HomeMy WebLinkAbout21- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERN,,. _ADINO - REQUEST Fv,.R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission denial
of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03
Dept: Planning & Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting
Date: December 16, 1992 January 11, 1993
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
-_ Qri,&vember 2, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council approved the location in
concept and continued Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 to January 11, 1993
to allow the Initial Study to be advertised as available for public review
and comment and required that the project be re-designed.
On October 19, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-03 for 2 weeks to allow time for a legal opinion from
the City Attorney relative to General Plan consistency.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Negative Declaration be adopted and
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 be approved based on Findings of Fact
contained in Exhibits"E" and "F" and subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Exhibit G) and Standard Requirements (Exhibit H).
u�G ,
nature
Al Boughey
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
IMP-
MAYOR AND k;dMMON COUNCIL MEETING - STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) 91-03
REQUEST/LOCATION: The Applicant requests approval to construct a
Senior Citizen apartment project consisting of 45 units in 1
building with an interior courtyard, on a 1.4 acre site located on
the north side of Third Street, between Allen Street and Sierra
.. Way. Pursuant to San Bernardino Municipal Code 19.78. 025
(repealed) , a reduction of required parking is requested.Please see
Exhibit A, Location Map, and Exhibit I, site plan.
BACKGROUND: On October 19, 1992, this item was presented to the
Mayor and Common Council with a recommendation for denial, based on
the location of the proposed senior housing. A motion to approve
the project in concept and continue the item for 90 days to allow
for the redesign of the project failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 3 nays,
and 2 abstentions. By unanimous vote, the item was continued to
November 2, 1992, to allow the City Attorney to prepare a legal
opinion relative to General Plan Consistency. On November 2, 1992,
by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, and 1 abstention, the project was
approved in concept, and continued to January 11, 1993, to allow 60
days for the redesign of the project and to allow the environmental
determination (Negative Declaration) to be made available for the
required 21 day public review and comment period.
CEQA STATUS: On July 30, 1992, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) continued Conditional Use Permit 91-03, and required a
redesign of the project to address concerns of safety and
compatibility. Following the redesign, on November 12, 1992, the
ERC recommended a Negative Declaration be adopted for the project.
The Initial Study was made available for public review and comment
from November 18, 1992, through December 9, 1992 (see Exhibit C,
Initial Study) .
On December 9, 1992, a letter challenging the adequacy of the
Initial Study was received by the City (see Exhibit D, Comments on
Initial Study) . Specifically, the challenger felt the following
items should be addressed:
1. Do the design and project features meet the requirements
of the Fair Housing Act for an age discrimination
exemption and, if not, can the City be liable for
participating in a project that may be questionable?
RESPONSE: This is not an environmental concern, however, as a
Condition of Approval (Condition 8, Exhibit G) , a
management plan is required to be submitted to, and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of building
permits to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988.
i
Conditional Use Permit 91-03
Mayor and Common Council meeting January 11, 1993
Page 2
2. Economic and marketing feasibility of the project
including financial arrangements and obligations of the
City and proponent and financial liability to the
taxpayers in the event of failure.
RESPONSE: This is not a planning issue, nor are financial
arrangements, marketing, and taxpayer liability
environmental issues.
3. Methods and procedures required to monitor compliance and
enforcement of Conditions of Approval that will be placed
on the project.
RESPONSE: Annual monitoring of mini-bus/shuttle service and age of
the residents is a requirement of the management plan
discussed in Condition of Approval 8. All other
mitigation and conditions of approval will be shown on
construction plans prior to issuance of building permits.
4. The practicality of evicting tenants and demolishing a
portion of the complex if a conversion to office is
required. Who will be responsible for funding the
conversion?
RESPONSE: Presumably, if a conversion to office were required,
there would be no tenants to evict. The reality is that
if the project is not occupied by qualified seniors at
full market rent, the Economic Development Agency may
intercede and attempt to sell the project to the Housing
Authority for subsidized senior housing. If that
transaction were not accomplished, the conversion plan
would be subject to CEQA, and environmental concerns
would be addressed at that time. In order to make the
project more acceptable for the Housing Authority to
consider for subsidized senior housing, Conditions of
approval 9 through 20 have been added.
No other comments were received.
ANALYSIS: The project has been redesigned as required by the
Environmental Review Committee. The project consists of 1 large
building with 45 apartment units. Fifty-four parking spaces are
provided as required by the Development Code. Since this project
is not subject to the Development Code, it was necessary to apply
for a variance from previous standards. The requested variance is
to reduce from 68 to 54 the number of required parking spaces. The
former Title 19 (repealed) made no distinction between family
apartments and senior apartments for parking requirements. The
Conditional Use Permit 91-03
Mayor and Common Council meeting January 11, 1993
Page 3
previous standard was 1.5 space per 1-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per
2-bedroom unit. One space per unit was required to be covered, and
the remaining spaces were to be left open for guest parking. Those
requirements dictate that 68 parking spaces be provided for this
project.
During the time frame of the Urgency Ordinance, (June 2 , 1989
through June 3, 1991) , an analysis for senior apartment parking
requirements was conducted. Several area cities were contacted to
find out what the parking requirements were, and whether the person
contacted felt the standard was high or low. As a result of that
study, it was determined that 1.2 parking spaces per unit would be
adequate for senior apartments, with 1 space per unit covered and
.2 space per unit (1 space per 5 units) would be left open for
guest parking. That standard was incorporated into the Development
Code, however, Title 19 (repealed) was never amended.
The proposed variance provides parking in accordance with the
Development Code, which would require 54 parking spaces for this
project, and staff is not opposed to the number of spaces proposed.
However, since the Planning Commission determined that the previous
Title 19 (repealed) standards applied to this project, the project
requires 68 parking spaces. Approval of the variance request would
allow the 54 parking spaces as proposed.
The project meets all other code (planning) requirements.
KEY ISSUES: 2 key issues remain:
The revised feasibility study remains inadequate in
that the criteria used is county wide,and no
justification is given for full market rent senior
apartments at this location, (people who can afford
full market rent would choose to live elsewhere) ;
The conversion plan submitted will require the
removal of the rear portion of the building to
reduce square footage and to provide parking for
office uses.
Please see Exhibit B, comments from Economic Development contained
in the memo dated November 23, 1992, and Exhibit M, Conversion Plan
site plan.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and
Common Council may:
Conditional Use Permit 91-03
Mayor and Common Council meeting January 11, 1993
Page 4
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration, and approve
Conditional Use Permit 91-03 subject to the
Findings of Fact contained in Exhibits E and F, and
the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit G,
and the Standard Requirements contained in Exhibit
H;
2 . Deny the project. (Supports Planning Commission
decision) ; or
3 . Continue the item for further consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted
6-0 to deny the project with 2 abstentions, based on the analysis
contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report, and recommended
that the Mayor and Common Council deny the project based on the
fact that the site is unsuitable for senior housing, and a re-
design of the project will be of no benefit because of location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on direction of the Mayor and Common
Council given at their meeting of October 19, 1992, it is
recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Negative
Declaration, and approve Conditional Use Permit 91-03 , subject to
the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit G and the standard
requirements contained in Exhibit H, based on the Findings of Fact
contained in Exhibits E and F.
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building services
Conditional Use Permit 91-03
Mayor and Common Council meeting January 11, 1993
Page 5
EXHIBITS: A. Location Map
B. Memo from the Economic Development Agency
C. Initial Study
D. Comments received on Initial Study
E. Findings of Fact (CUP)
F. Findings of Fact (variance)
G. Conditions of approval
H. Standard Requirements
I. Site Plan
J. Floor Plan (1st floor)
K. Floor Plan (2nd floor)
L. Elevations
M. Site Plan (Conversion Plan)
N. Floor Plan (Conversion Plan)
O. Rear Elevation (Conversion Plan)
P. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/22/92
(not redistributed)
CITY � '
OF SAN
DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING SERVICES
ITEM #
CASE CUP 91-03
LOCATION HEARINGDATE 1-11-93
i
4
COUNTY
j
r���� •�■
r ... 1--r
IM il
1 I '= / •.
"24.
4
�.
s
D E V g L O P M S a T D E P A R T M E N T
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDIN0
MIMRANDUM
TO: Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director
FROM: EDWARD L. FLORES
Housing Development Specialist
MJECT: SECOND MARKET ANALYSIS FOR
MILLENNIUM MANOR SENIOR HOUSING
DATE: November 23, 1992
COPIES: Deputy Director; Senior Planner; Development Specialist
Echeveste; File
I am in receipt of an interoffice memorandum from Mr. Al Boughy, Director
of the Planning and Building Services Department requesting comments to a
second market analysis for the Millenium Senior Housing Project.
The new market analysis differs from the orginal primarily in (i) design
of the structure, and (ii) amenities being offered. The project consist
of a 45 unit senior housing apart*ent complex with some common as
amenities, such as; laundry room, storage room, offices, and a patio
area. The project anticipates having; ten (10) studio (457 sq. ft)
apartments; thirty-one (31), (520 sQ. ft.) one (1) bedroom aprtments, and
four (4), (663 sq. ft.) two (2) bedroom apartments.
Hovever, the summary of need only continues to illustrate countywide
statistics relative to potentional senior citizen renters. There is no
statistical information relative to the City of San Bernardino nor
specific information concerning the area where the project will be
located. The study confines its growth anaylsis to anticipated county
baby boom population growth patterns for its development ,justification.
The analysis fails to illustrate that the project is necessary Within the
project area, and is desirable, and will provide a service to the
community.
The developer attempts to provide a sense of security by enclosing the
project area with block walls and a six-foot wrought-iron fence which
includes both pedestrian and vehicular access. This may offer a sense of
security if we are considering the development of a jail but does very
little for the day to day living environment of senior citizens. Simply
put, senior citizen renters would continue to be warehoused using these
building design features. The only means offered tenants for access to
the outside world is to own and drive a car or depend on a shuttle bus
for transportation. Walking to and from any retail bussinesses located
within a five block distance is limited as the surrounding neight orhood
continues to be plaqued by crime- ,nd gang activity.
Exhibit "B"
The analysis fails to support the marketability and economic feasibility
of the project as it relates to, comparison of amenities/features vs.
rent structures and the likelihood that seniors given alternative choice$
will live elsewhere. Potential "Market rate" senior citizen tenants will
not accept these living conditions, especially since there is currently
an abundance of more attractive senior housing available in the community.
A recent telephone survey of St. Bernardine Senior Housing reveals that
its waiting list for vacant apartments is less then six (6) months long.
This waiting list is especially short because of the location of the
complex for fear of living within the surrounding neighborhood. This
coupled with the knowledge that there are attractive housing projects
becoming available outside of the immediate area. This factor is
important to note, as this particular senior housing project is well
managed with significant amenities offered in comparison to the Millenium
project. Additionally, the Senior Citizen Center located directly across
the street from St. Bernardine Senior Apartments keeps "ALL" access doors
adjacent to 5th Street permanently closed and limits its hours to 4:00
p.m. as a security measure against crime in the area.
Staff still questions the need to construct a senior housing project
within the described area. This decision is componded when a likelihood
e- ist that senior citizens will be confined to their apartment complex
with very vew amenities available to them. The analysis fails to
consider the location of this project and what impact this will have in
lease-up and vacancy rates.
Considering the design, features, and amenities offered, the anaylysis
has not provided sufficient information to justify the construction of a
Senior Housing Complex within the area in question. Therefore, staff
would not recommend this type of housing structure for a senior housing
apartment.
Should you have any questions concerning the contents of this report,
please see me.
Edward L. Flores, Housing Development Specialist III
Development Department
ELF:elf:2318B
CITY OF SAN BERNAHDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study for Environmental Impacts
For-10 -itc, P r ,, f FI- a 3
Project Number
Project description/location'rc
t
nA� 32(- tenet L, ✓� Sf r�.� IJe.. .mod
R/I P.L �rGa'r.
Date J.. 30� isg2
Prepared for:
Applicant(s) e_ rd
Address 144 T_
City, State 5�. '3CrA_.LrjLZ tic ,d
zip 9z.4 o
Prepared by:
S.►Are,e� "�,a.�sE�
Name ^' )
S�Ib2 t�L�c 1 1G
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Doc:Misc
InitialStudy
PLAN-U7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (a•pp�
Exhibit "C"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number. 1�A1A JZ QAJAL /-s E 'PEP- „ 47(- 0-3
Project Description: -77 114 Lel'14-C ' Q_ 40-11Ait,
Location: AL -IL Side o-� 3�`� 56 re r,-A Ld
Environmental Constraints Areas:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15%natural grade?
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic
&Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical
feature? _
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0-
Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General
Plan?
f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? �_
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic,
Figures 48,52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other? �-
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD? _
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0-Wind& Fire, Figure 59, of the City's
General Plan?
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? X _
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? _
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration
of surface water quality?
d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water?
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel
Number 060281 _, and Section 16.0-
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan?
f. Other? ?C
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including
stands of trees? X
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals or their habitat?
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6'or greater) _
e. Other? 1(
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health care facilities,schools,
libraries,religious facilities or other"noise'sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior
as identified in Section 14.0-Noise, Figures 557 and
58 of the City's General Plan? � _
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? X—
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning District Map?
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A& B,or C as
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? _
d. Other? _
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
a. Use, store,transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil,
pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? Y—
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? _ X _
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? V
d. Other?
S. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? _ Y
b. Other?
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? X —
b. Use of existing,or demand for new, parking
f acilhiss/structures?
C. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? Y,
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or
pedestrians?
ar
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements?
h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways
or intersections?
i. Other? X
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Firs protection? X _
b. Police protection?
c. Schools(i.e., attendance,boundaries,overload, etc.)? _X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Medical aid? X
f. Solid Waste? —X _
g. Other? x
11. Utilities: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity?
3. Water? _X
4. Sewer? X _
5. Other? _X_
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? _X
c. Require the construction of new facilities?
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic view? Y _
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? X
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section
3.0-Historical, Figure 8,of the City's General Plan?
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey? _
c. Other?
a".°1 5-7 a
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below soft sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory? —�•-
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?(A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
anew
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. f. Earth Resources: Warmcreek Channel flows through the site,
and is identified as a blueline stream on the USGS quadrangle map.
However, in 1984 , the stream course was diverted from the site by
a reinforced concrete pipe from the channel, down Court Street to
the storm drain in Sierra Way. State Fish and Game does not
regulate the channel, and no permits from Fish and Game, nor the
Corps of Engineers are required. There will be no impact by
development of this project.
1. g. Earth Resources: The project is located within an area
identified as having high potential for liquefaction. Standard
mitigation will be incorporated into the construction plans which
will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3 . a. Water Resources: Absorption rates will change due to the
construction of buildings, drive aisles, and parking areas.
However, the site will be graded so that any increased run-off
during rainy periods will be directed to improved storm drains and
the impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
4 . d. Biological Resources: There are several mature trees on the
site. However, the site plan shows that the trees are to remain,
so there is no impact.
5. a. Noise: An acoustical analysis for the project was prepared
by Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. Noise generated by traffic
on Third Street and fire engine sirens from the adjacent City Fire
Station were evaluated. The traffic noise can be reduced to
acceptable levels through the use of specified construction
materials. These include: operable dual glazed windows consisting
of 2 lites of 1/8-inch glass separated by a 1/4-inch air space and
using a pile seal, solid wood core doors, and wall construction
consisting of 3/8-inch stucco over 1-inch styrofoam on a 2 x 4 wood
stud frame, studs located 16-inches on center with R-11 insulation
in the stud cavity, and a 5/8-inch gypsum board interior finish.
The noise from the fire engine sirens is intermittent, and based on
the construction for noise reduction, will measure about 61 to 62
decibels in the interior of certain rooms in the apartment complex.
These rooms include: Building A, floor plan 1, the living room;
Building A, floor plan 2, the bedroom; and Building B, floor plan
1, the bedroom. The noise generated from the sirens occurs
approximately 15 to 20 times per day. Based on the acoustical
analysis, the events could occur at a rate of 7 events per hour (84
occurrences per day) , and still maintain an interior Ldn of less
than 45 decibels, provided the required construction for mitigation
is used. With the construction specifications incorporated into
the project as a condition of approval which will appear on the
construction plans, the impact is reduced below a level of
i
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(CONTINUED)
significance, and no further mitigation is necessary. The
acoustical analysis is available for review at the Planning and
Building Services Department, 3rd floor, City Hall, 300 N. "D" St. ,
San Bernardino, CA.
9. Transportation/Circulation: A traffic study was prepared by
Krueper Engineering and Associates, and reviewed by the City
Traffic Engineer, who concurred with the results of the study. The
study indicates there will be no adverse impacts on traffic or
circulation if the project is built, and therefore, no .mitigation
is necessary. The traffic study is available for review at the
Planning and Building Services Department, 3rd Floor, City Hall,
300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA.
10 b. Public Services: The project is located in an area of high
crime. The Police Department stated that the design of the project
does not provide as much security as it could for the future
residents of the project. Senior projects which include some form
of controlled access are much more secure from crime than the
proposed 4-plexes will provide. The Police Department Crime
Prevention Division has stated that a single building surrounding
a common open space courtyard would provide a much more secure
environment for future tenants of the project, and that such
redesign would most likely reduce the number of crime incidences,
thereby reducing the number of police responses necessary. This
concern will be addressed at the Design Review stage of the
project, when the project will be redesigned to provide the highest
level of security possible for the Senior Citizens who will live
there.
V/12 b. Aesthetics: The project, though located in a Commercial-
Office land use designation, consists of a proposal for 10, 4-plex
apartment buildings, which is very residential in nature, and not
compatible with the visual integrity of the Commercial-Office
designation, nor the surrounding and future development of the
area. This will be mitigated during the Design Review process,
when the project will be redesigned to provide buildings of greater
scale, mass, and bulk more consistent with cther construction
generally proposed for office and other permitted uses in the
Commercial-Office designation.
13 a. Cultural Resources: The site is located within an area of
archeological sensitivity as identified on the General Plan. The
project was routed to the San Bernardino County Museum for
evaluation. It was determined that the potential for cultural
resources at the site is 'I-ow, and no further studies or mitigation
are required.
p, DETEWANATION
On the basis Of this initial study,
0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA.
TION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
EThe proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.CALIFORNIA
Name and Title
Signature
Date:
f
1
:1ili
cc
ik
• I �„ w i _sl, ai� :�i :I� i�- tsls t 1 � I t = .�
H
t man
RP
a J �bps
0 M.. !1`,jam' �u �� � _ _ •S � �,
Q �. -
} 1 _ •.iii 6T f a
a c I �sno■ y
1 j J
1.
I nl.an IL
Z '� \ { I �`IA I 1 vwf7 1 r•• .�•.�a rte•
Li
1 1J
• \ � �.• 1. 1 •1 T J
st bO _
,�•Ir I
STEVE BAYLESS
173 East 4th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
December 8, 1992
� n� sj
City of San Bernardino
Planning&Building Services Dept.
300 N."D"st. i;Y s •,, ; I sQ
San Bernardino,CA 92418 `t=^^•• - a+�: ..::_ �+
RE: CUP 91 -3-SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENTS
CLIFF CAREL & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I INITIAL STUDY
Gentlemen:
The Federal Fair Housing Act describes the requirements and provisions that must be met
for housing to be exempted from the prohibitions against discrimination. The initial
study or environmental assessment only considered items of concern to the City and
didn't comment on the Federal requirements to determine whether or not the design,
services,and features qualify the project as a legitimate Senior Housing Project.
Enclosed is a copy of the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Western Division, in the case of Park Place Home Brokers vs P-K
Mobile Home Park. The decision contains a discussion of the requirements for the 55 or
older housing exemption under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
Based upon a review of the case history, it appears that the Cliff Carel project, as
proposed, will not qualify for an exemption. It is noteworthy to mention that contrary
to the City General Plan, the Court found that the offsite facilities and services may
not be taken into consideration in determining whether significant facilities and
services have been provided in order to qualify as a Senior Housing Project.
Several City Departments and the Planning Commission have taken the position that the
location of the proposed Senior Housing Project isn't suitable, is poorly designed, and,
most likely, will not be successful. Revised designs for the project still don't appear
to meet the requirements of the Federal Housing Act of 1988 which requires:
The housing facility must have significant facilities and services
specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older
persons... (Subpart E-Housing for Older Persons,Subsection 100.304).
As a resident taxpayer, I must ask how the City can support a project using public funds
that appears to violate the Fair Housing Act and from information provided to date, will
not be successful? Approving, financing and building the project without benefit of
review and input from the Department of Housing and Urban Development as to whether or
not the project qualifies for an exemption is extremely unwise. It is additionally
unwise to reject the opinions of staff that the economic feasibility is questionable
without benefit of another independent professional review.
After considering the testimony at three public meetings and discussions between the
Mayor and Common Council, staff, applicant, and public, it is evident that the project
is controversial and may have a significant effect on the environment. The initial
study is inadequate and doesn't discuss or address the aforementioned concerns.
Considering the liability to the taxpayer, the financial arrangements and obligations
between the City and Cliff Carel&Associates should be disclosed and evaluated in an
'independent economic/marketing feasibility study. This will reveal if public funds are
being used wisely.
The City should determine whether or not a focus EIR is required or is it merely
sufficient to address concerns in an expanded Initial Study. In either case, the
following items should be addressed and,as necessary,mitigation measures provided.
1. Does the design and project features meet the requirements of the Fair Housing
Act to qualify for an exemption and, if not, can the City be liable for
participating in a project that may be questionable?
2. Economic and marking feasibility of the project including financial arrangements
and obligations of the City and proponent and financial liability to the
taxpayers in the event of failure.
3. Methods and procedures required to monitor compliance and enforcement of
Conditions of Approval that will be placed on the project.
4. The practicality of evicting tenants and demolishing a portion of the complex if
a conversion to office use is required. Who will be responsible for funding the
conversion?
Your serious consideration of my request to evaluate the foregoing items of concern will
be sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely,
Steve Bayless
bg
cc: City Attorney
Monday 23, 1989
E-0
-si
Part III
s
Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
� Office of the Secretary
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity
24 CFR Part 14 et al.
Implementation of the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988; Final Rule
iE _
3290 Federal Register / VOL 54, No. 13 / Monday, January 23. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
(i)An accessible route into and paragraph(f)or(g)of this section are- complex which is an elderly housing complex
through the covered dwelling unit: not conclusive in enforcement operated for persons 62 years of age or older.
(ii)Light switches,electrical outlets, proceedings under the Fair Housing John is 62 years of age.Mary is 59 years of
thermostats,and other environmental Amendments Act. age.If Vista Heights wishes to retain its"82
controls in accessible locations: (i)This subpart does not invalidate or or over"exemption it must refuse to rent to
(iii)Reinforcements in bathroom walls limit any law of a State or political John and Mary because Mary is under 62
to allow later installation of grab bars subdivision of a State that requires years of age.However.if Vista Heights does
around the toilet.tub.shower.stall and dwellings to be designed and rent to John and Mary.it might qualify for the
shower seat.where such facilities are constructed in a manner that affords ,.5S or over"exemption in j 100.304.
Provided:and handicapped persons greater access Example(21.•The Blueberry Hill retirement
(iv)Usable kitchens and bathrooms than is required by this subpart. community has 100 dwelling units.On
such that an individual in a wheelchair September 13.1986.15 units were vacant and
can maneuver about the space. Subpart E—Houainp for Older Persons 35 units were occupied with at least one
(d)The application of paragraph(c)of person who is under ez years of age.The
this section may ti illustrated by the 11100.300 Purpose. remaining 50 units were occupied by persons
g P The purpose of this subpart is to who were all 82 years of age or older.
following examples: Blueberry Hill can qualify for the"62 or over'
Example/11.A develo effectuate the exemption in the Fair exemption as long as all units that were
per plans to Housing Amendments Act of 1988 that occupied after September 13.1988 are
construct a loo unit condominium apartment relates to housing for older persons. occupied b
building with one elevator.in accordance P y persons who were 62 vears of
with paragraph(a),the building has at least f 100.301 ExomptimL age or older.The people under 62 in the 35
one accessible route leading to an accessible units previously described need not be
entrance.All loo units are covered (a)The Provisions regarding familial required to leave for Blueberry Hill to qualify
multifamily dwelling units and they all must status in this part do not apply to for the-52 or over"exemption.
be designed and constructed so that they housing which satisfies the requirements
comply with the accessibility requirements of of If 100-30Z 100.303 or 1100.304. 11 100-NM SS or over housing.
paragraph(c)of this section. (b)Nothing in this part limits the (a)The provisions regarding familial
Example 12J:A developer plans to applicability of any reasonable local, status shall not apply to housing
construct 30 garden apartments in a three State.or Federal restrictions regarding intended and operated for occupancy by
story building.The building will not have an the maximum number of occupants at least one person 55 years of age or
elevator.The building will have one permitted to occupy a dwelling. older per unit.Provided That the
accessible entrance which will be on the first
floor.Since the building does not have an ¢100.302 Stab and F4tderal 4rldw* housing satisfies the requirements of
elevator,only the-ground floor-units are housing programs. 1100-304(b)(1)or(b)(2)and the
covered multifamily units.The"ground floor" 'rite provisions regarding familial requirements of§ 100.304(c).
is the first floor because that is the floor that status in this part shall not apply to
has an accessible entrance.All of the (b)(3)The housing facility has
dwelling units on the first floor must meet the housing provided under any Federal or significant facilities and services
accessibility requirements of paragraph(c)of State program that the Secretary specifically designed to meet the
this section and must have access to at least determines is specifically designed and Physical or social needs of older
one of each type of public or common use operated to assist elderly persons as per8Oca•"Significant facilities and
area available for residents in the building. defined in the State or Federal program. services specifically designed to meet
(e)Compliance with the a the physical or social needs of older
appropriate (J 100.303 62 or owe housing. persons"include. but are not limited to.
requirements of ANSI A117.1-1988 (a)The provisions regarding familial
suffices to satisfy the requirements of social and recreational programs.
paragraph saris of this section status in this part shall not apply to continuing education.information and
(f)Compliance with a dui enacted housing intended for,and solely counseling.recreational.homemaker.
y occupied by,persons 82 years of age or outside maintenance and referral
law of a State or unit of general local older.Housing satisfies the services.an accessible physical
government that includes the requirements of this section even environment.emergency
requirements of paragraphs(a)and(c) thou B cY and preventive
of this section satisfies thF•requirements (1)There are persons residing in such dining facilities.rtrar transportation So to
of paragraphs(a)and(c)w this section. housing on September 13,1988 who are facilitate access to social services,and
(9)(1)It is the policy of HUD to under 62 years of age.provided that all services designed
encourage States and units of general new occupants are to encourage and
local government to include.in their age or older. persons 82 years of assist residents l use the services and
existing procedures for the review and facilities available v them(the housing
(2)Tl.ere are unoccupied units, facility need not have all of these
approval of newly constructed covered provided that such units are reserved for features to qualify for the exemption
multifamily dwellings.determinations as occupancy by persons 62 years of age or under this subparagraph):or
to whether the design and construction over.
of such dwellings are consistent with (3)There are units occupied b (21 It is not practicable a provide
Paragraphs(a)and(c)of this section. employees of the housing nd family designed t facilities and services
(2)A State or unit of general local members residing n the same unit who designed to meet the physical or social
government may review and a g ) needs of older persons and the housing
newly constructed multifamily d dwellings performs substantial duttiies directly fey facility is necessary to provide
for the purpose of making related to the management or y important housing opportunities for
determinations as to whether the maintenance of the housing. older persons.In order to satisfy this
requirements of paragraphs(a)and(c) (b)The following examples illustrate paragraph(b)(2)of this section the
of this section are met. the application of paragraph(a)of this owner or manager of the housing facility
(h)Determinations of compliance or section: must demonstrate through credible and
noncompliance by a State or a unit of Example t1 l.John and Ma apply for significant facilities tandtservices of
general local government under p / J J Mary PP Y
housing at the Vista Heights apartment designed to meet the physical or social
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 1989 / Rules and Regulations am
needs of older persons would result in (vi)Actual practices of the owner or were occupied by at at least one person 55
depriving older persons in the relevant manager in enforcing relevant lease years of age or older.Under paragraph(d)(1)
geographic area of needed and desired provisions and relevant rules or of this section.Green Meadow qualifies for
housing.The following factors.among regulations. the`55 or over"exemption even though,on
others,are relevant in meeting the (d)Housing satisfies the requirements September 23,1988.under 80%of the
requirements of this paragraph (b)(2)of of this section even though: occupied units in the housing facility were
this section— (1)On September 13.1988,under 80% occupied by at least one person 55 years of
W Whether the owner or manager of of the occupied units in the housing ge or older per unit.provided that at least
g 80X of the units that were occupied after
the housing facility has endeavored to facility are occupied by at least one September 13.1988 are occupied by at least
provide significant facilities and person 55 years of age or older per unit, one person 55 years of age or older.Under
,services designed to meet the physical provided that at least 80%of the units paragraph(d)of this section.Green Meadow
or social needs of older persons either that are occupied by new occupants qualifies for the55 or over"exemption.even
by the owner or by some other entity. after September 13.19U are occupied by though it has unoccupied units.provided that
Demonstrating that such services and at least one person 55 years of age or at least an of its unoccupied units are
facilities are expensive to provide is not older. reserved for occupancy by at least one
alone sufficient to demonstrate that the (2)There are unoccupied units, person 55 years of age or over.
Provision of such services is not provided that at least 80%of such units Example 3:Waterfront Gardens is a Zoo
an b at least unit housing facility to be constructed after
practicable. are reserved for occupancy cY Y March 12-1W9.The owner and manager of
(ii)The amount of rent charged,if the one person 55 years of age or over. Waterfront Gardens intends to operate the
dwellings are rented,or the price of the (3)There are units occupied by new facility in accordance with the
dwellings,if they are offered for sale. employees of the housing(and family requirements of this section.Waterfront
NO The income range of the residents members residing in the same unit)who Gardens need not comply with the
Of the housing facility. are under 55 years of age provided they requirement in paragraph(c)(1)of this section
(iv)The demand for housing for older perform substantial duties directly that at least 80%of the occupied units be
persons in the relevant geographic area. related to the management or occupied by at least one person 55 years of
(v)The range of housing choices for maintenance of the housing. age or older per unit until so units(25%)are
older persons within the relevant (e)The application of this section ma occupied.When the 50th unit is occupied.
Y then 80%of the 50 occupied units(i.e..40
geographic area. be illustrated by the following examples: units)must be occupied by at least one
(vi)The availability of other similarly Example 1:A.John and Mary apply for person who is 55 years of age or older for
priced housing for older persons in the housing at the Valley Heights apartment Waterfront Gardens to qualify for the"55 or
relevant geographic area.If similarly complex which is a 100 unit housing complex over"exemption.
priced housing for older persons with that is operated for persons 55 years of age or
significant facilities and services is older in accordance with all the requirements Subpart F—Interference,Coercion or
reasonably available in the relevant of this section.John is 56 years of age.Mary Intimidation
geographic area them the boss facility s 30 years of age.Eighty(so)units are
tY occupied by at least one person who is 55 f 100.400 Prohibited Interference,
does not meet the requirements of this years of age or older.Eighteen(18)units are coercion or Intimidation.
paragraph(b)(2)of this section. occupied exclusively by persons who are (a)This subpart provides the
(vii)The vacancy rate of the housing under 55.Among the units occupied by new Department's interpretation of the
facility. occupants after September 13.1988 were 18
(c)(1)At least 80%of the units in the units occupied exclusively by persons who conduct that is unlawful under section
housing facility are occupied by at least are under 55.Two(2)units are vaunt.At the ale of the Fair Housing AcL
one person 55 years of age or older per time John and Mary apply for housing,Valley (b)It shall be unlawful to coerce,
unit except that a newly constructed Heights qualifies for the-35 or over" intimidate.threaten,or interfere with
exemption because 82%of the occupied units any person in the exercise or enjoyment
housing facility for first occupancy after (80/96)at Valley Heights are occupied by at of,or on account of that person having
March 12.1989 need not comply with least one person 55 years old or older.If John exercised or enjoyed,or on account of
this paragraph(c)(1)of this section until and Mary are accepted for occupancy.then that person having aided or encouraged
25%of the units in the facility are 61 out of the 99 occupied units(82X)will be
occupied:and occupied by at least one person who is 55 any other person in the exercise or
(2)The owner or manager of a housing years of age or older and Valley Heights will enjoyment of,any right granted or
facility publishes and adheres to continue to qualify for the-55 or aver" protected by this part.
policies and procedures which exemption. (c)Conduct made unlawful under this
B.If only 76 out of the 98 occupied units section includes,but is not limited to,
demonstrate an intent by the owner or had been occupied by at least one person S5 the following:
manager to provide housing for persons years of age or older.Valley Heights would
55 years of age or older.The following still qualify for the exemption.but could not (1)Coercing g Person.either orally,in
as
factors.among others.are relevant in rent to John or Mary if they were both under writing,or by other means,to deny or
determining whether the owner or 55 without losing the exemption. limit the benefits provided that person
manager of a housing facility has Example 2-Green Meadow is a 1.0oo unit m connection with the sale or rental of a
complied with the requirements of this retirement community that provides dwelling or in connection with a
paragraph(c)(2)of this section: significant facilities and services specifically residential real estate-related
designed to meet the physical or social needs transaction because of race.color.
(i)The manner in which the housing of older persons.On September 23.1968. religion.sex.handicap.familial status.
facility is described to prospective Green Meadow published and thereafter
residents. adhered to policies and procedures or national origin.
Oil The nature of any advertising demonstrating an intent to provide housing (2)Threatening,intimidating or
designed to attract prospective for persons 55 years of age or older.On interfering with persons in their
residents. September 13.1966,loo omits were vaunt enjoyment of a dwelling because of the
(iii)Age verification procedures. and 300 units were occupied only by people race•color•religion,sex,handicap,
(iv)Lease provisions.
who were under 55 years old.Consequently, familial status,or national origin of such
on September 13.1968 67%of the Green persons,or of visitors or associates of
(v)Written rules and regulations. Meadow's occupied units(600 out of 900) such persons.
46 773 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
ary judgment is granted in part d vide facilities and services specifically Be-
de 'ed in part. In accordance with signed to meet physical or social needs of
op' n, rpCourt orders TRW to end older persons, so as to support claimed
its p rovide for the calcul on of exemption from Fair Housing Act's prohibi-
lump s distributions from J ary 1, tion against familial status discrimination;
1985 to ber 22, 1986 in th ollowing (2) defendants failed to establish that it
manner. was not practicable to provide such facili- "
(1) The I p sum benefit hall be the ties and services, so as to support claimed
present val of the mo y single life exemption; (3) Department of Housing and
annuity, incl ing any arly retirement Urban Development(HUD) regulations im-
subsidy, and plementing congressional exception to Fair
(2) The present I shall be calculated Housing Act's prohubition against familial
by using an in t rate that is one status discrimination in case of housing for
hundred and tw percent (12076) of older people were not arbitrary, capricious
the PBGC rate a ect at the time the or contrary to statute; and (4) Fair Hous-
distribution curre for lump sum ing Act provisions in question did not vio-
amounts in cess of 5,000 (using the late defendants' right to equal protection.
j PBGC rate Ordered accordingly.
i TRW is er ordered to lculate the
retirees' p sum distnb ions in the
above er, and provide th with any 1. Civil Rights 0=240(3)
cum ve underpayment, wi interest, Mobile home park bore burden of es-
that ay result. tablishing that it qualified as housing for
of the retirees' remaining c 'Ins un- older persons exempt from Fair Housing
de ERISA, RICO, and state law dis- Act's prohibition against familial status dis-
r. •" sed crimination. Civil Rights Act of 1968,
IT IS SO ORDERED. § 807(bx2), as amended, 42 U.S.CA.
,..<: . § 3607(b)(2).
li. TT
2. Civil Rights 4-131
SYSTEM _ Facilities and services provided at mo-
} , .
bile home park did not meet congressional
and regulatory definition of"significant fa- !
sl `.
cilities and services specifically designed to
meet the physical or social needs of older
PARK PLACE HOME BROKERS, persons," so as to exempt park from Fair
.!1
yt bition against familial et al., Plaintiffs, Housin g Act's p rohi
V. _ status discrimination; park owners and op-
erators could at most claim to have provid-
F•, P—K MOBILE HOME PARK,
ed facilities and services which any land-
' et al.. Defendants.
r-L G _ lord expecting to please his or her tenants
Civ. No. 3:89CV7609. would provide and information regarding
United States District Court, facilities and services in which elderly citi-
tens might be interested. Civil Rights Act
N D. Ohio, W D. of 1968, § 807(bx2XCX% as amended, 42
�t July 24, 1991. _ U.S.C.A. § 3607(bX2XCXi).
{ ,f - 3. Civil Rights C-131
On variety of motions in consolidated Off-site facilities and services could
cause challenging unlawful discrimination not be considered in determining whether
against families with ch2dren at mobile mobile home park provided "significant fa-
home park, the District Court, John W. cilities and services" specifically designed
Potter, J., held that: (1) park did not pro- to meet physical or social needs of older
f i•I
ii
PARK PLACE HOME BROKERS .. P-K MOBILE HOME PARK 47
Cite w T73 F.Supp.K(N-D.OWO 1991) i
persons, so as to exempt park from Fair 7. Statutes 8=219(6)
Housing Act's prohibition against familial In considering constitutional challenge
status discrimination; there was no evi- to Department of Housing and Urban De-
dence that location of park was chosen with velopment •(HUD) regulations under Fair i
eye to providing low cost housing to elderly Housing Act, court had to give considera-
people but rather, location appeared merely ble deference to HUD's construction of Act
fortuitous. Civil Rights Act of 1968, and also had to give deference to HUD's
§ 807(bX2)(C)(% as amended, 42 U.S.C.A- interpretation of Act Civil Rights Act of i
§ 3607(b)(2)(C)(i). 1968, § 801 et seq., as amended, 42
See publication Words and Phrases U.S.C.A. § 3601 et seq.
for other judicial constructions and 8 Civil Rights 4-131
definitions.
Department of Housing and Urban De-
4. Civil Rights 9=242(4) velopment(HUD)regulations implementing
Mobile home park failed to establish 'congressional exception to Fair Housing
that it was not practicable to provide signif- Act's prohibition against familial status dis-
icant facilities and services to meet needs crimination in case of housing for older
of older persons, so as to support claimed people were not arbitrary, capricious or j
exemption from Fair Housing Act's prohibi- contrary to statute. Civil Rights Act of j
tion against familial status discrimination; 1968, § 807(b)(2), as amended, 42 U.S.C.
evidence offered supported, at best, argu- § 3607(b)(2).
went that it would be expensive to provide y- Civil Rights X103
facilities and services required by Act Constitutional Law X253.2(3)
Civil Rights Act of 1968, § 807(b)(2)(C)(i),
g Fair Housing Act section prohibiting
as amended, 42 U.S.C.A § 3607(b)(2)(C)(i). housing discrimination on basis of familial
5. Evidence x-536 status, but providing exception in case of
Mobile home park owner's experience
housing for older people, is not unconstitu-
as handyman did not qualify his opinion tionally vague so as to violate due process.
Civil Rights Act of 1968, §§ 802(k),
regarding cost of construction of communi- 807(b)(2), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.
ty building as credible and objective evi- §§ 3602(k), 3f,07(bx2); U.S.C.A. Const ')
dente to support claim that it was not Amend. 5.
practicable to provide significant facilities
and services to meet needs of older persons 10. Civil Rights 4-103 =
for purposes of exemption from Fair Hous- Constitutional Law X228.2
ing Act's prohibition against familial status Fair Housing Act section prohibiting i
discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1968, housing discrimination on basis of familial
§ 807(bx2)(C)(i), as amended, 42 U.S.C.-AL i
status, but providing exception in case of
§ 3607(b)(2)(C)(1). housing for older people, did not violate
mobile home park owners' right to equal
6. Civil Rights 4-131 protection. Civil Rights Act of 1968, i
Question of whether housing is neces- §§ 802(k), 807(bx2), as amended, 42 I
sary to provide important housing opportu- U.S.C-AL §§ 3602(k), 3607(b)(2); U.S.C.A-
nities for older persons, so as to exempt Const-Amend. 14.
housing facility from Fair Housing Act's
prohibition against familial status discrimr 11. Civil Rights 4=131 I
nation, only comes into play if it has been Mobile home park which had been mov- j
shown that provision of significant facili- ing steadily over period of years toward
ties and services for needs of older persons elderly community would not be found ex- i
is not practicable. Civil Rights Act of empt from Fair Housing Act's prohibition ,
1968, § 807(bx2XC)(i), as amended, 42 against familial status discrimination on
US-CA § 3607(bX2)(Cxi)- ground that it should be "grandfathered
I
48 773 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
in." Civil Rights Act of 1968, § 802(k), as of the controversy as to warrant his invoca-
amended, 42 U.S.C-A. § 3602(k). tion of federal-court jurisdiction).
The United States is the other plaintiff in
Stephen Dane, Toledo, Ohio, for plain- this lawsuit. The United States claims
tiffs that, sometime around March 10, 1989, Car-
Joan Szuberla, Toledo, Ohio, for defen- olyn Gray purchased a mobile home on lot
89 in P—K Mobile Home Park from defen-
dants. dant Larry Ward. It further claims that
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER after Mr. Ward became aware that Ms.
Gray had her son Daniel, who is under the
JOHN W. POTTER, District Judge. age of eighteen, living with her and that
This consolidated cause is before the upon confirming that Ms. Gray was not
Court on the motion for partial summary going to send Daniel elsewhere, defendants
judgment of plaintiff Park Place Home sent Ms. Gray a notice dated July 28, 1989
Brokers, Russell Wainer, and Toledo Fair stating that her lease would terminate on
Housing Center(collectively the Fair Hous- August 31, 1989 unless she complied with
ing plaintiffs), plaintiff United States of park rules prohibiting residence by chil-
America's motion for partial summary dren. The United States obtained a re-
! judgment,defendants' motion for summary straining order prohibiting defendants
judgment, the Fair Housing plaintiffs' op- from making good on their intention to
position to defendants' motion, the United evict •Ms. Gray. After Ms. Gray com-
States' opposition to defendants' motion, plained of defendants' actions, the Secre-
'' defendants' opposition to the motions of all tart' of HUD investigated the incident and
plaintiffs, and defendants' reply to plain- charged defendants with discrimination.
' tiffs' oppositions to defendants' motion. HUD's administrative authority can- be
Plaintiff Park Place Home Brokers (Park found at 42 U.S.C. § 3610(g)(2)(A). Pursu-
ant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(a), defendants
x2.! Place) is a manufactured housing broker. elected to have this charge heard in federal
Park Place earns a commission by bringing
together buyers and sellers of mobile court. Therefore, the United States
tz
r homes. Park PIace is owned and operated
brought Count I of the complaint on behalf
by plaintiff Russell S. Wainer. On a n=- of Ms. Gray. Pursuant to its authority
{ ! her of occasions after March 12, 1989,' under 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a), the United
States brought Count 11 of the complaint
Park Place claims that it attempted to ar-
F; range for the sale of mobile homes located alleging that defendants are engaged in a
in P—K Mobile Home Park to families with Pattern or practice of discrimination on the
3 J- children. Park Place further claims that it basis of familial status.
was prohtbited from doing so because P—K Defendants in this action are the P—K
expressed a policy of not admitting families Mobile Home Park, the Moonlight Mobile
ti with children into the park. Toledo Fair Home Parks, Inc., and the owners of the
Housing Center is a public service agency. corporation and mobile home parks in-
�, Its general purpose is to promote fair hous- volved here, Luella and Larry Ward. The
ing throughout the Toledo area. Due to Wards, through their corporation, Moon-
the no children policy of the defendants' light Mobile Home Parks, Inc., own and
mobile home parks, the Fair Housing Cea- operate three mobile home parks. Aside
ter claims to have had its institutional in- from defendant P—K Mobile Home Park,
terests impaired. See Havens Realty the Wards also own and operate Moonlight
Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378-79, Mobile Home Park and O.K. Mobile Home
102 S.Ct 1114, 1124-25, 71 L.Ed2d 214 Park. Although Moonlight Park and O.K.
t (1982) (Plaintiffs institutional interests al- Park are not defendants in these consol-
f leged such a personal stake in the outcome idated cases, they are involved because of
1. Though the 1988 amendment to the Fair Hots- 1988, the amendment became effective on
5
March 12, 1989.
ing Act was signed into law on September 13,
s
PARK PLACE HOME BROKERS P-K MOBILE HOME PARK 49
qta as 773 FSupp.K(H.D.Ohio I"U
their affiliation with Moonlight Mobile (iii) that at least 80 percent of the
Home Parks, Inc. and the Wards. Plain- units are occupied by at least one per-
tiffs accuse the defendants of violating the son 55 years of age or older per unit;
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. and
In 1988, the Fair Housing Act was (iii) the publication of, and adher i
amended to prohibit housing discrimination ence to, policies and procedures which
on the basis of familial status. Congress demonstrate an intent by the owner or
defined the term familial status to mean: manager to provide housing for per-
one or more individuals (who have not sons 55 years of age or older.
attained the age of 18 years) being dorm- 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2). The Department of
ciled with— Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
(1) a parent or another person having has issued regulations at 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.-
legal custody of such individual or indi- 300, 100.304 to flesh-out the conditions un-
viduals; or der which entities may claim the "housing
t
(2) the designee of such parent or other for older persons" exemption.
person having such custody, with the
written permission of such parent or oth- [1l Defendants admit that they discrim-
w person. inate against families with children at each
er of the mobile home parks. Defendants'
42 U.S.C. § 3602(k). As an exception to its Memorandum In Support of Their Motion
broad sweeping declaration that housing for Summary Judgment at 1. However,
providers may no longer discriminate defendants claim to be exempt from the
against people based on the presence of familial status provision of the Act because
children in their home, Congress recog-
nized the needs and desires of older citi-
zens. In this light, Congress held that the persons as that term was defined above in I
prohibition against familial status discrimi- 42 U-S.C- § 3607(b)(2). Defendants claim
nation does not apply to "housing for older that the three mobile home parks have
pie." 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1). Housing been moving gradually toward providing a j
people." for older persons of modest income to `
for older persons means housing—
(A) provided under any State or Federal live without the distractions which families
program that the Secretary [of Housing with children might provide. Defendants
and Urban Development] determines is bear the burden of establishing that they
specifically designed and operated to as- qualify as exempt housing for older per-
sist elderly persons (as defined in the sons under the Act. United States u
State or Federal program); or Keck, No. C89-1664C, slip op. at 9
(W.D.Wash. Nov. 15, 1990); Lanier v.
(B) intended for, and solely occupied by, Fairfield Communities, Inc., 776 F.Supp.
persons 62 years of age or older, or 1533 (M.D.Fla.1990); Secretary of HUD v.
(C) intended and operated for occupancy Murphy, Fair Hous. Fair Lend. 125,002 at
by at least one person 55 years of age or 25,044 (July 13, 1990) (an opinion from a
older per unit. In determining whether HUD Administrative Law Judge). J
housing qualifies as housing for older
persons under this subsection, the Secre- Defendants claim the 55 or older exemp-
tary shall develop regulations which re- tion provided by 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2XC)•
quire at least the following factors: There appears to be no dispute that defers-
(i) the e-:dstence of significant facili- dants satisfy the requirement in 42 U.S.C. ,
ties and services specifically designed § 3607(b)(2)(C)(iii) that at least eighty per-
to meet the physical or social needs of cent of the units in the parks be occupied
older persons, or if the provision of by at least one person 55 years of age or
such facilities and services is not prac- older per unit. Though there is some dis-
ticable, that such housing is necessary pute as to whether defendants have met
to provide important housing opportu- the requirement in 42 U.S.C. 1
nities for older persons; and § 3607(b)(2)(CXiii), the publication require-
50 773 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
477 U.S. 242
248 106
went, the difficult issue in this case turns Liberty Lobby, Inc., 4
on the determination of whether defen- S.CL 2505, 2510, 91 LEd.2d 202 (1986). t
dants have met their burden of demonstrat- Therefore, only disputes of facts affecting f
ing their compliance with the requirements the outcome of the suit under the applica-
in 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2)(C)(i). The issue ble substantive law will preclude the entry
arises for the Court in the context of cross- of summary judgment. Id A moving par-
motions for summary judgment, and the ty may discharge its burden "by 'show-
parties claim that the issue is one for the ing'—that is, pointing out to the district
Court to decide. None of the parties claim court—that there is an absence of evidence
the existence of a genuine issue of material to support the nonmoving party's case."
fact. Indeed, the parties have agreed upon Celot= 477 U.S. at 324-325, 106 S.CL at
most of the "facts" in this case. There- 2553-2554. Where the moving party has
fore, the Court will resolve the issue pursu- met its initial burden, the adverse party
ant to the following standard. "must set forth specific facts showing that
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- there is a genuine issue for trial."
cedure, summary judgment is proper Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. at
only where there is no genuine issue of 2511. "[P]laintiff, to survive the defen-
material fact and the moving party is dant's motion, need only present evidence
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. from which a jury might return a verdict in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The Supreme Court his favor." Id. at 257, 106 S.Ct. at 2514.
has recently stated that the inquiry is
"whether the evidence presents a suffi- As mentioned above, the Secretary of
cient disagreement to require submission HUD implemented Congress' directive in
?: to a jury or whether it is so one-sided 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2)(C) by issuing regula-
i` that one party must prevail as a matter tions at 24 C.F.R. § 100.304.
(a) The provisions regarding familial
of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
2` Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512,
1, status shall not apply to housing intend-
' 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).... In reviewing ed and operated for occupancy by at
� a motion for summary judgment, how- least one person 55 years of age or older
9~. . ever, all inferences must be viewed in
Y: per unit, Provided That the housing sat-
�' the light most favorable to the party isfies the requirements of 100.304(b)(1)
r opposing the motion."' See Matsushita or(b)(2) and the requirements of § 100:
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 304(c).
F 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.CL 1348, 1356-57, 89
L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting United (b)(1) The housing facility has signifi-
�''� States v. Diebold, Inc, 369 U.S. 654, 655 cant facilities and services specifically de-
82 S.Ct 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)). signed to meet the physical or social
needs of older persons. "Significant fa-
Ralph Shrader, Inc. v. Diamond Interna- cilities and services specifically designed
rF tional Corp., 833 F.2d 1210, 1213 (6th Cir.
to meet the physical or social needs of
'F 1987)' older persons" include, but are not limit-
_ The party moving for summary judg-
e" ed to, social and recreational programs,
f" went "always beats the initial responsibili- continuing education, information 'and
ty of informing the district court of the counseling, recreational, homemaker,
basis for its motion, and identifying those
j
outside maintenance and referral servic-
ti of `the pleadings, depositions, an-
b_ portions es, an accessible physical environment,
t swers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits if any' emergency and preventive health care of
which [he] believes demonstrate the ab- Programs, congregate dining facilities,
'
transportation to facilitate access to so-
sence of a genuine issue of material fact" P
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, cial services, and services designed to
106 S.Ct.2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). encourage and assist residents to use the
+ The substantive law of the case identifies services and facilities available to them
d which facts are material. Anderson v. (the housing facility need not have all of
_ x
II
i
PARK PLACE HOME BROKERS v. P-K MOBILE HOME PARK 51
Cite as T3 FSupp.46 (N.D.Ohio 1991)
these features to qualify for the exemp- (viill The vacancy rate of the housing
tion under this subparagraph); or facility.
(2) It is not practicable to provide sig- 24 C.F.R. § 100.304(a), (b). {j
nificant facilities and services designed The Court will first address defendants'
to meet the physical or social needs of claim that the three parks provide "signif% i
older persons and the housing facility is cant facilities and services specifically de-
necessary to provide important housing signed to meet the physical or social needs
opportunities for older persons. In order of older persons." 24 C.F.R. § 100.
to satisfy this paragraph (b)(2) of this 304(bxl). The seven factors listed in the
section the owner or manager of the regulations as meeting this requirement
housing facility must demonstrate are non-exclusive. Defendants claim that
through credible and objective evidence they weighed such factors as the locations
that the provision of significant facilities of the parks, the mobility of the residents,
and services designed to meet the physi- the rental rates, vacancy rates, availability
cal or social needs of older persons would of nearby services and facilities, the cost of
result in depriving older persons in the
adding facilities, space limitations, and the
relevant geographic area of needed and perceived desires and needs of their older
desired housing. The following factors, person residents. Defendants do not claim i
among others, are relevant in meeting to provide many on-site facilities at the j
the requirements of this paragraph (b)(2) three parks. They claim to provide the f
of this section— following amenities at every park. well-
(i) Whether the owner or manager of lighted park grounds, natural gas service i
the housing facility has endeavored to hookup, winter snow removal of access
provide significant facilities and services drives, grass cutting of common areas, and
designed to meet the physical or social strictly enforced park rules and regula-
needs of older persons either by the own- tions. At the Moonlight and O.K. parks, i
er or by some other entity. Demonstrat- defendants provide a heated laundry facili-
ing that such services and facilities are ty. They also provide rental lockers at a
expensive to provide is not alone suffi- fee of $1.50 per month. There is a 40 x
cient to demonstrate that the provision of 400 foot grassy area between Moonlight
such services is not practicable. ... and O.K. Parks where residents may :j
(hl The amount of rent charged, if the "walk" their small pets. Mr. and Mrs.
dwellings are rented, or the price of the Ward live on-site at Moonlight Park "for 1
dwellings, if they are offered for sale. any emergency needs of their residents,
( mobile home repair, or maintenance." De-
iii) The income range of the residents
fendants' Memorandum at 10. Defendants
of the housing facility.
maintain bulletin boards at all three parks
(iv) The demand for housing for older to "inform and encourage the residents"
persons in the relevant geographic area. use of the programs, services, and facilities
(v) The range of housing choices for available to them in the community at-
older persons within the relevant geo- large." Defendants' Memorandum at 11.
graphic area. The bulletin boards also provide inforna- I;
(vi) The availability of other similarly tion about toll-free health hotline numbers;
priced housing for older persons in the a at of mobile home repair/maintenance
relevant geographic area. If similarly services, meal delivery and transportation
at
priced housing for older persons with services, and monthly events scheduled On Sep-
significant facilities and services is rea- the West Toledo Senior Center.
sonably available in the relevant geo- tember 1, 1990, defendants placed a van I
graphic area then the housing facility into service to transport residents of the
does not meet the requirements of this mobile home parks to social services and
Paragraph (b)(2) of this section. programs in the City of Toledo.
52 773 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
[21 The Court finds that the facilities factor a court should take into account
and services provided on-site by defendants when deciding the question which this
do not meet the Congressional and regular Court must decide. In reaching this con-
tory definition of "significant facilities and clusion, the Court agrees with the Adminis-
services specifically designed to meet the trative Law Judge in HUD v. Murphy.
physical or social needs of older persons." As a general rule, the availability of
24 C.F.R. § 100.304(b)(1). Though the Sec- senior centers elsewhere in the same geo-
retary of HUD did not intend the list of graphic location does not tend to set a
factors at§ 100.304(b)(1) to be an exclusive particular community apart. Vicarious
list, the most defendants can claim to have use of these facilities by particular com-
done is to have provided those facilities and munities would give any "community"
services which any landlord expecting to the right to claim the right to discrimi-
please his or her tenants would provide and nate against families if it met the other
information regarding facilities and servic- tests. This construction could lead to
es in which elderly citizens might be inter. situations where large numbers of com-
ested. The transportation van and the bul- munities exclude families with children,
letin board are not enough standing alone, basing their claims on the availability of
though they would be evidence of "signifi- the identical public facilities. This would
cant facilities and services" if presented as vitiate the facilities and services require-
; part of a greater package. ment.
HUD v. Murphy, Fair Housing—Fair Lend-
=: : [3] In arguing that they meet the stan- ing (P—H) tf 25,002 at 25,046 (HUD Office
:•'`
i; dard in § 100.304(b)(1), defendants place of Administrative Law Judges, July
13,
the greatest reliance on the off-site facili- 1990). The Court also agrees with Judge
ties and services which they claim are avail-
r; Coughenour in United States v. Keck, No.
able to residents of their mobile home C39-1664C, slip op. at 11(W.D.Wash. Nov.
ark;: parkas. Defendants claim that each of the 15, 1990), that "[a]lthough the examples in
parks is located near or adjacent to facili- the regulations are not exclusive, a housing
ties and services which do meet the re-
provider must offer its tenants a package
l
quirement in § 100.304(b)(1). By relying of facilities and services that indicates a
r :.:. on these off-site facilities and services, de-
genuine commitment to serving the special
j" fendants claim that their parks provide Sig- needs of older persons." Defendants have
(; nincant facilities and services. Defendants not presented such evidence. The location
support their argument that the be al-
:a Y of defendants mobile home parks appears
lowed to "piggy-back" these off-site provi- merely fortuitous. There is no evidence
sions by citing the testimony of HUD inves- that defendants chose the location of the
tigator Ivory Smith. After this litigation parks with an eye to providing low cost
i commenced, plaintiffs deposed Mr. Smith housing to elderly people. Though defen-
t on August 2, 1990. At his deposition, Mr. dants claim that tenants in their parks do
EE Smith told defendants that off-site facilities not want additional facilities and services,
1 and services would be considered if the there is no evidence in the record of studies
housing facility furnished transportation or surveys being done by defendants to
I for the residents. Ivory Smith Dep. at 29— verify their claim. Though the Court's de-
k`; 30. Defendants claim that they purchased csion should not be interpreted as a find-
the van in reliance on this testimony. .. ing that location may never be a _factor
The Court finds that the off-site facilities supporting a defendant's argument that it
and services may not be taken into consid- Provides significant facilities and services,
for location to be such a factor, a defen-
eration in determining whether defendants
have provided "significant facilities and dant must present more evidence of a"gen-
t services." Noticeably absent from the uine commitment" than the current defen-
statute, its legislative history, and the reg- dants have provided.
7�. ulations promulgated under it is any men- [41 The Court will now address defen-
dants'lion that the "location" of the housing is a claim that it is not practicable to
' I
PARK PLACE HOME BROKERS v. P—K MOBILE HONE PARK 53
Cite as M FSupp.46(M.D.Ohia 1991)
provide significant facilities and services found that defendants have failed to satis-
and that their housing is necessary to pro- fy the impracticability test, the Court finds
vide important housing opportunities for it unnecessary to examine the necessity �
older persons. See 42 U.S.C. test.
§3607(b)(2)(C)(i); 24 C.F.R. § 100.304(b)(2).
The threshold factor listed in the regula- [7,sl The final area of contention which
tions for the Court to consider is a determi- the Court must address is defendants' con-
nation of whether the owner or manager of stitutional claims. Defendants first claim
the facility has endeavored to provide sig- that the HUD regulations are arbitrary and
nificsnt facilities and services. This regu- capricious. In Chevron U.S..1, Inc, v. i
lation cautions that a defendant's demon- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
stration that it is expensive to provide such 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.CL 2778, 81 L.Ed.?d 694
services and facilities is not alone suffz- (1984), the Court set forth the standards
cient to demonstrate impracticability. 24 for judicial review of an agency's construc-
C.F.R. § 100.304(b)(2)(i). Defendants may lion of a statute that it administers.
satisfy their burden by setting forth creai- When a court reviews an agency's con-
ble and objective evidence. Id- struction of the statute which it adminis-
(51 The Court finds that the evidence ters, it is confronted with two questions.
offered by defendants supports, at best, an First, always, is the question whether ;
argument that it would be expensive to Congress has directly spoken to the pre-
provide the facilities and services reauired cise question at issue. If the intent of
by the Act. As mentioned above, defen- Congress is clear, that is the end of the
dants have not submitted any credible esti- matter, for the court as well as the
mates of how much it would cost to con- agency, must give effect to the unambig-
struct complying facilities at their parks. uously expressed intent of Congress. If, �
In fact, defendants admit that Larry Ward however, the court determines Congress
did not get independent cost estimates for has not directly addressed the precise
constructing a new facility. Defendants' question at issue, the court does not sim-
,Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' ply impose its own construction on the
Motion for Summary Judgment at 13. All statute, as would be necessary in the
the Court has before it is defendant Larry absence of an administrative interpreta-
Ward's opinion that it would cost between tion. Rather, if the statute is silent or ;
$20,000 and$100,000 to construct a commu- ambiguous with respect to the specific
nity building. Defendants claim that Mr. issue, the question for the court is
Ward's experience as a handyman qualifies whether the agency's answer is based on
his opinion as credible and objective evi- a permissible construction of the statute, i
dence. The Court disagrees and, due to '
� `The power of an administrative agen-
defendants' failure to offer any other evi- ! !'
cre-
dence of impracticability, the Court finds cy to administer a congressionally ated ... program necessarily requires
that defendants have not met their burden the formulation of policy and the maidng 'A
here. of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or
[61 In Murphy, the Administrative Law explicitly, by Congress.' Morton `v. ! i
Judge held that the necessity test [i.e. the Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 94 S.Ct. 1055),
last clause in 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2)(C)(i) 1072, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974). If Congress '
which asks whether the housing is neces- has explicitly left a gap for the agency to
sary to provide important housing opportu- fill, there is an express delegation of
nities for older persons] only comes into authority to the agency to elucidate 'a
Play if the impracticability test has been specific provision of the statute by regu-
satisfied. HUD v. Murphy, Fair Housing— lation. Such legislative regulations are
Fair Lending (P—H) 25,002 at 25,048 (HUD given controlling weight unless they are
Office of Administrative Law Judges, July arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly con-
13, 1990). The Court agrees. Having trary to the statute.
i
i
I
54 773 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843--1-4, 104 S.Ct. at ward the community they now have, they
27813. The Court must give considera- should be found exempt from the prohibi-
ble weight to HUD's construction of the tion against familial status discrimination.
Fair Housing Act, and it must also give Though this argument has some appeal in a
deference to HUD's interpretation of the senior citizen context, it has none in the
Act. Id at 844, 104 S.Ct. at 2782. The law.
Court agrees with plaintiffs that the intent The Court finds that defendants are
of Congress in passing the Act was to stop guilty of familial status discrimination.
discrimination in housing against families The "55 and over" exemption does not ap-
with children. However, in so doing, Con- ply to defendants. Plaintiffs are thus enti-
gress chose to create an exemption for tled to a permanent injunction.
communities designed to meet the needs of This cause will proceed to a trial to deter-
citizens 55 years of age and older. This mine what damages, if any, to which plain-
exemption must be narrowly construed in tiffs are entitled.
order to preserve the balance Congress in-
tended to strike between housing for older THEREFORE, for the foregoing rea-
persons and the prohibition against familial sons, good cause appearing, it is
status discrimination. Given this construc- ORDERED that the Fair Housing plain-
;� lion of the statute, the Court finds nothing tiffs motion for summary judgment be,
in the regulations that is arbitrary, capri- and hereby is, GRAlNTED; and it is
iE1 cious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. FURTHER ORDERED that the United
1 (9] Defendants next contend that the States' motion for summary judgment be,
statute violates their due process rights and hereby is, GRANTED; and it is
!... because it is unconstitutionally vague_. A FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's
law is void on its face if it is so vague that motion for summary'judgment be, and
persons of common intelligence must neces- hereb Y is, DENIED; and it is
!' sarily guess at its meaning and differ as to
its application. Connally v. General FURTHER ORDERED that defendants
Cant. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct_ 126, are enjoined from (1) refusing to rent, or
;i.
•=�';.;; 127, 70 LEd. 322 (1926). The Court finds refusing to negotiate for thE rental of, or
no such constitutional infuznity in the Fair otherwise making unavailable for denying,
r�� Housing Act and its 1988 amendment. lots for the location of mobile home struc-
!'I'i =res because of familial status; (2) dis-
(10] Defendants' final argument is.that
cr:minating against any person in the
the statute violates their right to equal
terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of
protection. First, the Court finds no Con-
lots for the location of mobile home struc
►�` gressional intention to make elderly citi- rsres, or in the provision of services or
1 zens of modest income a "sensitive" class.
'acilities in connection therewith, because
The "rational relationship" test is therefore of familial status; and(3) making, printing,
the appropriate criterion for evaluating or publishing an notice, statement, or ad-
statutes like the one here, which involve ;ertisement with respect to the rental of
A P urel economic and social lePi
lots for the location of mobile home struc-
't t. plying the test, the Court finds that the
t. tares indicating any preference, limitation
�I �til Fair Housing Act and its 1988 amendment or discrimination based on familial status;
are rationally related to a legitimate
and it is
government interest. Thus, the Court
finds no violation of defendants equal pro-
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
faction rights. scheduled for a pretrial conference on Au-
�: gust 26, 1991 at 3:45 P.M.
[ill Throughout their various memo-
randa, defendants appear to argue that w
they should be "grandfathered in" under O TStrNUMBERSYSTEM
;i.
i 1L the Act; i.e. that because they have been
l?° moving steadily-over a period of years to-
k
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 11
EXHIBIT E
FINDINGS OF FACT
VARIANCE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood in
that the intended use for senior apartments does not have a
parking standard, and the parking requirement for family
apartments is excessive when applied to senior projects.
2 . The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant in that if
the project was submitted today, processed in accordance with
current Code requirements, parking requirements could be met.
3. Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements
in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property
is located in that the proposed number of parking spaces
should be sufficient for the senior project.
4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan in that Policy 1. 12 . 11 states
that senior housing is permitted if all Code requirements are
met, and this variance is requested in accordance with Code
requirements.
i
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 10
Exhibit F
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
1. The proposed use conforms to the objectives of the City's
General Plan Elements in that the proximity criteria of
Policies 1.7. 19, 1. 16. 14 , and 2 . 6. 1 are met, the conversion
plan required by Policy 1. 12 . 11 is adequate, and all Code
requirements are met as required by Policy 1. 12 . 11.
2 . The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located in that the proposed complex is
compatible with the bulk, mass and scale of existing and
future commercial office development.
3 . The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare, in that, except
for the requested variance for parking, all other code
requirements are met.
4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area, but adequate
parking is not provided, in that a traffic study was prepared
and discussed in the Initial Study which concluded no impacts
to traffic would result from construction of the project,
however, a variance is requested to reduce parking
requirements.
5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino in that
the project is designed with security systems, electronic
gates, and fire sprinklered throughout.
Fxhihit "F"
W.r+r
Exhibit G
Project Specific
Conditions of Approval
1. To mitigate noise generated by traffic on Third Street and
noise from fire engine sirens, the east and south walls of the
building shall be constructed of the following materials:
operable dual glazed windows consisting of 2 lites of
1/8-inch glass separated by 1/4-inch air space, and using
a pile seal
solid wood core doors
wall construction consisting of 3/8-inch stucco over
1-inch Styrofoam on a 2x4 wood stud frame, studs located
16 inches on center with R-11 insulation in the stud
cavity, and a 5/8-inch gypsum board interior finish.
2. The project shall be occupied by qualified seniors who are
defined as single residents the age of 60 years or older, or
married couples of which at least 1 partner is 60 years or
older.
3 . If the project is not occupied by qualified seniors, the
building shall be converted to offices as follows:
the building footprint shall be reduced to a maximum of
8, 944 square feet by removing the north wing of
apartments
the maximum number of office suites provided shall be 18,
7 on the first floor, 8 on the second floor, and 3 on the
third floor
the area of building demolition shall be developed with
parking and landscaping, with 81 parking spaces and 29%
landscaping provided over the entire site.
4 . Mini-bus/shuttle service shall be provided hourly, on a daily
basis, between the hours of 8 : 00 A.M. and 8 : 00 P.M. for the
life of the senior apartment project.
5. Monitored security systems with duress/panic button
capabilities shall be provided at the front entrance of each
dwelling unit. Perimeter and interior protection, and
exterior security cameras shall be provided.
6. The sidewalk located within the patio area, designed for
r..�1L _ . ..-
walking laps, shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from the
building, and the 5 feet shall be landscaped with shrubbery
which will prevent people from being adjacent to living
quarters. This condition is not applicable to the south side
of the patio area, which is adjacent to common area.
7. The 2 interior walls of the 3 small meeting and games rooms
located at the west end of the Community Activity Center shall
be retractable partitions.
8. In order to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988, prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall provide, and the City shall approve a
management plan which includes the following:
The nature of advertising designed to attract prospective
residents;
Age verification procedures;
Lease provisions;
Written rules and regulations;
Actual practices of the owner or manager in enforcing
relevant lease provisions and relevant rules or
regulations;
Means by which the required mini-bus/shuttle service will
be provided and how the provision of service will be
monitored by the City;
Any social and recreational programs anticipated, and how
they will be administered;
Means by which the City will monitor and verify the age
of the occupants on an annual basis;
Failure of the property owner or manager to comply with the
provisions of the approved management plan may be grounds for
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter
19. 36 of the Development Code.
9. Construction shall be in compliance with Section 504 of the
Housing and Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and state standards for handicap
accessibility. All ground floor units shall be handicap
adaptable.
10. All bathrooms shall have a 60-inch turning radius. The sinks
and toilets of all bathrooms shall be reversed on the
construction drawings.
11. All fire exit doors shall be provided with handicap ramps.
12. Base moldings shall be provided for all floors.
13. The elevator shall be hydraulic.
14. The elevator lobby shall be open to the hall. To accomplish
this, the wall and door separating the lobby from the hall
shall be deleted.
15. All kitchen stoves and laundry dryers shall be powered by
natural gas.
16. A washing machine and dryer shall be provided in each living
unit. All washing machines in individual living units on the
first floor shall be front loading. All washing machines on
the second and third floors shall be top loading.
17. A common laundry facility shall be provided on the first floor
to accommodate mobility impaired persons who may not be able
to reach the dryer on stacked machines. There shall be 4
washing machines and 4 dryers in the common laundry room. The
dryers shall not be stacked units.
18. Each unit shall be supplied with individual water heaters.
19. The building shall be furnished with central heating and air
conditioning, and each dwelling unit shall have a thermostat.
20. Each unit shall be individually metered for electricity and
gas.
21. The perimeter wrought iron fence pedestrian and vehicular
accesses shall be electronically controlled.
22 . Each kitchen shall be provided with an energy efficient
refrigerator, stove (natural gas) , microwave oven, front-
lading dishwasher, and garbage disposal.
l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM
CONDITIONS HEARING DATE 1-11-93
PAGE 38
23. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plan ( s ) approved b`• the Director .
Development Review Committee . Planning Commission
or Mayor and Common Council . Minor modification to
the plan( s ) shall be subject to approval by the
Director through a minor modification permit
process . Anv modification which exceeds 102 of the
following allowable measurable design/site
considerations shall require the ref iIing of the
original application and a subsequent hearing b,!•
the appropriate hearing review authority if
applicable .
1 . On-site circulation and parking , loading and
landscaping ;
2 . Placement and/or height of walls , fences and
structures ;
3 . Reconfiguration of architectural features ,
including colors , and/or modification of
finished materials that do not alter or
compromise the previously approved theme : and .
4 . A reduction in density or intensity of a
development project .
Within one vear of development approval ,
commencement of construction shall have occurred or
the permit/approval shall become null and void . In
addition , if after commencement of construction .
work is discontinued for a period of one year , then
the permit/approval shall become null and void .
Projects may be built in phases if preapproved by
the review authority . If a project is built in
preapproved phases , each subsequent phase shall
have one year from the previous phase ' s date of
construction commencement to the next phase ' s date
of construction commencement to have occurred or
the permit/approval shall become null and void .
Project :_ Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03
-----------------------------------------
Expiration Date : January 11, 1994
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
CONDITIONS HEARING DATE 1-11-93
PAGE 39 �DE
25.____ The review authority may , upon application being
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 .
26 .
-------- -- In the event that this approval is legally
challenged , the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate
fully in the defense of the matter . Once notified ,
the applicant agrees to defend , indemnify , and hold
harmless the City , its officers , agents and
employees from anti, 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 pav as a result of such action , but
such participation shall not relieve applicant of
his or her obligation under this condition .
27 .
--------- No vacant , relocated , altered , repaired r,r
hereafter erected structure shall be occupied or no
change of use of land or structure( s ) shall be
inaugurated , or no new business commenced as
authorized by this permit until a Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued by the Department . q
temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by
the Department subject to the conditions imposed on
the use , provided that a deDOSit is filed with the
Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy .
security shall
guarantee The deposit or
and completionofall the
terms , performance .
performance standards imposed on theniintended
by this permit . use
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 owner( s ) , fails to
maintain the required/installed site
the City will improvements .
be able to file an a
liens ) against the ppropriate
property in order to accomplish
the required maintenance .
an a
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
CONDITIONS HEARING DATE 1-11-93
PAGE 4n
28._ __ The developer is to submit a complete master
landscape and irrigation plan ( 5 copies ) for the
entire development to the Public works Department
With the required fee for review . The landscape
plans will be forwarded to the Parks , Recreation .
and Community Services and the Planning Division
for review . ( Note : The issuance of a building
development Permit by the Department of Planning
and Building Services does not waivE this
requirement . ) No grading permit ( s ) will be issued
prior to approval of landscape plans . The
landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with
the "Procedure and Policy for Landscape and
Irrigation" ( available from the Parks Department ) ,
and comply with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 19 . 28 ( Landscaping Standards ) of the
Development Code effective on the date of approval
of this permit . Trees are to be inspected by 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 .
is
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C AGENDA ITEM
CONDITIONS
HEARING DATE 1-11—9 3
PAGE_ 41
___29'____ This
Permit or approval is Subject to the attachod
conditions or requirements of the following city,
Departments or Divisions :
X Fire Department
i
X
- --____ Parks . Recreation & Community
Services Department
X
------ Building Building Services Division of the
Planning and Building Services
Department
--_X----- -____- - Police Department
---------- Public Services ( Refuse ) Department
X
--------- - Public Works ( Engineering )
Department
X
----------- water Department
=I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C AGENDA ITEM
CONDITIONS
HEARING DATE 1-11-9.3
PAGE 42
---------- 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 other forms of air pollution ;
glare control ; exterior lighting design and
control ; noise control ; odor control ; screening ;
signs , off-street parking and off-street loading ;
and , vibration control . Screening and sign
regulations compliance are important considerations
to the developer because they Will delay the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until they
are complied With . Anv exterior structural
equipment , or utility transformers , boxes , ducts or
meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by
wall or structural element , blending With the
building design and include landscaping When on the
ground . A sign program for all new commercial ,
office and industrial centers of three or more
tenant spaces shall be approved by the Deprtment
Prior to the issuance of a Certificaate of
Occupancy .
This requirement also includes any applicable Land
Use District Development Standards for residential ,
commercial and industrial developments regarding
minimum lot area . minimum lot depth and width ,
minimum setbacks , maximum height , maximum lot
coverage . etc .
- 30___- This development shall hP required to maintain a
minimum of _ _*_* _
standard off-street narking
spaces as shown on the approved Plan ( s ) on file .
** 54 & 1 shuttle bus
�
4=TWQ =
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
HEARINGDATE
GE 1-43-93
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
1 ' Submit plans prepared by a Registered Building ) Eep",
Architect or Civil or Structural Engineer.
2 - 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, ixooX-=eXkdeMCtl&k
buildings including a signed compliance statement.
4 Submit calculations and structural drawings, prepared by
a Registered Civil Structural Engineer or Architect, x1oz
Be advised that the subject building is an unreinforced
masonry building (URM) as defined by State law and as
identified in a study done by the City dated January
1990. Notice that this building was a URM building was
mailed to all URM owners in April 1990. At some time in
the future, the owner will be required to do a detailed
structural analysis -for the purpose of determining the
degree of structural deficiencies, submit structural
plans showing correction of the structural deficiencies,
obtain building permits, and complete the structural
upgrading.
a. It is recommended that before significant cosmetic
improvements are made that some thought be given to
doing the seismic structural upgrading first or
consideration be given to doing the cosmetic
improvements in such a way so as to minimize or
avoid redoing the proposed cosmetic improvements in
the future.
b. Based upon the structural changes and/or add-ons to
the building (such as adding mechanical equipment,
mansard roof; other additional weight that must be
restrained laterally) , submit a structural analysis
certifying that the changes and/or add-ons being
proposed to the building makes the building no more
hazardous than without the proposed changes and/or
PLAN-8.10 IA-M
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING PAGE 44-93
add-ons. If such analysis and certification cannot
be made, then the building must be seismically
upgraded prior to occupancy of the building.
C. As defined by the building code, this project is a
change of occupancy classification and/or
intensification of use that requires this building
to be seismically upgraded prior to occupancy.
Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses
and existing materials of construction.
5. Submit four (4) complete sets of construction plans
including:
a. Copy of conditions.
b. Soils and�Sfr liquefaction report.
C. Energy Calculations.
d. Structural calculation.
6 • Submit a preliminary $�X �� � j� (soils anckggpipgy
y*,�# liquefaction analysis) report prepared by a person
licensed to do so.
7. Submit a single line drawing of the electrical service.
Show all equipment, conduit and wire sizes and types.
Show the service ground size and grounding electrode.
8 . Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical plans.
Permit required for demolition of existing building(s) on
site.
9 ' Submit a plan of the heating, ventilating or air
conditioning system. (Clearly identify the location and
rating of the equipment and the sizes and material of all
ducts, registers and the location of all fire dampers) .
Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as
required by the 1988 Uniform Building Code.
10. Submit as
g pipe loads, sizing calculations and
isometrics.
t
too,,",
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARINGDACTE 1 -151-93
11 . Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed
sewer system.
12 . Submit a letter clearly indicating the intended use of
all areas of the building. List the materials to be used
and the projects produced giving the amount of each kept
in the building. If the building is used of more than
one purpose, list all other uses.
13 . Submit isometric plans of the cold and hot water and
drain waste and vent systems.
14 . Show compliance with Title 24 for the physically
handicapped X$�Tmw&4y project shall meet all
handicapped requirements , also for units require a.
15 . Submit plans approved by the County Health Department.
Indicate methods of compliance for sound attenuation
(exterior, interior party walls, floor/ceiling assembly,
ceiling) as per study, U.B.C. , local or State Law.
Show compliance with requirements of high fire areas.
For structures located within high wind areas:
a. Design structure, including roof covering, using
p.s. f. wind load.
16 . City of San Bernardino named as certificate holder for
Worker's Compensation Insurance.
17. Assessor's Parcel Number. 135-181-66
18 . Contractor's City license.
19 • Contractor's State license.
20 . Sewer capacity rights from Water Department, 384-5093,
Neil Thomsen.
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE CUP 91-03
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
Is
TANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING AGE 1461-93
21 . School fees from Unified School District, 381-1179.
92 - Fire Sprinklers Required:
Plans for fire sprinklers shall be submitted to Fire
Dept. and approved prior to installation. No building
inspections shall be performed beyond "framing and
ventilation" until fire sprinkler plans are approved.
23 • Other: Plan check timeis approximately 6 weeks , contact
Building
24 • Deposit: $5 , 100 plan check deposit
CaTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/E�,
CASE CUP 91-03
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 1-11-93
PAGE 7
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required , the
app scant 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 .
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
designed and constructed at the developer ' s expense , and right-
of-way dedicated as necessary .
The development is located within Zone A on the Federal Insurance
Rate Maps ; 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 . iTl-i's 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 .
25 . X All drainage from the development shal 'i 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 .
26 - X Applicant shall mitigate on-site storm water discharge suffi -
ciently to maintain compliance with the City ' s NPDES Storm Water
Discharge Permit requirements . A " Notice of Intent ( NOI ) " shall
be filed with the State Water Quality Control Board for
construction disturbing - 5 acres or more of land .
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 ,
during all phases of construction , including graded areas which
are not proposed to be immediately built upon .
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBL IC _
woRfcai�,
CASE CUP 91-03
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 1 -11-93
PAGE 4 8
Grading
27 . X If more than 1 ' of fill or 2 ' of cut is proposed , the site/plot/
grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil
Engineer and a grading permit will be required . The grading
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 .
If more than 5 , 000 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed , a
grading bond will be required and the grading shall be
supervised in accordance with Section 7012 ( c ) of the Uniform
Building Code .
28 . X 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 .
29 . X 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 .
30. X The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer pri'or to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 4
copies to the Engineering Division for checking .
.l . X
An on-site Lighting Plan for the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer . This plan can be incorporated
with the grading plan , or on-site improvement plan , if
practical .
A Landscape Maintenance District shall be implemented to
maintain landscaping within the following areas :
Separate sets of Landscape Plans shall be provided for the
Landscape Maintenance District.
NOW
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/91M
CASE CUP 91-03
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 1-11-93
PAGE 4 9
Utilities
32 . 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 .
33 . X Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be con-
structed at the Developer ' s expense . Sewer systems shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City ' s " Sewer
Policy and Procedures " and City Standard Drawings .
34 . X Utility services shall be placed . underground and easements pro-
vided as required .
35 . X A11 existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the
site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded in accor
dance with Section 19 . 20 . 030 ( non-subdivisions ) or 19 . 30 . 110
( subdivisions ) of the Development Code .
36 . X Existing utilities which interfere with new construction shall be
relocated at the Developer ' s expense as directed by the City
Engineer .
37 . X 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 .
i
I
r
qTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/
I
CASE CUP 91-03
[STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE -
PAGE
Street Improvement and Dedications :
All public streets within and adjacent to the 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 .
For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street
right-of-way ( R . W . ) to provide the distance from street centerline
to property line and placement of the curb line ( C . L . ) in relation
to the street centerline shall be as follows :
Street Name Right-of-Way ( Ft . ) Curb Line ( Ft . )
38 . X Driveway approach shall be constructed per City Std . No . 204 , Type
II .
39 . X A 4 ' wide clear path shall be maintained along the public sidewalks
adjacent to the proposed bus stop bench and cover . A d d i t i o n a I
right-of-way shall be dedicated , if necessary .
f �
CITY OF SAN BERNARfliNO PUBLIC WORKS/
CASE CUP 91-03
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 1- E� 93 �
PAGE r;I j
Required Engineering Permits:
40 • X Grading permit ( if applicable . ) .
41 . X On-site improvements construction permit ( except bu see
Planning and Building Services ) , includes landscaping .
42 • X Off-site improvements construction
p permit.
Applicable Engineering Fees (Fees subject to change without notice)
Plan check fee for Final /Parcel Map -
lot or parcel . $1 ,000 . 00 plus $30 . 00 per
43 . X Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements - 4% and
4%, respectively , of the estimated construction cost* of
off-site improvements .
44 . X Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements ( except
buildings - See Planning and Building Services ) - 2% and 3% ,
respectively , of the estimated construction cost* of on-site
improvements , including landscaping .
45 . X Plan check and inspection fees for grading Fee Schedule available from the Engineering ( Division . required ) -
46 . X Drainage fee in the amount of $5 ,000 ( approx )
47 . X Traffic system fee in the estimated amount of
Exact amount shall be determined by the City Tra $2ic E-ngineer at
time of application for Building Permit .
48 . X Sewer connection fee in the amount-. of
$11 , 000 ( approx )
49 . A Street or easement dedication processing fee in the amount of
$200 . 00 per document .
50 . X Sewer inspection fee $16 . 35 per connection
*Estimated construction cost is based on schedule of unit prices on
file with the City Engineer .
Sno
I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE Cvh
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS HEARING DATE %Z-/9-9-9
REVIEWED BY
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
51 . Provide one extra set of construction plans to Building and Safety for Fire Department use at time of plan check.
5 2 . � Contact Fire Department for specific or detailed requirements-IMPORTANT.
53 . >< The developer shall provide for adequate Fire Flow as computed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Fire Flow shall be based
on square footage, construction features and exposure information as supplied by the developer and may be taken from two
hydrants.
ACCESS:
( 1 Provide two different routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved,all-weather.
1 Provide an access roadway to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface
of not less than 20-feet of unobstructed width.
I l Extend roadway to within 150-feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all single-story buildings.
( l Extend roadway to within 50-feet of the exterior walls of all multiple-story buildings.
I l 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".
1 Dead-end streets shall not exceed 500-feet in length and shall have a minimum 35-foot radius turnaround.
( 1 The games of any new streets(public or private)shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
SITE:
All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible construction.
1 Private fire hvdrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150-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 2f-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 hvdrant shall be designated as a"NO PARKING"zone by painting an 8-inch wide, red stripe for 15-feet
in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parked vehicles. Suitable "NO
PARKING"signs are required.
14, Public fire hydrants shall be provided along streets at 00-feet intervals for commercial and multi-residential areas and at
500-feet intervals for residential areas. Installation sha 1 conform to City specifications and be installed prior to combustible
construction or storage.
55. 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.
I 1 Identify each gas and electric meter with the number of the unit which it services.
56 . r,*mc:Z Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is
2A 10 B/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75-feet travel
distance from a fire extinguisher.
I 1 All buildings, other than residential over 5,000 square feet, shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system, designed
to NFPA standards.
57 Submit plans for the fire protection system to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction on the system.
58 Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to construction.
59 . Provide an automatic fire alarm (required throughout). Plan must be approved by the Fire Department,prior to installation.
Fire Department connection to(sprinkler system/standpipe system)shall be required at curb line.
60 .
--------------------------
TE: The applicant must ; quest, in writing, any change in these or other requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMAT x /_ r� V��f
07770ti,
E+RIClp�,( �FOU/ACED dy Lo��.x FG�c-r � - /4T'
.� �K/TJ eQrDt,�IiCfD Fit'e►41 '7% �=/�, �,�'
CG d 4if��
FPB 170 7/39
- �~rY�� � •w ' �X44:�+.. 'ti.l-•► ••r 7 ._.�. "-'.'�'o'��\:� �"+r M^'�. vi �vlr `�1�.��'` �� ����.rr
1
San Bernardino City Water Department
i � s
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS � � 3
Review of Plans: # am Date:
Location: Approved:
Type of Construction: a - UST k7?17` Denied:
V r
Owner/Developer: e�L_� l t��i Continued: �9a
ENGINEERING: Name: L15 l,J Date: Z- Z
61 . `9� P.S. 1. D - 2
u
62 .7 Size of Main Adjacent to the Project
63 . 'Pressure Regulator Required on Customer's Side Jn the Meter.
❑ Off-site Water Facilities Required to Meet Peak Flow Demand.
64 . 'RComments: E E
65. Subject to the Rules&Regulations of the 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: Name,:I T O � _ Date: ' Z
66 - 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: Date: 1 Z
67 • Industrial Waste Permit Required by Environmental Control Officer.
❑ Grease Trap Required by Environmental Control Officer.
❑ Pre-treatment Required by Environmental Control Officer.
68 • ZL No Regenerative Water Softeners May be Installed Without Prior Approval.
69 . Approved by Environmental Control Officer.
SEWER CAPACITY INFORMATION: Name: E�t 1 l�UM�-��_ Date: 7�9�9�
❑ No Sewer Capacity Fee Applicable at This Time.
70 . Sewer Capacity Fee Must Be Paid to the City Water Department for the Amount of Gallons Per
Day. Equivalent Dwelling Units: c7
❑ Subject to Recalculation of Fee Prior to the Issuance of Building Permit.
71 . Proof of Payment Must be Submitted tothe Building&Safety Department Priorto Issuance ofthe Building Permit.
Breakdown of Estimated Gallons Per Day:
E
7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS - POLICE
DEVELOPMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CASE # 1�/ _ p 3 DATE // - / 9 - Z
SINGLE OR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
The following special provisions shall apply to all new
residential dwellings or those with 50% improvement/alteration:
72 . Garage-type doors:
A. Garage type doors which are either rolling overhead,
solid overhead, swinging, sliding, or accordion style
doors shall conform to the following standards:
1. Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of five-
sixteenths (5/16) inch in thickness with the
locking hardware being attached to the support
framing.
2 . Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of
. 0215 inches and riveted together a minimum of
eighteen (18) inches on center 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 three (3) inches or the strike area of the
pilot or pedestrian access door.
3. Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum of six
(6) ounces per square foot from the bottom of the
door to a height of seven (7) feet. Panels above
seven (7) feet and panels in residential structures
have a density of not less than five (5) ounces per
square foot.
B. Where sliding or accordion doors are used, they shall be
equipped with guide tracks which shall be designed so
that the door cannot be removed from the track when in
the closed and locked position.
C. Doors that exceed sixteen (16) feet in width shall have
two (2) lock receiving points, one located on each side
of the door. Doors not exceeding sixteen (16) feet shall
have one lock receiving point placed on either side of
the door. A single bolt may be used in the center of the
door with the locking point located either in the floor
or door frame header.
D. All overhead or swinging doors shall be equipped with
slidebolts which shall be capable of using padlocks with
a minimum nine-thirty-seconds (9/32) inch shackle.
*•,
Standard Requirements - Police
Single/Multiple Family
Page 2
1. The entire slidebolt assembly shall be constructed
of case-hardened steel and shall have a frame a
minimum of . 120 inches in thickness, and a bolt
diameter a minimum of one-half (1/2) inch, and
shall protrude at least one and one-half (1 1/2)
inches into the receiving guide.
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 nine-thirty-
seconds (9/32) inch in diameter with heel and toe locking
and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation. The key
shall be nonremovable when in an unlocked position.
F. Doors using a cylinder lock .shall have a minimum five (5)
pin tumbler operation with the bolt or locking bar
extending into the receiving guide a minimum of one (1)
inch.
G. Pedestrian access doors contained in garage type doors
shall comply to the standards set forth in the below
section.
73 . Windows/Locks/Doors (Including Sliding Glass) :
The following requirements must be met for windows, doors
(including sliding glass) , and locks:
A. All movable windows and sliding glass doors shall be
constructed and/or equipped so as to prevent them from
being lifted -out of their tracks when in the closed
position.
B. Louvered windows shall not be used when any portion of
the window is less than twelve (12) feet vertically or
six (6) feet horizontally from an accessible surface or
any adjoining roof, balcony, landing, stair tread,
platform, or similar structure.
A. All exterior swinging doors shall be of solid core
construction with a minimum thickness of one and three-
fourths (1 3/4) inches or with panels not less than nine-
sixteenths (9/16) inch thick.
Standard Requirements - Police
Single/Multiple Family
Page 3
B. Any swinging door leading from a garage into a residence
shall be of solid core construction with a minimum
thickness of one and three-eighths (1 3/8) inches.
C. The above-described doors shall be equipped with a single
cylinder deadbolt having a minimum projection of one inch
and an embedment of at least three-fourths (3/4) inch
into the strike receiving the bolt. The bolt shall be
constructed so as to resist cutting tool attacks. The
cylinder shall have a cylinder guard, a minimum of five
(5) pin tumblers, and shall be connected to the inner
portion of the lock by connecting screws of at least one
fourth (1/4) inch diameter.
The provisions of this subsection do not apply where
panic hardware is required or an equivalent device is
approved by the enforcing authority. Further, a dual
locking mechanism, constructed so that both deadbolt and
latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside
door knob or level may be used provided it meets all
other specifications for locking devices.
D. Installation and construction of frames and jambs for
exterior swinging doors shall be as follows:
1. Door jambs shall be installed with solid backing in
such a manner that no voids exist between the
strike side of the jamb and the frame opening for a
vertical distance of six (6) inches each side of
the strike. Finger joints are prohibited within
twelve (12) inches vertically on any locking
device.
2. In wood framing, horizontal blocking shall be
placed between studs at door lock height for three
(3) stud spaces each side of the door openings.
Trimmers shall be full length from the heads to the
floor with solid backing against soles plates.
E. The inactive leaf of double doors shall be equipped with
metal flushbolt(s) having a minimum embedment of five-
eighths (5/8) inch into the head and threshold of the
door frame.
F. Glazing in exterior doors or within forty (40) inches of
a door locking mechanism shall be of fully tempered glass
or rated burglary resistance glazing.
G. Hinges for outswinging doors shall be equipped with
nonremovable hinge pins or a mechanical interlock to
Standard Requirements - Police
Single/Multiple Family
Page 4
preclude removal of the door from the exterior by
removing the hinge pins.
This requirement shall also apply to exterior hinges on
any swinging door which leads from a garage into a
residence.
H. Strikeplates shall be constructed of minimum sixteen (16)
U.S. gauge steel, bronze or brass, a minimum of three and
one-half (3 1/2) inches in length and secured to the jamb
with screws a minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) inches
in length.
I. All front exterior doors shall be equipped with a wide
angle one hundred eighty (180) degree door viewer, except
where clear vision panels are installed.
J. When panic hardware is required by the Uniform Building
Code or Title 24, California Administrative Code, it
shall be equipped and installed as follows:
1. Panic hardware shall contain a minimum of two (2)
locking points on each door, one located at the
head, the other at the threshold of the door, or
2 . On single doors, panic hardware may have one
locking point which is not to be located at either
the top or bottom rails of the door frame. The
door shall have an astragal constructed of steel
. 125 inches thick which shall be attached with
nonremovable bolts or welded to the outside of the
door. The astragal shall extend a minimum of six
(6) inches vertically above and below the latch of
the panic hardware. The astragal shall be a
minimum of two (2) inches wide and extend a minimum
of one (1) inch beyond the edge of the door.
3 . Double doors containing panic hardware shall have a
full length steel astragal attached to the doors at
their meeting point which will close the opening
between them but not interfere with the operation
of either door.
74 . Address lrtarki cs and Lighting:
K. The following provisions for address markings shall apply
to residential dwellings:
1. All residential structures shall display a street
number in a prominent position so that it shall be
easily visible from the street. The numbers shall
Standard Requirements - Police
Single/Multiple Family
Page 5
be four (4) inches in height, of a color
contrasting to the background, and located so they
may be clearly seen and read. If the structure has
rear vehicle access, number shall be placed there
as well.
2. At each driveway entrance to a multiple-family
dwelling complex or a private residential community
which has access from a public roadway, there shall
be an illuminated diagrammatic representation (plot
plan) of the complex which shows the location of
the viewer and the building units within the
complex.
3. In multiple-family dwelling complexes, any building
having a separate identifying factor other than the
street number shall be clearly identified in the
manner prescribed in subsection (k) , infra. Each
individual unit of residence shall have a unit
identifying number, letter, or combination thereof
displayed upon the door.
4. Buildings shall be numbered in logical, sequential
order with the approval of the enforcing authority.
5. This section shall not prevent supplementary
numbering such as reflective numbers on street
curbs or decorative numbering, but this shall be
considered supplemental only and shall not satisfy
the requirements of this section.
6. Maps of the complex shall be furnished to the
police and fire departments upon completion of
construction. The maps shall include building
identification and unit identification.
7. The roofs of multiple-family buildings shall have
addressed numbers affixed to the top. The numbers
shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in length and
two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color to
the -- background. The numbers shall be placed
parallel to the street address as assigned. Each
building shall have its own address/assigned number
affixed to the roof of a multiple-family complex.
L. All exterior doors shall be equipped with a lighting
device which shall provide a minimum maintained one (1)
footcandle of light at ground level during hours of
darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by vandal
resistant covers.
Standard Requirements - Police
Single/Multiple Family
Page 6
M. Aisles, passageways, and recesses related to and within
multiple-family dwelling complexes shall be equipped with
lighting devices which shall provide a minimum maintained
one (1) footcandle of light at ground level during hours
of darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by
vandal resistant covers.
N. All parking lots, carports, garages, and parking
structures or multiple-family dwelling complexes shall be
equipped with lighting devices which will provide a
minimum maintained one footcandle of light on the parking
surface during hours of darkness. Subterranean parking
lots shall maintain lighting twenty-four (24) hours a
day.
Lighting devices shall be protected by vandal resistant
covers, are to be "shake" proof, and are to be
inaccessible to common reach or climbing.
O. All exterior required lighting devices shall be placed at
a height which will fully illuminate an average adult.
75 . Miscellaneous:
P. In multiple-family dwelling complexes where a common
laundry is supplied, the laundry room's access door shall
be equipped with a window, self closure device, and self
locking door lock which can be manually disengaged on the
interior. Lighting shall be maintained inside the
laundry room during hours of darkness.
Q. When access to or within a multiple-family dwelling
complex or private residential community is unduly
difficult because of secured openings or where immediate
access is necessary for lifesaving or fire fighting
purposes, a key override is to be installed in an
accessible location. The key override shall be mastered
to both fire department and police department keys.
R. All skylights on the roof of any residential structure
shall be provided with rated burglary resistant glazing.
S. Passenger elevators, the interiors of which are not
completely visible when car door(s) is open, shall have
mirrors so placed as to make visible the whole of the
elevator interior to prospective passengers outside the
elevator.
T. Whenever a mail slot is located within forty (40) inches
of the primary locking device on any exterior door, it
Standard Requirements - Police
Single/Multiple Family
Page 7
shall be covered by an interior hood which will
discourage manipulation of the primary locking device.
U. All exterior block wall fencing of multiple-family
dwelling complexes shall have intervals providing
visibility corridors which will allow visibility of the
interior from outside the wall, and these visibility
corridors shall be placed at regular intervals. These
will be required on the side facing the street only.
V. Permanently affixed ladders leading to roofs shall be
fully enclosed with sheet metal to a height of ten (10)
feet. This covering shall be locked against the ladder
with a case hardened hasp, secured with nonremovable
screws or bolts and a padlock with a minimum three-
eighths (3/8) inch hardened steel shackle, locking at
both heel and toe, and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler
operation with nonremovable key when in an unlocked
position. Hinges on the cover will be provided with
nonremovable pins when using pin type hinges.
W. All parking spaces are to be visible from the interior of
at least one unit within the complex.
X. If alarm systems are installed into residential
dwellings, the occupant must contact the Crime Prevention
Unit of the San Bernardino Police Department to obtain an
alarm permit.
76 . Additional Requirements:
f7L-!xa '
!1,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEPARTMENTS OF
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROCEDURE
AND
POLICY
FOR
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
MULTI UNIT
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
January..1992
Table of Contents
.I. Purpose
II. Submittals
A. Number of Plans and Submittal Procedures
B. Landscape Plans
C. Irrigation Plans
III. Landscape Areas
A. Maintenance of Landscaped Areas
B. Planter Areas
C. Interior Planter Areas
D. Irrigation
E. Setback Areas
F. Slope
G. Ground Cover and Bedding Material
H. Erosion Control
I. Weed Control
IV. Plant Materials
A. Plant List and Climatic Conditions
B. Street Trees
C. Plant Material
V. Inspection
A. Irrigation System
B. Landscaping
VI. Other Requirements
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL OF
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS:
I. PURPOSE
The intent and purpose of these guidelines is to provide:
1 . Guidance in the required submittal of landscape and irrigation
plans.
2. Guidance in meeting street tree requirements.
3. Guidance in selection of plant material.
4. Guidance in what the plans (landscape and irrigation) shall show.
II. SUBMITTALS
A. NUMBER OF PLANS AND SUBMITTAL PROCEDURE
FIVE (5) copies each of landscape and irrigation plans shall be sub-
mitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department along with payment
of the appropriate Landscape Plan Review Fee.
B. LANDSCAPE PLANS
1. Shall be drawn by one of the following:
A. A registered landscape architect.
B. A licensed landscape contractor who installs the actual
landscape.
C. A nursery.
D. The owner.
NOTE: The name, address, telephone number, along with signature of the
person(s) who do the design shall be on the plans. Registered
landscape architects and licensed landscape contractors shall
include their registration numbers and/or license numbers.
2. Plans shall be legibly drawn to scale on paper no smaller than
18" x 24" and no larger than 24" x 36".
3. Plans shall show location of the property by vicinity map and
nearest cross streets and give the property address or assessor's
parcel number.
4. Plans shall show location of existing and proposed utilities - above
ground and underground.
5. Plans shall show type of zoning, the scale, and northerly directional
arrow.
6. Plans shall contain plant legends for all existing and proposed
plant material. The legend shall be as follows:
2
7. Plans shall show exiting and proposed plant material drawn to
scale at their mature size.
8. Plans shall contain landscape specifications and details.
9. Plans shall show all required landscape areas protected from
parking areas with concrete curbing.
10. Plans shall show the name, address, and telephone number of
property owner or developer.
C. IRRIGATION PLANS
1. All required landscaping shall be provided with an automatic
irrigation system.
2. Plans shall be submitted with, attached to, and the same size as
landscape plans.
3. Plans shall address conservation of water and energy.
A. Components - low gallonage and low precipitation heads,
drip systems and other sub-surface techniques, mini jet
heads, moisture sensing devices, controllers with ability
of variable programming.
B. Efficiency - velocity shall be close as possible to 5 feet
per second. Plant material with different water requirements
shall be on separate valves. Slopes shall be on separate
valves. System design shall eliminate costly, wasteful,
overthrow and runoff.
4. Plans shall show:
A. Static P.S.I.
B. Service Main - type, size and length.
C. Water Meter - location and size.
D. Approved Backflow Prevention Device - location and size.
E. All locations of pipe, valves and heads, (includes emmitters, etc.)
5. Slopes required to be planted shall be provided with efficient and
water conserving irrigation systems.
NOTE: Actual water application rates shall be applied, as soil
absorption rates dictate. Over watering shall be avoided.
6. All sprinklers shall be installed with approved swing joints.
7. All above ground sprinklers shall be the pop up type, installed
flushed with the soil. Exposed sprinklers on risers above ground
are acceptable in limited areas with "bubbler" type sprinklers
and do not border sidewalks, walkways, or areas subject to
pedestrian traffic.
8. Separate water meter for landscape irrigation is optional at owners
request and expense.
NOTE: Owner must notify the Water Department.
9. Plans shall contain installation specifications and details.
10. Plans shall contain irrigation legends as follows:
11. All Irrigation lines under concrete or asphalt to be sleeved
EQUIPMENT
Symbol Manufacturer Model # Description Nozzle Radius GPM PSI
3
11
PIPE
Size Type Class Schedule
- F
Note: Pipe sizing, (size) shall also be shown at each section of
pipe, (mains and laterals) .
VALVE CHART
Valve Valve Size GPM
#1 2Y" 43
#2 1Y" 27
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Total 11 Valves Total GPM
Note: All valves shall be numbered.
FRICTION (PSI LOSS)
if " Water Meter PSI
Backflow Device PSI
Elevation Changes PSI
Pipe PSI
Valves, Fittings, Miscellaneous PSI
Total PSI Loss PSI
Original PSI (static) PSI
Less Total PSI Loss PSI
Equals
Minimum to Farthest HD PSI
III. LANDSCAPE AREAS
A. MAINTENANCE 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 landscaping shall be protected by an enclosed concrete
curbing.
4
8
C. INTERIOR SITE PLANTING AREAS
Interior planting shall be required and maintained equal to at least
15 percent of the open surfaced parking area excluding the area of
landscaping strip required in the front yard setback area and shall
include at least one tree for every five spaces or major fraction
thereof. Measurements shall be computed from the inside or perimeter
walls or setback lines.
D. IRRIGATION
All required landscaping shall be provided with automatic sprinkler
facilities which shall be maintained in an operative condition.
Utilize only reduced pressure (rp) devises or double check valve
assembly. No atmospheric vaccuum breakers are permitted.
E. SETBACK AREAS
All required setbacks abutting a public right-of-way shall be land-
scaped (except for walks and driveways which bisect or encroach opon
the required landscape area) . The required setbacks shall be land-
scaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Landscaped earth berms
shall be erected and maintained within the setback along the above
indicated property line. Bermed areas shall have a maximum of 3: 1
slope and be planted with a tall fescue type turf grass, or other
a pr ved landscaging.A,minimum fl S6 fdeef of landscaping shall be placed
ogi tie exterior f Perimeter wa s an ences
F. GROUND COVER AND BEDDING MATERIAL
Gravel and decorative rock are not appropriate materials to be used
as ground cover or bedding material.
G. SLOPES
1. To protect against damage by erosion and negative visual impact,
surfaces of all cut slopes more than five feet in height and fill
slopes more than three feet in height shall be protected by land-
scaping. Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall also
be landscaped with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed twenty (20)
feet on cetners; or a combination of shrubs and trees as cover
plants. Plant material selected and planting method used shall be
suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the site. Public
Works/Engineering will also approve these.
2. Plant sizes shall be as follows:
A. Trees 20% - 24" box
80~ - 15 gallon
B. Shrubs 50% - 5 gallon
502 - 1 gallon
C. Groundcover 100% - coverage when mature or o.c.
5
3. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be
the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual
ownership.
4 . All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion control
planting of graded slopes, shall be done in accordance with a
grading plan approved by the City Engineer. A grading permit
shall be obtained prior to any grading being done.
H. EROSION CONTROL
All grading and drainage facilities, including erosion control planting
of graded slopes, shall be done in accordance with a grading plan approved
by the City Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any
grading being done.
I. WEED CONTROL
Pre-emergence control, post-emergence control and cultural control of
weeds shall be addressed in the landscape specifications.
IV. PLANT MATERIALS
A. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND PLANT LISTS
Due to the hot and dry climate of San Bernardino, drought and heat
tolerant material may be used upon prior approval.
B. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be required. Tree varieties and exact location
will be determined by the Director of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department or his/her designee. The Parks, Rec-
reation and Community Services Department shall mark locations and
inspect plant material on site, prior to planting. Sidewalks, curb
and gutter, must be clean of debris prior to marking. A 24 hour
notice is required for inspection. (see attached specifications for
Street Tree planting and Street Tree list). The size of the Street
Trees shall be: 1 . All 24 inch box specimans,
The 24 inch box trees shall be planted as street
trees within the public parkway or City property.
C. PLANT MATERIAL
Landscaped areas shall have plant material selected and planting methods
used which are suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the
site. Sizes of the plant materials shall conform to the following
mix:
Trees 20%, 24" box; 50%, 15 gallon;15%, 36" box;15%, 48" box;
Shrubs 80%, 5 gallon;20%, 1 gallon
Groundcover 100% coveraget or 8" on c.o.
D. CONCRETE MOW STRIPS
Concrete mow strips are required to separate all turf areas from other land-
scaped areaq for all developments except single family residential (see res-
idential requirements )
E. Where trees are planted in paved areas, They shall have a Protective tree
grates shall be caste iron with a natural finish. A deep root system shall be
used
V, INSPECTION (714) 3845314
A. IRRIGATION SYSTEM (714) 3845217
1 , Inspections shall be performed by a Park and Recreation Department
representative at the following:
A. Pressure test of irrigation main line (150 PSU for 2 hours)
B. Coverage test and final acceptance.
2. Do not allow or cause the above items to be covered up, until it
has been inspected and approved by a Park Department representative.
A 4& hour notice shall be given prior to anticipated inspections.
B. LANDSCAPING
1. Inspections shall be performed by a Park and Recreation Department
representative at the following:
A. Upon completion of finished grade, soil preparation and final
rake out.
B. When trees and shrubs are spotted for planting, with one
example of planting hole for trees and one for shrubs.
C. Final inspection when planting and all other specified work
has been completed.
2. A 48. hour notice shall be given prior to anticipated inspections.
VI. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Notify Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department of commence-
ment of landscaping. Give anticipated time line (start to finish) .
B. All landscaping, irrigation and street trees shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with City of San Bernardino Municipal Codes,
ordinances and standard requirements.
C. Material requirement 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 equipment, irrigation components
and workmanship shall be guaranteed for a period of not 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
ffmrerial being in healthy condition and free from abnormal conditions
which may have occurred during or after planting, such as defoliation
or structure dieback.
E. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
CONTACT THE CITY PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT'S LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. ALL OTHER ITEMS ON ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICTS IS COVERED BY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING.
� s Q
�dMO�Ft► wi�M� � � �� �~ n 0 1L1� v i .� �
u, r
ve��19x`-
ss Z W
W
v
UT
VY
,v;•rai
..W Z
17 W
W S Z �LL ,4•.
Li-
dam. N n
to
tl O
4q- U d lie
Su
i9
L '� Z
7 g
+ r
r
It
jil i
WV
- �
•, � � -�--�- -- -�1 -of
a _
< Z W a
- 0 1—
ffi " s %Ts .
_ W
In Jc
Ix a
r--
i
i
i
o,
u
_ m u N
11f F \ N
N 1.
C
tr— —.
8 u+ NS ,ns,
o '
.1'
r
It
r°-ion — LU
Ix
=o CL n
a
• O � 0 �
N �
mT s
4 _j
aroma Z
Z `'S
ILL t°1 r
Y �
n ll J
°I a
u w a u
LL
V
2
a
- 3
�rz LL i3
o-N A'f M,%r-Oa C
<
s
h o W I
< J ;
> h � W
W
® h B B W J IL
X N
W
s ® _ ® J
11 ISO " r - 8 61 . t
dt
Lis
qj
v �
11� ■
Q El 8 nom. in �■
"} m
0
.,, t
On
LEM
art j osit
® H
flfi 'e 4L
® J
liq
r- li`
a
® I - 8
8 --
lilt J!
QD
ER I
® .
o I; �
C�. "_ tff_.fr
_ , 1
_- I
_ N .
r
q
q r
< 6'�V irc�
W
sp
•� ;n� o �r l � •_p =
8 � Itl •
1— V
ir
Us
Lu
zz
3
1 P
• ,O.4L
v; I .
n
N
f \ i
�•.� 9 1�9 j.a A cc D
V'• I_f m tp
s
a rn b J
LU
? 0 Q
n i
aj - o 3
a �° a
1 �l c V
aoaiaao� a �.. dl a
� ammm = Z IA 'd •
j W
dt °
- V O
� oL rT
W S
-H� o � Q
ll LL
ai Z � LX•'
A
3�
p 8d 7 f
�{ J
\ rte tr cA J'
�S1
g J �3 T
P b
awoiaar.v
N
9
O t
M
C
a R
-o X
- W
a
a
= U <
u LLI
v -
ELE ,
a
m
NT S
r z
4 -i
= ra 2
W
LJ v eC
-- _
A _ r V Z i a 39�
9 V J
� j o
g 3 rl
1
Q
h
C
\ tl
K
\1 4
_ o
7 N
- il� m♦ a f. � _ -
CITY OF SAN BERNAftADINO — REQUEST Fo%.R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission
denial of Conditional Use Permit
Dept: Planning & Building Services No. 91-03
Date: October 8 , 1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting
October 19 , 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous action on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 .
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, that the appeal be denied and
that Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 be denied, based on
the Findings of Fact.
A Boughe Si
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 8 4-5 3 5 7
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:� /
Z tt
of
r�rr�rr
CITY OF SAN BERNA , DINO - REQUEST F( Z COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) 91-03
REQUEST/LOCATION: The Applicant requests approval to construct a
40-unit Senior Citizen apartment project on a 1.4 acre site located
on the north side of Third Street, between Allen Street and Sierra
Way. Please see Exhibit A, Location Map.
KEY ISSUES: There are several key issues identified as follows:
. There is concern for the safety of the future
residents of the senior complex in that the area in
which it is proposed to be located is one of high
crime rates.
There are no conveniently located medical or health
services.
There are no conveniently located commercial
services such as nrocery or dru.crr, stores.
The floor plan shows 2-bedroom units which the
Housing Authority of San Bernardino County has
stated are the most difficult to rent to seniors,
and the project could have a high vacancy rate.
The conversion plan submitted is inadequate in that
it does not address parking required for office
space, nor the removal of buildings, which would be
required, in the event the units are not rented by
qualified seniors.
The feasibility study does not justify construction
of the project.
The design of the project is not suitable for the
area, if the area were suitable for senior housing.
Please see the analysis and attachments contained in Exhibit B,
Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and
Common Council may:
1. Deny the project based on the location of the
senior apartments, subject to the attached Findings
of Fact contained in Exhibit B; (Supports Planning
Commission decision) .
75-0264
0
Conditional Use Permit 91-03
Mayor and Common Council meeting October 19, 1992
Page 2
2 . Approve the location in concept, and require that
the project be re-designed, the Initial Study be
advertised as available for public review and
comment, and continue CUP 91-03 for 90 days; or
3 . Approve the location and design in concept,
continue CUP 91-03 for 60 days to allow the Initial
Study to be revised and advertised as available for
public review and comment. (No revision would be
necessary) .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted
6-0 to deny the project with 2 abstentions, and recommended that
the Mayor and Common Council deny the project based on the fact
that the site is unsuitable for senior housing, and a re-design of
the project will be of no benefit because of location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Mayor and Common
Council deny the appeal, and deny Conditional Use Permit 91-03 ,
on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit B.
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services
EXHIBITS: A. Location Map
B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments
I
• • � • AGENDA
ITEM #
COUNTY ����� ■�■
• ' _r -L
Elf A ' '
f MH 1
-FA
� . ....E
� J
4
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 3
SUMMARY HEARING DATE - -
WARD
APPLICANT: Cliff Carel & Assoc.
W CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
144 E. 3rd St.
Cl) San Bernardino, CA 92401
Q 91-03 OWNER: Michael J. Murphy
V 2601 N. Del Rosa, Ste 220
San Bernardino, CA 92404
The applicant requests approval to construct a 40-unit senior
citizens apartment complex consisting of 10 4-plex units .
W
3
W The 1 . 3 acre site is located on the north side of 3rd Street,
between Allen Street and Sierra Way.
W
Q
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant CO-1 Commercial Office
North Apartments RH Residential High
South Residential & Park CO-1 & PP Commercial Office/
Public Park
East Fire Station CO-1 Commercial Office
West Commercial CO-1 Commercial Office
C GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: YES
HAZARD ZONE: X NO ZONE: XIS NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO
HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES =Central NT XX YES
HAZARD ZONE:X� NO CRASH ZONE:
No y ❑ NO
..1 NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ❑ APPROVAL
Q APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
F- MITIGATING MEASURES
�Z U) NO E.I.R. Q E] CONDITIONS
2 Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO W LL a
Z
Z p SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W DENIAL
0 Z WITH MITIGATING h- 2
Ix LL. MEASURES N O ❑ CONTINUANCE TO
W ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V
EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W
MINUTES CC
UT OF SAN HEMAFONG
CENTRALPFOwnNasum ES PLAN-9.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
I
0
CONDITIONAL USE PAGENDANO ITEM:l-03
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 1
REQUEST
The applicant requests approval to construct a 40-unit senior 3 acres on th north
citizen apartment complex located • Allen Streete in the 1C0-lf
Third Street, between Sierra Y and
there is a
Commercial office iance to
reduce athennumber addition,
required parking
request for a v Location Map and
spaces from 73 to 56. (See Attachments I and G,
Site Plan)
BACKGROUND
lication was submitted on January 4 , 1991. it was deemed
This app 1991. The incomplete letter was appealed to
incomplete in February, specified studies were
t;;a Planning Commission to determine if
required, and due to the date of the incomplete letter relative to
the effective date of the Developme ro ct In July, 19911 the
standards were to be applied to the p
nt .
Planning Commission determined that
ior the
o studies were not
date required,
the
the application was comp) P applicable and that the
k Development Code, the new code was not
project would be processed under Mun pipit Code (repealed June 3revious stand
in Title 19 of the San Bernardino
1991) , and the policies contained in the Ge ttal lof • a The
convveorsion
actually remained incomplete, pending
plan and a feasibility study as required in the General Plan.
submission of those items, the application was deemed
Following and scheduled for the
complete on July 2 , 1992 , ERC meeting of July
Development/Environmental Review Committeeo7(Dect be redesigned to
30, 1992 . The D/ERC required that the pr
address safety and security for the senior citizens who would When
in the apartments, and to address issues of compatibility.
the owner appealed the decision of the D/ERC to re oe r atethe
project, it was determined that it would be more app p
move forward with the public he n ofethe Conditional location use
of senior
(CUP) to discuss the primary question
apartments at this site.
ANTICIPATED PROCESS
The first and Rion for seniorlhous housing? i s determined) that
appropriate location for the CUP
this is an inappropriate location for senior housing,
should be denied.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
HEARING DATE: PAGE 2—?-2
If it is determined that the location is appropriate for senior to
housing, then it must further be ecterinneaccordance or
with t the
require a re-design of the p 7
recommendation of the D/ERC.
If a re-design is required by the Planning Commission, the project
should be approved in concept and continued for the days ii.al Study
time to revise the site plan. During that time,
will be advertised as available for public review and comment on
The projec
the proposed Negative Declaration. t would be brought
back to the Commission for approval and adoption of the Negative
Declaration.
Commission determines the project is fine as
If the Planning roved in con Initial study cept, and contin ed
presented, the project should be app to be revised,
60 days to allow time for the public review and comment for the
advertised as available for p
�_ ,
eri_ . The project would be brought back to the
requited 2- day t' "
of the Negative Declaration.
Commission for approval and adoption
mmission would need to
In either of the last 2 scenarios, the Co
make positive Findings of Fact
CE4A STATUS
The Initial Study presented to the Environmentaconcernwformsafety
on July 30, 1992 , contained language regarding
and aesthetics which could both be mitigated by the re-design of
project. The D/ERC voted unanimously to require the necessary
the prof royal of the project or
re-design prior to a recommendation for app Initial
adoption of a Negative Declaration. (See Attachment D,
Study) .
There is provision in CEQA that no environmpursuant to wthat
necessary for projects which will be denied.
is presented without environmental
provision, this project
clearance.
ANA_ LYSIS
When discussing
the land use issue, it is appropriate to consider
the policies adopted in the General Plan.
OWN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 3
The General Plan contains the following:
Policy 1. 7 . 19 Allow for the development of senior citizen . . .
housing facilities within the . . . commercial office
areas (CO-1. . . ) , provided that they are located in
proximity to public transportation, supporting
commercial, and health and social services.
Policy 1. 12 . 11 Permit the development of senior citizen . . .
housing . . . provided that a marketing and financing
analysis is conducted which determines the long-
term feasibility; a plan is prepared for the
conversion of senior unit . . . if the project is not
occupied by qualified seniors ; and all Code
requirements are met.
Policy 1. 16. 14 Permit and encourage the development of senior
housing . . . in locations adjacent to supporting
services (food, health, recreation, etc. ) and
puDile transit, provided that they are compatible
with and will not adversely impact the integrity
and continuity of other downtown uses.
Policy 2 . 6. 1 Allow for the development of senior citizen . . .
housing facilities within the . . . commercial office
areas (CO-1 . . . ) provided they are located in
proximity to public transportation, supporting
commercial , and health and social services.
GENERAL PLAN/MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY
General Plan Consistency
Location
The subject site is located on Third Street which is on various bus
routes, so the public transportation criteria from the General Plan
is met. However, the site is not in proximity to a grocery store,
supporting commercial services, health services, (medical, dental,
pharmacy, etc. ) , nor any other type of personal services
(barber/beauty shops, dry cleaning, etc. )
i
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
HEARING DATE: pAG-221-92
nal criteria, however when this
site is located across the street from Meadowbrook Park which
The in
technically could meet the recreate Housing Authority,
project was sent to the San Bernardi theoresponse was, "The site is
a statement relative to emisestgreen belt walking area. The park
inadequate for an on p safe for daily strolls. " In
across the street is not sufficiently served, "The community building
addition, the Housing Authority
provide adequate recreation activities and to
is too small to p its tenants. " (See
encourage comfortable socialization of Housing Authority)
Attachment E, Memo from San Bernardino County
Feasibility
full market
ro ect is not publicly assisted, and therefore,
This p j The viability of full market rent senior
rents are anticipated• questionable for the following reasons:
housing at this site is
family units (to the north) . -
"The density of existing -a nun*, ,,} -n nvment of
lessens the desirability for a pea.:c, -1
The area presently experiences noisy,
senior citizens. activity on a daily basis.
troublesome and questionable ble t harassment
senior citizens would be vuln t a ate at would not accept
and criminal assault.
Mar
those living conditions. . . These units using Authorty) likely
experience a large vacancy rate. "
other words, people who could afford full market rent would
In
likely choose live elsewhere.
was prepared for the project and reviewed by
A feasibility study (EDA) . Their response is provided
the Economic Development Ag ency
as Attachment F.
Conversion Plan
"large vacancy rate" occur, it would be
Should the predicted g permitted in the
necessary to convert the apartments to another use p es the
The conversion plan submitted chang
CO-1 designation.
following words on the floor p lan for the apartments:
,,living room" to "reception"
"bedroom" to "office"
("kitchen" and "bathroom" remain the same. )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 5
The conversion plan does not address the removal of any units, does
not address the community room, does not address the need for
additional parking, and therefore is inadequate. The requirement
from the General Plan has not realistically been addressed nor met.
Compatibility
Senior units are permitted in the CO-1 designation provided they
are compatible with the integrity and continuity of other
commercial office structures and uses. The proposed project is 10
4-plex units which is very residential in nature. This was one of
the reasons the D/ERC required the re-design of the project. It
was felt that the scale and mass of the project as proposed would
not be compatible with existing and future commercial office
structures and uses. The D/ERC felt that the visual integrity of
the designation may be compromised. (See attachment H, Elevations)
Safety
The project is located, in an area of high crime. ht:! Police
Department stated that the design of the project does not provide
as much security as it could for the future residents of the
project. Senior projects which include some form of controlled
access are much more secure from crime than the proposed 4-plexes.
The Police Department Crime Prevention Division has stated that a
single building surrounding a common open space courtyard would
provide a much more secure environment for future tenants of the
project, and that such redesign would most likely reduce the number
of crime incidents, thereby reducing the number of police responses
necessary. This concern was the other reason for the request from
E/DRC to re-design the project.
It is anticipated that a member of the Crime Prevention Division
will be available at the Planning Commission meeting to answer any
questions which may arise.
Site Desictn
Staff has several concerns regarding the site plan. The
construction of 10 4-plex units is not recommended by the Planning
Division nor the Police Crime Prevention Division. In addition,
the Housing Authority made comment regarding the proposed layout of
the project. Those comments include:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM• 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 6
"The site layout is very uncomfortable as it does not allow
for the visual `breathing room, desirable to seniors. The
tion
site is just regimented s dtoo e.muche heat foot andpavisual
between buildings g enerate
incarceration. "
These comments n oo 1 to those lo stated ding
the recreation room are in addition
and wa king areas (inadequate) .
Floor Plan
The proposal consists of 14 1-bedroom units and 26 2-bedroom units.
Based on information from the Housing Authority, 2-bedroom senior
units are "extremely difficult to rent" . It is noted in the
Housing Authority Memo, "Two unrelated seniors just do not share
the same unit. "
Although the proposed 1-bedroom units meet the minimum square
footage required by SBTviC `l i-ie 19 k repealed) , the Housing Authority
provides this comment, "The square footage size of the 1-bedroom
units are too small
G their SitecPlanrandlFloo d Plan)
living
style. " (See Attachment
VARIANCE REQUEST
The requested variance is to reduce from 73 to 56 the number of
required parking spaces. The former Title 19 (repealed) made no
distinction between family apartments and senior apartments for
parking requirements. The previous standard was 1. 5 space per 1-
bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit. One space per unit
was required to be covered, and the remaining spaces were to be
left open for guest parking. Those requirements dictate that 73
parking spaces be provided for this project.
During the time frame of the Urgency Ordinance, (June 2 , 1989
through June 3 , 1991) , an analysis for senior apartment parking
requirements was conducted. Several area cities were contacted to
find out what the parking requirements were, and whether the person
contacted felt the standard was high or low. As a result of that
study, it was determined that 1. 2 parking spaces per unit would be
adequate for senior apartments, with 1 space per unit covered and
. 2 space per unit (1 space per 5 units) would be left open for
guest parking. That standard was incorporated into the Development
Code, however, Title 19 (repealed) was never amended.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM• 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 7
The proposed variance provides parking in accordance with the
Development Code, which would require 48 parking spaces for this
project, and staff is not opposed to the number of spaces proposed.
However, since the Planning Commission determined that the previous
Title 19 (repealed) standards applied to this project, the project
requires 73 parking spaces. Approval of the variance request would
allow the 56 parking spaces as proposed.
CONCLUSION
The senior apartment project is located in the Commercial Office
land use designation. Although it is a conditionally permitted
use, staff questions the appropriateness of a senior citizen
apartment complex at the proposed location based on the proximity
to necessary shopping and services desired by most seniors. In
addition, the site is located in an area of high crime. Senior
citizens are among the most vulnerable crime victims. That makes
this site one of the less desirable areas for seniors.
If the complex is to be built, iL 5nouid ue designed with security
and safety for the tenants, and compatibility with the Commercial
Office land uses and structures that now exist or will be built in
in the future.
There is no environmental determination, based on provisions in
CEQA relative to projects that will be denied.
The project is not consistent with several policies of the General
Plan.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission may:
1. Deny the project based on the location of the senior
apartments, subject to the attached Findings of Fact.
(Attachments B and C)
2 . Approve the location in concept, and require that the project
be redesigned, the Initial Study be advertised as available
for public review and comment, and continue CUP 91-03 for 90
days.
3 . Approve the location and design in concept, continue CUP 91-03
for 60 days to allow the Initial Study to be revised and
advertised as available for public review and comment. (No
re-design would be necessary) .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM• 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 8
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the project,
based on the attached Findings of Fact. (Attachments B and C)
Respectfully submitted,
1
Al B g e irect r,
Planning a Build ' Services
s
Sdrfdra Paulsen, Senior Planner
Attachments: A. General Plan/Municipal Code Conformance
B. Findings of Fact, CUP 91-03
C. Findings of Fact, Variance
D. Initial Study
E. EDA comments on the feasibility study
F. Memo, San Bernardino County Housing Authority
G. Site Plan and Floor Plan
H. Elevations
I. Location Map
Q
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM• 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 9
Attachment A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Category Proposal Municipal General Plan
Code
Proposed 10 4-plex CO-1, with C 0 - 1 ,
Use s e n i o r the approval Commercial
c i t i z e n of a CUP Office
apartments
Setbacks:
Front 20 feet 20 feet must meet
code
requirements
Side 10 feet 0 feet* must meet
code
requirements
Rear 5 feet 0 feet* must meet
code
requirements
Parking 56 spaces 73 spaces must meet
code
requirements
Loading 0 loading 0 loading must meet
zones zones code
requirements
Landscaping 35% 15% must meet
code
requirements
* 0 Side and Rear setback required except adjacent to a
Residential Land Use District
p
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM• 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 10
Attachment B
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
1. The proposed use does not conform to the objectives of the
City's General Plan Elements in that the proximity criteria of
Policies 1. 7 . 19 , 1. 16. 14 , and 2 . 6. 1 are not met, the
conversion plan required by Policy 1. 12 . 11 is not adequate,
and all Code requirements are not met as required by Policy
1. 12 . 11.
2 . The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses
and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located in that the proposed 4-plexes are
residential in nature and are not compatible with the bulk,
mass and scale of existing and future commercial office
development.
3 . The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare, in that, except
for the requested variance for parking, all other code
requirements are met.
4 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area, but adequate
parking is not provided, in that a traffic study was prepared
and discussed in the Initial Study which concluded no impacts
to traffic would result from construction of the project,
however, a variance is requested to reduce parking
requirements.
5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino
in that the project is for senior housing in an area of high
crime, and senior citizens are vulnerable to harassment and
crime.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM• 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 11
Attachment C
FINDINGS OF FACT
VARIANCE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood in
that the intended use for senior apartments does not have a
parking standard, and the parking requirement for family
apartments is excessive when applied to senior projects.
2 . The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant in that if
the project was submitted today, processed in accordance with
current Code requirements, parking requirements could be met.
3 . Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements
in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property
is located in that the proposed number of parking spaces
should be sufficient for the senior project.
4 . The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan in that Policy 1 . 12 . 11 states
that senior housing is permitted if all Code requirements are
met, and this variance is requested in accordance with Code
requirements.
Exhibit "A"
OFFICE ON AGING
COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES GROUP
. / � KATHRYN H. PICHETTE, Ph.0
686 East Mill Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0640 (714) 387-2400 /�/ail Its\�� Director
I" 'esignated Area Agency on Aging � �
August 6 , 1991
Cliff Carel and Associates
139 East Court Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear Mr. Carel:
I am writing to support the 's'enior housing complex you propose
to construct at Third Street nd Sierra Way in San Bernardino.
Affordable housing for our older citizens becomes increasingly
important as our population grows and inflation makes it_
more difficult to find adequate, convenient housing.
I hope you are successful in your efforts.
Ii yuu iieed inrormation in the future, please contact me.
Sincerely,
KATHRYN PICHETTE
Directo
KHP:GS :mlc
- Exhibit "B"
Marcus&Millichap
August 11, 1992
1ZVC&t=C=
Real Estate Brokers
Centrelake Plea cliff Carel
3401 C=cwCe Drive 44 East 3rd Street
Suite 150 San Bernardino, CA 92410
Ontario,G 91761
Tcl: 714 983 2040 Dear Mr. Carel:
Fax:714 983 2044
It was a pleasure meeting with you last 'Wednesday to discuss the
marketing of your 40 unit senior citizen apartment complex.
From a location standpoint, the project seems perfectly suited for seniors
who.rely on close proximity to shopping and transportation services. In
addition, you have wisely taken security very seriously. The state of the art
system you have planned will have a significant impact on rent-up and the
eventual marketing of the property.
I trust all your financing and building permits will be approved soon so that
we may begin exl:us,r� �''° proje *.z With the population as a
JFIC i..r A.\l i f ...
whole getting older, there appears to be an increasing demand for senior
living facilities. In fact, when senior citizen properties hit the Marcus &
Millichap system they typically receive an enormous amount of attention
and offers.
An example of this would be the 72 unit Golden Park Retirement
Apartments on Gilbert Street in San Bernardino. We listed the property in
early July and sold it very close to list price within one week. I have
enclosed a summary of this transaction for review and would be glad to
discuss the dozen or so senior citizen transactions Marcus & Millichap and
I have completed in the past 12 months.
I look forward to working with you in the marketing of your project and
invite you to call me anytime at (714) 983-2040 if I can be of any
assistance.
Sincerely,
M MHAP
AFG:bvb
Palo Alto Dallas Encino
San Franci3eo Phoenix Long Beach
Sacramento San Diego Los Angeles
ATTACHMENT "C "
CLIFF CAREL & ASSOCIATES
SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENT COMPLEX
22 Studio Apartments
19 One Bedroom
4 Two Bedroom
Energy Efficient Kitchens including:
Refrigerator
Stove
Microwave
Front-loading Dishwasher
Garbage Disposal
Stackable Washer/Dryer in each unit .
Tub/Shower combination with safety grab bars .
On-Site Shuttle Bus / Scheduled Transportation.
Limited access card-controlled Security Gates .
Location of well-lit Carports ( close proximity to unit entrance..)
Ample interior Storage with easy access .
Security System in each unit including:
24-hour Monitoring.
Perimeter, Interior and Panic Button protection .
Exterior Security Cameras .
Fire Sprinklers
AMENITIES
Community / Activity Center ( 1 , 972 s .f. )
Dining Room ( 672 s .f. , 40 seats )
Game Room ( 700 s . f. , 43 seats )
Lounge ( 600 s.f. )
Fireplace
T.V.
Restrooms
Supporting Amenities ( 2, 226 s .f. )
Mini Market
Refrigerator/Freezer
Office & Administration
Kitchen
Laundry Room
Exercise Room
Card Room
Beauty/Barber Shop
Outdoor Dining/Recreation Area ( 4 , 600 s .f. )
BBQ Area
Exhibit "D"
�3'•a i!•' 3Y'•°3 �:' 3 ° � 53 ' coo: r.�� " _pogo
jT�''•=j.+� `-k o^"F ?: ;a =o� �c ^ �gn•o s.. ; 6ni�yu ??• k.<n' onCF �np�_63n O
Tr wi `Z- �� =E�e pnc �gZ�L3nF � r. ^ zap ^' � p� fi ae 7zmc
r" 4.i: ? c•JF d F e. _° � '�- �n T,-, u y n !�f C •' .0 J D K c �••f . .
ja sT 3�'•� '•° oaf• �.: d � - te e4"& � c^ •7.�� kjwF, n =
.�S j n ? r, .,� . n _ 0 17 u
=:yT .Tc ,Q• c,�
? �.'�' = �e. e.f'S� 23" r^ ^' � � __ 1'nF _ 4n � � T� i% x _n� �n � k� '•�� _
9
IT
3
y
"c
l'A
r.
-
a _
• ,h �btP A.
tL
1� 154
4�
� � a
z Z
Attachment "D"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study for Environmental Impacts
For -K,se Pe—r-, t fl— 0 3
Project Number
Project description/location-F ro„5j4-,u,t
0 .c /.3
All P� Strut
Dates 3o r ff z
Prepared for:
Applicant(s) . ej ," L h55.e-;
L*`L4'Le kr6. e-r<,4�a
Address St re,-i�-
City, State Sdn_ �ertiar�. tia e1
Zip g7-4io
Prepared by:
Name /�J
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planning and Building Services
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 52418
Doc:Misc
InitialStudy
CJTY CENTRAL LFftNnNC�MCESC�s PLAN•8.07 �eGE i 0;1 ,4-90)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number: �,t1A,-7-,11Alk1- 156 �f ER-M T 9/ - O 3
Project Description: /z_
Location: Acr-z-k srde o� 3�� S veer` betwcc�
gctj Allew S cent
Environmental Constraints Areas: J�GUP�aliok d2f
General Plan Designation: CrYwAA-er ,:: a-k Lc�fo —
Zoning Designation: %�e - I
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe
a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic
yards or more?
b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? — K
—
c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan? _y
d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical
feature? _
e. Development within areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0-
Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan? �(
f. Modification of a channel, creek or river?
CErTa PF%mn sEawcEss PLAN-9.06 PAGE 'C� ---- -90)
Agft
g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe
mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as
identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, �-
Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan?
h. Other? —�-
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient
air quality as defined by AOMD? Y,
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified
in Section 15.0-Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's
General Plan?
3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff due to
impermeable surfaces? X _
b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration
of surface water quality? —X
a r h^^^-c 'he quantity of quality of ground water? ---1)c
e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as
identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel
Number 060281 -_ and Section 16.0-
Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan?
f. Other? X
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development within the Biological Resources
Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0
- Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's
General Plan?
b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including
stands of trees? —
c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals or their habitat? _
d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6" or greater) � --
e. Other?
5. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools,
libraries, religious facilities or other"noise"sensitive uses
in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an
Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior
as identified in Section 14.0- Noise, Figures b7 and
58 of the City's General Plan?
Crt1' Cc SAN BERNARD PLAN-9.06 PAGE 2 OF
('c NTPAL PRINTING SERVICES
b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe
commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on
areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities
or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior
or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? X —
c. Other? X
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the
General Plan? —X—
b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ) Report and
the Land Use Zoning District Map? _
c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A& B, or C as
identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? _
d. Other? —— -
7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project:
a. Use, store,transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials (including but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? C
b. Involve the release of hazardous suhstances? _
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? —V
d. Other?
8. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? X
b. Other?
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in
comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section
6.0 -Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan? X
b. Use of existing,or demand for new, parking
facilities/structures? _
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X
e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? x
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? �[
h. Signif icant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways
or intersections? X
i. Other? X
CM OF SAM WFW"gDM
LEWRAL rsa!lnNG gIIWCES PLAN-9.06 PAGE30F_ (11-90)
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe
beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? XI
b. Police protection? �-
c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? K
e. Medical aid? X
f. Solid Waste? X
g. Other?
11. Utilities: Will the proposal:
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas? X
2. Electricity?
3. Water?
4. Sewer? _ X
5. Other? X —
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X _
c. Require the construction of new facilities?
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic view? C
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? X
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site by development within an
archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section
3.0 -Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? _
b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey?
c. Other? _
CITY OF SAN 9ERNAMNp PLAN-9.06 PAGc 4 Or (t.-90)
CENTRE PFV ING SERNGFB
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact
Report shall be prepared.
Yes No Maybe
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory? — �
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
SPA a26&ei�d_-514"r}5
WY OF SAN BEFWA IIND
CENTR PROMNO SEANCES PLAN-9.06
AL A c 5 r
(11-90)
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. f. Earth Resources: Warmcreek Channel flows through the site,
and is identified as a blueline stream on the USGS quadrangle map.
However, in 1984, the stream course was diverted from the site by
a reinforced concrete pipe from the channel, down Court Street to
the storm drain in Sierra Way. State Fish and Game does not
regulate the channel, and no permits from Fish and Game, nor the
Corps of Engineers are required. There will be no impact by
development of this project.
1. g. Earth Resources: The project is located within an area
identified as having high potential for liquefaction. Standard
mitigation will be incorporated into the construction plans which
will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3 . a. Water Resources: Absorption rates will change due to the
construction of buildings, drive aisles, and parking areas.
However, the site will be graded so that any increased run-off
during rainy periods will be .directed to improved storm drains and
the impact will be reduced to a level_ of insignificance.
4. d. Reoaiwurccs There are several mature trees on the
site. However, the site plan shows that the trees are to remain,
so there is no impact.
5. a. Noise: An acoustical analysis for the project was prepared
by Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. Noise generated by traffic
on Third Street and fire engine sirens from the adjacent City Fire
Station were evaluated. The traffic noise can be reduced to
acceptable levels through the use of specified construction
materials. These include: operable dual glazed windows consisting
of 2 lites of 1/8-inch glass separated by a 1/4-inch air space and
using a pile seal, solid wood core doors, and wall construction
consisting of 3/8-inch stucco over 1-inch styrofoam on a 2 x 4 wood
stud frame, studs located 16-inches on center with R-11 insulation
in the stud cavity, and a 5/8-inch gypsum board interior finish.
The noise from the fire engine sirens is intermittent, and based on
the construction for noise reduction, will measure about 61 to 62
decibels in the interior of certain rooms in the apartment complex.
These rooms include: Building A, floor plan 1, the living room;
Building A, floor plan 2, the bedroom; and Building B, floor plan
1, the bedroom. The noise generated from the sirens occurs
approximately 15 to 20 times per day. Based on the acoustical
analysis, the events could occur at a rate of 7 events per hour (84
occurrences per day) , and still maintain an interior Ldn of less
than 45 decibels, provided the required construction for mitigation
is used. With the construction specifications incorporated into
the project as a condition of approval which will appear on the
construction plans, the impact is reduced below a level of
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(CONTINUED)
significance, and no further mitigation is necessary. The
acoustical analysis is available for review at the Planning and
Building Services Department, 3rd floor, City Hall, 300 N. "D" St. ,
San Bernardino, CA.
9. Transportation/Circulation: A traffic study was prepared by
Krueper Engineering and Associates, and reviewed by the City
Traffic Engineer, who concurred with the results of the study. The
study indicates there will be no adverse impacts on traffic or
circulation if the project is built, and therefore, no mitigation
is necessary. The traffic study is available for review at the
Planning and Building Services Department, 3rd Floor, City Hall,
300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA.
10 b. Public Services: The project is located in an area of high
crime. The Police Department stated that the design of the project
does not provide as much security as it could for the future
residents of the project. Senior projects which include some form
of controlled access are much more secure from crime than the
proposed 4-plexes will provide. The Police Department Crime
Prevention Division has stated that a single building surrounding
a common open space courtyard would prcvidc a much more secure
environment for future- tenan%s of the project, and that such
redesign would most likely reduce the number of crime incidences,
thereby reducing the number of police responses necessary. This
concern will be addressed at the Design Review stage of the
project, when the project will be redesigned to provide the highest
level of security possible for the Senior Citizens who will live
there.
12 b. Aesthetics: The project, though located in a Commercial-
Office land use designation, consists of a proposal for 10, 4-plex
apartment buildings, which is very residential in nature, and not
compatible with the visual integrity of the Commercial-Office
designation, nor the surrounding and future development of the
area. This will be mitigated during the Design Review process,
when the project will be redesigned to provide buildings of greater
scale, mass, and bulk more consistent with other construction
generally proposed for office and other permitted uses in the
Commercial-Office designation.
13 a. Cultural Resources: The site is located within an area of
archeological sensitivity as identified on the General Plan. The
project was routed to the San Bernardino County Museum for
evaluation. It was determined that the potential for cultural
resources at the site is low, and no further studies or mitigation
are required.
0
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Name and Title
Signature
Date.
VT of sew BEEMAiO PLAN-9.06 PAGE OF '�'-90)
A
UNTP M" SEANCES --
Attachment "E"
D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MEMORANDUM
--------------------------------------------------------- o - v �5
TO: Ai Bougny, Director
Planning and Building Services SEp 14 1992
FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director ci,ry c; SAN 3ERNARQINO
Development Department DEPARTMENT Or PLANNING &
eUILDiNIG SEPV;CES
SUBJECT: MARKET ANALYSIS FOR THE 1rIILLENIUM
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
DATE: September 11, 1992
COPIES: Mayor Holcomb; Agency Administrator; Housing Manager; Housing
Development Specialist; File
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am in receipt of your interoffice memorandum requesting our comments
relative to a market analysis prepared by Michael J. Murphy consultants for
Cliff R. Carel and Associates regarding the construction of the Millenium
Project. The development consists of a 40-unit senior citizen oriented
apartment complex located East of Third Street within the City of San
Bernardino. finis analysis was requested by the Planning and Building Services
Department in an endeavor to finalize the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03
application submitted by Cliff R. Carel and Associates.
I have thoroughly reviewed the market analysis and find the document to be
inadequate in the following areas:
* The market analysis utilizes national and countywide statistical and
demographic information regarding senior citizen population trends,
future senior citizen growth potential and comparable rent determinations
in an attempt to make a case relative to identifying "need". It does not
however, provide any demographic information, or 1990 census data,
specific to the City of San Bernardino. The analysis fails to adequately
illustrate that the proposed use is either necessary, desirable, or will
provide any service to the neighborhood or community.
* The market analysis fails to adequately support the marketability and
economic viability surrounding construction of "studio" or two (2)
bedroom apartment units for senior citizens.
In discussing this issue with the San Bernardino County Housing
Authority, there is concurrent opinion that leasing of studio or two (2)
bedroom units to senior citizens is very difficult at best. Furthermore,
since the one (1) bedroom unit is the most universally desirable senior
unit, studio and two (2) bedroom units generally have extremely high
vacancy and turnover rates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:DRE:tnt:0340V
MARKBT ANALYSIS FOR MIJ*°HIUM MANOR
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
September 11, 1992
Page - 2 -
Since this project's unit composition consists of primarily studio and
two (2) bedroom units (58X), there are serious unanswered questions
regarding the economic viability of this project once constructed.
* The project's rent structure places it at the "Upper End" of senior
citizen oriented projects within this community ($515 - one (1) bedroom
unit, $605 - two (2) bedroom unit) . This project does not, however,
offer features or amenities which are of a caliber necessary to attract
senior citizens capable of paying for a "full rent" apartment unit.
The market analysis fails to offer any comparison of amenities/features
versus rent structures, which would adequately support why the "upper
end" senior market would be attracted to this development.
When given a choice of where to reside, this senior citizen market group
will in all likelihood locate to a project with more features and
amenities. This being the case, the long term economic viability of this
project, as proposed, is questionable and should be given serious
consideration.
* The location of this site is not condiirivQ for R senior citizen oriented
apartment project.
The need to construct a senior housing project within the described area
is highly questionable, since major tangible amenities are lacking within
the surrounding area to support this segment of the population. There is
no public transportation within easy access, and the area is surrounded
by commercial development. There are no retail stores, major food
markets, or medical service providers within walking distance. In
addition, the surrounding area, according to the San Bernardino Police
Department, appears to have an increasing level of criminal activity that
would subject the residents to a high level of unnecessary stress coupled
with possible confinement to their specific apartments units.
Potential "Market Rate" senior citizen tenants will not accept these
living conditions, especially since there is currently an abundance of
more attractive senior housing units within the surrounding community.
The market analysis fails to consider the specific location of this
project, and the project's obvious deficiencies for the senior community
in the analysis of lease-up and vacancy rates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:DRE:tnt:0340V
rirrr�rrr�rwr•ri - err
MARKET ANALYSIS FOR MI" 11M MANOR
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
September 11, 1992
Page - 3 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Overall, I do not believe the market analysis has provide'" ou_iicient
information, specific to the City of San Bernardino, to allow for an objective
determination to be made that a need exists at this location for a senior
housing development. It is also important to note the the Agency is
sponsoring three (3) other senior projects totalling one-hundred, forty-five
(145) units with rents, ranging from $235/month to $550/month. In each case,
the location, amenities and related services appear to be superior to the
subject project. From all available information, the use of the site is not
conducive to enhancing the housing needs of the intended targeted population.
Please contact me at extension 5229 should you require additional information
or clarification regarding this matter.
W ik- 717
RENIIBTH J. HMVE ON, Executive Director ADMINISTRATOR
Development Diepartment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:DRE:tnt:0340V
F 11
tachment Q
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 30, 1992
TO: Sandi Paulsen
FROM: Claudio Padres
Pursuant to your request, staff has performed a cursory
review of the proposed senior citizen complex on Third Street at
Lugo Avenue. This review is intended to provide our thoughts of
the viability and concerns regarding the proposed project at this
site.
Even though there is a known need for housing senior
citizens, there are reservations on the Housing Authority's
perspective. The location of this site is not conducive for a
f„11 market r-rr ?nartment project. Only a subsidized low income
project could experience success at this location. The densit-y
of existing family units in the immediate environs lessens the
desirability for a peaceful and quiet enjoyment of senior
citizens. The area presently experiences noisy, troublesome and
questionable activity on a daily basis. Senior citizens would be
vulnerable at this site to harassment and criminal assault.
Market rate tenants would not accept those living conditions
being that there is a current abundance of better substitute
housing. These units would most likely experience a large
vacancy rate.
Among other concerns for the viability and desirability for
this project would be that of noise of sirens from the adjacent
main/fire and paramedic station. The site is not as readily
accessible to food, medical, shopping and other services that a
typical senior citizen would expect and need. Walking distances
are excessive. The community room/ building is too small to
provide adequate recreation activities and to encourage the
comfortable socialization of its tenants. The site layout is
very uncomfortable as it does not allow for the visual "breathing
room” desirable to seniors. The site is just too regimented and
dense. The ten foot separation between buildings generates too
much heat and visual incarceration. The site is inadequate for a
on premises green belt walking area. The park across the street
is not sufficiently safe for daily strolls. Security is the most
important concern for senior citizens. We find it extremely
difficult to rent two bedroom units to senior citizens. Two
unrelated seniors just do not share the same unit. The square
Sandi Paulsen Page 2
July 30, 1992
footage size of the one bedroom units are too small for their
comfortable and necessary living style.
Just recently a family apartment project adjacent to this
proposed project was foreclosed by the bank because the owner was
not able to maintain quality tenants at market rents. This
additionally suggests the problems of adequate occupancy for the
viability of this project.
It is paramount to this review, the concerns expressed, that
we are addressing the desires of full market rent clients
assuming their typical life style demands.
Attachment "G"
OL
OZ
1
w i
~ _nls xs_
ael
a V
�a M x3 N
t} Cr •
Fa a H�
a P` I� a �s0lf E
MEN Z
�Vi SS A �sz
<3 3 i, ,mss � fia 6� cO1 _ _ •� a p
r.ra a Q ■ ten; ^� 11•� 9
.2 �
r
'q suns g
a�Qi s �a t ■ j , r• L
° i
oT
As
• � 1 ' ' �' , naa Now
0 I ,se o•ls 5 ,
a _
F r
Q% � ® Attachment "H"
t MDT P:xM WA vVUTro
14 Y TS
13. W000 FASCIA
A Mel Ralf,
7 STtkca RWcuT
T
tLzv
Ell
C�
L C� -
Ez
I
;fir .
_SENIORS APARTMENT COMPLEX
'r i Ev o CLIFF CAREC kASSOCIATES etc= r C a � A
- -
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ITEM
CASE CUP 91-03 3
LOCATION HEARINGDATE 9-22-92 L
71E
_ l ip
COUNT
T
1