HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-Water Department
.
Celll'OF SAN _RNARD.Q, .-REQUeOr FOR COUNCIL ACtbt
From: Bernard C, Kersey, Director
Administration & Finance
Dept: Water Department
Subjact: Adoption of Negative Declaration -
Construction of Three Million Gallon
Water Reservoir Located Northwest of
University Parkway and Cal Stat~? _
University. ~
Date: July 13, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
That the Negative Declaration for the construction of a three million gallon water
reservoir in the Open Space District on a 109,83 acre parcel located 5,000 feet
northwest of the intersection of University Parkway and California State University,
San Bernardino.
pc: Valerie Ross, Planning Dept,
Joe Stejskal, Water Dept,
Contact person: Bernard C, Kersey
Phone:
384-5393
N/A
Ward:
Source: N/ A
5
Supporting data attached:
Yes
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Finance:
Council Notes:
An,:mrl::a ItAm Nn
/
~9,
. CIIf OF SAN BERNARDlio ~ REQUEi\ FOR COUNCIL ACRON
STAFF REPORT
At their meeting held on June 2, 1988, the City's Environmental Review
Committee recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration, based upon the
Initial Study for Public Works Project No, 88-10, A copy of the initial
study is attached for reference,
The public review period was from June 9, 1988 to June 22, 1988. No
comments were received during the review period, It is recommended that the
Negative Declaration be approved, A Notice of Determination will be filed
by the Planning Department after adoption of the Negative Declaration,
The addition of this reservoir to the water system is necessary to meet
domestic water demand and fire flow protection for the Northpark and Shandin
Hills area,
"LOCATION MAP LAST PAGE OF THIS ITEM"
.-
€'ITY OF SAN BE~ARDINO Q..
MEMORANDUI\O
Subject
To Bernie Kersey
Water Department
Public Works No.
Frvm
Valerie Ross
Plannin~ Department
July 14, 1988
Date
88-10
Approved
Date
To construct a 3,000,000 gallon water tank in the )?FC, )?ublic :Flood
control land use designation and "0", Open Space zoning district on
a site located northwest of University Parkway and CalState Univer-
sity,
On June 8, 1988, I sent a memo to your department informing you that
the Environmental Review Committee had reviewed PW 88-10 at its meet-
ing of June 2, 1988, and recommended a Negative Declaration. No com-
ments were received during the public review period from June 9 -
June 22, 1988.
Planning has reviewed this project and found that it is consistent
with the Preferred Land Use Map and Interim Policy Document, The
"public" land use designations were established for uses which ben-
efit the public and would include a water tank,
~c.fJ"v
valerie Ross
Senior Planner
cp
PRIDE -I
~ESS
-
.
o
OVO
}\.
-
o
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8806-1501
TO: Kevin Fisher, Water Department
FROM: Valerie C. Ross, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Public Works Projects
DATE:
June 8, 1988
(7465)
COPIES:
-------------------------------------------------------------
At its meeting of June 2, 1988, the Environmental Review
Committee recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for
the following Public Works projects:
Public Works No. 881- To construct a 3,000,000
gallon water tank in the nOn, Open Space District on
a site located northwest of University Parkway and Cal
State University.
These Initial Studies (see attached) will receive a 14 day
public review from June 9, 1988 to June 22, 1988. Any
comments received during the review period will be addressed
by the Planning Department and the comments and responses
will be sent to you within a week of the close of the public
review period. After that, you must schedule the projects
before the Mayor and Common Council for adoption of the
Negative Declaration. Please include the Initial Study with
your request for Council Action form. The Planning
Department will file the Notice of Determination after
adoption of the Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice
will be sent to you. ~
Ydi.t^;~iC, K~
VALERIE C. ROSS
Senior Planner
csj
-
.4
o
o
o
o
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Initial Study
for
Environmental Review
Public Works No. 88-10
Construction of water storage tank 5000 feet
northwest of University Parkway and the University
May 26, 1988
Prepared by:
Vivian Stevens
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino,.CA 92418
(714) 384"':5057
Prepared for:
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
-
'..0
o
o
o
'J'
-
~
o
o
o
o
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San
Bernardino as an Initial Study for Public Works No.
88-10 to construct a water storage tank 5000 feet
northwest of University Parkway and the University.
As stated
California
Guidelines,
to:
in Section 15063 of the State of
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
the purposes of an Initial Study are
1 .
Provide
use as
prepare
the Lead Agency with information to
the basis for deciding whether to
an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an
EIR is prepared, thereby, enabling the project
to qualify for a Negative Declaration.
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required by:
~
a.
Focusing the EIR on the
determined to be significant.
effects
b. Identifying the effects determined not to
be significant.
c. Explaining the reasons for determining
that potentially significant effects
would not be significant.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in
the design of a project.
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for
the finding in a Negative Declaration that a
project will not have a significant effect on
the environment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's.
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR
could be used with the project.
1-1
...
. '0
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88-10
Water Storage Tank - 5000 ft. NW of University Parkway
May 26, 1988
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to establish a 3,000,000
gallon water tank in the 0 - Open Space District on
a 109.83 acre parcel located 5,000 feet northwest
of the intersection of University Parkway and the
University.
2.2 Project Impacts
Impacts identified in the attached
include:
checklist
l.g The possibility that the site is located in an
area subject to liquefaction.
2.'c. The proposal will result in development within
a high wind hazard area.
6.c. The proposal will result in development within
the "Greenbelt zone B. "
6.d. The proposal will result in development within
the high fire hazard zone.
2-1
-
.'0
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88-10
Water Storage Tank - 5000 ft. NW of University Parkway
May 26, 1988
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The proposal is located on a 109.83 acre site
located 5,000 feet northwest of the intersection of
University Parkway and the University. The site is
west of Devil's Canyon Road and immediately north
of the College Reservoir (percolation basin).
3.2
3.2.1
Site and Project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
The site is covered with a light to moderate growth
of various grasses, weeds, and brush. Several dirt
access roads traverse the site. There is an
existing water tank south of this location. The
topography drops about one foot every twenty feet.
3.2.2
Project Characteristics
The proposal is to construct a 3,000,000 gallon
steel tank to hold portable water. The tank will
be 32 feet high and have a diameter of 100 feet.
3-1
...
.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88-10
Water Storage Tank - 5000 ft. NW of University Parkway
May 26, 1988
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I
4.1
Environmental Setting
The site is located in the foothills northwest of
California State University. The San Andreas Fault
is one mile to the northeast of the proposed site
and the San Jacinto Fault is three miles to the
southwest. The site is within the high fire, high
wind and Greenbelt zone "B."
4.2 Environmental Effects
The environmental checklist identifies four areas
of potential concern. Each item checked "maybe- or
"yes" on the checklist is identified below and
followed by a recommended mitigation measure.
l.g. Will the proposal result in development within
an area subject to liquefaction?
A liquefaction study was prepared and reviewed
by the City Geologist. The report found no
danger from liquefaction at the site proposed
for the water storage tank.
Will the proposal result in development within
a high wind hazard area?
2.c.
i
The project is located within the high wind
hazard area. The required mitigation, tile
roofs with hurricane clips, is not applicable
to this steel tank. The tank has . been
engineered to AWWA standards to withstand the
winds in the area.
6.e.
will the proposal result in development within
the high fire hazard zone.
6.d. Will the proposal result in development within
the Greenbelt zone "B"?
The tank site is within the Greenbelt Zone B
and the City high fire hazard zone. Mitigation
measures are not applicable for this
structure. This tank is required in order to
maintain a safe level of fire flow' for the
4-1
...
~. . o.
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88-10
Water Storage Tank - 5000 ft. NW of University Parkway
May 26, 1988
surrounding Verdemont area. (See
Newcombe's letter, Exhibit C).
Chief
4-2
o
';
I
I
I
I
I
i
.1
I
,
-
-
-
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88-10
Water Storage Tank - 5000 ft~ NW of University Parkway
May 26, 1988
5.0 REFERENCES
Mr. Huston T. Carlyle, Jr.
Director
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(Letter of August 18, 1987)
Persons contacted:
Dr. Floyd Williams, City Geologist
Michael Grubbs, Civil Engineering Association,
City Public Works
Charles Dunham, Plan Check Engineer, Department of
Building and Safety
Consultants:
GeraldM. Newcombe
City Fire Chief
Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates
1811 S. Commercenter West
San Bernardino, CA 92408
5-1
...
.0
-
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY - Public Works No. 88-10
Water Storage Tank - 5000 ft. NW of University Parkway
May 26, 1988
6.0 EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Environmental Impact Checklist
Exhibit B - Liquefaction Letter of Approval
Exhibit C - Chief Newcombe's Letter
Exhibit D - Site Plan
Exhibit E - Location Map
csj/5-20-88
DOC:MISC
ISPW88l0
6-1
-
.c.
OXHIBI':' - A
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
"'"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
~
"'"
BACKGROllND
Application Number:
Public Works No, 88-10
Project Description:
Construct a 3,000,000 qallon water tank
32 feet hiqh by 110 feet diameter.
Location:
~ooo fpP:T: n(")rt':hwp~+- nf nni up-rc::; ry P::trk'w;:l)Y ;:d- ~h,:)
j
University,
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation: N/A
Zoning Designation:
Open Space
B. ~NVIEONMgNTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a
separate attached sheet.
1. Ea~th Resources Will the proposal result in:
Yes
No
Maybe
a.
Earth
filll
more?
movement (cut and/or
of 10,000 cubic yards or
x
b. Development and/or grading on
a slope greater than 15%
natural grade?
x
c,
Development
Alquist-Priolo
Zone?
within the
Special Studies
x
d, Modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
x
\..
~
REVISED 12/87
VS/csj
PAGE 1 OF 8
6-2
-
'C.
o
o
PW 88-10
o
,
Yes
No
Maybe
""
e. Soil erosion on or off the
project site?
x
f. Modification of a channel,
creek or river?
x
g.
Development
subject
mudslides,
other similar
within an area
to landslides,
liquefaction or
hazards?
x
h. Other?
x
2, ~IR RESOURCES: Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Substantial
an effect
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
air
upon
emissions or
ambient air
x
x
c. Development within a high wind
hazard area?
x
3.
NATEE~.RESOURCES :
proposal result in:
Will
the
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff
due to impermeable surfaces?
x
b. Changes in the course or flow
of flood waters?
x
c. Discharge into surface waters
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
x
d. Change in the quantity or
quality of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property
to flood hazards?
f. Other?
x
x
x
Ilo..
.)
REVISED 12/87
PAG: 2 OF 8
-
'.0
o
o
Maybe
"'"
r
4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCEp:
proposal result in:
Could the
a.
Change
unique,
species
habitat
trees?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of plants or their
including stands of
b.
Change
unique,
species
habitat?
in the number of any
rare or endangered
of animals or their
c. Other?
5. NOISE: Could the proposal result
in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels?
b, Exposure of people to exterior
noise levels over 65 dB or
interior noise levels over 45
dB?
c. Other?
6.
LAND USE:
result in:
will the
proposal
a. A change in the land use as
designated on the General
Plan?
b. Development within an Airport
District?
c. Development within "Greenbelt"
Zone A,B, or C?
d. Development within a high fire
hazard zone?
e. Other?
'"
PW 88-10
Yes
No
o
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 3 OF 8
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
x
x
x
x
x
-
-0
o
o
,.
7.
MAN-MADE HA~~Wp:
project:
Will
the
a. Use, store, transport or
dispose of hazardous or toxic
materials (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b. Involve the release
hazardous substances?
of
c. Expose people to the potential
health/safety hazards?
d ,. Other?
8. HOUSING: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing?
b. Other?
9. TRANSPORTATIQN/CIRCULATION: Could
the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is
greater than the land use
designated on the General
Plan?
b. Use of existing, or demand for
new, parking facilities/
structures?
c. Impact upon existing public
transportation.systems?
d. Alteration of present patterns
of circulation?
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f, Increased safety hazards to
vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
"'-
REVISED 10/S.
Yes
No
PW 88-10
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
Q
""'Ill.
~
PAGE 4 OF 8
-
-0
o
g.
A disjointed pattern
roadway improvements?
of
h.
Other?
10. ~UBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal
impact the following beyond the
capability to provide adequate
levels of service?
a.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
b.
c.
Schools (i.e. attendance,
boundaries, overload, etc.)?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
e.
Medical aid?
f.
Solid waste?
g.
Other?
11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond
the capability to provide
adequate levels of service or
require the construction of
new facilities?
REVISED 10/87
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b.
Result in a
pattern of
extensions?
disjointed
utility
c.
Require the construction of
new facilities?
Yes
PW 88-10
No
x
.X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
I
,
I
t
}
)
PAGE 5 OF 8
-
.0
o
o
PW 88-10
o
12, AESTHETICS:
a. Could the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic
view?
b. Will the visual impact of the
project be detrimental to the
surrounding area?
c. Other?
13.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
proposal-result in:
a. The alteration or destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Could the
Adverse
impacts
historic
object?
c. Other?
b.
physical or aesthetic
to a prehistoric or
site, structure or
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 15065)
The California Environmental
Quality Act states that if any of
the following can be answered yes
or maybe, the project may have a
significant effect on the
environment and an Environmental
Impact Report shall be prepared.
a. Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal comm~nity, reduce
the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
Yes
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maybe
REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF a
-
. '0'
o
o
PW 88-10
o
r
Yes
No
Maybe
"
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the
future.)
x
x
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
i.mpact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on
the environment is
significant. )
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse.
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
x
x
C, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
,
.
"-
~
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 7 OF 8
-
. '0
o
o
o
PW 88-10
r ~
D, DETERMINA~JON
On the basis of this initial study,
r-1The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
l{J environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, although there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described above have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
D
D
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONME~~AL IMPACT REPORT is required,
. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
afr'1~ol'l MGN17r1.- K:t?(It:?fIf ClJM 1-1 rrrw-
Name and Title
Y I/JAiv C.;/(J#
Signature
Date' 1vnt. 6, /198
. ~
\...
.)
REVISED 12/87
PAGE 8 OF 8
-
~ .0.
FLOYD J. WilLIAMS, Ph.D,
o
EXHIBIT
-J()
o
MINING ENGINEER AND REGISTERED GEOLOGIST #2143
. - .,:. '~^~
r,:.L..r". y 1...8....
":T".j
.......
-. j'"
130 Sunridge Way
Redlands, .Califarnia 92373
(714) 792-8208
S,:',:'} ~.~~. .' ..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
valeric C. Ross, Secretary
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
SUBJECT:
Floyd J, Williams. Registered Geologist
Consultant to the~t~~~ino
March 19, 19~ ~.
./
Review of Geological ,~port No, 149, your letter of
March 14, 1988,
FROM:
DATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE OF REPORT:
Engineering geology investigation for the siting of a well
and reservoir northwest of California State University, San
Bernardino, immediately west of Devil's Canyon Road,
immediately north of College Reservoir, San Bernardino,
California. Prepared by Gary S, Rasmussen and Associates,
Project No. 2114, for Municipal Water Department of the City
of San Bernardino, dated January 15, 1985,
DISCUSSION:
I made a site inspection today, March 19, 1988, and I
examined stereo aerial photographs flown in 1969 and in
1971, Surface conditions at the site appear to be
essentially unchanged since the report was written, The
proposed well location as indicated on the Index Map of the
report is about 200 feet to the northwest of the existing
Devil Canyon No.5 well.
The geology of the site, including consideration of nearby
faults, is reviewed. The active San Andreas Fault is
located one mile to the northeast and the active San Jacinto
Fault is located 3 miles southwest of the site, An inactive
fault is believed to be located along the northeast toe of
the linear hill bordering the site on the southwest, The
seismic history is summarized and a seismic analysis for the
site is presented, Maximum probable" earthquakes of Richter
Magnitude 7.5 on the San Andreas Fault and 7.0 on the San
Jacinto Fault are proposed, Earthquakes on these faults
would be expected to generate maximum repeatable
accelerations in bedrock of O,47g and 0.40g respectively at
the site.
6-10
-
,
.
0'
o
o
o
MEMORANDUM: Ross/Williams, Geoloqic Report 149, 3/19/88,
Subsurface conditions in a well at the proposed site are
reviewed, including the depth to groundwater and the depth
to the Pelona Schist basement, Since the report makes no
reference to the Devil Canyon No, 5 well, I presume that it
had not been drilled in 1985 when the report was submitted.
Information from the Devil Canyon No, 5 well; including
lithologic logs. pump tests, and measured depths to
groundwater could well be used to further define parameters
pertinent to production of water from the proposed well,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1, The surface conditions and seismic parameters pertinent
to the drilling of a water well and the construction of a
steel. surface reservoir are adequately presented.
2, SUbsurface information from the nearby Devil Canyon No,
5 well should be utilized in the design and construction of
the proposed well, The lithologies encountered, the minimum
depth to basement, results of pump tests, and depths to
groundwater are all pertinent to the design of the proposed
well. It is particularly important that the wells be spaced
so that they will not interfere with each other as cones of
depression are established around each of the wells during
pumping,
2
...
.
o
o EXHIBIT - cO
o
. -:,:-~.' -: --:-.:.......
", -"';". ... ~ ". .:..:....
.- ...... , ". ".".
'.,0'
SAN BERNARDINO CITY
FIRE 'bEPARtKiENT
;" ~
.' . ,-_..~;..:.'..,.:."
.....:.; .'~ .::'~/
200 E, THIRD STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92410.4889
TELEPHONE ' 17141 JBJ-5286
GERALD M_ NEWCOMBE
FIRE CHIEF
June 18, 1987
Mr, Herbert B, Wessel
General Manager
City Water Department
300 N, "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
. Re: Fire Protection in Verdemont Area
Dear Mr, Wessel:
Adequate fire flow to protect existing development in
the Verdemont area has been a concern of mine for some
time, During a conversation we had several years ago,
you indicated that some additional reservoirs were
being planned for this area, I talked with Mr, Rich
Meyer recently about the status of these reservoirs
and he informed me that the Water Department is plan-
ning construction of a new 3MG Sycamore Tank, a new
2100 Tank, and relocation of-a 2300 Tank,
I urge that you give these new systems the highest
priority in order to maintain adequate fire protection
for this area,
Very truly,
~
jw
6-12
-
.
o
\'
I I
"1
" ,\
C. NO.1 \'tELL I~ . : \
~"O .~.~
ABOOSTEil 5T'-<::{). ' '. , . ' ,
'\ ~~' ','.:','
. I' . . .
r ..'
.0UN,y FL . . . '.~'
BASIN . .000 CO/lTilOL' )',' .... .
4 ~
~~
;.: PRO?OS'O
;-... SITE"
sto\H :-,.-
n~:.tll:l;-;'~c
~~OM:TH
~ARK
':"'i
,..
,.,
...1...Q_C A T I 0 ':
':.~ :.~
o
o
o
EXHIBIT
o
Ifl
lJ,yt /0 C 1<0 ~ W"
O 0 _.L
__PROPOSEO
. . .",.""l""''''
";
G.~L:
EXISTING
RESERVOIR SYC:-MOR~ NO.2
........
,.:.
.;.;::..'"
:..:::.'
".'.
J
.1'
1'1 .
I' 'I
r....:ri ~O
, SCALE
,.'~
",'"
,,"
(,O.....J...
",<1:0
...'" ~ .
""~ ~t:)
.., q
'SS::SSORS P'ilC-
.~_:.LL NO
.151- Z~I_17
::',\:.1 0
1::.:1::,..nou"o
MUNIC:P. ,
".. '::,\-:::;'\
QEP"'hr~.~r::-. i
3L.
":1111.''''.
! ../:1'i'
j-
i C.,~ :':(:') nT
! .
I,.,..,
..
t ..,~.~ .:;:.;'. A:
- -...-- [.
.....
-~I
I
i..~.-:-;:::..,,' ":
6-13
7 ..! ~ .
EXHIBIT - E
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE
PW 88-10
HEARING DATE
,
;' R.I-14.4I)
~
..
"
"
c
"
..
,
,
\
,
r----
I
I
R -'.'4,'400
0-'
'0.
"0"
"0"
'0'
..~....~._-- .....
---'
""'.---
0-'
.3.3000
SAN _[ItHARDINO STATE COLLEGE
0-'
~r ~...
1t.',v'''V'
6-14
-