HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB04-Public Works
'0
o
o
o
January 3. 1985
,"~"ll.mf
-&flY.. AN IERNAkDIHD
/985 JAH -3 PM 4: t s
Councilman Oordon Quie1
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino. CA 92408
Re: Trattic Signal Assement-Parcel Map No. 5318.
Dear Mr. Gordon Quiel:
I request your assistance in being placed on the January 7.1985.
City Council Meeting Supplemental a~enda.
It is 1mperpative that a settlement be reached between the City
ot San Bernardino and College Parkway Development Associates.
on tees to be assessed tor the stop signal at the intersection
ot Hallmark Blvd. and University Parkway.
The City Engineer has requested payment in the amount ot $63.500
tor one halt ot the above signal. Although a trattic stUdy
requested by the City Engineer. and prepared by DKS Associates
indicated a contribution by College Parkway Development Assoc-
iates ot approximately $4.758. Co11eRe Parkway Development
Associates has a~eed to pay an assessment not to exceed $12.000.
The City Traftic Engineer. Mr. Peter Lui wants the City Council
to approve our otter.
Attached are copies ot all correspondence to the City ot San
Bernardino Engineering Department.
Exhibits:
"A" Trattic Study from DKS Associates. dated 7-30-84.
"B" Planning Commission Meeting ~nutes. dated 6-5-84.
"C" Conditions ot Approval tor Parcel Map 5318.
"." Parcel Map and Plat Plan tor Motel 6.
"E" Letter to Councilman Oordon Quial. dated 9-5-84.
"F" Letter to Peter Lui. City Trattic Engineer. dated 10-27-84.
"0" Bonding requirements tor Parcel Map 5318.
Once the assessment tor the signal has been resolved. we will
finalize our Parcel Map and begain work on developing the
project.
Should you have any questions. please feel tree to contact my
oftice.
~~y.
~~~
John Edwins
Project Manager
Ne L.0 'B,()..$', ~
~ B ()L-\--
;
o.
.Da8
associates
n
'"'0
o 0
hftic . Transportation . Engineering
CIY* E. 5_1. P.E., "e".ger
Sen S.",.rcllno Office
July 30, 1"984
P"nc~'s:
CIte"', E, De Leuw. Jr.. P.E,
WdUem H, Dietrich. P.E
Lerry II. Grove, P.E,
"icheel.. /WnntKIy. P.E,
Hen, W KDr.., P.E,
lIicMra r SelMl, P.E,
Oeniel r Smllh, J". P.E,
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR HALLMARK
AND STATE COLLEGE SITE
(Parcel,Map No. 5318, Dated 5-9-84)
The site consists of approximately 16.5 acres at the end of Hall-
.
mark Parkway, south of State College Parkway, in San Bernardino, Cali-
fornia. There are four identified lots on the site plus a remainder.
This report is divided into three sections: Projected traffic at build-
out for this parcelr projected traffic ,at build-out for State College
Business (Industrial) Parkr and a peak hour traffic comparison for the
cost Sharing of the proposed signal costs.
A. Project Traffic for the Site.
Lot 1 - Fast Food with Driv.e-up Window.
This lot consists of 26,000 gross square feet of area. The fast
food restaurants in this category average 2,900 square feet of
gross floor area and generate 376 to 828 trip ends per weekday.
This site is adjacent to another restaurant use, but the overall
site is somewhat isolated and will be dependent on industrial and
State College traffic. Due to the separation from higher density
development, a lower trip generation rate of 400 trips per l,OOO
square feet of gross floor area and a gross floor area of 2,000
square feet is being selected. This rate provides for 800 trip
ends per w~ekday. During the adjacent roadway a.m. peak period
Ilo.ltor ~ S.n .."..rd'no, c."'omla 12413. "4'''3.1217
1419 Broadway. Sulta 700. Oakland, Canfomla..94~12.2069 · 415/763.2061
J..I I L
f
,
o
'0
o
o
(7-9 a.m.), this facility would generate an estimated 6.3 percent
of the average day and during the p.m. peak period on the adjacent
roadway (4-6 p.m.), this facility would generate 5.7 percent of
the eyerage weekday trip ends. The peak hour of the restaurant
is expected to be between 12 and 1 p.m. with 14.2 percent or 114
trip ends. !I
Lot 2 - 24 Hour Higher Quality Restaurant 1/
This lot consists of 32,000 gross square feet. The average trip
rate for a quality restaurant is estimated at 75 trip ends per
weekday per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This restaurant
would serve motel guests as well as drive in patrons. A restau-
rant in this class would provide 6,000 gross square feet of floor'
area and 450 trip ends per weekday. The peak hour for restaurants
was found to be 12 to 1 p.m. During the adjacent roadway a.m.
peak period (7-9 a.m.), this facility would generate an estimated
9.0 percent of the average day or 40 trip ends, while mainly
servicing the motel. During the adjacent roadway p.m. peak period
(4-6 p.m.), this facility would generate an estimated 8.2 percent
This lot consists of 72,000 gross square feet. The Motel will have
103 units plus the live-in manager's apartment. There is to be a
full time maintenance person and the laundry and maid service
!I
personnel will vary as needed. They will use an on-site laundry
Based on information from "Trip Generation," An Informational
Report (Third Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers,
1982.
2
. L
.,-"\
o.
o
o
o
facility. The Motel 6 chain runs 80 percent occupancy l/ ~ith
40 percent of their arrivals occurring after the 6:00 p.m. peak.
Seventy-five percent of their activity occurs between 6:00 a.m.
and S:OO a.m. for outbound and between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. for
inbound. Their peak time is 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. With an 80 percent
occupancy, this motel would experience 82 occupied rooms on an 11
average weekday, with an estimated 385 tirp ends. A lower trip
end estimate is used due to the expected supporting restaurants
and the distance to other attractions.
The trip ends generated by the employees are on the low end
of the scale due to the minimum services provided by this Motel
chain. There are expected to be ten employees with the managers
living on-site. The peak for employees is expected to be after
the peak on State College Parkway. The service employees would
arrive and depart for the cleaning-laundry operations outside
of the afternoon peak period.
Lot 4 - General Commercial
This lot consists of 30,000 gross square feet. The average
weekday traffic is estimated based on general traffic for 10,000
gross square feet of commercial development. 1/ The estimated
weekday traffic would' be 213 trip ends. The peak hour of this
general commercial would not coincide with the peak hour on State
College Parkway.
Remainder Of Site - Hardware/Paint/Home Center
The total usable area in the remainder of the site is 9.9
acres. 3/ The estimated use for this is as a hardware/paint/
Inforamtion from Gary Talbott, Mgr. Site Development, Motel 6,
Santa Barbara, California, July, 1984.
Source: W. J. McKeever, Inc., 647 N. Main St., Riverside, CA,7-27-84.
2/
11
3
,",
.. '"
o
o
o
"
o
home center facility. This type of facility at this location
would generate on about one-third of the area. The average week-
day traffic would be expected to be 1,540!{ndependently generated
trip ~nds at build-out. This facility would most likely be de-
veloped much later as increased residential density is required
for a successful facility.
A summary of the average weekday traffic and the traffic that would
contribute to the peak hour of the intersection of State COllege and
Hallmark Parkways is shown in Table 1. Once the general commercial
area and the remainder area have the land use more specifically de-
fined, the traffic 'estimates for these two areas may be further refined.
TABLE 1
SITE TRAFFIC
Individual Trip Ends During Adjacent
Facility Roadway Peak Periods
Average Weekday Peak 7-9:00 a.m. 4-6:00 p.m.
Location Trip Ends Hour Peak Peak
Lot 1 800 12-l p.m. 50 23
Lot 2 450 l2-1 p.m. 40 37
Lot 3 385 5:30-6:30 33 41
p.m.
Lot 4 213 Early p.m. 10 13
Remainder 1,540 Saturday IS 138
Total
Parcel
3,388
iD ,I~O
,
J~.~~lfJ
148
252
.... 1 -.,-t:-,
'-'.1, ' .wI
r
~reeQ..
,'5OOD ~ ~11C; :.o.~(/o
0- .
"
i
4
Two documents were made available to DKS Associates: 1) Circulation
portion of a report by Ultrasystems - Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc.;
and 2) T~ffic and Circulation portion of Verdement Area Plan-EIR, by
Greer and Company.
The Ultrasystems, et. al. report shows the traffic to be generated
by this park would be a total of 31,270 trips per day total average
daily traffic. "An estimated 7,095 of the trips (6020 inbound, 1075
outbound) would occur during the AM peak hour while 7,035 vehicle trips
(995 inbound, 6040 outbound) would take place during the PM peak hour.n!/
The volumes in this report were then assigned to a future roadway
network with a connection to the Industrial Park through the north
redevelopment area to an improved freeway interchange at Institution
Road-Palm Avenue. The volume on,Hallmark Parkway reduced to 16,770
average daily vehicles. The a.m. peak hour reduced to 3,905 (3,310
inbound, 595 outbound) and the p.m. peak hour reduced to 3,870 vehicles
(550 inbound, 3,320 outbound).
The Greer and Company report provided for 2.5 million square feet
of industrial use with 13,575 daily trips on Hallmark at State College
Parkway. The report presumes build-out at 1990 and a long range street
network was apparently used for traffic assignment. The traffic net~
work includes a south on-r_aII)p_and a north off-ramp at _Pepper-Linden
--
Street_~nd a connection to the redevelopment area on the north. The
,-
network further includes an improved freeway interchange at Institu-
tion Road-Palm Avenue.
The most current traffic estimate (Greer and Company) was determined
i/
4.3 Circulation, B. Impact, page 68, report by Ultrasysterns - Linscott,
Law & Greenspan, undated.
",
5
, "
0-
r--..,
..'.0
o
o
to have a p.m. peak hour of 2,700 vehicles ~/ with the stated roadway
I
network.
SUMMARY
Network
Peak Hour Volume
Existing Network
7,035
Future Network
3,870
Long Range Network
2,700
C. Peak Hour Traffic Comparison and Signal Discussion.
The site traffic would add 252 vehicles to the p.m. peak hour to
produce the maximum traffic on the Hallmark leg of the intersection.
The highest hour for meeting the traffic signal warrant would be 212
vehicles at build-out. The project meets the minimum minor street
signal warrant only when the Remainder of the Site is fully developed
with the proposed use and the traffic on State College Parkway increase
6/
significantly. The current peak hour on Hallmark Parkway is l27-Vehicles.
In order to determine which traffic estimate to use for the pur-
poses of splitting the traffic signal costs, the SANBAG/CTC Staff was
contacted. DKS was advised that there were no new interchanges or in-
terchange improvements included in the 1995 plan or in the long range
planning beyond 1995 at this time. Since any freeway improvements must
appear in this plan, it would appear that the approved plan for 1995 is
a good basis for the traffic network.
However, it is possible that the north redevelopment area could
be connected with the State College Industrial (Business) Park by 1995.
~/
Y
Telephone conversation with Robert Kilpatrick, Greer and Company,
July, 1984.
City of San Bernardino Traffic Count, 7-12-84.
"
f)
o.
.
o
o
o
.
Consequently, it is suggested that the 3,879 peak hour traffic figure
is the most realistic.
The proportionate share of signal cost is best computed based on
the peak hour traffic. The total p.m. peak hour for Hallmark is 3,870
plus 252, or a total of 4,l22 vehicles. The proposed site contributes
6.1 percent of the peak hour, consequently, the proportionate share of
the proposed $78,000 traffic signal cost would be $4,758.
SUMMARY
~
Peak Hour
Percent of
Peak Hour
College Industrial Park
Proposed Site
3,870
252
93.9
6.1
Total
4,122
100.O
SIGNAL COST
Percent of
Peak Hour
~
Area
Proposed Site
6.1
$ 4,758
Total
100.0
$7fl,000
?c! pjI".... L., ... cl.. "'"
C.;)I~'t:"~'\' p,~
v~
~",,~ ~\"..,,.
'Z,c;;)
ZS~
'h
'\ 1..0;
e.;.
zcrs :.
z. 'I:; 'Z.
1~ ,0;;:' ~ b." '06 :.
* (#., ~o
i
I
7
, ('~l.annill~ COll1iTlissicn Mg~tir~otcs of June 5., ~~'_-
Pas!;'
, ,
)
,
o
o
The ap;>1icant was not present. There \'Ias no one in the audience to sp:;ak to
~-( this item.
Con-missioner Potter Rlude a motion to approve Parcel Map tlo. 8332 based on
findings of fact contained in the staff report dated June 5, 1984 and
subject to the conditions and standard requirelll.:nts listed therein, ~Iith
, the following modification:
Conditions:
1. Delet~ entire condition.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and carried unanimou~ly. Th"
Negative Declaration for environmental review was also approved.
ITEM NO.4, Ward 6
(,
.
Parcel Map No. 5318_-- Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approxlmately 16.5 acres having a frontage of approxim~tely 1,200
feet on the e.,st side of State College Parkway, south of the 215 Free~l~y and
being located approximately 900 feet north of the centerline of Cajon Boulevurd'.
The propos..l is to create four lots and one remainder parcel in the C-t~ Cr",;'erciu1-
~ianufacturing zone. '
College Parkway Development Associates, Ltd., owner; W. J. McKeever, Inc.,
applicant.
Frank Schuma presented comments, noting the size of the proposed lots and th~t
the~' would accorrmodate the uses pennitted by the zone. Mr. Schuma noted
surrounding land uses. There is to be a remainder parcel on the portion of the
property with hillside topography, the flatter parcels are proposed for devcl~p-
ment. The parcels along State College Parkway are to be subdivided in consis-
tency with the overall size of lots and the scope in industrial designation of
the area. Staff recommends approval of the requested parcel map.
t--
I Mr. Dennis Stafford, applicant, asked for clarification of condition '2.b.,
regarding the amount of the fee for signalization. Mr. Stafford stated that
the project would represent a small portion of the traffic using the intersection
and if the traffic study shows their proportionate share to be less tha~ half,
than that would be their portion. Mr. Stafford also asked about the provision
of sidewalks along State College Parkway, noting that a11 improvements to date
a.e not included sidewalks. Mr. Stafford stated that the entry way to r~~dal~ ~
()r~"" from State CO,llege Parkway does not have sidewalks, there is no access to
State College Parkway proposed and he did not see a need for sidewalks in this
location. They would be putting in sidewalks on the interior streets of the
project, but would like the requirement for sidewalks along State Co11ege Parkway
deleted. ~*~,& s.~-~
".- ~1Io..J
Discussion followed regarding the intent of the condition. Mr. Schuma noted that
sidewalks are not, typically, installed in industrial are~s. Commissioner Knowles
','noted that the Commission had waived such requirements along State Colleg' Parkway
, ' in the past. Mr. Schu~a clarified that the condition does state "as required by
. the City Engineer."
.
, ,
.
:,There was no one to speak to this item in the audience.
c
"
, -3-
.!-.... . A._ ~ b II
C1anninQ
-r
. ,
" " /)
Commission Meeti;,,,-~\~~~f..il..'J~ - Pa!l~.
o
.
\';
Commissioner Christie made a motion to approve Parcel Map rlo. 5318 based on
findings of fact contained in the staff report dated June 5. 1984 and subject
to the conditions and standard req'Jirements listed therein. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner \~atson and carried unanimou~ly. The Negative
Declaration for environmental review was also approved.
ITEM NO.5, Ward 4
, <<
"
..
Parcel M~p No. 8478 and Conditional Use Permit No. 84-23 -- Subject property
is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.69
acres located at the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Orange Street.
The proposal is to create two parcels from one in the C-3A Limited,General
Commercial zone. The applicant also requests approval of a conditional use
permit under authority of Code Section 19.28.020.C.4.a. to permit an auto-
mobile gas station in conjunction with a convenience market in the C-3A
Limited General Commercial zone.
Roy E. Hanson. owner; National Convenience Stores, applicant.
Frank Schum a presented corr.nients, noting the request and size of the parcels
to be create1. The smaller parcel is to have a mini~art on it. The plot
plan indicat~s that 12 parking spaces are to be provided, access is provided
via Orange Street and Highland Avenue. Mr. Schuma stated that the pump
islands ere to be located in front of the struct',;'e. All standards have been
adhered to and staff recommends approval of both items.
Mr. Schum~ noted an additional condition requiring seating and dining areas to
be deleted from floor plans. and that condition '8 is to be deleted.
Saundra Haynes, applicant's representative, was present and asked the reasons
for denying permanent seating in the structur,.
Discu~sion followed. Mr. Schuma stated that the permanent seating for on-site
consul"ption of food would change the parking ratio and on-site parking would
have to be increased substantially.
l
Ms. Haynes requested that they be permitted to use intercoms. She stated th~t
the intercom gets just to the ear of the purchaser of gas. it is not a noise
problem and it provides for better traffic flow. since the cust~~er can
imnediately fill his gas tank and go into the store to make a purchase and pay
for gas. Ms. Haynes noted the distances between uses on surrounding properties.
Mr. Murphy stated that there would be four tables with two seats each and he
felt that 14 on-site parking spaces would meet requirements for on-site seating.
Mr. Murphy stated that it is the poliCY of National Convenience Stores throughout
the nation to provide tables so that people can consume food on site.
Discussion followed. Mr. Schuma stated that staff has tried to discourage
seating arrangements within mini-mart operations, since it is the introducti~n
, of another use on the site. In two previous applications. similar to this one,
seating was not permitted. Mr. Schuma further stated that one of the images
. created by such operations is the ,congestion of people, by introducing chairs
". and permanent seating. it enhances this image.
!.
-4-
.
~~ITY OF 'SAN Bt::Q~DINO PLOINING.. JEPARTMEN::>'
CASE,Parcel Map No. 5318
CONDITIONS
1. Dr.inage and Flood Control:
a. All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to
the requirements of the City Engineer. which may be based in part on
the recommendations of the San -Bernardino County Flood Control Dis-
trict. The developer's.Engineer shall furnish all necessary data
relating to drainage and flood control.
b. Proper facilities for disposing of spring water from known sources or
if discovered during construction shall be provided "to protect pro-
posed building foundations.
c. All drainage from .the development shall be 'directed to a public
dedicated street. alley. or drainage facility. If this. is not
feasible. proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. A storm drain system shall be provided to transport flows from the
site to the existing storm drain on the west side of State College
Parkway subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
2. Fees to be paid to the City Engineer- prior to recordation of the Final
Map:
a~ An electrical energy fee for street lights for a period of 48
r---- IIOnths.
j b. The traffic study done for the general area indicated that a traffic
signal will be needed at the intersection of State College Parkway with
Hallmark Parkway. "One-hJlfthe estimated cost of the signal, 578.000
divided by 2 . gg.JlOO_' he' amount of he is sub ect to IIOdifica-
ion if ustified b a tra fic re rt sub ect to a rova e t
ra c n9 neer.
3. Street Improvements and Dedications:
a. All public streets adjacent to the development shall be
improved to include combination curb and gutter. sidewalk. paving.
ornamental street lights. and appurtenances as required by the City
Engineer. '
b. The structural section for all streets shall be designed and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval using a TI assigned by
the City Engineer and an R value obtained on the subgrade after rough
grading by a recognized soils testing lab. All streets shall have a
minimum AC thickness of 2-1/2 inches.
~.... ft _ "" II
.
.- ~.
, ,
- .
-
, ,/ .' .. . ,.'. ...',.. . '.. .'
~ . (.',:
. . " ~;:::. .:.:...::,', ,.... .' ~.~. '-:'0' ' , ..'...',.,'
'. ...... . . . .' .." .
-' ..... :,;." ..~.... ......:,:.. ....:...<......... ....
. .... ".
...... -:0.-
. .."
".
.
~ ' .
~. .
..' . .
.-
-'.- .
. .
,. ,
.. ....
'. '
. . . ," .". ~. .
.
. ""
o'
. ---
.' . . ,'".
. . ". : .. ."
..... .
, ,.
, .,
. .:~
. , . ..
. .....
,.
.i .
;.:...'
.' -. ~
, "
, .
"."' .
J! )) '". ' ,
J..
J Ii ~a
i ,it ~~
..' i!
~~~.
jQi
....
. '
- ,
I
~"
_ EtJlJ811-"T)"
-
.
'. c
{'
\'0
'""
o
\
,
o
,/ ."
~
.~ 0
t
... . . .,
I' III II r. I I I
!tl1tJIII .ml
J.: (! h QIIi, ", P.;I PWI;J
: I'" 1011111&
;,1'''' I
II;i I.
I ;
.
i~
.. , ..
~
II~
I ,...
I ~
n
""0
o
""
c
')
,
o
w. J. McKeever Inc.
Civil Engineering
September 13, 1984
Councilman Gordon ~iel
272 S. "I" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Re: Parcel Hap 5318 - Traffic Signal AssesSlllent
Dear Gordon:
Following is a S\JIIIlllry of events leading up to a problem we are having,
with City staff, regarding the amount we are to be assessed for future sign-
alization of Hallmark Parkway and University Parkway.
On June 5, 1984, the Planning Cam1i.ssion approved Parcel Hap No. 5318
showing proposed caoercial/industrial developuent at Hallmark Parkway and
University Parkway. Condition No. 2 required that we pay one-half the cost
of the proposed signal or $39,000.00, "the amount of the fee being subject
to modification if justified by a traffic report". We clarified this con-
dition in ~lic session at the Planning Cam1i.ssion and it was our clear
understandlng that if the traffic study showed our proportionate share to be
less than half, then this is the amount we would pay.
At our expense, a traffic study was prepared for the area. ,This study
showed that with the proposed connection of Hallmark Parkway to Palm Avenue,
our share of the signal would be 6.l%, or $4,758.00. If the Pepper-Linden
offramp is constructed between University Parkway and Palm Avenue, then our
share would be 8.5%, or $6,630.00, Through contact with SANBAG/CI'C staff it
was learned that no new interchanges are proposed in the 1995 plan nor in
their long range planning at this time. The traffic engineer therefore con-
cluded that 6.1% was our fair share.
In the enclosed agreement, Campo has agreed to paying for one-half the
cost of the signal. To our knowledge, the Hallmark projects, Colortile,
General Foam, DcMnan Products and Doan have not contributed anything to the
signal and according to staff, because no conditions were put on their parcel
map, their future developoents cannot be required to contribute. Staff is
now saying that we are responsible for one-half the signal cost because they
have no other means to acquire the money. This is not only unfair, but it is
not what we agreed to at the Planning CaDnission hearing.
We are requesting that you review this information and give us guidance
on how to proceed. We have almost canpleted final engineering for the parcel
map and have aquired a Conditional Use Permit to place a MJtel 6 on parcel 3.
ExUI'Blr ,f 1:'1
" ,
.
c
n
""0
o
r)
o
CXlJNCIlM\N ~ QUIEL
September 13, 1984
Page 2
We are not opposed to paying our fair share, but feel that the amount
being requested is excessive and contrary to the approved conditions.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please give me a call.
\
me
encs,
/'
'00
o
'" "
OJ
o
W. J. McKeever Inc.
Civil Engineering
November 27, 1984
City of San Bernardino
F.ngineering Department
300 N. ''D'' Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Attention: Peter:Wi
Re: Traffic Signal Assessment PM. 5318
Dear Mr. :Wi:
This letter is to confiI1ll various conversations you have had with Mr. John
Edwins in relation to the traffic signal assessment to be charged to the dev-
elopers of Parcel Map No. 5318, located at Hallmark Parkway and University
Parkway.
Alth~h the traffic study for this project prepared by Il(5 Associates
7-30-84 ind1cated a contribution of approximately $4,758.00, the cleveloper has
agreed to pay a traffic signal assessment for this project not to exceed
$12,000.00.
It is my understanding that this fee is acceptable to all parties' involved.
If your understanding of this matter is different than described above, please
contact me at once.
Sincer~Q
.r--V ~
Dennis Stafford
me
cc: John Edwina, Execu-Systems Realtors
Nels Ostrem, College Parkway Developnent Assoc.
txllf8lr 'J j: II
,L:J.
.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 3OONORTW'nSTRHT,SANBfRNAROINO,CAlIFORN'A 92",9
WR, BOB" HOLCOMB
MIVOr
Member, of t~e Common Council
RolMrt A. C.Sllnedill
Jae. Reill)'. .
Rllpn Hern.ndez . . . .
ste"e M.rkS .
Gordon Quie'
CJln Fr.zle'
Jack StriCkler . .
First W.rd
. seconG W.rt:!
. . . . .Third W.rd
. Fourt" W.rel
. Flit" W.rd
. . Sixt" W.ra
. .se"enth W.ra
December 19, 19c~
FilE No. 11. :)5)
P.M. No. S318
Mr. Jennis Stafford
W. J. McKeever, Incorporated
647 North Main Street
Riverside, CA. 92501
Re: Recordation Requirement for P.M. 5318
Gentlemen:
The items listed below shall be completed and/or submitted to the Director of PU011C
Works/City Engineer's Office (payable to the City of San Bernardino, where apnlic-
able) prior to presentation of the final map to the Mayor and Common Council for
fi na 1 approval.
A. Separate Original Bonds in the amounts shown below:
1. Faithful Performance Bond . S204,DOO,oO
2. labor and Material Bond 5102,00C.00
3. Guarantee and Warranty Bond $ 51.000. DC'
4. Staking Bond $ 3,000.00
5. Grading Bond S 23,74'),:")0
B. Fees:
1. Street light Electrical Energy Fee $ 2,611.20
2. One Half Cost Of Traffic Signal at Hallmark l'arhlay and
University Parkway. (50; of 5127,000) $ 63,SOO.OC
C.
Agreement:
Attached are three copies of the City Standard IlIIprovement Agreement for signature
(~lotarized) by Develop€>r. All three signed (.Opie. shall be returned. Do not
da te Agreement.
D.
Ir.surance:
A copy of all insurance certificates required in the Agreement.
.
'EXHI'e/-, t t;; '1
Il.jL.'l
"0
o
o
o
E. Plans:
All plans (Street Improvement, Grading and Parcel Map, etc.) shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
If you should have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (714) 3B3-50?7.
Very truly yours,
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
.--_..~>'-/~- ,/
YO UN H. KIM
Civil Engineering
, //.
....r 1":
Associate
YHK: pa
-2-