKeever Engineers
647 N. Main Street, i2A
Riverside, CA 92501
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
5.0
6.0
Introduction........................
Executive Summary...................
Proposed Project....................
Project Impacts.....................
Project Description.................
Project Location....................
Site and Project Characteristics....
Existing Conditions.................
Project Characteristics.............
Environmental Assessments...........
Environmental Setting...............
Environmental Effects..... .0...... .. .
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · ·
Exh i b i t-s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . · · · · · .. · · ·
EMm
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Location Map
Environmental Impact Checklist
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for Tentative Tract No. 13603 to
subdivide 11.2 acres into 33 lots in the R-1-10,800
Single Pamily District. 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 Declarationl
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 Declarationl
.c.
Explaining
potentially
significant.
the reasons
significant
for determining that
effects would not be
4.
Facilitate environmental assessment
design of a projectl
early in the
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 environmentl
6. Eliminate unnecessary
EIRS.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be
used with the project.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to establish a 33 lot
subdivision in the R-l-10,800, Single-Family
Residential Zone. The subject property is a 11.2 acre
parcel located at the southeast corner of Ohio and
Chestnut Avenues.
2.2 Project Impacts
lea) The cut of 15,000 cubic yards and fill of 12,000
cubic yards.
2(c) ~he proposal will result in development within a
high wind hazard area.
3(a) The proposal may result in a change in
absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate
and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable
surfaces.
3(e) The proposal may result in exposure of people or
property to flood hazards.
4(a) The proposal could result in a change in the
number of rare or endangered species of plants
or their habitat including stands of trees.
6(a) The proposal could result in a change in the
land use as designated on the General Plan is
different than that being proposed.
6(c) The proposal will result in development with
.Greenbelt zone .C.'.
6(d) The proposal will result in development within
the high fire hazard zone.
11(5) The proposal could impact the capital
improvements program beyond the capability of
the City to provide adequate levels of service
and require the construction of new facilities.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The proposal is located on a 11.2 acre site at the
southeast corner of Ohio Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in
the Verdemont area.
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics
3.2.1 Existing conditions
The site is vacant with the exception that a row of
mature Olive trees border the site on the west. The
topography drops approximately thirty feet from north
to south. The northerlymost portion of the property is
approximately 2,000 feet south of the San Andreas
Fault Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
The proposal is to create a 33-lot single family
.subdivision in the R-I-I0,800 single family
residential district. The lot sizes range from 10,800
square feet to 17,000 square feet. Eight of the lots
are irregularly shaped but comply with the Municipal
Code requirements regarding minimum dimensions of
irregular lots. The proposed streets which provide
access from Ohio Avenue and Palm Avenue through
Tentative Tract 13530 meet City standards.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
Ohio Avenue is the northern boundary of this 11.2 acre
site and the Chestnut Street drainage channel becqmes
the Western boundary. The area is relatively flat
with a 40 foot drop from north to south over the 700
foot length of the parcel. The area has been disked.
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.
l(a) Will the proposal result in earth movement (Cut
and/or Fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
The Preliminary Environmental Description
submitted by the applicant indicates 15,000
cubic yards of cut and 12,000 cubic yards of
fill. Slopes will be 2:1. The City Engineering
Department will require that a grading bond be
posted for any earthwork over 5,000 cubic yards
to insure that the work is done in accordance
with Section 70l4(c) of the Uniform Building
Code.
2(c) Will the proposal result in development within a
high wind hazard area?
The City requires that new projects located in
the high wind area have tile roofs with
hurricane clips for wind protection.
3(a)
Will the
absorption
and amount
surfaces?
proposal result in a ehange in
rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
of surface runoff due to impermeable
The tract is engineered to drain toward the
southeast into Road -B- and then into Palm
Avenue. The City Senior Civil Engineer, Mike
Grubbs, reviewed the plans and found the tract
meets the City's preliminary requirements for
drainage.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
3(e) Will the proposal result in exposure of people
or property to flood damage?
The property in question sometimes is flooded
and as a result a.condition of approval of the
tract will be that the debris basin in the
foothills and the "storm drain along ~hestnut be
developed. The improvements are to be designed
and bonded prior to recordation and constructed
prior to occupancy.
4(a) The proposal could result in a change in the
number of rare or endangered species of plants
or their habitat including stands of trees.
The tract is bordered on the west by a stand of
mature trees that should not be affected by the
proposal. The trees are to be retained.
Covenants, conditions and restrictions will be
required to protect the trees along Chestnut and
the trees along Ohio that are not in the public
right of way.
6(a) Will the proposal result in a change in the land
use as designated on the General Plan?
The June 11, 1986 letter from the State Office
of Planning and Research prevented the City of
San Bernardino from accepting or processing any
permits north of the Saldecke-Sky line. It
further released the City from maintaining a
complete and adequate general plan. The
processing of applications north of the Saldeck-
Sky line on Single-Family lots of 10,800 square
feet and larger was allowed by the February 5,
1988 letter from the State Office of Planning
and Research.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
6(c) Will the proposal result in development witbin
wGreenbelt Zone CW?
The proposal is
Greenbelt study.
enumerated below.
located in Zone wCw of
Mitigation measures
the
are
The project is required and does have two
publicly dedicated ingress and egress routes in
that both Ohio and Palm are points of entry or
exit. WAW Road to be extended to Palm if
Tentative Tract 13530 does not go through.
In addition, the development will be required to
have non-combustible and reflective street
markers and three inch high house numbers that
are all visible for 100 feet.
The development will be required to provide 6
inch or larger circulating mains and storage
capacity sufficient to provide the minimum fire
flow duration and hydrant spacing with a
residual pressure of 20 pounds per inch.
Each hydrant shall be identified with approved
blue reflecting street markers.
Utilities are to be placed underground.
Open ends of tile roofs must be capped with non-
ignitable material to prevent bird nests or
other combustible material to be located with
the roof structure.
Vents are to be covered by 1/4 inch corrosion
resistant wire mesh, not to exceed 144 square
inches.
UBC exterior 1 hour 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 structure (some ornamental and ground cover
exceptions.
.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
No combustible materials on site until the water
is on site.
6(d) Will the proposal result in development within
the high fire hazard zone?
The proposal is located within the high fire
hazard zone and the mitigation required for the
Greenbelt zone C are the same.
11(5) Will the proposal impact the capital
improvements program beyond 'the capability of
the City to provide adequate levels of service
and require the construction of new facilities?
The City Engineering Department will impose
fees, approved by the common council, based on
their estimate of the future needs of the area.
The fees will be for improvements such as storm
drainage, park fees and etc. The developer will
be required to connect to the City Water and
sewer facilities. At present the 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.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
5.0 REFERENCES
Mr. Huston T. Carlyle, Jr.
Director
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(Letter of June 11, 1987 & February 5, 1988)
Persons contacted:
Michael Grubbs, Senior Civil Engineering, City Public
Works
Charles Dunham, Plan Check Engineer, Department of
Building & Safety.
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study Re: Tentative Tract No. 13603
6.0 EXHIBITS
Exhibit wAw - Location Map
Exhibit wBw - Environmental Impact Checklist
VS:cms
doc.misce11aneous
ISTT13603B
4/10/88
Attachment "A
""""III
""'Ill
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNt<<3 DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM.
LOCATION
CASE
TT 13603
HEARING DATE
~ ..
.w)~
1".800'
...
. .1
.. fT ACHMENT "B"
CIT
INO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
, ~
A. BACKGROQ~
Tentative Tract No. 13603
Application Number:
Project Description: A 33 lot single-family subdivision of 10,800 square
feet.
Locat ion: Southeasterly corner of Ohio and chestnut on approximately 11.2
acre site.
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation: N/A
zoning Designation: R-l-10,800
B. ~~I~ONM~NTA~ IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea!~h Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more?
x
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15'
natural grade?
x
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone?
x
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
REVISED 12/87
~
PAGE 1 OF 8
~
"
Yea
No
Maybe
'"
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
x
x
h. Other?
2. ~IR_RESQYRCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b~ The creation of objectionable
odor.s?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
W~TEB_ RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
Will
the
x
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
x
.
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
.X
x
x
~ ~
r
Yes
No
Maybe
"'
4.
BIOLOGICbL R~SOURC~.$:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
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
dB?
x
x
c. Other?
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
x
e. Other?
\...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
Yes
No
Maybe
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~FP~:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
x
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
x
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
x
x
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
x
x
b. Other?
9. TRA~~FORTATIO~/CIR-CULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
x
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilitiesl
structures?
x
c. Impact upon existing public
transportetion systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
x
x
x
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
x
PAGE 4 OF 8
REVISED 10/87
9.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
Other?
of
h.
10. FUBLI~ SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
police protection?
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
c.
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e. Medical aid?
f.. Sol id waste?
g. Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
b.
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
x
x
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 5 OF 8
)
~
Yes
No
Maybe
12. AESTHETICS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
x
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
x
c. Other?
x
13.
CP~1U~~--F~~9URCES:
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
x
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
x
c. Other?
x
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
REVISED 10/87 PAGE 60F8
~
Yep
No
Maybe
'"
important examples of the
maJor periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the
. potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively'
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future.)
x
.X
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project. have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
~ ~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
D. DETERMI~1'JON
On the basis of this initial study,
~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
LYJ environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared..
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
D
D
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
t;;}J(IPJJJMeN(1rt, 19I1EW ~NI mE
Name and Title
~.f#y
Signature
Date:
4f1 ~ /19!J
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
.
ATTACHMENT
TRANSPORTATION/FLOG CO.~TROL
DEPARTMENT
"F"
825 East ThIrd StrHt · San BernIrdIno, CA 92415-0835 · (714) 387.2800
"\ I ,
" ,,' II "It.' .
",\ I. 11"'_/
'~~'t'/" .
.............:" ,/
- ~ ......;.-
..:::-- ...:.-
.,.,~. .:.........-::.......
}'1./'I I" 1\\\'"
I \
April 26,
COUNTY OF SAN BEkl'lARDINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
, < \ ,.. '"
. , .
KEN A. MILLER
Director
1988
File: 8(CTY)-12
T.T. 13603
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
....
t "
~ ..
,. 'to
t:
::: '
(',ri.: ..
. ':J r'
l. ';) \,l
en i' i':.. i ,i"
";'JT
Attention: Mary Lanite
~~t~:l ~:.~;>:~
Re: Zone 2, Meecham Canyon
Tentative Tract 13603
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your transmittal requesting the District's
:review and comments on Tentative Tract Map No. 13603. The site
is located on the southeast corner of the Ohio and Chestnut Avenue
intersection, in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino.
The west portion of the tract appears to lie within the overflow
path of storm flows from Meecham Canyon, a highly debris-Iadened
watershed of approximately 400 acres.
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 provided.
Our recommendations are as follows:
1. Portions of the site may be subject to excessive street
flows and accumulated drainage from the north and
west. It is therefore recommended that a separate
report be obtained from the City Engineer's Office with
respect to local and on-site drainage conditions.
2. The City should require adequate provisions for intercepting
and conducting flows from Meecham Canyon around or
through the site ina manner which will not adversely
affect adjacent or downstream properties. Enclosed for
your information are copies from Comprehensive Storm
Drain Plan No.7, Project No. 7-E13, covering this
area. We would not recommend closed conduits be used
for flows from Meecham Canyon due to the debris load in
the area until adequate debris retention facilities are
provided.
-
-
Letter to City of San Bernardino
April 26, 1988
Page 2
3. It is assumed the City will require provisions for
handling local drainage and dewatering the tract in a
manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or
downstream properties. .
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to contact Mr. Robert W. Corchero, Chief Water
Resource Division at (714) 387-2515.
Very truly yours,
~e~
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
.
RWC:HWS:snm
Enclosure as Noted
cc: San Bernardino City Engineer, w/Enclosure
I
.
..
.,)
'1 '0
/ \ I
\.~
--l--
I
,
,
(
\
\
"
,
I
I
" ,
..... . ~
, ~ "\_>\''::-~, '1 ._~~- j
.. ~ '<:::./ I. '..'~
-
-.-
---
Leqend .
PROPOSED ORA IN
PROPOSED ORAIN (stMl.. 'I..w..,)
EXISTING OPEN DRAIN
EXISTING CLOSED ORAIN .
San Bernardino County
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
I
Ct! M ENGINEERWG ASSOCIATES
_'.0.__' . _
-- ,,,.,....- . (".,_.-
_bIlI~~_--.~
COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN
PROJECT NO. 7 -E13
DATI
SCALE
1"= 1000'
OIAWING NO.
3-82
, -. '%
1_-;..;.
..
t
l
14.1
,
It'
"
.I~~.....
if
, :~;..
':-:j-
"'1
..~
"I
,I
)I
1-3
1-3
f)
::c
. :J:
t!j
Z
1-3
=
(j)
=
s; ·
\
\
'.. ~
.-- '. _. -~ "--"
~ttachment "H"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~G DEPARTMENT
.... ~
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
TT 13603
CASE
HEARING CATE 7 /19/88
5
'"-
....
. ,.
w)~
1'": 800'
-.
. .1