HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Planning Department
, CI'FY OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST #'COUNCIL ACTION
Brad Kilger
From: Director of Planning
Amen:Jment to Text 89-1
Subject: Foothill view Ordinance
Dept: Planning Department
Date: August 11, 1989
Mayor an:1 Carrron Co.mcil Heeting of
September 5. 1989, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On May 4, 1989, the Legislative Review Ccmnittee reccmnerrled adoption of the
Foothill view Ordinance.
On August 3, 1989, the Envirornnental Review Ccmnittee rec<mnended a Negative
Declaration be adopted.
f.O :n
t;:,.J n'f
'-0 C"')
ci
~~;
,
>
r.::}
:1.~
~.,
(n
:r.:
Recommended motion:
C)
-"f
"'1"'
waive the first reading an:1 put over for adoption Amen:1ment to Text 89-1, :~_
ing Sections 19.08.040 an:1 19.72.010, an:1 adding Section 19.80 to the San Bernar-
dino Municipal Code.
Adopt the Negative Declaration.
~
-~-- _.~
/----- ~
C-- ~~ -
Contact person:
Brad Kilger
Phone: 384-5357
Ward: 4.5
Supporting data attached: Staff report, proposed ordinance.
Initial Study
FUNDING REOUIREMENTS: Amount:
Nft
Source: (Acct, No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
.,<'; n"....,
AnFmrl;:t Itpm Nn
g~
,CIT.Y OF SAN BERtQDINO - REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: An ordinance of the City of San Bernardino requ~r~ng a
Review of Plans for single-family dwellings within the
foothill area, and repealing Ordinance No. MC-577.
Mayor and Council Meeting of September 6, 1989
Request
The request is to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to require
Review of Plans for single-family homes in the foothills and to
establish standards by which to review those homes, to define the
area designated as foothills, and to repeal MC-577 (Attachment Al
Municipal Code
Section 19.80 will be added to the Municipal Code.
Background
On January 5, 1986, the Mayor and Common Council adopted MC-577
requiring a Review of Plans for two-story, single-family homes in
the foothills. Included in Section 2.A. of that ordinance is the
requirement that design standards for the preservation of mountain
and Valley views shall be promulgated by the Mayor and Common
Council.
This ordinance has been reviewed by the Legislative Review
Committee several times, between October 27, 1988 and May 4, 1989.
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and presented to the
Environmental Review Committee on August 3, 1989. A Negative
Declaration is proposed. The Initial Study was made available for
public review and comment from August 9, 1989 to August 19, 1989
(Attachment Bl.
Analysis
MC-577 defined the area of foothills and required review of two-
story homes but set forth no criteria by which to evaluate the
homes. This ordinance provides design criteria relative to maximum
heights dependent upon the situation of the proposed home and the
adjacent structures. This ordinance requires review for one-story,
as well as two-story. The Development Review Committee, the
approving body of the Reviews of Plans, will have measurable stan-
dards to apply to proposed structures, thereby preserving mountain
and valley views for both existing and future uphill homes from the
proposed structure.
Every property owner within 500 feet of the subject property will
receive notice of the meeting at which the project will be reviewed,
and will be entitled to be heard on the proposal.
75.0264
. 0 .. R' f P1 0 f
Appeal of ord1nance requ1r1ng a eV1ew 0 ans or
single-family dwellings within the foothill area
and repealing Ordinance MC-577
Mayor and Council Meeting of September 5, 1989
Page 2
The ordinance also amends San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.08.040,
maximum height, and San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.72.010, lots on
downhill Slopes. Both those sections of the code, as existing,
conflict with the Foothill View Ordinance. The sections are amended
to be consistent with this ordinance.
Provision is made for a Variance .procedure should this ordinance
render a lot unbuildable. Through a Variance, the Planning
Commission can establish an alternate height limit.
The foothill area is defined as shown on the attached map, Exhibit
A.
Recommendation
Waive the first reading and put over for adoption Amendment to Text
89-1, which amends San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.08.040 and
19.72.010, and which adds chapter 19.80 to the Zoning Ordinance as
shown in attachment "An; Repeal MC-5771 Adopt the Negative
Declaration.
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
for Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
Attachments: A - Ordinance repealing MC-577
B - Initial Study
C6 FOOTHILLRP
FTHLRPP2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
1
ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 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 SAN BERNARDINO
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
5
SECTION 1.
Section 19.08 of the San Bernardino Municipal
6
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
7
"19.08.040 BUILDING HEIGHT
8
9
Maximum building height shall be thirty-five feet. No
accessory structure in the R-1-7,200 and R-1-l0,800
zones shall have a height in excess of fifteen feet."
SECTION 2.
Chapter 19.80 is hereby added to the San
Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
"Chapter 19.80
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
(Foothill Area)
19.80.010. Review of Plans; Single Family Residence;
Foothill Area.
The Planning Department shall establish and utilize
procedures pursuant to Chapter 19.77 of this Code for
the review and approval of plans to expedite
processing of applications for development and
improvements of any structure, including single family
residences, on vacant existing lots in the foothill
area or on a remodel of an existing structure which
would increase the height by ten (10) feet or more in
such foothill area.
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
1
o
o
1 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
6
uphill lot.
B.
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
15
16
Chapter 19.74 of this Code.
When such a variance is
granted, alternative height limitations shall be imposed on
17 19.80.040. Notice
the lot by the Planning Commission.
18
19
20
21
Every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the
subject property shall receive notice of the variance
application and shall be entitled to be heard on such
proposal.
22 19.80.050. Applications - View Criteria
24
23 All applications filed hereafter for foothill area
25
26
27
28
development permits shall be subject to the imposition of
conditions for the preservation of mountain and valley
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
o
1
views in the foothill area for the preservation of light
2
3
and air to protect the public health and safety in the
foothill area.
4 19.80.060. Foothill Area Defined
5
The foothill area is defined as that area beginning on the
6
east side 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;
thence along Foothill drive west to Del Rosa Avenue; thence
north to the extension of 40th Street; thence west along
40th Street to Waterman Avenue; thence north to the P. E.
Railroad right-of-way; thence west along the P.E. Railroad
right-of-way to Northpark Boulevard; thence west along
Northpark Boulevard extending to the Muscupiabe Rancho
Line; thence west to the city limits, more particularly
described as shown on a map labeled Exhibit "A" on file in
19 19.80.070. Midpoint Defined.
the Planning Department.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Midpoint" as used in this chapter shall be that point
equidistant from the foundation at ground level to the apex
of the roof, but not including roof structures, stairways,
tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required to
operate and maintain the building and fire or parapet
walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestakes,
wireless and television masts, or similar structures.
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
3
{;
13
14
o
o
1 19.80.080 Immediately Uphill Lot Defined
2
"Immediately uphill 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 uphill lot" then the
8
measurements required by this chapter shall be made against
9
the lower lot.
10 19.80.090. Maximum Height
11
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow the
12
height of a structure, inCluding a single family residence,
to exceed that allowed by Section 19.08.040 of this Code."
SECTION 3.
Section 19.72.010 of the San Bernardino
15 Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17
16 "19.72.010 Lots on Downhill Slopes
18
19
20
21
22
23
On property located on downhill slopes having a
twenty-five percent or greater slope (measured in the
general direction of the side lot lines), a private
garage may be constructed in the required front yard;
provided, however, that every portion of the garage
shall be at least five feet from the front lot line."
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 meeting thereof, held on the
28
27 day of , 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
4
10
11
-
o
o
1
AYES:
Council Members
2
3
4
5
6
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
7
8
9
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day
of
, 1989.
12 City of San Bernardino
13 Approved as to form
and legal content:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
B~~
DAB:br
August 25, 1989
5
o 0
OF SAN BERNARDINO
FOOTHILL AREA
CITY
EXHIBIT "A"
t'''-''-
~ ( r-,
,- ".l~,---""", ,..__J \
.") L__, '-___,
. . I L_ rJ
.... ,----, \ t
.' t"" -L I I
..... 1_., 1,-'
.. ._____J,
.. I
..... t r--"
· " r--' I
· 'J ~_J
. I
. I
. ....... I
. l...........r'
.
1',
"
I ',-
HIGHLAND ,
-1---
I
I ...
I ft
..~
, ,
SELlNE
, , ~
r- --:> ~
, 8
, ft
_.J "
:IE S" ST,
FOOTHill: BLVD. oJ
I ~
rJ
MILL
r
I
L___
z
4
is
;:
"
-TO LOS ANGELES
IIt~N'~",,,,, FRWy
,
..
,
'"
~
6
~
~-
{E
o
1/2
r-J"--'
... I
I
L._____,
I
I
I
I
I I
';".r----.
(
L.......
r~
';"'1 r- 1 [1 _rl
J _J --e"' ST,I
s
..
f2
Ii
.-'"
---1
.U
...,)
---' ..
- .----
MLL S1:
_r.l'--
r"
r---'
/
/
/
r
I
r--"
I
__J
,,-
,.__.r-i'
- ,.r--
J
~
.r'
r-
N ,
I
\
I
,
I
L_'
LV
I
I
)
,
-'
''''III
-----,
I
: r-1
~-, r'
/
,
t---"
.........)
~
=:
I
~
4
..
..
I
..
o
o ATl'l\CHMENI' "B" 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,.
INITIAL STUDY
Amendment to Text No. 89-1
Foothill View Ordinance
Prepared by
Sandra Paulsen
San Bernardino City Planning
Prepared for
The City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
August 3, 1989
~
...
.
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ""'II
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT CHECKLIST
\.. ~
r "'"
A. BACKGROY~
Application Number: Amendment to Text No. 89-1
Project Description: Foothill View Ordinance - to establish desi~n criteria
to preserve view sheds in the foothill areas.
Location: Foothill areas as defined in the proposed ordinance.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Hi~h wind and fire. AlQuist-Priolo.
Biolo~ical Resources. Greenbelt. Arch:lological RegOnTCeS (All PntP-nt;;:!l)
General Plan Designation: Hillside Management Overlay. RL Residential Low,
RS Residential suburban and RE Residential Estates.
Zoning Designation:
B. ~FlIEQNM~llI~!- IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
.
1- Ea~th Resou rces Will the proposal result in:
Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or
fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or
more? X
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15%
natural grade? X
c. Development within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zone? X
d. Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature? X
"" ~
o
o
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 1 OF 8
o
o
Maybe
"'"
,.
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
h. Other?
2. bIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
3.
~bTEB RESOURCES:
proposal result in:
will
the
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
110..
REVISED 12/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 2 OF 8
r
o
o
Yes
No
Maybe
"'"
4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
proposal-result in:-
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
x
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
x
c. Other?
x
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
x
b. Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
x
c. Other?
x
6.
LAND_ USE:
result in:
Will the
proposal
a.
A change in
designated
Plan?
the land use as
on the General
x
b. Development within an Airport
District?
x
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
x
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
x
e. Other?
x
lio...
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
o
("')
Maybe
""
,.
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~Nl$:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (inCluding but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. TRA~~PQETATIO~CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b.
Use of existing,
new, parking
structures?
or demand for
facilities/
c.
public
,
patterns
Impact upon existing
transpoltction systems?
d.
Alteration of present
of circulation?
e.
Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
""
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
;V;':C..':._.,.
o
Q
Maybe
""
r
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
h.
Other?
10. ~UBLIQ_SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
b.
police protection?
c.
Schools (Le. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
lio..
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
y
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 5 OF 8
~....,
o
o
Maybe
'"
,
12. AESTHET,!CS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
c. Other?
13.
~P~~U~~--F~SQYRCES:
proposal result in:
Could the
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b.
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
c. Other?
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(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.
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
REVISED 10/87
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
PAGE 6 OF ,8
~,",,'.:"':".C'
r
o
o
Yes
No
Maybe
""
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does 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 period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future.)
x
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
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
The ordinance will provide more protection than currently exists bv reauiring
a Review of Plans for single familv homes in the area defined in the ordinAnc~
_Each site will be evaluated and individual circWBstance relative to the site
,
will be miti2ated bv standard miti~~tion (high win~, high fiTP PTr) ThA
ordinance is specific to existing lot~ of record as of lan I. ]984.
fndividual single family homes are exemot from CEOA.
\...
..J
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
_~"~"i'-",
o
o
r'
D.
""
DETERMINA~JW
On the basis of this initial study,
D
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 a significant effect in
~ this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
D 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
k,J tf,"''(ti()H~'', f'~Allt"If'- ~He.e
I
Name and Title
~"~
Date: 3-3-87
lir...
~
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8