Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30- Planning & building Services CITY OF SAN BER.ARDINO - REQUEOSIPNPOR COUNCIL ACTION IM: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit Liept: Planning & Building Services No. 91-03 Date: October 8 , 1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting October 19 , 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous action on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 . Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed, that the appeal be denied and that Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 be denied, based on the Findings of Fact. A Boughe Si Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 84-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: _ incil Notes: CIT`.' OF SAN BER[ 1RDINO - REQUEST 'OR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 91-03 REQUEST/LOCATION: The Applicant requests approval to construct a 40-unit Senior Citizen apartment project on a 1.4 acre site located on the north side of Third Street, between Allen Street and Sierra Way. Please see Exhibit A, Location Map. KEY ISSUES: There are several key issues identified as follows: There is concern for the safety of the future residents of the senior complex in that the area in which it is proposed to be located is one of high crime rates. There are no conveniently located medical or health services. There are no conveniently located commercial services such as 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 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and Common Council may: 1. Deny the project based on the location of the senior apartments, subject to the attached Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit B; (Supports Planning Commission decision) . f Conditional Use Permit 91-03 Mayor and Common Council meeting October 19, 1992 Page 2 2 . Approve the location in concept, and require that the project be re-designed, the Initial Study be advertised as available for public review and comment, and continue CUP 91-03 for 90 days; or 3 . Approve the location and design in concept, continue CUP 91-03 for 60 days to allow the Initial Study to be revised and advertised as available for public review and comment. (No revision would be necessary) . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the project with 2 abstentions, and recommended that the Mayor and Common Council deny the project based on the fact that the site is unsuitable for senior housing, and a re-design of the project will be of no benefit because of location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal, and deny Conditional Use Permit 91-03 , based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit B. Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Senior Planner For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services EXHIBITS: A. Location Map B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments • • ' � • AGENDA ITEM# i4 e, / COUNTY r���� ��• !. A 1 t r F t t CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 3 SUMMARY HEARING DATE - WARD APPLICANT: Cliff Carel & Assoc. W CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 144 E. 3rd St. Cl) San Bernardino, CA 92401 (.) 91-03 OWNER: Michael J. Murphy 2601 N. Del Rosa, Ste 220 San Bernardino, CA 92404 FThe plicant requests approval to construct a 40-unit senior ns apartment complex consisting of 10 4-plex units . W d W The 1 . 3 acre site is located on the north side of 3rd Street, X between Allen Street and Sierra Way. W cc Q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Vacant CO-1 Commercial Office North Apartments RH Residential High South Residential & Park CO-1 & PP Commercial Office/ Public Park East Fire Station CO-1 Commercial Office West Commercial CO-1 Commercial Office GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: YES HAZARD ZONE: X29 NO ZONE: NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES HAZARD ZONE:X� NO C J fR NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ❑ APPROVAL Q APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH MITIGATING MEASURES W Cl) NO E.I.R. CONDITIONS W Q ❑ Z E] EXEMPT E] E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO W Z Z Q SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W DENIAL 0 Z WITH MITIGATING H MEASURES N > 0 ❑ CONTINUANCE TO Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT (� SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES aT OF SMI CFMIULF"wnma8EFMCE5 r t Q CONDITIONAL USE PRTZMIT NO. 91-03 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 1 REQUEST 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, there is a Commercial office rie to reduce athennumber addition,1 required parking request for a variance spaces from 73 to 56. (See Attachments I and G, Location Map an Site Plan) BACKGROUND This application was submitted on January 4 , 1991 . It was incomplete in February, 1991. The incomplete letter was appealed to the Planning Commission to determine if specified studies were letter relative to required, and due to the date of the Development . Code e which development the effective date °f lied to the proect. In July, 1991, the standards were to be app Planning Commission detmete prior rmd the stud to the effective date of the the application was co p p Development Code, the new code was not app licable and that the project would be processed previous standards ipal Code (repealed June ,Title 19 of the San Bernardino Muni 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. submission of those items, the application was deemed Following 1992 , and scheduled for the complete on July 2 , of July Development/Environmental Review Committee (DC) rein gfJ to 30, 1992 . The D/ERC required that the project address safety and security for the senior citizens who would When in the apartments, and to address issues of compatibility. the owner appealed the decision of the D/ERC to re-design the project, it was determined that it would be more appropriate to move forward with the public hearing t on ofethe Conditional location Uof senior (CLIP) to discuss the primary q ue 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 the that this is an inappropriate location for senior housing, should be denied. t 1 CONDITIONAL USE PAR I-T N 0ITEM1-03 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 2 If it is determined that the location is appropriate for senior to housing, then it must further be. ecterin with neaccordan e o t the require a re-design of the p 7 recommendation of the D/ERC. If a re-design is required by the Planning Commission, the project allow should be approved in concept and continued for the days 1 Study time to revise the site plan. During that time, will be advertised as available for public review and comment on the proposed Negative Declarat royal and adoptionwofld beN roughe n. The project back to the Commission for app Declaration. Commission determines the project is fine as If the Planning roved in concept, and continued presented, the project should be app to be revised, and 60 days to allow time for the public l review and comment for the advertised as available for p 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 f Committee on July 30, 1992 , contained language regarding the re-design of and aesthetics which could both be mitigated quire the necessary the project. The D/ERC voted unanimously royal it the project or re-design prior to a recommendation for app 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 t envir clearance. ANALYSIS When it is appropriate to consider hen discussing the land use issu the policies adopted in the General Plan. 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03 AGENDA ITEM• 3 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 3 The General Plan contains the following: Policy 1.7. 19 Allow for the development of senior citizen . . . housing facilities within the . . . commercial office areas (CO-1. . . ) , provided that they are located in proximity to public transportation, supporting commercial, and health and social services. Policy 1. 12. 11 Permit the development of senior citizen . . . housing . . . provided that a marketing and financing analysis is conducted which determines the long- term feasibility; a plan is prepared for the conversion of senior unit . . . if the project is not occupied by qualified seniors; and all Code requirements are met. Policy 1. 16. 14 Permit and encourage the development of senior housing . . . in locations adjacent to supporting services (food, health, recreation, etc. ) and public transit, provided that they are compatible with and will not adversely impact the integrity and continuity of other downtown uses. Policy 2 . 6. 1 Allow for the development of senior citizen . . . housing facilities within the . . . commercial office areas (CO-1 . . . ) provided they are located in proximity to public transportation, supporting commercial, and health and social services. GENERAL PLAN/MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY General Plan Consistency Location The subject site is located on Third Street which is on various bus routes, so the public transportation criteria from the General Plan is met. However, the site is not in proximity to a grocery store, supporting commercial services, health services, (medical, dental, pharmacy, etc. ) , nor any other type of personal services (barber/beauty shops, dry cleaning, etc. ) CONDITIONAL USE PAGENDANOITEM1-o3 HEARING DATE PAGE2 42 The site is located across the ional criteria, however when this esatreet from Meadowbrook Park whit technically could meet the recr County Housing Authority, in project was sent to the San Bernardino „The site is the response was, a statement relative to recreatireen belt walking area. The park inadequate for an on premises g strolls. " In across the street is not sufficiently safe for daily addition, _the Housing Authority observed, "The community building is too small to provide adequate recreation activities and to encourage comfortable socialization ardino CountysHousingtAuthority)e Attachment E, Memo from San Be Feasibility project is not publicly assisted, and therefore, full market This prof of full market rent senior rents are anticipated. The viability ale for the following reasons: housing at this site is qu �� of existing family units (to the north) • • • The density for a peaceful and quiet enjoyment of lessens the desirability presently experiences noisy, senior citizens. The area P on a daily basis. troublesome and questionable activity Senior citizens would be vulnerable rte at tenants would not accept and criminal assault. Mark those living conditions. . . These units woAuu� omo ty) likely experience a large vacancy rate. " (Housing In other words, people who could afford full market rent would likely choose live elsewhere. was prepared for the project and reviewed by stud A feasibility Y EDA) . Their response is provided the Economic Development Agency as Attachment F. Conversion Plan ancy rate" occur, it would be Should the predicted "large vac necessary to convert the apartments to another use permitted in the CO-1 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. ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03 AGENDA ITEM• 3 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 5 The conversion plan does not address the removal of any units, does not address the community room, does not address the need for additional parking, and therefore is inadequate. The requirement from the General Plan has not realistically been addressed nor met. Compatibility Senior units are permitted in the CO-1 designation provided they are compatible with the integrity and continuity of other commercial office structures and uses. The proposed project is 10 4-plex units which is very residential in nature. This was one of the reasons the D/ERC required the re-design of the project. It was felt that the scale and mass of the project as proposed would not be compatible with existing and future commercial office structures and uses. The D/ERC felt that the visual integrity of the designation may be compromised. (See attachment H, Elevations) Safety The project is located- in an area of high crime. 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 E/DRC to re-design the project. It is anticipated that a member of the Crime Prevention Division will be available at the Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions which may arise. Site Design Staff has several concerns regarding the site plan. The construction of 10 4-plex units is not recommended by the Planning Division nor the Police Crime Prevention Division. In addition, the Housing Authority made comment regarding the proposed layout of the project. Those comments include: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03 AGENDA ITEM• 3 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 6 "The site layout is very uncomfortable as it does not allow for the visual breathing room' desirable to seniors . The site is just too regimented and dense. The 10 foot separation between buildings generates too much heat and visual incarceration. " These comments are in too 1 those Po stated ding the recreation room (too Smal l) and wa king areas (inadequate) . Floor Plan The proposal consists of 14 1-bedroom units and 26 2-bedroom units. Based on information from the Housing Authority, 2-bedroom senior units are "extremely difficult to rent" . It is noted in the Housing Authority Memo, "Two unrelated seniors just do not share the same unit. " Although the proposed 1-b--droom 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 REQUEST The requested variance is to reduce from 73 to 56 the number of required parking spaces. The former Title 19 (repealed) made no distinction between family apartments and senior apartments for parking requirements. The previous standard was 1 . 5 space per 1- bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit. One space per unit was required to be covered, and the remaining spaces were to be left open for guest parking. Those requirements dictate that 73 parking spaces be provided for this project. During the time frame of the Urgency Ordinance, (June 2 , 1989 through June 3 , 1991) , an analysis for senior apartment parking requirements was conducted. Several area cities were contacted to find out what the parking requirements were, and whether the person contacted felt the standard was high or low. As a result of that study, it was determined that 1. 2 parking spaces per unit would be adequate for senior apartments, with 1 space per unit covered and . 2 space per unit (1 space per 5 units) would be left open for guest parking. That standard was incorporated into the Development Code, however, Title 19 (repealed) was never amended. %W 0 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 on the location of the senior apartments, subject to the attached Findings of Fact. (Attachments B and C) 2 . Approve the location in concept, and require that the project be redesigned, the Initial Study be advertised as available for public review and comment, and continue CUP 91-03 for 90 days. 3 . Approve the location and design in concept, continue CUP 91-03 for 60 days to allow the Initial Study to be revised and advertised as available for public review and comment. (No re-design would be necessary) . 4 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, Al B g e irect r, Planning Build' Services S dra 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 AM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03 AGENDA ITEM: 3 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 9 Attachment A MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Category Proposal Municipal General Plan Code Proposed 10 4-plex CO-1 , with C 0 Use s e n i o r the approval Commercial c i t i z e n of a CUP Office apartments Setbacks: Front 20 feet 20 feet must meet code requirements Side 10 feet 0 feet* must meet code requirements Rear 5 feet 0 feet* must meet code requirements Parking 56 spaces 73 spaces must meet code requirements Loading 0 loading 0 loading must meet zones zones code requirements Landscaping 35% 15% must meet code requirements * 0 Side and Rear setback required except adjacent to a Residential Land Use District 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03 AGENDA ITEM• 3 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 10 Attachment B FINDINGS OF FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 1. The proposed use does not conform to the objectives of the City's General Plan Elements in that the proximity criteria of Policies 1.7. 19, 1. 16. 14 , and 2 . 6. 1 are not met, the conversion plan required by Policy 1. 12 . 11 is not adequate, and all Code requirements are not met as required by Policy 1. 12 . 11. 2. The proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located in that the proposed 4-plexes are residential in nature and are not compatible with the bulk, mass and scale of existing and future commercial office development. 3 . The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare, in that, except for the requested variance for parking, all other code requirements are met. 4 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area, but adequate parking is not provided, in that a traffic study was prepared and discussed in the Initial Study which concluded no impacts to traffic would result from construction of the project, however, a variance is requested to reduce parking requirements. 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino in that the project is for senior housing in an area of high crime, and senior citizens are vulnerable to harassment and crime. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-03 AGENDA ITEM: 3 HEARING DATE: 9-22-92 PAGE 11 Attachment C FINDINGS OF FACT VARIANCE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood in that the intended use for senior apartments does not have a parking standard, and the parking requirement for family apartments is excessive when applied to senior projects. 2 . The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant in that if the project was submitted today, processed in accordance with current Code requirements, parking requirements could be met. 3 . Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the property is located in that the proposed number of parking spaces should be sufficient for the senior project. 4 . The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan in that Policy 1 . 12 . 11 states that senior housing is permitted if all Code requirements are met, and this variance is requested in accordance with Code requirements. Exhibit "A" Q �dl�I�i��� COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN( OFFICE ON AGING •% SOCIAL SERVICES GROUP East MITI Street • San Bernardino. CA 92415-0640 • (714) 387-2400 %/� \�� KATHRYN H. PICHETTE. Ph.D esignated Area Agency on Aging �III, Diroctor August 6 , 1991 Cliff Carel and Associates 139 East Court Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Mr. Carel: I am writing to support the senior 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, KATHRYN PICHETTE Directo KHP:GS:mlc Exhibit "B" _ A,4 arcus&Millichap August 11, 1992 Invrs=c= Real Estate Brokers Centrelake PI= Cliff Carel 3401 Ceutrclake Drivr 44 East 3rd Street Suite 150 San Bernardino, CA 92410 Ontario,G 91761 Tcl: 714 983 2040 Dear Mr. Carel: Fax: 714 983 2044 It was a pleasure meeting with you last 'Wednesday to discuss the marketing of your 40 unit senior citizen apartment complex. From a location standpoint, the project seems perfectly suited for seniors who.rely on close proximity to shopping and transportation services. In addition, you have wisely taken security very seriously. The state of the art system you have planned will have a significant impact on rent-up and the eventual marketing of the property. I trust all your financing and building permits will be approved soon so that we may begin 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 be the 72 unit Golden Park Retirement Apartments on Gilbert Street in San Bernardino. We listed the property in early July and sold it very close to list price within one week. I have enclosed a summary of this transaction for review and would be glad to discuss the dozen or so senior citizen transactions Marcus & Millichap and I have completed in the past 12 months. I look forward to working with you in the marketing of your project and invite you to call me anytime at (714) 983-2040 if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely, & MIa6 HAP icy 7xander c AFG:bvb Palo Alto Dallas Encino San Francisco Phoenix Long Beach ATTACHMENT "C " CLIFF CAREL & ASSOCIATES SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENT COMPLEX 22 Studio Apartments 19 One Bedroom 4 Two Bedroom Energy Efficient Kitchens including: Refrigerator Stove Microwave Front-loading Dishwasher Garbage Disposal Stackable Washer/Dryer in each unit . Tub/Shower combination with safety grab bars . On-Site Shuttle Bus / Scheduled Transportation. Limited access card-controlled Security Gates . Location of well-lit Carports ( close proximity to unit entrance. ) Ample interior Storage with easy access . Security System in each unit including: 24-hour Monitoring. Perimeter, Interior and Panic Button protection . Exterior Security Cameras . Fire Sprinklers AMENITIES Community / Activity Center ( 1, 972 s . f. ) Dining Room ( 672 s .f. , 40 seats ) Game Room ( 700 s. f. , 43 seats ) Lounge ( 600 s.f. ) Fireplace T.V. Restrooms Supporting Amenities ( 2, 226 s.f. ) Mini Market Refrigerator/Freezer Office & Administration Kitchen Laundry Room Exercise Room Card Room Beauty/Barber Shop Outdoor Dining/Recreation Area ( 4 , 600 s .f. ) BBQ Area Exhibit "D" 0 jr.a7 �> 53 � = vo0 - � � � ° �r � �•5 F : n n ' :7r' :r -rGa£5a.���� ] �iu �O n ;71 :^7'•0 ,° u =+ u, c � _ � < o^ C n I _° � : 43 �Ria Sue°- fix � �,�?� -• 78 ; r 3 :�� � °#� � .7 b e —� �y r �r� o � 4 G 3.^ ] - � � p c ^ n� c - -'v] w n J fM"�'► E7 wal: ua a F/ � �E 5�,� �o�r pY " ;_ c ]-^ a � 3 •.^ 3 0, an .Y :3r � "£ aSGa ° o3cn•Za s _ 7 pro v] - • ?XG�.c � J c ^ � ? v OL IT _:=-�� � ,� - �� ^r.'v. `� =.�= : ^ � �_+? c L� _x.. " _ g ova '•" : . -i1 3 i2 d y " e! ? � *•� �7;:R / / t /yam AD - YYm�_ i L?i � i� : s ? rim €7 •I f-�' _ _ - - �/. o- �o li.l.• !1 ' 111 d 0 Attachment "D" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY Initial Study for Environmental Impacts For -Itc Pkr,,�f qJ- 0 3 Project Number Project description/locationT ro�sr��t 0 /.3 .e o � 3'= 4treat ti ,✓ Sf .��.L � 1,., ,mod Ali Date i f4 z Prepared for: Applicant(s) /'.I;qqC ,Q C�ref � ksso�;.L�es Address /till T- . -��d City, State -Td-„ --3ertieri..;ti.c gfA Zip 1A41 n Prepared by: Si4tI�k.A �skc�sE� Name �) StrJ�lb2 t'LAc�II�F� Title City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Doc:Misc InitialStudy CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: Lo&X iT OA/AL ti_ 9 r9P—m1 7- 03 Project Description: z oA a_ �0— zA,;t !!2, r T l�yNe.27✓ �.rt A�P�cG L'�rt 4:s.�;.�e lo D/GG /duc laG;<d s aA b Location: Side o-,' 321 566reet` betwccs, Environmental Constraints Areas: �,GUp�a ;ok dnf �a� General Plan Designation: �rvHnu?r'c;a.� ©� e — Zoning Designation: e - B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic yards or more? _ b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15%natural grade? —K — c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? _ y d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53, of the City's General Plan? f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AOMD? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind & Fire, Figure 59,of the City's General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? _ X b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060281 _, and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? f. Other? X 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Dc>alcp.—nant within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? _X d. Removal of viable, mature trees? (6"or greater) 1_ e. Other? 1C 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, religious facilities or other"noise"sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.0- Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? _ SUNUFAWQ b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? _X c. Other? X 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? _ b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? X _ c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A& B, or C as —T identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? X _ d. Other? �- 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use, store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? �c b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? _ c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? _ d. Other? 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0 -Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? X b. Use of existing,or demand for new, parking facilities/structures? _ c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? K d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? h. Significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections? X i. Other? 1( C�CF 3" BE,WAAFEM 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X, b. Police protection? c. Schools(i.e., attendance, boundaries,overload, etc.)? Y d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _K _ e. Medical aid? X f. Solid Waste? _ g. Other? 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? 3. Water? rv_ X _ 4. Sewer? X _ 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? X c. Other? X 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0-Historical, Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? _ c. Other? _ 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.)//'' 5P e_ QX�d e'xgd 4 0'_M:2 5 OOF C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. f. Earth Resources: Warmcreek Channel flows through the site, and is identified as a blueline stream on the USGS quadrangle map. However, in 1984, the stream course was diverted from the site by a reinforced concrete pipe from the channel, down Court Street to the storm drain in Sierra Way. State Fish and Game does not regulate the channel, and no permits from Fish and Game, nor the Corps of Engineers are required. There will be no impact by development of this project. 1. g. Earth Resources: The project is located within an area identified as having high potential for liquefaction. Standard mitigation will be incorporated into the construction plans which will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . a. Water Resources: Absorption rates will change due to the construction of buildings, drive aisles, and parking areas. However, the site will be graded so that any increased run-off during rainy periods will be.directed to improved storm drains and the impact will be reduced to a level, of insignificance. 4. d. Biological Resources: There are several mature trees on the site. However, the site plan shows that the trees are to remain, so there is no impact. 5. a. Noise: An acoustical analysis for the project was prepared by Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. Noise generated by traffic on Third Street and fire engine sirens from the adjacent City Fire Station were evaluated. The traffic noise can be reduced to acceptable levels through the use of specified construction materials. These include: operable dual glazed windows consisting of 2 lites of 1/8-inch glass separated by a 1/4-inch air space and using a pile seal, solid wood core doors, and wall construction consisting of 3/8-inch stucco over 1-inch styrofoam on a 2 x 4 wood stud frame, studs located 16-inches on center with R-11 insulation in the stud cavity, and a 5/8-inch gypsum board interior finish. The noise from the fire engine sirens is intermittent, and based on the construction for noise reduction, will measure about 61 to 62 decibels in the interior of certain rooms in the apartment complex. These rooms include: Building A, floor plan 1, the living room; Building A, floor plan 2, the bedroom; and Building B, floor plan 1, the bedroom. The noise generated from the sirens occurs approximately 15 to 20 times per day. Based on the acoustical analysis, the events could occur at a rate of 7 events per hour (84 occurrences per day) , and still maintain an interior Ldn of less than 45 decibels, provided the required construction for mitigation is used. With the construction specifications incorporated into the project as a condition of approval which will appear on the construction plans, the impact is reduced below a level of MEMO C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED) significance, and no further mitigation is necessary. The acoustical analysis is available for review at the Planning and Building Services Department, 3rd floor, City Hall, 300 N. "D" St. , San Bernardino, CA. 9. Transportation/Circulation: A traffic study was prepared by Krueper Engineering and Associates, and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer, who concurred with the results of the study. The study indicates there will be no adverse impacts on traffic or circulation if the project is built, and therefore, no mitigation is necessary. The traffic study is available for review at the Planning and Building Services Department, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 300 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA. 10 b. Public Services: The project is located in an area of high crime. The Police Department stated that the design of the project does not provide as much security as it could for the future residents of the project. Senior projects which include some form of controlled access are much more secure from crime than the proposed 4-plexes will provide. The Police Department Crime Prevention Division has stated that a single building surrounding a common open space courtyard would provide a much more secure environment for future- tenants of the project, and that such redesign would most likely reduce the number of crime incidences, thereby reducing the number of police responses necessary. This concern will be addressed at the Design Review stage of the project, when the project will be redesigned to provide the highest level of security possible for the Senior Citizens who will live there. 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 I evaluation. It was determined that the potential for cultural resources at the site is low, and no further studies or mitigation are required. l D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Name and Title Signature Date: Attachment "E" D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MEMORANDUM -- -------------------------------- a 101 U , TO: Al Boughy, Director 0 Planning and Building Services S E p 14 1992 FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson, Executive Director CITY Cr SAN BERNARDINO Development Department DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERV,'CES SUBJECT: MARKET ANALYSIS FOR THE MILLENIUM SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT DATE: September 11, 1992 COPIES: Mayor Holcomb; Agency Administrator; Housing Manager; Housing Development Specialist; File I am in receipt of your interoffice memorandum requesting our comments relative to a market analysis prepared by Michael J. Murphy consultants for Cliff R. Carel and Associates regarding the construction of the Millenium Project. The development consists of a 40-unit senior citizen oriented apartment complex. located East of Third Street within the City of San Bernardino. This analysis was requested by the Planning and Building Services Department in an endeavor to finalize the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-03 application submitted by Cliff R. Carel and Associates. I have thoroughly reviewed the market analysis and find the document to be inadequate in the following areas: * The market analysis utilizes national and countywide statistical and demographic information regarding senior citizen population trends, future senior citizen growth potential and comparable rent determinations in an attempt to make a case relative to identifying "need". It does not however, provide any demographic information, or 1990 census data, specific to the City of San Bernardino. The analysis fails to adequately illustrate that the proposed use is either necessary, desirable, or will provide any service to the neighborhood or community. * The market analysis fails to adequately support the marketability and economic viability surrounding construction of "studio" or two (2) bedroom apartment units for senior citizens. In discussing this issue with the San Bernardino County Housing Authority, there is concurrent opinion that leasing of studio or two (2) bedroom units to senior citizens is very difficult at best. Furthermore, since the one (1) bedroom unit is the most universally desirable senior unit, studio and two (2) bedroom units generally have extremely high vacancy and turnover rates. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJH:DRE:tnt:0340V MARKET ANALYSIS FOR ''WI M MANOR SENIOR HOUSING PROJB.._ September 11, 1992 Page - 2 - Since this project's unit composition consists of primarily studio and two (2) bedroom units (58X), there are serious unanswered questions regarding the economic viability of this project once constructed. * The project's rent structure places it at the "Upper End" of senior citizen oriented projects within this community ($515 - one (1) bedroom unit, $605 - two (2) bedroom unit). This project does not, however, offer features or amenities which are of a caliber necessary to attract senior citizens capable of paying for a "full rent" apartment unit. The market analysis fails to offer any comparison of amenities/features versus rent structures, which would adequately support why the "upper end" senior market would be attracted to this development. When given a choice of where to reside, this senior citizen market group will in all likelihood locate to a project with more features and amenities. This being the case, the long term economic viability of this project, as proposed, is questionable and should be given serious consideration. * The location of this site is not conducive for a senior citizen oriented apartment project. The need to construct a senior housing project within the described area is highly questionable, since major tangible amenities are lacking within the surrounding area to support this segment of the population. There is no public transportation within easy access, and the area is surrounded by commercial development. There are no retail stores, major food i markets, or medical service providers within walking distance. In addition, the surrounding area, according to the San Bernardino Police Department, appears to have an increasing level of criminal activity that would subject the residents to a high level of unnecessary stress coupled with possible confinement to their specific apartments units. Potential "Market Rate" senior citizen tenants will not accept these living conditions, especially since there is currently an abundance of more attractive senior housing units within the surrounding community. The market analysis fails to consider the specific location of this project, and the project's obvious deficiencies for the senior community in the analysis of lease-up and vacancy rates. -------------------------------------------- ------ KJH:DRE:tnt:0340V M1UH BT ANALYSIS FOR lam MANOR 0 SENIOR HOUSING PROJELT September 11, 1992 Page - 3 - Overall, I do not believe the market analysis 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 development. It is also important to note the the Agency is sponsoring three (3) other senior projects totalling one-hundred, forty-five (145) units with rents, ranging from $235/month to $550/month. In each case, the location, amenities and related services appear to be superior to the subject project. From all available information, the use of the site is not conducive to enhancing the housing needs of the intended targeted population. Please contact me at extension 5229 should you require additional information or clarification regarding this matter. KENNETH J. ERSON, Executive Director ADMINISTRATOR Development D partment -------- -------------------------------------- --------------- KJH:DRE:tnt:0340V Attachment "F" HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MEMORANDUM DATE:— July 30, 1992 TO: Sandi Paulsen FROM: Claudio Padres Pursuant to your request, staff has performed a cursory review of the proposed senior citizen complex on Third Street at Lugo Avenue. This review is intended to provide our thoughts of the viability and concerns regarding the proposed project at this site. Even though there is a known need for housing senior citizens, there are reservations on the Housing Authority's perspective. The location of this site is not conducive for a 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 Sandi Paulsen Page 2 July 30, 1992 footage size of the one bedroom units are too small for their comfortable and necessary living style. Just recently a family apartment project adjacent to this proposed project was foreclosed by the bank because the owner was not able to maintain quality tenants at market rents. This additionally suggests the problems of adequate occupancy for the viability of this project. It is paramount to this review, the concerns expressed, that we are addressing the desires of full market rent clients assuming their typical life style demands. . Attachment "G" LU c- rr � • ,r a. 0 u I r ii 31 Ui I � � � _: i � a is �I � � � �� •.� � i 1 3 o s i V &L w i p W a 5 na►v14�rJ �? Co J I a pt Ira W 3 •�� Z [ ��3 n � of ter- 1 Sr • t sun Div'- � i ■• � ii.. � r t \ i � i � •h6;'.r^• I I A1�`' daa �.,�� das �:�: k ' R I ww a w �.e+w�..rrl..o�nu•rb �----� I ,c. �r O Attachment "H" 1• OIL= MPT. W2MtAt VWT6 Y*JTG . g. W0402 FASCIA A MOT ;W L. . 7 SnkC.7 Pb W T Q ID ED © Q ---� Q ' � •� as c� t ® o �__•w�. =t'A- =..ate :�..r�.:� ------ .jENIORS APARTMENT COMPLEX °�._... CLIFF CAREL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCATION CASE CUP 91-03 - 3 HEARINGDATE . i cougTy J .�,�... ■. . _ ® Yiii� j■_■■� _ � I li i C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE DATE: November 2, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Shauna Clark, City Administrator SUBJECT: Senior Housing - Agenda Item 30 COPIES: Al Boughey, Planning Director ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Gonzales, Manager of Meadowbrook Towers, called the City Administrator's Office today and requested that the record reflect her views on the proposed senior housing project on Third and Allen. Ms. Gonzales wanted to attend the meeting but cannot get away from work. Ms. Gonzales referred to the crime and deterioration of the area and said: As the manager of Meadowbrook she has been working hard to make the area more livable. She feels strongly that putting more senior housing in this location would help reclaim the area. City Administrator i t i f �� v ROCK ENTERPRISES 27189 5th Street Highland , Ca . 92346 (909) 864-2520 November 24, 1992 Ms . Shaunna Clark City Administrator City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino , Ca . 92401 i Dear Ms . Clark, It has come to my attention that on December 7 , 1992 at the scheduled City Council Meeting , the Mayor and Common Council will discuss the development and site planning of the property commonly known as the Pacific Federal Savings & Loan Property located at 701 North "E" Street . I hereby request the opportunity to make a presentation to the Mayor , Common Council and the public in attendance concerning the above mentioned property . Respect ily submitted , Jim Rock, Owner Rock Enterprises � 7 SAPBERNARDINO VAi-.,,-,EY ASSOCimiON OF REALTOR5,H) 1798 NORTH D STREET • SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 P.O. BOX 2183 • SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92406 (714) 886-5031 December 1, 1992 Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the Common Council: In 1991, the San Bernardino Valley Association of REALTORS Board of Directors made a decision to remain in their present location at 1798 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino for the next 3-5 years. In fact evidence of that decision is the recently completed re-modeling of the property. For many years the Association has owned the two-story residence adjacent to its parking lot and has used the building for storage purposes for the past seven years. The address of the property is: 423 W. 18th Street. Although the building may be suitable for restoration we have decided not to do that. We desperately need parking for our members, so, we have decided to sell the building in order for it to be relocated and free-up the land for parking. The Board of Directors approved the sale of the building to Mr. James Rock, Rock Enterprises at their regular meeting in October, 1992 , contingent upon Mr. Rock being successful in obtaining a suitable site for the building. We know that Mr. Rock is negotiating with the City for a possible site for the house. We hope those negotiations are successful in order for this project to move forward. The sale of the building to Mr. Rock is also contingent upon the Association being successful in obtaining approval of the expansion of its present parking lot onto the vacated property. We are in contact with the City Planning Department and are ready to proceed once the building is removed. Should you have any questions concerning this project I will be available to meet with you or your staff at any time. S .-pcerely, . Sam Henley Executive Offi er 1992 OFFICERS: RAY TALBOTT, President•LEWIS CANTRELL, 1st Vice President•RITA NORTON,2nd Vice President•T.J.SEEGER, Secretary DENNIS DAVIS,Treasurer DIRECTORS: PAUL BEALS•ALICE DODD•MARY EASTERDAY•DALE ESTVANDER•SID GREENAWALT•STEVE LAMBERSON•SUE MOLLER- JIM TRAMMELL•WALT TUPPENCE EXECUTIVE OFFICER: SAM HENLEY