Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout41- Planning & Building Services CIr rY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 96-02; To change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium to CR-2, Commercial Dept: Planning & Building Services Regional on the north sideof6th Street ORIGINAL ' generally located between F 11 and G Streets Date: May 15, 1996 MCC Date: June 3, 1996 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: N/A Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing and adopt the Resolution which adopts the Negative Declaration and approves General Plan Amendment No. 96-02. Z my' ' A Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report and Resolution Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) N/A (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. �� 150 96 _ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-02 Mayor and Common Council meeting of June 3, 1996 OWNER: Richard Plastino Marianne Barklage 577 N. "D" St., #107 596 W. 6th St. San Bernardino, CA 92401 San Bernardino, CA 92401 APPLICANT: Main Street, Inc. 201 N. "E" St., #104 San Bernardino, CA 92346 REQUEST/LOCATION: A request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2 (Commercial Regional) for parcels fronting on the north side of 6th Street generally located between "F" and "G" Streets. The affected Assessors Parcels are: 134-021-17 through 25, and 134-023-19. BACKGROUND: The 2.7 acre location, consisting of approximately 10 parcels, is within the Central City North Redevelopment Area. It is bounded on the north, west and part of the south by multi-family residential. To the east and south are commercial and residential uses. Feldheym Library is at the southeast corner of 6th Street and "F" Street. There have been two previous general plan amendments proposed in this general area in the past: GPA 93-03 and GPA 93-06. GPA 93-03 was an approved request to change the land use designation from RM to CR-2 at the property located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and "F" Street. GPA 93-06 was submitted in conjunction with a conditional use permit application for the parcel at the northeast corner of 6th Street and "F" Street. KEY ISSUES: There are several key issues which have been identified as follows: • Staff evaluated the possibility of adding additional parcels to the plan amendment area. Letters of interest were sent to the property owners to the west and to the south across 6th Street. Staff received phone calls from several of the property owners and after some consideration, determined that the amendment area should remain as originally proposed. l • The single parcel to the east was added to the amendment area to provide contiguity to the existing CR-2 land use district to the east. Properties to the north, west and south were excluded because of viable residential uses. O James Roe, an owner of numerous properties in the vicinity, requested in writing and at the Planning Commission hearing, to be included in the plan amendment i area. His request was denied because Mr. Roe's parcels were not originally considered by staff for inclusion in the amendment area due to their viable residential uses. In addition, the legal notice for this amendment area only included identification of the subject parcels as proposed. The exclusion of his properties does not preclude Mr. Roe from submitting an application for a general plan amendment for his properties. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for a complete discussion. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The ERC reviewed the initial study on March 21, 1996 and determined that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment and recommended a Negative Declaration. The public review period was from March 28, 1996 through April 17, 1996 and no comments were received. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 (Gonzalez, Lockett, Schuiling, Strimpel, Thrasher, Traver) to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the May 7, 1996 staff report (Exhibit 2). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-02, based upon the Findings of Fact. Prepared by: Margaret Park, Associate Planner For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services Exhibits: 1 - Location Map 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report Attachments: A. Location Map/Study Area B. Findings of Fact C. Initial Study 3 - Resolution r • ` I Sf7�ET-3 i AM f1f �• O 0 0 0 0 0 0 i p p p p s Per.I As.2 i }--=s-v2crat!u 44 srRFEr-t—� © t o i =t: ?I *: X. So � F a ai 6®PAR.Maa a, ~W-30-ZU - AueaMUr ti O N A r y �1% A 0 v.2 Q 0 s."AC• Q P Par.l LOS AC CO ' LOS AC 3 a00�. AgAr•r.s. } SG Sj ,o. ® Par.l As2 Ar.3 O O ti O ® ® O2 O ® ~ Lt1AC �O`2\ LafAC b 1I r MI /IL�fY JM STRMT j_1 I Proposed plan amendment area Parcel Map Na 5650,43RM.5012 1 Parcels included in study area Parcel Map No.4643,RM.50/21 ran o�_n� SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION Agenda Item#2 CASE: General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 OWNER: OWNER: APPLICANT: Richard Plastino, Marianne Barklage Main Street, Inc. 577 N. "D" Street, #107 596 W. 6th St. 201 N. "E" Street, #104 San Bernardino, CA 92401 San Bernardino, CA 92410 San Bernardino, CA 92346 REQUEST / LOCATION - A request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2 (Commercial Regional) for parcels fronting on the north side of 6th Street generally located between "F" and "G" Streets. The affected Assessors Parcels are: 134-021-17 through 25, and 134-023-19. EXISTING LAND USE PROPERTY LAND USE DESIGNATION SUBJECT Vacant Multi-Family Residential RM, Residential Medium NORTH Mixed Residential RM, Residential Medium SOUTH Commercial/Multi-Family Residential CR-2 Comm. Regional; RM Res. Medium EAST Vacant Multi-Family Residential RM, Res. Medium WEST Multi-Family Residential RM, Residential Medium [GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC YES ❑ FLOOD HAZARD YES ❑ SEWERS: YES 0 HAZARD ZONE: NO ■ ZONE: NO ■ NO ❑ HIGH HIGH FIRE HAZARD YES ❑ AIRPORT YES ❑ REDEVELOPMENT YES ■ Z ZONE: NO ■ NOISE/CRASH NO ■ PROJECT AREA: NO ❑ ZONE: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ❑ Not Applicable ❑ E.I.R. w/ ■ APPROVAL Significant ❑ Exempt Effects ❑ CONDITIONS ■ No Significant Effects ❑ Significant ❑ DENIAL ❑ Potential Effects, See Effects, Attached E.R.C. ❑ CONTINUANCE Mitigating Minutes Measures, TO: No E.I.R. GPA No. 96-02 Agenda Item: 2 Hearing Date: 5-7-96 Page 2 REQUEST & LOCATION A request to change the land use designation from RM, Residential Medium to CR- 2, Commercial Regional for parcels fronting on the north side of 6th Street generally located between "F" and "G" Streets. The affected Assessors Parcels are: 134-021-17 through 25, and 134-023-19. Staff established a larger study area for evaluation purposes. The actual area proposed for the amendment was reduced based on staffs review and analysis. (See Attachment 'A') CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The project is subject to CEQA and an initial study was prepared. The ERC reviewed the initial study on March 21, 1996 and determined that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment and recommended a Negative Declaration. The public review period was from March 28, 1996 through April 17, 1996 and no comments were received. BACKGROUND The 2.7 acre location, consisting of approximately 10 parcels, is within the Central City North Redevelopment Area. It is bounded on the north, west and part of the south by a variety of existing homes that are used for multi-family residential. To the east and south are properties within the Commercial Regional land use district. Feldheym Library is at the southeast corner of 6th Street and "F" Street. There have been two previous general plan amendments proposed in the past: GPA 93-03 and GPA 93-06. GPA 93-03 was an approved request to change the land use designation from RM to CR-2 at the property located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and "F" Street. GPA 93-06 was submitted in conjunction with a conditional use permit application for Assessors Parcel 134-023-19 but was denied. GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY As the regional economy rebounds from the recession of the past few years, the applicant, Main Street, Inc. is recognizing the need for additional regional serving commercial in the downtown area. Objective 4.3 states that it is an objective of the City to generate cumulative growth that provides net fiscal gains to the City. The designation of additional CR-2 for redevelopment and revitalization is expected to generate growth through increased economic activity and job generation for residents of the downtown area. ANALYSIS Staff supports this extension of CR-2, Commercial Regional land use district west along 6th Street because it is will allow commercial enhancement of one of the major gateways into the City, the GPA No. 96-02 Agenda Item: 2 Hearing Date: 5-7-96 Page 3 5th/6th Street offramp from the 215 freeway. The Economic Development Agency has been promoting the revitalization of the downtown area with the development of the Superblock and the Baseball Stadium. In addition, private development such as the Social Security building are contributing to this revitalization. This proposed change will allow Main Street Inc. to continue with its revitalization efforts in the Downtown Area. Main Street, Inc. is considering a proposal for a mixed use project which would combine commercial and residential uses into a unified development across Assessors Parcels 134-021-17 through 25. Staff expects that any commercial development that is approved for this site will be sensitive to established residential area along 7th Street and those that are adjacent on "F" and "G" Street. The Development Code provides comprehensive development requirements and design guidelines for commercial development so as to minimize or eliminate any possible conflicts. Such standards include evaluation of intensity of a proposed use, parking, landscaping, architecture and the like. Staff evaluated the possibility of adding additional parcels to the plan amendment area. Letters of interest were sent to the property owners to the west and to the south across 6th Street. Staff received phone calls from several of the property owners and after some consideration, determined that the amendment area should remain as originally proposed. The single parcel to the east was added to the amendment area to provide contiguity to the existing CR-2 land use district to the east. Properties to the north, west and south were excluded because of viable residential uses. Staff has included a map (Attachment A) identifying the location of those parcel in relation to the proposed plan area. CONE"ENTS RECEIVED Mr. Robin Shidler submitted a letter stating his opposition to his parcel (APN 134-021-28) being included in the plan area. Mr. George Morgan had questions at the public counter but did not submit a written statement of his position regarding this plan amendment. Mr. James Roe called staff to express his interest in having his properties included in the study area, because he wants to develop them with commercial uses. Staff did not include his properties in the study area or amendment area because they contain viable residential uses. CONCLUSION The necessary findings can be made to support approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 as required in Development Code Sections 19.50.50. The plan amendment proposed in General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project is subject to CEQA and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council GPA No. 96-02 Agenda Item: 2 Hearing Date: 5-7-96 Page 4 the: 1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration. 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment No.96-02 based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment B). Respectfully submi , BOU Director of P g an ing Services Prepared by: MARGARET E. PARK Associate Planner Attachments: A - Location Map B - Findings of Fact C - Initial Study 7006 1 I I t i I�—l ti�-7m � r .S•�EtZ i IL. ai ...�♦ i/ �, /O N w �r ® c t p p ® T rI IqN N w ►—_:-v�roRra 44 sr�Er-t—i © O i s I• �: ; :•:1'• 1 aW STMM +1 ® W 7 J! Q MAP I7F34-2M EE7 -.q1 MR.OKY ti 5 0 N \�G R Far.2 4 P. 4�0� 4.84ACI QP Por.I LOS AC ' LOS AC O ® 3 00�' 8 00�' O SGT yid . &- 6 Par.I PW2 Par.3 ♦ LVAC ` v ROIAC jk- ® ® ®2 O o � w a� r H kt/ /11 ,1y - , �,,,t /f.�•fV ,� � _ en• •.1 I �-1- • .�•—S 111 ♦ STREMI �. I 'O Proposed plan amendment area Parcel AI9P Na.5650,RIK as/19 Parcels included in study area Parcel Map No."43,RM.50121 1 GPA No. 96-02 Agenda Item: 2 Hearing Date: 5-7-96 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 'B' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan in that it meets objective 4.3 which provides for the development of additional commercial uses that will generate net fiscal gain. 2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that any development proposed for the site in the future will be required to meet the extensive development standards that are in place to buffer residential development and that enable commercial projects to blend with adjacent neighborhoods. 3. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City in that the addition of commercially designated land will provide additional opportunities for economic development that has been lost during the recession of the last several years. 4. In the case of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject parcel(s) is physically suitable (including, but not limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation (s) and the anticipated land use development(s) in that the amendment area is bounded on two sides by developed, dedicated streets, and is located in the downtown area with existing infrastructure suitable for urban development. In addition, existing homes within the area could be converted to a variety of commercial or mixed-uses and would not be a major obstacle to the development of this area. City of EnvironmenUd Impact C'hecUle GPA 96-03 Page 1 March 20, 1996 ATTACHMENT "C" INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 9602 Project Description/Location: A request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2(Commercial Regional). The affected parcels are generally located on the north side and south side of 6th Street between F and G Streets in the Central City North Redevelopment Area. Date: March 18, 1996 Applicant: Main Street, Inc. (EDA) 201 North 'E' Street, Suite 104 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Prepared by: Margaret E. Park Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 INITIAL STUDY General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 96-02. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed general plan amendment is approved. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The following components constitute the Initial Study for GPA 96-02: • Project Description • Site and Area Characteristics • Environmental Setting • Environmental Impact Checklist • Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures • Conclusion/Environmental.Determination Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2 (Commercial Regional)The affected parcels are generally located on the north side of 6th Street between F and G Streets and was expanded by staff to include a parcel just east of F Street and several parcels on the south side of 6th Street between F and G Street located in the Central City Redevelopment Area. The subject site consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 134-021-19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 134-023-19 and 134-061-6,7,8,9,10 (See Exhibit A). SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The site is located in the downtown area of San Bernardino and consists of 16 parcels that front 6th Street, which is a primary entrance into the City from Interstate 215. The parcels can also be described as being just northwest of the City's main library, Feldheym Library. The parcels have existing residential units, some which are occupied and others that are boarded up or in states of disrepair. While some of the buildings are not historic, the majority of onsite homes are identified as historical in that they are identifed in the City's Historical Resources Reconaissance Survey as being in existence for 50 years or longer and are examples of historic architectural styles. There are two buildings, located on APN's 134-021-19 and 134-023-19 that are identified in the City's Historical Resources Reconaissance Survey as potential candidates City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 3 March 20, 1996 for the National Register of Historic Places, which could be affected by the change in land use designation. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The subject site is located within an area of moderate to moderately high liquefaction, but is not located within a seismic special studies zone. It is not located in an area of high wind or high fire hazard or High ground water. CITY CONTACT: Margaret E. Park, Associate Planner (909) 384-5057. r City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA%-02 Page 4 March 18, 19% CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY for GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-02 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY, ■ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o 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 �,r!c7vrtty Signaturdl Date City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 5 March 18, 1996 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL E%IPACT CHECKLIST A. ENVIRONMENTAL EMPACTS Explain "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on a separate attached sheet. "No" answers are explained on this checklist. See Attachment "A" Preliminary Environmental Description Form, where necessary. 1. Earth Resources: Will the proposal Yes No Maybe result in: a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) on slopes of 15% or more based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. D-(3)? X b. Development and/or grading on a , slope greater than 15% natural grade based on review of General Plan HMOD map, which designates areas of 15% or greater slope in the City? X 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? X d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature based on field review? X 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? X WON=" C City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact (Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 6 March 18, 19% f. Modification of a channel, creek Yes No Maybe or river based on review of USGS Topographic Map _San Bernardino South ? X g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, subsidence or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figures 48, 51, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? X h. Development within an area subject to liquefaction as shown in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 48, of the City's General Plan? X i. Other? _N/A X 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by South Coast Air Quality Management District, based on meeting the threshold for significance in the District's, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"? X b. The creation of objectionable odors based on information contained in Preliminary Description Form, No. G.(3)? X c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind & Fire, Figure 59, of the City's General Plan? X City of San Banardino Envuonmental Impact Checklist GRk 96-02 Page 7 March 18, 19% 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal Yes No Maybe result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces that cannot be mitigated by Public Works Standard Requirements to contain and convey runoff to approved storm drain based on review of the proposed site plan? X b. Significant alteration in the course or flow of flood waters based on consultation with Public Works staff? X ,c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality based on requirements of Public Works to have runoff directed to approved storm drains? X d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground water? X 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 0020B9 and Section 16.0-Flooding, Figure 62, of the City's General Plan? X f. Other?—N/A X City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 8 March 18, 19% 4. Biological Resources: Could the yes No Maybe proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay, as identified in Section 10.0- Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the City's General Plan? X 1. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. B.(1) and verified by on-site survey/evaluation? x a' 2. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat based on information contained in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. E.(2) and verified by site survey/evaluation? x 3. Impacts to the wildlife disbursal or migration corridors? b. Removal of viable, mature trees based on site survey/evaluation and review of the proposed site plan? (6" or greater trunk diameter at 4' above the ground) c. Other? _N/A City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 9 March 18, 1996 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: yes No Maybe 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? b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, commercial or other uses which generate noise levels above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior that may affect areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses based on information in the Preliminary Environmental Description Form No. G.(1) and evaluation of surrounding land uses No. C., and verified by site survey/evaluation? X c. Other? _N/A X 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated based on the review of the General Plan Land Use Plan/Zoning Districts Map? X City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 10 March 18, 1996 b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use yes No Maybe Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? X c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A & B, or C as identified on the Development Code Overlay Districts Map? X d. Other? _N/A X 7. Man-Made Hazards: Based on information contained in Preliminary Environmental Description Form, No. G.(1) and G.(2) will the project: -a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? _N/A X 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing as verified by a site survey/evaluation? X b. Create a significant demand for additional housing based on the proposed use and evaluation of project size? X City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 11 March 18, 1996 C. Other.) _N/A X 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could Yes No Maybe the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan and based on the conclusions of the City Traffic Engineer and review of the Traffic Study if one was prepared, result in: a. A significant increase in traffic volumes on the roadways or intersections or an increase that is significantly greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? X b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? X c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? X f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? X h. Other? _N/A X City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 12 March 18, 1996 10. Public Services: Based on the responses of the responsible agencies or departments, will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capacity to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools (i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? X f. Solid Waste? X g. Other? _N/A X 11. Utilities: Will the proposal; a. Based on the responses of the responsible Agencies, Departments,*or Utility Company, 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? X 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? X 5. Other? _N/A X City of San Beraaidim Bnvironmwtal Impact Checklist GPA 96-42 Page 13 March 18, 19% b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions based on Yes No Maybe review of existing patterns and proposed extensions. X 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any significant or important scenic view based on evaluation of the view shed verified by site survey/ evaluation? X b. Will the visual impact of the project create aesthetically offensive changes in the existing visual setting based on a site survey and evaluation of the proposed elevations? X c. Other? _N/A 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? X b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? X City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 14 March 18, 1996 c. Other? _N/A X 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. Based on this Initial Study: a. Does the project have the Yes No Maybe 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? X b. Does the project have the 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 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 City of San Bernanfina Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page is March 18, 1996 effect of the total of those Yes No maybe impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X City of San Bernardino Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 16 March 20, 1996 B. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMCNTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (The following responses are numbered to correspond to checklist items in the previous section) 19. The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for subsidence as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figures 48 & 51. All grading and new structures will be built to UBC, Development Code and MC-676 requirements and will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Ih. The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48. All grading and new structures will be built to UBC, Development Code and MC-676 requirements and will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 6a. The proposal is for a general plan amendment from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2 (Commercial Regional). No development or redevelopment is proposed with this project. Future development must comply with all City requirements including the Development Code, Building Code, Fire Code as well as requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Single family homes on the affected parcels were legally established prior to 1991 and are a permitted land use in all land use designations. 0 James Roe 325 W. Sixth Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Entered into Record eMt ' A/C� (909) 884-9933 Cc�imciilCmyDevCms g. May 14, 1996 by re Agenda Item - Mayor and Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street City ClerkICDC Secy San Bernardino, CA 92418 City of San Bernardino RE: General Amendment 96-02 1. I am protesting GPA 96-02 which will amend the existing RM, Residential Medium designation to the upgraded CR-2, Commercial Regional designation on property located between "G" and "F" Streets on the north side of Sixth Street, including APN 134-021-17 which fronts "F" Street on the west side. I am further protesting denial to include properties on both sides of"F" Street between Sixth and Seventh in this General Plan zoning upgrade. This action was taken on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at the City Planning Commission meeting. 2. The specific grounds of protest: a. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP as described in Summary Agenda Item#2 (Exhibit A)has Richard Plastino and Marianne Barklage as owners. But it is not disclosed that APN 134-021-17 is owned by the San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency(Exhibit B: First American Title property records search and current ownership documents dated May 8, 1996). This incorrect information on the application should be grounds for redoing the GPA 96-02 request from its origins. b. PROPERTY LOCATION as described in Initial Study GPA No. 96-02 (Exhibit C page 2) does not include the Redevelopment's APN 134-021-17, but it is included in the Summary Agenda Item#2 on page 2 (Exhibit A) as part of the zone change. Planning Director, Al Boughey, stated that all parcels included in the zone change fronted Sixth Street, but APN 134-021-17 fronts the west side of"F" Street (Exhibit C page 3: proposed plan amendment area map). One of the reasons why my request to join in this zone-change amendment was denied was because they only wanted the change TO AFFECT PROPERTIES FRONTING SIXTH STREET. c. PROPERTY ZONING statements made by the Planning Director in his closing arguments to the Planning Commission to quash my request, stated that there was absolutely no abutting commercial zoning between Sixth and Seventh Streets on "F". This statement seemed to cement the Commissions approval for the GPA 96-02 amendment to advance forward, leaving me out. But APN 134-021-14 & 15, which are both owned by me, are both on the west side of"F" Street between Sixth and Seventh and are both commercially zoned(Exhibit D and D-1: tax rolls and plat map). (There are 13 parcels owned by me,they are marked with an 'W".) This commercial property was "grandfathered" in under the last General Plan Amendment several years ago. Furthermore,the statement made on page 16 of GPA 96-02 (Exhibit E), "NO DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED WITH THIS PROJECT," makes this General Plan amendment nothing more than "spot zoning", which will create leap-frog development and should not be allowed. d. VIABLE RESIDENTIAL USES: According to the statement made on page 3 on Agenda Item#2 (Exhibit F), "Staff evaluated the possibility of adding additional parcels to the plan amendment area," and concluded, "Properties to the north, west and south were excluded because of VIABLE RESIDENTIAL USES." So I am being penalized for maintaining my properties as viable residences and the RDA is being rewarded for creating the blight on Sixth Street with an upgraded-zone change. Keep in mind that the whole block had viable residential uses prior to the RDA's failed Empire Bay project. The failure of this project left all properties owned by the RDA at that time suspended in foreclosure and subject to horrific vandalism and expense, especially the subject property of GPA 96-02. I rehabilitated all of my properties after foreclosure and have maintained them as viable residences. (Why in the first place did the RDA spend approximately $1.5 million on the acquisition of these properties by Empire Bay for 120 townhouses if the area was already viable residential? It seems that many fallacies and inconsistencies over this block are deep and persistent.) 3. The actions sought from the Mayor and Common Council: a. That the applicant of GPA 96-02 be required to re-submit application with all information corrected and the submission and notification process began all over. b. That both sides of"F" Street from Sixth to Seventh be joined in the re- submission of GPA 96-02 upgraded zone change. 4. Additional information: a. For the record I have been a property owner on this entire square block bounded by "F" and "G" and Sixth and Seventh Streets for over 20 years. I am currently the major property owner of this entire City block. My personal proposal for this block is a high-rise commercial project which would spur development from private enterprise on the block and the surrounding areas. The lack of opportunity for my properties to be joined with this amendment upgrade will continuing the stagnation of the downtown core. b. Additionally, Richard Plastino,the major owner of GPA 96-02, supported our request(Exhibit G: his request asking for your support in joining our properties to the GPA upgraded-zone amendment. Signature of Protestant: " Z Date �, C_v I J )Y � SUNEVURY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DMSION Agenda Item#2 CASE: Gen P Amendment No. 96-02 OWNER: OWNER: APPLICANT: Richard Plastin Marianne Bar a Main Street, Inc. N. "D" S 07 W. 6th St. treet. 1/104 San Bernardino, CA 92401 San Bernardino, CA 92410 San Bernardino, CA 92346 REQUEST / LOCATION - A request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2 (Commercial Regional) for parcels fronting on the north side of 6th Street generally located between "F" and "G" Streets. The.affected Assessors Parcels are: 134-021-17 through 25, and 134-023-19. EXISTING LAND USE PROPERTY LAND USE DESIGNATION SUBJECT Vacant Multi-Family Residential RM, Residential Medium NORTH Mixed Residential RM, Residential Medium SOUTH Commemial/Multi-Family Residential CR-2 Comm. Regional; RM Res. Medium EAST Vacant Multi-Family Residential RM, Res. Medium WEST Multi-Family Residential RM, Residential Medium GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC YES ❑ FLOOD HAZARD YES ❑ SEWERS: YES ■ HAZARD ZONE: NO ■ ZONE: NO ■ 1 1 NO ❑ HIGH FIRE HAZARD YES ❑ AIRPORT YES ❑ REDEVELOPMENT YES ■ ZONE: NO ■ NOISE/CRASH NO ■ PROJECT AREA: NO ❑ ZONE: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ❑ Not Applicable ❑ E.I.R. w/ ■ APPROVAL Significant ❑ Exempt Effects ❑ CONDITIONS ■ No Significant Effects ❑ Significant ❑ DENIAL ❑ Potential Effects, See Effects, Attached E.R.C. ❑ CONTINUANCE Mitigating Minutes Measures, TO: No E.I.R. ***F I R S T AMERI CAN TITLE*** 3 2. 3 W . 0 0 0 R T S T ********************** * S A N B E RNA R D I N 0, CA 9 2 4 0 1 * * Parcel Number 34-021-17 ` , f * Owner 1st REDEVELOPMENT AG * 2nd * Site Address 630 N F ST * SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 * Mail Address 201 N E ST * SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 * Phone Number * Legal Desc. CITY N 49 1/4 FT S 199 1/4 FT LOT 1 BLK 43 * Acreage . 17 Acres * Census Tract 0057 . 001 Map Page-Grid : 16-D2 / 576-G7 * * * ------------------------ * Property Characteristics * * * Use Description Vacant Use code 000 * Bedrooms : Bathrooms : Square Feet * Yr. Built: Lot Size : 7, 301 Constr. Type : WOOD FRAME * Fireplace: Pool/Spa Structure * Num Units : Lot Dimens : 49 x 149 Shape COMPLEX * Num Story: Num Rooms Roof * Gas Water Access : PUBL PVD * View 1st Floor Garage Type : * Heat 2nd Floor Garage/CarPt : * Cool Addition Gar/Car SgFt: * Sewer : YES Patio # Garage Spc: * Electric : OVERHEAD Basement Appliances * * Sale Information * * * Last Sale Date: 09/09/92 Prev Owner CHERRY,BARBARA * Amount : $30,000 F Prev Sale Date * Document Num : 372578 Amount * Cost/SQ Foot Document Num * Last Transfer W/O Transfer Tax : 03/31/93 Doc Num : 140530 * Assessment/Tax Information * Assessed Total : $21, 900 Tax Amount : $430 . 79 * Land : $4, 543 Tax Rate Area : 00700 * Percent Imp : 79% Exemption * * * Prepared May 8, 1996 by RUDY * Any Questions? Please Call (909) 381-6411 * * The information contained herein is an accommodation only . search of the county records is necessary to complete the examinL:v_ion of any documents affecting said property. No assurances can be given, express or implied, that the information is complete and accurate without the benefit of a policy of Title Insurance. Copyright (C) 1996 Dataquick Information Systems aQy,- a ri- 'ti•'It �I,�hKt`1f;S'\ r t `�,i, �{tM�-T, "M;r Ll� ir:r.._:.:.�r<. ....,...:,..r..,... _ ..17.,`; fLL' .J...:':a�ir{1_. •t�1ti...`...'__ .. 1,'�` �-F�r r 7•'' `` r r"IX 7 E. " I . . .. . __........ t FEE n ft£�'f11RfOF0 IN RECORDING REQUESTED BY _fir. OFFICIAL RECORDS AND WIIXN RECORDED MA l L 'TO: 1 A1.1;yI )� 93 MAR 31 PM 3: 35 .11•.:);1 ulft,,It $A4 OCF.liA^UI�iO Reid aSiOnal orp slrlrar isilil COUNTY. CALIF. A Processional Corporation P.O. Box 6086 ,�yvY (' San Iwrnardino, CA 92412 ('��140J�U 5 a7 tj b:l . Assessor's Parcel No. : !✓.r,et of Docu•.r+.lJfy :•.,.•.•IYr 1aa • cunsid•rat.dn M- va.... W rh1Gh the ta. due ray as 0.elu•: of the valve of all 11Yns nr MA 11. 'PAX STATKMEWI'S TO: ,,, .r ns .. •+un., .v. 11 w Inlwrw�t pr.q•••11 CwweyuJ at Unr t..w ul ♦•lu. iicdcvelopment Agency of the City f)f Sill, !Bernardino .,,,,1M,�•�„f,,�:;;t, Jutn.�...u.r•) tlr. 1,.��i �{ .:p•nl 201 N. "r:" St. San Bernardino, CA 92401 0_0" P'�•r valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Empire Bay, a California corporation, hereby remises, rl:lcas4-s and quitclaims to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, a public agency, corporate and politic, the property in the County of San Ber.nar.iino, State of California, described un Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reft::t:nt:e. D.1 r lid: .� ..,5 �i-__ EMPIRE BitY, a t_.Ilifornia corporation I By: ZCLtC__1 -- Its: - 1 114 7ANA •[w i AN P* ADAMS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ; c•cAurONh�w 33' i DINO c0UN11 CuUIITY OF SAII BERNARDINO ) My ComOct-e• I�YJ4 Oil �1gXch , 1923, before me, Lee Ann Adams pernorially appeared ilehrn 5n pniB personally knolj,: to me (or.proved to me' on the basis of satisCactory evidence) to be th1_ person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, an acknowledged to m^ that he/she executed the same in his/li1:L authorized capacity, and `hat by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or they entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. 1 I WITNESS my hand and official seal. I M.•IY-'y •calf .___ � . ,;..•!�' lf.cA.X%IADAHS Notary Public in and for slli . 1• • .„li.rr.:,•rr::a:'1tA Cuunly and Stl+te a IJ 4 11%.V01ho evilly u•, ..•I!^r,`.r.1 •ticL,L l4•Y 93-140550 3 . Parcel 5.: AP 134-021-17 13 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, CK 43, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 1 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAYS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 150 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE WEST 150 FEET, MORE.OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINd OF SAID LOT 1: THENCE NORTH 49-1/4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 99-1/4 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT: THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EAST 150 FEET; MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTH 49-1/4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 6. : AP 134-021-18 ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 43 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PEK MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 7, PAGE 1 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, nESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 15C FEET; THENCE WEST 150 FEES MORE OR LESS TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1; I THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; 150 FEET TO THE SOUTH 'v LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT, 1 150 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 7.: AP 134-021-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 i ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 43, OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, n. COUNTY. OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALTFORNT.'1, AS PER MAP RECORDED U) IN HOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 15U FEET; THENCE WEST 150 FEET MORE OR LRSS TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 150 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SATn LOT 1; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SA1:; LOT, 150 FEET MOL-' OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1 BEGINNING 95 FEET NORTH OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCL' �! NORTH 55 FEET; THENCE WEST 150 FEE. TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; �+ THENCE SOUTH 55 FEET; THENCE EAST 150 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE EAST 64 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 43, OF THE PITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. au:r.ta+ri�r.uc1 -2- I i Co city of Environmental Impact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 1 March 20, 19% ATTACHMENT "C" INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDNI NT NO. 96-02 Project Description/Location: A request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential Medium)to CR-2(Commercial Regional). The affected parcels are generally located on the north side and south side of 6th Street between F and G Streets in the Central City North Redevelopment Area. Date: March 18, 1996 Applicant: Main Street, Inc. (EDA) 201 North 'E' Street, Suite 1 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Prepared by: Margaret E. Park Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ?A e INITIAL STUDY General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study is provided by the City of San Bernardino for General Plan Amendment No. 96-02. It contains an evaluation of potential adverse impacts that can occur if the proposed general plan amendment is approved. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Initial Study when a proposal must obtain discretionary approval from a governmental agency and is not exempt from CEQA. The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether or not a proposal, not exempt from CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration or whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The following components constitute the Initial Study for GPA 96-02: • Project Description • Site and Area Characteristics • Environmental Setting • Environmental Impact Checklist • Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures • Conclusion/Environmental Determination Combined, these components constitute the complete Initial Study. PROJECT DESCRIP'T'ION The project consists of a request to change the land use designation from RM (Residential l Medium) to CR-2 (Commercial Regional)The affected parcels are generally located on the north side of 6th Street between F and G Streets and was expanded by staff to include a parcel just east of F Street and several parcels on the south side of 6th Street between 1r and 6 Street located in the Central City Redevelopment Area. The subject site consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 134-021-19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 134-023-19 and 134-061-6,7,8,9,,10 (Seer(.'' Exhibit A). l: l i',V,Lk SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The site is located in the downtown area of San Bernardino and consists of 16 parcels that front 6th Street, which is a primary entrance into the City from Interstate 215. The parcels can'also be described as being just northwest of the City's main library, Feldheym Library. The parcels have existing residential units, some which are occupied and others that are boarded up or in states of disrepair. While some of the buildings are not historic, the majority of onsite homes are identified as historical in that they are identifed in the City's Histon.:al Resources Reconaissance Survey as being in existence for 50 years or longer and are examples of historic architectural styles. There are two buildings, located on APN's 134-021-19 and 134-023-19 that are identified in the City's Historical Resources Reconaissance Survey as potential candidates + ( I x P/' O ® 11 0 0 0 0 4 0 MC p p p p 6 ® t p ON- 40 ® ® T �-;A-you 44 © 0 I I © O O p ° ►' Lim r f O 3 8®w.uo: MAP aw.aa•ar AM w.alr -+ ------tom- --- --- -+®- L"AC L"AC SGOO 0%, a °°%0 I gG Proposed plan amendment area �:; , N 546'R#µ. Parcels Included In study area - -- - -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � 11 Page 1 --=---------r--------------------------- -------------------- -------------- Site : 696 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 ROE,JAMES TR Mail : 325 W 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 ;INGLE RESIDENC Ph: ( 909 ) 381-7511 Xmpt: Sale: $40,000T Date: 08/24/92 10, 006 Doc: 351262 Yb: Sgft: 31446 Asd: $94, 956 Imp:72% :RESIDENTIAL Tr:00000-00 Lot:00008 Lotsz: 11,427 Bd/Sth: Rms: Prcl : 0134-021-12 Site:690 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA - - 92410 ROE,JAMES & KANDY Mail : 325 W 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 ;INGLE RESIDENC Ph: (909) 381-7511 Xmptt Sale:$125,000 Date:08/23/94 13,750 Doc: 356080 Yb: 1995 Sgft:2, 160 Asd:$125, 000 Imp:88% RESIDENTIAL Tr:00000-00 Lot: 00008 Lotsz: 7,450 Bd/Bth:5/3 . 0 Rms : 9 -------------------------- Prcl : 0134-021-13 Site: 672 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 ROE,JAMES & KANDY Mail : 325 E 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 INGLE RESIDENC Ph: Xmpt: SAle:$5,000P Date: 09/23/93 Doc: 407354 Yb: 1901 Sgft:2, 128 Asd: $58, 690 Imp:79% RESIDENTIAL Tr: 00000-00 Lot :00008 Lotsz : 7, 450 Bd/Bth: 4/2 . 0 Rma :7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prcl :0134-021-14 Site:654 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 ROE,JAMES TR (OLD WORLD Mail : 325 W 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 POT RETAIL Ph: Xmpt: Sale: $84, 459T Date: 06/04/93 Doc : 240495 Yb: 1901 Sgtt : 1,032 Aad:$74 , 562 Imp:37$ COMMERCIAL Tr: 00000-00 Lot : 00008 Lotsz: 14,927 Bd/Bth:4/2 . 0 Rms: 7 Prcl :0134-021-15 Site: 650 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA --9241 ROE,JAMES TR Ma11 : 375 W 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 ACANT Ph : Xmpt: Sale:$15, 231T Date: 06/18/93 Doc : 261354 Yb: Sgft: Asd: $10, 734 Imp: 72% COMMERCIAL Tr: 00000-00 Lot:00001 Lotsz : 7 ,450 Bd/Sth: Rms: Prcl : 0134-021-16 Site: 640 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA -92410 ROE,JAMES & KANDY Mail : 325 W 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 INGLE RESIDENC Ph: (909) 381-7511 Xmpt: Sale:$41, 887T Date: 09/21/93 Doc: 404350 Yb: 1903 Sgft: 11576 Asd: $35,417 Imp: 64% RESIDENTIAL Tr:00000-00 Lot: 00001 Lotsz : 7 ,301 Bd/Bth: 4/2 . 0 Rms : 7 ---------------------------------------- Prcl :0134-021-17 Site:630 N F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 REDEVELOPMENT AG Mail :201 N E ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 ACANT Ph: Xmpt: Sale: $30, 000F Date: 09/09/92 0,000 Doc: 372578 Yb: Sgft: Asd: $21,900 Imp: 794 RESIDENTIAL Tr: 00000-00 Lot:00001 Lotsz : 7 , 301 Bd/Bth: Rms : --------------------------------------------- Prcl : 0134-021-18 Site:F ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 PLASTINO,RICHARD J ETAL Mail : 3501 JAMBOREE RD*NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ACANT Ph: Xmpt'. Sale: $126,000 Date:05/21/93 Doc:217983 Yb: Sgft : Asd:$14 ,450 Imp:0% RESIDENTIAL Tr: 00000-00 Lot: 00001 Lotsz: 1 ,910 Bd/Bth: Rms : ----------------------------------------------- Prcl :0134-021-19 Site : 602 W 6TH ST*SAN BERNARDINO CA 92410 )OWNEY SAVINGS A Mail : 3501 JAMBOREE RD*NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 /2 ST. 15-40 UN Ph: Xmpt: Sale: Date: 05/21/93 Doc:217983 Yb: Sgft: Asd: $388,887 Imp: 87% RESIDENTIAL Tr:00000-00 Lot: 00001 Lotsz : 14 , 180 Bd/Bth: Rms: Copyright (0) 1996 Dataquick information Systems \�'\ � nuS� •i w ~ CX m I � � 1� •,. tF) � b I _ u i _ ^ \n I ►• as E N Y cn Cv CID 14 co c g ( (�) ♦ lN) ��) V p yN p 2 U () I o C� YIN 1 Y 133HIS C �L (4) B �ry) fry'_—' 77 71 j M ® v cl �p) N h kk — _...._ .—._._.... .... 6 O 9 (n) 03 1 I V E 'L' •n r T N ¢ � C 4 r T � � W v 'm o c o E c � W c a _ W E yJ City of sun Bernardino Environmentbi Irnpact Checklist GPA 96-02 Page 16 J, 19% B. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONNIENTAL EVALUATION AND (The following responses are numbered to correspond to checklist items in the p:�vious �;;ction) 1g. The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential fo: suc;�::ience as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figures -. �- S 1. All grading and new structures will be built to UBC, Development Code and MC-6 :: . _:i rements and will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 1h. The proposal is located in an area identified as having a high potential for liquefaction as identified in the General Plan, Section 12.0 Geologic and Seismic, Figure 48. All grading and new structures will be built to UBC, Development Code and MC-676 requirements and will reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 6a. The proposal is for a (general plan amendment from RM (Residential Medium) to CR-2 Commercial Regional No develo ment or redevelo ment is ro _sed with this ec'_j"'l�uh:re ( g� P P P_P�_ i?�J development must co with 1ty require irlcluding�Develo g ldui Code, Fire Code as ell asuirements of the California Environmental QLi di;; Single family hom on the parcels were legall established prior to �e a permitted land u in all land use nations. GPA No. 96-02 Agenda Item: 2 Hearing Date: 5-7-96 Page 3 5th/6th Street offramp from the 215 freeway. The Economic Development has been promoting the revitalization of the downtown area with the development of the Superblock and the Baseball Stadium. In addition, private development such as the Social Security building are contributing to this revitalization. This proposed change will allow Main Street Inc. to continue with its revitalization efforts in the Downtown Area. Main Street, Inc. is considering a proposal for a mixed use project which wotu,' ;umbine commercial and residential uses into a unified development across Assessors Parcyls �4-021-17 through 25. Staff expects that any commercial development that is approved fo, :; "to will be sensitive to established residential area along 7th Street and those that are adjacent " and "G" Street. The Development Code provides comprehensive development requirements and design guidelines for commercial development so as to minimize or eliminate any possible conflicts. Such standards include evaluation of intensity f a proposed use the like. ty p p° , parking, landscaping, architecture and Staff evaluated the possibility f adding additional ty g parcels to the Ian amendment area. Letters of interest were sent to a property owners to a to the south across ee . received phone calls from several of the property owners and after some consideration, determined that the amendment area should remain as originally proposed. The single parcc;l to the east was added to the amendment area to provide contiguity to the existing CR-2 land use district to the east. Properties to the north, west and south were excluded because of viable residential u:k . Staff has '` ins uded a map (Attachment A) identifying the location of those parse m re attoti to t},e proposed plan area. COMMEN'T'S RECEIVED Mr. Robin Shidler submitted a letter stating his opposition to his parcel (APN 13a-o.' :- >') being included in the plan area. Mr. George Morgan had questions at the public counter i�,;c Jiu not submit a written statement of his position regarding this plan amendment. Mr. James 1;.,.0 ,,:ailed staff to express his interest in having his properties included in the study area, because ht to develop them with commercial uses. Staff did not include his properties in the study area or amendment area because they contain viable resid uses. p- �, C ,r�l CONCLUSION 1�� �b, V 0 W5� The necessary findings can be made to support approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 as required in Development Code Sections 19.50.50. The plan amendment proposed in General Plan Amendment No. 96-02 is consistent with the General Plan and Development Coje. The project is subject to CEQA and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor ane Council The Tahiti Group P.O.Box 5441 0 San Bernardino,CA•92412 0(909) 889-7164 0 Fax 0107 381-4286 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 9602 Planning Commission Members: „ As.the owner and partner for- this project, it has been r' to our attention that. Mr. Roe, who owns all of the abuccing properties on "F" Street between Sixth and Seventh Streets, has requested that his properties be joined with the GPA N: It is our opinion that Roe's properties are compatible General Plan Amendment request. It is also our opiniu.. 1 give the bounding block opportunity to find and achiev. a C. possible use; therefore, we request your support for hi =: . r Archaeological Consultn>erd oteco eclat f CouncillCmyDevCms Mtg: May 3, 1996 by Ms. Anne Harris re Ageitaa stem Main Street Program, City of San Bernardino 201 North E. Street Suite 104 __ 1 San Bernardino California, 92401-1507 City ClerkICDC Secy City of San Bernardino Transmitted: Fax, US Mail SUBJECT: On-going demolition of historic structures in the former Empire Bay Project Area, F to G and 6th to 7th Streets, City of San Bernardino. Dear Ms. Harris: Per our telephone conversation of April 29, 1996 on the above subject, I am sending this correspondence and attachments. During our conversation you indicated that the City had facilitated the demolition of the dependency buildings (Le.,. sheds, garages, etc.) behind many of the historic buildings along 6th Street because they were unsafe or burned. In addition, you indicated that two burned buildings had to be torn down due to safety concerns. Furthermore, you indicated that the Main Street Program was applying for a Commercial-Residential-2 rezoning with the City for your new project. I indicated to you that my firm prepared a cultural resources report and Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (i.e., MMRP) for the former Empire Bay Project in 1992. I also indicated that the City Council had approved the Conditional Use Permit (i.e., Tentative Tract No. 15451) as a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the MMRP. My project file indicates that the City Council approved the permit on August 17, 1992. Enclosed for your files are several pages from the City of San Bernardino Request For Council Action and attachments regarding this project. Mitigation Measures for the historic architecture included: - documentation (i.e., HABS) of all Pre-1947 architectural and landscape resources; - sub-surface testing of 33 potential archaeological sites; - a statement that discouraged monitoring during grading, but reinforced documentation before grading. P.O. Box 39 • 13826 Pollard Dr. • Lytle Creek, CA 92358 • 909%887-0795 9r. Archaeological Consulting Services A. Harris May 3, 1996 Page 2 On May 29, 1996 I indicated to you via the telephone that demolition activities were affecting buildings that were not burned. I requested that this action immediately cease and you said that you would look into the matter. I also stated that all of the buildings should have been documented and that an architectural and archaeological monitor should be on-site during any demolition activities. I indicated that additional architectural and archaeological work was necessary as part of the new project. Yesterday, May 2, 1996, I noted that additional demolition activities were progressing on historic buildings that had not been burned. I am repeating my request that the City cease and desist with the destruction of significant cultural resources (i.e., architectural, archaeological, landscape, etc.) until the proper documentation has been completed. In addition, I am inquiring if your organization or the City completed a CEQA "Initial Study" for your current project? What is the source(s) of your project funding? If federal funds (e.g., CDBG) are being used, then what documentation has occurred pursuant to Section 106 Of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended? I would appreciate your immediate attention on this matter to insure that significant cultural resources in your project area are not destroyed without proper documentation. Your Partner In Historic Preservation, ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES f" S. Alexandrowicz, M.S., SOPA Director cc: Mr. Al Boughey, Director of Planning, City of San Bernardino Mr. James Penman, Attorney, City of San Bernardino Ms. Cherilyn Widell, CA-State Historic Preservation Officer Ms. Lee Keating, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation P.O. Box 39 • 13826 Pollard Dr. • LY le Creek. CA 92358 • 909/887-0795 "C7`TY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 Dept: Planning & Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting Date: July 23 , 1992 August 3 , 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council approve Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04; or That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Comm Council deny Tentative Tract No. 15451 and Conditional Use Permit No. 90-32. gnature Al o Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Exhibit "1" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 SUMMARY HEARING DATE 7-7-92 WARD 1 r APPLICANT: TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 1541 Empire Bay 985 Via Serana N AND CONDITIOIvAL USE PERMIT Upland, CA 91786 VNO. 92-04 owNER: Same Proposal to construct Phase I (68 units) of a two phase, 118 unit affordable townhouse development. N Subject property consists of 4 .6 acres consisting of a several contiguous parcels within a City block bounded W by 6th, 7th, "F" and "G" Streets. W Q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Residential RM Residential Medium North Residential RM Residential Medium South Residential RM Residential Nedium East Residential RM Residential Medium West Residential RM Residential Medium GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: KXYES HAZARD ZONE: NO ZONE: $}�NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT 19(YES HAZARD ZONE: NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: NO ❑ NO J ❑ NOT POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z )U APPROVAL Q APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH Q I-- MITIGATING MEASURES '`Z Cl) NO E.I.R. W C )U CONDITIONS M Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO W Z ❑ Z C SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W DENIAL OZ WITH MITIGATING F- MEASURES N O ❑ CONTINUANCE TO Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES CRY OF &M R1MKpO CIA MnIIWNTWOSER"US ni•.i n nn n.n_r n C�-rY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TT15451/CUP92-04 ANp BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM OBSERVATIONS HEARING GE 9-92 DPR 523 forms may also qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (ibid, p. 10) . Donaldson (Vol. 1, p. 20) also designated areas in the City as potential historic overlay zones. The subject property is centrally located within what has been termed the "Historic San Bernardino Overlay Zone, " which contains the "highest concentration of the City's oldest potential historic homes, " as well as the longest continuous habitation in the City, including aboriginal and various concentrated ethnic occupations. Because of the various historic and prehistoric events associated with the area, the subject property is considered to be located within an area of archaeological sensitivity, which is identified as the City's Urban Archaeological District in the Historical Element of the City's General Plan (Section 3 .0, Figure 8) . Hence, the potential exists for historical archaeological resources of 19th century San Bernardino to be located below the surface of the project site. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Section 21083.2, CEQA Appendix K, the Historical Element of the General Plan and City of San Bernardino Ordinance No. MC-694 ("Interim Urgency Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance") , site-specific archaeological and historic resource evaluation reports were prepared in order to assess the impact that this project may have on the City's historic and archaeological resources. The Initial Study for this project (Attachment E) provides an in-depth analysis of the potential impacts to the subject property's architectural and archaeological resources, based on the findings of these reports. The following sections summarize this analysis. Architectural Resources All but one of the existing buildings are proposed to be removed from the subject property to accommodate the development of the project. The structure currently located at 672 North "F" Street is proposed to be relocated within the subject property during proposed 'Phase II for reuse as a community center. An historic resource evaluation report was prepared in April of 1992 by D. G. King Associates Planners entitled Historic San Bernardino Overlay Zone Reconnaissance Survey: Proiect Analysis for CUP 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451. The report and Initial Study determined that, from .the approximately 47 structures standing on the subject property, 22 of the primary structures are CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TT 15451/CUP92-04 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 OBSERVATIONS HEARING AGE 710-92 �DE of sufficient intact architectural character to warrant their preservation in some manner. Twenty one of these buildings are proposed for relocation, including the building intended for future use as a community center. The building of architectural merit that is proposed for demolition is the 26-unit Mediterranean apartment building at the northwest corner of 6th and "F" Streets. This is one of the four buildings on site that are listed on modified DPR 523 forms. The applicant has determined that the re-use potential and current state of disrepair are such that the preservation of this building is not warranted. Also, the historic resource evaluation report and Initial Study concluded that the building, while visually interesting, possesses no unique or exemplary features that would warrant the denial of a demolition permit. The applicant does, however, intend to salvage intact, notable architectural elements, such as columns and grillwork. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that sources are being sought to "soft demo" this and other structures to harvest the reusable wood and appliances for the construction of very low income housing elsewhere in California and Mexico. While the relocation of the historically notable structures can be a valid means of preservation, the removal of these structures from the neighborhood may significantly degrade the historic integrity of the area. Therefore, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Initial Study to assure that all reasonable efforts shall be made to relocate these buildings within an area bounded by 6th Street, "F" Street, 9th Street and the east side of the I-215 freeway. Staff has recently been informed that Project Home Run is attempting to acquire two-plus acres of vacant land at the northwest corner of 8th and "F" Streets for use as a relocation site for several of the buildings. Archaeological Resources 01 Pursuant to CEQA, a determination must be made as to whether or not a project may have a significant effect on an important archaeological resource. One of CEQA's three definitions of an important archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object or site that is highly likely to yield "information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is demonstrable public interest in that information. " Archival research, oral history interviews and a preliminary reconnaissance of the subject property was conducted as presented in A Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Empire Bay �O flFFWAADWO CZ"TRALPRMTWOffNMtFd PLAN-B-OB PAGE t OF t ra-SYn CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TT15451/CUP92-04 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM - 4 DATE OBSERVATIONS HEARING AGE 711-92 an DPVF+t nnmFSnt Block 43 City of San Bernardino California by J. Stephen Alexandrowics et al (1992) . The findings of the preliminary archaeological report and the Initial Study indicate that the site does indeed have the potential to yield such information. The subject property is identified as Block 43 of the original Mormon survey of the City of San Bernardino. Several occupants of the subject property were associated with the Santa Fe railroad, which was a major early factor in the settlement and urbanization of San Bernardino. Several structures were located on the property over 100 years ago. The presence of subsurface resources is unknown at the present time, but the approximate location of several privies can be determined from the available archival data. Based on archival research, the report identifies 33 potential cultural resource sites with occupations ranging from the late 19th through the mid 20th century (pp.72-74) . Components of these resources include extant architecture, landscape architecture and potential subsurface features. Based on early "bird's eye view" drawings of the City and early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, subsurface archaeological resources that may be found on the site include house foundations, privies, wells and trash repositories. These early -maps and renderings document the existence of houses, carriage barns, outbuildings and other dependencies at least as far back as 1871. In addition to the potential subsurface features already mentioned, the church property at 631 North "G" Street has been recorded as a pending archaeological site (Site ID No. P1074-51H) and appears to have the potential for possible gravesites. Prior to the implementation of grading permits or building permits for new construction, sub-surface testing shall be conducted by a Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) certified archaeologist. The initial methodology and objectives of the excavation are indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment F) in the form of an excavation plan. The issuance of permits shall be subject to the condition that sub- surface testing has been completed prior to the commencement of grading, construction and related on-site activities. Following the sub-surface investigation of a site or sites, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a letter to the Planning Division verifying that the field investigation of the site or sites is complete. After confirmation that all sites have been CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TT15451/CUP92-04 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 OBSERVATIONS HEARING PAGE 712-92 adequately investigated, building and grading permits may be implemented. Trees on Site There are currently 114 standing, mature trees located on the Phase I portion of the project site, including 22 street (parkway) trees. Development of the site as proposed will require the removal of several trees from their present locations. A California Certified Arborist report was prepared on May 4, 1992 by Mark D. Cobb (I. S. A. Certificate No. 453) to evaluate the arboricultural resources present on the Phase I portion of the subject property. The trees were identified and catalogued in the report and plotted on both a topographic map and a proposed site plan. The report and maps are on file with the Planning Division. The report concluded that 49 of the 114 are sufficiently viable to be saved in place or transplanted. All 22 of the street trees have been deemed healthy; however, four are located in the two proposed drive entry locations and must be transplanted or removed. Eight of the interior trees (one Chinese elm, three eucalyptus one golden r rain, one ash and two Italian cypress) have been determined to be viable, but because of their size and age, they are not likely to withstand relocation if they cannot be retained in place. Sixteen palms (including a street tree) and three crape myrtle are recommended for relocation if they cannot be preserved in place. The report recommended the removal of the remaining 65 trees due to ' death or various health and structural hazards. The report and recommendations have been reviewed by Planning and Parks and Recreation staffs. Additionally, the trees on site have been physically inspected by Parks and Recreation staff. Based on these analyses, if the project is approved, the 49 viable trees shall be retained in place, relocated or replaced, as specified in the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) . COMMENTS RECEIVED Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) Comments received from the DMG on June 23, 1992 (Attachment G) question the Initial Study's determination that the proposed project will not expose people or property to geologic or seismic hazards, and recommends a revised Initial Study that addresses such concerns. The memorandum indicates that the subject property is cm ar sw, ffrwipo CZWRALP" roaSHMcES PLAN-8A8 PAGE t OF i [AAM NNOMMIL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING' CASE EDATE 1/CUP92-04 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA 4 OBSERVATIONS HEARING713-92 locate d approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest known fault and is in an area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction potential, and that these issues should be addressed. RESPONSE: The City of San Bernardino at large is located within a seismically sensitive area. New construction is required to conform to seismic standards, and older, unreinforced masonry buildings will be required to be brought into conformance with seismic safety standards in the coming years. Areas of special seismic concern, however, are identified on the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones map in Figures 47 and 54 of the General Plan. The subject property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone, and the General Plan, consistent with State law, does not recognize a need for special geologic studies for projects located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Zones. While the DMG comments are correct in that the subject property is located within an area of moderately high to moderate liquefaction, the City has already addressed the issue of liquefaction on a citywide basis, and has formulated policies (Resolution No. 356) and standards (Municipal Code Chapter 15.08) based on the safety element of the General Plan (Section 12.0 - Geologic & Seismic) . Ordinance No. MC-676 requires liquefaction reports only for non- exempt structures located within high liquefaction areas. Furthermore, pursuant to SBMC Section 15.08.060 (4) , the proposed residential structures are categorically exempt from the liquefaction requirement based on their UBC occupancy classification. Historic Preservation Task Force )14 On June 18, 1992, the Historic Preservation Task Force unanimously voted to adopt the mitigation measures contained in Section 13b (Cultural Resources) of the Initial Study, and thus approved the applicant's request to demolish or relocate the subject property's buildings as proposed. Environmental Review Committee The ERC has not responded to the DMG comments as of the writing of this staff report. CONCLUSION The proposed project, both in terms of use and design, is consistent with the General Plan -and Development Code. All known CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TT15451/CUP92-04 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 DATE OBSERVATIONS HEARING AGE 714-92 potentially negative impacts resulting from this project --such as the removal of potentially historic structures and the destruction of archaeological sites--have been addressed and can be mitigated through design, conditions of approval and through compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. It is therefore the conclusion of staff, that the project will not pose a detriment to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino. RECOMMENDATION 1 It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2 . Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 92-04 and Tentative Tract No. 15451 based on the attached Findings of Fact, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. Respectful y ubmitted, A Boughe , ICP D1 f n Building Services Gregory S. Gubman Assistant Planner Attachments: A - Development Code and General Plan Conformance B - Findings of Fact C - Conditions of Approval D - Standard Requirements E - Initial Study F - Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program G - Department of Mines and Geology comments H - Tentative Tract Map I - Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations J - Location Map CITY OF sµ cEWR.LF unMas�m,cES CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE TT15451/CUP92-04 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 FINDINGS OF FACT HEARING AGE 717-92 7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety in that the vicinity of the- subject property is fully urbanized. Conditions of approval will ensure that necessary improvements and connections to local public services are completed prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject proposal in that adequate points of ingress and egress, internal circulation and parking exist to accommodate the proposed use. 9. There will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood characteristics in that the project has been designed to enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics through the re- introduction of owner-occupied housing on the subject property and through physical design that is sensitive to the historic character of the neighborhood. 10. A market/feasibility study is not required by the General Plan or Development Code for the type of use proposed. 11. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. The proposed project provides for the revitalization and upgrade of deteriorated neighborhoods and Goal No. 2C by assisting in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. The proposed density is consistent with Policy No. 2.4 . 1, which affirms that the City shall comply with California Government Code Section 65915 by allowing a 25 percent density bonus over the underlying RM density of 14 units per net acre to any residential developer who provides affordable housing to low to moderate income households. The proposed project is consistent with Policy No. 3.2.7 by virtue of accommodating the reuse of the subject property's historic structures "in order to prevent misuse, disrepair and demolition. " 12. There will not be significant harmful effects upo environmental quality and natural resources in that an Initial Study was prepared under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, which determined that all impacts resulting from the development of the project will be mitigated to levels of nonsignificance. As a result of this determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been proposed by the Environmental Review Committee. Attachment "E" yOF SAN BERT, J PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT G INITIAL STUDY MMMN Initial Study for Environmental Impacts for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-04 i TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15451 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To construct Phase I (69 units) of a two- phase, 118 unit affordable townhouse project. This project proposes the demolition or relocation of several potentially historic structures and will require a relocation plan for residents displaced by this project. This Initial Study considers the impacts resulting from the development of both phases, although formal application has been submitted for Phase I only. PROJECT LOCATION: The subject property is bounded by 6th Street, "F" Street, 7th Street and "G" Street, in the RM, Residential Medium, General Plan land use district as well as the Development Code Main Street Overlay. May 14, 1992 Prepared for: Empire Bay 985 Via Serana Upland, CA 91786 Prepared by: Gregory 8. Gubman Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 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? X c. Schools(i.e., attendance, boundaries,overload, etc.)? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? X f. Solid Waste? X g. Other? X 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? X 3. Water? X 4. Sewer? X 5. Other? X b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X c. Require the construction of new facilities? X 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? X b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? X c. Other? X 13. Cultural 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? X • b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site,structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources X Reconnaissance Survey? c. Other? Landscape Architecture X a,,.OF CEMTR. 'UP 92-04/TT 15451 May 14, 1992 Page 12 of 27 !' . . .many of these 33 cultural resource sites appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under criteria A, B, C, and/or D (36 CFR 60.4) and are significant or important per the criteria for Appendix K of CEQA, as well as the City's criteria. " The recommendations of the report include the following mitigation measures (pp 81-82) : 1. Documentation of all pre-1947 architectural and landscape cultural resources pursuant to the Historic American Building Survey (NABS) standards. 2 . Sub-surface testing of all 33 potential archaeological sites prior to the initiation of construction in order to evaluate any resources that may be preserved within the project area. 3 . Monitoring during grading in lieu of pre-development testing is discouraged, as grading may "contribute to the loss of integrity of the cultural resources. " Also, halting construction to retrieve cultural resources, after a crew has been hired and on the field, could "severely impact the financial resources and schedule" of the developer. MITIGATION: The developer shall submit a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP) to the City Planning Division prior to the approval of CUP 92-04/TT 15451. The report shall provide a checklist to be used in tracking the mitigation monitoring and reporting activities. The report and checklist shall describe each mitigation measure, monitoring and reporting action. The checklist shall be designed to record the responsible agencies, dates of completion, inspectors or other certifying persons and the person recording the information. The MMRP and checklist shall include the following mitigation measures and monitoring actions: 1. Prior to the implementation of grading permits or building permits for new construction, sub-surface' testing shall be conducted by a Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) certified archaeologist. The initial methodology and objectives of the excavation shall be clearly defined in the MMRP in the form of an excavation plan. a. The excavation plan shall be sufficiently precise CUP 92-04/TT 15451 May 14, 1992 Page 23 of 27 photographic documentation of these structures, together with all others on the subject property, prior to removal or demolition. MITIGATION: The MMRP as described in Section 13a of this Initial Study shall include the following mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring/reporting activities to ensure that the potential impacts associated with the removal of potentially historic architectural resources are mitigated to a level of nonsignificance: 1. Prior to the relocation or demolition of any structure, a complete photo recordation of all structures shall be conducted in general accordance with the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) guidelines. Four complete sets of the recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services. The four sets of photo recordation shall be distributed and maintained by the following entities: 1) the Department of Planning and Building Services; 2) the Feldheym Library; 3) the City's Historical and Pioneer Society; and 4) the State Office of Historic Preservation. This photo recordation shall be completed and submitted prior to the granting of demolition permits, building permits or grading permits. Note: Photo recordation of this nature is a highly specialized field of Historic Preservation and such an undertaking requires the advice and assistance of a qualified consultant. 2. Prior to the demolition of the structure at 602 West 6th Street, a complete floor plan of the building shall be prepared. Four blueline sets and one 8 1/2" x 11" reduced set of the floor plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services. 3 . Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, building permits or grading permits, a reevaluation of the buildings at 640 and 660 West 6th Street shall be conducted to determine whether the existence of these structures predates the 20th century. Said determination shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning and Building Services. 4. Prior to the demolition of any building, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to donate or sell any building slated for demolition, including 602 West 6th Street, to any party who would relocate these buildings. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant CUP 92-04/TT 15451 May 14 , 1992 Page 24 of 27 shall submit written statement documenting the efforts to secure a recipient for the affected building. Said statement shall indicate the entities contacted, who was contacted, how and when the contact was made, why the specific building is not to be relocated and shall contain language confirming the accuracy and truthfulness of the documentation under penalty of perjury and shall be notarized. As an alternative measure for buildings that may not be suitable for relocation, the applicant may submit a letter, or letters, to the Director of Planning and Building Services requesting to exempt certain buildings from this requirement. If the Director or designee concurs that a certain building may not be suitable for relocation, then that building may be demolished without the requirement that the applicant attempt to relocate that building. The authority of the Director or designee to authorize the demolition of a building is contingent upon the approval of the Historic Preservation Task Force (or other body charged with similar powers) that a demolition permit may be granted. 5. If the temporary storage of relocated buildings is deemed necessary to forestall demolition or prior to final site location, appropriate temporary use permits shall be secured through the Planning and Building Services Department. 6. Prior to the commencement of destructive demolition of any structure, the applicant shall salvage, adaptively reuse and/or donate (or sell) the architectural materials and features of the affected buildings that are of a period or of historic interest. The interim storage of architectural features is the responsibility of the applicant. Note: As with photo recordation, this activity is a highly specialized field of Historic Preservation and such an undertaking requires the advice and assistance of a qualified consultant. 7. The Foursquare/Classical Revival building at 696 North "F" Street has been determined to be a major contributing element to the future viability of the Historic San Bernardino overlay Zone. The demolition of this building shall be avoided. Every reasonable attempt to relocate this building to a suitable vacant site within the area bounded by 6th Street,. "F" Street, 9th Street and Interstate 215 shall be documented and submitted to the Attachment "F" MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 9204 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15451 , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared by J .. Stephen Alexandrowic:z , SOPA ARCHAEOL.OGICAI_ CONSULTING SERVICES 17852 Theodora Drive TUSt.in,, CA 92680-2.611 Prepared for EMPIRE BAY 985 VIA SERANA UPLAND , CA 91.786 AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 June .17., 1992 1