HomeMy WebLinkAbout34-Planning and Building
C!TY OF SAN BERhARDINO - REQUEST90R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
. . Appeal of Planning commission
Su~ect. denial of Conditional Use Permit
No. 91-03
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date:
October 8, 1992
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
October 19, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous action on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, that the appeal be denied and
that Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 be denied, based on
the Findings of Fact.
A
Phone:
Supporting data attached:
Al Boughey
Staff Report
Contact person:
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
.. ~/~
C;'ITV: 'OF SAN BERtORDINO - REQUEST Q)R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) 91-03
REQUBST/LOCATION: The Applicant requests approval to construct a
40-unit Senior Citizen apartment project on a 1.4 acre site located
on the north side of Third street, between Allen Street and Sierra
Way. Please see Exhibit A, Location Map.
BY ISSUES:
There are several key issues identified as follows:
.
There is concern for the safety of the future
residents of the senior complex in that the area in
which it is proposed to be located is one of high
crime rates.
.
There are no conveniently located medical or health
services.
.
There are no conveniently located commercial
services,such as grocery or drug stores.
The floor plan shows 2-bedroom units which the
Housing Authority of San Bernardino County has
stated are the most difficult to rent to seniors,
and the project could have a high vacancy rate.
The conversion plan submitted is inadequate in that
it does not address parking required for office
space, nor the removal of buildings, which would be
required, in the event the units are not rented by
qualified seniors.
.
.
.
The feasibility study does not justify construction
of the project.
The design of the project is not suitable for the
area, if the area were suitable for senior housing.
.
Please see the analysis and attachments contained in Exhibit B,
Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO TBB MAYOR AND COMMON COWCIL: The Mayor and
Common Council may:
75-0264
1. Deny the project based on the location of the
senior apartments, subject to the attached Findings
of Fact contained in Exhibit B~ (Supports Planning
Commission decision).
()C)
Conditional Use Permit 91-03
Mayor and Common Council meeting October 19, 1992
Page 2
2. Approve the location in concept, and require that
the project be re-designed, the Initial study be
advertised as available for public review and
comment, and continue CUP 91-03 for 90 days: or
3. Approve the location and design in concept,
continue CUP 91-03 for 60 days to allow the Initial
study to be revised and advertised as available for
public review and comment. (No revision would be
necessary) .
PLANNING COMKISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted
6-0 to deny the project with 2 abstentions, and recommended that
the Mayor and Common Council deny the project based on the fact
that the site is unsuitable for senior housing, and a re-design of
the project will be of no benefit because of location.
STAPP RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Mayor and Common
Council deny the appeal, and deny Conditional Use Permit 91-03,
based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit B.
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner
For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services
BXHIBITS:
A. Location Map
B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
AGENDA
ITEM #
ClTVOI..........,.,..
---
CUP 91-03
LOCATION
HEARING DATE 10-19-92
, L
^
"N
PLAN-I.ll PAGE 1 OF I (4-90)
0 0
,... '1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 3
SUMMARY HEARING DATE 9-~~-9~
WARD 1
...
r 1""""1 APPLICANT: Cliff Carel & Assoc.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 144 E. 3rd St.
W San Bernardino, CA 92401
rn
0:( 91-03 OWNER: ~lichael J. Murphy
(J 2601 N. Del Rosa, Ste 220
~ San Bernardino, CA 92404
'-..../
r--, r ...,
The applicant requests approval to construct a 40-unit senior
... citizens apartment complex consisting of 10 4-plex units.
fa
::::l
0 The 1.3 acre site is located on the north side of 3rd Street,
W
a: between Allen Street and Sierra Ivay.
-
0:(
W
a:
0:(
,
'-../
r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant CO-1 COmmercial Office
North Apartments RH Residential High
South Residential & Park CO-1 & PP Commercial Office/
Public Park
East Fire Station CO-1 Commercial Office
West Commercial CO-I Commercial Office
"- "-
GEOLOGIC , SEISMIC DYES I FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A l( SEWERS: ~ YES )
HAZARD ZONE: xag NO ZONE: XIE NO OZONE B o NO
( HIGH FIRE 0 YES 11 AIRPORT NOISEf o YES ') REDEVELOPMENT XX YES
HAZARD ZONE:x~ CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
"- NO "- XX NO ~entral City o NO
-
r r ...,
..J XX NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0
zrn NO E.I"R. CONDITIONS
WCJ II.C
~z o EXEMPT o E"I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z ~ DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS O:(W
OC WITH MITIGATING til
a:;; MEASURES o CONTINUANCE TO
-II.
> o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
Z (J
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E,R.C, W
'- \, MINUTES a: \.
--- ,
~.:..o~
PLAN-I.Q2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90)
,0
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 1
REOUEST
The applicant requests approval to construct a 40-unit senior
citizen apartment complex located on 1.3 acres on the north side of
Third street, between sierra way and Allen street, in the CO-1,
commercial Office land use designation. In addition, there is a
request for a variance to reduce the number of required parking
spaces from 73 to 56. (See Attachments I and G, Location Map and
site Plan)
BACKGROUND
This application was submitted on January 4, 1991. It was deemed
incomplete in February, 1991. The incomplete letter was appealed to
the planning commission to determine if specified studies were
required, and due to the date of the incomplete letter relative to
the effective date of the Development Code, which development
standards were to be applied to the project. In July, 1991, the
planning commission determined that the studies were not required,
the application was complete prior to the effective date of the
Development Code, the new code was not applicable and that the
project would be processed under the previous standards contained
in Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code (repealed June 3,
1991), and the policies contained in the General Plan. The project
actually remained incomplete, pending submittal of a conversion
plan and a feasibility study as required in the General plan.
Following submission of those items, the application was deemed
complete on July 2, 1992, and scheduled for the
Development/Environmental Review committee (D/ERC) meeting of July
30, 1992. The D/ERC required that the project be redesigned to
address safety and security for the senior citizens who would live
in the apartments, and to address issues of compatibility. When
the owner appealed the decision of the D/ERC to re-design the
project, it was determined that it would be more appropriate to
move forward with the public hearing on the conditional Use permit
(CUP) to discuss the primary question of the location of senior
apartments at this site.
ANTICIPATED PROCESS
The first and foremost issue is that of land use. Is this an
appropriate location for senior housing? If it is determined that
this is an inappropriate location for senior housing, the CUP
should be denied.
o
,
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 2
If it is determined that the location is appropriate for senior
housing, then it must further be determined whether or not to
require a re-design of the project in accordance with the
recommendation of the DjERC.
If a re-design is required by the planning commission, the project
should be approved in concept and continued for 90 days to allow
time to revise the site plan. During that time, the Initial study
will be advertised as available for public review and comment on
the proposed Negative Declaration. The project would be brought
back to the commission for approval and adoption of the Negative
Declaration.
If the planning commission determines the project is fine as
presented, the project should be approved in concept, and continued
60 days to allow time for the Initial study to be revised, and
advertised as available for public rev:iew and comment for the
required 21 day period. The project would be brought back to the
commission for approval and adoption of the Negative Declaration.
In either of the last 2 scenarios, the commission would need to
make positive Findings of Fact.
CEOA STATUS
The Initial study presented to the Environmental Review committee
on July 30, 1992, contained language regarding concern for safety
and aesthetics which could both be mitigated by the re-design of
the project. The DjERC voted unanimously to require the necessary
re-design prior to a recommendation for approval of the project or
adoption of a Negative Declaration. (See Attachment D, Initial
study).
There is provision in CEQA that no environmental review is
necessary for projects which will be denied. pursuant to that
provision, this project is presented without environmental
clearance.
ANALYSIS
When discussing the land use issue, it is appropriate to consider
the policies adopted in the General Plan.
o
.."",
v
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 3
Policy 1. 7 . 19
The General Plan contains the following:
Policy 1.12.11
Policy 1.16. 14
Policy 2.6.1
Allow for the development of senior citizen ...
housing facilities within the ... commercial office
areas (CO-I...), provided that they are located in
proximity to public transportation, supporting
commercial, and health and social services.
Permit the development of senior citizen
housing ... provided that a marketing and financing
analysis is conducted which determines the long-
term feasibility; a plan is prepared for the
conversion of senior unit ... if the project is not
occupied by qualified seniors; and all Code
requirements are met.
permi t and encourage the development of senior
housing in locations adj acent to supporting
services (food, health, recreation, etc.) and
pUblic transit, provided that they are compatible
with and will not adversely impact the integrity
and continuity of other downtown uses.
Allow for the development of senior citizen ...
housing facilities within the ... commercial office
areas (CO-1 ...) provided they are located in
proximity to public transportation, supporting
commercial, and health and social services.
GENERAL PLAN/MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY
Location
General Plan Consistencv
The subject site is located on Third Street which is on various bus
routes, so the public transportation criteria from the General Plan
is met. However, the site is not in proximity to a grocery store,
supporting commercial services, health services, (medical, dental,
pharmacy, etc.), nor any other type of personal services
(barber/beauty shops, dry cleaning, etc.)
o
"""'
.-...)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 4
The site is located across the street from Meadowbrook Park which
technically could meet the recreational criteria, however when this
project was sent to the San Bernardino County Housing Authority, in
a statement relative to recreation, the response was, "The site is
inadequate for an on premises green belt walking area. The park
across the street is not sufficiently safe for daily strolls." In
addition, ,the Housing Authority observed, "The community building
is too small to provide adequate recreation activities and to
encourage comfortable socialization of its tenants." (See
Attachment E, Memo from San Bernardino county Housing Authority)
Feasibility
This project is not publicly assisted, and therefore, full market
rents are anticipated. The viability of full market rent senior
housing at this site is questionable for the following reasons:
"The density of existing family units (to the north)
lessens the desirability for a peaceful and quiet enjoyment of
senior ci tizens. The area presentlY experiences noisy,
troublesome and questionable activity on a daily basis.
Senior citizens would be vulnerable at this site to harassment
and criminal assault. Market rate tenants would not accept
those living conditions... These units would most likely
experience a large vacancy rate." (Housing Authority)
In other words, people who could afford full market rent would
likely choose live elsewhere.
A feasibility study was prepared for the project and reviewed by
the Economic Development Agency (EDA). Their response is provided
as Attachment F.
conversion Plan
Should the predicted "large vacancy rate" occur, it would be
necessary to convert the apartments to another use permitted in the
CO-l designation. The conversion plan submitted changes the
following words on the floor plan for the apartments:
"living room" to "reception"
"bedroom" to "office"
("kitChen" and "bathroom" remain the same.)
o
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 5
The conversion plan does not address the removal of any units, does
not address the community room, does not address the need for
additional parking, and therefore is inadequate. The'requirement
from the General Plan has not realistically been addressed nor met.
Compatibility
Senior units are permitted in the CO-l designation provided they
are compatible with the integrity and continuity of other
commercial office structures and uses. The proposed project is 10
4-plex units which is very residential in nature. This was one of
the reasons the DjERC required the re-design of the project. It
was felt that the scale and mass of the project as proposed would
not be compatible with existing and future commercial office
structures and uses. The DjERC felt that the visual integrity of
the designation may be compromised. (See attachment H, Elevations)
Safety
The project is located' in an area of high crime. The Police
Department stated that the design of the project does not provide
as much security as it could for the future residents of the
project. Senior projects which include some form of controlled
access are much more secure from crime than the proposed 4-plexes.
The Police Department Crime Prevention Division has stated that a
single building surrounding a common open space courtyard would
provide a much more secure environment for future tenants of the
project, and that such redesign would most likely reduce the number
of crime incidents, thereby reducing the number of police responses
necessary. This concern was the other reason for the request from
EjDRC to re-design the project.
It is anticipated that a member of the Crime Prevention Division
will be available at the Planning Commission meeting to answer any
questions which may arise.
site Desian
Staff has several concerns regarding the site plan. The
construction of 10 4-plex units is not recommended by the Planning
Division nor the Police Crime Prevention Division. In addition,
the Housing Authority made comment regarding the proposed layout of
the project. Those comments include:
o
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 6
"The site layout is very uncomfortable as it does not allow
for the visual 'breathing room' desirable to seniors. The
site is just too regimented and dense. The 10 foot separation
between buildings generates too much heat and visual
incarceration."
These comments are in addition to those previously stated regarding
the recreation room (too Small) and walking areas (inadequate).
Floor Plan
The proposal consists of 14 I-bedroom units and 26 2-bedroom units.
Based on information from the Housing Authority, 2-bedroom senior
units are "extremely difficult to rent". It is noted in the
Housing Authority Memo, "Two unrelated seniors just do not share
the same unit."
Although the proposed 1-bedroom units meet the minimum square
footage required by SBMC Title 19 (repealed), the Housing Authority
provides this comment, "The square footage size of the 1-bedroom
units are too small for their comfortable and necessary living
style." (See Attachment G, site Plan and Floor Plan)
VARIANCE REOUEST
The requested variance is to reduce from 73 to 56 the number of
required parking spaces. The former Title 19 (repealed) made no
distinction between family apartments and senior apartments for
parking requirements. The previous standard was 1.5 space per 1-
bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit. One space per unit
was required to be covered, and the remaining spaces were to be
left open for guest parking. Those requirements dictate that 73
parking spaces be provided for this project.
During the time frame of the urgency Ordinance, (June 2, 1989
through June 3, 1991), an analysis for senior apartment parking
requirements was conducted. Several area cities were contacted to
find out what the parking requirements were, and whether the person
contacted felt the standard was high or low. As a result of that
study, it was determined that 1.2 parking spaces per unit would be
adequate for senior apartments, with 1 space per unit covered and
.2 space per unit (1 space per 5 units) would be left open for
guest parking. That standard was incorporated into the Development
Code, however, Title 19 (repealed) was never amended.
o
J
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 7
The proposed variance provides parking in accordance with the
Development Code, which would require 48 parking spaces for this
project, and staff is not opposed to the number of spaces proposed.
However, since the Planning Commission determined that the previous
Title 19 (repealed) standards applied to this project, the project
requires 73 parking spaces. Approval of the variance request would
allow the 56 parking spaces as proposed.
CONCLUSION
The senior apartment project is located in the Commercial Office
land use designation. Although it is a conditionally permitted
use, staff questions the appropriateness of a senior citizen
apartment complex at the proposed location based on the proximity
to necessary shopping and services desired by most seniors. In
addition, the site is located in an area of high crime. Senior
citizens are among the most vulnerable crime victims. That makes
this site one of the less desirable areas for seniors.
If the complex is to be built, it should be designed with security
and safety for the tenants, and compatibility with the Commercial
Office land uses and structures that now exist or will be built in
in the future.
There is no environmental determination, based on provisions in
CEQA relative to projects that will be denied.
The project is not consistent with several policies of the General
Plan.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission may:
1.
Deny the project based
apartments, subject to
(Attachments B and C)
on
the
the location of the
attached Findings of
senior
Fact.
2. Approve the location in concept, and require that the project
be redesigned, the Initial Study be advertised as available
for public review and comment, and continue CUP 91-03 for 90
days.
3. Approve the location and design in concept, continue CUP 91-03
for 60 days to allow the Initial Study to be revised and
advertised as available for public review and comment. (No
re-design would be necessary).
o
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 8
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the project,
based on the attached Findings of Fact. (Attachments B and C)
Respectfully submitted,
Services
~~ (jLL~ '
S ra Paulsen, Senior Planner
Attachments:
A. General Plan/Municipal Code Conformance
B. Findings of Fact, CUP 91-03
C. Findings of Fact, Variance
D. Initial Study
E. EDA comments on the feasibility study
F. Memo, San Bernardino County Housing Authority
G. site Plan and Floor Plan
H. Elevations
I. Location Map
o
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 9
Attachment A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Cateaorv
Proposal
Municipal
Code
General Plan
Proposed
Use
10 4-plex
s e n i 0 r
c i t i zen
apartments
CO-I, with
the approval
of a CUP
C 0 I
Commercial
Office
Setbacks:
Front
20 feet
20 feet
must meet
code
requirements
Side
10 feet
o feet*
must meet
code
requirements
Rear
5 feet
o feet*
must meet
code
requirements
Parking
56 spaces
73 spaces
must meet
code
requirements
Loading
o loading
zones
o loading
zones
must meet
code
requirements
Landscaping
35%
15%
must meet
code
requirements
*
o Side and Rear setback required except adjacent to a
Residential Land Use District
o
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 10
Attachment B
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
1. The proposed use does not conform to the objectives of the
City's General Plan Elements in that the proximity criteria of
Policies 1.7.19, 1.16.14, and 2.6.1 are not met, the
conversion plan required by Policy 1.12.11 is not adequate,
and all Code requirements are not met as required by Policy
1. 12 . 11.
2. The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses
and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located in that the proposed 4-plexes are
residential in nature and are not compatible with the bulk,
mass and scale of existing and future commercial office
development.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare, in that, except
for the requested variance for parking, all other code
requirements are met.
4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area, but adequate
parking is not provided, in that a traffic study was prepared
and discussed in the Initial Study which concluded no impacts
to traffic would result from construction of the project,
however, a variance is requested to reduce parking
requirements.
5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino
in that the project is for senior housing in an area of high
crime, and senior citizens are vulnerable to harassment and
crime.
o
o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03
AGENDA ITEM: 3
HEARING DATE: 9-22-92
PAGE 11
Attachment C
FINDINGS OF FACT
VARIANCE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood in
that the intended use for senior apartments does not have a
parking standard, and the parking requirement for family
apartments is excessive when applied to senior projects.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant in that if
the project was submitted today, processed in accordance with
current Code requirements, parking requirements could be met.
3. Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to
the pUblic welfare or injurious to property and improvements
in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property
is located in that the proposed number of parking spaces
should be sufficient for the senior project.
4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan in that Policy 1.12.11 states
that senior housing is permitted if all Code requirements are
met, and this variance is requested in accordance with Code
requirements.
OFFICE ON AGING
o
Exhibit "A"
o I[
,~,\\\1 Iltll/
...~t~.....
....... .....
-:= . ::-
-:::- ..::;-
.....~. ~...
/1f~'II\\\~'
COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROIN(
SOCIAL SERVICES GROUP
6B6 East MW Street . SIn Bernerdlna. CA 92416-ll640 . (7141 3B7.2400
C "esJgMlld Are. Agency on Aging
KATHRYN H. PICHETTE. Ph.D.
Dlrecta,
August 6, 1991
Cliff Carel and Associates
139 East Court Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Dear Mr. Carel:
I am writing to support the~enior housing complex you propose
to construct at Third Street and Sierra Way in San Bernardino.
Affordable housing for our older citizens becomes increasingly
important as our population grows and inflation makes it_
more difficult to find adequate, convenient housing.
I hope you are successful in your efforts.
If you need information in the future, please contact me.
Sincerely,
*~_., AJ,~~~
~THRYN '7:ICBETTE
DJ.recto)/. l!
KHP:GS:mlc
"-,' ,j
H;\l!n: ~,_.1 '."
" ;! :..~ 1:. -I' H '~C:-I
\"1 r:.: .:,-/
",;" .",,'
t.~-'.n"'" i\.lil:.1:-' .,
o
Exhibit "B"
o
Marcus & MiIlichap
August 11, 1992
lnV'='tmCIU
Roo! ~ Brokers
Cenuelake Plaza
3401 C=trc:lalcc Drive
Suite 150
OIlWio, tA 111761
Tel: 7141183 2040
p",,: 714983 :1.044
Cliff Carel
44 East 3rd Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Dear Mr. Carel:
It was a pleasure meeting with you last Wednesday to discuss the
marketing of your 40 unit senior citizen apartment complex,
From a location standpoint, the project seems perfectly suited for seniors
who"rely on close proximity to shopping and transportation services. In
addition, you have wisely taken security very seriously. The state of the art
system you have planned will have a significant impact on rent-up and the
eventual marketing of the property.
I trust all your financing and building permits will be approved soon so that
we may begin exposing the project to investors. With the population as a
whole getting older, there appears to be an increasing demand for senior
living facilities. In fact, when senior citizen properties hit the Marcus &
Millichap system they typically receive an enormous amount of attention
and offers.
An example of this would b~ the 72 ~t Golden Park Retirement
Apartments on Gilbert Street in San Bernardino. We listed the property in
early July and sold it very close to list price within one week. I have
enclosed a sununary of this tranSaction for review and would be glad to
discuss the dozen or so senior citizen transactions Marcus & Millichap and
I have completed in the past 12 months,
I look forward to working with you in the marketing of your project and
invite you to call me anytime at (714) 983.2040 if I can be of any
assistance.
Sincerely,
der
HAP
AFG:bvb
Polo Alca
SoD I'mloIIco
SacramalIo
D&1Iu
PhocAix
SoD Diqo
Oncino
Lana ~h
Loa AD&e1u
o
(""\
v
ATTACHMENT "C"
CLIFF CAREL & ASSOCIATES
SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENT COMPLEX
22 Studio Apartments
19 One Bedroom
4 Two Bedroom
Energy Efficient Kitchens including:
Refrigerator
Stove
Microwave
Front-loading Dishwasher
Garbage Disposal
Stackable Washer/Dryer in each unit.
Tub/Shower combination with safety grab bars.
On-Site Shuttle Bus / Scheduled Transportation.
Limited access card-controlled Security Gates.
Location of well-lit carports (close proximity to unit entrance.)
Ample interior Storage with easy access.
security System in each unit including:
24-hour Monitoring.
Perimeter, Interior and Panic Button protection.
Exterior Security Cameras.
Fire Sprinklers
AMENITIES
Community / Activity Center (1,972 s.f.)
Dining Room (672 s.f., 40 seats)
Game Room (700 s.f., 43 seats)
Lounge (600 s.f.)
Fireplace
T. V.
Res trooms
Supporting Amenities (2,226 s.f.)
Mini Market
Refrigerator/Freezer
Office & Administration
Kitchen
Laundry Room
Exercise Room
Card Room
Beauty/Barber Shop
Outdoor Dining/Recreation Area (4 600 f)
, s..
BBQ Area
Exhibit "D"
o
o
~~i~l~i~if ~~a~;[a~ :~S~t~,~:- u ~o
J'="i" i~!iif g ~,,~'c.& fip~'!~;.~~.~!;:J ~~'a'6'"Jii ~.~; ~ ~ i ~..;':Iri
filr [ ~ ICJoz -.. .'''cll:' "':;"0 !iQ,,,~ !iii::i-"- --.. ~ -.,-'"
at. j~"!~=' ~.i'~2!-'..:J i:~"~5'~iG-i. ",~~i':C;:i=rilll~:.:ia~
iiJ.!.'i~ !;'~~I lf~~.;ll~~i::-l~:;2.i;i='E:~'lfi'=~.l...?l:.;'\ I i~=l5.O':
. 's h II a ! ii CJ>. ~ i i ! ;: 1: i a ~ ~ 2. r -i ~ =: l f;: 11.:i; a ~ ~ g' ~ ~ i c: ~ '!-l : g
f.i Hi ~n~ -=!=;:ia~~ ,,'Jt;'~'''i..;i~5'~! ~~i~~;~lll; ~;.~!..=.'
1 3:., a II i "'!, ~ ;1;""" a 3 .:; ::I "I "'}'''!1!l." ... " ::I ... .. :I'" "I 2;"'1 -c .. :oE -
I n.,;- ..;.. ..~...;5::1..:~.;r~:i2:. "Icl:l'.:!ii' c.;:':".c,~~.'~.g==-r::l,:i:l
or"~' ~~"r c-;j_Cl:c.= "'_. :;.-e:2.'" -.. ~'''~--~'''l ::1;." c...... -
~. i ~ I q ~, 1" ::I ;: C !:< ~ [~. 3 g" E ~.~ ~ [1; 'g 1 ~ g: ~. ~ Co~, -a!! i ~ ~ ;':c
~..:; :'1. ~.-..l.;~!i~.".~! ':I!.",:.=::l[" "'r.;~:;::;:'~i.ir;:~:c2.~a
~ c.':';::~2ii'~':;3 :i..;I.:::""!: ~~!:q';::;""'''~3~~.;-2.:i::!.
.. E 7 .: 5' = ; i c. ~ .-: .:; &. 'l '';: Co '; ! i ~ ::; : 2 !.. - : ~
'Jw--"-~' -:;;~ ~.:. ~,. ~ t ~;::=;::__!f.'i"Ii~'"
'. '{",5"91i-1..iJ; .., >Ii " i ':'t.~:=. =-:: ~.. ~;:
ot,,: ihlh'~ . ~'{ .~!' "-~
!:l ,;,.a~'1I
i~il~i..ii;i >-
,Jm;j'lIl
;Hn~I~! ·
l..\ hf.!" if
~ II I. .
. .
:t
~
....
::r
t'b
0'\
...
...
N
(/)
~
....
t'b
3
::r
t'b
-
"0
(/)
'<
o
==
3
~
::I
~
('JQ
t'b
'<
o
==
..,
(/)
t'b
I"l
==
..,
~.
iP';~i'
~,! I,... n
!l'ltl" ~
!lll,.l ~
.=-.L~I' :a
t- t! It., ;
J ~..."" :=
n 'l,n ~
ifn.i:l[
ni!li ~
"'i ~{l9' ...
.~: !' r
..-", j"
~ .
[11
..,,, ;;F
'''f' .
~n u.!"
J.t ~ ~:.
:- ii!g
So! ,.-: .. ~
It .E;lO
nHH
li"-!';'
P" "i
i lilin
1 'j
f j!CJ
~
III ;I~
f t : ,
r.
~
.
~
"
.
3
..
.
.
....
.
"
~
;;"
"
"
i5.l!'P-'"
"', =,t"",
Hi-H
~,; ;.fj"
Iii.. i i
q""t....
=dl!:r
~j ~ .t~
3 ;:,1 f
:'tif~
2 i;; ~_ i
. '" I..
!....J:: :I;
~ : t i;: ;
i ~!;- ~ i
Hi~ 1 ...
. ~ ~h ~
~ i';'~ ~
~ ~ ~: ~
!}! 1 ~
;;n ~
.. ~ ~ ~
l!:f'i'
t"'~i:l~!:
~l~,p~~
;i;~~;i
. . J"o
q, ".~!.
..:_ low
~~;rHl
. ~ ~ f q...
~ i f j : 1
G.
"
;. =;; ~ .. ..
~ ~.i ' ~ i.
=i ilJ i:
!;~H:~
~ r ~ " :i ,
~ ~ l',~ i ;
: .. ~ t .. !
="";'0
~ j; ..' J ! Ii
j,~: li .,
,. t.,~ ~ i
,
'L":' ,. qfH~:H
: nmw
Pi r'!
"
;- ~1! i ~ ;-
i: f: f i i
~1i,' : i
3 ;i !;
J ~ ~ ..,..
1 ;!' ~ ~
p : ~
; ~ ~ : ~
-; .. : ~
"
",)"'.
: ~!) i
i"l.."
~ ~ ~ U.
lll;,.';:
. ~ ~ : :
~ ~ l P.
i~ il ~
~!it~~
.'.
..
1~1!~
~! ! i ~
~ : ~ : !
~ j f i. '.
i; I!!
~:. ~.i
r i.l ~
~!. ~
iPi
nj ~
. ,.. J
it ~:
1 ~~ ;-
in
i.t j
d
!,
,.,
t ; ~ ~
;Pi
;..::
,=.
.i.
l ~ !
..'
~ E ~
j!
~
,
ti
.~
~ .
n
H
H
~l
as'
I!
~.
,.
~. i
! ~
~J:
~;
:!.:
~-!.
H
"
~ ~
:;;::.
o'
i!
f
~
1
,
,
'-.,
Ill! 1111111
;-.;'7 ':1V!lf'o
.., ;; 3!. 3$
-. -~.
;: l! ::i.'j!l 0
;f:;6;~
: ! ~ i = ~
2. ~!i'~~!.
E.~~~~~
~?lii;~;~~z;'s
&1 =<=,"2'1'=- _ =.. :I.~
;i~!ra.~fi~!=~=
f;~i.~~!.:df;~i
:t;i~il ~:'~~~~~
r;~~~ if~~~'~~
H
~ !' ~
~ ! ~
t f ~ ~
---.
.. ~- ~
,,:;;
o
Attachment "D"
o
r'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
"""'II
INITIAL STUDY
.....
,.
Initial study for Environmental Impacts
For t!..odbID..1 '"U.-c", ~".J- tjl- D"3
Project Number
Project descriptionjlocationlO rLM~ru~r
~~"::::h~~Z~.:1L~MA~~< ~:~: ~}'"
~ '3 - q~~f- j..J..~,..... 5i~rrL ,.1. ~ A A.J.
AI/pit. ~t"IP":&-t... I
DateJ.J'f 30, J/{'{2.
Applicant(s)
Prepared for:
I'./;.K ,e, 1'."",.1 A~ d IHs.",;J-.
'" .". '- , ' )
if LA.w.'f"~ ~rr^,r~..4. ~ .JJ
/44 !L. ~ ~rfl!<L-r. .
S"""..A ':2,i!r~~""'-<e ~
1;1.4/0 I
Address
city, State
Zip
Prepared by:
<:.....l'ALA '"j:>Ao~cE,J
Name
5~lb4- ~.A\AJ~L
Title
City of San Bernardino
Planninq and Buildinq Services
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Doc:Misc
InitialStudy
...
CITY 0# lWI IIMWIlIlO
ClJmlW.lIIW7lW.ecIlI
PLAN-8.o7 PAGE 1 OF 1 14..gc))
o
o
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST
..
r
A. BACKGROUND
Application Number:
f -'JAJ,^ ,T". oJJA/
Q{-03
U..e ?e~N1"
Projed Description: -r;:; f9.1)Adru./t' d 4o-"'~6I;t ..:::;,..:nr (!..itiy~
df''''.f::""",.d t~II>1.f{~ 1'1)" -:;d;~! 4 It) 4-p"1" 1.,,:1"""1<' "'"
I. ~ tU!r~~ .
Location: MDt'-/; "- <;;d L o..r
3r"- $eru.t: h,...I:w~c"- <:;,prr.L 1.U4<J
J --r
IT.JA.Ji A If,,-^- Y. n!.&C
Environmental Constraints Areas: L; t u".f;. r.f i ,.,,,
A"~<JI).u ~;...J
,
General Plan Designation: (l rYlLMJP r d ~ {)f:'.r;"" _ I
Zoning Designation:
c.lk.l'Ilnc.;.d Ofpn - I
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate. on a separate attached sheet.
1. Earth Resources Will the proposal resutt in: Yes No Maybe
a, Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
yards or more? )(
b, Development and/or grading on a slope greater
than 15% natural grade? ~
c. Development wtthin the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as defined in Section 12,0 - Geologic )(
& Seismic, Figure 47, of the City's General Plan?
d. Mod~ication of any unique geologic or physical
feature? 'I
e. Development wtthin areas defined for high potential for
water or wind erosion as ident~ied in Section 12.0 -
Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General
Plan? \C
f. Mod~ication of a channel, creek or river? X
...
',1 ;.90)
ern ClI' &uI 8EfIiWDIC)
--........
PlAN-l.C16 PAGE' OJ:
0 0
r """"I
10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Ves No Maybe
, beyond the capabil~y to provide adequate levels of service?
a. Fire protection? )(
b. Police protection? \f.
c. Schools (Le., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc,)? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilfties? X
e. Medical aid? X
I. Solid Waste? 'Ie
g, Other? X
11. Utllltl..: Will the proposal:
a. Impaclthe following beyond the capability to
provide adequate levels of service or require the
construction of new facilfties?
1, Natural gas? X
2. Electricfty? X
3, Water? X
4. Sewer? -L_
5, Other? )C
b. Resuij in a disjointed pattem of utility extensions? )(
c. Require the construction of new facilfties? y
12. Aeath.tlcs:
a. Could the proposal resuij in the obstruction of any
scenic view? )(
b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental
to the surrounding area? X
c. Other? 'l(
13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal resuij in:
a. The aijeration or destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological s~e by development within an
archaeological sensftive area as identified in Section
3.0 . Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan? :x:
b. Aijeration or destruction of a historical sfte, structure
or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Survey? y
c. Other? x
"
...
....
crtY ClI' ... --....c
---
PlAN.9.D6 PAGE 401=
(11-90)
,
o
o
, 14. Mandatory Finding. of Significance (Section 15065)
The CalHornia Environmental Quality Act states that H any of the following can be answered yes or
maybe, the project may have a signHicant 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 wildlHe species, cause a fish or
wildlHe population to drop below seW 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 CalHornia 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.)
x
x
c, Does the project have impacts which are individually
limhed, 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 signHicant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
ehher directly or indirectly?
x
y
C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MmGATION MEASURES
(Attach sheets as necessary.)
~.. ",:hld"')"'''' !d.",d'i
GIf'l'OI_~
---
PLAN.O.06 FlAGe: 5 OF
11l.gcn
o
o
c. DrSCUSSrON OF BHVrROHHEHTAL BVALUATrON AND MrTrGATrON MEASURBS
1. f. Earth Resources: Warmcreek Channel flows through the site,
and is identified as a blueline stream on the USGS quadrangle map.
However, in 1984, the stream course was diverted from the site by
a reinforced concrete pipe from the channel, down Court street to
the storm drain in Sierra Way. State Fish and Game does not
regulate the channel, and no permits from Fish and Game, nor the
Corps of Engineers are required. There will be no impact by
development of this project.
1. g. Earth Resources: The project is located within an area
identified as having high potential for liquefaction. Standard
mitigation will be incorporated into the construction plans which
will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. a. Water Resources: Absorption rates will change due to the
construction of buildings, drive aisles, and parking areas.
However, the site will be graded so that any increased run-off
during rainy periods will be,directed to improved storm drains and
the impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
4. d. Biological Resources: There are several mature trees on the
site. However, the site plan shows that the trees are to remain,
so there is no impact.
5. a. Noise: An acoustical analysis for the project was prepared
by Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. Noise generated by traffic
on Third Street and fire engine sirens from the adjacent City Fire
Station were evaluated. The traffic noise can be reduced to
acceptable levels through the use of specified construction
materials. These include: operable dual glazed windows consisting
of 2 lites of 1/8-inch glass separated by a 1/4-inch air space and
using a pile seal, solid wood core doors, and wall construction
consisting of 3/8-inch stucco over I-inch styrofoam on a 2 x 4 wood
stud frame, studs located 16-inches on center with R-11 insulation
in the stud cavity, and a 5/8-inch gypsum board interior finish.
The noise from the fire engine sirens is intermittent, and based on
the construction for noise reduction, will measure about 61 to 62
decibels in the interior of certain rooms in the apartment complex.
These rooms include: Building A, floor plan 1, the living room:
Building A, floor plan 2, the bedroom: and Building B, floor plan
1, the bedroom. The noise generated from the sirens occurs
approximately 15 to 20 times per day. Based on the acoustical
analysis, the events could occur at a rate of 7 events per hour (84
occurrences per day), and still maintain an interior Ldn of less
than 45 decibels, provided the required construction for mitigation
is used. With the construction specifications incorporated into
the project as a condition of approval which will appear on the
construction plans, the impact is reduced below a level of
o
o
C. DISCUSSION OJ' BHVIROHKEHTAL EVALUATION AHD MITIGATION MEASURES
(CoHTIHtJED)
significance, and no further mitigation is necessary. The
acoustical analysis is available for review at the Planning and
Building Services Department, 3rd floor, City Hall, 300 N. "D" st.,
San Bernardino, CA.
9. Transportation/Circulation: A traffic study was prepared by
Krueper Engineering and Associates, and reviewed by the city
Traffic Engineer, who concurred with the results of the study. The
study indicates there will be no adverse impacts on traffic or
circulation if the project is built, and therefore, no mitigation
is necessary. The traffic study is available for review at the
Planning and Building Services Department, 3rd Floor, City Hall,
300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA.
10 b. Public Services: The project is located in an area of high
crime. The Police Department stated that the design of the project
does not provide as much security as it could for the future
residents of the project. Senior projects which include some form
of controlled access are much more secure from crime than the
proposed 4-plexes will provide. The Police Department Crime
Prevention Division has stated that a single building surrounding
a common open space courtyard would provide a much more secure
environment for future- tenants of the project, and that such
redesign would most likely reduce the number of crime incidences,
thereby reducing the number of police responses necessary. This
concern will be addressed at the Design Review stage of the
project, when the project will be redesigned to provide the highest
level of security possible for the Senior citizens who will live
there.
12 b. Aesthetics: The project, though located in a Commercial-
Office land use designation, consists of a proposal for 10, 4-plex
apartment buildings, which is very residential in nature, and not
compatible with the visual integrity of the Commercial-Office
designation, nor the surrounding and future development of the
area. This will be mitigated during the Design Review process,
when the project will be redesigned to provide buildings of greater
scale, mass, and bulk more consistent with other construction
generally proposed for office and other permitted uses in the
Commercial-Office designation.
13 a. Cultural Resources: The site is located within an area of
archeological sensitivity as identified on the General Plan. The
project was routed to the San Bernardino County Museum for
evaluation. It was determined that the potential for cultural
resources at the site is low, and no further studies or mitigation
are required.
o
o
.....
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this inftial study,
o The proposed project COULD NOT have a signfticant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION will be prepared.
O The proposed project could have a signfticant effect on the environment, afthough there will not be a signfticant
effect in this case because the mftigation measures described above have been added to the project" A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared"
o The proposed project MAY have a signfticant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Name and Title
Signature
Date:
....
...
ClTYClI'....~
CiI___aIMCU
PLAN-lJ)6 PAGE_OF_ (11-90)
o
Attachment "E"
o
DBVBLOPIIBBT DBPARTIIBB'T
OF 1'BB CIn OF SAB' BDlQJlDIRO
JllM)IWUlUII
TO:
.11 Boughy, Director
Planning and Building
-----------------F'@1tU-w-rn [ill
Services SEP 1 4 1992
FROM:
Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director
Development Department
CITY Or SAN 9ERNARDINO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
BUILDING SERViCES
SUBJECT:
IWtIBr AlW.YSIS lOR 1'BB IIILLDItlII
SElIOR BOUSIBG PJlOJEcr
DATE:
September 11, 1992
COPIES:
Mayor Holcomb; Agency Administrator; Houeing Manager; Housing
Development Specialist; File
-----------------------
I am in receipt of your interoffice memorandum requesting our comments
relative to a market analysis prepared by Michael J. Murphy consultants for
Cliff R. Carel and Associatee regarding the construction of the Millenium
Project. The development consists of a 40-unit senior citizen oriented
apartment complex located East of Third Street within the City of San
Bernardino. This analysis was requested by the Planning and BUilding Servicee
Department in an endeavor to finalize the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03
application submitted by Cliff R. Carel and Associates.
I have thoroughly reviewed the market analysis and find the document to be
inadequate in the fOllowing areas:
* The market analysie utilizes national and countywide statistical and
demographic information regarding senior citizen population trends,
future senior citizen growth potential and comparable rent determinations
in an attempt to make a case relative to identifying "need". It does not
however, provide any demographic information, or 1990 census data,
specific to the City of San Bernardino. The analysis faile to adequately
illustrate that the proposed use is either necessary, desirable, or will
provide any service to the neighborhood or community.
* The market analysis faUs to adequately support the marketability and
economic viability surrounding construction of "studio" or two (2)
bedroom apartment units for senior citizens.
In discussing this 'iesue with the San Bernardino County Housing
Authority, there is concurrent opinion that leasing of studio or two (2)
bedroom units to senior citizens is very difficult at best. Furthermore,
since the one (1) bedroom unit is the most universally desirable senior
unit, studio and two (2) bedroom units generally hsve extremely high
vacancy and turnover ratee.
lCJH:DRE:tnt:0340V
-
IIABBT A!ULYSIS lOR p;q.,' "3IIUII IWIOR
, ' SDIOR IlOUSIlIG PROJBl...j
. Sept.-ber II, 1992
Pqe - 2 -
o
----------
Since this project'e unit composition consists of primarily studio and
two (2) bedroom units (58%), there are serious unanewered questions
regarding the economic viability of this project once constructed.
· The project's rent structure places it at the "Upper End" of senior
citizen oriented projects within this community ($515 - one (I) bedroom
unit, $605 - two (2) bedroom unit). Thie project does not, however,
offer features or amenities which are of a caliber necessary to attract
senior citizens capable of paying for a "full rent" apartment unit.
The market analysis fails to offer any comparieon of amenities/featuree
versus rent structures, which would adequately support why the "upper
end" senior market would be attracted to this development.
When given a choice of where to reside, this senior citizen market group
will in all likelihood locate to a project with more features and
amenities. This being the case, the long term economic viability of this
project, as proposed, ie questionable and should be given eerious
consideration.
· The location of thie eite ie not conducive for a eenior citizen oriented
apartment project.
The need to construct a senior hOUSing project within the described area
is highly questionable, since major tangible amenities are lacking within
the surrounding area to support this eegment of the population. There is
no public transportation within easy access, and the area is surrounded
by commercial development. There are no retail stores, major food
markets, or medical service providers within walking distance. In
addition, the surrounding area, according to the San Bernardino Police
Department, appears to have an increasing level of criminal activity that
would subject the residente to a high level of unnecessary stress coupled
with possible confinement to their specific apartments units.
Potential "Market Rate" senior citizen tenants will not accept these
living conditions, especially since there is currently an abundance of
more attractive senior housing units within the surrounding community.
The market analysis fails to consider the specific location of this
project, and the project's obvious deficiencies for the senior community
in the analysis of lease-up and vacancy ratee.
EJH:DRE:tnt:0340V
-----
'IIABIT AKALYSIS FOR f')
SBllIOR BOUSIRG PRO.JB~
, Septeaber II, 1992
Paae - 3 -
1fI1lII IWroR
o
Overall, I do not believe the market analyeis has provided sufficient
information, specific to the City of San Bernardino, to allow for an objective
determination to be made that a need exists at this location for a senior
housing develoPlllent. It is aleo important to note the the Agency is
sponsoring three (3) other senior projects totalling one-hundred, forty-five
(145) units with rents, ranging from $235/month to $550/month. In each case,
the location, amenities and related services appear to be superior to the
subject project. From all available information, the use of the site is not
conducive to enhancing the housing needs of the intended targeted population.
Please contact me at extension 5229 should you require additional information
or clarification regarding this matter.
7J
DO., beclltbe Director
partaent
ADMIlUSDATOR
KJB:DRE:tnt:0340V
~
o Attachment
"F"
o
.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Julv 30, 1992
TO:
Sandi Paulsen
FROM:
Claudio Padres
Pursuant
review of the
Lugo Avenue.
the viability
site.
to your request, staff has performed a cursory
proposed senior citizen complex on Third Street at
This review is intended to provide our thoughts of
and concerns regarding the proposed project at this
Even though there is a known need for housing senior
citizens, there are reservations on the Housing Authority's
perspective. The location of this site is not conducive for a
full market rent apartment project. Only a subsidized low income
project could experience success at this location. The density
of existing family units in the immediate environs lessens the
desirability for a peaceful and quiet enjoyment of senior
citizens. The area presently experiences noisy, troublesome and
questionable activity on a daily basis. senior citizens would be
vulnerable at this site to harassment and criminal assault.
Market rate tenants would not accept those living conditions
being that there is a current abundance of better substitute
housing. These units would most likely experience a large
vacancy rate.
Among other concerns for the viability and desirability for
this project would be that of noise of sirens from the adjacent
main/fire and paramedic station. The site is not as readily
accessible to food, medical, shopping and other services that a
typical senior citizen would expect and need. Walking distances
are excessive. The community room/ building is too small to
provide adequate recreation activities and to encourage the
comfortable socialization of its tenants. The site layout is
very uncomfortable as it does not allow for the visual "breathing
room" desirable to seniors. The site is just too regimented and
dense. The ten foot separation between buildings generates too
much heat and visual incarceration. The site is inadequate for a
on premises green belt walking area. The park across the street
is not sufficiently safe for daily strolls. Security is the most
important concern for senior citizens. We find it extremely
difficult to rent two bedroom units to senior citizens. Two
unrelated seniors just do not share the same unit. The square
J
o
o
Sandi Paulsen
July 30, 1992
Page 2
footage size of the one bedroom units are too small for their
comfortable and necessary living style.
Just recently a family apartment project adjacent to this
proposed project was foreclosed by the bank because the owner was
not able to maintain quality tenants at market rents. This
additionally suggests the problems of adequate occupancy for the
viability of this project.
It is paramount to this review, the concerns expressed, that
we are addressing the desires of full market rent clients
assuming their typical life style demands.
,
r
Ie;
~
h
~'
..I
I'
u~
a:~
-!
_I.
.
i "I
""J1 ".
'Q[][J'P' '.." ,"
! ~ '
.' " .~ lj'~ c i c
0~ ---
, " . 'I
i 1 .".";., ......
l~ . ,
.
.. '
iH;
-.t~ '
k~
I Q'i~.,..
" !J~~ =
. !..~ ~
~~~ c.
r5:=-0 l
l~~! ~ 'j;
'.:J~ ~ ~
IW,~ .
......./-i; c;
./ ..' u
.
I
i
,.\ ~
f z i~l;; i
~-c
'" '~ I
.J I ~ol
i I .:it
5 to
;"e,
Attachment "G"
Q
!
~ ~~I~ :~~I: ! : !~
~ ~~ ~ t ~ ;i~l~ " ,- ! - H
Ii ::- .:.1 : i.l:: .. "': .';;
.. ;;: i" . ......."....:' I' : ..
~ ;; 3 I ,! ,-\;.:: ~ t:, I' ',I"'"
.5'..... 'iii- .!a.:tl! .. ,"
~: ii.=ii I i ~. :~"~ H;.' J,'
. = ~;I; ~"I.i =31.; =11 -.! i ~~ i i I i.
1=-' -. .I!' .....-i-
c I J' · ul_ - · : ·
~ .. t I I
. I ! , I i 3" ..'
.. .. :: i I' _ I J .
. !! i !
- 1
..
z(; .J~~~i
n ':::~ii ~
:l~ ,U;illll1il ,II
f ,I~ ~~~d1-I~~~!n;~1
,.... 'l..~i\l!laA~t
~-~~~D~~.~n=~~r~
-'~
.'-'....
I i
~ ~ n'll 1 ....
ll~ ~~ _ ....... I "
';"9 ";;~ ~,i I i;\ '" a ---rT____:ir~ i<;i:.
~~ .,1-" I ~'~~" .
~~~~~B n:2I.-!" ~
=~;~t~i F~~ c T ~ ~L~~
Il"T~~U ,; .'''' j:
c .UD. !
! i L
! I L:,... j
I: fT,.
I I ~ I
I.
.
-t
... .
,,111.,1:1
".i---l '-"',1';
.~..N
....
,0.,1w
~
.
'v
;:
, K
;:
I l
,.n...
;
)( ,- 1
w
... .
A- I!! r
:IE :! I
0 ~ . . .i
-0 .
(,) . i w'
i : I :-:~~1
! . .'
il . l; .",!
5 J . ~ 4
II: (,
~ ... . ' I
... " .: i
c lil :
(I) I
II:
0
Z
w
(I)
'i
z
c
~
I
!
.
I
.
..
.
.
" L
,,,.
~~
:1
i
..
- =
j
-
- -
......:.... .-
,.;-p:;
.". "'':"
. 0 :.D:iie:
I. .,u:al
t. a;u:, flfalCtL.eto
'! M.r.~_~
"" y-.Ji9
5, ,,,DiP FA'iCI...
" M.r, 1f.AIL.
7, "SnJc.:o Ff;t"a11"
r-
'-
Attachment
"H"
:>
."
:.._..
-.-::~
~. .~ -;,
o
m
@i!)
,
-'_" __ h'" __
_.__. -..,
-:-~"--~'-- ".". -;.- ~.:
-". ,- - --
". '._'0 _ . ___ _.__
.. --- -
[]
OJ
~:;..:)"'-S &
~~~
d:J
j)'
iD-
eu:~ A
."
~:::e: ":v
.'
..
I
2', '
,- ,
":_Q - "
- ,.. ;--.
OJ
ITJ
".~
;.-=" .@is
'.....;D
!lJ::..o;~ .....
'$2 l!~
!:U..=-~ ~
~=s ::~v
~_':"-.;G ,Jo..
.SENi()AS APARTMEN'T COMPLEX,
~~ :.!:V
:..'~"- 8
"'=-~
o
~
Efl""
EJ
""m
ED
"'. .
..
....,.... .- ,..,
~_......::7_
:=!ID..-;" i:.al
et...:...:.:",~~
~... t:.2'>I
-,.
~- .-
~ft.'CLlj:F~CARE(~ASSOCIATES
, :n..r?~~a~4.
~ _~: C . I ,. . I! .
. -.,':
-......--.
..........CI.... .
1
." ..
,......
\ ,
-"
Attachment "r"
.:)
r
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
I. AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-03
LOCATION
r AGENDA ....
ITEM #
3
...
HEARING DATE 9-22-92
....
, L
r
c;;.c;;:1
IrE
, pp:: c::J
I I
:1- '"
. I
~;1 ,I
..
..
z
i
-;0
J
~
I
- 1&
- II
o
^
'N
~~-~
PLAN-I.ll PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.QO)
..:
"'
/"
V
".J
To the Honorable Bob Holcombe, Mayor, and the
San Bernardino City Council
To Whom this may concern:
This letter is being written in regards to the proposed senior
citizens' apartment complex on Third st., to be built by ~r.
Cliff Carol.
We, the citizens of the neighborhood, in which the project is
proposed strongly object to it. Approximately ten years ago,
~r. Carol began building apartments in this neighborhood that
were supposed to be for senior citizens, primarily. We(the neighborhood)
got Up a petition to stop the building, but were told by Mr. Carol that
they would be mostly senior citizens and some handicapped people,
and that he was going to help our neighborhood by building up
the community.
Well, the (so called) seniorcitizens & handicap apartments never came
throu~h. Mr. carol sold the apartments after they were built, and
they've done nothing but bring our neighborhood down. We are now
a very high crime area. There have been hundreds of shootings, two
murders, and many, many drug deals. It's not safe. AK-47 assault
rifles, and 9mm weapons wer.. used many times in this area. Some
of the a)"lartments are boarded up. But there are still others
in the area which are not yet.
We the citizens of the neighborhood do not feel we need apartments
of any kind here, senior citizens or other. For one, it is not
safe for seniors, regardless of the security; and knowing that this
is a high crime area, who would want to live here?
Also, if no seniors move here, then you have BKempty apartment
building to be rented, so you rent to anybody. And we have proof
that that is what happened to the apartments that Hr. carol built.
Maybe if a police substation was built by the apartments, it might
be safer.
We feel that business buildings--not apartments--would have a
more positive effect on our community.
'-
J "7? C 'Iii
/73 t;:.-r-.:iI.
I/,1 f' i:JI.,t:t. ~B
jOy Eu..J ~d.."'5'fM<2f(~wf1er)
;; r~~
,hl1/J!O{/e.G--
(I (
el2f!Jf~'fCL-
G?/1/7 4?,/~
. r
Address
'7
.sA.
..
1/
#3~
. /
- II
Lv q i-,. {#rAt) ST , S 15,.
'frC& -z. ,,:>d s-'7> ~
5q<; I ~It Av.:, 54...; Btv.JtJ. 9'l..'fo 7
,
7(& 11) r..cG~h/l SawAkd'~
'1'f3 Or A'JI'je., l~;.Joil SM" f3JJJo
.2 7,;( p~ f/flt;.d; s /.5
), 7..:L f. d_'-r .t,I eh .1).. .'5 . JS .
..2&8 I'. ~df ,M
'L\n9, t, L..\~~. ~
Fio c" ,>) \0 G'tlf 4tL 91" S t3
J '/~~~f- ~2~ f'. -V q-~.
~~'" ~~~ Z J../9:-
.
..
7,
, 9, 'if C9-<LJ} 0
I-
~,
3'i,
r ".~,
Address
v
~~Io~/.....~
/
"
//
/J
h-
'I
tt
-....
I\.
-
- /ff~~ Z ~.?Z- .~r S" /.5'
-t~ g y21C- s7 ~ l~_
, ~'7' ? /f;~ ~..{- /?
. t-/b/ C ~iZl : ,,/, . c;J)AI f3dAJO
U---L~f ( /- r / / /' ./
tJA-M.~
f '\
...A- f))') f> E. S S
. '-/
3'1:1 tWoU irJ.I~ ~
.: ifyf _,A~;&;
3 .., j ,A~J'
.
.''''-J''
/ 5 5 c' '1 ch S;;tI c? ~7' .d..nCiSct-; .
1 05 {.1 'tJ/ ~ 1"':''1<~~
.~ (~ _ V0CJ~~
/55, ? sf 78/Jrj1{1
/$~e..-..- ~~f2
I ,.,'
!lp 2- ~ t/ "~,-'t ~,"~';..
-.t/!}:',l? ~~,dS'~k}:'~~
J 9 J F i -HI .f.1-
a?8D e, Lj"tf- ft. SQYJ f?x-l/LX)-
<:980 y,4#:- &. SCJ..J1 &J,ll
/ "?~ E cr' 5./ J t
.
.J9 t C '-( Sf 58
~c/~ €: ~ 4:1: ~,/
;L If'L e tftJ._J- J f] .
,;l3J6.~~-/U
1 q~ E, 41it ~t'1ib s,E,
111,,{' 4"71:1-~;) s:.J5 .
/b7 ~ (f'~ <Jz:e ~.
\tl Q L 'ltb ~0,
" J- ~ e., C!.nuu/
I~, 3 c.. ~-~-_.
,/6 j c:- c-'//',7! If!
Jt1( (; t.-fTt-I CT
3b 9 t!.. ~. ed+c#-/l
~?E- RtG/lo 1!;?i#/7
:, Z::v~~~~k
~!t, 0to~-.Jj/OlrftJ 0ui.ltoorA'1-"-,
117. ~r:;pl -/ ~A~ -
I 1/
1f9, 11/;1 fA k/I: ~ IC- jI1/l tX^~
, ~~>/;-
~
t,~,
. -
Meadowbrook Park and Tower Apartments
191 West Second Street
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(714) 889.6319
(714) 889.7018
, / I' /
10 'L"'C{?
/' : .
Ic) " +~;;\(J.))Cl,l) \ C' c\ t-l Cv (\ U.\,\ (\',- (' l l\ \ r '1Y\ be.) r\
~
U\c ,) iJ;.lucI 'Olo.'u::.. Q~)neo1. pro-7Lc('5
v~lL +tu. J NL9h [){li\ her-oc1. lL"C "Y\J! CJcD {c!
tl.k/!2.e. 'J~+ c-BCtc/c , 'r fLo ~:')~rc)'\.B+~\ C1i;[l 0-Ur)
.e{}..cLQ'L/) e 0./) l hC:..tp~-z() c( 0 j~ vJ:f'LAolJ
i\ \\.J'p ('1 {' eJ c, C..C I II o)'k.,b:C}( (i c 1... \. (
.
I ( ! I fl I ,I I, 0 ,) " (, \ \
W)\(;ln '. t..)'j ll)U>~~tC..)ilA: L(X:'~I' ! ~'l')l,~L' L:)' I /,
lL).A..-t7l) veIL., LL)(f.--GU?.Z/YlC1 0(..(;) {'v)\Qe.. ('h l, (U),/l
-t (1 j) C' ':[' (/) ~ iJc
l"-i I \_ /.. I ' ' .", , L" .. ".1\ I - I i / I ("
V vV I\... I ,I jilt ,)\AX)\..c/ ~I t,) L,)"" -, "l ,'C ,
~,(" ') 'I" I
tXU.L ctvn/) D ,lA')(V) \~f}-tl'.j Cj,
'/ !u, e ~I..,,(,{) ,C c~/'f\... \1 tl-LD (l ~C C~ /.(/) Of,
0- ro.ee ('I d.c! (ILlz'/}L..( dOLl);>") ,3c/7u v(/J'
0\..e. CG~j: (L l~') 0,.'"'17 t.C2.a2v~ ~l ::t?)J'U /
v\., \.1 !
te \~, 8 el +k~~ ?fC>-l ~...fJ E:7!AO~.A./tA-- Of~1 'vi..
C I r\ () "\1..\0~
,L,~'!j .,:;n..t/ ) ~;I
[,\_)c (\\.~vil'\( 0 (\\ c9 cc) \;; rUe k '. ) (1l 1)( ( I))" teto
\...-l'J-v C\.Lij\ C\ (.\ ) II,Y"-t{/y~,(.A~.L), teN! 0\ '1 !iO i: C i
\.ifi\( CJ,)"l) L~")1 C Q' (oc'. ~ L\c[.,,:t.j ) lee e' II \. (
e{~jYn fn \A ) \cl{ tj I\d;p ..\\...[ 11 :/JI~,P/)LC ',0
~,,;)Ic(l'~c ('{IlL!)) I ( (t' ,1\!(\,.,,,,,..pC () 1\ " (C,\I.C"(~\)iCll,
- - J,1,,' f{ 1 I,';{ ~ '. !i ~ ,j tot',', 1- 'IJ
MEADOWBROOK PARK & TOWER
APARTMENTS
191 W, SECOND ST"
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92408
CARRIE GoNZALES
PROPERTY MANAGER
889-6319
OR
889,7018
#- 3 '--! .I
I o/; 7/ I Z-