HomeMy WebLinkAboutS08-Planning
CI1C\)F SAN BERNARD(..o
- REQUI '\T FOR COUNCIL AC'.JoN
'"-,."r
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Subject:
Request to Grandfather Review of
Plans No. 86-51 (Mountain Shadows
Villas) ~
Mayor and Council Meeting of ~
November 16, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Dept:
Planning
Date:
November 12, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Council adopted MC-549 providing for transition of pending
projects under prior R-3 Ordinance.
Council adopted MC-550 establishing new R-3 standards.
Council d~rected applicant to prepare an EIR.
Council referred issue of grandfathering item to Legislative
Review Committee.
Council continued matter of grandfathering item.
Council continued matter of grandfathering item.
Council receives and files minutes of 1/22/87 Legislative
Review Committee meeting where grandfathering was considered.
- Council directs staff to place item on Environmental
Review Committee agenda.
10/20/86 -
10/22/86
11/17/86
11/18/86
12/8/86
12/22/86
2/2/87
9 or 10/87
Recommended motion:
Deny applicant's request to grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51 under
the ordinance provisions existing prior to the adoption of MC-550 and
deem the proposed project subject to the current R-3 requirements.
I
. I' l " (j 'yf
.,J\"V IvV",/,-
\. ; I
Signafure R. Ann Siracusa
Contact parson:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sourcs: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Finance:
Council Notes:
""",,1:"
Anpnrl::a I tarn 1\1.....
s-r
Cltf OF SAN BERNARDhfO -
~H.,\
REQUbT FOR COUNCIL ACt10N
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Request to Grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51
(Mountain Shadows Villas) under Previous R-3 Zone
District Ordinance.
Mayor and Council Meeting of November 16, ,1987
REQUEST
A request has been made by Stubblefield Enterprises, appli-
cant for Review of Plans No. 86-51, to grandfather the
project, a 29.3 acre proposal for 492 apartment units located
at the northerly terminus of Citrus and La Praix Avenues,
under the prior R-3 Zone District ordinance and exempt it
from the provisions of Ordinance No. MC-550, adopted
October 20, 1986.
BACKGROUND
'" ")'1.:1\)
Chronoloqy of Events for Review of Plans No. 86-51 (Attach-
ment A)
The property in question was zoned R-3-2000 by the City in
1968 prior to its being annexed. In 1975 when the East
San Bernardino-Highland General Plan was ~adopted, it
designated this parcel for multiple family housing, 8 to 14
units per acre.
No project was proposed on the site until May 30, :;'1986, when
Review of Plans application No. 86-51 was filed by Stubble-
field Enterprises for a 594 unit apartment project on 52.4
acres. In June of that year, the Development Review Commit-
tee considered the proposed project and referred it to the
Environmental Review Committee for an environmental determ-
ination. On August 22, 1986 a revised project was submitted
for 492 apartment units on 29.3 acres.
The Environmental Review Committee, on September 25, 1986,
recommended a Negative Declaration for the proposal. This
decision was appealed by Councilman Steve Marks to the
Planning Commission on the basis of growth inducing impacts
and inadequate traffic analysis. The Planning Commission,
however, affirmed the Environmental Review Committee decision
by adopting a Negative Declaration on October 21, 1986.
This decision was appealed to the City Council by
ff \' Peter Brekhus, attorney for 500 property owners,iri";1;he area.
j ~ \, ,
, J
On October 20, 1986, the Council adopted an urgency
ordinance, MC-549 (Attachment B), which stated that Ordinance
No. MC-550, new R-3 standards, would apply to all projects
for which plans had not been approved by the Development
75-0264
'.'1'
11!
,,.....
'-'
...",,/
Request to Grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51
Mayor and Council Meeting of November 16, 1987
Page 3
Review Committee (DRC) within 30 days following the effective
date of adoption of the ordinance. On October 22, 1986, the
Council adopted Ordinance No. MC-550 establishing new
standards for multiple family developments (Attachment C).
Under the provisions of the new ordinance, the project
proposed by Review of Plans No. 86-51 was subject to a
Conditional Use Permit.
However, Ordinance No. MC-549 addressed grandfathering and
provided that those projects which received DRe approval
before November 20, 1986, would not be subject to Ordinance
No. MC-550. Review of Plans No. 86-51 could have been
grandfathered under the provisions of that ordinance had it
been approved by the DRC during the transition period.
However, the environmental decision on the project was
appealed to the City Council and the applicant requested that
the City Council further grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-
51 from the provisions of the new R-3 Ordinance.
On November 17, 1986, the Council held a public hearing in
Sturges Auditorium on the Planning Commission's adoption of
the Negative Declaration for the project. At least 700
people attended the hearing. The Council directed the
applicants (Attachment D) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report which addressed specific factors, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
School Impacts
Traffic
Flooding and Drainage
Geology, which includes
Historical
Effects on
as required
Quality of
points:
Grading and
.,j,
;;,;'_U.
;~, ';i
Earthquake
7.
the U.S. Forest Service Greenbelt,
by the U.S.D.F.:,.,."
Life, which includes the folloWing
a. the effect of the proposed three-story
design of the apartments,
b. the effect of traffic congestion in the
area, and
c. the effect that the construction stage of
the project will have on the area.
The next day the Council referred the applicant's request to
grandfather the application to the Legislative Review
Committee. On December 8, 1986, the Mayor .and Council
continued the matter of the grandfathering. Also on
December 8,. the Planning Director sent a letter to the
applicant indicating that the project had not been
grandfathered and explaining that the project was subject to
J:_""I' \;
!'I;!i i
I:: I
: ~','; I .'
.,
.......
'-'
',.;
Request to Grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51
Mayor and Council Meeting of November 16, 1987
Page 4
a Conditional Use Permit and outlining how the applicant was
to proceed in relation to the preparation of the required
Environmental Impact Report (Attachment D).
The Legislative Review Committee scheduled the request for a
number of meetings. The last date that it appeared on their
agenda was May 19, 1987. The minutes of that meeting reflect
that the issue of .compatibility" was to be discussed by the
Planning Commission on May 19. That discussion occurred on
October 6, 1987 when the Planning Commission directed
Planning staff to refine the proposed compatibility criteria
for use as a guideline but not as an adopted standard. The
grandfathering of the application is not contingent on
compatibility requirements.
Recent Actions
On September 8, 1987 the City Council directed s't'~fi to place
the project (Review of Plans No. 86-51) on the Environmental
Review Committee agenda (Attachment F). The Environmental
Review Committee reviewed the status of the project on
October 8, 1987 and determined that under the OPR restric-
tions no action could be taken.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the project on
October 8, 1987 and determined that, since it was subject to
the new R-3 standards, action on the project was no longer
within their purview.
~QnglJg! ion s
~.
., 'I"
I.
The proposed project (formerly Review of Plans No.
51). for 492 apartment units.6n 29.3 acres located at
northerly terminus of Citrus ~nd La praix Avenues in
R-3-2000 Zone District is currently subject to
86-
the
the
the
;-:: I ~ f 1 fll! j . 1 .'
r, ., I ;
! ;I';i
r>'~'.
C.--
- .
c
---'"'-..
"""
j
Request to Grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51
Mayor and Council Meeting of November 16, 1987
Page 5
provisions of Ordinance No. MC-550, adopted in October,
1986.
2.
The
for
the
the
proposed project is required to file an application
a Conditional Use Permit and cannot be acted on by
Development Review Committee unless grandfathered by
City Council.
3.
In order to proceed
grandfatheredl or a
be prepared.
4. The City Council never acted on the applicant's request
to grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51 to allow it to
proceed under the requirements in effect prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-550.
as either a Review of ,Plans (if
Conditional Use Permit, an EIR must
5. Pursuant to the conditions established by OPR, this
project, whether grandfathered as a Review of Plans
application or required to have a Conditional Use
Permit, cannot be processed until such time as a new
General Plan is adopted or until OPR removes the
condition which prohibits processing of applications
north of the designated line.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL QET1Q~~
The Council has the option to grant or not grant the request
for grandfathered status for Review of Plans No. 86-51.
1. If the Council does grandfather the project, it will
continue as a Review of Plans application. An EIR must
be prepared and that document will be used by the
decision making body, the Development Review Committee,
as information in acting on the application. The
project will not go to the Planning Commission unless
appealed after a Development Review Committee action.
2. If the Council does not grandfather the project, in
order to proceed the applicant would have to file an
application for a Conditional Use Permit and prepare an
EIR. Action on the Conditional Use Permit and
certification of the EIR would be the responsibility of
the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City
Council after a Planning Commission action.
In either case, neither the project nor the EIR will be able
to move forward until either the General Plan update is
adopted or OPR removes the conditions which prohibit staff
from' accepting and/or processing applications north of the
line. .' .
,
c
'ror'
........,...
:J
..'..
Request to Grandfather Review of Plans No. 86-51
Mayor and Council Meeting of November 16, 1987
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the applicant's request to grandfather Review of Plans
No. 86-51 under the provisions of the Zoning Code prior to
adoption of Ordinance No. MC-550 in October , 1986, and deem
the project subject to the current Code requirements.
Prepared by:
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Planning Department
Attachment A - Chronology of Events
Attachment B - Ordinance No. MC-549
Attachment C - Ordinance No. MC-550
Attachment D - Council Action of November 17,
1986
Attachment E - Letter Dated December 8, 1986
Attachment F - Council Action of September 8,
1987
Attachments:
mkf
11/12/87
DOCUMENTS:M&CCAGENDA
RP865l
,. ;'
,
L( ,Ii'.''' I
~'i c ~ ' i ' ~
~ ' ,. I
, :1
II
! '
,"I
. ,
] ~ 1-' {' t - rill i .! ; I j ,I; (I
..
,
c
"..-..'.....,
'-" VACHMENT A
4rJ1
"
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANnUM
8709-2l0B
TO:
The Mayor and Common Council
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
FROM:
SUBJECT: Review of
Enterprises
Plans
No.
86-51
Stubblefield
DATE:
September B, 1987
(7191)
COPIES:
--------------------------------------------------~----------
Chrono10qv of Events Accordinq to P1anninq Department Records
- Review of Plans No. 86-5~ - stubQl~!1~lQ_En~~IPI1~~&
September 4, 196B
November 4, 1968
Property Zoned R-3-2000 by City
650
San
from
acres annexed
Bernardino (this
the applicant).
into City of
information
December 15, 1975
East San Bernardino/Highland General
Plan adopted designating this
property for multiple family hous-
ing, 8 - 14 units per acre.
May 30, 1986
Application filed by
Enterprises for Review
86-51 for 594 dwelling
acres.
Stubblefield
of Plans No.
units on 52.4
June 27, 1986
Development Review Committee (DRC)
reviews proposal and refers to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
for an environmental determination.
August 1, 1986
Planning Director sends letter to
applicants indicating the current
zoning of R-1-2000 and indicating
that under that zoning 29.3 acres
can accommodate 638 units..
*-No documentation in file,
that there,was some question
change line was located and
property was not within the
but it is staff's understanding
regarding exactly where the zone
some concern that the entire
R-3-2000 zone. There is also no
'i"': ~ ;
Tl'! ! ,,'. "
I "
I f!rn,:
::: i:: !c : :;.,
.,
,.'
c
"'..
"
-,)
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108
Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises
September 8, 1987
Page 2
'<l
documentation requesting the August 1, 1986 letter from the
Planning Director.
Redesign submitted by applicant for
492 dwelling units on 29.3 acres.
Plans in file stamped 8/22/86.*
*This is at variance with the applicant's attorney's letter
which indicates submission on September 9, 1986.
August 22,.1986
September 23f 1986 Counc ilman Marks makes motion to
change the zone on the property in
questions. Motion fails 5 to 2.
September 25, 1986 ERe holds meeting attended by at
least 78 persons who signed in and
recommends Negative 'Declaration on
project.
September 30, 1986
Councilman Marks appeals the ERC
decision to the Planning Commission
on the basis of growth inducing
impacts and inadequate traffic
analysis.
October 20, 1986
MC-550 adopting new
multiple family
adopted, requiring a
Permit for this type
standards for
, developments
Conditional Use
of project.
October 21, 1986
-"
Planning Commission conducts hearing
and affirms the ERC action, adopts
Negative Declaration 5 to 2.
Attorney Darlene Fischer of Hill,
Farrer , Burrill challenges decision
and requests that the item be placed
on the October 30, 1986 ORe agenda,
in that it is a Review of Plans item
to be acted on by the DRC.
She also raises the question as to
whether or not the City has complied
with CEQA.
October 23, 1986
October 24, 1986
;, l!TJ'I:!:ii j'!'
~ , I :t) , : ;
I\i",tl),;
Appeal of Planning
filed by Attorney
Brekhu~,' Williams
property owners in
Commission action
Peter Brekhus of
on behalf of 500
the area.
.'1
" ; ; , j Ii ,~ I":
:,1 ;'ii
th!I~UlfiLgL .'if", J 4,tJ ;-~-, i\l'~\,": \ 1 '! .-)
'1. '
..' ~ .::
r.'
I"..,
,.~,
--
,
"..,'"
~""
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108
Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises
September 8, 1987
Page 3
October 29, 1986
Letter indicates he and property
owners cannot be available for
November 3, 1986 Council meeting.
Memorandum from City Attorney .to
Mayor and Common Council indicating
that the appellant has requested a
later date than November 3, 1986 for
appeal hearing.
October 31, 1986
City Attorney sends memorandum
indicating that it is fairly
arguable that the project might have
significant environmental impacts
which require mitigation. A focused
Environmental Impact'Report would be
required if the matter were liti-
gated.
November 3, 1986
The appeal hearing on the issuance
of a Negative Declaration was
continued to November 17, 1986.
Legal opinion issued by City Attor-
ney concluding that, based on the
testimony p~esented at the October
21, 1987 Planning Commission hear-
ing, it was fairly arguable that
there could be significant impacts
from the projects that would warrant
mitigation.
November 3, 1986
November 17,.1986
Letter received from Darlene Fischer
indicating that it was her under-
standing that on November 3, 1986
the Council had directed the City
Attorney to amend MC-549 adopting
transition rules for MC-550, the new
R-3 ordinance.
i'D IT' \ r
;',1:;1": ; ",'" .il,
She asks specifically that ~he
matter be referred back to DRe to
render a decision in that it is a
Review'bf Plans item.
j ,\, l;i"
'I
November 17, 1986
. :';!'
The Counc 11
at Sturges
holds a public hearing
Auditorium with approxi-
I !t.c i
f;\'fJ, :;.
if),'I:'I.::, i
'" : (d.
\-il"
_ J
.",
..I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108
Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises
September 8, 1987
Page 4
November 18. 1986
December 8;"1986
December 8,1986
If-in':H;'l r j i' j::i:' ,',,' l.,tl!\
rL~'iJ}~': {i \-l,
:', ,I;; 'Ill r
'i, !
mately 650 to 700 people in atten-
dance.
The Council directed the applicant
to prepare a focused EIR to include
the following:
1. School Impaction
2. Traff ic
3. Flooding and Drainage
4. Geology, which includes Grading
and Earthquake
5. Historical
6. Effects on the u.s. Forest
Service Greenbelt, as required
by the U.S.D.F.
7. Quality of Life; which includes
the following points:
a. the effect of the proposed
three-story design of the
apartments,
b. the effect of traffic
congestion in the area,
and
c. the effect that the
construction stage of the
project will .. have on the
area.
Mayor and Council meet an~ refer the
issue of grandfathering the Mountain
Shadows Villa project to Legislative
Review Committee, reschedule for
Mayor and Council December 8, 1986.
Mayor and Council continued the
matter of the grandfathering of the
project under the old ordinance to
December 22, 1986.
The Planning Director sends a letter
to the applicants indicating that on
November 17, 1986 the Council
required a focused EIR for the
proposed apartment complex.
The ,le'tternotes that the Council
did not extend that time period by
-
..' I '.
.':,... ....
.. ,''-'"
~,
\.
,.....
~ -'
,J
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108
Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefie'd Enterprises
September 8, 1987
Page 5
which the project could be evaluated
under the former provision for
multiple family development, and
therefore, an application for a
Conditional Use Permit must be
filed. Conditiona~ Use Permit
application forms were included.
The letter requested a written
notification from the applicant
stating that the applicant will
agree to fund the cost of the
focused EIR plus 15% administration
fee. RFP would iO out upon receipt
of their letter.
* The Planning Department has never received either an
application for a Conditional Use Permit under the provlslons
of MC 550 or the requested letter indicating that the appli-
cant would pay for the focused EIR. Therefore, the project
has not proceeded.
December 11, 1986
&' ~',:, ,l ,
Darlene Fischer requeal:8.~,that, due
to scheduling conflicts, she wishes
the item of grandfathering the
project to be placed on the
January 22, 1987 Mayor'Hmd Council
agenda. .~:
- .
{,.
Mayor and Common CounoH continue
the matter of the grandfathering of
the project under the only ordinance
to February 2, 1987.
Legislative Review Committee dis-
cussed the 'matter of the grand-
fathering of the project under the
old ordinance (not requiring a CUP)
and continued for six weeks to allow
the City Attorney and Planning
Director to review and. analyze the
City's position on what. .compati-
bility. in the R-3 Ordinance means.
December 22, 1986
January 22, i987
Jnr'I'"
I I' -ii,"
'!: :'f'
':..,J,....,,'
Mayor and Common Council,receive and
file the minutes of the 'January 22,
1987 Leaislative Review Committee
meeting. :,..
';/
February 2, 1987
H~:: \1 . I, ,r 11 ~ I' j 'Ill:
;' (.:/' j. ;1
,1;!fJt'
'lq ;.r ~ t~ll~' p:i 1~I.r'l:1 ".
, ,
" . ..... .;/.
'. .'
.," "
.
(,
~.,. ""
"-'
....-.....
.....;
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108
Review of Plans No. 86-51 - stubblefield Enterprises
September 8, 1987
Page 6
'"
* Pursuant to the action of the Legislative Review Committee,
a sub-committee of the Planning Commission was formed to
discuss the issue of "compatibility." The major requirement
of MC 550 is that multiple family projects which do not meet
all the provisions of the ordinance must have a conditional
use permit. The .compatibility" of a project, therefore, is
significant to the issue of grandfathering this project.
May 14, 1987
Legislative Review Committe heard
report from Planning staff that the
Planning Commission sub-committee
had developed a recommendation to be
heard by the Planning Commission on
May 19, 1987.*
*There is no indication that this item was ever heard by the
Planning Commission. It does not r~lpear on the May 19 or
subsequent agendas.
It is the Planning Department's opinion, in thaf the CounCil
has never adopted an ordinance or resolution which exempts
the Mountain Shadows Villas project from the provisions of
MC-550, that the original Review of Plans No. 86-51 is deemed
de ~ in that it is not consistent with the provisions of the
zo 'in Code.
k)
'VR. NN SI~
Director of Planning
I..
mkf
'11\'T;'H~!"\ j'f'l'; ~1r;\I"\,:~VL'lJ:"l' ll,!"':) .!.'CH
j,k;\':~l:d I: 1 1.;1;:\11 \'1)~';" 1..':1(' rf"
t 1
t' "i(, i.,
:''V
. ']
" -~
,.' c'-
\.v
-
(
- ATTACHMENT'b'"
ID.~:,
r'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ORDINANCE NO. MC-549
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING SECTION
19.12.210 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ALL PROJECTS
PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, AND DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREOF.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 19.12.210 is hereby added to the San
Bernardino Municipal Code to read as followSI
-19.12.210 Effective date.
10 The provisions of Chapter 19.12 as amended by Ordinance No.
11 MC-550 shall apply to all projects for which plans have not been
12 approved by the Development Review Committee as of thirty days
13 following date of adoption of this section..
14
15
16
17
SECTION 2. This ordinance is an urgency measure, which
shall take effect and become operative upon.:1ts adoption and
.' .-.,.'
approval. The facts constituting such urgency are that
amendments to Chapter 19.12 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code
18 shall become effective on or about November ,21, 1986. The
19 provisions of this ordinance, dealing with the effective date of
20 final approval of plans pertaining to multiple family
21 developments, must become effective in conjunction with the
22 amendments to Chapter 19.12 in order that all developers will
23 have timely notice of the effective date of the amendments.
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 i' ".:
meeting thereof, held on
i
27,
i:
28
October
the 20th day of
, 1986, by the
, , " ~ , ;. i ' i': l ".. ;
following vote, to wit:
, f:: f ~,
,.-\:' '"J
" "l:
l'
I::', l.' ; I,
I': F I:, ' 'I"
:1
" "
. ,
<;'e'.I.I.l b.1' e."".:,,,, '.:) ~I~' _~r>-y.....r-L< Q....)
,. ~... . I"' _. ,..:1
.;, ;""_-;-.LC=~ -p,~~~,.:'; "f"'\'-_'
l_lI, L"j' :'. , ' ! j ii,
'. ..
~.,.~,.;
9 of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,
il
25
26
27,
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
,.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
/...,~
:J
~ '
"'......
Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Marks, Quie1,
Frazier, Stri~ler
Council Member Hernandez
None
~/;7?O!,-a4
/ City Clerk
ordinance is hereby approved this 22nd day
, 1986.
fZJ~~ )J~
Mayor of' the City of San Bernardino
The foregoing
October
Approved as to form:
tfZ/MJ#4;~v
City Attorney
'.':.
.'1.'
I
1,:/,,\:;,
Ii
r~ n ': 1,:11'1- .
"1 "1',
.,
,.,
l!;
.'( . i: I . i ., ,d'.,:.' " of 1 .".1 :!.
il'Ji
.I
(.
...
]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
]0
11
]2
]3
14
15
]6
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~.
.,c-
! '.
\
.,JO' I
I_.j
1
(
.1 '
. ,
.' ,
....
ATTACHMENT C'"
'-;-1'; I'
, ~).:. I. ':"J,~Jf
ORDINANCE NO. MC-SSO
:., "{ ')'1 :', :": .' ,", '". . ~ _,'n. , ,
--., 1.,.,;.,1"1;' -,' 'I' I":
':,t'1 =~:'.~;.~ ::-, ~~;":';'~ ",~'~' ,".
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER
19.12 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE~ERTAINING TO MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. . Section 19.04.495 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code is amended to read:
-19.04.495 Story.
A. Story is.that .portion of a building included' between
the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor
next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion
of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost
floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level
directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than
,six feet above grade as defined'herein for more than fifty
percent of t~~ l.otaJ perimeter or is more than twelve feet above
grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused
under-floor space shall be considered as a story.
B. Story-first is the lowest story in abuilding which
qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor
level in a building having only one floor level shall be
classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not
more than four feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than
fifty percent of the total perimeter, or more than eight feet
below grade, as defined,her~in, at any point. In no event shall
the height of the building be greater than thirty-five feet from
the lowest grade elevation.- .
: 1!;,
, t. '_
.'.i~;' ,<:'o~, ~~~-,-.:U'~~':'~\'~":~~~~
\0'.....--,\ ,..,\" ......~.
.
ll.."...".
(
,
"
I
,
\
~. ,/
....~.....' .
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
..
SECTION 2. Chapter 19.12 of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read:
w19.l2.020 Use permitted.
No building, structure or land shall be used and no
building shall be altered, enlarged or maintained except for the
following purposes:
A. All uses permitted in the R-2 district.
B. Resident courts and apartment buildings sUbject to the
habitable floor area, open space and recreational ar~a per
dwelling unit provisions of this chapter.
c. Any development which complies with all requirements
specifically set forth in this chapter shall be subject to the
review of plans procedure set forth in Chapter 19.22.
19.12.030 Conditional use permit required.
A. Where a project fails to comply with' all requirements
for development specifically set forth in this Chapter, the
project may be permitted in a district zoned,as R-) subject to
the issuance of a conditional use permit under the provisions of
.
Chapter 19.78.
B. Existing R-3-l200 designated areasC'()ntaining more than
twenty-four units on the same parcel and the following criteria:
1. All windows shall be oriented away from adjace~t
single-family residential Ftructures.
2. The location, configuration and design of the
structures shall be harmonious with their sites and surrounding
area.
19.12.040 Minimum floor area per unit.
.
il
,',
>(1
'2
'q
,
,
.~
'-.#
(
'.
,.
The minimum enclosed, habitable floor area for any dwelling
unit in a multiple dwelling, exclusive of patios, balcony or
covered parking space, shall be:
.
A. Bachelor or efficiency (one room unit, inclusive of
kitchen and bathroom) - four hundred fifty square feet.
B. One bedroom - five hundred fifty square feet.
C. Two bedroom - six hundred fifty square feet.
D. Three bedroom - nine hundred square feet.
.19.12.050 . Minimum lot area and dimensions.
The following minimum lot areas and widths shall apply in a
district zoned as R-3. Where a lot has a width or area which is
less than the minimum area or width required by this section, but
which was of record on September 10, 1953, that lot complies with
this section. A lot which conformed to the minimum area and
width requirements of the applicable county ordinance prior to
its annexation into the City, shall be deemed, after its
annexation, to comply with the applicable minimum area or width
requirement of this section.
A. Minimum area. Except as provided above, the minimum
lot area in the R-3 district shall not be le88ithan eight
thousand one hundred square feet. It is further provided that
the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for units built after the.
effective date of this ordinance may be established and
delineated on the zoning map in accordance with the following
table:
Zone
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
1800 square feet (24 dwelling units per acre)
R-3-l800
~! '
, .r:
..
-1:,.1 I \!l
'j I,
1',/'~ I i 13,
.'" ,
,'.."
':., C;' I.!"!~ If ('.',! I;> I 1\ > :! . : I I
"
.\.j
r "
;"~Il . (0 {,1- ., ,..l.
'""....
~. ,-,
( 1 R-3-3000 3000 square feet (14 dwelling units per acre)
2 When the total lot area exceeds any multiple of the minimum
.
3 lot area per dwelling unit by fifty percent or more of said
4 minimum, one additional dwelling unit shall be permi tted .
<
5 Existing undeveloped and underdeveloped property at a density
6 of one unit per 1200 square feet of lot area per the R-3-1200 zone
7 shall be allowed to be developed at that density. No new
8 undeveloped or underdeveloped property may be zoned R-3-1200 after
9 the_effective date of this chapter.
10 B. Minimum width: all R-3 zones - sixty feet.
11 C. Minimum depth: all R-3 zones - one hundred feet.
12 19.12.060 Building height.
13 Maximum building height of two stories not to exceed thirty-
14 five feet, except the following:
15 A. Nothing in this chapter is Intended to render existing
16 buildings built to the R-3-l200 specifications nonconforming.
17 B. Buildings on the project interior which are completely
18 enclosed by two story structures on the same site.
19 C. Where the Planning Director determines that there are
20 unique topographic conditions or constraints on the site.
21 1~.12.070 Building coverage.
22 The maximum permissible building coverage shall be fifty
23 percent of the lot or lots. This includes coverage by any
24 habitable structure or any garage, carport or accessory building,
25 whether attached or detached to the dwelling.
26 19.12.080 Setbacks.
i I
27 / / / / / / / / / /
, ;'1 ,
, , ,
28
-Ii ..
" I:'"
i i~ ,
., 'if ;',' ;'::'1" j :, , 4
1
c.
...
(
(
,-."'
.J
-.
-..,11/
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A. Where a lot in an R-3 district abuts upon a major,
primary or secondary highway, or collector street, there shall be
.
an average landscaped building setback of not less than twenty-
five feet. For every foot of building frontage having a setback
of less than twenty-five feet, there shall be a foot of building
frontage having a setback correspondingly greater than twenty-
five feet. However, under no c~rcumstances shall a building have
.
8 a minimum setback of less than twenty feet.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. - Where a lot in anR-3 district abuts any street other.
than a major, primary or secondary highway, or collector street,
there shall be provided an average landscaped building setback of
not less than twenty feet. For every foot of building frontage
having a setback of less than twenty feet, there shall be a foot
of building frontage having a setback correspondingly greater
than twenty feet. However, under no circumstances shall a
building have a minimum setback of less than fifteen feet.
C. Where a lot in an R-3 district abuts a publicly
dedicated alley, any building thereon shall be set back not less
than fifteen feet from the edge of an alley for habitable
structures and five feet from the edge of the alley for garages
and accessory structures and shall be further subject to the
provisions for off-street parking set forth in Chapter 19.56.
D. Buildings facing interior property lines: One-story
structures shall have a side yard of five feet plus one
additional foot for each fifteen feet of continuous wall length;
two-story buildings facing an interior property line shall have a
side yard of ten feet plus one additional foot for each fifteen
I 'I,. "'1'
feet of continuous 'wall length.
'.
ill: il
\ ),
. ,
:"1
5
. ,f ' , ~ l: ' . .
I'.,'
l. .:; ,-
,.
-1 ~
....;
!'" , ., ~
'-- '-"
(
..
1 19.12.090 Yard requirements.
2 There shall be an open yard to separate two or more
,
3 buildings on the same parcel from one another. The depth of the
4 yard and the length of the yard shall be determined by the length
5 of the structural walls of surrounding buildings, the location of
6 windows, the location of the main entrances, and the location
7 relatative to the subject buildings or other buildings as
8 specified in this chapter.
9 19.12.100 . Distances between buildings..
10 Distance between buildings is measured from structural
11 walls or face of habitable balconies and decks. Openings in
12 buildings are defined as walls containing windows, doors, and the
13 face of open balconies/decks.
14 A. Opening to opening: minimum separation - twenty feet
15 plus one foot for every fifteen feet of continuous wall for both
16 walls.
17 B. Opening to wall: minimum separation - fifteen feet
18 plus one foot for each fifteen feet of continuus wall containing
19 openings.
20 C. Wall to wall: ten foot minimum building separation.
21 D. To encourage variation in the placement of structures,
22 the required distance between the substantially parallel walls of
23 two main buildings may be decreased at one end if increased an
24 .equal distance at the other end: In no case shall the minimum
25 distance be less than ten feet between any two walls.
26 19.12.110 Yard requirement - Improvement of yard and
27 setback area.
'I ,I:i (,,-'1\
28
\,
, '
1-1 I i'J
',1
" ': ~ 1
6
f-,II!) \ '.1
;"j
"'1'\1
""-
! 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'. !
....
~
'......
"
Yard and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn,
trees, shrubs, or other plant materials and shall be permanently
.
maintained in a neat and orderly manner.
..
19.12.120 Required recreational-leisure areas.
A. Multiple dwelling. On any building site on which there
are located ten or more dwelling units other than one-family or
two-family dwellings, there shall be not less than three hundred
square feet of common usable recretional-leisure space per
dwelling.
B.
".',f
Minimum area of private balcony or patio. All ground
floor dwelling units shall have a patio. A private patio for any
ground floor dwelling unit shall be not less than seventy-five
square feet in area. The least dimension shall be not less than
eight feet. Where any dwelling unit above the ground floor is
served by a private balcony, that balcony shall be a minimum of
The least dimension shall be a
fifty square feet in area.
minimum of five feet.
c. Such common recreational-leisure area shall be
conveniently located and readily accessible from all dwelling
units which it is intended to serve. Where there are more than
ten dwelling units on one site the common recreational-leisure
area shall include one of the following; swimming pools,
jacuzzi, court game facilities, e.g. tennis, racquetball, tot
lots (playground equipment) to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department, and any other recreational-leisure facility, the area
of which may be included in the calculation of the total area of
common recreational-leisure space provided by the development.
: '
"I: "
",'
I,
7
[ .
'),ll'
.-' .
'(I ,( l ; ~ : '. i iJ ~~' '1 i \ ':!. ! ' : 1
, .~ ,.~.-'
( 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
....
..J
1. Common recreational-leisure areas shall not .include:
a. Rights-of-way for which a perpetual easement for
.
recreation has not been recorded.
b. Vehicle parking areas and accessways.
c. Areas between walls of adjacent structures where
, ,
~ : '. 'I I
,I' '. '"\.,, 1,
1 .'
>.'
8
:1
. . ,j (",r,
.,.
;,1
},.--
..
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,.. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\.
r .
:J
~".
.....~
(
.
A. Carports must be structurally enclosed or screened on
three sides as approved by the Design Review Committee.
,
B. Except as otherwise required by the Uniform Building
Code, a carport built to accommodate two or more vehicles may be
constructed with only the rear of the carport and the two ends
enclosed, except as otherwise required by the Uniform Building
Code.
C. All interior walls of carports shall be finished to the
standards of the Planning Director. There shall be one hundred
fifty cubic feet of private storage provided for each unit, but
it need not be all in a single location. These general storage
cabinets may be provided at a point outside the carport upon the
approval of the Planning Department. Bumper guards shall be
provided to protect the interior walls of carports from damage.
19.12.150 Vehicle access requirements.
A. Every multiple dwelling unit shall be located within
two hundred feet of, and be served by, all such public or private
accessways as will provide adequate access and circulation for
vehicular traffic, including fire, utility, trash collection and
other essential services.
B. Where a building site abuts.upon an alley, all
vehicular access to garages and carports shall be only from that
alley.
19.12.160 Required site screening.
A. Except as otherwise provided herein, a solid decorative
type masonry wall, landscaped earthen berm, natural terrain or
any combination thereof, totalling no less than six feet in
I l:
.- 'i"
1..,
9.
I>
i.1 ,\ ::.
: ..: ..;~'i'! ~l~j .
l L . r,
,~
, . . 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1]
]2
]3
14
15
16
17
18 .
19
20
21
~
~
24
25
26
27
. 28
,)
~
height, shall be provided as a divider along and immediately
adjacent to the site boundary line of any mUltiple-dwelling unit
- ,
which abuts any freeway, expressway, railroad or other right-of-
way, or which abuts the boundary of any area zoned as single-
family residential or any alley adjacent to such boundary. The
height of any such divider shall be as measured from the highest
finished grade adjacent to the wall.
B. For regulations for fences, hedges and walls, see
Chapter 19.63..
19.12.170 Required. refuse storage area.
Refuse storage shall conform to the standard size shown on
the specifications for 'Minimum Acceptable Trash Collection
Areas' as established by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer. Said storage area shall be designed, located or
screened so as not to be readily identifiable~rom adjacent
streets or highways.
19.12.180 Signs.
por sign regulations, see Chapter 19;60.
19.12.190 Television antenna.
For television antenna regulations, see Section 19.18.270.
19.12.200 Violation.
~ Any construction, erection, reconstruction, moving,
conversion, alteration or addition to any building or structure
in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter is
hereby declared to be a nuisance and is abatable under the
provisions of Section 8.33.020 through 8.33.100 of this Code.
'; d: I
['" '
n II I
;,'
.j'
"
ill"': .,!) ;1:;
10
"
'''"'"'
8
.. .9
10
11
....
, .
.
_.
",...,1
J
"",,","-
..
1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
2 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
3 Bernardino at a
regular
. .
meetlng thereof, held on
4
the
20th
, 1986, by the
October
day of
5 following vote, to wit:
6 AYES: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez,
7 Marks, Quiel, Frazier, Strickler
NAYS:
None
ABSENT~
None
~.(~$~~/
/' Ci ty Clerk
12
13 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this 22nd day
14 of
October
, 1986.
Jl~t/~./. ?d~~~
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Approved as to form:
~ft/~
Ci ty torney
..
..
1';;'1:
.'\".0
i.
;1. ~ t I 1"'; h 11
'I: ,',,;' il"1'l
~) _ '" '" ~l ; ,. '",
c:
-'"...,..~
,)
-..."......
"-" '
ATTACHMENT D
--"'~;~~.~' .,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
POST OFFICE BOX 1318. SANJ3ERNAROINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
\
I
-
'-.
-,
December 9. 1986
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERIC.
fD)~@~UW~m
lJ1} ~
oEe 09 1986
Darlene B. Fischer
Hill, Farrer & Burrill
445 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
CITY PlAil!...;", ,:; :.i:T:,:ENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
Dear Ms. Fischer:
At the meeting of the Mayor and C01lllllOn council held November 17,
1986, the Stubblefield Enterprises was required to include the
following subjects in a focused Environmental Impact Report:
1. School Impaction
2. Traffic
3. Flooding and Drainage
4. Geology, which includes Grading and Earthquake
5. Historical
6. Effect on the U.S. Forest Greenbelt, as requested by
the U.S.D.F. .
7. Quality of Life, which includes the following points:
b.
the effect of the proposed three-story design
of the apartments
the effect of traffic congestion
the effect that the construction
project will have on the area. .
in the area
stage of the
\
I
a.
c.
The subject property, Mountain Shadows Villas, is located between
the northern terminus of La praix Avenue and Citrus Street.
Sincerely,
,..:!,., ,I .:;,,;.
/' . . ~,
SHA~A CL.~K
City Clerk
cc: City Attorney Stubblefield Enterprises, Inc.
, : 'I. '~, Planning Peter B. Brekhus
0:; C.: .~; ;:r:;C::-: .oS= 300 NORTH "o..{\'IlE~f.\~ 8ERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 9241S.Q121
PHONE \7141383,5002/383,5102
SC:dc
"
.Gf.
..(~~:
_.'.
c-
'"
....~,
)
-)
....... ATTACHMENT E-'
CI
ERN ARDIN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN SERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 9241S
EVLYN WILCOX
Movor
Me.....,. of .... c........ Council
Ell". &1&1_.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . "11II W.r.
Jack""II~............. .1Mo...W....
RaIpft Her....... . . .. . . ~ . . . . . T,,'" W....
._fi1. ....... 'f.' ..... ~"'''''W.'.
GonIoAQ ...... .......".".......
OI""~ ...........'.........""anI .
~I" ................ .Ieveft.IIW.,. \
~ecelher 8, 1~86
j,
, I
Mr. John Stubblefield
Stubblefield Enterprises
2258 Bradford
Highland, CA 92346
RE: REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-51
Dear John:
At their meeting of November 17, 1986, the San Bernardino cOmmon Council
determined that the proposed 494 unit apartment complex (Review of Plans
No. 86-51) on 29.0 acres located at the northerly terminus of Citrus and
La Praix Avenues in the R-3-2000 zone will need a focused Environmental Impact
Report analysis prior to receiving project approval or deni~l.
In addition the Council did not extend the time period by ~ich the project
could be evaluated by the former provisions of the zoning code for multitiple
family residential projects. Consequently the proposal wil~ require a resub-
mission for a Conditional Use Permit due to the non-conformity with.the new
Provisions of the R-3 ordinance namely three (3) story struFtures.
The Planning Department needs a written notification from your firm stating
that you will agree to fund the costs of the focused Environmental Impact
Report plus a fifteen percent (15%) administration fee.
Upon receipt of your acceptance letter we may begin sending out the
appropriate requests for proposals.
t, ,: I i
. ~..' ~~(JH~~...' .tRES.... S.. ,
'~II'''ii'' 'j."'I'H.t.!':\liii'
. ' ~ '., ~l,. _.'..(', .'
~ .\:..r'
'I
:)
....
..:' ..
'fM. J
~ :, .
"
,-.
'-'
""""'''"'.
~If'
Hr. John Stubblefield
Review of Plans No. 86-51
December 8, 1986
-2-
'-
~)
Enclosed please find the necessary application forms for th~ Conditional Use
Permit procedure. Should you have any questions please con~act this office
at (714) 383-5057.
G3~tf~~'
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
FAS:kdm
enclosures
'~~.' .
cc; Mayor Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor'. Office
Raymond D. Schweitzer, Administrative Office
'::
:.;{.'
iji,',L
'Itr,.. ..
...':\"",.- ....:.. .
:~(~:\,r. "fil:~.>~; '...
;=( ~;:.~.~' ~_;. . '.; ::9/ ;'. '-.::.~~~ ~~\,~.
,.~.:.
"
."
'..
'.'
, .
.
i'!_ ,,('dit}.; r LI -If 1 ;:..t i :: : ,
:t!.: i (,,-,' d~
,:~ I: i' (
r i C . ,I;:i,' ~! ;j~
.)
\
,
.,.
'-
-
'-
,-i
ATTACHMENT "F"
j
f
(
c
COUNCIL ACTION CORRESPONDENCE
To Ann Sircusa Subject Stubblefield Project - 29 Acres
Director of Planning Between La Praix and Citrus
Date September 11, 1987
Meeting Date September 8, 1987 Agenda Item No. 79
Action
The Stubblefield Project which insist of 29 acres between La Praix and Citrus was
referred to the Environmental Review Committee with instruction to the Planning
Director that the developer be notified in writing of information he must supply
and that he has 30 days in which to supply it.
G1 r~ CJ ,c' ~ f.'7 ~
,. " ~ [ill
l, , ".. " ',.
i ;~"I .-' " _. ~l
SC:dc ., I f '.J
t_....
SEP 1~ 1987 ~M..:0
cc: City Attorney SI:IAUNA CLARK
City Administrator elf' ~,~ ,...,,~ "'o'C-'E CitY Clerk
I , l_.,,~.~.:'.'; t.J...,-..:;-~!:;: iJT
Si~N 8~RfJ:~lRJi~JJ, CA
[Ii
-
c
~
("
"-
.........
(
,
.",,1
\}~~:'II..\i;"J/I'
~~~~
.... ....... ,"I
, . ./,) .- ,'...\
.- ........-.-.". \":.
.... .-..._ -, ,,,,,1
CI~9li:frAN}f3ERN ARDINO
~,.""'.,,~-- ....
.... ~".- -.......'.' ./-.
0." ~;;j' ' -....... .:...~.... I
r,,' ...._ ...,.../
...\,'); ~. -... -:J
~"
"
~
300 NORTH "D" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B
October 15, 1987
Mr. John Stubblefield
Stubblefield Enterprises
2258 Bradford Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92346
Subject: Review of Plans No. 86-51
Dear Mr. Stubblefield:
A recent judgment
San Bernardino has
San Bernardino to
permits during the
its General Plan.
by the Superior Court for the County of
restricted the ability of the City of
process certain discretionary development
period of time that the City is revising
Specifically, the above referenced application can
further processed until the revised General Plan is
The estimated period fDr the process is twelve to
months.
not be
adopted.
eighteen
Your application will be held until such time that we are
able to proceed. At that time your application will be
subject to any new applicable restrictions or development
standards.
Please contact this office at (714) 384-5057 should you have
any uestions regarding any of the above.
of Planning
mkf
cc: Hill, Farrer & Burrill
445 Figueroa Street, 34th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Attn: Darlene Fisher
, .
/;'r I
.tl.'~FR.'~-" -e-.. . '. .
..,;....:...'. ~"". c,""lI'.. ''7'. ..... ;:.:...~.J .,. 'J"" , .,;
y" J..' I . ...
>-.;~:1" .... ... , ...
I.' ;11 i I I
I,