HomeMy WebLinkAbout33-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST Q)R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
Su~~: Appeal of Planning Commission denial
of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28
and Variance No. 91-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 16, 1992
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Date: March 12, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
March 2, 1992, ~2yor and Common Council continued for staff to research other
projects in this situation and additional review of the check issue.
February 3, 1992, Mayor and Common Council continued to a date certain (March 2,
1992.
January 21, 1992, Mayor and Common Council continued for a legal opinion.
December 16, 1991, Mayor and Common Council continued for staff to research
approaches to permit this project.
November 6, 1991, Planning Commission denied the project.
Recommended motion:
The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to prepare an amendment to the
Development Code to permit this project to be processed under the previous
requirements; or
The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to prepare an amendment to the
Development Code to revise the distance criteria for convenience stores and
for establishments with off-site sales of beer and wine and/or alcohol; or
The ~layor and Common Council may deny the appeal and den CUP No. 91-28 and
Variance No. 91-08.
Contact person: 111 'R.t"\n~nDY
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N / A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No. .3 J-
-
-
CITY.OF SAN BERNe-DINO - REQUEST FC1' COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08, requesting
approval to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-
site consumption and a variance from section 19.06.030 of
the Development Code to construct a convenience store on
less than the minimum required lot size and to permit a
reduction in loading space requirements.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
March 16, 1992
REOUEST
At their meeting of March 2, 1992 the Mayor and Common Council
directed staff to research other projects which could have been
affected by adoption of the Development Code and the imposition of
new and/or different development standards.
The Attorney's Office was requested to do additional research on
the disposition of the check.
KEY POINTS
1. The check is not an issue relating to deeming the application
complete prior to the effective date of the Development Code.
2. Similar projects that were "caught" between the new and old
rules.
3. Based on land use considerations, our original recommendation
was for denial.
4. A Development Code Amendment, narrowly defined for this issue,
would allow the applicant to apply for a variance from
locational criteria.
5. Suggest that the Mayor and Common Council open the public
hearing on the land use issues prior to determining whether to
proceed with a Development Code Amendment.
DISCUSSION
1. The check was submitted with Review of Plans No. 91-13, an
application to construct a retail /office building. This
application did not seek to construct a convenience store nor
to have off-site sales of beer and wine. Therefore, whether
the check had cleared or not, is not an issue. The
application for a convenience store with off-site sales of
beer and wine was submitted after the Development Code was
adopted and less than 30 days before its effective date. The
application was not deemed complete prior to the effective
date of the Development Code.
75-0264
o
o
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq
March 16, 1992
paqe 2
2. There were two other applications for convenience stores with
off-site sales of beer and wine that were submitted prior to
the adoption of the Development Code, but weren't accepted as
complete until after the effective date of the Code. One of
the applications was revised by the applicant to not include
alcohol and the convenience store was approved. The other
application was approved for a convenience store and denied
for beer and wine sales.
.:.
Other projects that did not involve a convenience store or
off-site sales were able to revise their plans to meet new
Code requirements.
"::
Prior to adoption of the Development Code, MC-770 was in
effect. This ordinance established locational criteria and
minimum lot size requirements for convenience stores. The
effective date was April 12, 1991. Other development
standards were the old Title 19 requirements which were
adopted throuqh the Interim Urqency Ordinance. Under those
"rules" the applicant could apply for a variance from
locational criteria and minimum lot size.
There were no locational criteria for off-site beer and wine
or alcohol sales under the old Title 19 nor the Interim
Urqency Ordinance.
The Development Code incorporated standards for both
convenience stores (the same as contained in MC-770) and off-
site sales of beer and wine or alcohol sales. The Development
Code limited variance applications and a variance cannot be
processed for locational criteria.
J. Staff recommended denial of this proj ect because we felt that
the use was inappropriate qiven that it did not meet
locational (distance) requirements from other land uses ie.
other convenience stores, residential uses and reliqious
facilities.
4. If the Development Code were amended to permit this project to
be processed under the rules in effect at the time the project
was submitted, a variance could be processed concurrently.
However, the same health and safety findings would have to be
made.
o
o
.
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq
March 16, 1992
paqe 3
,.
:.:
CONCLUSION
There were several projects (residential, commercial and
industrial) that were "cauqht" between the old rules (Interim
Urqency Ordinance) and the new rules (Development Code). Some were
able to redesiqn to meet the new requirements and were then
processed. Projects that did not meet new standards pertaininq to
locational criteria could not be redesiqned to meet those
criterion- they simply could not meet the standard.
If a Development Code Amendment were approved to permit this
project to be processed under the previous Code requirements, a
variance could be processed also. Approval of the project would be
continqent upon makinq positive findinqs.
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
1) The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to prepare an
amendment to the Development Code to permit this project to be
processed under the previous requirements; or
2) The Mayor and Common Council may direct staff to prepare an
amendment to the Development Code to revise the distance
criteria for convenience stores and for establishments with
off-site sales of beer and wine and\or alcohol; or
3) The Mayor and Common Council may deny the appeal and deny CUP
No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal
and deny CUP No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08.
Prepared by:
Valerie C. Ross, Actinq Principal Planner
For Al Bouqhey, Director
Planninq and Buildinq Services
4l!J 1.
I
o
o
C I T Y
o F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
RECE!'I,,:"':i ("":" rt ':~V
TO:
Mayor and Common Council
FROM:
'92
Henry Empefio Jr., Deputy City Attorney
"r~ 12 ?!:13
DATE:
March 12, 1992
RE:
Conditional Use Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-08 for
1255 West Baseline, Mr. and Mrs. Kenzie Wooten
At the March 2, 1992 Council meeting, Councilmember Valerie
Pope-Ludlam requested that the City Attorney's office re-examine
the two checks submitted by the applicant for Review of Plans 91-13
and ascertain the date that these two checks were presented to and
processed by the City.
An examination of the application for Review of Plans 91-13,
these two checks, and the supporting receipt shows the following:
1.
submitted
behalf of
March 27, 1991 -- Steven
an application to the City
Kenzie and Brenda Wooten.
J. Stiemsma of Value Homes
for Review of Plans 91-13 on
2. March 27, 1991 -- Steven J. Stiemsma presented three
checks to the City for processing fees for Review of Plans 91-13.
Two of the three checks he presented were dated September 7, 1990.
These two checks referenced the "Wooten job plan review" and the
"Wooten Job" (copies of the two checks and the Planning
Department's Miscellaneous Cash Receipt dated March 27, 1991 are
attached) .
3. March 29, 1991 -- The City presented these two checks to
the bank for deposit into the City's accounts.
4. April 3, 1991 The bank stamped these two checks
"Account Closed" and returned them to the City Treasurer's office.
5. April 12, 1991 -- The Planning Department informed Value
Homes and Mr. and Mrs. Wooten that the checks were returned by the
bank unpaid (a copy of the April 12, 1991 letter is attached).
An examination of the various subparts of the application for
Review of Plans 91-13 reveals that all of the required application
forms were not completed and submitted until March 27, 1991 (a copy
of the application is attached):
HE:js[CUP91-28.Mem]
1
$33
W'J/ L-.-?-/&-tJd-'
A..
,
o
o
6. March 4, 1991 -- Kenzie and Brenda Wooten signed the
Application.
7. March 4, 1991 -- Kenzie and Brenda Wooten signed the
Letter of Authorization (Notarized signatures).
8. September 17, 1990 Preliminary Environmental
Description form signed by Steven J. Stiemsma.
9. September 29, 1990 -- Application Supplement signed by
Steven J. Stiemsma.
10. March 27, 1991 -- Review of Plans checklist signed by
Steven J. Stiemsma.
From the above-referenced evidence, it appears that the two
checks "bounced" because the applicants' representative "sat" on
the checks for more than six months before presenting them to the
Ci ty on March 27, 1991. Upon receipt of the applicants' checks for
Review of Plans 91-13, the City promptly attempted to negotiate
them. The City informed the applicant within a reasonable time
that the checks were returned by the bank. The applicant did not
complete and submit all of the required application forms for
Review of Plans 91-13 until March 27, 1991.
~1;~i~~
HENRY EMPENO, JR.,
Deputy City Attorney
cc: James F. Penman, City Attorney
Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services
HE:jB[CUP91-28.Mem]
2
. L'it:':1-141'!J1J:'l..1!'1-:l!!j '.~' ~_~_.~_A.~ -A. ~--o..O,.ft.a. O_CLQO_~
r- .'
p:
,
.,~,.:-.._--;:::-:,~~,...-.~-~-;~:~,<-.-..,.- ~--...,'----'--- - --",
:00' .--
i
r
-"
-
- "PAY
10 THE
"- .'ORDER OF
. _.' THE-
.b~4-6' ~i.!>'Q1"U3 ." '
~A;' DAtf~NSTRUCTION co.
1$O"N. MT. VIEW AVENUE 889-0271
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 82~
2 '. en., tH6l1220
~ : 19..zt:/ '
" 0 ~.
, ~ ~vul
DDLLARS
10515
.....-.~-~
eN~~ACCOUNT&
.. -
.' ,~
"', ~ .i'
~ -
,
~
-:
^O,' ._
. ,.-'
(:; .
'L.".
.:,. ..-- ~ . Q;.
'--:,,,
-~
...........
:.,~: 81"luIf~"'8 5
. ,..--.... . '. u u
~. _ .P.Q.b127 :.. 0 0
.._CA....... : < <
-
-....'"
. .
.
'" Fl ~-LA 1 ti(J " 20 v2S - 3 W03/91 ...
. 02338~3. ~:f-191 _ ".-' -', .' . ~ .:
;. ~' ~ :-: ';:;;i
<'
o i!:" q 5,.'00? 501"
..~;,~
.- :--..:...,
",
~--1
i
I
L.._~u~_~ _.c.__._._~_ ."_' _ _ ____ li..1J._,..;'; 2. ... .iI. )
0"0 J.05J,SII" -Ii: 1. i!-i!000r.E. J.t':
."0000035000.~
r'
'~f",LY- -.. -~
~~
_,,-'.'-_.~_.M~
. ~__-.u:l 111__
~I?>~ ~ 'b~~ .
.~. PA-DACONSTRUCTION C;O.
1300".Jl.'MT. VIEW AVENUE 889-0271
. _ E SAN(9ElINARDINO. CA ~
' .." '1
- ..,p> ~ .
}~ ':: ~'": !b=~Fn..1L~~.~'- . .
", >:-- ~?.. 'r~~''!1J.M rltif.S GO ,crs .
.'v :,.;-;81......bi.doIi..~!': ~ " : oiicsl'/1
- . -~!t:=-....._. ;; -':-~.;~
......CAI2S48 "... -0 v' ...
'; "'~...'o ,0 ~,;.. ',:,
--':.-;0 00. ,"
.... ','" .., -it. ..- .; "..
~. ~, '-
. n"o,~05liE.'" +fa i!i!00m;,r. J.I~-e:i!"CjS-oo
NT
10516
M"..,.
12d ' tH6l122D
I. $~a?cJOcJl
-=-.:r
.J
DOLLARS
.- -~-- .....
... .:_ ._.,=.:_ _____...t---:..."'.. _...... .:.-..' __.......... _......_._,.~__,;,.
...00001.00000...
,
l
..
. ,---,
" ~-'-'~-"'--.~"-'!:""""'-'-r'
-r- _-_L_~_~_=____[~.'_r~'[_--=-_~"~_:__~2~_= _'~-'
"'"'
..,
-,
...,'
L__
,.. r
......... ""'--
.....
..L.6. ~
_.aL._
y-.-
L. _. L.
-- - ."
-~- --_..
..
~_~ _.::......;..... =------._~__~J.......-:-- .::..-~-
f"\ ft~^ "::a-~~.-____::a__I!IfLA~_~.a. A .~ ~
- _..~---_..~-.-._-.~._'-' --- ._---_._~-- -----~----'"
a a-I
.
~,.--"'-~"~;,."""'~?'--
"
""'~~
'.-....,'
-~._--:::.>:;_."'-:::~~-~~''''
....-
~",-,,,-
,,;-
r:'
L
-.- -. '!..,.~~
~)
t. '-F-
~:..
j~'
1 ,\"
..~
I >
~.~.. .~-
(I), i I
~i ~ -f
. ii ji- ~ 1-." .
:~+,.,~...~'
.d,V~_
to:"
r
.,...
r
'.
'1"7
~.
......
'". "
~--_......._-~._-
'.:
.
........
--
_..&.L...-~_ ___~_________._------
......
-- --------,,~......... .~-.......-~- ~--
r'
_.1;:.,
-,..-, .------,
-,
"
=--":"'t'_~.........~ ~J..lt
r-
-::.J...i.a~
-::_.~ -..,...--
....-
:-.:,......,~
".'----'
_.-k.l: ._........r
~.......=~-~
.'~
._ cO -:-.. _____
-
,'-lIl;;
'-L. -..;;...;.....~ _~ --=--:-" ~";::_~
.,
o
:l:
~
i
I
n
c
.
(;
3
~
n
.
.
.
~
I
n
l:
,
!
"
;;
"
I
0
.
"
~
3
.
E
"
0
i
.
8-
I
0
.
~
z
c
3
~
" ~
n
0
a J>
~ ,.
o
-n
o
~
~
G'
~
<.
~
g
l\
0 0
2-
...l) !
\ r
C'l
'"
::I
fit
~.
"f-
-~ '.-"",-'
;t,~.:::;:
~X-'
. rt~~~, '. .
.J
~~.I:
N_
-~..J
..J
-en
J;.
-
..J
:j
.z:F:
~ -
. -
'-<:~
~ UJ (J
N ..J li'
UI 0 VI
\t ~ Irs ro ..
:~
, ''0'.
-
'0
'0
C I T Y
o F
San Bernardino
DEPARTMENT 0' PLANNING AND .UILDING SERVICES
LARR Y E. REED
OIRECTOR
April 12, 1991
steven Sti.emsma
Value Ibnes
22365 Barton RJad
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
RE: Review of Plans No. 91-13
Dear Sirs:
OUr records sOOw that Review of Plans No. 91-13 was filed with
the Department of Planning and Building Services on March 27,
1991. K:::1.iever, the project !lUSt be dealed Witlmawn because
the check su1::mi.tted to the City of San Bernardino has been
returned unpaid. Arrj further action regardin:J this project
will require a resu1::mi.tted aj;plication with payment of fees
in the fonn of a cashiers check.
'!he City will process a refuOO for Check No. 2975 and this will
be mailed under separate cover.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Paul Dukes, available
in the City's Finance Department.
Sincerely, /
4_ [11'17
rI:::~ S. .
Assistant Planner
cc: Kensie and Brenda W:loton
1588 Western Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Paul Dukes
City of San Bernardino Finance Department
Sandra Paulsen
Senior Planner
DSM/das
300 NORTH 0 STREET, SAN BERNARDINO,
C A L I FOR N I A 9 2 4 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 (114. 3. 4.5011/5051
.f"
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR
REVIEW OF PLANS
q}-/?::>
OWNER: ;1L/$L' / .!h&/p? '0~
ADDRESS: /,sgg d~ .-4't/F
~ ffpJek'.;?~//c// U
TELEPHON . ~/~. fftf - 027/
APPLICANT: '~-U/e- (1H?~
ADDRESS: l$tV A/. /l/r t4~v 7
J$/ ~4.-:?/#~ U
TELEPHONE' ~/~ /,&:1-srJ'6
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: :P'~ ~ &/?74:F ~~?
GENERAL LOCATION: d-fr./ ~ ,d"6IW~Y/,.</O S'~~./ fri:W" tfI.,
f#fq~./[ ~~ ~ ;/Sl:.t/2:K/ / -1_ ~
c.P.HA:-.u~ .gr
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: /S!'~ tJ;l/-~?
ZONING DESIGNATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION GEOLOGIC I DYES HIGH FIRE
CG~~ /:~-:::? SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE: '-.
HAZARD ZONE:
FLoqD 0 YES 0 ZONE A AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES REDEVELOPMENT MYES SEWERS:
HAZARD CRASH ZONE: P ECT AREA:
ZONE:. NO OZONE B ~NO o NO
SUBMITTALS: \
~ APPLICATION (ONE COPY). \lr( PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION.
)!( SITE PLANS, FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS \1rJ CHECK FOR $215.00 MADE PAYABLE TO SAN BERNARDINO
(16 COPIES EACH, ALL FOLDED). COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (IF APPLICABLE).
ONE COLORED ELEVATION AND MATERIALS BOAR,,\ [!'( CHECKLIST SIGNED AND DATED.
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT '\J~ \J0 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION.
(WITHIN LAST 6 MONTHS). ..../
~ 8-1/2 X 11 TRANSPARENCY (SITE PLAN,
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLAN.
(NOTARIZED).
;x.SIGNATURE OF 1:2-~ / #ni7
LEGALa~o~ER (S) ~t.',v /A.~(j~
APPLICANT
:::::::::,
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
3-)df ';Ii.
~1I//9/'
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED:
ASSIGNED APPLICATION NO.:
E.R.CJ
D. R. C. MEETING
DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
~"-=~'G
PlAN.2.03 PAGE 1 OF 3 (2..gQj
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATlON
TO: CllY OF SAN BERNARDINO PlANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FROM: (NAME): .&-Ae-% /,~._~. +/
(ADDRESS):. {;!!!' ~~~
(TEL NO.): ~/' .~/~;;,;;.
RE: APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE TO NOTIFY YOU AND VERIFY THAT I/WE AMIARE THE LEGAL
OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERlY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED APPLICATION AND DO HEREBY
AUTHORIZE:
-'-
(NAME):
(ADDRESS):
(TEL NO.): 1~
TO FILE AND REPRESENT MY/OUR INTEREST IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICAIT9!'1(S).
IJWE AM/ARE THE LEGAL OWNER(S) OF SAID PROPERlY; HAVE READ THE FOREGOING LETTER
OF AUTHORIZATION AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THEROF; AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
SAME IS TRUE OF MY/OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE. IJWE CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENAL TV
OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA THAT THE INFORMATION
. CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED A~UCATI S) IS TRUE ANo.CCRRECT.
SIGNATURE(S) OF LEGAL OWNER(S)~ .3 /4- ! '7 (
JATE
a '-I7"i1
. ,
CATE
CATE
SUB~GRIBEDANDSWORNTOBEFOREMETHIS .L../t:!::. DAYOF .~ c.L
19.::LL.
/)
f2y~ ? JC'-y~
NOTARY4iuBLlC
IE11Y E. SOIIEIlH
IIOTMY I'\IUC. CMSaIIM
_lOIII' ..... CCIlfI1'I
III __ r......_ 6,1113
aT'I''1I''WI~
GUnIW..,..,...--.u
~1J,H.5.07 ~AG;; ~ OF ' (4090)
r
QTy OF SAN BERNQlDINO '"
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FOAM
~
""'-
(PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS SHALL INCLUDE ATTACHMENT 'A1
"
r
APPLICATION NOMB!R
A. GENERAL IN1'ORMA'UQl!
2.
Contact person for
environmental
(!JM",E
. Na.e
1.
Applicant/Developer .
r 'S""T~/""5~,
~ v: ~6'Y~..-4
Nfl
'{4jt4= ~.F..r
Firm
.,$0 #~WAV'
Street Address
JJw ~A#H~t:> &.
City State Zip
(~{{ ~87 - ~~?/
Te ephone Number
Telephone NUmber
Firm
Street Address
City State
ZiPt
3. Address/General Location of Project .&/Z/ <Pear ~~
e'~~
4. Assessor's Parcel NUmber(s) /3"JI'J~/-Clj
S. Description of Project &t:t? dft./X" ~",",,1'!L """',.,nr~
6.
ll...
Will any permits be reqUire~Om agencies other
the city? yes no
than
If yes, list the permits and responsible agency:
~
. REVISED 10/87
PAGE 101'5
~ s. ''''''IlCl'. ~ $." '3Z;t!
1. Site Area. t;; b ';).(). square
o
~
2.
Building Height, feet
Build~ng Area, 2t2~~ square
Parking R.quir:ed,'L spac..
Parking Provid.d: A spaces
feet, ./ ~ / acr...
3. HUllber of Ploon, '2
4.
f.et
5.
6.
If off-site parking is proposed, pl.ase explain.
7. Will project be built in phas..?
ye. L no
a. If yes, how many units/square feet per phase?
b. Total units, square feet?
c. LAmUJ~1
Subject Property: ~/~~7 I~~~~~~
. Existing,
.North (:~) /~8U,N/_
South JlAi/b&?r/~/
East &x~J7'(/~ V&c""
West rx/sn,u,c: kht:~, /~.;;}
/ - l
D. fHIjJ~~~_SITE
AR~ (,{f'M7NtJ k:! 4.~~
Pr~osed:
C~A!? ~/..,.-.c:
p~~>>/
a/v..w~/At/
~.-~~
1. Indicate any unique existing topographic features.
;t:4.,.,- .ex'/.p7Uf M;:vr,e- p.J"Q).Hr" ~~e:E ,~
2. Will the project modify existing natural features? Explain.
d
3. If applicable, estimate cubic yards of grading involved
in project:
Cut-
P11l-
4. Maximum height and grad. of natural slop.., /~~
\...
....i
REVISED 10/87
PAGE2OF5
r
5.
Maximum be~bt and grade of construc~ S.Lopes. ~E
"'IIIl'
5.
.etbode used to prevent soil
during construction. and after
t5Ib.IP ~
.
erosion in project
develop.ent.
are.
E. PLORA AJIIL. UJlN.
1.
List types of vegetation and tr... in project area.
duG"
2.
List types of wildlife found in project area.
,tb/~
P. ~ltgu.JPt.QSi.JC~LLBISTORICAL
1.
Is there any known archaeological
of the site.area or ~ithin 1/2 mile
If so, explain: &&.
-j.
or bistorical si9nlei~ance
fro. the proposed site?
G. HUMAN_J6fMUmJPnAM
1.
Will the project increase
project area? Explain.
~Stin9 noiae
levels
in the
2. Will the project use, store or dispose of potentially
hazardous materials such as~oxic substances, flammables
or explOSives? Explain ~
3.
Will tbe project increa.e
od~durin9 construction
the amounts of dust, ash, sllOke or
or after development? Explain.
II. lbW~n_AND SBRVICIt. IMPAC'l'S
1. Location of nearest Pire Station. .9r~ $'r / ~K:'
/A.1h PHI' I/h?vN/ ~
Dia.tance from project site./:l;<r AIr"
,
\..
~
PAGE 3 OF 5
REVISED 10187
o
Location of neareat police Station.
/} _ -'7IL
Di.tanc. froll project aite. ~,~ ~~
Location and nail.. of ne.reat. school.. &-d ./'f"#~ ~r V...,...,_
. :;:;::
SChool- district.. :fi ~ Jft ..../t!~
Distanc. froll project aite. ,~ -,:;r HIY~I
Location and nu. of near..t parka. h/L./I9~..#AIlI!L' .~ $r
.7 ~.r~
Distance froll proj.ct site. ~ ~/~~
Location and nu. of neareat library.
Distance froll proj.ct .it.. ~~~~
6. .~. sewer trunk 11ne. available within 200 feet of project sit.?
~ ye. ____ no If no, how far?
2.
3.
4.
s.
7.
Sewer capacity rights purchaaed? _ ye. _ no
number. ____.
.i .
:t
8. Ar~ater trunk lines available within 200 f.et of project .ite?
~ yes ____ no
I. MITIGATI9~-IEASURBS
(Attach additional sh..t. if n.c....ryl
De.cribe type and anticipated effect of any mea.ur.. propoaed to
lIitigate or elillinate pot.ntially .ignificant adver.. .nviro~ntal
impact.: ~L
.~ A~.?//-"-- At"A#~L'/~.~ ...~~- -"'f~ ~r -
REVISED 10/17
PAGE 4 OF 5
o
J. ~7.7~'BMBN'l'S
.
Ye.
No
V.
1. Geology/Soil. aeport
2. Liquefaction ~ort
3. Traffic aeport
4. Noise Analy8ia
5. Drainage Study
6. P reI iminary Grading Plan
a..----
v
v
~
.............-
K . ~jrJ~p.l'J9B
i .
I hereby certify that the statementa furnished above ihd in
the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation to the beat of my ability, and that
the facts, statements, and information pre.ented are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
( ~ V ~$.A!PYA
/'
i"- ~-~
D~ /
Foa:
~..~~~
. of I'lL!
REVISED 10/87
PAGE 5 OF 5
.
^
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT
APPLICATION #
...
,.
1. List names and addresses of all principles, including owner, operator, applicant, etc. (Add pages n
necessary).
~~r ,~//-- ;t,~~ '~/'Ja/YA-~#/'1r~~tsvfJP'
~
tf}uUBt..' .eU~/E ~ - /')~ Jt/~ .4v~( .Av~p'~w,./. ...
2. Describe the actual type of business proposed, particularly any features unique to this type of business
or operation.
~r'~~-J~ 9?'t'~J,~I'("
3. List all types of materials, all chemicals, and all equipment used inthe business, particularly hazardous
materials and equipment which might generate light, odor, noise, dust, vibration, etc.
A/f,,U.e;-
.
4. Do any ~se materials or chemicals require CalOsha Materials Safety Data Sheets? Yes '
No ~.~ If so, please identify.
....
..,j
~.=n:r~
PlAN-8.D4' PAGE 1 OF 2 (4-80)
"
5. Describe hours of operation. ~.W #/'1' - ~.W ~
7t6i'J Ai#? - /?~ 10_
CI"'7lc.e
~
6. Total anticipated number of e"",oyees .f ( f;z;w; -:? ~~e.IF
7. Totalnumberofemployeesonsheatanyonetime :2 ,~E'" 2' ~~&t
>2rr
,
8. Does the business Involve the sale of any food or beverages?
If so, please describe in detail.
~
~-~
9. Does the County require a Business Plan? Yes
NoL
10. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Planning Department to make available to applicants
the most rorrent list of "Identified Hazardous Waste Shes" from the state Office of Planning and
Research.
All applicants must sign the following statement in order to deem the application complete.
"I, .~~/ d ~~~ . certify that I have reviewed the list of
"Iclentifled Hazardous Waste Shes" from the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and have
determined he' this application~' ~n that list."
Name Date ll/-ft
Title
~..=..===
PI.AN-8,04 PAGE20F2 (4.QO)
.
~
." ,n ^
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEW OF PLANS CHECKLIST
.
~
The lollowing ftems shall be shown and labeled on the submilled plot plan. Distinguish between existing (dashed lines)
and proposed (solid lines) and show sufficient dimensions to deline all ftems. Plans should be drawn to scale by a
qualRied individual such as an Archfteel. Engineer or Ucensed Building Designer.
/-. 1. Property Hnes and cimensions.
/ 2. Buildng and slrUdUre footprints.
'v: 3.
/4.
\
05.
/6
~:
Preliminary greding and melhod of draining the sfte.
~3.
~.
.~.
Dn_ays: a) show all points of ingress and egress; b)
show oonftict points such as oIher _ays, streets or
allays wilhin 300 feet of proposed driveway (can be on a h,16.
separal8 plan); c) must show palh oIlravel aaoss
driwway. ,,-\t.I. ~"f' 1.:--.J.A"( ~4'i 41.......< 17.
Handicapped part<ing, ramps, signs and pavement , 18.
markings.
/7.
Par1<ing layout showing sizes and location of each stall,
backoUl areas and driving aisles.
Wheel CUlb and/or minimum 25 foot landscape divider.
09.
.,/20.
.~.
v4.
vA3.
y6
rye plans shall contain the lollowing information in a legend:
J~ Square footage or gross and net acnlIlge 01 property. 9.
~. Square footage of buildng or addition. 10.
!fl. Square footage 01 landscaping, existing and proposed iJJp 11.
wiIh dimensions and percent of landscaping.
/ 0'2.
V 4. Lot coverage (%).
/5. Par1<ing required, parlIing provided (covered and ~.
uncovered).
/6.
/7.
/8.
Loading zones.
Dimensions and nalure 01 all easements.
Location map (vicinity map)
Location of water/sewer mains.
,12. Ultima Right 01 Way (inlonnallon available from
Engineering Department)
-
Typa of building oonS1l'UCtion.
Automatic sprinklers in building, (yes or no).
-
Zoning disbict. C6- - 2-
Frontage streets: name, centerline, curbline, right-of-
way, improvements and utility pcles.
Location, height and composition of walls and fences.
Location of refuse enclosures wiIh wall height and type
of materials.
Outside storage area.
Location and melhod of fighting (hooding devices). 0 If
Location of fire hydrants. 0 J
Vard and spaces between buildings or beIWeen property
lines and buildings.
Setback distances: a) zoning; b) earlhquake; c) ftood
control.
Sidewalk and inl8rior walks induding ramps and curb
ramps.
Landscaping: building setbacks, par1<way and required
percent of parking lots.
Concrete header separating all paved vehicular areas
from landscaping.
Norlh arrow and scale.
Building oocupancy.
Number of employees (if known).
Square footage of seating (if applicable).
Nature of business.
Assesso(s parcel number, legal descripllon and
address.
,/14.. Name, address, and phone number of plan preparer
and applicant.
. 15. Liquefaclion Zone (Ves or No).
-
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE INCLUDED ALL OF THE IlEMS L1SlED ABOVE AND UNDERSTAND
THAT MISSING IlEMS WILL RESULT IN THE DELAY OF THE PROCESSING OF MY APPLICATION.
~
I
em' ~ aM ......-c
---
3-~~
/ DATE .
.:!~r
lfATE
PlAH-2.03 PAGE 3 OF 3 (2-90)
..u.
~ ~
_ 4. JII L
-
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
February 25, 1992
Opinion No. 92-05
-i\
TO: Mayor and Common Council
RE: Conditional Use Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 West Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Wooten
ISSUE
o
What options are available to the Mayor & Council on the
appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use
Permit [CUP] 91-28 and Variance 91-08 to construct a convenience
store with off-site sales of beer and wine?
CONCLUSION
Based upon the facts underlying this appeal, the Mayor and
Council have only the following two options permitted by law:
( 1 ) The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny CUP
91-28 and Variance 91-08: or
(2) The Mayor and Council may continue the hearing and direct
staff to process an amendment to the Development Code to revise the
distance criteria for convenience stores [Section 19.06.030(2)(F)]
and for establishments with off-site sales of alcoholic beverages
[Section 19.06.030(2)(B)].
The Mayor and Council cannot approve CUP 91-28 or Variance 91-
08 at this time because the applications are inconsistent with the
Development Code.
III
o III
CITY HALL 1
300 NORTH 'D' STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92418 3-1' - z
(714)384-5355 A..,.-.,.Al...jACl..'.,- ,
33
o
o
o
-
tb.. ~
Uti
-
o
o
To : Mayor and Co_on Council
Re : Conditional Use Perait 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 West Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Wooten
Page: 2
FACTS
(Taken from Planning Department Files and Staff Report
and discussions with Value Homes
and Planning Department staff)
The applicant requests a CUP to establish a convenience store
at 1255 West Baseline Street, which would include off-site sales of
beer and wine. The applicant also requests a Variance from
Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(F) which requires a 10,000
square foot minimum lot size for convenience stores and a Variance
from Development Code Section 19.26.040 which establishes standards
for off-street loading spaces.
The project is proposed for a 6,250 square foot site which is
located 255 feet from a community church, the Iglesia Church of God
Pentecostal, at 1207 West Baseline street. The subject property is
also located next door to an existing residence at 1247 West
Baseline street, and within 1,000 feet of four existing outlets for
off-site sales of alcoholic beverages.
On March 27, 1991, the property owners, Kenzie and Brenda
Wooten, initially submitted through their agent, Steven J. Stiemsma
of Value Homes, an application filed as Review of Plans 91-13 to
construct 2,500 square feet of retail/office space on the subject
property. [A copy of Application for Review of Plans 91-13 is
attached ~s Exhibit 1.] Although the Application Supplement states
that the business will involve the sale of pre-packaged food and
beverage as a "convenience store", this application did not request
a permit for off-site sales of alcoholic beverages. Also on March
27, 1991, Steven J. Stiemsma submitted three checks which totaled
$1,460.00 for processing fees for Review of Plans 91-13. [A copy of
Miscellaneous Cash Receipt dated March 27, 1991 is attached as
Exhibit 2.] Two of the three checks which Mr. Stiemsma presented
on March 27, 1991 were dated September 7, 1990. These two checks
referenced the "Wooten Job plan review". [A copy of the two checks
is attached as Exhibit"3.] On or about April 3, 1991, the bank
stamped these two checks "Account Closed" and returned them to the
City Treasurer's office. On April 12, 1991, pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 3.10.010, the Finance Department informed and directed
the Planning Department to discontinue processing the project due
to unpaid fees. On April 12, 1991 the Planning Department
telephoned Value Homes, advised them of the circumstances and the
fees necessary for continuing the project, and advised them that a
Historical Resources Evaluation Report was needed if they planned
to demolish a structure constructed prior to 1941. At that time,
Value Homes requested that the Planning Department deem the
HE/.../CUP91-28.opn
2
o
o
o
~
-
-
o
o
.'
To : Mayor and Co_on Council
Re : Condi~ional Use Permi~ 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 Wes~ Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Woo~en
Page: 3
application withdrawn and close the case. The Planning Department
deemed Review of Plans 91-13 withdrawn on April 12, 1991. [See
attached Exhibit 4, a copy of a letter from the Planning Department
to Steven J. Stiemsma of Value Homes dated April 12, 1991, which
shows a copy sent to Kenzie and Brenda Wooten.]
The property owners and their representative subsequently
contacted the Planning Department to determine if the application
could be revised and new fees submitted in order to develop a
proj ect for this site. The Planning Department met with the
property owners and their representative, Paul Weiler of Value
Homes, and advised them that Ordinance MC-770, effective April 12,
1991, required a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size for
convenience stores. After reviewing the site characteristics, the
Planning Department determined that the applicant needed to submit
fees and a new application for the off-site sale of beer and wine
and an application for a variance to permit construction of a
convenience store on a parcel less than 10,000 square feet in size.
On May 11, 1991 the applicant submitted CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-
08.
On May 30, 1991, the Development Review Committee met wi~h the
applicant and requested that he submit a revised site plan and a
Historical Resources Evaluation Report pursuant to Ordinance MC-694
because the project proposed to demolish a structure which was
believed to have been constructed prior to 1941. On May 30, 1991,
the Planning Department sent a letter to Value Homes with a copy
sent to Kenzie and Brenda Wooten, informing them that their
applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 were incomplete
because a Historical Resources Evaluation Report was not submitted.
[A copy of this May 30, 1991, letter is attache~ as Exhibit 5.]
Also on May 30, 1991, the Planning Department sent a letter to
Value Homes informing them that the City's new Development Code
would become effective on June 3, 1991 and that CUP 91-28 and
Variance 91-08 would be subject to the new Development Code if the
project applications were not completed by that date. [A copy of
this May 30, 1991 letter is attached as Exhibit 6.]
The Planning Department received the applicant's revised site
plan on June 18, 1991. The applicant submitted the Historical
Resources Evaluation Report to the Planning Department on August 6,
1991 [A copy of the submittal letter dated August 6, 1991 from
Value Homes is attached as Exhibit 7.] The Planning Department
deemed the applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 complete
on August 9, 1991. [A copy of the "deemed complete" letter which
was mailed to Value Homes and a copy sent to Kenzie and Brenda
Wooten is attached as Exhibit 8.]
HE/aea/CUP91-28.opn
3
o
o
o
u
o
o
To : Mayor and Common Council
Re : Condi~ional Use Perm:i~ 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 Wes~ Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Woo~en
Page: 4
On November 6, 1991, the Planning Commission held a noticed
public hearing on CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08. The applicant,
Kenzie Wooten, and Carl Dean and Peter A. Mecudante spoke in
support of the application. Three neighboring residents on Orange
Street: John Hernandez, Lupe Moranga and Jim Rodriguez opposed the
application. Norma Garcia, representing over 150 people at her
church, the Iglesia Church of God Pentecostal at 1207 W. Baseline,
also spoke in opposition to the application. The Planning
Commission voted 4-3 to deny CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08.
ANALYSIS
Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(B) prohibits businesses
which require a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
license from locating within 500 feet of any religious institution
and 100 feet of any residence, among other requirements.
Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(F) prohibits convenience
stores from locating within 1,000 feet from an existing convenience
store, among other requirements.
CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 do not comply with these
ordinances in the Development Code because the proposed site is
located next door to an existing residence, within 255 feet of an
existing church, and within 1,000 feet of four existing convenience
stores. Development Code Section 19.36.050(1) requires that the
proposed use comp1y with all applicable provisions of the
Development Code. A variance under Development Code Chapter 19.72
cannot be granted to these applications to avoid these distance
regulations because Section 19.72.030 prescribes that variances may
be granted only for specified requirements which do not include
these distance regulations.
The Development Code became effective June 3, 1991. The
applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 were deemed complete
on August 6, 1991. Thus, pursuant to Development Code Section
19.02.070 (7) , these applications cannot be approved unless they
comply with the Development Code.
A review of the evidence has shown that the City has processed
these applications in a timely manner. The applicant's failure to
complete all application requirements prior to the effective date
of the Development Code was not due to any transgressions by City
staff.
HE/Bes/CUP91-28.opn
4
o
o
o
.
o
o
"
To : Mayor and COllllllOn Council
Re : Condi~ional Use Permi~ 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 Wes~ Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Woo~en
Page: 5
Upon receipt of the applicant's checks for Review Of Plans 91-
13, the City promptly attempted to negotiate them. The City
informed the applicant within a reasonable time that the checks
were returned by the bank. Apparently the checks "bounced" because
the applicant's representative "sat" on the checks for more than
six months before presenting them to the City.
In conclusion, these applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance
91-08 cannot be granted unless the distance requirements in the
Development Code for convenience stores and ABC licensed businesses
are amended.
Respectfully submitted,
~ry~~
HENRY EMPERO, JR.,
Deputy City Attorney
Concur:
JAMES F. PENMAN
,J~
cc: W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
Council Members
Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
David C. Kennedy, City Treasurer
Shauna Clark, City Administrator
All Department Heads
HE/ses/CUP91-Z8.opn
5
-
p--a3
. ~/I{P/?L
~-c-..::~....
-'.
~
n3, .;1'1--
3/iLJ
.qr]~/r~
3-/&-92.
33
o
o
WE TRB UHDBRSXGHBD WXS. TO OBJBCT TO PBRKXT '91-28 AND ~XAHCB
'9108 DItD 16. WE DO BOT WANT ANY SALBS 01' BBBR AND WXHBII
~ /
11.Erv",---~CW;;~ p,,~y /2-clW ~"5~L~,.JC. 9T-
:::$~~j ~ ;~:;j;~O;:\~:;~
14.k~j &vw. .t~4~b. J(; /~~ /J..07 W '!&.R(br.{ 4.
15. ::rz ArJ i -:r:.~S /I ~;1J ~.~. (Co(? Ci"'eo..l'1 C,O II~/. w ell-.f~Ul1e
16. ~ "';nk ~~nw~ 'idle} &..."d'.q...e'.
17. 7J~ . II 7 4- J~,,^- ~W ..<..." L</~,~"-e-~ rI/-( f
~~W
/:23.1 tJ
20.'7f..~~. /~.3ltJ.~
21;:;t/A~ T~~/L /~ 3/ iJ OK.AAifjf: s--r
:~~/~~~.tt
DHI
4.
6.
7
f~
( \-." ~
,"
.f-
ADDRBSS
fF33
~ /11.1 /j:z....,
,
o
o
,
ZONING
tional use permit is proposed, shall be given at least ten
days before the hearing, in the following manner:
I. The notice shall be published at least once in a news-
paper of general circulation published and circulated
in the City.
2. The notice shall be mailed or delivered to all persons,
including businesses. corporations, or other public
or private entities shown on the last equalized assess-
ment roll as owning real property within five hundred
feet of the property which is the subject of the pro-
posed conditional use permit.
C. -Provided there is compliance with Items I and 2 of Section
19.78.040B. failure of any person to receive the notice
required by this section shall not invalidate any action
taken.
(Ord. MC-134, 1982: Ord. 3768 ~ ~ 6 and 7, 1978; Ord.
1991 ~ 28.4. 1953.)
19.78.050 Required findings.
All conditional use permits may be granted by the Mayor
and Common Council or Planning Commission after the re-
quired public hearings. Before the Mayor and Common Council
or Planning Commission may grant any request for a condi-
tional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the
evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
I. The proposed use conforms to the objectives of the City's
General Plan Elements:
_ 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoin-
ing land uses and the growth and development of the area
in which it is proposed to be located:
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use
in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and general welfare:
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area, and
that adeq uate parking is provided:
_ 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
(San Bernardino 4-89)
1224
#'33
.
o
o
\
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of San Bernardino.
6. In the granting of any Conditional Use Pennit for either on-sale or
off-sale of alcoholic beverages, the following findings must also
be made:
A. The introduction of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed 7
location will not pose any known significant impacts to the
surrounding land uses.
B. The introduction of alcoholic beverages sales the proposed
location will not create an adverse impact on the surrounding
traffic pattern nor will a parking congestion be generated.
C. The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages will be within a
development which is consistent with the objectives of the
elements of the City's General Plan.
D. The proposed use will not contribute to an undue concentra- }
tion of alcohol outlets in the area:
E. There will be no detrimental effect on nearby residentially \
zoned neighborhoods considering the distance of alcohol J
outlet to residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals,
playgrounds, parks, or other existing alcohol outlets.
(Ord. MC-62I, 3-7-88; Ord. MC-134, 1982; Ord. 1991 ~ 28.5,1953.)
19.78.060 Conditions of approval.
The Commission shall set forth such conditions as it deems
necessary and reasonable to protect the best interest of the
surrounding property or neighborhood, and the General Plan or
the intent thereof. (Ord. MC-134, 1982; Ord. 1991 ~ 28.6,
1953.)
,
,
19.78.070 Decision by the Commission - Appeal.
The decision of the Commission shall be final unless an
appeal is taken to the Common Council in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 2.64. (Ord. MC-4lO, 9-17-84; Ord.
MC-134, 1982; Ord. 1991 ~ 28.7, 1953.)
19.78.080 Temporary use.
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,
the Planning Commission may grant immediate permission
with conditions for the temporary use of vacant land, not
to exceed ninety days, for religious purposes and for
assembly group meetings, public gatherings or related
purposes in C-I, C-2, C-3, C-3A, C-4, CoM, M-I and M-2
districts and for City sponsored events in any zoning
1224-1
(San Bernardino 4-ll9)
o
o
\
VARIANCES, ADJUST., APPEALS AND CONDIT. TO USE
19.74.060 Conditions.
19.74.070 Notice of decision.
19.74.080 (Repealed by MC.220.)
19.74.090 Variances granted without public hearing.
19.74.100 Mandatory variance conditions.
19.74.110 Revocation of variances.
19.74.120 Modification of variances.
19. 74.130 Variances null and void when.
19.74.140 Decilion - Appeal.
19.74.010 Purpose and principle.
A. When practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or
results inconsistent with the general intent and purpose
of this title occur by reason of the strict interpretation of
any of its provisions, the Commission, upon its own
motion, may, or upon the verified application of any
interested person shall, initiate proceedings for considera-
tion of the granting of a variance from the provisions of
this title under such conditions as may be deemed neces-
sary to assure that the intent and purpose of the ordi-
nance and the master plans upon which it is based will be
observed and that the health, safety and public welfare
be secured and that substantial justice be done, not only
to the applicant, but to the persons other than the
applicant, who might be affected by the variance.
B. A variance shall not be construed as an amendment to
this title or cause the maps which are part of this title
to be changed.
(Old. 1991 ~ 26.1, 1953.)
19.74.020 Conditions prior to issuance of variance.
The Commission, before it may grant a variance, must
make a finding in writing that in the evidence presented, all
of the following conditions exist in reference to the property
being considered:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property involved,
or to the intended use of the property, which do not
apply generally to other property in the same zoning
district and neighborhood;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and
1213
(San Bernardino 3-83)
.
o
o
l
ZONING
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant;
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property
and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood
in which the property is located;
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary
to the objectives of the master plan.
(Ord. 2312 (part), 1960;Ord.1991 ~ 26.2,1953.)
,
,
19.74.030 Application - Fee - Investigation.
A. An application for a variance shall be submitted to the
commission on fonns provided for this purpose, setting
forth in detail such infonnation relating to the conditions
specified in Section 19.74.020 as may be required by the
commission. The application shall be accompanied by:
I. Three copies of a map showing the surrounding zoning,
land uses, and property ownership within five hundred
feet of the property which is the subject of the
proposed variance. Property ownership shall be as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll.
2. Four sets of mailing labels setting forth the names,
addresses, and zip codes of all persons, including
businesses, corporations, or other public or private
entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll
as owning real property within five hundred feet of the
property which is the subject of the proposed variance.
B. An application for a variance shall be a<:companied by a fee
established by resolution of the mayor and common council
to defray costs incidental to the proceedings.
C. The commission shall investigate the facts bearing on each
case to provide infonnation necessary to assure action
consistent with the intent and purpose of this title.
(Ord. 3839 ~ 4,1979; Ord. 3768 ~ 1,1978; Ord. 3100, 1970;
Ord. 1991 ~ 26.3, 1953.)
19.74.040 Public hearing.
A. Upon receipt of an application for a variance, the commis-
sion shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon
not less than fifteen days nor more than forty days there-
after. Notice of time and place of the hearing, including
1214
,
.
--
CifV OF SAN BERNftRDINO - REQUEST tOR COUNCIL ACTION
Appeal of Planning Commission
Fr- Al Boughey, Director Subject: denial of Conditional Use Permit No.
91-28 and Variance No. 91-08
De.... Planning & Building Services
14ayor and Common Council Meeting
Date: February 15, 1992 March 2, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
February 3, 1992- Mayor and Common Council continued to a date certain in order
to renotice.
January 21, 1992 - Mayor and Common Council continued appeal, and directed City
Attorney to return with a written legal opinion listing options available to
Council.
December 16, 1991 - Mayor and Common Council continued appeal, and directed staff
to prepare alternatives, and return in 30 days with recommendations.
November 6, 1991 - Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and
Variance No. 91-08.
Recommended motion:
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny
r 'itional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-0 e based on the Findings
L act contained in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
November 6, 1991.
~4
- '~re
Al Bough ~
Co Al Boughey
ntact person:
. Staff Report
Supporting data attached:
384-5357
Phone:
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
( il Notes:
~/ .:1_ "_4_
!!J-3
Aaenda Item NO.
CITY OF SAN BER,.a.DINO - REQUEST .QR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Planninq commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-28, and Variance No. 91-08,
requestinq approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site
consumption and a variance from Development
Code Section 19.06.030 permittinq a convenience
store to be constructed on less than the minimum
lot size, and a variance from Code Section
19.26 to permit a reduction in loadinq space
requirements.
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of March 2, 1992
REOUEST
The owners, Mr. and Mrs Kensie Wooten, are appealinq the denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance 91-08 by the
Planninq Commission. Under the authority of Development Code
Section 19.06.020 the applicant, Value Homes, is requestinq to
construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office 'retail space includinq a
convenience store with off-site sales of beer , wine.
Concurrently, under the authority of Section 19.72.030, the
owner requests a variance from Code Section 19.06.030 requirinq
convenience stores to be constructed on 10,000 sq.ft., and a
variance from the Code section 19.26 which established
standards of 15 ft. in width and 50 ft. in lenqth for commercial
loadinq space. The project proposes a loadinq space of 10 ft. in
width and 15 ft. in lenqth.
The subject property consists of a 6,250 sq. ft., rectanqular
shaped parcel, located on the south side of Baseline Street,
between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Garner Street, also described as
1255 West Baseline. The land use desiqnation of the site is CG-2,
Commercial General, General Plan land use.
BACKGROUND
At the meetinq of the Mayor and Common Council on January 21,
1992, the appeal was continued until such time as the City
Attorney could return with a written leqal opinion listinq the
options available to the council. The Mayor and Common Council
continued this item to March 2, 1992 (Attachment A).
See the attachments for a more complete discussion of the previous
Planninq Commission and Mayor and Common Council actions.
Conditional Use per~t No. 9l-28/Variance No. ~-08
Mayor and Common C~cil Meeting, March 2, 19~
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal
and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No 91-08
based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated November 6, 1991;
AND
Staff recommends that the distance standards for convenience
stores not be amended and the variance section not be amended to
include reductions to the distance requirements for convenience
stores.
Prepared by:
Denise S. Moonier
Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP
Director of Planning and Building Services
1 - Legal Opinion, City Attorney's Office
2 - Mayor and Common Council Staff
Report dated January 9,1992,
Att. A - Convenience store matrix
3 - Mayor and Common council Staff
Report dated December 5, 1991
Exhibit A - Letter of Appeal
B - Statement of Planning
Commission Action
C - Official Notice of Public
Hearing
D - NOVember 6, 1991 Planning
commission minutes
E - Staff Report to Planning
commission dated
November 6, 1991
Attachment:
>
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
February 25, 1992
Opinion No. 92-05
TO: Mayor and Common Council
RE: Conditional Use Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 West Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Wooten
ISSUE
What options are available to the Mayor & Council on the
appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use
Permit [CUP] 91-28 and Variance 91-08 to construct a convenience
store with off-site sales of beer and wine?
CONCLUSION
Based upon the facts underlying this appeal, the Mayor and
Council have only the following two options permitted by law:
(1) The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny CUP
91-28 and Variance 91-08; or
( 2 ) The Mayor and Council may continue the hearing and direct
staff to process an amendment to the Development Code to revise the
distance criteria for convenience stores [Section 19.06.030(2)(F)]
and for establishments with off-site sales of alcoholic beverages .
[Section 19.06.030(2)(B)].
The Mayor and Council cannot approve CUP 91-28 or Variance 91-
08 at this time because the applications are inconsistent with the
Development Code.
III
III
CITY HALL
300 NORTH '0' STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418
(714) 384-5355 . ~_. ..... _ ._
~L
o
o
To : Mayor and Common Council
Re : Conditional Use permit 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 West Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Wooten
Page: 2
FACTS
(Taken from Planning Department Files and Staff Report
and discussions with Value Homes
and Planning Department staff)
The applicant requests a CUP to establish a convenience store
at 1255 West Baseline Street, which would include off-site sales of
beer and wine. The applicant also requests a Variance from
Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(F) which requires a 10,000
square foot minimum lot size for convenience stores and a Variance
from Development Code Section 19.26.040 which establishes standards
for off-street loading spaces.
The project is proposed for a 6,250 square foot site which is
located 255 feet from a community church, the Iglesia Church of God
Pentecostal, at 1207 West Baseline Street. The subject property is
also located next door to an existing residence at 1247 West
Baseline Street, and within 1,000 feet of four existing outlets for
off-site sales of alcoholic beverages.
On March 27, 1991, the property owners, Kenzie and Brenda
Wooten, initially submitted through their agent, Steven J. Stiemsma
of Value Homes, an application filed as Review of Plans 91-13 to
construct 2,500 square feet of retail/office space on the subject
property. [A copy of Application for Review of Plans 91-13 is
attached ~s Exhibit 1.] Although the Application Supplement states
that the business will involve the sale of pre-packaged food and
beverage as a "convenience store", this application did not request
a permit for off-site sales of alcoholic beverages. Also on March
27, 1991, Steven J. Stiemsma submitted three checks which totaled
$1,460.00 for processing fees for Review of Plans 91-13. [A copy of
Miscellaneous Cash Receipt dated March 27, 1991 is attached as
Exhibit 2.] Two of the three checks which Mr. Stiemsma presented
on March 27, 1991 were dated September 7, 1990. These two checks
referenced the "Wooten Job plan review". [A copy of the two checks
is attached as Exhibit"3.] On or about April 3, 1991, the bank
stamped these two checks "Account Closed" and returned them to the
City Treasurer's office. On April 12, 1991, pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 3.10.010, the Finance Department informed and directed
the Planning Department to discontinue processing the project due
to unpaid fees. on April 12, 1991 the Planning Department
telephoned Value Homes, advised them of the circumstances and the
fees necessary for continuing the project, and advised them that a
Historical Resources Evaluation Report was needed if they planned
to demolish a structure constructed prior to 1941. At that time,
Value Homes requested that the Planning Department deem the
HE/.../CUP91-28.opn
2
.
o
o
To : Mayor and Common Council
Re : Condi~ional Use Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 Wes~ Baaeline. Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Woo~en
Page: 3
application withdrawn and close the case. The Planning Department
deemed Review of Plans 91-13 withdrawn on April 12, 1991. [See
attached Exhibit 4, a copy of a letter from the Planning Department
to Steven J. Stiemsma of Value Homes dated April 12, 1991, which
shows a copy sent to Kenzie and Brenda Wooten.]
The property owners and their representative subsequently
contacted the Planning Department to determine if the application
could be revised and new fees submitted in order to develop a
project for this site. The Planning Department met with the
property owners and their representative, Paul Weiler of Value
Homes, and advised them that Ordinance MC-770, effective April 12,
1991, required a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size for
convenience stores. After reviewing the site characteristics, the
Planning Department determined that the applicant needed to submit
fees and a new application for the off-site sale of beer and wine
and an application for a variance to permit construction of a
convenience store on a parcel less than 10,000 square feet in size.
On May 11, 1991 the applicant submitted CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-
08.
On May 30, 1991, the Development Review Committee met with the
applicant and requested that he submit a revised site plan and a
Historical Resources Evaluation Report pursuant to Ordinance MC-694
because the project proposed to demolish a structure which was
believed to have been constructed prior to 1941. On May 30, 1991,
the Planning Department sent a letter to Value Homes with a copy
sent to Kenzie and Brenda Wooten, informing them that their
applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 were incomplete
because a Historical Resources Evaluation Report was not submitted.
[A copy of this May 30, 1991, letter is attached as Exhibit 5.]
Also on May 30, 1991, the Planning Department sent a letter to
Value Homes informing them that the City's new Development Code
would become effective on June 3, 1991 and that CUP 91-28 and
Variance 91-08 would be subject to the new Development Code if the
project applications were not completed by that date. [A copy of
this May 30, 1991 letter is attached as Exhibit 6.]
The Planning Department received the applicant's revised site
plan on June 18, 1991. The applicant submitted the Historical
Resources Evaluation Report to the Planning Department on August 6,
1991 [A copy of the submittal letter dated August 6, 1991 from
Value Homes is attached as Exhibit 7.] The Planning Department
deemed the applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 complete
on August 9, 1991. [A copy of the "deemed complete" letter which
was mailed to Value Homes and a copy sent to Kenzie and Brenda
Wooten is attached as Exhibit 8.]
HE/.../CUP91-28.opn
3
lIQ
o
o
To : Mayor and CODDOn Council
Re : Condi~ional Use Perai~ 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 Wes~ Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Woo~en
page: 4
On November 6, 1991, the Planning Commission held a noticed
public hearing on CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08. The applicant,
Kenzie Wooten, and Carl Dean and Peter A. Mecudante spoke in
support of the application. Three neighboring residents on Orange
Street: John Hernandez, Lupe Moranga and Jim Rodriguez opposed the
application. Norma Garcia, representing over 150 people at her
church, the Iglesia Church of God Pentecostal at 1207 W. Baseline,
also spoke in opposition to the application. The Planning
Commission voted 4-3 to deny CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08.
ANALYSJ:S
Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(B) prohibits businesses
which require a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
license from locating within 500 feet of any religious institution
and 100 feet of any residence, among other requirements.
Development Code Section 19.06.030(2)(F) prohibits convenience
stores from locating wi thin 1,000 feet from an existing convenience
store, among other requirements.
CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 do not comply with these
ordinances in the Development COde because the proposed site is
located next door to an existing residence, within 255 feet of an
existing church, and wi thin 1,000 feet of four existing convenience
stores. Development Code Section 19.36.050(1) requires that the
proposed use comply with all applicable proviSions of the
Development COde. A variance under Development COde Chapter 19.72
cannot be granted to these applications to avoid these distance
regulations because Section 19.72.030 prescribes that variances may
be granted only for specified requirements which do not include
these distance regulations.
The Development Code became effective June 3, 1991. The
applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance 91-08 were deemed complete
on August 6, 1991. Thus, pursuant to Development Code Section
19.02.070(7), these applications cannot be approved unless they
comply with the Development Code.
A review of the evidence has shown that the City has processed
these applications in a timely manner. The applicant's failure to
complete all application requirements prior to the effective date
of the Development Code was not due to any transgressions by City
staff.
HEf...fCUP91-28.opa
4
o
o
To : Mayor and C~n Council
Re : Condi~ional Use Permi~ 91-28 and Variance 91-08
for 1255 Wes~ Baseline, Mr. & Mrs. Kenzie Woo~en
Page: 5
Upon receipt of the applicant's checks for Review Of Plans 91-
13, the City promptly attempted to negotiate them. The City
informed the applicant within a reasonable time that the checks
were returned by the bank. Apparently the checks "bounced" because
the applicant's representative "sat" on the checks for more than
six months before presenting them to the City.
In conclusion, these applications for CUP 91-28 and Variance
91-08 cannot be granted unless the distance requirements in the
Development Code for convenience stores and ABC licensed businesses
are amended.
Respectfully submitted,
~y~
HENRY EMPERO, JR.,
Deputy City Attorney
Concur:
JAMES F. PENMAN
:,
" J
...-;'-? 1. ~.,.:, .,..J",..
ty Attorney
cc: W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
Council Members
Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
David C. Kennedy, City Treasurer
Shauna Clark, City Administrator
All Department Heads
HE/e.e/CUP91-Z0.opn
5
CITY OF SAN BERNARD
PLANNING AND BUILDING SE CES DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR
REVIEW OF PLANS
OWNER' ~". . .. ....'
. . It wfJ':; .; ../:.(.-( .. '. p.'...,.
ADDRESS: /c:~..:!. .//_~,..,,~~.. -1'...
-'--::,.' ~ ~ V~.'" /-/"..~.
?
. I:' / /7. . A'A" ",
~~ ~N''''''';~''-'c.', .'!
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: :!:-:z-C'
.~
?y
q J .-1 ?:::>
,
APPLICANT:' ,'44;;; ,11"'~->;
ADDRESS: I~ p d j':7" i/;'~;/ ..
.~ ,C;.~4r~/"v..-: (..4
TELEPHONE/1/t" ) .~S -..Z::.,."'C
.. ~~ A"'~~~
, / ,,:-,-
,/0(',~../ './..nj ,. ...,.~;.;t4--:~~"-vO s.~'~/ "'"" .
,- . . . -/..... ..:t:1!O" ('9".&"
.J/&A7-<i.[ ,;~,,,,-,~,,;,;,,- ~r I~.</"" /' .....-? "
c.?'....".-t......~ ,-
..j/-
GENERAL LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: /:/7- '::,-:'1 --'/,
, ' - ~
( ZONING DESIGNATION ) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION GEOLOGIC' o YES HIGH FIRE ::ves
/'.," ,''''' SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE:
/:y-~ ,I' /-/~. .... HAZARD ZONE: NO NO
AIRPORT NOISE! = YES REDEVELOPMENT ~YES (SEWERS: ~YE~
CRASH ZONE: P ECT AREA:
:goNO ." - NO
- NO
SUBMITTALS:
;-~ APPUCATlON (ONE COPY). . r PREUMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION.
, ,
IS' SITE PLANS. FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS IJ lie CHECK FOR 5215.00 MADE PAYABLE TO SAN BERNARDINO
\ (16 COPIES EACH. ALL FOLDED). \ COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (IF APPLICABLE).
'9! ONE COLORED ELEVATION AND MATERIALS BOARD:,. .[!( CHECKUST SIGNED AND DATED.
. \
.. PREUMINARY TITLE REPORT \Jv1 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION.
(WITHIN LAST 6 MONTHS). '" rV
\.J'-- 8-112 X 11 TRANSPARENCY (SITE PLAN.
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLAN.
(NOTARIZED).
-....: SIGNATURE OF
LEGAL OWNER (5)
Md/Or
APPLICANT
~h~1
. .... .
DATE APPUCATlON RECEIVED:
\SSIGNED APPUCA TlON NO.:
D~TE APPUCATlON ACCEPTED:
r;;..::.:..lI.~
- --.,
.:::'/'-11 ., I
.- IV / "'j I
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
E.R.C.I
D. R. C. MEETING
- APPROVED
- DENIED
PLAN.2.03 pAGE 1 OF 3 12_
BI8IT ,.. ~ 1..
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
TO: CrTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FROM: (NAME): /c;;..A~~ / .&-U9- +..../
::::): ;;!*~~~~
RE: APPLICATION NUMBER(S):
THIS LETTER SHAlL SERVE TO NOTIFY YOU AND VERIFY THAT IIWE AMlARE THE LEGAl.
OWNER(SI OF THE PROPE.~TY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED AP!'UCATlON AND DO HE;;SY
AUTHORIZE:
(NAME):
(ADDRESS):
(TEl.. NO.): 1</
,0 FILE AND RE.:lRESENT MY/CUR INTE;;EST IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED AP!'UCAITC!'l(S).
I/WE AM/ARE THE LEGAL OWNE.~(S) OF SAID PRCpeRTY: HAVE REAC THE FOREGOING L:, I cR
OF AUTHORIZATION AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THEROF; AND DO HERSY CeRTIFY THAT THE
SAME IS TRUE OF MY/OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE.IIWE ':-~RTlFY (OR DEC:..ARE) UNDER PE.>.4ALTY
OF Pe.:WURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE C.- ':AUFORNIA THAT THE INFORMATICN
CONTAINED IN THE ABCVE REFERE.>.4CEO ~P1'UC%~)IS ,UE AND C;RREcr, .
SIGNATURE'S) OF LEGAL OWNER(S):~Y~(':7 ~." ,;;.' /.. ' .~. f
A" - Q-
~ / '--"/' II.. I . A'~I
':':. 111 .1f// '-:;'n f~'.tJt. -; . ~ 'i I
~. . ~A-
" ,~
OAiE
SUBS9RIBED AND SWORN TO BE.=ORE ME THIS 4.j c!::: . DAY OF - /1 ~ ~ c (,-,
19L.
"1
:?' C
..;/,-- /
'L'" .(...(.~ ~.
~T AFiY<P'JSWC
.'
!cLn<J-{__
J
om SEAL
IEm L SCIIMEIZU
. IlOTMI' PI&IC . CoILf_
.. D<l- ---r. CCUtTY
",___AIII.1.11U
-....-----
---
=......,..!.:7 =&Gi ::::. ...
r CTY OF SAN BERNOIDINO ""
PLANNING OEP ARTMENT
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
\.. ~
r lPUeLIC WORKS PROJECTS SHALL INCLUDE ATTACHMENT 'A1 ""'liI
A. GENERAL lNPORMAllill APPLICATION NUMB!R
1. Applicant/Developer . 2. Contact pe non for
s-r~II'^":.""-"'"'J . environmental
~ J ..t;?~.P'1'''''' (~L
NTl Nalle
'{4,L~ ~F..r
Firm Firm
/!J::D .Nf hT W,41U'
Street Addu.. Stuet Adduss
c..k ~A#J7/~P &.
City State Zip City State Zi~t
(~ff ~6? - t:P~?/ Telephone NUmber
Te ephone Number
3. Address/General Location of Project ~ tb~4~~
e' ~ ~
4. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) .'31~ I'J?/ - tJt/
s. Description of Project ~~ cr.r7. ~p:r.-L .o~~~
6. Will any permits be reqUi~oll agencies other than
the city? yes no
If yes, list the permits and responsible agency.
.... ~
REVISED 10/17
PMZ 101'5
L
I.!
o
f..t, ,( 5" I acr...
3. RUIIb.r of 'loor.. '2
~
r
B. PROJr:C1. SU~ Sb 7<)32..41
1. sit. An.. '7 b~.? square
2.
Building B.ight. f..t
BUilding Ar... r 2f'e,o square
parking R.quir.ds'..A.... sp.c..
d
Parking Provid.d: (?
4.
fe.t
5.
6.
sp.c.s
If off-.ite p.rking is propo..d, pl.... explains
7. Will project b. built in ph....?
y.. V no
a. If y.., how many unit./squ.r. f..t p.r ph...?
b. Tot.l unit., square feet?
C. ~_l1~i
-
Subject Prop.rty: ~/f7~f
.at("-'b#V~E .tfG7~ tl/"M7 JIM' ~ 4),~ ~4ii
I
North
South
Existing:
('i~) ~8UN/_
j;J.Ai'/~~/~/
pr,o..d.
CMmF~/""'';:::::
East
~4/7,(,/5
J1I!A:X" .
v~<"h~.()
<..
~~~-119/
aAv"~/Ar/
"
~fM"'" .. ~ M4.,~
W.st
rosn.u;
,
D. E~J'~~_SIT!
1. Indicat. any unique .xisting topographic f.atures.
:1:.0/ .EY/~T7Uf M::v.rr v,f./fD Rt'" ,!~~E 'rr--"''-
2. Will the project modify existing natural f.atures? Expl.in.
Iv6
3. If .pplicabl., estimate cubic y.rd. of grading involv.d
in proj.ct:
Cut-
Pill-
4. M.ximum h.ight and gr.d. of n.tural slop.s. /~;r-
\..
..J
REVISED 10117
PACEZ0f'5
5. MAzilllulII 09ht and grade of connru~ uope.. 4.tr
5.
Metbod. u.ed to prevent .oil
during con.truction and after
5AI,/,f? ~
erosion in
developlllent.
project area
E. FLORA A~ l6lm6
1. List type. of vegetation and tr... in project area. ~~
2.
List typ.. of wildlife found in project ar.a.
-<.60:-
F. ~ltgy.j:PIoQSU'~LLBIS'1'ORICAL
:; .
1. Is th.re any known archa.ological or hi.toric.l .ignit1~anc.
of the site ar.. or~ithin 1/2 lIIile from the propo.ed .it.?
If so, explain: _
G. HUMAN_J6mumlllm
1.
Will the project incr....
proj.ct area? Explain.
~.ting noi.. lev.l.
in the
2. Will the project u.., store or di.po.. of pot.ntially
hazardous ~.t.rial. .uch a. ~oxic sub.tanc.., fl....bl..
or explo.iv..? Expl.in ~
3. Will the proj.ct incr.... the amount. of du.t, ..h, .lIIOk. or
odor during con.truction or .fter d.v.loplllent? Expl.in.
B. 16Wln_AHD S!RVICLIMPAC'l'S
1.
Loc.tion of n..n.t Pin St.tion. .97"J1 Sr / ~
/h:1h F-Nr "1'#/ ~~
Di.tanc. frolll project sit../",; ~ ... .
REVISED 10117
PAGE 3 Of' 5
2.
Loc.tion~ n..r..t Polic. St.tion.
~ _ ~/L
Di.tanc. tro. proj.ct .it.. ~ ~~ ~~
Loc.tion .nd n.... ot n..r..t. scbool.. ~ /~~ ~_ bL_ ,_
scbool cUnrict. -fi ~ Jf' AiI'/~~ ~falC.
Dist.nc. fro. project site. ,# -}1 /tW~E
4. Loc.tion .nd n... of n..nn park.. h//.~..I.((C>,l/AIIlL ~ sr
/~ ., ....r~
Di.tanc. tro. proj.ct .it.. ~.~ ~/~
5. Loc.tion .nd n... ot n..r..t library.
Di.t.nc. tro. proj.ct .it.. ~~~~
3.
6. . ~. sewer trunk 11n.. avail.bl. witbin 200 fe.t of proj.ct .ite?
~ y.. ____ no It no, how t.r?
7.
S.wer c.p.city rights purch...d? _ ye. _ no
numb.r. _"
i .
:t
8. Art/W.ter trunk line. av.ilabl. witbin 200 t..t of project .ite?
~ yes ____ no
I. MITIGATIP,-!EASURIS
(Att.ch .ddition.l sh..t. if nec....ryl
D..crib.
mitig.t.
imp.ct..
type and anticip.t.d .ff.ct of any m...ur.. propo..d to
or .li.in.te pot.nti.lly .ignitic.nt .dv.r.. .nviro~ntal
AJ, ~/_,.-- HAA"~.,.//,.,~ ...~~ -Mtf.r- ~Alr -
REVISED 10117
PAClI . OF 5
J. An~'RM!N'l'S 0
0
Ye. No
V.
V-
V-
a...--
~
V-
1. Geology/SOil. Report
2. Liquefaction R_port
3. Traffic Report
4. Noise Analy.is
5. Drainage Study
6. Prel1l11inar.y Grading Plan
I. ~1[J~1-119!f
i .
. .
I hereby certify that the statelllent. furnished above and in
the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation to the be.t of lilY ability, and that
the facts, statelllents, and information pre.ented are true and
correct to the best of lilY knowledge and belief.
~-<?-~
Dut /
FOR:
.~.~, ~~~
ITU
.- REVISED 10117
PAQE 5 0' 5
CITY OF SAN BERN fNO PLANNING AND BUILDING ERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT
APPLICATION #
r'
""I
, . List names and addresses of all principles. including owner. operator, applicant. etc. (Add pages ~
necessary) .
,~I'~r' .~//-- ~L'f./~ .~~A -/.Jf!:l?;(/'~~~"" .~,
P}vuerr.' f'K./7/f~.A./ - /<)~t1 Jt,/~/4v~( .itv.a.-t;.~
~
2. Describe the actual type of business proposed. particularly any features unique to this type of business
or operation.
~V'--:~-..r/ 1?/~~~/~
3. List all types of materials. all chemicals. and all equipment used In the business. particularly hazardous
materials and equipment which might generate light. odor. noise. dust. vibration. etc.
~,(/-e;-
4. Do any OHfu,se materials or chemicals require CalOsha Materials Safety Data Sheets? Yes ..
No 'lL.-. If so. please identify. . .
l..
Pl.AHoI.O& PAGE 'OF2 14CI
~~.4 Cll
,.....
'-'
5. Describe hours of operation. ~:tl7 HH _ ~.tZI ~
7:0-; .;II-#?, /fl''a:J ..,;_
,
CF&:Cc
,
~
6. Total anticipated nuniler of e~loyees
~ fJOr:;
-:? ~,":J:?u
7. Total number of employees on stte at anyone time
:2
""", r
l
?' ~7"c~-
8. Does the business involve the sale of any food or beverages?
If so. please describe in detail.
/'
fu
I
~ - ,p,U
9. Does the County require a Business Plan? Yes
No.L
10. Govemment Code Section 65962.5 requires the Planning [)epanmem to make available to applicanls
the most aJrrem list of .Idem~ied Hazardous Wast. Sh.s. from the Slat. Office of Planning and
Research.
All applicams must sign the following statemem in order to deem the application complete.
.1, t;/2v~/ d ft7~iAW? . eenily that I have reviewed the list of
.ldem~ied Hazardous Waste Sites. from the state Office of P1aMing and Research (OPR) and have
determined e' this application~ ~n that list."
Name I Date l//;?'D
Title
r...:....~ j
PL,AHoI.D& PAGE20F Z 1._
CITY OF SAN BERNAR NO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEW OF PLANS CHECKLIST
Tha following ~ams slid be shown and labeled on the submilled plot plan. Distinguish between eXisting (dashed linas)
and .ProPOsed (solid Ilnas) and show sufficient dimens,ons to dafine aU,tems. Plans should be orawn to scale by a
qualdiec:t ,ndlVidual such as an Archnect. Eng,neer or Licensed Building Designar.
/- 1. Propeny ~nel and dimenllOnl.
/' 2. Building and SlNCIU.. foolPrinll.
,,/3.
. ..
05
/6
~.
Pmminsry grading and melhod of dno,n",g IIIe s'ta.
~3
~.
.~.
DriWWIIYa: a) _ all poinll ot ing.... and Igre..: 0)
s_ oonllict poinls such .. _r _ys. strWlI or
alleys _in 300 "'t of p~ _y (Cln 01 on a h16.
__ pIen): c) must _ po" of _'"cro..
_yo H"'" Z,.<1' t..-..a'1 aw.s..A'j 4J,ft.. 17.
. 7.
Ha~ped perking. nomPI. signs and _men,
marlungl.
PutUng layout -..g sizes and locolion ot Ilch slll'l.
1lacIIoUl.....nd dmnng ._.
_ ClI'll and/or minimum 25 fOOl landscape diVIder.
loading zones.
orna-s and na.... of .. _II.
~10. Location map (vicin~ map)
". Location of __ mains.
. 12. U_ Righi of Way (intonnalion a_ from
Engineering ~tl
-
.18.
0'9
...;20
.01.
v'.
~3.
~
Ja plans shall conlain tha following information in a lagend:
~. / Squarw tootage or gross and net SCI88g8 of propeny. 9.
0. Squarw fDoIllge of builcing or addition. 10.
o
/.. Lol-ae(%).
v"5
./6
/7
/8.
Squarw fooIllge of lands .4. 'lI. alisting _ p1cp c..d
_ dimenSlonl and pon:enI of Ian ds: IIIl ng.
PutUng ___. IIIIIdnll pro; J ~ (ClMI8d and
uncoVllnSd).
Typo of building -..clion.
AutomdC ~ in builcing. (yel or no).
-
20ning dislicl. c.er - 2...
/.lIP 11.
02.
~.
Frontage StrHts: name, center1ine. QJrbline. nght~f.
way. Improvemenm and ublny potes.
Locooon. height and compolmon 01 w.lls and Ionoes.
Locollon of refull oncIOIUI8S with wall hltgh' and IypO
of material..
Oullido ItonIge .....
Locolion and me"od of ighllng (hooding deVlcel). 0 v'
Location of lire hyOnInll. 0 J
Vend and IPOCOI -... buildings or 01_ propeny
hnes .nd bulldingl.
Sa_ dillll....l: .) zoning: 0) I~: c) ftood
control.
Si_k and in_ walks including nomps and curb
nompl.
LandsClping: building _. porkway and __
_t of pork'"g 1oIs.
Concrete he.der seoaraling a8 p.VIId vehicular .....
lnlm Iandscag'ng.
No'" arrow and seato.
Building occupancy.
Nu_ of employees (it known).
Squa.. fooIllge of lOlling (~.pp"ClDle).
N..... of OUSineSI.
AI_sofl parcat numOlr. legal delcnpbOn .nd
_51.
,Ii... 1Wno. eddI8II. and phone numoer of plan p_
.nd applicant.
. 15. Liquo....on Zonl (VIS or No).
-
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE INCLUDEO ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE AND UNDERSTAND
THAT MISSING ITEMS WILL RESULT IN THE OELA Y OF THE PROCESSING OF MY APPLICATION.
../ ~. L/:&_/~
3-2/-1'/ ~ ~
'OAl_ ' 1UAI'_~'
&"...:t~~'T If
-.f~~
6l1O
PLAt+U3 PIGE'OF:I 12_
t-
L"
-
ca
,.
.
~
&
...
~
-
W
C.)
w
a:
o :
z rn
2i c
a: C.)
< rn
z :)
ffi 0 v
era W cl
z Z '"
< c .,
en .... ,J..
II. ....
o W
C.)
> en
.... -
~ 2
.0
i
i
I
".\ I ~ \ : ~\
,,~i ..) i 111.
_'i: 1'"'"' .~.
~ ~I
-~
,'",
\-
-
J;
I
I I
. "
_, tD:- I
- , , _,- I
Z -I :.. fl'l
r- II I -,
I ~ ~ ~~I
II'" f"'(
,.,
j'
-1
-::1"
- I
I
~i
~~
= -,
- 'wi
,
-
~\::.~ \
""l' ~ I
15\ ~ ~
-
~I
~;;\:
~ i I . crl
~i . ~1 ~! g ~
~~\] Vl1
I ~I - "7 3 -
. ~I . ~
~ 1 :1 C :
~ ~~ ~!~~
~ I '" .... .:!
!I - '<<
~ ,i \ _ .:J
.. lOW.
II. .
'i I I ~
.~ \' I en
! ~ 1.!:5
IS a: i .... II.
"-.Q~.. .-' ,--
EXH!~;r
.0
o
'11
o
""
::r:
-
\ I
~~
\
~
;\
~ I \,.
~~ I ~
....,
...t. d I
~ 3\ (\
~ -c.
'- y.
~ -
i ' ~ I
"" " 11
~ t UJ
i~ I ~
. ! ~
o
... -- -- ;"". ~.
'"
~
~
...
'<J
,1~ 2.
..
'.
,
i
\
.j
! 1
i l
i I
~ J
z '1
i
.
~ 1
r .
& '
i I
" I
.,
i
I 1
Q 1
, 1
I I
~ I'
;
.
~ ~
.
e
! 1
;
"
I
~ 1
J _
z ,~
2 '
it
;
..J
-
"
I
r-. ""'~.._'~
".\
','
."'- ' \ \ .
,,', }' \
. ~r' \), '. :!', \
1 . ~ ,I i
,,' ,\ ,\,'. \
.'
.. .'
0:, "
.. "
0'.
U1:,',
.. " ".
"':"',", '\',. .' '
. ,\ /." \
\, \;
l
..
-'
..
..
'"
'"
0
0
0
:... IP'
IP,
- ..
-
..
( 0
~
;
.. ,
... (
"0'
"'_,' ,\. ..:J,......'
, .. J""
. .' . ; J J ", . , ~, .'! ~.
j' . '. ' ,,."
, - :.~',.' .~/;..~.:
. :\)': z IS.. ;
... i'. Z . f.
m. CI'
"'1:-
z .._
~, :n'
!!~oG':"~
z m'
OaZ
. 0~
n~-4cn
,. m:lll
ZC..J'
flliin
}:s~
S'Zc;I
:::n~
~~
:\,"
I." I ,~Yf
": \, 1/'
~_. ",\'.1..\'.,'
".".':. .
. ", \.1 It.
.... .
CI
en
....
en
U1
- I
o
O. R;~
~. ::;::.~
Lon \. ~:';
o 1\ ...._
~ ~'" ~,~
II ~~.
I ....'...
!~,:
11 ~;~
i~~ .~,
i j'" '.:,
c::' .'c;
(- ,.
.
~
o
'10
1,0
Il~
I~
~.;.
~I
g ~;
,.. I \
~ I ,
: I",~
-
.
lil
..
~
....
.~. .... ..
.............-.1
o
o
I' .-. ",- - .,.- _.'0
, ENOOR},EHE;>;Z~ ',;' _....'-O~
,x <.: .... ~ s--"i"/ "
. .
I ,; "
l \
.'
I
I
i ' tlrJ'OSIT TO CI..EClT .. -: ' . !
~. '00 NOTWRlT~\1X-~;.~~:tEJ ~,.', ' . '
\ ~, ,',=\.TY4"lF 5.t.\ten'..tA~l: LINE
I : .
i ' MAR28 \991' "
l-,
,~'I'-. '
',II,. '
1\' ~
...:.
" ,
~ ;
~
\ ."
.. !'
.
CENTRAl. CASHIER1~,."" ,;.
CITY OF SA." BERNAiOl~' '.
;O~RD OF WATER COJIM'SS"
,
f
:
:1
~
.i
,
;
1 ,
" l
1 I
,
.' ..!.
. '-..': ,"
'-f'" ".,!
:. . '. '_. . ".~ to'...
. ,', _,\',t :...... .
;~! i<;,/,/Y · ,;,i<
. . ~ . '
: ....~
,-
.'
.;"' .
~,
'.-I
~. .:.J. . '. ".
- "
,_"
','
i: ~~
I
,
I
I
I
.
.
I
:
",J
.- -,
~-~-!' .
:..j ..'.0 .
A~ . ..",.:.";.\.,
'-~' ...\il~'.
-.-' 1;"......
w.......&:o.:
,l ,~.:::::o
.:S' Ii; ('.J."..
:...:...~ =- .:!::-'
'.S!::l I:".J
,~!!ll 0:)
~53 0::,::'
.;::5 Li
...;; .~
; 8_~-~ ':
~;~'~3J~~-~~ "
~~::___'J~~
_~ #J~
..- -~~
,
*FEO!;;.c.~~ES!~.E ~ .,~ :,tC.!:";'~~S'::-. d
EXHI!!!r
....3
---
oil
1,.1 ~
. .
'. . "'-')"',"'r,'".r~l
.__...' . I" \~',; ,tr
.. \ .. :')';.!~ .:~ .': ;"rl,:\~i ~~ ; 'J" '1
. "'. '. ,f' J "r , J;.
,)/ ~\:,' I' . .j' ,Ii 'ri,' 'J
,',' :', \ :. ,
'....... "
. "
II ':~ ,;.. . : ft.',. ,J
O'\{{: \ . ~ ,
... ,'. ,\ . 11; I.i' i;
01.'." .'j' \.:I
U1 J" 5
. ~','
..' .' I ' ., . I., 'l." ! ..1'
~:.','.
~. '.' fftssk' I~! .\.) ""
:: ~!i!r h\ ~ . )'
'" II ill' ., (
g ! ~,;-, . .'11\ I
o .~ , 'c;i
~ I f~ ~ '.1
~ I hi . "G ,1
~ .'::',:.\' i ' I "ii:$'
tU '""C:. .. Z .
r~: ;:. CJ
~. . z~~
~ ~'n
b ~~~~
r; ~ ; ~~
P '/)"'o:l~~
J.-,; ~l.,V .. : ~
,~ i~
:::n
lJj '0
I '
IN. .
... -'
'~I~
!~....
,":oJ
,,>
, .)
: '(<,
. .-
" ':" ~,- . ..
......~
.
~
I
,
I
,
,
"'.
a
o
o
a
..
a
a
a
a
a
....
~
o
o
ENO~(f~i0 ~;~;;'_.. ~
.' -'
;
,
f
i
1
I
I
1
I
j ;
,
I
I
I
I
'.
,
I,
r
~
~ '.
I
i ,
,
,
"
MAR281991
. . .~i. ,,, ...\ . ...
CENTRAL CA"_:::'~":''''','
CIN Of ~ll cE,,"~',::,~~,
~OARD OF,W~TER C::;,:~.k. .-.....~
'<.,.\.;-.
.
. .
~~, .
'.'
.',
"
'_oM. &...~..~~^,.....;..~..""'^'" ~
"'" -'Y'W.,.'", .........-.:.........~.........
1- .... , .. ".' "n: o,..J ",
...J :J , . '. _ ......"J ....~,; . ____
.. ...l_.~......"......I.."..............~ .~
..
. 1<1..-.... . ... .""l...... ......~.'-....-.....
.'
~.:
f'.)."
(.,..1:
,...'
I.' J
~_ 1:1:'
......~...:..f
~~ ~;:;;~
. .:.;.41> .....
~~g~ I:".J
-~'~ "'1"1
(\.J- ....
~ .....
C5 ',' . .
<"a!3 ....
!.:tC"oll
...:::5
~
o
...
<0
(Q
~
N
C\I
...
>
....
.ZOo
Cl.
0(
a
o
r-
r-
~
21
III
~
=
en
~
~
. .'101-'.\; ="". ."=~cFsrE'='.
L_ ..>_
-
.
*
~
..
~
. - .-
..-
ft:.__..~.
,.
,-....
-
J
.''::1 I'"
0,
San l)ernardino
~ -
- -
o
DI....TIIINT o~ -LAN"I"G ....D IUILOIIllG 'l"vlelS
- .:. ::I
~ .
=
- . . . - -
..:, - ..
April 12. 1991
Steven Stiemsma
Value Hales
22365 Barton lad
Grand ':'err3ce. CA 92324
RE: Review of Plar.s :10. 9l-l3
Cear Sirs:
CUr records show ti".at ?e'J'iew 0: ?lans :;0. 91-13 was filed with
t.'le llepart::ent of Plil.-:.i:-:g a.-.a Builciinq Services on March 27.
1991. ii::lwever, t.":e pro~~ ::1lst be Cefi!llEd Withdrawn because
t.":e cl:eck su!::r.litted to ~.e City 0: san ?ernardino has been
returr.ed I.:l".paid. ;"'T! :-..:rt.":.:= ;ction reqardir:q t.'ti.s project
will require a resui:r.ti.tted application with ?Cl:I!:e!l1: of fees
L." t.~e f::Cl 0: a cashiers c.~eck.
~ City will ;:rocess a refund :or Cleek :lo. 2975 and this will
be :;;ailed under separate cover.
I: you have any questior.s. tllease call :'!r. Paul D.Jkes. available
1..'1 the City I s Fi.nan::e llepart:ll!nt.
Sl."'lCerely.
"": ,/ ' I
to '! '.;'
/.' "'X.'.' '/~ ( ,-'
.. ,.... ./ /
o se S. M:xlriier
Assistant Planner
ee:
Kensie and Brenda I'b:lton
1588 NHtern Avenue
san Berna.rdi.no. CA 92411
-'
Paul Dukes
City of San Berna.....tti...lO Fl."W1Ce llepartItEnt
Sandra Paulsen
Senior Planr'.er
- - -
.
I. 0
. -
_ ., ::!;:; '. .l ;:;: ,~
17 1 . I J'.. S 0 7 1 so S 7
PRIOE J
QESS
:sw c.a.s
- : . -
:
EXH!BIT
,.:.; 4
..
J.
-
. . .
. - .
~n Bernardino 0
0....'".", QP
!.. .:. .;!
. .,
.LANNING AND lUlL DING SI..I:I!
. = = -
.
May 30, 1991
Mr. Paul Wieler
Value Homes
22365 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
RE: Conditional Use ?ermit No. 91-28/Variance No. 91-08/To
construct a 2,033 square foot Office/convenience market.
with beer and wine sales on the south side of Baseline
between Mt. Vernon and Garner, while varying the mini~~
lot size.
,
Dear Mr. Wieler:
Pursuant to Section 65943 of the Califo~ia Government Code,
the above referenced application is hereby deemed incomplete.
The following additional data must be submitted before jour
application ~ay be processed:
1. Hist~rical Resources Evaluation Report.
Please assemble all of the requested information and for.ard
it to the Planning and Building Services Depart~ent with the
attached "Project Reactivation Request."
Once these materials are submitted and the application is
deemed complete, an Initial Study will be prepared and
scheduled for review by the Environmental Review Co~~ttee.
.. :.
. .
_. 3 ~ ::; '; .l, : :
: 7' . I ,... SO 7 1 '0"
PFfICE j
9E55
"
Er:JIT
a.iI.' .,
~- ,
...
....
Mr. Paul Wieler ()
May 30, 1991
Page 2
o
If the information is not received by ~~is depart~ent within
six months of the date of this letter, ths tile will be
deemed abandoned. Any action after that time will require
filing a new application. Please forward the requested
information as it becomes available.
If you have any questions, please contact Denise Moonier at
(714) 384-5057.
Sincerely,
G,d- ,U :....-<.
,}6'hn M:nt~ AICP
Principal Planner
cc: Kensie and Brenda Wooton
l588 Western Ave.
San Bernardino, CA
,
lat
INCct1P9l-28
0" ~. 0
San Bernardino
OI~AIIIT"'''f a, .'."'''fIIlI''O ....0 'UII.~I"Q S'''Vle1S
_ .:. ~ :; 1
3:: ; . : :l
.:; - - ...
May 30, 1991
Value Home.
22365 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
RE: Conditional Use ?er=it No. 91-2S/Variance No. 91-0S/To
construct a 2.033 square foot office/convenience market
with beer and .ine sales on ~e south side of sa.eline
bet~een Mt. Vernon and Garner, .nile varyinq the minimum
lot size.
Oear Mr. Wieler:
On June 3, 1991. the City's new Development Code will become
effective. Any projects not deemed complete by that date are
subject to tne new code.
The development standards specified by the new Code have been
~odified from tnose currently in place. In ~ny case., tne.e
modifications ~ay result in a project redesiqn to proposals
not deemed complete before June 3, 1991.
A review of the above referenced project file reveals that a
letter was sent to you deeminq your application incomplete on
May 30, 1991. If the additional required items specified in
that incomplete letter are not received by this office before
June 3, 1991, yo~ project will be subject to the requirements
of the new Oevelopment Code.
Should you have any questions. please contact ~e at (71~)
384-5057.
Sincerely,
........'~ ...
/' /""..,..-
-.--
C"'"
<::.-- /,
/
41C;!..~
- ~
Oeni.e Moonier
Assistant Planner
lat
DEVCOOE
" : :: -..
:I : .: " ;. .a: 'I
PRICE .J
VESS
. '.
,
."&13...50" '0"
E'r'''''''T
....1.
...- ,
. -
-
L I-IHUJEC I ~t:A\'; II v A IIUNOCt:~UE5T J.
~~~'
(Dat.) I
'lannin, Dapa~t..nt
CITY or SAIl aIRNMCrHO.
300 No~tb -D- St~..t
San 8.~n.~dino, California 92411
Attn:
It..
~IC:~ '.,"~';::, , 'lann.~
(Ha..)
~m~\ ~..~+ ql-Dl.8~IA~ Q,\..o'i
lea.. Hilmi.!')
Daa"
DEN I SE ~'10CN r::, .
On 'JoY 30. ~??~ . .y application
(O.U)
v.. d....d incomplete by your depart..nt due to inadeqYlte
intor.ation documented Aa tollow.:
1.
:";TC::~""R'r'" ~:
. . ~ . _' .1..
..--~. -...-... -'I~' ''''''''Ill '''If'''''ORT
-,...... . _ "-'..:':J :. .,"_....- ; l';. I'\:r", I
2.
2 .
En~lo..d pl.... tind all of the r.qu..c.d it.... It i. .y
und.ratandinq that if this informacion i. .utfl~lent. my ~..
file vill b. d....d complata and the project will b.
r.activat.d.
It YOIl na.d additional
~~"I ' '.,r='!:~
. ....- ""\. .,~--_..
(Na..)
714-783-3530
(TiI;phon. H\lab.e-)
info1'll&tion.
pla...
contact
ae
.
linc.e-aly.
leal.rlactivate.ca..
~
~ I .;:' '_
. If: <- po-
-
PAUL A.~ EL.;:R
V ICE ?RES IJS:'iT
'IALU: HG1,1ES
/-
V"-/ _~e<- .
EXHm!T
.~ 7
....
-- --"-
-----.....-....... -_.
......, .~_.,_,-.~I
.,........ ........ ...- ""'-....-..
Qr 1 'J F 0
San Bernardino
01_".'...' 0' IILA..llla "'NO IUI'LDllla II.YICI.
AL SOUQ~e'f,,t\IC?
D I"ECTOR
AUqust 9, 1991
Attn: Paul Wi.ler
Value Hames
22365 Bareon Road, Suite 210
Grand Terrae., CA 92324
"
RE: Conditional ~5e ?e~it ~o. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08
~o co~struct 2,000 sq. ft. of t.atil/offic. space
~n~lud1ng a,proposal for Off-site sal.. of beer and wine
wh11e .varylng the. ~~nimUIII lot size required for
conven1.nce ~arket slte lS on the south side of Baseline
between ~t. vErnon/Garn.r Streets in the CG-2 Genreal
Plan land use designation. '
Dear Sirs:
The above referenced application is hereby d....d compl.t. and
is accepted far filing by the City of San aernardino Planning
Depart=ent ef!ective this date. This acceptance app1i.. only
to the specific proj.ct as defin.d by:
Your preliminary application rec.ived May 11, 1991 and
supplementary information r.ceived August 6, 1991,
Historical Resources Evaluation Repore and project plan
received June 18, 1991.
Pursuant to the Chapter 4.5, Section 65950 of ~~e California
Government Code, the City of San Bernardino has six months
from the date of this letter to take final action on your
proposed project, including any appeal periods.
You are reque.ted to advise the planner proce.sing your
project at once if you modify any a.pect of your project while
it is being processed. This acceptance at your application
notwithstanding, the City re.erve. the right to det.rmine
whether any subsequent proj.ct revision or combination ot
modifications (such as a chang. in the project concept, scope,
height, floor area, uses, parking requirements, 7irculation
pattern, points of ingress and. egress, ~ocat;on, etc.)
represent a potential for envlronmental lmpac~s ~r are
siqnifi=ant in any other respect. PRIDE, J
,........ ',.. .._....~,., OESS
] J J ",;.a - .. :
:.a....=;=-..." ~.!.a'i :;1 \71..SI._10"i.I.'
EXmBIT
-. 8
...
page 2
o
o
A significant change in the project or a series of cumulative
changes MAY necessitate the filing of a new application or an
amended application which will be subject to a staff review
for completeness and acceptance. Should this be required, the
new or amended application shall be subject to new processinq
time limits as established in the California Government Code,
Section 95950.
It you should have any questions or concerns please call
Denise Moonier at (714) 384-5057.
Sincerely,
9d-;o~~~~ AICP
~~c~pal Planner
"
cc: Mr.' Mrs. Wooton
1588 Western Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92411
.lM: das
deemdcompleteb
CITY OF SAN BER_RDINO - REQUESTq,R COUNCIL-ACTION
'Ill:
Al Boughey, "Director
planning & Building Services
January 9, 1992
. Appeal of denial of Conditional
Su~~: Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance
No. 91-08
&APt:
o.te:
~~yor and Common Council Meeting
January 21, 1992
Synopsis of Previous CouncillCtion:
December 16, 1991 That Mayor and Common Council continue the
appeal, and direct staff to prepare alternative
approaches other than Code Amendments, and return
in thirty days with recommendations.
Recommended motion:
Staff recommends that the distance standards for convenience
stores not be amended and that the Variance section not be
amended to include reductions to the distance requirements
for convenience stores; and
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny
the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and
Variance No. 91-08 based on the Findings of Fact contained
in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November
( 6, 1991.
Al
ContKt penon: Al Boughey
Supporting d... 41ttachld: Staff Report
Phone: 384-5357
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N I A
Source: IAcct. No.1
IAcct. Descriotionl
Finance:
,ncil Notlll:
Attachment 2
A ___..1_ 1___ "1_
-
.CiTY OF SAN BER6DINO - REQUEST aR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of planning Commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-28, and Variance No. 91-08,
requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site
consumption, and a variance from Development
Code Section 19.06.030 permitting a convenience
store to be constructed on less than the minimum
lot size, and a variance from Code Section
19.26 to permit a reduction in loading space
requirements.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of December 16, 1991, Council directed staff to
prepare alternative approaches other than code amendments to allow
for approval of this project, and return in thirty days with
recommendations (refer to Mayor and Common Council Staff Report
dated December 16, 1991 for background discussion of the
specific project).
ANALYSIS
A matrix was developed by staff to show areas of concern for a
convenience store with jor without alcohol at this location.
Based on this information, the only options identified for
project approval would be amending the Development Code to
revise or delete the distance requirements, or amending the Code
to expand the Variance section.
The minimum lot size and minimum loading area issues could be
resolved by variance.
OPTIONS
OPTION I: Development Code Amendment to Distance Requirements
The Development Code minimum standards were established because of
health and safety concerns. Basically, a concensus was
developed during the Development Code workshops, that minimum
standards should be set in order to improve current concerns
associated with the detrimental effects of premises which are
licensed for the off-site sales of alcohol. Public concerns
frequently include vandalism, crime, deterioration of
neighborhoods and the sales of alcohol to minors. Therefore,
because there are minimum standards set, the code draws a line, or
7$.0264
--L
Conditional Use Permit No. 9l-28/Variance NO.~08
Mayor and Common ~cil Meeting January 21,
Page 2 .,
a setpoint, which the city relies on as reasonable standards that
hopefully, reduce potential impacts. With these given standards
statf can not make the necessary findings that a proposal would
not have detrimental impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recomends that the distance standards regarding the location
of convenience stores not be amended.
OPTION II: Development Code Amendment to the Variance section
If the Variance section ot the Code were to be amended to allow
for a reduction in distance standards, it would be difficult, with
the minimum distance standards to make the findings that the
granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
The Development Code addresses various concerns in the granting of
a variance. The burden of proof to establish the evidence in
support of the findings is the responsibility of the applicant.
Findings for the granting of a variance may be made when there are
special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, or that the strict
application of the code deprives such property of privileges
enjoyed by other property under identical district classification.
The previous staff report outlined why there were no
circumstances with regard to the physical characteristics
subject property. These findings would not be altered
they are not affected by the distance standards.
Another concern in the granting of a variance is that it is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possiessed by other property and denied to the
subject property. The findings in this circumstances would not be
made, due to the ability of the property owner to continue to use
and develop the property with alternative proposals.
special
of the
because
The granting of a variance in these circumstances would,
undeniably, constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use
district in which such property is located.
Other variance findings are concerned with the consistency of the
project with the General Plan land use designation and would not
be affected by distance requirements.
These concerns with findings would be true for other similar
proposals and not just this specific proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Variance section of the Development Code
not be amended.
.d
JlII J!J
~ona~~~ona~ use ~erm~~ No. ~i-L~/Var~ance NO. ~i-U~
Mayor and Common COCil Meeting January 21, 0.2
Page 3
RECOMMENDATYON
staff recommends that the distance standards for convenience
stores not be amended and the the Variance section not be amended
to include reductions to the distance requirements for convenience
stores:
AND
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal
and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No 91-08
based on the Findings of Fact contained in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated November 6, 1991.
Prepared by:
Denise s. Moonier
Assistant Planner
for Al Bouqhey, AICP
Director of Planning and Building Services
A - Convenience store Matrix
B - Mayor and Common Council Staff
Report and backup dated December 16, 1991
Attachment:
1
CATEGORY
Co~tiona1 Use Permit NO. 91~
1IWiance No. 91-08 .
CONVENIENCE STORES WITH ALCOHOL SALES
DEV. CODE 19.060.030
(2) (b.) (F.)
MC-770
INTERIM URGENCY
ORDINANCE
(MC-660) *
permitted
Use
Proximity
To
Existinq
Stores
Subject to distance
standard/approved findinqs
C.U.P.
Doe. not meet standards
4 .tore. within 1000 ft. ~
To Does not meet standards
Reliqious 1 church within 500 ft. V
Instit-
ution
TO Resid- Does not meet standards
ential 2 within 100 ft. ~
Uses
;
,
To
Schools
site Area
Parkinq/
Landscapinq
j
I
I
.
Frontaqe on
a major street
on secondary
street
.
f
.
Liqhtinq
.
.
Keets distance requirements
o within 500 ft.
Does not meet standard
requires 10,000 sq. ft.
v
Meets parkinq requirements
Meets landscapinq require-
ments
Keets standards
Keets standard requirements
Subject to
MC-77 0/
P.C. Findinqs
Subject to
C.U.P. Section
19.26.020/
P.C. Findinqs
Doe. not meet No distance
standards V standards
4 stores
within 1000 ft.
No distance
standards
No distance
standards
required to
erect block
wall
No distance
standards
No distances
standards
required to
erect block
wall
Meets distance No distance
o within 1000 standards
ft.
Does not meet
stan~ard V
requ~res
10,000 sq. ft.
Defers to
19.56 Section
of Old Title
19
Meets
standards
Keets
standards
No minimUIII
lot area
Meets minimUIII
parkinq require-
ments Title 19,
19.56.050(A)
Meets standard
requirements
Keets standard
requirements
Attachment "A"
Public
RestroolDS
Trash
Enclosure
Loading Area
Saturation
levels for
pr_ises
which are
licensed for
off-site
sales of
alcohol
,.
Conditional Use Per~ NO. 91-28
Variance No. 91-~
CONVENIENCE STORES WITH ALCOHOL SALES
CONTINUED
Meets standards
Meets standard requirements
Does not meet standards V
No standards
Findings mayor may not be
made by P.C.
* Referenced Title 19 of Municipal Code
Meets
standards
Meets
standards
No standards
No standards
Meets standard
requirements
Meets standard
requirements
Meets Code
Title 19
19.58.010
Findings
for undue
concentration
as determined
by P.C.
C~itional Use Permit No. 9QB
. Variance No. 9l-0B
~
CONVENIENCE STORES WITHOUT ALCOHOL SALES
CATEGORY
DEV. CODE MC-770
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19
Permitted
Use
Subject to Subject to
distance standards MC-770
D.R.C. approval (ROP)
proximity
To Existing Does not meet ../
Stores standards v
To Religious No distance
Institutions standards
To Residen- Meets distance
tial Uses requirements
To Schools
Meets distance
standards
. te Area
Does not meet V
standard
requires 10,000
sq. ft.
Does not meet No distance standards
standards 4
stores within
1000 ft. V
No distance
standards
No distance standards
No distance
standards
requires a
block wall
No distance standards
requires a block wall
Meets distance No standards
standards
Does not meet No standards
standard V No minimum lot area
requires
10,000 sq. ft.
CITY OF SAN BER.DINO - REQUESTQ,R COUNCIL,ACTION
F'~: Al Boughey, Director
Subject:
Appeal of denial of Conditional Us-
Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No.
91-08
L.~..I: Planning & BUilding Services
Date: December 5, 1991
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
December 16, 1991
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
The Mayor and Common Council may deny the appeal and deny Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08.
OR
The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, and direct staff
to prepare an amendment to the Development Code to revise the distance
criteria for establishments with off-site sales of alcohol (19.06.030)
(2) (B) and also to revise the distance criteria for establishment
of convenience stores (19.06.030 (2) (F)).
ure
Contlct penon:
Al Bouqhev
Pholl8: 384-5357
Supportl", data etaeched: Staff Report
w.rd:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
laurel: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Fln.nee:
L, ..II Nota:
1\~tachm~n~ "R"
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN BERbDINO - REQUEST 9'>R COUNCIL~ ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of Planninq commission denial of Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-28, and variance No. 91-08,
requestinq approval of the Conditional Use Permit
to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site
consumption and a variance from Development
Code Section 19.06.030 permittinq a convenience
store to be constructed on less than the minimum
lot size, and a variance from Code Section
19.26 to permit a reduction in loadinq space
requirements.
Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of December 16, 1991
REOUEST
The owners, Mr. and Mrs Kensie Wooten, are appealinq the denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance 91-08 by the
Planninq commission. Under the authority of Development Code
Section 19.06.020 the applicant, Value Homes, is requestinq to
construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office & retail space includinq a
convenience store with off-site sales of beer & wine.
concurrently, under the authority of Section 19.72.030, the
owner requests a variance from Code Section 19.06.030 requirinq
convenience stores to be constructed on 10,000 sq.ft., and a
variance from the Code Section 19.26 which established
standards of 15 ft. in width and 50 ft. in lenqth for commercial
loadinq space. The project proposes a loadinq space of 10 ft. in
width and 15 ft. in lenqth.
The subject property consists of a 6,250 sq. ft., rectanqular
shaped parcel, located on the south side of Baseline Street,
between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Garner Street, also described as
1255 West Baseline. The land use desiqnation of the site is CG-2,
Commercial General, General Plan land use.
ANALYSIS
The subject property is within 255 ft. from a reliqious
institution and within 100 ft. of residentially used property.
Municipal Code standards specify. that development of new
convenience stores comply with the minimum standards therein, in
addition to conditions imposed by the Commission. The standards
restrict proposals for alcohol sales within 500 feet of any
reliqious institution, school or public park, and within 100 ft.
of any property desiqnated for residential use or used for
residential purposes. The subject property does not meet the
Appeal of conditio~use Permit No. 91-28 & v~ance No. 91-08
Mayor and Common C il Meeting December 16, ~1
Page 2
minimum standards as described in the Municipal Code.
Code Section 19.06.030 (2)(B) regulates structures subject to an
off-site "ABC" license with regard to review by the Police
Department who shall determine if a proposed location meets
Municipal Code distance criteria or the location is in such close
proximity to another similar use to cause oversaturation of the
neighborhood. The determination of saturation levels and undue
concentration of licensed premises is then reviewed by the
planning Division and included in Staff's report to the Planning
commission.
With regard to Variances, Chapter 19.72 of the Development Code
makes reference to the appropriate application of variances. The
Code states that the power to grant variances does not extend to
use regulations.
BACKGROUND
On May 11, 1991, the application for Conditional Use Permit No.
91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 was submitted, and on August 9, 1991,
the application was deemed complete and accepted for processing.
On NOVember 6, 1991, the Planning commission held a properly
noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and
Variance No. 91-08. The hearing began with a presentation of
Staff's analysis and recommendation. Staff described how the
necessary findings could not be made because convenience stores
are not permitted within 1,000 ft. of existing licensed outlets,
and because establishments proposing alcohol sales are not
permitted within 500 ft. of a religious institution, and 100 feet
of a residentially used property.
Staff described how the project was initially submitted as
Reviewof Plans No. 91-13, on March 27, 1991. The proposal did
not contain an application including sales of alcohol for off-site
consumption at that time.
An interm ordinance, MC 770, was adopted by the Mayor and Common
council, concerning the urgency of regulating the oversaturation
of convenience stores. The ordinance was adopted March 12, 1991
and became effective April 12, 1991, prior to Review of Plans No.
91-13 being accepted as complete (Refer to Planning Commission
report for more complete discussion).
commissioners Stone and Cole spoke in favor of the CUP and
Variance because they felt it would help the area.
Mr. Kensie Wooten, property owner, spoke in favor. However,
several area residents objected. In addition to the property
owner, two persons in favor of the proposal and four persons in
opposition spoke at the Planning Commission meeting (Refer to
planning commission Minutes attached as an exhibit).
Mr. Empeno,
was not in
Deputy City Attorney, advised that
compliance with the Development Code
the application
and in addition,
~ppeai OL
Mayor and
Page 3
~ona~~~ona~ Use Perm~t No. 91-28 & V~ance No. 91-08
Common C~cil Meeting December 16, ~1
there were no findings for approval.
Plannina comai.sion Action
The public hearing was closed and discussion of a motion to
approve the conditional use permit followed. Mr. Empeno advised
that the approval of the conditional use permit would be of
questionable validity, and thus subject to appeal on validity.
He stated that makinq findinqs for approval would be in direct
conflict with the Code.
Commissioner Cole made a motion to approve with conditions.
Commissioner stone seconded it. The motion was not carried.
Commissioner Valles made a motion to approve the variance and deny
the conditonal use permit. There was no second.
Based on the discussion and in aqreement with the staff
recommendation, commissioner Romero made a motion to deny both
variance and conditional use permit. Commissioner Oreteqo
seconded it. The vote was carried with Commissioners Jordan,
Lopez, Orteqa, Romero voting to deny and Commissioners Cole,
Stone, and Valles voting to approve.
On NOVember 14, 1991, the property owner filed an appeal of the
Planninq Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 91-28, and
Variance No. 91-08 with the City of San Bernardino (Exhibit A).
..J:"J:"....-- ....- --..-----..-- --- .--...-- .._" ~- -_ ... .-_______ .'_0 --
Mayor and Common C~cil Meeting of December vo... 1991
Page 4..., ....,
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS
The Mayor and Common Council may deny the appeal and deny
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08.
OR
The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, and direct
Staff to prepare an amendment to the Development Code to revise
the distance criteria for establishments with off-site sale. of
alcohol (19.06.030 (2)(B) and also to revise the distance criteria
for establishment of convenience stores (19.06.030 (2)(F)).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that
and deny Conditional
based on the Findings
the Mayor and Common
Use Permit No. 91-28
of Fact contained in
Council deny the appeal
and Variance No. 91-08
Exhibit D.
Prepared by:
Denise S. Moonier
Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP
Director of Planning and Building Services
A - Letter of Appeal
B - Statement of Planning commission Action
C - Official Notice of Public Hearing before
the Mayor and Common council
D - November 6, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes
E - Staff Report to the Planning Commission
dated November 6, 1991
Exhibits:
o
Q
November 10. 1991
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 north "D" street. San Bernardino. California 92418
Department of planning and building services
Att. Al Boughey
Director
RE: Conditional use permit no. 91/28 variance no.91/08
Appeal of planning commissions' denial
Dear Mr.Boughey:
I would like to appeal the decision of the planning
commission. I have attached a short summary of my
situation. My appeal is based upon circumstances as
depicted in the summary.
I have enclosed a check for $106.00 - AS per a telephone
conversation with one of your staff this date.
N " (iil IS It Wi IS
i~'{ G 0D ~ U w L:I
UU NOV 1 ~ 1991
LID
~ n r- ill
\' '.\..-... "
~ ~ ~ ~ \\ ..1 i.s U
~!.I!i1
NOV IOi
'.'N"-!:l:"\I~.IO
S~\N ~::.. ru,j,I. '..
-l~~:~ .......: l:.
,~:,j.).r C'F:. ....., ..,...w
.......1 .._.. ""~S
~i~t:;~~C ;,,;;.......,.....
Wooten
roject owner
(. . . ;~": s:...t~ SERNAi1.0if-tO
~.-~.'.;.'-:""E':T o~ P..ANNING &
",;,... ,- , ... ."r" SCFi.\i!CE.3
[.,;........I..o.J -
EXHIBIT "A"
II1I:I
"
<>>
GOODEVENlNG LADIES AND GENGLEMEN
lAM KENZIE WOOTEN
I RESIDE AT 1586 WESTERN AVE WITHIN THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO.
lAM THE OWNER OF THE PROPoSED BUSINESS SITE.
THESE COMMENTS ARE REFERENCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
91-26 AND VARIANCE NO.91-06.
I HAVE RESIDED WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 36 YEARS. I SERVED
THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR 23 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER;
2YEARS WITH THE SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPT. AND ~YEARS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HWY PATROL. DURING MY LAW ENFORCEMENT
CAREER I MOONLIGHTED IN VARIOUS MINI MKTS WITHIN THIS CITY.
WORKING IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY. UPON MY RETIREMENT IN 1969
I APPROACHED THE SAN BDNO PLANNING DEPT. TO ASCERTAIN THE
FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING A CONVIENCE STORE ON THE AFORE
DESCRIBED SITE. RESPONDING TO THE DEPT/S VERBAL DIRECTIONS
I PROCEEDED TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS IN OBTAINING A
APPLICATION. ALL OF MY EFFORTS AND ACTIVITIES REF THIS
THIS PROJECT WERE MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF VARIOUS DEPT.
EMPLOYEES. THE INITIAL SIX MONTHS I WAS ADVISED TO AWAIT THE
DEMOLISHION OF SOME AJOINING PROPERTY. AFTER NUMEROUS DELAYS AND
RED TAPE, I SOUGHT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE 6 WARD COUNCIL PERSON,
MRS LUDLAM. IN MAY OF 1991 I WAS ADVISED THAT MY APPLICATION
HAD BEEN ACCEPTED. I WAS ALSO ADVISED IN MAY OF 1991 THAT AS
OF MARCH 1991 THE CODES AND ORDINANCES, AS THEY RELATE TO THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF CONVIENCE STORES, HAD BEEN AMMENDED
JVI-dO:tirii~~~~
e
Q
MY PROJECT WAS NO LONGER IN CONFORMANCE. BEING TWO YEARS
INTO THE PROJECT AND HAVING SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY, I, RESPONDING
TO THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING DEPT. APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE.
IN RESPONDING TO THE DEPTARTMENTS DESIRES THE PLANS,AT ADDITIONAL
EXPENCE, WERE REDRAWN. THE CILMINATION OF APPROXIMATELY
3 YEARS OF EFFORT ARE EXHIBITED HERE BEFORE YOU.
IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT WILL NOT
IMPAR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA. MY PRIMARY
OBJECTIVE IS NOT A LIQUOR STORE. I NEED THE BEER AND WINE
LICENCE TO MAKE MY STORE COMPETITIVE. AS IS EXHIBITED BY THE
DECLINING MARKET FOR SUCH ITEMS, THE BEER AND WINE WILL BE
OFFERED ONLY AS A CONVIENCE TO MY CUSTOMERS.
IN COMMENTING ON THE FINDINGS OF STAFF------REFERENCE THE
THE SUMMARY-----I QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE POLICE DEPTIS
STATISTICAL INFORMATION AS IT ADDRESSES ALCOHOL RELATED
CRIMES IN THE AREA. OF 122 INCUDENTS OFFERED AS EXAMPLES
ONLY 12 ARE DEFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE AS BEING
RELATED TO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION. 20 OF THE ARRESTS WERE
INFACT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CITY. ALL OF THE EXAMPLES OF
COMMERCIAL BURGLARIES (5) DEPICTED IN THE REPORT WERE
BURGULARIES COMMITED AT THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. IN
THIS INSTANCE I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE POLICE
DEPT. THE BUILDINq,DUE TO ITS DETERIORATEING CONDITION, IS
ATTRACTING THE WRONG ELEMENT. (14) OF THE ARRESTS ARE DRIVING
RELATED OFFENCES. (7) OF WHICH WERE DRUNK DRIVING. TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TRAVERSING AND
RESIDING IN THIS AREA; THESE ARREST FIGUERS SEEM MINIMAL.
o
o
THE STAFFS COMMENTS REFERENCE THE CHURCHS ARE ALSO OUESTIONABLE
NEITHER CHURCH WAS IN EXISTANCE AT THE TIME OF MY INITIAL
APPLICATION. GALILEE MISSION BAPTIST CHURCH STILL DOES NOT EXIST
IN CLOSING I IWULD LIKE TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH MY PROJECT IS
NOT IN COMPLETE CONfORMANCE WITH STAff RECOMMENDATIONS, THE MAJORITY
OF BUSINESSES IN '1'1115 COMMUNITY DO NOT CONFORM TO DEVELOPEMENT
CODE STANDARDS. OF THE (4) BUSINESSES LISTED IN THE SAME
PROXIMITY OF MY PROJECT (3) HAVE NO ON CITE LOADING OR
PARKING CAPABILITIES.
I CONTEND THAT MY FACILITY WILL BE A MODERN, WELL DESIGNED AND
FUNCTIONAL INHANCEMENT TO THE AREA. MY PROPOSED USE OF
A MARKET WITH SALES OF DEER AND WINE fOR OFf-CITE CONSUMPTION
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS ^ PERMITED
LAND USE.
THANK YOU
o
o
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance
No. 91-08
Applicant: Value Homes
OWner: Mr. & Mrs. Kensie Wooten
Meeting Date: November 6, 1991
X Denied Based upon Findings of Fact (Attachment
B).
:mn
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Jordan, Lopez, ortega, Romero
Cole, Stone Valles
None
Clemensen, Lindseth
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
Commission of the City of San Bernardino.
Name and Title
cc: Project Property OWner
Project Applicant
Building Division
Engineering Division
Case File
PCAGENDA:
PCACTION
EXHIBIT "B"
HI _
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING DATE 11-6-ll1
WARD 6
~ /" APPUCANT' Value Homes
. 22345 Barton Road
W CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Grand Terrace, CA 92324
rn NO. 91-28 and Mr. & Mrs. Kensie Wooton
C OWNER:
CJ VARIANCE NO. 91-08 1588 Western Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92411
'-'" \. .)
,..... , "I
Under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020 to
iB construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office & retail space including
a convenience store with off-site sales of beer & wine, on
:) 6.250 sq. ft. Concurrently, under the authority of Section
0 19.72.030, the applicant requests a variance from Code Section
W
II: 19.06.030 requiring convenience stores to be constructed on
- 10,000 sq. ft. and a variance from Code Section 19.26 which
C established standards to requlate off-street loading & delivery
W
II: Subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel, located on
C the south side of Baseline Street, between Mt. Vernon Avenue
& Garner Street, also described as 1255 West Baseline.
/" , EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
PROP~RTV lANO USE ZONING [)F~IANAnON
Subject COIIIIIIercial CG-2 Commercial General
North Commercial CG-2 Commercial General
South Residential RS Residential Suburban
East Residential CG-2 Commercial General
West Vacant CG-2 Commercial General
( GEOLCQIC I SEISMC DYES ) (=HAZARD~ ~=: ) ( SEWERS: Xl!I YES )
HAZARD ZONE: XkNO DNO
( HIGH FIRE DYES )( A1A1'OAT HOISE1 DYES )( REDEVELOPMENT Xl!IXves )
HAZARD ZONE: fi: NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
DNO DNO
-
,
... o ~UCASLE o POTENTIAl. SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
C EFFECTS WITH _ 0
lZrn MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0
NO E.I.R. CONDITIONS
We" I&.Q
2Z o exEMPT o E.LR. RECUlRED BUT NO I&.Z U DENIAL
ZiS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW
Oz WITH MTlGATlNG t;2
11:- MEASURES 2 o CONTINUANCE TO
-I&.
> ~ NO SIGNIFICANT o SlGNlFlCANT EFFECTS 0
if! fd
EFFECTS see ATTACHED E.R.C.
\. MINUTES \. II:
-
........--
- ....
__ _'OF' .....
u
Jl _
~'t.'[.acnmen't. ..~"
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-2B/VAR 91-0B
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
16
r
CONDrTrONAL USE PERMrT FrNDrNGS OF FACT
1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the
subject land use district, however, it does not comply with
all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code
in that the lot area does not meet the minimum standards for
convenience stores, minimum standards for loading and
delivery area, and for minimum distance between religious
institutions, residential uses and existing convenience
markets with sales of alcohol.
The proposed building would not impair
character of the land use district
be located in that it is architecturally
the built environment.
3. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type
and intensity of land use being proposed in that the site
is too small for the intensity of a convenience store.
2.
the integrity and
in which it is to
compatible with
4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses
presently on the subject property in that the present
use is commercial.
5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing
and future land uses within the general area in which
the proposed use is to be located in that the general area is
oversaturated with licensed outlets for sales of alcohol and
in that there is residential land use within 100 ft.
6. The proposed use is not compatible in scale, mass, coverage
density and intensity with all adjacent land uses in the site
is too small and the loading area is adjacent to a
residentially used property.
7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilties, however, there are not adequate provisions
for public services which address the crime prOblems
associated with convenience stores, and may be detrimental
to public health and safety.
8.
There will be adequate provisions
the subject proposal in that the
access from a public street.
for public access to serve
site would have one drive
...
a;.:....
-
I'LNloI.llI '_'OF' .....
..
-LL
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
17
,..-
....
9. There will be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood
characteristics in that the sales of alcohol is associated
within loitering, drinking in public, and other reported
activities.
10. The Development Code does not require a market study for the
proposed use of a convenience market.
11. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in
that the convenience market is a permitted use, subject to
the property development standards and approval of a CUP
in the CG-2 land use designation.
12. There will not be significant harmful effects upon environ-
mental quality and natural resources in that an Initial Study
was permformed and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
13. The enviromental impacts were not significant and do not
require mitigation.
14. The proposed location, size, design, and operationg charac-
teristics of the proposed use would be detrimental based on
the above Findings, to the public interests, health, safety,
convenience, and welfare of the City.
~C!':.!!!!..!!!!!! .
PI.......... ~... 1 OF 1 .....
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
18
VARIANCE FrNDl:NGS OF FACT
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the
property, inclucUnq size, shape, topoqraphy, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the Development Code
does not deprive such property of privileqes enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical land use
district classification.
2.
That qrantinq the Variance
preservation and enjoyment of
possessed by other property in
district.
is not necessary for the
a substantial property riqht
the same vicinity and land use
3. That qrantinq the Variance will be materially detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the
property or improvements in such viCinity and land use
district in that the site is too small for the proposed use
and the area is oversaturated with properties licensed for
the sales of alcohol.
4. That qrantinq of this variance request constitutes a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity in which the Subject property is
located in that all other such properties, except those of
leqal nonconforminq status, are subject to limitations that
are no less strinqent than those place upon the subject
property.
5. That qrantinq the Variance does allow a use which is not
authorized by the Development Code Standards for convenience
stores.
6.
That qrantinq ~f this variance request
General Plan, J.n that the proposed use
subject to approval of a Conditional Use
will be consistent
is a permitted use,
Permit.
...
rr.:'" ~
P\Nl.I.IlI PAGE' OF , 10401
'"
l
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION
r SUBJECT:
APPEAL, OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-28 & VARIANCE
NO. 91-08
(W^:,,' J
r PROPERTY LOCATION:
Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of about .151 acres havinq a frontage of about 50 feet
on the south side of easeline Street and being located about 300
feet _st of the centerline of Nt. Vernon Avenue and further
described as beinq located at 1255 West easeline Street.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests approval of a COnditional Use Perait Under
authority of COde Section 19.06.020 to pel'lllit construction of
office/retail space includinq a convenience store with Off-site
sales of beer and wine and the applicant requests a Variance of
Code Section 19.06.030(2)(F) to construct the convenience .tore
with le.. than the ainuUII lot .ize of 10,000 square fsat required
for new construction of convenience stores in CG-2, Commercial
General Gener-1 pl_.. land use desiqnation
PUBUC HEARING LOCATION:
SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALl.
COUNCa.. CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "D" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME:
Monday, December 16, 1991 2:00
A__-_.......__....-__-
- .CllrMIL.,...............-................
..............__....................r. L _.L........
..,_C7MI_.
,.. ,..... ~ . ....... ,., - - . flU - .... .
.....,.,..,....--.........-.............
......... _......... -. _J........ car MIl. _....".
-.... - ---
_._"""",,,a.. . .____.......ce.
_1IIo__._T_____._
-.-...---......---..-..
__-_.-_--.._._cayan_
-"-4. ...--_..._.._..___
T___~
z.............,......__4~....._..._.. .........CI*
wII_ -. .................._CIuMI..........
.,.........._-.,........Q......~....-.,.,...,
..-....---,...---.---
.........-..___ ~... r" .A...CIIp........~
...-..---
. -'~... _ ....._1Ml ~~ - ~ ........____
-
m.=.~
I'LANoU6 ~MIli' 01' , .....
tP
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1991
INDEX
Planninq Director's Report
General Plan Amendment No. 91-11
General Plan Amendment No. 91-15
Variance No. 91-11
Tentative Tract No. 15222
Tentative Tract No. 14209 - Extension of Time
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28 and
Variance No. 91-08
Parcel Map No. 14139
paqe
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
6
EXHIBIT "0"
City of San BenQino
Planning C~ission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1991
Page 4
c:a
Washington Avenue and Palm AVenue having a frontage of about
1,413.98 feet on the south side of Washington Avenue and a
frontage of 710 feet on the west side of Palm Avenue. The
applicant requests an extension of time to establish a 41 lot
single family subdivision in the RL, Residential Low, General
Plan land use designation.
OWner: State land Development
Applicant: Sierra Engineering
Ward: 5
~evious Negative DeClaration; staff recommends approval
This it_ was considered on the Consent Calendar and adopted
previous Negative Declaration and approved request to expire
on September 19, 1992 based upon Findings of Fact contained
in staff reported dated November 6, 1991 and subject to
Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements listed
therein.
ITEM NO.6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 91-08
Subject property is a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of about .151 acres having a frontage of 50 feet
on the south side of Baseline Street and being located about
300 feet east of the centerline of Mount Vernon Avenue and
further described as being located at 1255 West Baseline
Street. The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use
Permit under authority of Code Section 19.06.020 to permit
construction of Office/retail space including a convenience
store with off-site sales of beer and wine and requests
approval of a Variance of Code Section 19.06.030(2)(F) to
construct the convenience store with less than the minimum
lot size of 10,000 square feet required for new construction
of convenience stores in the CG-2, Commercial General,
General Plan use d.signation.
OWner: Mr. and Mrs. Wooten
Applicant: Value Homes
Ward: 6
Receive comments formally from Public or Planning Commission.
Denise Moonier, Assistant Planner, presented a summary of the
project. Ms. Moonar provided staff's recommendation of
denial. She stated that the neighborhood, according to
staff's findings, was already saturated with liquor stores
and had a high crime rate and did not comply with the
Development Code.
Commissioner Cole objected to having this
denied. He said that a store selling beer
enhance the quality of the neighborhood.
item (Item 6)
and wine would
Mr. Kenzie Wooten, the
Bernardino was opposed to
selling beer and wine in
owner, 1588 Western Avenue, San
the denial. He felt that a market
his neighborhood would improve the
City of San Bern~o
Planninq Commission Meetinq Minutes
November 6, 1991
paqe 5
1)
area becau.e it was a business.
Mr. Carl Dean, 1255 W. Baseline (owner of property in
question), was in support of Mr. Wooten. He stated there was
not a hiqh crime rate at the time when the application was
made.
Mr. Peter A. Mercudante, Baseline and Mt. Vernon, spoke in
favor. He said he was directly across the street and had no
problems.
Commissioner Lopez asked if there was anyone else in favor of
this it_. He then asked for those who were opposed.
John Hernandez, 1248 W. Oranqe St., was opposed. He stated
there were too many druq, crack houses, and wine and beer
places.
Ms. Lupe Moranqa, 1263 W. Oranqe St. stated that she did not
want anymore wine and beer stores.
. Mr. Jim Rodriquez, 1256 W. Oranqe St., stated that there was
already too much crime and robbinqs. He said he was almost
shot approximately three Wednesdays aqo. Commissioner Valles
aaked Mr. Rodriquez if the probl_ was liquor. Mr. Rodriquez
stated it was.
Norma Garcia, 1207 W. Baseline, says there are over 150
people at her church. There are a lot of robberies. There is
qrafitti on walls. There is also a lot of vandalizinq.
Mr. Wooten responded by sayinq the facility would be modern
and well liqhted.
Mr. Empeno advised that the application was not in compliance
with the Development Code and in addition, there were no
findinqs for approval.
The public hearinq was closed and Commissioner Cole made a
motion to approve with conditions. Commissioner stone
seconded it. Motion was not carried.
There was discussion.
Commissioner Valles made a motion to approve the variance and
deny the conditional use permit. There was no second.
Commissioner Romero made a motion to deny both variance and
conditional use permit. Commissioner Oreteqa seconded it.
The vote was carried with Commissioners Jordan, Lopez,
Orteqa, Romero votinq to deny and Commissioners Cole, Stone,
and Valles votinq to approve.
Vice Chairperson Lopez stated that the decision of the
City of San Bern~o
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1991
Page 6
~
Planning Co.ai..ion was final unless appealed to the Mayor
and Common Council, in writing, within 15 days of Planning
Commission action.
ITEM NO.7
PARCEL HAP NO. 14139 - Subject property is a rectanqularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of about .717 acres located
at the northeast corner of Mountain Avenue and Lynwood Drive.
The proposal i. to create 4 parcels for single-family lots in
the RS, Re.idential Subur1:lan, General Plan land use
designation.
OWner:
Applicant:
Ward:
Exelllpt: staff
George and patricia Hicks
Denny Carlson
7
recommends approval
This itelll was considered on the Consent Calendar and request
approved based upon Findings of Fact contained in staff
report dated November 6, 1991 and subject to Conditions of
Approval and Standard Requirements listed therein.
Henry Empeno, Deputy city Attorney, advised the Commissioners
that Fred Wilson, Assistant City Administrator has been the
H_rings Officer for revocation hearings. Hr. Wilson is
requesting that the Planning Commission authorize Peggy
Ducey, Assistant to the City Administrator, to also act as a
Hearings Officer to help handle these proceedings. Hr.
Empeno reviewed her biography. Commissioner Lopez lIIade a
1II0tion to approve. Commissioner Stone seconded the lIIotion.
The 1II0tion was unanilllously carried.
o
.0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
III
~
CJ
ti
III
:)
o
III
a::
-
C
III
a::
C
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM 6
HEARING DATE 11-6-91
WARD 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 91-28 and
VARIANCE NO. 91-08
APPUCANT' Value Homes
. 22345 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
OWNER: Mr. & Mrs. Kensie Wooton
1588 Western Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Under authority of Development Code Section 19.06.020 to
construct 2,000 sq. ft. of office & retail space including
a convenience store with off-site sales of beer & wine, on
6.250 sq. ft. Concurrently, under the authority of Section
19.72.030, the applicant requests a variance from Code Section
19.06.030 requiring convenience stores to be constructed on
10,000 sq. ft. and a variance from Code Section 19.26 which
established standards to regulate off-street loading & delivery
Subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel, located on
the south side of Baseline Street, between Mt. Vernon Avenue
& Garner Street, also described as 1255 West Baseline.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Commercial CG-2 Commercial General
North Commercial CG-2 Commercial General
South Residential RS Residential Suburban
East Residential CG-2 Commercial General
West Vacant CG-2 Commercial General
(GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES
. HAZARD ZONE: XkNO
(
) (FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ) ( SEWERS:
_ . ZONE: KieNO 0 ZONE B _ .
) (AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES) REDEVELOPMENT
CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
DNO
~= )
...
C
!Zen
IIlCJ
2Z
Z-
aQ
a::~
-II.
>
m
~..
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: ft NO
o ~UCABLE
o EXEMPT
NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
~
ONO
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAl
EFFECTS WITH a
MlTlGAnNG MEASURES i= 0
NO E.I.R. C CONDITIONS
II.Q
o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z U DENiAl
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CIIl
WITH MnGAnNG til
MEASURES o CONTINUANCE TO
a
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS fd
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES a::
PUN4lIZ ,_, OF 1 ....
Q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/ VAR 91-08
6
11-6-91
2
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
~
REOUEST
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit under authority of
Development Code Section 19.06.020 and Table 06.01 (List of
Permitted Uses) to establish a convenience store including the
off-site sales of beer and wine. The project is located on a
site of 6,250 square feet. Concurrently, under the authority of
Development Code Section 19.72.030, the applicant is requesting a
a variance from Development Code section 19.06.030 (2)(f)
requiring convenience stores to be constructed on a minimum lot
area of 10,000 square feet, and a variance from Development Code
Section 19.26 which established standards to regulate off-street
loading and delivery.
SITE LOCATION
The project site is a rectangularly shaped parcel, located on the
south side of Baseline Street between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Garner
Avenue and further described as 1255 West Baseline in the
CG-2,Commercial General, General Plan land use designation.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposal is consistent with the Development Code with regard
to setbacks, height, parking and landscaping (See Attachment A).
The use is a permitted use subject to approval of a Conditional
Use Permit.
The proposal is not consistent with the Development Code regarding
the following items:
the proposed site does not meet minimum lot size standards of
10,000 square feet for the construction of a convenience
store :
the proposed site does not meet minimum off-street loading
standards for delivery :
the proposed location is less than 1000 feet from an existing
or previously approved convenience store:
less than 500 feet from a religious institution:
less than 100 feet from a property used for residential
purposes: and
is in close proximity to other like and similar uses to cause
oversaturation.
ll\1i&~
-?OIl
PI...NW.aI ,AIlE t OF 1 .....
..'
Q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
b
11-6-91
3
CEOA STATUS
The project is subject to the california Environmental Quality Act
and further includes the proposed demolition of two buildings
located on the property. Pursuant to Section 1, Chapter 15.37 of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the project CUP 91-28, is
subject to compliance with procedures for demolition.
The project is required to undergo review by the Historical
Preservation Task Force. In compliance with the Urgency
Historic Structure Demolition Ordinance (MC 694), the applicant
submitted a Historical Resources Evaluation Report to the Planning
Division. Written by the consulting firm of Management Science.
Applications, Inc., the report is on record in the Planning
Division.
Of the two buildings on the property one is a primary single
family residential building that has been converted to office use
and the second is the detached garage. The primary residential
building is a single story, rectangular shaped building of wood
construction in a Craftsman style.
Basically, the report concluded that due to the extensive
alteration of the facade and the fact that the building was moved
to this site in 1944, this particular building is not eligible for
any designation under the criteria set forth in the National
Register of Historic,Places.
As the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act, an Initial Study was prepared and reviewed at the meeting of
September 9, 1991, of the Environmental Review Committee. The ERC
recommended a Negative Declaration to the Planning Commission.
The Initial Study was available for public comment from September
6, 1991 through September 27, 1991 and no public comments were
received.
Although
assessment
towards the
undergo the
Task Force.
Management Sciences Applications, Inc, in 'their
report recommend that no further action be taken
building, the proposal to remove the buildings must
scheduled review on October 23, 1991 by the Historic
to.
z::.:. -
~
........ p_, OF' c_
1
I
!
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
4
"'l
BACKGROUND
City records indicate that a proposal to construct 2,500 square
feet of retail/office space at 1255 W. Baseline was previously
filed as Review of Plans 91-13, on March 27, 1991. This proposal
did not request a permit for off-site sales of alcohol.
The project proposal included the demolition of a structure and
pursuant to Section 1, Chapter 15.37 of the San Bernardino
Municipal code, the project RP 91-13 was subject to compliance
with procedures for demolition. RP 91-13 was required to undergo
review by the Historic Preservation Task Force, prior to final
approval by the Environmental Review Committee and the Development
Review Committee.
The property owners representative, Value Homes, was notified of
the City'S requirements, including requirements for deeming the
application Incomplete within 30 days of filing with the city.
On April 12, 1991 pursuant to Municipal Code guidelines, the
Finance Department informed and directed Staff to discontinue
processing the project due to unpaid fees. On April 12, 1991
Staff telephoned the property owners representative, Value Homes,
and advised th_ of the circumstances regarding the fees necessary
for continuing the project. At that time the representative
communicated to Staff to deem the application withdrawn and close
the case. RP 91-13 was deemed Withdrawn on April 12, 1991-
The property owners and their representative subsequently
contacted Staff in order to determine if the application could be
revised and new fees submitted in order to develop a project for
this site. Staff met with the property owners and Mr. Paul
Weiler, their representative. Staff advised the property owners
of Ordinance No. 770 which had been adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council on March 12, 1991 and provided them copies of
Ordinance MC-770.
There was an interm ordinance, Me 770, adopted at the request of
the Mayor and Council, prior to the Development Code because of
the urgency of regulating the oversaturation of convenience stores
in the City. On March 12, 1991, the Mayor and Council voted to
regulate convenience stores, identifying 10,000 square feet as the
minimum lot size allowable. The ordinance was adopted March 12,
1991 and became effective April 12, 1991, prior to the project
being reviewed for 30 days and deemed Incomplete.
m:.:. ... ~
....
.....
f'UN.IJa p_, OF' _
j
f
.
J
q.
,
"
CIlY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
<;
,..
"'I
After reviewing the site characteristics, Staff determined the
necessary revisions and fees for developing the site with a
convenience store, which included a new application for the
sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption and a request for
a variance to permit construction of a convenience store on a
parcel size of less than 10,000 square feet. This was
re-submitted on May 11. 1991, as Conditional Use Permit 91-28
and Variance 91-08.
The applicant met with the City's Development Review Committee on
May 30, 1991, who requested a revised site plan and that a
Historical Resources Report be submitted. The case was deemed
Incomplete on May 30, 1991.
A revised site plan recieved on
Development Review Committee,
Resources Evaluation Report was
1991. The report was reviewed
Complete August 9, 1991.
June 18, 1991, as required by the
and submittal of the Historical
received by the City on August 6,
for accuracy and the case deemed
"
! ANALYSIS
PROPOSED USE
The intent of the Commercial General land use designation is to
provide goods/services which include general retail, restaurants
and convenience stores. The proposed use of a market with sales
of beer and wine for off-site consumption is consistent with the
intent of the General Plan and is a permitted land use subject to
the property development standards of the the Development Code
and with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The proposed site is located on the south side of Baseline Street
between Mount Vernon and Garner Avenues. The nearest school is
Mt. Vernon Elementary School, at 1271 N. Mt. Vernon, is located
3/10's of a mile away.
The nearest religious
Church is 54 feet away
Iglesia Church of God
site.
institution, the Galilee Mission Baptist
at 1239 West Baseline Street Road, and the
Penticostal, is 255 feet from the project
The subject property is 3/10's of a mile from 10 th Street Park
and next door to a residence at 1247 W. Baseline Street.
To the south are residential land uses, to the east are commercial
uses and to the north are commercial uses.
-.. -
-~-
PLAH-UI '1liii, or: , 14<<1
o
o
"'I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
6
11-6-91
6
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...,j
~
CRIME
The site of the proposed market is located within census tract 47,
and crime reporting district SCl19. For the reporting period of
1987 reported crimes were 150 per cent above the average crime
statistics for the entire City. According to the San Bernardino
Police Department investigation, the Subject property is located
in and around a high crime area. High numbers of violent crimes
occur and the majority of suspects are under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs.
The 1987 crime statistics reported 171 Part I Crimes and 247 Part
II Arrests. Of the Part II Arrests, 14 per cent, or 33 arrests
were directly alcohol related.
The 90 day statistics reported from 10-1-90 through
contain 61 Part I Crimes reported and 62 Part II Arrests,
per cent of the arrests being directly related to
consumption.
1-24-91
with 24
alcohol
To summerize the crime statistics, the 90 day stats indicate a
substantial increase from 1987 in overall crimes reported and an
increase from 1987 in the percentage of Part II Arrests which are
directly alcohol related.
CONCENTRATION OF ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS
The concentration of existing outlets for off-site sales, five
existing outlets, equals the saturation level of five, as
determined by the Police Department. If Conditional Use Permit
91-28 is approved the concentration of alcohol outlets will exceed
the saturation level. Their investigation reported evidence that
there are four other locations within 1,000 feet of the site. The
nearest locations are listed as :
Budget King, 1150 W. Baseline Street
Catoes, 1127 W. Baseline Street
Pete's Liquor Store, 1101 N.Mt Vernon
Jimbo's Market, 1395 W. Baseline Street
685 feet from site
964 feet from site
823 feet from site
944 feet from site
::.:.~ ....
~ ,_.OF' .1....,.
~
""""
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
7
The number of existing on-site sales is five. The saturation level
from the Police Department is set at six outlets for the census
tract. The nearest location with on-site sales of alcohol is the
Arrowhead Elks Lodge, 2/10's of a mile away at 1073 N. Mt. Vernon.
COMMENTS RECIEVED
Area Residents
The Police contacted six residents in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed site. Of the six, five had no Objections. The
resident at 1247 West Baseline street, Cora Mattews advised the
Investigator that she is intending to move and has no opinion
about the proposed business.
Police Department
The Police Department's report stated the following concerns: the
lot is too small for the building and offstreet parking; the area
is saturated with stores which sell alcoholic beverages; in one
block there are three stores that sell beer and wine; and the area
is a documented high crime district.
Development Review Committee
Conditional Use Permit 91-28, and Variance 91-09 was reviewed at
the September 26, 1991 meeting of the Development Review
Committee. The DRC voted to recommend denial of Conditional Use
Permit 91-28 and Variance 91-09 to the Planning Commission.
ABC COMMENTS
On October 10, 1991, Staff contacted an Inspector
Department of Alcohol Beverage Control regarding the
convenience market. The Inspector advised Staff
applicant has not applied for an ABC Off-premise license
for the
proposed
that the
yet.
Additionaly, because the site is located within 100 feet of a
residence, ABC rule 61.4 (proximity to residences) may apply to
this site. An ABC license may be denied by ABC per this rule if
they determine issuance of a license is detrimental to residents.
....
m.=.~
61
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
8
,..
ANALYSIS
Variance Request
The applicant is requesting a variance
19.06.030 Land Use District Specific
ience Stores, to permit construction
6,250 square feet site located at 1255
of Development Code Section
Standards (2)(F.l) Conven-
of a convenience market on
West Baseline Street.
Concurrently, the applicant is
Development Code Section 19.26.
Muncipal standards which regulate
for commercial establishments.
requesting a variance from
This section identifies the
off-street loading and delivery
site Characteristics
The subject property is a rectangularly shaped parcel having a
frontage of approximately so feet on Baseline Street and a depth
of 132 feet. The parcel is relatively flat with no unusual
, topography, and surrounded by similarly sized lots having
businesses or older single family residences.
Project Characteristics
The parcel would be developed
to the rear of the site. The
required off-street parking
property.
with a two-story structure situated
plans show one driveway, and eight,
spaces along the west side of the
The plans propose construction of
store on the qround floor and 550
the second floor.
a 1,450 square foot convenience
square feet of office space on
There would be a loading space, 10 feet in width by 20 feet in
depth on the east side of the structure located between the east
wall of the structure and the easterly property line.
Development Code Standards
Code Section 19.06.030 Land Use District Specific Standards (2)
(F) permits convenience stores, of gross floor area less than
5,000 square feet subject to Conditional Use Permit review, and
constructed and operated under specific development standards, with
the requirement that the minimum site area shall be 10,000 square
feet.
Chapter 19.26, Section
loading space not less
and 14 feet of vertical
19.26.040 Design Standards (2) require
than 15 feet in width, SO feet in length,
clearance.
...
~...~ :0,
I'LNM.llI P_, M, 14<<11
L _
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
b
11-6-91
9
r
""""l
Mandatory Variance Findings
Section 65906 of the California
specific parameters under which a
Section 19.72.050 of the Development
provisions into the mandatory findings
make prior to granting a variance.
Government Code identifies
variance may be granted.
Code incorporates these
that the Commission must
Pursuant to the Development Code, there must be special
circumstances applicable to the property that cause the strict
application of the Code to deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same
land use district classification.
In a written response intended to establish the need for a
variance (Attachment Cl, the applicant holds that due to the size
and the difficulty of increasing the size, the property owner is
denied full commercial development that the surrounding property
owners enjoy. The applicant feels that the surrounding property
is allowed to be developed for commercial use and the subject
property is restri'cted only due to its size. Further, the
applicant states that the property was originally a residential
district, that has been changed to a commercial district and that
the project has been planned by the applicant for over one year.
The granting of a variance must be found to not create a detriment
to the public health, safety or welfare. The applicant responded
that the granting of this variance will not be a detriment to the
community. Instead, the applicant writes that the property can be
developed in a way that will meet all existing zoning and planning
requir_ents.
The City may not grant a variance if it constitutes a special
privilege that is not consistent with the limitations placed upon
other properties in the vicinity. The applicant writes that
there would be no special privilege with regard to parking,
landscaping and other planning requirements and that the use of
the property as a store/retail building had been anticipated by
the owner since its purchase.
Finally, the gr~nting of a variance does not allow a use or
activity which 1S not otherwise expressly authorized by the
regulations governing the subject parcel. The applicant writes
that the stated property would be used for purposes expressly
allowed under the existing zoning and consistent with the General
Plan.
-
to.
I!;l'.&-
PU>o-UI p_, OF' (40<<11
1
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
6
11-6-91
10
~
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...,j
~
Staff's Findings
1. Special Circumstances
The applicant feels that special circumstances exist for the
granting of a variance from the development standards restricting
minimum lot size and dimensions of loading and delivery areas.
Staff examined the Assessor's Map Book to determine the similarity
of lot size and dimensions of subject property as compared with
lot size and dimensions of other properties in the surrounding
block area. The surrounding properties on the subject's block and
across Baseline all have similar lot sizes and dimensions. The
property is identical to others on the block and in the vicinity.
There are no special circumstances applicable to this property
including size, shape, topoqrahpy, location and surroundings that
would place it at a direct disadvantage with other properties in
the vicinity and identical land use if the Development Code
standards were applied.
Secondly, the applicant holds that special circumstances apply
because of zoning re-classification. Staff's response to the
aspect of zone classification, is that the subject property has
been commercial for many years! specifically C-3, before the
adoption of the General Plan 1n 1989. City land use maps
document that the block in which the subject property is situated,
along Baseline was zoned C-3.
A check of City documents indicated that the property has not been
recently re-zoned, nor subject to a new zoning land use
classification. Subject to Conditional Use Permit discretionary
review procedures and specific development standards under the old
Title 19, Municipal Code, the property has remained a commercial
land use classification through the adoption of the General Plan
of June 1989.
The CUP review procedures facilitate a discretionary approval for
land uses whose approval may result in adverse impacts on
neighborhood residents or encroach upon future development and may
be only granted by the Commission when Findings have been made.
A decision to grant a CUP based on the necessary Findings (with
respect to ensuring a site is physically suitable for the type and
intensity of development) has not changed from the old Title 19
Municipal Code to the new Development Code.
II.
&ll.Ill=-
PI.AN-UI PMlE.-10F' f4-ICIt
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR ell-OR
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
ll-b-91
l'
~
..~
For example, the old Title 19, Section 19.78.050 required that we
address that the size and shape of the site proposed for the use
is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety, and general welfare.
Additionally, Title 19, Section 19.78.050 also required
introduction of alcoholic beverage sales at the proposed
will not create an adverse impact on the surrounding
pattern nor will a parking congestion be generated.
-
that the
location
traffic
Therefore, Staff cannot concur that special circumstances exist
because under the old Title 19, the project would have been
subject to CUP review procedures and based on Findings necessary
to be made for project approval. A review of the location,
design, configuation, and potential impact of the proposed use
would have been conducted.
To summarize the
determination that
re-classification
anticipation.
2. Necessity For the Preservation of a Property Right
issues addressed in this section, it is Staff's
special circumstances do not exist because of a
of land use, zoning changes, or speculative
The property has been zoned commercial for many years, and its
owners had the opportunity to construct a convenience market
onsite previouslY. Additionally, the property may be developed
for any number of permitted uses: such as general retail, office,
or food service uses. Loading restrictions may vary according to
proposed land use. However, every other property owner in the
vicinity is subject to the same standards for convenience stores.
The regulations in regard to the Subject property are due to the
size of the lot, and to its location in proximity to other
convenience stores and other premises which are licensed by ABC
for the sales of alcohol beverages. The regulations on the
subject property are also due to the location in proximity to
religious institutions, and residences. Other properties in the
vicinity and land use district would be subject to the MuniCipal
Code restrictions if the other properties filed an application for
a new a convenience store project.
The Findings cannot be made that application of
necessary for the preservation of property rights
lot area or loading area.
a variance is
with regard to
=:.=. ... -
Iro..
PUWoI.ClI P_' 01'. _
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-2B/VAR 91-0R
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
12
,
3. Health, Safety and General Welfare
A convenience store would be subject to frequent stops for
deliveries of beer, wine, food and other goods. Both cars and
trucks require sufficient room for driving, parking and backing
up. Due to the small nature of the site, there may be some
traffic impacts between vehicles as it is the nature of
convenience store parking lots to be busy. The parcel may be
subject to the impacts of vehicles because of frequent, small
trips of short duration. During peak day and evening periods of
purchasing there may be localized traffic impacts associated with
the blocking of the drive aisle on the property.
The project cannot be developed in a way that will meet all
existing zoning and planning requirements and not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and general welfare in that the
location of the property is within an environment that is a high
crime area, oversaturated with like and similiar uses and results
in an undue concentration of off-site alcohol outlets. The site is
also in proximity to churches, schools, and residential uses.
The project proposes putting a 10 by 20 loading area on the east
side of the site, next to a single family residence. Locating a
loading area within a few feet of a residence may cause impacts on
the adjacent property. Other uses , for example, medical or
professional offices, may not have delivery trucks with food and
beverages unloading next door to a residence. All things
considered, a larger loading area, situated farther from a
residential property would be more compatible with the area.
staff does not concur that the granting of a variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety,or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and land
use district in which it is located.
4. Special privilege
While a number of other businesses have sites that do not conform
to Development Code standards, and while the applicant would not
have any special privilege with regards to having the required
number of parking spaces, landscaping and setbacks, other
properties in the vicinity and in the land use district are
subject to the same Municipal Code requirements as the applicant.
Staff holds that the granting of the variance does constitute a
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other 'f
properties in the vicinity and land use district.
....
r:.=. ~ H
P\.MoUIP_'lIF. 144lll
.
9
g
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
CUP NO. 91-28/
VAR NO. 91-08
6
11-6-91
13
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
5. General Plan consistency
The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Commercial
General land use designation as described in the City's General
Plan.
CONCWSION
It is the intent of the Development Code to prevent the
oversaturation of convenience stores, as they are associated with
high crime statistics and other activities troublesome to local
r.sidents. Comments from area residents, ABC inspectors, the
Police Department and the Development Review Committee have been
incorporated in the analysis, and conclusions are based on th...
Attachments as evidence which supports or does not support the
applications for the Conditional Use Permit, and Variances.
\ The site does not conform to the Development Code with regard to
) size, loading area, and compatibility to other land uses, based on
the project location being in proximity to similar and like uses,
residential land use, and religious institutions.
The Development Code states that parcels are to provide adequate
space to meet the needs of commercial development including
off-street parking and loading, to minimize congestion, and to
ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses.
It is difficult to make Findings for approving the Conditional Use
permit and a Variance for this parcel. The project does not
conform to the Development Code with regard to lot size based on
proposed use. The project does not conform to Development Code
S.ction 19.06.030 (2), which addresses property development
standards and regulates establishments which require the issuance
of an "ABC" license, that they shall not be located in such close
proximity to another similar use as to cause oversaturation of the
neighborhood.
..
~
... .. -
-
D1~_ .~,_t ,...-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-1)-91
14
~
"";I,;
RECOMMmmATION
Staff recOJlllllenels that the Planning COJIIIIIisaion eleny Coneli tionaL u.~
Permit No. 91-28, anel variance No. 91-08 ba.eel on the Pinciinq....of~
Pact. (Attachment B).
Respectfully submitteel,
:!~(}R~~~tant Director
Planning anel Buileling S~ices
e: !:on~
Assistant Planner
"
4
I
.
",
Attachments:
A - Development Cocie Conformance Table
B - Pinelings of Fact
C - Variance written response
D - Initial stuely
E - Police Report
F - Site plan, Floor plan anel Elevations
G - Location Map
"
oJ;'
=-=. ..
.,-
PI..MoIJII PAla.10F 1 .....
_ J
A1:1:acnrnen1:
IIAII
<>>
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
15
OBSERVATIONS
~
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
~
Cateaorv
Permitted Use
Heiqht
Setl:lacks
front
side
rear
Lot Coveraqe
ProDosal
Develonment
~
General
ElAn
Market/
Office
Subject to:
Convenience
Store Stand. &
approved CUP
Permitted
Subject
CUP
2 stories
2 stories/
30 ft.
2 stories
10 ft.
5 ft./4 ft.
Oft.
25.6 ,
10 ft.
Oft.
Oft.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50 ,
Parkinq 8 8 N/A
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 19.06.030 (2) (b. f.)
(Convenience Store Development Standards)
Site area 6,250 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. N/A
Direct frontaqe
from public
street
Driveways
Proximity:
to existinq
convenience
stores
to Reliqious
Institutions
to housinq
-
to schools
m.=. .. 1.1
YES
YES
N/A
1
1
N/A
N/A
4 stores
o stores
within
1000 ft.
within
1000 ft.
2 within
500 ft.
o within
500 ft.
N/A
2 within
100 ft.
o within
100 ft.
N/A
1 within
3/10 's
of mile
o within
500 ft.
N/A
....... ,_, OF' I'-lOl
IlII 1.
Atcacnrnent liB"
Q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
16
~
CONDrTrONAL USE PERMrT FrNDrNGS OF FACT
1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the
subject land use district, however, it does not comply with
all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code
in that the lot area does not meet the minimum standards for
convenience stores, minimum standards for loading and
delivery area, and for minimum distance between religious
institutions, residential uses and existing convenience
markets with sales of alcohol.
2.
The proposed building would not impair
character of the land use district
be located in that it is architecturally
the built environment.
3. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type
and intensity of land use being proposed in that the site
is too small for the intensity of a convenience store.
the integrity and
in which it is to
compatible with
4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses
presently on the subject property in that the present
use is commercial.
5. The proposed use would not be compatible with existing
and future land uses within the general area in which
the proposed use is to be located in that the general area is
oversaturated with licensed outlets for sales of alcohol and
in that there is residential land use within 100 ft.
6. The proposed use is not compatible in scale, mass, coverage
density and intensity with all adjacent land uses in the site
is too small and the loading area is adjacent to a
residentially used property.
7. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and
public utilties, however, there are not adequate provisions
for public services which address the crime problems
associated with convenience stores, and may be detrimental
to public health and safety.
8.
There will be adequate provisions
the subject proposal in that the
access from a public street.
for public access to serve
site would have one drive
...
m.:~~
-
PL.ANoI.DI PMIE' OF ,
....
14-101
- -
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28!VAR 91-08
"
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
17
.,
9. There will be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood
characteristics in that the sales of alcohol is associated
within loitering, drinking in public, and other reported
activities.
10. . The Development Code does not require a market study for the
proposed use of a convenience market.
11. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan in
that the convenience market is a permitted use, subject to
the property development standards and approval of a CUP
in the CG-2 land use designation.
12. There will not be significant harmful effects upon environ-
mental quality and natural resources in that an Initial Study
was permformed and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
13. The enviromental impacts were not significant and do not
require mitigation.
14. The proposed location, size, design, and operationg charac-
teristics of the proposed use would be detrimental based on
the above Findings, to the public interests, health, safety,
convenience, and welfare of the city.
'1
)
~-,
I'\MaJlll p_, OF' _
- -
Q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-28/VAR 91-08
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
11-6-91
18
VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the
property, includinq size, shape, topoqraphy, location or
surrouncUnqs, the strict application of the Development Code
does not deprive such property of privileqes enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical 1an~ use
district classification.
2.
That qrantinq the Variance
preservation and enjoyment of
possessed by other property in
district.
is not necessary for the
a substantial property riqht
the same vicinity and land use
3. That qrantinq the Variance will be materially detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and land us.
district in that the site is too small for the proposed use
and the area is oversaturated with properties licensed for
the sales of alcohol.
4. That qrantinq of this variance request constitutes a special
privileqe inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is
located in that all other such properties, except those of
leqal nonconforminq status, are subject to limitations that
are no less strinqent than those place upon the subject
property.
s. That qrantinq the variance does allow a use which is not
authorized by the Development Code Standards for convenience
stores.
6.
That qrantinq of this variance request
General Plan, in that the proposed use
subject to approval of a Conditional Use
will be consistent
is a permitted use,
Permit.
to..
r.::.& =
PLMoI.llI P_' OF' 14<<11