HomeMy WebLinkAbout44- Planning and Building Services CITY OF SAN BER" IRDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey , Director Subject: RECONSIDERATION OF DEMOLITION
PROPOSAL REVIEW (DPR) No . 90-02 (PLATT
Dept: Planning & Building Services BUILDING) MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING APRIL 5 , 1993
Date: March 23 , 1993
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On June 18 , 1992 , the Historic Preservation Task Force adopted the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approved the Demolition Permit .
On August 4 , 1992 , the Planning Commission upheld an appeal of the Historic
Preservation Task Force decision and denied the Demolition Permit .
On September 21 , 1992 , the Mayor and Common Council denied an appeal of the
Planning Commission decision and denied the Demolition Permit .
On March 8 , 1993 , the Mayor and Common Council requested that the project
be brought back for reconsideration by the Council .
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
be adopted , the Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring Actions
Program be approved and the demolition project be approved .
Signature
Al Boughey
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Re p o r t Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct No.)
(Acct Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262 Agenda Item No. / —
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Demolition Proposal Review (DPR)
No. 90-02 (Platt Building)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April 5, 1993
REQUEST AND LOCATION
At their meeting of March 8, 1993, the Mayor and Common Council
directed staff to place this project on the April 5, 1993 agenda
for reconsideration of the proposed demolition. The Platt
Building, a Spanish Eclectic style, four story office and theater
building constructed in C1925, is located at 491 West 5th Street.
KEY POINTS
The key points of this project are as follows:
1. On June 18, 1992, the Historic Preservation Task Force adopted
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the proposed
demolition of the Platt Building.
2. On August 4, 1992, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal of
the Historic Preservation Task Force decision and denied the
demolition project.
3. On September 21, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council denied an
appeal of the Planning Commission decision and denied the
demolition project.
A chronology of the project beginning in January 1990 and
continuing through July 30, 1991 is contained in the July 30, 1992
Memorandum (see Exhibit 5, Attachment E) . The chronology continues
in the June 12, 1992 Memorandum up to that date (see Exhibit 5) .
The August 4, 1992 Memorandum to the Planning Commission (see
Attachment 1) and the September 21, 1992 Staff Report to the Mayor
and Common Council complete the chronology of the project to date.
Staff has reviewed the case file and determined that the
environmental factors of the project have not changed with regard
to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Reconsideration of Demolition Proposal Review (DPR) No. 90-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
April 5, 1993
Page 2
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the Platt
Building is not a significant resource of the City, adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project.
2. The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the Platt
Building is a significant resource of the City and deny the
project.
3 . The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the Platt
Building is a significant resource of the City and require
that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to evaluate
any environmental impacts resulting from the loss of the
resource and to identify alternatives to the demolition
project and the feasibility of such alternatives.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
As indicated by Item 2. in the Key Points Section of this Staff
Report, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal to deny the
demolition project at their meeting of August 4, 1992 .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposal and backup material and recommends
that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, approve the Mitigation Measures and
Reporting/Monitoring Actions Program [Attachment E. (4 . ) of
Attachment 1. ] and approve the proposal to demolish the Platt
Building (DPR 90-02) .
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director of
Planning and Building Services Department
Attachment A. Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council
(September 21, 1992)
Attachment 1. Memorandum to the Planning Commission (August 4,
1992)
(Page 2 of the August 4, 1992 Memorandum contains a
detailed list of Exhibits)
CITY OF SAN BER y.ADINO - REQUEST R COUNCIL ACTION
w
Subject: Appeal of Demolition Proposal
From: Al Boughey, Director Review (DPR) No. 90-02
Dept: Planning and Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting
September 21 , 1992
Date: September 10 , 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
December 18 , 1989 , the Mayor and Common Council approved the Urgency
Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694) which established
the Historic Preservation Task Force, provided a review process for
demolition permit applications for buildings fifty years old and
older and provided an appeal process for decisions of the Historic
Preservation Task Force to the Planning Commission and on to the Mayor
and Common Council.
Recommended motion:
That the appeal be upheld, that the Mitigated Nbgi've Declaration be
adooted and that the proposal to demolish the Platt Building be approved.
re
Al Boughe
Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357
Contact person:
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct No.) -
(Acct Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No
75-0262
CITY OF SAN BERM . RDINO - REQUEST ► R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT Appeal of Demolition Proposal Review (DPR)
No. 90-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
September 21, 1992
REQUEST
The Economic Development Agency is requesting that the Mayor and
Common Council uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation
' Task Force to approve the proposal to demolish the Platt Building.
I
BACKGROUND
On June 18, 1992 , the Historic Preservation Task Force adopted the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the proposed demolition
of the Platt Building. That decision was appealed to the Planning
Commission on August 4 , 1992 by Task Force members Dr. James
Mulvihill and Councilman Michael Maudsley.
Based on public comment in opposition to the project given during
the Public Meeting, the Planning Commission upheld the request for
appeal and denied the approval of the project.
i
On August 11, 1992 , the Economic Development Agency submitted a
letter requesting that the Planning Commission's decision to uphold
the appeal and deny the approval of the project be appealed to the
Mayor and Common Council .
A chronology of the project beginning in January 1990 and
continuing through July 30, 1991 is contained in the July 30, 1992
Memorandum (see Exhibit 5, Attachment E) . The chronology continues
in the June 12 , 1992 Memorandum up to that date (see Exhibit 5) .
The August 4 , 1992 Memorandum to the Planning Commission (see
Attachment 1) and this Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council
complete the chronology of the project to date.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1. The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the Platt
Building is not a significant resource of the City and uphold
the Appeal, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve the project.
75.0264
Appeal of Demolition Proposal Review (DPR) No. 90-02
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of
September 21, 1992
Page 2
2 . The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the Platt
Building is a significant resource of the City, deny Appeal
and deny the project.
3 . The Mayor and Common Council may determine that the Platt
Building is a significant resource of the City and require
that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to evaluate
any environmental impacts resulting from the loss of the
resource and to identify alternatives to the demolition
project and the feasibility of such alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the proposal to demolish
the Platt Building (DPR 90-02) .
Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director of
Planning and Building Services Department
Attachment 1. Memorandum to the Planning Commission (August 4 ,
1992)
(Page 2 of the August 4 , 1992 Memorandum contains a
detailed list of Exhibits)
CITY OF SAID .3ERNARDINO - - .AEMORANDUM
To Planning Commission From Al Boughey, Director
Planning & Building Sv:
Subject DPR 90-02 (Appeal of Historic Preservation Date July 24 , 1992
Task Force approval of the Platt Building Demoliton)
Approved Agenda Item No. 10 Date August 4 , 1992
REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
On June 18, 1992, the Historic Preservation Task Force adopted the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the proposed demolition
of the Platt Building under the authority of the Urgency Historic
Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694) . The Task Force made
findings that the building is not a significant historic resource
of the City and that, due to the building's mass and design flaws,
it cannot be relocated.
Dr. James Mulvihill, a member of the Historic Preservation Task
Force, is requesting that this decision be reconsidered through the
appeal process. The appeal request was received without
application by the Planning and Building Services Department on
June 25, 1992 (see Exbibit 2) . On June 26, 1992, Councilman
Michael Maudsley, Chairman of the Task Force, requested that the
decision of the Task Force be appealed to the appropriate body as
per Dr. Mulvihill's memorandum (see Exhibit 1) .
The concerns outlined in Dr. Mulvihill's memorandum were previously
addressed as per Attachment E. , Attachment 2 . , pages 2P and 2Q.
This project (Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02) was formally
submitted to the City on March 1, 1990 by the (then) Redevelopment
Agency. A chronology of the project beginning in January 1990 and
continuing through July 30, 1991 is contained in the July 30, 1991
Memorandum (see Exhibit 5, Attachment E) . The chronology continues
in the June 12, 1992 Memorandum up to that date (see Exhibit 5) .
Attached to this memorandum to the Planning Commission are all of
the documents that were used by the Historic Preservation Task
Force to make their decision to approve the demolition proposal.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Since the project was submitted in 1990, comments have been
received from several persons. Many of these comments focus on the
issue of preserving the Platt Building in place and some offer
suggestions as to possible future uses for the building. Other
comments relate to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
process for this type of application. These comments indicate that
there is disagreement regarding the historical significance of the
building and staff's review of the project. All of the comments
are attached and addressed in the July 30, 1991 Memorandum and its
n'.a
i £ 1
DPR 90-02l Commissit 1992 "'� Mee ting
Planning betters and
Page 2 1
an
Study► pttachme 4)
tial 2 , pag 2P and
_. Attachments Attachment es
Memorandums,
the decision
,g gECOMMENDATION Commission deny the appeal of
STAFF planning Force
ends that the Task
Staff recomm pre5ery
osal Review No
90-02-
of the glstoric
Demolition prOP
ReSpectf l
� y
submitted,
ctor
1
g ding
$ervlces
d
p annl
A k
'Deborah W oldruff ' '
s planner
sociate
Request (Maudsley)
EBSIBITSs Appeal Request (Mulvihill)
1992 Memorandum _ App 694)
I. June 26, 1992 Memorandum ti°nil) Ordinance (MC-
e 25, A'
-- , 2. Jotters and Comm' structure Demolition
1 3 , encY gistoric WoldrufI
4 • Ur ne 121 1992 Memorandum 1991 Memorandum (Steinh
al
5• Ju $eptember 6, 1991 Memorandum (
ents� A. September 6► Memorandum Studi
. Attachments B. 1991 of Rehab
$epte
C.
October 23 , Summary
D. 1992 Memorandum Study a
E-
July 3 0 1' I,nett ter s
Attachments: 2.
MemOh CostsEstim
-- — 3 . ROeg the p
For (Memo)
Building Mea:
Mitigation
4 . n
Reporting/Monit
Activities
Demolition pr(
r'
Review NO' 90
Exhibit "2"
MIsMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor & Common Council
City of San Bernardino
FROM: Dr. James L. Mulvihill , AICP
California State University, ISn ernardino
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Platt Building' s Demolition
Permit Approval Made by the Historic
Preservation Task Force.
CC : Mr. Michael Maudsley, Councilmember; Mr.
Dennis Barlow, City Attorney' s Office ; Ms.
Debra woldruff, Planning & Building Services;
File.
DATE: June 25 , 1992
I request that the Mayor and Common Council reconsider
the approval of the demolition permit application on the
Platt Building made by the City' s Historic Preservation Task
Force . Also , because for the first time in seven years I
will be taking a vacation the first three weeks of July, I
ask that consideration of this appeal be delayed until after
July 23rd. Regardless, all the issues I would cover at that
Council hearing are contained in this memorandum.
I have explained many of my reasons for desiring a
responsible study of alternatives to demolition of the Platt
Building in a memorandum I wrote to Mr. John Montgomery
dated October 15 , 1990.
The historic significance is one of several reasons for
studying demolition alternatives. Historic Significance of
the Platt Building is based on strong conclusions of two
separate consultants hired by the City. Hatheway &
Page Two
MEMO: Platt Building Demolition Permit appeal
June 25 , 1992
Associates , of Mission Viejo , was hired by the Redevelopment
Agency to , " . . .determine , in accordance with published
guidelines , the potential eligibility of the Platt
Building . . . for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places , " ( P. 1 , Hatheway Report, June 1990 ) . The
Report concludes:
The Platt Building dneg appear to qualify. . . It is also
one of the last surviving examples of its period and
type in the City. . .The Platt Building does retain a
relatively high degree of architectural and/or design
integrity. . .The design and decorative detail on the
exterior is also of particular interest. . .The cast of
art stone architectural/decorative detail on the facade
over the theatre marquee is both intact, and it is
relatively unique to the San Bernardino area. In
effect , the building does retain a high degree of
architectural integrity, and it adds significantly to
the overall design context and historical aesthetics of
downtown San Bernardino ( emphasis added) . (pp. 9-10 )
Another consultant, architect Milford Wayne Donaldson,
AIA, Inc . , of San Diego , completed the "Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey Report" for the City. This firm
identified 6500 structures over fifty years old in the City,
and from this list selected 165 that exemplified unique
historic qualities. This selective list includes: St.
Bernardine ' s Church, the Arrowhead Springs Hotel , the 1855
Mormon flume on North Mountain View Avenue, and the Platt
Building . Further, the Donaldson Report in citing potential
dangers , raises a warning regarding specifically the Platt
Building , "Development of the core' of the City may have
potential negative impact on several of these
Page Three
MEMO: Platt Building Demolition Permit Appeal
Sune 25 , 1992
buildings. . .The Platt Building is a good candidate for an
intensive study for its historic significance to the City, "
(Volume 1 , pp. 14-15 ) . There has been no questions raised
over the building' s significance among aualified. obiecti_ve
experts . After so much has been documented, and objective
opinions given, if the City' s review process can not, or
will not, recognize the significance of the Platt Building,
then no structure in the City can be protected.
. A final point on historic significance, in a meeting of
The Mayors Institute on City Design in Berkeley in 1990 , a
panel selected the Platt Building to exemplify the
possibility of redevelopment and adaptive reuse. The need
then, and now, is for a study of reuse by a qualified firm.
The present circumstances exist because na firm qualified
the perform adaptive reuse and historic preservation has
been called upon to examine the Platt Building . Mr. Roderick
MacDonald, representing Rancon Commercial Development,
apparently is the only person to give the building much
thought , however even he publicly stated that he has never
"tackled" a building as old as the Platt.
Regardless of the historic significance of the Platt
Building , questions arise over the potential dangers of
complete demolition and clearance of the block on which the
Platt is located -- with na firm proposals for replacing
these structures. Anticipatory clearance is reminiscent
Page Four
MEMO: Platt Building Demolition Permit Appeal
__ - June 25 , 1992
of redevelopment in the 1950 ' s; a strategy that many large
cities have come to regret . In San Bernardino' s case, the
Inland Empire Economic Council' s Quarterly Economic Revort,
Fall 1991 , cites , " . . .the Inland Empire office market
appears likely to remain in the doldrums. .^. translates into a
lag of at least three years before deals again pencil , " (p..
5 ) . Bank loans are extremely tight, especially for office
construction, though less so with commercial . Thus.- without
firm commitments from a developer, such clearance is -a risky=
venture, because vacant lots encourages fmrther blight. fir.---
MacDonald was asked specifically what Rancon planned for tht
site and block. He indicated that they had not reached the =-
point of having even conceptual drawings. The Common Council
should consider the consequences on the City' s commercial
and office heart with an entire block cleared. Look how long
it has taken to attract someone to the site of the
California Hotel. Redevelopment in "stages" would be safer
course.
Finally, in the City' s General Plan makes it clear that
its citizens desire that priority be placed on protecting
and enhancing , not demolishing, historic buildings:
Objective 3 . 5:
It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino
to:
Protect and enhance historic , architectural, or
cultural resources in commercial and redevelopment
Page-- Five
MEMO: 'Platt Building Demoliton Permit Appeal
June 25 , 1992
areas in a manner that will encourage revitalization
and investment in these areas.
Policy 3 . 5 . 1 :
Encourage the preservation, maintenance.,
enhancement and reuse of existing buildings in
redevelopment and commercial areas. (City of San
Bernardino General Plan, p. 3-36 )
The citizens of the City also expect the EDA-.to- prote7e f riot
destroy, historic buildings:
Policy 3 . 5 . 6: -
Utilize the Redevelopment Agency as-, a vehicle fort{-
preservation activity. The Agency is. curren{1y.:
empowered to acquire, hold, restore,-?=arid res ;il `
buildings. . .
Policy 3 . 5 . T:
A::._ '
Require that an ezivironmental -review '-be conducted
on demolition permit applications- for" buildings
designated or potentially eligible- for designation- as
historic structure-99- that the guidelyd4is of-the-
California Environmental Quality ACt- (t EQA).-'be _fo1.lowed.
in reviewing- demolition requests for. structuras. in the
above two categories and prohibit demolition without' a
structural analysis- of - the structure' s ability to lie
rehabilitated. . . (City of San Bernardino Genera, Plan,
p. 3-37 ) - --
Again, a study of the building for preservation, even
integration into plans for the "Superblock, " has not been
done by individuals qualified in reuse of such a building."
Exhibit "3"
Biron R. Bauer
765 N. Mountain View Ave.
San Bernardino, CA 92401
. Ju 992 ry .
y I�
Mr. Mike Maudsley, Chairman =f
Historic/Preservation Task Force '1
300 North"D Street(City Hall)
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
Re: Need for revision to Initial Environmental Study
(Platt Buildina Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-2)
Dear Mr. Chairman, Members of the Historic/Preservation Task Force:
I have just finished reviewing the August 23, 1990,edition of the Initial Study for the
Platt Buildina disposition. I have also reviewed the special study prepared by Hatheway
and Associates and other documents related to the Initial Study (I.S.) which is the basis for
decisions relating to the Platt Buildina. Thanks for the opportunity to review these
documents and the pertinent attachments.
The most important sections of the Initial Study (I.S.) which relate most closely to
this particular project are Cultural Resources and Archeological Significance. The I.S.
summarily concluded that photographic documentation and constructive reuse of the
building ornamentation/decoration in a new context was the desired direction. This is an
interesting but simplistic conclusion to a complex situation, because the developer/city
desires to build a"Cornerstone Building Complex" on this block and this has prematurely
influenced the decision to demolish the Platt Building with a poorly substantiated Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
The significant deficiencies that have been found so far with this Initial Environmental
Study, an important legal decision-making tool, are:
I. The description of the Ultimate Project—phases or components of the project—has
not been considered in its entirety (§ 15063 (a) (1) C.E.Q.A.). The project, which
apparently began as a demolition permit request only, has progressed beyond the
point of simply removing an older building that could be to the way of possible future
beneficial redevelopment efforts to the extent of having a specific developer (i.e.
Rancon Devp.) who has made a "Cornerstone Building Complex" proposal in
specific enough terms to clearly preclude productive use of the existing (vested) Platt
Building. In order to be factually correct and legally defensible, the ULTIMATE
PROJECT,the Cornerstone Building Complex must be fully described and stand on
its own merits in the Initial Study and probable focused E.I.R.
II. The Initial Study, although relatively unbiased in its body, has clearly come to the
wrong conclusion in Section #14 of the document, Mandatory Findings of
Significance. Item (a) of Section #14 asks, "Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment ... or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or pre-history?" The response to this section has
to be "Yes" or at least "Maybe." The entire Hatheway and Associates report
systematically sets forth the significance and value of the Platt Building structure in
architectural/engineering, historic, and cultural terms, and then the I.S. conclusion
contradicts this evaluation. The Hatheway and Associates Report (and the earlier
1.
Donaldson report/short-list inventory) clearly establishes that the Platt
Building/Theater in the 1920's-1940's was an important center for
Vaudeville/Musical Comedy entertainment in Southern California—the same
personalities who were guests at the California Hotel. San Bernardino was a wide-
open entertainment center for servicemen in both World Wars and had a better variety
of theater stage shows (some on the seamy side) than any other inland city. This
cultural heritage should not just be written off, but is worth saving and bragging
about.
Item (b) of Section #14 asks, "Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term coals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?"The answer to this
query has to be"Yes". Although a"Cornerstone Building Complex" could provide a
trendy focus for the downtown center, and could conceivably be fully occupied in
three to five years, under the prevailing economic hard times,there are no assurances
this will happen. With the current vacancy factor present in Inland Empire office
space of close to thirty percent, it is more likely that existing business enterprises
would relocate to the most glamorous facilities in the "Cornerstone Building
Complex" and vacate other spaces in the Commercenter—robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The prospect of sacrificing a one-of-a-kind historic landmark for a long-shot
economic gamble clearly fits the category of short-term vs. long-term goals. It would
be another matter entirely, if, for example, the West Coast Regional Headquarters for
the Allstate Insurance Company were under contract to move into the "Cornerstone
Building Complex" when completed.
Item(c) of Section #14 asks, "Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?" The answer to this question also has to be
"Yes",because"cumulatively considerable" here means that the incremental effects of
this demolition project are indeed significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of other past, present, and probable future demolition projects. In the past
few years, there has been a devastating loss of historic structures in favor of potential
new development: i.e. the California Hotel, Hanford Foundry, Carnegie Library, etc.
There are also numerous vacant lots existing downtown where the touted
development did not take place. This proposed demolition of an historic structure,
one of few remaining , cannot be takealightly. The priority or value of the historic
resource increases in direct proportion to its M4r.scarcity.
III. The third deficiency of the Initial Study is essentially the same as II. The conclusion
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate or applicable to the project is
unsupported by the facts contained within the subject initial study. This conclusion is
more indicative of the eagerness of the administration to proceed with what is hoped
to be a "fix-all" for the downtown center and the willingness of the responsible
agencies to accommodate this interest. Therefore, if this is truly the desired
rationale—to support the predetermined decision that the Platt Building must go—
then additional work as indicated needs to be done to the Initial Study and a Focused
Environmental Impact Report prepared to make the project legally defensible.
In the last analysis, what will have to be done procedurally is that the referenced
Initial Study sections will have to be factually reworked by staff, a Focused E.I.R.
prepared, and a STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS prepared in
cooperation with Mr. Empeno's office. This STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS will have to be adopted and circulated, setting forth the project
alternatives as they are viewed by the administration and the trade-offs which weigh the
costs and benefits of the total new project with the potential sacrifice of the historic Platt
Building.
2.
i
Probably the best showcase example of the current administration's skill in promoting
and directing the city's development interest would be to show that the Platt Building can
be revitalized and be creatively readapted and re-used. Information from a variety of
reliable sources indicates that this is appropriate, that the Platt Building is a "keeper'. No
really serious attempts have been made to consider the building as:
• A close-in back-up rehearsal hall for the California Theater, which would allow
additional productions to be scheduled and reduce wear and tear on the facilities.
• Possible Inland Headquarters for a revamped Inland Symphony/Civic Light
Opera/Inland Master Chorale organization.
• A major church organization for the Central City.
• Adaptive re-use as a Central City Gym/Homeless Center(possibly run jointly by the
Frazee Center/Salvation Army/Catholic Family Services).
In summation, then, the existing August 1990 Initial Study should be extensively
revised for use in any valid decision-making process. Economically, it is usually very
difficult to turn around older historic structures which have been neglected and/or partially
refurbished. San Bernardino has a long line of would-be developers who damage
previously functional historical buildings and then go on the rocks financially. This can no
longer be allowed to happen, as we are running out of these treasures from the past. The
healthiest course of action to turn the Platt Building around is to have it designated as an
Historical Landmark and put on the State Register, as recommended by the Hatheway and
Associates Report. That will be the beginning of numerous benefits,financial grants, and
code relaxing to make the project more nearly do-able.
Respectfully submitted,
Biron R. Bauer, San Bernardino
resident and Urban/Regional Planner
/
cc: /s. Deborah Woldruff, Assoc. Planner
Mayor Bob Holcomb
Mr. Henry Empeno,Jr., Deputy City Attorney
Ms. Esther Estrada, City Councilperson
3,
' � ;y���! '�_ -:, .'•j -i �.,fa�T •��5 lam•.•' �;;
. - _ _ � .•1'%-�".l • `', t �= 1 j`.hl ,'a -4 �yO '.��.+'+1'y�,Z ky�Y..
i o . � 1••3
t 1
.'� �� v: .tea •!r•,. .•�f �
r
J � R
r INC
Fit
o► r_ r __ -.
'yt�
�s
.S � XT;l
s• x '~41 �
r fi
Rte+', Y '} r {
Ok-
4w.WWI
_,•�•• �`. mar . . - �#�ip � :� � ��f -
-miff
A
r
r
(Mr. and (Mrs. 9?u,qo (�rms) Blum
(9.
2ox z366 August 11th, 1991
San Oernardinq California 924o6
�714)882-0521
Mrs. Valerie Ross,
Senior Planner for the City of
San 3ernardino,
City -Hall
300 North "D" Street
San 3ernardino,Calif. 92418
Dear airs. Ross,
Referring to our recent Telephoneconversation I have
taken your suggestibon to write Mr. Mike Maudsley the Councilman for
the 4th Ward and Chairman for the Project " Platt Building"
As you noticed I hesitated to do it, but as more as
thought about it as more I felt that you were right with your
advise. I sincerely hope that something will be done on "E" Street,
most sincerel urs
P.S. Enclosed a Letter to
Councilman Mike Maudsley
E
Ono
fl
AUG 13 1991
'7(`F cAN 19F.'1•lA;?O1NO
►J
i
uOlm2d. :X14
.......................................
)ear ?T.
�Afer•S,:f�l�..*�,p an a1"'.�3:.� X11 Sur
.G{t dj= �h i J.� -��►� �iti.7 •wiQ �� >a-Z�. � -+y �d+ylVii� ,i+� ,i.�.
�'i10r1! 'GSA time 9tdr Aap iib0 -W f.1 RstOd
can" -,On 3r0 :fiQ hal:-An 7t th13
;,31;dng; - ? ppnatrt�oLed 7i1t 7�'j }.eeted
;t;sat what the latt -ti3a1.'4 �► :si3scrl,.aa '�tmLT -'de1 's
Zvi-&dared •A � tOra �p11lI• _ :tt7i :•`2�! So ' e;tlLL S.ZSL� of
*no .a 3f,'3 * ♦ �=_atl7e m�! '.hey . s
�piill �,O �1Otl. �},,'�I O! .�11&! Al1t:'r 7J wo ��.'+�►Q3M .it�'f t .t. .�
ii is
tal-LI ; �� MEW '� a "ire.
,r0 21! lion �L'•.y
.S�ce .aLdm '
:e4i. itirteat. lratztsl7 2nd wriwWaY `hla ,A a fto �l *.eats•
1M =Z .ja= it got. �u1 i 'st►� �� •.hat � *Dtad atmd � 't _ ;�o
gio d 'ri='� the s V'PL-0 -Zell -
. �-;, "'t:'+1et Sad sake M. �itdl .zt ..t3e
mns ..a+m { ,weal
� t '� .+itti
YiL't �sottti �7. �ptieweetas * eaogi3.iti � 1 �71� :.'sit sas
' :' arovt ed Sad �' - • n'ee
m
:um,lr. UIL 4us f ad =tt*M44 ; A�' oror
t`st is T �x sti io ` .
at se ;Ouvftlubn.
In U6,13 xhialt a have :am ahead Ath �
W atias la the :%dw" ee ww21 1'J3 -'il3fo�i �7r .�
�� � the :•,aipetsr+s't :t1'lee its �aatT�:o
aZani .>�d lave �esn •ar 7 San "A Otiie=' -.'s ;aLs.:a
i SOttnd
:wt t�L :iD � ItO •ethers 'ms ld-w 1n .�pptttlSt �O �
;ur 312.0 ad`s sawmass.o 117 fetter fit :aZt111 ,s �` �o� y0 .; de
!hst Ve 31"0 n1ot QOOl10t11 17 Need? •t3 `p JLLT
s � -his : bstl'!t in �Ct fmId :-Ave
such 'l wed Illy fdYltlLi -
•At7 saoarding %a '� �ilnitrswt 3:1Ce '�! sassoMnto at that awe
�:.,rci ..;ad -�etillusi3ss .aas
gas _tired �ta3 :ha n t1sa w as
.eel ha4
'a3�• man a . "ject janager " -Nw=se mthljw As ion*
ass the aegi:� 'if Vw atad of �:21_'At es 'lo�aOt+ ,--. :trma iaas .sst U-M
�t -,o :A 'madras. � *ets s'si ant .men 's.3.�.aas a risi: stim `ate
_n :tie needed ,&x ,361l ss 3rd :.9 1110 bt :.s41 .3a
the -Ainsume"
?�osect to 3e 40,1710ted as : "IrouswU al ,0113rs 4aro -a.a mat sa
t'isiblUty StWMM for the la" m 76W to re+rSta_tse Y-7.1 AV"t aad
ssidarrW7 r him b I - vdsted of taapeyws "y as he aor"Mmaaaa of ' " =tract
Ww not chard/ aA&tw to ow aty are aop llad to sea our dal avdat+1l -4mn.
It is Indeod UO tUW tM &012 esil'.3ate the situatlon and !N
mhetho'r Lhs Hatt ' ,un 30 �7 i ;"Lrt. At the :alastrea�tr �mt'aa
a• �lanord ors #o a th• :eefiorstlor +as aeooral i ssci ;n � L:as
a! an ;1461 4 :oa Aqga e4 as Wwwn, Po+caoa, 'brtt a� �regoa. s�o �►
the A lid sa ao joN ;it3sonLa :i=tana , 4h* lWood ire icjoytg
zMat suoaass.
Lhe nstr"s lmjwt lesda jas care sgressivv , •4s ,old
r ot be t�ais the Maas of Uw Zatt 3 3.zi 4 t-4diy# m4be s in.
Laedsa�iii of 7ALostreet is lochs ovi.
i #be Al+,y o i 'mss ono ttrua,y 132d siiw+"ly f s iaL "Wtad
to see � a '.aea the ?ear',. a: �.hs :y — ="•Psta2isa u der t'�. orSat
�1an. 'z aw rasa m nee0, sir,00re &-d cupdodgeaMs 3MO100ar = St bond is
the adsartleed is a AtLonai s ' "r seal = ilea sm
that it U-j :%W :vaR+cil' +�s" -fMad :aorx toeW OW :o l21, axis X219
the -:3tisee *1, -'an =ftj }ana ., .)e very -%1" -4 load a iei,Am '- 04 I&AM
they jgm 2mvretsd _r aa+_ng �20for e, to saes 12ho -lam toxn a thMVI M x d
rsacesas`�2 = :peclalty that An %he AtiZatts :3f an itlo am �1e
i$a1a a! * ;Ltr an l.3N A~
.1+11 311 aT lay amt wishes to ill at 7m .'�!T �lett la4Qasl, s a•
,et sstaQ'4l YOU"
Exhibit "4"
1 ORDINANCE NO. HC 4
2 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADDING CHAPTER 15.37 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE;
3 ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS OR
4 STRUCTURES AND ESTABLISHING AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK
FORCE.
S
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernar-
6
dino do ordain as follows:
7
8
SECTION 1. Chapter 15.37 is added to the San Bernardino
9
Municipal Code to read as follows:
10
11
"CHAPTER 15.37
12
13
INTERIM URGENCY HISTORIC STRUCTURE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
14
15
15.37. 010 Findincts and Purpose. The Mayor and
16
Common Council find and declare:
17
19
A. The City of San Bernardino General Plan adopted on
19
June 2 , 1989 includes an Historical and Archaeo-
20
logical Resources Element which provides a basis
21
for historic preservation in the City of San
22
Bernardino.
23
24
B. An Historic Preservation Ordinance is required to
25 be completed within 18 months of adoption. This
26
ordinance will include a section on demolitions.
27
28
t
c. The City has a procedure for review of building
2 permit applications for demolition. However, there
z is no review procedure for such applications which
4 deal with structures or buildings that are poten-
tially historic.
6
7 D. Several buildings of historical value have already
8 been demolished. These include the Municipal
9 Auditorium, antlers Hotel, Carnegie Library and
10 Atwood Adobe and many others which were an
11 irreplaceable part of our heritage.
12
13
E. it is, therefore, necessary to establish an interim
4 procedure to review building permit applications
i
for demolition of potentially historic structures
i
15
constructed prior to 1941. The review shall
16
determine significance of a building or structure
17
and whether demolition is appropriate. Without
i8
such a review of building permit applications for
19
demolition, other historic buildings or structures
20
may be destroyed without any determination of
21
22 significance or documentation.
23
F. By imposing the requirements of the Interim Urgency
u
Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance, the City
25
will have a procedure for reviewing building permit
26
applications for demolition while the Historic
27
Preservation Program is being completed.
23
2
I G. This ordinance imposes standards on an urgency
2 basis and is necesary to protect against a current
3 and immediate threat to the public's health, safety
4 and welfare for the reasons stated above. The
S demolition of potentially historic buildings or
6 structures under the city's current zoning
7 ordinances, would result in a threat to public
8 health, safety, or welfare.
9 Ii
14) 15 . 32 . 020 Effective Date. This ordinance shall
11 I become effective upon the date of adoption.
12
13 15. 32. 030 Definitions . For the purpose of carrying
14 out the intent of this chapter, the words, phrases and terms
15 set forth herein shall be deemed to have the meaning
16 ascribed to them in this chapter.
17
18 Building - Means any structure having a roof and
19 walls built and maintained for the
20 support, shelter or enclosure of persons,
21 animals, chattels or property of any
22 kind.
23
24 Demolition - To cause to be destroyed any building or
25 structures so that it is no longer
26 standing.
27
28
3
i •
1 structure
Means anything constructed or built, any -
2
edifice or building of any kind, or any
3
piece of work artificially built up or
4 composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner, which requires location
S
on the ground or is attached to something
6
7 having a location on the .ground.
8 I
q I Task Force - The Historic Preservation Task Force, a
temporary committee appointed by the
10
11 Mayor to oversee the Historic Preserva-
tion Program and ordinance and review all
12
applications for demolition.
13
14
15 15. 37 .035 Historic Preservation Task Ford
16 This ordinance hereby establishes a Historic
17
Preservation Task Force whose members shall be appointed by
18 the Mayor with the concurrence of the Common Council. This
19 Task Force shall oversee the Historic Preservation Program
20 and Ordinance and review all applications for demolition of
21 buildings or structures constructed prior to 1941 and other
22 duties as established by the Mayor and Common Council. This
23 Task Force shall exist until a Historic Preservation
24 Commission is established by the Mayor and Common Council.
25
26
27
28
4
1 15. 37 . 040 Demolition Prohibited
No building or
structure constructed prior to 1941 shall be demolished
3
unless a valid Building Permit for Demolition has been
4 issued in accordance with this chapter.
S
6 15.37.050 Public Nuisance Exempted The demolition
7 of any structure constructed prior to 1941 shall be exempt
from the provisions of this chapter if a finding of public
8
8 nuisance has been made by an official of the Building and
Safety Department pursuant to the provisions of Chapters
10
In such instances,
an applicant may be
11 8 . 30 or 15. 28 .
12 issued a Building Permit for Demolition with the permission
13 of the Director of Planning and Building.
14
14 15. 37 .060 Procedure The following outlines the
rocedure for review of demolition applications for
16 p
17 buildings or structures constructed prior to 1941:
l8
1. An application for Building Permit for Demolition
19
shall be submitted to the Department of Building
20
and Safety and referred to the Planning Department
21
and shall include the year built, as closely as
22
determined, a clear color photograph (minimum size
23
3 1/2" x 511) , and any documentation on the history
24
of the house. The Planning Department shall
23
prepare an Historic Preservation Report using
26 o f the
available documentation of the history
27
building or structure, to be presented to the Task
28
5
t I
Fot-4. A State Historic Reso�_ces Inventory shall
1
also be completed.
2
3
2 . The application will be reviewed for completeness
4
by the Building and Safety Department and shall be
5
referred to the Planning Department to be scheduled
6
for review by the Environmental Review Committee
7
and the Task Force within 30 days- of application.
8 I
The applicant shall be notified in writing 10 days
9
prior to the review.
10
11
�I 3 . The Task Force shall review the application
12
Building Permit for Demolition and the Historic
13 preservation Report. The review shall include the
14 determination of significance of the building or
1S structure based upon the criteria set forth in
16 Section 15.37.070 of this ordinance as well as
17 alternatives to demolition. Alternatives may
18 include rehabilitation, relocation and reuse.
19
20 4 . The Task Force shall make two findings based upon
21 the criteria established in this ordinance in order
22 to deny any Building Permit Application for Demo-
23 lition. The mandatory findings are:
24
25 (a) The building or structure meets any one of the
_26 criteria listed in Section 15. 37. 070 of this
27 ordinance.
28
6
` I �
(b) The building
or structure can be relocated.
1
2
If a building or structure does not meet finding
3 (a) , the Building permit Application for Demolition
q are
may be issued if all other legal requirements
S complied with. If the building or structure meets
6
one of the criteria in Section 15.37 . 070, but
7
cannot be relocated due to structural integrity Of
8 the building or site conditions, a permit may be
_ 9 rovisions of Section
issued after the P
10 15.37.060(1) and are other legal requirements - are
11
complied with.
12
13 it may
If the Task Force makes the two findings,
lq Permit Application
stay the issuance of a Building
15 s. During this time the
for Demolition for 90 day
16
Task Force must determine significance of the
17 building or structure based upon the criteria set
18
forth in Section 15.37 .070 of this ordinance, an
19 rehabilitation,
methods of retention through
20
relocation and/or reuse or other alternatives to
21 l
demolition.
22
23
5, The Task Force shall make a decision on the
24 Building! Permit Application for Demolition within
25 the 90 day stay of issuance.
26
27 6, Anyone may pP appeal any decision of the Task Force to
28
7
th, Planning Commission prov._ed a written appeal
1
is submitted to the Planning Department within ten
2 (10) days of the Task Force action. Decisions of
3 the Planning Commission may be appealed to the
4 Mayor and Council by submitting a written appeal to
5 the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the Planning
6 Commission action. If no timely appeal is sub-
7 mitted, the action of the Task Force or the
8 Planning Commission is final.
9
10 15. 37. 070 Criteria for Determination of Historical
11 S iar ificance.
12
13 1. The building or structure has character, interest
14 or value as a part of the heritage of the City of
15 San Bernardino.
16
17 2. The location of the building or structure is the
18 site of a significant historic event.
19
20 3 . The building or structure is identified with a
21 person or persons or groups who significantly
22 contributed to the culture and development of the
23 City of San Bernardino.
24
25 4 . The building or structure exemplifies a particular
26 architectural style or way of life important to the
27 City.
28
3
5. The building or structure exemplifies the best
1
remaining architectural type in a neighborhood.
2
3
6. The building or structure is identified as the work
4
i
of a person whose work has influenced the heritage
5
of the City, the state or the United States.
6
7
7. The building or structure reflects outstanding
8
attention to architectural design, detail, mater-
9
ials or craftsmanship.
10
11
8 . The building or structure is related to landmarks
12
or historic districts and its preservation is
13
essential to the integrity of the landmark or
14
historic district.
15
]6
9. The unique location or singular physical character-
17
istics of the building or structure represent an
18
established and familiar feature of a neighborhood.
19
20
10. The building, structure or site has the potential
21
to yield historical or archaeological information.
22
23
15. 37.080 Documentation. If an historically signifi-
24
cant building or stricture cannot be saved for any reason, a
25
complete written and photo documentation of archival quality
26
of the building or structure shall be done by the applicant
27
and shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
28
9
i
the issuance of a demolition permit.
1
2 15.37. 090 Inconsistent, nsistent Provisions Any section of the
3
Municipal Code or amendments thereto inconsistent with the
4
provisions of this ordinance to the extent of such
S
inconsistencies and no further is hereby superseded or
6
modified by this ordinance to that extent necessary to
effectuate the provisions of this ordinance.
S
9
15.37. 100 Severability If any section, subsection,
10
sentence, clause or phrase or any portion of this ordinance
11
is for any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional,
12
such decision shall not affect the validity of the
13 remaining portions of the ordinance. The Mayor and Common
14 Council, hereby, declare that it would have adopted this
15 ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence,
16 clause or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that
17 phrase, or any portion thereof would be subsequently
18 declared invalid or unconstitutional.
19
20 15. 37 . 110 Penalty Any person, firm -or corporation,
21 whether as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise,
22 violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions
23 of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, which upon
24 conviction thereof is punishable in accordance with the
25 provisions of Section 1. 12. 010 of this Code in addition to
26 any other civil or administrative remedies.
27
28
10
15.37.120 Fees Upon submittal of a Building Permit
1
Application for Demolition to the Planning and Building
2
Department, the applicant shall pay a filing fee in accord-
3
ance with Resolution No. 88-1536 or any subsequent
4
modifications to that resolution. The applicant also shall
S
pay a fee for an Initial Study as required by the
6
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , in accordance
7
with Resolution No. 88-305 or any subsequent modifications
8
to that resolution. "
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
• M AN URC -CY ORDINANCE OF THE CI OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADDING CF TER 15.37 TO THE SAN BER 1DIN0 MUNICIPAL CODE;
t I ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS OR
STRUCTURES AND ESTABLISHING AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK
FORCE.
3
4 I I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
5 ; adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
6
Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
7 18th day of December , 1989, by the following
8 vote, to wit:
i
9
AYES: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Maudsley,
10
Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller
11
NAYS: Council Member Flores
12
ABSENT: None
13
15
City Clerk
16
17
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved and becomes
18
effective this day of `.1 �/>, , 1 9.
19 /
21 .'R. Hol mb, ayor
City' of Sari Bernardino
22
Approved as to form
23 and legal content:
24 James P. Penman
City Attorney ,
25
By:
26
27 �
mkf/12/14/89
28 M&CCFCAGi::✓'N:'_'_IS"20RICDV101
12
Exhibit "5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
M E M O R A N D U K
TO:
The Historic Preservation Task Force (HPTF)
Deborah Woldruff► Associate Planner
FROM: osal (DPR 90-02)
SUBJECT: Platt Building Demolition Prop
June 12 , 1992 City
DATE: Shauna Clark,
Velarde, Mayor's Office, Attorney's office,
COPIES: Lorraine Henry Empeno, City Kenneth J.
Administrator, EDA Administrato John Hoeger,
Timothy C• Steinha ment Departm ent, went
Develop James Sharp, Develop Al
Henderson, Department, artment,
Development Development Dep
Department, Sue Morales, Services and Valerie C.
Boughey, Planning and Building
Ross, Planning Division
REQUEST AND LOCATION the latt a
al is to demolish cated at and North P Building,
491 West5Eh
offi proposce buildin
This City initiated g and theater
four story southeast corner of Wes 507h Street
Street, on the
Street. (Assessor Parcel Number 134-14
BACKGROUND 1991) of this project is
A chronology (January
1990 through July 30, 1991 Memorandum
contained in the Backg
round section of the July e Attachment E)
to the Historic Preservation Task Force. ( pro
to the Task
1991► Planning staff presented the p �ment Department
on August 2 ► staff's presentation, the Develop adaptive
Force. Following to their research on the
The Development Department felt that
presented information relating
reuse of the building. to arcing. A discussion
e is not feasible due to the functional obsolescence
adaptive reuse s design p regarding their concerns
of the building' and inadequate
wring which the Task Force oic redevelopment f the site and the
ensued d historical
the restoration of the building, The of the
block, impacts to the aesthetic and staff's recommendso that all
s 1991 meeting
significance of the Platt Building tuber 6, anticipate in the
project was continued to the Sep
five Task Force members could attend and p
discussion.
6 1991 meeting, the discussion of the
s
tember ment Agency the
At the $eP The Economic Develop
Building continued. er interested in redeveloping its
asked if Rancon, the develop the Platt Building
entire block, would conaider including
Historic Preservation Task Force Memorandum (Continued)
RE: Platt Building Demolition Proposal (DPR 90-02)
June 12 , 1992
Page 2
plans. Anne Harris indicated that Rancon might consider this but
that they would probably wish to look at feasibility before making
any commitments. The Task Force continued the project for thirty
days during which time the EDA was directed to contact Rancon and
request that consideration be given to including the building in
their project. At the end of the thirty day period, the EDA was to
bring back Rancon's response and additional information on the
total costs for restoration and demolition.
On October 23 , 1991, the EDA stated that Rancon was still
considering the inclusion of the building in their redevelopment
plans for the block. Rather than create another vacant lot, Rancon
indicated that they considered using the ground floor of the
building for low lease lots occurs (in
would be an interim
accordance with project phasing) .
The EDA was directed to come back to the Task Force with
information that would help to implement Rancon's concept of the
building's interim use:
the (physical) condition of the Platt Building
what the City would need to do
what prospective tenants would need to do
Mr. Gil Lara, a local businessman, gave public comment on the
project. He felt that a time limit should be put on the
redevelopment ion relatedntobthek potential t g or take it down.
Further discussion of
the building.
The Task Force stated that the EDA would need to prepare a report
for the next meeting.
On April 22, 1992, Mr. Rod MacDonald of Rancon spoke to the Task
Force and outlined the reasons why the adaptive reuse (including
the interim use previously discussed) is not a feasible alternative
for the Platt Building. The building layout is functionally
obsolete because it does not lend itself to lease space division
making marketing difficult. Bringing the building into compliance
with Code would cost at least $500, 000 and it should be noted that
this figure does not consider compliance with Title 24 (energy) or
ADA (handicapped access) . facade would not be
Mr. MacDonald stated o s
cost effective due seismic considerations.building He also stated that
in architectural design terms, the facade is not unique and
1
Historic Preservation Task Force Memorandum (Continued)
RE: Platt Building Demolition Proposal (DPR 90-02)
June 12, 1992
Page 3
exhibits little articulation. In closing, he suggested that design
elements from the Platt Building and the downtown be incorporated
into a design program for the downtown.
The Task Force asked Henry Empeno what their course of action
should be and he stated that the Task Force could adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Demolition Permit.
He also outlined a number of options related to those actions.
Planning staff recommended that the Task Force continue the item so
that a response could be prepared. The next meeting was
i tentatively scheduled for June 10, 1992 . (The meeting was
rescheduled for June 18, 1992. )
Please note that information resulting from (and subsequent to) the
Task Force meetings outlined in this section is available in
Attachments A through D.
ANALYSIS
The analysis contained in the July 30, 1991 Memorandum (Attachment
E) is based upon the project which proposes to demolish the Platt
Building. To date, no other development application has been
submitted to the City. For this reason, the analysis looks at the
potential impacts related to the demolition of the building and
future development of the site. The most intense use permitted in
the CR-2, Commercial Regional district is used for consideration
because future development is not proposed as part of the project.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
an Initial Study was prepared for the project and reviewed by the
City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 25, 1990.
At that time, the ERC recommended to the Historic Preservation Task
Force that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for the
project. (See Attachment 1 to Attachment E)
The Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694) gives
the Task Force the authority to look at alternatives to demolition.
However, the alternatives to demolition should not be used as a
basis for project approval or as a determinant of the building's
historical significance.
It should be noted that an evaluation of project alternatives is
not required by CEQA except as part of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) . In relation to this project, an EIR is not required
unless it is determined that the project has the potential to
eliminate an important example of a major period of California
Historic Preservation Task Force Memorandum (Continued)
RE: Platt Building Demolition Proposal (DPR 90-02)
June 12, 1992
Page 4
history. This determination was not made in the Initial Study in
the Mandatory Findings of Significance. However, the Task Force
may determine that the Platt Building is a significant historical
resource of the City and require that an EIR be prepared.
In light of concerns voiced by the Task Force, Staff has
reevaluated the Initial Study and the June 30, 1991 Memorandum. As
a result, staff has not changed its recommendation for the project.
OPTIONS
Based upon the project impacts, the Task Force may choose one of
the following options:
1. Require that a Negative Declaration be prepared which
indicates that the project will not result in any significant
impacts;
2 . Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration which indicates that
the significant impacts of the project can be mitigated to
below a level of significance; or,
3 . Require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared which
indicates that the project will result in significant impacts
that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
Historic Preservation Task Force Memorandum (Continued)
RE: Platt Building Demolition Proposal (DPR 90-02)
June 12, 1992
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the provisions of MC-694, Section 15.37 .060 (4) , staff
recommends that the Historic Preservation Task Force adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 21080. 1
of CEQA and approve Demolition Permit (DPR 90-02) and the
Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring Activities.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Wol ruff
ssociate Planner
Attachments: A. September 6, 1991 Memorandum (Woldruff)
B. September 6, 1991 Memorandum (Steinhaus)
C. October 23 , 1991 Memorandum (Parker)
D. April 21, 1992 Summary of Rehab Studies
E. July 30, 1992 Memorandum
Attachments: 1. Initial Study
2. Letters and Memorandums
3. Rough Cost Estimates For
The Platt Building
(Memorandum)
4. Mitigation Measures and
Reporting/Monitoring
Activities for DPR 90-02
C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Preservatidn Task Force
FROM:
Deborah Woldruff A sociate Planner
SUBJECT: Demolition Proposal Review (DPR) No. 90-02
(Continued) - A proposal to demolish the Platt
Building, a four story office building and movie
theater built in 1925 and located at 491 West 5th
Street (APN 134-141-07)
DATE: September 6, 1991
COPIES: Historic Preservation Task Force; Esther Estrada,
Council Offices; Shauna Clark, City Administrator;
Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant, Mayor's
Office; Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney; Timothy
C. Steinhaus, Administrator, Economic Development
Agency; Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director,
Development Department; John Wood, Senior Project
Manager; Valerie C. Ross, Senior Planner
on August 2 , 1991, Demolition Proposal Review (DPR) No. 90-02 for
the Platt Building was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Task
Force. During the discussion, the Task Force expressed concerns
regarding specific issues, as follows:
Building Restoration - What efforts have been made regarding
marketing, restoration and
rehabilitation of the building and
determining the feasibility of
preservation and adaptive reuse?
Redevelopment - Are there plans to redevelop the site
and/or the block?
Aesthetics - There is a concern that demolition
of the Platt Building will impact the
aesthetics of the downtown by adding
to the number of vacant parcels.
A+�a e
me w� R
Historic Preservation Task Force Memorandum (Continued)
Demolition Proposal Raview (DPR) No. 90-02
September 6, 1991
Page 2
Historical - Based upon the information contained
Significance in the Memorandum to the Task Force
And Staff' s (dated July 30, 1990) , staff
Recommendation recommends that the Task Force
approve DPR 90-02. The Historic
Resource Evaluation Report (Hatheway)
and the City's Historic Resource
Reconnaissance Survey (Donaldson)
indicate that the building is
potentially significant to the City' s
developmental history. Because of
these opposing views, the Task Force
members would like further discussion
to address this issue.
At the request of these Task Force members present, DPR 90-02 was
continued until all five members could be present to participate
in the discussion and action.
r
v C I T Y OF S A N BERNARD A�� I N O
ECO1101"!I C DEVELOPMENT
PMRAHDUH
TO: MIKE MAUDSLEY, Councilman
Fourth Ward
FROM: IMOTHY C. STEIRHAUS
Administrator
SUBJECT: PLATT WILDING
DATE: September 6, 1991
COPIES: Councilwoman olcomb� �Dr.a Press, l
JohaMulvihillaCaldStaternational
Norine Miller;
Affairs, Mayor's Office; Penny H
University at San Bernardino; File
Per your request, my Staff researched our files on the Platt Building for
information -on estimates of the costs of demolition and asbestos remediatio .
The attched copy of a memorandum dated December 13, 1989, from
to Mayor Holcomb, indic=tcontainingeandfdiaposing ofrasbestosion and from
$150,000 to X200,000 f o
Please let me know if any additional information is required.
TCS:JMW:kak:4209H
Attachment
h
'IL '_ SE? 1 � �
OCT 14 1991
CITY OF SAN BERNAHOINO
A tiac h me vk+ 8 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
BUILDING SERVICES
C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR W. R. "BOB" HOLCOMB
FROM: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Preliminary Estimate of Cost -- Platt Building
at Southeast Corner of Fifth Street and •E•
Street
DATE: December 13, 1989
COPIES: File No. 6. 50; Reading File
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Platt Building is an approximate 7,800 square foot, four-
story building constructed in the 1920' x. The structure was
constructed of poured concrete.
Our preliminary estimate of cost for demolition of this building
is $150,000. In addition, there will be a cost of $150,000 to
$200,000 for containing and disposing of the asbestos in the
insulation, wiring, floor tile, roofing, concrete, etc.
Since this structure is over 50 years old, there may be some
historical interest.
Please advise if you would like any further information.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RGH:rs +oE�HE CITY pF�y
z
C I T Y OF S A N B E R N A R D I N O
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
------------------------------------
TO: Historic Preservation Task Force
FROM: STAFFORD W. PARKER
Deputy Director
SUBJECT: PROGRAMS FOR STORAGE AND/OR RELOCATION
OF HISTORICAL STRUCTURES
DATE: October 23, 1991
COPIES: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner; Project Manager Sharp; File
Periodically the Historic Preservation Task Force has discussed the strategy
of storing and/or relocating historical structures. The issue was raised
again at the meeting of September 6, 1991. While not directed, staff has
initiated a review of such a strategy that would entail temporarily
warehousing historical structures on a designated parcel of land or relocating
them. Based on our findings we have determined there are both advantages and
disadvantages to this approach and we have referenced them as follows:
I. Advantages
1. Relocating or warehousing the structure at a designated parcel
will "free up" the parcel of land they were on initially for
development.
2. Theoretically, maintenance and security would be more
convenient due to the fact that all the structures will be in
one place.
II. Disadvantages
1. The prospect of vandalism will be increased due to the
warehousing of many structures on a common parcel. This could
be mitigated by the location of the parcel, but land in areas
normally not plagued by vandals would normally be unavailable
or too expensive.
2. Due to an anticipated level of vandalism - maintenance cost
would increase.
3. Rehabilitation cost to the subsequent owner would soar because
of increased vandalism causing damage to the building. The
Agency, obviously, would make minimum repairs to the structures
prior to the passage of title.
A+t acI.WWL&� C.�
MEMORANDUM
Historic Preservatit sk Force
October 23, 1991
Page Two
4. Security measures and cost would both, out of necessity,
increase. It is rather common for structures to be broken into
and boarded up several times. There is no unit that appears to
be vandal proof. Even those boarded to FHA standards, the
highest in the industry, are broken into - it just takes
vandals a little longer.
5. Often moving can compromise the structural stability of a unit
depending on the unit.
6. In cases where the specific location is of more historical note
and importance than the unit, it is inappropriate to move the
structure from its original site. That comment does not apply
to cases where the historical importance of a structure relates
to its architectural design which will remain in tact no matter
where the unit is relocated.
7. Temporary storage 'of units normally increases rehabilitation
costs and also lessens the preference and priority of restoring
the structure on-site.
8. Federal environmental requirements are triggered by moving
structures, i.e. , State of California Environmental Quality Act
and Federal Rational Environmental Protection Act. The
adherence to these quidelines is much more difficult, costly
and time consuming when the structure is relocated.
9. In the event a structure is vandalized to the degree it becomes
economically infeasible to rehabilitate, the Department would
face an extra expense of having to demolish the structure.
Although this is a potential that already exists due to the
fact that the Department owns the property, its probability is
increased by moving the structure.
It is our conclusion that the strategy of moving historical structures to a
common location is theoretically good but operationally and financially, it
will not work.
Regardless, staff believes there are substantive steps the Task Force could
take that would facilitate the restoration of historical structures. These
include but are not limited to the following:
A. Identify and designate historical districts. These districts could
be marketed, urging the tax benefits to developers, and the homes or
area surrounding them could be rehabilitated. This increases the
marketability of the area and property values. On a comprehensive
basis the city could be requested to direct the construction of
infrastructure gas lights, etc. , to complement period design in such
areas.
B. Identify infill lots within the designated historical districts.
lDMRMUM Force
Historic Preservatio
October 23, 1991
Page Three
C. Work with residents in the district to help set a theme for the area
or neighborhood and solicit their participation, i•e., as essmen,
districts, voluntary improvements to their property, s
etc.
D. Classify the architecture for marketing, clustering units and the
individual that will retain the character and integrity of the
neighborhoods.
E. Identify sources of funding for historical preservation.
F. Sell historical structures by auction, give them away, or create a
pool of developers who have an exclusive development agreement
within these designated historical areas. The developers would have
right of first refusal in the event they did not want to work with a
particular structure.
G. Sell the idea of a historical district to the public to get public
support. This should only be done when there is the ability to
implement the program, i.e. , operationally, administratively,
financially and from a policy basis.
RECO )ATIOlf
Historical Preservation is difficult. It's implementation deserves the
best implementation plan we can devise. Staff believes a comprehensive
strategy or approach to historical preservation should be developed for
the operation, administration and financing of the program. It is
recommended the task force consider the above comments and provide
further staff direction.L,2tf�:�STAFFO W. PABRBB, Deputy Director
Deve pment Department
SWP:kak:4320H
PLATT BUILDING April 21, 1992
SUMMARY OF REHABILITATION STUDIES
Willmont study 10/12/90
Residential conversion to produce forty one 500 square foot single bedroom units,
converting a portion of theater into open interior courtyard.
Construct rooms in existing office and in theater area around courtyard retail left on
street.
$1.5 to 2.0 million plus cost of asbestos remediation floor and cost of
Earthquake upgrade ($150,000) and cost to renovate ground
approx. $2.1 to 2.6 or say $2.5 million.
Renovation of theater and lobby (w/restaurant)
- Based upon other theater renovation proposals, and adjusting for size, indicated cost
would be on the order of $1.5 to 2.0 million to renovate the theater as a 450 seat
house with restaurant and bar in the retail space in front of the lobby.
- Despite higher income levels, far more potential user groups, and a higher education
level - expected operating subsidies were $666,000 for the first three years and
remained above $200,000 per year in year three. Income included performance
space rentals, rehearsal space rentals, reimbursements for staff services to renting
groups, and concession fees. Fee structure ranged from $350 for small non-profits
to $850 for commercial users.
- Rehearsal space is impacted by columns which interfere with movements. The stage
area is very restricted due to lack of depth and very poor wing space, limiting all
forms of scenic events as well as those where movement up and down stage is
important (dance, musical comedy, etc.)
Renovation costs of Fifth Street retail and office would be 3515,000 for elevator,
new plumbing and bathrooms, new electrical, new HVAC,asbestos remediation, and
seismic retrofit. Additional tenant improvements would be required of tenants.
Office space is poorly laid out in two long corridor-like arms with columns inside
the office areas. Floors are less than 4,000 SF on Fifth Street side. Windows need
safety restraints to avoid falls when opened.
A+ta�l�vne�l D
Partial renovation of street level (Rancon study).
Rancon will give a verbal report.
Costs will exceed $500,000 even for partial rehab which leaves theater area and
office floors in existing condition. No fire sprinklers in vacant portions of the
building and asbestos left in unoccupied portions. Much of the building's unsafe
electrical wiring would remain.
Subsidized rents would be needed to attract tenants but would have to be restricted
to businesses new to downtown to avoid competing with existing space. Community
groups who desire space but cannot afford rent would also require operating
subsidies.
COMPARISON BETWEEN SCENARIOS:
Complete Residential Partial
Rehab Conversion Rehab Demolition
Cost $2.5 million $2.0 $500+ $350
million thousand thousand
Advantages Restores Retains Temporary Prepares
building. exterior. retention. for devel-
Increases Provides Low initial opment of
performing low-end cost. area.
space. housing. Provides Reduces
Increases space for liability.
office. community
Increases groups-
retail.
Disadvantages High cost. Cost is Requires Building is
Theater much rent sub- demolished.
requires greater sidies for
operating than new. community
subsidies. groups.
Low demand Carries
for poorly high
laid out liability
office. exposure.
Rehearsal
space im-
pacted by
columns.
C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Historic Preservation Task Force
FROM: Deborah Woldr �Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Demolition Proposal Review (DPR) No. 90-02
DATE: July 30 , 1991
COPIES: John Wood, Senior Project Manager, Development
Services , Al Boughey, Director, Planning and
Building Services , Larry E. Reed, Assistant
Director, Planning and Building Services and
Valerie C. Ross, Senior Planner, Planning and
Building Services
REQUEST AND LOCATION
This City initiated proposal is to demolish the Platt Building, a
four story office building and theater located at 491 West 5th
Street, on the southeast corner of West 5th. Street and North "E"
Street.
SITE, BUILDING AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Building And Site Characteristics
The building site is rectangular and consists of approximately
16, 900 square feet of land on one parcel (Assessor' s Parcel Number
134-141-07 ) and contains one structure, the Platt Building. (See
Exhibit B of the Initial Study)
The Platt Building consists of approximately 46, 000 square feet of
space. The office portion of the building contains four floors
which total approximately 35, 780 square feet of space. The
entrance for the office portion is located on West 5th Street . The
theater portion of the building is divided into two major areas -
the theater and its lobby with concession counter. The theater
area is nearly four stories tall from floor to vaulted ceiling but
has only two floors - the ground floor and the balcony, which total
9, 500 square feet of space. In recent years, the balcony area was
closed off and has been used since as a separate, smaller theater.
Historic Preservation Task Force (Memorandum)
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
The theater lobby and concession counter are located on the ground
floor and contain approximately 720 square feet of space. The
street entrance for the movie theater, known as the Crest Theater ,
is located on North "E" Street . (A complete architectural
description of the building is available on pages 4 and 5 of
Exhibit A of the Initial Study. Photographs of the building are
included in Appendix B of Exhibit A. )
Area Characteristics
The Platt Building is located in downtown San Bernardino, an area
exhibiting past decay and current redevelopment efforts. The land
use designation for the site and for the area immediately north,
south, east and west is CR-2 , Commercial Regional (Downtown) .
Southwest of the site is designated CR- 1, Commercial Regional
(Central City Mall ) and northwest of the site is designated PF,
Public Facility. (See Attachment 1 , Exhibit C)
The existing land uses to the north and across West 5th Street
include a vacant office building and governmental offices.
Immediately east of the Platt Building is a public parking lot with
commercial service uses and some vacant commercial spaces located
just beyond. South of the site is a public parking lot, commercial
uses (with vacant commercial spaces ) , more public parking and the
City' s Police Department and the Police Department vehicle lot.
West and across North "E" Street is vacant land, public parking,
general retail uses and professional offices . Northwest of the
site and across both West 5th Street and North "E" Street is vacant
land with the public library just beyond.
REVIEWING AUTHORITY
On December 18 , 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the
Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694 ) . This
ordinance requires that applications for Demolition Permits for
pre-1941 buildings and structures be reviewed for potential
environmental impacts and historical significance. In addition,
MC-694 enabled the City to create and appoint the Historic
Preservation Task Force with duties that include overseeing the
development of the Historic Preservation Program and reviewing
applications for demolition of pre-1941 buildings and structures .
In accordance with MC-694 , these applications are reviewed by the
City' s Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to identify potential
environmental impacts and then, by the Historic Preservation Task
Force to determine potential historical significance.
2
Historic Preserva..iun Task Force (Memorandum)
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS
This application for DemolitioSectiont21080 ) because ofupotengial
subject to CEQA (Chapter 2 . 6 . ,
historical and cultural significance to the City' s developmental
history. At its regularly scheduled meeting of October 251 ,
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) proposed a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The public review period for the Initial
Study (Attachment 1) and the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration comments were November
rec received duringathis nre view period.rer 21 ,
1990 .. No No
BACKGROUND
In early January 1990 , the Development Department (formerly RDA)
asked Planning to do a preliminary study of the Platt Building to
determine its historic significance. Because of the recent
adoption of d a94coursennofg action rapp opriateonto concerning
meet the
demolition
provisions of the ordinance.
On January 12 , 1990 , the Planning Division prepared a memo for the
Development Department which briefly described the building and its
exterior condition, outlined the previous owner' s redevelopment
efforts since 1983 and stated that the building may have historical
significance. The memo also recommended that the property owner or
applicant submit an application for Demolition Permit to begin the
process and that the Development Department contact a qualified
consultant to evaluate the building' s historical significance.
On March 1 , 1990 , the Development Department submitted a letter to
Planning requesting that staff begin processing an application for
a Demolition Permit for the Platt Building.
On April 8 , 1990 , the Development Department submitted a letter to
Planning which stated that the City intended acquisition of the
Platt Building.
On April 16, 1990 , the Development Department contracted with
Hatheway & Associates to prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation
Report on the Platt Building. The consultant ' s report was
submitted to the City in June 1990 (Exhibit A of the Initial
Study) .
3
Historic Preserves,...'uRevisk Force o (Memorandum)
Demolition Proposal
July 30 , 1991
In late April 1990 , the City and the property owner , Arthur Gregory
discontinued the negotiations for the purchase of the Platt
Building. Planning staff was directed to discontinue processing
the application for Demolition Permit.
On August 20 , 1990 , staff was directed to work on the application
as negotiations betweehthe Initial Study on August had
resumed. Staff completed
On September 6 , 1990 , the Initial Study was presented 1990 pend ng hefurther
September 20 ,
ERC and continued until
information pertinent to the review of National Register of
Historic Places submittal requirements .
On September 19, 1990 , the ERC received a letter from Councilman
Michael Maudsley, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Task Force.
Councilman Maudsley requested that the ERC continue the item until
October 11, 1990 so that the Historic
ERC and other interested persons could tour the Platt Building on
September 26 , 1990 . The purpose of the tour was to aid the two
committees in making their recommendations and decisions ,
respectively.
On October 10 , 1990 , the community Development Commission approved
the City' s acquisition of
On October 11 , 1990 , the Initial Study was reviewed by the ERC.
James Mulvihill , PhD. , addressed the ERC stating his concerns
regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Dr.
Mulvihill was requested to submit his comments in writing to the
ERC so that they co he Devel
that same meeting, t opment Department submitted a letter to
the ERC requesting a continuance so that their staff could compile
and submit in or l
The request granted anCthe item was the Task Force. continued
until October 25, 1990 .
In the interim, staff received and reviewed the information
compiled by the Development Department and determined that it did
not address environmental concerns . Subsequently,
the information
was not presented to the ERC (see Attachment 3) . Dennis Barlow,
Senior Assistant City Attorney, representing the Development
Department submitted a memorandum Attachment ERC in which he addressed
Dr. Mulvihill ' s comments (see
4
Historic Preservation Task Force (Memorandum)
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
On October 25 , 1990 , the ERC discussed Dr . Mulvihill ' s concerns and
Mr. Barlow' s responses . The ERC determined that the project would
create environmental impacts but that they could be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. The ERC recommended that the Historic
Preservation Task Force adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration as
outlined in the Initial Study. The Notice of Preparation for the
(mitigated) Negative Declaration was published on November 1 , 1990 .
On November 20 , 1990 , the Development Department requested that the
demolition permit application for the Platt Building (DPR 90-02 ) be
put on hold for ninety days or longer .
On July 24 , 1991 , the Development Department requested that staff
re-activate the application for DPR 90-02 .
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Planning received written comments from Biron R. Bauer, San
Bernardino resident, dated September 28 , 1990 , James Mulvihill ,
Ph.D. , dated October 15 , 1990 , Dennis Barlow, Senior Assistant City
Attorney, dated October 19, 1990 and Sean O'Malley, San Bernardino
resident, dated November 28 , 1990 . (See Attachment 2 )
ANALYSIS
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Mandatory Finding's of Significance found in the City' s
checklist (Question No. 14 .a. ) and in Section 15065(a) of CEQA
address the potential for eliminating important examples of the
major periods of California history. The Platt Building did not
play a major role in the history of California and its ties to
local history are weak, at best. The building was not a major
center of commerce in the City, it is not tied to the City' s
historical role as a transportation hub central to a major
transportation corridor, it did not exist during the rancho period
of San Bernardino' s history and, there is no historical evidence
linking the building to the area' s citrus industry. The Platt
Building was used primarily as a professional office building and
movie theater and as such, was the location for services ancillary
to the major economic activities .
5
Historic Preservation Task Force (Memorandum)
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
Focus of the Historical Resources Evaluation Report
The historical resources evaluation report, prepared for the
Development Department by Hatheway & Associates is included in the
Initial Study as Exhibit A. The report is entitled Determination
of Eligibility Report For The Platt Building and as the title
implies it focuses on the building' s potential eligibility for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places . For his
evaluation, the consultant used the federal guidelines contained in
36 CFR 60 . 4 (Exhibit A, pages 1 and 2 ) . The consultant concludes
that the building meets Criteria C of the federal guidelines, as
follows :
"The quality of significance in American
history, architecture, archaeology, and
culture is present in districts , sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that
possess integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association, and that embody the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period
or method of construction. . . "
As stated, the report focuses on the potential significance of the
building at the national level and does not address its potential
significance to the developmental history of the City. The
consultant states that the Platt Building appears to qualify as
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in
relation to Criterion C of the federal guidelines (Exhibit A, page
9) . The issue, however, is not the determination of eligibility of
the building for listing in the National Register. Rather, it is
the determination of whether or not the Platt Building is a
resource significant to local history.
Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey
The Platt Building is listed in the survey on a (modified) DPR 523
Form. This indicates that the building was identified as a
potential historic resource that should be further evaluated for
consideration in local planning. The demolition proposal , through
the demolition permit process , is providing further evaluation and
consideration of the building.
6
Historic Preservation Task Force (Memorandum,
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
General Plan: Clarification and Consistency
The Platt Building is referenced in two places in the Historical
and Archaeological Resources Element of the General Plan. The
building is listed in Table 16 , Potentially Significant Historic
Structures . The text in Table 16 briefly describes facts
concerning the history of the building. Its inclusion in Table 16
indicates that the building may potentially be significant as one
of the City' s older buildings . The Platt Building also is pictured
in Figure 14 , Historic Landmarks : D. However , the text in Figure
14 does not contain any reference to the building or explanation
regarding its inclusion in Figure 14 . It should be noted that in
his report (Attachment 1 , Exhibit A) , Mr. Hatheway does not
indicate that the building is designated as a historic landmark on
any listing at the local , county or state level .
The Historical and Archaeological Resources Element sets goals ,
defines objectives and sets policy for the City' s Historic
Preservation Program development and subsequent implementation.
For historic resources that have proven historical significance to
the City' s developmental history, the following objective applies:
"Protect and enhance historic, architectural ,
or cultural resources in commercial and
redevelopment areas in a manner that will
encourage revitalization in these areas. "
(General Plan Objective 3. 5)
Correspondingly, it is the policy of the City to:
"Encourage the preservation, maintenance,
enhancement and reuse of existing buildings in
redevelopment and commercial areas . .
(General Plan Policy 3. 5. 1)
The Historic Preservation Task Force has not yet determined that
the Platt Building is a resource significant to the City' s
the
developmental history and until this determination is made,
preceding passages do not apply. Staff has not identified any data
to determine conclusively that the building is a significant
historical resource.
During the ERC' s review of the Initial Study, the question of
appropriate adaptive reuse came up several times in the context of
various discussions . The following passage from the General Plan
was cited.
7
Historic Preserva.-log Force
90 (02morandumi
Demolition Proposal Review Fo
July 30, 1991
"It is the policy of the City to:
Encourage appropriate adaptive reuse of
historic resources in order to prevent
c misuse,
disrepair and demolition,eihborhoods from
protect surrounding
disruptive intrusions . " (General Plan Policy
3 . 2 . 7 )
Staff discussed the issue of adaptive reuse with the ERC and it was
determined not to emolitionlOrdinance (MC-694 ) requires that
Historic Structure that
alternatives to demolition, which include adaptive reuse, be
addressed at the Historic Preservation Task Force level of review.
To address the issue of
veloadaptive
Departme t(at
prepared regarding
rough
threshold costs) the Develop
estimate (see Attachment 3)include
out that the study does not theeestmmated Department m for several
essential rehabilitation and restoration elements such as
retrofitting the floors to exterior wall yfor
their expertise to do. the
ven so The
repairing the building elements missing from study0could•
unknown costs of the el raise
that figure considerably.
It should be noted that rehabilitation efforts by the property
owner and the Development Department were continuous during the
past ten years. Through an Owner Participation Agreement , the
property owner and the Development Department worked to repair the
building and locate prospective tenants . Those efforts proved
fruitless and the building remained vacant and in a state of
dilapidation and disrepair.
Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694)
In accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, the Platt
Building was evaluated using the Criteria for Determination of
Historical Significance (MC-694 , Section 15. 37 . 070 ) , as follows :
1. or value as a part tofc the e aheritageof the City; or,
or
2 . The locaaisignificant bhistorgic eventruc pure is the
site of
8
a
Historic Preservo_.�jn Task Force (Memorandum,
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
3 . The building or structure is identified with a .
person or persons or groups who significantly
contributed to the culture and development of the
City of San Bernardino; or,
4 . The building or structure exemplifies a particular
architectural style or way of life important to the
City; or,
5 . The building or structure exemplifies the best
remaining architectural type in a neighborhood; or,
6 . The building or structure is identified as the work
of a person whose work has influenced the heritage
of the City, the state or the United States ; or,
7 . The building or structure reflects outstanding
attention to architectural design, detail ,
materials of craftsmanship; or,
8 . The building or structure is related to landmarks
or historic districts and its preservation is
essential to the integrity of the landmark or
historic district ; or,
9. The unique location or singular physical
characteristics of the building or structure
represent an established and familiar feature of a
neighborhood; or,
10 . The building, structure or site has the potential
to yield historical or archaeological information.
The Platt Building does not meet Criteria 1 because it did not play
a major role in any of the City' s historic themes. Likewise, the
building does not meet Criterion 2 and 3 because its location is
not the site of an historic event and the building is not
identified with a person(s) who significantly contributed to the
culture and development of the City. The building does not
exemplify 1920s commercial architecture or an important way of life
(Criteria 4 ) . Neither does the building meet Criteria 5 since it
does not exemplify the best remaining architectural type. (See the
discussion of CEQA, this section) Similarly, Criterion 6 through
8 do not apply.
9
• Historic Preserv4-.Aon Task Force (Memorandum,
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
Criteria 9 does apply inasmuch as the Platt Building is an
established and familiar feature in the downtown and natives of San
Bernardino may have nostalgic memories of times spent in the Crest
Theater.
The consultant who prepared the historical resources evaluation
report did extensive archival research and found no indication that
the building might have the potential to yield historical or
archaeological information. As such, Criteria 10 does not apply.
In order to delay the issuance of a Demolition Permit, the Historic
Preservation Task Force must make two mandatory findings . The
first finding is that the building must meet any one of the ten
criteria. The building does meet Criteria 9. The second finding
is that the building can be relocated. Given the fact that the
building has serious structural flaws , successful relocation to
another site is doubtful . In the historical resources evaluation
report (Exhibit A, page 11) , the consultant states , "Clearly, the
Platt Building is not a candidate for moving. " If either of the
mandatory findings cannot be met, MC-694 states that a Demolition
Permit may be issued.
CONCLUSIONS
The General Plan encourages the preservation, enhancement and
adaptive reuse of buildings and structures found to be significant
to the developmental history of the City. However, the Platt
Building has not been determined to be a significant historic
resource of the City. Lacking this determination, the General Plan
objectives and policies cited do not apply.
The restoration and rehabilitation of the Platt Building for some
type of adaptive reuse would be a costly undertaking. Given the
recent history of the building regarding redevelopment efforts ,
there are no guarantees that reuse would prove successful .
FINDINGS
The singular physical characteristics (size and mass ) of the Platt
Building and its theater facilities represent an established and
familiar feature in the downtown.
10
Historic PreservaL.lon Task Force (Memorandum)
Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-02
July 30, 1991
Due to physical constraints relating to size and structural design
flaws , the Platt Building cannot be relocated.
The Platt Building does not represent a significant historical
resource of the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the provisions of MC-694 , Section 15. 37 . 060 , Item 4 . ,
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Task Force adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section
21080 . 1 of CEQA and approve Demolition Proposal Review (DPR) No.
90-02 and the Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring
Activities .
Respectfully submitted,
�zxc
cg�sisociate orah Wol ruff
Planner
Attachments : 1 - Initial Study
2 - Letters and Memorandums
3 - Rough Cost Estimates For The Platt Building
(Memo)
4 - Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring
Activities for Demolition Proposal Review No.
90-02
11
J
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
DEMOLITION PROPOSAL REVIEW NO. 90-2
Proiect Description: A proposal to demolish the Platt Building, a
four story office building and movie theater.
Proiect Location: This project is located at 491 West 5th Street
on the southeast corner of West 5th Street and North "E" Street.
Date: August 23 , 1990
Applicant( s ) Name and Address:
Redevelopment Agency
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Property Owner(s ) Name and Address:
The Platt Building Partnership
and Town Square Inc.
c/o Arthur Gregory
P.O. Box 830
Redlands, CA 92373
Initial Study Prepared by:
Deborah Woldruff
Associate Planner
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Services
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
c�r�rwwma� PLAN 8A7 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-W
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as
an Initial Study for Demolition Proposal Review No. 90-2 .
Section 2 . 0 provides a description of the project and
site characteristics .
As stated in Section 15063 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines , the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as
the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative
Declaration ;
2 . Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enabling the project to
qualify for Negative Declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to
be significant,
(B) Identify the effects determined not to be
significant, and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that
potentially significant effects would not be
significant.
4 . Facilitate environmental assessment early in the
design of a project ;
S. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project
will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs ;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could
be used with the project.
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23 , 1990
2 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant ' s request is to demolish the Platt
Building, a four story office building and movie theater
located at 491 West 5th Street on the southeast corner of
West 5th Street and North "E" Street. (See Exhibit C)
2 . 1 Project Site Characteristics
The project site is rectangular and is approximately
16, 900 gross square feet in size (Assessor Parcel No.
134-141-07) . It is comprised of one, developed parcel of
flat land and contains one structure which abuts the lot
line on all four sides . (See Exhibit B)
The Platt Building consists of approximately 46 , 000
square feet. The office portion of the building contains
four floors which total 35, 780 square feet of space. The
entrance for the office portion is located on 5th Street.
The theater portion is divided into two major areas - the
theater and its lobby. The theater area is nearly four-
stories tall but has only two stories, the ground floor
and a balcony, which total 9500 square feet of space.
The theater lobby is located on the ground floor on "E"
Street and totals 720 square feet of space. (Refer to
building floor plan in Appendix B. of Exhibit A) .
The site is designated CR-2, Commercial Regional on the
General Plan Land Use Plan map which permits a diversity
of regional-serving uses , in the downtown area. In
addition, the site is located in the Central City North
Redevelopment Project Area.
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3 . 1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located in an area of high
liquefaction susceptibility and potential ground
subsidence. The site also is in the Urban Archaeological
District.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND (, 1�
Application Number:
Project Description: �t
Location: C' 1
Environmental Constraints Areas:
< e u
�
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
AL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet
B. ENVIRONMENT
Yes No Maybe
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in:
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?
d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical
feature?
e. Soil erosion on or off the project site?
f. Modification of a channel,creek or river?
g. Development liquefaction or other similar hazards?
mudslides. �
h. Other?
• PLAN-9D6 PAGE 1 OF 6 (`>a
2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe
a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient X
air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Development within a high wind hazard area? X
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?
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? _
f. Other?
4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. Change in the number of any unique,rare or
endangered species of plants or their habitat including .�
stands of trees?
b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or
endangered species of animals or their habitat? ��-
c. Removal of viable,mature trees?(6"or greater) \/ _
d. Other? /
S. Noise: Could the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over
65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB?
c. Other?
6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the land use as designated on the �(
General Plan?
b. Development within an Airport District? _
c. Development within"Greenbelt"Zone A,B,or C?
d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? _
e. Other? ,---
.
C* OF �„ ,,,,e„o PLAN•6A6 PAGE 2 O 6 1 1
T. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: Yes No Maybe
a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or
toxic materials(including but not limited to oil,
pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? _
b. Involve the release of hazardous substances?
c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? _
d. Other?
S. Housing: Will the proposal:
a. Remove existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing?
b. Other? —1�-
9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal result in:
a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land
use designated on the General Plan?
b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking
facilities/structures?
c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? _
d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? _
e. Impact to rail or air traffic?
f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or
pedestrians?
g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? _
h. Significant increase in traff ic volumes on the roadways
or intersections?
L Other?
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following
beyond the capability to provide adaquate levels of service?
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? _
c. Schools(i.e.,attendance,boundaries,overload,etc.)? _
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
s. Medical aid? X
f. Solid Waste? _X
g. Other? _
CMV CF SM GOW&M o • PLAWOM PAGE 3 OF 6 (5-9d
CFNTPU PFWnNG3E11MCFS
11. Utilities: Will the proposal: Yes No Maybe
a. Impact the following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilities?
1. Natural gas?
2. Electricity? -- --
3. Water?
4. Sewer?
5. Other?
b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions?
c. Require the construction of new facilities?
12. Aesthetics:
a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic view?
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area?
c. Other?
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? —
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a
prehistoric or historic site,structure or object?
c. Other?
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
The California Environmental Duality 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.)
PLAN.9D6 PAGE 4 OF 6 (`�
Yes No Maybe
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.)
• pLµ.p p8 PAGE 5 OF 6 l54101
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23, 1990
3 . 2 Environmental Impacts
3 . 2 . 1 Earth Resources
1.a.
The Platt Building has a small , subsurface basement that
will require excavation and fill following demolition.
The amount of fill material required could exceed 10 , 000
cubic yards . Prior to issuance of any permits, the City
will need to know the origin of the fill material , its
composition ( soil type and characteristics) , and the
proposed method of compaction.
Mitigation: The applicant shall submit to the City' s
Public Works Department for review and approval
information describing the origin of all fill material to
be used on the site, its composition (soil type and
characteristics) , and the proposed method of compaction.
The applicant shall secure a grading permit through the
City' s Public Works Department and grading operations
shall be in accordance with San Bernardino Municipal Code
(SBMC) , Chapter 15.04 . 210 and all applicable department
policies .
l .g.
The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone but is located in an area
susceptible to high liquifaction and potential ground
subsidence.
Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary regarding the
proposed demolition.
3 . 2 . 2 Air Resources
2 .a.
Removal of the four-story building on a temporary basis ,
may create dust and release other airborne particulates
during demolition activities.
Asbestos building materials are present in the building
and could constitute a serious health hazard.
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23 , 1990
Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for
the Platt Building, the applicant shall complete asbestos
removal operations in accordance with Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions
from Demolition/Renovation Activities . The Building and
Safety Division shall ensure that demolition activities
are consistent with conditions established by the AQMD.
3 . 2 . 3 Water Resources
3.a. ,d.
Removal of the building from the parcel will expose the
underlying soil . Exposure of the soil may increase
absorption rates , change drainage patterns and the amount
of surface runoff. In addition, increased absorption
rates may in turn increase the quantity of ground waters
present. The resulting impacts would be minimal given
the parcel ' s small size and flat topography. Such
impacts also would be temporary since future development
on the site likely will require the construction of
impermeable surfaces.
Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary regarding the
proposed demolition.
3 . 2 . 4 Noise
4 .a. , b.
At this time, the Platt Building is unoccupied and has no
effect on the noise levels in the downtown area.
However, noise levels on site and in the vicinity could
increase significantly during asbestos removal , building
demolition and grading activities .
Mitigation: During asbestos removal , building demolition
and grading activities , the applicant shall employ
feasible and practical techniques to minimize the noise
impacts on adjacent uses . The hours of these activities
shall be limited to between 7 : 00 a.m. and 10: 00 p.m. ,
Mondays through Saturdays .
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23 , 1990
3 . 2 . 5 Land Use
5 .e.
The General Plan land use designation on the site is CR-
2 , Commercial Regional which permits a diversity of
regional-serving uses. Demolition of the Platt Building
will not effect the land use designation. However ,
clearing the site will increase opportunities for the
establishment of other kinds of land use activities as
permitted in the reviewed sforcGeneral Plan consistency
proposals will
and compliance with City ordinances upon submittal .
Mitigation: No mitigation is necessary regarding the
proposed demolition.
3 . 2 . 6 Man-Made Hazards
6 .a. ,b.
Removal of asbestos from the building will involve three
potentially hazardous activities - the removal , transport
and disposal i
activities could result in asbestos fiber emissions.
Mitigation: Same as Section 3.2 . 1, Air Resources , 2.a.
6.c.
The Platt Building is one of the larger buildings in the
downtown area and its very size tends to magnify the
hazards inherent in demolition activities. Larger
buildings often take longer to demolish safely.
addition, the building has a subsurface basement and
excavation activities will be necessary. Excavation
activities also will increase the time needed for
demolition.
The building abuts the lot line on all four sides and at
the public right-of-way on the west and north boundaries.
As such, demolition activities on the west and north
sides will urbso sidewalks
both 5th and EalSpossibly
Streets.
beyond the c
1
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23 , 1990
3 . 2 . 9 Cultural Resources
9.a. ,b.
The Platt Building was built over fifty ( 50 ) years ago
and as such, the building must be evaluated for
historical significance as part of the review for a
demolition proposal . This evaluation is in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the City' s Urgency Historic Structure Demolition
Ordinance (MC-694 ) . The applicant has submitted an
Historical Resources avconsultantRfirmtexperienced in
Hatheway & Associat e
Historic Preservation (Exhibit A) .
As a result of the following archival
Hatheway & following observations
regarding the Platt Building:
- The structure is unique HHoward E asJonesdesigned
and
by San Bernardino architects
John P. McNeill and constructed by local
contractors. the
The building nd and significant
business and commerce i
history Y n San
Bernardino.
The Pancho ed lai along ti California
Hotel , the historic
business district in the downtown.
- The building is an excellent example of ( 1920x)
commercial architecture is of
remaining such examples of its period and type-last in
the City.
Mr. Hatheway concludes that the Platt Building does
appear eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places in accordance with Criterion C. (This
cont a inednins36 based on CFR 60 - 4 .he A copy published guidelines
guidelines
mis
co
found on page 1 , Exhibit A. ) .
In Section VI . , Recommendations , Mr. Hatheway discusses
the four basic forms of mitigation for impacts resulting
from the demolition of a potentially historic structure.
His recommendations regarding mitigation are found on
pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit A.
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23 , 1990
Mitigation: The applicant shall prepare a complete photo
recordation of the Platt Building. Four complete sets of
the recordation shall be maintained by the following
entities: the Department of Planning and Building
Services ; the Feldheym Library; the City' s Historical and
Pioneer Society ; and, the State Office of Historic
Preservation. (Refer to Exhibit A. , pages 11 and 12 of
the Hatheway & Associates Study, for an explanation of
photo recordation) . In addition, the applicant shall
salvage and adaptively reuse the architectural materials
and features of the building that are of a period or of
historic interest. (See Note, below) Storage of salvage
items shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Said
mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of any
permits .
Note: Photo recordation and salvage of architectural
materials and features are highly specialized fields of
Historical Preservation and such activities require the
advice and assistance of a qualified consultant.
3 . 2 . 10 Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065)
14 .a.
The Platt Building does appear to be significant to the
City' s development history and is one of the last
remaining examples of its period and type. However , the
building does not represent an important example of a
major period of California history. While on-site
preservation would be the preferred alternative to
demolition, the building' s history during the past decade
indicates that this may not be feasible.
The Platt Building has remained largely unoccupied for
over ten years with the exception of the theater and the
small concession space tenants . In January 1983, the
building owners entered into an Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) with the City' s Redevelopment Agency and
attempted to renovate the building. However, the
building is structurally substandard and requires
retrofitting to tie the floors to the outer walls. The
owners began the retrofitting and renovation activities
but due to financial constraints, the work has never been
completed. Other shortcomings related to the building
include inadequate parking and a generally rundown
appearance.
INITIAL STUDY FOR DPR 90-2
AUGUST 23 , 1990
In accordance with the OPA, the owners tried but could
not secure tenants for the commercial office portion of
the building. In May 1989, the theater tenants vacated
their space and the owners of the small concession will
be vacating their space shortly.
Indications are that if the building were restored and
retrofitted in accordance with applicable state and
federal guidelines, there would still exist the problems
of securing tenants and providing adequate parking. Mr .
Hatheway states that barring on-site preservation of the
building, the most logical alternative mitigation appears
to be recordation and/or a combination of recordation and
salvage of the materials and features of the building
that are of a period or historic interest , (Exhibit A. ,
page 12 ) .
- - �.d�d �1•�
wuwaw/ i7iRi• iMWr1s —
i 1» iO .7
ot
OF
OFOr
OL
Ole 001,
All'
goo Ol o,
4
,' -W _.
vl
E" STREET
N
`yl w
� C p
0
Ou
h
7� ;Ijr
ro p
QI
0
T�
I
IV+. 1 1. -.4. • ,
RIO
441•
ids .', - 4
�. •�,.,. •.,� �•-it r': Vf � � - - _ -._ _ . �.
far• .. � _ __ i."` -Y ti. v+..�r
.. _ ,• 1� - _ _ ' .h ,/fir./
��f >Z_YT
LLJ
_24 -_ - 0 c a.
T
Nla17 Ol OwO.;�:VS `_a
pip
- 1 •
.fl0• F -
-41W
O•�•�� � . �_� rte; -,�
• 10 '.
Al
• �
' •lv+-r'..::.�. � _ _.. _ .. � *mow ,! -'�`="ate �','t''x -
1
• .�w•�.' �. — _ bra. y7i.. r�_�t'•','- --:�
i ' V • -_ _. � -__,�� .�._ __ � �it—3`.�'R.7c—fir- d`::;;
c h- uas
• _t
�L--,rte, Ste- . , , -
Az
i1i L1 �iQ � ' `C
L
J
• d-,f/ y
r
Q _ -WE �_r
r W
tit
LL
- S
I
a.
Fit
1 T N
0000 .
N
t
1
A�ti' .�0_• I ^_' -III � ``..'�aT
j«der _ _� :: �: , �j� -_ � y,��• ':
ro
EL
Ln
tie
vi t
WNW
art 1>�. •� 1�. ;,, � '/.� � 4 �
A .I.•Sdr^•^
:rL�+4„�,/.�i,'., �•+i,-�r�.;•�.:,.... .lh�y.• -�r::�..i->•.�:. r 'mss"iC'' ;.•� L. a � .�'j
...i a• .�?'Jl. • -_ > •t(.�,L�'iL•'�t':a.. 'T� s_ � .<.'.\\ +..vwL'J�rT C1. r. .�'+l- 1+t�I •.
�':X: '�`� ��i>•� "' - ,-�• � I" , JIB _ ' '�r•/
••��'1rt�'F..�L�' .A1+,�1'�jl i: .t'�_. r• .=i -:i-..r+r.►.,i�:. i� ' :4�:.,. ��ii
1 'r 1 i •Ht ~l'J' •._\ y , - —`]L• _��. ,�, arj b�-: _ 1p' .,'y'•1
Ij
j'J%i•raW
r.. � 1 •+� -f • t, v-
APPENDIX"C:
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS; —
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade R
2. ) Detail "E" Street -Facade -Theatre/Deco ati-ve Detail
3 . ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4 . ) Detail 5th Street Facade-.Office Entry--
5 . ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobb�r., Arse Upp-er-R-"mra
7 . ) Overall View t* South Alba
to
� r
Imo- ' 1 � ' •ry"" � '.
AV
r-
11AI11[WAY
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7 . ) Overall View to South /long "E" Street
I
■
j
o7a ;.' Y ,
i
T I
1
nAtiuwAt
2
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7 . ) Overall View to South M ong "E" Street
IIA111t WAY
3
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7 . ) Overall View to South -Along "E" Street
■ I
■■ ■■■ ;; ��� ■
I
. 1•x'1 1��•1
nit u�war
4
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7 . ) Overall View to South Along "E" Street
I
-w
:. %i it
• � Asa _ y .�
. ) Overall View of E Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7. ) Overall View to South Along "E" Street
Rte,y.
IIA1111 WAY
6
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2 . ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of Sth Street Facade
4 . ) Detail Sth Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7 . ) Overall View to South Along "E" Street
IIAt nt wwr
,7
1 . ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper -Floors
T. ) Overall View to South Along "E" Street
APPENDIX D:
HISTORICAL DATA
NEWSPAPERS
CITY DIRECTORIES (San Bernardino and Los Angeles)
CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 12 , 1990
TO: Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning & Building
Services Department
FROM: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Platt Building - Historic Significance and
-- Background
------------ --------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The Platt Building, an office building located at 491 west Sth
Street, was built by developer Frank Platt in 1924. The building
is listed in the Historical and Archaeological Resources Element
of the General Plan in Table #16, Potentially Significant Historic
Structures . Table #16 lists pre-1941 structures which were part
of a general reconnaissance survey conducted during the update of
the City' s General Plan: The survey was not comprehensive of the
City and as regard the individual structures included in the
survey, it can not be considered complete. However, the building' s
inclusion in the survey does indicate potential historical
significance and public interest in the structure.
Physical Condition
The exterior of the building has a rundown appearance and is in
considerable disrepair. The physical condition of the building' s
interior is unknown since no one from the Planning & Building
Services Department or the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has been
inside in recent years. In terms of physical condition, it can be
assumed that the building' s interior is reflective of its exterior.
Background - Redevelopment Efforts
In January 1983 ; Arthur Gregory, the property owner, entered into
an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with the City' s RDA. Under
the terms of the agreement, the RDA was to demo a building adjacent
to the Platt Building and construct a parking lot on the site. The
Platt Building does not have adequate parking and the newly
constructed parking lot was to be leased to Mr. Gregory. For
reasons not pertinant to this memorandum, the RDA was unable to
fulfill its OPA obligation. The property owner ' s OPA
responsibilities included renovation and retrofitting (in phases )
of the building and upgrade of the property.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
PLATT BUILDING - HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND BACKGROUND
JANUARY 12 , 1990
PAGE 2
Backaround Redeveloipment Efforts (Continued).
During the last several years the property owner has been unable
to secure tenants for the building and several of his commercial
tenants have moved. Consequently, he has been untie to finance
the required renovations and meet the terms bf' tb**bPA. The OPA
was first amended in 1986 and a second amendment was authorized by
the RDA Commission in 1988 . The second amendment was, never signed
by the property owner or the RDA. On June 14 , 1989, the RDA
Commission declared the property-owner in default of been PA and
all subsequent amendments. To date_, very little _oos�
renovate or retrofit the building-. to
Demolition - Considerations and Recommendations
If the property owner submits application for demolition, the
project and application are subject to the provisions of the
Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC-694 ) . The
demolition application would require an Initial Study and review
by the City' s ERC. The application, environmental documents and
Historic Preservation Report would then be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Task Force. In accordance with MC-694 , the Task Force
would consider the appropriateness of demolition and possible
alternatives such as rehabilitation, relocation and reuse.
At this time, the Planning Section does not have the resources or
expertise to evaluate the building to determine its historic
significance. It appears, however, that the building has
sufficient historic significance to warrant further study by a
Historic Preservation specialist. Therefore, if demolition of the
Platt Building is actively pursued, Staff recommends that the City
hire a Historic Preservation specialist to fully evaluate the
historic significance of the building.
HISTORIC LANDMARKS: D FIGURE 14
contl w"
61
.'� :Jill
lam
~ Platt Builting
62 --r
NO-
' a
•t �` '_
,. tiv�)ItTfl rQ. lyQL11{IUIR -rc
3i�.t1
Woolworth Building
.,> . .
3-28
%E le
TABLE 12 (page 2 of 3)
8. Platt Building,; Southeast corner of Fifth and "E" Streets (see
Plate 6*)
Built in 1924 by developer Frank Platt as a downtown office building.
As a young law student, future president Lyndon Johnson ran the
elevator in 1925.
9. San Bernardino County Courthouse, Arrowhead Avenue at Court Street
Built at the site of the Mormon Council House which served as the
first courthouse, this courthouse was constructed in 1926-27 to
replace the earlier stone courthouse. This was also the site of the
city's earliest house, the Lugo adobe, and of the Mormon Stockade.
10. Santa Fe Rialto and Rite Route Station, Viaduct Park, Third and Mount
Vernon
Built in 1893, this train station has been moved from its original
location just east of "E" Street. This station was the first stop
out of the main San Bernardino station on the eastern loop of the
Santa Fe Rite Route track.
11. Women's Clubhouse, 580-West Sixth Street
The San Bernardino Women's Club was established in 1892, and erected
this building in 1906.
12. Woolworth Building, Southwest comer of Fourth and "E" Streets (see
Plate 6*)
Built in 1936, this Art Deco structure is sheathed in orange and
brown terra cotta. It is an excellent example of the Modeme depart-
ment store of this era.
13. Amasa - Lyman Rich House, 783 Mountain View
Built by Hamilton Wallace in the late 1870s, this two-story wood
frame residence is believed to be Lyman Rich's original residence in
San Bernardino.
Additional structures which could potentially qualify as significant
historic resources but which have not yet been researched include the
following:
14. Arrowhead Baptist Church, 631 North "G" Street
15. Colliver House, 950 West "D" Street
*Source: Steele's Historic Photo Collection.
2-77
• SjLN bEkMARDINO CITY HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
Prepared for the City of San Bernardino Historical and Pioneer Society by
Arda Haensael, July 1985•
(These. a=e all visible evidence. No mere sitee are included.)
HOUaES
Cox Adobe 927 tit. View Built ca. x.858. See_?Tour Book.
One of two surviving houses of adobe construction, discontinued after the
1862 flood. Possibly built by Pioneer Fabuns. Bought by pioneer Coxes
in 1867, and occupied by them over 50 Tears,
Martin Adobe 120 E. 5th Built betw. 1857 & 1861. Part of Seccombe State Park.
Land bcught 1857 by Noses & Emma Martin. Homestead declared 1361. Martin
P, 1 a Union -man in predominantly Confeder ate._San:.,Bdno. Known as orator. Mormon.
Personal and financial troubles in family. Adobe sold 1890'x. Rented by
r 10� pioneer Ames & Doyle families. _. ";ice:
Ralp_hS E o1ise 1298 W. Mill Built 1883. .
John C. Ralphs Sr. early brick mason, 'faraer* city marshall, & sheriff in-
volved in hunt for :Tillie Boy, & the Death V#lley Scotty affair in Wingate .a;
Colli_ver C ouse 950 N. D St. .
Dr. J. T. Colliver a prominent turn-of-the-cdbntury physician.
Beritare Eouse SW corner 8th & D. Sbr 102'
See vD zSBY V049 p.2; V.5• p.44; 7.59 p•59.,':
Built by Superior Judge George Otis of Redlands, and sold on completion to
his associate, Judge John L. Campbell. Later owned by members- of pioneer
XcElvaine and Ames families, and Miles family. douse given to-City of S.B.
Hist. & Pion. Soc. by Santa Fe Savings and Loan in 1978-
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
Heritage Buildinc 440 Court St. Built 1928-•29.
Designed for the Pioneer Title Co. of San Bernardino by architect De Witt
Mitcham, it is a good example of the restoration of a historic structure
for modern commercial use.
Andresen Building 320 i'. E -St. Built 1927• SBr 090
Standing on a corner lot bought by John Andreson Sr. in 1870, the present
building succeeds the earlier brick Andresen Brewery. . It was built by
John,Andreson Jr. and his brother :+illiam, with Howard E. Jones as the
architect. It forms the � anchor of Inland Center Mall.
Garner 362 N. D St. Built 1877-78 by R. F. Garner.
Occupied by early YFICA, and Judge A- A. Boren; later by furniture stores, a
dance studio, Labor Temple, Boy Scouts, various offices, and U.S.Selective
Services. New front and interior remodeling in 1931•
.. w
City' Landes. 2
Harris Co. Denartment Store 300 N- E St. Built 1927•
Brothers Herman and Philip Harris opened a dry goods store on 3rd St.
between D and E' in 1905; and were soon Joined by another brother, Arthur.
After expansion and a move to another location on 3rd St. , the company
finally built this building, designed by Howard E. Jones, that later be-
came the Z"I%anchor of the Inland Center Mall.
Platt luilding SE -corner 5th & E. Built 1924.
Built by developer Frank ?latt. As a young; law student, future President
Lyndon Johnson ran the elevator in 1925. -Dedicated to him is a plaque in
the entry by Cyria Oars. Randall) Henderson, well-known sculptress.
PUBLIC- BUILDINGS
Home of Neighborly Service 839 11. Mt. Vernon Built 1926. SBr 088
Community Center built by Presbyterian and -other Christian organizations for
-social service particularly to Blacks and Chicanos of the neighborhood.
Apart= 999 N. Mt. View. Built by 1908.
Presently divided into residential apartments, the building was a private
r hospital in 1908, and the County Detention Rome in 1916-17.
Rialto & S _St. Kite Route Station Viaduct Park, 3rd & Mt. Vernon. Built 1893•
Moved from oririnal location, just east of E St., the first stop out of--
main San Bdno. station on the eastern loop of Santa Fe Kite Rte. track-, an
important excursion and co=ercial turn-of-the-centuro line.
Patton Kite Route Station Highland Ave. nr. Victoria_ . Built 1893 -
Original name "Asylum", the stop at the then new State Hospital on Santa
Fe .loop line.
Court House Arrowhead Ave. at Court. Built 1926-27•See ODYSSEY,V:1,p.54;V.5.o.1'
Built at the *site of the Mormon Council Rouse which served from 1853 as the
first court house, this building replaced an earlier stone building at Court
and E. This was also the site of the city's earliest house, an adobe built
by the Lusos before 18429 and of the Mormon Stockade, built for protection
against threatened Indian raids.
Sturges Auditorium S:r' corner 8th and E. Built 1925 SBr 100
See ODYSSEY V. 3, p.43.
The Junior High School, dedicated late in 19249 was named for David B. Sturge:
a teacher and principal in San Bernardino High School, and former owner of
a private academy and business college. The auditorium was completed soon
afterward.
Cultural Center & Fire Hall :r4 corner 11th & E St, Built 1930's.
An early project of the ::orks Project Ad=inistration. 2he'buildine has
served as a cultural center. It is no longer used as a fire station, but
now .houses a neighborhood police center. '
I
s.
Ir FmARM4(�
•e� ��
I
Platt Building
This building, on the southeast corner
of 5th and E Streets, San Bernardino, is the
one in which Lyndon B. Johnson, later President
of the United States, ran the elevator for a
short time, then became a passenger in it as
clerk in the office of Atty. Thomas L. Martin.
"REFER ' r.:..
EN cc ,
11 Part 11—TUES.,NOV.26,1963
S•8• Cc, Ls�Sn�rlr��tntce t
• y 4':. 'air*• t I_s.�
i Ifi+� t "•'
UIFT folt JOHNSON�preSidtnt Johnson
Building ran the rtlevotor awh;s , Platt
�^�'dino +en this picture• P was t Oft November, 1925.
Johnson Had His
:r
us+ �.
and Downsift.Cififo r V_
TOM Youth, Future President,in 1925.26 ^'
Ran Elevator in San Bernardino Buildin
-,� 9
Texas nearly lost Lyndon tar several months he
B. Johnson to California 3g c�naa a clerk for one of the
years ago. atmrneys in the fora - - „
President Johnson. then a o[i'iq huiiding. -"
tall lanky Texas boy d 17, But the future Presidents
took a job as elevator opera-roots were to Texas and in
ter in the Platt BuIldinR the tall of 1926 he returned
shortly after it npenM in-Southwest e State�Teaeherrs
aowntown San Rernardinn lColleae at San t1ar,,n.
Jo r
In
Ov-)YtFr
tale ;1 i r , C'_hi i
Le
EY,
� arc � _ •-
�q
•)hoto Shows House'w ere l�8lodr ec
My search for the have in which!redd9
B. Johnson lived in San Bernardino.is m
z vlWe he ran the elevator in the Platt Building;moved
yesterday when Mrs Verna Copple. 111E &
t - 41verside Ave.. Rialto, furnished me with.a photo-
Ntraph of Mrs..Martha C haG s boarding horse, 376
F Street.
' The house was moved from boarder. Lyndon Johnson-
the site.years ago and, as' "I don't seem to remember
+ �liah be" ben unable its presort locatlon -Lyttdoa Johnson at a4" said
xm
werlaad Gtegoey, a boarder ��' ��e were
at the Mallie bomb who fre• > hooters at 4 mother-
at
quentlp saw Johnson, then-a hrlaw's home. Some stayed
.., lanW Tens youth, at the' 'a* a week or-so, others
pierce. said•i< was moved--too pfd.a few dropped in
the east section of the city,�� foe-meahi ow occasionally.
IT HOUSED A FL'TC£E PRESIDE'N'T probably on 4th or 5th Street. I, do-recall some of the
Mrs. Copple was a daugb guests. .PAY Ira MY
ter-baaw to the thaffk fam- but not car •
ily in nZ and lived at the
F Street address. Like the Myers, now a resident of
ChaMe sous, Victor and Seth. 3015'N. E St., San Berner-
she cannot remember the . dht6 mean having seen
Johnson frequently at the
Chaille boarding home. John-
son, be said, lived in an up.
stairs (root bedroom in the
ChaMe home.
What happened to the old
house? Where was it moved
and does it still shad?
Two state boards will come
to San Bernardino n e z t
month to view, first hand,
the work they direct in the
conservation of nature re-
sources.
So Be F�- J� at J- ohri. n 0o Stay ..
VA
-- Unti'l Hr esl*den'' d
B y LEONARD ME'IZ
at 3T6 F Street, but later was moved.
iun•T�M�nn, sun writer There is no record of what ha
San Bernardino looked mighty good ` • to it happened
to the gangling youth from Texas. It The boarding douse owners were
was big — nearly 30,000 inhabitants — Albert C. and Martha ChaWe. Johnson
but It was friendly. ' '
stayed in an So he stayed on, while his friends hoot rte'
Vertand E., Gregory, who slept in a
traveled north to -TebachapL He took -` baulk-bedroom, remembered Johnson is
a room in a little two-story boarding a. Lpky Texas youth who ate at the
house on F Street. He may bane washed same table with dim. Gregory ran the
dishes and sw shed sh hf a restaurant , Jiffy_-Shoe Repair Shop on 3rd Street
Possibly he�washed cars for a garage. # 1 � near.F.
The record is not char as some at L*Lloyd Myers,a streetcar coaductor
these points. c at the time, also recalled Johnson. But=
What is definite is that he ran an �•
elevator for a mouth or two in the Mrs Verna Copple. a daughter-in-law
home'at the
Platt Building on the southeast corner wb Wived in the'C'didn't remember him at alL
of Sth and.E streets. He then became S0
a clef in an attorney's office in the , now , sa Is Johnson was a.
same building. qG* Youth who didn't make much utt
Nobody suspected that a future Presi- - an Impression. -•
dent of the United States was walking "We called him the tall. Tlimu kid,"
among them. Lyndon Baines Johnson SW `Myers. "He was polite, and he
was only 15 on-that first visit to San r h."
muc
Bernardino. When he returned for a se- J didn't.rim the Platt Building
cond tune, a President seeking re- elevator long. He soon became a clerk
election. he was 56. in the office of attorney Thomas -L.
Earl E. Buie, Sun•Telenram columnist, Martin, and became a
Passenirr,rather
learned of Johnson's 1925 stay in the than an elevator operator.
city, and wrote a number of columns Mrs, Ray Tipp, Un secretary who
about it. In 1960 he telephoned Johnson, PMU from Ira 6Nyr M„H probably made out Johnson's check,
then running for vice president in didn't remember him. But Mrs. Ada
Washington, D.C. LBJ's Boardinghouse Bleacher, Martin's legal secretary, said
Following. as Buie recorded them. are she often beard Martin .,yak of
some of Johnson's Impression of •his ...Johnson stayed at 376 Ir SL Lyndon.”
youthful visit to San Bernardino: in"I certainly remember San Berner- 1925 I recalled.spoke so"that I affectionately.*ugLyndon she
dino. I arrived there with four other _ though
boys from our neighborhood. We had I 17 do remember one thing." he added. a Johnson told Buie that be had fond
pooled our resources, and bought a top- "I went up to the Santa Fe to memories of his visit.
less Model T Ford for 05 in which hear.Charles F. Dawes, the Re ucan I'll tell "
to make our trip to California. We were vice presidential candidate, talk from San l tell dyi O. AM If said. "I liked
going to make our fortune out hf the ( the rear of the platform of his train. me out of Texas �' ever run
Far WesL He was the arst candidate for either , rm coming back out
"As I recall it. we passed through vice president or president that I ova there to live." ..• •- 7%,
Riverside. I thought the orange groves taw. Johnson came from a 'f n*. d
Ed the coantryaide were beautiful. And "I remember that your- congressman ' Pl meets On one tide was a soldier
when- we arrived to San Bernardino. was Phil D. Swing," he said. "Your who fob along Washingtok- at
I dedded this was the town for me. I congressman of today (in 1960), Harry Yorktowu. On the other was a dgmer
It seemed such a nice town, and the S. Sheppard. one of my dearest friends, of the Texas Declaration •of Inds:
people we friendly. I often talks to me about San Bernardino :a'wuv.
"I left the party, and with 85 in my ' and revives the good memories I have His father and>irudfather both ae:oed'
pocket struck out on my own. I )uat of your town." in the Tomes u�k Hi+�W
can't remember the first thing I did - After six or seven months, young �described Pad more bills thaw-
in the way of Work there. It could have Johnson became homesick and returned myom Wes.'!• -
been that I slung hash in one of your to -Johnson City. TeL "The prettiest When Johnson- was born, hill:
CafeL thing I ever saw to my life," be later grandfather. � �T J� D
+'-"Aefwar. I -do remember getting a recalled. "was my grandmother's. oa% •
job rimming the elevator In the Platt patchwork quilt on the foot of my bed" I ,.. '� "f+` r
3dldlog. I remember the names of the. . He didn't remember the location of -K
ationz;, Frank•C. Platt and his son, the rooming chose in San Be'nudino. ` ��t•�ar�*! It�i"�
`Ltrwnnus«` I ions a picture of the. bone in my
at%ndid meetings of the I imp Wok at my rand'ltome to Tms,"
C1ati.'Deeloctab were se,din he told suie, •'and if I era b tt,
0! iscsstled:
-He
> - PIl send it to you. Maybe t>�
` Could l WzWy the house,»•-V.
tai games df the 'ba w
'_�:', ;,m*home is no:low.tho It 'wig
A United States senator was born for donations — preferably small
tors Through his column, Buie began ask-
"
; today U my grandson."
ones. Response was enthusiastic.. and
f The old man was right. But be should several hundred dollars were raised.The
have aimed a little higher• owilts of the Platt Building were con.
He graduated from Johnson City ligh tatted, and said they would be delighted
School as president of his class of seven. to have the plaque.
and county debating champion. He was But this was an election year, and
six feet three inches tall. He was 15 Johnson was seeking to retain the job
yeas old. And footloose. that had been thrust upon him with
Soon after be was on his way west. the assassination of President John F.
He and his friends kept their funds Kennedy. Charles F. Bruckart, general
in a sack, which they buried each night manager for the owners of the building,
They pitched their tent on top of the. refused to permit the plaque to be placed
board to protect it until after the Nov. 3 election. .
When he returned to Texas Johnson "We're pod Republicans,an6Ve have
worked on a road gang for 31 a days Republican tenants."he said. - .
He worked his way up to tractor When Johnson came to town on.Oct
l operator at 00 a month before his 21 on the campaign trail, he was shown
mother induced him to return to school. the plaque — on .a platform outside
There were five Johnson children. The the Platt Building. But be got to run
family never had a lot of M but the old elevator again, after a lapse
each4hild graduated from toll Each of nearly 40 years.
of P,child helped a young one to "Going up," the President shouted.
get through With him were Lady Bird, Postmaster
After earning his bachelor of science Ken W. Dyal and Mrs. Mae Roberts.
degree. Johnson taught speech and the latest operator to succeed him at
history at Sam Houston High School the controls.
in Houston, Tex. He coached the debat- 'The same old place." the President
teg team, which won the 1931 Math said softly, looking around at the old
! championship. And be helped Richard building.
! Kleberg win the congressional seat in . Outside. 20.000 residents of S a a
the San Antonio area. Bernardino waited until Johnson finished
That ended Johnson's tea carter. running the elevator — then listened
8 to a fighting campaign speech. The
He went to Washington as Meberg's. crowd included Dyal. who later that
secretary. There. in 1034, he met and year was elected to the House of Re-
married Claudia Alta Taylor. more af- presentatives. And a great many Secret
fectionately known ar "Lady Bird" Service men.And a former movie actor,
•Johnson. She was with him when be Ronald Reagan. who said he liked
returned to San Bernardino to 1014 on Johnson. but urged everyone to vote
his successful presidential funpaiga for his opponent.Barry Goldwater. -
vaB. That was Johnson's last visit to San
Early to 1011, Buie came up with Bernardino. But after he wail gone, the
an idea. Why .not place a ue in plaque was installed in the Matt Build,
the • Platt Building alongside' t h I. iog alongside the elevator operated by
elevator? After all. few elevators-Have a youth nobody remembered — until
had future presidents as_operators. he became President.
w * Sunday. Oet. 28. 1994 • The Surf did 20 yers a o crowds.
flocked to see LBJ
By JAN RODDICK ,
UM sun w.Ho
SAN BERNARDINO—Almost exactly 20 years before former
President Gerald Ford came to town to campaign for President
Reagan.the former Death Valley Days host himself was in town to
do a little campaigning. . . '
Reagan. then a relatively recent convert to the Republican
Party, was at the California Hotel in San Bernardino that day in
1984 to stump for the Goldwater-Miller presidential ticket-
R eagan's visit wasn't exactly a high point of his early days
on the campaign trail,for a far more prestigious visitor
was in San Bernardino the same day to woo voters for
his own presidential bid. To make matters worse for
Reagan.the other visitor had once worked.if only briefly.in San
' Bernardino so he was.in a way a hometown fellow.
The other visitor. if you haven't already figured it out, was
President Lyndon B.Johnson,who had been president since the
November 1983 death of John F.Kennedy.
Crowds Jammed the area around the old Platt Building at
Fifth and E streets on Oct 2B,1984.to see LBJ and Lady Bird visit
the building where Johnson.at 17,worked briefly as an elevator
operator.
Reagan appeared to accept the brouhaba for the president
with reasonably good humor.
Hearing the crowd roar when LBJ appeared.Bean W-Auipped
to a reporter,"I never expected such a tremendous crowd toreet
me." -t--
Later,outside the hotel,Reagan asked a man M&S Johzison
campaign buttons if they were"the kind that change-to Goldwa-
ter after-the election."
Johnson spoke from a platform erected by city ass.on the
Platt Building's southeast corner.The Texas-born president pledg-
ed to"keep the peace and keep America strong-"
We cannot make a foreign policy,we cannot keep the peace
by bluff.by threats and ultimatums,"the president said.
s the day turned to dusk and the city lights twinkled on.
Johnson told the gathering,."As your commander-in-
chief I tell you that today the United States is the strong-
est and mightiest nation on earth."
According to a reporter's account of Reagan's local visit,the
Republican group was riding up in a local business building's
elevator about the same time LBJ was invited to"try his hand"at
his old elevator Job. - • ' .
Also.while Johnson was speaking.Reagan was predicting the
Democrat's defeat.sa jdng the national polls had"deliberately lent
themselves to the Democratic campaign."
"I am convinced that.they are in no way indicative of the
feelings of the majority of the votes,"Reagan said.
Five days late.on Nov.3.UK Lyndon Baines Johnson was
elected president by an electoral vote of 40tf,'i2. ... ,
..:Three years and seven months later,be announced be would
not seek another term."Peace has eluded me,"he sales.' ' ..,.,
e �
I � :
am 1M/beft �
Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson in 'hW elevator. �;A
car.; Renew Search ,r JUBj�E ots' J J �I G BUTT L&Aged 1�� �:fll�ti
fur Missing Lr3t3 Hour �t , -
-- . . — OWN COJENNUKL BUIL61111101 BIDS Base Line Fire ' �.:::�:
;,,:1t}eTV Victim /rata I rata 1 in-se.
tnmiz .�ter HANDLES CASE ARE X196,000 �� ... . h.*18" 6
.y •uuwutW rued• ••d1•a �Sam'ins Pomrt '" 11~.tMa11aeo Y•f►Wt 4"Id a • ALL
.1.aT ea 4104 WV 's. - -.�:� ae« lo e«a csat•.saw ism
t�u w mwaaw•• JuM L Repree atsd is Endre Cat of Project �K11 l.a.Mw t.•. in"w City If f be saw
w•easfmSS sumo w. a : Appellate Court B7 Willll{�Bee :4aw, W.U.Ye'1mu am wit. taw
tsa.oa Mw% • 4"" r + met Rol MYMm"of W M•am"
IL IN" thtesr ages In Hilton. Ma •nosed and s.eh l tam
' 'r an ""ap TERRY ASKS CHANGE START O SOON "^ before �'use MUM
r wti wf ware swaegi Is erw w h..
toe the wail NYw y aside 1 R is
waeir "% IN at%" 11rdnro •1 arse..: A==W Sleuth Seeks to An Contracts Wm Go•to Donee SS W W Mae lltwww mem".glens IJea fries
rommiv t have -• - Be Tried Bdwe San Bawwdiae MUM es b N Sam wags•f rag.ver. Use 4
w •elwa tJiarftrlM
Avon&Only Una 0 She
Anedw Beach Aecitited SaYs r...an"..t away.d am
ra a�
• ��� Na me War arrtrafo let=&
W eswoum M m• neemosseat Mho•the Cal "Sia. George was A Con"" at this race Soalot w•laoa SSa.•
Distnaa coon K A - M itn- nth- was the Iser biller f« ton The terra, walo11 ame tillage b as wed
stag. N gite.ta Ask wN snomesa severs► islp O,• rust serf« sotl4a/ am Sn"S"- wlu baled w eon tons W&• trrwow•!.!
t lorret r ae �a - w r en"O ffty uu.vted N Wt w I.1110!N to be awetrl at gas Dear!• cllserr.w Sam WAS a Mr. in for ban
twn"W"" •f the saw of A, w. east twaw w Hwh ode z sun" TasW aalow/M b caws 1110 Perm"" t
•...--.C.•.--• , . era% sale"a as blaeo sera
ap alts vrgi at I" y'- Tens. d" 1114,11111 caMgiM sell wee were speed sawer11a Se tar sUt. " IN
bribery, N ae•uwr wort ter tfls. echoes s• 1Nw•rl 1: Jweo a ltvcN11lrgi. ft.a" tY
,j...*-ti The IloMS SAM M Soon eewaasa is,
ftisursl IesaeU : rte!`?-: l Tons Soot a shaass at eared M• Jobe T. "sNeY1•fsllt«ts.. fop Meth st.tM W>1M• gon"U" UP
left W rnw%a marsh a caws of we ass ned vr11JalN11a of Coaawawa N W tatlllra/won ��vnSSae digressing slpa,Mesta
o•l, whoa M owed '��� Jeep OWf'. .tart tnNtr W so"two M shoo• tai tMaSoS>ts of wnNtMa be wgetd, t
`ate It ohwa were Jo1p OIpYs tw.atn eetafeeta w«11a It era asoaoosum Nat ugiw 111 gesmw ot w Waft Saes M Mono at
tN loaf. v...w•Iw wen O. K. 11 Sao. or Ostaela ail. b I&Wmwe T. flats. Cgi1M O. V. th+eamw an• f"red set
p" Soot sal a sire" •other with Jeep Oleos or ton Taal seat of the Welding wen be elm" flat W am"" bet aMwteta N
Somme r M sae so• psitw l"pre N W swat S1N.1N.p Whom of tws"mso tsonvasa at� fMwSea sr we aonu be a
tie 7" sale "• SSe K mar ter ¢err "A of ser aaas o11s.T" hloaillal motorists me" awasho11L
ta..rt tial eta aa11gi b/ Y A. b Y/Ciaaf7. wh10%will be lewallsgi Q w wow Ukder".see the aaMon at Oder Roger
ti.aer 1111 w M1M• tllaappMlmfl,!r s!e f•ari c"I' Oaf e11/lo eta 1MSofe a IIM V40 4691,
la um Noah Coe• Mt Mow AlNrsere taoet 2%suff Caass".Sol/Wft
ostongi m ton rill. !torn aeafl7 ttv/womb a^. to rgWem/ prove attar"" to the Nta1 wed N ton MoNNe eo - sew orals
t W war tied regmant Mon hale OtM!Woofed MLM. whtra. with fed sgllratlaa orgi« pow
HY. es1eA wlellroo C1eYf N n 7osf11 MA W1 w paler. Atlafest G».. It. Joan• a led lot an a/ItSLSS1 rule / OMISS A� �� •M••• p
.le a1soL s&@"gv, whN NM oat. M Men ace,.Aged M Nw N nefesMa w• ton low mrgatelrtlI to 111LNL
alo os s wow"•Soot SOL No lob"" parlor own JMrt 1a eras•Aril• TM alp.Rarer IM led papal
r mesa ob- f�M rig Crew Avow*aria M 10 ton•WOW awn& oegt"t1 frlowtt Neat tgaessr
bt Jr1p ONq Sense may.lem Georgia Mon A Co.fee.awl pn.wl
altarsery-sf twos an "a< Aweg JoaasM Ca. It. A.1 "Lest of IINt /tr
it on w N !sews seeds M Chasms 111 1 oM us OBSEflV�H E IN �owe
f
011 OODER PAOTY BOOZES aavlottreat K e/aaW weg.r N C eadde 01eMw IL " 'M"wvnSoOt 11algi11rior eegel M/11s M wale.fed ton r•IStle/ oWt11sL tt_
the wana• um t•Mlrmaa A. a follows: TMs• N es
ttsam of tan eeMgi M"swoft• f*. N. Regional M. f l. ....11.Ip
era we r tons nor .. AI%MWS PSI"M1iMIW.. LM VIR110 PLE 9"9 wt11N w Sort/ leg low Aigiawa.►ruin• wgis..Cw. Lets Neat WEEK TO MEET HER. So . Me><M1h�t aeg A t..... ,~�, tow :
AID fro&M.O11atrat.p Is.al lt.lmm � snwaaa r
east,earM1 Ovesessfal Igise RetadYa To Near et ""L
AMM If ae'11sgi "M C%wer Ara As Nao1
rit>t T� Joie Ia Ceatral .Commlttset ,M unseen mandst. J11bt clew The wis mop" IM the alawM• Dt�t'� 'V Pirtle w«w
7W.U. L Be Otfaaised DurI00- an•.w.t w. awlSS wt+,:w si:aN :c ;few al ILNt w J�t'LviYtA M,.w
Present Week • � a N vuww bestowal Y """me OL IM1e AM) as�S.s1 ua/onoua
*,• TM Mew eatoiw far too bMUM e•�st la.•
AJ tw11 ear ireu eJo11 N
' •'fwM nveised tern/llSoOSrs tot"Owe"SO", ton OW wee M doe"6~is as- N'aer rrec
.t—fwo IM11Mre" •Owaa SWW%A wSeSe1tOSoSe at �y Ira 1M r W Mpwr era Ow Avon. a IL ILL /LM/ wrnew of AgNtloSeea )faro AN IW .
►►sr..at s'nth s. w tarns ton nosr%uaae gal .1J..nww r w weo ealai 1n,twrq Cm tb a.1 I,M ton ArMwa•d PWW of w S1M M~�
eptwwa the low Dmrtlat.tastes at the As/rM /w► Monsoon fogs t• w eem"arge /ISM ones oatnsese" as awgrt•
waatesgima. tyhtwe "' awes MISS tow at me wrania11So aa11ti Soo twat p Y amrmNayl t 111sf be 111101• was that Math the w au'aafala► SStlo aaotfafeart all as olalaraa
tlaalaaa aM'Aflws< wcgissagiAt aegi T%alralgia/. f11smea• alsYtst Att«os►Jnaasw wort M wewosawal .11111 M ion rlesnK of Callfseels lets W rtes by a Magi rapt
ro" U". a" wW SSeven In wohmm W poo m IM L &%" %alt M ll/ bidders asweslla ow er W Moral WWss heUf M ClrrllW W w L e.w 1S 1M =E"g weetgiaetw alwlleL .oleos Sow Isw N W rslrr weog-ton sw ailMoarnt lea«.MI nslteaf Moe" atseUOto %w• V s Is
Tie IINMIfoYs grow to low halo aetMl/taw ton MtNO wA so M 11eY1.K srui eat of es wont wheo lea aw we..uer.At. win be"w b►Wee Cltt fntan. w �� is% N t" Prm"cat "r Mal Mt m11Desalot of W aw• ISM Reelsel aiaeoefle/ laet M MN Y a%afrYw tf"1. sgi tie test.gia1-Agieslnslon Sfss•�tla 'Mfaal• SM AtNne1 IMawto Sow MM• woo oYtM Lot Mf. k sot "real Rau"Clam M11wm ale saw at obafp of .
NYaMM trues NOW Sawa/wale polpaM 11aU1 eoatnalgifa wed tw11 wt offl 11th aN sltratb
se sow.Y ail• aaeltlo IM Jaflw. A1lawlo►Mmes IM P11octlaY wtaeo.hvweror.wW teawnw. A d ablUS aM eat• wee owaSet for Soho JMa IL T111. v ' glled N onto. ogle Thglrgio M G"IGM 'AlSewloa era.awl 1 1
stloL soled eta TN cow" Noe Coss"" w s s eat, wul be sleet" b toes of "Nil of rho Labor loom" N ton Oat."r JMYos Jawmo SL lien• We tbeL •
wd � ton giaruom n!Iwo saafafaao11a Tgin caw fnww IM rowel IlIMM/ w calf Iwt flees to Sow a tnl aargiegtlllt ton N11oN asrwttrn"Istouao MML D.MtMN w1SS Mel at tie Iles a• ton SSN pawl reMrsNt non ton e W 11aoa es• r•fpgi Ttaaave arm ormito t h• Ilelgi aloowtasl Cwtwt oat la waula M the wwerie alataiea tssageo >.
huff la W stertisole al u •'• ben, !era aaSo wan tiepor of of M fNLw 1011 AM lar is W Mrs elno%ThralYt. • Ja1/t Oloaf M W tonal rt deer a use egs"es.M reforego N W efavo o w �r 4fo The ottYltleaMa eat ton Its. he defers M Attorney Charles L aWeltW aMteooa r - Sow Asese for A.allw W at IM All• "A slims MIWn/N M be tam At
ews"soot Art sYnua pa1'v alai . . weAw M bew*L It WR M of Asaw ones Oaf Vol M oil' Rao mess
Weow with 1110 /halt IL 1IItgiYgiML /1t1t ormbu L.Judn Oleos gip• saho"N oaenewtlNs aefM at ssSoe/M11• 'fit WNo ell heat
Now Jaws 1L 4ti11k w="fM0 K.vNwrd" NWwwafe '~may wtln a some" "ism Waster Gat aslotlatlaa N gislm M AIaN• an we t eo
IN+is/hops Is laeeaf rt610 4% e. NmNL trlSeleM M an Math /MrM11M era Day aW emir"A N aWINM
G 11a/a.t. Itl1w C ■tmg► ahw W.wrL et fie lo IIa/ weglfwun will Mal M a dl a " legend" 11th oSS }rte.at �ws
O I f.oe1 sawgieat UPON; L1Y'r•I&UBW weine tgtui/. K M oat+Soty 'ASS theater SS pint expena N.
rt..IM wSSl'flrt T Ram ttf Ontafwl w""M IL >r besnhs MW11 led too.*" twltgiW N N 11 HMM by led we J•Nt gdalgau+• M AIwb.Ma aa•u sew
I.eel
ebw M� Rom ASIs•LoWL dal. aa11n Icntelalat. J1Mp aloft Chase Tboale• fed a NaSS term of Oat ail/ Aaslrwesrt W. eoSe- more ae t
'f%tmgi ltewNl�lt. >L flrSeaa wNm a laserfer to Towt"a gulp. town, ?hs theater eaSeVaat will antleda w W tevff4" of g!s :esl'e frlr
Aawaas 1ggiL w" N Asti 4mv -,L I � — that r mom "was a am eon awalilg them of ftelawa am awe Verona"Mloelw,Mtn M"ft GaJ.JL
_ �Wae�st Irosawtil tslsl th JMp Olwf a islet to Ail•vismool► All soma. >r
No M 11111vua wgiw Mwwwt C. 1 !'shot.riNreL Wn%n •f ton Asg1~owed• IM NpM11ms• oil Cylfosar N assessed 1s In
lies t 1st imm a@~ edit. wo
I alf+s+w M*"too a Fowl. tllMflob-RowMr MUM "W n at at thc wegL &W&-4Lr
ftrw. fed grmc% test To". thwalgia W otwest. P M R IL Sew w 1"A NIM a w
fro t1.. .r.•1r..•tgSeL at: V. Gory. IL NaM.w C`w• LEGION P U =S
011ft7, aM IMwrhewstt &shed a tow Soo was Mae somwt•1 w foot.
M: V. L Gory. 1Na•msafltL sweep K raced le Jt1A/s OIw/o s11aa for LM Aarlreresry Rat hral•
�emortq at INNMaaal lift% lltlnot-e. W. Meti•hk croft_ JoU•Ofaff Jo111ed the 0190 wtlsa win owe at II Volans. •�r 'u"�
.+ ..M:�1 :amt tlr:o Allen JOWL Teeter CHO w4ter Roes .sew ter
1 114134"1 a0l Isteres" .roll Run/v atp"wt N ewtm. T. IilwsaN aagi (lot tlev11t ssalo t•>a�a
>R aff.a. atf•w W.AI`11. at sw "eme Mer1tht last M Sou pal nrrrmgr on p ,� Yee Mr1e an KItNWM N
Isar.• w Jowlow sofa 7ofaaflleol lt'aa% L' CraaL N trafNleN .,./wet 1*. .11..,••1 ors aa•��1777 •... . •• �•
losing
a C O
... gnome .. 'r�r O _W
06 z o`
m - m
}. x a o
`�►moo s �•
-
Al n+a aci t Z+�i o.. I 's v E-� �'pi a It
o !�O aco a x w4 w a,a, E � r oA AA ac a =g � 2
V mc; ar w 3 'w' 9owE "' a = 9�� cw ° at .,
„ RooeA� a ? w a> v � a,w°' a' w 'Fame a-
-
a .V 6r 0 V Q 3 0 �= O ��� 03+y w �C a �A — w
ate ey wao— m` m .: ., ao °� Er � ��- —oAV—]
CLA
°ice o °' ^ w �r f— E u u ° e+ a� G7 w a oA <� u o o+<E.
a a`+ �' E .0 a .° =c'�' C .4 u
PMM* 1 a
u Q .r p O q CCU t p
w ~ `� to aye c� �. o CE� �
e �y u �� Oir gds _Ca.+ '! "S�A ,, rc°+ ao
� 40
a. °a y e.°. $ V w= 312 's< iAI- o o e
_„ w a Qr �:t V
y < oCILO � 3�= f § t$=^ '- p r�n b V V— G� d� 3or
ryQC < u ` V p e� E< p� eg
m ��CCt �� wrwa.wyCvoVGOd 7x41 O
-• c�. a_ o w p y
C A m Z dy, w � �
.00 �Ne Cam, �'C V�C C w N �: N V r w .o.y GO c Oc
one eq 4:
E rL
NEW
dA
' SUSPlInS OTaOISTH (SITO)'H'S
w Y 'O Y�•v Y N w •"• �7 �•�+ w•r C C Y Y Ot Y ' w `'O Y Y Y
•� �'' 1s • �' �''"=� ' oe5
�' � Y�� • E m 4• ? � E—i .,
Y r =r p iYi A�„ w��A Y"C' H r� ; w O w tY..� �a a��`.•..V C V� w � .•. Y� E i•� �<
W '�w 4E z "�w• it"°- wa,w= �e�.. c.r■ �c�w � Q
us Y w^•, w�•►rJ■��E ■�Oe.�m"i= •E c�S G�h+ Y.°,°cw m i r
w�+
�
� E'g � Eee ■ a�-. vQa.� �-
Y w OC YZ44� ���� cW+� • Y • api �. � E
• `o •��W`o YyGd �i a.t c�a� a� Y� ■ tp� a.x L0. e=
i w i. • S y n i.•-+ c< w 4 ■ r' *>i V7 Y�•C n. m Q4 O L} V T C
B-4.5 Y m M V Y L. m G� w - Y = G- G7 M^Its ?
a !;A.-! i. i w Y It t o Y
Io °=�+ ^ ■ '.��a• o` �m C e e.-�'v �' e� a Y> a.E c �� s� �"'
fni tom= Y C- r ° o ■-- w o E 4� e..� S v:_ g ■ E ., v A a
�e Y ° v N v e aYn+ ° > e t e.': w= A� " hra w}i $ t� >`a 2S E� o `o av� ` �oL �s`cG'.�
5� �•E�.� 5Z �. rueY.. YW W You Lo. ° c ` Y C7 a,� ws; w'gO0f c ° o c�
�m E w ■ Y Y� w U ■Zv:< a,W v a o m�G�: ■Gdi-S.&-ow
�' •'s • orJ• :,°-:• E'rrjv "`a 5ism I=a 40
E. $� Er E b ar � s �e -`o
5 iso_' a e ._°.. ra e • CpV _°�•i E T c — ti E '
u V 7`_'Y, Y C E pptJ �' • w c°° Y Y wo ■ w Y a`rS $Yi C-2
�C -°. v
JO av�Yr3 �+ o way a .," 0.� �`;� w•�+ ■ e'°_a w—°°am cG' �' w �+ ■ ■ 'y' y a
W V O A C Yj +�S O-:—f'`" d O g V Oix.V.r. p� • Y E�'�•_2 C Y A °� Y++,t 4-,' c�r i�q
is waft�a • s,— E m�� eG�3 �a¢, In e �i e3 1°.p• {� Y� p'S �E v �� g��i� `o3� a° : �' e E
a i E Y c S- s V 0 — W L. Y Y aI f 3 Yf� '� w Q ' ;� V 5r w�+ � C c w w e �
w ■ eoee 'b ;,y�sE ri '.7ob - N o w Y • ■ Q
10rs w7 0... v i cW+ EGA E om0. 0 ■ E E v •�.s r•� �v.2 w
0— Y7w0E • oya° � � pf+ E, ■ t o o•—'
mw- a— Hm "7 Y� Yew w r •� O. .Vr •.r � O C i w €j Yu�f. - �O
C Y ■ _
E� -s-'E<w • �Y t L E— 3 Y•�oa m e.-w.o-f�v _Y E E! ' �ei�2.2 Y > �` EO'pp C 7
m
Y •= c
IS
., • iii. v 7 a v A. °cq c e tT p 0,c w
a
a
doc
cr-
.� }Cya� • O O w
is fto
O w d t
H CC o. a Y ..� 'T . rt • to Z— ao
EQo 9 e v 5m
CO ^^&}t • ."~j 9^ryq�, �: ^ V ii rml
=-11.1 '8- i_ V
ri 21
ccnn H
.� lr .ccMT G O r' V W =
Ic
it
Lo
"-�'" �y. •rte ..-y 3i�" F�� /G Y =_ 8O �� 1 � S
M ,� V a.•
...e.>:M.�aw.:;r�is:'. tY.�+wT^s»i�.i+►�sasdtaisx..e�_. G �i m �
f• -�'1�tr �=1` _�,?_-I•p'yrw �7 �r� '•Tl �Y' �' �lr'• �.'M�}., �
� 1'�'i. � -. � � �� +•rte.' 1, -
w.
- - -t�. ' � s �• . `• •in � .4 ,'�rt<• "r � �.,t. `�sS :c �w�s"� :_�'�'e F t' r _
.. _ SZ' „ „c} - �y ate: ��•+. �
• .s•�_ - A r + � �s�w t ''�.- ....,, a T �<I i. 'f'�'C ~Tr AjR�L-. ar+a'• ...2 �•T����7 -,
�.�••��'��'�- a+�..{:_ �� - = y=�f trio,pL�7VY•�J•�'Nt�% y:. � •r/..a'"l�•=4.i,2'�C!.�..p�s����,�'vf}�
IR
•�p _
� MA i.
CPI7ZENS, r. •-.� AASO Y
Savui - _
ia1 gs arrn.A �r o : e 'cater
_.........vice-presslield.
7 T Y • Y ~
_........_...---.vice-Prssident " >s ~• t ,�"' s� . '
- ..vice-Pr//e7• d
��si�� ent AND HOU
►r :i '�i` STRE�`I'
-'�ter... Aad. V•r��rs��•W�4• - a•1 .' }1.:� y am'�'u-•=-ii tucl _ �ifL '� '
i�. V(Id/iiST�. , C _ -y _ ..� •.,c _� i� </}'< �lL�rj,`F•�f sir / _ •
:- ank Of Neea"
Baratoso Braltcla 1
MAIL 0
`:"'.. � •y� �'a'�..'�`• •_�i.r^. � - ./�'��9�1a`�.._rte. �• � , I »�."� -s '4 '�.- r
Yf •' '#. ,T..,.W-A ` t •x`L �Ilh�l'r mac--ice+?` +` _ ,' * 1 .�< 'L. - �.:
dr L�vae `CIE;;:. [+' 'f t r .•_�ti- '� "�,y 3.�``K�r
. .l ; 'i. rte„��..• �•t\ <.e1,' J(- '}. '�PO� t•�-�_-.`• '4l.• ;�. e'r t��'�•
,;t t• -^ ors
{r}�y��' - �'.tt"i ��!:�' -'�', �.SI�� t s�� :1� i., w��,:,�'''}F�S�M� .e __. �/ �; 4.a��.jA.,�;yam'-�iy'�C ��♦ 3'j ~''I.i�T'`r?o y.
S ._ � , ;t- ��'i• '�.��-, •`Y..J•f.t.�1L � � e�L�v�Y�'M,�' tI �i�4 ,.A�• 4YS'rb �..� ��ii1 `�yy�•�.�•`�
v ,� `. .,f! �«riiii '�`7 t``[�• I .. !�i?yr�v .ta��• .
�� Y ,- �,; ._ �- �' ^nts ( ft.'1e � '1t a�a!1�r rr.f� - .' �t�, ,�•,. ,�.
"► �� ! T )Y' f I•'r" Asa
fte/•� �L '-1 _ _ .a hs�a,.`.'•z-•�•�a ���?.•r. +.��'C"id.•l .�t...i.+
STLSNABD`�1Q0`.-«� ' 'ZR
g"aOd Dews BOrgm.rYYOe 261 "�. J'•til flies ' Get%-; J •t
Jay"Pesaoaai Series"
Office and Yards, 134 South E St. gm ,
r
+14e 1Loiq�[a,<Be�llitLdrawG ai'Aar Time .�> Baa.•dieo,CAN.
- _ ,•4�T'. Jy ... ` -• R.. r �Tµ.4M .. i •
C.4L PARR
�`r `BStlmStiE$ �1VB +�. .4 .L f�'� .: y `, ,• _ ',e.��.�A_$$ER .8eo
18 8 7 -Refll�Mitl� m�C'tLTaER6
Making adhiaery
Ammonia Fittin g; sad Supplies.
-
Offim and Factory
$aaardiao. Calif.
943 'Third Street Telephone 2109
RRUP LUMBER CO. .�
o ng Material Platt mo a e=Lflan Co.
t 4: ,dtEAL ESTATk •`� < SURANCE
JUGXAL
Sam BaUsIdino, Phone 261-32.-. ..! S■sDaraardao Platt'Basle
SEE. l�R v..�- f e J L�� '. ,roe . •ti fir. < �2 f
• trsr/r� �e�.Yi R .ee
�nL•a r'7 ,_ SLii�i�ii _.per -�__�_y ; ,rjy3t • , i
•.r r� c .'1 � per..�.. ._. k:7;1
�<l��j••� .r �^'� �L 'a,�•����� --i_ :�
abet:gin 1Inves_tii O ..
443•I,had "aw�ee'�r�:Co.�' " � � -. ,. �/,�'�.x/� .
�-- .M• - _ - - E
R1�0, GIg. "Cae. 2nd and *? -�=' .3t'J!•Pie4�a L ea� I�It". _4 _=_
- ' .'��a� `• - .� �. 5.�� • ! `. � •� iR^„�ll ,ate
r
i
D. EQ TERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study,
❑ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
T e proposed project could have a significant effect on the
[2,4*'nvironment, 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: i C
REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Demolition Proposal Review 90-2
Title His orical Resources Evaluation Report
(See Attached Report )
Exhibit A
�'"'��"1O'�° nlAl4a 12 rAOE of �.ao)
FOR
THE PLATT BUXLDXEG
prepared by: ®atle®al b Dls®co
prepared for: City of Sam larmarli®c
�g 1990
HATHEWAY & ASSOCIATES
History/Architecture/Archaeology
23301-A to Glorieto
Mission Viejo.CA 92691
Prinelpol: (714)458-1245
ROGER G. HATHEWAY (714)58&7111
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY REPORT
FOR
THE PLATT BUILDING
Prepared by: Hatheway & Associates
23301-A La Glorieta
Mission Viejo, California 92691
( 714 ) 458-1245
Principal Author: Roger G. Hatheway
Prepared for:
Redevelopment Agency
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" Street, Fourth Floor
San Bernardino, California, 92418
JUNE 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I . INTRODUCTION. . . . 1
Guidelines For Assessment I
II . METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Field Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Archival Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III . ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 4
IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND/STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE. . . . . . . . 6
V. CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Criterion A: Significant Events
Criterion B: Significant Persons
Criterion C: Distinctive Characteristics
Criterion D: Potential To Yield Information
VI . RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
VII . SELECT REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
APPENDIX A: DPR 523 INVENTORY FORM (PHOTOGRAPHS)
APPENDIX B:
LIST OF FIGURES
A. ) LOCATION/VICINITY MAP
B. ) SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP ( 1909 UPDATED TO 1934 )
C- ) SITE PLAN
D. ) FIRST FLOOR GENERAL PLAN
E. ) UPPER FLOOR GENERAL PLAN
F. ) TYPICAL OFFICE FLOOR PLAN (ORIGINAL CONDITIONS)
G. ) TYPICAL OFFICE FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
H. ) FACADE RENDERING (ORIGINAL APPEARANCE)
APPENDIX C:
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. ) Overall View of "E" Street Facade
2. ) Detail "E" Street Facade Theatre/Decorative Detail
3. ) Overall View of 5th Street Facade
4. ) Detail 5th Street Facade Office Entry
5. ) Typical Upper Floor Office Area
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7. ) Overall View to South Along "E" Street
APPENDIX D:
6. ) Typical Elevator Lobby Area Upper Floors
7. ) Overall View to South Along "E" Street
APPENDIX D:
HISTORICAL DATA:
NEWSPAPERS
CITY DIRECTORIES ( San Bernardino and Los Angeles)
CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The following study was conducted to determine, in accordance
with published federal guidelines, the potential eligibility of
the Platt Building, City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino
County, California, for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places. In addition, state guidelines regarding
determinations of significance for cultural resources were
applied throughout the investigation. Prior to any evaluation of
significance, the property was field checked (photographed and
described) to determine degree of architectural integrity. It was
also the subject of an archival research effort to determine the
date of initial construction, builder, historical association(s)
etc. , and to place the structure within a regional and local
historical context.
This report presents the results of the field and archival
investigations, and evaluates the significance of the property in
relation to appropriate guidelines.
Guidelines f_qt Assessment
The assessment of National Register eligibility is primarily
based on federal guidelines contained in 36 CFR 60.4.
Specifically:
The quality of significance in American history ,
architecture , archaeology , and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association, and:
( a ) that are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or,
( b ) that are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or,
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period or method of construction; or,
(d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history.
Proper application of these guidelines generally provides
sufficient information for the transfer and subsequent
application of survey results to almost any environmental
document.
In addition, the following "characterization" elements have
1
also been incorporated into the decision-making process.
Integrity
Under National Register eligibility criteria, a potentially
eligible property must possess integrity of location, design,
workmanship, setting materials, feeling and association.
Age : Date of Construction
Age is considered under the period of construction element of
National Register Criterion (c) . In general, structures less than
50 years old are not considered to be eligible.
Aesthetics
This variable is related to high artistic value element of
National Register Criterion (c) . Specifically, while some forms
reflect engineering more than design considerations, many are
more successful than others in integrating structural components
into a coherent whole.
Historical Associations
This variable measures a structures significance in relation
to both specific historical information and a broader contextual
whole.
Surviving Numbers
This variable, a measure of rarity, is considered under the
type. period, or method of construction element of National
Register Criterion (c) . This also applies to unusual or unique
examples of significant structural types.
2
II. METHODOLOGY
Field Study
The field study consisted of the on-site inspection of the
subject property. Mr. Art Gregory, owner of the property, and
several city staff members, accompanied Mr. Hatheway during the
field inspection on May 30, 1990. During this inspection the
condition of the structure was evaluated, and the integrity of
design, workmanship and setting appraised. Significant
structural/architectural features were photographed, and these
are incorporated into Appendix C of this report.
Archival Research
The archival study included a limited research program
investigating the subject property and documenting it in relation
to a broader historical context. Library and archival research
was conducted at:
( 1 ) San Bernardino City Library
(2 ) San Bernardino County Library
(3 ) City of Los Angeles Public Library
(4 ) City of San Bernardino, Planning Department
( 5 ) Private Collection/Library, Roger G. Hatheway
Research was augmented by consultation of:
( 1 ) National Register of Historic Places listing
(2 ) California Historic Landmarks listing
( 3 ) Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
(4 ) The Southwest Builder and Contractor
( 5 ) City and County Directories, San Bernardino and Los
Angeles
The following persons were contacted who provided access to
information used in the evaluation of the property.
( 1 ) Art Gregory, owner, Platt Building.
(2 ) Deborah Woldruff, City of San Bernardino, Planning
Department.
(3 ) Gary B. Wagoner, City of San Bernardino, Redevelopment
Agency.
(4 ) Charles Bruckart, retired, Redlands Security Company.
Based upon the results of the field and archival studies, it
was possible to make a clear recommendation regarding the
potential National Register eligibility of the subject property.
3
III . ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
The Platt Building (491 5th Street ) is located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Fifth and E Streets, in
the City of San Bernardino. The property consists of
approximately 16, 900 square feet of level land, with a frontage
of 100 feet of E Street, and a frontage of 169 feet on 5th
Street. The four story structure is actually comprised of two
separate units, a theatre with balcony, and an entirely separate
office facility. The theatre portion consists of a ground floor
area of about 9500 square feet, with a lobby of 720 square feet.
The remaining ground floor area is occupied by office and
commercial space, with office areas on the second, third, and
fourth floors. A manually operated seven passenger elevator
services the office area, and it is located in a small lobby off
of 5th Street.
The two separate use components ( theatre and
office/commercial ) of the building make for a slightly
interesting, if somewhat confusing, design plan. In effect, the
building has two main entrances. The theatre entrance is off of
"E" Street (photo 1 ) , and the office entrance is off of 5th
Street (Photo 3 ) . The design and decorative detail of the
building is concentrated on "E" Street, providing the somewhat
false impression that the main entrance for the entire facility
is on this elevation (Photo 2 ) . This is underscored by the fact
that the design of the office entrance is highly understated
(Photo 4 ) .
The E Street or west elevation consists of an offset theatre
entrance and marquee, with decorative window surrounds placed
directly above in the third, fourth story, and attic/cornice
levels. This art stone decoration is surprisingly flamboyant,
and it is entirely unaltered. The street level commercial
frontage has been partially altered by infill and/or a newer
( 1940s) portico. A bracketed art stone cornice girds the
building at roof level.
The north elevation consists of a rusticated base with
showcase windows, three stories of simple flat sash windows, and
a decorative art cornice at the roofline. The elevator lobby
entrance is understated, consisting of a simple rusticated art
stone surround and the words "Platt Building" inscribed over the
double-door entry. The facade of this building has been altered
by new entry doors, and the addition of the previously mentioned
portico which wraps around the northwest corner of the building.
The interior of the theatre has been altered by the enclosure
of the balcony area, and the creation of a second theatre. Much
of the original decorative detail has been painted over, but it
is otherwise intact. The main theatre area is substantially
unaltered, and the original seats remain in-place (also in
balcony) . The presence of the original seats is a highly unusual
4
feature, as seats are generally found to have been replaced in
theatres of this age. It should also be noted that this is both
a theatre and a playhouse, with complete a complete and intact
stage area.
The office areas have recently been gutted, including the
removal of all non-structural interior walls (Photo 5 ) . The
hallway molding have been saved for future reuse. This work was
carried out as part of earthquake safety compliance regulations.
The elevator lobby areas are substantially intact. They are
quite modest in design and detailing (Photo 6 ) . The commercial
spaces have also been altered over time, but several contain some
original decorative detail (barber shop, etc. ) . In addition,
some of the windows appear to contain original gold-leaf
lettering.
In summary, the building represents a substantially intact
example of 1920s commercial architecture. It is a relatively
rare example of its period and type in San Bernardino. And,
when initially completed, this building was' one of the most
splendid office blocks in the city. It relates well to its
environment (Photo 7 ) , and serves as a reminder of San
Bernardino's historical and architectural heritage in an area
that has otherwise been substantially redeveloped.
5
IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND/STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Platt Building, 491 5th Street, San Bernardino, was built
by and for Frank C. Platt. Construction was begun late in 1924 ,
and the structure was completed in 1925 . The architects of the
building were Howard E. Jones and John P. McNeill .
An article appearing in the San Bernardino Sun, on September
9 , 1924 (See Appendix D) , notes that the George Herz Company was
selected as the building contractor. This was apparently the
only local (San Bernardino) firm to submit a bid for the general
contract. They appear to have selected primarily for their low-
bid estimate, which was from $20,000 to $48,000 lower than that
of firms submitting bids from Riverside and Los Angeles. The
successful bidders for all of the work including the general
contract, electrical , heating, and painting were, in fact, local
San Bernardino firms.
The cost for the construction of the building was estimated
at a total of $196 ,000, exclusive of furnishings and fittings for
the theatre. A contact had already been entered into with the
West Coast Theatre Company, which was responsible for the
completion of the theatre portion of the structure. It was
estimated costs for the finishing of the theatre would bring the
total to 303,000 which, including valuations for the lot itself
( $125 ,000) , brought the total for completion of the Platt
Building to a sum of $428,000.
This represented a major investment in 1920s dollars, and the
construction of this building must be regarded as something of a
landmark event in San Bernardino. The Platt Building was built
on the opposite corner from the California Hotel (now
demolished) , and the two structures would serve as "anchors" in
downtown San Bernardino area for nearly 50 years. It was also
with some pride, according to the 1924 Z= article, that all of
the work was carried out by local firms.
Little is known of Frank C. Platt, apart from the fact that
he planned and built the structure. In 1926, Frank C. and Ida G
Platt are listed as residents of the City of Pasadena. Platt
was, however, owner of the Frank C. Platt Investment Company, and
the Platt Mortgage-Loan Company, with offices in the Platt
Building.
Lawrence T. Platt (son of Frank C. Platt) was apparently a
co-owner of the Investment Company, and he and his wife Carolyn,
lived at 2105 Genevieve, in San Bernardino. Lawrence was also
directly involved in the construction of the Platt Building,
serving as spokesman for the firm during interviews conducted for
the 1924 Sub article.
The Platt Mortgage-Loan Company specialized, as noted in an
advertisement appearing in the 1928 San Bernardino Cit9
6
Directory, in real estate loans, insurance , and general
financing. The firm was managed by Elvin D. Lockhard, and is
noted as being capitalized at =500,000.
By 1928, the Frank C. Platt Investment Company had opened a
branch office at 2177 Sierra Way, San Bernardino, with the main
office remaining in the Platt Building. Frank and Lawrence are
also still listed as the principal real estate officers of the
firm.
By 1930 , Frank is listed as living in Los Angeles. Lawrence
is now listed in association with the Frank C. Platt Investment
Company and California Garage. In effect, the Platt family seems
to have diversified its holdings to include a garage. This also
included the Platt Studios, photographers, with offices in the
Platt Building. Platt Studios was operated by G. E. Hinman and
C. L. Peck.
The Platt Building was acquired, according to Charles
Bruckart, in 1932, by Arthur and Francis Gregory.
Mr. Bruckart
notes that the building was part of a deal involving the sale of
the Marigold Farms to C. C. Chapman of Fullerton. The Gregory
family actually acquired several buildings (including the Platt
and a nearby garage ) as part of the sale of the Marigold ranch.
The title was later transferred to the Redlands Security Company
(owned by the Gregory family) , and it remains under this
ownership today.
In effect, at some point between 1930 and 1932, the Platt
family apparently experienced severe financial reversals. The
1933-1934 San Bernardino City Directory does not list the Frank
C. Platt Investment Company, and, although the Platt Mortgage
Loan Company is still listed, it was then managed by F. L.
Whitlock. Lawrence Platt is also no longer listed as living in
the San Bernardino area. In 1936, the City Directory no longer
carries a listing for the Platt Mortgage-Loan Company.
According to Art Gregory, owner of the building and principal
of the Redlands Security Company, the Platt Building was
originally occupied by business professionals. This chiefly
included doctors and attorneys. One interesting historical fact
about the building, is that Lyndon Johnson, future President of
the United States, ran the elevator in the building shortly after
it opened in 1925 (See articles Appendix D) . Johnson, then age
17 , apparently came to San Bernardino with a group of four others
boys. Johnson, who lived in a boarding house at the time, first
ran the elevator, and then took a job as a clerk in the law
offices of Thomas L. Martin. A plaque (now stolen) was placed
into the lobby of the building, noting that this was place that
Johnson began his study of law.
In summary, the Platt Building was built by real estate
developer and financier Frank C. Platt. Platt, a resident of
7
Pasadena in the 1920s, also ran several other business and
commercial enterprises in the San Bernardino with his son,
Lawrence T. Platt. The structure was built entirely by local
contractors, and was designed by San Bernardino architects Howard
E. Jones and John P. McNeill . The building is significant for
the role it played in the history and growth of business and
commerce in San Bernardino. It was occupied by business
professionals for over 50 years, and it "anchored" (along with
the California Hotel ) a major corner of the historic business
district in downtown San Bernardino. The building is also an
excellent example of commercial architecture, and is one of the
last remaining examples of it's period and type in the city.
8
V. CONCLUSIONS
As a result of field and archival investigations conducted as
part of the present study, it is concluded that the Platt
Building, located at the southeast corner of Fifth and E Streets
(491 Fifth Street) , does appear eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places in accordance with Criterion
C. This conclusion is based published federal guidelines
contained in 36 CFR 60.4 . Specifically:
Criterion Q_ Significant Events
The property does not appear eligible for listing in relation
to this criterion. No events of state or nationwide importance
are known to have taken place at, or in association with the
structure.
Criterion 1L. Significant Persons
No persons of nationwide, or state significance are known to
have had a long-term association with the Platt Building.
President Lyndon Johnson is known to have run an elevator in the
building, and he is thought to have begun his study of law in the
building. However, this association was extremely short-lived,
and the building cannot be said to have played a major role in
Johnson's life. For example, when interviewed about the building
during a 1964 visit to San Bernardino, Johnson could apparently
recall little about his work there (Appendix D) .
Criterion C
i Distinctive Characteristics
The Platt Building does appear to qualify as eligible for
listing in relation to this criterion. Specifically, the
structure Ls in excess of 50 years old. Construction began on the
building in the fall of 1924, and it was completed in 1925. It
js also one of the last surviving examples of its period and type
in the City of San Bernardino. Growth, development, and
redevelopment in the downtown the downtown area has removed many
potential landmark structures, or altered them to a degree that
they can no longer be considered as eligible to the National
Register. The- Platt Building does retain a relatively high
degree of architectural and/or design integrity. It has been
altered very little on the exterior (primarily street level
frontage near the corner of 5th and E) . And, although the office
spaces have been recently gutted, the theatre retains the
majority of it's original furnishings and decorative detail
( including all original seating) . The design and decorative
detail on the exterior j& also of particular interest, as many of
the storefront windows retain early gold-leaf lettering. The
cast or art stone architectural/decorative detail on the facade
9
.� ..r- - ..-- •� -
over the theatre marquee is both intact, and it is relatively
unique to the San Bernardino area. In effect, the building does
retain a high degree of architectural integrity, and it adds
significantly to the overall design context and historical
aesthetics of downtown San Bernardino. It is, in fact, numbered
among a very small handful of historic commercial properties
which remain in the downtown area. The building does have
significant local historical associations. It was entirely
designed and built by local San Bernardino architectural and
builder/contractor firms, and it served as a focal point for
local business professionals for over fifty years. And finally,
despite the fact that Johnson ran an elevator in the building
does not appear to qualify it as eligible for listing under
Criterion A, items the only building in San Bernardino with clear
"Presidential" ties. This does appear to add to the unique
historical qualities of the building at the local level
Criterion D_.L Potential T_o Yield Information
The building itself does not appear to be eligible for
listing in accordance with this criterion. The construction
methods and materials used in the building do not appear to be
unusual or unique, and there is little likelihood that study of
them would add significantly to our understanding of the data
base, or yield new and important information. Archaeological
investigations were not, however, conducted as part of the
present study. It is suggested that this potential should best
be addressed at a future point in time, once a decision has been
made whether to restore or demolish the structure.
10
.. qW - s
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
There are four basic forms of mitigation with regards to
historical/architectural properties, as detailed in the Manual of
Mitigation Measures (MOMM) , and as prepared by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. These are:
1 . ) Avoidance of impacts and preservation on site.
2 . ) Moving the structure to another site.
3. ) Architectural salvage.
4. ) Recordation prior to demolition.
Interestingly, items #2 and #3 , generally require
photographic mitigation/recordation prior to moving or salvage.
The idea here is that the moving and/or salvage of features
destroys many of the original qualities of the structure which
served to make it significant in the first place, and that the
recordation of the structure preserves these qualities in
perpetuity.
Obviously, the key or decision making factors are the
reasoned determination of the following questions:
1 . ) Is the building a likely candidate for preservation and
adaptive reuse?
2. ) Can the structure physically be moved without destroying the
architectural integrity of the original?
3 . ) Does an alternate and compatible location exist?
4. ) Does the structure exhibit any unusual design features and/or
decorative detailing which appear unique, and are these
various elements candidates for salvage.
Clearly, the Platt Building is not a candidate for moving.
This only leaves open the options of preservation/reuse, salvage,
and/or photo mitigation.
If the decision making process (on the part of the owner,
city, etc. ) determines that the Platt Building should be
preserved, then it is further suggested that an application be
prepared to list the structure in the National Register. In
addition, it is suggested that the restoration plans should also
be prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Guidelines. This will , in turn, allow for the use of
Preservation tax credits, making the project a potentially much
more attractive economic venture.
11
Finally, the most logical mitigation alternative (barring
preservation on-site ) would appear to be recordation of the
structure prior to demolition and/or a combination of recordation
and salvage of the materials and features of the building that
are of a period or historic interest.
If photo recordation is selected as the most appropriate form
of mitigation, then it is suggested that this documentation be
carried out in general accordance with Historic American
Buildings Survey (HAGS ) guidelines.
12
VII. SELECT REFERENCES
Brown, J . , Boyd, J.
1922 History of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The
Western Historical Association.
City of Los a es
Public Library, vertical files, and various city directories
for the period extending from 1926 to 1935.
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department file on the Platt Building.
San Bernardino City and County Directories
Home Telephone and Telegraph Co: 1919
Los Angeles Directory Co: 1926
San Bernardino Directory Co: 1928
San Bernardino Directory Co: 1930
San Bernardino Directory Co: 1933-34
San Bernardino Sun
Various articles and clippings in Vertical File, at Feldhym
Library, City of San Bernardino.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
1909 updated to 1934 , on file, California Room, San
Bernardino Public Library.
NOTE: A number of additional sources at both the Los Angeles and
San Bernardino Public Libraries were consulted, without success,
in an effort to gather additional information regarding Frank C.
Platt.
13
APPENDIX A:
DPR 523 INVENTORY FORM
Sate of Callton+is—The r, sM Annoy
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ser. No.
HABS HAER Loc SHL No. NR Status
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY uTM: B �,
B D
IDENTIFICATION Platt B u i l d i n
I. Common name: 9
2. Historic name: P l a t t B u i l d i n g
3. Street or rural address: 491 5th Street
Cit% San Bernardino Zip 92418 County San Bernardino
4. Parcel number:
S. Present Owner: Redlands Security Co. Address: 5 112 E . State Street
City Redlands Zip 99 2�_Ownershi s• Public X
Ownership t Private
6. Present Use: Vacant (one hot dog s tan44iginal use: Of f ice/Theatre/Commerc i a 1
DESCRIPTION
78. Architectural style: Commercial (S P a n s i h Colonial D e t a i l i n g )
7b. Briefly describe the present physics/appearance of the site or structure and describe any maior alterations Born its
original condition:
The Platt Building (491 5th Street) is located at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Fifth and E Streets, in
the City of San Bernardino. The property consists of
approximately 16,900 square feet of level land, with a frontage
Of 100 feet of E Street, and a. frontage of 169 feet on 5th
Street. The four story structure is actually comprised of two
separate units, a theatre with balcony, and an entirely separate
office facility. The theatre portion consists of a ground floor
area of about 9500 square feet, with a lobby of 720 square feet.
The remaining ground floor area is occupied by office and
commercial space, with office areas on the second, third, and
Attach Photo Envelope Here S. Construction date:
Estimated Factual 19 2 4
9. Architect Howard Jones
(SEE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX G) John McNeill
10. Builder George Herz Co .
11. Approx. property sise (in feet)
Frontage 169 Depth 100
or approx. acreage
12. Dates)of enclosed photographs)
may 1990
DPR 523 (Rev. 11/85)
i )
13. Condition: Excellent_Good X Fair Deteriorated No longer in existence
14. Alterations: Minimal : Street level frontage , office areas
15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings ° Densely built-up
Residential Industrial Commercial X Other:
16. Threats to site: None known_Private development X zoning Vandalism
Public Works project X Other:
17. Is the structure: On its original site? X Moved? Unknown?
None
1B. Related features:
SIGNIFICANCE
19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.)
The Platt Building, 491 5th Street, San Bernardino, was built
by and for Frank C. Platt. Construction was begun late in 1924,
and the structure was completed in 1925. The architects of the
building were Howard E. Jones and John P. McNeill .
An article appearing in the San Bernardino Sun, on September
9, 1924 (See Appendix D) , notes that the George Herz Company was
selected as the building contractor. This was apparently the
only local (San Bernardino) firm to submit a bid for the general
contract. They appear to have selected primarily for their low—
bid estimate, which was from $20,000 to $48,000 lower than that
of firms submitting bids from Riverside and Los Angeles. The
Locational sketch map(draw and label site arxl
surrounding streets,roads,and prominent larximarks):
20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH
checked,number in order of importance.)
Architecture X Arts& Leisure X
Economic/Industrial—Exploration/Settlement
Government .Military
Religion Social/Education
21. Sources(List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews (SEE MAPS APPENDIX Q)
and their dates).
See Bibliography this report.
22. Date form prepared June 1990
By (name) o g e r U . HatFe—way
Organization a e w d y & Assoc
Address: Z3301-A La Glorieta
City Mission Viejo Zip
Phone: -
SECTION 7b (DESCRIPTION) CONTD.
fourth floors. A manually operated seven passenger elevator
services the office area, and it is located in a small lobby off
of 5th Street.
The two separate use components (theatre and
office/commercial ) of the building make for a slightly
interesting, if somewhat confusing, design plan. In effect, the
building has two main entrances. The theatre entrance is off of
"E" Street (photo 1 ) , and the office entrance is off of 5th
Street (Photo 3) . The design and decorative detail of the
building is concentrated on "E" Street, providing the somewhat
false impression that the main entrance for the entire facility
is on this elevation (Photo 2) . This is underscored by the fact
that the design of the office erttrante is highly understated
(Photo 4) .
The E Street or west elevation con4i"1 „of. an offset theatre
entrance and marquee, with decorative winiiii surrounds placed
directly above in the third, fourth story, , an4 att cdcorpi ce
levels. Th i s art stone .decoration is surtiriwsi ng l y flamboyant,
and it is entirely unaltered. The-street level commercial
frontage has been partially altered by infill and/or a newer
( 1940s) portico. A bracketed art stone cornice girds the
building at roof level .
The north elevation consists of a rusticated base with
showcase windows, three stories of simple flat sash windows, and
a decorative art cornice at the roofline. The elevator lobby
entrance is understated, consisting of a simple rusticated art
stone surround and the words "Platt Building" inscribed over the
double-door entry. The facade of this building has been altered
by new entry doors, and the addition of the previously mentioned
portico which wraps around the northwest corner of the building.
The interior of the theatre has been altered by the enclosure
of the balcony area, and the creation of a second theatre. Much
of the original decorative detail has been painted over, but it
is otherwise intact. The main theatre area is substantially
unaltered, and the original seats remain in-place (also in
balcony) . The presence of the original seats is a highly unusual
feature, as seats are generally found to have been replaced in
theatres of this age. It should also be noted that this is both
a theatre and a playhouse, with complete a complete and intact
stage area.
The office areas have recently been gutted, including the
removal of all non-structural interior walls (Photo 5) . The
hallway molding have been saved for future reuse. This work was
carried out as part of earthquake safety compliance regulations.
The elevator lobby areas are substantially intact. They are
quite modest in design and detailing (Photo 6) . The commercial
2
J
spaces have also been altered over time, but several contain some
original decorative detail (barber shop, etc. ) . In addition,
some of the windows appear to contain original gold-leaf
lettering.
In summary, the building represents a substantially intact
example of 1920s commercial architecture. It is a relatively
rare example of its period and type in San Bernardino. And,
when initially completed, this building was one of the most
splendid office blocks in the city. It relates well to its
environment (Photo 7) , and serves as a reminder of San
Bernardino's historical and architectural heritage in an area
that has otherwise been substantially redeveloped.
SECTION 19 (STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE) CONTD.
successful bidders for all of the work including the general
contract, electrical , heating, and painting- were, in fact, local
San Bernardino firms.
The cost for the construction of the building was estimated
at a- total of $196,000, exclusive of furnishings and fittings for
the theatre. A contact had already been entered into -with the
West Coast Theatre Company, which was responsible for the-
completion of the theatre portion of the structure. fit, aa ,.
estimated costs for the finishing of the theatre
W2gJd bring--the
total to 303,000 which, including valuations for th ! tsa�fif .
($125,000) , brought the total for complatiocv.- of the_ -.i_� `� r
Building to a sum of $428,000. - � ` �'
This represented a major investment in 1920$ dollar; at1+d the
construction of this building must be regarded as something of a
landmark event in San Bernardino. The Platt Building was built
on the opposite corner from the California Hotel (now
demolished) , and the two structures would serve as`�*_'Anphors" in
downtown San Bernardino area .for nearly 50 years. `'IV W$s also
with some pride, according �o the 1924 S. uR articlqr-f_ t all of
the work was carried out by-local firms.
Little is known of Frank C. Platt, apart from the fact that
he planned and built the structure. In 1928, Frank--C. and Ida G
Platt are listed as residents of the City of Pasadena. Platt
was, however, owner of the Frank C. Platt Investment Company, and
the Platt Mortgage-Loan Company, with offices in the Platt
Building.
Lawrence T. Platt (son of Frank C. Platt) was apparently a
co-owner of the Investment Company, and he and his wife Carolyn,
lived at 2105 Genevieve, in San Bernardino. Lawrence was also
directly involved in the construction of the Platt Building,
serving as spokesman for the firm during interviews conducted for
the 1924 Sub article.
3
ti !
The Platt Mortgage-Loan Company specialized, as noted in an
advertisement appearing in the 1928 San Bernardino City
Directory, in real estate loans, insurance, and general
financing. The firm was managed by Elvin D. Lockhard, and is
noted as being capitalized at $500,000.
By 1928, the Frank C. Platt Investment Company had opened a
branch office at 2177 Sierra Way, San Bernardino, with the main
office remaining in the Platt Building. Frank and Lawrence are
also still listed as the principal real estate officers of the
firm.
By 1930, Frank is listed as living in Los Angeles. Lawrence
is now listed in association with the Frank C. Platt Investment
Company and California Garage. In effect, the Platt family seems
to have diversified its holdings to include a garage. This also
included the Platt Studios, photographers, with offices in the
Platt Building. Platt Studios was operated by G. E. Hinman and
C. L. Peck.
The Platt Building was acquired, according to Charles
Bruckart, in 1932, by Arthur and Francis Gregory. Mr. Bruckart
notes that the building was part of a deal involving the sale of
the Marigold Farms to C. C. Chapman of Fullerton. The Gregory
family actually acquired several buildings ( including the Platt
and a nearby garage) as part of the sale of the Marigold ranch.
The title was later transferred to the Redlands Security Company
(owned by the Gregory family) , and it remains under this
ownership today.
In effect, at some point between 1930 and 1932, the Platt
family apparently experienced severe financial reversals. The
1933-1934 San Bernardino City Directory does not_ li.st the Frank
C. Platt Investment Company, and, although the Platt Mortgage-
Loan Company is still listed, it was then managed by F. L.
Whitlock. Lawrence Platt is also no longer listed as living in
the San Bernardino area. In 1936, the City Directory no longer
carries a listing for the Platt Mortgage-Loan Company.
According to Art Gregory, owner of the building and principal
of the Redlands Security Company, the Platt Building was
originally occupied by business professionals. This chiefly
included doctors and attorneys. One interesting historical fact
about the building, is that Lyndon Johnson, future President of
the United States, ran the elevator in the building shortly after
it opened in 1925 (See articles Appendix D) . Johnson, then age
17 , apparently came to San Bernardino with a group of four others
boys. Johnson, who lived in a boarding house at the time, first
ran the elevator, and then took a job as a clerk in the law
offices of Thomas L. Martin. A plaque (now stolen) was placed
into the lobby of the building, noting that this was place that
Johnson began his study of law.
4
. i
In summary, the Platt Building was built by real estate
developer and financier Frank C. Platt. Platt, a resident of
Pasadena in the 1920s, also ran several other business and
commercial enterprises in the San Bernardino with his son,
Lawrence T. Platt. The structure was built entirely by local
contractors, and was designed by San Bernardino architects Howard
E. Jones and John P. McNeill . The building is significant for
the role it played in the history and growth of business and
commerce in San Bernardino. It was occupied by business
professionals for over 50 years, and it "anchored" (along with
the California Hotel ) a major corner of the historic business
district in downtown San Bernardino. The building is also an
excellent example of commercial architecture, and is one of the
last remaining examples of it's period and type in the city.
5
APPENDIX B:
LIST OF FIGURES
A. ) LOCATION/VICINITY MAP
B. ) SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP ( 1909 UPDATED TO 1934 )
C. ) SITE PLAN
D. ) FIRST FLOOR GENERAL PLAN
E. ) UPPER FLOOR GENERAL PLAN
F. ) TYPICAL OFFICE FLOOR PLAN (ORIGINAL CONDITIONS)
G. ) TYPICAL OFFICE FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
H. ) FACADE RENDERING (ORIGINAL APPEARANCE)
a _• = yip 113., � -Z A ( < � -
�'
" MBASEw ! o —
__.,�,� 1 ,S'.01A f ' 1 . Ki I �I OFhhG ,o: i � 5-
S- 0,IVE E I ST
• `I 'TM —T-�
•-r-..7C. I I •� Et E S- I ; TEMPLE-
- > cc 3
■
1 : i' •x ST = A i
, f
�•- 'IfiM i ST RM _
`-
te
yn7 R �sTU"G 3 SIN r [•: •.:
J - � I� c u. .w• .uarula
Z F TM t
ST
�. W • IIIa I s� • s•1 T
r•7[�
L r p �: tsr .�•� Y •Er•tt.•w
$T ST ; • „a„11 sr
I v
1 J�
I
7
3RD '•
wr I r•1m �
On. 1 10 Illy
yr
i nv
v h l T aI i ; KING
I AV 11
11 IL I I
" KENOERTbN •llf..B1- ST t3
S? Jof 1
1.,,
711T ..n. p >l [v f W V /T 11"m a
VILAW Z
-�' OAK ST 71 1 0 ➢T:'W cc It"ST It
w ve
UEF-
71 — �
ESPfRANZA I f•et• 1 ; a
> •r D
LE =/
?C V
I Al '
a " W
[Y11,tt" I
IIATIIEWAT
1
ODH. Bar.
It'll
�N 45V sar sr 49 if" w7 �S � •
.S
.nth
O �. .
N KP A• r
• S✓ w'AY&
_ .:'t .:•r,•, L • �. / •it
W.
s
J
-
5 -
� a
JEWELE `
W FLODUl
Hale ' s
PHONE 441-63 412 Thad $tree! Ki TK= 6
266 SAN BERNARDINO CITY DIRECTORY
LOANS PINKLEY VIRGIL M (Gussie V) Sec Guarantee Building & poal��q►Assn h861 E, Phone 384-39 pogsn Frank
W
Pinkley Virgil M jr r861 E yy
Pinon Filburcio (Lorencia) h655 Cabrera pohl Gertrude
Straight Pinto Frank (Isabel) barber h257 D Pohl Gertrude
Pohl Reinhold
Pinto Josephine x257 D
Mortgage Pioneer Cemetery E 7th cor A Poindexter Be
and Pioneer Meat Market (T F Flint) 379 3d POLICE COt
Pioneer Park a a 6th bet E and F POLICE DEP
Installment Pioneer Rug A Mattress Co (C M Rogers)333 D Poling Lais 1)
PIONEER TITLE A TRUST COMPANY,J L Mack Pros, W N Poling Lois I
cock See-Tress, C K Cooper Asst Sec, 438-440 Court, Tet' Polley Rose I
(See right top lines and page 29) ?ollitt Allen
Piper Chas W lab City+ Water Dept r270 5th Pollitt Wm
Piper Goo W plmbr City water Dept Pommier Exi
Piper Gladys clk McInerny's Dry Goods Store x270 5th
Piper Jno lab h161 E 4th Pommier Gee
Real Estate Pommier Ha,
Piper Jno J (May) elects h784 18th
per Mary J (wid J J) h270 5th Pommier Ma
Piseaanu Delphenia Mrs h451 Ojeda Pommier Wn
Pitcher Hiram N (Myrtle G) baker 388 E h509 South E Pommier k I
Pitcher Theo h942 L Pom k 1
Pitcher Wm clk H M Pitcher r Highland Line
General EZELI, SALES & ENGINEERING J. V
Insurance Heating Ventilating "Frigldaire" Electric Bdri A Service f
Phone 281.91 Sian Bernardino, Calf. 441 Few ft Phone 441-0
Pittman Henderson (May E) h457 South E Ponce Greg
Pitts Jas R (Olive) mach r rear 812 Asrowhead av Ponce Juan
Pittullo Orvil E (Thelma A) lab h1103 King Ponce Peter
PLACE CLARENCE R. Auto Electrician Court and G Streets,_ Pontoao Be
391-11, h496 23d (See left bottom lines and page 12) Ponto Aaro
Glenn C. Place Robt (Mary A) h496 23d O CH
PLACHEK JAMES (Martha) (San Bernardino Glass Co) 1860 Feel. -
pas way �p �
• Planet HoW 993 Sd Poole Edna
C�IYIII PLanten Gerrit M (Luetta) slsmn h800 E Poole Edw
• Flath Albt F switchmn h737 Powell Poole Eva
Platt Bmldingg 5th se car E Poole Fred
Platt Frank C (Ida G; Frank C Platt Investment Co) r P Poole Hase
PLATT FRANK C INVESTMENT CO (Frank C and I.a Poole IsaM
Realtors Platt Bldg 477-479 E. Tel 281-13 Poole Jas
_,Matt Lawrence T (Frank C Platt Investment Co) h21 Poole Meh
PLATT MORTGAGE-LOAN CO, Elvin D Lockard Manager, POOLE Rt
112 gages, Real Estate. Imam, Insurance, Financing Platt , Poole St L
479 5th, Phone 261-32 (See left center lines and page 22) Pooey Jac
past I S Plesko Margt waiter Peaks A Allen Grill peso
COL1bN Plummer Grace copyist County Recorder h465 6th P� Phin .
Plummer Howard A (Genevieve) restr 811% 8d h811 3d
Distributor Co R. PLACE � P>�361
Pest-O-Lite
Batteries Automotive Electrician _ De
r
Coact and G Streets Plesle 391-11 sad Platt Ben
�4
SAN BERNARDINC. ,..RECTORY CO.'S
San Bernardino and Colton
CITY DIRECTORY
1928
kN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF BUSINESS FIRMS AND PRIVATE
CITIZENS, A STREET AND HOUSEHOLDERS' GUIDE, A
NUMERICAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY,ALSO A BUY.
ERS' GUIDE AND A COMPLETE CLASSIFIED
BUSINESS DIRECTORY
L'C
PRICE $12.50
r�
Compiled and Published by
San Bernardino Directory Co.
430 Court Streit
San Bernardino, California
Directory Library for Free Use of Public at Chamber of Commerce
Copyright 1928 by San Bernardino Dimtory Company
1+ Shop With The Crowds MARTIN ' S RAD � TOR9 FENDER
Where �Values
Are Greatest AND BODY WORKS
"'Scott's" Phone 271.43
San Bernardino 235 E St. — Good Service Built This Shop and It's Still Growing — Phone 232-35
O CITY DIRECTORY 1828 (1928) SAN BERNARDINO DIRECTORY CO.'S 3_09_ GE
O.Pippen Grace Stan F K Clark rColton G r_O� X
rRedlands Pirl Carl W (Eva) bkpr h1M Massachusetts av a+ LLss
rRiverside Pirl Fred pas stn 1122 Highland av rLW6 Massachusetts av CUDLEY
Pisesania Delphenla Mrs h451 Oleda
dlsp Santa Fe Ry h286 E Base Line Pistern Fred x773 Waters Alley
1167 E hl= 5th Pitcher Hiram N (Myrtle G) baker Sunshine Baking Co b3W South E
tr 111133 5th Pitcher Theo lab h942 L r
h939 Spruce Pitkin Ward S sery sta opr Robt Saulmon r6n 17th COe
1181 E Pittman Henderson (May E) h457 South E
Ry rMT X Pitts Chas E h518 9th
br Co x457 9th . Pitts Ebba A Mrs h770 Trenton
Pitts Walter C rancher r543 9th Sbdf Sad
lE8 I PLACE CLARENCE R (Jo"l) Auto Electrician 332186 Court, ear G Heaq
Phone 391.11 h637 Court (lee left bottom linos and papa 2n)
Place Robt (Mary) mach h1736 Florence
r Dept Plachek Jam (Martha) plans 290 Highland av h1l" Campus Way
Plains Earl S carrier P O h714 D
Plain Ruth r?14 D
e PLANET MOTEL. Mrs Joseph Sucher Mgr 993 3d, Phone 441-13
Bradley. h678 I Plankenhorn Gladys tchr Sturges Soh r637 7th R
Planten Gerrit M (Luetta 255 G) slsmn h 5th If
E Rialto av Planten Irene M asst Co Free Llbry x255 5th
Zeno: av Plate Anna M sWdy I N Gilbert Co r231 19th
Gas Co x1380 Lenoz Plate Loretta Stan Peoples Inv Co r231 E 19th
stn 898 Mt Vernon av h1380 Lena av �'. Plath Albt F switchmn h737 Powell
r Dept Platt Building 491 5th and 479 E
11332 Tia Juan - Platt Chas E h570 D A
} Platt Frank C (Frank C Platt Investment Co) rPandena
111307 Spruce PLATT FRANK C INVESTMENT CO (Frank C and Lawronae T Platt D
Tia Juana Realtors, Platt Bldg. 479 E. Phone=I-ti. Stanch 2177 sierra Way R
x554 Tia Juana ; PLATT LAWRENCE T (Carolyn; Frank C Platt Invesdment Co) k2/06
Genevieve
11554
Tia Juana PeATT MORTGAGE-LOAN CO. Elvin D Leekard Manager Mortgage Irl
11230 E Highland av, M Real Estate. Loans. Insurance, Financing, Platt Bldg 479 E. Phone TINWARE
d av 261.32 (Iles left center lines and
slsmn hen Highland av, pea a STOVES
Plotkin Polly Stan Co Agri Ezt Sary x1989 WW
N V) lac Guarantee Building t Lawn Plummer$Eu a T (Victoria)
Carrie) lab h886 AdeU Mountain View av 'L'MBI�(i
AND
Plummer Grace F Stan Pioneer Title Ins t Tr Co h83Il 4th MILLIIIG
Plummer Howard A (Genevieve) patr h6W 21st SUPPLIES
1175 Pine Poast Rosa W (wtd F W) h7110 Bungalow ct
11579 Gardena Poeton Lucy H tchr Rialto Jr High Bch rRlalto
ds CO (C M Rogers) Mattress Rebuilding Poffenberger Wm (Ida M) cormkr Hanford Iron Wks 11799 G X91
Phone 261.63 Pohl Gertrude r430 10th
CE A TRUST COMPANY, J L Mack Pros, =: Pohl Reinhold carp h430 10th Third Street
Glasscock Sec-Treas, R L Marine Asst see. '` Poland E Chester (Elio B) lab h4453 Arrowhead blvd
right top lines and page 6n G Poland Floyd E lab r4453 Arrowhead blvd
Dept x1279 Peels f, Poihamus Lester R (Clara P) h1288 Mt Vernon av 8aa
plmbr City Water Dept h1247 Massachu- f' POLICE COURT D E Van Luven Judge City Mall Bernardino
POLICE DEPARTMENT J T Nish Chief City Mall CAL
Perris .y Poliese Augustin lab x430 South I
4 D Poling Lots D sten County Sheriff r1098 Waterman av,
Mt Vernon ax h1M7 Goodlet Poling Lois L (wid J D) h1098 Waterman av
Pollard Sally A Mss rn47 Base Line Phone 2107
Bernardino
T R MOTORS MACDONALD & PRES'T'ON
G. WROGE, Mgr. MUSIC AND RADIO
and SERVICE Phone 2 E:clasively
182 East I St., Colton Phone 36143 679 7ww gt, Son Beraatdiae
ao11C
4
RPA Estate Loans nsurance
RadWw and ,
Phone 261-32 Pl=Bldg, 479 E St.
Rai on
Tia eii nm orati
0 Parso
AM
gm
SAN BERNARDINO DIRECTORY CO'S.
San Bernardino
.CITY DIRECTORY
ERNARD! -
1 9 3 0 "8 '4o 1 Arro., P0BCIC (IBRR B �a�di hea AvE f
I
} Including Colton and Rialto I I �a calif 92401
Containing an Alphabetical Directory of Business Concerns and
Private Citizens, a Street and Avenue Guide and
Directory of Householders and a Numerical
Telephone Guide.
ALSO
A BUYERS' GUIDE
AND A COMPLETE- -
CLASSIFIED BUSINESS DIRECTORY
For Detailed Contents see General Lades
Price $12.50
San Bernardino Directory Co., Publishers
Court street San Bernardino, California.
DIRECTORY LIBRARY FOR FREE USE OF PUBLIC AT
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Member Association of North American Directory Publisher.
(Copyright, 1980, by San Bernardino Directory Co.)
Telephone 491-x: J REPUBLIC TITLE GUARAN71Y COMPANY
ORIAL PARK 2'
'ETUAL CARE 3-DAY ESCROW SERVICE
e. a Mile West of Loma Linda PHONE t5t-T8
rardino Private Mausoleums-'.' 477 COURT STREET
RDINO DIRECTORY CO.'S SAN BERNARDINO CITY DIRECTORY (1930) 303
Plate Loretta sten Peoples Finance A Thrift Co r217 E 19th Phone 361.21
d plath AIM F (Anna M) mach Santa Fe h1005 5th
Platt Building 491 5th
Olive Platt Fran C (Frank C Platt Inv Co) rLos Angeles usic='+ PLATT FRANK C INVESTMENT CO (Frank C and Lawrence T Platt) al
896 Mt Vernon av h1329 9th Realtors 465 Sth, Tel 281-13
ar 440 23d Putt Lawrence T (Carolyn) (Frank C Platt Inv Co and Calif Garage) Craft
h2105 Genevieve
' L _ Platt Lois tchr Roosevelt Sch r432 14th
Tin Juana ,. Platt Mary M (wid C A) gas ate 4723 Arrowhead blvd h220 48th
Tin Juana PLATT MORTGAGE-LOAN CO. Elvin O Lockard Mgr, Mortgages, Real Shop
tanta Fe h 824 19th Estate. Loans, Insurance, Financing, Platt Bldg 465 5th, Tel 261-32 J
eland av (gee left top lines and page 44)
al eat 811 Highland av PLATT STUDIOS (G E Hinman, C L Peek) Photographers 481 E. Tel
A A Brewster r1275 Sierra Way - 301-64 651 Court SL
taly r440 14th plumbers A Steamfitters Union No 364 A C Munn sec 418 4th
), V-Pe Fidelity Savings l Lean Awn; Plumley Harry L (Victoria) electn Santa Fe h699 S Mountain
w View ev
Plummer C M fire dispr U S Forest Service
Plummer Clara waiter C A Barandon r1323 Acacia
9 Gardena `r PLUMMER EURA T (Carrie) Apt Cashier Ban Bernardino Valley Bank
ar Park 8th bet E and F 399 E.Tel 2117, h1323 Acacia,Tel 294-56 PIANO
(Rogers) 877 9th plyler Chu C (Pauline) h1006 Western av TUNING
pond Saml lab h1131 Lure
i TRUST COMPANY, J L Mack Pros. Podolnick David (Sara) (The Antoinette Shop) r602 8th and
L Morino V-Pew. W N Glasscock See• Poe Deal M (Sunrise Hand Ludy) hIO39 10th
ice right top lines and page 53) Poe Pauline Mrs h243 4th D"AIRING
,ept r1297 Perris Poffenberger Edna x769 G
Z"ity Water Dept h1247 Massachusetts av = Poffenberger Wm (Ida M) hT69 d OF Drug Co r1=9 Perris Pohl Gertrude x430 10th ALL
Pohl Hannah x430 10th Lumummti
Perris Pohl Reinhold b430 10th
v Poklyrovich Frank cook Goodfellown Grill r165 G
Poland Edwin C (Ella B) farmer h4453 Arrowhead blvd
per & Paint Co h502 Mountain View av, Poland Ella B Mrs elk MarkeU's Dept Store r4453 Arrowhead blvd
Poland Floyd E (Eva) hW7 48th
sr Sunshine Bang Co h796 20th POLICE DEPARTMENT (See San Bernardino City tiewn+mont)
Baking
{ing rIiighland Poling Lois D stun Co Sheriff r1093 Waterman av
Poling Lois L (wid J D) h1o93 Waterman av
33 South E `= Polish Romona Mrs h1095 Grant av of All
h ; . Polk Lynn S opr P E Ry r?MCA Irtwis
Trenton PoUen Jae auto wrecker 131 South E
er h969 F Pollen Lester elk Jae Pollen r131 South E
temn Sou Sierras Power Co Pollinger Ruth M r548 9th
•theast A Delco Remy Co) and battery Polly W H pntr x410 3d
P61us Thos cook x240 H
t Florence Polytechnic High School 1550 E
% Jr High Bch r637 7th Pamberger Robt h1287 5th Fine Caber
Pommler Eaidore F (Harriett E) h2836 Arrowhead av
Center sec 418 4th Pommler Harry L (Pommler & Holcomb )rBaas line Gardens work
lbert Co r21? E 19th gr. Pommier Leah r161 7th
ants Fe h217 E 19th '�' Pommier Mary (wid Goo) hIM Mountain View av
' FOR YOU � LEONARD RE__ • LOANS area INSUBSNCR
&BU DIN6 CO. 1= Be � EM hpft
umber Is It? � MME mss" � �T ST.
bone Guide of This Book TdaP� 381'73 sae '�1O' vat'
SAN BERNARDINO DIRECTORY CO'S.
San Bernardino
sing
rdino CITY DIRECTORY
COPY OF
1933M34 OF
D 1 N O Including Colton and Rialto
Ties and among the
clubs, chambers of Containing an Alphabetical Directory of Business Conce rns and
istitutions through- Private Citizens, a Street and Avenue Guide and
Directory of Householders and a Numerical
Telephone Guide. _
convey so complete {
city, its various in ALSO
id religious institu-
A BUYERS' GUIDE
tly of its wonderful AND A COMPLETE
u,ssibilities for the. CLASSIFIED BUSINESS DIRECTORY
For Detailed Contents see General In&M
ERYTHING POSSI- price S12.50
)RY A CRED.
EVE OF
l . San Bernardino Directory Co., publishers
430 Court Street San Bernardino, California
rectory CO* Directory Library For Free Use of Public at
San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce
);rectory Publishers Member Association of North American Directory Publishers
(Copyright, 1933. by San Bernardino Directory Co.)
4 ,
INSURANCE & ;�RESTONE SERVIL , STORES T�
SUR> BONDS TIC.
Hona But on Easy t)aymmh 211 F OIMF. ST01' SI;I{j'1(t. Phone �I•.54 for Our Service Car
Tim and Tubes. Vulcanizing. Brake Testing and Relining, Washing. Polishing, Leon
434 COURT ST.
ERNARDINO DIRECTORY CO.'S SAN BERNARDINO CITY DIRECTORY (1933-34) 273 1:.i
nt atdt Sou Sierras Power Co h135i PiglCly Wiggly gro 473 and 1181 E S
Pike Norman R (Helen) mgr S B Ice Co Colton Ice Co and Sou Cal 5
Ice Co h372 18th
Pitcher Theo (Frances M) pharm Helbig's Pharmacy h540 19th ►+•+ w
Pilgrim Hall 906 E = C a
Pins Jos (Mary) h205 E Olive
r P E Ry h624 Harris Pina Juan lab r668 Ramona
f Pershing av Pina Lupe Mrs r1704 4th
1372 9th Pina Mercy (wid M P) h678 I
h Co r1372 9th Pina Michl x678 I
Pinckert Frank (Emma) h730 Virginia av
Pinckert Frank (Emma) gas sta 896 Mt Vernon av h1329 9th
'arker Ice Machine Co h2762 Sierra Pinckert Victor r1329 9th
Pinckert Warren elk Frank Pinckert r1329 9th •
Mrs V A Phillips h1253 D Pincus Dorothy mgr New York Millinery r364 Arrowhead av
1 E 11th Pine Leonard J (Norma) lab City Water Dept h393 S Sierra way
Pinkerton Cecil E (Helen E) mach h824 19th
Pinkerton Geo M (Emma G) real est 611 Highland av OWNIEL
emetery Assn Pinkkert Apartments W P Birmingham mgr 201 4th
06 Base Line r1253 D Pinkley Alvin L (Lucille) pharm Monte Allison Drug Store h1275 Si-
erra way �I
Co r•Colton Pinkley Edo' W (Virginia) h440 14th
Pinkley Virgil M (Gussie V)supt County Hosp 12440 14th ' �{
alit G tl
Garage h1571 E Pinkston Mark (Ruby) adv mgr Orange Belt News h2142 Arrowhead av =�
Pinney Bernice Mrs cosmetician Velma Hughes h687 14th ,4 ,
315 E rm 203 h456 21st Pinney Paul (Blanche) alsamn h2139 Stoddard av
Way ioneer Cabin in Pioneer Park 6th bet E and F
331 20th Pioneer Park 6th bet E and F ("'!
" Co h2008 Belle Pioneer Rug and Mattress Co (C M Rogers) Vn 9th
PIONL,ER TITLE INSURAIITCE is TRUST COJ�Al�'Y.J L Mack Pres. O
'Ictoria,
av C K Cooper lot V-Pres. R L Hortae V-
1a11 av Try 440 Court, Tel 4791 (See right pros W N Glass000k, Beo- 1,;,
Piper Chas W plmbr City Water Dept gr1 Perristsv a S7)
w
Piper Goo W (Josephine) plmbr City Water Dept h1247 Massachug. _
etts av
wr Co r Riverside Piper Gladys bkpr r1279 Perris
Co r1176 King Piper Mary (wid J E) h1279 Perris av A
• PPin Mary r1497 Rialto av
Pirl Carl W (Eva V) h449 Base Line
,ice Dept h381 E 17th PIN Fred elk r449 Base Line
fountain View av -` Pitcher Harriet Mrs h426 5th y
Fs+• bid'
Pitcher Hiram N (Myrtle) baker J J Neal h796 20th
20 Pitt Alex T mgr Salvation Army Store r181 G r
N E rm D TRUCKS, 5th Sales and Pittman Henderson (May E) h333 South E "G
Seals►
N Pitta Chao E 12181 8th
1 Pitts Ebba A (wid C E) h770 Trenton o
8th Pitta Paul P baker 8 B Bread Co r Redlands
e CO) h827 Ed chill rd
Pitts Waiter C (Anna M) chf de Sheriff (civil d
g ` ITTSBURGH PAINT STORE,P dept) 12548 9th •
Paper, 654 3d. Tel !61 (See page 36 Sheehan) Mme'Paints and WaII
_
-iead av Place Automotive Elactriclans Wm Heslop mgr 333 G
Llif Div of Registration h1230 t7m P��RC��) �a�42 Mounwn View av
°Q
Plankenhorn Gladys tchr Sturges Junior High Sch 5 rr"1
- Plasterers Union No 73 418 4th 7 R
Plate Anna Mrs atawn I N Gilbert x217 E 19th a �
E 121542 E Plate David M (Anna) hZ17 E 19th 3 II
Platt Building 491 5th •
5th ' Platt Mortgage-Loan Co F L Whitelock mgr 506 E .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Demolition Proposal Review 90-2
Title The Platt Building Site Map
I
t
+ m_5 to STRE ET
N
a�s
/2 69
Uj
W
s`cw
VJ
W 6 .M
0
5 6
IV
G �
3
O
� N
L\ I
Exhibit. B
PLAN-,12 PAGE 1 OF 1 t4-"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Demolition Proposal Review 90-2
Title Site Location and General Plan Land Use Map
�u
LE
I
I I L
1 I
Cam' SPWUCIE
N fir.
COUNTY �r
t
G O
'Allot
C C N T R A l
1 CITY
AWf too Ma IIIII
cit ,r
G
=w
O tt iL
Z�I
r
1A
Exhibit
PW4N.12 PAGE 10F 1 1441M
R40 -0Ix.
September 28, 1990
Biron R. Bauer
765 N. Mountain View Avenue
San Bernardino , CA
92401-1135
Honorable Mayor Bob Holcomb, et.al.
City Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE: Retention and re-use of Platt Building
Dear Mayor Bob,
I am just one more of those voices out there in San Bernardino
who would like to offer a slightly different View point of what
could be done about the Platt Building. I realize that in the
Democratic form of City Government the power to make the final
determination on what will become of this historic building is
not just in one persons able hands; you as mayor do wield a great
deal of influence. This is why I am writing this letter to you.
I hope you will take note and consider the possibilities.
I've lived here on Mountain View Avenue for twenty (20)
years, and by most measures of time, I'm a relative newcomer.
However, in these few short years, I have noted a significant
change in "downtown" San Bernardino, some of it good.
Unfortunately, downtown San Bernardino (S.B. ) has lost a great
deal of its charm, identity, and vitality partly because of
earlier strategic decisions to create a new Central City Mall and
the Hospitality Lane and Carnegie Drive satellite
commercial/financial centers which have succeeded, but at the
expense of the downtown center. Former "E" Street merchants who
survived on the main street, went under in the new commercial
centers, because of higher and hidden costs. Now central San
Bernardino functions mainly as a government administrative center
for State, City and County Offices and related daytime services.
Because of my brief and late residency in S.B. , I have
missed a lot of the buildings in S.B. which old-timers have
commented on as being a colorful and significant part of the
history of the City - the Antlers Hotel, the Old Hospital, the
Carnegie Library, the old Elks Club, the old City Hall the Fox
Theater (in its heyday) etc. At one time, I am told, S.B. was an
entertainment center for the Inland Empire with many theatres and
movie houses. In the short time I have been here, though, I have
seen the widespread demolition of such S.B. landmarks as the
Municipal Auditorium, the California Hotel, the Central Fire
Station/Justice Center, Sturgis Jr. High, the Central Building,
the Y.W.C.A. , part of the Fox Building, the Clark Adobe and the
A*ook epk 3-0,
Page two
September 28, 1990
Retention and re-use of Platt Building
Adobe House at Secombe State Park. A lot of nicer older
residential structures have needlessly "bitten the dust", too.
So not a whole lot remains of old central San Bernardino: The
California Theater, Harris' , the Andreasen Building, the County
Courthouse, 1/2 of the Fox Building, the main Post Office, the
Woolworth Building, the Historic and Pioneer Society House, the
Miles House and the PLATT BUILDING.
Most S.B. residents would still identify the Central City as
radiating out from, "E" and Fifth Streets. Because of unfortunate
circumstances, the historic California Hotel is gone, leaving
behind a weed and trash-strewn empty lot as a momento. This lot
certainly doesn't look better than the building it replaced. The
vacant lot at 4th and "E" Streets (N.W. corner)__doesn't look any
better. The refurbished Penny's Building mirrors the ornate
front of the Platt Building for its face - it has no face of its
own. Whatever goes on this corner if the Platt Building is
dismantled, will be multiplied by two (2) , (be it structure or
trash lot) because the mirror front will reflect our good taste.
What then, is the value of the Platt Building? In a word-
Identity.
Without the Platt Building, the City Center will have a less
clearly defined identity. Fifth and "E" Street will be de-
emphasized as just another non-descript corner in town. There
could be yet another ugly, uncared for empty lot, which will
expose to view even more of the unsightly rears of the remaining
older buildings to the south of the Platt Building location. The
balance of positive to negative spaces and structural volumes
will be upset at the corner. The downtown skyline will be
lowered as well. Without the cosmetically attractive building
fronts of the Platt Building, the City Center begins to look even
more like a "toothless old hag".
It has apparently been economically expedient to demolish
most of old S.B. , but much of what has replaced it does not have
that much more lasting merit. The "outside" owners and investors
of real estate in downtown San Bernardino really don't care much
about our City, except as a playground for generating short-term
profits spent out of the area. This is sad, because much of what
has ben San Bernardino (and not just Urban America) is being lost
in favor of crass economics. When the developer/investor bought
the Platt Building, he was excited by the prospect. He is now
experiencing problems, has lost interest in the building and wants
out. So what if he destroys a significant part of San Bernardino
history in the process?
It is said that the Platt Building is structurally not up-
to-date. So why is it still relatively intact eighty (80) years
A }{.¢,ckrfte*%4 at*
Page three
September 28, 1990
Retention and re-use of Platt Building
after it was built. Was its builder a total fool? no building
in San Bernardino is earthquake-proof. Few of the newest buildings
are earthquake-resistent to any significant extent (none will
withstand an 8 quake) . The Vanir Building probably doesn't have
the required fire sprinkler system installed, yet. The exterior
glass from the City Hall Building will hurt and maim many in the
event of a major tremor, as it comes off and falls to the ground.
The new County Building will probably settle into the mud in the
event of a major earthquake. The Platt Building would probably
not fare much worse than these newer "technologically advanced"
structures. Newer structural and construction standards always
make what has gone before obsolete, but not necessarily worthless.
So why do other cultures/societies retain and reverence their
older buildings in this Country and in Europe?
They retain them for their Cultural-- and Historical
significance and as a lesson in the various architectural orders
and traditions. And they also retain them as tourist attractions
and for their economic contribution. If economic wherewithal is
the only criteria for evaluating the net worth of a structure,
all of San Bernardino's buildings will eventually fall prey to
the wrecking ball. Priorities need to be established, yesterday!
The Platt Building is one remaining landmark which should be
retained:
1) To improve the appearance of 5th and "E" Streets.
2) As a good example of "vertical zoning" including shops,
offices and a real theater.
3) As an example of the architectural excellence of old
San Bernardino.
Note: the Platt Building is and should be used right now for
many types of low-occupancy uses like storage (as the Fox
Theater) or mini-storage units for many of the elderly down-town
retirees, without major structural changes.
In order for the building to be saved and to be economically
viable, great flexibility needs to be exercised and compromises
made. The concern and commitment to save it, however, needs to
be made first. Then a rational review committee needs to work out
which of the many structural refinements that theoretically could
be applied, should be applied. This is all contingent on proposed
occupancy type, of course.
It is my sincere feeling that this particular building is a
"worthy" and should be retained, at least until something better
is committed to that space besides another parking lot. The owner
shouldn't be allowed to evade his responsibility, just because his
A i+*6,w4#k 10-
Page four
September 28, 1990
Retention and re-use of Platt Building
easy economic return is in jeopardy. The concept of stewardshiu-
caring for whatever it is we have - needs to be applied here.
Please forgive the general and largely opinionated content of
this letter, but you see, some people do care about what where
they live looks like. Maybe we cannot cure all the city concerns
related to gangs, drugs, crime and civil disobedience/poverty,
but possibly we can retain some of the time-honored symbols of a
kinder, slower-paced American community where life was is? good,
Thank you, respectfully submitted
Biron R. Bauer
CC: City Council
historic & Preservation Task Force
City Administrator
Community Development Department
A .H-o,clnvrtw+
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. John Montgomery, AICP
Chairman, Environmental Rev ' eZ C� ommittee
FROM: Dr. James Mulvihill , AICP
San Bernardino
Associate Professor, Cal S e,
SUBJECT: EIR Requirement for Platt Building Demolition
Proposal
CC: Mr. Michael Maudsley, Councilman; Mr. Henry
Empeno, Dpty City Attorney; Kenneth J. Hender-
son, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency.
DATE : October 15 , 1990
At the request of the Environmental Review Committee at
its meeting on August 11 , 1990, I am providing in written
form my basic concerns regarding the future status of the
Platt Building, and the bases for my conclusion that a
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required in this case .
I understand that you will duplicate this memo and
distribute it to the ERC, so they can review it before the
next meeting on October 25th.
My conclusion that an EIR is mandatory in this case is
drawn from three areas :
1) the automatic requirement of CEQA for an EIR when a
project will have a significant impact on the
environment,
2) the requirements of the San Bernardino city general
plan, and
3 ) the requirements of California Community
Redevelopment Law.
A I{a�lnrre�� �.�
Page Two
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
Regarding the first general area of concern; the
Legislature has emphasized that:
All local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be
prepared by contract, and certify the completion of an
Environmental Impact Report on any project they intend
to carry out or approve which may have a significant
effect on the environment . . . (pub Res Code 21151)
A "local agency" is defined as , " . . . any public agency other
than a state agency, board, or commission. For the purposes
of this division, a redevelopment agency and a local agency
formation commission are local agencies . " (Pub Res Code
21062 ) . Let me emphasize that the Code states "may have"
significant effect, so an EIR must be completed even in
cases where it has not been clearly shown that a project
will have a significant effect. In the case of the
demolition of the Platt Building a significant effect is
clearly shown.
"A ' significant effect' on the environment means a
substantial , or potentially substantial, adverse change in
the environment . " (Pub .Res .Code 21068) . " ' Environment' means
the physical conditions which exist within the area which
will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air,
water, minerals , flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or
aestl t . c siQnif . nce(emphasis added) . " (Pub Res Code
21060 . 5 ) . The historic significance of the Platt Building is
;•
A}}ac,GxmeKk
Page Three
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
confirmed by L1ie RDA' s own historic consultants, Hatheway &
Associates , in their evaluation of the building,
"Determination of Eligibility Report for the i�ldtt
Building, " dated June 1990 . The consultant concludes :
The Platt Building Mops appear to
qualify. . . Specifically, the structure ja in excess of
50 years old. Construction began on the building in the
fall of 1924 . It ii also one of the last surviving
examples of its period and type in the City of San
Bernardino. . .The Platt Building does retain a
relatively high degree of architectural and/or design
integrity. It has been altered very little on the
exterior. . .The design and decorative detail on the
exterior L also of particular interest. . .The cast or
art stone architectural/decorative detail on the facade
over the theatre marquee is both intact, and it is
relatively unique to the San Bernardino area. ?.11
affect the building does retain a high degree of
architectural integrity,, and it adds significantly to
the overall design context and historical aesthetics of
downtown San Bernardino(emphasis added) . (pp. 9-10)
It is important to note that the Platt Building is
specifically identified as an "Historic Landmark" on page 3-
28 of San Bernardino' s general plan.
The Legislature ' s intent is to make an EIR a common,
not an extraordinary, procedure in cases where a significant
impact is shown. An EIR is an "informational document" and
that :
. . . [t ]he purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is
to provide public agencies and the r) hlic in genera
with detailed information about the effect which a
proposed project is likely to have on the environment;
to list ways in which the significant effects of such a
A +taelnw\eP--k a1
Page Four
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
project might be minimized; and to indicate
alternatives to such a _proiec . ( emphasis added) . ( Pub
Res Code 21061 )
"An EIR is an environmental ' alarm bell ' whose purpose
it is to alert the public and its responsible officials
to environmental changes before they have reached
ecological points of no return. " (Laurel Heights
Tmprovement Association of San Francisco . Inc . V. The
Ream s of the University of California, ( 1989 ) 47
Cal . 3d 376; 253 CalRptr 426 , at p. 430) .
Thus ; an EIR is meant to increase the public ' s knowledge of
the project and its environmental impacts , so that it can
make an informed judgement . An EIR also facilitates the
communication between various involved government agencies .
EIRs should be prepared as early in the planning
process as possible to enable environmental considerations
to influence the project:
" . . . the later the environmental review process begins ,
the more bureaucratic and financial momentum there is
behind a proposed project, thus providing a strong
incentive to ignore environmental concerns that could
be dealt with more easily at an early stage of the
project. " (laurel Heights Improvement Association of
SAn ranc? sco Inc v The Regents of the University of
ralifornia, ( 1989) 47 Cal . 3d 376; 253 CalRptr 426 , at
p. 433 .
Alternatively, prejudicial abuse of discretion by the
decision-making body can be shown if : 1 ) that body failed to
prepare an adequate EIR as required by statute, or 2) that
its findings were not supported by substantial evidence.
(c ti2ens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors of the
/��A,C�VV�G�►-T
Page Five
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
County of Santa Barbara, ( 1988 ) 197 Cal .App. 3d 1167 ; 243
CalRptr 339 , at p. 344 ) .
While the presence of serious public controversy
concerning a project ' s adverse environmental impact alone
indicates that the preparation of an EIR is desirable:
. . if it may be fairly argued that the impacts are
significant, the absence of public controversy will not
justify the decision to issue a negative declaration.
(City of Antioch v City Council of the City of
Pittsburgh, 187 Cal .App. 3d 1325; 232 CalRptr 507 , at p.
511 .
In addition to describing mitigation measures, the
Legislature requires an EIR to describe a range of
alternatives to the project -- including = project.
(Pub.Res .Code 21100 (d) ; CEQA Guidelines 15126 (d) ) . These
alternatives must be discussed, " . . . even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of
the project objectives , or would be more costly. " (CEQA
Guidelines 15126 (d) 3 ) . An EIR must contain a discussion of
feasible alternatives , as well as mitigation measures :
" . . .public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such
projects ( emphasis added) . . . " (Pub Res Code 21002 ) .
"Indeed, the use of the word "or" in section 21002
supports the view that alternatives and mitigation
measures must be discussed in an EIR because, if an
agency is to assess thoroughly whether environmental
effects can be alleviated by either mitigation or
alternatives , the EIP, must discuss both. " (T-aural
Page Six
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
Hpiahty TmiprovAment T gcnci at i ran of San Francisco . Inc .
v The Regents of t e universiy of California, ( 1989 )
47 Cal . 3d 376; 253 CalRptr 426 , at p. 437 )
And this discussion of alternatives must be thorough:
without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR,
neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their
proper roles in the CEQA process . . . ' To facilitate
CEQA' s informational role, the EIR must contain facts
and analysis , not just the agency' s bare conclusions or
opinions ' . . .An EIR must include detail sufficient to
enable those who did not participate in its preparation
to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues
raised by the proposed project. . .Those alternatives and
the reasons they were rejected, however, must be
discussed in the EIR in sufficient detail to enable
meaningful participation and criticism by the public .
(Tau el Heights improvement Associatinn of San
Franc_ ___ T.... v, The Regents of the un_ivaraity of
^alifornia, ( 1989 ) 47 Cal . 3d 376; 253 CalRptr 426 , at
p. 439)
Even if effective in alleviating adverse environmental
impacts , simply applying mitigation measures is no an excuse
for not evaluating alternatives :
imposition of conditions to partially ameliorate
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project
does not excuse failure to evaluate the alternative
scaled-down alternative . Inasmuch as there was no
substantial evidence to support respondent' s finding
that the alternative design was economically
infeasible, further consideration at the administrative
level is required. (ritizens of Goleta valley v. Board
of Supervisors of the County_of Santa Barbara, ( 1988)
197 Ca1 .App.3d 1167 ; 243 CalRptr 339 , at pp. 348-349 ) .
The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own
failure to gather relevant data. . .CEQA places the
burden of environmental investigation on the government
rather than the public . (Robert T Sundstrom v. County
Page Seven
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
nf Mendocir_o, ( 1988 ) 202 Cal .App. 3d 296 ; 248 CalRptr
352 , pp. 361-362 )
Regarding the second general area of concern listed at
the beginning of this memorandum, it is clear that the
citizens of the City of San Bernardino desire that priority
be placed on protecting and enhancing, = demolishing,
historic buildings :
Objective ve 3 . 5
it shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino
to:
Protect and enhance historic , architectural, or
cultural resources in commercial and redevelo mA ent
areas in a manner that will encourage revitalization
and investment in these areas (emphasis added) .
Policy 3 . 5 . 1 :
Encourage the preservation, maintenance,
enhancement and Lall-ciA of existing buildings in
redevelopment and commercial areas (emphasis 3-36) .
added) . (City of San Bernardino General Plan, p.
it is also clear that the citizens of the City expect the
RDA to protect, not destroy, historic buildings:
Policy 3 . 5 . 6 :
utilize the Redevelopment Agency as a vehicle for
preservation activity. The Agency is currently
empowered to acquire, hold, restore, and resell
buildings . . .
Policy 3 . 5 .7 :
Require that an environmental review be conducted
on demolition permit applications for buildings
designated or potentially eligible for designation as
historic structures , that the guidelines of the
'4*"A0e'J Ik
I
Page Eight
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) be followed
in reviewing demolition requests for structures in the
above two categories and prohibit demolition without a
structural analysis of the structure ' s ability to be
rehabilitated and/or relocated (emphasis added) . . . (City
of San Bernardino General Plan, p. 3-37 ) .
The Legislature makes it clear that a city' s general plan is
its "constitution" for development . Given the extensive
number of public meetings held by the Citizens Advisory
Committee, the City Planning Commission and the Common
Council , it must be concluded that the City' s general plan,
more closely than any other source, reflects the will of its
citizens .
That the city must comply with its own general plan is
supported by the Legislature' s declaration:
. . . decisions involving the future growth of the state,
most of which are made at the local level , should be
guided by an effective planning process , including the
local general plan. . . (Gov.Code, 65030 . 1) .
The Legislature did not limit this policy to decisions
regarding proposed private developments; it encompasses
aU decisions involving the future growth of the state,
which necessarily includes decisions by a city to
proceed with public works projects . All such decisions
are to be guided by an effective planning process that
includes the local general plan. (Friends of "B" street
v. City of Hayward, ( 1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988; 165
CalRptr 514 , at p. 520 .
Should a city make decisions that do not conform with its
general plan:
City approval of proposed subdivision, construction of
public improvements , and private sale of subdivided
lots may be enjoined for lack of consistency of
14 44A JI-JI^INIgv+ DL L
Page Nine
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
subdivision map with the general plan. . . In action
brought by citizen' s group challenging city' s proposed
street improvement project, citizen' s group was
entitled to award of attorney fees pursuant to the
substantial benefit rule . . . (Friends of "Ell Street v.
City of Hayward, ( 1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988; 165 CalRptr
514 , at P. 515 ) .
The third area of concern listed at the begini.�.-ig of
this memorandum refers to Community Redevelopment Law,
specifically the role of RDAs . First, before a community
undertakes redevelopment it is required to have an adequate
general plan adopted and in place. (Health & Saf Code
33302 ) . Next, the redevelopment plan must conform to the
general plan insofar as the plan applies to the project
area. (Health & Saf Code 33331) . Thus, RDAs are expected to
comply with their local general plan.
The alternative of affordable elderly housing should be
closely examined, combined with the potential preservation
and reuse of the Platt Building. Community Redevelopment Law
suggests affordable housing be given top priority:
[The Legislature] declares that there continues to
exist throughout the state a seriously inadequate
supply of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations for
persons and families of low income . This condition is
contrary to the public interest and threatens the
health, safety, welfare, comfort and security of people
of this state . (Health & Saf Code 33250)
f
Page Ten
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
Decent housing and suitable living environment has been
given highest priority by the state legislature . (Gov Code
65580 ) .
CONCLUSION
A complete study of alternatives to this demolition
proposal has not been performed. These studies, required in
an EIR, need to be carried-out so that public decision-
makers , and the public, can make responsible decisions
regarding the circumstances of this issue. Once this studies
are completed my opinion may change, but presently, given my
experience in planning and what I have seen and understand
about the area, I conclude that affordable elderly housing
should have a higher priority than other potential uses for
this site. I base this conclusion on the three year waiting
list at St. Bernardine ' s high-rise across the street from
the Platt Building, the availability of social services for
the elderly, public transit, shopping facilities, a major
public library within a short distance of the site, and the
priority given to affordable housing by the Legislature . In
addition, viable downtowns need people living there.
The alternate of demolishing the building for a parking
lot is a short-sighted one . Parking lots tend to create, not
4 J4 V4VA sv$ a h
r
Page Eleven
MEMO: Platt Building, October 15 , 1990
cure, blight. It has also been suggested that an office or
commercial complex could be placed at the site. There
appears to be a substantial office vacancy rate in the City
and surrounding region. An additional office tower is being
proposed for Court Street . Additional office space does not
appear justifiable . Similar conclusions can be drawn
regarding commercial uses . Rather than expending public
dollars encouraging more commercial space, I feel a better
investment could be made improving current commercial uses .
Even if the Platt Building had no historic
significance, it is well-constructed and meets current
earthquake standards . After speaking with persons with
background in structural rehabilitation and reuse, it
appears possible, and at reasonable costs , to rehabilitate
the Platt Building for apartments . But the fact remains that
the Platt Building does have historic significance for this
City; that fact alone is a substantial argument for not
demolishing it.
In is in the public interest and welfare that an EIR be
required on the Platt Building demolition proposal .
��!{o�•r�e� am
R -
C I T Y OF S A N B E R N A R D I N O
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: San Bernardino Environmental Review Committee
FROM: Dennis A. Barlow, Sr. Asst. City Attorney
DATE: October 19, 1990
RE: Platt Building
On behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, I have reviewed the
Memorandum from Dr. James Mulvihill to Mr. John Montgomery dated
October 15, 1990 . I have a great deal of respect for Dr .
Mulvihill and appreciate his extensive service to the City of San
Bernardino. I also believe that the material he has presented to
the Committee will prove of great worth in future considerations
of this type.
However I must disagree with his conclusion that an
Environmental Impact Report is required in this instance. The
"Determination of Eligibility Report for the Platt Building, "
dated June 1990, by Hatheway & Associates to which he refers
notes four separate criteria which qualify a structure for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. First of
all even if the building does, in fact, qualify for the National
Register, such an event does not mean that it is an historical
structure for CEQA purposes. Secondly, the Platt Building only
appears to qualify under the third , " Distinctive
Characteristics . The report notes the possibility of an
application to list the structure in the National Register.
Certainly the act of making such an application is no guarantee
that it will be accepted. Even the report itself notes that
alternative mitigation options include photo recordation of the
building before demolition. It must be conceded that the
building has not at this point been designated as an historical
structure and it is problematic whether it ever would be.
Even so, the possible historical nature has been noted on
the initial study and yet a Negative Declaration has been
recommended. Just because a building is old doesn't mean that it
has historical significance. The Platt Building is just not a
very distinctive or unique building.
Historical issues aside, Dr. Mulvihill has expressed a
desire that the property be used for Senior Citizen Housing, a
laudable goal. In fact plans are in the works for such housing
less than a block away from this site with additional such
housing anticipated to be constructed near the San Bernardino
DAB/ses/Platt-3.mem
October 19, 1990
,
TO: San Bernardino Environmental Review Committee
RE: Platt Building
Page 2
Community Hospital . Certainly as Dr. Mulvihill notes such
housing is needed in this City and it is anticipated that the
above projects will at least take partial steps to fulfill that
need. But more importantly funds for such important projects, as
they are for many government actions today, are limited. Even if
it were determined that Senior Citizen Housing was the best use
for this site it would be an economically better decision to
construct a building from the ground up rather than go through
the difficult and expensive process of refurbishing and
rehabilitating a 65 year old structure. The result would also be
a more efficient, cleaner and safer building.
But as it applies to the environmental issue at hand, the
desired use of the property by Dr. Mulvihill or any other
individual is not relevant . The issue is whether an
Environmental Impact Report should be required for the
demolition, not what ultimate use should be made of the site.
Mr. Mulvihill also implies that public controversy requires
the preparation of an EIR. Even if the minimal discussion we
have seen would qualify as "public controversy", the statute is
clear that absent substantial evidence in the record of an
adverse environmental effect, no EIR need be prepared even in the
face of significant public controversy.
"The existence of public controversy over the
environmental effects of a project shall not
require preparation of an environmental
impact report if there is no substantial
evidence before the agency that the project
may have a significant effect on the
environment. " (Public Resources Code Section
21082.2)
It should be clearly understood that "some" evidence is not
the same as "substantial" evidence.
In conclusion, it is clear that an Environmental Impact
Report is not required as Dr. Mulvihill suggests. In addition
the ultimate use of the property, though interesting for
discussion, is not relevant to the issue facing the Committee.
JEJNNIS A ARLOW
DAB/ses/Platt-3.mem
October 19, 1990
Sean O'Malley
6158 Argyle Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92404
November 28, 1990
Councilman Michael Maudsley
City Hall
300 North D . Street
Council Chambers
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Councilman Maudsley:
This letter concerns the futuze of the Platt Building of San
Bernardino, California, and other sites within the City' s realm of
historic significance . Its intent is to justify the importance of
historic planning within the framework of a city' s General Plan,
through the recognition of the tremendous opportunities and
potential it can create.
Here in Southern California, historic planning has established
itself as a proven and successful redevelopment strategy. Adapting
these strategies towards the preservation of the Platt Building,
while recognizing their potential risks, can improve the
environmental and economic vitality of our downtown.
The successes, of historic planning are all around us . Portland,
Redlands, San Diego, and Pasadena represent only a few of such
successful implementations . By developing a quilt-work of urban
design, incorporating both the old and the new, they have created a
sense of place and destination through the preservation of their
own unique heritage . But their approach has transcended the
preservation of mere building facades .
The reasons for historic preservation are many. Older structures
are more likely to be located closer or direc-ly adjacent to the
street, thus; creating a greater sense of enclosure and a friendlier
pedestrian environment. . This building to street relationship is
critical in creating real pedestrian scale. Additionally, the
articulate attention to detail present in our older structures is
often difficult Eo match with today' s high labor and material
costs . Their- treasures can rarely be replicated. The
architectural diversity ensured through preservation also adds
interest and character to our downtown environments . The economic
benefits enjoyed by the rejuvenated downtowns of Portland,
Redlands, San Diego, and Pasadena have been realized through the\,
recognition of these factors, and a long-term commitment to
creating quality environments fur its people .
�4t�at�►��a r
L L LV 0V VG•L)[. •(� L`L "!D`i 1 vo L
Elsinore' s charm has been challenged by the pressures
of development and the opportunities it creates . In
order to preserve, enhance, drid develop their unique
heritage, Lake Elsinore chose tv rewrite their General
Plan outlining these goals and its means for
implementation .
b . On the othcrhand, Barstow recognized its internal
inability to support substantial commercial activity
based on its average per-capita income .
Therefore, it identified as a resource the freeway -
full of travelers with poLeritial expendable income .
Thus, their tourism strategy is to bring in passers-by
with a balanced plan of an old and new commercial
center within easy reach of the freeway corridor.
Barstow recognized its importance as a "gateway"
center to another destination - the desert playground.
Similarly, San Bernardino acts as a gateway to the
National Forest and its related resorts and
communities, and must capitdlize on this opportunity.
6 . Develop a `Civic Amenity Strategy' for the City of San
Bernardino:
The Redevelopment Agency for the City of Pasadena has
invested its dollars on "civic infrastructure" (cultural
centers, museums, art galleries, etc) to directly improve
the quality of life and environment in downtown. It has
chosen not to invest directly in business ventures and
developments with tax dollars, but fund civic amenities
through private investment . Its success has been
astounding.
Pasadena' s strategy has created Leal long-term value in
downtown, without the risks associated with the
uncertainties of commorc;ial, residential, and office
development .
The potential risks of historic preservation deserve attention.
Liability issues concerning fire and on-site injury is a potential
danger. Also, in California, seismic retrofit can be a potentially
costly endeavor.
However, immediately securing the site through fencing and other
appropriate measures can lesson liability risks on the short-term.
Additionally, the preservation of a building' s architectural
integrity can provide long-term economic benefits that may out-
weigh short-term costs .
San Bernardino seems to be at a cross-road of opportunity. A solid
income tax bare is undoubtedly important, and a "blank slate" may
be more attractive to a developer than a "re-do" . Are we baiting
�S
�l'�
I recognize the difficulties involved with historic preservation .
Adaptive re-use is perhaps the most difficult of all -re-development
answers . However, its z-eturns can be r_hp most rewarding.
I have attempted to outline some constructive suggestions that may
improve the survivability of the Platt Building :
I . Formulate a market study that would determine economically
feasible uses in a downtown historic setting.
2 . Invite public participation in the formulation of an
Historic Preservation Strategy through a workshop
program. The participaLioxt of the San Bernardino Historic
Society, the Chamber of Commerce, the local chapter of the
MairistreeL Association, and local universities and schools
would be encouraged.
3 . Tssue a Request for Propo*al thaL would study the
following elements and outline a course of action:
a . The history of downtown Sate Bernardino, and the
relative importance of the Platt Building,
b. The existing situation as a vacant and potentially
historic building within a civwntown seLLirig,
C . Develop downtown revi-al.izaLiuln goals relative to
historic preservation,
d. Outline developer and agency responsibiliLt-ds that
would cn3ure the successful cu:cipletion of such a
project .
4 . Establish the historic Preservation of the Platt Building
as a priority, thereby increasing its chances for
appropriate funding. Identify available state and federal
funding.
5 . Adopt the concept of `Touris,n Planning, within the
framework of the existing General Plan:
California posses the largest in-state tourism in the
nation . Exhausting the potenL.ial of this tremendous
market is critical .
Identify Heritage Tourism as d viable planning strategy.
Presently, much interest has been generated by city
agencies identifying tourism as the key element of their
economic vitality. For example:
a . Lake Elsinore has identified Heritage Tourism as the
key to their future economic healt-h. Long known as a
resort dc.^,tination due to their therapeutic mineral
bathe;, boating recreation, K%d agreeable climate, Lake
q1k
11/28,,90 08:52 '0710 4 7861 SWA 2005/005
,
the hook for a potential developer who won't show up? Should we
tear down a building without a plan - eliminating the only scenario
for re-development that could possibly incorporate our city' s
heritage'? Should we add yet another vacant parcel and visual
eyesore to our downtown?
I grew up in San Bernardino, and I spent good 22 years here. She' s
lucky to possess such a rich and storied past . but let' s preserve
it with something more than a dusty volume lost in the corners of
our libraries . The remembrance of our past can create a vision for
the future. The Platt Building gives us this opportunity. Let' s
make it happen .
Sincerely,
a '
Sean O'Malley
cc: Debra Woldruff
Planning Department
Y OF SAN BERNA 0
DE9LLOACW/TMDEVZIOMf ..A Sam C'Y
TI TOmFFICE
9010-1502
70: IO'3dMM J. HDMM;SQd, Emaitive Director
Community DevelapMeott
Redevelopment Agency
FF M: James Willmott
Senior Rehabilitation Coordinator
SEM DCT: I m CWT ESTIIrATFM Z+CR PLUT BUILDIM
HATE: October 12, 1990
CDPMS: File
Rest, purmmnt to yaw request, the following are 3y ra gh estimates
relative to the above referenced building:
.Deescriotiau of Item
1• MJineerinJ man: $ 1,500.00 to
2. Preparation of Plans Oder following scenarios): $ 2,000.00
a) Structure currently has cmv=ted N/A
reinfcrved steel.
b) Lhnozvcted reinfcrcW steel. $ 10,000.00
c) Unreinfarced steel. $ 25,000.00
3. Bringing Structure to Earthquakm Standa -ds: Cost
th knmm
4. Parking Ia ggizremeaits:
a) Cmwtn=tien of fii'*-seven (57) parking $399,,000.00
m.
b) Rent fifty-seven (57) parking spaces annually. $ 35,000.00
5. "L" Shape Structure. First Floor is Qmzw=i mki Cpist
Offices. Repairs and usage umV=m: mown
6. wiz' and/or IaeW ace Ed.sting Elevators: $ 80"000.00 to
$150,000.00
7. Install Fire SPrinklerrs on Four (4) Floors: $ 36,000.00
($9,000.00 per floor)
QTf^A IA IAAAIA� �A
II I imOrTICE fir" 9010-1502
October 12, 1990
page 2
S. omstr=c Seven (7) Roams on Second, Zhird $357,000.00
and Fourth Floors ($119,000 per floo(r).
9. Theatre Structure:
a) Cm plate demolition of interior. $300,000.00 to
$350,000.00
b) Level %-QUnd floor and pour oonareta. $ 46,000.00
c) amwttucticn of courtyard in center of cost
theatre for cutter rccm 1 UrOalm
reqpirements/cpan up roof area.
10. cmwtructicn of Two (2) New Elevators and Stairs $105,000.00
for Miree (3) Story Str CWM.
11. cwmuwUm of courtyard Side Wall and Floors $ 50,000.00
for Se=md and Mird Stories to Matdiing Hdsting
Levels.
12. Installation of Fire Sprinklers on Mzes (3) $ 48,000.00
Floors ($16,000 per floor).
13. Cons zuct Tm (10) Roams an Seom*d and Third $436,000.00
Floors ($218,000 per floor).
TOTAL FD= COST ESMOTIS: $18504,500.00 to
!2,0040,000.00
As noted earlier, it is not known whether an engineering study would be
required aryl, if so, what the cost of the study and required Ovem sts
would be. Me same thing applies to bringing the building up to earth-
quake standards.
Please see me if you require additianal information ar
regarding this rough estimate.
1-to i
amen A. Willmott
Senior Rertabilitation Ser
eia�
JAW:lab
A44M,&WIJ 31P
t
Mis
VID i
. i
. 1
W
91A I
S
•
• •�•• • • • ••• • • , •
IVA �Ii1
LI V lWr BED R OOM
� --� OAfSSING
FOYER KIT
T
� Ole ' R
TYPIGAL IAPI I v4do
_ � D��vEoWN ���rrtiq lksfr�t ..
Lot
11I
Punt dv��ol� I i .
s� �ss� I � �• '
I i A161,
F.91 #
a PVbW C C ITO
i 1 ill . v' -del t1 ! • �� ; ss ZO
1 FINCR/WIMAKER(5d0 AOL.IcE (iy) .
— i
1
i
A
• y
•j • / ,, I•
at . t
lb 1
t., t
• •8?
• i % IM Z
• •I •�� Aft. • «• • ,i• ••• : �, _ . �.1�•!: • •••« • ti• •
L—' +
VA
• 3/7iff o=LA/J r
46
MITIGATION MEASURES AND REPORTING/MONITORING ACTIVITIES FOR
DEMOLITION PROPOSAL REVIEW (DPR) NO. 90-02
Prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit to the Platt Building, the
applicant shall furnish the City Planning and Building Services
Department with a checklist chart to use in tracking the mitigation
monitoring and reporting activities . The chart shall list each
mitigation measure, monitoring or reporting action and be ruled
into columns that are designed to record responsible agency, dates
of completion, inspector or other certifying person and the person
recording the information.
3.2. 1 EARTH RESOURCES
i.a. MITIGATION MEASURES
Excavation and fill of the Platt Building' s basement may
result in the use of material that exceeds 10, 000 cubic
yards. Prior to issuance of any permits , the applicant
shall submit information to the Public Works Department
describing the origin of all fill materials to be used on
site, its composition (soil type/character) and the
proposed method of compaction.
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
No reporting/monitoring actions are needed as the
mitigation measures are standard requirements of the
City, administered by the Public Works Department and the
Planning and Building Services Department.
3.2.2 AIR RESOURCES
2.a. MITIGATION MEASURES
Demolition of the Platt Building on a temporary basis ,
may create dust and release other airborne particulates
during demolition activities. The building contains
asbestos materials which could constitute a serious
health hazard. As part of demolition activities , the
applicant shall complete asbestos removal operations in
accordance with the Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions From
Demolition/Renovation Activities . The Building Safety
Division shall ensure that demolition actions are
consistent with conditions established by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) .
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
No reporting/monitoring actions are needed as the
mitigation measures described are standard requirements
of the SCAQMD and the City, administered by the SCAQMD
and the Building Safety Division.
1
A ttacMw►ev* 4k
Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring
Activities for DPR 90-02
July 31, 1991
3. 2.4 NOISE
4 .a. ,b. MITIGATION MEASURES
Demolition activities could result in increased noise
levels on site and in the vicinity. All demolition
activities , including asbestos removal , shall be limited
to between 7 : 00 a.m. and 10 : 00 p.m. , Mondays through
Saturdays .
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
No reporting/monitoring actions are needed as mitigation
measures described are standard requirements of the City,
administered by the Planning and Building Services
Department and the Police Department.
3.2. 6 MAN-MADE HAZARDS
6.a. MITIGATION MEASURES
( 1 ) Removal of asbestos from the Platt Building will involve
three potentially hazardous activities - the removal ,
transport and disposal of the asbestos materials. Each
of these activities could result in asbestos fiber
emissions . Mitigation shall be the same as described in
Item 2 .a.
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
Refer to Item 2 .a.
6.c. MITIGATION MEASURES
(2 ) The Platt Building is a large building that abuts the lot
line on all four sides and at the public right-of-way on
the west and north boundaries . As such, demolition
actions on the west and north sides will temporarily
encroach onto the sidewalks and possibly beyond the curbs
onto both 5th and "E" Streets. The applicant shall
obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Services
Department. In addition, the applicant shall submit a
Safety Plan to the Public Services Department, the
Planning and Building Services Department and Public
Works Department for their review and approval .
2
Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring
Activities for DPR 90-02
July 31, 1991
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
No reporting/monitoring actions are needed as the
mitigation measures described are standard requirements
of the City, administered by the Public Services
Department, the Public Works Department and Planning and
Building Services Department.
3.2.7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
7.f. MITIGATION MEASURES
Demolition activities will result in encroachment into
the public right-of-way thereby affecting at a minimum
pedestrian circulation and street parking. Mitigation
shall be the same as described for Item 6 .c. ( 2 ) .
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
Refer to Item 6 .c. ( 2 ) .
3.2.8 AESTHETICS
8.b. MITIGATION MEASURES
The Platt Building is large and imposing with attractive
architectural features which include decorative art stone
window surrounds and a decorative cornice. Due to its
size, bulk and presence, the building is something of a
landmark in the downtown area and its demolition will
alter the City' s skyline. Following demolition, the City
shall review any development proposals for the site to
ensure that building elevations will enhance the downtown
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies in the
General Plan and in accordance with the development
standards and design guidelines in the Development Code.
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
No reporting/monitoring actions are needed as the
mitigation measures described are standard requirements
of the City, administered by the Planning and Building
Services Department.
3
��{ae.l�w+►e�-'1 �
Mitigation Measures and Reporting/Monitoring
Activities for DPR 90-02
July 31, 1991
3.2. 9 CULTURAL. RESOURCES
9.a. ,b. MITIGATION MEASURES
The Platt Building was built over fifty ( 50 ) years ago
and as such, the building has been evaluated for
historical significance as part of the review for a
demolition proposal . The applicant shall prepare a
complete photo recordation of the Platt Building in
general accordance with the Historic American Buildings
Survey (HABS) guidelines. Four complete sets of the
recordation shall be submitted to the Planning and
Building Services Department. The four sets of photo
recordation shall be distributed and maintained by the
following entities : the Planning and Building Services
Department; the Feldheym Library; the City' s Historical
and Pioneer Society; and, the State Office of Historic
Preservation. (Refer to Exhibit A. , pages 11 and 12 of
the Hatheway & Associates Historic Resource Evaluation
Report, for an explanation of photo recordation) .
In addition, the applicant shall salvage and adaptively
reuse the architectural materials and features of the
building that are of a period or of historic interest.
REPORTING/MONITORING ACTION
The applicant shall obtain the services of a qualified
historic preservation consultant to perform and complete
the photo recordation. The required number of copies (4 )
of the photo recordation shall be submitted to the
Planning and Building Services Department prior to
issuance of any permits.
The applicant shall obtain the services of a qualified
historic preservation consultant to be present during
asbestos removal and demolition to monitor these
activities. The consultant shall advise the applicant
and the demolition contractor regarding the salvage of
architectural materials and features. Storage and
methods of adaptive reuse of the salvaged materials shall
be the responsibility of the applicant. Within one month
of the date of demolition completion, the applicant shall
submit the checklist chart with a catalog or inventory of
salvaged materials and the method and location of
storage. Every six months thereafter, the Applicant
shall submit an update to the checklist chart indicating
which salvaged materials have been adaptively reused
during that period and the date of reuse for each item.
4
A*eckv1%*r' 4d