HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-Planning
o
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8507-306
TO: The Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Frank A. Schuma, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of variance No. 85-3
DATE:
July 26, 1985
(6417)
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Variance No. 85-3 was continued from the City Council meeting
of July 15, 1985 to allow Councilman Marks the opportunity to
hold a public meeting with the residents of the immediate
area to discuss the revised conditions of approval and the
tentative tract map (No. 12759) which was considered by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of July 16, 1985.
~f
o
/~.
CITC) OF SAN BERNARD~O -
REQU~T FOR COUNCIL A~ON
"-'
~
Frank A. Schtima Appeal of Tentative Tract No.
From: Planning Director Subject:
12759 and Appeal of Variance
Dept: Planning No. 85-3
Mayor and Council Meeting of
Date: August 5, 1985 August 5, 1985, 9:00 a.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission actions:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on May IS, 1985,
Variance No. 85-3 was approved. Vote: 7-1, I absent.
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on July 16, 1985,
Tentative Tract No. 12759 was approved, subject to conditions and
standard requirements, as modified. Vote: 6-2, I absent. The
Negative Declaration for environmental review was also approved.
"
Recommen-:led motion: That the hearing on the appeal for Variance No. 85-3 and
Tentative Tract No. 12759 be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission
be affirmed, with the following modifications to the conditions:
, 1. (That the City accept the offer of dedication for the two debris basins.
2. That the applicant submit a landscaping plan for the area located on the
south side of the proposed cul-de-sac for review and approval. Said land-
scaping plan shall include an irrigation plan, the species and amount of
I~oundcover, and the species and amount of trees and shrubs to be installed.
--rt shall be the responsibility of the property owner to the north of the
cul-de-sac to properly maintain the landscaping in perpetuity.
118 1#dIl~
Q
~~~
Signature Frank A. Schuma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Yes, Staff Report
Phone:
383-5057
4
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
- " -., '..,~
.. "_" -.'tl.,~ ...JI I.--.>~,-,,:;;: --
Agenda item No /(i? ~ / t3
15-0262
CI"C OF SAN BERNARDOO - .REQUOT FOR COUNCIL AO,JION
STAFF REPORT
At the citizen meeting held on Thursday, August 1, 1985 in
the Redevelopment Agency Conference Room, staff discussed the
various conditions imposed upon the development with neigh-
bors of adjoining property to the south. I believe that a
consensus of opinion was reached by the homeowners with a
positive resolution. The homeowners would. like to see the
following adjustments made to the conditions of approval:
1. That the City accept the offer of dedication for
the on-site debris basins.
That no offer of dedication for a 60
way extending east from the proposed
Mrs. W\cklund's property be included
of approval.
3. That a condition be included in the approval of the
tract map which provides for perpetual maintenance
and upkeep for the area south of the proposed cul-
de-sac and that a landscaping plan be submitted to
the City for review and approval.
foot right-of""
cul-de-sac to\.'1l
as a condition ;I
2.
In reviewing the requests from the adjoining property owners
concerning the Variance and Tentative Tract Map, both the
Planning Department and the Engineering Division would concur
with the request that the City accept the offer of dedication
for the debris basins. In our opinion, if the City were to
maintain the basins on a routine basis, a serious problem
could be mitigated. If the basins are to be maintained by a
homeowner or homeowners' association, serious potential
downhill problems could develop due to improper maintenance.
During the initial review of the tentative tract map, no
mention was made concerning the public right-of-way on the
south side of the proposed cul-de-sac. The developer was of
the opinion that this would be maintained by the City as are
most right-of-ways. It is our recommendation that a
landscaping plan be submitted to the City showing the method
of frrigation and the quantity and species of landscaping to
be installed. Once installed, the adjoining property owners
to the north shall be required to maintain the landscaping.
Finally, the adjacent property owners were of the op1nlon
that an irrevocable offer of dedication for extending a
street off the proposed cul-de-sac was not necessary and
shall not be a condition of approval. This was based on
testimony provided by the applicant's engineer indicating
that the parcel was not landlocked, since access could be
75.0264
. O.
o
o
o
Appeal of T.T. No. 12759 and Var. No. .85-3
August 5~ 1985
achieved by a 30 foot access located at the terminus of Park
Lane. Although this 30-foot access could serve as an access
point, it is my opinion that the City would be better served
by allowing the condition to remain as is. If the City were
to exercise the option, it could do so with the construction
of a full street section.
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
Inkf
.
'\
,.;;,o"_;"_--"'~ ,,_. ";-Jtl._ b2Il ....'..~::'-',._~..:.:-..-
JI
QITY OF SAN BE~AROINOO- MEMORANOLQ
To RALPH H. PRINCE
City Attorney
Subject Variance No. 85-3
From
JOHN F. WILSON
Deputy City Attorney
August 5, 1985
Date
Ap~roved
Date
670.2
As a condition of approval of the subject development,
applicant proposes to improve and then dedicate to the City
two catch basins located on the property. The catch basins
were formed when the railroad extended its grade across
certain natural canyons in the hills north of the City. As
part of the extention of the grade, the railroad placed
metal pipes through the grade to allow for the continued
flow downstream of the natural stream.
Pursuant to an investigation of the advisability of the
acceptance of such dedication by the City, I reviewed the
recent court case of William and Bonnie Wales v. City of
San Bernardino, et al., and the case commonly known as the
Hampshire Farms case. With respect to the Wales case, a
judgment was entered against the City in the amount of
$150,000 on June 20th of this year. As set forth in the
recorder's transcripts of the proceedings, it was the
court I s finding that "In 1961, the City of San Bernardino
constructed a catch basin on the east side of.Pepper at that
location. The court does find that that was negligently and
inadequately designed." With respect to the Hampshire Farms
case, my review indicates that the City is exposed to
liability because of its ownership of the streets adjacent
to the flooded homes.
It is important to note that in both cases, the City's
liability is predicated on the City's ownershi8 of property
involved in the flooding. In no case was the ity held
subject to liability simply because of its approval of any
prior development.
0.. &.
Deputy City Attorney
JFW:dp
C.7., Oil 7H.:!M~