Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43- Planning Cl-,,,T-OF SAN BERNARD; ;O — REOI :ST FOR COUNCIL A %oTION R. Ann Siracusa Request to Grandfather Review of I From: Director of Planning Subject: i Plans No. 86-51 (Mountain Shadows IDept: Planning Villas) Mayor and Council Meeting of *7 0 Date: November 12, 1987 November 16, 1987 2 : 00 p.m. i 0 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 10/20/86 - Council adopted MC-549 providing for transition of projects under prior R-3 Ordinance. Pending i 10/22/86 - Council adopted MC-550 establishing new R-3 standards. 11/17/86 - Council directed applicant to prepare an EIR. 11/18/86 - Council referred issue of grandfathering item to Legislative Review Committee. 12/8/86 - Council continued matter of grandfathering item. 12/22/86 - Council continued matter of grandfathering item. 2/2/87 - Council receives and files minutes of 1/22/87 Legislative Review Committee meeting where grandfathering was considered. 9 or 10/87 - Council directs staff to place item on Environmental Review Committee agenda. 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 . �SignaCure R. Ann Siracusa Contact person: R. Ann Siracusa Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 4 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Finance: Council Notes: CfT OF SAN BERNARDINJ - REOULO"T FOR COUNCIL ACti ION 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 Chronology 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 + 'Peter Brekhus, attorney for 500 property owners in ,the area. 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 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 DRC 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. School Impacts 2 . Traffic 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. 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 { 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. Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Restrictions On June 11, 1987, in relation to an application for an extension to update the City's General Plan, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) imposed conditions on the City which preclude accepting or processing any kind of application for a planning or building permit north of a specified line (with specific exceptions in that and subsequent letters) . Under the conditions established by OPR, City staff cannot process an application (either Review of Plans or Conditional Use Permit) for the proposed 492 unit apartment complex . Further, staff would not be permitted to prepare or cause to be prepared the required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Recent Actions On September 8, 1987 the City Council directed staff 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. Conclusions 1. ;,., The proposed project (formerly Review of Plans No. 86- 51) for 492 apartment units on 29.3 acres located at the northerly terminus of Citrus and La Praix Avenues in the R-3-2000 Zone District is currently subject to the i 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 proposed project is required to file an application for a Conditional Use Permit and cannot be acted on by the Development Review Committee unless grandfathered by the City Council . 3. In order to proceed as either a Review of Plans (if grandfathered) or a Conditional Use Permit , an EIR must 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 . 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 OPTIONS 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. 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 Attachments : 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 mkf 11/12/87 DOCUMENTS:M&CCAGENDA RP8651 A ACHMENT A ., C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORA=M 8709-2108 TO: The Mayor and Common Council FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises DATE: September 8, 1987 (7191) COPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------- Chronology of Events Accordinq to Planning Department Records - Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield_Enterprises September 4, 1968 Property Zoned R-3-2000 by City November 4, 1968 650 acres annexed into City of San Bernardino (this information from the applicant) . 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 Stubblefield Enterprises for Review of Plans No . 86-51 for 594 dwelling units on 52 .4 acres. 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, but it is staff ' s understanding that there was some question regarding exactly where the zone change line was located and some concern that the entire property was not within the R-3-2000 zone. There is also no i INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108 Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises v September 81 1987 Page 2 documentation requesting the August 1, 1986 letter from the Planning Director. August 22, 1986 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 . September 23, 1986 Councilman Marks makes motion to change the zone on the property in questions. Motion fails 5 to 2 . September 25, 1986 ERC 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 standards for multiple family developments adopted, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for this type of project . October 21 , 1986 Planning Commission conducts hearing and affirms the ERC action, adopts Negative Declaration 5 to 2 . October 23, 1986 Attorney Darlene Fischer of Hill , Farrer & Burrill challenges decision and requests that the item be placed on the October 30, 1986 DRC 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 24, 1986 Appeal of Planning Commission action '► W,it 1 , , , filed by Attorney Peter Brekhus of Brekhus & Williams on behalf of 500 .>.: property owners in the area . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108 Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises September 81 1987 Page 3 Letter indicates he and property owners cannot be available for November 3, 1986 Council meeting . October 29, 1986 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 . November 3, 1986 Legal opinion issued by City Attor- ney concluding that, based on the testimony presented 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 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. She asks specifically that the matter be referred back to DRC to render a decision in that it is a Review of Plans item. November 17, 1986 The Council holds a public hearing at Sturges Auditorium with approxi- INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108 Review cf Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield Enterprises September 8, 1987 Page 4 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. Traffic 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. November 18, 1986 Mayor and Council meet and refer the issue of grandfathering the Mountain Shadows Villa project to Legislative Review Committee, reschedule for Mayor and Council December 8, 1986. December 8,-•1986 Mayor and Council continued the matter of the grandfathering of the project under the old ordinance to December 22, 1986. December 8, 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 letter notes that the Council " ` ' ' did pot extend that time period by INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8709-2108 Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Stubblefield 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. Conditional 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 o out upon receipt of their letter . * The Planning Department has never received either an application for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions 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 Darlene Fischer requests that, due to scheduling conflicts, she wishes the item of grandfathering the project to be placed on the January 22, 1987 Mayor and Council agenda. December 22, 1986 Mayor and Common Council continue the matter of the grandfathering of the project under the only ordinance to February 2, 1987. January 22, 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 . February 2, 1987 Mayor and Common Council receive and file the minutes of the January 22 , 1987 Legislative Review Committee meeting . * 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 z._.pear on the May 19 or subsequent agendas. It is the Planning Department's opinion, in that the Council has never adopted an ordinance or resolution which exempts the Mountain Shadows Villas project from the provisions of MC-5501 that the original Review of Plans No. 86-51 is deemed je in that it is not consistent with the provisions of the n Code.NN SIRACUSA Director of Planning mkf '1W.At gWAifitiWliiYYWiiY . t ( ATTACHMENT B 1 ORDINANCE NO. MC-549 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING SECTION 19 . 12.210 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE 3 EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ALL PROJECTS PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, AND DECLARING THE 4 URGENCY THEREOF. 5 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 6 7 SECTION 1. Section 19.12.210 is hereby added to the San 8 Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows: 9 "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 SECTION 2. This ordinance is an urgency measure, which 15 shall take effect and become operative upon its adoption and 16 approval. The facts constituting such urgency are that 17 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 meeting thereof, held on 27 the 20th day of October 1986, by the 28 following vote, to wit: 1 AYES : Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Marks, Quiel, 2 Frazier, StriaRler 3 NAYS : Council Member Hernandez 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 City Clerk 7 8 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this 22nd day 9 of October 1986. 10 � • 11 i . �-� L•�,� �,.,L-mot,-= Mayor of the City of San Bernardino 12 Approved as to form: 13 15 City Attorney 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTACHMENT C 1 ORDINANCE NO. MC-550 '`-• 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19 . 12 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE 'PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE 3 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 4 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 5 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : 6 SECTION 1. Section 19 . 04 . 495 of the San Bernardino 7 Municipal Code is amended to read: 8 "19 . 04 . 495 Story. 9 A. Story is that portion of a building included between 10 the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor 11 next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion 12 of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost 13 floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level 14 directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than 15 *six feet above grade as defined herein for more than fifty 16 percent of tt,(- perimeter or is more than twelve feet above 17 grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused 18 under-floor space shall be considered as a story. 19 B. Story-first is the lowest story in a building which 20 qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor 21 level in a building having only one floor level shall be 22 classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not 23 more than four feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 24 fifty percent of the total perimeter, or more than eight feet 25 below grade, as defined herein, at any point. In no event shall 26 the height of the building e g greater than thirty-Eive feet from 27 the lowest grade elevation. " 28 QJ.ti1. rl n Q\ W,^. .ic n. ' .. r 1 SECTION 2 . Chapter 19 . 12 of the San Bernardino Municipal 2 Code is hereby amended to read: 3 "19 . 12 . 020 Use permitted. 4 No building, structure or land shall be used and no 5 building shall be altered, enlarged or maintained except for the 6 following purposes: 7 A. All uses permitted in the R-2 district. 8 B. Resident courts and apartment buildings subject to the 9 habitable floor area, open space and recreational area per 10 dwelling unit provisions of this chapter . 11 C. Any development which complies with all requirements 12 specifically set forth in this chapter shall be subject to the 13 review of plans procedure set forth in Chapter 19 . 22. 14 19 . 12. 030 Conditional use permit required. 15 A. Where a project fails to comply with all requirements 16 for development specifically set forth in this Chapter , the 17 project may be permitted in a district zoned as R-3 subject to 18 the issuance of a conditional use permit under the provisions of 19 Chapter 19.78. 20 B. Existing R-3-1200 designated areas containing more than 21 twenty-four units on the same parcel and the following criteria : 22 1. All windows shall be oriented away from adjacent 23 single-family residential structures. 24 2. The location, configuration and design of the 25 structures shall be harmonious with their sites and surrounding 26 area. 27 19. 12. 040 Minimum floor area per unit. 28 2 l The minimum enclosed, habitable floor area for any dwelling 2 unit in a multiple dwelling, exclusive of patios , balcony or 3 covered parking space, shall be : 4 A. Bachelor or efficiency (one room unit, inclusive of 5 kitchen and bathroom) - four hundred fifty square feet. 6 B. One bedroom - five hundred fifty square feet. 7 C. Two bedroom - six hundred fifty square feet. 8 D. Three bedroom - nine hundred square feet. 9 .19 . 12. 050 Minimum lot area and dimensions. 10 The following minimum lot areas and widths shall apply in a 11 district zoned as R-3. Where a lot has a width or area which is 12 less than the minimum area or width required by this section, but 13 which was of record on September 10, 1953 , that lot complies with ( 14 this section. A lot which conformed to the minimum area and 15 width requirements of the applicable county ordinance prior to 16 its annexation into the City, shall be deemed, after its 17 annexation, to comply with the applicable minimum area or width 18 requirement of this section. 19 A. Minimum area. Except as provided above, the minimum 20 lot area in the R-3 district shall not be less than eight 21 thousand one hundred square feet. It is further provided that 22 the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for units built after the ,. 23 effective date of this ordinance may be established and 24 delineated on the zoning map in accordance with the following 25 table: 26 Zone Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit t . 27 R-3-1800 1800 square feet (24 dwelling units per acre) 28 3 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 permitted . 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-3-1200 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 19 . 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 . t 27 28 1 A. Where a. lot in an R-3 district abuts upon a major , 2 primary or secondary highway, or collector street , there shall be 3 an average landscaped building setback of not less than twenty- 4 five feet. For every foot of building frontage having a setback 5 of less than twenty-five feet , there shall be a foot of building 6 frontage having a setback correspondingly greater than twenty- 7 five feet. However , under no circumstances shall .a building have { 8 a minimum setback of less than twenty feet. 9 B. Where a lot in an R-3 district abuts any street other 10 than a major, primary or secondary highway, or collector street, 11 there shall be provided an average landscaped building setback of 12 not less than twenty feet. For every foot of building frontage 13 having a setback of less than twenty feet, there shall be a foot ( 14 of building frontage having a setback correspondingly greater 15 than twenty feet. However , under no circumstances shall a 16 building have a minimum setback of less than fifteen feet. 17 C. Where a lot in an R-3 district abuts a publicly 18 dedicated alley, any building thereon shall be set back not less 19 than fifteen feet from the edge of an alley for habitable 20 structures and five feet from the edge of the alley for garages 21 and accessory structures and shall be further subject to the 22 provisions for off-street parking set forth in Chapter 19 . 56 . 23 D. Buildings facing interior property lines: One-story 24 structures shall have a side yard of five feet plus one 25 additional foot for each fifteen feet of continuous wall length; 26 two-story buildings facing an interior property line shall have a 27 side yard of ten feet plus one additional foot for each fifteen 28 feet of continuous wall length. f 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 4equal 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. 28 6 i D I Yard and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn, 2 trees, shrubs, or other plant materials and shall be permanently 3 maintained in a neat and orderly manner . t 4 19 .12. 120 Required recreational-leisure areas. 5 A. Multiple dwelling. on any building site on which there 6 are located ten or more dwelling units other than one-family or 7 two-family dwellings, there shall be not less than three hundred 8 square feet of common usable recretional-leisure space per 9 dwelling. 10 B. Minimum area of private balcony or patio. All ground 11 floor dwelling units shall have a patio. A private patio for any 12 ground floor dwelling unit shall be not less than seventy-five 13 square feet in area. The least dimension shall be not less than 14 eight feet. Where any dwelling unit above the ground floor is 15 served by a private balcony, that balcony shall be a minimum of 16 fifty square feet in area. The least dimension shall be a 17 minimum of five feet. 18 C. Such common recreational-leisure area shall be 19 conveniently located and readily accessible from all dwelling 20 units which it is intended to serve. Where there are more than 21 ten dwelling units on one site the common recreational-leisure 22 area shall include one of the following; swimming pools , 23 Jacuzzi, court game facilities, e.g. tennis, racquetball , tot 24 lots (playground equipment) to the satisfaction of the Planning 25 Department, and any other recreational-leisure facility, the area 26 of which may be included in the calculation of the total area of 27 common recreational-leisure space provided by the development. 28 7 i l 1. Common recreational-leisure areas shall not include : 2 a. Rights-of-way for which a perpetual easement for 3 recreation has not been recorded. 4 b. Vehicle parking areas and accessways. 5 C. Areas between walls of adjacent structures where 6 such walls are less than fifteen feet apart. 7 d. Slope areas of more than 3 : 1 grade. 8 e. Front yard setbacks. 9 2. All common recreational-leisure areas, with the 10 exception of pedestrian accessways and paved recreational 11 facilities contained therein, shall be landscaped with lawn, 12 trees, shrubs or other plant materials and shall be permanently 13 maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 14 19 . 12.130 Off-street parking requirements. 15 A. For minimum number and type of parking spaces see 16 Chapter 19 . 56. 17 B. Maximum distance between private parking areas and 18 dwelling units. Each required enclosed or covered private 19 parking area shall be within two hundred feet of, and readily 20 4acccessible to, the unit it serves. 21 C. Required screening of parking facilities. Private .� 22 parking areas shall be screened from the view of adjacent 23 properties, living and recreational-leisure areas and from 24 adjacent streets by means of plant landscaping or architectural 25 devices as approved by the Planning Department. 26 19 .12. 140 Carports. 27 28 w .. { • ] A. Carports must be structurally enclosed or screened on 2 three sides as approved by the Design Review Committee. 3 B. Except as otherwise required by the Uniform Building 4 Code, a carport built to accommodate two or more vehicles may be 5 constructed with only the rear of the carport and the two ends 6 enclosed, except as otherwise required by the Uniform Building 7 Code. 8 C. All interior walls of carports shall be finished to the 9 standards of the Planning Director . There shall be one hundred 10 fifty cubic feet of private storage provided for each unit, but 11 it need not be all in a single location. These general storage 12 cabinets may be provided at a point outside the carport upon the 13 approval of the Planning Department. Bumper guards shall be 14 provided to protect the interior walls of carports from damage. 15 19 . 12. 150 Vehicle access requirements. 16 A. Every multiple dwelling unit shall be located within 17 two hundred feet of, and be served by, all such public or private 18 accessways as will provide adequate access and circulation for 19 vehicular traffic, including fire, utility, trash collection and 20 other essential services. 21 B. Where a building site abuts upon an alley, all 22 vehicular access to garages and carports shall be only from that 23 alley. 24 19. 12. 160 Required site screening. 25 A. Except as otherwise provided herein, a solid decorative 26 type masonry wall, landscaped earthen berm, natural terrain or 27 any combination thereof, totalling no less than six feet in 28 9 1 height, shall be provided as a divider along and immediately 2 adjacent to the site boundary line of any multiple-dwelling unit 3 which abuts any freeway, expressway, railroad or other right-of- 4 way, or which abuts the boundary of any area zoned as single- s family residential or any alley adjacent to such boundary. The 6 height of any such divider shall be as measured from the highest 7 finished grade adjacent to the wall . 8 B. For regulations for fences, hedges and walls , see 9 Chapter 19. 63. 10 19.12. 170 Required refuse storage area. 11 Refuse storage shall conform to the standard size shown on 12 the specifications for 'Minimum Acceptable Trash Collection 13 Areas ' as established by the Director of Public Works/City 14 Engineer. Said storage area shall be designed, located or 15 screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent 16 streets or highways. 17 19 . 12.180 Signs. 18 { For sign regulations, see Chapter 19. 60 . 19 19. 12. 190 Television antenna. 20 For television antenna regulations, see Section 19 . 18 . 270 . 21 19. 12. 200 Violation. Any construction, erection, reconstruction, moving , 23 conversion, alteration or addition to any building or structure 24 in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter is 25 hereby declared to be a nuisance and is abatable under the 26 provisions of Section 8 .33.020 through 8. 33. 100 of this Code. 27 28 I 1 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 meeting thereof , held on 4 the 20th day of October 1966, by the 5 following vote, to wit : 6 AYES : Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez , 7 Marks, Quiel , Frazier, Strickler 8 NAYS: None .9 ABSENT None S 10 11 City Clerk 12 13 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this 22nd day 14 of October , 1986, 15 ? 16 (� Mayor of t e City of San Bernardino 17 Approved as to form: 18 19 20 City Aftorney 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 I r ;.� ATTACHMENT D CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POST OFFICE 90X tJtB,$A443ERNARCINO,CAL;FORNIA 32402 December 9, 1986 SHAUNA CLARK CITY CLERK Q .n `q Mn I 2 DEC 09 1986 Darlene B. Fischer n Hill, Farrer & Burrill CITY 1 L;;i�,ti,,.� ENT 445 South Fi gueroa Street SAN BERNARDINO, CA Los Angeles, CA 90071 Dear Ms. Fischer: At the meeting of the Mayor and Common 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: a. the effect of the proposed three—story design of the apartments b, the effect of traffic congestion in the area C. the effect that the construction stage of the project will have on the area. I 1 The subject property, Mountain Shadows Villas, is located between the northern terminus of La Praix Avenue and Citrus Street. Sincerely, SHAb'NA CLARK City Clerk SC:dc cc: City Attorney Stubblefield Enterprises, Inc. Planning Peter B. Brekhus 300 NORTH '•0'STREET,SAN BERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA 92418-0121 PHONE (714)383-5002/383.5102 ATTACHMENT E �gWAR®lam CI 1 ERNARDINO 300 NORTH'•D••STREET.SAN BERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA 92418 r fUli,��Cl1 IN�0 EVLYN WILCOX Mayor Members of the Common Council Esther Estrada. . . . . . . . . . . First Ward Jack Relley. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Second Ward i Rahn Hernandez . . . . . f Third Ward Ward December 8, 1986 Stew Mar . . . . . Gordon : . . . . .J. . . : Fifth Ward Dan Feda . . . . . . . . . . . .Sixth Ward 1 t Jack ilr . . . . . . . . . . .Seventh Ward l Mr. John Stubblefield Stubblefield Enterprises 2258 Bradford Highland, CA 92346 RE: REVIEW OF PLANS N0. 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 denial . In addition the Council did not extend the time period by which the project could be evaluated by the former provisions of the zoning code for multitiple family residential projects. Consequently the proposal will 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 structures. 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. 411 W PRO�RESS P i Mr. John Stubblefield Review of Plans No. 86-51 December 8, 1986 -2- Enclosed please find the necessary application forms for the Conditional Use Permit procedure. Should you have any questions please contact this office at (714) 383-5057. spectfully, FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director FAS:kdm enclosures cc: Mayor Evelyn Wilcox, Mayor's Office Raymond D. Schweitzer, Administrative Office VI 0 0- ATTACHMENT "F" 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. i^+ ; 1 SC:dc cc: City Attorney C E. Z 6) 19 7 City Administrator L 17 SF# UNA CLARK Cf i : ...�.1.....,_ {;,. „ ...:Gill City Clerk CA r CIT; OF_S"AN=BERNARDINO 300 NORTH STREET.SAN BERNARDINO,CaUFORNIA 92318 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 by the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino has restricted the ability of the City of San Bernardino to process certain discretionary development permits during the period of time that the City is revising its General Plan. Specifically, the above referenced application can not be further processed until the revised General Plan is adopted . The estimated period for the process is twelve to eighteen months . 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 questions regarding any of the above. Si a el L, .I J' R. �A SI C WS ^VIK Director of Planning mkf cc : Hill , Farrer & Burrill 445 Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attn: Darlene Fisher �1