Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning Department CI... I OF SAN BERNARD~..~O - REQUIL-.JT FOR COUNCIL AC....ON From: Michael W. Loehr Interim Director of Planning Subject: Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 13307 - Planning commission~ Denial Mayor and Council Meeting f October 24, 1988, 2:00 p.m. Dept: Planning Date: October 13, 1988 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Mayor and Council continued appeal to October 24, 1988 on October 3, 1988. Recommended motion: Based on the action of the Mayor and Council on October 3, 1988, approving of this Tentative Tract would be consistent with that action. /'pJJ)J$ I ~Signature Michael W. Loehr Contact person: Michael W. Loehr (See previous supporting data Supporting data attached: of October 3, 1988.) 384-5057 Phone: Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: n/a Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. ~3 3// CI' . OF SAN BIERNARDI. t) - RIEQUIE T FOR COUNCIL AC'f. 'N Date: September 23, 1988 Appeal of Tentative Tract P1annIlJ1l.-...I..'Jlo. 13307 - Planning Commission Denial 1988 SEP 23 PM ,. L.~ '~yor and Council Meeting of October 3, 19 From: r.uchae1 W. Loehr Interim Director of Dept: Planning 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. . / /'" ) / l.iIu U/ /1/ju . ./1-:/'" , Signature Michael W. Loehr Contact person: Michael W. Loehr Phone: 384-5057 Ward: 5 Supporting data attached: Staff Report FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: n/a Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: L S :lI Jtd e z d3S 8B&I . A~' aN IN (I Y .. '8.33:. 75.0262 Agenda Item No_ - C11' . OF SAN BERNARDI~ ) - REQUE~ 1 FOR COUNCIL AC1..~N 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: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corona, Lindseth, Nierman Brown, Lopez, Sharp 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 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 reviw, 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 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. 13307 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- 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 - 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:TT13307 ATTACHMENT "A" "r-,".-" . -:- ~'.~_:. . :-.-,'" w. J. McKeever Inc. Civil Engineering B3 1() ?.: :12 August 10, 1988 Mayor and Common Council 300 N. "0" 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 ?roject meets or exceeds all requirements of the Verdemont Comm- unity Plan, the Intirum Development Plan and the City Municipal Code. tve 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 with the Infrastructure Plan ado?ted by the City Council on ~ay 23, 1988. We have agreed to participate in chis infrastruccure 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. ~~-9 Dennis Stafford DS/ly . .." u~ .;. 1L .-' ;-:'1 .\ - - ~.-' 'e' r~ I; : I I . r L...I AUG 11 1988 CITY ~t;7..~~t,flN:) G~~ :~~::r1E:;T ~;t ~tiU:;,~C;;i(J. C~ 647 North Main Street. Suite 2A - Riverside, C~liforni~ 92501 - Ph. (714) 824-5307 city of San Bernardino Planning commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88 Page 7 ATTACHMENT "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 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: 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 required by this tract, to provide for be developed according to the Verdemont proposed map is conditioned to comply Verdemont Area Plan. is to be vacated, although equestrian trails which are Area Plan. She stated that with the requirements of not to the the 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 tile roofs. Mr. Chris Saldecke, 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 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 I~pact 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 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 intrastructure plan adopted by the Mayor and council. Mr. Edwins noted a history ot 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 st~fford, representing the property owner, commented that the school distr1ct 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 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. 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 city of San Bernardino planning commission Meeting Minutes of 8/9/88 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-l- 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: NAYS: ABSTAIN: . ABSENT: Corona, Lindseth, Nierman Brown, Lopez, Sharp Stone 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 Mount Vernon from windows removed. Brown commented in regard to a building at Rialto and and that the Commission had asked that screens be removed as a condition of approval and they have not all been \...., , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT '\ SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 6 7/19/88 5 ~ \.. UJ (f) 4 o Tentative Tract No. 13307 APPUCANT:Dennis Stafford 647 N. Main Street Riverside, CA 92501 OWNER: Mirna Overland Enterprises 2566 Overland Avenue #580 Los Angeles, CA 90064 ~ The proposal is to establish a 70 lot subdivision in the ~ R-I-IO,800 square' foot Single-Family Residential Zone. o &II 0: " 4 LIJ 0: The .site is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting 4 of 22.7 acres located between Irvington and Belmont Avenues east of Chestnut and west of Palm Avenue. AIRPORT NOISE I CRASH ZONE aVES SEWERS 0 NO GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE DYES laJ. NO FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A ZONE all NO OZONE B HIGH FIRE HAZARD ZONE fiYES DNO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA DYES fiNO KlNO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES NO E.I.R. o El.R. REOUIRED BUT NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R. C. MINUTES z o ti ...0 ...ffi ~2 02 o o I&J It: APPROVAL o NOT APPLICABLE .J <l ... Zen I&J(!) 2Z z- OO o::Z :;ii: z I&J CONDITIONS o EXEMPT DENIAL CONTINUANCE TO NOV. 1911 REVISED JULY .112 SKY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM E; HEARING DATE 7/19/88 PAG '" " 1. REOUf,;ST The applicant requests to establish a 70 lot subdivision in the R-l-lO,800, Single-Family Residential Zone~ 2. LOCATION The subject property is a 22.7 westerly of Palm Avenue, east of Belmont and Irvington Avenues. acre parcel located Chestnut and between 3. MUNICIPAtt_COD~_l\l'U~ _ GJ:.N_F;~X. PLAIL.c.olU'ORMAN.-CJ The proposed Tentative Tract 13307 is consistent with the Municipal Code as shown in Attachment wAw 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 planning , Research on June 9, 1988. 4. CEQA STATUS An Initial Study was prepared by staff which addressed a number of environmental concerns (see Attachment WEW). 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. BACIiGF.PJU.Ul 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 ~tandards and timing of improvements related to drainage, flood control, street access, signalization and schools. (See Attachment wFw.) On March 5, 1987, 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 hear ing. (See Attachment "Gw.) ~ "-- ',,- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAG ""'IIIl r 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 "H".) 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 Saldecte-Sky Line. At this time, this Application was able to proceed. On June 21, 1988, Tentative Tract 13307 was continued to July 5, 1988, 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. ANALYSIS I.9.p-.Q.Qtg.,Rhy _ A.n.q.-G.~ology 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. '&KiJJ.1..in9- Ve.geta t ion 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 Irvlngton 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 BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . tASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 7/19/88 ,. The size and configuration of the proposed lots along Belmont Avenue are such that many of the existing olive trees will 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 retai.n and preserve the olive trees found on the subject parcel..) P.l\( J; 9l,lJ\Q i P9. .4 ~119. J!.~ - Vacant lard surrounds residences on larger easterly of the site. most of this site. lots are located Single-family southerly and Circu~qtiYR_qQ9_A~Q~PR Vehicular access will be provided via a SO-foot wide publicly dedicated road, extending from Irvington Avenue at the south to Belmont Avenue to the north. Lots will front onto Belmont Avenue in an effort to place the oxisting 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 projected future traffic levels will not create an undesirable or unsafe living environment. Lots will not front onto Jrvington Avenue, which is de~ignated as a local collector but have a right-of-way cross-section of 62 feet. By not fronting lots numb~red 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 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 7/19/88 ,. '" FloQ~L.Rq~~.r.~ The Chestnut Avenue area has been severely flooded in times past. Development in the area has been retarded due to the former low 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 participation in developing Improv~ments Plan in place.) been added and having regarding a Capital f.i.~ 'LJla_~nQ - The site is located within the City's designated High Fire Hazard 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. ~Qt_~~~fA~t~[j-~~ The lot sizes run from 10,800 square feet to 12,600 square feet. Twenty-four lots are irregularly-shaped nnd 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 will not result in automatic approval of the vacation. This portion of Chestnut (a condition of approval reflects this.) Chestnut as a whole will be vacated at a later date. ~ "-- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAG 6 7/19/88 """'II Eque~l~~iqp_~~~~JF The subject parcel is located adjacent to lne Chest~ul Avenue right-of-way. The VerdeThont ~rea Plan deleted Chestnut Avenue uS a necessary slle~t. Feplacing it will be an equestrian trail within a 30 foot easement to be developed on top of the Rtorm drai~ pipeline proposed underground. Eque~trian trails should be developed as stated in the Verdemonl nrea Plan. A condition of approval reflect~ this. pP.hQQl. .~q<:= i.lltlll - The Verdemont Area Plan haR designated the southern portion of the subject property as a future school site. The San Bernardino City Unified School District has ~ot indicated that the school site be reserved for future school development. Consequently, it must be assumed that an alternative location elsewhere in the Area Plan will be needed. 7. AGENCY. -'~O~.E~'rS Agency cowweDts a., b., and c. were submitted for the Tentative T[~ct prior to the Planning Commission Meetings in 1987. Comment d. was received from the County of San Dernardino Environmental Public Works Agency Water Pe~ou[ces Division on April 28, 1988. a. CaJifo[n~a Regjonal Water Quality Control Board has suggested tl.ut the appl icant be requ ired to prov ide a certified ~tatement to the Board Office from the City of San Bernardino Water Department stating that adequate waste treatment capacity is available in the City's treatment pJant and that connection of this project to the ~cwer system will not result in a violation of the Board's waste discharge requ ir crllcnts. b. Southern California Edison Company stated that the propose~ subdivision will not unreasonably inter f (~r e with the fr ee and complete exerc ise of any easements held by the Edison Company within the boundaries of said tentative tract map. ~. "'-- .- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 7/19/88 7 r '" c. The City Parks suggested a size trees. A condition been ad(1ecl. and Recreation Department has requirement for future street reflecting this suggestion has d. The Wale: ~csources Divi~ion of the San Bernardino County rnvjronment~l Fublic Works Agency has ~tated that the west portion of the tract appears to lie within the fringe area of the overflow path from Meecham Canyon. The southwest corner appears to be within the fringe area of the overflow path of Cable Creek. They have included recommendations (see Attachment WIW). 8 . G..Q.NCI.P.S); 9t-1 Tentative Tract No. 13307 han been heard befoIc the Planning Commission on three occasions in 19&7 and has also been continue~ from the Planning Commission Meetins "f .lune 21, l 908. The tract contains 70 single-family lots which meel the Municipal Code Requirements and is consistent with the Interim Policy Document and the State Map Act. Conditions have been added reflecting the deveJoprnent of a Capital Improvements PJan and its irnplernenlationn, the preservation of existing olive trees, the vacation of Chestnut right-of-way and complying witp the Vcrdemont Area Plan. 9 . RECQ~_~tm~}'.J. (l~] Staf f ) (>( (lIflmcr.cl~ that the Plann i ng Commi.f's ion appr ove Tentative Tract No. 13307 subject to the Findings of Fact (Attachment "B") , Conditions of Approval (Attachment "C"), and Standard Requirements (Attachment "0" 1 . Respectfully ~ubmilted, MJCH^EI, W. I.OEHR, Interim Director of Planning m~~ Mary ~;~ Planner I ~ "-- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ASE '1"1' 11101 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 7/19/88 8 Att,",C'pfl1ent "1\ II - 1\ttachrnC'nt "B" - Attachment "B(l) - Attachment "C" - Attachment "0" - At. tachment "E" - 1\ttachment "F" - Attachment "G" - Attacl1J11E'nt "H" - Attachment "I" - l\t.t.achment "J" - Attachment ilK" - 1\ttachment "L" - J\ttachment "M" - ., Municipal Code & Cenera] Plan Conformance Findings of Fact IPD Consistency Finding Conditions of Approval Standard Requirements Initial Study February 3, 1987 Planning Commission ~qnlJtcs March 5, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes Letter from Water Resources Division Page 7 and 8 from the Interim policy Docllnl~nt which refers to tbe Verdemont Area Interpretation of the Motion regarding the Ver~emont Area Tentative Tract Hap I.oca t ion Map doc.pcagend?tt133070.J 7/8/88 \. ~ TT1\CHMENT "1\" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13307 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM fj HEARING OATE1/1~/88 PAGE "'" MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL MUNICIPAL CODE GENERAL PLAN Permitted Use Single- Family Res. 10,800 sq. ft. Single-Family Res. 10,800 sq. ft. + Residential sub. 10,800 sq. ft. Lot Size 10,800 sq. ft. to 12,600 10,800 sq. ft. 10,800 sq. ft. Frontage on Dedicated Streets (Belmont & Irvington) All lots front on dedicated streets Title 18 requires all lot front on dedicated street N/A* *Verdemont Area Plan requires two means of access. ~ \... l'TACHMENT "B" ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13307 FINDINGS of FACT \.. r- AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 7/19/88 PAGE 10 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:cms doc.pcagenda tt13307F.1 7/26/88 \. .... rACHMEN'r B (1) ,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13307 FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 7 /19/88 PAGE __1 O-L- \... INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT CONSISTENCY FINDING ACTIONS The land use designations identified on the approved Preferred Land Use 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 amended, were reviewed in relation to their effect on the proposed land use project. Document, bearing as and 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 in __~_n..!~ti_v~.!.!act Map Application and are the basis for findings: use project identified No. 13307 making the following FINDING 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 Office of Planning and Research on June 9, 1998. r.oc.~i~c.ipdfindings 7-8-88 . --- \.... A'J'mr..CHMENT "C" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT STANDARD CA3E TT 13307 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 7/19/88 PAGE 11 " 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 requirements of the Verdemont Area Plan. 4. The applicant shall comply with requirements of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. all the 5. The tentative tract is subj~ct 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 approval Approval approval of this 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. 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. Stree~ 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:cms doc.pcagenda tt13307C.1 7/26/88 '"" ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT STANDARD CASE TT 13307 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAG """ 12. 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. 11. -L 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. 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/ industrial center shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of Certifi cate of Occupancy. SP:lmc PCAGENDA STNDCONDITIONS .J "'- l\TTACHMENT "0" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ':ASE TT 13307 ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE --1{~9/B8 PAGE , "" RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. x Tentative Tract No. 13307 shall be in effect for a period of -2!- 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 tice period the approval shall expire. Additional time may be approved by the Planning Commission upon request of the applicant prior to expiration of the -1!--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 en~ity 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 ~ ,.. slly CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE TT 13307 6 7/19/88 13 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE 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 wall. ~ocation, size, type and design of wall are the approval of the Planning Department and Division Services Superintendent. decorat'ive subject to of Public 2. x Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and local requirements. 3. x LANDSCAPING: a. Four (4) copies suomitted 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. 4) Erosion control plans. ~ ~ design ..IS '" ,... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO "" ~ASE TT 13307 6 7/19/88 14 ~ STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE "'- r "" 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/IS 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) Inter ior lot -- two trees; 3) Corner lot -- three trees. c. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual impact, surfaces of all cut slopes more than five feet in height and fill slopes more than three feet in height shall be protected by planting with grass or ground cover plants. Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten feet on centers; or trees, spaced at not to exceed 20 feet on centers; or a combination of shrubs and trees as cover plants. The plants selected and planting methods used shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the site: Trees 10%, 15 gallon; 40% 5 gallon; 50%, 1 gallon. Shrubs 20%, 5 gallon; 80%, 1 gallon. Ground cover 100% coverage. d. Slopes required to irrigation system Department. be planted shall be provided with an approved by the Parks and Recreation . e. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual ownership. 4. x f. All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion control planting of graded slopes, shall be done in accordance with a grading plan approved by the City Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any grading being done. All lots shall have a minimum area of 10,800 square feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum width of ~ feet, (~feet on corner lots). In addition, each lot on a cul-de- ~ ..., !lilY ~ ~ CASE TT 13307 ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD \... ,. 5. x 6. x 7. x 8 . x 9. x 10. x 11. x '--- REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE (; 7/19/88 15 ~ ""I 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 bulb of the cul-de-sac, a minimum lot depth of 100 feet will be permitted. If the proposed depth is less than ~ feet, a plot plan must be submitted to demon- strate that a buildable lot area is possible and to justify the lesser depth. Variable front building setback lines of at least ~ feet and averaging ~ feet, and side street building setback lines 15 feet shall be delineated on the final tract map. All garage entrances on a dedicated street shall have a minimum setback of 18 feet. 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. 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 precipoitation. Compliance with all recommendations of the Geology Report shall be required (if applicable). Any clubhouse, swimming pool, spa, putting green, picnic areas or other amenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on the approved site plan. During construction the City Engineer may require a fence around all or a portion of the periphery of 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. ~ I'" s.y CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE TT 13307 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 6 HEARING DATE 7/19/88 PAGE 16 , "" 13. 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. 12. x 14. 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 with these Standard Requirements as well as the San Bernardino Municipal Code. prior to compliance all provisions of csj/5-9-88 DOC:PCAGENDA DOCOMENTS.l \.. ~ ..., say .i "CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC. WORKS/~. ~E TT 13307 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING OATE A "'" Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13307 70-Lot SFR Subdivision LocateO Nortn ot lrvlngton Avenue, west ot Palm Date: May 24, 1988 Page ~ of ~ pages Prepared By: MWG Reviewed By: GRK Applicant: Dennis Stafford NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, tfie appllcant is 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 15. All 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. 16. 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. x - _ The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps; therefore, a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued by the City Engineer shall be required. _ The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps; therefore, all building pads shall be raised above the surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer. _Comprehensive storm drain Project No. is master planned in the 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. 17. X All dra i nage from the deve 1 opmen t 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 to the \... ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/"" CASE TT 13307 STANQMlD REQUIREMENTS ~~~I~~E - 7~19/88 18 ProjeGt Oeser 1 pt'1 on: Tentative Tract No. 13307 Date: May 24. 1988 prepared By: r~WG Reviewed By: GRK - Page ., OT -'- pages - - Gradin[ 18. X If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut I s proposed. the s ite/pl ot! -grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Eng I neer and a grad i ng permit wi 11 be requ ired. The grad I ng 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. 19. X If more than 5,DDD cubic yards of earthwork Is proposed. a giadlng -bond wi 11 be requl red and the gradl ng shall be supervl sed In 'accordance with Section 7D12 lc} of the Uniform Building Code. A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report must -be submitted and approved prior to I $Suance of a grad I 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.D4-167 of the Municipal Code ISee "Grading policies and procedures"}. The on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 20. .!.- The pro jec t Landscape Plan shall be rev i ewed and approved by the City Eng I neer prior to issuance of a grad i ng permit. Submi t 4 copies to the Engineering Qivision for checking. A reciprocal easement -approval if reciprocal proposed to crosS lot recorded to remove the shall be recorded prior to grading plan drainage. access. sewer. and/or parking is lines. or a lot line adjustment shall be interior lot lines. 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: X Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in ----accordance dith City Code. City Standards and requirements of the serving utility. including gas. electric. telephone. ""ater. se,.,er and cable TV. -. 21. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. . CASE TT 13307 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAG "" ,. Project Description: Tpnt~tivP Tr~rt No l11n1 ~ Date: Ma~ 24, lqRR Page -3- of -1-- pages P repa red By: .-IDLG Rev i ewed By: r.RK 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. X Utility services shall be placed underground and easements ----provided as required. X All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site ----on either side of the street shall be under grounded in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-60l (Subdivisions) or Resolution No. 88-65 (Non-subdivisions). 25. 26. X Existing utilities which interfere with new construction shall be -relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer. Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be -maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to City Standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's Engineer and approved by the City Engineer will be required. This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan. where practical. - ~ \. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. CASE TT 13307 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS :~~?~ I~~E 6 7/19/88 20 "" Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13307 Date: Page 4 - May 24, 1988 of --1- pages Prepared By: ~ Reviewed By: GRK Street Improvement and'Dedications: 27. x All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be ----improved to include combination curb and gutter. paving. handicap ramps. street lights. sidewalks and appurtenances. including. but not limited to. traffic signals. traffic signal modification. relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with new constr~ction. 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 Improyement 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. 28. x For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street ----right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: Interi.or Streets Right-of-Way (Ft.) 30' 30' 25' Curb Line (Ft.) 18' 20' Street Name Irvington Avenue Be'mORt Avef.'Ple 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. \... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR. . CASE TT 13307 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAG 6 7/19/88 ;.1 ""'I , Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13307 Date: May 24. 1988 Page 5 of 7 pages - - Prepared By: MWG Reviewed By: GRK 29. X If the project is to be developed in phases. each individual phase -shall be designed to provide maximum public safety, conven- ience for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this requirement, the following will be requ'ired prior to the finalization of any phase: a. Completion of the improvement sufficient plans beyond the feasibility of the design to Engineer. plans for the total project or phase boundary to verify the the satisfaction of the City b. A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division, F'ire. and Planning Departments indica- ting what improvements will be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following: (1) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32-foot radius paved turnaround area, (2) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum 2a-foot paved width, (3) Street improvements beyond the phase boundaries, as necessary to provide secondary access, ( 4 ) Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, earth berms, and block walls. as necessary. the development from off-site flows. (S) A properly designed water system capable of providing required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond the phase boundaries. channels. to protect (6l 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. '\.. ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/1NQJl .., CASE TT 13307 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE f) 7/19/88 22 ..j \.. Project Description: Tentative Tract No. 13307 Date: Page 6 - May 24, 1988 of --L- pages Prepared BY:M~ Reviewed By: GRK 32. 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 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. 30. 31. 33. X If the required improvements are not ----recordation of the Final/Parcel Map. an accompanied by an agreement ~xecuted by City will be required. compl eted pri or to improvement security the deve 1 oper and the 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: 34. X Grading permit (if applicable). - On-si.te improvements construction permit (except buildings - see ----Building and Safety) 35. -2-0ff-Si te .improvements construct ion permi t Applicable Engineering Fees: 36. ~Plan check fee for Final/Parcel Map. 37. ~Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements. _Plan. check t'nd inspection fees for on-site improvements buildings; see Building and Safety). (except 'lo.. --'I . .. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUIUC W~'~pGR. CASE ST At<<)ARD REQUIREMENTS ::~I~~E Ii. 7/1q/88 23 ""'ll , Project Description: T~n+~+ivp Tr~ct lln 11~nl Date: May 24, 1988 Page 7 of 7 pages - - prepared By: M~IG Rev i ewed By: GRK 38. ~Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permit required). Traffic impact mitigation in the amount of S -For Bridge improvement fee in amount of S - 39. X Drainage fee based on S See Building & SafetYper square foot. -Total fee = S 40. ~Landscape Plan Review Fee S 50.00 Traffic System Fee of S per vehicle trip for City-wide -traffic mitigation based on ADT of Total Fee = S 41. X Pay Lump Sum Fee to cover cost of street light electrical energy for ----a period of 4 years. 42. X Pavement at least 20' wide shall be provided on Belmont Avenue and ----lrvington Avenue between this subdivision and Palm Avenue. -. \.. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS CASE TT 111.01 6 7/1t)/RR 24 STANDARD AGENDA ITEM HEAR'NG OATE PAGE : 3. x That the developer or participate in the implementation plan agree to pay their improvements. property owner, as appropriate, development of the financing and for the following improvements and proportionate share of those 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 Street. from Kendall Drive to Ohio b. Irvington Avenue - from Chestnut Street and Pine Avenue c. Belmont Street - from Chestnut Street and Pine avenue. d. Pine Avenue Street. from Belmont Avenue to Ohio ..." ..., Attachment "E" - /'" PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Initial Study for Environmental Feview 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 _. May 19, 1988 Prepared by: Mary Lanier Planning Department 300 North "D" street San Bernardino, CA 92410 Prepared for: Dennis Stafford Mc~eever Engineering 647 N. Main Street i2.A Riverside, CA 92501 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 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 '- 4.2.6 '- 5.0 6.0 - TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . · · . . . . . . . . . . . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY · · · · · · · · Proposed Project · · · · · · · · · Project Impacts ....... · · . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-1,2-2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · .. 3-1 Site and Project Characteristics . . . .. 3-1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1 Project Characteristics ......... 3-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1,4-2 4-2 4-2,4-3 4-3 4-3,4-4 4-5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . Earth Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appenc1ix A - Environmental Impact Checklist . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B - Liquefaction Letter . . . . . Appendix C - Geologist Evaluation . . . . Appendix D - Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . Appendix E - Location Map . . . . . . . . 5-1 6-1 6-2 6-10 6-13 6-15 6-16 1.0 INTRODUCTION ~ This report is provided by Bernardino as an Initial Study No. 13307 to establish a 70 lot on the north side of Irvington 720 feet west of Palm Avenue in the City of San for Tentativ~ Tract subdivision located and approximately the Verdemont area. As stated California Guidelines, to: in Section 15063 of the State of Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the purposes of an Initial Study are 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 prep~ration of an EIR, if one is required by: a. Focusing the EIR on the determined to be significant. effects b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant. '--' c. Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects ~ould not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental aS$ess~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. Elimi~ate 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-l-lO,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 include: the attached checklist 1.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 designatedc~ 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 Palm Avenue May 19, 1988 11.a.S. Impact Capital Improvements Program beyond the capability of the City to provide adequate levels of service and require the construction of new facilities. '- - '- 2-2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract No. 13301 10 Lot Subdivision - N of Irvington, W of Palm Avenue May 19, 1988 - 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location 3.2 3.2.1 - '- 3.2.2 - .,- 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. Site and Project Characteristics 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 65 feet from north to south at an approximate gradient of 4.59'. The Chestnut Street drainage is located along the western portion of the site. The site is approximately 3/4 mile. from the San Andreas Fault. Project Characteristics The proposal is to create a 70 lot Single Fami:y subdivision in the R-l-10,800, Single Fami:y Residential District. The lot sizes range 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. )-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 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 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 !..11y 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 mitigatio~ 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 f ill. The City Engineering Department will require that 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 lique- 4-1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNI~G DEPARTMENT 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 40 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? -' The project is located in 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. Clips usee 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 question is sometimes flooded and as a result a condition of approval for the tract will be that the debris basin in the foothills and the storm drain along Chestnut be developed. The improvements are to be designed an~ 4-2 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 >-> - 4.2.4 4. '- '-' 4.2.5 ........ bonded prior to recordation and constructed prior to occupancy. Biological Resources: result in: Could the proposal a. Change in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? 6. 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 ri9ht of way. 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-l) 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 DBPARTMENT 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 Bix 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 shall be identified with approved blue reflecting street aarkerB. 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 materials to be located within the roof structure. '- Vents are to be covered corrosion resistant wire exceed 144 square inches. by 1/4 inch mesh not to UBC Exterior 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 .e. is the same. No combustable materials located on site until water is available for the site. 4-4 '- 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 4.2.6 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 sever 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 - PLANNlt.:G DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY - Tentative Tract ~o. 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 DEPARTMF.N~ 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 - G.ol09ist Evaluation Appendix D - Site Plan Appendix E - Location Map csj/S-12-88 DOC:MISC ISTT13307 '- '- 6-1 -- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACI(GROY~ Application Number: Tentative Tract No. 13307 Project Description: 70 Lot Single Family Subdivision on 22.7 acre site. Location: Nor~h sidp- of Irvinqton, p-ytp-ndinq north to ~plmont, and 720 feet west of Palm Avenue. Environmental Constraints Areas: Hiqh Wind Hazard AreA, High V;r~ "~7.~r~ Ar~~ r.rp~nhplt 7.nnp_ General Plan Designation: N/A -- Zoning Designation: R-I-lO.800 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 1S' natural grade? c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? X x ~.-..... d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 6-2 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 subject mudslides, other similar within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? x x h. Other? 2. 6lB_~QY~: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial an effect quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? air upon emissions or ambient air x x _. c. Development within a high wind hazard area? X 3. Wb~B___EESOURCES: proposal :esult in: Will the a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? x 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? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f. Other? X X X - '- REVISED 12/3; PAGE 2 OF 8 1T 13307 Yes No Maybe 4. BIOLOGICaL R~~9URCJ~: 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? X S. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 6S dB or interior noise levels over 4S X dB? c. Other? X 6. L1\ND_ USE: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? X b. Development within an Airport District? X c. Deve~opment within "Greenbelt" Zone A,a, or C? X d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? X e. Other? X -- REVISEj IO/ai PAGE 3 OF 8 7. MAN-MADE HA';~Jq)~: project: Will the a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materjals (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. TMt.I~PQETATl.Q~jBtYLATION: 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? c. Impact upon existing public ,transpoltction systems? d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Ye& No TT 13307 Maybe x x x x x x x x x x x x REVISED IO/~; PAGE" OF 3 TT 13307 Yes No Maybe g. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? Other? of x h. x 10. PUBLI~ SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capabil ity to provi.de adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? x b. police protection? Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? x c. x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Medical aid? x '- 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. Natural gas? x 2. Electricity? x 3. \.;ater? x 4. Sewer? x s. Other? x b. Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility x c. Require the construction of new facilities? x P.\GE S OF 3 REVISED 10/87 TT 13307 Yes No Maybe 12. AESTHETJCS: 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. ~Yy~U~~--Ft~QYRCES: 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 "- x c. Other'? 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 ~umber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate "- PAGE l; OF 8 FlE'/I3:u 10/13 7 , TT 1330; Yes No Maybe "" - ~... important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve shert 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.) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) ---- '- ~ \... P;''3E 7 OF 8 REVISED 10/87 TT 13307 D. DETERMI~~!!ON - On the basis of this initial study, riThe proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ~ environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o 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 ~~y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROt:ME1JTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o ENVIRONMEN'l'AL REVIEW COHMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA EJ/YIItPNHtN1ft" .,eW ~J4HJ"'fd Name and Title ~C.K,* Signature Date: At1/1/'166 PAGE 8 OF 8 REVISED 12/87 APPF.NDIX - B GA:tY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOC=A'rES / ENGINEERING GEOLOGY . _. .... r.... -r.................~~......_.~....." J- . __.....-....."S06.~- ....... ..- _...e I." 10. C:~"'M'"C:'NT''' W'IT . IAN .'..........OINO. CAI..I'O.....IA .1.0. . · 71.. ....&.1& . .7... 1&'.)0'1 April 25, 1988 W.J. McKeever Inc. 647 N. Main Street, Suite 2A Riverside, California 92501 Project No. 2540 Attention: Dennis Stafford Subject: Geologic Factors RegardIDg Liquefaction Potelttial, Tract No. 13307, South of 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 within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility as defIDed by Matti and Carson (1986). - Ground-water Information In the viciD1ty of the site was obtained from published and unpublished reports. Ground-water records were researched datiDI back to 1936. The site l1es outside of the boUDdary of aD artesian area or. Ul)per confining area as defined by Dutcher and Garrett (1963) and MendeDhall (1905). The tract lies within an area of sparse ground-water Information. HIstoric IfOUDd-water conditions beneath the site can only be extrapolated from nearby data. Ext..-apola- tion of publlshed data Indicates the site had ground water greater than 100 feet In 1936, 1945 and 1951 (Dutcher and Garrett, 1963). - From 1951 to 1978, the basin was signiflcantly overdrafted. Following the years of abnormally 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 50 feet during the period of 1973 through 1983. However. their data in this vicinity is based primarlly on a well (State Well No. 01='II05W- 03H2) which is located approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site and adjacent to Cajon Creek Wash. In addition, the 'minimum depth to ground-water' contours shown by Matti and Carson are dashed in the vicinity of the site, indicating a degree of uncertainty. The site may be in a separate ground-water subbasin which 6-10 --- W.J. McKeever Inc. April 25, 1988 Tract No. 13307 Project No. 2540 Is not directly related to the well site from which they obtained their data. A second and closer well (State Well No. 01N/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 Ifeater San BernardlDo Valley area relles heavUy 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 llquefaction and areas with a mlDimum depth to ground water of less than 50 feet high potential. - The site is underlain by approximately 200 to 300 feet of Holocene aDd Pleistocene age alluvium (Fife, et al., 1976). Dutcher and Garrett (1963) have mapped the alluvial materials on the site as Pleistocene in age. Morton (1974) ed Matti and Carson (1986) have mapped these materials as Holocene in age. If the surficial materials are Holocene in age, they are expected to be underiaJD at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene-age alluvial fan materials, as Pleistoc:eae-ap fan- glomerates are exposed north, northwest aDd northeast of the site. TlDsley,!U!:. (1985) indicate that progressively older deposits bave lower Uquefact10n suscep- tibility, reflecting the increased compaction, relative density and longer blstory of seismic shaking of older materials. - The site Ues approximately 3/4 mlles southwest of the active San Andreas fault and approximately 2 1/2 miles northeast of the active San Jacinto fault. We expect l'Mly{ntum Deak ground accelerations in bedrock under the site to be 0.66g (Campbell, 1988), with a maximum repeatable bedrock acceleration of 0.43g (Ploessel and Sl055On, 1974). Youd and Perkins (1978) and Youd, et ale (1978) list the parameters for increased llquefaction 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 OAPlY S RASWUSSJCN . ASSOC:A'l"~ W.J. McKeever Inc. April 25, 1988 Tract No. 13307 Project No. 2540 '- - sediments on the site faU IDto at least ODe of these geologic parameters. Based OD the anticipated depth to ground water aDd on the anticipated character of the u.a.derlymg sedJments, the sediments OIl-site appear to have a low potential for Uquetactlon from a geologic standpoiDt. It a more detailed llquefaction analysis is considered necessary tor this site, the character of the underlylDg alluvial materials with respect to their llquefaction susceptibility should be evaluated by the project soils englDeer. Respectfully submitted., CARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~i.~ Registered Geologist, RG 4270 - WAR:pg Enclosure 1: References Distribution: Wo3. McKeever Iue. (6) 3 '-- OAJ\Y' s. ftAS~t1SSL"" . ASSOC:A':"'Z:S APPENDIX - C FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, Ph.D. - II ;..~ - , JU ~ . "I I ; 'II , .. I . J J C1T'(:'...., ......-...... . L.."...~. ... :...... .....,i: _ ,..... :T 5'0' Q..~'".....;\.O ... "i. ..':,1i'."r:lJ:li , :.,,.. 130 Sunridge Way Redlands. California 92373 . (71") 792-8208 -- - MINING ENGINEER AND REGISTERED GEOLOGIST :;:2143 MAY 0 i~ i9Sa MEMORANDUM TO: VALERIE C. ROSS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OAT::: FLOYD J. WILLIAMS. REGISTERED GEOLOGIST CONSULTANT TO THE C:ty.:.OrSAN BERNARDINO ~/..~'" /. -. ~... MAYO 5. 19 a e- __-:' ;;.;'C,..:,....-i . .:. '/-. -.r...; ..' '-. FROM: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Review of liquefact~on study/geology report. TT 13307. Chestnut-Belmont Assoc.. Mirna Overland Enterprises. your letter ot May 3. 1988. SUBJECT: TITLE OF REPORT: Geologic factors regarding liquefaction potential, Tract No. 13307. south of Belmont Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. San Bernardino. California. Prepared by Gary S. Ra..ussen & Associates, Project No. 2540, dated April 25, 1988. DISCUSSION I made a site inspection on ~ay 4. 1989. From telephone conversation with you I understand that one or two story homes are proposed for the tract. As I reviewe~ 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 ot the subject property with the Exhibit "An lIlap attatched to Resolution 82-345 ot 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 i~ probably has rarely been shallower than about 40 feet oeneath the surface. Well data are too sparse to allow ~ore 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 lIliles to the southwest. Maximum peak ground accelerations in bedrock at the site are expected to be 0.669 an~ maximum repeatable bedrock accelerations are expected to be 0.439 due to earthquake. 6-13 -' ~ MEMORANDUM: Ross/Williams. TT 13301. Chestnut-Belmont A..oc.. 5/5/88. A statement in the report is, "the sediments on-site appear to have a low potential for liquefaction from a geologic standpoint." CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The subject property 1s outside the area on Exhibit A ot Resolution 82-345 where liquefaction repor~s are required. 2. Historically. the groundwater has probaoly been below 40 feet ot depth. 3. The potential for liquefaction of near-surtace soils appears to be low. 4. No further liquefaction studies or reports are necessary. The usual so11s investigations for foundation and seismic design are necessary. 2 , '-- l l f1 ~ r of: ! ..~.-\ -.as- b ' ~~ . . I ~ .Lt ,.- I ~~ ..- ".v- "W' "'r."'- ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v-' '- J-.o-L._o(~ -~- . ~ . ...-& IKNII ~-- - APPENDIX D TEMTAllvt TRACT /3307 :f'~ ~..IU=:= ~..'60':"" :aMI..~...... .S__ "".,ClTY 0' .. .....",,_.ea. ~ ..... ....... ....-.-. ,. I,. ........... .~ ~ __d.. ... ...., .... -- " ,. ... .... .. . '..... -"' ~ '.' ::.:'.. -:-. ~"::'I:':= ::.~......... '0 .. tlI"t ~. - ..... ...... -.. ..... .-. - ... ..,., - - -.. ........ --,.. .. ---........ - . ~. - ... ..._ ..t............- ..... ~ ca:....a ..._ l' .. __ ....-,. W. ft .....- ....... 1'..... ~t'. ..... .... ..-.,. -_~ ...,nt "'... !I'll"'''' )It .. ...... ....... w..,: ,...., _ .______.__. ,__'__~<r.__n' "'.1 .3-1m2 .,,:....._~ '......0.:". ... . ~ 1,' ~.:. 6-15 , o =""= ~ w....__- . -- m...::.:=:.- ... .1!1- ..... (....~i._ - ~ APPENDIX - E ,. r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT """ '- LOCATION CASE TT NO. 11107 5 HEARING DATE - . ~ ~ - R-1-14.400 (/+t ~ '".800' f~, R-1-14.400 PF 'F 6-16 Attachment "F" city of San Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2/3/87 page 5 ITEM NO. 8.1. Ward 5 T.~tative T~act NO, l3S~~ -- subject property 1s a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 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-l- 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 sta~dard requirements. Mr. oennis 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 south and west of this site, was present and stated that he had a dirt road for access to his property through the subject site. He stated that he did not live on his property but grew Christmas trees there and used the access road daily. Mr. Walters stated that he wished to retain access to his property and the proposed map would cut off 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. Ms. Sky noted wind damage which had occured, such as roofs blowing off an~ block walls hlowing over, and stated that the quality of construction was very poor and she was concerned that more 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 fur~her 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 Item Nos. 8, 9, and 10 be postponed to allow the residents an oppor- tunity to rev1ew 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 concurr~d. Commissioner Nierman was in favor of continuing the items to allow staff to further review the proposals and to receive any inpu~ from neighbors. Mr. Phil Smith, of 6504 Churchil:, ~as present and stated that he received a notice of the hearing for Items 9 and 10, but had reee no notice for Item 8 WhlCh is dlrectly behind his property. Mr. S stated that the el mentary seho - in this district is already burdened and has six uxiliary tra l~rs. He also noted that on J 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, stated that one of his neighbors had their roof blown also noted that they had problems down on WE" Street Verdemont Area. was present and off. Mr. Gedson just as in the 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 done. 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.8) conforms with the General Plan and Verdemont Area Plan. Be 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 m~;ed 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 2/3/81 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 continue Tentative Tract No. 13530 (Item No.8), Tentative Tract No. 13307 (Item No.9) and Tenta- tive Tract No. 13505 (Item No. 10) to the Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 1987. with the instruction that the Planning Department staff address the issues of building standards and the timing of improvements related to drainage. flood control, street access and signalization, and schools. The motion was seconded by Coamissioner Lightburn and carried unanimously. Some discussion followed amongst Commission members regarding develop- ment standards in the Verdemont Area. l~~~ ~O. 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 lrvington 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-l-lO,800 Single-Family Residential zone. Mirna-Overland Enterprises, Inc., owner/applicant. This item was continued to the planning Commission meeting of March 5, 1981. Discussion and comments are noted under Item No.8, Tentative Tract No. 13530. '--' ITEM NO. 10. Ward 5 T,pt~tive~I~~t_H9. 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 115 feet on the north side of Belmont Avenue and a frontage of approximately 101 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, 1981. Discussion and comments are noted under Item No.8, Tentative Tt"ct No. 13530. Atl hmcnt "G" city of San Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87 Page 3 . * * iTEM NO.5. Ward 5 1entative 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 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-I-IO,800 Single-Family Residential zone. Mirna-Overland Enterprises, Inc., owner/applicant. Chairman Flores indicated that Item Nos. 5, 6 (Tentative Tract No. 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 adjacent 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 _p~e4 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 $310 per lot be levied for each lot of the four .~. subject tracts. He noted that a total of $66,000 would be collected in this manner towards the estimated $300,000 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 all 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. Comlnissioner 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. Be 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. He 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. Be 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. Be 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. Be stated that most walls are designed to withstand ten pounds per square inch rather than 20 pounds, which is what the recent winds were. Be 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 tile roofs. Be 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 Mr. Dunham or other City staff would be able to prepare recommendations for changes in the City's building standards to address some of these problems that have been experienced. Mr. Dunham stated that they require earthquake ties, which is not a standard application, and require heavier tile (300 pound instead of 240 or 260) and a greater number of nails or staples per shingle. Mr. Dunham also noted that they had required the builders to post cash bonds to be sure that they made all repairs before the buildings were finalized. City of San Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87 Page 6 ---- Ms. Barbara Sky, a resident of Palm A~enue, was present and felt that all development should be stopped 1n the Verdemont 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. Be 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. He 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 (6495), 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. Be also expressed concern about the problem with dust when the tract is built. Be 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 the high Price, of 2404 Hyatt Road, was present and stated that before 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 lost 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 everyone of those shingles down 50 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 for 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 Sald~cke 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 rescraining order or injunction placed upon the City. r------- Mrs. Kopczynski expressed concern regarding the total number of units proposed and density permitted. She also felt that there ~ay have been a conflict of interest, since the Deed of Trust for Tentatlve Tract No. 13307 was signed by an individual who was a member of the Verdem~nt Ar~a Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. She expressed conce~ns regardlng the need for a bridge at Cable C:eek and whether the proJects met the requirements for 80 percent of the average unit size within 500 feet of J City of San Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87 P ag e 15 ITEM NO.6. Ward 5 Tentative TI~Qt 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-l-IO,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 ot he r . 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 ~Q. 7. ward 5 Tgnt~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 a~plicant 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 othe r . Commissioner Watson made with the direction that of fact for adoption at se~~nded by Commissioner a motion to deny Tentative Tract No. 13505, the Planning Department staff prepare findings their March 17, 1987 meeting. The motion was Lightburn and carried with .the following vote: AYES: Brown, Lightburn, Nierman, Shaw, Watson city of San Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/5/87 page 16 NAYS: Knowles, Lopez ABSTAIN: Flores, Maudsley ABSENT: None After the motions were made on the preceeding items, discussion followed amongst Commission 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 n~ceS8ary for block walls and fences and an ordinance to address roofing in the High 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. ~_~ard_1 ~QDQ1!jQD~1_Qse r~~~~t- No. 86-55 -- subject property is a rectangu- larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .26 acre located at .l~34 Parkside Drive. The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Sections 19.78.020.12 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 moJifications, the site is inadequate to accommodate the proposed use and staff recommends denial of the requested Conditional Use permit. tachment "H" City of San Bernardino Planning Co..iaaion Meeting Minutea 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 froa Glenn Skinner, of 380 West 23rd street, Myrna Lunsford, of 372 West 23rd Street, Bernice L. Hirsema, of 372 weat 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 proxiaity 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 leasees 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 carried with all but the opposition of Commissioner I,ightburn. ITEM NO. ~_~g_~ TentatiY~Iact 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 SS9 feet on the east side of Olive Avenue. The applicant requets approval to establish'a 4S lot subdivision in the R-1-7200 Single-Family Residential zone. Donahue and Dorothy Wildman, owners, Robert Sessa and J. 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 a180 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 Map Act. Commissioner Knowles 13513 indefinitely. carried unanimously. made a motion to continue Tentative Tract No. The motion was seconded by Com~issioner Lopez and 1~~8.tiQ. 6. Ward 5 ~AtjYI_TII2t 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-I-IO,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 provide 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 indefinit~ 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 Streamlining 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 tile roofs and heavier materials and addressing tie downs for tile 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 a more 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. 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 improved 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 improvements could be made up front and the applicant would propose a method by which improvements could be made for the area so that they have a coordinated effort. which like to entire '-- Commissioner Shaw felt that it was productive to have City property owners work together to come up with comprehensive staff and solutions city of San Bernardino Planning Co..ission Meeting Minutes of 3/11/81 Page 10 to development problems in that region of the City and if the Commission feels that the solutions are not adequate, the commission has the discretion to say so. Commissioner Nierman felt a continuance would be productive, if they were going to attempt to resolve improvement problems for the entire area. 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, CIQA, 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 Coamission. IT~M-NO. 1~ ~ard 5 TentAtiYe_~IA~t 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 to establish a 45 lot subdivision in the R-I- 10,800 Single-Family Residential zone. Palm Avenue Investors, owner/applicant. Discussion and comment on this item are noted under Item No.6, Tentative Tract No. 13301, 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 .nd consideration by the Planning Commission. city of -san Bernardino Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/17/87 page 11 ITEM NO.8. Ward 5 ~JDt,tive TII,t Ho. 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. 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 ~act 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. 17~H_NO. 9. Ward 5 7ent~tiY~ Tra,~ No. 13512 -- 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-l-7200 Single-Family Residential zone. Melvin Harrison, owner/applicant. Discussion and comment on this item are noted under Item Ho. 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. 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 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. conditions of . T1'ACHMENT I )EPAR"IIv1ENT OF TRANf - qr A Tt\JNI 1000 CONTROL/AIRPORTS J.?~/tj a)II'::::; r ~ z~ ...st Thi,d St,,,t. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 . (7141381.2800 '~\\\ll",~~/ ~,~ t 1;:- ~ ~ -- -- -:::- ...:::- -~ ~...... /1f"',,\\\~' March 19, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENT AL PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY MICHAEL G. WALKER Director 1987 File: 8(CTY)-12 Tract 13307 City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 north "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Attention: Hr. Don Williams Re: Zone 2, Meecham Canyon Tentative Tract 13307 Gen tl emen : Reference is made to your transmittal with accompanying tentative tract map, requesting the District's review and conunents. The tentative tract is located on the east side of Chestnut Avenue between Belmont and :rvlngton 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 debrh-ladened watershed of' api)roximately 400 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 ~ay ~e subject to infrequent flood hazards by reasons of overflow, erosion or debris deposition from Heecham Canyon in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention facilities are provided. 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 from Cable Creek in the event of a major storm until permanent channel and debris retention fa~ilities are provided for this system. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. A structural block wall should be constructed along the north and west tract boundaries, or some other adequate barrier provided, to intercept overflow from Meecham Canyon. - Lett~r to ':1e City of '~aa 3e:"nar~~lno liarch 19, 1987 Page 2 2. The City should require adequate provlSlons 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 Project 7-(;13 in Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No.7. Updating engineering hydraulics and developing current methods of financing to allo'ol construction of the local storm drain should be coordinated with the City Engineers Office. He would not reconvnend closed conduits be used for flows from Heecham 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 Ad:ninistration (FIA) requirements should be included in the design for those portions on the site located within Zone "8". This should be coordinated with the City Enaineer'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(g} of the County Code sets the fee for this review 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 1D 02816, File rlo. 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 The~e will be no further review of this site until the fee has been recci'Jed. Should you havi! any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (714) 337-2515. ~ry.trJCly yours, ~ ~ ,,/J ".." ROaf.~T w. CORCHERO, Chief Water Resources Division RWC:H'tlS:mjs cc: City Eng :.neer /' ATTACHMENT "J" 11. Further expansi on of the Mounta; n Shadows Mobile Home Park in tIle 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 Drive 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 Drain 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) lrvington 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 tile or concrete ti1. roofs. 2) Minimum front set-back requirements. Lot Size 7,200 sq. ft. 10,800 sq. ft. 14,400 sq. ft. 18,800 sq. ft. 20,OOO+sq. ft. Minimum Setback Allowances 25 feet 35 feet 45 feet 50 feet 60 feet May vary provided that the average setback for all buildings is equal to the required minimum setback 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 4) Landscaping shall be provided for all open space fronting Parkways, Arterials and Collector thorough- fares prior to the release JT 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 & 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- forming 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 shall 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 "grandfathered" as a legal conforming use. 18. Existing residential structures along Waterman Avenue within the area designated CO, Commercial Office, shall not be permitted to convert to office uses. Only new office structures shall be permitted. 8 OF SAN B.RNARD~illiH~iiE6uEST FOR COUNCIL AC,..C Councilman Tom Minor - 2 - Verdemont Area Improvement Plan Recommended Motion: 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 urain and Debr~s Basin 4. Traffic Signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive 5. Installatlon of Curbs and Gutters, along with Full Street Improvements at the Following Locations: a. Palm Avenue - from Kendall Drive to Ohio Street b. Irvlngton Avenue - from Chestnut Street to Pine Avenue c. Belmont Street - from Chestnut to Pine Avenue d. Pine Avenue - from Belmont Avenue to (,hio Street: That all departments be instructed to give full cooperation to the Director of Communlty Development in the development of said plan, as a time frame of six months has been set by motion of the Mayor and Common Council: That the Planning Department be instructed to continue the pro- cessing of ~pplications for single family developments on 10,800 square foot or larger lots within the area described aboveJ 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 proportionatf share of said impr9v.ements:' Except for minor additions and improvements on existing residential, that the Director of Building & Safety and the City Engineer be instructE 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. w .... -w- i .. t w.'= y .....,.- ~ ~~ ATTACrlMENT "L" n:NTATlVE TRACT /3307 BPI. A BUIlMV";;" LClfB I. 4 ..OCII .,. 11I1 TIC .1/1'" UIIIl _ wanll COlI"," _ IIS./". cln 1M _..-. CA. - It _ __........ ...,..-. ItIt ... ..... M'I It. ... -..... .... .: :'t r=.--- II." ~!!!:! ,. . ..... .....1" :. ;.1.. ::r"7..~;;'..1if s.~ NItIUtl_ II ,..... ~_" _ 'IIlMt..u. -.. ....... ,.....", _. -. ......,..."-....... -..- -... " ..... .,,,,no.. .. . ........' ~d~1",~ ~ .., .... I'.,r- .."._""'I~ jI( ~ ....... .... ,..." PM ..-, , o ~I",~ ... 'TTACHMENT "M" t' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPA~TMENT Oa LOCATION CASE TT NO. 11107 HEARING DATE -1Ll3/RR . 10' R-1-14,400 ('. ~ f 1"::800' f~~ PF 'F 6-16