HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Building & Planning i CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO -REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION
Ordinance repealing previous Chapter
Fr• Larry E. Reed, Director Subject: 19.80, adding new Chapter 19.80, and
amending sections 19.08.040 and 19.72.010,
Dept: Planning and Building Services of the San Bernardino Municipal Code
requiring an administrative review for
Date: February 1, 1991 single-family dwelling in certain Foot-
hill areas of the Cit .
Mayor an Common Council Meeting of
Synopsis of Previous Council action: Febraury 18, 1991
On January 8, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the
Ordinance.
~-
,,
-,
Recommended motion:
• That the hearing be closed; that the Mayor and Common adopt
Negative Declaration; and that further reading of the ordir.
be waived and it be laid over for final adoption.
Larry E ,eed Signature Director
~ Contact person: Larry E. Reed Phone: X84-r+OS7 _
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: City-Wida
~ FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
i Source: (Acct No 1
(Acct Descriationl
Finance:
ncil Notes:
]50262 Agenda Item No.~--
CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO -REQUEST Fit COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
•
Subject: Ordinance repealing Chapter 19.80, adding a new Chapter
19.80, and amending Sections 19.08.090, and 19.72.010,
of the San Bernardino Municipal Code requiring an
administrative review fox single-family dwellings
within certain foothill areas of the City
Hayor and Common Council Meeting
February 18, 1991
REQUEST
Staff requests that Mayor and Common Council adopt the attached
ordinance amendment of the Municipal Code, revising the
procedures for review and approval of in-fill construction and
remodel of single-family dwellings within certain foothill areas
of the City.
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the
ordinance and recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt
• it as written.
ANALYSIS
The existing hillside view ordinance, MC-677, seems to have had
the undesired effect of stifling in-fill construction and remodel
of single-family homes in the hillside areas. The Review of
Plans process required by MC-677 is costly for the applicant in
terms of the fees, and for the City in tezms of staff processing
time. The hillside areas defined by MC-677 have proven somewhat
arbitrary in that some of the lots in the area have little or no
slope and no view constraints.
The proposed ordinance repeals MC-677, and establishes an
administrative review process for construction and/or remodel of
single-family dwellings in hillside areas. The review would
become a part of the building permit application plan check
process, reducing staff review time. The standards under which
the construction or remodel are administratively reviewed are
identical to those of MC-677, in keeping with the original intent
of preserving mountain and valley views. The proposed ordinance
also redefines the foothill area as the Hillside Management
Overlay District. This district, by definition, includes areas
with slopes greater than fifteen pezcent; areas in which mountain
and valley views are more prevailent. Variance provisions are
included in the ordinance for an applicant with difficulty in
• meeting the conditions and standards set to preserve the views.
75-0264
Ordinance Repealing apter 19.80
Mayor and Common Coil Meeting of
February 18, 1991
Page 2
•
CONCLUSION
The administrative review process that will be established by the
proposed ordinance will be less costly to both the City and the
applicant while complying with the intent of preserving mountain
and valley views. The Hillside Management Overlay district is
less arbitrary and is a more germane definition of hillside areas
likely to harbor mountain and valley views.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
Negative Declaration for the ordinance and adopt the ordinance
amendment.
Prepared by: Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits: A - Staff Report to the Planning Commission
• B - Notice of Preparatioh of Negative Declaration
C - Official Notice of Public Hearing before the
Mayor and Common Council
D - Proposed Ordinance
•
CITY OF SA~t ~ERNARDINO - MEMORANDUM
To Planning Cannussion From Larry E. Reed, Director
~bject Amer~nent to Municipal Code Date Planning & B~u.lding Services
January 8, 1991
Sections 19.80, 19.08.040, 19.72.010
a*+~ Rerna 1 i ng of M(^-fi77
Approved Item No. 10 Date
REQUEST
The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a
recommendation to the Mayor and Council on a proposed ordinance
to repeal riC-677, which requires a Review of Plans prior to the
construction of a single-family dwelling within the foothill
area, and to add a new Chapter 19.80 to the Municipal Code,
amending Sections 19.08.090, and 19.72.010 requfrinq an
administrative review prior to the construction of a single-
family dwelling within the Hillside Management Overlay District.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL• QUALITY ACT
An Initial Study for the proposed ordinance was prepared by staff
and presented to the Environmental Review Committee on December
fi, 1990. A Negative Declaration was proposed. The Initial Study
• entered the 21 day public review period on December 13, 1990.
The public review period will end on January 2, 1991. At the
time this staff report vas prepared, no comments were received.
See Initial Study, Attachment "C".
BACKGROUND
On September 19, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted
MC-677, requiring a Review of Plans application for single-family
dwellings within the foothill area. The Review of Plans
requirement applies to both the construction of single-family
residences on vacant existing lots in the foothill area and to
the remodel of existing structures in the foothill area which
would increase the height of the existing structure by ten feet
or more (Attachment "B"). The foothill area is defined in MC-67T
is shown as that area north of the dotted line in Exhibit "A"
found in Attachment "B".
The intent of MC-677 vas to ensure the preservation of mountain
and valley views in the foothill area. However, MC-677 may have
had the effect of stifling single-family construction in this
area as a result of the fees and processing time associated with
the Review of Plans process. To illustrate, staff has had to
•
_-_ --
»,-;r.
r
EXHIBIT A
Amerrhnent to Nfiinicipal Sections 19.80, .
19.08.040, 19.72.010,pealing of MC-677
January 8, 1991
Page 2,
• deny numerous building permit application plan checks for the
construction or expansion of single-family dwellings on hillside
lots due to non-compliance with MC-677; no Review of Plans
application had been filed. The applicants were all informed of
the requirements of MC-677, yet none filed for a Review of Plans
in order to comply with its requirements. In fact, no Review of
Plans has been filed under MC-677 since its adoption. In the
process of reviewing plan
checks, staff has encountered lots in the foothill area with
little or no slope and no view constraints, indicative that a
more appropriate definition of a foothill area is necessary.
ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance would repeal the Review of Plans
requirement for new home construction or remodels in the foothill
area and require that staff establish administrative procedures
for the review and approval of such construction. The
administrative procedure established for foothill in-fill housing
would be a part of the building permit application plan check
process and would reduce staff review time and hence, the costs
of review both to the City and the applicant.
The proposed ordinance establishes the definition of a foothill
• area pertinent to the original intent of MC-677. The ordinance
redefines the foothill area as the Hillside Management Overlay
District. By definition, the Hillside Management Overlay
includes areas with slopes greater than fifteen percent. It is
in these areas that mountain and valley views will be more
prevalent. The overlay also includes areas of the City which are
not necessarily located in the foothills yet still have slopes
great enough to define a mountain or valley view. The result is
that those areas with mountain or valley views are more likely to
be subjected to the provisions of the ordinance, whereas those
area without views will be excluded.
The conditions and development standards established by MC-677
for preservation of mountain and valley views remain the under
the proposed ordinance. Provisions for a variance of the
standards, similar to those instituted by MC-677, are included in
the proposed ordinance. However, the proposed ordinance requires
one additional variance finding in addition to the variance
findings specified in Municipal Code Section 19.79; that the
preservation of mountain or valley view in the Hillside
Management Overlay District is maintained to the greatest extent
possible.
Notification of property owners within five hundred feet of a
site subject to the ordinance would only take place if the
foothill conditions and development standards of the ordinance
• could not be met and a variance was being sought. In cases where
the standards were met, no notification would occur.
T
Amer~rent to Municipal Sections 19.80, •
19.08.040, 19.72.010 acing of MC-677
January 8, 1991
Page 3,
• CONCLUSION
The administrative review process established by the proposed
ordinance should prove less costly to both the City and the
applicant while complying with the original intent of HC-677 to
preserve mountain and valley views. The Hillside Management
Overlay District is amore germane definition of hillside areas.
Provisions are made for an applicant with difficulty meeting the
conditions and standards established for development in hillside
area through a variance procedure.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the
recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council that they adopt
the ordinance as written.
Res ectfu~
su/~ d'
Lar E. Reed
Dire®~'\
a~ and Building Services
• Michael R. Finn
Associate Planner
Attachment A - Proposed Hillside Ordinance
Attachment B - MC-677
Attachment C - Initial Study
•
Attac2arnnt "A"
• ORDINANCE NO. _
1 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REPEALING
• CHAPTER 19.80, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 19.80, AND AMENDING
2 SECTIONS 19.08.040, AND 19.'I2.OI0, OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ~
~ ~ FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF
THE CITY.
4 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
5 SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
6 SECTION 1. Chapter 19.80 of the Code is hereby
~ repealed.
8 SECTION 2. Section 19.0$.040 of the San Bernardino
9 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
10 "19.08.040 Building Height
11 Maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet. No
12 accessory structure in the R 1-7,200 and R-1-10,800 zones
13 shall have a height in excess of fifteen (25) feet. "
• 14 SECTION 3. Chapter 19.80 is hereby added to the San
15 Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
16 "Chapter 19.80
17 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
18 19.80.010. Administrative Review - Single Family Residence
19 Hillside Management Overlay District
~ The Planning and Building Services Department shall
21 establish and utilize administrative procedures for the
~ review and approval of plans by the director or his/her
~ designee for new development of any structure, including
24 single-family residences, on vacant, existing lots of
25 ////
26 ////
• Z~ ////
////
i
ORDINAN REPEALING CHAPTER 19. ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
19.50, AMENDING SECTIONS 19.0 40, AND 19.72.010, OF
THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING AN
1 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
• DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
2
3
recard_in the Hillside Management Overly District or on a
4
remodel of an existing structure which would increase the
5
height by ten (lOj feet or more in such overlay district.
6
19.80.020 Conditions
~ The following conditions shall be applicable only to in-
8 fill single family residential construction of more than
9
one story on existing lots of record, if there is a grade
10 separation of more than eight (8) feet or less than twenty
11 (20) feet between the average ground level of the lot
12
proposed for construction and the immediately uphill lot:
13
A. The maximum height of a proposed structure shall not
• 14 exceed the midpoint of the structure on the immediately
15
uphill lot.
16 B. Where there is no structure on the immediately uphill
17 lot, the maximum height shall not exceed a point eight
is
(8j feet above the average ground level of the uphill
~ is
lot.
~ C. "Immediately uphill lot" shall mean an adjacent lot,
21 whether or not separated by streets, easements, or the
~ like, which has an average ground level eight feet or
~ more higher than the average ground level of the
24 subject lot. If more than one lot meets the definition
25
of "immediately uphill lot" then the measurements
26
required by this section shall be made against the
• 27
lower lot.
28 ////
2
ORDINAN; REPEALING CHAPTER 19.8• DING A NEW CHAPTER
19.80, A~AMENDING SECTIONS 19. 00, AND 19.72.010, OF
THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING AN
1 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
• 2
3
D. °Midpoint" shall be that point equidistant from the
4 foundation at ground level to the apex of the roof, but
5
not including roof structures, stairways, tanks,
6 ventilating fans, or similar equipment required to
7
operate and maintain the building and fire or parapet
8 walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys,
9 smokestacks, wireless and television masts, or similar
10 structures.
11 E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the
12
height of a structure, including a single family
13 residence, to exceed that allowed in an underlying land
14 use district, or to prohibit a single story residence.
• 15 19.80.030 variance
16 Where the strict application of Section 19.80.020 of this
17 Chapter to a particular lot would prevent development of
18 such lot for a two-story or more single-family residence, a
19 variance may be obtained, pursuant to the provisions of
20 Chapter 19.74 of this Code. When such a variance is
21 granted, alternative height limitations shall be imposed on
~ the lot by the Planning Commission.
~ 19.80.040. Notice
24 Every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the
~ subject property shall receive notice of the Variance
26 application and shall be entitled to be heard on such
• 27
proposal.
28 ////
3
ORDINAN REPEALING CHAPTER 19.80 ~ING A NEW CHAPTER
19.80, Arj~ AMENDING SECTIONS 19.08. , AND 19.72.010, OF
THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING AN
1 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
• DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
2
s
19.80.0.50 Findings
4
The Planning Commission may approve a variance if a finding
b is made that the preservation of mountain or valley views
6 in the Hillside Management Overlay District is maintained
7 to the greatest extent possible, and that there is the
8
preservation of light and air to protect the public health
9
safety."
10
SECTION 3. Section 19.72.010 of the San Bernardino
11 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
12
"19.72.010 Lots on Downhill slopes
23
On property located on downhill slopes having a twenty-five
14
• percent (25$) oz greater slope (measured in the general
15 direction of the side lot lines), a private garage may be
Is
constructed in the required front yard; provided, however,
17
that every portion of the garage shall be at least five (5)
18 feet from the front lot line."
19
SECTION 4. Ordinance No. MC-677 is hereby repealed.
~ ////
21 ////
~ ////
~ ////
24 ////
~ ////
26 ////
27 ////
~ ////
4
ORDINAN PEALING CHAPTER 19.8 DING A NEW CRAFTER
19.80, r,.. AMENDING SECTIONS 19.Uu. 0, AND 19.72.010, OF
THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING AN
1 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
• 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was
4 duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of
5 San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
6 day of 1991, by the following vote, to wit:
7
8 Counci Members AYES AYE ABSTAIN
9 ESTRADA
10 REILLY
11 FLORES
12 MAUDSLEY
13 MINOR ~
14 POPE-LUDLAM
• 15 MILLER
16 City Clerk
17 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
1$ day of , 1991.
19
20 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
21 City of San Bernardino
~ Approved as to form
and legal content:
~ JAMES F. PENMAN
24 City Attorney
?a By'
26
• 27
28
5
f 1 t ' :J • AttacYment "B"
'~ SEP 2 7 9 ~
~,• • ,;1^ -~arcyr ORDINANCE NO. MC-677
.c •
•~++^~=••''•'2•' ' II, CA ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN HERNARDINO REQUIRING A REVIEW
OF PLANS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE FOOTHILL AREA,
3 AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. MC-577.
4 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 5AN BERNARDZNO
DO ORDAIN'AS FOLLOWS:
5
SECTION 1. Section 19.08 of the San Bernardino Municipal
6
Cods is hereby amended to read as follows:
7
"19.08.040 BUILDING HEIGHT
8
Maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet. No
9
accessory structure in the R-1-7,200 and R-1-10,800
10
zones shall have a height in excess of fifteen feet."
it
SECTION 2. Chapter 19.80 is hereby added to the San
12
Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
13
"Chapter 19.80
14
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
• 15
16 (F•~~thi21 Area)
19.80.O1C. Re~~iew ci Puns; Single Family Residence;
17
F~orh.;il Area.
18
The Planning Department shall establish and utilize
19
20 procedures pursuant to Chapter 19.77 of this Code for
the review and approval of plans to expedite
21
22 processing of applications for development and
improvements of any structure, including single family
23
residences, on vacant existing iota in the foothill
24
area or on a remodel of an existing structure which
25
would increase the height by ten (10) feet or more in
26
such foothill area.
27
. 28
DAe:br 1
August 25, 1989
.r •
- ~ •
2 19.80.020 Conditions
• 2 Such procedures shall include the following conditions:
3 A. The maximum height of a proposed structure shall
4 not•exceed the midpoint of the structure on the immediately
5 uphill lot.
6 H. Where there is no structure on the immediately
7 uphill lot, the maximum height shall not exceed a point
8 eight (8) feet above the average ground level of the uphill
9 lot.
10 19.80.030 Variance
11 Where the strict application of Section 19.•80.020 to a
12 particular lot would prevent development of such lot, a
13 variance may be obtained, pursuant to the provisions of
14 Chapter 19.74 of this Code. When such a variance is
. 15 granted, alternative height limitations shall be imposed on
16 the lot by the Planning Cosmission.
17 19.80.040. Notice
18 Every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the
19 subject property shall receive notice of the variance
20 applicatlon and shall be entitled to be heard on such
21 proposal.
22 19.80.050. Applications - View Criteria
23 All applications filed hereafter for foothill area
24 development permits shall bs~subject to the imposition of
25 conditions for the preaers?ation of mountain and valley
26
27
• 28
DAH:br 2
August 25, 1989
• •
1 views in the foothill area for the preservation of light
• 2 and air to protect the public health and safety in the
3 loothili area.
4 19.80.060. Foothill Area Defined
5 The foothill area is defined as that area beginning on the
6 east aide of the City limits at Boulder Avenue and Highland
7 Avenue; thence northwesterly along the extension of
8 Piedmont Drive to Victoria Avenue; thence northerly up to
9 the extension of Piedmont Drive westerly to Foothill Drive;
10 thence along Foothill drive west to Dei Rosa Avenue; thence
11 north to the extension of 40th Street; thence west along
12 40th Street to Waterman Avenue; thence north to the P.E.
13 Railroad right-of-way; thence west along the P.E. Railroad
14 right-of-way to Northpark Boulevard; thence west along
• 15 Northpark Boulevard extending to the Muscupiabs Rancho
16 Line; thence west to the city limits, more particularly
17 described as shown on a map labeled Exhibit "A" on file in
18 the Planning Department.
19 19.80.070. Midpoint Defined.
20 "Midpoint" as used in this chapter shall be that point
21 equidistant from the foundation at ground level to the apex
22 of the roof, but not including roof structures, stairways,
23 ~ tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to
24 operate and maintain th• building and fire or parapet
25 walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestakea,
26 wireless and television masts, or similar structures.
27
• 28
DAB:bz 3
August 25, 1989
.~..-
1 19.80.080 Immediately Uphill Lot Defined
• 2 "Immediately uphiii lot" as used in this chapter shall mean:
3 an adjacent, contiguous lot, whether or not separated by
4 streets, roads, easements, or the like, which has an
5 average ground level higher than the average ground level
6 of the subject lot. If more than one lot meets the
7 definition of "immediately uphiii lot" then the
8 measurements required by this chapter shall be made against
9 the lower lot.
20 19.80.090. Maximum Height
li Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow the
12 height of a structure, including a single family residence,
13 to exceed that allowed by Section 19.08.040 of this Code."
14 SECTION 3. Section 19.72.010 of the San Bernardino
• 15 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
16 "19.72.010 Lots On Downhill Slopes
17 On property located on downhill elopes having a
i8 twenty-five percent or greater slope (measured in the
19 general direction of the side lot lines), a privates
20 garage may be constructed in the required front yard;
21 provided, however, that every portion of the garage
22 shall be at least five feet from the front lot line."
23 SECTION 4. Ordinance No. MC-477 is hereby repealed.
24 i HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
25 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
26 Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th
27 day of September 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
• 28
DAB:br 4
August 25, 1989
. -a"- .
1 • 1 •
1 AYES: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores,
2 Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller -
• 3 NAYS: None
4 ABSENT: None -
5
~i~~i ~f~
6 City Clerk
7 ~/
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this '7~ day
8 '
of 7 1989.
9
10
11 J f ~ " ~d'`-
Ma r Pro 4'empore,
12 C1~y of San Bernardino
13 Approved as to form
and legal content:
14
JAMES F. PENMAN,
• 15 City Att~o~~rn~~e/y
16 l'~fF
ey•
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
• 28
DAH:br 5
August 25, 1989
. .,.,
R`~'RprNa
CITY AREp
FooT~~~~
~H~R ~A.
~1
~ ~ f•• 1
~ ;
•
t~.l' V 1w~
•
i
t ~ ~
~ ~ 1 f~~ _
` i.~ r+ 1 1 ~ 1
t~.~ ~ i 1~ 1 r~~ ~..J ~
r
~- s
~
• ,~~ ~--
~ M
~ '
? _1b
1 ~ 1
' ,
r,~ ~.-. 1
t 1
` ~ s
1 '+
' ~ 1
~ r ~
~ ~
r-' ~
t sc • t
~ r 1
,.J'~, ti 1
i ~ J r' 1,.? ~
S/
~---' r
,
t
,,...o ~ `
r
.a^ "
C ~Y OF SAN BERNAF ~NO
PLANNING OEPAATMENT
iNtTiAL STUDY
Initial Study for Environmental Impacts
FOr AMF.t+OMFrI~ OF SAN ZEaNAROtl10 MUN~uPA~-
GJDE 5Evna+~ 1y,90~4.08.O+W ~ hn0 1.4.~2.Ot0
Auo QEpEk..uW of M+. •bl7
Pzoj eet description/Location REP~~?Jv of we-b~~
Resal0.+NV A REV11a.V J~ pLAw$ FO+i SINvIC-F4M1~'! DWic+.r.,NtrS
W+rM.~J Tllc r'OOTHIi.L. hR64~ AND AMEUDKE~+T OF SAN $EQt1Ai.JuJO
MO~I~C+PAi, WDd SkGiO~ X9.00 . ,08. J A+JD {4.TZ.0{O TO
REA+a+4c Art hDfu+N+5TRA7iJE cV~Eh/ WITI+NOTIGE FOk S~N~d:'
CAMI{.`~ D+7JE:1.~vrS vJ~7141N Ttf r_ µ1L~5r Df M.fn{fifiEMCNrOV6QtAY Du7QKf:
Date NovernaER 2~~9y0
Prepared for:
Applicant(s)
G ~rl OY Sknl BE£NRI~JiNO
Address 30~~ nloitTtl •'D" sTRcct'
City, State 5A~ aE:LtiA:.O,..~vr CA 42~tid
Zip
Prepared by:
M~ee1a~~ e2.r+~?N
Name
ASSOC:~A•TE t~1,h.JaoR
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
]00 N. "D" Street
San 3ernardino, CA 92418
'SISC:
ISPREPARATION
ke/9-1-89
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
AppiicationNumber. AM~raDMe.tf OF SBM~ i9.30i ~4,JQ.o~O~ AwD 1~.12.O10
ProjedDescription: ~EPC'RL~N~ or MC-~c71 rZr.G)UtR,~ur A 1ZE~/~a~/ Jr F1l1Ni FcR
S1NCiLC- F4MU.~ DW G1~,NV~ IN THt c'eCrNlw AREaS kND fFM cND SBMt,. 19, a^
l9.Ja.J~,~1 }v.1D l`1.12.G10 IJ C': .+,A e~. 417N:1~\S,Sart,/E rZ'r_J1c~ ~::~c S,.~r..~:-.=/.w;, ~lu~P, ..Ins
Location: Fllu-S~Dc 1.lhN/ksc M2n1~ CJtQy,.}V D15T52~cT
Environmental Constraints Areas:
Genera! Plan Designation:
•
Zoning Designation:
8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
t. Earth Raaoumas wll the proposal resuR in: Yes No Maybe
a. EaRh movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yarcfs or more? K
b. Deveopment andor grading on a sbpe greater
than 75% natural grade? X
c. Developmem within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Stutlies Zone? X
d. MotlNieatwn of any unique geologic or physical
feature? X
e. Soil erosion on or aff the project site?
f. Mod'rticaticn of a channel, weak or river? X
g. Development within an area subject to landslides,
• mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards? X
h. Other?
44°,q q,~E~ PUNAD6 PAGE 1 OF6 15901
I
Z A!? Aasources: Will the proposal resuR in; Yes No Maybe
• a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality? X
b. The creation of abjectanable odors?
c. Development within a high wind hazard area? x
3. Water Reaourees: Will the proposal resuR in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? x
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration
of surface water quality? X
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? )C
a. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? k
f. Other?
4. Bialogleal Resources: Could the proposal resuR in:
a. Change in the number of any unpue, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including
• stands of trees? X
b. Chang® in the number of any unpue, rare or
endangered species of animals or their habRat? X
c, Removal of viable, mature trees? (6' or greater) ~
d, Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal resuR in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to extargr noise levels over
65 d8 or interbr noise levels over 65 d8? X
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal resuR in:
a, A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan? X
b. Developmem within an Airport District? X
c. Devebpmem within "GreenbeR' Zone A, B, or C? X
d. Development within a high firo hazard Zone?
• a. Other?
un a= sw :wu,a~o PLAN•9A6 PgOE 20F 6 ;5901
aMntw wwnocwns
r
• 7, Man-Made Hazards: Will the projeG: Yes No Maybe
a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, x
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances?
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X
d. Other? X
8, Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand X
for add'Rional housing?
b. Other? ~-
9. Transportation / Circulation: Could the proposal resuR in:
a. An increase in traNic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? ~
b. Use o1 existing, or demand for new, parking
facilities/structures?
e. Impact upon existing public transportation systems?
• d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements?
h. Signrficant increase in tratlic volumes on the roadways
or intersections? .~-
i. Other? .~-
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? !i
a. Fire protection? X
b, Police protectrort? X
c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overbad, etc.)? ~
d. Parks or other recreational fadlities?
e. Medical aid?
1. Solid Waste?
• g. Other?
un d r„ aew.nao PLAN-9t6 SAGE ~ OF 6 153:
a,n~urwnwoa~ets
11. UNIRIea: wtl the proposal; Yes No Maybe
• a. Impact the folbwing beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity? X
3. Water? ~
4. Sewer?
5. Other? X
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X
c. Require the construction at new facilities? X
12. Aesthetbs:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic view? x
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area?
c. Other? X
• 13. Cunural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destructbn of a prehistoric or
historic archaeobgieal site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a
prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? X
e. Other?
14. Mandatory Flndings of Signltkanee (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.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
qualDy of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below seM sustaining levels.
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plain or animal or eliminaze important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Ooes the project have the potential to achieve short-
. term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive perbd
of time while long-term impacts wiN endure well into
the future.)
upy~~~swu+~a PLAN•9A8 PAGea0F6 15901
' Yes No Maybe
• e. Does the project have impads which are individually
limited, but cumuWtively considerable? (A project may
impact on Mro or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effed of the total of those impads on the
environment is signrficant.}
d. Does the project have environmental effeds which will
cause substantial adverse effads on human beings,
either diredly or indirectly? X
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ANO MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
SEE ~TTA~f{~~
~i
I
•
°'^,°y°,i~y~ PLAN•9A6 PAGE SOF6 ~5~9CI
• Amendment of SBNC Sections 19.80, 19.08.090, and 19.72.010
November 27, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
HEASURES (continued)
1. EARTH RESOURCES
b. Several areas within the Hillside Management Overlay district
may have slopes of LSS or sore natural grade. Approval of
this amendment could result in the development of single
family dwellings in these areas. Such projects will be
subject to review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15300.2 of CEQA.
c. Portions of the Hillside Management Overlay district may
contain Alquist-Prlolo Special Studies Zones as defined In
Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 97, page 12-7 of
the City's General Plan. Approval of the amendment could
result in development in these areas. Projects of this type
will be subject to review under CEQA per Section 15300.2 of
CEQA.
e. Portions of the Hillside Management Overlay district may
contain areas of high potential for wind or water erosion as
• identified in Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 53,
page 12-i8 of the City's General Plan. Such projects will
be subject to CEQA review per CEQA Section 15300.2.
g. The Hillside Management Overlay district contains areas
which may be subject to landslides, mudslides, and similar
hazards. Approval of the amendment could result in
development in these areas. Development in these areas will
be subject to review under CEQA per Section 15300.2 of CEQA.
2. AIR RESOURCES
a. The amendment will not result in any substantial air
emissions nor have any significant effect on ambient air
quality.
b. The amendment will not result in the creation of any
objectionable odors.
c. Several portions of the Hillside Management Overlay district
may be located within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0 Wind and Fire, Figure 59, page 15-2 of the
City's General Plan. Approval of the amendment could result
in development in these areas. Such development projects
will be subject to Building and Safety Standards requiring
• that building roof construction be able to withstand 110 MPH
winds.
• Amendment of SBNC Sections 19.80, 19.08.040, and 19.72.010
November 27, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES (continued)
3. MATER RESOURCES
e. Portions of the Hillside Management Overlay district may
include area located in Flood Zones as identified in Section
16.0 Flooding, Figure 62, page 16-2 of the City's General
Plan. Approval of the amendment could result•!n development
in these areas. Such development will be subject to review
under CEQA.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a., and b.
Portions of the Hillside Management Overlay district may
include areas of the Biological Resources Overlay as
identified in the General Plan Section 10.0 Natural
Resources, Figure 41, page 10-10. Amendment approval could
result in development in these areas. Such projects will be
subject to review under the California Environmental Quality
• Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15300.2 of CEQA.
5. NOISE
a., and b.
Approval of the amendment will not result in any increase in
existing noise levels oz exposure or people to exterior noise
levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels oyez 95 dB.
6. LAND USE
b. The amendment will not result in any development within any
of the Airport Districts as Identified in Figure 57, page
14-9, Section 14 of the General Plan since none of these
areas fall within the Hillside Management Overlay district.
c., and d.
The Hillside Management Overlay district may include areas
contained within Greenbelt Zones A, B, or C as identified In
the Verdemont Area Plan, page 138, or within a high fire
hazard zone as referenced In Section 15.0 wind and Fire,
Figure 61, page 15-5. Such projects will be subject to the
Foothills Community Protective Greenbelt Program and the high
fire hazard zone standards.
•
• Amendment of SBMC Sections 19.80, 19.08.010, and 19.72.010
November 27, 1990
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION
MEASURES (continued)
T. MAN-MADE HAZARDS
a., b., and c.
Approval of this amendment will not result in the storage,
transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous or toxic
materials, nor the exposure of people to potential health/
safety hazards.
8. HOUSING
a. Approval of this amendment will fac111tate the development
of additional housing within the City.
9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a., and d.
The amendment is intended to facilitate development of
• single-family dwellings on existing lots of record in the
Hillside Management Overlay district. Development of such
lots will not result in any significant increase Ln traffic
beyond the existing street design capacity nor any
alteration of present patterns of traEflc circulation.
10. PUBLIC SERVICES
c. Development of single-family dwellings on existing lots of
record will not result in any significant iapact on existing
schools. In addition, each such dwelling will be subject to
school fees of 51.58 per square foot at the time of issuance
of building peraits for the construction of the dwelling.
12. AESTHETICS
a. The administrative review standards set by the amendment w111
preclude the obstruction of any scenic view.
13. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Portions of the Hillside Management Overlay district may
include archaeologically sensitive areas as identified In
Section 3.0 Historical, Figure 8, page 3-5 of the General
Plan. Approval may result in development in such areas.
• Such projects will be subject to review under the California
Ehvironaental Quality Act (CEpA) pursuant to Section 15300.2
of CEQA.
D. DETERMiNAT1ON
• On the basis of this initial study,
The proposed project COULD NOT haw a sign'rfipnt effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared. "
The proposed project could have a signficant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant
etted in this case because the mitgatpn measures dasaibed above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wilt be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significam effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN'ABERNARDINO, CALIFO/RNIA
JoJlti ~/UA/TrOH~/L Tom, jF ~u[i/~NG //He/NE/G
Name and Title
I
•--~-~
Sgnatyre J
Date..// 1 ~/ (o~9i.
~ ,
•
•
a~`imuai~w PLANAR! PAOE_OF~ I'+WI
,~
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
for the following projects. The Environmental Review Committee
found that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation
measures (If applicable).
AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15.20.050 - Proposed ordi-
nance of the City of San Bernardino amending Section 15.20.050
of the Municipal Code to require landscaping prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for buildings vacant for more than
180 days.
PUBLiC WORRS PROJECT N0. 90-07 - To construct an underground
storm drain in Crestnut Avenue, from Cable Creek to Verdemont
Drive and Debris Basin, north of Verdemont Drive.
Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the
Planning Department, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA
• 92418, and the Feldheym Library. 555 West 6th Street, San Ber-
nardino, CA. Any environmental comments you have should be
received in this office no later than 4:00 p.m., May 30, 1990.
If you do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have no
opinions and/or recommendations on the above projects.
SUBMITTED: May 8, 1990
PUBLISH: May 10, 1990
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
384-5057
CP
C7 NOPND5390
•
EXHIBIT B
~ :
• .
•
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE ZS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR
AND COUNCIL WILL HOLD HEARINGS ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1991
AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 300 NORTH
"D" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418, ON THE FOLLOW
ING ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-51 -Subject property is an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
.67 acres located at the southwest corner of 16th Street and
"H" Street having a frontage of approximately 372 feet on the
south side of 16th Street and a frontage of 115 feet on the
west side of "H" Street and further described as 1598 North
"H" Street. The applicant requests approval of a conditional
use permit under authority of Code Section 19.83.300 (5.120)
to permit a vocational trade school within an existing
commercial office building within the ZL, Industrial Light,
General Plan land use designation.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - To repeal MC-677 which incorporates
Chapter 19.80 into the San Bernardino Municipal Code requir-
. ing a review of plans for single family dwelling within the
Foothill area, and to add the requirement of an administra-
tive review with notice for single-family dwellings within
the Hillside Management Overlay District, and to amend San
Bernardino Municipal Code 19.08.040 and 19.72.010 relative to
building height.
GENERnL PL•nN AMENDMENT N0. 90-07 -Several parcels of land
consisting of up to 5.63 acres located on the west side of
"E" Street having a frontage of approximately 720 feet on "E"
Street extending approximately 635 feet north of Courtland
Drive and 125 feet south of Courtland Drive. The parcels
also have approximately 240 feet of frontage of the west side
of an extension of Acacia Avenue, approximately 255 feet
north of Courtland Drive. Also included are parcels having
approximately 200 feet of frontage of the east side of "F"
Street, approximately 120 feet north of Courtland Drive. The
proposal is to change the land use designation from CG-1,
Commercial General to RS, Residential Suburban and RU-1,
Residential Urban and from RH, Residential Hiqh to RS,
Residential Suburban and RU-1, Residential Urban.
•
EXHIBIT C
OFFICIAL NOTICE O~BLIC HEARING
February 18, 1991
Page 2
• SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.23 - Proposed
ordinance of the City of San Bernardino adding Chapter 19. 23
to regulate the construction and operation of convenience
stores.
Submitted: February 5, 1991
Publish: February 8, 1991
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
384-5057
M&CCAGENDA:LEGALS2-18-91
•
•
• ORDINANCE NO.
• i ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING
SECTIONS 19.08.040, AND 19.72.010, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80,
2 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
3 WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY.
4 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
5
6 SECTION 1. Section 19.08.040 of the San Bernardino
7 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
g "19.08.040 Building Height
9 Maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet. No
10 accessory structure in the R 1-7,200 and R-1-10,800 zones
11 shall have a height in excess of fifteen (15) feet. "
12 SECTION 2. Section 19.72.010 of the San Bernardino
13 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
• 14 "19.72.010 Lots on Downhill slopes
15 On property located on downhill slopes having a twenty-five
16 Percent {25$) or greater slope (measured in the general
17 direction of the side lot lines), a private garage may be
18 constructed in the required front yard; provided, however,
19 that every portion of the garage shall be at least five (5) i
~ feet from the front lot line."
21 SECTION 3. Chapter 19.80 of the San Bernardino
~ Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
~ "Chapter 19.80
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS - SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
.fir 19.80.010. Administrative Review - Single-Family Residence
26 ////
• 27 ////
28 ////
1
~....-
ORDINANCE AM~ING SECTIONS 19.08.040 AND 19.72.010, AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE
• 1 FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
2
$ Hillside Management Overlay District
4 The Planning and Building Services Department shall establish
b and utilize administrative procedures for the review and
6 approval of plans by the director or his/her designee for new
7 development of any structure, including single-family
8 residences, on vacant, existing lots of record in the Hillside
9 Management Overly District or on a remodel of an existing
10 structure which would increase the height by ten (10) feet or
11 more in such overlay district.
12 19.80.020 Conditions
13 The following conditions shall be applicable only to infill,
• 14 single-family residential construction of more than one story
15 on existing lots of record, if there is a grade
16 separation of more than eight (8) feet or less than twenty
17 (20j feet between the average ground level of the lot proposed
18 for construction and the immediately uphill lot:
19 A. The maximum height of a proposed structure shall not
20 exceed the midpoint of the structure on the immediately
21 uphill lot.
~ B. Where there is no structure on the immediately uphill
~ lot, the maximum height shall not exceed a point eight
~ (8) feet above the average ground level of the uphill
e~r lot.
26 ////
• 27 ////
28 ////
2
ORDINANCE AME~ING SECTIONS 19.08.040,~D 19.72.010, AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80 OF THE SAN BERNARDZNO MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE
• 1 FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
2
~ C. "Immediately uphill lot" shall mean an adjacent lot,
4 whether or not separated by streets, easements, or the
5 like, which has an average ground level eight (8j feet
6 or more higher than the average ground level of the
~ subject lot. If more than one lot meets the definition
8 of "immediately uphill lot" then the measurements
9 required by this section shall be made against the
10 lower lot.
11 D. "Midpoint" shall be that point equidistant from the
12 foundation at ground level to the apex of the roof, but
1$ not including roof structures, stairways, tanks,
• 14 ventilating fans, or similar equipment required to
15 operate and maintain the building and fire or parapet
16 walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys,
17 smokestacks, wireless and television masts, or similar
18 structures.
19 E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the
~ height of a structure, including a single-family
21 residence, to exceed that allowed in an underlying land
~ use district, or to prohibit a single story residence.
'~ ////
24 ////
25 ////
• `ls l//l
`l~ ////
////
3
ORDINANCE AME~NG SECTIONS 19.08.040, ~D 19.72.010, AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE
• 1 FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
2
3 19.80.030 Variance
4 Where the strict application of Section 19.80.020 of this
5 Chapter to a particular lot would prevent development of such
6 lot for a two-story or more single-family residence, a
~ variance may be obtained, pursuant to the provisions of
8 Chapter 19.74 of this Code. When such a variance is granted,
9 alternative height limitations shall be imposed on the lot by
10 the Planning Commission.
11 19.80.040. Notice
12 Every property owner within five hundred (500j feet of the
13 subject property shall receive notice of the Variance
• 14 application and shall be entitled to be heard on such
15 Proposal.
16 19.80.050 Findings
17 The Planning Commission may approve a variance if a finding is
18 made that the preservation of mountain or valley views in the
19 Hillside Management Overlay District is maintained to the
~ greatest extent possible, and that there is the preservation
21 of light and air to protect the public health safety."
22 ////
23 ////
'~ ////
~ ////
• 26 ////
2~ ////
28 ////
4
ORDINANCE AM~ING SECTIONS 19.08.040, ~D 19.72.010, AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH NOTICE FOR SINGLE
• i FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN CERTAIN FOOTHILL AREAS OF THE CITY
~ 2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
5 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
6 day of 1991, by the following vote, to wit:
7 Council Members AYES NA S ABSTAIN
8
ESTRADA
9
REILLY
10 FLORES
11 MAUDSLEY
12 MINOR
iS POPE-LUDLAM
• 14 MILLER
15
16 City Clerk
17 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day of 1991.
18
19
~ W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
21 Approved as to form
~ and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
24 By: y
25
26
27
28
5