HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Planning & Building Services
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Michael E. Hays, Director
Subject:
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: July 10, 1997
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 - To
change the General Plan land use
designation from RL, Residential Low, to
RS/3.1, Residential Suburban, and Tentative
Tract No. 15743, a 41 lot subdivision
located at the southwest comer of
Washington Street and Palm Avenue.
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
MCC Date: July 21, 1997
'il1UII,hi.
The Mayor and Common Council closed the public hearing and denied General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
and Tentative Tract No. 15743 in concept, continuing the item to July 21, 1997, directing staff to prepare
Findings of Fact for denial.
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Findings of Fact for denial of General Plan Amendment
No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743.
fJJPlI-u
Michael ~ays
Contact person: Michael Hays
Supporting data attached: Staff Reoort
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.) N/ A
(Acct. Description)
Phone: 384-5357
Ward: 5
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. 3L1
'11a.t/Q1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-07
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15743
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNClL MEETING OF JULY 21,1997
OWNER: Palm Partners, A California Partnership
1484 Red Hill North
Upland, CA 91786
Phone: (909) 985-3370
APPUCANTS:
Dave Mlynarski
MAPCO
P.O. Box 5932
San Bernardino, CA 92412-5032
Phone: (909) 885-3800
REQUEST/LOCATION: The applicant is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 96-07, to change the General Plan land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential
Low (3.1 units per acre density, 10,800 square foot minimum lot size) to RS/3.1, Residential
Suburban/3.l (3.1 units per acre density, 7,200 square feet minimum lot size. The applicant
is also requesting the approval of Tentative Tract No. 15743 to subdivide the 14.45 acre site into
41 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 8,056 square feet. The site is located at the
southwest corner of Washington Street and Palm Avenue in the RL, Residential Low land use
district. (See Exhibit 1, Site Location Map)
BACKGROUND: The Mayor and Common Council opened the public hearing an heard
testimony; they then closed the public hearing and denied the application in concept at their July
7, 1997 meeting and directed staff to prepare Findings of Fact for denial based on the
incompatibility of the smaller lots permitted by the RS, Residential Suburban land use
designation.
KEY POINTS
o Staff has prepared the necessary findings for denial of the General Plan Amendment and
Tentative Tract which are included as Exhibit 1.
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 21, 1997
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the hearing remains closed and that the Mayor and Common Council
adopt the Findings of Fact for denial (Exhibit 1).
Prepared by:
Michael R. Finn, Senior Planner for
MICHAEL HAYS, Director of Planning & Building Services
EXHIBITS:
1 - Findings of Fact for Denial General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 (I-I) and Findings of
Fact for Denial Tentative Tract No. 15743 (1-2)
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 21, 1997
Page 3
EXHIBIT 1-1
General Plan Amendment Findine:s of Fact:
1. The proposed amendment is rwt consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
amendment is not consistent with General Plan Goal 1 G which states it is the goal of the
City to achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which retain and enhance
residential neighborhoods and provide distinctive and compatible neighborhoods in that
the smaller lot sizes are not consistent with the established neighborhood with one acre
lots located across Washington Street on the north. The proposal is also inconsistent with
General Plan Objective 1.8(a) which states that it is the objective of the City to, "Provide
lands to accommodate housing units which meet the diverse economic and social needs
of the residents; locating development to retain the scale and character of existing
neighborhoods." The proposed General Plan Amendment would create the potential for
lots that are not consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood consisting
of one acre lots across Washington Street on the north.
2. The proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposal would result in smaller lot sizes which
could detrimentally reduce the equity and investment of the home owners of the larger
one acre lots in the established residential neighborhood on the north.
3. The proposed amendment would not maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within
the City. There is no other RS in the immediate vicinity. Areas in Verdemont
designated RS are generally located east of Palm Avenue, while RL and RE designations
are located west of Palm Avenue toward the edge of the City. There is no transition
between the RE located on the north side of Washington Street and the area proposed for
redesignation as RS. The smaller 8,000 square foot lots permitted by RS/3.5 are not
consistent or compatible with the larger one acre minimum lot size of the RE
designation.
4. The subject parcel is rwt physically suitable (including, but rwt limited to access,
provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical
constraints) for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the RS land use designation
but is not compatible with the RE designation on the north side of Washington Street.
...
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 21, 1997
Page 4
EXHIBIT 1-2
Tentative Tract Findinl!:s of Fact:
Tentative Tract MaD
1. The proposed map is not consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The
project site is designated RL, Residential Low (10,800 square foot minimum lot size).
The map does not conform to the standards concerning distribution, location, and extent
of uses covered by the General Plan since lot sizes proposed by the subdivision are less
than 10,800 square feet and are not permitted.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans. The General Plan does not permit lot sizes less than 10,800
square feet in the RL designation. The proposed subdivision design results in the lots
created being "shut-off" from the adjacent subdivision on the north. The design is not
integrated into the neighborhood of one acre lots located across Washington Street to the
north. There are no applicable specific plans.
3. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development, in that the lots created do
not meet the 10,800 square foot minimum lot size specified by the Development Code
and summarized in Attachment C. The smaller lots are not consistent or compatible with
the larger one acre lots on the north.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, in that the RL
permits a density of 3.1 units per acre and the development will result in a density of
2.84 units per acre. However, as noted above, the proposal does not meet the minimum
lot size requirements of 10,800 square feet for the RL designation and otherwise does not
meet the Development Code Standards for the RL designation.
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat, as addressed in the Initial Study.
6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements could cause serious public health
and safety problems, in that serious public health and safety problems could result if the
roadway were ever seriously damaged due to flooding, precluding access to the lots
created.
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 21, 1997
Page 5
7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements. acquired by the public at large. for access through or use of, propeny within
the proposed subdivision, in that any existing easements would be abandoned or relocated
by the Public Works/Engineering Department through processing of the Pinal Map.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Michael E. Hays, Director
Subject:
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 - To
change the General Plan land use
designation from RL, Residential Low, to
RS/3.1, Residential Suburban, and Tentative
Tract No. 15743, a 41 lot subdivision
located at the southwest corner of
Washington Street and Palm Avenue.
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: June 19, 1997
JUN 1 9 1997
MCC Date: July 7, 1997
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
N/A
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Resolution which adopts the
Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743,
based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements.
./
~k
Contact person: Michael Hays
Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Re.port and Resolution
Ward: 5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N/ A
Source: (Acet. No.) N/A
(Acet. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes: Previously - . L/g>' -tJ7#T/77
Agenda Ib
.jJ; g 'f
01!N/17
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-07
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15743
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 7,1997
OWNER: Palm Partners, A California Partnership
1484 Red Hill North
Upland, CA 91786
Phone: (909) 985-3370
APPLICANTS:
Dave Mlynarski
MAPCO
P.O. Box 5932
San Bernardino, CA 92412-5032
Phone: (909) 885-3800
REQUEST/WCATION: The applicant is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 96-07, to change the General Plan land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential
Low (3.1 units per acre density, 10,800 square foot minimum lot size) to RS/3.1, Residential
Suburban/3.1 (3.1 units per acre density, 7,200 square feet minimum lot size. The applicant
is also requesting the approval of Tentative Tract No. 15743 to subdivide the 14.45 acre site into
41 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 8,056 square feet. The site is located at the
southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue in the RL, Residential Low land use
district. (See Exhibit I, Site Location Map)
KEY POINTS
o The General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract were filed concurrently, hence the
final decision for the Tentative Tract rests with the Mayor and Common Council along
with the General Plan Amendment.
o The applicant originally requested to amend the General Plan land use designation from
RL (3.1 units per acre, 10,800 square foot minimum lot size) to RS (4.5 units per acre,
7,200 square foot minimum lot size). However, the applicant indicated that the
amendment was not being sought for the higher density allowed by RS, but for the
smaller lot size.
o The applicant agreed to an RS/3.1 General Plan land use designation for the site which
would allow the smaller lot size but limit the density to 3.1 units to the acre. Based on
testimony received at the Planning Commission regarding area residents' concerns with
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 7, 1997
Page 2
the 7,200 square foot lot size of the RS, the applicant has further agreed to limit the
minimum lot size in the RS/3.1 designation to 8,000 square feet.
D The proposed amendment does not conflict with General Plan Goals which pertain to the
pattern and distribution of land uses. More specifically, the proposal is consistent with
General Plan Objective 1.11 which states that it will be the objective of the City to:
"Promote the development of single-family detached units in a high quality urban
setting. "
The Planning Commission Staff Report prepared for the October 8, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting provides the detailed background and analysis of this project (Refer to Exhibit 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared by staff for the Tentative Tract and General Plan Amendment and
was presented to the Environmental Review Committee on February 20, 1997. A Negative
Declaration was proposed. The Initial Study was made available for public review and comment
from February 27, 1997 to March 19, 1997. No comments were received. On March 20, 1997,
the Environmental Review Committee recommended the adoption of the proposed Negative
Declaration for both projects (Refer to Exhibit 3, Attachment F).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At their June 3, 1997 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the Mayor and
Common Council that they deny General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No.
15743, based on their belief that the RS land use designation and smaller lots were not
compatible with the one acre lots and existing homes on the north side of Washington Street.
The Planning Commission vote was as follows: ayes were Enciso, Gonzalez, Hamilton, Lockett,
Quiel, Schuiling, Suarez, and Thrasher; nays were Reilly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan
Amendment No. 96-07 to change the General Plan land use designation from RL,
Residential Low to RS/l.I, Residential Suburban! 3.1 units per acre on the 14.45
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
July 7, 1997
Page 3
acres of land located at the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm
Avenue, based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Resolution (Exhibit 4);
and,
2. Approve Tentative Tract No. 15743 based upon the Findings of Fact and subject
to the Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements contained in the
Planning Commission staff report (Attachments D and E to Exhibit 3).
Prepared by: Michael R. Finn, Senior Planner for
MICHAEL HAYS, Director of Planning & Building Services
EXHIBITS:
1 - Site Location Map
2 - Tentative Tract Map and Proposed General Plan Amendment Map
3 - Planning Commission Staff Report (June 3, 1997) and Attachments
4 - Resolution
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA
ITEM #
aN OF a.N II!I'lIWlOItO
---
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
i
t :
,
I
. , .
PLAN.S," PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)'
EXHIBIT 2
. I i
I III i ! I, d: f: I II m!, ~:!' Ia ~ ~J
I 11'&'I!a;~~gJgjdl~~JI~ I ;,; i ' I,; ~ ~~ ! I Li ~~! & ~; :
; ! ~: :5Ii~1 ~;!i II'~ ~ 1=1 ~ a;~ '"E~ I
I'd U iL. . IIdii!'1 I Ii I:" Ii ~ i '1"l~1 !! ''i~;< .h'" .,
" oj '!!; ! I'....-!" i!:I:f, I, _. ..' I' ~ . il~'
.. ' " ' III' I' .', p. ll; ~
"."4 ' !. I I ",'. ..!! Ii. .;... ... ,
Ilr!~!il II Iii i /111 d;.;l;dl;.ii<tiJJ.1. "r1~lli I ~
.--~",-" " . '":"'::',::=-;.:=:::::::~~:.:==~"::':::::'~:-~:::::;::--~~~-'--_~:.::---"_ r
-------- ---~,:.~-------==-----~-~--~---- -L"'~ --~.~-----r-r- r='-'
---"'--r _Y"1\I<I ~ I I I
I __.u~~u.~..~~&.~~~, --- ----- ---- --~-I
,~i ~ . , " ," --r--T/ - I .
~ 11 ~il ~ii ~i! "ii ~il ~~ ~il il/i> jl i : i f
" . "~' ' II' R
!,. . I : !
~ , I' -...........----
t t~/~,---'t ~!
/ " ~.
' / u
. " " ' , " /;,
~~ Mli :;jli ~~ ~Ii ~i~ ,,' ~I
! ! ! 1
I /! i
" / "
~ ' / /
~I ' ,
, /
/ '
. . j/: I /: I
~i~ ~;E i=~/ ~~. f
", ! _; .'.1
/ /
[M)
~
(f::J
[!j)
=
;:
.;
z
~
<
z
~
w
m
z
<
~
.
.
z
~
0
u
.; O!!D
z
0
. ~
<
z
~
w
m
z =
< [?
~
~
. ~
.
u
w [?
z
.
~ ~
O!!D
[?
-l~"~
I' I
" p,
I I : ;:
51..J_
N'; .: ,..
Nr. ~J~ ~J5
, I ,
.
.
,
I
;
.
!
I
I
I
!
!
.
"
~-
, Ii
! Ii ~,
r
/
~
I~II
iI'
. ,
."
u~E
..
~If
~II
_I r'l
i; !ll
I: ~,I
. -
~I..
ull
I
!
'I
!t . f "
!. I
: l. / ~.
!O t' -I!
'. ,
!ot '
:r '
~ij
~
/
/
/ .'
/
"
i' II ;
'5 ~
I; ~
:: S
v ~
/1
. --.-..--.- -.--..--.--
,
1"'_1=. , -'- .:, - -__-
~. .
-, 'I' 'I 'I . -.-' ..-.
'1' ;. :... .... '. ....
. .. .1.. .-;; 'r.-:r
I! .1.' ,,'
i 'I~ _ '
, ,~~ " -', I
II: ~~ ...~.. ."~.I I -_.~ I
; r;lc'~r;:i;; :'1.1'. I ; I
I , \ --: .,
::'.--~:i-~: ~
.j ,.,..,.."..... 1-. I ~
. ~: -1' ~ __ ~-: ~ ~ ~ 10"
"Q.:." . r $ I ... ~
'.G>~ ~. .
'0 It., \ . I
... \
. ..... . I
--------l I
~ II
. 4. t;:\ I I
u)..~"" I I
~ II
I I
I ·
:'.( dT3'J.~5fiisj .I
~, ------;, ::J
I~~' : ~
r-t . ~
" - ~
I I I -
" ...
" ."
,,,' t:L
I~I
,.,
'~I
"
"
~
, ,
~
~
/
.'
,
\
,
,
,;
..
~
~
..
t;\
'=' ..
..
<:
g
'"
<:
:;;
!!:
'i
:"e
~
. '.
,...
,
, ,
~ell
... "
'" "
~II
.-. "
......, I',
"
.
;..
~i:i
~Ull
"'!~o
r ~.....
-. -2
IIlfilo
i"ao
W)~.......
-,. ....~nN3Al1.
...4 . H.... _~h
.." t .'
i ~ ,.... ~ ........ "1.'"
Ioi .... ~.." ..
~ @. -.!I @)
, .....' ...
.~.,
-"
'$
@\:-
\. -.i J"
: l~tJi.' t
~ji .
A;lll !:o
- ~
!
,
i
I
i
"
..
~
~
ell [. ~,@
."ill .
C:(It "!- -':.- -]nNJAW'
~~ I
2
2'
.~
~
-@-I.
-. '" 'I. ~
i. ""
"0 @.... ,", Gf.......,
\. "'0. . #_.-a;
,.@;.f
i \:.
.Q
Jl (q;;
d
u
\t\,.~
· ~ "C)
~
U
,,\\
~:e';.
,
.,--'
!~~~~
""""l:Ill'
'~*!I~"
~1i5ii_~. .
~ !l~li~
!i l!~l!W~
j Utili.
@ ~ U~lh
., ~I- l J
~- -
-.w......."...-- _ ~
,
.
~
,,0
~,
~
'i!
,
c
i
.,.~.,'1~..
~...
. .
SUMMARY
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION
-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------.-----
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743
4
June 3, 1997
5
APPLICANT:
Dave Mlynarski
MAPCOlBonadiman Engineers, Inc.
680 S. Waterman, Bldg. A
San Bernardino, CA 92408
OWNER:
Palm Partners
A California Partnership
1484 Redhill North
Upland, CA 91786
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
REQUEST I WCATION - A request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low (3.1 units per acre) to RS, Residential Suburban
(4.5 units per acre). The proposal includes a Tentative Tract to subdivide the site into 41 lots with a
minimum lot size of 8,056 square feet. The site is located on the southeast comer of Washington Street
and Palm Avenue in the RL designation.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLA YS
Flood Hazard Zone X 500 Yr.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
o Not Applicable
o Exempt, Section 15303(a) (Class 3)
. No Significant Effects
o Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
o
o
APPROVAL .
DENIAL
CONTINUANCE TO:
CONDffiONS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
T....tative TIlICt No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 1
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The applicant requests the approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan
land use designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low to RS, Residential Suburban.
The applicant also requests the approval of Tentative Tract No. 15743 to subdivide the 14.45
acres into 41 single-family lots.
The site is located at the southwest comer of Washington Street and Palm Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 is a proposal to change the land use designation of the
14.45 acres site from RL (3.1 dwelling units per acre) to RS (4.5 units per acre). The RL
allows a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet while the RS would allow a minimum lot size
of 7,200 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the proposal is not to increase the
allowable number of lots that would be possible under the RS, but rather to allow the smaller
lot permitted by the RS.
An alternative has been proposed by staff for the amendment. The alternative would be to
change the land use designation from RL (3.1 units to the acre) to RS/3.1 (3.1 units to the acre).
The RS/3.1 would allow the smaller 7,200 square foot lot size allowed by RS, but would limit
the density to the 3.1 units to the acre now allowed by the RL. This staff proposed alternative
would necessitate a text amendment to the General Plan to create the RL/3.1 designation. The
applicant is not opposed to this alternative.
Tentative Tract No. 15743 is a proposal to subdivide the site into 41 single-family lots. The
proposed lot sizes would range from 8,056 square feet to 40,646 square feet. The proposed
subdivision would result in a density of 2.84 dwelling units per acre.
SETTING/SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is roughly triangular in shape and is located on the southwest comer of Washington
Street and Palm Avenue. Palm Avenue is identified in the General Plan Circulation Element,
Section 6.0, as a secondary arterial. The site is bordered on the south by Cable Creek Flood
Channel. The site is undeveloped and relatively flat with a slight slope to the south-southeast
of 1-2 percent. The site is generally devoid of vegetation with the exception of several mature
walnut trees, and shows signs of having been disked for weed abatement.
Surrounding land uses include a multi-family apartment complex across Palm Avenue on the
east, single-family homes on one acre lots across Washington Street on the north, and vacant
commercially designated land to the west and south across Cable Creek Channel.
General Plan AmP.I'Id111P.11t No. 96~
Tentative TllICt No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Previous Tentative Tract
On September 19, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Tenlative Tract 14209, a proposal
to subdivide the 14.45 acre site into 41 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 10,800
square feet. This tenlative subdivision is in compliance with all applicable Development Code
Standards for the RL land use district.
Tenlative Tract No. 14209 has received two extensions of time from the Planning Commission;
one I-year extension on November 6, 1991, and one 2-year extension on May 8, 1993. This
placed the tract expiration at September 19, 1994. The tract was eligible for and received one
2-year automatic extension and another I-year automatic extension through slate legislation. The
current expiration date for Tenlative Tract No. 14209 is now September 19, 1997. Thus, this
tenlative subdivision remains valid.
In discussions with staff, the applicant has indicated that a Public Works/Engineering Standard
Requirement for constructing a scour wall on the Cable Creek right-of-way line (Standard
Requirement No. 56, 'IT14209) is cost prohibitive and makes the subdivision infeasible. The
current application has been submitted to avoid the necessity of the scour wall. The applicant
has redesigned the tract, adding a 100 foot building setback required by the San Bernardino
County Flood Control district in lieu of the scour wall to minimize flood hazards to the proposed
homes. In order to relain the 41 lots originally proposed in Tenlative Tract 14209 while
mainlaining the 100-foot flood control setback, Tenlative Tract No. 15743 has been designed
with smaller lots (less than the 10,800 square feet required by the RL designation) and placed
the central access road within the 100-foot flood control setback. The smaller lots has
necessilated the applicant's request for General Plan Amendment to RS, for without the
amendment, the design of Tenlative Tract No. 15743 could not be approved.
The Department of Public Works/City Engineer has indicated that they will require the developer
to design and construct improvements along Cable Creek to harden the channel and minimize
the potential for erosion of the roadway. The hardening can lake the form of a mud and scour
wall along the property line or other measures acceptable to the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer. Hence, the proposal will require some type of channel improvements to protect the
subdivision from erosion, similar to the requirements of Tenlative Tract No. 14209.
Development Review Committee
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee and cleared onto Planning
Commission on March 20, 1997. The Public Works Department, Development Services
Division, Fire Department and Water Department have all provided Standard Requirements for
the proposal.
Genera1 Plan AmendmAnt No. 96'{)7
Teotative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 3
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS
o The Initial Study was prepared by staff, and presented to the Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on February 20, 1997. The ERC proposed a Negative Declaration.
See Initial Study, Attachment F.
o The Initial Study was made available for Public Review and Comment from February 27,
1997 to March 19, 1997. No comments were received.
o On March 20, 1997, the Environmental Review Committee cleared the proposal with a
recommendation for adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
General Plan Ampndment
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with General Plan Objective 1.11 which states that it will
be the objective of the City to:
"Promote the development of single-family detached units in a high quality urban
setting. "
2. The proposed amendment would!Wt be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenieru:e, or welfare of the City.
The proposal would not result in an any increase in allowable density since the RS/3.1 would
allow the same density as the current RL designation. The smaller 7,200 square foot lot sizes
would be permitted, and would act as a transition from the legal non-conforming apartment
complex across Palm Avenue on the east, to the RE on the north side of Washington Street.
hence the amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City.
3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balaru:e of land uses within the
City.
The RS/3.1 land use designation would not significantly affect the balance of land uses within
the City since the proposal would nominally increase the existing RS district by 14.45 acres
without allowing an increase in density. The site is currently a residential designation and is to
remain so under the proposed amendment.
General Plan AmP.I'IdmP.l'll No. 96-01
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 4
4. The subject parcel is physically suitable (including, but not limited to access, provision
of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints)
for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development.
The subject parcel is physically suitable for the RS land use designation. It will form a
transition from the legal non-conforming apartments across Palm Avenue on the East to the
larger RL lots on the north side of Washington Street. The anticipated land use development
will remain as single-family with no increase in allowable density.
Tentative Tract MaD
As previously noted, Tentative Tract No. 15743 is dependent upon approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 96-07. The following findings are made based on the assumption of approval
of the proposed General Plan Amendment.
1. The proposed map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans.
The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan in that the project is designated RS/3.1,
Residential Suburban (3.1 units per acre). The map conforms to the standards concerning
distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the General Plan.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
The proposed design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General
Plan since the RU3.1 designation permit lot sizes 7,200 square feet in area and the smallest lot
proposed is 8,056 square feet. The subdivision proposes a density of 2.84 units per acre which
is well within the 3.1 units per acre permitted by the RU3.1.
There are no applicable specific plans.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the lots created meet
all applicable design standards specified by the Development Code and summarized in
Attachment C.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the RS/3.1 permits
a density of 3.1 units per acre and the development will result in a density of 2.84 units per
acre.
General Plan Amendment No. 96-ll7
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 5
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.
The subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as addressed in the Initial
Study.
6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health
problems.
The design of the subdivision will not cause any serious health problems as addressed in the
project Initial Study.
7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will c01iflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision.
The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements
since any existing easements would be abandoned or relocated by the Public Works/Engineering
Department through processing of the Final Map.
CONCLUSION
The proposed General Plan Amendment to change the RL land use designation to RS/3.1 will
allow smaller lot sizes creating a transition from the existing legal non-conforming apartments
across Palm Avenue to the east to the larger 1 acre lots in the RE district on the north side of
Washington Street to the north without any increase in allowable density. The proposed
subdivision is consistent with the amendment and meets all applicable Development Code
Standards for the RS designation. All environmental impacts have been mitigated as addressed
in the Initial Study and all mitigation included as Conditions of Approval or Standard
Requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Mayor and Common Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 based upon the
Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Attachment D) and Standard Requirements (Attachment E).
General Plan Amendment No. 96-{)7
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Dale: 6-3-97
Page 6
R~tfully Submitted,
~f LL/J
Michael E. Hays r--D ..../
Director of P . and Building Services
Michael R. Finn
Senior Planner
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Location Map
General Plan Amendment Map (B-1), Tentative Tract Map (B-2)
Development Code and General Plan Consistency Table
Conditions of Approval
Standard Requirements
Initial Study
') ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
.....
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
.~
. , .
t
@
\'~
,'....
,\~
'"
"
\,
"
\'
\'
"
',~..
. ~:::..-:=.:..---..:...--
-"~~ 0
\\
,~~
\' '
"
~~~~
PlAN-l.tt PN3E 1 OF 1 (4-90)'
ATTACHMENT B.1
<t !(~il\15"wJ
t.)r ------
'~I i
I-I ~
, ,
, ,
I I
O.
OUI
1-='
.lit.
,",
, ,
, ,
~
I I
I
l~
-
I
,
/
..,.
-:.:..'4
I
.1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
~C~\ \0
I '~~
I ...I
I a:
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..
I
:;:)
a:
,
\
I
,
..
~
~
<II
@l
..
o
IL.
.0.
,
o!.t;\,
...\:.1 I
, .
f!..
I
I
-. @
\.
.... ~..,.,
l. +..
"',@
.
-. ....... ...~_...
I
ole
...I
a:
..,,~~
I ,..
o
(;)
:..\\
:. u@.
,
..0
~
'.'
;'
~
!
~
!
t ~
.
~
."....,....
"~-'~"" ,:.,
1
ATTACHMENT B-2
I !: ! I -
I ! ~ ~~ ~id~i!,!J~
, ~ ~~l!i'i !i!!ip'l!lIa
_ r~ ; lid I ~ I ~i I:;:! !!il :111 ;i!l! ,Ie!
jlll! ~'I ~ ' '
i&i~ ill! 11:.1 I I ! i I !
! -
~I ~ ~ ="l'~~El R!!!If r. ~t;; ~~ ~i'! i!1
Ii I; 1 ,I I;l'j ! .' _i"- , !: ~ Ii . 1<"1
~ 1Ii ;j~ I 'I ~l~ ! t ~ ! . ~"Ii ~ i: i~
; ~ ;: ~'l i ~i' i I I I S! i ~ - , ....!'
. 'I 'II~'; -,', Ii.,,, II '$II
i . ! . ~_. _ . '
, ., ! ,- i, ';' ,1_ '/!! .~
, ~ is;; :!;j ._ II ~ ""'.
,~i ,r.- 9.. i'! a ~ a. 'i i " J 1 . ~ _ ~~~ ~!l
!,,, '.'! ~!:!;! ~ ~ C ~ ij ;Ri'!il"
B!! ! I~~! I~ gib!~; I: 1,li ~ 'il!~!d!a!lii'~ fli I~,
HH = i~ I~ R ~~~"'~ t . i! ~ ~&1 ;.~di~lgnAl iiilft ~
~
~
[N It i~
ITiD .: .: <o;i r--.'; ~ii
;;:;il: ~!5 ~ - "1~:= I
-I 1 "' "' I
= I
[QJf]
~
z =
;[?
:~
~[?
~~
[QJf]
[?
111
"
i~
H
"
[J
:~
l>-i~
I~.
i1
"
j
I
,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ '
, / /
,/ '/'
")^V JJ)NJ.S3I-lJ......-~/ __~/-~/ /
--______________m_u___~/ /
,
, "
/
,
/
,
/
/
/
/
/
/i
W
I~ll
;;1,
5!-
~~l'
u,
.,
~~l
ffi!!
i' -I ~'I
':J- L ~h
~ ~ wr
[to ~ ~ ~,I
Ii II ~Ii
'z 8
i~
,-
10
>
.
u
---l~"'~
I' I
. ~
JJ
i~
r~l~
. ,
. "
- Ii : i~
~
i'
,
!
!
~
!
!
I
I
I
1
,
General Plan Amendment No. 96~7
Tentative TIlICt No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 9
ATIACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Development General
CateL!or.y I'ro.posal Code Plan
Permitted Use Single-Family Permitted Permitted
Subdivision
Lot Size 8,056 s.f. 10,800 s.f.(RL) 10,800 s.f. (RL)
7,200 s.f (RS) 7,200 s.f. (RS)
Lot Width
Interior Lots 69 feet 80 feet (RL) N/A
60 feet (RS) N/A
Comer Lots 89 feet 88 feet (RL) N/A
66 feet (RS) N/A
Lot Depth 106 feet 100 feet (RL/RS) N/A
Lot wI Rear Abutting an 122 feet 110 feet (RL/RS) N/A
Arterial Street (palm)
Density 2.84 DUlAC 3.1 DUlAC (RL) 3.1 DUlAC (RL)
4.5 DUlAC (RS) 4.5 DUlAC (RS)
Access All lots have All lots shall N/A
direct access to have direct
a public street & access to a
provisions for public street &
2 standard means provisions for
of ingress! egress 2 standard means
are provided of ingress! egress
required
General Plan Amendment No. 96-{)7
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Dale: 6-3-97
Page 10
ATIACHMENT D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract No. 15743
1. Within two years of this approval, the filing of the final map or parcel map with the
Council shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Expiration of
a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map shall be
filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept the
fmal map or parcel map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to
forwarding them to the City Clerk. The date the map shall be deemed filed with the
Council is the date on which the City Clerk receives the map. The review authority
may, upon application filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant
an extension to the expiration date pursuant to Section 19.66.170 of the Development
Code and the State Map Act.
Project:
Expiration Date:
Tentative Tract No. 15743
(Two Years from date of Approval of Tentative Map)
2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration
date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review
authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code
provisions.
3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter.
Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of
San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and
attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such
action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this
condition.
4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit process. Any modification which exceeds
10% of the following allowable measurable design! site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing
review authority if applicable.
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping;
General Plan )u".."dmenl No. 96-m
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 11
b. Placement and/or height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, and/or modification
of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved
theme; and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected structure shall be occupied
or no change of use of land or structure(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this permit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued
by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the
Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit is filed
with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate. The
deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful performance and completion of all terms,
conditions and performance standards imposed on the intended use by this permit.
6. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lightning design and control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied
with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter
cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the
building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
7. A six foot decorative block wall, wrought iron, or combination decorative block/wrought
iron fence or other barrier approved by the City of San Bernardino Planning Division and
County Flood Control District shall be constructed along the Flood Control District's
right-of-way adjacent to the site.
8. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Public Works (Engineering) Department
b. Water Department
c. Fire Department
General Plan AmAI'IdmAl'lt No. 96~
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Hearing Date: 6-3-97
Page 12
d. Parks and Recreation Department
"
,
\
,
STANDARD REQUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION:
41 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE.
PAGE NO:
. NOTE TO APPUCANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required, the applicant Is
responsible for submlttJng the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering DMs/on. They
may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans.
1. Drainaae and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to
requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part on the
recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood District. The
developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage
and flood control.
b) This project lies adjacent to Cable Creek Channel that is an unimproved
channel subject to heavy, debris laden, erosive flows. The Developer
shall be required to design and construct improvements along Cable
Creek to harden the channel and minimize the potential for erosion of the
levee adjacent to this project. This hardening can take the form of a mud
and scour wall along the property line or other measures within or
adjacent to the channel which are acceptable to the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer. Any proposed work within the channel right-of-way
will require plan approval and a permit from the County Department of
Transportation and Flood Control.
c) A permit will be required from the Department of Transportation and Flood
Control if any work is required within the Flood Control District's right-of-
way.
Page 1 of 12 Pages
3128/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
d) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage
improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream
impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at
the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary.
e) The development is located within Zone X (shaded) on the Federal
Insurance Rate Maps and may be subject to sheet overflow to a depth of
less than 1 foot in a 100 year storm; therefore all building pads shall be
raised above the surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer.
f) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public
drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements
shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to
maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge
Permit Requirements. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the
State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 5 acres of
more of land.
h) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan, approval shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due
to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon.
Page 2 of 12 Pages
3t21W7
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
2. Gradina and LandscaDina
a) If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/ploUgrading and
drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a
grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in
strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and
the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
b) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit
conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development
Code shall be obtained from the Department of Planning and Building
Services prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits.
c) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond
will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with
Section 7012(c) of the Uniform Building Code.
d) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible,
this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to
all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See
"Grading Policies and Procedures").
e) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and
detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the
On-site Improvement permit issued by the Department of Public
Works/City Engineer.
Page 3 of 12 Pages
3/28/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
f) This project is located in the "High Wind Area". Therefore, all free
standing walls and fences shall be designed for a minimum wind load of
23 pounds per square foot of vertical surface, unless a lower value is
approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
g) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the
Engineering Division for Checking.
h) A Landscape Maintenance District shall be implemented to maintain
landscaping within the following areas:
i) Parkway area and slope along the westerly side of Palm Avenue
adjacent to the site. An easement for landscape purposes shall be
dedicated over the slope.
ii) Parkway area along the south side of Washington Avenue adjacent
to the site.
iii) Parkway area along the south side of" A" Street adjacent to Cable
Creek Channel.
i) All required maintenance districts shall be formed prior to Map recording.
j) Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the Landscape
Maintenance District.
k) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's Real
Property Section of the Department of Public Works with a signed copy of
the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each property
purchaser.
Page 4 of 12 Pages
3128/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
3. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance
with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility,
including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV.
b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so
the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it.
c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished
floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole.
d) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at
the Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures"
and City Standard Drawings.
e) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as
required.
f) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either
side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Section
19.30.110 of the Development Code.
g) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated
at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except
overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be
undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.30.
Page 5 of 12 Pages
3128/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
4. Mappina
a) A Final Map based upon field survey will be required.
b) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to
Map approval.
c) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks,
geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City
Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
d) If this Map is located in an Assessment District and the assessment has
not been paid off, the subdivider shall submit an apportionment
application to the Real Property section of the Department of Public
Works/City Engineer. Application forms can be obtained form the Real
Property Section at (909) 384-5026.
e) Assessment District Apportionment Fees:
. Final Maps or Parcel Maps of more than 4 Parcels - $ 2.250.00 plus
$25.00 for each final assessable lot or parcel.
5. Improvement Completion
a) Street, sewer, and drainage improvements plans for the entire project
shall be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to
the Map recordation.
Page 6 of 12 Pages
3/28/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
b) If the required improvements are not completed prior to Map recordation,
an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the
developer and the City will be required.
c) Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period of 4
years shall be paid. Exact amount shall be determined and shall become
payable prior to map recording.
d) All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from the following
streets:
i) Palm Avenue from lots 34 through 41.
ii) Washington Avenue from lots 1, 2, 7, 8, 18, 19, 33, and 34.
6. Street ImDrovement and Dedications
a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be
improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap
ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not
limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of public or
private facilities which interfere with new construction, striping, shall be
accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street
Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street Lighting
Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street
improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
Page 7 of 12 Pages
312&97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of way
(R. w.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and
placement of the curb line(C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be
as follows:
. Street Name Right-of-Wav(ft. ) Curb Line(ft)
Palm Avenue 44' (Existing) 32' (Existing)
Washington Ave. 30' 18'
A, 8, C, and D Streets 25' 18'
c) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to the
site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb and gutter.
Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic safety and
drainage as approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
d) Construct cul-de-sacs and knuckle in accordance with City Standard
Drawing No.1 01.
e) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard
No. 202, Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb).
f) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at
all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site. Dedicate sufficient
right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp.
g) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard
Nos. SL-1 and SL-2.
Page 8 of 12 Pages
3/28/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION:
41 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE.
PAGE NO:
7. Phasina
a) If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase shall be
designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public
service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this
requirement, the following will be required prior to the finalization of any
phase:
b) Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond the
phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design shall be complete to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
c) A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Division, Fire, and Planning Departments indication what improvements
will be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following:
d) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32 foot radius paved
width;
e) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum 28 foot paved width;
f) Street improvements shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries,
as necessary to provide secondary access;
g) Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms, and
block walls, shall be constructed, as necessary, to protect the
development from off-site flows;
Page 9 of 12 Pages
3/28/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION:
41 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE.
PAGE NO:
h) A properly designed water system shall be constructed which is capable
of providing required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond the
phase boundaries;
i) Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities
shall be completed; and,
j) Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
8. Reauired Enaineerina Permits
a) Grading permit (If applicable.).
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Planning and Building Services), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvements construction permit.
9. ADDlicable Enaineerina Fees1
a) Map Checking fee - $ 1,000.00 plus $ 30.00 per lot or parcel.
I All Fees are subject to change without notice.
Page 100t 12 Pages
3/28/97
STANDARD REQUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION:
41 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. S/S SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE.
c)
d)
PAGE NO:
b)
Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost2 of the off-site
improvements.
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements(except buildings
- See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%, respectively, of the
estimated construction cose of the on-site improvements, including
landscaping.
Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee
Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter.
e)
Drainage fee in the approximate total amount of $55.055 . Based on i
0.133 oer SQuare foot of net lot area.
f) Traffic system fee in the estimated amount of J6.337 Based on ~
houses at $ 154.57 per house.
g) Sewer Connection fee in the approximate amount of $11.274. Based
on 144 bedrooms @ $274.97 per bedroom.
h)
Sewer inspection fee in the amount of $759
connections @ ~ 18.51 per connection.
Based on 41
'Estimated ConstnJctJon Cost for Off-Site Improvements Is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with
the Department of Public WorksIClty Engineer.
3 Estimated ConstnJctJon Cost for On-Site Improvements Is based on a list of standard unit prices on file with
the Department of Public Works/City Engineer.
Page 11 of 12 Pages
3/28/97
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 15743
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 41 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM
AVE. SIS SIDE OF WASHINGTON AVE. PAGE NO:
i) Street or easement dedication processing fee in the amount of $ 200.00
per document. This will apply if dedications are made by separate
documents.
10. Additional Reauirements - Verdemont Area Proiects
a) This development will be required to pay Infrastructure Development Fees
prior to issuance of building permits in the amount of $1.500.00 per single
family residence.
b) This single family residential project lies within the Chestnut Storm Drain
Fee boundary. Therefore, a storm drain Surcharge Fee of $ 0.155 per
square foot shall be paid (not to exceed $ 2.393.84 per lot) to the City
prior to approval of building permits.
c) This project lies within the proposed boundary of the Palm Avenue Box
Culvert and Traffic Signal Fee area; therefore, a fee of $ 0.02 per square
foot of net project area shall be paid to the City prior to approval of
building permits.
Page 12 of 12 Pages
3/28/97
A?,J 2-iPl-/Bt -08
1HcI11A~> Bios 49b4-
.::;j)f$Jl1ITrro:..
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Review of Plans: {;y PA lj io - 0 7
OwnerlDeveloper: J1JLM &n./~S
::ti:~roject:;1o~1~:::~;::~~r~
WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING:
pi LL-- &ylbJ
TT 12143
Date Compiled: 9 W910
Compiled By: F:'J. 'LETSaJ
Number of Units:
Contact:
Phone: ~FJ4. t;39L Fax:?f34 ??3Z-
Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department.
o Size of Main Adjacent the Project: 611 S~ J,J tJAf'!:!1r"" /",If ~ ,;oJ ~
~ ~ P CAJc.JZ I
o Approximate Water preg!;rrre: ~ '51 Elevation of Water Storage: /9 J b FT Hydrant Flow @ 20 psi: > 150t>/jr',4f
o Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant: ~: Z~ t.J/ 5~~ b" F}lS ~ Sr}J6' a!'
j,/ttlHI,J~1'JJJ {M lJt':.uAJR: {)f;;sSd, ~.s.s6e),.J I: twAf.t ~ ~~ /p"Lc.hI!J:N.u fi.l &/dr J,Of' ~
o Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
o Off-site Water Facilities Required.
o Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department.
o Comments:
WATER OUALITY CONTROL:
Contact: ~AN 4J\JN€",/ Phone: 3Jr't-~o'i'l. Fax:
o R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
o Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
o Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
J(NO Backflow Device Required at This Time.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL/INDUSTRIAL WASTE:
Contact: -POtJ CAS,1j?.o
Phone: ~ ~ Fax: ~ 74B7
Note: No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed.
o Industrial Waste Permit Required.
o Grease Trap Required.
o Pre-treatment Required.
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION:
Contact: P.Jeil Th~
APfI?oJGD
l\Jo RC:QOI ~M~""5
Phone: .~I- ~9.3
Fax: Jf4- 5;)/5
Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building & Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit.
o No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
rlewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for - Gallons Per Day, Equivalent Dwelling Units:
o Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit.
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
4/
SfDREQUI2.FRM (4194)
~
1.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FIRE DEPARTMENT 1f /)'7f3
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case: Cf6-o7
Date: .J."J-~
Reviewed By:
AvYl {'V\~ ~ ~
'..
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
o Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
o Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (909) 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements.
.:;:'t. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based
on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and .ID!.lJl be available IH1m to placing combustible
materials on site.
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
1;J The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by:
-S San Bernardino Municipal Water Department - Engineering (909) 384-5391
o East Valley Water District - Engineering (909) 888-8986
o Other Water Purveyor:
Phone:
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES:
-s. Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not
to exceed 500 feet for residential areas.
ISl Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas.
Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas.
o Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted, as deemed
appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations.
-e;;j Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water
purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor.
o Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial
responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor
indicated above for additional information.
ACCESS:
's Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved. all weather.
""&. Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less .than 20 feet
of unobstructed width.
o Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story buildings.
o Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple-story buildings.
o Provkte RNO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required
width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING - M.C. See 15.16".
"'l!;] Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround.
tt.. The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
1i.: All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
o Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within
40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 21/2 inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire hydrants shall be designated as a '"NO PARKING'" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the
hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles.
BUILDINGS:
"'B: Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage
street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color
of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background.
o Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves.
o Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 10B/C. Minimum
distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher.
o Apartment houses with 16 or more units, hotels (motels) with 20 or more units. or apartments or hotels (motelsl three stories or more in height
shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards.
o All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA
standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 180 days.
lsl.. Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system.
o Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction.
o Provide fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation.
o Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
;; ",,/Idl.. 5' /J
.f))/f} r/I~ q h
I/OCd f I/J VI
FPB 170 (11-94)
CITY OP SAN BERNARDINO PARKS, RECREATION << COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
caaa.~V'o1 tj(/5i-e
Date: Clb
.-,.... By. M ,5kPIl:ff'd
GENERAL RBQUIR1nI1lIlf1'S:
[ I
~
Coamercial Induatrial and ~lti-unit
Aaae..ment District
Residential
Purpose, Guidelines and submittal procedure
Irrigation and Landscaping Plans.
Contact the City of San Benardino Parks,Recreation and CODIIIlUI1ity Services
Department at (9091 384-5217 or 384-5314 for specific detailed
requirtlDlents.
SPSCZ.ZC REQUIREMENTS:
[ I
fXl
~l
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
PLAN'1' MATBR:IALS
Maintenance of landscape are..
Planter Areas
Interior Planter Areas
Irrigation SysttlDl8
Setback Areas
Slope Areas
Ground Cover and Bedding Katerial
Brosion Control
Weed Control
(')( I Plant list and climatic conditions
[~l Street Tree.
[~ Plant Material Size Requirements and Ratios
ZNSI'BCTXON AND OU1J5X REQUIREMENTS
] Irrigation SysttlDl
I Landscaping
I Hard~cape IttlDlB
Street tree Specifications
I Arborist Report
I RtlDIOval or destruction of trees
] Screening RequirtlDlent (City, Dev.Code)
to the Parks, Recreation and
XS:jj
ATT/.:~"MENT F
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR Tentative Tract No. 15743 and
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
PROJECT DFSCRIPTION/LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 is a
request to change the General Plan Land Use Designation of 14.45 acres from RL,
Residential Low (3.1 dulac) to RS, Residential Suburban (4.5 dulac). Tentative Tract
No. 15743 is a request to subdivide 14.45 acres into 41 single-family lots. The site is
located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Palm Avenue in the RL,
Residential Low land use designation.
DATE: February 20, 1997
PREPARED FOR:
David E. Mlynarski
MAPCO/Bonadiman Engineers
680 South Waterman Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
PREPARED BY:
Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(909) 384-5057
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Project: General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743
Owner: Palm Partners, a California Partnership
Applicant: David E. Mlynarski
Introduction
This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No.
96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that
can occur if General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 are approved.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study
whenever a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not
exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal,
not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an
Environmental Impact Report (ElR) must be prepared.
The following components constitute the Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
and Tentative Tract No. 15743:
1. Project Description and Location
2. Site and Area Characteristics
3. Environmental Setting
4. Summary
5. Environmental Determination
6. Environmental Impact Checklist
7. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
8. Supporting InformationlLocation Map, Tentative Tract Map and Map of Proposed
General Plan Amendment Area
Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study for General Plan Amendment
No. 96-07 and Tentative Tract No. 15743.
Documents, surveys, and reports referenced in this Initial Study are available for public review
on request at the City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services, Third
Floor City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 3
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
General Plan Amendment No. 96-07 is a request to change the General Plan land use designation
of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low (3.1 dulac) to RS, Residential Suburban (4.5 dulac).
The RL allows a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet while the RS would allow a minimum
lot size of 7,200 square feet. The General Plan Amendment is requested not to increase the
number of lots possible on the site, but rather to allow the smaller lot size allowed by RS.
An alternative to the proposed amendment would be to change the General Plan land use
designation from RL to RS/3.l (3.1 dulac) which would permit the smaller 7,200 square foot
lot size in the RS, but would limit the density to the 3.1 du/ac of the present RL designation
ensuring that a greater number of lots would not result from a subdivision at some future date.
Such an amendment would also require a text amendment to the General Plan establishing the
policy for development under the RS/3.l land use designation.
Tentative Tract No. 15743
Tentative Tract No. 15743 is a request to subdivide 14.45 acres into 41 single-family lots. The
proposed lot sizes would range from 8,056 square feet to 40,646 square feet. The 41 proposed
lots result in a density of 2.84 dulac.
2. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The 14.45 acre site is roughly triangular in shape, and is located on the southwest comer of
Washington Street and Palm Avenue, in the RL, Residential Low land use district. Palm
Avenue is identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, Section 6.0, as secondary arterial.
The site is bordered on the south by the Cable Creek Flood Channel. The site is vacant and
relatively flat with a slight slope to the east-southeast at 1 to 2 percent. The site is generally
devoid of vegetation with the exception of several mature walnut trees and shows signs of having
been disked for weed abatement.
Surrounding land uses include a multi-family apartment complex across Palm Avenue on the
east, single family homes across Washington Street to the north, and vacant commercially
designated land to the west and south across Cable Creek Channel.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Cable Creek Channel is located adjacent to the site on the south. The site lies within Zone
X which includes flood hazard areas that will be inundated by a 500-year storm event, and areas
that will be inundated by a lOO-year storm event with average depths of less than 1 foot. The
City of San Bernardino
Environmental ImpactChecklist
Page 4
site is also located within an area identified by the General Plan as having a high potential for
liquefaction susceptibility.
4. SUMMARY
The project site is located within a flood hazard zone, and area identified as having a potential
for liquefaction susceptibility. Project Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements will
reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 5
S. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
2L The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although
there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Valerie Ross. Principal Plannerl ERCIDRC Chair
Name and Title
v'~,J<uy
Signature
Febl1llllY 20. 1997
Date
City Contact Person regarding this Initial Study:
Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone: (909) 384-5057
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 6
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sheet.
"No" answers are explained on this checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environmental
Description Form, where necessary. (SECTION 6)
Yes No Maybe
1. Earth Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)
on slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form No. D.(3)?
.x.
b. Development and/or grading. on a
slope greater than 15 % natural
grade based on review of General
Plan HMOD map, which designates
areas of 15 % or greater slope in
the City?
..x..
c. Development within the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone as
defmed in Section 12.o-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the
City's General Plan?
..x..
d. Modification of any unique geologic
or physical feature based on field
review?
.x.
e. Development within areas defined
for high potential for water or
wind erosion as identified in
Section 12.o-Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan?
.x.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 7
Yes No Maybe
f. Modification of a channel, creek
or river based on review of
USGS Topographic Map (Name)
San lMnn NW 7.5 Minute ? ..x.
g. Development within an area
subject to landslides, mudslides,
subsidence or other similar
hazards as identified in Section
12.o-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the
City's General Plan? ..x.
h. Development within an area
subject to liquefaction as shown
in Section 12.o-Geologic &
Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan? ..x.
i. Other?
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an
effect upon ambient air quality
as defined by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, based on
meeting the threshold for significance
in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality
Handbook"? ..x.
b. The creation of objectionable
odors based on information
contained in Preliminary
Description Form, No. G.(3)? ..x.
Yes
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area as identified in
Section 15.o-Wind & Fire, Figure
59, of the City's General Plan? ..x..
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces
that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard
Requirements to contain and
convey runoff to approved
storm drain based on review
of the proposed site plan?
b. Significant alteration in the
course or flow of flood waters
based on consultation with
Public Works staff]
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality based on
requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to
approved storm drains?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground water?
City of San Bernardino
Environmental ImpactChecklist
PageS
No
Maybe
..x..
..x..
..x..
..x..
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 9
Yes No Maybe
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards as identified
in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community
Panel Number 0607IC7930F,
and Section 16.o-Flooding,
Figure 62, of the City's General
Plan? ..x.
f. Other?
4. Biological Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological
Resources Management Overlay, as
identified in Section 10.0-
Natural Resources, Figure 41,
of the City's General Plan? ...x...
1. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. B.(I) and verified
by on-site survey/evaluation? ..x.
2. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. E.(8) and verified
by site survey/evaluation? ..x.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental ImpactChecklist
Page 10
Yes No Maybe
3. Impacts to the wildlife
disbursal or migration corridors? ...x..
b. Removal of viable, mature trees
based on site survey/evaluation
and review of the proposed site
plan? (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the ground) ..x.
c. Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health
care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities
or other noise sensitive uses
in areas where existing or
future noise levels exceed an
ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an
ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as
identified in Section 14.Q-Noise,
Figures 57 and 58 of the City's
General Plan? ...x..
b. Development of new or expansion
of existing industrial,
commercial or other uses which
generate noise levels above an Ldn
of 65 dB(A) exterior or an ldn of
45 dB(A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
health care facilities or other
sensitive uses based on
information in the Preliminary
Environmental Description Form
No. G.(l) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C., and
verified by site survey/evaluation? ..x.
c. Other?
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 11
Yes
No
Maybe
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated based on the review
of the General Plan Land Use
Plan/Zoning Districts Map?
..x.
b. Development within an Airport
District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land
Use Zoning District Map?
..x.
c. Development within Foothill Fire
Zones A & B, or C as identified
on the Development Code Overlay
Districts Map?
..x.
d. Other?
7. Man-Made Hazards: Based on
information contained in Preliminary
Environmental Description Form,
No. 0.(1) and 0.(2) will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose
of hazardous or toxic materials
(including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ..x.
b. Involve the release of
hazardous substances? ..x..
c. Expose people to the potential
health/ safety hazards? ..x..
d. Other?
8. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing as verified
by a site survey/evaluation? ..x..
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 12
Yes No Maybe
b. Create a significant demand for
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of
project size? ..x...
c. Other?
9. TransportatIon/Circulation: Could
the proposal, in comparison with the
Circulation Plan as identified in
Section 6.o-Circulation of the City's
General Plan and based on the
conclusions of the City Traffic
Engineer and review of the Traffic
Study if one was prepared, result in:
a. A significant increase in traffic
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that
is significantly greater than the
land use designated on the
General Plan? ..x.
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities!
structures? ..x.
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems? ..x.
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation? ..x.
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? ..x.
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? ..x.
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? ..x.
h. Other?
,----
b. Result in a disjointed pattern
of utility extensions based on
review of existing patterns
and proposed extensions.
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the
obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed
verified by site survey!
evaluation?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project create aesthetically
offensive changes in the
existing visual setting
based on a site survey and
evaluation of the proposed
elevations?
c. Other?
13. Cultural Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site by
development within an
archaeological sensitive area
as identified in Section 3.0-
Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of
a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other?
Yes
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 14
No
Maybe
..x..
.x
.x
.x
.x
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 15
Yes
No
Maybe
14. Mandatory Flndin&s of Slgniflcance
(Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered
yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Based on this Initial Study:
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
...x..
b. Does the project have the
to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the
environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
..x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is
significant. )
.x.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental ImpactChecklist
Page 16
Yes
No
Maybe
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly'?
.x..
B. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(SECTION 7)
1. Earth Resources
h. The project is located in an area identified as having a potential for high liquefaction susceptibility.
Compliance with the requirements of the City's liquefaction ordinance, MC-676, which stipulates the
preparation of a liquefaction report by a registered geologist or a registered engineering geologist will
reduce any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. However, the construction of any wood frame
detached residential structures on the residential lots created by the tentative tract are exempt from the
requirements of providing a liquefaction study pursuant to the provisions contained in MC-676.
2. Air Resources
b. As identified in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form, item no. G.(3), project construction
will result in impacts on the community in the form of dust. Engineering Standard Requirements
concerning compliance with Section 70l2(c) of the Uniform Building Code will reduce these potential
impacts to a level of non-significance.
c. The proposal will result in the development of single-family homes within a high wind hazard area.
Building Division Standard Requirements requiring design of the roof and structure of the dwellings to
be developed on the site to withstand 80 mile per hour wind load, exposure C, will reduce potential
impacts to a level of insignificance.
3. Water Resources
e. Cable Creek is adjacent to the tract on the south and has been partially improved to an earth graded
channel with rail and wire bank protection. These improvements are considered interim in nature by
San Bernardino County Flood Control District and not adequate to contain major storm flows. Storm
flows could break out of the channel upstream or adjacent to the tract and traverse the site.
According to the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C7930F, dated March 18, 1996, the
site lies within Zone X. Zone X includes flood hazard areas that will be inundated by a 500 year storm
event, and areas that will be inundated by a lOO-year storm event, with average depths of less than 1
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 17
foot. Engineering Standard Requirements and the following project conditions of approval will reduce
impacts to a level of insignificance:
(1) The construction of homes shall comply with the latest Federal Insurance Administration flood
proofmg requirements in force at the time of construction.
(2) lOQ-foot flood control building setback margins shall be provided outside the Flood Control
District's upper Warm Creek Right-of-Way for all structures to reduce the possibility of damage
due to overflow and/or erosion. The setback may be reduced if bank protection and/or deepened
structural wall footing are provided. The 85 foot setback shown on the tentative map will be
allowed in this particular case based on the location of the street adjacent to District right-of-
way. The 100 foot setback shown on Lot 1 is acceptable.
(3) The 85-foot flood control building setback on Lot 41 has been determined to be unacceptable
to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and shall be revised to a lOO-foot setback.
(4) A six foot decorative block wall, wrought iron, or combination decorative block/wrought iron
fence or other barrier approved by the City of San Bernardino Planning Division and County
Flood Control District shall be constructed along the Flood Control District's right-of-way
adjacent to the site.
(5) Due to erosion potential, the road adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel shall be no lower than
the adjacent channel bulk depth.
(6) A permit will be required for any encroachment onto Flood Control District right-of-way, and
a minimum of six (6) weeks processing time should be allowed.
(7) Mud flow and erosion protection of the roadway adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel shall be
provided subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
4. Biological Resources
a. The site is located in a somewhat urbanized area bordered by residential development across Washington
to the north and across Palm Avenue to the east. However, the site lies within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Figure 41 of the City's General Plan. A biological resources
survey was prepared by L & L Consultants.
The site is primarily un-vegetated, showing signs of recent disking for weed abatement. What little
vegetation cover that does occur on the site primarily consists of a sparse, scatter of walnut trees and
non-native grasses and herbs. The predominant non-native plants observed on-site included Bermuda
Grass, Foxtail Chess, Ripgut Grass, Short-pod Mustard, and Russian Thisle. These species are
characteristic of highly disturbed waste, roadside, residential, flood channels, ephemeral drainages, and
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 18
agricultural soils of the local, surrounding vicinity. Disturbed soils vegetated by these species are
described as RuderallDisturbed areas, and offer only limited cover for forage for native wildlife and
do not usually provide habitat for sensitive plants or animals.
Although the natural, native habitat was removed, a few hardy native plant species grow on-site as
remnants of former habitat. The predominant tree growing on-site is the California Black Walnut; the
predominant weedy native shrubs, grasses and herbs include Squaw Bush, Spiny Redberry, Annual
Sunflower, Scale-Broom, and Telegraph Weed.
Several scattered mature California Black Walnut trees occur on-site and may represent the remnants
of a California Walnut Woodland habitat. In addition, a few scattered specimens of Blue Elderberry,
Western Sycamore and Freemont Cottonwood grow intermittently on the site. The trees have been
disturbed and show signs of degradation/damage by resident activities. Based on visual observation and
review of the NDDB (Natural Diversity Data Base) records for sensitive species, L & L Consultants
considered the biological value of the trees to be very low.
Despite a thorough and systematic field survey of the entire site by L & L Consultants, no sensitive
species of any kind were discovered. Sensitive species are not expected to occur on-site due to the
absence of habitat potentially capable of supporting sensitive species, on-going weed abatement and or
fire suppression activities, and the lack of NDDB records for sensitive biological elements, on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site.
L & L Consultants concluded from their analysis that the subdivision and subsequent development of
the site will not result in significant impacts to sensitive species, because none were observed and none
are expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.
b. The subdivision could result in the removal of the scattered mature California Black Walnut trees and
other mature trees that occur on the site. Project Conditions of Approval have been added requiring
the submittal of an Arborist's Report to address the condition of native trees with recommendations as
to the potential use and relocations of the trees. Additionally, project compliance with Development
Code Section 19.28.090 requiring the submittal of a Tree Removal Permit will also help reduce impacts
resulting from the removal/relocation of the trees. Project Conditions of Approval have been added to
require the submittal of the Arborist's Report with the Tree Removal Permit, prior to the removal,
relocation or destruction of any trees on-site.
S. Noise
b. As identified in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form, item no. 0.(1), project construction
will result in impacts on the community in the form of noise. Adherence with the City's noise
ordinance regarding hours of construction (Municipal Code Section 8.54) will reduce these potential
impacts to a level of non-significance.
City of San Bernardino
Environmental Impact Checklist
Page 19
6. Land Use
a. The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment which would change the existing General Plan Land
Use/Zoning of the 14.45 acre site from RL, Residential Low (3.1 dulac) to RS, Residential Suburban
(4.5 dulac). The RL designation allows a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet whereas the RS
would allow a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the RS
designation is being request to allow the smaller 7,200 lot size and not the additional density permitted
by the RS.
An alternative to the proposal is to create an RS/3.1 designation that would allow a 7,200 square foot
lot size with a maximum density of 3.1 units to the acre. This alternative would require a text
amendment to describe the RS/3.1 designation.
The area across Palm to the east is developed with multi-family apartments. The area north across
Washington Street is an existing single-family neighborhood with a minimum lot size of one acre. To
the south of the site across Cable Creek is an area designated CG-5, Commercial General.
The current RL zoning would allow the development of a 45 lot single-family subdivision with a
minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet. Redesignation of the 14,45 acre site to RS would allow
development of a 65 lot single-family subdivision (20 more lots than the RL designation) with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Redesignation of the site to RS/3.l would allow the
development of a 45 lot single-family subdivision with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The
Any residential development proposed under the RS or RS/3.1 land use designation would be subject
to subsequent environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Potential
environmental impacts from the land use change will not be significant.
9. Transportation/Circulation
a. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has determined that the additional vehicle trips
resulting from the proposal will not cause any significant impact on the adjoining street system.
Potential impacts are, therefore, not significant.
8. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
8-1 Location Map
8-2 Tentative Tract No. 15743 Map
8-3 General Plan Amendment Map
k
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
r AGENDA .....
ITEM #
Ii..
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
II.
. , .
ClTYf7_1IIIEfIoWIIIN)
---
PLAN-8.ll PAGE 1 OF , (4-90).'
, I I i
!. . l ! i! ! i!~', 1l~'!1 ~.. - L-
Ug l~: ! I liii "liD ill~! ~Hd I~~ t ~ ~ Iii
liIilI hId- ! I I i I I liB! ~!i filj;!i Ii il; I. ;r~i~l~ iii ;;;;;
'I
i'
,-
~\
"I I
i l .f :. I
' . ,J' -1',
it / /
~i.J ,II II
/' /1 /
/ '/
"""'.."'=:--=:::---.,---;:7 /"
[M)
\if
[f:::l
[!]
=
p
.; l1D ',j, l
z - I~
;;
~ ~ !~ i
<
z
~
W (EB
m
z
<
~
~ p'
0
~ I'
~
z
~
0 . ,
u g
.; ~ -!
z
0 ~ 6P.!!i~
a
<
z
~ HI
W
m
z =
< p
~
~
0
I: ~
<;
W P
"
~
~ ~
~
p
ml~"~
I' I
- p,
: I j' :J j,
III J....._
___~___m " '---:~~~~:--;,:===:====~~=~====~----:;..:~=~==-~=====;=:--~-:~~~~>:,,-.,..-(---..---- _ r-
--------- -_;'lliiiii...l-~_______=r=-......____&.,.-==-~--::::r;:;;.____ -L.... --~.------r"'T""--~c n
.--'->., ]AVJI,.cl / I
: __.~~~u_~~~~~~~~~ ___ _____ ____ --~-7
l~! ~ _ ~ ,I~ -r--rT. i .
~: ~: ... II . .: III .f',' /if I I' f
! i .. . Il'l; fD i "') <<l Ie OlJ 211- 1- B I~ I 'I'
!l i ~ 1"11; <"lli "'!i C'JIO; '"15; "'~i ~., !F I J I
" j :. I /: / [
i /:/ --~'
i / if/
I ::1/
I n,
f ' : I
~'Ii : j II ! i
N_y I , I I
': '!tJ I' /!
. ~ /!
f / /
I I
,
,
,
I
,
I
:
/
Grim
, Ii
I Ii i~
.
,
;'
"
~ .
,
/1 ~
i- II
.
j;
~
V
i,
.
!
!
~
!
I
I
I
I
I
,
K.
I~l!
~II
~r
v,1
"
~It
ffil/
_I !l!'1
i; iI,
WI
.: .J,I
il !:I.
ul'
I
,
~
.
"'~
.."
"'u
~~~~
....<lito
E I~Q
dlho
5' '0
"Just!!....
~ (%\
<3
~
!!
~ r
"gutc;.. -':.-
~., I
J2
2'
~
~
/
./
,
,
i
,
.1
.
J
I
I
I
I
I J
I
I Cl
I~ 'i
~~'$. ~@
:>-,'l. ~'io
I J
I
I
., I
~ I 1
. ~0 I 1
W4~ I I
~ J I
I I
I ~
...
l
~
-
-
I
&.
..
~
j:!
III
€> .~
~
~
'"
g
'"
'"
;;
!!;
. ".
-<. u ~nN3A'I.
...l. ..H~'"
"'"Ii'.
!!: .
z ~ "'. ~ 00: ..\....~ . ..... ~
~ @ll. @ @l'"
... +<e.
~ -<j.
-...
~-:,.
.
.
.
i
i
i
\@
_. @..... . ~.GJ'l'-......,
:. "'00 .. _J5:
,..
.A ~ ....@; ~ ::0
",@ .. \'
. . .
]nN3Io.~
\I\~~ :.e~
It-~ !I~~~
,
"
V II) N~'
~I.~~ i
~0 ~ ~~~ft~
~ l!~~W:
.. !
~ ~ JUtti J
~
~ ~,! U~Jh
;:
.
r '&. +. I J
J
''''.n~'' _.~..J>.. ~'l " -~~"'''J''~_ ~
.
~
RESOLUTION NO.
1
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 96-07 TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SAN
3 BERNARDINO.
4
5
6
7
SAN
/
I
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL~,.6F THE CITY OF
BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: /
,"
SECTION 1.
Recitals
(a)
Committee who
WHEREAS, the General
San Bernardino
was adopted by the Mayor and
by Resolution
8
No. 89-159 on June 2, 1989.
9
10 Plan of the City of San Bernardi
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b)
WHEREAS,
ent No. 96-07 to the General
was considered by the Planning
a noticed public hearing, and the
commission on June 3, 1997, aft
Planning Commission's recomme Clation for denial has been considered
by the Mayor and Common Co
(c)
WHEREAS, an In
was prepared on February 20,
1997
and
reviewed by
he Environmental Review
determined
Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and Tentative
Tract No.
not have a significant effect on the
environment and thel fore, recommended that a Negative Declaration
be adopted.
(d)
WHEREAS; the proposed Negative Declaration received a 21
day public review period from February 27, 1997 through March 19,
1997 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and local regulations and no comments from the pUblic were
received re~tive thereto.
EREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed
e)
ring on June 3, 1997 in order to receive public testimony
and writ en and oral comments on General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
1
-
------
1 and Tentative Tract No. 15743 (a proposal to change the General
2 Plan Land Use Designation of 14.45 acres from RL, Residential Low
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
to RS/3.1, Residential Suburban/3.1 units per acre and to subdivide
,,'
J
size of 8,056 square feet) and fully reviewed and c0hsidered the
,/"
/1"
Planning Division staff report and the reco7ndation of the
Environmental Review Committee. .~
f) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common c~nci1 held a noticed
public hearing and fully reviewed a~~--Lnsidered General Plan
Amendment No. 96-07 and the Planning C~~~sion and Environmental
11 Review Committee recommendations an0anning Division Staff Report
12 on July 7, 1997. /
. /
13 (g) WHEREAS, the adopt~on.'If General Plan Amendment No. 96-07
14 is deemed in the interest of l~e orderly development of the city
and is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
15 I
{
existing General Plan. I
16 I
17 SECTION 2. Neaativi'Declaration
18 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ~OLVED' FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Mayor
19 and Common Council t~'t the proposed tentative tract and amendment
I
to the General PlaJ of the City of San Bernardino will have no
20 I
significant effectlon the environment, and the Negative Declaration
21 !
22 heretofore prePred by the Environmental Review Committee as to the
23 effect of thistproposed amendment is hereby ratified, affirmed and
24 adopted. /
25 SECTIOt( 3 . Findinas
BE IT~RTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the
26 /
city of s~n Bernardino that:
27
28 A.
The proposed amendment
is internally consistent with the
2
1
2
3
4 B.
5
6
7
8
9 c.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 D.
17
18
19
20
21 A.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General Plan provisions contained in Objective 1.11 pertaining
to promoting the development of single-family d7~ached units
".
in a high quality urban setting. I'
The proposed amendment would not be detrim tal to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, welfare of the City
allowable density. Lot
in any increase in
limited to a minimum
in that the proposal will not re
of 8,000 square feet. f
I'
The proposed amendment to ~ge the land use designation on
the 14.45 acre site from R~ to RS/3.1 would not significantly
affect the balance of l~hd uses within the City in that the
J
proposal will not resuJ~ in any increase in allowable density
"
for the site and l:!,6~h the RL and RS/3.1 designation are
,
i'
intended for the itlevelopment of residential single-family
l
homes.
.'
The subject site is physically suitable for the RS/3.1
.f
,
designation. fthe anticipated land use development will remain
I
as single fimily with no increase in allowable density.
SECTION 4./ Amendment
,
l!
BE IT FU~HER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council that:
The LaI}A Use Plan of the General Plan of the city of San
t
,
Berna1ino is amended by changing approximately 14.45 acres of
,
land;' from RL, Residential Low to RS/3.1, Residential
,
Sub!rban/3.1 units per acre. This amendment is designated as
G~eral Plan Amendment No. 96-07 and its location is outlined
on the map entitled Attachment A and further described in
Attachment B, copies of which are attached and incorporated
herein be reference.
3
16 inserted in the appropr~ate location in the General Plan Land Use
17
18
19
20
1 B.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 c.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
21
The Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino is amended by adding policies 1.11.11 to establish
permitted use, density and height for the ~dential
Suburban/3.1 land use designation, and 1.11.33~establish a
minimum lot size for the Residential SUbU~/3.1 land use
designation. A copy of the text is Ftached hereto as
,I
Attachment C and incorporated herein qf reference.
General Plan Amendment No. 95-05,t{hall become effective
f
I'
immediately upon adoption of thi"lresolution.
J
SECTION 5. MaD Notation and T~t Chanae
t
i;
This resolution and the amendment affected by it shall be
.'
.'>,
noted on such appropriate Gener~t'Plan maps as have been previously
adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common Council and which are
,1
on file in the office of the city Clerk. This resolution and the
addition of policies to L~nd Use Element affected by it shall be
,
Element, which has be,en previously adopted and approved by the
I
Mayor and Common Council and which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
(
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
4
day of
council Members:
AYES
ABSENT
NEGRETE
CURLIN
ARIAS
10 OBERHELMAN
11
12
13
14
15
DEVLIN
ANDERSON
7'
!j
_,if:4
l
/~
MILLER
16
17
18 of
19
20
21
,
~.
:l
if
l'
foregoingjfesolution
I
)" , 1997.
l
.
,I
Tom Minor, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
City Clerk
is hereby approved this
day
The
Approved as
and legal
22
23 -
24 By:
25
26
27
28
5
ATTACHMENT A
..... ~
AGENDA ""l
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
LOCATION
HEARING DATE
....
. , .
@
C1TYOFSANIEfICANlK)
CEtrmW.PIINllNG.uMGP
PLAN.S,11 PAGE 1 OF' (4-90)'
A'ITACHMENT B
Assesor's Parcel Number 261-182-08
'\
ATI'ACHMENT C
TEXT AMENDMENT
The following text amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element shall be inserted in the
appropriate location of the General Plan:
Insert following General Plan Policy 1.11.1 0
" 1.11.11
Permit the development of single-family detached units at a density of up
to 3.1 units per gross acre and height of 2.5 stories (35 feet) in areas
designated "Residential Suburban" (RS/3.1), (11.1 and Il.2)."
Insert following General Plan Policy 1.11.32
" 1.11.33
Require that lots be developed with a minimum of 8,000 square feet in
areas designated RS/3.1, (11.1, Il.2 and 1.1.6)."
MAPCO
July I, 1997
PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING
RECEIVt'}-CIT'I ClEP~
'97 JIJl -2 P 4 :33
Mr. Michael Hayes, Director of Planning and Building Services
City of San Bernardino
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re':'" "'reiitative~TijcrNo~ 15743 (TIJOS743)and Qenemi P!aii'AUiendIDeiif 9(@S
Dear Mr, Hayes:
On behalf of the owner(s), Palm Partners a California Limited Partnership, of the project
noted above we are respectfully requesting that the following information be forwarded
to the Mayor, members of the City CounciL City Attorney and Administrative staff for
their review in consideration of the scheduled public hearing on July 7, 1997.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Palm Partners purchased the subject property, consisting of approximately 14.5 acres,
approximately ten years ago.
Subsequent to months of hearings, law suits and fmancial hardships for the City and
landowners, a new General Plan and Development Code was adopted. The land use
designation for the subject property was RL, Residential Low (10,800 sq. ft. minimum).
Palm Partners sold the 14.5 acres to an Asian investment group. It was this investment
group that filed for the initial tract map 14209. This map consist of 41 single family lots
with a minimum lot size of 10,800 sq. ft. and an overall density of2.84 dwelling units per
acre.
The investment group was marketing the individual lots to families overseas at a price far
above the local market. This fact was the key reason why the investment group was not
concerned with the expense of certain infrastructure improvements or finish lot costs.
Their main focus was on developing and selling the fmish lots quickly. Unfortunately,
their 'timing' was awfuL Although the land values were reaching highs of 24,000.00 to
26,000.00 per lot, home sales were declining and unemployment was rising. Shortly
thereafter, lot prices began to decline rapidly to the point they are today, $5,000.00 to
$10,000.00 per lot. It soon became apparent that their investment was lost and the
oriental investment group defaulted on their mortgage note.
4f=~ 8
680 S. Waterman Ave., Building A . San Bernardino, CA 92408-2353 . (909) 885-3800 . Fax (9~! J19876
Page 2
Tract 15743
July 1, 1997
At approximately this same point in time, the city imposed an assessment district on all
vacant, undeveloped properties. These assessments were to pay for the construction of
certain drainage improvements, street improvements and traffic signals in the Verdemont
Community. There was no amount of tbese improvement costs assessed to existing
homes in this area of tbe city, altbougb tbese bomeowners would receive tbe same
benefit as tbe assessed landowners. This assessment has cost Palm Partners over
$20,000.00 to date and wilI cost an additional $80,000.00 before the bonds are retired.
This amount is in addition to the over $150,000.00 paid to date for property taxes, weed
abatement and other city assessments.
Palm Partners regained ownership of the property via a foreclosure process. It was at this
time, just a few years ago, that we began to reevaluate the costs of the previously
approved project to determine the feasibility of developing the site.
Upon our offices review of the project we discovered an excessive amount of
unnecessary expense in the infrastructure design. We informed Palm Partners that with
minor modifications to the project we could produce a project that is feasible, does not
increase the density and provides for the completion of public improvements.
It was at this time, approximately two years ago, that we began the design and processing
of the revised Tentative Tract No. 15743. The current application being considered at
this time was submitted to the city on July II, 1996.
PROJECT COMPARISON
TRACT 14209
TRACT 15743
# OF LOTS 41 41
DENSITY 2.84 D.U.lACRE 2.84 D.U.lACRE
ACREAGE 14.5 ACRES 14.5 ACRES
MINIMUM
LOT SIZE 10,800 SQ. FT. 8,056 SQ. FT.
MAXIMUM
LOT SIZE 20,000 SQ.FT. 40,646 SQ. FT.
Page 3
Tract 15743
July 1, 1997
PROJECT REVENUES
At this time, the approximate total of property tax, bond assessments, weed abatement
and other assessments annually for the vacant, \Uldeveloped property is $ 18,000.00.
Less than 5% of this amount is returned to the city via State or County 'pass-thru' of
collected revenues.
Should Tract 15743 be approved by the Mayor and City Council, the projected revenues
and economic activity, will be as follows:
Annual taxes (without special assessments) for 41 homes wiIl increase from $ 11,000.00
annually to approximately $ 80,000.00.
Each business performing work at the project site will be required to obtain a city
business license (if not already performing work in the city).
Plan Check & Inspection Fee's
Public Works Department
$ 42,000.00
Plan Check, Inspection and Park Fee's
Parks & Recreation Department
$ 70,000.00
Plan Check & Inspection Fee's
Building Department
$ 40,000.00
Development Impact Fee's
Various Departments
Verdemont Infrastructure Fee
Storm Drain Fee
Sewer Connection Fee
Sewer Capacity Fee
Traffic Systems Fee
Water Meter Fee
Water Acquisition Fee
$ 430,000.00
San Bernardino Unified School
District Fee
$ 120,000.00
$ 702,000.00
. .
Page 4
Tract 15743
July 1, 1997
Construction Loan Amounts
Public Improvement Costs
Home Construction Costs
Development Fee's
Financing, architecture,
Sales, marketing, etc....
$ 500,000.00
$ 3,300,000.00
$ 700,000.00
$ 300,000.00
$ 4,800,000.00
Approximately $ 3,500,000.00 of the costs of construction will be paid to or recognized
by local, Inland Empire based businesses, laborers, material suppliers, insurance agents,
mortgage and finance companies, in addition to, the local gas stations, restaurants and
other service enterprises in the city who will receive 'income' from the employees of
these businesses on a daily basis.
In comparison, the annual revenue received by the city from an existing 2500 square
foot, single family home, on a one-acre lot is approximately $ 500.00.
ASSESSED PROPERTY VALVES
It has been stated, although unfounded, that the proposed project will have adverse
effects on real estate values throughout the neighboring properties. From research
performed and information obtained, from the San Bernardino County Tax Assessors
Office and Records Department, we offer the following statistics for your review:
I. To the east ofthe project site is a large apartment complex. The construction of a
single family subdivision will have no change in assessed value.
2. The property located to the south ofthe project site is vacant, with proposed plans
for a commerciaVretail center. The addition of more homes in the area will
enhance the chances for this retail center to be developed. This activity will
increase property values, increase retail sales tax and provide for improved
infrastructure throughout the area.
3. The property located to the west of the project site is approved for 69 single
family lots, similar in size to Tract 15743. The proposed project will extend
utilities to the west that will enhance the chances for the development of more
homes, which will enhance the activity at the retail site and increase property
values.
Page 5
Tract 15743
July 1, 1997
4, The properties to the north of the project site consist of 17 individual parcels, 14
developed and 3 vacant. Single family homes are constructed on the developed
parcels. The following is a list of assessed values for the 8 lots / homes directly
across from the project site (located on the north side of Washington Avenue)
taken from statistics in 1990-91 and 1996-97:
90-91
96-97
Lot #
13
34
30
31
32
27
28
29
16,000
140,000
160,000
170,000
16,000
101,000
100,000
105,000
17,500
136,000
175,000
195,000
17,500
130,000
118,000
122,000
average value
101,000
113,800
As a comparison of diminished land values, Palm Partners 14.5 vacant parcel in 90-91
was assessed at $ 900,000.00. In 96-97 the value is $400,000.00.
Other interesting statistics and facts are:
1. The average value ora single family home constructed in Verdemont today is
$170,000.
2. Property values will increase resulting from improvements constructed by
'new' construction, such as; streetlights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, widened
streets and landscape.
3. A 'finished' single family lot is valued today at approximately $35 to
40,000.00. This value is double that of a rural, one (1) acre lots in the same
neighborhood.
'.
Page 6
Tract 15743
July 1, 1997
CLOSING COMMENTS
In other discussions with San Bernardino Unified School District, San Bernardino Water
Department, San Bernardino Police Department and San Bernardino Fire Department it
was represented by those individuals responsible for servicing the Verdemont
Community that new development is a welcomed source of revenue. Although new
homes and commercial development tax the systems of these departments and agencies,
new development also provides an increase in tax dollars, developer impact fees, stronger
neighborhood watch programs, badly needed street lights and street improvements, new
schoo Is and parks, new customers and stronger communities.
During the preparation of Tract 15743 we have consulted and retained the services of the
following professionals to assist with the planning, design and construction of this
project:
Archeo logist
Certified Arborists
Registered Civil Engineer's
Registered Biologist
Acoustical Engineer
Licensed Land Surveyor
Structural Engineer
Registered Landscape Architect
Licensed State Contractor
Golden Pacific Bank - Lending Institution
Licensed Real Estate Appraiser
Urban Land Planner
To date, there has been no aspect of the proposed development that does not meet or
exceed the requirements and standards of local public agencies either in the proposed
design of the public improvements or construction of the homes and on-site
improvements.
Page 7
Tract 15743
July 1, 1997
It is with sincere commitment to our project that we respectfully request that the Mayor
and City Council, without further delay, grant our proposal their approval as
recommended by your professional city departments and staff members.
Sincerely,
On behalf of Palm Partners
Wl
David E. Mlynarski,
MAPCO
DEM/tm
Attachments, which include:
Original tract map 14209
Proposed tract map 15743
Letter sent to surrounding property owners dated January 9,1997
MAPCO
PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING
August 9, 1996
Re: Redesign of Tract 14209
Washington Avenue - Verdemont Community
City of San Bernardino
Dear Property Owner,
Weare writing you this letter on behalf of the property owners of the parcel of land referred to as
Tract 14209. This property is generally located on the south side of Washington Avenue between
Palm Avenue and Chestnut Avenue I Cable Creek.
You may recall, approximately 6 years ago the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract
14209. This subdivision contained 41 lots with a minimum lot size of 10,800 square feet (see map
enclosed).
Recently, the property was "taken back" by the property owners. Over the previous six years,
developers attempted to design and develop the property. As you can see they were unsuccessful.
What is left behind is an undeveloped parcel of land. In addition, the City has assessed this land, and
other undeveloped land in this area, with special taxes and other impact fees.
In an attempt to turn a bad situation into a good one, we have been working with the property owners
in the redesign of this property. We have determined that by redesigning the property and setting the
parcels away from the flood control channel we could reduce construction cost by up to $20,000.00
per lot. In order to avoid this unnecessary expense, we have had to reduce the size of the parcels (see
revised map and lot size breakdown). We have designed a subdivision which contains the original
41 lots, limits street access points to Washington Avenue and reduces visual impacts to your
neighborhood on the north side of W ashington Avenue.
Weare proceeding ahead with the processing of our application for the new subdivision. Our
projected schedule at this time would be to be heard by the Planning Commission sometime in the
month of October We would welcome your thoughts and comments regarding our project. Please
take the time to contact our office by letter, telephone or to set a meeting to discuss this matter I
would further encourage you to contact the City Planning Department @ (909) 384-5057 and
Councilman Jerry Devlin @ (909) 384-5278 with your comments and concerns.
Thank you for the time you have taken with this matter.
680 S. Waterman Ave., Building A . San Bernardino, CA 92408-2353 . (909) 885-3800 . Fax (909) 888-4826
_ J. _...;...J.)
AGENDA ITEM#l, ~ _
HEARING DA~' , .
9/19/89 ,
c
c
.
2
;;
"
., ~
" ~
~
~ ~
~ "< E
-J .
.
c
~
,,~
~
.,
",
~g
'Q
~-
. ,.
..-
-~'"
.~,
~
"n
~
:..-..-:.\....:.'J__.....
o
=.
~
.. ',"-1
, .-
"
.......-.-..........l
,
---.::: = .... \~~-' )
.-r--.-._....l...--.~._.
a,(',,-- _', Q
--__~~t:~^....v..~-H..,[.}~~p _
- q.: ... ~.... ..... ~ .". I ...
~ I I Ita ~I,t) . lr'...; fl "';8 <II ",,"u't
,\ 0/ \,,) ~ tf- i L C\J ~ ~ ii I'l ~ ~ . ... ~ ~ ~
-'I L t t.Q.n ." \ - - - - - - - -;;~ 1-;;-'-:-.,- -"',f!_ =
Llil -'~'Ll..O ~ ~II I~~ '-~"'~ I ;., '0>, - .." .001 , .,. '",. ",
I ~ 0\ fl (\} f.. -=+==~'>.~ _ _. _
~~ ~"'-1D (O&?; ~ ~~ ': \ '__:..:a-s,.,. =nm~n.~ g
~{ , -- 1:-'"'''' _,
~~\~ ,..;.~ ~,--,,-. -;;:- ---..~;, --",;,;--;,
~ l1:., . -'5; , -u:.:. ~ ", ~ ;; jj ; ~ g g-~ -; ~ i ,~ ~ ~ ~ e
\-:j~ "l~- ~!' ~,=' ~: - \, ~.; ,: ~.;
\1L]" '::::.[', ...? \ 3#~::; ~_-~ "-J~~ ...:;;
-L / _ .,.,-.:. 0: lil."' .. ;, '" _ ." '" ~ ;, CO
(,~ /---.~~~ ~:, Q~ e ~.. ~ -~. 0 '\~" .
[fC'(~~Nf.~\: '.n 4l:-~--- -p..-:-.: -f~:-- ~___:::.:
....~L;'j "" \~ :Bl'lCO' " -r.rr- ~ _,
" L >;;'\ 1t ~ - ~"
0:-:-- -::::f'-;. --+- ~"OI ,~' ,001 , .00r
, I. ,---- --N-ll;-. _'2':;;__. _-;..~_
' /:'j" ~l:I;, "d 0 Q_ . ~Q
\ :.l.... "':ClI"""""~_(\jI!!~ ___~.
I ;I;.JC:;~=-NQC!, (\j~S! N~ci!:'
\.... "'- I C~ Ira' ~_
I .U ~'l. "'"'! ~ N ~ ~\~ '" ~
' '. ~~ Q - ~;, r~ ;, CO ~ B
\ ~.:..L "'",.0 G"'= G_
. :''IN c ~ ~ ~
'_....-~:::. lIC~ if5! N~e
~~ I__,\~ }:15t7st -'1--
~ 40... 111\ 001 1001 _
\
\
'1>...,
"
,
,
,
\
.
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
\
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
,
I
'"
,
I'
"
"
>g,
',..
I ~
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
",
.---,
:'L
~
.<(
'~~~~
. ~\; ""-
. L) Q)
. 1 _\. fl)
-.:.. "
.~ ".:; fe.,
-.-.~)
<.-:.+-~-
lLo,/.{ CC'-
~" ~.:-.
<:'"'/,Q
,
,
,
\
\
\
,
~:
, I
/'1
,
,
,
"
,
~
'-
,
I
I ~)
'. ,
'--,~ L!
. ~
-" ,
,~ r,<- ,
ale;-
'-h]
}......", ~
b~~
z~"
-....0; .:;;"
, '>. ~r',
\ ....-' '1 / <6
'------~~ r:-{l....,..:.. ~
Ll..,'-- L,- ~
-'0
'-'
~~--,
f2{ .....~ -~""--'
~ CL. -1
~:"
4t,
2. <( C\j
~<'/I . ~ '[\1 .t9
\~O Q)
I ---=-:.... if)
'. , 'I
, .
-r-' _
tl.] ~~-,-,;
--........... \.,1
-~.,~~-
L,-; L., Q
<l,
.9"
<I,D-.
,
,
,
~,
, I
, I
, I
I I
I I
I
\
0"
"--,
,
,
,
,
'-
"
'\
\
, ,
--
,
,
\
\
,
I
I
I
,
, .
2'~ If' S'd
\ r {'" r..--
'=':) ,-r;! ~
-----
,--
,
\
,
'OJ ':
Gj", c:-
(...J, -..J
) J':i r \-I! !
.~ .
I. I
; ~ l
! ..,! Id'-j
, i s."'i,,; i. k._1 ~--
I ;j Ei. D~ ~ !l~ !!llllii'l
. i ~ I:r.lE11: i??tI!::lli I:,
1', j,. !;] lillli:il!lllliililiil,
-" I-!li Jl1 I
1- ','" , -;
.1_ " I!! I!
Ii! i!~;~! ! i ! I
ug
\i?
< ~
z [i)
~
~ =
:;
"
~ P
3
~
" ad) ..~JI i
z -:...,:,
fl!!i' ,
0 "~' 1
~ ~
< -- 1
z Ii \
~
~ I;,ad
0 lIS
z .~.
< .!5t..
~ " -
~ P ~!
0 I"
~ I~I
z ift;i:
"
~ !~~
~ ... "
" ;~~"
z ~ !.!i...-f
;; "!':'';ill
" ~ !~i;;!~
<
Z Il'=l" 0
~
~ j!~Jl
~
z =
< p
~
~
0
~ ~
u
~ p
~ ~
[tf]
p
---~:-':;..:~:~:::-;.::::;.::::~,~:.==;.:~:::-...:::::;::-~:::::;:=.:::::~--::~-,-"::~-'-'~-
:'":--.-;,;;;:;.-.--7t-......'-=-----.-=--.,.iAY-ii;;,-~~;--.---==---~:~9--=-.----i~~ 1/
, __~~~~~~~.~~~~~..~~~~~---~-_-__~-__-~--~-T
,"i, - j - - ; rnrl
r, :.1" .: ., '! .....i <Q~i cr>~i Ii 'o~~ ' i
~ i ! ~Ii ~f! ~~~ "'~i ~I "'it ,.,;; ~ "'i! I {',
',' .' j {' {
: ';'" '......~, I /!J1
4 ~ ~j~j~ I /4
I 1 1 I /1
/ / '
/ ,I
, i i
I / i
1 ,/ I
J;'~/
.i ,,'
/' / /
,1 / '
;' /
/ /
~ ! II ~! ,
" ~ I !i ~ Iii
'; "; i! ~ l,!
'I !Ii j :l rr'" ~ I '.
, I"'" ~ I'''' - · ,-
f!i ~ ~ ~ U ~ I II
leu P.I;. I I!
Illl . ii! : I: : i I ~
~ J 1"1 ~ ; ~ '.... . ; ...
;In i!iSttLiitlJi
,:
~I~
1
.:
~I::
-I
/
/
!
//i
:
:
/
:
/
/
/
zr:. ij -Ii r Ii
lii"~ P ~ ~
:r ~I 1" II
~ " d
e& ~11 If ~.
! /i ,;'1 ,1
li'A 'in PI ~
'l! IB'l" 5
."t" II!,'"
it Ii -"
t ~.l::;:ilfl'i
i
I!!
~.1
-""'fl.
!:iil~r
!ilfr.:!
t:~~
,,".. i
:l!J~ :=,w!
~ C_i!
~i ~I
iillii ",_"
~:
~
. i
r
.,
lL_~_
i
I;i,~i
.:;::;;l~ !~I
"'''' lill
:;;:::- I'
~::: .
1~'~-
, ,
" '
~ j!
I It,',~,
! I."
"\1,~
'1\
"
-
~ '"
o
.
"
i!~
i'=
~~
.j:~
!:~
,.
,.
10
i
I'
ii
.
" "