HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-Development Services ORIGINAL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: James Funk,Director Subject: Development Permit Type III No. 03-
41 — An appeal of the Planning Commission's
Dept: Development Services denial of an Amendment to Conditions. The
project site is located west of 59`" Street,
Date: November 15, 2005 between Acacia Avenue and Hill Drive.
MCC Date: December 5, 2005
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council:
1) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the Amendment to Conditions to
modify Condition of Approval No. 12 of Development Permit Type III No. 03-41.
�. � ir-
James Funk
Contact person: Brian Fete, Assistant Planner Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct.No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. �L
l x 5/0.5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of December 5, 2005
SUBJECT: Development Permit Type III No. 03-41 —Amendment to Conditions
Appeal No. 05-23
OWNER/APPELLANT: ENGINEER:
Gardner Construction Thatcher Engineering
555 Cajon, Suite G 3455 1h Street, Suite B
Redlands, CA 92373 Redlands, CA 92374
(909) 748-7700 (909) 748-7777
BACKGROUND
The project site is located north of Hill Drive and northwest of 58th and 59th Streets in the RL,
Residential Low land use district(Exhibit 1 —Location Map). All grading and site improvements
have been completed as per approved Tract No. 10260. More than half of the project (26 units
out of a total of 46 units) have been constructed and are approaching final inspection and sign-off
by the Building Division.
The Planning Commission approved Development Permit Type III (DPIII) No. 03-41 on May 4,
2004, to construct 46 single-family dwellings. Concerns raised during the public hearings
focused on potential impacts from drainage, grading, flooding/mudflows, dust, blasting, and
truck traffic, as well as landscaping for fire prevention and formation of a landscape maintenance
district. Condition of Approval No. 12 required a decorative block wall at the subdivision
perimeter. No concern was expressed to the Planning Commission requiring the block wall. The
appellant stated agreement at the hearing to all of the Conditions of Approval. For a more in-
depth review of the project and conditions, see the attached staff report and meeting minutes
(Exhibit 2 — Staff Report & Exhibit 3 — Minutes). An Appeal application was not filed during
the 15-day appeal period.
An application for Amendment to Conditions was filed on August 16, 2004, after the Public
Works/Engineering Division requested that the required perimeter wall be included on the
precise grading plan under review at that time. The appellant indicated to staff that an
application would be filed to amend that condition, and the applicant did not include the required
perimeter wall on the precise grading plan. On August 27, 2004, the Public Works Division
approved the precise grading plan and issued the permit in order to facilitate the project (without
waiving or modifying the requirement for a 6'0"perimeter block wall). The item was not placed
on a Planning Commission agenda pending approval of the required Fuel Modification Plan.
The Fire Department approved the Fuel Modification Plan on June 30, 2005. The San
Bernardino County Flood Control District issued a permit on June 10, 2005 to allow the City to
enter the maintenance road behind the tract for the purpose of maintaining the off-site fuel
modification zone (Exhibit 4—Staff Report).
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date:Dec. 5, 2005
Page 2
The Planning Commission reviewed the Amendment to Conditions application on October 4,
2005, in which the applicant requested approval to construct a 6'0" decorative tube steel fence on
the north, west, and east boundaries of the tract in lieu of the required block wall. The
applicant's request was based on the anticipated difficulty in constructing the wall footings. The
Commissioners discussed aesthetic impacts, visibility across yards, design guidelines, and
consistency with previously approved projects. The City Engineer suggested that the applicant
consult a structural or geotechnical engineer to inspect the soil and rock conditions on-site, and
have the consultant provide an expert opinion as to the feasibility of constructing wall footings.
The City Engineer thought there were feasible methods to deal with the required footings. The
Planning Commission denied the application by a vote of 6 to 1. Commissioners Brown, Coute,
Durr, Enciso, Heasley, and Sauerbrun voted in favor of denial, and Commissioner Powell voted
against denial. For a more in-depth review of the hearing, see the attached staff report and
meeting minutes (Exhibit 4— Staff Report &Exhibit 5 —Minutes).
An Appeal application was filed on October 7, 2005 (Exhibit 6 — Appeal). The appellant
submitted a letter on October 27, 2005, in response to the City Engineer's suggestion for
information from a structural or geotechnical engineer (Exhibit 7 — Engineering Letter). The
letter does not recommend block walls because the grading plans did not show a perimeter wall
and, thus, did not consider a drainage design to accompany the 6'0" perimeter wall. If
constructed at this time, a perimeter wall would interfere with the approved grading/drainage
design and impose further revisions to the grading plan. The letter does not address the
feasibility of constructing wall footings. Staff's response is that the final rough grading plan was
not approved until November 21, 2003, and staff had requested in the
Development/Environmental Review Committee meeting of November 13, 2003 that wall and
fence information be added to the plans under review at that time. Wall details were not included
on the rough grading plan, and Public Works approved and issued the permit in order to facilitate
the project. Also, the requirement for a perimeter wall was approved on May 4, 2004 as a
condition of the DPIII, and that condition was in effect when the precise grading plan was
approved on August 27, 2004. It was the applicant's decision and risk to proceed without first
resolving this perimeter block wall issue.
As of November 15, 2005, the appellant has not submitted plans or started construction of the
required perimeter wall. Based on the facts and insights gained at the Planning Commission
hearing, staff's recommendation for the Amendment to Conditions has been modified since the
October 4, 2005 staff report to the Planning Commission, to incorporate the Commissioners'
analyses of aesthetic impacts, design, and consistency.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No impact to the City of San Bernardino. The appellant paid the processing fees.
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date:Dec. 5,2005
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
1) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the Amendment to
Conditions application to modify Condition of Approval No. 12 of Development Permit
Type III No. 03-41 that requires a 6'0" decorative block wall on the north, east, and west
perimeter of the subdivision.
EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Staff Report of April 20, 2004
3. Planning Commission Minutes of April 20, 2004
4. Planning Commission Staff Report of October 4, 2005
5. Planning Commission Minutes of October 4, 2005
6. Appeal
7. Engineering Letter
«z.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT
AP 05-23
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 11/21/05
WA
: a
or-
EXHIBIT 2 –PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date: Nov. 21, 2005
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: Development Permit III No. 03-41
AGENDA ITEM: 2
HEARING DATE: April 20, 2004
WARD: 4
OWNER/APPLICANT: ENGINEER:
Gardner Construction Thatcher Engineering
555 Cajon, Suite G 345 5`h Street, Suite B
Redlands, CA 92373 Redlands, CA 92374
(909) 748-7700 (909) 748-7777
REQUEST/LOCATION:
The applicant requests approval of a Development Permit to allow construction of 46 single-
family dwellings in Tract 10260. The proposed home sizes will range between 3,362 and 4,289
sq. ft., with two- and three-car garages. The project site is located north of 58`h Street between
Acacia and Mayfield Avenues in the RL, Residential Low land use district. (APN's: 0270-251-
01 to 25; 0270-241-01 to 24; 0270-242-01).
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay (Zone A—Extreme Hazard)
High Wind Zone Overlay
Low to Moderate Landslide Susceptibility
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
❑ Not Applicable -
■ Exempt, previously approved Negative Declaration for Tract No. 10260
❑ No Significant Effects
❑ Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Approval
• Conditions
i Denial
Continuance to:
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 2
REQUEST AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Gardner Construction requests approval of a Development Permit (Type III) to allow the
construction of 46 single-family dwellings on Tract 10260. Tract 10260 was previously
approved for 47 parcels with minimum lot sizes of 10,800 sq. ft. each (as part of this DPIII
application, Parcel 1 will be merged into Parcels 2 and 3, for a revised total of 46 lots). Also,
the project will construct approximately: 450 feet of Acacia Court; 1,200 feet of Aries Lane;
1,050 feet of 59`h Street; and 200 feet of Acacia Avenue. The project is located north of 58`h
Street between Acacia and Mayfield Avenues in the RL, Residential Low land use district
(Attachments A & B).
The proposed project offers three floor plans, with a total of six color schemes. The homes are
wood-frame with stucco or cement-fiber siding and concrete-tile roofs. Architectural treatments
include variations in roof style, entry projections, and front accent materials such as brick or
wainscot. Detailing includes cement-fiber trim, fascia, and window treatments; vinyl windows;
metal roll-up garage doors; and fully landscaped front yards (in addition to the Fuel
Modification Plan) for all houses. The sizes of the houses will range between 3,362 and 4,289
total square feet, as follows:
Plan Living Area Garage Patios Number
1 2,264 sq. ft. 881 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. 10
IA 2,264 588- 150 7
2 2,479 850 130 16
3 3,305 864 120 13
The project will be built in three phases: 12 lots during Phase 1, 14 lots during Phase 2, and 20
lots during Phase 3 (Attachment C).
SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The entire site is vacant and the tract boundary is generally square-shaped. The gross area is
19.3 acres in size, and the net area for homes is 15.9 acres. The majority of the site has
undergone the necessary mass grading, except along the south edge of the tract where the
grading activity is ongoing. The site is within an area of moderate relief and has potentially
low to moderate susceptibility to landslides (General Plan, Fig. 52). Recent flooding through
the site has not impaired the developer's ability to develop the tract as proposed.
To the north of the site are undeveloped parcels in the RL, Residential Low zone. To the west
of the site are undeveloped parcels in the RL, Residential Low and RS, Residential Suburban
zones. To the northeast of the site are undeveloped parcels in the RL, Residential Low zone,
and to the southeast is a single-family neighborhood in the RS, Residential Suburban zone. To
the south of the site are single-family neighborhoods in the RS, Residential Suburban zone.
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 3
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The approval of the Development Permit for the proposed project is in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA. Tract 10260 has been previously reviewed (including residential home
development) and the Environmental Review Committee recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration on September 24, 1980, and the Planning Commission adopted the Negative
Declaration.
BACKGROUND
The Common Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 10260 on October 27, 1980, and
approved the Final Map on October 23, 1985. The Final Map has been recorded. The Public
Works Division has approved the street plan and the conceptual/rough grading plan with a
clause that the precise grading plan might be modified based on the home designs to be
approved by the Planning Commission.
GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY
1. Is the proposed development one that is permitted within the subject zoning district and
in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code, including
prescribed development/site standards and any/all applicable design guidelines?
Single-family homes are a permitted use in the RL, Residential Low land use district. The
proposed project complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Development Code as
shown in Table 1 (next page), with the exception of dwelling unit separation. The Site Plan
indicates a 14'0" separation between dwelling units on Parcels 22/23 and 37/38. Condition of
Approval No.8 requires a minimum of 15'0" between all houses, which will require adjusting
two houses by 1 to 2 feet. The developer proposes 2.4 units per acre, and the maximum
allowable is 3.1 units per acre. The requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, and minimum unit
size have been met.
Applicable design guidelines have been incorporated into the architecture and designs, except
for mixing the models so that a floor plan does not repeat more than every 4`h lot. Condition of
Approval No. 9 requires the developer to distribute the floor plans so that there are no clusters
of one model. The proposal incorporates other design guidelines such as: staggering the
setbacks, alternating hip and gable roofs as well as roof orientation, alternating front accent
materials/colors, curved wall articulations in the front, alternating front patios and porches,
garages have single-story mass at the front with transition to 2-story massing, and vertical/
horizontal articulations on front elevations. Also, the requirements of S.B.M.C. §15.10
(Foothill Fire Zone Building Standards) have been incorporated into the designs.
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 4
TABLE 1.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERAL PLAN
Permitted Use Single-Family Units Permitted Permitted
Density 2.4 d.u. / acre 3.1 d.u. / acre (max.) 3.1 d.u. / acre
Setbacks:
Front 30'6" (avg.) 25'0" (avg.) n/a
25'0" (min.) 20'0" (min.)
Side (Interior) 5'0" 5'0"
Side (Street) 1590" 1590"
Rear 53'0" (avg.) 20'0" (avg.)
2090" (min.) 15'0" (min.)
Unit Size 2,264 - 3,305 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. (min.) n/a
Lot Coverage Less than 35% each 35 % (max.) n/a
Dwelling-Unit 14'0" * 15'0" (min.) n/a
Separation
* Does not meet Development Code requirements.
2. Is the proposed development consistent with the General Plan?
The project is consistent with the General Plan. Objective 1.10 states that it is the City's
objective to "Promote the development of low-density, large lot, high quality single-family
detached residential units." The project is consistent with Policies 1.10.10, 1.10.11, and
1.10.30 for development standards, as well as 1.10.31 for architecture and design. Policy
2.1.1 of the General Plan states that it is the City's policy to "Accommodate the production of
new housing units on currently vacant or underutilized land at densities and standards
designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan."
3. Is the proposed development harmonious and compatible with existing and future
developments within the land use district and general area, as well as with the land
uses presently on the subject property?
The project area is located adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood, and the
proposed minimum lot sizes (10,800 square feet minimum) and home designs will be consistent
with the existing neighborhood. A previous project completed by Gardner Construction has
proven to be a high-quality project and is harmonious and compatible with existing
developments
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page S
4. Is the approval of the Development Permit for the proposed development in compliance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section
19.20.030(6) of the Development Code?
Yes, the approval of the Development Permit for the proposed project is in compliance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Negative Declaration was
recommended for Tract 10260 by the Environmental Review Committee, and adopted by the
Planning Commission.
5. Will there be potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and
natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored?
No, the project was previously reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and the
Planning Commission. A Negative Declaration was adopted for Tract 10260 with mitigation
measures for drainage, erosion controls, and fire hazard controls. In addition, the impacts from
temporary construction activities (e.g. dust control, noise, drainage, hours of operation, traffic)
are subject to Standard Requirements which ensure that the impacts are within acceptable
standards and legal limits. Condition of Approval No. 10 requires dust suppression on
Saturdays and Sundays (in addition to Monday through Friday) to ensure adequate dust control.
6. Is the subject site physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the use being
proposed?
Yes, the existing site is a vacant lot of approximately 19.3 acres, in the RL, Residential Low
land use district. There are no physical characteristics or constraints applicable to the location
that would prevent the proposed density and type of development on the site.
7. Are there adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health
and safety?
Yes, all agencies responsible for reviewing access, providing water, sanitation and other public
services have all had the opportunity to review the proposal, and none have indicated an
inability to serve the project. This proposal will not be detrimental to the public's health and
safety, in that all applicable Codes will apply to the operation of this project.
8. Are the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
development not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or
welfare of the City?
Yes, the proposed project is in compliance with the Development Code and Design Guidelines
requirements applicable to location, size, design, and operating characteristics, with the
exception of the requirement for dwelling unit separation which Condition of Approval No. 8
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 6
will remedy. The adjacent public park was flooded due to seasonal precipitation on the project
site, and Condition of Approval No. 11 requires the developer to restore the park to previous
conditions.
CONCLUSION
As proposed and with Conditions of Approval, the proposed development makes all necessary
Findings of Fact for approval of the Development Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Permit (Type III) No.
03-41 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report, subject to the Conditions of
Approval and Standard Requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
vow(/. 00
James Funk
Director of Development Services
Brian Foote
Assistant Planner
Attachments: A - Location Map
B - Site Plan
C - Phasing Plan
D - Conditions of Approval
E - Standard Requirements
a.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: DPIII 03-41
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 4/20/04
st
ra
j ,
t ATTACHMENT B
N
o
< � - Z
o0_
og s bE
�` R °° c z Ertl _a3Ya " :E <.:� r
U� O Yb �s � 2 3n _ „4 by9 .;4$ W F
k a n s W W I a a p 2� a3 "8 " {C� s E
p g O
z --
a r
E y S
O
• �, O ° tq s
U
Y
0
V
Z
jI
g
w,z
• �, � w
x
x LLI
r
- ATTACHMENT B
o
L4
R2
I ! ;j
IL
ATTACHM 4T B
Of
�~ z
i
? z
Z WV2
\y% �
i
j:
Z Iry
ATTACHMENT B
ED
a
/ U
/
I
�z
ATTACH ENT B = h
\. = L 133H 23S I
61 All
Jig
IL
Tl
oiv
----------
« 11 y
a � w
•—•--__
TT i ��._ •ate'•
11
sr —r
rl ��
ATTACHMENT B
I
C4 y
J I
oy l �i I f4
, J, '
I '
-
R
3S
-
\ a
ATTACHML1vT B �; n
z
m 4�e
z
� o
, f
7IL—�
IT
i ,'• «�_i 3HS33s' \3 _ s` - 0�r _ \ ®° / �; r � �If I 1 + ,�
I
64 y
z/
k
f"Uh R,"PUIP-11
Iltlpjmfj.)q MRS 111
n- luawdol."ap v—lanu Jupc2 8 ATTACHMENT
WAY N/I ,q i3ziud r suu3
4
LL
Z
0
C�),
T-1
ATTACHMENT B
sIffilloof xv .........
cr
ul LL
7-l'
'i }>
fr
&
-J!
LLI
LL
dmplUNJlq UN f0 £CCZl,r.>�puclpv
s11i ' ATTACHMENT B<q 1-'d r y1naf x/I
l
n
i
I
T
I �,J
i I
� J
J .
W W W
A LL
i
J/ Z ATTACHMENT B
.—d.j.,op puouxuuo�u—p.1 i
a.xw�e'+.�Pwlawa+�wmau C �y�.uf��J e
Q�
i
J,
Lo
L ¢
I
O�
F
J
t W
W,
_O
i
-1
_ATTACHMENT B
•� •e.�,,. ON/jUO/llAf;IN!/7 e_£i6 rsnuripm
'M., Palo l-it 'afS
C �L a1 �w
do;—p Y uwl?w,uuo l�+spn�
� 1=
)1 1 1 s is I' a
� a�ww'wsq,r a,yw FPM /•' �" �" Cy i»fnld c � 3
r
!I
w s-
I�
!j
II` U
I�
'I
k..
I '
;i
z
� a
y J
d
fr
Z Q
J
4r L
i
IA(fPJVUJ.)q IIVS JO l:,f;h c.cp!mipv
.�..s ATTACHMENT B
i s11. oof aye
I!
l
Y
w
t
m
_ ♦ N
Z
i
ZI
s j 2!
LLi
,�-
OJ
f of
L - --
1
ir
xr-6416
CL,. P.,Ip,,
ATTACHMENT
• P-6• pp.~
a.
Li
LL4
uj ul
ul
UT LL
«. N'"'°"'q"wu, - ATTACHMENT B
AaOaPae'aupm6 aPaM :y
l PWYI�� a�f1!'l�kl�-,q r'IUaWJU�a.JF yaUt�rubw��uu{!m�:
7i/ '.viwdc
>
t ' W.
i � J
uo
U
_ 5
i--
it.I
Z'
Q,
w.
w�
w!
— wl
LA Ji
i
"
�
^
ATTACHMENT B
fly
ZI
N
Ca EZt I14Z'IIe�".i '
u ur,nun
• '° JIIIpIDNf�NDS Nt E:M1 P•.woi�.,,
ATTACHMENT B
D4aP+' a0aaa�Ma .y 1?m-d P
� 2
i
i
i
I 7
8;
O J:
I� wl
IWifllc„en _%fL MM......... 'ATTACHMENT
2 .b, - unganrux�um ur ;an��Zb a,. l�a,
., ,;
B
J/1wal f xv w wawdula ap w�na�uruo,uuF.me
piq,�pw'r,p,nO>pew, u f :4
LlIii
ZI
I
I ,
a ;
I
01
w
JI J
r--- ui 0�
~ Ql j P i —
LL,
i
i
t
•( I «,......., ilvil)IP I?c�i nll�YfLMM � '� � '
r �ww�u: JJOj/JD!/l.N)!lA 111 :_i Lp c.i.puelpm
;ATTACHMENT B
LLJ
p�pR'aupr6 svw FPMW „", 7 i�I.uliuJe
I
1-- I
' JI
I (nI
Q
I
i..
i
I y
`1 1
F
WI
LLJ
I Fn�
Ull
E
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Attachment L — Phash.g Plan Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 9
PHASE MAP
TRACT 10260
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SHEET 3
SHEET
18 17 12 11 ,� 2
16 13 L
19 14
COURT
S9 15 \P 9
20 0 P` 6 7 g
41 5
21 9 2 4
s
4 3
22 3 4 SHEET 6
37 'PFD
23 Jam'
Q` 35
�P
24 34
NF
25
26
SHEET 4 27
31
tLi
30 >
Q
SHEET 5 i o
}
Q
N SHEET 7
SCALE 1"=100' Phase 1 (12 Total)
Phase 2 (14 Total)
Phase 3 (20 Total)
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 10
Attachment D — Conditions of Approval
1. This permit/approval allows the developer to construct 46 single-family homes on Tract
No. 10260, located on Aries Lane, Acacia Court, and 591h Street.
2. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have
occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after
commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the
permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the Development
Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must
be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the
Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. Phasing of project
construction/development shall be as follows: Phase 1: lots 16 through 27; Phase 2: lots
2 through 15; Phase 3: lots 28 through 47.
Expiration Date: April 20, 2006
3. The review authority may grant a one-time extension, for good cause, not to exceed 12
months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required
submittal items, 30 days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall ensure
that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in effect at the time of
the requested extension.
4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of
this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless
the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency of the City of
San Bernardino (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commission of
either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors,
elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or
EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or
entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for 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 or her obligation under this
condition.
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall
be considered as "attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition.
As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in effect
if this Development Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of
applicant.
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 11
5. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds
10% of the following allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing
review authority if applicable:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading, and landscaping;
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of
finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme;
and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
6. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied
or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been
issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed
with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate, if
necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and
completion of all terms, conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended
use by this permit.
7. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property
Development Standards; and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor
control; screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration
control. Screening and sign regulations compliance is important considerations to the
developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they
are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes,
ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element,
blending with the building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
8. The developer shall Construct all houses with a minimum of 15'0" between adjacent
units.
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 12
9. The developer shall mix the models so that one floor plan does not repeat more than
every 4`h lot, to the extent possible within engineering limitations.
10. The developer shall implement daily dust control measures, including Saturdays and
Sundays as necessary, to ensure adequate dust suppression. Applicable regional rules
include South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403. Appropriate
dust control measures shall include the following:
a. During grading, earth moving, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water
trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to
create a crust after each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a
minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and
after work is completed for the day, and whenever winds exceed 15 miles per hour.
c. After grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of
disturbed soil shall be treated immediately until the area is paved or otherwise
developed so that dust generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil
binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to or from
the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
11. The developer shall completely restore Newberry Park located at 550 Hill Drive, to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Parks, Recreation & Community Services
Department, prior to issuance of building permits.
12. Perimeter walls and retaining walls shall be split-face block or slump stone on both
sides (above ground). Interior fences shall be vinyl or wrought iron. Wood or chain
link fences are not permitted.
13. Each house will be provided one 4'x11' concrete pad for storage of refuse containers
behind the front setback and screened from public rights-of-way. Paved access to the
curb shall be provided (this may be the driveway).
14. The landscape plan shall include one 24" box tree for every 35 feet of street frontage,
consistent with Parks & Recreation Department requirements.
15. The applicant shall post a bond in an amount equivalent to the cost of landscaping
including landscape installation and one year of maintenance service. The purpose of
the bond is to ensure that all landscaping survives the planting process and lasts for a
period of at least one-year. The bond will be released no sooner than one year after
Development Permit III No. 03-41
Hearing Date: April 20, 2004
Page 13
completion of Phase 3 and only after such time as the survival of the landscaping has
been verified by City staff.
16. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be completed prior to final
inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
17. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements,
landscaping, etc.) to Building/Plan Check and Public Works/Engineering shall include
all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the Planning
approval.
18. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Development Services Department—Building/Plan Check Division
b. Development Services Department—Public Works/Engineering Division
C. Fire Department
ATTACHMENT E
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICESIPUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
CASE NO: DP 11103-41 DESCRIPTION: Construct 47 Single
Family Residence
APPLICANT: Gardner Construction LOCATION: N/W 59"' Street and Hill Dr.
& Development, Inc,
• NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant is
responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They
may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans.
No additional comments. Comply with condition and requirements of previous
approved Tentative Tract No. 10260.
Page 1 of I Pages 121112003
' ' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case:��
Date: � 3/3
Reviewed By: G FF2�
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at(909)384-5585 for specific detailed requirements.
The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage,construction features,and exposure
information supplied by the developer and must be available prior to placing combustible materials on site.
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
Q,,'f he fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by:
(yz San Bernardino Municipal Water Department—Engineering (909)384-5391
❑ East Valley Water District—Engineering (909)888-8986
❑ Other Water purveyor. Phone:
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES:
E /Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed
500 feet for residential areas.
Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas.Minimum fire
hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas.
[;/Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water purveyor.Fire
hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor.
❑/public fire hydrants,fire services,and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and
shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion.Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional
information.
ACCESS:
❑ Provide two separate,dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance.The routes shall be paved,all weather.
❑ Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unob-
structed width.
❑ Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings.
❑ Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings.
❑ Provide"NO PARKING"signs whenever parking of vehicles would possible reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs
are to read"FIRE LANE—NO PARKING—M.C.Sec.15.16".
❑ Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround.
❑ The names of any new streets(public or private)shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE•
�01II access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction
❑ Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any
exterior wall.The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type,with one 21h inch and 4 inch outlet,and approved by the Fire Department. Areas adjacent to fire
hydrants shall be designated as a"NO PARKING"zone by painting an 8 inch wide,red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a
manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. Lettering to be in white 6"by 1/2".
BUI INGS:
Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in suc,i a manner as to be visible from the frontage street.Com-
mercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall,single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall.The color of the numerals shall con-
trast with the color of the background.
❑ Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves.
❑ Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 10B/C. Minimum distribution of
fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher.
❑ Apartment houses with 16 or more units,hotels(motels)with 20 or more units,or apartments or hotels(motels)three stories or more in height shall be
equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards.
❑ All buildings,over 5,000 square feet,shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinker system designed to NFPA standards.This includes existing buildings
vacant over 365 days.
❑ Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system.Permit required.
❑ Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. Permit required.
❑ Provide fire alarm(required throughout).Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation.Permit required.
❑ Fire Department connection to sprinkler system/standpipe system,shall be required at Fire Department approved location.
❑ Fire Code Permit required,apply at 200 east 3rd street,(909)384-5388.
❑ Fire Sprinkler monitoring required. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction.Permit required.
❑ Occupant Load.
Note:The applicant must request,in writing,any changes to Fire Department requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION- __7]7��AC-L__1,z__ //✓ 7W&-7
�-;- T�L -�LrLr-�'FrN
rJr<t*�
FP8 170(0.103)
Cite of San Bernardino
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Development Services/Plan Check Division
San Renla luo
Property address:
DRC/CUP/DP: vy3m �3 - 1 ` DATE: A kAfw
NOTE; NO PLANS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR
PLAN CHECK WITHOUT CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL IMPRINTED ON PLAN SHEETS .
Submit 6 sets of plans, minimum size 18" x 24", drawn to scale. If plan check is for
expeditious review, submit 6 sets. The plans shall include (if applicable):
a. site plan (include address & assessors parcel number)
b. foundation plan
C. floor plan (label use of all areas)
d. elevations
e. electrical, mechanical, & plumbing plans
f. detail sheets (structural)
g. cross section details
h. show compliance with Title 24/Accessibility (disabled access)
i. a plan check deposit fee will be required upon submittal of plans.
Call Development Services (plan check) 909-384-5071 for amount.
1. The title sheet of the plans must specify the occupancy classification, type of construction, if
the building has sprinklers, & the current applicable codes.
2. The person who prepares them must sign the plans. Also, provide the address & phone
number of that person. Some types of occupancies require that the plans are prepared,
stamped, and signed by an architect, engineer, or other person licensed by the State of
California.
3. For structures that must include an engineers design, provide 2 sets of stamped/wet signed
calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer.
4. Provide 2 sets of Title 24/Energy compliance forms and calculations. Some compliance
forms are required to be printed on the plans.
300 N 'D' Street San Bernardino CA 92418
909-384-5071 Office 909-384-5080 Fax
s Ah
5. Submit grading, site, and/or landscape plans to Public Works/Engineering for plan check
approval and permits. For more information, phone 909-384-5111.
6. Fire sprinkler plans, fires suppression system plans, etc., shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5388.
7. Signs require a separate submittal to the Planning Division for plan check approval and
permits. For information, phone 909-384-5057.
8. Restaurants, food preparation facilities, and some health related occupancies will require
clearances and approved plans from San Bernardino County Health Department. For
information, phone 909-387-3043.
9. Occupancies that include restaurants, car washes, automotive repair/auto body,dentist
offices, food preparation facilities or processing plants, etc. may require approvals and
permits from San Bernardino Water Reclamation. For information, phone 909-384-5141.
10. An air quality permit may be required. Contact South Coast Air Quality management
Division for information, phone 909-396-2000.
11. State of California Business & Professions Code/Contractors License Law requires that
permits can be issued to licensed contractors or owner-builders (that are doing the work).
Contractors must provide their State license number, a city business registration, and
workers compensation policy carrier & policy number. Owner-builders must provide
proof of ownership.
VOTE: PLAN CHECK TIME ON THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS APPROXIMATELY 4-6
WEEKS FOR IST CORRECTIONS. EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW IS APPROXIMATELY 10 WORKING
DAYS. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND
DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE DESIGN AS SUBMITTED WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT
CORRECTIONS.
Comments: -
300 N `D' Street San Bernardino CA 92418
909-384-5071 Office 909-384-5080 Fax
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date:Nov. 21, 2005
EXHIBIT 3 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
[This page intentionally left blank]
NINO
FR14ARp� Cheryl Brown CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
No John Coute
SQL, y Kenneth Durr DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Alfredo Enciso 300 North"D"Street,San Bernardino,California 92418
y Larry Heasley Phone: (909)384-5057/5071 -Fax: (909)384-5058
Jim Morris
Mike Satierbnin, Vice-chair
Carol Thrasher,Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF APRIL 20, 2004
1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16709 (SUBDIVISION NO. 03-23)
2. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT III NO. 03-41
3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15228 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 04-03)
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-30 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 02-
09
5. APPEAL NO. 04-02
6. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 & CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 04-06
Page 1 4/20/04
V. AGENDA ITEMS
2. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT III NO. 03-41 — A request to construct 46 single-family
residences on Tract Map No. 10260. Floor plans range in size from 3,002 to 4,289 square
feet with three-car garages. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of
Mayfield Avenue, and 58th and 591h Streets in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
Environmental Determination: Previous Negative Declaration
Owner/Applicant: Gardner Construction
APN: 0270-251-01 to 25; 0270-241-01 to 24; 0270-242-
_ 01
Ward: 4
Planner: Brian Foote
Commissioner Morris stated that he would abstain on the item as his home was near the project
site.
Brian Foote, Assistant Planner, stated that this was a request to construct 46 single-family
homes. Tract Map No. 10260 was approved by-the Mayor and Common Council on October 27,
1980 and the final map was approved by the Mayor and Common Council on October 23, 1985
and the final map was recorded. The property was located in the Foothill Fire Zone—Zone A for
extreme hazard, and in the High Wind Overlay. There was a fuel modification plan for
landscaping. The design of the homes met the Foothill Fire Zone building standards.
Condition of Approval #8 required a 15' separation between the homes. Four of the proposed
homes would need to be shifted to meet this requirement. Condition of Approval #9 required
that floor plans not repeat more than every fourth lot. Staff had been advised by the applicant
that the exteriors of adjacent models would vary significantly. Condition of Approval #10
required dust control measures be implemented and several mitigation measures were included in
the Condition. Condition of Approval #11 required that the adjacent park be returned to its
original condition. Staff recommended approval of the application.
Mitch Gardner, 555 Cajon Street, Suite G, Redlands, CA, stated that he agreed to all Conditions
of Approval. He was available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Heasley asked how the water from the canyons to the north of the development
would be handled.
Commissioner Brown stated that several letters had been received in opposition to the project.
She asked Mr. Gardner to respond to the concerns expressed in the letters.
Bud Thatcher, 345 N. 5th Street, Redlands, CA, stated that he represented the civil engineers for
• the final precise grading plan for the project. The street improvement, storm drain, sewer, and
water plans were all developed when the map was recorded.
Page 4 4/20/04
Around Lots 9, 10, and 11 and across the back of Lot 12 there was a dyke with a channel across
the top of the slope to divert the water around the back of the homes.
Commissioner Heasley asked if the water was intercepted in an existing channel or if it would
drain onto Mayfield Street.
Mr. Thatcher stated that the water worked its way across the east side of Lot 2 and went down
59th Street. The drainage would be contained in a open earthen channel.
Commissioner Heasley asked if mitigation for soil movement would be present.
Mr. Thatcher stated that there was an erosion control plan in place that would remain in place
until the soil stabilized. A series of check dams made from sandbags were at intervals along the
channel.
Commissioner Heasley asked what permanent measures would be in place to mitigate the
movement of soil.
Mr. Thatcher stated that he was not able to answer the question as he was not the design
engineer for the original project.
Commissioner Thrasher noted that 17 letters opposing the project had been received from
neighboring homeowners.
Mr. Gardner stated that South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) had visited the
site six times and no citations had been issued:-The erosion control plan was being maintained,
and all Conditions of Approval were being followed.
Commissioner Thrasher asked if Mr. Gardner had met with any of the neighbors to discuss
their concerns.
Mr. Gardner stated that a few phone calls had been received, but no neighborhood meeting had
been held. He had read the letters and felt it was unfortunate, but that they were following all
required mitigation measures. He did not know what more could be done. He stated water
trucks were on-site and the streets were being swept on a regular basis.
Commissioner Brown asked about the dynamite blasting and how it affected the neighborhood.
Mr. Gardner stated that blasting had taken place and that it was now complete. He stated that it
was the first time he had heard of the problems and asked if he could take it under consideration.
Commissioner Brown stated that it seemed there were a number of neighbors who were
reporting a lack of consideration, and she felt a meeting would go a long way toward resolving
some of the problems.
Mr. Gardner stated that he would have met with them if he had been contacted. Letters had
been distributed notifying neighbors of when work would take place. A few phone calls had
been received at Gardner Construction, and he was aware that calls had been placed to the City.
Page 5 4/20/04
Neil Shafer, 5858 Mayfield, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he had lived in his home for 29
years. During that time he had experienced fires and construction of homes. He supported new
development in the area, but was opposed to this development. He asked the developer and
contractor to address in writing the 17 opposition letters that had been submitted. Issues raised
in the letters included neighborhood clean-up, personal homeowner clean-up, and cleaning bills
for the past five months. He also asked that all suspected violations be reviewed and necessary
action taken to ensure that remedies were provided to the homeowners.
Mr. Shafer stated that the City Council and the Planning Department had been deficient in the
lack of concern for the surrounding neighborhood, and for the health and real property of the
residents. Construction had ruined the memorial park that was located at Hill Drive and made it
unsafe.
Mr. Shafer challenged that the flood control plan was sufficient to avoid placing numerous
homes at high risk. Water damage had already been noted at neighbors homes and on Mayfield
and Hill Drive. He also wanted to know why subdivision regulation 19.30.150 dealing with
wind erosion had not been adhered to.
Ted Bair, 5718 North"D" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the blasting had frightened his
mother and wanted to know if warning should have been given prior to the blasting taking place.
He stated that in addition to dust from adjacent fire areas, there was additional dust created by
the construction. He asked if the basin would be able to handle the run-off from the project.
In the mid-1970's, the neighbors were notified that the area would be developed. He was
concerned about environmental issues, and if there would be adequate fire and police protection
for the area. Since the original notice about the-Tentative Tract Map, no additional notification
had been provided until the notice for the public hearing regarding the homes. He did not feel
adequate notice had been provided to the neighborhood.
Irmgard Holmes, 355 W. 59`h Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the drainage culvert from
the project site was on her property. On Christmas Day her driveway flooded because the drain
was unable to handle the run-off. She was also concerned about the dust. The new carpet,
shades, and grout in her home were filled with dust. Ms. Holmes stated that her home had
suffered cracks during the blasting. When she contacted someone at the job site, she was told it
was impossible due to the decibels. The second time blasting occurred, the cracks increased.
Less than a year ago, when she purchased the home, it was inspected and no cracks were noted.
Commissioner Thrasher asked if Ms. Homes had received any type of notice prior to the
blasting.
Ms. Holmes stated that one written notice had been received for blasting that occurred on the
17`h or 18`h. She was home when the blasting occurred. The next day, a gentleman on the street
told her additional blasting would occur. Approximately 5 minutes later, the blast occurred. She
was concerned that the blasting had shifted her home. Ms. Holmes stated that she was also
concerned about traffic and clean up from the construction.
Anthony Taylor, 5750 Acacia Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he had not heard any
blasting. He supported the development and felt the new homes would improve the
Page 6 4/20/04
neighborhood. After the recent fires, there was an excessive amount of dust in the area. He felt
that there were legitimate concerns and felt that answers should be provided. He felt that a
meeting with the neighbors and the developer would resolve most of the issues.
Ed Neighbors, 366 W. 59`h Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that his property was located
directly east of the project. He was not opposed to the development, but his was one of the
homes that had developed cracks as a result of the blasting. He had talked with the project
manager and he had been assured that someone would come and look at the problem when the
blasting was completed.
Mr. Neighbors was concerned that the civil engineer could not answer the question about water
control. The drainage from the property had always run to the east of his property. He was
concerned about flooding on his property.
Paul Bridges, 5735 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the developer complied
with AQMD requirements after Mr. Bridges had contacted AQMD. Only minimum watering of
the site had taken place. The 50' bank adjoining the park and the entrance road had never been
watered. Currently, only areas that were visible were watered, not all areas where work was
taking place. Mr. Bridges stated that the blasting had occurred within 100' of his home. He was
also having problems with the filter on his pool becoming blocked by dust.
No notification had been provided by the developer or the City prior to the start of construction.
Mr. Bridges stated that he had contacted Gardner Construction when the problems started and
the individual who spoke to him was unsympathetic. He felt the developer needed continuous
inspection.
Mr. Gardner apologized to the neighbors for any misunderstanding or wrongdoing they felt had
been done. He stated that he would investigate the situation and talk to the subcontractors and
project manager.
Mr. Gardner stated that the tract map was approved in 1985 and all the engineering was done at
that time. Gardner Construction purchased the project as it was. He stated that he was seeking
approval of the design of the homes.
Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Gardner would be willing to meet with the neighbors to help
resolve the problems. She also wanted to know if he would have a problem with a continuance
until the meeting had taken place.
Mr. Gardner stated that he would be willing to meet with the neighbors, but he was opposed to
a continuance.
Commissioner Coute asked how much time Mr. Gardner had spent on the site in the past 10
days and if he was the project coordinator.
Mr. Gardner stated that he had been at the site between 30 minutes to an hour a day. He was
not the project coordinator.
Page 7 4/20/04
Commissioner Coute stated that some miscommunication had taken place between the project
coordinator and Gardner Construction. He felt that there were concerns that needed to be
addressed. Commissioner Coute was concerned that the problems would not be resolved if the
application were approved at the present time. He asked what assurance could be given that the
problems would be addressed.
Mr. Gardner stated that other than his word there was no other assurance. He would be happy
to meet with the neighbors.
Ms. Ross recommended that the item be continued for two weeks. The City would set up a
meeting during the next week with Gardner Construction and the residents. No precise grading
permit had been issued for the project. The construction engineers had been asked to visit the
site based on phone calls that had been received. Ms. Ross felt there needed to be a meeting to
address concerns raised by the residents before the application went forward.
Commissioner Brown asked how traffic, storm water drainage, and wind erosion had warranted
no impact on the environmental impact report. She also wanted to know how the neighbors had
been notified about the project.
Commissioner Heasley stated that the conditions on the site had changed since the tract was
approved in 1985 in regard to erosion control and storm water run-off.
Ms. Ross stated that the map was recorded in 1985. When the map was approved by the
Planning Commission in 1980 notification would have been sent to surrounding property
owners. Issuance of rough grading permits did not require any notification.
Issues related to environmental issues were reviewed differently now than when the map was
originally approved. Ms. Ross stated that she had researched the current Municipal Code and the
old zoning ordinance. The same language was used in both the current and old ordinances
dealing with dust and erosion control. Mitigation measures were more stringent through AQMD.
Commissioner Brown asked if there was a provision in the Development Code that required the
project to meet current conditions and findings. She wanted to know if the project had come to
the Planning Commission prematurely.
Ms. Ross stated that there was no requirement, but new conditions regarding erosion and dust
control would be attached to the grading permit. Drainage would be address through the precise
grading plan that was currently under review. The issues raised by the Planning Commission
and the residents were related to the tract map. The application before the Planning Commission
was for approval of the design of the houses.
Commissioner Brown wanted to know if the blasting was approved with the tract map.
Ms. Ross stated that a permit had been issued by either Public Works or the Fire Department for
the blasting. The permit was issued recently.
Ted Bear stated he had a permit that was revoked following the Panorama fire in 1986 because
of changes resulting from the fire. Newberry Memorial Park was required when the homes were
Page 8 4/20/04
built on F and Acacia Streets because of the earthquake fault. He was concerned about building
. 49 homes on the fault.
Paul Bridges asked who would repair streets surrounding the development that were damaged
by the equipment. He was concerned about the current impacts on the neighborhood from the
construction.
Commissioner Brown asked if the houses would be located on the fault.
Ms. Ross stated that the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone provisions were in effect when
the project was approved. The homes would be set back from the fault.
Commissioner Conte made a motion to continue the application to May 4, 2004.
Commissioner Brown seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso,
Heasley, Sauerbrun, and Thrasher. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: Morris.
The Planning Commission continued Development Permit III No. 03-41 to May 4, 2004 to
allow Staff and the applicant to meet with area residents.
WAR D� Cheryl Brown CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
�p John Coute
5� 9 Kenneth Durr DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Alfredo Enciso 300 North"D"Street,San Bernardino,California 92418
} X Larry Heasley Jim Morris Phone: (909)384-5057/5071 -Fax: (909)384-5058
j 2
!Nike Sauerbrun, Vice-chair
Carol Thrasher, Chair
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF MAY 4, 2004
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-13
2. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT III NO. 03-41
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-06 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 04-01)
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-25 (EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 04-02)
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-29
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-30
7. VARIANCE NO. 03-07'
i
i
i
Page 1 5/4/04
V. AGENDA ITEMS
2. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT III NO. 03-41 — A request to construct 46 single-family
residences on Tract Map No. 10260. Floor plans range in size from 3,002 to 4,289 square
feet with three-car garages. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of
Mayfield Avenue, and 58`h and 59`' Streets in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
(Continued from April 20, 2004)
Environmental Determination: Previous Negative Declaration
Owner/Applicant: Gardner Construction
APN: 0270-251-01 to 25; 0270-241-01 to 24; 0270-242-
01
Ward: 4
Planner: Brian Foote
Brian Foote, Assistant Planner, stated that the item had been continued from April 20, 2004. A
meeting was held with the developer and residents to address concerns raised at the April 20
Planning Commission meeting. Concerns about drainage, dust, and blasting were addressed at
that time. Staff recommended approval of the application.
Commissioner Sauerbrun asked for additional information about issues addressed at the public
meeting.
Mike Grubbs, Acting City Engineer, stated that a number of issues had been raised at the public
meeting. A copy of a memo outlining issues discussed at the meeting was distributed to the
Page 3 5/4/04
Planning Commission. Mr. Grubbs discussed the major issues that had been raised and the
40 resolution that had been reached for each concern.
Ted Bair, 5718 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he was concerned that many
of the responses provided by Mr. Grubbs were "to be checked into." He expressed concern
about the landscape maintenance district. He wanted to be sure the property was maintained in
order to help prevent fires.
Mr. Grubbs stated that the fee for the landscape maintenance district would be assessed on the
yearly property tax bill. A Fuel Modification Plan was required by the Fire Department to
ensure that all native vegetation would be removed from the tract.
Mr. Bair stated that the issue of truck traffic had been raised at the meeting. He stated that a
truck had arrived at the construction site at 5:15 a.m. that morning. He stated that truck traffic
had taken place before 6:00 a.m. every morning. He wanted to know if a variance from the
original grading plan had been issued for the blasting. Mr. Bair wanted to know what the new
name of the proposed Acacia Court would be.
Mr. Grubbs stated that the original grading plan had stated that the sandstone would not be
blasted, however, there were some hard ledges identified in the geology report that required
blasting. No variance was required for the blasting, just a permit from the Fire Department.
That permit had been legally issued. A list of names for the street would be presented to the
residents so that one could be selected.
Tim Usher, 513 W. Hill Drive, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he was concerned about the
aesthetics of the development. He stated that if two-story homes were built it would obstruct his
view of the mountains. He provided photos of the view to the Planning Commission. He asked
if the developer would consider constructing one-story homes as opposed to the two-story
homes.
Mark Gardner stated that in order to achieve the 2,700 to 3,300 square foot homes, it was
necessary to make them two-story because of the slope of the land. If single-story homes were
built, it would reduce the size to 1,300 to 1,400 square feet. He did not feel that size home would
fit into the neighborhood. The homes would sell from the upper $300,000's- to the upper
$400,000's.
Commissioner Conte made a motion to approve the application. Commissioner Durr
seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso,
Heasley, and Sauerbrun. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioners Morris and Thrasher.
The Planning Commission approved Development Permit III No. 03-41 based on the
Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval
is (Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E).
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-13 — A request to establish a convenience
store at an existing gas station and smog check business. The project site is located at
Page 4 5/4/04
EXHIBIT 4–PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date:Nov. 21, 2005
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: Development Permit III No. 03-41 (Amendment to Conditions)
AGENDA ITEM: 1
HEARING DATE: October 4, 2005
WARD: 4
OWNER/APPLICANT: ENGINEER:
Mark Gardner Melvin W. Thatcher III, R.C.E.
Gardner Construction Thatcher Engineering
555 Cajon, Suite G 345 5ch Street, Suite B
Redlands, CA 92373 Redlands, CA 92374
(909) 748-7700 (909) 748-7777
REQUESTILOCATION:
The applicant requests an amendment to conditions to construct a 6'0" decorative tube steel
fence around the perimeter of an approved subdivision in lieu of the decorative block wall that
was required by the Conditions of Approval. The project site is Tract 10260, located north of 58`h
Street between Acacia and Mayfield Avenues in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
Foothill Fire Zone Overlay (Zone A—Extreme Hazard)
High Wind Zone Overlay
Low to Moderate Landslide Susceptibility
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
❑ Not Applicable
■ Previous Negative Declaration (Tract No. 10260)
❑ No Significant Effects
❑ Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Approval
• Conditions
• Denial
• Continuance to:
DPIII No. 03-41 (Amendment to Conditions)
Hearing Date: September 20, 2005
Page 2
REQUEST & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is Tract 10260, located north of Hill Drive and northwest of 58`h and 59`h Streets
in the RL, Residential Low land use district (Attachment A — Location Map). Development
Permit III No. 03-41 was approved in accordance with Development Code §19.44.060
(Findings), and Condition of Approval No. 12 required a decorative block wall around the
perimeter of the project. The applicant requests that a 6'0" decorative tube steel fence be
permitted on the north, west, and south property lines of the tract (Attachment B — Site Plan) in
lieu of the required wall.
SETTING & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The project site boundary is generally square-shaped. The net area for construction is
approximately 16 acres. All grading has been completed, and all proposed roads and utility
improvements have been installed. More than half of the proposed homes are under construction.
To the north of the site is a hillside and undeveloped parcels in the RL, Residential Low land use
district. To the west of the site are undeveloped parcels in the RL, Residential Low and RS,
Residential Suburban land use districts. To the northeast of the site are undeveloped parcels in
the RL, Residential Low land use district, and to the south and southeast are single-family
neighborhoods in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The Development Permit for the project was completed in compliance with the requirements of
CEQA. Tract 10260 had been previously reviewed, and the Environmental Review Committee
recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration on September 24, 1980, and the Planning
Commission adopted the Negative Declaration. The Development/Environmental Review
Committee had an opportunity to review the project again with Development Permit III No. 03-
41, and moved the project to the Planning Commission under the previously adopted Negative
Declaration.
BACKGROUND
The Common Council originally approved Tentative Tract Map No. 10260 on October 27, 1980,
and approved the Final Map on October 23, 1985. The Final Map has been recorded. The
Planning Commission approved Development Permit III No. 03-41 on April 20, 2004 (under the
previously adopted Negative Declaration) to construct 46 single-family dwellings on Tract
10260 (Attachment B — Site Plan). Condition of Approval No. 12 in the Development Permit
required a solid block wall around the perimeter of the subdivision. For a more in-depth review
of the project, please see the attached staff report from that hearing (Attachment C — Staff
Report) and meeting minutes (Attachment D—Meeting Minutes).
The applicant filed the Amendment to Conditions application on August 16, 2004. Since that
time, the applicant has been attempting to obtain approvals for the Fuel Modification Plan from
DPIII No. 03-41 (Amendment to Conditions)
Hearing Date:September 20, 2005
Page 3
the Fire Department and permission from the San Bernardino County Flood Control Distract to
enter the adjacent maintenance road to access and maintain the fuel modification zone.
Permission from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District was obtained on June 10,
2005 (Attachment E — Letter & Permit). Approval from the City of San Bernardino Fire
Department was obtained on June 30, 2005 (Attachment F—Fuel Modification Plan).
ANALYSIS
The Fuel Modification Plan indicates that the fuel modification zone is on the north side of the
subdivision (abutting the foothills). A portion of that zone is within the rear yards of the homes
along the north perimeter of the tract, and a portion is off-site on land controlled by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District. A concrete block wall is not a component of the fire
prevention strategy, and was not included in the fire simulation model performed by the
developer's consultant. The Fire Marshal has concurred that a solid block wall is not required to
provide adequate protection from wildfires.
The original Findings of Fact for Development Permit III No. 03-41 remain unchanged and
valid. Substituting a tube steel fence for a solid block wall will not compromise public safety. A
decorative tube steel fence may be allowed rather than a block wall, without reducing the
effectiveness of the fuel modification zone.
CONCLUSION
All the Findings of Fact that had been made for approval of Development Permit III No. 03-41
remain valid, and the requested Amendment to Conditions is consistent with the Findings made
for approval of the Development Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Amendment to Conditions for
Development Permit (Type III) No. 03-41 to permit a tube steel fence along the north, west, and
south property lines of the tract (see Attachment B — Site Plan), based on the Findings of Fact
contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the original Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
�� I- `J
James Funk
Development Services Director
DPIII No. 03-41 (Amendment to Conditions)
Hearing Date: September 20, 2005
Page 4
Brian Foote
Assistant Planner
Attachments: A-Location Map
B - Site Plan
C -Planning Commission Staff Report of April 20, 2004
D-Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 20, 2004 & May 5, 2004
E-County Public Works Department Letter&Permit
F-Fuel Modification Plan
i
Ii!f!"K91 M I J,I=1 k,h all
w
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: SUB No. 04-18
PLANNING DIVISION (Amendment to Conditions)
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: September 20, 2005
N FA FA
58 St.
WE
SUB No. 04-18(Amendment to Condition.
Attachment B—Site Plan Hearing Date:September 20, 206
Page
3 5 F WA e`YE
ilblkl
1 <k a CC t g M1�S Y fiY 7 r a7 �+ S5�
Q
f 1C
ON
V
t
O
O I i ° � yFritrt r u
dm<tt} P
6
u
a
2 �
7
as � ��'<•' � Y' �`�,%7-7
i
W� + z
z.Y r
LU
>
LQ
I - -
7`LL
f'
rnC
�Cb�
F y
r --
-
J
r I
Al
.T /
.cK -.wt �•} - Si
_4 I
W��Sg
F4.1 III
a �
C
4
Attachment B—Site Plan
WUZ
ta M
low
i
Attachment B— Site Plan
N c
C
e
z a
ati
A
j
� J _
Z � f< • �
_ v i
I ;
Z
Attachment B— Site Plan
l h
L-03HS33S {�
IJ4 tr I +n z
y S
Y
I�•
- ,It
�r u � f
Ei
:zJ
11I1� s.��.s blJbJy -�41
Attachment —t B Site Plan r;
IB
j`
a ti O
l z p
j u
+ u
«c �_' ��i •K sue. �� ka..
Yia 6 -
i• i l ; q��
is
Attachment B—Site Plan
Q q
z a
e
v
y0ll, -i -
d
fg
i
2
_..,� �:: 9 .�f ,• / I ZF #666 I c�
Y F
I
i 3NilH:)IVV '
j• G S
3
Attachment E — Letter & Permit SUB No. 04-18(Amendment to Conditions;
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
FLOOD CONTROL • SOLID WASTE MGMT • SURVEYOR - TRANSPORTATION 1 `�Nn� SERVICES GROUP
yAN KINAtDI Np
11
82' 'hird Street - San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 (909) 387-8104 � PATRICK J. MEAD
Fax (909) 387-8130 ` Director of Public works
June 10, 2005
Permittee: City of San Bernardino �l 7 �, �' 1' = File: 2-351/2.04
300 North "D" Street I Permit No: P-22005070
San Bernardino, CA 92418 JUN 2 129
Attention: Les Fogassy j J
Real Property su^ eo,,,
FlfEri'1E:2�:IGf1
Permit Activity: Obtain access onto District right-of-way in order to perform weed abatement
operations to comply with the requirements of your fire management plan
Facility: Macquiddy-Severance Diversion Channel
Location: North of Acacia Court
City/Community: City of San Bernardino
The District has reviewed your request and can recommend a permit for this activity after the following
comments have been addressed:
1. Prior to starting any work within District right-of-way, the attached certificate of insurance form shall
be completed by your contractor and submitted to the District for review and approval. If an Acord
form is used in lieu of the attached certificate of insurance form, the above permit and file numbers
must be referenced on the form and both San Bernardino County and San Bernardino County
Flood Control District need to be named as additional insured.
2. A meeting is required between the Permittee or the Permittee's authorized representative and the
District's inspector to discuss any District concerns prior to the issuance of the permit. Please
contact the District's inspector at (909) 387-8015 to schedule the meeting.
3. Two copies of the permit are attached for signature by Permittee or Permittee's authorized agent.
The appropriate individual shall sign, date and return both copies to the District for processing by
the approving authority. The permit is not valid until both copies have been signed and
formally issued by the District with all applicable exhibits.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the undersigned at (909) 387-7995.
Sincerely,
KENNETH C. EKE, P.E., Chief
FIood'Control Operations Division
-KCE:MM:jh
`ttachments
J. Stone, w/permit
i-CSANB51005
i
Attachment E — Letter & Permit SUB No. 04-18 (Amendment to Conditions)
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Inspection Phone: 825 East Third Street, Room 108
(909)387-8015
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
ection office shall he (909) 387-7995 - FAX (909) 387-8043 /�..
notified 6vo working days _
prior to commencing
permitted use FAILURE �t g
TO ALL INSPECTION PERMIT
VOID THIS PERMIT.
Permit Issued: Permit Expires: File: 2-351/2.04
Permit No: P-22005070
Permittee: City of San Bernardino Filing Fee: NO FEE
300 North "D" Street Annual Insvection Fee: $550.00
San Bernardino, CA 92418 (Nonrefundable)TOTAL: $550.00
Contact/Phone: Les Fogassy (909) 384-5166
Real Property
Permit Activity: Obtain access onto District right-of-way in order to perform weed abatement operations to
comply with the requirements of your fire management plan
Facility: Macquiddy-Severance Diversion Channel
Location: North of Acacia Court
City/Community: City of San Bernardino
1. The proposed permit activity shall be in accordance with the Plans (Exhibit "A"), and the Special, Standard
and General Provisions, all of which are attached and made a part of this permit.
AT LEAST 48 HOURS NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK
SIGN UNDER THIS PERMIT. Contact the Districts inspector at (909) 387-8015; failure of notification is cause for
H E g E revocation of this permit.
3.. .This permit, or a certified copy thereof, shall be kept at the job site throughout the period of operations within
: District right-of-way and shall be shown to any District Representative or any law enforcement officer upon
-demand. Exercise of this permit shall indicate acceptance of and agreement to comply with all provisions
included herein. Violation of any provision shall be cause for immediate revocation of permit.
ERiNITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE: DISTRICT APPROVAL:
gnatum by the Permittee or Permittee's Authorized Agent of this
Permit shall indicate acceptance of all of the provisions of the permit.
Permittee's Signature Date PATRICK J. MEAD Date
Flood Control Engineer
PRINT
Fish and Game
FC Operations Supt
Inspector
Attachment F — Fuel Modification Plan SUB No. 04-18(Amendment to Conditions)
At
Q
FIRE/VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
And
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE RISK ANALYSIS
Foothills Project
Tract Number 10260
San Bernardino,CA
May 25,2005
D
JUN 3 U 2005
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
_RNAR INO FIRE DEPARTMENT / DEPARTMENT
b date '� )
kl-'; ;oval shall be based on the following:
✓ " submitted.
v ee attached requirements. Prepared by -
.`,nied, submit corrected plans for.approval. Scott Franklin Consulting
= ! approval shall be subject to field Urban Wildland Fire Management
'n 3c.tion. The approved set of plans 25059 Highspring Ave.
be kept at job site. Approval does Santa Clarita, CA. 91321
ermit the violation of any laws and Phone(661) 254-2376
-lards. Email:Rxlse, arc-s.net
1 '
� L
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IINTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................3
II. PRINCIPLES OF CHAPARRAL MANAGEMENT...........................4
III. FUEL—Arrangement, Loading and Chemical/Moisture Content..........5
IV. FUEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—Definitions......................... .5
V. RISK OF WILDFIRE —A General Overview...................................6
VI. RISK OF STRUCTURAL FIRE ..................................................6
VII. MODELS ...............................................................................7
VIII. FIRENEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN...............................9
IX. SUMMARY...........................................................................11
X. BIBLIGRAPHY........................................................................11
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Tract No.10210 is 19.31- gross acres subdivided into 46 building pads, located on
private land within the City of San Bernardino,just south of the San Bernardino National
Forest boundary at the northerly extension of Acacia Ave. This property is located in the
A/B Foothill Fire Zone overlay.
Proposed developed area is 16.41-acres.
Vegetative cover found adjacent to the site is primarily non native grassland,
chaparral sprouts of Hetreromeles spp. Toyon, Ceanothus spp. Coastal live oak
Q.agrifolia, and Adenostoma Spp. Chamise. Vegetation found in the riparian area may be
characterized as primarily Mulefat and non-native grass. The area last burned in October
of 2003.
Structural and Wildland fire protection is provided by San Bernardino City Fire
Department.
Closest station locations—About 2.0 miles:
Sta. 5; 1640 Kendall Ave. Sta. 7; 282 W. 40ffi Street
This Fire/Vegetation Management Plan will address vegetation management,
introducing primarily native California shrubs and trees to produce a drought tolerant,
fire resistive landscape.
By adopting this plan, the developer meets the tenets of California law by
managing this property in a reasonable manner. (Sprecher v. Adamson 1981)
Validation for these recommendations will be based upon the most recent historical
catastrophic fire and weather history. Catastrophic wildfire occurs only under extreme
weather and related fuel conditions. This report will model wildfire under the extreme
weather and fuel conditions associated with southern San Bernardino County.
BEHAVE (the Fire Behavior and Fuel Modeling System, including BEHAVE Plus 2.0)
developed by research scientists from USDA-Forest Service (Andrews & Bevens 2003;
Burgan & Rothermel 1984) will be employed to validate both wildfire risk as well as
proposed Vegetation Management recommendations. The BEHAVE system provides an
indication of how vegetative fuels will burn under specific fuel, weather and topography
conditions. The BEHAVE system is a set of computer programs based upon energy
release from specific fuels and is employed by wildfire professionals both nationally and
internationally to predict wildfire behavior. Fuel Models used in BEHAVE have been
classified into five groups, based upon fuel loading(tons/acre), fuel height, and surface to
volume ratio. The differences in fire behavior among these four models are basically
related to fuel (tons/acre) and their distribution among fuel particle size classes.
Observation of the location and positioning of fuels in the field (on-site)
determines which fuel groups are represented. Selection of the appropriate fuel model
may be simplified if one recognizes those features that distinguish one fuel group from
another, according to the following categories:
Grasses - Fuel Models 1 through 3
Brush- Fuel Models.4 through 7
Timber- Fuel Models 8 through 10
Logging Slash—Fuel Models 11 through 13
3
SCAL- Fuel Models 14 through 18. Specific Southern California Fuel Models
II. PRINCIPLES OF CHAPARRAL MANAGEMENT
To better understand the principles of vegetation management in the chaparral
community, a brief discussion regarding vegetation/fuels is appropriate. All vegetation is
considered "fuel". No "fire proof' vegetation exists. All vegetation will burn, but some
require more heat in order to ignite and propagate flame.
An example is dry grass versus green grass. Dry grass will ignite immediately,
while green grass must loose its moisture before it will ignite. Chaparral with high oil
content (above 6%) will burn quicker and hotter than chaparral with a high leaf moisture
and low oil content. More than 90% of the flaming front of a wildfire is composed of fuel
less than one-half inch in diameter, and is consumed in minutes. Small branches and
leaves make up this type of fuel. Fuels larger than one inch in diameter are termed
"residual" fuel and may require several hours to burn out. This larger fuel does not
contribute to the forward rate of spread of the fire.
Oil and moisture content varies between fuels, depending upon the time of year.
For example, Black Sage (salvia mellifera) may have an oil content approaching 20% of
its weight, but in the spring, it has moisture content over 300%. By summer, the moisture
content may be lower than 60%. Manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) oil content is about 15%
and moisture varies between 120% and 50%. Scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) has oil
content below 4% and a moisture content above 100%. Ceanothus sp. has a low oil
content, with C. spinosis sp. Retaining moisture at 100% or higher. When stressed during
extreme dry periods, Adenostoma sp, Arctostaphylos sp., Artemesia sp. will react
explosively when moisture falls below 60%.--Conversely, C. spinosis and Q. Dumosa
require high energy to sustain ignition.
There are two types of fuel moisture to consider, dead fuel moisture ( 1 hour time
lag ,10 hour time lag, 100 hour time lag and 1000 hour time lag) and live fuel moisture.
Temperature, aspect, time of day, relative humidity and month of the year determine the
percentage of dead fuel moisture. One hour time lag fuel is less than '/2 inch thick, 10
hour fuel is between % inch and 1 inch thick; 100 hour is between 1 inch and 3 inches;
1000 hour fuel is above 3 inches in thickness. One hour time lag fuel can reach
equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere in one hour, and within minutes when air
temperature is high — above 80° F. and relative humidity is below 25%. One hour fuel
moisture may be calculated using a set of tables that reference time of day, month, aspect,
slope, temperature and relative humidity. 10 hour time lag fuel can take up to 10 hours to
reach equilibrium and 100 and 1000 hours fuels follow the same pattern. In southern
California, 1 hour, 10 hour and 100 hour time lag fuels are usually given equal value.
1000 hour time lag fuel, which happens to be timber, is used in measuring drought
effects. Forests are considered `critical" when 1000 hour fuel measures less than 15%.
(Kiln dried wood is 22%). Live fuel moisture is the moisture found in the leaf and woody
portion of a shrub. Live fuel moisture is calculated by cutting a small branch (less than
3"), weighing the branch, placing it in a low temperature oven for 12 hours, removing the
branch and weighing it again. The difference in weight is the loss of moisture in the
leaves and woody portion of the branch. For this reason, live moisture may exceed 100%
4
of the dry weight of the plant. Live fuel moisture is the highest in the spring and early
summer, and the lowest in late summer, fall and early winter. Los Angeles County Fire
samples live fuel moisture from representative sites throughout Los Angeles County
twice each month. Fuel moisture from these sites, while not site - specific to San
Bernardino County area, can serve as an indicator of moisture content. This is a valuable
tool in predicting wildfire potential over a general area.
III. FUEL—Arrangement, Loading,and Chemical/Moisture Content
Measuring the force of wildfire is accomplished by observing flame lengths
produced by burning vegetation. There exists a direct relationship between the amount of
energy released, per second, and the length of flame generated. The United States
standard for measuring energy released per second is the British thermal unit or"Btu".
One Btu is the amount of energy required to raise one pound of water one degree
Fahrenheit. A single kitchen match or single candle flame equals one Btu. A cup of
gasoline contains about 8,500. Btu's Comparably, a pound of chaparral contains 8,500 to
10,000 Btu's, depending upon oil content (ether extractives).
Ignite gasoline in a cup and it will burn evenly. Spread the cup of gasoline across
the floor and it will burn rapidly, if not explosively. Similarly, aerate a pound of
chaparral, as occurs naturally; raise the surrounding temperature to 100°F. in addition,
pass a 30 mph wind through it, provide ignition, and the chaparral will burn almost as
explosively as the cup of gasoline spread across the floor.
Grind, cut or chip chaparral into pieces less than 3" long, place on the ground as
"mulch" and attempt to ignite it. The chaparral will burn very slowly or only smolder.
This demonstration suggests that fuel arrangement and fuel chemical/moisture content
play an equally important role in wildfire combustion. Moisture in the form of high leaf
and woody fuel moisture, high relative humidity (Rh above 50%), is significant because
it requires energy to dry out the fuel in order for it to bum. High winds and or high
temperatures remove moisture, allowing the shrub to burn more rapidly. Lower fuel
moisture, both dead and live, equal higher fire intensity. Wetter fuel inhibits complete
combustion as well as producing excessive smoke. Live vegetation in its natural state
exhibits a high surface to volume ratio. Standing grass and standing chaparral have a high
surface to volume ratio. Forest litter on the ground (leaves & small twigs) and chipped or
cut biomass exhibit a very low.surface to volume ratio.
Chaparral, particularly salvia sp. Is found in most vegetative communities
(excluding riparian) and has an oil content of 15 to 19%. Riparian vegetation, including
Sycamore (Plautus racemosa); Coastal live oak (Quercus sp.)green bark ceanothus (C.
spinosis), Mulefat (Baccharis sp) are considered wet or high leaf moisture vegetation.
This high leaf moisture acts as an energy sink, requiring higher Btu output to ignite or
sustain ignition.
IV. FUEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—Definitions
Terms used to describe various activities or actions regarding fuel management
often times are misused or misstated. The following terms regarding fuel management
practices are recognized as the standard for the fire service:
5
Defensible Space—area with low fuel volume that affords protection for fire personnel
as well as residents.
Fireline—a narrow line, 2' to 10' feet wide, from which all vegetation is removed.
Firebreak—specifically a Fireline wider than 10' feet,prepared annually.
Firelane—an access line, prepared either ahead of the fire or in advance of fire season,
forming the basis for a firebreak.
Fire Control Line—strip cleared to mineral soil.
Fuelbreak—a strategically located wide block, or strip, on which vegetative cover has
been reduced to lower or alter fuel volume.
Fuelbreak System—a system of relatively large open areas, interconnected by fuel
breaks.
Fuel Modification Practice—the broad approach to fuel management on large area of
wildland, or a limited approach to fuel management around structures.
Hardening of Structures—application of fire resistive rating to a structure.
Prescribed Burning—Application of fire to wildland fuels when conditions such as
weather, fuels and topography permit a specific objective to be accomplished.
Red Flag Alert—extreme fire weather condition issued by the National Weather Service
when wind speed exceeds 25 mph and relative humidity falls below 15%.
Residency Time—Time, in minutes, the flaming front of a wildfire impacts a specific
area.
Shelter in Place-area for residents or fire personnel to safely survive catastrophic
wildfire.
V. RISK OF WILDFIRE —A General Overview
The surrounding area has experienced several fires within the past 20 years and
would be classified as an historical wildfire corridor.
The potential catastrophic wildfire threat is found along the northern project boundary.
This area presently exhibits only light fuel —grass and shrub sprouts. However, within 10
years,this area will revegetate with heavy chaparral, and will burn catastrophically within
20 years unless fuel reduction/management is implemented. The northern property
boundary is up slope from the proposed development and is therefore manageable with
minimum effort. The flood control channel along the western boundary poses little threat
to the project, due to its high moisture content and a proposed concrete channel to
stabilize the banks. The developer is required to provide concrete bank stabilization and
is presently under construction. The property directly east of the project exhibits only
light grass cover and poses no threat. The area directly south of the project is urban.
VI. RISK OF STRUCTURAL FIRE
Since there presently exists no structures on the property, no threat exists.
Appropriate minimum vegetation management requirements coupled with stringent City
of San Bernardino Foothill Fire Zone overlay requirements will provide for a wildfire
safe development
6
i
i
i
Recent research conducted by USDA-Forest Service (Jack Cohen et al, 2000 )has
measured the effects of fire on structures, measured on a flat plane, no wind. This study
found that minimum safe distance from radiated heat was 40 meters (130 feet). Lighter
fuel as well as topography shortens this distance significantly. The study did not account
for flying embers/flaming brands or extreme wind in excess of 30 mph.
VII. MODELS
I
1
The following weather and fuel inputs have been provided to create a "worst
case" wildfire scenario. These Models are used to replicate the amount of flame
propagation that would exist under extreme or catastrophic wild fire weather conditions.
While weather conditions play a major role in wildfire behavior, fuel conditions as well
as topography are also a part of the equation. BEHAVE calculations assume there is no
fire suppression activity.
The predominate ground cover along the west, north and east perimeter of the
project is presently light grass. Within 10 years, the area along the north perimeter will
revegetate with heavy chaparral. A 150 foot fuel management zone will mitigate this
threat.
The San Bernardino Valley is subject to high wind conditions, particularly during
the fall and early winter months.
Highest number of Santa Ana wind episodes as well as days of duration occurs
during the month of November, while the month of August has the least number.
g The fire/weather scenario is employed to replicate the recent (2003) fall
catastrophic wildfire, with high air temperature, low fuel moisture, and elevated wind
velocity. In fact, wind velocity for this example has been increased, to more closely
replicate a "worst case" wildfire scenario.-The time of day is 12:00 PM. Since the
majority of the proposed project is down slope, a zero slope calculation is used.
Source of weather(Wx) data:Author, Scott Franklin, notes..
Fall/early winter Fire/weather Scenario
Month: October
Temperature: 950F.
Relative humidity: 7%
1 hour fuel moisture: 2%
Live fuel moisture: 60%
Wind speed from NE 40-60 mph
Slope: 0%
Using the above inputs, for fall/winter catastrophic wildfire conditions, outputs
will be displayed to illustrate how fire moves through fuel, found off-site.
Lot clearance requirements vary due to fuel load above or below the lot, or slope
percentage above or below the lot.
Weather conditions vary from month to month, as does live fuel moisture, sun
angle, including amount of daylight, and air temperature. Air temperature may moderate
during fall and early winter,'but live fuel moisture may continue to drop through January
or early February. If any ground moisture is present, live fuel moisture will start rising in
7
March and will peak in late May or early June, depending upon annual rainfall. BEHAVE
inputs include latitude and longitude for site specific forecasting.
The predominant heavy fuel found inside as well as outside the project area is
Fuel Model 1, grass, less than 1 ton/acre. However, the potential (within 10 years) is Fuel
Model 4,heavy chaparral, 25 tons/acre.
The following BEHAVE PLUS fire spread models serve as indicators of
! catastrophic wildfire potential of the project area.
Included in the BEHAVE PLUS output:
Spotting Distance and Ignition Component.
Spotting distance is the distance a burning brand, leaf or twig will carry in a wind driven
fire.
Ignition Component is an indicator of the flammability of the fuel and is measured in
percent. Out of 100 flying, burning brands or twigs, if 80 start a new fire down wind, the
ignition component would be 80%. A probability of Ignition above 60% is considered
severe.
Fuel Model 1, Light Grass
Rate of Spread: 665 ch/hr or 8 mph
Flame length: 13 feet
Spotting distance: 1.1 miles
Probability of ignition: 100%
Fuel Model 4, Mixed Southern California Chaparral
Fall/winter Fire
Rate of Spread: 1639 ch/hr or 21 mph
Flame Length 91 ft
Spotting Distance: 4.5 miles
Probability of Ignition: 100%
Fuel Model 8 Oak Understory/chipped biomass
Fall/winter Fire -
Rate of Spread: 11 ch/hr or 0.1 mph
Flame length: 2.6 ft
Spotting Distance: 0.4 miles
Probability of Ignition: 100%
Note the difference in flame lengths between the different fuels. Note the
flame lengths in Fuel Model 8. This is due to Fuel Model 8 being partially sheltered by
tree canopy in the riparian area.
Flame residency time is the time direct flame impingement occurs.
The effect of shade on fuel is significant. Just increasing shade to 70% coverage
will raise the dead fuel moisture over 3%. This will lower the probability of ignition
dramatically.
8
VIII FOOTHILLS SITE FIRE/VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A 150 FOOT MINIMUM FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONE, ALONG- THE
NORTH PERIMETER (LOTS 10 THROUGH 19) MEASURED FROM. 'EAQ
PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS REQUIRED. THE FUEL MODIFICATION IS TO BE
MAINTAINED, ANNUALLY, BY THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT.
150 feet is derived from estimated flame lengths of 91 feet (worst case) as exhibited by
BEHAVE. 150 feet of managed fuel reduction would provide 59 feet of defensible space
for fire suppression resources, as well as enough distance to mitigate radiated or
convective heat. Presently, this area will generate flame lengths of less than 14 feet.
Since Lots 10 through 19 and the whole subdivision is lower than the northern perimeter
fuel bed, flame residency time would be less than 2 minutes. As the fire progresses down
slope to the 150 foot fuel management zone, less and less fuel is consumed. At the Fuel
management Zone (150 foot line) flame propagation will be less than 2 feet. Fuel
management in this area can be accomplished on an annual basis with little more than a
weed whip.
Lots with western boundary exposure, portions of lot 19, all of lots 20, 21, 22 and
portions of lot 23 require a minimum of 20 feet of fuel management. The western side of
the project adjacent to Lots 19 thru 23 exhibited low wildfire impact during the 2003
wildfire episode, due to high leaf moisture (as the recent fire proved —wet fuel does not
burn). In addition, the drainage will have a concrete liner on the slope directly west of
Lots 19 through 23.
The immediate areas adjacent to the west and north project boundary are under
the jurisdiction of San Bernardino Flood Control District. See attached Exhibits"A", `B"
and "C". Exhibit "A" Describes the Flood Control area, Exhibit `B" depicts the area and
Exhibit"C" is the letter from the Flood Control District allowing the annual maintenance.
The.area within the 150 foot zone to be maintained annually,by May 1.
The eastern boundary of the project, Lots 10, 9, 8, and 2 (NOTE: Lot 1 has been
consolidated into Lot 2) require only 30 feet of managed fuel. The property adjacent, on
the east side, is disturbed grass land, and is Fuel Model 1, with 13 foot flame lengths.
(This area will never support chaparral). .
All lots, where available, must have a 50 foot (from structure) irrigated fuel
management zone. Approved trees on 40 foot centers, approved shrubs on 4 foot centers,
less than 4 feet tall, and grass or other approved ground cover less than 4 inches tall.
All lots not subjected to perimeter fuel concerns must adhere to a low fuel
Volume,non-hazardous tree and shrub palette and must be fully irrigated.
Each homeowneribuyer will be given a copy of this document and be required to
sign a document acknowledging the Extreme High Fire Hazard conditions that exist and
that they will abide by the vegetation management requirements set forth in this
document.
The project area is subject to severe weather extremes. These weather extremes
directly affect the flammability of chaparral. Elevated air temperature episodes — above
105°F. in the summer months and high wind velocity episodes, out of the north or
northeast above 40 mph in the fall or winter months are the norm.
It makes little sense'to require brush clearance for wildfire safety, if the property
owner then introduces shrubs and trees that can readily transmit fire throughout the area.
9
i
The following shrubs and trees are highly flammable; some are not drought tolerant and
therefore should not be planted within the project area:
Salvia Spp
Pampas grass—Cortaderia spp. Eriogonum fasciculatum
Cypress - Cupressus spp. Artemisia californica
Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. Salvia apiana
Juniper—Juniperus spp. Salvia columbariae
Pine—Pinus spp.
The following shrubs and trees are an example of those recommended for general
landscaping-with appropriate maintenance as well as an approved
irrigation/landscaping plan by the City of San Bernardino:
Coastal live oak - Quercus spp.
California Sycamore—Plantus racemosa
Cottonwood—populus fremontii
Willow—Pittisporum spp.
California Bay— Umbellularia californica
California Black Walnut—Juglans californica
Liquidamber—Liquidamber styraciflua
Ceanothus spp.
Toyon—Heteromeles arbutifolias
Mountain Mahogany— Cercocarpus betuiloides
Holly leaf cherry—P. ilicifolia
Dwarf periwinkle— Vinca minor
All Fuel modification irrigation/landscaping will be installed and operational prior
to Building Department final inspection.
All parcels not covered under the Landscape Maintenance agreement must be maintained
per this document, by the individual property owner.
The 150 foot fuel management zone is divided as follows:
Zone A: From structure out 50 feet (where available) must be irrigated. Tree spacing 10
feet between canopies, 10 feet from chimney or BBQ, shrub spacing 15 feet-between
canopies. Lawn or low lying plants (less than 3 inches) are recommended as ground
cover.
Zone B: From the 51 foot mark of Zone A out to the property boundary or 100 feet:
Irrigated, low volume vegetation such as lawn, Vinca minor or native bunch grass.
Shrubs may not exceed two feet in height. Chipped biomass may also be used. Tree
separation the same as Zone A.
Zone C: From the 101 foot mark or property boundary of Zone B out to a maximum of
150 feet. May be irrigated. Thin out all natural vegetation by 80%. All dead vegetation,
including grass to be maintained at less than 3 inches in height.
Trees must be maintained free of dead branches.
Trees must be limbed up 4 feet or 1/3 the height of the tree.
10
I
Shrub height is limited to 2 feet.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, each Lot/parcel requires approval of a
FireNegetation Management Plan as well as an approved irrigation Plan by the City of
San Bernardino Fire Department.
All Roads and driveways must provide 15 feet of clearance, each side. This clearance
must meet Zone A requirements, with trees set back so canopy is kept 15 feet above road
bed, to allow fire equipment access.
Wood fencing is not allowed in the Foothill Fire Zone. Ownersibuyers need to be
apprised of this restriction as well as all vegetative restrictions.
In all planted areas outside of the "wet" zones of the uniform spacing of shrubs may be
modified by clustering of smaller shrubs thus creating drifts of them as long as such
clustering does not result in an average spacing less than 15' feet on center.
Because of view blockage concerns and specific approved map conditions
the planting of trees is not mandatory, but where planting of trees is allowed and a
homeowner or the developer elects to plant trees, only the above recommended trees shall
be allowed. Particularly noteworthy are the Coastal Live oak(Q.agrifolia) and California
sycamore(Plautus racemosa) because both are highly fire resistive, and both are native.
The developer will provide agreement from landscape maintenance district regarding
maintenance of 150 footFuel Modification Zone, prior to construction.
Prior to framing stage of construction all fire hydrants to be operational and all roads to
have full access.
X. SUMMARY
This Plan addresses San Bernardino Fire Department Fire Code requirements.
X1. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1981
Sprecher v. Adamson Companies
30 Cal.3d 358; 178 Cal.Rptr.783,636 P.2d 1121
1981
Burning by Prescription in Chaparral
L. Green
USDA-Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Report PSW-51
1982
Aids to Determining Fuel models for Estimating Fire Behavior
H.Anderson
USDA-Forest Service Gen. Tech Report INT-122
11
f
22p.
1983
How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires
R. Rothermel
USDA-Forest Service
Gen Tech Report INT-143 June 1983
161 p.
1984
BEHAVE: Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System
R. Burgan, R. Rothermel
USDA-Forest Service PMS 439-1
1986
Fire and Chaparral management at the Chaparral/Urban Interface
P.Riggan, S. Franklin, J.Brass
Fremontia 14(3):28-30
1989
BEHAVE: Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System-Burn Subsystem
P.Andrews, C.Chase
PMS-439-3 93p.
1990
RXWINDOW: Defining Windows of Acceptable Burning conditions
Based on Desired Fire Behavior
P. Andrews, L. Bradshaw
USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station
General Technical Report INT-273
54p.
1991
Field Reference Guide
National Advanced Resource Technology Center
Boise, ID
1993
Chaparral Management Techniques - An Environmental Perspective
S. Franklin
Fremontia
21(4):21-24
1995
12
Fuel-Driven Fire Regimes of the California Chaparral
' R. Minnich
Brush fires in California: Ecology and Resource Management
21-27
International Association of Wildland Fire
M.Price,N. Waser, K. Taylor, K.Pluff
Brush fires in California: Ecology and Resource Management
51-61
International Association of Wildland Fire
1995
Fire Management, Fire Behavior and Prescribed Burning
S.Franklin
Brushfires in California: Ecology and Resource Management
International Association of Wildland Fire
29-33
1995
The Oakland Hills Fire of October 20: An Evaluation of Post-Fire Response
F.Booker, W. Dietrich, L.Collins
Brush Fires in California: Ecology and Resource Management
International Association of Wildland Fire
163-170
1995
Fire Intensity and Vegetation Recovery in Chaparral: A Review
M. Borchert, D. Odion
Brush Fires in California: Ecology and Resource Management
91-100
International Association of Wildland Fire
1995
Fire Frequency in Southern California Shrublands: Biological -
Effects and Management Options
P. Zedler
101-112
Brush Fires in California: Ecology and Resource Management
International Association of Wildland Fire
1996
California's I Zone-Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation
C. Rice
Fire Ecology
Publication of Calif. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection
Chapter 13 Pg. 162-174
13
1996
California's I Zone -Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation
S. Franklin
Fuel Management
Publication of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Chapter 15 Pg.185-193
1996
California's I Zone-Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation
D. Sapsis
Fire Behavior Modeling
Publication of Calif. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection
Chapter 17 Pg. 204-213
1998
Fire
Reprints of Fire Issues
Fremontia
1999
Reexamining Fire suppression Impacts on Brushland fire Regimes
J. Keeley, C. Fotheringham, M. Morales
Science Vol 284 11 June 1999 4 pgs
1999
Oaks & Folks
Tan Oak and Coast Live Oak Under Attack
University of California
Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program
Volume 14, Issue 2,August 1999 1 Pg.
2000
Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora
Chapter 6: Fire in Western Shrubland, Woodland and
Grass Ecosystems. Pg. 121; 39 pgs..
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, Volume 2
2000
Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, Volume 1
2000
Vegetation Management and Prescribed Fire
S. Franklin,Pg. 31-35
2°a Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California
14
U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 00-62
Edited by J. Keeley, M. Keeley& C. Fotheringham
2000
What is the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes?
J. Cohen, 13 pgs
USAD Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station
Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula MT.
15
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date:Nov. 21, 2005
EXHIBIT 5 —PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
[This page intentionally left blank]
I
II
NA/tp�N Cheryl Brown
John Coute
Kenneth Durr CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
�. Alfredo Enciso DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Larry Heasley 300 North"D"Street, San Bernardino,CA 92418
�oGtioFn►N Jim Mo is, Vice-Chair Phone: (909)384-5057/5071 • Fax: (909)384-5080
Mike Sauerbrun, Chair
*** DRAFT ***
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF OCTOBER 4, 2005
1. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT III NO. 03-41 (AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS)
(SUBDIVISION NO. 04-18)
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17072 (SUBDIVISION 05-20)
3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17695 (SUBDIVISION 05-06)
4. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-01/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 05-08, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT II NO. 05-49,AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 17235
5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 05-01, 05-02, 05-03, AND 05-04
Page 1 9/20/05
i
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Sauerbrun at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall.
Present: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso, Heasley, Morris, Powell, and Sauerbrun.
Absent: None. Staff Present: Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner; Ben Steckler,
Associate Planner; Brian Foote, Assistant Planner; Henry Empeflo, Deputy City Attorney; Terri
Rahhal, Principal Planner; and Susan Stevens, Secretary.
Commissioner Durr led the flag salute.
ADMINISTRATION OF OATH
Ben Steckler, Associate Planner, administered the oath.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no public comments.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Valerie Ross, Deputy Director/City Planner stated that the Minutes of June 7, 2005 and June 21,
2005 and Items 2 and 3 were recommended for the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Conte pulled Item 2 for discussion.
Commissioner's Conte and Sauerbrun pulled Item 3 for discussion.
Commissioner Heasley made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Durr seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso,
Heasley, Morris, Powell and Sauerbrun. Nays: None. Absent: None.
V. AGENDA ITEMS
1. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT III NO. 03-41 (AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS)
(SUBDIVISION NO. 04-18)—A request to modify the Conditions of Approval to allow
construction of a 6' wrought iron fence along the northern perimeter of the tract located
on 59th Street and Acacia Court in the RL, Residential Low land use district.
Environmental Determination: Previous Negative Declaration
Owner/Applicant: Gardner Construction
APN: 0270-251-02 to 25; 0270-241-02 to 24; 0270-242-
01
Ward: 4
Page 2 9/20/05
I
I
I
Planner: Brian Foote
Commissioner Morris abstained from this item due to the proximity of the project to his
residence.
Brian Foote stated that this was a request to modify the Conditions of Approval to allow
construction of a 6' wrought iron/tube steel fence along the perimeter of the tract. There were
single-family neighborhoods to the south and southeast of the project location. Property to the
northwest and northeast is vacant. The Overlay areas for the tract included the Foothill Fire
Zone (Zone A) and High Wind Overlay. Road and utilities had been installed on the project site
and about half of the units had been built. The Landscape Maintenance District for the project
and the County Public Works Permit for access to the LMD had been approved. The City Fire
Department had approved the fire simulation model and the fuel modification plan, and had
concurred that the block wall that had been requested was not necessary to provide protection
from potential wild fires as a result of the computer simulation model conducted for the report.
Commissioner Heasley asked if there was a specification of coating to be used on steel fences,
such as powder-coated vs. painted.
Mr. Foote stated there was not a City standard for the fence coating.
Mark Gardner, Gardner Construction, 555 Cajon Street, Redlands, CA. Explained that the
reason the modification was being requested was due to the fact that the northern portion of the
tract was solid rock that had to be blasted. There was no way to dig a footing the size required to
hold a block wall to meet the requirement in the High Wind Overlay Zone. With the tubular steel
fence that was being requested each individual post will have to be drilled into the rock.
Commissioner Durr asked if the east and south sides of the project will have block wall.
Mr. Gardner stated that the east side would be tubular fencing, the south side along Newbury
Park was a combination of block wall and rot iron fencing already constructed, and on the west
side would be tubular fencing. He stated that he believed all other fencing, other than the north
side, were previously approved and that he was only asking for a modification of the northern
portion in this request.
Commissioner Durr asked Brian Foote for clarification of the request.
Mr. Foote stated that the site plan submitted indicated tubular steel fencing around the entire
perimeter of the tract.
Commissioner Sauerbrun stated that according to Conditions of Approval #12 all perimeter
fencing shall be block walls and this was a Standard Requirement.
Mr. Gardner stated that they cannot physically install a block wall on the site, it is impossible.
This tract was originally done in the 1980's and the block wall was not an original condition of
Page 3 9/20/05
approval. When the condition of approval was added to the DPIII, he immediately requested a
modification because he knew of the difficulties.
Commissioner Heasley stated that he had been to the site and could understand the need to
install a tubular fence or alternate fence on the north side of the project because of the hardness
of the soil. He questioned the need for tubular steel on Newbury Park side and the east and west
sides because they are not all solid rock.
Mr. Gardner explained that the west side of the property was a blue line stream that would have
to be excavated, which was not a possibility. Along Newbury Park it was agreed between
himself, staff, and the Parks Dept. that the City did not want a 6' block wall and a combination of
block and wrought iron was agreed upon. He stated that his company provided approximately
90' of block retaining wall along the entrance wall to the park that was not part of their plan but
was built to keep any mudflow during the rainy season. The southeast corner of the property sits
behind existing property owners, there was a retaining wall at the bottom of the slope owned by
the existing property owners. He cannot get down the slope and construct a block wall on top of
the existing retaining wall. On the eastside of the property the slope is too great to construct a
block wall.
Commissioner Heasley stated his concerns about paint vs. powder-coated panels and asked
what is the proposed finish on the fence.
Mr. Gardner stated the finish would be a Rustoleum type of paint and that no matter what type
of finish it has it will require homeowner maintenance.
Commissioner Sauerbrun stated that he had driven by the property and was concerned that
fencing had already been installed prior to this request.
Mr. Gardner explained that the only fencing that had been installed was the fence between the
project site and the park which was requested by the City, and fencing around the model homes.
Commissioner Sauerbrun verified on the map where the model homes were and then he
explained that all perimeter walls facing the street are to be solid decorative block walls not rot
iron.
Mr. Gardner disputed the statement that the wall on the side of the model homes facing the
street is a perimeter wall. He stated that the perimeter wall was at the bottom of the slope, the
wall on the side of the model homes was an interior wall.
Commissioner Sauerbrun stated that the current wall was considered a perimeter wall inside
the project. Consistent with other conditions of approval, perimeter lots facing the street have to
have a solid decorative block wall, not wrought iron. He stated that any house that has a side
yard that abuts the street should have a solid block wall.
Mr. Gardner agreed to this condition.
Page 4 9/20/05
Commissioner Brown asked staff if the upkeep of the wrought iron fences could be included in
the Landscape district.
Ms. Ross stated that the Landscape district would have to be formed before any houses had been
sold, so this could not be done.
Commissioner Conte asked for the building specifications of the fence, such as materials, size,
gauge, etc.
Mr. Gardner stated he did not have specifics with him, but that it would be the same as the
wrought iron fencing currently on the project.
Commissioner Conte asked Mr. Gardner if he would be opposed to a steel fence with a powder
coat finish.
Mr. Gardner stated that he would have to check on the costs involved, but that he would rather
stick with the type of painted wrought iron fences currently on the project.
Commissioner Conte voiced his opposition to the changes requested this late in the
development and did not believe that it would be impossible. He stated it may be more difficult,
but not impossible.
Mr. Gardner stated that it was not possible to put a block wall on the top of the slope. He
explained that it would not be possible to dig and/or blast deep enough and wide enough to put in
a big enough footing to handle the wind load that was on the slope, and at the time of the DPIII
they were not aware of the rock conditions on the slope.
Commissioner Brown asked what portions of the fence would need the large footings, and why
a core couldn't be drilled and stabilized with rebar to hold the wall.
Mr. Gardner explained that drilling a core and putting in a post for a wrought iron fence is
possible and would be done for the houses on the northern portion of the project but that a block
wall could not be constructed that way.
Commissioner Heasley questioned the size of the footing the Mr. Gardner stated would be
needed to hold the wall and asked staff if they had the specifications for building a block wall.
Ms. Ross stated that a solid wall six feet or higher requires a footing to support it. She did not
have the specifications for this wall, and did not know if Mr. Gardner's understanding of the
required footing was correct.
Neil Shafer, 5858 Mayfield Ave, San Bernardino, stated that he had lived at his address for 30
years and was opposed to the construction of a six foot steel tube fence in lieu of a six foot block
wall. A block wall was a requirement in a high wind area and should have been constructed after
elevations were completed per subdivision regulation 19.30.150, Wind Erosion. The block wall
Page 5 9/20/05
was promised at the Planning Commission meeting April 29, 2004. He stated the lack of a block
wall was causing dust and debris problems along with health problems
Ms. Ross called the City Engineer, Mark Lancaster to the podium to address this issue.
Mark Lancaster, City Engineer, stated that if Mr. Gardner had a structural engineer, and
possibly a geotechnical engineer, inspect the soil and rock at the site the likelihood that the
barring pressure on the footing would be so high that a block wall most likely wouldn't need the
massive footing discussed.
Commissioner Conte made a motion to deny the Amendment to Conditions. Commissioner
Heasley seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown, Coute, Durr, Enciso,
Heasley, and Sauerbrun. Nays: Commission Powell. Abstaining: Commissioner Morris.
The Planning Commission denied the Amendment to Conditions for Development Permit
III No. 03-41 to permit a tube steel fence along the perimeter of the tract .
EXHIBIT 6 —APPEAL Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date: Nov. 21, 2005
11011
Development Services Department, Planning Division
300 North "E" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino,_CA• 92418
San Jernar o Yhone (909) 384-5057 • (909) 384-5080
W Web address: www.sbcity.org
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
❑ Development Services Director
❑ Development/Environmental Review Committee
-Planning Commission
Case number(s): B
Project address: Trt#LT IOZGo Ik6.&_ Pr. bOWO;� USA-�CLl) I vIcIK
Appellant's name: GAU?Jk1C- &W- V`vJi of 4t1"Mc*Lq t �
Appellant's address: S5S CA,goa S-. 1 j%,4e AGV LA0h GA- 9 yr]
Appellant's phone:00ci) 74-0 'I- D y'
Appellant's e-mail address: " U--9
Contact person's name: KAPLL 1TA.0t4 Dti-
Contact person's address: 55V_ CNJcwJ 'Sr JACA:r levw VaN U4" RY37�j
Contact person's phone: 6th
�
Contact person's e-mail address: ASAUWW A -e k)TWtl,11• c0►4, �•'
• f�i ua}�.e @ KMAA.k Grtrt,.p�lt.��* ,
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and
time of the appeal hearing.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Date appeal filed:
Received by:
1 11/04
EXHIBIT 6—APPEAL Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date: Nov. 21, 2005
REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR
Specific action being appealed and the date of that action:
COAM(SSl0—� \ItAeD 6 04-134 &vr 1v AMk1J0 ` tut— cann�naNS aT
fl ,p r'olwI -4u ,ALtOt4 wro,)%yvi -VAupJ ss� t✓U b- A- 3loc E
W0l1 k+.e W-j cw fkCr-� �L--Tk Akcrc—u.
Specific grounds for the appeal: DJ_ <<rJT ouc' &M#gpdJy opero t-wa 6+ `inc st�,- LVL/ ;
an4-Cr(n OWNLD i.WL. +t--0--c 'r"Ut+rca ;S
?t � is ao� �oSS�6lr � 0►4 Asa-I�n►, �� I�CC.afu o�J �u o� �'1titS ���1�� .
� r��a i aJ��r a�- t��—�,r`o��-�- �S �Iso b��t�--c?L ���e� w►� ��ciN�
Ty�Ar 0--I10,ruS Apt 'QC- JZWS b
Action sought: OgEYtyr iGA� rLC,-n0x, p A-d e"i t r
Additional information: o F TAq 0-CAsoNS +AAt' `:(&V �Aw+Jk►c 0%0
Q.Ekokr'F A- 9stbruL albtl v16 IS Sc K6AICOWAWr> cAtJ J►siOtt,
\1 nCT 1VC-1ar1 t%kA--r ",(L O ALA"" 6w e to v�r p ru
C on go (. � t� t, �,r s� �t6 r 1'1+.� ��o atti ok,n�rs ► b� AW tic ,&O.
(c co n►j A �l�,,�: w,a.it pr�k►b��S `f1�t►S . " av f-a S!5wt�
t
Signature of appellant: Date:
A�� s
2 t iroa
I -
10/27/2005 14: 01 90974800!
EXHIBIT 7—ENGINEERING LETTER
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date: Nov. 21, 2005
THATCHER ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3455TH STREET, SUITE B
REDLANDS, CA 92374
(909) 748-7777 • fax (909) 748-7776
ivrvw.tha tcherengineerin g.com
LAND PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
Gardner Consttutitiva&-Development, Inc. October 25, 2005
555 Cajon Strcct, Suitc G Job No. 33433
Redlands, CA 92373
Attn: Mr. Mark Gardner D
Re: Proposed Perimeter walls for Tract 1.0260, City of San Bernardino. 0 C T 2 7 2005
Dear Mr.-Gardner; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the request to construct a 6' perimeter wall
around the west, north and east property lines of the subject tract. Generally speaking, it
does not appear practical to construct a perimeter wail around this tract_ The rough
grading plan dated August 1., 1991,. dad not provide for the construction of a perimeter
wall and it appears the installation of a wall would be inconsistent with the drainage
devices, drainage paths, and graded slopes that-exist at the site and were constructed
based on the grading plan.
As an example,the rear of Lots 21 thru 23 slope downward to the property line_ The
elevation. difference between the building pads and the grade at the property line vary
from 11' to 27'. In other words, the top of a 6' wall would be from 5' to 22' below the
elevation.of the building pad. Also, a City drainage easement crosses this area that-would
bc blocked by a perimeter wall.
Likewise, Lots 19 and 20 also have a down slope graded to or near the property line. A
solid wall. in this area would be below pad level and block drainage from the graded
slopes.
Lot 18 is adjacent to San Bernardino County Flood Control District right--of-way, and the
plans call for rock slope protection adjacent to an existing drainage way- A block wall at
the property line in this location would be within the flow path of the drainage easement.
Lots 1.6 and 1.7 are graded so that they are approximately 30' to 40' below the elevation
at the property line. In other words, a perimeter wall in this location would be 30' to 40'
Abo-ve the building pad. This wall would block natural drainage from the north to the
interceptor drains constructed within the rear of these lots,
Received Oct-27-2005 OZ:05pm From-9097490050 To-CITY OF SAN BERNARDI Page 002
............. --
10/27/2005 14:01 9097480E
EXHIBIT 7 — ENGINEERING LETTER
Appeal No. 05-23
Hearing Date: Nov. 21, 2005
The common property line between Lots 15 and 16 accept a significant runoff'from a
natural 'flow line offsite. A perimeter wall in this area would block the natural drainage
from the north.
Lots 9 thru 15 were graded so that the cut slope is very close to the properly line. The
graded daylight line and brow ditches along the rear of those slopes would conflict with
the required footings of a perimeter wall. In other words, a bench or setback from the
property line should have been constructed at the property line to allow for the block wall
construction.
Also, the rear of Lot-2-accgAs signiifrcant offsite runoff that would-be blocked by-a solid-
perimeter wall.
It would be our suggestion that you consider wrought iron perimeter fi=ne for this tract
considering the existing conditions of the site.
Please call should you have any questions.
Yours truly,
THATCHER ENG & ASSOC., INC.
M.W. "Bud" Thatcher M, P.E.
Received Oct-27-2005 02:05pm From-8087480050 To-CITY OF SAN BERNARDI Page 003
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
RACHEL G.CLARK,C.M.C.-CITY CLERK
t 300 North"D"Street•San Bernardino•CA 92418-0001
909.384.5002•Fax: 909.384.5158
www.sbcity.org
San Bernar IDO
SM
December 7, 2005
Mr. Mark Gardner
Gardner Construction
555 Cajon Blvd., Suite G
Redlands, CA 92373
Dear Mr. Gardner:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on December 5, 2005, the following
action was taken relative to an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an Amendment
to Conditions on property located west of 59`h Street between Acacia Avenue and Hill Drive in
the RL, Residential Low, land use district.
The Mayor and Common Council closed the hearing, granted the appeal, and
reversed the Planning Commission's denial of an Amendment to Conditions to
modify Condition of Approval No. 12 of Development Permit Type III No. 03-
41.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the City Clerk's office.
Sincerely,
Rachel G. Clark
City Clerk
RGC:1ls
cc: Development Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity•Accountability •Respect for Human Dignity•Honesty
i
Ted D. Bair
5718 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92407 DEC 0 1 2��5
(909) 886-3609 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
30 November 2005
City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council
Development Services Department
300 North `D' Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
Re: Development Permit Type III No. 03-41, Tract Map No. 10260
To Whom It May Concern:
We were victims and neighborhood survivors of the Panorama Fire in 1980.
Some of the lessons learned resultina from that fire have been mandated and
implemented by the city. I think in 1986 our building permit was revolved and
had to be resubmitted to include a new calculation for the horizontal wind load
factor. It went from 44 mph to 88 mph. Many new perimeter block walls around
new tract homes in this area were blown over. With the standards raised. vertical
steel and concrete in every fourth cell and steel bond beams in every fourth
course. no more walls have fallen since. We had a chain link fence. When trash
and weeds were blown into it, the wind blew so hard that the entire 165 foot
fence bent over to 12 dearees. So a hollow tube 6 foot fence is askina for
wind damage. One of the best examples for having a, to code block wall would
be. the three homes on the bend uD on Hiahwav 18 went throuah the Panorama
Fire also. The only one that survived was the far west one. They had a four
foot block wall on the windward side of their orooerty and thev escaped
major fire damage.
Please turn down the appeal and keep to the original plan. If those homes
catch fire durina a wind storm. thev will rain embers riaht down on us and we
never want to experience the Panorama Fire episode again.
Thank,you very much„
d into Record at
'Mvoevcm a�tg:
fed D. and Jane Bair
..a Item __A'si A/
City Clerkl= Secy
City of Salt Bernardino
VR
'Z, 1
lei
f
p � r
1
! �W
4�