HomeMy WebLinkAbout56-Planning
,
..
- . ~
II
-
.
el~ OF SAN BERNARDI~
- REQU~T FOR COUNCIL AC~ON
Appeal of Negative Declaration for
Subject: Review of Plans No. 86-51
Frank A. Schuma
From: Planning Director
Dept:
Planning
Mayor and Council Meeting of
November 3, 1986, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
October 24, 1986
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 1986, the
following action was taken:
The appeal of the issuance of a Negative Declaration for environ-
mental impact for Review of Plans No. 86-51 was reviewed and the
Planning Commission reaffirmed the decision of the Environmental
Review Committee for the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Vote: 5-2, 2 absent.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
{~ C~.
\ _ . I
"". /~. --
Signature
\/ l-___,
Frank A. Schuma
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
Contact person:
Staff Report, etc.
Ward:
4
Supporting data attached:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item NO~ ~.
..
~
-
-
e
o
o
o
RFrr
."-.
I~' ... I','
October 22, 1986
2'2.' pI. :1lJ
"E(i ,\:\
City Clerk
City of San Rernardino
303 North D Street
San Bernardino, California
Dear Ms, Clark:
My name is Jim Smith I reside at 3963 E. Croydon Street in the Mountain Shadows
area of Highland.
After attending last nights planning commission meeting, I wish to formally
appeal .the San Rernardino City Planning Commissions decision to issue a
negative declaration for the Mountain Shadows Apartment Project, review of
plans No, 86,,51.
The basis for the appeal would be the impact of the project on the already
existing overcrowded schools. It is my understanding that local school
facilities might not be able to handle the influx of children generated from
this project,
I believe this is an urgent matter and respectfully request that the city
council address the mitigation of this problem at the November 3rd council
meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
.
Sincerely,
00 rn'@ rn D W rn rID
OCT 221986
CITY PlArJl\!ir;;; nf'AflTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
,
~
.JII _ _
-
-~
~
· ,. c
,
o
o
o
.
,.
REC~I\T~" :' ci'!
~w o,.,..c... or
BREKHUS a WILLIAMS
· :~:.M. :rl.t~ p 2 :~5
."........ ,., we.TE"
RiO.EAT " HALL. .JR.
0" co,",..e.,.,
1.""'1' D. 'O"TIE..
.I~ 0 8T".&T
SAN Ml'AlL. <:.\L1fOkNIA 8.1101
U:r..&P'HONIl64..I....-O.oo
.....'fA AO&'"
'.00 COUtl., 4;'"'''' gAIY'
"... ~r..u... .'.'. au,l'. '77
."Hr... "Os" C"""OAHIA ..,,0.
,.r...~"OH. tJOJI.,7"'00
~~
,.. P I...III.IIT. 1"1I11l .
,......0. CAI."O""IA ann
T&l..PHO... 1I0.,.....J10
October 24, 1986
Members of the City Council
CITY OF SAN BBRNARDINO
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attnl City Clerk
00 rn@~O\Y1~ ~
OCT 241986
CITY PLANNING DE: ,..':,:ENI
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
,
Rei Appeal of Application of Stubblefield Enterprises
for Construction of Residential Units at the
Northern Terminus of Citrus and La Praix
Planning Commission's BIR Decision of 10/21/86
Ladies,' Gentlemen:
As the file will reflect, I represent approximately 500
neighbors who reside in the viCinity of the above-proposed
project. It is my understanding that an appeal from the
Planning Commission's decision not to require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report has also been filed by a
Mr. John Smith.
'.
.
.
.
"
,
On behalf of the 500 residents whom I represent, and
specifically Mr. Jim Cimino, please be advised that my
clients appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to not
require that an Environmental Impact Report be' prepared on
,this project for the City Council.
Please be further advised that neither I nor a number of
the residents in the neighborhood can be available on
. November 3, 1986, which I understand is the tentative date
set for the hearing on Mr. Smith's appeal. Inasmuch as I
represent the large majority of residents who are
legitimately concerned about this matter and I have been
asked to appear on behalf of them, it is hereby requested
that the matter be set for hearing during the evening hours,
so that the public can attend, and at some time other than
November 3, 1986, when I am available. ~ would propose the
following dates as acceptable hearing dates: November 7; 10,
14, 17 and 18, 1986.
"0.'
o
o
LAW O,.,..cca 0,.
,8REKHUS 8 WILLIAMS
Members. of the City Council
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
October 24, 1986
Page -2-
~
. ,
Inasmuch as this. is a great public concern to a large
majority of residents in the neighborhood, I do not believe
this request for. continuance is unreasonable, and I would
hope you entertain such a request favorably.
Very truly yours,
;;7?/~
PETER B. BREKHUS
,
PBB:taf
CCI Mr. Jim Cimino
~
.
..
\
.
,
,
. '.
.
,
.
., .
o
,
-
lJi. &I
.
c
o
o
o
September 30, 1986
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
City Hall
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Re: Mountain Shadows villa Project
Gentlemen:
I have been ask~d to write to you on behalf of the
individuals 'listed on the enclosed sheet of paper.
All of these individuals are greatly concerned about the
threat of future flooding in their neighborhood, particularly
as such future flooding may occur as the result of the
construction of the Mountain Shadows Villa apartment complex
pro~osed to be built by the Stubblefield Companies,
As you know, the City of San Bernardino recently
suffered a $4 million judgment for negligent approval of a
subdivision in the Hampshire area.
.
The report from the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District suggests that the present facilities in the area are
not sufficient to handle flows, and we want to go on record,
and ask that this be kept as a permanent part of the City of
San Bernardino's files, of our great concern for flooding
hazards in the neighborhood and our great concern that this
project will increase flooding in the neighborhood.
We believe the City should take the strongest measures
necessary to prevent such flooding.
Ver
PETER
BREKHUS
~
PBB:taf
enclosure
'0
-
-
::: -';:: ,':
c. '." '
, i\:' :
.-..--
Lf)
j;
00
. -
, ,]
oj
r
,., .
. "i
:{ ,.-,
. ---. T- ~ .'" .
I I"
I I' I
I "
i !!
I I
\, ~! I;:.
, q Pg: i ;
. - ~J6' . ,i .
. r'. -: ~ ,. -,.---r-'-''--T-i-i'. rt;.
cf. 'i 1:1: J:.
: I.
I .
4 ~ l' I I. ' "
1f JJ .fZ " . i; ·
I \;
._~.____~_ . i
. I"
1 , :-f'
, /" l~i B
8 4 i ~ :. f $
~ :~. ~ 3 j. ~ ~" .. ~
~ :' ,
_ ' J
'C
o
o . ,
.~, .
o
I
-
_ L.
c
o
o
o
Lynn G. Gebara
Joseph C. Gebara
3866 East 28th Street
Highland, CA 92346
October 15, 1986
.
Planning Department
San Bernardino City Hall
300 North "D" Street
SanB~rnardino, CA 92418
Gent 1 emen:
We are writing to protest the building of an apartment building in the foothills
north of our home on 28th Street. We oppose such building for several reasons:
. A three story apartment building in this location would ruin the
tranquility of the neighborhood.
. Fire danger in this area is high.
. Further building up the mountain will spoil the beauty of the foothills.
. Vacant real estate is plentiful for residential building in other
locations near the neighborhood.
As an alternative, please consider the vacant land west of Palm Avenue or a'long
Highland Avenue. .
All our neighbors that we have spoken to oppose this building. Please understand
and consider our opposition in making your decision.
Sincerely,
~ .
.JI~.Y ,~
Lynn G. Gebara
e"p~ Ge~a'rad-1Xrr n 'q '1 "i r' If!')
OCT 211986 L!
ClTt PLAI' ,
SAN BEiiNA'R/JII~O" MC'H
, CA
c
o
o
o
27632 Croydon Street
Highland CA 92346
14 October 1986
To Whom It May Concern -- Review of Plans No. 86-51 - Ward #4
Comments are submitted for disapproval of a waiver for an environmental impact
study fir the following reasons:
High density dwellings which will bring in a large number of people
Impact on local schools.
Size of swellings not stated but assumption is they are less than 1,000
square feet. Small apartments of this size will promote transients who
will live there while attempting to find otheT accommodations. This will
tend to crea~e a large tUTnover and not promote home ownership nor
neighborhood integration.
Safety
This location is in the immediate foothills which is in constant danger
to the threat of fires as has been evidenced over the past years. It is
inconceivable that approval can be given for construction of dwellings in
this hazardous area.
Lack of existing access roads
To increase the amount of people utilizing existing streets would be
extremely detrimental in an emergency evacuation. The fires of past
years have indicated the situation at present is not adequate. Fire or
emergency vehicles could not manipulate when ,a mass evacuation is necessary
as this would further compound an unfavorable situation.
Water
We have a serious water pressure problem on, Croydon Street where the
fire hydrant could not support firefighting equipment. Construction in
the proposed area would further jeopardize our situation and additionally
could provide inadequate water pressure in a higher elevation.
Initial master planned community
This area had an approved master plan for its development by Stubblefield.
This plan has not been followed through but other construction has occurred,
We who bought homes in this area under one concept are given no considera-
tion for deviation from the initially planned community. Are there no
entitlements to home owners who have been misguided?
Therefore it is essential that an environmental impact study be conducted for
the safety and welfare of residents who live in this area.
~in erely
. .
'.. ............." .~,~~
IRENE SCH~
00
I r. fi,['~ f;~ Iii Hi r~~
l? Ii'} i, d .: b
\ill
OCT 16 1986
CITY PlAl'Ji"i.L' i::;,:UrvlENT
.
Sierra ClJa 0
San GorgoDio Chapter
o
Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
Tahquitz Group. Los Serranos Group. Soboba Group
San Bernardino Mtns. Group . Mojave Group
568 N, Mountain View Ave,. Suite 130
San Bernardino. CA 92401
(714) 381,,5015
'(0".
October 21, 1986
To City Planners:
After carefully reviewing the Environmental Impact Checklist and Pre-
liminary Environmental Description Forum, some serious deletions and conflicts
have become apparent. Firstly, increased density will result in increased
traffic flow by Bonnie Oehl Elementary School. The ~orning peak rush hour
will coincide with students competing with approximately 800 vehicles.
Secondly, approval of proposed project would establish a growth inducing
impact on the remaining 126 adjacent acres. This is inconsistent with
surrounding dwellings and would eliminate any buffer zone between National
Forest and private property. Access to the National Forest would also be
restricted.
Thirdly, the area under question falls into a focal point for one of
San Bernardino's largest deer herds and is inconsistent with proposed green-
belts, according to Jo Bridges, San Bernardino National Forest Planner. With
the increased population, fire potential is heightened. The fire-resistant
chaparral is becoming scarce on Mt. McKinley's south slope and could result
in total disappearance of deer. Substantial deer habitat has been sacrificed
in San Bernardino County because of Sunrise Ranch approval.
In summary, cumulative effects of population, flooding, and earthquakes
have not been adequately recognized. The Sierra Club takes a position for
sound development and suggests rejection of the negative declaration pro-
posal,and highly recommends for the developer to construct a Focused Environ-
mental Impact Report (E.I.R.). By fulfilling this, project alternatives
could be met.
Sincerely,
A~'!:~~~et1l
Conservation Committee Member
. . . T......... n;.,'" """'"' "" ....... f.~.. ....... ':"",r.. "'" ..;...... .: ..
,
-
.41 II U1
111
~
JI.
.
o
o
o
o
ERN ARDIN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 9241B
EVLYN WILCOX
May",
,
Members of the Common Council
Esther Estnd.. . . . . . . . . . . . . First Ward
Jack Reilly.. . .. . . . . . . .. . S.condW.rd
Ralph Hernandez. . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
Steve Mark' . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth Wlrd
Gordon Qui" . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fifth Ward
O.n Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIxth Ward
J.ek Strickler . . . . . . . . . . . .S.venth Ward
October 24, 1986
Stubblefield Enterprises
2258 Bradford Avenue
Highland, CA 92346
Dear Sir or Madame:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21,
1986, the following action was taken:
The appeal of the issuance of a Negative Declaration for
environmental impact for Review of Plans No. 86-51, for the
construction of a 492 unit, three-story apartment project on
approximately 29 acres located between the northern terminus
of La Praix Avenue and Citrus Street in the R-3-2000.Multiple
Family Residential zone, was reviewed. The Planning
Commission reaffirmed the decision of the Environmental
Review Committee for the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
According to the San
2.64.030 and 2.64.040,
appeals to the Mayor
actions:
Bernardino Municipal Code, Sections
the following would apply in regard to
and Council of Planning Commission
"Except as provided in Section 2.64.020., any. person
aggrieved by, dissatisfied with, or excepting to any action,
denial, order, requirement, permit, decision or determination
made or issued by an administrative official or by an admini-
strative board, commission, body or other agency of the City
pursuant to the provisions of any ordinance, code, rule or
regulation of the City, may appeal therefrom by filing a
written notice of appeal with the City Clerk, directed t.o the
Common Council.
."111[""""..;
~~?:fl !
~'ff'
,
;. II ,~,.~
-
J1l _ _
-
.4
.4
.
e
o
o
o
Stubblefield Enterprises
October 24, 1986
Page 2
"Any such notice of appeal shall not be valid and shall not
be acted upon unless fi~ed within fifteen days after the date
of the action or decision appealed from. If notice of such
action has not been provided in writing, and the appellant
had no notice of the hearing at which the action was to be
considered, the appellant may. within five days after first
becoming aware of such action, demand written notice thereof,
and shall have ten days following such notice in which to
file the notice of appeal. A prospective appellant who was
present at the time the action or decision relating thereto
was made shall be presumed to have constructive notice
thereof and shall file a riot ice of appeal within fifteen days
after the date of the action or decision."
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned
provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action
of the Commission shall be final.
SCHUMA
Director
mkf
CCITY OF SAN BEI9IARDINOCL MEMORANDUfil
'-
To Planning Commission
Subject Appeal of the Hegative Declaration for
Review of Plans No. 86-51
From Planning Department
Date
October 21, 1986
Approved
ITEM NO.2, WARD 4
Date
Owner/Applicant: Stubblefield Enterprises
2258 Bradfolu Avenue
Highland, CA ~2346
Proposal
Review of plans No. 86-51, a proposal to construct 494 units
in the R-3-2000 zone on a 29.0 acre site between the terminus
of Citrus Street and La Praix Avenue, was recommended for a
Negative Declaration by the C~ty's Environmental Review
Committee on September 25, 1986. The Committee's decision
has been appealed to the Planning Commission.
The enclosed material will serve as background for your
consideration in making the environmental determination.
Environmental Determination Options
---
The following four options are available to the Planning
Commission with regard to this case:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Continue
study, or
Require a
Require a
Recommend
Impact.
the project for additional information,
revision,
focused Environmental Impact Report,
full Environmental Impact Report,
a Negative Declaration of Environmental
proiect Historv
The applicant, Stubblefield Enterprises, originally proposed
to develop a 594 unit apartment complex, "Mountain Shadows
Villas" on 52.4 acres in the R-3-2000 zone. (See Location
Map, Figure I)
The project was originally submitted as a Review of Plans
apPlication for the City's Development Review Committee (DRC)
on May 30, 1986. Due to size and scope of the proposal, the
project was referred to the Env~ronmental Review Committee
(ERC) for an environmental det~rmination on June 27, 1986.
~.
A project redesign was submitted on August 22, 1986,
resulting in 492 units on a 29.0 acre site. A recommenda-
tion for a Negative Declaration was made by the ERC for the
project on September 25, 1986. Due to the large turnout of
concerned individuals, the ERC meeting was held in the C.ty
Council Chambers. A summary of the testimony and discussion
c,ry Oil rHI~;o"
d
1\....;
"1
~j
1::
i
,.
.~
1
'I
1
,
,
'I
I
I
.~
"
",1
,
,
fj
:~'i
.,
i~
~
'I
v
,
,;
1"\
r'~
'.
.i
1
I
I'::
"
ij
.',
'I
'J
,1
. ~
'j
j
,',~
"
v
,
,j
,
,
-
.. -
o
o
o
Memorandum
Review of Plans No. 86-51
Page 2
Council Chambers. A summary of the testimony and discussion
by committee members and staff is provided in Exhibit "F".
The recommendation of the ERC has been appealed by Councilman
Marks of Ward 4. (See Interoffice Meffi~randum dated September
30, 1986- Exhibit "A") Grounds for the appeal include the
. growth inducing impacts created by the project and the need
for further analysis of traffic circulation.
Upon completion of its environmental review, the project will
be scheduled for final review and approval through the DRC.
Proiect Description
The complex will gain access from either Citrus Street on the
west and La Praix Avenue on the east. (See Figure 1 -
Location Map) The mUlti-family units are to be developed in
seventeen (17), three-story structures arranged along a
looped road network. (See Figure II - Site Plan) The
following unit mix is proposed.
No. D.U. ~ ~
36 (7.3%) Studio 456-478 sq. ft.
186 (37.8%) I-Bedroom 724 sq. ft.
270 (54.9%) 2-Bedroom 938-998 sq. ft.
492 Total d.u.
The allowable density for the R-3-2000 zoned site is approxi-
mately 22 dwellings per acre representing a potential yield
of 631 units. The maXlmum density allowed under the General
Plan is 14 dwelling units/acre. The resultant yield under
the General Plan would amount to 406 units. The proposal has
a density of approximately 17 units per acre.
The three story structures will be sited with units on the
second story accessed at grade level by a system of walk ways
at level with the parking areas.' Units on the first and
third levels will be reached by one flight of stairs up or
down. Floor plans and unit configuration are shown in
Figures III - VI. Typical elevations are shown in Figures VII
- IX.
The project will also have a two-story
three (3) swimming poOls, five (5)
areas, three (3) laundry buildings
throughout. Additionally the project
landscaped buffer as an aesthetic
amenity.
recreational building,
spas, six (6) picnic
and a jogging trail
Will have an irrigated
and fire prevention
A I
- -
-
~
~
c
o
o
o
.........
Memorandum
Review of Plans No. 86-51
Page 3
The proposal provides for a total of
Only 873 spaces are required by Code.
provided on 492 spaces, as per Code.
Total building coverage of the site amounts to 4.02 acres.
parking, driveways and other paved surfaces represent another
11.15 acres. The remaining 13.83 acres (47.7%) is open space
and landscaping areas.
1,132 parking spaces.
Covered parking is
Zoninq History
,
,
,~
i
.The property received its present zoning of R-3-2000 at the
time it was annexed into the City on September 4, 1968.
Subsequent to that, the preparation of the East San
Bernardino-Highland General Plan, the site obtained a multi-
family residential designation at a density of 8-14 dwelling
units per acre. Adoption of the General Plan occurred on
December 15, 1975.
v
Environmental Issues
.,
The Review of Plans application and Preliminary Environmental
Description forms for the project proposal are shown in
Exhibit "Aft. The proposal was then evaluated by Staff as to
its potential effect on the environment. The attached
Environmental Impact Checklist (Exhibit B) with its
accompanying appendices provide the extent of the
environmental data under review. Each reviewing agency was
requested by the Planning Director (Exhibit D) to submit
their comments in writing (Exhlbit E). The summary of the
testimony and discussion held at the ERC meeting of September
25, 1986, is presented in Exhibit F. Written comments
received from the public are shown in Exhibit G.
,I
,
I
'I
Form Motion
On the basis of the material provided herein and the
testimony heard this evening,
A. The Planning Commission finds the proposed project WILL
NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
B.
The Planning Commission finds that although the proposed
project will have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant 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.
\....-'
.
c
v
.,:
v
,j
,
:i
]
',j
if
v
o
o
o
Memorandum
Review of Plans No. 86-51
Page 4
C. The Planning Commission flnds the proposed project MAY
have a significant effect on the environment with regard
to the issues of , and that a
focused ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO~T is required.
D. The Planning Commission finds the proposed project MAY
have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Respectfully Submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA,
Planning Director
Planner
.
o
..v
,
:\
~
)".
, .
~ .
1
i!
,
,
:,';
~
v
" .
; .
,
v
.,.
o
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R 0 I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8609-309
TO: The File
FROM: Frank A. Schuma, Planning Director
SOBJECT: Review of Plans No. 86-51 (Revised)
DATE:
COPIES:
September 30, 1986
(6848)
Councilman Steve Marks
------------------------------------------------------
This memorandum is being filed on behalf of Councilman Marks
who has formally appealed the Environmental Review Commit-
tee's decision to issue a Negative Declaration for Review of
Plans No. 86-51 (Revised).
The basis for the
impacts created by
analysis of traffic
property.
Councilman Marks further states that it is his opinion that,
as a minimum, a focused Environmenta.l Impact Report should be
required.
~L
PRANK A. SCBtlJIA
Planning Director
appeal would include growth
the project and the need for
circulation in and about the
inducing
further
subject
mkf
.,
..
..
EXHIBIT "A"
.
..
4IJl1
_ Jb. J:I.
,.
-
~
. .
,
r--
CITY OF SAN BER
RDINO' PL: NNING DEPARTMEN
APPLICATION FOR
REVIEW OF PLANS ~-5 /
~
OWNER: Stubblefield Enterprises
AODRESS: 2258 Bradford Ave.
Highland, CA 92346
I, TELEPHONE: (714) 864-1522
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
Stubblefield Enterprise
2258 Bradford Ave.
Highland, CA 92346
TELEPHONE: (714) 864-1522
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Upscale multi-family cODDllUnity consisting
of 594 apartment units
GENERAL LOCATION;
Northerly terminus
Ave.. Highland, CA
Shadows.
of Citrus Street and La Prai
in the cODDllUnity of Muuntain
(see Dr. Fluyd Wi
(review of geo1ug
iams
a1
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 1199-091-1/1199-131-32/1199-271-02
ZONING DESIGNATION
R-3 2000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
14 du/net acre
GEOLDGIC I KI YES
SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO
HIGH FIRE IU YES
HAZARD ZONE:
oNO
'--'
FLOOD DYES OZONE A
HAZARD
ZONE: (lNO OZONE 8
AIRPORT NOISEI 0 YES REDEVELOPMENT
CRASH ZONE' 19 NO PROJECT AREA:
DYES
l!I NO
SEWERS: OlYES
oNO
SUBMITTALS:
Ol APPLICATION lONE COpy)
[J SITE PLANS. FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS (II CDPIES EACH. ALL FOLDED)
Ul LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
.
[J CHECKLIST (ERe. FORU.c") SIGNED AND DATED.
~ Dr. Flovd Williams'
DATE: ...$-.;l '7- ~~
DATE:
DATE:
..
SIGNATURE 0
LEGAL OWNE I)
AND/OR
APPLICANT
v
DATI! APfILICATION RECEIVI!D: 5-~ - ~ .6
COMMITTEE MEETING' 6-/~
DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED: S~ -~
oAPPROVED
oDENIED
.. '.4 .,
~XHIBIT "B" 1 o.llC. '0.1111 ·
pp; . 'U, I Of'1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REVIEW OF PLANS CHECKLIST
The following items shall be shown and labeled on the submitt J plans for review. Distinguish.oetween
existing (dashed lines) and proposed (solid lines) and show suffi~ient dimensions to define aI' items.
Plans should be drawn to scale by a qualified individual such as an Architect, Engineer or licensed
Building Designer.
5.
6.
7.
~
8.
9.
10.
11.
1. Property lines and dimensions.
2. Building and structure footprints.
]. Preliminary grading and method of
draining the site.
4. Driveways; a) show all points of
ingress and egress. b) show conflict
points such as other driveways, streets
or alleys within 300 feet of proposed
driveway (can be on a separate plan):
c) must show path of travel across
dri veway.
Handicapped parking, ramps, signs and
pavement markings.
Parking layout showing sizes and loca-
tion of each stall, backout areas and
driving aisles.
Wheel or bumper stops or minimum 5 foot
landscape divider.
Loading. zones.
Dimensions and nature of all easements.
Location map (vicinity ..p).
Location of water/sewer mains.
12. Frontage streets: name, centerline..
curbTine, right-af-way, improvements
and utility poles.
13 Location, height and composition of
walls and fences.
14. Location of refuse enclosures with
wall height and type of materials.
15. Outside storage area.
16. Location and method of lighting (hooding
devices). .
17. Location of fire hydrants.
18. Yard and spaces between buildings or
between property lines and buildings.
19. Setback distances: a) zoning. b) earth-
quake. c) flood control.
2D. Sidewalk and interior walks including
ramps a nd curb ramps.'
21. Landscaping: building setbacks, parkway
and 5 percent of parking lots.
22. Concrete header separating all paved
vehicular areas from landscaping.
23. North arrow and scale.
rh~ pla"s ,~,,,11 contain the followil\!l information in a legorod;
i. Squat'l;: footage or gross and net 8.
JCrelge of property. 9.
2. Square footage of building or 10.
addition.
J. Square footage of lono;caping, existing 11.
and proposed with dimensions and percent
of landscaping. 12.
4. Lot t:o\'erage (%). .. 1].
5. Parking required. parkinq provided
(covered and uncovered). 14.
6. Type of building construction.
7. Automatic sprinklers in building,
(yes or no).
Zoning district.
Building o<Lupancy.
NlIlIber of employees (if known).
Square footage of seating (if
applicable) .
Nature of business.
Assessorls parcel number, legal descrip.
tion and address.
Name, address and phone number of plan
preparer and appl1cant.
I HEREBV ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE IIlCLUDED ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE AND UNDERSTAND THAT MISS1NG
ITEMS WILL RESULT IN THE DELAY OF THE PROCESSING OF MY APPlICATlOH. .
/')/-)
(. ~C~-.27-06cM~O'--,;9'_~-
- _/ ure l-an repare a e nature ppl cat \ ,_ . rs?te (. t
.. -
no... . 84 sky
EXHIBIT "B" .') 0..0., Fa." 0.
pg. -
..LI1
- -
-
-
C
r CITY OF
o 0
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
o
DEPARTMENT ~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW' COMMITTEE
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
\.
~
~
~
"\
A.
GENERAL INFOR}lATION
1. Applicant/Developer
2. Contact Person 864-1522
TELEPHONE NO.
Stubblefield Enterprises
Individual's/Firm's Name
John Stubblefield
Name
2258 Bradford Avenue
Street Address
2258 Bradford Avenue
Street Address
Highland, CA 92346
City' State Zip
Highland, CA 92346
City State Zip
3. Address/General Location of Project
Northerly terminus of Citrus Street and La Praix Avenue,
~
Highland, CA in the community of Mountain Shadows
4. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 1199-091-1/1199-131-32/1199-271-02
l
'). Description of Project Upscale multifamily community consisting
of 594 apartment units
(
I o.
PHY~ICAL SITE
6. Indicate any unique topographic features prior to any grading:
In-fill piece - Foothill vacant land
7. Describe the general type and extent of development within one-quarter
(I,;) mile of the project: Northerly: vacant land. Easterly: mobi1
home park and single family residential. Southerly: apartment
development, condominium development and single family residentia
Westerly:
large water tank and single family residential
\.:
~
EXHIBIT "B" pg. 3
E.R.C. ,rORM 8
PAGE I Of 4
o
0 0
~ . "
C. FLORA AND FAUNA
8. List types of vegetation and trees in project area: sagebrush
I
9. List types of wildlife found in proj, ~ area: none
,
,
I
10. types of wildlife to be displace, by '.he project: none I
D. LANDFORM
11. If applicable, estimate cubic yards of grading involved in project:
cut =- 350,000+ cu.yds. fill = 350,000+ cu.yds.
12. Maximum . I 9 ft. @ 2:1 slupe
he1ght and grade of constructed slopes: q
13. Methods used to prevent soil erosion in project area: Hydromulching/
landscaping/slope drains.
E. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT .
14. Zoning 15. General Plan Designation:
a. Present R-3-2000 R-3 14 units per acre
b. Proposed R-3-2000
16. Present Land Use: Vacant
.
17. Sq. Footage and/or 52.4 acres 18. No. of Units: 594
Acreage of Site
19. Parking Provided 1.201 - Required = 1.053
...
20. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
Land Use Zoning
North: Vacant R-l
-
South: Apartments/condos/SFR R-3/R-l
East: Mobile home park/SFR R-l
I ~ West: SFR R-l
110.. ~
o
~
'-
.
AU" 'S
EXHIBIT "B" pg. 4
ERC. FORM I
PAGE2c:14
.
c
A'" 15
4J.'
-
~
oS ~ _
all
o
F. ARCHAELOGICAL/HISTORICAL
21. Is there any known archae logical or historical significance of the site
area or within ~ mile from the proposed site? If so, explain:
no
G. HUMAN SAFETY POTENTIAL
22. Will the project produce significant increases in either noise levels,
dust, odors, fumes, vibration, or radiation either during construction
or when completed? Explain: Nothing more than standard
residential construction.
H. FACILITY AND SERVICE IMPACTS
23. If applying for a Conditional-Development Permit, Tentative Subdivision
Map or Change of Zone, describe: EQt applying fQ..r _any of ~hese.
----.- ._--~
a. Distance to nearest municipal facility from project: not app licab1e
1- Fire 5. Library
2. Police 6. Sewer
.
3. Schools 7. Water
4. Pal:'ks 8. Flood Channel
b. How will the proposed project"disrupt or affect the capabilities of
the following services and facilities: water supply, sewage disposal,
solid waste disposal, electrical power, natural gas and telephone:
N/A
c. What School District is the proposed project in? NIA
.
'EXHIBIT liB" pg. 5 ~~ ~o: 4'
.
e
o
o
o
I. MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach additional sheets, if necessary).
AUG .
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental im~~cts:
Standard construction practic~s
I
I
I
I
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached :
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial eval-i
uation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and I
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge !
and belief. i
I
I
J.
CERTIFI CATION
24.
S-a1-;U
Date
,
I
I
I
i
)
...
EXHIBIT "B" pg. 6
.
E.RC. FOR~ I
PAGE 4 Of 4
.
C
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
, ,. "II
A. BACKGROUND
l. Case Number (s) : Review of Plans i.',o. 86-51 Date: 9/25/86
2. Project Description: 4q2 11n;r .::ap::lT"t'm':'nr rnmplpy nn ?q 0 .l:lIt".,..,:rr.c::.
in the R-3-2000 zone
,
3. General Location: i.;rn...t-h.....ly t"p,.m; ,.,11 Q n~ r..irT"l1Q. ~t-.,..,g,,g,t- .::lInn
1.::1 P.,...::aiv A"pnl1p
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE NO
-
l. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area? --lL -
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-
mental standards (air, water, noise, light, etc.)
and/or adopted plans be requested in connection
with project? - ...x
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of energy which could be reduced by the
use of 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 surface and ground water re-
sources? X
- -
'" .~
,
MAY 8.
EXHU,IT "e" pg.l
EAC. FOR. .
PAGE I OF 3
..1
u~ .
-
J
-
-
.
c
YES
~
MAYBE
NO
8. Will project involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood? ..x
9. Will project involve construction of f,cilities or
services beyond those presently availaole or pro-
posed in near future? --1L
10. Could the project result in the displacement of
connnunity residents? ..x
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)?
..x
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which ,could be
affected by project?
..x
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?
x
(
-X.
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? -X.
16. Will project be located in immediate area of any
adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.? -1L
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
-X.
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?
-1L
I
I
I
I
L
19.
Will any effects of the subject projpct together
or in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
x
MAY 'II
EXHIBIT "e" pg. 2
EAC. FORM A.
PAGE 2 or 3
,
-
o
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 need~d).
See Attached
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
See Attached
L
E. DETERMINATION
I
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
o W,- find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
!Xl We- find that a1 though the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a signiflcant effect in
thls case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPA."ED.
o i;" find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ~:NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENV I KU1\lMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
______.J.'L
(Scocretary)
f,. ':":.:
I
l
DATE: :..' '.
":/..'
MAY '81
EXHIBIT "e" pg. 3
ERe. FORM .4
PAGE 3 OF 3
o
o
o
o
C. Summary of Findings and Cumulative Effects
1.
The site has a General Plan land
for mUlti-fam~ly residential at a
units per acre. The propos~l has
units per acre.
use designation
density of 8-14
a density of 17
6. Proposal will result in increased traffic on local
streets serving as access to the subject site.
Traffic hazard or congestion could result due to
the project size and scale, the relative remoteness
of the site, and the limited access onto major or
secondary arterials. (See Traffic Analys~s
Appendix I)
7.
Water
will
ment.
resource quality, quantity and accessibility
change in a fashion typical of urban develop-
8. All structures are to be located away from any
areas prone to intermediate regional or localized
flooding.
9. Development of the proposal will brlng about
additional demand for city facl11ties and services.
City sewer treatment capacity is dependent upon
construction of expanded treatment facilities. The
&pp~icant indlcates that sewer capacity rights have
been purchased for an equivalent of approxlmatelY
350 mUltl-family units. Ultlmate expansion of the
treatment plant to lts planned potential wiil
provide adequate capacity for future project
expansion over the 350 unit guarantee.
The 492 unit project will generate opproximately
360 students. Utilizing the Clty of San Bernardino
Unified SChOOL District Criteria, roughly 250
elementary, 55 intermed~ate, and 55 senior high
school students would ultimately reside ln the
project. Local school facilities might not be able
to handle such an influx.
Storm water runoff i~ pro[osed to be handled by the
local street system network. However, localized
regional storm drain facilities master plan will
not be directly implemerited as an off-Slte
improvement for this project. Ultimate
construction of these facillties will be
facilitated by the payment of storm drain fees.
EXHIBIT "e" pg. 4
,
-
- - -
d
o
o
o
Summary of Findings and Cumulative Effects
Page 2
l3. Development of the project will reduc~ the amount
of natural hlllside are~ roughly by 29.0 acres.
Access to the U.s. Forest Service land to the north
Will not be reduced or restricted.
16. The proposal is locat0d within the Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies zone of the San Andreas Fault.
18. The proposal will require extensive grading and
contouring of the hillside site. The applicant
estimates that over 350,000 cubic yards of cut and
fill will be involved in the site preparation and
development.
19. Development of the proposed project along with
additional vacant property to the north of the site
may have a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment. Rough estimates indicate that
there are 265 acres of privately owned vacant land
in the foothills to the north and northwest of the
site. All of this acreage would achieve access
from either Palm Avenue, Citrus Street or La P.aix
Avenue. (See Figure Xl All of the property is
zoned for single-family residential either in R-l-
7200 or R-l-I0,800 zones. The approximate
development yield for this acreage would be 900
units.
Long term development of the subject site and the
surrounding area will create increased traffic
levels, storm water runoff, and student enrollment.
Other environmental issues such as noise and air
pollution will be of a less concern.
D. Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for various environmental concerns
are found in the following reports.
1. Traffic and Circulation - Exhibit C- Appendix II,
and Exhibit E (pg. 9)
2. Geology - Exhibit C- Appendix I-A,
B, & C & Exhibit E epg. 8)
3. Flood Control Exhibit E (pg. 6 & 9)
EXHIBIT "e" pg. 5
~.I
~
-
.
e
o
? -.
o
..
_~5.e. erN
:.......;
Figure X
R-I-IO,BOO R -1-10,800
HILLSIDE
..
I
dIl:.
.
.- .
R- 1- 10,800 R-I- 10,800
I
I
--- .
R-HO,Boo
I
I
R-I
...., - 10,800 HILLSIDE
I
I
I
I
So e. CITY LIMITS
--
R - I - 10,800
R - I - 10,800
HILl.SIDE
R-'-I~
.
R-'
R-l
/
R-' R-I
'~ a.o.. .-
1 .c_
R-I
J)L -
:
--
> ..,
3'-'1 C-3A
C.3A
C-3.'\ .
HIGHLAND AVE,
! I
,.
1
~
....
x
...
.".. .
co.
R-I
'"
...
:!
'"
PRO
.'0"
.-~
PRO
C-3A
C-3A
I
--
HIGHLAND
'\r-
'-
a' a . - - W. J.
. r:c c: 0 0 ( 0
. "
ALQUIST-PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE II'NESTIGATION
TRACT NOS. 10009. 10010 & 10011
SPN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CCt-1PANY
4040 EAST PIEDMONT DRIVE
HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA 92346
PREPARED BY
~
PIONEER CONSULTANTS
251 TEr-t4ESSEE STREET
REDUWJS, CALIFORNIA 92373
.
J.N. 450-051, -052 & -053
, ..
. /-'lAy 17, 1979
EXHIBIT "c"
APPENDIX I-A
.
pg. 1
0'
(0 0 ( 0
.,-_....:.=:..~ II.~
171"793-288, .' _I
J.N. 450-051, -052 & -053
Hay l7, 1979
Stul:blefield Canst.ru::tia1 Ccmpany
4040 East: Pied:1a1t Drive
Highland, California 92346
Attentien: Nr. Hamld Stubblefield
Re: Alquist-Priolo Sper-hl Studies ZIXIe Invest1gaticn
Tract l~s. 10009, 100lO & 10011
San Bel::Il.a:l:din, California
Gent..lelten:
( -
At yaJr request, _ have made a geot:ecl1nical evaluaticn of the above
refe=ced tracts. The purpose of the invest.igat1a1 was to note lInY
geologic hazams that might influence the site. In particular, sub-
surface trenching was aooatpl1shed to dete:t:ndne if "an active fault
pas<;ed through the site.
Our l",),'U1.L. is based on en-site geologic mapping and lo;ging of ~
face trenches, a critical nNiew of aerial ~ st.emo"..airs
of the J:egicn of the site, and a review of pertinent ClV"ihhl", pJb-
lished and unpublished geotechnical infoz:naticn alxut the site and
surramdi.ng general mgien.
SITE rco.TIUl (Exhibit l)
"
The site enc:atpaSses appmxir.ately 35 acres northeast of the existing
end of Citrus Street in San BeJ:namino, Califamia. ~!oJ:e SJ?""'ii'it;:"'lly,
the site lies within the 5-3/4 of the 5&-1/4 of the IM-1/4 of secticn
28, T.l N., R.3 I..., and the N-1/2 of the NE-l/4 of the 5W-1/4 of secticn
28, T.l N., R.3 W., SBB&M (2).
Prol'OSED 0EIIEl:DIMENl'
~ understand that the fl.'op.."6ed develq.&.""lt will take plaoe within
three separate tracts. All t..'lree tracts have lleen zoned. "R-3" (I!ulti-
family units, two to three stories high, such as c:x:n3aninUmB~ apart_
rrents and four-:?1.exes). I-'E also understand that extensive quantities
of fill will be placed in the canyon axeas in 0%l:1er to generate level
pads.
'I'CP<XiPAPliIC I< GI',o!OGIC :,G'.L".I:.l.J.~ (See plate 1)
'lhe site is located en south-facing slopes of the San BeJ:nardino
bbmtains. Natural slopes range fJ:an 20 to 70 percent and drain
swthwanl. Bedrock: underlying the site ocnsists of caISOlidated
.
EXHIBIT ""C" App. I-A
pg. 2
~.
Stubbl.eiield ~ ~
~~y 17, 1979 \ c:>-
Page 2
o
(
o
int:erborlOe<l congJ.arerate and sandstone. Unconsolidated recent allu-
vium and colluvium fill lIDSt ~"!,Jhi.cally lor.r areas and slope re-
ent..-ants, respectively. Soils range in depth fran 0.5 to 1.5 feet
en the slopes. 'lbe north branch of the San Andreas Fault is located
appro-.,d..;rately 1350 feet north of the site, and the south branch of
the San Andreas Fault appr;a:d.mately 80 to 100 feet saIt:ll of the site
(16,l7,lS).
SlEFAC:: CCNDITIa-lS
At the time of our field investigati.on, the -::;ite was not in use and was
covered with grass, weeds and brUSll of nrxlerate to heavy thickness, and
a feN snall trees within ~....m.c lows. Existinq housing tracts
boI:tle.r the site en the IoAeSt and south. en tile east, the site is sep-
arated f:an existing housing by a major thrcughgoing stream channel
(\Ir1llalmd) . To t..'1e north are natural slopes of the San Bemardino
. !olOUntains.
A major throughgoing stream channel (unnanEd) cuts through the middle
of Tract No. 10011 in the IlC11:'t:brlest portion of the site. This channel
contained runnil,.g water at the ti...'"e of our field investigation. ~
stream flows en ~ bedrock for virtually its entire t:raversa of
tr.e site. Slopes bordering this stream channel are ei.ther oversteep-
ened, exposing vertical cuts within the bedrock, or exhibit deposits
of s1q:le wash and colluvium.
I
I
Ii
No ground water seeps or springs ~ encountere:i during our field
investigation and there are no -us en or adjacent to the site, 90
far as we know.
Man-p~ c::c:n=ete debris and vegetal debris is located en the site
as shewn on Plate l. This should be rem:lIIed and disposed of during
grailil1.g.
(
NCi'l-SEIS!o\IC li'\ZARD EIT1\I.UATION
Ground Water
Surface water flCMS in the IIiljor dra.i.nage imaediate1y to the east of
the site and in the major dr.Unage that crosses the nort:l1wast OODler
of Tract No. 10011. No seeps or springs -.re noted. Sllrfacinq ground
water is not consi.del::ed a potential hazaz:d.
Subsidence
Due to t..'1e lack of ground water and the shallowness of the uncalSOli-
date:l. alluvium and colluvium, which will need to be nm:JVl!d during
grOOing, and due to the .....~tent n~ of the underlying bedrock,
subsiCenoe is not CXXlSi.dered a pot:e 1tial Lazard.
Storm Runoff
Evaluation of flood hazard due to stem runoff is the respcnsib1lity
of tile design engineers and the City of San ilernaJ:dino. Mequate
provisi.cn for runoff will be J:eqU!red where EDCi.stinq drainages are
blocked with fill.
EXHIBIT "e"
App. I-A
PI!. <
,
-
~ .. ~
-
~
-
o
........'.M.A.I~....I.c.....\wOJJ.~r
:.lay 17, 1979 \
Page 3
UIo".~UJ.J. \...It"",ol.<ltJCU1:J.
(
o
o
Sl~ Stability
landslides, either existing or potential, \Here not observed an the
site or en the ll'OllIltain slopes north of the site. Fife (1) has desig-
nated t.1lls a..'"ea "III-b" (m:xierate relief and 1= to rrcx'lerate landslide
susceptibility) . 'Ihe potential for ShallCM soil faill.1r"'-:: and flao/S
exists ,,<;oonroi "tad with oversteepened slopes bcxdering the stream chan-
nel tl1rough the northwest partial of the si te (Tract No. 10011). '!base
soil, alluvial and colluvial materials will need to be rerroved during
grading and prior to placeIrent of fill.
Existi."g cut slopes (l:l [horizontal t::l vertical] and steeper) 00 t.'1e
sout.'lern perir.eter of the site appear stable. 'Ihe toes of these slqles
will be subject to periodic maintenance to rerrove accutmlated slough
debris.
SEISMIC !lAZARD EVAWATIGI
Fault DisPlacement
'Ihe site is located within an Alquist';'Priolo S;?ecial Stulies Zone as
defined by t.'2 State Geologist and is shown on E:dti.bi.t 1. 'l1-.a south
branc..'l of t.'1e San Andreas Fault trends nor-...hwesterly south of 1:1-.e
sout.lJel:n bol::der of t.'le site, and the north branch is located approri-
rrately 1350 feet north of the site. 'Ihe5e locaticns are in general
agrearent with a nunber of published and unpublished geological stud-
iea in the area of t.'2 site (1,4,9,14,15,16,17,18). t'le do not believe
that these faults J:<=t'L' ;mt a potential hazard to the site with res-
pect to fault rupture t.'u:algh the site. Wit.'l res;;.ect to the south
b='1, we have iOOicated on the Geologic ~!ap an estimated northeastel:n-
IlDSt reach of this fault ZCZle. ~ understand fra:1 your preliIr.inaJ:y
grading plan (ll) that no structures for hunan ocx:upancy will be placed
within 50 feet of the sooth boonclal:y of the site.
Ir. part.i.cular, we have addressed OOl.-se1Ves to an eva1.uatioo of an ap-
parent splay fault :C:an the nort.'l branch lNhich, at the cnset of cur
investigatien, ~ to pass scutheasterly th:I:ough the northeast
== of Tract No. lOOll. Toward the end of evaluating this suspected
fault location, we perfoz:med:
.'
1. Geologic napping on the site.
2. A critical review of several sets of .aeriaJ. photographic stereo-
pairs of differ'..ng ..,."1",, of the site and m=ounding regioo.
3. Trench excavations acmss the suspected trend of the fault.
Based 01 the above, cur investigation to date indicar..es the presence
of a fault passing through the natt".ea:;t comer of Tract No. lOOll
at approxinately the location slxlwn on Exhibit 1 and, nDre exactly,
at the location shown 00 Plate 1. .
QJr geologic map;;>ing and review of the aerial photo<Jraphs indicated
the presence of a distin::t topoy......Auc, ';P.A.t.n.J:>hic and aerial J;tIoto-
gntt:lhi.c "linear" passing SJUtheasterly through the nartbeast cmner
of Tract ~lo. 10011. In order to evaluate this linear, we excavated
!';XHIBIT "e" App. I-A
pg. 4
o
.
~'C.U;JOJ.eJ:~CJ.a ~
May 17, 1979. \
Page 4
o
(
';C-..J.Cl1 l.Cl1l?3ny
o
o
a. t:ronC.'l to a deptll of 5 to 13 feet aaoss the suspected trace. The
locat:ian of this trench is shown on Plate 1, and our trench log is
presented as Ex.'ri.bit 2. At the 100-foot mark in Trench "b. 1 and a~
protimately t.'1e r:ti.ddle of a topographic ';.'1,'1<11>>, we observed a sout.'1-
westerly-inclined fracture in the bedrock, wider at t..'"Ie top and nar-
r=ing to ale inch = less at the botton of the trenc.'1. Tnis frac-
turo = fissure is filled with a rrcder.1tely loose, reddish, pebbly
silt. In addition, a zone of "diced" =1. (intensely fractured =Ie)
= be seen <Xl ait.'= side of t.'1e vertical fissure. '!his zone of
fracturing (zone of disruption) is anywhe...--e fran si.."l: inches to ane
foot wide on eit.'1er side of the v~tical fi-,,-um. CUr interpretation
is that t.'1is feature is a r.1in= splay fault fran the north branc.'1
along whic.'1 I:ovt3lE!llt has taken pl.aoe sufficient to impart a "gtXlgy"
texture to the p&1bly silt en either side of the fissure at the cxn-
tact: with the diced, fractured rock zone. 110.-1 nu::h IIDI1BlE!llt has taken
pl.aoe could I10t be deteJ:mil,ed, and we were not able to obseI:ve that
the zone of fracturing ext:.eOOed thra1gh the overlying six .inches of
awarently natw:al soil. CUr interpretatien is that this fissure
represents a zone of weakness in the bedrock and is the subsurface
expmssien of t.'1e tot-'U':l.........1i.c and gecm:n:phic linear rren.tioned above.
,'Ie intsrpret the featw:e as Fecent and &-uspect that ~ has
taken pl.aoe along this fault within Holocene tina. l~, based
on additional surfaoa mapping a.~ subsurface trenc:fu.ng (Trenc:h l'bs.
2 aIld 3), we were not able to damnstrate that this fracture cxn-
tinued SOU'"..l'.ea.stward t.'=ugh Tract ~. l0010. '!his satre suspected
fault trace was evaluated ilmaliat:e.ly east of Tract No. 10010 by
Leighton (IS) ...-here it appeared to pass through the middle portion
of future Tract r-bs. 9058 and 9059. Leighton. s c:alClusi.on: "Con-
tinuous and traceabZe fauZts bJere not flJUJ",d in the e:t:etrXltiona
Llithin the subject area; iJI'OU11d water barriers, seeps and springs
reZatad to fauZtil1g are absent and no mJid.,1n"e of recent fauZt ac_
tivity is present."
other northward-dipping gray gmge shear zones ~ in the northem
porticn of Trench No. 1 are interpret~ <!S older features, [Y"Osibly
associated with the 1.=al contact be~ the local cxngl.crreritic
wlrock and the granitic rocks expooed in the rrountains to the north
of tl~ site. Orientaticn of these Gbear zones "into" slope is favm:-
able f= slope stabillt.-y.
Seismic Setting
'L'1e sits lies in Southern Calif=.ia and, t.'1us, witllln an area which
lJaS e::lpariBnced d!Irltin= seismic activity and int:.ense seismic shak-
ing in the past. It is not known with what <;-rea1:est intensity the site
has reen shaken in t.'1e past, but reports of Intensity VI events have
be?.n =ived fra..'l the valley region in t.r.i') 'ricinity of the site.
lror.erous earth:[uake epicenter:; of lic-.hcm 'mgnitu:le 4.0 to 4.9 have
been located within lOO kilaret:e.rs (62 miles) of the sit..e for the
period 1900 to 197~. Other:; include: 25 epicenters of Richter magni-
tude H = 5.0 to 3.9, and 6 epicenters of Richter magnitude M = 6.0 to
6.9 (3).
.
EXHIBIT "e"
App. I-A
pg. 5
o
.
o
"-
(
\
::;tu:::::lJ.et.1.elU. consrlC""u.cn t..:a'!pany
"~y 17, 1979 <:>
Page 5
The neamst plotted epicenters of PJ.chter magnit:ude 6. () and y~=ter
are for ~ which oc:cur.red in 1907 and 1923. The 1907 event
of ~1 .. 6.0 (estilnated) was centered in the San lJaI:nardi.no Mountains,
12.5 kilcIleters (7-3/4 miles) northeast of the site,asscci.ated with t.'le
San Andreas Fault Zone. 'nIe 1923 event of M" 6.2 (estimated) was
centered in the San Jacinto Valley area, 17.5 ki.laret:er.:. (11 miles)
south of the site, M'CQI"'l ated with the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Other
neamy events oc::cuned in 1910 (M =- 6. 0 es',~., Elsinore Fault ZCae, 52.5
kilcrteters [32 miles] southlNest) and in 1918 (M '" 6.8 est., San Jacinto
Fault Zone, 47.5 ki.1.aIet:ers [29.5 miles] soutll). No intensity ..~l.S
of greater than ~M .. VI were reoeivui f:can t"'.e regicn of the site for
the above events as far as could be disCXJYered.
o
(
o
Ground surface rupture <'5""<."; -":tOO with the Fort: Tejcn Earthquake of
1857 (."1" 8.0+) r:ay have extended into the San Bel::nardir.o area, but
has been fcmtal1y d.oc:unE1ted.in the Cajcn Pass area, 30 kilaneters
(19 miles) nar1:hlt.<est of the site.
'n1e majority of the above events are attributed to the San AOOreas,
San Jacinto and Elsinore Fault Zones. 'n1e San J\ndreas and San Jacinto
Zones, in part:icular, are of prilIe canoem with regard to the ....;=ri-
city of the site.
'n1e na:a.llLlm credible eart.~<es that are expected to cxx:ur alcng
faults IlDSt significant to site shaking are listed I:e1ow alcng with
t.'1e <'....'Xi ated r:eak bedrcx:k "......., ">-ations and duI:atials of stJ:cng shak-
ing at t.'ll! site (1,5). All of the faults netl:ia1ed below have ~
hibited Quaternary displace:tent (9).
Richter Distaooe Bedrock Imatian of
Magnitude f:can Site ~l">-ation Sb:I::nq Shaking
Cucam:nga 6.5 13. a miles 0.27g 18 seccnds
Zone
San Andreas 8.5 0.3g 37+ secalds
Zone
San Jacinto 7.5 7.3 miles 0.5g 30 seccnds .
Zone
Elsinore Zone 7.5 30.5 r.:d.les O.18g 30 seccnds
'n1e rra..'Cim.nn prcbable eaJ:t:h:Iuakes that are expected e. occur wit.1ti.n
the next 100 year.; and the associated IIBXinun "peak" bedrcx:k acceler-
aticns and durations of streng shaking are as follows: '
0Jcar:cnga
Zcne
Pichter
~1agriitude
5.5
O.13g
<18 secxi1ds
Dista.-.:e
fJ:al\ Site
Bedrock
An;.)1m:aticn
DJraticn of
Strang Shaking
13. a r:li.les
San Andreas
ZOne
7.0
0.7Hg
24+ seccnds
..
EXHIBIT "e" App. I-A
pg. 6
- , - 4- X . ~ ~
. 0 :~;' '~7,'""i9; U;''''(U'--=6 ~any 0 ( 0
Page 6 ,
Richter Distar.ce Bedrock Duration of
Magnitude f.ran Site ~l"ration Streng Shaking
San Jacinto 7.0 7.3 miles 0.43g 24 seconds
ZOne
Elsinore Zone .6.0 30.5 miles 0.07g <18 sec:aJds
The assign:tmlt of probable magnitudes is lughly subjective. l!aNever,
present gui.de1.i.nes state that the values carmot be .~ than the
maximJm that has occurred within Hi.storic ti.:ne" (7).
'l'he peak aco:!leraticn values are based en the probable ~
being assigned to the closest approach to t.'le site. They are beCroc:k
acoe1erations.
Far design purposes, the Papeatable High GmuOO ]lLTV> l"ratian can be
considered (6). It is noDlally about 65 percent of the peak acoel.-
eration, ar 0.46g, for a rrax:i..:n.llll pxOOable earthquake of Ric.':1ter mag_
nitU:le M = 7 along the San l\ndreas Fault Zone in t.Ile vicinity of the
site.
'l'he aron>l"raticns given shcW.d be considered as only a guide in ar-
riving at the raasonable design a,.,....."l"l;ation. 'l'he accw:acy in esti-
mating groond surface a~ 1 ~on values is not high. 'l'he degree of
acoept:able damage to the struct:ures ani econarIi.cs are inp:u:tant =-
siCerat::i.oos (11).
{ ---
San Anclreas Fault Zone
It will be noted t.'1at t.':1e site lies withL'1. the San Andreas Fault
Zone. As such, a "distance to causative fault" was not given.
'me """""lr>raticn value repxesents the peak l::e<lrock ,,~l"raticn 2.0
miles frail the causative fault (5).
00lER SEI1i'IIC HAZA:~
Liquefaction & Subsidence
'!he potential for liquefaction and subsin~ce is cansidered nil
~,- structw:es will be founCad either on lAh......:k ar on cxntrolled
o:xrpactecl. fill, and because groI.1IXi water is not anexi.sting factcr.
Flooding
'!he potential far ~~ flooding frail an area topographic-
ally above tl'.e site is considered nil due to tl'.e absence of large
upstream reservoi=.
.
..
Iandslides (Also - See above under "Slope SI--"h; 1 i.t'/")
'!he potential for seismically-irouoed landsliding is considered low
to mxmrote, parti.cu].arly in regard to boulders or ot.~ bedrock
block3 \4hich could be shaY..en loose to roll <b.nslope onto the site.
Boulders or block3 wi t.'1 this potential \..ere not observed on t.'1e slopes
nart!1 of t.Ile site. .
EXHIBIT "e" App. I-A
pg. 7
I
-
-
j
L
~
'. e'
Stu::.blefield Consr1Cti~ ea.;>w-w
~lay 17, 1979 , \.I
Page 7
o
(
o
SUiMARY & ce&::WSICl:lS
1. An active fault trends sout..'1east\-laJ:d through the northeast ~
of Tract !b. 10011. '!1-.i.s fault could not be traced through
Tract No. lOOlO. ~ other evidence of Recent fault activit-I
was observed en the site.
2. Sevm:e seismic shaking of the site stoJUld be expected within the
next lOa years.
3. E;ccept far the above, and included aox.:'eration effects, no
oti1er geologic hazards axe known to be signifi.c3nt.
R!'XXM'IEND,1l.TIa;S
1. No st:rlX:tures for human cx:cupancy shcu1.d be located within 25
feet of the fault trace srn.m en Plate 1.
i _'
2. en-site soils a."ld colluvial accIlIlUl.ations shcul.d be evaluated
by a soils engineer prior to grading and prior to pla...'=SteaL of
fill. An area of anaroloosly deep soil (up to l4 feet of mas-
sive bJ:a.lll silty sand to sandy silt) \'laS discovered in tlle north-
east = of Tract t1o. 100lO. 'fu:i.s area. sOOuld be individu-
ally evaluated by a soils engineer.
3. Planned fill slopes 3hould be evaluated by a soils engineer.
4. CUt slopes within the underlying bedrock s.!1OUld be stable at
1:1 (horizontal. to vertical).
5. Because of the existence of an active fault tJ:ace through Tract
No. l0011, and due to the fact thilt WI:: INere not able to trclce
this fault southaasterl.y t.'u:ouC)h Trdct t1o. 10010, \;e make the
following suggestion: Futura utility trench excavatials, es-
p<"";'" , y sewer, trending nor-..m..est to north to northeast an~
within Tract tb. 10010 could be inspected far evidence of :rece..l.
fault ;;;cvements.
,
6. No additicnal fault trace; \-."ere observro on the site. 'Ibis does .
not ~ that thero are no fault traces present. An active fault
trace axilil be =ered c.il.lring grading operations. If so,
ti'.ey \..o..ilil need to be individually evaluated by a geologist
during grading. An inactive zar.e of shearing my not affect
placerent of structures, l:.ut the orie.'1tation of the shear zone
could set up an unstable slope canditicn far unsupported cuts.
7. A naxiI= probable ear'"..h:iUa~ of Richt-..er Il'agnit:ude ~~7. 0 is ex-
pected along the San Andre.:'.c; <"aul': in t..'1e vicinity of the site.
t.c, therefore, r"-'U..,=:d tl~t ,,-.:ru:;r'.LC:::S fel: human occupancy be
cJesignad a=di.ngly; a design acceleratio!\ of 0.46g may l;e con-
siCere1.
8. Final cp:adil1g plans s.iould be evaluated l:rj a geolo:jist and a soils
engineer \man t.'1ey axe fi..'1alized and prior to the onset of the
grading operations.
EXHIBIT "e" App. I-A
pg. 8
. .c.
Stul;blefield CcJW-'~.1C'"...i~Calp3ny
Hay 17, 197:J \, ~
Page 8
o
(
GENEI'JIL
The fi..."1llings aru.l :cc:...ull,,,,,ldatians :tacJe in this repart = based en
=telT;;lorary geot:eC.'mical prir.cip1es and pr.:l<.'tice. ,'le r.ake no ot.'1er
wan:<lnt'.t, either expra...ssed or im;?lied. Should conditions l:;e encoun-
tared during grading that a,,"'{'e"''' to 'JC :iifferent than those indicated
by this ~L, this offica should be notifiee,
It is our :::onti..,\led p1eas= to serre you on your projects. Should
you have any q"JeStic:ns, please oontact this office.
Respec:t..-=UUy,
PIUiEER CCNSlll:.1'X:rs
~~t~~
/~~
Hichael C. Shea
RG .3262
~~" J -
David W. Tu:r:ner
BCE 18456
JFC:lC> :[X';T:mf
J.N. 450-051, ~)52 & -053
A1:ta.cl1ria1ts
1\ddressea (3)
<,
..
...
EXHIBIT "e" App. I-A
pg. 9
o
II
.
_I --.-.-
-
-
-
-c
S.tu.biJu6-(.Ud Co I14f'tc.t.i.on j;fmpany
MdY 11, 1919 . \J
Fage. 9 .
o (
REfERENCES
1. f.i.6e.. Vona.f.d L., d. al.., 1916, Ge.o.R.og.i.c i/azaJr.d.\ .&t SOu.tllWe.6,tVln
San i3wUIItd.i.Jw CoUll:tlj, CaU601ln.Ut, CD/.tG Speci.a1. Re.pollt. 113.
2. USGS, HaIrM.4olt Mowtta..&t Q.uadlr.a.11?.f.e., Ca..l..t.6olU1.Ut, 7.5 ,...o!LLte. SeJ!.i.e.6
(Topogllaph.i.cl, Scate. 1:24,000.
3. Re.a.l., CltIlIli.e.4, R., Toppozada., TOuA<lOn R. & Pme., Vav.i.t:!. L., c.omp<l.,
1918, EalLthqua.ke. Epic.e.n.tell Map 06 Cali:;OIlrUa., CVMO, Scale.
1: 1 ,000,000.
4. Roge/l.6, T. H., comp., 1961, SaJt i3e/lJ1.a/td.i.sw Shut, Oe.ol.Dg.i.c. Map
06 CaU601U1.Ut, CVMG, Sca.e.e. 1:250,000.
5. GIle.e.It<lilel.dell, R. W., 1914, Max.bnwn CMLUb.f.e. Roc.k. Acc.eleluttl.ol14
6Jtom EIVl.tJIIlua.ke.6 .in Ca.U60JUt.i.a., COMO Map Slte.d 23, Scale. 1: 2,500,000.
6. Pl.oe.6.oe.l., M. R. 6 sto.o.oon, J. E., 1914, Re.pelLt.abu IUgh GJwWld
Ac.c.e.l.e/l.aUol14 6Jtom EaJLthqua.ke.6, caU6. Ge.oL, VoJ'... 21, IJo. 9.
1. CVMG, 1915, Re.c.orrrne.n.ded Gu.i.de.Utt1'A 601L Ve.te/Ull.i.n.&tg .the. Max.unwn
ClLecUbu and Ma.Umum FILobab.f.e EaIl:thqua.lll'A, CVMG Nou. No. 43.
8. W. L. Mc.Ke.e.vell, I/lC.., Ju.l.y 15, 1'117, Te.nta..t.i.ve. Map, TJulCt No. 10009,
Scate. 1"-80'.
9. Je.nn.UIfj.o, C. W., c.omp., 1915, fauU Map 06 CaUillJlrJt.i.a., CVMG, caU6.
Ge.oi. va.:ta. Ma.p SeJLi.e.6.
10. 1..amaJL, V. L., MeJLi.6-(.e.l.d, F...M. & PIlOc;tcIL, R. J., 1913, Ealttilllua.ke.
Re.cu,'lIte.nce. In;CeIlvaLl on Majoll. fa.u.Ut. .i.n Southelln caU60JUt.i.a., .in,
MolUUt, V. E. S o.the/l.6, ed6.. 1913, Ge.o.wgy, SeMmi.ci.;ty 8 Env.uwn-
me.nta.t Impa.ct.: Ao.ooc. Eng. Gp..o.R_, Spe.c-:a.t FubUca..t:i..on.
11. Le.ed6, V. J., 1913, The. VI'A.i.'jil E.:J'...tIU(Ul.1i:.e., Lt, .1I000000, V. E. 8
o.the/l.6, ed6., 1913, Ge.ol.ogy, Se-iAm.i.c.li::.J' & EiW-i.IlOlIIlIe.nta.t Impact:
Ao.ooc.. Eng. Ge.o.f.., Spe.c.i.ai. Pu.bLU:a.:t.ion.
12. San Be/U1aJl.tU.no Flood Con.tJwJ.. V.u.vJ~t, Ae;UaR. PI:o:tDgll4lph4 da.Ud
1-21-18, Pho:tD<I 142 & 143, Sc.al.e. appllOx, 1"-2000'.
13. WI'A.telln Ae/WJ.t SuJr.vel}", Ac.iU.a1. fho;tog1Ul.plu. dated 1-7-69, F{wtD.6
1-3, 1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, Sc.a.f.e. 1""'tfQO.
14. f. Bead: Le).ghtDn, 12-10-69, Geo.tog.i.c. lllVl'A.t.i.ga.tWn 06 fIlU.uJ...ng,
TJulCt 1183 601L S;tu.bbuQ-i,el.d r.oll.6;{w.c..ti.on Ca.
15. , 12-24-69, AlL '<..'1dl:m <.a Ge.olog.i.c. Re.v-iw 06 fcw.U-
-u:g, TIlac.:t 7733 nOIl. S.tu.bb.te6.i.e.(.d COI14.t1w.c.tl.olt Ca. ,
16. f. Bea.c.h Le).g!1ltDn & AM,ocA..a.tM, lite.., 6-14-11, FJte..Wni.JtaIr. Ge.o-
l.og.i.c. Repollt. 601L VI'A-ign PuJr.PCJ.6I'A, Mour..tLli.n SJ14dOWl> Mob.i4. liome.
Cor.1llUllUy, CUy 06 San lle,UlaJr.d.Uw, nOIl. S.tLlbbuQ.i.dd COM.tJ:Il('tion
Co.
..
EXHIBIT "e"
App. I-A
pg. 10
'0
1,1 ___"
(
(
'-
-
S.tu.bbte.Q.i.eU COn6('l.Cti.on J;il.mpC1.YUJ
May 17, 1979. \pi
Page. 10
o
,.
\
17. GaJuj S. Ra4mU4AIl.It 6 MAoc1A.te.o. 7-30-73, rlt.eJ.,i.t~IUVt!J Enghte.eILi.ng
Ge.ology Re.poM: o~ Ten..ta.:ti.ve TIUId 8832, San Be/l.nJVtcU.no, Cali6oJt1t.la.,
nOIL ClLe.o.tv-i.ew Ve.vel.opne.n.t Co.
18. Ldghton 6 MAoc.ULt.e.o, May 14, 1975, Repo'..t; onSubbWl.nac.e. Ge.alog-i.c.
Inve.o.t.i.gw..on 06 a. PolLti.on 06 FauLt S, o'JoJLtJt on Tll.aC.t 7783, Coun,ty
06 San SeJLna/l.d.l.;w.
EXHIBIT "c" App,. I-A
pg. 11
.
o
.
..
--
-
-
-
C"
.
~
r?-"...
;. w.u
'. .~ ~.~. ._~.~..i .:'
~
\
'-
(
LCCATIOi, OF
,ItE,A"IO ay:
JFC
[XHII'T
HUl'l e: "
Pioneer
DU.: 5/79
Consultants
SCAL~:
1" = 2000'
1
J"" "UMe.lR: 450-051, '-052, -053
'-'
CHEClCtO IT: MCS
....'..OvED illY: D\-lI'
Consulling cngi"."., ond 6,010'1;"1
EXHIBIT "C" App. I-A pg. 12
.
~~
'-
~
1-' l~
,
'tII...... '" ....
E~ 0 a
-<c.-
.3 t!.~ It
o a...a,
i ali:s "'l III
'<[o!.~ 3
.. ...n-
"0 Ii _II ~ ,
~ :;.:-&sa &:
~:r ,<:I IIQ
g:i ~"O It :
n~'" g ~ :T
II 0 It ..
. '2 _~ S! ~
"::rr..~.
. !l: '; 2 s
~.< :; 0'" ~
-e Ie ~ ~ cJ'
:l;:'oi:l
..., ....-.-( ,
g" ....5
a.f~Clll':
nlt:s~'Q
..0< III 0 a
E"!!.::::;(
..,.. ~ ...
;.: ...!; 2
~a.~~ii
~ III c!! ~
l:L&:.,... '1
"l1\I:J'-'
;l ;- Q....:-
"n ......~
lIr!.o.:s.
s' n': 0-
l: '" .6'
~~~~..
.
n'~Z
E'):jCl...
,,""NUl
.. 0 - ~
....::1:1....
'" ~ ~
s:~.3 ·
lQ flf.
... ., 5" CD
=-v,lA ~
: C:o.~
.0 .
o' .
. .
. u...,' ,
_-:--..- ..J.... I~'
~..
~
~ III
::I s ~ S
lD" ..
~
'"
g
o
..,
"
B
...
g
n
'"
><
..
S
"
>-
...
o
z
...
..
'"
"
n
%
z
?
...~
: :;I ij'
...
!!'
. Ill..,
.....
I g;:J >
; ~fQ
;lo g:~ 2
<< ~a.?
Ul :s'"
:r .:s_
~ ~ 0 '"
. ,. e
~O'"
i't.~
'fi
( i i~;
I .. 5
If
t !"'
I t N a'
I ,? ~';"",', '~. ,~ "'.'
~~.... . ,':, f .,-... I
ir'
I
"e,'}" ,
',:. '. ,;~ -.;,.'
., 1, ',' ,r:- "':f'
. ~. :'.:.;;:i-.~.\"~ ~~~)~1'1"
,
!.
'.
.' ~
"I,
~
-".
.;..... '
../'
, 1......-
Y "
.. . ....
.//
.. '> I' .
, ..-'
.#.r I
...., .
~,_.._'_l.!,
.
'.
,
.,
-.;.i
-
N-
""
,:-,
'. '~
:::;
"'-.
,d
f j;;./
l I',
;~\
l:i
,,'
"f
:':l
.' 'I,r
"
iJ
. ~.
':
;! ,
:
I!. >
...
H'
~a
~i
...~
",'
. .
~a:
..
Ii
2-
.
E-
o.
!!
"
,
X'
.
Ii
,
,';/
/)/' " ,
%-
~. ,:
8'"
E
.
<
~.
!
a~
I
i , ,~",\). >, .
L~--l ':', ~jt !~~~1r'~ ·
,I',' ~ .,
,......t.i" ~I~/. ...'~ .
.J;
.'/
,. '
;.'
. J.. ',~
i--\:~,.;n
, " ;.r '. \\
I' '
... ' '
Q l' -"
\~\j
\ \-
;
:~ ..)- . ,
\ \
\ "- I-
I " I
\ /' \
,
I
"'
0-'"
~\.
\
../
" ,
Z ,\
I;: ~
, ,
Pl..,;1 "-
"'~ "
"
"
,I"'
<
.
~
N '
"'-;
i
I
,
.,
'" "
i
",1.
o
.0 '"
'"
.. ~
..
..
'"
,
n
~
<
.... a (It ... '"' ?'"
~9~ ~~~! III
~-g It g ~ 2: ~ S'
., IJI" :JQ ~.< 1:1
Z,.:t WI 5E""'; -:;
. lloI ,";;:;l:r g
-:; 8" ~:T~ a .,
"'CI < at:,,:T
: :- ~ ~ a.
~ a ;Ir ~ S
:It:: ::T :J
~ .. i Q.~
.' 3 "'~ c
- 9 8' ~
g ~ :J <': .,
~~ ; ~ :::
'-': p 5"< r.
~ III ;:r.
:J ;j a .. 1/'.
~ ~ 5' a. ~
CIIl It 9 ... 0.
~ a. . 0 ~
'< It " /1: 0
I ::r x :J
~ ' ~
,
.
i -~
\\ \ H
It ~~
1 ...~
\ ~'<
\~\/~~
, t ~g
'- ..::,
- '~
2.~
. .
. '
0.,
0..
-0.
r. .
:R
::,lIf"
,,,,
.
o ::
:1:7'
-:1
,
"
0'1'
II_II
A
,
.
c. <
,
~ "
~ ~.H-
ci ~
. .
.
,
0. C.
, ,
< ..
~
., 9
~ ii
.
"
"
,
,
.
~~
~!'-.
i ;'\ ~
/ S
, !"
,," ~
;'
, '.
\0:
, '. eo
,>"I;"~; '~ r.
, ,,' r/
". ;.t.,
z ':17"
a -1 /.
S \.:;1 \~./,
.. \" '
~ ..? \:
it? \ ,,//:;/,
I! r~ 110 t
:;' \ Ii;' \,
a 11."0 " ........... ,
g.}( /
,.........:.:'
. 0.
0. ,
V ...
.
'" "
~ "
'" ,
, ,
;< .
... .
" :;
0 "'
'"
'" .
.
0.
v'
Z
~
",
.
!"
>
~
.
z
"
~
"
'"
.
.
0.
ii'
'"
~
'"
,
...
~
z
"
. ...
.
" 0 0
."c
0
~ E) ~
.~, ~
~
., ~ ~ ;;
~ 'I-.
~ l l'
,
,\'~ ,
C\
. ~, ~
., ~ ~
, ,
~ :t. l,
" . l
~
~ ~< ~
, ' v' a
~\t. . .' ~
~ ~ ~
, "
~ ~ '.
. Ii
') 'I )
, ..' t ~ (~ .\
" \ '
.~ i':l '" / t
. "-
~\
~ I'll "
" "-., . .
€.;-,.. ,
~ I I
"'~ --- \
, " ~ :\ 1
' '
. ( ~.
<I '1, ~, I',
;(\ ~ \f'
t; /........
.~ \..;
~ ..
'-. .~ ~
'---' d\. . .......'.....
~
..,
h !.
l:I "
g ~ 8
;~~ ~i
~ h ~ ~
~f! ~ ~ is
l. ~b ~ ~2
ti~8 ~ ~
r ~ ~~ ~ [ ~
8h.
. ;;:- w I
tie
.. .'
I ~
1 !"
I ~ w r
,
~
l,(
~ ~
~.
~
W If
e. I...
· '8 d
('
>,
, .:.,' I
,( J;:';l'.:l.;,
. "'~" ::):~.l:l'\~ '.'
~ I,:
" I'" ,I. ~
',~." !' ;,;'
'''';''~'',rl'';,''' ,Ill
\. :~ ,,': " "i' \ @t
,~ .):..J'i"V' ~
'I~', ,;'; 'r'
. ",~,\
',',,"
. ...!..,
) " r .~:'; ':.",. I
'j "'j ~.)\,,\:,: .
t. q"l. 1'1"".
" ',,':(11.t1.I\"
" "';;;1:,,
, " ,( ~,r,~" '.'.
.lFi!.'l
l~
,I, '0", ..
, . ' ~I
.:r
(,
i
'.
)
II
,
"
;,
\~
\,~
~
.
llLL_-.--,.
.
!
!' '. 'I
," '.-\
".
II', '.' ~
EXHIBIT "C" Ann. I-A nil. 14
Jtl
.
~
e ~
~f~-t
r \ ~~
'c~~.,?, ~
r, \ 1\ ,I
1;'. ~l~ \...
~ ~." ~
~ .,.. ~( ~
'. \ is
~ ...\ ~l ~'I\.
\' \J ~ ~
.t tt ~
" ~ \'\~'" ~
~,~' ;;;
.,'" ....,
~ e Y\
\0 t t
'.-. 1\
~'J'-
\ ~ ~
i'- ,I' l
~' ~ W
~ ",. I
.. ~,
l ~ I
.-~~1.l>
'. I
,
I
~1
I
~ ~1
i
I
W~
i
~I
,,1
'I
I
,
~'
C B ..,
. ~ t.
~ ~ ~ ;
;~~" ~i
=!I'iP e.
~ ~5 -
I ~I~ ~ 2
r ~8 ~ ! i
r h! ~ [ ~~
l'l """.... w.... I
HI- I
I i r-I
f !
I r
f t ~wl
L ..:.
.II
-
~
't ;,~
~.
l
\, .
~
,~-::/ 1\ t
-=e
'I'
;. ,: ";. .:.;, '"t;~");"
" I, ,I,~.il'",~,
',,"".,: : 1;,.f'I?,' ,I
"..,I'r: '
-' ,':~' \\H\,A\ <' l
:"(, :\"11';j'I:#~i.r':~ ,I -tto
, .,' \ 'uC.~"
~ ~ ~l: :t' 'i:1 ~V~:.~; ,
. 'f ",Jt~ 'f: .....
, . , .,' '~' ,\~ '. ..
.... / \ I !...'"~' . )Q
. 'I l:] .
~.... 'I ",J~,!
1 " ,~ , .,. ~
, . "1'11, i.",\ I
I ~ ' " ~ .. .
. . 11 ~ ' ~. .1, ~
!., ,rt..!, 1.:;
. ". I..!' '-,
: !JtI:: .;~: :'~
I
, -.
i,
,
*
~-. ......~'............
I
,1 :
<2l
'~.
/1.
" .~, ~
~\'j; ;,
t ,,' ,. . I ,. !.I,
,. '~ .~., .
'. ' I! . .~ ~
',; ,; ,i;;'" ~.
"".J"
" '~'it;
, ," "
',:1,,' I
, ,',:1 'w
4:.. \ ~ '.r'
.i:: '~
1':' L.
~
1
': I :--ii\ ~ .:},
":L,: li('j'
... ,'(
l..';" X.
, \' It,
~I "','..; ..~';~
) 'k- 'H', r."}
.\,,0,<:, i,l!i.~i
,,"'- /" t!l
j" J..
~
..; I\~, ' r"
'I "
,.",
'Or
l,.
&"",
I)~ '
,,\ '
"l;
J'_'y..
,
~
II;
, "
I ,r~
~-~
'.
.J
'"
o
(I
, ,
~
~':
r
L l.- -
-
. -
," .
, ~; I
0
~'
..
~
~
! .
~
- '.............,.~'
~
'-
B
l;I
~ I
tI :.' M
... .., n
, ~ i!! I
~ n~
r It
r Ie! I
snl!
I i r~ ~
t ~
! ~
1 .
It. I
~"
\",_:'. . \
~ ii \
~:- \
~~ \
::..
~ -. \
....
~'"
..~ \~
~ '
~ rll '" ~- l:l \
" ~ " " ' \
n '?: 'l' ~~ \
~~ ~ ~ ! q, \ \
at", 1,\\\
~;U "J-;ot '\
:" :' ~ .......y,........., \
{\~': CJl~......'\ '.
,,----- ' ~~,,~;;;:~
~
"-
~,
;,;
.- ,
~~
~ ~
(;'<
".~
~,
.j;
'"
'.
~f'~:,',..; ".,:~<, ..
..,_J
, ';_:; ""',t. .~\ .ti~ ar.. .
". ,,;... , 'Q iii ,
:,; ~', 'f~:'
"" ,:qi.,,'r.
. } ';t-~
"; '~', ,.. 'i"fit .,~ i ·
;'( . j}' '(i,'; f ,q."
I :;'. : ~f I (l .... '
i '. '; ':J i ' : "~~ .'
.: ~i ri.f' IN"
I ,>~" Ji'''~':: ': ',i~"':'
, . ,!., ,~.....
, ., _ "." l'l
l<,~;M :'r'n:~'
.')_. ;'~'~,:,:}, ;- or:, ::.. .i
~
Ii"
I
..
~
. J' .,t,.. i ~ 1 ..' .:'1,",
, ,'" S ,H l~': ::.",.', J'
::.:;!~~:""':,t, ';(', : ""'~~;"'~,,' ,":,:';,'
.' 'I ,," 1," -: -:~ ,~, ",~ "
:.,1 ;, f :!~.~;' <'f~,.. :'~Q' '::',~{':;l~~";'
.~ ~" .,~ " ,,'~;: ~,< ,
,. , . .1', "
.: : 't. '.' t'
: ;'i::; .", :)!,(':
,J .';1 ,1 .' .,~: l'
I (.IF.' -ill"
,. 'to . ~ .., ' \ I.
',1' 1 .., " "
I : ~'~,"',:;'.:' /1'1, :',01.,..",
'! .,,~ "~",,
, . "':'. .,~ ':~~'1 ,~'
, , .',"'l.' .,!g,;',i' .
.. \, J.};~ll1"i'(I""li',""
. ) '~.Ji ,''1(' ",:~ ,,' "1'1
"~"!~'p /t&~ i. "" '1 ;I..2~( :
, , ','0 ":it
\
~
...,
~
I
i
!
~
'.',.:( -,,'j,':' .. .
'i',,'tj ,,1 t
.'1 I -' fl' .
. ') t ( 'J ~, ':
,; ',1 I,': I:I~' ,.'.~..~~,
, ; -:"('" ;:",UI
I"~ "':~' I, ,', .J::,
~
,
,
,
"
'~.
'l
l
".\,'
.... I
-, "
.. ..:,c " '~
,;'
, "
',,' <1
i,"":'
~~
~~
il'
~:-
"
,
~ /
\
..".'-.,I"'.',".....,....,l._
,&,VUTUT", 11,.,11
T A __
1':
^--
.4
..L
'C'
(
'.
o
o
(
o
'-'
SEISMIC PARAMETERS OF A SITE
- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA -
MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE
According to guidelines estab.llshed by the California Division of
Mines' Geology, "The nw:imum cl'edibZe eart~ is the nw:imum that:
tZppllal'S capabZe of ocCUZ'%'ing undsl' the pl'esllntZy known tllctonic fl'a11le-
!J1Ol'k. It is a %'aNnaZ and bllZiBIJabZe event that is in ,acCOM IMith
aZZ known gllologi.c and sllismologi.c facts. :n dstllrnrining the ma:r:imrn
cl'lIdibZe earthquake. ZittZe 1'IIgard is given to its pl'obabiZity of
ocCla'l'llnoe. e:cept that its Zikelihood of ocCUZTing is (lZ'eat 87IOl.I{Jh
to bll of 00n08l'n. It is oonollivabZe that the mcm:imum azolldibZII IIal'th-
quakII might bll tZpp%'OaChed IIIOl'II /NquImtZy in onll geologic IInvil'071lllent
than in anothel'." In considering the assignment of a maximum credible
earthquake to a particular locality or particular portion of a, fault.
the following factors are taken Into account:'
I) The seismic history of the vicinity and the geologic setting.
2) The length and type of the significant fault or faults which can
affect the site within a radius of 100 kilometers.
(' '--'
Remember: The maximum credible event does not imply that an earthquake
of that magnitude has occurred. but that the potential for that event
exists. Time and recurrence interval are not considered.
-- ~-
'HAX/HUH'PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE
(
According to guidelines established by the California Division of
Hines' Geology. "The ma:r:imum probabZe (0%' funct:i.ona1. basis) IIal'thquaks
is the ma:r:imum earthquake that is ZiksZy to occur duzoing a 50- to 100-
yea%' inttlwa1.. It is to be l'egazodsd as a ~:robabZe OCauz'l'8nt:e.not as
an asSUl'Bd. B1Jent that 1MiZl. 0C<1&a' at a speC1.fic time." I n cons I der I ng
the assignment of a maximum probable earthquake to a particular local-
ity or pa~ticular portion of a fault. the following factors are taken
Into account: '
l
'1 )
The regional seismicity---the known past seismic activity. Has
such an event occurred within Historic time (last 200 years)?
Bear in mind that formal recording of earthquakes -- their magni-
tudes and epicenters -- was just getting started in about 1930.
Previous to this time. there existed only subjective accounts of
earthquake effects --'human observation and "felt" data.
.
'-
2) The fault(s) and type of fault(s) within a 100-kilometer radius
that may be active within the next 50 to 100 years. Has the
fault(s) been active (displaced the ground surface) within Qua-
ternary time? (last 2 to 3 million years), Holocene time 1 (last
10,000 to 11,000 years), Historic time 1 (last 200 years). Has
Historic ground rupture or fault creep slippage been formally
documented?
Exhibit 5
EXHIBIT "e" App. I-A pg. 17
"'0
(
o
o
(
o
3)
The seismic recurrence factor (statistical analysis) for the
area and fault(s) within the IOO-kilometer radius.
'-'"
"
Remember: It is assumed that the maximum probable event will occur
during the functional lifetime of the structure or site j~estion.
~ POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULT
Any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time, based
on evidence of surface displacement.
~ INACTIVE FAULT
Any fault which is determined, from direct physical evidence, to have
b~come inactive before Holocene time.
~ ACTIVE FAULT
Any fault which has exhibited surface displacement within Hcilocene
time. This fault constitutes a potential hazard.
(
GEOl.OGIC AGa _ IIFORa
ero - '-" PRESlNT '.'IoIlOlodl
-- lIIO
..-
OlIATUNMV . ,,-
...
I -
~- J.--
-
l'IIlnAllY
'_-1"--
....-
-
I ~- .
L...; _ "'_.- '--1--
.
( '-'
('
-
'-
Exhibit ~ (Continued)
EXHIBIT "C" App, I-A pp:, 18
.~
CALU"ORNIA DIt 'I)IOji OF
MINES AND GE(h.o~
o
(
CDMG
NOTE
Q3
-.J
HOW EARTHQUAKES ARE MEASURED
Vibrations produced by ""nhquakes ar. detec:ted. rec:otded
and m....ured by instruments called .~i.molr:Jphs. Th... devices
may amplify around motions benealh lh. instrumenlS to ov.r
OIIC million tima. transcribinlthe Ith)tion inlo a zi.-ZO.lracc
called a seismopam. From lhe clala ""prossccl in seismoarams.
lhe time, <<pi......er. anti focal clepth of III earthquake can be
clerermined and alUnata CAtI be IIItIIIc of ill relative siZe and lbe
8IItOIIII1 of 0IIeI'JY thaI _ mated.
Th. severity of ... eanhquak. is lenerally ""prasctI in two
-)'So 1bc _pit_ of an eanhquake, as ""prossed by the
Rkht~ _pitude _Ie. is a relaliv. m.....re thaI depencls on
lhe maximum lrac:e amplitude re.istered on a standatd instru-
menl .,.JIed a WoocI-Anclenon lorsion scisntoarapb. When ...
.....hquake is recorded. the ....1011 acuniott oIlhe zia-za.
tntce is _und and compared wilh lhat oIa standatd rel'er-
- eanhqllake CGmlCIed 10 lhe sa_ epicenter 10 station dis-
_eo The resull is a Dumber the size 01 which directly
-.xmdslo Ih. size oftheeanhquake relativc 10 lhe standatd
.....hqu:tke. 1bc standanI reI'_ eanhquake is clefined in .
. -y such lhal a mapituda %&1'0 eanhquake prod_ a IIIU-
iltltllll IlaCe ampliluda 01 .DOl millimeter al a clistance 01100
,-
~
(
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE
AND ENERGY
The ouIuma of lhe sphens .... rouply
proponional 10 lhe amounl of 0IIeI'JY
Jdeued by earthquakes of lhe macni-
IutIcs pvea. and iIIUSbate the ""ponenrial
reWionship belween .......ilude and ener-
. 1'1. Allhe same scale Ih. eneray reIeasecI
by lhe s.n Francisco eanhquak. 011906
(Richler rnapilutle 8.3) wauld be repre-
_led by a sphere with a nufill$ of 110
feet.
'C
,.
RICHTER
MAGNITUDE
I
0',
....
" .
, "'~
.~. ..
';r
.
CaifonN t" gOD'"
Exhibit 5
kilometers. Wirh appropriate distance' corrtclion~ the magni.
tude ,".lue is cOnstilnl and hence an effective. means or size
classmeation. The intensity as uprossccl by lhe' M.xIiIied Mer.
alii intensity _Ie, is. panly subjeclivc measure which tlepencls
on Ih. e/l'ecls of a quake such as dama.. al a panicula, Ioc:ation.
RICHTER MAGNITUDE SCALE
The Richler magnilud. scal.. namee! .n.r Dr. Charles F.
Richler. Pm....... Emerilus of Ih. Calirornia,lnstitut. of Tec:h-
nololl)'. is lhe scaJe mOSI commonly used. bul oIIen misunder-
stoocl. On this scal.. lhe eanhquake's mapilude is ""pt...... in
whole numbas and clecimalL However, Richter magnitudes can .
be confusiDJ and misleaclin. unlcss th. ltlIlh.....tical besis for
lhe scal. is uaderstoocl. II is import.lil,to RCOJnize lhal ma.Di.
lucIe Ytlria Ioprithmically wilh the Wavc amplilud. oflh. quake .
recorded by the seistnopaph. Each wJiole number Slop of map;"
lucIe on Ih. scale represenlS an increate of ID limes in Ih. mOllS-
. und _ve ampIilude of an .....hquake. nIB, lhe amplitu<le of
an 8.3 mapilude earthquake is not lwice as Ia.... as . shock of
mapiluda 4.3 bUI 1?.?oo limes u Jar.e.
I'tIbtuwy 1m
EXHIBIT "c" App. I.-A
(Continuedl
3S
pg. 19
.
(
o
'0'
Ric:hh:r nU1lnirudc C3n al50 I'rovi~ un ~Iim:uc Oflhe amount
of cn.:rl)" rclcQ.wd duriullhc qumL;c. Fl.'" t:'"cr)' unit incl'CQc in
malnilud..lhe.... i. a JI ruld jn<:re:t!IC in .""'IY. For Ihe prcviou.
.""n.p1e a magnilude g.J eanhquake r.I...... almosl one million
tilllO ntOte cn<<g>' rhoiln on~ of magnitude 4.3.
A quakt llf ma;nitud.: 2 on the Ril.:hcer ~-:alc is the snlalloc
qUllke n..rmully fell bl' hun,an.. Earlhquakes wilh a RichIe,
m....ilude or 7 or mo.... IIIC commonly c:oll5idercd 10 be major.
(
MODIFIED MER CALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF
1931
The Iirsl scale 10 relied eanhq...ke inlCllsilies was de\'eIoped
bydc Rossi ofIlAly. and Ford ofSwilzerland, in Ihe laao.. This
-Ie, wilh values rcom I 10 X .... used ror aboul cwo clecada.
A MIld ror a more ....lined scale increued ..;Ih lhe advancemenl
oftbesciaceofseismolocY.and in 1902lhe Italian sa-olocist.
MacaRi. deYised a new IClIe 011 a I 10 XII ran... The Mm:alli
Scale .. modirted in 19J I by American seismoIocisl. Harry O.
Wood and Frank Neu_n 10 lake inlo accounl modern Slruc.
N..I r_ures: .
( ~
I Not rell excepl by . Yf:rJ rew under apeciaUy r.-~
c:irc-.-.."lCCL
II Fell only by a rew penons .1 rest. especially On upper
Roors of buildinp. Delicalely .u.pended objects may
swine.
f
III Fell quile noliceably indoors. especially on upper ftoors
of buildings. bul mlllY peopoe do nOC recopiu il as .n
eanhquake. Slandinl molor cars may rock s1iplly. Vi.
bnllion like passinl or lruck.. Dutalion esli""'l<d.
IV Durinllhe day rell indoors by many. ouldoors by rew.
At nighl some awakened. Dishes. winckno-s. doors dis-
htrbcd; walls make ending sound. Setn:lrian like heavy
'mek Slrikinl buildin.. Slandinll mOlor cars rocked no-
liceabll'.
(
i...
V Felt by nCltrly ""e'yone. ""'ny awakened. ,Some dishes.
windows. ele.. broken: a rew instances or ctae:ked plaster.
unstable objecl' o.erturned. Di.lurbances of Ir-. poles
and olher IllI1 objccrs somerimes nOliced. Pendulum
clock. ""'y stop.
VI Fell by all, many rrig/llened and run ouldoors. Some
h"".y furnilure mo\-eeI; a rew in'lances or fallen pI...ler
or da""'gcd chimneys. D""'alle olighl.
VII Everybody run. oUldoors. Damage negligible in building
or good desisn and construclion; .liChl 10 moder:lle in
...~II-built ordinal')' Slructures; con.iderable in poorI)'
buill 01 badly designed Slmclures; !IOme chimneys bro-
ken. NOIiced by penon. drivinl mOlor cars.
u
Cafilomia GMIIogy
Exhibit 5
o
(
o
The Ric:hrer ma(:nirudc: M:alc hu:\ no fixed maximum or n)ini..
mum: obsc:r\"ucil'lns h;&\'c rhu:cd (he largol recordc:cJ c.-arlhquakes
in the \\'<lrld .1 .bou. 8.9, and .h. .m.II",. a. -J. Earlh~Wlk.. (
with m3snirudc.~ smaller than 2 a~ caU,,-d "n,icro-C:3rrh'luales."
Richeer magniruda ar.e n(n U5<<l10 cslim:ue c.bmag:c:. An carlh.
quake in u den".:J)" f'C."('ul:ucd area. which resuhs. in many dc:uh...
and c('In!tidc:rahlc dmnagc. m3~' ha\'c the SDrne R1011nicudc 3S an
arrhquakc th.u "'=cu~ in a burren. remote at". Ihar nln)' do
nolhing mp.... Ih.n frilhlen Ihe \\;ldlife.
VIII Dam. .lilhl in opccially designed olruc:lurcs; conoid.,-
able in ordinary sub.wlliaJ buildings. wilh ""nial col-
1ap5C; par in poorly buill, Slructurcs. P.nel wall.'
Ihm..... OUI orrram. struclUres. F.II of chimn.,... raClary
'laCks, columns. monumenu. WlIIIs. Hea.y rurnilure
overltti1ted. Sand .nd mud eiedcd in ......11 Imounl..
Chances in well W.ler. Pel10llS driving mOlor cars dis-
htrbccL
IX Damage consid=ble in .peciilly dcsipod ..ruc:IUres;
well-desiJlled r",me .lruclUres Ihco\\'Il 0111 or plumb;
lral in SUboranlial buildin... wilh panial coIbpse.
Buildings shif'lecl olT rounclations. Ground c....cked ...... (
spicuousJy. Underground pi.... broken.
X Some _"-buill wooden Slructures desrroyed; most ma.
sonry""d rtame SlntClUres destroyed ..ilh foundalions;
pound badly cracked. Rails benl. LancIs1ides consicIer.t.
ble from ri_ banks and Sleep s1o..... Shiflcd WId .nd
mud. Waler splashed (sIoppcd) O\'er bunks..
XI F..... if any, (m..-ry) Slructures _in .Iandinl.
Bridces deslroyed. IIIOlId rlSSUres in pound. Under-
pound pipelines completely'oul of IcrYic:c. Eanh .Iumps
and land slips in soft pound. Rlils batll....lly.
XII o.m.... total. Practically all _rks or COIISltUclion ....
datnapd greally 01 desllO)'ecI. Waves seen on ,round
.urfllCC. Lines of .igbl and ...-eI are discort<d. Objc:cls are
Ih"",'Il upward inlO lbe air.
The Modilied Mcralli inlensily 5ClI~u.... Ihe inlell5ily
or an canhq...ke'. efTecl. in a ciYCIIlocalil'Y,8nd is perhaps much
more incaninsful to the bYI1lllll ......u.. il is based on ael...1
obscn'.lions of canhquake cffeclS III specilie pbces. II should be
norcd lhar ~u.. Ihe dala used ror :tSIisninl inlenoilies ean be
obrained onIl' rrom diucllirsthand reports. con.ide....ble _ IUue
weeks or monlh. - i'lOI1Ielimes needed before an intensilY map
can be ........bled rOl a p:lrricular CllIlhq""te. On lhe Modirled
M.....lli,infet1sily 5C:I1c. ...1_ .....,. rrom 110 XII. The ntOSl
commonly usecllldarralion _ Ihe ran.. ofinlcnsiry rrom ,he
condili"no or-I__ rell e"""l'l by \"'Y rew, r........b1y siIUllted.-
lo .,.II-<1&nta.. 10lal, lines or sipt dislurbed. obj<c" Ihrown
inlO the air.. While an earthquake has only one ""'pitudc. iI (
...... ha\'e ""'ny inl"""iri... which tIct:tase wilh disc.""e rrom the .
epicenler.
.
Felltu.y tm
(Continued)
EXHIBIT "c" App. I-A
pg.20
41 _
.
'c'
'y-
COMPARISON OF
MAGNITUDE
AND
INTENSITY
(,
(
'.
o
-
II 'is difflt:Ult 10 compare m:lanitucL: and intensity because
in,ensity is linked with the pltni~...lar around and SlntCtural
conditions of a ai,,,. .rea, :IS well :IS distance from Ihe canh.
quake epicenter. wmle mapitude cS..pends on the eneraY
releated lit the focus of the eanhquake.,
f
,.
THE RICHTER SCALE
(-
.;,
To deletmine Ihe mapitude of an
eanhq""ke we connect on the cun
A. Ihe "",.imum amplitude recorded by
a standard seismometer. and
{
B. the diSlance of thSl scismomete:r
from the epicenter of the eanhquakc
(or the difference in lima of arrival
or the P and S waves) by a Slraiaht
line. which crosses the center scale at
the I!"'anitude.
-('
. - - A unitchanae in mapitude corre-
'ponds to a decrease in seismogram
amplitude by a factor of ten.
_ Definition or . magnitude 3 =nh.
quake.
STATE QII CAlIFORNIA
-
-
SO
40
30
0 c 0
Rich.er bpected Modifi.d Mercalli
MOQilitud. Maximum Intensit)' (01 epicent.r)
2 I~II U~u.lly dct-=ctccl only by inscrummlS
] 111 fc1c indoors
4 IV-V Felt by 11"" people; sliahl cia......
, , VI-VII Felt by all; many friahlcned and no. out.
doors; damap: minor 10 moderalc
6 VII-VIII Everybody runs ...t-'; damage modonle
10 major
7 IX-X Major damage
I. X-XII TOIal ao4 majo' clam...
Afi... Chari.. F. Richte'. 1ll58. Eftlt'Mnt.'Y s.ismology.
AMPLITUDE
23 mm (A)
P
I
6
100
5
20
10
5
2
I
0.5
~
5
--
20 ---
- ---
-4
-----
......----
.10-.-_....._
3 ....---.3
4 2
20
0-5
DISTANCE S-p
km see mm
PhotQ--di.gram Illustrating how seismologists determine earthqua:c. magnitude using a
Wood-Anderson seismograph recording and I magnitude determination chan. COUrttlS)l
01 C6lifomi6 fnltitIJt.ol rer:llnoJDgy.
2
-........--.-..:-.-
._"
0.2
0.1
o
MAGNITUDE
, AMPLITUDE
THE IllSOUACES AGENC.,
Calilornia Geology
Exhibit 5
DEPARTWENT Of CONHAVATION
~.. '. IV 01 ;..-...c ......... ~tI..,..... ffORt "'- <<:.:..01'.... o.""toOft ot MoI'Ift.. G.otoof. _.~ lei I~. C...""",- D...._ Of ,.,."... .,.,., a..... PO eo. -. s.c,...,.,.. CA "17. G"".... 0Uf
I.,. ~ - SACIlAMIt.rO. ,,,, "0- S..... 111'1 ....71.. SAN FAAalCISCO. .... 21m. '''''' au.~ t..." '''..olD LOS AlWGlLES. Room ... ~ s..........,. 12tJl ~
CJtt,,-lt Mocw........ USGS,..., 1IWS.~..wr/._:'I
..
FellttIlIIy 1971. EXHIBIT "C" App. hA
(Continued)
37
pg. 21
:T
\
,
,
. ....If.) j:' n "'fl. r;; .
.Li j;~ WU.1h4 ftt I Ph.D. 0
~ff~f~ REGISTERED GEOLOGIST #2143
~,
o
o
ATTN:
. QTY PLANNING [~i.~.ilTMENT
SAr~ BERNARDINO. CA
TO:
A.L.
E.G._
J.C._
1<.",._
....F._
P.M._
It.R._
5.0._
S.1\.",_
S.'iJ._
V. H. .17V"
V&""'~
-
'-'lLE :=:
.
'--..
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PAULA A. MCGREW, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FROM: FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, Ph.D
REGISTERED GEOLOGIST,
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1985
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC REPORT NO. 139
TITLE OF REPORT:
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone investigation, Tract
Nos. 10009, 10010, and 10011, San Bernardino, California.
Prepared for Stubblefield Construction Company by Pioneer
Consultants, dated May 17, 1979. Attached to the report
is a letter to Stubblefield Construction from Pioneer
Consultants, dated April 24, 1984, and an 80-scale geologic
map of the site by Pionner Consultants, dated. April, 19?4.
PROCEDURES USED IN EVALUATING REPORT:
1. Made site and trench inspection on September 21, 1985.
(The trenches were open and safe for inSpection).
2. Examined stereo pairs of aerial photographs flown at
three different times and at different scales.
3. Read the report and examined the tencn logs and maps.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The main, south branch of the San Andreas fault is
situated approximately 80 to 100 feet south of ~he south
boundary of tract 10009. The trace of the fault is not
shown on the geologic map. The nor~h branch of the
San Andreas fault is situated about 1350 feet north of
of the north boundaries of the tracts 1001e anc 10011.
2. The bedrock formation, everywhere beneath the site, is
a stongly cemented conglomerate locally naoed Potato
Formation. Thin soil and colluvium overlie the zedrock
in most places.
EXHIBIT "c"
APPEimIX I-B
pg. 1
.
o
o
o
o
~,
Geologic Repor~ No. 139
Paula A. McGrew
Page 2
CONCLUSIONS: (con~'d.)
3. A faul~ oserved in ~rench No. 1 and s~riking Nor~h-Wes~
is plo~~.d on ~he geologic map across ~he NE corner of
~rac~ No. 10011. I~ cu~s ~hrough Potato Formation and
is considered ~o b. an active faul~. A 2S-foo~ setback
on ei~h.r side of ~h. fault is indica~ed on ~he geologic
map and recommended in ~he ~ex~ of ~he report.
4. The poten~ial for landslides is not a serious consi-
dera~ion, since bedrock is generally close to the
surface.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
Ear~hquakes associa~ed with the San Andreas fault or
o~her nearby faults are likely ~o occur during the
life of ~he structures contemplated for the site. Many
shears and minor faulting in ~he Pota~o Formation, as
well as a historic record of ear~hquakes on the San
Andreas fault, should be considered in ~he .design of
the structures.
'-"
2. Cut slopes should be examined by a geologis~ during
grading ~o further evalua~e frac~ures and faul~ing
wi~hin ~he bedrock beneath the site. One-~o-one slopes
in bedrock will probably be stable for the most part,
but small, local failures of such slopes may be ex-
pec~ed. Slopes cu~ a~ ~hi. angle ~en~ to be somewhat
hazardous to persons unless access ~o ~hem is limi~ed
by fencing or o~her means.
3. Because of ~he firmness of the bedrock, deep fills
have ~o be carefully engineered to preven~ aifferental
se~~lemen~ a~ boundaries between bearock and fill.
4. I concur generally, with ~he recommendations of the
report. The report mee~s the requirements of the
Alquis~ Priolo Act.
~
EXHIBIT "c" A I B 2
pp. - pg.
41~
~
~
~
Q
o
o
o
'-
piane.. caneult:8nta II
' 25' TENNESSEE STREET. REDLANDS. CAUFORNIA 82373 . (7'4) m-2IlI1
J.N. 1150-060
April 211, 19811
Stubblefield Construction
110110 East Piedmont Drive
Highland, California 923116
Attention: Mr. Arnold H. Stubblefield
President
Re: Tract No. 10009
Mountain Shadow Apartments
Subject: Review of Preliminary Site Plan Concept
Gentlemen:
At your request, we have reviewed the 1I0-scale preliminary site plan concept
for the Mountain Shadow Apartments to evaluate the feasibility of the design
concept with reference to the conclusions and recommendations outlined in our
May 17, 1979 report entitled "Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Investiga-
tion, Tract Nos. 10009, 10010 & 10011, San Bernardino, California".
'-
Although proposed grades are not shown on the site plan concept, twenty-
seven 3-story structures with appurtenant parking structures are tentatively
located on Tracts No. 10009, No. 10010 and No. 10011. A fault-restriction
zone Is shown In the northwestern corner of Tract No. 10009. A comparative
examination of the site plan concept and our original geotechnical map indicate
compliance with the recommended setbacks in our geotechnical report for the
fault as observed In Trench 1. Based on the trench logs and subsurface
examination of earth materials in Trench 3 In our report of May 17, 1979, it
was felt that no additional offset was necessary. The preliminary site plan
concept takes this into consideration, and no fault offset Is shown southeast
of the location where it Is terminated on the geotechnical map in our May 17,
1979 report.
It is our understanding, based on conversations with you, that our original
report, dated May 17, 1979 was never officially submitted for review. It is
our recommendation that this report be submitted for a review to the proper
agencies. Prior to construction, a preliminary soli Investigation should be
conducted in order to determine soli strength parameters In relationship to
the proposed grading plan concepts.
Very truly yours,
'-
Warren L. herling, C.E.G. '1182
Project Geologist
;-;) (t I -
~d W. Turner
Civil Engineer
-
DWT:WLS:ljs
Enclosu res (6)
EXHIBIT "C"
APPF.NTHY T_r.
na 1
Q
~-
'--
I
! ..
..'
-
.
o
o
O'
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR MOUNTAIN SHADOWS VILLA
IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Prepared For:
Stubblefield Companies
~O~O E. Piedmont Drive
Hignland, California 923~6
Prepared By:
M~. Robert R. Wirts, P.E.
Trarrie and Transportation
. ..
.. rl
. .
...
..
June, 1986
...
..
EXHIBIT "c"
APPEimIX II
o
o
o
o
'-'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Int..oductlon
1
ExIstIng CondItions
1
P..oposed Imp..ovement
EXistIng St..eet r..attIc
3
3
1
8
8
T..Ip Gene..atIon
T..attIc DIst..IbutIon
r..at t1c Impacts
MItIgatIon Measu..es
ConclusIon
12
12
LIST OF FIGURES
FIgu..e 1 - Location Map
2
14
5
6
9 . .-'
t:-t
..
10
11
...
F1gu..e 2 - Site Development Plan
FIgure 3 - Summa..y ot T..Ip GeneratIon Rates;
Low-RIse lpa..tments
Flgu... 14 - Summa..y ot T..ip Gene..atIon. Rates;
HIgh-RIse Apartments
FIgu..e 5 - P"oJect r..attIc DIst..IbutIon Map
FIgu..e 6'- ExIsting Peak Hou.. r..arrIc
FIgu..e 1 - rrattIc Signal Wa....ants
..
APPENDICES
AppendIx A - App..oachlng r..attIc Volumes
EXHIBIT "e"
App. II
pg. 2
..
...
o
~
'--
.:1
o
o
o
INTRODUCTION
This study was com=issioned ~y Stubblefield Companies
who are the owners of a 52.Q acre parcel of land located in
the City of San Bernardino north of Highland Avenue, east
of Palm Avenue and west of State Route 330. (See Location
Map - Figure 1.)
The purpose of the report is to determ1ne if any traf-
fic i=pacts would be caused by the ~wners developing an
a~artment complex to be known as Mountain Shadows Villa on
the property, and the traffic control measures needed for
m1tigation.
Based upon discussions w1th City Staff, the follow1ng
items have been analyzed and addressed:
1. Ex1sting street access to and from the project
site.
2. The intersection of H1ghland Avenue and Denair
.A venue.
3. Peak hour traffic volumes on existing streets.
Q. Peak hour traffic volumes generated from the
proposed project.
~
5. Distribution and ass1gnment of project traffic
to existing streets.
6. Ident1fy traffic 1=pacts.
..
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Presently the project site consists of vacant land
wh1ch 1s zoned for R-3/2000 (21.7 DUlAC) development.
Access to the site 1s v1a C1:rus Street and La Praix
Avenue. C1trus Street and La Pra1x Avenue are two lane
fac11it1es with curb separat10ns of 36'.
South of the site 1s H1ghland Avenue, State Route 30,
a major east-west arterial street, and west of the site 1s
..
Page One
EXHIBIT I;C"
Ann. II nSL 3
- -
o
CITY
(,r
L
~AN
&
) -
, ___I I
/ _-...... I
.....~ l l__, ..___..,
? L, r-
, ,.r---\ I'
...._ I I
-~ ,~
,-----" I
I
,
I ..--~
, I I
" ,r--- I
,.1 ..~
I
\
, I
-,~
\-V-~.~
I ~
... I
--.
"--"=
..'
N'....
,
,
,
", 1
" .,
.&..0 : "-.J
--j""-'--
I
I
I
.,.
"
"--
,
,
,
I
I
r-'
l'llOTM
...
I
.J
.
CI
-"
I
I -~
i.
-TO '-01 ,...o[\..ES
s..
-e.
..
c
'"
sEQ{NI-.RDINO
~r-'
,_~! _r~ 5 ITS
l!1 r1 :
'--------.
,
,
.
I
. I
__. I
~~1 i{' -r---~~ ",t:,
It .. .... '
>'d - .'.':>
....~..;
,
~
r
!...,.. .& ~
r-
I
..... ..
''"'"' I t I
~..l.._JT
("'"
,
I
I
..
~
.
c
w
~
. -
-~
r'
--
.'
,--~ '. ' ~
" ,- 0(
(' I
,
.
,---'
I
,
._J
....--
~.
..-- ,..---
L.-, ,.~
U
r---~
,.- ...'
.-'
..
~J
~
..
.......
"11I''''''
.
,
,
,
,
,
--
, H
.. .
LOCA TION
Page Two
MAP
EXHIBIT "c"
.
App. II pg.
4
o
~
Q
-----,
,
,
, ,
"-' r'
"
"
c:.--'"
'-'
l!
'"
~
I
I
f
I
I _.
I . ~'
I ~ ~f ~
I .. ~
I l!
I
'"
::i
'.
FIGURE 1
o
o
o
o
Pal~ Avenue, a ~ajor north-south collector street. The
intersection of Highland Avenue and Pal~ Avenue is signal-
ized. Citrus Street is accessed directly fro~ Pal~ Avenue,
while ~a Praix Avenue is accessed fro~ Highland Avenue or
Pal~ Avenue via other city streets.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
The project consists of developing the site with 22
free standing apart~ent buildings, recreational facilities,
an exterior circulation street, and a syste~ of interior
streets wit~ ~utual parking. (See the Site Develop~ent
Plan - Figure 2.)
The pri~ary entrance to the site is via Citrus Street
to the circulation street. Secondary access is provided
fro~ ~a Praix Avenue to the circuIation street.
Each apartment building will be 3 levels (floors) high
consisting of either 12, 2~, or 30 units. The total nu~ber
of units propo'sed is 59~; 60 studio apartments, 210 one
bedroom apartments and 32~ two bedroom apartments.
'--r
It is planned to provide 1201 parking spaces. Requir-
ed parking by City Ordinance. is 1053 which is equivalent to
2 parking spaces for the two bedroom units and 1.5 parking
spaces for the one bedroom units.
It is not known at this time if
constructed in stages. However, for
study, it is assumed that all of the
structed and fully occupied.
the project is to be
the purposes of this
units will be con-
TRIP GENERATION
. ..~.
. .,
. .
It'is necessary to determine the number of trips that
will be generated from a proposed development in order that
the traffic impacts to the surrounding street system ~ay be
analyzed and a~ropriate mitigation measures recommended.
The Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication
entitled "Trip Generation" was used for this study. The
pUblication is a compilation of nationwide studies for
various land uses. Figures 3 and ~ are summaries of gen-
eration rates for low-rise and high-rise apartments.
Low-rise apartments are considered to be garden or
suburban apartments that have only one or two levels,
whereas high-rise apartments are classified as having three
..
Page Three
~XHIBIT "c"
App. II pg. 5
'1 ..
-
o
o
o
o
'-
j/
~ ~
c::!J
~0
/.I.J
~
<'
'l
r
~~
. "
~
~ ~ lc:!!J
.~~
~
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
.
.
'" EXHIBIT "C"
Page .our
FIGURE 2
App. II pg. 6
IIlJ
.
il1
U-
o
SUMMARY OFTRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use/Building Type Low.-R1se AD~ "'1:m.:!"1t: ITE Land Use Code .,? ,
Independ!!nt Variable-Trips Der D\o/Dl'.c_~ lIn'-
I
Average I "l Number Average Size 0/
Trif' Maximum I Minimum Correlation 0/ (ndl1t:1endenr
Rare Rate Rare Coellicienr i Studies Vafliio/eiS/udy
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Ii Ii 10., I c; , I I .,., I ?&:II
Peak Enter In"! , I ..",
A.M. n , n , i .,~
Hour Between Exit n lJ n 7 n ., I I .,., I
I ..,~,
of 7 and 9 Total 0.5 0.0 O."l .,U I .,no I
Adjacent P.M. Enter O.lJ 0.6 I n."! , I ." ?',
Street Between Exit , 0.4 , n , I I ?1'
0.2 ."
, , I
Traffic 4 and 6 Total n,li i n 0 I n lJ .,U .,no
Peak A.M. Enter 0.1 I 0." n , , I .,lJ ! ?!.l:;: .1
Hour Exit (1 4 " 7 n ., I .,u I ::IlJc;'
of Total n Ii n 0 n "! I .,c; ?/!,
Generator P.M. Enter n 1J n Ii n ., .,,, .,IIe:
Exit n, n lJ " , .,,, ""'I~
Total :'I 7 . I n 0 I n e: I ..., ...~Q
Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends 7 ., n ., I " " I " ...~Q
Peak Enter n ., In " I " I .,,, ....., ,
, I
Hour of Exit I n ., .,,,
0.< I O. II ~~,
Generator Total 0.6 ! :'I. g I n., I I " "='-:'A
I il R I , I ::nR
Sunda~' Vehicle Trip Ends Ii , U ., I ."
I n 7 l '
Peak Enter o "l n 7 7,' .=,~,
Hour of Exit o -:; n c; n , '0 7,'
Generator Total n Ii , ., n ., I ." ..,., ~
I I I ..
Source Numbers " 21. 71 c8. ,., 0 I
--.
ITE Technical Committee 6A-o-Trip Generalion Rales
Date: lQR2 i
!
.
. .
. . lOW'
Page Five EXHIBIT
u
App, II pg. 7 FIGURE 3
o
o
o
~
--
'-'
.
'-,
'--
J1J
-
~
o
o
o
o
-,--
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use/Building Type 4'i 1:'" .~1 ~p dD~"'f'"""o"~ ITE Land Use Code ",
Independent Variable-Trips per ntJ~ , , 1 .., g fTni+- ,
Average Number Average Size 01
Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation 01 Independent
Rate Rate Rate Coellicient Studies Vaflable,Sludy
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends II " e:. II , ... " ",,"
Peak A.M. Enter " , " , " . ... ,--
Hour Between Exit " ... " , " - ... ....."
n 7 ,-"
of 7 and 9 Total n c:; n ? 11 !I"':;
Adjacent P.M. Enter 0.2 O.~ o. , , ,70
Street Between Exit 0.' 0.' n. , , 770
Traffic 4 and 6 Total O.!I I O,C; n 7 !I !I"':;
Peak A.M. Enter I ,
Hour Exit
of , Total
Generator P.M. Enter , ~~
Exit ~
Total
Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak Enter
Hour 01 Exit
Generator Total . -
Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends 't "
. .
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit
Generator Total .~
I
Source Numbers )5. ,p 9R. ,i1, -
- .
ITE Technical Committee 6A-6-Trip Generation Rates
Date: '975. i::tAU '9P?
..:.;
"-'..: '.
.
,
EXHIBIT "c"
Page 51x
FIGURE 4
Aoo. II oe:, 8
.
()
o
o
o
~
or more levels. As the proposed development is comprised
of three level apartments with recreational amenities, it
might fall in either category. However, the generation
rates for low-rise apartments are higher, and therefore
were used to represent the "worst case".
Traffic analyses in this report deal with peak hour
volumes as major impacts to the adJaoent street system
occur during the peak hours.
The following table summarizes the average number of
trips that can be expected during the morning and afternoon
peak hours. Daily (2Q-hour) traffic volumes are also shown
for information.
'-
TABLE 1
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 2Q HOUR
LQw-Rlse
Apartment Enter Ed t 'Total Enter Exit Total 2-Way
Generation.
Rate 0.1 O.Q 0.5 o.~ 0.2 0.6 6.6
Trips..
Generated 59 238 .. 297 238 119 357 3921
· From Figure 3
.. For 594 dwelling units
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
. .-
~ :-/'
Traffic from the proposed development is distributed..
to the surrounding street system on a logical basis from
analyzing the site plan and existing traffic distribution.
The heaviest volume of traffic is historically during the
af~rnoon peak hour, and ~erefore this study concentrates
on that time period.
Since the largest percentage of employment centers and
business districts are to the west and southwest, it is an-
ticipated that the majority of trips will use the most con-
venient and direct route. This is via the main entrance,
Citrus Street, Palm Avenue and rtighland Avenue, and repre-
sents approximately 611 of the generated traffic. The
remaining 391, which includes 41 desiring to travel to and
from the east, will use the secondary entrance, La Praix
Avenue, and various other streets to Highland Avenue.
..
.
Page Seven
EXHIBIT "c"
App. II
pg, 9
e
~
-41.
~
o
o
o
From Table 1. the PH peak hour entering and exiting
traffic has been distributed as shown on the Traffic Dis-
tribution Hap - Figure 5.
EXISTING STREET TRAFFIC
Hanual traffic counts were taken in the afternoon peak
hours to determine the traffic volumes on the surrounding
streets.
Figure 6 shows the results of the afternoon peak hour
traffic counts.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Analysis of site and eXisting surrounding street traf-
fic volumes indicate the folloWing:
· That there isa substantial number of left turns
from Highland Avenue to Denair Avenue.
NOTE: Traffic signals are not warranted at this
intersection. Traffic signals are warranted
by calculating the eighth highest hourly
traffic volume entering an intersection dur-
ing an aver,age day. The eighth highest
hour may be calculated by multiplying 5/8
times the peak hour volume. (See Cal Trans
"Traffic Signal Warrants" sheet - Figure
7. )
.
Traffic signals are warranted at the int.rsection
of Highland Avenue and Bradford Avenue as deter-
. ~.
mined from the City of San Bernardino ApproaChing ~~
Traffic Volumes sheet dated 6-18-82 (See Appendix..
A), and the traffic volumes on Highland Avenue and
Denair Street. However, traffic signals will not
be recommended as a mitigation measure, as the con-
.~truction of Route 3G-.Freeway is scheduled for
fiscal year 1987-88 and the traffic volumes on
Highland Avenue will reduce upon completion.
.
The 28' - 31' width of Palm Avenue from Piedmont
Drive to Citrus Street needs to be widened to ac-
comodate the increased traffic volume.
.
Right of way needs to be assigned by the instal-
lation of stop slgns at the intersection of Palm
Avenue and Citrus Street.
.
..
Page 8
EXHIBIT "c"
App. II pg. 10
()
o
o
o
t 8
J 1,-"
14-6
4t. ~
t
93
CITRUS ST
r
145 W
W >
> <
<
-ZO 31 /5
PIEDMONT II J\
/7.__ r OR
48 7 t
x
~ 31 -
-c
a: 45
Q.
8<'
IZ ..J
AVE
,- r
36 ' -
; ;.,
. .
:E
..J " 3
< J
Q. ~/I
..
HIGHLAND AVE
~5 ..-J
PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION MAP
EXHIBIT "c"
Page NLne
..
App. II pg. 11. FIGURE 5
JI JJ1.
~
~.
o
o
o
o
e
Jill I~;
CITRUS ST
(J --.J ltr
()-
~, 3-""" W
W >
> <
<
T 4Z 8 " 0 ~o
PIEDMONT r-Z3 j~L -1>3
,- S'
48- OR
~' "
13 tr
1.l:IJ-X
.W %., <
> a: 3 II ~
< a..
8 4- 0 w L()
J ~ l ~ _3 :}
AVE
z. l t R.t
"-
0 8--, a: 7 ~ 47
a: -
::E '0 <
lL. Z
..J 0 -'5 l!l .W
< < J 0 L ,T$
a.. a: ~358
en
HIGHLAND AVE
alt.=:=!..
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
~
Pa~e Ten
EXHIBIT "C"
App. II pg~ -12 FIGURE 6
o
9-4
'I-"lt
o 0
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
o
Traffic Manual
'-
Flguro ,-, A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
OISl"
IlITt ~..
H(J'hII'lAd' Av~J'7v~
~i,.. Av~l'Iu~
CAI..C
CH~
DATI!
DATI!
c.
Ma jor St:
Minor St:
Critical Approach Speed
Critical Approach Speed
66
2.5
mph
mph
Critical speed ot major streel lrattic2, 40 mph -- - -.. -- ..-- - 181
In built up area of isolated community ot < tO,ooo pop. ._______ 0 RURAL (Rl
a URBAN (Ul
WARRANT t - Minimum Vohicular Volume
MINIMUM REQUI REI.ENTS 100% SATISFIED Yes aNO a
(10'" SNOW. lit '''.-CUTSI 80% SATISFIED Ves a No a
u R U R
APP"OACH 1 2 at more / / / /
L.ANCS
Both .--. SOO 350 600 420
...jot Sltoot 1-' (ZIOI C..... 133..
Hlg/lolIt APiiiCi 150 '05 200 140
1011_ Stroo. - 11201 114. ('50' (112t
How
. NOTE: liMYi., oIl.r tem mov.....,. from _;01 SIr..' Included wilen t. T -,..ailttJ i. ptUPOMd 0
'-
WARRANT 2 - Interruption ~ Continuous Traffic
IoIlNIIoIUM REQUIREMENTS 100% SATISFIED Ves aNOm
(80'S SMOWJI 'N ..."rnl
U I R 8~ SATISFIED Ves QNoa
u A
-. J / / / /
A~"'IItOACH , 2 ... .....
LANes
Botn AoplCllO. 150 525 900 630 5/8 J( /.301 8/4
...jot Slroot 11001 ,.cZOI lno. 1$0"1
HI_Apprcll 15 ;J 100 10 5/8 'x {,3 40
Minar Str.., . fOOl 1421 COO, (511
How
. NOTE: HNt/i., 01 I.t, runt trIOVefNnf 'font lUjor SlrM' inclUlted Wheft L T-plUs"ftJ is INf1f}OMfI 0
...
MiNIMUM REOUIREMENTS 8~ SATISFIED Ves a No a
1110":. SHOWN 1M ."...CJCeTS) / /
u R /
Bo'n_. No Median 600 420
....jot Sir..' ,..... C3361
Vol'-'N' Raised '000 700
4' u.;;;i_ 1800t 1~&OI
Pcd's On "'tQhes1 VOlurN ISO 10S
X..w"lk Xina -"101" Street 11:;:0 IUI
10~ SATISFIEO
Yes 0 No 0
~.
.. :-f
..
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
,....
" MIO.L.OCK SIeNA'- ~ROPOSCO
a
""11I. "tOUlalwlNT OIlT""(1: T(tN(..U:(5T! su.....'SM(O C."'Ili. 'U,,"'U.LIED
150 Feet N/E fI S/W fI Ves a NO 0
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
NoI Applicable
See Sc:hool Crossings Warrllnt Sheet
o
a
r...IOA
.
Page. Eleven
~XHIBIT "c"
App, II pg,13FlGURE 7
o
o
o
o
~
.
Right of way needs to be assigned by the instal-
lation of stop signs to Citrus Street from Palm
Avenue east to the project site due to increased
traffic volume.
.
Right of way needs to be assigned by the instal-
lation of ~top signs to La ?raix Avenue from
Piedmont Drive north to the ~roject site due to
increased traffic volume.
~ITIGATION MEASURES
. It is recommended that a left turn lane be instal-
led on Highland Avenue at Denair Avenue.
. It is recommended that Palm Avenue from Piedmont
Drive to Citrus Street be widened to a minimum of
34' with parking prohibited on the west side.
NOTE: An alternative to widening Palm Avenue
would be to prohibit parking on the east
side from 4 to 6 PM and on the west side
24 hours a day.
~
.
It is recommended that stop signs be installed on
Citrus Street at Palm Avenue, Michelle Lane at
Citrus, Croydon S~reet at La Praix Avenue, and
28th Street at La Praix Avenue.
CONCLUSION
There will not be any significant traffic impacts due
to the development of Mountain Shadows Villa. Addition- ~.
ally, preliminary civil engineering studies indicate only.e~
small po.rtion of the 160 acres immediately to the north o~
this site can be developed. Therefore, no adverse traffic
impacts are anticipated in the future.
..
Respectfully submitted,
~/ :~ ,,'
~../~.7; [ .p'/..r~
".-,1 - - J . l' - - --
I
Robert R. Wirts, P.E.
Traffic and Transportation
..
RRW:sw
t
Page Twelve
EXHIBIT ":c"..
App. II pg.14
1
o
o
'--
'-
L
APPENDIX A
..
o
.
~
..
..
EXHIBIT "C"
.. App. II pg. 15
. ~'
~:-t
..
o
lID
L
.u
-
R
LOCATION
,
"f "'/H....;:.O' ~:-...C'\..'.'1Ir' 0-
,
D~.,E C'iL..:~
~
,- . , - . - . ,
c I,
'PRO CHI S':"\D>=":..~i:> i o ,~~4. \ t> TOTAL
I .-...-
:'/ECTlON! N Bl\<'>\ S8i\1'\ 8011i Eai',\{\ \" 8 .[. 80TH I ALL
h , -;:
-, ._~ I A fa I I 5 1- I ~
(-2 I 0 a 0 '3 !
- [
2-3 I 2- 0 \ 0
. I
3-4 0 ( I 0 0 I
I
4-5 I ~ '" '3 "3
~ L-..
5-6 I \3 ; 4 z...
I S"
6-7 9 I ~ q Zo
7-8 ~ \l..Z... II 42- I
8-9 Z8 (gl 4 12.. I
9-10 2..'1' <:a 9 I';
10-11 35: 4=; \4- ~
11-12 ~ 4~ I Z4 'ZtT
12-1 P "71 'S& 17 z.~
1- 2 C::D s<:; 'Z7 Z1
~-3 IC8 44 zz.. 2..l
-
3-4 Tl 45 .- 0- W
4-5 1Z.b ~ ~ Z2-
-
5-6 .~ 4~ '38 7$
/. :c ,
-
6-7 E'h I ~l '& ~8
.7-8 0:;;-, 41 Dr 7..7 :-":
.
8-9 ! \t, .
(;L '30 I n
9-10 ! <;~ I \<0 \l '3
,
la-II Z2- l<) .. i 1'3 7
! 1- 12 ley te ! S" 4 I
:..r TOTAL I kSo f5"~ p,.... j '3SG 41.3 Ti'i "'-ZP
, I l~ I _I.....,
O.:.~E: HOURl I ~ -17" Zi....J,.(.,.
,
,C T AL I I
'i ~ HOUH;
". ....,G= .
- .~6iJR I I
-
TV OF SAN 8ERNARDINO
'l"INEERING DEPARTMENT
..
RECORDED BY ~6;:!....CJJ"w'roD
CHECKED BY
EXHIBIT "e" App. II pg. 16
o
,
o
o
o
C I T Y
\
o F SAN B ERN A R D
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8607-302
I N 0
TO: The Environmental Review Committee:
Fire Department, Mikel Park
Police Department, Dan Robbins
Planning Department, David Anderson
Engineering Division, Mike Grubbs
Building and Safety Dept., Ben Baker
FROM: Frank A. Schuma, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Review of Plans No. 86-51
DATE:
July 8, 1986
(6764)
COPIES:
Mayor Evlyn Wilcox
Ray Schweitzer, Acting City Administrator
Council Offices
Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the size and significance of Review of Plans No. 86-51
for a 594 unit' apartment project located at the northern
'~ terminus of La praix Avenue and Citrus Street, please submit
your comments and recommendations in writing relative to
environmental factors. These recommendations should be
received prior to the July 17, 1986 Environmental ~view
Committee meeting. This project will not receive environ-
mental clearance nor a proposed Negative Declaration until
these recommendations have been received.
The Planning Department is aware of several property owners
and builders in the area who are in opposition to this
project. Therefore, complete environmental documentation }s
necessary.
mkf
EXHIBIT "0"
- ~
C
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 9241B (714) 3B3- 5057
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
ATTACHED IS A COpy OF: RMilf'N or t'udS q." - ~ J
, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: JiG?':' 1>, - S T.;\I!Y APA- ,f.lGoII, :1/,:,,.<< /'N ~,;!5 A-(,f,t; "
/t! on.€, f:-~ -'-:"/~'I.',.l ~Ne i-I}IA~ ~i'7l-!:?' N/)1f:7Te.~ - /FKI""....fLiS r)~ LA P";~/X /se
A-,ai~ c.';--it9,'.,./S sr:
IN"! -011-~/. '/ 1-1'1-1, 11-()'/,: /1"''1-/ !I/ -3'y
A.P.N. '
~t..;.i?.~
(si9nature)
, /" 8'
~- ,"' c
(date)
~~::-:~..~
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS ANDIOR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E.R.C. DATE: 6-U-Bl; Pl:-ANNING COMMlS~ON DATE' 7-~:,-~{,-
~:"
, .
-- - --- _.- ~._-'-.. -_..-
. "
~~~ ."THE'Fot.t.~,!,,<;.':R~C~D~N!-"J'F'Pi:."/"'"OTOTHE ABOVE":REFERE1ICED~~tSX::= - -'
"._'. . _. ',' _'" I:::j1l"PPROVAL..;... " -" DENIAL.. ' ". ." " ,.
-
._. "0
~~'-r'-,..
~. -.
~:'-:-::;";:'.Ollw.;
~~.'-~
. ~ ..,.,' . -.. -~'...
.
~
-p-=
(agency)
t -)!?-~
'(date)
...
OCT. 'IS ..,
EXHIBIT liE" J:g,. 1
~AC ~OItM lC
ill
J..
-
.
c)
C I T f
o F Sft N B ERN A^ C
INTERO~CE MEMORAND~
8607-1Z04
N 0
o
TO: Frank Schuma, Planning Director
FROM: Mikel J. Park, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: Review of Plans No. 86-51 (594 units)
DATE:
July 14, 1986
(6770)
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
The developer has to this
;;;~~eunt ud
MIKEL J. PARK
Fire Marshal
point in time cOllplied with a Fire
sugsestion.
n
'--'
~
[fd1!@NTIWmoo
JUL 14 1986
CITY PLANfJi:::G UlNiTMEHT
SAN BEHlARIlINO. CA
.
EXHIIlIT "E" pg. 2
..
0"-,,,.:' ___
: ....J.
~
, -
~
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 383- 5057
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
,. "
ATTACHED IS A COpy OF: RUllfr.. iJr t'f-MJS ;?{; - 51
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ji'(,,:? .d- ~ .- ;; r;::~", ~fItKrf. -Vi " ~'" 'II' ~ - A'-(-'
- , ...'/:".., iAt".. /.J :; ! ,,~~ ~ "':'1 c.::.
IN -r'\::?' ~- ~ '-.?IJC(l ~f'le !...J)I/J rEJ'> *7"711:;' IVIJtr"t7r':i.eV JF~/.A !"..jU~J ,}p LA r....~A-1 X ~1.e
.4-"10 C :;-.-tiS sr:
IN" -MI-II.'/ lof'I-1.1/-1)1,' 1/4"1-1 ~I -.;'y ~V..t/ C:.R.A+J- ,;,.,j1-8c
A.P.N. , (signature) (date)
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANN ING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND lOR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES' IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E. R.C. DATE: ~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE' 7~t?
.
..
THE'FOLt.OWIN<;:R~ENDATlONS APPLY TO THE' ABOVE"'REFERENCEO': tTEM(~ '
". :. PPROVAL- o DENIAL ~'.' "'~,~
..
.- ..
-
.
oo-t@ rn ~ W lli 00
Jtfl 0 :1 1~6
CITY PLMC:-::; "~:';:'RrM'NT
MN 8ERN,~.Rg'Ng. t: A
~ /J11 ~ (/tV! ~ ~ left Ct:JV/lIc.f 7ft I!'G-
(signature) (agency) (date) )~
...,
...."'"
...
~CT. 15 ...,
ERe FOItM K
EXHIBIT "E" pg. 3
-
CITY OF SAN BER ~RDINO PC NNING DEPARTME
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 383- 5057
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
ATTACHED IS A COpy OF:
('~r'~'" ^r- b'I'....I<
f\t:" I~'\I ~. I ...,,-,.;J....
9i.:'~1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ii,~.:.. .p, -;, r::;,e~.' A:PIrKi'f.' !F~~'I i1l,:. -;.5 ,1/1f -?, ,;:; A<'-<.E::.
'.'N -rr..,/..'?" K~~ --"...I.'c.} ~()Ne L.J~'/jJT1Jr> ."T--~:f N/'lKI7re:ev 7Pt?I""'.'!:t~ I)F LA I;'-.~:'J.-IJ. Are
A-,l,jD C.;~jt';.r:: '51'7
II-I-I.(-t!-fj/'//.N -':..il-{l'i,..' '..1"'-131'~>
A.P.N.
}4J.' , ~
~""A..u/t."'.k~
(si\lnature)
,~ "/1*.:.....
. ~....
(date)
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS ANDIOR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE, IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E.R.C. DATE: 6-;" ';:;'1- PLANNING COMMISSION DATE'
'--
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE
o APPROVAL 0 DENIAL
The propenen. Sh6Uld oe required to provide a certified
REFERENCED ITEM(~:
SANtA ANA REGION
REC'O DATE
stdter.lent to this office from the "City Hater De.partr.1ent"
......-,.
that adequate ~/aste treatr,lent capacity is available in
their treatuent plant and connection of this project to
the systew will not result in a violation of this Soard's
c
Ilaste tii scharge requi rements.
';y
~
JJJl.-l1Ll936
I;UY l'tA~NING OEPARTMENI
SAN BElNAHDINO. CA
-7!: u~~" ~~4/
{si\lnature)
Wdter Quality Control Board
(agency)
Jul y 7. 1 qH/i
(Bate)
OCT. 'as I"Y
EXHIBIT "E" pg. '4
ERe ,:'QRIIll j(
WMfit.. QfAAfA'f"1 CbN1la.. e{)~
CITY OF SAN BER ,RDINO PL NING DEPARTMEN
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 383- 5057
~' AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF: RailA''; Or t'1..-k"JS g[ - 51
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 'iq.,;. ~ - STc~,e,! APA ,'-'Eo_V, dJ,'ti" .'111/ ". '5 A(/~t:-.
/,'1 1"t..,J::!' .~~3-'''..-l:("(} ~l'le i..I---'I,1n:n ,"T---r-,:.ft?* '" de. ~/.A/"!;::;' (1;:; r......;~ y.. /(1'e
!l'iD C'7',".iS <;'1':
/I'I-i-M/ -,oJl '1/-1'1 -7-'1/-{l7-' ;-H'-d, -3"
A.P.N.
I/. ' . R,
l1..ai!//!./. r~
(si9nature)
b.../t~8c
(date)
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE .EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS ANDIOR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE_ IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E. R.C. DATE: 6- U -, PLANNING COMMISSION DATE'
~ ,
THE FOLLOWING ~OMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEM(S):
~APPROVAL 0 DENIAL
..
ffJiHE 11 UW [! @-
J U L Il.9...J$s ' ,
rrTY Pt ~. '~'h
"'"'''''' !Jt:'ARTMINT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA '
j),~
(s19nature)
511 cJ. ~ Ce!).
- (agency)
7/ ~ /.f(,
(date)
OCT. 'as ..,
EXHIBIT "E" pg.5
ERe "ORM j(
SD.CA.t. Gt~
J::.
>
CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO PL NING DEPARTMEN
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 3B3- 5057
'~,
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF:
C'~r'~'" "r- 1"1 ""I':'
At:' 1~IV V ....,.,:'.J.J
8"-51
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ;:;,>.,:. P.-ST:)I!'! A:PIlrl(if-'G.f,,', /1/:'(<<- 'l/lf "'!" 5 A,"-eE:.
,II" 1'"'f.,J,..- ,('-?- -'~.:"i~'I:) ~rte !.J}//lr1.JT) "...T"7''1!f" N/lK"t7te.~ TF.~/.A',\!':':"PO A tj ~ Are
4~;;; ':-~.'f"3:: Sf:'
//-1../-;.:-/1 -!IIII-N . 7-71-{l'!., , ; .H,"3, -JY
A.P.N.
~ati.I/(.R.+#
(siQnature)
. /.. ~
~, - I.CC'
(date)
/
THIS APPLICATiON HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E. R.C. DATE: 6-1'.(, PLANNING COMMISSION DATE' 7-~b
-
,.
'-'
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEM(S):
o APPROVAL 0 DENIAL
NONE AT THIS TIME.
oo~@rnDwrnIID-
~
(,UT rL~i'li~II\1U ucF'~n~Mt"T
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
.~
. ..
/7
~ ) PACIFIC BELL
(aQency)4
07-08-86
(date)
OCT. '15 Illy
EXHIBIT "En pg.6
ERt 'ORM fC
p ~ ",:, {.. 1 eUFfl1DI'I';;
..ill
DEPAMENT OF TRA~SPORT CION/
FLOOD CONTROL/AIRPORTS
o
,~\\\II'f/~e
.....~t~.....
~ .....
- ::-
~ ~
--~ ~,
/1flf1j\\\\h
July 10. 1986
COUNTY OF SAN BEQDINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
........ EI. Third SttMt . Son Ilemordino. CA 92415-0835 . 17141 387.2800
MICHAEL G. WALKER
Director
File:
3-302/1.00
317 .0221
ill ~ r" r:> ~ ~\n R
L: I U l~;\ 'il \e.
D ;0bL:'--
JUL 14 1986
ill
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Mr. Dave Anderson
. - "--,,~7',\~NT
C\1V PLAN~~h~b J~l ,,,.1'" '"
SMI aERNi>.F,Ulllll. CA
Re: Zone 3, Small Canyon Dam,
Diversion Channel and
A.P. 1199-131-32, 1199-091-01.
and 1199-271-02
Gentlemen:
'-
By John Stubblefield's transmittal of a site plan, the review of a proposed
development on all or portions of the referenced accessor parcels was requested.
The site is, located easterly of the extension of Ctirus Street and northerly of
the extension of LaPraix Avenue in the northeasterly portion of the City of
San Bernardino.
The easterly portion of the site lies within Small Canyon. The District's
Small Canyon Dam and Diversion Channel lie to the north of the site, and
intercept most flows then conducts them to the east into the District's
Dynamite Basin. Two spillways from the diversion channel allow excessive
flows to re-enter the canyon at the site's northeasterly boundary. This
occurred in 1980.
According to a dam failure study flows within the canyon'
between 14 and 18 feet in the canyon through this site.
structures appear to be elevated well above this flow.
could reach a depth
All the proposed
Therefore, in our opinion, those portions of the site lying within Small
Canyon and the other minor drainage courses traversing the site are Subject ..'
to infrequent flood hazards by reason of overflow, erosion and debris deposi-
tion in the event of a major stoon.
~
There presently does not exist an adequate drainage system downstream of the
site in the vicinity of Highland Ave!'lue. Even during storms of a moderate
nature flooding has occurred. Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan #6, Project 6-26,
addresses this problelll- The development of this site will increase storm flows
to Highland Avenue and may aggrevate the existing local drainage problem. Also
due to the extensive cut and fill operation necessary for foothill development
such as this, slope erosion and debris movement downstream can be expected,
which may also aggrevate the existing drainage problems.
lC;~:::::;:- .l
.
EXHIBIT "E" pg.7
,.\:;/ ':: ')~~'i'"
~
.
o
o
o
o
-
Letter to the City of San Bernardino
July 10, 19B6
Page 2
Our comments and recommendations are as follows:
1. Small Canyon shall be covered by an ~dequate City Drainage Easement
designed to contain the flows from any failure of Small Canyon Dam.
2. A 50-foot building setback shall be established from the City
Drainage Easement or District approved bank protection shall be
provided.
3. Erosion control measures should be provided during and after
construction to preclude debris movement downstream which might
aggrevate existing downstream drainage problems. This shall be
reviewed by the City Engineer.
4. Adequate provisions shall be required by the City Engineer to
intercept and conduct the tributary flows from the north around
or 'through the site in a manner which does not adversely affect
adjacent or downstream properties.
~
5. Attention should be directed toward construction of C.S.D.P. #6,
Project 6-26. updating engineering hydraulics and developing
current methods of .financing the storm drain construction should
be coordfnated with .th~ City Engineer's Office.
6. In addition 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 drainage study and grading plans
have been submitted to this office. .
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free
to contact the undersigned at (714) 3B7-2515.
Very truly yours,
~ e.....L.,-
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
RWC:mjs
cc: Roger Hardgrave
Dennis Stafford
John Stubblefield
EXHIBIT "E" pg. 8
(
.
-
&--,.- ..'
-::r: -
.-~
}~
.
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
ATTACHED IS A COPY OF: RH/lfWof t'I..MJS f3" - 51
PROJECT DESCR I PTION : ~.?..:- ~ - ;; T~,~Y APA-Ki"'" G-,V, ;11:.".5 at\! ;y,: :;' k(,'i!.5" '"
/1'1 -n"fP ,~-~ -'~-I.ce ~N€ !...J}I!JT1JT"'; ~i':,:.f:f" N~If";'7rJ;.e~ TFKI.r./.\!,'';S (}F- LA 1:;^~/'rfX A1'e
;"-^iJ C,:-r/f'IA5 Sf:
IN<f-O,,/-t//'ti-l"l-1-11-1)'l-' II~q-I?I-3'y
A.P.N.
jia-f.!.id.;.i2.ffl-
(signature)
. /" 5
~.... 1- t:
(date)
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.' PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE, IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E. R.C. DATE: 6- 1.1, -/36 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE~ 7--;'-;.-fjb
- , .'.
" ;THE FOt.t.OW1NG" RJ:.\:O~ENOATl~NS:-.~PPLY"Ta"THE"~A80V!?Ra:ERBlCED"I~~.~ '
llJ4?PROVAL..........- OOENrAL.-" , -
,
5011_5 ~"A.)('7.
r~1e Au_ ~7~ArJl)lty
.sC.U.S
WILL. J1JJE oAJ "")/rF-
" .
s F-e> Il.
Rt:P~R:J,
.c- ..'
A~~
(signature)
BUILDING Be SAFElY 16'
7-lb-g~
(date)
..
(agency)
OCT.'U Illy
EAe .:'ORM K
EXHIBIT "E" pg.9'
-
.
~ITY OF SAN aEFGARDINO 0- NlEMORANDUro
~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Oir
From Publ ie Works/Ci ty Eng.
To
Subject
R.P. 86-51 Mountain Shadows Villas
Summary of Environmental Factors and
Mi ti oa ti ons
Date J u 1 y 17. 1 986
File No. II.SDGEN
Approved
Date
~li ti ga ti on
Small Canyon traverses the site. It is a
deep ravi ne whi ch takes overflow from
Sma 11 Canyon's debri s basi n. Spri ngs
feed the channel year-round. In 1980,
rocks and debris topped the debris dam
during a major storm and damaged homes
along Highland Avenue. No damage
occurred along the reach of Sma 11 Canyon
Channel adjacent to this project.
An easement wi 11 be estab1 i shed based on
the highest probable flood level and a
50' set-back 1 ine estab1 i shed from the
easement or bank erosion protection will
be required.
1. Flood Control
~
2. Drainage
Run-off from buildings, parking areas,
landscaped areas and slDpes will be
routed to the streets which carry flows
to existing drainage facilities in Palm
Avenue and Highland Avenue. An existing
stream, fed by springs, traverses the
northwest corner of the site.
Hi ti ga ti on
Construct adequate on-site drainage
devices to convey flows to existing
streets. No downstream mitigations.are
proposed since the existing downstream
drainage facilities are considered
adequate to contain the minor increase in
flows anticipated. The existing stream
along the northwest corner will be
carried to a large drainage channel in
Ci trus Street.
..
3. Grading
Cuts i:ltO existing hillsides of approx-
i ma tel y 40' are proposed. Severa 1 hun-
dred thousand cubic yardS of earth will
be moved.
EXHIBIT "E" pg. 10
1
CIT.,. Oil TH.=M~
-
.
Q
ENVIRONMENTAL R~VIEW ~MITTEE <:)
Re: R.P. 86-51 Mountain Shadows Villas
July 17, 1986
File No. 11.50GEN
o
~
Mitigation
Grading will be contoured so as to
simulat~ natural slopes to the extent
possible. Slopes will not be steeper
than 2:1 and all slopes will be planted
to prevent erosion. Slopes higher than
15' will be irrigated and will be benched
in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code. An erosion control plan, during
construction, will be required prior to
issuance of grading permits.
4. Traffic
According to the traffic study, the
project will generate 3,921 new trips per
day on surrounding streets. The
pro'ject's main access will be via Citrus
Street and Palm Avenue to Highland, and a
secondary access will be along La Praix
Avenue, Orchid Avenue and Denair Avenue
to Highland Avenue. The Developer's
Traffic Consultant estimates that 6U or
2,392 of the generated traffic wi 11 use
Citrus Street and 39% or 1,529 would use
La Praix Avenue.
'-
Mitigation
a)
The narrow reach of Palm Avenue
between Ci trus Street and Piedmont
Drive will be widened to 34' curb to
curb with parking prohibited on the
West side.
.
b) The need for a left turn pocket on
Highland Avenue, at Denair Avenue,
will be reviewed prior to approval
.of each phase of development to
d e t e r m i n e i f ,0 n e i s nee d e d . I f
traffic conditions warrant a turn
pocket at the start of any phase, it
will be installed prior to occupancy
of that phase. The exi sting street
systems, as modi fied above, wi 11 be
adequate tD handle the traffic from
this development.
..
2
EXHIBIT "E" pg. 11
.JIJ. ~
.
()
ENVIRONMENTAL k~VIEW ~MITTEE <:)
Re: R.P. 86-51 Mountain Shadows Villas
July 17, 1986
File No. 11.50GEN
o
~
Although there will be an increase in the traffic load on both
Ci trus Street and La Prai x Avenue, the traffic vO,l umes wi 11 be
well within the maximum safe capacity of these streets.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~~R~~
Senior Civil Engineer
MWG:pa
'-
~
.
..
EXHIBIT liE" pg. 12
3
.
.
o
CITY OF SAN BE NAROINO ANNING DEPARTM
300 NORTH "0" STREET S. B., CA. 9241B (714) 383- 5057
AGENCY COMMENT SHEET
ATTACHED IS A COpy OF:
R~''''.. - . "A'''.
~I'''''" Or J'f..,,,,,o-
gl.-51
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ji,? 4- 11- sn'l!Y APA- -rt-'G;V, '1 ',r~ ,. /If /).: -'5' A[.~E'~. '
.Iff !'of'" t'-3-''0-'cc' ~t'1'11i! t.-JrArlm r<:TTH:;-NIJ~de:(', iF~ ..... - ~p;'" /,1'e
A'~D c.;,-r,'{'.'.r~ sr:
1/':"" -1J'fi -1)1 'I/'/<,' . ".. 7/-f.''t' i',H'-/~1 -,'y
A.P.N.
, J4.aiu'C;.R~
(siQnature)
t-11.gc
(date)
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN-
CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS ANDIOR
RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE
REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENt FOR ypUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE.
E.R.C. DATE' 6- -B. PLANNING COMMISSION DATE' 7-n.._ ~,
.......
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED ITEM(S):
o APPROVAL. 0 DENIAL
"7f Cet-fif~ ll<<?' ~~ 1).&/
.
..
-
~~~
JUL 23 1986
CITY CJ ~ "...-.~ "'-""~-"ENT
I... .' '.'.". "0 ' . .. I nIl 1
SAN BERi~ARDINO. CA
~-
OCT. 'I. .11,
... ~_.:
EXHIBIT "E" pg. 13
ERe ,-oRM i
5R III P/,....'!N'/JG
.....
..
A- "'\h\\~'o
o 0
s' ~ BERNARDINO CITY WATER OEPARTMI 'S
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
'-'
Review of Plans: # ~~\\._,...,~~~ 't\o:.-S\
Location: ~~~"'~"'.:('t('\w,,-,s ~ ~~~~ .....~~~ ~.
TypeofConstruction:~o.~- ~ ~ ~ ~"'*""
~ ~~ ) .
Owner/Developer: ~ ~~
ENGINEERING: Nama:
o P.S.I.
o Size of Main Adjacent to the Project
o Pressure Regulator Suggested on Customer's Side on the Meter.
o Comments:
/l/r puA!- ~~u/~.p ...9~
oo~ @ ~ G \g rn ~
AUG 11 1986
CITY PlANNIMi O~PAilTME~lT
Data: !;AN RFRNARmND. CA
Approved:
Denied:
Continued:
Date:
o Subject to the rules & regulations of the Water Department in effect at the time of application for water service.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL OEPARTMENT: Name:
o R.P.P. Backflow Device Required at Service Connelion.
o Double Chack Backflow Device Required at.,S.lrvice Connection.
o Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
o No Backflow Device Required.
'--'
Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER: Neme: ~ Date:
o Industrial Waste Parmit May Be Required by Environmental Control Officer.
o Grease Trap Required by Environmental Control Officer.
o No Regenerative Water Softeners May Be I nstalled Without Prior Approval of the Environmental Control Officer.
o Approved by Environmental Control Officer.
No Sewer Capacity Charge Applicable at This Time. ' <>-, ,. ,.,,___
S,.po.'> .~u.. _~~
Sewer Capacity ~ight Must Be Purchased from the Redevelopmant Agency or the M.,J/e 9ffiee in the Amount
of ( Gallons Far Oay..S8I(Ver Ca~y Rights I.\~e. ~
~'O'Iecr~ Q,\lQ.lIQb.\~
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
=A..l.l, \."'^~ ~ <\Sl,.. t::f.- Q.C''''~~ 'l~-
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Name:
o
~
Date:
4"-'.5.5 ~C\~.\..l'(~
And/or:
~ ,
'>e1-.!'roof of Purchase Must Be Submitted to the Water DlIplIrtmant Prior to Issuance of the Building Parmit.
.
o This Area is Serviced by East Valley Water District and All Fees Will Be Dttermined by Their Department.
EXHIBIT "E"pg. 14
_216 5/85 .
.
o
o
o
o
'-
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTM ENT"
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
... SUMMARY OF MEETING ~
,. .,
( MEETING DATE: 9/?5/P.f.. )
. .
~ ( ~
tn ~ ENGINEERING' Mike Grubbs ~ PLANNING: Valerie C. Ross
G: ag BLDG. a SAFETY, Ben Baker lL. ~ CITY ATTORNEY'S: John WilSQI
III lL.
~ PLANNING: Dave Anderson ~ ~ PLANNING: Ron Running
2 ag FIRE: Mikel Park, gg ENGINEERING: Peter Liu
I&l tn
~ Il\l POLICE: Dave Anderson 0
'--'
THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ITEMS CONSIOEREO AND ACTIONS TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
SEE ATTACHED MINUTES I REPORTING SHEET(S) RlR MORE INFORMATION.
ITEM
1- Review of Plans No. 86-5l - Motion - Mike Grubbs I
Negative Declaration Second - Ben oaker
Chairperson Valerie Ross introduced the Environmental
Review Committee and the Planner assigned to this case.
She explained what the Committee should look at as far
as environmental concerns and that there were four
options that the Committee had available to them: 1) to
continue the project for additional information, study,
or revision; 2) to require a focused Environmental
Impact Report; 3) to require a full Environmental
Impact Report; or 4) to recommend a Negative I
Declaration of Environmental Impact. Ms. Ross stated
that if a Negative Declaration was proposed, the
environmental determination would be scheduled to be
heard before the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission would have the same four options available to
them.
Due to the large number of people who showed up for thlS
item, all persons wishing to speak were sworn in.
Ron Running presented this case and gave an overview of
its history, scope, location and environmental concerns.
He also stated whether the environmental concerns had
been addressed and mitigated, if necessary, and by whom
John Stubblefield representing Stubblefield Enterprises,
the applicant, spoke and stated that in his opinion, all
of the environmental (and developmental! concerns had
been addressed and that a negative declaration of
EXHIBIT "F" pg. 1
\.. '~
MAY 1.81
UPDATE OCT 1982
E.R.C. FORM C
.
o
o
o
o
~
Summary of ERC Meeting
September 25, 1986
Page 2
environmental
recommended.
impact for this
project
shouid be
.~
Following the applicant's presen~ation, members of the
public were allowed three minutes each to express their
concerns relative to the environmental impacts with the
proposed project.
John Huqhes (2831 Palm Avenue): Mr. Hughes feels that
this is lrrational building because of the impact on
traffic, safety and schools. He suggested a public
hearing in the community to discuss the details of the
project and at a time when more people could attend.
Thomas Painter (2732 Piedmont Drive): Me. Painter was
concerned that the traffic would have an impact on the
surrounding area and the school and sewer treatment
capacity problems should be resolved. Also, he was
concerned that this project would bring low income
families into the area. Mr. Painter questioned in
general the compatibility of the proposal with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Dennis Cruickshank (3084 Mountain Top Drive): Mr.
Cruickshank was concerned about the fire break that had
been graded in the vicinity of th~ site and why there
was no permit issued. He brought up the potential
traffic problems resulting from this project. Mr.
Cruickshank was worried that property values would
decrease with an apartment project located on this site
and he questioned whether low income families would live
here. He also felt that an additional public hearing
was necessary.
Phil Arvizo (Citv Council Office): Mr. Arviso was
representing Councilman Marks and he stated that several
phone calls were received concerning this project,
especially the potentiai traffic and school issues. He
stated that the Mayor and Common Council had discussed a
zone change for this site but a motion for such had
failed and alternatives and/or incentives for the
Stubblefield's to locate this project elsewhere were
being researched.
~
John Scribner (3074 Mountain Top Drive): Mr. Scribner
felt that property values of the surrounding
neighborhoods would decrease if this project is built.
He was concerned that this project would restrict the
view enjoyed by present residents. He also felt that
~XHIBIT "F" pg. 2
. .
o
o
o
o
'-
Summary of ERC Meeting
September 25, 1986
Page 3
the City
residents
questioned
and the applicant bhould
to work out any problems.
the landscape design of the
meet with
Mr. Scribner
project.
the
also
Bill Terry (2907 Michelle Drive):
concerned with the potential for earth
such as an earthquake, soil movement
drainage.
Mr. Terry was
or soil problems
and slippage and
J2&k Stotis (3005 Smali Canyon Drive): Mr. Stotis was
concerned with past projects that the City has approved
primarily because of inadequate inspection and policing.
He cited cases where homes were lost due to mudflows
resulting from improper grading in drainage basins and
the slopes not being properly prepared. Additionally,
two neighboring homes, were constructed on improperly
constructed fili, with inadequate benching and improper
vegetation removal.
'~
Judy Davis (3034 Mountain Top Drive): Ms. DaViS
questioned whether a geology study had been prepared to
address the earthquake potential. She was concerned
that a nice, quiet neighborhood would be disrupted
because of traffic problems caused by this project and
that the safety of the children would be difficult to
ensure. She also felt that this project would have an
effect on property values.
Peter Breckus (Attornev - l8l3 "D" Street. San Raphaei.
CAll Mr. Breckus explained that he was an attorney
representing several property owners in the area.
Mr. Breckus reviewed the project proposal and the
environmental checkllsts and feels that a fULl
Environmental Impact Report is necessary as mandated by
law under California Environmental Quality Act (Sectlon
21000 g). The following summarizes a few of the
concerns he had:
- Quality of life: How will this project affect future
residents both in and around the project, on a day-
to-day basis.
- traffic: Mr. Breckus feels that there is no question
that this project will greatly affect the area's
traffic and circulation. He stated that the ingress
and egress was inadequate for a project this size and
he submitted photographs s~owing local traffic
congestion occurring at OehlElementary School on
Palm Avenue. He also questioned the mitigation
measures in the traffic report and the date that the
study was prepared.
EXHIBIT "F" pg. 3
.
o
o
o
o
~.
Summary of ERC Meeting
September 25, 1986
Page 4
~Qins: Mr. Breckus stated that the natural
drainage courses in the area were not addressed
adequately. Substantial flooding could reSUlt from
site development. He felt that there should be a
provision for when and if proposed storm drains wouid
be built. A detailed study in the EIR is necessary
to address all of this.
aeologic hazards: Mr. Breckus questioned whether the
type of structures proposed and methods of
construction were adequate in the event of an
earthquake. He also asked why the buildings were not
proposed to be sprinklered since the project is
located in a high fire hazard area.
community faCilities and services: The proposed
project will tax the already over burdened community
facilities and services found in the area.
~
Mr. Breckus summarized by again stating that a full EIR
was necessary both to address all of the potential
problems and to provide mitigation measures and to let
the decision makers and the public be aware of the
concerns. A full ErR should address the cumulative
impacts associated with the proposed project as well as
future development to the north of the project slte
which will achieve access through the site.
In conclusion, Mr. Breckus suggested that the environ-
mental study need also include proper analysis of
alternatives to the project as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act. Such analysis is
crucial to decision makers in order to adequately judge
the environmental impacts of the project.
~"
Doris Anderson (2828 Palm Avenue): Ms. Anderson felt
that the potential traffic levels would cause problems
and that the traffic study does not fully analyze thls
concern. She stated that she lives in a historic house
that abuts Baldridge Creek on Palm Avenue. She is
concerned about the loss of property along Palm Avenue
for additional street dedication (plus the removal of
mature eucalyptus trees) and the potential problem in
the back if the natural drainage course is altered. Ms.
Anderson cited the policies found in the East San
Bernardino-Highland General Plan where it states that
ridge-lines should not be disturbed and where densities
shOUld be limited in hillside and foothill areas. She
feels that this project disregards that statement.
Ms. Anderson feels that utilizing tax payer funds is
EXHIBIT "F" pg. 4
.
o
o
o
o
Summary of ERC Meeting
September 25, 1986
Page 5
lmproper in an eminent domain, situation where It
benefits one property owner.
Richard Z:..mmerman (3894 Piedmont Drive: Mr. Zimr,lerman
was concerned with the potential traffic and access
problems resulting from this project. Mr. Zimmerman
questioned the adequacy of the traffic study with regard
to Piedmont Drive and the access it provides properties
to the east.
'-
Ron Running for Truman Plantz (3045 E. 28th Str~et):
Mr. Running stated that he had received several phone
calls and questions regarding this project and that they
had the same concerns as the peop.l.e speaking at the
meeting. Mr. Plantz was unable to be present at the ERC
meeting and asked staff to relate his concerns regarding
future traffic on 28th Street. Mr. Plantz suspects that
28th Street will be used as a shortcut to Palm Avenue
instead of Cltrus Avenue. Mr. Plantz suggested that
28th Street be closed at its intersection with Citrus
Avenue to prevent through traffic flow.
John Stubblefield: Mr. Stubblefield was al.1.owed to
respond to the questions and concerns raised. He agreed
with Mr. Breckus that the concerns of future residents
and the potential impacts to the quality of life
were concerns of Stubblefield Enterprises a.l.so.
Mr. Stubblefield stated that all of the concerns raised
by the area residents had been addressed and Wl.l.l be
mitigated if necessary.
At this point
Environmental
involved.
the Public Hearing was Closed
Review Commlttee debated, the
and the
issues
Committee member Ben Baker stated that traffic was the
only concern he had with this project and that there
were no specific Building & Safety Department concerns.
Committee member Mikel Park questioned whether comments
had been received from the San Bernardino City Unified
School District (none have been). He also questioned
the potential traffic problems and asked Mike Grubbs to
comment.
Comm:..ttee member Mike
C:..ty Traffic Engineer
traffic and circulation
Grubbs introduced Peter Liu,
and asked him to address
concerns.
the
the
EXHIBIT "F" pg. 5
,
o
o
o
o
~,
Summary of ERC Meeting
September 25, 1986
Page 6
Mr. I.iu stated that the traffic study addressed more
units than are current~y proposed and th~s project would
not cause any major traffic and circulation problems.
He said that the streets were designed to handle the
anticipated amount of traffLc. He also stated that the
traffic study did not specifically address future
development north of and adjacent to this sLte.
Committee member Mlkei Park asked about the potentlal
for flooding and Mike Grubbs answered that storm drain
construction is under consideration but that there are
no speciflc plans for construction or funding.
Comm~ttee member Mlke Grubbs stated that the Engineering
Department had no concerns unanswered with thlS project
at this time.
Commlttee
Department
all. of the
member Mike~ Park stated
had no other concerns wlth
f~re codes would be met.
that the Fire
this project and
Committee member Dave Anderson (PJ.anningl stated that
there were no concerns relatlve to the PJ.anning
Department, but that the drainage question did not seem
to be resolved. In response to a question from the
public, Mr. Anderson explained the Alquist-PriolO
Special Studies Zones Act and how it applies to thlS
project.
Committee member Dave Anderson (Police) stated
POlice Department did not have any concerns
project.
that the
with thls
Committee member Mikel Park made a motion to recommend a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Commlttee
member Ben Baker seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
.
Chairperson Valerie Ross explained that this motion was
a recommendation for environmental determination and not
a vote for project approval. She then stated that th~s
project would be schedUled for the Planning Commission
meeting of October 21, 1986, and would be advertised ~n
tbe newspaper as a public hearing. She further
explained that the Planning Commission would only
address environmental clearance and not project approval
or denial. She stated that the decision of the Plannlng
Commission can be appealed, in writing, to the Mayor and
~XHIBIT "F" pg. 6
. .
o
~
'-'
'-
o
Summary of ERC Meeting
September 25, 1986
Page 7
Common Council within l5
Commission's determination.
i,
VALERIE C. ROSS, Chairperson
Environmental Review Committee
o
days of
the
Planning
o
EXHIBIT "F" pg. 7
"
c>
o
o
o
~
2828 PaL'1l Avem;e
HLs..~l'lnd. :~3.1i:-'o:"~'_i:i ?23':"~
SepT,er::.be~' ~~, l)~:6
Enviroru:.en-::"ll Review ~ol:..n;.i -:,+;ee
C:i ty 0:-' 3ar: Berr-..ard.L:o
300 Horch D 3treec
San Bernardino, Califor~ia 92418
Sen:.le!f:e'1:
Due ..,0 ;)U, professions we rray not; be able to attend the E~vironi::ental
Review CO~'1littee meeting scheduled for 1:45 p.m. Septer.~er 25, 1986,
but we urgently -.;ant to respond to the project for 492 multi-family
housing units proposed for property east of PaL~, norch of Citrus, and
west of Sei~.e.
In 1980 when only 42 condominiums were turned down on eight acres at
Palm and Piedffiont, they were denied because they would adversely affecc
the neighborhood through excess traffic and overcrowding. This projecc
compounds those proble~s ~ ~!
~'
It is our understanding that the traffic from this projecc would use
Citrus Street to Palm or Michelle Lane to 28th Street to Palm to exit
and enter. That huge increase in volume of traffic alone is totally not
acceptable on these narrow residential streets.
Our house at 2828 Palm is 100 years old this year. We have been slowly
restoring it, working from the inside out. It was built by one of
Highland's original orange growers. Now we have discovered that one of
the builders ideas to solve the traffic problem would be to take part of
our property to widen Palm. To cut away at the front of the rural setting
of this historic property to widen the street to accommodate an
additional 2,000-5,000 cars a day is unthinkable. We have in NO WAY
been contacted by the builder concerning taking some of our property
to widen the street for his project. IS' THIS AMERICA OR RUSSIA? We
found out about it from a neighbor. NEITHER 28THmr PALM SHOUlD HAVE
TO CHANGE ITS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE IEAST TO ACCOMMODATE SOMEONE EISE'S
MONEY-MAKING ENTERPRISE. The single family residence integrity of this
neighborhood MUST be preserved. Even traffic from additional single-
family homes using Palm and 28th would be oppressive. (InCidentally, the
speed limit on Palm except when Bchool children are present is still
legally 55 miles per hour because of the n~'1lber of homes facing the street.)
Even now the City of San Bernardino has difficulty solving street and
drainage problems in the area. Street drainage fro~ the recent hillside
single family development erodes the northeast corner of our property .
There isn't an adequate berm to deflect the present drainage. The
Citrus Street to Baldridge Canyon flood control ditch is overgrown, and at
the bottom bas trees ten inches in diameter growing in the center. This
development would radically increase flood hazard to our property.
'~
(continued)
EXHIBIT "G" pg. 1 ·
.
o
o -2-
o
o
~
Even -if ar~or:her route to and from the pro.jec~ ."'ere possible (say out to
'Ugh-.m.J 33 norT.h of the mobile hOll:e park). t;he pro.jecc i3 along the
San Ar~drea.s :'ault line and next to t.he 3an Bernardino ~.Jat.ional For-est.
fire hazard.. It i3 ABSOLUTELY not a safe or 3ensible plAce ~'o::- mul:i-
housing.
After having been severely "burned" on the Hampshire Avenue project 'Where
a builder was allo'Wed to build in a flood zone, it's ludicrous to ::-isk a
huge projece on the fault zone and in fire hazard. area 'When, in case of
a disaster, the taxpayers end up picking up the tab. NOBODY, excepe the
builder, wants such a project.
We're really talking about preserving the quality of a good neighborhood
by denying this project, or heaven forbid, deseroying chis neighborhood
by aHoving this project. This project 'Would definitely have a
seriously destructive environmental impact on the surrounding neighborhood~
~
, a, ~~'-/
Donald M. Anderson
Doris A. Anderson
---
P.S. The multi-housing zoni~g on this property is a serious mistake, and
it should be corrected by changing it back to large lot single family
residences vith a wide buffer zone between them and the National ForeSe.
Furthermore, unlike in the past, the citizens must ,have guaranteed
access maintained to their National Forest by leaving passageways bet'Ween
private property.
EXHIBIT "G" pg. 2
'-
o /:;' 0 tt, '.; ~;I
~~ Q,'
. '," ". , \ \ ..
= .. '
, . _....... 9,06 .LJVU~..J ;f/ "/'" I1IlI
'I I / n1i ,t).L ' ,-~ - -,- "e.," j IIII'
I) III / rk'0' _ !I\'-"'~' . ~~./.. - / -/ l'll,q
r j,!"" A'1I1!V '^"' "_ '''''~ ~------,., '0(""
,"', ' ~ /-rt "'"'<.- ~ ,- I' ,''''
I ):'YtW::" '" '<'l!J$:r"';"': ~.~' \\\\ ,:::::
, ", /f,W~(t,...~~\'~ ,~. -....),1:::::
{ ,<. 0' ,';'" ~,?"i,i, '~~. ,'''l \ I
\ ,/= ~: :'~ !,~ _ , ' ',o~:v- ' \'" ,,%'(~~~ 1_\" '~:W;"-~"~"
, ' ",,"" ,', ',' ,N, .. /' '1"
J '" " ,~ ~ ~ "-~r; ", - ,.' \, i '
I _ , ".. ~ _~ ~ ,~? I- ", '7 U'fJ}.' ,i J
, r L ~ ~ t::< y. , ,-i',o ' " ,. ,,1 ,;;') J
, I 1\ ' "iI"j'iTf" c'" 1-," ~ '; 'Iff XI '7l f ! PI / I '
.,) X " ,'~~~"fII<i" ~II:., ~~':"'~?f-:-fr-'~f/ /;-
,,' y "~ ~\" ,~ k L ,,'
/ /~~',Rz \ "I, ~9\;"~,~ --_ ~'Ik':' 'I;!f,,'/ "I ~ ~ j O-J/ i T / \
, '<'1./1) ,. ,"" ", ''U, "If{ !ffO~,"Y- ,II ' it!
, / -_.,L'-Zt:; , '>!;Y ~~ ,..., 'K~' 1f!Ui"1,", .. /. I
, 'L" ,\ \ " ' " " 'i'" ' "' ,
j~~"'~ ,~\~\~~,,\t,"': tfw f; !WJ ,17 I
) I~ ~", ~7":0? ~'. ,; " ",' ; "..,. i -l/"'~ / [J
I (',,' t'.Ai lrt>V",' '';, \' W ," ,:;' It,! ~
I I ,!' \' ,'~" ,""', ,,' ,c;' ,.' '>---Y'
I', ) , ,F ,r ,,' ' ',,' , ~
", "",,,~,'''-:''' ,~," I ( !
I \ II' \I . .-;..:.:;, . II' ,..:.,..~, I 'iJ.
, i \~. t:::1!R ." 't.r'< / "-
/ ", \ .~ I !.;~:' ,:\ ~~ , X :8::lfil :,"..,,)~ I " 1!:Ij Qt; (
,,' " " U ,_,' !>. _ "" " , :-0'!t" l
:',,' \ ~;l~,:\~~~ "," ,~~/I~ /~
"T' '''' Jl';;r\C\\,\i'< H~' ~ ION
, J . . . \ '\,~.. \\" 'I. \, ~/.,C K...." .
, _' \ '. '- I', \. -'- ,.J \ ).
1\'\ ". <J'-.\ ~6V~ .LJVlI.L // vi /, '!~' .
I ..~.." -'. ./
. " \ \, ~. .' I ( /
~ / I .
. '
.
o
z
<{
...J
a..
j'l J' I g
lIin !! !ill j:
;1'1111:1
'II, 11;
II 1 I' 1,1i
III~ I'ltll: P-
en !!~~I.eil
.... . I
-'"II
~ I
(/)
Q)
...
~
0)
.-
.
)
~
'0
o
l?
-
t
~~.
. ~
~
i
~~.
-= .
iollt;
'..<~
",.0
z;
:S~
Dol-
...
o
'"
10
..
~
Q)
..
::s
~I ~ :'
,J aIL.
v .
~. I
<I'.
;'";
.. .
s
,..;.. ~I dI
~
. , J '-' '" :uli
ilz.
:.~ >s ~:so
'".'.,' . '" I
!Do~
I f ... ..
'(... .: ..
~
~
, I
~l
I~
I "-.- j
~
iF' u;;,; LQ. 1 --d \~ '"
-\ t:::l ...
I!~ '-" c -/ >. :QIi ~ j:
(II .! rniHiF '; I: i ilz . ...
~.:s~ ...
I'" ~ llo
~I! j :, . ,& "I Jr Io.~ 0
t - : : n;(.- ~ . '___ ~
r-l'l1 . '" Do
..
. c:J . ~ 9
U:~~~~i!'~' ...
Ii:
(Q) ~
CIll
~ CIll
~
'.I;.;ffi.1 '"
"..... , ,
,
11
'.
,
.
o
,.
. '
o
o
,..,..
d ~
. i! II
,,~
t · . LJ
~( .
l~ l ..f)i~ $
~ ,..~.
'I
h
;@
j[2E
~
i
l
.'
"f"
,"
",
",.
.
.
. .
~
,:!IIIt:
o1Zd
itS'"
jD.!
..
.......
1iZt:
~oe;g
!E:
.: '"
..
@ill
~
~
I
Q)
:;
~.! ' 't
ti ~-
.. I '
c.'
:: '
<I!I
:i"i '
.. .
I
1
j
,
,
I
I
- I
I
!
1
f
~ III
= III
~ ~
i i
@ ~'
~ ~
,
II
I:
!
I
'I
~UIJ '
0 0
0 "I .
. d 50:
='%1
- .
.. .
iHi
!I I
! >
I
, e
I
..
::::J
m
j .-
I LL
I
i ~
!
,
,
I 1 I
I a, . ~
I ""
=
, ~
i "-
, ,
1 '" ~
"-
"-
& ~
". /
'~. /
/ ~
.~
~
'",- , .,
I ,
\ ..
.J',
I
T
O' f
0 .
. .
0
"'-i
i
g'..
ii
' ....,t.
1. ;; :
Of
~)( ilH
! .1
~e -
ICU >
g~ G)
~
u- ::J
~i
CJ)
~ .-
u.
,
I
L
~
'.......
, I
i
\;
"
, ~
I =
~
!
i ~
~
~
---.
.
-
...
, .
o
o
z>' G \
o
1='"
<Cl.
~~
"'1.:)
>-z
~15
......
5
co
~l ~
3
~ :1
","0:'
- .
.. .
..
<I.:
~..;.
~=-i
",R .
..~ .
-
-
>
G)
..
::J
~ en
,-
u.
~
'-X N)( i
z ~~
0'" @
1=Cl.
<~
~~ ;~ ~
...- ...-
:59 <9
"'5 ...- [Q)
c<::>
co co
~
=
~
~
~
(Q)
~
I
.
, ~
.-
. 0 0
0
<.ll..i
?' :
.
... ."
u :.
~ ..
.... 'I
- .
, ! " .
" .
<,-.
C~ Z :iu ;:
, ::5>- >- we .
Cl. ~ :::3 0
. . ... z'" I-~ .:
- -...-' "'''- 0"-
0>- >=~ -
Of- -
ltlj <lj -
Z ~~ >
~9 c
"'-'
1Il_ i:'i5 Q)
"'::l
ll:"" "''''' ...
j ::J
en
,-
La.
d
~
~ ~
~
I
~
=
~
. ~
,-..----.. ..-
~
(Q)
I ~
,
!
i
\ ,.......
?-
.
o
o
o
o
;!.tl
.
~
v .
~ ! ;:. i
:: I
z <1-.
:5>- ~ :4
::::
"" >- we l
... N ",3 .
..c. ~~ 0-1 .
0>-
01- >=~
. -' ><
< ...~ ~~
c?:: -
D~ ZO
0.... 0 Q)
u- ......
...;:) - ;:55 ...
",Cl:l
..Cl:l =-
. j C)
. 1-- .-
I lL.
I
I
u I d
, .
I ~
I .
Q I
I
I
I
I
--
~.
Q
U ~
~ .
~ .J
[Q)
.
'~ ~
=
~
< '''"
i.. [?
18
I~ ~
c dJ
..
:c lQ)
...
~
~
. .
Q
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATION
CASE App~.l of ~h~ N~g~~iv~
n~('l.r.~i on for ROP RF>-Sl
HEARING DATE
101?1/RF>
I
I
I
R- I- ID,BOO
R- \-10,800
---
I
I
.
R-t-1D,BOO
R-I
-I - 10,800
HILLSIDE
'~
R . 1 - 10,BOO
SITE
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
AGENDA
ITEM #
2
""
..)
"': 800'
.' ,"",s. e. CITY LIMITS
''1>0
--
R.I-
HILLSIDE
_' -1-
~ITY OF SAN BEDlARDlNClO- MEMORANDLO e;
r
To
Bon. Mayor and Common Council
From
Ralph B. Prince
City Attorney
October 29, 1986
Subject
Appeal of Negative Declaration for D~e
Review of Plans 86-51, Stubblefield Enterprises
Approved
Date
700.30
On October 21, 1986, the Planning Commission denied the Appeal
of a Negative Declaration for Review of Plans 86-51 for a 492-
unit three-story apartment project, Stubblefield Enterprises.
During three-hour hearing before the Planning Commission,
expert evidence was presented concerning local drainage,
earthquake faults, earthslides and traffic.
Jim Smith, as an individual, and Attorney Peter Brekhus,
representing ,approximately 500 property owners in the area,
filed appeals to the Mayor and Common Council. Attorney
Brekhus requested a hearing before the Mayor and Common
Council on behalf of himself and a number of residents for an
evening meeting other than November 3, 1986, on the grounds of
his and other residents unavailability on such date. Jim
Smith requested a hearing on November 3, 1986, before the
Mayor and Common Council.
Notice of a hearing before the Mayor and Common Council set
for November 3, 1986, has been mailed to all residents within
500 feet of the subject property, and to persons who attended
the meeting of October 21, 1986, before the Planning
Commission.
....
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you in advance of
the request by Attorney Peter Brekhus for a continuance of the
appeal hearing from November 3, 1986, to a later date for the
reason that he and a number of residents will be unavailable
on November 3, 1986.
Normally, a timely request by an attorney/spokesman of a large
number of interested residents for a continuance of an appeal
hearing on the grounds of unavailability of himself and a
number of such residents should be granted unless intere~ed~
parties would be adversely prejudiced. C\ ~
-
c::> 71
CJ
--; ',~
~ -,
-0 ---;,
W
i;:J ::1
N -::::-
~)Idf~
RALPB H. PRINCE
City Attorney
RHP:nb
cc: City Administrator
City Clerk
Dire"tor of Plannin~ -,) -'\
Attorney Peter Brekhus
Jim Smith
John Stubblefield
a
o
o
o
o
c. M. GOU"'-
WIWAN C. PAltttU.
...... .0 AMe.,.".-
"'Me"'" c.....&-
IIDW'" N. ntattllll".
.TA""'" I. TOI'''-
.lAC:It ft. ...,,..-
MAlt..., ... MTMAWAV-
a'n.l. O. .......
_"."IAM N. .m.....
.0...., " Maa-
DAVID A. ...IMO'"
TODD N. ."GrAM-
.TUAIlIT N. MU.... "'ft,-
.TIIY&M W. -.coN-
"M c. ...u.......-
.N. MAROLD IO,""WIC.-
AMMU" .0 COO.-
~.II. .0 ..0.....0...
~..ILL .I. SALOMO.-
.10.... KOIDII
.tONATMAM N. ........1:..
MIl...... .. ....C.....
ICOTT L. IIUIIO"II
HILL, FARRER & BURRILL
. tIMftiI........ ........... ..........OUI. l't t !,~~'~ ...
ATTOIIINEYS AT LAW
THIIn'V.....OUIln'H ~"-UNION aANK SOUA"IE
- aouTH ...-- .....q:G C~7 30
~O. ANGELes. CALIP'OIllNIA .0071-1...
" "', '~....
....
no "2
n ~ .(
.eve.. M. IttIOeAN
.....a A. eowwe
,.nu.ca .I. ........ ....
MCU. O. IlIAM'IM
IT""" .I. MAloN."
..ca.'" .0 ....11
ALI'''.O N. c~ .
....IIIL ... _CAlltT...,
.....VY.. c. .......
110...... w. ItOYO'M"
DAVID T.,JtO....n
AuaUIT W. CAlM'
DIAN II. ......,.
Au.cM 1:. ."la"'M
Wll....... .. WHITE
aulAN I.. 8CMWMTI
",.MO ft. bANI. ",,,.
...Pl It. HOVANN'.'''M
ftOMAl.D C. NARION
TCLC~...ONC (al~ _o-cMeO
TII~ ....OS MIU.
TIl~II:CO~'I:" (81:1) .........0
A..J. MILL II......en)
WN. M. 1'"....1:.. 1....-.e7I)
.T"M"'" S. .U.....Uo 1te08.....,J
Oil' COU".IlL
..OM" N. MOLAU"'''.
October 29, 1986
.,. ~ONAL :0"'1:1'" nOM
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North wDw Street
San Bernardino, Calif. 92418
~ ?1~rs:,~
V^~~
. s}'b~7
~ .,.:'
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Re: Review of Plans 86-51 (Revised)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Common Council:
This office and the undersigned represent Stubble-
field Enterprises which is the applicant which has submitted
plans for review to the City as referenced above. On Octo-
ber 21, 1986 the City Planning Commission voted to affirm the
action of the Environmental Review Committee approving a
Negative Declaration for the Stubblefield Enterprises project.
I am advised that a resident in a nearby development has
appealed the Planning Commission's action, and that the matter
has been formally noticed and set for hearing at the Novem-
ber 3rd meeting of the Common Council.
This date I have received a copy'of a letter from
attorney Peter Brekhus dated October 24, 1986, to the members
of the City Council [sic]. Mr. Brekhus apparently represents a
number of homeowners who live in the area near the proposed
'0
o
o
o
. .
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Common Council
October 29, 1986
paqe 2
project, and states that his clients appeal the decision of
the planninq commission of October 21, 1986. Based upon
provisions of the San Bernardino City Code, Chapters 19.81
and 2.64, Mr. Brekhus' notice of appeal ia ineffective: to
be valid, such notice must set forth the grounds for the
appeal. Mr. Brekhus' letter fails to do so and should be
viewed as beinq null and void.
We also wish to qo on record as opposing any con-
tinuance of the hearinq date already noticed for November 3,
1986, as requested by Mr. Brekhus. Even if the appeal were
valid, which it clearly is not, there is no reason for this
Council to reset the date which has already been noticed.
Although Mr. Brekhus has indicated his unavailability on
November 3, 1986, we believe it is he, not the Council, which
should revise its plans. Be offers two dates which are on a
Friday when your Council does not meet (11/7 and 11/14), a
date on a three-day holiday weekend (11/10), and two dates
(11/17 and 11/18) which are three weeks away and critically
close to the date when Stubblefield Enterprises needs its
final approval for this project.
As you are aware, Stubblefield Enterprises has a
larqe financial investment in this project, and each delay is
prejudicial to them in securinq favorable financinq and in
schedulinq construction to avoid delays of adverse weather
conditions durinq certain months of the year. Moreover, in
order to be able to proceed with development under the R-3
ordinance in effect prior to the recent amendment, a right
which Stubblefield Enterprises has been relyinq upon since
the inception of this project, the project must receive final
approval from the Development Review Committee, followinq
your approval of the Neqative Declaration, before Novem-
ber 21, 1986.
Stubblefield Enterprises is entitled to a prompt
hearinq on the appeal which has been properly filed and
specific exceptions should not be made to accommodate one
individual, particularly where the applicant will be
prejudiced by the delay.
We respectfully request your consideration of
these matters, and ask that the Council proceed as scheduled
'0
o
o
o
J
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the Common Council
October 29, 1986
Page 3
to consider the appeal on review of plans 86-51 (revised),
on November 3, 1986.
Very truly yours,
~~,...,tt-.(<- 6. d~
DARLENE B. FISCHER
OF
HILL, FARRER , BURRILL
DBF/sjb
cc: Ms. Shauna Clark, City Clerk
Ms. Cynthia Grace, Deputy Assistant
City Attorney
Stubblefield Enterprises, Inc.
Mr. Arnold Stubblefield
Peter Brekhus, Esq.