Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout56-Planning - ~ .... CITY OF SAN BER"'RDINO ~REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION From: Larry E. Reed, ....=,- _ !.,:-~~\~c\ \];-':""- Di remOn;. - "v_", .,. ",..... - '}\1. Subject: Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 Extension of Time Appeal Mayor and Common Council Meeting June 4, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Dept: Planning and Buildi1f.!fXSef,~ik~s Date: May 23, 1990 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On November 7, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to deny a one year extension of time for approval of Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 and Tentative Tract Number 13365, by a 4 to 3 vote. On December 18, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal of Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 and Tentative Tract Number 13365 to June 18, 1990. On May 8, 1990, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council that: (1) the revised Conditional Use Permit be approved, (2) the withdrawal of Tentative Tract Number 13365 be approved; and, (3) the extension of time for the revised Conditional Use Permit be approved, by an unanimous vote. . Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed; and, that the appeal be denied and Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 be denied. or That the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld; and, that the extension of time Until June 4, 1991 for the revised Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 for a 42 unit apartment complex be approved, subject to the Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, and Standard Requirements contained in the May 8,1990, Planning Commission staff report (supports Planning Commission action and staff's recommendation). /.e'J[~i tU~ Larry E. Reed, Di i~~ure Planning and Building Services Contact person: Larry E. Reed, Director Phone: (714) 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 4 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Not App 1 i cab 1 e Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: Anonrlo::!o hon"l t\ln 5 ~ - . CITY OF SAN BER.QRDINO - REQUEST .:bR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 and Tentative Tract 13365 - Extension of Time Denial by the Planning Commission - Mayor and Common Council Meeting, June 4, 1990, 2:00 p.m. REOUEST The applicant, Mr. Darwin K. Pearson, appealed in November of 1989 the Planning Commission's denial of the extension of time request of Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 and Tentative Tract 13665 by a 4 to 3 vote for a 42 condominium unit project. The applicant requested a continuance to revise the project at the December 18, 1989, Council meeting. The applicant revised the project by proposing to build a 42 unit apartment project of the same design and removing the condominium-tract map portion of the project. Mr. Pearson now requests that the Mayor and Council approve the 42 unit apartment project (Revised Conditional Use Permit Number 86- 26) extension of time request. BACKGROUND The original proposal for the development of 42 condominium units was approved on September 16, 1986 along with the associated condominium subdivision application, Tentative Tract Number 13365. A Negative Declaration was adopted for the project at the time of approval. The project site consists of 3.05 acres located on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue about 314 feet north of Marshall Boulevard. The Planning Commission subsequently denied a one year extension of time request for the project, by a 4 to 3 vote, on November 7, 1989, due to concerns that a condominium project would foster conditions necessary for blight by mismanagement of multiple absentee landlords. An appeal was filed and considered by the Mayor and Common Council on December 18, 1989. The Council continued the project so that it could be revised to solve the Planning Commission's concerns. The applicant revised the project by changing it from a condominium project to an apartment project with the same design. The apartment project is consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code requirements concerning design and setbacks. On May 8, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project and recommended approval of the revised Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26, by an unanimous vote. .,.._n?1':4 . o /, -...) Page 2 Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 and Tentative Tract Number 13364 - Extension of Time Denial by the Planning commission Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 4, 1990 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPINIONS The Mayor Conditional approve the and Council may deny the appeal and Use Permit Number 86-26 or uphold the appeal revised conditional Use Permit Number 86-26. deny and RECOMMENDATION The Planning commission revised Conditional Use project. and staff recommend approval of the Permit Number 86-26 as an apartment Prepared by: John E. Montgomery, AICP Principal Planner For Larry E. Reed, Director Planning and Building Services LER:JEM/sd Exhibits: A - Letter of Revision Request to Planning commission May 1, 1990 B - Letter of Appeal to Mayor and Common Council November 16, 1989 C - Statement of Official Planning commission Action May 8, 1990 D - Public Hearing Notice E - Planning commission Staff Report May 8, 1990 PCAGENDA:CUP86-26 . c EXHIBIT A "'" ....) Darwin K. Pearson 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 (714) 673-5712 May 1, 1990 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION 300 North '0' Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: Conditional Use Permit No 86-26 Extension of Time Members of the Planning Commission: The original denial of an extension of time for this project included Tentative Tract No. 13365 which would have permitted these units to be sold as condominiums. In this request we are removing the Tentative Tract aspect of the project and are requesting an extension on time to construct the project as apartments under the above-referenced Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26. . Enclosed please find a letter written to Mayor Bob Holcomb by Mr. Roy H. Nierman, the Chairman of the Planning Commission at our hearing on November 7, 1989. In this letter Mr. Nierman listed two reasons why he felt an extension of time should not be granted for the project. The first item is no longer an issue. The second i tern concerned the fact that these units were condominiums and their size and location would make them less than acceptable as owner occupied condominiums. The end result would be 42 units sold to absentee landlords which would create additional blight in this area. The following is quoted from Mr. Nierman's letter: "It was the feeling of the Planning Commission that we would rather see the construction of an apartment complex that is individually owned so there could be uniform control over all tenants rather than having forty-two condominiums owned by forty-two absent landlords." In our appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision on November 7, 1990 to the City Council we attempted to show the quality of the project which we intend to build. We referenced three previous projects by the same architect in Grand Terrace, Rialto, and Newport Beach (see enclosed photographs). Our project will be of the same quality and design as these referenced projects. City Councilman Maudsley, in whose ward this project is located, felt that although the project will be of high quality he also felt our feasibility study of condominiums in this location and of this size was lacking credibility. We asked the City Council at that time to extend our appeal so that we could meet with Councilman Maudsley to discuss further the concerns he had for c - ~ the project. In addition we did a further analysis of the project as condominiums and consulted local real estate brokers recommended by area developers. It was determined that larger condominiums in this area would not sell at a price which would make the project feasible. However, everyone to date has agreed that these units at 930 sf. with 2 master bedrooms, 2 and 1/2 baths, private patios and 2 car attached garages would be excellent high end apartments. Councilman Maudsley also feels that with proper attention given to the landscaping, along with security fencing limiting access to residents and their guests, that this would be a very marketable apartment complex. We fully agree and originally planned to incorporate these into the project. We will continue to keep Councilman Maudsley informed as to the progress of the project and will address any all concerns which may arise. We feel that this site is not suited for a type of development other than multi-residential due to the apartments and newly remodeled strip center adjacent to the north, and the electrical facility adjacent to the south. The site is a difficult site for development due to the flood control channel which impacts the feasibility not only to access the site but to the enormous off- site construction costs associated with it. We tried looking at the site for single family homes, but with limited access over the flood control channel and site configuration it was discussed and agreed in several meetings that this was not feasible. The newly adopted general plan reflects this. As an apartment complex, the limited access over the flood control channel provides for additional security while our site plan provides for adequate access, circulation and parking for this project. In summation, this project if allowed to go forward, will be of high quality in its design, construction and end use. Our intention is and always has been to develop a high quality project in this area. We have always viewed this project as an asset to this community and this feeling is reinforced with the recent upgrading and remodeling of the adjacent property to the north. We believe that our project will create a better atmosphere for the success of this commercial property. We thank the Members of the Planning Commission for their time and consideration on behalf of this project and respectfully request that we be allowed to proceed with this project per the Planning Department's recommendation. Very truly yours, ;:);2 I!:::/~//L~' - Darwin K. Pearson cc: Mr. Harry Kerames, Owner Mr. Alan J. Parnigoni, Owner Mr. Bud Roberts, Sierra Engineering c :) --:0"\ EXHIBIT B Darwin K. Pearson 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92661 (714) 673-5712 November 16, 1989 City of San Bernardino 300 North '0' Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Attn: City Clerk Re: Required notification to appeal the Planning commission's denial for an Extension of Time associated with Conditional Use Permit 86-26 and Tentative Tract 13365. Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On ~ovember 7, 1989. the Planning Commission voted to deny our request for a one-year extension of time under the authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.83.140 and 19.83.300. We respectfully request through this appeal that their decision be overturned based upon the merits of the project and the many positive aspects to the surrounding areas, the people, and the City of San Bernardino. Enclosed please find a marketing report prepared by Builder Sales Corp. which reflects a p~sitive feasibility assessment of the project. In the report they have taken into account the immediate area, the lack of affordable housing in the Southern California new home sales communities, and other condominium projects which were completed in the San Bernardino area. . It should be noted that the construction of this project will be of high quality and result in pride of ownership. I have worked with a developer on three previOUS projects which were designed by the architect selected for this project. The projects are located in Grand Terrace, Rialto and Newport Beach (see enclosed photographs). While the sale prices varied greatly between these units, the quality of design and construction did not. The units in Rialto were completed in April of 1984 and are currently selling in the high 70's to mid 80's. Yet, after 5 years the project still reflects pride of ownership as do the other two projects. This is the type of project which we are trying to acheive. Special attention should be given to the immediate area of the project also. It is next to a boarded up strip center and and older apartment complex with many unsightly characteristics. Just 1 c ~" '-' . . ..c..... ~ north of the si te is another boarded up commercial property. Testimony was given on November 7, 1989 by area residents and merchants that any more competition (specifically an ARCO Mini- Mart) would be bad for the area. This project will add 42 families, directly effecting the commercial atmosphere in a very positive manner. The project will be fully enclosed, landscaped, with decorative wrought iron fencing along the front with limited access via a 2 lane bridge over the flood control channel. This will keep the less desirables from trafficing through the project while at the same time provide an uplift for the community. At the Planning Commission meeting on November 7, 1989 there was some concern expressed regarding our financial condition and our ability to successfully complete this project. This project has had many ups and downs over the last three years including the building moratorium. The moratorium resulted in our being in escrow on the property for over 2 years and the original developers/partners sold their interest to me in the form of secured notes at close of escrow. While in escrow, interest on the unpaid balance and principal pay-downs were required so that the escrow would not be canceled. Up front development costs to date have totaled approxima tely $125,000, including engineering anet bridge design, soils testing, traffic study, hydrology study of the flood control channel, plan check fees, architecture and legal costs.This does not include the cost of the. land. This money is essentially wasted as a result of the planning Commission denial. In addition, as of August 1989 we now own the property free and clear which had been a necessary condition for the construction financing. The first half of 1989 I had a construction loan out for a custom condominium project in Newport Beach which is now completed. This along with taking in two venture capital partners will ensure the financing for the project. Our loan packages were recently submitted, the drawings'have been approved and our bonding company is set to issue the required bonds with a set aside letter from the bank. Th~ project, being completely bid through the Dodge Room in San Bernardino in June of this year, giving very accurate construction costs, and my. prior experience in this field will provide for a successful project. (See summary of experience attached) Further consideration for the City as a benefit for granting an extension of time will be the added value to the tax roles of the City along with the permit and building fees which exceed $330,000, as delineated below: Street light energy fee Building permit (including traffic fee) School fee Municipal Water District fee Sewer capacity expansion fees Sewer connection fees (EVMWD) $ 473 81,417 60,684 62,000 94,920 31,226 $330,720 2 c ~ ',"", - -~ A very important aspect in our request for the extension of time is due to delays incurred which were not in our control which included: Moratorium on building - All processing of drawings were halted during the one year freeze. While we were given a one year extension commensurate with the moratorium we experienced long delays in plan checking by the City (up to 6 months for a single plan check) which I assume was due to the enormous work load resulting from lifting the moratorium. New agreements between the City of San Bernardino ~unicipal Water District and the East Valley Municipal Water District - Midway through our plan checking, the two districts changed the . jurisdictional areas for providing water service which effected our project. Now the City was to furnish water. This required a new water system design because we were to use cluster meters vs. individually metered units as our Conditions of Approval : had called for previously (for the benifit of the City). We also had to design and furnish blanket easements vs. line easements to facilitate drawing approval. This change in jurisdiction caused a minimum of 3 months delay due to meetings. design and drawing approval in addition to added development costs. Del Rosa Flood Control Channel - The property for the project is behind an existing flood control channel. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District has mandated that we dedicate a 30 foot wide strip of land. along the complete frontage of the property for future use of the channel. This cut the project from a possible 48 units as originally desiged down to 42 units. Also it has meant that another completely separate agency had to review and approve all our drawings. Further, because of the moritorium the design review process for the Flood Control District had to be done twice. prior to the City completing their plan checks. In summation. we feel that we were unjustifiably denied an extension of time for the project. We have diligently tried to meet all reqirements. changes. and conditions. We have worked through extenuating circumstances associated with this project to the point of being ready to begin construction only to be denied the opportunity to build the project or to even have a project at this time. We are not a big development company but are young, able individuals who have invested a great deal of effort. money 3 c , \..,1 - " . and time in a project which we feel will benefit the City of San Bernardino and in particular the immediate area greatly. Again we respectfully request that our appeal to overturn the Planning commission's denial be granted. ver~ truly yours, {)~/,e~-- Darwin K. Pearson cc: Mr. Harry Kerames, Owner Mr. Alan J. Parnigoni, Owner Mr. Bud Roberts, Sierra Engineering enclosures 4 1"--., -- EXHIBIT C ~ ..J City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 - Extension of Time. Applicant: Darwin Pearson, Parnigoni Harry Kerames and Alan ACTION Meeting Date: May 8, 1990 X Approved Amendment Construction of 42 Extension of Time to the Project to Allow Apartments and a One Year FINDINGS OF FACT The amendment and extension of time were approved based upon findings of fact contained in Attachment B. CONDITIONS This project was approved subject to the Conditions and Standard Requirements contained in Attachments C and D. VOTE Ayes: Clemensen, Cole, Stone None None Sharp Corona, Jordan, Lindseth, Lopez, Nays: Abstain: Absent: I, hereby, certify that this accurately reflects the final Commission of the City of San ~~~~;- /d . ':,.~I'",,", . ..,...:_. - . Statement of determination Bernardino. Official Action of the Planning .Hlf-Y ;l r /ro ~.~..,. Larry E. Reed Director of Planning and Building Services Name and Title cc: Project Applicant project Property owner Building and Safety Department Engineering Division Case File - '-' EXHIBIT D o OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 86-26 THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY App 1 icant "" SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 86-26 WARD =# 4 r PROPERTY LOCATION : Located on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue about 314 feet north of Marshall Boulevard. PROPOSAL: To extend approval time limit by one year for a revised Conditional Use Permit Number 86-26 to construct a 41 unit apartment project. r PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, .CA. 92418 \.. r HEARING DATE AND TIME: June 4, 1990, 2:00 p.m. \.. r A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY HALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING (714) 3B3-5057. THANK YOU. III, 1914 ._, CITY OF .SAfrBERN~~~I~O . - 0n11EMORANDUM To Planning Commission Su~~ Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 Extension of Time From Planning and Building Services Date May 8, 1990 Approved Agenda Item No. 5 Date APPLICANT: Darwin K. Pearson Del Rosa Meadows 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 OWNER: Darwin K. Pearson Harry Keralles Alan J Parnigoni 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to: (1) make a recomllendation to the Kayor and Common Council for a one-year extension of ti.e for conditional Use Permit 86-26; (2) to withdraw the request for the approval of an extension of time for Tentative Tract 13365, and (3) the approval of an amendment to the original proposal to construct 42 condominiums to a proposal to construct a 42 unit apartment complex under the authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.83.300. 2. LOCATION The project site consists of 3.05 acres located on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue approximately 314 feet north of Marshall Boulevard. 3. RACKGROUND The original proposal for the development of 42 condominium units was approved on september 16, 1986 along with the associated subdivision application, Tentative Tract No. 13365. A Negative Declaration was adopted for the project at the ti.e of approval (Attachment H). On June 30, 1988, the applicant submitted an incomplete set of construction plans for Technical code Building Review (the plans vere missing structural calculations, roof truss plan, and other structural .details). Because of a development .oratorium fro. June 11, 1987 to June 11, 1988, the expiration date of conditional Use Per.it 86-26 and Tentative Tract 13365 vas extended from september 16, 1988 to september 16, 1989. The applicant never provided the missing information and the PRIDE ~ 1~P7E55 ~ Conditional May 8, 1990 Page 2 Use P~it No. 86-26 '""'\ '-.; Technical Plan check Application expired on January 30, 1989. The Planning Commission denied a one-year extension of time request for the project, by a 4 to 3 vote, on November 7, 1989. The Commission was very concerned that a condominium project in this area would foster the conditions necessary for blight to occur. It was the Commission's feeling that the condominiums would be sold to absentee landlords who would then rent them to tenants who would not appropriately care for the units. There was additional concern over the financial viability to construct the project and the market potential for condominiums (See Attachment E). The appeal of the denial by the Planning Commission was heard by the Hayor and Common Council on December 18, 1989 and was continued to June 18, 1990 to allow the applicant an opportunity to investigate amendment of the proposal. 4. ANALYSIS The proposal was approved prior to the adoption of the Interim Policy Document or the General Plan. The findings of consistency of the project were based upon conformance with Titles 18 and 19 of the Hunicipal Code and East San Bernardino-Highland General Plan, and its compliance with the existing PRD-14, Planned Residential Development, zone district's permitted uses. Subsequent to project approval on September 16, 1986, the General Plan was adopted by the Hayor and Common Council. The General Plan designates the project site RM, Residential Medium. The proposal of a 42-unit Apartment complex is a with a Conditional Use Permit under San Bernardino Chapter 19.83, Interim Urgency Zoning Ordinance, "B-1", Table of permissible Uses. Per section 19.83.140, Bxtensions of Time, "no extension of time Application may be approved unless a written finding is made by the City that the development project is consistent with the General Plan "The proposed amendment to the proposal was reviewed by staff and is consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan (Attachment A). permitted use Municipal Code and Attachment 4. CONCLUSION Aaendment of the proposal of Conditional Use Permit 86-26 from a 42 unit Condominium Planned Residential Development to a 42 unit apartaent complex is consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan. -- - Conditional Use P<::it No. 86-26 l1ay 8, 1990 Page 3 ,.-r"...... ....I s. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Planning Commission reccoaaendation to the Mayor and Common Council that: 1. The proposal of Conditional Use Permit 86-26 be amended to the construction of 42 apartments vice condominiums subject to the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B), Conditions of Approval (Attachment e), and standard Requirements (Attachment D); make a 2. Approve the withdrawal of the request for the approval of an extension of time for Tentative Tract 13365; 3. Approve the one year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 86-26. Respectfully submitted, Lar1.a:- ~ Director of Planning and Building Services ~~~u Kichael R~ Finn Associate Planner ATTACHKENTS: A - Kunicipal Code and General Plan Conformance B - Findings of Fact C - Conditions of Approval D - standard Requirements E - Roy Nierman's Letter to the Mayor and Council F - December 18, 1989 Mayor and Council staff Report Conditional May 8, 1990 Page 4 Use pef~it No. 86-26 '-' ATTACHKBM'l' A ,,_..-"'Ilr( -..) MUNICIPAL COD. AND ORNRRAL PLAN CON.ORM&NCR CateGorv ProDosal Per.itted Use Apart.ents Heiqht 2 Stories Setbacks Interior 5 ft. plus 1.33 ft./15 ft. continuous vall ..ront 69.25 ft fro. Del Rosa Ave. (25 ft. fro. flood channel) L,ot Width 381 ft. Lot Depth 363.75 ft. Lot coveraqe 29\ Unit Size 2 Bedroo. 926 sq. ft. or .ore Lot Area/unit 3,163 sq. ft. Densi ty 13.2 unitsl acre Parklnq 2, both covered Open Area 790 sq. ft./unit Municipal Code Yes 3 Stories or 42 ft. 5 ft. plus 1 ft.1 15 ft continuous vall 25 ft. on .ajor arterial 60 ft. .in. 100 ft. .in. 50\ 2 Bedroo. 650 sq. ft. or .ore 3,000 sq. ft. or .ore 14 unitsl acre 2, 1 covered 300 sq. ft/unit General Plan Yes 3 Stories or 42 ft. Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code 14 unitsl acre Defer to Municipal Code Defer to Municipal Code :> CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 86-26 FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE 5/8/90 PAGE , "- NOV. IHO t*"'" ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS OF F~CT 1. The proposal is consistent vith the General Plan adopted by the Mayor and co..on council on June 2, 1989J the proposed use as 42 unit apartaent coaplex is peraitted as a aediua residential use vith a conditional Use perait. The proposal is coapatible vith the adjoinin9 residential land uses consistin9 priaarily of apartaents to the north and vest, and sin9le-faaily dvellin9s to the east. The site is of sufficient size, shape, and area to accoaaodate the developaent of the proposed 42 unit apartaent coaplex in a aanner not detriaental to the particular area, nor to the peace, health, safety and general velfare. ~ccess, circulation, and parkin9 for the proposed project is adequate. Access for entry and e9ress viii be via the aain entry point on Del Rosa Avenue. circulation is provided throu9hout the site for tenants, 9uests and eaergency vehicles via a circular drive surroundin9 the coaplex. 84 tenant parkin9 spaces are.provided as required, and 34 9ue~t parkin9 spaces are provided. The 9rantin9 of an Bxtension of Tiae under the conditions conditions of approval and standard requireaents viii not be detriaental to the peace, health, safety, and general velfare of the citizens of the city of San Bernardino. 2. 3. 4. 5. ~ ATTACHMENT C .~ CITY OF SAN ERNARDINO PLANNI~ DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 86-26 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 ~~Q/Qn . CONDITIONS 1. Th. 4 parkin9 spaces at the aain entry/e9ress point on Del Rosa Avenue frontin9 the 15 foot flood control access strip shall be deleted for both safety and aesthetics. 2. All Conditions of Approval and standard Requireaents of the ori9inal approval of Tentative Tract 13365 and Conditional Use perait 86-26 shall apply, with the exception of the Plannin9 depart.ent's Conditions and Require.ents which are superceded by the attached. 3. The developer is to subait a coaplete ..ster landscape and lrr19ation plan (4 coples) for the entire developaent to the Bn9ineerin9 Departaent with the required fee for approval. The landscape plans wlll be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation, Co.aunity Services, and the Plannln9 and Buildin9 Services Departaents for review and approval. (Note: the issuance of 9radin9, or buildin9 peraits by either the Bn9lneerln9 or Bulldln9 and Safety Departaents of the Clty of San Bernardino, does ~ waive these requireaents Icondltlons.) No unlts aay be rented or occupancy of units allowed until this requireaent has been aet and the approved landscapin9 and lrr19atlon systeas lnstalled. '...... o '...J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 86-26 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE SIR 6g0 PA 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS x Minor modifications to the plan shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planninq. An increase of more than 10 percent of the square footaqe or a siqnificant chanqe in the approved concept shall be subject to (Planninq Commission and Development Review Committee) review and approval. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the Plans approved by the Development Review Committee, Planninq Commission or Director of Planninq. The developer is to submit a complete master landscape and irriqation plan (4 copies) for the entire development to the Enqineerinq Department with the required fee f~r approval, the landscape plans will be forwarded to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services and the Planninq Department for review and approval. (Note: the issuance of.a buildinq permit, by the Department of Buildinq and Safety of the City of San Bernardino, does HQI waive these requirements/conditions.) No qradinq permits. will be issued prior to approval of landscape plans. The desiqn shall include, but not be 'limited to the followinq: Street trees shall be planted on 3S toot center spacinq unless otherwise indicated by the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services. The Parks Department shall determine the varieties and locations prior to plantinq. A minimum of 25' of the trees shall be 24- box specimens. Trees are to be inspected by a Park Division representative crior to plantinq. Planters shall be enclosed with concrete curbinq. The setbacks from the north _ , south _ , east ____ , west _ property line shall be bermed at a maximum 3:1 slope and shall be planted with a . tall fescue type turfqrass. A Landscape buffer zone shall be installed between. tacilities and street. _.~. -.. I ,-- ~ _.~...- '-' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 86-26 CONDITIONS 2. 3. AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE 5/8/90 . i6r.i- ., x x The landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with the "Procedure and policy for Landscape and Irrigation" (available from the parks Department). subject to the Conditions of the Department of Parks and Recreation (attached). Trees, shrubs and groundcover of "a type and quality generally consistent or compatible with that characterizing single- family homes shall be provided in the front yard and . that portion of th side yards which are visible from the street. All landscaped areas must be provided with an automatic irrigation system adequate to insure their viability. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. At all times the business will be operated in a manner which does not produce obnoxious noise, vibration, odor, dust, smo~e, glare, or other nuisance. A sign program for the multi-tenant commercial/industrial center shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of certifica~ of occupancy. In the event that this approval is leqally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligation under this condition." y PCAGENDA:STNDCONDITIONS 10/19/1t ~ o --- ATTACHMENT D ......,I r CASE CUP 86-26 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""'I REQUIREMENTS STANDARD AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 5/8/90 8 Conditional Use Permit 86-26 shall be in effect for a period of -12- months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission and/or Planning Department. However, if the final map has not been filed with the County Recorder's Office at the end of the 12 month time period, the approval shall expire. Additional time may be approved by the planning Commission upon written request of the applicant if made 30 days prior to expiration of the -1l- month time period. Expiration Date: June 4, 1991 \.. 1. x '" COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D. a. b. c. Ilo. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) shall -be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC & R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. The CC & R's shall also include a statement that no radio frequency antenna shall be included within the complex except for central antenna systems. - No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC & R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC & R's shall permit enforcement by the City of provisions required by the City as conditions to approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the Commission prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the city for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an ~ I." ..-, ,..-", v CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS .'.-'"", I CASE CUP 85-26 STANDARD AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 5/8/90 9 I. 2 . 3 . x x \... "'" association, owning the common areas and facilities. d. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkWays, shall be provided for in the CC & R's. e. The CC & R's shall contain wording prohibiting the storage or parking of trailers, boats, campers, motor homes, and similar vehicles outside of the specified common areas. PARKING: a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of ~ parking spaces. b. All parking and driving aisles shall be surfaced with two inches of AC over a suitable base or equivalent as approved by the City Engineer. Parking spaces shall be striped and have wheel stops installed at least three feet from any building, wall, fence, property line, or walkWay. c. Whenever an off-street parking area is adjacent to or across an alley from property zoned residential, a solid decorative wall six feet in height shall be erected and maintained along the property line so as to separate the parking area physically from the residentially zoned property, provided such wall shall be three feet in height when located within the required front or street side yard setback. Where no front or street side yard is required, such wall shall be three feet in height when located within ten feet of the street line. Said wall shall be located on the north , south , east _, west or peripheral _ property lIileS. d. Whenever an off-street parking area is located across the street from property zoned for residential uses, a solid decorative wall or equivalent landscaped berm not less than three feet in height shall be erected and maintained along the street side of the lot not closer to the street than the required depth of the yard in the adjoining residential area. No fence or wall located in the front setback shall obscure the required front setback landscaping. Said wall shall be located on the north , south , east , west _, or peripheral _ property lineS:-- - All parking areas and vehicle storage areas shall be lighted during hours of darkness for security and protection. Recreational vehicle storage areas shall be screened by at least ... .... Uy STANDARD CITY 4. x 5. x 6. X' 7. 8. 9. 10. "" " OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 5/8/90 10 CUP 86-26 CASE a six-foot hiqh decorative wall with screened qates. There shall be provided for each unit, within the qaraqe or carport, or other specifically desiqnated area, a 10ft or other usable storaqe area with a minimum of 150 cubic feet in addition to standard utility storaqe. Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads shall be subject to the City Traffic Enqineer's approval. Standard Drawinq each entrance to be subject to x A commercial-type drive approach, as shown on No. 204 or equivalent, shall be constructed at the development. Location and destqn shall approval of the Enqineerinq Division. Prior to issuance of any bui1dinq permit, access riqhts shall be qranted to the City for the purpose of a110winq access over the private drives within the project for all necessary City vehicles inc1udinq fire, police, and refuse disposal vehicles, and any other emerqency vehicles. The documents coverinq . this matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the P1anninq Department. x decorative subject to of Public x All refuse storaqe areas are to be enclosed with a wall. Location, size, type and desiqn of wall are the approval of the Planninq Department and Division Services superintendent. Enerqy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and local requirements. x LANDSCAPING: a. Four. (4) copies of a master landscape plan shall be submitted to the Enqineerinq Division for review and approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the fo11owinq: 1) size, type, and .1ocation of plant material proposed. 2) Irriqation plan. 3) Such other alternate plants, materials and desiqn concepts as may be proposed. 4) Erosion control plans. Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior b. ... .... ..., '"""' '~ CASE CUP 86-26 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 5/8/90 , , r 11. v 12. ~ 13. .. 14. x 15. x """I diverqinq from the front"to rear of the lot, shall have a width of not less than 60 feet measured at the riqht anqle to the lot depth at the midway point between the front and rear lot lines, and a width of not less than 40 feet measured alonq the front lot line as delineated on the tract map. Where lots occur on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, a minimum lot depth of ____ feet will be permitted. If the proposed depth is less than feet, a plot plan must be submitted to demonstrate that a buildable lot area is possible and to justify the lesser depth. Variable front buildinq setback lines of at least ____ feet and averaging ____ feet, and side street buildinq setback lines 15 feet shall be delineated on the final tract map. All qarage entrances on a dedicated street shall have a minimum setback of 18 feet. " Perimeter walls and walls required along the rear of all double frontage lots shall be designed and constructed to incorporate design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, decorative masonry, columns, or other such features to provide visual and physical relief along the wall face. The developer shall obtain Planninq Department approval of the visual or enqineerinq design of the proposed wall. When qraded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the slope face shall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to this requirement must be approved by the City Enqineer. Gradinq and reveqetation shall be staqed as required by the city Engineer in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to precipitation. Compliance with all recommendations of the Geoloqy Report shall be required (if applicable). Any clubhouse, swimminq pool, spa, putting qreen, picnic areas or other amenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on the approved site plan. Durinq construction the city Enqineer may require a fence around all or a portion of the periphery of the tract site to minimize wind and debris damaqe to adjacent properties. The type of fencinq shall be approved by the city Enqineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control. .... Illy ,-, U CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS . ,. 16. x 17 . x "" ~~'- CASE CUP 86-26 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE S S/8/g0 12 ~ No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior with these Standard Requirements as well as all the San Bernardino Municipal Code. to compliance provisions of MECHANICAL EQUIPMEtrr: a. All utility service boxes, connections and service lines shall be painted to match the building exterior on which they are located. All existing overhead utility services and wiring shall be relocated underground. b. d. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and Cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with city Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, Cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residences. ... .... Uy , ...." 1.-. ATTACHMENT E ,j ;I" .f'EcIALJliT LAW O~ or (~'" ROY H. NIERMAN '",~~'IOll ." A ~E..IONAL C~TION un .w~ CSIft"D DIUVSo .urra .. aAle aaucARDDIO. c..u.z:rowun,A .... t7,., ...., ,., 17'''1.24.>>''.3 Mayor Bob Holcomb City Hall 300 North "On street San Bernardino, CA Dear Mayor Holcomb: I wish to bring to your attention two items heard by the planning Commission on November 7, 1989 that I am sure will be appealed.. oorn@rn~w~ill1 DEe 01 i989 CITY PLANNiilG DEPARTME~rr SAN BERNARDINO, CA November 27, 1989 The first item is conditional Use permit '89-20 which is a request to construct an A.M. P.M. Mini Market on the corner of Date street and Del Rosa Avenue. This matter first came before the'Planning commission in October 1989 and was continued to November 1989 so that the applicant could provide the planning Commission with a marketing study concerning the effect this A.M. P.M. Mini Market would have on the existing gas stations, mini markets and liquor.stores. The applicant failed to provide a marketing study and the representative of ARCO Products refused to allow the planning Commission to have a copy of their marketing study. There were at least seven business owners in the audience who objected to an additional mini,market, liquor store or gas station in the area. There are presently five gas stations on the corners of Del Rosa and Date street or Date Place. There are nine stores selling off site alcohol within a six block area. There are seven existing mini mar~ets within a six block area of the proposed developlllent. " In that area we have already had one Circle K Store close and a Safeway Market close. Recently, one of the liquor stores was forced to sell or face bankruptcy. '-' . ....... ~ "",~j Mayor Bob Holcomb November 27, 1989 Page Two , It was felt by a majority of the Planning commission (four to three vote) that the addition of another gas station, mini market and alcohol sales to the area would be detrilllental to the neighborhood and would result in an over supply of competition to the area which is going to result in one or more stores closing and creating additional blight in the area. We have two people who have purchased either an existing liquor store or an existing gas station in the past four months and those operations are presently marginal. The installation of another twenty-four hour store in this area is also going to substantially increase the traffic off of the interstate freeway. For those reasons the Planning commission felt we should not have another mini market, gas station or alcohol sales in that area. The Planning Staff recommended approval of this project and the commissioners voted four to three to deny the proposed proj ect. . R second item which was heard on Novelllber 7, 1989 which I believe will be appealed is conditional Use permit t86-26 on tentative track 113365. The applicant, Darwin It. pearson, was requesting a one year extension of time for tentative track '13365 and Conditional Use Permit '86-26 to construct a forty-two unit condominium project on the corner of Del Rosa Avenue and Marshall Boulevard. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the extension of time based on the following reasons. 1. After almost two years of attempting to have the applicant remove a burned out deserted house, the City had to remove the house at a cost of almost $17,000.00 to the city. 2. The project is proposed as a condominium with individual ownership. Condominiums have notoriously not sold well in the San Bernardino area and the size and location of these condominiums would make them less than acceptable as owner '. ~ , .....,., , - j Mayor Bob Holcomb November 27, 1989 paqe Three occupied condominiums. It was the fee1inq of the p1anninq commission that these condominiums would be sold to absentee landlords who would then rent tham out to tenants and in the end we would have a project similar to that on sterlinq and Hiqh1and. It was the fee1inq of the P1anninq commission that we would rather see the construction of an apartment complex that is individually owned so there could be uniform control over all tenants rather than havinq forty-two condominiums owned by forty-two absent landlords. It was the fee1inq of the p1anninq commission that to install a condominium project in that area would be completely incompatible with the neiqhborhood and would result in absentee landlord ownership of some forty-two separate units. I very seldom write concerninq any items decided by the Planninq Commission but I feel most stronqly that the Planninq commission took the riqht action in both of these matters and I am equally certain that both of these items will be appealed to the Mayor and Common council. If I can answer any individual questions for you I will be happy to do so. Yours .truly, ROY B. NIERMAN RHN:mw cc: Larry Reed " C ATTACHMENT F ':J CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST Fn" . COUNCIL ACTION . STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Planning commission' Denial of Extension of Time for Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 and Tentative Tract No. 13365 M~yor and Council Meeting of December 18, 1989 REQUEST The applicant, Darwin K. Pearson, is. appealing the den~al of an extension of time request for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 and Tentative Tract No. 13365 by the Planning Commission. The applicant requests that the Mayor and Council reconsider the denial and approve the extension of time. BACKGROUND This proposed project is a development of 42 condominium units on 3.05 acres located on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue about 314 feet north of Marshall Boulevard. This project was originally approved on September 16, 1986, prior to the adoption of the Interim policy Document and the General Plan. A Negative Declaration was adopted for the project at that time. The General Plan designates the project site RM, Medium Residential, or fourteen units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 13.2 units per acre and is consistent with the General Plan. The applicant submitted an incomplete set of construction plans for Technica~ Building Code Review on June 30, 1988 (lacked struc- tural calculations, roof truss plan, and other structural details). The applicant failed to provide the missing plans and the Technical Plan Check application expired on January 30, 1989. The'applicant will need to resubmit construction plans, including plan check fees prior to obtaining the required building permits. At the November 7, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission, by a 4 to 3 vote, denied the one-year.extension of time request for the project. The Commission was very concerned that a condominium project in this area would promote the conditions necessary for blight to occur. They thought that the units may be purchased by investors, and that these "absentee landlords" and renters would not take care of the units in an appropriate manner. The Commission also expressed concerns over the applicant's financial capability to construct the project and the market potential for condominiums. (See Roy Nierman's letter, Exhibit C.) The applicant, in his appeal letter, has provided a history'of the causes for the delays-in the development of the project, a record of his development experience, a market analysis and tne present finan- cial situation of the project's financing. The problem of potential future blight was not addressed by the applicant, except by showing examples of the high quality of architecture that his project was proposing to provide. (See Exhibit A, Applicant's Letter of Appeal with Attachments). 75-0264 . .- ~. -.J '- .' Appeal of "CUP 86-26 _ Mayor and ..",. Planning .mnission Denial of Extensi and TT 13365 Council Meeting of 12/18/89 of Time for Page 3 Options Available to the Mayor and Council The Mayor and council may: 1. Deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 and Tentative Tract No. 13365, based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Statement of Official Planning Commission Action. (Supports Planning Commission decision.) or 2. Uphold the appea~ and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 and Tentative Tract No. 13365, based on the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval contained in the Novem- ber 7, 1989 Planning commission staff report. (Supports the appellant's request.) RECOMMENDATION This is a difficult recommendation to make in view of the very strong Planning Commission concerns, but because of the project's compliance with the General Plan, staff is continuing to recommend approval of the project. Staff hopes the applicant builds high quality develop- ment and targets the development to the owner-occupied portion of the housing market. Prepared by: John E. Montgomery, AICP Principal Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning and Buildi~g Exhibit A _ Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and council with Attachments B _ Statement of Official Planning Commission Action . C _ Roy Nierman's Letter to the Mayor and Council D - Public Hearing Notice E _ November 7, 1989 planning Commission Staff Report 12/4/89 mId . ,- 4.,..,. .- '....j EXHIBIT A . Darwin K. Pearson 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach. Ca 92661 (7141 673-5712 November 16. 1989 City of San Bernardino 300 North 'D' Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 Attn: City Clerk Re: Required notification to appeal the denial for an Extension of Time associated Permit 86-26 and Tentative Tract 13365. Planning commission's wi th Conditional Use Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On ~ovember 7. 1989. the Planning Commission voted to deny our request for a one-year extension of time under the authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.83.140 and 19.83.300. We respectfully request through this appeal that their decision be overturned based upon the merits of the project and the many positive aspects to the surrounding areas. the people. and the City of San Bernardino. Enclosed please find a marketing report prepared by Builder Sales Corp. which reflects a positive feasibility assessment of the project. In the report they have taken into account the immediate area. the lack of affordable housing in the Southern California new home sales communities. and other condominium projects which were completed in the San Bernardino area. It should be noted that the construction of this project will be of high quality and result in pride of ownership. I have worked with a developer on three previous projects which were designed by the architect selected for this project. The projects are located in Grand Terrace. Rialto and Newport Beach (see enclosed photographsl. While the sale prices varied greatly between these units. the quality of design and construction did not. The units in Rialto were completed in April of 1984 and are currently selling in the high 70's to mid 80's. Yet. after 5 years the project still reflects pride of ownership as do the other two projects. This is the type of project which we are trying to acheive. .~'......-,../~"",;.._._,,,....' ...........__ ..~'''i~;,...~...!~ ,..".....,-. ",'-..,..,..-':',' " ~-' .-~...",. ~.. s..,eC:1aJ. .tCCUI...LUU CUlU"""''''' ..,'"',.-7....~1.... ~_.-...\,:.- -',:,:,'~~_.':"V'_'_ :..'- . ::' project also. It is next to a boarded up strip center and and older apartment complex with many unsightlY characteristics. Just 1 c ...., , -.J . ~, ...::..... .. ,north of the si te is another boarded up commercial property. Testimony was given on November 7, 1989 by area residents and merchants that any more competition (specifically an ARCO Mini- Mart) would be bad for the area. This project will add 42 famil~es, directly effecting the commercial atmosphere in a very positive manner. The project will be fully enclosed, landscaped, with decorative wrought iron fencing along the front with limited access via a 2 lane bridge over the flood control channel. This will keep the less desirables from trafficing through the project while at the same time provide an uplift for the community. At the Planning Commission meeting on November 7, 1989 there was some concern expressed regarding our financial condition and our ability to successfully complete this project. This project has had many ups and downs over the last three years including the building moratorium. The moratorium resulted in our being in escrow on the property for over 2 years and the original developers/partners sold their interest to me in the form of secured notes at close of escrow. While in escrow, interest on the unpaid balance and principal pay-downs were required so that the escrow would not be canceled. Up front development costs to date have totaled approximately $125,000, including engineering and: bridge design, soils testing, traffic study, hydrology study of the flood control channel, plan check fees, architecture and legal costs.This does not include the cost of the. land. This money is essentially wasted as a result of the Planning Commission denial. In addition, as of August 1989 we now own the property free and clear which had been a necessary condition for the construction financing. The first half of 1989 I had a construction loan out for a custom condominium project in Newport Beach which is now completed. This along with taking in two venture capital partners will ensure the financing for the project. Our loan packages were recently submitted, the drawings'have been approved and our bonding company is set to issue the required bonds with a set aside letter from the bank. Th~ project, being completely bid through the Dodge Room in San Bernardino in June of this year, giving very accurate construction costs, and my.prior experience in this field will provide for a successful project. (See summary of experience attached) Further consideration for the City as a benefit for granting an extension of time will be the added value to the tax roles of the City along with the permit and building fees which exceed $330,000, as delineated below: Street light energy fee Building permit (including traffic fee) School fee Municipal Water District fee '~~,,::....~t"';,~ c_. .._-,.;:~.".,.~..",:;,:",:;:",.;~,~.":".!", ....-- $ 473 B1. 417 60,6B4 62,000 94.920 Sewer connection fees (EVMWD) "J.,41"l> $330,720 2 ". (~ ""-, \.,.. - -" ~ . ,"" A very important aspect in our time 1S due to delays incurred which included: request for the extension of were not in our control which Moratorium on building - All processing of drawings were halted during the one year freeze. While we were given a one year extension commensurate with the moratorium we experienced long delays in plan checking by the City (up to 6 months for a single plan check) which I assume was due to the enormous work load resulting from lifting the moratorium. New agreements between the City of San Bernardino ~unicipal Water District and the East Valley Municipal Water District - Midway through our plan checking, the two districts changed the . jurisdictional areas for providing water service which effected our project. Now the City was to furnish water. This required a new water system design because we were to use cluster metera vs. individually metered units as our conditions of Approval ~ had called for previously (for the benifit of the City). We also had to design and furnish blanket easements vs. line easements to facilitate drawing approval. This change in jurisdiction caused a minimum of 3 months delay due to meetings. design and drawing approval in addition to added development costs. Del Rosa Flood Control Channel - The property for the project is behind an existing flood control channel. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District has mandated that we dedicate a 30 foot wide strip of land. along the complete frontage of the property for future use of the channel. This cut the project from a possible 48 units as ~riginally desiged down to 42 units. Also it has meant that another completely separate agency had to review and approve all our drawings. Further. because of the moritorium the design review process for the Flood Control District had to be done twice. prior to the City completing their plan checks. In summation. we feel that we were unjustifiably denied an extension of time for the project. We have diligently tried to meet all reqirements. changes. and conditions. We have worked through extenuating circumstances associated with this project to the point of being ready to begin construction onlY to be denied the opportunity to build the project or to even have a project at this time. We are not a big development company but are young. able individuals who have invested a great deal of effort. money 3 -'" v ,...''-'''': ...) - .. . and time in a project which we feel will benefit the City of San Bernardino and in particular the immediate area greatly. Again we respectfully request that our appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's denial be granted. ver~ truly yours, .{)~/~ Darwin K. Pearson cc: Mr. Harry Kerames, Owner Mr. Alan J. Parnigoni. Owner Mr. Bud Roberts. Sierra Engineering enclosures , 4 ~ ~ - .pr'''- <<, '~ '--' ~ November 6. 1989 Mr. Darwin Pearson THE DARWIN PEARSON COMPANY 1249 1/2 West Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach. CA 92663 RE: 42 Condos In San Bernardino. Del Rosa and Marshall Ave. Dear Mr. Pearson: This letter serves as our positive feasibility assessment of the property described above. This favorable contention Is based upon the fact that the proposed project has the potential to satisfy a lack of affordable houslnQ In the Southern California new home sales community. A physical Inspection of the site, alonQ with an analysiS of the attached new home market In the Immediate area were performed to accumulate support data. AREA OVERVIEW The site Is located In an established neighborhood. within a short walking distance from the local elementary, Intermediate and high school. It Is also convenientlY located close to shopping. recreation and freeway access. The Immediate area exudes a degree of pride of ownership. (I) BUILDERS SALES CORP. 2101 East Fourth Street. Suite 170-B . Santa Ana. CA 92705 . (714) 834-0303 ~ c "'" ---. ....... H~. Da~wln Pea~sop Novembe~ 6. 1989 Page 2-2-2 San Be~na~dlno Is the typical Southe~n Callfo~nla $ubu~b In that I t has I ts good a~ea$ and bad a~eas. The subJect p~ope~ty Is situated on the no~th side of town. In one of the mo~e de$l~able nelghbo~hoods. This site Is conslde~ed an asset to development. Its location on Del Rosa Is also an advantage. due to the the fact Del Rosa Is a mlno~ t~afflc lane In this a~ea. HARKET OVERVIEW Acco~dlng to the Real Estate Resea~ch Councll*. Southe~n Callfo~nla ~eallzed a 20-30% Inc~ease In home p~lces (ave~age p~lce Just unde~ '250.000) du~lng the second qua~te~ of 1989. San Be~na~dlno County expe~lenced an Increase In housing prices of an average of 23%. This Is the fl~st time that average rates of appreciation have exceeded 20% In San Bernardino County. These Increases have priced a large pe~centage of the population out of the new home ma~ket. even In previOUSlY affordable areas such as San Be~na~dlno. * Real Estate Resea~ch Council. Cal Poly Pomona. June 1989 r-. ........ :> , -- Mr. Darwin Pearson November 6. 1989 Page 3-3-3 There are only a few new home projects that have base prices starting under $100.000. most of which are In San Bernardino County. Base prices are typically the most Important element of the first-time buyer's purchase decision. Down payment and loan qualification are the two Inhibiting factors affecting their purchase. Due to the fact that most first-time buyers have only about $7.000 to $8.000 to work with. It Is more and more common to see co-borrowers helping with the down. There Is legislation currently awaiting President Bush's approval that will Increase the FH~ loan limit from $101.250 to $124.875. This will open up new alternatives for first-time buyers with Income levels over $40.000 per year. . .. . ", . but the lower Income families stili require product well under .$100.000. Due to this lack of affordable homes. there Is very little competitive data available In the Inmedlate area of the subject sl te. We have I ncluded I nformat Ion from three projects that were deemed some degree of competition to Del Rosa Meadows. ,.-~ , '-' :) -..... Hr. Darwin Pearson November 6. 1989 Page 4-4-4 PINE RIDGE VILLAS This townhome/condo project Is located on Victoria and Lynwood I n San Bernardi no. The I ast seven un I ts were so I d by a local resale agent over the last six months. The project was originallY built In 1961. which was a difficult time for real estate In general. and an even worse period for attached product In San Bernardino. The builder went bankrupt and an Individual bought the remaining units and rented them on an option to buy pr09ram. The project Is security gated. with attached garages and approximatelY 1000 square foot un I ts. The last few units sold at $72.500 ($72.50 per square foot>. CENTURY HOMES La Paz at Clmarron Ranch Is currently preselllng In San Bernardino. They started taking reservations In October and have 19 reservations at present. Product ranges In sl::e from 1068 to 1957 square feet. on small lots. and Is priced from $99.990 to $142.990. These base prices will climb above the $100,000 with their next phase release. r J " '-' -.. Mr. DarwIn Pearson November 6. 1989 Pape 5-5-5 HIGHLAND VILLAGE Located on Riverside Avenue In Rlalto. Is a townhome project that has been on-lIne since July 1988. Product ranges from 1090 to 1385 square feet, with 2 car garages. Of the 94 units planned for the development, only 15 remain to be sold. This project has .garnered an average sales rate of 1.1 units per week. This figure Is deceptively low, because of delays In construction that closed the project for an extended period. Base prices start at 578,500 and top out at 5100.000 (approx. 572.00 per square foot). According to a local resale agent, properly priced condo/ townhome product sales are strong. Trends Indicate that a 2 bedroom unit needs to be prIced under $90,000. whIle a 3 bedroom unit Is averaged. priced at $105,000. The more competitively priced. the quicker the sale. RECOMMENDATIONS Taking the above Information Into perspective, we recommend that development of Del Rosa Meadows defInItely be pursued. .I'..~ ~..... '1 '-' J -,. Mr. Darwin Pearson November 6. 1989 Page 7-7-7 Volume ceilings Designer windows (clerestory/sunburst> Recessed bullet/canned lighting In kitchen Microwave oven Trash compactors Garage door openers. In addition. we recommend that the kitchen cabinets be very good qua Ilty. All cabinets can be paint grade, preferably white. If the quality Is there. It Is also Important that all bathrooms have some drawer space, especially the master. It Is also very desirable to have an Informal eating area on hard surface. If pr-oduct Is delivered according to these parameters. an anticipated sales rate of 1.5 to 2.0 units per- week can be anticipated. It Is also necessary to build Into your project proforma an "Insurance" margin of one to two points to be used for- Incentives. buydowns or- bonuses. Sales r-ates ar-e most often affected by escalating Inter-est r-ates and unstable economic factor-so ., " r-- '-' /~ '--J -.... M~. Da~wln Pea~son Novembe~ 6. 1989 Page 6-6-6 The 42 units should be ~eleased In 3 phases of 14 units each. This enables the p~oJect to gain some sales momentum with lowe~ p~lces and stili maximize p~oflts. Bullde~s Sa I es Co~p. was p~ov I ded wi th the squa~e footage of the single floo~plan. howeve~ a floo~plan ~evlew was not pe~fo~med. We suggest the following p~lclng st~ategy: PL,.N 1 sa.FT. 930 LEVEVBED/B,.TH 2/2/2 1/2 G,.R,.GE 2 RECOMMENDED PRICE/VALUE PH. I s78 . 990 ($84.93> PH. II s80 .990 ($87.08> PH. III s82 . 990 ($89.23> (11/89 va lues> In today's housing Indust~y the~e a~e seve~al ve~y Important a~chltectu~al details that have vl~tually been standardized. Some of the mo~e Impo~tant product enhancements a~e as follows: /'"- '-' ,...., v ~ -""- i . I ! Mr. Darwin Pearson November 6. 1989 Pape 8-8-8- To achieve this sales rate an extensive on-site and off-site marketlnp/merchandlslng plan will also be requIred. This campaign should include a complete model complex/sales office. first-rate brochure and carefully planned advertising and slgnage program. . . . Mr. Pearson. thank you for the opportunity to submit this marketIng report to you. Should you have any questions. or require futher Information. please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely. BUILDERS SALES CORP. Y;~/f:'~ Melanie r.. BriQps Vice President of Marketing I"~ '-' ~, . J ..:.. DARIIIII I; PEARSOII Summary of Experience Qualifications: Registered Professional Engineer, State of California License lIumber C33428 Bold California Contractors License in the following two classifications: (A) - General Engineering (B) - General Building Construction Management. Project Development General Partner/Builder 42 Unit Condominium Project, San Bernardino. CA (Scheduled to start November 1989) $2.800.000 Owner/Builder 2 Unit Custom Condominium Project. lIewport Beach. CA Completed May 1989. $715.000 Owner/Builder 18 Unit Apartment Coaplex, Besperia. CA Completed September 1986. $662,000 .Client - Morgan Development, Inc., Orange. CA - (714) 921-2590 Provided Construction Management services including on site supervision. engineering and architectural drawing review. .s well .s processing all documents and drawings through municipal agencies. comaissions, boards and building departments. Completed Contracts: 60 House Tract, Riverside. CA 17 Bouse Tract. Lake Elsinore. CA 15 House Tract. Lake Elsinore, CA 11 House Tract. lIorco, CA 15 Bouse Tract, lIorco, CA 3/88 - $6,100.000 - 7/87 - $2.300.000 - 10/87 - $2,000.000 - 12/86 - $1.500.000 - 11/85 - $1.900,000 Page 1 of 3 ~ c - -..I _"'l. DARWIN J:. PEARSOII Subcontracted on-Site and Off-Site waterline. sewer system. and storm drainage systems for the following projects: 11 House Tract. Norco. CA 15 Rouse Tract, Norco. CA 41 Townhouses. Rialto, CA 17 Townhouses. Newport Beach. CA 4/86 - $81.000 - 5/85 - $66.000 3/84 - $92.000 - 12/83 - $44.000 Client _ Herbert' Boghosion. Inc., Laguna Beach. CA - (714) 497-2184 Provided supervision and various subcontracted trade work. Tenant Improvement work requires fast tract construction principles and critical scheduling between the trades. Owner furnished portions of the work. non-standard work hours. necessary work restrictions associated with this type of construction. Building Departments and required inspections. petries Store. San Bernardino. CA - 10/87 - $71.000 X'tras Store. San Bernardino. CA - 11/87 - $83.000 Electronics Boutique. Glendale. CA - 5/87 - $78.000 Sizes Unlimited Store Conversions. Merced. FresnO. Clovis. Visalia. Bakersfield. CA 3/85 - $96.000 Williams-Sonoma Stores - Supervision only Cupertino. CA - 7/84 - $ 8.000 San Francisco. CA - 9/84 - $ 8.000 Lynn's Ball.ark Store. Orange. CA - 10/84 - $22.000 Steve P. Rados. Inc.. Engineering Contractors. Santa Ana. CA 7/79 - 9/83: Project Engineer Responsibilities included tbe following: Construction Scheduling, directing subcontracted work. estimating. material take off and ordering. shop drawing review, shoring design and supervision. preparation of .onthly pay estimates. change order negotiations. claims. cost reports. Page 2 of 3 r '-' -"' ,:) t DARrII I. PEARSON Design Development Group, Inc., Cheshire, CT 6/78 - 9/78: Civil Engineer Responsibilities included survey work, i.e., property line, topographic, subdivision layout; septic design and structural analysis. Francis T. Zappone Realty, Waterbury, CT 5/74 - 6/78: Part-time, Assistant to the Co-Designerl Construction Superintendent. Assisted in building apartment complex of 254 townehouses, shopping plaza, houses and built-in swimming pools. Helped in surveying and layout" minor estimating. Worked many aspects of building, i.e., pouring foundations, framing, trim, repairs, through completion of projects. Education: Stanford University Stanford, California 1978 - 1979 Master of Science, Civil Engineering - Construction Engineering and Management: Emphasis of study concerned the management of people, lOney, and equipment to accomplish engineering construction cOBpletely and profitably. Subjects included costs and estimates; equipment and methods; planning, scheduling and control; administration; human resource management; work improvement; labor relations; equipment replacement policy, and computer applications. University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut 1973 - 1978 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering. Emphasis of study on analysis and design of statically determinate and indeterminate structures in structural steel and reinforced concrete; soil engineering and foundation design; surveying; hydraulics and environmental applications. Page 3 of 3 1l; . ~rl. .'. ~ . , ... Grand Terrace ", '-' ,:) u .",f Grant Terrace L ,"-' '-' .:. '"'^ '\ ~ '~ ~ . ,." '. ,',' <.7 .' , "'~~~~~"'c".:~ ,Grand Terrace . ,r - _..~ _~.__.~..'Ca!!"!"'-- - ~ - l' t.' ~:- Grand Terrace '-~ -j I ,/ -:'-' ~ 7~ '/ \. ~ \01 f! Grand Terrace .~- ...,.,..---- : k_ -., \....; -~ :> ! . . .. :'" - ,4 Grand Terrace -,.., ''-'"'I -:) I "' - .. ...--.... .-=... - . ~ ~.... ~-. ...~. ,""- -":,-_~Ar -~..~-- ''- Newport Beach ., .....,-." .,-" '\ ) \'",""; - -- ....... .. .:~.~~.. _..~....~.- ... ff .. -- Newoort Beach '-' o ...,..,-~ ., ".....11 ~. - ........ -, --. ".' '":'-~ .., ~------ -- Rialto ., """>-- -- -, ~ ~.aE"'" .~-- "'.'-~'" .~ ~ ~. ....;~- ~ i , ~ ll.':' ~. ; -.. . _:....' ,." . ..' ~ .:.;..,... ::.;~...; ..'. ...... ~"'"~' -"' - . ::~~. 2'$ '#.;.i'"..l:i . ..~_7: ... Rialto -0 ... ~.,4 .") ~.. .lo:.' . lC I - ",-.;t. J' .0#" Rialto ..,.... '- .::) ." "".. . Rialto ~ '- EXHIBIT B ,-~ v City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ~~O.JECT :;'~::lber: Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 13365 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 ;'.pplicant: Darwin K. Pearson J.:::TION ~eeting Date: November 7, 1989 x Denied Extension of Time Based Upon Following Findings of Fact the ::NDINGS OF FACT Tentative Tract 1. The tract is consistent with the General Plan adopted by the Mayor and Council on June 2, 1989, in that the proposal meets all the . requirements of the RM, Residential Medium, land use designation with respect to size, dimension, and density. 2. The proposed tract abuts upon a dedicated. street; that street being Del Rosa Avenue. The main entry point on Del Rosa will provide adequate ingress/egress for the proposed project. 3. The proposed tract is consistent with the provisions of Title 18 and the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. Conditional Use Permit , The proposal is consistent with by the Mayor and Common council proposed use as a Planned Development is permitted as a with a Conditional Use Permit. the General Plan adopted on June 2, 1989; the Residential Condominium medium residential use 2. The proposal is not compatible with the adjoining residential land uses consisting primarily of apartments to the north and west, and single-family dwellings to the east, in that condominiums have more potential for blight because of absentee landowners and the greater tendency for the occurrence of crime than a lower density, single-family development. ~. The site is of sufficient size, shape, and area to accommodate the proposed 42-unit condominium complex. . , ( ,.... ""\ city of San Be~'-'..aino .....; STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Extension of Time for Conaitional Use Permit No. 88-26 Page 2 4. Access, circulation, and parking for the proposed proje~t is adequate. Access for entry and egress will be V1a the main entry point on Del Rosa Avenue. Circulation is provided throughout the site for tenants, guests and emergency vehicles via a circular drive surrounding the complex. Eighty-four tenant parking spaces are provided as required, and 34 guest parking spaces are required (25 guest spaces in excess of the number required by code). 5. The granting of an Extension of Time will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of San Bernardino, in that condo- miniums have more potential for blight because of absentee landowners and the greater tendency for the occurrence of crime than a lower density, single-family development. ~ Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Clemensen, cole, Stone None None Sharp Corona, Lindseth, Lopez, Nierman, I, hereby, certify that this Statement of accurately reflects the final determination commission of the city of San Bernardino. 4~ ['~4~./ sign ure ~ Official Action of the Planning --'1::'// ,~1 IE? Date I Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning and Building Name and Title cc: Project Applicant Project Property Owner Building and safety Department Engineering Division Case File lIIkf PCAGENDA: PCACTIONA . -,-. '-' EXHIBIT C ..-.........., .....I IoO&t'I , ...~o .,.CIAUST PA....V LAW LAW OPl"lcaa OP ROY H. NIERMAN A ~..IOHAL. CQIItPOIIATION I'" 8Ua~ CEHTZIl D........urra ... &AN .at........DINO' CA1.D'OL"CIA ..... 1'7,......, .... "'.'."17.1 ...... .,.......~ftON Mayor Bo~ Holcomb City Hall 300 North no" street San Bernardino, CA oorn@rn~wrnm DECOl i989 - CITY PLANNiilG DEPARrl'/lEfjj SAN BERNARDINO. CA November 27, 1989 Dear Mayor Holcomb: I wish to ~ring to your attention two items heard ~y the Planning commission on November 7, 1989 that I am sure will ~e appealed. The first item is Conditional Use permit '89-20 which is a request to construct an A.M. P.M. Mini Market on the corner of Date Street and Del Rosa Avenue. This matter first came before the Planning commission in Octo~er 1989 and was continued to November 1989 so that the applicant could provide the planninq commission with a marketinq study concerning the effect this A.M. P.M. Mini Market would have on the existing qas stations, mini markets and liquor stores. The applicant failed to provide a marketinq study and the representative of ARCO products refused to allow the planning Commission to have a copy of their marketinq study. There were at least seven ~usiness owners in the audience who o~jected to an additional mini market, liquor store or gas station in the area. There are presently five gas stations on the corners of eel Rosa and Date Street or Date Place. There are nine stores sellinq off site alcohol within a six ~lock area. There are seven existing mini markets within a six block area of the proposed development. In that area we have already had one Circle K store close and a Safeway Market close. Recently, one.of the liquor stores was forced to sell or face ~ankruptcy. . ?""' ....., ,--. v Kayor Bob Holcomb November 27, 1989 paqe Two It was felt by a majority of the Planninq Commission (four to three vote) that the addition of another qas station, mini market and alcohol sales to the area would be detrimental to the neiqhborhood and would. result in an over supply of competition to the area which is qoinq to result in one or more stores closinq and creatinq additional bliqht in the area. We have two people who have purchased either an existinq liquor store or an existinq qas station in the past four months and those operations are presently marqinal. The installation of another twenty-four hour store in this area is also qoinq to substantially increase the traffic off of the interstate freeway. For those reasons the planninq commission felt we should not have another mini market, qas station or alcohol sales in that area. The Planninq Staff -recommended approval of this project and the commissioners voted four to three to deny the proposed project. r-A second item which was heard on November 7, 1989 which I , believe will be appealed is Conditional Use Permit '86-26 on tentative track '13365. The applicant, Darwin K. Pearson, was requestinq a one year extension of time for tentative track '13365 and Conditional Use Permit '86-26 to construct a forty-two unit condominium project on the corner of Del Rosa Avenue and Marshall Boulevard. The planninq commission unanimously denied the extension of time based on the followinq reasons. 1. After almost two years of attemptinq to have the applicant remove a burned out deserted house, the City had to remove the house at a cost of almost $17,000.00 to the City. 2. The project is proposed as a condominium with individual ownership. Condominiums have notoriously not sold well in the San Bernardino area and the size and location of these condominiums would make them less than acceptable as owner -- :) -r' Mayor Bob Holcomb November 27, 1989 paqe Three occupied condominiums. It was the feelinq of the Planninq commission that these condominiums would be sold to absentee landlords who would then rent them out to tenants and in the end we would have a project similar to that on Sterling and Hiqhland. It was the feelinq of the Planninq Commission that we would rather see the construction of an apartment complex that is individually owned so there could be uniform control over all tenants rather than having forty-two condominiums owned by forty-two absent landlords. It was the feeling of the Planning commission that to install a condominium project in that area would be completely incompatible with the neighborhood and would result in absentee landlord ownership of some forty-two separate units. I very seldom write concerninq any items decided by the Planning Commission but I feel most strongly that the Planning Commission took the right action in both of these matters and I am equally certain that both of these items will be appealed to the Mayor and Common Council. If I can answer any individual questions for you I will be happy to do so. Yours truly, ROY H. NIERMAN RHN:mw cc:Larry Reed c EXHIBIT D Public Hearing Notice ""' ",.) A notice of the appeal hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the applicant at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per Municipal Code Section 19.81.020. A copy of this notice is attached. ~."" '--' t ...... \ '-' "" OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL APPEAL OF CXHlITICNl\L USE PERolIT 00. 86-26 AND TENrA1'I\IE TIW:T 13365 THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE MAYOR ANO COMMON COUNCIL BY anol;~1.lnt:. SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 aM ( WAR~" J Tentative Tract 13365 r PROPERTY LOCATION : Located on the east side of Del Ibsa Avenue approximately 314 feet north of M1lrshall Ba1levard. PROPOSAL:'lb extend awroval tine limit by one year for Conditional Use Pezmit 86-26 am ~tive Tract 13365 for the construction of 42 c:ormninilmlS. PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418 C HEARING CATE AND TIME: December 18, 1989, 2:00 p.re. ) A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY HALL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING (714) 384-5057. THANK YOU. "- ,., 1"4 d, EXHIBIT E " , \.wi - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - MEMORANDUM (" Planning Commission From Planning Department Date November 7. 1989 To Subject Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-26 TENTATIVE TRACT 13365 EXTENSION OF TIME Date OWNER: Nos. .10 , 11 Darwin K. Pearson Del Rosa Meadows 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Darwin K. Pearson . Harry Kerames Alan J Parnigoni 1249 1/2 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Agenda Item APPLICANT: 1. REOUEST The applicant is requesting a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 13365 and conditional Use Permit 86-26 to. construct a 42 unit condominium project under the authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.83.140 and 19.83.300. 2 . LOCATION The project site consists of 3.05 acres located on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue approximately 314 feet north of Marshall Boulevard. 3. ANALYSrS The proposal was approved prior to the adoption of the Interim POlicy Document (IPD). The findings of consistency of.the project were based upon conformance with Titles 18 and 19 of the Municipal Code and Ea.t San Bernardino-Highland General Plan, and its compliance with the then existing PRD- 14, Planned Residential Development, zone districts's permitted uses. subsequent to project approval on September 16, 1986, the General Plan was adopted by .the Mayor and Common Council. The General Plan designates the project site RM, Residential Medium. The proposed 42-unit Condominium Planned Residential Development is a permitted use with a Conditional Use Permit under San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 19.83, Interim Urgency Zoning Ordinance, and Attachment "B-1", Table of Permissible Uses. (MI,'lf ./ ~'~: . ... f:='::';:; .:ai.;:~) >i-yfF ".......~ . . . ( C TENTATIVE TRACT 13356 (EXTENSION OF TIME) NOVEMBER 7, 1989 PAGE 2 o Per section 19.83.140, Extension. of Time, "no extension of time application may be approved unle.sa written finding is made by the city that the development project is consistent with the General Plan ..." The proposal was reviewed by staff and is consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan (Attachment "A"). 4. CONCLUSION The proposed 42-unit Condominium planned Residential Develop- ment is consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan. 5. ( RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planninq commission approve the request for an Extension of Ti.e for Tentative Tract 13365 ,and conditional Use Permit 86-26 subject to the followinq Findinqs of Fact (Attachment "B"), Conditions of Approval' and Standard Requirements (Attachment "C" and "0"). Respectfully R.~ Michael R. Finn Planner I ATTACHMENTS: "A" _ Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance "B" - Findinqs of Fact "C" - conditions of Approval "0" - standard Requirement. "E" _ oriqinal staff Report (9/16/86) "F" _ LoCation Map with current Land Use oes iqnat ions pc: TT133650 - - ,- '- ATTACHMEN'l' . A . o ( r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CASE '1''1' 13365 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE , , '1IiIAQ . MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CAtegory Permitted Use proposal Condominiums Municipal Code Yes General Plan Height 2 stories 3 stories or 42 ft. Yes 3 stories or 42 ft. Setbacks Front 5.ft. plus 5 ft. plus N/A 1.33 ft./15 1 ft./15 ft continuous wall continuous wall 69.25 ft. from 25 ft. on N/A . Del Rosa Ave. major arterial 125 ft. from flood channel) 381 ft. 60 ft. min. N/A 363.75 ft. 100 ft. min. N/A 29' .50' N/A 2 bedroom 2 bedroom N/A 926 sq. ft. 650 sq. ft. or more or more 13.2 units/acre 14 units/acre 14/units/acre Interior Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Coverage Unit Size Densi~y Parking Unit Guest 4/5 units 1/5 units N/A N/A 2, both covered 2, 1 covered <. - c. ATTACHMENT "s" o (", CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE '1"1' 13:165 FINDINGS of FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATe111 7/8 9 PAGE 4 11 \.. ~ATYVE TRJ..~ 1~~6S 1. The tract is consistent with the General Plan adopted by the Mayor and Council on June 2, 1989, in that the proposal meets all the requirements of the RM, Residential Medium Land Use Designation with respect to size, dimension, and density. 2. The proposed tract abuts upon a dedicated street; that street being Del Rosa Avenue. The main entry point on Del 'Rosa will provide adequate ingress/egress for the proposed project. 3. The proposed tract is consistent with the provisions of Title 18 and the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California. CONDYTYONAL USE ~~RMcrT 86-26 1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan adopted by the Mayor and Common council on June 2, 1989; the proposed use as a Planned Residential Condominium Development is permitted as a medium residential use with a conditional Use Permit. 2. The proposal is compatible with the adjoining residential land uses consi.ting primarilY of apartments to the north and west, and .ingle-family dwellings to the east. 3. The site i. of .ufficient .ize, shape, and area to accommodate the proposed 42-unit condominium complex. 4. Access, circulation, and parking for the proposed project is adequate. Acce.s for entry and egress will be via the main entry point on oel Rosa Avenue. circulation is provided throughout the aite for tenants, ~ests and emergency vehicle. via a circular drive surrounding the complex. Eighty-four tenant parking spaces are provided as required, and 34 guest parking spaces are required (25 guest spaces in excess of the number, required by code). 5. The qrantinq of an conditions of approval not be detrimental to general welfare of the Bernardino. Extension of Time under the and standard requirements will the peace, health, safety, and citizens of the City of San' 10... PC: TT13365"F ( c. , ATTACHMENT .C. '''"'\ . '-wi CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE '1''1' 13365 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 1 ~ HEARING DATE 11 / 7 89 PAGE -.; ..... 2. x The 4 parking spaces at the main entry/egress point on Del Rosa Avenue fronting the 15 foot flood control access strip shall be deleted for both safety and aesthetics. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements of the original approval of Tentative Tract 13365 and conditional Use Permit 86~26 shall apply, with the exception of the . Planning Department's Conditions and R~quirements which are superceded by the attached. 1. -L r' '- 1'.... '-" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT 13365 CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 11 1117/89 ~ Minor modifications to the plan shall be subject to approval by the Director of planning. An increase of more than 10 percent of the square footage or a significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to (planning commission and Development Review Committee) review and approval. construction shall be in substantial conformance with the Plans approved by the Development Review committee, Planning Commission or Director of planning. The developer is to submit a complete master landscape and irrigation plan (4 copies) for the entire development to the Engineering Department with the required fee for approval, the landscape plans will be forwarded to the Parks, Recreation, and community Services and the planning Department for review and approval. (Note: the issuance of a building permit, by the Department of Building and safety of the City of San Bernardino, does ~ waive these requirements/conditions.) No grading permits will be issued prior to approval of landscape plans. The design shall include, but not be limited to the following: street .trees shall be planted on 3S foot center spacinqunless otherwise indicated by the Department of ParkS, Recreation, and community Services. The Parks Department shall determine the varieties and locations prior to planting. A ainimum of 25' of the trees shall be 24" box specimens. Trees are to be inspected by a Park Division representative Drior to planting. . Planters shall be enclosed with concrete curbing. The setbacks from the north _ , south - , east , west _ property line shall be bermed at a iAXImum 3:1 slope and shall be planted with a tall fescue type turfgrass. A Landscape buffer zone shall be installed between facilities and street. STANDARD CONDITIONS 3. X . 4. X .- \..... CITY. OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE 'l'T 13365 . ( r\ '-' . " CONDITIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 11 11/7/89 5. .6 X . The landscape and irriqation plans shall comply with the "Procedure and Policy for Landscape and Irriqation" (available from the Parks Department).. subject. to the Conditions of the Department of Parks and Recreation (attached). y Trees, shrubs and qroundcover of a type and quality qenerally consistent or compatible with that Characterizing sinqle- family homes shall be provided in the front yard and that portion of th side yards which are visible fro. the street. All landscaped areas must be provided with. an automatic irriqation system adequate to insure their via~ility. The landscape and irriqation plans shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. . At all times the business will be operated in a manner which does not produce obnoxious noise, vibration, odor, dust, smoke, qlare, or other nuisance. A sign program for the multi-tenant commercial/industrial center shall be approved by the planning Department prior to issuance of Certificate of occupancy. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the city will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant aqrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents. and employees from any claim, action, or proceedinq against the City of san Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligation under this condition. PCAGENDA:STNDCONDITIONS 10/19/89 ~ "'" v \...; ~"D. , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO . ---- ( ~./. . CASE TT 13365 CUP 86-:lb AGENDA ITEM 11 HEARING DATE 1:117/89 PAGE . 8 . STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Extension of Tine for TI' 13365 and Conditional Use Pemit 86-26 shall be in etrect for a period of ~ months from the date of approval by the Planning commission and/or Planning Department. However, if the final map has not been filed with the county Recorder's Office at the end ot the 12 month time period, the approval shall expire. Additional time may be approved by the planning Commission upon written request of the applicant if made 30 days prior to expiration of the -11- month time period. Expiration Date: November 7. 1990 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D. .... ~ 1. x 2. x a. ~ b. The Covenants, conditions and Restrictions (CC , R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC , R's shall include liability insurance and methods of aaintaininq the open space, recreation areas, perking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. The CC' R's shall also include a statement that no radio frequency antenna shall be included within the complex except for central antenna systems. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to .eet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available feature. of the developaent. Such entity . shall operate under recorded cc 'R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments. to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC 'R's shall permit enforcement by the City of provisions required by the City as conditions to approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the Commission prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided intere.t in the coa.on areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an ~ c. .... u, "'" \,..." - v ( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS CASE 'rr 13365 CUP 86-26 AGENDA ITEM 11 HEARING DATE 1117/f PAGE ,. association, owning the common areas and facilities. d. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including ~arkWays, shall be provided for in the CC , R's. e. The CC , R's shall contain wording prohibiting the storage or parking of trailers, boats, campers, motor homes, and similar vehicles outside of the specified common areas. PARKING: 3 x a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of ~ parking spaces. b. All parking and driving aisles shall be surfaced with two inches of AC over a suitable base or equivalent as approved by the city Engineer. parking spaces shall be striped. and have wheel stops installed at least three feet from any building, wall, fence, property line, or walkWay. c. Whenever .an off-street parking area is adjacent .to or across an alley from property zoned residential, a solid decorative wall six feet in height shall be erected and maintained along the property line so as to separate the parking area physically from the residentially zoned property, provided such wall shall be three feet in height when located within the required front or street side yard setback. Where no front or street side yard is required, such wall shall be three feet in height when located within ten feet of the street line. Said wall shall be located on the north ~, south _, east _, west _ or peripheral _ property lines. d. Whenever an off-street parking area is located across the .tr.et from property zoned for residential uses, a solid decorative wall or .quivalent landscaped berm not less than thr.. f.et in height .hall b. erected and maintained along th....treet .ide of the lot not closer to the street than the required depth of the yard in the adjoininq residential area. No fence or wall located in the front setback shall obscure the r.quir.d front setback landscaping. said wall .hall be located on the north _, .outh _, east -' west _, or peripheral _ property lines. All parking areas and vehicle storage areas shall be lighted. during hours of darkness for security and protection. Recreational vehicle storage areas shall be screened by at. least .J ( 4. x (, ,." III .. r '-' ' r, V c,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS "" CASE Tr 13365 CUP 86-26 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE .. 11 "1., I!'.n 10 r 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 10 11. "" x a six-foot high decorative wall with .creened gates. There shall be provided for each unit, within the garage or carport, or other specifically de.ignated area, a loft or other usable storage area with a mini.um of 150 cubic feet in addition to standard utility storage. Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads shall be subject to the city Traffic Engineer's approval. A commercial-type drive approach, as shown on Standard Drawing No. 204 or equivalent, shall be constructed at each entrance to the development. Location and design shall be subject to approval of the Engineering Division. Prior to issuance of any building permit, access rights shall be granted to the city for the purpose of allowing access over the private drives within the project for all necessary City vehicles including fire, police, and refuse disposal vehicles, and any other emergency vehicle.. The documents covering this' matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the planning Department. All refuse storage areas are to be enclosed with a decorative wall. Location, size, type and de.ign of wall are subject to the approval of .the Planning Department and Division of Public Services superintendent. Energy and noise insulation eball comply with all state and local requirements. x x LANDSCAPING: a. of a master landscape plan shall Engineering Division for review shall include, but not be limited be and to, Four (4) copies submitted to the approval. The plan the following: 1) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed. 2) Irrigation plan. Such other alternate plants, materials and design concepts as may be proposed. 4) Erosion control plans. 3) b. Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior ~ .... oIlY ~""," '- ...... -' C' CITY' OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS \.. CASE '1'1' 13365 alP 86-26 AGENDA ITEM 11 HEARING DATE 1l/7/R9 PAGE " ~ l r 12 x 1 x ... ""'\ diverqinq from the front to rear of the lot, shall have a width of not less than 60 feet measured at the riqht anqle to the lot depth at. the midway point between the front and rear lot lines, and a width of not less than 40 feet measured alonq the front lot line as delineated on the tract map. Where lots occur on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, a minimum lot depth of ~ feet will be permitted. If the proposed depth is less than ____ feet, a plot plan must be submitted to demonstrate that a buildable lot area is possible and to justify the lesser depth. Variable front buildinq setback lines of at least feet and averaqinq feet, and side street buildinq setback lines 15 feet shall~delineated on the final tract map. All qaraqe entrances on a dedicated street shall have a minimum setback of 18 feet. Perimeter walls and walls required alonq the rear of all double frontaqe lots shall be desiqned and constructed to incorporate. desiqn features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, decorative masonry, columns, or other such features to provide visual and physical relief alonq the wall face. The developer shall obtain planninq Department approval of the visual or enqineerinq desiqn of the proposed wall. When qraded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the slope face shall be a part of the downhill lot. 'Exceptions to this requirement must be approved by the City Enqineer. Gradinq and reveqetation shall be staqed as required by the City Enqineer in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to precipitation. compliance with all recommendations of the Geoloqy Report" shall be required (if applicable). Any clubhouse, swimminq pool, spa, puttinq qreen, picnic areas or other amenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on the approved site plan. Durinq construction the city Enqineer may require a fence around all or a. portion of the periphery of the tract site to minimize wind arid debris damaqe to adjacent properties. The type of. fencinq shall be approved by the city Enqineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control. ~ ".1 .., CI ,......" "-..J .;,':;: ( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS \.. "CASE "'1'1' 1i365 CUP 6-26 AGENDA ITEM 11 HEARING DATE llljl89 PAGE 2 ~ 14 x" 15 x 16 x 17 x ( "'I No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on eny building unless screened as specifically approved by the planning Department (except for solar collection panels). within 75 feet of any single-faaily residential district, the maximum height of any building shall not exceed one-story or 20 feet unless the Commission deteraines that due to unusual topographical or other features, such restrictive height is not practical. " installed underground subject to Planning Department and the ~ity All utility lines shall be exceptions approved by the Engineer. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to compliance with these Standard Requirements as well as all provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal code. csj/5-9-88 DOC:PCAGENDA DOCUMENTS .1 ~ .." ..., c ~, -....J ATTACHME~T "En ( 'C:ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT '" SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM '\ HEARING DATE Q /", / II I'. WARD I. r;~r ~ 1 Tentative Tract ~o. 13365 5 ' Conditional Use Per~i: ~ ~o. 66-26 rAPp~ICANT ,;or8an uevel.opment '" 2727 W. Newport Blv~. ,#lOL Newport Beach. CA 92663 CWNE~. Edith Faye Boon 3462 Del Rvsa Avenue San B~rnardino, CA 921.01. & i. nc : I- I \!he rec;uest is to establish a 44 unit condominium s1.lbdivision ! f3 in the PRD-14, Planned Rc:sidential Development zone. 14 units I:> jper acre. : a I i lAl . : a: . I ,'11SuLjec~ property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con- i <: ! !sisting of approximately 3.85 acres having a ftontage of 3El ! ~ ! jfeet or: tr.e ea~~ _ si~e of Del Rosa Avenue and being located . <% ,;appro,,:..mately 3)). 4J feet north of the centerline of , '". .' 1" 1 d . i ;..arsr'.d~ .,ou evar . I. " \......... ',--- ('---1 EXIST;NG ; ;'C;C"~FTY , ( LAND USE 1-----... ; Su:,ject i Single-ram. Res. :;orth : Apart::tents So_th Vacant East ,Single-Fao. Res. West ,Apartcents ZONING PRD-14 PRD-14 PRD-14 County R-l PRD-14 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Res. 6-14 'du/ac Res. 8-14 dulac Res. 8-7 dulac Res, 4-7 dulac Res. 8-14 ciu/3c , , , ~~-G~;.~~~-;:'SMI: -DVES) C F~OCO HAZARD [)yES OZONE A )( l\.... .. :~!:l:".rJ ZONE !ZJ Ne ZONE ~ NO OZONE' SEWERS (--':;;~-;~,,' -OvES '\ r-;.;;;J'lT NOISEI DvES '\ lr IIEDEVELOPMENT \..-:.'~=:' :~"E' Ga"!) .J l~~'>SH ZONE i]NO) _ PIIClJECT ARE^ ,___ - --- f"":::\ /', \' .' -' I ,r C ~.:r 0 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT '\ i ~ I iXI APPROVAL I <: I :.pp"'C.>B~E t-Ft:TS I 'I 0 : I- I WI rH MITIGATING : ~ IX! CONDITIONS , Zen: : ME~SURES NO E.I.II. I iC( .'~Cl,'I' I\l.Oz _ c : .;:MP~ 0 [ I R.. REOUIRED BUT NO \I. IzZl' I 1&1 , 0 -0 " I S'C'''F'CANr EFFECTS ~ :E \\ITf"I M!TlvATING ,..... l '" !!OJ .... "" , .. i'j >\1. .. z l;!S "0 0 j'C;'l'FlCANT EFFECTS ... 1&1 S;GNlFIC~~ r S~E ATTACHEO [.11. C. ~ l ~..'~EC;~ htINU:ES - loo.. - o DENIAL o CONTINUANCE TO "t;,v ,.11 _1"1110 "\101,",, "'1 S" ,) '\ 1 I \ I .J 1 I , ! ! I ./ ~VES ) ONO DYES " l;:;lNO ) '. \ Jj ( ........ o ( , , CITY OF SAN BERNAROINO PLANNING 'OEPARTMENT""'I ..... !NVIRONMENTAI. IlEVIEW COMMITi'S! NEGATIVE DECLARATION l , ~ (iI CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO G CLERK OF THE BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW COMMITTEE SUPERVI SOl'S lff:J 300 NORTH "D" STRE::T, 3rd FlOOR 115 WEST 5111 STRET SAN BERNARDINO, Col.. 9241 B SAN BE:INARDINO. Col.. 92415 THE ENVIRONMENTAL 1'lEVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. C:'LIFORNIA2~EVl.~~O THE PROJECT DESCRIBED BEL.OW AT IT'S ME::TING OF ,^u~st , AND FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE INITIAL STUDY THE PROJE~ WILL. NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. PROJECT NAME: Tentative Tract No. 13365 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-26 r PROJECT DESCRIPTION :'ND LOC:.TJON: To establish a 44 unit condomini~ development on a site' of approxi- mately 3. 9 acres in me PRD-:--l4., . Planned Residential Development . zone locatei on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue apprOXimately 314 feet north of Marshall toulevard. MITIGATION MEASURES1 IF ANY, TO AVOID POTENTIALL.Y SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: '- .- :::> .. . '- -' - . "" -=;-=. ~ -::.' , - -- - , . .'- - - '. fi ':' ' 0... . . .. - '- ~ - .- . . - ., - .= .. ..::. .- - C> ENVIRONMENTAL IlEV1EW COMMITTEE, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~C.K~ ("'14) 1.3.~57 Srt:l'ETM.,vALtIUE C. ROSS, Assistant pl.uner' DATE -. rELEl'HQHE ~ tIl~ ~OR" Ii '. .- .... ~ c .~. "-.,J ( CITY OF SAN - BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'" EWIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEe: '" NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 2 o II: '"" CITY OF SAN IERNAROINO ENVIRONMEN1'AL. REVIEW COMMIT~EE 300 NO..TH 0 S'l'''EET. 3'" FLOO" SAN IE..NAIlDINO, C.... 9Z-11 SECIlETA..Y FO" RESOURCES o I_II NINTH ST"EET, ROOM 1311 SAC"AMENTO, CA. 9511- o ~ CLERK OF THE IDARD OF SuPERVISORS Ga 175 w(ST 5" STREET SAN IERNAROINO, C.... 92-15 PROJECT NAME' Teneaeive Trace No. 13365 and Coudieiona1 Use Permie PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND L.OCATION: To eseab1ish a 44 unie condomin.iUlll develoo- mene ou a siee of approximaeely 3.9 acres' in ehe PRD-14, Planned Resideneial Oeveloo- mene zone locaeed on the ease side or . Del Rosa Avenue approximaeely 314 feet nort~ or ~rsl:1all Boulevard. ( . ..._~- - .0 ':) ...=:- ..,. . - -. .' ., ., .~ . .. p- ~.- o ,... .~ -'1 ;, :... - .. THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT THE CITY OF SAN lEIlNAROINO HAS MADE THE Flll.LOWING DET~MIWIOIt... REGA"DING THE "ROJECT D~CRIIED AlIOVE: I. THE PROJECT HAS IEIN Cl!AfI....OVED. ODENIED. Z. THE PROJECT OWIU.. ClIWlu.. NOT, HAVE A SlGNI"CAHT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. . 3. 0 AN E/lVIIIONMENTAL. IM..ACT "EPO"T WAS PREPAIlEll JIl)lt THIS ,""OJECT PU"SUANT TO THE ....OVIS.IONS OF CEOA. (]I A NEGATIVE DECL.AIlATION WAS P..E"AIlED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE PIIOVISIONS . OF CEOA. A CO"Y OF THE NEGATIVE DECLA..ATION IS AvalLAILE FOR PUIL.IC ..EVIEW .N THE PL.ANNING DE..AIlTMENT. CITY HALL.. 300 NO"TH "D" STIlUT. SAN IERNA..DIND, CA. UII.. .. A STATEMENT OF OIE"RIDI"G CONSIDEIlATIONS OWAS, G!lWAS NOT. ADOPTED FOR THIS P"OJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL. ..EVIEW COMMITTEE, CITY OF SAN IERNAIlDI"O ~,,;pc. K.HI-- SECRETARYVAl.!:UE C. ROSS. Aal1seane.PllamlPt'" ..IC..... lor FlU.. IT'-' 383.50S7 TELlPMOHE . . rile. 'QIN E ....... ... c ( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT "" CASE TT NO. 13365 & (;ur i'iU. ~b-~b AGENDA ITEM . J HEARING DATE 9/~6/86 PAGE OBSERVATIONS r 1. The applicant is proposing to develop a 42 unit condominium project on approximately 3.31 acres located on the east side of Del Rosa Avenue between Eureka and Marshall Avenues in the PRO, planned Residential Development at 14 units per acre. 2. The General Plan per acre. The density of 12.68 General Plan. designates the site for 8 to 14 units proposed development will have a net units per acre in conformity with the 3. Access to the site will be via a single 32 foot wide driveway approach centrally located in the project site.. After gaining entry into the site, the driveway splits to form a loop drive system so that ingress/egress will be from the same driveway entry approach. The loop internal street system will maintain a minimum of 24 feet throughout. 4. A total of 118 parking spaces (84 covered, 34 open) being proposed on site is 13 more than the minimum number required by code. 5. The units will be two story over tuck-under parking. To the east of the site is existing single-family develop- ment within the R-1-7200, Single-Family Residential zone. The Planned Residential Development zone requires that when adjacent to a single-family development that a restricted height area be established within 75 feet of the adjacent single-family development. The submitted site plan indicates that the project is maintaining the required 7S foot single Btory restriction by placing all the units adjacent to the east property line to the west of the 7S foot line. 6. Between the curb face of Del Rosa Avenue and the buildings is a flood control channel owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood control District. Comments have been received by the Flood Control Districtl a copy of those comments are attached for the Commission's review. To summarize those comments and recommendations, the manner in which the developer has decided to build the units has opted for deep footings with reinforcement rather than meeting a 50 foot setback .from the ultimate right-of-way as stated in recommendation number three from the letter from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. r. CITY OF SAN ~ERNARDINO PLANNINcPOEPARTMENT CASE TT NO, 13365 & OBSER\/ATIONS CUP NO. 86-26 . YI-\,I. ~~~?:GI1~E 9/l~/86 PAGE ." ( 7. The submitted site plan indicates that 25.4' of usable site is devoted to common open space in both passive and active recreational areas. For active recreational amenities the developer will be providing a cabana, pool, spa and laundry room. The passive areas will consist of planted open space greater than 15 feet in width bet~een structures. 8. ( 9. Perimeter fencing will be required to be placed on the north, so~th and east property line. The fencing would need to be a solid decorative fence material such as split-face block, etc. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District has recommended a chain link fence adjacent to the flood control channel. Rather than a chain lin~ fence, Staff is recommending a combination pilaster and wrought iron fence. A wrought iron fence will meet the need of the San Bernardino Flood Control Dist:ict and will be aesthetically enhancing to the project. A condition is attached in regards to the fencing material. The floor plans submitted with the development proposal indicat~ that all units will have two bedrooms each. Forty of the units will consist of 926 square feet and two units will be for the handicapped, consisting of 930 square feet each. The elevations submitted indicate that the exterior building materials will consis~ of stucco and wood siding. No exact type of roofing material is indicated, therefore, Staff would recommend that a color board be submitted prior to. iS8uanceof the building permit indicating all exterior building aaterials. The Environmental Review Committee, at their regularly scheduled ~eetinq ot August 28, 1986, recommended that a negative declaration be adopted for the proposed 42 unit condominium project. 10. 11. ~ C -0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE TT wn rnv un AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ( FINDINGS of FACT , ':\1F.1\ f. Sl~_"~ J o/1~/e6 .; . Findinq~ nf FAct for Tp-n~ativ~ TrAC~ Nn. 13165 1. The site consists of approxi..tely 3.31 acres, which exceeds the mlnlmum development requirement for a one lot subdivision in the planned Residential Development zone. 2. The tract exceeds the Subdivision Ordinance Act. minimum requirement of the City's and the States Subdivision Map 3. The. tract will have frontage on a dedicated Del Rosa Avenue. The main entry point on Del provide adequate ingress/egress for the proje.ct. 4. The proposed project does not exceed the maximum density permitted under the PRD-14 units per acre zone and is consistent with the provisions contained in the East San Bernardino-Highland General Plan allowing for 8-14 units per net acre for residential development. street, Rosa Will proposed Find;n9~ nf FA~t fnr Cnndi~inn~l tt~~ P_rmir Nn. A6-26 1. The proposed project consists of a density of 12.68 units per acre conforms to the goals and objectives of the East San Bernardino-Highland General Plan, which allows the subject property a designation of 8-14 units per net acre. 2. The proposed project. will not adversely impact the adjoining land uses, growth or development of the area. 3. The site is sufficient in area and size to accommodate the proposed 42 unit condominium project. 4. Sufficient access for ingress/egress is provided on site. Adequate circulation is provided throughout the site for tenants, visitors and emergency. vehicles. There are 118 parking spaces provided on site, 13 spaces more than what is required for a condominium. Traffic generated by the project will be adequately handled by Del R(!sa Avenue. 5. The proposed approval will project along with the conditions of not be detrimental to the peace, health, ( /""'.- ,-,. .0 r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING' DEPARTMENT eASE TT NO. 13365 & FINDINGS f ~A'CT c.ur !~O 86-'-*' o rl1 ~~~:-G I~~E q/~F./RF. PAGE .,. safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of San Bernardino. Q~~nM"'~NnATTON Based upon the observations and findings of fact contained herein, Staff recommends the following: . A) The ~egative Declaration be as recommended by the Committee. issued for the proposal Environmental Review B1 The project be approved by existing zoning of General Plan designation for 42 units, PRD-14 and of 8-14 units as specified 'the current per acre. Respectfully Sub~itted, E .l, r C .0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING ~EPARTMENT CASE TT NO. 13365 0. O 0 S \,,;ur L\lU. tsb-;tb AGENDA ITEM J C NDITI N HEARING DATE ~/lb/ob PAG~ f> C. :0. " 1. The north, south and east property lines shall consist of a solid decorative wall. The welt property line shall maintain an open fence material luch al pilaster and wrought iron, which is acceptable to the planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits,"a color board displaying the type of exterior building materials shall be submitted to the planning Department for review and approval. 3. The recommendation of the San Bernardino County Flood Control distr ict for mitigation measures shall be" adhered to and other pertinent requirements of the City Engineer for mitigation of potential flood damage. \.. > DEPA~TMENT OF TRANO~RTATION/ FLOOD CONTROL/AIRPORTS - .:::.~ Eat, ThIrd ._, . .... ___. CA 52415-0835 . 17141387.2100 - '~,\\~~/ -~t 10<- ~ ':Ii- --" -- .-.:- ..;::00 .......~ ~- /"'II\\\h July 28, 1986 COUNTY OF SAN BE.RNAROINO ENVIRONMENTAL _UC WORKS AGENCY MICHAEL G. WALKER Dilutor . File: 2-507/1.00 2~5~ ~ ~ f~ ~fl ~ ill JUl 30 1986 C1ty of San Bernard1no Plann1ng Department 300 North "0" Street C.ll" e: " " ": .\:'.~ r-mlT I r~ ,...... "." ...- SAN 8ERNAaOmu. CA , Attention: Mr. Greg Gage / Re: Zone 2, Del Rosa Channel - Tentat1ve Tract 13365 and" CUP No. 86-26 Gentlemen: Reference 1s ..ade to your transm1ttal received on June 23, 1986 w1th accompany1ng letter from the developer, a s1te ~lan, and arch1tect's plan, request1ng the D1str1ct's rev1ew and comments. The s1te 1s located on the east s1de of Del Rosa Channel, between Marshall Boulevard and Eureka Street, in the northeast port10n of the C1ty of San Bernard1no. The west aide of the proposed developnent abuts Del Rosa Channel, a major flood carry1ng fac111ty serv1ng to outlet Daley Canyon flows as well as ~l Rosa and v1c1n1ty dra1nage. The exist1ng channel is of inter1m construct10n and 1s not considered adequate to withstand major flood flows. Therefore, in our opinion, the site is subject to irifrequent flood hazard by reasons of overflow, eros10n and debr1a deposit10n until such time as permanent channel and debr1s retent10n facilities are prov1ded. Our recommendat10ns and comments are as follows: 1. An additional 15 foot wide .trip of land adjacent to the eX1sting Del Rosa Channel Flood Control District right-of-way shall. be d"edicated to the District in ree title to make e total of 35 feet of r1ght-of-way for the ulti.ate channel facil1ty. The r1ght-of-way 1s also needed for ma1ntenance or the edsting inter1m channd. The D1strict will prepare appropriate documentat10n for the ded1cat10n of the fee and easement r1ghts-of-way for the grantor's s1gnature upon the developer prov1ding the District with a current t1 tle report Showing ownerships or record. The documenta':.ion should be s1gned by all partie. prior to the recordation of the tract. 2.' A 15 foot wide easement adjacent to the 35 foot fee right-of-way shall be granted to the District for maintenance of the ult1mate channel racility. This ease.ent shall not have build1ngs, trees or other obstacles placed in it which may obstruct access. ,'"" \....- ,,~ '-" ( Letter to the City of San Bernardino July 28, 1986 "ace 2 3. A 50-foot bulld ing setback shan be established from the nell fee rieht-of_ay 11ne. The bul1ding setback maybe reduced if the followine factors are incorporated into the structure design: a) Deep footings are utl1ized for any portion of the foundations which lie within 50 feet of the channel. b) The depth of the footings are a minimum 2 feet below the flowline of the channel. c) The design and reinforcement of this section Of the foundations will be such that total erosion of the sol1, from the storm drain to the base of the foundations, would not affect the stabUity of that foundation or building. ' Q. Si x foot chain link fencing or other District approved barr ier shall be placed along the new fee right-of_ay line. The barrier shall be removallle for r.laintenance of the ultimate channel facility. i~ 5. The proposed bridiing of the channel shall be designed to convey ultimate channel design flows. and al igned to meet ultimate channel construction. 6. A permit wl1l be required to outlet any drainage, or to make any encroachment onto Flood Control District right-of-way, and at that time the proposal will be reviewed by the District's Field Engineering Division with respect to speCific requirements. A minimum of six weeks processing time should be allowed. 7. Portions 0 f the site lIay be aubject to excessi ve street flows and accumulated drainage from the north. It is therefore recommende~ that a separate report be obtained from the City Engineer's Office with respect to local and on-site drainage conditions. 8. In addition to the drainace requirements stated herein, other .on-site" or "off-site" improvement. may be required Which cannot be determined froll tentative plan. at this time and would have to be reviewed after more complete improvellent plans and profiles have been submitted to this office. ~- \,..1 .~ -' (, Lette~ to the C1ty of San Berna~d1no July 28. 1986 Page 3 Should you have any further quest10ns concern1ng th1s Ilatte~. please feel f~ee to contact the unders1gned at (71q) 387-2515. Very truly you~s. ~..!: ~'-cJ-' ROBERT W. CORCHERO. Chief Water Resources D1v1sion RWC:SA:mjs cc: Mo~gan Development. Inc. (Max Morgan) \.. ,.....( - :)" ,. CASE 'IT NO. ("'~ U(\ AGENOA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE . "\ 13365 and ( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS '"- a~ 7~ ~ ~./l~./~9 -; ,. ""' RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 'IT II 13365 & 1 CUP ~ 86-26 shall be in effect for a peri ocI of 24 months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission and/or Planning Department. However, if no development has been initiated at the end of the 24.month time period the approval shall expire. Additional time may be approved by the Plan~lcg Commission upon request of the applicant prior to expira- tion of the:.! -month time period. Expiration Date: September 16. 1988. ~ COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D. a. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R'S) shall be reviewed' and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC & R's shall include liability insurance and metnods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. The CC&R's shall also Include a statement that no radio frequency antenna shall be included within the complex except for central antenna systems. b. No lot or dwelling unit In the development shall be sold unless a .cor- poratlon, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess'all properties Individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be suffi ci ent to meet the expenses of such entity, and wi th authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said IUtually avai lable features.of the devel~pment. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all . owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of provisions required by tne City as conditions to approval. The developer shall submit evi- dence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the Commission prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. c. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to s~ch dwelling unit or lot, either (1) In undivided Interest In the com- mon areas and facilities, or (2) a share In the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. d. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC&R's. e. The CC&R's shall contain wording prohibiting the storage or parking of trailers, boats, camperS, motor homes, Ind similar vehicles outside of the specified common areas. ~ ~ ...., .. III ,O't" .. "6Ot ' 0# , ,r rl '- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS , , ( 4 --L -6- ..J- \..' \... ...,. .... 0- CASE T'!' NO. 13 3 6 5 and CUP NO Rf\-?'; AGENDA ITEM ' HEARING DATE q 11 f./Rf. PAGE II ) "" PARKING: I a. Thi s development sha" be requi red to maintain a minimum 'oflOS parking spaces. b. All parking and driving aisles shall be surfaced with two inches ofAC over a suitabl! base or equivalent as approved by the City Engineer. Parking spaces shall be striped and have wheel stops installed at least three feet from any building, wall, fence, property line, or walkway. c. Wlenever an off-street parking area is adjacent to or across an alley from property zoned residential, a solid decorative wall six feet in height shall be erected and maintained along the property line so as to separate the parking area physically from the residentially zoned pro- perty, orovided such wall shall be three feet in height when located within the re~u;red front or street side yard setback. Where no front or street side yard is required, such wall shall be three feet in height when located within ten feet of the street line. Said wall sha1 i be located on the north , south . east , west 'or peri ph era 1_____ property lineS:--- ----- ----- ,----- d. Whenever an off-street parking area is located across 'the street from property zoned for residential uses, a solid decorative wall or equiva- lent landscaped berm not less than three feet in height shall be erected and maintained along the street side of the lot not closer to the'street than the required depth of the yard in the adjoining resi- dential area. No fence or wall located In the front setback shall obscure the required front setback landscaping. Said wall shall be i ocated on the north , south , east . west , or peripheral_____ prop~lines. ----- ----- ----- All parking areas and vehicle storage areas shall be lighted during hours of darkness for security and protection. Rec-eational vehicle storage areas shall be screened by at least a six-foot high ~ecorative wa" with screened gates. There sha" be provided for each unit, within the garage or carport, or other specifically designated area, a loft or other usable storage area with a minimum of 150 cubic feet In addition to standard utility storage. Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads shall be subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval. A conrnercial-type drive approach, as shown on Standard Drawing No. 204 or equivalent, sha" be constructed at each entrance to the development. Location and design shall be subject to approval of the Engineering Oi vi si on. .J .. '0." a '.11 1 Of , ( r '-' ' ".......- .....; ( CITY OF SAN. BERNARDINO ST ANOARO . REQUIREMENTS CASE TT NO. 13365 and CUP NO. 86-26 AGENDA ITEM 3 HEARING DATE 9/16/86 PAGE Cl -lL-- Prior to issuance of any building permit, access rights shall be granted to the City for the purpose of allowing access over the private drives within the project for all necessary City vehicles Including fire, police, and refuse disposal vehicles, and any other emergency vehicles. The documents coverl ng thl s matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the Planning Department. -9--- All refuse storage areas are to be enclosed with a decorative wall. Location, size, type and design of wall are subject to the approval of the Planning Department and Division of Public Services Superintendent. .-l.Cl- Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and local require- ments. ....lJ.- LIl.N05CIl.P, NG: a. Three copies of a master landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department/ Park and Recreation Department for review and approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the followi~g: 1) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed. 2) trrlgation plan.. 3) Such other alternate plants, materials and design concepts as may be proposed. 4) Erosion control plans. b. Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior to planting oy the Director of the Park and RecreatIon Department or his/her oeslgnee. A minimum number of one-Inch callper/1S gallon, multibranched trees shall be planted within the parkway for each of the following types of lots, as per the City'S specificationS: 1) Cul-de-sac lot. -- one tree; 21 Interior lot -- two trees; 3) Corner lot -- three trees. c. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual Impact, sur- faces of all cut slopes more than five feet In height and fill slopes more than three feet In height shall be protected by planting with grass or ground cover plants. Slopes exceeding lS feet In vertical height shall also be planted with shrubS, spaced at not to exceed ten "" . ;J "- t.' ,QlltM .. ,all S 0' '5 ...., .. c( -.- , \ '-' CITY. OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS CASE TT NO. 13365 and . ~ur ~u..tsb-2b AGENDA ITEM 3 HEARING DATE ~/16/86 PAGE 10 ""I The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval of the visual or engineering.deslgn of the proposed wall. When graded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the slope face shall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer. Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the City Engineer In order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to precipitation. Compliance with all recommendations of the Geology Report shall be required (If applicable). -12- Any clubhouse, swimming pool, spa, putting green, picniC areas or other amenities Shall oe Installed in the manner Indicated on the approved site p1 an. . , ( J.l... During construction the City Engineer may require a fence. around all or a portion of the periphery of the tract site to minimize wind and debris. damage to adjacent pr.opertles. The type of fencing Shall be approved by the City Engineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust control. No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on any building unless screened as specifically approved by the Planning Department (except for solar collection panels). Within 75 feet of any single-family residential district, the maximum height of any building shall not exceed one-story or 20 feet unless the Commission determines that due to unusual topographiCal or other features, SuCh restrictive height Is not practical. All utility lines shall be Installed underground subject to exceptions' approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer. No certificate of occupancy Shall be Issued prior to compliance with these Standard ReQulre~ents as well as all provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. ..ll.... ...l.L ..lL 17 - '" ~ I. It. ,O't.. .. ...1 sOl' iliA" .. CITY OF c: SAN BERNARDINO ~..~ '-' , I CAse NO:...... ,." 13365 & CUP NO. 86- STANDARD REQUIREMENTS MEETING DATE: 9'HI~6 PAGE NO: 11 r "" ENGINEERING DIVISION project Oescription: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. No. 44 Uni~ondomlnTum Easts1de tOsa-iOrth of Marshall oate': g-3-86 Prepared By: MWG Page 1 of 86-26 of ~ Rev 1ewed 8y: 8 pages Owner/Applicant: Morgan ~evelopment, Inc. - NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separatE Englneerlng plans are required, the applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineerin. plans directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal of 8uilding ~lans. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS 18. Payment of aii applicable Engineering fees. Engineering Division for schedule of fees. 19. Submittal of a grading/drainage plan, conforming to all requirements of Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including submittal of a satisfactory soils investigation containing recommendations for grading, prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Contact 20. All drainage from the developllent shall be directed to an approved publiC drainage facility. If not feasible. proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided'to the sati sfaction of the Ci ty Engineer. 21. Design and construction of all public utilities to serve the site in 'accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility. \. ~ \... ....e.. I'" ..., r CITY c: SAN BERNARDINO ,........-~-- "'-' ( . ( OF CASE NO: TT UO. ..... 133656. CUP NO. 86-,6 MEETJoIG DATE: 9/16:86 PAGE NO: 1:' STANDARD REQUIREMENTS "" ENGINEERING DIVISION Project Description: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. No. 86-26. 44 UnltCOndomlnlum EastsTn ot Del Rosa NOrtii""Of Marshall - -- Date: '-3-86 Prepared by: MWG Reviewed by: Page 2 of 8 pages 22. Dedication of sufficient right-of-way along adjacent streets to provide the ultimate master-planned width or as determined by the City Engineer. SPECIFIC RE~UIREMENTS Grading: 23. The site/plot/grading and drainage plan submiteed for a building permit shall contain sufficient ground' elevations (both existing and proposed), building pad and fini shed floor elevations, grade slopes, and gradients to define the amount of grading to be done and the means of draining the site. 24. If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plot grading and drainage plan shall be signed byaregistered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. .25. If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with Section 7014 lcl of the Uniform Building Code. 26.S10pe planting with an irrigation system to prevent erosi on sha" be provi ded as specified by the City Engineer. 27.0ust and erosion control measures shall be maintained at all times during construction. \.. ~ .....eM ..a. .., , ( I ( Ci CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS \... o ..... CASE NO.:M' ,,,, 13365 & CUP NO. 86-26 MEETJIIG DATE: 0/' {../ll{" PAGE NO.: 13 ~ , Engineering Division Project Description: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. No. 86-26. 44 unit""rondomlnlum EastiTde otDel ROsaiOrth of Mar5'ili'll Date: 9-3-8r Prepared by: MWG Reviewed by:____ Page 1 of ! pages Utilities 28. Each .Unit shall be provided with separate water and sewer facil I ties so I t can be served by the Ci ty or the agency provldin3 such services in the area. 29. A sewer. backflow prevention device is required for any Units with building finished floors lower than the nearest upstream manhole rim of the serving sewer main. 30. Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the developer's eKpense~ 31. Sewers within private str.eets will not be maintained by the City but shall be constructed to City standards and Inspected under a City PUblic Works Inspection permit. 32. Util I ty services shall be placed underground and easements provided as required. 3~ All eKIstlng overhead utilities shall. be placed underground in accordance wi th Section 18.40.380 of the City Code and snall be so indicated upon the Improvement plans. 34. A pri vate on-sl te sewer main plan conforming to CI ty Standards shall be submitted for approval of the City Engineer. This plan can be conbined with the Water Plan, if practical. \. .,UCM..n I.Y I( Ci ""'. '-..-I r. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS \... " CASE NO: 'IT ~O. 13365 & CUP NO. 86-26 ME~ DATE: 9/16;80 PAGE NO: 14 ( f' " ENGINEERING DIVISION Project Description: Tent. Tract No. 13365 I C.U.P. No. 86~. 44 unlt condominium '!iSts1de oT"biITolS Nortri01' Marshall. - ~ - - Date: 9-3-86 Prepared By: MWG Reviewed by:___ Page .i of ! pms Drainage ~ Fleod Control: 35. All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to the requirements of the City Engineer. which may be based in part on the recOllmendations of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary daU relating to drainage and flood control. 36. The developl!lent Is located 'within a Zone B on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps; therefore, all building pads shall be raised above the surrounding area ~s approved by the Ci ty Engineer. 37. Proper facilities for disposing of spring water from known .sources or if discovered during construction shl'l be provided to protect proposed buildin, foundations. 38. Required dedications to the San Bernardino County Flo6d Control District shall be completed prior to final .ap recording. Street Im~rovements ~ Oedications 39. All publiC streets within and adjacent to the developllent shall be improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving. and appurtenances IS required by the City Engineer.Sidewalk and street lights will not be required. \ ~ \.. .atte.. .,., .., c. ( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS (") "'" ,to. CASE NO:.1: NO 13365 & CUP NO. 86-26 ME~ DATE: 9/16/86 PAGE NO: 15 ... "" r ENGINEERING DIVISION Project Description: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. No.86-2E. 44 unttCondominTum Eutside of Oel lOsa-lOrth of Marshall ----- Date: 9-3-8~ ' Prepared by: MWG Reviewed by: Page 1 of ! pages --- 40. All entrances to private streets from public streets shall be identified by a private street name sign, 'textured pavements, driveway approaches, or as approved by the City Engineer. 41. The structural section for all streets shall be designed and submitted to the City Engineer for t,pproval using a T1 assigned by the City Engineer and an R value obtained on the subgrade after rough grading by a recogni zed sol1 s testing lab. All, streets shall have a minimum AC thickness of 2-1/2 inches. 42. All driveway approaches shall be constructed to City standards or as may be approved by the City Engineer. 43. Street signs and other regulatory signs shan be in.stalled at the developer's expense as required by the City Engineer. 44. Curb returns and corresponding property line returns shall be provided at the intersection(s) (20-foot radius for most streets). ' '45. The handicap rampS shall be constructed at the tntersection(s) and the necessary right-of-way, dedicated to accommodate the ramp as required by the City Engineer. This will be required if an intersection type entry is proposed. , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS o CASE NO: ,.... .", 13365 & CUP NO. 86-26 MEETING DATE: 9/16/86 PAGE NO: 16 "'" r ENGINEERING DIVISION Project Description: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. No. 86-26. ~Unlt condomlnlum-ristslde of De' lOsa-ROrth Of Marshall -- --- ]i'U: 9-3-'!1 Prepared by: MWG Reviewed by: Page! of ! P'i"9ts . - 46. For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.l to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.l in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows (for the streets marked *. the exi sting improvements sha" be removed and replaced to the di mensions notedl: S t r e e t .!!!.!!!. Del Rosa Avenue ~(ft.l 41.25 (Exist.l h.!:.:.(f't.l Rellove & Rep.lace existi ng A.C curb w.ith 8" PCC curb & gutter per Std. 4i. The two existing wood bridges over Del Rosa Channel shal 1 be removed and the Channel res"tored per requirements of the Flood Control District. 48. Construct guard rail along the Eastside of Del Rosa Avenue and landscape area between curb and Channel in accordance with requirements of the Parks Department and Ci ty Engineer. 49. Project identification sign shall ~ be located within street right-of-way. \... M..RCN ..., I" ( , '- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~~.- "-..11 CASE NO: TT NO. 13365 & CUP NO. 86-26 MEETING DAlE: 9/16/86 PAGE NO: 17 "'" ,- ENGINEERING DIVISION project Descript10n: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. -No. 86-26. ~Unit condomlnlum-ristslde of Del ROsa-NOrth of Marshall ----- Date: 9-3-11 Prepared by: MWG Reviewed by:____ Page I of ! pages 50. A traffic study w111 be requ1red to determ1ne traffic signal needs at Marshall and Del Rosa Avenue and to determine possible re-strip1ng needs (Left turn pocket, r1ght turn pocket, etc.) on Del Rosa Avenue. If mit1~ations are determ1ned to be needed by the Traff1c study as approved by tile City's Traffic Engineer, these shall be installed as part of the required pUblic i mprovemen ts. 51. If a s1gnal is determined to be needed within 5 years the developer shall pay a traffic signal part1cipation fee in the amount of $7.00 per trip based on 5.2 tr1ps per Condominium Unit (tota' fee . $1,601.60). 52. The proposed bridge over De' Rosa Channel shall be subject to design approval by the San 8ernardino County Flood Control Distr1ct and the City Engineer. Mappina: 53. A f1na' map based upon a field survey w111 be requ1red. Improvement Completion: 54. Street, sewer, and drainage improvement plans for the entire project shall be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the re-cordat10n of the f1na' map. 55. If the final improvements are not completed pr10r to recordation of ~he map, an improvement secur1ty accompanied by an agreement elttcuted by the developer and the City w11' be required. \.. ;J II '.CM .." ,., G ( CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS o CASE NO: 'l'T :-;0. 13365 & CUP tlO. .86-26 MEETJIIG DATE: 9/16/86 PAGE NO: 18 ~ , ~NGINEERING DIVISION Project Description: Tent. Tract No. 13365 & C.U.P. No. 86-26. ~Unit Condom1n1u.-ristslde of eel lOsa-iOrth of Marshall -- --- ]iti: 9-3-n Prepared Dy: MWG Reviewed by:____ Page ! of ! pages Required Engineering Permits 56. Grading permit Constructi on permi t for on-si te improvellent (except buildings - See Building and Safety). Construction permit for off-site improvements. APplicable Engineering I!!! Plan Chec~ and Inspection fees for grading. Plan Check and Inspection fees for on-site improvements (except building - See Building and Safety). Plan Check and Inspection fee for off-site improvements. Street light ener;y fee. Traffic Signal participation fee (if applicable). 57. ~ '" ..RCM ,.., Ily ( r~ '-, r-<- V 0, I I I ~ I ;1 ~ ~ ,. i-__L ID E-I:---R'O &A o. A V ENUE--j---- - ------------ -\..-.. z .~ ii' " iil 1 ! I \ N ~ ~ ~ r~:..\ i (1) r 1- J"'" o ."JJ \ W to I t:~'( . ~ i " ~ i::=a I &(1) l 'i fCU . II:ifC.o( '[ ::i . '~~l~ .o~ ,.:-< ..f :iiCJ) 5"- il I I /' r'1:.o , '0 .' _ll.wt.1PS.IIlC.' .......,... . -- ,... I....... .......... ...., ~"'.I"..t... '.."'111 I !, ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN ( ( . \, to r C 1111!!I,li!'l",llllli!,llillll!,ol! IIIIII1 1.11111111 I ,II~ I lil:!l.I'I'lill;li!~'I~~ I l,il;i ;1111 II.lH'1 Ii 'I! ~ Ilil:II{llillli II'~ ~! ! !IJ. I,.iiol!llll I I! '" I I II I. I~ I ; ,...""'~., , "' --,- 1,.11,_t!ll! II II ,Hill, Ijii.iiii!! ,Ii 111;1 .11 11'!n ,I III 'I"I litn I ~ I' I Iii 101" : I I! I... i I I:i Ii Ii' . .,," 010 - I =JE; :::~;:.: I ::-: ii;!I: . \' t _: .,. ::: I ;:;,:: Ii! I : I" '1' l I I i Ii,' ; ~ lli -4 .. C ~,., BEl:: Aes"" AVCN\:J[ '. ~ L~ .._v~ I. !! ii' -. :- ;r1 ! 1 _ ~ ~ ,.. - _ ~ 'i~"';"-"'--- N ; Q.i l- :-==----~- I. ;: "'" I: ...... ...... ..... ;; I I . ,.,! :--~; .-~ 1_, , ~ I' ' \ : . ; ~ ~ . I ' i" ~:c; i' E ~O ii' . iCJ) , . j l~ '.k' p \,'''''- I ~s:~ ';~ Ii !CD ;,i 1= i~ :;. _rro. : :".0' ' ..It : ' i~n~ ' ~;t,,, . ~:i VI :1 I I I \ ~r . - . .. -~--. -----------------1- . ,- - ~ ' \'; T ~ "="'~ .... _ ,.t: :.I.' ~ " '\ ~\ .. .. - . --... ~ f-L - 'il ,. . 2 ;1 , , . : H j... H . H .- : ... I' , I M Ii II " u w_ Io,j I -to ~ l . ~...... ... i I. P ~I ...:...!. !... .IT!'\ .. : ... .. ... . I ....... .....\ .. Iii I .:. ___I _,. I:' ;. r: '. .' . ~... _.....:~__..... I . "....-.....!.!1_--- .' .-.. I! I I ': --- '. o --.----""""",,-- . '; , . ( ( \ I 1 \ I I , I I I ,. '1'11111, ',N , I :'j ; CONCEPTUAL SITE !>LAN I ! I " , ....... ...ft.... ..e.t i I \ 1-',='1 __..~.....-. . 'I t..I. '::"--:='., i \ ; ! 'Itltll ......ItMl........ ~ / .....' .-"" . . -4. ~.. ~.. -. n.... ~~ ,..0 ~ mi Si II! ,.. i c z z C) .. ~ ,.. .. ~ ~ z .. ~ ~ z C. . . - CD r - . I~ ~:c I" :0 fen cQ) : I ps: ,CD I[ .. .Q) . big- l I .l~ I I . . 1(1) r r . f f . 'II'IIII-~ I" . TYPICAL . . f'AlQ PLAN M. wa INC. -.--.....-. ......- --.- ..... ... ........... I I" ~ ~ ... 1 z .. N .. N .. ~ f C. I ! (1) Ii . - ~ J""P'iI - ~,,#J 8 :0 f "en I IQ) rt IE is: R l(1) ! ~Q) ic. .. 10 : l:e .len ,1_( '-- . I \ .J . , j / . I.... I- ,_ ~ CONCEPT\lA1. ELEV AT10HS _ K. WA'IDlS. INC. ---...... ....- ..... ............- ...... .. ....' .... n... ....... .. '. \ \ , I ( r . . , .. ~ .. .. ~ . 1ft .. ;;: . /: ~ ' , ~ 1'" ~-'! ... . ".\ l~ ~ 6 ,. ~...,' z ., ~ I =:"" 'I r... ~!:\ .~E I , fl:" I' I ',!,.~i , : .I'~I. -I. ' .1 ._" ...\ I . "'~i,~I;-'.r~"1 , '...I' ' , . I" .."\ " ". '5 iE' ~' ~.l::t';l, ~..-' =1. ~_l '..::;i' . ~'C:. ~-' . = I; .a..' ...l' ,., r. .. : ~ ~~~: \ l,;;;;;;I.... ,. .. ~! ., i 1 '; Ii. ~-{ ~ .,.?~C j /r.~1 !' . ,;.,~ to.J1 ~ " ..." ,," P ,t 4.l.~; ! . 't ", ~;~tJ .... -, "a: ~;' '=:' : '-=, -'! b. ~I c. ~''lS1 ~~~:I-.', (,t.= J::- At~ ,~~~~. ~ ' ~,-;-'..] , ~.~ ~,Jt-' \:" ';:1 ~ ;~ t..':' . , \ ~ ~l\ ~~ i ::J~~-;:- >:::"~-= . ~'l'I,~~~g ....... ., 00.... u. ;:. . ":':J_ ~,; ~~ . ~ c .. Ii! .. :: 1ft r- Ift C >>- .. o z /""'\- '-' , ' ! ~,--1\) i 'iv(\ ~~ 1ft f:,~.c I ~., .! '..~': 1':' 5 I'\~ -: . . I : ;T:::: ,.',:U ~ . i .. e 1ft .. i!! c !!l ( , ' III \ \ \ ; \ r --I --\-\ . SENIOR ELEVATIONS CONGREGATE HOUSING ' , . . . r r-,.. .,,!o...- Io....-!-.:..:.:..:...... . ., I i I . . i ! . . ~ i . . i ; ; . . . . i I I I , ! I , . I I . . . .~ I , I . I i ~..- Co...... ..:..... I .... ......... , /<. ~ ") "; -:~1 -', :....- --"- .-- ....- .-- # -' .. ':'~, ..:::-- .-' -.- ,- .' / . _'.,~-- I ,/ / .. (---' ........ . I '" I / ; \, r/ /' .I I .I, / I ,,/ / /./ /' 'l: /1 (( (' /~ .--l ",,/' ....) ~'-" ....---,,/ ; 0"'- '1 ~/ -- ,/ / : .. /' ~ ",/ ,/ / ,/ ",,/,/ -~- , "/ / ,/ / / i "1m // 1 /: / {/ / "'. :"~l t /.M I --.... ' ' , D " - '.- ' - ' ~ ~ . "'...._, ...... _...-..._-;a..;;- ;J ;', ~_ ~__' ._~.-;_____n~___ ~ · ' ,-- ~~'f"--l ' ..... ,~~ ~~___!I. t.... ....;,:=.J~ ......-::::::- . --==.a~~1.,. ilh-__~....eI"Q'-"'~'~~ i' z:...,,:,-... ,~.........~.- --"'-";"-'- :a ~.. ;;: " ,/: ' .. J, . -' jt .." ...-y~' ~ ~,~ ,ZZ i l- it . . - . tr ,""~'''''' '-./ / . '.. . :!t .... :'.... t: I ..e' ..\ 1!5:. . ..._. t. ~1 ...-.." ~~ I.... I i .., ::!'" ,:t ; -- . p oim . ii' !l!'i ~_~l; ~~ it alII. ~. .._II. i: ,I ::U. ~.. ! ' ,. 1:j:. .Ui i ;1- -.J t " '...; 1:1 c.l.. . !oii- i .!..( ;; ;.!~ ;.. ~ :. ~J o' . i~i~ ..::1;: I. ":1 . i":: _c' ils:: i .-. i ,~ . .. :: ,~ ......... .I ,/ .' .. . " . .....1 1/7 , :.... " . .' ~ ' 16 I " I . o . I; I" ( ( . "'l \- ATTACHMENT "F" .'" '-...I . CITY OF. SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING. DEPARTMENT OC 0 CASE CUP86-26 -TT 13365 L ^ T' I N Extension of T;m.. "' I HEARING DATE 5/B/90 5 AGENDA ITEM # .... ,. SO. t - " " ? .~ z o (J) - a: 0::: cd: :I: \ .- --:l .. . " I I r<.M\