HomeMy WebLinkAbout41-Planning
-
,
,
,
,
---
:.-~.'
--...... ~ . -
,. .._.,~../
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
POST OFFICE BOX 131B, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
.-..,....--
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERK
December 9, 1987
Highland Hills Gateway
John Dukes
l875 W. Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Dear Mr. Duke:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on
December 7, 1987, your appeal was granted, and the decision
of the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit 87-47
was reversed.
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47 is for the construction
of a 284 unit apartment complex located on the north side of
Highland Avenue approximately 2200 feet east of Boulder.
The Conditional Use Permit was granted subject to the
conditions and standard requirements set forth by the
Planning Department staff report enc~sed, and subject to
the following additional condition:
Prior to the commencement of development of
the project, applicant shall fund a review of
the project area by the Planning Department
for any species currently on the endangered
species list. Applicant shall take actions
to protect any such species as determined by
the Planning Department. Applicant shall
have the right to appeal the reasonableness
of such determinations to the Mayor and
Common Council.
The Council's decision
positive findings of fact.
also adopted.
of approval was based on the
A negative declaration was
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 92418.()121
PHONE 17141 384-6002/3B4-5102
~
"
"
......,
Sincerely,
~;?rz~~
'SHAUNA CLARK
City Clerk
SC:re
cc: City Administrator
Public Works/Engineer
Fire Department
Park, Recreation & Community Services
Jack Strickler
Planning
Highland Council
County Board of Supervisors
tJ { ,"._,,;....v~( ~ ~i.! ~ P'cf;'.AJn"ft-"1
"
f
/.
,
,-/
....J
~j
~19LSU'0'~
~~.
DEe 041987
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
CITY PLAi'J;'~!r.JG DF.P,~hTMENT
SAN BERrlhfliJiNO. CA
02DEC1987
Dennis A. Hartin
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, California
92261
Dear Hr. Martin:
It has come to our attention that you are proposing to work
in City Creek, Cook Canyon Creek, and their adjacent wetlands
near the city of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County,
California. The proposed project is a 224-unit apartment
development located on the north side of Highland Avenue
approximately 1,200 feet east of Boulder, city of San Bernardino
Conditional Use Permit 87-5. It appears that your project would
involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into a water of
the United States. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers has
jurisdiction over the activity under S~ction 404 of the Clean
WatEr Act. Under normal circumstances, an "individual" permit
would be required. However, your project is located above the
"headwaters" (as defined by the Corps regulatory program) and,
therefore, mll qualify for a "nationwide" permit. The following
paragraphs explain the circumstances under which either an
"individual" or "nationwide" permit would apply.
If the discharge would cause the loss or substantial adverse
modification of less than 1 acre of waters of the United States,
including wetlands, then the activity would be covered by the
nationwide permit for activities above the headwaters. As long
as the nationwide permit conditions (see enclosure) were complied
with, an individual permit would not be required.
If the discharge would involve the loss or substantial
adverse modification of I to 10 acres of waters of the United
States, including adjacent wetlands, then the nationwide permit
may not apply. Work cannot begin until the permittee is notified
by the Corps that the work may proceed under the nationwide
permit. To determine if an individual permit would be required,
the Corps must be notified of the following information:
a. Name, address, and phone number of the permittee;
b. Location of the planned work;
, ~".t
--1/ fOr W
.-
~
-
.~J
.-.',,\
...,;
:J
/"""'.
'-'
-2-
c. Brief description of the proposed work, its purpose,
and the approximate size of the waters, including
wetlands, which would be lost or substantially adversely
modified as a result of the work; and
d. Any specific information required by the nationwide
permit and any other information that the permittee
believes is appropriate.
Within 20 days of receipt of the receipt of your information, in
writing, the Corps will inform you that either an individual
permit is required or the activity may proceed under the
nationwide permit.
If the activity would involve the loss or substantial
adverse modification of 10 acres or more of waters of the United
States, including adjacent wetlands, then the activity would not
qualify for a nationwide permit, and authorization by individual
permit would be required. An individual permit application form
and an instruction booklet are enclosed for your convenience.
Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C., Sec.
1311) and Corps regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States .is unlawful unless such discharge has been specifically
authorized pursuant to Section 404 of the Act by the Secretary of
the Army through a Corps of Engineers permit. The potential
penalties for violation of this section include a maximum
criminal fine of $50,000 per day and imprisonment for up to three
years. In addition, a maximum civil penalty of $25,000 per day
of violation may be imposed (33 U.S.C. Sec. l319).
If you have any questions, please contact Larry Smith,
Regulatory Branch, at (213) 894-5606. In addition, please note
that a copy of this letter is being forwarded to the agencies on
the enclosed list. Thank you for your cooperation with our
permit program.
Sincerely,
CharI es 1'1. HoH
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
...
>
c
~ .
"-'
; Copies are being forwarded to:
f
.,
}, ~City of San Bernardino
~ ATTENTION: Edward Gundy
300 North D Street, 3rd Floor
f San Bernardino, California 92418
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
24000 Avila Road
Laguna Niguel, California 92677
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional 404 Coordinator
Federal Activi~ies Branch (P-5)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
California Department of Fish and Game
Region 5
245 West Broadway
Long Beach, California. 90802
...,;
)
".,-'
..
.,,- "
.
....',
f"' [ I I
CI"-' OF SAN BERNARDOo - REQU()T FOR COUNCIL AC JoN
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Planning
RE'C'lVAIMlli .%lffiject:
Dept:
~~~ r~ c~
i9BT t:GV 2 tl E.:,;'.! .)
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
284 unit apartment complex in
Highland Hills Specific Plan
Mayor and Council Meeting of
December 7, 1987
Date:
November 18, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On October 8, 1987, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a
Negative Declaration be adopted. Ori November 4, 1987, the Planning
Commission heard public testimony and continued the item to November 17,
1987. On November 17, 1987 the Planning Commission denied the request
for approval on a vote of 5 to 4.
Recommended motion:
To deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit 87-47,
C/? ~
Signature R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person: R, ANN SIRACUSA
Phone: 5357
Supporting data attached:
STAFF REPORT/ATTACHMENTS
Ward:
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
ill
/ '
,,,,/
,.
J
November 13, 1987
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
Highland Hills Project
~ ::wi
m
C")
m
a <
.,
"'" CJ
- I
\0 n
~
;;:;: -<
~ C'J
oJ1 m
v..> :;0
..,.,
HONORABLE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
Now that we are neighboring cities, and it is our mutual desire
to serve all of the constituents of both cities, it is time we start
working together. We are very concerned about the Highland Hills
Project which went before the Planning Commission on November 4,
1987, and will be before the City Council on December 7.
In reviewing the City's EIR for this project we have some very
serious concerns which we wish to address:
The project in many substantial ways differs from the Specific
Plan and EIR that were adopted in 1982.
The Specific Plan designated the area to be developed with
townhouses and single family residences.
Mitigation measures for flooding and fire abatement addressed
in the EIR were to be taken care of by a homeowner's association.
The project as now being reviewed is for a 1200+ unit apartment
complex on 80 acres of the 540-acre site.
Residents of the area have expressed concerns regarding the
considerable increase in traffic that will overtax local roads and
the incompatibility of these apartments to the existing residences.
We respectfully request in the spirit of municipal courtesy
that no action be taken on this project until such time as represen-
tatives fr m both Highland$San Bernardino can meet and come to an
understan ng regarding the above-listed concerns.
COUNCIL ELECT -
., }. //
I" }t:, N:J~a; Uc:-,
JIM RISSMILLER
31#-0'733
~~
CITY OF HIGHLAND
~, .: '/~.(.-': C ;
IS JOHNSON
LAURIE TULLY
JODY SCOTT
P. O. BOX 1072, HIGHLAND CA 92346
Cc '. ~\'..'{'\~:I'o.\..- L/' /
-
II
".cf
'ij~arh lit hptruisIIrs
(!!I1uutu lit &aU iltmarhiuII
r"'.,
'.,--'
,
~
--'
BARBARA CRAM RIORDAN
SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT
SYLVIA ROBLES
FIELD REPRESENT A live
.,
/
MARIE TEETERS
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
Mayor Evlyn wilcox and
Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
/ ~
/......, ::w
I - ~ rn
("")
.-. m
-, <:
~ Tl
..:J
,
~ .:,
-_..~
." -<
Ci
~ ,-
N i."
::u
w .~
November 17, 1987
Dear Mayor and Council,
You will be receiving a request from the City of Highland
council-elect members for a brief continuance of the High-
land Hills project so that the Highland Council might work
with you and your staff to mitigate some of the issues of
concern to the residents of the project's surrounding area.
I would appreciate your positive consideration of extend-
ing this courtesy to the new City.
BCR:bc
ii'
,( )
.,'j ')
'f) \'
San Bernardino County Government Centar . 3B5 North Arrowhaad Avenue' San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110 . 17141387-4855 . 17141825-4050 '1/
-
-
a
,....
~)
"'...
....)
DUKES-DUKES AND ASS~~rr_~~d~C.
:)1
1875 WEST HIGHLAND AVE. ·
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92405 · TEJ.EPHONE 714/887-6491
'Sf NOV 18 A 9 :?l:I
November 18, 1987
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
c/o City Clerk
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: CUP 87-47
Planning Commission Hearing
November 17, 1987
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
We hereby appeal the decision of the City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission on the subject of the above matter and
respectfully request that the Mayor and Common Council take the
following action.
Please set a hearing date as soon as possible to hear the
above matter and approve CUP 87-47 as submitted and recommended
by Planning Staff, with conditions as suggested.
Sincerely yours,
~k~
JD/dg
"\
<'l/
" ,'6 \\:.
"
\1 '.
\ ..
i/I
/ "
'-
--
.....J
i
nEz'n. - AMtfM. OPf,
;riff
? "
:307 Nav I 9 PH L '-l
November 13, 1987
HONORABLE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
Highland Hills Project
Now that we are neighboring cities, and it is our mutual desire
to serve all of the constituents of both cities, it is time we start
working together. We are very concerned about the Highland Hills
Project which went before the Planning Commission on November 4,
1987, and will be before the City Council on December 7.
In reviewing the City's EIR for this project we have some very
serious concerns which we wish to address:
The project in many substantial ways differs from the Specific
Plan and EIR that were adopted in 1982.
The Specific Plan designated the area to be developed with
townhouses and single family residences.
Mitigation measures for flooding and fire abatement addressed
in the EIR were to be taken care of by a homeowner's association.
The project as now being reviewed is for a 1200+ unit apartment
complex on 80 acres of the 540-acre site.
Residents of the area have expressed concerns regarding the
considerable increase in traffic that will overtax local roads and
the incompatibility of these apartments to the existing residences.
We respectfully request in the spirit of municipal courtesy
that no action be taken on this project until such time as represen-
tatives fr m both Highland~San Bernardino can meet and come to an
understan ng regarding the above-listed concerns.
:l"11 I 'L-i?---fc ,.L (, 1__
, .~ ~
LAURIE TULLY-,'
JOHNSON
L}"CZ:,~ft.
JIM RISSMILLER
CITY OF HIGHLAND
JODY SCOTT
P. O. BOX 1072, HIGHLAND CA 92346
'1suarb uf &uptruisurs
<lruuntu of ~an 1Stmarbi~'D.-ADMIN.
, "
r.....
...J
?~
BARBARA CRAM RIORDAN
SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT
,-i
u ~~. ,
::;'1 ,- 23
- -~,
SYLVIA ROBLES
FIELO REPRESENTATIVE
MARIE TEETERS
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
/
"
November 17, 1987
Mayor Evlyn Wilcox and
Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mayor and Council,
You will be receiving a request from the City of Highland
council-elect members for a brief continuance of the High-
land Hills project so that the Highland Council might work
with you and your staff to mitigate some of the issues of
concern to the residents of the project's surrounding area.
I would appreciate your positive consideration of extend-
ing this courtesy to the new City.
CRAM RIORDAN
Sup visor
T)JXrd District
BCR:bc
San Bernardino County Government Center' 385 North Arrowhead Avenue' San Bernardino. CA 92415-0110' (714) 387-4855' (7141825-4050
CloQ OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQUL.)r FOR COUNCIL AC.~N
STAFF REPORT
Subject: The appeal by the applicant of the Planning Commission
decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47.
Mayor and Council Meeting December 7, 1987
REQUEST
The applicant requests the Mayor and Council to uphold the appeal and
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47 to construct a 284 unit
apartment complex located in the PRO 2.3 zone within the Highland Hills
Specific Plan and to vary San Bernardino Municipal Code Section
19.18.190, storage facilities.
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1987, the Environmental Review Committee accepted the
initial study prepared by staff. After discussion of many
environmental concerns, it was determined all environmental impacts
could be mitigated, and the Committee recommended a Negative
Declaration be adopted for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47. The.
Initial Study was made available for public review and comment.
On November 4, 1987, the Planning Commission heard the staff report and
took public testimony. The public hearing was closed in that responses
to comments submitted during the public review period were not
available. The item was continued and staff was directed to prepare a
supplement to the original staff report to address concerns discussed
at the November 4, 1987, meeting (see supplement, Attachment C).
At the meeting of November 17, 1987, previous concerns were addressed.
Conditions were attached to the project which, in staff's opinion,
brought the project into compliance with the Specific Plan. The
Commission asked the applicant if there were questions on the
conditions. The applicant accepted all conditions attached. Following
Commission discussion, Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47 was denied on a
5-4 vote. <See Attachment B, page 4).
November 18, 1987, the applicant, Mr. John Dukes, presented a letter of
appeal to the City of San Bernardino, requesting the Mayor and Common
Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-47 subject to all
conditions (Attachment A, page 3).
Details of the project are contained in the attached staff reports,
Attachment C, page 6, dated November 17, 1987; Attachment D, page 37,
dated November 4,1987; and Initial Study <Attachment E, page 53).
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny the Conditional Use
Permit, or the Mayor and Council may uphold the appeal and approve the
II -/~-!7
I
75-0264
c
./""""'.
'-'
."
...,)
..J
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-47 APPEAL
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of December 7, 1987
Conditional Use Permit based on the attached positive Findings of Fact
and subject to conditions in the November 17, 1987, staff report.
Should the Mayor and Council deny the appeal, negative Findings of Fact
should be made.
Should the Mayor and Council uphold the appeal, additional conditions
may be imposed. If the decision is to uphold the appeal and approve
Conditional Use Permit 87-47, the Council must also adopt the Negative
Declaration recommended by the Environmental Review Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission has recommended
Permit 87-47. Therefore, the recommendation
deny Conditional Use Permit 87-47.
denied of Conditional Use
is to deny the appeal and
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Associate Planner
Prepared for: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Attachment A - Letter of Appeal
Attachment B - Statement of Offical Action
Attachment C - Supplemental to Staff Report (Dated 11/17/87)
Attachment D - Original Staff Report (Dated 11/4/87)
Attachment E - Final Initial Study
Attachment F - Related Correspondance
See Attachment F of Appeal CUP87-47, pg.128
11/20/87
clj
pc agenda/doc
appea18747
~
'8,
.....'..;.'..'"
.>c,~,..
ATTACHMENT A
/
"
," ....
.. ..
DUKES-DUKES AND ASSrw~~TE:S,~~~C.
\875 WEST HIGHLAND AVE. · SAN BERNARDINO, CALlFORN]A 9240:; . TELEPHONE 7\4/887-649\
'St NOli 18 A9 :,y
",-
November l8, 1987
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
.City Hall
c/o City Clerk
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: CUP B7-47
Planning Commission Hearing
November l7, 1987
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
. . We hereby appeal the decision of the City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission on the subject of the above matter and
respectfully request that the Mayor and Common Council take the
following action.
Please set a hearing date as soon as possible to hear the
above matter and approve CUP 87-47 as submitted and recommended
by Planning Staff, with conditions as suggested.
.Sincerely yours,
~k~
'....
JD/dg
:-:--
i :; ,!
, -.
uli
2 ] ~ t~ ~~t7
:----
", J:::-
__ '.' J
N.Q\f 1 P1C"7
:J .,0,
, ;~:7'{ _!:::~:~;;;:.;--;:.:. .,t~~':':':"_l2~';T
5;_~~ s~:::~t:.fl:~;~'~C. G,.\
:3
-
ATTACHMEN'l' D
c
I ....."'"
\. ~
City of San Bernardino
"'"",
...)
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
Applicant:
Highland Hills Gateway
ACTION
Meeting Date: November 17, 1987
Approved Adoption of Request Subject to the
Following Site Plan (Attachment A).
x
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Since the Specific Plan is over five years old and since
substantial changes to the Plan are indicated, the
proposed project no longer meets the intent of the
approved Specific Plan.
2. Since the Environmental Impact Report is over five years
old and significant changes in the Highland vicinity
have occurred, the cumulative impacts of this and other
developments have not been adequately addressed.
3. The traffic study does not support the project and
substantial land use changes have occurred in the past
five years to warrant updating such information to the
Environmental Impact Report.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Gomez, Lindseth, Nierman, Sharp, Stone
Brown, Cole, Corona, Lopez
None
None
J.l
--.'~- -........~...
~
c
City of San Bernardin~ ,:;
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
Page 2
.J
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the City of San Bernardino.
Official Action
of the Planning
f? ~1/1 ~t1caJAif
Signature .
/I-;?3cF/
Date
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Print or Type Name and Title
RAS/mkf
DOCUMENTS:PCAGENDA
PCACTION
~
~,.,
,
--
r
C!TY OF SAN
ATTACHHEN'l C
C ' C)
BERNARDINO PLANNING
..)
DEPARTMENT ""
.
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
4
11/17/9.7
4 ~
w
en
<t
o
t;
w
::>
o
w
a:
....
<t
W
cr;
<t
.
APPLICANT:
Conditional Use Permit
No. 87-47
OWNER:
AT lJAY
1875 W. Highland
San Bernardino, CA 92405
HIGHLAND HILLS PROPERTIES
222 W. Highland
San Bernardino, CA 92105
Applicant requests approval under authority of San Bernardino
Municipal Code, Section 19.18.040 (c) to establish a 284 unit
apartment development with a waiver of San Bernardino Municipal
Code, Section 19.18.190, Storage Facilities, in the PRD2.3,
Planned Residential Development 2.3 dulac, zone.
The subject site encompasses approximately 30 acres located
on the north side of Highland Avenue approximately 2000 feet
east of Boulder, Parcels 1 and 2 of PH 9166 in the Highland
Eills Specific Plan.
I PROPERTY
EXISTING
lAND USE
Subject
North
South
East
Hest
Vacant
Vacant/Foothills
Single Family Homes
Single Fa~ily Homes
City Creek and Vacant
Residence
ZONING
PRD 2,3
PRD 2,3
R-l-lOOOO
R-1-20000
PRD 2,3
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE
FLOOD HAZARD
ZONE
og YES
oNO
DlI YES
oNO
GENERAl PlAN
DESIGNATION
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
Foothill 0-3 clu/ac
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
( SEWERS
DYES)
agNO _
DYES
IKl NO
DYES OZONE A
o NO OZONE B
HIGH FIRE
HAZARD ZONE
AIRPORT NOISE / 0 YES
CRASH ZONE UNO
Gjro;;;
I ~ . _ I' APPLICABLE
z(/)
IlJ {?
:.l: Z . 0 EXEI~PT
Z-
OO
e::Z
... - I
>Il..
Z
W
t'i..-
"'.'c'lJ
~j,
K]lpOTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES NO E.I.R.
o E.I.R REOUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E. R. C.
MINUTES
oNO
SIGNIFiCANT
EFFE CTS
NOV. I ~81 REViSED JULY IV82
SK.
z
o
fi
1l..0
1l..&J
~::E
0::E
o
o
W
0::
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
fit APPROVAL
~ CONDITIONS
o DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
b
CITY OF SAN BERI\'l\RDINO PLJ.\J\JNING DEPARTMENT
CASE
LOBSERVAT~ONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
SUPPLEMENTAL TO STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1987
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-47, HIGHLAND HILLS
APPLICANT, HIGHLAND HILLS GATEWAY-JOHN DUKES
Inconsistancies and
testimony at the November
Commission included:
concerns cited during public
4, 1987, meeting of the Planning
The specific plan discussed
garden apartments" where this
apartments which will be used for
"townhouse condominiums and
proposal is fo.r townhouse
rentals.
I
I
I
The compatibility of the proposal with
uses. 'Street dedications and alignment
Orchard Avenue and Highland Avenue.
surrounding land
with regard to
i
,
Parking standards requirements and proposals. Traffic
generated, the trips generated, and the appropriateness of
the information contained in the Specific Plan.
Noise resulting from construction of the project and the
traffic generated by residents of the project.
The quality and quantity of water supply.
The adequacy of fire protection and prevention, which
includes a greenbelt area.
The 2.5 acre park site and hiking trails.
Drainage with regard to Cook Canyon Creek and the North
Fork Ditch.
Discussion of the items in detail follows.
Type of Structures-Townhouse vs. Apartments
i
f
~
A townhouse is generally a 2-3 story unit connected to a
similar unit with a common wall. Ownership is not a criteria
for meeting the definition of a townhouse, and the nature of
ownership is irrelevant. Rather, the interior'design of the
unit is an appropriate criteria. The proposal is for rental
units that are designed in townhouse style and the units are
consistant with those described in the Specific Plan. -
7
(. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PIJ\NNING DEPAfTI"Ml::NT - ~
, . . ... . . . . CASE :J
'-~OBS[ERVA1-'~OfNS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
Compatibility with Surroundinq Land Uses
The fact that the Specific..Plan was approved with
townhouses and garden apartments in the lower south portions
of the overall site deems this proposal for townhouse
apartments in the lower south portion of the site
compatibile. The proposed structures are consistant with the
Specific Plan as is the proposed density.
Parkinq
I
San Bernardino Municipal Code is unclear on which
standard to base parking requirements for apartments in the
PRO zones. . Historically the R-3 multiple residential parking
standard has been applied. However, this proposed project is
geared for upscale occupancy. It is a valid assumption that
most units will be occupied by two car families. Therefore,
it is appropriate to require additional guest parking and the
PRO townhouse/condominium standard is applied to this
project. A condition reflecting such is attached.
I
Traffic GenerqtiQrr
Page 68 of the EIR states "870 evening peak hour trips
and a total of 8,810 daily trips will result from the 1200
units proposed by the entire Specific Plan." Impact
projected from other approved projects in the vicinity is
3,800 evening peak hour trips with a total of 40,500 daily
trips. Cumulative impact from Highland Hills (1200 units)
and other projects (4500 units) totals 4,607 evening peak
hour trips and 49,310 daily trips. These figures were
evaluated in the original EIR and the mitigation measures
previously included in the Initial Study for Conditional Use
Permit 87~47 address the cumulative impacts. These
mitigation measures are included as a condition of approval.
Noise-Traffic
Noise generated by the project was brought up at the
Planning Commission Meeting of November 4, 1987. As
discussed in the Initial Study, noise generated by the
project is mitigated through building setbacks and
landscaping. Building orientation so that living areas are
constructed away from arterials was recommend~d in the EIR.
This is proposed.
8
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE
i
~- "
. OBS[ERVA1~~O~S
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
Noise-Construction~ipment
Construction noise is partially mitigated by phasing of
the project. However, noise from heavy construction equip-
ment cannot fully be mitigated and must be accepted as a
consequence of development in any urban area.
Street Dedication
Orchard Avenue is required to be widened where it meets
Highland Avenue. A portion of the property adjacent to the
east must be acquired by the County to be dedicated as right
of way. Once the property is acquired, it will be the
responsibility of the developer to improve the street. A
condition of approval reflecting such is included.
Highland Avenue will be dedicated to a right of way
width to accommodate four lanes of traffic. The curves. will
be widened affecting a change in the alignment approved by
the City Engineering Department. A condition reflecting such
is attached.
I
~
Water Supply and Quantity/Quality
The East Valley Water District can and will serve the
project with water household and Fire Department needs. The
developer will extend sewer mains along Highland Avenue to
connect the project with the City's System. Sewer capacity
rights must be purchased from the City prior to issuance of
construction permits, so no construction will begin until
sewer capacity is insured.
Fire protection_
The project meets the fire protection plan as outlined
in the Specific Plan EIR (Page 100) in the following manner:
1) 4) Streets are designed to City Standards per
Engineering Department Requirements.
I
2) 3) The project has two meaDS of ingress-egress over
Orchard Avenue and a street known as "Access Road" on the
site plan.
....
5) 6) A 200
which will have
areas from natural
foot greenbelt which will
drought resistant foilage
vegetation.
be irrigated and
separate living
)
9
-.
-
CCITY OF SAN BERi'(\RDINO PL~NINc~SEDEPARTMEN.()
o t83S E fRfV'Al"" ~O~ S
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7) not applicable
8) five to ten feet fuel breaks on both sides of private
roads shall be required as a condition of approval.
9) Final plans shall show road grades not to exceed 12
percent as a condition of approval.
10) Proposed fire hydrant locations have been approved
by the Fire Department, water pressure shall comply with City
Standards which is a minimum flow of 2,000 to 2,500 gal/min.
over a one hour period. A condition is attached reflecting
such.
11) All buildings will have class B roofs-in this
project,' tile roofs are proposed.
12) No security
however, a condition
and Fire Department
installed.
gates are shown on submitted plans,
is attached regarding a "knox-box" key
approval should security gates be
.
13) A
arrestors,
chimneys.
condition is
visible from
included
the ground
which requires
be installed
spark
on all
Recreation
Trail systems were encouraged to link the project with
the San Bernardino National Forest Service and the natural
opel'! space provided. The trail system is not shown on the
proposal, however a condition is included requiring the
hiking trails.
The Specific Plan indicates that Quimby Act fees be paid
or 2.5 acre Community Park be dedicated to the city.
The developer has elected to pay these fees. A
condition reflecting such is included.
~QIiD_ Fork_.Di tch
North Fork Ditch is an irrigation canal which traverses
\ the site north to south. An easement is provided to the
owners of the canal.
There is mention in the Specific Plan of easements which
traverse the site. The mitigation is "abandonment,
relocation, or retention of the easements." The proposal for
\.
,n
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE
L o. BS[ERVAT~O~S AGENDA ITEM
~ ... HEARING DATE
.. PAGE
r
this project is to underground the ditch and to relocate the
easement.
Cook Canyon Creek
The intent of the Specific Plan is to retain Cook Canyon
Creek in its natural state as far as possible. Provision is
made for lining the channel in areas susceptible to high
erosion such as sharp curves and steep slopes.
The natural appearance can be maintained by designing
the improvement with ungrouted rock, except in areas of high
erosion susceptibility. A condition is attached reflecting
such.
CONCLUSION
The subject site is designated for medium density
residential in the Highland Hills Specific Plan. An Initial
Study was prepared and presented to the Environmental Review
Committee and a Negative Declaration is proposed. Public
comments and review were solicited. With the request for
modification of the RV parking requirement and subject to
conditions attached, the proposed project meets code require-
ments and is consistant with the Specific Plan approved and
adopted as policy by the City.
r
I
I
I
'\.
II
-
~
(.,i:;ITY OF SAN BERN I\RDINO PLP ~NIj\~~SEDEP ARTMEN-C.;
Ol8SERVA~r~OU\]S
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47, subject to
Conditions and Standard Requirements attached; the approval
based on the positive Findings of Fact;
2) Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
I
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Sandra Paulsen
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS
I
Attachment A - General Plan/Code Consistancy
Attachment B - Findings of Fact
Attachment C - Conditions of Approval
Attachment D - Standard Requirements
Attachment E - Correspondence Received from Applicant
Attachment F - Initial Study
Attachment G - Original Staff Report
Attachment H - Location Map
clj
11/12/87
pcagenda/doc
cup87470bII
'.
I'l..
.
CITY OF SAN BER~DINO PLA~ING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
R
ATTACHMENT B
Should the
project, a
made.
Planning Commission vote to approve the proposed
positive findings for all of the following must be
Should the Commission vote to
negative finding must be made
each category.
These findings are required by Chapter
.210> to determine the project meets the
Planned Residential Development District.
deny the proposed project, a
for at least one finding in
19.18 (Subsection
objectives of the
.
19.18.210 Specific Objectives.
In addition to the determination that the plan complies with
the purposes of planned residential development, the commis-
sion shall find that the following specific objectives are
satisfied by the plan.
A. The overall Plan will be comprehensive in that the
project will provide ample parking, recreation, circu-
lation and environmental protection.
B. In relation to the scope and complexity of the
development its size will be such as to effect an
integral land planning unit and provide for adequate
open spaces, circulation, off-street parking and
pertinent development amenities in that the project
meets or exceeds all San Bernardino Municipal Code
requirements with regard to such standard~.
C. Diverse functional elements should be well integrated,
property oriented, and properly related to the
topographic and natural landscape features of the site
in that advantage is taken of flat topography by
clustering units and 57 percent of the site remains open
space.
.
D. Developments will be well related to existing and
planned land use and circulation patterns on adjoining
properties and will not constitute a disruptive element
with regard to the character of adjacent neighborhoods
in that the only existing roads to be utilized by the
project is a collector, Orchard, and an arterial,
Highland and no local roads will be affected.
l
13
-
,~
,--
(
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
9
E. The layout of structures will effect a conservation in
street and utility improvements in that units are
clustered which will require minimal disru~tion of the
natural topography.
F. The internal street systems are designed for the
efficient and safe flow of vehicles without having a
disruptive influence on the activities and functions of
the common areas and facilities in that loop roads do
not disect any proposed common areas or recreation
facilities.
(
Park and recreational areas and facilities will be
located in close proximity to all dwelling units and
easily accessible thereto as far as possible, in that
areas which cannot be occupied by habitable structures
are used for amenities and are located in areas acces-
sible to all residents of the project.
H. The various community facilities will be grouped in
places well related to the open spaces and easily
accessible to pedestrians if possible, dependant upon
harmonious design in that the best possible design of
the site, given geologic constraints are incorporated
into the proposed project.
G.
I. Architectural unity and harmony within the development
and with surrounding community will be attached as far
as possible in that the Specific Plan permits medium
density development of the site, and the units proposed
are upscale in design which is harmonious with the
upscale single family homes surrounding the Specific
Plan area.
-The secondary category of Findings relates to the approval or
denial of a conditional use permit. San Bernardino Municipal
Code 19.78.050 states:
19.78.050 Required Findings:
All conditional use permits may be granted by the Mayor and
Common Councilor Planning Commission after the required
public hearings. Before the Mayor and Common Councilor
Planning Commission may grant any request for a conditional
\.
ILl
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
.
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE 1 0
use permit, it must make a findings of fact that the evidence
presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
The proposed use conforms to the
City's General Plan Elements in
project is part of a Specific Plan
to the General Plan and designates
density development (8-14 du/ac).
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of
the area in which it is proposed to be located in that
the Specific Plan has adequately mitigated negative
impacts and is the adopted policy of the City.
1.
objectives of the
that the proposed
which is harmonious
the site for medium
That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use
is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particul
area nor to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare in that clustering of units as proposed enables
preservation of much of the natural topography and
allows construction of upscale rental units and ap-
propriate amenities while meeting safety requirements.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
and that adequate parking is provided in that Highland
Avenue will be improved to provide. access, and
circulation will be over streets improved to meet the
requirements of the City's Engineering Department.
3.
,8
5. That the granting. of .the conditi'onal use permit under
the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the city of San Bernardino in that the
imposed conditions will bring the project into com-
pliance with the Specific Plan which was subject to an
EIR and which was adopted by the City.
.
\..
I~
~ c) 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CliP ?,7 -47
.
~
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
ATTACHMENT C
1. There shall be no landclearing and/or grading until an
erosion control plan has been prepared by registered
civil engineer, forester, landscape architect, or
erosion control specialist and three copies of the
Erosion Control Plan are submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval by the East Valley
Resource Conservation District and the City of San
Bernardino Engineering Department. The plan shall
follow specifications as outlined in the Foothill
Greenbelt Program. (See specifications attached to
. these conditions and incorporated into condition number
1.)
2. Parking shall be calculated and provided as follows:
I
One covered space and one uncovered space per unit plus guest
parking at a ratio of one space per five units.
.
.
I
!
3.
4.
I
(3
'--
284 covered spaces
284 uncovered spaces
57 guest spaces
625 spaces total
Orchard Avenue shall be improved to provide an intercept
at Highland Avenue with an angle closer to 90 degree,
and the radius on the east side of Orchard shall be
increased. The final design shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department for approval. The developer
shall work with the City of Highland on property ac-
quisition for required dedications.
Highland Avenue right of way shall be increased to
accommodate four lanes of traffic. The S-curve shall be
realigned from 500 feet west of the Access Road to
Orchard Avenue to accommodate a design speed of 45 mph.
5.
sides of private roads shall be
of the fuel breaks shall be 5 feet
Fuel breaks on both
provided. The width
to 10 feet.
6.
Final grading plans shall show no road or drive aisle
grade in excess of 12 percent.
7. Water pressure shall be provided to the site to meet the
16
,
/<-
~"~
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
12
2,000 to 2,500 gallon per minute for a period of one
hour requirement of the City Fire Department.
8. If security gates are installed, a "knox-box" key shall
be provided to the Fire Department. The Fire Department
shall have final approval of any security gate system.
9. Spark arrestors, visible from ground level shall be
installed on all chimneys.
10.
Hiking trails shall be
will enable access to
and the forest areas.
provided through parcel two which
the areas of natural vegetation
A
,~
The developer shall pay Quimby Act fees in lieu
dedication. The fee shall be assessed at the
one percent of the improvement permits and shall
prior to issuance of building permits.
12. Cook Canyon Creek improvements shall be designed by a
landscape architect. The design purpose shall be to
retain as natural appearance as possible. . Grouted rock
lining will be used in areas of high erosion; ungrouted
rock shall be used elsewhere. Vegetation shall include
erosion resistant species. An assessment district shall
be formed between property owners within Highland Hills
Specific Plan area to insure maintenance of the creek
bed. This assessment district shall be formed prior to
issuance of building permits.
of park
rate of
be paid
11.
13. 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 form any claim, action or
proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The
applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any
court costs and attorney's fees which the City may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such actionn
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of
his obligation under this condition.
~31
\..
.7
ATTAC@1ENT C - CONDITION NUMBER 1
-
"
...1
SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN
.
r II erosion "ontrol plan should clearly ind.; "ate the nat.ure and ('x tent .)f
propused work and methods to control runoff, (:l~o:.~ion and :;f:d i m('nt Iflovemt:n't..
Both temporal-y and permanent measures should be :;hovm, It may be par t 01' nt.h,r
;,lans suoh as plot plans or drainago plans as long as it is clearly labelcd,
';",,0 sets for each applioation d,-awn to scale minimum si;,., of 24" -x 36"
:~inrJr project proposals (single-family dwellings. minor subdi vision of four ()j
1e1ls lots. or grading of less than 100 cubic yards) need not consul t a
i>l'of"ssioll<\l to draw up the plan. Major r'l'oposals must be prep",-ed b,' "
regi 3tered. professional oi vil engineer, and approved by the
." City.- Engineer. . It must be approvod before
c. .,er permits such as building and gradi nl', permi t.s will be isslJl'Cl.
?l~~s for major projects must include runoff calculations (for a la-year storm)
demons1;ral:.ing the adequate capacity of drainage structUl-es, Any other
,-.31cul~:':'ions l such as to determine the capacity of suli ment cnteh b;.:.~ins I 1!'1::Jt
61sCo be shown~
All Erosion Control Plans shall include the following information in writing
:"n-j/or diagram's:
CD
,
Location of the proposed site
Property lines
Details of terrain, including present contours and proposed finish
contours
Drainaee patterns - of the area ar,d proposed drainage facilities
including details of surface and subsurface drains
Delineation of areas to be cleared
Proposed construction
Det~,ls of all erosion control measures
Revegetation proposals (including cuts and fills) including plaDt
speed es
P:-op<::sed ..construction schedule (including .time of erosion control
mesures installation)
North arrou.. scale, and name and location of nearest public road
intersection
Name and address of olmer(s)
~~sessor's parcel number(s)
Name, addross, and phone number of person who prepared the plan
septi" tank location.
;::'.:>5ior. Control Plans will be reviewed to see if they adequately address Lhe
.,oncerns listed below. Plans may be altered, conditioned. or ret.urned for
. ....ior improvements. All measures shown on approved plans must be in place
~,fore final inspection and certification.
r L~r instat..)d.
d:::velopcr.
all erosion controls will be maintained by t.he landowner or
.
~
','" following requirements should be considered when designing your project and
.'I.Cj>ar in!; the Erosion Control Plan:
/8
.
ie
o
" .,
'-
.:)
:)
!"--,
V
GRADING AND LAND DISTURBANCE
Plan the location and construction of \.Iw ,ie' ~elopment to kt'ep Rrading and
landclearing to a minimum.
If the project is on steep slopes. llvojd lOa:;or grading by u".;.ng pol", step,
or other suitable foundations.
Locate access roads so that they do ""t. CI.,. .:; slop,..,; l(r".1t"I' tl.~" 30';, or
require cuts and fills greater than 5 :.",,1, ir height.
Do not grade in sensi ti vo areas such "s natlll'al drainar.ewaY3 and unstable
slopes.
Begin landolearing only after approval. of. your Er05l.<.n Control Plan.
Landclearing is. not permitted on slopes greater than 30'; or insensiti ve
areas such as water supply watersheds.
Stock pile and reapply topsoil on slope' Jess than ;>0';.
RUNOFF CONTROL
";,
If the project is located on very sandy, t>i rhly permeable soils, control
surface runoff by using. infiltration measures such ..s percolation trenches
or drywells. This praotice will ds:;i:;\; in e)""undwaler recharge and
reduction of erosion-causing runoff. Do not use these measures on steep
slopes or other geologically unstable areas, or areas of high groundwater.
If infiltration is not feasible, detain or disperse runoff so that
concentrated water leaving the site c10vs nol: 9.xcecd ,:wedevelopment levels,
Use waterbars, splash blocks. sheet dispel'sal into w..ll-vogctated areas, or
other systems that slow down and spread out concentrat.ed water.
Use nonerodible berms or swales to direct. rI>Il"ff away from vulnerable .areas
such as cut/fill slopes, cIi ffs, foundat.ions, or ret,nning walls.
If runoff must be collected and concentl'ated, convey it so that it does not
cause erosion. On steep slopes or sandy soils use nonerodible conduits
such as culverts, lined ditches, or drainage systems.
All culvert and channel outlets need adequat<< energy dissipators to prevent
erosion.
Maintain runoff rates at or below predevelopmcnt levels.
Retain runoff onsite by filtering it back into the soil whenever possible
and always where percolation rates are '2" per hour' or greater. Consider
use of percolation tren<:hes, basins, and ilr y w(,lls fOl' this purpose.
NOTE: Retention is not recommended on unst.abl c slopes or in areas where
high water tables exist.
.
If retention is not possible, detain runoff with detention basins or other
runoff collection devices and release it in a controlled fastrion, possibly
into pipes or lined ditches.
,CI
~,~
, .
I....,
...."
...)
~''-''"
~
....)
Direct released runoff flows onto established vegetation, paved areas, or
~ other adequate energy dissipators such as rock rip rap.
Keep sediment on site by filtering runoff with gravel berms, .,'''getated
filter strips, catch basins, etc. Never pile soil where it may wash jnl.o
streams or drainageways.
Use bermn or swales to di vert runoff away from sensi ti ve areas sur:h as
unstable slopes.
VEGEl'AlION
Good vegetative cover prevents erosion.
absolutely necessary.
Do not remove any more than
Stookpile topsoil for reapplication on slopes loss than 20~. This will aid
in vegetation establishment considerably.
Scr.e~ule clearing activiti€s for summer mont.hs. if poss:ihl('.
Revegetation should be in place by October 15.
Use native plants for permanent protection.
Use recommended grass/legume seed mixtures for good tempol"ary soil
protec t i on .
I.
::lome plants will require adequate pr'eparation, fertilization, water. II!lllch.
and/or maintenance to ensure establishment of a good protective cover.
:IINTER OPERATIONS (OCTOBER 15 - APRIL 15)
All work during tho rainy season requires special precautions to prevent
erosion. Disturbed soil must be protected with vegetation, mulch, or other
means after October 15.
During construction, temporary measures must be taken to retain sediment on
site such as dikes. gravel filter berms, vegetation filter strips. or other
effective means.
Install erosion control measures before winter rains (October 15 - April
15). This includes drainage structures for roads and driveways such as
waterbars, culverts. roadside ditches. "Erosion-proof" road surfacing may
be necessary.
Protect all disturbed soils with vegetation and/or mulch. Retain sediment
with dikes, gravel or vegetated filter strips, and catch basins.
Keep all culverts and drainage facilities free of silt and debris.
Kcep emergency erosion control materials such as mulch. plastic sheeting,
and sandbags onsite. Install these at the end of each day.as necessary.
o
Operations may be delayed if a high potential for erosion exists.
:lo
I _
c
'"
v
....""\
v
....,I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE
CUP 87-47
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
11/17/87
Hi
~
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
-L. CUP 87-47 shall be in effect for a period of1Zmonths from the
date of approval by the Planning Commission and/or Planning Department.
However, if no development has been initiated at the end of the12-month
time period the approval shall expire. Additional time may be approved
by the Planning Commission upon request of the applicant prior to expira-
tion of the 12-month time period. Expiration Date: November 17, 1988
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR P.R.D.
I
a. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the
tract maps. The CC & R's shall include liability insurance and methods
of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private
roads, and exterior of all buildings. The CC&R's shall also include
a statement that no radio frequency antenna shall be included within
the complex except for central antenna systems.
8
I
b. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a cor-
poration, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has
been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned
or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the
common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment
power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with
authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually
available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under
recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to
meet. changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded
CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of provisions required by
the City as conditions to approval. The developer shall submit evi-
dence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of,
the Commission prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not
apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
c. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to
such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the com-
mon areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting
membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities.
I
or
, I
d. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways,
shall be provided for in the CC&R's.
e. The CC&R's shall contain wording prohibiting the storage or parking
of trailers, boats, campers, motor homes, and similar vehicles outside
of the specified common areas. .
\..
~
SJl. fOR" · "'I
pAG'f. I OF 5(1.
....4"' '84
c
,~...,
....-,
:.;
'-'
v
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REQUIREMENTS
CASE CUP 87 -47
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
11'4
H/11/87
17
STANDARD
2.
"""Ii
,
,
,~
I
I~
i-~
I-~
1-2
~-~
~
MAY 84
PARKING:
625
a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of parking
spaces.
b. All parking and driving aisles shall be surfaced with two inches of AC
over a suitable base or equivalent as approved by the City Engineer.
Parking spaces shall be striped and have wheel stops installed at least
three feet from any building, wall, fence, property line, or walkway.
o{x~XXKeOOC~)ljf.XaoolxKS{Xl:diKoorntX~~~
XXX~~xtOIDrGOOOS~lOOeXXi:{kix!KID(~x~Xloot~xmx
XX lOXkJro{~~Rklc~XK~
. XXX~~l~~xx~Klmcxx~k~
~~IlQOO5~~)OO{x~~~ixx
XXXil(M:fIXKXN*x){~jOOH'[Xllt~]UOOtXxwootx~Rd{ID:XOC~~~
~}tl(){l!QQX~~lOOtX~lt:iI(~~XX~it:1<lK~~XX
x~X~Xwaaxlt~K~ootx<<K~~X~xX1OOtJ:!~Xxxxx
XXXIIIlOOI XXxxxxxooN;l.)xxxx~~~kxx.xx.loc
XX~ ~X
cKXX~~m-JU~IDC~sumoxxM>>KK~,{mm~R1R
XXX~~~I!iX~lJaXXiXSaSxxuootX~l@lWn~~a-
~Xxom.u~~aootkKOOCfiOOx!x~~xxX
XXX!!: '}UO>>O{Jt;~XR<<t\.~~V...m.."''''''A".4>...
XXXKllll}OW{~KXOOQ)11~~~IDtjm~~
XXX~~~tXloaX<<dct~~xxx
XXX~:I!(.[}G}t~KO<I<<XX~km&XxXMJW:~
XXX~K~~XIXXXXxxmMXXXXXX~XXXXX
xxx - X
""
All parking areas and vehicle storage areas shall be lighted during hours
of darkness for security and protection.
Recreati onal vehi cle storage areas shall be screened by at least a six-foot
high decorative wall with screened gates.
There shall be provided for each unit, within the garage or carport, or
other specifically designated area, a loft or other usable storage area
with a minimum of 150 cubic feet in addition to standard utility storage.
Traffic bumps provided on the interior private roads shall be subject to
the City Traffic Engineer's approval.
A commercial-type drive approach, as shown on Standard Drawing No. 204 or
equivalent, shall be constructed at each entrance to the development.
Location and design shall be subject to approval of the Engineering
Di vi si on.
~
S.R, FOR" A ~
PAGE 2 Of Gd Cl
c
,
,
-I
'--
-.-I
,.
CASE CUP 87-47
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1F4 .
] 1/117/27
18 ~
II...
"'l
,. 7
'.
.
...
MAY 84
8
Prior to issuance of any building permit, access rights shall be granted to
the City for the purpose of allowing access over the private drives within
the project for all necessary City vehicles including fire, police, and
refuse disposal vehicles, and any other emergency vehicles. The documents
covering this matter shall be prepared by the owner and approved by the
Planning Department.
All refuse storage areas are to be enclosed with a decorative wall.
Location, size, type and design of wall are subject to the approval of the
Planning Department and Division of Public Services Superintendent.
Energy and noise insulation shall comply with all state and local require-
ments.
9
10
LAND SCAPI NG :
Four
a. ~ copies of a master landscape plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineering Department/ ~~lU(~ for revi ew and
approval. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
I) Size, type, and location of plant material proposed.
2) I rrigation plan.
3} Such other alternate plants, materials and design concepts as may
be proposed.
4) Erosion control plans. to the Planning and Engineering Dept,
b. Tree varieties and exact locations will be determined prior to planting
by the.Oirector of the Park and Recreation Department or his/her
designee. A minimum number of one-inch ca1iper/15 gallon,
multibranched trees shall be planted within the parkway for each of the
following types of lots, as per the City's specifications:
1) Cul-de-sac lot -- one tree;
2) Interior lot -- two trees;
3) Corner lot -- three trees.
c. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual impact, sur-
faces of all cut slopes more than five feet in height and fill slopes
more than three feet in height shall be protected by planting with
grass or ground cover plants. Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical
height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced -at not to exceed ten
~
I.R_ FI,'''' A....,.
PAGE: 30FLl4fI
I _
c
.~ CITY OF SAN
STANDARD
/""
:I
c.'..""
'-' ....J
BERNARDINO
CASE
CUP 87~47
"""l
REQUIREMENTS
4
111l7/87
19 ~
lL
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
".
.....
feet on centers; or trees, spaced at not to exceed 20 feet on centers;
or a combination of shrubs and trees as cover plants. The plants
selected and planting methods used shall be suitable.for the soil and
climatic conditions of the site:
Trees 10%, 15 gallon; 40%, 5 gallon; 50%, 1 gallon.
Shrubs 20%, 5 gallon; 80%, 1 gallon.
Ground cover 100% coverage.
Four
~e copies of the landscaping plan reflecting the above requirements
and placement of st reet trees (i f requi red) sh all be submi tted for
review and approval by the ~;t;Xll1Hk!k<<~)@{l(I .
~~~ Engineering Department.
.
d. Slopes required to be planted shall be provided with an irrigation
system approved by the Park and Recreation Department.
.
eXXXJOOOOl~
XX
~
"
Jt~:lI:~U
tklot>>R~xMKIJtx~
I
r-
f..lj)-..'
t:-.';..-
"",.
f. All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion control planting
of graded slopes, shall be done in accordance with a grading plan
approved by the City Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained
prior to any grading being done.
All lots shall have a minimum area of __ square feet, a minimum depth of
feet, and a minimum width of feet, ( feet on corner lots). In
addition, each lot on a cul-de-sac or on a cmed street where the side lot
lines thereof are diverging from the front to rear of the lot, shall have a
width of not less than 60 feet measured at the building setback line as
delineated on the tract map.
Where lots occur on the bulb of the Cul-de-sac, a minimum lot depth of
feet will be permitted. If the proposed depth is less than feet, a plot
plan must be submitted to demonstrate that a buildable lot area is possible
and to justify the lesser depth.
Variable front building setback lines of at least feet and averaging
___ feet, and side street building setback lines 15 feet shall be delineated
on the final tract ,map. All garage entrances on a dedicated street shall
have a minimum setback of 18 feet.
"-
MAY a4
Perimeter walls and walls required along the rear of all double frontage lots
shall be designed and constructed to incorporate design features, such as
tree planter wells, variable setback, decorative masonry, columns, or other
such features to provide visual and physical relief along the wall face. ~
u. FOR II A'" II
PAGE. OF tClA""
STANDARD
,....
,
~
...
r.. "
,
....../
CITY
OF
SAN
.......' ....)
BERNARDINO
CUP 87-47
CASE
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
#4
11~17 /87
u
~
,
11
12
.'.'it.i,~
);/.KiiY
!
""~,
...\..'.:.,.
w)':"'
'<:~
"'"
Mt.V 84
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval of the visual or
engineering design of the proposed wall.
When graded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the slope face
shall be a part of the downhill lot. Exceptions to this requirement must
be approved by the City Engineer.
Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the City Engineer
in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to precipitation.
Compliance with all recommendations of the Geology Report shall be required
kWX~~
13
Any clubhouse, swimming pool, spa, putting green, picnic areas or other
amenities shall be installed in the manner indicated on the approved site
plan.
During construction the City Engineer may require a fence around all or a
portion of the periphery of the tract site to minimize wind and debris
damage to adjacent properties. The type of fencing shan be approved by
the City Engineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and
dust control.
.
14
15
No roof-mounted equipment shall be placed on any building unless screened
as specifically approved by the Planning Department (except for solar
collection panels).
Within 75 feet of any single-familY residential district, the maximum
height of any building shall not exceed one-story or 20 feet unless the
Commission determines that due to unusual topographical or other features,
such restrictive height is not practical.
All utility lines shall be installed underground SUbject to exceptions
approved by the Planning Department and the City Engineer.
No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to compliance with these
Standard Requirements as well as all provisions of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code.
16
17
~
8.R. FOIl" A 5
PAGE 5 OF ~J.
.
"CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO puQc WORKS/ENGR.
CASE CUP 87-47
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
'-
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE -D /4/ i}1
PAGE
r
Project Description: CUP No. 87-47: Construct 284 apartment units on north side
Highland Avenue, east of City Creek, PM 9166, Parcels 1 and 2.
Da te: 10/26/87
Page -.!.- of b
Prepared By: MWG Reviewed 8y:
Applicant: Highland Hills
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required. the
applicant 1S responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly
to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal
of 8uilding Plans.
pages
..
Drainage and Flood Control
l]L_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 Flood
Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all
necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
19 A 1 oca 1 dra i nage study wi 11 be requ i red 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.
The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance
--Rate Maps; therefore. a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued
by the City Engineer shall be required.
The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance
-Rate Maps; therefore. all building pads shall be raised above the
surrounding area as approved by the City"Engineer.
20 Comprehensive storm drain Project No.6-37..37Ais master planned in
--the vicinity of your development. This drain shall be designed
and constructed by your project.
2l
All drainage from the development
approved public drainage facility.
drainage facilities and easements
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
sha 11 be
If not
shall be
directed
feasible.
provided
to an
proper
to the
6
..
I..
a.b
)
.
rc: CITY OF SAN BERN('qDINO PUlE"...C WORKS/ENGR.
'CASE CUP 87-47
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
')
-.l.l/41]l
..2L
......
Project Description:
r.IIP No R7-47
Date: lOl?fi/f
Page ~ of pages
Grading
22 If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed. the site/plot/
-grading 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 Orawings".
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in advance.
Prepared By: ~ Reviewed By:
-23-If more than 5.000 cubic yards of
gradi ng bond wi 11 be requi red and the
in accordance with Section 7012 (cl ~f
earthwork is proposed. a
grading shall be supervised
the Uniform Building Code.
~If more than 5.000 cubic yards of
gradi ng bond wi 11 be requi red and the
in accordance with Section 7012 (cl of
earthwork is proposed. a
grading shall be supervised
the Uniform Building Code.
.
25 A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report must
be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction
report shall be incorporated in the grading plan.
26 An on-si te Improvement Pl an is requi red for thi s 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"l. The
on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer,
A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan
approval if reciprocal drainage. access. sewer, and/or parking is
proposed to cross 1 ot 1 i nes. or a lot 1 i ne adjustment sha 11 be
recorded to remove the interior lot lines.
Utilities:
-IlDesign 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.
~.'
Vif8
---2.8.Each parcel shall be
facilities so it can
providing such services
provided ~lith
be served by
in the area,
separate water and sewer
the City or the agency
;)1
i!Jft.~,__..~.~<.oLW.__
.~
-"
,
CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO PUB'dC WORKS/ENGR.
CASE CUP 87-47
· ' STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
.~
AGENDA ITEM 2
HEARING DATE .....11j4ill
PAGE ? 3
Project Description: CUP No. 87-47
Da te: 101?fi/R~
Page --l of pages
29 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.
Prepared By: ~
Rev i e\~ed By:
30 Utllity services shall be placed underground and easements
----provided as required.
:....J.L.All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the
site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in
accordance with Ordinance No. MC-601 (Subdivisions) or Resolution
No. 87-189 (Non-subdivisions).
!.
32-Existing .utilities which interfere with
- relocated at the Developer's expense
Engineer.
new construction shall be
as directed by the City
-JJ-Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to
City Standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction
Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's
Engineer and approved by the City Eng'ineer ~lill be required.
This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where
practical.
Street Improvement and Dedications:
34 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
modification, relocation of public or private facilties which
interfere with new construction, stiping, signing, pavement
marking and markers, and street name signing. All design and
construction shall be accompl ished 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 sholln on street
improvement plans except where otherwi se approved by the City
Engineer.
~
~
~R
...."
CITY OF SAN BER
DINO PU
Ie WORKS/ENGR.
CASE cnp R7-47
.
'STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
2
ll/4/R~
_ 4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
Project Description:
CUP No. 87-47
Da te: 10/26/87
Page ~ of ~ pages
35For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate
-right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from
centerline to property line and placement of the curb line
in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows:
Prepared By: MWG
Reviewed By:
street
street
(C. L.)
Street Name
Right-of-Way (Ft.)
Curb Line (Ft.)
Street "Au
Arroyo Vista Rd,
Orchard Rd.
As approved by City
25'
25'
Enqineer
20'
20'
10
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
-the following streets:
If the project is to be developed in phases, each individual
-phase shall be designed to provide maximum public safety, conven-
ience' 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:
a .
Completion of the improvement
sufficient plans beyond the
feasi bi 1 i ty of the desi gn to
Engineer.
plans for the total project or
phase boundary to veri fy the
the satisfaction of the City
b. A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments indica-
ting what improvements will be constructed with the given
phase, subject to the following:
(1) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32-foot
radius paved turnaround area,
(2) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum
28-foot paved width,
(3) Street improvements beyond the phase boundaries, as
necessary to provide secondary access,
( 4 )
Drainage facilities, such as storm drains,
earth berms, and block walls, as necessary,
the development from off-site flows,
channels,
to protect
p~
1,_--___'4
v~~~-...
Qq
,*,..
.,
,
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUB ~ C WORKS/ENGR.
CASE CUP 87-47
STANDARD REQUiREMENTS
...)
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/'61 '
25-
(
Project Description:
CUP No, 87-47
Oa te : 10/26/87
Page 1-- of pages
Prepared By: MWG
Reviewed By:
(5) A properly designed water system capable of providing
required fire flow, perhaps looping or extending beyond
the phase boundaries,
(6) Easements for any of the above and the installation of
necessary utilities, and
(7) Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map,
;.
Mapping
A Final Map based upon field survey will be required.
All street names shall be subject to approval of the Citi
-Engineer prior to Map approval. '
Improvement Completion
Street, sewer, and drainage improvement plans for
--project shall be completed, subject to the approval
Engineer, prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
I f the requi red improvements are not compl eted pri or to
recordation of the Final Map, an improvement security accompanled i
by an agreement executed by the developer and the City will be
required.
the entire
of the City
If, the requi red improvements are not compl eted pri or to record-
-ation of the Map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon
the Map stating that they will be completed upon development.
Applicable to parcel map only less than 5 lots.
~ired Engineering Permits:
36 Grading permit (if applicable),
~-
3~On-site improvements
Building and Safety)
38
construction permit (cHept buildings - see
,
{~::::-.
V
Off-Site improvements construction permit
~o
,-,
H...
"
"'_.
~
DINO PUB C WOR~~{~_~R.
CASE
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/87
CITY OF SAN BERN
CUP No. 87-47
,
Da te: 10/26/87 Prepared By: MWG Rev i ewed By:
Page ~ of ~ pages
~pplicable Engineering Fees:
Plan check fee for Final Map,
39 Plan che~k and i~spection fees for off-site improvements.
1+0 Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings; see Building and Safety).
41 Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permit required),
Traffic signal participation fee in the amount of $10.00 per
~vehicle trip based on ADT.
Total amount of fee = $
I)
Bridge improvement fee in amount of $
Drainage fee based on $
----Total fee = $
per acre.
Addi_~iona.L~jJecific Requ i rements:
~ Orchard Avenue shall be realigned and improved full width between Highland Ave.
and Arroyo Vista Road.
43 Highland Avenue will be realigned and improved by a cooperative project between
,---- the Developer, the City, and the San Bernardino County Department of Transporta-
tion and Flood Control. If this project precedes the Highland Avenue Project,
then the Developer shall be responsible for design and construction of all
temporary improvements at the intersection necessary to control drainage and
provide safe access to the site.
44
Comprehensive Storm Drain Prodect No. 6-38 is proposed to be const.ructed with th
------Highland Avenue The Developer will be required to design and
construct interim and/or permanent drainage improvements as necessary to protect
his development, provide safe access, and mitigate downstream impacts.
_~_ All conditions of approval of PM 9165 and specific Plan No. 82-1 shall be met.
prior to occupancy.
o
31
..
I,.:,)NN I SA. MART IN
P. 0, Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
(619) 568-1619
r'
"-'
DUKES-DUK~" & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~J
Community evelopers
1875 W. Highland Ave., San Bernardino, CA
(714) 887-6491
1247 Fifth Avenue, Oakland, CA 94606
(415) 839-8633
November \1, 1987
Ms. R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
City of San Bernardino
City Ha II
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Re: CUP 87-5 and CUP 87-47
Dear Ms. Siracusa,
.
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 1987 there were many
questions that were raised and many issues that were brought up principally
by the opposition to the above two projects. The proximity of the project
and the fact that they are both within the Highland Hills Specific Plan have
linked the two appl ications together and we are therefor responding to the
issues jointly.
Many
They are:
1.
of the items were addressed at the Planning Commission Meeting.
Bob Johnson of the Soils Consulting firm of CHJ Materials Laboratory
addressed the issues and provided testimony regarding liquifaction,
geological faults and the alledged artesian flows.
2. Roger Hargrave, Public Works Director for the City of San Bernardino
addressed mitigation measures for Highland Avenue realignment and
traffic and the concerns of the residents of the area about the
traffic problems existing now and the effect of the mitigation
measures including the intersection of Highland and Orchard.
3. Joe Bonadiman, C.E, of Bonadiman Associates addressed the mitigation
measures to protect the projects from flooding from both City Creek
and Cook Creek.
4. Larry Rowe, General Manger of the East Valley Water District
addressed the adequacy of water, domestic and fire flow, and the
relocation of the North Fork Ditch.
We are addressing below the comments and items requiring clarification on
the other issues;
()
30\
~~h.d.__~
...
.
.
t~
'<..':.1
~u....""
'~, ./
November 11, 1987
Ms. Siracusa, Director
Page 2
,,-,/
,
,
of P '",..." i ng
"The area is a high fire hazard area and will create major problems if
developed"
Highland Hi lis Properties is located within the "high fi re hazard" area,
With the Highland Hills properties vacant, heavy brush grows abundantly to
the edge of existing adjoining development. The development of the projects
proposed under CUP 87-5 and 87-47 will mitigate this hazard for the following
reasons:
1.
within the projects are
2.
3.
4.
The open space and recreational areas
less than 50% of the land area.
The open space is planted and irrigated.
The bui ldings themselves are separated by at least 30 feet.
In compliance with Fire Department requests, many buildings
have automatic fire sprinkling systems.
The street design not only allows for emergency escape routes
but also provides access into the foothills for emergency
vehicles and with fire flow water throughout the projects.
5.
"The Density is too high and does not conform to the Specific Plan"
The adopted Highland Hills Specific Plan proposed a residential development
not to exceed 1200 units. The Specific Plan states as follows:
"The General Plan for the area allows densities up to 3 units per
acre, which would permit a total of 1623 units on the property.
However, standards for foothill development require that densities
be calculated based on the percentage slopes of a particular site.
Using the latter method, 1307 units would be permitted."
The Specific Plan does allow for the construction of garden apartments in the
lower flatter portions of the site, In this area it suggests densities of 11-14
units per acre, The combined number of units in the two projects totals 508
units in 43.99 acres or a density of 11.5 units per acre.
"H i gh 1 and Avenue is a major t raff i c prob I em and does not conform to the Speci f i c
Plan"
The Highland Hills Specific Plan does recognize the existing inadequacy of
Highland Avenue to carry the present and future traffic. In order to mitigate
this deficiency it states on page 30 "The main access to the site is along
Highland Avenue, which is recommended to be re-aligned and widened to improve
sight distances and increase capacity." The Public Works Department of the City
is requiring that the right-of-way be increased in order to both decrease the
radius of the curves extending the line of sight to an acceptable distance and
also increasing the roadbed to four lanes allowing for a total curb separation of
64 feel. With these improvements coupled with those of Caltrans; Highland Avenue
will be four laned from Boulder Avenue to Church Avenue in addition to a new
clover leaf at the interchange of Highland Avenue and Boulder and a new four
laned bridge across City Creek.
?>3
.
d9
c
J
"'~,
.....,)
November II, 1987
Ms. R, Ann Siracusa,
Page 3
f'.....
"-'
Director of Planning
"What is the type of financing for these projects"
The two projects will be financed throu9h the County of San Bernardino
Multifamily Rental Housing Bond Issue of 1985/Highland Hills Apartments Series
A in the amount of $29 million. The City of San Bernardino entered into a
"Cooperative Agreement between the Housing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino and the City of San Bernardino" wherein the City expressed its
'willingness to cooperate with the Authority in the implementation of the program
within the City of San Bernardino. In the agreement the City represents that
the program and program site do comply with the Land Use and Housing element
of the General Plan and is in conformance with the Planning and Zoning law,
It further provides that the City will receive 1% ($290,000) as a fee for bond
issuance. The City does not have a financial loss if the project is not
completed. Further, this is not a HUD project, and there is no rental subsidy
involved.
"Recreation"
Section
recreat ion.
3,6.3 of the Highland Hills Specific Plan addresses the issue of
Under section (c), Mitigation Measures, the following is quoted:
"Provisions of extensive on-site recreation amenities as well as permanent
open space mitigates demand for recreation amenities..... ,In I ieu of Quimby Act
Fees the developer could dedicate aS,a neighborhood park the designated 2.3 acre
park site which is, located below Highland Avenue on the Specific Plan."
In subsequent discussions with the City Parks and Recreation Department the
recommendation was made by this Department to the Mayor and Council neither to
accept the park nor waive the park fees. This recommendation was formalized in
the subsequent approval by the Mayor and Council of Parcel Map No. 9166. I
quote the following from the hearing on this matter designated under Observations
as Item 6.
"The Highland Hi lIs Specific Plan denotes that parcels one, two, and three
are designated for medium dcnsity residential at a density of 8-14 units per
net acre. Parcel number four is designatcd as being of commercial land uses.
On the southern portion of lot line number one is a 2.5 acre site. Comments
reviewed from the Parks and Recreation Department state that "park" as designated
on the parcel map should not be considered city park, rather an an open green
belt. This green belt "park" designation will not relieve the developer of paying
for park construction fees..,.".
'~raffic Signalization:
You expressed the concern at the ERC meeting that it was not clear how and
when the developer will participate in any future signalization, In Section 3.2,8
f} of the Specific Plan it states: "The future traffic volumes on the roadway network
'2u.
l' '"
.......
".,
.
November 11, 1987
Ms. R. Ann Siracusa,
Page 4
\....;
.......,,'
~...I
Director of Planning
summarized in the previous sections illustrate roadway improvements that are
necessary by 1995. These improvements were developed to minimize the impact
that the proposed development would have on the roadway circulation system as
well as accomodate future non-project traffic flows. The project applicant
would not necessarily be financially responsible for all of the following
improvements. The City of San Bernardino will have to determine who will be
responsible for making these improvements". As a condition to the adoption
of Specific Plan No. 82-1 and change of zone No. 82-22 the Mayor and Council
acted on this item by providing as a condition for approval item 15 g which
provides as follows:
"The requi red traffic signal at the intersection of the main entrance to
the site with Highland Avenue shall be constructed as an improvement requirement
of the Tract Map conta i n i ng the 705th un it."
and item 15 h
"The required traffic signal at the intersection of the secondary entrance
to the site with Highland Avenue shall be constructed as an improvement
requirement of the Tract Map containing the 817th unit."
,G
"The Empire Economics report states there is excess multi-family housing in San
Bernardino"
Public input at the Planning Commission meeting of November 4th, 1987
cited the Empire Economics study dated September 24th, 1987 entitled "San
Bernardino City's Optional Housing Product Mix" as concluding that additional
multi-family housing in both the City of San Bernardino and the East Valley
Market Region is not warranted, This conclusIon is neIther accurate nor factual;
indeed the report suggests the very opposIte conclusion. The up-scale apartment
units as proposed in both of the projects under consideration do not have their
equal at this time in the City of San Bernardino. There are no other projects
of equal quality that either of these two can be compared too. The proposed
market rents of the two projects range from a low of $565.00 per month to over
$950.00 per month. Even discounting this factor of no comparability, the
Empire Economics Report makes the following observations:
I. The rental distribution in the City of San Bernardino (1986) is
primarily in the moderate rental schedule of $374 per month rent
or less, Only 2.6% of the market share is above $600.00 per month,
(Page 8)
2, These is a sufficient supply of apartment units to fulfill the market
demand through 1988. From 1989 on there is a shortage of rental
units. (Page 23) It is anticipated that these two projects will
be available in the market place in latel988 or early 1989.
0,'
\.;;:,,~',
":(~
c
.
.
,rfiA,."i -
~
Novembe r 11, 1987
Ms. R. Ann Siracusa,
Page 5
1""""'-
V
-.../
.-......,,)
Director of Planning
There were several other comments such as the greenbelt in latter stages
of the Specific Plan; the loop road; the bridge on Highland Avenue and other
items which were not relevant to the above two CUP applications. We have not
attempted to address these issues.
I feel we have addressed all concerns and issues relevant to the above
applications.
If further information is needed or desirable, please contact either of
the undersigned and we shall continue to cooperate as we have to this point
so all relevant issues are properly addressed.
Very truly yours,
HIGHLAND HILLS GATEWAY, LTD.
'E"IS A. ",:TI' ~
L)~~~/J;~~
Dennis A, Martin
B~ Llk
ohn Dukes
Genera I Partner
~L
f'"'
'-CITY
.
OF
SAN
/",
BERNARDINO
ATTACHMENT D
c "\
j
DEPARTMENT"'
...
PLANNING
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
2
11/4/87
4
~
10..
I1J
(f)
oct
o
tQ
L&J
::)
OJ
lA.l
a::
.....
oct
I1J
0::
oct
.
,
APPLICANT: Highland Hills Gateway
1875 W. Highland
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Condi tional Use Permit 87-47 OWNER: Highland Hills Properties
222 W. Highland
San Bernardino, CA 92105
Applicant requests approval under authority of San Bernardino
Municipal Code, Section 19.18.040 (c) to establish a 284 unit
apartment development with a waiver of San Bernardino Municipal
Code, Section 19.18.190, Storage Facilities, in thePRD2.3,
Planned Residential Development, 2.3 du/ac. zone.
The subject site encompasses approximately 30 acres located
on the north side of Highland Avenue approximately 2000 feet
east of Boulder, Parcels 1 and 2 of PM 9166 in the Highland
Hills Specific Plan.
EXISTING
LAND USE
Vacant
Vacant/Foothills
Single family homes
Single family homes
City Creek and Vacant
Residence
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
West
ZONING
PRG 2.3
PRO 2.3
R-1--1DDOO
R-1-2DDDD
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
Foothill 0-3 au/ac
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC IZI YES FLOOD HAZARD 5ll YES 0Z0NE A ( DYES )
HAZARD ZONE ONO ZONE ONO OZONE B SEWERS DlNO
HIGH FIRE IXlYES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE ONO CRASH ZONE IXl NO PROJECT AREA [Xl NO
iG1 o NOT IXl POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
i!~ I APPLICABLE E FFE CTS 0
WITH MITIGATING !cc 0 CONDITIONS
lz MEASURES NO E.I.R,
, , I.Ll (f) ILO
: :IS (!) o EXEMPT o EI.R. REOUIRED BUT NO 0 DENIAL
I ZZ ILffi
100 SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS ~:E
WITH MITIGATING IXl CONTINUANCE TO
0} a:Z .",.", ~ (/):E
I>ii: 0 1l/17/B7
ONO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
I~ SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E,R. C, L&J
EFFE CTS MINUTES 0::
NOV. 1981 REVISED JULY 1982
SKY ?/1
PRO 2.3
Foothill 0-3 du/ac
-
-
~ '-,
'. - ::\ "
~-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEP ARTMENT-
CASE CUP 87-47
.
OBSERVATIONS
2
11/4/87
2
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1, Request
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use
Permit under authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code,
Section 19.18,040 (c) to establish a 284 unit apartment
complex with a modification by the Planning Commission
of San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.18.190,
Storage Facilities pertaining to recreational vehicle
storage, This modification is permitted by code, and no
variance is necessary.
I
The proposed complex includes 49 two-story structures
which contain four to six units each. The units are
one, two, and three bedrooms. Five hundred eighty (580)
parking spaces are proposed on-site, one covered and one
uncovered per unit plus twelve (12) guest parking
spaces. Amenities include two tennis courts, two
swimming pools, jacuzzi, and community building. Access
to the site is north off Highland Avenue on Orchard
Avenue and on a proposed access street.
;.
2. Site Location
The subject property, Parcels 1 and 2 of PM 9166, totals
approximately 30 acres. Parcell is located on the
north side of Highland Avenue, approximately 2000 feet
east of Boulder Avenue. Parcel 2 is located north of
Parcell. The site lies within the Highland Hills
Specific Plan. (See attachment "F" location map)
3.
MUDj~1P~~ cOQ~_~nd-Qener~~_Plan Conformance
The proposed project, with the requested modification is
consistant with San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.18,
Planned Residential Development with regard to setbacks,
,structural constraints, open space, amenities, parking
and access. The proposed is in conformance with the
Greenbelt Ordinance dealing with foothill development,
The General Plan, which designates the site Foothill
Development 0-3 dulac, encourages density transfers in
an effort to cluster housing and maintain and preserve
open space where possible. The Highland Hills Specific
Plan allows for density transfers and designates these
two _ parcels as medium density, 8-14 du/acre. (See
attachment "A") ,
.
\.
39
.,.
-
-
.\
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CllP 87-47
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM ?
HEARING DATE 11/4~R7
PAGE
4. CEOA Statu2
This item
at their
discussed
was before the Environmental Review Committee
meeting October 8, 1987. Several items were
including:
increased noise along Highland Avenue
traffic hazard possibilities
flood hazard potential
service facilities with regard to police
service
geologic hazards including the San Andreas
Fault and liquefaction potential
grading and drainage
any cummulative affects on the environment of
this and other projects in the area.
lO
These items and proposed mitigation measures are discus-
sed in an initial study prepared by staff. Based on the
initial study, the Environmental Review Co~aillee
proposed a Negative Declaration be adopted for CUP 87-47
(Attachment "D")
5.
Backqroung
On October 26, 1982, the San Bernardino Planning Commis-
sion recommended approval and adoption by ordinance of
Specific Plan 82-1 (Highland Hills), Change of Zone 82-
22 changing the area from 0, Open Space, zoning to PRO
2.3, Planned Residential Development 2.3 dwelling units
per acre, and adoption and Certification of the Fin,al,
Environmental Impact Report, subject to conditions and
findings of fact. The items were placed on the Council
meeting agenda of December 6, 1982.
On December ,6, 1982, a motion was made at the Council
meeting that the recommendation of the Planning
Commission be modified pertaining to the conditions of
approval. That motion carried on a vote of five to none
in favor, with two council members abstaining,
G
On May 15, 1985, Parcel Map 9166 was approved by the
Planning Commission based on Findings of Fact and
subject to Conditions, one of those conditions being
development of single family homes in the first phase,
which was consistant with the Specific Plan.
~
~
-
-
-
r(~CITY OF SAN BERNO:iDINO PLAJNING DEPARTMENT:)
CASE CUP R7-47
OBSERVATIONS
2
11/4/87
4
.
,
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
The applicant of Parcel Map 9166 appealed that condition
on May 31, 1985. At the Council Hearing on the appeal,
June 19, 1985, it was determined that the appeal of the
condition was inappropriate, and the Planning Director
and City Attorney were directed by Council to amend the
Specific Plan with regard to Phasing of Development.
,e
On July 1, 1985, Resolution 85-236 was adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council, This resolution states
Specific Plan 82-1 was adopted December 6, 1982 and was
further amended to allow multiple family development to
proceed during the initial stage of Highland Hills
rather than single family development proceeding first,
On July 20, 1987, this application for Conditional Use
Permit 87-47 to construct 284 apartments on Parcels 1
and 2 of Parcel Map 9166 was received by the Planning
Department. Specific environmental issues relative to
this project were discussed at the Environmental Review
Committee meeting October 8, 1987.
bnalvsis
6.
The purposes of the PRD district are to promote resi-
dential amenities beyond those expected in a conven-
tional residential development, to achieve greater
flexibility in design, to encourage well-planned neigh-
borhoods through creative and imaginative planning as a
unit, to provide for appropriate use of land which is
sufficiently unique to its physical characteristics or
other circumstances to warrant special methods of
development, to reduce development problems in hillside
areas and to preserve areas of natural scenic .beauty
through the encouragement of integrated planning and
design and unified control of development.
There are eight different unit types. The breakdown is
as follows:
Unit Type Area li in ~1in . area
eGq.ft.) Project reg. by code
A 1 bdrm Flat 728 38 550
B 2 bdrm flat 984 38 650
bdrm flat "
C 2 996 80 650
E 2 bdrm flat 92D 18 6'50
F 2 bedroom townhs'. 1197 48 650
G 3 bedroom flat 1233 16 900
~
.
0;
I.
.
-
~ ~
CITY OF SAN BERN~DINO PLA)(NING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
'.
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/87
';
H
K
3 bedroom twnhs.
3 bedroom twnhs.
900 '
900
1450
1356
36
10
All floor areas proposed exceed minimum
code. All units have decks, patios or
most units contain a fireplace. Most
garage.
requirements of
balconies, and
units have a
The elevations show a stucco exterior with tile roofs,
The townhouse units are designed to staircase into the
hillside. No building exceeds the maximum height
permitted when taken from the average grade at ground
level.
All structures
as required by
hazard areas.
maintain a minimum of 30 feet separation
the Greenbelt Study, Zone B for high fire
The overall density of
35% less than that which
most restrictive multiple
3000.
the development (9.5 du/ac) is
would be permitted under the
family residential zone, R-3-
Open space provided includes 8.2 acres left in natural
vegetation and 8.9 acres in common, usable open space
for a total open space acreage of 17.1 acres or 57
percent of the site.
Amenities include two swimming pools, two tennis courts,
a jacuzzi, and a clubhouse. One pool is located at the
south boundry of Parcel 2. Parcel 2 contains 96 units
on 13.6 acres. The remaining amenities are located
adjacent to Highland Avenue in the Southwest corner of
Parcell. Parcell contains 188 units on 16.2 acres.
The hiking and biking trails required by the specific
plan were deleted from this proposal,
I
i
Both parcel proposals provide internal loop circulation
over 28 feet wide drive aisles. These loops lead from
dedicated roads to garages and open parking spaces. A
total of 580 parking spaces are proposed. Parcell will
have 188 covered and 188 uncovered spaces. On Parcel 2,
204 parking spaces are provided, 96 of which are covered
and 105 uncovered, 28 of which are parallel parking
spaces adjacent to Cook Canyon Creek. Code requires one
open and 9ne covered space per unit, 14 pandicap spaces
are proposed.
Jl.1
.,
!.
j
I
!
I
~I
~
-
CITY OF SAN BERN
RDINO PLA~NING DEPARTMENT'~
CASE CUP 87-47
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/87
6
Parking requirements in the PRO section of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code are as follows:
19.18.140 Off-street parking
There shall be a minimum
ed off-street parking
additional guest parking
of one covered and one uncover-
stall per dwelling unit with
provided,
However, San Bernardino Municipal Code states in Section
19.56.030:
Parking Requirements Required
parking spaces - Residential:
minimum number of
B.
Condominium/Townhouse planned residential
development two spaces per unit, one of which
is covered. In addition, guest parking shall
be provided at a ratio of one space for every
five units.
O. Apartment each dwelling unit shall be
provided with not less than the following
number of parking spaces, at least one of
which shall be covered or enclosed: units
with one or less bedrooms, one and one~half
spaces; units with two bedrooms, two spaces;
units with three or more bedrooms, two and
one-half spaces.
This standard, (0), was designed to
pahking.. In a te;ephone survey to other
this apartment ratjo is typical and
requirements.
include guest
jurisdictions,
includes guest
Therefore, an interpretation by the Planning Commission
must be made to. d,etermine by which stan.dard this projec,t,
is evaluated. Under PRO standards, 568 spaces plus
guest parking must be provided. Under
Condominium/Townhouse PRD standards, 625 spaces must be
provided. Under apartment standards, 580 spaces must be
provided.
The proposal is for 580 spaces. This meets or exceeds
both PRO and apartment standards. It does not. -meet
Condominium/Townhouse PRO standards.
4/;).
-C'
~
.~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
1- ....
, '
.,
,
.
OBSERVATIONS
,
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
1l/4/87
7
The foothill terrain contained in the Highland Hills
Specific Plan lends itself well to density transfer and
as little interruption of natural topography and drain-
age as possible. Proposed grading of the entire 30
acres consists of approximately 96,000 cubic yards cut,
86,000 cubic yards fill and 10,000 cubic yard export.
The Engineering Department (statement at the 10/8/87
Environmental Review Committee meeting by Mike Grubbs)
indicates all drainage and grading can be accomplished
through sound engineering practice and design.
The Specific Plan EIR Section 3.1.4 (c)2 states Cook
Canyon Creek will be retained in its natural drainage
course. The Master Flood Control Plan adopted by the
City in 1979 requires the Channel to be hard surfaced.
18
Grades throughout the circulation system as shown on
preliminary plans, range from 1% on Parcel 1 to a 25%
grade on the northernmost access driveway to Parcel 2.
In a letter from the developer dated 10/19/87 it is
indicated all streets and driveways not to exceed 14% on
final grading plans.
Existing land use east and south of the subject site is
upscale single family homes on large lots. North and
Northeast of the proposed conditional use permit is area
within the Highland Hills specific plan designated for
additional single family homes. West of Parcell is
Parcel 3 of PM 9166. A proposal for 224 multiple family
units on this parcel has been received by the Planning
Department. (Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5.)
I
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.18.190 states
there shall be a common area for recreational vehicle
parking at a ratio of 1 space per 10 units. It is
further stated that the Planning Commission may modify
the requirement. The applicant reque~ts the Commission
delete the requirement. This request was formally made
as a waiver, stating apartment dwellers generally do not
require RV parking, and the intent of the proposed plan
is to maximize open space and minimize asphalted areas.
However, since code permits mOdifi-cation by tne
Commission, a formal waiver request with variance
findings is not necessary.
.
"
lJ.~
'" CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO PL~NING DEPARTMEN"
CASE CUP 87-41
.
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
;I
11/4/87
R
,
7. Comments Received (Attachment E)
The Planning Department has received comments from the
San Bernardino County Planning Department, tDe County
Flood Control Agency, Cynthia Ludvigsen an attorney
representing homeowners in the area, and CalTrans.
Those comments are summarized below. The public comment
period extends to October 28, ,1987: therefore, this
section of the staff report will be amended to include
responses to comments received after October 20, 1987.
Comments received in time for distribution are attached
but responses may not be complete.
A.
pan Ber!1~I9"i!19_ ~9!l!1!:y_P19!!I!inq (Attachment E)
18
Concern was expressed regarding water availability,
erosion, flooding, traffic, noise, fire hazard,
Foothill overlay compatibil i ty, the "substant ial
departure from the present densities being develop-
ed surrounding the site", wildlife habitat and
seismic activity. Additional environmental review
was requested, and it was recommended the Highland
MAC (Municipal Advisory Committee) receive and
review the application.
In response to these concerns, staff offers the
following:
1. East Valley Water District can and will
provide water for domestic and fire protection
needs. (Letter dated October 13, 1987,
Attachment "E", Comments and Responses);
2.
A detailed
review and
grading as
erosion plan will be submitted for
approval prior to landclearingor
required by Foothill Development;
3. Flood Control Commentp (Attachment "E"Com
ments and Responses) address flood control
measures,' plans necessary 'for review and
inadequacies on existing plans;
4. Traffic and noise are discussed in the initial
study (Attachment "D");
5.
Fire hazard is mitigated through compliance
with Foothill Development standards;c
(it
"6.
Departure from pr~sent'densities, is addressed"
in the Highland Hills Specific Plan;
\.
IfJI
',"'CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO PL~NING DEPARTMENT
CASE cnp S 7 ~I 7
.
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/87
9
,.
7. Wildlife habitat will be eliminated on the 22
acres proposed for this development;
8. Seismic activity is mitigated through compli
ance with Alquist-Priolo requirements;
9. The Highland ~~C is a part of the general
public which had legal advertisement of the
project and any members of the committee
within 500 feet of the project will receive a
Notice of Public Hearing,
B. rhg_fJQod, ~9Ptfol_bgencv (Attachment E-2)
The following items were expressed as concern
regarding Flood Control Plans:
.
l.
2.
Box culvert calculations inadequate;
Bulking and freeboard incorrectly calculated;
3. Access road widths must be 20 feet or Cook
Canyon Creek must be concrete lined;
4. Cook Canyon Creek bulking calculations are
incorrect;
5. Stream velocity at curves is incorrect;
6. No Drainage Easement for the City of San
Bernardino has been recorded with regard to
,Cook Canyon Creek;-
7. A 25 foot building setback must be maintained
or Cook Canyon Creek must be concrete lined;
8. . 100 foot building setback from City 'Creek is
required. '
I",
~j
In response, the City Engineer in a memo dated
October 13, 1987, (see Attachment E-5) made the
following comments with regard to drainage,
l
1./.5
.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/'61
10
"b) COQ~_Cany9P_~~~~~_Jmp~9vements
Design of Cook Canyon Creek Improvements is
currently underway by the developer's Engi-
neer. City Engineering is Plan Checking the
, design. 'The design will' have ~to be approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
construction permits."
Until all issues regarding the inadequacy of
calculations and resolving the concern of concrete
lining for Cook Canyon Creek, the City will not
approve the Channel Improvement Plans.
C. ~Y!l!:bia !>!JgYlgp~!l.L~HQJ!l~y_gpgsep!:).pg.hom~owners
)'!l-!:he area (Attachment E-3).
.
In Ms. Ludvigsen's letter dated October 7, 1987,
the following items are addressed:
1.
Failure to comply
Specific Plan in
liquefaction.
with the Highland Hills
recommendations regarding
2. Verification that the project includes proper
seismic fault setbacks.
I.
3.
Lack of geotechnical investigation to deter-
mine the stability of earth-fill dams.
4.
Design of water storage tanks to withstand
seismic activity.
5, Location of a new debris basin.
'6. "Hard surface 'of Cook Canyon Creek and the lOBS
of reparian habitat in that the Environmental
Impact Report states Cook Canyon Creek is
retained in its natural state thus preserving
many full grown trees.
7.
Environmental conclusions are no longer valid
because the measures currently proposed are
not consistant with the Specific Plan.
.
4b
CCITY OF SAN BERf\(.~DINO PLA)NING DEPARTMENT:)
CASE CUP87-47
OBSERVATIONS
2
11/4/87
11
.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8. Absence of a bridge over City Creek as
required by the Specific Plan.
9. Failure of the project developers to address
the concerns of County Flood Control.
The proposed realignment
and the deletion of a
parcel.
11. The extension of Orchard Avenue as required by
the Specific Plan to enable placement of a
storm drain and catch basin system.
of Highland Avenue
2.5 acre park side
10.
12. Addition of the eliminated 2.5 acre park to
the development to increase density.
13.
The specific plan
will be for sale only
rental units.
states residential units
and the proposed is for
.
14. The disruptive element with regard to the
character of the adjacent neighborhood.
15. The nature of fiscal impact differences from
the single family homes and townhouses
evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR and the
fiscal impact of bond financed apartments and
the effect on Public Revenue, Property Tax
Revenue and Retail Sales Tax Revenue.
I
I
, ~ . -
16. The conclusion in the Specific Plan ErR that
the proposed project of owner occupied units
would generate more revenue than it would cost
the city to provide public services is invalid
for apartment projects.
17. The snpstant,ial .deviation from t,heSpecifj.c
,Plan necessitates amendrnentof the original
EIR.
.~
18. The proposed project vio13tes consistency
requirements of State Law. (Sections 65450,
et seg) local ordinance Chapter 19.79 and the
California Environmental Quality Act.
In responding
following:
to
the concerns staff offers the
'-11
.cITY OF SAN BERN~DINO PLA~ING DEPARTMENT'
CASE CIlP R7-47
.
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2-
11/4/'61
1Z
1&2. Dr. Floyd Williams, City Geologist, reviewed
all the submitted geologic studies (contained
in the Initial Study, Attachment D) and
concluded liquefaction concerns can be
addressed through foundation design and the 50
ft. habitable structural setback from the main
south branch of the San Andreas fault is
adequate.
3.
In a memo from the City Engineering Department
dated 10/13/87, (Attachment E-S) it is stated,
co
"c) We do not know of any earth fill dams in
the vicinity of the project; however, a debris
basin owned and operated by San Bernardino
County Flood Control District is located near
the easterly limit of the project on Cook
Canyon Creek. This facility does retain water
and is therefore not a darn."
A letter dated 10/19/87 from Joe Bonadiman
(Attachment E) states the earth fill dam and
debris basin are off-site and covered by
easements to County Flood Control. These
facilities have been checked by County and
State Agencies for safety,
4. There are no water storage tanks proposed in
conjunction with this project.
5. The planned location of the new debris basin
, is in the proposal stage.
6. Hard surface of Cook Canyon Creek Channel is a
,require!DeJ)t of flood Control and also of the
Master Flood Control plan of the City. (See
Attachment "E"). An option to full concrete
lined channel bed with 15 foot access roads is
a rock lined bed with 2D foot access road..
The necessary access roads will require
removal of some trees.
7.
Environmental conclusions of the EIR have, been
addressed in the Initial Study (Attachment
"D"). According to Mike Grubbs, Senior City
Engineer, as stated at the, ERC meeting of
October 8, 1987, all new environmental issues
.
l
1/8
.
CITY OF SAN BERN'}(RDINO PLA~NING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP87-47
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
z
11/4/'61
13
pertaining to drainage and grading are miti-
gatable by engineering design.
8.
This project
therefore, the
an issue.
is not adjacent to City Creek,
bridge over City Creek is not
9. The developers are working with Flood Control
as discussed previously in this section,
e.',
"
I '
10. The proposed realignment of Highland effec-
tively straightens curves and increases the
width to 4 lanes (88 foot Right of Way). The
realignment eliminates the 2.5 acre park. The
developer will pay Quimby Act fees in lieu of
park dedication consistent with Section
3.2.3(c) of Specific Plan,
11. One half the Right of Way adjacent to the east
boundary of Parcel 2 will be dedicated to the
City.
12. The density of the project is based on density
tranfers allowed by the Specific plan and the
PRO chapter of Title 19 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code. The overall density of this
project is 9.5 dwelling units per acre which
1S less than that allowed, (8-14 du/acre).
Calculating this project excluding the acreage
previously proposed for the park, the density
would be 10.3 units per acre, still below the
maximum allowed.
13. The proposed complex is for rental units.
Since the type of .ownership is not discussed
in the EIR, this should not be an issue with
regard to CEQA.
I
,
!
14.
This issue is addressed in the
section of this staff report.
The commentors proposal is to have the Fiscal
Impact section of the EIR reevaluated based on
revenue generated by - apartment uses, and at
lower income levels of the occupants~ "
Analysis
15.
G
l
16, 17, 18. Whether ~eviation of the p~oposal from
the Specific Plan is substantial enough to
lI-'t
,
CITY OF SAN BERN
DiNO PL~I NING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-47
.
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
2
11/4/87
14
, warrant amendments to the EIR, and whether 01
not consistency requirements of State law,
CEQA, and local ordinances are violated is an
issue better addressed to the Planning Commis~
sion and City Council. Ms, Ludvigsen's letter
dated October 27, 1987, is ,included in
attachment E, however, response to the lette~
will be made at the next meeting of the
Planning Commission.
D. CalTrcms
CalTrans is concerned that cummulative impacts of
continued development in the area by mitigated
prior to development of the area. However, there
is no specific comment on this project,
i.
In response, the cummulative impacts were assessed
during the Specific Plan process, and impacts are
to be assessed on a project basis at various stages
of development of the entire 541 acres covered by
the Specific plan. Subsequent to the approval of
the Specific Plan in 1982, several large
residential projects have been developed in the
vicinity. These projects are all within the
jurisdiction of the county. The additional impact
of traffic on the streets by these additional
development (approximately 4,500 dwelling units)
were evaluated in Section 3.2, Traffic, of the
Specific Plan. .,
.
ConclJ.lp.i.op
The subject site is designated for medium density residential
in the Highland Hills Specific Plan. An Initial Study was
prepared and presented to the Environmental Review Committee
and a Negative Declaration is proposed. The public comment
period has not expired; therefore, no action can be taken.
With the requested modification of the RV parking require~
ment, the project meets code requirements.
RecoJ!l!l1~!I9p.t.i.O[l
.
Staff recommends the Commission hear public testimony and
continue the item to the meeting of November 17, 1987.
.J
50
c
:.)
ell)', ,OF"SANBERNA~pIN9. PL~NN'Nc~sED~~"~It'1ENJ.,
OBSERVATIONS
~
,
'-'
-.....I
(
2
11/4/87
15
,
"
,
"
,
"..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
.. " , ," PAGE,
Respectfully submitted,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
~/G2.J
~..d~~\.r-/~
SANDRA PAULSEN
Associate Planner
:
;:',~:2::;C _...._ _'= ~'..:..,::_;'"
csj
10/26/87
DOCUMENT: MISCELLANEOUS
CUP87470BSERV
(
clj
10/28/87
doc/mis
cup87470bserv
,
. ~ -,"
::.c.::c:;:-:.:.::
- ,- -", ,.
~,-.....''-- '-: .'" -' - - .
Attachment A -
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
General Plan and Zoning Conformance
Findings of Fact
Tentative Conditions
Initial Study
Comments Received
Location Map
\
51
c
1-
.
C;XACID1ENT rl-LO~ION ~~p
~.. ":;
" CITY ,OF" SAN BERNARDINO ' ,PLANNING DEPARTMENT ',-"
(
LOCATION
...,>,,:i.-.
....
::J
Z
....
~
l;
0
~
~
Q ..
13 ..
CI: =
'" ~
... .
.... ..
CI: .
.., "
>-
...
..,
..
"0"
HIGHLAND AVe:NUe:
CASE Conditional Use Permit
No. 84-47
HEARING DATE 11/41 R7
"0"
~
...:lJ
1"= 800'
"0"
Site
)
P.R.O,
2.3 ynits lac..
TE'''lItAC! litO
J!'lIt.Q.
Z.l_lt./ec
.--,
-.-J
..AGENDA
ITEM #
. ,'-)
2
. "
P.R'=.
2. 3 \,Inirs / at
ItttOYo- ""'''''4
....
..~.
~
5-2
5~
(,
~
(
,
c
........
-...I
:J
'""'-
-
:w
AT'rACHMENT E
Planning Department
City of San Bernardino
INITIAL STUDY
Conditional Use Permit No. B7-47
Planned Residential Development in Highland Hills
North of Highland Avenue
and East of Boulder Avenue
in the Highland Hills Specific Plan
.:..~'- '- ..
.....- :-
-
-
September 2B, 1987
Prepared by Sandra Paulsen
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
::-,.-:, - -.'
Prepared for Highland Hills Gateway
lB75 West Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
,s-~~ .-:''2
53
c
~ - ;.'
Section
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
5.0
5.1
5.2
6.0
I _
"'--,
'-'
,
,,~
.
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
Introduction
1-1
Executive Summary
Proposed Project
Project Impacts
Project Description
Location
Site and Project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
Project Characteristics
2-1-
2-L
2-F
3-L
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1'
4-E
4-E
4-1:>
4-2
4-2.
4-3:
4-4~
4-4
4-5~
4-5
5-1
5-F
5-2
Environmental Assessments
Environmental Setting
Environmental Effects
Noise
Traffic Hazard
Flood Hazard
Facilities and Services
Geologic Hazards
Grading
Cumulative Effects
4" C
4. ::
..... .'
- - - --
4.:::: .
-: ,--.
References
Reference List
Location Map
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
-"
,..)
~ ~-.
- - -. -, ---
- .'- - ~--.._..~." ~~~
-~: --
-<. .
- - -..
)C .,.__.__ __
"
Environmental Impact Checklist
- Traffic Analysis, DKS Associates:,
Flood Control
Memo from City Engineer
Memo from Police Department
- Letter from East Valley Water Dist .""~_
Grading Information
Joe Bonandiman and Associates
Memo from Dr. Williams
Comments Received
~
-. . ; ~":
, -
'.,-- '--'';"1,"
~,-;;..l-~
_, ,-;,1.._
51/-
.
c
r-,
i......
,
.....,..1
)
:"".'
'\ :;--j ,-.'
r:
,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of
Initial Study for the proposed Planned
ment in the Highland Hills.
As stated in Section 15063 of the State of California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act (CEQAI Guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
San Bernardino as an
Residential Develop-
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
a Negative Declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a - - ",-,
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR :.. . ~ --
is prepared, thereby, enabling the project to ," - --
qual ify for a Negative Declaration; " ._- ..:. r. _. "
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if cone __is
required by:
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
b.
Identifying the effects determined
significant,
not
to be
(
'--'
c.
Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant,
,""",.r.. ~'(_ '!-
- -- .- _.--
4.
Facilitate environmental assessment early_in ~he
design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for ~he
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project
will not have a significant effect on the environ~
ment;
6, Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7, Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could,
be used with the project. ". p-
\
~
1-1
5S
i'
"or
..:,::.,., .
'-1"" ;
~
(
-
\,
~
-
-
,-,
,~.
,,,,,<;ftypf San, .aernardino Planning Department
, Initial Study- Conditional Use Permit No, B7-47
September 28, 1987
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1
Proposed Project
,
The request is for approval under authority of San Bernardino
Municipal Code Section 19.1B.040.C to establish a 2B4 unit
Planned Residential Development with a waiver of San Bernar-
dino Municipal Code Section 19.18.190 - Storage Facilities.
2.2
Project Impacts
Impacts identified in the attached checklist include:,
increased noise levels resulting from traffic
volumes generated
possible traffic hazards or congestion
possible flood hazards
possible inability of the City to provide emergency
or police services
the location of the site in an area that is possi-
bly geologically sensitive
the effect of required grading on hillsides and
drainage courses
the significant impacts of the cumulative -effects
of this project and other projects proposed
.),..;
.' ',";'"
2-1
6'-
Ir
-- -
c
-
I.",..;
,..-"
"-'"
",""",1
-~, '~
1';-"-'
city of San Bernardino planning Department
Initial Study - Conditional Use Permit No:-B7-47
September 28, 1987
';'c,"
(
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The proposed Planned Residential
the foothill and greenbelt areas
land Avenue, approximately 2,000
and better known as being within
Plan.
Development is located in
of the City, north of High-
feet east of Boulder Avenue
the Highland Hills Specific
3.2
3.2.1
Site and project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
l
The site is two irregularly-shaped parcels totaling approxi-
mately 30 acres. Included are parcels 1 and 2 of ParceLMap
No. 9166. Parcell slopes from a 1,530 foot elevation to a
1,595 foot elevation west to east, and totals15~68 acres
adjacent to the north side of Highland Avenue. : .Pa_tcel 2. has . -
a low elevation of 1,525 feet which slopes flO(theast~rly
within a broad bowl to an elevation of approx{mately ':1",'605
feet, which ill steepest at the north property 'b"pu_ndary'i-and
sloping to the northwesterly direction with:ci ,":'steep 'hill
occupying approximately one-third of the parcel.,p:CQ5;>kCanyon ".'
Creek meanders through Parcel 2 flowing easterLy )::ciwes~e:tly :~.
in direct ion. Parcel 2 is located north of' o.parcer~ 1.
Existing vegetation is natural chapperal habitat; -,
-",':
3.2.2
Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of 2B4 one, two and three
bedroom residential units in 49 two-story structures on
approximately 30 acres. Amenities proposed include >-two
tennis courts, a pool, jacuzzi and community bunding located
in the southwest corner or Parcel 1 adjacent'" to Highland - -
Avenue and a swimming pool located in the west half 'of Parcel
2, north of Cook Canyon Creek. Five-hundred-eighty on-site,
parking spaces are provided, 284 covered and 296imcove!'red,
28 of which are parallel to Cook Canyon Creek:6n~arceI2.
Twenty-eight foot drive aisles provide circulcftion tnro:ugh:"-. -~ - --- ---
the proposed project and access to the parking areas; -oSeven...;" " ,
teen ac res of landscaping are provided, 8.86 acies , of ,which , ,,- - -"
are usable in that the slope of these areas is "less' "than,: .
eight percent. Access to the site is north from: Highland ",-.-"
Avenue over Orchard to Arroyo Vista which wil;t~'~beextended _:~",- :"c
westerly and a main entrance road which will be 'puilt west, of ' ,~""
Parcell. The right of way dedicated for Ar r6:yo.Vistawill -,', - "
be 50 feet. "-' '.,~ ,: ." "F__
\
3-1
1:;."
~
c
'" ."
.-~"
-...I
",",.'
-.....
(
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study - Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
September 28, 1987
..~.~ .--cT'
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
-
The subject site consists 'of two irregularly-shaped parcels
totaling approximately 30 acres. The site lies northerly of
Highland Avenue, west of Orchard Avenue, approximately 2,000
feet west of Boulder Avenue in the foothills ~f the San
Bernardino Mountains. Surrounding development: :';,Jncludes
20,000 square foot lot, single-family homes to :the east;'and
10,000 square foot lot, single-family homes to the south. ::To
the north lie the foothills in their natural state. - West of
the site is vacant land which is being proposed for similar
higher density use. The site and area north are zoned PRO
2.3U Planned Residential Development at 2.3 units per acre.
West of Parcel 1 the zoning is PRO 2. 3U. West of Parcel, 2
the zoning is Open Space where City Creek Channel runs north
and south. The site is traversed by Cook Canyon Creek and
two inactive traces' of the San Andreas Fault on ',the north,ern ",
port ion of Parcel 2. The north fork ditch drains, north ~ t<> ,:: ~, c,
south through both parcels. The entire site lie&o,within"the '"
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the San Andreas Fault. ""
The natural vegetation is predominantly chapperal.,
~ .:
(
4.2 Environmental Effects
The Environmental Impact Checklist identifies seven areas ,of
potential concern regarding the project. Each item checked
"maybe" or "yes" on the checklist is identified below
followed by the recommended mitigation measures.
4.2.1 Noise
2. Would significant increases in either noise levelsr
dust, odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be generated
from project area, either during construction ,or from
completed project other than those resulting from normal- "-
construction activity? ---~-.' '-~- -
I,,'
Some increased noise levels along Highland Avenue are likely
to occur due to traffic volumes generated from t.che propoaed
project. This should not affect the adjacent residences ~o
the south which sit atop a bluff approximately 15feet~igh, c: __
The project site will be buffered by a five foat, landscaped: --, ,,-,
berm on the Highland Avenue property line. The._.change:...-in -::,:_,[1_'."_0'_
elevation from Highland Avenue to the project', ::site is'-
approximately five feet, so the apartments wilb,have,a::C'.ten
foot berm from the interior of the project. In Jlddition, no
4-1
!i~
.
r_O-'"
- ,
-,
~
J
.......
'"-"
(,
""Ci.y of San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study - Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
September 28, 1987
',..~ ' ~
_:"-.:;':--'~ _.'~- - .--
-!~~ "r ~.". ""
building in this project is situated closer than 70 feet to
Highland Avenue.
1 . ~
4.2,2
Traffic Hazards
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or congestion?
Impacts of additional traffic on the following intersections
were identified as potentially hazardous:
Orchard Avenue and Highland Avenue with regarc~. to _, sit,e =,
distance, the speed along Highland Avenue and. the sharp , "
turn required to go east on Highland Avenue.. Highland
Avenue curves with an uphill grade to the east where it
intersects with Surry Avenue.
~
The nature of the sharp S-turn in Highland Avenue was
addressed in the Highland Hills Specific Plan ~page 30).
In that Plan, it was recommended that Highland Av~nue be
realigned to straighten that section of the street"
Mitigation measures proposed are based on a Traffic.Study
prepared by DKS Associates for Tentative TraCt.-~O,.' 12638,.,
The trips generated by proposed apartments w;ll be,:greater ,
than those generated by the s ingle-familyc .,development"
however, the mitigation measures will be similar.
(
,
The mitigations proposed include:
Inc reas ing the .
Highland Avenue
the curve and
Avenue from the
radius
by 25
assist
north,
on the Orchard Avenue approach to
feet to reduce the sharpness of
in a safer approach to Highland
Rounding off the ridge of the berm on the north side of
Highland Avenue west of the existing residence and east
of Orchard Avenue would also improve visibility west-
bound on Highland Avenue and northbound on Orchard
Avenue.
A series of restriping and signing to
upcoming T-street. There are thirteen
visual aids for vehicular traffic which are
Appendix B, Page 2.
indicate the
recommended
im;:llg}ed in
Highland Avenue will be increased to four lanes,east ,of
the development entrance. The right of way, will be
increased to 88 feet. The radius of the S-curve~will be-
increased to 450 feet west of Orchard Avenue and.to 500
feet west of the entrance road. This will . provide a
straighter alignment in Highland Avenue as recommended
4-2
S9
-
c
.""',,
''\
'~
"--/
(
"!City "of' San 'Bernardino Planning Department ..,'
Initial Study - Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
September 2B, 1987
'. <,'7 ,.... ::,~ . '-t C' '4:" '.,,_ _'~ -'00,' ..,(,: _~;:.:(: ,., ...~
,,~jH- ~';"".,;.:<.:r.t
building in this project is situated closer than 70 feet to
Highland Avenue.
4.2.2 Traffic Hazards
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or congestion?
Impacts of additional traffic on the following intersections
were identified as potentially hazardous:
Orchard Avenue and Highland Avenue with regard to ,..site
distance, the speed along Highland Avenue and the sharp
turn required to go east on Highland Avenue. H~ghland
Avenue curves with an uphill grade to the east where -it
intersects with Surry Avenue.
- . - _~ _ a;.,',
~.. - ~
The nature of the sharp S-turn in Highland Avenue was
addressed in the Highland Hills Specif ic Plan (Page30l':,
In that Plan, it was recommended that Highland Aven-u"ebe
realigned to straighten that section of the street. .., ' , __
.:: -~
~
Mitigation measures proposed are based on a Traffic Stud~".. ,..
prepared by DKS Associates for Tentative Tract,..No;, 12"638. <:.:...-
The trips generated by proposed apartments will..b,e' -gre..ater:,",~, ~ ..,......
than those generated by the single-family de~velopment, :.-.~:::.
however, the mitigation measures will be similar~_we" -,. ~~~C0
The mitigations proposed include:
(
Increasing the radius on the Orchard Avenue ..approach to
Highland Avenue by 25 feet to reduce the sharpness 'of'
the curve and assist in a safer approach to Highland
Avenue from the north.
. ,- - -
Rounding off the ridge of the berm on the north side of
Highland Avenue west of the existing residence and east
of Orchard Avenue would also improve visibility west-
bound on Highland Avenue and northbound on Orchard:
Avenue. ..
';., :-
A series of restriping and signing to indicate,othe,
upcoming T-street. There are thirteen recommended-
...j '_.. '- - .-
visual aids for vehicular traffic which are included:in -- "-"
" __ .,_ =. ~_.....~. 0, -_'
Appendix B, Page 2.
(
Highland Avenue will be increased to four lanes west of A"e~~~
the development entrance. The right of way ,will:be:, '::'7;2,,', ..
increased to 88 feet. The radius of the S-curve will:J:>..e, , '" _
increased to 450 feet west of Orchard Avenue and to ,50Cl,..
feet west of the entrance road. This will provide~:;a:
straighter alignment in Highland Avenue as recommended ~L '-,..
4-2
~o
r1
I"'"
'-'
?,",", ".-.......,
"'-" '....,/
",J
(
".Cityof. ,San, ,BerpaJ;dino .~lanning DepaI tment
"Initial Study - Conditional Use Permit No."87-47
September 28, 19B7
.,-., ~~' '",."'.-. -~'-
:':; "f':-::C_ft':~ ':,~;<~;'1'1':-~
by the Specific Plan (Page 30). One-half of Orchard
Avenuye will be dedicated in conjunction with
Conditional Use Permit 87-4 to a right of way width of
30 feet from centerline to the east property line of
Parcel 2.
4.2.3
Flood Hazard
8.
Will project involve
area which could be
regional or localized
construction of facilities in an
flooded during an intermediate
flood? -' - ,
Cook Canyon Creek traverses the southerly portion of Parcel
2. The portions of the site which abut Cook Canyon Creek are
subject to infrequent flood hazards by reason of overflow
from City Creek and erosion and debris deposition._ The 0
recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood. Control
Office are summarized below and attached to ~his study in
full as Appendix C. -
(
All facilities should be engineered to meet federal-and -
county flood control requirements without adverse affect
on adjacent and downstream properties. ,., ",
~
Adequate City easement and building setbacks are"t.o. be-
provided along Cook Canyon Creek. Highland Hills ?pe-,
cific Plan requires this drainage to be left in a
natural course at this site. A 74 foot wide easement is
indicated on the site plan,
Complete improvement plans and drainage plans will be
submitted to the Flood Control District for review and
analysis when more detail is available.
The improvement plan for Cook Canyon Creek has been submitted
to the City of San Bernardino and forwarded to the County
Flood Control District. Improvements proposed'include cut
and fill of a 15 foot wide access road on both ~ides of the -
creek and lining of wing walls and creek bed with rock and,
concrete combinations. The improvements plan is'in the City.
Engineering office for plan check. The plans will- be c:hecked:-:
and corrected as necessary prior to issuance of construction "
permits. Those improvement plans are available -J.or .review-.in,
the San Bernardino City Planning Department. ,_. ._ _
l
The North Fork Ditch which traverses the site is an,existin.g
concrete lined irrigation channel. The propo:;;al"of .the
applicant is to underground North Fork Ditc~~in ,Concrete
pipe. Appropriate easements will be provided'to the NO,rth,'
Fork Water Company and the Bear Valley Water Company ,both of. ,',
4-3
~\
c
.........
o
~
~.1
"""'r,...'t'~"CI""" ,,<;.j.tyof ,San Bernardino Planning
- ..,.., . t"nitial Study -Conditional Use
( September 28, 1987
Department
Permit No. 87-47
-, ,-..,. :.,-~
~.. h _.. .....~.._
"-,''''''':-
which share joint interest in the ditch." The easement will
be maintained clear of structural encroachment.
': ;.
Drainage is required to be maintained in natural drainage
patterns as far as possible. Where natural,drainage is
interrupted by development, drainage will be channelled to
public improvements as approved by the City Engineer.
4.2.4
Facilities and Services
9.
Will project involve construction of
services beyond those presently available
near future?
facilities or
or proposed in
The construction of the project could impact the ability of
the City to provide adequate police protection. .As stated in
the Specific Plan, an additional patrol unJt, and. four
officers may be required to extend service to,' _ this area.
However, the impact of this proposal combined with
Conditional Use Permit 87-6 will not adversely atJect service
to the area. See Appendix E. Water quality an~guantLty"to
service the proposed development will be adequatelysupp,lied
by the East Valley Water District. See Appendix- F.:"" ... .
The community park required by the Specific p.1ani:las,been
eliminated from the site plan. In lieu of tpe: park, the
developer will pay Quimby Act fees at tyhe current r,ate to
help offset the demand on public recreations facilities.
This alternative is in conformance with the Highland Hills
Specific Plan page 102.
4.2.5
Geologic Hazards
16. Will project be located in immediate area of any adverse
geologic nature such as slide prone areas, highly ero-
sible soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
The site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special.~.tu~iies
Area for the San Andreas Fault. "
A Preliminary Soils and Liquefaction Study, Fault Investiga-
tion, and Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation were
submitted to Dr, Floyd Williams, the City Geologist., ~is
recommendations are contained in Appendix D,-~ttache~,and
summari zed below. -, --" . . ...
I,
The main, south branch of the San Andreas Fau~t ~~a-
verses the southerly portion of the site near &ighl~nd
Avenue. A building setback of 50 feet from this setback
is required. ..'
4-4
b1..
1-
-
I .
"-
_r-''',,",
" ."
...,,1
.."....
'''''''''
,.,/
/,
I
. ,City of San Bernardino, l'lanning
Initial Study - Conditional Use
September 28, 1987
Department
Permit No, 8~47
."..,,'~~':;
:. :-"'~"':'~,P;~-.::;::-
In areas where the surface to groundwater depth is less
than 35 feet, liquefaction is likely to occur during
earthquake shaking. Building foundations _will be
designed to minimize any damage resulting from lique-
faction.
4.2.6 Grading
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in connection
with project which could alter any existing prominent_
surface land form, i.e., hillside, canyons, drainage
cours-es, etc.? ~.
cut, fill and export of the site will total approximately
94,000 cubic yards.
cut and fill grading proposed on Parcel 1 is approximately
36,000 cubic yards. No export or import of soilswill,~be
required. Parcel 2 will require 5B,000 cubic yards of cut_and
48,000 cubic yards of fill the total cubic yaros ;of,export
off-site will be approximately 10,000 cub ic, 0 ya):ds. --,~' To
mitigateJ grading equipment and trucks for exp~o-rt:- ,.' ~ill-- be
limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. TruCk~ rout-es will
be limited to major arterial streets, and those streets." will
be clean of dirt daily. See Appendix G, --,
Proposed erosion control during the construction phase_and
for the long term will be submitted with finalgradirig p1~ns.
Control devices specified on those plans will be installed
and maintained as specified. Contour grading is proposed;
The Highland Hills Specific Plan (Page 56) recommends interim
landscaping (hydroseed or similar method) be installed on an
on-going basis until the site is coinpletely graded and, sta-
bilized. Rough cut pads exposed for extensive' periods of
time shall be winterized. '
Additional erosion control should include the use " of brow
ditches, cut of walls, terraces, desilting basins:and gab ion
basket lined watercourses to reduce the gradient "i!nd amount
of surface run-off and erosion on cut and fill ~lope~. -,.;
4.2.7
Cumulative Effects
19.
Will any effects of the subject project together or_,_ ,in"
conjunction with effects of other projects ,causi;i a
cumulative significant adverse impact on the;'envirpn:-'
ment? "",'-'---
,-.'; ..
"- -
-..,......,
..;.. -"7
!:!'2!"
'\
4-5
L"),.
c
-, .'}-rt.>;~..,~" . ~:;,......:"-t'1' .,-,; . '
(
(
~
(
'-"
,"'"\
'..../
.........,/
,[:ityoLSan ,Bemardino,ni:l'Hli\,\,9 Department
Initial Study- Conditional Use Permit'N6.'~87-47
September 28, 1987
.. ~.~ ~~ .4'_ ,_
'-"-,.,,":
This project, along with other propo'sal~"a'nd existing devel-
opments will have a major effect on traffic and circulation
in the vicinity. As discussed in the Specific Plan, mitiga-
tion measures include signalization of the intersection of,
Highland Avenue and Boulder Avenue, Boulder Avenue and Base-
line Street, Boulder Avenue and, Third Street, Church Street
and Baseline Street, Church Street and Third Street, Highland
Avenue and Orchard Avenue, and Highland Avenue and the main
entrance to the proposed project. Traffic volumes will
warrant this signalization by the year 1995. The project
applicant will pay proportionate funding for the, improve-
ments, the portion to be determined through the~use of a_
proportional average daily traffic factoring method;' ,,-'-'"
4- 6
eo,,"
-
c
ir,
'"
...-,
'-'"
,-,.
J
~
'.. Citll:of' San Bernardino Planning Department
Initial Study - Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
September 28, 1987
..,-'-'
--1'::.-... ': :?<:;,:-.
(
References:
Highland Hills Specific Plan
Circulation, Page 30
Flood Control, Page 62
Facilities and Services, Page 98
Grading, Page 56
Cumulative Effects, Page 80
Quimby Act Fee, Page 102
o
Traffic Analysis
DKS Associates, P.O. Box 3885, San Bernardino
San Bernardino County Flood Control
Bob Cochero, 825 East Third Street, San Bernardipo
Dr. Floyd Williams - City Geologist
Preliminary Soils and
Highland Hills
CHJ, Incorporated,
Planning Department)
Liquefaction Investigatiqg_foc_
'-'.2. -< '. -. ~
3/6/85, (on file in the' City - ,
Fault Investigation for a portion of Area "A," Highland
Hills
Leighton and Associates, 1/8/B5, (on file in the
City Planning Department)
Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation of Highland
Hills
Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, 10/7/81, (on file
in the City Planning Department)
Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer
Joe Bonandiman and Associates
5-1
,s
-
c
/' -~
........
-
"
'.,.~. "-:'l"r.
~~-';';?:"..
(
,
,-
. -: ,.-' ..- ,j,:~,."",,,,,;';o.''''-i,.,,,..,,,.>..~-...<..:.,.-. ",-~.,_',_,,'-'~'~.'_"_",."'" ~.,._&._..._-..,_...-.. - -,-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 'PLANNING DEPARi"MENT -, -".
LOCATION
AGENDA .-'
ITEM #
CASE Conditional Use Permit
No.8 -47
HEARING DATE 11/4/87 .'- ~-
2
0
~
~
c ~
C:i I<
0: "
'" ~
.... ~
.... c
0: ~
V -
,..
...
v
.0.
(
"0"
HIGHLANO AVENUE
....
::>
z
....
~
l;
"0"
~
~
1"=800'
PRD,
2.. 3l.1niu /oc
Site
)
P,R.O,
2.3 "nits lor:..
/-
IUlD.
Z.lY'ttt./.c
--- ---.----
5-2
b~
c
.~'~.:~".-, -:";,:~:_tt ;-,'
(
(
, -
, \
,..'"
v
~)
",City, pf .San Berpar<3~noPlan!1ing Department
"Initial 'Study'- Conditional 'Use Permit'''No-;''87-47' ,...".. ...,',.,:c'.....:,<"c'"....,'c..J
september 28, 1987
6.0 APPENDICES
A. Environmental Impact Checklist
B. Traffic Analysis
C. Flood Control
D. Memo from City Engineer
E. Memo from Police Department
F. Letter from East valley Water Department
G. Grading Calculations (rough)
H. Memo from Dr. Williams
mkf
lO/1/B7
DOCUMENTS:MISCELLANEOUS
ISCUPB747
,_," . '.' ._L_' ,
6-1
~7
c
1'*.""
'-' APPENDIX A
,-
~
'\
..".)
'''':\"'+':.~~'::'';,~'
CITY bF SAN
.., ' ,.... " ~,',.., ,
BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r
I
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
~ ~
A. BACKGROUND
1. Case Number (s): Conditional Use Permit 87-47
nate: 9/28/87
2.
Project Description: a 284 unit Planned Residential
on a 30 acre site in the PRD-2.3units/acre zone
Hills Specific Plan)
Development
(Highland
"
3. General Location: North side of Hiqhland Avenue approximately
2,000 feet east of Boulder Avenue.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YE~.:.cMAYBE-""NO
(
,
-
1. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area?
x
2. Would significant increases in either noise levels,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result-
ing from normal construction activity?
x
3. Will project involve application, use or disposal
of hazardous or toxic materials?
x
4. Will any deviation from any established environ-
mCIltal standard~ (air, water, noise, li~lt, etc.)
and/or adopted plans be r"quested in connection
with project?
x
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of "ncq;y which could be reduced by the
llse uf appropriate mitigation measures?
x
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or
congestion?
x
---'--
7. Could project result in any substantial change in
quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion
of region's air or surfac~ and ground water re-
sources?
x
MAY 'I.
I_R.C. FO.M A
PAGE I Of 3
~fl!
"
i.-
(
-
MAY 'II
v
:)
8. Will project involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
10. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
16. Will project be located in immediate area of any
adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc,?
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
rc~ource?
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, drainage courses, etc?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
ur in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
..
m.
~
x
x
x
x
x
::)
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
EAC. FOR" A
PAGE 2 OF ,
t..q
c
(
'-
(
'- -
,
\,
-
~-
/'U"
'".~
'-."I
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
FOR TRACT 12638
June 25, 1984
HIGHLAND AVENUE AND ORCHARD DRIVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
Prepared for
Joseph Bonadiman & Associates
606 E. Mill Street
San Bernardino, CA
.
Prepared by
If}):m:~ Associates
.
.
I
I
\
\
~'....
...:.,'.-
';-r;;;. ,.........:7,;.; .-'--';;~-;
.' ~. . --:', ",.. '. .'-
v.l..!....,..j , _~",t. -:,.... ,0,_ ~
. --~-
~
~ i.....:'" :~:: "7';:
".-',_......'".-;....
San Bernardino, CA
Traffic . Transportation . Engineering
Sd~___ D",~~n2~:'':':'~-:~
70
r
~
"
,",j
/'
" '.
(
~
HIGHLAND AVENUE AND ORCHARD DRIVE
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
TRACT 12638
The existing intersection of Highland Avenue'and Orchard Drive is shown
on the plan to be widened to 44 feet (curb to curbl_on the Orchard _
approach. The main concern in this analysis was improving 'the safety
of the intersection.
~
OKS did not find any serious safety problems other than this is not the
most desirable place for an interse~tion. There is a potential for
vehicles to exceed the safe stopping speed on Highland Avenue. ,~This
element is influenced by the downgrade artd the limited superelevation
on the horizontal and vertical curve on the westbound approach: to "
Orchard. The stopping sight distance from the Or~cha,rd Drive position
is about 300 feet, which is adequate for 35~m.p.h," on the, downgrade.
The curve is currently signed for 30 m.p.h. with westbound vehicles
tracking to the left of the existing centerline.-
DKS suggests that the
the following manner:
intersection and its approaches be treated in
1. Increase the rad ius on the Orchard approach curv~eclosest_t,o
'Street A from 100 feet to 125 feet. This will reduce the
sharpness of the,curve and assist in a safer approach to High-
land Avenue from the north,
2. Visibility could be improved for the northbound Orchard approach
and the westbound Highland approach by rounding ~9ffthe rid<Je
birm along the north side of Highland, above and west of the
existing residence of Orchard. This may be pt"ivjl,te,p:roperty
since there is a sprinkler system along the top .of ,~the ,ridge
birm.
1
"
c
,. . , ,.. ~ ' , ~ ~
(
/' .
,.,",
-...I
"""","
J
1"../
..'
OKS recommends the following traffic improvement,; to the intersection,
the intersection approaches and the intersection environs:
2.
3,
4 .
5.
6,
7.
( 8.
~
9,
\
1.
Stripe Orchard for left and right turn
Highland Avenue, using 50 foot pockets
line stripe.
Paint "STOP"
lanes
and a
for entering
double center-
Install "STOP
lines and "STOP" legends on Orchard turn lanes.
AIIEAO" sign (W-17) on Orchard.
... ,...;." ,- ~ -
Install curve warning sign w-3(RT), W-6(20), on Orchard 150
feet north of the W-17 sign.
Install pavement markers on all intersection approaches at
standard supplemental intervals.
,
Stripe a left turn pocket for le"ft turns into OrchClrd.
Restripe Highland with a double y~llow centerlinecbetween
Orchard and Surrey and from Orchard westerly into, ,the. curve.
Install "T-intersection" warning sign (W-7) ~~ 1I~'3!,l."l'ld neae
residence wall for maximum westbound visibility.=~_._=,__
Relocate the "curve" warning sign, W-3 (LT)"W-6(30l.,and
the "intersection" warning sign, \~-9, on lIigh1and south of
the Surrey Lane intersection. The existing curve warning
sign is easily missed "t 35 m.p.h. or higher speed due to
the offset oEthe si~n dnd the transltion.
10. Stripe a right turn lane and turn arro" for the private road
opposite Surrey Lane. 'l'h~ existing ~in9Le lane tX.Hlsition
stripe for the pavement width change is abrupt and possibly
.. '- -_. ,'-
could mislead drivers into using an unsafe speed. in the down-
11.
pill curve.
Stripe double yellow centerline 150 feet south of the break
in the double line for the Surrey Lane intersection.
Install "STOP" sign, R-l, at Street A.
- ~. -. -~.
Consider slight angle for the "STOP" sign a:-_"igh~~??:~~e,~ue
for maximum visibility on the Orchard approach. Drivers
12.
13.
2
7J.
,-
\"..,-'
'"''','':
.' ,. '!-~'
(
(
-
\
~
-
,/
,/ ''\
'-'"
..,/
;"
".'" ,,, -:~:~
':",::, ::"'"
~ -,. ..
"""
attention is to the left and this may enhance visibility in
peripheral vision.
,
3
,
J
.,~
c'
, .
,,,/
"
,j
,
,
,-_J
",it: ;,
'L't1l1J~~.r.'" ..'
associates
~ '--. ~ ~:::;...~,...-*., ~ '.
(
TraffiC . rrSflsporrcwon . Englnddflflg
Clyatt E $Wt:'tt'. P E . M,Jn"':Jtil
S...n 8emi/l11OO CJ:t,c~
August: 15, 1984
Pr,n';'PiJIS
en,Hles E De Leu~)1 p ~
IV,II'dln H D,~t'ICfl "E
....Juv R Glove. jJ ~
!r,f.C11Jt!I a Kennedr. P t.
dans W KOlvt! P E
R'C1'I,ifrj T S.lUve, P E
:)a",t!1 r Smllfl.;t P E
Mr. Joe Bonadiman
Joseph Bonadiman , Associates
606 E. Mill Street
San Bernardino, CA 92412
['84160
Dear Mr. Bonadiman:
(
'"
We have completed the traffic design for t:he sect:.on Dr Highland Av~nUd
around the entrance to the development. The 199.5 .t,raf f.,ic volume of
1,175 vehicles in the peak hour requirBs four lanes west of ~he entrance
road. The 1995 peak hour volume of 520 east of the entrance does not
require four lanes. The section of Highland Avenue from Surrey Lane
t,) the water plant was examined; it was determined that no further change
was needed until you entered the 'curve west ot Orchan!.. The aesign fur
Orchard and Highland is still valid for a signed. speed" of )0, !1'.p.h.
The sharp S-curve west of Orchard has been increased in centerline radius
to 450 feet. The curve at and west of the development,entrance is "
increased to a centerline radius of 500 feet, along..:Joii,t}\"the l"idenin-) to
four lanes. The design speed for the redesign i.s'-a'brili't" c3 5 miles per hour ,
in the curve sections. The minimun sight distanc'e' .ava-iiable is 200 redt
for the inside lane which can provide for a westbou"nd$afe s,t9ppingsight
distance at a speed of 30 m.p.h. If the inside of the curve is cleared
for abol!t 25 feet from the roadway at the center of the curve;' a sa::e
stoppin<; distance can be provided for 45 ml.les per ho'ur, which i:>1 n
excess of the design speed. The curve as designed provides for a 50 m.p.h
stopping distance in the eastbound direction, arso in ,excess of the
design speed.
We believe that the curve radii should not be reduced much more or the
reduccion in speed between the straighter 4-way s,e.ot.on and the curves
will be too great. 'l'hea: ~x.1.stinq curves could be' -t.:onsidered dc:ct.~ptivt!
in th<!ir existing condition and the rOldesi')n avo'ids tl1lS situation.
As this area develops, the design speed of 35 m~p.h. In the curves should
be compatible with the urban~zation and the cur~e Len~ths ar~.ve~y close
to the minimun allowable distance of 500 feet, accordinq to" current
C?lifornia design standards.
We are returning with this letter the aerial photographs, the reproduc-
ibles and the reproducible center print with the:ro'''d'ia,y tril;fic desi.;n
loca ted on it. , "...
\.
P.O. Box 3885, San Barnard/no, California S2413 . 7141883.1217
141;1 Broadway. Suite 700, Oakland. Call/orma 94612,2069 . 4151763.2061
,l/-
c
(
~
(
--
-r-:'
MI< 'Joe -8onailinian <
Joseph Bonadiman &
606 E. Mill Street
San Bernardino, CA
"-./
" '.4.", .~..
" '~ f
f . I'.' '.~ 't:
/- ''\,
'-/
~
A!lsociates
92412
<. ..
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
~bt..
Manager
Enclosures - 7
CES:ts
,
P.E.
.
2
7'5
r ("' /
_~. """ DmDIX C :J
",DEPARTMENT OF TRANfGJRTATIONI ~111 COUNT:N~~R~~~:~~~~RDINO
, FLOOD"'CONTROL/AIRPORTS""""'" ,.. '-,,=-,...:;-.:::.~\\;':{/~..... -:-n,""PUBUCWOIlKS AGENCY '"
~ E .A:;";::~':~:.~-:"::::::~~::d;':~~~~5~~~;;":'~~~~~~~~:;""I,,y,,,, ,;:a {\l~ 1!~"=<~;~:::::,:::~NISOr~;:
. /71'111\\\\~'\, , O".cto.
September 14, 1987
00
File: 3-301/1.00
3-306/1,00
rn @ ~ ~ ~[J ~ riiP09. 0314
W
- l~ ;.i~;:;:1--\
,','", I
'--'-',-" ,
I',~:' "
r .l'~.
vt..
=z-~"
.....
:~ :.i.
SEP 16 1987
f.1..'J.
S,i'
~,--.~
city of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Ms. Vivian J. Leach
CiT"j' rLt.i'~NE~n ~ :;;; ARTilJ1::iJT .
S!li~ llElltlt.!im;iil.CA
!l.:":.
v.g.
.co.' n_i\.~;..._____
T~l~.:',.';~_"~
So'''.
'-.;.....-- .
Re: Zone 3, City Creek an fiLe
Cook canyon Channel -----
CUP 87-47
Gentlemen:
.~.- ~-
_..---- -
(
Reference is made to your transmittal with accompanying illustrated
site plan of East Highlands Hills and requestingthe':,"OistriC'~'s
review and, comments. The 324 unit developmentc~n_:i:lvplanned
residential development is located on the nor-tllwest:-:corrier,6f
Highland Avenues anp. Orchard Road, approximately,'2000 fee,t ~llst
of Boulder Avenue, . in the northeast portion of the- City of 'Sari
Bernardino.
This office has previously reported on the general area to the
City Planning Department by letter dated April 29 " 1987. A copy
of our previous corr:ospondcnce is enclosed for your reference.
Our comments and recommendations remain the same. Since this
site does not abut City Creek, those comments and rccommendatlons
pertaining to City Creek may be deleted.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to contact the undersigned at :(7~4)' 387-2515.
Very truly yours,
fU-J! e~-(!~r
ROBERT W. CORCHERO" Chief
Water Resources Division
RWC:Hws:mjs
Enc!. as noted
d. ..:.:.. ,:
"'-, -'
-, - - ~- >- -
,'- .', , '~.J ,_ ,_- "_.
\...
cc: City Engineering w/encl.
'.: '-~ . ~:: ~- ::' {
, ,
.d'.; ,I,
,I.:.
d1
Ib
..... .,,'
A J.~......,.~....1:;;MC.~'''':~ 1:7-1..0101:' ~.Ji_~""1'" '.0;,..- - ."
- ~...,.~ -~
~, .-....~~.
T-MENTOF TRAN5(3 RT A TION!
-.......- ...'.-. ... ...
00 CONTROL/AIRPORTS
\
^"
....a.,
"1:1-
~
i' ,
.
~rz"",,,, Th;,d s~':.. . S.n B....'dln.. CA 92415~OB35 .
lJ.". -...{.~ ~ .A:....-:r "-';'~u/..,',,'... ~{'",J. ,;.. '.'"~U:":;':.t'_... '-:o~. ...~..~,....tT"...~;f.::'","".:~-:-...j,'::"..;'I-,......~~
17141 3B1,2BOO
:::;;:- ~'..'_:t..:"';':'
..- n.J-' 'COUNT'tOf .sAN ,*RNARDINO
~ , ~\I'111 ENVIRONMENTAL
~\\tl/~ PUBLIC \YORKS AGENCY
......""" ~ r- .
: ~ :: ~._-'-""""'---~~I.~-:,.:~:.':. \:_31.::..
-~.~....... - MICUAE1.GWAlK(R
/'1PIII'\\\~' Due...,
April 29, 1987
File: 3-301/1.00
3-30611.00
309.0314
Ci ty of San Bernard ino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardi.no,,,CA 92418
, ~
Attention: Hr. Don Williams
He: Zone 3, City Creek and
Cook Canyon ~~annel -
Conditional Use Permit 87-5
. Gentlemen: ~". .'.. "
He ference is made to your Agency COl3ment Sheet with 'accompanying ii!aps
requesting the District's conments and/or recoRlnendations'on':'tlle' retereneed' cc: ,,"C'
development. The site is located on the north side of Ilfgliland Avenue,md' , __
west of Arroyo Vista Drive, in the northeast portion of the' City ~'of San' ,- ",
Bernardino. ., '
TIlis site abuts on the west a major watercourse known as City 'Creek and "an
existing natural drainage course which outlets flow frO<ll Cook ~Canyon alon;;~"
the southerly boundary. Both these watercourses have experienced highly'
deb,'is laden flt'wS in the past. '
In our opinion, those portions of the site lying in and abutting City
Creek are subject to varying degrees of flood hazards by reason of overflow,
erosion, and debris deposition, in the event of a major"storm until' such~
time as permanent debri3 retention facilities and channelization of City"
Creck are provided. Those portions of this site lying in and abutting Cook
Canyon Channel and its overflow areas are subject toint,'equent flood
huzard3 by reason of overflow, erosion and dcbris dep03itionimtil such time
as adequate channel and debris retention facilities are provided 'to intercept' "
und conduct these flows thrOUGh and/or around and away from the site ; ""Th,;
site is also subject to tributary flows from the smaller' canyons~ : t6" thif':'
north and east.' ,., _" ,-,,_
Our recommendations are as follows:
'-'~. .,:,.-:~;:T!:,^,;.~.--:~::;;:.-"-C1r'l~. ,~t.,: El~
1.
A detailed drainage analysi3 be prov ided by the developer' seng'in'eer,;
showing how it is proposed to cope with the serious flood hazardS'"
to the site. Any proposal should sho" how flood proofing taciliti'e:i"
which meet the federal and County of San Bernardino's requirements'
can be provided without adversely affecting the adjacent and/or
downstream properties.
"/7
(-
........
(
"
(
c
~
)
,',
v
,.j
,. ...Y'
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
.
- .
r .----_. . - '.-.... -- - .
D. MITIGATION MEASURES " '," -','''' F....... - .~_ ~>;:,:--,
- - .-:~. ~ ''..In ~
" -.-
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed~o i]ai ~_iga te or,
e l1mina te potentially significant adverse enviro~ental impacts: -,--
L'f!"' ...
.. .-.---. -
, .' ,
.-"-. - ---..-.
.. , - . .---.-
- - .- -
.. - . .-
E. DEl'J(RMINATlON " - "'.'c', .
- .,_........ .... ~ .. u,
,-.
On the bas is of this initial evaluation, , " - , .
Gl1 We ~ind the proposed project COULD NOT have a signif1c.ant_ effect on the . -
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 We find that al though the proposed project could have:~a ~ignif icant '"
cfftJct on the environment. there will not be a signif icant effect in ...
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached' sheet ,',
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED,
0 We find the proposed project MAY have a s ignif ican t effect on the envir.on:",.
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ..-..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA .. ... > c,;,
.. --
~C,RH+- .-
fL~ !:..;::/'-~t.. ~ """~'~--
(SecrL!tary) ---'- -~~~-------- -_._-_._-~-
'" ,--. :.~ ~. : .!. ,-.
DATE: ItJ- 8-87 ;-, . /(; ~, -i~'
_n.__ .- -'-
'.J
.....y I.
ERe. FORM ;.
PAGE S OF 3
78
,
"
"
".
p
the City of San Bernardino
1937
.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made to intercept and conduct the off-site
tributary druinage flow around or throut:h the site in a manner
whi~h will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.
3. The developer's engineer shall prepare and submit survey cross-sections
of City Creek adjacent to the site so necessary right-of-way
dedications and Building Setbilcks Cun be determined. The study
shall be completed prior to District approvul of the proposed
development/land division.
4. 'Adequate drainage facilities shull be prov ided to intecept and
conduct flows froot Cook Cunyon throuGh the site without adversel y
affecting adjacent or' downstream properties. The f'aci1'ities
should be covered by an adequate City drainage easement. Depend in!;
on the type of facility provided, an adequate ,building setback should
be prov ided. _ _
5. Grading plans and improvement plans which may affect District facilities
shall be'submitted to the District (in qUudruplicatc) for review,
by Water Resources Division, Field Enl\ineerinl\ Division,Flood.u
Control Design, und Field Operations Division. ::- -,..,
6.
A permit will be required for any encroachment onto Flood- Co,ntrol:
District right-of-way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks processing:
time should be :>llowed. .. '--',
.
,-
-,~,-, .-
~ , ,
,.-<
7. In addition to the Drainage Requirements stated' herein,_' other_
"on-site" or "off-site" improvements may be required which- Cunnot
be determined from tentutive pluns ut this time and would have to
be rev icwed after more complete improvement plans and _ drainage
analysis huve been submitted to this office.
8.
Section 16.0212(g) of the County Code sets the fee for t.his review
and analysis at t125.00. This fee is to be submitted directly to
the District Office with an indication that it is for Flood Hazard
Review of ID U2862, File 110. 309.031Q. The fee should be mailed to:
I
"
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Water Resources Division
625 E. Third Street, Room 120
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
There will be no further review of, or permits issued, for this
site until the fee has been received.
Should you have any further questions concerning this ..mat.ter ,'please feel
free to contact the undersigned ut ("f14) 387-2515. p. ,'"
~ '-'" ......-
'~
Very tru~ y~urs, ,
/llrl.~ e.-l;.-<~-
ROBERT \/. CaCHERO, Chief
U.Jter Resources Di vision
\
RWC:11G:1:vp
7C3
CCITY OF SAN
BE~ARDINO
'"
MEMORANDU~
~
-
'1<:"""'_1.
u ;
~ ., , ~ . -.. ,.',.".',.,.' ,." 00" c_
SANDY PAULSEN, Staff Planner
To Environmental Review Committee
Planning Department
CUP 87-47, B7-5, & PM 9166: Highland
",.--..-.;-.
..
ROGER G~HARDGRAVE,Dir.
From Pub 1 i cWo r k s / C i t yEn g .
D~e October 13, 1987
Development File No. 11.42
(CliP R7-47 P,
87-5)
Date 11. 051 (PM g 166 )
(
,
~
Subject
Hi 11 s
Approved
This office has reviewed the subject project for Drainage,
Flood Control, Traffic, and Grading. We find no adverse
environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated by standard
engineering design methods.__ '
'"' .:. ~ ':;
Specifically, the following concerns have been raised regard-
ing drainage:
a) Design or Improvement of Existing and Proposed
Drainage Courses
(
-
Existing minor drainage courses which traverse the
site will be controlled through the site to a proper
outlet into public streets. Since the loop street'
is not being constructed by this project, interlm'-',
drainage devices will have to be constructed to,-" -=
convey the flows to an acceptable outlet. Design'^- " '.
of these devices will be approved by the City ., '~c -
Engineer prior to issuance of any construction :-."~ --
permits. _.~-'.~'
b)
Cook Canyon Creek Improvements
Design of Cook Canyon Creek Improvements is currently
under way by the developer's Engineer. City Engineer~
ing is Plan Checking the design. The design will have
to be approved by the City Engineer prior to issu-
ance of any construction permits.
c) Location and Status of Earth Fill Dams
We do not know of any earth fill dams in the vicinity
of the project, however, a debris basin owned and '
operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control""
District is located near the easterly limit of the","
project on Cook Canyon Creek. This facility does:n6t
retain water and is therefore not a dam. -
-1-
;.~
. -~ ....'r ~ :.~
eo
f'
1.,.,.,
: ~:~'~.- 'T
(
(
---
'.
-
-
,", -~
SANDY PAULSEN, Staff Pl~~r ~
Environmental Review Committee
Re:.CUP 87-47, B7-5, & PH 9166: Highland Hills Development
October 13. 1987 ' , '.
File No. 11.42 (CUP 87-47 & 87-5)
11.051 (PM 9166)
d) Proposal for North Fork Ditch
Flows in the north fork ditch will be maintained
through the project. There are many ways to accomplish
conveyance through the project while still maintain~:_
ing the quality and quantity of flow. The detail~;"= :
of the conveyance system will be approved by the- .
City Engineer prior to issuance of any c6nstruction
permits.
RDGERG. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
OJUck.t~
MICHAEL W, GRUBBS
Senior Civil Engineer
,""',~----'--
:.: -;''': ; :':~
MWG:pa
-2-
;
'"',
S\
-
c...:C1TY OF SAN BE~ARDINO
"
v
-
MEMORANDUM-"
..
. '.: .- i ;.~.I . c '
r
\,
To PLANNING DEPARTMENT VIA CAPT. D. A. ROBBINS
Subject HIGHLAND HILLS llEVELDPMENT PLAN
.1
I / /
, ~ I ." I
Approved V/ ~':,f/
. '. "
From LT. T. MAl ER
Date 1D-12-B7
Date J- -'
In order to provide the current level of police service to the residents
in the northeast portion of the city upon the completion of the Highland
Hills Development, the following steps must be taken. Five additional police
officers would be required to keep current manning levels. An additional
1.5 marked police cars would be needed. In addition to the five police offi-
cers, two civilian support personnel would also be ne,cessary:to, maintain
current levels of service, - _ _ _ ..
These figures are based upon 1200 households of 2.5 persons each for a total
population increase of 3000.
Respectfully submitted,
(
\~ .
11~ -~ j
~-i...t ,
\ ',,~. ;1.
"
g~
(
c
.
'EastV;1~y'Water DistriCf
'1SS ~I Rosa Avenue PO, Box 3427
San Bernardino. California 92413
(714) 889-9501
,r-'".
APENDIX "F"
'....
'.....,)
J
...."
""'"
..
October 13, 1987
BONADIMAN ASSOCIATES
606 East Mill Street
San Bernardino, CA 92412
RE: PARCEL MAP NO, 9166 (ORCHARD AND OHIO)
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your recent request, this letter confirms that .,
the East Valley Water District can and will provide water service_-:~c c,.~;:"
to the above-mentioned parcel for domestic and :fire.'"protection' "C~- ::.c~ :C,'
purposes. This cOlDlllitment is subject to water :Availability, at., _,
the time of cOlDlllencement of construction.
In addition, the District will collect and transport sewage
generated by this tract but is unable to provide sewage or 'waste- _
water treatment because the District has no capacity '.in the
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The District ,will, not
approve sewage collection and transportation plans or provide
such service until you provide evidence satisfactory " to ~ the'
District that such wastewater treatment plant capacit~ 'has..::been .:,
purchased and is owned and available to you. ':"C'~,',"~: .... .,= ~'
~."..... .
.- -. ----.
Furthermore, all improvements necessary for water or ,',~1:Sewer
service are subject to approval by the District and'must lIIeet .all "
District standards. Developers must comply with all" District
rules, regulations, policies and proceduresr including payment by,
the developer for any and all capital improvements, main' 'lines,
extensions, sewer capacity or other commitment or commitments of,
the District's resources. The District will operate and .maintain
all water and sewer improvements upon their dedication to the
East Valley Water District.
..
,
The
in this
letter.
commitment to provide water and sewer service outlined
letter shall expire two (2) years from the date of,this
Yours truly,
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
~~' ~-^-
W, we
Cener 1 Ma ager
LWR:tls
_...-,
.. ~-
cc: Sandra Paulson, City Planning
Philip A. OiKh
Pr6sldlnt
Geu,ld W. StooPS
V;u-PrlJidlnt
Dennis L. 'ohniOn
Dirlctor
PCler J. Rush~'
Oiuctor
G~"" It. Lilhtfooc
Diu"",
L~'ry W. Rowe
G'n~ral MQnQger . S,crltOry
Don", lA, Spears
TrHSUr"
~~
c
,t-'" /"""It.
-- APPENDIX G"";
,
-'
(
R61710
~ *** SUMMARY....BLOCKS 1 th~OU9h 2....
Raw EXCAVATION: 94000 cubic .....a.rds.
Raw EMBANKMENT: 51000 cubic Ya~ds.
. ...........
Raw EXPORT: 43000 cubic Ya~ds.
SHRINKAGE: 0,00 cubic Ya~ds.
SUBSIDENCE: 0.00 cubic ya.r'ds.
.. ... ... .....
43000 cubic Ya~ds to be EXPORTED to a,..:hieve a balanc....
EXCAVATION A~ea =
EMBANKMENT Area =
TCITAL Area =
21
11
acres.
acres.
ac~es.
32
Note:
Shrinkage, subsidence, o~ ove~excavation ...e~e fto:ot ca,lculated.
Also. this is Just a p~eliminarY g~ading plan.~When,the final,; _ .
g~ading plan is designed. based on these p~eliminarY~9rades,it.0
is estimated that elevations would need to be rais"d_~5 feet ~o
achieve a balance. ,-, ~" _'-,_"u
-,
"' -, , ~
(
~
I
\,
,-'
16*
. >~~y;' i"'~IL:~i~J~,i:",~~~~i"~~'."<<:::'l1a.rn.'.~ U 'W!'W'
. ", . ,.-,"'.f. ..
.,',' ~9MINING EN~fNEER AND REGISTERED 'GEOlOGIST ',#2143 AUG 0 5l~87'
( .' :'..."... . ..,:,:."'.' " .,:'.' '."CIT'J:P"I"'!"";",,, """'~"",1"~IT
- ,.' .i\,,,,,,,,,'''.1 ..~..~.(.1
~
, " '.' . SIII'I AERinnnU!i. CPO
. \ ." ..",' , MEMORANDUM'
" ,0
APPENDIX :'11'
l J
j~
, .
'f.. .
. ' ,
Valerie U: Ross, Associate
City of San Bernardino
Planner
TO:
, J 30 Sunridgo Way
Rcdland., California 92373
. (71<1)792 .8208
'..
. ,
,FROM: Floyd 'J', .trl1lliamn, Registered Geologist
1':<" (" '.':::'..;5.',::,:, ~:~:.r,l.~~~:'i :~~.',tf:~:~Y"Of . n~d;~;;
..'.,.... " DATE: " ,August 4, ,1987 ~~ ,/t% ~.:
..,...... \ "'_':_J.:"i':"':';'=-"\:~''''.!K,..t~:;:!j,:';'''',:"\'..~ "',_ . "~'_"" _,.;;, ';;'.. " ....,
f. ~;!. ::'" :O't':,', . :';":'';' ~"'I,,:.~.~; :'j'~t~.l\~.;.Ii.j:':!I):;,~'.ti~.'!'i~f!'~:r-Iu-tr.~~/.i\t, l~1o....;l::, .W!.; ~:. !~t .::~ ~,t ... '~t,: ,_... .,. . " .'.,.... .,'!. ~'<"" :,~~~t\i"';"".~:~i:l~': ;., ;"..< :.~~i':'-\~:f~~"'d;.i;_~.;~:,-.
.', n',.' 'c': SUBJECT:' Review of, geology reports,' East Highland Hills, .
, .1 Conditional'Use Permit No. 81-47.
..1,/.
.'
" ,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
... . :;;. '.-' ~ '. ...... .. :. ' ... . . 1,
..;.\..:t' ,." "1,':'." .
.\~;,>~{~;y.~.,:...;t,T~~~~L;~~~{.~~~~tt~:,:.'j.t~:~~~~;~~~;~}:.{~'i!J,;)~;}iir; q,>;;jV ; :;',:~;':' ~': .,. ~'::' ~': l.}: 1, :.;;. 'V:;,';,,:,~<,,:/,' :"
'.",....,.,:".. ,,','::,.l:~',ii,iSubsurface ,engineering geology investigation of
','",.:.V:.,;{;'. ,~;'..,;:;,:....:\,:Highland',Hi.11s. pl~nnE!,!i unit development in ,the East ,,',','
""""::~',i:,:,, ,:.' :'.' ,'.....,.','.:'Highlands'area 'of the, Ci ty of San Bernardino.' Califo.rnin.'
",\,;.:~ : ," ",'"',, "/Prepared by"Gary"S~' Rasmussen &: Associates. Project :No. c'/'
, , ' ::' 1032-2, dated October 7, 1981. ' .'~ ~ _ .d'.
_ i77:!'< ::' .~':i.. : ."., ,:~...t~: :::~. :.:' .";~:_t:':;,~ ~f;~.:\t;.:Fr~.htt~J..~:~;i~::~r,;.\J}~ft~f;~~~::-~\;.:~~ ~.!,,'~. ; ~,rJ...~_!!!yz,5'~~ ~ .~. ~ '. .): ~ .:../::' .: .::-:. c' ". '. ~'} ~;; . f:: '-p; :,;';'../. .:....
'::":." .;:' ,:'. '. J, ;'r:,'~::; 2., :,: Faui t:inv~st1gat1on for a 'portiun of Area" A" ,Highland
, "':;:;'. ... '..... ~ :,,,:::,{.' ilfiis' 'spec1'Uc' plan';':'located northwest of' lJighlandAvenuc.:'
., . ':. and Orchard Road, East lUghlands, Ci ty of San Bernardino,
',' ",,'.;i,:Ca11fornia; :' P~epared by Leighton and Associates,Project
"';"~:':No.,6840844-02, dated January 8, 1985. .
. ,.. D~t~~~~,if,~j~,;\:.jii~.,:;~f:ti::;.,:L:::hi.~j.p{;;,::,;f;.:/,;:;}:;,::,,,, ;".~ ,,:"',~,~. \j,"" ;:;,~. ,i, ,\ .;,:' .,,:: ;':':;';:'
..,.,.,,:;.,:':The.maln...,.south branch of the San Andreas fault cuts across,
:::' ,:.,/:: the"southern portion' of the property in the vicinity' of .. .'" " '
" , Highland, Avenue. The report' by Rnsmussen & Associates
,,/ 'completed. in 1981 , Involved a much larger area than the later
>..:.report ,produced in ,1985 by Leighton and Associates. The:"
" . ,.,,' Leighton report 'is a ',follow-up study'of the portion ..of the
property cut by the main, south branch of the fault zone."
. '.I...' .:;. ., . "
A setback iine limiting structures for human occupancy was
recollllDended by Rasmussen and Associates trending -::c.
northwesterly parallel to the fault zone and 50 feet removed
to the northeast of the most northeasterly fracture logged
in their trenches. Firm evidence for faul ting, that .',' .,.. _
determined the setback line was present only in Trench No.: '1
at 845 feet south of the northeast end of the trench. : The
trench log 1s unambiguous reyarding the presence::of this ,,'
fault. A strike of N 80 Wand a'dip of 75 south are
recorded. The log further describes the formation 'on the"".
", ....
...'. '..
.~ '~i;':';.\'~~;:.
. .... -'
". ""~.~"
. ,::; ~ '. ,.~",:,
..
: ,', .,~ : --; ~'.
:
(
-
~'
. ::....
.J .'
, .
.
~5
!
/
( -
I
~
~
.
I
~
~
~
~
.J
I;
,~
i
.,
'. .
" .
. "" "
"
:',#""" '.:.
'...()'li. ,
. '
. . '."
~';:' :.
,--."I,'
.~.,.
.. .
.' ,"
. ,
"
..'
',' '...
:
.9
, ..
.. '
. .
. '. ~ . t. ~ . .
, . .
. "..
Memorandum:. R~ss/Wil).iams, ,Rasmussen &. LeIghton geolc;gical
'reports, Highland .Hills conditional use Permit No. 87-47, 8/4/87.
0,
, ,
north side of the fault as. being dry, and the formation on
the south side as be~ng very moist. Although the evidence
for faulting at 845 feet is clear, this same fault Is not
evident along trend in trenches 180'and 860'feet to the
southeast excavated by kasmussen in 1974. Further to the
southwest .in Trench 1 a small break is logged .at 898, feet,
and a fault is logged at 953 feet, with a strike of N 51 W.
The purpose of the investigation' conducted by Leighton and
Associates in 1985 was to test the evidence for~faulting'
used by Rasmussen &. Associates to establish the".setback
line. Specifically, this involved testing the'presence of
the faulting in the Rasmussen Trench No. 1 at 845 feet. For
this purpose Leighton excavated trenches parallel to-and on
. each side of the Rasmussen trench, With careful logging
they found no faulting. In the absence of 'evidence 'in their,
two trenches, and the positive evidence for faulting in'only
one Rasmussen trench, the Leighton geologists recommended
relocation of the setback line in a parallel mcmner'.l10 feet
- ,- ~.
to the southwest, .-
....._"::.:-;,;,: 's",
c. ',1
i
r
,c~,1
I
\
I
I
I
I
,
I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1~. -. - ,-'" .. -
In a memorandum to the Environmental Review Committee..dated ,
November 11, 1981, I recommended acceptanceof--.-!:he .R.asmussen'
report including the position of the setback l1ne~'~The
added evidence bearing on the situation resulting from the,
Leighton and Associates investigation influences'me.to make
a different recommendation. My recommendation-is that the ..
oetback line be set in a parallel fashion 45 feet southwest
of the position originally established by the Rasmussen &.
Associates report. 'Such a location will honor, the .work of',
, both of these respected geotechnical firms and' will :satisfy','
the Alquist-Priolo Act. The restricted zone southwest of.the
setback line will then contain all known faulting making up
the active fault zone. '
I
'i
.' ~
to--
',"
'>-,....- ._-
2
8~
-,
"" -C- '(' . " .. r;':'~
..' 8 '- . rO) ffi @ ~ W. ~J
FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, Pl1.D. ltU 0.1
( 'INING ENGINEER AND REGISTERED GEOlOGIST #2143 I\UU O::i 1~
-
~.. "'-1 ~:'l"",.'~s.;",'
t'''"Y t1 r,'.-~\~':5 (j~:.~jJ.;' _1\1.
., . ""....~, , . ,
S......j ..:,~;...~.:,,,~n"'i~. ~~"
,,;, .......\......"..-..
130 Sunridge Way
Redlands, California 92373
(714)792,8208
MEMORANDUM
. ' ,- ,
, ;.,",,,.., ~'
TO:
Valerie C. Ross. Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
DATE:
Floyd 3. Williams. Registered Geologist
cons,ultant tO~he c,tY~f ~h)B;tFna~dino
" , . #,&~
August 5. 198 ,,''7'' '.,
SUB3ECT: Re~i~w'~f'l~~~efa~t10n studYlgeOlOgy~~port.
Conditional Use Permit No. 81-41, Highland liills. your
memorandum,of August 3. 1981. ~'~:'-'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FROM:
..' .
"'..
~ 'I ~ .
,':
TITLE OF REPORT:
':"~:-'-~-'::' -:~; ;.:' .
('
\
-
Preliminary soils and liquefaction investigation... , ,'::" '..
proposed Highland Hills residential project. N.W:.P:;,~.:.;:~.:.,~'
Highland Avenue and Orchard Road. San BernardinQ~ .:.~:. =:: ::~~::
California. Prepared by C.!!..]'., Inc.. dated March"G,::::::'" -'"
1985. ' ' '---'
,
-. '.
':
....
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is cut at or near the southern
boundary by the San Andreas fault zone. The faul t,. is .
considered active and capable of generating a major
earthquake.
--
Subsurface conditions beneath the property have been -
investigated by Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates (Gei)!ogYH ~,'
Report No, 117 on file), and this geology report gives'
background and data pertinent to the soils and ..- ~
liquefaction investigation.
Twelve exploratory trenches were excavated to a.maximum
depth of 14 feet and three borings were drilled;~oa
maximum depth of 40 feet to develop soils inrormatlon_ - ---
required for the liquefaction study. All subsurfac,i:~ ,--,
excavations were logged. samples I~ere taken for..iii:.:........
place density determinations and for subsequent:'.~,'.- .-~ ~:~.o "
laboratory analysis. ';~;~:"';,;'.:, d;
(
"
'07
Cj
~
~
\
~
----.-..-
"....
" ...
!
...,.,
.
o
..
Memorandum: Ross/Williams, Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47,
Highland llills, August 5, 1987.
,'--,
;Depth to groundwater varies considerably from place to
place beneath the lowland portion of the site, perhaps
because of uncapped artesian wells and partially
destroyed irrigation systems. Groundwater was
encountered from 6 to 7 foot depth in one of the
trenches excavated for geological information. By
natural subsurface migration down gradient, the
groundwater moves toward the San Andreas fault zone
where it is impounded in the subsurface, causing'", 0'
rising of the ground water table. The Rasmussen report
recommends a depth of 20 feet for purposes of c'. ,.
liquefaction potential analysis.
A design earthquake capable of generating peak ground
accelerations of O,73g in bedrock beneath the site is
proposed by the geology report. The expected
repeatable acceleration of 0.47g would be projected. :
Because of conditions at the site, a horizontal~ground
acceleration of 0.35g is recommended in the geology'"
report for the liquefaction potential analYSis.~~~_--
Soils encountered in subsurface excavations are
entirely clastic, and varying greatly in particle size.
Typical strata are silty sands, graded sands, gravelly
sands, or boulders. ..
A conclusion of this report by C. H. J., Inc., based upon
the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures,
the site geologic parameters from Rasmussen, and,an
analysis involving this information, is that
liquefaction could occur within the shallow groundwater
areas (less than 35 feet) at the subject site during a
significant seismic event. .
RECOMMENDATION:
This investigation and report meet the requirem~nts of
Resolution No. 82-345 of the City of San Bernardino.
,';
~-----",
..-'.,-- "'-
-"--'--.....- -
"
....~..:' ......'.
- _'-<-.J ~,
,"','
2
(
~t6
c
,.,....
'...""",,
..
(-
," ,Ii
APPENDIX I
COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES
(
The Planning Department has received comments.-from,the_-_San
Bernardino County Planning Department, the :County ,Flood
Control Agency, Cynthia Ludvigsen an attorneycrepresenting
homeowners in the area, and CalTrans. Those~ccomments are
summarized below. The public comment period_~extends to
October 28, 1987: therefore, this section of thesstaff report
will be amended to include responses to comments received
after October 20, 1987. 6f7e: ~C~00e:
Comments received in time for distribution are:attached,but
responses may not be complete. .,-:;,2;.;:" _ __"
A.
San Bernardino County Planninq (Attachment I-l)~
Concern was expressed regarding water availability,
erosion, flooding, traffic, noise, fire hazard,
Foothill overlay compatibility, the "substantial
departure from the present densities being develop-
ed surrounding the site", wildlife habitat ~and
seismic activity. Additional environmental review
was requested, and it was recommended the Highland
MAC (Municipal Advisory Committee) receive ':and
review the application.
.I
'-.,; '--~
j...::' ~
~
-::; ,-- .. ',- ~.
1.... <.:- __.,_,
In response to
following:
these concerns, staff offers ~the~~~o~?
1.
East Valley Water District can and will
provide water for domestic and fire protection
needs. (Letter dated October 13, 1987,
Attachment "E", Comments and Responses);
2.
A detailed
review and
grading as
erosion plan will be submitted~for
approval prior to landclearing or
required by Foothill Development;
.-'_..c.' _
.- ,- -. ~ -
"-,_.-.
_.__,-",~J
!c..t -: ':;'C-;:~i:::-
.s ~~.':'::2.l~
.:t:~~;._':":~~ ::,
8~
("...'
'-'
(
~:'f~'
J~l~; .
-""'''~'''''"''
,.. 3.'
4.
5.
,,..,
~../
Flood Control Comments" (Attachment "E" Com ",
ments and Responses) 'address flood control
measures, plans necessary for review and
inadequacies on existing plans;
Traffic and noise are discussed in the initial
study (Attachment "E");
Fire hazard is mitigated through compliance
with Foothill Development standards; ,
6. Departure from present densities is addressed
in the Highland Hills Specific Plan;
7.
8.
(
9.
Wildlife habitat will be eliminated on
acres proposed for this development;
Seismic activity is mitigated through
ance with Alquist-Priolo requirements;
the 22 =
compl i '
. . -- - -
_,''- -L... ". ~
c
The Highland MAC is a part of the general-
public which had legal advertisement of the ...___
project and any members of the committee
within 500 feet of the project will receive a-
Notice of Public Hearing.
;..- ..
B. The Flood !;;ontrol AQency (Attachment 1-2),
The following items were expressed as concern
regarding Flood Control Plans:
\,
1. Box culvert calculations inadequate;
2. Bulking and freeboard incorrectly calculat~d;
3.
Access road widths must be 20 feet or Cook
Canyon Creek must be concrete lined; ..
4.
Cook Canyon
incorrect;
Creek
bulking
calculations are
.'-. -.,.
5.
6.
Stream velocity at curves is incorrect;
;:-. ~ ~- E:~_i
No Drainage Easement for the City of ~San
Bernardino has been recorded with regard to
Cook Canyon Creek;
_:r;,'-;'.'
~o
c
.1'-~_' .
-..,. ...
(
"'''.
:',)
,)
'-'
" .
- --'-"-.c'.. ,"<
7~ '0' A 25 foot building setbac,k must be maintained
or Cook Canyon Creek must be concrete lined;
".,p.o-
....
8. 100 foot building setback from City Creek is
required.
In response, the City
October 13, 1987, made
regard to drainage.
Engineer in a memo dated
the following comments with,
(
"bl Cook Canvon Creek Improvements
Design of Cook Canyon Creek Improvements is
currently underway by the developer's Engi-:
neer. City Engineering is Plan Checking the
design. The design will have to be approved ,"
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any' --
construction permits." ' -
Until all issues regarding the inadequacy';c'J)f
calculations and resolving the concern of conCIate
lining for Cook Canyon Creek, the City will _'not,
approve the Channel Improvement Plans. " _. _ ,
C.
Cvnthia Ludviqsen, Attorngy representinq homeowners
in the area (Attachment 1-3).
In Ms. Ludvigsen's letter dated October 7, 1987,
the following items are addressed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
l 5.
"
6.
with the Highland Hills
recommendations regarding
Failure to comply
Specific Plan in
liquefaction.
Verification that the project includes pr.oper ,,'
seismic fault setbacks. C~
Lack of geotechnical investigation to deter-
mine the stability of earth-fill dams.
Design of water storage tanks
seismic activity.
to withstand =~,':J.
Location of a new debris basin.
Hard surface of Cook Canyon Creek and the loss
of reparian habitat in that the Environmental
')1
I',.-~
'-'
.!,..;-. ~"-l '
(
,
(
7.
"....._~
, ,
""'"
J
..
Impact Report
retained in its
many full grown
Cook Canyon Creek is
state thus preserving
states
natural
trees.
Environmental conclusions are no
because the measures currently
not consistant with the Specific
longer valid
proposed are
Plan.
Absence of a bridge over City Creek
required by the Specific Plan.
9. Failure of the project developers to address
the concerns of County Flood Control.
8.
10.
11.
as
The proposed realignment of
and the deletion of a 2.5
parcel.
The extension of Orchard Avenue as required by
the Specific Plan to enable placement of a
storm drain and catch basin system.
Highland Avenue
acre park side
12. Addition of the eliminated 2.5 acre park to
the development to increase density.
13. The specific plan states residential units
will be for sale only and the proposed is for
rental units.
14. The disruptive element with regard to the
character of the adjacent neighborhood.
15.
16.
17.
The nature of fiscal impact differences from
the single family homes and townhouses
evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR and the
fiscal impact of bond financed apartments and
the effect on Public Revenue, Property Tax
Revenue and Retail Sales Tax Revenue.
The conclusion in the Specific Plan EIRthat
the proposed project of owner occupied unitsc
would generate more revenue than it would cost,
the city to provide public services is invalid
for apartment projects.
The
Plan
EIR.
substantial
necessitates
deviation from the Spe~lfic
amendment of the original
o
".,,;".-
.:;
.--.' "
w
,"; ...v
"....... '-'
"., -L-
c~, );;'
CJ~
c
(
(
(
.r...
'-'
/- ~\
....""'"
"';'-';
!."
"~"-,~,'P.!-
18. The proposed project violates consistency
requirements of State Law. (Sections 65450,
et seg) local ordinance Chapter 19.79 and the
California Environmental Quality Act.
the concerns staff offers
the
In responding to
following:
1&2. Dr. Floyd Williams, City Geologist, reviewed
all the submitted geologic studies (contained
in the Initial Study, Attachment D) and
concluded liquefaction concerns can be
addressed through foundation design and the 50 -
ft. habitable structural setback from the main.
south branch of the San Andreas fault is.
adequate.
3.
In a memo from the City Engineering Department
dated 10/13/87, (Attachment 1-5) it is stated,"~.
"c) We do not know of any earth fill dams in
the vicinity of the projectl however, a debris
basin owned and operated by San Bernardino
County Flood Control District is located near,
the easterly limit of the project on Cook
Canyon Creek. This facility does retain water,
and is therefore not a dam."
A letter dated 10/19/87 from Joe Bonadiman
(Attachment 1-6) states the earth fill dam and
debris basin are off-site and covered by-
easements to County Flood Control. These,
facilities have been checked by County and_ _
State Agencies for safety. 0
4.
There are no water storage tanks proposed in,
conjunction with this project.
5.
The planned location of
is in the proposal stage.
the new debris basin~,
- 7'.":",,-::,
6.
Hard surface of Cook Canyon Creek Channel-is a:~ ____
requirement of Flood Control and also of the_c___!em~
Master Flood Control plan of the City. (See' - '- -
Attachment "E"). An option to full concrete .:;:';::.'
lined channel bed with 15 foot access roads is
a rock lined bed with 20 foot access roads.
q3
c
'. ~ -,. -"-"., .-... '" j-'
(
" I- ..~..,-;
(
".......
"
, ",_J
"""
"', ~'" h.' -'.......
"
The necessary access
removal of some trees.
roads will require'
7. Environmental conclusions of the EIR have been
addressed in the Initial Study (Attachment
"D"). According to Mike Grubbs, Senior City
Engineer, as stated at the ERC meeting of
OCtober 8, 1987, all new environmental issues
pertaining to drainage and grading are miti~ .
gatable by engineering design.
8.
This project is not
therefore, the bridge
an issue.
adjacent to City Creek,
over City Creek is not" -
9. The developers are working with Flood Control
as discussed previously in this section.
10.
The proposed realignment of Highland ~ffec- ,: ~, ~.c
tively straightens curves and increases the:~~~
width to 4 lanes. The realignment eliminates]'c. -,' .
the 2.5 acre park. The developer will pay~
Quimby Act fees in lieu of park dedicatio~
consistent with Section 3.2.3(c) of Specific
Plan.
>..:,-
~
11. One half the Right of way adjacent to the east
boundary of Parcel 2 will be dedicated to the
City.
12. The density of the project is based on density c.
tranfers allowed by the Specific plan and the -
PRO chapter of Title 19 of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code. The overall density of this.
project is 9.5 dwelling units per acre which.c .
"is less than that allowed, (8-14 du/acre);' ,"._
Calculating this project excluding the acreage~cc~_~ _"
previously proposed for the park, the density '_._
would be 10.3 units per acre, still below the:~~~ .
maximum allowed.
13. The proposed complex is for rental l!l1i ts ~ ::", ,-:,!:
Since the type of ownership is not discussed. :'~: t~-
in the EIR, this should not be an issue with, -n~ ~"
regard to CEQA.
14. This issue is addressed in the Analysis
section of this staff report.
q"l
~"".-,
"-
-
~"
""...;.~..,
.. I" "' ,"",....
..
(
15.
. ,
The commentors proposal is to have the
Impact section of the EIR reevaluated
revenue generated by apartment uses
lower income levels of the occupants.
16, 17, 18. Whether deviation of the proposal from
the Specific Plan is substantial enough to
warrant amendments to the EIR, and whether or
not consistency requirements of State law,
CEQA, and local ordinances are violated is an
issue better addressed to the Planning Commis-
sion and City Council.
Fiscal
based on
and at
D. CalTrans
(
CalTrans is concerned that cummulative impacts of
continued development in the area by mitiga.ted~
prior to development of the area. However, ;~ere
is no specific comment on this project.
In response, the cummulative impacts were assessed
during the Specific Plan process, and impactsP are
to be assessed on a project basis at various stages
of development of the entire 541 acres covered by
the Specific plan. Subsequent to the approval of
the Specific Plan in 1982, several large
residential projects have been developed in the
vicinity. These projects are all within the
jurisdiction of the county. The additional impact
of traffic on the streets by these additional
development (approximately 4,500 dwelling unitsl
were evaluated in Section 3.2, Traffic, of the '
Specific Plan.
csj
10/26/87
DOCUMENT:MISCELLANEOUS
CUP87470BSERV
. ~ .,- '...-
~ ..
C~_:-:-:)": _~ "i CB,':;:~~:
"
\,
clj
11/17/87
Doc:misc
cup87470bserv
.' i"':-.- r .~,
'l5
-
-
~
c
"'''.
/',....
.....J
\
.. '
.
;1'
.".'.,> ....:..,'....
.. ,,' ..
('
--<-f:
E-CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN - LETTER DATED 10/27/87
In a letter received by the Planning Department dated October
27, 1987, Ms. Ludvigsen makes the following comments:
",.' c" "l.~pplications submitted were incompl'~te.
-' ,;'~;-!~r;;~ :~.-:-.~~-~~/x.~, ':;'.~; :.i~7:;4 -::
-. .~.
, 2. Appl icat ions
Specific Plan.
are
inconsistant with ,Highland' 'Hills'
A.
B.
Realignment and widening of Highland Avenue. -,
Channel alterations with regard to the North Fotk ~
Ditch.
Elimination of Community Park.
Construction of apartments
townhouses.
;:._ _.6-;.
C.
D.
". ::~-
as
opposed, ,:','to' r:
,'''-'
_ _ .....J...
- . ,"' :-'~.' :1 (~l '.... :-:; ..- ~~-
In response staff offers the following:
_.... r:eSpC;l~;-: s::'.:_f~::;f.:~,r.;:
1. The Environmental Review
materials submitted, deemed the
Use Permit 87-47 complete at
meeting of 10/8/87.
Committee, satisffed c "With '=':',~.,'O,-_
application fO:c,',''Coriditional.'':'' ''0 -,
their regularly' Jcscheduled ' ,,,,'F
2. The submitted Conditional Use Permit 87-47 is consUltant
with the specific plan in that: '.. _..~::'-~'
A.
Highland Avenue
radii of curves
which meets the
Department.
is widened to
are widened to
approval of
four lanes" and the 0" ..'
affect a realignment ,- cu:~~
the City Engineering "~2"'O:' :.::
.,'........ -'-'
_ _ ,.,.",.,....,.,
",.. ~+.,:. .. >
B. North Fork Ditch easement is to be relocated which' '~,:: ;: ~:"-
is permitted by the Specific Plan. 8'_;:,?:':"'~::.:"-~:~~4 t
C. The developer is permitted to pay QuimbY: Act.'!feesd"';2l:';;;,e:
or dedicate a community park site. The applicant'j2~L'2:=t" 2,
elects to pay the Quimby Act Fees. ::.7:,:~:-';.(_:'T::\ .tc. -.....""',. "C'
D. Townhouse is a type of floor plan which Lis CornmOI1l'.>c,S2 l:~ '"
to this project. The question of ownership is:'an'ls',prq,o;c','
inappropriate criterion on which to evalu'at-e'c)c:ia::2
townhouses .'"_
9&
c
,,-.
.....'
-.r1.'\
,.,i
In additon, Ms. Ludvigsen makes the following comments
P"-" 'I; ,:;.;., 'lspecific'to Condi~ional' Use 'Permit 8~47:
. "i>~.~ .", .~, I
..,.;..",~,
.4;,d.-:1:-
,.....'-~
. ._..~....'.~
1. Density in inappropriate.
2. Traffic mitigation is inappropriate.
3. Hard surfacing Cook Canyon Creek is inappropriate.
4.
Orchard Drive extension is not included
eliminates the possibility of construction
catch basin system.
which
of a
5. No liquefaction study has been performed.-
6.
Impact of rental
, and the ability
fire services.
-:::;'~~j-,-.!:" ow.::.
- . -. - .- - -
units with regard to lost revenue
of the City ,to provide polic~-and
- '';:, -
~,:.;.-~-i~-;
7. Lack of two means of ingress-egress.
In response, staff offers the following:
~~'-~ -. -~-
'- .;;;:;.;..-~_ _.'~.<;;'.o-
:::;: .:..:~...:
- -.. ----' -
, -,
1. Overall density of the site is 9.5 units per-acre.:.- :::"c_,:
which is consistant with the Specific Plan. If the .;;_ :;~i1,,_S
2.5 acre park site were subtracted from the overall:;:~-pac~ 2
acreage of the project (30 ac), the density woald::~-cf:~2
be 10.3 units per acre, still within that perm~tted.3 Uni:2:~
by the Specific Plan (8-14 du/ac). 0l ==5 ~p~::lflC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Traffic mitigation included impacts from
units, the total number of units approved
area.
'4,538.>:. ii": _ ~:;,:,
in the:~2 _,
Cook Canyon Creek will be
of high erosion potential.
be rock lined and will be
natural appearance.
hard surfaced: in places~--;-:'~
In other areas it '.-will:" '.-;'~'.,~-._-,-
designed to maintain a:: ___,._
1"'l:-C -:-... -. ~ -', _........ - - --
~..~.., _. ,,_ __ _ _ . '':;'w. .....
Constructed roads are not needed to. cofitrol-~c=2~
drainage, a temporary drain channel can accommodate: ,_
the runoff generated. Because of anticipated ::~~:f_ ~~
maintenance problems associated with an unuseable"'.:::'Ge, ,,_
street, the City does not want the road to~ -be" ".._
extended until the single family phase':': is:>:
constructed. The phasing issue was legally amended:::::~::=.
by Resolution No. 85-236. C\, -"':::~Gl"::l::,: ~,
Previously addressed in response to
10/7/87.
letter dated~::2:;
'::0::
.. t, ,,"'< '-,',~ _.-
......,:;-. .
Fire and Police both state
ability to service this
Conditional Use Permit 87-5.
the departments Fhave:,",C
project and project"'
P01i=
.. ~- ....
'17
c
",,,,,~~ ':t '~r' rt ': "" , ":..' <,
(
/',..".
1",..'
'~......
....,.I
7. Two means of ingress-egress are provided - off of
"""'Orchard and 'the 'second, off of a'lltreet identif&C1 '
as "Access Road" on the site plan.
; ,t;\. .~
-.'""
'18
"
'-
/ '''',
"-
'-"
'"'' _:t',~;. ~H~~'- -, '-,:"fr-::~;!':'1:-:l'J;X;::',';_~
, ...,._ ,.", h."..........,
, "
-0
(
APPENDIX I
._ <.. ~... '.l
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED
ATTACHMENTS
I 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY .-.....
PLANNING
I - 2 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FLOOD CONTROL _ - ,- '
I - 3 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN (10/7/87) =~ -"
I 4 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CAL TRANS - .. -, 'r, "'-"-.-'
_ ~_'h __~ ___
I - 5 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CITY ENGINEERrNG- ,-',- -_::.~ ";'" "\',i'T' ~ .....'::..
- ....' "'" .... -> .:... ,-~ - . '-",-'-.
I 6 ,-COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM JOE BONADIMAN :: - - :-~".'.'.';"-'.~-:: ' -- .......-
~ ........... .."~...._ 0-
I - 7 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM EAST VALLEY WATER ~ClO/8l87J:':- -'<-,',>
I 8 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN ':(10/271871' -
(
~~
c
OC'l',:~EER 7, 1987
r,
I",...,OMMENTS RECEI1J'J.J 1-1_.1
, ,I " COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROINO
:,: " I, ',..; ENVIRONMENTAL
... ~;r.~.'i~:""l.#~~:_\t ~f;:;~'ilUlUC WOfI(S AGEHCV,l\:1~1'lt
, ,~ ' ,!!ti,/'fII(,[/ft: JOHN N. JAQUESS
;'J!ll\\\ ~ : Land Management Director
i:,
\l,")
.
U'J
nr.T l) \~ 1987
~
~<tAND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMiNT,
,..-.-
\
_..86 North Anowheod Avenuo . Son Bomordino, CA 92415-0180
f.'
c:~y OF S~~~ BERNARDINO
A't'T:~ : JACKIE PAULSEN
PlJU\NING DEPARTMENT
300 ~ORTH "D" STREET
SAN BEIUIARDINO, CA 92418
f,r, : '
........;,
,-,'"'T
OFFICE OF PLANNING
Sharon W. Hightower
County Planning Officer
OFFICE OF SURVEYOR
Claude O. Tomlinson. L.S.
~ . CountY -Surveyor
OFFICE OF BUILOING AND SAFETY
Larry L. Schoelkopf. P.E.
County Building Official
:.... t.':
HE: El'.ST HIGHLANDS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Dear Ks. Paulsen,
We appc3ciated the opportunity to comment on the above reference
proj~c~. In review of the East Highlands Hills Planned Residential
Dcv~lopment there no significant changes from,the previously
r""inwed project and have the following concern's. ",,'d
!1()."ti:n.:
Wate::.', its availability and quality.
(
Ero',', i. 'In
---
E=o~ion during and after construction. There is a need to
dev,!iop a suitable erosion control plan pri'orto"ap'r:,:coval of
gn.ding.
Il'2ylir~q and streambank Erosion
The increased surface run-off into Cooks Canyon Creek during and
after construction needs to be evaluated.
~r..,f:i(-.
-- .-- --"-
The increase in traffic and accompanying 11oi~e .has pote~tial
imp3ct, especially cumulatively and should be ,addressed on a
loc~l level as well as regional.
;:i t"'.El
The c.t:I:mlative impact of this den5e development and itsasso,ciated
incr-ease in population with its proximity to the Nationa.l Forest
ne\!<ls to be assessed. San Bernardino county hasa.dopted ~a Safc.ty-
Foothill Ha~ards Overlay District to reduce risk and provide for
sa fer rlevelopment in areas identif ied for PQ.teiltial,-)"ndland
ha:z:ards. It is hoped that this project would'. ~nc;oq)ora~esuch
:neasures for a safer development. ~--'-'-".'--- . - --
~r.2:-.:.;: .::.-.-.y I,; y::.....
100
c
-!;ttl1'lH"J:"I~'''i~7-:~_ ..tl;<~
r
~
!
~
(
~
-
r'"
f ....
v
v
(,:~
. ~ ': ' ~ ' t ~ 1 -'.
-'
L" I~.:'t"
":::~~"-,'-~~;. ,~:
S.B. CITY PLANNING
JACKIE PAULSEN
PAGE TWO
Land use
The high density development will also represent a substantial
departure from the present densities being developed surrounding
the site. The wildlife habitat are a substantial value to the . .
general public and warrant careful consideration in land use
planning and project design. ; " ~: ~.. '" -"~' ---
Seismic
The project site has high probability of seismic activity. The
consequences of a large earthquake on or near, the.. site.:.',will have, .'.
enormous adverse effects and should be evaluat~d.:~-~:~~:;';~- ~:~c -,,;;';':-.
We are also concerned with other issues a project.Df ~his density
would present. While we are not opposed to the' development, ,we'
find the project needs additional review through,the.'EilVllomnental.'
Review Process to identify and address potential impacts,.c:' ". c j':'
In addition, it would be appropriate to give the Highland MAC the
opportunity to review and comment on this project:.':~_:.'.; --,"
Thank you for the opportunity to
project. If you have any questions
(714( 387-4176.
review and comment on this
please contact our office at
"
Sincerely,
EPWA/LAND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF PLANNING
.>d~ i?l.: VG
GARY BILL, PLANNER
EAST VALLEY PLANNING TEAM
....'-
101
- DE~RTMENT OF TRANSPoRh(rYoN/s
,~fLOODCONTROL/AIRP9RTS ,",' ",,-,"",'
P.ECEI" " 1-2\
'-/ COUNTY OF SAN BER~INO
\ \11'1/ ENVIRONMENTAL
~\\ /~ PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
... ,;i,'-....."".....,~'~~'t ~...".....-"',..._.....-^"...-,.... "',.
:::: :::-
~ 0.:::-
f '25 Eost Third StrHt . Sin Bomlrdlno, CA 92415-0835 . 17141 387.2800 .....~ ~-- MICHAEL G, WALKER
~ /1'1//'11\\\'<:' Oi'ecto'
October 14, 1987
city of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92415
File: 3-301/1.00
3-306/1. 00
309.0314
lnl ;:,@()1jl ,',oil;? ~5 r.::\~
I -~ ,I,) U: :~ '21 I ~ I, U 'II
ulJL::..}
OCL191987
Attention: Mr. Ed Gundy
Ms. Sandi Paulse~
C' ,';' , " ,,"~,S [t?;\im.~ENT
SMj tl::RNAflD!140, CA
Re: Zone 3, City Creek and -
Cook Canyon Channel-
Conditional Use
Permits 87-5 & 87-47
Gentlemen:
(
Reference is made to your transmittal of Condit-iona~-Use Permits
and 87-47 to establish a 224 unit apartment compJ,;e-x'.w1th'accompan-ying
site plans and Cook canyon Creek Improvement p_lans and requesting
the District's review and comments. -. -' --,~~~-- --'
~
This office has previously reported on this area to_ t:.he City, of
San Bernardino by letter dated April 29, 198.7. A copy of our
previous correspondence is enclosed for your reference. Our
comments and recommendation remain the same. -' '
The improvement plans have a "San Bernardino county,FloodcControl
District" title block. Recommendation #4 of our April 29,1987
letter to the City recommended Cook Canyon Channel be covered by
a cj ty Drainage Easement. If the City desires to have the
District consider operation and maintenanceofcthe _-Channel, an
official request should be sent to Kenneth A. Miller ,__Director,
Transportation/Flood Control Department. ," - - --" "
The submitted improvement plans have been previously reviewed.
Our comments dated March 25, 1987 and September 2~ .,1986 to - the'
engineer are attached and remain the same. ,. -- _ __ ",---,
~-
~
/0'"
-
c
r
,.....""
.......,
'V
-,.....,>
~. ,~,_~.,~-, f<-' 4-. 'i"'~'t! '!~': i :~ -~ '7 I
,-n t..... .T'1~'~'l-1 r'~-::,'''''' ":"~~ ~',. :~. '-"! < . -: ''''':~, -~ J;,,'" .
~~. '.- -...:!'......-,..,'.:., -:' - "
(
'-'
Letter to the City of San Bernardino
October 14, 1987
Page 2
~ .
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to contact Mr. Robert W. Corchero, Chief, Water
Resources Division at (714) 387-2515. . _ ".,'
Very truly yours,
11 Ii <#0 /? (' ,,-
~" r:.~,.(.~.--.I
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
RWC:HWS:oj
Encl, as noted
C~_1~' , "_
cc: City Engineering wjencl.
Ken Miller
Mina Ghaly
?.:-=-~ ~'~=--..:. :.s.::.
I
'-'
\ '
'--'
ID"Z.
D!:P~TMENT OF TRANS )RTA-(IONI
""FLOOD,CONTRQL/AIRPQRTS ,
. ,.,. ' "..." ,. ,_., .. _.' ..' .. ,_ --.. ,...... -.. l' .. ..,..- .. . . .... ...." ~ ~ ,,... .""," ...'-........-, "......" -, ...' ,-,,-.' -'... ,
.p ""j"/"," ( 'r:.
~/..<';',JC:/'I-
c- :ast Third 51ftet . San Bernardino. CA 92415-0835 . (714) 387.2800
'-"
,~\\II'''ff/
~.~.t~..
..-:::-- ..;::-
.-~ ~.....
/'lfill,'\\\~'
April 29, 1987
COUNTY OF SAN BERN. .NO
ENVIRONMENT AL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
% ,/
...
MICHAEL G. WALKER
Oireclor
file: 3-301/1.00
3-306/1.00
\ ~'fQ9.0314
I:; "
, ,:\
!;!
"
: '..
'. _.~
(', , J I
I,
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
,--: ~
,.11.
,. ,
.. ..:.
" ,:'..~T
J, (;,\
Attention: Hr, Don Williams
Re: Zone 3, City Creek and
Cook Canyon Channel -
Cond itional Use Permit B7-5
. Gen tl emen :
'-"
Reference is made to your Agency Comment Sheet with, accompanying maps
requusting the District's conments andlor recolIJnendations~.on . tile ,referenced
development. The site is located on the north side of HighlancLAvenue, ,)'nd "
west of Arroyo Vista Drive, in the northeast portion ofocthi,:Ci~y"Of San.,"'.. ,
Bernardino.
;,.'; ...
(
This site abuts on the west a major watercourse known as, Ci ty Creek and an
existing natural drainage course which outlets flow from. Cook'Canyo'n--along
the southerly boundary. Both these watercourses have experienced 'highly
debris laden flows in the past.
In our opinion, those portions of the site lying in and abutting City
Creek are subject to varying degrees of flood hazards by ieason Of overflow,
erosion, and debris deposition, in the event of a major .storm until such
time as permanent debris retention facilities and channelization,of City
Creek are provided. Those portions of this site lying in ,and abutting Cook
Canyon Channel and its overflow areas are subject to 'infrequ'erft. no'od
hazards by reason of overflow, erosion and debris deposition until such time
as adequate channel and debris retention facilities are provided'to intercept
and conduct these flows through and/or around and away fr'om'thi ,'site . ,The
site is also subject to tributary flows from the smaller. canyo'ns...to, the
north and eas t. ,',,' .' ,.. ..-.
~::..:. '-p
Our recommendations are as follows:
;-c;~:::-:--:-::?~'J':"':
':l ~,
I.
A detailed drainage analysis be provided by the developer's eng,ineer.,. ~,.."' ,
Showing how it is proposed to cope with the serious floodebazards
to the site. Any proposal should show how ,flood proofing facilities
which meet the Federal and County of San Bernardino' s requiremen~s - ,-,:
can be provided without adversely affecting the adjaceni::and/or -''''~ ,'~
downstream properties. ' .., ,:,:- ,e
,_-J,.
(
'-
t::..J<:L. .... /
104
c
\0... ,.,;'
J
(
::, ",,;rl~>tie~" foCi' th'e'C1 t'y
April 29, 1937
Palle 2
of 'San Bernard ino
>. :,
-\' ~'.
.....~."."'..,............
~
2, Adequate provisions shall be made to intercept and conduct the off-site
tributary drC1ina~e flow around or through the site in a manner
which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.
3. The developer's engineer shall prepare and submit survey cross-sections
of City Creek adjacent to the site so necessary right-of-way
dedications and Building SetbClcks can be determined. The study
shall be completed prior to District approval of the proposed
developmentlland division.
4. Adequate drainage facilities shall be provided to intecept and
conduct flows from Cook Canyon through the site without ~adversely
affecting adj acent or downstream properties. The,facilities
should be covered by an adequate City drainage easement. ,Depending
on the type of facility provided, an adequate building setback should
be prov ided.
5.
Grading plans and improvement plans which may affect District facilities,
shall be' submi tted to the District (in quadruplicate) for rev iew
by Water Resources Division, Field Engineering Division, Flood:'~
Control Design, and Field Operations Division. .,'
"
6.
A permit will be required for any encroachment onto Flood"Control,~
District rillht-of-way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks "p"oce~sing ,,'
time should be allowed.
'"
(
~
7. In add i tion to the Drainage Requirements stated herein" other
"on-site" or "off-site" improvements may be required which, cannot, ~
be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to
be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and drainage
analysis have been submitted to this office.
8. Section 16.0212(g) of the County Code sets the fee for this review
and analysis at $125,00. This fee is to be submitted directly to
the District Office with an indication that it is for Flood Ha'zard,
Review of 10 #2862, File !lo. 309.0314. The fee should be mailed to:,
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Water Resources Division
825 E. Third Street, Room 120
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
I.;
2-"-'?
There will be no further review of, or permits issued"for this
site until the fee has been received. , h
Should you have any further questions concerninll this:m,~~~er ", please feel
free to ,contact the undersigned at (714) 387-2515. ,e" C ...,'_. n', _,,~
Very tru21 y~urs,
{i".l...:!r (;~:......<~
ROBERT W. COCHERO, Chief
Ilater Resources Division
RWC:HC11:Vp
Jot;
.C
, ~':~+'! :~! ~ ,>'.
r
"-'
(
'-'
/
I
,
'-
,..........
-....,I
"! ' '; j ; !.; ,.~ ;'.'
-
~/"
I
'/ .1
,
. Calif.,
r".......
'-"
c.; ~ ',H'! '. l"~~:, ,., .
,.
. '-" ~."-'-"-
- ..'~
.'
-77 . Son Ie,nordino County
.,- /;:./ ,...L2
" ,-..'f
.I
-r-
, ..
:1
I
"
,
"
."
II, '/ /, I:"
. "I 1" .'
_...r;;-~:
;{~M Name
..-,I..
,
fROM
,j' .' /'
. ~ ,.{,; ,. .
I .,
.,' 1/
~ ...
/
.. .
.
NATURE OF FEES
.."J,;"
,...
"
.'
/;
I. ./ -r/..9 (: 7l"'{
; ~J.
'7,;" ':If
;
51< ~r CHECK 0 MONEY ORDER
.123IltV. HO <?-/) -::II &' .J 30
~
---
~-~'-~
Caw No
'"".
;', '
/I~//I/
.j
/1
l '
.... ,- ,
@).
/
r- ;"2 .-
I ill
i '.....i
l . ~ .'
, .
::.;
.~
" i. \ 1S81
C:., ;:~mrn
""."W: L:"':., .i._...J, CA
-.-.-----..... -------
DUPLICATE
No,
. ,". ..
_."-_._~._,--_.-
i.../
-. . ,', "'-,- 'Z'c/--
s .' -6.... .. - -' . 0
,'u,/- /! /.
pguAa"
~
,
,.--,,'. ,L-/"
, ~'-7 -------
}.(.' ; ,
tSIGNA'T\;;tREt--
~~~.;t._..::.L- ,.
. ,'/ //1 _ ~
.r:_=,-,,=:c~-,
-~--------
F"
~..x
- -
..... ..
~
lOb
.APA~MENT OF TRANS()RT A(...;oNI
fLOO~TROL/AIRPORis
,. ,,' . . ". ...,-...,,-,"- .
'C lit Third Stroot. Sin 8ornlrdina, CA 92415-0835 . 17141387.2800
, I" \'
(' ,r V V COUNTY OF SAN 8ERNAR''''l
)-' ,~'v."//'/,/ ENVIRONMENTAL --'
:!:\t/~ PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
-:::- ...:=:-
,.~~...... MICHAEL G. WALKER
/11IJIII\\\~' Oi.,clo'
~Iarch 25, 1987
File: 3-306/1.00
309,0309
"-'
Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates
P.O. Box 5B52
San Bernardino. CA 92q12
Attention: Mr. Steve Ventura
Re: Zone 3, Cook Canyon Creek
PH 9166
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your letter of transmittal dated February 12, 1987,
with accompanying improvement plans and hydrologylhydraulic calculations for
the referenced site, requesting the District's review,-and comments. The
site is located east of City Creek. north of Highland Avenue, in the northeast
portion of the City of San Bernardino. 3~. >~ _:. ---- ,'-'
-.'::- ':.::':::' ..~ -" "
-
This site has been reviewed previously. A copy of our September 23. 1986,
letter to the City is attached and our currel)t comments ar:'ekeyed to the letter
as follows: ,,-' - - ~ ~ n,_
'';'
(
Comment #1: Has been addressed.
Comment 12: Not addressed. A HEC-2 program was submitted, but the box
culvert was treated as an open channel, hence-transitions and
bridge losses were not considered,
Comment '3: Bulking and freeboard are incorrectly calculated. The County
standard calls for multiplying the clear - water depth in the
channel by', 5 and applying a 3 foot freeboard for velocities :in
excess of eight feet per second. Also. superelevation for ~e
curved reaches of the channel must be calculated and applied.
" ,
Comment ,q: Remains as a requirement.
Comment 15: Has been addressed.
, ,J '~", "'--
Comment '6: See comment 13,
Comment 17: Has been addressed.
.~ ' .
:~ ::.'- ~ ,~.
;52::_
z.
Comment f8: The rock slope protection has been designed using flow velocities
which are too low. Cal-trans "Bank and:cSl1ore 'Protect ion"
criteria should be used.
"-'
107
-
-
-
',P,",
C I . 0
, _.,.., If:etter. to, ,J\o8s7ep!l. ..E".. B?nad,i!"an,. &..~s.s~,:,.i,,!~e.s
. -.... March 25, 9 ., ., ... ,
Page 2
(
'-
/
(
Comment '9: Has not been addressed.
Comment #10: Remains as a requirement.
Comment '11: Remains as a requirement.
Comment '12: Fee has been paid,
'....~ .
--"'""7~-~.~ .-
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at (71q) 387-2515,
RWC:JJJ:mjs
Attachment
L
cc: Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer
Very truly yours,
~~
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
'1.' .
.
)
.<.... _ .. ._~'O ..-,
~ . . "
109.
... ~~T~~~;Rg~f~~:P~S:l~QTIONf
, j
'"
~ .:.,:;' ,,/ "",,., F
COUNTY OF SAN BER~OINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
'~I\II( ,
~t~T
~ ~
."....:;,. ~.....
/1fIJl11\\\h
September 23.
---
(, :5 e.st TlIlrd St,..t . 5." Bom.,dlno, CA 92415-0835 . 17141387.2800
MICHAEL G, WALKER
Director
1986
, ,
Fi1el'~-~&(',11~,O", "'i _
r; ~o~. Oatlltl ~ ~ \~ . t'
"""1 ,,' ,.. .C<
UL
neT 19 1981
rr:\)
!: \
I"::;
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
[;:T)' r'..'.., '~'.';_~ r:~';:FiTi,!tNT
SAN St.iH~:i;:J;;'JO, C,l'~
Attention: Hr. Roger Hardgrave
City Engineer
Gentlemen:
Re:
Zone 3, Cook Canyon Creek
PH 9166
Reference is made to Stephen Ventura's (Bonadiman & Associates) 'letters dated
August 5, 1986 and September 12, 1986 with accompanying hydrology 'and"
hydraulic calculations, and improvement plans for Cook Canyon Creek; requesting
the District's review and comments. The site is located on the east side of
City Creek and the north side of Highland Avenue, in the northeast'pOrtion
of the City of San Bernardino. -' --
(
Our comments regarding the hydrology/hydraulic calculations andimllrove~~nt..,~
plans are as follows: c. ,.
'-'
....,
I,
The on-site hydrology is based on undeveloped conditions.".T_he.,
fully developed conditions should be used for the channel design' flows: ""
~ .....~ ~
2.
The hydraulic analysis of the box culvert as an open channel is
insufficient. Please submit a more detailed hydraulic analysis of
the box culvert and transition, including water surface profiles.,
3,
The channel and box culvert should be designed to handle.l00year
storm flows plus bulking and freeboard per County standard Criteria. .'~ 0'"":':
4.
The cross-section of the channel on sheet ,1 shows the access ,road ,
as 15 ,feet wide. A 20 foot access road is generally required by the
District unless the facility is concrete lined.
<0"-"-
5.
Caltrans Standard Plan for a single box culvert is DBO and" not 081, .. ".,.
as shown on the plans, The plan should be modified to provide" a"~.':-' .. ,..
'3" cover for the steel reinforcement in the side walls, ind,-li" "'<<: ~ ',' "
cover for the base to prevent exposure of the steel due toabraisfon.. ". "~:: . c
of the concrete caused by debris from the unimproved upstreamre.ac.h~s.. ,-~'.'o:'~~c~='~
6.
The design of the channel section for Cook
provide for bulking. The channel section
include bulking.
Canyon Creek. does .Dot. ,,' ,. ^
should be re,vl.se.~; to_ ".:~',.~'
'I -:- r . ,....,.~ ~..
_.-'" ~ ._'...
,;
. i ~, : . ~,
'.
/0'1
/c
,.
(
'-'
(
'-'
(
'-
-
-
~
.
c
....-.,,/
-'
(
:,:1":; :~.
" ,,"" '.:, ~
Letter to
September
Page 2
the City of San Bernardino
23, 1986
7, In the irregular channel section '2, the estimated flow depth
exceeds the bank of the channel. Provisions shall be made to
intercept and conduct this possible overflow into the improved channel.
8. In' determining the rock slope protection per Cal trans "Bank and
Shore Protection", the mean stream velocity used is 14 tps.
However, at the curved banks, the velocity used should be the
four/thirds the mean velocity.
9. The proposed channel and access roads shall be covered by adequate
San Bernardino City Drainage Easement.
10. Since the proposed channel is not concrete lined a 25 foot building
set back shall be provided from the City Drainage Easement.
11. Plans were not received for City Creek and hence our recommendation
for a 100 foot building setback from City Creek is still valid.
12. Section 16.0212(g) of the County Code sets the fee for.this,re!iew
and analysis at $125.00. This fee is to be submitted dirllctly,to,
the District Office with an indication that it is for Flood,ijuard ",
Review of ID '2571, File No. 309.0309, The fee should bemailed...to:
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Water Resources Division
825 E. Third Street, Room 120
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
,:'~-..
There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this
site until the fee has been received.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please" feel
free to contact the undersigned at (714) 387-2515. _, ,
Very truly yours,
f....L.t P"...., G.-<.,-
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
RWC:SA:mjs
cc: Stephen Ventura, Bonadiman & Associates
::: '- 2r ::". ,"r ' ~~.
S~;." _.
110
~
-
-
~
c
J
,.." , ,CITY "OF ,SAN BERNARDINO
...~ . ,"
.;." '''.,
(
'--
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Date: /tJ /It/I 9~
From: City of San Bernardino Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino. CA 9241B
Contact Person: $A-~bR.1t ~AIl'-StJ1
To: . FtJres-1 service CiU(/irM~,.,( ff~ J Ruoel
(!o~fr/)II 6u-~ ,tJ/~'J' elf'/ ?;,Uf>
-
Project: I>>'TlIfi., 5-Tt(~Y Fot<, t:..UfJ 'l'1-.47]7J ~.ot1lsne.l{cr
A- '2f4 u#it e<-ft' CoYl-<ff~ wd"- ~' 1(}/4t1er"{HP~le
-j;.~it;t;es loude~ N, of' ;J;}J/...k"'d~'A.,/~J ,-z~oot. PI.r.'
eq>! of' ~tdJ(1r Wi-H..i,,- f-Kc:. f/;lYIfi"-dhtl(~ ~~1Yc.
p/lf.f1. .
(
The City of San Bernardino proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the above
referenced project. The Environmental Review Committee found that the project
will not have a significant effect on the environment on the basis of the
attached Initial Study and mitigation measures (if appl icableJ. '
Any environmental comments you have should be received in this office no later
than /I 1m, t)C-7ooB- ~7.1 1'fJ?7 ~. , "',' "
If you do not respond in writing. we will assume that you have no opinions and/or
recommendations on the above project. 1''':''''c'
m~@~OW~fij)
OCT 15 1987 LffJ
DEPT. OF TR '
DEVELOPM~NNSTPORT A T'O~J
RI?VIEV'J
"
III
--
-
--
C' "
...... t~' ". ... ~
'--yn hla LuavlgS._n
COl"iMENTS REF"IVED t-3
.--.1 Attorney ,l: :.;:\';
(
.::.1 :'1. Arro',':hl..:d .......'(.::::1.. :-;Illlc :~O:'
S.\:l B~l1lan~1h"lli CA l):~.i{n
ql .1) S,s;'j.GS20
--
8cl:(Jb;~~: '7 I 1937
Environ~nen~:211 Rc.:vic",,' Comrni tt(~l~
Cl~y or ~a~ ncrna=dino
300 N. "1)t! st.
San B~~~a=dino, CA 921:13
rc: cur 87-5
CUP a"-~7
p,)T.cel Hap 9lG6
Ladie:::; &'Gi.:nller:~'::n:
1 a:r. w;,:.it:l:lfJ 0'" :J~~h.'J:!.f_ of. my c:.L-:.'r;~.~, t::1l~ E':"(J:~ld~'lc': ~'ii:::~
1-IDr;,,;c(1\':;'r~;:;'; A~j::;oc;.atl'J;:, rC'j.::::c1;,:lI] ~.~:c ,J.:JOV~:: i~c;n.::; C:i :....():.~: C~l:cl:or~;:
i~, ! ~j~; 'j ..1;.j'~ndil.
c--
[Jl: C:'''' i ou~; ly h.l';l~ VI'';.1 t ~e n ~: 0 pO.1:1:. 0;,1 t :', '__:f.:''-~:r. P!l:; d t;.:: ~ c":' c;-;c .~ {~:.: .L:')
::~'d~ .:.ibovl:: appll::.:l~io:'~ p.J.c:,~,:'Hj(;:;: ;\l)::;el~!: ~:ro:~': t:.:c::.;:~ d;;;p:.~c.~tior:.
:;.:1 c l.; ,; r.j'e:-; .::.1r(,: :i1dny L tr;:';;:~ (In the :)tanni:'lg Di-.':po:'.:t:i':lC:lt' S st:a:1c.:..lrd
C:i!.!Cj.;::.;--::, .~l~ \"":;}.1 ;~1:~i .:J.dc~.:.~1(;n.1l J.:~:~~'.q:-m,~,ti-:jn ','/~"'.~:::~ Y(j!l~ cG!r.;nlt:ce
~7("~q!;\::::~(;~ f.i:om t:;i(' c:c:.Jl.l()L....(~:::..; ~.~...,. ld::t: ~~.l~f.! '.hf_':;C' :r!a~:~:c:;::--: '::C::~"
bcfOl:r.; JOI,t. T;11~ 1~(.l/(.;ll)LJf.!.:.::..: ::;til2. :~.i"/C J:(): [;~:(J\.:,;'...~ .11.: ....... ::';';1';
:r.I u:::r:~d ~ 1 O!"i nu;::.;~d.ll:.. :C{~Cli..:':'.r: e:r], r:"':' r:~i Vl; ~Ll~'/ ~I:: cv .:.c:c':: L:dJ.:
;.j..:.:c~~:.:;::.a.;::,l :'.1;':- }'c.:;.:..:.: G..:.l:';u:~i:...~cc to i:',d:-: ._:n ir:for::\c::: c:,:c.i.sion.
~i(j','/'.'V'_'[, :';.i.iiC(; t'.;).e m.:i.t::~e::.:~-; 1::~;'n...;.~=-,
....,....
.1 '~........
clljC:i(d,
V:l:
'i;; ~n ~o
b: i ~IJ I: 'J '.jG L:r "t: ':'c n L ~ '.J:: :'".;C '-.'(;::.1 J c; r: './ ; ::;: ~;::!:\I':::: :':.~i: ':j:i(~' ~: G:-.:~:. :- .:.. : ~ :->: ..',
these prejt:c-:::,'i-, .~.r:rl :...:evcra::. J.;:t),'~c:t:; in '..:hl~h t:].:.,~y .:..J:.1 to CO!;)~'::~y
...lith L11:~ Hi'Jh:.J.n<.1 EIJ.ls :jpc:cj.':::lc PL~,... d;H~l ::hc ':'Gl~':;tion::; i:':1~o:':;~(~
by .i t:.; cn\!i::onm('~:-i::';l} impact :::::':pOI t .
s~ct.io~ G6~71.5 of the M~p Ac~ states:
~.jIJ lCC,~l"j. ;J(j"ncy :.;;l;lJ.L ~:L1p7:"OV("! [.~;jdl :.;U.Jl:.~'';
:'l.:1Y ),lr.cJ pr:ojt~ct, ...1::; L!t~LLn;.:d ;.n ~;eL:~~O;;
i":u:"i.lnl.::;::'; ZlDU Pro[c:-':.r;2.oiL'~ Co(L~, ;]nlc:.:~.:
::: lon
md~)
1:u::
.:.:':"OCO. ~:, 0 C
:~ ~'l C
(a)
l:~!e
The: lac.)). <.HJ'cncy
arCil DrODU~(~d to
h.:~:-.; adoptee:; ~ :,;pt~c~~ic Dl.J.l1" co....e.ri:i':J
be i:'lC]:]d(~d within t:.:c ~;~nC Drojec~.
Li} Tile loc.J.l ar'Jcl1cy J:i:l(~::':~ !1.1l: ::hc p~'O[IQ:;CC. :a.nd [.::ojc:cl.:,
2~e~:hcr wi~h the provi~icnz (j: its dp~jg;l ~:~C irep:cvcmcnt,
:; r.0n::;1::;t:c~~,t: \-lith the ::;i.)ccif c pl.j~ for the .:l1:CrJ.
1
111
I _
-- -
c
,
....."'"
'-"
..r
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
Condition 1 of the parcel map states the map shall adhere to
the same requirements and conditions of the Specific Plan.
A memo from Gene IL Klatt, Assistant City Engineer to Roger
Hardgrave, City Engineer, dated August 7, 1987, clearly
states this requirement., Relevent points from his memo arc:
"Additionally, Section 66474.5 states that no Final Map
shall be approved unless there is a specific plan and that
the map is consistent in both design_and improvement with
the specific plan. ",There W<:lS a specific plan adopted -for
this area (Specific plan 62-1, adopted December 6,-1982,by
11ayor and Common Council) and Tentative Map No. 9166 is _not
in compliance, '
(
"It is quite clear that the intent
require compliance with the Specific Plan
premise th<:lt the map showed otherwise
not a valid one.
of the City W<:lS to
as adopted., c'The
ilnd w~.r!:; -acc.cpt.c_C_ i~
"The Department has consisten~ly and repeatedly indicated
that development should conform to the Specific Plan: If
thl~ was unaccept~blc, npprop~inte ~mcndmcnt~ needed to be
requested and <lppr,)ved by the Mayor and Common council.
presently, the question is not one of justific<:ltion of the
four-lane rOildw.J.Y, but one of consi:3tcncy with the Specific
Plan <:lnd subsequent approv<:ll by all concerned agencies, The
traffic data submitted is not substantially different from
that contained in the original submittal for~he Specl~ic
Plan, only the resulting design is being qu~stioned. For
whatever reason~, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a
plan calling for four lanes on Highland and a four~lane
bridge as well as traffic sign&l:3 and other improvements
and, without their specific instruction:; and approval,' this
Department is not in a position, to review and, modity their
conditions to lesser requirements at the Developer's
request, II .
A review of the recently submitted projects reveals the following
sect ions in \o{h ich d isc:'cpanc ies e:< ist bctw_ce:n these' p.r"ojects
(P.i1. 916G, CUP~ 87-5 and 07-47) and the Specific- Plan _'-S.P.) and
its EIR.
\.:.
2
J/~
c
"'''''"''.
,
'.........
""';/
..
.(
Envl::onmcnt.J.l Revic:1t' Commit:t:.':e
City of S~n BcrnarQino
Octoher 7, 1987
c' .
.lp.l~ml r.
i\ctivil-:v
Pa~c 57 of the S.P./EIR the following ~t~te~:
"The potential for liquefaction is high for the lower portions of
the ~:.tc, as all pa:::al'ncturs necessary for liquefaction occur
there.". Additionally, we h().v.~ cv,:lluated in:ormation that the
U.s. Department of the Interior has recently pu~li!:hecl in a
preliminary report discussing the liquefaction susceptibility in'
the Cun Bernardino Vulley. The report indicates th~lt portions of
the site arc identified as having a high susceptibility LO:::
1 iqt:efaction.
(
'-.
Vcriflcatior. lhQt liquefaction concc~n5 hilVC been adare~~cd for
thi3 project should be documented by tile City in "th6ir cur~ent
cnv.:r;:Jnmcr.tal review. A letter fr:om Ku:r'tzmil:l' :lnd Kodiima
Inc./Arcllitcct5 ~nd Planners contained -e~cerpt~ of
rccolm:~(~n1.J.t.:ion:3 :ll.)(](.~ by CHJ, Inc. 'rhc~e gene:-ul recQmmcrid.?\tion;j
should he replaced by a ~ite specific evaluatIon frb~ the soils
enginc(~:r. Of pnrticula:c concern at this point 'i.nth(~ proc~::;z if;
thilt Golving t!le lique~~ctio~ CG~ccrn cou:d have ~ tremendous
effec~: on gradjng and the visual i~p;lct or the devclopm~rlt.
S~")~::~ it :1Ct be ;/os::;ible to 10v."c2: ground water or rep!.ac~ tbe
ea:::t;-;f-rl m~t:cria: susceptible to liqt=cfactio:1, then the site may
h~ve to bl~ raisc~ QS mucll ~3 30 fl~ct to meet gen~r~l liquefaction
criteria. IE l:h:~~ i:..; the en(Jin:"~crl"~(j ~olution requited, it
should be ~dd~c::;sc.d by the S.['_/Er~ a~.:; to it:~-v':'SU~".iI and grading
impact on the ~ite and adjoining ~ropcrty.
Fllr:t.hermo:-e, theJ:e 1::; still no 1n1:ol.:n1.J.'t:ion to vc~ify
projcc;t includc~ vropcr fault s(!tback~~ rlO~
environmental review addrc~~ the cr~ccts of pote11tial
the [lropo~cd reservoirs
that the
doc~ th<.:
rupture of
On page 60 of the S.P.fEIR the foJ.lawing mitigation measures were
idcaLificd:
\,:./
Earthquake induced ground f:acturing (sympathc~ic .secondary
s=ound failure) ~Ilould be expected nc~r ac~ive'"[j~lt~ al~d on
or near ~lopas (1~rchin9)' The rccommendeQ ~ct~ack zonC3
~~rom f~ults and slope stability setbacks sl,ould cncompas~ an
area where the greatest fracturc~ from ground.lilrthing arc
expected to occur. Fracturing of streets is ~artially
rnltigutecJ bymult;plc .:.1ccct"i:s to rc~idenccs CJna to t.hc ~;ite.
~
~
1/4
c
'-'
,-,.,I
..
{
Environmental Revie\o' Corami tte:..::
City of S~n Be~nu~dino
October. 7, 1987
All of the geologic p~r~mcterz necc~sary fo~ liqucE~ction
exist in the lowe~ alluvi~l a~eas between the bed~ock hill~
and the south bronch of the Son And~eas fault. The final
so-11::; parameters nccc::;::;ary for liquefaction in this ar.c.:l
should be evaluated by a soils enginee~ and app~op~iate
mitigation measures should be incorporoted into foundation
do:-:ign. '
~lute~ should not be allowed to stand behind the e:dsting
eiJrth-fill dams unles~ a detailed geotecnnical investigation
~hows them to be suffi~iently earthquake resistant to
withstand severe earthquake shaking.
Water ~toruge tank~ should be
seismic event, and site Zllould
f:om habitable structu~~s.
designed to with~tand iJ
be designed to drain oway
c
The projects il~ ~ubmlttcd do not addrc~s these issues. Failure
to addrcs~ these projcct-~pcclfic mca~urc~ p]ac(~~ the future
re~ident~ and property in slgnificarlt jeopardy 'un~es~ ~dcqu~te
mitigation is specifically identified ~nd implemented, No such
mitigation is shown and no implementation pl~ns have" bc~n
provided to the City fur review and determinatiun of ~dcquacy.
Dr.' i.D;.lfll.~ .\n,l FltHHl (~fHll":i"'nl
On pase 62 of the S.P.fE!R the following rnc~surc= wcru identified
to mitigate the adverse impacts of tile project:
1.
All nntural drnin~ge cou~~c~ are to be left in
state as far as it is possible. Cock Canyon
retained as a nutural cr~inugc course for its
within the property.
their nutur::l
Creek wi 11 b-.:
enti~e length
2. Since the pr.opozcd plan will require srading nCilr the
exi~ting debris basin, the co~struction of a new debris
basin is recommended. The final location should be the
~ubjcct of furtl1cr engineering ~tudy.
3,
The iJ:ea iJdjacent to City Creck
level sufficient to mitigate any
creek.
should be elevated to a
flooding potential from the
"', ~"
\....;
1
,,~
-
c
~-,
'-'
:)
'.
(
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1937
The improvement plans submitted with these projects show grading
c~i?~~~_ .and hard:;urfacingof Cook Canyon CreeL ,This "'i11res~1:: in the
""",."total" di:;tul:bance '01: the 'natur:.t'r;.,dt,af'nage'courrre'J".;!.opUrthel:i< "..';~~7
'::;~;&C~~:~::5.,t;~th;. ~;~i;U,~~~~~~~d'~~~~~i:;~~f~,:~~lt~~~~~~':~l,~~_:~~~
,." .:"<",;'t,,i th~ taM......:1-0 0 ~year,;ofl ()!?(1- ,Fa 1.1 Uf,~,;J;~~r es :;;:;,th ~ ~ .+~:s~ ,l,AAX;~:,"S.:,j6"{f~1'
,'.',' '"the flood 'hazardi'S:;ueunlo:o1veCl:tna'~Fentia;}ysI,,~f.l:::fatlt:.~o~':~,;~~~
do"tlnst%eam resldent~ CJnd U5crs. '.' - - - - - -.~.-':,~~'..'-:~::
On page 66 of thc S.?/EIR a mitigation for visual and Natural
Features 'impacts states;
"Cook Canyon iz retained in it~ lluturul zt~tC, thus preserving
the many full grown trees along its cour::;e."
c./
Thc S.P./ElR findings ...ere bused on this measure being
implemented. The ElR is inadequate and should be revised to
addre~~ the lOBS of riparian habitat along Cook' ,Canyon Creek an~
its effect on wildlife in the area, The .easures currently
proposed arc not consistent ...ith the S.P. and 'the previoulo:
environmental conclusions arc no longer valid.
As stated my letter of September 29, 1937, the entire drainage
system of Cook Canyon Creek should be analyzed ,by San Bernardino
county Flood Control District to ensure this development is :;;,,1:c
from Do~~ible inllnd:ltion by storm w~tcrs 2nd dcbli~. On page 9G
of the S.p./ErR tt:c following mitig~tion mCQ~~~C i~ identified:
"The existing debris basin and access to it will require re-
dcsign and possible relocation. The engineer ~elected to prepare
the civil engineering plans for the site ~hould'work closely with
the county Flood Control district to determine the best location,
and design for the debris basin."
Furthermore, no...here do the project~ proposed show the bridge
over City Creek required by the S.P./EIR,
The Flood Control District's concern with potential flooding from
City Creek sho."n .)n page 62 has not bee,n ;"ddre,;;sed by the
projects submi ttcd, As far as could be determJ.ncd "t.o, , date, the
Flood Control District has not yet been cont,J.cted. to:..reVl~w this
en\: ire pro:ip.ct.
, .~.~
(
\.j
5
II'
J:.'
,; ',,"~
~j7:S~_~:?d:~, .
'~.~:jf$,
~
~~!~
~
L
I _
c
c
""
....,I
..
Environmental Review Committee
City of Sun Bernurdino
October 7, 1987
~_~Traffic and Circulation
.- - ~'. . - ',- .
n': ':~'j1;,0',;:~'1','j?:''F~-r ':.;.;-:t~~.;~~;;~~: - -; ,r. - - -
<'iPart of ,cthe traffic;and,circulatiCm-,ll\itigations' for 'this "
~f:~~:~:~~i~~nz'i1f~~ 6~;~~"6;i~;~~?~~~\x~;~~:i~~~111gr~~:i~~~fW1~~;i~tt~-g:{, "
,.. pro'vide a11- weather-seconda.ry accesshi~aic:els;B, '~G';'~1;;,~11'~nd"'F;;;:7~~~~~
K , Without the extension ,of orchard 'Dr ivethese 'patcels :;;7ill'" <'f'<"';",,-t:
have only one'point of access. Parcels F, Hand J'will'have no ',;,'"''
,access unless it is provided through the previously mentioned
,,:'parcels (B,G, I,J, and Kl from Arroyb Vista Drive. ,This would
create cul de sacs which exceed any known standard in an area
prone to flooding and identified as being in CtheFoothill High
Fire Hazard Zone I. " " -,
Figure 2H of the S.Pw/EIR alzo identified a portion_9f or~hard
Drive adjoining the development proposed by'~'CUP 87~~7 as
containing a "storm drain and catch basin system";' :Thlsdriinage~
facility cannot be constructed without the exterisioncof Orchard
Drive, " ".
Highland Avenue has been so realigned on the projects as
submitted that an entire parcel has been eliminated, 'namely the'
park site. The projects' proposed alignment of Highland Avenue
has 'no resemblance to that shown in the S.P .IEIR.:'
Data on page 48 of the S.P./EIR di~cussed extensively the need
for the realignment of Highland Avenue as shown on the S.P. and
the construction of loop streets in Phase 1. " Aclditiorially, on
page 19, it is stated this development should'orovideriumerous
escape routes from the site, provide numerous:atcess points to~
the ~ite, and provide short cul de sac/loop streets-where
possible, The projects as submitted are woe~ully inconsistent
with the S.P,/EIR: Either the plans or thi's.P:/EIR m~st bci
revised before the project can be considered' by the City.
Otherwise, a fundamental inconsistency wilFexist between the
S.P, and the CUPs which is not permittcd:cunder- ,lawi ind
regulations previously cited,'" ,-, ",' '
Open Space
....... - -
As previously discussed, the alignment of, Highland J>.venue
proposed by this development eliminates the com~~n~typa~kC~nd '
- ~,- "-
-
6
117
J.
'."'~~,~~> . _ T-'"
"c~,,~.~.
~~,~~~?~-';L~:~"
~t:~~~j;
~!~i::,~;~ .--,~ > .
1-
-
c
/.....,
.......
,-oj
Environmental Review Committee
city of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
/
makes it part of the private open space for Parcel "A" (CUP 87-
47). The park ~rea is now,' being used,.,;:,~l;l;;;..calculate.::)~lIe.unit
dens ity for, Parcel A. "ThcS.I'./EIR snQu+cr,!l"c amendeq t~o;.~ef1ect
"theeliil\itt~Uon of an cot rre:tlat.cel~~~~F.tec.;.:;for:;'~.pI!-~~:~c:\>l!sc
whose'area -"Is . be lng transfer,ed" to ~:.:iI~~tlU!r parcel '~ot:-use;in!
just i fyinq '.added ,':densl ty,:and construct'lon'i";..cof"..':.lilcl4lti6nal
apartments. .> If not, . then the'CUPs must 'bcrcvi;edso that' they
are con::; is tent wi th the S.f?' Furthermore,' the community open
space docs not meet the city's requirements for park dedications,
'''':,J:s~{"
~:.~~~;,-~~;
,:'~~:;}"0fli;!~
." ~~'-"'. -~'~,,!---::;y
Jft~~~~~
cC,', '...cO"'
Fiser) 1 ImOr)ct
The S.P./EIR states:
"The Specific Plan for the site proposes the 'development of a
maximum of 1,200 residential units, both townhouses: and single
( fami ly homes, on the 541 acre site. The homes will.!lefor sale,
\;... and the prices will range from $70,000.to $200"QOO,::.Other.uses
proposed' ,include a small one acre commercial center,ca..community
park and 387 acres of open space, with various recreational
amenities.'t - -
~'
Under the section on Market Objectives (pg.13) it ig further
stated that "The developer's current objective"' 1s to construct
houses for sale only. The cost of site prepa=atio~ and grading
means that sales prlce~ will generally fall in:.themiddle and
upper middle range, ($100,000 $200,000) though some legs
expensive units could be built on the flatter~ 'portions of the
site.
"The townhouse unit~ will
and fou= bedroom unitg; and
sq, ft. The estimated
$150,000,
include 2 bedrooms and den, 3 bedroom
areilS will range from: 1,500 to 2,200
sales price will range from $70~nOO-
"The single family lots will be sold for custom built. homes .....hich
are likely to be in the $150,000 - $200,000 price-range~" _
On pages
following
27-29 of
is stated:
under
Housing :.P;o,gram.'..the co.
theS,P,/EIR
"Although it is the intention of the developer to. construct ::;ome
lower priced unitz, the ,term "lower" is relative:.and the:::project
will essentially be aimed at the middle to uppc=".middlc. income.
7
1/8
1-
.......,
,
i
}
c
/-.
..
(
\..;
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
OctolJer 7, 1967
,~~r~ct. Table 2-B Gummarizes the ty~es of housing proposec and
,the range of sales prices antlcipated"'!I'i?,I.'he predom:nan\:-cftousil}g, ,;c,<-:.".
:"-:~':. :"~_::'_.o.,typc _ ,W9J,l).I.1"pe, ,:A,wQ,..Ll!,1,(:),:i:'y _...;~C?wnho ~.c~':i~nil ng cd ill. .C;.!:1i~ ter::<l.nd ".;--\~.,~.;;;,;"
;r;,...~~~ ',L.. adapted ,tol:hegregulatconhguratl~n,a'amd cf:l..ange~TIq,;'J.eyek,Q.f:</'f~
~~~~ ...,c",ea c h ".[)a.d,.ar ea. ,.,.O';1.n .', the, ' .:.1 ower .~~~t'f~r po:~,pol1.:i.~';9:f~t,l1e~ If: c , .', ;.<:;~
"~i:'''''',;~; ">'garden apartments" could be::constructcif:~'TownhdU5Q:;~~~,''''o\ild.:.;,'):i..
include'two bedrooms and c1en, thre(~ bedrooms,' andfouibedrooms. . '-,'
Dwelling area 'would range, from 1,500 sq, ft, to 2,200 sq, ,ft.
The sales prices would range from $70,000 to'$150,000.
(
V
"Single family subdivisiDn~ would be built on the southern
portion::. of the site. It is the d!;vcloper:; intention:to have u
lot s.J.les program for custom built homes whbch might tiS. in the
$150,000 - $200,000 range. 'A preliminary subdivision:> by the
conzultantz indicate that Gl lot~ could be creiEed. Thi~'Rumb6r
might ~hange (up or down) when engineers pr~~cii6-:t~6:detailed~.
tract maps at a later date. Lot areasc~il:the .preliminary
subdivision range from 10,000 to 30,000 sq. ft!:~__
"The proposed housing program appears to be consistent both with
market trends and with the City's po1icies,.-,An analysis of
recent housing sales in the ~orthwezt portion of the City of San
Bernardino Ghows that 3 bec1room detached 'h6uses had a price
spread from $34,950 to $215,000, and 4 bedroom detached houses
ranged from 90,000 to 210,000. The medi~n price bf'i 3 bedroom
hOU3C is $117,117 and $1~2/237 ~or a 1 bed:oom.- ~ale3 prices_ for
condominium units range from $90,000 to $210,OOO~ _ The Citv's
recuntly adopted Housing Blement (11.2,61) it;dica::es that San
Bernardino has a dis2rODortionate sh~re of low~i~c6m~ h~~5eh6ids,
W1-1 a .::csultlnq 111C:'ea:3C in need j:nr hi '1...(:~i-v~Tt:re-o--~-li-n ~'_.-
Table 2B
Summ.lr.v ('If HOl1silVl Prc("'t'.:lm
----~--
Townhouse Single Fami ly Lots
\:.
'''''---1
Sales Price
Ranges
1,139
2 br & Den to 4 br.
1,500 2,200 sq
ft,
$70,000 - $150,000
61 "
Cus t'om~ ~y i 1 f;,:."..
(:ustom BuAg--
!'
1.
2.
'?
~ .
Number of Units
Bedroom Ranges
Area Ranges '
4,
$150~PQ05-?'209,000
8
II~
c'
,
,
""-,,.)
..
(
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
The project$ proposed arc located adjacent to upper middle class
-',;;;ingle.family residences.. A specific "objectivc' o.f""thePRD ''':,>
""-'o"'........'.,.,.-.Cl:;tr ict~ is ""that., dove lo:?ment$:ho;11?~bewell~Jnte9rat~d "";'A,':'1~'"
:~~~~"1t'~:;"C:(70mp.it~ble) ,wi tl(er- r~t i!\9 ,l<ino:,!ises ,:~ti,t;;s~g~1d l!ot::'C!?!).:SJ:'it:ute~ilJ;};ist~~~~i;t
"'f'{,ij,''!fh,:'',:t,i'k:" ,:;;61sruptlve elementwl thrcgardto the:e~r<lcter of':".t!te:adjacent'!.-~,,:: :i;!?:~
--,J ':;'_~:-"_:_-_~:~~ -neighbo:hoods.. ---'oq ~~~f-';~'.';':'-: y~;";-- ' ,. <."~:-'"
The PRD ordinance reguires that this
before this zoning is implemented.
townhou5es on this nite,::;eems marginal
objective, The construction '. of apartments
meet thi:; objective.
objectiyc, :be. satis~fi,eo
The -construction of,
in regards to this
definitely does not
(...;
The Fiscal Impact Section of the S. P ';BIll ha:;<:lbso-lutelyno
relevance to the projects proposed by CUPs 67-.5: and, 8:7-41:. -'rhe
entirc Gection must be amended to addre5s thee:: con::; tr,uct.i on of .
apartments which are to be financed by a type of:,bond issue', used :.'"
for affordable hous ing. This Grast ic difference.;in .land ,us.e_W'ilL:c..
affect Public RevenL;es, Property Ta,: RevenL;es . '<:lod: Retail; :Sale:>
Tax Revenues.
Thi:; change occurs because the proposed units will have a lower
market value than those used in the S.P./EIR . evaluation. The
lower value should also have an adver:;e effect on the market
value of the proposed single f~mily units in this, project,
lowering property tax revenue$. The average ~household income
fi<]llrl.::; 'lhculd ,.1130 be reduced fr.om tho:;e U3Cr] in the S,.p_.;BIR
because of the lower market value of the propP~.c9 un.it:z .':_Thi~
will affect the Retail Sales Tax Revenues used In_ tho' S,P;/$IR,
In general, tax revenues should be considerably le35 ,fo~~he3e
project:; than those shown in the S,P,/EIR. _ ,'c.",,
The S.P./EIR concluded the development would generate;:~;snorc:_:..,
revenue than it would cost to provide needed: -public .se::y1;c:es.c
The f.:tct:-; u:Jcd to rCuch th i it can'el us i on are no 1'.on<.Jcr val id~.r~d TJle
City :chould be (;OllCCLI1l:d l.h<.lt Lhi'j n:vi"ed pr.ojl."ct .docs" not
create a negative public revenue condition wh:i:e:h. ,night :i~,ther
.:Iffect its ability to provide police and fire pr.o_t~,c,tion:~or:,,;~ltl1J::r
public services. A complete reev<:lluation and:-~mcndme,nt.:o:t::the
Fiscal Impact Section needs to be undertaken to ::-Jd,entif:t:;d.~aJ:;j;s
before a decision is made regarding these projecJ:.s.~_' ;:;:'::;;'" - -"-
.~~\~;
l.:.,~
.',J,
-$.;1
9
,i-'
"
"l
,
I
J:}O
c
,
o
'-,.-
c
Environmental Review Committee
City of Sun Bernardino
October 7, 1987
Conclusion
,'.;.....:./,.,.- ;;-\t,
"'--,~~.,,,,,,:+.1he ,.!::{i:lie~~:, pr<;sent~d_a~~vc: ,~nc,gu~ vR~!1UY dem()l\st:r,!~~s,,:~l:tut.~he, -; C' i~~~::
',iii'",,;:'Pr.,o poz.2G "pr OJ e ct. Jl;:!S ,Pc en, 4,5 u bsti;l Q t: J};l'Yi:~!!a nged ;,,;,~J;9-:!;;,th.~. ::-;rh~~h,,~_ ,j};..,;!!.;;
,,~,",l.;~;ClJ.:,';',i,,; ,'j,was evalu;ltedin the'S,li./EIR.' 'rhc~CEa~ crlteria'-fox:,;jl.1oging" ,..,---
".' " ':;:~, c.; -~ub:3tanti;:!l change i::; a::; follows: " '
,(a) Where an EIR ~r Negative Declar;:!tion has been prepared& no,'
additional EIR need to prepared unlesz:'
(1) Subsequent changes arc proposed in the proje~tc~hich
will require important revi::;ion::; of the previous ~IRor
Negetive Declaration due ,to the involvc~ent,ofnew
significant environmental impacts not considcl:ed. in:,!
previous ErR or Negative Declaration on the proi~cti~~-
~
(3) Ne'... information of substantial importance :,to the.
project becomes ava i lable, <lnd " ,,' , .
(b) 'r'he new information sho'"s any of the follo...ir:g:
(1) The project will h;:!vc one or more sigr:ificant effects
not discus::;ed previou::;ly in the EIR;
(7.)
Significant effects pr(~viou~ly
5ubotantially mo=c severe th~n shown
examined ~ill be
in thf~ EIR; _.
Numcrouu features thut wc::e identifi~d a.s mitig.:t~t~9!1J]..:l,{O;._,e.i,:thc::::_
been ignored or intentionally deleted from the p~QPosal:gurr~ntly
be ing reviewed. The con:;e~uence is that "adver5~": impacts
previou~ly identified as mitigated will be :;ignificant~y a9ve~:;e
under the present p=oposal$ nnd prevIously iden~i;i~d:~igQ~fi~ant
impact::; will become more severe. _':",=,cc:'..~ ',_"
In addition, the method, of developmcnt parcel-.Qy'~parcel--
each with a different developcr, is completely'~q9ntra~y~ to_t~e
intentIon <lnd purpose of ~l s[wcific [11:111 .ill'!d '.. of: a .,l,anned'
residential dcvclopmU!lt under the city'~ ordinao~q!:_~~~9_ gne:~l~
taking responsibility for overall implementation of:the~qpecifi;
,Pl;:!n. Mr. Leonard attended a meeting of a commit:te,e of:my~,client-
(0
10
1.:11
c
(
~~;"~~~:
(
(.
,...~
re.,
V
.. '
I~nvir(jr:lllcnt.).l Rl.:~vi(:"" Commi::t:ee
City of SUfI Dern~rdl~1o
:Jeteb!.::;:: 7 I 1987
a:;:;ociat:io:l. and ::c~C,"1t"::~Ll."{ Cl~I~)h~l:...:izr;(1 l:h.Jt; he ',,:,J~; no".: rcspo:::;:::::"c
for. _,com:nun..i,J:y-wide ,.J.mcnttic:.; 1)1: irnp~_oy'~p~enL:...; ,r~~(.::..:ll:,:-;~,,~'J'_:";i' ::';~"~
:?';(; i.: i,c.r;"clO > ,the: t;t:he:", Wl;~ "~~t~5tf:;rc;~':: '':'; ~ ;::i:~y"~~y::-':;:'
. iliA l y "<.',l;.tl~evclopcr o[t;ac:lI,p....r,\:<. ~ .,:2.""l',1ll'~:.;" v. C' .1..',...:-;,hl",q'A"~,."~,"',"
'bO'IDco1;;ncr:;' - :a:;~oc!ation.to-"~trk,fntZl-in t.fcH~~~~~r-ca~'a;(.tcJ=-,~,-t;-,ililD1C,t.~~~:l\-
.ot the Specific Plan/yet there 'C.J.11 be 'no ho:-ncow::et::; I .:l~S'oc:a't"io:\ .
irl ilfl ~li)ilrtmcnt complex.
''/ore conclude that Lh~: pr.opu:.;cd j-)[.oj~:ct::.; viCilat:(~ c()r::;l~:.t<..::rlcy
:: l~ l.ill i r';~-n(~ n t::.; 0 [ :; t,_~ t I': [,..1 W_ (:;(;c L : 011:'; (, C,'i ~)O, ,-, I ~:~. ;, ]. QC,.i}.
DIulndnce (ChupLc.L: 19.'1~!) -.-.{nt: the C;::Qj~. T-r: Q~~= (..I~i.i:l~Qn t~J"; Cl~y
:nu:..;l: dnH~nd either tt~c c:<i::;t;ing S.P./SIR 0= the CUP::; to moJke them
con~i~tcnt. If tt:c projects urc devclo~~d U~ t~le apppliccrlt
p~oposc~, a whole new cnvirOnm~!ltal ~ac:~~cnt ~~ rl~qul=CG.
;~;:~ualicc of il Negative Dccl.J.~,Ttion, or reliance upon the t:;:)rl.:.'~::
ErR, v:r,}ul.(~, in aU1: o~ji:1ion, ;::c: ....;hol=-:; inco=-r(:c~ dll t.::l~i.:ppo::~a,l)l;~.
~.;c.: u::::c;r. you to reC}t:.lre a :1(;\,' EI!~ ~J'.:1~cd \~pon t~!C p:-.:;jcct;:; as nc',oJ
V=o~o~cd ~Gd UQon CUrrC!lt ~~ta.
\/c;:y 1.:_:::11..1 your::"
~ /1- ~'
c..)~~. "";'\~J("D~V~G~r.-,' Sl~~
....... l~ ..._ I...... J. OJ J,JI.'j
C:~, :1.(,:;
,~'~ .
T.:'::.lr:d Cu:-!dy, i\:;:;oCl.]'_C Pl.1nnc:::
'~~~:y Ot S.-::t:: Bf~!:.ndrdi!:'.J /
Sd~ldra Pu.ul~cn, A:;~ociil~C PL]nncr ....
~ity of S~tl Dc=n~rdino
cc:
E
J~~
I ~
c
/ ~ ,~ C,\
'-' ....,I
COMMENTS RECEIVED
1-1+
..
'r'-'H: ~i . ;;
C" STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gov~rnor
~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8. P,O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO. ,CALIFORNIA 9U02
October 16, 1987
Development Review
D8-SBd-30-T29.56
Your Reference:
CUP 87-47
:~f$t~
:";~f~'':;~-'
~
~"
City of San Bernardino
"Attention Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Ms. Paulsen:
(
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
declaration for construction of a 284 unit apartment
located north of Highland Avenue and east of BQulder
City of San Bernardino. '
, ; ~, '
'negative
complex"
AVenue in
.--
This proposal is somewhat removed from an existing o~~~oposed
state highway.
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this ~ro~osal does
not appear to have a significant effect on thestatehighlolay
system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect ~f
continued development in this area. Any measu~e~-necessary-to
mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and d'rainage should 'be
provided prior to or with development of this area,
@
the:'lS"
C,. ~ .
0'
We have no specific comment on this proposal.
If additional information is desired, please callMr'.'WHl:~Brfslei
at (714) 383-4671. ~-~
Very truly yours,
,'::,
( 1t.:J...41,
-Pl ll. G. POT
I District Permits
.//;,..,-';;~-".-.. ~"
!\ _ ~. f--'rJ'.:..'~
,-
I.c'
, '
I', i _<:!_,~: ,- _; '':"',','.-. p ~~~
LI. _ . ,__' "\:',7".:": -
Engineer
? .."
;. i::
j
. d. !
:!.: :::::i
\,
~
t.:nr 1':, _',
.. ;~
~s".-'~ :;;-'
. ..~'. :.d
.v,.):.;:...-'
'. _ ;"1-;~e (
J~~
c
r,
.....,1
cm~mms RECEIVEr..
'~ITY 'OF SAN BERNARDINO -
r"-
"-'
}
1-5
;! r, ~,,~ ~ ; "I
MEMORANDUM
(
SANDY PAULSEN, Staff Planner
To Environmental Review Committee
Planning Department
CUP 87-47, 87-5, & PM 9166: Highland
Hi 11 s
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir.
From Public Works/City Eng.'
Dne October 13, 19B7
Development File No. 11,42
(CliP R7-47 "
87-5)
Date 11 .051 (P M 9166)
Subject
Approved
a)
Design or Improvement of Existing and Proposed
Drainage Courses
_ Ai. ,. ~ -~
(
Existing minor drainage courses which traverse the ~"'
site wi 11 be contro 11 ed through the site to a proper;,;-
outlet into public streets. Since the loop stre~t __
is not being constructed by this project, intert. -_~ .__co -
drainage devices will have to be constructed to, neci:-.
convey the flows to an acceptable outlet, Design
of these devices will be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
: -:;).
- - - - .--
,":',.: ,.'. .
,~~ .
b) Cook Canyon Creek Improvements
. ,-_' _' ..... . b c. - ',:. ~ .
-_._-~,_._-
Design of Cook Canyon Creek Improvements is currently
under way by the developer's Engineer. City Engtneer-
ing is Plan Checking the design. The design will have
to be approved by the City Engineer prior to iss.u~ Ji'
ance of any construction permits. _
<-
- , '- -
c) Location and Status of Earth Fill Dams
'- ~., ,~ . _ ': ;; C
-------_.~--_.
We do not know of any earth fill dams in the vicinity
of the project, however, a debris basin owned and ~nc ~
operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Cont.roJ ",,_~
D i s t r i c tis I 0 cat e d near the e a s t e r 1 y 1 i m i t of the: -:- < ~. - - "; -
project on Cook Canyon Creek. This facil ity doe~-jlot.,-_ -,'; CGU"
retain water and is therefore not a dam. r~t~l~ N2te- ~na
, ,~ ~
",
t;;- .~
(
;.In';)~
.!
-1-
.:0"
.,
"'i _
'\ ..,',
..', "
,-,..,
',~.;J
J~4
c
. ;:;;'
(
,{~~
::;~V!;;:;2'~ ~.
(~
I
\
.r' -',
SANDY PAULSEN, Staff ~anner ~/
Environmental Review Committee
"Re: ,CU~87-47, 87,~5,,~Plt9,166:Highland Hills Development
October' 13~ 1987" " '
File No. 11.42 (CUP 87-47 & 87-5)
11.051 (PM 9166)
. "';.;...,~
d) Proposal for North For~ Ditch
Flows in the north fork dit.ch,'W'll1 be maintained" ,y""
",:,"Ct,~rough ,the projec t.,The r~,~~~1Ia3ny"a.p to,,~ccp~~1;J,s.hi:i';"hf1oj~
. " .,conveya ncethrough :the proJ'E!ct.S~liJle. ,$ t 111 'JIIuntlLl R~-"Io''';<"',.-'i~'h.;f!~'
ing the quality and quantity"Offlow. The details, ',. "':.7''';'
of the conveyance system will be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
ROGER G, HARDGRAVE .
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
OJttck.t~
MICHAEL W. GRUBBS
Senior Civil Engineer
','- .. -..
- - ., . .~ .
"
MWG:pa
-2-
J~C
c
(
j
(~
\
l'''""''
'-' COMI1ENTS RECEl'""I'tO
1-6
'JO'SE'P'HqE.sbN'A 0 I MAN & AS S 0 CI A-rE S. IN C,
ENGINEERING
A~CH1TECTU~E
PLANNING
606 E. MILL STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA. MAILING ADORESS: P.O. BOX S852 . SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92412. (714)885-3806
OcLobc" 19, 1987
City ()f S~n Berndrdirlo
Pl.:lnrd ny DepartweTlt
300 N. "0" Street
San B(" rdino, CA. 92418
,::.p:. ~ l r.: ,.:~:ll~l ~-,~1 e-Ros G
., ~>'~J~~'
Re: Uiyhland Hills
Dear !-\". Ross,
The lli.ahJ.C'nd HUls Specific Plan reference& the .,hasir''J plan (se.:'
2.2.12), 'page 45, of the 581 acre development. Parenl Map 9lE6
CUVC'T<< the lower, flatter portions of the subj~'ct pr(}f,erty anu ';,.
I be uit.e locations for CUP 87 - 47, aml CUP 87 - 5, whic!: is d
r:Ilb-ph,'c:r" of Phase I. The residential path< with:;,' Parcel !-lap 91(,(,
wi 11 I.., graded to pE.'~nli t surface waler drainaq..' back tu tJ,I'
"I ",'('I, th,,-' streE;'ts in turn are designed tu carry local drainau.:'
",ith,in the street right-Of-way. As indicatE;'d in Sc'clion 2.2.7 0<
the SfC('if;c Plan Ue Highland Hills property (paV? 33) is m,t
situc1l'ed in a major flood plain, with the E,xception of the'
s'Jutbw'cut corner whicb could be affected by a 100 year flood 0r.
C":' ty C! (-'el~.
$.'n BC:lld1'dino Count-y Flood Control District hilS rEcoPOlTlend('d thar
we' <eil,: <'1' setback fro!:! the 100 year J,igh-.lilter ",ark, 100 feet or
i.,If-.rov.' t.b(> chan""l to contain the 100 year storm as waG donc'
duwn ~tledJn. -
In Lll(. ll.1!J],land Hills Specific Plan I"eference <- w.p~;e, pcl~L' 6~?
(c)B, "I,bere there is an erosion potential ill the drainage'
cours'!_" buttresses will be constructed." Due to erosive
velucily'c' (along Cook Canyon Creek) imprcv€'melll:s will be-
rl".:'qu i 11_,(1. We have proposed the improvement to C j ty ('reek as pc:.;'
altacJ"~(:. These improvement plans will be appI'cved ,by 'Cit",
P:jblic ~'ol'ks and San Bernardino County Flood Contn;,l Di<<trict.
C"llk (".jn~/on Creek l1a~ bec.~n designf:'d per the requil"eWents of th02
Highlalld Hills Specific Plan as well as the San Berna'dino Count~
Fluod Control District. The plans are presently oE'i.nc; checked b:,'
t:. :'c: rOl ~n \.:y.
Tl!(~rC.' j...; d ..Jiversll,n ddlll and debris basin Uli COO~ Car!~',.)n Creek lJ!:
H~ U'",'" dlld off site of tb(' property. The dare was originally
b,,:: It ii' 1916 an<J further enhanced in 1958 will, the develc,pment
ui ':'/..'('(' No. 5299.
J:J.f.
,',-
(
~
.~
.,"'.<"
_.~. ...__..,c.-,.,
"._"";,,,(,,;, ,
~ <,,,
(
"'--
-
L
\,.",
, ,
"..'j ;"'-.1:
',"i'
Sdrl B(': lldcdino County Floou CunLL'()l biJt; GlTl l'<;.I~;eIHl:rll. (1'.'('1' the U.J.IO,
tllE' dL'i/l'is ba::;in and their access roads. Tlu..' d~.1!1 ha~ !.>eC:'ll
checkeu by the County and the Division of Dam Safety, State of
California.
The pruIJerty ha,' 221\ sewer permits wIth the rL'llluIncJer t<.: be
purehu:,r>d at the time of development as. required by the City o!.
San Bec-nal'cJlno. The off-site sewer line is uncJ~'! design wit!
n'fcessiOry easements being condemned under the authority f th..:
East Valley Water District. <;,'.i'.c,
. "', ,--.
wdtel"'wiJi>be'
of agreement,
~~~;i~~~i~;e~s:~:~alley ,!i~~fS ~~~~~t>~.i~~~~~fJ~ft!.._.
, ,."..,-;~'~;:'
, ~;'~i~~$~t~~/;
The geologic hazard zone which was defined by Leighton an~
As;;o~'Ii;.tes, in their report 6840841\-02, dutecJ Janu;,c/ 8, 1984,
wi 11 be defined on the final Parcel Map.
With dny liquifaction potential ~n the subject site, design
recomulendations will be submitted by a soils erogineer ana
afJprov~"} by the City of San Ber'nardino Pub] ic viorl::; Department
and CIty Geologist.
Access '.0 the site is being provided foI' per the Parc~'l Hap.
Sincert.ly,
JOSEP)I !.:.
,
JO~::t
ASSOCIATES, HiC.
Bonadiman
cr.:_'.
J:J.7
.( ....:t.../
..:.OA..-
..
':"'i1MENTS RECEIVE,......
1-7
-,.-'
(
'-
.
E~t.V;J~y'Water. District
1155 Del Rosa Avenue POBox 3427
San Bernardino. California 92413
(714) 889-9501
r",-,
; ~t J ' .,'
,L'It. ..
- ..'
.,
,. ,
~ I .
:!l:1 1:: EiLi
t....
October 8, 1987
.~"'~.. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
~'I;~'~.fplannincioepament:;:-':"~:::'~N ','-"",
.ltPtZ:::':I~" 300 North "D".Street
"', -. -~-- San Bernardino; CA 92418
..,~ .
'....,:\,.;~;,'~..l;":,
.....~.._..
"'\;o;;lJ-"-';"', t....';"'~-.(
_~Jc::1,):.::_'J?L
.:-~;:~'t~.,s~'~':'~~~
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-47
To Whom It May Concern:
c
On September 28, 1987, I received a copy of Conditional Use'"
Permit No. 87-47 from your office with a request ":for any
pertinent comments. My only comment concerns : the. irrigation~.
canal which passes through the project, known as:the North Fork
..., Ditch.
The ditch is a rock and mortar lined canal which is jointly
owned by the North Fork Water Company and the Bear Valley' Mutual
Water Company. The East Valley Water District acts as liaison
for these companies in all matters pertaining to the North Fork
Ditch. It is the policy of both companies that any relocation of _
the ditch shall be accomplished by undergrounding the facility
using reinforced concrete pipe. The District has conductedpre-.
liminary discussions with the developers of the project regarding
. the ditch's relocation. until such time as the ditch .hasbeen
relocated, however, the facility must be protected' in place at
all times.
If you should have any questions regarding this' matter,
need any further information, please do not hesitate to call~
or
~:ix
Robert Martin
Assistant District Engineer
RM:tls
:::;":
,
,.
'.
-- .-.., -----_. - -- --- ~ -----_.. .__.. ------_. -._- ---..
Philip A. Oi~ct'
Pr~sld'nt
Gerolld W. Stoops
Vi(t-PresidMI
Dennis L. Johnson
Diruto(
Pt'tl"f l. KU<;lu-'
Dirulor
Glenn R. LllhUoot
(l"~(tor
Larry W. Rowe
G,ntrtll Manaf1t' . Seuttary
Donn. M. SpeolFS
T'~tlSu,~'
J:JR
(
_.
"., ,
'-' '- '
.
"","EastV;I~yWater District
1155 Del Ro.a Avenue P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino. Cali'ornia 92413
(714) 88c}'9501
/
'0'
October 13, 1987
BONADIMAN ASSOCIATES
606 East Mill Street
San Bernardino, CA 92412
RE: PARCEL MAP NO. 9166 (ORCHARD AND HIGHLAND)
Gentlemen:
'J7'f"f':'!',u.," Pursuant to your' recent request,"-";this letter -Confirms that'''''''''
;'*'~~;;'';''';.t,:..the East. Valley Water "District can and ..vill;cj;provide ,water service... .;.g:~
,,".;1>('!.""'''' .', ...to theilDove-mentioned parcel for domestic'ii'and . fire' ;.protection .~ ....:;;:h~
,~1!~"~"~:; purposes.. This.colDlllit~entis subjectto,,,ater.availabi~ity ,..at "_:':,~fu
"~'" ... .. "the time of commencement of construction. ' ", "~".
In addition, the District will collect and transport sewage
generated by-this tract but is unable to provide sewage or waste-
water treatment because the District has no capacity in the
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The District will not
approve sewage collection and transportation ,plans.. or'.. provide
such service until you provide evidence satisfactorY .to the
District that such wastewater treatment plant 'capacity has been
purchased and is. owned and available to you. r:.'-..:-=:--.(:.-,,---
(
----
Furthermore, all improvements necessary for watercor::'.sewer
service are subject to approval by the District :and.mus.t" meet all
District standards. Developers must comply with all District
rules, regulations, policies and procedures, including payment by
the developer for any and all capital improvements~ main lines,
extensions, sewer capacity or other commitment or commitments of
the District's resources. The District will operate and maintain
all water and sewer improvements upon their dedication to the
East Valley Water District. '.
'.-..
The
in this
letter.
commitment to provide water and sewer service outlined
letter shall expire two (2) years from:the.:date. of this
Yours truly,
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
J~~RO~
~8'Manager
LWR:tls
:_--,','.
(
cc:
Sandra Paulson, City Planning
~::::!'"!G::2
.,'~ ....
'--'
'-
Philip A. Di"h
Pus/dIm
G.uld W. StooPJ
Vic..P"sid,nl
Dennis l. Johnson
Dir,ccOf
Pelet ,. Rusher
Diucror
Glenn R. Li,hlfoot
OirIClor
LJlry W. Rowe
G~n"d' M.M~r'S,u"d'Y
Oonn.J M. Spc.arl
T'~.sur~r
1;)1
(
'-'
(
'-'
(..-..
,
~.
c (.:'
Cynthia Ludvigsen
, /
Attorney at Law
)
444 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 202
San Bernardino, CA 92401
1711) 885,6820
COMMENTS RECEIVED 1-8
October 27, 1987
Mr. Edward Gundy
Associate Planner
city ot San Bernardino
... 'c~OO N "!'!>"".'~~ '.' ~rd Flr.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" st., 3rd Flr.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
re: Comments to Proposed Negative
Declarations on CUP 87-5 and
CUP 87-47
Dear Hr. Gundy & Ms. Paulsen:
I am writing on behalf of my client, the Highland Hills
Homeowners Association, regarding the negative .declarations
recommended on the above two conditional use permits by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC). . , ..
It is my understanding that these recommendations are to go
before the planning Commission on November 4, 1987.
My clients have addressed the Environmental Review Committee on
these matters, and I have previously written letters to both the
Committee and to you regarding these CUPs. I believe my previous
written comments dated October 2, 1987 and October 7, 1987 apply
to the proposed negative declarations as well, and.ask that those
comments be submitted in response to the proposed negative
declarations as well. - .. ," , .. "..
1
ill ~ ID ~.~ \:7 f~ [ill
OCT 27 1987
em PLV.!NlfiG :;i;'il;;-r:!~ENT
SAN 8EfiI.JARGlrlO, CA
J~o
(
.~
(
'.
-
l
c
,.. ~
'--.,
..
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
-'
~....-. -~"'-"""--'~"'"""'-'. .'.
"In addition, I would like to submit these additional. ,coaunentsa,s,
part of the record : '"..,.."
~- .. ,"'_~.;;.-..':?it-
"" , ~,.---, ''''''~:~~~-'-,-;'
General Comments Aoolicable to Both Pr01ects
". ',..;',-,' ,',,:-,;,
-, '.;.
As my previous correspondence stated, my clients believe the
applications submitted for both of these projects are incomplete
and provide insufficient data upon which to base a decision to
issue a negative declaration.
Neither application contains the information normally required by
the City of San Bernardino for a CUP applicastion or, .for that
matter, for any development application. A silllple :r,eviewof your
department's plot plan checklist reveals that"ct;hese'..ClPplications
are lacking, among other items, property l~es .an,d dimensions,
handicapped parking and other parking plans-, dimensions and
locations of easements or water and sewer main.s,.improvemen,ts on
frontage street and landscape plans. ' .
I believe it highly inappropriate, and certainly a violation of
the letter and spirit of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to process an application which does not even meet the
city's minimal standards for submittal. Fur,thermore, on August
20, 1987, the Environmental Review Committee returned CUP
application 87-47 to the applicant and asked. that specific
information be provided before it could act ori:~hat application.
The list of required information prepared "by your, staff is
attached to this letter as Exhibit "A".,,' Nonetheless, the
applicant resubmitted his application wi th.out much of: the
requested information included. ___ ,',
Yet, the City has proceeded to process this application.
2
~-. .',
1%'
~"'''-
,
"-
'--
..
(
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
., ". ",-' In addition, both of these CUP applicati,o'ris:'are inconsistent ,w.ith
,;~'1'!i.'~~'" ,'-the Highland Hills SpecUicPlan, which,,~_~tadopt.edf,().r;~h.i,s.,~l.te
~_ ~-_'....'~! in 1982, and .with ,the city's planneo;J"esl.derl.CIalij!evelopillent .
, . ,'f'~ (PRDI ordinance. Said inconsistencies -lire nuinerous;'-.,but.the "
major ones involve the realignment (or, in the' case' of these
applications, nonrealignmentl and widening of Highland Avenue;
flood control and channel alteration measures involving the sites
and Cook Canyon Creek and the North Fork Ditch; the elimination
of community open space; and the construction of apartments as
opposed to the townhouses identified in the Specific Plan and
analyzed In the Environmental Impact Report (EIRI.
,
(
\
At the October 8, 1987 ERC hearing, the developers and their
consultants Insisted that these issues, 'partic.ularly the
requirements for realignment and widening of Hig!'1land,Avenue, had
"been taken care of by the Parcel Map" [Parcel Map' 9166). While
it is true that this Parcel Map, which began processi'ng 'in '1985,
appears to eliminate the realignment and widening of Highland
Avenue, the first condition of the Parcel Hap is that 'it 'Comply
with all conditions and requirements of the - Highland Hills
Specific Plan. So, while the developer may have submitted a
parcel map for approval which did not comply with the Specific
Plan, it was not approved as submitted.
~
The city's Engineering Department appears to be waffling on this
issue. We have previously pointed out memos from the Engineering
Department in which it was emphasized that the Parcel Hap 'Could
not eliminate or revise Specific Plan conditions related to
Highland Avenue. At the ERC meeting on August 10, 1987, the
Department.s representat i ve appeared to concur' with that.
However, at the October 8, 1987 ERC meeting, the" Engi,neering
3
(,
I~~
c
...
(
',', -. ,~ ,
r.;:;,~~;..:~;.~:
~:~~:~;:;';:'~YT~
(
(
.-"""........
,-,'
',,-,_./
,)
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
city of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
..'.",.,
Department's representative seemed to have reversed his position,
and concurred with the developer in' "contend,inq the tentative
,~arcelHap . could amend the Specific Plan andEIR .foLHigh1and
" .Avenue .,- . ~,i-~:..;~~J.~~~~~?~.~..,t.: ""-
Even if we assume this to be true, an attempt to amend a Specific
Plan by adoption of an inconsistent Parcel Hap is invalid and
illegal. The Government Code is very clear as to ,how a Specific
Plan is to be amended, once adopted. It can be amended only by a
properly noticed hearing procedure, which is .identical to the
procedure for amending a General Plan.
In addition, at the most recent ERC hearing, the applicants also
stated, several times, that the concerns raised by . ,my client.and
by some members of the ERC "will be taken care of later".
Unfortunately, this approach to environmental analysis ,is again
directly contrary to CEQA as that statute 'demands', :that
environmental review and analysis be done ,prior to project
approval, not afterwards. The exact nature of how these concerns
will be mitigated, or taken care of, must be. analyzed ,in the
environmental review process, prior to project .approval, .so that.
those decision-makers charged with approving or: disapproving the
project have all available information before them and fully
understand the environmental consequences of their decisions. To
wave aside the concerns my clients have raised, particularly the,:
concerns related to flood control, traffic, erosion and seismic
issues, by stating that they will be addressed clater, subverts
the very purpose of CEQA and, again, raises the spectre,that
efforts will be made to informally amend the Specific Plan by
failing to include its mitigation measures in the_project design
itself.
.,.'.... .
The initial studies for both of these projects imply that
mitigation measures, both those outlined in the Specific Plan. and
4
I~~
(-
,..' ',- "~. '
-::::~~':::.~:;;7:
,~~i.,,,,
~if~~",.~
(
{,
-
c
...""'
.......,.
'.'",-,,,/
..
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
others suggested, are included in the project designs, when in
,fact these"aleasures are not. We would ask that thePlann ing 'y'
",i<;". Commission be given a clear list ,of ,which ali tJgaqon:measures
;'.', 'discussed ',In the Specific Plan and Initia1 StudI.e~,'ar!!ld)art of,
,the developers' proposals and which are not . '-' ~ <:~.-'"!" ,
The applications as submitted are not consistent with the
Specific Plan and demonstrate that there have been major changes
in the project since the Specific Plan EIR was reviewed in 1982.
These changes include those outlined above the alignment of
Highland Avenue, changes in creek improvements, etc:)~ as well as
changes in the nature of the project itself. The ,Specific Plan
identified single ownership townhomes and approval was based upon
this land use. The current proposals, however, are for
apartments, which call into question entire sections of the
original EIR. The data used in the EIR simply doe,S not.apply!:o
these projects. (It also is interesting ~!:o ,note that the
Specific Plan and EIR emphasized that at the the time theywere
written (1982], the city had a glut of apartments and lower-
income dwellings and that, therefore, the type of townhomes
envisioned in the Specific Plan were something needed by the
city. The latest community development report done for the city
comes to the same conclusion in 1987 -- that the city has too
many lower-income housing units and apartments and should be
looking to develop and encourage housing units in a higher price
range.) The ERC has made no finding that these proposals are
consistent with the Specific Plan even though such a finding is
legally required. A finding of consistency cannot:, be made as
there is no evidence in the record that supports'luch a finaing.
These development proposals also do not comply.with.the city's
own PRD ordinance which states that development in . a PRD zone
should be compatible with and integrated into the ~u~rounding
c
5
I ~u.
c
(
"....,'.
:~]jJd;~:;
(
\
I
\
,
c~~""
V
'..,,1
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
;
single-family neighborhoods.
.speci fie", Plan" . thelll5elves
,apartments surely'are not.
The townhomes proposed.under the
. w.~ r e 'F'!1~~~;c.;l r g ua;;:t11'~~2:~::~a Vb 1 e ;
The city also has allowed for only a 10-day comment period on the
proposed negative declarations. Unfortunately, this comment
period is insufficient to meet the requirements both of the
city's statutes and state law. State law imposes a minimum 30-
'day comment period if a state agency or regional. resource is
affected by the proposed project. In this case,. the California
Department of Transportation clearly is entitled to a 30-day
comment period as these projects, particularly in light of the
changes in previously required improvements to 'HighlandAveriue,
affect State Highway 30 and CalTrans jurisdl,ct.Lon over that
route. Furthermore, the Cali forn i a Department -.,if.. :Forestry and
National Forest Service, which have an interest .in ..the
surrounding forest land, also should have an ,~pportunity for
comment. .,
Furthermore, the city's own Resolution 13157, Section 32(b),
requires circulation of the proposed negative declaration to the
State Clearing house for projects in which the U.S. Government,
or any agency thereof, might have an interest, 'which -clearly is
the case on this site.
6
135
c
(
",,;;:,<,;,
:~;-~-~t;;'2:~:~2;!i:,:
\
.........,-"""
'", .,i
..
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
city of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
Conditional Use Permit 87-47
; '- ~- .--;
,;This is <,a project which proposes 284.,'apartments onilPproximately
30 acres. The 30 acres includes the parcel previously designated .
as community open space in the specific plan for the entire
specific plan area. The way this project is designed that parcel
is no longer community open space, but becomes a playground for
this particular project and the acreage is used to compute the
density for the project. ~
The mitigation measures for the traffic impacts discussed in the
initial study are simply inappropriate and inconsistent with the
specific plan and its EIR.
The project proposes grading and hard surfacing of .cook .canyon.,
Creek, which is contrary to the Specific Plan. 1::n. addition the..
project contains no proposal for the new debris b~sin required by
the Specific Plan. It must be remembered that this project site
lies entirely within a lOO-year flood plain and elimination of
the debris basin required by the earlier EIR must be the object
of a new EIR. The impact of the improvements to portions of Cook
Canyon Creek also must be studied. The project plans fail to
include the bridge over City Creek required by the Specific Plan
as well.
The storm drain and catch basin system along Cook. Canyon ,Creek,
required by the EIR and Specific Plan canno~ be constructed
without the extension of Orchard Drive, which is ,not included in
this development plan.
There has been no site-specific
particular development proposal.
liquefaction , ,study for this
7
, :.;b
c
(.
(
( .
-
-
'"'",.',;
';
)
..
Hr. Edward Gundy
Hs. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
The change in the nature of the project, from single family and
townhomes to apartments, will impact the ability and costs of
.police and fire protection for the project to the extent tha~ the
data used in the EIR is no longer applicable. . .<,
The cumulative effects of this project, particularly on traffic
and circulation also should be examined in light of the changes
in the project from that proposed in the Specific Plan and in
light of development and changes in conditions since the Specific
Plan EIR was done.
The site plan shows two tennis courts and an .access ,road
constructed over the North Fork Ditch, yet also .statesthat,the
Ditch will remain in its existing condition. ':Again"thi~.is
inconsistent with the EIR. - ...._, ~ i' ;_-
The access to the project does not conform
for secondary access nor does it avoid
required by city ordinances.
to.city :requirements .
clustered access as
There are no provisions to assure that the extension of Orchard
Road will ever be made as the property owner has disclaimed
responsibility for this and there is no guarantee that ~ther
portions of the Specific Plan site will be developed in the
future or developed in accordance with the specific Plan.
Conditional Use Permit 87-5
~----
~. ,- , - '- - .'-
--_._----,-,----,- ,- '----
As discussed
correspondence,
the Specific Plan
proposal contains
control, as .well
earlier in this letter and in my previQus
the drainage and flood control. requirements of.
are not met by th is development,. proposal. This
the same inadequacies for drainage and flood
as for secondary access during fire or flood
8
1"1,
c
(
(
I
\
, ",
l
,
,"""..,/
v
, "
"'-"
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
conditions as does CUP 87-47.
The grade-break where the rock-lined protion of Cook Canyon Creek
empties into the natural channel creates a potentidl for scouring
. and erosion which is not addressed in the plan. The so-called
fire access across the bottom of Cook Canyon Creek 'is .-not hard-
surfaced, and, therefore, is not all-weather access as required,
since it would be subject to flooding during all but minimal
storm events.
The density of this project (15.8 dwelling units per acre)
exceeds that authorized by the Specific Plan and PRD zoning.
The plan does not include a site-specific liquefaction,study and,
again, does not include an overall analysis of. flood control and
drainage issues, particularly in light of the proposed-deviations
from the Specific Plan and its EIR." -- -~,.
At the Environmental Review Committee hearing, the developer
stated that the southwestern portion of the site will be graded
and filled to raise the elevation 20 feet. This was not part of
the Specific Plan and was not examined in that plan's EIR. It
should be noted that the opposite side of Highland Avenue also
contains a bluff and this change in elevation ~will result in a
"canyon" of sorts, which will have traffic and visual impacts
never examined in the EIR.
Like CUP 87-47, the proposed negative declaration ignores
cumulative traffic and flood control impacts.~ Since the owner
of the entire Specific Plan site has disclaimed responsibility
for installing road, traffic and flood control improvements
required by the Specific Plan, and this developer ~takes no
responsibility for doing so, it is unclear how ~he :required
9
, '3ca
-
-
-
-
c
'" "
.j
..
(
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
improvements will be financed or installed.
Overall, it appears that these two proposals are not suitable
for a negative declaration as there are numerous environmental
impacts and potential cumulative impacts which have not been
addressed. It appears that both of these proposals have simply
chosen to ignore the Specific Plan for the site and proceed as if
it did not exist and as if the EIR for the Specific Plan, and its
mitigation measures, did not exist. In such a case a negative
declaration is even more inappropriate.
(
The developers, landowner and, apparently the city itself, are
misunderstanding and misusing the Specific Plan process. . A
Specific Plan is designed to be an instrument' by which a
comprehensive, overall development plan can be implemented for a
large site or area. In this case, the landowner and developers
are proceeding on a parcel-by-parcel basis with no thought as to
how the overall Specific Plan will be implemented and with no
thought that the Specific Plan was intended to assure a cohesive
well-planned development of the entire site which it covers.
My clients believe that
report is necessary and
required before these
considered.
a new or subsequent
that an amendment to
two development
environmental impact
the Speciifc Plan is
proposals can be
Very truly yours,
i\ '-'.',"
l L~' ,\\\\J:~1Ij) 'Q'-'-\;'--
CYN, IA LUDVIGSEN I
CL: .
cc: Highland Hills
Homeowners Association
10
(,..'
'3Q
c
,.,"'..
r '
/'''''''',
"'.-I
,-",i
(
COlHliliuual Hlle PUlllllt Nil. n"/..,,'/
hdc.Hti.olllll ~11l(-.c1:1nllJ for J\ppllc;uli.oll
^U<Jll[lt 20, 190'/
..
1. lJralu(1<Jc litudy
a. )o~xlfll:il\(j mu] propolled drl1.lniHJc CQuruc!J.
b. CO(lI~ Cnllyoll Cr(!ck ltupr.ovcllIcnl: pI,)n!)..
c.. l'hwdll(j of Cook Cllnyon illlprovcrncnt.:J.
d. 1..0<:41t1011 and utUl:UII of earth fill clamn.
c. 1.ocl1l:1oJl llllll utatUfJ of (lcurio baoin (cxi:;tiny ancJ
proponctl)..
r.. SUbc.1ridn pro[>o!Ji'll ror c,nnyon fills.
g. Propooill for North fork ditch6
h. l..ocutlon of GlorI" tlndn catch l.1u91n.
2. Greenbelt. RCfJulrcmcntu
a. Development pIano for Greenbelt Zone, lypcG of
plant malerIalr,:, method of irriqation, method of
Innl:nllnlion, olJcrl1l:iol1Cll mu] maintenance informa-
tion.
b. Uuildin\) DeparnHono in Greenbelt 'Zone ,~U.'
J. Nolno ^nnlyuiu
fl. .J:'or traffic aloll(j lIiyhlullU Avenue.
~. TrarrJ.c alll]' Circulation hll1llyuiu
(
n.
b.
c.
<1.
1'.1.011 [(If loop ronu conutL'Uctioll in PhaGe I.
Propouccl otrccl (1rc.un-occtionn..
'J"rnrflc niCJllal proponolo, when, where and ho\.;"7
A] 1 wCllLhor crooving llrOpoGal for Cook Canyon
Creck.
5. Grn~ing Plan
o. ^mol1nt of cut lHul fill.
b. l'ropor;eu procec.lurco nuu operations.
c. "~ro!l.ion control D1Clhodu (interi.. anu long term).
d. J,ocntion and Dlcthou of export.
c. ConLour yrndinCJ proponnl.
G. ~itc Plnll allu Elcvaliollo
0.. .
JI1CrCil:;eu . building Gepalation3 ilG pcr Grc, :)cll
7.onc WU" rcquircmcnlo.
ncducc numberr; of unila in each buildinCJ Cm.lximum
of nix pcr Code).
L.
.
(
IIoJD
'-'
(
(
\
..'.,...
i
".
..../
'1..,.'".1
)
Conc.1itiouol trlfe Permit No. 0"'-47
Ac.1c.litiol1tll Hot:cl:lo.lv foe ^PllllcHlloll
h"CJuot 20, 190.'
l"iuJc 2
c. l"ru[>oE;l\l (or hlkiutj onu bicycle teD-110 along Cook
CnJlyon Creck.
d. Ilimcnuiollo of: Gouthcrll Cillifornla J::cli!>OH caucrncnl
ont1 irrigation casement.
c. Indicate gradeD of otreetG, driveway approacheo and
1''' ddng n reao.
'f. .' l'rul'ollul {or \:ho continuation of Orchard Raall.
<). rate/vIcinity Cluull-r,ectiono.
b. IU()Vill:!oIlG nnc.l cronu-occtioIl3. of all proposed
lnd.Ld.lllfJu llIul olunlr.r typeu.
i. Inl11cu1.c 011 pro[Joucu unu cxllitln(j CP\.,.cr ilnu water
IIIn.tUI1.
j. J.o<:nl:Jon rmu lyp!(ml clcval:iol13 of l'ropoticd per im-
ctPf WI\l:11J ;)Illl (OIlCCU.
k. l:.1l"vnl' I Ulln mu.l [loor plauo [or propoGcu community
I.ou 1,lt1l ng.
1. ))(o('olln of: pcopolU'cl [c[UtiC cnclonurcs.
m. Ilctnilu of olto lighting.
n. J.ocntioll of [lropo[l{'cl Cire hytlrunl:o.
o. l'rolloonl for (lUl)l(~x manholc rClJuilcmcnl:u.
hddJt:iunnll y, we will 1.00 nmkin!J G determinatiun of the nlatuo
ur lhe follllliln!J I
1. Ucnl1C]lJlllcnt or 1I1yhlilml Avenue.
2. ^crewJc D.Vuil .1,10 for ucvclopmcnl: in Parcel:; 1 und
2 of parcel 1.\',' Nu. 9166.
3. ~'he overall <;onflifltellcy of the proposal >lith the
lIi!JhlGnd 111110 61'eoif:ic P1~n.
,
- ,--. " ';.~ '~Y;";,- '.,~":"
.~$.J"=
IIJ.I