The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16-Planning o o o :> ARTHUR L.LtTTlEWORTH" MICHAEL A.-cAISTE GLEN E.STEPHENS" RICHARD CROSS WilliAM R. DEWOLFE" IRWlN L. GOLDS BARTON C.GAUT" ANTONIA G. WEINER CHARLES Q. FIELD" ,JOVCE W. WHEELER PAUL T. SELZER" HARLEY L. BJELLAND DALLAS HOLMES" DAVID I..BARON CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER" LOU ANN MERRITT RICHARD T. ANDERSON" VIRGINIA A. ETTINGER JOHN D.WAHLlN" VICTOR I..WOLF MICHAEL O. HARRIS" DANIEL E.OLIVIER W. CURT tALl" "RIEL PIERRE CALONNE THOMAS S.SLOVAK" DANIEL J. MSHUGH JOHN E. BROWN" CARL t. HERBOlD. JR. RONALD J. KOHUT GREGORY L. HAROKE MICHAEL T. RIODEll" KEVIN S. MILLS MEREDITH "'.JURY" STEPHANIE K. HARLAN lot ICHAEL GRANT MARC E. EMPEY FRANCIS J. BAUM JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER ANNE T. THOMAS" VIRGINIA A.JOHNSON O. MARTIN NETHERY LETlTlA E.PEPPER GEORGE M. REYES MARTIN A. MUELLER WILLIAM W. nOYD,JR. J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR LAW OFFICES OF REC'O . - AD MIN. OFF. B EST, BEST & KR I EG ER PALM SPRINGS OFFICE: A PARTNERSHIP IN<;wa'Na PRO~r:""'ONAL <;ORPORATION"1985 MAR _ tti'O E!'~ rHQUITZ - MlOC"L.L.UM WAY 4200 ORAN GE STREET 6 r" q; u . O. BOX 2710 P. O. BOX 1028 P"L.M SPRINGS,CALlF"ORNIA 92263 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 (619)325-7264 TELEPHONE (714) 686-1450 TEL.EX 752735 ,)AMES S.COR1SON,Of C;OUNSEL. March 5, 1985 RAYMOND SEST (IS88-1957) JAMES H. Kl'tlEGER (ISl3-197S) EUGENE BltST(Ie83.18BI) *.... PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION The Honorable Mayor W, R. Holcomb Members of the City Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Re: Appeal of Denial of Variance No. 84-34: Talat Radwan, 994 South Washington Avenue, San Bernardino; Response to Order of Demolition of Building Dear Mayor Holcomb and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Mr. Talat Radwan, the record owner of property located at 994 South Washington Avenue, San Bernardino. Mr. Radwan is appealing the denial of his request for a variance to Code Section 19.66.040 to refurbish and occupy an existing non-conforming four-plex apartment building in the M-l Light Industrial Zone. The Planning Commission denied this variance on February 2, 1985. The applicant filed a request for an appeal within the statutory period and I have been asked to amplify the reasons for the' request for the variance and those findings of the Planning Commission which we believe to have been in error. This letter is in response to that request. Mr. Radwan is the owner of an apartment building at 994 South Washington Avenue, Although this portion of South Washington Street has a general plan designation of general industrial and zoning of M-l, the primary use in the area is residential. Some lots are empty, but towards the northern end of the street, a few commercial or light It, 111'1 III o o o o LAW OFFICE.S OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER industrial uses appear to have begun. The area in which the apartment house is located is surrounded by extremely deteriorated and dilapidated single-family housing. This is a very low-income, predominantly minority, neighborhood. Even though the area has been general planned and zoned for M-l, the Planning Department staff recently estimated that the property is unlikely to be used for industrial purposes for another 10 years, or perhaps even 15 years. Although Mr. Radwan has been the owner of record of the property for several years, he did not have posses- sion of the building, that having been transferred to the equitable owners. Mr. Radwan began to receive notices from the Building Department requesting him to make corrections on the property because the building was in a state of dis- repair. These notices were passed on to the persons in control of the building, but little or nothing was done. Thereafter, Mr. Radwan, pursuant to the owners' remedies, regained control of the building and began attempts to repair it and put it back to an economic use. Mr. Radwan has indicated that he is prepared to bring the building up to current Code conditions, but must first determine what use he will be permitted to have in the structure at least for the interim period until the area becomes industrially viable. The Planning Department has indicated that, in fact, there will be no use of this building and that it should be demolished. Mr. Radwan's engineer has informed him that the building has a remaining economic life and that it is structurally sound, although, of course, in need of repair. Mr. Radwan applied for a conditional use permit in October 1984 to convert the apartment building to a M-l use. That request was denied by the Planning Commission be- cause it indicated, among other reasons, that introducing an industrial use into a residential area at this time would be premature and detrimental to surrounding land uses. Following the rejection of the conditional use permit, Mr. Radwan applied for a variance to continue the residential use until the area becomes industrially viable. The variance was denied, among others, on the grounds that because of the cessation of use for more than six months, the nonconforming use ceased and could not be reinstated, The denial of the conditional use permit to con- vert the building to an industrial use, together with the denial of a variance to permit the building to be used for -2- '.,.",", o o o o LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER residential use, leaves Mr. Radwan with no economic use for his 'property, Although his engineers inform him that the building is structurally sound and can be repaired and brought back to Code, the Planning Department and the Building Depart- ment have indicated that they wish to have the building demolished. Nevertheless, this will not solve the proolem that Mr. Radwan will not be allowed to demolish the building and replace it with a new residential structure which is in accord with the existing neighborhood, nor evidently will he be permitted to replace it with an industrial use since the indication is that such a use would be premature and detrimental to the neighborhood, Therefore, it would appear that unless this variance is granted, Mr, Radwan will not be able to have any economic use of his property at all, follows: The grounds, therefore, for this appeal are as 1. Special circumstances applicable to this property which do not apply generally to other prop~rty in the same zoning district and neigh- borhood are: the loss of nonconforming use status for residential purposes and the denial of a con- ditional use permit for light industrial pur- poses have caused this property, unlike all other properties in the area, to be unusable, All other nearby structures are designed for and used as residential properties. This property's highest and best use at this time is for residen- tial purposes. The street design and construc- tion is also best suited for residential use at this time. 2, The denial of a variance appears to be based, in part, upon the fact that the property is located within Norton Air Force Base's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study Area and will be impacted by the activities of Norton Air Force Base. Norton Air Force Base has not offered to purchase the property or to purchase its air rights. The other residential uses surrounding the property stand in like relation- ship to the same air impacts, but the uses are allowed to continue, If there are serious health and safety factors involved, the City or Norton Air Force Base should purchase the residential property in the area and relocate the inhabi- tants. Otherwise, this property should be allowed the same privileges as other similarly located properties in the area. -3- 1.1 I.'." L J o o o () LAW OFFICES OF BEST. BEST & KRIEGER Because of the nature of the neighborhood, it is economically infeasible to demolish this structure and replace it with new industrial structure which will have, at best estimate, no economic return to the owner for at least a decade. The compatible use with the neighbor- hood is to permit a nonconforming apartment resi- dential use until the area changes in accordance with the general plan designation of the City. The applicant's property has been caught in a planninglzoning time lag. Because of this, unless relief is granted, Mr, Radwan will be denied a reasonable use of the property for many years. It is an apartment building which can be restored to effective residential use. This use is compatible with the neighborhood's existing uses and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood if the building is restored. The applicant has engaged an engi- neering firm to direct restoration of the building. The Planning Department of the City of San Bernardino has already indicated that an industrial use at that location is undesirable and will not be approved. Therefore, this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and will be in furtherance of health, safety and general welfare. It is the proper way to restore parity in this property since the strict application of the zoning law will deprive this property owner of the privilege of using his property in any reasonable manner. If the applicant is permitted to use the property for residential purposes, he will bring the existing struc- ture up to present Code standards and will provide housing for some of the citizens of San Bernardino who are most in need of adequate housing at an affordable rental. This is certainly in the best interests of the City, the neighborhood and the owner, and, therefore, the variance should be granted. Very truly yours, {Z~ 7' /Y-w-nt# Anne T. Thomas of Best, Best & Krieger ATT : j r cc: Mr. Talat Radwan -4- III..I!.I.)'.I (,f qTANDARD INTE. 0 0 rO .p::>~ ~1R6 0, ."flNATIONAL AIRWAYS 7/-<1- J'3/- -n<3 tllls5-/ ty, //e.p Ca o/J.4 :,:c. o oJ-I /-.1<) It),' ~7/f f /JP 15 e?> r;./<; /( 01'1'" ary C tnJt'1u{ . II fl1Z-1 O-.A-t cJ.-- ;eft: 1 ftp ~ L e {I? fj-~ 3 <f j-'1t1 17/7111'} {! om/J71 JJI (l--.' F--,--h 6- fr' -/ 6)J'i - 7/"...& f)e,4lL ~ A<( d-,t> ,- OJ.' -+Az a h tJLI-.t- . (Z< ~ LV! C u.? . I I1rr t'lpl_~ '!Iv p ed 1<' 0/ # ,01" "'/ CHI'> m' ", .;, j, tZ 't N j. /1 tWl ~ tl_U'I5'" l ' ) V~ ~<-iM-<'t a JPrr f'A/,Mr ...e- ll' f,f-,eu f~ ,t-< +4 !l<"" /,!<-' oC -10 /YI ot t-. f- I f17 - ~ ?va" u u-I +f,,; Wd '- /"..6i< /. C-rk1-t,6! Nfl. ~Y1wLffJ5 {;n!/~ 1M ~ fJ !l1(;r , ~ ,~. ~ ~ .0--{LL ~ c~ /a k ..51"4 dLcu,";" ~ ~9 "IJ"'-'- ~?J~ - . I/~ eA ~ m ~ ~ c::> - I _ " ::::; a -< (:) " r- j::;. fTl N ::0 A