HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning
.
\. ,
'4
-.-----.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POST OFFICE BOX 131B. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402
---,.."...
SHAUNA CLARK
CITY CLERK
December 9, 1987
Dennis Martin
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Dear Mr. Martin:
At the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council held on
December 7, 1987, your appeal was granted, and the decision
of the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit 87-5
was reversed.
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 is for the construction
of a 224 unit apartment complex located on the north side of
Highland Avenue approximately 1200 feet west of Boulder.
The Conditional Use Permit was granted subject to the
conditions and standard requirements set forth by the
Planning Department staff report enclosed, and subject to
the following additional condition:
Prior to the commencement of development of
the project. applicant shall fund a review of
the project area by the Planning Department
for any species currently on the endangered
species list. Applicant shall take actions
to protect any such species as determined by
the Planning Department. Applicant shall
have the right to appeal the reasonableness
of such determinations to the Mayor and
Common Council.
The Council's decision
positive findings of fact.
also adopted.
of approval was based on the
A negative declaration was
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418.()121
PHONE (7141384-5002/384-5102
l/i,f
""-
,
"'-
SC:re
cc:
-
"......
'-
/ .."
--...I
Sincerely,
~"'A//l,}/>' ,a.l'&;.
<:or 'tC.a€--~ ~u:;'/U,.;-~'''V
. HAUNA CLARK
City Clerk
City Administrator
Public Works/Engineer
Fire Department
Park, Recreati,~,:Y & Community
Jack Strickler~'
Planning
Highland Hills Property
Highland Hills Gateway
Highland Council
County Board of Supervisors
\
Services
- ~
"'"
/"""'\
'-'
/',
Ulll'J \:) L:, U 'CJ LSJ~
DEe 041931 I
,/,
-...)
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
CITY PLANNING DEPAtlTMENT
SAN BElltIAFlOiNO, CA
02 DEe 19B?
Dennis A. Martin
P.O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, California 92261
Dear Mr. Martin:
It has come to our attention that you are proposing to work
in City Creek. Cook Canyon Creek, and their adjacent wetlands
near the city of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County,
California. The proposed project is a 224-unit apartment
development located on the north side of Highland Avenue
approximately 1,200 feet east of Boulder, city of San Bernardino
Conditional Use Permit 87-5. It appears that your project would
involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into a water of
the United States. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers has
jurisdiction over the activity under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Under normal circumstances, an "individual" permit
would be r~quired. However, your project is located above the
"headwaters" (as defined by the Corps regulatory program) and,
therefore, !!!2.Y. qualify for a "nation~lide" permit. The following
paragraphS explain the circumstances under which either an
"individual" or "nationwide" permit would apply.
If the discharge would cause the loss or substantial adverse
modification of less than lacre of waters of the United States,
including wetlands, then the activity would be covered by the
nationwide permit for activities above the headwaters. As long
as the nationwide permit conditions (see enclosure) were complied
with, an individual permit would not be required.
If the discharge would involve the loss or substantial
adverse modification of 1 to lO acres of waters of the United
States, including adjacent wetlands, then the nationwide permit
may not apply. Work cannot begin until the permittee is notified
by the Corps that the work may proceed under the nationwide
permit. To determine if an individual permit would be required,
the Corps must be notified of the following information:
a. Name, address, and phone number of the permittee;
b. Location of the planned work;
~".t
-1/ "16ft 11
, r
..._................_11
!.;lll.
l"1li1 _ l~ _~,
~~"',_JIl:l ,-e..rx~~']!%_--..,.~.-.:..~,.....~ _Jlf,....'V,;".\.':')..':".,~~-~,{:{"j~-,.~~:;
I
-
-
-" -.,
,
....",,;1
'-"
-2- ...
c. Brief description of the proposed work, its purpose,
and the approximate size of the waters, including
wetlands, which would be lost or substantially adversely
modified as a result of the work; and
d. Any specific information required by the nationwide
permit and any other information that the permittee
believes is appropriate.
Within 20 days of recei pt of the. recei pt of your information, in
writing, the Corps will inform you that. either an individual
permit is required or the activity may proceed under the
nationwide permit.
If the activity would involve the loss or substantial
adverse modification of lO acres or more of waters of the United
States, including adjacent wetlands, then the activity would not
qualify for a nationwide permit, and authorization by individual
permit would be required. An individual permit application form
and an instruction booklet are enclosed for your convenience.
Under Section 30l of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C., Sec.
l31l) and Corps regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
Stat~ js unlawful unless such discharge has been specifically
authorized pursuant to Section 404 of the Act by the Secretary of
the Army through a Corps of Engineers permit. The potential
penalties for violation of this section include a maximum
criminal fine of $50,000 per day and imprisonment for up to three
years. In addition, a maximum civil penalty of $25,000 per day
of violation may be imposed (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1319).
If you have ani questions, please contact Larry Smith,
Re9ul~tory Branch, at (213) 894-5606. In addition, please note
that a copy of this letter is being forwarded to the agencies on
the enclosed list. Thank you for your cooperation with our
permit program.
Sincerely,
Charl es H. Hol t
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
-
-
-
Jl
.
T-
"
c
o
"
,
" I
tt
;.
!;'
Copies are being forwarded to:
~City of San Bernardino
ATTENTION: Edward Gundy
300 North D Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, California 92418
f
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
24000 Avila Road
Laguna Niguel, California 92677
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional 404 Coordinator
Federal Activities Branch (P-5)
215 Fremont Street
Sad Francisco, California 94105
California Department of Fish and Game
Region 5
245 West Broadway
Long Beach, California 90802
,
,,)
-<'- ,
.....
..,.'.
?
~,
CI'C' OF SAN BERNARD()) - REQUO FOR COUNCIL AC' ~ joN
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Dept:
Planning
S b' . Appeal of Conditional Use Permit
R8C'n...~Mtli!eih;, No. 87-5
\%1 NG'J 2i.f Ni, J n;J':1ayor and Council Meeting of
"December 7, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
November 20, 1987
I"~
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5, to construct a 224 unit apartment
complex within the Planned Residential Development zoning district
of the Highland Hills Specific Plan, was denied by the Planning
Commission on November l7, 1987.
Vote: 5-4, No absentees
Recommended motion:
To deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5.
~a~
Signature R. Ann Siracus
Supporting data attached:
R. Ann Siracusa
Staff Report
Phone:
3R4-5357
4
Contact person:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No,
fCJ
~
CI(:{ OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQUM FOR COUNCIL ACtiON
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5
Mayor and Council Meeting of December 7, 1987
REQUEST
To construct a 224 unit apartment complex on 14.1 acres on
the north side of Highland Avenue, approximately 1,200 feet
east of Boulder Avenue within the Highland Hills Specific
Plan.
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1987 the Environmental Review Committee,
following the review of the Initial Study prepared by staff,
recommended a Negative Declaration be adopted for Conditional
Use Permit No. 87-5. The Initial Study was made available
for public review and comment.
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1987 after
a presentation by staff, statements by the applicant and
testimony from the public were heard. Several concerns were
addressed during this public hearing. The public hearing was
closed and the item was continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of November 17, 1987, in that responses to comments
received during public review were not available. On
November 17, the concerns were addressed in a supplement to
the original staff report and the Commission discussed them.
The applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the
conditions of approval. The applicant, Mr. Dennis Martin,
stated that he objected to conditions regarding the reduction
of the units to 198 from the proposed 224 to comply with the
density allotted under the Specific Plan. He also objected
to the condition regarding the provision of a bridge across
Cook Canyon Creek for secondary access, as required by the
Fire Chief.
Following the discussion
Permit No. 87-5 was denied
Page 4).
of the project, Conditional Use
on a 5-4 vote (see Attachment B,
On November 18, 1987, the applicant, Mr. Dennis Martin,
presented a letter of appeal to the City of San Bernardino
requesting the Mayor and Common Council to approve Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 87-5 (Attachment A, Page 3).
Details of the project
reports, Attachment C,
are contained in the attached staff
Page 6, dated November 17, 1987;
//-(j.o-1f7
I
75-0264
'-'
'--'
"
)
c.
r"",
FlE.e'D. - AG:Htlf. 9ff.
n07 NJV I 9 P:I 12 ,3
;riff
November 13, 1987
HONORABLE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "D" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
Highland Hills Project
Now that we are neighboring cities, and it is our mutual desire
to serve all of the constituents of both cities, it is time we start
working together. We are very concerned about the Highland Hills
Project which went before the Planning Commission on November 4,
1987, and will be before the City Council on December 7.
In reviewing the City's EIR for this project we have some very
serious concerns which we wish to address:
The project in many substantial ways differs from the Specific
Plan and EIR that were adopted in 1982.
The Specific Plan designated the area to be developed with
townhouses and single family residences. '
Mitigation measures for flooding and fire abatement addressed
in the EIR were to be taken care of by a homeowner's association.
The project as now being reviewed is for a 1200+ unit apartment
complex on 80 acres of the 540-acre site.
Residents of the area have expressed concerns regarding the
considerable increase in traffic that will overtax local roads and
the incompatibility of these apartments to the existing residences.
We respectfully request in the spirit of municipal courtesy
that no action be taken on this project until such time as represen-
tatives fr m both Highland~San Bernardino can meet and come to an
understan ng regarding the above-listed concerns.
"'1 ; J , '''--r'' l'. .
....~U I.L,-,l~r
~.-.<
LAURIE TULLY j
JOHNSON
/' CO,IL ,~r.:~-
lidll h:J~ua~
JIM RISSMILLER
CITY OF HIGHLAND
JODY SCOTT
P. O. BOX 1072, HIGHLAND CA 92346
-
.......
,-'
rr. .'it;;)-
BARBARA CRAM RIORDAN
SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT
1"'"
'1soarb of ~trui.6or.6
(ltounttl of &an JJtmarbi~:o.-ADMIN. 0'
~~., ".: 73
___J' :-..J' ~ ~
,-~
SYLVIA ROBLES
FIELD REPRESENT A liVE
MARIE TEETERS
FIELD REPRESENT A TlVE
/
/,
November 17, 1987
Mayor Evlyn wilcox and
Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino. CA 92418
Dear Mayor and Council,
You will be receiving a request from the City of Highland
council-elect members for a brief continuance of the High-
land Hills project so that the Highland Council might work
with you and your staff to mitigate some of the issues of
concern to the residents of the project's surrounding area.
I would appreciate your positive consideration of extend-
ing this courtesy to the new City.
BCR:bc
San Bernardino County Government Center' 385 North Arrowhead Avenue' San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110 . (714) 387-4855 . (714) 825.4050
~ "
,../
Memorandum to the Mayor and Council
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5
Mayor and Council Meeting of December 7, 1987
Page 2
Attachment D, Page 27, dated November 4, 1987 and the Initial
Study (Attachment E, Page 46).
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Council may deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 or may
uphold the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-
5. If the Council chooses to uphold the appeal, they may
choose to apply additional conditions recommended by staff.
Further, if the Council chooses to uphold the appeal and
approve the Conditional Use Permit, positive findings of fact
must be articulated to support the approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5. The recommendation is,
therefore, to deny the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit
No. 87-57.
Prepared by:
Edward L. Gundy, Senior Planner for
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Planning Department
Attachments:
Attachment A - Letter of Appeal
Attachment B - Statement of Official Planning
Commission Action
Attachment C - Supplemental Staff
11/17/87
D - Original Staff Report, 11/4/87
E - Initial Study
F - Related Correspondence
(also serves as Attachment F
back-up information for Appeal
of CUP No. 87-47)
Report,
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
mkf
11/23/87
DOCUMENTS:M&CCAGENDA
CUP875
~
\'"
c
,)
DENNIS A. MARTIN
P. O. BOX 6000 - 333
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 922'<<ECEIVED-CI1Y CI_ERr<
(619) 568-1619
.87 NOV 18 A8 :52
November 18. 1987
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
c/o City Clerk
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: CUP 87-5
Planning Commission Hearing
November 17. 1987
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
We hereby appeal the decision of the City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission on the subject of the above matter and
respectfully request that the Mayor and Common Council take
the following action.
Please set a hearing date as soon as possible to hear the
above matter and approve CUP 87-5 as submitted specifically
relative to the number of apartment units and parking and to
change the requested fire access bridge across Cook Canyon
to a fire access driveway,
Very truly yours.
BfLadl~
Dennis A. Marti
Applicant
DAM:ke
'-'
,
V\
'\i
.
,
'( i
i.
.'i
\\.'
, ,J)
J.'>'
tY"u
\,
;' 'jACHMENT A
,..,
"" "
DENNIS A. MARTIN
'..
P. O. BOX 8000. 333
PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 822'<<ECEIVr:D-r.11 Y C!_ERF
(.18) 588-1818
.S7 NOV 18 AS :52
November 18, 1987
Mayor and Common Council
City ot San Bernardino
City Hall
c/o City Clerk
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: CUP 87-5
Planning Commission Hearing
November 17, 1987
,]
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
He hereby appeal the decision ot the City ot San Bernardino
Planning Commission on the subject ot the above matter and
respectfully request that the Mayor and Common Council take
the tollowing action.
Please set a hearing date as soon as possible to hear the
above matter and approve CUP 87-5 as submitted specitically
relative to the number ot apartment units and parking and to
change the requested fire access bridge across Cook Canyon
to a tire access driveway.
Very truly yours,
BfL.a!!t~
Dennis A. Marti
Applicant
DAM:ke
r;i'\ is @ m n \'v7 ~ Gl
,w~ ;..: \~1 ..::: LJ IJ ..: i.':
'JU ;..::J
NOV 1 8 1987
C:Ti :i ,~;'~:.:r-~n :~?:.:17;..~2~~T
S;il'i 3GU:A~D;:~O, t:A
~
~
....... " "
ATTACHMENT B
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5
Applicant:
ACTION
Mr. Dennis A. Martin
Meeting Date: November 17, 1987
Approved Adoption of Request Subject to the
Following Site Plan (Attachment A).
x
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Since the Specific Plan is over five years old and since
substantial changes to the Plan are indicated, the
proposed project no longer meets the intent of the
approved Specific Plan.
2.
Since the Environmental Impact Report
old and significant changes in the
have occurred, the cumulative impacts
developments have not been adequately
is over five years
Highland vicinity
of this and other
addressed.
3.
The traffic study does not support the project
substantial land use changes have occurred in the
five years to warrant updating such information to
Environmental Impact Report.
and
past
the
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Gomez, Lindseth, Nierman, Sharp, Stone
Brown, Cole, Corona, Lopez
None
None
J../.
"-"
'_f'
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5
Page 2
I, hereby,
accurately
Commission
certify that this Statement of
reflects the final determination
of the City of San Bernardino.
e{jU{ J;;a~
lli na ure
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of
Official Action
of the Planning
~ D:i-23~tfl
Planning
Print or Type Name and Title
RAS/mkf
DOCUMENTS:PCAGENDA
PCACTION
.c""
I;
'.
,....'-,
~TTACHMENT C ~'"
~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""
SUMMARY
\.. .
UJ
Cf)
c:(
<.)
In
UJ
::l
CJ
I&l
a:
.....
c:(
UJ
a:
c:(
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
. WARD
it 3
..ilL17/87
4
..J
APPLICANT; Dennis A. Martin
P. O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
OWNER; Highland Hills Properties
P. O. Box 1367
San Bernardino, 92402
Conditional Use Permit
No. 87-5
Applicant requests approval under authority of San Bernardino
Nunicipal Code Section 19.1S.040(c) to establish a 224 unit
apartment development with waiver of San Bernardino Municipal
Code Section 19.18/190. Storage facilities within the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) at 2.3 units per acre zoning
district. The subject site encompasses approximately 14.10
acres located on the north side of Highland Avenue and approxi-
mately 1200 feet east of Boulder within the Highland Hills
Specific Plan.
PROPERTY
EXISTING
LAND USE
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Subject
North
South
East
West
Vacant
Vacant
SFR
Vacant
City Creek
PRD 2. 3
PRD 2.3
County R-l
PRD 2.3
"0"
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Open Space
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE
HIGH FIRE
HAZARD ZONE
..J
c:(
~
Zen
UJe.!)
2z
Z-
OO
a::Z
:;:ii:
Z
UJ
oNOT
APPLICABLE
o EXEMPT
oNO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
NOY I'ill RIVIIEO JULY' 11.1
KXtES
oNO
Rl YES
oNO
FLOOD HAZARD
ZONE
rn YES lXl ZONE A
o NO OZONE B
C SEWERS
DYES )
~NO _
AIRPORT NOISE I 0 YES
CRASH ZONE Q\I NO
rn POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES NO E,I,R,
o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E. R, C,
MINUTES
Z
o
ti
1&.0
I&.ffi
~2
en2
o
<.)
UJ
It:
REDEVELOPMENT DYES
PROJECT AREA ~NO
IZl APPROVAL
IZl CONDITIONS
0 DENIAL
0 CONTINUANCE TO
In
, .. -------j
...."Y
..... .1
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
3
11/17/117
2
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,.
SUPPLEMENT TO STAFF REPORT
DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1987
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-5, HIGHLAND HILLS
Applicant: Dennis Martin
Inconsistances and concerns cited during public testimony
at the November 4, 1987 meeting of the Planning Commission
included:
The specific plan discussed "townhouse condominiums and
garden apartments. where this proposal is for townhouse
apartments which will be used for rentals.
The compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land
uses.
Parking standards requirements and proposals. Traffic
generated, the trips generated, and the appropriateness
of the information contained in the Specific Plan.
Noise resulting from construction of the project and the
traffic generated by residents of the project.
The quality and quantity of water supply.
The adequacy of fire protection and prevention, which
includes a greenbelt area.
Hiking trails as required by the Specific Plan.
Drainage with regard to Cook Canyon Creek.
Discussion of the items in detail follows.
Tvpe of Struct~res-Townhouse vs. Apartments
A townhouse is generally a 2-3 story unit connected to a
similar unit with a common wall. Ownership is not a criteria
for meeting the definition of a townhouse, and the nature of
ownership is irrelevant. Rather, the interior design of the
unit is an appropriate criteria. The proposal is for rental
units that are designed in townhouse style and the units are
consistant with those described in the Specific Plan.
...,
I
\ CITY OF SAN BERf\I:':RDINO PL~"~JNING DEPARTMENT'
. CASE CUP 87-5
018SERVAT~ONS
AGENDA ITEM 3
HEARING DATE 11/17/87
PAGE ..l
Compatibility withSurroundinQ Land Uses
The fact that the Specific Plan was approved with townhouses
and garden apartments in the lower south portions of the
overall site deems this proposal for townhouse apartments in
the lower south portion of the site compatibile. The
proposed structures are consistant with the Specific Plan as
is the proposed density. However, the density for the
proposed project is 15.88 units per acre which exceeds the 8-
14 units per acre range permitted.
ParkinQ
San Bernardino Municipal Code is unclear on which standard to
base parking requirements for apartments in the PRD zones.
Historically the R-3 multiple residential parking standard
has been applied. However, this proposed project is geared
for upscale occupancy. It is a valid assumption that most
units will be occupied by two car families. Therefore, it is
appropriate to require additional guest parking and the PRD
townhouse/condominium standard is applied to this project. A
condition reflecting such is attached.
Traffic Generation
Page 68 of the EIR states "870 evening peak hour trips and a
total of 8,810 daily trips will result from the 1200 units
proposed by the entire Specific Plan." Impact projected from
other approved projects in the vicinity is 3,800 evening peak
hour trips with a total of 40,500 daily trips. Cumulative
impact from Highland Hills (1200 units) and other projects
(4500 units) totals 4,607 evening peak hour trips and 49,310
daily trips. These figures were evaluated in the original
EIR and the mitigation measures previously included in the
Initial Study for Conditional Use Permit 87-5 address the
cumulative impacts. These mitigation measures are included
as a condition of approval.
Noise-Traffic
Noise generated by the project was brought up at the Planning
Commission Meeting of November 4, 1987. As discussed in the
Initial Study, noise generated by the project. is mitigated
through building setbacks and landscaping. Building
orientation so that living areas are constructed away from
arterials was recommended in the EIR. This is proposed.
.J
~
-
.,~ITY OF SAN BERNc"'qDINO PLP"NING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87=.5....
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM _ 3
HEARING DATE ITfTT;-gI
PAGE -r-
r
Noise-Construction Equipment
Construction noise is partially mitigated by phasing of the
project. However, noise from heavy construction equipment
cannot fully be mitigated and must be accepted as a
consequence of development in any urban area.
Street Dedication
Highland Hills will be dedicated to a right of way width of
88 feet. The curves will be widened affecting a change in
the alignment approved by the City Engineering Department. A
condition reflecting such is attached.
, Water Supply and Quantitv[Qualitv
The East Valley Water District can and will serve the project
with water household and Fire Department needs. The
developer will extend sewer mains along Highland Avenue to
connect the project with the City's System. Sewer capacity
rights must be purchased from the City prior to issuance of
construction permits, 50 no construction will begin until
sewer capacity is insured.
Fire PIQtecUQI!
The project meets the fire protection plan'ls outlined in the
Specific Plan EIR (Page 100) in the following manner:
1) 4) Streets are designed to City Standards per
Engineering Department Requirements~
2) 3)
Arroyo
Canyon
The project has two means of ingress-egress
Vista Drive and a bridge crossing over Cook
Creek to Highland Avenue.
to
5) 6)
which
living
A 200
will
areas
foot
have
from
greenbelt which will
drought resistant
natural vegetation.
be irrigated and
foil age separate
7) not applicable
8) five to ten feet fuel breaks on both sides of private
roads shall be required as a condition of approval.
9) Final plans shall show road grades not to exceed 12
percent as a condition of approval.
q
I
~l . CITY OF SAN BER[\~" RDINO PLt \INING DEPARTMENT /
,.' " . . CASE CUP 87-5
018SERVAT~OU\!lS
-
-
-
-
AGENDA ITEM 2._
HEARING DATE 11/17/87
PAGE 5
\..
10) . Proposed .fire hydrant locations have been approved
by the Fire Department, water pressure shall comply with
City standards which is a minimum flow of 2,000 to 2,500
gal/min. over a one hour period. A condition is
attached reflecting such.
11) All buildings will have class B roofs-in this
project, tile roofs are proposed.
12) No security gates are shown on submitted plans,
however, a condition is attached regarding a "knox-box"
key and Fire Department approval should security gates
be installed.
13) A condition is included which requires spark
arrestors, visible from the ground be installed on all
chimneys.
Recreation
Trail systems were encouraged to link the project with the
San Bernardino National Forest Service and the natural open
space provided. The trail system is not shown on the
proposal, however a condition is included requiring the
hiking trails.
The Specific Plan indicates
2.5 acre Community Park be
developer has elected to pay
Cook_CanYQD Creek
The intent of the Specific Plan is to retain Cook Canyon reek
in its natural state as far as possible. Provision is made
for lining the channel in areas susceptible to high rosion
such as sharp curves and steep slopes.
The natural appearance can be maintained by designing the
improvement with ungrouted rock, except in areas of high
erosion susceptibility. A condition is attached reflecting
such.
that Quimby Act
dedicated to
these fees.
fees be paid or
the city. The
l:;QNCLUSION
The subject site is designated for medium density residential
in the Highland Hills Specific Plan. An Initial Study was
prepared and presented to the Environmental Review Committee
and a Negative Declaration is proposed. Public comments and )
\C\
"
CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO PLAl\1'NING DEPARTMENT'
CASE CUP M-5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 3
HEARING DATE 11/17/B7
PAGE 6
review were solicited. with the request for modification of
the RV parking requirement and subject to conditions
attached, the proposed project meets code requirements and is
consistant with the Specific Plan approved and adopted as
policy by the city.
\\
- ~
CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO PLgNING DEPARTMENT \
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVAT~ONS
AGENDA ITEM 3
HEARING DATE 11/17 /87
PAGE _ 7
RECOMMEND~11Q~
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5, subject to
Conditions and Standard Requirements attached; the
approval based on the positive Findings of Fact;
2) Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
EDWARD GuNny
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - General plan/Code Consistancy
Attachment B - Findings of Fact
Attachment C - Conditions of Approval
Attachment D - Standard Requirements
Attachment E - Correspondence Received from Applicant
Attachment F - Initial Study
Attachment G - Original Staff Report
Attachment H - Location Map
csj
11/12/87
pcagenda/doc
cup8750B
\~-
l.;........-
,--,,,
'-.../
J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
FINDINGS of FACT
3
11/17/87
8
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
ATTACHMENT B
Should the Planning Commission vote to approve the proposed
project, a positive findings for all of the following must be
made.
Should the; Commission vote to deny the proposed
negative finding must be made for at least one
each category.
project, a
finding in
.
These findings are
.210) to determine
Planned Residential
required by
the project
Development
Chapter
meets the
District.
19.18 (Subsection
objectives of the
19.18.210 Specific Objectives.
In addition to the determination that the plan complies with
the purposes of planned residential development, the commis-
sion shall find that the following specific objectives are
satisfied by the plan.
A. The overall Plan will be comprehensive in that the
project will provide ample parking, recreation, circu-
lation and environmental protection.
B. In relation to the scope and complexity of the
development its size will be such as to effect an
integral land planning unit and provide for adequate
open spaces, circulation, off-street parking and
pertinent development amenities in that the project
meets or exceeds all San Bernardino Municipal Code
requirements with regard to such standards.
C. Diverse functional elements should be well integrated,
property oriented, and properly related to the
topographic and natural landscape features of the site
in that advantage is taken of flat topography by
clustering units and 57 percent of the site remains open
space.
D. Developments will be well related to existing and
planned land use and circulation patterns on adjoining
properties and will not constitute a disruptive element
with regard to the character of adjacent neighborhoods
in that the only existing roads to be utilized by the
.'3.
.......
o
'" ~ ,..i
,"",
,~)
, ....,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
FINDINGS of FACT
3
11/17/87
9
\..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
project is a collector, Orchard, and an arterial,
Highland and no local roads will be affected.
E.The layout of structures will effect a conservation in
street and utility improvements in that units are
clustered which will require minimal description of the
natural topography.
F. The internal street systems are designed for the
efficient and safe flow of vehicles without having a
disruptive influence on the activities and functions of
the common areas and facilities in that loop roads do
not disect any proposed common areas or recreation
facilities.
G. Park and recreational areas and facilities will be
located in close proximity to all dwelling units and
easily accessible thereto as far as possible, in that
areas which cannot be occupied by habitable structures
are used for amenities and are located in areas acces-
sible'to all residents of the project.
H. The various community facilities will be grouped in
places well related to the open spaces and easily
accessible to pedestrians if possible, dependant upon
harmonious design in that the best possible design of
the site, given geologic constraints are incorporated
into the proposed project.
I. Architectural unity and harmony within the development
and with surrounding community will be attached as far
as possible in that the Specific Plan permits medium
density development of the site, and the units proposed
are upscale in design which is harmonious with the
upscale single family homes surrounding the Specific
Plan area.
The secondary category of Findings relates to the approval or
denial of a conditional use permit. San Bernardino Municipal
Code 19.78.050 states:
19.78.050 Required Findings:
All conditional use permits may be granted by the Mayor and
Common Councilor Planning Commission after the required
\..
\u,
\..,
........
",,/
-'....
)
- '.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87 -5
FINDINGS of FACT
3
11/17/87
10
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
public hearings. Before the Mayor and Common Councilor
Planning Commission may grant any request for a conditional
use permit, it must make a findings of fact that the evidence
presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1. The proposed use conforms to the objectives of the
City's General Plan Elements in that the proposed
project is part of a Specific Plan which is harmonious
to the General Plan and designates the site for medium
density development (8-14 du/ac).
2~ That the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of
the area in which it is proposed to be located in that
the Specific Plan has adequately mitigated negative
impacts and is the adopted policy of the City.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use
is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particul
area nor to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare in that clustering of units as proposed enables
preservation of much of the natural topography and
allows construction of upscale rental units and ap-
propriate amenities while meeting safety requirements.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
and that adequate parking is provided in that Highland
Avenue will be improved to provide access, and
circulation will be over streets improved to meet the
requirements of the City's Engineering Department.
5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under
the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the city of San Bernardino in that the
imposed conditions will bring the project into com-
pliance with the Specific Plan which was subject to an
EIR and which was adopted by the City.
csj
11/12/87
DOCUMENT:PCAGENDA
CUP875F
\~
-
"'-
,..."
i
'-'
,..)
,
J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
3
11/111111
11
ATTACHMENT C
1. There shall be no landclearing and/or grading until an
erosion control plan has been prepared by registered
civil engineer, forester, landscape architect, or
erosion control specialist and three copies of the
Erosion Control Plan are submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval by the East Valley
Resource Conservation District and the City of San
Bernardino Engineering Department. The plan shall
follow specifications as outlined in the Foothill
Greenbelt Program. (See specifications attached to
these conditions and incorporated into condition number
1.)
2. Parking shall be calculated and provided as follows:
One covered space and one uncovered space per unit plus
guest parking at a ratio of one space per five units.
198 covered spaces
198 uncovered spaces
80 guest spaces
476 spaces total
3. Highland Avenue right of way shall be inc~eased to
accommodate four lanes of traffic and meet the require-
ments of CUP 87-47 for alignment and radius.
4. Fuel breaks on both sides of private roads shall be
provided. The width of the fuel breaks shall be 5 feet
to 10 feet.
5.
Water pressure shall be
2,000 to 2,500 gallon
hour requirement of the
provided to the site to meet
per minute for a period of
City Fire Department.
the
one
6. If security gates are installed, a "knox-box" key shall
be provided to the Fire Department. The Fire Department
shall have final approval of any security gate system.
7. Spark arrestors, visible from ground level shall be
installed on all chimneys.
\(,
--1
"",..."
~
,-"
,
'''"
"
.....,;
,j
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
CONDITIONS
3
11/17/87
12
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
8. Hiking trails shall be provided through parcel three
which will enable access to the areas of natural
vegetation and the forest areas.
9. Cook Canyon Creek improvements shall be designed by a
landscape architect. The design purpose shall be to
retain as natural appearance as possible. Grouted rock
lining will be used in areas of high erosion; ungrouted
rock shall be used elsewhere. Vegetation shall include
erosion resistant species. An assessment district shall
be formed between property owners within Highland Hills
Specific Plan area to insure maintenance of the creek
bed. This assessment district shall be formed prior to
issuance of building permits.
10. In the event that this approval is legally challenged,
the city will promptly notify the applicant of any claim
or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the
matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents and employees form any claim, action or
proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The
applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any
court costs and attorney's fees which the City may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of
his obligation under this condition.
11.
A bridge, a minimum width of 20 feet,
structed across the Cook Canyon Creek
gency access to Highland Avenue (where
site plan).
12. The proposed project shall be reduced in density so as
not to surpass the maximum density of 8-14 units per
acre as indicated on the Specific Plan. Such reduction
in density would permit 198 units rather than the
proposed 224 units.
shall. be con-
providing emer-
depicted on the
13. The Highland Avenue bridge which crosses over City Creek
shall be widened to four lanes to be consisitent with
the width of Highland Avenue as required by the Parcel
Map 9166 and Specific Plan 82-1.
\"'\
c
..' ",
:)
v ',.-,,,.'
ATTACIiHENT C - CONDITION NUMBER 1
SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN EROSION COMTROL FLAN
rll erosion "ontrol plan should clearly indi"aLc the' nat.ur" and c'xt.(,nt ',1'
prnpoi,):;cd work O:lnd methods to control runoff 1 (:I~o:.;i(m ami :;(:(li ml'flt U:O'lCfIICII\..
Both tcml'ora"y and permanent mcasures should be :;hmll1. It may \)r: JlOl'\. of c,tk'r
rlalls such as plot plans or drainagc plans as long as it is clearly l~belcd.
','.'00 S~t5 for each application d,'awn to scale minimum si 7.e of 24" X 36"
~~iu:,r project proposals (single_family dwellines, minor suudi vision of 1'0"1' c;o
hss lots, or grading of less than 100 cubic yards) neeel not consult a
yl'(;f3ss10n<.1 to draw up the plan. l~ajor r.I'oJloso15 lIlusL be prer.",'ed by t)
rcgiJt~red professional civil engineer. and a"proved by
_ City 'Lngineer . ,I mus\. bc approved hef"r"
dher' permits sllch as building And grading per",it.s will bl! issu"rJ.
n,1'1S for r.lajor projects must include runoff calculations (for a lO-year storm)
j"",,,ns>,('3tillg the adequate cal'acity of drainage structu('es. Any other
"':31(:ul;'!~iofi!., ~l,~ch as to determine the cap3cit.y of suU rnent cn\:t'}) b;;!~inS, I'~I:.;:L
~lsc, br; shown.
All <:r05ion Control Plans shall include the following information in writing
,"1:1j/(Jl' di~grarn3:
Location
PrC~H~rty
Detuils
(,:ontours
l)r~i~;;ge patterns' of the area ar.d propo:sed drainage facilities
includinm details of surface and subsurface drains
Delineation of areas to be cleared
Prr.~~s~d construction
I),,~";,ls of ~ll ercsion control measures
~c"eGetation proposals (including cuts and fills) including pia..\;
spt:cies
P~opGsed ,construction schedule (inclUding time of erosion control
~~surcs installation)
N0rth arrCK. scale, and name and
int~rsection
N;}{.1e nnct address of owner(s)
~ezeJsorts parcel nu~ber(s)
t1ar:l~, add~ess, and phone number of person who prepared the plan
se~tic tank location.
of the proposed site
lines
of terrain,
including present contours and proposed
finish
location of nearest public road
',,' ~:nor: Cont.rol Plans will be reviewed to see i I' they adequately address the
"O~cc,.ns liste:d below. Plans may be altered, conditioned, or ret.urned for
. ,io,- improver.lcnts. All mp-asures shown on approved plans must be in place
c,for~ final inspection and certification.
,',: t.~r instat.:d, all erosion controls will bi! maintained by the landowner or
d::\'cl.opcr.
';'" following requirements should be considered when designing your project and
,.!'cp~ri~e the Eresion Control Plan:
\?,
t
... ,"-...-
;' ,
'-'
....,,;
"
)
GRADING AND LAND DISTURBANCE
Plan the location and construction of thE' cl~~elopment to kt'ep g,'ading and
landclearing to a min~mum.
If the project is on st"ep slopes, IIv"jd IOa.lor grad'llg by 1I,,'tng polt., 5~"p,
or other suitable foundations,
Locate access roads so that they do !'\It. (!l', , ,s sh,p,,' J(r:...ter tJ."\l W., O'
require cuts and fills greater t.han 5 (""I. ir height,
Do not grade in sensi t1ve areas sueI' ,'s natural dr."1nag",,aY:l and unslahle
slopes.
Begin landclearing only after approval of your Erooi,.1l Control Pla".
Landclearing is' not permitted on slopes gr..ater than 30~ or in sensi ti 'Ie
areas such as water supply watersheds.
StO.Cli. pile and reapply topsoil on SlOPl'1 lc~:\ than ;~U~.
RU/lOFF CO/lTROL
If the project is located on very sandy, "i rhly pp.rmeable soils, cor.~rol
surface runoff by using infiltration ",ellsures such :.s percol ation \;rer."hes
or drywells. This practice will "ssiut. in e.J".,undwai er recharge and
reduction of erosion-causing runoff. Do not use these measures on s::'eep
slop~s or other geologically unstable areas, ur areas of high groundwater.
If infiltration is not feasible, detain or disperse runoff so that
concentrated water leaving the site do~s not ~xcecd i)r'edevclopmenl le\'"ls.
Use waterbars, splash blocks, sheet di~i'("'''al into w"ll-vegctated "reas, or
other systems that slow down and spread ou\; e,mcentrated water.
Use nonerodible berms or swales to direct. rUl1,.!'r awav front vlllnerllble areas
such liS cut/fUl slopes, c11 ffs, founuut,i('llS, or rel-,nning walls.
If runoff must be
cause erosion.
such as culverts,
collected and concentrated, convey it so that it does not
On steep slopes or sandy 100US use noneradible concui ts
lined ditches, or drainage systems.
All culvert and channel outlets need adequate energy dissipators to prevenl
erosion.
~aintain runoff rates at or below predevelopmcnt levels.
Retain runoff onsite by filtering it back into the so11 whenever poss:::'le
and always where percolation rates are '2" per hour or greater. Consider
use of percolation trei'l~hes, basins, and dr y w(,lls fOI' this purpose.
/lOTE: Retention is not recommended on unst..ble slopes or in areaS ",here
high water tables exist.
If retention is not possible, detain runoff with detention basins or c:her
runoff collection devices and release it in a controlled fashion, poss: bly
into pipes or lined ditches.
\~
.....
.....
.'
Direct released runoff flows"onto estabUshed vegetation. paved areas, or
other adequate energy dissipators such as rock rip rap.
Keep sediment on site by filtering runoff with gravel berms, ','('getated
filter strips, catch basin.:!, etc. Never pile soil where it ma~ wash into
streams or drainageways.
Use bermn or swales to di vert runoff away from senst ti ve areas such as
unstable slopes.
VEGETAlION
Good vegetative cover prevents erosion.
absolutely necessary.
Do not remove any 'Ill"re than
Stockpile topsoil for reapplication on sloDes less than 20~. This will aid
in vegetation establishment considerably.
S~t:ecule clearing activities for sunvner months. if possihlp..
_, Revegetation should be in place by October 15.
Use native plants for permanent protection.
Use r..commended grass/legume seed mixtures for good tempol"ary soil
prolection.
Some pla\'lts will require adequate preparation, fertilization, water, mulch,
and/or maintenance to ensure establishment of a good protective cover.
~:rNTER OPEP.ATIONS (OCTOOER 15 - APRIL 15)
All work during the rainy season requires special precautions to prevent
erosiun. Disturbed soil must be protected with vegetation, mulch, or other
means after October 15.
During construction, temporary measures must be taken to retain 'sediment on
site such "s dikes. gravel filter berms. vegetation filter strips, or other
effective means.
Install erosion control measures before winter rains (October 15 - April
15). This includes drainage structures for roads and driveways such as
waterbars, culverts. roadside ditches. "Erosion-proof" road surfaCing may
be necessary.
Protect all disturbed soils with vegetation and/or mulch. Retain sediment
with dikes, gravel or vegetated filter strips, and catch basins.
Keep all culverts and drainage facilities free of silt and debris.
Koei> emergency erosion control materials such as mulch, plastic sheeting,
and sandbags onsite. Install these at the end of each day'as necessary.
Operations may be delayed if a high potential for erosion exists.
~n
"
J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87 -5
c
_I
-
"'''''>
'-'
'-"
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
3
11/17/87
13
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
14. The developer is to submit a complete master landscape
and irrigation plan (3 copies) for the entire develop-
,ment to the Planning Department for approval, upon
approval the final landscape plan will be forwarded to
the Director of Parks and Recreation for review and
approval. The design shall include" but 'not be limited
to,the following:
";;
~:-:
x
The landscape plan shall meet the conditions set
forth by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
ON ARROYO VISTA DRIVE
Street trees shall be planted on 35 feet center
spacing unless otherwise indicated by the Dept.,
of Parks and Recreation. The Department shall
determine the varieties and locations prior to
planting. 25% of the trees shall be 24" box
specimens. Trees to be inspected by Park Division
representative prior to planting.
Setback shall be burmed at a maximum 3:1 slope
and shall be planted with a tall fescue type
turfgrass.
Landscape.buffer zone to be installed between
facilities and street.
Planters shall be enclosed with concrete curbing. .
x
,
~\
.-
-
(
"'...
,
~'TACHMENT "E" .""
)
DENNIS A. MARTIN
P. O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
(619) 568-1619
DUKES-DUKES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Community Developers
1875 W. Highland Ave., San Bernardino, CA
(71") 887-6"91
12"7 FIfth Avenue, Oakland, CA 9"606
("15) 839-8633
November II, 1987
Hs. R..Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
San Bernardino, CA 92"01
Re: CUP 87-5 and CUP 87-"7
Dear Hs. Siracusa,
At the Planning Commission meetIng of November 3, 1987 there were many
questions that were raised and many Issues that were brought up principally
by the opposition to the above two projects. The proximity of the project
and the fact that they are both within the Highland Hills Specific Plan have
linked the two applications together and we are therefor responding to the
Issues jointly.
of the Items were addressed at the Planning Commission Meeting.
They
Many
are:
1.
Bob Johnson of the Soils Consulting firm of CHJ Materials laboratory
addressed the Issues and provided testimony regarding llquifactlon,
geological faults and the alledged artesian flows.
2. Roger Hargrave, Public Works Director for the City of San Bernardino
addressed mitigation measures for Highland Avenue realignment ,,"Ii
traffic and the concerns of the residents of the area about the
traffic problems existing now and the effect of the mitigation
measures including the Intersection of Highland and Orchard.
3. Joe Bonadlman, C.E. of Bonadlman Associates addressed the mitigation
measures to protect the projects from flooding from both City Creek
and Cook Creek.
4. Larry Rowe, General Manger of the East Valley Water District
'addressed the adequacy of water, domestic and fire flow, and the
relocation of the North Fork Ditch.
We are addressing below the convnents and Items requiring clarification on
the other issues;
~~
-
-
-
-
(
I
~ovember II, 1987 ~.
Ms. Siracusa, Director of Planning
Page 2
,-'
"The area Is a high fire hazard area and will create major problems If
developed"
Highland Hills Properties Is located within the "high fire hazard" area.
With the Highland Hills properties vacant, heavy brush grows abundantly to
the edge of existing adjoining development. The development of the projects
proposed under CUP 87-5 and 87-47 will mitigate this hazard for the following
reasons:
1.
5.
The open space and recreational areas within the projects are
less than 50% of the land area.
The open space Is planted and Irrigated.
The buildings themselves are separated by at least 30 feet.
In compliance with Fire Department requests, many buildings
have automatic fire sprinkling systems.
The street design not only allows for emergency escape routes
but also provides access Into the foothills for emergency
vehicles and with fire flow water throughout the projects.
2.
3.
4.
"The Density is too high and does not conform to the Specific Plan"
The adopted Highland Hills Specific Plan proposed a residential development
not to exceed 1200 units. The Specific Plan states as follows:
"The General Plan for the area allows denslties'up to 3 units per
acre, which would permit a total of 1623 units on the property.
However, standards for foothill development require that densities
be calculated based on the percentage slopes of a particular site.
Using the latter method, 1307 units would be permitted."
The Specific Plan does allow for the construction of garden apartments in the
lower flatter portions of the site. In this area It suggests densities of 11-14
units per acre. The combined number of units In the two projects totals 508
units in 43.99 acres or a density of 11.5 units per acre.
"Highland Avenue Is amajDr traffic problem and does not conform to the Specific
Plan"
The Highland Hills Specific Plan does recognize the existing Inadequacy of
Highland Avenue to carry the present and future traffic. In Drder to mitigate
this deficiency it states on page 30 "The main access to the site is along
Ilighland Avenue, which is recommended to be re-al igned and widened tD imprDve
sight distances and increase capacity." The Public Works Department of the City
is requiring that the rlght-Df-way be increased In order to bDth decrease the
radius of the curves extending the line of sight to an acceptable distance and
also Increasing the roadbed to four lanes allowing for a total curb separation of
64 feet. With these Improvements coupled with those of Caltrans; Highland Avenue
will be four laned from Boulder Avenue to Church Avenue in addition to a new
clover leaf at the Interchange Df Highland Avenue and Boulder and a new four
laned bridge across City Creek.
~'?>
-
'TC
I
r
,n
......
'....~""
~)
November 11, 1987
Ms. R. Ann Siracusa,
Page 3
Director of Planning
''What Is the type of financing for these projects"
The two projects will be financed through the County of San Bernardino
Multifamily Rental Housing Bond Issue of 1985/Hlghland Hills Apartments Series
A in the amount of $29 million. The City of San Bernardino entered Into a
"Cooperative Agreement between the Housing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino and the City of San Bernardino" wherein the City expressed Its
willingness to cooperate with the Authority In the Implementation of the program
within the City of San Bernardino. In the agreement'the City represents that
the program and program site do comply with the Land Use and Housing element
of the General Plan and is in conformance with the Planning and Zoning Law.
It further provides that the City will receive 1% ($290,000) as a fee for bond
issuance. The city does not have a financial loss If the project Is not
completed. Further, this is not a HUD project, 'and there Is no rental subsidy
Involved.
"Recreat Ion"
Section 3.6.3 of the Highland Hills Specific Plan addresses the Issue of
recreation. Under section (c). Mitigation Measures, the following is quoted:
"Provisions of extensive on-site recreation amenities as well as permanent
open space mitigates demand for recreation amenlties......ln lieu of Quimby Act
Fees the developer could dedicate aS,a neighborhood park the designated 2.3 acre
park site which is located below Highland Avenue on the Specific' Plan."
In subsequent discussions with the City Parks and Recreation Department the
recommendation was made by this Department to the Mayor and Council neither to
accept the park nor waive the park fees. This recommendation was formalized in
the subsequent approval by the Mayor and Council of Parcel Map No. 9166. I
quote the following from the hearing on this matter designated under Observat10ns
as Item 6.
"The Highland Hills Specific Plan denotes that parcels one, two, and three
are designated for medium density residential at a density of 8-14 units per
net acre. Parcel number four is designated as being of commercial land uses.
On the southern portion of lot line number one is a 2~5 acre site. Comments
reviewed from the Parks and Recreation Department state that "park" as designated
on the parcel map should not be considered city park, rather an an open green
be It. Th i s green be 1 t "park" desi gnat Ion wi 11 not relieve the developer of pay i ng
for park construction fees....".
"Traffic Signalization:
You expressed the concern at the ERC meeting that It was not clear how and
when the developer will participate in any future signalization. In Section 3.2.8
of the Specific Plan It states: "The future traffic volumes on the roadway network
~~
~
/
/
.
'--
November II, 1987
Ms. R. Ann Siracusa,
Page 4
'-'
Director of PlannIng
,,'"
summarized In the previous sections Illustrate roadway Improvements that are
necessary by 1995. These Improvements were developed to mInImize the impact
that the proposed development would have on the roadway circulation system as
well as accomodate future non-project traffic flows. The project applicant
would not necessarily be financially responsible for all of the following
Improvements. The City of San Bernardino will have to determine who will be
responsible for making these improvements". As a condition to the adoption
of Specific Plan No. 82-1 and change of zone No. 82-22 the Mayor and Council
acted on this item by providing as a condition for approval item 15 g which
provides as,follows:'
"The required traffic signal at the intersection of the main entrance to
the site with Highland Avenue shall be constructed as an Improvement requirement
of the Tract Map containing the 705th unit."
and item 15 h
"The required, traffic signal at the Intersection of the secondary entrance
to the site wIth Highland Avenue shall be constructed as an Improvement
requirement of the Tract Map containing the 817th unit."
"The Empire Economics report states there is excess muiti-famlly housing In San
Bernardino"
Public Input at the Planning Convnlsslon meeting of November 4th, 1987
cited the Empire Economics study dated September'24th, 1987 entitled "San
Bernardino City's Optional Housing Product Mix" as concluding that additional
mUlti-family housing In both the City of San Bernardino and the East Valley
Market Region Is not warranted. This conclusion Is neither accurate nor factual;
indeed the report suggests the very opposite conclusion. The up-scale apartment
units as proposed In both of the projects under consideration do not have their
equal at this time in the City of San Bernardino. There are no other project'
of equal quality that either of these two can be compared too. The proposed
market rents of the two projects range from a low of $565.00 per month to over
$950.00 per month. Even discounting this factor of no comparability, the
Empire Economics Report makes the following observations:
1. The rental distribution in the City of San Bernardino (1986) is
primarily In the moderate rental schedule of $374 per month rent
or less. Only 2.6% of the market share is above $600.00 per month.
(Page 8)
2. These is a sufficient supply of apartment unIts to fulfill the market
demand through 1988. From 1989 on there Is a shortage of rental
units. (Page 23) It Is anticipated that these two projects ~lil1
be avai lable In the market place In late 1988 or early 1989.
~~
-
;- N~~b" 11, "'7 .
, Ms. R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Page 5
~, '\
i
There were, several other comments such as the greenbelt In latter stages
of the Specifl~ Plan; the loop road; the bridge on Highland Avenue and other
iterns which were not relevant to the above two CUP applications. We have not
attempted to address these Issues.
I feel we have addressed all concerns and Issues relevant to the above
applications.
If further Information Is needed or desirable, please contact either of
the undersigned and we shall continue to cooperate as we have to this point
so all relevant Issues are properly addressed;
Very truly yours,
,
B? DJk
ohn Dukes
General Partner
DENNIS ..":TIN f:..
L2-~/J;~ ~
Dennis A. Martin
HIGHLAND HILLS GATEWAY, LTD.
,
<\~ .
, F
':'1 i
~<o
"""'
CATTACHMENT D ...,,,
~)
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT"
SUMMARY
PROPERTY
..
l&J
~
o
t;
l&J
::)
o
III
0:
....
<!
l&J
0:
<!
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
#1
11/4/87
4
~
Conditional Use Permit
No. 87-5
APPLICANT: Dennis A. Martin
P. O. Box 6000~333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
OWNER: Highland Hills Properties
P. O. Box 1367
San Bernardino, 92402
Applicant requests approval under authority of San Bernardino
Municipal Code Section 19.18.040(c) to establish a 224 unit
apartment development with waiver of San Bernardino Municipal
Code Section 19.18/190. Storage facilities within the Planned
Residential Development (PRO) at 2.3 units per acre zoning
district. The subject site encompasses approximately 14.10
acres located on the north side of Highland Avenue and approxi-
mately 1200 feet east of Boulder within the Highland Hills
Specific Plan.
EXISTING
LAND USE
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Subject
North
South
East
West
..J
~
z(I)
UJ(!)
2z
z-
OO
a:Z
>LL
Z
UJ
Vacant
Vacan\:
SFR
Vacant
City Creek
PRO 2.3
PRO 2.3
County R-l
PRO 2.3
"0"
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Foothill 0-3du/ac
Open Space
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONE
REDEVELOPMENT 'DYES
PROJECT AREA UNO
0 APPROVAL
0 CONDITIONS
0 DENIAL
IXl CONY'i~'Y1lCf TO
lEI YES
ONO
FLOOD HAZARD IJlvES lXlZONE A
ZONE 0 NO OZONE B
AIRPORT NOISE / 0 YES
CRASH ZONE IXl NO
C SEWERS ~~S )
HIGH FIRE
HAZARD ZONE
~ES
ONO
o NOT
APPLICABLE
rn POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES NO E,I.R,
o E,I,R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R, C.
MINUTES
z
o
ti
11.0
II.ffi
~:I
(1):1
o
o
UJ
a:
o EXEMPT
ONO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
NOV. 1911 RIVIIED JULY I,.a
SK'
~,
-
-
-
,
'-
".-'.'"
;' ",
.'1
.......,..1
'-
....~."I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP87-S
OBSERVATIONS
1
1l/4/R7
?
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1 . REQUEST
The applicant request approval of a Conditional Use
Permit under authority of San Bernardino Municipal Code
Section 19.18.040 (c) to establish a 224 unit apartment
complex with a modification by the Planning Commission
of the San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.18.190
storage facilities pertaining to recreational vehicles
storage.
This modification is permitted by code and no variance
is necessary.
The proposed complex includes 28,two story apartments
structures which contain 8 units per structure. The
units are 1 and 2 bedrooms. 454 (224 covered) parking
spaces are proposed on site. Amenities include. a
volleyball court, two swimming pool areas, two tennis
courts, a spa area and a 5,456 square foot recreational
building. Access to the site will be via two driveways
both of which are form the proposed extension of Arroyo
Vista Drive.
2. SITE LOCATJON
Subject Property- parcel 3, of parcel map 9166, totals
approximately 14.1 acres.
Parcel 3 is located on the north side of Highland Avenue
approximately 1200 feet east of Boulder Avenue. The
site lies within the Highland Hills Specific Plan. (See
attachment V, Location Map.)
3. MUN1~lFb~_~QP~_AND GENERA~_PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project with the request and modification
is consistent with the San Bernardino Municipal Code
19.18, Planned Residential Development with regards to
setbacks, structural constraints, open space,
amenities, parking and access. The proposed is in
conformance with the Greenbelt Ordinance dealing with
Foothill Development except where the distance between
the proposed recreational building and two habitable
apartment buildings do not conform with minimum
separations. This will be addressed later within the
staff repo rt.
6)~
-
.......
.r'
I.",."
,
'~,,,;
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87 - 5
OBSERVATIONS
1
11/4/87
1
r
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
The General Plan, which designates the .site Foothill
Development at 0-3 du/acres encourages density transfers
in an effort to cluster housing and maintain and
preserve open space where possible. The Highland Hills
Specific Plan allows for density transfers and
designates these two parcels as minimum density, 8 to 14
du/acres.
4. CEQA Statu~
At the regularly sCheduled,meeting, of October 8, 1987,
the Environmental Review Committee recOmmended a
Negative Declaration after reviewing the Initial Study.
Several items were discussed at the Environmental Review
Committee Meeting which included:
- Flood Hazard Potential
- Service Facilities with regard to Police Service
- Traffic Hazard Possibilities
- Geologic Hazards (Including the inactive traces of the
San Andreas Fault and Liquefaction potential)
- Draining and Drainage ,
Cumulative Effects on the Environment of this and
other projects in the area
- Secondary access across Cook Canyon Creek
These items and proposed mitigation measures are
discussed in the Initial Study prepared by staff. Based
on the Initial Study the Environmental Review' Committee
proposed a Negative Declaration be adopted for
Conditional Use Permit 87-5.
5. BACKGROUND
On October 26, 1982, the Planning Commission recommended
approval and adoption by ordinance of Specific Plan 82-
1, Highland Hills Specific Plan, Change of Zone 82-22,
from .0. Open Space to Planned Residential Development
at 2.3 units per acre and adoption and certification of
the final Environmental Impact Report.
On December 6, 1982, the Mayor and Common Council
approved with modifications to the conditions of
approval the proposed Specific Plan.
On May 15, 1985, parcel map 9166 was approved by the
Planning Commission based on the findings of fact and
subject to the proposed conditions of approval. One
'lo..
~o.
lu
-
.......
-
'"",'"
/
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 11/4/87
PAGE 4
condition was that the single family
first phase of development which is
adopted Specific Plan 62-1.
The applicant of parcel map 9166 appealed that ,condition
and the Mayor and Common Council determined that the
appeal was inappropriate and the Planning Director and
City Attorney were directed to amend the Specific Plan
with regard to the phasing of the development.
development be the
consistent with the
, '
Conditional Use Permit number 86-7 to construct a 222
unit apartment project on the subject site was approved
by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1986. A
,
subsequent request for an Extension of Time of
Conditional Use Permit number 86-7 was withdrawn by the
proponent of the Highland Hills Specific Plan Project on
August 18, 1987; thereby permitting Conditional Use
Permit to expire.
6. ANALYSIl!
The purpose of the PRD (Planned Residenital Development)
District is to promote residential amenities beyond
those expected in a conventional residential
development, to achieve greater flexibility in design,
to encourage well-planned neighborhoods through creative
and imaginative planning as a unit, to provide for
appropriate use of land which is sufficiently unique to
it physical characteristics, or other circumstances to
warrant special methods of development, to reduce
development problems in hillside areas and to preserve
areas of natural scenic beauty through the encouragement
of integrated planning and design and unified control
development.
There are fcur different
within the project. These
as follows:
floor plans
floor plans
being proposed
are broken down
~tY1jl
~\,Il!1pe r_lllt/!3P-
~I~A-?JPPQ~ed Minimum Area
(Square Ft.) Required
(Square Ft.)
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-2(M)
112
16
40
56
.
816
1038
1104
1027
91,392
16,606
44,160
57,512
-:l.^
-
-
-
.......
/",'-'
I".....;
~,.. -.".
'-'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
1
11/4/87
Ii
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
'.
All floor areas proposed exceed minimum requirements of
code.
The elevations show a stucco exterior with tile roofs.
No building exceeds the maximum height permitted within
the Planned Residential Development District. All
structures maintain a minimum of 30 foot separation as
required by the Greenbelt Study, zone B for high fire
hazard areas, except in one instance. This instance is
between two apartment buildings adjacent to the main
recreation building. Separation shown is 23 feet and 27
feet between the 3 buildings. Proper separation can
be accomplished by either reduction in the main
recreation building floor plan or adjusting the building
footprint so as to create proper separation as required.
The overall density of the development (15.88 du/acres)
is greater than the maximum density allowed under the
Specific Plan (8-14 du/acres). The Specific Plan
encourages density transfer within project sites to
preserve natural open space areas. The open space area
being provided includes a total of 7.78 acres or 55.23
percent of the overall project site. Amenities include
a volleyball court, a main recreational building (5,456
square feet), two swimming pool areas, two tennis
courts, a spa area and an activity building. All the
amenities are located within the interior of the project
and are distributed in equitable manner so as provide
adequate walking distance to at least one of the
provided amenities from a residential unit.
The vehicular circulation for the site is via a loop
system around the perimeter of the project with
perpendicular parking spaces adjacent 'to the 24 to 30
foot on-site drive aisle. Two primary access points are
being provided from Arroyo Vista Drive. The primary
entry point will be two 24 foot wide driveways separated
by a landscaped median. This driveway will lead to the
recreation building area where 12 guest parking spaces
are provided to serve that recreation building.
Throughout the site there are 454 parking spaces
provided. Of those, 224 spaces are covered and 230
spaces are uncovered.
Parking requirements in the PRD section of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code are as follows:
3\
-
-
-
\-/
"-'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
1
11/4/87
6
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
19.18.140 Off Street Parking
There shall be a mlnlmum of one covered and one
uncovered off street parking stall per dwelling unit
with additional guest parking provided.
However, San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.56.030
states that parking requirements within residential uses
shall be:
"Condominimums/town house, and residenital
development-two spaces per unit, one of which is
covered. In addition, guest parking shall be
provided at a ratio of open spaces for ever five
units."
"Apartment-each dwelling unit shall be provided
with not less than the following number 'of
parking spaces, at least one of which shall be
covered or enclosed: units with one or less
bedrooms, one and one half spacesl units with two
bedrooms, two spaces; units with three or more
bedrooms, two and one half spaces. The apartment
standards were designed to include guest parking
spaces. In a telephone survey to other
jurisdictions this apartment ratio is typical and
includes guest requirements.
Therefore, an interpretation must be made, to determine
by which standard this project is evaluated. Under PRD
standards, 493 parking spaces would be required
including guest parking spaces. The project within the
39 spaces less than minimum required.
Under apartment standards, 392
required. The project would
minimum required.
parking spaces would be
then be 62 spaces over
.
Combining the apartment standards with the addition of
the PRD guest spacing requirements 437 parking spaces
would be required. The project would then be 17 spaces
over the minimum requirements. The applicant is
providing for 454 parking spaces at a ratio of 2.03
spaces per unit.
The Planning Commission, if it decides to approve the
project, will need to determine which criteria they wish
'"
'3~
,
,
'-
......
,-""
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CliP 87-')
OBSERVATIONS
,
11/4/87
7
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
to establish as appropriate parking standards for
apartments in the planned residential development zone.
Grades throughout the circulation system
preliminary plans range from 1 percent
grade throughout the project site.
Existing land use to the east of the subject site is
presently vacant but is being considered under
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47 for a 284 unit
apartment project. The north of the side is presently
vacant and is within the Highland Hills Specific Plan
designating that. site for additional single family
homes. To the west of the subject site lies the City
Creek Flood Plain, zoned "0", Open Space, and to the
south of the site lies upscale single family homes on
large lots.
as shown in the
to 3.1 percent
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.18.190 states
that there shall be a common area for recreational
vehicle parking at a ratio of 1 space per 10 units. It
is further stated that the Planning Commission may
modify the requirement. The applicant requests the
Commission delete the requirement, formally made as a
waiver, stating apartment dwellers generally do not
require RV parking and the intent of the proposed plan
is to maximize open space and minimize asphalted areas.
Since code permits modification by the Planning
Commission, a formal waiver request with variance
findings is not mandatory.
Cook Canyon Creek lies within the southern ~ortion of
the project site. A 70 foot easement is indicated.
Within this easement the creek bed is proposed to be
improved with rock lining in two 15 foot wide service
drives (one on each side of the creek) is proposed. A
fire access road is shown as taking access from Highland
Avenue crossing the Cook Canyon Creek easement and
entering the project at the southernmost point of the
project site. The Fire Department as submitted a
memorandum to the Planning Department (see attachment
-K-.) In this memo a statement is made that the fire
access roadway proposed over Cook Canyon Creek shall be
a bridge 20 feet in width. If the project is to be
approved, the requirement for a bridge as secondary
access across Cook Canyon Creek shall be a condition of
approval.
33
,'".
""'
~
....'
.......
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE C:lIP 1\7-')
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
. PAGE
1
11/4/1\7
R
7. COMMENTS_~~~~JY~P
The Planning Department has received comments from the
San Bernardino County Planning Department, the County
Flood Control Agency, Cynthia Ludvigsen (an attorney
cepresenting the homeowners in the areal, and CalTrans.
Those comments received to date are summarized below.
The public comment period extends to October 28, 1987,
therefore this section of the staff report will be
amended to include comments received after October 20,
1987.
A, San Bernardino County
expressed regarding water
flooding, traffic noise, fire
compatibility.
1. East Valley Water District can
provide water for domestic and fire
needs.
Planning, concern was
availability, erosion,
hazard, foothill ove~lay
and will
protection
2. A detailed erosion plan will be submitted for
review and approval prior. to landclearing or
grading as required by Foothill Pevelopment.
3. The San Bernardino County Flood Control
District has recommended development be either
setback from the 100 year high water mark, 100
feet or to improve the channel to contain the 100
year storm within its banks. This would be for
both the Cook Canyon Creek Channel as well as the
City Creek Channel. Plans for which are
currently being checked by the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District.
4. The high fire hazard
compliance within the
Standard.
is mitigated through
Foothill Development
5. Departure from present density is.addressed in
the Highland Hills Specific Plan.
6. Wildlife habitat will be eliminated on the
14.1 acres proposed for this development.
3!\
#~
.""
"-,
",.....'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE~lJ4J87_
PAGE -,---
7. Seismic activity is mitigated through
compliance with Alquist-Priolo requirements.
B. San Bernardino County Flood Control District
The following items were expressed as certains
regarding flood control plans.
1. Box culvert calculations inadequate.
2. Bulking and freeboard incorrectly calculated.
3. Access road widths must be 20 feet or Cook
Canyon Creek must be concrete lined.
4. Cook Canyon Creek bulking calculations are
incorrect.
5. Stream velocities at curves is incorrect.
6. No drainage easement for the City of San
Bernardino has been recorded with regard to Cook
Canyon Creek.
7. A 25 foot building setback must be maintained
or Cook Canyon Creek must be concrete lined.
8. 100 foot building setback from City Creek is
required.
The City
1987,
comments
Engineer in a memo dated October 13,
made the following
with regards to drainage:
"B. Cook Canyon ~%~ek_Jmproy~~~~~
As design of Cook Canyon Creek improvements is
currently underway by the developer's engineer.
The City Engineer is planning on checking the
design. The design will have to be improved by
the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
construction permits."
Until all issues regarding the inadequacy of
calculations and resolving the concern of
concrete lining of Cook Canyon Creek, the City
will not approve the channel improvement plans. '
C.
Cynthia Ludvigsen,
Homeowners in the Area
Attorney
Representing
Ms. Ludvigsen's letter dated October 7, 1987,
addressed the following concerns:
,
36
.'''''''^
"""'"
/"'"
\,
.......
.......
'-"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
1
11/4/87
10
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1. Failure to comply
Specific Plan in
liquefaction.
2. Verification that the project included proper
seismic fault setbacks.
with the Highland Hills
recommendation regarding
3. Lack of geotechnical investigation to
determine the stability of earthfill dams.
4. Design water storage tanks to
seismic activity.
5. Location of a new debris basin.
6. Hard surface of Cook Canyon Creek and the loss
of riparian habitat, in that the Environmental
Impact Report states Cook Canyon Creek is
retained in its natural state, thus preserving
any full grown trees.
withstand
7. Environmental conclusions are no longer valid
because the measures currently proposed are ~ot
consistent with the Specific Plan.
8. Absence of a bridge over City Creek as
required by the Specific Plan.
9. Failure of
the concerns
District.
the project developers to address
of the County Flood Control
10. Extension of Orchard Avenue as required by
the Specific Plan to enable placement of a storm
drain and catch basin system.
11. The Specific Plan states residential units
will be for sale only and the proposed is for
rental units.
12. The disruptive element with regard to the
character of the adjacent neighborhood.
13. The nature of physical impact differences
from the single family homes and the townhouses
evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR and the
physical impact of bond financed apartments and
'\..
3c'o
-
......
",",.".
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM 1
HEARING DATE 11/4/87
PAGE 11
the effect of public revenue, property tax
revenue and retail sales tax revenue.
14. The conclusion in the Specific Plan EIR that
the proposed project of owner occupied units
would generate more revenue than would cost the
City to provide public services is invalid for
apartment projects.
15. The substantial deviation from the Specific
Plan necessitates amendment of the original EIR.
16. The proposed project
requirements of State Law.
seq.) Local ordinance 19.79
Environmental Quality Act.
violates
(Section
and the
consistency
65450, et.'
California'
In responding to the concerns staff offers the
following:
1&2 Dr. Floyd Williams, City geologist, viewed
all of the submitted geologic studies (contained
in the Initial Study, attachment D ) and
concluded liquefaction concerns can be addressed
through foundation design and that the earthquake
faults lying on the project site are inactive,
therefore habitable structures may straddle these
traces.
3. In a memo from the City Engineering
Department dated October 13, 1987, it is stated
"C. We do not know of any earth filled dams in
the vicinity of the project. However, a debris
basin owned and operated by the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District is located near the
easterly limit of the project on Cook Canyon
Creek. This facility does not retain water and
therefore is not a dam."
4. A letter dated October 19, 1987, from Joe
Bondinlan states the earth filled dam and debris
basin are off-site and covered by easements to
County Flood Control District. These facilities
have been checked by the County and State
agencies for safety.
-:>"
c
.
,
"-'
......".....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-5
OBSERVATIONS
1
1l~4/87
1
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5. There are no water storage tanks proposed in
conjunction with this project.
6. Hard surface of Cook Canyon Creek Channel is
a requirement of the Flood Control District. An
option to full concrete lined channel bed with 15
foot access roads is a rock lined bed with 20
foot access roads. The necessary access roads
will require removal of some trees.
7. Environmental conclusions of the EIR have
been addressed in the Initial Study. (See
attachment D ,.) According to .Mike Grubbs,
Senior City Engineer, as stated at the
Environmental Review Committee meeting of October
8, 1987, all new environmental issues pertaining
to drainage and grading are mitigatable by
Engineering Design.
8. The project is adjacent to City Creek.
Improvement plans for a bridge crossing City
Creek on Highland Avenue has been submitted to
the County Flood Control District for checking.
9. The developers are working with the County
Flood Control District as discussed previously in
this section.
10. The density of the project is based on
density transfers allowed by the Specific Plan
and the Planned Residential Development Section
Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
The overall density of this project is 15.88
dwelling units per acre which is greater than the
designated 8 to 14 units per acre within this
Specific Plan, the Specific Plan encourages
density transfers to preserve natural open space.
Tn doing so the density of another project, would
be reduced to balance the increase in density for
this project.
11. The proposed complex is for rental units.
Since the type of ownership is not discussed in
the EIR this should not be an issue with regards
to CEQA.
'\..
12. This issue is addressed in the analysis
section of the staff report.
.
3~
......".."
......
".
.......
"-'"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE r.lIP R7-,)
OBSERVATIONS
1
l1'4'S7
i ~.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
13. The commenter's proposal is to have the
physical impact section of the EIR reevaluated
based on revenue generated by apartment use and
lower income levels of the occupants.
14&15 Whether deviation of the proposal from the
Specific Plan is substantial enough to warrant
amendments to the EIR, and whether or not
consistency requirements of State Law, CEQA and
local ordinances are violated is an issue better
addressed to the Planning Commission and City
Counc il .
D. CalTrans
CalTrans is concerned that cumulative impacts of
the continued development in the area would be
mitigated prior to the development of the area.
However, there is no specific comment on this
project.
In response the cumulative impacts were accessed
during the Specific Plan process and impacts are
to be accessed by project basis at various stages
of development of the entire 541 acres covered by
the Specific Plan. Since 1982 when the Specific
Plan Environmental Impact Report was written, a
substantial number of residential units' have
either been approved and/or built within the
general vicinity of the Highland Hills Project.
These newly approved or newly constructed
projects were not addressed in any cumulative
impacts that could have been known at the time
since they were not even submitted to the County
for approval at that time. Consideration could
be made to update the cumulative impacts as it
may address this project with consideration of
others. General concerns would be for traffic
analysis at major intersections, feeding to
Boulder Avenue.
CONCLUSI9~
The project site is designated for medium density residential
in the Highland Hills Specific Plan. An Initial Study was
prepared and presented to the Environmental Review Committee
31:\
,
,'..,
'-
'-'
'-'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CliP 87-~
OBSERVATIONS
1
11/4/87
14
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
and a Negative Declaration is proposed. The public comment
period has not expired, therefore action can not ~e taken.
With the request and modification of recreational vehicle
parking requirement, and a minor adjustment made to the main
recreational building proposed to meet Greenbelt separation
requirements, the project meets code requirements.
RECOMMENDbTION
Staff recommends the Commission hear public testimony and
continue the item to the meeting of November 17, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Attachment A-General Plan and Zoning Conformance
Attachment B-Finding of F~ct
Attachment C-Tentative Conditions
Attachment D-Initial Study
Attachment E-Comments Received
Attachment F-Location Map
t.t()
-
,"""
.......
......,
r~",
)
-..,.I
ATTACHMENT "A"
CATEGORV
PROPOSAL
MUNICIPAL
COIlE
GREENBELT
GENERAL
PLAN
SPECIFIC
PLAN
Apt. Complex 224 unIts PRO 2.3 NfA Foothill Multl-Famlly
Requtres C.U.P.
Lot She 14.10 acres No mtntm.... No mint...... Defer to zonlng
ord Inance NfA
DensIty 15.B8fac 2.3 dufac denstty Denstty transfers 2.3 dufac 8-14 dufac
transfers permttted encouraged densIty transfers
S.8.M.C. 19.18.080 encouraged
8ldg. HeIght 2 storles 2 1f2 storIes or 35 NfA Defer to zontng
ft.; 20 ft. within ordtnance ,NfA
75 ft. of R-1
property
Bldg. Bulk 5 units 6 units NfA . Defer to zoning NfA
ordinance
Bldg. SeparatIon 30 ft. mlntoll" Not addressed 30 ft. Defer to zonlng NfA
ordinance
,
Parking 454 total 2 per unit plus NfA Defer to zoning NfA
224 covered yue.t parklllg . ordinance
(Number unspecIfied) .
RV Storage Wa her 1 per 10 untts NfA Defer to zontng NfA
requested ordinance
Access 2 dedicated 1 on dedicated alley 2 dedIcated Defer to zonlng 2 access
lleans or street, or private Ingressfegress ordinance polnts for
street. this site
Street Grade 3% maxIm... NfA 12% - 14% Defer to 12% maximum
subdlvtslon
ordinance
Street Width 30 ft. private Hlnlm... 24 ft. Hint..... 26 ft. Def er to C...p ly with
50 ft. Arroyo paved . subdlvls Ion City
Vista; 88 ft. ordtnance standards
HIghland Ave.
Landscaptng Irrigated, Common open space Fire resistant . Defer to zonlng Irrlgate
drough t vegetation ordinance usable areas
rest stant
within 200 ft. !
of structure, l'
40 ft. of
wi Iderness
Open Space 55.3% usable 25% IIlntm... "
100 ft. fuel breaks ' Preserve open Preserve
I on wtlderness sIde space natural
of development areas
Stte Coverage 17.06% 40% maxtm.... NfA Defer to zonIng 191 maximum
including ordinance overa 11
pavtng
Roof Material ll1e NfA Non-combustible Not addressed NfA
reaulred
1\\
-----+
,
~
-
'-'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE _
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM .
HEARING DATE-n/4/87
PAGE 15
ATTACHMENT B
Should the Planning Commission vote to approve the proposed
project, a positive finding for all of the following must be
made.
Should the Commission vote to deny the proposed project, a
negative finding must be made for at least one finding in
each category.
These findings are required by Chapter 19.18 (Subsection .210)
to determine the project meets the objectives of the Planned
Residenital Development District.
19.18.210 Specific Objectives.
In addition to the determination that the plan complies with
the purposes 'of planned residential development, the commission
shall find that the following specific objectives are satisfied
by the plan: .
A. The overall Plan should be comprehensive.
B. In'relation to the scope and complexity of the development
its size shouldbe such as to effect an integral land planning
unit and provide for adequate open spaces, circulation, off-
street parking and pertinent development amenities.
C, Diverse functional elements should be well integrated,
property oriented, and properly related to the topographic
and natural landscape features of the site.
D. Developments should be well related to existing and planned
land use and circulation patterns on adjoining properties
and should not constitute a disruptive element, with regard
to the character of adjacent neighborhoods.
E. The layout of structures should effect a conservation in
street and utility improvements.
F. The internal street system should be designed for the
efficient and safe flow of vehicles without having a disrup-
tive influence on the activities and functions of the common
areas and facilities.
.
4:).
c
,- "
,
....,)
.......
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE,
FINDINGS of FACT
1
11/4/87
16
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
G. Park and recreational areas and facilities should be located
in close proximity to all dwelling units or easily accessible
thereto if possible.
H. The various community facilities should be grouped in places
well related to the open spaces and easily accessible to
pedestrians if possible, dependant upon harmonious design.
I. Architectural unity and harmony within the development and
with the surrounding community should be attained as far as
possible.
The second category of Findings relates to the approval or denial
of a conditional use permit. San Bernardino Municipal Code
19.78.050 states:
19.78.050 Required Findings:
.
All conditional use permits may be granted by the Mayor and
Common Councilor Planning Commission after the required public
hearings. Before the Mayor and Common Council or Planning
Commission may grant any request for a conditional use permit, it
must make a findings of fact that the evidence presented shows
that all of the following conditions exist:
1. The proposed use conforms to the objectives of the City's
General Plan Elements;
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area
in which it is proposed to be located;
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare;
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways "
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area,
and that adequate parking is provided;
5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to
\..
I
L\3
-
...,."
,...'",
, ,
'-
v
"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS of FACT
CASE _
AGENDA ITEM 1.
HEARING DATE 11 / 4 / 'd 7
PAGE 17
,
the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the'
citizens of the city of San Bernardino.
.
Al\
""""
mj
ATTACHMENT H
,
.......,1
.....,;
,J
AGENDA
ITEM #
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT'
LOCATION
CASE
CUP 87-5
HEARING DATE
11/4/87
o ..
g .
a: %
" w
... ..
... c
a: ...
u ..
>-
...
u
. "0"
"0"
HIGHLAN
*\
...
::>
z
...
~
l~
"0"
"0"
P.
2,3
P.R.D.
2.3uni15/ac.
..
c
--
ARROYO ~/"
.
~5
-
l
........
;' '^
.......
"
)
,,-,)
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-5
for a
224 Unit Apartment Project
Known as Quail Woods Apartments
at
the north side of Highland Avenue approximately
'1200 feet east of Boulder Avenue in the
Highland Hills Specific Plan
October 8, 1987
Prepared by Edward L. Gundy
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Prepared for Dennis Martin
P. O. Box 6000-333
Palm Desert, CA 92261
!\(o
----.' -,
\....
, Section
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
5.0
6.0
'"-,
, /
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Executive Summary
Proposed Project
Project Impacts
project Description
Location
Site and Project Characteristics
Existing Conditions
Project Characteristics
Environmental Assessments
Environmental Setting
Environmental Effects
Traffic
Flood Potential
Services/Facilities
Seismic
Cumulative Impacts
References
Appendices
Appendix A - Environmental Impact
Checklist
Appendix B - Liquefaction Study
Appendix C - Letter from Dr. Williams
March 8, 1987
Appendix D - Letter from Gary Rasmussen
and Associates
April 2, 1987
Appendix E - Letter from Dr. Williams
Apr il 2, 1987
Page
1-1,1-2
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-3
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-4
6-5
6-6
Ll,
-
, /
r
.......'
, ,
-..)
",
)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is
Initial Study
known as Quail
provided by the
for the proposed
Woods.
City
224
of San Bernardino as an
unit apartment project
As stated in Section 15063 of the State of California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or
a Negative Declaration.
2.
Enable an applicant or Lead Agency
project, mitigating adverse impacts
is prepared, thereby, enabling the
qualify for a Negative Declaration.
to modify a
before an EIR
project to
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is re-
quired by:
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant.
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 environ-
ment.
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIR's.
8.
Determine whether a previously prepared
be used with the, project.
The possibility the project will involve
tion of facilities in an area which
flooded during an intermediate regional
ized flood.
EIR could
7.
construc-
could be
or local-
9. The possibility the project will involve construc-
tion of facilities or services beyond those pres-
ently available or proposed in the near future.
1-1
ill;)
r
"-'
/' "
~~
".~.
10. The possibility the project is located in immediate
area of any adverse geologic nature such as slide
prone areas, highly erosible soils, earthquake
faults, etc.
11. The possibility the subject project will have an
impact either together or in conjunction with
effects of other projects cause a cumulative
significant adverse impact on the environment.
1-2
-
")
'r_.
"n.
-
/'"
\.."...
-
-
)
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Proposed Project
The request is for approval
19.18.040 (c) to establish a
approximately 14.10 net acres.
2.2 Project Impacts
Impacts identified in the attached checklist include:
under authority of Section
224 unit apartment complex on
1. The possibility that significant increases in
either noise levels, dust odors, fumes, vibration
or radiation be generated from the project area,
either during construction or from completed
project other than those resulting from normal
construction activity.
2-1
~o
-
L
1"'".....
\......
".,1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Location
The proposed 224 unit apartment project
Highland Avenue approximately 1200 feet
the foothills of the San Bernardino
Highland Hills (see Location Map)
3.2 Site and Project Characteristics
is loca'ted north
east of Boulder
mountains, known
of
in
as
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The site is irregularly-shaped parcel encompassing approxi-
mately 14~10 net acres. The terrain generally can be
described as sloping from north to south with the elevation
being 1550 feet along the north boundary line at a low point
of 1490 feet at the south west portion of the site. The site
is presently vacant land with chapparel vegetation dominating
the landscape.
3.2.2 Project Characteristics
The proposed development will encompass the majority of the
14.10 acres of the site. A 'finger' of land extending north
and adjacent to Arroyo vista Drive will be left as unbuild-
able. The project will consist of 28 two story buildings.
Each building will contain eight units. The total area of
buildings will consist of 17.06% coverage comparing to the
overall site. The covered parking spaces will encompass
another 6.56% for a total of 23.62% structural coverage.
Two hundred twenty four
on site in conformity
requirements. A total
provided.
A minimum separation of buildings is
within the Greenbelt Study for zone
proposed to be less than 30 feet
building.
covered parking spaces are proposed
with San Bernardino Municipal Code
of 460 parking spaces are being
30
'B'.
from
feet
Two
the
as required
buildings are
recreational
In the southern portion of the site lies the semi-improved
channel for Cook Canyon Creek. An easement is being estab-
lished for channel improvement purposes for Cook Canyon
Creek. Two primary access points are established on Arroyo
vista Drive. A third secondary access point is being estab-
lished across Cook Canyon Creek Easement from Highland
Avenue. The Fire Department has established a stipulation
that this fire access be a bridge in order to qualify as an
all weather roadway.
3-1
~\
c"
',-.,j
, "'
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.1 Environmental Setting
The subject site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land con-
sisting of 14.10 net acres. The site is bounded on the east
by the proposed alignment of Arroyo Vista Drive, the south by
the present alignment of Highland Avenue to the west by the
City creek flood plain and to the north by the San Bernardino
Mountain Range. The site is zoned PRD-2.3 (planned Resi-
dential Development at 2.3 units per acre for the entire
Highland Hills Specific Plan).
4.2 Environmental Effects
The Environmental Impact Checklist identifies five areas of
potential concern regarding the project. Each item checked
"maybe" or "yes" on the checklist is identified below,
followed by the recommendated mitigation measures.
4.2.1 Traffic
Would significant increases in either noise levels, dust
odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be generated from
project area, either during construction or from completed
project other than those resulting from normal construction
activity?
The traffic from heavy equipment and trucks will be brought
into the area during the construction period of the project.
Limit the hours of heavy vehicle traffic so as to not con-
flict with normal vehicular traffic during peak hours.
4.2.2 Flood potential
Will project involve construction of facilities in an area
which could be flooded during an intermediate regional or
localized flood?
Flooding may come from both the Cook Canyon Creek that
traverses the southern portion of the site as well as the
potential of flooding from City Creek to the west of the
site. Flood control district has made improvement plans for
the Cook Canyon Creek. The improvement primarily consists of
a rock lined channel 32 feet in width with a 15 foot access
roadway to each side of the channel. Improvement plans are
on file with the City Planning Department, and the 'San
Bernardino County Flood Control District.
MitiqatiQD_Measures
The drainage and flood control plan for the site is described
in Section 2 above. The purpose of the plan is to mitigate
the impacts discussed above. A listing of mitigation meas-
ures follows, which should be read in conjunction with the
plan. (Pages 62 and 65 of EIR)
4-1
-~
,f" "
....,
/""
.....1
'''',
I
".'
1. All natural drainage courses are to be left in their
natural state as far as it is possible.
2. Cook Canyon Creek will be retained as a natural drainage
course for its entire length within the property.
3. Where natural courses are interrupted by development,
the surface water run-off will be diverted, as shown on
the plan, and re-directed back into the drainage.
4. Surface water run-off from developed areas as a rule
will be directed onto the streets. In instances where
this is not possible, storm drains will be located as
shown on the plan. '
5. The road crossings over Cook Canyon Creek will be all-
weather crossings designed so as not to impede water
flow or encourage debris accumulation.
6. Since the proposed plan will require grading near the
existing debris basin, the construction of a new debris
basin is recommended. The final location should be the
subject of further engineering study.
7.
The area adjacent
level sufficient
the creek.
to City Creek should be
to mitigate any flood
elevated to a
potential from
8. Where there is an erosion potential in the drainage
courses, buttresses will be constructed using gabioni.
9. Erosion on cut and fill slopes will be mitigated through
appropriate landscaping, benching and drainage swales as
required.
4.2.3 Services/Facilities
Will project involve construction of facilities or services
beyond those presently available or proposed in near future?
Police services will be impacted as stated in the EIR on page
98. The impact and mitigation measure is as follows:
EnY1I~nmental Impact
Development of the project site will require the exten-
sion of police service to the area. Depending upon the
timing of the development, additional beats may be
necessary. In prior analysis related to the annexation
of the subject site to the City, the future addition of
four (4) officers and one (1) patrol unit was ident-
ified. Development of the project site is not antici-
pated to seriously impact the ability to continue
service at an acceptable level.
4-2
~~
\..d , , , .'\ -, ,
'-' --J j
4.2.4 Seismic
Will project be located in immediate area of any adverse
geologic nature such as slide prone areas, highly erosible
soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
The entire site lies within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies zone. Initial and subsequent geologic investigations
on the site have determined that the inactive faults which
traverse the northern portion of the site are benign in
nature and as such may have structures straddle those faul~s.
This is contrary to initial comments made within the EIR
(page 58) and is based upon subsequent geologic reports.
(Appendix 0 and E). In a phone conservation with Dr.
Williams (the City's consulting geologist) on September 29,
1987 he indicated that structures may straddle the inactive
faults in the project area.
The site has a potential for high levels of liquefaction
(page 57). Mitigation measures indicated in EIR (page 60)
are that ftLiquefaction in this area should be evaluated by a
soils engineer and appropriate mitigation measures should be
incorporated into foundation design. A liquefaction study
has not been submitted but the site is known for this poten-
tial as very high.
4.2.5 Cumulative Impacts
Will any effects of the subject project together or in
conjunction with effects of other projects cause a cumulative
significant adverse impact on the environment?
The cumulative impact of
is of concern. A traffic
(page 67) addresses:
The area land use
Existing circulation system
Existing traffic volumes
Trip gene rat ion
Roadway capacity
Traffic signal warrant
traffic on the surrounding roadways
study in conjunction with the EIR
The mitigation measures (page 80) illustrates that the street
systems improvements will be necessary by 1995 (1981
estimate). The applicant would not necessarily be finan-
cially obligated for all of the improvements. The applicants
responsibility for proportional funding of these improvements
should be determined through the use of proportional average
daily traffic factoring method.
4-3
LA
c
'"'
"'-'
~. '~
.....~J
5.0 References
Dr. Floyd Williams - San Bernardino City Consulting
Geologist
Highland Hills Specific Plan/EIR
Circulation - page 30
Flood Control - page 62
Facilities & Services - Page 98
Grading - page 56
Cumulative Effects - page 80
Preliminary Soils and Liquefaction Investigation
CHJ Inc. (on file in City Planning Department)
Fault Investigation for a portion
Leighton and Associates (on file
Planning Department)
of Area 'A'
in the City
Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation of
Highland Hills - Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates,
October 7, 1981 (on file in the City Planning
Department)
Improvement plan for Cook Canyon Creek Parcel Map
No. 9166 (on file in the City Planning Department)
5-1
~e::
c
t-'''',
V
/-\
'j
.- ......
,)
Quail Contractors, Inc.
April 2, 1987
Parcel Map 9166
Project No. 1032.5
found in these alluvlal sediments, we understand the City desired to have bulldlngs
not placed directly on it.
SITE INVESTIGATION
A subsurface Investigation of the site was conducted on March 26, 1987. In
addition, our Investigation Included review of stereoscopic aerial photographs flown
In 1930, 1953, 1968, 1971 and 1978, and review of pertinent geologic literature and
maps, Including review of previous Investigations on the Highland Hllls Residential
Development and other nearby projects. Approximately 150 feet of trench was
excavated within the northern portion of Parcel 3 utlllzlng a rubber tire backhoe.
The trench was approximately 10 feet deep and approximately 3-5 feet wide at the
surface. The trench was excavated In a northeast-southwest direction In order to
Intercept at a relatively high angle any faulting associated with the northwest-
trending Fault A. In addition, approximately 50 feet of cut was cleaned and
examined for evidence of faulting within the bedrock materials. Both the cut and
trench exposures were examined in detail by an engineering geologist and geologic
logs were made. Floyd Williams, geologist representing the City of San Bernardino,
examined the trench and cut. The locations of the trench and cut are shown on
Enclosure 1. The geologic logs are Included as Enclosure 2.
The lowermost materlais exposed within the trench consisted of red-brown slity
sands, gravels and occasional boulders. These materlals are suspected to be
Pleistocene In age based on soll development, calclu~ carbonate clast coatings,
weathering of specifiC clast lithologies, Induration and topographic position. These
materials can be grouped Into two general units consisting of gravels and sllty sands
as shown on the trench log. The Pleistocene-age materials were unconformably
overlain by sands, sllty sands and gravels of suspected Holocene age. No faults or
fault-related features were observed within the trench.
2
G.A.RY S, R.A.BUUBSlIIIN .. .A.BSOCIA'l":BlS
GCD
, (."j
'-'
"
~"."'\
'-"
'\. ,,/
)
Quail Contractors, Inc.
April 2, 1987
Parcel Map 9166
Project No. 1032.5
Cleaning of the cut slope exposed conglomerate which Is part of a sedimentary
sequence referred to as Potato Sandstone. The cut exposed several bedrock
fractures. Most of these fractures are relatively minor and are not expected to be
directly associated with primary faulting. The most significant fracture observed
within the cut trended subparallel to the suspected trend of Fault A but was
tensional In character and was not primary faulting.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No evidence for any faulting was observed within the trench. Therefore, surface
ground rupture due to primary faulting Is not expected within the northern portion
of Parcel 3 during the lifetime of the proposed development (next 100 years). Since
no evidence for any faulting was found In materials even older than those used to
previously determine that this fault Is not active, human occupancy structures need
not be set back from the location of Fault A as shown on Plate 1 of Project No.
1032-2 and Enclosure 1 of this report.
The approximately 150-foot long trench was backfilled and the backflll was wheel
rolled. The significance of the trench backflll with respect to future foundation
loads should be evaluated by the solis engineer.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY S. RASMUSSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0J~
Wessly A. Reeder
Project Geologist
//~~
Gary S. Rasmussen
Engineering Geologist, EG 925
3
G....RY e, :R.AB1ool:'CJ'BBJIlN .. ....BBOCI....'rlIlB
.:::",
.-
.
....-,
"
".
"'.-
.....,J'
Quail Contractors, Inc.
April 2, 1987
Parcel Map 9166
WAR:GSR/pg
Enclosure 1: Trench Location Map
Enclosure 2: Trench and Cut Logs
Dlstrlbutlon: Quail Contractors, Inc. (6)
4
a.A.RY S, :R.A.SUUSSlIlN.to .A.SSOO:t.A.TJIlS
,)
Project No. 1032.5
5<a
,
'~
'......"'..
"'~J
-
..
..
..
, I
-
-..
hi
-!g
>
-l!l
I~
-t
-
..
..
~
..
~ l
n
. If!
~
.
.
u: l~~i ~
;; aff g~
0
"
~ 5'\
N h'-"glii
0
.
" ~ri M
. e a ..
~
. t' "'.
. .. e:
0.
< g~~
.
"
" 9f~
~
"
.,
0 ... ~ , 0 :2
~ '\
... 0
.. ..- :g
I ~
I c;;
< I ~d
I
I !1~
~- I
I
I :~l~i~
I
I
I $1- IliM
~
,
~I ,
I E~~
I ill
!il- 1 .
I t
I
, g:C
I
I I ~_II a
I
, . ~
, I
'< I ~
I
lit- I ~
I h
I * ~
!I I <
I 11
I ~ il_
I n ~ 'if
.'
I r{P h
< I 1ti
~. li'
~- m I
!!.II t I t
I
}' I 1
< ~I 0 I) ,
~- ..:1 1
i\ -
l' ~I " t
"I cd
II I
~-Il (I 1:1
'I l~ I :. 1
l' 11 , i
[I It I :!.
il 01. I
'I ~I s_ I
1 1l ~ I
.
., < , h I
I I
, I
il- I n < ,
, , I
~I , , -
I " ..
1 " , ~
"
I " 1 I -
"
" .
I " lil- t ..
I " ~ I ~
c
I " , I .
< " 1 ~
I " , I .
!~ -
, I ~ c
0
I . I N
~-l!l 1 ~I ~
.t "
{O !1'~ I 0
li:1' I t ~
"-
1 111' ' " , t ;,.
I .~ ~~~1 I
~ : 1-" ~;; ;1: I I -
Ii- I
I " .
" I ~
I " .
I u
\ ~
, I
, I
0 l!!
0 ... 0 ... .. ~ .. (00
~ ~ -
,.. -
,
,
.'"
v
,
ENCLOSURE 1
TRENCH LOCATION MAP
Gary S. Rasmussen & Associates, Inc.
uail Contractors - Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9166
Highland Hills, San Bernardino, California
Project No. 1032.5
Scale: 1" = 200'
~,::
.....<-
'"
,
I
L~
..
,
Flll
Young stream deposits
Old fanglomerate
Alluvium
Potato Sandstone, conglomerate facies'-'~'-
.._-~'-=-=o
Fault, dashed where approximate, dotted
where burled .
f
Qyal
Qof
Qal
Tpsc
Contact, dashed where approximate,
dotted where buried
Gary S. RaSMUssen & Associates, Inc
(0\
-
-
-
.
, ,
,
'1....'
" -~-.
v
.
FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, Ph.D.
MINING ENGINEER AND REGISTERED GEOLOGIST #2143
.
'30 SlMvIclg. Woy
Redlanc:l':CollfotnlG 92373
17'41792.1201
MEMORAHDUM
,TO:
MI'. . let G\Incly. , lanner
. City of San Bernardino
. ,
DATE:
SUB.JECT:
I'l,Oyet J. NUU~~ R~",:~d Ge~lOght
'April Z, lt8~~~ ~':.t'~~~
Review of ge010gi:~report, ~roject No. 1032.5, by
Ras.ussen a Associates for Quail Contractors, Inc. ..
I'ROM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE or RE'ORT: Subsurface Ingineering Geology Investigation of
'arce1 3 of 'arcel Map t166, "st'Highlands Area, San
Bernardino, California. 'repue4 by Gary S. belllussen
'Associates. Dated: April 2, 1"7.
f. ;.
'ROCEDURES USED IN EVALUATIHG REPORT: ", ;P, r ."
1. Made trench inapection on 3/ZI/87.'. i ,
2. Exaained stereoscopic aerial' photographs' of the area
flown in lt34, ltlt, and lt71.
CONCLUSIOHS AND RECOMMENDATIOHS:
1. Ho faultlng was obeerveet ln tbe trench 01' slde-bil1
cut a1tbougb se41.entary 1aye1'8 of presumed 'leist-
ocene age and older were expo~ed by tbe excavatlons.
2. I ooncur witb tbe conc1usione and reco..endations of
of the report. The l'au1t -A- as originally project-
ed acrose the parcel is either. not present in tbe
viclnity or le burled below 'lelstocene strata and
. therefore conslderedlnacUve. Human occupancy
structure. need not be .et back fro. the orlgina1 .
projected location of the fault.
3. Tbe report .eets the require.ents of the A1quist-
'rio10 Special Studies Zones,Act.
I
-
-
-~
~
'-h
..J
!--
G(,:.It.:JY d 1(/.
- ...n-o:--
FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, Ph.D.
MINING ENGINEER AND REGISTERED GEOLOGIST #21<13
130 Sunrids. Way, '
R.dlands. California 92373
(71<11792.8208
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Ed Gundy, Planner
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino. California
FROM: Floyd 3. Williams. R.gistered~ologist
DATE: 'Mar~h 8, 198~C~\.. /t:;~~o/
" '
SUB3ECT: Activity of Fault A, East Highland Hills, An extension
of Geological Report No. 117 (Project No. 1032.2, Rasmussen)
I have reviewed at your request the letter dated April 15,
1986 to Highland Hills Development from Gary S. Rasmussen &
Associates that deals with the activity of Fault. A as iden~ified
on the East Highland Hills Residential Development. MY'
memorandum to the Environmental Review Co~ittee of November 11,
1981 is an evaluation of the Geologic~l Repor~No. 1l7, which is
the comprehensive geological study ot. the subject property. O~le
of my recommendations was that st~uctures fer human occu9~nc,
!'hould not be placed astride Fault", A, B, and':; as shown Oil the
200-5cale geological map accompanying the report.
Today I examined the outcrops along Fault A with a copy 0:
the Rasmussen & Associates report for Project No. 1032-2 in hand.
The fault trends from 60 to 75 degrees west ot north, generally
parallel in strike to the main south branch of t.he San Andreas
Faul t located from 800 to 900 feel: to the !:c'l,;h. Later I l."-
examined ~erial photos flown in 1933. 1909, and 1971. Wh~re
evident vn steep slopes, the dip of Fault A is no to 90 degrees
off the horizontal. Surface expressions of t~e fault trace
include saddles, breaks in slope, and a prono~nced linear sca~p
on the west side of City Creek. Geological controls on the
amount of displacement on Fault A are not precise, but the scarp
west of City Creek indicates 10 to 20 feet or more of vertical
component of movement in the past.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Fault A breaks the bedrock to the surface except where it is
buried by a thin layer of Quaternary sediment. Due to its
proximity to the active San Andreas Fault and its nearly parallel
orientation. I presume that it was formed o~igl~ally due ~o
APPENDIX
c
6-4
CJ>~
'c"
(
I
~
-
"
"-'"
"
',,/
Memorandum: Gundy/Williams, East Highland Hills, 3/8/87, pg. 2
forces that' caused movement on the main fault.
After giving careful and respectful consideration to the
subject memorandum by Rasmussen <<Associates, I remain of the
opinion that structures for human occupancy should not be built
astride Fault A. My recommendation does not call for a setback
from the fault, but that foundations of the proposed structures
not extend across the near-surface or surface location of the
fault. There is a reasonable possibility that Fault A would
exp,er,ience some dislocation in the event of a major dislocation
on the main San Andreas to the south.
<01.\
'-
r CITY OF
.......
~
..... -'"~
SAN
BERNARDINO PLANNING
DEPARTMENT ~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
\..ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ,CHECKLIST
~
,.- ~
A. BACKGROUND
.
l. Case Number (s) : Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 Date: 10-8-87
2. Project Description: A 224 unit apartment project in the Planned
Residential Development.
,
,
,
3. General Location: north side of Highland Avenue approximately
1200 feet east of Boulder Avenue.
..--,------ ...--.---- "
B. ~:NV lltoNMI\NT AL 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? -L ..
- -
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 resul t-
ing f rom 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, ligh t , 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 81
APPENDIX A
6-2
E.R-C. FORM "
PAGE I OF' lD5
f
-.,;
~
'-'
'~.. "
8. Will p~oject involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available o~ pro-
posed in near future?
10. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path, '
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
CUP 87-5
YES
MAYBE
x
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.? X
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
'18. Will any grading or excavation be requi~ed in
connection with p~oject which could alter any
exIsting p~ominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, drainage courses, etc?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in conjunction with effects of other projects
cause a cumulative signHicant adverse impact on
tile cnvironmellt?
X
~)
NO
x
X
X
X
.:x
'.X
':, "-
X
.X
lDCtI
-
.C
1'"
'-'
" .;
CUP 87-5
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitisate or
, eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
,
E. DETERI'IlNATION
On the hasis of this initial evaluation,
o We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NECATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
. .
o We find that although the proposed project could have a significant;;
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect,.,tli
,
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached 'sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREP~~ED.
o We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
(Secretary)
DATE:
CDl
-
-
c
~. ",
'-"
"._,)
6.0 Appendices
Appendix A - Environmental Checklist
Appendix B - Liquefaction Study
Appendix C - Letter from Dr. Williams, March 8, 1987
Appendix D - Letter from Gary Rasmussen and Associates
April 2, 1987
Appendix E - Letter from Dr. Williams, April 2, 1987
csj
10-1-87
DOCUMENT: MISCELLANEOUS
ISCUP87-5
6-1
.
-
\
,t
11
, ,.
,.1 ,
,
" ~
,; ,'~
.
-,
,~. .
,
I~
,
'i
<('::
d;
'In
lie (08
-
'"
~
df >r(~y aiA'(--
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ENVIRONMENT AL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
'C C:
D~PARTMENT OF TRANS JRTATION/
FLOOD CONTROLlAIRj'ORTS
~-, \
825 East Third SUetl . San Bernardino. CA 92415-0835 . (7141387.2800
ATTACHMENt ID
,~\\\lIlJfr./
.......~ t 1;:,.
..:::-.; ~
- :::-
-:::-- -=::-
-4. ~.......
/'lPI'II\\~~'
April 29.
MICHAEL G, WALKER
Director
1987
File: 3-301/1.00
3-306/1. 00
I;. i]Q9. oj 1~
rl) ,
I~; .l
(1(,:~ 1 J
"'.~""'\
/il11
'2)
,-... -
i:~ :~'. L
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92~la
elr: i.
S:~~l i:.:.~...
c '~\lT
,.'..1...1
.- .oJ ".
,._...;" , t..f'\
Attention: Mr. Don Williams
;~ '"
Re: Zone 3. Ci ty Creek and"': '
:+
Cook Canyon Channel _ !i
Conditional Use Permit 87-5
. Gentlemen:
Reference is, made to your Agency Comment Sheet with accompanying maps
requusting the District's comments and/or reco~nendations on the referenced
development. The site is located on the north side of Highland Avenue and
west of Arroyo Vista Drive. in the northeast portion of the City of San
Bernard ino.
TIlis site abuts on the west a major watercourse known as City Creek and 'an
existing natural drainage course which outlets flow from Cook Canyon along
the southerly boundary. Both these watercourses have experienced highly
debris laden flows in the past.
" ,i,;
In our opinion, tha.se portions of the site lying,' in and abutting 'City
Creek are subject to varying degrees of flood hazards by reason of overflow,
erosion, and debris deposition. in the event of a major storm until such
tir.le as permanent debris retention facilities and channelization of City
Creek are provided. Those portions of this site lying in and abutting Cook
Canyon Channel and its overflow areas are subject' to infrequent flood
hazards by reason of overflow, erosion and debris deposition until such time
as adequate channel and debris retention facilities are provided to intercept
and conduct these flows through and/or around and away from the site. The
site is also subject to tributary flows from the smaller canyons to the
north and east.
Our recommendations are as follows:
1. A detailed drainage analysis be proy ided by the developer 's eng ineer,
showing how it is proposed to cope with the serious flood hazards
to the site. Any proposal should shnw how flood proofing facilities
which meet the Federal and County of San Bernardino's requirements
can be provided without adversely affecting the adjacent and/or
downstream properties.
. ~ . .
.,;\
... ,.......
(00.
, )-
t.,
Letter to
April 29,
Page 2
-',.,.'
,'"
the City of San Bernardino
1937
2.
Adequate provisions shall be made to intercept and conduct the off-site
tributary drainage flow around or through the site in a manner
I<hich will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.
3.
The developer's engineer shall prepare and submit survey cross-sections
of City Creek adjacent .to the site 5,0 necessary right-of-way
dedications and Building SetbClcks can be determined. The study
shall be completed prior to District approval of the proposed
development/land division.
4.
5.
6.
A permit will be required for any encroachment onto flood Control
District right-of-way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks processing
time should be allowed.
7.
In add i tion to the Drainage Requirements stated herein. other
"on-site" or "off-site" improvements may be required which cannot
be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to
be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and drainage
anaiysis have been submitted to this office. .
Section 16:0212(g) of the County Code sets the fee for this review
and ,analysis at $125.00. This fee is to be submitted directlY, to
the District Office with an indication that it is for Flood Hazard
Review of 10 '2862, File tlo. 309.0314. The fee should be mailed to:
8.
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Water Resources Division
825 E. Third Street, Room 120
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this
site until the fee has been received.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at (714) 387-2515.
m~' ,
ROBERT W. COCHERO, .Chief
lIater Resources Division
;!l
in
,
f
'-'"
~
,
,-,"
')
,~, ./
ATTACHMENT E
STATE Of CAlIfORNtA-lUSINfSS AND TIlANSPORTATION AGENCY
GEORGE DeuKMfJIAN. Go_
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8. P,O" lOX 231
SAN IlfRNARDINO. CAlIfOllNIA 92_
@.
, .
.. ~.
September 30, 1987
Development Revie';" ,
08-SBd-30/330-29.52/29.78
Your Reference:
CUP 87-5
,;
.
City of San Bernardino
Attention Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
00
rn (,,) \-", )'1 \'!' (i-
n' ;, "~
, c) L. \,,: "
ill)
OCT 0 l' 1987
Dear Mr. Gundy: CITYPl.M.,:~:'", "mlT
S"J ",.'~,.' , "A
, /-.1' ....:..;' ,J, ,'. ... ,. ~ /"
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Conditiortal
Use Permit 87-5 to establish a 224 unit apartment complex located
on the north side of Highland Avenue approximately 1,200 feet east
of Boulder Avenue in San Bernardino.
This proposal is considerably removed from an existing or proposed
state highway.
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal does
not appear to have a significant effect on the state highway
system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of
continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to
mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should. be
provided prior to or with development of this area.
We have the following comment on this proposal:
The developer should coordinate the outlet of Cook Canyon Creek
with Caltrans to ascertain compatibility with our upstream design
in the area of City Creek.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Will Brisley
at (714) 383-4671.
,
Very truly yours,
,
Engineer
"1\
--
~ ~-_..,,_.
._........"'__."'~..~~ _... '~L._"~<_~ '''_L~ __-.... _. ....'. ,.,_ ........~". '-" "'''": ~_
~. ....,~.
ATTACHMENT F
------'~_r.-.--. n
JOSEPH E. BONAOIMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
606 E, MILL STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA. MAILING ADDRESS: P,O, BOX 5852 . SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92412 . (714)885-3806
October 19, 1987
\:' ~
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 N. "D" Street
San 'Bernardino, CA. 92418
Attn: Valerie Ross
Re: Highland Hills
Dear Ms. Ross,
~ I "~'~
',1
The Highland Hills Specific Plan references the phasing plan (see
2.2.12), page 45, of the 581 acre development. Parcel Mop 9166
covers the lower, flatter portions of the subject property and is
the site locations for CUP 87 - 47, and CUP 87 - 5, which is a
sub-phase of Phase I. The residential pads within Parcel Map 9166
will be graded to permit surface water drainage back to the
street, the streets in turn are designed to carry local drainage
within the street right-of-way. As indicated in Section 2.2.7 of
the Specific Plan the Highland Hills property (page 33) is not
situated in a major flood plain, with the exception of the
southwest corner which could be affected by a 100 year flood on
City Creek.
San Bernardino County Flood Control District has recommended that
we either setback from the 100 year high-water mark, 100 feet', or
improve the channel to contain the 100 year storm as was done
down stream.
ij
In the Highland Hills Specific Plan reference is made, page162
(c) 8, "where there is an erosion potential in the drainage
courses, buttresses will be constructed." Due to erosive
velocity's (along Cook Canyon Creek) improvements will ,be
required. We have proposed the improvement to City Creek as per
attached. These improvement plans will be approved by City
Public Works and San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
Cook Canyon Creek has been designed per the requirements of the
Highland Hills Specific Plan as well as the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District. The plans are presently being checked by
the County.
'I'here is a diversion dam and debris basin on Cook Canyon Creek up
stream and off site of the property. The dam was originally
built in 1916 and further enhanced in 1958 with the development
of Tract No. 5299.
"1;}'
-- --C'"
_ ....,...:t.tCl;,......,..........., 1t"1.........,~u.t.l>oU.'-...n. I~.......~l ."...~f..!Ilr,.._.
.---u,g-.....-
~-~.,.....,. 7"-----
'"
San Bernardino County Flood Control has an easement over the dam,
the debris basin and their access roads. The dam has been
checked by the County and the Division of Dam Safety, State of
California.
The property has 224 sewer permits with the remainder to be
purchased at the time of development as required by the City of
San Bernardino. The off-site sewer line is under design with
necessary easements being condemned under the authority of the
East Valley Water District.
,
i
Water will be provided by East Valley Water District per a letter
of agreement, copy enclosed.
The 'geologic hazard zone which was defined
Associates, in their report 6840844-02, dated
will be defined on the final Parcel Map.
,
by Leighton and
January 8, 1984,
With any liquifaction potential on the subject site, design
recommendations will be submitted by a soils engineer and
approved by the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department
and City Geologist.
Access to the site is being provided for per the Parcel Map.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATES. INC.
" 'il:
,\ ";'
enc.
t
,
:1
'If
,~ . ~
,
"f
I
't:
)' ,
'il \~
i
\ (..., .....
~EPAR~MENT OF TRANSPC{'lT A TION/
"FLOOD CONTROL/AIRPORT"
825 Easl Third SI"ot . Son B..nordlno. CA 92415-0835 . 17141387.2800
ATTACHMENT \" '(
,~\"I .-
......~t'11,.
....:::-; ~
- --
--:;:.. .:;;...
""':7. ~......
/1f'/JII\\\~'
September 2~,
'..p-. -='.5'-'~"'/ I.. '.. /.: /-
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
MICHAEL G, WALKER
Director
1986
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Flletni-Ml4fl-9~] i\i) 1'2
utt~. qw~ L I!J ~
OCT 19 19B7
\]
Attention: Hr. Roger Hardgrave
City Engineer
C:TY PL~.Hi:;:':G C~?~.;:ii~.'ENT
SAN aEilNAiiiJi~JO, CA
Re:
Zone 3, Cook Canyon Creek
PH 9166
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to Stephen Ventura's (Bonadiman "Associates) letters d~ted
August 5, 1986 and September 12, 1986 with accompanying hydrology and
hydraulic calculations, and improvement plans for Cook Canyon Creek, requesting
the District's review and comments. The site is located on the east side of
City Creek and the north side of Highland Avenue, in the northeast portion
of the City of San Bernardino.
Our comments regarding the hydrology/hydraulic calculations and improvement
plans are as follows:
1. The on-site hydrology is based on undeveloped conditions. The
fully developed conditions should be used for the channel design flows.
,,/" 2.
The hydraulic analysis of the box culvert as an open channel is
insufficient. Please submit a more detailed hydraulic analysis of
the box culvert and transition, inoluding water surface profiles.
~.... :
(.3.
.
The channel and box culvert should be designed to handle 100 year
storm flows plus bulking and freeboard per County standard criteria.
1-'1'/
/ '
r ;-r. '.
{,..-
r
ell.
The cross-section of the channel on sheet ) shows the access road
as 15 ,feet wide. A 20 foot access road is generally required by the
District unless the facility is concrete lined.
5. Caltrans Standard Plan for a single box .culvert is 080 and not 081
as shown on the plans. The plan should be modified to provide a
3" cover for the steel reinforcement in the side walls and II"
cover for the base to prevent exposure of the steel due to abraision
of the con,crete caused by debris from the unimproved upstream reaches.
6. The design of the channel section for Cook Canyon Creek does not
provide for bulking. The channel section should be revised to
include bulking.
.....:\,...
;.. -::~ :.
".: '; ", ". ~.;', '.~ :!t~. :1.: ..... .
'.
,j .' .....:.. .1\,!,.:.-r::;
'.'.."lu
.-~.., .. ..,
- -c
? .~
.
Letter to
September
Page 2
,
\.,v
c
(
the City of San Beonardino
23, 1986
7.
In the irrf.gular channel section '2, the estimated flow depth
exceeds the bank of the channel. Provisions shall be made to
intercept and conduct this possible overflow into the improved channel.
8.
In determining the rock slope protection per Caltrans "Bank and
Shore Protection", the mean stream velocity used is 14 fps.
However, at the curved banks, the velocity used should be the
four/thirds the mean velocity.
9.
The proposed channel and access roads shall be covered by adequate
San Bernardino City Drainage Easement.
10.
Since the proposed channel is not concrete lined a 25 foot building
set'back shall be provided from the City Drainage Easement.
11.
Plans were not received for City Creek and hence our recommendation
for a 100 foot bUilding setback from City Creek is still valid.
12.
Section 16.0212(g) of the County Code sets the fee for this review
and analysis at $125.00. This fee is to be submitted directly to
the District Office with an indication that it is for Flood Hazard
Review of ID 12571, File No. 309.0309. The fee should be mailed to:
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Water Resources Division
825 E. Third Street, Room 120
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this
site until the fee has been received.
.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at (714) 387-2515.
RWC:SA:mjs
Very truly yours,
I~t {J.,.....~r'
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
cc: Stephen Ventura, 80nadiman & Associates
"15
"
, .".
_ '"- 'tOioliolEHTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/
FLOOp CONTROL/AIRPORTS
825 eall Thi,d SI"ot . San B..nardino. CA 92415-0835 . 171413B7.2800
I'.J:.CEIVED E-2
,~\\"'lJfe
'~t~."."
~ ~
-=:: :::.-
~ -:::-
.......~ ~......
/'If'I'II\\\h
October
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
MICHAEL G. WALKER
Director
14, 1987
city of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92415
File: 3-301/1.00
3-306/1. 00
309.0314
00 ~ &1fuOWn rID
OCT 19 1981
Attention: Mr. Ed Gundy
Ms. Sandi Paulse~
CITY PLj~i,Ni~;G lJEPARTMENT
S,~N BERNARDiNO, CA
Re: Zone 3, City Creek and
Cook Canyon Channel-
Conditional Use
Permits 87-5 & 87-47
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your transmittal of Conditional Use Permits
and 87-47 to establish a 224 unit apartment complex with accompanying
site plans and Cook Canyon Creek Improvement Plans and requesting
the District's review and comments.
This office has previously reported on this area to the City of
San Bernardino by letter dated April 29, 1987. A copy of our
previous correspondence is enclosed for your reference. Our
comments and recommendation remain the same.
The improvement plans have a "San Bernardino County Flood Control
District" title block. Recommendation 114 of our April 29,1987
,
letter to the C1ty recommended Cook canyon Channel be covered by
a City Drainage Easement. If the City desires to have the
District consider operation and maintenance of the channel, an
official request should be sent to Kenneth A. Miller, Director,
Transportation/Flood Control Department. '
The submitted improvement plans have been previously reviewed.
Our comments dated March 25, 1987 and September 23, 1986 to the
engineer are attached and remain the same.
llo
t
,
,
0,
,~
Letter to the City of San Bernardino
October 14, 1987
Page 2
Should you have any further questions concerning .this matter,
please feel free to contact Mr. Robert W. Corchero, Chief, Water
Resources Division at (714) 387-2515.
Very truly yours,
i2~' ('NI<eA_~'--
ROBERT W. COaCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
RWC:HWS:oj
Encl. as noted
c~:
City Engineering w/encl.
Ken Miller
Mina Ghaly
"
. '
\\
..JPA~TMENT OF TRANSC1RTA'nONI
FLOOo..eoNTROLI AIRPORTS
~. /:::. ~~' .....J
r l;V COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
~"II"I' ENVIRONMENTAL
....~\t\ I '/~.-' PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
~ ~
-;::: =:-
~ ...:::-
.....~~..... MICHAEL G. WALKER
/'If'I'II\\\~' Direclor
Ma..ch 25. 1987
825 East Third Straet . San Bo,nordlno, CA 92415-0B35 . 11141 381.2BOO
File: 3-306/1.00
309.0309
Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates
'P.O. Box 5852
San Be..na..dino, CA 92q12
Attention: H... Steve Ventu..a
Gentlemen:
Re: Zone 3. Cook Canyon C..eek
PH 9166
ReCe..ence is made to you.. lette.. of t..ansmittal dated Feb..ua..y 12, 1987.
with accompanying imp..ovement plans and hyd..ology/hyd..aulic calculations fo..
the ..efe..enced site, ..equesting the Dist..ict's ..eview and comments. The
site is located east of City C..eek, no..th of Highland Avenue, in the no..theast
po..tion of the City of San Be..na..dino.
This site has been ..eviewed p..eviously. A copy of our September 23, 1986,
letter to the City is attached and our current comments are keyed to the letter
as follows:
Comment '1: Has been addressed.
Comment '2: Not addressed. A HEC-2 program was submitted, but the box
culvert was treated as an open channel, hence transitions and
bridge,losses were not considered.
Comment 13: Bulking and freeboa..d a..e inco....ectly calculated. The County
standard calls for multiplying the clear water depth in the
channel by 1.5 and applying a 3 foot freeboard for velocities in
excess of eight feet per second. Also, superelevation for the
curved reaches of the channel must be calculated and applied;
Comment ,q:
Comment '5:
Conment '6:
Comment '7:
Comment 118:
Remains as a requi..ement.
Has been addressed.
See c~mment '3.
Has been addressed.
The rock slope protection has been designed using flow velocities
which are too low. Cal-trans nBank and Sltore Protect ion"
criteria should be used.
'l~
L
.
/
~etter to
March 25.
Page 2
.
.
~
Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates
1987
/
1 Conunent #9: Has not been addressed.
Comment #10: Remains as a requirement.
Comment #11: Remains as a requirement.
Comment #12: Fee has been paid.
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at (714) 387-2515.,
Very truly yours,
~~
ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief
Water Resources Division
RI~C:JJJ:mjs
Attachment
cc: Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer
"
'oj:
.
"
"
.'
.';' ,
-!f;'
,q.
c
I' >0
I.....-
....,,;'
HIGHLAND HILLS PROl1ERTIES, A California Partnership
p,O, Box 1367
San Bernardino, California 92401
(714) 881-2S18 or (714) 886-4801
I
. October 19, 1987
Valerie Ross, Chairperson
" Environmental fReview COlDJllictee
'City Planning "Department
City Hall
'San Betnsrdin~,CA 92401
"
,
REI CUP 87-47
CUP 87-5
"
Dear Ms. Ross:
,
,,,
At the ERC meeting of October 8th a number of issues were addressed
With respect to the above referenced conditional use permit applications.
In order to assist in the orderly processing of these applications, I wish
to make the following comments on certain of the issues that were discussed
at that meeting.
RECREATION:
the issue of
is quoted:
Section 3.6.3 of the Highland Hills Specific Plan addresses
recreation. Under section (c), Mitigation Measures, the following
"Provisions of' extensive on-site recreation amenities is well 'as permanent
open space mitigates demand for recreation amenities......In lieu of Quimby
Act Fees the develop~ could dedicate as a neighborhood park the designated
2.3 acre park site which is located below Highland Avenue on the Specific
Plan."
In subsequent discussions with the City Parks and Recreation' Department
the recommendation was made by this Department to the Mayor and Council
neither to accept the park nor waive the park fees. This recommendation
,
was formalized in the subsequent approval by the Mayor and Counc,il of Parcel
Map No. 9166. I quote the following from the hearing on this matter
designated under Observations as Item 6.
"The Highland Hills Specific Plan denotes that parcels one, two, and
three are designated ,for medium density residential.at a density of 8-14
units per net acre. Parael number four is designated as being of commercial
land uses. On the southern portion of lot line number one is a 2.5 acre site.
Comments reviewed from the Parks and Recreation Department state that 'park"
<60
('"".
"",,",
'-"
/
Valerie Ross, Chairperson - 2
Environmental Review Committee
October 19, 1987
as designated on the parcel map should ~ot be considered city park; rather
as an open green belt. This green belt "park" designation will not relieve
the developer of paying for park construction fees....".
.)
TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION: You expressed the concern at the ERC meeting that
,it was not clear how and when the developer will participate in any future
signalization. In Section 3.2.8 of the Specific Plan it states: "The
future traffic volumes on the roadway network summarized in the previous
sections illustrate roadway improvements that are necessary by 1995. These
improvements were developed to minimize the impact that the proposed development
would have on the roadway circulation system as well as accomodate future
non-project traffic flows. The project applicant would not necessarily be finan-
cially responsible for all of the following improvements. The City of San
Bernardino will have to determine who will be responsible for making these
improvements". As a condition to the adoption of Specific Plan No. 82-1
and change of zone NO. 82-22 the Mayor and Council acted on this Hem by
providing as a condition for approval item 15 g which provides as follows:
"The required traffic signal at the intersection of the main entrance to the-
site with Highland Avenue shall be constructed as an improvement requirement-
of the Tract Map containing the 705th unit."
and item 15 h
"The required traffic signal at the intersection of the secondary entrance
to the site with Highland Avenue shall be constructed as an improvement
requirement of the Tract Map containing the 8l7th unit."
SEWER CAPACITY RIGHTS: During the meeting Mr. Ellis Williams queried whether
or not the applicant had adequate sewer capacity rights. Highland Hills
Properties owns sewer capacity rights for 224 multiple family units. These'
will be made available to the applicants. Attached is a letter from the City
Water Department that advises of the availability of sufficient sewer capacity
rights to provide for~the remainder of 284 units.
Please advise if 'there is other information that would be useful
to you or the department. Thank you for your assistance in the processing
of these applications.
"
W. E. LEONARD
WEL/IIIW
,.
"6\
-
-
c
'-'
'--' _.,.'
WATER DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
300 N. "0" STREET 92401 . p,o. BOX 710 92402
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA
(714) 384-5141
BOARD Of WATER CQMMISSIONlRS
PltslDlNT
MARGARET H. CHANDLER
'if:';::' Mi..,
,0' ,.~,,:.' '1of1o\
,/0,...... .,
... 'i
i:: . .' ::
. '- - .
. .,.
"'''FoR Ui;.i
'-
COMMl5S10NEIS
ROBERT BIVENS
EMILIA GARCIA
lAMES H. URAl"
HAROlD W. WILLIS
October 16,1987
Mr. WiUiam ,E. Leonard
P. O. Box 1367
San Bernardino, CA 92402
Dear BaZ:
In accordanoe with your inquiry, this is to confi.rm that the
City of San Bernardino wouZd make 213 SEllJer capacity rights
avaiZabZe to you.
These 213 sewer capacity rights tJouZd accOlmlodat, th, 284
apartment units referred to in our discussion.
Very t:ruZy yours,
~fv~~4-4J~
Herbert B. WesseZ'"
GeneraZ Manager
HBW:prb
HERBElT 8, WESSEL
CENf~ MIV'oIACUl
IOSEPHF. STEISKAl
OIIECTOa. ENCINtfIING.
CONSTIUCTION.M"INrfN"NCf
BERNARD C. KERSEY
OIUCTOR. ADMINISTRATION
& FINANCE
DUANE B. NORTON
DIRECTOR. WAHl
RECLAMATION
~~
c
',.,
~ ,~'
-
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8710-1103
TO: Ann Siracusa, Directo~ of Planning
. FROM: G~rald M. Newcombe, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Quail Woods Project
DATE:
October 2, 1987
( 7215)
COPIES:
Ed Gundv, Planning
-------------------------------------------------------------
The fire ~ccess roadw~y proposed over Cook Canyon Creek,
shall be accompl ished by :inst~ll~tion of an approved
brldge~ a minimum of 20' in ~idth.
I.
The required access to ~ multistory bui Iding does not
meet the minimum requirement of 50' from the roadway.
Provide access or instal I ~utomatic sprInkler systems for
a I I un i, t s .
r;
(,~(;lV\4-L..~' ~1\~__C.(",<-' <:;.--,,~\...~
, GERALD M. NEWCOM , '
Fire Chief '
't
GN/blm
1,
'" r
lID ~ @]njWIIDrID
.D ..1 l '..J~] II
[-
OCT 20 1987
Cl"'V .' ,.".,." ,...)""""EN..
I rltoli:;l,,~;.~,;.; t;nilvl I 4
SAN BEii~;"liDirjO. CA
i""J'
'a~
-
'.,'/
~
",.,I
,
.. -.1
:' ..... I
California license No. 2143
FLOYD J. WILLIAMS
~
, ,
REGISTERED GEOLOGIST
,,~... I
130 Sunridge Way
Redlands, California 92373
(714) 792.8208
eJTY ?L;;iiJ;ri"G C:;'I::.;:S:::~I
;.El'~HA1lDUl-1
ow:
F.lw1."'Orr.'.ental ReVieN Coom1ttee
City of San Bernardino
Attn: ~~. Vincent Bautista, Secret~J
c=iJ GJ.- "-
.c....;..~."......I""'\,
.~.' ,~"'~.. \'
....,y ... ' ,.......
( ::./ ','-;.. .
,l...;.,'.1 .... \
jJ~" '": .~'.':': ~ ".' I I . . ":" . ~ .
, r!..1", I... ~. ..1.._."..... _ 11, " \
e::. ......;:.
r. 2"'3 . '}
~, .0. Hi:.
~)> /.."'../.j
'S~;;: -e"
~~
FROH: Floyd J. l'11l1iarns~. ,R ered Gl!~~ '.
("" ., /1 . ~;;,~~~~
DAT;:: Nover.>.ber 11, 19 ' ~,....-a-r' .,...:
SUBJECT: Evaluation of geolop;1c re~ pursuant to the proVisions
of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act GGb-oG.'1 ~.;:F 117
TITLE OF REPORT: Subsurface engineering geology investigation of
Highland Hills planned unit development in the East Highlands
Area of the City of San Bernardino, California. Project No.
1032-2. Dated: ~ctober 7,1981.
GEOLOOISTS wID P!'.EPARED AND SIGiiEn REPORT:
John H. Foster, :leg:!.stered Geologist No. 3640
G~J S. Rasi:lUSsen, fr.g1neering Geologist No. 925
PROCEDURES USFD Dl EVALUATDG REPORT:
1. Read the report.
2. :1acle trench and site inspections on 8/18/81, 8/24/81, and
9/26/81.
3. Exam1ned stereo photos nOlm in 1933 and 1971.
4. ReViewed earlier geological reports on theproperty by
Leighton & Associates entitled, "Geotechnical feasibility
study of the !i1gh1and Hills Properties, San Bernardino
County, California." Dated: September 26, 1974. Signed
by: Douglas E. Moran, EO 17.
5. ReViewed subsequent report by Leighton am Associates
enti tled, "Geotechnical evaluation of acre~ adJ 0:1rl1I1g
the Highland Hills Development, San Bernardino. Dated :
Nover.>ber 30, 1917. Signed by Richard Lung, EO III.
CONCLUSIOllS :
1. The south branch of the San Andreas Fault j,s located
approximately at the S;v border of the propert~, and the
north branch of the San Amreas Fault cuts across the lIE
t)Ortion of the property. In betl'reen these faults are three
other faults, identified as A, B, and C on Plate I, that
cut; the property alon; tlle San Andreas tren::!, anprox-
:L";Jately 65 de~es l'lest of north. The north and south
branches of the San .4ndreas fault zone are considered
active and the faults A, a, and C are considered in-
active. Setback lines have been established 50 feet north
of the South branch and 50 feet south of the :rorth branch
as seen on Plate I.
.-','..
'61.\
-
....../
J
,
California License No, :l143
FLOYD J. WILLIAMS
111\1
Pg. 2
130 Sunridge Way
Redlonds, California 92373
{7141 792.8208
REGISTERED GEOLOGIST
:!er.:orandun: Environ:;'.ental Rev1e~1 Ca:m.;.'illllamsll'.i$land F.111s/11-11-cl
CONCLUSIOllS, CON'':'.
2. In the Conclusions portion of the report it is stated
that a fe~1 inches of moverrent could occur on Faults A,
B, and C in the event of substantial ground rupture on the
main. San Andreas Fault. I concur l'/1th this statelnent.
Howe'fer, no restrictions for building are recor:rnended in
the report for these three faults.
3. The report does not address geologic conditions on the
property situated north of the north branch of the San
Andreas fault for the reason that the terrain is very steep
arxl not scheduled for development at this t:1Jr.e.
4. DocUI:'.entation of the location of faults relies upon earl-
ier ,investigations conducted east and southeast of the
property as liell as upon investigations of the property
conducted in 1974 thrcu2h 1981. All oertinent trench
logs, including those cram earlier inVestigations. are
included in the report.
5. Shallow Sl;I'ound water conditions exist beneath the site
jmnediately north of the south branch of the San Andreas
fault. There is considerable potential for liquefaction'
of the sedir.'.ents in this area.
REC(MoIE!DJATIONS :
1. The report adequately describes and documents geologic
conditions on the property situated south of the north
,branch of the San Andreas fault. If the area north of the
north branch is to be developed, prior geolog:l.c studies
will be neceSsaI"'J. .
2. Geologic inspections should be conducted during grading.
No structures for human occupancy should be placed lofithin
50 feet of the south or north branches of the San Andreas
faults. No structures for human occupancy should be placed
astride the traces of the intermediate faults A, B, and c.
3. Analyses of soils by soils engineers will be necess~/,
arxl the liquefaction potential should be carefully eval-
uated for the 10\1 land to the ~ adj acent to the south
branch of the fault.
4. 'Il1e report meets the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo
~ct.
::,:,"". ~.....-.
- :~~..:~~C
,I'c,,/ "', t' ,
(t fFFL~"~ J """",~~";';" ",
. ><I'~, ..1. .
c:: _.........4 .:... i
\ "0 -..- .' ,
. 1'4 . ~-..,.;) i . /
Il). /,,/
v~~.:'/
~::;,0/'.
cas
C'" l
.~ ::
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
""',,",
.....,I
-
MEMORANDUM
To
ED GUNDY - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
From
MIKEL J. PARK
Subject
QUAIL WOODS APARTMENTS
Date
SEPTE~mER 10, 1937
:'1 ,
Approved j:;jj/
, I'
Date
In looking over the plot plan, I noted several buildings that
would not meet the minimum accesss requirements of the Uniform
Fire Code.
Buildings colored in blue on the attached plan would require
access roads to be installed within 40 feet of the building.
This would not apply if they are single story or if.~~l, buildings
in the project are equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. Fire
hydrants on 300 foot spacings are required through out the project.
11\ t:~ G.: ::~ :\
SFP 111987
'. ill)n
.1 .!!
"
C"" I"',
.11. .
, t", ~ , ' , , :' ":'. . \ ,".\
SAi~ \..,.:...',.-,1.;):1...1/ l,ih
- ;).a~T
~(p
c-
'-...../
_,.J
E#6/M'."'''''/A/t4 C/l//J,l/Jr,../,/-
"$~.&1'f~mL~"'<-'/S- -/38'7
C,U/' /" 7-5
;:
=:
I)
I'!i'CV/j),p' S'/c/'C' E"I1S[/IHAff-
ItH,~ n- ,1."1 !JC r /'RL7/o!!? /C 721
rR/'A.1 /-7-::;1,//0#& ,P^C'/':=~/~'rY o~'V:;':;(
P~. CO/''/S"T~(uC7 ~.:r/l//'//-.v6" !/V/7~L.
Z;I/
, Z), /ILL t!:DVr/C/J .FARnAlC 5-r/J[L ",,.:- H-t:/N.I>A7?CA't- A#LJ S/t:>.PE SEf /5/Jc1:"
5///UL BE ..J)E96N ,Per.:' See ';"IoN '7a//J CH/}?7c~7tJ Pr c/./:l C,
"j j
"
3,) ~,t)//7?IC~.(':I: ..IU./V8v/1Y APP~I)Ac/l $'d.RtL Be REPES/6i'/cb' rC-C
TN/} g. FeeT C,vE 1,i/fY ,##.0 NA/?A'CII..l(4 -5:'/) II-fC=O//lN S'r-K'/p
4)
AL.L
Cb,</,/e-,,( PI'" L"uR.8 ,f'e:rulCI/
,
f/Mtl-
g E p.~ >/&N
Fi?"< ,ti4/N. /5' J:='i!!'€r- R-'lLJ/uS.
.c.J CtJMPt. '::I t t..J/ fJ-/ /'REV/bU!:
,4.P'pIf/)V~ ~./' 'If $6 -7.
",". ~
&..>
:f/,p4!!'Ah"I'GK ~""'t:~ S#HU' 4~ ,/'ltoWLJE rP.e, lI?e"',v.R.:/!/N'~
t,;'.,
5/.4 E UJ A-~.IC' &J/\/
I9It'Rb'/.o V/S'r/'l
~R'vE.
:: ......~ .
~ /S". /!?JE7'
0:.:
,',
'~.)L ~.,
..Yov.v '#. ' K,h7
C~""'L .Gvw-)A,;o-'tt:"A........v..... .A'<<~~/A' :r~r
:~,:~~.;~ ",
;. ,
:~. ..,
'21
I
'va I T vr "1-\1" ocnl"'IJo...... '""'" -
"""
---'"
IVICIVlvnJ-\I'.l UU IVI
''"'--
ROGER G. HARDGRAV'C~ Oir.
From Public Works/City [ng.
Date October 13, 1987
Development File No. 11.42
(CliP 87-47 &
87.. 5)
11.051 (PM 9166)
Date
.....
SANDY PAULSEN, Staff Pla"i\'iler
To Environmental Review Committee
Planning Department
CUP 87-47, 87-5, & PM 9166: Highland
.........-'
Subject
Hi 11 s
Approved
This office has reviewed the subject project for Drainage,
Flood Contro), Traffic, and Grading. We find no adverse
environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated by standard
engineering design methods.
Specifically, the following concerns have been raised regard-
ing drainage:
a) Design or I!1!Qrovement of Existin!L,and Propo~ed
Drainage Courses
Existing minor drainage courses which traverse the
site will be controlled through the site to a proper
outlet into public streets. Since the loop street
is not being constructed by this project, interl~
drainage devices will have to be constructed to
convey the flows to an acceptable outlet. Design
of these devices will be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
b) Cook Canyon Creek Improvements
Design of Cook Canyon Creek Improvements is currently
under way by the developer's Engineer. City Engineer-
ing is Plan Checking the design. The design will have
to be approved by the City Engineer prior to issu-
ance of any construction permits.
c) 'Location and Status of Earth Fill Dams
We do not know of any earth fill dams in the vicinity
of the project, however, a debris basin owned and
operated by the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District is located near the easterly limit of the
project on Cook Canyon Creek. This facility does not
retain water and is therefore not a dam.
"
-<
.f:"f)f. .J
, 11..... .f
I ", ') ""'''S''
'" I.... l",e "
A
c,,,);!
. -.;
>',
-1-
"'2>><6
c
"'"
,
"'"-'
SANOY PAULSEN, Staff Planner
Environmental Review Committee
Re: CUP B7-47, 87-5, & PH 9166:
October 13, 1987
File No. 11.42 (CUP 87-47 & 87-5)
11.051 (PM 9166)
.
,
"
Highland Hills Development
d) Proposal for North Fork Ditch
Flows in the north fork d1tch will be maintained
through the project. There are many ways, to accompl ish
conveyance through the project while still maintain-
ing the quality and quantity of flow. The details
of the conveyance system will be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Work~/City' Engineer
0JU~w/1.,Jt-
MICHAEL W. GRUBBy
Senior Civil Engineer
MWG:pa
/'
-2-
~'\
4:'~
p,-
"..-
. '
East V~lI~y Water District
1155 Del Rosa Avenue po, Box 3427
San Bernardino. California 92413
(714) 889-9501
J~i i;1 , , "-r' !r!1
!:-I ,. !:1
" ~ '"
l:i.
;!I j
!_-'
nrT U 1987
LIIYd
,";~r
sr..;~: ~...
,'"
~,'I
October 8, 1987
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-5
To Whom It May Concern:
On September 30, 1987, I received a copy of Conditional Use,
Permit No. 87-5 from your office with' a request for any
pertinent comments. My only comment concerns the irrigation
canal which passes through the project, known as the North Fork
Ditch.
The ditch is a rock and mortar lined canal which is jointly
owned by the North Fork Water Company and the Bear Valley Mutual
Water Company. The East Valley Water District acts as liaison
for these companies in all matters pertaining to the North Fork
Ditch. It is the policy of both companies ,that any relocation of
the ditch shall be accomplished by undergrounding the facility
using reinforced concrete pipe. The District has conducted pre-
liminary discussions with the developers of the project regarding
the dit:ch' s relocation. UnLil such L.ime as the ditch has been
relocated, however, the facility must be protected in place at
all times.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or
need any further information, please do not hesitate to call.
V~u
Robert Martin
Assistant District Engineer
RM:tls
Philip A. Oi"h
President
Ger~ld W. SlOOPS
Vic.t.Presldent
Dennis L. Johnson
Diftctor
'tUr J. Rushtr
Dfflclor
Glen" R. lilhlfoot
Director
o,{')
.......,....
October 13, 1987
BONADIMAN ASSOCIATES
606 East Mill Street
San Bernardino, CA 92412
.
RE: PARCEL MAP NO. 9166 (ORCHARD AND HIGHLAND)
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your recent request, this letter confirms that
the Eas~ Va~ley Water District can and will provide water service
to the abo~e-mentioned parcel for domestic and fire protection
purposes. ,This commitment is subject to water availability at
the time of commencement of construction.
In addition, the District will collect and transport sewage
generated b~.this tract but is unable to provide sewage or waste-
water trea~ment because the District has no capacity in the
Regional Wqstewater Treatment Plant. The District will not
'approve' sewage collection and transportation plans or provide
such service until you provide evidence satisfactorY to the
District that such wastewater treatment plant capacity has been
purchased and is owned and available to you.
i,. '
Furthe~ore, all 1mprovements necessary for water or sewer
service are subject to approval by the District and must meet all
District standards. Developers must comply with all District
rUles, regulations, policies and procedures, including payment by
the develop~r for any and all capital improvements, main lines,
e~tensions, ' sewer capacity or other commitment or commitments of
the District's resources. The District will operate and maintain
all water and sewer improvements upon their dedication to the
East Valley Water District.
....
, The
in this
,letter. .
commitment to provide water and sewer service outlined
letter shall expire two (2) years from the date of this
, ,
,
Yours truly,
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
~'
~.
. ROW.. ..
Ge era Manager
LWR:tls
cc: Sandra Paulson, City Planning
Philip A. DliCh
PreJldtnt
Gerald W. Stoops
Vi".PrtJident
Dennis L. Johnson
Director
puer I. Rusher
Di"cto(
Glenn R. Li,htfoot
. Director
Larry W. Rowe
Donna IA. SPears .
0..\
"C(vnthia Ludvigsen. '
\1' 'v'
"
-,
:i
-,
-,
!:
ii
"
II
I,
"
"
~ I
'I
I
Ij
"
I'
ii
Ii
II
!l
:i
"
Ii
,-
II
~ I
11
:1
October 27, 1987
Mr. Edward Gundy
Associate Planner
city ot San Bernardino
300 N."D~ st., 3rd FIr.
San BernardinQ, CA 92418
,
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
Associate Planner
city of San Bernardino
300 N. "0" st., 3rd FIr.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
,
re: Comments to Proposed Negative
Declarations on CUP 87-5 and
CUP 87-47
Dear Mr. Gundy & Ms. Paulsen:
.;ttorncy at Law
\ : .:::.~:_~:..::-_.. ,-,.'-
.~._.. .--...- . -. ....
--..--'--
444 N. A~head A venue, Suite 202
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(714) 885-6820
f;
,
I am ....riting on behalf of my client, 'the Highland Hills
Homeowners Association, regarding the negative declarations
recommended on the above two conditional use permits by the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC).
It is my understanding that these recommendations are to go
before the Planning Commission on November 4, 1987.
My clients have addressed the Environmental Revie.... Committee on
these matters, and I have previously ....ritten letters to both the
Committee and to you regarding these CUPs. I believe my previous
....ritten comments dated October 2, 1987 and October 7, 1987 apply
to the proposed negative declarations as well, ,and ask that those
comments be submitted in response to the. proposed negative
declarations as well.
';
,
,
I
'I
:j
iI
11
1\
II
II
I
I
!
I
I
,
,
II
1 .
0'0 IE CJ l~ nq rn [ill
PI' . U
_L
OCT 271901
r.'I"V I'" "1""1" ~'p
, , LII ..i\"j~ iJ< ARTMENT
SAI~ llEIL'JAROIND. CA '
a.':),
c
"".,...'
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
fn addition, " I would like to submit these additional comments as
part of the record:
General Comments Aoolicable to Both proiects
As my previous correspondence stated, my clients believe the
applications submitted for both of these projects are Incomplete
and provide ipsufficient data upon which to base a decision to
issue a negative declaration.
Neither application contains the information normally required by
the City of San Bernardino for a CUP applicastion or, for that
matter, for any development application. A simple review of your
department's plot plan checklist reveals that these applications
ar~ lacking, among other items, property lines and dimensions,
handicapped parking and other parking plans, dimensions and
locations of easements or water and sewer mains, improvements on
frontage street and landscape plans.
I believe it highly inappropriate, and certainly a violation of
the letter and spirit of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to process an application which does not even meet the
city's minimal standards for submittal. Furthermore, on August
20, 1987,the Environmental Review Committee returned CUP
application 87-47 to the applicant and asked that specific
information be provided before it could act on that application.
The list of required information prepared by your staff is
attached to this letter as Exhibit "A". Nonetheless, .the
applicant resubmitted his application without much of the
requested information included.
Yet, the City has proceeded to process this application.
2
,:i
, , ",.,'~
'\?>
-
c
....
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
city of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
In addition, both of these CUP applications are inconsistent with
the Highland Hills Specific Plan, which was adopted for this site
in 1982, and with the city's planned residential development
(PRO) ordinance. Said inconsistencies are numerous, but the
major ones involve the realignment (or, in the case of these
applications, nonrealignmentl and widening of Highland Avenue;
flood control and channel alteration measures involving the sites
and Cook Canyon Creek and the North Fork Ditch; the elimination
of community open space; and the construction of apartments as
opposed to the townhouses identified in the specific Plan,and
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
At the october 8, 1987 ERC hearing, the developers and their
consultants insisted that these issues, particularly the
requirements' for realignment' and widening of Highland Avenue, had
"been taken care of by the Parcel Map" [Parcel Map 9166]. While
it is true that this Parcel Map, which began processing in 1985,
appears to eliminate the realignment and widening of Highland
Avenue, the first condition of the Parcel Map is that it comply
with all conditions and requirements of the Highland Hills
Specific Plan. SD, while the developer may have submitted a
parcel map for approval which did not comply with the Specific
Plan, it was not approved as submitted.
The city's Engineering Department appears to be waffling on this
issue. We have previously pointed out memos from the Engineering
Department in which it was emphasized that the Parcel Map could
not elimina~e or revise Specific Plan conditions related to
. Highland Avenue. At the ERC meeting on August 20, 1987, the
Department '5 representat i ve appeared to 'concur wi th that.
However, at the October 8, 1987 ERC meeting, the Engineering
3
ev\
-
--
l ,
Mr. Edwilrd Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
Department's representative seemed to
and concurred, with the developer in
Parcel Hap could amend the Specific
Avenue.
have reversed his position
contending the tentative
Plan and EIR for Highland
Even if we assume this to be true, an attempt to amend a Specific
Plqn by adoption of an inconsistent Parcel Map is invalid and
il~ega~. The. Government Code is very clear as to ,how a specif ic
Pl~n is to be amended, once adopted. It can be amended only by a
properly not~ced hearing procedure, which is, identical to the
procedure for amending a General Plan.
In addition, at the most recent ERC hearing, the applicants also
stated, ~everal times, that the concerns raised by my client and
l;>y some, members of the ERC "will be taken care of later".
~nfortunqtely, this approach to environmental analysis is again
di+ectly contrary to CEO A as that statute demands that
environmenta~ review and analysis be done prior to project
approval, not afterwards. The exact nature of how these concerns
~ill be mitigated, or taken care of, must be analyzed in the
environmenta~ review process, prior to project approval, so that
those decision-makers charged with approving or disapproving the
project have ,all available information before them and fully
understand the environmental consequences of their decisions. To
wave aside the concerns my clients have raised, particularly the
concerns related to flood control, traffic, erosion and seismic
issues, by stating that they will be addressed later, subverts
the very purpose of CEOA and, again, raises the spectre that
efforts will be made to informally amend the Specific Plan by
failing to include its mitigation measures in the project design
itself .
The initial studies for both of these projects imply that
mitigation measures, both those outlined in the Specific Plan and
4
q5
-
-
C~
/",",~
"-"
,.,<-,
.....)
Hr. Edward Gundy
Hs. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
october 27, 1987
others suggested, are included in the project designs, when in
fact these measures are not. We would ask that the Planning"
Commission be, given a clear list of which mitigation measures
discussed in the Specific Plan and Initial Studies are part of
the developers' proposals and which are not.
The applications as submitted are not consistent with the
Specific Plan and demonstrate that there have been major changes
in the project since the Specific Plan EIR was reviewed in 1982.
These changes include those outlined above the alignment of
Highland Avenue, changes in creek improvements, etc.), as well as
changes in the nature of the project itself. The Specific Plan
identified, sipgle ownership townhomes and approval was based upon
thi~ land use. The current proposals, however, are for
apartments, which call into question entire sections of the
original EIR., The data used in the EIR simply does not apply to
these projects. (It also is interesting to note that the
Spe~ific Plan and EIR emphasized that at the the time they were
written [1982], the city had a glut of apartments and lower-
income dwelli.ngs and that, therefore, the type of townhomes
envisioned in the Specific Plan were something needed by the
city. The latest community development report done for the city
comes to the'same conclusion in 1987 -- that the city has too
many lower-income housing units and apartments and should be
looking to develop and encourage housing units, in a higher price
range.) The ERe has made no finding that these proposals are
consistent with the Specific Plan even though such a finding is
legally required. A finding of consistency cannot be made as
there is no evidence in the record that supports such a finding.
These development proposals also do not comply with the city's
own PRO ordinance which states that development in a PRD zone
should be compatible with and integrated into the surrounding
5
'\<0
- -
~
c
,.
""",,
"-
"J
j
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
city of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
I. ' I
single-family neighborhoods.
Specific Plan themselves
apartments surely are not.
The townhomes proposed under the
were only arguably compatible;
The city also has allowed for only a lO-day comment period on the
proposed negative declarations. Unfortunately, this comment
period is insufficient to meet the requirements both of the
city's statutes and state law. state law imposes a minimum 30~
day comment period if a state agency or regional resource is
affected by the proposed project. In this case, the california
Department of Transportation clearly is entitled to a 30-day
comment period as these projects, particularly in light of the
changes in previously required improvements to Highland Avenue,
affect stat~ Highway 30 and CalTrans jurisdiction over that
route. Furthermore, the California Department of Forestry and
National Forest Service, which have an interest in the
surrounding forest land, also should have an opportunity for
comment.
Furthermore, the city's own Resolution 13157, Section 32(b),
requires circulation of the proposed negative declaration to the
state Clearing house for projects in which the U.S. Government,
or any agency thereof, might have an interest, which clearly is
the case on this site.
6
~\
- -r-
"- .
}'r..-~,.
--
/ .
,j
}
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
city of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
Conditional Use Permit 87-47
This is a project which proposes 284 apartments on approximately
30 acres. The 30 acres includes the parcel previously designated
as community open space in the specific plan for. the entire
specific plan area. The way this project is designed that parcel
is no longer community open space, but becomes a playground for
this particular project and the acreage is used to compute the
density for the project.
The mitigation measures for the traffic impacts discussed in the
initial study are simply inappropriate and inconsistent with the
specific plan and its EIR.
The project proposes grading and hard surfacing of Cook Canyon
Creek, which is contrary to the Specific Plan. In addition the
project contains no proposal for the new debris basin required by
the Specific Plan. It must be remembered that this project site
lies entirely within a laO-year flood plain and elimination of
the debris basin required by the earlier EIR must be the object
of a new EIR. The impact of the improvements to portions of Cook
Canyon Creek also must be studied. The project plans fail to
include the bridge over city Creek required by the Specific Plan
as well.
The storm drain and catch basin system along Cooktanyon Creek
required by the EIR and Specific Plan cannot be constructed
without the extension of Orchard Drive, which is not included in
this development plan.
There has been no site-specific liquefaction: study for this
particular development proposal.
7
<,
q~
c
.....,.
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
city of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
The change: in the nature of the project, from single family and
townhomes to apartments, will impact the ability and costs of
police and fire protection for the project to the extent that the
data used in the EIR is no longer applicable.
The cumulative effects of this project, particularly on traffic
and circulation also should be examined in light of the changes
in the project from that proposed in the Specific Plan and in
light of development and changes in conditions since the Specific
Plan EIR was done.
The site 'plan shows two tennis courts and
constructed over the North Fork Ditch, yet also
Ditch will remain in its existing condition.
inconsistent with the EIR.
an access road
states that the
Again, this is
The access to the project does not conform
for secondary access nor does it avoid
required by city ordinances.
to city requirements
clustered access as
There are no provisions to assure that the; extension of Orchard
Road wi 11 ever be made as the property owner has d iscla imed
responsibility for this and there is no guarantee that other
portions of the Specific Plan site will be developed in the
future or developed in accordance with the specific Plan.
Conditional Use Permit 87-5
As discussed earlier in this letter and in my previous
correspondence, the drainage and flood control requirements of
the Specific Plan are not met by this development proposal. This
proposal contains the same inadequacies for drainage and flood
control, as well as for secondary access during fire or flood
8
1\'\
L
,,'-
.... ,.
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
conditions as does CUP 87-47.
The grade-break where the rock-lined protion of Cook canyon Creek
empties into the natural channel creates a potential for scouring
and erosion which is not addressed in the plan. The so-called
fire access across the bottom of cook Canyon Creek is not hard-
surfaced, and, therefore, is not all-weather access as required,
since it would be subject to flooding during all but minimal
storm events.
The density of this project (15.8 dwelling units per acre)
~xceeds that authorized by the Specific Plan and PRD zoning.
The plan does not include a site-specific liquefaction study and,
again, does not include an overall analysis of flood control and
drainage issues, particularly in light of the proposed deviations
from the Specific Plan and its EIR.
At the Environmental Review committee hearing, the developer
stated that the southwestern portion of the site will be graded
and filled to raise the elevation 20 feet. This was not part of
the Specific Plan and was not examined in that plan'S EIR. It
should be noted that the opposite side of Highland Avenue also
contains a bluff and this change in elevation will result in a
"canyon" of sorts, which will have traffic and visual impacts
never examined in the EIR.
Like CUP. 87-47, the proposed negative declaration ignores
cumulative traffic and flood control impacts. Since the owner
of the entire specific plan site has disclaimed responSibility
for installing road, traffic and flood control improvements
required by the Specific plan, and this developer takes no
responsibility for doing so, it is unclear how the required
g
100
-
-
c
""--"
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 27, 1987
improvements will be financed or installed.
Overall, it appears that these two proposals are not suitable
for a negative declaration as there are numerous environmental
impacts and potential cumulative impacts which have not been
addressed. It appears that both of these proposals have simply
chosen to ignore the Specific Plan for the site and proceed as if
it did not exist and as if the EIR for the Specific Plan, and its
mitigation measures, did not exist. In such a case a negative
declaration is even more inappropriate.
The developers, landowner and, apparently the city itself, are
misunderstanding and misusing the Specific Plan process. A
Specific Plan is designed to be an instrument by which a
comprehensive, overall development plan can be implemented for a
large site or area. In this case, the landowner and developers
are proceeding on a parcel-by-parcel basis with no thought as to
how the overall Specific Plan will be implemented and with no
thought that the Specific Plan was intended to assure a cohesive
well-planned development of the entire site which it covers.
My clients believe that
report is necessary and
required before these
considered.
a new or subsequent
that an amendment to
two development
environmental impact
the Speciifc Plan is
proposals can be
C:~~lI~~l~~~~
g~~~~A LUDVIGSEN 0
cc: Highland Hills
Homeowners Association
1Q
\0\
c
-
-
,/'" "
r
'-"
)
,
''''''"~
':1
,.
COlllli HOlIlll Uno l"l[Jnit Nll. 0'/-4'1
^<l,litionlll fllIter iulu for AppUcution
I\llguut 20, 19U"
1. Urllinllgo 6tu(ly
a. Bxilltillg alld prol'ofJe(1 (lrainagc courocs.
b. Cook Cnnyun Cr:(!ck iluprovcmcnt plnns.'
c. l'hulling of Coul( CUllyon improvements. ,._
d. 1,0(lUtiOIl mal ututllll of carth fill dllms.
c. Locution ond IItotUU of del>rio bnsin (existillg and
propolled) .
f. 6ul>drnln propollal for cllnyon fills.
g. Propoolll for North fork ditch.
h. Locution of sturm druin catch I>ouin. ,
;., .
, '
2.
Grcenbelt' ne'juiremontu
0. Development l,lonu for Greenl>elt Zone, typeD of
plont mlltorilll,., method of irrigotion, method of
inutulllltion, oporlltional ond maintenonco informa-
tion.
b. IJnildin!} uoparutiollD in Groonbelt 'Zolle ,,~D..
3. Noi/le AnulyuiD
0. For traffic aloll!} lIighland I\vcnuc.
~. TrnfCJ.c ond' Circulotion 1\1I01yoio.
n. l'lon ror loop roait cOlllltruction ill PhaGc I.
b. I.'r.OpOllCc.1 street O[t,uo-occlions.
c. 'J'r/lUic oi91101 propollalo, whon, where and hOl,7
d. All. wcuther croouin9 propooal for. Cook Canyon
Creck. .
5. Grading Plan
a. Amonnt of cut 0I1l] fiU.
1>. l'ropofJed procodu rcu ond operationo.
c. I~rollion cOlltrol 'I\othodo {interim alld long terml.
<1. I.oclltlon alld mcthod of export.
c.. Contour grodill9 propooll1.
G. sHe 1'1011 olld Elcvotiolls
s'.
Increased' building separatioll9 08 per Gre, .belt
Zone "D" requirements.
lleduce lIulllbero of ulIHo in oach bu~ldill9 (maximum
of oix per Codol.
,
,
b.
\()~
c..
.,' .
..' I "
./
r
"
.'
'-"
Conditionnl 11110 l'enoit No. o'/-n
Adtlitionnl Ilnl:edalll for APl'licntion
AugUllt 20, 190'/
1'''ge 2
, .
. c.
l'ropoool for hiking and bicycle trails along Cook
Canyon Creek.
llimonDionD of Southern California Edison casement
I\IH1 ir dglltion easement.
Indicate yradeD of strooto, ddvoway approaches llnd
(lark.lng nrcnD.
"l'wl',,"uI for I:he oontinuation of Orchllrd Road..
11Ite/vlcinity C(ouu'-oectiono.
Rl<wI.I:iono ntHl oroou-ueotions of aU proposod
hll.Uil.ln!)o IInd clnntor typeo. .
lnillcnto oU P(Ol'OUO<) llnd exloting oewer and wllter
IIm:lnl1.
J,o"III:10n IIml tYl.'iuul olovntiono of proposed pedm-
etcH: wnl] fJ allil f:l111COU.
IUnvnUllnn am1 floor planu for propoood community
hu .Iltli n\!.
Il"l'nlln of propol""l rofooe onolosures.
Ilotnllu of olto l.I'.lhting.
J.ocntlon of propoo"d fire hydrsnto..
I'rol,ounl for <l11pl"x manhole requiremonto.
d.
c.
-f.
1].
ia.
1.
j.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
l\d,lll:ionolJ y. wo wiU ho mnk!.n!) a determinlltion of the ototuo
of the followin!)1
1. llonllynment or: 1Ilyhlllnd I\.vonue.
2. l\erell!)e avaD'hIe for devolopment in parcelo 1 an,l
2 of l'llreel n.'i' 110. 9166.
3. ~'ho ovoraU l:onuiutoncy of the proposal with tho
1Iiyhlllnu 1IiUu IJpooif:ic Plan.
,
. .
\Cl3
c C
Cynthia L udvigsenc:c-_-=_:-=:::cc:
I
I
I
I
\., ,J
Attorney at Law
444 N, Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 202
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(714) 885-6820
October 22, 1987
;1
"
,
!'
,
I:
Edward Gundy
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" st.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
!i
\i
II
re: CUP 87-5
Dear Hr. Gundy:
I would like to have a copy of the staff
project, presented to both the ERe and that
the Planning Commission on November 4, 1987.
report on the above
to be presented to
In addition, during the course of the ERC meeting, the applicant
stated that a letter had been submitted to you outlining the cut
and fill operations proposed for this site or project. We would
like a copy of that letter, as well.
Please contact this office when the above materials are ready,
and I will arrange to have someone pick them up.
Thank you very much.
Very truly yours,
~ . ~'
Cyn....~gsen ~
Cl:~a Ludv14
,I
;,
ill' \? L\' \ ,;; n W r~ \])
b ;,;: '.~'.' .; d -" U
nj. .
II
OCT 231981
.. em PUI.i,.;':;:ii~[)EPARTi,'ENl
. SAN BEflIWlDINO, CA
\Dl.\
-:-t J"--
,
Cynthia Ludvigsen
CO~ii'It:NTS RECEIVED E-3
Attorney "l Ll\v
4.H N. Arrowhead Avenue. Suite 202
S.I1111crnardino. CA 92401.
(71,1) 885-(;820
ATTACHMENT S
Octob'~l: 7, 1987
~ :
,
gnvirol'lmental l~cvicw Camilli ttt~(;.:
city oE San Bernardino
300 N. "D" St.
Sail Dur~l~rd~no, CA 92413
,
:'
'i
:f
rrJ: CUI? 87-5
CUI? 87-47
p<JJ:ce1 r.lilp 9166
!:
il Ladie~::; & Ge'ntlemcll:
"
"
.,
I am wr1t:111'J on IJ<Jhalf ()f my <:11""t,
Homeow~cr~ As~oci~tion, rc!garding the aJ]OVI~
0, 19B~1 ;..lcJendil. _
the
i telll::;
lIi'.)111d,.,(1 lIille>
on your October
I previol1:c;ly h.wfJ written to point out n,~ml:r(l\l:.; (],~f:lcil'ncjl:::: In
the abov(: applic~ltion pack.;HJI;':~;~. }\b:,;(~l:t l~t"(nr: th(~:.ie dpplic:JLiuil
pZlC};..tgcs art: m,lny itCI-:L::. un l:h(! ~'.tanliinq Di:.~p(.i:rtmeilt: I ~.~ ~:;t..:,lnddrd
cllecl.;1.i.;3t, as \"ell as ~H]di,tional i:~~:onn.:\l:ion \'Jhtch your committee
rcqll(::.itetJ fr.om l:hl: dC'Jel()p(!i::',~ t:hl:: .id~~1: ~..iml: I;hl,~~_d~ m':lt:Lc::r~; ',.H:tr:
bl.;[OJ:e YOl.l. rrlle cJl,'~vc'::lOl)er:..; ;:.;ti1.1 ~...IVt~ not. [>1:t)"ldl.:tl d.l.1. 01: t.lIt.:
inforIlldtion norrikllly .required, nor hdVU Lhcy [I~.ov_i,dl..!d l:h.:c\:
neccs:::;..iry fOl:" your conunlltec:: to a;a k i.; ~ln intormcd cll:ci:.:iion.
Ho\.,evL'(, ::.;incc th{~ m':lttf:rs 1:c:rndin en your dtJe."I('ld, \ole 'd,i;,;h ~.o
brinq to YtJlu: attention :jcv(:r.:ll cnviru:nuc::nt':'ll que-,l:ion:s ,rai::;;e(.1 by
thC~iL: [Jroj~ct~'j, (,.r:d :.;(':verd,l <L:;j).:~ct~; in 1..:h1t:1": tlh~Y fail 1:0 comply
Hith th:.;: Ill.lJh~and HilL;) :~pl.=c.i.tic Pld.n and tht-~ cOl(~it:ion:'; !.:npn:':;l~d
by it~. (;I1VirOllm('::-ILJ) iill[klCt :report
, Section 66474.5 of the M3Q Act states:
Nu locnl aucncy sh~11 approve u fillal ~ubdivision roup for
any land project, as defined in Section lloaa,s or the
Dusine~n nnd Profcssio03 Code, unlc~5:
(.]) The local lHJcncy ha~; <'1dopted a :opeci[ic plan c,wcri'IOJ
the arc::a p:ro[Jo~;t~tl to be included "rlithin the LJnd proj(!ct.
(b) The local aq(~ncy f:ind~) tlkll. the p.ro[lQ;.:;(~.l land p.~ojec!:,
toge1:hcr witt. the provisioflD fOI it~ de~jgn Olld lmprovcmerlL,
l:i cOr\::1i:::;tent \-lith the ::.ii1Ccific l)l.JIl 'for: the .:u:ei.L
1
\05
c
c
, ./
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
october 7, 1967
Condition 1 of the parcel map states the map shall adhere to
the same requirements and conditions of the Specific Pl~n.
A memo from Gene R. Klatt, Assistant City Engineer to [{oger
Hardgrave, City Engineer, dated August 7, 1967, cleariy
states this requirement. Relevent points from his memo arc:
"Additionally, Section 66474.5 states that no Final Nap
shall be approved unless there is n specific plan and that
the map is consistent in both design and improvement with
the specific plan. There was a specific plan adopted [or
this area (Specific Plan 62-1, adopted December 6, 1982, by
Hayor and Common Council) and Tentative Map No. 9166 15 not
in compliance.
"It is qutte clear that the intent
require compliance with the Specific Plan
premise that the map sho\~ed otherwise
not a valid one.
of the City was to
as adopted, The
and was accepted is
"The Department has consistently and repbatcdly indicated
that development should conform to the Specific Plan. If
this was unacceptable, appropriate amcndments necded to be
requested and approved by the M<lyor and Common Council,
Presently, the qucstion is not one of justification of the
four-lane roadway, but one of consi::;tency with the specitic
Plan and subsequent approval by all concerned agencies, The
traffic data submitted is not substantially different from
that contained in the original submittal for the Specific
Plan, only the resulting design is being questioned, For
whatever reason!l, the Mayor and Common Council adopted a
plan calling for four lane~ on Highland and a four-lane
bridge as well as traffic signals and other improvtmcnts
and, ~ithout their specific instructions and approval, this
Department is not in a position to review and modity their
conditions to lesser requirements at the Developer's
request,. II
A review of the recently submitted projects reveals the following
!lections in which discrepancies exist between these projects
(~.M. 9166, CUP!l 87-5 and 67-47) and the Specific Plan (S.P.) and
its EIR.
2
\OlD
, ,~
-
--.-
{
"-
, ,
I
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
rir.ismir: i\ctivi1:v
Pagc 57 of the S.P,/EIR the following utates:
"The potential for liquefaction is higll for the lower portions of
tile site, a:; all parau1t!ter:; necc,;sar.y for liquefaction occnr
there." Additionally, we have evaluated information tllat the
U,S. Depm:trnent of the Interior ha~.; rl:cently [lubli~lI"d in a
preliminary report discussing the liquefaction susceptibility io
the ~on Bernardino Valley. The report indicates that portions of
the Bite arc identified as having a high Busccptlblllty for
liqucl'action,
Verification that liquefaction concerns havc been addressed for
this project sh~uld be documented by the City in their current
environmental review. A letter. from Kurtzman .HOc! Koddllld
lnc./Archltects and Planners contained excerpts oE
rccolOmcnc1.:Jtion5 made by CH\l, Inc. lI'he:je general r.ec::ommen(L'ltion~j
should he replaced by a site specIfic evaluation from the salls
engineer. Of particular concern ill: l:hi~; [lOlnt in tlw [1roci".,c; I;;
l:h.Jt solving the liqu,~f,]cl:1.11n concern could have a trcmendol.l~';
eflect on 'In:tdi ng and the vi:Hwl Imp,lct of the developmt,nt.
:,hOllld it not be po:::sible to lower ']l:ollnd water or rcplace till'
earthen lTIi.ltcrial ~;usccptible to liquefaction, th<:n the site may
h~ve to be raised ~s rouell a3 30 f~ct to meet genl~l7al ,liqll~(action
criteria, If this is the engineerlny uollltionroquired, it
should be addressed by the S.P./EIR au to ita visual and grading
impact on the site and adjoining property.
Furthermore, therc is still no information to verify that the
project includes proper fnult 5etbacks, nor does the
environmental review addrc~~ the effl~cts of ,potelltial rlJpt:ure of
the propo~ed reservoirs
On page 60 of the S.P./EIR the following mitigation mea5ure~ were
idcnL i f ied:
Earthquake induced ground fracturing (sympathetic uecondary
ground failure) should be expected near active [ault~ and on
or rlear slopes (lurching). The rccommend(!d ~ct:back ~onc~
from faults and slope stability setbacks should encompass 3n
ur.(~a wber(~ the gr.eatest fr:acture~; from groundlurc:hincJ are
lO:'l?ec:tcd to occur.. Fractur illg .,): ::;tr.,",~ts ,it; p.:ll:ti.ally
mi tiga t~~d by mul t i plc" aC;(:e~i:; tore:; idenCflS .;tnd to the ,; i te,
3
\0""'\
c
/~-- .',
,""J
Environmental Revie~l Committee
City of San Bcrna~dino
October 7, 1967
All of the geologic parameters necessary for liquefaction
exist in the lower alluvial areas bet\~een the bedrock hills
and the south branch of the San Andreas fault. The final
soils parameters necessary for liquefaction in this arca
should be evaluated by a soils engineer and appropriate
mitigation measures should be incorporated into foundation
design.
Wate~ should not be allowed to Ktand behind the cxisting
earth-fill dams unless a detailed geotechnical investig;JUon
shows them to be sufficiently earthqual:c' resistilnl: to
withstand severc earthquake shaking.
Watcr storage tanks should be designed to withstand a
seismic eve~t, and site should be designed'to drain away
from habitable structures,
The projects as submitted do not address these issues, Failure
to address these project-specific measurcs places the future
residents and property in significant jeopardy unless adequate
mitigation i~ specifically identified and implemented, No such
mitigation is shown and no implementation plans have been
provided to the City for review and determination of adequacy.
Drainaqe and Flood Control
On page 62 of: the S.P./EIR the folloHi.ng ll\C<.Isurcz were' identified
to mitigate t'he adverse impacts of the (lJ:oject:
l.
All natural drainage cour~es nrc to be left in
state as far as it is possible. Cook Canyon
retained as il r1iltural c1rninngc cour~.H~ for its
within the property.
their niltural
Cred: Hill be
ant 11:e length
2. Since the proposed plan will require grading near the
exi~ting debris basin, the constructi.on of a new debris
basin is recommended. The final location ~hould be the
subject of further engineering study,
3.
The are<.l adjacent to City Creek
level sufficient to mitigate any
<.:rcel\ .
chould be elevated to a
flooding potential from the
~
\O~
(~
--
/" '"
\..""....
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
octobcr 7, 1967
.The improvelQent plans submitted with thcse projec:t~ 8hml gr<:lding
;]nd hard su~facing of Cook Canyon Creek. Thiz will result in the
total disturbance of the natural drainage course. Further,
llowllere is t!\C COllstructioll of ~ 11ew debris ba31n shown 011 the
plans. The S.P./EIR recommended a new dcbricb<:lsiscufficient to
withstand a lOa-year flood. Failure to address this issue leaves
the flood hazard issue unsolved and potentially significant to
downstream residents and users.
On page 66 of the S.P./EIR a mitigation for Visual and Natural
Features impacts states:
"CookC;]nyon is retained in its natural statc, thus prcservinq
the many full grown tree::.; along its cour:,e."
.
The S.P./EIR findings were based on this measure being
implemented. The EIR is inadequate .:tnd should be I:evised to
address the loss of riparian habitat along Cook Canyon Crc~k Jnd
it~ effect on wildlife in the ~J:C3. T!le mC~811r4~~ Cl][rCilt;ly
proposed arc not consistent with the S.P. and the previous
environmental conclusions .:tre no longer valid.
As stated my letter of September 29, 1967, ,the,. entire (Jr<lin:lge
system of Cook Canyon Creek should be analyzed by San Bernardino
County Flood Control District to ensure this development is safe
from possible inundation by storm waters .:tnd debris. On page 96
of the S.P./EIR the following mitigation measure is identified:
"The existing debris basin and aCCc3S to it wIll require re-
design and possible relocation, The engineeIselected to prepare
the civil engineering plans for the site should work closely with
the County Flood Control district to determine the bc:,;t location
and design for the debris basin."
Furthermore, nowhere do the projects proposed shdw the bridge
over City Creek required by the S.P,/EIR.
The Flood Control District's concern with potential flooding from
Ci ty Crcek sho'..n Qn page 62 h,~l:, not been addrc:3:,ed by the
projects submitted. As far as could be determined to date, the
Flood Control District has not yet been contacted to review this
entire projc:ct.
s
\/'\0.
-
,
l,J
,.
"
,,~..
~
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1967
Traffic and Circulation
Part of the traffic and circulation mitigations for this
development ~la:3 the realignment of Highland Avenue, and the
extension of Orchard Drive. The extension of Orchard Drive would
provide all- weather secondary access to Parcels B, C, I, J and
K. Without the extension of Orchard Drive these porcels will
have only one point of access. Parcels F, Hand J will have no
access unless it is provided through the previously mentioned
parcels (D,C,I,J, and K) from Arroyo Vista Drive. This would
create cuI de sacs which exceed any known standard in an area
prone to flooding and identified as being in the Foothill High
Fire Hazard Zone I.
Figure 2H of th~ S.P./EIR also idantified a portion of Orchard
Drive adjoining the development proposed by CUP 87-47 as
containing a "storm drain and catch basin system". This drainage
facility cannot be constructed without the extension of orchard
Drive.
Highland Avenue has been so realigned on the projects as
submitted that an entire parcel has been eliminated, namely the
park site. The projects' proposed al ignment of Highland Avenue
has no resemblance to that shown in the s.p./EIR.
Data on page ~8 of the S.P./EIR discussed extensively the need
for the realignment of Highland Avenue as shown on the S.p, and
the construction of loop streets in Phase 1. Additionally, on
page 19, it is stated this development should provide numerous
escape routes from the site, provide numerous access points to
the site, and provide ohort cul de sac/loop streets where
possible. The projects as submitted arc woefully inconsistent
with the S.p./EIR. Either the plans oi thc S.p~/EIR must be
rcvised before the project can be considered by the City.
otherwise, a fundamental inconsistency will exist between the
s.p. and the CUPn which is not permitted under lawn and
regulations previously cited, .
Ollen Snace
As prcviously discussed, the alignment of Highland Avenuc
proposed by this development climin'::ltcs the Community Pad: and
6
\\(')
-
-
-
c
('.
'-"
,/'0",
.......,;
)
Environmental Review Committce
city of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
makes it part of the privatc open space for Parcel "A" (CUP 87-
47). The park area is now being used to calculate the unit
density for Parcel A. The 9,P./EIR should be amended to reflect
the elimination of an entire parccl designated for public use
whose area is being transfered to another parcel for use in
justifying added density and construction of. additional
apartments. If not, then the CUPs must be revised DO that they
arc cunsistent with the S,P. Furthermore, the community open
space doen not meet the city's requil:ements for park declicalion~;.
F'iscal Impact
The S.P./EIR states:
"The Specific Plpn for the site proposes the development of a
maximum of 1,200 residential units, both townhouses and single
family home::;, on the 541 acre site, 'I'he home:; will be for salt!,
and the price::; will range from $70,000 to $200,000, Other uses
proposed include a small one acre commercial centcr., a community
park and 387 acres of open space, with various recreat~onal
amenities.1I
Undcr the scction on Market Objectives.(pg.13) it. i::; fur.ther
stated that "The developer's current objeetive is to construct
houses for sale only. The cost of site preparation and grading
means that sales prices will generally fall in the middle and
upper middle range, ($100,000 $200,000) though some less
expensive units could be built on the flatter portions of the
site.
"The townhouse units will
and four bedroom units; and
sq. ft. The estimated
$l50,000.
include 2 bedrooms and deri, ~ bedroom
areas will range trom 1,500 to 2,200
sales price will range fro~ 070,.000-
"The single family lots will be sold for custom built homes which
are likely to be in the $150,000 - $200,000 price.range."
On pages
following
27..29 of
is stated:
the
S.P./EIR
under
Housing Program
the
"Although it is the intention of the developcr to construct some
lower priced units, the term "lower" is relative and the project
will c~sentially be aimed at the middle to upper-middle income
7
\\\
-
-
-
L
I
\"...-
Environmcntal Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1967
market. 'raple 2-D summarizes the types of housing proposcd and
the range of'sales prices anticipilt,:d. The predomInant hou::;in']
type would be two story townhouses arranged in clusters and
adapted to the irregular configurations and changes in level of
eilch pad areil. In the lower, flatter portions of the ~ite,
garden apilrtments could be constructed, Townhouse uniti would
include two bedrooms and den, three bedrooms, and four bedrooms.
Dwelling ilrea would range from 1,500 sq. ft. to 2,200 5q, ft,
The sales piices would range from $70,000 to $150,000.
"Single family subdivisions would be built on the southern
portions of the site. It is the developers intention to have a
lot sales program for custom built homes which might be in the
$150,000 - $200,000 range. A preliminary subdivision by the
consul tints indi~ate that 61 lots could be created. This number
mi~ht chilnge (up or down) when engineers prcp~re the detailed
tract maps at a later date. Lot areas in the preliminary
subdivision range from 10,000 to 30,000 sq. ft.
"The proposed housing program appears to be con5istcnt both with
market trends and ~/ith the City's policies. An analysis of
recent housing sales in the northwe5t portion of the City of San
Dernilrdino ~hows thut 3 bedroom detilched houoes had a price
spread from '$34,950 to $215,000, and 4 bedroom detached houses
rilnged from 90,000 to 210,000. The median.price of a 3 bedroom
house is $117,117 and $142,237 for a 4 bedroom. Sales prices for
condominium units range from $90,000 to $210,000. The City's
recently adopted l!ousinq Element (ll,2,81) indicates that S,'!n
Bernardino has a dis rOlortionate share of low income households,
_ .l"'~'~--- --
\.Jltl a rCSllJ. lnq 1I1Crea::;;c in nel~c1 tor hiqhf~r valued dwellinq~.1I
Table 28
Summ"rv of HOlIsinq Pronram
Townhouse
Single Family Lots
4. Sales Price
Ranges
1,139
2 br & Den to 4 br.
1,500 2,200 sq
ft.
$70,000 - $150,000
61
Custom Built
CUD tom Built
l. Number of Units
2. Bedroom.Rilnges
3. Arca Ranges
$150,000 - $200,00D
8
\\a.
c
c
",...1
.)
Environmental Review Committee
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
The projects proposed are located adjacent to upper'middle class
5ingle family residences. A specific objective of the PRO
district is that development should be well integrated
(compatable) with existing land uses and should not constitute a
disruptive element with regard to the character of the adjacent
neighborhoods.
The PRD ordinance requires that this
before this zoning is implemented.
townhouses on this site seems marginal
objective. .The construction of apartments
meet this objective.
objective be sbtisified
The construction of
in regards to this
definitely does not
The Fiscal Impact Section of the S.P./EIR has absolutely no
relevance to, th& projects proposed by CUPs 67-5 and 67-47, The
entire section must be amended to address the construction of
apartments which are to be financed by a type of bond issue used
for affordable housing. This drastic difference in land use will
affect Public Revenues, Property Tax Revenues and Retail Sales
'fax Revenues.
This change occurs because the proposed units will have a lower
market value than those used in the S.P./EIR evaluation. The
lower value should also have an adverse effect on the market
value of the proposed single family units in this project,
lowering property tax revenues. The average household income
figures should also be reduced from those used in the S,P.(EIR
because of the lower market value of the proposed units..This
will affect the Retail Sales Tax Revenues used in the S,P,(EIR,
In general, tax revenues should be considerably less for these
projects than those shown in the S,P.(EIR.
The S.P./EIR concluded the development would generate more
revenue than it would cost to provide needed public services.
The facts used to reach this conclusion are no longer valid. The
City should be concerned that this revised project does not
create a negative public revenue condition which might further
affect its ability to provide police and fire protection or other
public services. A complete reevaluation and amendment of the
Fi5cal Impact Section needs to be undertaken to identify impacts
before a decision is made regarding these projects.
\\'?>
-
c
c
~. .'\
....J
"",J
Environmental Review Committee
city of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
Conclusi'on
The evidence presented above unequivocally demonstrates that the
proposed project has been sUbstantially changed from that which
was evaluated in the S.P./EIR. 'rhe CEQA criteria for judging
substantial ~hange is as follows:
(a) Where a~ EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no
additional ErR need to prepared unless:
(1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which
will require important revisions of the previous ErR or
Negetive Declaration due to the involvement of ncw
significant environmental impacts not considered in a
pr.evious EIR or Negativc Declaration on the project;
(3) New information of substantial importance to the
project becomes available, and
(b) The new information shows any of the following:
(1) The project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed previously in the EIR;
(2) Significant effects preViously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the ErR;
Numerous features that wcre identified as mitigation have either
been ignored or intentionally deleted from the proposal currently
being reviewed. The consequence is that adverse impacts
previously identified 8S mitigated will be ~ignificantly adverse
under the present proposals and previously identified significant
impacts will become more severe.
In addition, the method of development -- parcel-by-parcel--
each with a different developer, is completely contrary to the
intention and purpose of a specific plan and of a planned
residential development under the city'S ordinance. No one is
taking responsibility for overall implementation of the Specific
Plan. Mr. Leonard attended a meeting of a committee of my client-
W\
c
,,,;- "
"-"
,"'/
. Environmental Review Committee.
City of San Bernardino
October 7, 1987
association and repeatedly cmphasized that he was not. responsible
for community-wide amenities or improvements required by the
Specific Plan that thesc wcre the rcsponsibility of each
individual developer of each parcel. The S.P./EIR requires a
homeo\mers' assoc iat i on to lOa inta i n common areas after cornplet i on
of the Specific Plan,yet there can bc no homeowncrs' association
in an apartment complex.
We conclude that the proposcd projects violate consistency
requirements of State Law (Sect{ons 65450, ptSCCl.), local
'ordinance (Chapter 19.79) and the CEQA. In our o&inion thc City
must amend either thc e:d:,ting S.P./EIR or the CUPs to make them
consistent. If the projects are developed as the appplicant
proposes, a whole new environmental document is required,
Issuance of a Neg"ative Declaration, or rcliance upon the earlier
EIR, would, in our opinion, be wholly incorrect an unsupportable,
We urge you to require a new EIR based upon the projects as now
proposed and upon current data.
Very truly yours,
"
~
cc:
Edward Gundy, Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino /
Sandra Paulsen, Associate Planner .
City of San Bernardino .
cc:
11
\\:>
-
-
-
c
. ......
Cynthia Ludvigsen
!;
"
II
I,
i.
i.
r
'-,.,,,,,.~
Attorney at Law
,-.- ----- --" .-
_~. - __._._,_ _. ---_0. .
444 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Sulle 202
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(714) 885-6820
october 2, 1987
00 ~ ~ ~ TI \YH~\])
!.1l~;l\ ~tl '9al
em l't.lINNING UEPlRJMEIIl"
SUI :BEBNAlilIlIUQ. :cA.
Mr. Edward Gundy
Associate Planner
city of San Bernardino
)00 N. uD" St.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
Associate Planner
city of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" st.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
re: CUP 87-5
CUP 87-47.
PARCEL MAP NO. 9166
Dear Ms. Paulsen and Mr. Gundy:
,
client, the Highland Hills
the above matters which are
Environmental Review Committee
\\
I am writing on behalf of. my
Homeowners Association, regarding
scheduled for consideration by the
on October 8, 1987.
I have reviewed the applications and supporting maps and
documents and find several items which are lacking or incomplete,
making it difficult, if not impossible, to fully and adequately
review these' applications and make an informed recommendation or
decision as to potential environmental impacts and conformity
with the Highland Hills Specific Plan. Many of the materials
listed on the city's "Plot Plan Checklist", as well as many of
the items identified in your department's letters dated August
20, 1987 and September 14, 1987 to the developer, have not been
submitted. Therefore, we do not believe that these applications
are complete and ready for ERC consideration.
FOllowing is
. information
application:
a summary of important materials missing or gaps in
necessary for deciSion-making by the ERC for each
]
\\lD
"
-
c
r.'~
'-"
, I
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 2, 1987
I '..'
Conditional yse Permit 87-47
, i.
The plans do not
Highland Avenue.
encroach into the
show the building setback line (B. S. L.) along
It appears that the pool deck and tennis courts
setback area.
There is no indication of how the open space areas are to be
drained 'and; the swales and drainage structures, particularly
those along !Iighland Avenue, are not apparent from the plans.
A september' 15, 1987 letter from the applicant's engineer states
that the North Fork Ditch will remain as is, yet the site plan
shows two tennis courts and an access road constructed over the
ppen ditch in Parcell. An access road, parking lot, retaining
wall and ap~rtment unit are shown over the open ditch in parec:]
2. If th~ ditch is to be relocated, then it must be
undergroundedin concrete pipe and the site plan should show the
ne~ pipe's lpcation and th~ easement for it.
The site plan does not show the existing utility poles in Parcel
~; height and material for trash enclosures; storage buildings;
storage areas for recreation vehicles or boats; or the types of
hooding ~evices on light fixtures.
The plans discuss an earth berm along Highland Avenue for noise
attenuation purposes, yet the grading plan indicates the height
of the berm to be only one-two feet.
There is nJ indication that the appropriate agencies have had an
opportunity 'to review and make recommendations regarding the
setbacks for fault zones and flood control. Without those
recommendations, it is impossible for the ERC or the public to
make any informed environmental decisions.
The portion of development in Parcel 2 has only one point of
access in violation of city codes and contrary to standards for a
High Fire Hazard Zone. The site plan should identify secondary
access and provide sufficient data to show that it is workable.
The access points into Parcel 2 south of Cook Canyon Creek and
into Parcell east of Orchard Drive are clustered and do not have
proper offset distances.
2
\\1
c
T
........
......,../
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 2, 1987
.In addition"the developer's engineer has stated that there is no
need fbr a lbop road during the first phase of construction, but
there 'is nb guarantee that there wi 11 ever be add i t iOlla 1
development to extend the road. Unless the developer agrees to
bond for fu~ure improvements, this plan should be viewed as the
ultimate design for access to Parcel 2 and should not be allowed
to depend upon unapproved and undesigned future developments to
meet the city's requirements for secondary access.
The site plan and the Specific Plan show a dedication of the
extension o~ Orchard Road, while the Parcel Hap does not.
Similarly, the Speci~ic Plan shows a realginmentand widening o~
Highland Avenue, while neither the site plans for CUP 87-47 nor
CUP 87-5, nor the Parcel Map, show this widening or realignment.
The developer has submitted four letters which discuss this
change in alignment and which discuss various meetings on this
issue, but there is nothing to show that either the City or
County approved this change or to show that the Specific Plan was
amended to allow this change. The developer also has submitted a
traffic analysis for Tract 12638, which, in the Specific Plan is
shown as Parce 1 C and conta ins 11 si ngle family home lots. How
this is relevant to projects involving more than 500 apartment
units escapes me. This issue is particularly critical as the
developer appears to be eliminating the extension of Orchard
Drive, leaving only Arroyo Vista and existing Orchard Drive to
reach Highland Avenue. When the remaining po~tions of the
Specific Plan area develop, the traffic hazards will be even more
critical. '
There is no indication that the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District has reviewed or approved all proposed drainage
structures on Cook Canyon Creek. The Specific Plan addresses
channel improvements, an existing debris basin and construction
of a new debris basin upstream, all on Cook Canyon Creek. While
the developer states that there are no earth filled dams on this
property, it appears that one is required on adjacent property,
and, therefore, the entire drainage system of Cook Canyon Creek
should be analyzed by the flood control department to ensure that
this developemnt is safe from possible inundation by storm waters
and debris. Apparently the Flood Control District has not had
3
\ \8
-
f
--
'.,,.0'
,~
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
october 2, 1987
an opportunity to review and comment upon
it relates to this particular development
,
I
this drainag'e
proposal.
system as
Conditional Use Permit 87-5
Several items are missing from this submittal: property line
dimensions are not shown; grading and drainage information is
missing; the plan does not show existing or proposed contours;
pad elevations; street grades; drainage swales; or the direction
of flows.
Existing easements are not shown; no handicapped' parking is
provided; a location map is not provided; water and sewer mains
are not shown; the location, height and composition of proposed
walls and fences are not shown. Other important items not
provided or shown include improvements on frontage streets;
location of: fire hydrants; height and composition of trash
enclosures; ,location of interior lighting; building setback
lines; sidewalks and interior walkways; and zoning district and
assessor's parcel number.
In addition, no landscape plan is included with the submittal.
As discussed above under CUP 87-47, there are numerous drai.nage
and flood control issues related to this project which are not
addressed. The file contains a letter from the Flood Cointrol
District doted Aproil 29, 1987, which states that this site is
subject to flooding and debris deposition by both City Creek and
Cook Ciinyon Creek. The letter requested improvement plans and
studies for District review. Our telephone conversation with the
District on September 28, 1987, indicates that the District has
never received the requested materials. Again, it is impossible
for the ERC to consider this proposal and make an informed
decision without the Flood Control District's comments and
recommendations.
This site plan does not address any of the drainage issues
required by either the city or the county.' without pad
elevations and building setback lines, it is impossible to
determine the site's susceptibility to inundation from flooding
or debris. Like CUP 87-47, protection of this site is dependent
4
\\~
C ."...... '..."L . ,
,
........ '-"
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 2, 1987
on a comprehensive drainage control plan addressed in the
Specific Plan and the information submitted for this development
does not consider that comprehensive plan.
This proposal also contains the same inadequacies regarding
secondary access for both fire and flood conditions as discussed
under CUP 87-47. There is an abrupt grade break where the rock-
lined constructed channel for Cook Canyon Creek dewaters into the
natural channel. Scouring could occur at this outlet, causinbg
the channel to erode upstream and dislodge the ungrouted rock
lining. The pain does not adress the effects this would have on
the channel and on the safety of the development. The fire
access shown crosses the bottonm of the Cook Canyon Creek
drainage channel and is not hard surfaced. This so-called
secondary access, therefore, is not all-weather access and, while
it, may be useful during fire, it will be useless during flood
conditions which also are a major concern on this site.
Parcel Map 9166
Several questions arise concerning the parcel n~p as it relates
to the two conditional use permits being considered at this time:
~t is impossible to determine the size or location of the Open
Space shown in Parcell; the North Fork Ditch cannot be located
from information on the map, so we cannot be assured that
developments do not encroach into the easement; the Geologic
Hazard Line, while shown, is not locatable, either, and there is
no method to determine whether or not buildings are constructed
within the zone; the map does not show the extension of Orchard
Drive; it does not show the widening or rel1gnmentof Highland
Avenue required under the Specific Plan. It is unclear whether
the creation of "open area" shown as part of and exclusively for
the use of Parcell developemtn satisifies the requirement of a
community park under the Specific Plan. This also relates to the
realignment of Highland Avenue, as the open area is created by all
alignment which differs substantially from that in the Specific
Plan. .
5
.:;
)';
\~()
.c
./
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 2, 1987
The Parcel Map does not show the overall parcel being.subdivided~
Therefore, we cannot tell where existing property lines are in
relation to those being created by the Parcel Map. This is
especially true along Highland Avenue and the westerly line of
Parcel 3. From this map it cannot be determined if common
ownership lines are being respected, orif gaps, overlaps or
substandard parcels are being created.
The Parcel Map does not indicate the disposition of existing road
rights of way which are being realigned. The map shows the "San
Bernardino Drainage Easement" ending partially through Parcel 2,
yet it must be tied to the easterly line of Parcel 2 so that the
channel can be constructed as shown on the improvement plans
submitted with the CUP applications.
Also, the placement of the drainage easement in Parcel 4 does not
appear to leave a viable commercial site as required under the
Spec if ic Plan.
Quite frankly, the submittals are incomplete by even the most
minimal standards. Either the applicant failed to meet the
city's required September 14, 1987, deadline for placement on the
October 8, 1987, ERC agenda, or we were not provided with
complete submitttal packages as requested.
These proposals appear to ignore the Specific Plan and provide
woefully inadequate information to resolve critical environmental
and planning issues related to the total development of the
Specific Pldn site. Furthermore the inconsistencies amon'] the
various proposals themselves make an informed and reasoned
analysis and decision impossible.
We ask that these matters be continued or removed from the ERC's
October 8, 1987, agenda and that the appocants once agqain be
directed to provide complete packets and required information
prior to ERC consideration.
6
\~\
(
",+"
Mr. Edward Gundy
Ms. Sandra Paulsen
City of San Bernardino
October 2, 1987
Very truly yours,
~.._.~:- .
~~'/~'''~
CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN
CL:ts
We look forward to hearing from you.
cc: Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer
cc: Highland Hills Homeowners Assn.
;(.,0'
7
"Ii:". i" h',-l Jl,l !':ll::liy
lUl. 11,(' I d I.J U I '; ',:1
;-; i \ ,f ";;:! 1\ iI.' r11 1
l! 'I I h l ! ,! n '
\ ad..
, ,
"
t
"<l;.......
GARY'S. RASMUSS'k.tN & ABSocr-...!t:TES I.ENGIN~E~~~~.:..~~~~
-,.I _-..,~----..........._. (714) ....Z4ZZ . \7141825.9052
1811 SO.'~O~.MERCENTER WEST. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 82401 .
,
April 2, 1987
Quail Contractors, Inc.
Box 6000-33
Palm Desert, California, 92261
Projecf No. 1032.5
Attention:, Bob Law ., " ,
. ..I:). :,
Subject: Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation of parcel':1 ot' Parcel Map
9166, East Highlands Area, San Bernardino, California.
References: Preliminary Engineering Geoiogy Report of Highland HllIs Development,
TIN, R3W, Portions of Sections 27 and 34, San Bernardino County,
California, Our Report Dated April 9, 1974, Project No. 1032.
Subsurface Engineering Geology Investigation of HlghiandHllls Planned
Unit Development in the East Highlands Area of the. City of San
Bernardino, California, Our Report Dated October 7, 1981, Project No.
1032-2.
"j
Activity of Fault A as Identified on the East Highland Hills Residential
Development, East Highlands Area of the City of San Bernardino,
California, Our Letter Dated April 15, 1986, Project No. 1032.4.
.'>1 \ ,1,'; i'~n i~
. ilil."~..f 1
'0 '~"l!' .1""
-; ~ t"-ht~lff~J~ ,~~:
. .. .,t......i"!,~,
In . accordance. with your request, we have conducted a subSUrfa'ee engineering
. . <<:' :';\\
geology investigation of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9166. Our inltllltrllOfoglc Investi-
gations for the Highland Hills Residential Development (Project Nos'. i032 and 1032-
- .- ,.. ~
2) identified several northwest-trending faults located within 'thilbedrock areas
,;,i ,. '
between the north and50uth branches of the San Andreas fault. '. The 5Outhwestern-
most of these faults, denoted as Fault A on Piate 1 of Project No. 1032-2, was
mapped through the northern portion of parcei 3 of Parcel Map 9166. The exact
location of Fault A In the immediate vicinity of Parcel 3 was based on an extrapo-
lation from Its known location as exposed by trenching east of Parcel 3 and
projecting It to the west to a suspected feature In Pleistocene material west of City
Creek. The purpose of our Investigation was to locate more. precisely Fault A
through the northern portion of Parcel 3 and evaluate Its state of activity. We
C:l showed thefaulftta'ce Jasbelii'lfburled 'iii:~ilur:orighialreports.' . fhh~'tault could be
,,11 ,-; ,"I :H,I'i I;; i1iN"
.. 1, " I : .r \ r' ;:' I ,~ ," I f ':1 I Iii, \. '\ -J
; , ~
I\l'rn ~:. 1 \III.,.
APPENDIX D
Qnnll Cllnl.n1f,lnn;, Inc.
Box hOOn:l:l
6-5
r ~:.
'd.~
c
/"
"-#
....;'
(610) 5B8~1010
fij) ; ~ fR ~; n \If! iT; Tji\.\
t:~1.."1 .' '.. I; ,; 'J.~
flr,T 27 1(\t'l1'
'. . . . vO..,
DENNIS A. MARTIN
P. O. BOX 8000 . 333
PALM DESERT~ CALIFORNIA 02261
October.26, 1987
Grri 'Pt'T~'fl~;:i-.~i.t e::Pt1lffME.'1.T'
S~)} r!I';~l,~~S.'J.ji~n, C4
RE: CUP 67-5
QUAIL WOODS APARTMENTS
Ms. Valerie Ross, Chairperson
Environmental Review Commission
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92416
Dear Ms. Ross:
During the recent ERe hearing of the above application
certain items were raised. We responded to many of those
items (see the attached letter to Ed Gundy dated October 13,
19671, In this letter and on the site plan submitted, we
addressed the following items:
l. Property line dimensions,
2, Setbacks to property lines,
3, Finished grade elevations for each building pad,
4. Street grades,
5. Slopes along the driveway, which willincHc~te the
surface drainage.
6. Drain inlets for drainage ,ii11;,;I;;
7.J, A location map, ,;..,."
i'JP'l1i,"
6. Fencing location and type'~i/J'.F.:{!
The plans submitted should allow the iW~hi.~ering
Department and others concerned to have the opP6rtuhity to
review and pass upon the proposed grading and drainage,
The question of existing irrigation standpipes, flumes,
wells, etc. will be meticulously addressed and delineated
through the normal processing procedures.
In addition to the concerns addressed in our letter of
October l2, 1967 and the plans submitted, I would like to
also comment on the following issues:
l. Trash debris will be removed from the site and
disposed of at an authorized disposal ;site; in the
area, and all required approvals, permlts 'and fees
will be addressed through the normal and proper
approach at thEL i"'Pprorri~te time. J;;':'
, ,I .~,
i'.'.' 1,111l,'
I" ,,1.'.:
'LIJ.' 'ii' 'j'
\ ';;>..l.\
, .' I "t: ~, J'"
c
....,....
, ....'
,-.',
,.,;
2. We. have made arrangements for all of the necessary
sewer capacity rights for the project which we are
acquiring from Highland Hills, the developer of the
overall project.
3, The Fire Department's concern, because some of the
buildings are more than 50' from a roadway, will be
mitigated by installing a residenti~l fire
sprinkler system throughout each unit. The Fire
Department has stated that this is acceptable,
4. The fiscal impact we feel will be positiv..
of the effects will b~ as follows:
Some
Building Permits
Plan check
$60,719
39.467
..- ,}
'"tf
$.100;186
Park & Recreation
,., .,:
.". .
99,589
Water Fees,. Connection &
Inspection
Water Meters
",
20,785
45.340
66,125
Sewer Connection Fee
336 beds @ $200/ea.
Sewer Trunk Charge, etc.
Sewer Capacity Charge
67,200
19,922
291. 200
.
:;~F:~
3'1/1; 322
";l(~:'r ii\
5~OOO
<,.. ,.f
,.-,r';Ld:;.C'\
.i'i';'.'1ihl"
.,";!'4i1'000
.,11\.1.,
:"'.: !L;:~,~ ~~'j~ ~ t;~
::",14!,1560
.,\.l-::Y,:. Lh;:t :ti'
,1:H4'; 508
Drainage Fee
Grading Plan Check & Permit
Seismic Fee
School ree 209,672 SF @ $1.50
Sales Tax
Total (50't) $180,000
City Portion
30.000
$1,050,390
TOTAL
In addition to the above, the projected real property
taxes, when the project is completed, are projected to be
$134.400 per year, increasing by at last 2% per year.
Not included above are sewer, water, trash collection
and miscellaneous fees paid for the life of the project.
Also, not projected is the additional sales income and sales
tax revenue by the residents of Quail Woods.
. i \, 1 r i ; t ~ I
; ~ . <I ~ : ' \
,
! 1 ,'I'; 11
:'1. ;1
..1,1. 'ill 1.Ji\I'
".".'1 :1
I, :;-1Il(1 I:! i,:
. ,
, 'i.
\'d5
c:
c
'--'/
'...!
,J
There is, in addition, an annual fee charged by the San
Bernardino County Housing Authority for the administration
of the bond program to cover administrative costs,
Last but not least, the proposed project will have a
positive aesthetic impact on the environment. The size of
the units with three of the four plans,being over 1,000
square feet and one being over l,lOO square feet will create
the luxury this area deserves. The rents projected" which
will range from $565 to over $800 per month, wi II a tt rac t
the type of residents which are responsible and stable. It
further goes without saying that to attract this level of
rents, the project must be not only very attractive but
first quality.
If there are any other issues that need adch.'essing,
please advise me so we can respond immediately or at the
Planning Commission Meeting of November 4, 1987.
2i:;:~~
Dennis A. Martin
DAM:ke
Enclosures
cc:, R. Ann Siracusa
Edward Gundy
William E. Leonard
'i.'ll f:' '.' ( l~:.
!\ 't,(:-!~~i,);~, ""\,"!,ClLU;,,:,,. i
Bf~lll.d!.';l iJI'J c:,'1.l,II'~' I,.. in'; /1\.:t:lJ.:,1J',j;':)I I','
OJ i)I,: b'>JlIl J,',lrl:~"I.-!, ')\', 'ldrnlllj,:li It
! ,d ~:; t }",t.l L tl".-l
1,":1
:" )!},,(JI,I(:l;'i ( ([
'oJ
\a<o
1"
;1
c
..
\.......
..r
:)
QUAIL CONTRACTORS
October 13, 1987
Ed'Gundy, Planning Department
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
City Hall, 300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
, I~
Dear.Mr. Gundy,
;;'
;:;
, 1,
RE: C.U.P. Application 87-5
Enclosed are twenty copies of a revised site plan that
addresses a number of the planning issues that were
mentioned at the E.R.C. meeting on October 8th.
We have added property line dimensions, setbacks to the
property lines, finished grade elevations for each building
pad, street grades, slopes along the driveways which will
indicate the surface drainage, drain inlets as required for
the collection of storm water, location map, fencing,
zoning, and assessor's parcel numbers. The two dimensions
adjacent to the recreation building, that were~l~ss than
30', will be changed to a minimum of 30' in the final plan,
Further. details regarding on-site drainage and;gradfng are a
. functiOn of the grading and landscape plans whic~~Of course
will not be prepared until the project has receiVed C.U,P,
approval. , 'J"3,ij""L,': Pi'
We. would .like to request a waiver of the r.q~irijment for
recreational vehicle parking. It has been our.~Iloi:tferience in
past projects which we have managed after completion, there
is very little demand for this type of parking.
Please contact us if you need any additional information for
the planning commission meeting.
Sincerely,
QUAIL CONTRACTORS, INC.
Robert T. Law
Vice President
RTL:ke
Enclosures
-, >...,
42900 [H, 11'11"' [)~.; SkI;"lo.l, HJllchQ Mirage. CA 9mO
P.O. Box filOO3J3, Polin! Des<lrl. CA 91261 619/568.1619
\':'1,
t l i; () \,:- ,- ~ -'." ,} I '1")1'
c
ATTACHME~vF (CUP 87-47 G
CUP 87-5)
November 13, 1987
HONORABLE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47
Highland Hills Project
.,
,
,.
I
\l
I' ,~~, .(:,
Now that we au neighboring cities, and it: h/otit' mutual desire
to serve all of the constituents of both cities, it is" time we start
working together. We are very concerned about the Highland Hills
Project which went before the Planning Commission on November 4,
1987, and will be before the City Council on December 7.
In reviewing the City's EIR for this project we have some very
serious concerns which we wish to address:
The project in many substantial ways differs from the Specific
Plan and EIR that were adopted in 1982.
The Specific Plan designated the area to be developed with
townhouses and single family residences.
Mitigation measures for flooding and fire abatem~rtt~addressed
in the EIR were to be taken care of by a homeowner's,absociation.
. ,
{';,o-J:'
The project as now being reviewed is for a 1200+furiit apartment
complex on 80 acres of the 540-acre site. .,ldC\,;:
Residents of the area have. expressed concerns:if~~tding the
considerable increase in traffic that will overtax.ltma1' roads and
the incompatibility of these apartments to the existftlg ;residences.
we respectfully request in the spirit of muniClipl!\J. .courtesy
that no action be taken on this project until such time as represen-
tatives from both High1andtSan Bernardino can meet and come to an
understanding regarding the above-listed concerns.
IS JOHNSON
. COUNC~L E~E~?~7CI.TY O.F HIGHLAND
~~~ R~~ ,t1W>>j--r~
JIM RISSMILLER r.AU~IE TULLY d
"I' .)' ,;:,.(,
.1' ,.',1,11' "
-'::..1:"1-1 i"'}~~
JODY SCOTT.
~~~,":'"
P. O. BOX 1072, BIGBIJUIn'CA 92346L1t~'",
, "n
'CITY OF SAN BE~ARDINO
". t'"
-
MEMORANDU~
ANN SIRACUSA
To Pl anni ng Di rector
Subject Highland Hills Development
ROGER HARDGRAVE, Oil'. of
From Public Works/City Engr.
Date November 4, 1987
File. No. 11. 759
Approved
Date
>' ~:, i
,
. This mfll110randuffi is an attempt to clarify some.issues'that have
been raised in relatiOn to this development.
The Highland Hills Specific Plan and Environmental, Report states,
in part, (Page 30): "The main access to the site is along
Highland Avenue, which is recommended to be re-aligned and
widened to improve sight distance and increase capacity~ It
is recommended that the Highland Avenue crossing of City Creek
be improved to all weather capability."
In order to address the concerns that have been raised on this
issue, the developer engaged the firm of OKS Associates to verify
the traffic information contained in the Environmental Impact
Report. Mr. Peter Liu, City Traffic Engineer, stipulated the
design criteria that was to be followed. The investigation by
OKS Associates indicated that the designated criteria could be
met.
.~~;u,;",
Projected traffic counts on Highland Avenue, betwe4rt~~h~ main
entrance to Highland Hills and Orchard Drive, do ncitt,Jius'tify 4
traffic lanes. However, the County is developing Highland Avenue
t04 lanes to the east. After many discussions with.the County
Department of Transportation, it was determined that Highland
Avenue should be developed to 4 lanes for continuit/.J .
t.d; ,',
'i'/-Y'~~~ ~ '-~
Hi9h1and Avenue, west of Highland Hills, will be wid'~.n;ed to 4
traffic lanes by the developer. ,This widening wil1;)oin: the
project by Caltrans, to widen Highland Avenue ,at the.,interchange
with Route 330 Freeway and replacing the bridge over{C1ty Creek.
The new bridge will provide an all-weather crossing for 4 traffic
lanes.
Conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel ,Map No. 9166 incor-
porate the above items.
I trust this informat
hav y questions.
helpful. Please advise if you
if "'I
'/"':
~
J~rkslC i ~;:UV~~~Jr
J,I~': ,ll{ ',<:11,/,
!'{; ~R. Hl'ir:~llq ['tll.~_":- ("Oi'
l'FlIUC: " .
~1N'I)i~~~~t:;nSi II ill' fir, If , I" I' j
~~1f" .. . ...
c '-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
,.",~,,,
-
MEMORANDUM'-'
ANN SIRACUSA
To Planning Director
Subject Highland Hills Development'
From
ROGER HARDGRAVE, Dir. o'
Public Works/City Engr.
Date
November 4. 1987
Fi'leNo.l1.759
Approved
Date
~ .\
,. ~
" j
i:"1:
This me~orandum is an attempt to clarify some
been raised in relation to this development.
",;I.
i S5uJ~\eh~t have
..;
; r,{.
The Highland. Hills Specific Plan and Environmental Report states,
in part, (Page 30): "The main access to the site is along
Highland Avenue, which is recommended to be re-a11gned and
widened to improve sight distance and increase capacity. It
is recommended that the Highland Avenue crossing of City Creek
be improved to all weather capabllity.",
":. ;
In order to address the concerns that have been raised on this
issue. the developer engaged the firm of OKS Associates to verify
the traffic information contained in the Environmental Impact
Report. Mr. Peter Liu. City Traffic Engineer._stjpu1ated the.
design. criteria that was to be followed. The investigation by
OKS Associates indicated that the designated Criteria could be
met. ,~. .
Project~d tradic coOnts on Highland Avenue. betwe~~t.;~h~mairi... .
entrance to Highland Hllls and Orchard Drive."do"not~j'ustify4,n' "
traffic lanes. However. the County is developing Hibliland Avenue'
to 4 lanes to the east. After many discussions withFthe County, .
Department of Transportation, it was determined.tha'kH1ghland.. _
Avenue should be developed to 4 lanes for cont1nuitY~',m~ .', ('t' ,h . ,J'..
, ,.,'
',.!, 1
Hi']h1and Avenue. west of Highland H1l1s. w111"be"wid'enl!Cf to 4 "
traffic lanes by the developer. Th.is widening w111,.join~the ,..
proj ect by Ca ltra ns, to wi den H.i gh land Avenue,:1 t) theJ,nterchange
with Route 330 Freeway and rep1.cing the bridge over~City_Creek.~,
The new bridge will provide an all-weather crossing for,4ctraffic-
lanes. i"..c~
Conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map"No. 9166. incor-,.
porate the above items. ".,', "r'. u>.
I trust this informat
hav y questions.
,", l ".'. i-
~!\ 1 . ",~
, " . d R G: HARDGR
D.1.rrec.t,o,I';of, ,Pub 1i c
1'., . I i'! I) fI j "'.' I'; J" ':!- ii \-
RGH:rs
~" 'ieRRICiJEql-1,.'" 11111', IJp'lflnl 'I'C'f)I
. . 'J r-cc--s-
_~~~" ,~K ,Me.::>
. ::it..~';.i,,,,,.,;;o/iI-... . -.- .-. - .. -- ..
,<,r~~~(
w111 be he1 pful. P1 ease_advise if you
".,., ,.,..,.',_
',:\. r '\'I''''~~ll.. \n
....', ,,' ~" _ J' ~ ,'.:.'
Works/City En']ineer
1 \ ~
"i", "
-
c c
. ,
East vJ~y \"later District
1155 Del Ro., Avenue PO Bo, 342~
San Bernardino, C.,II1ornl. 9:'413
(714) 66".9501
Septemoer lBi 19B7
>;
"
Mr. Dave Scoles
DUKES-DUKES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1875 West Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
RE: HIGHLAND HILLS DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Scoles:
Reference is made to the Highland Hills Development Project
located north of Highland Avenue and east of Boulder Avenue in
San Bernardino. It is my understanding that your firm is
proposing to develop two of the parcels in the project.,
Located within this property is anexistinq :,\irrigation
structure known as the North Fork Ditch. The ditch !s;a;rock and
mortar lined canal which is jointly owned by the Nortn"Fork Water
Company and the Bear Valley Mutual loJater company; 1i7i th
substantial holdings in both companies, the East Valley \-later
District acts as liaison in all matters pertaining to the North
Fork Ditch.
It is the policy of both companies that anY'f'l&b~tion of
the ditch shall be accomplished by undergrounding the facility
using concrete pipe. The District has conducted preliminary
discussions with the developers of the Highland Hills Project
concerning the ditch's relocation. We will be more than willing
to continue these discussions with your company in an effort to
develop an alternate alignment and design parameters for the
relocation of the ditch.
Following approval and construction of the. relocation
project (including the dedication of acceptable easemElnts for the
new facility), the North Fork and Bear Valley Mutual Water
Company will be willing to allow for the destruction of the old
ditch and will quitclaim all associated interests along this
portion of the ditch., ,
,;' .
f'hihf' A Oi~ct,
rrt'jldent
Geuld Yo. ~tooN
lice-President
DtnnI1:'-' lohmun
{Ju(no,'
hlt'1 I. Rll~hl::,'
lltrc~'o,'
Glenn r., llphtfoot
[J/fL'CIO'
Lury \l.', kOWl
General MQ!'IoQrr ,5uulon
Donna N., S~(i"
Tr#nuu"
-
(East v~ky Water Distr~;t
MR. DAVE SCOLES
September 18, 1987
Page Two
I hope I have addressed any concerns you may have had
regarding this irrigation facility. If you should hav6any other
questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call
either myself or Bob Martin here at the District.
Very truly yours,'
) ..J
'\ ~ ..
~. .....'.. V-'--,
,"ifr w. :Jwe
..k:~l Ma ager
LWR:tls
{
I ',"~ r: , \ i r -, t: ~ ~ I;
I,;;". J,)1\\i'I <-:'Cil F r3
i-"! 'i"
I " ~ -, .
2
'!
c
~ fllQ7t b~
Sp~nacy
(rJ associates
\.",",'
2724 NORTH WATERMAN AVENUE . SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92404 . (714) 883.8911
, ,
.,
,i',
November 4, 1987,
City Planning Comn,ission
City of San Bernardino
Attn: Chairman
,..,
r~: Conditional us Permits
Numbers: 87.5 and. 87.47
Dear Sin:
I am at a loss as to why we tolerate the thought, let alone the
possibility of h~gh density units on land total incompatible
with surrounding properties.
#1 WE ARE POSITIVELY OVERBUILT IN mE AREA OF APARTI.IENT
HOUSES AND CONDOHINIUHS, IN 'l'l!E FIRST PLACE.
'.
#2 I~E ARE IN DIRE NEI:.D OF HF.I~ CUSTOH BUILT HONES IN TIlE
$200,000 - $300,000 PRICE R}~CE.
These conditional use permits (stated above)
l~d much needed for these prime residential
dwellings.
are proposed "for' ;',
'...'. .X
sinels . f amiljl :l!<<t .'c
~ r,' ",";'
Why governing city hodies, lot alone persons who take their livli-
hood from our city, would want to so blotch up our few remaining
choice development areas is beyond comprehension.
Needless to say, this is why new poople AND natives go running off
to o~r neighboring cities.
. \ I i:,r I
~~ - 'Jll
<,1,), !
'1. ..." '"
f."'" i( " ,." ..',.'.... ".' .'" ...., .'
~..... . ... "" ..,'1 ," C!: ' 1
b ,:;.) \.) "..>> tJ I. '".\ J ',,' \,
(I '/'f..rt~l( 1':[ '~"I:'I')r'I' " t.."P
) (.. ," 'L~ &., '. ,<' '.." '."
" ,.
,,~. i'..IlF \1;1(111:;' 1",.
,. "I'.'
I" .1 jr"(\I;i~,/>.~T .,. .
\ .., H. ,f! I _' ~ ; '~,
RESIDENTIAL · INVESTMENT. · LAND
m
lIl"lIOQ.
c
'"
Whether it is politics, greed or whatever, we need to take a long
look at what is happening to our city and our area. We need to
take pride in how it is developed and instead of allowing. six homes
to be built on one small knoll, (example: lit. Top Drive, East of
Seine), at least make certain the owners will be ablo to back out
thoir own driveways without having to back into their neir,hbors: .
It is a pleasure to show homes in other communities that have watched,
planned, and cared about their developmont.
It would be an unforgivable and a serious mistaka to allow these
224 units (87.5) and 325 units (R7.47) be built in this area of
existing custom homes.
""j'
We sincerely trust this commission will give this sorne serious
thought and not sllow such development here or in any other
obviously unfeasab1e area, as these proposals represent.
',""rely, c/2.;
spe1l~CY ~
FDS/cas
.,," IP
,
,
::
P"C!t'llf~r .ft J" 1"01 i l.tc";. cH~t'd 1:' 1,;h;I':('I.,pr~ l'f' t~ ':: f.,1
lHpl:. ;H, ~,dl;lI -Is I! 'i)(I"r~ fill; l:(,~ C\;"I," ell.,;" "Hill ;'li!!. ; I
tai:,~ III !i,\U jq hi": ; I I,: ,If'\/I.I(I' ,',(j .;tnc\lu",(',I(' ,:.,
1.':\4
-
1''' /
\.,.... '-'
Smith, Peroni & Fox
.,j
PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
November 3, 1987
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino, Cali fornia
SUBJECT: . Highland Hills Sp~~~fic Pl~~
Dear Commission Members,
Our firm., under Its former name Eisner-Smith' and Assodates. prepared
the Specific Plan and El R for the Highland Hills project under a con-
tract with the City of San Bernardino In 1982. I was the project
manager for the project.
Since the Specific Plan was completed, the developer has proceeded with
the preparation of several parcel maps that, in effect, implement the
Specific Plan on a phased basis. One of the parcel maps (No. 9166)
proposed an alignment for Highland Avenue which differs from that
shown on the Specific Plan. This proposed re-alignment was discussed
with City staff and was approved by the City. Although our firm has
not been involved in the Highland Hi lis project since completing the
Specific Plan, I was invited to attend a meeting at City Hall at which
the realignment of Highland Avenue was discussed.
I understand that the proposal to realign Highland Avenue In a manner
which differs from the Specific Plan is being questioned. I think it is
important to point out that the Specific Plan is not rigid. It provides
the framework and principles within which a development wi II proceed.
but there is the recognition that many features will change as further.
more detailed studies are done. The Speci fie Plan text in fact acknow-
ledges this point.
. . .
My understanding is that the proposed realignment ~~5 thoroughly
studied by the developer. his engineers, and by City staff. I also
understand that this realignment will accommodate the projected traffic
along Highland Avenue. In light of this, I feel that the proposed
realignment is in keeping with the framework established in the Specific
Plan and is an acceptable solution.
Sincerely,
SMITH. PERONI & FOX
;li"i!j~~~IH,~1D~
" I Vice-President' i! . " I ii'
980 E. TafiqiiktWay, SUlle,C, ' F8lm Sp~ng8, California 92282 Telephone (819) 322-0900
. --
,.
.....,
~.ex N. Griggs ..'
28435 Coachman Lane
Highland, CA. 92346
October 31, 1987
U!J~' [11 fri'l1:J. I.; \,"7 rl~
.J ~~. ~9 _I~ I \~! :.1
a
Planning Department
,
San Bernardino City Hall
300 No. D Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
NOV 04 1981
CITY PLANNING \Jf.~AfnMENT
BAN B~RNARDlNO, CA
,
Dear Commiss~oners,
i'!'
Ii"
:.',
~' H
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Highlan~~Htlls
Project. I live in Carriage Hill and unfortunately 1 witl;be
out of town on November 4, preventing my appearance .at y6ui
hearing. I..am writing in strong opposition to theappli~ation
for a conditional use permit No. 87-47 described as Highland
Hills.
After reviewing the 1982 Environmental Impact Report for this
development I am further convinced that the proposed 324 unit
development bears little resemblance to the original planned
development in 1981.
An example is the size of the originally proposed townhouses,
single family residences and custom homes ranging from 1500 to
2000 square feet. The current application is for as small{as
400 + squaare feet apartments~ This is quite a DENSITY TRANSFER.
., ;
In addition to the above, and aside from the de-valuing,j~ii.~ct
upon surronding residences, the following safety and oth~tiI!tems
are not and maybe cannot be satisfactorily mitig'ated. :, j
,i; '.,,: ~
. '-r' ',;"I'~}
:~v:::T::~:::c shaking can be expected with liqUifactiof:t,1~bblems
in lower areas. The mitigation is stated to design and,'ctrliistruct
buildings that will not straddle the fault~ These struct~tes
must be built to withstand a 7.5 earthquake.
2. WIND AREA
The development is designated as a high wind are,a but no .mitig-
ation mentioned.
3. TRAFFIC
, \'X'
When completed this project will add 807 peak hour trip~'.rid over
8800 average daily trips to ,the l!lrl\a"i~~mmulatively impacts, for
the general area with other co~struF~~on planned will be 49.000
average daily trips. Incredable~ The widening and realigning
'.. ",I : . . ,.
of Highland Avenue from Boulder to th~ project entrance sim~ly
is not even close to adequate,particularly when you consider
the varying widths of the road as it enters and leaves dev~
elopments and jurisdictions, obviously without coordinat{o&.
i I I , '" ill ., I
" i II,; , ,I ,I " , t 'I , I i
, I I " I ,
., i I.' I lid ,I ; " . I , , I
, , '-i
lID
-,
-
,
1...,.
4. NOISE
The noise level has been tremendousley downplayed. It will not
be limited to adjacent/nearby residences as only one who li~
in the area can attest.
5. FIRE
, i' -'.
Even though the Fire Departmenthas recommended fire safe s~andards
equivelant to the Foothill Fire Proctection standards adopted by
the County, whose to say that a reduction in these standards
won't be negotiated as the City Council has not adopted these
standards? In addition, how will the greenbelts/fuelbreaks be
maintained on the site if the initial phase is a cluster.,of
apartments? In other words. who will pay for maintenance i.e.,
clearing and watering if no homeowners association is involved?
I hope the many questions relative the the bond financing. .
inadequate mitigation measures, questionable procedures through
the process of CEQA requirements are vivid enough to cause a
dissapproval of this development.
It is difficult to comprehend that the land use policy makers
of the City of San Bernardino would lower the standards to this
degree. Particularly in view of the recent State sanctions
upon the City for inattention to current requirements and
needs for land use. planning and enforcment. "
"L::i,'~
I will be there in person, with my neighbors at the nFltt'!~:hiaring.
J~f:.!~
.' ~~' ',;':t . !'i
Ji;~
,: 'ii}i~i! ';
. ,~,., ,
4Sincere~lY ':~~!t~i'
. . il""!!f\ ~".,
v-.. ~ .'. .. . 'Ji"il)'}
Rex N. Griggs
:,'\1',,\;:
1,\ l. d '
11;1 11!.'1' " "'j(
.-l i " ('II I , "
, ,
1" tlll ,I .: I (, \' II, ',', I ~ ,j;.\ V
;1,1"11' \i ;
1':1.--'
I',
1) '} i ! ,_ ~ I r,
j I,
C
L"ND, MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
,
.-
COUNTY OF SAN BERN~INO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
November 2, 1987
'~\\\II'''~e
....~t~....
..... .....
- :::-
-:;:.. ..::::--
"...~ ~......
/'ljIJlII\\\~'
rnrn ~ rn n \Yl rn lID
NOV 041981
385 North Arrowhood Avonuo . Son 8ornordlno. CA 92415,0180
JOHN N. JAQUESS
Lind Management Director
OFFICE OF PLANNING
~ ::; Sharon W. Hightower
: County Planning Officer
OFFICE OF SURVEYOR
'. ,Claude D. Tomlinson, L.S.
\-,
.' ,~; ,;. County Surveyor
OFFih OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
Larry L. Schoelkopf, f.E.
County Building Official
Dear Ms. Paulsen,
l
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the abOve reference
Initial study. In review of said Initial study we have the
following concerns:
A. SEISMIC:
The potential for adverse impacts from surrounding earthquake
faults is high. The Initial Study indicates that portions
of the site are identified as having a high susceptibility
for liquefaction. There seems to be only general
recommendations included in the Initial Study,.. ;More site
specific mitigation measures should be. implemented,
B.
TRAFFIC:
,~. "::J\I,lf~
,. ~,i".'~'
. The traffic and circulation mitigations for tli'f~;i'lIeve10pment
'were from a report written in 1984. Since that, date more
development has occurred and this report cou1d:b.1 outdated.
In addition, information provided in the Inith.l,,; study was
only an intersection traffic analysis, not a complete traffic
analysis of the road system. As mentioned before, there has
been a tremendous amount of development in the surrounding
area and it seems the overall cumulative effect on traffic
has not been addressed by this Initial study;
C.
FLOODING AND STREAMBANK EROSION:
The potential for flood hazard has been addressed by the
County Transportation Flood Control Department. The
recommendations outlined in their April 29, 1987 letter should
be incorporated into the Initial Study as Mitigation Measures;
1,.
!fI1'1 :\ ,:\ "1'1:":\: J ,;::>111) !l" li,;!l .,iil' " !".'.' IJ d I
UR,~~rn I] W m lID
,""j .~
.NOV 03 1987
!/ /1M) l"UH,ll'dffl'!HTn Ill\i .\r i 'I .',ii' (I
::r,:~\' ":'n\~!,i:\l:: ~1.1
i., .i.l
',' ,.,
I
i~,,'I'~ ,If ~l\ii,hl~,'\'
<1,.,,1
,il '.,,'
\.
, . 1.I,CITY';l1l1N~iW.I::T;:,rnMENT.,
""" 'll6fll f3ERNARDlMO, CA..."
t l:;il l'5rlil;I~. ),
'i <) Pi ~'" I.',
,II: ; j;)"IU"
j ,.,
"1';' .:!!,
'-'
To: Sandra Paulsen
Page 2
,
~.
"
)
D. BIOTA:
The analysis seems to fail to address the loss of riparian
habitat and its effects on wildlife from these proposed
improvements;
E.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
I
The Highland area is currently deficit in' ~~~reational
facilities. The feasibility of the developer.~aying Quimby
Act fees seem to be very subjective. The letter from the
East Valley Water District states they will serve water if
available but makes no commitment to waste water. treatment.
The Initial study fails to address these issues;
F.
GRADING:
In lieu of what the city of San Bernardino has experience in
the past few weeks in regards to erosion control measures,
it is hoped that strict mitigative measures will be applied
and enforced; and finally
G. nEt:
The project area is identified within area B of the Foothill
Communities Protective 'Greenbelt' Program.' Since this
program was adopted by resolution of the city council, the
project should have been evaluated on this basis and
mitigation measures should be applied to reduce exposure to
fire hazards. The Initial Study did not include a.discussion
on the potential exposure of people to this hazard.
This project seems to have a potential for signifio~nt effect on
the environment. The Initial Study lacks the mitigati~n measures
necessary to allow a Negative Declaration to be prepared. All
mitigation measures should be included as conditions of approval.
;~ ': ,
,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
Initial Study. If you have any questions please contact our
office at (714) 387-4176.
sincerely,
EPWA/LAND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF PLANNING
~~
.,
LISA WAT~S, ^SS~CIATE PLANNER
EAST VALLEY PLANNING TEAM
LW:GB:kak
i~U),f II. ~
I'.l'l~..~ dfl,": ~ 'It j r~'
n ,'llJ j t ~"I i -' r If!
!,i!l; L; :\1 :,'I,IL'li'- .c.,
': i.
: (t ,J '\ It;
: 1 1,>(' l..;, 'J": \ \"
(I,ll'"
) .1.:
'i. I
, ..."
'.,I.";i:
/'-'"
"-
,
.",..""
.,/
GARY), LA TOURETTE, M. D., INC.
Diplomate of the American Board Orthopedic Surgeon.
1800 N, WESTERN AVE., SUITE 3o.t.
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92411 "
ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON
(714) 887-2519
October 29, 1987
San Bernardino City Hall
Council Chambers
300 North D' Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Dear Sirs,
In response to the proposal of a 324 unit developement ,
we feel that this many people and high density apartment
complex will create further problems to the already ex-
isting problems.
Highland Avenue is not equipped to handle that much traffic
and we will be faced with further congestion, not to mention
the traffic that exists during the winter months ski season.
This is only one of the many reasons that I am opposed to
this proposal.
GJL:dc
,
','i
Ii. 1(IIJliTIi., I..U, , I;.!<
;
.':\,\
;,l,;,t{,
"ij'im
I\"r. \'1'
.;J I';"" {o~'
t
n;: .~'
'If"." :.. ,'.11
;~;',\ "
,.'.1.,
1 ",
! ,.,
~ "
1. .,.
II iiI/I 0 ~1987
".fl; ,1.,,'.(,1[; '_: ~l"'i
IJ ,'.'!" '''1 O'i '"1,""
I. ,I ',il", "
'Ii 11'1,
, ,\,~,,<\
. , . f,!", ',,. ....1 .
" "i j,'j J-" l~';n, 14ij- .'1'"\ Iii.) t I
.'.:"l'N,\.IPl,k,I."
J' 'I", I,
; ,,'
c
,-
,
Russ and Sylvia Alverson
8696 Orchard St.
Highland, CA 92348
.
Mr. Roger Hardgrave
City Engineer,
City of San Bernardino
300 North D St.
San Bernardino, CA
November 3, 1987" _
m ~ ~~,~l~] ~ ~
\N ~OI.J () ~ 1981
. ., ,,;t diOEPM\IM'C\'l1
, C\1'( PlM~I~~~\\O\MO. cr>.
, . sMl B~\\. ...
}''1t~,$,;.
Re: Parcel Map 9188
CUP 87':'6
CUP 8T-4T
Dear Mr. Hardgrave:
We live at 8696 Orchard St.,
our lot In 1983 and built
approximately three-quarters of
Highland, California~
our home on It.
an acre in size.
"e bought
Our lot Is
We are opposed to the plans to build a thousand or so :.ptrtments
across the street from our home because we do not believe they
are compatible with our neighborhood. However, of .greater
concern Is the fact that a couple of weeks ago we stepped into
our front yard to find surveyor's stakes In It. We do not know
who put theIR there, although we saw some men In a",orange,
unmarked truck in our yard. By the time one of us wu 'able to
get dre.sed ~nd go outside they were gone, but the .takes were
there. Thl. caused UI to look more clolely at the Highland Hills
Specific Plan and the maps and plans mentioned above. We noticed
that the parcel map and plans show a change In the line or
Orchard Road which places Orchard Road through our house and In
our front yard.
We have never agreed to sell our house to the people who 'own the
property planned for apartments, rior to the"clty. We would llke
to know how the city can propose a parcel map and apartment
developments which place Orqhard Hoad through our house and yard.
The fact that Orchard Road ~un*.through our property Is not real
clear on all 01 the plans and parcel maps because they do not
show all boundary and adjoining property lines, nor do they show
assessor's parcel numbers. We have enclosed a small map showing
our property outlined In red and the new curve or line of Orchard
Road Is blackened In.
1
Ii ; i ~] ~~ '" li I ' .
iJ,!;ni> (>1'.:1-:
IU !!J i"'In.;\"
1;.
r"'''
\...;
,
"
We do not wish to sell our property and do not understand why no
one has ever contacted us to let us know that the city plans to
put the street there. We were not aware 01 those plans at the
time we bought our lot and there was nothing to put us on notice
that the city planned to put the street through our lot.
We see no
and obJect
untll this
commission
reason why this matter has not been dlsoussed with us
to any proJeot approvals or paroel map recordings
Is resolved. We will be at tomorrow night's planning
meeting and hope our questions are answered.
Slnce~ . ..~
4:~& s~rson
~ 1
~:i
H
;
',,}
l" .~
/' .,
",.. '
"'''!:,.
;IAj
'1'1,';' ~.
'i\:n
::'~.>U'".i
"jl;, /I"l,'~,
,.,.....;\!....!
i"
li'f'. do
11,0 t \1,' ,t !~ I:. t t\ .'i,~ ~ I \! 11 p
\; ~'Hk' ;.l.,ni H'~\ ~':!~ 1,1
'<; j, ~' (q'~ , l J I.' l 1;' , i', I
~ 1112 i' t ~I HII\! .'1' ~",
i 11 i L l}o ;', l. h i
;, ~~ I, I (I i ,t" i. i l ," ,-,
,
IJ.l ~
( ;, t hiJ
In t ii,,'.'
'"
"
:::=e:
1\ ,
e."
~ t'
I ~ il
l1
3~
()IJ
~. r"
I: a
..
(l)tl1~'
g 8 I.:
tu:lr a
of'.) c..
~1 OJ ~~
Q c, ..
'"' to:,
!!:"3 ".
:, ",'I
o.cllj
"\
0_
() tJ
c
"
~..
_4_.__~
~-L
'U~4::::. .
...,.....'1..
~;l:w,.:: r.t
~ ....-. ~
.. ..
.. ~
."s ".,. "
,- ,...
.. ..
,.
(
I
,
\ @
,
........
,.
"'~
~
@
iU.ill/A.
10.le.
@
I,OAG.
(1)
--'
i;
"
I.
'. , " 'J;' '~'L
,,-I.
I I
.. ( \ /
;
!
1\
\\"
. .
,'It,1.
I ,! C I ~I..
':~\ '
l,'\l,
."
."
:.)
i.'I.,
..
t;, ,
. '.
~-n PcJL -l~:;t..
,
'C@)
(9
., SAC.
~
r
{
,
~
"
.
@.
.U41.
H
.. ~
-.
,
~\'1
( f,};l
.,
" ~
(- ~
./
.-
A fprO'1(!MA-k
\oeA+..on Of NvA'
OrChArD Ro~D
1I
o
"
@
'l
\
@
I
~
..(
H ....1
e~ I
@) II
. . '~-'9'314 ..;~
I
I
i..
I
I
I
I
.. AC.
...
~~
JO'
fl
0_..___...... ....1..
I
'sr'
@
(J)
(I,
p
(jJ
~
;j
?:
;U
(I'
~
,(J)
tll
~o
Ol
~
-
o
".
o ~::UVl
.... )c ~ Cf
CD ""
~ ~ OOl
on. =-"
It.. at 0..,
- .."
o l> "
..... ., C:.,
\0 ~ :?,~
'-:l ~
2 n'n
- -
-<
II>
co
CD
o
-
OJ
1J..1~
-
c
it)1 -1
)
CI
ERNARDINO
300 NORTH "O"STREET.SAN BERl~I'I'lil'~Lfl',ORNl',(,'. 9fi1'1]J
U.J l!~ l\J) !'.l Ll ;j Ul
n1 -. . )
NOV 16 1987
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Pulallc Work.
CITY I'lJ,r\l~tn~ ."i'AirfMENT
SAN BERNi~ ;]:;~O. ell
November 13, 1987:
1';
File No. 10.0 5ti:,
Highland Avenue!
Russ and Sylvia Alverson
6595 Orchard Street
Highland, CA 92346
RE: Re-alignment of Orchard Street and Highland Avenue
Highland Hills Development
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Alverson:
.'
This is in response to your letter of 11-03-87. 1
, ,
: ,r: '..'.~I
The conditions of approval for the Highland Hills ~.v~lopment
require the re-alignment of Orchard Street, in order to make
a better intersection with Highland Avenue. Thisre..al ignment
does not have to be done as a part of the first phas~Jof de-
velopment. Some additional right-of-way will be requ{red
from your parcel, but the re-aligned street will not go through
your house.
Cooperation of the County was needed, since your property is
not within the City of San Bernardino. The re-alignment was
developed in conjunction with the County Department of
Transportation/Flood Control. The survey crew you observed
setting stakes in your front yard was not the City's, but could
have been the County's.
Highland Avenue is planned to be widened to four lanes in this
area. This widening will also necessitate some additional
right-of-way from your property..
Before the re-alignment or widening can be commenced, it will
be necessary for the County (City of Highland) to negotiate with
'~;;t...,
~ I'. ~ ~.. 1 VI: 'l.. ;'1, I:") ~I. !]"I I, l 1
1 '.',I..J j ,..!. 'I -.,
'P(llj"f! . II : Ir I
') :~
17141384.5111 - 384.5112
\1-\4
('
-
\;,.. .,
.,,,,.01
,
,j
Russ and Sylvia Alverson
November 13, 1987
Page - 2 -
you for the additional right-of-way.
rights-of-way have been acquired, can
provements be accomplished.
I trust this information will be sufficient to answer your
questions.
Only after the additional
construction of.these im-
Very truly yours,
. .!
,
,.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RGH:rs
-,t:'
.~
,.;
cc: John Steger
Chief, Transportation Program Management
County of San Bernardino
825 East Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415
~nn Siracusa, Planning Director
fl, U :', ~_, (,Ill d :: 'v'1 '/i:1 I~~ j ',' 1'1, i1lj
j'IJ '.,' e In!,l p:' J ~, 1:1 ')1.1
;,1 ~I -II
. ,_ ,1 f !:: i' ::.11 L ,I d d i t. i; Iii,' ~ q Ii t ' I": . ".' (' j i '
lhj~', ,'If,.;'Jav fld\':':' I '~.,' ':<!lillll~d~ :';',' i;1 . t I
. " .' I., '"I illl \~ h, ',I (., '0111 i 'i Ii.: ,1 I
. JI~
-
-
c
ADDITIONAL HIGhLAND HILL()NFORMATION - ,)
Planning Commission Meet~g of 11/17/87"
\
,..I
~
-~
edwaQd q. hill, JQ.
1817 NORTH '0' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
(714) 881-1864
November 12, 1987
Mr. Bill Leonard
Post Office Box 1367
San Bernardino, California 92402
'I
Re: Single/Multiple Family Compatibility,
East Highland Hills
Dear Mr. Leonard:
I have reviewed my appraisal experiences and have field
inspected the subject and several neighborhoods for the
purpose of commenting on the compatibility orlsck of
compatibility of single family residences in proximity to
multi-family complexes. If the uses are compatAble,
there will be a stability in property values, but; iif: they
are not compatible, there can be a deterioration.t,~
,.,i'i,
',I":',. :~I,'J:L'
It is my overview that well maintained improve~.n~1 can
be compatible provided that the uses do not intrud.r~pon
each other. The intrusions could be si9htl'l!1pise,
emissions, increased traffic or resident.:'.;:;'with
dissimilar motivations. If these intrusions occtitl it
makes little difference as to the use of the improvements
being single family or multiple or any other combination.
One can find a clean industrial use, school or office
that is a better neighbor than a full time intruder with
a conforming residential improvement who devalues the
neighborhood by poor maintenance or unacceptable
behavior.
I: "till
~ . I ' I - f ! I I j Ii
Il'WI11!H/',I'I'I'11<!
.1 I! Ii
"
i-
rDJ~;~j~ n W ~ m
un"",.,;..", 1.._"
NM,t3 1987
t'lnPfl' f(,!,';
1. 1'11111/'1111 I III'
'" ....'!
CITY PlAN~INO OEi'MlTII:1ENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
. II'
-
-
c
v
,
, ~
,
....)
November 12, 1987
Page Two
,I' ;'
A usual zoning pattern is to provide multiple ):onfrtg as a
buffer between higher density or less desirable land
parcels and lesser density developments. The subject is
less desirable because of its lower elevation and
proximity to a primary access road, Highland Avenue.
Highland Avenue is precised to accommodate traffic to
large areas of development in the East Highlands Bench.
I believe the subject land parcel lacks the desirability
to be developed into higher priced single family
residential sites of the existing neighborhood. These
same factors provide a basis for suggesting a multiple
use is appropriate. Additionally, because there is
existing bet ter qual i ty housing, the proposed quality
development of subject can create a consistency of
neighborhood desirability.
The development, as proposed, is a quality prOdU'~~' '~nd a
relatively modest density - eleven units pll'/:; .cre.
(Higher density multiple units attain 30 units pe~aQre.)
This density is a great deal more like a condominium
project. This project is well maintained and {provides
a stable influence in the heart of res.i'd.n'tial
neighborhoods. The stability occurs becaus~ the
development is as attractive as any housing ahd.. rreen
space creates desirability that may not be availab e to
a single family residential orientation.
An example of neighborhood compatibility of mixed
residential uses is the Lynwood project at Lynwood and
Sterling Avenues. The traffic flow in this project could
be objectionable, but the traffic from Lynwood enters
only the project and not the adjacent residential areas.
The development of the subject similarly directs traffic
away from residential areas.
,
.3,
,.1-
r'.'
\-
,
.......'
"...,,;
\
.....I
November 12, 1987
Page Three
Another nearby area with multiple uses corttirtio~s to
single family residential is at Mountain Shadows to the
west of subject on Highland Avenue. I do not believe the
values of even the contiguous homes are mealilurably
affected and those a block away are not affected at all.
In some are as of San Bernard ino, mul t i pIe uses have
tended to be an upgrading of transitional or older use
parcels adjacent to commercial uses. Typical are the
developments north or south of Highland Avenue. Thes~
developments have generally benefited the neighborhoods
by rehabilitating older improvements to new developments.
In newly developing areas, there are a great number of
multiple residential areas which are in proximity to
single family residential without value impact. Such
developments are found in abundance in the Palm Springs
complex or along the freeways to San Diego, in fast
growing Moreno Valley and parts of Riverside.
.,,: ,.~
1"- . "..~
There are multiple residential projects which:d'evalue
adjacent lroperties, but in these instances, the .projects
are usual y uneconomic ~ soorly managed. One notorious
project is the units at Ar en and Highland. Theaeunits
were built prematurely twenty years ago. TheY(;have a
long history of out of control management and I,;iam.,sure
they depress even the modest value adjacent singleflmily
residential neighborhoods.
The fact that this poorly managed complex causes a
depressing affect should not be an indictment that values
are per se changed by a proximity of higher and lower
denSity residential uses.
..I ,"_"I,il',
I"!' "
,.' "
,I
.. -
c
"'. ..'.
,
,,)
:)
","'"
November 12, 1987
Page Four
;,,(
:f"..':,;:, ;..,:.
It Is my view of the subject that the higher denjity use
will be equally compatible to the existing residential as
lower density use because:
1) The land area is conducive to medium density
residential.
2) The development contains its traffic flows away from
adjacent existing neighborhoods.
3) The development has approximately fifty percent open
space areas.
4) The development is of substantially greater quality
and has more amenities than most other multi-family
development in San Bernardino.
I certify to the best of my knowledge and beliel,fh';t the
statements and opinions contained in this t:epo'rt are
correct: that I have no present or contemplated. future
interest in the property appraised: and neithttt the
amount of my fee nor my employment is contingent upon the
amount of value reported. ~
,I
ctfully, ~
if
'-'f
~~'. ~ll, Jr:--
Real Estate Appraiser
EGH/bd
to
.,i
"
:1
. .,,,
c
"-,
. '\
,j
J
~
APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS
I
EDWARD G. HILL, JR.
EDUCATION
Graduated from the University of California at, Los
Angeles, B.S. Degree, majoring in Business Administration
wi th specialization in Real Estate. Attended various
appraisal seminars presented by the American Right
of Way Association. Completed appraisal and real estate
related courses in extended sessions at the University
of California at Riverside and San Bernardino Valley
College. Attended seminars in Real Estate Education
at Cal Poly, San Dimas, and the University of Califo~nia
Los Angeles extension.
EXPERIENCE
Self-employed as independent appraiser and land
acquisition coritractor, January 1, 1960 to date.
Right of way Agent, acquisition and appraisals, Riverside
County Flood Control District, August 1958 to January
1960.
Right of Way Agent, acquisition and appraisals,,: State
of California, Division of Highways, April 19!5S '. to
August 1958.'
,. ':-)
. . ,
COURT TESTIMONY ,:~;k ;1
Testified and qualified as expert witness in ';ai4~~ion
in the Superior Courts of San Bernardino, Riv.t$ide,
Orange and Los Angeles Counties, and the Los An'!Jeles
and San Bernardino Bankruptcy Courts ..,~I,.
RELATED EXPERIENCE,:J;r) !.
Instructor at University of California at Riverside
for Real Estate Certificate Program, .Principles of
Appraisal,. "Appraising for Investment Purposes,"
"Advanced Real Estate Appraisal," and "Commercial and
Investment Properties." Extended Day Instructor at
San Bernardino Valley College, "Advanced Real, Estate
Appraisal."
AFFILIATIONS
')."
Society of Real Estate Appraisers, SRA '(Senior
LiReSidential Appraiser). Broker Member of San Bernardin~
Board of Real tors. Advisory Board Member for the. Bank
of Redlands.
~ ! r', . t . ; i ? I j. I r '\ I i ,i
{f t ~ ,\ H:; ,
HI i',i'l ,I::
c
, .
'\
.....,~./
i~
(I
,..I
......,
Russ and Sylvia Alverson
6696 Orchard St.
Highland, CA 92346
November 16, 1981
Plannlnc Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 N. D St.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
re: CUPs 81-5 and 81-41
Ladles & Gentlemen:
We have learned that your staff
above proJects, and that one of
that Orchard Avenue be widened on
Is recommend I ng
the condit ions
our land.
approval of the
of approval Is
As we pointed out In our last letter and at the public hearing on
November 4, 1981, no one has consulted with us about turning our
front yard Into a street. From what we can tell from the plans,
we will be forced to give up our house as the street will be
within several feet of our front door, given the size of our lot
and the position of our house on the lot. We see no reason for
this as Orchard Avenue can Just as easily be widened on the
property belonging to the developer of these two projects, Mr.
Leonard.
,.1.
','I
In addition, your stall states that either theCo'ulli:Y~:Of San
Bernardino or the new City of Hlchland will have to oondemn our
house in order to widen Orchard Avenue. We have checked with the
County and understand there is no agreement on Its part ~Ith your
City to condemn our house. As tar as we know, thil City of
Highland has not agreed to do so, either. i",:l::'
; I :~~;~::~ f: t ',"
From what we can tell, your City Is the only one thatha.a decided
that our house and yard should be condemned In place of requiring
Mr. Leonard to dedicate his own land for his own developments.
If you approve this
be condemned, we
against the City of
project with the requirement that our house
will bring an Inverse condemnation action
San Bernardino.
Sincerely,
~~VI'
cc: Mayor Wilcox
cc: City Council
.{II.
1'1:1, I, 11
r;- III;.
;'j:!
..
..
,of'
- .
fynthia Ludvigse~
Qttorney at Law
:)
444 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Suite 202
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(714) 885-6820
',I ,_
,
November 17, 1987
'l."i i
'2.,,,' ~;. ~~
~>'~>F It.
.1,.1 J.'
> .~.li
" : ~,' ~~~;' .~~
,,"I.'.~,
.."'11:f
~jJt: :i~l,
AJ'UI':''''/
t'l.'r ~ r.::
.",!,)." ,
.)!,.!I'I'
!i:':r):+1f;';'~'
On behalf of my client, the Highland Homeowners Association, I
have reviewed the staff reports on the above two applications,
which were made available late on November 13, 1987.
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" st.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re:
CUPs 87-47 and 87-5
Ladies & Gentlemen:
These two reports contain substantial new information and
conditions recommended by your staff. Therefore, we believe it
is inappropriate to have closed the public hearing and to allow
no further public comment or input. Under state environmental
and general plan law, public input is required to allow a full
examination of issues and concerns prior to a decision being made
on a project. To close off that input before recommended
development conditions are available does not fulfill tile purpose
of public review. ..,',
"
,
This merely compounds our previous complaint that;th~$d'\ projects
are going through the approval process without details regarding
flood control, street design, etc. being available. The' response
of the developers and your staff has been that these matters will
be taken care of later--in final engineering or design. \ Howe.ver,
these are major environmental issues, the design and 'detail of
which should be available prior to a decision on;app~oval being
made. Without such specific information, it is impossible to
determine whether the projects mitigate environmental impacts or
comply with the Specific Plan.
,
,.
"
I'
I
II
In addition, we find your staff's statement of the issues raised
at the public hearing on November 4, 1987 woefully incomplete,
inaccurate and misleading. Those members of the commission who
were present at the hearing know that numerous other issues were
raised, inCluding many procedural issues, which the staff reports
fail to address. Furthermore, those reports do not ,include many
written comments which were received prior to the November 4th
~public. heal: irtg, ,b\lt. ,r.,after the staff reports for those hear ings
were prepared. Those written comments were from th~following
:"~:i-;,' i~:
",:,: ~:\;, ~(
1
! .
1",,) i
.
,i
.....'"
'f"'::~~.
<
c:
(,
,/
:)
Planning Commission
November 17, 1987
individuals: Freddie Spellacy (11/4/87); Lisa Watts, Associate
Planner, Department of Land Management, County of San Bernardino
(11/2/87); Gary J. La Tourette (10/29/87); Russ & Sylvia
Alverson (11/3/87); Gary Bill, Associate Planner, County of San
Bernardino (9/10/87). We believe there were other written
comments received during the course of the review before the ERC
and Planning Commission which are not included as part of that
staff report.
Your staff reports fail to include the above comments or to
address the issues raised by those comments.
Also, the staff report fails to address numerous legal and
procedural issues raised, such as whether or not the Specific
Plan can be amended by a Parcel Map; whether the ERe
recommendation was premature, given that substantial plans and
details were submitted after the October 8, 1987, ERC meeting;
whether city. ordinances or resolutions were violated since the
proposed negative declaration did not go back to the ERC for
final approval after comments were received (see Resolution
13157, section 28).
Furthermore, we questioned the review period for the proposed
negative declaration in light of the fact that state and federal
agencies have jur isdiction over resources affected by this
project. Your Resolution 13157, Sections 31 and 32, .as well as
CEQA and the state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073, require a 30-
day review period for such projects and circulation to the state
Clearinghouse, which was not done in this case.
Furthermore, the above city resolution also requires a 30-day
review period, and circulation to the state Clearinghouse for a
proposed residential development of more than 500 units, a
project whose direct, environmental effects will extend beyond
the city, a project impacting on an area of critical
environmental sensitivity for which an EIR was prepared and a
project which requires state or federal permits, all of which we
believe to be the case bere.
We also wish to point out that one of the new conditions
suggested by your staff is that the County of San Bernardino or ,
i
I;'; ::;'
2
,:~(M!L;"1,tt;
>h~i"'~l"'~ Ii' 1;.),
1S3
. I
I:.,
c
.j
Planning Commission
November l7, 1987
I I
\..,1 "
as .it now is, the new City of Highland, condemn private land not
owned by the developer to widen Orchard Avenue. We understand
that there is no agreement with the County to undertake such
action and. the new City of Highland certainly has not had an
opportunity'\.tq \ review this~' In effect, your staff ! has
recommended:an unenforceable condition, which is intended to
mitigate traffic impacts of this project. No one has addressed
or considered what will happen if the County or new City are
unable to~:condemn this ! land. We do not see how the City of San
Bernardin~can ever enforce this condition and suggest that it
consider:~l,tetnative mitigation measures.
1. ~
Overall, we once again reiterate our position that the developer
and city appear to have abandoned the Specific Plan. It is used
and relied; upon where convenient or favorable to the developer
and disrega~ded where it does not match the developers' plans.
Furthermore,' this .. is a . piecemeal development of an area subject
to a Specific Plan instead of an overall, integrated development
as required ~nd envision,d by any SpeSlfic Plan.
We further. find some very interesting rationalizations regarding
the nature of the hbusing units in the staff report. The fact is
that the entire environmental analysis, particularly the fiscal
impacts sections, were based upon ownership units which the Plan
identifies as selling for prices in excess of $150,000. The Plan
and EIR are ,not based merely upon "townhouse style" units.
Furthermore, the staff report and developer refer repeatedly to
the "upsca"le,';,.,pature.,:, of these . apartments. This is somewhat
hypocriti~l'('"glventhat they. intend to use tax exempt bond
financing",~~ich. is predicated upon affordabil1ty criteria.
Either the'ideveloper intends to violate the restrictions placed
upon the' '~:bonc1' issue' or is misleading you as to the nature of
these apa~fments. .
As we have said before, we believe there is insufficient detail
and information prOVided about these projects to allow anyone to
intelligen~ly assess their environmental impacts. The City still
has not .been provided all of the information it lists on its
init ialp;l,an review checklist .
i.'- .
.,
3
15'1
c
(' ,
v
'.
::J
'.,.".",.
Planning Commission
November l7, 1987
"
At the last meeting, several planning commissioners ,indicated
that they had not even seen or read the Specific Plan. others
were unfortunately absent from the meeting.
,
The new City of Highland has not been consulted nor has it had an
opportunity to review this project. The contempt shown in your
staff report's response to the County's earlier suggestion that
this project be circulated to the Highland Municipal Advisory
Council is surprising and unwarranted.
We suggest that this Commission either disapprove these projects
outright, or at the very least, continue these matters until all
commissioners have had an opportunity to read the Specific Plan
and ErR, do a site inspection, listen to the tapes of the public
testimony if they were absent from the November 4 meeting, and
until the new City of Highland has had an opportunity to review
and comment upon this project. We believe that after doing so,
you too will agree that these projects do not comply with the
Specific Plan and that the latest staff reports do not give a
full and accurate assessment of these projects and of the public
testimony provided two weeks ago. J
ts
, :'
"
4
.' 'I '.
'i:'''.1
-
-
c
/"''-
,
fnll
L1U ,.
; ..~u."
....I 1 .
. :ii I
" i
........
'-,<II
IWV 20 1987
CllY 1'1/'.1..
November 18, 1987 S,4!J Br;:.:
<.),;T
,'1'1
Hr. Roy Nierman
Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, Calif.
Dear Mr. Nierman:
My husband and myself would like to thank you and the Dther
members of the planning commission who voted to turn.,down the
proposed apartments in the Highland Hills development.
We are residents of Mt. Shadows and feel that if this apartment
complex had been endorsed by your commission, it may have paved
the way for th~ Mt Shadows apt Villas by Stubblefield that was
ordered to do a Focused E.I.R. last year.
Once open space is gone-it is gone! We need to carefully plan
I;;
the use of this remaining picturesque area that is ~i~d a
triple hazard with fire, flood, and quake danger.T:~.~~elare new-
-";!<l
updated findings coming in now on the Whittier quake: of Oct.I,1987
that will probably change our building codes and mak~
'them
,
,
,
'Women,children,
tougher; which is good. The safety of the individual
and men who would occupy density.structures is sometimes put on
a lower priority than should be.
We hope you and the other commission members will con!inue to
strive for a more conservative long-term view to the future as our
very forward-looking and classy neighbor, the city of Redlands, is!
Sincerely ,
~~A.- ~'7 ~A'~
Bill & Alice Todd
~
I'
II'
lJ\
i.li" r,,1 f 1,.':lj,
15<0
-
i (..oarb of ~UJ.1trui.6or.li __
(!tountuof ~au iStrnarb~H9,'D.-ADI4HtC.\'-';:.
,~\\II,,,!~/ IS87 ;i,(N 23 fJ\~) 57
~t\~
..:;::. ''n. ~
......~ ~......
/1f'J'II\\\~'
1853
,
~9-
BARBARA CRAM RIORDAN
SUPERVISOR THIRD DISTRICT
-"'"
SYLVIA ROBLES
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
MARIE TEETERS
FIELD REPRESENT A TlVE
November 17, 1987
~d-L53J/o
,9' ,.,,)
Y \.'
"9 .~,(tr~\l'r'," "(:
rg":J (3J"Li V tu ..0
..:f NOV 20 '19B7 :'~ :.:-
MAYOR'S OFi'lC~ /J I
"'''''r I" ".' ....., ,.1'\,.--:/
Mayor Evlyn Wilcox and
Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mayor and Council,
You will be receiving a request from the City of Highland
council-elect members for a brief continuance of the High-
land Hills project so that the Highland Council might work
with you and your staff to mitigate some of the issues of
concern to the residents of the project's surrounding area.
I would appreciate your positive consideration of extend-
ing this courtesy to the new City.
.
'.
CRAM RIORDAN
P visor
'rd District
BCR:bc
"I -' '-' c:, . .,
1"1>1'11 111~.;"l\jj!1:IlI'l!\11
. , . ,", ." ' . . .~.
I-~: ~::'\''i:l nr . ,:I,Or~ !\,d't ~Pil'/~f-)JP
,.1 '\
iin;A}t /\ <':~
,'j 'I'~ ",! J:j;
.:,.)\\ ,',!,.' ':'
"
;>: \ ~ '::
1'11::1.,1',
]',1", ill
'-1,":',1
\6'1
San Bernardino Countv G~varnment Canter' 3B5 North Arrowhead Avenua ' San Barnardino, CA 92415,0110 . 17141 3B7,4B55" 17141 B25,4050
'..ill ill .,-