HomeMy WebLinkAbout48-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BER.QRDINO - REQUEST
R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
D~: July 23, 1992
Subject:
Tentative Tract No. 15451 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
August 3, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council
approve Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use Permit No.
92-04; or
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Comm Council
deny Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use Permit No.
90-32. ~,
Contact person: Al :1ouqhev
Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N / A
Source: (Acct. No.)
I Acct. DescriDtion I
Finance:
Council Notes:
A ___...1_ .~___ ..._
LjP
CITY OF SAN BERNAC:DINO - REQUEST Fa COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and
Tentative Tract No. 15451
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of August 3, 1992
REOUEST
Under the authority of Development Code sections 19.04.020(1)(A),
19.04.030(2) (C) and 19.66.070, the applicant is requesting approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451,
to construct Phase I (68 units) of a two-phase, 118 unit affordable
victorian townhouse development.
The subject property (Phase I) is irregular in shape, totalling 4.6
acres, and consists of several contiguous parcels within a city
block bounded by 6th Street on the south, "F" Street on the east,
7th Street on the north and "G" Street on the west. After the
completion of Phase II (which is not a part of this project), the
total development will consist of 7.5 net acres, and will comprise
the entire block, except for four parcels at the northwest corner.
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1992, the Planning commission was scheduled to hold a
properly noticed public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04
and Tentative Tract No. 15451.
Due to comments received from the State Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) on July 1, 1992 (see Exhibit 3) regarding the
adequacy of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the applicant agreed to a two-week continuance to
allow staff to review and respond to these comments.
In their correspondence, OHP suggested that the city "may have
erred in concluding that a negative declaration is appropriate in
this case", and recommended "that a new Initial Study requiring an
EIR should be prepared."
On July 16, 1992, the ERC evaluated the comments contained in OHP's
correspondence and unanimously upheld the original findings for a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. On July 20, 1992, staff submitted
a response letter to the acting State Historic Preservation Officer
which documented the ERC's determination (see Exhibit 4).
,,,,.n,,..
,-,
v
--
oJ
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 &
Tentative Tract No. 15451
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of August 3, 1992
Page 2
Also forwarded to OHP was a letter submitted to the Planning
Commission in response to OHP's comments from Dr. Donald G. King,
AICP, the consultant who prepared the historic resource evaluation
report for the Empire Bay project (Exhibit 5).
At their July 16, 1992 meeting, the ERC also considered the
comments received from the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) on
July 23, 1992 (please refer to pages 12 and 13 and Attachment G of
the staff report). The ERC concluded that the Initial study
correctly determined that the project will not result in
development within an area of special seismic concern, and likewise
upheld the original findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
On July 20, 1992, staff submitted a response letter to DMG
documenting the ERC's determination (Exhibit 6). .
Comments from both OHP and DMG were received after the State
Clearinghouse clearance date of June 22, 1002. Although the City is
not required to consider comments received after the public review
period (PRC Section 21091(b): CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b)),
the City has responded and copies are forwarded herewith to
document compliance with the spirit and intent of CEQA.
On July 21, 1992, the project was heard before the Planning
Commission in which staff presented its response to comments from
OHP and DMG. A motion to approve Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Tract No. 15451 was made by Commissioner Clemenson and
seconded by Commissioner Stone, and then was unanimously carried.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
1. The Mayor and Common Council may approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451: or
2. The Mayor and Common council may deny Conditional Use Permit
No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of Staff that the Mayor and Common
Council:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program:
2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract
No. 15451 based on the attached Findings of Fact, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements contained in Exhibit 1.
o
:)
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 &
Tentative Tract No. 15451
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of August 3, 1992
Page 3
Prepared by:
Gregory S. Gubman, Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP, Director
Planning and Building Services
Exhibits:
1 - Staff report to Planning Commission July 7,
1992
2 - Official Notice of Public Hearing before the
Mayor and Common Council
3 - Comments from OHP
4 - staff response to OHP comments
5 - Letter to Planning Commission from D. G. King
6 - Staff response to DMG comments
Exhibit "1"
(0
In
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
WARD 1
W
m
0<
o
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15451
AND CONDITIONAL USE PEPMIT
NO. 92-04
APPUCANTEmpire Bay
985 Via Serana
Upland, CA 91786
OWNER: Same
Proposal to construct Phase I (68 units) of a two phase,
118 unit affordable townhou$e development.
....
m
W
::l
a
W
a:
Subject property consists of 4.6 acres consisting of
several contiguous parcels within a City block bounded
by 6th, 7th, "F" and "G" Streets.
-
0<
W
a:
0<
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
West
EXISTING
LAND USE
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
ZONING
RM
RM
RM
Rl-I
RM
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Residential Nedium
Residential Medi~~
Residential !1edi~"ll
Residential Medium
Residential Medium
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A ( SEWERS: KXYES )
HAZARD ZONE: :0: NO ZONE: XXNO OZONE B o NO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE! o YES REDEVELOPMENT ~YES
HAZARD ZONE: XX NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
)fKNO o NO
...J o NOT JOa POTENTIAL SIGNIACANT Z :l6i APPROVAL
0< APPUCABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MmGATING MEASURES -
.... ~ :l6i
zm NO E.I.R. CONDITIONS
'WCl LQ
~Z o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REOUIRED BUT NO LZ 0 DENIAL
Z- SlGNIACANT EFFECTS O<W
OQ WITH MITIGATING t;~
a:~ MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-L 0
> o NO SlGNIACANT o SIGNIACANT EFFECTS
Z 0
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES a:
Clft'ClII'_~ Pl.M-I.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 1"-101
--......
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451!CUP 92-04
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
2
,
.,
REOUEST
Under the authority of Development Code Sections 19.04.020(1) (A),
19.04.030(2) (C) and 19.66.070, the applicant is requesting approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451,
to construct Phase I (68 units) of a two-phase, 118 unit affordable
Victorian townhouse development.
SITE LOCATION
The subject property (Phase I) is irregular in shape, totalling 4.6
acres, and consists of several contiguous parcels within a city
block bounded by 6th Street on the south, "F" Street on the east,
7th Street on the north and "G" Street on the west. After the
completion of Phase II (which is not a part of this project), the
total development will consist of 7.5 net acres, and will comprise
the entire block, except for four parcels at the northwest corner
(see Site Plan, Attachment I).
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 1992, the applications for CUP 92-04 and Tentative
Tract No. 15451 were submitted to the Planning Division. The
application was first discussed by the Development Review Committee
on March 5, 1992. The application was deemed incomplete on March 6,
1992 pending the submittal of the required historical and
archaeological studies, as well as other supplemental materials.
All of the required materials were received by April 22, 1992 and,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a) and (b), CUP 92-04 and
Tentative Tract No. 15451 were deemed complete on May 22, 1992. On
May 28, 1992, the DRC/ERC formally cleared the project to the
Planning Commission.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The site is designated by the General Plan as RM, Residential
Medium, which permits residential development at a maximum density
of 14 units per acre. Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65915, a 25 percent density bonus may be permitted if the
developer provides affordable housing to qualifying residents as
defined in Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 50079.5, HSC 5010~,
or Civil Code (CC) Section 51.2. The Development Code, which
implements the General Plan land use element , permits the proposed
proj ect subj ect to approval of a conditional use permit and
condominium map.
The proposed project, as designed, deviates from the Development
Code's setback, building separation, parking and open space
standards. Regulatory concessions are requested from these
standards to maintain the affordability of these units, as mandated
l.
PLAN-LOI PAGE 10Ft (4-10)
CITV~_""""'"
---
in
(J
,..
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451/CUP 92-04
"l
....
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
3
...,j
~
""'l
by Government ,Code Section 65915 and implemented through
Development Code Section 19.04.030(2) (C) (1). The manner and degree
of these deviations, as well as an analysis of the reasons
deviations are required of these particular standards are discussed
in the following sections of this staff report.
The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan. The proposed use addresses Goal No.
1G(c) by providing for the revitalization and upgrade of
deteriorated neighborhoods and Goal No. 2C by assisting in the
development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate income households. The proposed density is consistent with
Policy No. 2.4.1, which affirms that the City shall comply with
California Government Code Section 65915 by allowing a 25 percent
density bonus over the Underlying RM density of 14 units per net
acre to any residential developer who provides affordable housing
to low to moderate income households. The proposed proj ect is
consistent with Policy No. 3.2.7 by virtue of accommodating the
reuse of the subject property's historic structures "in order to
prevent misuse, disrepair and demolition."
A tabular summary of the proposed project's overall consistency
with the Development Code and General Plan is contained in
Attachment A.
CEOA STATUS
An Initial Study was prepared by staff and was presented to the
Development and Environmental Review Committee (DRC/ERC) on May 14,
1992 (see Attachment E). Although the project application has been
submitted for Phase I only, the Initial Study addresses both phases
in accordance with CEQA' s requirement that the potential impacts of
a project be addressed to their fullest known extent. The DRC/ERC
determined that the project could have a significant effect on the
historical fabric of the City (an environmental impact pursuant to
CEQA) due to the removal and destruction of several potentially
historic structures. Specific mitigation measures were enumerated
in the Initial study and, as a result, the DRC/ERC recommended a
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Pursuant To Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.6(j), if a
project receives public funding that involves the loss or
alteration of historic resources, then the project is subject to
review by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The
Initial Study was forwarded to OHP, via the State Clearinghouse,
because the project is receiving public assistance through 1.8
""-
c:r1"tCll' _...-0
cewnIIlI.~1 .L1..--A
PlAN-l.ae PAGE t OF 1 (4-OOl
(0
rC)
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
4
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
million dollars redevelopment set-aside funds, and the City has
determined that the project is thus subject to review pursuant to
PRe 5024.6 (j). The proj ect was assigned a State Clearinghouse
Number (SCH 92052105) and the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration was available for public review and comment from May
21, 1992 to June 22, 1992. As of the writing of this staff report,
no comments were received from the public or from the State Office
of Historic Preservation (OHP).
The applicant has indicated an intent to expand this project in the
future on a block by block basis to the properties surrounding the
current subject property. Because of this stated intent, the
applicant has been advised that such a piecemeal approach to
expanding this project will require the same environmental review
process to be repeated each time and is potentially in violation of
the statutes of CEQA in that such piecemeal efforts can readily by
viewed as an attempt to mask cumulative impacts.
To avoid the expense of repeatedly preparing the same types of
environmental evaluation reports it is highly advised that the
applicant prepare a specific plan for future phases of development
that encompasses all properties within the study area. A specific
plan would address most of the major environmental concerns at once
and, thus take advantage of the associated economies of scale.
Also, except where there is a specific locational significance to
certain historical resources, there are enough vacant lots for an
eXPanded study area which could more readily accommodate the
relocation and concentration of historical resources within the
OVerlay, thereby increasing its viability.
ANALYSIS
proj.c~ D.scrip~ioD
The proposed €8-unit townhouse development is designed and
envisioned to be Phase I of a two-phase, 118-unit, owner-occupied
townhouse development. The primary intent of the project is to
provide affordable housing to low and moderate income households.
The financing structure for the future homeowners contains economic
disincentives to discourage the emergence of absentee landlords.
In addition to the new construction proposed, the developer has
entered into a contract with Project Home R to donate up to 26 of
the structures currently located on the subje t property and to
provide an interest-free loan of $50,000 per s ructure for site
acquisition, relocation and rehabilitation costs .' QQ ~./ .060D
~ ~- )lD
0T't' ~ _ --..c:t
---
It.
PUN-&DB PAGE 1 OF 1 14-lD)
n
In
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451!CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
5
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
.....
,
Full development of the project will result in the eventual
displacement of the residents of approximately 144 housing units.
Pursuant to california Relocation Law (Chapter 828 et al), a
relocation plan has been prepared to assist the tenants displaced
by this project. The City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency (EDA) is responsible for ensuring that the relocation plan
complies with all applicable laws in both form and content and is
responsible for overseeing compliance with the relocation plan.
site and Surrounding Area Characteristics
Topographically, the site is relatively flat with a slight
southerly grade (1%). The area is fully urbanized and serviced.
The General Plan identifies the site and vicinity as a potential
historic district (Section 3, Historical Element) due to the fact
that the area is part of the original one-mile square survey of the
City and contains the highest concentration of the City's oldest
housing stock.
Surrounding land uses include various residential types in all
directions, professional offices to the south, a Greyhound bus
terminal to the southwest, institutional offices to the northeast
and the City'S central library to the southeast. Beyond the
adjacent block to the east is the northwest portion of the downtown
business district. Beyond the adjacent block to the west is the
Interstate 215 freeway, which is proposed for widening in the near
future.
Desiqn
The proposed 68-unit townhouse development consists of 18
buildings, each containing two-story units with attached two-car
garages. Two floor plans are proposed: a 1,000 square-foot two
bedroom plan (30 units) and a 1,220 square-foot three bedroom plan
(38 units).
Victorian architectural elements are incorporated into the proposed
elevations, which emulate the key design features of the
surrou1'1ding neighborhood's vernacular. The proposed Victorian
architectural theme is well represented through the use of
clapboard siding (no stucco), shingle siding, turrets, front
porches, wooden railings, ornamental bracketwork, lintels, bay
windows and various "gingerbread" accent treatments. An historical
element absent from the building design is the use of fireplaces
and chimneys: if fireplaces are proposed at a future date, the
...
.....
cnvf7"'~
C8fftilM.~. 1lI.:aa
PLAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 '.Ao8D)
o
. ,-.
'. I
-
,.-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
"
4
7-7-92
o
....
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
.,
chimneys should be constructed of brick to retain the architectural
integrity of overall design.
Building bulk is differentiated through the varied combination of
units into duplex, triplex, fourplex and fiveplex buildings (see
site plan, Attachment I). The massing elements of the buildings are
varied by offsetting the facades of the buildings among the units
comprising each building. Additionally, color differentiation among
the exterior elevations of the units comprising the buildings is
proposed to achieve a rowhouse effect. The result of breaking up
the building bulk and mass in this manner is that the buildings,
although they consist of attached residential units, retain and
continue the single-family scale and character of the surrounding
streetscape.
Specific historical street relationships, such as shallow setbacks
and front porches with pedestrian paths, add to the traditional
neighborhood character of the proposed project. An important urban
design feature of the project is the absence of garages visible to
the street; this is perhaps the most important visual feature that
unifies the proposed development with the surrounding neighborhood
and differentiates it from suburban residential developments.
Access and Circulation
An interior "alley" circulation pattern is proposed within the
complex, providing access to the garages attached to the rear of
each unit. A gated point of ingress and egress is proposed at 6th
Street and 7th Street. If Phase II is Ultimately constructed, the
7th Street drive access will be relocated to align with Berkeley
Avenue. A hammerhead is proposed in the southern portion of the
property which will be eliminated if Phase II is constructed and
the interior street system is linked together as a result (see
Phase I and Phase II site plans, Attachment I).
Density Bonus/Regulatory Concessions
Through funding agreements with the Economic Development Agency and
the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program, the proposed"
townhouses will be sold to qualifying low to moderate income
households. State law requires the granting of a density bonus and
regulatory concessions or other incentives of equivalent financial
value if a developer provides affordable housing.
The Development Code adopts these density bonus/concession
provisions as a discretionary instrument where the developer must
Il....
cmo 7 _ --.,
---
~.DI PAQE10Ft '.&.lOt
~'
-'
-()
(
~("")
CASE TTI5451/CUP 92-04
CITY OF SAN BERNARDIll!9 PLANNING
AND BUILDING SEBVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
'I
7-7-92
I
~
"
"I
demonstrate that the density bonus and regulatory concessions are
necessary to make the project economically feasible, while the
project is compatible with the purpose and intent of the General
Plan and Development Code.
Densitv Bonus
The General Plan and Development Code allow a density bonus of 25
percent over the otherwise maximum allowable density of the
underlying land use district. In the RM land use district, then, a
maximum density of 17.4 units per acre, as opposed 14 units per
acre otherwise, is permitted if affordable housing is provided. The
applicant is proposing a density of 14.8 units per acre for Phase
I, or a six percent density bonus. With Phase II, the ultimate
density will be 15.7 units per acre, or a 12 percent density bonus
at full buildout.
The applicant has determined that a density bonus of less than 25
percent over the otherwise maximum permitted density is needed to
make the project feasible to construct. In the absence of a market
study (WhiCh is not a required submittal for affordable housing
projects), staff accepts that the applicant has demonstrated the
necessity of the density bonus in that the maximum density bonus is
not proposed and because need-based funding has been secured from
public and private sources for the specific purpose of providing
affordable housing.
Reaulatorv Concessions
The project proposes regulatory concessions from four related land
use standards: setbacks, building separation, off-street guest
parking and common open space. ~ese concessions are needed based
on the combined need to increase the number of units to make the
project economically feasible, while designing a project that is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan and
Development Code and compatible with the surrounding area.
The increased density, as a consequence, decreases the amount of
open space and unit separation: where 30 percent open space and 20-.'
foot building separations are required, 10 percent open space is
proposed and siX-foot minimum building separations are proposed. To
maintain compatibility with the historical single-family housing
stock and scale of the area, the same design elements must be
incorporated into new construction. Thus all proposed units are
ground-lease townhouses, rather, than multi-level, air-lease
condominiums. To maintain the single-family scale and massing of
....
~
PLAN-I.ca ~AGE lOF I ("-lOt
1;If'\I''''' SM--.,
......-.r~ ~
~
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
-
CASE TT 15451/CUP92-04
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
8
r
.,
the housing stock that defines the area, duplex and fourplex
buildings must be favored over large buildings with many contiguous
units. The result is reduced building separations and less usable
ope~ space because mo~e, smaller buildings are proposed.
The absence of front loading, tract-style garages in favor of the
proposed rear access garages helps foster the traditional,
pedestrian oriented streets cape of the project, and satisfies the
General Plan and Development Code objectives of maintaining
compatibility with surrounding land uses, as well as preserving and
enhancing the historical character of the area. The result,
however, is an interior circulation system that pushes the
perimeter buildings outward to avoid interior congestion, reducing
setbacks. staff does not view this as a detriment, though, because
older, urban neighborhoods are characterized by shallower setbacks
than modern tracts from the lack of front driveways and a more
direct relationship with the sidewalks and streets via their front
porches.
The project proposes 10 off-street guest parking spaces, as opposed
to the 14 required by the Development Code. Simply stated, this is
also due to the reduced space available due to the density bonus
and urban design considerations. Realistically, however, it is
expected that guests visiting the owners of the perimeter units--as
well as many of those who own interior units--will park curbside in
front of the homes they are visiting. This will more than
compensate for anyon-site parking deficiencies.
Historic and Archaeological Resources OD site
Development of both phases of the project will result in the
removal of approximately 47 structures, consisting of a church, 26
primary residential structures' and approximately 20 secondary
residential and accessory structures.
A citywide historic resource reconnaissance survey report was
prepared in 1991 by Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, Inc.
The report provides estimated dates of construction, ranging
between 1900 and 1934, for 26 of the primary structures. Four of
those structures, among 140 citywide, are considered to "exhibit
exemplary or unique architectural styles or historic themes
(Donaldson, Volume 1, p. 5) II and were individually recorded on
modified state of California Department of Parks and Recreation
Historic Resource Inventory (DPR 523) Forms. Because the state of
california uses the same criteria for significance as the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the four structures recorded on
~
CIT'O' 01_--..0
C8IftIMl.,,,,",, __
PLAN-B1I8 PAGE, OJ=' 1 14-10)
-
-
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
"
4
7-7-92
9
~
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...,j
~ ""'l
DPR 523 forms may also qualify for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places (ibid, p. 10).
Donaldson (Vol. 1, p. 20) also designated areas in the City as
potential historic overlay zones. The subject property is centrally
located within what has been termed the "Historic San Bernardino
OVerlay Zone, II which contains the "highest concentration of the
City's oldest potential historic homes," as well as the longest
continuous habitation in the City, including aboriginal and various
concentrated ethnic occupations.
Because of the various historic and prehistoric events associated
with the area, the subject property is considered to be located
within an area of archaeological sensitivity, which is identified
as the City's Urban ArChaeological District in the Historical
Element of the City'S General Plan (Section 3.0, Figure 8). Hence,
the potential exists for historical archaeological resources of
19th century San Bernardino to be located below the surface of the
project site.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Section 21083.2, CEQA Appendix
K, the Historical Element of the General Plan and City of San
Bernardino Ordinance No. MC-694 ("Interim Urgency Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance"), site-specific archaeological and
historic resource evaluation reports were prepared in order to
assess the impact that this project may have on the City's historic
and archaeological resources. The Initial study for this project
(Attachment E) provides an in-depth analysis of the potential
impacts to the subject property's architectural and archaeological
resources, based on the findings of these reports. The following
sections summarize this analysis.
Architectural Resources
All but one of the existing buildings are proposed to be removed
from the subject property to accommodate the development of the
project. The structure currently located at 672 North "F" Street is ,
proposed to be relocated within the subject property during
proposed Phase II for reuse as a community center.
An historic resource evaluation report was prepared in April of
1992 by D. G. King Associat~s Planners entitled Hi::~~~f ~~~
Bernardino OVerlav Zone Reconna1ssance Survev: Pro;ec1: ___ s ___ _
CUP 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451. The report and Initial
Study determined that, from the approximately 47 structures
standing on the subject property ,22 of the primary structures are
...
c:rI"l'O#_--.o
----
PLAN-8lI8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4090)
.....
((j
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451/CUP92-04
""'l
..
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
10
r
-.01
.,
of sufficient intact architectural character to warrant their
preservation in some manner. Twenty one of these buildings are
proposed for relocation, including the building intended for future
use as a community center.
The building of architectural merit that is proposed for demolition
is the 26-unit Mediterranean apartment building at the northwest
corner of 6th and "F" Streets. This is one of the four buildings on
site that are listed on modified DPR 523 forms. The applicant has
determined that the re-use potential and current state of disrepair
are such that the preservation of this building is not warranted.
Also, the historic resource evaluation report and Initial Study
concluded that the building, while visually interesting, possesses
no unique or exemplary features that would warrant the denial of a
demolition permit. The applicant does, however, intend to salvage
intact, notable architectural elements, such as columns and
grillwork. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that sources
are being sought to "soft demo" this and other structures to
harvest the reusable wood and appliances for the construction of
very low income housing elsewhere in California and Mexico.
While the relocation of the historically notable structures can be
a valid means of preservation, the removal of these structures from
the neighborhood may significantly degrade the historic integrity
of the area. Therefore, mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the Initial study to assure that all reasonable efforts shall
be made to relocate these buildings within an area bounded by 6th
Street, "F" Street, 9th Street and the east side of the I-215
freeway. Staff has recently been informed that Project Home Run is
attempting to acquire two-plus acres of vacant land at the
northwest corner of 8th and "F" Streets for use as a relocation
site for several of the buildings.
Archaeoloaical Resources
Pursuant to CEQA, a determination must be made as to whether or not
a project may have a significant effect on an important
archaeological resource. One of CEQA's three definitions of an
important archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact,
object or site that is highly likely to yield "information needed
to answer important scientific research questions and that there is
demonstrable public interest in that information."
Archival research, oral history interviews and a preliminary
reconnaissance of the subject property was conducted as presented
in A CUltural Resources Investiaation for the PrODosed Emnire Bav
...
CffYOI_..........,
---
PLAN-UII PAGE 1 OF 1 (.&010)
.~
In
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CrJPQ2 04
4
7-7-92
11
,
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...01
~
.,
Develocment. Block 43. citv of San Bernardino. Cali~ornia by J.
Stephen Alexandrowics et al (1992). The findings of the preliminary
archaeological report and the Initial Study indicate that the site
does indeed have the potential to yield such information. The
subject property is identified as Block 43 of the original Mormon
survey of the City of San Bernardino. Several occupants of the
subject property were associated with the Santa Fe railroad, which
was a major early factor in the settlement and urbanization of San
Bernardino. Several structures were located on the property over
100 years ago. The presence of subsurface resources is unknown at
the present time, but the approximate location of several privies
can be determined from the available archival data.
Based on archival research, the report identifies 33 potential
cultural resource sites with occupations ranging from the late 19th
through the mid 20th century (pp.72-74). Components of these
resources include extant architecture, landscape architecture and
potential subsurface features.
Based on early "bird's eye view" drawings of the City and early
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, subsurface archaeological resources
that may be found on the site include house foundations, privies,
wells and trash repositories. These early maps and renderings
document the existence of houses, carriage barns, outbuildings and
other dependencies at least as far back as 1871.
In addition to the potential subsurface features already mentioned,
the church property at 631 North "G" Street has been recorded as a
pending archaeological site (Site ID No. P1074-51H) and appears to
have the potential for possible gravesites.
Prior to the implementation of grading permits or buildinq permits
for new construction, sub-surface testing shall be conducted by a
Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) certified
archaeologist. The initial methodology and objectives of the
excavation are indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Attachment F) in the form of an excavation plan.
The issuance of permits shall be subject to the condition that sub-
surface testing has been completed prior to the commencement of
grading, construction and related on-site activities.
Following the sub-surface investigation of a site or sites, the
consulting archaeologist shall submit a letter to the Planning
Division verifying that the field investigation of the site or
sites is complete. After confirmation that all sites have been
"-
CIT'f'~"""1!IIIIIWlDM)
---
PLNI-I.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (44Qt
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE TI5451/CUP92-04
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
12
..-
""'l
adequately investigated, building and grading permits may be
implemented.
Trees on site
There are currently 114 standing, mature trees located on the Phase
I portion of the project site, including 22 street (parkway) trees.
Development of the site as proposed will require the removal of
several trees from their present locations.
A California Certified Arborist report was prepared on May 4, 1992
by Mark D. Cobb (I. S. A. Certificate No. 453) to evaluate the
arboricul tural resources present on the Phase I portion of the
subject property. The trees were identified and catalogued in the
report and plotted on both a topographic map and a proposed site
plan. The report and maps are on file with the Planning Division.
The report concluded that 49 of the 114 are sufficiently viable to
be saved in place or transplanted. All 22 of the street trees have
been deemed healthy: however, four are located in the two proposed
drive entry locations and must be transplanted or removed. Eight of
the interior trees (one Chinese elm, three eucalyptus one golden
rain, one ash and two Italian cypress) have been determined to be
viable, but because of their size and age, they are not likely to
withstand relocation if they cannot be retained in place. Sixteen
palms (including a street tree) and three crape myrtle are
recommended for relocation if they cannot be preserved in place.
The report recommended the removal of the remaining 65 trees due to
death or various health and structural hazards.
The report and recommendations have been reviewed by Planning and
Parks and Recreation staffs. Additionally, the trees on site have
been physically inspected by Parks and Recreation staff. Based on
these analyses, if the project 'is approved, the 49 viable trees
shall be retained in place, relocated or replaced, as specified in
the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C).
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Division of Kines and Geology (DXG)
Comments received from the DMG on June 23, 1992 (Attachment G)
question the Initial StUdy'S determination that the proposed
project will not expose people or property to geologic or seismic
hazards, and recommends a revised Initial Study that addresses such
concerns. The memorandum indicates that the subject property is
"-
PL.AN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 ("-IO)
crlY"_~
---
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
13
..-
.,
located approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest known fault and is
in an area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction potential,
and that these issues should be addressed.
RESPONSE: The city of San Bernardino at large is located within a
seismically sensitive area. New construction is required to conform
to seismic standards, and older, unreinforced masonry buildings
will be required to be brought into conformance with seismic safety
standards in the coming years. Areas of special seismic concern,
however, are identified on the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones
map in Figures 47 and 54 of the General Plan. The subject property
is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone, and the General Plan,
consistent with State law, does not recognize a need for special
geologic studies for projects located outside of the Alquist-Priolo
Zones.
While the DMG comments are correct in that the subject property is
located within an area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction,
the City has already addressed the issue of liquefaction on a
citywide basis, and has formulated policies (ReSOlution No. 356)
and standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.0S) based on the safety
element of the General Plan (Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic).
Ordinance No. MC-676 requires liquefaction reports only for non-
exempt structures located within high liquefaction areas.
Furthermore, pursuant to SBMC Section 15.0S.060(4), the proposed
residential structures are categorically exempt from the
liquefaction requirement based on their UBC occupancy
classification.
Historic Preservation Task Force
On June 18, 1992, the Historic Preservation Task Force unanimously
voted to adopt the mitigation measures contained in Section 13b
(CUltural Resources) of the Initial Study, and thus approved the
applicant's request to demolish or relocate the subject property's
buildings as proposed.
Bnvironmental Review Committee
The ERe has not responded to the DMG comments as of the writing of,
this staff report.
'CONCLUSION
The proposed project, both in terms of use and design, is
consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. All known
"-
PLAN-8.ClB PAGE 1 OF 1 (4090)
CIT'I' 01- 1M --..-,
c:amw.u - lll...eM
',..
CITY OF SAN BER~gDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1-
CASE
TTI5451/CUP92-04
..
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
14
.....
potentially negative impacts resulting from this project --such as
the removal of potentially historic structures and the destruction
of archaeological sites--have been addressed and can be mitigated
through design, conditions of approval and through compliance with
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. It is therefore
the conclusion of staff, that the project will not pose a detriment
to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
San Bernardino.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program:
2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract
No. 15451 based on the attached Findings of Fact, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements.
Respectfu~:c ubmi tted,
n Building Services
Greqory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
Attachments:
A - Development Code and General Plan Conformance
B - Findinqs of Fact
C - Conditions of Approval
D - Standard Requirements
E - Initial Study
F - Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
G - Department of Mines and Geology comments
H - Tentative Tract Map
I - Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
J - Location Map
cnvOl......~
---
Pl..M-&.OI PAGE 1 OJ: 1 (A-GOJ
o
o
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 92-04
Applicant:
Empire Bay'."
Owner:
Empire Bay
ACTION
Meeting Date: July 21, 1992
X Recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting and
approval of project
VOTE
Ayes:
Clemensen, Cole, Gaffney, Jordan, Lopez, Romero, stone,
Valles
None
None
ortega, Traver
Nayes:
Abstain:
Absent:
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the city of San Bernardino.
Official Action
of the Planning
Sig
uled before the Mayor and Common Council
This project will be s
for final action
7
Al Boughey,
cc: Project Applicant
project property owner
Plan Check
Engineering Division
Case File
and Building Services
STMTOFPCACTION
-
Attachment "A"
~
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1-
'"""I
CASE TT15451/CUPq2-04
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
15
~
..
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GEllERAL PLAli' CORSrSTERCY
CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEV. CODE GENERAL PLAli'
Use 68-unit Permitted in Permitted
affordable RM subj ect to in RM districts
condominium a C.U.P and (pOlicies 1.13.10
complex tentative and 2.4.1
tract
Density 14.8 DU/ac 17.5 DU/ac (14 17.5 DUlac (14
DUlac plus 25% DU/ac plus 25%
density bonus) density bonus)
Beiqht 28 feet (two three stories three stories or
stories) or 42 feet 42 feet
Setbacks 13 feet min. 20 feet min. NIA
18.3 feet avg.* 25 feet avg.
Lot 39 percent 50 percent N/A
coverage
Distance 6 feet min.* 20 feet min. NIA
Between
Buildings
parking 2 garaged spaces 2 garaged N/A
per unit plus 10 spaces per
off-street guest unit plus 14
spaces* off-street
guest spaces
Private 300 s.f. Lesser of 300 N/A
outdoor s'-f. or 25% of
space unit size
,
Common 10% of net site 30% of net N/A
outdoor area* site area
space
* Regulatory concessions are requested from these standards to
maintain the affordability of these units, as mandated by
Government Code section 65915 and implemented through Development
Code section 19.04.030(2) (C) (1).
~~=--'
PUNoI..Cl8 PAGE 1 OF t (4-iO)
-
Attachment "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TTI5451/CU?92-04
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
16
,..
""'l
r.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.....
~=:1..Jcu
CORDZTrOHAL USB PERMZT PZRDZNGS
1.
Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.04.020 (1) (A), the
proposed use is conditionally permitted within the RM land use
district and, through design and in accordance with density
bonus and regulatory concession provisions of Development Code
Section 19.04.030(2)(C)(1), complies with all of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character
of the land use district in which it is to be located in that
careful attention to the architectural character and site
planning of the surrounding neighborhood has been incorporated
into the design of the project. Such design elements include
Victorian architectural elements, front porches and garages
located to the rear of the residential units.
The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of
land use being proposed in that physical design, parking,
circulation, fire access and open space issues have been
adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the Development
Review Committee.
Existing uses on and adjacent to the subject property consist
of single and multifamily residences. The existing residential
uses on the subject property will be replaced with compatible
attached single family residential uses at a lower density.
Hence, the proposed use is compatible with the land uses
presently on the subject property.
The proposed use is compatible with existing and future land
uses within the general are~ in which the proposed use is to
be located. The general vicinity of the subject property is
predominately residential with peripheral office and
commercial uses. The re-establishment of similar residential
type uses on the subject property will preserve the overall
context of a residential neighborhood.
The proposed use is compatible in scale, mass, coverage;
density and intensity with all adjacent land uses in that the
architectural design of the project incorporates the one- to
two-story massing and single family scale of the surrounding
neighborhood. The proposed density is consistent with the
RM/density bonus provisions and with the existing and
permissible densities of surrounding residential uses.
PLAN-I.CIIS PAGE 1 OF , (4-10)
c
()
..-
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
'"""I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
17
FINDINGS OF FACT
..-
"""Ill
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation and public
utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would
not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the
vicinity of the subject property is fully urbanized.
Conditions of approval will ensure that necessary improvements
and connections to local public services are completed prior
to the issuance of Certificates of occupancy.
There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve
the subject proposal in that adequate points of ingress and
egress, internal circulation and parking exist to accommodate
the proposed use.
There will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood
characteristics in that the proj ect has been designed to
enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics through the re-
introduction of owner-occupied housing on the subject property
and through physical design that is sensitive to the historic
character of the neighborhood.
A market/feasibility study is not required by the General Plan
or Development Code for the type of use proposed.
The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan. The proposed project provides
for the revitalization and upgrade of deteriorated
neighborhoods and Goal No. 2C by assisting in the development
of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate
income households. The proposed density is consistent with
Policy No. 2.4.1, which affirms that the City shall comply
with california Government Code Section 65915 by allowing a 25
percent density bonus over ,the underlying RM density of 14
units per net acre to any residential developer who provides
affordable housing to low to moderate income households. The
proposed project is consistent with Policy No. 3.2.7 by virtue
of accommodating the reuse of the subject property's historic
structures "in order to prevent misuse, disrepair and
demolition."
There will not be significant harmful effects upon
environmental quality and natural resources in that an Initial
Study was prepared under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, which determined that all impacts
reSUlting from the development of the project will be
mitigated to levels of nonsignificance. As a result of this
determination, a Mitigated Negative DeClaration has been
proposed by the Environmental Review Committee.
....
...
P\.AHoI.08 pMJE, OF t (4-10)
~~~1Eft -;;i
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT 15451/CUP92-04
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAGE 18
~
.,
13. The potential negative impacts of the proposed use are
mitigated through the Conditions of Approval and the
mitigation measures enumerated in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
14. Based on the above Findings and attached Conditions of
Approval, the proposed location, size, design and operating
characteristics of the proposed use would not be detrimental
to the public interests, health, safety, convenience or
welfare of the City of San Bernardino.
..j
ern ~ _ .-....,
---
P\.AN-I.D8 PAGe 1 OF 1 (4-10)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
19
~
'"""I
rr. DBHSrTY BONUS/REGULATORY CORCESSXORS PXNDXRGS
1.. The developer has proven that the density bonus and adjustment
of standards is necessary to make the project economically
feasible. The developer has secured 1.8 million dollars in
redevelopment setaside funds and and $547,000 of Federal Home
Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (AHP) subsidy funds in
order to feasibly provide affordable housing. The fact that
the developer has secured such financial assistance through an
agreement to provide affordable housing to income groups as
described in Government Code section 65915, a density bonus is
deemed necessary. The granting of the regulatory concessions,
such as reduced separation between dwelling units, is a
necessary consequence of the increased density combined with
maintaining the physical character of the neighborhood.
2. Additional adjustments of standards are not required to
maintain the affordability of the housing units for lower
income households, as described in Government Code Section
65915(c), in that completed conceptual plans have been
submitted for the entire development which identify the scope
of the physical design of the project. City staff shall
require that minor modifications to the approved plans comply
with City codes or are consistent with the regulatory
concessions previously granted prior to granting
administrative approvals.
J. The proposed project is compatible with the purpose and intent
of the General Plan and Development Code as identified in the
Conditional Use Permit Findings as enumerated in Section I of
this Attachment.
.j
O'T'!'OI............,
---
P\.ANoI.Q8 P.tGE 1 OF 1 (.wo)
o
r
....
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
20
FINDINGS OF FACT
r
rrr. DBSrGR RBVrBW :rrRDrRGS
1.
2.
The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as
its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials,
textures and colors that will remain appealing and will retain
a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. The proposed
Victorian architectural theme is well represented through the
use of turrets, front porches, turned wood railings, lintels,
bay windows, and "gingerbread" treatment of a victorian
vernacular. The landscape architecture, which creates
individualized garden-like settings for each residential unit
and incorporates the extensive re-use of existing, mature
trees, provides a desirable neighborhood environment.
The design and layout of the proposed project will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future development, and will not
result in vehicular or pedestrian hazards. Points of ingress
and egress and areas of internal circulation have been
carefully reviewed by city staff and it has been determined
that the safety and convenience of the visitors to the
proposed development, as well as the neighboring residential
uses, will be protected.
3.
The architectural design of the proposed project is compatible
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will
maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development
contemplated by this Development Code and the General Plan.
The architecture is sensitive to the historic period
vernacular of the neighborhood, and the proposed scale and
massing are compatible with the one to two story scale of the
surrounding development., Specific historical street
relationships, such as front porches with pedestrian walkways
and the absence of front-loading garages and driveways, have
been incorporated into the project design.
...j
..
PLAN-8.D8 pAGE 1OF1 (+80)
CI'ft 01' ... .-...c
---
o
FINDINGS OF FACT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAGE 21
""'l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..
..-
rv. SUBDIVrSIOR DP PrRDrRGS
1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan, in that
the purpose of the map is to provide for the development of
multi-family townhomes in the RM land use designation as
identified in Policy 1.13.10.
2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan in that the one-lot condominium map exceeds
minimum lot size and dimensional requirements for the RM land
use designation. .
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed. The tentative map conforms to the subdivision design
standards of the Development Code. More than two standard
routes of access adjoin the site. Drainage can be directed to
an approved public drainage facilities via the perimeter
streets. Physical design, parking, circulation, fire access
and open space issues have been adequately addressed to the
satisfaction of the Development Review Committee. There are
adequate provisions for water, sanitation and public utilities
and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be
detrimental to public health and safety in that the vicinity
of the subject property is fully urbanized. Conditions of
approval will ensure that necessary improvements and
connections to local public services are completed prior to
the issuance of Certificates of occupancy.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development as demonstrated on the proposed site plan.
5. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially or avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the project design and conditions of approval to protect,
relocate and replace the existing trees on site.
6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems in that
environmental health concerns are addressed and mitigated
through the design and construction standards of all public
services and public and private structures.
7. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for
access or use of, property within the proposed subdivision, in
that no such easements traverse the subject property.
PUH-I.DI PAGE lOF , (440)
CffYt1I_""""'"
---
Attachment "C"
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
-
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
""'l
r'
4
7-7-92
22
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
""l
1..
The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures
contained in the adopted Initial study for conditional Use
Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451 and shall
comply with the monitoring and reporting activities contained
in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No.
15451.
2. The developer shall guarantee to provide affordable housing
units to at least one of the following household income
classifications:
a. TWenty percent of the total units for persons and
families of lower income, as defined in Section 50079.5
of the Health and Safety Code.
b. Ten percent of the total units for persons and families
of very low income, as defined in section 50105 of the
Health and Safety Code.
c. Fifty percent of the total units for qualifying
residents, as defined in Section 51.2 of the California
civil Code.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any dwelling
unit in the development, the developer shall submit
documentation identifying which units shall be restricted to
low and moderate income households: these units shall be
generally dispersed throughout the development.
The developer shall also enter into a written~agreement with
the City to guarantee for 30 years their continued use and
availability to low and !Doderate income households. The
agreement shall extend more than 30 years if required by the
Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program,
Construction or Mortgage Financing Assistance Program or
Mortgage Insurance Program. The terms and conditions of the
program shall run with the land, shall be binding upon the
successor in interest of the developer and shall be recorded
in the Office of the San Bernardino county Recorder. The
agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. The developer shall give the City the continuing right-
of-first refusal to purchase or lease any or all of the
designated units at the fair market value:
ClTYCI'_""""'"
---
...,j
...
~ PAGE10Fl (4-10)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
23
~
.,
Condition No.2 (continued):
b. The deeds to the designated units shall contain a
covenant stating that the developer or successor in
interest shall not sell, rent, lease, sublet, assign or
otherwise transfer any interests for same without the
written approval of the City confirming that the sales
price of the units is consistent with the limits
established for low and moderate income households, which
shall be related to the Consumer Price Index.
c. The city shall have the authority to enter into other
agreements with the developer or purchasers of the
dwelling units, as may be necessary to assure that the
required dwelling units are continuously occupied by
eligible households.
3. The following tree conservation measures shall be employed
(All trees are referenced by their catalogue numbers as
identified in the California certified Arborist Report for
Tentative Tract No. 15451, prepared by Mark D. Cobb, I.B.A.
Certificate No. 453, on May 4, 1992):
a. Trees 1 through 9 and 11 through 16 shall be retained in
place, relocated or replaced with 48-inch box specimens:
b. Trees 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35,
38, 46, 95, 99, 100, 101, 108, 111, 113 shall be
relocated on site or replaced with 36-inch box specimens:
c. Trees 50, 52, 86 and 106 shall be replaced with four 36-
inch box specimens in addition to standard residential
landscaping requirements:
d. Trees 10, 33, B2, 94, 96, 109, 110, 112 shall be replaced
with eight 24-inch box specimens in addition to standard
residential landscaping requirements.
No tree shall be removed prior to the issuance of a tree
removal permit from the Department of Planning and Building
Services.
4.
.
Elevations and details of proposed exterior fences, walls and
appurtenant structures, including material and color
descriptions, shall be submitted during the building permit
application process. Designs of all such structures shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Division.
cm' 01' _ w-.o
--......
...
.01
pLAN-IJ)I PAGE 1 OF , 14-10)
o
..-
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
-
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
74
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
....
5. All streetscape improvements shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Division.
6. The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited. The
prohibition of recreational vehicle storage shall be recorded
in the CC&R's.
7. All decorative exterior treatments, including window
enhancements, shall be incorporated into the final product,
although a lesser degree of decorative treatment shall be
allowed for structures not having direct public street
frontage. An inventory of pre-manufactured exterior details
shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the
issuance of building permits, and shall be retained in the
project file to verify compliance during final inspections.
8. The proposed emergency vehicle turnaround (hammerhead) in the
southern portion of the subject property shall be designed in
accordance with Fire Department standards, and the final
design shall be subject to Fire Department approval prior to
the issuance of grading permits.
9. Permanent drive approaches shall be delineated with stamped
concrete, pavers or similar treatment, as suggested on the
site plan.
10. No monument sign shall be placed on the site without prior
approval of a sign permit application, submitted in accordance
with Chapter 19.22 of the Development Code.
1~. The location(s) and design of mail delivery units are subject
to prior approval of the united states Postal Service and
Planning Division prior to installation.
12. Automatic, remote activated garage doors shall be provided.
..j
em' t:11- _ .--eo
cemw...........m 1I~
PLAN-UI PAGE 1 OF 1 (04-00)
o
I,
o
...-,
CONDITIONS
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
TTI5451/CUP92-04
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
4
7-7-92
25
~
"""lI
13.
r:onstruction shall be in substantial conformance
...ith the plan's) appro'-ed b,- the Director.
Development Review Committee. Planning Commission
or Mavor and Common Council. Minor modification to
the planlsl shall be subject to approval I". the
Director through a minor modification permit
process. Anv modification which exceeds 10% of the
follo...ing allo...able measurable design/site'
considerations shall require the refiling of the
original application and a subsequent hearing b"
the appropriate hearine revie.. authority if
applicable.
1. On-site circulation and parkine. loading and
landscapine:
2. Placement and/or heieht of walls. fences and
structures:
3. Reconfiguration of architectural features.
including colors. and/or modification of
finished materials that do not alter or
compromise the previously approved theme: and.
it. A reduction in densit,. or intensit,. of a
development project.
14.
lIithin two years of development approval.
commencement ot co.struction shall have oricurred or
the permit/approval shall become null and void. In
addition. it after commencement of construction.
work is discontinued tor a period ot one Vear. then
the permit/approval shall become null and void.
Flojf:{.ts ~-""_.u~+t._.i.a_.ph~II.CI wi.L ",.._;a1>I>~Q.'!..t:..c1._b.~r
~-~~-.~~~~~~~~~---~~-.-~~-~s-~~~-~
...~ 1;at'YL",~-"h8'seST- [,4(, h -atl~.e: 4ts~ft t--".e.e--..........~l-
Ilea Y 1; -crII"P-.,~a-r- C ~ v.. -~fte-~~-,...Jt.a.a-e-.!....-4..~.....1-
\,;UIIOLLU\,;l.i.uu ",,,,,__,,.,,",~.L&e-~~ nent phase +-ca..~
~~uuAlL uc-t-rC"lI"- C3.."ael.at ft t-~-fteYe--~-e-..
~ t''I:'..._~L,'Gi''''L__...o;al ......ll..ll ~~.e '1V"~~-.....~i-d-_
Proj e ct. __!!_!.~~~y_<:.~y_~:.~~_____________________..
Ex iration Date. July 7, 1994
p ----------------------------------
..
...
........._ D&r..IC',nlCt
,un
o
"-.,,
\~
"""I
..-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92 04
4
7-7 92
26
..01
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...
.,
,.-
15.
The re,-ie" authority ma'-. upon appl ication beinl1
filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for
zood cause. grant one time extension not to exceed
12 months. The revie" authority shall ensure that
the project complies with all current Development
Code provisions:.
16.
In the event that this approval is legallv
challenged. the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim or action and "ill cooperate-
fullY in the defense of the matter. Once notified.
the applicant agrees to defend. indemnifv. and hold
harmless the City. its officers. allents and
employees from anj' claim. action or proceeding
against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant
further agrees to reimburse the Citv of anv costs
and attorneys' fees which the City may be required
bv a court to pa" as a resul t of such action. but
s~ch participation shall not relieve applicant of
his or her oblil1ation under this condition.
17.
No vacant. relocated. altered. reoaired or
hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no
change of use of land or structure 1 s) shall be
inaugurated. or no new business commenced as
authorized bv this permit until a Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued b,' the Department. A
temporary Certificate of , Occupancy may be issued bv
the Department subject to the conditions imposed on
tbe use. provided that a deoosit is filed with the
Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy. The deoosit or
security shall guarantee the faithful performance
and completion of all terms. conditions and
performance standards i.posed on the intended use
by this permit.
..
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. the landowner shall file a aaintenance
agreeaent or covenant and easement to enter and
aaintain. subject to !;he approval of the City
Attorney. The agreeaent or covenant and easement
to enter and aain.tain shall ensure that if the
landowner. or subsequent ownerls). fails to
aaintain the required/installed site improvements.
the Citv will be able to file an appropriate
lien(s) against the property in order to accomplish
the required .aintenance.
,
:::'::'~J-A
PI.MUI POGE' OF'
n......'" -: nf 7
-
y
.'"""\
'~
...-,
TTI5451/CUP92-04
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
27
..
r
18.
The developer is to submit a complete master
landscape and irrigation plan 15 cooies.) for the,
entire development to the Public Works Department
with the required fee for revie.... The landscape
plans will be forwarded to thE' Parks, Recreation.
and Community Services and the Planning Di,.ision
for revie..-. (Note: The issuance of a building
development Permit bv tbe DeDartment of Planning
and Building Services does not waive this
requirement.) No grading permitls) will be issued
prior to approval of landscape plans. The
landscape and irrigation plans sha1l comply ..-ith
the "Procedure and Policy for Landscape and
Irrigation" (available from the Parks Departmenl).
and comply with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 19.28 (Landscaping Standards) of the
Development Code effective on the date of aoproval
of this permit. Trees are to be inspected bv a
representative of the Parks Department prior to
planting.
(The following provision is appl ieable to single
family homes.) Trees. shrubs and ground cover of a
type and quality generally consistent or compatible
with that characterizing single family homes shall
be provided in the front yard and that portion of
the side yards which are visible from the street.
All landscaped areas must be provided with an
automatic irrigation system adequatE' to insure
their viability. The landscape and irrigation
plans shall be reviewed as outlined above.
..
~~~~
........... PMlE'OF' _
... -~ ..,
o
'~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CTJPq2-04
4
7-7-92
28
..
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
'"""I
19.
This permit or approval Is suhject to the attaeh~d
conditions or requirements of the follo..-ing City
Departments or Divisions:
x
Fire Department
x
Parks. Recreation
Services Department
&
Communi t,.
x
Building Services Division of the
Planning and Building Services
Department
x
Police Department
Public Services (Refuse) Department
x
Public Works
Department
( En gin ee r i n g )
x
liater Department
f:n't....--.c
---
fI\Mo&OI ~MiE 10F 1 C44Dt
..
o
~,
"-'!
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
29
..
CONDITIONS
~
,
20.
This permit or appro'"al is subject to all the
applicable provisions of the Development Code in
effect at the time of approval. This includes
Chapter 19.20 - Property Development Standards. and
includes: dust and dirt control during construction
and grading activities; emission control of fumes.
vapors. gases and other forms of air pollution;
glare control; exterior lighting design and
control; noise control; odor control; screening;
signs. off-street parking and off-street loading;
and. vibration control. Screening and sign
regulations compliance are important considerations
to the developer because they will delay the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they
are complied with. Any exterior structural
equipment. or utility transformers. boxes. ducts or
meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by
wall or structural element. blending with the
building design and include landscaping when on the
ground. A sign program for all new commercial.
office and industrial centers of three or more
tenant spaces shall be approved by the Department
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
This require.ent also includes any applicable Land
Use District Development Standards for residential.
commercial and indUstrial developments regarding
minimum lot area. minimum lot depth and width.
minimum setbacks. maximum height. maximum lot
coverage. etc.
21.
This development shall he required to maintain a
minimum of 147 standard off-street oarking
spaces as sh~;;-';~ -i he appro,'ed pIan Is) on fi Ie,
which includes 136 garaged spaces.
.....
.....CP...~
-
14-101
Pl.ANoI.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1
o
.-
V
..-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
30
..
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE.
,
""'l
22.
A COllposite Development Plan (CDP) shall be filed
with the Publ ic Works and Planning and Bui Iding
Services Departments prior to Final or Parcel Map
processing bv the Ci tv, The CDP shall pro\'ide
additional surve\' and lIap information including.
but not I imited to. bui Iding criteria (i.e.
setbacks). flood control criteria. seismic and
geological criteria. environmental criteria and
easements of record. The CDP shall be labeled with
the title "Composite Development Plan", and contain
a section entitled "CDP Notes" The applicant shall
have listed under the CDP notes section the
following conditions or mitigating measures
required for the development of the subject
property:
23.
Within two years of tbis approval. tbe filing of
the final lIap or parcel map witb the Council sball
bave occurred or tbe approval sball become null and
void. Expiration of a tentative lIap sball
terllinate all proceedings and no final lIap or
parcel lIap sball be filed witbout first processing
a new tentative lIap. Tbe City Engineer IIUst accept
tbe final lIap or parcel map docullents as adequate
for approval by Council prior to forwarding tbell to
tbe City Clerk. The date the map sball be deelled
filed witb tbe Council is tbe date on which tbe
City Clerk receives the map. The review autbority
lIay. upon application filed 30 days prior to tbe
expiration date and for good cause. grant an
extension to tbe expiration date pursuant to
Section 19.66.170 of tbe Development Code and the
State Map Act.
Project:
TT 15451/CUP 92-04
Expiration Date :~11_1.L..1994
l.
PLMoUI _, OF' (4-101
Page 6 of 7
....,Cl'...__
--.rJ I _
r
n
..Cj
-
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
4
7-7-92
31
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
....
r
24.
No lot or dwellini unit in the development shall be
sold unless a corporation. home owner's
association. assessment district or other approved
appropriate entity has been legally formed with the
riiht to assess all those properties which are
jointly owned or benefitted to operate and maintain
all of the mutually available features of the
development includini. but not limited to. open
space. amenities. landscaping or slope aaintenance
landscaping lwhich may be on private lots adjacent
to street rights-of-way). No lot or dwelling unit
shall be sold unless all approved and required open
space. amenities. landscaping. or other
improvements. or approved phase thereof. have been
completed or completion is assured by a financing
iuarantee aethod approved by the City Eniineer.
.--------
x
Con d i t ion s . Co vena n t s . and
Restrictions lCC&R's) shall be
deve loped and recorded for the
development subject to tbe review
and approval by tbe Department and
tbe City Attorney. Tbis review and
approval shall occur prior to the
final map approval by Council.
-------
x
Tbe recorded CC&R's shall permit the
enforceaent by tbe City.
....
..
-..-
--
~p_'OFl (4-101
Page 7 of 7
o
Attachment "D"
~
.....;
~
CASE
TTI5451/CUP92-04
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
32
1.
JlUrLDrRCJ AJfD SAI'E'l'Y DEPAR'l'MENT
2.
3 A
4.
5.
6.
Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building ~~iU~, .
Architect or Civil or Structural Engineer.
Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis
prepared by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer or
Architect.
Submit state of California Title 24 Energy Calculat~on
Forms for residential, HCS~Xi"na"HtiIKI
buildings including a signed compliance statement.
Submit calculations and structural drawings, prepared by
a R~CiVil Structural Engineer or Architect, loJfX
Iii .~:
Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses
and existing materials of construction.
Submit four (4) complete sets of construction plans
including:
a. Copy of conditions.
b. Soils and/~% liquefaction report.
c. Energy Calculations.
d. Structural calculation.
Submit a preliminary}(~ tWIIIII11itIXX (soils and geology
with liquefaction analysis) report prepared by a person
licensed to do so.
7. Submit a single line drawing of the electrical service.
Show all equipment, conduit and wire sizes and types.
Show the service ground size and grounding electrode~'
8.
9.
~,wmit panel schedulers) and electrical plans.
Pe~~it required for demolition of existing building(s)
on l';;'te.
cnTClJ"'~
---
.
PL.AN-I.10 PAGE1OF1. '010lOI
o
o
,
TT15451/ctJpQ?-n4
'"""I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
11
..
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
r'
10. Submit a plan of the heating, ventilating or air
conditioning system. (Clearly identify the location and
rating of the equipment and the sizes and material of all
ducts, registers and the location of all fire dampers).
Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as
required by the 1988 Uniform Building Code.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
Submit gas pipe loads,
isometrics.
sizing calculations and
Provide a plot plan showing the location of the propose~
sewer system.
Submit a letter clearly indicating the intended use of
all areas of the building. List the materials to be used
and the projects produced giving the amount of each kept
in the building. If the building is used of more than
one purpose, list all other uses.
Submit isometric plans of the cold and hot water and
drain waste and vent systems.
Show compliance with Title 24 for the physically
handicapped XK~ the Fair Housinq Act may
apply to this. pro;ect, so research for compliance,
Building & Safety may not be checking for compliance.
Submit plans approved by the County Health Department.
Indicate methods of compliance for sound attenuation
(exterior, interior party walls, 'floor/ceiling assembly,
ceiling) as per study, U.B.C., local or State Law.
Show compliance with requirements of high fire areas.
For structures located within high wind areas:
a. Design structure, including roof covering, using
p.s.f. wind load.
16. City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for
Worker's Compensation Insurance.
17. Assessor'3 Parcel Number.
18. Contractor'~ City license.
19. Contractor's G~ate license.
20. Sewer capacity lights from Water Department, 384-5093,
Neil Thomsen.
..
PLAH-l.l0 PAGE 1 OF 1 C.....
",.,t1I...~
---
o
o
,.-
TTI5451/CUP92-04
, '
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
34
'"""I
~
21.
School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
22.
Other: sprinkler plans must be submitted and approved
by Fire Dept. pr10r to bU1ld1ng perm1ts.
23. Deposit: Phase I 68 units $31,280 P.C. Fee Dep.
24. Plan check time is approximately 6-8 weeks contact
Building & Safety for possible expeditious pIan check
prior to plan check submittal.
..
2!!...C!'.!!!.....-~
DI&W..A." D&r.l.~tnIl:1 I~
-_.~-,-
. rJ:)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKI/DIQIII.
, CASE CUP 92-04 &
IR 15451
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~i~?N~I~~E 7-~-'l2
PM3~ ~ "
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required. the
applicant 1S responsible for submitting the Engineering plans directly
to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior to submittal
of Building Plans,
Drainage and Flood Control
All necessary drai nage and flood control measures shall be
subject to requirements of the City Engineer. which may be based
in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino Flood
Control District, The developer's Engineer shall furnish all
necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
25.
26.
27.
y
A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any
drainage improvements. structures or storm drains needed to miti-
gate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be
desi gned and constructed at the developer's expense. and ri ght-
of-way dedicated as necessary,
The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance
Rate f'laps; therefore. a Special Flood Hazard Area Permit issued
by the City Engineer shall be required.
The development is located within Zone B on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps; therefore. all building pads shall be raised above the
surrounding area as approved by the City Engineer.
Comprehensive storm drain Project No. is master planned in
the vicinity of your development. Th1S drain shall be designed
and constructed by your project unless your Engineer can conclu-
sively show that the drain is not needed to protect your develop-
ment or mitigate downstream impacts.
y
All drainage from the development shall be directed to an
approved public drainage facility. If not feasible. proper drain
age facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfac-
tion of the City Engineer.
Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge suffi-
ciently to maintain compliance with the City's NPDES Storm Water
Discharge Permit requirements.
x
Erosion Control
28.
x
An Eros i on Contro 1 Plan shall be approved by the City Eng i neer
prior to grading plan approval. The plan shall be designed to
control erosion due to water and wind. including blowing dust.
during all phases of construction. including graded areas which
are not proposed to be immediately built upon,
j
r-)
~ ~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKI/INQJl
CASE CUP 92-04 &
TR 15451
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE "7_"7_Q"7
~
Grading
29.
x
30.
x
31.
x
32.
x
33.
x
14.
x
If more than l' of fill or 2' of cutis proposed. the site/plott
grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil
Engi neer and a gradi ng permi t will be requi red. The gradi ng
plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's
"Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard
Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in
advance.
5,000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed. a
wi 11 be requi red and the gradi ng shall be
accordance wi th Secti on 7012 (c) of the Uniform
If more than
gradi ng bond
supervi sed in
Building Code.
A 1 i quefacti on report is requi red for the si te. Thi s report
must be submi tted and approved pri or to issuance of a gradi ng
permi t. Any gradi ng requi rements recommended by the approved
liquefaction report shall be incorporated in the grading plan.
An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where
feasible. this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan
and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of
the Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"). The
on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan
approval if reciprocal drainage, access. sewer, and/or parking
is proposed to cross lot 1 i nes. or a lot merger shall be
recorded to remove the interior lot lines.
The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer pri'or to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 4
copies to the Engineering Division for checking.
An on-site Lighting Plan for the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer. This plan can be incorporated
with the grading plan. or on-site improvement plan. if
practical.
A Landscape Maintenance District shall be implemented to
maintain landscaping within the following areas:
Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the
Landscape Maintenance District.
J
, ____I
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
CITY OF S~ ARNARDINO ~ WORKS/1NClIl
CASE CUP 92-04 &
TR 15451
STANDARD REQlIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAG
,
Util i ti es
x
Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance with City code, City Standard and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sew~r
and cable TV.
Each parcel shall be provided with separate water and sewer faci-
lities so it can be served by the City or the agency providing
such services in the area.
x
Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be con-
structed at the Developer's expense. Sewer systems shall be
desi gned and constructed in accordance wi th the Ci ty' s "Sewer
Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings.
Utility services shall be placed underground and easements pro-
vided as required.
All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the
site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accor
dance with Section 19.20.030 (non-subdivisions) or 19.30.110
(subdivisions) of the Development Code.
x
x
x
Existing utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
re 1 oca ted at the Deve 1 oper' s expense as di rec ted by the City
Engineer.
Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to
City Standards and inspected under a City On-Site Construction
Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's Engin-
eer and approved by the Ci ty Engi neer will be requi red. Thi s
plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where practical.
A "communication Conduit" shall be installed in all streets with-
in and adjacent to this project. The conduit shall be dedicated
to the City and its primary use shall be for Cable TV installed
by the Cable TV Company under permit from the City of San Bernar-
dino.
x
x
_.,-_-1
.ERHARDINO PUBLQ WORKI/INQIl
CASE CUP 92-04 & --
TR 15451
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~:~I~~E 1-;-~2
PAG Jtl
A Final/Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required.
All street names shall be subject to approval of the City
Engineer prior to Map approval.
Additional survey and map information including, but not limited
to, building setbacKs, flooding and zones, seismic lines and set-
baCKS, geologic mapping and archeological sites shall be filed
with the City Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-592.
Improvement Completions
~
Mapping
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
x
x
x
Street, sewer, and drainage improvement plans for the entire pro-
ject shall be comp1 eted, subject to the approval of the Ci ty
Engineer, prior to the recordation of the Final/Parcel Map.
If the required improvements are not completed prior to record-
ation of the Final/Parcel Map, an improvement security accom-
pani ed by agreement executed by the developer and the Ci ty will
be required.
If the required improvements are not proposed to. be completed
prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, a deferred improvement
agreement in accordance with Section 19.30.160 of the Development
Code wi 11 be requi red. I f the agreement is approved, an
improvement certificate shall be placed on the Parcel Map stating
that the required improvements will be completed upon develop-
ment. Applicable to Parcel Maps consisting of 4 or less parcels
only.
Street light energy fee to pay cost of street light energy for a
peri ad of 4 years. Exact amount to be determi ned pr i or to map
recording.
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
the following streets:
x
x
X All drive approaches shall be constructed per City Std. No. 204,
Type II.
X All existing drive approaches adjacent to the site on "F".. "G",
----6th and 7th Streets shall be removed and replaced with full height
curb, gutter and sidewalk.,
X Curb return at 6th Street and "F" Street shall be removed and
----reconstructed on a 25' radius. Install a handicap ramp per Std.
No. 205 and dedicate sufficient r/w to accommodate the ramp.
Relocate traffic signal per requirements of the City Engineer,
52. X Remove and reconstruct existing sidewalk adjacent to the site which
----is damaged or uplifted. Areas to be removed and replaced shall be
determined by the City Engineer."
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
-
-
CITY OF 8AN~:~RNARDINO PU8L1C~~!~~
TR 15451
STANDARD AEQUREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
39
r
Street Improvement and Dedications:
X All public streets within and adjacent to ~he development shall be
----improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving, handicap
ramps, street lights. sidewalks and appurtenances, including, but,
not limited to, traffic signals, traffic signal modification,
relocation of public or private facilities which interfere with
new construction, striping, signing, pavement marking and markers,
and street name signing. All design and construction shall be
accomplished in accordance with the City of San Bernardino "Street
Improvement Policy. and City .Standard Drawings", unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Street lighting, when required,
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's
.Street Lighting Policies.and Procedures". Street lighting shall
be shown on street improvement plans except where otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
X For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street
----right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline
to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation
to the street centerline shall be as follows:
Street Name
Right-of-Way (Ft.)
44' (2.75' Addit)
Curb Line (Ft.)
6th Street
Existing
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF SAN r~RNARDINO PUBLIC'VORKI/1INQfl
SE 1"110 Q?_n4 R.
TR 11:.11:1
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
4
7-7-92
4
53. -LIf the project is to be developed in phases. each individual phase
shall be designed to provide maximum public safety. conven- ience
for public service vehicles, and proper traffic circulation. In
order to meet this requirement, the following \~ill be required
prior to the finalization of any phase:
a.
Comp1 eti on of the improvement
sufficient plans beyond the
feasibility of the design to
Engineer.
p1 ans for the total project or
phase boundary to verify the
the sati sfacti on of the Ci ty
b. A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division, Fire. and Planning Departments indica-
ting what improvements wi 11 be constructed with the given
phase. subject to the following:
(1) Dead-end streets shall be provided with a minimum 32-foot
radius paved turnaround area,
(2) Half width streets shall be provided with a minimum
28-foot paved width.
(3) Street improvements beyond the phase boundaries, as
necessary to provide secondary access.
(4)
Drainage facilities. such as storm drains,
earth berms. and block walls, as necessary,
the development from off-site flows.
(5) A properly designed water system capable of providing
required fire flow. perhaps looping or extending beyond
the p-hase boundari es.
channels.
to protect
(6) Easements for any of the above and the installation -of
necessary utilities. and
(7) Phase boundaries shall correspond to the lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
CITY OF SAt()ERNARDINO PUBLQ WORK""'"
. CASECUP 92-04 &
TR 15451
. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS :i:~~ I~~E 7-~-92
,-
Required Engineering Per_its:
54.
55.
56.
x
X
Grading permit (if applicable.).
On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Planning and Building Services), includes landscaping.
Off-site improvements construction permit.
X
57.
Applicable Engineering Fees (Fees sUbject to change without notice)
58.
59.
X
Plan check fee for Final/Parcel Map - $1,000.00 plus $30.00 per
lot or parcel.
Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 31 and
2.51, respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of
off-site improvements.
X
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings - See Planning and Building Services) - IS and IS,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of on-site
improvements, including landscaping.
60. X Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permi~ required) _
Fee Schedule available from the Engineering Division.
61. X Drainage fee in the amount of $28,345 (approx) total both phas~s
62.
63.
X
X Traffi c system fee in the estimated amount of $80.76 per Townhome
Exact amount sha 11 be determi ned by the City Tra ffi c Eng i neer at
time of application for Building Permit.
X Sewer connection fee in the amount_of
$235.43 per bedroom
64. X Street or easement dedication processing fee in the amount of
$200.00 per document.
65.
X
Sewer inspection fee
$15.84 per connection
*Estimated construction cost is based on schedule of unit prices on
file with the City Engineer.
l..
'-.-1.<
CITY OF SAN ERNARDINO PUBLI
WORKS/ENGR.
CASE CUP 92-04 & .
IR 15451
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
x
Upgrade signal hardware at 6th Street and "F" Street to provid.
pedestrian push buttons at all 4 corners of the intersection.
66.
67. X Stripe pedestrian crosswalks at all 4 corners using
thermo-plastic.
68. X Securi ty gates at entrances shall be set back 50' from back of
sidewalk .
PHASE II REQUIREMENT
69. X Reconstruct curb returns at the 6th Street/"G" Street
intersection and the 7th Street/"F" Street intersection to
provi de a radi us of 25'. Construct a handi cap ramp per Ci ty
Std. No. 205 and dedicate sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate the ramp. Relocate traffic signal equipment per
requirements of the City Engineer.
.J
,_.-1
~ --
-
-
..
-
0'-
~,.......-~p~
o
DRC/ERC .
DATE (.,-l~-~
CASE TI ,,, ./Cu.P .,z...o
POLICE DEPT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
FOR APARTMENTS/CONDOMINIUMS/HOBILE HOHE PARKS
SECURITY LIGHTING:
70. ~
71.~
72. ~
Aisles, passageways, and recesses,related to and within the
projec~complex shall be illuminated with an intensity of at
least.~ foot candles at the ground level during the hours
of darkness.
Open parking lots and carports shall be provided with a
minimum maintained one foot candIe of light evenly distrib-
uted on the parking surface during the hours of darkness.
Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandal-
ism resistant covers.
All exterior lighting devices are to be inaccessible to
common reach or climbing and shal1 be protected by weather
and vandalism resistant covers. All exterior lighting shall
be projected so as to not cast light onto adjoining prop-
erties.
DOORS, LOCKS, AND WINDOWS:
73. ~
74.
~
75.
:::::.L-
Swinging exterior glass doors, wood or metal doors with
glass panels, solid wood or metal doors shall be constructed
or protected as follows:
Al Wood doors shall be of solid core construction with a
minimum thickness of I 3/4".
Bl Hollow metal doors shall be constructed a minimum
equivalent to sixteen u.S. gauge steel and have suf-
ficient reinforcement to maintain the designed thick-
ness of the door when any 10cking device is installed
such as reinforcement being able to restrict collapsing
of the door around the locking device.
Cl The above doors shall contain a 190 degree view angle
door viewer.
Except when double cylinder deadbolts are utilized, any
glass utilized within 40" of any door 10cking mechanism
shal1 consist of laminated glass, tempered glass, wired
glass or plastics.
All swinging exterior wood and steel doors shall be equipped
as follows:
Al A single or double door shall be equipped with a double
or single deadbolt. The bolt sharI have a minimum pro-
iection of 1" and be constructed so as to repel cutting
1._._1
o
:.)
DRC/ERC
DATE
CAS E II I c;r.j >1 )~"'f '1'2.-0~
POLICE DEPT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
be installed on the front door.
BI The deadbolt shal1 have an embedment of at least 1"
into the strike receiving the projected bolt. The
cylinder shal1 have a cylinder guard, a minimum of five
pin tumblers, and shall be connected to the inner por-
tion of the lock by connecting screws of at least 1/4"
in diameter. The recommendation does not apply when
panic hardware is required or an equivalent device is
approved by the Building Code.
CI The strike plate shall be a minimum of 3" in height and
shall be securett to the jamb with a minimum of four
2-1/2" screws.
76. '-..J
Double doors shall be equipped as follows:
Al The active leaf of double doors shall be equipped with
metal flush bolts having a minimum embedment of 5/8"
into the head and threshold of the door frame. Double
doors shall have an astragal constructed of steel, a
minimum of .125" thick, which will cover the opening
between the doors. This astragal shall be a minimum
of 2" wide and extended a minimum of 1" beyond the edge
of the door to which it is attached. The astragal
shall be attached to the outside of the active door by
means of welding or with nonremovable bolts spaced
apart on not more than 10" centers.
77. '-......,
Hinges for out-swinging doors shall be equipped with nonre-
movable hinge pins or a mechanical inner lock to preclude
removal of the door from the exterior by removing the hinge
pins.
78. ~\
Windows
Al All moveable windows shal1 be equipped with a locking
device and shall be constructed in a fashion to re
strict them from being lifted out of their tracks when
in the closed position.
BI AIl moveable windows shall also be equipped with an
auxiliary locking device which prevents the window
from being slid (either vertically or horizontallyl
open while in the closed position.
79. ~
Garage type doors: (rolling overhead, solid overhead,
swinging, sliding, or accordion stylel
A) The above described doors shal1 conform to the follow-
ing standards:
-
o
r,
"-I
DRC/ERC
DATE ,
CASETt" 1<;1-/5"1/ rAd ",.z.-01
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
POLICE DEPT
1. Wood doors shall have panels a mInImum of 5/16"
in thickness with the 10cking hardware being at-
tached to the support framing.
2. Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of
.0215" and rivet together a minimum of 18" on cen-
ter along the outside seams. There shall be a
full width horizontal beam attached to the main
door structure which shall meet the pilot or
pedestrian access door framing within 3" of the
strike area of the pilot or pedestrian access
door.
3. Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum den-
sity of 6 ounces per square foot from the bottom
of the door to a height of 7' and panels in
residential structures shal1 have a density of not
less than 5 ounces per square foot.
B) Where sliding or accordion doors are utilized, they
shal1 be equipped with guide tracks which shall be de-
signed so that the door cannot be removed from the
track when in the closed and 10cked position.
C) Doors that exceed 16' in width shall have 2 lock
receiving points; or, if the door does not exceed 19',
a single bolt may be used if placed in the center of
the door with the locking point 10cated either in the
floor or in the door frame header.
D) Overhead doors shall be equipped with slide bolts which
shal1 be capable of utilizing padlocks with a minimum
9/32" shackle.
1. Slide bolt assemblies shall have a frame a minimum
of .120" in thickness, a bolt diameter a minimum
of 1/2", and protrude at least 1 1/2" into the re-
ceiving guide. A bolt diameter of 3/S" may be
used in a residential building.
, .
2. Slide bolt assemblies shall be attached to the
door with bolts which are nonremovable from the
exterior. Rivets shall not be used to attach
such assemblies.
E) Padlocks used with exterior mounted slide bolts shall
have a hardened steel shackle a minimum of 9/32" in
diameter with heel and toe locking and a minimum 5 pin
tumbler operation. The key shall be nonremovable when
in an unlocked operation.
.
-
-0
-0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DRC/ERC
DATE .' .I
CAsE11 ,%\ /t'..AP&fZ...cJf-
,
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
80, ~
POLICE DEPT
Fl Doors utilizin~ a cylinder lock shall have a mlnlmum of
five pin tumbler operation with the bolt or 10cking
bar extendin~ into the receiving guide a minimum of 1",
Common walls shal1 be as sound proof as possible.
81. ~
ADDRESS NIJ}tBERS
82. ~
83. ~
84. "'~
An il1uminated map or directory of the project shall be
erected at the entrance of the complex and shall have vandal
resistant covers. The directory shall not contain the names
of the tenants but only address numbers, street names, and
their location within the complex. North shall be at the
top and so indicated.
Roof top address numbers shall be provided for each building
in the project (except mobile home parks). They shall be a
minimum of 3' in length and 2' in width and of contrasting
color to the background. Numbers shall be placed parallel
to the street address as assigned.
The project shall display street address numbers placed
in a prominent position as near the street as practical.
Numbers shall be a minimum of 6" in height and of a
contrasting color to the background.
All individual units shal1 be clearly identified by numbers,
letters, or a combination thereof. These numbers and
letters shall be a minimum of 4" in height and of a contras-
ting color to the background.
All numbering of units shall be in a sequential, logical
order.
85.
ACCESS CONTROLS:
~
86.
"1
87. ~
An access control override device shall be provided for use
by police department personnel to gain immediate access.
Perimeter fencing or cross fencing shall be installed to
prevent criminal movement or activity.
AIl parking spaces are to be visible from the interior of at
least one unit within the complex.
ALARH SYSTEMS
88.
l
If the units are alarmed or wired for an alarm system, the
buyer is to be notified to contact the PoI ice Department for
,_._.1
CITY
OF
SAN BERNARDINO
CASE
CliP
9,;z. - t!J 1/
1-,5'; 9.2-
RJ?d
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
HEARING DATE
REVIEWED BY
PIRE DEPARTMENT REQUmEMENTS
92.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS,
)<i Provide one extra set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
(] Contact Fire Department for specific or detailed requirements - IMPORTANT.
~ The developer shall provide for adequate Fire Flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Fire Flow shall be based
",.-..... on square footage, construction features . and exposure information as supplied by the developer and may be taken from two
hydrants. /f"tJt) 6/'#. /~YPK"',,",;r /'i.'I"".!.~ 51~J(',A-'(i /1-"";:> h/J/p S" /ZF h Hi''i:rr
ACCESS: ~.:J/",),~/"J~I U F C!.- ~-rJ2c-hI?Fr-?FL';.-:r:
[J Provide two different routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all-weather.
(] Provide an access roadway to each buildimr for fire apparatns. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface
of not less than 20-feet of unobstructed width.
] Extend roadway to within ISO-feet of all portions of the exterior valls of all singh~-story buildings.
]. Extend roadwav to within 50-feet of the exterior walls of all mul~iple-story buildings.
Provide "No P'ARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less
than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING" (All caps). "M.C. Sec. 15.16".
[] Dead-end streets shall not exceed SOo-feet in length and shall have a minimum 3S-foot radius turnaround.
X The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
.J<! All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
}><J Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than ISO-feet from the curb line. No fire hydrant
should be within 4o-feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2j-inch and one 4-inch outlet,
and approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrants are to be protected from damage by providing suitable traffic barriers.
The area around the fire hydrant shall be designated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8-inch wide, red stripe for 15-feet
in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. Suitable "NO
PARKING" signs are required.
'ic1' Public fire hydrants shall be provided along streets at :mibfeet intervals for commercial and multi-residential areas and at
/ .... SOo-feet intervals for residential areas. Installation sJuiD"'Conform to City specifications and be. installed prior to combustible
construction or storage.
89.
90.
91.
93.
94.
95.
98.
99.
BUILDING,
The address of the structure, in six inch numerals, shall be installed on the building or in other approved location in such a
manner as to be visible from the frontage street. The color of the numbers shall contrast with color of the background.
~ Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit which it services.
[J Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to t.he building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is
2A 10 B/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75-feet travel
distance from a fire extinguisher.
'i.cr' All buildings, other th~ resi~ential over 5,000 square feet, shall be provided with an automatic fire sprink1~r system, designed
r -loNFPAstandards. :,,-~V~'lo/"tfJ( S7:'7"F~ g"/GOIA.06-J" v"".p Ccr S;'A"IPk".!t/;t'~.
~ Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction on the system.
[1 Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to construction.
(] Provide an automatic fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department, prior to installation.
[] Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at curb line.
96.
97.
==============================================================================================;;:====================
NOTE: The applicant must request, in writing, any change in these or other requirements.
ADDITIONALINFORMATION,k'A0x fAJ7"/ty S~?C~ ffE"a'hlf'liO OA.J 6-1leS,
.I"L~(/h/',u,,?""c;9 PIA"r<-7CJ~7 /lr -&~ rpT.If"4t<'(",.,--;>"
',j- -t:I''''''''S"'".-
rA'''''
.--
/'
;~~
.-
-
/--X/'>,-/",,/~
h/,"/.-
.s,.;r?7~f / S
~{.//.r,y/,e/
r;""'~A"#~ I~'~P ~.i:Xv"'f6"'?/-~r.:r,
FPB 170 7/89
I._'f'
0' Bemardina City Water DepenmO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Review of Plans: # CUP 92-04/Tent. Tr. No. 15451
Location: Block bounded by 6th, 7th, "F", & "G" Sts.
'''' lA~ ~ W'''''''_
Type of Construction: To const. Phase I of a 2-phased townhouse
Owner!Developer: Empire Bav
proj.
ENGINEERING: Name: j:::.t \i ~ b1..i1 \ \ ~
100. ~P.S. I. "0 1 e.:,
101 . ~ Size of Main Adjacent to the Project l\i::I>. ' · ·
o Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
o Off-site Water Facilities Required to Meet Peak Flow Demand.
102. rvI Comments:J:.1'oe. .:....",..."'<-.\"'..... -r",~~..".....\ h....d.t-...............
~ ~) .
/ Ferl' -i;:::
V~
Date:
Approved:
Denied:
Continued:
Date: ~\." ~'Z.-
.
~I~~
II t1
&~
,
~ ~ L'O ./StJo 8 f>h-1
o Subject to the Rules & Regulations of the Water Department in effect atthe time of Application for Water Service.
o This Area is Serviced by East Valley Water District and All Fees/Conditions will be Determined ,by their
Engineering Department.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT: Name: ~
103. 1l6' R.P.P, Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
b Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection.
o Air Gap Required at Service Connection.
o No Backflow Device Required.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER:
Name: ~ ~~,
Date: ~ \ "2:> ~ z...
.
Date: ~ \~\q2..
.
=:J Industrial Waste Permit Required by Environmental Control Officer.
, -,
'-J Grease Trap Required by Environmental Control Officer.
o Pre-treatment Required by Environmental Control Officer.
104. ~ No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed Without Prior Approval.
105. ~ Approved by Environmental Control Officer.
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Name: ~ \ ~~ Date: ~
LJ No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
l 06. ;g Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the City Water Department for the Amount of .33, 15)' Gallons Per
Day. Equivalent Dwelling Units: II 8 ~
l 07. g Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit.
- 0 8 . ~ Proof of Payment Must be Submitted tothe Building & Safety Department.priorto Issuance of the Building Permit.
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
Jj(3 OAJIT ~JJ...<./ Al,j?;ll~
M Lese. c.red;.ts ~r- ...};',....J'':JJiXll:'':j I~..',.&
'216 13-90)
WATR-3.04
CITY OF SANIf_OIttO
CE_~SElWICES
i_.i_
Automatic Irrigation Controller
to have enough stations for
possible back yard irrigation).
Electric Valves with anti-siphon devices
(unit must be able
future hook up of
Pop-Up Type Irrigation Heads (Turf and Shrub areas)
B. Landscape: (Per Front Yard)
1-15 gal Ion tree (double-staked - 4 cinch ties or 4
wonder ties).
c. Turf (no more than 75\ of area) - drought tolerant type
species. Sod or. hydro-seeded.
D. Shrub and Planter Area (not less than 25\ of area)
70\ - 1 gallon shrubs
30\ - 5 gallon shrubs
Groundcover in planter area under shrubs - 100\ coverage
when mature or 8" o.c.
* NOTE: Shrubs not to exceed more than 5 feet apart.
E.
Polyethylene Bed Divider or Concrete Mow stri~ to
separate all turf and planter areas. Type of mater als
allowed: 6" concrete mowstrips, concrete curbmaker,
Black Diamond (or equa1)/po1yethylene bed divider.
L_,.
"
o
CITY or 6A1'l JERRAJJ)I1fO
IIEP.u1liDlTS or
'"
o
.
PARXS. Ucau.TIOtl AJID c:oHKUMln sanClI .'
" .
......
PLANN l1lG DEI' All'DC2ltt
-
..'.
I'IOCIDUU
AJlIl
POLICY
FOR.
LANDSCAPDlC AND IJUlICATION
KULTl UNIT
COtlKEIlCIAL
ItlDUSDUL
J.alluaTY. 19S~
".
I
.
."
o
tabl. of Contenta c:>
t. Purpo.e
tI. Sub.uub
A. Nu~ber of Plans and Submittal Procedures
J. Lsndscape Plsns
C. Irrlsatlon Plana
tII.
Landscape Areal
i
l
:
i
.
A. Kalntenance of Landscaped Area.
J. planter Area.
C. Intedor Planter Are"
D. lrdsatlon
E. Setback Area'
r. Slope
C. Cround Cover and Jeddll11 Kaudel
B. Eroa1on Control
I. "eel! Control
IV.
Plant Katedsh
A. Plant Liat and Climatic Condltiona
J. Street Tree.
C. Plant Materlal
v. Inspection
A. Irdsat10n 51.t..
J. Landscap1DS
VI. Other Ilequlremenu
.
I
.'
'_,,1_
Cl'n OF tiA.N ~ L."",^,,", .".-
.~TS rolt SUlKlTTAL AJQ) ,,'........L or
JRlDSCAPE AND llUllCATlON rLAt-'
1. pU1tPOSE
The intent and purpoa. of tbe.e lUideline. ia to provide:
1. Cuidance in tbe required aubmittal of landscape and irrigation
plans.
2. Cuidance in meeting atreet tree requiremente.
3. Guidance in aelection of plant ..terial.
4. Cuidance in what the plans (land.cape and irrigation) ehall abow.
11. SUBKI1"fALS
: A. lMIBEl OF PLANS AND SUBKl1"fAL PlOCEDUlE
(:11(; tS) copies each of landscape and irdaadon plana aball be aub-
aitted to the Public vorka/ln&1needng Department aloog vitb payMnt
of the appropriate Landscape Plan Iteview Fee.
8. LANDSCAPE PLANS
1. Shall be drawn by one of tbe following:
A. A registered landscape architect.
B. A licenaed landscape contractor who ins tall a the actual
landscape.
C. A nutaery.
D. The owet.
IIOTE: The IIAIH, address, telephone lIumber, alOlll vith dauture of tbe
peuoo(a) who do tbe design ahall be on tbe plana. "giatered
landscape architecta and licensed landscape contractora ahall
include their reaiatration lIumbera and/or licenae numbera.
2. Plans ahall be legibly drawn to acale on papet 110 amallet tban
18" x 24" and no larser than 24" x 36".
3. Plans ahall abow location of tbe property by vicinity map and
neareat cross streets and Sive tbe property address or assessor'a
parcel number.
4. Plans ahall sbow location of exist1nS and proposed utilities - above
sround and undersround.
~. Plans sball abow type of zoning. the scale, and nortberly directional
arrow.
6. Plans ahall contain plant legenda for all uistiDs and proposed
plant material. The lesend abal1 be as followa:
I._,j
7. .
'lane 'MU ,bDII pitina end propole4 pun I. ............ ~..-.. .-
leel. It ~r ..ture lice. .
'Ian. .ha~ontdn land.eap. .p.dUeaUd-'lneS detlSh.
Plana ahall .bow III r.,ulreeS 1.neSae.pe Irts'. protected froe
parkina areaa wltb concrete curblDl'
'lana .hall.hDII the name, ecldre.., .neS telephone nuabar of
property ovner or developer.
..
,.
10.
c. JRRICATION PLANS
I. All required landlcaping ahall be provided with an automatic
irrigation IYltem.
2. Planl ahall be aubmitted with. .ttached to. .nd the lame .ize a.
landaeape plalla.
3. Plana ahall .ddrell cOlllervation of water and energy.
A. Component a - low &allonage and low precipitation beada,
drip .y,tems and otber .ub-Iurface teehnlquea, mini jet
headl, .oisture .enaine device., controller. witb ability
of variable proSrammine.
J. Efficiency - velocity .hall be close ., pOllible to 5 feet
per .econd. 'lant material vith different vater requirement.
,hall be on .eparate valvel. Slopes shall be Oll leparate
valvea. Syatem design aball eliminate cOltly, wuteful.
overtbrow and runoff.
4. Plans Ihall show:
A. Static P.S.l.
J. Service Main - type. .be and length.
C. Water Meter - location and 11I:e.
D. Approved Jackflow PreventiOD Device - location and dze.
E. All locations of pipe, valve. .nd heads. (includes emmitterl. etc.)
5. Slopea required to be planted .hall be provided with efficient and
water conserving irrigation 'Yltema.
NOTE: Actual water application rates ,ball be applied, as sol1
absorption rates dictate. Over watering .hall be avoided.
6. All aprinklera ,hall be installed witb approved lVing joinu.
7. All above ground .prinklers .hall be the pop up type, installed
flushed vith the ,011. Expand .priDklers on risers above ground
!!! acceptable in limited areas vith ''bubbler'' type sprinklers
and do not border sidewalks. walkways. or areas subject to
pedestrian traffic.
8. Separate vater ~ter for landscape irrigation i. optional at owners
request and expense. .
NOTE: Owner _.t notify the Water Department.
9. Plans sball contain installation .pecification. .nd detail..
10. Plans .ball contain irrigation legends as follows:
"
EQUIPKDiT
ymbol Manufacturer Model , Description Noule aadiu, CPH PSI
II. ALL ::!i\A:WlT,''''' ~i..~ ",,.Oe' CONcr"+e.. tlr IISphl/LT TD be SLe~II4t/.
t.
1.--.1-
~
I'lPE
Type
Cia"
Iclleclule
lote: 'ipe .izinS, (.ise) .h.ll .1.0 be ahovn at each .ection of
pipe, (..ina and lateral.).
VALVE CHART
Valve Valve Size ePH
'1 21s" 43
12 lis" 27
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Total , ValveI Total CPM
Note: All valvea .hall be DUmbered.
FRICTION (PSI LOSS)
.. " Water Meter
'ackflow Device
Elevation Chansea
Pipe
Valvea. P1ttinsl. Milcellaneoua
Total PSI Lo..
Or1&1aal PSI (.tatic)
Less Total PSI LoI.
PSI
'Sl
'51
'51
PSI
'51
PSI
PSI
Equals
Minimum to Farthest HD PSI
III. LANDSCAPE AREAS
A. MAll\Ul\ANCE OF LANDSCAPED AREAS
The maintenance of landscaped areas and graded slopes Ihall be the
responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual
_nhip.
B. PLANTER AREAS
All required landlcaping shall be protected by an enclosed concrete"
curbing.
,--~---_..,
C. INTER lOll SITE n.ANl1llil M&J\~ .....
Jnterlor pl.ntl::,lh.ll ~. re~lre' .nel ..lntalr-\ equ.l to.t le..t
,Spercent of tlli open ,urflce' ,arUnl .re. u~iDl tlle lrea of
lln'.c.pilll ,trip requir.' in tlle front yard .etb.ck .rel In' .ball
Include .t lea.t one tree for every [Ive .pace. or ..jor friction
.;;.. thereof. ","ure..nU Ih.l1 be cOIIputecl from the inti'e or ,,,weter
vall. or aetback line..
D. lRRIeATION
All required landscaping shall be provided with auto1ll8tic .prinkler
facilitiea which ahall be maintained in an operative condition.
Utiliae only reduced pressure (rp) deviles or double clleck valve
anembly. ~ atmospheric vaCCUUID breaken are permitted.
E. SETBACK AREAS
All required .etbacks .buttinc , public dSht-or-vay .hall be land-
scaped (except for walk. .nd driveway. which bisect or encroacll opon
the required lanellC'pI .rea). The required .etb.ck. .h.ll be land-
.c.ped vith tree., ahrub., .nd Iroundcover. Land.capell eartll berM
.ball be erected and lDIintdned within tlle eetback .lonl tlle above
indicated property line. Jermed areu ahall have a maxtmum of 3: 1
.lope aud be planted with" tall fescue t..voe turf ar...' or otller
approved landscapinll. AminimWl\ of 6 feet of landscaping .
ihall be placed on the exterior of perimeter mIls and fences.
F. GROUND COVER Ah'D BEDDING MATERIAL
eravel and decorative rock are Dot .ppropriate material. to be uaed
as ground cover or bedding material.
e. SLOPES
1. To protect against damaae by erosion and negative vieual impact,
aurfaces of ,11 cut ,lope' .ore than five feet in he1Sht and flll
slopes lDOre than three feet in height .ball be protected by land-
.eaping. Slopea exceedin& 15 feet in vertical height ahall also
be laudacaped with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed twenty (20)
feet on cetners; or a cOlDbination of shrubs aud tree. .a cover
planta. 'lant material .elected .nd plant iDS IDethod used shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of tbe aite. Public
Works/Engineering viII also .pprove these.
2. Plant .izes shall be as follows:
c. eroundcover
20% - 24" box
80% - IS gallon
5"0% - 5 gallon
5.0% - 1 gallon
100% _ coverage when mature or 12" o.c.
A. Trees
J. Shrubs
-
-
3. The ..intenanee of .raeled .lope. In4 leodlcaped eraaa aoa1. ua
th, rllPf"1bl1it7 of tbl developer unt11r-,e UID.f.r to IDUvielual
oVlltnbtl'='" ....."
I.. All "arlUna end duinaae fadlltlu, tnc1udiDI .rotion control
plaDtlnl of auded 11opel, Ihlll II. 'one 1D ,ecordancl with a
ardins plan approved b7 tll. Ctt7 Inllneer. A arading permit
Ihln be obtained prior to Iny IraUDI 1Ie1D1 don..
H. POSION CONTROL
All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion control planting
of graded alopes, shall be done in Iccordance with a grading plan approved
by the City Engineer. A gradiog permit .hall be obtained prior to en7
gradin& being done.
I. WEED CONTROL
Pre-emer.enee control. post-emergence control ,nd cultural control of
weeds ahall be addressed in the landscape .pecification..
IV. PLANT MATPlALS
A. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND PLANT LISTS
Due to tbe lIot and dry cltmate of San Jernardino, drouaht and bllt
tolerant material may be used upon prior epproval.
B. STREET TREES
Street treet .ball be required. Tree varieties and exact. location
viiI be determined by the Director of tbe Parks. Recreation eud
CollllDUnity Servicea Department or bis/her designee. The Parka, lec-
nation and c_nity Servicel Depart_nt ahall ..rk location. and
inspect plant ..tedal on alte, prior to planting. Sidewal1r... curll
and .utter, lIU.t be clean o.f debd. prior to ..rk1Jl&. A 2' bour
notice ia required for inapectiOD.(.ee attacbed .pecifications for
Street Tree planting and Street Tree list). The size of tbe Street
Trees .hall be: 1. All 24 inch box .pecimana.
The 24 incb box tree. .lIall be planted as .treet
trees within the public parkway or City property.
c. PLANT MATERIAL
Landscaped areas shall have plant material selected and planting .ethods
used which are suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the
site. Sizes of tbe plant materials shall conform to tbe following
mix:
!!!!.! 20%, 24" box; 50%, 15 aallon; 16;'.1 3~"1:1oJC; ,S"J,J ","&>C ~
Shrubs '0%, 5 gallon; 2.0%, 1 gallon
Croundcover 100% coverage
Concrete mow strips are required to separate aD turf areas from other landscaped
areas for all developments except single family residential (!Ill US,IJ6I"J ~tIIJ.;,.~tMTS" .
Where trees are planted in paved IJ'US, they shall have a protective tne srate.
'nee plieS shall be caste iron with a Il&tural fiNs1\. A deep lOOt system shall be
used.
Y. INSPECTlON
PM 3'~S3/'I
A.
JlRICATlON SysQ
1. Inapectlon. .h.l1 be performed by . 'ark and lecreatioa Department
repreaentative at the following: .
A. Pressure teat of irrigation main liDe (ISO PSU for 2 boura)
.. Coverage teat Ind final Icceptance.
2. Do not a))o~ or c.ause the above ite~s to be covered up, until it
has been in~~ected and approved by I Park Department representative.
A~8 hour notice shall be Siven prior to anticipated inspection..
B. UlIDSCAPING
1. Inspections shall be perfo~d by I Park and Recreation Department
representative at the followin&:
A. Upon completion of finisbed &rade, ao11 preparation and final
rake out.
B. When treel and Ihrubs are .potted for plantin&, with one
example of plantin& hole for trees and ODe for shrubs.
C. Final inspection wheD plant1n& and all other specified work
has been completed.
2. A ~~hour notice .hall be liven prior to anticipated inspections.
VI. OTHER IlEQUIIlEHENTS
A. Notify Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department of commence-
ment of landscapin&. Give anticipated time line (atart to finish).
B. All landscaping, irrilation and .treet trees shall be installed and
maintaiDed in accordaDce witb, City of San Bernardino Municipal Codea.
ordinances and standard requirecents.
C. Material requirement for all plant material shall be number one (1)
&rade of the California Nursery Industry Certificate IS issued by the
Agricultural Commissioner of tbe County of origin.
D. All landscape material, irrilation equip~ent. irrigation components
and workman5~ip shall be &uaranteed for a period of Dot less than
one (1) year from date of final approval by the Director of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services or his/her designee. The conditions
of the guarantee viii be to insure. but not limited to all plant
material being in healthy condition and free frOlD abnormal conditions
whicb may have occurred during or after. planting, such as defoliation
or structure dieback.
E. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
conACT THE CITY pms, RECREATION AND COHHUNITY SERVICES DEPARTHEIIT FOR
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT'S UlIDSCAPE ltEQUlIlEHENTS. ALL OTHER ITEMS ON ASSESS-
MMDISTkICTS IS COVERED BV PUBLIC lJORXs/ENelNEERINe.
Attachment "E"
. f'\
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..,
,...
INITIAL STUDY
....
.....
IDi~ia1 s~udy for EDviroDaeD~al Impaa~.
for
COHDITIOHaL USB PERMIT NO. '2-04
r.
TBHTATIVB TRACT NO. 15451
PIlOJBCT DESCRIPTION: To construct Phase I (69 units) of a two-
phase, 118 unit affordable townhouse project. This project proposes
the demolition or relocation of several potentially historic
structures and will require a relocation plan for residen~s
displaced by this project.
This Initial study considers the impacts resultinq from the
development of both phases, althouqh formal application has beeD
submitted for Phase I only.
PROJBCT LOCATION: The subject property is bounded by 6th street,
"F" Street, 7th Street and "G" street, in the RM, Residential
Medium, General Plan land use district as well as the Development
Code Main Street OVerlay.
May 14, 1992
Prepared for:
Bapire Bay
'85 via Serna
Up1nd, CA '178'
Prepared by:
Greqory S. GubmaD
A8.i.~n~ P1aDDer
Ci~y of San Bernardino
Department of Planninq and Buildinq Services
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
...
lll:olt.= ~ .1
...ol
P\NK07 p_, OF' I.....
o
o
INITIAL STUDY FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-04
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15451
Introduction
This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451 (CUP
92-04/TT 15451). It contains an evaluation of potential adverse
impacts that can occur if tqe project is developed.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the
preparation of an Initial Study when a project must obtain
discretionary approval from a governmental agency and it is not
exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine
whether or not a project not exempt from CEQA qualifies for a
Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) must be prepared.
The following components constitute the Initial Study for CUP 92-
04/TT 15451:
1. Project description
2. Environmental setting
3. Environmental Impact Checklist
4. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures
5. Technical reports prepared for the proposed project (by
reference)
6. Determination
combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study
for CUP 9204/TT 15451. All technical reports prepared for this
project are available for public review at the Department of
Planning and Building Services.
i
o
o
Pro;ect DescriDtion
CUP 92-04/TT 15451 is a request to construct Phase I (69 units) of
a two-phase, 118 unit affordable Victorian townhouse development.
This project proposes the demolition or relocation of several
potentially historic structures and will require a relocation plan
for residents affected by this project. The Phase I portion of the
property consists of approximately 4.31 acres. The combination of
both phases consists of approximately 8.26 acres.
The subject property, together with four parcels excluded from the
project, comprises a city block bounded by 6th street on the south,
"F" Street on the east, 7th street on the north and "G" Street on
the west. The U.S.G.S description of the property is: SE 1/4 of
Section 4, Township 1 south, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian.
The site is designated by the General Plan as RM, Residential
Medium, which permits residential development at a maximum density
of 14 units per acre. Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65915, a 25 percent density bonus may be permitted if the
developer provides affordable housing to qualifying residents as
defined in HSC 50079.5, HSC 50105 or CC 51.2. The Development Code,
which implements the General Plan land use element, permits the
proposed project subject to approval of a conditional use permit
and condominium map. .
Environmental Settina
Topographically, the site is relatively flat with a slight
southerly grade (1%). The area is fully urbanized and serviced.
Surrounding land uses include various residential types in all
directions, professional offices to the south, a Greyhound bus
terminal to the southwest, institutional offices to the northeast
and the City's central library to the southeast. Beyond the
adjacent block to the east is the northwest portion of the downtown
business district. Beyond the adjacent block to the west is the
Interstate 215 freeway, which is proposed for widening in the near
future. Please refer to the
The subject property is located within the following General Plan
and Development Code overlays:
1. Urban Archaeological District (General'Plan)
2. Main Street OVerlay (Development Code) , '
11
o
o
The General Plan also identifies the site and vicinity as a
potential historic district (Section 3, Historical Element) due to
the fact that the area is part of the original one-mile square
survey of the City and contains the highest concentration of the
City's oldest housing stock.
While it was determined that the potential exists for the creation
of a viable historic neighborhood, such a transformation will not
occur through the volition of the private sector alone. Basic
infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalk repair, are needed to
begin reversing the character of neglect. The multifamily General
Plan land use designation is at odds with the existing single-
family housing stock that predominates in the area, contributing to
increasing levels of absentee ownership and neglect as the houses
are converted and rented out to multiple tenants. There are no
incentives for property owners to upgrade and maintain their
properties.
Nonetheless, these are remedial measures that must take place in
the absence of new development and are beyond the mitigation
measures that would be required of the project discussed in this
Initial Study.
A detailed discussion of the environmental consequences that may
occur as a result of ~ project addressed in the section entitled
"Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures."
iii
r"J
(]
,...
""""l
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
...
~
,...
.
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number:
CUP 92-04 and Tentative Tr~,.t No 1~4~1
Projed Description:
To construct ohase I (6q) of ~ two-Dh~." llR unit
affordable townhouse oroiect. This project propo.". th"
demol ition and or relocation of 46 potenti~l1y hi.tori,. .trurtures
Location: Block bounded bv 6th. "F". 7th & "G" str""t.
Environmental Constraints Areas: Archaeological and Historic Preservation
concerns
General Plan Designation: HM. Res; dpnt ; a 1 -Mpd ; 11m: Urban Archaeoloqical
District
Zoning Designation: HM. Residential-Medium: Ma ; n Str....t Ovprl "y
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers. where appropriate. on a separate attached sheet.
~.=.~~
~
PlAH-.... PAGE 1 OF "1 1"'lIO)
n n
r . .....
g. Development within an area subjeCt to landslides, Ves No Maybe -
mudalides, liquefaction or other simUar hazards as
idenlIIIed in Secllon 12.0 . Geologic & Seismic, X
Figura 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other? x
2. Air Ra80un:e.: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air amissions or an effect upon ambient X
air quality as defined by AQMO?
b, The creation of objectionable odors? x
c. Oevllopment within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0. Wind & Fire. Figure 59. of thl City's x
General Plan?
3. Watar Re80un:es: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pall8ms, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeabll surfaces? x
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? x
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration
of surface water quality? X
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? x
e. Exposure of people or properly to flood haZards as
identified in the Fedlral Emergency Managlmlnt
Agency's Flood In6~ ~ate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 _ - _' and Section 16.0. X
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan?
I. Other? x
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0
. Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's x
General Plan?
b. Changl in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including x
stands of trees?
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals or their habitat? x
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6' or greater) x
"e. Other? x
5. Nolaa: Could the proposal result in:
L Development of houaing, haalth care facllilies, schools,
Ubraries, religious facilities or other "noise' senaitlve uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A~r and an Ldn of 45 dB~~ interior
as identified in ' n 14.0 . Noise, Figures and x
58 of the City's General Plan?
..
cmOl'...._ ............ PAGE'OFn ("-lID)
CI!""""'~.IMCU
r\ (')
~
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following V.s No Maybe
beyond the capability III provide adequate levels of s.rvice?
a. Fira protection? x
b. ' Police protection? x
c. Schools (i.... att.ndanc.. boundari.s. overload. etc.)? x
d. Parks or oth.r recr.ational facil~i.s? x
e. Medical aid? x
f. Solid Wast.? x
g. Other? x
11. Utllltle.: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate lev.ls of s.rvic. or require the
construction of n.w facil~ies?
1. Natural gas? x
2. Electric~y? x
3. Wat.r? x
4. Sew.r? x
5. Other? x
b. Rasuft in a disjointed pattam al utility .xtensions? x
c. Requirll the construction of lWW facililies? x
12. Aesthltlcs:
a. Could the proposal r.suft in the obstruction of any
scenic view? x
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrim.ntal
to the surrounding area? x
c. Other? x
13. Cultural Resource.: Could thl proposal rBSuft in:
a. The alteration or d.struction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological s~e by dev.lopm.nt within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section
3.0 - Historical, F'l9url 8, of the City's General Plan? x "
b. Afteration or destruction of a hiatorical site, structur.
or object as listed in the City'a Hiatoric Resources x
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other? Landscape Architecture x
0T'l'0I............
---
....
PlAN-.... PAOU OF z:z... (11-101
r".
~
~
14. Mandatory finding. of Slgnnlcllnce (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality 1D. states that N any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a signNicanl effect on the environmlnt and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes
No
Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
qualby of the environment, substantially reduce the
habbat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or
wildlNe population to drop below seN sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or reslriclthe range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
tlrm, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the futurl.)
x
x
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limbed, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate reSOurces where the
impact on each reSOUrce is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is signNicant.)
x
d. Does the projecl have Invironmental Iffects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
ebher dir8d1y or indlr8dly?
. x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA110N AND MI11GATlON MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
See attached.
....
iIll'nl:-=-===
PLM-ll.llI PAGE 50. Z '/ ("-lIO)
o
""
'-'
CUP 92~04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 6 of 27
C. DISCUSSIOII 01' BllVIROIlMBIITAL BVALUATIOII um MITIGATIOII HBASURBS
3. .ater ae.ource.
a. If new development occurs on tl).e site, new impermeable
surfaces, such as driveways, sidewalks and building pads will
be constructed. As a result, absorption rates will be
decreased, thereby increasing the amount of surface runoff and
potentially altering drainage patterns.
MITIGATIOII: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department shall
determine that the approved grading plan can adequately
mitigate potential hydrologic impacts and ensure that all
drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved
public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage
facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction
of the city Engineer.
c, d.
4.
Impermeable surfaces, such as asphalt or concrete, collect
solid exhaust particulates and other air emission solids, as
well as engine fluids, residue from automobile tires and other
chemical pollutants. During periods of rain, surface
pollutants are washed into the waterways. Over time, such
pollutants can change the quality of ground waters. The
quantity of ground water can also be affected because
impermeable surfaces change water absorption rates. While the
individual impact of this project is sufficiently small as to
not have a perceptible effect on the quality and quantity of
the ground water supplies and no mitigation measures are
required on the applicant's part, evidence that the cumulative
effect of development has had a significant impact on ground
water supplies warrants the adoption of a regional groundwater
preservation pOlicy.
BiOlogical ae.ource.
d. There are currently 114 standing, mature trees located on the
Phase I portion of the project site, including 22 street
(parkway) trees. Development of the site as proposed will
require the removal of several 'trees from their present
locations.
"
A California Certified Arborist report was prepared on May 4,
1992 by Mark D. Cobb (I.S.A. Certificate No. 453) to evaluate
the arboricul tural resources present on the Phase I portion of
the subject property. The trees were identified and cataloqued
in the report and plotted on both a topographic map and a
proposed site plan. The report and maps are all on file with
the Planning Division.
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 7 of 27
All'22 of the street trees have been deemed healthy; however,
four are located in the two proposed drive entry locations and
may not be transplantable. Eight of the interior trees (one
Chinese elm, three eucalyptus one golden rain, one ash and two
Italian cypress) have been determined to be viable, but
because of their size and age, they are not likely to
withstand relocation if they cannot be retained in place.
sixteen palms (including a street tree) and three crape myrtle
are recommended for relocation if they cannot be preserved in
place. The remaining 65 trees have been recommended for
removal due to various health and structural hazards: this
does not necessarily mean, however, that their removal does
not require mitigation
XrTrGATrON:
1. The findings and recommendations shall be reviewed by
Planning and Parks and Recreation staffs. Additionally,
the trees on site shall be physically inspected by Parks
and Recreation staff.
Based upon these analyses, Conditions of Approval shall
be developed which will indicate the relocation ratios
and sizes necessary to mitigate the removal of trees from
the subject prop~rty. Parks and Recreation staff shall
also assist the Planning Division by determining which
trees can be accepted for relocation to City parks if the
applicant does not elect to relocate those trees on site.
2. Prior to, or concurrently with, the submittal of a Tree
Removal Permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of
a tree conservation/relocation plan to the Planning
Division. The conservation/relocation plan shall identify
the trees that will be retained in place, transplanted or
replaced. No tree shall be removed prior to the issuance
of a Tree Removal Permit by the Department of Planning
and Building Services.
3. Landscape plans shall indicate which trees are existing
and are being retained in place and which trees are on-
site relocations.
4. A new arborist report for Phase II of the project shalL
be submitted with the Phase II CUP/Tentative Tract
applications.
5. .oi..
a. A Greyhound bus terminal is located at the northeast corner of
6th and "G" Streets. Although the General Plan has identified
o
;:)
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 8 of 27
existing and future average noise levels in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property to not exceed 60 Db, the bus
terminal may generate of exterior noise levels in excess of 65
Db and interior noise levels in excess of 45% onto the area of
the Phase II units near the southwest corner of 6th and "G"
streets.
MXTXGATXOBa The glazing on the front and side elevations of
the new development fronting 6th and/or "G" streets within 150
feet of the 6th/"G" curb return shall have a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) Rating of at least 20. Alternatively,
the applicant may submit a localized acoustical study with the
Phase II CUP/Tentative Tract applications to determine
appropriate sound attenuation measures.
8. Rousing
b. Development of the project will result in the eventual
displacement of the residents of approximately 144 housing
units.
Pursuant to California Relocation Law (Chapter 828 et al), a
relocation plan has been prepared to assist the tenants
displaced by this project. The City of San Bernardino Economic
Development Agency (ECA) is responsible for overseeing that
the relocation plan complies with all applicable laws in both
form and content and is responsible for overseeing compliance
with the relocation plan: this is due, at least in part, to
the fact that the EDA is assisting this project with 1.8
million dollars in setaside funds.
MXTXGATXOBa The EDA is legally bound to monitor compliance if
setaside funds are to be used in assisting this project.
12. A..th.tics
b. Aesthetic concerns are related to the compatibility of the
architecture of the new construction with the vernacular of
the surrounding area. This potential impact is discussed in
detail in section 13b (CUltural Resources) of this Initial
study.
13. CUltural a.sourc.s
Development of the project will result in the removal of
approximately 47 structures, consisting of a church, 26 primary
residential structures and approximately 20 secondary residential
and accessory structures. General references to the church and
primary residential structures, ,on the subject property are
hereafter referred to as "primary structures" : the secondary
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 9 of 27
residential and accessory structures on the subject property are
hereafter referred to as "dependencies."
A citywide historic resource reconnaissance survey report was
prepared in 1991 by Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, AlA, Inc.
The report provides estimated dates of construction, ranging
between 1900 and 1934, for 26 of the primary structures. Four of
those structures, among 140 citywide, are considered to "exhibit
exemplary or unique architectural styles or historic themes
(Donaldson, VolUllle 1, p. 5) II and were individually recorded on
modified state of California Department of Parks and Recreation
Historic Resource Inventory (DPR 523) Forms. Because the state of
California uses the same criteria for significance as the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) , the four structures recorded on
DPR 523 forms may also qualify for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places-(ibid, p. 10).
Donaldson (Vol. 1, p. 20) also designated areas in the City as
potential historic overlay zones. The subject property is centrally
located within what has been termed the "Historic San Bernardino
overlay Zone," which contains the "highest concentration of the
City's oldest potential historic homes," as well as the longest
continuous habitation in the city, including aboriginal and various
concentrated ethnic occupations.
Because of the various historic and prehistoric events associated
with the area, the subject property is considered to be located
within an area of archaeological sensitivity, the City's Urban
Archaeological District, as identified in the Historical Element of
the City's General Plan (Section 3.0, Figure 8). Hence, the
potential exists for historical archaeological resources of 19th
century San Bernardino to be located below the surface of the
project site.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA section 21083.2, Appendix K of
CEQA, the Historical Element of the General Plan and City of San
Bernardino Ordinance No. MC-694 ("Interim Urgency Historic
Structure Demolition ordinance"), site-specific archaeological and
historic resource evaluation reports were prepared in order to
assess the impact that this project may have on the city's historic
and archaeological resources.
a. Archaeoloaical Investiaation
Archival research, oral history interviews and a preliminary
reconnaissance of the subject property was conducted as
presented in A CUltural Resources Investiaation for the
PrODosed EmDire Bav DeveloDment. Block 43. Citv of San
Bernardino. California by J.Stephen Alexandrowics et al,
o
o
CUP 92-04jTT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 10 of 27
The ,report presents an historic context of the study area from
1774 to the present, describing a summary of documented
historical occupations and development patterns in the region
(pp. 20-31).
Historic research indicates that the project area was platted
as Block 43 of the original 1853 survey of the township of San
Bernardino. According to Alexandrowics (p. 31), residential
and agricultural uses "characterized the Project Area during
the latter part of the 19th century (and) this residential
pattern of land use has continued through the present time."
Based on early "bird's eye view" drawings of the city and
early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, subsurface archaeological
resources that may be found on the site include house
foundations, privies', -wells and trash repositories. These
early maps and renderings document the existence of houses,
carriage barns, outbuildings and other dependencies at least
as far back as 1871.
In addition to the potential subsurface features already
mentioned, the church property at 631 North "G" Street has
been recorded as a pending archaeological site (site ID No.
P1074-51H) and appears to have the potential for possible
gravesites.
Privy sites are of particular scientific interest in that they
were often used as trash repositories, especiallY after their
primary function was discontinued as a result of the
introduction of municipal water and sewer systems.
Alexandrowics (p. 71) states:
" Trash or artifacts from the late 19th through
the early 20th century provide data not
contained within the written record about
socioeconomic patterns, ethnicity, patterns of
disposal, patterns of acquisition of goods,
and so forth, that are of critical importance
in reconstructing past lifeways. "
A preliminary analysis of persons who have occupied properties
within the project area was prepared using city directories
published between 1894 and 1934 (AleXandrowics, pp. 53-65).
The report documents historic occupations at, least as far back
as the late 1880s. Past occupants within the project area
include "a former City Treasurer, a surveyor for the County of
San Bernardino, medical doctors and surgeons, Santa Fe
Railroad executives, undertakers, store owners, building
contractors, teachers, students, a school board commissioner,
a miner and a nurseryman." The report indicates that further
Q
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 11 of 27
investigation "will undoubtedly expand this list of occupants
and their associated professions."
An oral interview with Miss Arda Haenszel, who resided in the
neighborhood of the subject property during the 1920s, was
conducted in April of 1992 (Alexandrowics, pp. 28-31, 65).
Haenszel, whose father was a physician for the Santa Fe
Emergency Hospital, shared recollections of the physical,
social and demographic transformations that occurred on the
subject property and the surrounding area during her years as
a resident of the area. She also assisted in identifying a
Santa Fe superintendent who occupied house at 630 North "F"
Street in the 1910s (p.571 the house was demolished in 1990).
Pursuant to CEQA, a determination must be made as to whether
or not a project may have a significant effect on an important
archaeological resource. One of CEQA's three definitions of an
important archaeological resource' is an archaeological
artifact, object or site that is highly. likely to yield
"information needed to answer important scientific research
questions and that there is demonstrable public interest in
that information."
The findings in Alexandrowics' report indicate that the site
does indeed have the potential to yield such information. The
subject property is identified as Block 43 of the original
Mormon survey of City of San Bernardino. Several occupants of
the subject property were associated with the Santa Fe
railroad, which was a major early factor in the settlement and
urbanization of San Bernardino. Several structures were
located on the property over 100 years ago. The presence of
subsurface resources is unknown at the present time, but the
approximate location of several privies can be determined from
the available archival data.
Based on the archival research, the report identifies 33
potential cultural resource sites with occupations ranging
from the late 19th through the mid 20th century (pp. 72-74) ..
components of these resources include extant architecture,
landscape architecture and potential subsurface features.
The criteria for significance was based on National Register
of Historic Preservation (36 CFR 60.4) and CEQA (Appendix X)
standards. However, based on the applicant's disclosure of
funding sources, the project is not subject National Historic
Preservation Act (Section 106) or NEPA review. still, if
cultural resources are eligible under NRHP standards, it is
highly probable that they are significant under Appendix K of
CEQA. Page 80 of the report'states:
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Paqe 12 of 27
n .. .many of these 33 cultural resource sites
appear eliqible for the National Reqister of
Historic Places under criteria A, B, C, and/or
D (36 CFR 60.4) and are siqnificant or
important per the criteria for Appendix K of
CEQA, as well as the City's criteria. "
The recommendations of the report include the followinq
mitiqation measures (pp 81-82):
1. Documentation of all pre-1947 architectural and landscape
cul tural resources pursuant to the Historic American
Buildinq survey (HABS) standards.
2. Sub-surface testinq of all 33 potential archaeoloqical
sites prior to the initiation of construction in order to
evaluate any resources that may be preserved within the
project area.
3. Moni torinq durinq qradinq in 1 ieu of pre-development
testinq is discouraqed, as qradinq may "contribute to the
loss of inteqrity of the cultural resources." Also,
haltinq construction to retrieve cultural resources,
after a crew has been hired and on the field, could
"severely impact the financial resources and schedule" of
the developer.
XXTXGATXON: The developer shall submit a Mitiqation
Monitorinq/Reportinq Proqram (MMRP) to the city Planninq
Division prior to the approval of CUP 92-04/TT 15451. The
report shall provide a checklist to be used in trackinq the
mitiqationmonitorinq and reportinq activities. The report and
checklist shall describe each mitiqation measure, monitorinq
and reportinq action. The checklist shall be desiqned to
record the responsible aqencies, dates of completion,
inspectors or other certifyinq persons and the person
recordinq the information.
The MMRP and checklist shall include the followinq mitiqation
measures and monitorinq actions:
1. Prior to the implementation of qradinq permits or
buildinq permits for new construction, sub-surfaCE
testinq shall be conducted by a Society of Professional
Archaeoloqists (SOPA) certified archaeoloqist. The
initial methodology and objectives of, the excavation
shall be clearly defined in the MMRP in the form of an
excavation plan.
a. The excavation plan shall be sufficiently precise
- -
0 0
CUP 92-04/'1"1' 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 13 of 27
to identify locations of the sites to be
investigated.
b. If any of the 33 sites identified in the cultural
resource investigation refer strictly to extant
architectural resources and not to potential
subsurface resources, those sites shall not be
included in the excavation plan.
c. The timing and structure of the excavation plan, as
well as the MMRP in general, shall be phased in
accordance with the phasing plan for the project.
The issuance of permits shall be subject to the condition
that sub-surface testing has been completed prior to the
commencement of grading, construction and related on-site
activities.
2. For any potential sites that are located below
structures, the consulting archaeologist shall be present
during and/or immediately following the removal of the
structures while the underlying components of the
foundation are intact and the soil is relatively
undisturbed.
3. Following the sub-surface investigation of a site or
sites, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a letter
to the Planning Division verifying that the field
investigation of the site or sites is complete. After
confirmation that all sites have been adequately
investigated, building and grading permits may be issued.
4. If archaeological artifacts are encountered during
grading activities, work shall immediately be halted and
the consulting archaeologist shall be summoned to the
site to assess the significance of the find. If the
consulting archaeologist is unavailable, the construction
supervisor shall contact the San Bernardino County Museum
Archaeological Information Center. The construction crews
shall be educated as to these procedures and the phone
numbers of the consulting archaeologist and the
Archaeological Information Center shall be clearly posted
on the construction site.
5. If human remains are encountered, either during
archaeological investigation or grading and construction
activities, work shall immediately be halted and the San
Bernardino County Coroner's office shall be contacted.
Work shall not resume until clearance is given by the
Coroner's office and any other involved agencies.
-
-
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 14 of 27
The, MMRP shall be retained by the City in the Planning
Division project file for CUP 92-04/TT 15451. All city staff
members responsible for monitoring and enforcing the
mitigation measures shall be adequately informed of their
duties and responsibilities Drior to the initiation of their
duties.
As the various mitigation measures are fully implemented,
their completion shall be documented by appropriate notation
on the checklist provided specifically for this project. When
all of the mitigation measures have been confirmed as
completed on the checklist, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program shall be deemed complete.
b. Historic Architectural Resource Evaluation
All but one of the existing buildings are proposed to be
removed from the subject property to accommodate the
development of the proj ect. The structure currently located at
672 North "F" street is proposed to be relocated within the
subject property for reuse as a community center, but it will
be in a location of lesser prominence in that it will no
longer have direct street frontage.
Evaluating the impact of the loss of these buildings on the
property cannot be limited to the architectural or historical
merits of the individual structures, but must be extended to
an analysis of the contribution of these structures to the
historical context of the neighborhood and the OVerlay
district. The level of significance of the impacts resulting
from the loss of these structures is largely based on their
overall context within the neighborhood. Also, the project
itself must be evaluated with respect to the effect that it
will have on the historic fabric of its surroundings.
This Initial study examines the consequences that may occur as
a result of ~ project. The various socioeconomic factors
that are conspiring toward the deterioration of the human
environment in the overlay are not considered in the
evaluation for significance because they exist in absence of
the project and will not be further worsened through the
development of the project.
An historic resource evaluation report was prepared in April
of 1992 by D.G. King Associates Planners entitled Historic San
Bernardino OVerlay Zone Reconnaissance Survey: Pro;ect
Analvsis for CUP No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451. In
the report, King presents an urban design analysis and
historical analysis of the overall neighborhood in which the
subject property is located, and discusses the relationship
-
-
-
-
o
r)
, '
..
CUP 92-04jTT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 15 of 27
and' contribution that the built environment of the subject
property to the neighborhood in order to evaluate the level of
impact that the loss of the existing built environment will
have on the neighborhood and the OVerlay zone in general. King
then evaluates the individual architectural and historical
merits of each primary structure to determine importance of
each building as an historic resource.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
Criteria used to evaluate the neighborhood include streets cape
features, the overall level of architectural integrity
retained in the older structures and the architectural
compatibility of newer structures and developments
Many buildings in the area are "notable in their period
design"; some of which are well maintained, while others have
neighborhood "landmark" potential if restored.
Notwithstanding the current state of the human environment,
the built environment of the area contains notable identifying
and unifying features. A number of historical period buildings
with a strong sense of individual architectural character and
intact architectural details are located on the blocks between
6th Street, 9th Street, "F" Street and the I-215 freeway. The
major unifying urban design relationship between these
buildings is their street frontage relationship, which
includes front porches, garages in the rear and consistency in
setbacks.
There is no specific architectural style that defines the
neighborhood. Rather, there is a eclectic mix that is
described by King (p. 21) as "healthy" and "desirable." King
also notes that "new construction which emulates the key
design features will not destroy nor significantly depreciate
the value of a historic character neighborhood."
Elements that detract from the historic and architectural
character of the neighborhood include the large number of
vacant lots, which act as "missing teeth" that break the
rhythm and unity of the streetscape, and new developments
whose architecture and site planning are totally insensitive
to the design and scale of the older structures that helped
establish the physical character of the area.
RELATIONSHIP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORHOOD
The design elements of the subject property that help
establish and support the visual and historic character of the
neighborhood are described by King (p. 64) as follows:
o
8
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
paqe 16 of 27
" The project site currently exists as a key
component within the overlay Zone since it
contains a siqnificant quantity of period
style buildinqs, and is centrally located
within this portion of the Overlay Zone. The
buildinqs within the project site currently
form a linkaqe, from a historical point of
view, with the period buildinqs found on the
adjacent blocks (South, East, and West). The
major urban desiqn component created by the
period buildinqs on the project site is the
street frontaqe relationships with the period
buildinqs on the adj acent blocks. This
relationship exists on the East (F street) and
on the West (G Street) and less so on the
South (6th Street). No street frontaqe
relationship of a historical character exists
with the adjacent block to the North. "
PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
As discussed, there are two defininq physical characteristics
to the neiqhborhood: 1) the number of older buildinqs that
help define the historical settinq of the neiqhborhood: and 2)
the eclectic mix of period architectural styles. Hence, the
impact to the neiqhborhood as a result of the removal of these
structures is twofold. The first impact is the potential loss
to the neiqhborhood of older buildinqs whose period of
construction and desiqn will contribute toward the further
reduction in the viability of the OVerlay. Second, is the loss
of concentration of period architectural styles on a block
that is vital to the continuity of the streetscape.
The primary impact to the OVerlay will result from the net
loss of historic period buildinqs in the neiqhborhood. This
impact will be correlated with the number of buildinqs
demolished and/or relocated out of the neiqhborhood to those
relocated to vacant lots (to replace "missinq teeth") in the
immediate area. If a siqnificant number of existinq buildinqs
are demolished or relocated outside of the OVerlay Zone, then
the net result will likely be a siqnificant impact on the
overall historical character and lonq term viability of the
Overlay. Alternatively, if a substantial number of tho'
buildinqs that currently add to the character of the area are
relocated within the neiqhborhood, the lonq term impact could
be to enhance the inteqrity of the neiqhborhood by increasinq
the concentration of the distinctive older homes within the
neiqhborhood. According to King (p. 65), "If the relocated
buildinqs remain in the ,immediate vicinity, occupyinq
currently vacant lots, then the relative impacts to
architectural character will be lessened considerably."
o
J
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 17 of 27
After the existing period style buildings are removed from the
subject property--even if all of the buildings are relocated
to nearby vacant lots--the visual character of the historic
vernacular architecture of the project site will change,
leaving "a significant void of period style buildings in the
center of the area which now contains the highest
concentration of them" (King, p. 72). The following analysis
is quoted from King (pp. 21, 72, 74, 75):
" In addition to relocating the buildings to nearby
lots, careful attention to the vernacular of the
neighborhood, and sensitivity to detail are needed
for a project of the scale proposed to co-exist
with the historic character of the neighborhood
without materially destroying that character.
" The preliminary plans presented by the applicant do
show a design sensitivity to the vernacular of the
neighborhood. In addition, retaining the single
family appearance and using a Victorian vernacular
will permit this proposed project a better chance
of fitting into the neighborhood character without
destroying it.
" The basic design of the townhouses proposed is
repeated for each of the buildings. This will
result in a certain "sameness" of overall
appearance which will be significantly different
than the variety of styles which exist bow. This
sameness in architectural design may be mitigated
to a limited extent through differences in color
treatment, setbacks, and landscaping. It is
possible that variation in exterior treatment could
also reduce the appearance of sameness in design.
The new buildings (as shown on the proposed plans)
will be sympathetic to "the vernacular character
adequate to successfully support the historic
character of the area. While the appearance will be
different, it will be consistent with the historic
theme of the OVerlay Zone, and will fit within the
urban design context of the Historical character of
the neighborhood...New construction which emulates
the key design features will not destroy nor
significantly depreciate the value of a historic
character neighborhood. "
The incorporation of siting, massing and design elements that
are compatible with the existing scale and character of the
area should be required for any new development in the area.
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14; 1992
Page 18 of 27
REMOVAL OR LOSS OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
INDIVIDUAL HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
Of the 27 primary structures on the subject property 21 are
earmarked for relocation and the remaining 6 are proposed for
demolition. Four of those structures proposed for relocation
or demolition have previously been identified by Donaldson--
and recognized by the historic Preservation Task Force--as
exhibiting a high potential for identification as significant
resources. Three of the approximately 20 secondary structures-
-cottages located behind 638 West 6th Street--are proposed for
relocation; the remainder are slated for demolition.
An analysis of the individual merits of these structures
follows, which will be used to determine their significance as
historic resources, and then to recommend alternative or
mitigation measures, if necessary, to assure that the
resultant impacts are not significant. The criteria for
importance or significance are based on those found in
Appendix K of CEQA for "important archaeological resources" as
they most closely reflect to the evaluation criteria for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4).
The four structures that are known to be potentially
significant are examined first. Then, the remaining 23 primary
structures are evaluated for significance as well as their
contribution to the vernacular of the neighborhood. Finally,
the dependencies are categorically discussed.
King limited his research for historic associations to City
records, which contain no information of that nature. However,
since Alexandrowics' report, which examined several other
sources of archival information, revealed no events or
individuals of recognized significance in California or
American History, it is presumed that no such historical
associations exist.
As of the preparation of this Initial Study, the ultimate
determination as to whether a demolition permit may be granted
for any of the buildings on the subject property shall be made
by the Historic Preservation Task'Force.
structure. Identified on MOdified CPR 523 porm.
1. 602 West 6th Street
This 26-unit, two-story Mediterranean style apartment
build~ng, constructed circa 1926, is proposed for demolition
by the applicant. This building is described by King (p. 74)
as "notable and of interest due to its scale, architectural
o
::)
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 19 of 27
style, detailing, and difference from the adjacent buildings.
From a community design perspective this building stands out
because it is large and different, and because it is of a
historically recognizable vernacular design (Mediterranean)."
However, it was also determined by King (p. 66) that this
building possesses no special or unique qualities that warrant
its preservation:
This building does not possess any special architectural
or design quality which sets it apart as the best of its
type;
It is not the oldest, the largest or the last survivor of
the Mediterranean style in the area;
No specific individual details on this building were
identified as special or unique to the extent deserving
of preservation.
Although the building may be structurally sound and movable,
it is in a severe state of disrepair. A preliminary
rehabilitation feasibility analysis was prepared by the
applicant (King, pp. 66-67), which determined that the
rehabilitation costs would well exceed the market value of the
structure. Thus, King (p. 67) concludes that "it is not now.
feasible to for the private sector to rehabilitate this
building."
Nevertheless, because of its physical prominence and
contribution to the vernacular and historical character of the
area, its loss should be mitigated through new construction
that will also support the neighborhood character in a similar
fashion. Although the proposed architectural style of the new
construction is different (Victorian), proper attention to
detail, scale and massing could successfully emulate the
prominence of its predecessor.
2. 672 North "F" street
The estimated date of construction for this house, a Queen
Anne, is 1907 (Donaldson Vol. 2 II, p. 2; King p. 75). King
considers the building to be a significant example of the
Queen Anne style because of its design quality and scale, and
has determined that "there are architectural details apparent
on this building which merits (sic) preservation of this
building. " '
o
-
.....)
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992 '
Page 20 of 27
Based on King's evaluation, the building appears to meet
several of the criteria for Determination of Historical
Siqnificance as defined in San Bernardino Municipal Code
Section 15.37.070 (Ord. MC-694), and therefore should not be
demolished.
The applicant proposes to relocate the building to an interior
portion of the subject property and rehabilitate it for
adaptive reuse as a community center. The proposed location
will be of lesser prominence than its present site in that it
will no longer front directly onto the street. But it will be
directly visible from the project entry at 7th street, and
will likely add an element of elegance to the project as
viewed from the street.
3. 696 North "F" street
The estimated date of construction for this
Foursquare/Classical Revival house is 1918 (ibid). King
considers the building' to be significant because of its
architectural style, location and scale.
Based on King's evaluation, the building appears to meet
several of the criteria for Determination of Historical
significance as defined in San Bernardino Municipal Code
section 15.37.070 (Ord. MC-694), and therefore should not be
demoliShed.
The applicant proposes to relocate the building to an
unspecified location off site. Because of its importance in
adding to the character of the neighborhood, King recommends
relocation of this building within the overlay Zone.
4. 631 North "G" street
The cornerstone of this Gothic Revival church reads: "First
Evangelical Lutheran Church - 1909." This building has already
been identified in the General Plan (P. 3-15) as a potentially
significant historic structure.
King's determination (p. 80) is that "this building supports
the historic character of the neighborhood," and while it is
not critical that the church be preserved in place, it "should
remain within the overlay Zone" and should be sited "west of
F street in order to support the historical residential
character of the community." This building is 'integral to the
fabric of the local neighborhood. Because of its cultural and
architectural significance, apparent structural soundness and
relocatability, the demolition of this building appears wholly
unwarranted.
o
:)
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 21 of 27
The lack of off-street parking to serve a commuter
congregation suggests that this building has strong
neighborhood ties. Due to its setting and local nature, both
King (p. 80) and Alexandrowics (p. 43) advise that gravesites
may be located on site. The property is already listed by the
Archaeological Information Center as a pending archaeological
site (PI074-51H). This site must be investigated thoroughly
prior to any construction related earthwork.
Primary structure. Not Listed OD Modified DPR 523 Forms
1. structures Proposed for Relocation
ADDRESS STYLE YEAR BUILT
(estimated)
1 638 West 6th street craftsman/Classical 1908
Revival
2 640 West 6th street California Bungalow 1910
3 652 West 6th street Foursquare/Classical 1907
Revival
4 660 West 6th street Craftsman 1907
5 668 West 6th street Neoclassic cottage 1907
6 676 West 6th street Craftsman 1907
7 621 North "G" street Mission Revival 1925
8 623 North "G" street Mission Revival 1925
9 625 North "G" street Mission Revival 1925
10 639 North IIG" street Neoclassic cottage/ 1925
California Bungalow
11 645 North "G" street California Bungalow 1921
12 671 North "G" street California Bungalow 1921
13 639 West 7th street Neoclassic cottage/ 1925
California Bungalow
14 629 West 7th street Neoclassic cottage 1910
15 625 West 7th street Neoclassic cottage 1910
16 623 West 7th street California Bungalow 1910
17 690 North "F" street Queen ,Anne 1910
18 640 North "F" street Neoclassic cottage 1910
o
""
J
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992 .
page 22 of 27
All of the above structures, except 668 West 6th street and
645 North "G" street are considered to support the character
of the neighborhood (King, pp. 23-24). To the extent possible,
relocation of the structures that currently support the
neighborhood should occur within the neighborhood. The Mission
Revival cottages at 621, 623 and 625 North "G" comprise a
"bungaloW court" and should be relocated as a group.
2. structures proposed for Demolition
ADDRESS STYLE YEAR BUILT
(e.timated)
1 688-94 West 6th street Neoclassic Cottage 1910
2 696-98 West 6th street Neoclassic cottage 1910
3 671 North "G" street undetermined 19211
(Rear structure)
4 627 West 7th street Neoclassic Cottage 1934
5 654 North "F" street "vernacular" 1900
Findings:
1.
The building to the rear of 671 North
damaged and there are no viable
remaining.
2. The remaining structures have been so severely altered that
they have lost most of their architectural integrity.
"F" street has been fire
architectural elements
3. While the reuse of these structures is conceivable, no party
contacted thus far (Project Home Run, National orange Show)
have thus far expressed no interest in these buildings.
4. These buildings no longer support nor enhance the character of
the neighborhood. '
Secondary ae.idence., Detached Garage., and other Dependencie.
The applicant proposes to demolish all 20 or so of these"
structures, except for three of the cottages located to the
rear of 638 West 6th street which the applicant proposes to
relocate. King'S (pp. 67-71) analysis of these structures
concluded that there is architectural or historic importance
associated with them, and that some of these structures
actually "negatively affect the historical character of the
neighborhood." King's report does, however, recommend the
o
:)
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
paqe 23 of 27
photographic documentation of these structures, toqether with
all others on the subject property, prior to removal or
demolition.
KITIGATIOII: The MMRP as described in section 13a of this
Initial Study shall include the followinq mitigation measures
and mitigation monitoring/reporting activities to ensure that
the potential impacts associated with the removal of
potentially historic architectural resources are mitiqated to
a level of nonsignificance:
1. Prior to the relocation or demolition of ~ structure,
a complete photo recordation of all structures shall be
conducted in general accordance with the Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) guidelines. Four
complete sets of the recordation shall be submitted to
the Department of Planning and Building Services. The
four sets of photo recordation shall be distributed and
maintained by the following entities: 1) the Department
of planning and Building Services; 2) the Feldheym
Library; 3) the City's Historical and pioneer Society;
and 4) the State Office of Historic Preservation. This
photo recordation shall be completed and submitted prior
to the qrantinq of demolition permits, building permits
or qradinq permits. '
If2YI Photo recordation of this nature is a hiqhly
specialIzed field of Historic Preservation and such an
undertakinq requires the advice and assistance of a
qualified consultant.
2. Prior to the demolition of the structure at 602 West 6th
Street, a complete floor plan of the building shall be
prepared. Four blueline sets and one 8 1/2" x 11" reduced
set of the floor plan shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Building Services.
3. Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, building
permits or qradinq permits, a reevaluation of the
buildings at 640 and 660 West 6th Street shall be
conducted to determine whether the existence of these
structures predates the 20th century. Said determination
shall be submitted in writinq to the Department of
Planninq and Building Services.
4. Prior to the demolition of any building, the applicant
shall make a good faith effort to donate or sell any
buildinq slated for demolition, includinq 602 West 6th
Street, to any party who would relocate these buildinqs.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant
o
:J
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14~ 1992
Page 24 of 27
shall submit written statement documenting the efforts to
secure a recipient for the affected building. Said
statement shall indicate the entities contacted, who was
contacted, how and when the contact was made, why the
specific building is not to be relocated and shall
contain language confirming the accuracy and truthfulness
of the documentation under penalty of perjury and shall
be notarized.
As an alternative measure for buildings that may not be
suitable for relocation, the applicant may submit a
letter, or letters, to the Director of Planning and
Building Services requesting to exempt certain buildings
from this requirement. If the Director or designee
concurs that a certain building may not be suitable for
relocation, then that building may be demolished without
the requirement that the applicant attempt to relocate
that building. The authority of the Director or designee
to authorize the demolition of a building is contingent
upon the approval of the Historic Preservation Task Force
(or other body charged with similar powers) that a
demolition permit may be granted.
5. If the temporary storage of relocated buildings is deemed
necessary to forestall demolition or prior to final site
location, appropriate temporary use permits shall b..
secured through the Planning and Building Services
Department.
6. Prior to the commencement of destructive demolition of
any structure, the applicant shall salvage, adaptively
reuse and/or donate (or sell) the architectural materials
and features of the affected buildings that are of a
period or of historic interest. The interim storage of
architectural features is the responsibility of the
applicant.
1l2H: As with photo recordation, this activity is a
highly specialized field of Historic Preservation and
such an undertaking requires the advice and assistance of
a qualified consultant.
7. The Foursquare/Classical Revival building at 696 North
"F" Street has been determined to be a major contributing
element to the future viability of the Historic San
Bernardino Overlay Zone. The demolition ,of this building
shall be avoided. Every reasonable attempt to relocate
this building to a suitable vacant site within the area
bounded by 6th Street, "F" Street, 9th Street and
Interstate 215 shall be documented and submitted to the
o
:J
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 25 of 27
Planning and Building Services Department prior to the
consideration of locations outside of these boundaries.
The City has the discretion to require the on-site
preservation and rehabilitation of this building if no
reasonable relocation alternative can be found in the
immediate future unless a structural engineering analysis
determines that this building cannot be moved.
8. The Gothic Revival church at 631 North "G" Street has
been identified by the General Plan and other sources as
a potentially significant Historic Resource. The
demolition of this building shall be avoided. Every
reasonable attempt shall be made to relocate this
building to a suitable vacant site within the area
bounded by 6th Street, "F" Street, 9th Street and
Interstate 215.
The applicant shall exhaust every reasonable source to
preserve this building in such a manner that it continues
to support the historical environment of its
neighborhood. The City and Economic Development Agency
should assist in every reasonable way to preserve this
building.
If necessary to make the preservation of this building a
more attractive economic venture, an application shall be
prepared for listing of this structure in the National
Register of Historic Places, which would potentially
allow for the use of Preservation tax credits.
9. To the extent possible, relocation of the structures that
currently support the neighborhood should occur within
the neighborhood. The applicant shall submit written
statements documenting the efforts to locate receiving
sites between Interstate 215 and both sides of 6th
Street, "F" Street and 9th Street. Said statements shall
indicate the entities contacted, who was contacted, how
and when the contact was made, why the specific building
is not to be relocated within these boundaries and shall
contain language confirming the accuracy and truthfulness
of the documentation under penalty of perjury and shall
be notarized. The City and Economic Development Agency
should assist in every reasonable way to relocate these"
buildings within these boundaries; the applicant shall
request such assistance.
The applicant has indicated that the National Orange Show
has expressed interest in accepting the primary
structures on 652 West 6th Street and 660 West 6th Street
to an architectural heritage park on the National Orange
o
,.......)
........,
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 26 of 27
Show grounds. These buildings support the character of
the neighborhood. Therefore the applicant shall submit
documented attempts to relocate these structures within
the neighborhood prior to their removal from the OVerlay
Zone.
10. As part of the attempts to locate recipients for the
buildings currently occupying the subject property, the
applicant shall advertise in the local edition of the ~
Bernardino Countv Sun newspaper for groups or individuals
who wish to acquire properties for relocation. As with
all other contacts, priority shall be granted to
potential recipients who intend to relocate the buildings
within the neighborhood of the subject property.
c. Landscace Architecture
Several references are made in Alexandrowics' report pursuant
to the potential historic significance of the subject
property's landscape architecture.
CEQA affords local agencies a certain amount of flexibility in
the determination of their local historic resources. The City
of San Bernardino has not formally recognized landscape
architecture as a potential historic resource. Hence, a formal
evaluation of the cultural significance of the subject
property's landscape architecture cannot be warranted at this
time.
However, the City does recognize the mature trees on site as
bioloaical resources, and the associated impacts and
mitigation measures are addressed in Section 4d of this
Initial Study.
It should be noted that the most obvious potentially historic
arboricultural resources on the project site are the street
trees. With the exception of those which are diseased,
severely damaged or interfere with the two proposed driveway
locations, the street trees shall be retained in place.
Also, the trees on the subject property (Phase I thus far)
have been plotted on a base map and are identified by species,
trunk diameter, Height and crown width. This will at least
provide a "rough sketch" if the City eventually does recognize"
landscape architecture to be a cultural resource in the Urban
ArChaeological District. It is therefore suggested that the
arborist report be submitted to the San Bernardino County
Museum Archaeological Information Center as an attachment to
the cultural resource evaluation report for the subject
property.
o
~
v
,.
.....
D. DETERMINA nON
On the basis of this in~ial study.
o The proposed project COULD NOT have a sign~icant affect on tha environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
[2g The p~posed project could have a sign~,icant effect on the environment. atthough there will not be a sign~jcant
effect In thIS case because the mdogallCln measures descnbad above have been added to the project, A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o The proposed project MAY have a sign~icant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Sandra Paulsen, Acting Chairman
Name and Titla
c::;;; ~ d
Sigrlaltlre
0;;:
I. ,
\.''1 L, &"../ I-t
Date: May 14, 1992
cnvCl".~
CI-..--.c.-..czs
P........... PAGEU OF 2.1. '''-10)
o
-
-
APPENDJ:X
VJ:CJ:NJ:TY HAPS
UTE PLAN
'--I
r.......,
-
-
-
o
----)
, ""
*
I '"
Gi / ".
,,:~:~V'<' ~ILS
U'" GRIQ "..0 IMI MAGNl'" MOlt'"
OICl.....'I(JN AT aNTtIl 01 SHUT
\
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
CALIFORNIA (SOUTH HALF)
Scale 1:500,000
1 inch eQulls .!)pro.lm.t.ly 8 mil.s
10 0
-----
:0
20
]0 Milts
;
10
-----
o
10
20
30
<0
50 KI!ometers
Figure 1. Project Vicinity (U.S.G.S. 1981).
--
-
-
o
(-
, I
......
7 · ~;:r.r~~:~ &, ~Y ~,:~' 'r, ; ,:; ";="
~,~ u.., ;.. ~
. " 1'-.,) :: . ~"r-' ;r<"H ,; 'I~J.: -~;'.
/ I"'" -:- :)! ~.' "
,....,
~ /. BASE .'N€..r.!a ':::::JLd!Y I ~~
_, i.-<<';,~ ~ /,:'---8~ .. ~~ ''''H~~lm Jl '~,i '~
, .A ,t.?l.~' /,_,' J. I.. ' ;r ..
'L .. '/ ",,...-,. r- .' ~:
. 7:;" . I, ..,' ':,4 , ' -; - , . ~ ~e I . /.li ! .....~
/: . I/~!~St E~' to;~ ~'H .:~ I~ . ...... :,~ ~::l j :'Ar~
,.-; --.Ii "''-''1\ ""
. 1 c... I ~ / 1" "'..I' 1/1",'" ._ , II" LL .',..... ~
Iwl!ll /0_" I 1/ 804 ",.. '-PROJ~C..T.AR~,A"','" ~' po-- ';::"'.;~ _- ~.l!!J
.Y', ~" . ~-';:I""- , a ,. V./J I. ....-:. ,~" ...
'::l '/ '..r ,I I VA I W -.,r- ~,'~: ~
_ ~ 0'
r}:. /~n ~:I~I lo~tlj~~SI..fl-' J,,:l:l:'~~ "~,' "L..
-,100!,.' Co:; ::!!'.;=:..~ _~ J:"~~: I 'r.
I .)"~i ~ ,..-..;..,Y:-....- .,O.n.n..1L, ,I~~! ;;:~l~''''~
i!!-': -Ni':~": ._-,'IV~ .".,,'~"'" ~ "h.u",'. ' ~" "
. J "'?. -~i.~ ,~. .
I =-~ ,-_'/':" ":" ' .. ....H.II. .:~ 9'., ....','
.. - .... II - CO '-:A,. .~~.. .D -n,l .'."~:!~J ~f':' 'II .. I
.. ~ ~".-., ~ '" -~ ',......,-~. ,fT" II /.' ,,-, ~ '
r; . ~i:"'--;' ...... ":- ~-:: _ .-.~ 4 '1::'" ' ~-:';~~._C~~i ---il. ~i (
l;lt ,1086 Y...uct '''1~; f \= r- 7-=V-~W- I l~V~ /.-;- :., "I.. 103l!~'
~! "= ) . ik~ , ~'~i;,ll ,A,'-, I _', - ,._J', i ~
;;~..' '. -.....' \ 'l.'/' v . J 'r ,-- "'" 10 r.. ~
~, . - I I 1 ~ .. ('" 'l~1 1 ,-~ ., '. : ';-.,. ............ I ; ~~ '
,", ~.- ~ 1\ ,. l~Ir~' . I';! ~ ".;\ .' iJ:,:
,~"""F!1PAlirU"'tiql;.,~~~ CD lr----:-.....~ ',~i("'" .' ~ .,. ':.~ h' ~I .}~;
...r .,;! I, "'_ "'i!.tlc.. h,~-4- ~ r-"la - 'i -" - ,< :::i ". I' _;0.0
~ '-.,- _ '," -, ':" )a. ~ '1_ ~ ~,.ik~: . ,~'\ ;..::...., ,"I' ' ',':
'-. 'I' _." '" "~ ~."
I I ',.t~,1 ~~~;. ",/'~1I!'" ';." I' n, 'r-'
I ' ~Ia I 'f:c;[[It.:~, ....-.t i ", -l!I';.._.....~:.."t.!r.. ,~~. h! ...i~:. ~: I ..
_.01 .'. ,_ ..:.! ....Il.. .. I .,a 1!,'~ ~1' : ~ 1-: .,PIN!"-- ~,.: - .of'
;s::
..--. _l
I.
~
"
*
ON
-,
j
C\
~
QUADRANGLE L.OCAflC~
SAN
BERNARDINO SOUTH, CALIF.
S!'4 SAf'I BERf'lARDlf'IO 15 QUADRANOLE
N3400-W1171517 5
';"ll'
l';lllS.
:.....
258 "'i:
UTM GRID -'ND 1_ MAGNfTlC NORrM
D(ClINAT'ON AT CENTER ." SHEET
1967
PHOTOREVlSEO 1980
OMA 2552 III SE-SERIES V895
SC~L:: I 24000
i
-~.
;"'tlt.
1000 0
:0<'0
200C
rMJ
1000
'lIOO
60CXl
7tJQOrE!:T
- -
i
-
5
- --
1IOL()III(T[1lI
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
OOTTEO LINES REPRESENT 5.FOOT CONTOURS
NATIONAL GEODET~C .;E"TICAL CATUM OF 1929
Figure 2. Project Area Location (U.S,Q.S. 1980).
co
w
rz:
~
Cl
ii:
:=;:::1
.............-,........
"' ::::;::;;::::;:;:;:::--...-
:::;::::::::;:~;;:::
-1:::::::::.-
I""""".
::.=-..::..,.!,.....':,.~,;~:,:-.
-:::.:,:::::~~::::'::-
/t:;}i!;f\
m
w
1=
:>
1=
Ci5
z
w
m
...J
<
o
8
...J
o
W
~
o
rz:
<
rn
g
~
~~
~~
~~
l5 @
i i
0-
o
-I
-II
I
-II
-I
-01
~zl
~
o
;::::
~
01
&/
8/
~,
OJ
~I
$
I
1
I
i
ti
1= ~ >-
!a~g;
Q 8 ~
~ ...J ffi
8 0 (J
~!~i
i < l5 Q
i~rni
I~!~
::J :r ~ !
-
""'~
-..
c-
=c
0"
oCJ
8o~
~Ci
~E
~o
..-
al.5
ciij
"u
moo
o.s
....
e..
=.c:
~e
-<
..-.......-..-........
.'
.... ,~
1i1fmi;~~' -' t'
...; I " ~ I Ny 1111'.
I ~J;'-
,.r
.
I
I
,
,
IS'lIIl1q,lY
: !/
:,
~I
_I
".'-t;.
,
\
"
~~~.~..':;::<<.- -
~:... .. ..... '--'-"'! '--'
:,/ ..
'.
I
~7-
,;.
\".:-....rr.-
i~_.
,
"WIQU .L
1 \
"-:"
,-
I 1,._"'"
I,
I"'....'M
---,
,
~~tliJ
--- ffl :./
ttfl[fJitmm1!ff~l[fi!i~. ~-:-
(/:::::::::;}:;:;::;:::':';:;:;:;;:
''OJ;:'::::':;:;:.
I:::::;.
,.......
,
/
--.-..-.--
I
,
i
IS....S ..Ji i
" . I .....
.......-..:;~---.. '1'// i
..~ ':i 'V_"
~ I ...
__I ........... ~ 'fl'
-... ... -
: ................
'&;;"1~:~;L/ ....1
J~li'ji,:;~~~::.~~~........
.... ~..~
."-~
~--
i
I
!
... '1
t.:.:.;.
(',',.
~:;.
,
"j-lttiL
"
IS '....11
!!
Figure 3. Archaeological Sensitivity Map
----
--
Q.
~j
OVERLAY ZONES
The idlntified overlay zones described in Volume I, Section 5 in thl Survey Report are potlntial for local
designation as special zoning areas to the City of San Bernardino. The historic overlay zones contain
similar types of resources as historic districts. however. the continuity and integrity has been altered. In
this section, maps of the overlay zone boundaries and photographs of architectural styles are provided.
Tabular lists for resources located within the overlay zones are not provided in this section; reflr to the
tabular list in Volume 2. or use the computer database search command to find resources located in the
overlay zones. The properties identified as resources exhibiting potential for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places are indicated with a black dot on the area maps. The nine potential overlay
zones (5-13) identified in the City of San Bernardino are depicted in the following:
5. HISTORIC SAN BERNARDINO OVERLAY ZONE
A. MAP OF THE OVERLAY ZONE BOUNDARIES
SITE
Figure 4. Potential Historic Overlay Boundaries
..
o
:)
LJOD all~O L
WI STREET
J ~B ElG 88 B B 8 G!
~
] El 0 G
] 00 ~ ~
J . D e~
~ \llCANT l-
I- B' ~ [}!
""
] ~ D 0 VIe'
J D
~ DODD B
Q I~I
J \:l 0 ODD 1.1. .
a 11231 0 0 L "'_ACtS I
~DE1 Me
~m8BB881 ~I -
101(0
6I!l
STFlen
~
r:l ~~~r;] [:;l r;] r::ll
r.;c;;;;;
I co
Figure 5. The Project Area: Plot Plan of Existing Conditions
(Empire Bay Group 1991).
0-
..-,
'~
J+~_.I --
--"-1-7.
I
...
i
LJ "~'rw ,-. "" . .- L
I CI" I
-' ~~- _-I' _.1 .... . . 1'. .
I ,
-.- -t-
I
@
- ...
. @ e
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
,
'1 ~
C!l, ~
_.1 9. ~..,' \ @
'u @ '" 8 ~ r--,
.- ~. . .1."
I , e
~ 90"
I
,
QD , @)
CO2 J
<8 ;- @
; @ ,
,
, e
e I
,
e 3 I @2 a
e I @
.
e 6; ,
o~
e , @
1
..' .. .
:,
r
_+_1_...
f I (
~" ; (
~
I ~
~
I
I I
~..I_VK
I
.
i@
.
..,.
T
-0-
,I,
/.'i<?I
Figure 6. The Project Area as depicted on Block 43 of the
Assessors Map Book 134, Page 2 (1992).
Hlstortl: San &mat'dlno or1 rOM Ret:onMI_nCtl Survey
. P,ojel:t Analysis fo, CUP N~.llr'...4 and Tentative Tract No. 15451
C)
The Project' Site:
1
j
...
,
Weat 7th Street
-
CI)
CI)
-
-
(J)
<.:J
.c
-
-
o
2!:
..
,.J
t
;;
.
.
'0
(0)
J
I
,,I
~
Weat 6th Street
Project Defined The proposed project is a proposal to completely redevelop
the majority of the block bound by West 6th Street on the South, West 7th Street
on the North, North G Street on the West. and North F Street on the East. The
redevelopment proposed would entail the removal by demolition or relocation
most of the existing buildings.
The proposal includes relocating twenty four (24) buildings to sites not on this
block, relocating one (1) building into the interior of the project site for use as a
community building, and the demolition of eighteen (18) buildings.
Three of the buildings proposed for relocation (696 North F Street, 672 North F
Street and 631 North G Street) and one of the buildings proposed for demolition
(602 6th Street) are currently on the City's OPT forms, identifying them as
buildings of potential local architectural or historical importance.
Figure 7. Phasing Plan for the Pro~osed Project
0, G, King_ p-. 125< _ S""" '""""-~"71l
(7141821 1353
"
.~
i::
"
-
l
~
1::
o
Z
.
.
.:;-
T
o~
,......."
.-J
I
-II
II
i
~
~>.
l!l_
~ ~ ~
- Q E ~
~ !m ~
r--
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
i
~~I I
Ii! I
"I
r!
j!;
...
I
,
I
I
ij
,
I I
I
i
lJ
~
I-
rllZ
!II w
~
D-
9
w
..>
fw
~Cl
, ~
I CD
, w'
,
a::
-
a.
~
w
~ m ~ ~ ::i~ n ~ i~ .., _"'''I
~ 8Nmmoi....
UJ ~ $OS! <0. >S!ii:12
~ j!Z ~ f!?f!? !l!~~Qf/I! _ ,n.
IW:t ~~ ~~~!!!~ '
..~~!UJ~~ ~~~Ii; -,
iI! ~ ~ ~ ~ n _..~~~ ~~ Q) _,
~ ~ ! I""n<w~ ..w~ :
~ ... "'.... .... ~ (/)
~ i
133lUS ~ I h
..t&L.__
..
~
2
..
~
2
-',
;
Figure 8. Proposed Phase I Development of Proposed Project
o~ ,"-'
.
''''''''
I -II "
mf!li~' ~~g?g? ra ~f!!
; ~.~ N" ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~"__I '!' :
!l. O~ [1lN --"'. ~iffig ,..I ',! ,,'
:l "! , ~ ~ '" '" a!ll"" i '. ,~
m>o. ....2~~;; ~ll!~-~i: ;'~.i~'i
~ ~ < ~~ ~ ~ ~ '" U Ji~ii~lL -~:- J'~rt!
; E ~ ~ i I ~ J ~:iwhhn.CI) ~ " · t~ '
"iI j'll L H J! i. ..
Ihll 133lUS ~ I II
.~. , Il' ~. !It ~~ II
.'.'; II.~" ~~." .~;I
~11...Ll H · "l't.-H1=-, ,~HJ LII!I,U E
1M' @) , , .. ~ 'Ii :J
~ =.' II JI
I ~ I : .. ~ ~ .. (t ~.. ..J~8 !- (t II' ?-
IiI fr;'l:.1 i "":"Ill<) ~ e :] ~" ...
Ii~n ~_I . ' , If II ',,' J~ ~r;, :11 l'~~t ~ 1\ :
l....: ., . ~"
.. . ". .
Ill, ~ ., '"' ,~ ~ ' e: I ~ I
Iii. iI' ,,1!t.'II :""e ~
..... Hi. @l,.
e; , 1.... . I ~...l .1: I~~: g'" -:t]
, I. \I . -.1 ~.. ..,T
~: U;v~.~ .I~! ~:~
!' i ~r1~F. · .. ~ 11 ~1 ee~
III~ -.. --,," -- ~@l
~(I~. ..'~..1W.~~,~
~~~~ ,~
II
j5
..
j
Ii
I
l33lU.S 0
h
U
!
i
it
Figure 9. Proposed Project After Completion of Phase II
I
~
I-
~IZ
i~W
~
c..
9
w
..>
Iw
!Cl
~
CD
w
a:
-
c..
~
W
Attachment
IlF"
o
,......"
~
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 9204 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15451. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA
.Preparpd by
J, Stephen Alpxandrowicz, SOPA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
17852 Theodora Drive
Tustin, CA 92680-261J
Prepared for
EMPIRE 8AY
985 VIA SERANA
UPLAND, CA 91.786
AND
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICFS
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
.'
June 1.7, 1.992
1.
o
'")
'-01
INTRODUCTION
The Project Area is bounded by Ath Street (south), F Street (east),
7th Street (north), and G Street (west), in the Residential Medium
(RM), General Plan ,,,,nd use district as well as t.he Development. Code
Main Street Overlay, City of San Bernardino.
This MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM (i ,e" MMRP) has been"
prepared for use in monitoring and reporting mitigation measures
contained within Sections 13a and J3b regarding cultural resources
of the City's Initial StL'dy (Gubman 1992), The Mt1RP will be
implemented to tracking the mitigat.inn and reporting activities for
Conditional Use Pprmit. i~o, 92-04 and Tentative Tri'lct No, 154':>1, (CUP
92-04/TT 15451), if approved by the Cit.y of Si'ln Bernardino (i.e.,
the City). This program has been prepared in compliance with State
law t.o ensure the mit.igation measures adopted for this project are
implf~mented by the Empire Bay (i ,e." the Project PI'oponent) and
monitored by the City,
Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code, Section 21031.6),
effective January 1., 1989, requires adoption of a reporting or
moni t.oring program for those measures imposed on ,3 project to
rniUgat.e or avoid adver'se effects on t.he environment. The la_J
st.ates that. the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed
to ensure compliance during project implement.at.ion.
This document cont.ains t.he following sections:
1, The City's Mitigatioo Measures for Cultural Resources are
reiterated point by point;
2. Implement.at.ion Procedures for the mitigation measures are
described;
3. Responsible part.ies are identified for implementing and
reporting on the mitigation measures;
4. A Mitigation Measure Checklist (i..e, MM Checklist.) is provided
for tracki~g the progress of the mitigation MMRP. The MM
Checklist is designed t.o record the responsible agencies,
complet.ion dates, inspectors, or other certifying persons an~i
the person recording the information.
THE MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM:
SECTION 13. CULTURAL RESOURCES
~ub!?ect iO!L;!!-,--j:\_rch_;!!~Q19..9JJ;:_;!!,l....!.n~.!;'-~.t.ig~.t.!"Qn~
Mitigation Measure 1.
b:~escription: Prior t,o the implementation of grading permi t.s 01'
building permits for new construction, sub-surface testing shall be
2
o
:)
conducted by a Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA)
certified archaeologist" The initial methodology and objectives of
the excavation shall be clearly defined in the MMRP in the form of
an excavation plan.
a, The excavation plan shall be sufficiently precise to
identify locations of the sites to be investigated.
b. If any of the 3,'\ sit",s ideotified in the cult,ura1 resource
investigation refer ~trictly to extant architectural
,"esources A(id not, r.o pnr~ntial. subsurface rP'SQUrC8S,
those sites shall not be included in the excavation plan
c The timing and stnlcture of the e,~cav,at.ion plan, as we] I as
the MMRP in gener(;1, '3ha11 be phased in accordance wi th the
~)hasing ~]arl far the proj~ct.
The issuance of permits shall be subject to the condition that sub-
'surface testi,ng has been completed p,-i,or to the commencement of
grading, constrlJctic'ln and related on-site activities.
,'\ddendufll: A motion ~Jas l!n"nimou5Iy carried to recommend that the
Planning COlnrnis".ion ""Jopt ,,\ Mi ti'Jated Negative Declaration subject
to the following amendments to the Draft Initial Study:
1, Mitigation Measure i~c'" 1 of Section 1.303 shall be t'evi.sed to
allow t.h... provi.sione" i.ssuance nf building and grading permits
prior to the commencement nf the sub-surface archaeological
investigation of t.he subject prnpert.y (Gubman 1992).
JJ[tQJ~.r.!."',r1L;'lti.QD: A CuI tut'al Resources Tnve-ctigation and Excavation
Plan for Block 43, City of San Bernardino,
The first step in a cultural r'esour'ces investigation ie t.he
identification of cultural resources (i..e., historic properties),
Various levels of preliminary archival research, development of a
"Histori.c Cont8xt" and on-si t.e survey investigations were
accomplish8d in a report. ent.itled, A Cultural Resources
Investigation for the Proposed Empire Bay Development. Block 43,
City of San Bernardino, California, A.G.~_.._IJ;,G.!:l!"-IG.A.!'___~~!U_g,~____!,!Q,,_.~
(Alexandrowicz, Duffield-StOll, and Alexandrowicz 1992). At least
33 potential cultural resources sit.es were identified within the
Project Area.
Related Historic Preservation Prnredures will entail:
- Additional Archival Research will be performed to enhance the
Historic Context. presented in t.he report by Alexandrowicz et a~,'
1992
- {.ll, cult.ur,'11 resources sit.es, totalling approximately 33 sites,
will be recorded on Gepartment of Parks and Recreation
ArChaeological Sit.e Records (OPR 422 1986) Architectural sites.
including buildings, struct.ures; and/or objects will be recorded
on Hist.oric Resource Invent.ory Fnrms (DPR 523 1990) and where
~
,)
o
.'1
-'
applicable. appended to the DPR 422 forms. Recordation will
entail narrative text, site maps, and site photographs.
- Logistics or Scheduling: Recordation and archaeological test
excavations will be conducted on all parcels in the Phase I area
as well as on 3ny pi operties wi thin the Phase .II ar'e" that are
. l',-~""..........,... ~Ol..k\t...... ~h '-~
currently owned by the Project Proponent. 'Ihe proposed
archaeological investigations will be initiated at 602 West 6th
street and proceed westward along 6th Street. The parcels north
of 602 West 6th Street and fronting F Street will be the next
area documented, Phase T properties along G Street will be
investigated last. Sites located on parcels within the Phase II
alea and not o~lned by t.he Pr'oject Proponent will be archaeolog-
ically documented dt the appropr'iate time when Phase IT develop-
ment has been authorized by the City and the Project Proponent,
- A combination of metal ~etector surveys, auger holes, post holes,
sub-surFace shovp] test pits (STPs) and/or Excavat.ion Units (EUs)
will be employed to test for the presence/absence of sub-surface
artifacts and archaeological feat.ures such as building
foundations, privy pits, trash pits, wells, and so forth. STPs
will be either' 15ft '=,qu",re or 1.5 ft. dia,meter, depending on
existing sailor other conditions, EUs will be 2.5 ft. square.
St.ratigraphic excavation of the STPs and EUs will be accomplished
by hand tools (1,8" trowels, brushes. shovels, and so forth).
Documentat.ion of ",11 sites, cultural fe~tures, and associated
features (e.g., landscape features) will be accomplished via
narrat.ive descl--iption, scaled drawings, ,nd35 mm. photography.
- Areas to be investigated at. each site include t.he front yards,
side yards and back yards. Excavations will be conducted along a
surveyed grid, as well as int.uitive locat.ions based on hist.oric
research and previous experience. The back yards are especially
critical areas t.o examine for the presence of privies and trash
pits. These t.ypes of features usually contain trash that can
_,nswer important. research questions regal'ding social behavior
dur'ing the past.
- All data gained from the cultural resources surveys, sub-surface
t.esting, laboratory analysis and development of the historic
context will be analyzed, compiled, and interpreted with respect
to each sit.e. In turn, the multi-disciplinary dat.a will be used
to evaluate the individual site's p6tent.ial to answer research
questions and attendant eligibility per CEQA as an important and
significant rul tllral "esouree. .'
In the case where cultural resources demonstrate t.he pot.ential to
yield importarit. information that can answer research questions,
ACS will recommend Data Recovery Excavat.ions t.o mit.igate the loss
of that information before it is dest.royed rluring const.ruct,ion,
Data Recovery Excdvations may o"Ccltr immediat.e] y subsequent to the
archaeological test.ing and/or at. a later date, Nevertheless,
4
o
.r)
,,,..,i
parcels that contain cultural resources recommended for
Data Recovery Excavations may not be graded prior to professional
data recovery excavations.
In the event where t.he cuI t.ural '-esources are sufficiently
documented during t.he ident.ification and evaluation
investigations and do not contain the potential data to answer
important research questions, then the documentation conducted
during the archaeological t.esting investigations will be
adequate mitigation for thnse cultural resources.
- Interim Reports on the cult.ural resources investigat.ion will be
prepared for all of the parcels investigated within Phase I and
for those parcels owned hy the Project. Proponent within the Phase
II area. Int.et-im t'epor't~, '^'ill be forwarded to the City, the
Project Proponent, the Archaeological Information Cent.er-San
Bernardino County Museum, and t.he California Office of Historic
Preservation. Interim reports must be withheld from the Feldhym
Library and any other public institution where confidential site
lncation information may be disclosed to the general public.
- A Final Report will be prepared for all of the cultural resources
within the Project Area after completion of the documentation,
sub-surface testing, and if applicable, Data Recovery Excavation
investigatinns within both Phase I and Phase II areas, In the
event that Phase II is not developed, the Final Report will be
prepared for the Phase I (and any Phase II) cultural resources
investigations within one year of approval of this MMRP, The
final report will be forwarded to the City, the Project
Proponent, the Archaeological Information Center-San Bernardino
County Museum, the California Office of Historic Preservation,
the San Bernardino County Archives, and the Feldhym Library.
- Artifacts will be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum. It
is recommended that the City, the Project Proponent, and the San
Bernardino County Museum enter i.nto a Memorandum of Understandi ng
in order to permit the Project Proponent to establish displays at
the historic house that will serve as community center and
"museum" within the center of the Project Area. The Project
Proponent has expressed a sincere interest i.n promoting historic
preservation for the City of San Bernardino.
- All archaeological investigations will be conducted according to
Professional Standards and Guidelines established by Federal and
State regulations, as well as in accordance with the ethics a~~
standards of the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA).
5
o
r-,
'--
EL~.~29 ns i b I e-E..'!! t L~.?:
- City of San Bernardino;
- Daniel Fauchier, Project Proponent
- J, Stephen Alexandrowicz, Archaeological Consulting Service(ACS)
- Archaeological Information Center-San Bernardino County Museum
MtL.G.,h,~,G.,~,lj?t,
ACTIVITY
MON nOR FD
BY
REspnNSIBLE
PARTY
I'ATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CER.TIFTED
SIGNATURE
Archival
Reseat~ch
Sit.e(s)
Recordation
Phase I
Sub-surface
Tnvestigat.ion<s-
Phase II
Subsurface
Invest.igat.ions
Data Recovery
Recommendations
Dat.a Recovery
E.xcavations
l.aborilt.ory
Analysis
Int.erim Repor't.
Final Report.
Curation
Displays
Mitigation Measure 2.
Q,f.ls~if>.j;iQ.!}: For any pot.ential sites that are located below
structures, t.he consult.ing archaeologist shall 'be present during
and/or immediately fOllowing the removal of the structures while
t.he underlying component.s of the foundat.ion are int.act and the soil
is relat.ively undisturbed.
6
r
'-
, ...
Lmplementatio~: An archaeological monitor will be present during
and immediately after the removal of all extant structures where
cuI tural resources sites are anticipated to exist in order t.o
conduct. survey and sub-surface t.est excavations. Specific sites to
be monitored will be provided in a letter to the City prior to any
building relocation. Excavations methods are described above.
Results of the investigations will be included in interim and final
repDrts.
R~$.Pon.?ibJ,~._..Eg<.r.ti~?: ThA C i t.y of S,'ln Be rna rdi nD
Da.n Fauchier, t,he Project. PropDnent
J, Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
t'1Jj.(hec~Jj.st :
ACTIVITY
R,ECORDED
BY
RfSPONSIBI_E
PARTY
DATE
PI.ANN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
l.etter
Regarding
Sit.es
MonitDr
Si.t.es
I..,etter
FDllDwing
Necessary
Excavations
Mitigation Measure 3.
f?e.?c..!::5P-:tion: FollDwing the sub-surface investigation of a si t.e Dr
sites, the consulting archaeDlogist shall submit. a letter to the
Planning DivisiDn verifying that the field investigation of the
site Dt. sites is cDmplete. After con'firmatiDn t.hat ~te..? have
been adequately investigated bui Iding and grading permi ts m'ay be
issued. --
>
T.m..Qlem,eJJ.t.?t.Lo.D: J, S, Alexandrowicz, SOPA wi 11 be responsible fot.
overseeing the all cultural reSDurces inve~.tigation5 fDr this
prDject.. An Interim Report. will be prepared after completiDn Df
site recDI'datiDn and sub-surface archaeDlogical test. excavatiDns.
At that time a Letter Df Transmittal will be prepared fDr a1"1
RespDnsible Parties. Recommendations fDr Dat.a Recovery ExcavatiDns,
where applicable, will be contained within the Interim RepDrt.
Following any necessary D",ta Recovery ExcavatiDns, a Lett.er of
Transmittal will be forwarded by Mr. Alexandrowicz to the City and
the Project Proponent..
7
c
R!;'~ponsible P{!IUe_!2,: City of San Bernardino
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
titL,t;.,t>S!,cJ:<"li:;;,,t :
ACTIVITY
R,ECORDFD
BY
RtSPONSTBI.E
PARTY
DATE
Pl,ANN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Let.ter
Regarding
Sub-surface
Excavations
,~
IV
.,J Recommended
""
D<. ta Pecove r y
Excavations
"-
,
~
Dat.a Recovet'y
E~:cavations
.< /'~
1.~ I-i-' L-....v.l
l) -- Mi tigation
Measure 4.
[)e'?[L).pj;5,9,.Q: If archaeological arti fact", -"re encountered during
grading activities, work shall immediately be halted and the
consulting archaeologist shall be summoned to the site to assess
t.he significance of the find. If the consul ting ar'chaeologist is
unavailable, the construction supervisor shall contact t.he San
Bernardino County Museum Archaeological Information Center. The
const.ruct.ion crews shall be educ-"t.ed as to t.hese procedures and t.he
phone numbers of t.he consult.ing archaeologist and the
Archaeological Information Center shall be clearly posted on the
const,'uction site.
Lrnll.l..eD1.eo.li'!.ti9J): ACS shall have an archaeological moni tor on si te
during t.he grading of all designated archaeological sites. Signs
wit.h the above mentioned information will be conspicuously posted
in areas with undocumented cult.ural resources, The City should
s~rt the Pr9j~ct Proponent in requesting a co~tl"ac::.t.-free'f;:Oin'
any poteQ1:.lal fees for construction delays due to "discovel^e~
dr'=haeOlogical.~~=()"rces, r
8.S'2QQ"..2..:iJ;)J..e.J?..;\rtj.s'2. : the C i t Y 0 f Sa n 8 e ma rd i no
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
the Grading Contractor.
.'
8
o
,"""'
/
t::LtLChecklist :.
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Document.
Archaeological
Sites
",'
."lgn
Posting
Monit.or
Site
Grading
Discovered
Sites?
Dat.a Recovery
Excavat.ions
Int.erim
Peport.
F i na 1
r,eport.
Mij;tg?.tlgn.M~?!.S!J..c.~,,-_,5,
Q,e,?G..c.i.,f>J.i..90' If human remains are encount.er'sd, either during
archaeological investigation or grading and const.ruction
activities, work shall immediat.ely be halt.ed and the San Bernardino
County Coroner's Office shall be contacted. Work shall not resume
unt.il clearance is given by t.he Coroner's office and any other
involved agencies.
T.IT!Ql.e[!l~nt.?!J:j..Qn' An ACS archaeological monitor with experience in
human osteology will be present during monitoring in the area of
all previous church sites. A sign will be posted in a conspicuous
place t.o alert construction crews to call the Count.y Coroner, the
ACS office, and the Archaeological Information Center if human
remai ns are loca tad.. An .aQ.reement shou..!.9..J?&....reach~,~~i th the Ci tY.,
the Project Proponent, anqtn:e-Grading Contractor alison7ing thp.
Project. Proponent from any fees associated wi t.h const.ruct.ion delays
due t.o_..discovered" human remains.
[1e.?.f>onslJ21~.r:J;j-S's: t.he Gi t.y of San Bernat'dino
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
the Grading Contractor
9
o
-"""\
",'
Mtt Checklist:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Monitoring
Agreement
Sign
Posting
Monit.oring
Clearance
[_et.ter
Per t.he stipulat.ions in the Initial Study regarding t.he MMRP:
The MMRP shall be retained by the City in the Planning
Division project file for CUP 92-04/TTI5451. All City staff
members responsible for monitoring and enforcing the
mitigation measures shall be adequately informed of their
duties and responsibilities prior to the initiation of their
'Juties.
As the various mitigation measures are fully implemented,
their completion shall be documented by appropriate notation
on the checklist provided specifically for this project. When
all of the mitigation measures have been confirmed as
completed on the checklist, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program shall be deemed complete [Initial Study:
Gubman 1992:14]"
This MMRP has been prepar"ed to implement and report on these
mitigation measures regarding cultural resources within the Empire
Bay Deve 1 opmen t.
f>_h!Q_?E;)g1i,QLL,Q_,,_ H i_:;; 19Lig,,;l..!_8r.g iliJ ec.t~YIA,L, Re~sgltr~es_fY_~hJ""1i0 n
Mitigation Measure 1_
["~scr:.,i.Qt.ion: Prior to thE" relocation or delllolit.ion of any
structure, a complete photo recordation of all structures shall be
conducted in general ~ccordance with the Historic American Buildinc
~
Survey (HABS) guidelines. Four complete sets of photo recordati6n
shall be submitted t.o the Depar't.ment of Planning and Building
Services. The four sets of photo recordation shall be distributed
and maintained by the following entities: 1) ,the Department of
Planning and Building Services; 2) the Feldhym Ubrat"y; 3) the
City's Historical 3nd Pioneer Society; and 4) the State Office of
Hist.oric Pr"eservat.ion, This phot:o recor"dation shall be completed
10
o
,'......
,
j'
and submitted wn~ tg the ~~ntinq of demnlir;on permits, building
permits. or grading permits.
NOte: Photo recordation of this nature is a highly specialized
field of Historic Preservation and such an undertaking requires t.tle
advice and assistance of a qualified consultant.
Imp;L~Ln:t~nt,3.ti.Qn,: All '3tnJctu,'es wi 11 be recorded via Level 3 HABS
Documentation, As such, all buildings, as well as overall
neighborhood views including in-situ landscape architecture will be
photographed with 35 mm. black-and-whitr film. Negatives will be
processed to total "rchival s'anda,'ds, Prints, 4 x 5, will be
processed commercially Rui Iding3 I~i t,h exceptional signi'ficance
(i.e., CEQA and/or NEPA) will be represented by B x 10 commercial
print:... HA8S Level 3 narrative, dr,"~Jing and photographic
documentation will be submitted to all four agencies.
R~~R.QnsU?Jel';!Cti:::,?' the '" i ty
Dan Fauchier. the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
r1,t'L,~_b.e,cb,1j.-'2J :
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Submittal
of Level 3
HABS
Documentation
Mitigation Measure 2.
Qe~cri~J.;i..Q,[l: Prior to the demolition of the st,"uctu,"e at 602 West
6th Street, a complete floor plan of the building shall be
prepa'"ed. Fou," blue line sets and one B 1/2" x 11" reduced set of
floor plans shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and
Building Services.
I,mplementil..:ti9n: A scaled map shall be made of the floor plans of
the building. Fou,' complete sets of blue 1 ines and one 8 1/2" x 11"
floor plan shall be submitted to the City, The City shall allow the
applicant to advertise the building for "elocation prior to M1Y
demolition. r.he City should waive all _I!)clVing, relocation, or
related fees in ord'er' to promote refocat1on and- preservation of the
:c,uilding. The City 'and the-aevei-oper should consider spending the
proposed funds for demon flan 'tow:i<'Fd 'r'unds for relocation.
~esponsible Partie~: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
11
0/
.....--
'-".".
MtLChecklist:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
HESPONSIBLE
PAR,TY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Advertised
for
Helocation
Scaled
Map of
Floorplan
Mitigation Measure 3
p~=;~[~pJj,Qrl: Prior t.o t,he issuance of demol i tion permi ts, building
permits or grading permits, a reevaluation of the buildings at 640
West 6th Street shall be conducted to determine whether the
existence of these structures pred"tes the 20th century. Said
determination shall be submitted in writing to the Department of
Planning and Building Services,
ImJ2JS'J!Len,t.C\,ti.9.n: Archival research will be expanded to determine
dates of actual or projected construction. Field research on each
structure will be undertaken and they will be recorded on DPR 526
forms. Photographic Documentation will be conducted in accordance
with Mitigation Measure 1,
B_~?p_Qn?jJ!J_e__.E'9.rJj!?_~_ : the C i t y
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J_ Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
1':t~LCt.Ler;!<'li?t :
ACTTVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOn FT ED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Archival
Hesearch
Field
R,esea rch
HABS
Documentation
Mitigation Measure 4
pescriptiOQ: Prior to the demolition of any building, the applicant
sh811 make a good Lilith effort'to donate or sell any building
slated for demolition, inCluding 602 West 6th Street, to any party
12
o~
,""']
-...."I
who would relocate these buildings. Prior to issuance of a
demolition permit, the applicant shall submit a written statement
documenting the efforts to secure a recipient for the affected
building. Said statement shall indicate the entities contacted, who
was contacted, how and when the contact was made, why the specific
building is not to be relocated and shall contain language
confirming the accuracy and truthfulness of the documentation under
penalty of perjury and shall be notarized,
As an alternative measure for buildings that may not be suitable
for relocation, the applicant may submit a letter, or letters, to
the Director of Planning and Building Services requesting to exempt
certain buildings from this requirement. If the Director or
designee concurs that a certain building may not be suitable for
relocation, then that building may be demolished without the
requirement that the applicant attempt to relocate that building.
The authority of the Director or designee to authorize the
demoli tion of a bui] ding is contingent upon approval of the
Historic Pt'eservation Task Force (or other body charged with
similar powers) that ~ demolition permit may be granted.
Addendum: Mitigation Measure NO.2 of Section 13b shall be amended
to allOw certain buildings which may not be suitable for relocation
to be exempt f ,'om thre gene ",,1 requ i rement tha t. t.he appl icant
att.empt to fi/-id recipients forr all bui liings on the subject
property (this\Mitigation Measur~ has been ~enumbered as No, 4 of
Section 13b ofJthe Public Review Initial StUdy).
Imp...1~.mE1Jlt?,t~,RQ: A good fai th effort will be made to publicize the
buildings for sale at very minimal costs in public newspapers.
Copies of the Advertisements for a period of three consecutive
weeks will be forwarded to the City, The City__should grant the
Project Proponent <lnd......an~'--.c9_nt. racted partle""S exemption f rom any
City movi,=!9. relocation~.Q--'=-Q-thF)L....Par.rn.il.._ fees. The Ci ty shou Id
t'@lve an'y fees for hook-upsf_~r City services for"UT", . ,'-!luLd Led
buildi'2.\ils, The T;J:fy'arid Pre;-Ject. Propon'ent should work toward the
preservAf,Ton of all bui Idings to the greatest. measu"es possible.
R!",~QolJ.?jble-..E.?rtj.~2.: the Ci ty
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J, Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
the House Moving Contract.or(s)
private individuals
. .
13
o
...-..
"
t1t1 Checklist:
ACTIVITY
RECOROED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Three Weeks
of Ads for
House
Relocation
Waivers from
t.he City
Mitigation Measure 5.
De~CLiJ?J~joD: If the t.emporary st.orage of r'elocat.ed blJildings is
deemed necessary to fot'est.,,-ll demolition prior to final site
location, appropriate t.emporary use permit.s shall be secured
through the Planning and Building Services Depart.ment.
I[I1pJet!leoJ.'ltiQQ: Obt.;3in Permit.s -r,;~rs the Ci.ty,
Reg,PoD? i,i::lLe.P..'lLtls? : the C i t Y
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
t'1MC'Je~,k)j2t :
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PI_ANN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Obt.ain
City
Permits
Mitigation Measure 6.
D,escrim.5.on: Prior to the commencement of destruct.ive demolition of
any structure, the applicant. shall salvage, adaptively reuse and/or
rJonate or sell the archi tectural materials and featur'es of the
affected buildings t.hat are of a period or of hist.oric int.erest,
The int.erim storage of archit.ectural f~atures is t.he responsibility
of t.he applicant,
Note: As with phot.o recordation, t.his activity is 3 highly
specialized field of historic preservation and such an undertaking
requires t.he advice and assistance of a qualified consult.ant.
Imp.le[l1gJJ1..~tio,,: Advertisements will be placed in the local
newspapers offering buildings for dismantling and relocation or
14
o
"'"'
',..,;
salvage for three consecutive weeks. Every reasonable effort will
be made to adaptively reuse the historic buildings.
8,!;l2Q.Qll!?..i b 1~,?_g_,r...:tj"B.s, : t he C i t Y
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
tltt_C;;nB_"b_tLsJ :
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE"
PARTY
DATE"
PI_ANN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATUR,E
Three weeks
o'f Ads for
d i smantl i ng
or salvaging
buildings
Mitigation Measure 7
ges_".r.ipti_PI1: The Foursquare/Classical Revival building at 696 North
F street has been determined to be a major contributing element to
the future viability of the Historic San Bernardino Ove~lay Zone.
The demolition of this building shall be avoided. Every reasonable
attempt to relocate this ~Jilding to a suitable vacant site within
the area bounded by 6th Street, F Street, 9th Street, and
Interstate 215 shall be documented and submitted to the Planning
and Building Services Department prior to the consideration of
locations outside of these boundaries_ The City has the discretion
to t"equire the on-site preservation and t"ehabilitation of this
building if no reasonable relocation alternative can be found in
the immediate future unless a structural engineer'ing analysis
determines that this building cannot be moved.
Imr>l..e.mB.!:Lt_Cl_t..i.9JJ.: Every reasonable effort will be made t.o comply wi th
the mitigation measure by in-situ preservation or relocation to a
nearby site. Documentation for this measure will be provided to the
City.
8B~onsible_E'.ar.:ties_: the Ci ty
Dan Fauchier, the Project. Proponent
J, Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
Mitigation Measure 8.
Qescription: The Gothic Revival Church at 631 North G Street has
been identified by the General Plan and other sources as a
potentially significant Historic Resource. The demolition of this
building shall be avoided. Every reasonable attempt shall be made
to relocate this building to a suitable vacant site wfthin the area
bounded by 6th Street F Street, 9th Street, and Interstate 215.
15
0,
..-..
'-'
The appl icant shall exhaust every reasonable sou rce to preserve
this building in such as manner that it continues to support the
historical environment of its neighborhood. The City and Economic
Development Agency should assist in every reasonable way to
preserve this building.
If necessary to make the preservation of this building a more
attractive economic venture, an application shall be prepared for
I isting of this structure in the Nati,onal Register of Historic
Places, which would potentially allow for the use of Preservation
Tax Credits.
IJD.P.J.f!m.e.Dta,:tt.,QE1: Ever'y r8ason.'lble effort wi 11 be made to preserve
this church through relocation to a nearby vacant lot within the
neighborhood, Newspaper advertisements will run until a purchaser
is located. If necessary, t.he building will be evaluated for
eligibility and nomination for the NRHP.
Re.",'p9Il~i~)J.e ",.E'.?.t..tt,.e,2: the C i t Y
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J, Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
t'1.[,:L.~"b,e..<=:.t,L:i._,2..t :
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Continuous
Newspaper
Ads for
Relocation
NRHP
eligibility
and potential
nomination
Mitigation Measure 9.
QescriptioD.: To the e><:tent possible, relocation of the structures
that. currently support the neighborhood should occur wi thin the
neighborhood. The applicant shall submit written statements
documenting the efforts t.o locate receiving sit.es between
Int.er,;,tate 215 and both "ides of 6th Street, F Street, and gf,h
Street. Said statements shall indicate the entities contacted, who
was contacted, how and when t.he contact was made, why the specific
building is not. t.o be relocated wit.hin these boundaries and shall
contain language confirming the accuracy and t.ruthfulness of the
document.ation under penalty of perjury and shall be notarized. The
Cit.y and Economic Development Agency should assist in every
16
o
~
\.._,~;
reasonable way to relocate these building within these boundaries;
the applicant shall request such assistance.
The applicant has indicated that the National Orange Show has
expressed interest in accepting the primary structures at 652 West
6th Street and 660 West 6th Street to an architectural heritage
park on the National Orange Show Grounds. These buildings support
the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the applicant shall
submit documented attempts to relocate these structures within the
neighborhood prior to their removal to the Overlay Zone.
Implementation: Notarized written letters and attachments will be
forward;;;d.-t:'o'--'the Ci ty by the Project Proponent. document.ing t.he
attempts to relocate the historic buildings within the neighborhood
clesc,' i bed above.
R~,Sf>9,,:?:jQJ_~_.P?'rJj,?s : the C i t Y
Dan Fauchier. the Project. Proponent
t1.M.,_,.c;h,~_L!s Ji.s_t. :
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Notarized
Let ter and
Documentation
Mitigation Measure 10.
1?~_s,<;;'LiQ1iQD.: As part of the attempts t.o locate recipients for t.he
buildings current.ly occupying the subject. property. the applicant
shall advertise in t.he local edi t.ion of t.he $9D,_Ber..D.q._Cdi_rJQ~QYD_tY
S1!D newspaper for groups or individuals who wish to acquit-s
properties for relocation. As wi t.h all ot.her contact.s, priori t.y
shall be granted to potential recipients who intend to relocate the
buildings wit.hin the neighborhood of the subject property.
IJ!!P.lE:l.rrtE:l_nta.t.l_QD: Adver'tisements, a's stipulated above, for houses t.o
be relocated within the abovementioned neighborhood will be run for
a minimum of three weeks in the ?3'!D_'__.!?.E:l.L"_q.J::9j.!19_.__~()_~J.nty.,.,..S!dD
newspaper, Copies of the newspaper ads will be provided t.o the
City. ,.
8~sQ.QD,sj. b 1 f'~"p_a r tLE;l_s : t. he r; i t Y
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
17
t!1:'1 Checklist:
ACTIVITY
Copies of
Ads in the
f:i~n""J~"e_.r.n.~"Cqtng
G.Q.~.LD...ty .. ...;?!d..n
0"
')
......,
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
18
DATE CERTIFYING
PLANNING SIGNATURE
NOTIFIED
, '
c'
~
.
'-
IRQJ1nuFJill3J!l
fill\tl;1Xrri(m[ffi!>
(ID'rf
rR.l~t~~:il9.a-wjE
rr~mi'7
fl1l'AYIlll!
[i'1!,{,~'L,''l~IJiID:.~
m:O:nniJPIf.IHID
~[~Ti\lFJIfl"rI)Un:\1;
Copies of ads i n
San Bernardino
County Sun
- .
...... ,.' =~H"_.___.. __H.M__..HH...._....._H.._H..... ...........- ..'..OH_.h,.. _'_"_H..__._ -- _.'_'H__' '''_H_ ., - .....M. ....H....
19
---
. Stat. 9,,' California
o
Attachment "G"
Memorandum
"" :
. l..:..J
. .-. ':
~) . tiE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA
-,
- ,
: ! ~ :
LJ"-.,j
J"'.. "I'
1! r.. , j. .
-.' ....,J i':~L
f;, ,
! U j
To
,Hr. Douglas P. Wheeler
Secretary for Resources
'-.j,
Dot.
June 15, 1992
~:-:"',: .
,
........
Hr. Greg Gubman
City of San Bernardino Planning
Building Services Department
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino CA 92418
Department at Conservation-Office of the Director
. ,0'
r , _'" ,.' ~ _ < __~,..: -Subject,
and
Negative Declaration
for the CUP No. 92-04
and TT No. 15451
SCE 192052105
from
The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and
Geology (!lMG) has reviewed the Negative Declaration for the CUPiI
9:-04 and =ril 1545i affordable townhouse project for the city of
San Bernar~ino. The project proposes to demolish existing
buildings at the 8-acre site and construct 118-units of
residential townhouses.
The Negative Declaration notes that the proposed project
will not expose people or property to geologic/seismic hazards.
However, we recognize that there are potential seismic hazards at
this site that may require special studies.
The project site is located approximately 1-1/2 miles
northeast of the San Jacinto fault and 4-1/2 miles southwest of
the San A,dr~as fault. The Working Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities (1988) predicts that there is at least a
20% chance that the closest segments of either one of these
active faults will cause a major earthquake within the next 30
years, which is within the lifetime of the project. Because of
this, the environmental analysis for the project should address
the potential for seismic hazards at the site. Among these
hazards, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and
settlement are the most significant. The following comments
should h~lp the lead agency determine the severity of these
specific hazards.
1. The seismic ground shaking analysis should include estimates
for the different site ground motion parameters. This
information is important to, establish whe~~er the intended
building designs will resist structural failure from very
high ground Shaking from a major earthquake in the region.
A preliminary evaluation of site ground motion by DMG
indicates that for large earthquakes on the San Jacinto and
San Andreas faults, peak horizontal ground acceleration
could exceed 0.65g, a level that may require special
building design criteria. Ground motion parameters that
should be calculated for all faults affecting the site
include peak ground acceleration, duration of strong
shaking, and site amplification. '
r:;)
. Mr. Wheeler an~Mr. Gubman
June 15, 1992
Page Two
:,' )
2. According to the city Safety Element (1989?) and Matti and
Carson (1991), the project site is located in an area of
moderately high to moderate liquefaction and seismic-
settlement potential. In such a case, a site-specific
subsurface investigation is commonly performed to obtain
soil and ground-water information. Factors to consider when
evaluating liquefaction and/or seismic settlement potential
for a site include subsurface soil texture and density,
ground-water depth and fluctuation, arid intensity and
duration of strong seismic ground shaking. With this
information, mitigation measures, if needed, can be
developed.
Because seismic hazards have not been discussed in the
Negative DeClaration, DMG recommends that an Environmental Impac~
Report, or a revised Mitigated Negative DeClaration, be
considered for the project. Potential seismic hazards should be
investigated and remedial measures presented in the supplemental
environmental document so that they can be reviewed.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Project Manager, at (916) 322-2562.
A:z teL
St~phen E. Oliva
En~ronmental Program Coordinator
cc: Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology
Rick Wilson, Division of Mines and Geology
R.~ereDces:
City of San Bernardino Safe'_y El'ement (General Plan), 1989 (?) ,
Chapter 12.0 - Geologic and Seismic, p. 12-1 to 12-35.
Matti, J .c., and Carson, S.E., 1991, Liquefaction susceptibility
in the San Bernardino Valley and vicinity, Southern California -
A regional evaluation: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1898, 53
pp.
"
Working Group on california Earthquake Probabilities, 1988,
Probabilities of large earthquakes occurring in california on the
San Andreas fault: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-
398, 62 pp. '
r """"\ Attachment "H"
1..,.." -.-J
::~
...........,....
ii!':! .--: ,
;!'.~
, .
t G STREET
, i .-! I f ._~
T-r-, C-/ I Ifr:ffll7!!.l4J~.-
_2.-.c"'~i ,,-t:~-:~ -;-11 -
! OO'rlll't" ,; -' · -'r~.aj:_ .~'-'~ri1~'- ~~ - , ~jr! --
--z--J" ~
fl'l! ~r ~2~) III I'
I };P. - ;~--il' ~
-flIp -.. ~l I' ~I z-!
~. F! I~l : ' ;-'--1 r-\t ~ ~
I ~ III!~ I ~', ~I J ~f" g -!
! . 0 . ~...: ......-~_. I \ ~ >
<"I ...~. ili 'W rJ l!?-\ -"
.... 0 _~ f 0 I en ---.
, If- J r.t~! II, .::.::.....J: . ~... _ ~ <
- IN 'c!,i ,. lIt_
~' ! I! .!I ;; I'.'
I I I..... . I'- z----i
: : · ,:) ~ tJii1 11; ~ ~
I ...... 'lij! II ...::: ~-!
! ,. A'- '---=- ---lr1 \! ... ~
v. '..1 0 I' I ~ .,..
~.a -4 n ,I . :z ....
I 'I "j >
--=---r--T---4fi' I. lit
,.. :> ~ -l ;\..I! 1-=
.J' ~ I I 1-- - jp: I '" :z
! :> I ~~ I ~ lI!fl! ~ ~
I -4, I 1,:\" ~
I' !y\~~-
~~ I .-=!:11 s ~
. -1-1_ II 1- -< -4=:--::!_-I~J ;;:;.. !iI c:Il
! ..\1-44" - - - 1 }~- ,~-
;', '
=1 :
, ',{ f' S T R E E T Ifilj I
, I
.'
..-t"--rl &
:-jo".1-'Jo?ojo jojo. Ii
(
lH;-IIU1!'llii
:...1 :I!:. _I'
'1--' .... . -
.J. ii. ';'1-1 I
; -
... .i
...
...
5'
en
...
...
,.,
,.,
...
,"
..
.
..
G-2
m
s:
""'0
-
:D
m
OJ
~
.
.
I!
i!J'
~.t.,.. ,
,~. I
-"fez
C(~~
Attachment "I"
'"III
~~
I;
1~
-;
G STREET
.
.
~
~
=
~
I
~
,&
d;
~S!
I ,,".'
I Si;
(il
.
.-
~
I
~
~
._; ,..G
.. .1.
Ii
il ~ - F STREET
I ;
en ~~" ~ III ... ~
::;: m"f"m>il;i.... .,. i ~ ~
CD )(Q mz~mm mm III ~ m
m8 ~;l~"- mm ~ :ii ~ i
!l!~J~i n III ~ ;g I" ...
~ U~~B !! i ~
-Ii! aUD I:
~I g ~:~~ ~
9 ~ ii:m = = ca m
__ (II ;I;1:ww:n ~ 1/. . U>>
rrmN ARCHITECTS
o->a.l ~, Tl ".... . ,..
.....v..'(Cl"SI""""--RS
---
~
~
~
-
-
"
-,
I
o~
m~
<E
m
r
o
""'Olin.
~S:o IIID~'
:z ::~~
om~ ~z!1 '
~z~n;: '
:!l m;;;~
~ (I) VI .
i-l
~
~!~'~;"'":'..'
. .~::I:~
~- ~'........,....""
$~.....1',- ....:.!
=; n _ ~-,. .
I Z j :; 1"1_..- '.
~ .~-:., .
~"~" ''''',
.; ... ~
P", .
II
... C/);!! "
~ t: I ~
~ 3 0 ~
~ 3 i
m'"
~lil
'<~
i
I
...
EMPIRE flAY lOWNHOMES I
SIXTH & G sn&1S SAN IIEANAADINO. CA.
Ir-
...
:i!
CD
-;
i;g
1m
,-;
,
mim
~ m
3! !
~z~
~ii
I
IP ~~I~' ,,,1.', :' ~~r' ~ <;:-~J ~'~ : :-
L" ,. , rk J_,
, .. '- ......,: . Q; ...- .. -. ,! I
I~! .. i <ag , '1' '= ~ ~ 'lif ~ I
.. I, ~!.i'"'' aR ~""., :l~i f I
t':: :~ L .""itl ~' '-f!!i"J~t-l ~~ i
I ~ /.. - .. ~.' "+D~ f') ~: :>> I
ILL &:"" '" ~ ./ ...;., n ~ ..
... jf';" .. ,.. ' 1 l' , I'"
: I~" ~ . ~.'" u .1 :
~ : ,: i :1 f11: ~ J .: ~ a __ Ji ~ "I ~ 1 i
... I F~L1" -~ "l,~.. I,.. r ... '.. ~l:hi i;::i: 4 -. -+ ...
,oR[' ] d. '~J :il~ '~: .., '/
..~ I ~ ' _,::: I' l ' -::.'!' +1'1 ::; Jfi
~ '9 J..:;CI"I"!"~"" . "'..t":"C : ~ "'~Iii~
i I I , ~'" - ~ · . J I dl 'L ~ . ~ I
J~ Iii,,, '_."~ - _ ..'b~ ... ow - A CO; ;'.,J I
i.. -:-' 8- ~) .' i ~ , - I ... ~ . =:"!!II
~~Ifu" ~ .....I...!'i~I. .,.0.. "'''~'''' .. ...,.,.S< j.=~
if~~ ~~~~ f~' ;; ~ OJ ~ '"~ ~.. eo: ~~)
if I' f' F SIllEEr If
....rr,.. ~ ~ f"U"U ~ lD .- ~
11j;~:~ S=~Qf;ll!P~U:: ,'; i~ !
s '- ',' - - .:. ':a f;;m"-mm Ii! i:l :I ili
~~.,,---:~ ,,~> '!l~! U: ~ "U ~ ...
~ ~Il. _",iil~':m" ~~ m!Jl ~
~ ;.-' ""'. e ~g;eC'Jillfi: cc ~ ~ i~
~ ., -.,,.. --- ... liS ~zO !~ m Z
...!" -tn~ mCb~ ~
m!=t ....
a::D -< OI._~ m u.
.... Q OCD:8 ~
~ ffi ~i;; ~ ~ i m
m
s:
-0
-
:D
m
OJ
~
!
nm
~I
,.-. )
C "" '"
..)
mill
iii!
L
H
,~
G SIllEEr
.
.
.
~ cn;R
~ C I
~ 30
~ i i
-'1iI
'<;:j
~
~
z
~
T01RY AK..HITEcrs
C"A...., ,~"'....,..
""'.... J >'L_;lS
.... ...---...-
I EMPIRE BAY CEVEl.cPMENT
Ii
,,-
I
,.,...,- ")
'-, --
r--..
1...., ....)
5
z
iI
fj ~
I
I
CD !iI
~ m
~
I
~ ! lD
m
~ I !ll ~
lD
m
g
~
I
I
N
OJ
m
~
0
0
3:
c:
z
=i
.~
I
i
~, Gl
~' I J
~
8
~
~
::
~
~
z
i, ,
~ III
I
I
I
I
I
01
I
I
'or 1
~ 0 I I
I !
I, I
" i._. I] 0:
i 1'-
Gl I I
I' I
' I
-----
e
I
~
I
r ''''''\
'-....,I
,;-. .....
I
-
= i
~ i I!o
I~
~ i!~ j..
~ !i JIC
I!( It I~
,0
I
I 1
I I
I _I " %
I '...)1 z !l!
I I Z ~
i : 1 6
1 l!J
Zl , :z: .. II:
. '0 II:
() .s?, Dl..., 0 .. 0
, IS " ~
1 Q.
I ....
10 i 12
I iL
I ~
I
1
I
....
z
::>
::E
0
0
a:
c
w
III
~ (I)
i I
!
i I
i
~ i
15 '"
..
'" II: I
.. '"
,; ..
~ ~
E
i I 0
t I
I
i I'
I! ,
i ' '
'"
..
)
)
. '
c"
~
i
J
l 1
"
)
x
w
~
I
a
t;(
::>
w
...J
W
I-
:I:
~
a:
i ~]
:: ~~
z
Q
t;(
::>
w
...J
W
I-
Z
o
fE
.
11
.
I
"
/,
~
r-
m
,x
r-
m
'"n
-l
m
r-
m
~
-t
o
Z
r,-
\..,....,
. -t
. ell
I i ~
! I ....
e~ @ @
Iii I
I ! !
1::'
[l r:c
~
,.
, . I
I 'I
III
II
-
t,
I
1
..
"
.'
::D ~
m
~ ~
m l!l
r ~
m
~ ~
... ~
~
I I
-4 ~
~
m )(
)(
"
o
'rl~~~V A'~
-;.; ~
~~
, ;-.,~~
~<'~~
_"" ",E,.,~
~ <It' ~.
~'ct.~.~~
:)
.
~ .
t
.
.5~~~
, ~'1!. "
~r-
.. ,~
. ~...
~""~'~."
_~. ,,"4-
- <It' ~ .
~ "",,'~
"~i\, , .:f
.r:.,'
A"~~~
,';~ ~1>'"
-u. ~'... "
." ~.':! '."..
~ '.l"'C
. ""-
'r~"" "'~vr
~~~
.- , "'''i ~
, e ~i-4
'"",
~'';.~ r't't
-
o
':-
i;
o
~
l
;
.
~
l
-
,
(
o
~
I
.
~
~
X
..,
~
-I
m
r
m
~
~
~
~
.
t
o
\
l
I. '
,
I:
, ,
11
I'
,
o
>
.
.-,
111'
""
-II
111'
'-'
111'
~i
'-4'
~\
I
~
:%I
~
X
',:, ,
I~ II
..
TERRY ARamECTS
C.H"PL~5 L T[fHW "I "-
","c""H:'l"/~lRJ
..~_::~::::.:, '~
FoUfIPLEX
-
:)
.
,
1
I
\
;
I
~
-I
l!!
~
~
2
I
~
;:g
~
---......--.....
..- ..~....
r,m'l1lll\il~ 11l1l111\1UI!lBGU 1I1Iummml!mlm!'lm~
11'\1\ l1\lmml\i~11111111111\\ilP'illllli\~IiJ:iffi \iU\!\\i \?,'<
I I ~y. 1Il\i I' 1'111 1 ,:,U\lP. ~ II \ II" llllmliiil P .
\1' "'il II ,l'T lId." I!
I' ! I il ., hi ,IP jll',
II I . \I'
~..2y~~ .
c
~
.
i
)C
."
::D
~
m .
... .
m .
~
~
t .
'\
\..wI
;
.
o
::D
m
~
m
::D ,..
i m
~
m g
,..
m
ii , ~
...
;
I I
~ I
;g
m
)(
:)
-.~,
I ~ if "~'-'"\
i ,.... "'''.. .
. ~,",..,.?-
;~'" . ' ''''l
. - ~ ~~.'" . "-rir
I _; .>
. 1 ~~~.....
!~lL v' ,..~
"1:'. , - .;;..,/
:111 (t-'-
I
II
c
o
'I
. @)
c
.
.
c
.
II I
I
J
.
1'"""1
m' ::D
"TI
-t l:5
m ::I:
I'""" -t
m m
~ I'""" 1
1 1 , m
-t ,
~ I ~
-t
;
"n'
< I
m'
"'Il, "TI
hil '<
x qJ
I'"""
r r
'"
, I
.
o
C)
_CV~-~\,<
~ '1:'" '"
,$ 1:'~
-,~' .iY
\;'!.. 'f'.l! .
...
~ ,'1 U
., -
.. j- j;
, at i
?'
, I
I I
.
~
~
m
~
m
r-
~
~
2
o
"11
~
~
:Jl
i
....
l
1$ Ii I
:1 1
"
'1 J
o
Attachment "J"
""'"
--.i
,....
, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
"'l ,....
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
-,
.
I'"
[]! =
,-
~D
O[JOO
~ ST 10
r
eOUIlTY,
'-0-
""cUTU
-
cnv('lf'_~
---
Pl.AH-a.l1 PAGE 1 OF 1 (.....,
(')
Exhibit "2"
o
,...
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION
...
....
SUBJECT:
TENTATIVE TRACT 1I0. 15451 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 92-04
CA,RO' J
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of about 4.6 acres located at the northwest corner of 6th Street
and "F" Street having a frontage of about 447 feet on the north
side of 6th Street and a frontage of 296 feet on the west side of
"F" Street.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests a Tentative Tract to establish a I-lot
subdivision for condominium purposes in conjunction with a request
for approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code
Section 19.04.020(1) (A) to permit the construction of Phase I (68
units) of a two-phase, 118 unit affordable townhouse development in
the RM, Residential Medium, General Plan land use designation.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION:
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH .0' STREET
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME:
Tuesday, July 7, 1992
7:00 p.m.
ACIIlIIiIId ~ ofa.......ilanf*In..PWlningand BuMngs.rva.
- b._.._ClrHII.. .,.....................................DriorlO..
... '-"I.......... ........................ 0'Ir '._41 in......
...._(7141--.
The PWIning ConwniIaion II ---. ,... _. -'-~'''' .. ... .
-rouflllJlUDma....~.....otarlft..........1D..PftIIPGMIIO..
PWlfmg ... ~ s.va. 0' r M.-_.........arr...... _ NcInft.".
so-. Son_CoIIomiall24'1.
--....-...~--___Coft.
dItiaMI u.. ,.... ~ " ...... T....,. TIEl ..... MIl v...... unIIU
1IlPIIIMCI........,.... CouIcI. ~ ID_........ Counc:iI mull till..... in
__.._...._......._...ClIyCloril_
with.. -4 ...... 1a............. ...,."... deaiIiIlI......,. .. PMIIII..... ...
T....,. TMCt......
z....... GlnnlPIIn A._..._~......._.cL._..ID..MuniclplfCoie
...........,.. '--' ID.....,. IN CounII..fInIt.....
· JOUc:MIIngI.......ICIiDn...........CclmniMion in CIIUft. JIlIU"..,
.. ~..... --......,.................... ~
deIcrIMl:Iin..~arin...._._..._......IO..CIy"-*'l1JillUln
.. or..,....pubIC.....
IndIlIiduaf .....-.. """ --.wta __ _ M ~ IrtIiMot 1ft ..... I'PIitIi_ _
......
cnv 01'.............,
---
Pl.AN-I.o& PAGE 1 OF 1 ("-101
Exhibit "3"
- (; - - -.
'0' c.o~~: 'jo......L.~_.(..."4~
.. PITI_LIGN,. _
~~Taaf~-1HIIlIIOlIRCU~
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVAnON
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. 8OX_ '
SACRAMENTO 114211 DOlI1
(811)~4
FAX: (Ill) 853_
~.
Mr. Al Boughey, AICP
Dixect:ar
DepartJnent of P1annin;J an:} Rni lrlin;J Services
City of san Bernardino
300 North "0" SL..eet
san Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
June 22, 1992
I"";;', '"
I 'Jj
j n \
:..11 i
;J ~,
.'~ ,J: rii'
r.; ~ 'j
: " --..,
. I
--
i .i
!.. ...
I(i: ...
"';,-. !J 1 -.
'....-.~.
-I, ,
r~:"'-r~.':..~h,.:'.~ ..-:: ~,~._...
, ~ I
...._'.:
- '"
Dear Mr. Boughey:
RE: Initial study, CUP 92-04 an:} 'l'IN 15451, mIpire Bay Developnent
'lbe state Office of Historic Preservatial has reviewed the subject
Initial study an:} ~ like 1:0' offer the followi.rJ; oc:mnents pe.rt:ainin; to
the project's effects on historic properties.
Historic Resoorc:es -
It is our preliminary conclusion that the devo>l. 'l..-.lt; block contains
structures not only contriJ:uti.n;J to a larger historic district eli.qible far
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) bIt also
several pl.-+-ties which may qualify inclivirl""lly far 1i.st.irq in the NRHP.
We have M'Sled this preliminary conclusion on information contained in both
the Initial study an:} in the D.G. Kin;J L~L entitled, "An Historical
Analysis - Historic san Bernardino OVerlay District". We are unable to
~ the lJaInjaries of what 'IfP""'>"S to be an historic district because we
have little information about the types of l'L-+- ties that ~ the
devel~.....t block.
Of all the older structures on this block, only 4 ar 5 ~ not
contr:iJ:ute to the district far various reasalS. 'lbe remainder ~
......,l.L:iJ:ute to the district. Of these, several. ~"P" iJIportant enough to
qualify far inclusion in the NRHP UI'K:ler criteria represent.in; histary,
".....,."..,iatial with iJ!partant persons, an:l architect:ural distinction.
Non-~,,"L..ib.1tors 'IfP""'"P" to include 638, 688, 696 W. 6th st; 525 and 627
W. 7th st. structures that may qualify far inclividual 1i.st.irq in the NRHP
include 602 an:} 652 W. 6th st; 621-25, 631, 689 N. G st; 669 an:} 679 W. 7th
st; an:} 672 an:} 696 N. F st.
We c:annct ...:kh.....s the potential significance of archeological resaJrCes
that may be located on the site withazt additicrlal information M"<<1 al
testing an:} on a mare refined set of iDp:Jrtant . u ~~'"t:b. questions.
Project Effects -
It ~'"'5 that this project woold virtually level the site, l:eIIDVin;
ar demol.ishin; mare than 50 structures. A less of this magnitude has the
. ,
." :
o
.-
-...J
Mr. Al Bcughey
JUne 22, 1992
Page Two
patenti.al to significantly affect wnat may be a NRHP eligible district. It
is our prelimi.nazy opinion that this project meets criterion (j) of ~
G and warrants a ''Yes'' responSE! to item 20 b. of ~ I of the CEQA.
Guidelines.
CEQA. Iilplications -
We believe there is substantial evidence that this project may
significantly affect the environment and, in ......uLLaSt to the City's
oonclusion, Blll',ReSt that this effect cannot be rWh)r-ed to an insignificant
level. Althalgh the mitigation measures ~'-\ -osed may be reasonable if one
"'.....- the project ~. ...........~.. as planned, they cannot reduce the level of
di.srupti.cn created by the project to a point that waUd warrant issuance of
a mitigated negative declaration.
We believe the City of san Bernardino may have erred in ooncll.ldin; that
a negative n...-"'ration is ~~iate in this case. We suggest that a
mandatory fin:ii.rq of significant effect ~lies (CEQA. ~lin..lines 15065 [all
and that a new Initial study requirin; an EIR sba.I1d be prepared. We further
~ that without substanti.a1l11Xlification of the project, a statement of
cverridi.ng CX1n:lemS may J..e......e 1"""""""~l1rY.
'!hank you far the ~Wni.ty to CCIlIlel1t on this Initial study. If you
have any questions, please call Hans Kreutzberg at (916) 653-6624 ar write
to the letterhead a..lll.....s.
Sincerely,
,
,
~~,.
~ rf./ ~~ Actin1
state Historic ~tion Officer
Exhibit "4"
C)
o
CITY OF
San Bernardino
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 8UILDtNG SERVICES
AL BOUGHEY,AICP
O'RECTOR
July 20, 1992
Mr. Steade R. Craigo, AIA
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
State Office of Historic Preservation
Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
RE: INITIAL STUDY - Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 & Tentative
Tract No. 15451/Proposed two-phase, 118 unit affordable
housing development.
SCB 192052105
Dear Mr. Craigo:
Thank you for your review and comment on the above referenced
Initial Study, received July 1, 1992.
After evaluating the comments contained in OHP's correspondence, it
is the consensus of the City of San Bernardino Planning Division
and Environmental Review Committee (ERC) that the ERC and Historic
Preservation Task force acted without error in proposing the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BRBP BLZGZB%LZTY
Your letter expresses the opinion,that the structures in question
may contribute to a larger NHRP eligible district and that several
structures (602 and 652 W. 6th St.; 621-625, 631 and 689 N. "G"
St.; 669 and 679 W. 7th St.; and 672 and 696 N. "F" st.) may
individually qualify for NHRP listing.
As discussed in the Initial Study (page 9), a citywide historic
resource reconnaissance survey was conducted in 1991. The survey
concluded that the area in which the subject property is located
lacks the concentration of historic resources necessary to
constitute a potential historic district, and designated the area
as a potential historic overlay.
. '
300 NORTH O. STREET. SAN BERNARDINO.
C A L I FOR N I A 9 2 4 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 (714)" 4...71 "" I 7
-.,-.
o
"""'I
V
Mr. Steade R. Craiqo, AlA
July 20, 1992
paqe 2
The survey also ide~tified and catalogued 7,700 individual
structures built prior to 1941; 140 of which were placed on
modified DPR 523 forms due to qualities that raised their potential
for listinq on the National Reqister. Four of those DPR listed
structures (602 W. 6th st., 672 N. "F" St., 696 N. "F" St. and 631
N. "G" St.) are located on the subject property. Kinq's subsequent,
more in-depth analysis of the subject property determined that the
locational siqnifi.::ance of these structures is not of an in-situ
nature, and that these buildinqs may be relocated, so lonq as their
destination sites are within the boundaries of the same
neiqhborhood, as defined on paqe 25 of the Initial study. Hence,
the City's decision was partially based by the opinions of two
qualified individuals whose field investiqations and research mad~
independent conclusions with respect to the siqnificance of the
subject property's architectural resources.
CEOA :IMPL:ICAT:IONS
Criterion (j) of Appendix G states that a project will normally
have a siqnificant effect on the environment if it will disrupt or
adversely affect a cultural resource. The Initial Study analyzed
these potential impacts (pp. 8-26) pursuant to item 20b of Appendix
I, and determined that such impacts can be mitiqated to levels of
nonsiqnificance. As mentioned, the ERC and Historic Preservation
Task Force concurred with staff's analysis and made findinqs of no
siqnificant effect pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065.
CONCLUS:IONS
The determination of the siqnificance of an impact upon a local
historic resource is, in qeneral, a function of the value that the
community places on that resource. If the views of the Historic
Preservation Task Force are to be seen as representative of the
community's values, then their support of the proposed mitiqation
measures for the Empire Bay project should be viewed as an
indication that the community concerns for the historic resources
on the project site and surroundinq area have been adequately
addressed.
One of the four DPR-listed structures, 602 W. 6th St., is slated
for demolition. While the loss of this notable structure is
important, it does not meet any of the NHRP eliqibility criteria,. .'
and there is inadequate public incentive or community interest to
make the preservation of this structure feasible to the applicant
c
:)
Mr. Steade R. craigo, AlA
July 20, 1992
Page 3
The City Council is scheduled to take final action on this project
on August 3, :1992. Enclosed, please find a draft copy of the
proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a response
from D. G. King. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(714) 384-5357.
Sincerely,
!J1/
~i..\
, Ark
ning
and Building Services
Enclosures
..
...--.' ..
..
o
o
Vft lu',--e.,
G ("':5
Exhibit
"5"
t~~~~~Q~@
Mr. AI Boughey, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Services
Mr. Ruben Lopez, Chairman, City Planning Commission
City of San Bernardino i rlJ :1 ') . ~ : c" ,-
300 North D Street i ;1 ) ,_
San Bernardino California 92418 L1 I ,! I U L u'" c,' " ,-'
v _ 1_........
-..'.....
7 July 1992
~;o;--... C:.o .;),,; ~;~;f'~;\: <"
:):::?.::.:.::~::::='.;; ':::: ".
~, ... - ~..
re: Response to the comments in a letter from the State Office of Historic
Preservation dated 22 June 1992
Dear Mr. Boughey and Members of the Planning Commission:
I understand that the Planning Commission hearing on the Empire Bay project
(CUP 92-04/ TT 15415) has been postponed to 21 July 1992. Unfortunately I am
committed to be out of the country at that time, but I do wish to respond to the
comments prepared by Mr. Steade A. Craigo, AlA, State Historic Preservation
Officer (Acting) dated 22 June 1992, because I sincerely believe if Mr, Craigo had
additional information not available during his initial review, that his response
would have been different; or if not, that it would have been in error. Specifically,
Mr. Craigo found (in preliminary analysis) that the proposed project meets
criterion OJ of Appendix G and warrants a .yes. to item 20 b of Appendix I of
CEOA. Toward that end I would like to base my comments on several points as
follows:
1. Just prior to the Historical Task Force meeting of 18 June the plans for the
relocation of all buildings in Phase One which were recommended for
relocation were solidified, Relocation of these buildings is planned for the
.....,."n. ","" a"'i~~are ~~.. ~~....". the ~-:e- s',te ""d .,,- acq""~:.;on c' '''",.
_c.....c., , oi) ,... ....Jc..w ..L QIIU ,tUIUI VI. ,.,....'J wL I Lh. ;...;;1 w ~I/,. i ,; U;c.o.L
site is being pursued by Project Home Run. Therefore, for Phase One,
criterion OJ of Appendix G of CEOA certainly does not apply, contrary to the
statement by Mr. Craigo. For Phase Two, a contract calling for the funded
relocation and rehabilitation of the remaining buildings recommended for
relocation has already been signed by Empire Bay and Project Home Run.
The sections he referenced of CEOA state that:
Appendix G:
OJ Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeologlcsi
site or a property of historic or cultural slgnIncancs to a community or
ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a
scientific study;
A California Corporation ~ Land Planning and Design C! Environmental Analysis
10722 Arrow Route. Suite 616. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 (714) 987.70n
-''''
O ()
. AI Boughey; PlannIng CommIssIon
7 July 1992
Page 2
and,
Appendix I:
20. Cultural Resources.
b. Will the proposal result In adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building or structure, or object?
The proposed Empire Bay project will unquestionably alter the project site.
However, the site is already now in process of significant change, which has
been shown to be adverse. In fact my own analysis projects the certain
demise of the entire Historical Zone if some remedial action is not done soon.
(reference see J(ing, An Historical Analysis, April 1992 pages 18-2t, 64-65, 91). Of
importance is whether the proposed changes which would occur as a result
of the proposed Empire Bay project would be more adverse than a "do
nothing" alternative. My findings are that at least for Phase One, the Empire
Bay project will significantly enhance the viability of the Historic Zone rather
than "adversely affect" it, because:
· All twelve buildings recommended for relocation in Phase One are
proposed for relocation as recommended. This relocation is proposed
by Project Home Run for a site adjacent to the project site. Upon
relocation these buildings will be rehabilitated and made code compliant,
thus enhancing their viability for longer term preservation, Without
relocation rehabilitation is not assured, nor is preservation.
· The historical building proposed for demolition, (602 West 6th Street)
has already been ordered closed by the City for health reasons. Before
the current problem even existed the owner had already determined that
the rehabilitation costs for this building exceeded replacement costs,
(see King, p.66-67). This building, of necessity, will require demolition
unless significant public funds are committed for its rehabilitation. It
would not normally be raalistic to expect private sector rahabilitation of
any building when the rehabilitation costs exceed replacement costs.
It is also notable that the City's Historical Task Force formed their own
opinion that the proposed project was consistent with CEOA, and was
consistent with the spirit and intent of the adopted General Plan. But the
Task Force did have more information than did the State at the time of their
respective decisions.
· The City Planning Staff have recommended that a specific plan be
prepared of the affected neighborhood before any future (after phase
two) projects are permitted, I believe this to be a wise and appropriate
recommendation. and it should apply to any future development in the
Overlay Zone because this recommendation would further the objectives
of the General Plan. The urban design analysis already prepared for
.'
D. G. King Associates Planners
...-.-. .'e,
, ~
.
OMr. AI Boughey; Planning CommISS/o~
7 July 1992
Page 3
phases one and two of this project sufficed for these phases but for no
expansion beyond them. Empire Bay has stated their willingness and
intent to prepare a complete Specific Plan of the affected neighborhood
before proposing future phases or developments in the Zone.
. The entire Overlay Zone needs positive actions if the existing historical
housing stock is to be preserved. Positive actions which work to
preserve the historical nature of the Zone must be financially realistic to
the property owners. or they will never be implemented by them. (See
King pages 18-19) Generally positive actions occur from the private sector.
Regulatory (negative) actions occur from govemment, The proposed
project will stimulate both ieinvestment in !:In el.'Onomically declining
neighborhood, and rehabilitation of historical housing stock which sorely
needs rehabilitation. This cannot be seen as an adverse physical or
aesthetic affect.
The relocation of buildings recommended for relocation in Phase Two is
currently under a funded, signed contract between Empire Bay and Project
Home Run. Therefore, what can be done is being and has been done.
In summary I believe that the comments by Mr. Craigo were based on incomplete
information. His comments may have been appropriate for the limited information
available to him. However, the City has more comprehensive information at this
time; information adequate to make an informed decision relative to the proposed
project. And after all, that's all that CEQA intends - that decisions be made which
are based upon adequate understanding of the implications of the proposed
project. (reference CEQA Section 21002; Section 21082.2 (a) (b))
I would have preferred to make this presentation, and respond to questions in
person, but I will be out of the Country by the date of the rescheduled hearing,
My experience working in Redevelopment of areas with historic buildings began in
1965, Based upon my own experience. the proposed project would have a long
term beneficial impact upon the Overlay Zone, while the absence of reinvestment
of this type would continue the long term and short term decline and loss of the
historic resources now present.
Charter Member:
Charter Member:
Associate Member:
American Institute of Certified Planners
American Planning Association
American Institute of Architects
D. G. King Associates Planners
-,
Exh~bit "6"
o ::)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AHD BUILDING SEAYICEI
AL BOUGHEY,AICP
DIRECTOR
July 20, 1992
Stephen E. Oliva
Environmental Program Coordinator
Division of Mines and Geology
Department of Conservation
650 Bercut Drive, Suite B
Sacramento, CA 95814-0131
RE:
INITIAL STUDY - Conditional
Tract No. 15451/Proposed
housing development.
Use Permit No. 92-04 & Tentative
two-phase, 118-unit affordable
sea 192052105
Dear Mr. Oliva:
Thank you for your agency's review and comment on the above
referenced Initial Study.
Comments received from the DMG on June 23, 1992 question the
Initial Study's determination that the proposed project will not
expose people or property to geologic or seismic hazards, and
recommends a revised Initial Study that addresses such concerns.
The memorandum indicates that the subject property' is located
approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest known fault and is in an
area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction potential, and
that these issues should be addressed.
RESPONSE:
After evaluating DMG's comments, the City of San Bernardino
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) concluded that the Initial
Study correctly determined that the project will not result in
development within an area of special seismic concern and upheld
the original findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. .'
The City of San Bernardino at large is located wi~in a seismically
sensitive area. New construction is required to conform to seismic
standards, and older, unreinforced masonry buildings will be
required to be brought into conformance with seismic safety
standards in the coming years. Areas of special seismic concern,
300 NORTH O. STAEET. SAN BERNARDINO.
C A l I FOR N I A . 2 4 1 8 - 0 0 0 1 (7 t 4) :I. 4. I' 71 ,. . I 7
--.,.,.
. ,
o
."")
'-wi
Mr. Stephen E. Oliva
,.July 20, 1992
Page 2
however, are identified on the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones
map in Fiqures 47 and 54 of the General Plan. The subject property
is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone, and the General Plan,
consistent with State law, does not recognize a need for special
geologic studies for projects located outside of the Alquist-Priolo
Zones.
While the DMG comments are correct in that the subject property is
located within an area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction, ,
the City has already addressed the issue of liquefaction on a
citywide basis, and has formulated POlicies (Resolution No. 356)
and standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.08) based on the safety
element of the General Plan (Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic).
Ordinance No. MC-676 requires liquefaction reports only for non-
exempt structures located within high liquefaction areas.
Furthermore, pursuant to SBMC Section 15.08.060(4), the proposed
residential structures are categorically exempt from the
liquefaction requirement based on their USC OCcupancy
classification.
The City Council is scheduled to take final action on this project
on Auqust 3, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(714) 384-5057.
Sincerely,
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner