HomeMy WebLinkAbout33-Planning & Building Services
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Michael E. Hays, Director
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
Tentative Tract No. 10302 - to subdivide 8.5 acres
into 22 single-family residential lots located west of
Palm Avenue, and north and south of an extension
of Piedmont Drive in the RS, Residential Suburban,
designation.
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: August 7, 1997
MCC Date:
August 18, 1997
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
N/A
r
~ """"'~/AI
~I "UIIVIfI.
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; adopt the mitigated Negative
Declaration; and, deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract
No. 10302, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements.
V2Pi~
Michae . Hays
Contact person: Michael E. Hl\Ys
Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Re.port
Ward(s): 4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acet. No.) N/A
(Acet. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
#33
8/18/97
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1997
APPRJ.J.ANT APPLICANT
Ms. Pamela Johnson
3S 17 Piedmont Drive
Highland, California 92346
(909) 862-3116
Mr. William C. Buster
Vespar Development Company
1399 West Colton Avenue, Suite S
Redlands, California 92374
(909) 793-5806
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 10302 is being appealed to the
Mayor and Common Council by Ms. Pamela Johnson of3517 Piedmont Drive, San Bernardino,
California. The reasons for the appeal are outlined in Exhibit 3 and addressed below under Key
Points.
Tentative Tract No. 10302 is a proposal to subdivide 2 parcels into 22 single-family residential
lots in the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation. The 8.5 acre site has a frontage of
about 735 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue beginning approximately 2,000 feet north of
Highland Avenue. The site also has a frontage of about 360 feet on the north and south sides
of an extension of Piedmont Drive. (See Exhibits 1 and 2)
The Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5) contains detailed background information and
staffs analysis of the project proposal.
KEY ISSUES
o At the Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 1997, area residents raised concerns
primarily about the extension of Piedmont Drive through the site, site drainage and
project related improvements to Baldridge Creek.
o These issues are also the basis for the Appeal and because they are essentia11y
engineering issues, the Public Works/Engineering Department has prepared a response
which is contained in Exhibit 4.
o The project has some environmental constraints (geotechnical/seismic,
hydrological/drainage, high wind area, fire hazards, and historical resources) which were
addressed as part of the environmental review. All of the potential impacts of the project
can be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance.
Appeal or Tentative Tract No. 10302
Mayor and Common Council Meeting or
August 19,1997
Page 2
o The 22 lots in the proposed subdivision are consistent with the RS, Residential Suburban
standards in the Development Code and the related policies in the General Plan.
o The proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding area which consists of an
existing single-family neighborhood.
ENVIRONMRNT.4L DETERMINATION
The Initial Study for IT No. 10302 was originally presented to the City's Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on January 9, 1997. The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and
the Initial Study was available for public review and comment from January 16, 1997 to
February 5, 1997. No comments were received during the public review period.
Due to new information received at the Planning Commission meeting, staff required that the
project applicant submit a Historical Resources Assessment as part of the Appeal process. A
report, prepared by Michael K. Lerch & Associates (May 1997), indicates the presence of
potentially significant cultural resources on the site. The Initial Study was revised to add the
discussion on historical resources and three mitigation measures were added. (See Exhibits 6
and 7)
On June 12, 1997, the ERC determined that the project will not have any significant
environmental effects as shown in the Revised Initial Study and recommended a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised and the
Revised Initial Study was available for public review and comment from June 19, 1997 to July
9, 1997. No comments were received from the public during that period. On July 17, 1997,
the ERC recommended the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and cleared the
Revised Initial Study to the Mayor and Common Council.
REVISED CONDmON OF APPROVAL
Condition Of Approval No. 10 was added by the Planning Commission at the applicant's request
to grant an easement to the adjacent property to the north for purposes of maintaining and
preserving the grove wall. The condition is no longer necessary because the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program requires that a Lot Line Adjustment be completed. Effectively,
the north property line of the tract will be moved southward so that the retaining wall will be
become part of the Frye House property.
The project should include a Condition Of Approval for compliance with the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program. Therefore, Condition Of Approval No. 10 has been revised,
as follows:
10. The subdivision and subsequent housing project shall comply with the requirements of
the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program.
Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 10302
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
August 19,1997
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Ayes - Gaffney, Hamilton, Lockett, Quiel and Thrasher;
Nay - Gonzalez; Abstentions - none; and, Absent - Enciso and Schuiling) to adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 10302.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
Deny the appeal and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program; and, uphold the Planning Commission's approval of
Tentative Tract No. 10302 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions
of Approval (with the addition of Condition No. 10) and Standard Requirements
contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Michael E. Hays, Director of
Planning and Building Services
EXHIBITS
I - Site Location and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
2 - Tentative Tract Map
3 - Notice of Appeal (April 2, 1997)
4 - Public Works/Engineering Department Memorandum (July 21, 1997)
5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (March 19, 1997)
Attachments:
A - Site Vicinity Map
B - IT No. 10302
C - Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table
D - Findings of Fact
E - Conditions of Approval
F - Standard Requirements
G - Initial Study (Not included - See Exhibit 6, Revised Initial Study)
6 - Revised Initial Study
7 - Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACf NO. 10302
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 18,1997
APPRT.T .ANT APPLICANT
Ms. Pamela Johnson
3517 Piedmont Drive
Highland, California 92346
(909) 862-3116
Mr. William C. Buster
Vespar Development Company
1399 West Colton Avenue, Suite 5
Redlands, California 92374
(909) 793-5806
REQUEST AND LOCATION
The Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 10302 is being appealed to the
Mayor and Common Council by Ms. Pamela Johnson of 35 17 Piedmont Drive, San Bernardino,
California. The reasons for the appeal are outlined in Exhibit 3 and addressed below under Key
Points.
Tentative Tract No. 10302 is a proposal to subdivide 2 parcels into 22 single-family residential
lots in the RS, Residential Suburban land use designation. The 8.5 acre site has a frontage of
about 735 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue beginning approximately 2,000 feet north of
Highland Avenue. The site also has a frontage of about 360 feet on the north and south sides
of an extension of Piedmont Drive. (See Exhibits 1 and 2)
The Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5) contains detailed background information and
staffs analysis of the project proposal.
KEY ISSUES
o At the Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 1997, area residents raised concerns
primarily about the extension of Piedmont Drive through the site, site drainage and
project related improvements to Baldridge Creek.
o These issues are also the basis for the Appeal and because they are essentially
engineering issues, the Public Works/Engineering Department has prepared a response
which is contained in Exhibit 4.
o The project has some environmental constraints (geotechnical/seismic,
hydrological/drainage, high wind area, fIre hazards, and historical resources) which were
addressed as part of the environmental review. All of the potential impacts of the project
can be mitigated to a level of nonsignifIcance.
Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 10302
Mayor and Common Councll Meeting of
August 19,1997
Page 2
o The 22 lots in the proposed subdivision are consistent with the RS, Residential Suburban
standards in the Development Code and the related policies in the General Plan.
o The proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding area which consists of an
existing single-family neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Initial Study for IT No. 10302 was originally presented to the City's Environmental Review
Committee (ERe) on January 9, 1997. The proposed Negative Declaration was advertised and
the Initial Study was available for public review and comment from January 16, 1997 to
February 5, 1997. No comments were received during the public review period.
Due to new information received at the Planning Commission meeting, staff required that the
project applicant submit a Historical Resources Assessment as part of the Appeal process. A
report, prepared by Michael K. Lerch & Associates (May 1997), indicates the presence of
potentially significant cultural resources on the site. The Initial Study was revised to add the
discussion on historical resources and three mitigation measures were added. (See Exhibits 6
and 7)
On June 12, 1997, the ERC determined that the project will not have any significant
environmental effects as shown in the Revised Initial Study and recommended a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised and the
Revised Initial Study was available for public review and comment from June 19, 1997 to July
9, 1997. No comments were received from the public during that period. On July 17, 1997,
the ERC recommended the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and cleared the
Revised Initial Study to the Mayor and Common Council.
REVISED CONDmON OF APPROVAL
Condition Of Approval No. 10 was added by the Planning Commission at the applicant's request
to grant an easement to the adjacent property to the north for purposes of maintaining and
preserving the grove wall. The condition is no longer necessary because the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program requires that a Lot Line Adjustment be completed. Effectively,
the north property line of the tract will be moved southward so that the retaining wall will be
become part of the Frye House property.
The project should include a Condition Of Approval for compliance with the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program. Therefore, Condition Of Approval No. 10 has been revised,
as follows:
10. The subdivision and subsequent housing project shall comply with the requirements of
the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program.
Appeal of Tentative Tract No. 10302
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
August 19,1997
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Ayes - Gaffney, Hamilton, Lockett, Quiel and Thrasher;
Nay - Gonzalez; Abstentions - none; and, Absent - Enciso and Schuiling) to adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 10302.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council:
Deny the appeal and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program; and, uphold the Planning Commission's approval of
Tentative Tract No. 10302 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions
of Approval (with the addition of Condition No. 10) and Standard Requirements
contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Michael E. Hays, Director of
Planning and Building Services
EXHIBITS
1 - Site Location and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
2 - Tentative Tract Map
3 - Notice of Appeal (April 2, 1997)
4 - Public Works/Engineering Department Memorandum (July 21, 1997)
5 - Planning Commission Staff Report (March 19, 1997)
Attachments:
A - Site Vicinity Map
B - IT No. 10302
C - Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table
D - Findings of Fact
E - Conditions of Approval
F - Standard Requirements
G - Initial Study (Not included - See Exhibit 6, Revised Initial Study)
6 - Revised Initial Study
7 - Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
CITY OF SAN BERNA.O
Site Location Map ~
EXIllBIT "1"
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
Date 7-/S-~3
TT No. 10302
Adopted 6-2-89
Panel No. ...E..a.
] 1
J~~'
t II .
Ii " ..
i z .. d I. ~ ... l
~ 0 I
z I! ~ ..
c a: " a
'" 0
c "
0 ..
" S itc.5
pr
I(U
EXlHBIT "2"
. :tIll l H
;11 II'! I; 9 !hi II.
rY 'I!d,. t II '.11
~I!I' IIi; !Ii! 'jl I.,! E!,
I~ lid _I'~'l~ :IIQ, '~l~l
6, -l 'P'h 'I 'I ',I .
~ ~! ~. l.t;:i,; I ! l~ :l~; I' II
~ ~n~n!~'i~!la ~I :!l; 1!~1 II!1
~ III' ,il ilil II III 'Ill ~~I ~ 'I'l
~: II5D:~llillii ell! lim I HiS
,-
,"
~ II.
~ ~~~
" ~i~
. ~ ~,~
s:::i ~ ~~~
~ ~ '~f
.... iij ~f
,q ~ ~
~ >. ~I'~
~ <S ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,~~
~ i!i ~h
~ ~ I~~
~ ft~i
~ H~
~
I ~ i i i I:
I i I- i I
. .!l ! I ' ,
I · i" I
~Il'l,l . ! l,ll III il
ii ~ll,.l I I iI'l ill'
II.! 11I!:l 'I' ,!, il' 1:1 ii'
~i l~~'illi/
~,:. G'l '" sMMhlll1 III
Ill~1I !I.lr: I .
ti .........~..."'..!!~:!::! ~ I I I Ii I
r---.,
L..:....J -~
~:' , .
":...,
-- (. :,-j
~:-J ; .. '.
c:::::= ' . ...
~~ "" : ."}
r.""',.... - :-'_ ~.J ::J
.=-; ~~3
c :c~
., ::::> ll, .~: ....J
_c::- v ,_:.)
Cc::J ~ .~_:<;J
-....,
r::::J r....;::l
;;.,)
l' -.::J
,
'="W
\;/1'1
I
..
~ II
~
" I ! !
h~ i
tll3f !
!!I~ I
~ !ll i
~I j
e!
I
,
~
,
~
~
..... ;;
~~ h
~~ ~~;
:u;::.:::~- -;:'--;~~~-~--'~~~x;_n -- ----~~-~~--:--~---;;.---~t~~:::~"~:i~::~::::::~~~~~~
" .
..
~
'';,
~~
, -I-
"
, ~~
~ ~~~ ~
.
~-
EXHIBIT "3"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 NordJ "D. SIrt!d. 31rl FI<<w. Sa .nmrJbro. Cd 92418
Prtmw /51(9) 384-S0S7 Fax: /51(9) 384-5080
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
OF A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION, DEVELOPMENI'IENVlRONMENI'AL REVIEW
COMMI1TEE DETERMINATION OR PLA.NNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION
Appellant's Name, Address &
Phone
Pamela Johnson
3517 Piedmont Drive
Highland, CA 92346
Contact Person, Address &
Phone
Same as above
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development (Municipal) Code, all appeal must be filed on a
City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the
appropriate fee.
Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing,
of the specific date and time.
Date Appeal Filed
04/02/97
Received by
MRF
Receipt No.
97001149
Receipt Amount
$126.00
Appeal of PC Approval of Tentative Tract (TT) No. 10302
Appeal Application
Page 2
The following Information must be completed:
Specific action being appealed and date of that action
Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract (TT) No. 10302, 03/19/97
Specific grounds for the appeal
See Attached Letter (with Petition) dated 03/28/97
Action sought
That the Mayor and City Council:
l. Review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and reverse the plan to
complete Piedmont Drive, as proposed in the General Plan; and,
'.-",,",
2. Review the impact of additional drainage on the properties to the south and
southwest of the tract. And, require that the Planning Commission inform
affected property owners of study results and of what steps will be taken to
to protect their land.
Signature of Appellant Date
APPEAL TO THE HON. MAYOR, TOM MINOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
March 28, 1997
RE: Tract # 10302
Whereas on Wednesday, March 19, 1997, the Planning Commission of San Bernardino accepted a
proposal to establish tract # 10302, which is located on the west side of Palm Avenue about 2,000
feet north of the centerline of Highland Avenue. When this tract is developed, the City General
Plan requires that the builder complete the section of Piedmont Drive that now ends on the west
side of Baldridge Creek. This will make Piedmont Drive a through street, to Palm Avenue, where
it begins again.
Whereas the property owners in the surrounding neighborhood oppose the completion of
Piedmont Drive. We submit that the original plan to complete Piedmont Drive was based on a
need for a through street to ease traffic flow along the foothills to Rte. 30. Since the origination of
the plan, the Indian Bingo Complex has permanently stopped traffic at Victoria and the Walmart
Shopping Center has re-routed Piedmont Drive to Highland Avenue. The city also, now enjoys
adequate east-west traffic flow as a result of the completion of the 30 FWY. It is no longer
necessary to complete Piedmont Drive.
Whereas the adjacent neighborhood will be negatively impacted by increased traffic in a
heretofore quiet area with many young children who are not accustomed to dealing with any
traffic at all. The safety of our children is of great concern. We suggest that a footbridge to aid
pedestrians crossing Baldridge Creek would be a far better alternative: preserving the safety and
peaceful character of the neighborhood, while providing easier access to schools. This would
connect existing sidewalks with the new sidewalks required in the proposed subdivision. It would
also save money that could be put to better use.
Whereas there is much concern about the drainage from the proposed tract, which will drain
directly into Baldridge Creek. Some of the existing properties adjacent to the creek, south and
southwest of the tract, are level with the creek bed. It is likely that additional run-off will flood
and/or erode these properties.
Whereas the neighboring property owners were not consulted when the tentative tract proposal
was originally filed in December 1996. Nor were they invited to any subsequent subdivision
committee meetings. The property owners were given less than two weeks notice of the final
Planning Commission Hearing. The notices were post-marked on March 6, 1997 for the hearing
date of March 19, 1997.
Whereas we do not object to the builder's right to develop tract # 10302, as long as the density
and quality of the homes is consistent with the existing homes.
Whereas we request that the Mayor and the City Council:
1: Review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and reverse the plan to
complete Piedmont Drive, as proposed in the General Plan.
2. Review the impact of additional drainage on the properties to the south and
southwest of the tract. And require that the Planning Commission inform affected property
owners of study results and of what steps will be taken to protect their land.
Signed:
representing the property owners in the
vicinity of tract # 1 0302
E p ""^ ~:(\ .J I ~ ~ t./~
~/
~<>.J'\-"'>----5 ~,~
fDJrrl r !2i 1~
/~,~ ~ ~~
/' :Z(41c.v.' \A.J ,(/4. ~
Cv 1"'1 t2
I) /-; , al/11
~'...
~_.-
'.L-
e; ~~ U~~W-
;::~f~ ;:
7/,/5- ~??OLr ~
,
2l\,\, ~ q\(-D ~\::.N, DR,
.}./'05 PRLm livE
,~~7 +2,,~UA/~ ,~
JtO$ ralm I ;/-tie .
J/)~ y/ k~m CG.~ J
30.3(') ~~:1 rhk
3("", Ore;- (; ~ IJ It1 e> AJ / '~-'l.
~7 {J~~ lru
. ')'1..l717/} / . """,.'/_. /1
- v I . I (..L1:\..'" '" ,~-:r /.J!-.
"$ (., 'r,C' 'Y, ~'Vl>o ,..A- t:>--L .
3lBo ~~ 1JL
I'
..{7'?( V'L\}/\. t\~
3>795 p~ :fJ?
APPEAL TO THE HON. MAYOR, TOM MINOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
March 28, 1997
RE: Tract # 10302
Whereas on Wednesday, March 19, 1997, the Planning Commission of San Bernardino accepted a
proposal to establish tract # 10302, which is located on the west side of Palm Avenue about 2,000
feet north of the centerline of Highland Avenue. When this tract is developed, the City General
Plan requires that the builder complete the section of Piedmont Drive that now ends on the west
side of Baldridge Creek. This will make Piedmont Drive a through street, to Palm Avenue, where
it begins again.
Whereas the property owners in the surrounding neighborhood oppose the completion of
Piedmont Drive. We submit that the original plan to complete Piedmont Drive was based on a
need for a through street to ease traffic flow along the foothills to Rte. 30. Since the origination of
the plan, the Indian Bingo Complex has permanently stopped traffic at Victoria and the Walrnart
Shopping Center has re-routed Piedmont Drive to Highland Avenue. The city also, now enjoys
adequate east-west traffic flow as a result of the completion of the 30 FWY. It is no longer
necessary to complete Piedmont Drive.
Whereas the adjacent neighborhood will be negatively impacted by increased traffic in a
heretofore quiet area with many young children who are not accustomed to dealing with any
traffic at all. The safety of our children is of great concern. We suggest that a footbridge to aid
pedestrians crossing Baldridge Creek would be a far better alternative: preserving the safety and
peaceful character of the neighborhood, while providing easier access to schools. This would
connect existing sidewalks with the new sidewalks required in the proposed subdivision. It would
also save money that could be put to better use.
Whereas there is much concern about the drainage from the proposed tract, which will drain
directly into Baldridge Creek. Some of the existing properties adjacent to the creek, south and
southwest of the tract, are level with the creek bed. It is likely that additional run-off will flood
and/or erode these properties.
Whereas the neighboring property owners were not consulted when the tentative tract proposal
was originally filed in December 1996. Nor were they invited to any subsequent subdivision
committee meetings. The property owners were given less than two weeks notice of the final
Planning Commission Hearing. The notices were post-marked on March 6, 1997 for the hearing
date of March 19, 1997.
Whereas we do not object to the builder's right to develop tract # 10302, as long as the density
and quality of the homes is consistent with the existing homes.
Whereas we request that the Mayor and the City Council:
1: Review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and reverse the plan to
complete Piedmont Drive, as proposed in the General Plan.
2. Review the impact of additional drainage on the properties to the south and
southwest of the tract. And require that the Planning Commission inform affected property
owners of study results and of what steps will be taken to protect their land.
representing the property owners in the
vici~.~
Y/j;I, ,,'- - ~I{l~, S1'l1/ O/141f(/41/J, - 'JJ-iu
., ~ , 54 ?7 ~lc.r~o/)~ CJ f2
, ~ "3vn; rDlefll1dlY j)r. ~0!)af/J
c?~l.~<;/Z~,c .3"'~ ()~-4,J/lER .hR "\
07cjIJ- ~~_ ~
:28/t ~eI ~~
;;noL1 Omnh ~
Signed:
J~
~~
"4d1-<, MJJJ/~)
{V,' ~tr
if I-~
~ { !J/- S r~UAt/leHd
v
3'-1.5'1 OL~"'i!L DIl. 11,611.LA,.4;.
. ,f1~
~?;nb ~RJJA<jJ.l),!4
?tfD5 Dte&0ckr J;r~ hid-
~Il llrJ.t l 0~L ~
~ 'I f' ~ t!)L '7i'1KfD~-C P/l ,0 {;ij L'.IJN J.
J t/-I.o ~ II
3~C:S o(feL/del( DtL.. fj/r/ztif(r(~
rl
'1/
/./
APPEAL TO THE HON. MAYOR, TOM MINOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
March 28, 1997
RE: Tract # 10302
Whereas on Wednesday, March 19,1997, the Planning Commission of San Bernardino accepted a
proposal to establish tract # 10302, which is located on the west side of Palm Avenue about 2,000
feet north of the centerline of Highland Avenue. When this tract is developed, the City General
Plan requires that the builder complete the section of Piedmont Drive that now ends on the west
side of Baldridge Creek. This will make Piedmont Drive a through street, to Palm Avenue, where
it begins again.
Whereas the property owners in the surrounding neighborhood oppose the completion of
Piedmont Drive. We submit that the original plan to complete Piedmont Drive was based on a
need for a through street to ease traffic flow along the foothills to Rte. 30. Since the origination of
the plan, the Indian Bingo Complex has permanently stopped traffic at Victoria and the Walmart
Shopping Center has re-routed Piedmont Drive to Highland Avenue. The city also, now enjoys
adequate east-west traffic flow as a result of the completion of the 30 FWY. It is no longer
necessary to complete Piedmont Drive.
Whereas the adjacent neighborhood will be negatively impacted by increased traffic in a
heretofore quiet area with many young children who are not accustomed to dealing with any
traffic at all. The safety of our children is of great concern. We suggest that a footbridge to aid
pedestrians crossing Baldridge Creek would be a far better alternative: preserving the safety and
peaceful character of the neighborhood, while providing easier access to schools. This would
connect existing sidewalks with the new sidewalks required in the proposed subdivision. It would
also save money that could be put to better use.
Whereas there is much concern about the drainage from the proposed tract, which will drain
directly into Baldridge Creek. Some of the existing properties adjacent to the creek, south and
southwest of the tract, are level with the creek bed. It is likely that additional run-off will flood
and/or erode these properties.
Whereas the neighboring property owners were not consulted when the tentative tract proposal
was originally filed in December 1996. Nor were they invited to any subsequent subdivision
committee meetings. The property owners were given less than two weeks notice of the final
Planning Commission Hearing. The notices were post-marked on March 6, 1997 for the hearing
date of March 19, 1997.
Whereas we do not object to the builder's right to develop tract # 10302, as long as the density
and quality of the homes is consistent with the existing homes.
Whereas we request that the Mayor and the City Council:
I: Review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and reverse the plan to
complete Piedmont Drive, as proposed in the General Plan.
2. Review the impact of additional drainage on the properties to the south and
southwest of the tract. And require that the Planning Commission inform affected property
owners of study results and of what steps will be taken to protect their land.
Signed: ~",juv ~..J
:2 I' /) C--t tlu.L-
representing the property owners in the
vic~ty of tract # Ot'l2.-
I I /l7
'"
:;{69s - /11e/J ~I1-J,
g(P() '1:11~1 0260:7 ~~ ~
-<~~9 (7// 4~
,/
t../' :.._/
.:((/11 A/ 771.il/!A!_-".ttJ/~
;;ls<?S" /IJ~A"~~.
~5hS 1ft/A II /dbrv dPL .
Z-sJ S- ~..-J4"" ~,
~~L)7Kl.P~5.- ~
21<1,~ '1\, nh~
~ ztJI G~\.d,.,.\),))-( ~~,'Y'L-
3'1-3( 'f:!u4;;/':1'/ Ut-.
A3c5
~ 1.; .5 CJ Ctt-.:.e
j{ ! IJ d (QtLj; Acl-d.t~ v- .
APPEAL TO THE HON. MAYOR, TOM MINOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
March 28, 1997
RE: Tract # 10302
Whereas on Wednesday, March 19,1997, the Planning Commission of San Bernardino accepted a
proposal to establish tract # 10302, which is located on the west side of Palm Avenue about 2,000
feet north of the centerline of Highland Avenue. When this tract is developed, the City General
Plan requires that the builder complete the section of Piedmont Drive that now ends on the west
side of Baldridge Creek. This will make Piedmont Drive a through street, to Palm Avenue, where
it begins again.
Whereas the property owners in the surrounding neighborhood oppose the completion of
Piedmont Drive. We submit that the original plan to complete Piedmont Drive was based on a
need for a through street to ease traffic flow along the foothills to Rte. 30. Since the origination of
the plan, the Indian Bingo Complex has permanently stopped traffic at Victoria and the Walmart
Shopping Center has re-routed Piedmont Drive to Highland Avenue. The city also, now enjoys
adequate east-west traffic flow as a result of the completion of the 30 FWY. It is no longer
necessary to complete Piedmont Drive.
Whereas the adjacent neighborhood will be negatively impacted by increased traffic in a
heretofore quiet area with many young children who are not accustomed to dealing with any
traffic at all. The safety of our children is of great concern. We suggest that a footbridge to aid
pedestrians crossing Baldridge Creek would be a far better alternative: preserving the safety and
peaceful character of the neighborhood, while providing easier access to schools. This would
connect existing sidewalks with the new sidewalks required in the proposed subdivision. It would
also save money that could be put to better use.
Whereas there is much concern about the drainage from the proposed tract, which will drain
directly into Baldridge Creek. Some of the existing properties adjacent to the creek, south and
southwest of the tract, are level with the creek bed. It is likely that additional run-off will flood
and/or erode these properties.
Whereas the neighboring property owners were not consulted when the tentative tract proposal
was originally filed in December 1996. Nor were they invited to any subsequent subdivision
committee meetings. The property owners were given less than two weeks notice of the final
Planning Commission Hearing. The notices were post-marked on March 6, 1997 for the hearing
date of March 19, 1997.
Whereas we do not object to the builder's right to develop tract # 10302, as long as the density
and quality of the homes is consistent with the existing homes.
Whereas we request that the Mayor and the City Council:
1: Review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and reverse the plan to
complete Piedmont Drive, as proposed in the General Plan.
2. Review the impact of additional drainage on the properties to the south and
southwest of the tract. And require that the Planning Commission inform affected property
owners of study results and of what steps will be taken to protect their land.
s;...,Q,.. r! (7"'1":
~?7S-?l. I!~ ~
_tin. "" p""",' ~ in'l< ~
vicinit of tract #10302 . +;:bt;~.
J'<-
~~ _~l~~.L
C2~. L/ //-~ l.~
cr~-6
CJfr<~;'C
'If! JLJ{J (J "-^--
"-
-fl,v o.~n" _~l~iu~
G.f1 e ~~ rlYlAr- 0WV1 ~ t-~i chis-
';f; 3yoa'J;B.
(jV\ J?f? ~yf .~ ied\'vl,c\^v-r
. .2-~i5
;2~'5 Or"W t~
Whereas we request that the Mayor and the City Council:
I: Review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and reverse the plan to
complete Piedmont Drive, as proposed in the General Plan.
2. Review the impact of additional drainage on the properties to the south and
southwest of the tract. And require that the Planning Commission inform affected property
owners of study results and of what steps will be taken to protect their land.
Signed:
representing the property owners in the
vicinity of tract #10302
/j~i~ 6Af'! Es~s 62S-' f3,q!clf;1i~ft??t;#yC-/
~~A ~~ QI^(j~ 5'<"r 6ZJ76tt'rr~K'~ ~ Kft)A/c..-.e
\:::y 7 ~ Jm.-ri/A- L ~ ~U'1 Jju-J jJv.dtW /...AJ
EXlDBIT "4"
C I TV 0 F SAN BE R N A R DIN fi) rn @ rn Wi f2 Iiil
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM lnJ l5 lJ [!; ~
JUL 2 1 1997
TO:
Michael E. Hays, Director
CITY OF SAN BERNAROfNO
DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING &
BUILDING SERVICES
FROM: Roger G. Hardgrave, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Tract No. 10302 locatea on the west side of Palm Avenue at Piedmont Drive
Response to Appeal Issues
DATE: July 21, 1997
FILE: File 11.03; TR 10302
In response to your memo of July 14, 1997, subject as above, we have the following
comments:
Appeal Issues
"The extension of Piedmont Drive through Tract no 10302 will not serve eastJWest traffic
flow along the foothills because the roadway has already been cut off at Victoria Avenue (to
the west) and at the Wal-Mart Center (to the east) and as such, the proposed extension is
not needed."
Response: Piedmont Drive is located approximately 1/2 mile north of Highland Avenue at
Palm Avenue. When completed across Baldridge Creek it will extend approximately 2
miles from Victoria Avenue to the Wal-Mart Center where it intersects Highland Avenue.
Presently, there is no eastlwest connector to serve the large residential community living
north of Highland Avenue in the vicinity of Palm Avenue. Piedmont Avenue will provide that
link when completed across Baldridge Creek.
"Drainage from the tract requires further study to determine the impacts on properties to the
south and southwest. "
Response: This tract is only 22 lots on an 8.5 acre site. The increase in run-off due to the
development of this site in single family homes will be minimal and does not warrant a
drainage study based on the City's Storm Drainage Policy.
Page 1 of 4
The drainage from the site will be collected in catch basins and conveyed in underground
pipes to an outlet into Baldridge Creek.
Drainage within Baldridge Creek was studied as part of the City's Comprehensive Storm
Drain Project No. 6-25 which shows a 3' wide by 5' deep trapezoid concrete lined channel.
The Developer of this Tract will provide a culvert under Piedmont Drive capable of carrying
the design flows in Baldridge Creek. The upstream and downstream ends of the culvert will
be hardened to prevent erosion.
This Department has not received any reports in past years of problems with Baldridge
Creek in the vicinity of this project. The improvement of Baldridge Creek is not in the City's
5-year Capital Improvement program.
Other Concerns
Baldridae Creek
"Is the Creek completely on the site?"
No, the creek meanders and is partly on this site and partly on the property to the west.
'Who is responsible for maintenance/cleanup?"
A portion of the creek is in a City easement that was dedicated by the Tract south of
Piedmont Drive and west of Baldridge Creek. A portion of the creek to the south of the
subject tract is in easement dedicated to the County Department of Transportation and
Flood Control. The majority of the creek flows across private property.
The City could clear and maintain the creek bed within its easement; however, we have not
seen the need to expend resources for that purpose due to lack of problems with the creek.
Any effort to work in the creek bed would require a Streambed Alteration agreement with
the State Department of Fish and Game and a Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
'When will channelization and/or other improvements occur (pursuant to the Storm Drain
Master Plan)?"
As stated earlier, Baldridge Creek improvements are not in the City's 5-year Capital
Improvement Program. Due to the substantial costs involved, such a project would need to
be included in the Capital Improvement Program and funds allocated in the designated
fiscal year. In view of the low priority, we do not expect that funds for these improvements
will be budgeted within the foreseeable future.
Page 2 of 4
"What is the status of the creek north and south of the site?"
The creek is unimproved north and south of the site and we are not aware of any problems
from the creek.
Piedmont Drive
"Did the City previously receive the dedication of Piedmont Drive through the site as part of
the approved of a church site?"
The church project was proposed to the Planning division but it never got to the stage that
would trigger the requirement to dedicate right-<lf-way.
"Is the extension of Piedmont Drive still needed to provide adequate circulation through the
area?"
This link is necessary to provide adequate access to the large residential community north
of Highland Avenue in the vicinity of this project. It will provide convenient circulation for
motorists, a safe crossing for children, reduce response time for emergency vehicles, and
improve access to Shandin Hills Junior High School.
Palm Avenue
"What is the existing vs. ultimate right-<lf-way?"
Adjacent to the subject project site, the eXisting half width of the street is 30'. The ultimate
half width of the street is 50 ' for the portion of Palm Avenue south of Piedmont Drive and
33 feet for the portion north of Piedmont Drive.
"What is the Street designation on the Circulation Plan?"
Palm Avenue is a major arterial.
"Why can't Public workslEngineering look at Palm Avenue now rather than after the project
is built?"
It is always more credible to evaluate an intersection for traffic controls after it is in
operation. Attempting to evaluate it before Piedmont Drive is completed over Baldridge
Creek would necessarily be based upon projected traffic volumes.
Page 3 of 4
Drainaae/Erosion Control
"How will the completion of Tract No. 10302 affect the property located south of Lot #17?"
Presently, a portion of the project site drains to the residential lot south of lot #17. After the
project is completed all drainage from this tract will be carried in underground storm drains
directly to Baldridge Creek. Drainage from the slope along the south side of lot #17 will be
carried in a ditch to Baldridge Creek and will not impact the lots to the south.
"There was a question as to why a drainage study wasn1 done as part of the Tentative
Tract process."
This development did not meet the City's guidelines for requiring a drainage study during
the tentative map process. It is a relatively small site and it is obvious that the drainage
from the developed site can be handled by standard design methods.
.
Roger G. Hardgrave, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~~~~
Michael W. Grubbs
Senior Civil Engineer
. .
Page 4 of 4
SUMMARY
EXIllBIT "5"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION
===============================================
CASE: Tentative Tract No. 10302
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
5
3-19-97
4
APPLICANT:
WILLIAM C. BUSTER
Vespar Development Co.
1399 W. Cotton Avenue, Suite 5
Redlands, CA 92374
OWNER:
SAME
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
REQUEST I LOCATION - A proposed 22 lot single-family residential subdivision on an 8.5 acre
project site located west and adjacent to Palm Avenue, and north and south of an extension of Piedmont
Drive in the City's nonheast area.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
PROPERTY
ExISTING
LAND USE
LAND USE
DESIGNATION
EAST
WEST
Single-family res. cleve!.
Single-family res. cleve!.
RS, Residential Suburban
RS, Residential Suburban
RS, Residential Suburban and PF, Public
Facilities
RS, Residential Suburban
RS, Residential Suburban
SUBJECf
NORTH
SOUTH
Vacant
Single-family res. cleve!.
Single-family res. cleve!. & elem. school
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC YES. FLOOD HAZARD YES 0 SEWERS: YES.
HAZARD ZONE: NO 0 ZONE: NO. NO 0
mGH FIRE HAZARD YES. AIRPORT YES 0 REDEVELOPMENT YES 0
ZONE: NO 0 NOISE/CRASH NO. PROJECf AREA: NO.
ZONE:
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
o Not Applicable
o Exempt
. No
Significant
Effects
o Potential Effects,
Mitigating
Measures, No
E.I.R.
o E.I.R. wI Significant
Effects
. APPROVAL
. CONDmONS
o Significant Effects,
See Attached E.R.C.
Minutes
o DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE
TO:
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 2
REOUFST
Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.66.070, the applicant requests approval
to subdivide 1 parcel into 22 lots single-family residential lots in the RS, Residential Suburban
land use designation.
SITE LOCA nON
The 8.5 acre site has a frontage of about 735 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue beginning
approximately 2,000 feet north of Highland Avenue. The proposed subdivision will also have
a frontage of about 360 feet on the north and south sides of an extension of Piedmont Drive.
[See Attachment A, Site Vicinity Map; and, Attachment B, IT No. 10302 (8 1/2" x 11" Map)]
The subject property is located in Fire Zone C of the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS
The Initial Study for the project was prepared by staff and presented to the Environmental
Review Committee (ERC) on January 9, 1997, (refer to Attachment H, Initial Study). The ERC
determined that the project will not have any significant environmental effects as shown in the
Initial Study and recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed Negative
Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for public review and comment
from January 16, 1997 to February 5, 1997. No comments were received from the public
during that period.
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 1978, the Mayor and Common Council approved Tentative Tract No. 10302.
Sometime during the mid 198Os, the tentative approval was allowed to expire. The project was
resubmitted to the City for tentative tract map approval on November 19, 1996.
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (ORe) on December 12,
1996, January 9, 1997 and on February 6, 1997. At the February 6th meeting, the DRC
recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 3
ANALYSIS
PROJECT SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The site is vacant and gently slopes to the south at about an 8 percent grade. The site appears
to have been graded in recent years and vegetation in the upland area consists of weeds,
nonnative grass, tumbleweed and sunflower. The Baldridge Creek Channel runs along the west
side of the site. Vegetation in the channel area is dominated by giant reed grass, caster and
Eucalyptus trees with a few native species such as Mulefat and Mexican Elderberry.
The area surrounding Ute site is mostly developed with single-family residential uses in the RS,
Residential Suburban land use designation. The exception to this is Bonnie Oehl Elementary
School which is located southeast of the site in the PF, Public Facility designation.
DRAINAGFJFLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
The project will involve the construction of the extension of Piedmont Drive and an interior
street with 2 cul-de-sacs. The extension of Piedmont Drive will include construction of a
crossing structure over the Baldridge Creek Channel. This will require the applicant to obtain
a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a 1601 Streambed Alteration
Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game following fInal map approval from
the City.
The tentative map shows the structure as a 36 inch corrugated metal pipe. Public Works
Department staff was concerned that this type of structure would not adequately handle storm
flows from the Baldridge Creek drainage. Because Baldridge Creek adjoins the westerly
boundary of the site, the Public Works Standard Requirements for the project require the
construction of a culvert (3 ft. x 5 ft. trapezoidal concrete channel) to convey flows under
Piedmont Drive. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (Project No. 6-
25) for the area. The City may contribute $75,000 toward the construction cost of the Piedmont
Drive crossing. (See Attachment F, Standard Requirements)
GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS
The project site is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earth Quake Fault Zone and in an area of low
slope relief and low to moderate landslide susceptibility. In 1978, a geotechnical study was
prepared for IT No. 10302 by Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates (March 3, 1978). An update
to the original geotechnical study was prepared for the resubmittal project (Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract No. 10302, Lor Geotechnical Group, Inc., October
24, 1996). Both studies were prepared for the applicant by the consultants identifIed. The
City's Consulting Geologist, Dr. Floyd J. Williams, Ph.D., reviewed the proposed subdivision
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 4
and the studies and concluded that both studies are needed for the total documentation of the
geologic/seismic/soils conditions at the site; and, adherence with the recommendations in the Lor
Geotechnical Group, Inc. report will reduce any impacts from the project to a level of
nonsignificance. The project has been conditioned to comply with the recommendations outlined
in the report specified.
FOOTHILL FIRE ZONFS OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS
Lots 1 through 11 of the site, which are located north of the extension of Piedmont Drive, are
located in Fire Zone C of the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District and meet Development Code
requirements for site design. The requirements for non-combustible, nonignitable and/or non-
wood finish materials are applicable at the time the site is developed with housing. The project
has been conditioned to meet all applicable Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District standards and
requirements (see Attachment E, Condition of Approval No. 7).
BIOWGICAL RESOURCES
The project site is not located in the Biological Resources Management Overlay District;
however, a Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional WetlandlWaters Delineation Report was
prepared for the applicant by Tom Dodson & Associates (October 15, 1996) due to the presence
of an intermittent blueline stream. The report concludes that because the majority of the site has
been disturbed, the effects of the proposed subdivision will not be significant. The conclusions
of the report are incorporated in the Initial Study.
DEVEWPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The 22 lots are consistent with the RS, Residential Suburban standards in the Development Code
and the related policies in the General Plan. (see Attachment C, Development Code and General
Plan Conformance Table.)
COMPATIBILITY
The proposed subdivision is compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TRANSPORTATION/FWOD CONTROL
DEPARTMENT-COUNTY SURVEYOR
The County Flood Control's letter expressed their concern that the improvements proposed for
the Piedmont Drive crossing at the Baldridge Creek channel are not adequate. Their concerns
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 5
have been addressed through the Public Works Department Standard Requirements for the
project. The project will be required to construct a culvert (a 3 ft. x 5 ft. trapezoidal concrete
channel) as a part of the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan for Baldridge Creek.
No other comments have been received to date.
CONCLUSION
Tentative Tract No. 10302 is compatible with the single-family fesidential uses in the
surrounding area. The Initial Study indicates that project is not anticipated to result in any
environmental impacts; The project has been conditioned to comply with the requirements of
the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District (Fire Zone C) and the recommendations outlined in the
Lor Geotechnical Group, Inc. report. The Public Works Department's Standard Requirements
include the requirements for the Piedmont Drive crossing at Baldridge Creek. The proposed
subdivision meets all applicable Development Code standards and requirements and is consistent
with the General Plan and the State Subdivision Map Act.
RECOMMF.NDATlON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration; and,
2. Approve Tentative Tract No. 10302 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment
D) and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment E) and Standard Requirements
(Attachment F).
Respectfully submitted,
~ e. 1<1#- ~ /v114
Michael E. Hays, ~tor
Planning and Building Services
~l~ff~
Associate Planner
(
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Site Vicinity Map
B - TT No. 10302
C - Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table
D - Findings of Fact
E - Conditions of Approval
F - Standard Requirements
G - Initial Study
,
,
\.
\\
\,
~"'"
CITY OF SAN BERNAF ,'40
Site Location Map
ATTACHMENT "A"
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
Date 7-/.s--~3
TT No. 10302
Adopted 6-2-89
Panel No. -E..8..
~ II .
u Ii . ..
i z .. cd J' .,. ~
~ 0 I ;!
z w ~
c ;: t! d .
z 0
c .
0 .
. S ite.~
pr
Q
. :
I<.U
1 1 , -
...:.. aTUirnC. IIIL
"~i~. .'
..
~
~
,
s:d
~~
.....iil
,q
~~
'"'"
"
~<:i
~ ~
i::::
~~
~
~
~I
!~I
~i~
~,~
f~~
I~-
~II
r'
~~~
~i~
~ ~
'l(s
~h
I~~
-~I
i!
ATTA.....lfMENT "B"
~ Ii
1I
8 . II..
o !
!M I
=~ !I
"'I,';' ,-
!g~ il
~!H Ii
~li
I
I ~ II
!Pl~1 i !
'~I'~l I
" b.;1
~ ill. "ill~.:
~tl' II~t
! !~~..~~,,;~
l
.; I ,l I I!
~. i I' I
d!i ~ Il~ C,
, ", it' 19 9
~ . iii II ~!I III
~! I I Ii I
If
qlll .11
~~II'!'l ~I.l~.
19 II!I!" t. ml :tl!
~1:11.i ! ;li~ ~ ~ Il'l ~~,
~ Ii. n,~~ ~I Iii IIII
I~ "I!!I.i I . 'Ii II ~~ '
~ rn.1h 1.1.li,; !I!!ffi Il~, III
~ ~! m !!~~ ~ ~'I' ijl:1 i III!.
~ Ii r.IftT~li1 iill rill i iliS
e!
I
!
~
~
...
~
"Ii.
~~
.
~!I~
~rl.
!
(
ATTACHMENT C
MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Pro.posal Municipal General Plan
~
SFR Subdivision
Pennitted in the RS Pennitted Pennitted
Use
Varying from
Lot Size: 7,442 S.F. Min. 7,200 S.F. N/A
to 26,433
S.F.
64 Ft. Min 60 Ft.
Lot Width: N/A
108 Ft. Min. 100 Ft.
Lot Depth: N/A
2.8 dulac 4.5 du/ac
Density: 4.5 dulac
All lots All lots
Frontage on front on a required to N/A
dedicated dedicated front on
streets street dedicated
streets
AITACHMENT D
TENTATIVE TRACf NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 2
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
1. Tentative Tract No. 10302 is consistent with the General Plan in that it meets the goals
and objectives of the General Plan and meets the standards of the Development Code as
they pertain to the subdivision of property in the RS, Residential Suburban land use
designation.
2. The design and proposed improvements of Tentative Tract No. 10302 are consistent with
the General Plan in that the tentative map proposes the creation of 22 residential lots
subject to all applicable Development Code provisions.
3. The site is large enough and suitable to accommodate the proposed 22 lot single-family
subdivision and the proposed subdivision complies with the RS, Residential Suburban
development standards and requirements and is compatible with adjacent and surrounding
residential development in that the lots contain sufficient buildable area and are adjacent
to dedicated roadways.
4. The site for Tentative Tract No. 10302 is physically suitable for single-family residential
development in that the division of land is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and
the proposed lots to be created can accommodate the proposed density of the project.
5. Through the environmental analysis, it has been determined that the lots to be created are
unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injure fish and wildlife or their habitat in that the site is not located in the Biological
Resources Management Overlay District as identified in the City's General Plan, and a
biological resources study prepared for the project did not identify any impacts resulting
from the proposed project which includes the Piedmont Drive crossing at Baldridge
Creek.
6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems in that
there is existing and future proposed infrastructure to provide services to the 22 proposed
lots.
7. The design of the subdivision will not be in conffict with easements, acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of, property within the subdivision in that the
lots
ATTACHMENT D
TENTATIVE TRACf NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 3
are of buildable size and have dedicated or approved access to a dedicated street and the
legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required to the City of San
Bernardino.
'\
"
\'\\
\,
''\
"
"~I,
"
-,
-\
'\
';\.
,
\~
''\
\
\
'''\
ATIACHMENT E
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 4
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
1. Within two years of this approval, the filing of the final map with the Council shall have
occurred or the approval (including the conditional use permit approval) shall become
null and void. Expiration of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final
map shall be filed without first processing a new tentative map. The City Engineer must
accept the final map documents as adequate for approval by Council prior to forwarding
them to the City Clerk. The date the map shall be deemed filed with the Council is the
date on which the City Clerk receives the map. The review authority may, upon
application filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant an
extension to the expiration date pursuant to Section 19.66.170 of the Development Code
and the State Subdivision Map Act. The review authority shall ensure that the project
complies with all current Development Code provisions.
Project:
Expiration Date:
Tentative Tract No. 10302
March 18, 1999
2. Construction of the tract shall be in substantial conformance with the plan(s) approved
by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to
the plan(s) shall be subject to approval by the Director through a minor modification
permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the allowable measurable
design/site considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a
subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority, if applicable.
Minor Modification requirements shall not be applicable to the elevation modifications
necessary for conformance with the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District standards.
Conformance will be reviewed through the plan check process.
3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter.
Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and
attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of such
action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligation under this
condition.
4. This permit or approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development
Code in effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property
ATIACHMENT E
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 5
Development Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and
grading activities; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other forms of air
pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor control;
screening; signs, off-street parking and off-street loading; and, vibration control.
Screening and sign regulations compliance are important considerations to the developer
because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they are complied
with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transformers, boxes, ducts or meter
cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural element, blending with the
building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
5. The project shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Lor Geotechnical
Group, Inc. report (Project No. 30830.1, October 24, 1996) regarding general site
grading, initial site preparation, alluvial removals, preparation of fill areas, preparation
of foundation areas, engineered compacted fill, slope construction, slope protection, soil
expansiveness, foundation design, settlement, slabs-on-grade, wall pressures, preliminary
pavement design and construction monitoring.
6. The applicant shall submit a Development Permit Application for review of the design
of the housing units and their placement on the lots.
7. The development project shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of
the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District, Fire Zone C.
8. The site plan for the housing units shall include a 3 foot by 9 foot pad adjacent to each
garage to provide adequate storage of residential refuse carts. The pads shall be located
behind any fence or gate and gates intended for access shall be a minimum of 3 feet in
width (to accommodate passage of the cart through the gate).
9. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or standard requirements of
the following City Departments or Divisions:
xx Department Public Works/City Engineer
xx Water Department
xx Fire Department
xx Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department
(
ATIACHMENT E
TENTATIVE TRAcr NO. 10302
HEARING DATE: March 19, 1997
Page 6
* 10. The subdivider shall grant an easement (or other method) along the north property line
of the Tentative Tract to the adjacent property to the north for purposes of maintaining
and preserving the existing grove wall. The width and extent of the easement shall be
based on the amount of land required to accommodate maintenance and preserve the
wall. The easement shall be reviewed by Planning and Public Works Department staff
prior to its recordation which shall occur at or before recordation of the Tract.
*Added per applicant at 3/19/97 Planning Commission meeting.
....",
ATIACHMENf "F"
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
. NOTE TO APPUCANT: Where sepal7lte Engineering plans are required, the applicant Is
responsible for sUbmitting the Engineering plans directly to the Engineering Division. They
may be submitted prior to submittal of Building Plans.
1. Drainaae and Flood Control
a) All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to
requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based in part on the
recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood District. The
developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage
and flood control.
b) A Section 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers and a 1601 Streambed
alteration agreement with the State Department of Fish and Game will be
required prior to start of work in Baldridge Creek.
c) A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any drainage
improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream
impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at
the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary.
d) Baldridge Creek (Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan Project No. 6-25)
adjoins the westerly boundary of the site. CSDP 6-25 indicates a 3' x 5'
trapezoidal concrete channel where Piedmont Drive will cross Baldridge
Creek when it is extended westerly. Therefore, a culvert will be required
to convey flows under Piedmont Drive. Design plans and calculations for
the culvert shall be prepared by the Applicant's Engineer and shall be
approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. There culvert,
fill and extension of Piedmont Drive shall be completed and accepted by
this Department prior of application for any Certificate of Occupancy.
Page 1 of 12 Pages
02/05197
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WESTSIDEOFPALMAVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR. PAGE NO:
e) The City is proposing to contribute $75,000.00 toward the cost of
constructing the Piedmont Drive crossing over Baldridge Creek. In the
event the City does not contribute these funds, the developer shall be
responsible for the entire cost of the crossing.
f) A catch basin and drainage pipe will be required at the knuckle south of
Piedmont Drive. An easement for the outlet pipe from the knuckle to
Baldridge Creek shall be dedicated to the City.
g) All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public
drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements
shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
h) Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge sufficiently to
maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water Discharge
Permit Requirements. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the
State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 5 acres of
more of land.
i) The City Engineer, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an
Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due
to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of
construction, including graded areas which are not proposed to be
immediately built upon.
Page 2 of 12 Pages
02/05197
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR. PAGE NO:
I
2. Gradina and LandscaDina
a) If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/ploUgrading and
drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a
grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in
strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and.
the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
b) If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit
conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development
Code shall be obtained from the Department of Planning and Building
Services prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits.
c) If more than 5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed, a grading bond
will be required and the grading shall be supervised in accordance with
Section 7012(c) of the Uniform Building Code.
d) An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where feasible,
this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan and shall conform to
all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the Municipal Code (See
"Grading Policies and Procedures").
e) Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and
detailed on the On-site Improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the
On-site Improvement permit issued by the Department of Public
Works/City Engineer.
Page 3 of 12 Pages
02/05197
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
f) This Tract is located in the "High Wind Area". Therefore, all free standing
walls and fences shall be designed for a minimum wind load of 23 pounds
per square foot of vertical surface, unless a lower value is approved by
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
g) The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the
Engineering Division for Checking.
h) A Landscape Maintenance District shall be implemented to maintain
landscaping within the following areas:
i) The parkways along the West Side of Palm Avenue adjacent to the
tract.
ii) The parkways along the north and south sides of Piedmont Drive
adjacent to the site except the portion adjacent to lot 11.
iii) Slopes along Palm Avenue and Piedmont Drive, except Lot 11,
that are visible from the public right-of-way. An easement for
landscape purposes shall be dedicated over such slopes.
i) All required maintenance districts shall be formed prior to Map recording.
j) Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the Landscape
Maintenance District.
k) Prior to sale of each parcel, the Developer shall provide the City's Real
Property Section of the Department of Public Works with a signed copy of
the "Notice of Assessment District" disclosure for each property
purchaser.
Page 4 of 12 Pages
02105197
I
STANDARD REOUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
3. Utilities
a) Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in accordance
with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the serving utility,
including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer and cable TV.
b) Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer facilities so
the City or the agency providing such services in the area can serve it.
c) Backflow preventers shall be installed for any building with the finished
floor elevation below the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole.
d) Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at
the Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures"
and City Standard Drawings.
e) Utility services shall be placed underground and easements provided as
required.
f) All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either
side of the street shall be undergrounded in accordance with Section
19.30.110 of the Development Code.
g) Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated
at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer, except
overhead lines, if required by provisions of the Development Code to be
undergrounded. See Development Code Section 19.30.110.
Page 5 of 12 Pages
02105197
{"
STANDARD REQUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
4. Maooina
a) A Final Map based upon field survey will be required.
b) All street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to
Map approval.
c) Additional survey and map information including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, flooding and zones, seismic lines and setbacks,
geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed with the City
Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
5. Imorovement Comoletion
a) Street, sewer, and drainage improvement plans for the entire project shall
be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the
Map recordation.
b) If the required improvements are not completed prior to Map recordation,
an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the
developer and the City will be required.
c) Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a period of 4
years shall be paid. Exact amount shall be determined and shall become
payable prior to map recording.
Page 6 of 12 Pages
02/0&'97
STANDARD REOUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
d) All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from the following
streets:
i) Piedmont Drive adjacent to lots 1,10,12, and 20-22.
ii) Palm Avenue adjacent to lots 1-5, 19, and 20.
6. Street ImDrovement and Dedications
a) All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall be
improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap
ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but not
limited to traffic signals, traffic signal modifications, relocation of public or
private facilities which interfere with new construction, striping, shall be
accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street
Improvement Policy" and City "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required, shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Street Lighting
Policies and Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street
improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
Page 7 of 12 Pages
02/05197
(
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
b) For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of way
(R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and
placement of the curb line (CL) in relation to the street centerline shall be
as follows:
Piedmont Drive
Right-of-Wav(ft.}
33'
33'
50'
Curb Line(ft)
22'
22'
36'
.
Street Name
Palm Av. (north of Piedmont)
Palm Av. (south of Piedmont)
c) A transition in the width of the westerly half of Palm Avenue from the
northerly tract boundary to Piedmont Drive shall be designed by the
Applicant's Engineer for the approval of the City Engineer.
d) Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to the
site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb and gutter.
Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic safety and
drainage as approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
e) Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard
No. 202, Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb).
f) Construct Handicap Ramps in accordance with City Standard No. 205 at
all curb returns within and adjacent to the project site. Dedicate sufficient
right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp.
Page 8 of 12 Pages
02/05197
(
STANDARD REOUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
g) Construct Driveway Approaches per City Standard No. 203. Remove
existing driveway approaches that are not part of the approved plan and
replace with full height curb & gutter and sidewalk.
h) Install Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard
Nos. SL-1 and SL-2.
7. Phasina
a) If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual phase shall be
designed to provide maximum public safety, convenience for public
service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In order to meet this
requirement, the following will be required prior to the finalization of any
phase:
. b) Improvement plans for the total project or sufficient plans beyond the
phase boundary to verify the feasibility of the design shall be complete to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
c) A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Division, Fire, and Planning Departments indication what improvements
will be constructed with the given phase, subject to the following:
d) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32 foot radius paved
width;
e) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum 28 foot paved width;
Page 9 of 12 Pages
02105197
r
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
f) Street improvements shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries,
as necessary to provide secondary access;
g) Drainage facilities, such as storm drains, channels, earth berms, and
block walls, shall be constructed, as necessary, to protect the
development from off-site flows;
h) A properly designed water system shall be constructed which is capable
of providing required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond the
phase boundaries;
i) Easements for any of the above and the installation of necessary utilities
shall be completed; and,
j) Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
8. Reauired Enaineerina Permits
a) Grading permit (If applicable.).
b) On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Planning and Building Services), including landscaping.
c) Off-site improvement construction permits.
Page 100'12 Pages
02J05l97
r
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS
HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR.
PAGE NO:
9. ADDlicable Enaineerina Fees1
d)
e)
f)
a)
Map Checking fee - $1,000.00 plus $30.00 per lot or parcel.
b)
Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and 4%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cose of the off-site
improvements.
c)
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings - See Planning and Building Services) - 2% and 3%,
respectively, of the estimated construction cose of the on-site
improvements, including landscaping.
Plan check and inspection fees for grading (If permit required) - Fee
Schedule available at the Engineering Division Counter.
Drainage fee based on $0.133 per square foot of net lot area - not to
exceed $2,574.61 for any lot.
Traffic system fee based on $154.57 per house.
I All Fees are subject to change wIthout notice.
'Estimated Construct/on Cost for Off-SIte Improvements Is based on a list of standard unIt prices on file wIth
the Department of PublIc Works/Clty EngIneer.
3 Est/mated Construct/on Cost for On-SIte Improvements is based on a list of standard unIt prices on file wIth
the Department of PublIc Works/Clty Engineer.
Page 11 of 12 Pages
02105197
STANDARD REQUffiEMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSI CASE NO. TR 10302
CITY ENGINEER
DESCRIPTION: 22 SFR LOTS HEARING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PALM AVE
NORTH AND SOUTH OF PIEDMONT DR. PAGE NO:
g) Sewer Connection fee based on $274.97 per bedroom.
h) Sewer inspection fee @ $18.51 per connection.
i) Street or easement dedication processing fees in the amount of .$200.00
per document.
~
~
~
'\'\
Page 12 of 12 Pages
02/05197
AP,J 1..B'7 2-D I 2. 9
~A5 6R..a> ?77H Z
~6f /TTeD;
SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Review of Plans: ILl 030"2-
OwnerlDeveloper: WIWANf c.... 8US~~ 'iev. Co.
Type of Project: ZZ SFIZ SU8 \VIS,oJ
Location: R.6AtK~ aLN ~ f@MoJ1"'
WATER DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING:
Contact: _f>\tL 'Ot2-'('f)~\
Date ~mpiled: Il.!.i 9f,
Complied By: 'R.J. "C5o..J
Number of Units:
Phone: ~B4-'?~?l Fax: :3B4~!;3z....
Note: All Water Services are Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department.
o Size of Main Adjacent the Project:
o Approximate Water Pressure: Elevation of Water Storage:
o Type, Size, Location, and Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant:
Hydrant Flow @ 20 psi:
o Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
o Off-site Water Facilities Required. ~
hi' Area Not Served by San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. LG V Wt> J
/o\omments:
WATER OUALITY CONTROL:
Contact:
o R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service CoMection.
o Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service CoMection.
o Air Gap Required at Service COMection.
o No Backflow Device Required at This Time.
Phone:
Fax:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLIINDUSTRIAL WASTE:
Contact:~\O~ ~TEb
Note: No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed.
o Industrial Waste Permit Required. A (";'){")7 r. \if::!:)
o Grease Trap Required. t=t. r V HJ
o Pre-treatment Required.
Phone: ~M~7 Fax: ~84-54.m
'0/9b~~)
ve-
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION:
Contact: -N~i L.:J""hom~~ Phone: 3&4-Eal.3. Fax: ~-5~L.S
Note: Proof of Payment Must be Submitted to the Building & Safety Department Prior to Issuance of the Building Permit.
o No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
~wer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the Water Department for - Gallons Per Day. Equivalent Dwelling Units: ,d;? ~.
o Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit.
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day: ~.::t el)l{ ~
sroREQUI2.FRM (4194)
1?ff(Dtw?/~ (p#t~ ~E..Me>~
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
~ Provide one additional set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
o Contact the City of San Bernardino Fire Department at (9091 384-5388 for specific detailed requirements.
/it The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based
on square footage, construction features. and exposure information supplied by the developer and !DY8 be available JH:Ig[ to placing combustible
materials on site.
CITY OF ~.",N BERNARDINO FIRE DIL ARTMENT
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS Case: ~-F /().$tJ:2....
Date: /~ 7.2- ?6'
Reviewed By: ,~
WATER PURVEYOR FOR FIRE PROTECTION:
The fire protection water service for the area of this project is provided by:
~ San Bernardino Municipal Water Department ~ Engineering (909) 384.5391
..!'- East Vallav Water District - Engineering 19091 888-8986
o Other Water Purveyor:
Phone:
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES:
Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for commercial and multi.residential areas and at intervals not
to exceed 500 feet for residential areas.
Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi.residential areas.
Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for residential areas.
o Fire flow requirements may be met from the combined flow of two adjacent fire hydrants. Fire flow requirements may be adjusted, as deemed
appropriate by the Fire Department, based on individual site specific conditions and available mitigations.
)'1:::. Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water
purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall conform to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor.
~ Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial
responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor
indicated above for additional information.
ACCESS:
o Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather.
o Provide an access road to each bUilding for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of not less ,than 20 feet
of unobstructed width.
o Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of all single story bUildings.
o Extend roadway to within 50 feet of the exterior wall of all multiple.story buildings.
o Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required
width. Signs are to raad "FIRE lANE - NO PARKING - M.C. See 15.16".
o Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500 feet in length and shall have a minimum 40 foot radius turnaround.
o The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SI E:
All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
o Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within
40 feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 21/2 inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire hydrants shall be designated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the
hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles,
BUILDINGS:
o Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage
street. Commercial and multi family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color
of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background,
o Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit it serves,
D Fire Extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A 1GB/C. Minimum
distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher.
o Apartment houses wnh 16 or more unns, hotels (motels) with 20 or more unns, or apartments or hotels (motels) three stories or more in height
shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers designed to NFPA standards,
o All buildings, other than residential, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA
standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 180 days.
o Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system.
o Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction,
D Provide fire alarm (required throughout), Plan must be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of installation.
o Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at Fire Department approved location.
Note: The applicant must request, in writing, any changes to Fire Department requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFOA~ATION: hAC A'Y.IUAN7f -4"-'0 Atct:rS" ;i?,.,AO.s S'.#"KC Be'" /.-(./ ,#,(/,tJ
f'>""71M~e: Pl(lt),1! ;;;;- (1",M/lU~-?7RC~ ~1O;('1f5:-e:- (!J~ (!{);(.'o'X()cr/o-u
;:; /-~..<-"/,Nc-W t:'r (j) /;~F &.1/?.lj,<.;/T #// /Z-,if v;'<fZ1,
FP8170111.94)
~
. r '_,of-.
"'l ~.
F
-, ..-..,......,...,.,.-... 1--or""'" "7 -...,..I.....~-.'II7V"~-"'~'...v."'f'.......I.---.._~'...... ,"~r'" ['~__
-0
o
COMMtJHJ:TY SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
crTY 01' SAN BERNARD!NO PARXS, RECREATION"
STANDARD REQUrRBMBJrrS
Ca...~&%l.
Date: d... 7
Reviewed By:..JY),5ialh
GBNBRAL RBQu:IRBIIBIlTS:
C~rcial Indu.trial and ~lti-Unit
A.......nt Di.trict
a..id.ntial
Purpo... Guid.lin.. and .ubmittal proc.dur.
Irrigation and Land.caping Plan..
Contact tb. City of San ..naardino park..a.cr.ation and Coaaunity S.rvic..
Dapart:unt at (909) 3"-5217 or 38.-531. for &p.cific d.tail.d
r.QUirement. .
SPJlCXI'XC RBQU:rRBIIBIlTS I
I I
I
I
I I
PLUI'l' IlATBRnLS
~
Maint.nanc. of land.cap. ar.a.
Plant.r Ar.a.
Int.rior Plant.r Ar.a.
Irrigation Sy.tame
S.tback Ar.a.
Slop. Ar.a.
Ground Cov.r and B.dding Kat.rial
Bro.ion Control
W..d Control
Plant li.t and climatic condition.
Str..t Tr... -
Plant Hat.rial Size a.QUiramant. and Ratio.
DfSPBCTrON AND 0'.(J1lU( RBQurRBMKNTS
Rot..
Irrigation Sy.tam
Land.caping
Sard..cap. Itame
Str..t tr.. Sp.cification.
Arbori.t a.port
aemoval or d..truction of tr...
Scr..ning R.QUirement (City. D.v.Cod.)
to tb. Park.. a.cr.ation and
HS.jj
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY
FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
Prepared For:
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared By:
Deborah Wo1druff
Associate Planner
December 20, 1996
Revised June 12, 1997
EXlDBIT 6
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES INITIAL
STUDY FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10302
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND OVERVIEW
1.
APPliCATION NUMBER:
Tentative Tract ('IT) No. 10302
2.
OWNER:
Wm. C. Buster, Vespar Development Co.
3.
APPliCANT:
Same
4. CITY CONTACT AND PHONE NUMBER: Deborah Wo1druff
Associate Planner
(909) 384-5057
5.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
RS (Residential Suburban)
6. OVERVIEW AND REVISION TO THE INITIAL STUDY
6.1 Overview
This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for IT No. 10302. It
contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed project
application is approved.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial
Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency
and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether
or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or
whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
The following components constitute the Initial Study for IT No. 10302:
. Project Description
. Site and Area Characteristics
. Environmental Setting
. Environmental Determination
. Environmental Impact Checklist
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 2
. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
· Conclusion (Mandatory Findings Of Significance, Item 14 of the Checklist)
Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study.
6.2 Revision to the Initial Study (June 12, 1997)
The Initial Study for this project was originally presented to the City's Environmental
Review Committee (ERe) on January 9, 1997. The proposed Negative Declaration was
advertised and the Initial Study was available for public review and comment from
January 16, 1997 to February 5, 1997. No comments were received during the public
review period.
On March 19, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the proposed
Tentative Tract Map. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the
Mayor and Common Council. The Appeal was based on neighborhood concerns about
the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive and related traffic issues and Baldridge Creek
drainage issues.
Due to new information received at the Planning Commission meeting, staff required that
the project applicant submit a Historical Resources Assessment (Report) as part of the
Appeal process. A Report, prepared by Michael K. Lerch & Associates (May 1997),
indicates the presence of potentially significant cultural resources on the site. For this
reason, the Initial Study has been revised to add this discussion and also in the following
sections: Section A., Item 10. Environmental Determination (page 5); Section B.
Environmental Checklist, Item 13.c. r(page 15); and, Section C. Discussion Of
Environmental Evaluation And Mitigation Measures, Item 13.c. (page 18). As a result
of three new mitigation measures, the environmental determination proposed for the
project is a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND WCATION
A proposed 22 lot single-family residential subdivision on an 8.5 acre project site that
is located adjacent to and west of Palm Avenue, and north and south of an extension of
Piedmont Drive in the City's northeast area. (See Exhibit I, Site Location Map; and,
Exhibit 2, Site Planfrentative Tract Map)
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 3
8. SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The site is vacant, relatively planar and slopes from north to south at about an 8% grade.
Although the site has been graded, vegetation in the upland area is characterized by
weedy herbaceous community dominated by Ripgut grass, tumbleweed and common
sunflower. There is a deep incised channel running north to south on the western
boundary of the site. Vegetation in the channel section of the site is dominated by giant
reed grass, caster and Eucalyptus trees with a few native species such as Mulefat and
Mexican Elderberry.
The surrounding area is mostly developed with single-family residential uses in the RS,
Residential Suburban designation. The exception is an elementary school in the PF,
Public Facility designation located to the southeast, across Palm Avenue.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (the San Andreas
Fault) and in an area of low slope relief and low to moderate landslide susceptibility.
The USGS Topographic Map (San Bernardino North Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series)
shows that the channel on the west side of the site is an intermittent blueline stream. The
site is in the City's High Wind area and in the Zone C of the Foothill Fire Zones
Overlay District.
The project is not located in the City's Biological Resources Management Overlay
District; however, a Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Wet1and/Waters Delineation
Report (Tom Dodson & Associates, October 15, 1996) was prepared for the project due
to the presence of the intermittent blueline stream. The report concludes that because
the majority of the site has been disturbed, the effects of this project (TT No. 10302) will
not be significant. A copy of the report is maintained in the project fIle, TT No. 10302.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TT No. 10302
December 20, 1996IRevised June 12, 1997
Page 4
10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
xx The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although
there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described in Section C of this Report have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMrITEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
VALERIE C. ROSS. PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Name and Title
VdJJJ,W & ,~.w-
Signature
June 12. 1997
Date
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TI No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUll.DING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INlTIAL STUDY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sheet.
"No" answers are explained on this checklist. See Exhibit 3, Preliminary Environmental Description
Form, where necessary.
1.
Earth Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)
on slopes of 15% or more based on
information contained in the
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form No. D.(3)?
...x.
b. Development and/or grading on a
slope greater than 15 % natural
grade based on review of General
Plan HMOD map, which designates
areas of 15% or greater slope in
the City?
...x.
c. Development within the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone as
defined in Section 12.O-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the
City's General Plan?
...x.
d. Modification of any unique geologic
or physical feature based on field
review?
...x.
e. Development within areas defined
for high potential for water or
wind erosion as identified in
Section 12.O-Geologic & Seismic,
Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan?
...x.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 6
f. Modification of a channel, creek Yes No Maybe
or river based on review of
USGS Topographic Map San Bernardino
North Quadrangle? ..x..
g. Development within an area
subject to landslides, mudslides,
subsidence or other similar
hazards as identified in Section
12.O-Geologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the
City's General Plan? ...x...
h. Development within an area
subject to liquefaction as shown
in Section 12.O-Geologic &
Seismic, Figure 48, of the
City's General Plan? .x.
i. Other?
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an
effect upon ambient air quality
as defined by South Coast Air Quality
Management District, based on
meeting the threshold for significance
in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality
Handbook"? X
b. The creation of objectionable
odors based on information
contained in Preliminary Environmental
Description Form, No. G.(3)? .x.
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area as identified in
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TT No. 10302
December 20, 19961Revised June 12, 1997
Page 7
Yes No Maybe
Section 15.o-Wind & Fire, Figure
59, of the City's General Plan? .x
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces
that cannot be mitigated by
Public Works Standard
Requirements to contain and
convey runoff to approved
storm drain based on review
of the proposed site plan? .x
b. Significant alteration in the
course or flow of flood waters
based on consultation with
Public Works staff? .x
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality based on
requirements of Public Works
to have runoff directed to
approved storm drains? .x
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground water? .x
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards as identified
in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Community
Panel Number 060281 0015 B (Map
Revised February 2, 1994), and
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 8
Yes No Maybe
Section 16.O-Flooding, Figure 62,
of the City's General Plan? ..x..
f. Other?
4. Biological Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological
Resources Management Overlay, as
identified in Section 10.0-
Natural Resources, Figure 41,
of the City's General Plan? ..x..
1. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants or their
habitat including stands of
trees based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. B.(l) and verified
by on-site survey/evaluation? ..x..
2. Change in the number of any
unique, rare or endangered
species of animals or their
habitat based on information
contained in the Preliminary
Environmental Description
Form No. E.(2) and verified
by site survey/evaluation? ..x..
3. Impacts to the wildlife
disbursal or migration corridors? ..x..
b. Removal of viable, mature trees
based on site survey/evaluation
and review of the proposed site
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 9
Yes No Maybe
plan? (6" or greater trunk
diameter at 4' above the ground) ..x.
c. Other?
S. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health
care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities
or other noise sensitive uses
in areas where existing or
future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an
Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as
identified in Section 14.Q-Noise,
Figures 57 and 58 of the City's
General Plan? ..x.
b. Development of new or expansion
of existing industrial,
commercial or other uses which
generate noise levels above an Ldn of
65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of
45 dB(A) interior that may affect
areas containing housing, schools,
health care facilities or other
sensitive uses based on
information in the Preliminary
Environmental Description Form
No. G.(1) and evaluation of
surrounding land uses No. C., and
verified by site survey/evaluation? ..x.
c. Other? ..x.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TI No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 10
Yes No Maybe
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as
designated based on the review
of the General Plan Land Use
Plan/Zoning Districts Map? .x...
b. Development within an Airport
District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AlCUZ) Report and the Land
Use Zoning District Map? .x...
c. Development within Foothill Fire
Zones A & B, or C as identified
on the Development Code Overlay
Districts Map? .x...
d. Other?
7. Man-Made Hazards: Based on
information contained in Preliminary
Environmental Description Form,
No. 0.(1) and 0.(2) will the project:
a. Use, store, transport or dispose
of hazardous or toxic materials
(including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? .x...
b. Involve the release of
hazardous substances? .x...
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards? .x...
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 11
Yes No Maybe
d. Other?
8. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing as verified
by a site survey/evaluation? ..x.
b. Create a significant demand for
additional housing based on the
proposed use and evaluation of
project size? ..x.
c. Other?
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could
the proposal, in comparison with the
Circulation Plan as identified in
Section 6.O-Circulation of the City's
General Plan and based on the
conclusions of the City Traffic
Engineer and review of the Traffic
Study if one was prepared, result in:
a. A significant increase in traffic
volumes on the roadways or
intersections or an increase that
is significantly greater than the
land use designated on the
General Plan? ..x.
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities!
structures? ..x.
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation systems? X
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation? X
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 12
Yes No Maybe
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? ..x.
f. Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? ..x.
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway
improvements? X.
h. Other?
10. Public Services: Based on the
responses of the responsible
agencies or departments, will the
proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide
adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? ..x.
b. Police protection? ..x.
c. Schools (i.e., attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)? ..x.
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? ..x.
e. Medical aid? ..x.
f. Solid Waste? X.
g. Other?
11. Utilities: Will the proposal:
a. Based on the responses of the
responsible Agencies,
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 13
Yes No Maybe
Departments, or Utility Company,
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities? .x.
1. Natural gas? .x.
2 El ..? .x.
. ectriClty .
3. Water? ..x...
4. Sewer? .x.
5. Other? .x.
b. Result in a disjointed pattern
of utility extensions based on
review of existing patterns
and proposed extensions? .x.
12. Aestbetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the
obstruction of any significant or
important scenic view based on
evaluation of the view shed
verified by site survey/
evaluation? .x...
b. Will the visual impact of the
project create aesthetically
offensive changes in the
existing visual setting
based on a site survey and
evaluation of the proposed
elevations? ..x...
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TI No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 14
c. Other?
13. Cultural Resources: Could the
proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site by
development within an
archaeological sensitive area
as identified in Section 3.0-
Historical, Figure 8, of the
City's General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of
a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the
City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other? New Information
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. Based
on this Initial Study:
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species,
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 15
Yes
No
Maybe
..x.
..x.
..x.
Yes No Maybe
cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory? .x..
b. Does the project have the
to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the
environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) .x..
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is
significant. ) .x..
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? X
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 16
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Earth Resources
I.e.
The project site is identified as being located in an Alquist-Priolo Earth Quake Fault Zone. A
geotechnical study (Engineering Geology Investigation, Project No. 1312, Gary S. Rasmussen
& Associates, March 3, 1978) was prepared for the Tentative Tract when it was originally
approved in the late 1970s. An update study (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative
Tract No. 10302, Lor Geotechnical Group, Inc., Project No. 30830.1, October 24, 1996) was
prepared for this submittal.
The project and the two studies were reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist, Floyd J.
Williams, Ph.D. In his letter of comments (dated December 8, 1996), Dr. Williams concluded,
as follows:
"The south branch of the San Andreas fault is located at the closes point about 3OQ-feet
north of the northeast portion of the tract. No known faults cut the property.
The site will likely undergo severe shaking due to earthquake during the next 100 years.
Both reports are required for total documentation of the geologic/seismic/soils conditions
at the site. "
Adherence with the recommendations in the Lor Geotechnical Group, Inc. report will reduce any
impacts from the project to a level of nonsignificance. The project shall be conditioned to
comply with the recommendations regarding general site grading, initial site preparation, alluvial
removals, preparation of fill areas, preparation of foundation areas, engineered compacted fill,
slope construction, slope protection, soil expansiveness, foundation design, settlement, slabs-on-
grade, wall pressures, preliminary pavement design and construction monitoring as outlined in
the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract No. 10302 (Lor Geotechnical Group,
Inc., Project No. 30830.1, October 24, 1996)
Copies of the two geotechnical studies and Dr. Williamses' letter of comment are maintained
in the project files (IT No. 10302 and Original IT No. 10302).
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 17
1.f.
The construction of the proposed subdivision will include the construction of a crossing for the
extension of Piedmont Drive. Because the streambed does not meet the jurisdictional
requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish &
Game (Biological Assessment and Jurisdictional Wet1andlWaters Delineation, Tom Dodson &
Associates, October 15, 1996), the crossing will be subject to the requirements of the City's
Department of Public Works and will be conditioned as such. The construction of the crossing
will not result in any significant impacts to a blueline stream.
I.g.
The project site is identified as being located in an area of potential ground subsidence. Figure
51 in the General Plan shows the extent of the historic area of subsidence which is within the
thick, poorly consolidated alluvial and marsh deposits of the old artesian area north of Lorna
Linda. Potential subsidence within this area rnay be as great as 5 to 8 feet if ground water is
depleted from the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basin. In 1972, the San Bernardino Municipal
Water District began to maintain groundwater levels from recharge to percolation basins which
filter back into the alluvial deposits. Since the recharge program began, problems with ground
subsidence have not been identified.
2. Air Resources
2.c.
The north one half of the project is located in Zone C (not abutting wildlands) of the Foothill
Fire Zones Overlay District and is subject to the provisions in Development Code Chapter 19.15
and Municipal Code Chapter 15.10 relating to Foothill Fire Zone Building Standards.
Compliance with these provisions will reduce any impacts from the project to a level of
nonsignificance. The project will be conditioned to comply with all applicable provisions in
Chapters 15.10 and 19.15. The southern portion of the project is not located in or subject to
the Foothill Fire Zones Overlay District requirements.
13. Cultural Resources
13.c.
A Historical Resources Assessment (Report) of the site was prepared by Michael K. Lerch &
Associates (May 1997). The Report indicates the presence of two cultural features on the site:
1.) a rock and concrete retaining wall associated with an 1886 Queen Anne style house on an
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for TT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 18
adjacent parcel known as the Frye House (currently addressed as 2828 Palm Avenue); and, 2.)
an irrigation flume, known as the Baldridge Flume, dates from the same period.
The Frye House, located north and adjacent to the proposed subdivision, was previously
determined to be potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and
by extension, in the California Register (Donaldson, 1991). The retaining wall is considered
to be a part of the historic setting of the property and its removal could result in an adverse
impact to the integrity of the historic setting of the Frye House itself by removing an important
element of its yard and landscaping. Additionally, removal of the wall could result in soil
slumping which ultimately could damage the house itself.
Through an error either in survey of the Frye property or construction of the wall, the wall is
situated on the project site for IT No. 10302. Specifically, the wall is located at the north end
of the project site and runs parallel with the north property lines of lots 5 and 6.
The Report indicates that the Baldridge Flume is an example of a common type of water
conveyance associated with the citrus industry in the Highland area. The flume is located at the
base of the retaining wall and then extends southward through the middle of Lots 6 through 9
and 11. It crosses the proposed extension of Piedmont Drive and continues southward through
Lots 12 through 15. Because the original configuration of the flume has been destroyed over
time and the orange groves for which it provided irrigation water are also gone, the Baldridge
Flume no longer retains its integrity of setting, materials, feeling, and association. As such, the
flume is not considered to be a significant historical resource and it is no longer eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
To reduce the potential project impacts on the Frye House Retaining Wall, the project shall be
conditioned to comply with the following Mitigation Measures:
1. In order to avoid adverse impacts to the Frye House Retaining Wall, a Lot Line
Adjustment shall be made to the northern boundary of Tentative Tract No. 10302, which
will shift the boundary south to a line at least two feet further south than the Baldridge
Flume located a the base of the retaining wall. This will have the effect of providing a
small buffer area to prevent the retaining wall from being undermined and preserve the
integrity of the setting of the Frye House. It will also allow preservation of a section of
the Baldridge Flume as a reminder of the agricultural past of the project area.
2. The applicant shall consider naming the northern cul-de-sac in the tract Frye Court and
the southern cul-de-sac, Baldridge Place, as a means of preserving one aspect of local
history for the new residents of the tract.
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 19
3. In the event that stone bridge abutments in the vicinity of the Piedmont Drive crossing
of Baldridge Creek, or other unanticipated historical resources are encountered during
the course of project grading, construction work be suspended temporarily in the affected
area until a qualified historical archaeologist can evaluate and document such resources,
as necessary.
14. Mandatory Findings Of Significance (Section 15(65)
14.a. through d.
As indicated by the responses to the checklist and the proposed mitigation measures, the project
will not result in any significant impacts.
EXHIBITS: 1.
2.
3.
Site Location Map
Site PIanffentative Tract Map
Preliminary Environmental Checklist Form
City of San Bernardino
Initial Study for IT No. 10302
December 20, 1996/Revised June 12, 1997
Page 20
r ~.
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARulNO
"
Site Location Map
EXHIBIT 1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
Date 7 -/s-?.3
\.
TT No. 10302
Adopted 6-2-89
Panel No. ....E.8.
~
.. Ii ..
u ..
i z I ,A ,. ~ ;t. ~
~ 0
:z ~. ~ .
c ;: i! .. z
:z 0 ..
c
0 .
.. S itc.;
ff
l<.U
] 1
~ II
~ ~~I
;~
~ I ~;~
~ !Ii '~I
...... ~ al
~ " ~~
~ ill ~-~
~ ~ .I~
!:<.l ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~;~
~ '" I~'
~ ~I
~ dl
'I
r
EXIllBIT "2"
i
iJ
=:9
~!f.
Uf
~.
~
r
..q", ..:..
III; ~ bJ !I.
. l'.. :!II "'I
!.' ~:! if:! I ~ , i ~
ti Ii! Sid" II ,,~
...! lih 'emlt:; Ii
II ~ !it GI f~~ ill!t
~ ill b1 em MlIlI~
i I I t II
I .! Ii
Iii rll ~ II! c
it II it 1'1 9
i Itllill~1 ,l. IIi
.! I I tl i
(3
e!
I
E:J
'"
r....
,- ,
;:~:; J
~;~ ::;.:;
~~.. "- :;
c' :j ~.i
:: ~
<iz
Ih:.:~B
I.!..~...J
O~-
-:>
>-C~
1-<
G~
C
..
~
~l:!
(~
...,
~) ::;~
c..:;"- ....-
.'-,\
t
~
v
c:=.= ~
.r::::::; -
~-=; ~
:z
r'""-'1
@5
'="W
\;.'1',
I
.'.
, i...
"
. ,~~.
"1.,oi;1lt
I'
"~:r-;
II I
I I
I .
!
I
I
.
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARCr''') PLANNING AND BUILDING SE(~/ICES DEPARTMENT . .
PRELIMINARY ENVIROMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
EXlDBIT "3"
(PUBUC WCAICS PFlOJECTS SHALL INCLUDE ATTACHMENT 'A1
A. GENERAL INFORMAnON
APPLICATION NUMBER
1. ~liantlDeveloper
2. Contact person lor environmental
Wi ' ';';b"''' 'RnQ~O'Jl'6
Null
TaT'; 1''; '::ll_ ~"o, 1
.......
VeSDar DeveloDmp-n~ r.nmn~nv
Finn
1399 W. Colton Ave., Suite 5
.....IAMws
WF.~ F.nninAArinn Co.
Finn
33150 Lotus Ave.
SheIActcnu
'R~til.;:InrlR:. ("~
ClIr
Q?-=-7d
... Zip
Ynr;:ilin<=t. Ca
ClIr
92399
... Zip
793-3806 795-5049
1: . .. "--......... T..l't~._........
3. Addl_/Geneq/La +,L-loIfIIa;jlct Adjacent .to and West of. Palm .Ave,
North & South of Piedmont Drive.
.c. "~AOP'I Parcel Nunmer (I): 285- 20 1-29
S.Des r Ib..ItIe aclUaItype or buIil_ ~ = lid. PIJI/CUIIrIy any...... unique 10 Ihis type of business or
ope. atiI.t1. N / A
. --
---
-
"""'- _ I.. ~
r
r'
6. Describe hours of operation:
N' /3
7. Total antIclpated IIm1ber ot employees: 111/11
8. Total "'mberol'~yeeson site at any one time: 111/11
9. Does the business involve the sale of any food or beverages? N / A
" 10, please describe in detail: N / A.
Ves
No
10. WID any permlls be recjuired frtlm agencies other ltIan the cIly? (Including a Hazardous Materials
Disposal "Business. Plan)? x Ves No.
" 10, please ldentlly the pennits and responsllle agency: E a s t Vall e v Wa t e r D i s t ri c t
11. Do any of ItItN lnII.rtaIs or chernIcaJs require CAL OSHA Materials Safety Data Sheets?
Ves
No. If 80, plea.e ilenllfy:
12. Government Code Section 85962.5 NqUIres the PIanrIqJ DtpIrtmentto make available to appIlcaru
the IIIClIl QDNnt IiIII 01 "IdentI1td Hazardous Wale SI.. from the ltate 0Ifice of Planning and
R8HaICh.
All ",-"'I11III tIgn lht tolowlllg staIemtnt In ORIIrto deem the ~ -lion COfl1lI8t..
"I, P1 ~A / ,~ -:::><-... ..,.celtly II1alI have .....itwed the list of
"Identllild Hazardous Wale SIes.from the atate OffIce of PIInnng and ResUlCtl (OPR) and have
det.rmilld ltIat the lilt IUbjecI to this aw....''Otl1l III not on ltIat lit..
10/30/96
Name
William E. Snell. NI'-L/~ ~.6v~Date
v _
Civil Engineer
TItle
-.... -
I'IMUI '..UllF. ....1
8. PROJECT SUMMARY
(
.. .-
r
.
;
.
1. Site ArIa: -=I".,n ?~n
square IHI, 8 . 5
acres.
2. Building H.ight 2 !'ltnrv
IHt. 3. Number of Floors: 2
lqUarel.et
4. Building Anla: 39,600
5. Parking R.quired:-ii
6. Parking Provided: ~
.
spaces.
spaces.
If Off.... parfcing is proposed, please .xplain:
7. WID PRljec:l be buBl in phaSes? X. Yes No
L If yes, how many unIlsI5:IUlI1ll :HI per P/WS.? 1 1
b. Total units, square f.et? 22 , 39 , 600 SF
C. LAND USE
Subject Property:
~ .;: t..".:. ~
Vacant
E411hll.
Ptoposecs;
NcNth Residential
~ Residential
Eaa Residential
W... R~~;d~nt.i~l
D. PHYSICAL SITE
1. IndiCatemlyunlQueailtlng1Clpogl.....'lL....... Natural drainage Course along
East side of site.
2. WIIIhePfDi'Cllillld.),~nIIInI""""?EIlpIUI, The site will be graded
with some filling into drainage course along its East edge.
3. "'NiB &,....,IIIIn..a cubIc)'MIsof~lnvoIv.sinPftljTCl:
". '. . .-......
Cut.11i.non
FII. 30,000
.. MUlrrunheigtltandgradeofllllUlal~ Site is l:elatively flat Slopjmg
Southwestelly at 5 to 8 %,
.:. ~ .....
-- _alll" _,
.-
5. Maximum /leig/ll and gra/. A COnst!UCled slopes:
r
15' at 2:1
6. Melllods used 10 prevent soU erosion in project area during construction and atter development:
Sand baas. SloDe Dlantina
E. FLORA AND FAUNA
1. List types of vegetation ancUrees in project area: The Development site is barren.
See attached Bioloqy study.
2. List types ofwildlle found in projed area: See attached Biology study.
F. ARCHAEOLOGICAL I HISTOfIICAL
1. - Is there Illy known IICIlaeoIogical or IlistoricaJ IignlfICllllCe of the lie area orwilhin 112 mile from !he
Pl'POsed lie? If 10, explain: Nn
Go HUMAN SAFETY POTENTw.
1. WlDthePRljectlncrluet.dldL'IInoise~ln!heprajeclarea? ExpJu,. Slightly because
nf ;n~r~ased traffic.
2. WID the project use.lIDre or ~. 0I1IOl8nIiIIy ~dws ctlImic:aIs. malerials, toxic SUbstances,
fllmmablesor.'~""li,lS? Explain. No
3. WID the prajKIlncruse!he 8mCIUIlII of Iigt4, vItnIiIn, lUt. Uh, IrnOke or 0d01S during construction
orllfter~~ Only normal for construction.
H. FACIUTY AND SERVICE IMPACTS
1. La "'~OIIIUAIIIFirel:lt ",)rt Oranae & Hiqhland
Distance frDm projecl...:
1/2 mile
2. Lo-tw.~ 01 nUrest PolIce SIalion: 3 00 Nor t h "D " S tree t
Dilot.,IQor from Pl'ojICUII: 5 mile s
.: ... --.
-- _'llI'l ....,
,.
-
(
3. Location and namesofneareSl schools: -p;;.~~I~Ani-:!Iry ~,..nn,...' Mt"\,..~lo<.
:"I
~ID~~n San Bernardino School Distri~t.
,..~ Hiahland
on Palm Ave.
"
Dislancefromprojectslle: lcross Palm Ave at SE corner site,--
4. Locatio!'landnameofneareSlParlcs: Highaand Ave 1 mile West of site
Parls HIll Park
Distance from project sIIe: 1 mile
5. Location and name of nearest library: 100~ R. Hi Nhl ~nr1 avo
~nr1r1;nNtnn Branch
Distance from project sIIe: 2 m il e s
6. Ale sewer trunk lines available wIltIIn 200 feet of project Sill? X
Yes
No
If no. how tar?
7. Sewer ""I'"'eily rlgIlls purctlased?
Yes
No Number
8. Ale water trunk Ines available wIIhIn 200 feet CII projectlile? X
L IIITIGAnON MEASURES
(AIrach addIIionaJ IheeIs I necessary).
~c'a:.. type..a MIiclpated elleCl CII any~ praposedlD mlllgate or eliminate potenlially 1ignIf'..
Ves
No
ClIIll aclYe,. environmel1lal ~
Plant Slope banks over 3' in height
,-
...
....-
......
__ .....OJ. _
r
"'l
Ves No
",
x
..
x
x
x
x
x
I hereby certify thal the IWements lumishId IbOve Illd m the atIIChed extlIbils present the data and
informallon NqUIrecl tot this iniliaI evaluation tel the best 01 my abIIlly, Illd thal the tacts. SIaIemelllS, and
inlonnatlon preulllecl... true IIllI COITICl tel the best 01 my knowledge IIllI belief.
William E, Snell
......
0..
10/30/96
....
For: WES Engineering Co.
Ci vi! Engineer
T....
....
....--
-
....
PLMoUI __OJ' _I
EXlllBIT "7"
MITIGATION MONITORINGIREPORTING PROGRAM
TENTATIVE TRACT (TT) NO. 10302
This mitigation monitoring and compliance program has been prepared for use by the City of
San Bernardino as it implements mitigation measures for IT No. 10302 as proposed by Mr.
William C. Buster, Vespar Development Company. This Program has been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City
CEQA Guidelines.
CEQA Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a reporting and/or monitoring program for those
measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects of the
environment. The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shaJI be designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation.
The Mitigation Monitoring/Report Program (MMRP or Program) contains the following
elements:
1. The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to
ensure compliance. The program lists the mitigation measures contained within
the Initial Study.
2. A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each mandatory
mitigation action. This procedure designates who will take action, what action
will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported.
3. The Program contains a separate Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Record
for each action. On each of these record sheets, the pertinent actions and dates
will be logged, and copies of permits, correspondence or other data relevant will
be retained by the City of San Bernardino.
4. The Program is designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to
compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those
responsible for the Program. If changes are made, new monitoring compliance
procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the Program.
The individual measures and accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are
numbered in the same sequence as presented in the project Initial Study (Revised June 12, 1997).
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for
Tentative Tract No. 10302
August 18, 1997
Page 2
Mitigation Measures Identified in the Initial Study (Revised June 12, 1997).
MITIGATION MEASURE
13.c.1.
In order to avoid adverse impacts to the Frye House Retaining Wall, a Lot
Line Adjustment shall be made to the northern boundary of Tentative
Tract No. 10302, which will shift the boundary south to a line at least two
feet further south than the Baldridge Flume located a the base of the
retaining wall. This will have the effect of providing a small buffer area
to prevent the retaining wall from being undermined and preserve the
integrity of the setting of the Frye House. It will also allow preservation
of a section of the Baldridge Flume as a reminder of the agricultural past
of the project area.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) prior to or at the
time of final map recordation for TT No. 10302. The LLA project files maintained by the
Planning Division and the Public Works/Engineering Department shall serve as the compliance
record.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
WHEN REQUIRED: The written verification (on this form) by Planning Division and Public
Works/Engineering Department shall be completed during the processing of the LLA prior to
or at the time of final map recordation for TT No. 10302.
WRITI'EN VERIFICATION PREPARED BY:
DATE PREPARED:
INSPECTION NOTES PREPARED BY: N/A
DATE FILED:
FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED/COMPLETED:
Mitigation MonitoringlReporting Program for
Tentative Tract No. 10302
August 18, 1997
Page 3
MITIGATION MEASURE
13.c.2.
The applicant shall consider naming the northern cul-de-sac in the tract Frye
Court and the southern cul-de-sac, Baldridge Place, as a means of preserving one
aspect of local history for the new residents of the tract.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
The applicant shall coordinate with the Public WorkslEngineering Department during the final
map process to consider if Frye Court and Baldridge Place are appropriate street names for the
northern and southern cul-de-sacs in TT No. 10302.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
WHEN REQUIRED: The written verification (on this form) by Planning Division and Public
Works/Engineering Department shall be completed during the final map process for TT No.
10302.
WRITTEN VERIFICATION PREPARED BY:
DATE PREPARED:
INSPECTION NOTES PREPARED BY: N/A
DATE FILED:
FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED/COMPLETED:
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for
Tentative Tract No. 10302
August 18, 1997
Page 4
MITIGATION MEASURE
13.c.3.
In the event that stone bridge abutments in the vicinity of the Piedmont Drive
crossing of Baldridge Creek, or other unanticipated historical resources are
encountered during the course of project grading, construction work shall be
suspended temporarily in the affected area until a qualified historical archaeologist
can evaluate and document such resources, as necessary.
IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION
The evaluation plan for any historical resources discovered on the property shall be submitted
to the City for placement in the project file. A copy of the completed evaluation shall be
delivered to the City for placement in the project file.
COMPLIANCE RECORD
WHEN REQUIRED: The written verification (on this form) by Planning Division and Public
Works/Engineering Department shall be completed during the construction of the site. The
Development Permit ill (DPIII) for housing shall be conditioned to comply with Mitigation
Measure l3.c.3.
WRI'ITEN VERIFICATION PREPARED BY:
DATE PREPARED:
INSPECTION NOTES PREPARED BY:
DATE FILED:
FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED/COMPLETED:
08/15/1997 03:01
'3~)'j:.:~c -:a:.'~ " 1
;::.A;,.lE;_;:.:..J!:;;....;~;'=.CI~I::: l~':-
PAI3E 02
...
SUBJECI': APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENETATlVE
TRAcr No. 10302
r . <,
The residents of this community (east end west of the proposed project) have legitimlUe ~ncems regarding this
~/</... " '"
project.. The paramount concerns are increase traffic, noise, safety and loss of property ~et value, in a
,-
desil"'Rted residential area. It Was SUIIested in the signed petition filed Apri12, 1997, with appe&j'(~h~12) that
insteld of the Piedmont Drive tbro\lih. a cul-de-sac would dim;Ilish these COncerns of the residen& hi this
community. The impact report and the plannl"i iDd buildinl review address these issues of traffic. noise and
safety as a routine paper perfect exercise baed on a general plan designed 20 years ago, without any
consideration to the n:a1 concerns and needs of the people who live and invest in this community. Let's reiterate
the REAL concern of our community losing its status as a qulet, safe residential area to a high traffic, noisy and
potentially danaerous area for our elderly and yoqcst memben of our community. Residcnts on Piedmont
Drive, east of Palm Avenue have experienced a considerable increase in high speed traffic (especially on the
doWDhill stretch, before the STOP sign) and noise since the PiedmontlHighland extension was completed. If the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive is realized this condition will escalate creating a REAL danger to our
children and property. As the enclosed map indicates, with the Piedmont Drive through traffic can access from
Highland and Piedmont Drive (WaI-Mart shopping center) to Victoria Avenue (San Manuel Bingo)and visa
versa. This connection would not be just normal neighborhood traffic but high intensity surface street traffic.
The residents of this community in Ward No.4, request that . cul-de sac design be substituted and implemented
instead of the proposed Piedmont Drive through. This adjustment will maintain the integrity of our community,
save the city as well as the developer some money and will reinforce your constituents' belief that government
wow for people, the taxpayers and voters of this community.
;<~~ 7~ '4
(~.:.(., ,;J. /I/. A.~ t .......
3~J') p,......u...,.:t: A.. s..u
fl.."LL-f>..,.l H~
// -' e.N.o
4'4~- I' fj
1'/11"/9)
, .
..- _-__ ...._ L,~
..
'I!io.'WT'''Co ~"'\Cl. L..\~..
b_
M~
~j'
~llgl~7
, ).
~ -:jJ
hl&""'", .A...
.....
68/17/1997 6~:56
PAMELAJOHNSONINC
9698626291
Augmt 16, '.997
To Councilman Oberhelman.
Mayor Minor
Members of san Bernardino City Council
Regarding the Proposed Tract No. 10302
My husband and I are opposed to the extention to DiednDnt Drive from the
\Test dde of Bulderidge Cree!< thrOllgh the pro,JOsed housing tract to palm
Avenue as currentlY drawn as it will increase traffic, noise. pollution
and destroy the relatively secure and quiet estaQlished residential
neighborhood ,micll has dra'ffi and lrept families here.
Furtherr.lOre:
1. It will increase traffic on piedmont Ave. and Orange Street where
driveways and front yard~ '~1ere children are accustomed to playing. open
directly into traffic.
2. It is not necessarf for fire or disaster emergency as evidenced by
the July Hemloclc Fire as Firetrucl~s and support vehicles had access to the
mountainside via N.Palm and N. Orange and through the Indian Reservation.
Orange Street is not a mjor arterial street. If anything. the e;dsting
Darracade on riednDnt assist~~ the police with contrOlling un,mnted
traffic through the area.
3. Addressing th9 issue of safety of children attending Bonnie Oehl
Elementary SchOOl and Serrano Hiddle School; parents would allO\{ their
children to cross Balderidge if as foot bridge or alternative at end of
culdcsac '!ere =nstructed. alleviating the need for parents in Mountain
Sl.!,,;:iv.TS to drive their children to Serrano. thus ma)(ing it safer for all
c',ildrQ!l ,~'o do walk up Orange and Palm fram below Highland Avenue.
~.,ildr.:m 11ho live ,rest of Orange Street attend !lP.lvedere Elementary
School accessing it through the gate at the west :md of Pie<imont or Citrus.
Incr"ascd traffic ,{QuId also effect thoir safety_
4. If the proposed connection of. PiednDnt is part of the plan to
devclo;:> in the future the Golf course on Patton Hospital Grounds fu"ld the
plan for the San ~~nual Indian Reservation and their investors to build
a Hotel at Victoria and Highland Avenue. then I suggest that tIle PlannimJ
cOllIl1ission and the City Council do soma field'lor'c in canvassing this area,
as it will effect all of the residents in this area.
5. lis a final and moot ;x:>int, the City Development Code says that all
people effected be consulted or notified 14 days in advance of a meeting-
OUr notice Has lneter dated 8/5/97 in San Bernardino and 8/6/97 in Santa
Ana which _ans it couldn "t have nEt the city's own required time limit.
Yours truly.
- i ':;L/I/~
~ll
PAGE 61
gJJg Jq7
#-:33
08/17/1997 18'45
, 9098544538
MUMFORD
<tll~ {q7} 01
M-ttef\\\on D tf+'l Qrorti I
\( -("0 \Ao0?:,", t0~ 'b~ 0"- \0 pm ~VL+ u-'>'s, +- O~
~\m~, f\.l,,-,Hirl be \-tICjlAlOJl1d
00 i2.. ("Q(l'\ i l~ ~ rY\O{\~ 0 fn e. rs ft- f'-~
(') ~~o sed -rD f'rU0L0 I ~ ~ '\? -t ic\Jiltlrll-
~ a 11.0 --r- hf'DU~ \r1 fD ~D1 rY1 ~ ~Ih is wi ( I
+{fuJ t fT cI-~;'(:;iv--{irJ~ ew~+ on
()0R Y'\-eJ41r,~ehdClrJ ~}$iy oJ
---
bu~ tlnll&R-fn.
_ 1=f1t'reAW {tffiN"i'- 0hen ()uR.
~ i /&rtn F\- it I'D+- use "-+0
A (\'1
_ T-I\.J 0. re ASflJ t.fi Nl~ ( ~ 10- +eJ +0
-::r= n~ re AS~J TM .r:tl' t r- tJt h /!-ul
/)J'Jild Hf1 t D f/lrO<Jc;l? ;vt IqM/W
Wlf-I-~h 1--0 f-~t f c./-I/n tljJuJ
~llgl~ 1
1fY
B8/17/1997 18'45
. 9B98544538
I MUMFORD
-~c..(tASeO 1)n)~ C;A-{€S ~ 'HQijqi/~JB2
aU+- _\ '(\ ~ bdC'..-h r:t-ttfl ~ ,~tiML
';f\ ~ f' \'\ lot a\: -1;-""0"1 f I'SS /) ~ ~ -\f-,~ Las-\-
-\-'ew ,-\eQi'=> -1-::> cleueQ~ -tini s -- A rcA-~
-': h w ~Ir. l0ll \ C\ i ~ e.- l hi> '" '" tl1<'",,'1 1 n (l rd
I
OLR'
.
i
, V\ -r(j
I 1 \ I..
\:,:o+i ~}~
(ykf\ se -t f\ Kf '-j-hi S
l\{Jfhi citro {iur) :~\'\~n
tr\ ,(\ .............\ I", . C -.---.., J I' n
v I V \\:..> \~)\.d.. I,
-
',- he fllvIV,(:'off) !Jlm/ii
.--.., / 1(': lfd ';--'. R
.c J~ !'\ /Jf~ c e
2> ( 'J...:J '-' l '.v,- ..," D
1-( (tt1n lctfd \ 0 p. q i- ~YG
c\ r\ c1 . q'/,.., U_(!C' :< {'\
\ \...J V-';J 7 -.....J u ((
~11~1~1
tr3J
1---
08/15/1997 23:08
9098525291
PAMELAJDHN5DNINC
PAGE 01
SUBJECI': APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENETATIVE
TRACI' No. 10301
The residents of this community (cast and west of the proposed project) have legitimate concerns regarding this
project. The paramount CODCCIDI arc inc:tcasc traffic, noise, safety and loss of property marltet value, in a
desipated residential area. It was susgested in the signed petition filed Apri12,1997, with appeal (#97012) that
instead of the Piedmont Drive through. a cul-de-sac would diminish these CODCCnlS of the residents iIi this
community. The impact report and the plUUling lUId building review address these issues of traffic, Doise and
safety as a routine paper perfect exercise based on a general plan designed 20 years ago, without any
consideration to the real conccms and needs of the people who live and invest in this community. Let's reiterate
the REAL concern of our community losing its status as a quiet, safe residential area to a high traffic, noisy and
potentially dangerous area for our elderly and youngest members of our community. Residents on Piedmont
Drive, east of Palm Avenue have experienced a considerable increase in high speed traffic (especially on the
downhill stretch, before the STOP sign) and noise since the PiedmontlHighland extension was completed. If the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive is realized this condition will escalate creating a REAL danger to our
children and property. As the enclosed map indicates, with the Piedmont Drive through traffic can access from
Highland and Piedmont Drive (WaI-Mart shopping center) to Victoria Avenue (San Manuel Bingo)and visa
versa. This connection would not be just normal neighborhood traffic but high intensity surface street traffic.
The residents of this community in Ward No.4, request that . cul-de sac design be substituted and implemented
instead of the proposed Piedmont Drive through. This adjustment will maintain the intearity of our community,
save the city as well as the developer some money and will reinforce your constituents' belief that government
works for people, the taxpayers and voters of this community.
\(~II.HrrAI;" ~~~
JIV\)..VlN~ &".0
~ eo--t CoI..e. kv L
11(\k l~ ( VX ~~
qCfj- ~)-lo3D
ES-.",.t"'(.
e......
___ 6.......... 1.,-.
_\~ l\u.
.~
:;;.-
-"fils
-:J
;..~ .
r/;V!r7
#3,3
.hc...""'....A....
.... "'.N"~ll~ fw.-
08/15/1997 03:59
9098525291
PAMELAJDHNSDNINC
PAGE 01
SUBJECf: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENETATIVE
TRAct No. 10m
The residents of this commllllity (e8St and west of the proposed project) bavc legitimate concerns regarding this
projecL The paramOWlt concerns lIrC increase traffic, noise. safety and loss of property market value. in a
designated residentilll_. It was lIIIQested in the signed petition filed April 2. 1997. with appea1 (#97012) that
instead of the Piedmont Drive throup, a cul-de-sac would diminlch these concerns of the residents in this
commllllity. The iII1plCt report and the plaoning Ilnd building review address thcse issues of traffic, noise and
safety as a routinc paper perfect exercise: based OD a general plan designed 20 years ago, without any
consideration to the rea1 COncelDll and needs of the people who live and invest in this commllllity. Let's reiteratc
the REAL concern of our community losing its status as a quict, safe residential srea to a high traffic. noisy and
potentially dangerous _ for our elderly and YOWlgest members of our conununity. Residents on Piedmont
Drive. east of Palm Avenue bave experienced a considerable increase in high speed traffic (especilllly on the
downhill stretch, before the STOP sign) and noise since the PiedmontlHighland extension was completed. If the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive is realized this condition will escalate creating a REAL danger to our
children and property. As the enclosed map indicates, with the Piedmont Drive through traffic can access from
Highland and Piedmont Drive (Wal-Mart shopping center) to Victoris Avenue (San Manuel Bingo)and visa
VersL This connection would not be just norma1 neighborhood trsftic but high intensity surface street traffic.
The residents of this community in Ward No.4, request that a cul-de sac design be substituted and implemented
instead of the proposed Piedmont Drive throu&h. This adjustment will maintain thc integrity of our community,
save the city as well as the developer some money and will reinforce your constituents' belief that government
works for people, the taxpayers and voters of this community.
() . ~ 64
Q \SP' IJ llo<t. ,
nY' ~' 'i-t
(t \9, ~
, ~ L-
qcq ~tA
~/!..
~}~
__-.. 6~-=eN L,~
s....
14......~.......
e.i..o
a..,"T'''c'.
e_
~'l:Il\\.)&
.,~
~
04"""
'":':J
. MIc.,,~.....,A....
i/;th 1
1f33
~
08/16/1997 04:04
9098626291
PAMELAJDHNSONINC
PAGE 01
SUBJECT: APPEAL or PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENETATIVE
TRACl' No. 1030
The resideDts of this commllllity (east II1d west of the proposed project) have leaitimate conc:ems regllrlling this
project. The puamoUDt concc:ms lie increase traffic, noise, safety II1d loss of property market value, in a
desipated rcsideDtial area.. It wu sugested in the signed petition filed April 2, 1997, with appeal (mOI2) that
instead of the Piedmont Drive tbroUJb. a cul-de-sac would dimi..i~lo these CODCelDS of the residents in this
commllllity. The impact report and the pl.....i.,g and building review address these issues of tnftic, noise and
safety as a routine paper perfect exercise based on a general plan designed 20 years ago, without any
consideration to the real concems and needs of tile people who live and invest in this commllllity. Let's reiterate
the REAL COIlcerD of our community losina its status as a quiet, safe residentialllC8 to a high tnftic, noisy and
potentially dangerous IlC8 for our elderly II1d youngest members of our community. Residenb on Piedmont
Drive, east of Palm Avenue have experienced a considerable increase in high speed tnftic (especially on the
downhill stretch, before the STOP sign) and noise since the PiedmontlHisb1and extension wu completed. If the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive is realized this condition will escalate creating a REAL danger to our
children and property. As the enclosed map indicates, with the Piedmont Drive through tnftic can access from
Highland and Piedmont Drive (WaI.Mart shopping center) to Victoria Avenue (San Manuel Bingo)and visa
versa. This connection would not be just normal neighborhood traffic but high intensity surface slreet traffic.
The residents of this community in WIIld No.4, request that. cui-de sac design be substituted II1d implemented
instead of the proposed Piedmont Drive through. This adj1l51ment will maintain the integrity of our community,
save the city as well as the develaper some mcincy and win reinforce your constituents' belief that government
works for people, the taxpaycn and voters of this commllllity.
Q~f(~
~(),} M-Itr,~
?~ 1 w~~Q..
.\Wf...c.
ttoooo
___ a........ L,_
_It> L\Ue
..~
~ ..
-..
. "="j'
[J~~~A--')
1t...'UIl.......A.&
....
. ~bt/r 7
#"20
BB/15/1997 BB:21
9B9B525291
PAMELAJOHNSONINC
PAGE Bl
SUBJEcr~ APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENETATIVE
TlIAcr No. 1030J
The residents of Ibis community (eest IUId wat of the proposed project) have leptimate conccms reglllding this
projecL The pIIIIDlount CODCCl1lS lInl iDcreue traffic, noise, safety and loss of property market value, in a
desipated Jaidcntial area. It was suuested in the sigued petition filed April 2,1997, with appeal ('97012) that
instead of the Piedmont Drive tbrou&h. a cul-de-sac would diminish these concerns of the residents iiI this
community. The impact report and the pl."";IlSIU1d buildinS review address these issues of traffic, noise and
safety as a routine paper perfect exercise based on a Icncra1 plan desil/1ed 20 years ago, without any
consideration to the real concerns IUId needs of the people wbo live and invest in this community. Let's reiter8tc
the REAL CODCCID of our community losing its status as a quiet, safe residcntialllnla to a hip traffic, noisy and
JX*Dlially danScrous area for our elderly and younKest _hers of our community. Residents on Piedmont
Drive, eest of Palm Avenue have experienced a considerable increase in hip speed traffic (especially on the
downhill stretch, before the STOP sil/1) and noise since the Piedmont/Higbland extension was completed. If the
proposed extension of Piedmont Drive is realized this condition will escalate creating a REAL danger to our
children and property. As the enclosed map indicates, with the Piedmont Drive throup traffic can access from
Hisbland and Piedmont Drive (Wal-Mart shopping center) to Victoria Avenue (San Manuel Bingo)and visa
versa. This connection would not be just normal neighborhood traffic but high intensity surface street traffic.
The residents of this community in WlIId No.4, request that a cul.cJc sac design be substituted and implemented
instead of the proposed Piedmont Drive throup. This lIdjustment will maintain the integrity of our community,
save the city as well as the developer some money and will reinforce your constituents' belief that govemDlent
works for people, the taxpayers and voters of this community.
A.._
.'0..
. a.,.'.T'''t.
~
___ 6...._ .........
- ~,t> ~u.
s-
Wf'lUU&I-
e.i..o
..~
-..
:J.
M.c...........~..
-
gfti/97
jY
eS/15/1997 ee:21 ge9S525291
PAMELAJOHNSONINC
PAGE e2
.--.. .,.
-'
t!,; i ~ I / Cjr? cl ".~ -.' "" '?1~ "i;5f'!/":Nld, D/l-.
, -+.'11'1 , i I/- ~.~ur.~ ..ft;:,
, "....-~u..1Jifn ,.~jf Pt4t,.,... ~ -'~.:~.... .
. _ -hU.)1fl.. dlrYP.J.Ik.I?.f-~__
. "-~J.L€l--tt,?_~~_ ~~~ B<<.__ i .' _: .___.._._.___ _.--
n. ...~1!~ ~a~ -/l.4Jt~, -/,<7. ~ //:'
. ~~~-1Zf:.~o~~f)?:;L~~'
. _ :--~~~/~;1.~p~~~~ -1!:;Y~:d:c-- -
~ <-s;l ~Ifp 2' .. ..3~?.f- Ae.../-1" '1 f j),.. ...... :2.~.__
" jt;.If1,"1_~ ?lc;P~t'".~ ..~..
.' ,. .... .. . . 1:. . ~722
. .!Jlx .... .. st6 7 .n
-_..,-".""'~.". - "'-,.'...,,----"~ .....'"'...."."....,-.
.. _..,-,.", ..-- ""'", ."--. ,. '---'~'--"---~"" ~,_."''' ..-."" ._~- '__'"_"P_.o"",.,__." "._." '.""--"'_"', .',. _'_'__'''.'~".__ ."........, __'~_. .'___0.._' ow. _ '. _'__~,,__ ,",,,.
-. ... """-..'.-- -----.---...-..""'...-.-...,,,.-...,,...-.,.,," ."".....-.-.." .....
---
....-., ""........ .",----" '-'-,-.... -.."" -- ." """ . . '--""""".'.--
J t i /11
,,:;J
Oversized
Map Attached
to Original
Backup