HomeMy WebLinkAbout44-Development Services
e
e
e
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Valerie C. Ross, Director
Subject: Development Permit Type I No. 04-
046 (Appeal No. 07-03) - An appeal of the
Planning Commission's revocation of a
Development Permit to construct a 60'0"
monopine telecommunications tower,
equipment shelter, and landscaping on a vacant
parcel located at 1272 N. Mt. Vernon Avenue in
the CG-I, Commercial General land use district.
Dept: Development Services
Date: May 25, 2007
MCC Date:
June 18, 2007
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor & Common Council:
1. Deny Appeal No. 07-03:
2. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to revoke DPI No. 04-046; and
:I Order removal of the monopine telecommunications tower, related equipment and the equipment
shelter within 60 days.
~ {/. 7<1#-
Valene C. Ross
Contact person:
Rrl:m Footf> A~"or.1Mf" Phmnf"r
Phone:
lR4-'iO'i7
Supporting data attached:
Staff ReDort
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description 1
Finance:
Council :\otes:
Agenda Item No.
~
CD/I fjOl
e
e
e
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Mayor & Common Council Meeting of June 18,2007
SUBJECT:
Development Permit Type I No. 04-046 (Appeal No. 07-03)
OWNER:
Doug Jones
899 Tamarisk Rd.
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 275-4979
APPELLANT:
T-Mobile
Boudewign P. Hanrath
3 hnperial Promenade, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(949) 861-1912
BACKGROUND
The subject of the appeal is the Planning Commission's revocation of Development Permit Type
I (DPI) No. 04-046, which permitted the installation of a 60'0" monopine telecommunications
tower, equipment shelter, and landscaping on a vacant parcel. The subject property is located at
1272 N. Mt. Vernon Avenue, at the northwest comer ofMt. Vernon Avenue and Reece Street, in
the CG-I, Commercial General land use district (Exhibit I - Location Map). The existing
monopine was constructed in 2005 for Cingular Wireless. The site was never completely
improved according to the Conditions of Approval, and there have been many complaints about
the condition and upkeep of the site. T -Mobile acquired the cell site in 2006 and was unaware of
the condition of the site prior to the revocation action.
In the Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 2) of October 3, 2006, staff identified a
number of Conditions of Approval that had not been satisfied, including Conditions 13 and 14
that required landscaping and site improvements, and therefore recommended revocation of DPI
No. 04-046. The Planning Commission continued the item a total of four times to allow the
applicant opportunities to install the required improvements and comply with the Conditions of
Approval. On March 6, 2007, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to revoke DPI No.
04-046 based on the applicant's lack of progress.
In the specific grounds for appeal (Exhibit 3), the appellant states, "When notified in Sept. '06 of
the revocation proceedings, welT-Mobile moved into action to provide compliance and make
sidewalk repairs. But we were shot down for lack of easement permit and finalized landscaping
drawlllgs. Thru [sic] the review process it took until February 8'h of 2007 to secure signed
mylm's. Since then we've gone out to bid twice and have a contractor mobilize...." The appeal
application also states, "we seek an additional sixty (60) days to provide compliance and
overturn the Planning Commission 's action to revoke DPI04-046."
The Planning Commission continued the revocation hearing several times to allow the applicant
to get improvement (landscape) plans through Plan Check. In the meantime, the appellant started
work in the public right-of-way to install the new section of sidewalk without a permit. On
e
e
e
Appeal No. 07-03
Hearing Date: June 18. 2007
Puge 2
March 6. 2007. after the landscape plans were approved on February 8 and the appellant had not
begun work on the site improvements, the Planning Commission revoked the Development
Permit. The appellant pulled a permit for the on-site improvements on May 3,2007. On May 8, a
neighboring property owner complained to the Planning Commission about work occurring at the
site. Staff suspended the improvement permit the next day, May 9, pending resolution of this
appeal. The appellant apparently completed the landscaping anyway.
The existing telecommunications tower has been in service since 2005. If the revocation of DPI
04-046 is upheld, then the tower and all related equipment would have to be removed from the
site, and staff recommends a 60-day deadline for the removal.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No impact to the City of San Bernardino. The appellant paid the processing fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the Appeal, uphold the decision of
the Planning Commission to revoke DPI No. 04-046 and order removal of the monopine
telecommunications tower. related equipment and the equipment shelter within 60 days.
EXHIBITS: I.
2.
3.
Location Map
Staff Report dated October 3,2006 to the Planning Commission
Appeal
EXHIBIT 1
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PRO.JECT: AP No. 07-03
DPI No. 04-046
PLANNING DIVISION
LOCATION MAP
LAND USE DISTRICTS HEARING DATE: 06/18/07
u
NORTH
.
-
13 Tfi
REECE
. (~}2~~O~anul~er~a:~i~.,
~
:tI
<:
o
<:
~
~
13TH
REECE
o 30ft
~'"
_..~~
e'
e
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE:
AGENDA ITEM:
HEARING DATE:
WARD:
Development Permit Type I (DPI) No, 04-046
3
October 3, 2006
6
PROPERTY OWNER:
PERMITTEE:
Maryann J, Corrente
10581 Montego Drive
San Diego, CA 92124
(858) 309-4464
Cingular Wireless, Peter Yune
3345 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92612-0692
(949) 735-9799
REQUEST & LOCATION:
A City-initiated proposal to revoke Development Permit (Type I) No, 04-046 allowing the
installation of a 60'0" monopine tower, equipment shelter. and landscaping on a vacant
parcel. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Mount Vemon Avenue
and Reece Street (1272 N, Mount Vernon Ave,) in the CG-2, Commercial General land
use district
CONSTRAINTS & OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
. Exempt from CEQA, Section 15321 - Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies
:J No Significant Effects
:I Negative Declaration
:J Mitigation Measures
:J Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
. Revocation
.J Approval
:J Conditions
:J Continuance to:
OPt NO.04-046 Revocation
Hearmg Date.' Oct 3, 2006
Page 2
_1'
".,.-
REQUEST & LOCATION
Prompted by complaints from surrounding property owners, staff initiated this request to
revoke Development Permit Type I (DPI) No. 04-046, which permitted installation of a
60'0" monopine tower, equipment shelter, and landscaping on a vacant parcel. The
property is located at 1272 N. Mount Vernon Avenue, at the northwest corner of Reece
Street and Mount Vernon Avenue, in the CG-2, Commercial General land use district
(Attachment A - Location Map). The attached site plan indicates the approved
configuration of the property (Attachment B - Site Plan).
SETTING & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site was vacant prior to installation of the monopine tower, equipment shelter, and
block wall. Landscaping and trees have not been installed as required by Condition of
Approval No. 15, and groundcover consists of loose gravel only. To the west is a single-
family neighborhood in the RS, Residential Suburban land use district. To the north,
south, and east are commercial properties and businesses in the CG-2, Commercial
General land use district. A vacant property is located between the cell tower site and
Mount Vernon Avenue.
_...!~ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The revocation of DPI No. 04-046 is exempt from CEQA according to Section 15321 for
Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies, This class of exemptions consists of
actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a permit or other entitlement that
has been issued by that regulatory agency. Enforcement actions include administrative
decisions to revoke a permit or entitlement, as well as the direct referral of a violation of
a permit or entitlement to the Planning Commission. The original approval of DPI No.
04-046 was exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New Construction of Small
Structures.
BACKGROUND
The application for DPI No. 04-046 was reviewed for compliance with the Findings
enumerated in Development Code 919.44.060 (Findings). The application satisfied all
Findings contained in Development Code 919.44.060, and was approved on August 5,
2004. A Condition of Approval required that the applicant install landscaping, including
several trees and live groundcover on the remainder of the site (see Attachment C -
Conditions of Approval).
_
Landscape improvements have not been completed according to the Conditions of
Approval. In addition, the Planning Division has received several complaints concerning
the lack of landscaping and maintenance of the property (i.e. weeds, litter, and excess
loose gravel). Landscape Plan No. E0400485 was submitted on September 16, 2004,
a:~,.
-~
.x/
e--
e
DPI No.04-046 Revocation
Hearing Date. Oct. 3. 2006
Page 3
and returned to the applicant for corrections most recently on April 13, 2005. Additional
re-submittals have not occurred as previously requested by Planning staff via telephone
calls in March 2006. Previous communications from Planning staff to Peter Yune
(Cingular Wireless) and Kay Melcher (ALCOA Wireless Services) have not resulted in
any action seeking approval or issuance of Landscape Plan No. E0400485. As of
October 2006, permit No. E0400485 has not been approved or issued. and the Council
office and Development Services have continued to receive complaints from residents.
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
Planning staff visited the site numerous times in March, August, and September of
2006. The site conditions that are evident include a lack of landscaping and trees, large
and overgrown weeds, and rubbish. The recent problems discussed by residents
appear to be continuing. The review authority may revoke a Development Permit if anv
of the six findings contained in Development Code 919.44.110 (Revocation) can be
made. The site located at 1272 N. Mount Vernon Avenue satisfies four of the findings
that warrant revocation.
I. That circumstances have changed so that one or more of the Findings contained in
Section 19.44.060 can no longer be made.
Circumstances on the property have changed so that all Findings can no longer be
made. Finding 1 requires compliance with all development/site standards, and the
project has not satisfied the development standards pertaining to landscaping and
maintenance. The requirement for additional live trees is necessary to satisfy
Development Code Section 19.20.030(3)(B), which requires that proposed towers be
located within a grouping of similar natural objects. The plans submitted with the DPI
application indicated that multiple live trees would be installed, which would satisfy
Development Code Section 19.20.030(3)(B). Trees have not been installed. and
therefore the Development Permit no longer satisfies Section 19.20.030(3)(B).
Finding 3 requires compatibility with surrounding development, and the project site in
its present condition is not harmonious or compatible with existing development in
the vicinity, including the residential neighborhood and business district that are
adjacent to the property. Site improvements such as landscaping were proposed
and approved, which led to a determination of compatibility and harmonious
coexistence with development in the vicinity. Not all site improvements have been
completed as proposed, and therefore, the use is not harmonious or compatible with
surrounding development.
2 That the Development Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
Not applicable. There is no evidence that the permit was obtained by
misrepresentation or fraud.
e~
'-.7
e
e
DPI No.04-046 Revocation
Hearing Date. Oct. 3. 2006
Page 4
3. That the use for which the Development Permit was granted had ceased or was
suspended for 6 or more calendar months.
Not applicable. The use has not ceased or been suspended for 6 or more calendar
months.
4. That one or more of the conditions of the Development Permit have not been met.
Conditions of Approval 2, 7, 13, and 14 have not been met. Condition No. 13
required a minimum of four (4) 36" box pine trees and an automatic irrigation
system. Condition No. 14 required that the remainder of the site be planted with a
live groundcover as well as an automatic irrigation system. Condition No.2 required
that all construction work, including the landscaping and trees, be installed within 2
years of project approval (DPI No. 04-046 was approved on August 5, 2004).
Condition No. 7 stated that the tower operator and property owner are responsible
for regular maintenance of the site in order to prevent accumulation of trash, graffiti,
and debris.
5. That the use is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law, or regulation.
The use is in violation of Development Code Section 19.20 (Landscaping Standards)
and Ordinance No. MC-1136 that promulgates certain minimum standards for
landscape maintenance on commercial properties within the City of San Bernardino.
The property must be appropriately landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover,
and include an irrigation system, and regular maintenance so that the property is
free of overgrown vegetation as well as refuse such as trash, litter, debris, etc.
6. That the use permitted by the Development Permit is detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or constitutes a nuisance.
The use permitted by DPI No. 04-046, in its present condition, constitutes a
nuisance. The accumulation of rubbish, weeds, etc. on any lot in the City is defined
as a public nuisance according to San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 8.30. The
unsightly condition of the project site is detrimental to nearby properties, including
the single-family residences and businesses in the immediate vicinity, and
contributes to an appearance of blight.
CONCLUSION
The cell tower facility satisfies four of the six findings that warrant revocation of DPI No.
04-046. The permittee has not taken proper action that would alleviate the complaints of
the City's residents or to comply with all of the Conditions of Approval.
DPI No.04-046 Revocation
Hearing Date: Oct. 3. 2006
Page 5
e" RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission revoke DPI No. 04-046 based on the
Findings of Fact in this staff report.
Respectfully Submitted,
. /j~tj
~, ./.-'"
. /t: ('1 -,-'-
,
(0/-,
. Valerie C. Ross
Development Services Director
~. ~
~..-.....-..-~.~--..........
e.
Brian Foote
Associate Planner
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Location Map
Site Plan
Conditions of Approval for DPI No. 04-046
e
.~
:~~-
_4"_f
A TT ACH~IE;\T A - Location ~Iap
:.11 j' Y.'I~
I.J~ I Mo.
~
-
I Tal...,.. I ~ ~""_
j I!:;'. I;
.
. .,
.
n .
DPI No.I)-I-U-l~
Ht.'l1nng D..lTt!. Ocr. 3. 2()(j6
Page j
-
Iv
OT
Ei
!~
,
,
I
DPI/IIo04-046
Hearing Dare: Ocr. 3. 2006
Page 6
.'~".
....
A TT ACHMENT 8 - Approved Site Plan
'.--"
-~----------------,
''-i--- .J ~ Mt.Vemon I:
D
- - - - - ~ .- - 'I""---;",,:i -'ll.:P..t.N"<l- - - - -1'
. ~ r-
, .
,. e
I u
e
i: e
.
" I; E
'~ ~ w
il ,I: ~
I ~ ~
,
~~ w
~~ ~- el, I I
i~ ~~ ~r /
~ i~ /
t ..~ ll: /
I o~ iii
~ i~ H ':
::c ,
I I ~~ '<!) :. I! I :.
I:"':l ll~ ;/ ~
..,. 1'< ll~
~ :. in II Ii gM
Ii Ii 'g~
e, 1 z i I!! I: 'wi ~ I
- i i ~-
~ ~n n~ ~~~
<: i~~ ~~
~~ ~~~
" I ~i ~~ ~;!!:I it ~
!n!;~ ";~ oh "U -" I: Iii ~
Id Ulla ~~
'<!) 1 a !ii
I,
l"_~i'" ~ 3
.~',.U -":11-".
. , ) ! :cvg ! ~""
, ' ~n
/ I '/ ~
\ .''" , J.' <J)
1/
~ \ '"
. \ w
-'I ~, U'
" I
, e ------------------~------~~ t w
I, I .-z- ,,...,,,,,.., / W
,
~#'~ ::19C~ --z..- I Qo' I'
I I , " ~
I /
----------------------~--- "
I
I
I'
,; <
\&
~ . ...,
1/] 1/] 1/] Q
. I!!
9fe,! ~
[p,t; , ~
I "
) ir" ~ II
( / ,- I ;; g
, G~ S
( ---' I~ Ii I! ~
e ~:n II I
i~= . ' II
I ! ~ d i U~
" it i~ U I I
~I ~ ! " I I
h e ~ I ,! I /,1 g ~
~ I H I a~ f ~ I
I ~~ n
et ;:. I t U
".
~,
-:}
tr')
e
-
I
A IT ACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT I No. 04-046
\.
This pennit/approval authorizes installation of wireless communications anteMae
on a monopine tower up to 65'0" in height and equipment shelter, on a vacant
parcel located on Reece Street (APN: 0143-181-25-0000). Full site improvements
shall be required and substantially in confonnance with the approved Site Plan (to
include and not limited to: landscaping, fences, driveways, walls, etc.).
2.
Within two years of development approval, commencement of
construction/installation shall have occurred or the pennit shall become null and
void. In addition, if after commencement of installation/construction, work is
discontinued for a period of one year, then the pennit/approval shall become null
and void. However, approval of the Development Pennit does not authorize
commencement of construction. All necessary pennits must be obtained prior to
commencement of any construction activities included in the Conditions of
Approval and Standard Requirements.
EXPIRATION DATE: AUGUST 2, 2006
2.
The review authority may grant a one-time extension, for good cause, not to
exceed 12 months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and
all required submittal items, 30 days prior to the 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.
3. 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, indemnify
and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development
Agency of the City of San Bernardino (EDA), 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.
As part of the consideration for issuing this pennit, this condition shall remain in
effect if this Development Pennit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the
request of applicant.
a~..
.:1
-.:.>'
e-
.~
ATTACHMENT C
Development Permit I No. 04-046
August 2. 2004
4.
Construction shall be in substantial confonnance with the plan(s) approved by the
Director, Development Review Committee, Planning Commission or Mayor and
Common Council. Minor modification to the plan(s) shall be subject to approval
by the Director through a minor modification pennit process. Any modification
which exceeds 10% of the following allowable measurable design/site
considerations shall require the refiling of the original application and a
subsequent hearing by the appropriate hearing review authority if applicable:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading, and landscaping;
b. Placement andlor height of walls, fences and structures;
c. Reconfiguration of architectural features, including colors, andlor modification
of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously
approved theme; and,
d. A reduction in density or intensity of a development project.
5. No vacant, relocated, altered, repaired or hereafter erected s~ructure shall be occupied
or no change of use of land or structurc(s) shall be inaugurated, or no new business
commenced as authorized by this pennit until a Certificate of Occupancy has been
issued by the Department. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by
the Department subject to the conditions imposed on the use, provided that a deposit
is filed with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the Certificate, if
necessary. The deposit or security shall guarantee the faithful perfonnance and
completion of all tenns, conditions and perfonnance standards imposed on the
intended use by this pennit.
6. This pennit or 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; emission control of fumes, vapors, gases and other fonns 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. Screening and sign regulations compliance is important considerations to the .
developer because they will delay the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until
they are complied with. Any exterior structural equipment, or utility transfonners,
boxes, ducts or meter cabinets shall be architecturally screened by wall or structural
element, blending with building design and include landscaping when on the ground.
7. The applicant, business operator, and property owner(s) shall be responsible for
regular maintenance of the site (at least quarterly, every 3 months, or sooner as
needed). Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris shall be removed within 24
hours. The management shall take a photograph of the graffiti and provide to the
Police Department before removing the graffiti.
e 8. The applicant shall assure that the communications equipment shall be removed
within 3 months after the use is abandoned.
~"'.
-;;~
.....a:i>'
e~;
e
I
>
ATTACHMENT C
Development Permit I No. 04-046
AI/gust 2. 2004
9. The use of barbed wire, electrified fence, or razor wire fence in conjunction with any
fence, wall, roof, hedge, or by itself is prohibited per Development Code Section
19.20.030 (8)(C)(1).
10. Future installation of additional antennae or equipment, or another company's
antennae or equipment, will require obtaining a Development Permit approval from
the Planning Division prior to any installations or modifications.
II. The operation of the antenna shall not cause interference with any electrical
equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., television, radio, telephone,
computer, inclusive of the City's trunked 800MHz public safety radio system, etc.) or
with Police or Fire Department communications equipment unless exempted by
Federal Regulations.
12. The pole shall be a pine tree with mediwnlheavy branch coverage (e.g. minimum of
100 branches) and standard size/color pine needles. Pine branches shall extend
beyond the antennae for adequate concealment, to the satisfaction of the Director.
Antennae shall be painted green to match the pine branches. The pole shall be
covered with simulated pine bark cladding (light/medium brown).
13. The applicant/developer shall install a minimum of four (4) specimen pine trees with
a minimum size of 36" box, with a' permanent and automatic irrigation system
(including flood bubblers specifically for the pine trees).
14. The remainder of the site not improved with permanent structures shall be landscaped
with permanent groundcover (e.g. Acacia Redolens as indicated on the approved site
plans) and a permanent/automatic irrigation system throughout.
15. All new fences shall be decorative (e.g. wrought iron) with permanent installation.
16. All new walls shall be decorative, such as Split-Face concrete block with cap-rock or
Slump Stone. An appropriate vine-type plant shall grow on the exterior sides.
17. The exterior of the equipment shelter shall be stucco (with subdued earth-tone color)
and faux roof pitch similar to the surrounding neighborhood.
18. The project shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies, as
applicable (e.g. California Board of Equalization, etc.).
19. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be completed prior to
final inspection.
20. This permit or approval is subject to the attached conditions or requirements of the
following City Departments or Divisions:
a. Development Services Department - Building/Plan Check Division
End of Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department, Planning Division
300 North "0" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Phone (909) 384-5057 . Fax (909)384-5080
Web address: www.sbcity.org
APPLICA nON FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
o Development Services Director
o Oevelopment/Environmental Review Committee
J4 Planning Commission
Case number(s):
"1- mc,'..,:'...._
\".,
Project address:
AppeIlant's name:
AppeIlant's address:
AppeIlant's phone: 9"\"'.
_peIlant's e-mail address:
Contact person's name:
Contact person's address:
Contact person's phone:
Contact person's e-mail address:
...",,).\., @ \- -""~\e. . ~
1'117
.' \",,.4\,@.. t---"'\;,\e -Con,
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeals are normaIly 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,
OFFICE USE ONLY
_te appeal filed:
Received by:
11/001
EXHIBIT 3
REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL
_ecific action being appealed and the date of that action:
(o(Y'J..,....
~\c...
Speci fic grounds for the appeal:
I-m
\N }-,,,....
l"'.p'-lo("t.....~~
-.\
"-
\-
v\-" "'. \.."\
ove~ "3 co\.. ....\.- ~ ;)'S\- > \-.. W )
\.\,.&. ~\'\'<' \X)c,-\, h..r..,.,...rt>Vf'~ Cc... =""..,.,enfr. ~
Actio sought:
Add;ti'".;"fu~tio" ~:~ ~.~ :~ ::~'t ~ ~:.: 't:s:
..... <,pA'L<->" \. \-,.,-n -G.. : c- ...~ n\.. .'\
__10..,1 \-... ~"~~~); "'\"'.r"~ r\n.\\:~ .
\
e
Signature of appellant:
\
eo Y.
"'~.~'.VHL
Date: ~ \ 2 n7-
11/04
2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Interoffice Memorandum
TO:
Mayor anwcouncil
T~~al, Deputy Director/City Planner
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Item 44 - 6/18/07 MCC Agenda: Appeal of the Revocation of
Development Permit Type 1 No. 04-046
DATE:
June 15,2007
COPIES:
James Penman, City Attorney; Rachel Clark, City Clerk; Fred Wilson,
City Manager; Valerie C. Ross, Development Services Director
The Planning Commission revoked the above-referenced Development Permit due to
inaction on the part of the applicant after numerous complaints from the neighboring
property owner about the condition of the project site and failure of the applicant to
complete the required site improvements. Since then, the owner of the property, Mr.
Doug Jones, has taken an active role in the improvement of the property. Substantial
landscaping has been completed, the sidewalk adjacent to the site is being repaired, and
the owner stands ready to install wrought iron fencing if permitted to continue with the
site improvements. The adjoining property owner, Ms. Sylvia Arias, has submitted a
letter (attached) to rescind her objection to the project.
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council consider the attached letter from
Ms. Arias and hear from the property owner, Mr. Jones. If the Council is satisfied with
the current efforts to comply with the requirements of the Development Permit, staff
recommends the following alternative motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Grant Appeal No. 07-03;
2. Reverse the action of the Planning Commission to revoke DPl No. 04-046; and
3. Direct staff to report back to the Planning Commission on the status of site
improvements as they are completed, or to re-initiate revocation proceedings if
necessary.
-
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment: Letter from Sylvia Arias dated June 14,2007
'tlO .ff
~/;r/~
City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
14 June 2007
RE: Cell site (T-Mobile) at Reece and Mount Vernon
Counsel Members,
My name is Sylvia Arias. I reside at 1330 Reece Street in the City of San Bernardino. San
Bernardino has been my home for many years and I have done what I can to make our
City a better place. I have worked to help the City in various ways in an effort to improve
the standard ofliving in our community.
I was the person that brought T -Mobile's non-compliance to your attention. There were
issues that needed to be addressed. Since making the City aware of the problems at this
property, I have seen nothing but positive things happen at this location (no one can be
better aware of activity at this site than I, my house is adjacent to the west). Yes there
have been delays, but the landlord has made weekly visits to the parcel to make
inspections. He, the landlord, has been diligent in monitoring the activity on the parcel
and has offered to go beyond what the City has requested to improve the property.
It has come to my attention that you are attempting to revoke T -Mobile's conditional use
permit because of the delays at this site. I believe this would be an injustice to both T-
Mobile and Doug Jones. It is what I have seen take place on this property that is the
subject of my protest. T - Mobil has made a good faith effort to work with the City and
improve MY neighborhood. This site when finished will be a complement to our City. I
plan to attend the hearing and voice my discontent.
Sincerely your resident,
~6
Sylvi Arias
Yr
r ., x?fix �rl ►� � � ��- �' '-fir �! �'.
�}rte` • � � � �'�a = � , '-!� ��
IE
TV
It -47
so
f
" F
_
�` r F .r• s rj.
3C
�-,� � ��� � i�l � �� ��' ..� ��.�� '.� � � •+ it
e � r
AA
ov
a
�j
a a
•--r�cn ea
a
. *
«
_ a
a
�' yF
F
.r g
Y y
t
• � r
�.,,.*}.� ��e a..wrS.F� �.�4 •s*i't to r,. + � T 'r ►�
i ��C.r x'-,'�' :LS �yx.�' ...i�.r ,r'={, �1`f' ..`r9 !�r►� �'
f .
3° fir. it : Rbx. ;"� J _ •e S,i •
r
ry�i;*,It
� •
:� .s`r X'.T'� �' i'n �� P o��'• Mir * ♦��" �t
y�
F
� 4
t° `� t ���• r'r
�t
,+ � r
J�
Y�
Y
-
'j 4 a
v,
a
•1 1
z
t
l
4
Y
1�
-
It.law
�� .�• yam.
1 l�
j,
t
ry
1
z
r ,
ow
w °f41
s
r ,r
'
,L t
� a ,
r
3o � y
a
� s ,
1 `
_ n
t
K a
t
IT
f
�' ,,.
�a���'°�'� � � _ M.
§,. 4�
k
kk
t
��
�.,�i���ii�-
�'
t [l,.
9yg4 Y '� ,� ��y4 Y
t., ti