HomeMy WebLinkAbout45-Development Services
o
c
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO-REQUESf FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: James G. Funk, Director
Dept: Development Services
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of
Development Permit I No. 05-81 to re-use an
existing vacant building as a coin operated laundry
facility located at 4399 N. Sierra Way in the CG-l,
Commercial General land use district.
Date: November 15, 2005
MCC Date: December 5,2005
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and uphold
the Planning Commission's denial Development Permit I No. 05-81 based upon the Findings of
Fact.
~().~t:!:G.Funk
Contact person: Ben Steckler, Associate Planner
Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
. Ward(s): 4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. _ _~
1~)5/05'
c
c
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Development Permit No.
05-081
AppeUant:
In Woo Lee
5072 Cadiz Circle
La Palma, CA 90623
(714) 827-4541
BACKGROUND:
Mr. & Mrs. Lee are appealing the Planning Commission's denial of Development Permit I No.
05-081 to re-use of an existing vacant building as a coin operated laundry facility. The project
site is located located at 4399 N. Sierra Way in the CG-l, Commercial General land use
district (Exhibit 1).
On August 5, 2005 Planning approved Development Permit I No. 05-081 to reuse an existing
structure as a coin operated laundry facility. On August 17, 2005 Mary Cox, representing the
Wildwood Park Neighborhood Association tiled an application of appeal in regards to
Development Permit I No. 05-081, citing safety and compatibility as concerns.
At their meeting of October 18, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to 1 to deny
Appeal No. 05-20 thereby denying Development Permit No. 05-081. Commissioners Brown,
Durr, Enciso, Heasley, and Sauerbrun voted to deny the Appeal and Development Permit,
Commissioner Powell abstained, and Commissioners Coute, and Morris were absent. The
Planning Commission determined that Finding of Fact number 8 could not be made in support
of the requested coin laundry facility. The Finding of Fact as determined by the Planning
Commission reads as follows:
The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed development would be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare in that the design and operating
characteristics are potentially hazardous to the public safety. The design of
the structure fully encloses the operating area of the laundry facility, placing
patrons in jeopardy due to limited visibility from the adjacent streets.
On October 28, 2005, Planning staff received an appeal application (Appeal No. 05-24). The
appellants' grounds for the appeal are that (1) evidence does not supPOrt the finding offact; (2) _ __
c
c
c
findings of fact do not support the decision; (3) Planning Commission abused its discretion in
ovenuming the decision of the Director of the Planning Division; and (4) new evidence. The
new evidence referred to is listed in the 'additional information' section of the application,
which identifies that Mr. Lee is willing to install a 16 camera surveillance system, add
windows to the exterior walls, install a silent alarm, and add exterior lighting. These
concessions are in direct relation to the issues identified by the Planning Commission, in an
attempt to make the existing structure safer for the proposed use.
Staff is not sure what the appellant means when they state that the " (1) Evidence does not
justify the fmdings of fact" and/or "(2) Findings of fact do not support the decision." The
Planning Commission determination was made based upon personal observations of site
conditions and with Finding of Fact number 8 read into the record as included above. Thus the
evidence they saw on their site visits supported their decision, and the Finding of Fact
identified was made and read into the record, clearly in support of their decision.
The Planning Commission is the appeal authority when reviewing a determination by either the
Director or the Development Review Committee, as identified by Development Code Section
19.52.090. Finally, although staff agrees that the concessions offered could make the structure
and use more safe, however, it is not clear that they would make the structure safe enough for
the proposed use based on the application provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None. The appellants submitted appeal fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing, deny the appeal
and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Development Permit I No. 05-81 to re-use an
existing vacant building as a coin operated laundry facility based on the Findings of Fact as
determined by the Planning Commission.
EXHIBITS:
1 Location Map
2 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 18, 2005
3 Application for Appeal No. 05-24
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: Appeal No. 05-2.+
PLANNING DIVISION (DPI No. 05-081)
LOCATION MAP. LAND USE DISTRICTS
HEARING DATE: 10/18/05
u
NORTH
. -ZJ ~
../JfY4~
& 'Ii
~
-...........
~, .-
40TH
I
Of Ii
,
I
0- j
~ I
'ff If
~
"...... f
I
~
c
c
c
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
Development Permit I No. 05-081 (Appeal No. 05-20)"
3
October 18, 2005
4
APPELANT(S):
Mary Cox
Wildwood Park Neighborhood Ass.
PO Box 512
Patton, CA 92369-0512
(909) 886-3673
APPLICANT:
In Woo Lee
5072 Cadiz Circle
La Palma, CA 90623
(714) 827-4541
REQUEST/LOCA TION:
An appeal of tile Director's approval for the re-use of an existing vacant building as a
coin operated laundry facility. The project site is located at 4399 N. Sierra Way in the
CG-1, Commercial General land use district.
CONSTRAINTS/OVERLAYS:
NONE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
o Not Applicable
rgj Exempti Section 15301 - Existing facilities
o No Significant Effects
o Previous Mitigated Negative Declaration
o Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
o Approval
o Conditions
rgj Denial
o Continuance to:
c
c
c
Development Pennil No. 05-08I1Appeal #05-20
Hearing Dale Oclober 18. 2005
Page 2
APPELLANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Appeal of the Director's approval for the re-use of an existing vacant building as a coin
operated laundry facility located at 4399 N. Sierra Way (see Attachment A).
The appellant's grounds for appeal is that the proposed use will attract loiterers who
may be either criminal, or homeless people, and that there is an over concentration of
this type of business in the area (see Attachment B).
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Development Permit I No. 05-081 was submitted on May 6, 2005 to establish a new coin
operated laundry facility in an existing vacant structure. The San Bernardino
Development Code ~ 19.06.020, Table 06-01 allows for self-serve laundry facilities in the
CG-l, Commercial General land use district. Re-use of an existing building with a
permitted use is a Director determination (Development Code Section 19.31, Table
31.01). The Development Code does not require any specific standards of development
for the proposed use, nor does it contain any location restrictions (as related to over
concentration). Thus, the general requirements of the Development Code were
considered when reviewing the proposed g~?ject.
Presented with an application to establish a-use that is allowed by the Development
Code and an existing structure that was proposed for re-occupancy, staff found that the
proposed use was consistent with the Development Code. Staff understands the
concerns of Wildwood Park Neighborhood Association, however staff believes that the
use isn't necessarily the problem, which is most likely. to be related to management
practices. The Conditions of Approval were drafted in accordance with all applicable
Development Code requirements and DPI No. 05-081 was approved (see Atfachment q.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Mr. Richard B. Andrade submitted a comment letter on October 7, 2005 as the attorney
for the Development Permit proponent (Mr. & Mrs. Lee). In this response Mr. Andrade
addresses the concerns brought about by the appellant, and expresses the applicant's
. beliefs that the proposed use is the best possible use for the project site. Many of the
comments related to San Bernardino County statistics do not appear to be applicable to
the project or the appeal (s~e Attachment D).
c
c
c
Development Permit No. OS-Olll/Appeal #05-20
Hearing Date October 18. 2005
Page 3
CONCLUSION
Based on the City's records staff found no facts and/or data to support the appellant's
grounds for the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission close the public hearing, deny the
appeal and uphold the Director's Determination that the coin operated laundry facility
may be established, based upon the supporting data contained in this staff report.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jr~~. ~ r;P-
Director, Development Services
:Z;AA_~L-)
Ben Steckler
Associate Planner
---
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Location Map
Appeal Application
Development Permit I No. 05-081 Approval
Letter of response to the appeal dated October 7, 2005.
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROJECT: Appeal No. 05-20
PLANNING DIVISION (DPI No. 05-081)
LOCATION MAP. LAND USE DISTRICTS
HEARING DATE: 10/18/05
n-
NORTH
. -ZJ (,
../J~~
~ 1,'l1li
"
~
~,
'.
40TH
n Ii
1
,
,
j
II
~
I
I
z; ,(,<d~rt"~ rf_ C /t. '::tfF /c <'I f
AITACHMENTB A?~o'3.2'
-I -
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department, Plall1ling Division
300 Nonh "En Street, 3'd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone (909) 384-5057 . (909) 384-5080
Web address: w\lrw.sbcity.org
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
o Development Services Director
o ~velopmentlEnvironmental Review Committee
~Planning Commission
Casenumber(s):~ C"5'-0€l l
Project address:
4399 North Sierra Way, San Bernardino
Appellant's name: Wildwood Park Neighborhood Association
Appellant's address: P. 0, Box 512, Patton CA 92369-0512
cppellant's phone: None
Appellant's e-mail address: None
.~. ::
Contact person's name:
Mary Cox
Contact person's address: 219 E. 44th Street, San Bernardino CA
Contact person's phone: (909) 886-3673
Contact person's e-mail address: NONE
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application fonn
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeals are nonnally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and
time of the appeal hearing.
COFFICE USE ONLY
Date appeal filed:
Received by:
,tJS 17 i.llu:J
v.r'-''''-'~''''''RpO
L ~. .....~J1 SEA
. II'PAUTln
11104
REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL
Cificactionbeingap~edandthedateOfthatactiOI;l: DPI 105-081, dtd Aug 5. 2005
COIN LAUNDRY FACILITY AT 4399 North Sierra Way, San Bernardino
Specific grounds for the appeal: This permit allows the COIN LAUNDRY to be located next door
to one of the WORST APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES.
Two blocks away. a coin laundry had continuous gunshots to their windows, there
was loitering and intimidation of clients, etc.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP fa eoncerned about the criminal a loiterinsr and homeless
ACTIVITIES THIS BUSINESS WOULD ATTRACT. Two other coin laundry facilities already
exist in the area, and we are concerned about an excessive concentration of such
businesses in our neighborhood.
Action sought: RF.~r.Twn TRF. APltRnVAT.. P~Dvid@ A hUAineRR ~hAt ill useful. HOT RubiAct to
crime and not appealing to loitering, drug pushers, drug users, prostitutes.
C homeless and the like. PROVIDE A BUSINESS THAT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO TIUl NEIGHBORHOOD
AND BUSINESSES THAT SURROUND IT.
Additional information: Many months ago, the Contact Person coordinated with SBPD Northern
District (Lt Boom) and was assured they would not sign ott when the papers came tor
cnnrdinA~ion (THE PAPERS WERE APPROVED BY HIS BOSS WE UNDERSTAND).
Then the Contact Person called Valerie Ross and verbally was assured that
before plans were let the Wildwood Park Neighborhood Assn would be able to voice our
concerns (THAT DID NOT HAPPENI) -
The Neighborhood Assn knows of at least one robbery of clijOnts, at gunpoint,
dvwiRg t~a ti.. tRa 1.I~ty iA~p VI. p~ ~~- 1^~~~f^ft The oeT~etTatoT. vere from
the Apartment Complexes.
The Design being considered will give e~sy access to the clients tor the
criminal element to aRain do their business at this location. Possibly they may
even shoot the windows from this facility as well.
o
Signature of appellant:
~~U~~<"'A~
-__~./ .4/t::?.4
Date: ,sy/;7 /06-
2
II.....
c
c
c
ATIACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "0" Street. SaD BnlJdiDo . CA 92418.()()()1
Planning &: BuUdlng _.314.505'7. Fax: 909.384.S080
Public Works/EngiDecriDg _.384.5111 . Fax: 909.384.S1SS
www.sbcily.org
..
August 5, 2005
In Woo Lee
5072 Cadiz Circle
La Palma, CA 90623
RE: Development Permit Type I No. 05-081 - 4399 N. Sierra Way
(APN: 0154-222-28-00(0)
Dear In Woo Lee;
Planning staff has approved Development Permit I (DPI) No. 05-081, a request to
establish a coin laundry, based on the Findings of Fact in the Development Code ~
19.44.060 and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements. --
The decision of the Planning staff is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the
appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning staff's action, pursuant to Section
19.52.100 of the Municipal (Development) Code.
Please contact me at (909) 384-5057 if you have any questions or concerns regarding the
approval of DPI No. 05-081.
~
Ben Steckler,'
Associate Planner
Ene. Conditions of Approval
Cc: Address File
c
c
o
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -
DPI No. 05-081
Super Coin Laundry
4399 N. Sierra Way
1. This Development Permit I is an approval to establish a coin operated laundry
located at 4399 N. Sierra Way. The laundry facility shall be operated between the
hours of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Monday through Saturday and 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM
Sundays.
2. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall
have occurred or the permit/ approval shall become null and void. In addition, if
after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year,
then the permit/ approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the
Development Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All
necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified
construction activities included in the Conditions of Approval.
Expiration Date: August 5, 2007
3. The review authority may grant a one-time extension, for good cause, not to exceed
12 months. The applicant must file an a,pp.lication, the processing fees, and all
required submittal items, 30 days prior to "tl:1e expiration date. The review authority
shall ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in
effect at the time of the requested extension.
4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense
of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnifyap.d hold
harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency of
the City of San Bernardino (ED~), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or
commission of either the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns,
agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys
of either the City or EDA from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the
foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for
any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her
obligation under this condition.
The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office
shall be considered as " attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition.
Conditions of Approval
DPI No. 05-081
C As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in
effect if this Development Permit is rescinded or revoked. whether or not at the
request of applicant.
5. The approval is subject to all the applicable provisions of the Development Code in
effect at the time of approval. This includes Chapter 19.20 - Property Development
Standards, and includes: dust and dirt control during construction and grading
activities (as applicable); emission control of fumes, vapors, gas and other forms of
air pollution; glare control; exterior lighting design and control; noise control; odor
control; screening; signs; off-street parking and off-street loading; and vibration
control.
6. Signs are not approved as part of this permit. Signs painted on the outside of the
building are prohibited. Signage for the facility must be submitted for review and be
approved by Planning Staff under a separate sign permit application prior to
commencement of use.
7.
C 8.
9.
No painted window signs, roof signs, permanent sale or come-on signs will be
permitted at this site per SBMC S 19.22.060.
Any / all existing signage on-site shall be brought into compliance with the current
Development Code requirements.
-"
If public pay phones are installed on the site. they must be located inside the building
and fixed for outgoing calls only.
10. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Public Works, the
Building Division. the Police Department, Water Department. Public Services
Department. Refuse Division. and the City Oerks Office, Business Registration
Division. .
11. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of other outside agencies (i.e.
San Bernardino County Health Department, San Bernardino Department of
Environmental Health Services, and the Califomia Board of Equalization) as
applicable.
12. All graffiti must be removed within 24 hours of its occurrence. The management
shall take a photograph of the graffiti and provide it to the Police Department before
removing the graffiti.
o
,
13. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the ability to lower or reduce usage
when the facility is closed. Signage may be required to be tumed-off when the facility
is closed.
2
c
c
c
Conditions of Approval
DPl No. 05-081
14. Submittal requirements for permit applications (building, site improvements,
landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/ or Public Works/Engineering shall
include all Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements issued with the
Planning approval.
15. No "entertainment" is allowed at this location.
16. No exterior loudspeakers are approved in conjunction with this use.
17. The proposed patio shall be treated with a solid clear fencing and vegetation (as
described below) to screen the use from the adjacent residential use. The screening
wall shall be constructed to a height between 5' -6' and shall span along the northern
and eastern boundaries, allowing for an opening to meet accessibility requirements.
18. Chairs (and any other furniture, planters, etc) placed on patio shall be:
a) Arranged to allow for accessibility at all times; and
b) Maintained, repaired, or replaced so as to always appear to be in good
conditions (like new).
19. Chairs (and any other furniture, excluding planters and clear fencing) placed on
patio shall be taken into the structure an~ stored overnight.
"7:~:
20. No outdoor storage of any materials shall be allowed on-site.
21. The existing structure shall be repaired (as needed) and repainted (with the colors
and painting scheme subject to approval of the project planner prior to
commencement of use.
22. Plans submitted to Building and Safety, Public Works, and other departrnehts shall
include all provisions of the Site Plan Checklist (as attached). All structUres onsite shall
be indicated accurately and properly dimensioned.
23. The entire parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped according to Public Works
requirements and Development Code standards. This shall include but not be limited
to curbing, lighting, landscaping, circulation, etc.
24. Noise from facility shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured at the property line of
adjacent residential land .use district.
.
3
c
Conditions of Approval
DPI No. 05-081
25. Landscaping and irrigation shall be upgraded to meet current Development Code
standards as follows:
a) Full setback landscaping along Sierra Way and 44th Street
b) 15% of entire parking area shall be landscaped and irrigated..
c) 1 tree per four parking stalls
d) Landscaping in pots/ planters placed inside of the clear solid safety
fence along the proposed outdoor patio (as described on item
number 17 above).
26. Planters used in outdoor patio area shall be large enough to hold plants, but small
enough so that people on the patio can be seen (at all times) from the adjacent public
rights-of-way (44th Street and the Alley).
27. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Fire Department
b. Building and Safety
o 28. All.conditions of approval shall be met prior to establishment of use.
c
44th Street
non",
....
.!!
::(
Clear Fence
Planters (Typ.)
Path of Travel
hairslbenche~OR tH
Outdoor Patio Detail
N.T.S.
Note:
The patio configuration does not have to match this diagram exactly, this is a
sample of how it can be ddne to meet all Conditions of Approval above.
4
o
,\1/.,
~~..~..
':.~~'
..e;.,'''J .J!: ;:.
~ o;.:".,.:.wrv-.
City of San Bernardino
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
Development ServicesIPlan Check Division
SuRe
-
,
Proper~" address: c{,SctC\ t(. Sole''''''"' W &~ .
DRCICUP€F ~ No. OS'''''' I
" DATE: ~,,"l,,\ ,,,,z.,o:)"
NOTE; NO PLANS WILL BE ACCEPTED
PLAN CHECK WITHOUT CONDITIONS
APPROVAL IMPRINTED ON PLAN SHEETS.
Submit 6 sets of plans, minimum size IB" x 24", drawn to scale. If plan check is for
expeditious review, submit 6 sets. The plans shall include (if applicable):
FOR
OF
C a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
site plan (include address &. assessors parcel number)
foundation plan
Door plan (label use of ali areas)
elevations "'>>
electrical, mechanical, &. plumbing plans
detail sheets (structural) ~
cross section details
show 'compliance with Title 24/Accesslbllity (disabled access)
a plan check deposit fee will be required upon submittal of plans.
Cali Development Services (plan check) 909-384-5071 for amount.
1. The title sheet of the plaos:must specify the occupancy classification, type of construction, If
the building has sprlnklen, &. the current applicable codes.
2. The penon who prepares them must sign the plans. Also, provide the address &. phone
number of that penon. Some types of occupancies require that the plans are prepared,
stamped, and signed by an architect, engineer, or other person licensed by the State of
California.
3. For structures that must Include an en&ineers design, provide 2 sets of stamped/wet signed
calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer.
C
I
.
4. Pro,"ide 2 sets of Title 24/Energy compliance forms and calculations. Some compliance
forms are required to be printed on the plans.
300 N 'd. Street Saa Bernardino CA 92418
909.384-5071 Office
909-384-5080 Fax
c s.
c
c
Submit grading, site, and/or landscape plans to Public Works/Engineering for plan check
approval and permits. For more Information, phone 909-384-5111.
6.
Fire sprinkler plans, fires suppression system plans, etc., shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for'plan check approval and permits. For information, phone 909-384-5388.
7.
Signs require a separate submittal to the Planning Division for plan check approval and
permits. For Information, phone 909-384-5057.
8.
Restaurants, food preparation facilities. and some health related occupancies will require
clearances and approved plans from San Bernardino County Health Department. For
Information, phone 909-387-3043.
9.
Occupancies that include restaurants, car washes, automotive repair/auto body, dentist
offices, food preparation facilities or processing plants, etc. may require approvals and
permits from San Bernardino Water Reclamation. For Information, phone 909-384-5141.
10.
An air quality permit may be required. Contad South Coast Air Quality Management
Division for .Informatlon, phone 909-396-2000.
11. State of California Business" Professions Code/Contractors License Law requires that
permits can be Issued to licensed contractors or owner-builders (that are doing tbe work).
Contractors must provide their State license number, a city business registration, and
workers compensation policy carrier" poJ!cy number. Owner-builders must provide
proof of ownership. -'. .
NOTE: PLAN CHECK TIME ON THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS APPROXlMA TEL Y 4-6
WEEKS FOR 1ST CORRECTIONS. EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW IS APPROXIMATELY 10 WORKING
DAYS. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND
DOES NOT IMPL Y THAT THE DESIGN AS SUBMITIED WILL BE APPROVED WITHOUT
CORRECTIONS.
Comments:
300 N 'd. Street San Bernardino CA 92418
909-384-5071 Office
909-384-5080 Fax
AITACHMENT D
c
ANDRADE & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL LAw CORPORATION
CONSTRUCTION LAWYERS
JEFFREY CORPORATE CENTRE
5510 TIIAlIUCO ROAD
IRVINE. CAuFORNIA 9262C>5705
TELEPHONE (949) 553-1951
FACSIMILE (949) 553-0655
E-MAIL: ANDRAOE.M1AWS.COM
ROIWDG. Ho~
NATAUA O. SMmt
SHERRY A. RosHAN
ScOTT KRoN
RICHARD B. ANDRAOEt
tJD/~1'ORNlA L.IcINKD GENIJItAL CON'1'1tACTOfI
. JD/L.CINKD IN NEvADA. CWPlJItNIA
...PROI"U.-......~C.... CO. ur. OR. WA.
NW6/1lZ.
OF COUNSEl.
A:zZAM O. SMDt."
October 7, 2005
Via Penonl Deliverv
City of San Bernardino
Development Services Department, PlanninglBuilding Division
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Matter
Our client
Our File No.
Re
Appeal # 05-20
Mr. &: MIs. Woo Lee
25021-001
Response to Appeal
&cg:&~
Ci".;LOPM~:r~~DlNo
DEPARTMEii-r'CEI
Dear Planning Commission Members:
c
Please allow me to introduce myself as counsel for Mr. &: MIs. Woo Lee, the owners of the
property which is the subject of the above-mentioned appeal. This letter will provide you with a response
. to the Wildwood Park Neighborhood Association's (hereinafter referred to as "WPNA") appeal from the
~
decision of the Planning Commission approving a COin Laundry facility to be 10cated at 4399 North Sierra
Way, San Bernardino, CA 92418.
The appea1 by WPNA asserts that an operation of a coin laundry facility at a site next to an
apartment complex will attract criminal, loitering and homeless activities. The WPNA, however, offers no
evidence to support its claim and in fact those instances cited are cited inaccurately and are clearly taken
out of context.
As will be demonstrllted..the operation ofa coin laundry facility is the best possible use of the
property, will provided needed tax revenue for the City, and will not attract criminal, loitering or homeless
activity. For these reasons, the appeal s!tould be denied.
c
Best Paulble Use
At the beginning of 2005, San Bernardino drafted and implemented a general plan. San
Bernardino designated the Land Use Element in this plan to function as a guide to planners, the general
public, and decision makers as to the ultimate pattern of development This plan designates general site
development standards and the distribution, location, and extent ofland uses, such as housing, business,
and industry. In particular, the Land Use Element es1ab1ishes the primary basis for consistency with the
San Bernardino's development.~e. Title 19 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. The coin laundry
facility approved by the Planning Commission in this case bas been determined to meet these standards.
The .approved facility falls within the commercial general district which is intended to provide for the
continued use, and enhancement of retail, persona1 services, and related commercial uses to service the
needs of the resi4~nts, ThL facility is the best possible use for this ~unity.
ANDRADE &: ASSOCIA.TES
C October 7, 2005
Page 2
ColD LauDdrv Facility.
CODlr8Iy to the position of the WPNA, the opention of a coin laundry facility would actually
benefit the community. A coin laundry facility is exactly the type of business WPNA describes as
desirable. The coin laundry market consists 0(89 million customers throughout the U.S. Coin lAJmdry
Associalicm, Coin Laundry: An Industry Overview. at http://www.4hb.comlO430c0inJaundry.htm1. Clean
clothes are considered a necessity of modern life. A coin laundry facility would provide a basic health
service and necessity to the community. What's more, a coin 1aundry facility is exc:eptiona11y beneficial to
renter-oc:cupied densely populated areas. Statistics establish that 31 % of the popu1ation of San Bcmardino
is renters. San Bemardino County, CA - collllty housing, home & apartment cost8, at
http://www.epodll7llc.com. Of this 31 %, 17% of the renters in San Bernardino County are single mothers.
Robert Bel'1lStein, Statistical Brief, BII1'et2U of the Cen.JIIS. (1994).
c
Additionally, the renter-oc:cupied housing in the area lacks adequate laundry facilities for its
current renters. The WPNA incorrectly states that two coin 1aundry facilities exist in the area. However,
the WPNA fails to advise the Commission that one of the facilities referenced, the "Suds Your Duds"
facility has closed down and no longer in operation. I am attaching photographs taken recently that clearly
shows that the "Suds Your Duds" coin laundry bas ceased opentions, leaving only one colD operated
facility to service the densely populated neighborhood. Not only will the proposed coin laundry facility
serve the community's needs but also it will replace the "Suds Your Duds" Coin Laundry !bat is no longer
open for business.
Thus, a coin laundry facility would in fact be an asset to the community of San Bemardino.
............
Crlmlaal Activity.
The WPNA asserts that the operation of a coin-operated laundry will promote criminal activity in
the neighborhood such as drug pushers, drug users, prostitutes, homeless and the like. ID support of its
appeal, the WPNA cites to an incident where a coin laundry operated two blocks away from the proposed
location, had continuous gunshots to its windows.
However, unaware "fthe actual cirr.""_........ the WPNA has made the incorrect..umption dill
the type of business was t1:e caUSe for the criminal activity. In reality, the IDcident. the WPNA cites
occurred due to the business owner's confrontation with a trespasser and not because the business was a
coin laundry facility. Unbeicnownst to ihe owner, the lRspasser was a member of a gang who reta1iated
against the owner by shooting out the windows of the business (in the middle of the night while the
business was closed) as well as intimidating the coin laundry owner's customers in an effort to discolnge
business. ICnot for the owner's confrontation, none of these crimes would have occurred. The incident
cited to by the WPNA was an isolated incident only.
c
The WPNA's claim that the business will attract criminal activity such as loitering is also
inaccurate. Unlike the other coin laundry facilities cited to by the WPNA, the Lee's will have 811 employee
011 site for a1ll1ours that tho f'a!:ility is open for busilless. In this planner, any criminal activity will be
immediately reported to the police for appropriate bandlina.
The WPNA's reference to a robbely that occunecl at the beauty solon previously operated at the
location at issue is also misplaced. Simply because a prior criminal act occunecl at this location, does not
mean that furthercrin1ina1 actiVities will OCcur. In the same manner;-ihe fact dill the perpetrators resided
in the apartment complex adjacent to the instant location is also of no consequence. Accepting this sort of
c
c
o
ANDRADE & AssOCIATES
October 7, 2005
Page 3
misguided logie would amount to accepting the proposition that all renters are criminals. This simply is
not the case. Simply bcc:ause a large apartmeot complex exists adjacent to the location by itself does not
mean criminal activity is more likely to occur. In fact, in 2000, only 932 or 1 % of all arrests in SaD
Bernardino County were arrests for robbery. ld By 2003, those arrested for robbery dropped below 1%.
ld. The statistical data clearly shows that there is no correlation between the robbery at the beauty solon
and the likelihood of further robberies at a coin laundry business.
Finally, the WPNA has provided no evidence in support of their claim that a coin launch)' facility
attracts drug use, drug sales, and prostitutiOll. Contrary to the assertions of the WPNA, statistics
maintained by the FBI, show such a claim is simply untrue and unsupportable. Of the g7, 706 arrests in
San Bernardino County in 2000, only 19% were for drug violations. Fetkral BlI1'elIII of lmutigalion.
Uniform Crime Report. (2000). In addition, less than I % or 313 arrests were made for prostitution and
commercial vice. ld These statistics establish that drug violations, prostitution, lIDd COIIUIIeICial vice are
least likely to occur in San Bernardino County regardless of the puticular 1ocation or type of business
operated. The WPNA's claim that a coin 1aundJy facility will attract undesirables is completely
unsupported by the statistics recorded in the Uniform Crime Report.
This is puticu1ar1y true in light of the SaD Bernardino Police Department's (SBPO) decision ootto
respond to the inquiry of the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the operation of a coin laundry
facility. During the approval process, the SBPO WIS given an opportunity to provide input 011 the
proposed use of the facility. The SBPO did not provide any facts that would establish that they believed
that the operation of a coin laundry would resuh in an increase in criminal activities at the location.
REOUEST TO AFFIRM APPROVAL
.--..
Based on the facts of this appeal, WPNA's claims, and the likelihood of providing an asset to the
community of San Bernardino, we request that the Planning Commission affinn its reasoned decision
approving a coin launch)' facility to be located at 4399 North Sierra Way.
Sincerely,
IA TES
By:
\tt~~ge
Ric B. Andrade
Attorneys for Mr. &; Mrs. Lee
RBA:lam
Enclosures
G:\DATA\Loe, Ia W....250ZIICilyofSB l'IIaDinl Dept.oo2\Rapouc Lollor to_I 1loonI{r1la).doo
cc: Mr. &; Mrs. Lee
!Jw f/JM IJv fk
o
On October 28, 2005, N~uljJ\g SQfFHllli\'ed an appeal application (Appeal No, 05-24), The
appellants' grounds for the appeal are that (I) evidence does not support the finding off act; (2)
findings off act do not support the decision; (3) Planning Commission abused its discretion in
overturning the decision of the Director of the Planning Division; and (4) new evidence, The
new evidence referred to is listed in the 'additional information' section of the application, which
identifies that Mr, Lee is willing to install a 16 camera surveillance system, add windows to the
exterior walls, install a silent alarm, and add exterior lighting, These concessions are in direct
relation to the issues identified by the Planning Commission, in an attempt to make the existing
structure safer for the proposed use,
Staff is not sure what the appellant means when they state that the .. (I) Evidence does not justify
the findings offact" and/or "(2) Findings offact do not support the decision," The Planning
Commission determination was made based upon personal observations of site conditions and
with Finding of Fact number 8 read into the record as included above. Thus the evidence they
saw on their site visits supported their decision, and the Finding of Fact identified was made and
read into the record,../ill!ldy in support oftheir decision,
The Planning Commission is the appeal authority when reviewing a determination by either the
Director or the Development Review Committee, as identified by Development Code Section
19.52,090. Finally, although staff agrees that the concessions offered could make the structure
and use more safe, lis ~, it is not clear that they would make the structure safe enough for the
proposed use based on the application provided,
C FINANCIAL IMPACT
None, The appellants submitted appeal fees,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing, deny the appea1
and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Development Permit I No, 05-81 to re-use an
existing vacant building as a coin operated laundry facility based on the Findings of Fact as
determined by the Planning Commission,
EXHIBITS:
1 Location Map
2 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 18, 2005
3 Application for Appeal No, 05-24
()
EXHIBIT 3
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department, Planning Division
300 North "E" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone (909) 384-5057 . (909) 384-5080
Web address: www.sbcity.org
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
o Development Services Director
o DevelopmentlEnvironmental Review Committee
la: Planning Commission
Case number(s): [PI 05-081 / Appeal II 05-20
A..9 at! 'a~
Project address: 4399 North Sierra Way, San Bernardino, CA 92369
Appellant's name: In ~ lee
Appellant's address: 7353 Ellena West #88. Rancho f'lY"'-"'Tr'lnaa. C1\ 91730
Appellant's phone: 714-328-9576
Cppellant's e-mail address: n/a
Contact person's name: Scott A. Kron, Esq.
Contact person's address: 5510 Tral:uco Rd.. Irvine. CA 92620
Contact person's phone: 949-553-1951
Contact person's e-mail address: skrcin@aalaws.ocm
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application fonn
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeals are nonnally scheduled for a detennination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified. in writing, of the specific date and
lime of the appeal hearing.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Gate appeal filed: ()( 1l!!if12- Z <{ 2tJt'~
Receivedby: )rlftJ OQIJf:,A//7c2 .
()~\\;\~~:
REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL
CecifiC action being appealed and the date of that action: PJ..annin] Ccmni.ssion' s granting Of' "IT"""" 1
No. nC;-20. rim nlJDrMl1'"T\;rq ~hP n;~nr nf ....~ ~~l~'" ~""7;~C: ~.I.._"~t'I 'P1:t11rm;y''q
Division's approII'a1 of DE!l7elqll'ellt Pennit I No. 05-081 dated dated october 18, 2005.
Specific grounds for the appeal: (1) Evidence does not iustifv fiminqs of fact.
(2) Findings of fact do not suwort the decision.
(3) Plannina CCmnission ;IJIh1~ its diQM"P'f-inn in t"I\TPrMlrniT'Q n~;~inn of T~ nin:w-+n,-
of the Planni.rJ;J Division.
(4) New evidence.
Act on sought: Re-instatement of the Director of DeI7el~I""lt Services J)eJ:lart:nent, Planni.n::r
Division's approval of DE!l7elqll'ellt Pennit I No. 05-081 and reversal of Planning
c
.
CCmnission I s decision to qrant appeal
Additional information: Since deci"inn r..nn......n I'w Pl"nnirq nTm,;""innr prrp>rt-y.....".,.,r Tn Tohn
Lee, has taken into consideration suggestions PJ..annin] CCmnission members qave in order
to Mv~ pp'rn1;r ::qJprt'1{~ 'My- T ~ ; c: wi 1 1 ; ng ::linN .::::lIh 1 ~ i-n ; nc:-r::ll" ::to , ~ ~;'",M!::n.::lI C!I"..uc;" :Il~
system; additional outside liqhti.nq; store frorlt qlass doors; silent anerqenc:v alert
~~t-RTI. ~'~::lI'" w-Innl"LJC: wft-h ,...,... C!;g1'=aiJ~. lo"'~o"';""9'. n.,.. ~FO"";"g; :Il~ OV+ol"'lA +-ha. M:lI"
adjacent to the alley.
c
~ ,
SignatUre <>J:appellant. '
". ,rq
:1"
. ., ~-
/.-~':..:!
..
I
Date:~
2
\111M