HomeMy WebLinkAbout36-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAM BERLARDINO
,..-..,
- REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Dam: August 6, 1992
Subject: Tentative Tract No. 15451 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04
(Empire Bay)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
n.ngllC+-
, 7
,
lQQ?
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
August 3, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued the item
for additional review of financing measures.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and approve Tentative Tract No.
15451 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 based on the Findings
of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements; or
That the hearing be closed and
deny Tentative Tract No. 15451
that the Hayor and ~mmon Council
and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04.
.' i~" IP<<t(,/~:l/""
v / G . Signature
Al Boughey \'
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Staff Report
Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct, No.!
(Acct, DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No, 36
fV OF SAN BERNARD~O - REQUEST FOR QOUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 1545l and conditional Use permit No.
92-04 (Empire Bay)
Mayor and Common council Meeting
August 17, 1992
REOUEST
The applicant requests approval of a conditional Use permit and
Tentative Tract under authority of Code sections 19.04.030(2)(C}
and 19.66.070 to construct Phase I (68 units) of a two phase, 118
unit affordable housing project.
The site consists of approximately 4.6 acres (Phase I) and is
located within a city block bounded by 6th street, "F" street, 7th
Street and "G" street.
BACKGROUND
At their meeting of August 3, 1992 the Mayor and common council
continued this item for two weeks to enable the applicant to
respond to questions raised concerning project financing.
The applicant will be available to address the questions at this
council meeting.
Please refer to the staff report prepared for the Mayor and Common
council meeting of August 3, 1992 for a complete discussion of the
background, analysis and environmental status (Exhibit A).
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
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common council:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Approve Conditional Use permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract
No. 15451 based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject
to the Conditions of Approval and standard Requirements.
o
,.......
v
Tentative Tract No. 15451 and conditional
Mayor and Common council Meeting
August 17, 1992
Page 2
Use permit No. 92-04
Exhibits: A _ staff report to Mayor and Common council dated
August 3, 1992
1 _ staff report to planning commission, July 7, 1992
2 Official Notice of public Hearing
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
Gregory s. Gubman, Assistant planner
for Al Boughey, AICP, Director
planning and Building services
prepared by:
Exhibit "A"
'CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST COR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Dau: 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 th~ 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 Bouqhev
Phone: 384 -53 3 7
Supporting data attached:
Staff Reoort
Ward:
.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N I A
Source: (Acct, No.)
fAcct, DescriDtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No
ITY OF SAN BERNAR@NO - REQUEST FO~OUNCIL 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).
,--
v
..-..,
v
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 &
Tentative Tract No. 15451
Mayor and Common council Meeting of Auqust 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 cf 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.
........
-
, 1
'-'
',,-,
conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 &
Tentative Tract No. 15451
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of Auqust 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
r'
"
u
Exhibit "I"
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
WARD 1
....
r'~ APPLICANTEmpire Bay
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. l5451 985 Via Serana
W AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP.MIT Upland, CA 91786
en
< 92-04 OWNER: Same
U NO.
\..
r---. r
Proposal to construct Phase I (68 units) of a two phase,
I- 118 unit affordable townhou~e development.
en
W Subject property consists of 4.6 acres consisting of
::)
0 several contiguous parcels within a City block bounded
W by 6th, 7th, "Fit and "GI1 Streets.
II:
-
<
W
II:
<
'-.../ '-
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERlY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Residential RM Residential Hedium
North Residential RM Residential l1edi urn
South Residential RM Residential l1edium
East Residential RH Residential Medium
West Residential RM Residential Medium
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES ) ! FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: KKYES )
HAZARD ZONE: UNO ZONE: xx NO OZONE B o NO
HIGH FIRE DYES ( AIRPORT NOISE! DYES [ REDEVELOPMENT ~YES )
HAZARD ZONE:}(X NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
~NO o NO
- -
.... o NOT >fia POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z X3iI APPROVAL
:: APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES -
zen NO E.I.R. ~ X3iI CONDITIONS
WCJ u.O
::Ez o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO U.Z 0 DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS <W
00 WITH MtTlGA TING t)::E
1I:3!: MEASURES ::E 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-u.
> o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
Z U
W EFFECTS SEE AlTACHED E.R.C. W
.J MINUTES II:
'- .J '- .J
.... -
C1T't 01 _ .-NlN)
---
PLAN-II.D2 PAGE 1 OF , (4-90)
r-
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451/CUP 92-04
""I
....
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 irreqular in shape, totalling 4.6
acres, and consists of several contiquous 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 50105
or Civil Code (CC) Section 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.
The proposed project, as designed, deviates from the Development
Code's setback, building separation, parking and open space
standards. Requlatory concessions are requested from these
standards to maintain the affordability of these units, as mandated
....
en... OF ..... ---.0
---
PLAN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.;Q)
',r
c
o
-.,
'""'I
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451/CUP 92-04
4
7-7-92
3
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
....
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 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."
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 (DRCjERC) 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 DRCjERC
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 DRCjERC 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
P\.AN.B.D8 pAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
r'
r~-
V
o
.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
rr
.....
million dollars redevelopment set-aside funds, and the City has
determined that the project is thus subject to review pursuant to
PRC 5024.6 (j). The project 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 subj ect 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
projeot Description
The proposed 68-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 Run to donate up to 26 of
the structures currently located on the subject property and to
provide an interest-free lOan of $50,000 per structure for site
acquisition, relocation and rehabilitation costs.
..
ClTY(7'_~
---
PLAN-8.oB PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.QO)
r
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT1545l/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.
sit. and surroundinq 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.
D..iqn
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
surrounding 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
....
....
ern Of _ .--<<)
CEffflW.",,,mNIUE_CE$
PlAN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-slO)
---___._ _--4
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
(;
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
"""I
chimneys should be constructed of brick to retain the architectural
inteqrity 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 breakinq up
the building bulk and mass in this manner is that the buildings,
althouqh 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 aliqn 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 BODus/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 grantinq of a density bonus and
requlatory 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
l
...,j
CITY r:I- _ -....,
----
PlAN.a.oa PAGE 1 OF 1 (.&-90)
demonstrate that the density bonus and requlatory 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 requlatory concessions from four related land
use standards: setbacks, building separation, off-street guest
parking and common open space. These 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
...oil
aTV(l"5oIoJI~
~~Iel'MCl!.
PLAN.8.oa PAGE I OF 1 (4-90)
o
...-
v
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
8
..
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
the housing stock that defines the area, duplex and fourplex
buildings must be favored over large buildings with many contiquous
units. The result is reduced building separations and less usable
open space because more, 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 quest 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 quests 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 Archaeoloqical Resources on site
Development of both phases of the proj ect 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)" 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
Reqister of Historic Places (NRHP) , the four structures recorded on
QTYCF"'~
CElfl'lIW.li'fIN'fWrtQ.-c:H
....
...
PlAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.QO)
o
o
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
9
....
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
..
'"""'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," which contains the "highest concentration of the
city's oldest potential historic homes, II 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 Associates Planners entitled Historic San
~~~~d~O Overlav Zone Reconnaissance Survev: proiect Analvsis for
_ 4 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
"'-
PLAN.8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
c
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT 15451/CUP92-04
...,
r'
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
10
...,
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 Proposed Empire Bav
Cln Of .... -.--.0
ClHnW._____
PlAN-8.08 PAGE' OF 1 ("-90)
,___..f.._
o
o
,
.....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/ClJPQ2-04
4
7-7-92
11
Ilo..
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
DeveloPment. Block 43. citv of San Bernardino. California 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. PI074-51H) and appears to
have the potential for possible gravesites.
Prior to the implementation of grading permits or building 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
ClnOlF""'~
a!NnW.llllfmNGaIMCU
...
.....
PlAN-8.OEI PAGE 1 OF 1 (440)
~
'. Q
a
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
l2
...
r
adequately investigated, building and grading permits may be
implemented.
Trees Oil 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 cataloqued 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 Killes and Geology (DKG)
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
....
....
CllYCS'_~
CENTMl""NTlMOIeIMCES
PLAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
""III
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
13
r-
""III
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, unrein forced 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 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 UBC occupancy
classification.
Historio Preservation Task porce
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.
Bnvironmenta1 Review Committee
The ERC 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
....
....
ClTYOF_~
CENTAAL~~
PLAN.8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
~
o
('"'\
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/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.
Respectful y ubmitted,
n Building Services
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
Attachments:
A - Development Code and General Plan Conformance
B - Findings of Fact
C - Conditions of Approval
o - 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
CITY Of' _ .--.0
CEJrttlIW.~-..cu
PLAN.8.Q8 PAGE 1 OF t (4.901
o
Attachment "A'I
r
""'I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TTI5451/CUP92-04
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
15
...I
DEVELOPMENT CODB AND GBNBRAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
CATBGORY PROPOSAL DElV. CODB GENBRAL PLAN
Ose 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 DUjac 17.5 DUjac (14 17.5 DUjac (14
DUjac plus 25% DUjac plus 25%
density bonus) density bonus)
Beiqht 28 feet (two three stories three stories or
stories) or 42 feet 42 feet
Sethacks 13 feet min. 20 feet min. NjA
18.3 feet avg.* 25 feet avg.
Lot 39 percent 50 percent NjA
coveraqe
Distance 6 feet min.* 20 feet min. NjA
Between
Bui14inqs
parkinq 2 garaged spaces 2 garaged NjA
per unit plus 10 spaces per
off-street quest unit plus 14
spaces* off-street
quest spaces
Private 300 s.f. Lesser of 300 NjA
outdoor s.f. or 25% of
space unit size
Common 10% of net site 30% of net NjA
outdoor area* site area
space
* Requlatory 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).
cnYO#_~
CEJmW..M1IflWr1QER'oIICU
PLAN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.90)
o
Attachment "B"
o
...,
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
16
,...-
...,
I. COBDITIONAL USB PBRHIT FIBDINGS
1. Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.04.020 (l) (A), the
proposed use is conditionally permitted within the RM land use
district and, through design and in accordance with density
bonus and requlatory concession provisions of Development Code
section 19.04.030(2) (C) (1), complies with all of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The proposed use is compatible with existing and future land
uses within the general area 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.
6. 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
RMjdensity bonus provisions and with the existing and
permissible densities of surrounding residential uses.
...
PLAN-8.Cl6 PAGE 1 OF 1 (.-90)
ClTYO#_~
--.......
,
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT1545l/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
17
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
..
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. A market/feasibility study is not required by the General Plan
or Development Code for the type of use proposed.
11. 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."
12. 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 nonslgnificance. As a result of this
determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
proposed by the Environmental Review Committee.
...
ClTYOFSM~
GEIl!1W.PAfffiNGIERWlCU
PL.AN-8.06 PAGE 1 Of 1 (4-80)
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.
C1nCIFIoIIN~
GENnW."'1fJ1MiI1iER'lIICES
PLAN-8.06 PAGE 1 OF , (4-90)
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
19
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
II. DBBSITY BONUS/REGULATORY CONCESSIONS PINDINGS
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 requlatory
concessions previously granted prior to granting
administrative approvals.
3. 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.
PLAN.8.o& PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
C1TYOF_~
UNTfW.....NTltICI.-en
o
o
~
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
20
...,j
~
"""'l
III. DBSIGII UVln I'INDIIIGS
1. 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.
2. 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.
crtY Of _ IEMMlMO
atmW.~~S
....
PLAN-8.D6 pAGE 1 OF 1 (4-110)
o
()
,...
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
21
to...
,... .,
IV. SUBDIVISION MAP I'IRDINGS
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.
CITY OF _ .-..oN)
.......-.......
Pl.AN-8.D6 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
Attachment "e"
r
o
o
""""l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/eUP92-04
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
22
....
r'
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 quarantee to provide affordable housing
units to at least one of the following household income
classifications:
a. Twenty percent of the total uni ts 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 quarantee for 30 years their continued use and
availability to low and moderate 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;
....
....
CITY 0' MN IlEl'lIoIAAllM)
CENTlW.~lIl!AVlCES
PlAN.8.09 PAGE' OF 1 (4-90)
,
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/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 cataloque numbers as
identified in the California Certified Arborist Report for
Tentative Tract No. 15451, prepared by Mark D. Cobb, I.S.A.
certificate No. 453, on May 4, 1992):
a. Trees 1 thro,...,h 9 and 11 through 16 shall be retained in
place, relocaced 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, 82, 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.
ClTVOI....IE~
CEN'rRAl.~1E1MCES
PLAN.8.D9 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
c
l~
,...
CONDITIONS
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAGE ?Ll
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
....j
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.
11. 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.
l2. Automatic, remote activated garage doors shall be provided.
PLAN-8.os1 PAGE 1 OF 1 14.gQl
CITY Of 1M .--.0
UNTAAl~~S
o
o
r'
"""II
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
25
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r'
13.
r:nnstruction shal J be in substantial conformance
with the plants) approved by the Director.
Development Review Committee. Planning Commission
or Mayor and Common Council. Minor modification to
the plants) shall be subject to appro,'al b,' the
Director throul1h a minor modification permit
process. Anv modification which exceeds 10% of the
follo~ing allowable measurable design/site
considerations shall require the refiling of the
original application and a subsequent hearing b"
the appropriate hearing re,'iew authoritv if
applicable.
1. On-site circulation and parking. loading and
landscaping;
2. Placement and/or height of walls. fences and
structures;
3. Reconfiguration of arehitectural features.
ineluding colors. and/or modifieation of
finished materials that do not alter or
eompromise the previously approved theme: and.
... A reduction in densit,. or intensity of a
development project.
14.
lIithin two years of development approval.
commencement of construetion shall have oeeurred or
the permit/approval shall become null and void. In
addition. if after commencement of construction.
work is diseontinued for a period of one vear. then
the permit/approval shall become null and void.
r. ~~"""'-"""-8U..+t._~..._.pJ>.a.a..,.a_...i.f_ p ......[lP rQ..'L~<1._~v
~~-~~-a~~~e~~~~,---~~-e-~~-"s-~~~--~
VI. 'l:'a",pLv~-vtraseST- ~4t.h -'S'tIbsc 41:S~ftt--rth&ee-~I-~
~~-y~a~-~-~fte-~~~~-~~&&~~&-<<~~~-~~
\;ullii::lLLLI"t:"t-i~ ........In...:.J.<.'-II{.n-t.-~'"1)-~~--pkase +~~
~-~~~sr~~rr~~-~~~~~~mcftt-~-ft8Ye-~~~~
~ t''C:''''IU~ L,'a........~,rt.ClI11 ~~}-l-.........~i-4--
Proj e e t : __~~_~~~~~_<:.~~_9}_:.~~_____________________.
Expiration Date: July 7, 1994
- --------------- ------------ -- -----
..
PlAN..l.lllil PAGE 1 OF 1 1.c-lO}
i___.
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
26
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
....
.....
15.
The re\'iew authori ty ma", upon appl i cat i on bein!,
filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for
good cause. grant one time extension not to exceed
12 months. The review 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 will cooperate
fully in the defense of the matter, Once notified.
the applicant agrees to defend. indemnify. and hold
harmless the City. its officers, agents and
employees from any claim. action or proceeding
against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant
further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs
and attorneys' fees which the City may be required
bY a court to pay as a resul t of such action, but
s~ch participation shall not rei ieve appl icant of
his or her obligation under this condition.
17.
No vacant. relocated. altered. ree.aired or
hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no
change of use of land or structurelsl shall be
inauiurated. or no new business commenced as
authorized by this permit unti 1 a Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued bv the Department, A
temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by
the Department subject to the conditions imposed on
the use. provided that a deposit is filed with the
Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy, The deposit or
security shall guarantee the faithful performance
and completion of all terms, conditions and
performance standards imposed on the intended use
by this permit.
...
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. the landowner shall file a maintenance
agreement or covenant and easement to enter and
maintain. subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, The agreement or covenant and easement
to enter and maintain shall ensure that if the
landowner. or subsequent ownerls), fails to
maintain the required/installed site improvements,
the Citv will be able to file an appropriate
lien(sl against the property in order to accomplish
the required maintenance,
........._ lI&I'!le.rv:..
..-
1_-
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
27
..
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
.....
18.
The developer is to submit a complete master
landscape and irrigation plan 15 copies.) for the
entire development to the Public .orks Department
with the required fee for review, The landscape
plans will be forwarded to the Park>:, Recreation,
and Communit" Services and t.he Planning Division
for revie", (Note: The issuance of a building
development Permit bv the Deoartment of Planning
and Building Services does not waive this
requirement,) No grading permitls) will be issued
prior to appro,'al of landscape plans, The
landscape and irrigation plans shall complv with
the "Procedure and Policy for Landscape and
Irrigation" (available from the Parks Deoartment>,
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 applicable 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,
crno fI' .. -.-:l
---
..
PL.AN-IJlII PAGE1OF1
(<-10)
1_..
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUPQ2-04
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
28
19.
This permit Dr approval is Ruhject to the atta~h.d
conditions or requi rements of the fol I o"i ng Ci t...'
Departments or Divisions:
x
Fire Department
x
Parks. Recreation
Services Department
&
Communi t,'
x
Building
Planning
Department
Services Division
and Building
of the
Services
x
Police Department
Public Services (Refuse) Department
x
Pub Ii c Works
Department
(Engineerinfl)
x
Water Department
0I'f"f~"'''''''''''
---
Pl.AN-I.08 PAGE 1 OF 1
14<<11
I_~
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
29
~
20.
This permit or approval 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 ot her forms of air po 11 ut i on;
glare control; exterior 1 iahting 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 desian and include landscapina when on the
around. A sian proaram 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 requirement also includes any applicable Land
Use District Development Standards for residential.
commercial and industrial developments regarding
minimum lot area. minimull lot depth and width.
minimull setbacks. maxi mUll height. maximum lot
coverage, etc.
21.
This development shall he required t.o maintain a
minimulI of __!.!l__ __ standard off-street parki nl1
spaces as shown on the approved planls) on file,
which includes 136 garaged spaces.
....
.....
~.::.;r..=4
PLAMoIJIl PAGE 1 OF 1
,....."
I"_~
o
o
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TTl5451/CUP92-04
.
4
7-7-92
30
...
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
.....
"""l
22.
A Composite Development Plan (CDP) shall be filed
with the Public Works and Planning and Building
Services Departments prior to Final or Parcel Map
processing bv the City, The CDP shal I pro\'ide
additional survey and map information including,
but not limited to, building criteria li,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 dev~lopment of the subject
property:
23.
Within two years of this approval. the filing of
the final map or parcel map with the Council shall
have occurred or the approval shall become null and
void. Expiration of a tentative map shall
terminate all proceedinlls and no final map or
parcel map shall be filed without first processing
a new tentative map. The City Engineer must accept
the final map or parcel map documents as adequate
for approval by Council prior to forwarding them to
the City Clerk. The date the map shall be deemed
filed with the Council is the date on which the
City Clerk receives the map. The review authority
may. upon application filed 30 days prior to the
expiration date and for good cause. grant an
extension to the expiration date pursuant to
Section 19.66,170 of the Development Code and the
State Map Act.
Project:___~~_~~~~~~~~_~~~~~_____________________
Expiration Date:_~El~_lL_1221_____________________
an tJI- ... ......-0
---
PLAN-I.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1
(..oG)
1___..
o
o
r'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
31
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
24.
No lot or dwelling 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
right to assess all those properties which are
jointly owned or benefitted to operate and maintain
all of the mutually available features of the
development including. but not limited to. open
space. amenities. landscaping or slope maintenance
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
guarantee method approved by the City Engineer.
x
Conditions. Covenants. and
Restrictions lCC&R' s) shall be
developed and recorded for the
development subject to the review
and approval by the Department and
the City Attorney. This review and
approval shall occur prior to the
final map approval by Council.
x
The recorded CC&R's shall permit the
enforcement by the City,
....
~~--==
f'lNl.&IlI PAGE 1 OF 1 (.....
'n__,. ? ,..OF 7
I_~
o
Attachment "D"
o
r'
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
32
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
1.
BOILDIlfG AND SAFETY DEPAR'l'MBNT
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building ~j~Hi~,
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 Calculation
Forms for residential, H~HX~ijlaiH~161
buildings including a signed compliance statement.
Submit calculations and structural drawings, prepared by
~~~~tructural Engineer or Architect, I~~X
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 andjmr liquefaction report.
c. Energy Calculations.
d. Structural calculation.
Submit a preliminary X~ lilllllllllUX (soils and geology
with liquefaction analysis) report prepared by a person
licensed to do so.
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.
3"bmit panel scheduleCs) and electrical plans.
Pe~~it required for demolition of existing building(s)
on t:~i te.
CftY Of MI I!MUDN)
---
.
PLAN-8.l0 PAGE' OF 1 , '~'901
1_...
~
o
o
TTI5451/('!JpQ?_n4
F"
CASE
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-92
:n
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
10.
~
F"
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
...
~~~
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.
Submit gas pipe loads,
isometrics.
sizing calculations and
Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed
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 ~~~ the Fair Housinq Act may
apply to this. project, 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.
City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for
Worker's Compensation Insurance.
Assessor'~ Parcel Number.
Contractor'~ City license.
Contractor' s t1~ate license.
Sewer capacitz rights from Water Department, 384-5093,
Neil Thomsen.
~
PLAN.8_1l"l p.u;~, nc:: 1 u..QI'\\
I _.___ ~_~____.~,
o
o
r
""I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
TT15451/CUP92-04
4
7-7-92
34
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...
r
21. School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
22. Other: sprinkler plans must be submitted and approved
by Fire Dept. pr10r to bU11d1ng 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 plan check
prior to plan check submittal.
ClT'l'CF....~
CfNnW.."""*G.~
....
PLAN.8.l0 PAGE' OF 1 (....10)
1--
o Q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/DIClR.
CASE CUP 92-04 &
TR 15451 .
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
. HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
7-7-q2
~t;
r
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required. the
applicant is 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 drainage 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.
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,
Erosion Control
25.
26.
27.
28.
1C
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 Naps; 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. ThlS 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.
x
x
x
An Erosion Control Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to grading plan approval. The plan shall be designed to
control erosion due to water and wind. including blowing dust,
duri ng a 11 phases of constructi on, i ncl udi ng graded areas whi ch
are not proposed to be immediately built upon,
.J
o 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/INQR.
CASE CUP 92-04 &
S1 ANDAAD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ~~E~451 4
HEARING DATE 7-"7-Q?
PAGE ~ ,
1-,-
,.
Grading
29.
30.
x
31.
x
32,
x
33.
x
34.
x
\..
x
If more than l' of fill or 2' of cut is proposed, the site/plott
grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil
Engi neer and a gradi ng permi t wi 11 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 cubi c yards of earthwork is proposed, a
will be required and the grading shall be
accordance wi th Secti on 7012 (c) of the Uni form
If more than
grading bond
supervised in
Building Code,
A liquefaction report is required for the site. This report
must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading
permit. Any grading requirements 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 lines, or a lot merger shall be
recorded to remove the interior lot lines,
The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Ci ty Engi neer pri'or to issuance of a gradi ng permi t. Submit 4
copies to the Engineering Division for checking.
An on-5i te Li ghti ng Pl an for the project shall be revi ewed 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,
35.
36.
37.
3B.
39.
40.
41.
, CITY OF SA ~RNARDINO PUBL
WORKS/1NQIl
CASE CUP 92-04 &
TR 15451
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAGE
ST ANDARO REQUIREMENTS
r
Utilities
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, sewer
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.
Uti 1 i ty servi ces shall be pl aced 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 under grounded 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
relocated at the Developer's expense as directed 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 City Engineer will be required, This
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
~
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. geologie mapping and archeological sites shall be filed
with the City Engineer in accordance with Ordinance No. MC-S92,
Improve.ent Completions
,
Mapping
42.
43.
44.
CITY OF SAN
ERNARDINO Pl8LM9 WORKI/INQIl
CASE CUP 92-04 & -
TR 15451
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE /-/-'),-
PAG j/l
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
4
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.
45. X. If the required improvements are not completed prior to record-
ation of the Final/Parcel Map. an improvement security accom-
panied by agreement executed by the developer and the City will
be required.
46.
X
X
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 od of 4 years, Exact amount to be determi ned pri or to map
recording.
All rights of vehicular ingress/egress shall be dedicated from
the following streets:
I
X All drive approaches shall be constructed per City Std, No. 204,
,
Type II. f
...!-A 11 exi sti ng dri ve approaches adjacent to the si te on "F".. "G", I'
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' radi us. Install a handi cap 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 SAN C~RNARDINO P\8L1C:)"fORKI/1NQIl
CASE CUP 92-04 &
TR 15451
STANDARD AEQUREMENTS ~~~~I1i~E 7-j-n
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 th~ 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
: CITY OF SAN C~RNARDINO PUBL~VORK'/DIQJl
CASE rllo Q?-n.4 R.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
TO 1'::111:::.1
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
~
4
7-7-92
40
,.
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 will be required
prior to the finalization of any phase:
a.
Completion of the improvement
sufficient plans beyond the
feasibility of the design to
Engineer,
pl ans for the total project or
phase boundary to verify the
the sati sfaction of the City
b. A Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division, Fire, and Planning Departments indica-
ting what improvements will 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 phase boundaries,
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,
'10..
~
-
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
: CITY OF SA
WORKS/1NQIl
CASECUP 92-04 & -
TR 15451
AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAG
RNARDINO PUBL
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
r
Required Engineering Permits:
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
Applicable Engineering Fees (Fees SUbject to change without notice)
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 - 3% and
2.5%. respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of
off-site improvements.
Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings - See Planning and Building Services) - U and U,
respectively, of the estimated construction cost* of on-site
improvements. including landscaping.
X
X
X
Plan check and inspection fees for grading (if permi~ required) _
Fee Schedule available from the Engineering Division.
Drainage fee in the amount of $28,345 (approxl total both phases
Traffic system fee in the estimated amount of $BO.76 per TownholDe
Exact amount shall be determined by the City TrafflC Engineer at
time of application for Building Permit.
X
X
63. 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.B4 per connection ,
*Esti mated constructi on cost is based on schedul e of uni t pri ces on
file with the City Engineer,
"
66.
67.
68.
r
o I::)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
CASE CUP 92-04 &
IR 15451
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM 4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
PAGE A .,
r
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
x
UP9rade signal hardware at 6th Street and "F" Street to provide
pedestrian push buttons at all 4 corners of the intersection.
Stripe pedestrian crosswalks at all 4 corners using
thermo-plastic.
Security gates at entrances shall be set back 50' from back of
sidewalk.
x
x
PHASE II REQUIREMENT
69. X Reconstruct curb returns at the 6th Street/"G" Street
intersection and the 7th Street/oF" 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,
~
.0_
&(~~ _ ~~'"0- 0"-<-,
.-.J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DRC/ERC
DATE (.,-l~- ~
CASE TriO;; I /c."P ")z...o
-
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
POLICE DEPT
FOR APARTMENTS/CONDOMINIUMS/MOBILE HOME 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 candle 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 shall be protected by weather
and vandalism resistant covers. All exterior lighting shall
be projected so as to not cast light onto adjoining prop-
erties.
73.
DOORS. LOCKS. AND WINDOWS:
~
74.
~
75.
~
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 1 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 locking devioe 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 locking mechanism
shall consist of laminated glass, tempered glass, wired
glass or plastics.
All swinging exterior wood and steel doors shall be equipped
as follows:
A) A single or double door shall be equipped with a double
or single deadbolt. The bolt shall have a minimum pro-
jection of I" and be constructed so as to repel cuttin~
0-
o
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DRC/ERC
DATE
CASE 11 l<;lj;;/ /~""f 42.-o~
POLICE DEPT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
be installed on the front door,
BI The deadbolt shall have an embedment of at least I"
into the strike receiving the projected bolt. The
cylinder shall 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 secured to the jamb with a minimum of four
2-1/2" screws.
76. ~
Double doors shall be equipped as follows:
A) 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 I" 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
A) All moveable windows shall 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.
B) All moveable windows shall also be equipped with an
auxiliary locking device which prevents the window
from being slid (either vertically or horizontally)
open while in the closed position.
79. '~
Garage type doors: (rolling overhead, solid overhead,
swinging, sliding, or accordion style)
A) The above described doors shall conform to the follow-
ing standards:
-.
0-
o
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
DRC/ERC
DATE
CASETt' 1'5"45'1/ r.d 'll-c.)~
POLICE DEPT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1. Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of 5/16"
in thickness with the locking 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 shall have a density of not
less than 5 ounces per square foot.
B) Where sliding or accordion doors are utilized, they
shall be equipped with guide tracks which shall be de-
signed so that the door oannot be removed from the
track when in the closed and locked 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 located either in the
floor or in the door frame header.
D) Overhead doors shall be equipped with slide bolts which
shall 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 l/2", and protrude at least 1 1/2" into the re-
ceiving guide. A bolt diameter of 3/8" 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.
-.,
o
0_
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DRC/ERC
DATE
CASE1I \9+S\ / r ,dC/z.A
L
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
POLICE DEPT
Fl Doors utilizin~ a cylinder lock shall have a minimum of
five pin tumbler operation with the bolt or locking
bar extending into the receiving guide a minimum of 1".
80. ~
Common walls shall be as sound proof as possible,
ADDRESS NUMBERS
81. ~
An illuminated 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.
8 2 ."-.\
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.
83. ~
All individual units shall 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.
84. "'j
All numbering of units shall be in a sequential, logical
order.
ACCESS CONTROLS:
85. ~
86. 'I
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.
All parking spaces are to be visible from the interior of at
least one unit within the complex.
ALARM SYSTEMS
88.
l
If the units are alarmed or wired for an alarm system, the
buyer is to be notified to contact the Police Department for
_ _ _ 1 _ __ _ _ __ ! ....
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
o
o
CITY
OF
SAN BERNARDINO
CUP
9.;l. ,C)'I
CASE
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
HEARING DATE '] -s; 9,2....
REVIEWED BY 7;(/'d
PIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
GE~IERAL REQVIRHIENTS:
;p<f Provide one extrg set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
(] Contact Fire Deogrtment for specific or detailed requirements - IMPORTANT.
X The developer s'hall provide for adequate Fire Flow 85 computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Fire Flow shall be based
on square footage, construction features and exposure information 8S supplied by the developer and may be taken from two
hydr.nts'/.J~~t) C'I"'H. /T'y'f:H(,/,L]' 7),',0(,- 5PJ('o""(; /1..vp /'?-11.4' S'/zr -;;;: ~/n:-"r
/
ACCESS: N/.-t.),,~/l..J""'1 V F<!.- fft-Q(.,.I"?F/-?FA.-;..-:r:
Provide two different routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all-weather.
Provide an access roadway to each buildi~ for fire apparatlls. 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 single-story buildings.
[ ]. Extend roadway to within 50-feet of the exterior walls of all mul...iple-story buildings.
Provide "No PARKiNG" 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 SOD-feet in length and shall have a minimum 3S-foot radius turnaround.
The names of any new streets (public or private) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
[ J
><
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 40-feet of any exterior wall. The hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2t-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 8 "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8-inch wide, red stripe for IS-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.
1<1 Public fire hydrants shall be provided along streets at ~eet intervals for commercial and multi-residential areas and at
( .... 500-feet intervals for residential areas. Installation sha"'If"'Conform to City specifications and be installed prior to combustible
construction .Jr storage.
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 the building being occupied. The minimum reting for any fire extinguisher is
2A 10 B/C. ~linimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 7S-feet travel
distance from a Cire extinguisher.
"b.d"'"" All buildings, other th"!.n resi~ential over 5,000 square feet, shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkl~r system, designed
r - to NFPA standards. ~t"-I/t""lof'e-~ S-r:~'L--V Evil. tJ/.I(~6-j- ';'_/L'~',lJ &,.- ~~/lI,,<,:I("~'~/'~,
)>!r Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction on the system.
[J 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.
[J Fire Department connection to (sprinkler system/standpipe system) shall be required at curb line.
=====================================================================================================================
NOTE: The applicant must request, in writing, any change in these or other requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,j(A0X ~A-'T/?Y SFS?€.;;t./ g;?:?~-'R{.;o C"i: c;7T~:L
Il~l//;?/""~7'C/ [,)/;({.-( 7iM'7 /1T ~~ I!"-<-I/'t'"-?/C-c'[:J,
~~rE:'
.;.' ~ ' !: /'//- '.s:
....-'
/
. J-""t'","St.-
rA''''-
r//f
.-
., ~.~-
.s,,;j?7?t:>-Vf
Ct//r#~~/
r:".4~A'.?'< /-1::/",-, if'l'<~.'O"('>L/<".""r..r_
/5
FPB 170 7/39
'/crf =
'0 Bernardino City Water Departm~.O
vrr;1
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Review of Plans: # CUP 92-04/Tent. Tr. No. 15451
Location: Block bounded by 6th, 7th, "F". & "G" Sts.
\ \I> lA~ ~ \'iO""'~
Type of Construction: To const. Phase I of a 2-phased townhouse proj.
Owner/Developer: Emtlire Bav
Date:
Approved:
Denied:
Continued:
ENGINEERING: Name: ~ \l ~ bl.i.J \ \ ~
lOO. :><::....p,S, I. '10 1~
lOl . ~ Size of Main Adjacent to the Project l\eI>. ' · ·
'i Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side on the Meter.
~ Off-site Water Facilities Required to Meet Peak Flow Demand,
_02.. rvi Comments: ';=tt"f-_ .c..y,....\\...~\..."r>~ ~ -r-r"'\Jr,.....r" 0-\ h.l.A.d.r~ll.._"\-~
~ j.
Date: ~\~ \::1-z,
.
~ I~"t-, (; ~
@ "'l (Oc' ISeo g f'!'"
Subjectto the Rules & Regulations ofthe Water Department in effect at the time of Application for Water Service,
::::: This Area is Serviced by East Valley Water District and All Fees/Conditions will be Determined by their
Engineering Department,
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT:
,03. ~
Name:~
Date: ~ \ ~ '\""T z..,
.
R,P.P, Backflow Device Required at Service Connection,
_ Double Check Backflow Device Required at Service Connection,
Air Gap Required at Service Connection,
No Backflow Device Required,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER:
Name: ~s ~~~
Date:
~ \""?\~2..
.
Industrial Waste Permit Required by Environmental Control Officer,
Grease Trap Required by Environmental Control Officer,
Pre-treatment Required by Environmental Control Officer,
04 .:::>;. No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed Without Prior Approval.
05. ~ Approved by Environmental Control Officer.
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Name: ~ \ ~~ Date: ~
No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time,
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 ~
Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit,
Proof of Payment Must be Submittedtothe Building & Safety Departmentf>riorto Issuance ofthe Building Permit.
06. ;g
07. g
08.$
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
lJ.8 U.!JJT ~/.JU ~~
M Lese. c:red;.ts for- ...,"s/-I"n:J rJ,odl:':J i....~+:..
-21613.901
WATR.3.01.
~IT~ ';' ,.... ef......"00N0
;t...,,,.... J>",,,, ',Yo >.~v'<:f>
o 0
city of San Bernardino
Parks, Recreation and community services Department
Residential Requirements
Front Yard Packaqe
A. Irriqation System: (per Front Yard)
Automatic Irrigation Controller
to have enough stations for
possible back yard irrigation).
(unit must be able
future hook up of
Electric Valves with anti-siphon devices
Pop-Up Type Irrigation Heads (TUrf and Shrub areas)
B. Landscape: (Per Front Yard)
1-15 gallon 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 Strip to
separate all turf and planter areas. Type of materials
allowed: 6" concrete mowstrips, concrete curbmaker,
Black Diamond (or equal)/polyethylene bed divider.
0 ~ . .'
~ ,.
" 0
,
CITY or 6AN nllNAJDllIO
PEPARlliDlTS or
.
PARXS. aECR!A"1011 aID COHKUNITf saVIClI .0
, -
" '.
J'LANNDlG DEPARult.u
.
.
"
nocmuu
~
POLlet
lOa
LANDSWDIC ~ IRR!CATION
MULTI UN I T
Cl)tlKE1lClAL
DlDUSTlUL
.lauuary. 19!'-
i
\
\
i
.
.
I
~
o
tabl- of ContenU
I. Purpose
11. Submit tall
A. Nu~ber of Plans and Submittal Procedures
B. Landscspe Plans
C. lrrlsatlon plans
111. Landscape Are..
A. Maintenance of Landacaped Ar...
B. planter Area.
C. Interior Planter Areal
D. IrdsatiOD
E. Setbaclt Are..
F. Slope
C. Cround Cover and kddlna Material
B. ErodeD Control
1. Weed Control
IV. Plant Materials
A. Plant List and Climatic eooditlocs
I. Street Trees
C. plInt Haterul
V. 11lllpectieD
A. IrdsatiOD 51et..
I. LandscapinS
VI. Other RequiremenU
o
~
ClT't OF SAN B&llNAIU>l/jU
lEQSflDQ:11TS rOR SUlHlTTAL A)ll) APPR Q OF
UNDSCAPE AND lAAICATI0N PLANS:
1. PURPOSE
The intent and purpo.a of the.e ru1delines ls to provide:
1. Guidsnce in the required submittal of landscape and irrigation
plans.
2. Guidance in meetinl .treet tree requirements.
3. Guidance 1n selection of plant sater1al.
4. Gu1dance in what the plans (landscape and 1rr1lat1on) .hall show.
11. SUBMITTALS
.. A. NUMBER OF pLANS AND SUBHlTTAL PROCEDUIlE
(itlE.; IS) copies each of landscape and irdlation plans .hall be IUb-
anted to the Public Vorlta/En&1Deednl Department alocI v1tb payment
of the appropr1ate Landscape Plan Review Fee.
I. LANDSCAPE pLANS
1. Shall be dravu by one of the follovinl:
A. A reg1stered landscape arch1tect.
B. A licensed landscape contractor who 1nstalls the actual
landscape.
c. A nursery.
1). The owner.
MOTE: The name, addresS, telephone number, along rith signature of tbe
penon(s) who do the dedIT' shall be on the plana. legiatered
landacape architects and licensed landscape contractors shall
1nclude their registration numbers and/or license numbers.
2. plans shall be legibly dravu to scale on paper no smaller than
18" :It 24" and no larler than 24" :It 36".
3. Plans shall show location of tbe property by vicin1ty map and
nearest crosS streets and live the property addresS or assessor's
parcel number.
4. Plans sball .how location of existing and preposed utilities - above
ground and underground.
S. Plans sball show type of zoninl, tbe scale, and northerly directional
arrow.
6. Plans sball contain plant lelends for all existing aDd proposed
plant material. The legend sball be as follows:
-...
a.
9.
plans IMl~hQII cxitina and propo.ed plant --. terUl 01_\11\ .~
.cal' .t t~r ..ture aize. r-\
Plan. .h.ll contain landacap' apecif1c.tion~nd detailS.
plans .hall Ihow all required landscape areal protected frOlD
parking areas witb concrete curbiDI'
Planl shall show the name, .ddresl, and telephone numbar of
property ovuer or developer.
7.
10.
C. llUllGATlON pwS
1. All required landscaping ahall be provid~d ~ith an sutomatic
irrigation system.
2. plana shall be submitted vith, attached to, and the ssroe size as
landscape planl.
3. Plans .hall address cODservation of vater and energy.
A. Component~ - low aallonaae and low precipitat10n beads,
drip systems and other aub-surface techn1ques, aini jet
heads, .oisture senalD1 devices, controllera vith ability
of variable procramming.
B. !ff1ciencI _ veloc1ty shall be close as possible to 5 feet
per second. plant material with different vater requirements
shall be on aeparate valves. Slopes shall be OD separate
valves. System 4esi&n shall eliminate coatly, wasteful,
overthrOW and tuDoff.
4. Plans shall shOW:
A. StatiC '.S.I.
I. Service Main - type, abe and . length.
C. Vater Meter - locat1on and size.
D. Al'proved BackflOW preventioD Device - location and .be.
E. All locations of p1pe, valves and heads, (includes emmitters, etc.)
5. Slopea required to be planted shall be provided vlth eff1cient and
vater conserving irrigation systems.
NOT!: Actual vater application rates shall be applied, as soil
absorption rates dictate. Over vatering ahall be avoided.
6. All 8priDklers shall be installed with approved awing j01DtB.
7. All above ground Iprinlc.lers shall be the pop up type, 1nsulled
flushed with the soil. Exposed sprinklers on r1sers above ground
!!! aeceptable in limited areas with ''bubbler" type sprinklers
and do not border sidewalks. valk~ays, or areas subject to
pedestriaD traffic.
8. Separate vater meter for landscape irrigation is optional at owners
request and expense. .
NOTE: Owner aust notify the Water Department.
9. Plans shall contain installation apecifications and details.
10. Plans shall contain irrigation legends as follows:
EQUIPKDlT
ymbal HaDufacturer Model I \Description Nozzle Radius GPM PSI
II. IILl I/l./!:E-m,'f1'I ,,;..~ .....Oer CONCr(!+<!.. ~r Ilsph'lL7' 71J be S'e~v.;yf.
to
,
I._~-
"
,....1,
PIPE
Type
Cla"
schedule
Note: Pipe lizina, (sice) shall also be shown at eacb section of
pipe, (mains and laterals).
VALVE CHART
Valve Valve Slze CPM
11 2~" 43
12 lis" 27
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Total I Valvea Total CPM
Note: All valves ahall be numbered.
FRICTION (PSI LOSS)
" " Water Meter
Jackflow Device
Elevation Changes
Pipe
Valves, r1ttlngs, Miscellaneous
Total PSI Lo..
Or1g1Dll PSI (static)
Less Total PSI Loss
- PSI
- PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
- PSI
PSI
PSI
EqualS
Minimum to Farthest HD
111. LANDSCAl'E AREAS
A. MAI~TEl,A.~CE OF LANDSCAPED AREAS
The maintenance of landscaped areas and graded slopes shall be the
responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual
ownership.
B. PLANTER AREAS
All required laDdscapiDg shall be protected by an enclosed concrete
curbin&.
'.
C. INTERlOIt 51fE ~TJMG AREAS
Interior Plantl~aball be required and aaintaln<:)equal to at least
IS percent of the open .udacd parkins aUI cxc1udll11 tbe area of
landacapinl Itr1p requ1red lD tbe front yard .etbaclt area and Iball
. Include at lealt one tree for every five apacea or ..jor fraction
~ tbereof. Mealurement. .hall be computed from the 1naide or perllDeter
valli or aetback line..
1). llUllGATI0N
All required landscaping shall be provided with auto~tic sprinkler
facilities which ahall be maintained 1n an operative condition.
Utll1ze only reduced pressure (rp) deviaes or double check valve
assembly. ~ atlDOspherlc v.cCUUlD breaken au permitted.
E.
SETBACX AREAS
All required .etbacks abutt1ug a public risht-of-vay shall be laDd-
scaped (except for valks and drlvevaya whicb bisect or encroaCh opon
the required landscape area). The requ1red .etback. .hall be land-
.caped vith treea, ahrubs, and aroundcover. Landscaped eartb berma
.hall be erected and lD8inta1ned within the setback alone the above
indicated property llne. lermed areas shall have a aax1mulD of 3:1
Ilope and be planted vith, tall fescue tyoe turf era... or other
approved landscapinlt. Aminbnwt\ of 6 feet of landscaping .
~hall be placed on the exterior of perimeter mDs and fences.
GROUND CO\"IR A}.'D BEDDING MATERIAL
F.
Gravel and decorative rock are not appropriate material. to be used
as ground cover or bedding material.
G. SLOPES
1. To protect a&a1n.t damage by erosion and negative vl8Ual 1IDpact,
surfaces of all cut slopes ~re than f1ve feet 1D height and fUl
slopes more than three feet in height shall be protected by land-
scaping. Slopes e:ltceedina IS feet in vertical heieht shall also
be landscaped vith shrubs, spaced at not to exceed twenty (20)
feet on cetners; or a combination of shrubs aDd trees as cover
plants. Plant material selected and plant ins lDethod used shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of tbe site. Public
Works/En&ineering vill also approve these,
2. Plant sizes shall be as follows:
A. Trees 20% - 24" box
80% - IS gallon
B. Shrubs 5'0% - S gallon
5.0% - 1 gallon
C. Croundcover 100% - coverage when mature or 12" o.c.
;
~
3. The ..int~nce of I~aded alopea aDd laDda~ed araaa ,hall ~a
tha r..p\V~l1ity of tba developer until',,] tranaCer to tDcliv1dual
ovnenbip.
4. All Iraclinl and drainage facilitica, iDCludina croaion control
plantln, of Iraded .lopel, Ihall be done 1n accordance with ·
Iracling plan approved by tbe elty lnelDcer. A Iradin, permlt
,hall bc obtained prior to any Iradlua belua clone.
B. EROSION CONTROL
All grading and drainage faeilities, includinS erosion control planting
of Iraded slopes, shall be done In accordance with a grading plan approved
by the City Engineer. A sradiDg permit .ball be obtained prior to any
I~ading being dODe.
I. WEED CONTROL
: Pre-emerlence control. post-emer&ence control and cultural control of
weeds shall be addressed ln the landscape speciflcatlon..
IV. PLANT MATERIALS
A. CLIMATIC CONDlTIONS AND PLANT LISTS
Due to the bot and dry climate of San lernardino, drouaht and beat
tolerant material may be used upon prior approval.
B. STUET nEES
Street trees .hall be required. Tree varletles and exact.locatlon
will be determined by the Director of the Parks, Recreation and
CollllllUnity Services Department or his/her designee. The Parks, .ec-
nation and COllllDllnlty Services Department .hall urk lOCaUODa and
lnspect plant materlal on aite, prior to planting. Sidevallts, curb
and lutter, IlUst be clean of debda prlor to urkiD&. A 24 bour
notice is required for inspection. (see attached apeclfications for
Street Tree planting and Street Tree list). The size of the Street
trees shall be: 1. All 24 inch bo:lt specimans.
The 24 lnch box trees .ball ~e planted as atreet
trees vithin the public parkway or City property.
C. PLAI';T 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 the plant materials shall conform to the following
ailt : eI , ....d..
!!!!!. 20%, 24" box; SOX, 15 gallon; IS"'.I3~' 00)(; I~""J 'I,;&)c 6
Shrubs '0%, 5 gallon; 2,0%, 1 gallon
Groundcover 100% coverage
Conaete mow strips are required to separate all turf areas from other landscapecl
areas for aD developments except single family residential. (~( Us./J6IT,',J ~t11.;,~fNTS":
Where trees are planted in paved areas, they shall have a protective bee grate.
'nee grates shall be caste iron with a natural fiNs1\. A deep root system shall be
used.
.' .
V. INSPECTION
~
IJl.RlGATlON SYST~
,9n 3,11-531'1
A.
I. In'pection. .hall be performed by a Park and Recreation Department
repreaentative at the following:
A. Pressure test of irrigation main liDe (ISO PSU for 2 hours)
I. Coverage teat and final acceptance.
2. Do not a))o~ or cause the above ite~s to be covered up, until it
has been inF~ected and approved by a Park Department representative.
A~B hour notice shall be liven prlor to anticlpated lnspections.
I. LANDSCAPING
1. Inspections shall be performed by a Park and Recreatlon Department
representative at the folloving:
A. Upon completion of finished sude, aoU preparatlon and final
rake out.
B. When trees and ehrubs are .potted for plant1ns. vitb one
example of planting hole for trees and ODe for shrubs.
c. Final inspection wheD planting and all other speclfled vork
has been completed.
2. A ~irhour notice shall be liven prior to anticipated inspections.
Vl. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Notify Parks, Recreation and COllllllUnity Servlces Department of cOllllllence-
ment of landscaping. Give anticipated time line (start to finish).
I. All landscaping, lrrigatlon aDd street trees shall be lnstalled and
maintained in accordance vitb City of San BerDardino Municipal Codes,
ordinances and stancard require~ents.
C. Material require~ent for all plant material shall be number one (1)
grade of the California Nursery Industry Certificate as issued by the
Agricultural Commissioner of the County of origin.
D. All landscape material, irrigation equip=ent. irrigation components
and workmansiip shall be guaranteed 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 will be to insure, but not limited to all plant
material being in healthy condition and free frOlD abDormal conditions
which may have occurred during or after planting, such as defoliation
or structure dieback.
E. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
COICTACT THE ClTY pAJUC,S, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTKEIlT FOR
ASSESSME~T DISTRICT'S LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. ALL OTHER ITEMS ON ASSESS-
MD-r DISTRICTS lS COVERED BY PUBLIC ~ORKS/ENGINEEJl.ING.
n
Attachment
"E"
()
,.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
..
...oil
~
"II
Ini~i.l s~udy tor BnviroDmen~.l Imp.c~s
for
COHDITIOBaL USE PERMIT NO. 92-04
,
'l'BJI'l'ATIVB TRACT NO. 15451
PROJECT 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 residents
displaced by this project.
This Initial study considers the impacts resultinq from the
development of both phases, althouqh formal application has been
submitted for Phase I only.
PROJECT 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.
xay 14, 1992
Prepared for:
Bapire Bay
985 Via Seran.
upland, CA 9178'
Prepared by:
Greqory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planninq and Buildinq Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Cl"ao_~
~~. -ICU
...oil
Pt.AH-1.D1 PAGE, OF , 14-iOl
~
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 the 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 descript:on
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
1__.",..._
~
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 t.'1e 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)
ii
1__..-
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 ~ay
occur as a result of ~ project addressed in the section entitled
"Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures."
Hi
,
o
""'"
~
~
"'l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
~
,
A. BACKGROUNO
Application Number:
CUP 92-04 and Tentativp Trart No 1~4~1
Projecl Description:
To construct Dha~e I (69) of a two-phHP, 1111 "'lit
affordable townhouse oroiect. This prnipr:t propo~p~ thp
demo' jtion and or relocation of 46 potf'ntially hi~tnrir ~tr"rtures
Location: 610ck bounded bv 6th. "F". 7th 80 "G" Strpph
Environmental Constraints Areas: Archaeological and Historic Preservation
concerns
General Plan Designation: RM. Rosid..nt-i"1-M,,,c'linm: Urban Archaeoloqical
District
Zoning Designalion: RM. Residential-Medium, ~~"in St-r..",t- ()",,,,r'''y
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a saparate attached shesl.
1. Earth Raaourcea Willtha proposal18su. in: Vas No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or mora? X
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15,.. natural grade? X
e. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Seclion 12.0 - Gaologic X
& Seismic, Figure 47, of lhe City's General Plan?
d. ModWicalion of any unique gaologic or physical
faature? X
e. Developmant within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identWied in Seclion 12.0.
Gaologic & Seismic, Fogura 53, of the City's General
Plan? X
f. ModWication of a channel, Cfsak or river? X
...
~
Cf1'V ~ Soul .-....0
CE~~1fINCU,
F'lAN-i,D6 PAGE 1 OF L. I (11.QOl
~ 0 0
,. ..,
g. Development within an srea subjec:l to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0 - Gaologic & Seismic,
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? x
h. Othar? x
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effecl upon ambient x
air quality as defined by AQMD?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Development wi1hin a high wind haZard ares as identified
in Section 15.0. Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of :ne City's X
General Plan?
3. Watar Resources: Will the proposal :esutt in:
a. Changes :n absorption rates, drainage pallems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? X
b. Changes in the course or flow of ftood waters? X
C. Discharge into surfsc:e waters or any alteration
of surface wster quality? X
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? X
e. Exposure 01 people or property to ftood hazards as
idantified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Aood Ina~ ~ate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 _ - :.... , and Section 18.0 . X
Aooding, Figure 62, 01 the City's General Plan?
I. Other? X
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resoun:es
Management Overlay, as identified in SecIion 10.0
. Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's X
General Plan?
b. Change 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 1heir habitat? X
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6" or greater) X
'e. Other? X
5. Nol..: Could the proposal resuft in:
a. Devalopment of housing, health care fac:iUties, schools,
libraries, religious facilities or oth8r"nclisa" sansitiva uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) axterior and an Ldn of 45 dBkA) interior
as identified in Section 14.0 . NOIS8, Figures 7 and X
58 of the City's General Plan?
... ~
Cf"I'OO'_.~ PLAH.9.oe PAGE20f 27 111.10)
Cl__MIIMCU
(') ,C)
r
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Ves No Maybe
commercial or other usas which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, health care faeilities
or other sens~ive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior x
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior?
c. Other? x
6. Land Usa: Will the proposal rssutt in:
a. A change in tha land use as designated on the x
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport District as identHied in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and
tha Land Use Zoning District Map? x
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zonas A & B, or C as X
identified on tha Land Use Zoning District Map?
d. Other? x
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the proj8Cl:
a. Use, store, transport or disposs of hazardous or
toxic matarials (including but notlim~ed to oil,
pesticides, chemicaJs or radiation)? x
b. Involve the releasa of hazardous substances? x
Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? x
c.
d. Other? x
8. Houalng: Will the proposal:
a. Ramove existing housing or create a demand
for add~ional housing? x
b. Other? x
9. Tranaportatlon I CIrculation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0 - Circulation of the City's General Plan, resutt in:
a. An increasa in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? x
b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking
facililies/stNCtures? x
c. Impact upon axisting public transportation systems? x
d. AIlaration of present patterns of circulation? x
s. Impact to rail or air traffic? x
f. Increased safety hazalds to vehictes, bicyclists or
pedestrians? x
g. A disjointed pattem of roadway improvsmsnts? x
h. SignHicant incrsase in traffic volumes on the roadways
or intersections? x
i. Other? }:
.. ..j
an 01' _.,........, Pl.AH-9.DI PAGE 3 OF ....=...!... (11.90)
---
: 0 (0
~ ....
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impaclthe following Ves No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequats Iavals of ssrvice?
a. Fire protection? x
b. ' Police protection? x
~. Schools (i.s., allendanca, boundaries, ovarload, etc.)? x
d. Patks or other recreational facmties? x
e. Medical aid? x
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other? x
11. Utllltlaa: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond ths capabUity to
provide adequate levels of service or requira the
construction of new facirdies?
1. Natural gas? x
2. Electricity? x
3. Water? X
4. Sewer? x
5. Other? x
b. Resutt in a disjointed pallam ol utility axtensions? X
c. Requira the construction of new facilitias? x
12. Aa8th.tlcs:
a. Could the proposal resutt in the obstruction of any
scenic view? X
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? x
13. CUltural Reaourcea: Could the proposal rasutt in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological stte by developmant within an
archaeological sensitive araa as identified in Section
3.0 . Historical, F'lllure 8, of the Cily's General Plan? x
b. A1tsration or destruction of a hislOrical site, structura
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources x
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other? Landscape Architecture x
....
PLAN.g.Q6 PAGE~OF2:.1.- (11-90)
ern' 01' ..... ---.:I
---
r'
o
,0
14. Mandatory Findings of Slgnlflcance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act Slates that ff any of the following ean be answered yes or
maybe, the project may hava a signfficant effect on ths environmsnt and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prsparad.
Ves
No
Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to dsgrade the
quality of the environmen~ substantially reduesthe
habitat of a fish or wildlifa species, cause a fish or
wild IRe population to drop below ssR sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the ranga of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Calffornia history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project havetha polentialto achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-tarm impact on tha environment is one
which occurs in a rslatively brief, definitivs period
of lime while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
x
x
c. Does the project have impacts which ars individually
Iim~ad, but cumulalivaly considerabla? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resourcas where the
impact on each resource is relalivaly small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is signRicanl.)
d. Does the project hava environmental effects which will
causa substantial adverse effects on human beings,
e~har directly or indirectly?
x
x
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MmGATlON MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
See attached.
CIT'l'Cf'SM.-
---
PlAN-I.OS PAGE 50F 2 -, {1logol
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 6 of 27
C. nrscussrolf OJ' EIfVJ:ROIfHEIf'l'AL EVALUATrOIf AIfI) HJ:TrGATrOIf MEASURES
c, d.
.c.
3. Water ~esourc.s
a. If new development occurs on tbe site, new impermeable
surfaces, sucb as driveways, sidewalks and building pads will
be constructed. As a result, absorption rates will be
decreased, tbereby increasing tbe amount of surface runoff and
potentially altering drainage patterns.
XrTrGATrOIf: Prior to tbe issuance of a grading permit, tbe
Engineering Division of tbe Public Works Department sball
determine tbat tbe approved grading plan can adequately
mitigate potential bydrologic impacts and ensure tbat 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.
Impermeable surfaces, such as asphalt or concrete, collect
solid exhaust particulates and otber 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
tbe ground water supplies and no mitigation measures are
required on tbe 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 Resources
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 tbe 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 arboricultural resources present on tbe Phase I portion of
tbe 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 all on file w~th
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 an:! structural hazards; this
does not necessarily mean, however, ~hat their removal does
not require mitigation
Ml:TlGATION:
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. Boi..
a. A Greyhound bus terminal is located at the northeast corner of
6th and JIG" Streets. Although the General Plan has identified
o
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 ot 6th and "G"
streets.
MITIGATION: 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. Housing
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 all, 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 overseeing that
the relocation plan complies with all applicable laws in both
fo~~ 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.
MITIGATION: The EDA is legally bound to monitor compliance if
setaside funds are to be used in assisting this project.
12. Ae.thetics
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 aesources
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, 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)" 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
PrQDosed EmDire Bav DeveloDment. Block 43. Citv of San
Bernardino. California by J. Stephen Alexandrowics et al,
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 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
1____
o
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.57; 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 ~n 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 K)
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
,...
\
'wi
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 12 of 27
" .. .many of these 33 cultural resource sites
appear eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under criteria A, B, C, and/or
D (36 CFR 60.4) and are significant or
important per the criteria for Appendix K of
CEQA, as well as the City's criteria. "
The recommendations of the report include the following
mitigation measures (pp 81-82):
1. Docu::lentation of all pre-1947 architectural and landscape
cuI tural resources pursuant to the Historic American
Building Survey (HABS) standards.
2. Sub-surface testing of all 33 potential archaeologicai
sites prior to the initiation of construction in order to
evaluate any resources that may be preserved within the
project area.
3. Monitoring during grading in lieu of pre-development
testing is discouraged, as grading may "contribute to the
loss of integrity of the cultural resources." Also,
halting 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.
MITIGATION: The developer shall submit a Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP) to the City Planning
Division prior to the approval of CUP 92-04/TT 15451. The
report shall provide a checklist to be used in tracking the
mitigation monitoring and reporting activities. The report and
checklist shall describe each mitigation measure, monitoring
and reporting action. The checklist shall be designed to
record the responsible agencies, dates of completion,
inspectors or other certifying persons and the person
recording the information.
The MMRP and checklist shall include the following mitigation
measures and monitoring actions:
1. Prior to the implementation of grading permits or
building 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
shall be clearly defined in the MMRP in the form of an
excavation plan.
a. The excavation plan shall be sufficiently precise
~
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 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, wcrk 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
.;-,
1
'wJI
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 orior 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 project. 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
~n 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 deterior~tion of the human
environment in the overlay are not considered in the
evaluation for significance because they exist in absence of
the proj ect 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 Overlav Zone Reconnaissance Survev: 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
,....,
u
CUP 92-04/TT 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 streetscape
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 buil:l.ings
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 nUJ:lber 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 NEIGHBOR~OOD
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:
I.
o
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 16 of 27
" The project site currently exists as a key
component wi thin the Overlay Zone since it
contains a significant quantity of period
style buildings, and is centrally located
within this portion of the Overlay Zone. The
buildings within the project site currently
form a linkage, from a historical point of
view, with the period buildings found on the
adjacent blocks (South, East, and West). The
major urban design component created by the
period buildings on the project site is the
street frontage relationships with the period
buildings on the adjacent 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 frontage
relationship of a historical character exists
with the adjacent block to the North. "
PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
As discussed, there are two defining physical characteristics
to the neighborhood: 1) the number of older buildings that
help define the historical setting of the neighborhood: and 2)
the eclectic mix of period architectural styles. Hence, the
impact to the neighborhood as a result of the removal of these
structures is twofold. The first impact is the potential loss
to the neighborhood of older buildings whose period of
construction and design 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 buildings in the neighborhood. This
impact will be correlated with the number of buildings
demolished and/or relocated out of the neighborhood to those
relocated to vacant lots (to replace "missing teeth") in the"
immediate area. If a significant number of existing buildings
are demolished or relocated outside of the Overlay Zone, then
the net result will likely be a significant impact on the
overall historical character and long term viability of the
Overlay. Alternatively, if a substantial number of the
buildings that currently add to the character of the area are
relocated within the neighborhood, the long term impact could
be to enhance the integrity of the neighborhood by increasing
the concentration of the distinctive older homes within the
neighborhood. According to King (p. 65), "If the relocated
buildings remain in the immediate vicinity, occupying
currently vacant lots, then the relative impacts to
architectural character will be lessened considerably."
"
o
o
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 proj ect 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 './ill
resul t 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 approxi:nately 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 tJ 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.
structures Identified on Modified DPR 523 Porms
1. 602 West 6th Street
This 26-unit, two-story Mediterranean style apartment
building, 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
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 o~
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 de~ai1s apparent
on this building which merits (sic) preservation of this
building."
"
o
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 oetermination 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 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 oetermination 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
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 (Pl074-51H). This site must be investigated thoroughly
prior to any construction related earthwork.
primary structures Not Listed OD Modified DPR 523 Forms
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 "C" street Mission Revival 1925
10 639 ~orth "G" 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
l8 640 North "F" street Neoclassic Cottage 1910
1. structures Proposed for Relocation
"
o
o
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 wi thin the neighborhood. The Mission
Revival cottages at 621, 623 and 625 North "G" c01llprise a
"bungalOW court" and should be relocated as a group.
2. structures proposed for Demolition
~DRESS STYLE YEAR BUILT
(estimated)
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.
"F" street has been fire
architectural elements
2. The remaining structures have been so severely altered that
they have lost most of their architectural integrity.
3. While the reuse of ~~ese 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 Residences, Detached Garages, and other Dependencies
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
o
CUP 92-04/TT 15451
May 14, 1992
Page 23 of 27
photographic documentation of these structures, together with
all others on the subj ect property, prior to removal or
demolition.
MITIGATION: The MMRP as described in Section 13a of this
Initial Study shall include the following mitigation measures
and mitigation monitoring/reporting activities to ensure that
the potential impacts associated with the removal of
potentially historic architectural resources are mitigated to
a level of nonsignificance:
1. Prior to the relocation or demolition of anv structure,
a complete photo recordation of all structures shall be
conducted in general accordance with the Histori~
American Buildings Survey CRABS) 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 granting of demolition 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 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 grading 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 writing to the Department of
Planning and Building services.
4. Prior to the demolition of any building, the applicant
shall make a good faith effort to donate or sell any
building slated for demolition, including 602 West 6th
Street, to any party who would relocate these buildings.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant
",
o
"""'\
V
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 be
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.
Note: 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
[~
....)
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 .~is 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
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
applica~t shall advertise in the local edition of the San
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 subjec~ property.
c. Landscace Architecture
Several references are made in Alexandrowics' report
to the potential historic significance of the
property's landscape architecture.
pursuant
subject
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 canno~ be warranted at this
time.
However, the city does recognize the mature trees on site as
bioloaical resources, and the associated impacts and
mitigat:.on 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.
,
,
:Q
o
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this in~ial study.
o The proposed projact COULD NOT have a signijicant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
~ The proposed project could havs a signijicant effect on the environmant. a~hough thera will not be a sign~ieant
sffect .n thIs case bscausa the mttlgatKln msasuras desenbed abovs have bean added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be oreparlld.
o Ths proposed project MAY have a signiflClllll affect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENT ALIMP ACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA
Sandra Paulsen, Acting Chairman
Name and Title
<:;;;,- ~ '* .
Sigl'lalure
(7) Ii:"
I. ."
r/4' ;:-'/1\
.
Date:
May 14, 1992
....
....
ClT'O C6 s.uo IlF-.-..o
U_l-......__
PLAN-8.D6 PNJEUOFl:L {11-9Ol
r.~
'.
"'-'
APPEHDI][
VICINITY MAPS
SITE PLAN
o
....'...
:,)
"
'-'
"IlOlt,.
. ,
,
,
-'
.-
I
f,..
. .
~'N -~~
~~~.:.J.--V..loo
E~R~iN~
~
.
~.
GN! \
\ / '"
O.lJ" 11 .2&9 Mll$
, M'''~ /
V QUADRANGLE LOCATION
UTIIf GltlO ANO 1911 IMGIWHt(: NOI'TH
DtcuNArlON Ar C[NTU 01 SMUT
CALIFORNIA (SOUTH HALF)
Scale l:500,OOO
1 inch eQu.ls ,pproxlm,tely 8 miles
10 0
- - - - -
10 0 10
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
10
20
30 M.les
20
30
40
50 Kilometers
Figure 1. Project Vicinity (U.S.G.S. 1981).
o
o
.-:-:- " I: ::.':. ,_,).:~ & tV j' ~ j'~. . ::.; .';: ,I i' ..
,~..Y , -J.. ,.. ;.- ',<FN .
'/"" , E")., ~ ,;.{ r ..:;'. !ll'" -".
.. ~.'
, ...,
... /'! BAS' ~~I~ ~T lv i L.J ~
.~.. -~ .. ;a r-'! I I r;;~-.ij .r
, '- /. ' ., -- _I / ", a.. ...; I ::E iE iN:~11 }
, . . "?1.:. v.... ... ~ ~ I..' r
. /. . ,;' I " ,,, ;. >
, ;.., .. ", ; I -- ::.......... ,:, . j
.."A T .c ' .'. _" ! .J'HI.
V'!tlI Sl E.., to il" ::: ,'..... . I. t: ~
1/1 ,.., ::;. ~.... ~: I _TI4.'''''' S H.... ['-;oj "r:a ;-- /1:r
~. ~ '-.1Ii ......-n \00
i." "/I '" x.i ,,..,..,,,-...._ ,II' LLPQ..oi " ~
e"1 /0 / a04l,," "'PROJ~CT .AREA~ an ~ T ~'~;~i:_, !-..aJ.,
~~. ~".~,~~ '" " llG'7 V./J I. /" , ;: fi
~~r~..J ..~ IY./I I -t -.r- ~.~: ~
f"'l I.A' ", '. :!",""OOn T, --, j. --1' ~ .
"r I. /' '.ST '0'..' ;'gJ' ,.~ ~iI.~J, . :"1_. !'~
~.oO ,"".1 &...,,. I'IODl. '1~.;;:t:.-", _t:r~lr.4: II II II _ II~. Ii "
I I' -~. I:: "'"7..-} 'YJ,'" 1- "ir ... I !! r~~:.-J' ~"lyl_.
- ..{'". _. . 'I 1i7~ 1 il J!It'~~jl!:! "'YO ..
~_:r: Ni':~: .,'.' ~.',f! . ~ ;~;,,;;;. - . .:.~ ~4~ i .. " ~~.~~;
. _1....._. . ~ -.,. -_/ it~:.....(.,.. 10 .~r-,,!~:...o'~. .~..~.
. .. - '.... ,.. .ll -'"0' ".--.., f, ' , :
", ._.~. ...~. \rr- Ii;' ....:!.. ..;
~p.i~~(:"(.-~~~~;~!:l\~.~_..:.._' ~! '~::~~i~', 8~1.~
H. ','086i v,.'.ct '" "1\=" \lJibJl~.. Ir-!;',,' ': "I" I03\..
..... I "., . I -i:.a.. ,I ,1;+, I :Tt
~;~. _ . ':. \.. 1 ~.'A/ '~ ~":.;:l:/.- ~._ ~~). ..iil
....:.:. -.,.. . :..J ,'" ,,-, ..... --r_',~_ ,~,
.."q' .. . "(I" "..~", : "'.' .,..",,,- . lo/I.
~' -- . · ,; I ,- I..~', ':/; ... 0.".',' ". 1 '<l:'
_.. ~..'Ft-ll...._ 'r.:~' _ f-;,.;;;" . I -:: ~I' .
......j .--......: ::!''''''P.,I....:if.l~: ..t ~~!~, .:;. '. . .-:ji~ .... :<Ii! \ . ~ :~
...r ::f'~~ .L7I~l' ;~ ~. ~-.,,'..,.- "1 -::i ,. i." ;""
~ --:--.~_.e:.._. . : 1)0 ~ !' ".:+.". ':, \, ;';.0" ~ .1.
. i " ' /1.':1...... -----:-j ];:~... '.',:" '."~" "; .::.....:::., :'r"
, w,.... Is I I ~.nl"" l' .:.... ~ " ....,j;- ",=--:. .' ':' .,' ..-,.~:. :~~--II-
. CltEEIl' t .. ~ :2: ... .c. -- ..' ". ::;. iliij ,""" .. .
I L ........, ...:::: .~ .;1 .-'." . ,.Par1u.. It"\l....-
_.... '. ._ ~/_..:II. _ -, -'\oj Ii.', _'.
I:" .
--'J
.
~
I..
I,
'---'
, ,'''
!.t-
~
I
*
ON
-,
j
C(
,
~
QUACRANGLE !.OCATlCN
SAN
BERNARDINO SOUTH, CALIF,
SEt4 SAN 8ERNARDltlO 15 QUAORANCLE
N3400-WI171517.5
-""1l"
lM'L5'
. .-...
158 "'.,'
1967
"'HOTOREVISEO '980
DMA 2552 III SE-SERIES Va95
UrM GRID ANO 1910 MAGNETIC NOATH
OECllNA 110N AT CENTEA .,. SHErT
seAL" ] 24000
.
:000 0
- --
:xo
200C
;:"x:
""'"
~
6000
."ILl
-- -_.-
~'XIO 'E::T
=
I
~
,
--
Il(llO"'(TE~
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
DOTTED LINES REPRESENT 5.FOOT CONTOURS
NATIONAL GEODETiC "EtlT1CAL OATUM OF 1929
Figure 2, Project Area Location (u.s.a.s. 1980),
"
":~;:::;:~'.o:;:;,
rn
L?
<<l
W
CC
::l
C!I
ii:
o
CIl
W
~
:;
~
en
z
w
CIl
.....
<
u
8
.....
o
w
<
:I:
U
cc
<
'"
~
~ i
ffi ~
~ ~
l!5 W
i i
~
~ ~ ~
C Cl i:!
~ ~ ~
8 W j:
~ ~ !!! i
~ ~ l!5 Q
~ ~ ~ I
i ~ ~ ~
!5 ~ Ii! ~
........................:........1
':':~:::::::::tt;
JnMi
.;-
r~~~~i:~~ji:it ,~~-I
~._:~.,..-..., -/ ._;. I
,~~, '1i ,-'-I
::::::::::::::::i:..~.~f:h~t~.
:.:.;.-::-:.;.;.;.;.:-:.::.:.:.::.:.;.;.;
- ."t?:~r::;::::::~~~::::~::~::<:
,;.;.;." ..
---
r"""
/
/
0-
-
"'-
-..
"c
::l..
8u
2~
'eO;
cae
Eo
..-
ellS
"0;
os",
CIl-e,
,,0
..-
","
-os
::l.c:
0'"
CIl-
-<
.
IS'.I(II"
'--.--;
IS.I'~
-'
/ ,
/
L.__ . ,/
....:. _';'~---'" rt
_,.., ./ "I 'V.I
.. ....#!! 5~
",....1e;"7fP;V---~.._._./.... · Ii
~J'~#.....r
"./"E~...........'.
.......::
:::s~),
.--.......}):,
....'..:.J
:.:.;::<;<::;:::((4: .
:i~;~~t ~\
l~~'~'+J~~;'r/~'...,-{,' -; r~ lA' ' I,
j:.;.;.;.;.;.... .
,O;;;;,;;;;;;:;.~;.:...,.
. I I I. _ ~ I '.W .... '~ I
..... '..(;j;;J.'- ! I I
': :!~~ ..I , ~,
r"'~~~";~ ~ ~.,"..",;d ~\
:,i '--,-: I_~:, '1'1 YkJ t,
..... 1 " ,-, ,=- ,~~"
~~:... ~ ~ ,,~
f .; I :- i 1":'" ~ ~"'''~.l-~ .'~-~r-
rmmEJEJm@H_r -- I'-~ ,>~ ~r-;...-1~ '-F~ I : ~~-,
~~I~~~~i~j~ ~-~; I~~ -I" 1-- ~l~~TiH~ "'SL__~"
!::::;&::.:.:~.." 01 I I I 1 I
y~;:{?" :... . ...:- 1,. I ,
~::' . eA. _..IIM
"
.
j
,-
./~~.:::t....."'f...!
_/
-~-~
I i..' .......A I"
1"'1'"
"
,-1
, ,
, ,
!J "YO,,~~
~::;q~
C" ",.,
.:.: .;;J
I
I
r
f
t.
, ::..-..
.' -
-.
,",
/, IS j"'~
~,
I
"
.
Figure 3. Archaeological Sensitivity Map
, .'
\
,
~---
,
I
!
o
,--..
IV
OVERLAY ZONES
The identified overlay zones described in Volume 1. Section 5 in the Survey Report are potential 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 alfered. 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; refer 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 W1:n a b1adC 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
o
J . LJOD ailEJD L
7!ll STREET
6lfj6~ 88 EJ B 8 r-=
J '~
~
] EJ 0 G
] 00 ~ .G
J . D ~
J """"T l-
I- B III []
III ~
] ~ D D vie'
] D
EJ DODD B
J I cW.o. I
J ~ o ODD ...
El~ 0 0 LGA."GU I a
~OEJ !IN
~im8888EJ I ~I -
11(.
6 I!! STREET
~ r:I~r:1~r;]H r;l r::ll RE
ct.
Figure 5. The Project Area: Plot Plan of Existing Conditions
(Empire Bay Group 1991).
o
.,-...,
IV
J +- ~ - I -
~-1-7.
I
l r
LJ '""lull I I'., 0 :1 .- L
- ""f-~+ .
I J
-.- -+-
I
f I (
ti I ~
w
I ...
. @ e
"0 0 (!) 0 (!) 0 :
,
fJ ~
~ @
_.J ~. ~,.... ~ @
~ . @ ~ E> ~ -.
.- .. . .
I e
~.
I
I
@ , If.!)
CO2 ")
@ ;- @
l @ I
,
,
e I e
I
e 3 I @2 8
e I G)
,
e I
8, O~
e , e
J
,
., .
:"
r
_.._1_...
-, I (
: ~
(
I
l--..t-vlC
I
.
i a
.
"t
T
-.-
,I r
I'i?I
Figure 6. The Project Area as depicted on Block 43 of the
Assessors Map Book 134, Page 2 (1992).
. Hls/oria San SlIrnardlno Ovsr r'bns Rsaonrllllsunc. Survsy
'Prollle/ Analysis for CUP No. 92-Mnd Tsnla/ivII TtaCt No. 15451
o
The Project'Slte:
1
j
...
,
Weat 7th Street
..
~
.}:-
i::
"
-
~
w
~
-
....
o
:z
'.
"'i
T
Project Defined The proposed projed 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 architedural or historical importance.
...
i
;;
.
.
"0
Co)
Gi)
o
-
(I)
CI)
....
-
(J)
~
-=
-
....
o
2
. i;1
i;;i.t~
'::'I,!II!,I. "'1' :.,.I,lj'III" ......~..;.... ...~t.. ....~~r ".................. ................ .... ........... "~"""'.........::&
ml!llllli:. ill! mmllllil!l ~~:.:i:::::;:~:tf~:~t~~m; J. g~;t::~:~ ~@:rz~w .:::~::#:~::@S:~:}i~!{:::i~ti
.1
..
Weat 6th Street
Figure 7. Phasing Plan for the Proposed Project
D. G. King As.soc:qles Planners 1254 S.".,." 5".." CIMemom CIIA:lrNI" 1ft
(114) 621 '3~
o
--
v
I
M! ,
-11
"
en ~ '#. #. ~: ~i ~ ~~
w CD II' ~
.... a: N '"
Z :i g~CI)G) " it....
~ '" ~ --<n ~~ffi~ ;
~ .. ~ .... "'''' ~l!""i
.
~>- 2 tti ~ ~~ :rl~~ ~ C
!!f_ a? ",--'-", CO
~ ~ 0( ~ ~ ffi U ",...",~~a;c:
.... 8 '" !lIi,l~r'"
.... ~ B~ ~
- 0 E ~ ~ a: f ~ ~ illlll-N~ia: ~w Q)
~ i::s ~ I ~ I N'" no("'~ .....::= -
.. It en .... z -' m... Q.:a..! CJ)
~ i ~
J.33liI.S ~ ~ ~~
3 "\ I-
$ ~,
rl -. -B~~ Q...::. ;, 'i "'2
. ~ ~ ... ~
,;~a ~
. ., ~ iD .. . Hi 2 W~
I' ~ ~~~
I .... ~II a.. a:
~ i
~ it 0
~~!ll i
....J
;b!i Ii w
....i' ! .... >
...
...,' ~
II! W
t;
j!: j!: 0
..
..
.
I
i ~
i
~
'4
i ~ .... ce
i i i
i i i
. W
'I
li a:
-
J.33liI.S !) h a..
~ ~ ~
~1I
lllw W
Figure 8. Proposed Phase I Development of Proposed Project
~
f-i
Iw .. Z
Iii; j W~
I w~* .. ~~
II c-
9
w
>
w
~O
o
o
I
-JI
"
.LN3WdO'13^3CJ A'o'B 3l:IldI'G I
m! :! ~ ~
~ ~.!i
~ 00 ~
~ :::: i ...
~>- ~~~
~ffi ~~ffi
; E <..... ~ ~ ~ ~
~ E ~~!!! ffi ~ .. ~
a:~ ~ ~~a~
!!!I
~hh
u.;~ ~f!! f/J ~-:!!
cncn2:!: w 9
O.O::l:l ~
g~ mOl c:J ilo-
--CD" >~_o
... 0:...
cncn g: ""
...... d~~i! C
;; wll!t'" - CO
U ~iUi~a:
illill~-:~~ffi;l~~ CD
(\1(')' ~<wQ.t:Sa..w...
~ .-
.... liI (/J
~ I
I
-- ..::ro; ... t-. i
. I' "
~iII' l. .',-
;.-.::="!
' ./!,!
.. . --'( ;:-fT"
""""
.~, .
J . - ", r;1 . ~
. .'1'" .
. OJ_'
!33lilS ~
~i
~.
.~
~
...
i
i
\.
!33lilS 9
~~
~!
U
lllw
I
e_
~!
S!
Figure 9. Proposed Project After Completion of Phase II
~,
.
.
...
w
ll!
t;
~
CD
w
a:
-
c-
~
w
Attachment "F"
,......
'-...)
o
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 9204 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15451, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
17852 Theodnra Orive
Tustin, CA 92680-2611
Prepared for
EMPIRE BAY
985 VIA SER':'NA
UPLAND, CA 91.786
AND
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
300 North D Strpet
San Bernardino, CA 92418
June 17, 1992
1
I._,~-
o
-
i -...J
INTRODUCTION
The Oroject Area is bounded by 6th Street (south), F Street (east),
7th Street (nort~), and G Street (west), in the Residential Medium
(RM), General Plan and use district as well as the Development Code
Main Street Overlay, City of San Bernardino.
Thi s MITIGATION MON ITORING REPDR.T PROGRAM (i. e., MMRP) has been
prepared for use in monitoring ~nd reporting mitigation measures
contained within Sections 13a and 13b regarding cultural resources
of the City's Initial Study (Gubman 1992). The MMRP will be
implemented to tracking the mitigation and reporting activities for
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451 (CUP
92-04/TT 15451), if approved by the City of San Bernardino (i.e.,
the City). This program has been prepared in compliance with Sta~e
law to ensure the mitigation measures adopted for this project are
implemented by the Empire Bay (i.e., the Project Proponent) and
monitored by the City.
Assembly Bill 3180 (PUblic Resources Code, Section 21031.6),
effective January t, 1989, requi res adoption of a reporting or
moni taring program for those measures imposed on a project to
mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment. The law
states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed
to ensure compliance during project implementation.
This document contains the following sections:
1. The City's Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources are
reiterated point by point;
2. Implementation Procedures for the mitigation measures are
described;
3. Responsible parties are identified for implementing and
reporting on the mitigation measures;
4. A Mitigation Measure Checklist (i..e, MM Checklist) is provided
Tor tracking the progress of the mitigation MMRP. The MM
Checklist is designed to record the responsible agencies,
completion dates. inspectors, or other certifying persons and
the person recording the information.
THE MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM:
SECTION 13. CULTURAL RESOURCES
~ubsection a. ArchaeoloQical InvestiQations
Mitigation Measure 1.
D~scriptiQ.D.: Prior to the implementation of grading permi ts or
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 33 sites identified t, the sultural resource
!nvestigation refer strictly to extant ..rchitectural
resources and not to potential subsurface resources,
those sites shall not be inclLjed 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.
Addendum: A motion was unanimously carried to recommend that the
Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration subject
to the following amendments to the Draft Initial Study:
1. Mitigation Measur's No. 1 of Section 13a shall be revised t.o
allow thp. provisional issuance of building and grad:ng permits
prior to the commenceme0t of the sub-surface Ir~haeological
investigation of the subject property (Gubman 1992).
ImQlem~_Lation: A Cultural Resources Inves'.igation and Excavatio~
Plan for Block 43. City of San Bernardino.
The first step in a cultural resources investigation is the
identification of cultural resources (i.e., historic properties).
Various levels of preliminary archival research, development of a
"Historic Context" and on-si te survey investigations wera
accomplished in a report entitled, A Cultural Resources
Investigation for the Proposed Empire Bay Development, Block 43,
City of San Bernardino, California. ACS-ITCHNIJ;;eJ_~~RH:S_~_O~
(Alexandrowicz. Duffield-Stoll. and Alexandrowicz 1992). At least
33 potential cultural resources sites were identified within the
Project Area.
Related Historic Preservation Procedures will entail:
- Additional Archival Research will be performed to enhance the
Historic Context pr~sented in the report by Alexandrowicz et al.
1992
- All cultural resources sites, totalling appc~ximately 33 sites,
will be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation
Archaeological Site Records (DPR 422 1986) Architectural sites,
including buildings, structures, and/or objects will be recorded
on Historic Resource Inventory Forms (DPR 523 1990) and where
.:>
o
-
.
'-"
applicable, appended to the DPR 42= forms. Recordation will
entail narrative text, site maps, and site photographs.
- ~ogistics or Scheduling: Recordation and archaeological test
~xcavations will be conducted on all parcels in the Phace I area
as well as on any properties within the Pha~e JI area t"at are
. . - ~~ __..... ~o".#\t.... __11. c.;...~
currently owned by the ProJect Proponent~ ~he proposed
archaeological investigations will be initiated at 602 West 6th
strees and proceed westwar1 along 6th Street. The parcels north
of 602 West 6th Street and frJnting F Street will be the next
area documented. Phase I properties along G Street will be
investigated last. Sites located on parcels within the Phase II
area and not owned by the Project Proponent will be archaeolog-
ically documented at the a~propriate time when Phase II develop-
ment has been autnorized by the City and t~~ Project P~opone't.
- A combination of metal detector surveys, auger holes, post holes,
sub-surface shovel test pits (STPs) and/or Excavation Units (EUs)
will be employed to test for the presence/absence of sub-surface
artifacts and archaeological features such as building
foundations, privy pits, trash pits, wells, and so forth, STPs
will be either 1.5 ft. square or 1.5 ft. diameter, depending on
existing soil or other conditions. EUs will be 2.5 ft. square.
Stratigraphic excavation of the STPs and EUs will be acramplished
by hand tools (i.e., trowels, brushes, shovels, ~nd so ~orth).
Documentation of all sit~s, cultural features, and ass~ciated
features (e.g., landscape features) will be accomplished via
narrative description, scaled drawings, and 35 mm. photographv.
- Areas to be investigated at each site include the fror.t yards,
side yards and back yards. Excavations will be conducted along a
surveyed grid, as well as intuitive locations based on historic
research and previous experience. The back yards are especially
critical areas to exami~e for the presence of privies and trash
pits. These types of features usually contain trash that can
answer important research questions regarding social behavior
during the past.
- All data gained from the cultural resources surveys, sub-surface
testing, laboratory analysis and development of the historic
context will be analyzed, compiled, and interpreted with respect
to eac~ site. In turn, the multi-disciplinary data will be used
to evaluate the individual site's potential to answer rAsearch
questions and attendant eligibility per CEQA as an important and
significant cultural resource.
In the case where cultural resources demonstrate the potential to
yield important information that can answer research questions,
ACS will recommend Data Recovery Excavations to mitigate the loss
of that information before it is destroyed during construction.
Data Recovery Excavations may occur immediately subsequent to the
archaeological testing and/or at a later date. Nevertheless,
4
o
o
parcels that contain cultural resources recommended for
Data Recovery Excavations may not be graded prior to professional
data recovery excavations.
In the event where the cultural resources are sufficiently
documented during the identification and evaluation
investigations and do not contain the potential data to answer
important research questions, then the document~cion conducted
during the ar~~aeological testing investigations will be
adequate mitigation for those cultural resour'es.
_ Interim Reports on the cultural resources investigation will be
prepared for all of the parcels investigated within Phase I and
for those parcels o~~ed by the Project Proponent within the Phase
II area. Interi~ reports will be forwarded to the City, the
Project Proponent, the Archaeological Informateon Center-San,
Bernardino County Museum, and the California Office of Historic
Preservation. Interim reports must be with~eld from the Feldhym
Library and any other public institution where conficential site
location informaticn 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, Dat~ Recovery E,cavation
investigations within both Phase I and Phase II argas. In the
event that Phase II is not developed, the =ina' P.oort ~ill be
prepared for the Phase I (and any Phase II) cultural ~esources
investigations within one year of approval of chis ~~RP. The
final report will be forwarded to the City, the pro;~ct
Proponent, the Archaeological Information Center-'3n 8ernacjino
County Museum, the California Office of Historic ~reserva:ion,
the San Bernardino County Archives, and the Feldhym Library.
_ Artifacts will be curated at the San Bernardino Courty Museum. It
is recommended that the City, the Project Proponent, and the San
Bernardino County Museum enter into a Memorandum 0: Understanding
in order to permit the Project Proponent to es=ablish 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 in promoting historic
preservation for the City of San BernardinQ.
_ 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 and
standards of the Society of Professional Ar=haeologists (SOPA).
5
(0
,.....
v
ResQQns L9JJL..!?.a r ties:
- City of San Bernardino;
- Daniel Fauchier, Project Proponent
- J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, Archaeolcgical Consulting Service(ACS)
- Archaeological Information Center-San Bernardino County Museum
MM Checkl ist
ACTIVITY
MONITORED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PL,o.NNING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FI ED
SIGNATURE
Archival
Research
Site(s)
Recordation
Phase I
Sub-surface
Investigations-
Phase II
Subsurface
Investigations
Data Recovery
Recommendations
Data Recovery
Excavations
Laboratory
Analysis
Interim Report
Final Report
Curation
Displays
Mitigation Measure 2.
Description: For any potential sites that are located below
structures, the consulting archaeologist shall ~e 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.
6
o
,.....
!v
Implem~ntation: An archaeological monitor will be present during
and immediately after the removal of all extant structures where
cultural resources sites are anticipated to exist in order to
conduct survey and sub-surface test 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
reports.
Responsible Parties: The City of San Bernardino
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
Mf'1 Checkli_;;..t:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTI FI ED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Letter
Regarding
Sites
Monitor
Sites
Letter
Following
Necessary
Excavations
Mitigation Measure 3.
Descriotion: 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 ~~ have
been adequately investigated building and grading permits may be
issued. -
:>
Implem~~~q..ti~n: J. S. Alexandrowicz, SOPA will be responsible for
overse'?ing the all cultural resources investigations for this
project. An Interim Report will be prepared after completion of
site recordation and sub-surface archaeological test excavations.
At that time a Letter of Transmittal will be prepared for all
Responsible Parties. Recommendations for Data Recovery Excavations,
where applicable, will be contained within the Interim Report.
Followi ng any necessary c.~ ta Recovery Excavations, a Let te r o.f
Transmittal will be forwarded by Mr. Alexandrowicz to the City and
the Project Proponent.
7
o
'0
Resp_Q.nsiQ.l<;" Par1;_:h.!;!.~: Ci ty of San Bernardino
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
MM Checklist.:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
,~
v
."
~
~
~
Letter
R.ega rdi ng
Sub-surface
Excavations
Recommended
Data Recovery
Excavations
Data Recovery
Excavations
f 1.,1...{:- ~ ~:~
I,..~.r" VV~1
V' Mitigation Measure 4.
[:lescriotion: If archaeological artifacts are encountered ducing
grading activities, work shall imme~iately be haltea and the
consultin] archaeologist shall be summoned to the site to aSS2SS
the signi cicance of the find. If the consul ting 3rchaeologist is
unavailable, the construction supervisor shall contac: the San
Bernardino Ccunty Museum Archaeological Information Certer. The
construction crews shall be educated as to these procedures and the
phone r~mbers of the consulting archaeologist and the
Archaeological Information Center shall be clearly posted on the
construction site.
Imclementation: ACS shall have an archaeological monitor on site
during the grading of all designated archaeological sites. Signs
with the above mentioned information will be conspicuously posted
in areas with undocumented cultural resources. The City should
SUPP-flrt- the Proiect Proponent in r.equesting a contract fret!;!. fro",,",
any potential fees for' construction delays -du'e to "discoyeLeo.::-'
archaeological-resources. .---.. .--- r
l:Iesoonsibl"'._.Earties: the Ci ty of San Bernardino
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
the Grading Contractor.
8
(0
('.:;
MM Checklist:
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNHIG
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Document
Archaeological
Sites
Sign
Posting
Monitor
Site
Grading
Discovered
Sites?
Data Recovery
Excavations
Interim
Report
Final
::l.eport
Mitiqation Measure 5
Q.stscription: If human remains are encountered, si ther 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.
Implementation: 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 to alert construction crews to call the County Coroner, the
ACS '.Jffice, and the ArChaeological Information Canter if human
remains are located. a reement should be reached with the City,
the Project Proponent an inq Contractor:. a so Yln-g-'1:tte
Project PrC,;QOnent fJ:O!" ;ony fee.. asSO€i-a.ted.wi th construction de'fays',
-du~ to "..-;iscovererJ" hllm;:lin r:ema-ins.. ----
Responsible Parties: the City of San Bernardino
Dan Fauchier. the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA. ACS
the Grading Contractor
9
o
-
-..)
MM Checklist:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
"'lOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATUR.E
Monitoring
Agreement
Sign
Posting
Moni toring
Clearance
Letter
Per the stipulations in the Initial Study regarding the MMRP:
The MMRP shall be retained by the City in the Planning
Division project file for CUP 92-0d!TT15451. All City staff
members responsible for monitorirg and enforcing the
mitigation measures shall be adequately informed of their
duties and responsibilities prior to the initiation of their
duties.
As the various mitigation measures are fully implemented,
their completion shall be documented by appropria:e notation
on the checklist provided specifically for this project. Whe
all of the mitigation measures have been confirmea as
completed on the checklist, the Mitigation ~oni:oring and
Reporting Program shall be deemed somplete [Initial Study:
Gubman 1992:14].
This MMRP has been prepared to implement and report on these
mitigation measures regarding cultural resources within the Empire
Bay Development.
Subsection b. Historical Architectural Resources Evalua~ion
Mitigation Measure 1.
Description: Prior to the relocation or demolition of any
structure, a complete photo recordation of all structures shall be
conducted in general accordance with the Historic ~merican Building
Survey (HABS) guidelines. Four complete sets of photo 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 Feldhym Library; ;:;) the
City's Historical and Pioneer Society; and 4) the State Office of
Historic Preservation. This photo recordation shall be completed
10
'0
,....."
..J
and submi tted e.0nr ~g thg S:r~nti no of demn1; Hor per~mi ts, building
permits, or grading permits.
Note: Photo--recordation of this nature is a highly specialized
field of Historic Preservation and such an undertaking requires the
advice and assistance of a qualified consultant.
~~e~~ntation~ All structures will 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-white film. Negatives will be
processed to total arcohival standards. Prints, 4 x 5, will be
processed commerciall". Buildings with exceptional significance
(i.e., SEQA and/or NEPA) will be represented by 8 x 10 commercial
prints. HAas Level 3 narrative, drawing and photographic
documentation will be submitted to all four agencies.
Responsible Parties: the City
Dan Fauchier. the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
MM_ Check 1 !.s t :
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONS.IBLE
PAR. TY
DATE
PI_ANN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNAT'JRt:
Submittal
of Level 3
HABS
Documentation
Mitigation Measure 2.
Description: Prior to the demolition of the structure at 602 West
6th Street, a complete floor plan of the building shall be
prepared. Four 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:.J:!!Q],S'rnentation: A scaled map shall be made of the floor plans of
the building. Four complete sets of blue lines 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 relocation prior to any
demoli tion. The Ci ty should waive all moving, relocation, or
related fees in order to promote relocation and preservat.ion-of- the
~Qi~. The City and the developer should conslaer--spending--th~'
proposed funds to r--&emo 11 tlon toward fundsfo-rrelociltion~-
~~sponsiqJe Parties: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
11
o
o
MM Checkl is!.:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
",OTIFI':J
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Advertised
for
Relocation
Scaled
Map of
Floorplan
Mitigation Measure 3
Qescriotion: Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, 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 predates the 20th century. Said
determination shall be submitted in writing to the Department of
Planning and Building Services.
Imolement~J:ion: Archival research will be expanded to determine
dates of actual or projected constr'Jction. 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.
Resoons~Ql~-E3~tLes: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
MM Checklist:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Archival
Research
Field
Research
HABS
Documentation
Mitigation Measure 4
Descriotion: Prior to the demolition of any building, the applicant
shall make a good faith effort to donate or sell any building
slated for demolition, inCluding 602 West 6th Street, to any party
l~
"
o
,0
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 w~en the contact was made, why the s~ecific
building is not to be relocated and shall =ontain 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 Buildi~g Services requesting to exempt
certain builjings from this requirement. If the Di,-ector 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 building is contingent upon approval of the
Historic P,-eservation Task Force (or other body charged with
similar powers) that a 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 from ttre general requirement that the applicant
attempt to fif\d rec:.pient5 forr all buil.:!ings on the subject
property (this\Miti9.'3~ion Measur.e has been renumbered as No.4 of
Section 13b ofJthe Public Review Initial Study).
Impl,",._me-'lt..~ion: A good faith effort will ')e made to publicize the
buil,~ings for sale at very minimal cost", in public newspapers.
Copies of tCle Advertisements for a period of three consecutive
weeks will be forwarded to the City. The Ci~.y sho'c'1..,L..9r.:'lr1.te the
Project Proponent ""... ~ny rQQ!0ct!9d_~p.ar<:.~as exemption _from any
Ci ty movino r~location. or .-,t.hFlr ~prrni'" fees. The City should
",@).ve anv fe,,"s for hook-ups for City services forc1,,,, ,,,luL-'ctLea
buildings. The-crty and ~roJect Proponent should work toward the
preservatTbn of all buildings to the greatest measures possible.
8e~oonsible Parties: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowic2, SOPA, ACS
the House Moving Contractor(s)
private individuals
13
o
to
11M Che..ckJj.~..t:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIB LE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Three Weeks
of Ads for
House
Relocation
Waivers from
t.he Cit.y
Mitigation Measure 5.
D.escription: If the temporary storage of relocated buildings is
deemed necessary to forestall demolit:.on prior to final site
location, appropriate temporary use permits shall be secured
through the Planning and Building Services Depart.ment.
ImolementaJion: Obtain Permits f(cl.rm the City.
.~
8es-,<onsjble Parties: the City
Dan Fauchier, the ~roject Proponent
MM Chec15..Llst:
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
Obtain
City
Permits
Mitigation Measure o.
D~scription: Prior to the commencement of destructive demolition of
any structure, the applicant shall salvage, adaptively reuse and/or
donate or sell the archi tect.ural materials and feat.ures 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.
Note: 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.
Implementation: Advertisements will be placed in the local
newspapers offering buildings for dismantling and relocation or
14
"
o
o
salvage for three consecutive weeks. Every reasonable effort will
be made to adaptively reuse the historic buildings_
8esponsible Parti~~: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
MM CheckU,;;J;,:
ACTIVITY
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PLANt-JING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Three weeks
of Ads for
dismantling
or salvaging
buildings
Mitigation Measure 7
Descriot.ion: The Foursquare/Classical Revival building at 696 North
F street has been determined to be. major :ontributing 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 sit~ wi"~in
the area bounded by 6th Street, F Street, 9th Str~et, and
Interstate 215 shall be documented and submitt.ed ~o thp Planning
and Building Services Department prior to the consideration of
locations outside of these boundaries. -he City has the discretion
to requi re the on-si te preservation and ,-ehabili ~ation 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,
Implementation: Every reasonable effort will be made to comply with
the mitigation measure by in-situ preservation or relocation to a
nearby site. Documentation for this measure will be provided to the
Ci ty,
R.esponsib_l~-'-part.ies: the ci ty
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. St.ephen Alexandrowic~. SOPA, ACS
Mitigation Measure 8.
DescriotioD: The Gothic Revival Church at ~31 North G Street has
been identified by the General Plan and other sources as a
potentially significant Historic Resource. The demoli:ion 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.
t5
",
".. ~ .
,
'-"
o
The applicant shall exhaust every reasonable source 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
listing of this structure in the National Register of Historic
Places, which would potentially allow for the use of Preservation
Tax Credits.
lmQlem~ntation: Every reasonable effort will be made to preserve
this church through relocation to a nearby vacant lot within the
neighborhood. Newspaperadverti_sements will run until a purchaser
is_._l,ocated. If necessary, the building will be evaluated for
eligibility and nomination for the NRHP.
8esQ.o'l?iQlf,'_ Parties: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz, SOPA, ACS
MM -9h-,~ck li.?j~~:
ACTIVITY
P::PORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
PI.ANN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATUR>=:
Continuous
Newst::'per
Ads for
Relocation
NRHP
eligibility
and potential
nomination
Mitigation Measure 9.
Q~scriQtig~r:!: To the extent possible, relocation of the structures
that cun"ent.ly support the neighborhood should occur wi thin 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
16
'.
o
o
reasonable way to relocate these building within these boundaries;
the applicant shall request such assistance.
The appl icant has indicated that the National Orange Show has
exoressed interest in accepting the primary structures at 652 West
6th Street and 660 west 6th Street to an archi tectural heri tage
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.
I!!}]:2)ement.=1.l.ion: Notarized wl-itten letters and 3ttachments will be
forwarded to the City by the Project Proponent documenting the
attempts to relocate the historic buildings within the neighborhood
described above.
Re_spo~?iQJe-P~Jties: the City
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
MM Checklist:
ACTIVITY
REPORTED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DATE
"LANNING
NOTIFIED
CERTI FYING
SIGNATURE
Notari:ed
Letter ,nd
Documentation
Mitigation Measure 10.
Q~scription: 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 San Bernardino County
Sun newspaper for gra~ps or individuals who wish to acquire
p~,=:)erties for relocation. As with all other contacts, priority
s~3l1 be granted to potential recipients who intend to relocate the
buildings within the neighborhood of the subject property.
Imp 1 e.m."...fl ta-.ti_Q..'l: Advertisements, as stipulated .;!bove. for houses to
be reloc3ted within the abovementioned neighborhood will be run for
a minimum of three weeks in the ?an Bernardj.no_ CQ!J~ Sun
newspaper. Copies of the newspaper ads will be provided to the
City.
8..espon?ible----'=..arties: the Ci ty
Dan Fauchier, the Project Proponent
17
'.
t"lLChecj< 1 i s t.:
ACTIVITY
Copies of
Ads in the
?~~~rnardino
l;.~unty ?un
o
RECORDED
BY
RESPONSIBLE
PAPTY
1B
o
DATE
Pl..,"'NN ING
NOTIFIED
CERTIFYING
SIGNATURE
'.
o
i:>
rnOJjT)]]FJITf,l"ij)
[~fIC1'i[f:,;r:Q;{;~
@'\1
fk~Ji~~OO~:r:Olmi>'1J11~Uf::
frrfif:rtJ'\V{
I.ID?il1i.~
!YlL,(,~u'fl~mL~r$.1
r~nJlfPG~:rml)
a:1;,TR1[f'1W,~vr.!U;:rC';
Copies of ads in I
San Bernardino
County Sun
I
I
l.q
Stat~~ o..f California
o
Attachment
"G"
OE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA
Memorandum
/"" :
~.;
u~
to;'
JUf~
.: '.I
:... oJ
.-- ,
~...-
i;, .
!:: ;
: ~; :
~
To
,Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler
Secretar}" for Resources
" ,
Date
June 15, 1992
.' .. ~
-.... ," ~ _":..__~ "- 'Subjed,
Negative Declaration
for the CUP No. 92-04
and TT No. 15451
sex '92052105
Mr. Greg Gubman
city of San Bernardino Planning
Building Services Department
300 North nDn Street
San Be:tna::'dino CA. 92418
Department 01 Consenration-Office of the Diredor
and
from
The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and
Geology (~MG) has reviewed the Negative Declaration for the CUP#
92-04 and~# 1545~ affordable townhouse project for the City of
San Bernardino. 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
informatio~ is important to establish whether 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.
'.
o
.-
'.oJ
, Mr. Wheeler and 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 perfo=med to obtain
soil ~~d ground-water information. Factors to consider when
evaluating liquefaction and/or seismic set~l~ent potential
for a site include subsurface soil texture and density,
ground-water depth and fluctuation, and intensity and
dura~ion 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 ImpaCt
Report, or a revised Mitigated Negative Declara~ion, 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 comcents, please
contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Projec~ Manager, at (916) 322-2562.
A~{cL .
st~phen E. Oliva
En~ronmental prograc Coordinator
cc: Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology
Rick Wilson, Division of Mines and Geology
Referenoes:
City of San Bernardino Safe-_y Element (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.
!;.!.:t ~'" :-.
:. I
!!!J-lIEEIiiliJo'
=.u !U~!ld.. S T R E E T
'Iii' 'iiaf -I 't G ~ ..
'lI .a --; .. ! ... ;:
Ii "1 li. -. ir~=--
I--:':::'-~ --r--;- "./ i !]! r-:-fl;t , , ~! " /r_
! ! .!! : t_ ...,~.IJ__ _ -----11-__
2--.,.-1 .........-c....:. oa.'5a,.54" .~ - ~ I"
. - --;;rl'lt'l" ocr.oo'" E.. i:.. --r~~:L::--- -.l1.,:. ..-- _ --- . I;
,.... < 0 -= 1".__ . - --'i .
.'-+ .!~,I-\ 1..- ~IIIJ' A 1.:.1 J \.11
~ I t \! !""- - II L i;l; .:.~- Pl' tr
~ . i jr. ~r '0-.,) "I Ii
! : lU~ _ i ~'" ~,q
1'1 ! ril~""". ~l I' ~II z ~
@ I'fi""""':" i l' iii ~
~." ! !!! ~- ,<. -,-- r-fr ~
o ""I I -- >r.: ", n__ --"
"" '.~ I J. :lI~1 I' ", ~:;
! ~ ! ~II ~ -- -r-~;:;:--rrlJ' \ I f1> '. .... --"
n ....u. Iii W r. c,n-'
....to \=. .0\ >__
. l~' .!. r.'-~ l Ill. -- ~ . I ~... _ : -<
!"~ ! I~ -! . ~ - i r-:'1
. ,11 5' ~ ~
, , !MUt! a:::::l
, : - ~) :-.>
: ' _z. ~ ('")
: · ~--i
l;\
~:=:
co>
....
""-::l
~
~Z
.0
",.
-
~
...
'.
o
Attachment "H"
o
......--1 e
:-~. ~=-~.i-!' i'!>1. Ii
...............
(
...
...
5'.
en
...
'"
...
...
-
.
t ,.
v.
~
.,
, :
~
.
. I .. .. N 00"00'
~;;g-l--I--
.;
." -
;>>I1.li
'i 1_ -i ~
_ r 44'-
.. \
.1' '- ( f' S T R E E T
,
... -1-..1-
!
.
.
.
G-2
.'
g.....
nc:Til
~~
g~
~.....
m
s:
-0
-
:D
m
CD
~
o
Attachment "I"
,')
V
l:it
~~
,,~
.~
-;;:
lSi\
"ii
G STREET
!
:
-
15
~
~
~
!
:
;:
, I
el "'Ie,
~ ,
e . e
"
..
Q;
S"~
. "
., ~
! "If
, S.
. -
-.
,!~
,,!
~
~
-
i . ..
. %
.
!!l
. - II .'"
i I !~
!.
" I Ill!
. "i
~
e. ~ ~;:;
Q .
~
.
C
4:
~.
, . i
.ie '.. ....;
.-. .C
!!l
~
m
-<
...... ;;.
i~
< it -
1; ~
Ii....
en :::::
-- >>
.... m"tlOrilm>otncn c.a~
CD ~a~i!!~~:::~ llRm
i'lri ~~~ !il!il
'-. "Ciil~ ~~m l<l<
_~m-<:D 3f~
m ~~nill::: z:
:::I liig!lfjg ........
nI!=4 (lHD
:~ i i~!!
.; (II (l)CD,,:n
o~
m
<
m
r
~O
~\J Iln
~s:~ ~~!
iSm ~ ~i~i'
_..cz 1
~z ~ ~i '
~ l:l m.
~-f
~
F STREET
!
"I
t
~ ! ~ i
~ ~ ~ m
~n~~~
mom." ....
(I) <: .,. ....
m m ~
~ ~ Z
C)m::
m Z ~
> .
C) ..
m '"
.... ~
, ~ Ii l:l
s: en;2 ..
~ ~; ~
~ s ~
~lil
'<ili
~
~
m
z
-<
If-
I
TU1RY ARCHTTECTS
~(F~l Tn'_ "'A
.....c.>c'LClSI"'--.RS
---
EMPIRE BAY TOWNHOMES I
som< & G S'llE1S SAN 1lEANAAOINO. Co\.
o
t""',
""'"
m \:=
s: ~~
m-c
-u !~ G STREET
~;
- I ,
:D , . .
. .
m · t. 1 -.:.; "'''[ "I", " '"I
OJ ~
~ ~
o~
m
<
m
r
O?i
-U !!~
C$:t'l ~~;:
Zm I a~ 7< :~ ; 1 . I' 1
i~Z!~!e : "1'cP.' I..'..... ....1"'~Ol!IJ:iII'
liiZm;i ~~Lrf"'4. ;~"~40:L~.. ,
-I .... II I!" I-
~ . ~ -c FSIREET
~ ....._....._~~. 3cn I ~~
~"" "_~n" . ==
~;;I:.~ : __ >>
~b.H~ ,;,~._.tJ "CD \!1g~~nril~~fR=::
~~." . -r'J m :D.....rnN_
: n .-':::-. VT _ ~ ::J ~:11. mm
Z .;I-,~, ....--- ". _ill> !!:~:::! ~~
:::::I '--\.t~!." "'m::J....mom 0
..(}, _~m-<::Dm:::
~~-.., ....::&...~. e! ~~C>illrg C:!;
&Q -f!'- - .. __ (DCD~Zg !=
. ' O~n~ mw
mz:<
0::110-<
.... Q
r- ~
o m
Ol '"
!JII
~.~~
~.'....t
,.i
!!l
::II
m
m
....
...
:i!
!!l
::II
m
m
...
..
. :
~: ..
., I ..
.
..: F=-'
,. .
- ;
.
.. .
:
i E ~ i
~ ~ ~ !ll ~
m 8 m ~ ....
'" <: ~
m m t'l
::II :D ~
~ Q .
m z ~
>~
~ m :
~
cn~
c:~
3 ~
3 c
Q)~
~lil
'<~
5
~
~
m
Z
....
>
:D
m
>
caG - is
OCD ~ 0
:Zoo
~..... 9J9J
at. :n:n
1;
.... :D
COUl;;:",
.,. .,. ~ '"
TERRY Afl('";HITECT:;
C,..A"', f~~~ .,.
"""... ,~.-.-...s.
._ ...__.r-
I
11-
II
I EMPR BAY ~
I\)
UI
m
o
:D
o
o
3:
c:
z
=t
I
I
I
... 1
.< 1
" ! 01
:ii
~. I
'a I
~. ~ I
.. 01 .
~ I II
i 1 l
1 A
I o. 1
Z 01
! I
I
I
I
I
_-9
Ii I
.
e; 1
~ i!
~! I
,.~
1t ~
I;
,
o
(I)
.~
o.
~
'"
8
..
.
~
1
J
I
D
j
-
rs
51
m
..
!
II:
=
m
'"
..
m
g
~
o
- ,
i
z
s
~
Ii I
I !I
.
.
~
~
z
..
m
g
~
z
!
i !
~
.
~
o
o
I
ID
m
!
o
I 0
i5
o
--
~
"It
6
o
:II
~.
~
...
..
m
"
ID
m
31
~
ID
6
~
;I
i
'"
I
i
~
!
a
..
~
~
(0)
to
m
~
o
o
3:
c
z
=i
..
..
z
S
~
..
i
ii
~
~
~
"
i
'"
ID
m
31
~
,
,
1
~ I
." ~ I
:Ii 0'
~ I
5 ." I
" 31 I
0 ~ () 0, ~
:II %
~ I II
I I ~
0 I I "
~ I I
i5 1("', I
,- I
, I
, I
I
I
-~
~, fi ~ ~
..~
I;~ . ~ ~"
.~ ~~ ~ ~i
0- ,
-s , - z
.; ~
~
"
..."
:D
o
Z
-I
m
I"'"
m
)1:
'-I
o
Z
"I
,
o
~
.
.
I
.
, ,; I I
.. .. . , ~':!'lI I ~I 11
:~ [ : ~Ii~,. !~"
i . Ii.
I 'b.&~~l@n~ ..
o
.
I
.
:D
l:5
:I:
-I
m
I"'"
m
)1:
'-I
~
~
m
x
II
Ii
@ ~ ' ..
.
,
~
m
.x
r-
m
."
-l
m
r-
m
;;;
~
o
z
c
o
e~ ~ ~
I ! I
. : f
;
-
li'll
II I
,
:1l
m
>
:1l
m
~
m
~
~
~
I
~
:1l
~
~
m
x
o
.:r'~
~ .......J6t:\
'1~ :~" ".
' ~~,"
.;." ...Ji:.
"$ ~~
~ ;~, ~..:r
- ~ ..
~ ..'< ,;
~\.C'O. '\:;:.: '-'eo
~ ..- --.>
'''!l..,<tP :.:z~
~ .... ~\7'
.\;fa.rl\:....
'<:0'
~...~.
~ ~~'\
~~, '~
--:- ~'''.r:-
....... ~ ~
~ ..
; , "'..:r
,~~~
'. ~ ".~#
""IO.r!{'
'q
o
:1l
m
?D
m
~
m
~
~
~
I
~
r-
m
x
Jf~~"
,~:<; \> "
~ ~~ 0:.
~..ft
~ :,1-',
'..... :<t:~..:r
~ ~ "<<;"
.-?-.... t"~.~"
~ "'4
--....... ..
-~ -M'.~ ~.
'~:'l. r:i(
'ft.,
Jf~~"
~:<; '(J~'.\
~ >':\. ..
~j)~ .,',~
....... .'r-.
~ (
;~, ~..:r
-,. ~. ..
.. ,':"1t ~:;]- ."
-~ ~i!~
-, ~ " ,;.y
. ,~-'" -
,.,'t ;""",::r
't- ..
. .
"
~
'"
i:
o
/""\
'..",j
"
s
~
.~
.
,
s
.
I
.q 1
"
;>
~
~
::tl
;Jl
m
x
"Tl
::tl
~
-t
m ;>
r ~
m -
;;;
~
0
z
"
,-
i:
o
;>
~
.
;>
~
o
..
o
I
.
.
ee~
I
I
~i
!
l-
,
~
....,
m'
,....
m.
~i
....,
~I
I
g
.,.
,...
m
x
,...,
U
firm!
I
- II
.
.
-!
:J>
l:5
:I:
....
m
,...
m
~
....
~
,
~
.,.
~
......~-_.-
..... ........-
fjPI!IIIjlIIlll'~i!I!W li'l~llllllllllmlllll!~ml'!rn~nm~
I I ,91!1I:1.11 '1IIl'\':'!IIIP.1 '!;ill!III'!!lllJ'l
I' I J;I "11: II I P'i III jH dll I!
!. ! II ii . I Iii ,IP WI
II J . Ii'
'> ,
\~ .
,.;0
FOURPLEX
l _. . EMPIRE BAY lOWNHOMES
. - SDC1H & G stREETS SNt ~ C'A
I.
"
.
.
."
<
m
;JZ
m
x
."
:D
0
Z
~
m .
r- .
m .
~
...
~
-'t
t
,0
.
.
.
.
.
I
-
'..,,)
,
o
;r~~.
i~ '>~'"
'.m' ~ ..." <
''F'''--= ~\l ft
:~ . l,.
11 '~- "'Ot:
I -~...
, - ~......: ..........
,'~ .~ ~.-..
IV r- - 'V ~-4'
I~ . . ~~.
i'~ :~.,..,~t.t
, -
r
:D
m
~
m
,..
m
~
..
2
I
"
~
x
" ";:i'
--
V
I ~-~,
lhl .:. -.-......
~a . ~~:~. ~
.~ -- $-':;;?-
:Il:~ ~.- .
'I~~ .~ - ""
: <" ~ -~~ )
. .., ''';'',~
'\ ,. - ........<!o -
i~- ~ j!
h.,{ ~;;_\. ;::..!~
, ~t . :.'
Ii,
:D
m
~
m
,..
m
~
2
!
x
;j~-:'~\
-.... . b
~ ."-
-';..;.,. "
.t:iJ~
.....- \....
.....,..~ .>
~~ .~,~""
';i!' .,~
:i'.... ;it..u(
....
"'
_I
m
"Tl
-I
m
_
m
~
""l
o
Z
.",
<:
m
"tl.
_
m
x
o
>
5
.
:II
1:5
:J:
-I
m
_
m
~
""l
~ ($l
I
."
~
m
"tl
_
m
x
--
.~
i r
/i)~
! i I! I
,
>
5
.
..
(0
-
....;
~
~
c"'""': ........
;; y ."
\..... ~ \Y(
~ ~.~-
'-~ ..~ N..~
- ~.....iI'
"y,1..,..i"
'-ii'._
-
..:.
1i ill'
:, I
"
-1 J
m
z
C
m
....
m
~
~
2
o
...
~
ffi
::D
~
~
Attachment "J"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE TT15451/CUP92-04
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
4
HEARING DATE 7-7-92
i '-:jtJ:l :- ~i ~U f' ~ 'lli~ifJJ; U ~ ~~I:! ,P'" IY-_ '
, _ _ dJ L....:J......, cr "Sl~ 4-~<<-~
I....... ". ~ ~~' G1 ~.'I 'rl: -~'~; .~
',.' 111",:,:'111- '".',~ --'t<l;" , ~" I~ . -'
= ~ . <:.-1 ~L--- s ~~~~I o.
I /d ,. ,\~?! '., ~Fl, i~J~' I Inf1l~:t.t
~~VJd t 01 (,II II 'iUlw ~
--='" ,1_ ...1 ~ :. 11..,.." I tP rn.i, ~Fl C
--= . I: l ,....c-....::::.t . v - r--
: 01 ~ 11-- =::J - I
~nl;'. ;,., F=tr~' IlntL~lW=
_ U L." -iI. ; '. LJ~ I, ,c " Jk.4! ~.".r;
WJ ", ~/~~'ffJ'''-' ~ ~-.
DuGD J' ~~ ldtOO j ~
1 ,,10' ~ ~ ','''''' PF" IP I j
~ l ,Ie. ~ I I~
"
~~-
0'10':
~'I".
T :
~O::I
I...... II 'T CUT..
l~~~
_'y ~~
1~ N /~
,\1 J ....
, II. ._'J ...01
I 1/
. ~j CENTRAL
I V~~
i.. 1\
.u
~
.
l
_0 _ - __I
aT'I'~_--.o
---
PLAN-B.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-UO)
,
9
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 rlO. 15451 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 92-04
(W~D' J
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
0: 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 qf
"F" street.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests a Tentati'le Tract to establish a l-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.
AdMaiMt deIcripIional1MptCllPlCllllllla anfilllin1NPWlnngand 1IuiIdiI'IOs.vc:.
0Iip. ..._....car Hd.1~...MtIW.......,........papauI...lO...
pubiC~_____PWIninI...BuicIng~~inpellCln
orbfJlflOlling (7141 ....5057.
n. p...... ~ .. ........ yaw _ ... . )IOU .. unIbte 10
dencL roumaytuDmlD......~.......ofarin~IO...PftlPCIMIIID...
Plannl'll and Budding s.vaa ... r ...__.sa............ car ...... 3DO Hanft -0-
su.t. Sa SerNrdinO. CIIIDmia 1241"
Oec:iMInIof IN p..... CorNnIIian..fiMI~ building....... Con-
dtioNI U. P---. ~ of PIInI. T..... Tre "- ... v..... unIIU
applNMd to'" Mayor MCI eoua. ~ IOU.....,.. ...CounciI....,.,.... in
wming,"'" 1M graundI of_ ClPML and .... DIIUlIniIIIlIIO tMCly Cllrk aIOnCI
wnn _-4l-__........... ~ days of_ cSIl:iIIilIn .,,1eI' P..........:I
T...,. TracI ....).
ZanecNngl&. ~.PtIn",_.dl.,_"and~lO_"WliGplllCode
Wil UDnWic:aIy be,...,.. to me Mayor Md Caunc:il1or....-n.
" you c:NII.... 1M ....... KSDn _IN PtInNng CormiIIion in CllU\. you 1NJ
be lirrNcllO,..... Ofiy 1IIoIe." you or ___............ DUDMc tlMIing
deIcrOed inltl.fIOticI;.arinwnten~""""ID"CIIy""""OMIiDn
.. 01 pnor 10. .. DWIi: ~
IN'1l1ril''lu.t t-*-w Nt anMMtII it_ will M .tMtv Ii.-.t ff'I IN. 1fIirtt_ _
.......
a,... a: ... -.......0
Cl!NnW.-'*G.:lIMCU
P\..M-l.o& PAGE 1 OF 1 ("90)
-~,..
o
STATE 01' CAUroIlNlA - .... IIDOUACIS AGINCY
Exhibit "3"
~. (; -~- -,
Oc..or>-~ " .n....;_.~.. :..,....q~
~ N1"I WI&.ION, G ._
, ,
. .
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERV AnON
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.o. BOX_
SACRAMENTO 842l11-OOO1
(9'8) 853-ell24
FAX: (918) 853-9824
~.
JUne 22, 1.992
,-
I "
i!] i
in'':..
:../1 i
;J ~.
~ ':!7 ::.~ ~
. I
Mr. Al Balghey, AlCP
o:irect:or
DeparbDent of Pl.annirq ani Bni ltiin3' Services
City of San Bernardim
300 North "0" Sl.eet
San Bernardino, =t\ 92418-0001
,Uji' r: f .
~ -J I .
f.......;.
~ ., "
'''':''~r-:,~;,.. .~. .-:: ~~:'~;'
. .', ."
~..: ..;;
- '..;
-. .
",
Dear Mr. Balghey:
RE: Initial stu:iy, alP 92-04 ani 'I'm 15451, EhpL--e Bay Developnent
'!he state Office of Historic Preservation has reviewed the subject
Initial study ani ~ like to- offer the followin;J .. ....-.d:s pertaini.n; to
the project's effec:t.3 on historic properties.
Historic Resources -
It is our preliminary conclusion that the devel~ block contains
structures not only contr~ to a larger historic district eli.gible far
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) mt also
several ~~:ties which my qualify indivinl1"lly far li.stin1 in the NRHP.
We have ""'....,-'1 this preliminary conclusion on information contained in both
the Initial stu:iy ani in the O.G. Kin; rqJULL entitled, "An Historical
Analysis - Historic San Bernardim OVerlay District". We are unable to
address the l:nJrxIaries of what "l"P""'I"S to .be an historic dist=ict because we
have little information alxut the types of properties that surrcurxi ':.'le
developnent block.
Of all the older st::=uctures on this block, only 4 ar 5 ~ not
eu.,l.il:ute to the district far various reasons. 'Ihe rE!lIIainEr ~
........,l.il:ute to the district. Of these, several ~.,. i.mpartant emu;jh to
qualify far inclusial in the NRHP under criteria:tep.. :utin;1 history,
"............iation with i.mpartant persa1S, and arc:hi.tect:ural di.stin::tion.
Nor..........ll.ib.Itors "l"P""'" to include 638, 688, 696 W. 6th st; 625 ani 627
W. 7th st. structures that my qualify far individual li.stin1 in the NRHP
include 602 ani 652 W. 6th st; 621-25, 631, 689 N. G st; 669 ani 679 W. 7th
sti and 672 and 696 N. F st.
We cannot a.lh....... the pot:errt:i.al significance of arc:beological resources
that my .be located on the site without additional information based on
testing and on a mere refined set of i.mpartant r,s-"rdl questions.
Project Effects -
It ~'I"S that this project walld virt:ually level the site, ~
ar deDr:>1i.shin;J mere than 50 structures. A loss of this magnitlJcle has the
-',
, ,
o
o
Mr. Al Bcu;lbey
JUne 22, 1992
Page '1\lO
potential to significantly affect what may be a NRHP eligible district. It
is aD:' preliminary opinion that this project meets criterion (j) of Appeniix
G ani wanants a "yes" response to item 20 b. of Appeniix I of the ~
Guidelines.
~ IJIplications -
We believe there is substantial evidence that this project may
significantly affect the environment an:l., in ......JL..aSt to the city's
conclusion, ~ that this effect cannot be ra"'...-i to an insignificant
level. Al~ the mi';igation ,....cures pL' '1':>="1 may be reasonable if one
.."'''''''''''''' the project pL" """""'''' as planned, they cannot reduce the level of
disruption created by the project ~ a point that TNCUld warrant is""JaIX:e of
a mitigated negative declaration.
We believe the city of san Berr.ardi.no may have erred in OOIX:ludin;J that
a negative declaration is aw<-..."...iate in this case. We suggest that a
mandatory fin:ii.n; of significant effect applies (~Qridplines 15065 [all
ani that a rei Initial study requiriD; an EIR shcW.d be prepared. We further
&q,Jest that withoot substantial modification of the project, a statement of
overrid.in:] oon::srns may beox-> OO<::-"'''''Y.
'lbank you for the ~ty to ccmnent on this Initial study. If you
have any questions, please call Hans Kreutzberg at (916) 653-6624 or write
to the letterhead address.
Sin:erely,
#/H~~ /' .
st:eade It' ( ~, ~ J\ctin;J
state Historic ~tion Officer
,
,
,
o
Exhibit "4"
o
CITY OF
San Bernardino
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND .GILDING SERVICES
AL BOUGHEY,AICP
o IRE C T 0 A
July 20, 1992
Mr. Steade R. Craigo, AlA
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.
SCE 192052105
Dear Mr. Craigo:
Thank you for your review and comment on the above referer.ced
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.
HRBP ELZGZBZLZTY
Your letter expresses the op~n~on 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 0' STREET, SAN BERNARDINO.
C A L. I F 0 A N I A 9 2 .. 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 {T1 41 a I.. .. I .71 , 5 0 5 7
PRIDE ./
~
,
o
o
Mr. Steade R. craigo, AlA
July 20, 1992
Page 2
The survey also identified and catalogued 7,700 individual
structures built prior to 1941; 140 of which were placed on
modified CPR 523 forms due to qualities that raised their potential
for listing on the National Register. Four of those CPR listed
structures (602 W. 6th st., 672 N. "F" st., 696 N. "F" st. and 631
N. lOG" st.) are located on the subject property. King's subsequent,
more in-depth analysis of the subject property determined that the
locational significance of these structures is not of an in-situ
nature, and that these buildings may be relocated, so long as their
destination sites are within the boundaries of the same
neighborhood, as defined on page 25 of the Initial Study. Hence,
the city's decision was partially based by the opinions of two
qualified individuals whose field investigations and research mad~
independent conclusions with respect to the significance of the
subject property's architectural resources.
CEOA IMPLICATIONS
Criterion (j) of Appendix G states that a project will normally
have a significant 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 mitigated to levels of
nonsignificance. As mentioned, the ERC and Historic Preservation
Task Force concurred with staff's analysis and made findings of no
significant effect pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065.
CONCLUSIONS
The determination of the significance of an impact upon a local
historic resource is, in general, 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 mitigation
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 surrounding area have been adequately
addressed.
One of the four CPR-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 eligibility criteria,'
and there is inadequate public incentive or community interest to
make the preservation of this structure feasible to the applicant
,
o
Mr. Steade R. Craigo, AlA
July 20, 1.992
Page 3
,-"""\
V
The City Council is scheduled to take final action on this project
on August 3, :1.992. 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,
/J}i /2 .
{&..je '.,.
.. L \
, Ai~
ning
and Building Services
Enclosures
..
.
.
o
Exhibit
115"
o
Vfllu;-e..
Gf"~
t~~S!".~~nqji@
Mr. AI Boughey, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Services
Mr. Ruben Lopez. Chairman, City Planning Commission
City of San Bemardino ! ;,Ji '} .~
300 North D Street i ;; )
San Bernardino Califomia 92418 '.11'; J U L Q 9 'i~~:':
..... .
7 July 1992
...-:~.. Cr". :;.~.; ~;c:!~.\,:<
::;:=:?,~-:':T~/~-. 7 ':-i~ -'.
.J .:
re: Response :0 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 R. 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
0.''''''''-"+ ~'I'~ a~;........::!nt --""" --..."'" _4 .....a -'"'"':act s'te -....A ...&..... a~"'l-:"';-!"l c" ...""....
..r......~II' ~ II.v '"'J~\,n;J.:i. QII\"oI "VIUI VI UI tJ.....J wit u..... i...;;:f -..,u ~I...wi. ;; IoI.CoO.,
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:
(1) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or
ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a
scientiflc study;
A California Corporation [] Land Planning and Design Environmental Analysis
10722 Arrow Route. Suite 616. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 (714) 987-7077
:
,
Q AI Boughey; Planning Commission 0
7 July 1992
Page 2
and,
Appendix I:
20. Cultural Resources.
b. Will the proposal result In adverse physicsl or aesthetic e"ects to a
prehistoric or historic building or structure, or object?
The proposed Empire Bay project will unquestionably after 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 King. An Historical Analysis, April 1992 pages 18-21. 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" altemative. 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 tenn 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 bs raa/ist/a to expect private sactor rehabilitation 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 CEQA, 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 futur.e (after phase
two) projects are pennitted. I believe this to be a wise and appropriate
recommendation, and it should apply to any Mure 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
:
...
OMr. A/Boughey; Planning Comm/ssloO
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 government. The proposed
project will atimulate both ieinvestmenl in i1/l economically deciining
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
ourrently 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 CEOA 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
__L.,.~
Exhibit "6"
.~
--....;
"
'.
o
o F
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND IUILDING SERYICES
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. 1545l/Proposed
housing development.
Use Permit No. 92-04 & Tentative
two-phase, 118-unit affordable
SCB t!l2052105
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 proj ect 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 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,
300 NORTH D' STREET, SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA 92.18-0001 (714)314-5071'5057
PRICE ~
9ESS
"
,
o
I' '.
.....)
Mr. Stephen E. Oliva
July 20, 1992
Page 2
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 15.08) 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 UBC occupancy
classification.
The City Council is scheduled to take final action on this project
on August 3, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(714) 384-5057.
Sincerely,
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
.
o
o
City ot San Bernardino
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Planning statt
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use Permit No.
92-04 (Agenda xtem No. 36)
DATE: August 13, 1992
COPIES: project File
Attached, please find information provided in response to the
Council's request for detailed information regarding the
affordability of the low income units for the above referenced
project.
Also attached is a letter of support from CSUSB Professor James
Mulvihill concerning the project's proposed historic preservation
mitigation measures.
AGENDA ITEM 36
,
o
o
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Common Council
John Husing
San Bernardino Neighborhood Restoration Project
August 6, 1992
1. The following information is in response to Council Member Estrada's request
for detailed information on the affordsbilit7 of Empire Ba7 Jaw h,........ units:
SUMMARY
Monthly non-association housing costs for principal, interest, taxes and insurance
will be about $714.72. For a person at 80% of the median income, the allowable
total housing cost is $822.21. This leaves $107.49 available for the Community
Land Trust association. Empire Bay's budget estimates the trusts monthly costs
at $35 to $66 depending upon the obligations placed upon the home owner.
These numbers assume a buyer does not lower the monthly mortgage payment
via the soft second trust deed program offered by the RDA. For each $1,000 in
soft second funds, the buyer's monthly housing cost will drop by $6.03.
MORTGAGE PRINCIPAL &. INTEREST PAYMENTS
The low income unit will sell for $98,164. After 5% or $4,908 down, the buyer
must finance $93,256...assuming none of the soft second money pledged by RDA
is used.
Sales Price
5% down
To Finance
Soft Second
Mortgage
$98,164
4.908
$93,256
o
&93.256
The current 30 year fixed mortgage rate is 8.05%. Given the stagnant nature of
the U.S. economy, it is expected that this rate will drop. This is the case as
the long term interest rate market has been over-priced for months awaiting a
rapid acceleration in the U.S. economy and a rise in the rate of inflation. Of
late, long term interest rates have begun to decline as the lack of any sign of
a firm recovery has lessened worries about price increases. V.A., for instance,
has now dropped its rate to 7.5%.
However, using the 8.05% rate, Empire Bay has negotiated a 2% buy down of the
financing for low income buyers. Thus they would pay 6.05%. Financing $93,256
at this rate for 360 months (30 years), yields a payment of $562.12.
Market Rate
FHLB Buy Down
Actual Mortgage Rate
30 Years
Principal &: Interest
8.05%
~
6.05%
360
&&82.12
[NOTE: The interest break's value is seen in that $562.12 at an 8.05% market
rate would only amortize a mortgage of $76,245 not $93,256.]
o
o
OTHER MONTHLY HOUSING COSTS
The home owner will have to bear several costs:
1. Private mortgage insurance costs 0.6% of the mortgage principal per
year. That would be $93,256 * .006 = $560 per year or $46.63 per
month.
2. Property insurance of $360 per year would cost $30.00 per month.
3. Property taxes at 1% of the property value of $98,164, less the $7,000,
home owners exemption would be $91,164 * 1% = $911.64 per year or
$75.97 per month.
Total other monthly housing costs:
Mortgage Insurance
Property Insurance
Property Taxes
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
$46.63
30.00
75.97
.152..60
Thus, prior to the fee for the Community Land Trust, the home owner would
have a monthly housing expense of:
Principal &: Interest
Total Other Costs
TOTAL
$562.12
$152.60
*714.72
ALLOWABLE HOUSING RXPENSE
In order to qualify for mortgage under low income housing guidelines, a family
must make 80% of median income and not use more than 33% of their income for
housing expenses. Assuming inflation moves the local median income from $36,000
to $37,000 next year, this means a family cannot exceed an income of $29,600. Its
monthly housing expense must not exceed $29,600 * 33.3% = $9,867 or $822.21 per
month.
Median Income
Low Income %
Allowable Income
Max. Housing Expense %
Allowable Housing Expense
12 Months
Monthly Allowable
$37,000
80%
$29,600
33.3%
$9,867
12
&822..21
Thus the family has $107.49 which could go to paying for the Community Land
Trust fees:
Monthly Allowable
Mortgage &: Other Costs
Available for Association
$822.21
714.72
.107...9
o
o
Note that this amount assumes that the family does not receive a soft second to
lighten its mortgage burden. If it does, for every $1,000 in soft second financing,
the mortgage burden falls by $6.03 per month, freeing that amount of monthly
cash.
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST BUDGET
While the family has $107.49 per month available for the Community Land Trust
association, in Empire Bay's estimation the amount required to maintain the site
and reserve for the future will range from $35 to $66. This range is used as
the project is not a traditional condominium situation.
First, the buyers will not have to reserve for maintenance of such expense items
as sewer and water systems. These will be owned by the city. Second, there
will be no swimming pool or hot tubs, with their high monthly costs. Third,
there are huge financial disincentives for the area to be turned into a rental
complex. The subsidized financing is lost if a unit is rented. The Community
Land Trust board rules can forbid rentals other than in cases of extreme hardship,
and the city will have a voice on the board.
As the units will be owner occupied, the expectation is that occupants will take
actions to protect their investment. In the low budget this includes maintaining
the non-common area landscaping directly in front of their unit. In the high
budget it does not. In the low budget, the Community Land Trust is assumed
to hire crews to maintain the property, but not a full time site manager. In the
high budget, a manager reporting to the board is hired.
The budget provides common utility expenses for the landscaping, lighting and
community center. Landscaping maintenance is contracted. So also is electrical,
gate, tree trimming, and pest control. Management is either by an employee or
simply via a volunteer board. Reserve allocations are established for roof (20
7ear guarantee), external painting and repair, irrigation, gates, and landscaping.
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST BUDGET
!tanaser . No ManaSer . C~n Are.
Full Landscaping Landscaping Only
Annual Konth1y Annual Konth1y
COKMON UTILITY IXPINSIS:
Electricity 4.000.00 333.33 4,000.00 333.33
Directory Phone 1,000.00 83.33 1,000.00 83.33
Landscaping Water 9,500.00 791. 67 9.500.00 791.67
LANDSCAPINC MAINTBNANCE:
Contract 34,000.00 2.833.33 8.000.00 866.67
Irritation aepair 1,000.00 83.33 1.000.00 83.33
GIlOUIIDS:
Ilectrical Repair 1,200.00 100.00 1,200.00 100.00
Lilhting Maintenance 1,200.00 100.00 1,200.00 100.00
Pest Control 500.00 41. 67 500.00 41.67
Tree Tri_ins 2,000.00 166.67 2,000.00 166.67
Security Cate Maintenance 2,000.00 166.67 2,000.00 166.67
"iacellaneous 1,200.00 100.00 1.200.00 100.00
o
o
ADMINISTRATION:
Manager 18,000.00 1,500,00 0,00 0.00
Insurance 5,000.00 416.67 5,000.00 416,67
Office Supplies 500,00 41.67 500.00 41.67
RESERVE ALLOCATIONS:
Structural Maintenance l Painting 5.000.00 416.66 5.000,00 416,66
20 Year Roof Repair (fund) 5.000.00 416.67 5,000.00 416.67
Irrigation Time Clocks 500.00 41.67 500.00 41.67
Landscape Replacement 1.200.00 100.00 1,200.00 100,00
Security Gates 1.000.00 83.33 1,000.00 83.33
GRAND TOTALS 93.BOO.OQ 7,816.67 45,800.00 4,150.00
Units 118 118
Per Unit Monthly Cost $66,24 $35.16"
2. Should on-site Management be required as a condition of approval and in the
CC&:Rs?
This is a policy questic'n. Should the city impose an inflexible method of
organization on the commm,ity land trust board on which it will have representation.
This does mandate costs to potential buyers which they may wish to save b~'
having their elected boa1 : oversee their contractors. The budget can handle it
in any case.
3. Concern was expressed over the adequacy of "Tot Lots".
To layout the Tot Lot spaces, Empire Bay employed Richard Pope, a licensed
landscape archetect with extensive experience throughout Southern California.
His resume includes commerical and public projects throughout the Inland Empire
and within the City of San Bernardino. We stand bo' the quality and adequacy
of his design.
4. Is $50 per squere foot a realistic construction cost estimate?
Empire Bay's construction budget has been reviewed by Wells Fargo Bank as
well as the firm which will manage construction. Both are \'er~' comfortable ,,'ith
it. In fact, hard bids for 55% of the budget have been submitted. They are
4.9% below our cost estimates, and that is before ano' hard negotiations with the
sub-contractors have taken place
5. Does the $547,000 Federal Home Loan Bank subsidy to the project invoke Davis
Bacon?
No. Like Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Bank is not a federal agency and
does not dispense public funds, and is verr clear on these points
--I
o
o
6. Where will very low and low income families get down pa)'ments for the project?
Under the Fannie Mae 3/2 'program, do,,-n payments for the ven 10'" income units,
which will be sold via Project Home Run, will be $3,200. Of this, the family must
provide $1,920, the other $1,280 can come from famil:r, friends or subsidies.
Down payments for the low income units, which will be sold b,' Empire Ba,', will
be $4,908. Of this, the family must provide $2,945, the other $1,963 can come
from family, friends or subsidies.
It is important that the bu,'ers ha'-c some direct financial stake in their units
or they will not have the psychology of owners.
~ - I
o
o
~
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV.RSITY
SAN BERNARDINO
n.. QUJ{omia
Stat. Ulliu.,..Uy
July 2, 1992
Mr. Steade R. Craigo, AlA
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, California 94296-0001
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Craigo:
OP
I am a citizen .ember of San Bernardino's Historic
Preservation Task Force. I am also a certified planner,
and Professor and Director of the Master of Urban
Planning program here at CSUSB. I have been on the CSUSB
staff for eleven years. I have extensive research and
personal interests in historic preservation in urban
areas, partly because of the revitalization stimulus that
preservation provides.
GEOGRAPHY
714/88().5519
The Empire Bay Overlay District was presented to our
task force, and I am impressed by the attention to detail
the development possesses. I also have great respect for
Don G. King, whose firm compiled the historical analysis
of the district. The .itigation measures presented to us
include preserving two dozen significant structures,
mostly in a nearby transfer area, but some structures
will remain on the project site. From visits to the site,
and research done on each parcel. I sincerely feel that
nearly all significant structures are being preserved,
and rehabilitated for mostly residential use.
In addition, the fundamental objective of the Empire
Bay proposal is to provide affordable, single-family
housing in the Central City area. Like most cities, a
crucial need for downtown revitalization in San
Bernardino is to have people begin living there again.
This proposal is aimed at that housing goal, while
preserving most of the important structures. The
architectural design for the new structures is basically
Queen Anne's style, and fits in very well with the
surrounding neighborhood. Thought has also been given to
site design and scale, so the street elevation maintains
a turn-of-the-century appearance.
5500 Univemty P.rk....y. San Bernardino. CA 92407.2397
I _____
o
o
Page Two
Empire Bay Letter
July 2, 1992
Thus, most historic structures are planned not only
to be saved, but also to be rehabilitated. The design of
the new structures will be sensitive to the neighborhood,
and affordable, single-family housing will be provided.
This is the first proposal of this type ever made in San
Bernardino; I am very much impressed by it. If it
succeeds, I would expect it to become a model for
preservation, along with provision of affordable housing,
for the San Bernardino-Riverside area. Given these design
standards, the preservation of significant structures,
and other mitigation measures on this site, I do not feel
an environmental impact report would accomplish
significant additional benefits.
I would gladly talk with you more about the project,
if you have any specific questions regarding it or what I
have stated about it. My office phone is (714) 880-5522.
rs very truly,
es L. Mulvihill, AICP
Director, MUP Program